Google Tech Talk
May 6, 2009
ABSTRACT
Presented by Mike "Mish" Shedlock.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock is author of one of the most read economics blogs on the Internet: Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com ].
Mish gave an @Google talk, sharing his perspective on the state of the global economy (housing, the stock market, commodities, etc.) He also provides his interesting story about how he started blogging, and the impact that it has had on his life personally and professionally.
In January, Time.com ranked his site the #1 based on a rounded set of criteria [http://www.time.com/time/business/artic le/0,8599,1873144-3,00.html]. From the article:
"Although Mish is not an economist by training, he adroitly gets into the thick of economic data. Mish uses observations made by those in major media, so-called experts and government officials and serves up analysis based on his impression of their relevance and validity. The author is not afraid to attack conventional wisdom."
PETER SCHIFF
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Mish Mike Shedlock Global Economic Analysis at Google Tech Talk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know if I agree with Mish's 'no hyper-inflation' projection:
ReplyDeleteInflation is ultimately a function dictated by the amount of money 'injected' into the economy as a ratio to the goods/services available to purchase. If the money exists and is released into the economy, then it must be inflationary if the goods/services simultaneously remain static. In fact rising unemployement could maybe *increase* inflation because it retards productivity even further, i.e. further aggravating the inflationary ratio.
If people lose their jobs and don't spend money, then the money that they likewise don't spend should still exist within the economy nonetheless - somewhere, some place (unless unemployment in itself somehow leads to the contraction of credit on the macro-economic scale?).
But I think that is the key point. Jobs and savings are secondary to the primary dynamic: Credit in the system as a ratio to the productivity of the system. All inflationary thinking must relate back to when and where credit is finally either added or subtracted from the macro-economic system, of course.
I am interested in his comments about the trillions of dollars that the Fed' has generated being [apparently] locked up in the banks. I would guess that that money is primed for being used for the carry-trade? The effect of that (carry-trade) would be inflationary, but provoke a more slow inflationary effect in that the credit [originally borrowed] would be relatively slow-released back into the American economy, and yet heightened in that it comes back with additional interest. Maybe a carry-trade pay-back could be the final card that drives Amercia into hyper-inflation?
Just a thought.
Andrew Atkin
Ps. He didn't seem to answer the question: "When will China stop buying US treasuries". He only spoke about China not dumping them. I think China is or certainly will end up dumping those treasuries - by using those dollars to buy *other* things. That's what 'dumping' basically means. And if US dollars become the hot potato that nobody wants, then the value of global goods must inflate relative to the dollar. This would happen as a natural function of the US dollar depreciating in market value due to its depreciating status alone (like a deflating bubble)...This effectively comes back to the carry-trade thing. As I see it, it's the same dynamic. It should all drive the dollar down in the end.