ECON Bernanke: Fed May Launch New Round of Stimulus (QE3!) UPDATE: Says Gold Is Not Money.

Digital Omnivore

Veteran Member
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43739458

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Wednesday that a new stimulus program is in the works that will entail additional asset purchases, the clearest indication yet that the central bank is contemplating another round of monetary easing.

aa-Ben-Bernanke-good-illus-in-helicopter-dropping-money.jpg


Bernanke said in prepared remarks that the economy is growing more slowly than expected, and should that continue the central bank stands at the ready with more accommodative measures.

"Once the temporary shocks that have been holding down economic activity pass, we expect to again see the effects of policy accommodation reflected in stronger economic activity and job creation," he said

"However, given the range of uncertainties about the strength of the recovery and prospects for inflation over the medium term, the Federal Reserve remains prepared to respond should economic developments indicate that an adjustment in the stance of monetary policy would be appropriate."

Markets reacted immediately to the remarks, sending stocks up sharply in a matter of minutes. Gold prices continued to surge past record levels, while Treasury yields moved higher as well.

But analysts pointed out that, while Bernanke was suggesting the Fed might add stimulus he also was saying that the current "soft patch" may prove temporary.

political-pictures-ben-bernanke-prayer-frightening.jpg


"The bottom line is that he has to say he will respond if needed, but it seems he's saying it more as lip service than anything because ultimately he still expects that this slowdown was temporary," said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist for RBS Capital Markets in New York.

The Fed recently completed the second leg of its quantitative easing program, buying $600 billion worth of Treasurys in an effort to boost liquidity and get investors to purchase riskier assets.

While stocks rose about 6 percent through the course of the program, nicknamed QE2, economic progress has remained elusive.

Delivering his twice-a-year economic report to Congress, Bernanke laid out three options the central bank would consider.

Bernanke said the Fed could launch another round of Treasury bond buying, the third such effort since 2009. It could cut the interest paid to banks on the reserves they hold as a way to encourage them to lend more.

The Fed could also be more explicit in spelling out just how long it planned to keep rates at record-low levels. That would give investors confidence about the Fed's efforts to continue supporting the economy.

Bernanke maintained that temporary factors, such as high food and gas prices, have slowed the economy. He said those factors should ease in the second half of the year and growth should pick up. But if that forecast proves wrong, he said the Fed is prepared to do more. :screw:

"The possibility remains that the recent economic weakness may prove more persistent than expected and that deflationary risks might reemerge, implying a need for additional policy support," Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee on the first of two days of Capitol Hill testimony.

Bernanke also said it was possible that inflationary pressures spurred by higher energy and food prices may end up being more persistent than the Fed anticipates.

He said that the central bank would be prepared to start raising interest rates faster than currently contemplated, if prices don't moderate.

Bernanke's comments about inflation spoke to concerns expressed by some regional bank presidents at the Fed. They have criticized the Fed's bond-buying program, saying it has increased the risk for higher inflation.

idiocracy_money.jpg


The Fed has kept its key interest rate at a record low near zero since December 2008. Most private economists believe the Fed will not start raising interest rates until next summer. And some say the Fed won't increase rates until 2013, based on the slumping economy.

Minutes to the central bank's June meeting on Tuesday suggested that, while some members were pondering the possible need for additional easing amid a weak economy, the Fed is not yet ready to take any further action.

But the minutes also reflected divisions within the central bank over further easing, and Bernanke's speech provided a further indicator that a QE3 move is far from off the table.

"Even with the federal funds rate close to zero, we have a number of ways in which we could act to ease financial conditions further," Bernanke said.

Bernanke was testifying after the government released a dismal jobs report last week. The economy added just 18,000 jobs last month, the fewest in nine months.

And the May figures were revised downward to show just 25,000 jobs added—fewer than half of what was initially reported. The unemployment rose to 9.2 percent, the highest rate this year.

Companies pulled back sharply on hiring after adding an average of 215,000 jobs per month from February through April.

The economy typically needs to add 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth.

And at least twice that many jobs are needed to bring down the unemployment rate.

At the June meeting, the central bank lowered its economic growth forecast for the second half of the year and said unemployment wouldn't fall below 8.6 percent this year.
 
Last edited:

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
And the destruction of capital; the destruction of jobs; the destruction of the middle class - this all continues.

This SOB needs to be removed from office.
 

almost ready

Inactive
Don't worry about the stock market cheering. Insider selling is now at 3700 to 1 in dollar amounts. It's been in the thousands for over a year -- Maria Bartiromo had a show about this on Christmas Eve after the market closed (luckily it was captured and made the net so some folks could see it).

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ratio-insider-selling-buying-3700-1

This link has a long list of companies and their insiders so you can see that Google is the worst -- click on the list and it will come up on a separate page with a magnififying glass you can click to make it big enough to read. Grab your calculator! This is funny.

We've walked these roads before. See a short, high quality film on two incidents where Europe walked the same econ path it's on now. Nobody has done the same for China. Too bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zvNV-vkEzc
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment
I am of the opinion that if it were not for 401(k) accounts the stock market would have collapsed long ago. I have no idea if that is correct but does have verisimilitude.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Troke, the stock markets don't collapse anymore for two reasons:

1) the PPT will make sure they don't

2) Most companies now manufacture and sell a majority of their products off-shore. If the US economy collapsed completely, most of the companies would be fine.
 

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
http://biiwii.blogspot.com/2009/11/gold-is-my-enemy-paul-volcker.html

Wednesday, November 18, 2009
"Gold is my enemy" --Paul Volcker

From the Kudlow show... Rick Santelli recalls Paul Volcker thusly: "I can't remember the exact quote but when I used to trade and Mr. Volcker was Fed chairman, he said something like 'gold is my enemy, I'm always watching what gold is doing', we need to think why he made a statement like that. If you're a central banker or one of the congressmen or senators, watch what gold is doing because this is a no-confidence vote in fiscal and dollar policy.'

You know Greenspan, the former gold bug, was obsessed with what gold was doing. Are the myopic academics running the show today tuned in? Do they - perish the thought - actually want a gold bubble; the 'final bubble' as I have called it over the years? There's only one asset (the monetary one) in new high, blue sky territory. Stay tuned.
 

Digital Omnivore

Veteran Member
Don't worry about the stock market cheering. Insider selling is now at 3700 to 1 in dollar amounts. It's been in the thousands for over a year -- Maria Bartiromo had a show about this on Christmas Eve after the market closed (luckily it was captured and made the net so some folks could see it).

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ratio-insider-selling-buying-3700-1

This link has a long list of companies and their insiders so you can see that Google is the worst -- click on the list and it will come up on a separate page with a magnififying glass you can click to make it big enough to read. Grab your calculator! This is funny.

We've walked these roads before. See a short, high quality film on two incidents where Europe walked the same econ path it's on now. Nobody has done the same for China. Too bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zvNV-vkEzc

Speaking strictly for Google and Apple, if I worked for those companies and I had stock options, I'd get out too. It just makes good sense, especially with Apple because the ramp up has been crazy.
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
Gold is an enemy of the bankers/economists/government. Paper makes their world go round. They print paper make you believe it is as good as gold and when you exchange your labor (if your employed) for paper it becomes valuable.

They can print more or less at the direction of economists and bankers to cool or speed up the economy. Need more money for a war, print it!

They will tell you gold is evil, it pays no interest, costly to store. It doesn't circulate through the economy, it's only good for jewelry. You are anti-american economic terrorist if you have some! You are harming the country if you have a few gold coins. But but how come the US government mint makes gold & silver coins for sale and they are extremely popular? Maybe those who have them have some magpie dna and are just attracted to shiny things eh?
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
I am of the opinion that if it were not for 401(k) accounts the stock market would have collapsed long ago. I have no idea if that is correct but does have verisimilitude.

401K accounts and Public Employee Retirement Funds.

They are taking that money from people through inflation.
 

almost ready

Inactive
Troke, the stock markets don't collapse anymore for two reasons:

1) the PPT will make sure they don't

2) Most companies now manufacture and sell a majority of their products off-shore. If the US economy collapsed completely, most of the companies would be fine.

The big risk for the Obama administration is that the dollar will rise. Most of the "profits" of the "recovery" are nothing but notional differences between the foreign currencies where the multinational corps' stuff is sold, and the falling US dollar. The profits appear to be bigger because the dollar is smaller. It's the same pizza, but we're counting 20 pieces instead of 8.

Bernanke effectively promised that this charade will go on as long as he is able. More importantly, the euro is up against the dollar because of this, so it looks like they might carry it off through the next election cycle.

Or until the next shock.
 

Digital Omnivore

Veteran Member
The big risk for the Obama administration is that the dollar will rise. Most of the "profits" of the "recovery" are nothing but notional differences between the foreign currencies where the multinational corps' stuff is sold, and the falling US dollar.

Yup, and panic in the Eurozone was driving investors from the Euro to the Dollar before this public statement by Bernake.
 

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_01/howe082201.html

Here's a rather technical ditty on Gibson's Paradox - I isolated the conclusion at the bottom of this post:

Judicial Holding Pattern: Giving the Defendants Plenty of Rope

Due in no small measure to articles he wrote as a young economist, especially his 1966 essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" (reprinted in A. Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal), Fed chairman Alan Greenspan is widely recognized as quite an authority on gold. Far less widely known are professional articles on gold by another young economist who also went on to serve until quite recently in some of the nation's top economic policy positions.

Not long before joining the new Clinton administration as undersecretary of the treasury for international affairs, Harvard president and former treasury secretary Lawrence H. Summers, then Nathaniel Ropes professor of political economy at Harvard, co-authored with Robert B. Barsky an article entitled "Gibson's Paradox and the Gold Standard" published in the Journal of Political Economy (vol. 96, June 1988, pp. 528-550). The article, which appears to draw heavily on a 1985 working paper of the same title by the same authors, is an excellent technical piece, revealing a high level of expertise regarding gold, gold mining, and the interconnections among gold prices, interest rates, and inflation.

Indeed, for any administration concerned that the bond vigilantes on Wall Street might thwart its economic policies by pushing up long-term rates at inopportune times, the article is must reading and qualifies its authors as attractive candidates for government service. Of even more interest looking at the Clinton administration retrospectively, the article provides strong theoretical evidence that since 1995 gold prices have not acted as would normally be expected in a genuine free market, but instead have behaved as if subject to what the authors describe as "government pegging operations."

Lord Keynes gave the name "Gibson's paradox" to the correlation between interest rates and the general price level observed during the period of the classical gold standard. It was, he said, "one of the most completely established empirical facts in the whole field of quantitative economics." J.M. Keynes, A Treatise on Money (Macmillan, 1930), vol. 2, p.198. And it was a paradox because contemporary monetary theory, largely associated with Irving Fisher, suggested that interest rates should move with the rate of change in prices, i.e., the inflation rate or expected inflation rate, rather than the price level itself. Yet when Keynes wrote, data for the prior two centuries showed that the yield on British consols (government securities issued at a fixed rate of interest but with no redemption date) had moved in close correlation with wholesale prices but almost no correlation to the inflation rate.

Economists have long tried to find a theoretical explanation for Gibson's paradox. Professors Summers and Barsky provide the following executive summary of their contribution to this debate (at 528):

A shock that raises the underlying real rate of return in the economy reduces the equilibrium relative price of gold and, with the nominal price of gold pegged by the authorities, must raise the price level. The mechanism involves the allocation of gold between monetary and nonmonetary uses. Our explanation helps to resolve some important anomalies in previous work and is supported by empirical evidence along a number of dimensions.

They begin their article with an examination (at 530-539) of the data supporting the existence of Gibson's paradox, concluding that it was "primarily a gold standard phenomenon" (at 530) that applies to real rates of return. Regression analysis of the classical gold standard period, 1821-1913, shows a close correlation between long-term interest rates and the general price level. The correlation is not as strong for the pre-Napoleonic era, 1730-1796, when Britain effectively adhered to the gold standard but many other nations did not, and "completely breaks down during the Napoleonic war period of 1797-1820, when the gold standard was abandoned" (at 534).

Nor is the evidence of Gibson's paradox as strong for the period of the interwar gold exchange standard, 1921-1938, which was marked by active central bank management and restrictions on gold convertibility. Following World War II, the correlation weakened substantially under the Bretton Woods system, and "[t]he complete disappearance of Gibson's paradox by the early 1970s coincides with the final break with gold at that time" (at 535).

With the nominal price of gold fixed, Barsky and Summers note (at 529) that "the general price level is the reciprocal of the price of gold in terms of goods. Determination of the general price level then amounts to the microeconomic problem of determining the relative price of gold." For this, they develop a simple model (at 539-543) that assumes full convertibility between gold and dollars at a fixed parity, fully flexible prices for goods and services, and fixed exchange rates.

Next, they examine the response of the model to changes in the available real rate of return. In this connection, they observe (at 539): "Gold is a highly durable asset, and thus ... it is the demand for the existing stock, as opposed to the new flow, that must be modeled. The willingness to hold the stock of gold depends on the rate of return available on alternative assets." With respect to the gold stock, the model distinguishes between bank reserves (monetary gold under the gold standard) and nonmonetary gold, principally jewelry.

Summarizing the mathematical formulas of the model, Barsky and Summers make two key points. The first (at 540):

The price level may rise or fall over time depending on how the stock of gold, the dividend function [formulaic abbreviation omitted] and the demand for money [formulaic abbreviation omitted] evolve over time. Secular increases in the demand for monetary and nonmonetary gold caused by rising income levels tend to create an upward drift in the real price of gold, that is secular deflation. Tending to offset this effect would be gold discoveries and technological innovations in mining such as the cyanide process.

And the second (at 542):

The economic mechanism is clear. Increases in real interest rates raise the carrying cost of nonmonetary gold, reducing the demand for it. They also reduce the demand for monetary gold as long as money demand is interest elastic. The resulting reduction in the real price of gold is equivalent to an increase in the general price level.

Because the model is "essentially a theory of the relative price of gold," Barsky and Summers postulate (at 543) that "an important test of the model is to see how well it accounts for movements in the relative price of gold (and other metals) outside the context of the gold standard." They continue (id.):

The properties of the inverse relative prices of metals today ought to be similar to the properties of the general price level during the gold standard years. We focus on the period from 1973 to the present, after the gold market was sufficiently free from government pegging operations and from limitations on private trading for there to be a genuine "market" price of gold.

And they conclude (at 548):

The price level under the gold standard behaved in a fashion very similar to the way the reciprocal of the relative price of gold evolves today. Data from recent years indicate that changes in long-term real interest rates are indeed associated with movements in the relative price of gold in the opposite direction and that this effect is a dominant feature of gold price fluctuations.

In other words, the bottom line of their analysis is that gold prices in a free market should move inversely to real interest rates. Under the gold standard, higher prices meant that an ounce of gold purchased fewer goods, i.e., the relative price of gold fell. Since under the Gibson paradox long-term interest rates moved with the general price level, the relative price of gold moved inversely to long-term rates. Assuming, as Barsky and Summers assert, that the Gibson paradox operates in a truly free gold market as it did under the gold standard, gold prices will move inversely to real long-term rates, falling when rates rise and rising when they fall.

To test this proposition, particularly for the period after 1984 not covered by Barsky and Summers in their 1988 article, Nick Laird has constructed the following chart at my request. Nick is the proprietor of www.sharelynx.net, which offers an excellent collection of charts relating to gold and financial matters, and I am most grateful for his assistance. The chart plots average monthly gold prices on the inverted right scale, i.e., higher prices at the bottom. Real long-term rates are plotted on the left scale. They are defined as the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond yield minus the annualized increase in the Consumer Price Index (calculated as the sum of the monthly CPI increases for the preceding twelve months).

As the chart shows, Gibson's paradox continued to operate for another decade after the period covered by Barsky and Summers. But sometime around 1995, real long-term interest rates and inverted gold prices began a period of sharp and increasing divergence that has continued to the present time. During this period, as real rates have declined from the 4% level to near 2%, gold prices have fallen from $400/oz. to around $270 rather than rising toward the $500 level as Gibson's paradox and the model of it constructed by Barsky and Summers indicates they should have.

The historical evidence adduced by Barsky and Summers leaves but one explanation for this breakdown in the operation of Gibson's paradox: what they call "government pegging operations" working on the price of gold. What is more, this same evidence also demonstrates that absent this governmental interference in the free market for gold, falling real rates would have led to rising gold prices which, in today's world of unlimited fiat money, would have been taken as a warning of future inflation and likely triggered an early reversal of the decline in real long-term rates.

Other analysts have noted the inverse relationship between real rates and gold prices. An interesting and informative recent article along these lines is Adam Hamilton's Real Rates and Gold, which makes reference to a 1993 Federal Reserve study containing the following statement: "The Fed's attempts to stimulate the economy during the 1970s through what amounted to a policy of extremely low real interest rates led to steadily rising inflation that was finally checked at great cost during the 1980s."

The low real long-term interest rates of the past few years may have been engineered with far more sophistication than those of a generation ago, including the coordinated and heavy use of both gold and interest rate derivatives. By demonstrating that falling real long-term rates will lead to rising gold prices absent government interference in the gold market, Barsky and Summers underscore the futility of trying to control the former without also controlling the latter. But they do not provide a model for successful long-term suppression of gold prices in the face of continued low real rates.

What they do indicate (at 548), however, is that their model of Gibson's paradox accords only a "minimal role [to] new gold discoveries" and fails to account fully for shifts between monetary and nonmonetary gold. As they note (at 546-548), the fraction of the total gold stock held in nonmonetary form during the gold standard era was substantial, perhaps exceeding one-half, and the fraction varied over time. Also (at 548), "the post-1896 rise in prices, after more than two decades of deflation, is usually attributed to gold discoveries in combination with the development of the cyanide process for extraction."

Accordingly, they conclude (at 548-549) that their "proposed resolution of the Gibson paradox cannot be the whole answer" and that determination of "the quantitative importance of the mechanism in this paper would require better methods for proxying movements in the stocks of monetary and nonmonetary gold, and this might be an appropriate topic for further research." The unusual and sharp divergence of real long-term interest rates from inverted gold prices that began in 1995 suggests that Mr. Summers found an opportunity to do some further applied research on these matters during his tenure at the Treasury.

Both the heavy use of forward selling by mining companies and the World Gold Council's obsession with promoting gold as jewelry to the near exclusion of its historic monetary role appear designed to exploit the conceded points of vulnerability in the operation of the model. Viewed in this light, these two novel and distinguishing features of the post-1995 gold market appear less accidental and more as the handmaidens of the government price-fixing operations that the model reveals.

At the time of his appointment, Professor Summers was the youngest tenured professor in Harvard's modern history. On Friday, October 12, 2001, in outdoor ceremonies in Tercentenary Theatre, he will be formally installed as its 27th president, entrusted with the job of leading the nation's oldest university -- where "Veritas" is the motto -- into the new millennium. Three days earlier, in Courtroom No. 11 of the new U.S. Courthouse on Boston Harbor, the search for the truth about his interim service in the highest positions at the U.S. Treasury will resume.

Judge Lindsay has scheduled a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss for Tuesday, October 9, at 3:30 p.m. The underlying issue in that proceeding is whether the Constitution and laws of the United States may be enforced in a federal court action challenging the authority of Mr. Summers and other American officials, working at least in part through the Bank for International Settlements, to conduct the surreptitious and illegal gold price-fixing operations exposed even by his own academic research.

Reg Howe
row@ix.netcom.com
http://www.goldensextant.com

August 22, 2001

And this is the important conclusion of Gibson's Paradox and this piece:

In other words, the bottom line of their analysis is that gold prices in a free market should move inversely to real interest rates.

Thus, to prop up the value of the dollar, it is necessary to depress the price of gold - which the bankster's have done in spades!

Bernanke knows the truth: that gold is money and that Bernanke is a counterfeiter
 

almost ready

Inactive
Obama's start has gone up a couple of notches. He can do a tap dance better than any other pols. His shuck and jive on the road is next to none.

He'll be singing and dancing that we now have 20 pieces of pizza instead of the eight we had when he took office. Never mind that it's the same darn pizza. The MSM will sing the oooh baby baby oooh in the back ground.

Never mind that import prices in the USA are up 13.6% year over year

The trick of the MSM is convincing us that the import prices are somebody else's fault, while the increase in global corp profits (nominally priced in dollars) are the genius of the democratic administration policies, instead of admitting that they are the two sides of the same QE coin.

Finger-pointing is a speciality of these guys, so they might just carry it off.

link to the bad news on imports, which is no worse than last month's news:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us...first-sequential-drop-june-2010-136-last-year
 

Sysman

Old Geek <:)=
Well, it sure won't be money when the obama administration orders all PMs seized....
Well Mr. Government Agent, I sold all my gold when it hit $550 an ounce...

I doubled my money, so I knew it was time to get out....

Receipts? I threw them out after 7 years...

(Can I lie good or what!)...

:D:D:D:D:D

.
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Bloomberg TV just now reported that Michael Pento, who correctly predicted the high for gold for (I think) the last two years running, has said if QE3 begins gold will hit $2,000. (But that's okay, because "everyone knows" we can't eat it.)
 

Y2kO

Inactive
Bernanke: Says Gold Is Not Money.

The Federal Reserve determines what money is (Congress gave them the power). Gold can be cashed in for the Federal Reserve's version of money at any time. But gold is precious and the Federal Reserve can't fabricate it. They can only paint tungsten bars gold.

Gold keeps governments honest because it cannot be 'printed'. And that's why they hate and fear it.
 

PghPanther

Has No Life - Lives on TB
the real question to ask these baffoons is "what is money".............

I don't think they really know.

If a common barter having an intrinsic value independent of that barter, which can be used to represent an accommulation of resources, services and labor throughout society is the basis for money..........

........well then tell me what declared (fiat) common barter by any government in history has served that purpose better and longer than gold? Most of those fiat currencies don't even have any intrinsic value to begin with.

This guy needs a course in economics 101................
 

Y2kO

Inactive
http://www.gcnlive.com/wp/2011/07/13/25-reasons-to-buy-gold-and-dump-dollars-part-1/
25 Reasons To Buy Gold and Dump Dollars – Part 1

Gold vs. Debt-Based Fiat Money

1. Gold is a tangible financial asset with no bank or government liability. Fiat money is a debt instrument or note that is the liability of a government or bank.

2. Transactions in gold are fully settled. Both parties hold finished goods. There is no outstanding liability. Transactions in fiat money are not settled. One party always holds a note owed by a bank or government.

3. Gold certificates or electronic credits in allocated gold accounts are redeemable in a real, physical asset: gold. Fiat money is not redeemable. While it functions as a medium of exchange, it lacks any backing in terms of real assets.

4. Gold is, at all times, in all places and under all circumstances, universally accepted as money. National currencies are accepted according to agreements that, like any contract, can be breached or made legally void.

5. In extremis, gold is always accepted. In extremis, such as in a time of war, a national currency (or any form of paper money) may not be accepted.
 

TidesofTruth

Veteran Member
Naw why would they do that if it had no value and was worthless?

The point has little to do with the value of the actual PM. The seizure will have to do with control.

I have been saying it for a long time here. PMs are fiat because they made them fiat. Bernake believes they are fiat. Soon the world will understand they are fiat when they are made a bane to own. THEY WILL NOT LET YOU TRADE OUTSIDE THEIR SYSTEM UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH! It is coming.
 
Top