TPS

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...

Your post is full of it. I didn't vote for Obama. You made a big ASSumption there. The only political statement I made was that the coin could be used as a way to circumvent the Reps. That is a fact, not a political bias. I'd be happy to explain the impact if you'd like to learn it.

According to your previous analysis and statements, more money created leads people to purchase/invest in more real things (or something to that effect). Based on that, shouldn't each successive round of QE lead to higher commodity prices? Commodity prices are lower now than they were 2 years ago, and QE has been non-stop. Seriously, don't provide rhetoric, provide an explanation.

Btw, if your analysis is correct, shouldn't commodity prices also be currently higher than when QE2 started in nov 2010?

I think he missed the word "at" in your original question...

The demise of the dollar as reserve currency is old news...

I think everyone does understand it. How is it any different than saying he let the Bush tax cut for the top "lapse"? Those we "temporary" too, just lasted a little longer, and he fought to prevent the lower rates from increasing for another 5 years. You say tomato and I say tomato.

Yes, the imf data. Commodity futures are one of the primary determinants of the spot prices.

Just wanted to be clear that is what you meant.Yes, purposely chose the wording as my view is that it is driven by investors now that they dominate the commodity markets, and their actions influence measured inflation. This wasn't possible prior to the commodity futures modernization act of 2000.

I completely agree with you!

Nice to hear the bit about no empty backfields, I hate it. I'm sure there had to be some deep balls? His accuracy there?

No. The Fed only holds about $1.6 trillion in treasuries currently. It's a political solution that would allow BO to say FU to the reps when they hold the economy hostage over a politically imposed debt ceiling. A nominal debt ceiling is idiocy. If congress wants to impose a ceiling, then impose a debt/GDP ceiling on public debt outstanding because that is the real measure of of the burden of debt, one's ability to pay. By absorb, do you mean they took it off the books, or the fact that they were put on the books of their banking business so they could be bailed out if need be? Yes, and I believe that I questioned your starting point as well as saying that it amounted to a relatively small annual rate of return on their investments. Serious ?? When "at risk" is measured, is there any attempt to incorporate the risk of counter-party default on what is believed to be hedged? That is, have we learned anything from Lehman?

Yes, we've read that elsewhere. Do you understand the implications of swapping a trillion $ denominated coin with the Fed? The Fed's treasuries already injected $ reserves into the system, the swap adds nothing. What it does is reduce the outstanding debt HELD BY THE FED by $1 trillion, which gives the government room to continue to spend what congress already okayed. The spending going forward, over and above tax revenues, could then be finance with new debt issues, no different than if the debt ceiling was raised. The major impact is that the Fed now loses interest revenues, but those would've been transferred back to the treasury anyway. I'm not talking about the last QE, I'm talking about all of them. The response--as you and I discussed and agreed about a couple years ago--was an initial increase as "investors" poured into commodity investments, but since the demand fundamentals weren't driving the increases, the QE driven bubbles always burst.

And then they came back down...

Interesting, I was thinking about this earlier as a friend of mine just injured his achilles and may need surgery. I'll add another take on it, the new "football analytics" team. This will be KW's second surgery, though I think it's the other foot this time. Your question raises an important issue based on his injury history and the change in defense (again). What to do with someone who has been one of your best defensive players given his injuries and hit fit into the scheme? On another note, I wonder if the new DC puts that DT from Utah in play? We could use a good Samoan....

Rather than me rehashing the issues that have been discussed on various blogs, here's a summary by Roche: http://pragcap.com/explaining-the-silliness-of-the-debt-ceiling-and-platinum-coin-to-the-rest-of-the-world It's pretty clear most people totally misunderstand the concept of using this as a strategy to circumvent the debt ceiling. I'd suggest that Tasker (and Magox) read his views on hyperinflation too...

I am a fan of the new post-crisis Krugman, and I know he's endorsing it. The idea is to circumvent and "man-made" constraint, and it in now way is any more inflationary than if Congress raises the ceiling. Go ask Alice.

It's certainly not Krugman's idea. This has been debated on various blogs for the past year (one of the earliest to discuss the idea is Cullen Roche at Pragmatic Capitalism). It's only now going mainstream. It's a way to circumvent the stupid Congress-imposed debt ceiling.

I agree with your first point, and FWIW I am not a "member" of the 95% of economists who adhere to the unrealistic models that have done nothing to solve real world problems. If you are influenced by Austrians, I am somewhat sympathetic to the approach because they also incorporate the use of debt and reject the equilibrum approach. That said, since you have a particular definition of what supply-side is, it might be useful for me to understand your positions if you explain what you think it means??