Posted on 10/18/2003 1:29:50 PM PDT by sourcery
My quarrel with the article is that the author implies he understands the problem. He doesn't and his "answers" are thus worthless. I agree that there is a problem, which may surprise you. But technical analysis doesn't describe the problem and won't solve it.
Markets are stictly human phenomena and are as complex in the particular as are individuals. The roles of law and the sanctity of property as reliable bases for economic activity are completely ignored. They are crucial. The corruption of the law will ultimately be our downfall.
Law in turn is a reflection of values and that corruption has been going on for some while. It has been our enduring beliefs in hard work, contributing and keeping what we have earned in the form of property that has made this the greatest economy in the history of Man and sustained it.
How things go bad no one can say but I would wager that nobody will see it coming, given the complete blindness among the "experts" to the relevance of law and property. And they will, as usual, describe the debacle in fine technical detail after it happens. My 2 cents.
I guess this is where we differ. There are always problems in the economy, and I don't disagree with you about everything. I just think all the macroeconomic nonsense that affects the way you look at the world is not helpful. The other day you even quoted some obscure prognosticator with a phychology degree because it supported your belief that there is a huge credit bubble about to take down the economy. The posting of these comments from Weiss, whose newsletter is anything but a stellar performer, is in the same category.
In the long run, who knows. Maybe the credit bubble fear mongers will be proven right all along. I doubt it, but it's possible. Does that mean there aren't great investments out there that will prove profitable regardless? NO. That's the real and only reality I deal with. The economy in a macro sense is basically unpredictable. You and your cohorts are basically buying into a belief that it is. To the extent my comments have sounded like an attack upon you, please accept my apologies.
Ultimately, that will definitely bring the end to our society and our nation as we know it. I cannot disagree with you. In the shorter term, I believe that the necessity of fractional reserve banking to continually and increasingly expand debt will bring our economic and financial system to its knees.
Richard W.
I put my application in, please be patient.
I never said inflation is irrelevant. If that's what this is all about, please understand that I consider inflation to be a very significant subcomponent of interest rates.
However, inflation cannot be a factor or determinant of real interest rates, now can it? And yet the real interest rate is not a constant. Why does it change?
What event(s) are you suggesting is going to change this favorable situation for the United States, and which economy will replace ours as the safest place in the world to invest?
Phaedrus: post #78: I see real interest rates gravitating around and tending toward a few percentage points above zero over time, the "real rate of return". The graph thus supports my argument.
Phaedrus' arguments were:
Phaedrus post #49:The lower graph in Sourcery's post #72, is the Real Interest rate adjusted for the inflation rate - i.e. real interest rate excludes inflation, thus removing the 1st of your 2 components.
Interest rates track exceedingly well to actual inflation alone. Expectations have a minor, short-term effect, offset by reality in the medium term (months).Phaedrus post #63:
Interest rates track to inflation nearly perfectly and exchange rates track to relative inflation nearly perfectly, statements to the contrary notwithstanding.Phaedrus post #66:
Interest rates are generally considered to have 2 components: the "risk-free" rate, the proxy for which is typically the 1-year T-Bill, and an "inflation premium". Add the 2 and you've got today's rate.Phaedrus post #67:
Our discussion revolves around interest rates to those who pay their debts timely, however.
As you agree the conversation centers around individuals who pay their debts timely and the graph covers T-Bonds & T-Bills, there should be no variation in the risk premium, thus removing the 2nd of your 2 components.
Yet after removing both components, clearly, the real interest rate graph shows a variation of:
1.5% - 4.5% for the long bond, and;over the last 2 years - 24 "months", the "medium term" you asserted over which "expectations have a minor short-term effect".
-2% to 1.5% for the T-Bill
Variations of 3 to 3.5%. After effects of inflation and risk have been factored out.
I presume a 20-year corporate banker would not consider 3-3.5% real, risk-free interest over two years to be an insignificant. No? After negotiating terms, would you be willing to reduce the rate to creditworthy borrowers further by those points? I suspect not. I suspect you view 3-3.5% real risk free interest very significant.
So I fail to see how the graph supports your assertions that:
Interest rates track exceedingly well [or nearly perfectly] to actual inflation alone.The 2 components, the "risk-free" rate and an "inflation premium" sum to the current rate.
Interest rates, the price people are willing to pay for money, reflect every human motivation imaginable. That the real rate of return varies 2% - 3% around a mean over time is not at all out of line. Do you take issue with the market rate being a reflection of the sum of the real interest rate (generating a real return) and an inflation premium as a general rule and over time? This is the fundamental point and consistent with my earlier posts. If you do, please elucidate.
Let me add from personal experience. I watch mortgage rates move with the 10-year Treasury bond daily. The spread between the 2 varies all the time as a function of what bond traders think the Fed will do, retail sales, employment and on and on. If you're looking for perfect correlation, you will never find it.
I should have copied you on my response to Starwind. I think we're looking at a pretty good fit, all things considered.
It's actually closer to 40 but you notice I don't lean on this much in my posts. The point is that those who only do theory come and go and their forecasting track record is generally abysmal. Another point is that in my experience many claimed they were able to forecast exchange rates (I managed corporate currency risk for 22 years). Most failed, and those who employed econometric models failed the worst, but there were a few individuals who could develop an accurate "feel" for where markets were going and could indeed accurately forecast, not always but way better than the averages. FWIW ...
Your "fundamental point" now is not consistent with your earlier posts. You have altered your argument
from:Your new "fundamental point" real rate of return varies 2% - 3% around a mean over time is a much more general statement.
[over months, medium term] interest rates track exceedingly well [or nearly perfectly] to actual inflation alone. The 2 components, the "risk-free" rate and an "inflation premium" sum to the current rate.to:
That the real rate of return varies 2% - 3% around a mean over time is not at all out of line. Do you take issue with the market rate being a reflection of the sum of the real interest rate (generating a real return) and an inflation premium as a general rule and over time?
However, again from the graph, over time now (say 10-years for example from '80 to '90) the real risk free interest rate varied:
9%-3% for the T-Bond; and,Considerably outside 2-3% range you feel is 'in line' i.e. outside the "medium term" of "months" looking at 10 years the variation of real risk free interest is 3 fold greater than what you feel is in line.
7%-0% for the T-Bill;
Further, another component (among others) omitted from your sum is duration. Obviously, lenders want a greater interest rate of return, after inflation, after risk, for longer terms - a 'duration premium' if you will. That's why we have an rate "curve" (slope) of increasing rates from 0 to 30 years. Right?
Well, now, I beg to differ. Perhaps you should again read my earlier posts. I am aware of their content since I wrote them and I have not entered my dotage quite yet.
LOL!
It's funny how little things like that slip by when looking for something more profound!
Ha! I gave this article even more credit than it deserved!
Duration premium? Come on, Starwind, you are talking about the yield curve and validly correlating inflation to market interest rates requires matching maturities. So, help us out. Comprising market interest rates are 1) a real rate of return required by investors that varies somewhat over time, and 2) an inflation premium that is subject of measurement variation. What other fundamental determining factors are there? Please bear in mind that "Length Before Strength" is a rule that works only in Bridge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.