P & G is certainly a good example of making a long string of good choices can lead to. And much like well managed mutual funds, adequate diversification usually assures that there will be more winnings than losses.
Probably a deep investigation into the mechanism of making choices at P&G would reveal that there is a lot of information considered before choices of any great importance are made. Most damage to organizations comes from poorly informed decisions that could have been avoided by having adequate information.
It may also be that there is a more conservative management attitude that avoids a lot of risks based on uninformed guesses.
This is indeed an interesting article and discusses an interesting question. Not totally certain about the conclusion, though. My thinking is that some of the damage to the economy will be repaired within a year, while other areas will take much longer to come back and may never be the same again. If "the fed" is far more tightly regulated and becomes far smarter than it is, and if some of the members are dealt with very harshly for some of their errors. then the rest of us may be more secure financially.
One difference between the stock market and consumers that I did not see brought out is that almost without exception, people buy, hold, and sell stocks for only one purpose, which is to increase their wealth. Consumers, on the other side, buy, hold, and sell things with the primary goal of improving their quality of life. That is a wide range, from satisfying hunger and staying warm to enjoying expensive luxuries of various kinds. None are intended to increase their wealth.
This difference may be a big portion of why the two are so quite disconnected, even though at times they may track each other. Keep in mind that "correlation does not prove causation", an important fact that scientific researchers must remember to avoid embarrasment.
Definitely an interesting post. And an explanation of why inflation has not already taken off. And the explanation makes sense if I understand it, I suppose. But the reasonably rational logic states that creating lots more available money will bid up prices is based on a lot of examples where it did just exactly that. So it is a reasonable expectation, even if it is wrong. So now the question becomes who is correct?
But the part about "the velocity of money" brought out a term that I was not familiar with at all. Oh Well.
As a matter of fact, I have not heard many references to the recovery from that Spanish Flu disaster. Certainly there was a recovery and a growing into the "roaring Twenties", but there was also the end of World WAR 1, which also must have had a large effect on the emotions and the economy. Of course all of that was followed by a rather monumental crash a bit later.
It would be a large benefit if there was enough insight gained by our leaders from looking at that sequence to inspire them to make the choices needed to avoid repeating that sequence of unfortunate events.
Learning from reading about mistakes is much less painful than learning from repeating them.
I do not like being lied to in an attempt to make me "feel better", and I am usually aware of when the message that I am being given does not match reality.
THAT STUPID SORT OF ACTIONS is exactly why this plague had a chance to spread so much in China. The idiots in the local government did not wish to cause any upset, so they kept it quiet. The result is the present ongoing disaster with thousands dead and the economies all over the world disrupted.
The only way to reduce the stimulus towards fear is to correctly deal with the problems and tell the truth. I never trust any official caught in a lie ever again, and neither should other trust them
This is an interesting set of opinions, and a more interesting conclusion that all of that money created will not lead to inflation. It will be great news if it does not, one of those few times when I would be most happy to be found in error, totally wrong.
But if the "yield curve turns negative" then we will indeed have other problems.
Did like this article! And I certainly agree that the long term result of the fed's policies and actions will be inflation. That was obvious to me from the first announcements, why wasn't it obvious to the Feds? Or perhaps it is far more on their agenda to protect the interests of their "friends"? At the expense of great damage to others?
And one nasty question is what will happen when it is time to repay all of those trillions of debt?? I predict that the debt will interfere with economic growth.
It is not that the plague was planned, is that once the problem became known most governments made wrong choices multiple times. Closing the borders on day one would have reduced the spread, and if it was not the best choice it could have easily been undone. Instead, the borders were kept open and the result was plague everywhere with hundred dying. So we may possibly have learned that bad choices have really unhappy results. And in addition, REALLY bad choices have REALLY bad results.
Getting any drug or treatment approved without using that horribly cruel double blind test would certainly be a benefit to those afflicted. It seems that the FDA would much rather let hundreds of folks die that pass up their testing process. I would rather such people were not in authority at all.
Latest Comments
Procter & Gamble: Strong Brands Lead To Annual Dividend Increases
P & G is certainly a good example of making a long string of good choices can lead to. And much like well managed mutual funds, adequate diversification usually assures that there will be more winnings than losses.
Probably a deep investigation into the mechanism of making choices at P&G would reveal that there is a lot of information considered before choices of any great importance are made. Most damage to organizations comes from poorly informed decisions that could have been avoided by having adequate information.
It may also be that there is a more conservative management attitude that avoids a lot of risks based on uninformed guesses.
Understanding The Disconnect Between Consumers And The Stock Market
This is indeed an interesting article and discusses an interesting question. Not totally certain about the conclusion, though. My thinking is that some of the damage to the economy will be repaired within a year, while other areas will take much longer to come back and may never be the same again. If "the fed" is far more tightly regulated and becomes far smarter than it is, and if some of the members are dealt with very harshly for some of their errors. then the rest of us may be more secure financially.
One difference between the stock market and consumers that I did not see brought out is that almost without exception, people buy, hold, and sell stocks for only one purpose, which is to increase their wealth. Consumers, on the other side, buy, hold, and sell things with the primary goal of improving their quality of life. That is a wide range, from satisfying hunger and staying warm to enjoying expensive luxuries of various kinds. None are intended to increase their wealth.
This difference may be a big portion of why the two are so quite disconnected, even though at times they may track each other. Keep in mind that "correlation does not prove causation", an important fact that scientific researchers must remember to avoid embarrasment.
Will A Demand-Side Shockwave Keep Inflation Muted?
Definitely an interesting post. And an explanation of why inflation has not already taken off. And the explanation makes sense if I understand it, I suppose. But the reasonably rational logic states that creating lots more available money will bid up prices is based on a lot of examples where it did just exactly that. So it is a reasonable expectation, even if it is wrong. So now the question becomes who is correct?
But the part about "the velocity of money" brought out a term that I was not familiar with at all. Oh Well.
Market Briefing For Wednesday, July 29
As a matter of fact, I have not heard many references to the recovery from that Spanish Flu disaster. Certainly there was a recovery and a growing into the "roaring Twenties", but there was also the end of World WAR 1, which also must have had a large effect on the emotions and the economy. Of course all of that was followed by a rather monumental crash a bit later.
It would be a large benefit if there was enough insight gained by our leaders from looking at that sequence to inspire them to make the choices needed to avoid repeating that sequence of unfortunate events.
Learning from reading about mistakes is much less painful than learning from repeating them.
The Markets Are Sending Confounding Messages
I do not like being lied to in an attempt to make me "feel better", and I am usually aware of when the message that I am being given does not match reality.
THAT STUPID SORT OF ACTIONS is exactly why this plague had a chance to spread so much in China. The idiots in the local government did not wish to cause any upset, so they kept it quiet. The result is the present ongoing disaster with thousands dead and the economies all over the world disrupted.
The only way to reduce the stimulus towards fear is to correctly deal with the problems and tell the truth. I never trust any official caught in a lie ever again, and neither should other trust them
Market Briefing For Wednesday, July 29
The economy does not matter one bit to those folks who died. I have it on good authority that they have not even noticed what is happening presently.
Strike 1: Gold; Strike 2: Dollar; Strike 3: Inflation Expectations
This is an interesting set of opinions, and a more interesting conclusion that all of that money created will not lead to inflation. It will be great news if it does not, one of those few times when I would be most happy to be found in error, totally wrong.
But if the "yield curve turns negative" then we will indeed have other problems.
Markets: Volatile And Mixed
Did like this article! And I certainly agree that the long term result of the fed's policies and actions will be inflation. That was obvious to me from the first announcements, why wasn't it obvious to the Feds? Or perhaps it is far more on their agenda to protect the interests of their "friends"? At the expense of great damage to others?
And one nasty question is what will happen when it is time to repay all of those trillions of debt?? I predict that the debt will interfere with economic growth.
Market Briefing For Wednesday, July 29
Interesting article indeed.
It is not that the plague was planned, is that once the problem became known most governments made wrong choices multiple times. Closing the borders on day one would have reduced the spread, and if it was not the best choice it could have easily been undone. Instead, the borders were kept open and the result was plague everywhere with hundred dying. So we may possibly have learned that bad choices have really unhappy results. And in addition, REALLY bad choices have REALLY bad results.
Protalix BioTherapeutics Pipeline Progress
Interesting article indeed.
Getting any drug or treatment approved without using that horribly cruel double blind test would certainly be a benefit to those afflicted. It seems that the FDA would much rather let hundreds of folks die that pass up their testing process. I would rather such people were not in authority at all.