This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

On The Labor Force Participation Rate

Bruce Krasting's picture



I was blown out by the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) data released Friday. Down 4 tics to 62.8%. That sounds like no big deal, but it is. Either there is something out of whack with the data, and it will be revised, or there will have to be some serious rethinking by the folks who develop long-term economic models, and also at the Federal Reserve.

Consider the short term consequences. The Fed has hung its monetary hat on an unemployment rate of 6.5%. We have been told, time and again, that if the magic number of 6.5% unemployment is reached, the madness of US monetary policy will be relaxed. Should the LFPR continue to drop, the hurdle rate for changes to Fed policy will come sooner than is anticipated.

The Atlanta Fed has an interactive tool that looks at this (Link). It takes into consideration the variables of the unemployment picture and produces a report of how many jobs are needed per month over a given period, to achieve the 6.5% level. A few examples:






As you can see, the Fed's target can be reached in the next 12 months if the LFPR falls a bit further. I'm quite certain that should things unfold like this the new head of the Fed, Janet Yellen, will change the 'rules' and ignore the 6.5% target and continue along with ZIRP and QE. But if she does that, it will be at her (and our) risk.


Then you have the long-term side of declining LFPR. A low LFPR means that there are less workers earning taxable income. That translates into less government revenue. Payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) total 15% of wages. For an average worker making $40,000 a year that comes to $6,000. When the LFPR drops by 0.1% it means that there will be 180,000 less workers filling the tax bucket. The .1% drop translates into $1Bn less in tax revenue. The .4% drop in October therefore means $4Bn in lost revenue. It adds up quick.

All of the models used to forecast future federal deficits rely on a much higher LFPR assumption than today's reality. The Congressional Budget Office did a long term forecast of LFPR. The CBO hung its hat on a LFPR that is higher than 62.8%, meaning the forecasts of future tax receipts (and subsequent deficits) were wrong.




The 64.4% assumption the CBO used versus the 62.8% that exists today translates into 4m less workers contributing to the system, and those 4m workers (and their employers) will not pay $25B in payroll taxes. A 1/4 trillion adjustment over ten-years just due to a revision of the LFPR. That's real money.

I've looked at long-term forecasts for LFPR from CBO and BLS. They all have the participation rate dropping over time, but they do not have the drop occurring in the present. What if the 'New Normal' is a participation rate that hangs in the low 60% level for the next decade? It translates into much larger deficits at the Federal and State levels. It means that there will be less consumption as there will be fewer paychecks, and that means a much lower rate of growth of GDP.

So either the LFPR turns around and starts headed higher very soon (and stays higher for another decade), or the USA is in for a prolonged period of sub par growth and very high annual deficits.

Consider this chart of LFPR. The drop is accelerating. What are the odds that the long-term trend towards lower participation is going to turn around soon? I would say, "Not high".



Note: This analysis only looks at the consequences to payroll taxes from a drop in LFPR. There is is also lost revenue from State and Federal income taxes, and there is the broader drop in consumption to add into the mix. All in, the drop in participation is a very big deal.





- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/11/2013 - 18:40 | Link to Comment Big Ben
Big Ben's picture

The first baby boomers born in 1946 turned 60 in 2006 and 65 in 2011. I think the LFPR will continue dropping for at least another 10 years. As more and more boomers in their peak earning (and peak saving and peak tax paying) years retire, federal revenues will come under pressure and financial assets like stocks and bonds will be sold.

It won't be pretty.

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 18:36 | Link to Comment Bear
Bear's picture

So the fewer people employed the better off we are!

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 23:55 | Link to Comment novictim
novictim's picture

So first off, YES!  We are on our way to 4million fewer jobs than anticipated.  And Yes-, the monetary stimulus ($85 billion per month) will continue into the forseeable future.  

But come on!  The issue is not the deficit/debt!  The $25billion per month that will fail to flow into IRS coffers and the US treasury is NOT the punch line here.  The key concern is JOBS!  Duh! 

If you watched CSPAN Friday night then you will have seen Larry Summers and Kenneth Rogoff (Harvard economist and Erstwhile deficit hawk/disgraced austerity shill) BOTH agreeing that the economy is in peril and that MORE stimulus to create jobs and repari infrastructure (read FDR new deal!) is needed now...

The problem that was hinted at in their conference with Stanley Fischer (IMF/Former bank of Israel), and Ben Bernanke is that Keynesian economics has been too narrowly interpretted and that attemps to heat up economic activity through easy money is running into a liquidity trap situation...hence, we see low formal inflation numbers and even appear to be teetering on deflation.  

It was seriously discussed and recognized that the policy of flooding banks with money was the wrong approach and that paying off underwater home owners and dumping money from helicopters might be the better approach!

Worrying about debts and deficits today when the value of money is, as we all know, arbitrary! is like being concerned about your high caloric diet days before your gastric bipass surgery.


Sun, 11/10/2013 - 00:10 | Link to Comment novictim
novictim's picture

Did I mention that my recent customer service call to was answered by a Indian sounding man from a call center in Jamaica?

Parasite corporations are stripping the carcass of the US middle class to the bone with absolute impunity!

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 23:22 | Link to Comment QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

The real problem is when hiring increases, people will re-enter the labor force. Wages should be stagnant for quite a while

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 23:12 | Link to Comment wisehiney
wisehiney's picture

Any of you fokkers have old stories about the baddest, strongest, most endurance, most rebelliously skiiled, historically mulish man that an era ever new. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. My man I shared an insane, well connected cab driver with in Sun Vally, retired from walking/hanging steel on the angelic/ragged edge of the highest, unknowable first skyscraper beams in the NYC, I do no justice in  my description. But rebel, emotional, Proud. The other guys were envious of the sky tools left to him by a legendary, old school, inexpressibly, American, 40's, 50's, 60's skywalker MAN. Rolling stone missed the interview. But the cab driver knew and was legendaryally accodomating as well. See you again dog.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 22:55 | Link to Comment wildstylechef
wildstylechef's picture
US participation rate was +66 % just like Canada's was pre 2009 crisis and guess what Canada's still is 66.4% so all the BS about the US having almost the same unemployement rate as Canada is nothing more that the same operation that they are playing with the rest of the numbers. Look at the revisionds for payroll for 2 years every week except 5 were revised downwards thats over 100 numbers at a 5% nonrevised rate all of a suden we get these miracle huge numbers and not only are they not revised downwords all of a sudden they are revised upwards.

Also if you take what the real participation rate should be as in 66.4% then they need over 850,000 a month to get it back to 6.5% or 10,192,476 people back to work

Or lets put it to reality that means there are over 10 million people that the US government has thrown to rhe garbage and not only do they not have a job, they are not even counted. Meanwhile the idiots in the Senate and Congress are playing games and not dealing with it

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 23:08 | Link to Comment Kreditanstalt
Kreditanstalt's picture

Well, it doesn't look that great here in Canada.  There are an enormous number of people doing one or more of: collecting a check from one level of government or another, "working" for a government, doing a minimum-wage service job or two or three, staying (hiding) in school, running a "break even" or money-losing small business, living in mom-and-dad's basement etc.

Sure, if you HAVE a half-decent job you think this economy is booming.  But how many DO?  Around here the only ones besides government employees with loads of money are Alberta oil and tar sands workers, forest industry workers or commercial fishermen. 

Why?  Because those groups have government-granted monopoly access to natural resources.

That AND government protection from wage competition from the unemployed and underemployed via "minimum wages", "union recognition" laws and "qualifications" and "training" requirements...

If they had to compete on COST to keep their jobs they wouldn't be paid $25-$35-$40 or $80 an hour...!

THANKS, government.


Sat, 11/09/2013 - 22:46 | Link to Comment doMiKY
doMiKY's picture

on the assumption that the federal govt of the u.s. wants to return to a market economy - you are wrong...

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 22:39 | Link to Comment Kreditanstalt
Kreditanstalt's picture

Asking for "more consumption" is actually asking for either

a) more productivity with today's financial repression (probably with the necessity of lower living standards) or

b) more "stimulus" (read: money-printing and deficit spending).

Perhaps it's time to let go the government/central planner grip on the economy and FREE IT.   That's the only hope for greater REAL productivity and growth.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 22:30 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

They should get rid of all the workers and make the unemployed number zero.

Too much traffic on the freeways as it is.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 20:25 | Link to Comment Yancey Ward
Yancey Ward's picture

I think is pretty obvious that the CBO and BLS is going to 2-3% too high for all out years on the participation rate.  With the demographics being a headwind, I just don't see a turnaround coming.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 19:47 | Link to Comment Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

If Libertarianism is a disease can I get disability compensation?


Sat, 11/09/2013 - 20:20 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture


But you have to go through a non-working .gov website, then call the 800-FUCKYO number so you can be referred back to the non-working .gov website.

Its very simple ;-)

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 19:14 | Link to Comment Elliptico
Elliptico's picture

If everyone drops out of the labor force, the unemployment rate will be zero. Winning!

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 17:14 | Link to Comment MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

So what the Fed tells us is they are basing monetary policy on a number that is manipulated through statistics, the BLS unemployment rate. And the only way to get to that number is by decreasing the LFPR. Doesn't make any sense unless you believe Fed policy is aimed at protecting banks and wealthy investors instead of helping regular citizens get jobs.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 16:27 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Participation rate will be lowered to 50%, Food Stamp participation 100 Million, and then unemployment set to 4% before the end of any QE.

They can then perpetuate the Banker/Elitist 1% party that is the goal of the FED and claim "success" and "recovery".

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 16:14 | Link to Comment lotsoffun
lotsoffun's picture

bruce  - you are not agreeing with youself.

The 64.4% assumption the CBO used versus the 62.8% that exists today translates into 4m less workers contributing to the system, and those 4m workers (and their employers) will not pay $25B in payroll taxes. A 1/4 trillion adjustment over ten-years just due to a revision of the LFPR. That's real money.

25B??  come on.  that's annual.  bennie is printing more than 3x that a month, and yelling (sic) is going to 4x.  it's peanuts.  you mean we can buy 12 million people not working a month.  sure does.  there's your target unemployment.  who needs revenue when you own the printer?  jobs ain't coming back.  the apple one (thank you buddha) or the real ones.  so the only thing to do is print.


Sat, 11/09/2013 - 17:44 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

FWIW: I think unemployment will start to uptick soon as the affects of Obamacare kick in. Already many pharmaceutials are cutting there workforce by 8% to 10%. Next year as people are forced to pay much higher deductables, many will cut back on medical services. So there will be fewer people needed in healthcare. Most people will also have much higher insurance premiums on top of the higher deductables, which means less money for other purchases. Unless Obamacare is somehow rolled back, we could see a major surge in unemployment in 2014. We may see particpation drop below 60% by 2015, if not sooner.


Sat, 11/09/2013 - 15:32 | Link to Comment Lokking4AnEdge
Lokking4AnEdge's picture

..."If you like your President-you can keep him..."....

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 16:04 | Link to Comment DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

If you don't like your president you still have to keep him :(

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:42 | Link to Comment ChaosEquilibrium
ChaosEquilibrium's picture

IF the FED 'needs' certain rates to provide "cover" in removing stimulus.....IT WILL GET THOSE NUMBERS.


It is MUCH EASIER to manipulate indicating data to 'justify that the FED policies are ...<cough>working<cough>????


The FED cannot admit the flawed policy (QE) has created an unintended the Data sets will be manipulated---It is much easier to take the Data to the Economy....than taking the Economy to the Data!!!!


This strategy will justify ALL LIES, MANIPULATIONS, DECEIT, ILLUSIONS......what other choice does the FED have????

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Burticus
Burticus's picture

The unemployment rate and labor participation rate are actually caused by the malinvestment of capital associated with the (not really) Federal (with no) Reserve creating trillions of cybercurrency units out of thin air, while the gubbermint takes over the economy.  The Fed & gubbermint then use the lamescream corporate media cartel to parrot the opposite, to distract the clueless sheeple from the pickpocket.

It's all about handouts to their insolvent zombie shareholder banks and enabling the elephant/jackass sock puppets to perpetuate their "war on people" while paying back their crony corporate campaign bribes and buying handout-votes from the starving masses.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 20:48 | Link to Comment brettd
brettd's picture

And they're not going to stop 

until they're forced to stop.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:29 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

We are going back to long twrm trends of lower participation rates in the official economy and people living in larger households depenfing on one or two incomes.

Many people have decided they can live quite well like our ancestors on very little money.

I would rather have beans and cornbread every day and make a little money here and there rather than work a shit job.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:32 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

Rat traps and mouse traps work great to catch birds, even on your window sill in the city. Robins, bluejays, blackbirds, doves, and pigeons are great. Never buy meat. Just dont hunt them during mesting season. Only fall thru february.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Racer
Racer's picture

They will just change the way they calculate it or add/subtract more fake jobs

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:10 | Link to Comment PubliusTacitus
PubliusTacitus's picture

There are several ways to get to 6.5% unemployment Bruce.


You nailed what my guess is: have enough people drop out of the workforce, leaving only employed people shouldering the fools burden of earned income work.


I believe it is the intent of the Obama Administration to get as many people on government assistance as possible.  This is an active strategy, not an accident.


The revenue and social welfare funding implications are catastrophic.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 17:50 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

"I believe it is the intent of the Obama Administration to get as many people on government assistance as possible. This is an active strategy, not an accident."

Yup! Good-bye middle class! But it's not going to work long term, because the US needs a strong private sector to float gov't expenses. The rest of the world is not going to accept worthless FRN's forever especially when 70%-80% of the US population is dependant on gov't wealthfare that is funded by money printing.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 20:50 | Link to Comment brettd
brettd's picture

I remember when it was fun to be American.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:50 | Link to Comment asteroids
asteroids's picture

The morons at the FED have ignored basic demographics. Jobs, not the damn banks should have been their first priority. Now, the over 50 crowd is looking to cash out as quickly as possible. They will liquidate everything, including their small buisinesses, and move to cash as the current economic climate is a mess.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 18:01 | Link to Comment pitz
pitz's picture

"move to cash"

Just in time for a devaluation trap, eh?

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:52 | Link to Comment damicol
damicol's picture

Many owners of SME's are acutely aware of the sheer difficulties they face, and all of it is caused by none other than obummer and that rat faces smarmy lying turc pelosi, whose despicable visage  wriggling and lying was presented on Bloomburg this evening. Believe it or not she was asked how she would bring about jobs and growth.

I coudn't bear to listen to this turd any longer and changed the channel

Also attempting to justify the lying and tortuous heap of garbage  about to be unleashed on SME's at huge cost.

This utter shambles is  so reminiscent of the current situation in Venezuaela and the evil socialist scum will stoop lower than whaleshit and wreck everything in sight as long as these smug assholes are there..

Still, just who were the assholes that allowed them to get back in.

We help SME's offshore, not just a simple outsourcing excercise but the full blown  local domestic corporation with a board of Directors and  staff capable of shifting  as much of the back office functions as as can possibly be off shored. And the corporations are owned by the SME back in the US, or the directors, or their family/s and all done in conjunction with our Corporate Attorneys

At an everage of just 25 jobs offshored this way and including  the cost of a manager to spend a year overseas, on double pay, tax free, to run and oversea the  new office that is off shored the SME saves an average of $700,000  straight to the bottom line.

Thats a very healthy capital appreciation on say a 5 X P/E or $3.5m

No pensions for 25 staff, no U-naffordable CA or obummer disaster if they get the numbers down, by offshoring jobs, and they can make up hours lost by hour reductions to 29.5  for  US based staff the same way.

The off shore corporation is  under foreign domestic jurisdiction,  reports nothing to the US nor is obliged to or will do so and is legally protected.

Earnings can accrue offshore in what is one the very few places wqhere banking is still real banking and not some cesspool for the criminal mafia to flounce about in and very conservative.

And it is a fast growing economy with a hardworking and skilled workforce.

Just a damend sight cheaper that whining socialist cretins back in the US or the UK for that matter.

UK Asia Group are currently setting up off shore corporations for US and UK SME's at the rate of 4  a week now and this is starting to explode.

The small business guys can now do something that the fat crony government tax sucking vampires have been doing and they do not like it one bit.

You need help, let me know, its what we are here for.




Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:43 | Link to Comment Carl Popper
Carl Popper's picture

You sir are a true patriot.

There are many ways to carry out the revolution toward more limited government. You are attacking them in their supply lines.

Could my son possibly intern with your group at no cost to you someday? I will pay all expenses even travel. anonymoustemporaryemail at gmail dot com

The tuition would be a bargain compared to what passes for university nowdays.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 15:04 | Link to Comment damicol
damicol's picture

Attacking them on the supply side is the only logical solution if you value your integrity and what you work for.

The braying mob will dismember you if push comes to shove. You cannot fight them.

They will, just as in Venezuela  line your stores to take whatever they can  when the govt brings in price controls and forces you to sell at a loss.

None will care what happens to you.

The fact is I am looking for  several people right now who  are capable of talking sense to sensible small businesses and can offer an income, which should easily be in excess of $100,000 per annum and it will be tax free. At source.

you can also contact me at solutions at ukasiagroup dot biz


Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:44 | Link to Comment Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

We could end up with a situation of very low "official unemployment numbers" but at the expense of very much lower market participation rates. This is why it is crazy to equate unemployed with not having a job.

Don't forget the Keynesian viewpoint, which is Krugman's and the Obama Administration viewpoint - anybody on welfare or food stamps is actually being employed by the government - it does not matter that they are doing nothing - a lot of official government employees produce nothing useful. All that matters is that it stimulates agregate demand (which they believe it does). So although these low unemployment numbers may look contrived, they are consistent with Keynesian Economics.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:21 | Link to Comment Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

LFPR only measures on the books jobs. The underground economy if measurable needs to be considered to get a true overall picture. If you dropped income taxes outright and just applied it strictly as a consumption aka national sales tax. You'd probably capture more revenue that way including on 'ilegally gained' money plus the end result is it is actually a more 'progressive and fair' tax structure that doesn't discriminate against income and individuals. It doesn't penalize people for working and trying to earn more money which in turn they then tend to spend more of it which in turn raises more revenue without people feeling like the government is picking their pockets and stealing the fruit of their labor.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:50 | Link to Comment Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

It's odd that you think a sales tax is less subject to being evaded and undermined in the black economy than income tax.  Do we cheat them, and how?  Barter, cash sales, back of the truck, no problem.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:02 | Link to Comment Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

There is I suspect enough money floating in the non black market for it to not be an issue. Think of it this way it really doesn't interfere with price discovery in the market remember we are talking 2 markets here black and not black. This tax only applies in the non-black market. So with that in mind let's say we do something more basic a transaction tax a flat tax on every transaction forget about the amount of tax just that there is regardless of whether it is a raw material supplier to a manufacturer or manufacturer to the retail or retail to the end user. Transaction tax on every trade in the stock market derivative trades or otherwise. You see where this is going volume wise it can be a tiny percentage it is the volume that counts. It is easy to force compliance in this age of data and all the data mining going on. Here is why it doesn't effect price discovery because if everyone in the non-black market has to apply the same flat tax to the same item or service it is non-arbitrage in nature it just gets factored into the overall cost and it is an equal expense to be factored in. It doesn't interfere with basic free market principles concerning price discovery, it just gets baked into the overall price and if the market thinks the price is not right they you have to cut the price not the tax collected off the price since it is always baked in underneath.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 20:54 | Link to Comment brettd
brettd's picture

It ain't about the taxes, friend, it's about the spending.

Warren and Oprah don't need Medicare and Social Security. 

Don't need the "new campus library" when TED and YouTube

deliver the same information for free. 

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:38 | Link to Comment Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

And to the evasion part volume is the key, a high volume flow rate allows for a lower flat tax applied to each transaction. High volume tends be recorded digitally so it is easy enough to force compliance monitoring and automatic tax collection. Plus high the lower tax rates makes it more palatible for bigger operations to swallow since the end result is they don't pay the tax when it is sales based it is just factored into the price. If they did it with derivatives transactions the volume is such they could easily force complaince through the SEC working as a tax collector. Don't tell me the SEC doesn't know down to every transaction who is placing them. They could easily monitor the exchanges and have it automatically deducted off the trade into a Treasury account. That tax would probably be like .001 or smaller on the dollar which would just get worked into the options pricing anyways on both sides. It doesn't provide an arbitrage opportunity if it is a flat transaction tax. Between all the volume they will make their profit one way or the other.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:27 | Link to Comment Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Now, you're not trying to imply the FEDS will ever give up their tax on incomes even if they implement a national sales tax, do you?

How many states have both state income taxes and sales taxes?

Maybe five or six states with just sales taxes?

I can't foresee anyone giving up their revenue stream even the FEDS.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:35 | Link to Comment Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

Of course they won't. I wouldn't go along with a national sales tax unless it is implemented at the same time the 16th Amendment is abolished. It may have enough merit to seriously consider as long as that caveat is added in. It is not about giving up the revenue stream it is actually an easier one to collect and not just from individuals because businesses also have to pay the tax when they purchases items. You don't have to try force compliance on the whole population with a national sales tax. It is alot easier to force compliance with major retailers than chasing down every individual income tax cheat.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:14 | Link to Comment sangell
sangell's picture

I think there are a lot people who are part of ex officio 'households' and this, in part, lies behind the shrinking LFPR. There are a large number of unmarried 'couples' out there who qualify for federal benefits like food stamps because they are not married, i.e. an unemployed woman living with a man can get an EBT card to supplement the 'family' income. Ditto SSDI.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:09 | Link to Comment Captain Willard
Captain Willard's picture

thanks for the post Bruce!

Bernanke did address this issue the other day and said that he thought the current statistics overstated the strength of the job market.

But also, have you considered that the changes in the SNAP eligibility formula and the ACA subsidy for health insurance may have encouraged some people to leave the labor force?

Maybe I'm over-estimating this impact, but you have more insight into this than I do and I would love to read your view. Thanks.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 19:32 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

To the Captains point...

"Nov. 7, 2013 - States are reporting far higher enrollment in Medicaid than in private insurance since the Affordable Care Act exchanges opened Oct."

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:20 | Link to Comment sangell
sangell's picture

Good point about the ACA and medicaid expansion in half the states. If you have a boyfriend/girlfriend and stay unmarried and one is unemployed they not only can get a SNAP EBT but save money by not having to put their 'spouse' on their employer provided health insurance. That is a significant savings for many and may negatively impact future LFPR as health insurance premiums rise. Just get divorced and entitlements start flowing to the 'household' that disappear if you stay married.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:06 | Link to Comment FieldingMellish
FieldingMellish's picture

What would happen if the LFPR dropped below 60%!?!? 


The 6.5% target will either be removed or shifted downwards. $100B/month by March (or sooner).

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 12:58 | Link to Comment lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

I agree Bruce. However, I don't think it matters to these asshats.

It's all a charade at this point- wallpapering a crumbling wall. I am in awe at the number (millions upon milllions) of people who not only believe government propaganda but believe the naysayers are insane. The oligarchy has "we the people" by the balls. That is very bad for all of us- inlcuding the life expectancy of the oligarch.

That's the country I live in. For just a little while longer.

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 13:36 | Link to Comment ansc01
ansc01's picture

i agree. they will never taper.the word itself makes me mad as hell. amazing how even supposedly smart guys with CFAs are following every utterance from people like draghi or bernanke as if they would have any more wisdom than themselves.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!