Why should we be selling now instead of at the market highs a year ago.


Also, I don't think Buffet has ever said exactly that. He has said - Be greedy when everyone is fearful and be fearful when others are greedy.

My completely uneducated opinion is, the US has enormous debt capacity, more than we realize. Go look at when the largest debt to gdp ratio was, look where it is now. But more likely, what AC said, we are better shoppers, and business can and do operate on smaller margins, due to ease of entry for competitors in the digital market place. No brick and mortar.

Starting around the 29:30 mark of this podcast

https://www.financialsense.com/podca...imartino-booth

Jim Puplava interviews Danielle Dimartino-Booth about what's going on at the Fed and Fed Chairman Jay Powell's steps to quell recent disruptions in the repo market. (Ms. DiMartino-Booth is author of the book: "Fed Up: An Insider's Take On Why The Federal Reserve Is Bad For America." After reading her book, I think it's accurate to say that Danielle is not a member of the Alan Greenspan fan club.)

Financialsense has been predicting hyperinflation since at least the mid 2000s.

They just pumped another 100b into the system

no end in sight? going on 5 months

Two questions I don't know the answer to:

What's wrong with the system that it needs massive amounts of liquidity pumped into it (GFC levels)?

Will this heal the system or merely make it worse in the long run?

How high do you think the fed balance sheet can get before this cycle is affected?

6T, 8T?...

At some point the massive deviation from fundamentals is going to cause atleast some restructuring or new opportunity?



As far as the inflation stuff discussed ITT, I think many industries just have such low cost from technological progress that it is going to be very hard for inflation to hit them. Thus all the excess printing just goes into the **** that you need/can't be easily produced (for lack of a better term)....Healthcare, education, housing, stocks. Housing in general with land ultimately being finite.

Also, if the fed can't satisfy market demand well then why are they so afraid of a recession if we have 1 every 7-8 years? The "take away the punch bowl" scenario has no chance to facilitate a soft landing this time around? Is it because the amount of bad debt in the system is just too much compared to past cycles?

Probably because I'm economically (and financially) illiterate, I'm having trouble understanding the last four posts/replies. Reading between the lines, I have the impression that what Tooth, Shuffle, and Onlydo2days are saying is that the Fed is blowing up a balloon that will inevitably burst. If that is indeed what they are saying, I suppose the two operative questions are: (1.) When does this "bubble" burst, and (2.) What will be the consequences?

I've thought that the longer the Fed puts off (or delays) a "correction" in the markets, the worse it will be when the inevitable correction/recession/crash/inflation (whatever) does happen. Is that what you guys are saying, (i.e. that the Fed can't pump $100 billion/month into the markets indefinitely without some kind of inevitable blow up or disruption occurring?) If this is what you guys believe is underway, it would make sense for the "smart money" to be hoarding cash in anticipation of the approaching day when there will be blood on the streets.

I'm totally befuddled by what is going on. I "sense" that something bad is underway, but I can't pinpoint or explain it. Maybe that's part of the problem. Nobody - including the folks at the Fed - really understand what is happening. It's not unprecedented … After all, it is a fact that back in 2006 Chairman Bernanke was publicly stating that he didn't think the problems in the subprime [housing] market would spread to the broader economy …

That’s essentially what smart money (“too big to fail”) is doing, hence the anticipated liquidity crunch. Basically they’re hedging against the bubbles they created in the corporate bond, stock exchanges and real estate markets bursting.

Watch Out For A Rise In The Debt-to-GDP Ratio

There's just been an interesting discussion with an investment analyst or "investment strategist" on Bloomberg television. The topic of discussion was negative interest rates. This is my [non verbatim] interpretation of his comments.

First, he emphasized that low (or negative) interest rates can't go on indefinitely. He stated that the key metric to watch is the debt-to-GDP ratio. He stated that although the debt-to-GDP ratio is not too high right now, it will begin to "grow exponentially" once baby boomers begin retiring in mass. When that happens, entitlement spending will explode - along with fiscal deficits. At that point, politicians will have to choose from a menu of politically unpalatable choices. Do they raise taxes or cut benefits - especially Social Security benefits? He stated that the "hard choices" necessary to deal with this impending problem should have been made five to ten years ago, but the politicians chose to do nothing. Now we're at the point where this inaction cannot be delayed indefinitely - "demographics" will force politicians to act.

Asked by one of the Bloomberg presenters when he thinks the debt-to-GDP ratio will begin rising, he said there's no way to know in the short term but a large number of baby boomers will begin retiring in the 2024-2025 timeframe. He implied that's when the mander will hit the fan.

I believe Japan has been living with a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 200 percent for quite some time. They have a "demographic problem" too - as in too many old people who are not working and not paying taxes. Ten or twelve years ago, Carmen Rhinehart and Ken Rogoff wrote in their book "This Time Is Different" that once a developed nation's debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 100-125 percent, (I can't recall the exact percentage), 5,000 years of economic history suggests that country is in big economic trouble …

I suppose the BIG QUESTION (for us) boils down to: At what point do creditors refuse to continue financing our debt and demand that interest rates rise? If I understood what this Goldman Sachs (or Morgan Stanley) analyst was saying, he's implying that the day of painful choices is fast approaching.

Right now (and for QE1, 2, etc) all that inflation went into stocks.

If the CPI basket of goods included some stocks, all the numbers add up.

Nope. This is just more zerohedge apocalypse porn.

Shuffle you sound like Jiggs with his peak oil posting. It's always already starting to happen and we're always just a few years from the collapse. What is your play on your contrarian knowledge anyway? Should we be buying up farmland? Or are seeds and ammunition how you're playing this?

My Dinner with Andre rocks.
You ever scene Kicking and Screaming by Noel Boermbouch(sp)?
I think Noel has an affinity for that film.

After the Great Depression, the meme making the rounds was that no company should be too big to fail.
Now apparently even environment poisoning cruise companies are too big to fail...

The first part of this video talks about the Fed intervention in the repo markets that has been going on, i found it interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmG3...ature=youtu.be

if there is no inflation then they can get bailed out too. zero rates on short term treasuries negligible on the long ones .Im of the belief that the central bank can unleash way more and not cause inflation
. Ive been thinking this for years

I don't think 50 trill of central bank balance sheet or goverment debt would uptick the inflation needle much, for instance

My unsubscribed read of that article is that they are looking to replace quarterly reports with more timely/frequent reports. What am I missing?