The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets - Category [Federal Reserve]
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2023-09-21 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Reserve , 349 references
[Comments enabled]  

Jerome Puntel, that is.

Market no likey either; clearly Walled-up-yours Street wanted some indication of rate cuts.

Answer: Civilization was nice.....

Seriously folks, they're not coming.  Get over it.  Rates today are at a level commensurate with a 2% inflation rate but actual inflation is, even as measured deliberately inaccurately by the government, at over double that in core.

Never mind compounding which nobody likes to talk about, but you must.  Compounding is a monster and if you don't de-fang it, as I noted in the Ticker the other day, you get screwed because it runs away from you.

Compounding is otherwise known as an exponential function.  Great when its in your favor (e.g. the size of your bank balance.)  Ruinous, when its not (as in the size of your insurance, property tax, groceries or other payments.)

At the core of the issue is the Federal Deficit, which none of the clown-car brigade will honestly take on.  They talk about the "budget" but in fact its less than a third of total spend; the rest is claimed to be "mandatory" but it isn't.  That Congress voted to make it not subject to annual votes doesn't mean it cannot be put back where it belongs -- and where it has to be authorized every year.  It can be.

But of course it won't be and even if you zeroed all 12 Appropriations bills you wouldn't have a balanced budget.

A number of years ago you would -- but not today.

Congress did this, on purpose.

Congress can undo it, on purpose, but of course if they do they'll hear people screaming and ..... they might get fired.

Then again being fired is now pretty-much a certainty, on the path we're on.

The question is in what way will they be fired?  The type of firing you lose your job or in ways that are a lot less-friendly than the two allegedly "famous" words that Trump seemed to forget how to use once he was President?

This much is certain: What cannot continue forever will stop, and you either choose to stop it or the method of it stopping is chosen for you.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

The Fed has claimed that this is a "liquidity crisis."

Really Ben? Then perhaps you can explain this?

Note that this is an intentional drain of "slosh", or liquidity, from the banking system. $125 billion in the last four days drained?

You wouldn't be trying to intentionally cause a bank failure or two to bolster your call for the $700 billion "bailout" plan, or perhaps intentionally lock the short-term credit markets, would you Ben?

If the market has a liquidity crisis, why would you be intentionally draining reserves from the banking system? Don't you think you ought to explain that to Congress?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)