Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
| Posted: 19 Sep 2013 08:02 PM PDT This is a personal, non-economic post. For the third time in two years I called 911. The previous two times were related to my then wife Joanne who passed away on May 16, 2012 due to Lou Gehrig's disease (see Stop and Smell the Lilacs). I remarried June of this year to Liz (see Celebrating Life: I Got Married on Friday) Digger Bee Attack With that background out of the way, here is the story on "digger bees". Tonight I was digging in the garden, just before sunset, and accidentally hit a huge nest of yellow jackets (Liz calls them digger bees because they live in the ground). I got stung about 15 times, one right near my eye, the rest on my arms and back. They were swarming all over me. I had the presence of mind to roll on the ground to crush the bees stinging me on the back. Liz was not home. Fortunately I am not allergic to bee stings, but Liz is. Had this happened to her, 15 stings would have been a serious, serious problem. Even though I have been stung before, I decide to call 911. Since my taxes go to pay such services, why shouldn't I? I did find out something I did not know: If there is going to be a reaction, typically it is in the first 30 minutes. From the time of my call (probably 5-10 minutes after I was stung), it took them about 10-15 minutes to arrive. After they monitored me for a while I had the option of going to a hospital or not. I chose not. I asked the guys who arrived "how many calls do you get?" The answer was "less than one a day". Thus, and in many ways, I would have been foolish not to call, especially if a severe reaction was coming. And had a severe reaction occurred, the time to do it would have been before, not after the reaction. Looking ahead, given Liz is known to be allergic to bee stings, and given this is the third instance of "digger bee" attacks in my yard (two to me and one to a landscaper), we need to make sure we have on hand, anti-venom for bee stings. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| The Morning After; Price Discovery is Zero; PUT on the Bond Market? Is Inflation Really Under 2%? Posted: 19 Sep 2013 11:08 AM PDT Steen Jakobsen, Chief economist at Saxo Bank in Denmark, pinged me today with his thoughts on "the morning after" and "price discovery". In my opinion these two paragraphs of the FOMC Statement are the key ones:Whole Financial Market Government Controlled In regards to Steen's comments "The whole financial market is now "government controlled" – Price discovery has been reduced close to ZERO", I agree 100% (for now). But will "control" last forever? If you think it will, then why did we have a housing and stock market crash? Price Stability In regards to inflation, I have to shake my head. Inflation is not a good thing, not now, not ever. And with so many boomers headed into retirement on fixed income with few assets, inflation is even more crippling. I have a question: Does the following chart look like price stability? Inflation Targeting at 2% a Year  The next chart will show you what happens when wages do not keep up with prices. Real Disposable Personal Income Per Capita Detail  The above two charts from my post Huge Problem With Bernanke's 2% Inflation Target Explained in Pictures. Click on the link for still more charts. Is Inflation Really Under 2%? I think not. In fact I know it isn't. You just have to know where to look. Inflation is only under 2% if you ignore soaring money supply, the stock market bubble, bond market bubbles, a reblowing of the housing bubble, and other global bubbles. And what is so magical about 2% anyway? Why not 1%, 3%, 5% or some other number? Asset Bubbles Actually any price-inflation target is ridiculous. Price targets of any kind cannot accurately be measured precisely because price targets, by definition, ignore asset bubbles (including housing, which is not directly a part of the CPI). And didn't we go down this path before? Twice? Yes we did: first with a dot-com stock market bubble, then with an even bigger credit-housing bubble. Was there anything stable about that? Indeed not. The Fed has a history of blowing bubbles of increasing amplitude over time. Ridiculous Comment of the Day Revisited Yesterday in Ridiculous Comment of the Day, I took exception to statement made by Paul Denoon, head of emerging-market debt at AllianceBernstein Holding LP (AB), who regarding the Fed's decision not to taper said "This creates stability." My reply ... Really? The Fed buying $85 billion in assets a month creates stability? Denoon must live in Bizarro World along with Ben Bernanke and the rest of the Fed.Is the Fed doing all of this on purpose? I think not. For further discussion, please see Purposeful Class Warfare? Breathing Room for Rupee? Sheer Stupidity? Not My Fault Says Bernanke Whether on purpose or not (and I strongly suggest "not"), the result is the same and it looks like this comic from Merk Investments, via email from Steen.  Bernanke Wants 2% Inflation in a Deflationary World Here's the problem in a nutshell: Bernanke Wants 2% Inflation in a Deflationary World; Who Pays the Price? Asset bubbles and massive income inequality are the direct results of Fed policies. For still more reading, or in case you are unconvinced about who is to blame, please see Reader Asks Me to Prove "Inflation Benefits the Wealthy" (At the Expense of Everyone Else). Even though the problem is the Fed (central banks in general), coupled with fractional reserve lending and pseudo-money created out of thin air, many seriously misguided souls (including Keynesian high-priest Paul Krugman) think the answer is a destabilizing rise in the minimum wage and still more inflation! Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Postări
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu