Money supply and inflation are linear. Go to a coin auction, give all the buyers more money and see what happens to prices.
Apparently war increases MV. US has been at war 222 years out of the last; continuously since the 9/11 attack. Appears Washington loves war. Printing new money to be spent helps.
@ProofCollection said:
There's no units or title on your chart. Not sure what you're showing us.
Money supply and inflation are linear.
Historically maybe but that might be assuming a steady money velocity. You can have increased or decreased economic activity without touching the overall supply of money.
MV is simply the number of times a dollar changes hands domestically in a give period of time. It tells us if consumers and businesses are spending or saving. Many things affect the decision on whether to spend or to save.
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
There's no units or title on your chart. Not sure what you're showing us.
Money supply and inflation are linear.
Historically maybe but that might be assuming a steady money velocity. You can have increased or decreased economic activity without touching the overall supply of money.
@derryb said:
So, you're saying that repeal of GS did not allow banks to also become "investment" firms and trade derivatives >once GS was repealed? Do you deny that GS kept banks out of the trading business?. This conflict of interest >brought the economy to its knees in 2008.
It had NOTHING to do with 2008. You may as well have blamed it on the Designate Hitter rule in baseball.
G-S was about letting deposit institutions including commercial banks engage in investment banking activities like underwriting stocks, bonds, etc. NEITHER has anything to do with subprime mortgages or pristine mortgages or high LTV loans or low LTV loans.
NOTHING !!!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both went under and they were all about making loans to families, neither smelled underwriting securities from 10,000 miles away.
@derryb said:
So, you're saying that repeal of GS did not allow banks to also become "investment" firms and trade derivatives >once GS was repealed? Do you deny that GS kept banks out of the trading business?. This conflict of interest >brought the economy to its knees in 2008.
It had NOTHING to do with 2008. You may as well have blamed it on the Designate Hitter rule in baseball.
G-S was about letting deposit institutions including commercial banks engage in investment banking activities like underwriting stocks, bonds, etc. NEITHER has anything to do with subprime mortgages or pristine mortgages or high LTV loans or low LTV loans.
NOTHING !!!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both went under and they were all about making loans to families, neither smelled underwriting securities from 10,000 miles away.
"A continuous buildup of toxic assets in the form of subprime mortgages purchased by Lehman Brothers ultimately led to the firm's bankruptcy in September 2008. The collapse of Lehman Brothers is often cited as both the culmination of the subprime mortgage crisis, and the catalyst for the Great Recession in the United States."
Like you said, "G-S was about letting deposit institutions including commercial banks engage in investment banking activities like underwriting stocks, bonds, etc." Repeal of GS permitted Lehman and other financial institutions to load up on toxic mortgage derivatives. Many of us are old enough to remember when investment firms such as Schwab and Merrill Lynch were not allowed to be partnered with commercial banks. The barrier between the banks and the investment firms prevented disasters such as the subprime crisis. Repeal of GS (led by big bank lobbying) removed that barrier and enabled disaster.
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
Don’t forget the bogus ploy of changing the “mark to market” accounting of toxic assets on bank balance sheets to “mark to maturity” - completely ignoring GAAAP and common sense as well. The bankers playing with toxic (losing) derivative contracts were never held financially accountable.
AIG got bailed out and Goldman Sachs got their bonuses.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
Don’t forget the bogus ploy of changing the “mark to market” accounting of toxic assets on bank balance sheets to >“mark to maturity” - completely ignoring GAAAP and common sense as well. The bankers playing with toxic (losing) >derivative contracts were never held financially accountable.
AIG got bailed out and Goldman Sachs got their bonuses.
GAAP is not hard-and-fast rules. They can be relaxed. Whether they should is another question, as with short-selling prohibitions.
AIG wasn't bailed out. It got a temporary loan and paid it back. Shareholders are down 93% from 2007......that's a bailout ? Teamsters CSPF got $36,000,000,000 with no payback -- 100 cents on the dollar, inexchange for supporting the president -- THAT'S a bailout.
@derryb said:
Like you said, "G-S was about letting deposit institutions including commercial banks engage in investment banking >activities like underwriting stocks, bonds, etc." Repeal of GS permitted Lehman and other financial institutions to >load up on toxic mortgage derivatives. Many of us are old enough to remember when investment firms such as >Schwab and Merrill Lynch were not allowed to be partnered with commercial banks. The barrier between the banks >and the investment firms prevented disasters such as the subprime crisis. Repeal of GS (led by big bank lobbying) >removed that barrier and enabled disaster.
Again, you have mistatements of fact.
Lehman and others were ALWAYS allowed to hold derivatives and MBS. G-S had NOTHING to do with that. Lehman was levered 35-to-1...that's why they went under. Even owning 100% AAA Treasury Bonds at 35-to-1 leverage leads to blowups. See: Carlyle Capital.
Subprime lending has nothing to do with G-S and investment firms. HUD and the GSEs promoted this slop.
Other countries never had G-S type laws....their banks are fine.
AIG got bailed out so that Goldman Sachs could be made whole and get their bonuses. Their bonuses weren’t cut by any significant amount. The AIG bailout was done for Goldman Sachs’ benefit.
Bestowing “too big to fail” status on losing enterprises only encourages further mismanagement and crooked accounting practices - for the few selected insiders - ALWAYS at the expense of taxpayers.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
AIG got bailed out so that Goldman Sachs could be made whole and get their bonuses. Their bonuses weren’t cut by any significant amount. The AIG bailout was done for Goldman Sachs’ benefit.
Bestowing “too big to fail” status on losing enterprises only encourages further mismanagement and crooked accounting practices - for the few selected insiders - ALWAYS at the expense of taxpayers.
Actually in the case of AIG the bailout was profitable and the profits were socialized (i.e. they accrued to the government)
Why should a select few get bailed out? What makes them more "special" than any other business? Nobody lost their jobs at AIG, and if I remember correctly, even AIG got bonuses that year.
Again, what makes them so special?
Oh, I remember - AIG's insurance group had to be bailed out in order to make Goldman Sachs' insurance claims whole.
So, I repeat myself - what makes them all so special?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
AIG senior management lost their jobs and a good part of the company was cut up and sold.
Funny, I can search any number of news articles that talk about the bonuses of OVER $1,000,000 each that some 73 employees of AIG received, only 11 of whom had “left the company.”
$170 billion in bailout funds, $165 million in performance bonuses paid.
…. according to CBS News…..March 17, 2009.
Tell me you are cool with that.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said: AIG senior management lost their jobs and a good part of the company was cut up and sold.
Funny, I can search any number of news articles that talk about the bonuses of OVER $1,000,000 each that some 73 employees of AIG received, only 11 of whom had “left the company.”
$170 billion in bailout funds, $165 million in performance bonuses paid.
…. according to CBS News…..March 17, 2009.
Tell me you are cool with that.
Fake Newz. Cripes that was 15 years ago. Forward. RGDS!
without doubt, as nations continue to destroy their fiat currencies, gold in some fashion is the money of the future. Central banks are gearing up for this.
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
@jmski52 said:
AIG got bailed out so that Goldman Sachs could be made whole and get their bonuses. Their bonuses weren’t cut >by any significant amount. The AIG bailout was done for Goldman Sachs’ benefit.
Totally false. AIG wasn't bailed out, the shares are down 94% from 2007. Is that your idea of a bailout ?
100% wrong on the bonuses, too.
Bestowing “too big to fail” status on losing enterprises only encourages further mismanagement and crooked >accounting practices - for the few selected insiders - ALWAYS at the expense of taxpayers.
Yes...and the TBTF institutions are the GSEs, the Unions, Pension funds, and HUD. Again, you've gotten wrong information from people with a political bias. The proof lies in who got the $$$ and who didn't pay it all back.
I suggest you check the TARP scorecard. That tells you who got what and who was "bailed out."
Comments
It's not just supply, there are other factors such as money velocity, which I assume slows down during war.
Money supply and inflation are linear. Go to a coin auction, give all the buyers more money and see what happens to prices.
Apparently war increases MV. US has been at war 222 years out of the last; continuously since the 9/11 attack. Appears Washington loves war. Printing new money to be spent helps.
MV is simply the number of times a dollar changes hands domestically in a give period of time. It tells us if consumers and businesses are spending or saving. Many things affect the decision on whether to spend or to save.
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
There's no units or title on your chart. Not sure what you're showing us.
Historically maybe but that might be assuming a steady money velocity. You can have increased or decreased economic activity without touching the overall supply of money.
Velocity of M2 Money Stock measured in ratio of value. Not really a good chart for this discussion.
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
Why Gold? LOL
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
@derryb said:
Officer:--you were going 85 In a 55.
Derryb--no, I was going 83 in a 55. I demand a dismissal!!
Haha
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
US-China relations appear to be deteriorating. I expect this will add more upside pressure to gold.
Yelling at clouds on pmbug.com
It had NOTHING to do with 2008. You may as well have blamed it on the Designate Hitter rule in baseball.
G-S was about letting deposit institutions including commercial banks engage in investment banking activities like underwriting stocks, bonds, etc. NEITHER has anything to do with subprime mortgages or pristine mortgages or high LTV loans or low LTV loans.
NOTHING !!!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both went under and they were all about making loans to families, neither smelled underwriting securities from 10,000 miles away.
Gotta throw the BS flag on this one
"A continuous buildup of toxic assets in the form of subprime mortgages purchased by Lehman Brothers ultimately led to the firm's bankruptcy in September 2008. The collapse of Lehman Brothers is often cited as both the culmination of the subprime mortgage crisis, and the catalyst for the Great Recession in the United States."
Like you said, "G-S was about letting deposit institutions including commercial banks engage in investment banking activities like underwriting stocks, bonds, etc." Repeal of GS permitted Lehman and other financial institutions to load up on toxic mortgage derivatives. Many of us are old enough to remember when investment firms such as Schwab and Merrill Lynch were not allowed to be partnered with commercial banks. The barrier between the banks and the investment firms prevented disasters such as the subprime crisis. Repeal of GS (led by big bank lobbying) removed that barrier and enabled disaster.
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
Don’t forget the bogus ploy of changing the “mark to market” accounting of toxic assets on bank balance sheets to “mark to maturity” - completely ignoring GAAAP and common sense as well. The bankers playing with toxic (losing) derivative contracts were never held financially accountable.
AIG got bailed out and Goldman Sachs got their bonuses.
I knew it would happen.
.
Not in the USA, anyway.
But in Iceland they were.
.
GAAP is not hard-and-fast rules. They can be relaxed. Whether they should is another question, as with short-selling prohibitions.
AIG wasn't bailed out. It got a temporary loan and paid it back. Shareholders are down 93% from 2007......that's a bailout ? Teamsters CSPF got $36,000,000,000 with no payback -- 100 cents on the dollar, inexchange for supporting the president -- THAT'S a bailout.
Goldman slashed bonuses.
Again, you have mistatements of fact.
Lehman and others were ALWAYS allowed to hold derivatives and MBS. G-S had NOTHING to do with that. Lehman was levered 35-to-1...that's why they went under. Even owning 100% AAA Treasury Bonds at 35-to-1 leverage leads to blowups. See: Carlyle Capital.
Subprime lending has nothing to do with G-S and investment firms. HUD and the GSEs promoted this slop.
Other countries never had G-S type laws....their banks are fine.
I'll be selling a little GLD, SLV etc, if its green Thursday. Just to buy it back next week.
AIG got bailed out so that Goldman Sachs could be made whole and get their bonuses. Their bonuses weren’t cut by any significant amount. The AIG bailout was done for Goldman Sachs’ benefit.
Bestowing “too big to fail” status on losing enterprises only encourages further mismanagement and crooked accounting practices - for the few selected insiders - ALWAYS at the expense of taxpayers.
I knew it would happen.
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses...
Philippians 4:4-7
Actually in the case of AIG the bailout was profitable and the profits were socialized (i.e. they accrued to the government)
Actually in the case of AIG the bailout was profitable and the profits were socialized (i.e. they accrued to the government)
Why should a select few get bailed out? What makes them more "special" than any other business? Nobody lost their jobs at AIG, and if I remember correctly, even AIG got bonuses that year.
Again, what makes them so special?
Oh, I remember - AIG's insurance group had to be bailed out in order to make Goldman Sachs' insurance claims whole.
So, I repeat myself - what makes them all so special?
I knew it would happen.
AIG senior management lost their jobs and a good part of the company was cut up and sold.
AIG senior management lost their jobs and a good part of the company was cut up and sold.
Funny, I can search any number of news articles that talk about the bonuses of OVER $1,000,000 each that some 73 employees of AIG received, only 11 of whom had “left the company.”
$170 billion in bailout funds, $165 million in performance bonuses paid.
…. according to CBS News…..March 17, 2009.
Tell me you are cool with that.
I knew it would happen.
Fake Newz. Cripes that was 15 years ago. Forward. RGDS!
Fake news (propaganda): news you do not like or do not agree with. LOL
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
Hello, 2016ish pot meet kettle. LOL Conspiracies r' us. CRZY!!
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
without doubt, as nations continue to destroy their fiat currencies, gold in some fashion is the money of the future. Central banks are gearing up for this.
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
Totally false. AIG wasn't bailed out, the shares are down 94% from 2007. Is that your idea of a bailout ?
100% wrong on the bonuses, too.
Yes...and the TBTF institutions are the GSEs, the Unions, Pension funds, and HUD. Again, you've gotten wrong information from people with a political bias. The proof lies in who got the $$$ and who didn't pay it all back.
I suggest you check the TARP scorecard. That tells you who got what and who was "bailed out."
The stock is down 94%. Let's see the unions and pensioners take a 94% cut.
Options are a derivative.
Clearly those who manipulated gold a lot in the past are having trouble doing so now. It appears to be untethered from control.