Jackson Jambalaya

I have been watching this for a while. Recent action from lenders in my case provided proof to me. Made several loans in past weeks. Some of the loans were new and some refinance. Lenders would not use treasuries as basis for the loan as they had done in past. Why? because the lenders know that treasuries are not being market driven. As soon as the Fed has to change its model and rates begin to move up. The lenders will be losing money and hand over fist based on the real cost of money. In other words, they are concerned with the "I"-word. Inflation.

The article seems to be ignoring the operational realities of our monetary system.

Comparing the US to Europe makes no sense. The financial crisis in Europe stems from the fact that those nations defaulting on debt are foreign currency-users (that is, they cannot create Euros but must repay their debt in Euros), whereas the US is operationally never revenue constrained (with the minor exception of whatever debt we hold in foreign currencies, which is barely worth mentioning). If the US defaults on its debt, it's only because we chose that path.

Yes, we've maintained the gold-standard rule about selling the debt to finance deficit spending, but that's a self-imposed constraint.

What am I missing here? I agree that the danger is inflation, but I'm arriving at that conclusion an entirely different way, it seems.

Bernanke needs to be demoted back to professorship at Princeon.

He's practicing unorthodox, unchartered powerful practices. Lower intetest rates have not increased the volume of loans and the Fed intends to raise interest rates in 2014.

President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U. S. and world finance". Ironically, with his death, the debt free silver certificates backed by silver held in the U. S. Treasury were removed from circulation because the silver backed interest free U. S. Notes stripped the power of the privately owned Federal Reserve System.

President Kennedy knew Federal Reserve Notes were contrary to the Constitution of the United States. No other president since has interfered with the powerful Federal Reserve's control.

Yes...well...I agree with Mark.

Also, to me this is similar to criticisms about the stimulus packages and bailouts ( especially the auto bailout). Yes, implementation could have been better and probably would have been if both parties had done their jobs.

What pray tell, would your alternatives have been ( be) and give some examples of your alternatives' successful use in a similar situation.

Is the argument that letting a fragile economic system and struggling recovery fail is somehow a better choice? Please give examples.

Is is REALLY preferable allow inflation ( due in part to oil prices) to get out of control and reverse any recovery gains? Or would that simply insure a depression?

No doubt a deep recession and depression is a financial opportunity for those able to buy assets, property and businesses at garage sale prices ,but explain please why this is good for our country.

Please explain to me why the Fox economists and MSNBC economists haven't urged Congress to take WHATEVER measures upon which they CAN agree to restore our bond rating and reduce the deficit? Is " winning" more important than our Nation's welfare?

And, explain also why, since perception/confidence plays a big role in how the economy does, would any patriotic American contribute to scaring the hell out of the investing/buying public?

I , frankly, am beginning to wonder, if there are those who would rather see the federal government collapse entirely either because they feel they can profit enough to survive or can grab power or are agents of a foreign government. Other explanations are hard to conjure. But, at any rate, politicians and talking heads are very willing to take advantage of the public's lack of understanding of economics.

Don't bother responding to the troll @ March 29, 2012 5:19 PM Mark.

Can't imagine why you think me a troll , Mark.

I agree with your post. I, too, am concerned about inflation.

But, I'm surprised that you don't think partisan politics is adversely affecting our economic recovery and influencing interpretations on television, radio and the Internet.

And, I'm surprised you don't see that when those conclusions are " doom and gloom" or " raise alarm" without an educated understanding of economics and finance that those opinions can adversely affect consumer and investor behavior...there is a ripple effect.

I respect KF, particularly on legal issues, but I just don't think finance and economics and statistics are the areas in which he is the most insightful. And, he is admittedly biased in favor of the GOP. To his credit he isn't so partisan as to ethically or philosophically ignore the conservatism that is suppose to be the basis of Republican ideology.

Don't feed the troll.

Just to clarify something here -- the only comment I've placed was under my own name at 11:19, and I haven't called anyone a troll.

That said, I'm not sure I really understand what position is being argued by 5:19 and 11:41.

That said, I'm not sure I really understand what position is being argued by 5:19 and 11:41.

The troll doesn't know either.

KF, two key ZeroHedge posts I saw via your blogroll over the weekend.

Insiders are selling the rally HARD and even more evidence exposing how the BLS of our first Muslim POTUS is gaming the initial jobless claims data.

Thanks for the stuff you keep in your blogroll.

The troll suggests the non-trolls look up " inflation controls" .