This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Fed Fischer's Complete & Bizarre Nonsense: Oil Price Collapse "Making Everybody Better Off"
"I'm not very worried," explains Fed Vice Chairman Stan Fischer in a very Bernanke-"contained"-like nonchalence about the total collapse of oil prices (and US oil producer stocks). Sharply lower oil prices will boost spending and aid U.S. growth, Fischer stated in a mind-blowingly naive speech for the 2nd-most-important-monetary-policy-maker-in-the-world, adding that lower oil prices were "a phenomenon that’s making everybody better off."
We don’t understand his ignorance: as Raul Ilargi Meijer noted earlier, Fischer is talking about money that would otherwise also have been spent, only on gas. There is no additional money, so where’s the boost? This is just complete and bizarre nonsense.
Sharply lower oil prices will boost spending and aid U.S. growth, said two of the Federal Reserve’s most influential officials, playing down the risk that plunging energy costs could push inflation further below the Fed’s goal.
Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer and New York Fed President William C. Dudley, speaking at separate events yesterday in New York, both stressed the positive economic impact from the steepest decline in oil prices for five years.
“I’m not very worried,” Fischer told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The lower inflation that we’ll get from the lower price of oil is going to be temporary.”
He also said lower oil prices were “a phenomenon that’s making everybody better off.”
* * *
Perhaps Mr. Fischer should ask the owners of oil producer and servicer stocks, the workers in Texas and North Dakota, as well permits collapse..
* * *
Here's some 1st grade math...
- Money people have to spend (which is the number that is US CONSUMPTION) = X
- Money people have to spend on Gas = GAS
- Money people have to spend on everything else = EVERYTHINGELSE
Therefore: X = GAS + EVERYTHINGELSE
Now if Gas becomes cheaper by 30%... the savings are merely spent on more of everything else OR 'saved' - there is not boost in US consumption...
How does it make X any bigger?
How does that make anyone better off?
* * *
Here's STA Wealth's Lance Roberts clearing up a couple of myths...
Clearing Up A Couple Of Myths
It is important to remember that while the mainstream media keeps touting the "benefit to the consumer" from a decline in energy prices, it is not a tangible one. Think about it this way. When I receive a "true" tax credit from filing my taxes, I receive an actual check from the Treasury Department. For many individuals, they look forward to their "refund" to fund purchases of a television or take a family trip. However, when an individual fills up their automobile, there is not an extra $10 bill that shows up in their wallet, therefore, the incentive to spend really is not recognized and the "savings" get washed within already tight consumer budgets.
As I showed recently, lower gasoline prices do not equate to higher consumption.
Also, there is little evidence that lower energy prices equates to higher levels of economic growth. In fact, as shown below, sharp declines in energy prices has actually been coincident with lower economic growth rates.
* * *
Just don't tell Fischer, Dudley, or anyone on CNBC this!!!
- 14649 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Euthanize this fuck
Federal Reserve Bankers = fucking ass clowns
America has a real problem in its hands, when its ruling "elite" turns out to be nothing more than a collection of petty crooks and certified morons...
Speaking of ass clowns...
The European Court of Justice has decided that immigrants applying for a Refugee Status as persecuted homosexuals do not have to prove their homosexuality.
Hilarious! The South Stream is a big no-no, but Homo-refugees (or simply Re-Fudgees?) is a Yes! ;-)
I suspect that 90% of all EU immigrants will claim THAT status.
Looney
Martin Armstrong is correct "no one is driving the bus" ...
or may be the driver is just asleep ...
you wish they had come up earlier with the modern technology that you dont need drivers anymore ...
yeah well, just enjoy the ride ... all it will work itself out... it always does
... no one is driving the bus...
No one is driving the EXTRA-SHORT BUS ;-)
Looney
Are Fischer & Dudley insane?
That savings on gas is a gain
That money's been spent
On healthcare & rent
It won't put a dent in our pain!!!
And Dow stocks, don't forget those.
Investment in this decade is easy, sell everything tangible and buy everything fictional.
Be careful though, staring at your rapidly increasing net worth for too long may cause a cipher stroke.
Stanley is the former head official at the Bank of Israel, and holds dual citizenship, just like Cantor, Lieberman, etc., etc. (there are at least 30 such members of Israeli occupied U.S. CONgress who have such dual citizenship with Israel (and sole loyalty to Israel).
Like an efficient parasite, Israel has its siphon deeply imbedded in the U.S. Taxpayer, to the tune of an official 184 billion USD just since 1984 (in reality, triple that amount due to Maury cooking the books).
If Israel thinks it risks killing its U.S. host, it will already be drawing up plans to move onto its other hosts, and will literally help nuke the U.S. if that furthers its ability to drain other hosts dry.
If I were completely ignorant of the facts in the middle of a crisis, I wouldn't worry either.
Fischer you jackass.
Therefore: X = GAS + EVERYTHINGELSE
Now if Gas becomes cheaper by 30%... the savings are merely spent on more of everything else OR 'saved' - there is not boost in US consumption...
Erm didn't you just prove the statement you are obstensibly criticizing??
This keeps coming up on zh and my grade 1 math skills seem to be failing me... The limit of your disposable cash+savings would be relative to the amount spent on each, no?
Experts in grade 1 math skillz, what am I missing here??
t(x) = x-(gas + spending + savings), t(x) = 0
Or is the argument that gas is consumption (not according to the authors explanation) ? Still doesn't make any sense because oil cost affects product cost, so you'd still see savings and potentially added consumption.. Might need grade2 maths to figure that all out.
And the charts above are irrelevant because the price of oil is mostly relative to strength of the economy.. what's that about causation and correlation?
Fed Fischer's comments were no doubt directed at Gruber's stupid Americans.
+100
Someone is driving the bus, but the muppets have to sit so far in the back that they can't see who it is.
got it. good point and I wondered how come no accident so far ...
i guess that makes me a muppet ... yeah well
Sorry to say it but, at this point, the Europeans are much dumber than the Americans. They've created, by their own design, an economic system (the euro) which has zero chances to survive, much less to prosper. It's just a question of time now until they blow up... after the Japanese though.
American leaders, petty crooks and certified morons....
A countrys leaders are a microcosim of the population that put them there....
Look at most people today, they will cheat, (can't call it stealing) on their taxes, on their bills etc. because the Govt does...
they are 99% ignorant of basic economics & finance, their most pressing issue is either to get a job, or if they have one, where are we going drinking tonight to hash out our fantasy football teams...
I gather FED VICE CHAIRMAN STANLEY must believe Shale Oil grows on trees just like the Federal Reserve Notes they are printing into oblivion.
I have to say... I was pretty ignorant to all of this when I was a young lad. I actually had this INSANE NOTION that the suits up in GOVT & WALL STREET knew what they hell they were doing. Well... after traveling down the RABBIT HOLE over the past decade, I now realize we are completely screwed as there isn't any REAL LEADERSHIP running the USS TITANIC.
And... does it really matter? I don't know about anyone else here, but when I walk around town, I see a lot of ZOMBIES and they don't even know it. Of course, there isn't any one trying to eat someones BRAIN, but I would imagine given some time, that just might be the logical outcome.
CRAP FLOATS UNTIL someone flushes the toilet.
AKA, Darth Stanley. Leader of the Dark Side, AKA the Jewish money changers.
Death to them all!!!
I gather FED VICE CHAIRMAN STANLEY must believe Shale Oil grows on trees just like the Federal Reserve Notes they are printing into oblivion.
W/o QE, S.O. would've stayed in the ground."Therefore: X = GAS + EVERYTHINGELSE
Now if Gas becomes cheaper by 30%... the savings are merely spent on more of everything else OR 'saved' - there is not boost in US consumption...
How does it make X any bigger?
How does that make anyone better off?"
If you worship at the altar of "aggregate demand", no, it is not going to be a boost to the overall economy. Obviously, it merely SHIFTS where spending occurs. Gasoline is largely and for most people a NON-DISCRETIONARY PURCHASE. Reduce what they spend on gasoline and they simply have more money for DISCRETIONARY PURCASES (or paying down debt, or saving).
If you're a remorseless central planner, you probably want everyone to spend as close to 100% of their income on non-discretionary purchases as possible so nobody could ever reduce their spending. Obamacare would be an example of that, and I know we all love Obamacare because it helps the economy by forcing us to spend more money on something we'd rather not spend it on, right?
Now call me old-fashioned, but I like cheap energy. I also like having increased ability to CHOOSE where I spend my money. And for the average person staring at their never-increasing paycheck buying less and less with every passing year, I have no problem saying that a drop in energy prices will be a boost to their own PERSONAL ECONOMY.
Go ahead and flame away, if you must. But I'm not going to buy into an argument that starts with the premise that cheaper energy is going to ruin the economy. If that was the case we should all be rooting for $300/bbl oil and rationing of gasoline like back in the 1970s. Yes, there will be winners and losers in all of this, but that doesn't mean everything collapses.
I agree 100 %. It's as if the recent "news" articles are dissapointed that the fat cat oil companies won't be as profitable and the general middle class will have more dispendable income to save or buy discretanary products.
I don't understand this post. I agree with your comment.
It seems obvious that if the US is a net importer of oil, we are better off IN THE AGGREGATE if oil prices are lower. This is not to say that some people don't get hurt (oil workers,driller et al.). But others are made better off, if only incrementally.
But these increments across millions of households, add up to much more net benefit across the US than the few that are hurt (Bastiat, Seen and Unseen, FFS).
This is blindingly simple, basic economics.
Now, oil prices may be a symptom of inadequate aggregate demand and a weak economy. Perhaps this is the poster's argument, however poorly articulated. But all things being equal, a nation like the US, a NET IMPORTER of oil, is better off with lower prices.
I would suggest that at least some of the "savings" will go toward paying down debts (credit cards, loans, etc) and that is deflationary. The Fed doesn't want and cannot have deflation, so here we go with a Fed member talking up spending - what else can he do? Even if it sounds ridiculous, he probably doesn't care, he's just doing his job.
I believe the point isn't that cheap oil will ruin the economy, but rather that the fact that oil is now cheap means the global economy is already ruined.
As you say, net importers like the US will benefit from the cheaper price overall. But net exporters are pretty screwed. But again, the price isn't the problem, it's the symptom.
I know a lot more goes into oil price than supply and demand, but I believe they still play a major part. For the price to drop like it has means that demand is dropping off rather swiftly. A decrease in global energy demand probably reflects a serious decrease in global economic activity.
I would ordinarily agree with you. Except that we've been hearing about oil storage facilities filled to the brim around the world for well over a year now. The price of that oil continued to levitate at over $100/bbl for that whole period of time, however. No orderly decline or draw-down of inventory until the recent collapse in prices.
I couldn't say for sure why it levitated for so long before finally correcting the last month or so, but if I was to guess, I would say that the "global turmoil" price premium was overplayed. Too many betting on supply disruptions that never materialized.
That's the long way around the barn to say I don't think the decline in demand for oil is as recent a phenomenon as the rapid drop in prices would indicate.
it was high because the earlier peak conditions were subject to supply chain price manipulation
the ICE Brent shennanigans have unwound, which is why the floor in oil turned into vapor... there's simply no support for triple-digit oil prices now or in the near future
You're right, of course.
If I'm running a 'debt slave' plantation, I want lower monthly mandatory expenses. That way, the debt slaves can buy more things 'on credit' at the company store.
I Agree. Energy is like a parasite on the economy. Same as the financial sector skimming a fee off of every transaction. If the banks had to reduce their fees and make less profits, which would give consumers more money to spend elsewhere, would this crowd be worried about it ruining the economy?
I was scanning the comments hoping someone would have the nerve to say the obvious. Thank you, very well put.
yeah im with you on this, i think this zionist degenerate was letting a bit of truth out to avoid an uncomfortable situation at the time.
I'm waiting to see a client now.
Let me tell you all of an observation I just made while on the way here that serves as a microcosm as to how FUBAR the Central Banksters have helped make the economy.
Within 1,500 feet on a stretch of major roadway (70,000 cars per day), there are two new buildings, one completed, and one nearly complete.
They are nearly identical in size (approx 150,000 square feet), and in fact, appear incredibly similar in architectural style and layout, as well.
One is complete, but entirely vacant, with OSB over the windows, being foreclosed on by the lender, never having hosted a tenant, while the other is nearly complete, with trades finishing the final stages of construction, and with a sign advertising space for lease.
I know that the building being foreclosed upon was built by the same core group of contractors building the other, just built structure, but even the foreclosed structure is only 18 months old (since completion), and that there are NO structural problems with it whatsoever.
What this represents is a mutant economy where incredibly cheap money is fueling a MASSIVE misallocation of resources - AKA A HUGE BUBBLE.
FUBAR Central Bank Monetary Interventionism Twisting All Aspects of the Economy Inside Out.
p.s. - Corporations are going Full Retard borrowing money through bond issuances again, thanks to Yellen-Dudleynomic monetary policy (NIRP).
Good luck, bagholders.
Right, the Chinese build entire cities that are vacant. We're smart enought to just repeat the idiocy with individual buildings!
/s
Dear Leader said to spread it around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U1vRyJQntw
Truth
Respectfully disagree - the situation you discribe is the same as I have seen in every real estate cycle (I lend to developers). Every developer believes their project will be better than the one next door, every bank will structure a deal it believes will protect it (there's a broad spectrum of intelligence being applied - plenty of stupid banks out there, but everyone on ZH knows that). There have always been failed projects in every cycle - not just this currrent one where money is, in fact, cheaper than all prior cycles. Can't speak for every lender, but I have not been given free reign in loaning money without sensible underwriting. In most instances where we do see some signs of insanity on the lending side, it tends to involve the TBTF. Shocking, I know.
I didn't ding you, but are you claiming that the existence of two nearly identical office buildings, given their respective states of feasability, after the fact proven non-feasible in the one case, located a 1/4 mile from each other, on the same road, is a sign of a lending and/or construction market that is efficient and in equilibrium based on real supply/demand?
Not exactly, it's a sign of a lending/construction market that invariably over-builds in some cases, given the typical 3 year construction and stabilization period for a project like you describe. It's a timing problem for all involved so inevitably, someone times it wrong. For buildings like you describe, one of the sponsors could have leased up space prior to completion and perhaps grabbed the last bit of demand. As to why one appears to be in foreclosure, there are dozens of reasons why some projects fail, which are not visible to people driving by and independent of supply/demand. It is almost always some problem with construction, cost overruns, or financial problems of sponsor. Two buildings arriving at market at the same time doesn't ensure both get filled. Smart operators price to fill the property as quickly as possible. Not so smart operators either think they can hold out for more rent, or don't even see the market tanking in front of them, and don't react accordingly. I think that situation you describe is common to many markets and every real estate development cycle.
Well done
Put a fork in it
At least they made some jobs for some people for a while with that borrowed $$$$
And the sad thing is you could be anywhere in the US.
Why? I don't care what the OP said, I am benefitting from lower gas prices. Too bad about those who invested in the sector based off of higher prices - not my problem. Kinda like the whole banks needing bailouts because they took bad gambles and lost - not my problem.
Fill'er up.
He who lives by the FED shall die by the FED.
What an asshole...yes that Whole $10 I'm savng a month is a real bag for sure....I think I'll buy a candy bar and a small coffee with it.
Get a gas guzzler and your savings will skyrocket!
87 Caprice classic... daily driver. :)
instead of that $10/month in gas going to US Shale, it can now be spent on crap made in China. wait, isnt that negative for the US? i got it, it can be spent on food since the price of food is skyrocketing. there. problem missolved. i think i should get an economic PhD for this work.
Only if you're Kosher.
If you are unhappy with that $10 savings you are free to send it to me. I will accept it in cash or silver, your call.
Usually I like your posts but grow up on this one. People made poor investment decisions based on easy cash and high oil prices, boo freaking hoo. It's not my problem and it is not my fault. The rest of us are benefitting in that we have the extra $10 (much more in my case) to spend or save as we would like instead of shipping it straight to the land of people who hate us.
I drive a lot. between full time school, nearly full time work and living about 45 miles away from school, 32 miles away from work i put a lot of miles on the clock each week- i just changed my oil a month ago and i'm about 200 miles away from being due for the next oil change- about 7000 miles a week. the savings for me is a lot more than $10. just filled up my tank on the way home from school 15 gallons at $2.23 a gallon for $33.45 for a tank of gas. a year and a half ago when gas was around $4.00 a gallon that same tank would have cost me about $60. i fill up twice a week, so thats $50 a week that im not pumping in my tank, money that i can spend elsewhere. i dont make very much at the moment so that extra $50 REALLY helps. i also dont wake up in the morning thinking to myself " am i going to have enough money for gas to get to work today, will i be able to make it home from school, crap, how many days till payday is it?" thats a HUGE burden off my shoulders and many other people's shoulders as well.
so some people lost money on oil price bets, and several thousand oil workers may be laid off due to price drops. BOO FUCKING HOO!! there are tens of MILLIONS of regular people like myself who are struggling just to get by and this oil price collapse has been a HUGE relief.
bad for the economy my ass, any of these talking heads that actually think people believe that shit can take a walk off the chain of rocks bridge.
If the talking heads at the FED say that the decline in oil and commodities is good then...
...no QE is needed ever again
...no one who collapses because of it will be bailed out by the FED
consistent, right?
So deflation is good now? That must mean commodity inflation that lead up to this decline was bad, that inflation targeting is bad.
Excellent catch. These fascists have no friggin' clue
Bad is Good? BULLISH!!!
sarc off//
Sharply lower stock prices will also drive money out of the stock market and back into the economy to help growth. Go encourage that!
Talk enough gobbledgook with like minded individuals and they will all believe it. Except for the 'naive' little boy who says 'They're not wearing any clothes'.
DavidC
The oil price collapse probably is just evidence of a rapidly deteriorating WW economy.
So the money not spent on gas may be saved or spent on some other capital project. Wouldn't that increase X over time?
There are negative macro ramifications of a collapse in oil prices, but consumers having broader spending options is not among them.
Say you make $50k a year and spend every penny of it. You spent $50k last year and say $5k of it was on oil products, fuel and heating. This year you spend $50k, but only $2.5k on oil products and you can spend $2.5k on other stuff. But you still only spent $50k for the year so the economy hasn't grown at all.
You spend it on what you want instead of what you need, so feel richer. This is written by Tyler invested in the energy market. Lower prices of energy goes with higher dollar.
True if the surplus $2.5k is consumed, but if it is spent on capital goods -- tools, repairs, labor-saving appliances etc -- then it can increase income or reduce expenses. Isn't that economic growth? And to whstlblwr, isn't moving from "needs" to "wants" the very definition of improved welfare?
I'm the first to agree that most of what Fischer says is BS but it's true that giving consumers more options makes them better off.
Yes, lower energy prices = good
Sounds like fucking central bankers agree, deflation = good
Suppose every penny of the average yearly price of fuel translates to $40 million of earnings for you. If the average yearly price of fuel drops by 5 pennies, how many more planes can you buy?
Higher bank loans, is what he's saying. If the FED's member banks get a bigger piece of the economic pie, then the economy is growing as far as they are concerned.
What you write is true, but would you rather spend all your money on oil, or have money to spend on other things?
I would think cheaper oil would be a good thing to anyone not in the oil industry.
What's the problem with his statement? Or is this article sarcasm? What am I missing?
Why not try and read the post... how do you think a cut in gas expenditure will increase total spending? It's merely spending on non-Gas vs Gas - there is no boost to spending...
I didn't see the word 'total' in his statement, but could have missed it.
X = pizza + everthingelse
Cheaper gas should spread money around a bit more.
I'd rather spend my money on non-gas to be honest with you.
I remember a decade ago when gas went over $2 a gallon for the first time, and we are all pissed about it. Nowadays its $2.70 a gallon and we have commentors whining that it is too cheap. *facepalm*
Look at the long term graphs for oil. Even with this "fall" oil is still quadruple what it was in the year 2000.
I can tell the people angry about this minor correction have oil wells or investments in the Bakken. The other 99% out there would actually, ironically agree with Fischer.
Pussy...
Exactly. Imagine if instead of being cheaper, energy were suddenly free. Would that mean the economy is no better off because we'd just spend the money on something else? Sure it would suck for some producers, but the gains for all consumers and other producers would greatly outweigh.
I'm tempted to think the Tylers are testing us with this article to see who will agree with anything, because the fallacy is so obvious.
If they were in earnest they might have focused instead on Fischer's evil assertion that lower oil prices won't thwart his plans for inflation.
Free energy technology has been totally suppressed for this reason. Tesla's work gets shelved, and an electric car dependent on the power grid is named after him. What a sick joke.
I see a lot of this lately. It's beyond comical. Sheep who think they are "moar better" than other sheeple. All they do is regurigtate talking points and play high school popularity contests with the vote system here. If one would like to know why society is "degenerating" this is supposed to be the opposition to the banksters and all we get is middle school level canards.
As usual, I can't get rational debate, but I can get 6th Grade playground insults. Just goes to show the ineptitude of the "opposition" to this banker agenda. This is why I am apathetic.
When they can't give you a -1 for disagreeing with your post, and they are forced to actually have to explain their thought processes for WHY they disagree with you, they are the ones who ironically call you a coward or pussy when they are actually describing themselves.
You've nailed it. There are not many independent and creative thinkers. There are some among this site's commenters but you have to wade through a lot of idiotic outbursts to get to them. Worth the trouble, though.
Weirdly I can't upvote any of your comments. Buttons won't click. So +1 I suppose.
You did it correctly. thank you. I run blockquotes to disable my vote system for most browsers. I want actual discourse instead of high school popularity contests. Most disagree with me, a few like you do agree, so thank you for actually typing up praise.
A decade ago I used to go on message boards talking about the Bilderberg group and getting laughed out of oblivion. Nowadays its on Drudge Report every time they meet up. I remember discussing the Rothschild dynasty and getting mocked or lumped in with Bigfoot. I would get marked as spam and have my accounts deleted because I wasn't "popular" enough.
I'm usually a decade ahead of the Zeitgeist, I take a lot of crap, get proven right in the end, and move on to the next obstacle, get mocked and laughed at, then move on.
Going against asch conformity is fun.
Still at it! Wow. RE READ THE ARTICLE. It is about net positive boost to GDP v. a redistribution. The article is pointing out only what Fischer doesn't get - that a decreasing oil price does not improve wealth for everyone (i.e it is not a shift in the demand curve!! (National Income)). Fischer disguises the redistribution argument by asserting that fuel is "more affordable" and that everybody wins. Well everybody doesn't win!! Thats the point. Its a price effect!! A redistribution. Nothing more. thats it!! thats all this is about!! its not about PMs. Its not about how great of a stock analyst youmight be and how everybody on ZH lost all their wealth to PMs or that you have some prescient knowledge of the future and thus can't handle any of the blogs, because, well EVERYBODY disagreees with you.
Pussy's
Its fight club bitch! or did you not see the memo.
Hey, pal, I don't want to get in between you and your brush up with the doc, but you don't seriously think that Fischer believes the chimera about us all being better off as we twirl down the drain.
He's lying through his dentures. His beak is getting bigger.
At this stage of the collapse every department of government is lying to us.
To keep us from killing ourselves so we can continue to consume stuff and pay taxes.
How bad is it? Fischer was sucked out of Jerusalem less than a year ago to be Vice-Chairman of the Fed.
How is that anything but an deafening air raid siren?
That dog won't hunt.
I work for an offshore ultra deepwater drilling company, I'm not feeling it. I guess I'm not part of everybody.
Boost spending?
You mean like when you have more dollars left over to pay for food, insurance, and Obamacare?
Dow new record highs
i am so happy i'm paying less on airline tickets now...wait a second, air fares haven't budged.
no, not a cartel.
oil goes to $110, delta airlines triples in value. oil goes to $65, delta goes up 50% in one month. makes perfect sense. if oil goes up, they are "hedged". if oil goes down they will "reap incredible gains".
Cramer?
Well, you could look at it as an increase in discretionary spending.
Who wouldn't consider themselves better off by spending a smaller percentage of their income on necessities?
BUT it does not increase aggregate consumption... how can it... what's not spent on gas is spent elsewhere (or saved) - gas spend plus non-gas spend is unchanged no matter what gas spend is...
Yeah, I get it but I think when he says: "...makes everybody better off." he means every individual who lives on a budget divided into discretionary and non-discretionary expenses.
You do remember that the Balance of Payments is part of GDP, right? The US is a net importer of oil.
You're missing the investment part. That's a big part.
“I’m not very worried,” Fischer told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The lower inflation that we’ll get from the lower price of oil is going to be temporary.”
KEY WORDS:
- I'm not very worried [about ~ see below]
- audience at CFR
- [about] lower inflation
- we'll [see above]get
Fuckers
+1
He is lying and shitting his pants. So expect oil to shoot through the roof as the Fed starts buying oil futures or the SPR needs to be toppped off all the way to $120. These guys ALWAYS lie. Too many oil companies are about to go bust and destroy their fake stock pump. The whole situation is embarrassing as oil demand deteriorates and Putin just adjusts the Ruble to compensate.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Business/ID/2623085441/
The Exchange with Amanda Lang | Dec 1, 2014 | 7:30
Crude and currency
Economist Jim Rickards weighs in on the impact of low oil prices on currencies
it'll be cheaper for Stanley to fly back to Tel Aviv for vacation, Im sure he owns a condo on Rothschilds Blvd.........
Going broke saving money.
Is he not a hooked nose Tribe member?
Stanley Fischer was the last Chairman of the Israeli CB.
But don't stop there: Chief Economist at the World Bank, 1988-1990; Managing Director of the IMF, 1994-2001; Governor of the Bank of Israel, 2005-2013. Educated at London School of Economics and---wait for it---MIT, where he taught economics, 1977-1988.
Also, Fischer was PhD. thesis adviser to Ben Bernanke, Mario Draghi and Greg Mankiw.
He applied to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn in 2011 as Managing Director of the IMF, and probably would have, but he was too old.
Member, Bilderberg Group, and Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
All in all, the very definiton of "Insider."
Guillotine him
even worse a dual citizen... traitorous fuck, needs a good hemp neck tie
And sits on the board of the BIS. Nuff said.
Because money is moving from low to high velocity consumers, and will be recycled at least once in the U.S. Ergo better for everyone.
Fuzzy math aside, this time last year I was ass raped for $4+/gal propane, while this year I just topped off the tanks @ $1.74. Works for me. BTFD....
Now, add that savings to your credit card balances and they might let you work in the house, as in house nigga'.
gasoline prices have yet to follow...
I'm actually going yo save those extra dollars.....thus it should be WORSE and Fischer on his way back and forth to Israel should be very very worried.
The dirty little secret that the Fed KNOWS and that this analysis is missing is that DOMESTIC CONTENT MATTERS. Oil bought from other countries sends money to their economies. What we need is high enough prices to sustain shale production into the long term coupled with operational hedges that increase the domestic content in out fuel supply.
Back in the boom cycle, people were getting pay increases of 3-5% on average and their homes were gaining 10-20% of value each year. Today, home values and salaries are flat and the FED/.gov is pushing a drop in oil prices as a pay raise. Gruber's favorite people seem to be buying it.
If people are not giving their money to the saudi's for gas they are giving it to china for plastic toys, or south america for vegetables, or central america for cocaine. The IRS takes whats left over. Prostitution will probably do alot better tho, you have extra money for tips, or driving around the city looking for that "special one"
"I lie and steal for a living, why would I lie about this?"
An American, not US subject.
Lower oil prices can be either good or bad, depending on the reason. If supply is up, that's good. But if demand is down because of a global depression, that's bad.
Any savings I might see in gas will be rapidly devoured by my rising health care costs (going up ~$2500 next year...) These federal reserve pig fuckers need to be roasted alive slowly, so their death is long and agonizing.
Standard Disclaimer: Anything between the covers of this book will also work...The History of Torture by Daniel P. Mannix 1983The History of Torture by Daniel Mannix 1983The History of Torture by Daniel Mannix 1983
The fact that you seem to agree that lower prices are bad and inflating prices are good directs your narrative. However, inflation is never good and deflation is not always bad. That you seem to agree with the Fed's 2% inflation target, itself a bizarre construct, is what comes across as bizarre. The 'everybody' the Fed people talk about includes you unless you are A. in the oil biz and spent part of the $7.6 Trillion discovering new sources at approx. $95/BBL or B. you're so long the industry that you have not yet got out or too stupid and held on.
The price of oil is a symptom of the collapsing commodity cycl. Nothing new. The fact that savings or other consumption will occur as a result is actually a good thing for those who will do the saving or consuming. It will also lower product costs for every industry using oil. Also not a bad thing.
If you objecting that the Fed talks out of its collective ass about most things, you're right.
Inflation is banker theft. These plantation owners don't want you to get uppity and buy you're own freedom.
Deflation is a reflection of increased production and is always good (except for the impacted industry, like shale drillers or their benefactors at the FED banks).
If the slaves ever learn this, they'll burn down the massa's house. End the FED.
He may tell that straight into the face of all the people losing their jobs due to foreclosures within oil/shale production.
Russian Destroyer to Undergo Maintenance Works in Syria: Northern Fleet
Was wondering when ISIS was going to get around to that... And the first target should be?
Chicago is some place I would not want to live.
It's a very old game. Squeeze the price down. Put all the smaller exploration companies and marginal situations in a pressured financial situation until they are forced to bail into larger hands eagerly waiting to slaughter them.
Complete process. Voila! Price goes back up.
Rinse/repeat as often as required to wipe out competition.
Come on, isn't this just a stupid misreading of what they are saying?
It seems odd how much ZH shouted about high oil prices crushing the US and other economies, and now when they are dropping, they are shouting just as loud that it doesn't matter.
They aren't implying that TOTAL spending will increase...they are just saying that it's better (from a consumers point of view and from all the businesses that aren't Oil/Gas related) for some of the money that would have gone directly into the pockets of Oil companies and their shareholders to go to other discretionary spending businesses. That's all they are saying, not that this cures the deep systemic issues the US economy has, but that consumers can buy a few more doodads from companies that should theoreticallly create more jobs in those companies, and make consumers lives feel ever so slightly less cramped when driving around big gas sucking SUV's.
None of this matters in the long run with House of Cards we have set up, I'm under no delusions there, but shouting about things like this is why ZH has lost the credibility it had in the 2008 through 2010 period.
Nope. Just a stupid misunderstanding on your part. Along with your omniscient and objective view of ZH's credibility. STFU.
Great job at summarizing the quality of ZH's comment board with that comment, no counterarguments, no facts, no analysis, and ending with an acronym. Case closed
Naw. Just tired of "Fischer fans" or friends of the FED, ganging up on people who seek true price discovery and sound monetary policy (which if you understand Fischer - is like talking out of both sides of his mouth - which among other things is what this piece was getting at - not some fucking "OMG last year ZH would have said this, now they are saying that" like JFC!!), rather than having the FED determine both bond and stock markets for us. Or how about Interest rates reflecting the true cost of money - like something GREATER THAN ZERO. There's a price level - the most important price signal of all - that you don't seem to give a rats ass about. Your comment , therefore, ought to be commensurate/consistent with the theme and the content of the article - not about nitpicking a superflous observation of what ZH might/might not say.
You don't have any hits - because nobody cares!!! There is nothing to talk about! You're fucking around in the weeds while taking cheap and uninformed ZH punch shots, meanwhile - NOBODY CARES! Its that simple.
I agree. If gas were to go to $6.50 a gallon, there would be all kinds of posters on here shouting how its hurting their monthly budgets, and consumers are too tapped out to spend money at their businesses.
I think it was 2009 when this site came out, (Max Keiser cited it frequently back then on Alex Jones' podcast) but back then I was the biggest bear ever because things looked worse than bad. But here we are six years after the bailouts and the Austrian school predictions of PMs soaring to the stratosphere, the USD collapsing, and commodities going up, and real estate crashing, were all wrong, and completely the opposite.
Then again, von Mises got his intital funding from the Rockefeller Foundation so that's why so many on here were played like absolute fiddles.
You sound like somebody who is really pissed because they missed the greatest bull run of all time, and now you need somebody to fucking blame it on. And you would be hardly the calibre to somehow draw a conclustion (with distinction) about Mises funding from Rockefeller and then turn around and criticize similar and many contradictions identified by ZH - in the same fucking breath. Whatever credibility you thought you had - just got tossed.
As if you have any credibility yourself. Some random guy replying to articles on a forum. Funny.
Actually I did well. I feel sorry for all of those that went "all-in" on PMs. I know people who cashed out their stocks and 401ks and ran up credit card debt to buy metals. I did none of that. They thought I was crazy for not taking that strategy. I hedged, they didn't. I don't "blame" anybody. Those of you missed out, now you learned from it, there's always new opportunites.
Why don't you research it? You might expand your horizons.
see below
gold is fine...paper gold is going to extinction
but you call 'em as you see 'em...
Gold has traced US debt quite well.
Debt in 1971 = $390 Billion. Now, $18 Trillion. Up 46X's. Gold was $35/oz. Now, $1200. Up 34X's. All time high was $1900. Up 54X's.
46 x $35 = $1610/oz.
It's a marathon, not a sprint.
You need to learn how to watch where the cue ball goes after it strikes the "target" balls.
Or, if you like home decor: picture a very large rug with a floor underneath drilled through with many many holes that have air being forced up through them at high pressure. Now try to sweep a very, very large pile of dirt under that rug and not have the dirt accumulate in one of the many bubbles in the rug.............
So, X=G+E
(X=Death and GE=General Electric )
Must be using his Common Core math........
The analysis in this article is too simplistic because it doesn't take into account taxes and net oil imports. For example, total gas taxes in CA (including federal tax) were 71 cents / gallon as of April, 2014. a much higher % than other items. Per the EIA, in Nov 2014, the US imported about 5 million barrels per day of petroleum.
While I don't aggree with the sentiment from Fisher, the benefit comes from the fact that we still import significant amounts of oil. By spending less on oil, our balance of payments inproves which aids GDP. ceteris paribus
Here's the 2nd grade math...
GDP - Consumer + Business/Investment + Gov't +/- net imports.
Here's some 1st grade math...
Therefore: X = GAS + EVERYTHINGELSE
we import the stuff we buy from the savings from the imported fuel bill.
'Cept for most of the Obamacare spending, which goes up astronomically on Jan. 1. So, as long as the debt slaves keep paying their insurance premiums to fund the 'Komen-ized' cancer industry, among others, GDP goes up.
yes definitely agree Tyler! EVERYONE DOES NOT include Saudi whores and Hedge Fund Shrills...other than that, I guess lower gas prices may be of some benefit to the hoi poloi....but they little peoble so is not included in ZH's definition of "everyone"
While I agree it's nice to have cheaper energy costs, the costs outweigh the benefits.
1) Lower tax revenue for local ,state ,federal, on non energy related purchases, or just saving and not spending savings
(I'm not condoning taxes to .gov)
2) Lower energy prices are the result of lack of demand globally, "deflationary".
3) Greatly reduces GDP and exports for US economy of energy related goods by having strong $usd and cheap oil. Widens trade deficite.
4) Makes retarded subprime borrowers go out and spend even MOAR on cars they can't afford, which you and I will end up bailing out/paying for.
You forgot possible bankruptcies in the oil patch.
I didn't forget, just figured they fit into GDP loss and deficite column. Thanks for mentioning though.
Here's an interesting read.
Societe Generale Oil Price Drop Effects - Business Insider
How about productivity boost? (in reference to article see below)
Here's some 1st grade math...
Therefore: X = GAS + EVERYTHINGELSE
Now if Gas becomes cheaper by 30%... the savings are merely spent on more of everything else OR 'saved' - there is not boost in US consumption...
How does it make X any bigger?
How does that make anyone better off?
I have an idea, any savings you have from the slight decrease in fuel costs, you can send to my Paypal account.
If I can get 100 of you guys that think that lower fuel costs are some how a bad thing to do the same, I will be well off.
There's some 1st Grade math for you ;)
I can quit my job and post on Zero Hedge full time, so I can no longer "run and hide" from your playground canards. I'll have time to reply to every stupid post at all hours of the day and night 7 days a week. My family and friends and responsibilities and hobbies can go by the wayside and I'll just sit here all day blaming Obozo for my lack of freedom behind a computer all day.
/sarc
See my posts above.
You and I are chopping, but not a lot of chips are flying. I give up.
Oil is the flip side of the petro dollar. Lower oil price means higher banking profits. The only 'anyone' that counts are bankers (plantation owners).
whoof whoof
Who let the VIX up???
Those helicopters the Bernak was referring to.... are the gas pumps. Enjoy while it lasts...
Naive.
'Im not very worried' = 'Fuck I just shit my Depends diaper!'
I googled oil company layoffs. I doubt Fischer can access the internet. He is a Baby Boomer.
"He also said lower oil prices were “a phenomenon that’s making everybody better off.”"
Can anybody smell a big PHYgold revaluation coming on? :-)
We don’t understand his ignorance: as Raul Ilargi Meijer noted earlier, Fischer is talking about money that would otherwise also have been spent, only on gas. There is no additional money, so where’s the boost? This is just complete and bizarre nonsense.
What happens when a Zionist Jew loses lots of money and is contemplating suicide either for himself or the rest of the "Tribe"!
Bad News First:
2/3 of the planet will more than likely be without electricity and dead while those that are unfortunate enough to survivie will be serving out the rest of their existence pushing shopping carts with all of their worldly possessions in them!
Good News Second:
Israel's front row seat to heaven will ALL come true!
the walmart side of the economy has a better multiplier than the fuel/energy side of the economy. that is the difference....and it is so far inconsequential.
I wish all Fed Heads would just shut the fuck up about EVERYTHING.
Keep printing money and flooding the world with Fiat Currency but please shut fhe fuck up!
Fischer is proof positive that these AshkeNAZIs are an alien lifeform. Just look at the guy.