Where is all the bank liquidity going? No one seems to know, least of all Jay Powell, who gets paid to know. What we do know: thus far, the Fed is unable to keep enough liquidity in the system. http://archive.vn/iA1Oe #news #economy #banking #finance #EndTheFed
thumb_upthumb_downchat_bubble

More from A Voice Of Liberty

Has #Beijing repeated Ben Bernanke's 2006 mistake that led to the 2008 financial crisis? In 2006, Ben Bernanke sought to cool what he believed to be an overheated real estate market, so he hike interest rates 3 times by July. The cooling succeeded, but the collapse in home prices triggered an avalanche of mortgage defaults, which contaminated the derivatives market, which sparked the financial crisis in 2008. By different mechanisms, #China has sought to accomplish a similar cooling of hot real estate markets, and may have succeeded too well, with home sales dropping 86% in Shanghai and 92% in Beijing during the "Golden Week" holiday that as been an historically high period during the year for home sales. One abysmal week does not automatically mean real estate prices have collapsed or will collapse, but unless sales rebound over the coming weeks a price collapse may very well have begun. Like Bernanke in 2006, China may just have burst its hugely inflated asset and credit bubble. https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3032030/golden-week-property-sales-plunge-major-chinese-cities-amid-slowing #news #economy #realestate
29 views ·
Thoughts on the Democratic Debate: In many ways, this is the debate the Democrats should have had back in July. At least the candidates tried to make it about substance. That's not to say they succeeded. From the first there was a whole lot of Trump bashing, and all of it was predictable. And I think I've figured out the Democrats' biggest weakness as far as confronting Donald Trump--they've literally run out of things to say about him. Every insult, every gibe, every attempt at a policy attack was something that had been heard before. On substance, very few of the candidates had any real substantive stances. Warren kept wanting to swing for the cheap seats. She wants to be a combination of FDR and LBJ, with big bold legislative programs. She might actually believe it too. Biden kept trying to reclaim the electability argument by saying he's the only one who's ever gotten anything big done--he did use that to score a good hit on Warren by pointing out that HE whipped votes for her consumer protection bill (she pulled a Ted Cruz by pointedly thanking Obama in response...it was not a good moment for her, made her look small). The moderators were clearly favoring Warren over everyone, while being vaguely deferential to Joe Biden. The bias was obvious; Anderson Cooper didn't even try to hide the fact that Warren was the favored candidate on the stage. Tulsi Gabbard tried for a repeat of her epic takedown of Kamala Harris, challenging Elizabeth Warren to call for an end to regime change wars in the Middle East. Warren was a little confused at first but recovered quickly. She did show her fangs and claws, though, skillfully peeling the hide off Pete Buttigieg when he virtually admitted he's for endless war in the Middle East. The Syria question made on thing abundantly clear: the Democrats are an enthusiastic pro-war party. Even Tulsi Gabbard favors war, she just wants to attack Saudi Arabia instead of Turkey or Iran. None of them stopped to acknowledge that Turkey, as a member of NATO, is a formal ally of the United States--in fact they all talked as if the opposite were true, while no one effectively addressed the possibility of kicking Turkey out of NATO (which is just as well, because that's not happening any time soon). Ultimately, there were no big fireworks here. Warren is clearly trying to show she's got the vision to be both the front runner now and the nominee next fall. Biden was trying to show he's still relevant--he didn't really succeed, and his anger and attempt at passion at the end suggests he knows he's on the way out. Sanders was a non-factor. The moderators acted as if they were indulging him by asking questions, but it was clear they weren't taking him seriously. Erin Burnett sounded particularly condescending when asking the age and health question (which Warren handled the best of all, and which Tulsi Gabbard had no idea how to answer). On the economy, they all had variations on the same theme: corporations bad, business bad, private sector jobs bad, federal government jobs good. My takeaway: this debate was more interesting to watch than the others, but no new ground was broken. Everything that any of them had to say they'd said before. Even on Syria, they'd all already tweeted out their talking points. And most of those talking points are either painfully vague or scarily fascistic. Harris kept using her trope of "Congress has 100 days to act and then I'm taking over"--of all the wannabe Presidents on the debate stage she is the most fascistic (one could even say she IS a fascist). Was Trump the clear winner of this debate? Probably less clear than before, but the one thing that emerged is that the Democrats still have no new ideas, except possibly Elizabeth Warren, and she can't distill hers down to a message she can easily take to the mass audience. Andrew Yang still can't explain how his UBI plan would work or even be paid for. All of them are going to raise taxes on just about everyone. Of the candidates on the debate stage, Warren probably was the ultimate winner. She didn't make any major gaffes, talked a good visionary game, and overall sounded like a front runner. No Democrat can offer up a clear vision of where they will take the country. They are still the party of no ideas, no agenda, no real talking points at all. They didn't spend the whole debate bashing Trump with sophomoric insults, but neither did they spend the debate talking about any answers. That unquestionably benefits Donald Trump in 2020, having a opponent with fewer answers than Ted Kennedy in 1984. My live tweet comments contemporaneous with what was happening on the debate stage can be seen here: https://twitter.com/avoiceofliberty/status/1184259505628033024 #news #politics #DemDebate #election2020 #democrats
54 views ·

More from A Voice Of Liberty

Has #Beijing repeated Ben Bernanke's 2006 mistake that led to the 2008 financial crisis? In 2006, Ben Bernanke sought to cool what he believed to be an overheated real estate market, so he hike interest rates 3 times by July. The cooling succeeded, but the collapse in home prices triggered an avalanche of mortgage defaults, which contaminated the derivatives market, which sparked the financial crisis in 2008. By different mechanisms, #China has sought to accomplish a similar cooling of hot real estate markets, and may have succeeded too well, with home sales dropping 86% in Shanghai and 92% in Beijing during the "Golden Week" holiday that as been an historically high period during the year for home sales. One abysmal week does not automatically mean real estate prices have collapsed or will collapse, but unless sales rebound over the coming weeks a price collapse may very well have begun. Like Bernanke in 2006, China may just have burst its hugely inflated asset and credit bubble. https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3032030/golden-week-property-sales-plunge-major-chinese-cities-amid-slowing #news #economy #realestate
29 views ·
Thoughts on the Democratic Debate: In many ways, this is the debate the Democrats should have had back in July. At least the candidates tried to make it about substance. That's not to say they succeeded. From the first there was a whole lot of Trump bashing, and all of it was predictable. And I think I've figured out the Democrats' biggest weakness as far as confronting Donald Trump--they've literally run out of things to say about him. Every insult, every gibe, every attempt at a policy attack was something that had been heard before. On substance, very few of the candidates had any real substantive stances. Warren kept wanting to swing for the cheap seats. She wants to be a combination of FDR and LBJ, with big bold legislative programs. She might actually believe it too. Biden kept trying to reclaim the electability argument by saying he's the only one who's ever gotten anything big done--he did use that to score a good hit on Warren by pointing out that HE whipped votes for her consumer protection bill (she pulled a Ted Cruz by pointedly thanking Obama in response...it was not a good moment for her, made her look small). The moderators were clearly favoring Warren over everyone, while being vaguely deferential to Joe Biden. The bias was obvious; Anderson Cooper didn't even try to hide the fact that Warren was the favored candidate on the stage. Tulsi Gabbard tried for a repeat of her epic takedown of Kamala Harris, challenging Elizabeth Warren to call for an end to regime change wars in the Middle East. Warren was a little confused at first but recovered quickly. She did show her fangs and claws, though, skillfully peeling the hide off Pete Buttigieg when he virtually admitted he's for endless war in the Middle East. The Syria question made on thing abundantly clear: the Democrats are an enthusiastic pro-war party. Even Tulsi Gabbard favors war, she just wants to attack Saudi Arabia instead of Turkey or Iran. None of them stopped to acknowledge that Turkey, as a member of NATO, is a formal ally of the United States--in fact they all talked as if the opposite were true, while no one effectively addressed the possibility of kicking Turkey out of NATO (which is just as well, because that's not happening any time soon). Ultimately, there were no big fireworks here. Warren is clearly trying to show she's got the vision to be both the front runner now and the nominee next fall. Biden was trying to show he's still relevant--he didn't really succeed, and his anger and attempt at passion at the end suggests he knows he's on the way out. Sanders was a non-factor. The moderators acted as if they were indulging him by asking questions, but it was clear they weren't taking him seriously. Erin Burnett sounded particularly condescending when asking the age and health question (which Warren handled the best of all, and which Tulsi Gabbard had no idea how to answer). On the economy, they all had variations on the same theme: corporations bad, business bad, private sector jobs bad, federal government jobs good. My takeaway: this debate was more interesting to watch than the others, but no new ground was broken. Everything that any of them had to say they'd said before. Even on Syria, they'd all already tweeted out their talking points. And most of those talking points are either painfully vague or scarily fascistic. Harris kept using her trope of "Congress has 100 days to act and then I'm taking over"--of all the wannabe Presidents on the debate stage she is the most fascistic (one could even say she IS a fascist). Was Trump the clear winner of this debate? Probably less clear than before, but the one thing that emerged is that the Democrats still have no new ideas, except possibly Elizabeth Warren, and she can't distill hers down to a message she can easily take to the mass audience. Andrew Yang still can't explain how his UBI plan would work or even be paid for. All of them are going to raise taxes on just about everyone. Of the candidates on the debate stage, Warren probably was the ultimate winner. She didn't make any major gaffes, talked a good visionary game, and overall sounded like a front runner. No Democrat can offer up a clear vision of where they will take the country. They are still the party of no ideas, no agenda, no real talking points at all. They didn't spend the whole debate bashing Trump with sophomoric insults, but neither did they spend the debate talking about any answers. That unquestionably benefits Donald Trump in 2020, having a opponent with fewer answers than Ted Kennedy in 1984. My live tweet comments contemporaneous with what was happening on the debate stage can be seen here: https://twitter.com/avoiceofliberty/status/1184259505628033024 #news #politics #DemDebate #election2020 #democrats
54 views ·