|
TranceAddict Investors Club @ Marketocracy (pg. 149)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Why don't you post an excerpt for us shakka? I'd be interested in it. ;) |
OK--it comes out weekly and the latest one is back at the office. I'll have to type it because the encryption won't let me copy and paste, but it's always good reading and worth the effort. You'll have to wait til next week though.;) |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| Don't worry about it..I'll find a hacked plain text version by then. :wtf: Thanks anyway. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Don't worry about it..I'll find a hacked plain text version by then. :wtf: Thanks anyway. |
Hmm. Not sure if she's mainstream enough for that to happen. I'll bet a virtual $1 against you finding something online! However, here is a link to a page I found that references here from last December.
http://sybilstar.blogspot.com/2008/12/stephanie-pomboy-my-kinda-bear.html
| quote: |
She is founder and president of MacroMavens, a company providing "macroeconomic research and commentary to the institutional investment community." The company strives "to identify major economic trends early while avoiding the typical overemphasis on short-term swings."
Isn't that what any wise investor should be trying to do? No one with a 401(k) should be speculating in any way, shape, or form; and that is what they are doing, albeit unwittingly, by ignoring the macroeconomic ebb-and-flow underneath us all.
She believes we should be "long 'socialism,'" that there will be more government intervention, or as she jokes, "partnering with the government." She thinks the next industry to receive a guarantee will be the municipal bond market.
She sees only two potential outcomes of our present interventionist fling: Higher interest rates or devaluation of the currency. She picks the latter, seeing a weaker dollar as being the choice Bernanke's Fed will make. As soon as interest rates start to climb significantly, they will begin a program of Treasury purchasing to prevent it, which will in turn lower the dollar.
It is this potentiality that makes her a believer in gold, for the medium-term profits and protection of capital. I would add that gold plays a role as a thermometer of monetary inflating. (My mantra, remember: You can take gold out of the standard, but you can't take the standard out of gold.)
Barron quotes her:
"We are going to see a secular rotation from paper assets to hard assets like gold. The whole global competitive currency devaluation, including that of the dollar, plays right into that." [--Yes!--] "I do worry about preservation of capital from the standpoint of how many more unconventional policy actions we are going to have. If I'm correct about the economic deleveraging still ahead and that it will continue for many years, that's a legitimate concern. That's why I'm long gold. I view it as the best way to protect my capital."
Yes yes yes.
As she says on her own website and as quoted in The Weekly Standard in January of 2004, “'Far beneath the surface,’ she writes, ‘the tectonic plates under the U.S. economy have begun to shift, revealing a molten lava river of inflation below….'"
How right she is. I've been railing against inflation since I was born, and more recently since March of 2005 on this blog. The 20th Century's experiment with fiat currencies will very likely fail, as they always have in the past.
In the meantime, hold onto your ingots. |
The website is www.macromavens.com, but apparently I didn't get set-up for a login, I only receive the email updates. Apparently that's all $40k/year gets you! |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I actually think we are at the point where it is impossible to pay off the debt without devaluing the dollar at least 50%. Think about it.. This year alone we are adding $1.75 TRILLION to the national debt. The CBO has already projected an additional $9 trillion will be added over the next 10 years..but let's ignore that for a while. Even if we have balanced budgets every year for the forseeable future, the government will need to create a $100 billion surplus every year for the next *20 YEARS* just to cancel out 2009's deficit! We need 2 decades of $100 billion surpluses just to cancel out this year's wreckless spending..amazing. Has the government ever had a budget surplus more than 1-2 years in a row? No. Our politicians have an insatiable appetite for spending and will never allow surpluses to continue for very long. When you realistically look at the matter and factor in the $9 trillion added from 2010-2010 + countless trillions more in social security/medicare benefits from 2010 onward + huge amounts of interest on that $20 trillion debt, there is no way in hell we are ever going to make a dent in it. Our only option is to "write it off" as a bad liability, which essentially means ordering the fed to print a few trillion dollars and to pay it off with "new money"..which will mean the death of the dollar. As the article above said, "the sound of inevitability" is in the air. It's only a matter of time. If you invest, position yourself accordingly. Get out of paper and into hard (unprintable) assets. |
hey - everyone thinks the debt will be repaid by devaluing the dollar. I forget his name, but a prominent harvard economist even said the fed should actually seek set a target rate of inflation at about 4-6 percent a year.
I don't think there is one legitimate economist that doesn't think the US is going use inflation as a way to pay back the debt. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
OK--it comes out weekly and the latest one is back at the office. I'll have to type it because the encryption won't let me copy and paste, but it's always good reading and worth the effort. You'll have to wait til next week though.;) |
if you still want to type it i'd love to read it. Although, perhaps an easier way to do it is print to a pdf, post it online somewhere, and provide a link (just saying). |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
hey - everyone thinks the debt will be repaid by devaluing the dollar. I forget his name, but a prominent harvard economist even said the fed should actually seek set a target rate of inflation at about 4-6 percent a year.
I don't think there is one legitimate economist that doesn't think the US is going use inflation as a way to pay back the debt. |
What if the government balanced the budget, and then the Fed prints off $11 trillion, pays the debt, and now we'r in the green. Except for inflation! But that'd be only temporary! The Fed's balance sheet is at $3 trillion, I wonder was increasing it almost 4 fold would do... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
What if the government balanced the budget, and then the Fed prints off $11 trillion, pays the debt, and now we'r in the green. Except for inflation! But that'd be only temporary! The Fed's balance sheet is at $3 trillion, I wonder was increasing it almost 4 fold would do... |
And how convenient the timing is with the Baby Boomers about to retire and be much more dependent on fixed income during a time of "temporary" high levels of inflation. It ain't a good thing. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
if you still want to type it i'd love to read it. Although, perhaps an easier way to do it is print to a pdf, post it online somewhere, and provide a link (just saying). |
I don't think I'd type the whole thing and a lot of what is so powerful about her work will be lost due to the inability to share the accompanying charts. In any event, I don't think the adobe encryption will allow me to alter the original or re-save it as a pdf that doesn't require a plugin to view. Blast, I've already overhyped it--it's just some of my favorite weekly reading. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And how convenient the timing is with the Baby Boomers about to retire and be much more dependent on fixed income during a time of "temporary" high levels of inflation. It ain't a good thing. |
That's why social security needs to be privatized. 10% of everyone's income should go to their own social security account, of which, they get to decide where it goes. There should be no more collectivization of people's retirement income. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
That's why social security needs to be privatized. |
Rather surprised to hear this coming from you! Privatization is better than a lock box full of IOUs any day of the week as far as I'm concerned, though far too many in government seem to disagree. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Rather surprised to hear this coming from you! Privatization is better than a lock box full of IOUs any day of the week as far as I'm concerned, though far too many in government seem to disagree. |
30-40 years of saving 10% of one's income really does add up and would pay out much more than social security ever could. |
|
|
|
|
