Worse Post World War II Recession Followed By Worse U.S. Economic Recovery in 80 Years Since Great Depression of 1933 — Obama’s Economic Policy Mistakes Causing Increased Uncertaintly and Lower Economic Growth and Job Creation — Real GDP Gap Continues — No Real Economic Recovery! — Videos

Posted on July 23, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

The Economic Recovery: A Novel Perspective from Ed Leamer (The Numbers Game with Russ Roberts) mono

Published on Mar  7, 2013

Why has the current recovery from the Great Recession been so mediocre? Ed Leamer of UCLA points out that the last three recessions have all had mediocre recoveries of both output and employment. His explanation is that changes in the manufacturing sector have changed the pattern of layoffs, recalls and hiring during recessions and recoveries. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the forces driving the changes in the labor market and the implications for manufacturing.
1) Why the last three recessions all look different (1:44) 2) Employment growth for last eight recessions (4:12) 3) Why have the last three recessions been so different? (6:13) 4) The jobs cycle in manufacturing (8:52) 5) Excess capacity in construction has created a lag (10:33) 6) Manufacturing output versus manufacturing employment (11:14) 7) What’s the solution to the downturn? (12:20)
LINKS TO DATA REFERENCED — 1. Real GDP Growth From Peak to Peak Charts: FRED — “Real Gross Domestic Product, 3 Decimal (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…). Note: Calculated using (X1-X0)/(X0), where X0 — recession peak quarter
2. Manufacturing Employment Chart: FRED — “All Employees: Manufacturing”(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…)

The Numbers Game with Russ Roberts — The Economic Recovery (Part 1)

Published on Sep  5, 2012

According the National Bureau of Economic Research, the US economy recovered from the recession at the beginning of the summer of 2009. Yet the recovery has been disappointing when compared to other recoveries. In this episode of the Numbers Game, John Taylor of Stanford University talks with host Russ Roberts about the nature of the recovery. How does it compare historically to other recoveries? How can we measure the pace of the recovery? The conversation ends with a discussion of possible explanations for why the recovery has been disappointing. 1) What is potential GDP? (0:52) 2) The economy never catches back up to trend (2:38) 3) The 1981 recession (3:16) 4) Is there a correct or potential level of GDP? (4:45) 5) A look at past recoveries (6:13) 6) Friedman and the Plucking Model (8:10) 7) A look at real growth rates in recoveries (8:59) 8) Employment and the recovery (10:20) LINKS TO DATA & PAPERS REFERENCED – 1. 2008-09 and 1981-1982 Recession & Recovery Charts: Real GDP (GDPC1) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from BEA.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/… Potential GDP (GDPPOT) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from CBO.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/… 2. 1907-08 and 1893-94 Recession & Recovery Charts: GDP data from NBER, compiled by Nathan Balke and Robert Gordon with adjustments by John Taylor for comparability with earlier charts –http://www.nber.org/data/abc/ Potential GDP calculations by John Taylor using a Hodrick-Prescott trend. 3. The Plucking Model Working Paper: The “Plucking Model” of Business Fluctuations Revisited by Milton Friedman Working Papers in Economics, E-88-48 — Hoover Institution, Stanford University http://hoohila.stanford.edu/workingpa… 4. Growth Rate of Real GDP Chart: Growth Rate calculated from Real GDP (GDPC1) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from BEA.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/… 5. Change in the Percentage of the Population that is Working Chart: Employment-Population Ratio (EMRATIO) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from BLS.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…

The Numbers Game with Russ Roberts — The Economic Recovery (Part 2)

By historical standards, the current recovery from the recession that began in 2007 has been disappointing. As John Taylor of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the Department of Economics argues in Part 1 of this discussion on the economy, GDP has not returned to trend, the percent of the population that is working is flat rather than rising, and growth rates are below their usual levels after such a deep slump.

In this episode, Taylor and Number’s Game host Russ Roberts discuss possible explanations for the sluggish recovery: the ongoing slump in construction employment, the effect of housing prices on saving and spending decisions by households, and this recovery’s having been preceded by a financial crisis. Taylor rejects these arguments, arguing instead that the sluggish recovery can be explained by poor economic policy decisions made by the Bush and the Obama administrations.

1) On the argument that there are structural problems in the labor market (0:25)
2) Comparisons to the 1981 recession (2:16)
3) Is this recession special because it followed a financial crisis? (2:46)
4) What can the Great Depression tell us? (3:55)
5) Why is the current recovery so mediocre? (5:32)

LINKS TO DATA & PAPERS REFERENCED –

1. Construction Sector Employment Chart:
Bureau of Labor Statistics- Series CES2000000001, Seasonally Adjusted

2. S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices Chart:
S&P Dow Jones Indices and Fiserv 9-25-12 – http://www.standardandpoors.com

3. Personal Saving as a % of Disposable Income Chart:
BEA NIPA Table 2.1 line 36

4. 2008-09 and 1981-1982 Recession & Recovery Charts:
Real GDP (GDPC1) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from BEA.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…
Potential GDP (GDPPOT) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from CBO.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…

5. ‘Deep Recessions, Fast Recoveries, and Financial Crises: Evidence from the American Record’ by Michael D. Bordo and Joseph G. Haubrich – http://media.hoover.org/sites/default…

6. 1893-94 and 1907-08 Recession & Recovery Charts:
GDP data from NBER, compiled by Nathan Balke and Robert Gordon with adjustments by John Taylor for comparability with earlier charts – http://www.nber.org/data/abc/. Potential GDP calculations by John Taylor using a Hodrick-Prescott trend.

7. 1933-36 Great Depression & Recovery Chart:
GDP data from NBER, compiled originally by Nathan Balke and Robert Gordon – http://www.nber.org/data/abc/.

8. 1929-1940 Unemployment Rate (% of Labor Force) Chart:
Historical Statistics of the United States (Millennial Edition) – Table Ba470-477: Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment, 1890-1990 – http://hsus.cambridge.org/HSUSWeb/toc…

9.  ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Revival of Fiscal Activism in the 2000s’ by John B. Taylor – http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/JEL…

The Numbers Game with Russ Roberts — The Economic Recovery (Part 3)

Here in part 3, Taylor argues that the slow pace of the recovery is due to poor policy decisions made by the Bush and Obama administrations that have increased the amount of uncertainty facing investors, consumers, and employers. Examples include the rising debt forecast, the fiscal cliff, expiring tax provisions, and quantitative easing. Taylor argues that the uncertainty surrounding these policies in the future along with increased regulation have held back the recovery.
LINKS TO DATA & PAPERS REFERENCED –
1. Debt as a Percentage of GDP Chart: Historical debt data – http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21728. Future debt projections –  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/20776 and http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288
2. Number of Provisions Expiring in the US Tax Code Chart: List of Expiring Tax Provisions – Prepared by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, various issues – https://www.jct.gov/publications.html….
3. ‘Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty’ by Scott Baker, Nicholas Bloom and Steven Davis: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/steve…
4. An Era of Deregulation (?) Chart: Federal Register Historical Statistics (https://www.federalregister.gov/learn…) Notes: Dates based on calendar year; Excludes preliminary/unrevised pages, blank/skipped pages, and proposed rules pages
5. Number of Federal Workers Employed in Regulatory Activities Chart: Susan Dudley & Melinda Warren “Fiscal Stalemate Reflected in Regulators’ Budget: An Analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012,”  TSA adjustment obtained from DHS Budget in Brief. http://wc.wustl.edu/files/wc/2012_Reg… and http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/mg….
6. ‘Dodd-Frank Progress Report’ by Davis Polk: According to Davis Polk (a firm monitoring Dodd-Frank progress) – “Dodd-Frank Progress Report, November 2012” http://www.davispolk.com/files/Public…
7. Reserve Balances Chart: H.4.1 Federal Reserve statistical release (reserve balances with Federal Reserve Banks). One can also get data from FRED http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…
8. ‘The 2009 Stimulus Package: Two Years Later’ by John B. Taylor: http://media.hoover.org/sites/default…
9. ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Revival of Fiscal Activism in the 2000s’ by John B. Taylor – http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/JEL…
10. Economic Benefits of the ’09 Stimulus Package Chart: Chicago Booth IGM Forum on the Economic Stimulus, 2/15/12 – http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economi…. IGM Economic Experts Panel – http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-­panel
11. U.S. Misery Index Chart: Bureau of Labor Statistics – Unemployment Rate (http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cps… CPI-U (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/­cpi/cpiai.txt)

Economists Examine Potential for Longer Recession

Milton Friedman – Greed

Milton Friedman – Socialism is Force  

Milton Friedman – The role of government in a free society

Economics on One Foot

JobLossesJan2013

4employment_depth_max

6gdp_depth_max

Background on Recession/Recovery in Perspective

This page places the current economic downturn and recovery into historical (post-WWII) perspective. It compares output and employment changes from the 2007-2009 recession and subsequent recovery with the same data for the 10 previous recessions and recoveries that have occurred since 1946.

This page provides a current assessment of ‘how bad’ the 2007-2009 recession was relative to past recessions, and of how quickly the economy is recovering relative to past recoveries. It will continue to be updated as new data are released. This page does not provide forecasts, and the information should not be interpreted as such.

The  charts provide information about  the length and depth of recessions, and the robustness of recoveries.

Post-WWII Recessions

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research determines the beginning and ending dates of U.S. recessions. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

        It has determined that the U.S. economy experienced 10 recessions from 1946 through 2006. The committee determined that the 2007-2009 recession began in December 2007 and ended in June of 2009.  Ending dates are typically announced several months after the recession officially ends. Read the June 2009 trough announcement by the NBER.

Length of Recessions

The 10 previous postwar recessions ranged in length from 6 months to 16 months, averaging about 10 1/2 months. The 2007-09 recession  was    the longest recession in the postwar period, at 18 months.

Depth of Recessions

The severity of a recession is determined in part by its length; perhaps even more important is the magnitude of the decline in economic activity. The 2007-09 recession was the deepest recession in the postwar period; at their lowest points employment fell by 6.3 percent and output fell by 5.1 percent.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/

US-Real-GDP-Growth-Third-Estimate-for-Q1-2013

fredgraph

20_year_constant_maturity_rate

DGS30

For further information regarding treasury constant maturity data, please refer to:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/current/h15.pdf and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/yieldmethod.aspx.

M1 Money Stock (M1)

2013-07-08:      2,504.2       Billions of Dollars                    Last 5 Observations

2013-07-01: 2,537.1
2013-06-24: 2,510.0
2013-06-17: 2,494.2
2013-06-10: 2,508.6

Weekly, Ending Monday, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-07-19 6:26 AM CDT

M1_Max_630_378

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Release: H.6 Money Stock Measures
Notes:      

M1 includes funds that are readily accessible for spending. M1 consists of: (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler’s checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts. Seasonally adjusted M1 is calculated by summing currency, traveler’s checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately.

Velocity of M1 Money Stock (M1V)

2013:Q1:      6.474       Ratio                    Last 5 Observations

2012:Q4: 6.544
2012:Q3: 6.750
2012:Q2: 6.894
2012:Q1: 6.991

Quarterly, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-06-26 9:01 AM CDT

M1V_Max_630_378

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Release: Money Velocity
Notes:Calculated as the ratio of quarterly nominal GDP (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP) to the quarterly average of M1 money stock (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M1SL).
Velocity is a ratio of nominal GDP to a measure of the money supply.  It can be thought of as the rate of turnover in the money supply–that is, the number of times one dollar is used to purchase final goods and services included in GDP.

M2 Money Stock (M2)

2013-07-08:      10,644.6       Billions of Dollars                    Last 5 Observations

2013-07-01: 10,653.4
2013-06-24: 10,573.2
2013-06-17: 10,594.5
2013-06-10: 10,590.3

Weekly, Ending Monday, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-07-19 6:26 AM CDT

M2

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Release: H.6 Money Stock Measures

Notes:M2 includes a broader set of financial assets held principally by households. M2 consists of M1 plus: (1) savings deposits (which include money market deposit accounts, or MMDAs); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000); and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds (MMMFs). Seasonally adjusted M2 is computed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail MMMFs, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1.

Velocity of M2 Money Stock (M2V)

2013:Q1:      1.530       Ratio                    Last 5 Observations

2012:Q4: 1.538
2012:Q3: 1.568
2012:Q2: 1.579
2012:Q1: 1.588

Quarterly, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-06-26 9:01 AM CDT

M2_Velocity

Notes:

Calculated as the ratio of quarterly nominal GDP (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP) to the quarterly average of M2 money stock (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2SL).
Velocity is a ratio of nominal GDP to a measure of the money supply.  It can be thought of as the rate of turnover in the money supply–that is, the number of times one dollar is used to purchase final goods and services included in GDP.

US Economic Crisis, Predictions For 2013

So Goes Detroit,Bernanke’s Gold Confession, Obama’s ACA Lies

Karl Denninger on Bernanke’s Last Stand and Unwinding Rehypothecation [PRIME INTEREST 45]

Uncertainty over the cost of new regulations is suppressing business investment & job creation.

Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Representative Kevin Brady, presents his opening statement to the committee and witnesses during the JEC hearing “Reducing Unnecessary and Costly Red Tape through Smarter Regulations” on June 26, 2013.

“We’re experiencing the worst economic recovery since WWII.”

CBS: “This Is The Worst Economic Recovery America Has Ever Had”

Obama’s Great Economic Recovery WHERE?

Treasury Yield Curve Methodology
2/26/2009
Page Content

This description was revised and updated on February 26, 2009.

The Treasury’s yield curve is derived using a quasi-cubic hermite spline function. Our inputs are the Close of Business (COB) bid yields for the on-the-run securities. Because the on-the-run securities typically trade close to par, those securities are designated as the knot points in the quasi-cubic hermite spline algorithm and the resulting yield curve is considered a par curve. However, Treasury reserves the option to input additional bid yields if there is no on-the-run security available for a given maturity range that we deem necessary for deriving a good fit for the quasi-cubic hermite spline curve. For example, we are using composites of off-the-run bonds in the 20-year range reflecting market yields available in that time tranche. Previously, a rolled-down 10-year note with a remaining maturity nearest to 7 years was also used as an additional input. That input was discontinued on May 26, 2005.

More specifically, the current inputs are the most recently auctioned 4-, 13-, 26-, and 52-week bills, plus the most recently auctioned 2-, 3-, 5-, 7-, and 10-year notes and the most recently auctioned 30-year bond, plus the composite rate in the 20-year maturity range. The quotes for these securities are obtained at or near the 3:30 PM close each trading day. The inputs for the four bills are their bond equivalent yields.

Between August 6, 2004 and June 2, 2008, to reduce volatility in the 1-year Treasury Constant Maturity (CMT) rate, and due to the fact that there were no on-the-run issues between 6-months and 2-years, Treasury used an additional input to insure that the 1-year CMT rate was consistent with on-the-run yields on either side of it’s maturity range. Thus, Treasury interpolated between the secondary bond equivalent yield on the most recently auctioned 26-week bill and the secondary market yield on the most recently auctioned 2-year note and inputted the resulting yield as an additional knot point for the derivation of the daily Treasury Yield Curve. The result of that step was that the 1-year CMT was generally the same as the interpolated rate during that time period. As of June 3, 2008, the interpolated yield was dropped as a yield curve input and the on-the-run 52-week bill was added as an input knot point in the quasi-cubic hermite spline algorithm and resulting yield curve.

Between December 3, 2007 and November 7, 2008, due to Treasury’s discontinuance of 3-year notes, we added a composite rate in the 3-year range based on an average of off-the-run securities in that time tranche.  This composite was replaced on November 10, 2008 with the on-the-run 3-year note upon its reintroduction.

Treasury does not provide the computer formulation of our quasi-cubic hermite spline yield curve derivation program. However, we have found that most researchers have been able to reasonably match our results using alternative cubic spline formulas.

Treasury reviews its yield curve derivation methodology on a regular basis and reserves the right to modify, adjust or improve the methodology at its option. If Treasury determines that the methodology needs to be changed or updated, Treasury will revise the above description to reflect such changes.

Yield curve rates are usually available at Treasury’s interest rate web sites by 6:00 PM Eastern Time each trading day, but may be delayed due to system problems or other issues. Every attempt is made to make this data available as soon as possible.

Office of Debt Management Department of the Treasury

 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
STAR – TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

ACCOUNTING DATE:  06/13

PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
PRIOR YEAR

OCTOBER                                                                   163,072                261,539                 98,466
NOVEMBER                                                                  152,402                289,704                137,302
DECEMBER                                                                  239,963                325,930                 85,967
JANUARY                                                                   234,319                261,726                 27,407
FEBRUARY                                                                  103,413                335,090                231,677
MARCH                                                                     171,215                369,372                198,157
APRIL                                                                     318,807                259,690                -59,117
MAY                                                                       180,713                305,348                124,636
JUNE                                                                      260,177                319,919                 59,741
JULY                                                                      184,585                254,190                 69,604
AUGUST                                                                    178,860                369,393                190,533
SEPTEMBER                                                                 261,566                186,386                -75,180

YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,449,093              3,538,286              1,089,193

CURRENT YEAR

OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995
NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
DECEMBER                                                                  269,508                270,699                  1,191
JANUARY                                                                   272,225                269,342                 -2,883
FEBRUARY                                                                  122,815                326,354                203,539
MARCH                                                                     186,018                292,548                106,530
APRIL                                                                     406,723                293,834               -112,889
MAY                                                                       197,182                335,914                138,732
JUNE                                                                      286,627                170,126               -116,501

YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,087,143              2,596,968                509,825

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pushing On A G-String–No Job Recovery And Declining Prices Results In Federal Reserve Buying Govenment Debt To Spur Economic Growth By Expanding Money Supply–Videos

Posted on August 10, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

“…Pushing on a string is a metaphor for influence that is more effective in moving things in one direction than another – you can pull, but not push.

If something is connected to you by a string, you can move it toward you by pulling on the string, but you can’t move it away from you by pushing on the string. It is often used in the context of economic policy, specifically the view that “Monetary policy [is] asymmetric; it being easier to stop an expansion than to end a severe contraction.”[1]
…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushing_on_a_string

G-string humor

http://www.shadowstats.com/

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply-charts

http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/10/news/economy/fed_decision/index.htm

Fed To Buy More Government Debt; Rates Remain Low

Federal Reserve to buy long-term Treasury debt, keeps target rate unchanged

Bob McTeer – FOMC Meeting

Bob McTeer – Deflation

Quantitative Easing Only Tool Left for Fed

Paulsen Says Tech, Consumer Stocks May Be Poised to Rise: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vdnZ5GNMnY

Fed Looks to Spur Growth by Buying Government Debt

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-10/fed-to-reinvest-principal-on-mortgage-proceeds-into-long-term-treasuries.html

O’Sullivan Sees Pressure on Fed to Signal Policy Easing: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4hMc8QTY8

Reinhart Sees New Round of Quantitative Easing by Fed: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECF9B3zQIv8

David Rovelli Discusses Investment Strategy, Fed Policy: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFTXR7WHa0Y

Jim Rogers on The Federal Reserve

Inflation Is A Sinister Beast – If You Uncage It, It Will Decimate The Economy 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTxouHJ98i0

 

The Federal Reserve recognizes that a jobless recovery is not a recovery at all and the Bush Obama Depression is only continuing and getting worse.

The Federal Reserve statement is misleading when it comes to the state of the economy and future prospects:

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract. Nonetheless, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm

Fully expect unemployment rates measured by U-3, the official unemployment rate, to exceed 9% and by U-6, the real unemployment rate, to exceed 15% for the next two to three years.

This means that between 14 and 24 million Americans will be unemployed over the next two year.

During the worst months of the Great Depression in 1933, the number of unemployed Americans was about 13 million.

This would indeed be a very modest recovery in the near term.

Actually it means the Bush Obama Depression will last well into 2014.

Yes there will be positive economic growth in terms of output or production numbers.

No there will not be a recovery in terms of jobs for the “near term”–two or three years!

Disregard all the nonsense about a double dip recession, we are in a depression with over 20% of the American work force looking for full time work.

The Federal Reserve bears much of the responsibility for creating this mess or financial crisis by having an expansionary or easy money policy to promote the profits of the commercial banks during the real estate “boom” or “bubble.”

Bernanke: Why are we still listening to this guy?

Peter Schiff on Ben Bernanke Confirmation

The Federal Reserve will leave the Federal Funds rate at a target rate of between 0% to .25% for the foreseeable future.

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm

This statement only confirms that the Federal Reserve fully expects the Bush Obama Depression to last another two years or more.

The Federal Reserve will gradually expand the money supply by engaging in open market operations by buying Government Treasury Notes with Federal Reserve Notes on the interest earned from its existing portfolio of assets.

To help support the economic recovery in a context of price stability, the Committee will keep constant the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities at their current level by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities.1 The Committee will continue to roll over the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities as they mature.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm

Over the last two years the Federal Reserve purchased over $1 trillion in debt securities backed by mortgages and government-sponsored mortgages from such firms as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Debt and Deficits

On Tuesday the Federal Reserve announced it would reinvest principle payments from these maturing securities into long-term Treasurys by purchasing 2-year and 10-year Treasury Notes. The amount purchased over the next year will amount to about $100 billion in additional purchasers of Treasurys.

Unfortunately, this expansionary monetary policy is not going to work.

The Fed is pushing on a string, the G-string of Giant Government.

The real problem is the uncertainty being generated by the Obama Administration in the form of government intervention into the U.S. economy including mandated health care plans, financial regulation, energy regulation, and proposed new taxes on energy and higher tax rates by letting the Bush tax rate cuts expire at the end of 2010.

Both small and medium size businesses see that the Obama Administration is expanding the size and scope of government.

The only conclusion is this can only lead to more and higher taxes that will largely come from small and medium size businesses that create the jobs and wealth.

As a result most small and medium size businesses are simply not hiring and many are still laying-off employees as business declines.

What will it take for an expansionary monetary policy to work.

Fundamental changes in fiscal policy on both the spending and tax revenue side.

A major reduction in Federal expenditures would require the shutting down of ten Federal Departments.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

 

President Obama simply will not cut spending by closing down entire Federal Departments.

President Obama wants to do the exact opposite by expanding or increasing the budgets of most Federal Departments.

Obama lacks both the constrained vision and courage to even attempt such a fiscal policy.

The only thing left then is tax reform.This would require the replacement of all existing income and payroll taxes with a broad based national consumption sales tax such as the FairTax.

The FairTax: It’s Time

Again President Obama simply does not have the courage to take on the base of the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party.

Instead President Obama wants to add new taxes, either a cap-and-trade energy tax and/or a value added tax on top of all existing taxes.

These taxes if passed would only make the Bush Obama Depression last well into 2014.

This is much like what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in the 1930s by increasing income tax rates and expanding consumption taxes on certain goods and service.

As a result the U.S. economy did not recover from the Great Depression until 1946.

Robert Higgs on Economic Prospects for 2010

To summarize, the Obama Administration’s fiscal policies will only make the recession last much longer.

Thus Obama’s fiscal policy dooms to failure the Federal Reserve’s expansionary monetary policy.

Until the current political regime is change, expect no progress and little confidence by businesses and consumers.

More taxes and more government spending is not a plan, it is an economic catastrophe.

The result will be an inflationary depression–The Bush Obama Depression!

Time to end the banking cartel of the Federal Reserve System whose only function is protect banking profits and pass along banking losses to the American people.

Gary North knows and understands that the Federal Reserve System is a banking cartel and really does love to push the string while over 30 million Americans look for a full time job:

“…The FED knows it is pushing on a string. It loves that string. Why? Because that limp string – no commercial bank lending – delays the advent of price inflation. This has enabled the FED to achieve the following by doubling the monetary base (the FED’s balance sheet):

1. Bail out the big banks (asset swaps)
2. Keep the banking system from imploding
3. Bail out the Federal government
4. Bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
5. Keep real estate from collapsing
6. Slow price inflation to close to zero
7. Keep T-bill rates under 0.5%

At what cost? Unemployed workers. That is a small price to pay if you are a high-salary central banker with a fully funded pension.

The FED’s policies have not failed. They have succeeded beyond Bernanke’s wildest expectations. Greenspan’s bubbles are all popped. Price inflation is gone. There is no price deflation, either. For the first time since 1955, the FED has attained its mandate from Congress: price stability. …”

End The Fed Now!

The Cash Drop

Background Articles and Videos

Pushing on a String

by Gary North

“…The FED knows it is pushing on a string. It loves that string. Why? Because that limp string – no commercial bank lending – delays the advent of price inflation. This has enabled the FED to achieve the following by doubling the monetary base (the FED’s balance sheet):

1. Bail out the big banks (asset swaps)
2. Keep the banking system from imploding
3. Bail out the Federal government
4. Bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
5. Keep real estate from collapsing
6. Slow price inflation to close to zero
7. Keep T-bill rates under 0.5%

At what cost? Unemployed workers. That is a small price to pay if you are a high-salary central banker with a fully funded pension.

The FED’s policies have not failed. They have succeeded beyond Bernanke’s wildest expectations. Greenspan’s bubbles are all popped. Price inflation is gone. There is no price deflation, either. For the first time since 1955, the FED has attained its mandate from Congress: price stability.

Greenspan’s FED never attained the power over the economy that Bernanke’s FED now possesses. The FED has been given almost complete regulatory control over the financial system. Congress buckled. Bernanke has been given a free ride. The Federal government now owns General Motors. Keynesianism is having its greatest revival in 30 years.

So far, the FED has won. Yet deflationists argue that the economy is in a deflationary spiral that the FED cannot prevent. They do not know what they are talking about. They never have.

CONCLUSION

The Federal Reserve can re-ignite monetary inflation at any time by charging banks a fee to keep excess reserves with the FED.

Anyone who predicts an inevitable price deflation does not understand that the present scenario is the product of legitimately terrified bankers and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. At any time, the FED can get all of the banks’ money lent. But the FED knows that this will double the money supply within weeks. This will create mass price inflation.

This is the central fact in the inflation vs. deflation debate. Until the deflationists answer it with a unified voice, they will remain, as their predecessors remained, people with neither a theoretical nor a practical case for their position.

So, the FED waits. Meanwhile, the Federal government’s share of the economy rises relentlessly because of the deficits. This is not going to change in the next few years.

We are seeing Keynesianism’s last stand. When it fails, the FED will force the banks to lend. Then we will see mass inflation.

Mass deflation? Forget about it. …”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north722.html

 

Federal Reserve System Crisis

End The Fed! – Why the Federal Reserve Must Be Abolished!

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 1 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 2 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 3 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 4 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 5 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 6 of 6

“…Release Date: August 10, 2010

For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract. Nonetheless, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated.

Measures of underlying inflation have trended lower in recent quarters and, with substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to be subdued for some time.

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.

To help support the economic recovery in a context of price stability, the Committee will keep constant the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities at their current level by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities.1 The Committee will continue to roll over the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities as they mature.

The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and will employ its policy tools as necessary to promote economic recovery and price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Elizabeth A. Duke; Donald L. Kohn; Sandra Pianalto; Eric S. Rosengren; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Kevin M. Warsh.

Voting against the policy was Thomas M. Hoenig, who judges that the economy is recovering modestly, as projected. Accordingly, he believed that continuing to express the expectation of exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period was no longer warranted and limits the Committee’s ability to adjust policy when needed. In addition, given economic and financial conditions, Mr. Hoenig did not believe that keeping constant the size of the Federal Reserve’s holdings of longer-term securities at their current level was required to support a return to the Committee’s policy objectives. …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm

Quantitative easing

E5. Introduction to Monetary Policy

Quantitative Easing  

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a form of monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money in an economy when the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.[citation needed] A central bank does this by first crediting its own account with money it has created ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system. The increase in the money supply thus stimulates the economy. Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to pocket the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.[1]

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States and United Kingdom during the global financial crisis of 2008–2009. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Open Market Operations

“…Open market operations–purchases and sales of U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities–are the Federal Reserve’s principal tool for implementing monetary policy. The short-term objective for open market operations is specified by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). This objective can be a desired quantity of reserves or a desired price (the federal funds rate). The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.

The Federal Reserve’s objective for open market operations has varied over the years. During the 1980s, the focus gradually shifted toward attaining a specified level of the federal funds rate, a process that was largely complete by the end of the decade. Beginning in 1994, the FOMC began announcing changes in its policy stance, and in 1995 it began to explicitly state its target level for the federal funds rate. Since February 2000, the statement issued by the FOMC shortly after each of its meetings usually has included the Committee’s assessment of the risks to the attainment of its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth. …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm

The Discount Rate

“…The discount rate is the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank’s lending facility–the discount window. The Federal Reserve Banks offer three discount window programs to depository institutions: primary credit, secondary credit, and seasonal credit, each with its own interest rate. All discount window loans are fully secured.

Under the primary credit program, loans are extended for a very short-term (usually overnight) to depository institutions in generally sound financial condition. Depository institutions that are not eligible for primary credit may apply for secondary credit to meet short-term liquidity needs or to resolve severe financial difficulties. Seasonal credit is extended to relatively small depository institutions that have recurring intra-year fluctuations in funding needs, such as banks in agricultural or seasonal resort communities.

The discount rate charged for primary credit (the primary credit rate) is set above the usual level of short-term market interest rates. (Because primary credit is the Federal Reserve’s main discount window program, the Federal Reserve at times uses the term “discount rate” to mean the primary credit rate.) The discount rate on secondary credit is above the rate on primary credit. The discount rate for seasonal credit is an average of selected market rates. Discount rates are established by each Reserve Bank’s board of directors, subject to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The discount rates for the three lending programs are the same across all Reserve Banks except on days around a change in the rate. …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/discountrate.htm

Federal Funds Rate

“…In the United States, the federal funds rate is the interest rate at which private depository institutions (mostly banks) lend balances (federal funds) at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions, usually overnight.[1] It is the interest rate banks charge each other for loans.[2]

The interest rate that the borrowing bank pays to the lending bank to borrow the funds is negotiated between the two banks, and the weighted average of this rate across all such transactions is the federal funds effective rate.

The federal funds target rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.

The Federal Reserve uses Open market operations to influence the supply of money in the U.S. economy[3] to make the federal funds effective rate follow the federal funds target rate. The target value is known as the neutral federal funds rate[4]. At this rate, growth rate of real GDP is stable in relation to Long Run Aggregate Supply at the expected inflation rate.

U.S. banks and thrift institutions are obligated by law to maintain certain levels of reserves, either as reserves with the Fed or as vault cash. The level of these reserves is determined by the outstanding assets and liabilities of each depository institution, as well as by the Fed itself, but is typically 10%[5] of the total value of the bank’s demand accounts (depending on bank size). In the range of $9.3 million to $43.9 million, for transaction deposits (checking accounts, NOWs, and other deposits that can be used to make payments) the reserve requirement in 2007-2008 was 3 percent of the end-of-the-day daily average amount held over a two-week period. Transaction deposits over $43.9 million held at the same depository institution carried a 10 percent reserve requirement.

For example, assume a particular U.S. depository institution, in the normal course of business, issues a loan. This dispenses money and decreases the ratio of bank reserves to money loaned. If its reserve ratio drops below the legally required minimum, it must add to its reserves to remain compliant with Federal Reserve regulations. The bank can borrow the requisite funds from another bank that has a surplus in its account with the Fed. The interest rate that the borrowing bank pays to the lending bank to borrow the funds is negotiated between the two banks, and the weighted average of this rate across all such transactions is the federal funds effective rate.

The nominal rate is a target set by the governors of the Federal Reserve, which they enforce primarily by open market operations. That nominal rate is almost always what is meant by the media referring to the Federal Reserve “changing interest rates.” The actual Fed funds rate generally lies within a range of that target rate, as the Federal Reserve cannot set an exact value through open market operations.

Another way banks can borrow funds to keep up their required reserves is by taking a loan from the Federal Reserve itself at the discount window. These loans are subject to audit by the Fed, and the discount rate is usually higher than the federal funds rate. Confusion between these two kinds of loans often leads to confusion between the federal funds rate and the discount rate. Another difference is that while the Fed cannot set an exact federal funds rate, it can set a specific discount rate.

The federal funds rate target is decided by the governors at Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings. The FOMC members will either increase, decrease, or leave the rate unchanged depending on the meeting’s agenda and the economic conditions of the U.S. It is possible to infer the market expectations of the FOMC decisions at future meetings from the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) Fed Funds futures contracts, and these probabilities are widely reported in the financial media. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate

Money Supply

“…In economics, the money supply or money stock, is the total amount of money available in an economy at a particular point in time.[1] There are several ways to define “money,” but standard measures usually include currency in circulation and demand deposits (depositors’ easily-accessed assets on the books of financial institutions).[2][3]

Money supply data are recorded and published, usually by the government or the central bank of the country. Public and private sector analysts have long monitored changes in money supply because of its possible effects on the price level, inflation and the business cycle.[4]

That relation between money and prices is historically associated with the quantity theory of money. There is strong empirical evidence of a direct relation between long-term price inflation and money-supply growth, at least for rapid increases in the amount of money in the economy. That is, a country such as Zimbabwe which saw rapid increases in its money supply also saw rapid increases in prices (hyperinflation). This is one reason for the reliance on monetary policy as a means of controlling inflation in the U.S.[5][6] This causal chain is contentious, however: some heterodox economists argue that the money supply is endogenous (determined by the workings of the economy, not by the central bank) and that the sources of inflation must be found in the distributional structure of the economy.[7] In addition to some economists’ seeing the central bank’s control over the money supply as feeble, many would also say that there are two weak links between the growth of the money supply and the inflation rate: first, an increase in the money supply can cause a sustained increase in real production instead of inflation in the aftermath of a recession, when many resources are underutilized. Second, if the velocity of money, i.e., the ratio between nominal GDP and money supply changes, an increase in the money supply could have either no effect, an exaggerated effect, or an unpredictable effect on the growth of nominal GDP. …”

“…Money is used as a medium of exchange, in final settlement of a debt, and as a ready store of value. Its different functions are associated with different empirical measures of the money supply. There is no single “correct” measure of the money supply: instead, there are several measures, classified along a spectrum or continuum between narrow and broad monetary aggregates. Narrow measures include only the most liquid assets, the ones most easily used to spend (currency, checkable deposits). Broader measures add less liquid types of assets (certificates of deposit, etc.)

This continuum corresponds to the way that different types of money are more or less controlled by monetary policy. Narrow measures include those more directly affected and controlled by monetary policy, whereas broader measures are less closely related to monetary-policy actions.[6] It is a matter of perennial debate as to whether narrower or broader versions of the money supply have a more predictable link to nominal GDP.

The different types of money are typically classified as “M”s. The “M”s usually range from M0 (narrowest) to M3 (broadest) but which “M”s are actually used depends on the country’s central bank. The typical layout for each of the “M”s is as follows:

Type of money M0 MB M1 M2 M3 MZM
Notes and coins (currency) in circulation (outside Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions) V[8] V V V V V
Notes and coins (currency) in bank vaults V[8] V
Federal Reserve Bank credit (minimum reserves and excess reserves) V
traveler’s checks of non-bank issuers V V V V
demand deposits V V V V
other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts. V[9] V V V
savings deposits V V V
time deposits less than $100,000 and money-market deposit accounts for individuals V V
large time deposits, institutional money market funds, short-term repurchase and other larger liquid assets[10] V
all money market funds V

M0: In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, M0 includes bank reserves, so M0 is referred to as the monetary base, or narrow money.[11]
MB: is referred to as the monetary base or total currency.[8] This is the base from which other forms of money (like checking deposits, listed below) are created and is traditionally the most liquid measure of the money supply.[12]
M1: Bank reserves are not included in M1.
M2: represents money and “close substitutes” for money.[13] M2 is a broader classification of money than M1. Economists use M2 when looking to quantify the amount of money in circulation and trying to explain different economic monetary conditions. M2 is a key economic indicator used to forecast inflation.[14]
M3: Since 2006, M3 is no longer published or revealed to the public by the US central bank.[15] However, there are still estimates produced by various private institutions.
MZM: Money with zero maturity. It measures the supply of financial assets redeemable at par on demand.
The ratio of a pair of these measures, most often M2/M0, is called an (actual, empirical) money multiplier. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

“Ben Bernanke Has Never Gotten Anything Right,” Peter Schiff Says: Fed Officials Respond

The Dollar Bubble

Peter Schiff Calls Fed Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke A Liar

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...