VOLTA SEM O ESCUDO OU EM CIMA DO EURO

jogos numericus teste de indulgência da indigência mental pense num número XYZ 897 847 125(ESTE NUM DÁ) TANTO FAZ ...SOME OS NÚMEROS 847 8+4+7=19 847-19 =828 ELIMINE UM ALGARISMUS QUALQUERE 8+2+8=18...9X2....DÁ SEMPRE MÚLTIPLOS DE 9 921 -(9+2+1=12)=909 ----854- (8+5+4)=837.....8+3+7=18 125-(1+2+5=8)=117....1+1+7=9.....9X1....RESULTA SEMPRE POIS SE A QUALQUER Nº SUB TRAIRMOS A SOMA DOS SEUS ALGARISMUS OBTEM-SE SEMPER NUMERUS DIVISUS PER NOVEM
100X+10Y+Z - (X+Y+Z) DÁ SEMPRE 99X+9Y=9(11X+Y) QUE É SEMPRE OBVIAMENTE DIVISO POR NOVE NOVENAS ....SUBTRACÇÃO PELO INVERSO PARCIAL VARIANTE DO TRUQUE 8247-2784=5499....27 PELO INVERSO TOTAL 764-467=297...297+792=1089....É SEMPRE O RESULTADO FINAL
846-648=198+891=1089......
EXCEPTO 125....OU NÚMERAL NÃO SUBTRACTÍVEL PELO
ANVERSUS 125 -521 =-396+693= 297+792=1089.....

Se entendeu compartilha, para ver se seus amigos entendem.

Quer Café COMPRE-O.....

Se entendeu coN partilhE NON....

Saturday, March 15, 2014

The Finance Macro Canon

Stop me if you've heard this one before:

1. Inflation is caused by increases in the money supply. If the Fed expands the monetary base ("prints money"), the new money may sit for a while in the bank, but will eventually make its way into the broader economy, at which point it will cause inflation.

2. QE represents money-printing, so it will eventually cause inflation. In fact, it probably already is causing inflation - have you been to the store lately and seen the price of a gallon of milk? And don't you know that they changed the way they measure inflation, meaning it's much higher than the official numbers suggest?

3. Alternatively, money-printing might itself be defined as inflation.

4. Additionally, QE is a stealth bailout of big banks. This will increase their risk-taking via moral hazard and precipitate another financial crisis.

5. QE depresses interest rates, encouraging investors to "reach for yield" by investing in risky assets, increasing the likelihood of another financial crisis.

6. Government borrowing requires the Fed to buy bonds to hold down interest rates and keep the government from defaulting; this will cause/is causing/is defined as inflation.

7. Every bad effect of QE will also result from a long period of zero interest rates.

I have heard this basic story from many employees in the financial industry. I have heard it from a large number of finance writers, including some people I like and respect (but also including some who are shameless hucksters). I have heard it from undergrads at Stony Brook and Michigan. I see it on Twitter and on the blogs and on TV, and I hear it in Wall Street bars. I call it the Finance Macro Canon - the basic framework through which a big chunk of Wall Street sees the macroeconomy.

What I think about each of these belief items is not important (Just for the record, I think #4, 5, 6, and 7 very well might be true, #3 is goofy, #2 is utterly wrong, and #1 is one of the biggest mysteries of macroeconomics). The really interesting question is why the finance industry has become such a hive mind with regards to this worldview.

First of all, part of this canon defies the data - Japan's eternal zero interest rate policy didn't end deflation, nor did a dramatic expansion of its monetary base in the 2000s. And America's "money-printing" and ZIRP haven't done much to budge inflation. Second of all, the canon goes against the bets of the finance industry itself - inflation expectations, as measured by TIPS breakevens, are around 2%, even in the long term.

This, I think, is why the Shadowstats BS - or its cousin, the "have you seen the price of a gallon of milk lately" BS - is so crucial to the Finance Macro Canon (FMC). Humans have cognitive dissonance - it's difficult for us to take actions that don't jive with our beliefs. So subscribers to the FMC have to tell themselves that CPI isn't actually real inflation - that's the only way to reconcile their bet on low CPI with their belief in the theory that QE and ZIRP cause inflation.

But why patch up the FMC with obvious BS like Shadowstats? Why not just alter it to include the possibility that QE and ZIRP don't always cause inflation, even in the long term? In other words, why is the Finance Macro Canon such a canon in the first place?

Here are a few candidate hypotheses, arranged from (in my opinion) the most rational to the least:

1. History. Throughout history, currency debasements have often resulted in inflation. In the 70s, easy monetary policy (money printing) did indeed seem to result in high inflation in the U.S. And when Volcker tightened policy, inflation fell. Why should this time be different?

2. The lingering influence of Milton Friedman and the monetarists. Friedman told us that easy monetary policy causes inflation. His insights form the core of the New Keynesian research program that has come to more-or-less dominate central bank thinking.

3. The lingering influence of the Austrians. Austrians traditionally are suspicious of big banks, and suspicious of government meddling in the economy. Peter Schiff calls himself an Austrian, and he's out there spouting this canon daily, and lots of people listen to him.

4. Motivated reasoning. Most of the retail clients of the finance industry - and the customers of financial media - are older high net worth individuals who stand to benefit both from higher interest rates and from lower inflation. It might be in the interests of financial industry employees and financial media people to express a worldview where the policy conclusion is exactly what their clients and customers would like, while simultaneously placing bets against this worldview.

5. Need for the Illusion of Knowledge. A world in which printing money doesn't have any clear link to inflation is a weird world indeed. Instead of casting themselves adrift on the sea of existential uncertainty, finance industry and media people might subconsciously choose to cling to the shores of certitude.

So how does one extract an individual human mind from this hive mind? That is always a tricky undertaking. But I've found two things that seem to have an effect:

Method 1: Introduce them to MMT. MMT is a great halfway house for recovering Austrians.

Method 2: Introduce them to the research of Steve Williamson. Williamson is an example of a guy who changed his mind about the most likely effect of QE, after observing its real effects.

So far, these are the only things I've found that work. If you have any other ideas, please share. Every mind we reclaim from the hive is another blow struck for rationalism, individuality, and optimal monetary policy (whatever that is).

daniels

Great post Noah, something that has puzzled me as well every time I hear discussions of "money printing" even in your most basic and less biased outlets like Reuters or Bloomberg. The tricky bit for many people I think is that as long as the central bank is willing to pay interest on its liabilities, then these liabilities become more like credit than money. Central banks' willingness to do QE was probably solidly anchored in new keynesian thinking I think of the cashless economy variety. That version of the new keynesian model (popularised by people like Mike Woodford) is profoundly anti monetarist in many ways. It is different I think from the new keynesian models underlying the thinking of Miles Kimball or Greg Mankiw, who still think of binding cash in advance constraints. It is more appropriate in a quasi-electronic money, modern payments system economy. But a lot of people probably still take the quantity of money identity P*Y=MV and assume for some reason velocity V must be constant. Then you apply this with the official definitions of monetary aggregates like M1 and you get a prediction of high inflation whenever central bank liabilities explode or the amount of deposits in the banking system increases a lot.
Incidentally, if you do work with a quasi-cashless economy model, and the central bank suddenly decides to not pay interest on excess reserves even when market interest rates increase significantly above zero then that would cause high inflation since the real value of these excess reserves must be very low in that case (demand for excess reserves must be small if they don't pay competitive interest rates and we're no longer in a financial crisis). But the fed and other central banks' commitment to their inflation target suggests Janet Yellen or Mark Carney would never do such a crazy thing, and the losses on the fed's portfolio when interest rates rise have been estimated to be modest (look up a paper by Hall and Reis for some estimates).
Reply

VOLTA SEM O ESCUDO OU EM CIMA DO EURO

vineri, 7 martie 2025

REARMAMENTO EUROPEU - 800 mil milhões de euros à indústria do armamento, com o montante a ser repartido entre os orçamentos nacionais dos países, o orçamento comunitário e o Banco Europeu de Investimentos. A MORTE COMO INVESTIMENTO POR APENAS 800 MIL MILHÕES DE EUROS OU DE DÓLARES TANTO FAZ

luni, 3 martie 2025

TRUMP GOES BANANAS OVER CRYPTO NEXT THE NEW EUROCOIN MORE VIRTUAL THAN THE EURO

vineri, 13 decembrie 2024

E O EURO VAI À VIDA COM AS FINANÇAS FRANCESAS? OU AGUENTA-SE AGUENTA-SE?

joi, 29 octombrie 2015

duminică, 13 septembrie 2015

miercuri, 24 decembrie 2014

COMO GANHAR RUBLOS COM A GRAÇA DO ESPÍRITO SANTO E OUTROS POBREZINHOS É SIMPLEX BASTA JOGAR COM OS NÚMEROS QUE NÃO SEJAM PESSOAS

sâmbătă, 15 martie 2014

THE FIDUCIA WAR'S ARE ON - UKRAINE ARE KAPPUT - LONG LIVE THE IMPERIAL RUBLE IN THE RUBBLE OR THE ROUBLE IN THE RABBLE

Saturday, March 15, 2014

The Finance Macro Canon