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

[DcifrThs]

Borodog,

there is no need to create a new thread when the main one currently exists.

A) I do apologize for implying that all ACists and Austrians regurgitate drivel. i agree with a lot of the thoughts of austrians (don't really have a clear handle on ACists beliefs) as has been shown time and again. what i do not like is how many followers of people who are well informed (i.e. you) DO end up regurgitating drivel (i.e. childish utterances) without understanding what is going on.

B) in no way shape or form did i ever misstate what the order of operations was in terms of interest rate and money supply. please simply post here what you are implying i misstated or got wrong here. the only thing i can think of you meaning here is that i "put the cart before the horse" (i.e. in laying out the actions that lead to an interest rate drop i stated that money is released then itnerest rates fall rather than acknowledging that the intent to reduce interest rates was the main driver and the releasing of money, though the precipitating cause, was, in effect, the cart)

C) i do apologize for being a jerk EDIT: to the forums and to you. however, i don't believe i was wrong about anyting i've stated (in terms of relaying factual information) and you seem to need/want to "teach" me about the fed's open market operations. trust me, there is no need. i can ably lead that lecture. clearly i do not need that nor did i say anything wrong in terms of the order or literal operations. the only thing i could have misstated, and am willing to apologize for, (and please post and make me eat my own words if i'm wrong) was the intent vs. actions thing i mentioned.

D) i forget what this one is but i'll reread and edit in a second. EDIT: this i do apologize for as when i am wrong i should definitely come forward and say so. you got me very upset and "frenzied" to steal a term from mark. but the bottom line is i am in control of my actions. i also definitely apologize to the OP of the initial thread as i meant no harm to him. i just think he should understand what goes on. but since he was asking about it, i shouldn't have spoken to him derisively.

now i bumped this thread because although i'm sorry for insulting you, the thread is already created and the content therein is still worthwhile and i'm not going to go through and repost everything in a new thread. this thread is just as insulting to me as it is to you (and note i'm not asking for any apologies at all in return)

now please respond to the M3 issue as was the point of this thread. and is a few posts up. (i.e. how can you reconcile your two seemingly inconsistent positions?).

thanks,
Barron

PS- this was rather hastily written and i have to leave now.

if i've left something completely unaddressed i'll make sure to come back to it. just point it out and it will be addressed.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

how does the action those who engage in repos, as a result of that engagement affect the real economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

When the fed perpetually buys mortgage back securities with repos this props up the housing market and effects the real economy. Who knows what other type of securities the fed will license themselves to purchase as well.

[ QUOTE ]

the point is that the effect is so small as to totally distort anything M3 can give you. you said it imo..."...must have a long run effect on the money supply at least in a marginal way"


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree the result is tiny when you consider the money supply effects of repos in general, but those points were still worth making clear. There are small effects from Eurodollar accounts too, to the extent that the arent used as credit transactions, that will effect the money supply, but on whole i dont think anyone's making a big mistake discounting this in todays shaped world, but the academic mistake is important.

I still stand by the fact that the type of securities the fed is purchasing can have a large effect on the economy, however.