fed52
Nuovo forumer
buongiorno a tutti ..... una vecchia notizia, ma sempre attuale, la FED trucca le borse
da http://www.cobraf.com/forumf/cool_r...&reply_id=35384
18 June 2003 9:56
JOHN CRUDELE sul NY Post è un mastino per le storie di borsa e di economia, è stato lui ad esempio che per anni ha scavato per trovare indizi che la FED interveniva segretamente sui mercati
Qui spiega oggi come il capo economista incaricato delle statistiche sull'inflazione si sia lasciato scappare che l'inflazione reale in America è molto più alta di quella ufficiale (www.nypost.com/business/1081.htm)
Tutta la storia della "Deflazione" è per usare un termine inglese una bufala. Due mesi fa anche Greenspan è sceso in campo ufficialmente per dire che per la FED era il vero pericolo e da allora le obbligazioni sono esplose in su e poi le borse sono risalite
Il fatto che i beni importati dalla Cina siano sempre di più e calino di prezzo è vero e così è vero che i prodotti tecnologici in genere a parità di qualità costino meno. Ma questo non fa calare il costo della vita a meno che uno non viva di soya e compri solo computer, cellulari e stereo.
Il grosso dell'economia è fatta di SERVIZI di tutti i generi, spesso regolamentati e sempre tassati, legali, assicurativi, finanziari, medicali e farmaceutici, asili, università, cinema, vacanze, sicurezza, lavanderia, nonchè tutti i pagamenti e finanziamenti del settore pubblico ecc... e sono indifferenti alla "deflazione".
Quando Greenspan parla di "deflazione" e dice che bisogna agire in modo deciso con tutti i mezzi a disposizione della banca centrale in realtà pensa agli Asset non ai prezzi dei beni di consumo, cioè pensa ai prezzi di borsa. Leggere sotto.
------------------------- JOHN CRUDELE sul NY Post -------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2003 -- THE Wall Street Journal is very confused.
Here's what one Journal story recently had to say about inflation: "Even Pat Jackman, economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates the official inflation rate, says the widely reported numbers understate the rising cost of life from one year to the next. The fact is, he says, 'more money is coming out of your pocket.' "
I've been crusading against the way the government reports its inflation numbers for a long time.
This isn't just about some statisticians messing around with digits to distort the truth. This is about Washington cheating people out of money - Social Security recipients, retirees whose annual increases are tied to the inflation rate, people who invest in bonds. Lots of people. And lots of money.
People are getting screwed. And, back when I was in school learning this miserable trade, that's what we were told to ferret out.
Let me explain something else. Jackman isn't just one of the thousands of economists in our government bureaucracy. He is the senior economist in charge of the consumer price index. He is the man. And he's a guy I've spoken with in the past - but never when he was as forthcoming as he apparently was with the Journal.
And the man says - according to the Journal's own words - that the "widely reported numbers understate the rising cost of life from one year to the next."
So why is the Journal confused? Because even as it has such an authoritative source saying that inflation is being understated by the government numbers, the paper is also running countless other stories that fret about deflation.
A recent headline: "Having Defeated Inflation, Fed Girds for New Foe: Falling Prices." Then there's the Journal story on June 5 that shows the depth of its confusion. It starts: "OK, is it deflation or inflation?"
This'll all get more confusing today, when the government announces how much consumer prices changed during the month of May. The betting is, not much - at least according to the way the government calculates it.
So you can bet on a fresh round of deflation stories making the rounds.
But "not much" inflation doesn't mean deflation, does it? And if Jackman is right, the "not much" being reported by the government is probably not true.
As I've said before, if you take out all the tricks that Jackman was referring to, the rate of inflation is probably around 5 percent a year. That's certainly not deflation.
What tricks? The government uses a statistical technique call "geometric weighting" so it can keep inflation down. The theory behind this is that people will switch to cheaper products - like hamburger - if steak gets too expensive, so the price increases are offset.
Then there are quality adjustments. If a new feature like mandated pollution equipment is added to a car, then a price increase can be ignored even if the customer has no choice but to pay for the upgrade. You pay more, but inflation goes down.
And there's the famous "intervention analysis" technique. If something like gasoline goes up more than the government's computers expect, then the increase can be reduced. "Smoothed out" is the euphemism the economists use.
To be honest, the Journal isn't the only publication confused. As I said in a recent column, this inflation/deflation thing is something newspapers have been wrestling with for years.
But at the Journal there's a rare oddity. The paper's editorial page seems to understand this stuff even as the rest of the paper doesn't.
Here's what their editorial page and I understand.
What Alan Greenspan is worried about isn't price deflation, it's asset deflation. He isn't worried about you paying less for clothes or a pizza. He is concerned about the price of your house and your stock portfolio going down.
Asset deflation has been happening and it is troubling. Back in the '90s, Greenspan was fretting about inflation - and all the gurus and journalists got it wrong then, too. Greenspan was worried about asset inflation, not price inflation.
Had they understood, the gurus wouldn't have been so surprised when Greenspan started raising rates in the middle of the asset inflation - a.k.a The Bubble.
Yesterday's large rally, in fact, probably made Greenspan feel a lot better about the problem of asset deflation. Maybe even good enough not to cut interest rates next week.
Asset deflation, not price deflation. Understand that, and you have penetrated the mind of Chairman Greenspan - and boy it is gray in here.
* Please send e-mail to: jcrudele@nypost.com
da http://www.cobraf.com/forumf/cool_r...&reply_id=35384
18 June 2003 9:56
JOHN CRUDELE sul NY Post è un mastino per le storie di borsa e di economia, è stato lui ad esempio che per anni ha scavato per trovare indizi che la FED interveniva segretamente sui mercati
Qui spiega oggi come il capo economista incaricato delle statistiche sull'inflazione si sia lasciato scappare che l'inflazione reale in America è molto più alta di quella ufficiale (www.nypost.com/business/1081.htm)
Tutta la storia della "Deflazione" è per usare un termine inglese una bufala. Due mesi fa anche Greenspan è sceso in campo ufficialmente per dire che per la FED era il vero pericolo e da allora le obbligazioni sono esplose in su e poi le borse sono risalite
Il fatto che i beni importati dalla Cina siano sempre di più e calino di prezzo è vero e così è vero che i prodotti tecnologici in genere a parità di qualità costino meno. Ma questo non fa calare il costo della vita a meno che uno non viva di soya e compri solo computer, cellulari e stereo.
Il grosso dell'economia è fatta di SERVIZI di tutti i generi, spesso regolamentati e sempre tassati, legali, assicurativi, finanziari, medicali e farmaceutici, asili, università, cinema, vacanze, sicurezza, lavanderia, nonchè tutti i pagamenti e finanziamenti del settore pubblico ecc... e sono indifferenti alla "deflazione".
Quando Greenspan parla di "deflazione" e dice che bisogna agire in modo deciso con tutti i mezzi a disposizione della banca centrale in realtà pensa agli Asset non ai prezzi dei beni di consumo, cioè pensa ai prezzi di borsa. Leggere sotto.
------------------------- JOHN CRUDELE sul NY Post -------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2003 -- THE Wall Street Journal is very confused.
Here's what one Journal story recently had to say about inflation: "Even Pat Jackman, economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates the official inflation rate, says the widely reported numbers understate the rising cost of life from one year to the next. The fact is, he says, 'more money is coming out of your pocket.' "
I've been crusading against the way the government reports its inflation numbers for a long time.
This isn't just about some statisticians messing around with digits to distort the truth. This is about Washington cheating people out of money - Social Security recipients, retirees whose annual increases are tied to the inflation rate, people who invest in bonds. Lots of people. And lots of money.
People are getting screwed. And, back when I was in school learning this miserable trade, that's what we were told to ferret out.
Let me explain something else. Jackman isn't just one of the thousands of economists in our government bureaucracy. He is the senior economist in charge of the consumer price index. He is the man. And he's a guy I've spoken with in the past - but never when he was as forthcoming as he apparently was with the Journal.
And the man says - according to the Journal's own words - that the "widely reported numbers understate the rising cost of life from one year to the next."
So why is the Journal confused? Because even as it has such an authoritative source saying that inflation is being understated by the government numbers, the paper is also running countless other stories that fret about deflation.
A recent headline: "Having Defeated Inflation, Fed Girds for New Foe: Falling Prices." Then there's the Journal story on June 5 that shows the depth of its confusion. It starts: "OK, is it deflation or inflation?"
This'll all get more confusing today, when the government announces how much consumer prices changed during the month of May. The betting is, not much - at least according to the way the government calculates it.
So you can bet on a fresh round of deflation stories making the rounds.
But "not much" inflation doesn't mean deflation, does it? And if Jackman is right, the "not much" being reported by the government is probably not true.
As I've said before, if you take out all the tricks that Jackman was referring to, the rate of inflation is probably around 5 percent a year. That's certainly not deflation.
What tricks? The government uses a statistical technique call "geometric weighting" so it can keep inflation down. The theory behind this is that people will switch to cheaper products - like hamburger - if steak gets too expensive, so the price increases are offset.
Then there are quality adjustments. If a new feature like mandated pollution equipment is added to a car, then a price increase can be ignored even if the customer has no choice but to pay for the upgrade. You pay more, but inflation goes down.
And there's the famous "intervention analysis" technique. If something like gasoline goes up more than the government's computers expect, then the increase can be reduced. "Smoothed out" is the euphemism the economists use.
To be honest, the Journal isn't the only publication confused. As I said in a recent column, this inflation/deflation thing is something newspapers have been wrestling with for years.
But at the Journal there's a rare oddity. The paper's editorial page seems to understand this stuff even as the rest of the paper doesn't.
Here's what their editorial page and I understand.
What Alan Greenspan is worried about isn't price deflation, it's asset deflation. He isn't worried about you paying less for clothes or a pizza. He is concerned about the price of your house and your stock portfolio going down.
Asset deflation has been happening and it is troubling. Back in the '90s, Greenspan was fretting about inflation - and all the gurus and journalists got it wrong then, too. Greenspan was worried about asset inflation, not price inflation.
Had they understood, the gurus wouldn't have been so surprised when Greenspan started raising rates in the middle of the asset inflation - a.k.a The Bubble.
Yesterday's large rally, in fact, probably made Greenspan feel a lot better about the problem of asset deflation. Maybe even good enough not to cut interest rates next week.
Asset deflation, not price deflation. Understand that, and you have penetrated the mind of Chairman Greenspan - and boy it is gray in here.
* Please send e-mail to: jcrudele@nypost.com
