TPS

As Tasker pointed out, this is an issue going forward. There is now an explicit backing of the derivatives trade for these TBTF firms. What do you think that will do for their risk-taking behaviour?

I thought it was a pretty good discussion. I think they also point out that question I asked about, the counterparty risk. It's pretty clear that the big 4 have carte blanche to gamble (as defined by Whalen I believe) without worrying about a default by one of them, as they are now effectively guaranteed by the FDIC as Tasker said. I believe the saying is, "privatized profits and socialized losses."

I looked at the piece as his "welcome to Buffalo" article. Also, you must be familiar with Sullivan's golf game, since you use the term Mulligan. I'm surprised you only used it once though....

You are correct sir. You can try to pin the past on Brandon, but he takes all formal responsibility starting this year.

Your first derivative is negative. PPPlllfffftttt!!!

There was a discussion on the trillions dollar derivative markets in another post; here is a great discussion on the markets and Wall Street's big 4. Deserves its own thread. http://dailybail.com/home/chris-whalen-barry-ritholtz-the-derivatives-timebomb.html

More like a black hole...http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Military-waste-under-fire-1-trillion-missing-2616120.php

Today's BLS PPI report shows that government continues to lie about the impact of QE; the PPI is down 0.2% for December...

Again, the problem with this logic is that the Bush tax cuts were also "temporary." Enacted starting in 2001 and set to expire in 2010. They were extended along with a temporary payroll tax cut in 2010. Obama CHOSE to extend the Bush income tax cuts for everyone but the those making over $400K, and he also CHOSE to end the payroll tax cut. If he wanted, he could've pushed to maintain the lower payroll tax rate. Of course, that would've given the Reps more ammunition for cutting benefits.... Btw, I believe the income tax extensions for income under $400K are for 5 years, then they "expire again.".

Audits of DOD routinely can't trace hundreds of billions of dollars. Defense contracts are simply corporate welfare. Somehow this seems to be tolerable for the right.

Does Marv know Dick?

And you should get your g-e-d dopey.I was addressing Azalin's question, so blow.

Man, that's one loaded question... To sort of answer, the medical corridor is one of the truly dynamic (for buffalo) growth areas, and it was a combination of state and local resources that helped create a foundation that has attracted 50 private companies to that area. Another important state initiative is the historic tax credit which has helped developers restore some of Buffalo's fantastic architecture. If you haven't seen it, the next time you are back in town, stay at the Lafayette Hotel--you will be floored if you saw how decrepit it used to be. The water front is moving forward rapidly, which is a tribute to the community's input and stopping the idiotic Bass pro development. The city awarded Pegula and the Sabres the development of the Webster block (next to the arena) and they are building a complex that will include a hotel and several ice rinks. The old state Donavan Building next door is being refurbished into a hotel and retail space. In two years, downtown will be radically different in a very good way. As a native Californian, I'm actually very happy fate brought me to WNY. http://www.bnmc.org/innovation/private-companies-on-the-bnmc/ http://thehotellafayette.com/ http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/05/donovan-makeover-plans-get-city-ok.html http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/06/just-three-proposals-for-prime-canal-side-site.html http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/10/construction-watch-inner-harbor.html

November 21, 1963

No, I think that's a character in Harry Potter!

Check the video interview on the bills' website. When jr was coaching HS, he went 0-5 against the old man.

I responded to some of them in the other thread. Though, me responding to Schift's arguments would be no differnet than posting Krugman's views for you (which is why I did in the other thread) as I know exactly how you would respond to that as well.Yes, we all have our own biases.

While I've harped on the commodity speculation, I've never said it's the only impact. I'm simply saying it has been an impact at least two major times since 2008. As i think you and even TAsker have to agree, several trillion dollars are simply sitting as reserves at banks (not really at banks, but electronic accounts at the Fed). The other impacts have been on the dollar, as we agree a couple years ago. Your criticism here is unwarranted. On bonds, see the discussion GG and I had on low rates and the huge refinancings. On portfolios, that is my main argument! Historically, the three main transmission mechanisms for monetary policy are asset prices, interest rates, and the value of the dollar. I suppose you misconstrue and assume I live in a vacuum because I've focused on a new mechanism, the ability of investors to buy commodity products. The others are well known. QE is supposed to drive up asset prices; lower interest rates are supposed to increase borrowing and improve cash flows through refinancing; and it should cause the dollar to fall. Yes, that's all basic economics. Yes, we agree here. Maybe bubble is too strong for you, but I would say that the 2008 run up was a bubble as well as the 11/10-5/10 run up which was mainly driven by QE. I agree with your description going forward, it will depend on economic recovery, the difference is that i argue big banks/investors (starting with the CFMA) have a greater impact on commodity prices NOW; they are more volatile because the markets have flipped. The reason futures markets had position limits was to ensure that investors were not the primary influence on prices, but that commercials were the primary influence. That's no longer the case in the short run. The big banks are the major players now, and they play both sides--physical and investing. They make money on the volatility. Why do you think commodity trading went from insignificant to generating > 20% of revenues for the likes of JPMorgan et al over the past 10 years? As we agreed over two years ago, QE caused the dollar to fall as part of the so-called currency wars.Buying (investing in) commodities when the Fed is expanding the money supply is a rational response under normal conditions, but not with a depressed economy. Those higher prices can't be sustained without an increase in the REAL underlying demand by users of commodities; which is exactly what happened several times since the crisis. The argument is not that difficult. With the developments in commodity futures markets since 2000, it's allowed investors to play all commodities as if they are like gold, the difference is that gold has very little "commercial" demand, so its price will rise and fall and remain thre based on investors' beliefs--however, almost all other commodities suffer from the gravity of real demand! Most professionals aren't, but there are many retail investors who are easily swayed by bad theory, and have been/will be convinced to buy things that they don't understand; especially when returns are so low on everythign else. We all get tired of the same arguments.As I tell my students, there is no truth, especially in macro. It's up to them to decide what theories are best at predicting. Cheers...

Don't miscontrue Dr. I said I liked his offense, and that it looks like the new regime's will be very similar. I also said I liked his calling for the most part, but there were some things I just didn't like. My impression is that these guys will be even better, which doesn't mean that Gailey was terrible.Cheers! Ps. Don't you miss PPP?

First, i give you credit for sticking your neck out often with predictions. Second, just because I focus on a "main" variable for a particlur issue, does not mean I exclude other variables.On inflation, I agree the cpi is somewhat underestimated, but not by more than 1-2% on average. I disagree with the view that it's underestimated on the range of 6-8%. On individual parts. Look at the cpi pieces and you will see that some things are rising much faster and over long periods of time (healthcare and education as you cite, which have nothing to do with QE btw), whereas others are not. As I said, oil-related prices are lower than the QE-generated speculative spike from April 2011 (if anyone recalls at that time, one week after I predicted the oil bubble's collapse, it did). You are dead wrong on clothing; clothing prices have declined over the long term (you ought to see what i can get for $100 at Kohl's!). Overall, the majority of commodity prices are lower today than what they were when driven up by that speculative QE spike in early 2011. These are commodity prices, NOT cpi values. My view can explain it; does yours? Tasker has to dismiss the question because of his austrian monetary views" more money= more inflation. Here's my view again for posterity's sake: Commodity markets have become financialized, that is the dominant players are now financial interests, flipping from 20% of the markets prior to the 2000 CFMA, to now 75% of the market (new instruments like commodity ETFs are also part of the equation). They influence prices in the short run; the more volatility, the more money they can make. QE has led to speculative bets by investors on commodities, driving prices up; however, these artificial bubbles are eventually pricked because they are not supported by the underlying demand (note, these bubbles can persist in the short term the more inelastic the demand is for each item). In my view, QE (where the Fed has purchased bonds from investors) has caused those investors to use the liquidity on speculative commodity investments and FX bets against the dollar. These speculative increases influence the cpi through the impact on commodity prices, with a lag; those components of the cpi decline (with a lag) after the bubble bursts as well. The reason QE hasn't had a sustained impact on higher prices since early 2011 is because of the underlying weakness in the economy (US and globally). In fact, it's the actions of those investors that bring about their own demise, as the higher price of oil (and other commodities) chokes off consumption and demand. Since investors aren't stupid, I think they have learned from QE2, that the so-called money printing by the Fed isn't the primary cause of inflation in a depressed economy. We have not seen the same speculative bubbles with the last couple announcements by the Fed. That said, If the economy improves this year as I have predicted, then investors will again try to jump on that train (which can restrain growth as I described earlier). Now, you want to critque this explanation, please do. If you have a different explanation, please provide it. Stop with the vague BS. Put your theory/explanation in writing, if you dare. Btw, here's another prediction for you: if JPMorgan is allowed to go forward with its physical copper ETF, we will see a nice little bubble this year, and lots of "analysts" calling for higher copper prices.

If it's the first part, it seems the styles of offense are similar, with one main exception (something I think that came out in Simon's analysis) that the MH offense rarely uses an empty set. For the most part I liked Gailey's scheme and much of his calling, but I absolutely hated calling a play with an empty set in short yardage situations. I don't get that. I think he too easily went to the passing game in situations where he didn't necessarily need to. IMHO the running game is something that needs to stay a part of an offense even when you are not generating big runs early (I am not talking about situations where you are down 21 points in the second half). I also don't think he was that good of a game-day coach. That said, I don't know enough about MH, but my impression is they will be better (much of this also is due to Simon's analysis--kudos). Thanks. Whix was a Whim, but it is obviously generated by whoever came up with Chix.

Blah, blah, blah...more rhetoric...blah, blah, blah...You think I'm a supply-sider (whatever your definition of that is?), so if that's the dieing school of which you speak, I agree...

Let's see, you use the start of QE and provide the % change in commodity prices from then until now as verification of your austrian views, but then refuse to explain why commodity prices have fallen the past two years in the face of continuous QE policies; who is the fraud? Then, the only way your minority view can be explained further is to assume a grand consipiracy, that inflation is really 9-10%, not 3-4%. The only argument you (and apparently magox) have is "your view is wrong and you live in a vacuum." The proof is in the ability to explain and predict. You guys are forced to accept an extreme view (inflation is really 9-10%) to support your wrong headed views. I do have some sympathy for the austrian view because they realize that debt is an important aspect of explaining macro; the problem is your views on money are outdated. Even Milton Friedman said something similar... Here is an explanation for you...http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/opinion/krugman-coins-against-crazies.html?_r=1&

Yes, it's not like he doesn't have a vested interest in "proving" he's right about inflation.Here's an article that's a bit more objective: http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/CPI-Conspiracy-inflation-economy/2012/04/19/id/436430 Btw, I would agree with the camp that says there is some downward bias, but not to the extent that our austrian friends here believe.

The new Brandon-Whix-Marrone regime aren't messing around. I don't know that the offense will be significantly different, but the play calling has to be better. The defensive players have to be pretty excited about the changes; I certainly am. Damn! They are sucking me in again...