Founder and Board Member of HRW Blast HRW’s Anti-Israel Bias

Until Joe Stork and his boss, Sarah Leah Whitson, are fired from Human Rights Watch — her for pandering to anti-Semitism in Saudi Arabia and him for being a flat-out terrorist sympathize…

Good article linked from Drudge.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100000698/can-the-souffle-really-rise-again/

AIP column: Admission of Failure
Why did the Obama administration delay releasing the budget
reconciliation numbers for a month, then try to sneak them into a
Friday afternoon document dump in the middle of Barack Obama’s
vacation? They……

Professional economist friend of mine (and she’s very good) says wait till the late spring. By that time, they will not be able to hide the effects of money flooding the economy even with the slow velocity of money at present.

I think I will spend a little more time tonight reading about monetary policy. Germany in the ’30′s and Argentina this century should provide ample examples of both right and wrong, or at least cause/effect.

If, as noted on some of the sites I referenced, the Fed is buying Treasuries from primary dealers and then selling them at a loss (if I understand the mechanism correctly) isn’t the yield less than zero?

Maybe I need to go back to school. My head hurts.

riverrat10k on August 27, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Price and yields move in opposite directions. As bond prices move down, yield goes up. If the Fed is selling at a loss, that implies that they are selling them at a discount, which would cause yields to rise.

In regards to the yield curve, an inverted yield curve is when short term rates are higher than long term rates. In a situation where demand for Treasuries softens, this drives prices down, causing a corresponding rise in yields. Since Fed funds rates are essentially zero, the yield curve is not inverting.

ICBM on August 27, 2009 at 3:41 PM

If, as noted on some of the sites I referenced, the Fed is buying Treasuries from primary dealers and then selling them at a loss (if I understand the mechanism correctly) isn’t the yield less than zero?

Maybe I need to go back to school. My head hurts.

Granted, these types of guys could just be market shorters, but their research, and the Fed’s aversion to sunshine, makes me think otherwise.

IMO, it appears Bernanke is lying about monetizing debt. What I don’t have the skills to determine is how much debt service can the US sustain? It seems were are close to our credit limit, and falling GDP will only make it worse.

My understanding was that they are already abadoning the 30-year, and have dumped some. If my information is correct, who has been the buyer of the dumped 30’s? The Fed? Other countries? Billionaires? Shouldn’t the yield curve be inverting by now?

riverrat10k on August 27, 2009 at 2:38 PM

In regards to the yield curve, an inverted yield curve is when short term rates are higher than long term rates. In a situation where demand for Treasuries softens, this drives prices down, causing a corresponding rise in yields. Since Fed funds rates are essentially zero, the yield curve is not inverting.

Good article and site. I should have a better understanding of the mysteries of the Fed. I actually have an Economics degree; but, I have modified aircraft for some time as a living. So, a lot of what I was taught is a little foggy or not as in depth as I would like.

Secrets of the Temple is a great historical book about the Fed. But, it doesn’t go into the actual machinations that go on inside the secret temple.

Stop making fun of Beck and LISTEN to him before it is too late!

Be in DC on 9/12

That’s all I can think of. If otherwise, it is just because I am ignorant, not malicious. :)

Now, I don’t care how badly that money is spent, it will have some level of economic impact. Even if it could have more impact elsewhere. So what if the WH doesn’t want the impact to come yet? What if they are withholding the money to time the impact to their greatest advantage?

My growing suspicion is that the Porkulus flood gates will open in Q1/Q2 to create an improvement in the economy by the fall, just in time for the ’10 elections. The people then go to the polls with the party in power having “saved” the economy and vote accordingly. Or so goes the plan.

I don’t know this is true, but the timing feels fishy to me.

Can’t remember specifically; but, I thought you were in a row with a number of folks on a thread one night.

Thanks for the link.

I just read this. I think it answers your second question but not the first.

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2009/0804.html

I am a bit curious about what I may have posted earlier that would get me the “troll stink.”

Good luck to all.

You have redeemed yourself in my eyes. I thought you were a troll a while back. You must have been vaccinated.

Haunches on August 27, 2009 at 1:43 PM

lol. Conservative creativity on daily display here at HA.

I read an article recently which categorized most nations, institutional and large wealthy private holders of treasuries as net sellers of late.

To what extent of late has the Fed picked up the ball pumping money into the treasury actions at a higher than historical level?

Part of todays post from Karl Denniger on The Market Ticker.
This is part of his post relating to the ruling to get the Federal Reserve to reveal the recipients of bailout funds. The Fed is, of course, fighting the release.

“The Fed is hiding the insolvency of banks. They, along with their handmaidens in Congress (which is where you work Mr. Sanders) even went further and twisted the arm of FASB to legalize intentional accounting distortions that I argue amount to fraud.

The truth of what has been done keeps peeking around the corner in the form of bank failures and FDIC deposit insurance fund losses, with the latest charade being Colonial Bank that was carrying assets thirty seven percent above where its acquiring bank believes is a reasonable mark on the day prior to being taken over, and which in the FDIC’s last published release was considered “well-capitalized!”

These losses and the costs of this cover-up are being forcibly extracted from The American People literally at gunpoint through the issuance of hundreds of billions of Treasury Debt which we, our children and grandchildren will have to repay – a staggering total that the CBO and Obama Administration now admit will total nine trillion dollars over the next ten years.”

Read that last paragraph carefully folks. Many bankers, politicians, and regulators need to be in prison.

riverrat10k on August 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Someone educate me. I want to be able to measure the acceleration of the process so that I can predict when my money will become worthless.

trollkiller on August 27, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Inflation may become so rapid, that you may have to start shopping several times a day, like they did in Germany in the 1930′s.

and just because bambi is not an economist doesn’t mean buttkus. i suppose Ronald Reagan was an economist?

every idiot knows that you can’t borrow your way out of debt. duh