The Economist Reveals Its Easy Money Whore Stripes While Fisher Bashing



Ohhhh Economist, when will you learn? Are you an economist? Do you know anything about the dangers of reckless money-printing? Of course not, all you care about is nit-picking the good guys while crying for more easy money along with fellow leftist deflationistas like Krugman. So sad and so horribly transparent.

Yesterday I covered Dallas Fedhead Richard Fisher's speech To Ease Or Not To Ease whereupon he trashed the notion that more or easier easing can help us now. Relying on his familiar argument that it is regulatory uncertainty and fiscal irresponsibility fueling the obvious rot in the economy and not any lack of action on the part of the Fed (ha! who could argue that they haven't acted enough?!), Fisher nailed it once again and managed to bitchslap all the deflationistas with one swift smack. Of course the folks at the Economist, easy money whores that they are, didn't find this to be entertainment.

The Economist's Free Exchange blog:

Since the FOMC meeting, a handful of my colleagues have fanned further speculation about QE2 by signaling their personal positions on the matter quite openly in recent speeches and interviews in the major newspapers. Hence the headline in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “Central Banks Open Spigot,” a declaration that surely gave the ghosts of central bankers past the shivers and sent a tingle down the spine of gold bugs from Bemidji to Beijing...

There is a great deal of legitimate debate still to take place within the FOMC on the subject of quantitative easing and the pros and cons and costs and benefits of further monetary accommodation. Whatever we might do, if anything, must be consistent with long-term price stability and not add to the nightmare of confusing signals already being sent to job creators.

Can ghosts get shivers? More importantly, who cares what they think? And perhaps even more importantly, who cares what Richard Fisher thinks? He's not an economist. He's not a voting member of the FOMC. And he seems to be much more interested in behaving like a caricature of a central banker than looking at actual data and making a reasoned monetary policy decision.

Inflation expectations have fallen steadily over the past year, and for the moment, markets are indicating a belief that inflation may remain below 2% for the next ten years—or longer. Meanwhile, as Mr Fisher notes, several members of the FOMC have been voicing their support for additional easing, in a move that has been widely interpreted as a semi-coordinated signal that a majority of FOMC members are ready to pull the trigger on new easing. Markets have reacted to this—equity indexes have risen and the dollar has declined. But have interest rates soared? No. Have inflation expectations shifted? They've ticked up a bit but remain well below the Fed's unofficial target. In other words, markets are signalling that new easing will shift inflation back toward the Fed's desired level but will by no means lead to uncomfortably high or runaway inflation. Mr Fisher seems to think he knows more than markets. But who cares what Richard Fisher thinks?

Hey you dumb fucks, those of us who care about what happens to the dollar at the end of all this bullshit care what Richard Fisher thinks and in case you weren't aware, he DOES have a vote in a few short months. Not to mention the fact that the FOMC, being a committee, allows for the open exchange of ideas and suggestions regardless of whether or not one actually votes. But obviously you guys don't get that. Really it's all up to Bernanke, his #2 Easy Money Whore and whichever asshat is running the NY Fed but that might be getting too complicated for you guys to understand so I'll leave it be.

Fisher does know more than markets because markets are drunk on Bernanke's easy money and obviously too fucked up to be capable of thinking lucidly. If the fine folks at The Economist would like to prove me wrong I implore them to send me evidence to the contrary. Markets are cracked out, broken, raped and pillaged, manipulated and artificially inflated to the point that there is no such thing as fair market value nor reasonable functioning of said markets nor any logic to be found anywhere within any component of any market. So there. Any idiot can see that but obviously the idiots at The Economist are having a little trouble. I sincerely hope my uncensored bluntness helps make it a tad clearer for them.

I humbly suggest The Economist shut the fuck up and not speak again until invited to do so on matters that they actually understand.

Jr Deputy Accountant

Some say he’s half man half fish, others say he’s more of a seventy/thirty split. Either way he’s a fishy bastard.

0 comments: