Fed can't keep the rates low

[Lollapalooza]

22 minutes ago, wabuffo said:

The last person I remember making such a definitive statement was Giselle Bundchen ("pay me in Euros!  I don't even get out of bed for USD!")  I think it was in Nov. 2007....

 

I'm all for preserving anonymity here but i assure you i'm not Giselle nor her husband 

Nor would I have agreed with that statement. Why would EUR be better than USD?

EU is a fragmented economy, only partially integrated, running at two very different speeds (north vs. south); "excessively" multi-diverse in all aspects: culturally, linguistically, behaviorally; with alarming demographics; high levels of burocracy coupled with low entrepreneurial spirit (partially due to broad social policies of its member states).

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, wabuffo said:

I personally think we should crater the economy every once in a while because it's healthy ...

 

The United States used to be on a gold standard, had no central bank and no income tax.  I mean what could be better than that Ayn Randian ideal ("really low taxes, sound money")?   And yet, we would have a depression every 15-25 years.  Is that healthier?

Now we debase the currency bit-by-bit and come in with fiscal guns blazing at the first sign of economic trouble.  MMTers say that's better.  I honestly don't know if it is.  Perhaps its too early to know for sure how this new "model" will do.

Not to get political, but we like to think that as a democracy we want freedom.  As I get older, I sometimes think that's not what we actually want.  We don't want freedom, we want comfort - and we are willing to trade some freedom for it.  That's because true freedom - in the purest libertarian ideal of no government involvement - is just too wild, wild west for most people.  So we settle.

wabuffo

I guess that's what we'll find out. Like you, I don't know really know what is better - over the long term.

In my opinion, I think pain is healthy because it resets expectations and opportunties (ie forces people to fix existing issues). When there isn't pain, the issues keep festering until they blow up. 

I look at the economy as like a forest and sometimes it needs to burn down and start anew for better growth. Bad actors die off and people think the system is fair (ie the fools/corrupt are punished).

Otherwise, the system gets corrupt and the whole thing dies rather than resets - and that's how republics die.  Not to stir this in the political landmine but there is a reason we're having the divide that we're having now and I think the lack of pain is one reason. 

[JRM]

A free market economy needs a clearing function to wipe out mal-investment and mis-management.  The current environment is supporting money-losing enterprises; but also nurturing 'innovative' companies that may be able to flourish someday.

We will be stuck in this conundrum until the wealth gap is addressed and markets are allowed to clear again, IMO.

[hasilp89]

5 hours ago, Lollapalooza said:

At some point people in US and more importantly, Worldwide, will start to loose trust in the USD and cease to want to hold it.

My question to you on that is what will those people trust more? Doesn’t it go back to the point wabuffo made up thread and reposted below.

 

On 4/18/2021 at 10:43 AM, wabuffo said:

you know what gives the dollar its reserve currency status?  The world's most powerful military run by a civilian-led government that isn't afraid to use it.

 Crypto currencies can’t compete with this. No doubt China is trying to develop this same level of influence by building bridges in Africa and Pakistan but will it work?

[Cigarbutt]

10 hours ago, wabuffo said:

why not just run virtually unlimited deficits

We already do - pretty much year-in, year-out.  

We tried to run a surplus in 1998-2001 and cratered the economy from 2000-2002.   For the public sector (Fed govt) to run a surplus, the private sector has to run a deficit (i.e, borrow to maintain consumption).

To this day, I am convinced that the surpluses of '09-01 was one of the primary factors that led to the borrowing binge that was the mortgage crisis of the early aughts.

wabuffo

The conclusions suggested are hard to prove or disprove and the easiest explanation is cyclical and related to automatic mechanisms during recessions with people tending to save more and public entities stepping in to fill the gap. If one accepts this explanation, it's interesting to see that public entities are pulling the trigger more and more rapidly with each succeeding recessions since 1990.

This public compensating for private saving or vice-versa is applicable for a given level of net saving (or equivalent net investment). Economies like the US are mature and are "settling" into something else but there is no absolute reason why the net saving or net investment should continue to go down over time and, as a mature economy and with the population shifts accelerating in the next ten years, it seems to me this would be a good time to increase savings and not the opposite but what do i know? The following graph shows gross savings to (gross) income in order to account for the 'noise' caused by depreciation (and its various controversial interpretations). When the gross number gets to be below 20%, it usually means that trade deficits need to reach unsustainable levels and means that net capital stock is degrading which would indicate the perception (which is correct) that infrastructures need to be upgraded. Note: the domestic net savings has become negative (apart from the 2020 anomaly and M2-related spike). Settling is part of the process but unfortunately this means less dynamism. Still, my bet is on the USD.

 

[Lollapalooza]

9 hours ago, hasilp89 said:

My question to you on that is what will those people trust more? Doesn’t it go back to the point wabuffo made up thread and reposted below.

 

 Crypto currencies can’t compete with this. No doubt China is trying to develop this same level of influence by building bridges in Africa and Pakistan but will it work?

I wish I knew what people would trust more - I'd be loading up the trunk with that single thing right now.
Ultimately I believe people will always trust real, tangible, assets that have their own value independent of which currency they transact. Be it real estate, commodities, a powerful brand, etc.

Military superiority gave USD the reserve status that it enjoys today backed by a booming economy and fed by strong technological advancements. Had it lost the II WW we might be discussing the fall of the Deutsche Mark now.
Let's be clear, after 1945 the entire world acknowledged US' as the leading economy, like unquestionably. In part because it came out relatively intact out of the war, whereas UK, Germany, France, Japan, Russia had suffered more damage. (Yes yes, USSR and Japan later came as contenders but they were never real competition across all quadrants).

So naturally USD became the worlds reserve currency. First backed by gold and lent to its allies and later converted to fiat. Everyone was transacting with dollars anyways and their debts ought to be paid in USD as well (btw much like China is doing today with emerging markets like Pakistan, Africa etc.)

Today I don't think military is the key protecting the dollar reserve status. Call it the law of diminishing returns where nuclear access leveled the plain field. I do think decades of seeing USD as a safe store-hold of wealth, a trustable mean of transaction, play a bigger role in institutions and individuals choices. Just like Microsoft owns that little space in your brain that pushes you to accept their newest pricier offer rather than switch to a different provider even if it the latter is marginally better. So do people tend to buy a weaker, monetizable dollar - that's what I meant with inertia and 'boiling frog' reaction speeds.

That holds until it doesn't. If a new provider comes up with a better proposal than Microsoft or if it tries to increase the prices too fast, there's only so much 'laziness' that would prevent institutions from re-arranging their systems and processes and ultimately move to the other offer.

Question is: is USD pushing the boundaries of 'inertia' too hard too fast? My guess is Yes. Is there a better provider somewhere? My bet is Yes (China).
Will the DCEP be the final nail in the coffin that reduces the adaptation hurdle so much that it will make it super easy for institutions to switch away from a debasing dollar? - who knows. 

I like those odds but I don't like how that future looks like. I'd rather have US ruling the world than accept a new non-western leader for which my values and culture are more distant from. But this isn't about what i'd like, it's about how do I protect myself and the ones I care about from a harsh, and in my view inevitable, reality.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Lollapalooza

[Nomad]

1 hour ago, Lollapalooza said:

Question is: is USD pushing the boundaries of 'inertia' too hard too fast? My guess is Yes. Is there a better provider somewhere? My bet is Yes (China).
Will the DCEP be the final nail in the coffin that reduces the adaptation hurdle so much that it will make it super easy for institutions to switch away from a debasing dollar? - who knows. 

Do you see the CCP allowing the RMB to float anytime soon? I think that a free-floating RMB is a necessary precondition to any reserve currency status. Even DCEP is backed by RMB so it doesn't necessarily get around the exchange rate issue. 

It would seem to me like allowing the RMB to freely float is a politically fraught decision for the CCP as it risks rendering China's huge manufacturing and export sector uncompetitive and pushing that industry to SE Asia / Africa. Granted, CCP can try to increase domestic consumption but industrial production is still a large part of Chinese GDP. 

You've raised some very interesting points on inertia however, and I think history demonstrates that no reserve currency lasts forever. 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

On 4/28/2021 at 9:45 AM, muscleman said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-likely-to-keep-rates-near-zero-as-recovery-picks-up-11619602202?mod=hp_lead_pos4

"Fed officials have said they would hold rates steady until the labor market is back to full strength and inflation has reached the central bank’s goal of averaging 2%. Chairman Jerome Powell has said those conditions are unlikely to materialize this year, and most Fed officials indicated last month that they expect to hold off on raising rates until 2024 at the earliest."

 

Does anyone know any historical examples of similar irresponsible actions like this? I would like to study those cases.

 

I mean - following 2007/2008 we held rates at 0% for 7 years until we did the first 0.25% - and then took a whole year to do another 0.25% raise to start the trend of higher rates every quarter or so. 

So rates were effectively at 0% for ~8 years and we had a slow climb upwards for ~2 years before the economy ground to a halt with the 10-year hitting 3.25% for a very short-duration. 

On 4/28/2021 at 12:05 PM, JRM said:

I have done my best to hear both sides of the argument, and the deflationary argument still makes the most sense to me.  I have to admit I don't understand all of the monetary plumbing or moving pieces.  I think where the models fall apart is when confidence in the dollar is lost.  This doesn't appear to be accounted for anywhere.  

Anecdotally, I hear people (non-finance types) talking more and more about "money printing" and increasing inflation.  The observance of rising prices, for most people, has to have a psychological effect.  If confidence is lost, then MMT doesn't work (in my opinion).

There almost has to be a single basic assumption that is the lynchpin for unwinding this whole experiment.  

I tend to agree here. The supply disruptions, the stimulus, and the competition of exceptional unemployment benefits boosting wages will likely result in a one time boost to inflation for a year or so. 

But then all of the forces that resulted in disinflation will likely be back because they're still here: high debt levels, aging population/boomers retiring, increased productivity/technological advancement, massive demand for duration/USD keeping rates low, and globalism are all still active (though the last one less so).

Commodity prices may rise, but commodities were in the dumps from 2011 - 2018 or so. I don't think one year of them finally getting back to prices that incentivize new production is scary when many of them were below incentive prices with no new growth in production for the last decade. 

Ultimately, unless if Biden is committed to continue passing multi-trillion stimulus bills until the mid 2020s when millennials hitting their earnings stride offsets the impact of boomers retiring, then I think disinflation re-asserts itself in 2022. 

[hasilp89]

Barron’s piece on inflation with some quotes from irv Blumkin on the inflation he is seeing. 

Inflation Is Here and Hotter Than It Looks. Why It’s Time to Worry.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/inflation-is-here-and-rising-51621025783?st=a8faigcwutcmpbl

 

Have been seeing a lot of the same pressures in my business, primarily with labor - more than a 4% CPI print would indicate. We operate in SC which recently stopped federal unemployment to help businesses. Will be interesting to see if that eases wage and hiring pressure. if not seems more likely to me that this won’t be transitory like the fed thinks and rates will have to go up. 

[Cigarbutt]

This should be a pretty boring aspect of the 'market' but with all this inflation-is-here-and-everywhere perception and the building tension between fiat and crypto currencies, what is happening these days in the reverse repo market is quite unusual (and fascinating). Mainstream does not seem to care as well as the informed investment community. 

For the reserves aspect, the Fed continues to be involved in the secondary market by buying securities (and supplying reserves) while, at the same time, removing reserves through the RRP. What is going on here?

Since the end of March, very little net reserves have been added to the financial plumbing, on a net basis, even if the TGA has been steadily decreasing (minus 261.2B since March 31st to May 19th). The easy technical thing to do, to let reserves build within the system, would have been to continue the SLR exemption for banks. The Fed decided otherwise for the time being and instead put in place conditions where banks are 'encouraged' to shed reserves to money market funds who themselves are trying to find places to park cash (i realize that repo people don't like the notion of money parking and see this instead as a leveraged profit opportunity) and 0% (and even negative rates at times!) happen to be the best relative opportunity. The problem is that MMFs are likely close to their limit in terms of reverse repo exposure. What happens next?

Data (context of of an impression that wild inflation is coming):

Treasury yields: 3mo:0.00   6mo:0.01   12mo:0.04

Even the 10-yr is at 1.62%.

The graph above shows the reverse repo action. Before January 2018, the banks used to like the RRP action especially for window dressing at the end of quarters. Since Basel III, the space has become too expensive (regulatory costs). Apart from a blip with the March financial plumbing liquidity issue in March 2020. Lately, the MMFs have been 'encouraged to participate and (sometimes) to pay in order to lend cash?

There is so much cash and so many risk-free securities sloshing around and i hope the Fed notice the unstable stability but that may be too much to ask.

The following is an interesting discussion:

American SICO - 4.1 A Band-Aid Known as Reverse Repo (fed.tips)

The title is American Sico (Psycho) and i absolutely and relatively loved that movie. So much potential energy waiting to be released.

 

[wabuffo]

Since the end of March, very little net reserves have been added to the financial plumbing, on a net basis, even if the TGA has been steadily decreasing (minus 261.2B since March 31st to May 19th).

There's definitely some weird stuff going on in the monetary system - but I think a lot of it is explainable in terms of how the plumbing works.

First - since the end of March, there has been quite a bit of deficit spending with correspondingly little net Treasury security issuance to soak it up.  This is as you correctly noted because the US Treasury has a mandate to run its account balance to ~$100b by the end of July (due to the snap-back of the debt ceiling legislation by the US Congress which was temporarily suspended on Aug. 1st, 2019).  More about the lack of new Treasury debt in a second....

As we know, Treasury deficit spending creates both a new deposit in the banking system (bank liability) and a new reserve on deposit at the Fed (bank asset).  So the banks have received ~$300b of new reserves of which they are stuffing half of it in reverse-repo transactions with the Fed.  (Note the difference is because the Fed is also still buying Treasuries in the open market which also creates new reserves).  Why are they doing this?

They are doing this, because the US Treasury in its desire to run down its account balance, isn't issuing enough new Treasury securities to soak up the excess reserves from the deficit spending like they normally do (meanwhile, the Fed continues to buy Treasury securities in the open market -- which swaps a reserve to the bank for a Treasury security from the bank).

In the old days (pre-GFC), when the US Treasury would keep its account balance extremely small (~$5b), net debt issuance roughly matched deficit spending (in excess of tax receipts).  But not now.   Because the US Treasury needs to get its balance down, you can see that only ~12% of its spending (and reserve creation) was removed by net debt issuance.

This is what is flooding the system with too much cash and not enough interest-earning Treasury securities.  So there is a rise in reverse repo and a general compression of Treasury yields along the curve.   This will get worse before it gets better until the US Treasury is done with getting its account balance to target (unless Congress extends the debt ceiling moratorium).

You notice that Treasury yields were rising early in the year but reached their peak on or about March 17th when the US Treasury simultaneously started Stimmie Checks III and started to run down its TGA.  I think this sets up an interesting dynamic for a whipsaw in the markets - sometime in July.  Yields will very slowly compress through early summer but when the TGA account hits its target and debt issuance surges to match deficit spending, yields could surprise the markets from their current complacency with an explosion upwards through the back half of 2021.  If there is also a move to raise corporate tax rates that the market perceives as real (I'm not sure the votes are there for that in Congress) - it could get ugly for equities (that's because $1 of pre-tax earnings will be worth a bit less after-tax plus the discount factor will go up).   That's not a prediction - just a scenario to think about among many scenarios for the macro environment.

wabuffo

Edited May 22, 2021 by wabuffo

[Spekulatius]

This is all interesting, but why should the average investor care about this? It might cause a small compression in bank NIM, but that’s about it.

I don’t see any relevancy for myself and probably the vast majority of investors, much less the average Joe or Joanne.

[Castanza]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

This is all interesting, but why should the average investor care about this? It might cause a small compression in bank NIM, but that’s about it.

I don’t see any relevancy for myself and probably the vast majority of investors, much less the average Joe or Joanne.

Does it need to be relevant? I think it’s pretty interesting. @wabuffoand others certainly put effort into these discussions. 
 

It’s quite hard to say how much of an affect any macro changes have on individual investors. Regardless, Id rather have some speculation, insight, and discussion to mull over than none. 

[muscleman]

I think the rate spike is over. It started in December when no one believed it would spike, and it should end right now when everyone is convinced about the spike.

 

[SharperDingaan]

18 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

This is all interesting, but why should the average investor care about this? It might cause a small compression in bank NIM, but that’s about it.

I don’t see any relevancy for myself and probably the vast majority of investors, much less the average Joe or Joanne.

The average investor is 'trading', is pretty ignorant, and looks out 1-2 quarters at best. Forget the monetary mechanics, just tell us if the yield curve is going up, and by how much! Then get out of my way!!

Of course, the more 'evil' investors amongst us - recognize it as an opportunity. The 'BBB' rated get pushed closer to default, the debt trades at cents in the $, then ultimately swaps into equity, and goes through a RS. Resulting in a large FCF divided over a small share count, a market 're-rate', and turds resurected as diamonds! ... but way outside of the average investors circle of competence.

SD

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by SharperDingaan

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

The average investor is 'trading', is pretty ignorant, and looks out 1-2 quarters at best. Forget the monetary mechanics, just tell if the yield curve is going up, and by how much! Then get out of my way!!

Of course, the more 'evil' investors amongst us - recognize it as an opportunity. The 'BBB' rated get pushed closer to default, the debt trades at cents in the $, then ultimately swaps into equity, and goes through a RS. Resulting in a large FCF divided over a small share count, a market 're-rate', and turds resurected as diamonds! ... but way outside of the average investors circle of competence.

SD

 

 

BBB rated debt is not really going to move much, even if risk free interest  rates go up 1/2 %. The last interesting opportunity in debt was in March 2020 (for a few days only) and with the energy meltdown in late 2015 , when solid MLP and even industrials showed increased risk premiums.

Currently, the opportunities in debt are pitiful, even with non-investment grade.

[Spekulatius]

5 hours ago, Castanza said:

Does it need to be relevant? I think it’s pretty interesting. @wabuffoand others certainly put effort into these discussions. 
 

It’s quite hard to say how much of an affect any macro changes have on individual investors. Regardless, Id rather have some speculation, insight, and discussion to mull over than none. 

It is interesting, but it would be way more interesting if something gets distressed for a while and opportunities in debt securities came up, or even distressed equities. Currently, we are getting the velvet glove treatment from the Fed and just about everyone can raise debt without a problem. Risk premiums across the spectrum seem to be almost at record lows.

[SharperDingaan]

We see only what the Fed wants us to see, not the risks in the shadows. All this Covid spending must be either financed, or the money printed – and this relative spending it is at wartime levels. Yield curve crowding, on top of inflation, is a real bastard. 

The Fed is clearly hoping that the recovery triggers pent-up consumer spending. In theory, if the Fed takes as much liquidity out of the market (sell bonds to finance the Covid spend), as the pent-up consumer spend adds to it; the net change is zero - and no new inflation. 

Yet throughout Covid, with the liquidity tap wide open, there have been REPEATED credit market seize ups – temporarily spiking yields. As the fed starts tapering, market fragility rises, and with it - the debt opportunities. 

BBB’s trade on the market view of future yields. It is only a matter of time until risk-on returns, and prices fall. They really fall when we discover that moral hazard is ALSO back on. Post Covid as the world rebuilds for the robust - zombies get recapped. 

The GFC created thousands of house foreclosures/abandonments, everyone was convinced the market was sh1te, entire city blocks of housing derelict in Detroit. Yet where are they today? the houses were vacuumed up into trusts at cents on the dollar, and those trusts are doing very well today thankyou. They will do even better in the coming great recovery. 

Longer term, markets are routinely and repeatedly wrong. Retail trades the 1-2 quarter trend, long term institutional money trades the secular trends. Nothing wrong in either approach - but recognize the time difference. 

SD

[wabuffo]

This is all interesting, but why should the average investor care about this?  I don’t see any relevancy for myself and probably the vast majority of investors.

I didn't mean to bore everyone with explanations of how the system actually works.   I'll stop posting about it.

wabuffo

Edited May 23, 2021 by wabuffo

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, wabuffo said:

This is all interesting, but why should the average investor care about this?  I don’t see any relevancy for myself and probably the vast majority of investors.

I didn't mean to bore everyone with explanations of how the system actually works.   I'll stop posting about it.

wabuffo

That’s was not my intent. My question was does this matter for investing?

 

With the financial pluming, it is probably just with home pluming, as long as everything works, it‘s all good, but when things are clogging up, it can get really messy very quickly. So far, I haven’t heard anybody expecting such a thing, except Raoul Pal who sees shadows of doom behind every corner and makes a living selling those stories.

[benchmark]

14 hours ago, wabuffo said:

This is all interesting, but why should the average investor care about this?  I don’t see any relevancy for myself and probably the vast majority of investors.

I didn't mean to bore everyone with explanations of how the system actually works.   I'll stop posting about it.

wabuffo

Keep them coming, I've learned something from your posts.

[Libs]

Wabuffo,

I promise you - no one wants you to stop posting. The vast majority of the public and financial press is under the delusion that the Fed has sent trillions into the economy. You've led the discussion pointing out this mistake. That's huge value! 

Personally it has made me re-think a few things.

Which leads to a question. There is much talk of bubbles being blown by the fed 'printing' / low interest rates / fiscal policy.  Assuming the 'fed printing' premise is overblown, to what degree do you see asset inflation (housing, stocks, etc) being driven by government policy? Is that overstated in your opinion?

[Spekulatius]

16 minutes ago, Libs said:

Wabuffo,

I promise you - no one wants you to stop posting. The vast majority of the public and financial press is under the delusion that the Fed has sent trillions into the economy. You've led the discussion pointing out this mistake. That's huge value! 

Personally it has made me re-think a few things.

Which leads to a question. There is much talk of bubbles being blown by the fed 'printing' / low interest rates / fiscal policy.  Assuming the 'fed printing' premise is overblown, to what degree do you see asset inflation (housing, stocks, etc) being driven by government policy? Is that overstated in your opinion?

My biggest insight from all this is that QE <> money printing. QE at best creates an "unnatural" interest rate curve but it does not put money in anyone's pocket.

Fiscal policy does print money and puts it directly into people's pocket (the stimulus checks are literally helicopter money), but seem to be easing up on QE at the same time. As far as monetary policy is concerned, we are living though a regime change.

[SharperDingaan]

12 minutes ago, Libs said:

Wabuffo,

I promise you - no one wants you to stop posting. The vast majority of the public and financial press is under the delusion that the Fed has sent trillions into the economy. You've led the discussion pointing out this mistake. That's huge value! 

Personally it has made me re-think a few things.

Which leads to a question. There is much talk of bubbles being blown by the fed 'printing' / low interest rates / fiscal policy.  Assuming the 'fed printing' premise is overblown, to what degree do you see asset inflation (housing, stocks, etc) being driven by government policy? Is that overstated in your opinion?

Wabufflo,

Please keep posting! as your insight into monetary mechanics is very valuable. As we prefer to focus on main-street, and work our way up to the monetary (bottom-up approach), it's nice to have a directional view to compare against. On the timing side we just roll the dice - same as everyone else!!

Monetary mechanics is very abstract, very macro, and sadly - something only an economist could love. Thankfully we also have an economics background in our toolbox, and it is nice to have the opportunity to keep it from getting overly blunt! Hopefully we're as good on the dark side (Bitcoin) as we are on the light! (Central Banking), and everything else is just Yin/Yang as the crypto token rolls 

Keep it up.

SD

 

  

[wabuffo]

Assuming the 'fed printing' premise is overblown, to what degree do you see asset inflation (housing, stocks, etc) being driven by government policy? Is that overstated in your opinion?

My biggest insight from all this is that QE <> money printing. QE at best creates an "unnatural" interest rate curve but it does not put money in anyone's pocket.

I think you guys get it now - so I don't have much to add.   You are armed with more knowledge about how the US monetary system works than probably 99% of the various financial/economic commentators on TV and the web.

Its really simple - you have to take a consolidated view of the Fed/US Treasury and then examine how they interact with the private sector.  There are basically three transactions:

1) US Treasury deficit spends - this is asset creation for the private sector.  (the only source of liquidity).

2) US Treasury issues a debt security - this is an asset swap with the private sector.

3) Fed buys a Treasury debt security - this is an asset swap with the private sector.

Finally, all of these transactions happen through the Fed's processing of transactions through reserve accounts (deposit accounts at the Fed).   And by the way - job 1 of the Fed is to manage the US payments system through its management of the reserve accounts.

Back to Spek's original question of what this has to do with anything investing related.  Probably not much.  But it has helped me focus on the stuff that counts and perhaps just as importantly - ignore the 99% of the zerohedge and even mainstream economist comments that are just pure hand-waving.   But thankfully - understanding any of this stuff won't prevent one from doing fundamental analysis on specific stocks.

wabuffo

Edited May 24, 2021 by wabuffo