Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

[jimmygu3]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

You are missing the key fact that the government has changed how they report GDP, and how it is adjusted for inflation. If you revise the numbers to take out stuff like imputed rent, you get a clearer picture. Also, "one time charges" do not affect GDP, so that means that according to the government, financial sector profits are up ~25%!

I agree that the ratio is probably more important than the actual dollar amount of debt, but that chart is very misleading.

If this chart is incorrect, please point me to the correct data. Inflation adjustments wouldn't matter, as it would cancel out in the ratio.

[Guest]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

Jay - I think C1ue is introducing a breath of rationality here. You cannot build international monetary orders based on Russian Roulette and sitting on a currency which has a keg of dynamite nested underneath it. C1ue makes a very pithy observation: The system is genius for the US - it is not genius for the rest of the world. Even the strongest imperatives on the part of our international creditors to validate such a new USD centric system can't make it persist in time, and persisting in time is the central criterion of a new monetary order. Even the point you make "slow deflation" does not hold - the inflation of the US dollar is NOT linear, it is exponential as all mature inflations are by definition. Any US treasuries based new anchor "currency" is sitting on that same USD as the medium of delivery that we have today, and the USD is engaged in an erosion which has a parabolic trajectory somewhere in it's near future. All America's creditors have a fair idea that is at least a high probability.

People here are looking at the admittedly highly plausible imperatives for America's global creditors to keep the game going because the Americans provide their security, provide their export markets etc. But consider that even if this ill-fated duck got flapping off the ground, it would be far more unstable than the fiat USD which preceded it. How many years does anyone here think such an arrangment could persist? 2 years? 5 years? If the perception was that it would be highly improbable to last longer, there would be great international reluctance to even give it a try. The medium of exchange the new treasury based anchor relies on is unaltered, and that medium of exchange has an appointment with a parabolic devaluation at some point. 2 years out, 5 years out, even 10 years out - what nation with any foresight is going to resist the temptation eventually in this highly unstable new "synthetic world monetary order" to cut and run, despite horrific losses, in their search for a more fundamentally sound anchor for their economic futures?

And here's another thing. The US Resolution Trust Corp. (20,000 pound gorilla) Version 2.0 that is being enacted has opened the door to all foreign holders of this bad paper. This hugely increases the pressure on the USD. It increases the pressure on the USD well beyond the already absurd pressures engendered by cleaning up internal credit within the US, and it shortens yet futher the lit fuse that would exist under this new treasuries backed global monetary order. I think the entire idea is whimsical in the extreme. How the heck are you going to create an international monetary order out of something resembling a 100 pound duck with a broken wing?

It strikes me that the penalty for propping up US Treasuries up to this point hasn't been death, but the slow deflation of the Treasuries worth. One the other hand, rocking the boat far enough, say by dumping your Treasury holdings, would possibly end in revolution against those ruling classes. Why would the powers that be want to risk that?

The system is genius for the US - it is not genius for the rest of the world. Again, why would anyone sell something and literally get nothing for it? Any system can be sustained so long as all participants feel they are overall benefiting from said system. The US continues to dig itself into a fiscal hole.

[jtabeb]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

Let me posit a different theory.

Total outstanding US debts to the rest of the world:

Tbonds and Treasuries:

$2.676T (July 2008)
$2.2T (July 2007)

Agency (GSE):

$1T (April 2008)

US currency account deficit:

$700B (approximately, 2007 deficit $708.5B, 2006 deficit 758.5B)

US government annual budget deficit:

$162B (2007)
$410B (2008, estimated pre-Paulson bailout)

So we're looking at $862B to $1.1T of additional debt needed each year, vs. $3.67T of government + GSE existing debts.

Every 1% of 'extra' dollar depreciation the US manages vs. creditors = $37B of 'cancellation' of foreign debt.

Extra can be defined several ways:

1) Dollar going down more than other currencies
2) Dollar going down vs. a reference such as gold or a basket of commodities

A 10% 'extra' depreciation means the rest of the world 'loses' $367B of their existing income.

But note from 2007 to 2008, net Treasury+Tbond gains by the rest of the world were $467B.

So you can see that somewhere between 15% and 20% of 'extra' depreciation - the rest of the world literally gains nothing from selling to the US as any income gains are offset by existing holdings losing value.

So what then is the point of having US treasuries as the 'gold standard' equivalent?

What is the value of said 'gold standard' when the denominator of the standard is being set by a depreciating issuance authority (dollar)?

Or put another way: Standards are set by strength. Not by weakness.

I will put it to you this way.

The notional value of paper claims is this world is greater than 1 Quadrillion USD. That is a "Million, Billion" or as I like to say, a number my 4 year old would use. That is enough notinal value that , if evenly dispersed, all 6 billion people on the earth could be made millionairs.

There is about 3 billion ounces of above ground gold in the world (as of '95, don't have the newest numbers). This would be enough to (if evenly distibuted) give each person on earth about .5 ounces each.

So it seems to me that .5 ounce of gold = $1,000,000.00 USD based on the above math.

I don't think US Treasuries are going to cut-it.

[Supercilious]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

Let me posit a different theory.

Total outstanding US debts to the rest of the world:

Tbonds and Treasuries:

$2.676T (July 2008)
$2.2T (July 2007)

Agency (GSE):

$1T (April 2008)

US currency account deficit:

$700B (approximately, 2007 deficit $708.5B, 2006 deficit 758.5B)

US government annual budget deficit:

$162B (2007)
$410B (2008, estimated pre-Paulson bailout)

So we're looking at $862B to $1.1T of additional debt needed each year, vs. $3.67T of government + GSE existing debts.

One may ask a very interesting question. If most ( 85-90% I guess) of the annual US deficit is bought by foreign CB (or various government controlled economic entities) what is the difference between the accumulation of treasury paper abroad and the sum off all annual deficits?

If deficits result in debt morphed in negative interest loans, then it is absolutely true that deficits don't matter. The more the merrier.

I know it's a little bit counterintuitive. Try to imagine the following surreal scenario: imagine you have a credit card which, instead of having an interest rate of 17%, has a negative interest rate of (-17%).
Now it gets even better than that ...because the minimum monthly payment is payed ...by the taxpayer

And it still can get better than that. The $100 cash advance is invested in something clearly profitable (such as making desert camouflage uniforms for the troops in Iraq), and you make 10-30% profit from no bid contracts. Because it's a war and we have to support our troops, the taxpayer pays for those overpriced uniforms without protesting ... it's a patriotic duty... you hear it on the media and you hear it form the Vice President.

In that case. wouldn't you max your credit card (asking all the time for credit limit increases)? Wouldn't you hope deep in your (black) heart that the war in Iraq is not lost, not won but allowed to linger and go nowhere ? And you know very well that a war in Iraq is very likely to be a long term mess.

You may say that something like this is ridiculous. No sane bank manager would ever issue a credit card with a negative interest rate. If you say that probably you are not a chairman of a foreign central bank of a SWF. Look at these magic credit card statements.



At the beginning of the year, I red an interesting blog entry, in which the author was trying to demonstrate that at least 80% of all toxic mortgage CDO's were sold to foreign banks and SWF's . Considering the disastrous effect the remaining 20% had on US financial markets, he was asking himself in puzzlement where the beeep is the rest of the tsunami. My guess is that soon foreign central banks will beg the Fed to ...flood the global financial system with treasuries.... Problem-Reaction-Solution

You may also reply that all this crazy talk about negative interest rate loans is just that ... crazy talk. Even if a foreign central bank would be so stupid to give us negative interest rate loans, regardless how large are its reserves, there will come a day when the bank vault would be completely empty. It's inevitable.

That foreign central bank will have to go to World Bank or IMF to beg for a real (positive interest) loan in order to continue with that insane negative interest rate lending. They may also get a loan from Bank of China from that $2 trillion dollar stash.... but still...

Now ... if you put it like that ... no rational person can disagrees with your argument:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/bu...=1&oref=slogin

September 5, 2008
Main Bank of China Is in Need of Capital
By KEITH BRADSHER

HONG KONG — China’s central bank is in a bind.

It has been on a buying binge in the United States over the last seven years, snapping up roughly $1 trillion worth of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Those investments have been declining sharply in value when converted from dollars into the strong yuan, casting a spotlight on the central bank’s tiny capital base. The bank’s capital, just $3.2 billion, has not grown during the buying spree, despite private warnings from the International Monetary Fund.

Now the central bank needs an infusion of capital.

Anyway, I have probably made too much noise with my crazy theories and iTulip is not a place where delusional truthers should be allowed congregate. Maybe we should stop the discussion here.

If there is anybody who needs to ask further questions on this issue, they can do that in private by email. Here is my email address:

ben.bernanke@bailout.scam

[Jay]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

Agreed Lukester, and that is why I said up to this point in time. I don't know how much farther this duck has to flap, just that up until now the decisions made by other countries to maintain dollar hegemony could be justified in the reasons that GRG55 stated. It comes down to whether the Fed can kick the can farther down the road and what they have to give up to the rest of the world to make it so: gold holdings, real pieces of American assets that others would want at reasonable prices...

[phirang]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

One may ask a very interesting question. If most ( 85-90% I guess) of the annual US deficit is bought by foreign CB (or various government controlled economic entities) what is the difference between the accumulation of treasury paper abroad and the sum off all annual deficits?

If deficits result in debt morphed in negative interest loans, then it is absolutely true that deficits don't matter. The more the merrier.

I know it's a little bit counterintuitive. Try to imagine the following surreal scenario: imagine you have a credit card which, instead of having an interest rate of 17%, has a negative interest rate of (-17%).
Now it gets even better than that ...because the minimum monthly payment is payed ...by the taxpayer

And it still can get better than that. The $100 cash advance is invested in something clearly profitable (such as making desert camouflage uniforms for the troops in Iraq), and you make 10-30% profit from no bid contracts. Because it's a war and we have to support our troops, the taxpayer pays for those overpriced uniforms without protesting ... it's a patriotic duty... you hear it on the media and you hear it form the Vice President.

In that case. wouldn't you max your credit card (asking all the time for credit limit increases)? Wouldn't you hope deep in your (black) heart that the war in Iraq is not lost, not won but allowed to linger and go nowhere ? And you know very well that a war in Iraq is very likely to be a long term mess.

You may say that something like this is ridiculous. No sane bank manager would ever issue a credit card with a negative interest rate. If you say that probably you are not a chairman of a foreign central bank of a SWF. Look at these magic credit card statements.



At the beginning of the year, I red an interesting blog entry, in which the author was trying to demonstrate that at least 80% of all toxic mortgage CDO's were sold to foreign banks and SWF's . Considering the disastrous effect the remaining 20% had on US financial markets, he was asking himself in puzzlement where the beeep is the rest of the tsunami. My guess is that soon foreign central banks will beg the Fed to ...flood the global financial system with treasuries.... Problem-Reaction-Solution

You may also reply that all this crazy talk about negative interest rate loans is just that ... crazy talk. Even if a foreign central bank would be so stupid to give us negative interest rate loans, regardless how large are its reserves, there will come a day when the bank vault would be completely empty. It's inevitable.

That foreign central bank will have to go to World Bank or IMF to beg for a real (positive interest) loan in order to continue with that insane negative interest rate lending. They may also get a loan from Bank of China from that $2 trillion dollar stash.... but still...

Now ... if you put it like that ... no rational person can disagrees with your argument:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/bu...=1&oref=slogin




Anyway, I have probably made too much noise with my crazy theories and iTulip is not a place where delusional truthers should be allowed congregate. Maybe we should stop the discussion here.

If there is anybody who needs to ask further questions on this issue, they can do that in private by email. Here is my email address:

ben.bernanke@bailout.scam

Saudi central bank has $30B of reserves on the books, $300B off: China does the same to keep money supply "low". PBoC has no shortage of real reserves, altho may have a "stated" shortage, if that makes any sense.

I found this article insightful:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...ction=business

GCC Sovereign Funds Not Targeted


Issac John

7 September 2008

Print

E-mail

DUBAI – GCC Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF), which control assets valued more than $1.5 trillion worldwide, have little to fear from the voluntary code of conduct agreement reached last week in Santiago, analysts said.

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The real target of the move to put in place a set of voluntary practices and principles for SWFs are Chinese and Russian funds and not GCC funds, an analyst at Middle East Eonomic Digest (MEED) said. fficeffice" />[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Despite their opaqueness, Gulf funds are not seen as particularly threatening to the future of the Western economies that have led the charge for a code,the analyst said. “This is partly due to their astute decision to invest in high-profile but largely uncontroversial assets such as football clubs, tourist attractions and real estate developments.” [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']On September 2, the world’s main funds controlling up to $3 trillion investments, agreed in Santiago to a voluntary code of conduct. The move was initiated by International Monetary Fund. Last month, Germany’s cabinet agreed to bring in rules to protect domestic firms from SWFs that could exert political influence. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Thomas S. Volpe, CEO of Dubai Group, said Western fears about the opaqueness of Gulf-based SWFs would soon become a non-issue. “There will be more transparency in their practices in the coming months.” [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Arab League has warned that Gulf funds still faced the risk of possible restrictions by Western host nations because of their negative impact on the fiscal balance. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']SWF assets are projected to exceed the stock of global foreign exchange reserves and to top seven to $11 trillion by 2013. According to an estimate, SWFs have invested $25.5 billion so far this year. [/FONT]

[Jay]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

For one thing, the ones holding the Treasuries aren't the United States.

A repudiation and collapse of the dollar would hurt other nations from the standpoint of the loss of the largest trading partner (crap-sink), but would be nothing compared to what we as the American people would experience. Certainly not revolution over there.

If the Chinese dumped their US Treasuries (which is what I was talking about if it wasn't clear, sorry) you don't think that the economic consequences might be severe enough for them that the ruling classes would be concerned about revolution?

[Supercilious]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

Just one more observation. It's not about replacing gold with treasuries as a class of power money (That has been done already since '32). It is about eliminating completely (and for good), gold as a class of power money. That doesn't mean necessary devaluation on a long term basis. Why uncut diamonds or palladium aren't used (anymore) as a class of power money? Ounce for an ounce they are more valuable than gold;)

The issue is the liquidity status of gold as power money.

[Guest]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

Anyway, I have probably made too much noise with my crazy theories and iTulip is not a place where delusional truthers should be allowed congregate. Maybe we should stop the discussion here.

$#* - No need to feel you are backed into a corner on your theories here at iTulip. There have been far more counterintuitive theories put forward on these pages. The more bold a thesis put forward the more it should be prepared to be challenged. I for one certainly do not question your right to post whatever you want, and make as much "noise" as you want about it. I've had some long drawn out arguments with the editors of this website and actually once had the honor to receive an official "demerit" which led me to understand I was within a whisker of being banned from these pages for pressing my disagreements "too hard".

As a result of those experiences I am firmly on the side of anyone's right here to argue their positions as insistently as they wish. But the flip side of that coin is that you should be prepared also to get any quantity of endorsement or flak for those views too. The extent of disagreement or lack of appreciation you've encountered for this new "treasuries backed power money" thesis maybe leads you to think that there has been a "clubby reaction" to your putting forward a viewpoint that is not "officially endorsed here". Actually no, whatever reaction each of us gets for the opinions we post is a quite natural response from the community. It is each person's task to eliminate any percieved groupthink by convincing people of a more viable viewpoint.

I made a perhaps ill chosen joke elsewhere about "Fred the Ogre", but that's really nonsense. 99% of the time here, the editors are quite manifestly not impeding or influencing our ability to convince each other of new viewpoints. It's all up to us. If your viewpoint on an issue is compelling, over time it will convince people. If not, it won't. Your idea about how treasuries backed "new power money" can put a check-mate on the rest of the world is certainly intriguing. I just happen to be among those that don't buy it, but that does not mean I won't ackowledge some other idea you may post.

Look at C1ue for example. There's a guy who's been carrying some teeth-grindingly obscure grudge against me for many months. He likes to call me things like "a git" and "penguin vomit", and so forth. I'm not particularly bothered (I'm from New York and New Yorkers are famously immune to insults). I don't engage in the same kind of direct insults myself because I can find other ways to express lack of appreciation for someone's ideas. If I wanted to advise C1ue what a pompous and humorless fart he might be on occasion [ :eek: ] I'd find a more polite way to put that idea across. All of that is just childish nonsense anyway.

Here's what's significant to me, at any rate - if C1ue has an idea that I think is completely correct, I will be the first to agree and to point it out. And I've actually done so about his ideas numerous times (he's a smart guy, even if he is humorless and takes himself way too seriously). This place is just all about ideas. Any really good ideas are not only accepted, but they tend to contribute in various increments to the overall body of iTulip's own positions. So no worries $#*. If you feel this idea has yet to be vindicated by unfolding events, I for one cordially invite you to follow up and demonstrate how and where your assertions have proved right.

[nathanhulick]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

If this chart is incorrect, please point me to the correct data. Inflation adjustments wouldn't matter, as it would cancel out in the ratio.

I have no idea where you could go to find the correct data. Perhaps shadowstats.com would be a start. According to the government, we had 3.3% growth last quarter and the lowest inflation in 17 years. I certainly wouldn't look towards them for accurate data.

Also, inflation adjustments would certainly matter if they were calculated incorrectly. My point is that the methodology used to calculate GDP is flawed. The flaws are in the hedonics adjustment, imputed rents, GDP deflator, etc.

[phirang]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

I have no idea where you could go to find the correct data. Perhaps shadowstats.com would be a start. According to the government, we had 3.3% growth last quarter and the lowest inflation in 17 years. I certainly wouldn't look towards them for accurate data.

Also, inflation adjustments would certainly matter if they were calculated incorrectly. My point is that the methodology used to calculate GDP is flawed. The flaws are in the hedonics adjustment, imputed rents, GDP deflator, etc.

Shadowstats is useless: M3 is irrelevant with off b.s. accounting and securitizatin.

[Guest]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

Jimmygu3 - Shadowstats might be a good place to start, at any rate.

If this chart is incorrect, please point me to the correct data. Inflation adjustments wouldn't matter, as it would cancel out in the ratio.

[metalman]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

In following the current Financial crisis - Will the US Treasuries replace Gold as a the store of wealth among the World Central bankers ? I am just echoing the comments made by "$#*" in this forum. I think it can happen and Paul Krugman has also blogged about this in NYTimes.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...low-the-money/

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/BIJUJO%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/BIJUJO%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg[/IMG]


"$#*" used the analogy of a concrete driller. The US issues US Treasuries to write of the bad loans and recapitalize the financial gambers. The Central bankers know the consequence of this. If they do not buy them, this will lead to monetize them and cause dollar devaluation, which in turn causes the foreign currencies to appreciate and cause enormous hardship for their local economies and will not be able to export to US. Japan,China,Europe...cannot allow this to happen and so they will fund this bailout and recapitalize the failed US fianancials. Voila - the problem is solved. This is really a US blackmail with a Gun to the US dollar. If we fail, you also fail.

Now one thing I don't understand is why should the Oil Exporters be also long US Treasuries. Arab nations(Saudi,Kuwait..), Russia, Venezuela should all be short US Treasuries. Why are they still supporting the US treasuries instead of being net sellers ?

I think if Paulson's plan does goes through, US Treasuries will replace Gold, the new paper will replace the store of wealth since ancient times. Something really ambitious for Paulson to embark upon and that is why is putting foreign creditors to be repaid before anyone. The carrots before the donkeys.

Is this theory of "$#*" plausible ?

dude, where have you been? the whole point of dumping gold in 1971 was to make the dollar the replacement by default.

[c1ue]

Re: Will US Treasuries replace Gold ?

The notional value of paper claims is this world is greater than 1 Quadrillion USD. That is a "Million, Billion" or as I like to say, a number my 4 year old would use. That is enough notinal value that , if evenly dispersed, all 6 billion people on the earth could be made millionairs.

There is about 3 billion ounces of above ground gold in the world (as of '95, don't have the newest numbers). This would be enough to (if evenly distibuted) give each person on earth about .5 ounces each.

So it seems to me that .5 ounce of gold = $1,000,000.00 USD based on the above math.

I don't think US Treasuries are going to cut-it.

JT,

It is a thought in the right direction, but keep in mind that number you speak of also includes paper representation of real things. Remove that, and the number drops considerably. After all, what need is there for a commodity backed currency to replace a house? or a car? or a bushel of wheat? Besides the friction of transaction costs, the true value of any currency - commodity backed or otherwise - is as a separate store of value over and above the physical. And that can shrink just as much as it grows...in its purchasing power. The main benefit of commodity-backing is to preserve the purchasing power value, but in turn it also constrains growth.

It is the extreme aversion to this (growth constraint) which has led us to where we are now.

At the beginning of the year, I red an interesting blog entry, in which the author was trying to demonstrate that at least 80% of all toxic mortgage CDO's were sold to foreign banks and SWF's . Considering the disastrous effect the remaining 20% had on US financial markets, he was asking himself in puzzlement where the beeep is the rest of the tsunami. My guess is that soon foreign central banks will beg the Fed to ...flood the global financial system with treasuries.... Problem-Reaction-Solution

I think the mistake being made here is lumping the reaction of a national or central bank with the reaction of the overall government.

Sure, the national banks (i.e. UBS) or central banks (i.e. CCB) are screaming for their bad agency loans or MBS' to be made good.

They don't really care if the process of making their bad investments good, degrades the overall portfolio value since the present dilemma is a threatened violation of their charter/reserve requirements.

However, the national governments don't think the same way. Just as the CCB is begging a reluctant Chinese Treasury (Finance ministry) to loan assets, so too do national governments (like the Chinese Finance Ministry with its trade ledger standpoint) not view the existing financial arrangements as all good.

Once again: why would a national government agree to the negative interest rate credit card? Because so long as their net purchasing power gain is positive - i.e. the nation is selling its crap and making a purchasing power profit - it is acceptable to lose some of the value along the way. Much as merchants pay Visa or MasterCard 5% of the value of credit card purchases - because ultimately they get more business than otherwise.

Once the profit goes away, so too does the credit card. Much like gas stations are increasingly charging 'cash' and 'credit' prices: for the low end gas stations - there is no benefit to accepting Visa or MasterCard.

If the Chinese dumped their US Treasuries (which is what I was talking about if it wasn't clear, sorry) you don't think that the economic consequences might be severe enough for them that the ruling classes would be concerned about revolution?

How would China dumping its Treasury hoard hurt the everyday Chinese consumer?

Would prices go up? Actually, they'd probably go down. The Yuan would strengthen so fast it'd make your head spin. It is precisely the buying up of Treasuries which is 'sterilizing' incoming dollars and keeping the yuan weak. But a weak yuan makes a lot of things like food more expensive.

How about jobs? Certainly there is going to be job loss due to the US being severely constrained to buy Chinese crap. But I'd point out that the Treasury dumping would be as a result of American consumption failure, not a cause - or more precisely that Americans may want to consume, but won't be able to pay enough for it.

If China wants to subsidize its population that badly, they might as well do it directly and skip the American bankster system in between.

The only people that'd be unhappy in China with a mass dump of Treasuries are those few manufacturers directly exporting to the US - who somehow have failed to start exporting to Europe and the rest of the world.

Of course, as I've noted, a Treasury dump is high risk hence extremely low probability for China.

But equally (ultimately, if not immediately) painful for the American consumer would be a cessation of buying more Treasuries.

Lukester: a git is an elf. And it was part of a comparison of iTulip members with Lord of the Rings. And I am not British. And I will resume ignoring you.

[zoog]

Shadowstats GDP chart

Shadowstats is useless: M3 is irrelevant with off b.s. accounting and securitizatin.

Mmmkayyy:confused: Well at any rate I've decided to link the useless shadowstats GDP chart.