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

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
... there are circumstances that can exist where the "printing of money by the fed" doesn't devalue the dollar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand how, all else equal, expanding the money supply doesn't devalue the dollar.

I could understand that you might see a situation where the money supply is expanded but less than the market was expecting and the dollar rallies. Also if another country expands its money supply more than we do then our currency should increase in value relative to theirs.

Again, if you were to control for other factors, shouldn't expanding the money supply always lead to a devaluing of the dollar?

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
i started THIS thread not to destract from

[/ QUOTE ]

You should do yourself a favor and use proper capitalization and spelling. Once I see someone use words like "destract" it really makes it hard to take their point seriously. Maybe you are in a hurry or posting from a PDA or something, but your posts would be much better and easier to understand if you changed this.

This applies to a lot of people, not just Dcifrths.

[Money2Burn]

I will never understand [censored] like this, internet grudges are almost as retarded as real life grudges. How can two people as intelligent as you two get this crazy over something so insignificant?

cliffs notes:

"Yo dawg! you stepped on my PUMA's! You betta recognize sucka"

"Dawg, those ain't even PUMA's! Theys ADIDAS foo!"

"You sayin I ain't wearin shoes Yo?!!"

"I's SAYIN, YO MOMMAS AN UGLY HO!"

"AWWWWWW SHITT Ima gon get my GAT and shoot yo in yo grill!"

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I will never understand [censored] like this, internet grudges are almost as retarded as real life grudges. How can two people as intelligent as you two get this crazy over something so insignificant?

cliffs notes:

"Yo dawg! you stepped on my PUMA's! You betta recognize sucka"

"Dawg, those ain't even PUMA's! Theys ADIDAS foo!"

"You sayin I ain't wearin shoes Yo?!!"

"I's SAYIN, YO MOMMAS AN UGLY HO!"

"AWWWWWW SHITT Ima gon get my GAT and shoot yo in yo grill!"

[/ QUOTE ]

i personally wish they were fighting over something more substantial. The hissing comments are the best part of this thread but a little quality meat would've made going through much more interesting.

[Orlando Salazar]

It seems they are arguing over whether Boro is miseducating less informed posters on economics. I'd say that has some meat. But word is Boro hit on DCFR's girl too. That make it way more interesting.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... there are circumstances that can exist where the "printing of money by the fed" doesn't devalue the dollar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand how, all else equal, expanding the money supply doesn't devalue the dollar.

I could understand that you might see a situation where the money supply is expanded but less than the market was expecting and the dollar rallies. Also if another country expands its money supply more than we do then our currency should increase in value relative to theirs.

Again, if you were to control for other factors, shouldn't expanding the money supply always lead to a devaluing of the dollar?

[/ QUOTE ]

i was using that to explain more clearly why the poker example was bad.

here is the intial statement i responded to:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

i pointed out that the currency goes down b/c of interest rate diffs. interest rate diffs, assuming it is the US;s thats falling, come from the fed releasing more money (increasing money supply). it is just the clearer way to think about it.

that statement was likely read without understanding the distinction which is why i spoke up in the BFI thread.

we can all clearly agree that when the fed has a low interest rate bias (which it has exhibited for a long time), the value of the dollar, all else equal, will decline relative to its trading partners.

i simply want to make sure we all understand both WHY and WHY NOT. that understanding seems slightly lacking which, again, is why i chimed in.

Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems they are arguing over whether Boro is miseducating less informed posters on economics. I'd say that has some meat. But word is Boro hit on DCFR's girl too. That make it way more interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

he hasn't hit on my girl. but the first thing is definitely part of why he upsets me so.

i can't wait for him to respond to this though:

[ QUOTE ]
you can't change the fact that you have used numerous times in the past the cessation of the printing of M3 as ammunition saying that "they just stopped doing it because it looks worse." well, if you took 3 seconds to look up what was actually contained in M3 you'd see there are things that are distortive, informationwise as the use of repos has exponentially increased, without increasing the value of the indicator....

...or maybe you did look up M3 and saw it contained things that you didn't understand or know the extent of (repos) and just assumed it was a govt conspiracy anyways.

now you want to say "well it doesn't matter M2, M3, who gives a sh*t," but you can't. why? simply because you've used the not publishing of M3, like i just said, as evidence against the fed.

NOTE: please reread that before continuing. i'm not delving into a fed interest rate debate here. i'm simply saying that evidence you've used in the past is that it is fishy that the fed chose to stop publication of M3. Ron Paul has used the same in his speaches, but none of the opposition understood what could have been the real reason. notice that ron paul DIDNT say that when ben bernanke was the one being questioned because he would have gotten it shoved down his throat while he DID delve into almost every other major issue he had while he had his time at the M&B committee testimony.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I scoffed at the idea that the reason they stopped publishing it is cost


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ok, so you scoffed that they stopped the publication b/c of cost. but why? what was your alternative hypothesis?

you didn't possibly consider the reason they stopped publishing it is a combination of usefulness (repos distorting it) and cost...like they (the fed) said.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No more, no less. Oh, but I forget! The government would never have any motives that aren't pure as the driven snow. No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that M3 just looks worse than M2.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



well, a poster below me said it so i'll just quote his reply:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boro I don't think you can both at the same time say "No more, no less." and "No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that M3 just looks worse than M2." I have yet to see something that the M3 numbers are more accurate then the m2 numbers. You have stated that the M3 number is the important one, and the only reason that you have given is that it's looks worse. Nor have you made a statement regarding the cost to the fed to acquire M3 versus extra knowledge that can gleamed above M2. I'll grant you motive that the fed might not want to publish numbers that make them look bad, but is there any other reason then a MO, that this is a conspiracy?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



so boro, call me crazy, keep belittling me and getting backing, it doesn't matter. the fact that you won't "let me get away with it" will only back you into a acorner until you will have to admit you are wrong...which is what i want.

you might even say something like "OK FINE, scoffing at the cost was a means i used to sell people on the conspiracy to stop printing it" or some other quick one liner to now discount this discussion without actually admitting being wrong. that won't fly and we'll keep at it until you have admitting your incorrectness here.

if that makes me crazy, so be it. but all the crazy insults, therapy cats, or other belittling words (no matter how funny...because therapy cat was not a 9/10, it was 10/10) won't distract from the goal i set out here of insulting you (may or may not be accomplished, but either way i'll concentrate more on the next goal) and to prove you wrong.

Barron


[/ QUOTE ]

Barron

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... there are circumstances that can exist where the "printing of money by the fed" doesn't devalue the dollar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand how, all else equal, expanding the money supply doesn't devalue the dollar.

I could understand that you might see a situation where the money supply is expanded but less than the market was expecting and the dollar rallies. Also if another country expands its money supply more than we do then our currency should increase in value relative to theirs.

Again, if you were to control for other factors, shouldn't expanding the money supply always lead to a devaluing of the dollar?

[/ QUOTE ]

i was using that to explain more clearly why the poker example was bad.

here is the intial statement i responded to:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

i pointed out that the currency goes down b/c of interest rate diffs. interest rate diffs, assuming it is the US;s thats falling, come from the fed releasing more money (increasing money supply). it is just the clearer way to think about it.

that statement was likely read without understanding the distinction which is why i spoke up in the BFI thread.

we can all clearly agree that when the fed has a low interest rate bias (which it has exhibited for a long time), the value of the dollar, all else equal, will decline relative to its trading partners.

i simply want to make sure we all understand both WHY and WHY NOT. that understanding seems slightly lacking which, again, is why i chimed in.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

A currency's value is not simply measured by its exchange rate with other fiat money.

A currency's value is determined by what it can purchase across the board.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
REVISED CLIFF NOTES:
1)Words words words, rant, rant, rant, MX, MQ, Blibbity, blabbity, fidoucheiary stuffz.
2)Decifer: Boro, you're a BUUHOLE!
3)Boro: Haha! You're a word twisting BUUHOLE
4)pvn: Boro's BUUHOLE smells better
5)Decifer: nannay nanny poo poo I already said I'm a BUUHOLE!
6)Bring out the LOLCATS
7)More words words words words, MZ,M42X, planet smartron 5
8)Decipher: I may be a BUUHOLE but I'm a RIGHT BUUHOLE!

[/ QUOTE ]

A+

This thread is the thread that keeps on giving.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
How can two people as intelligent as you two get this crazy over something so insignificant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to come off as Borodog's fan boy (I really couldn't give a [censored] about the grudge either), but I think it's pretty clear that Barron is the one getting crazy over the insignificant M3 thing. Borodog is reacting to the fact that Barron created a misleading thread to try to slander him over something that is entirely irrelevant.