For this week's show, I am sending you to antiwar.com where I was interviewed by Scott Horton at Anti-War Radio. I discussed the Eurozone crisis. why the Social Security deficit will drastically lower the demand for Treasury bonds; and whether massive military cuts would depress the domestic job market.
The link to the show is here.
Robert,
ReplyDeletePost it as a podcast in your podcast area. Makes it easier for us to access (i.e., it happens automatically when we open iTunes.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteOk, now I have a better idea of what you are talking about with the coming "boom". Either that, or you've relented a little and took note of the structural problems that are still afoot. As you know, I disagreed with you on your call, but only with regard to what I define as a "boom". It seems that that disagreement is no longer present (which I like).
We both agree that investment will increase in the higher orders of production, we also agree that producer prices and commodities are well ahead of consumer prices and we agree that inflation is going to rear its ugly head in a rather unpredictable fashion. But, it is quite difficult to hear somebody say "boom" and not think along the lines of a general feeling of prosperity (which is how I define it).
Also, great insights on the global situation, that is something that I have been paying attention to for at least the past 2 years. I think that if the central banks of the world end up with a crack up boom, then they'll be pushing a global currency under the guise of stability (only this time they will be speaking in global terms). Essentially, my gut feeling is that we are looking at the logical transition that began in 1913, that only grew in 1971 and 1995; the next step is a western, global currency. Who knows if they'll be able to pull it off, I certainly hope not.
Hey Fetz,
ReplyDeleteDon't tap yourself on the back too hard about influencing Wenzel on identifying the current boom as a "manipulated" boom.
You add good comments, but Wenzel was generally identifying booms as manipulated for years. Long before I have seen you come along to EPJ.
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Aeconomicpolicyjournal.com#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=site:economicpolicyjournal.com+manipulated&pbx=1&oq=site:economicpolicyjournal.com+manipulated&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1003l4295l0l4967l12l12l0l0l0l0l234l2000l1.7.4l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=3c9c3fcbb39d73f5&biw=1366&bih=643
I know that I am responding to an old comment, but I must do it.
ReplyDeleteBill, I am not tapping myself on the back and saying that I changed his mind. I am merely saying that he made it more clear as to what his position is or that he backed off a little bit on his original position. When he first made the call it sounded like daisies and butterflies were on the way, this was the issue that I disagreed with. But, then again, he hadn't fully elaborated upon this call.
Basically, it wasn't clear to me what he was defining as a boom. Now that he has fully elaborated upon it, the disagreement is no longer present. That's all that I was saying.