Maggie's Farm

The Dingbat Blogobot(s) has been corrected on this countless times but being fundamentally dishonest, and being what passes a paid stooge(s), it ignores reality.

Markets are fundamentally driven by monetary policy. Conversely, Little Baraq Obamuh only survived his 8 year reign of economic terror because the Fed paid for it, starting out with a trillion dollar smoking crater aptly called - as the only honest word in an entire Administration - Stimulus.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/03/Fed%20vs%20S%26P.jpg

http://z822j1x8tde3wuovlgo7ue15.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Clever_QE_Chart.png

http://forexcrunch-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/QE-vs-SP-500-Fed-Stock-sensitive.png

The Dingbat Blogobot(s) wants to argue semantics and opinions. The Dingbat Blogobot(s) has already memory-holed its(s) bizarre lie that despite a shred of evidence, Baraq Obamuh restored the economy.

Given monetary policy - especially during your boy's eight years of globalist failures - "supply and demand" is your euphemism for that policy. Put another way, they are fundamentally intertwined despite all of your diversions and fabrications.

This leads us back to the first lie you made, that Obamuh had a thing to do with the recovery paid for by monetary policy. Ergo: debt.

Is Baraq directly responsible for this trajectory you're on about? Then by the numbers themselves your boy borrowed the only thing that kept him in any public regard whatsoever.

In order for that to be true there must be no money markets but as with the post-2008 trajectory of stock markets, money markets are actually the overwhelming factor.

Your canard is either relevant to your robotic, habitual, partisan thread-jacking or it is entirely irrelevant. And around here nobody's buying your pedantic begging-off act either.

You've drifted a long way from your random assertion around here that the "economy" is recovering and your random implication that, post 2009, Obama is to credit. Now you cede that money factors greatly but you can make no honest distinction between it and GDP, can you, Krugman?

I'll give you one thing: Despite the immense power of your pedantic arrogance, you're getting closer to the word velocity. From there maybe even you can associate real causes and effects instead of perpetually reframing everything virtually everyone says about things you know so precious little about.

1. And those "trend lines" are fundamentally, essentially, utterly tied to monetary policy, Circular-Bot(s), which is why the policy exists.

2. Poppycock? Then the Fed"s whole policy is based on poppycock - see point 1.

Stop being so spectacularly, circularly obtuse, Loserbot(s). It's embarrassing.

You mean a doctrine is not a figure? I'm amazed. And a dog is not a bun? Remarkable.

Sure, robot(s). I'd call that thing you do semantics but it doesn't even rise to that.

You didn't make that claim? Funny, I see these statements of concrete, ironclad, robotic, Partison Fact by your circular robotocism all over the place, not least being this page:



Actually, the stimulus was the Democrat's 2009 bit of magic unicorn dust and, train wreck that he was, Bush had nothing to do with the crash of 2008.

More to the point, whenever you pop up to randomly jam sticks in spokes, your mal-informed little post-2009 FRED chart leads the way. And every time the drippingly Obama-centric aspersions you hope to bestow with it turn on you almost immediately.

Heh. Right below the thing actually resorts to quoting itself admiringly. It's got to be a robot.

Exactly right. The briar patch the Dingbat Blogobot(s) wants to avoid is that the "markets"-driven trajectory it wants to paint as having nothing to do with Trump must be default then have nothing to do with Obama. Which in turn means that the recession under Bush also had nothing to do with party or administration.

It had to do with the nature of money.

What makes the last year and a half all the more remarkable is that at least so far Trump's very real recovery is sufficient not just to curtail the endless QE that kept Obama from looking like the neophyte he is, it's sufficient to actually grow the economy.

The Dingbat Blogobot(s) has painted itself(s) into a corner and the only way out of it is to admit to its(s) epidemic of pointless pedantry and diversions. Because that's all it has.

The economy has been getting stronger since 2009, as the economic trends show.

"Economic trends" show no such thing, robot. Up until recently, economic trends mirror monetary policy, as has been proved to you over and over and over. That being fundamental to your pedantic bullshit, either disprove it or admit you're a conscious, useless diversion from the truth.

Ah, so it was Obama's recovery? Because the cost of goods and the money supply increased at least proportionally, as you keep being told.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user51698/imageroot/2012/08/8-10-12_Base_M2_CPI.png

You've never had a point except to pedantically divert. And with regard to this issue, you really do not know what you do not know.

I didn't say it didn't. However the whole world pretty much knows that all fundamental velocities are related. You, on the other hand, are desperate to associate the "economy" with a political era, as you have around here for months. You just happen to be wrong to do so, and for reasons you've yet to admit, offline, have virtually nothing to do with the Oval Office.

The exception to that rule - as those same fundamentals clearly show - is the current Occupant. The Fed is unwinding but the major statistics you yourself link are still moving positively.

Stop being a loser.

Whether Trump's turning the nation back to productivity accelerates your "trend lines" is irrelevant to the point and purpose of "economic" growth, your other broad euphemism for phenomena you have apparently yet to grasp.

Slowing debt exports, debt monetization, debt growth, the Fed's balance sheet, or even bank derivatives correlates inversely with what you've yet to realize is the end game of your apparent preference, which if it's based on liberal policy - monetary and fiscal - is slowing the economy to the point all negative indicators stop. Because that's how you achieve reverse negative-going indicators. You destroy liquidity. You end velocity.

You are aware that that's the direct implication of what you just as mistakenly assume was an Obama policy, I trust. ZIRP is hardly a way to go through life, robot(s). Unless you can then point to the inversions in indicators that occur when debt is the medium of trade.

So if the Trump Administration is running very large fiscal deficits, and if this real stimulus comes at exactly the wrong point in the market cycle, it's irrelevant unless you are a monetarist - and given your penchant for Obama-era policies and their monetarist destruction of pretty much everything you certainly still appear to be a monetarist - and monetarism is how, in a debt system, you can only restore something by bringing it to a close, or in this case, liquidating all debts which also means dissolving money.

Hence: Inversion. Markets and indicators invert. And the pro-Obama policies you dabble with - regardless what actually implemented them - become not just an allusion and a fiction, they become a fallacy and a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.

As for the Fed, its balance sheet is still about the same as it was because no appreciable time has passed in which Trump policies - which actually are Executive and are real - have granted monetary policy the option to fundamentally end ZIRP, liquidate bad balances, and hopefully actually reverse negative indicators. However, QE3 has ended but the so-called Trump Economy has overcome the effects of QE's decidedly post 2008, post Obama-era stimulus.

Did you catch that part?

If, given that the economy could indeed "have a downturn and deficits will be difficult to rein in", robot(s) should ask themselves(s) why deficits also do not reduce during upturns. Figure that out and you'll stop blathering about what happened after 2008 forever.

American post-2016 manufacturing reshoring is the most significant turnaround in productivity any of us have ever seen. It owes all to the post-2016 CiC actually performing like a chief executive and at a high level.

Your ilk prefers to export debt and take advantage of the world's brown people locked in their low-paying sweatshops.

Stop parsing data to favor your position and listen to what's been said: "Reshoring". Reshoring is returning manufacturing to the US, and as has been noted continually to your obfuscations, slowing the US exporting yet more debt, exporting debt into what turns out to be the sweatshops employing the people your globalist aims claim to want to help.

As for the manufacturing index, what you characteristically fail to note is that the spike in the index reflects another of the phenomenon you refuse to honestly acknowledge, namely debt. Along with expunging billions in bad debt, the new, post-crash $800,000,000 debt act by the Democratic congress did indeed jerk the economy back to its usual irresponsibility from which it then sank by the end of Obama's term - despite trillions in ongoing monetary quantitative easing injected into markets - to flat line pre-Trump to a level not seen - with one exception - since the recessions of the early nineties, the tech bubble, and the Great Recession itself. Since, and lacking quantitative easing, it's spiked to a level in excess of any period under Obama including the snap back bought his Administration by that nearly trillion dollars in artificial stimulus.

All of which has been brought to your robotic attention but none of which is actually the point you'd like to slip into existence, which is why you resorted to framing everything. The point is that rebuilding an entire nation is a decades-long process, yet already after less than two years visible results are rolling in. The ISM strongly disfavors the 8 year prior reign of economic terror you childishly cherry-pick without noting its general trajectory, and the payroll employment that had flatlined during that period at less than 12.4M under Trump's short tenure has already shot through 12.6M.

But the big factor your robotic denial misses is that in order to rebuild you have to make systemic changes. That's what's happening and the nation loves it. The alternative is your debt creation and offshoring all as much manufacturing even though reason knows that that's how you implode any economy. That's the underlying point you refuse to admit: All economic activity hangs from a debt system built on a sovereign currency and as such lasts only as long as that currency does. Restoring an economic foundation requires first slowing that debt system and then bringing it to zero before reversing it. Under your tacit economic fait accompli it takes monetarism to prevent collapse.

You'd need to actually take an interest in what's really happening instead of constantly interfering with those of us who do. Your reputation is made, robot. Misrepresenting manufacturing by glossing over both its real trajectory as well as what really drives it and how is a lie. Anyone can provide the data and the reality, but nobody can make you decide to grasp it.

"Faulty premise": Anything that delves outside the robot's narrative.

That's twice now with the rank intellectual dishonesty so by now you are proven far more than dead wrong. Enjoy yourself; I'm done.

None of which you can ascribe to a static global market condition, robot, because as I keep saying, such does not exist. Reshoring is a doctrine, a plan. An investment. A strategy to stem the debt gusher. Because it requires capital and since this Administration hasn't cut a trillion dollar check and called it stimulus, it's downstream from a reviving economy, which is way downstream from tax and tariff reform.

Especially in a peak cycle. You remember that, right, because you raised it. But since Google-Fu'ing your way to mucking around in every topic known by man is your stock in trade you don't really care about clarity.

And now I've taken your bait and we can all sit back and wait for your next wooden utterance with no pertinence to your original premise, which was that everything following the 2008 crash is a political construct at the same time as it's not a political construct.

Faulty premise. And why do you love third world sweatshops paid for by American debt, jerkbot?

It's beyond you, robot. All this is beyond you. I just gave you the very method proposed, promised, and implemented by the chief executive - which is exactly the most profound productivity turnaround any of us have seen - and you obfuscate back to the usual nonsensical parsing.

Do you think we don't remember?

Premise: The Trump economy is healthy. Booming, even.

Zborg: No it's not. This has been going on since 2009.

Reality: QE has been going on since 2009, 'bot, and fully half or more of the Fed's $4.5T balance sheet owes to the Obama era. You are making this a political battle, are you not?

Zborg: We made no such assertion. However Trump has had no effect [in the only positive break from monetarism vs markets there's been] since 2009 which means that monetary and/or fiscal policy had no effect in the Obama-era market. Which rose from its 2008 nadir.

Reality: So basically Obama unconsciously and without a shred of evidence still accomplished what you're implying between 2009 and 2017, while Trump, who consciously slows debt exports by renegotiating hundreds of Clinton-Bush-Obama follies and under whom markets have rocketed upward even despite QE ending, has been completely ineffectual.

Which is it, robot? Either neither have an effect, making this purely a monetary question, or both have, making it a partisan issue traceable to real policies and acts. See, market growth had ended back in 2015 within weeks of QE flatlining. But just weeks before Trump's election they resumed their upward trajectory. This is called the Trump Bump.

So far you lose both ways. Obama is either responsible for the doubling of national debt and the doubling of the Fed's balance sheet and the ZIRP that it took to keep the economy from imploding on his watch or he is not. Either way it happened and he was the beneficiary and you just got a lesson in money.

Conversely, Trump is either responsible for renegotiating trade agreements and the upcoming, post-2018 reduction of the Fed's balance sheet and for rising interest rates or he is not. Either way it's happening and he's the beneficiary - or victim - of monetary policy he does not make while markets are expanding and unemployment is low ... and you just got a lesson in integrity.

You want to twist that into another of your pretzels, have at it. You tried to have it both ways and failed.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/10/26/saupload_Fed-Balance-Sheet-Reduction-Plan-102517.png

You're an unwitting monetarist who, despite acknowledging that markets exist, tacitly asserts that money is somehow immutable: inherently sovereign and unchangeably solvent while you also try to enjoy all the benefits actual monetarism lends you.

Of course, normal people know that perpetual trade imbalance devalues and eventually destabilizes a sovereign currency. Pending your elaborating on that blindingly obvious fact, you've just described buying goods with paper generated by selling bicycles when you have just four bicycles and no intent to make more.

The only salient question is how long before your supplying exporter realizes that having no more bicycles, your paper is just paper. Maybe slightly longer than it's taken Russia to dump US debt? Currency must eventually exchange for production. Money is an elastic medium ... which might even explain why it's traded.

Keep in mind, crackbot, that normal people use specific words for specific reasons. Like selling all your bicycles to finance the basic real goods and services you need but will not make, "exporting debt" is a specific reference to shipping paper to your suppliers - a literal term for what you then regurgitate, thinking your non-monetarist monetarist micronomics have somehow illuminated it.

Watching you deny this simple phenomenon - this basis for monetary policy itself - is remarkable. There's maybe no better proof of partisan bias and lack of good faith than this.

Sticks in spokes illuminate nothing. Regardless of the topic, the false premise-bot's whole purpose is not objectivity but sowing constant obstruction. The only thing that's immutable is that it's a distortion.

In other words when you woodenly and randomly restate certain elements of an obvious and fundamental aspect of trade, Google-fu bot, it magically becomes a fundamentally different macroscopic phenomenon.

And you wonder why eventually nobody bothers to address your specifics. They're simply not the point. In fact, you have no specifics. You have noise.

So. New terms, robot: Why do you hate offshore laborers so much that you'd sweatshop them for as long as the exchange system permitted? How do you flip from denying Obama-era monetarism to denying Trump-era reshoring negotiations? And clinically, why do you pollute every discussion of basic fact with diversion, reframing, and gaslighting?

^ Here The Dingbat Blogobot(s) engages the Soros Keyword Generator Obfuscator 5000 and peppers an otherwise nonsensical comment with a slew of Handy Out of Power Appeals to Structural Americanism. Let's count them, shall we?

-constrain [this round's Hitler Candidate]'s worst impulses
-a line not to be crossed
-put their own decisions before that of the President
-acting within the confines of the U.S. Constitution
-the law.
-They have a responsibility to resign
-go public
-they believe[*]
-the President is violating the law
-a threat to the Republic.
-Once unleashed
-internal forces
-difficult to contain in the future.

*code for let's frame this preposterous periodic rhetoric in the most transparent lingo known to man because postmodern reality is nothing but opinion, including that of imbeciles and liars.

Because noble "free speech" is just as salient when it comprises wholesale corruption of truth.

What a load of unmitigated horse shit, but not one word of it surprising why? Because it's boilerplate Handy Out of Power Appeals to Structural Americanism from sources whose fundamental aim is to destroy original structuralism.

And they happen each and ever time the lunatics find themselves out of power and want to pose themselves as if having something meaningful to say anyway.

Right, so delusion is supportable opinion and vice versa?

Try this on for size: In support of my assertion that "Republic" as you(s) abuse the term makes your liberalism a fraud, I also assert that bastions of that liberalism are themselves only too happy to destroy it.

Bastions of liberalism are determined to ruin structuralism and create a mob.

So much for Republic. Seems that a fundamental term of your leftist Handy Out of Power Appeals to Structural Americanism is already bullshit.

None of which changes the fact that given your history and the history of liberalism, all that appealing to structuralism is poppycock. There's rhetoric on one hand and there's false narrative on the other.

I haven't lost track of the thread, I've remembered the misery of the out of power robotic leftist and his pedantic concern-trolling using terms he wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

Gibberish? You waltzed yourself and the left right into the wall, Pedantic Dingbat Blogobot(s). The nation has figured out that all your off-cycle, out-of-power appeals to structuralism have always been unmitigated bullshit.

I beg to differ, Jim. The crash wasn't caused by either those who identified or denied it at the end, it was caused by prior banking policy. It wasn't caused by the FMs either, although they helped.

Nor could Zach's "regulation" have prevented what would eventually simply be a problem of arithmetic.