Bernanke Speech And Word Cloud

Tyler Durden's picture

Speech highlights:

  • BERNANKE SAYS ACCOMMODATIVE MONETARY POLICIES ARE STILL NEEDED
  • BERNANKE EXPECTS RECENT RISE IN INFLATION TO BE `TRANSITORY'
  • BERNANKE SAYS THE US ECONOMY IS GROWING WELL BELOW POTENTIAL
  • BERNANKE SEES `PROSPECT OF INCREASING FISCAL DRAG' ON RECOVERY
  • BERNANKE SEES HIRING ACCELERATING IN SECOND HALF OF THIS YEAR
  • BERNANKE SAYS ECONOMIC GROWTH `UNEVEN' AND `FRUSTRATINGLY SLOW'
  • BERNANKE SAYS GROWTH LIKELY TO PICK UP IN 2ND HALF OF THIS YEAR

Speech word cloud:


Full speech below:

The U.S. Economic Outlook

I would like to thank the organizers for inviting me to
participate once again in the International Monetary Conference. I will
begin with a brief update on the outlook for the U.S. economy, then
discuss recent developments in global commodity markets that are
significantly affecting both the U.S. and world economies, and conclude
with some thoughts on the prospects for monetary policy.

The Outlook for Growth
U.S. economic growth so far this year looks to have been somewhat
slower than expected. Aggregate output increased at only 1.8 percent at
an annual rate in the first quarter, and supply chain disruptions
associated with the earthquake and tsunami in Japan are hampering
economic activity this quarter. A number of indicators also suggest some
loss of momentum in the labor market in recent weeks. We are, of
course, monitoring these developments. That said, with the effects of
the Japanese disaster on manufacturing output likely to dissipate in
coming months, and with some moderation in gasoline prices in prospect,
growth seems likely to pick up somewhat in the second half of the year.
Overall, the economic recovery appears to be continuing at a moderate
pace, albeit at a rate that is both uneven across sectors and
frustratingly slow from the perspective of millions of unemployed and
underemployed workers.

As is often the case, the ability and willingness of households
to spend will be an important determinant of the pace at which the
economy expands in coming quarters. A range of positive and negative
forces is currently influencing both household finances and attitudes.
On the positive side, household incomes have been boosted by the net
improvement in job market conditions since earlier this year as well as
from the reduction in payroll taxes that the Congress passed in
December. Increases in household wealth--largely reflecting gains in
equity values--and lower debt burdens have also increased consumers'
willingness to spend. On the negative side, households are facing some
significant headwinds, including increases in food and energy prices,
declining home values, continued tightness in some credit markets, and
still-high unemployment, all of which have taken a toll on consumer
confidence.

Developments in the labor market will be of particular importance
in setting the course for household spending. As you know, the jobs
situation remains far from normal. For example, aggregate hours of
production workers--a comprehensive measure of labor input that reflects
the extent of part-time employment and opportunities for overtime as
well as the number of people employed--fell, remarkably, by nearly 10
percent from the beginning of the recent recession through October 2009.
Although hours of work have increased during the expansion, this
measure still remains about 6-1/2 percent below its pre-recession level.
For comparison, the maximum decline in aggregate hours worked in the
deep 1981-82 recession was less than 6 percent. Other indicators, such
as total payroll employment, the ratio of employment to population, and
the unemployment rate, paint a similar picture. Particularly concerning
is the very high level of long-term unemployment--nearly half of the
unemployed have been jobless for more than six months. People without
work for long periods can find it increasingly difficult to obtain a job
comparable to their previous one, as their skills tend to deteriorate
over time and as employers are often reluctant to hire the long-term
unemployed.

Although the jobs market remains quite weak and progress has been
uneven, overall we have seen signs of gradual improvement. For example,
private-sector payrolls increased at an average rate of about 180,000
per month over the first five months of this year, compared with less
than 140,000 during the last four months of 2010 and less than 80,000
per month in the four months prior to that. As I noted, however, recent
indicators suggest some loss of momentum, with last Friday's jobs market
report showing an increase in private payrolls of just 83,000 in May. I
expect hiring to pick up from last month's pace as growth strengthens
in the second half of the year, but, again, the recent data highlight
the need to continue monitoring the jobs situation carefully.

The business sector generally presents a more upbeat picture.
Capital spending on equipment and software has continued to expand,
reflecting an improving sales outlook and the need to replace aging
capital. Many U.S. firms, notably in manufacturing but also in services,
have benefited from the strong growth of demand in foreign markets.
Going forward, investment and hiring in the private sector should be
facilitated by the ongoing improvement in credit conditions. Larger
businesses remain able to finance themselves at historically low
interest rates, and corporate balance sheets are strong. Smaller
businesses still face difficulties in obtaining credit, but surveys of
both banks and borrowers indicate that conditions are slowly improving
for those firms as well.

In contrast, virtually all segments of the construction industry
remain troubled. In the residential sector, low home prices and mortgage
rates imply that housing is quite affordable by historical standards;
yet, with underwriting standards for home mortgages having tightened
considerably, many potential homebuyers are unable to qualify for loans.
Uncertainties about job prospects and the future course of house prices
have also deterred potential buyers. Given these constraints on the
demand for housing, and with a large inventory of vacant and foreclosed
properties overhanging the market, construction of new single-family
homes has remained at very low levels, and house prices have continued
to fall. The housing sector typically plays an important role in
economic recoveries; the depressed state of housing in the United States
is a big reason that the current recovery is less vigorous than we
would like.

Developments in the public sector also help determine the pace of
recovery. Here, too, the picture is one of relative weakness. Fiscally
constrained state and local governments continue to cut spending and
employment. Moreover, the impetus provided to the growth of final demand
by federal fiscal policies continues to wane.

The prospect of increasing fiscal drag on the recovery highlights
one of the many difficult tradeoffs faced by fiscal policymakers: If
the nation is to have a healthy economic future, policymakers urgently
need to put the federal government's finances on a sustainable
trajectory. But, on the other hand, a sharp fiscal consolidation focused
on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut
the still-fragile recovery. The solution to this dilemma, I believe,
lies in recognizing that our nation's fiscal problems are inherently
long-term in nature.
Consequently, the appropriate response is to move
quickly to enact a credible, long-term plan for fiscal
consolidation. By taking decisions today that lead to fiscal
consolidation over a longer horizon, policymakers can avoid a sudden
fiscal contraction that could put the recovery at risk. At the same
time, establishing a credible plan for reducing future deficits now
would not only enhance economic performance in the long run, but could
also yield near-term benefits by leading to lower long-term interest
rates and increased consumer and business confidence.

The Outlook for Inflation
Let me turn to the outlook for inflation. As you all know, over
the past year, prices for many commodities have risen sharply, resulting
in significantly higher consumer prices for gasoline and other energy
products and, to a somewhat lesser extent, for food. Overall inflation
measures reflect these price increases: For example, over the six months
through April, the price index for personal consumption expenditures
has risen at an annual rate of about 3-1/2 percent, compared with an
average of less than 1 percent over the preceding two years.

Although the recent increase in inflation is a concern, the
appropriate diagnosis and policy response depend on whether the rise in
inflation is likely to persist. So far at least, there is not much
evidence that inflation is becoming broad-based or ingrained in our
economy; indeed, increases in the price of a single
product--gasoline--account for the bulk of the recent increase in
consumer price inflation.1 Of
course, gasoline prices are exceptionally important for both family
finances and the broader economy; but the fact that gasoline price
increases alone account for so much of the overall increase in inflation
suggests that developments in the global market for crude oil and
related products, as well as in other commodities markets, are the
principal factors behind the recent movements in inflation, rather than
factors specific to the U.S. economy. An important implication is that
if the prices of energy and other commodities stabilize in ranges near
current levels, as futures markets and many forecasters predict, the
upward impetus to overall price inflation will wane and the recent
increase in inflation will prove transitory. Indeed, the declines in
many commodity prices seen over the past few weeks may be an indication
that such moderation is occurring. I will discuss commodity prices
further momentarily.

Besides the prospect of more-stable commodity prices, two other
factors suggest that inflation is likely to return to more subdued
levels in the medium term. First, the still-substantial slack in U.S.
labor and product markets should continue to have a moderating effect on
inflationary pressures. Notably, because of the weak demand for labor,
wage increases have not kept pace with productivity gains. Thus the
level of unit labor costs in the business sector is lower than it was
before the recession. Given the large share of labor costs in the
production costs of most firms (typically, a share far larger than that
of raw materials costs), subdued unit labor costs should remain a
restraining influence on inflation. To be clear, I am not arguing that
healthy increases in real wages are inconsistent with low inflation; the
two are perfectly consistent so long as productivity growth is
reasonably strong.

The second additional factor restraining inflation is the
stability of longer-term inflation expectations. Despite the recent
pickup in overall inflation, measures of households' longer-term
inflation expectations from the Michigan survey, the 10-year inflation
projections of professional economists, the 5-year-forward measure of
inflation compensation derived from yields on inflation-protected
securities, and other measures of longer-term inflation expectations
have all remained reasonably stable.2 As
long as longer-term inflation expectations are stable, increases in
global commodity prices are unlikely to be built into domestic wage- and
price-setting processes, and they should therefore have only transitory
effects on the rate of inflation. That said, the stability of inflation
expectations is ensured only as long as the commitment of the central
bank to low and stable inflation remains credible. Thus, the Federal
Reserve will continue to closely monitor the evolution of inflation and
inflation expectations and will take whatever actions are necessary to
keep inflation well controlled.

Commodity Prices
As I noted earlier, the rise in commodity prices has directly
increased the rate of inflation while also adversely affecting consumer
confidence and consumer spending. Let's look at these price increases in
closer detail.

The basic facts are familiar. Oil prices have risen
significantly, with the spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil
near $100 per barrel as of the end of last week, up nearly 40 percent
from a year ago. Proportionally, prices of corn and wheat have risen
even more, roughly doubling over the past year. And prices of industrial
metals have increased notably as well, with aluminum and copper prices
up about one-third over the past 12 months. When the price of any
product moves sharply, the economist's first instinct is to look for
changes in the supply of or demand for that product. And indeed, the
recent increase in commodity prices appears largely to be the result of
the same factors that drove commodity prices higher throughout much of
the past decade: strong gains in global demand that have not been met
with commensurate increases in supply.

From 2002 to 2008, a period of sustained increases in commodity
prices, world economic activity registered its fastest pace of expansion
in decades, rising at an average rate of about 4-1/2 percent per year.
This impressive performance was led by the emerging and developing
economies, where real activity expanded at a remarkable 7 percent per
annum. The emerging market economies have likewise led the way in the
recovery from the global financial crisis: From 2008 to 2010, real gross
domestic product (GDP) rose cumulatively by about 10 percent in the
emerging market economies even as GDP was essentially unchanged, on net,
in the advanced economies.3 

Naturally, increased economic activity in emerging market
economies has increased global demand for raw materials. Moreover, the
heavy emphasis on industrial development in many emerging market
economies has led their growth to be particularly intensive in the use
of commodities, even as the consumption of commodities in advanced
economies has stabilized or declined. For example, world oil consumption
rose by 14 percent from 2000 to 2010; underlying this overall trend,
however, was a 40 percent increase in oil use in emerging market
economies and an outright decline of 4-1/2 percent in the advanced
economies. In particular, U.S. oil consumption was about 2-1/2 percent
lower in 2010 than in 2000, with net imports of oil down nearly 10
percent, even though U.S. real GDP rose by nearly 20 percent over that
period.

This dramatic shift in the sources of demand for commodities is
not unique to oil. If anything, the pattern is even more striking for
industrial metals, where double-digit percentage rates of decline in
consumption by the advanced economies over the past decade have been
overwhelmed by triple-digit percentage increases in consumption by the
emerging market economies.4 Likewise,
improving diets in the emerging market economies have significantly
increased their demand for agricultural commodities. Importantly, in
noting these facts, I intend no criticism of emerging markets; growth in
those economies has conferred substantial economic benefits both within
those countries and globally, and in any case, the consumption of raw
materials relative to population in emerging-market countries remains
substantially lower than in the United States and other advanced
economies. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the tremendous growth in
emerging market economies has considerably increased global demand for
commodities in recent years.

Against this backdrop of extremely robust growth in demand, the
supply of many commodities has lagged behind. For example, world oil
production has increased less than 1 percent per year since 2004,
compared with nearly 2 percent per year in the prior decade. In part,
the slower increase in the supply of oil reflected disappointing rates
of production in countries that are not part of the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). However, OPEC has not shown much
willingness to ramp up production, either. Most recently, OPEC
production fell 1.3 million barrels per day from January to April of
this year, reflecting the disruption to Libyan supplies and the lack of
any significant offset from other OPEC producers. Indeed, OPEC's
production of oil today remains about 3 million barrels per day below
the peak level of mid-2008. With the demand for oil rising rapidly and
the supply of crude stagnant, increases in oil prices are hardly a
puzzle.

Production shortfalls have plagued many other commodities as
well. Agricultural output has been hard hit by a spate of bad weather
around the globe. For example, last summer's drought in Russia severely
reduced that country's wheat crop. In the United States, high
temperatures significantly impaired the U.S. corn crop last fall, and
dry conditions are currently hurting the wheat crop in Kansas. Over the
past year, droughts have also afflicted Argentina, China, and France.
Fortunately, the lag between planting and harvesting for many crops is
relatively short; thus, if more-typical weather patterns resume,
supplies of agricultural commodities should rebound, thereby reducing
the pressure on prices.

Not all commodity prices have increased, illustrating the point
that supply and demand conditions can vary across markets. For example,
prices for both lumber and natural gas are currently near their levels
of the early 2000s. The demand for lumber has been curtailed by weakness
in the U.S. construction sector, while the supply of natural gas in the
United States has been increased by significant innovations in
extraction techniques.5 Among agricultural commodities, rice prices have remained relatively subdued, reflecting favorable growing conditions.

In all, these cases reinforce the view that the fundamentals of
global supply and demand have been playing a central role in recent
swings in commodity prices. That said, there is usually significant
uncertainty about current and prospective supply and demand.
Accordingly, commodity prices, like the prices of financial assets, can
be volatile as market participants react to incoming news. Recently,
commodity prices seem to have been particularly responsive to news
bearing on the prospects for global economic growth as well as
geopolitical developments.

As the rapid growth of emerging market economies seems likely to
continue, should we therefore expect continued rapid increases in the
prices of globally-traded commodities? While it is certainly possible
that we will see further increases, there are good reasons to believe
that commodity prices will not continue to rise at the rapid rates we
have seen recently. In the short run, unexpected shortfalls in the
supplies of key commodities result in sharp price increases, as usage
patterns and available supplies are difficult to change quickly. Over
longer periods, however, high levels of commodity prices curtail demand
as households and firms adjust their spending and production patterns.
Indeed, as I noted earlier, we have already seen significant reductions
in commodity use in the advanced economies. Likewise, over time, high
prices should elicit meaningful increases in supply, both as temporary
factors, such as adverse weather, abate and as investments in productive
capacity come to fruition. Finally, because expectations of higher
prices lead financial market participants to bid up the spot prices of
commodities, predictable future developments bearing on the demands for
and supplies of commodities tend already to be reflected in current
prices. For these reasons, although unexpected developments could
certainly lead to continued volatility in global commodity prices, it is
reasonable to expect the effects of commodity prices on overall
inflation to be relatively moderate in the medium term.

While supply and demand fundamentals surely account for most of
the recent movements in commodity prices, some observers have attributed
a significant portion of the run-up in prices to Federal Reserve
policies, over and above the effects of those policies on U.S. economic
growth. For example, some have argued that accommodative U.S. monetary
policy has driven down the foreign exchange value of the dollar, thereby
boosting the dollar price of commodities. Indeed, since February 2009,
the trade-weighted dollar has fallen by about 15 percent. However, since
February 2009, oil prices have risen 160 percent and nonfuel commodity
prices are up by about 80 percent, implying that the dollar's decline
can explain, at most, only a small part of the rise in oil and other
commodity prices; indeed, commodity prices have risen dramatically when
measured in terms of any of the world's major currencies, not just the
dollar. But even this calculation overstates the role of monetary
policy, as many factors other than monetary policy affect the value of
the dollar. For example, the decline in the dollar since February 2009
that I just noted followed a comparable increase in the dollar, which
largely reflected flight-to-safety flows triggered by the financial
crisis in the latter half of 2008; the dollar's decline since then in
substantial part reflects the reversal of those flows as the crisis
eased. Slow growth in the United States and a persistent trade deficit
are additional, more fundamental sources of recent declines in the
dollar's value; in particular, as the United States is a major oil
importer, any geopolitical or other shock that increases the global
price of oil will worsen our trade balance and economic outlook, which
tends to depress the dollar. In this case, the direction of causality
runs from commodity prices to the dollar rather than the other way
around. The best way for the Federal Reserve to support the fundamental
value of the dollar in the medium term is to pursue our dual mandate of
maximum employment and price stability, and we will certainly do that.

Another argument that has been made is that low interest rates
have pushed up commodity prices by reducing the cost of holding
inventories, thus boosting commodity demand, or by encouraging
speculators to push commodity futures prices above their fundamental
levels. In either case, if such forces were driving commodity prices
materially and persistently higher, we should see corresponding
increases in commodity inventories, as higher prices curtailed
consumption and boosted production relative to their fundamental levels.
In fact, inventories of most commodities have not shown sizable
increases over the past year as prices rose; indeed, increases in prices
have often been associated with lower rather than higher levels of
inventories, likely reflecting strong demand or weak supply that tends
to put pressure on available stocks.

Finally, some have suggested that very low interest rates in the
United States and other advanced economies have created risks of
economic overheating in emerging market economies and have thus
indirectly put upward pressures on commodity prices. In fact, most of
the recent rapid economic growth in emerging market economies appears to
reflect a bounceback from the previous recession and continuing
increases in productive capacity, as their technologies and capital
stocks catch up with those in advanced economies, rather than being
primarily the result of monetary conditions in those countries. More
fundamentally, however, whatever the source of the recent growth in the
emerging markets, the authorities in those economies clearly have a
range of fiscal, monetary, exchange rate, and other tools that can be
used to address any overheating that may occur. As in all countries, the
primary objective of monetary policy in the United States should be to
promote economic growth and price stability at home, which in turn
supports a stable global economic and financial environment.

Monetary Policy
Let me conclude with a few words about the current stance of
monetary policy. As I have discussed today, the economic recovery in the
United States appears to be proceeding at a moderate pace
and--notwithstanding unevenness in the rate of progress and some recent
signs of reduced momentum--the labor market has been gradually
improving. At the same time, the jobs situation remains far from normal,
with unemployment remaining elevated. Inflation has risen lately but
should moderate, assuming that commodity prices stabilize and that, as I
expect, longer-term inflation expectations remain stable.

Against this backdrop, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)
has maintained a highly accommodative monetary policy, keeping its
target for the federal funds rate close to zero and further easing
monetary conditions through large-scale asset purchases. The FOMC has
indicated that it will complete its purchases of $600 billion of
Treasury securities by the end of this month while maintaining its
existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities
holdings. The Committee also continues to anticipate that economic
conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the
federal funds rate for an extended period
.

The U.S. economy is recovering from both the worst financial
crisis and the most severe housing bust since the Great Depression, and
it faces additional headwinds ranging from the effects of the Japanese
disaster to global pressures in commodity markets. In this context,
monetary policy cannot be a panacea. Still, the Federal Reserve's
actions in recent years have doubtless helped stabilize the financial
system, ease credit and financial conditions, guard against deflation,
and promote economic recovery. All of this has been accomplished, I
should note, at no net cost to the federal budget or to the U.S.
taxpayer.

Although it is moving in the right direction, the economy is
still producing at levels well below its potential; consequently,
accommodative monetary policies are still needed
. Until we see a
sustained period of stronger job creation, we cannot consider the
recovery to be truly established. At the same time, the longer-run
health of the economy requires that the Federal Reserve be vigilant in
preserving its hard-won credibility for maintaining price stability
. As I
have explained, most FOMC participants currently see the recent
increase in inflation as transitory and expect inflation to remain
subdued in the medium term. Should that forecast prove wrong, however,
and particularly if signs were to emerge that inflation was becoming
more broadly based or that longer-term inflation expectations were
becoming less well anchored
, the Committee would respond as necessary.
Under all circumstances, our policy actions will be guided by the
objectives of supporting the recovery in output and employment while
helping ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with
the Federal Reserve's mandate.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Temporalist's picture

Accomodative monetary policies are still needed...

equity_momo's picture

Ok ladies and gents. Accomodative policies are here until the system rolls over and dies. Any tightening sends us over the cliff at a quicker rate. Its not rocket science.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

Still, the Federal Reserve's actions in recent years have doubtless helped stabilize the financial system, ease credit and financial conditions, guard against deflation, and promote economic recovery. All of this has been accomplished, I should note, at no net cost to the federal budget or to the U.S. taxpayer.

Inflation?

equity_momo's picture

Very subjective , i assume he is taking into account 401k , stock wealth and where the housing market WOULD be without their programs. With food and gas only being "transitory" for 2 years , he maybe right. In another 2 years though , there will be a huge net loss to the taxpayer with cost of living taken into account.

66Sexy's picture

We wont see real inflation until we start seeing real job and wage growth.

Asset speculation and bubbles reflect the top-bottom approach, and corporations are not charities; they will hire when they need too.

It results in speculative asset inflation, top tier wealth, and mid bottom tier pressure and poverty.

More of the same.

redpill's picture

So high food and gas prices aren't real inflation?  Or are you saying it's just going to get much worse?

66Sexy's picture

imo those are the result of corporate and government speculation of inflation, just like when prices automatically go up every year yet wages remain stagnant; like we are seeing now. This is unsustainable without main street, because many corporations raising prices depend on mainstreet for their earnings.

i think the method of inflation dictated by corporation and governments to enable them to raise prices is a scam..

TruthInSunshine's picture

This is unsustainable without main street, because many corporations raising prices depend on mainstreet for their earnings.

 

Well said. In other words, dumb parasites ultimately kill their hosts.

 

And onto The Bernank's announcement, whereby I declare an empty chamber, or to put it another way:

Down Goes Frazier! Down Goes Frazier! Down Goes Frazier

 

"Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier!"
NotApplicable's picture

+1 on the parasite comment, as that's why there will be no wage inflation, but only destruction, because the banksters cannot keep all of the money out of the real economy.

oogs66's picture

at least he isn't "blaming" EM for eating more

trav7777's picture

I take it you've never been to S. America?

Might wanna figure out how Brazil is on its 3rd currency in 20 years and the Colombian Peso is 1800 to the dollar when there were no job and wage growths in either of those countries.

Or maybe how the Messican peso has repeatedly collapsed, the Argentine peso a couple of times...etc.

Crushing sovereign debt leads to "real" inflation, nothing else does.

Anyone who told you that wages and all of this cause "real" inflation are idiots.

I mean, a bag of chips is fking $4 now...this isn't "real" enough?

shortus cynicus's picture

thank you trav7777 !!!

I tired to repeat this again, but defaulting on a great scale without sufficient collateral is not deflationary but hyperinflationary impulse.

That wy I don't get this MISHs definishon with "credit market to market" - money is created and put in circulation, if credit goes bust without sufficient collateral, money must buy something else.

Credit is not money, credit creates money. If credit is nullified, worthless unbaked money stay in system and searches in panic some other place to go.

So marking cretit to market can not change amount of money in circulation (M3).

 

jimcg's picture

Funny!

I can imagine the heads of all the central banks sitting in a gold plated office somewhere in Brussels going over hundreds of charts with one of the Rothschilds presiding. When all of a sudden someone calls out "Holy S*it, do you guys realize that a bag of chips in America is $4....and chewing gum is $1".

Would throw their central planning roadmap right out the window.

I doubt they care about the price of chips. LOL

J

 

Esso's picture

$4 chips? Damn, only the food stamp people will be able to afford that.

iLoveMisesToPieces's picture

Inflation is an increase in the money supply.  You're telling me there hasn't been an increase in the money supply?

TruthInSunshine's picture

I will tell you there's been an increase in the money supply, but it's been small.

I will further tell you there's been a large increase in the monetary base, but that doesn't equal the money supply.

I will further tell you there's a big chunk of excess reserves hanging out at banks, doing nothing, and for good reason (they're going to need all the dry powder they will have access to, and not good reasons, but baaaad ones).

I will finally say that we're no where near the end of deleveraging via change in consumer or business behavior (turning into trends) nor debt writedowns and other forms of debt destruction (and in a fiatski world, debt destruction does equal money destruction).

 

I am more equal than others's picture

He only lies when his mouth moves, eye blink, or heart pounds.  When done all together you have the trifecta of lies. 

Number Yuan's picture

What is clear is that the USS America has hit an iceberg and is taking on water and time will tell if she sinks.

Bernanke is in charge of handing out buckets and is pretending to be in full control of the situation.

The Wall Street band is still playing.

Now is not a good time to be short on gold, silver or lifeboats.

Manthong's picture

Jeez, how many words does it take to say "The economy sucks, it ain't getting better anytime soon, our backs are against the wall and we are probably going to fabricate more fiat."

cougar_w's picture

The economy sucks, it ain't getting better anytime soon, our backs are against the wall and we are probably going to fabricate more fiat.

24.

On reflection it could be done it just  23. Cuz it ain't "probably".

DutchZeroPrinter's picture

How Many times did The Bernank placed the cart before the horse? This guy is so clueless. They stabilized and prevented deflation without costing the taxpayer anything! Otherwise prices would be lower for consumers, Chairsatan!

He expects inflation to be transitory, because commodity prices won't rise further. I rest my case, this guy, what a nonsense.

morkov's picture

I like the fact that "increases" and "increased" together will be bigger than "economies"

SheepDog-One's picture

Wall St crack heads are not happy!!

ursus.peracto's picture

Drivel.

 

Lies and deceit.

 

Why even attempt to decrypt the garbage.

 

Nothing the moron said was tradeable. The fix is in, and you ain't in.

rcintc's picture

I don't see "Transitory" in the cloud......

YesWeKahn's picture

His head isn't needed.

Iriestx's picture

QE3 here we come.  To the f'n moon, bitchez!

TruthInSunshine's picture

I regret to inform you that I have ultimately reigned supreme in every battle against every adversary who ever dared oppose me, and your meager and pathetic attempts at thwarting my final judgment will amount to nothing more than delaying the inevitable whilst digging yourself a deeper hole within which to bury thyself on that long, winding road of graves that awaits your journey.

 

--Memo from True Market to The Bernank, from 'Memoirs of A King Slayer'

equity_momo's picture

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Non Passaran's picture

Is it available online (live)?

YesWeKahn's picture

If he truely want less volatility, he should simply shut the F up.

Yen Cross's picture

 G/F that's a bit extreme! You can JUNK me all you want, but Anarchy isn't the answer!

     YEN CROSS!

LawsofPhysics's picture

"Anarchy isn't the answer"

Ah, exactly how was this country founded again?  

Yen Cross's picture

 You have made a good point. I have the FREEDOM to make that statement.

    Care to test my theory?

stirners_ghost's picture

Do you have the freedom to keep your income? To gamble? To smoke-- whatever? To refuse payment in worthless paper? To seek your own justice? To board a plane without forced irradiation (or fondling)? To decline a Social Security #?

To refuse health insurance? (Coming soon.)

Oh... but you have freedom to do all of the things your government-- allows.

...to buy services from licensed professionals, for tolerated vices, using rigged currency--so long as you don't break certain other arbitrary rules and thus "forfeit" your "rights".

Fool; all slaves have this kind of freedom.

Manthong's picture

Announcer: Heeee's ready! Our topless nurse Judy is wheeling our patient into the isolation ward. . . . Can you hear me in there?
(Guest doesn't reply.)
Announcer: OK, let's shoot him up!
(Sound of a hypodermic syringe.)
Announcer: Now, patient, you've got 10 seconds to tell us what you've got, and beat the reaper!
Guest (barely audible): Uhh, shaking. Uh, my hands are all - I'm turning yellow - My God, I've got jaundice!
Announcer: That's right! Now, here's the last. Are you ready for symptom seven?
Guest (groaning): I wanna go home.
Announcer: Only one way to do that. . . . Give him that really big disease!

GoinFawr's picture

jk! err, joking; a jape! Just breaking down the other Fed'isms! It was a typo, I meant to write "Shoot up WITH the Fed". It was supposed to be taken figuratively, not literally. Don't waterboard me, "I got 5 kids to feed..."

Yen Cross's picture

 Now you are (becoming a leader) I respect you.

    YEN