Looks like Glenn Beck is right on Inflation

Post Reply New Topic

alright in december I will buy you a loaf of bread.
or in the extreme case Beck is right you buy the dog demon a loaf of bread.

I think the rest of us should pony up to get Inayusha subscription to the British conservative Economic magazine.
The Economist cost $67.25 dollars american. if ten people join in thats just $6.73 each.

Remember: to people who watch Glen Beck, "British Conservative" means "loony left." I'm not convinced that Inuyasha would even bother reading it.

If Glen Beck and Inuyasha are correct, then, by December, this subscription will cost around $1,000. This could be an even better investment than gold right now.

right right I wonder if we could pre-order it somehow

Yes I know there are sites out to make money selling gold or other precious metals.



Rhetorical Question: Why do you think I went and got other sources like bloomberg.com.

Answer: To prove that Beck's source isn't making this up...

Does anyone teach history anymore?!?! I'm serious about this, none of you understand history.

Japan's lost decade, Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Germany between WW I and WW II, and there are several other examples. If you think that it can't happen here even with the fiscal insanity that has been going on currently you are either deluded or in denial.

I'm not bringing this up to get people to buy gold, neither is Glenn Beck, he is bringing this up so people hold their elected officials' feet to the fire so they actually stop spending like shopaholics and trying to drive this country off a cliff. This is not about selling people Gold, this is about putting on the breaks while there is still time left.

Or, get those scuz buckets to raise taxes.

Or, swap the state of Texas to China in exchange for debt forgiveness.

ooh ooh lets do that. it would make my drive from NC to AZ shorter.

Insulting people's intelligence does not win any points in this debate. Are you incapable of disagreeing without being disagreeable?

Yes let's get rid of the state with the highest rate of Job growth in the nation...

Anyways I found some other sources:

The fiscal implications of the current policy package are particularly serious. For the time being, fiscal policy has been put at the service of survival, but the current price of survival is that net public debt is going to double as a share of GDP between 2008 and 2014. Even using the very optimistic forecasts of the Congressional Budget Office, which anticipate growth of around 4% over the next few years, the net debt burden will rise from 40% of GDP to 80%--that's an increase in the debt stock of about $9 trillion. The interest charge alone on that increased debt will be in the region of $300 billion to $400 billion a year, which in turn may mean more borrowing to pay the interest if primary deficits are not reduced. When governments reach the point where they are borrowing to pay the interest on their borrowing they are coming dangerously close to running a sovereign Ponzi scheme.

Ponzi schemes have a way of ending unhappily. To get out of the Ponzi trap, governments will have to raise taxes, or cut spending, or monetize the debt--or most likely do some combination of all three.

Monetization is already happening. This is where a government effectively prints money by allowing the central bank to create base money that is used to buy government debt, thereby increasing liquidity and holding down long-term interest rates (because the additional demand for these securities pushes up bond prices, thereby lowering the real interest rate the securities pay, as well as putting money into the pockets of the investors who have sold the securities).

Over time, monetization is inflationary, but the inflationary effect is insidious because it is not immediately visible. In the short run deflation will outplay inflation. In most developed countries today there is so much slack in economies, with weak demand and high unemployment, that prices cannot rise. The velocity of money is also weak, as financial institutions are receiving liquidity from central banks and hoarding it to rebuild their balance sheets, instead of lending it out. But as the economy recovers, these effects will abate, and the growth of the monetary base caused by monetization will eventually drive expected and actual inflation. And once markets start to anticipate that scenario, it may already be too late to avert an inflationary surge.

Simply issuing debt in the form of Treasury bonds offers no escape. The more debt a government issues, the higher the risk it will eventually face refinancing problems and/or default on that debt. Accordingly, investors will demand a higher return for investing in that debt, and that in turn will push up rates. Independent rating agencies have already downgraded the sovereign risk rating of countries like Greece and Ireland, and it cannot be ruled out that core economies of the OECD, including the U.S., could eventually be downgraded.

As it happens, there is little sign today of investors demanding a significantly higher risk premium on U.S. government debt. That is partly because private savings are increasing: Those savings have to be invested somewhere and investors are cautious about alternative investments. Foreign demand for U.S. bonds also remains robust so far. But this demand is unlikely to survive another big round of government-financed stimulus and bailout spending. And unfortunately, such a spending round is rather likely.

Consider that by the end of 2010 most of the tax cuts legislated by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003 are due to expire. This means that there will be a sharp tax hike, including income taxes, capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends and estates. This hike--equivalent to around 1.5% to 2% of GDP--is already factored in to future calculations of government indebtedness. So if by next year the recovery proves as anemic as I expect, and if unemployment is around 10.5%-11%, as I also expect, then the pressure for another stimulus round early in 2010 will be strong.

A rough calculation goes like this: Stimulus money to keep the lid on rising unemployment is likely to be around $200 billion. Add to that the likely temporary partial extension of the Bush tax cuts and funding of the current administration's plans for universal health care (an additional bill of around $1.5 trillion over 10 years) and you get deficits close to12% of GDP.

This amounts to a fiscal train wreck. For the U.S., it means deficits could remain over 10% of GDP for years. Bond issuance will remain enormous, and it will mean that the Fed will almost certainly have to monetize a proportion of the debt by buying even more government or government-backed securities. -- Nouriel Roubini
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/26/stimul ... ubini.html

Bio of Nouriel Roubini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini

July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The global economy may fall back into a recession by late 2010 or 2011 because of rising government debt, higher oil prices and a lack of job growth, said Nouriel Roubini, the New York University economist who predicted the credit crisis.

A “perfect storm” of fiscal deficits, rising bond yields, “soaring” oil prices, weak profits and a stagnant labor market could “blow the recovering world economy back into a double-dip recession,” he wrote in a research note today. “It is getting more likely unless a clear exit strategy from the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus is outlined even before it is implemented.”

Roubini, chairman of Roubini Global Economics and a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, predicted that the global economy will begin recovering near the end of 2009. The U.S. economy is likely to grow about 1 percent in the next two years, less than the 3 percent “trend,” he said.

Roubini based his short-term outlook on the worsening condition of the U.S. housing and labor markets, which he called “inextricably linked.” He said a “weak” job market will contribute to another 13 percent to 18 percent drop in house prices, bringing total declines nationally to as much as 45 percent from their peak.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... Y.UV6r3uiE


Some prominent hedge fund managers are concerned about runaway inflation. Jim Rogers has been criticizing the Fed’s monetary policy for a while. “I don’t know what’s going to happen to the world economy. I know if the economy gets better, I’m going to make money in commodities. If it doesn’t get better, I’m going to make money in commodities because they’re going to print money, print huge amounts of money,” Rogers said recently.

Ray Dalio, owner of the world’s biggest hedge fund, expects the US dollar to depreciate and emerging markets’ currencies and gold to appreciate. “Most investors have too much dollar denominated assets or too much of their portfolio in developed countries. I don’t think that they have typically much gold in their portfolio. Gold is a form of money…The main theme now for investors is that if they diversify their assets into other assets, I think other assets will perform better. It will also lower the risk of their portfolio,” Ray Dalio said two days ago.

Seth Klarman is also concerned about runaway inflation and currency collapse. He must have been buying physical gold recently. Here is what he said in his investor letter:

“Yet another long-term risk confronts investors: the government’s fiscal and monetary experiments may go awry, resulting in runaway inflation or currency collapse. Bottom-up value investors would not wish to bet the ranch on a macroeconomic view, but neither would they be wise to ignore the macroeconomy altogether. Disaster hedging – always an important tool for investors – takes on heightened significance in today’s unprecedentedly challenging environment. Yet, as this insight is not unique to us, the cost of insurance is high. There are no easy ways to navigate these turbulent waters. But because the greatest risks are of currency debasement and runaway inflation, protection against a currency collapse – such as exposure to gold – and against much higher interest rates seem like necessary hedges to maintain.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/seth-kla ... ion-2011-3

I'd rather west Texas and New Mexico in that trade.

Business moving from one big city to another isn't exactly growth when you look at it from the nation as a whole. Their growth is little more than leeching off of other states' and cities' stagnation.

Better than the business simply leaving the country after getting fed up with the insane taxes of California and Illinois.

Well, if China takes over Texas, that would create a lot of jobs for Texans, and Chinese-made goods wouldn't have to be shipped across the Pacific.

Also, we wouldn't have to raise taxes. In fact, if China were to pardon us our debts (as a result of the trade), then we could cut taxes again, and then borrow even more money from China.

That's still happening. All the labor jobs are still moving overseas. It's just the white collar jobs that are staying here. Money protects money, not the unwashed masses.

It's why all the unskilled jobs that are left here are simply retail: we're becoming a modern version of feudalism. The lower classes don't actually make things anymore, just sell crap made somewhere else.

I don't doubt there will be inflation. What I DO doubt is the ability of penny stock (not gold, but penny stock, which is about as shady as it gets) pump and dump scammers to predict EXACT prices in any real fashion a year or five from now. Sure, they can say "well ok we will have 1000% inflation in 2012" and do the math, but where did that 1000% figure come from? They pulled it out of their butts.

You also posted something from some economist who said that the public will be clamoring for a second stimulus in 2012, no they won't, why? Because they KNOW the first stimulus didn't do squat. If Obama tries to pull another $800 billion package of ACORN paybacks out of his butt, he'll lose the election. (Unless of course he cheats.) There is no way on God's green earth that Americans will let our politicians do what Japan did and keep shoveling money at the economy without effect until debt is 300% of GDP. If the pols insist on ramming it through and the public be damned, like with the first bailout, they may eventually find their heads gracing the tops of poles.

Americans mostly realize that no matter how they vote the politicians will do what they want and the public be damned, they're acting like the French aristocrats did shortly before they found themselves chopped to pieces. The American aristocrats seem powerless to stop the govt from spending what it wants, the bureaucrats are running the show and they now demand so much money that the private sector has all but disappeared, taxed out of existence or forced to move to China. The only thing left is the government, we are now in effect a communist state because the private sector fled the onerous taxes. The govt is now printing money to fund itself, and that ends badly.

If the only way to prevent raging hyperinflation is 40% unemployment, then so be it. At least in that case we would have a revolution, which is a good thing. Anything that causes the toppling of the US govt is good.

Ever hear of people giving an example so people can grasp the seriousness of the situation. While there probably was some analysis that spat out the numbers they gave, the purpose was to convey the seriousness of the situation. It sets a frame of reference that people can relate to.

Example:

If one says inflation is going to be bad... People are going to be asking how bad and be unsure as to the seriousness of the situation. By giving examples with price figures that people can relate to it can convey that this is a serious situation.



It is an economist not a psychic, and actually I do expect Democrats to push another stimulus. Also it wouldn't surprise me if Obama does cheat in the 2012 election.



That is why you vote politicians out of office, and Republicans are actually putting the brakes on the runaway train. Paul Ryan is actually submitting a budget that cuts a lot of spending. It isn't likely to make it through the Senate (unless Democrats get some fiscal sanity) nor will the President likely sign it into law, but it makes the point that Republicans are serious about the situation.

The reason why people are recommending gold is due to the insane printing of money, you can't print more Gold.