• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FED: Asset Inflation

grip

Light △ Bender
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,086
Reaction score
14,055
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Too Much Asset Inflation | Doug Noland | Safehaven.com

Prolonged Credit Bubbles inflate myriad price levels and fuel atypical (and Bubble-dependent) spending, investing and financial flow patterns. Importantly, the resulting financial and economic Bubbles are sustained only through ongoing Credit inflation and associated asset price inflation. A Credit slowdown exerts downward pressure on inflated price and activity levels. Invariably, declining asset prices become problematic, especially late in the inflationary cycle, as falling price levels incite de-leveraging and risk aversion. Mature Bubbles require ongoing leveraging and risk-embracement - or else. And it is today almost unbelievable that asset Bubble risks are so easily disregarded.

When the mortgage finance Bubble burst in 2008/09, policymakers essentially confronted two alternative courses of policymaking. Washington could have allowed the economy to go through a wrenching de-leveraging and economic adjustment period. Considering the degree of Credit excess and economic maladjustment fomented by the protracted boom, to wean the U.S. (and global) economy from rampant Credit excess would have taken some years.

As one would expect after a massive Credit inflation, the post-Bubble workout period would have featured significant downward pressure on price levels and economic activity. The end result, however, would have been a more balanced economy that produces more, while requiring significantly less ongoing Credit expansion and financial leveraging. There would have been difficult, trying years, although the upshot would have been a sounder economic structure, reduced systemic fragilities and diminished global imbalances. But this scenario was politically unpalatable. Dr. Bernanke spent much of his academic career building a thesis that massive monetary inflation would eliminate much of the traditional downside of bursting Bubbles. What most today refer to as "deflation" I call the inevitable consequence of inflationary Bubbles.

Policymakers, of course, chose scenario #2, resuscitating Credit Bubble dynamics and asset inflation. This involved basically nationalizing mortgage debt; backstopping the financial system; doubling Federal debt in four years; zero rates and inequitable wealth redistribution from savers to borrowers; incentivizing speculation; and the monetization of Trillions of Treasuries and MBS. As it has been throughout history, monetary inflation was viewed as the readily available expedient. The massive shot of federal debt and Fed liquidity supported home prices, inflated stock and bond prices and incentivized financial leveraging. Importantly, monetary and fiscal policy inflated aggregate household incomes, in the process ensuring a resurgent consumer, inflated corporate cash flows and earnings. In short, resuscitating the Credit Bubble and asset inflation was the least painful path to sustaining the Bubble Economy structure and avoiding protracted economic restructuring.

The inflationists fail to appreciate Monetary Disorder's myriad negative consequences. It's the nature of liquidity to gravitate to where it believes it will most benefit from prevailing inflationary forces and dynamics. And with global central banks backstopping the securities markets, liquidity is today further incentivized to play securities inflation as opposed to seeking risky real economy investment returns. Furthermore, I would argue that speculative and inflated asset markets - along with an expanding Great Divergence - only magnifies the uncertainties already inhibiting investment and economic growth for many key economies. On a more micro basis, inflating stock and bond prices prod company managements to boost returns through stock buybacks and dividends - as opposed to hiring and expanding operations.

With the crowd today celebrating the stock market's record run, I warn of a return of Bubble Dysfunction. Despite a troubling global economic backdrop, equity prices have surged to record highs while Credit market risk premiums have collapsed to multiyear lows. Risk markets have appeared to dislocate. And I believe the Fed will rue the day it spurred the flight of savers out of safety and into these markets. The Fed believed encouraging risk-taking would be good for economic recovery, somehow ignoring the clear risk of fueling yet another Bubble.

Well, the Fed is now dealing with historic - and, I believe, precarious - securities market Bubbles. And they're Bubbles that will demand unending QE - or else risk a very problematic Bubble deflation. This is a dysfunctional Bubble that likes good economic news but loves weak data that ensures more monetary inflation for longer. And the greater the Great Divergence - the Greater the Dysfunction - the more the speculator community can leverage and speculate, confident that central banks are trapped by highly speculative markets, weak economies and acute fragilities. I was really, really hoping the Fed, global central banks and international markets wouldn't drift down this troubling path.

Great piece, which I extrapolated the highlighting paragraphs. Is there an upper limit to FED bond buying before "asset inflation" hits the ceiling, possibly devaluing the dollar?
 
Too Much Asset Inflation | Doug Noland | Safehaven.com

Great piece, which I extrapolated the highlighting paragraphs. Is there an upper limit to FED bond buying before "asset inflation" hits the ceiling, possibly devaluing the dollar?

Good article.

One Point: The policies were already in place during the dot.com bubble. But that we are in a govies bubble is so obvious it hurts. Same is true in Europe by the way.
 
Too Much Asset Inflation | Doug Noland | Safehaven.com



Great piece, which I extrapolated the highlighting paragraphs. Is there an upper limit to FED bond buying before "asset inflation" hits the ceiling, possibly devaluing the dollar?

One of the key indicators has always been debt to GDP, with anything over 100% of GDP being a dangerous bubble, which is what made the bubble burst in Spain, Greece and so on. The EU had to buy their debt to prevent the those economies tanking and taking the other EU countries down with them, since they were tied to the Euro.

I haven't looked to verify it, but I keep hearing that our debt to GDP has reached ~100%. And it would appear to be correct based on the article you posted.
 
I looked it up. Our debt to GDP ratio is at 101.6%.

united-states-government-debt-to-gdp.png
 
One of the key indicators has always been debt to GDP, with anything over 100% of GDP being a dangerous bubble, which is what made the bubble burst in Spain, Greece and so on. The EU had to buy their debt to prevent the those economies tanking and taking the other EU countries down with them, since they were tied to the Euro.

I haven't looked to verify it, but I keep hearing that our debt to GDP has reached ~100%. And it would appear to be correct based on the article you posted.

But that "debt bubble" is not a set limit by anything other than what the investors and Markets will accept. Who knows how high they'll let a linchpin economy the world relies keep borrowing?

The question is becoming, if the economy stays flat for several more years will the Markets, rely so much on bond buying that the FED cannot deleverage without causing panic? All they did in 2008 was back up the bad debt with more credit without letting the banks and investors pay their share. I say watch the dollar overseas because you can't continue to pump that much liquidity into the system a bubble effect.
 
Too Much Asset Inflation | Doug Noland | Safehaven.com



Great piece, which I extrapolated the highlighting paragraphs. Is there an upper limit to FED bond buying before "asset inflation" hits the ceiling, possibly devaluing the dollar?

The real estate bubble popping caused massive market value losses to mortgage owners/banks. This reduced the asset value of bank's real estate portfolios and usually they would have had to declare these real estate portfolios at "mark to market" value and as a result would have been short of asset value for their Reserve obligations. They were not forced to "mark to market." This allowed them to stay in business, but what to do with the real estate portfolio? Not to worry, QE provides US Dollars to purchase these portfolios for Fannie Mae and move the losses to the taxpayer. This saved the banks and for that they will give us a deal, ya' know, treat us good. Bullcrap! They taking the cash to high ground while they can. Exchange it for reals, yuan, yen or what have you, methinks? Hurry, before the morons figure out that they'll be holding the bag! That'd be, you and me, bubba.
 
But that "debt bubble" is not a set limit by anything other than what the investors and Markets will accept. Who knows how high they'll let a linchpin economy the world relies keep borrowing?

The question is becoming, if the economy stays flat for several more years will the Markets, rely so much on bond buying that the FED cannot deleverage without causing panic? All they did in 2008 was back up the bad debt with more credit without letting the banks and investors pay their share. I say watch the dollar overseas because you can't continue to pump that much liquidity into the system a bubble effect.

It's called monetizing the debt (printing more money and selling it in the form of bonds) by the Federal Reserve, which devalues the dollar, and can lead to a crash in the value of the dollar, if the bond market gets tired of it. The bonds are auctioned off by the Fed. At the auction, the buyers bid on the rate of interest, not the bonds themselves. It isn't set by the Fed. When the interest rates get too high, the Fed may have to limit the sale of bonds, which will cause trouble in itself.

This is the slippery slope that many economists are warning against more and more.
 
The real estate bubble popping caused
massive market value losses to mortgage owners/banks. This reduced the asset value of bank's real estate portfolios and usually they would have had to declare these real estate portfolios at "mark to market" value and as a result would have been short of asset value for their Reserve obligations. They were not forced to "mark to market." This allowed them to stay in business, but what to do with the real estate portfolio? Not to worry, QE provides US Dollars to purchase these portfolios for Fannie Mae and move the losses to the taxpayer. This saved the banks and for that they will give us a deal, ya' know, treat us good. Bullcrap! They taking the cash to high ground while they can. Exchange it for reals, yuan, yen or what have you, methinks? Hurry, before the morons figure out that they'll be holding the bag! That'd be, you and me, bubba.

You have NO IDEA of what you're talking about.

FIRST the Fed is buying Fannie and Freddie's trash " AAA" debt and putting it on their books.

Second as you whine about TARP, Fannie andbFreddie were taken into Conservtorship in 2008 because they were INSOLVENT and had portfolio's filled with trash securities and loans valued at 5.6 TRILLION dollars.

TARP, a drop in the bucket compared to the debt that came from the only two financial entities charged with securities fraud afterbthe sub-prime collpase.

After the bottom dropped out fannie and freddie held 19.2 million out of 27 sub-prime loans made from 1994 to 2008.

Blame the banks ? Nonsense.
 
One of the key indicators has always been debt to GDP, with anything over 100% of GDP being a dangerous bubble, which is what made the bubble burst in Spain, Greece and so on. The EU had to buy their debt to prevent the those economies tanking and taking the other EU countries down with them, since they were tied to the Euro.

I haven't looked to verify it, but I keep hearing that our debt to GDP has reached ~100%. And it would appear to be correct based on the article you posted.

It is about 107% per the debt clock, but we probably can safely run to $30T in debt, but nowhere beyond, and we have a lot of unfunded liabilities beyond $30T--close to $100T more.
 
It is about 107% per the debt clock, but we
probably can safely run to $30T in debt, but nowhere beyond, and we have a lot of unfunded liabilities beyond $30T--close to $100T more.


Its Liberal budgeting.

Reminds me of Californias assertion that they're running a " surplus" as they fail to fund their 400 million dollar unfunded teachers pension.
 
Its Liberal budgeting.

Reminds me of Californias assertion that they're running a " surplus" as they fail to fund their 400 million dollar unfunded teachers pension.

Or that red states are "welfare" states when California has more people on welfare than many states have people.
 
It is about 107% per the debt clock, but we probably can safely run to $30T in debt, but nowhere beyond, and we have a lot of unfunded liabilities beyond $30T--close to $100T more.

Where do you get your info about being safe up to $30T?

And the debt I was talking about was Gross Debt held widely. The other debt you refer to is held closely by US markets, banks, companies and industry in the US, who have a vested interest (no pun intended) in holding as much debt as possible. But they are about tapped out.
 
Where do you get your info about being safe up to $30T?

And the debt I was talking about was Gross Debt held widely. The other debt you refer to is held closely by US markets, banks, companies and industry in the US, who have a vested interest (no pun intended) in holding as much debt as possible. But they are about tapped out.

almost makes you wish for some genius hacker to create a virus that erases all previous debt.
 
Where do you get your info about being safe up to $30T?

And the debt I was talking about was Gross Debt held widely. The other debt you refer to is held closely by US markets, banks, companies and industry in the US, who have a vested interest (no pun intended) in holding as much debt as possible. But they are about tapped out.

Just a number I have heard thrown out before on the likes of bloomberg, and various financial shows. The $5T in intergovernmental holdings really could be cancelled if we so desire since it is a budget place-keeper more so than actual debt.
 
Or that red states are "welfare" states when California has more people on welfare than many states have people.

Maybe because California is the most populous state?

Jesus, you must have got this from the discredited NR article last year.

In any case Fenton's weird fixation with California is a typical conservative meme. In fact the California economy is roaring back (after raising taxes) thanks to Brown's progressive leadership after the debacle of Schwartzenegger's conservative debacle. I doubt California's ever elect a GOP governor again, The Senate and Assembly will never have GOP majority again (indeed, it has a Democratic supermajority now, which appears safe for the foreseeable future).

And that's why the state has the largest GDP of any US state, and is about 15th in the world.

But I love the "unfunded" pension meme. Always a hit with conservatives.
 
TARP, a drop in the bucket compared to the debt that came from the only two financial entities charged with securities fraud afterbthe sub-prime collpase.

Do you understand the difference between securities fraud and mortgage fraud?

After the bottom dropped out fannie and freddie held 19.2 million out of 27 sub-prime loans made from 1994 to 2008.

Another bit of nonsense. You took the AEI opinion piece at face value without considering what or how they came up with the 19.2 million figure. If you count every mortgage that was not prime or jumbo, the 19.2 million figure is easy to ascertain. However, if you stick to MBA definition of sub-prime, as did the GAO did in 2009, you come up with something much smaller.

spaal.webp

Why continue to push the Ed Pinto garbage is beyond me.
 
Do you understand the difference between securities fraud and mortgage fraud?



Another bit of nonsense. You took the AEI opinion piece at face value without considering what or how they came up with the 19.2 million figure. If you count every mortgage that was not prime or jumbo, the 19.2 million figure is easy to ascertain. However, if you stick to MBA definition of sub-prime, as did the GAO did in 2009, you come up with something much smaller.

View attachment 67155836

Why continue to push the Ed Pinto garbage is beyond me.

Oh, I would much rather take the only two financial entities charged with securities fraud and their apologist word for it rather than their ex- executives who want to clear the air.

Has Fannie, as of yet offered up a line by line accounting of all their debt Kush ?

One thing is clear, when Democrats are involved, the truth eventually washes out, and its as bad as can be imagined.

Ex: Obama-Care

I bet they're far worse off than you make them out to be.

I mean honestly, you're telling me mortgages purchased with 0-3% down and with flexible underwriting were good investments ?

( Jamie Gorelick's definition of CRA loans, not mine )

Fannie from 2002 to 2005 purchased over a Trillion in CRA loans alone.

By definition they ARE Sub-Prime and you're using data supplied by the two most corrupt entities involved in the Sub-Prime Collapse to make your arguments.

When they've offered a complete accounting of all of their debt, then you can make your argument, but Democrats are in charge and they're lying scum typically.

Who'll hide in their spider holes, blame Bush and hope no one starts digging for information.

Its what they did from 2001 to 2008 as they defended Fannie and Freddie from regulatory prying.
 
Oh, I would much rather take the only two financial entities charged with securities fraud and their apologist word for it rather than their ex- executives who want to clear the air.

Has Fannie, as of yet offered up a line by line accounting of all their debt Kush ?

One thing is clear, when Democrats are involved, the truth eventually washes out, and its as bad as can be imagined.

Ex: Obama-Care

I bet they're far worse off than you make them out to be.

I mean honestly, you're telling me mortgages purchased with 0-3% down and with flexible underwriting were good investments ?

( Jamie Gorelick's definition of CRA loans, not mine )

Fannie from 2002 to 2005 purchased over a Trillion in CRA loans alone.

By definition they ARE Sub-Prime and you're using data supplied by the two most corrupt entities involved in the Sub-Prime Collapse to make your arguments.

When they've offered a complete accounting of all of their debt, then you can make your argument, but Democrats are in charge and they're lying scum typically.

Who'll hide in their spider holes, blame Bush and hope no one starts digging for information.

Its what they did from 2001 to 2008 as they defended Fannie and Freddie from regulatory prying.

You apparently don't know either what subprime means, nor what CRA did. The latter simply involved lending money to qualified borrowers who in the past were discriminated against because of zip code (i.e., they were nonwhite). It's rather amusing to watch you dance around this issue when the gist of your argument is that it was good that banks discriminated against qualified minority borrowers.

By the way, every study (including Fed studies) show that CRA defaults were pretty much in line with the percentage of defaults in general (if not lower).
 
You apparently don't know either what subprime means, nor what CRA did. The latter simply involved lending money to qualified borrowers who in the past were discriminated against because of zip code (i.e., they were nonwhite). It's rather amusing to watch you dance around this issue when the gist of your argument is that it was good that banks discriminated against qualified minority borrowers.

Now that's just a blatantly ignorant statement HOJ.

But I'll ignore your naivete for the time being and I want to focus on your statement that California's economy.....LOL !!!!... was " ROARING BACK"

Lol !!! Hey does that mean they're going to fund their teachers pension ????

From Moody's Investor Service... " California’s long-term debt is still well above the national median by all indicators considered. Per capita debt is over double the national average of $1,074. Debt as a percentage of personal income and debt as a percentage of GDP are both above five percent, also double the national average "

From a CBS report... " actual debt numbers for California between $848 billion and $1.1 trillion. The report accounted for debt from K-12 public schools, city government, county government and special districts debt, unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, and the interest on those liabilities. Furthermore, California owes the federal government over $10 billion in unemployment-insurance payments "

So what industries are "roaring back " ? Hollywood ? Their Porn industry ? Lol !!!

Jesus man, your opinion doesn't hold any weight around here, and that's just what you offered up.

We're on to you, have been for some time.
 
Now that's just a blatantly ignorant statement HOJ.

But I'll ignore your naivete for the time being and I want to focus on your statement that California's economy.....LOL !!!!... was " ROARING BACK"

Lol !!! Hey does that mean they're going to fund their teachers pension ????

From Moody's Investor Service... " California’s long-term debt is still well above the national median by all indicators considered. Per capita debt is over double the national average of $1,074. Debt as a percentage of personal income and debt as a percentage of GDP are both above five percent, also double the national average "

From a CBS report... " actual debt numbers for California between $848 billion and $1.1 trillion. The report accounted for debt from K-12 public schools, city government, county government and special districts debt, unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, and the interest on those liabilities. Furthermore, California owes the federal government over $10 billion in unemployment-insurance payments "

So what industries are "roaring back " ? Hollywood ? Their Porn industry ? Lol !!!

Jesus man, your opinion doesn't hold any weight around here, and that's just what you offered up.

We're on to you, have been for some time.

I love the anti-California meme. It's so predictable.

From the Marxist propaganda rag, Business Times.


California economic recovery leads nation

The Bay Area is leading the economic rebound in California, and the state is leading the nation in recovery, according to the UCLA Anderson Forecast released Thursday.
California economic recovery leads nation - San Francisco Business Times
 
It's called monetizing the debt (printing more money and selling it in the form of bonds) by the Federal Reserve, which devalues the dollar, and can lead to a crash in the value of the dollar, if the bond market gets tired of it. The bonds are auctioned off by the Fed. At the auction, the buyers bid on the rate of interest, not the bonds themselves. It isn't set by the Fed. When the interest rates get too high, the Fed may have to limit the sale of bonds, which will cause trouble in itself.

This is the slippery slope that many economists are warning against more and more.

This is what I've been predicting for 2 years now that if the investors overseas start selling bonds the dollar will go kaput against global currencies. We can stop a few hard runs but a sustained avalanche of panic would be a game changer. Though they're so invested in our economy, assets, real estate and culture that they'd have to start deleveraging and divesting themselves out of the American system. As BRIC and the third world began to expand with emerging economies the last decade and buying into America they've been covering the evidence that we're actually shrinking in real value. But I don't think the world will pull away from us suddenly it will come in burps and belches. There will be another Market reset in the next year or so from lower than expected corporate earnings. They've cut inventories, employees and overhead as much as they can to keep up profit margins but eventually the lack of sales will catch up.
 
Oh, I would much rather take the only two financial entities charged with securities fraud and their apologist word for it rather than their ex- executives who want to clear the air.

Has Fannie, as of yet offered up a line by line accounting of all their debt Kush ?

One thing is clear, when Democrats are involved, the truth eventually washes out, and its as bad as can be imagined.

Ex: Obama-Care

I bet they're far worse off than you make them out to be.

I mean honestly, you're telling me mortgages purchased with 0-3% down and with flexible underwriting were good investments ?

( Jamie Gorelick's definition of CRA loans, not mine )

Fannie from 2002 to 2005 purchased over a Trillion in CRA loans alone.

By definition they ARE Sub-Prime and you're using data supplied by the two most corrupt entities involved in the Sub-Prime Collapse to make your arguments.

When they've offered a complete accounting of all of their debt, then you can make your argument, but Democrats are in charge and they're lying scum typically.

Who'll hide in their spider holes, blame Bush and hope no one starts digging for information.

Its what they did from 2001 to 2008 as they defended Fannie and Freddie from regulatory prying.

So instead of addressing anything i stated, you chose to double down with redefining risk parameters of mortgage lending to suit your political agenda. There were never 19 million subprime loans created within the dates stated, and you were just too quick to regurgitate the first argument to bash GSE's without investigating its validity. It must be amateur hour. You will not be able to find a single empirical study that supports your position nor have you addressed my previous statement regarding the very same subject in a different thread. It's just the same old song and dance, only in a different thread.
 
I love the anti-California meme. It's so predictable.


From the Marxist propaganda rag, Business Times.


California economic recovery leads nation - San Francisco Business Times

LOL !!!

Did you actually READ that nonsense ?

Using a average unemployment rate of 8.9% it will "lead the nation " in job growth ?

Are you kidding me ??

Using that one metric of 8.9% jobs growth and not factoring in DEBT and billions in unfunded liabillities, you're refering to THAT as a economy thats " roraring back ".

Do you understand now why no one takes you seriously ?
 
So instead of addressing anything i
stated, you chose to double down with redefining risk parameters of mortgage lending to suit your political agenda. There were never 19 million subprime loans created within the dates stated, and you were just too quick to regurgitate the first argument to bash GSE's without investigating its validity. It must be amateur hour. You will not be able to find a single empirical study that supports your position nor have you addressed my previous statement regarding the very same subject in a different thread. It's just the same old song and dance, only in a different thread.

I did address your comment by pointing out that you're qualifying those mortgages as NOT sub-prime based on Fannie and Freddies own subjective standards and even some of your own.

FFS go read the SEC report.

Your'e making **** up to defend the indefensable, massive corruption on a unprecedented scale by Democrats.

Democrats LIE, and its why I don't use the same definitions of Sub-Prime that allowed for the first time in GSE history for the charge of securities fraud to be levied against F and F.

I get you're trying to defend your ideology but personally I think you should dump your allegiance to that corrupt political party and start using truth to guide your way.

You are always in defense mode if you havn't noticed, mitigating away obvious failure and corruption and sooner or later the true value of Fannie and Freddie's massive debt will be released.

And you'll be in here trying to spin it.
 
Back
Top Bottom