Two Plus Two Newer Archives - borodog's mistaken understanding of M3...don't listen to his drivel

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Politics (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)

- - borodog's mistaken understanding of M3...don't listen to his drivel (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=547369)

borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

hi folks,

i'd just like to point out a huge mistake that borodog made regarding the publication of M3.

here is a post he made in BFI about the "important" statistic M3:

[ QUOTE ]
The important number is not the total of physical cash, but the total of fiduciary instruments, M3:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...nited_Stat.png

Before the Fed stopped reporting M3 (supposedly because it "cost too much" to measure; this from the people who can create money), M3 was expanding at about 15% per year.

[/ QUOTE ]

notice especially the snide remark at the end about the fed "supposedly" not publishing it anymore b/c it costs too much.

well, the problem here is that M3 contains something called repurchase agreements.

these financial derivatives do not link to the real economy like the measures of M1 and M2 and thus don't correlate at all with any lag you choose to price changes. importantly, M2 DOES communicate good info about both the rate at which borrowing is readily available to US consumers and teh rate at which they take advantage of this borrowing. that is a major issue since the increase in M2 coincides very nicely with the decline of savings in the US.

the main reason M3 departs from M2 from 1995-2007 is the increasing use of repurchase agreements by hedge funds and financial institutions as a means to generate leverage.

specifically, my old fund i worked for, which had $170billion under management, used repos increasingly as it accumulated capital from both capital stock appreciation and increased investor deposits.

it would create investment opportunities for clients by allowing them to choose the product they wanted and then "tuning" the risk level using various degrees of leverage.

since bonds, especially the shallow TIPS and int'l IL bond markets, have low volatility, they require large leverage to hit that risk target relative to already risky securities. in the case of TIPS, that leverage isn't available in liquid futures markets so it has to be taken in the repo market (which shows up increasingly in M3). further, my old employer is just a drop in the bucket since the notional value of repos exceeds, by many multiples, the actual face value of the bonds on which they are taken. many other hedge funds and massive financial institutions (citigroup et. al.) use repos and have used them increasingly since the early-mid 1990's when they were popularized.

as the use of repos increased, the usefulness of M3 decreased.

the fed hasn't used M3 at all in monetary policy for a while because of this and other issues.

one other issue, which plays a much smaller role, is the eurodollar deposits.

these deposits, despite actually being dollars available for investment, typically aren't used by those consuming in dollars as an extra interest rate acheived by investing in dollars deposited in other country's banks. they are typically used as hedging instruments by european and american banks far more in proportional terms relative to normal dollar deposits and credit taken out in dollars in the US or abroad THROUGH the US (i.e. bonds issued in dollars by foreign institutions in the US).

EDIT: eurodollars are also much more readily used in the "carry trade" where lower yielding currencies are sold short and the proceeds invested in higher yielding currencies. durin gthe time period in the chart, the carry trade was increasing concentrated in 4 main currencies after shorting the yen: GBP, AUD, NZD, and USD. this trade was easily accomplished in the eurodollar market since actual US banka ccounts weren't necessary.

i'm not sure whether eurodollar futures contracts or other derivatives on eurodollar rates are included in M3 but if they are, that is a HUUUGE distortion of what M3 communicates.

anyways, i posted this here really to get under borodog's skin since he is so highly regarded here and we have been PMing back and forth in an increasingly insulting tone.

he was foolish enough to reveal to me that his correspondence with me stresses him out whereas it gives me a certain satisfaction. and i promised him i would not leave him alone regarding this mistake he made that others may not be able to accurately notice and explain to his throng of followers and those (like the mises cite) that use the cessation of the M3 publication as ammo against the fed (though i don't care so much about them as i do about discrediting boro)...

...this DESPITE the fact that he has provided a great deal of value to me regarding the austrian theory of economics (something i have communicated to him a number of times). i never would have the appreciation for free markets that i do now, nor the skepticism regarding the business cycle theory in terms of modern day conservative economics i do now. i'm not a full fledge austrian, but nor am i anywhere near a fed lover.

i just try to learn as much as possible about financial market risk and markets in general and am searching for the best opportunity in which to do that.

so here's to you borodog. don't be the pot calling the kettle black with this quote:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know which is more infuriating, your insults or your arrogant confidence in your mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

[ QUOTE ]
the main reason M3 departs from M2 from 1995-2007 is the increasing use of repurchase agreements by hedge funds and financial institutions as a means to generate leverage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

One of the reasons that some mortgage lenders went belly up was that they got margin calls on their repos when MBS disintegrated. Same thing happened to mortgage lenders during LTCM crisis in the 90's.

It should also noted that the Fed is self funding.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

With regards to repurchase agreements -- are those measured in M3 transactions conducted with the FOMC, or between private institutions?

I realize the Fed is a private institution, but you get my drift.

Also the Fed has, I believe, increasingly used Repos to add or subtract liquidity in the financial markets.

I track Fed Repos as they can be a decent gauge of financial conditions and occasionally provide clues into future interest rate policy.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
he was foolish enough to reveal to me that his correspondence with me stresses him out whereas it gives me a certain satisfaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. I don't really understand these fancy M's with numbers after them, but you come across as very "chip on your shoulder" bitter. I don't really buy that you are satisfied about much of anything after reading that post, haha.

Which fund did you work for by the way? One of the 5% that beat the indexes, or one of the 95% that didn't?

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
With regards to repurchase agreements -- are those measured in M3 transactions conducted with the FOMC, or between private institutions?

[/ QUOTE ]

M3 includes the total notional value of repos by both the fed and private institutions.

[ QUOTE ]
I realize the Fed is a private institution, but you get my drift.

Also the Fed has, I believe, increasingly used Repos to add or subtract liquidity in the financial markets.

I track Fed Repos as they can be a decent gauge of financial conditions and occasionally provide clues into future interest rate policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. while i knew the fed used them in FOMC operations, i didn't think they were increasingly anywhere nearly as rapidly as the private financial institution/hedge fund use of them.

further, the fed's use of repos i think are more indicitive of liquidity conditions and the spread between the effective fed funds rate and the target fed funds rate.

what data do you have regarding the increased fed use of repos and future interest rate policy? could it be that those increasing use of repos are actually a proxy for liquidity issues which could capture future monetary policy direction (like it did in the latest crisis).

that is an interesting point though.

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]

these financial derivatives do not link to the real economy like the measures of M1 and M2 and thus don't correlate at all with any lag you choose to price changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before we get into any of this, what are you using to calculate price changes?

[ QUOTE ]
importantly, M2 DOES communicate good info about both the rate at which borrowing is readily available to US consumers and teh rate at which they take advantage of this borrowing. that is a major issue since the increase in M2 coincides very nicely with the decline of savings in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a curious choice of words, since US consumers are far from the only people who hold US dollars. Was this simply a generalization (equating US consumers with dollar holders)?

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he was foolish enough to reveal to me that his correspondence with me stresses him out whereas it gives me a certain satisfaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. I don't really understand these fancy M's with numbers after them, but you come across as very "chip on your shoulder" bitter. I don't really buy that you are satisfied about much of anything after reading that post, haha.

Which fund did you work for by the way? One of the 5% that beat the indexes, or one of the 95% that didn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

i am bitter (at boro) and do have a chip on my shoulder (regarding boro). i thought i made that pretty clear.

i worked for one of the top 3 funds in the world...killing any benchmark for decades.

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

Well your bitterness sure was clear. But I just thought it was funny that you also claimed to get a "certain satisfaction" out of the exchange. I didn't really get that part.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

these financial derivatives do not link to the real economy like the measures of M1 and M2 and thus don't correlate at all with any lag you choose to price changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before we get into any of this, what are you using to calculate price changes?

[/ QUOTE ]

any inflation indicator you choose. typically CPI.

another discussion i've had on these boards is that some (including boro) state the M2 is the best measure of inflation since inflation (in monetary supply terms) is the leading indicator of inflation (in price change terms). if this were the case, then it should be clearly visible
in terms ofa lag between increases in money supply and icnrease in prices.

clearly CPI or any other measure of price changes aren't perfect, or by some standards, good. but they do capture enough to be used in a correlation analysis of M2 --> price changes.

when i spoke about price changes above, i definitely meant in general terms about how money supply flows to inflation.

M3 does not have anywhere NEAR the economic significance as M2 as a result of everything i mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
importantly, M2 DOES communicate good info about both the rate at which borrowing is readily available to US consumers and teh rate at which they take advantage of this borrowing. that is a major issue since the increase in M2 coincides very nicely with the decline of savings in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a curious choice of words, since US consumers are far from the only people who hold US dollars. Was this simply a generalization (equating US consumers with dollar holders)?

[/ QUOTE ]

well they are by and large the largest contributors to M2. it is true that central banks contribute largely to M0 (accounts at, say the PBoC that can be converted to cash readily), but in terms of the marginal contribution to M2, US holders of savings accts, money market accounts and time deposits are by and large the main ones.

the foreign central bank holdings (the biggest contributors to foreign holders)...what i think you are talking about when you speak of "dollar holders", correct me if i'm wrong...is actually relatively small compared to M2 (see the M1 section in the chart boro provided).

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

Barron,

So you are saying that in addition to not knowing jack about history, Boro also doesn't know jack about economics, and that furthermore all of this is the result of his uncritical acceptance of certain writings put out by the Mises Institute? Wow. You would think an academic would be more careful in checking the accuracy of such "information" before putting it forth as a "source" for his arguments.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
Well your bitterness sure was clear. But I just thought it was funny that you also claimed to get a "certain satisfaction" out of the exchange. I didn't really get that part.

[/ QUOTE ]

this thread about borodog's mistake is the satisfaction. that is the exchange. i wasn't trying to hide the bitterness so i'm glad it came accross clearly.

another source of ancillary benefits here though is that i will learn something i'm sure from exchanges with those like tolbiny and others that contribute meaningfully to this thread (like the other guy who responded to tracks fed repos)

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

Dcifrths,

Thanks for posting. I appreciate getting insight from people who understand economics at a high level; it really helps me further my understanding (and clear up my mimsconceptions).

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
Barron,

So you are saying that in addition to not knowing jack about history, Boro also doesn't know jack about economics, and that furthermore all of this is the result of his uncritical acceptance of certain writings put out by the Mises Institute? Wow. You would think an academic would be more careful in checking the accuracy of such "information" before putting it forth as a "source" for his arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, boro does know quite a bit about economics as he's lead me to learn a bunch. i've definitely given him sh*t about all the mises links though and challanged him to reply w/ more independent sources. he did this readily in ONE, precisely ONE occasion and never before or since.

the thread you linked looks dense and not fun for me to read so i'll take your word for it.

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

[ QUOTE ]
Dcifrths,

Thanks for posting. I appreciate getting insight from people who understand economics at a high level; it really helps me further my understanding (and clear up my mimsconceptions).

[/ QUOTE ]

my pleasure. another positive externality of this thread.

this whole thing came about from a poster posting in BFI asking about interest rates in a way that seemed clear to me he/she was indoctrinated. gotta make sure you don't take everything you read at face value...especially from me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

threaded mode b/c that is the last relevant post in the exchange between Boro and myself and the rest of the thread deals with Midge. I hijacked my own thread into AC and then it got hijacked back on topic by others.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
threaded mode b/c that is the last relevant post in the exchange between Boro and myself and the rest of the thread deals with Midge. I hijacked my own thread into AC and then it got hijacked back on topic by others.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't care. stop hijacking my thread!!! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

Barron,

Sorry. But I think an important sub-issue of your thread isn't just the topic in question and Boro's apparent misinformation on same, but also the gospel-like credulity he places in all the writings of the Mises Institute, rather than being more critical of some of them as he should be.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
Barron,

Sorry. But I think an important sub-issue of your thread isn't just the topic in question and Boro's apparent misinformation on same, but also the gospel-like credulity he places in all the writings of the Mises Institute, rather than being more critical of some of them as he should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not posting this to settle other people's beef w/ borodog nor get in the middle of anything therein.

this is about MY beef with him and HIS post about M3 and the incorrectness therein (i love the word therein btw).

so please contribute to this thread without bringing other borohatred in there...espeically when it is not as well founded (i.e. your comment about his lack of understanding of econ. he actually understands econ very well and has taught me some things).

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

[ QUOTE ]
here is a post he made in BFI about the "important" statistic M3:

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

No.

Look's like it's story time.

Not so long ago, in a forum not so far away, a poster made this post:

[ QUOTE ]
When we lower interest rates, the value of the currency goes down, because more money is printed. Right?
 . 
Yet according to "expert statements" I've read today, when the Japanese lower the interest rates, the value of the yen goes up "because the demand for borrowing money in yen goes up".
 . 
What gives?

[/ QUOTE ]

To which Barron von Crazy responded:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When we lower interest rates, the value of the currency goes down, because more money is printed. Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

this sounds like some typical drivel regurgitated from ACists or something (or austrians or whatever group is always commenting on the demise of the dollar). [emphasis added]
 . 
first off, the statement is totally backwards . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Gosh. I wonder who Barron sans Readingcomprehension is talking about there?

He then goes on to explain that it is not the Fed lowering the interest rate that expands the money supply, but rather that they expand the money supply to lower the interest rate.

Meanwhile, I had made a post saying that "printing money" is a figure of speech, and that the money doesn't need to be physically printed to expand the money supply. That's the post that Barron snipped two sentences and a graph out of the middle of. It wasn't "about" M3. Here is the complete, unsnipped post:

[ QUOTE ]
When we say "printing money form nothing", it's a figure of speech. The money doesn't need to be physically printed to expand the money supply. An entry is simply created in an electronic account at the Fed, and then the Fed purchases government securities from special brokers during "Fed Time" in open market operations with that newly created money, via wire transfer I believe (although I'm not sure; the Fed might physically cut a check). Those brokers then deposit those funds in the commercial banks, where they become increased reserves for the banks. If commercial bank reserves are increased by $50B in this manner, the banks can then create up to a total of $500B via loans, by the magic of fractional reserve banking, if the reserve rate is 10% for example. The artificial lowering of the interest rate of course encourages people to take out these loans, which is what actually does most of the expansion of the money supply.
 . 
The important number is not the total of physical cash, but the total of fiduciary instruments, M3:
 . 
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...nited_Stat.png
 . 
Before the Fed stopped reporting M3 (supposedly because it "cost too much" to measure; this from the people who can create money), M3 was expanding at about 15% per year.
 . 
And once again I will point out that artificially lowering the interest rate, which is really the market price for investment funds and hence access to physical resources, causes a misallocation of those physical resources, just as any price cap on any good or service causes a misallocation of that good or service. If you cap the price of mile at $0.25/gallon, people would be bathing in milk and watering their lawns with it, and a shortage would develop. That's what happens to the physical capital stock when the interest rate is artificially capped; productive capacity is misallocated and a shortage develops that is eventually revealed in, and correct by, a recession.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see that what Barron claims he has his panties sucked into his anus about is the fact that I referenced M3 instead of M2, which by his own admission is "just as 'damning' from your point of view." So is this why he's flipped his lid, has been Private Harrassing me, and decided openly troll me in Politics? Because I made a passing remark about the Fed ceasing to publish M3, citing the dubious reasoning that it cost too much to track?

No, of course not.

After the post Barron snipped two sentences and a graph from above, I responded to Barron's "sounds like some typical drivel regurgitated from ACists or . . . austrians" with this post:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this sounds like some typical drivel regurgitated from ACists or something (or austrians or whatever group is always commenting on the demise of the dollar).

first off, the statement is totally backwards.

correctly it should read: when more money is released via open market operations, interest rates fall and then currency falls.

in other words, when the decision to lower rates occurs, more money is injected into the system by open market operations in the NY Fed. this excess money lowers interest rates (lower interest rates doesn't result in more money printed. more money released results in lower interest rates). the value of the currency (all else equal) then goes down, not because more money is "printed" but because the relative demand to hold that currency drops when compared with the other available options.

[/ QUOTE ]
 . 
I like how you claim that the Austrians "regur[g]itate drivel", and then proceed to describe exactly the situation as Austrians describe it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Yet more evidence that you have no idea what the people you scorn are actually saying.
 . 
And you are being slightly disingenuous when you say that "lowering the interest rate increases the money supply" is totally backwards. What is the intent when the Fed increases the money supply? To lower the interest rate, of course. They have an interest rate target, and if the market gets too far away from their target they will inject (or drain) reserves into (or from) the system to try to hit that target.
 . 
The interest rate is the cart. The money supply is just the horse. It might come first, but what it's hauling is what's important from the Fed's point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far from saying something so simple as "Oh, sorry, my bad. I didn't realize that the Austrians describe the situation the same way I do. I misunderstood their position", he tells me, that no, the Austrians don't think that at all:

[ QUOTE ]
the situation exactly as the austrians describe it (i.e. what the OP said) is not how it actually works in reality despite the fact that the result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was this point that he started gibbering about M3, which frankly I couldn't give less of a [censored] about.

Now, at this point, I am, shall we say, pissed. I then made this post, with it's embarrassing overuse of CAPITALIZATION:

[ QUOTE ]
NO. The situation as the Austrians describe is EXACTLY how YOU yourself described it. In other words, you ascribed "drivel" to the Austrians and then went on to explain EXACTLY the situation as the Austrians decsribe it.
 . 
If you BELIEVE the Austrians say anything otherwise then it is YOUR MISTAKE. Which you could CORRECT if you BOTHERED TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT THE STUFF THAT YOU HEAP SCORN ON. YOU have apparently conflated the intent, to lower interest rates, with the mistaken belief that the Austrians believe in a mistaken belief in the direction of cause and effect (lower interest rate inflates money supply), when nothing could be furhter from the truth (the Fed wants to lower interest rates, and hence inflates the money supply to achieve this).
 . 
It boggles my mind that I have to explain the same exact thing to you TWICE because even after you are corrected the first time about it you still claim otherwise. This is like me telling you my favorite color is purple and you saying, "No it isn't, your favorite color is blue!"
 . 
I don't know which is more infuriating, your insults or your arrogant confidence in your mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Followed by this proof that the Austrians correctly describe the manner in which the Fed manipulates the money supply to hit its Fed funds rate target:

[ QUOTE ]
Oh noes! Austrians explaining how the Fed lowers interest rates by expanding the money supply:

[ QUOTE ]
[V]ery briefly: the Fed can control the quantity of reserves held by banks, and thus indirectly can control the price the banks charge each other for lending out reserves. If the Fed thinks banks are charging each other too much for reserves — in other words, if the actual fed funds rate is higher than the target — then the Fed will engage in an "open market operation," buying assets such as US Treasury bonds from banks. The Fed pays for these purchases by adding numbers to the accounts the selling banks have with the Fed.
 . 
This is the precise point of entry for the new money that the Fed creates out of thin air. To repeat: When the Fed buys (say) $1 million in bonds from Bank XYZ, Bank XYZ surrenders ownership of the bonds but sees that its deposits of reserves at the Fed go up by $1 million. But the Fed didn't transfer this money from some other account. No, it simply increased the electronic entry representing Bank XYZ's total reserves on deposit. There is no offsetting debit anywhere in the banking system. Bank XYZ now has $1 million more in reserves, while no other bank has less. Bank XYZ is now free to go out and loan more reserves to other banks, or to make loans to its own customers. (In fact, due to the fractional-reserve system, the bank could make up to $10 million in new loans to customers.) The money supply has increased, putting upward pressure on prices measured in dollars.
 . 
But back to our original theme, the injection of reserves obviously increases their supply and thus (other things equal) pushes down the rate Bank XYZ will charge other banks who might want to borrow reserves from it. The open market operation has thus achieved the Fed's goal of pushing the actual fed funds rate down to the desired target. Of course, going the opposite way, if the actual fed funds rate were too low, the Fed would sell assets to the banks, thereby destroying some of the total reserves in the system.

[/ QUOTE ]
 . 
There are many other examples where the Austrians make it perfectly clear that the Fed manipulates the money supply to hit the Federal funds rate target.
 . 
This of course is all different from the discount rate, which is the rate the Fed itself charges institutions, which it can set to be anything it likes, but since 2003 had been set at 1% point above the fed funds target. But this was slashed to just 0.5% above the fed funds target in September. Plus, since the Fed can now take basically anything as collateral, the interest rate is essentially maxed at the discount rate, since if the actual fed funds rate rises above the discount rate, banks would switch to borrowing from the Fed itself rather than each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, Barron von Flipsout and I have a history of sparky interaction. I fully expect him to continue to miss the point, so I stopped reading the thread. Apparently he spent the next day stewing and bumping the thread (LOL), before sending me a crazy PM where he tried to make out like the point of the tiff was about M3. Uh, WTF? Oh, and he ended his crazy PM with a douchey piece of bait: "sad stuff borodog. i'll eagerly await your reply but won't be at all surprised if i never see one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]"

So I went back and checked the thread. Here is his reply and my reply to it, unsnipped. I will leave it to the reader to decifer this:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this sounds like some typical drivel regurgitated from ACists or something (or austrians or whatever group is always commenting on the demise of the dollar).
 . 
first off, the statement is totally backwards.
 . 
correctly it should read: when more money is released via open market operations, interest rates fall and then currency falls.
 . 
in other words, when the decision to lower rates occurs, more money is injected into the system by open market operations in the NY Fed. this excess money lowers interest rates (lower interest rates doesn't result in more money printed. more money released results in lower interest rates). the value of the currency (all else equal) then goes down, not because more money is "printed" but because the relative demand to hold that currency drops when compared with the other available options.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you claim that the Austrians "reguritate drivel", and then proceed to describe exactly the situation as Austrians describe it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Yet more evidence that you have no idea what the people you scorn are actually saying.
 . 
And you are being slightly disingenuous when you say that "lowering the interest rate increases the money supply" is totally backwards. What is the intent when the Fed increases the money supply? To lower the interest rate, of course. They have an interest rate target, and if the market gets too far away from their target they will inject (or drain) reserves into (or from) the system to try to hit that target.
 . 
The interest rate is the cart. The money supply is just the horse. It might come first, but what it's hauling is what's important from the Fed's point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude. the point is that the OP regurgitated something he read here without understanding the distinction.
 . 
the sound bites and snippets are what i refer to as "drivel"...the situation exactly as the austrians describe it (i.e. what the OP said) is not how it actually works in reality despite the fact that the result is the same.
 . 

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. The situation as the Austrians describe is EXACTLY how YOU yourself described it. In other words, you ascribed "drivel" to the Austrians and then went on to explain EXACTLY the situation as the Austrians decsribe it.
 . 
If you BELIEVE the Austrians say anything otherwise then it is YOUR MISTAKE. Which you could CORRECT if you BOTHERED TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT THE STUFF THAT YOU HEAP SCORN ON. YOU have apparently conflated the intent, to lower interest rates, with the mistaken belief that the Austrians believe in a mistaken belief in the direction of cause and effect (lower interest rate inflates money supply), when nothing could be furhter from the truth (the Fed wants to lower interest rates, and hence inflates the money supply to achieve this).
 . 
It boggles my mind that I have to explain the same exact thing to you TWICE because even after you are corrected the first time about it you still claim otherwise. This is like me telling you my favorite color is purple and you saying, "No it isn't, your favorite color is blue!" [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
 . 
I don't know which is more infuriating, your insults or your arrogant confidence in your mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
 . 
don't you get it. my beef isn't content, it's presentation.
 . 
man you're dense. it boggles my mind that i have to tell you again the content isn't what i'm bothered about.
 . 
the fact that you tell people who aren't as smart/knowledgeable as you that the fed prints money and that printing money devalues the dollar is what i'm talking about. the intent regarding interest rates is clearly the driver, we all know that (we= those who have studied this)...but the literal action isn't the intent and those that get that confused end up like the OP.
 . 
look at the OP's post. THAT is what i'm TALKING about.
the op regurgitated that without having a clue what it actually meant...i.e. DRIVEL:
 . 
[ QUOTE ]
to utter childishly

[/ QUOTE ]
 . 
dictionary definition FTW! those utterances is what i'm heaping scorn upon. i've said in many posts recently that i agree to a large degree with what the austrian school is talking about.
 . 
on another note, i think it is hilarious that you state "the austrians describe it" like their the only ones who know what is going on under the hood. it is common knowledge and on wikipedia (i checked). glad the austrians could clear up what an open market operation is.
 . 
back to above: it is very clear you know i understand the difference between intent and action and i've described it clearly.
 . 
you are a professor so maybe you have a pent up need to:
 . 
[ QUOTE ]
...explain the same exact thing to you TWICE because even after you are corrected the first time about it you still claim otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
 . 
yea. thanks for your explanation. i clearly needed it otherwise i wouldn't have understood the complex workings of the federal reserve lol.
 . 
those who can't do...
 . 
Barron

[/ QUOTE ]
 . 
My God you have reading comprehension problems.
 . 
Let's recap.
 . 
You: "this sounds like some typical drivel regurgitated from ACists or something (or austrians or whatever group is always commenting on the demise of the dollar)."
 . 
What the [censored] does this say in your crazy world? Because in English, it says that you think "ACists" and "austrians" (Gosh, I wonder who that could be around here?) regurgitate ("to vomit, puke, hurl, barf, upchuck") drivel ("childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle").
 . 
So you snidely insult "ACists" and "austrians", like me, and then proceed to contrast their "drivel" with a description of the process that is identical to theirs.
 . 
Then, when I point out that the Austrians describe it exactly the way you did, you claim that, no, they don't:
 . 
You: "the situation exactly as the austrians describe it (i.e. what the OP said) is not how it actually works in reality despite the fact that the result is the same."
 . 
Read this last bit [censored] carefully, and tell me what the [censored] you think it says in your crazy [censored] head, because in my world, it says that you are claiming that "the situation exactly as the austrians describe the situation it is not how it actually works in reality", even though it is identical to your own description of reality.
 . 
Then I point out, AGAIN, that you are wrong. I point out that the Austrians describe exactly the way that you did, and since you apparently needed proof, provided a link. And what do you then do? You claim that oh noes, you didn't mean the "ACists" and the "austrians" were regurgitating drivel when you said "this sounds like some typical drivel regurgitated from ACists . . . or austrians . . . ", and your "beef" isn't "content" it's "presentation". Whatever the [censored] that means.
 . 
And because I am forced to provide a link showing that the Austirans are not "regurgitating drivel", but are instead describing the situation the same way you do, you act like this is somehow claiming that ONLY the Austrians make these claims! All I'm trying to do is prove to a [censored] doorknob on the internet that the Austrians aren't saying anything different from he is and that's supposed to be a claim that they have some exclusive claim on the [censored] obvious???
 . 
I mean, do you even read the stuff you write or respond to? Or think about it before you do? Is it supposed to be my problem if you're [censored] writing things that don't have anything to do with what's in your [censored] head (or so you claim), or reading things that don't have anything to do with what's on the [censored] screen?
 . 
This is my last post in this thread.
 . 
Please. I beg of you. Don't ever respond to one of my posts again. I promise to never, ever, ever post again in BFI. Deal? Pretty please. With a [censored] cherry on top? Mmmk?
 . 
Oh and I got your insulting jerk-off PM. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

After this, he continues to PM me trying to turn it into something about M3 still. I foolishly sent back a PM asking him to stop contacting me, and telling him I thought he was [censored] crazy. To which he responded that he was going to continue to harrass me, and it made him happy that he annoys me. Specifically:

[ QUOTE ]
no thanks buddy.
 
i'm not going to stop.
 
[more crazy [censored] about M3]
 
so no i won't leave you alone. you don't deserve it. i'm glad it stresses you out. that makes me happy.
 
sucker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I know I'm not supposed to post PMs, but hey, seeing as Barron has admitted in the OP that the entire purpose of the OP is to stress me out, I just thought I would back him up.

So what do you my good Politics poster get for all this trouble? A ranting jargon-filled incomprehensible post about . . . M3. Which doesn't have dick to do with jack as far as I'm concerned. I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse.

TL;DR: Barron is crazy.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

Ok, I went over and read that other thread and it became very clear what happened. You were a complete and total douche for no good reason and when Boro started calling you on it, instead of owning up you found something small where he made a mistake in what he was saying and did your best to attack Borodog and try to turn the conversation away from the fact that you were being a complete douche. The "satisfaction" you feel over this is because you were so upset about having to face what a douche you were being and you found a distraction that let you not have to face that. Very satisfying.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

PS.

Barron,

Thanks for illustrating for everyone that you're crazy.

Love,

Borodog

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

boro,

dont clutter this thread with a downplay of your statement. i've heard you say many times over that M3 is the important statistic and use the fact that the fed stopped publishing it as some sort of implication of conspiracy therein.

why not just link the whole thread???

Linky

instead of your snipped out version??

i mean in the 3rd post CF came in and said that you'd come in and correct me that printing is just a euphamism for "released." to which i responded "yup, and he'd be correct."

but the point is that i wanted to correct the DRIVEL spouted (i.e. childish utterances) typically by those indoctrinated by austrians who don't actually understand economics...like the OP in that thread i linked.

also, in terms of your "proof" of how the "austrians" describing the obvious...you really think i didn't know that? lol...

wow, nice proof.

also nice rhetorical job downplaying the point of this post and the tons of posts i made in the other thread (linked in entirety above) about your misunderstanding of M3.

you have said before that the fed ceasing the publications of M3 is damning. do you deny that?

you have said before that the important statistic is M3, NOT M2!!! (i think b/c M3 grew far faster and mises probably uses M3) do you deny that?

didn't think so.

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

pwned imo

But this isn't just a cheerleading post (which I'll admit that I love to make since I know it bugs the [censored] out of dvaut). I really like barron's tactics. Come out on the offensive, make up a story that makes someone look batshit insane, spew it, get some apparatchiks praising your contributions, then disappear. The target then has to spend a crapload of time proving his innocence, building a long post, refuting the slanderous points. The result is so long that nobody will read it and everyone just assumes this is more evidence that the victim is in fact nuts.

Beautiful technique.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I went over and read that other thread and it became very clear what happened. You were a complete and total douche for no good reason and when Boro started calling you on it, instead of owning up you found something small where he made a mistake in what he was saying and did your best to attack Borodog and try to turn the conversation away from the fact that you were being a complete douche. The "satisfaction" you feel over this is because you were so upset about having to face what a douche you were being and you found a distraction that let you not have to face that. Very satisfying.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've owned up to it clearly. i've said i was bitter and it is clear we have a history.

that "small" thing i've called him on he never dealt with.

if me being crazy is holding a large grudge against 1 poster then i'm guilty as charged.

but that one poster has a large following and made this "small" mistake about M3...then tries to say he "meant" to say M2.

boro, if discreting you in one small way makes me crazy...then call me Randle Patrick McMurphy

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
pwned imo

But this isn't just a cheerleading post (which I'll admit that I love to make since I know it bugs the [censored] out of dvaut). I really like barron's tactics. Come out on the offensive, make up a story that makes someone look batshit insane, spew it, get some apparatchiks praising your contributions, then disappear. The target then has to spend a crapload of time proving his innocence, building a long post, refuting the slanderous points. The result is so long that nobody will read it and everyone just assumes this is more evidence that the victim is in fact nuts.

Beautiful technique.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't disappear. nor will i.

i've owned up to being a deuche and am crazy in the regard of a grudge against boro.

continue your pwnage as you see it.

Barron

EDIT: also, i've never been this upset about any poster before and probably never will again. it's kind of fun though so if that is crazy then again, call me mcmurphy. i feel i've contributed a ton to this forum both in high stakes poker and in BFI. that i'm pretty sure isn't up for dispute and probably isn't either here nor there. so i apologize if i take away with my crazy ranting against borodog. if you don't like it. let it be and i'm sure it will pass with time. if you like it, same goes.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

[ QUOTE ]
PS.

Barron,

Thanks for illustrating for everyone that you're crazy.

Love,

Borodog

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro,

thanks for giving me a fun outlet while not once admitting that you were actually very wrong about something [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

deepest love,
Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I went over and read that other thread and it became very clear what happened. You were a complete and total douche for no good reason and when Boro started calling you on it, instead of owning up you found something small where he made a mistake in what he was saying and did your best to attack Borodog and try to turn the conversation away from the fact that you were being a complete douche. The "satisfaction" you feel over this is because you were so upset about having to face what a douche you were being and you found a distraction that let you not have to face that. Very satisfying.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've owned up to it clearly. i've said i was bitter and it is clear we have a history.

that "small" thing i've called him on he never dealt with.

if me being crazy is holding a large grudge against 1 poster then i'm guilty as charged.

but that one poster has a large following and made this "small" mistake about M3...then tries to say he "meant" to say M2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good God you can't read. This gets more hilarious every time you post.

No, I didn't say that. I *meant* to say M3. I JUST DON'T GIVE A [censored] THAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN M2, SINCE YOU ADMITTED IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

[ QUOTE ]

boro, if discreting you in one small way makes me crazy...then call me Randle Patrick McMurphy

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Or is spelled the way you think it's spelled.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
boro, if discreting you in one small way makes me crazy...then call me Randle Patrick McMurphy

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Or is spelled the way you think it's spelled.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should start a maniacal thread in SMP about this.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS.

Barron,

Thanks for illustrating for everyone that you're crazy.

Love,

Borodog

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro,

thanks for giving me a fun outlet while not once admitting that you were actually very wrong about something [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

deepest love,
Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

He did actually admit it although admittedly only indirectly.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
boro, if discreting you in one small way makes me crazy...then call me Randle Patrick McMurphy

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Or is spelled the way you think it's spelled.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should start a maniacal thread in SMP about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. good catch....clearly meant discrediting

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quickly searching for "M3" in Borodog's posts brings up the following:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, are people aware that the Fed is going to stop publishing the M3?

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard about that in a speach by Ron Paul. Gosh, whyever would Our Most Holy and Benevolent Masters stop telling us how much money is circulating?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the printing press!"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Tax cutting based on the economic stimulus argument is indeed fallacious if you believe that increasing revenue to the government is the goal.

However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to improve the bottom line of market participants, not the government. In short, if the government loses money on a tax cut, they can go [censored] themselves.

Furthermore, the waters are considerably muddied by an inflationary monetary policy. Artificial credit expansion of course increases government tax receipts, which can then be attributed to the stimulus from tax cuts. If I recall correctly, during the height of the Clinton boom in 97 or 98, the Fed was increasing the money supply at the amazing clip of 17% per annum. These new funds are preferentially available to those paying the lion's share of taxes, and voila, tax receipts jump, and you get the Clinton "surplusses."

We are seeing the exact same effect now. Greenspan pumped the money supply like mad in the early 2000s for the Bush administration, and now magicly the budget deficit is significantly reduced, even in times of a costly war and ballooning domestic spending.

The fact that tax receipts have indeed gone up despite the fact that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves should tip you off that there is something deeper at work, and that something is manipulation of the money supply.

It's no coincidence that they've stopped tracking M3, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, something Dr. Paul said at the forum Saturday just came back to me.

He mentioned that recently a study had calculated the inflation rate the way the government used to, before they changed it recently, and found a 10% rate of inflation, rather than the 2% we are being told we are experiencing. That is HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you critically examine the reasons presented for the change, or are you just looking at those numbers and concluding "government is hiding inflation!". You really need to provide a supporting case that the 10% on the old basis is "more correct".

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic?

I suppose it's merely a coincidence that they stopped reporting M3 at about the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

how interesting

note that, while M2 may or may not be "damning on its own" (I have absolutely no idea), Borodog's actual understanding of the subject came from a Ron Paul speech, who, in turn, thinks that M3's delisting is a Fed conspiracy theory or something.

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
boro, if discreting you in one small way makes me crazy...then call me Randle Patrick McMurphy

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Or is spelled the way you think it's spelled.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should start a maniacal thread in SMP about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Soviet Russia, maniacal threads start you!

[/ QUOTE ]

holy sh*t!!!

i just looked up discretion and omg your post is freaking classic. it should be quoted and requoted.

for those futurama fans out there, my post could have been a one liner saying:

"yakov smirnov said it"

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quickly searching for "M3" in Borodog's posts brings up the following:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, are people aware that the Fed is going to stop publishing the M3?

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard about that in a speach by Ron Paul. Gosh, whyever would Our Most Holy and Benevolent Masters stop telling us how much money is circulating?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the printing press!"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Tax cutting based on the economic stimulus argument is indeed fallacious if you believe that increasing revenue to the government is the goal.

However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to improve the bottom line of market participants, not the government. In short, if the government loses money on a tax cut, they can go [censored] themselves.

Furthermore, the waters are considerably muddied by an inflationary monetary policy. Artificial credit expansion of course increases government tax receipts, which can then be attributed to the stimulus from tax cuts. If I recall correctly, during the height of the Clinton boom in 97 or 98, the Fed was increasing the money supply at the amazing clip of 17% per annum. These new funds are preferentially available to those paying the lion's share of taxes, and voila, tax receipts jump, and you get the Clinton "surplusses."

We are seeing the exact same effect now. Greenspan pumped the money supply like mad in the early 2000s for the Bush administration, and now magicly the budget deficit is significantly reduced, even in times of a costly war and ballooning domestic spending.

The fact that tax receipts have indeed gone up despite the fact that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves should tip you off that there is something deeper at work, and that something is manipulation of the money supply.

It's no coincidence that they've stopped tracking M3, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, something Dr. Paul said at the forum Saturday just came back to me.

He mentioned that recently a study had calculated the inflation rate the way the government used to, before they changed it recently, and found a 10% rate of inflation, rather than the 2% we are being told we are experiencing. That is HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you critically examine the reasons presented for the change, or are you just looking at those numbers and concluding "government is hiding inflation!". You really need to provide a supporting case that the 10% on the old basis is "more correct".

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic?

I suppose it's merely a coincidence that they stopped reporting M3 at about the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

how interesting

note that, while M2 may or may not be "damning on its own" (I have absolutely no idea), Borodog's actual understanding of the subject came from a Ron Paul speech, who, in turn, thinks that M3's delisting is a Fed conspiracy theory or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOOOPSIE...

care to respond to that one borodog?

or maybe that was the reason you didn't respond to my earlier questions:

1) you have said before that the fed ceasing the publications of M3 is damning. do you deny that?

and for good measure, 2) you have said before that the important statistic is M3, NOT M2!!! (i think b/c M3 grew far faster and mises probably uses M3) do you deny that?

thoughts? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drivel

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS.

Barron,

Thanks for illustrating for everyone that you're crazy.

Love,

Borodog

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro,

thanks for giving me a fun outlet while not once admitting that you were actually very wrong about something [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

deepest love,
Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

He did actually admit it although admittedly only indirectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

yup. you are right. i thought he said he "meant" to say M2 instead of M3 which he clearly didn't upon 2nd reading.

i've definitely misread many things from quick readings and your point above is no exception.

Barron

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I made a one paragraph response via PM about M3, and I shouldn't even have bothered with that, because I don't give a [censored], and neither should Barron, if as he claims himself, M2 is just as damning. The M3 spew is just a ruse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quickly searching for "M3" in Borodog's posts brings up the following:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, are people aware that the Fed is going to stop publishing the M3?

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard about that in a speach by Ron Paul. Gosh, whyever would Our Most Holy and Benevolent Masters stop telling us how much money is circulating?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the printing press!"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Tax cutting based on the economic stimulus argument is indeed fallacious if you believe that increasing revenue to the government is the goal.

However, that isn't the goal. The goal is to improve the bottom line of market participants, not the government. In short, if the government loses money on a tax cut, they can go [censored] themselves.

Furthermore, the waters are considerably muddied by an inflationary monetary policy. Artificial credit expansion of course increases government tax receipts, which can then be attributed to the stimulus from tax cuts. If I recall correctly, during the height of the Clinton boom in 97 or 98, the Fed was increasing the money supply at the amazing clip of 17% per annum. These new funds are preferentially available to those paying the lion's share of taxes, and voila, tax receipts jump, and you get the Clinton "surplusses."

We are seeing the exact same effect now. Greenspan pumped the money supply like mad in the early 2000s for the Bush administration, and now magicly the budget deficit is significantly reduced, even in times of a costly war and ballooning domestic spending.

The fact that tax receipts have indeed gone up despite the fact that tax cuts cannot pay for themselves should tip you off that there is something deeper at work, and that something is manipulation of the money supply.

It's no coincidence that they've stopped tracking M3, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, something Dr. Paul said at the forum Saturday just came back to me.

He mentioned that recently a study had calculated the inflation rate the way the government used to, before they changed it recently, and found a 10% rate of inflation, rather than the 2% we are being told we are experiencing. That is HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you critically examine the reasons presented for the change, or are you just looking at those numbers and concluding "government is hiding inflation!". You really need to provide a supporting case that the 10% on the old basis is "more correct".

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it is that they recently, after 5 decades, decided to change the way they calculate inflation? And is it supposed to be merely coincidence that the new way produces a number 80% lower than the old method, yet is magically numerically close to the old numbers produced by the old method, giving the appearance to the casual observer of continuity in the statistic?

I suppose it's merely a coincidence that they stopped reporting M3 at about the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

how interesting

note that, while M2 may or may not be "damning on its own" (I have absolutely no idea), Borodog's actual understanding of the subject came from a Ron Paul speech, who, in turn, thinks that M3's delisting is a Fed conspiracy theory or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOOOPSIE...

care to respond to that one borodog?

or maybe that was the reason you didn't respond to my earlier questions:

1) you have said before that the fed ceasing the publications of M3 is damning. do you deny that?

and for good measure, 2) you have said before that the important statistic is M3, NOT M2!!! (i think b/c M3 grew far faster and mises probably uses M3) do you deny that?

thoughts? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

And?

What is it like in your head dude? Because on the outside IT'S [censored] CRAZY.

What do you think this shows?

Uh, duh, I already said that I thought the important statistic was M3.

When will you admit it isn't even about M3, but rather the fact that you are an insulting a-hole that can't admit he's an insulting a-hole?

Re: borodog\'s mistaken understanding of M3...don\'t listen to his drive