Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/Causa ... _final.pdf

Basil Moore 1983, “Unpacking the post Keynesian black box: bank lending and the money supply”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 1983, Vol. 4 pp. 537-556; here Moore was quoting a Federal Reserve economist from a 1969 conference in which the endogeneity of the money supply was being debated. Consumption of fixed capital.

The concept of print it they will come is ngdp which is the back bone of aca also, but not the limbs. Please remember the maintenance of fixed capital exists for the net working capital and actual free cash flow existing in energy margin cluster. The market made a move and few understand implications we have warned of since that is what it is in this turning.
As he notes "However, even if they succeed in increasing NGDP, they will likely fail in pulling the global economy out of its current disequilibrium."

Yes, we are trying to mitigate and prevent them from eating each other. More than not few even pretend to get it.

To be clear the pie as we know as being that big is well, simply dumb. Anyways the last purchase was $25.07 so yea some get it on the dualism
of behavioral eco structures.
http://gdxforum.com/forum/search.php?ke ... sf=msgonly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9bX5mzdihs

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-0 ... ning-match

We unpacked the black box on credit creation. Brodsky indeed has a decent narrative above on relationship to ngdp as
noted for some who survived those "realities" on the transitory effects called the peso crisis ect and lock ups we are aware of as also the
Smithsonian accord on free float of FX which I rather avoid since policy is intent on zirp which in essense is nirp arm twisting for captial creation
since once you see what the BIS and WTO actually is you can avoid the trip wires of ngdp rhetoric on the funtion of fungible capital maintenence.
If you look into the demise of the natfta "loopholes" on flooding which we also covered here in context to bilateral observations to get a grip on
production flows.
Anyway as before it interferes in actual production in a most dangerous manner since it is impossible to mark and measure moral hazard malinvestments from a premise of credit collapse with out marked to market seeking stabilization. Basil Moore 1983, “Unpacking the post Keynesian black box: bank lending and the money supply”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 1983, Vol. 4 pp. 537-556; here Moore was quoting a Federal Reserve economist from a 1969 conference in which the endogeneity of the money supply was being debated. Consumption of fixed capital.

The concept of print it they will come is ngdp which is the back bone of aca also, but not the limbs. Please remember the maintenance of fixed capital exists for the net working capital and actual free cash flow existing in energy margin cluster. The market made a move and few understand implications we have warned of since that is what it is in this turning.
As he notes "However, even if they succeed in increasing NGDP, they will likely fail in pulling the global economy out of its current disequilibrium."
As with NAFTA the loop holes we noted before and the new agreements are no accident either.
As for the current ACA sector and the election cycle it appears they could actually care less with over 10 million votes gerrymandered as banked as "its free" and no point trying to explain any more the concept no accidents in Politics since FDR and political science. The or else structures will not change since the electorate is actually brain dead and lets be clear I am no R or D. To note is the the lefts ability to control the verbiage on how they screw you in Borgeville and the ability to watch the implants of pressitutes control FUD as the wasting continues. Ask The Swedes how much free cash flow after the statists parasites bleed them pale white and thus rendered servile wards. Key words here are wasting and veil since it coveys the contextual process since lets say 1796.

Over the years, I've changed my mind about how stock market panics
work.

What I've heard all my life is that the stock market crashed on Black
Monday in 1929, because everyone went crazy and sold.

But we know that's not what happened at all. There was a panic on
Black Monday, but it ended a couple of days later. The reason that
the market kept falling was because of deleveraging and margin calls.
In other words, the "emotion" ended quickly, and after that it was all
driven by solid economics.

Is the market overpriced today? Quite possibly not. It's possible
that it's in equilibrium because of the $85 billion monthly QE. So
even if there was a momentary "panic," it would die quickly and the
market would recover because the $85 billion keeps pouring in.

This would mean that a crash CANNOT occur at this time, or as long as
the $85 billion continues. For a crash to occur, something drastic
would have to occur to cause disequilibrium - perhaps a war or perhaps
tapering.

The same reasoning, incidently, applies to Europe and China, where the
stock markets are also being held up by a flood of liquidity.

But the bottom line is that a crash is not emotional, and it's not
caused by a panic. It's caused by a sustained deleveraging that
results from a change in underlying fundamentals. It's possible for
the panic to trigger the deleveraging, causing a vicious spiral
downward and crash, but the panic is not the cause of the crash.

Italy oil consumption rolling over linked above. Most idicate -25 adjustment. Mondays are back to your trend on monday.
News drives the present augmented indexes. We are not even slowing down in a few segments.
Ben needs to do nothing to clear the dead wood in consolidations. Not to mention 1200 reasons
why it has not crashed yet.
http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2010/0 ... verns.html
I think that due diligence will be over run by incompetent policy unless you get your senate inside buy list. I think we can agree on rope burn when it slips. I have moved my view from pockets as we churned over a few quarters ago. Nobody leaves level 3 or 4 assets on the table now.
http://paperempire.net/2010/11/20/exter ... ic-cycles/

Probably what Hayek didn't understand correctly was the degree of complexity that could be built on the foundation of floating exchange as well as the extreme disequilibrium that would create.

I would contend the malinvestment and master builder dilema would cost input enough and would suffice to cover his micro view since as we have
discussed all the micro's is macro. I have dealt with keyanasians before as they deride the lack of aggregate study. The other side as we are every day we live and work in balance. Some of us still work providing billions of dollars in value added realities just as we balance our own checkbook. They have deluded themselves and the public long enough, and oh do they love a crisis never to go to waste. Fact is they are the waste. Greenspan may take alot of shit and Rubin and Summers sure as hell adulterated the public and it would not even be civil to convey what should be done with Gramm. Meanwhile we all know the pure intent today to bury the past since they do not have the backbone to nueter these ideologues and I feel as a few that enough is enough. Go Nash, do not play since the logical move is none by the end of the day. Thats why level 3 or 4 or higher assets are lunatic bait for the actual predators of the street. Maybe the village and usefull kind will just Tainter us to the utopian paradise and get the shovel ready jobs going since all they can do is rule by gun powder for the only purpose those shovels are used for by these lunatics. Nobody is opposed to balance and we sure as hell did not cause these problems. I am glad I am of the minority. We choose freedom and judged by 12 and will not be going alone carried by six in any age.

The (neo)Keynesians can point to what I quoted from Hayek and claim he was wrong in 1974 and I would concede they are somewhat right about that. But there are two reasons I quoted it: one, I think Hayek is right, right now, and two, I think Hayek got the big big picture right, the evidence being what he said before and after the part I quoted. It indicates a depth of understanding particularly for that time that exceeds that of what we might call the Newtonian economists. I believe over a 100 year time frame Hayek will be shown to have been right overall but the (neo)Keynesians will have to blow up the world economy first. Probably what Hayek didn't understand correctly was the degree of complexity that could be built on the foundation of floating exchange as well as the extreme disequilibrium that would create. But now it appears the fork in the road he posits has arrived. I can imagine what Krugman will say, that if Ben had printed more money everything would have been OK. Krugman debunked Estonia's achievements in very simple terms on his blog by invoking GDP, which is an incorrect measure that has nothing to do with quality, only quantity, from an incorrect point of origination (the top of the 2007 false bubble), then said oh well, I am now hated, when he got slapped for being the self-serving phony that he is. When we circle back to Hayek's lecture from 1974, Krugman is advocating for the "rate of inflation which would rapidly lead to a disorganisation of all economic activity", the worst possible outcome.

FA Hayek wrote:The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society - a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.

Carl Lieberman wrote:I feel just the opposite. Inflation rewards all of the behaviors that are anti social and penalizes all of the behaviors associated with virtue. It is completely destructive of the social fabric. Personally I believe that a deflation is coming, followed by a massive inflation. We could get the worst of both worlds.

Agree and agree. QE2 and other delaying tactics have guaranteed future economic, social and political chaos and disequilibrium. All systems will swing wildly, unable to find a steady state. Deflation may predominate in certain geographical areas while inflation predominates in others. People may not know whether there is inflation or deflation except for what they are experiencing at the moment.

A chain of stores may be forced to lower prices today in order to move product, only to disappear overnight for lack of profit due to high overheads. A vendor may temporarily appear on a street corner selling New Zealand kiwis for 18 cents apiece, then disappear, then reappear selling Washington apples for 50 cents per pound. After he leaves a kiwi may cost $1 if you can even find one and the apples may be $4 per pound.

The existing economy will only be affordable for about 10 or 20 percent of the population. The loss of economy of scale will cause costs to rise as a percentage of income and selection to fall for the shadow of the old economy that remains. The rest of the population will scratch out an existence, relying on self production, black markets, and crime to procure the necessities of life, which will be the full time job of the unemployed members of the household. It will be a substandard lifestyle. An example of this, in a message I just received tonight: "She and her husband went to look at campers and the guy asked her if they planned to live in it."