"Note: My view would suggest that a bank run is a virtual impossibility. As
long as the Federal Reserve has the ability to ÂcreateÂ money, banks
WILL have sufficient access to funds"Yes, the Federal Reserve
will always be able to get the Treasury to print more money. The question is,
will that money be worth anything? This process is not sustainable in the long
run. Call me a doomsayer or whatever, but it's just common sense. As long as
we live beyond our means, we are destined one day to live beneath our means.
"I do not think much of those economic forecasters whose only message is,
and nearly always has been, that U.S. economic and global collapse is just
around the corner."This sort of caricature is nothing but a
deflection from the fact that this Economic Futurist completely missed the boat
on the Great Recession. I believe Jeff Thredgold actually wrote a book,
pre-crash, predicting the coming age of prosperity, right on the cusp of the
worst meltdown in the last 80 years. Tea Leaves indeed. I would encourage
anyone interested to google Jeff Thredgold and look back at his newsletters from
2006 and 2007. Very interesting reading.
@ David King 12:18 p.m. March 7, 2012"the Federal Reserve will
always be able to get the Treasury to print more money. The question is, will
that money be worth anything?"Econ 101 says no. Scarcity is
inversely proportional to value.
As I wait, really needlessly, for the DesNews to approve my opinion, Harry S
Dent is one whose view I respect. He is one who has for a number of years
pointed to the tie in between demographics and economics. His theory is is that
there is a strong correlation between birth rates and the stock market, but note
this, with about a 45 to 50 year lag!Compare the decline in birth
rates in 1910 with the Great Depression of the 1930's, which lag was shortened
with the many young men killed in World War I plus the many young adults killed
by the flue pandemic of 1918. Demand for housing began to decline in 1926, and
plummeted at the first of 1929.In fact, I have come to believe that
the 'baby boom' (1946-1964) is what got & kept us out of the Great
Depression. The 'baby boom' in fact, is as much or more defined by the birth
dearths that preceded & followed it than by any high number of births in
that period. Compared to the decade of 1900-1910, the post-WWII baby boom was
subpar. And yet due to lower death rates since WWII, it left us with more
people. Economies can't grow without populations.
Dear friend,I guess, as always, it depends on where you stand. Since most
of the measures that have been taken over the past 3 years have consolidated the
positions of those in power and special interest groups, it is not impossible
that these people will again run into a cycle of goodies in the future months.
But as usual, the general patterns of real wage collapse of the middle class
have not been addressed during the past few years. As for the media, it will, as
it usually does in the same binary fashion, when it gets a certain signal it
turns its cameras only to the negative, and then when it gets another signal, it
turns only to the positive. Obviously, this being an election year and in
presence of the Main Stream MediaÂs overly positive bias for the current
president, you can expect, as has already been observed, an general attitude of
enthusiastic optimism to drown everybodyÂs rationalism. As for the real
market brains, well they are never in the Stock market, but have always been in
the Bond market.