I don’t know what idiots started the rumors that Yellen was a hawk, but they should have their reputations destroyed on live television. I can’t think of a single moment when Yellen skewed hawkish in Fed minutes or anywhere else in the body of her work over the last 5 years.

Consider this speech titled Perspectives On Monetary Policy she delivered last June to the Boston Economic Club.

She starts off:

Economic Conditions and the Outlook

In my remarks tonight, I will describe my perspective on monetary policy. To begin, however, I’ll highlight some of the current conditions and key features of the economic outlook that shape my views. To anticipate the main points, the economy appears to be expanding at a moderate pace. The unemployment rate is almost 1 percentage point lower than it was a year ago, but we are still far from full employment. Looking ahead, I anticipate that significant headwinds will continue to restrain the pace of the recovery so that the remaining employment gap is likely to close only slowly. At the same time, inflation (abstracting from the transitory effects of movements in oil prices) has been running near 2 percent over the past two years, and I expect it to remain at or below the Federal Open Market Committee’s (the FOMC’s) 2 percent objective for the foreseeable future. As always, considerable uncertainty attends the outlook for both growth and inflation; events could prove either more positive or negative than what I see as the most likely outcome. That said, as I will explain, I consider the balance of risks to be tilted toward a weaker economy.

She then goes on for some time, eventually remarking on the tools the Fed has been using to try and correct the sluggish economic recovery:

The Conduct of Policy with Unconventional Tools

Now turning to monetary policy, I will begin by discussing the FOMC’s reliance on unconventional tools to address the disappointing pace of recovery. I will then elaborate my rationale for supporting a highly accommodative policy stance.

As you know, since late 2008, the FOMC’s standard policy tool, the target federal funds rate, has been maintained at the zero lower bound. To provide further accommodation, we have employed two unconventional tools to support the recovery–extended forward guidance about the future path of the federal funds rate, and large-scale asset purchases and other balance sheet actions that have greatly increased the size and duration of the Federal Reserve’s portfolio.

Yellen then launches into a long explanation of the rationale for “Highly Accomodative Policy”, describing the statistical indicators and rules based decision making she likes to use to determine how accomodative policy should be extended. Finally, she wraps up her speech as such:

…On the one hand, our unconventional tools have some limitations and costs. For example, the effects of forward guidance are likely to be weaker the longer the horizon of the guidance, implying that it may be difficult to provide much more stimulus through this channel. As for our balance sheet operations, although we have now acquired some experience with this tool, there is still considerable uncertainty about its likely economic effects. Moreover, some have expressed concern that a substantial further expansion of the balance sheet could interfere with the Fed’s ability to execute a smooth exit from its accommodative policies at the appropriate time. I disagree with this view: The FOMC has tested a variety of tools to ensure that we will be able to raise short-term interest rates when needed while gradually returning the portfolio to a more normal size and composition. But even if unjustified, such concerns could in theory reduce confidence in the Federal Reserve and so lead to an undesired increase in inflation expectations.

On the other hand, risk management considerations arising from today’s unusual circumstances strengthen the case for additional accommodation beyond that called for by simple policy rules and optimal control under the modal outlook. In particular, as I have noted, there are a number of significant downside risks to the economic outlook, and hence it may well be appropriate to insure against adverse shocks that could push the economy into territory where a self-reinforcing downward spiral of economic weakness would be difficult to arrest.

Conclusion
In my remarks this evening I have sought to explain why, in my view, a highly accommodative monetary policy will remain appropriate for some time to come. My views concerning the stance of monetary policy reflect the FOMC’s firm commitment to the goals of maximum employment and stable prices, my appraisal of the medium term outlook (which is importantly shaped by the persistent legacy of the housing bust and ensuing financial crisis), and by my assessment of the balance of risks facing the economy. Of course, as I’ve emphasized, the outlook is uncertain and the Committee will need to adjust policy as appropriate as actual conditions unfold. For this reason, the FOMC’s forward guidance is explicitly conditioned on its anticipation of “low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run.”23 If the recovery were to proceed faster than expected or if inflation pressures were to pick up materially, the FOMC could adjust policy by bringing forward the expected date of tightening. In contrast, if the Committee judges that the recovery is proceeding at an insufficient pace, we could undertake portfolio actions such as additional asset purchases or a further maturity extension program. It is for this reason that the FOMC emphasized, in its statement following the April meeting, that it would “regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability.”

Her “one hand” of comment seems to be the closest she comes, throughout the entire length of this speech, to suggesting that there could be drawbacks to “Highly Accomodative Policy”. That’s it; more of a formality than anything. Hell, she immediately says she disagrees with that point of view. The entire content of the speech was “we can do more.”

Yellen has consistently been on the record stating, “we can do more.”

Yellen has pushed for “we can do more.”

This was only a year ago. The recovery hasn’t dramatically improved since then. And this speech is just one example of Yellen being on the record dismissing concerns that Fed policy might become a double edged sword.

Yellen strikes me as the kind of Fed head that will be prone to taking Fed policy too far, into the danger zones of monetary interventionism, if anything. She believes in the notion that the Fed can actively micro-manage accomodative policy, with limited trade offs. While she is very much aware of the long term unpredictability of monetary policy tools, she is dismissive of the concerns.

And yesterday, Yellen was so kind to remind the people labelling her a hawk that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Those comments had no support from any observable Yellen comments or actions.

Appropriately, I really don’t think any taper is coming at any point over the next several years. Or, under Yellen’s discretion, any Fed actions, when taken in aggregate, will skew net dovish, with new programs more than overcompensating any individual restraining or contractionary policy move.

Comments »

Alright, it seems like the benevolent Tea Part folk have decided to share their complete inability to grasp simple concepts with the world, by forced contrition on the populace. It is time to eat our peas. Following the line of Obama’s hatred for those damn jet plane flying 1%-ers, the Tea Party have chosen to one up him, by destroying the 1% in its entirety. An unfortunate and slight side effect may be to destroy the other 99% of the country in the process, but hey…sometimes sacrifices must be born for the good of everyone. So making moves for the ill of everyone is the only logical course of action.

In an attempt to honor Argentina’s dim witted socialist president Fernández de Kirchner for her blood clot, the Tea Party have magnanimously extended a show of us revisiting that countries darkest moment, a point from which it has never recovered: elective default.

Remember that one time the global economy nearly collapsed because a single line of business for US banks bet large sums of money that non-creditworthy citizens would default at abnormally low rates in exchange for paper thin margins on those loans?

Well the entire global economy and all of finance has bet gargantuan sums of money that this non-creditworthy country will never default for no fucking margins.

By all means, how do you think this ends?

Frankly, I don’t care anymore, and am all in. Lay your neck under the axe, and taunt these pussies with all your hatred. See if they have the sack to swing.

What’s the alternative? You can turn all short doubling your money with the end of civilization, just in time to burn it to stay warm? You can barter that paper desperately for some precious metals that aren’t for sale? You can get shot by rioters and have it taken off your corpse?

Because if we actually default, it’ll be to late to go out and prepare. Just think of all the mechanisms that are tied to treasuries. There will be bank failures. And a slow, agonizing process as US spending on interest careens towards $1 trillion annually.

In the meantime, staying in our means would require we basically slash in half one of the following:

The entire defense budget OR
The entire non-defense budget

The point of the matter is that if we default, this place is going to get so screwed up anyway, what does it matter? At some point if the decision were not reversed, the man you know as Cain Hammond Thaler would simply cease to exist. His 9th floor office would be deserted; the only clue that he was ever there at all being an empty safe that used to house his silver and firearms and row upon row of cleaned out bookshelves.

I would simply take up my favorite pocket watch and walking stick, and slip away into the night…never to be heard from again.

Comments »

Before I begin a long weekend to traverse the country, with friends, the 9th floor has but one final word to utter until our next meeting.

Doubt the power of the Federal Reserve at your own peril.

This is exactly what happened before. The Fed announced QE3 and the market lifted off, then sold into the last weeks of September. Men and women tore through the streets to speak the gospel according to Deflation.

And how did that end for them?

QE3 is a program in PERPETUITY. Surrender your mind to the word and allow it to spread over your thoughts like water on the surface of a table. It must soak into all the crevices and cracks, filling your head.

PERPETUITY.

Each year that QE3 is not reigned in is another ~$500 billion on the markets. In that sense, not announcing the end of QE3 is no less spectacular an event than announcing it was.

The market may have its little selloff. And the circle jerkers may jerk in circles. But bet against equities and you will die, in the end.

Comments »

Here is all you need to know. About 40 minutes ago, the Energy Department reported that oil stocks were up another 900,000 barrels. Inventories currently stand at 4.2% higher than last year, which if I recall were higher than the year before that. Prices are rallying, because the move is “less than expected”. That’s great, but this is just the beginning.

At the same time, gasoline demand has fallen through the floor. Recession is setting in in Europe. China has been disappointing. And US exports are set to get hit in unison.

My expectation is that May – August will be horrible; an exact repeat of the last three years. I’ll revisit these assumptions midway through any selloff, or if one fails to materialize. As for the Fall; I’ve been caught off guard plenty of times over the last few years, thinking “this is the end”. And each time, trillion dollar money balls and hope manage to squeeze me – this year was the exception to the rule.

Well, I’m sick of the rule, and much preferred the exception. So I will likely consider buying into the Fall. But we need to monitor everything and be very careful. This year is exceptional in its uniqueness; a number of very unusual motions will set in starting 2014, including Obamacare and the end of the line for pension gap coverage is looming. Throw in tax hikes and the waves of retiring Baby Boomers leaping every year for the next decade, and I’m not happy.

But I can be crazy if I need to be. Surely, the Fed is aware of all of these problems, and monetary easing is the preferred course of action over letting panic set in. So even though I’m afraid for what’s coming, sometimes you need to let go of reason and embrace the lunatic’s way out.

Comments »

Sipping on the edge of the liquid pooled in this glass, my eyes slip out of focus. And as the 9th floor fades from view, an unclear image is left. It is a premonition – perhaps call it instinct – of what is going to happen if bitcoins continue to gain popularity.

I should say that I see only one way this prevision does not come to pass; if the bitcoin was created by the US government, for some probably lunatic reason, like social experimentation, or beta testing taking the dollar virtual.

Shy of that, those of you buying these little wayward programs are pretty screwed.

I will remind you:

March 18, 2011

STATESVILLE, NC—Bernard von NotHaus, 67, was convicted today by a federal jury of making, possessing, and selling his own coins, announced Anne M. Tompkins, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. Following an eight-day trial and less than two hours of deliberation, von NotHaus, the founder and monetary architect of a currency known as the Liberty Dollar, was found guilty by a jury in Statesville, North Carolina, of making coins resembling and similar to United States coins; of issuing, passing, selling, and possessing Liberty Dollar coins; of issuing and passing Liberty Dollar coins intended for use as current money; and of conspiracy against the United States.

This is what is waiting for you at the end of that tunnel. Whoever the central players are in this game, when the FBI finally becomes aware of it, you are lamb fodder.

Von NotHaus, who remains free on bond, faces a sentence of up to 15 years’ imprisonment on count two of the indictment and a fine of not more than $250,000. Von NotHaus faces a prison sentence of five years and fines of $250,000 on both counts one and three. In addition, the United States is seeking the forfeiture of approximately 16,000 pounds of Liberty Dollar coins and precious metals, currently valued at nearly $7 million. The forfeiture trial, which began today before United States District Court Judge Richard Voorhees, will resume on April 4, 2011 in the federal courthouse in Statesville. Judge Voorhees has not yet set a date for the sentencing of von NotHaus.

Do you think the US government is going to play fair with you? That they’ll just sit by and watch as you play games with their status as the global reserve currency, all because you started doing the same thing with some MP3 files back in the 90’s?

Think again, friend.

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict

_____________________________________

I will provide some background here for those of you who aren’t familiar with me. I am not a government advocate, nor do I particularly like that the US political system has control of something as important as the measurement stick of over half of all financial transactions occurring on planet Earth.

I especially dislike that this position allows clowns-in-suits like US Congressmen, government agency employees, State officials, municipalities, banks, people in unique positions of influence, friends of the aforementioned, random con artists,….a half dozen others…to engage in the wildest stupidities at the fringe of their imaginations without immediate and dire consequences.

And I don’t exactly respect the government for its ability to pass, implement, and enforce laws. In fact, I generally get a kick out of most non-violent, non-harmful crime. Example: a guy who owns a fully automatic weapon and regularly posts videos of himself shooting it online.

Hilarious. No one gets hurt. It’s in mock contempt of a half dozen laws. And there’s nothing the government can do about it. Tracking him down would be prohibitively expensive, especially considering that he isn’t actually doing anything.

Another example: buzz sawing cattails. Know what cattails are? Weeds, mostly. But they are apparently sacred weeds, as cutting them down gets the DNR and EPA driving 3 year prison sentencing down your throat if they catch you. Amazingly, that never really stops anyone.

But just because the US government is totally inept at catching most forms of “crime” (and equally bad at conveying what constitutes legitimate need for criminal statuses in the first place…), that shouldn’t trick you into thinking you can get away with anything.

In fact, the US government is an enormous trillion dollar organization, and that’s quite a bit of firepower to have coming your way if you happen to be doing one of the things the government absolutely-will-not-tolerate you doing.

________________________________

Now that I’ve explained that, let me point out why bitcoin is such a serious threat to the US government.

First, the US government is completely reliant on its status as the global reserve currency to fund its deficit. Any assault to that status is an immediate game changer as it is, as it would force the US to spend within tax receipts, or else suffer real, actual consequences.

We get away with printing because it all ends up over seas, in accounts, or traded for bonds.

Second, because of the peer to peer method, if left unattended, tax receipts along with most trade reporting would drop off the map. Not from corporations. The US can steel fist corporations into staying above ground because their assets are holed up in the financial system and the half dozen major banks left in operation. But definitely bitcoin has serious risks to the ability of the US to collect taxes and track spending. Think Canada black market on crack. People show what they’re doing just enough to qualify for healthcare, then back under the surface.

Thus, after losing the ability to print money or borrow indefinitely, the governments ability to collect from their citizens would also be hindered.

And finally, because it undermines the ability of government to track behavior.

Think about how much time is spent by groups like the Fed maintaining huge data collections about what people are up to. They don’t do that for sport. They do that because it lets government plan ahead about how to position themselves. Does the country need more agriculture? More oil? Are people hoarding gold, electronics, food staples, clothing? Is there trouble brewing?

These measures don’t just provide wealth to people sitting somewhere in an agency. They also give a heads up to stewing problems. They provide a knowledge base to gain an edge. The feds have spent the last decade tightening down the financial system for a reason – we’re now at the point where we can track rogue money orders and stamp out terrorist cells trying to collect. That’s not easy, and it’s not possible without a centralized financial system.

Bitcoin hits each of these three sore points, so I can guarantee you if it keeps gaining in popularity, then the FBI will crack down, and do so ruthlessly hard.

So how?

Well, I could see three basic steps being taken to crush this if it keeps getting out of control. They are extreme, and sound fanciful, and most of you will say “no way”. And that’s why I’m worried about them.

1) no more free and open internet. You think the Federal government cares about maintaining a free and open internet? They don’t care. They maintain it that way right now because it doesn’t exactly hinder them and because it’s a politically sensitive subject. In fact, the free and open internet structure we have has proven wonderful adept at striking down our enemies. Because generally speaking, the US political system is still way better than any of the alternatives. Because our leaders just steal a bunch, and lie. They don’t kill a few thousand people when they get caught doing it. And you’re still mostly free to go about your lives.

Plenty of you mistake the government adherence to an open internet platform as meaning they can’t pull it off. And they probably can’t, not totally. Public employees aren’t that good. But much of their reluctance to try has more to do with the tradeoff gain/loss dilemma than them actually not being able to police the internet.

Let’s say some guy steals a hundred dollars worth of media on the internet. Great. So you bust him and fine him and throw him in jail, or just generally set about getting him fired. Now tell me, how much has the government lost in tax receipts from him? How much did they lose setting up the agency in the first place?

But bitcoin takes it all a step further and challenges the ability of the US government to even exist. You hit that level, and the internet will be put on lockdown. With lots of babysitters looking for “sharing”. And maybe not everyone gets caught. But plenty do.

2) Bitcoins declared illegal, with steep punishments for trading them. Now, bitcoin is nothing but a managed exchange system. The programs you’re moving around have no intrinsic value. Few people trade them. It’s all about the accounting mechanisms, the way the purses talk to the system to make sure fake coins aren’t entering circulation, and the fact that (allegedly) someone out there can’t produce a lot more of them.

What are these things worth if you can’t move them? If the government cracked down on silver or gold, I could bunker them for a while, and still know they’ll be there when I get back. Maybe the value will have changed, or the risks, but it’s not like suddenly my ounces will change measurement. What’s a computer program generated by a complicated algorithm worth if the entire underpinning promise – free peer to peer trading – is taken offline for a few weeks or months?

Again, the US has no chance of rounding them all up. But there are things they can do, like…

3) task force created to find and destroy all bitcoin users. There’s allegedly $1 billion worth of bitcoins out there right now. What would I do if I was charged with crushing this thing?

Well, I would take a few billion dollars (a pittance of the US budget), and I would seed it into a few thousand accounts. And then I would get a few thousand agents together, and go out and start trading these things for whatever you lot are buying with them. And I would track you. And I would use the Patriot Act to do it no questions asked. Because as our good friend US Attorney Tompkins said, “you are the scum of the Earth, and have conveniently ceded your rights as a US citizen.” And once I mapped out pretty well who the major players are, I would pick perhaps the top 25th percentile of you – the millionaires – and I would utterly destroy every fabric of your lives, very publicly.

And bitcoin would probably not survive the event.

This is more or less what the founder of bitcoin was afraid of, and eluded to, before he fled and covered his tracks with his anonymity. It’s a shame it is going to play out like this. He seems like a brilliant chap, and I appreciate that. And I wish we lived in a world where these very capitalist, very libertarian ideals of free trade, honesty, and liberty to live out your life without being conscripted to death-by-a-thousand-causes was possible.

But we don’t live in that world. We live in this one; where this clever little open source project threatens the bread and butter of a group of people that you couldn’t pay me to drop my guard around. So the founder and intellectual father of bitcoin escaped. But if you’re going fully dedicated to this thing (and not just laundering money out of the EU), then I can say I see only dark and painful, life ending-equivalence lurking for you on the horizon.

Comments »

I added a position in SCO for $40.19.

This takes my artificial cash position north of 50%. We are at the “edge of disappointment”, where things are neither good nor bad, but merely “meh”.

“Meh” gets you killed.

Europe will flare up again. Cyprus doesn’t matter particularly. The underlying reason we keep hearing about the EU is because the EU is fundamentally fucked on a spindle. The cost of holding the euro together, not just in terms of money, but in terms of man hours, resources, lost opportunities, bitter resentment, livelihood,…is just immense.

It’s never just about the money. When the economics and numbers don’t work, it should usually be a warning sign that you’re screwing something up largely. Money is a metric for measurement; hence why when obnoxious social justiciers whine about people only caring about the money – refusing to just go along with their latest “great idea” – I have a resounding urge to punch them in the throat.

I really don’t understand why European citizens are subjecting themselves to this. It’s not like they’re avoiding the losses…the pain is coming either way, so it’s a choice of accepting that, making changes to improve their underlying format, and moving on, or…not accepting that, getting the beat down anyway and setting themselves up for more failure later.

Anyways…Italian/Spanish/French debt is docile now, but it’s just a matter of time before the next explosion. Europe continues to miss deficit reduction targets by a quarter mile, and they’re all in recessions.

Dangers to the SCO position would include if the ECB and Fed were ever permitted to team up like Batman and Robin; doesn’t seem in the cards at the moment (or ever), but it’s worth stipulating that I really believe Bernanke & Co would view $150 oil as a “successful policy outcome.”

For the meantime, however, I’ve got decreasing industrial production overseas, an oil production bonanza here at home, and a hundred-years demographic movement towards smaller commutes all playing to my hand.

Comments »