White House Issues Statement On Today's Historic Market Crash

[DamianTV]

How would stock prices behave with "sound money"? Would they always be the same? Would they always go up? Always go down?

It seems to me like you are putting Wall Street ahead of Main Street, as usual, and exactly what the top 1% are doing also. There would still be ups and downs, but not huge Boom and Bust cycles because the real wealth of the country would be on Main Street, not Wall Street, where they gamble with everyone elses future.

[Zippyjuan]

It seems to me like you are putting Wall Street ahead of Main Street, as usual, and exactly what the top 1% are doing also. There would still be ups and downs, but not huge Boom and Bust cycles because the real wealth of the country would be on Main Street, not Wall Street, where they gamble with everyone elses future.

Booms and busts happen no matter what you use for money. It is human nature- not the nature of money.

[r3volution 3.0]

Booms and busts happen no matter what you use for money. It is human nature- not the nature of money.

No, the business cycle is a result of monetary policy.

Imagine, Zippy, that the government implemented massive subsidies to ABC Inc, and then stopped them. What would happen to ABC Inc? First a boom, then a bust. It's essentially the same thing with loose monetary policy: certain sectors (those closest to the money spigot) are effectively subsidized and then, when the subsidy is withdrawn (monetary policy tightens), they bust. It's really not that complicated.

[Zippyjuan]

No, the business cycle is a result of monetary policy.

Imagine, Zippy, that the government implemented massive subsidies to ABC Inc, and then stopped them. What would happen to ABC Inc? First a boom, then a bust. It's essentially the same thing with loose monetary policy: certain sectors (those closest to the money spigot) are effectively subsidized and then, when the subsidy is withdrawn (monetary policy tightens), they bust. It's really not that complicated.

Did monetary policy cause the tulip fascination in Holland or the Beanie Baby Craze in the US?

Bubbles are emotional- a few get interested in something. Others learn about it and maybe get interested to. The asset is perceived to be more valuable. Others think they too can make money so they jump in- higher demand drives up the price. Others don't want to feel left out so they jump on too. Eventually you run out of people to enter the market and drive up the price so demand falls and once the price starts to fall, all the more casual people drop out, causing the price to fall even more.

[dannno]

https://WWW.INFOWARS.COM/EXECUTE-ORD...GNAL-TO-TRUMP/

EXECUTE ORDER 666: STOCK MARKET PLUNGE GLOBALIST SIGNAL TO TRUMP?

Was the recent 666 point drop in the stock market last week a warning to president?

Jamie White | Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 6, 2018



Last Friday, the Dow Jones industrial average plunged 666 points amid interest rate fears and news of the FISA memo’s release.

Ominous? Yes. Coincidence? Maybe not.

On Monday, the Dow dropped 1,175 points (4.6%), the biggest single day selloff in history.

Conservative radio host Michael Savage surmised the globalists were behind the market shakeups because the FISA memo story is gaining steam and they need to hurt Trump where he’s strongest: the economy.

“The establishment, meaning the ‘Deep State,’ call it whatever you want, went into overdrive to destroy Trump, or try to destroy him, where he is strongest, because they couldn’t get him where they thought he was weakest,” Savage said Monday.

“So they are taking the market down. They are trying to hurt you. They are the enemies of the average American. Make no mistake about it, they are going for you! These people are so evil and so power-drunk that they’d burn the nation to the ground rather than let Donald Trump live another day in office.”Economist Peter Schiff said the Federal Reserve may be attempting to destroy the “Trump effect” that’s been rallying the stock market for the last year.

“Maybe the Fed would be happy to see a bear market that could be blamed on Trump,” Shiff said in an interview with The Street.

“We’ve had a huge move up since the election of Trump even though prior to the election the expectation was if Trump won it [would be a disaster for markets].”

Are the globalists playing their last hand out of desperation?

Intelligence insider known as QAnon recently posted on 8chan suggesting the globalists’ next move was to rattle the stock market to send a signal to Trump they are still in control.

“[666]. Signal to POTUS they control the market? Signal? Threat? Welcome to the global war.”

[r3volution 3.0]

Did monetary policy cause the tulip fascination in Holland or the Beanie Baby Craze in the US?

Tulipmania coincided with a massive precious metals inflation in Holland (resulting from huge gold and silver imports from Spanish America).

The Beanie Baby mania coincided with the tech bubble, and occurred for the same reason (loose monetary policy, in the US & Japan).

Bubbles are emotional- a few get interested in something. Others learn about it and maybe get interested to. The asset is perceived to be more valuable. Others think they too can make money so they jump in- higher demand drives up the price. Others don't want to feel left out so they jump on too. Eventually you run out of people to enter the market and drive up the price so demand falls and once the price starts to fall, all the more casual people drop out, causing the price to fall even more.

That would be Keynes' non-explanation explanation, yes.

[Zippyjuan]

Tulipmania coincided with a massive precious metals inflation in Holland (resulting from huge gold and silver imports from Spanish America).

The Beanie Baby mania coincided with the tech bubble, and occurred for the same reason (loose monetary policy, in the US & Japan).



That would be Keynes' non-explanation explanation, yes.

Why did it only effect tulips? Shouldn't all or at least most things go into a bubble if it was monetary policy and not emotions? If it was monetary policy it should have effected many parts of the economy. (information on what exactly was happening with Dutch money supply in the early 1600's is difficult to come by- do you have any links? )

I find this information from Mises (the bubble burst in 1637):

https://mises.org/library/truth-about-tulipmania

Bank of Amsterdam*
Years** Total Balances Metal Stock
1630 4,166,159 3,105,449
1631 3,784,047 2,976,742
1632 3,636,079 3,281,113
1633 4,272,224 3,866,890
1634 3,995,666 3,474,527
1635 3,860,342 3,416,112
1636 3,992,338 3,486,306
1637 5,680,522 5,315,576
1638 5,593,750 5,256,606
1639 5,802,729 5,446,002
1640 8,075,358 7,823,964
1641 8,056,232 8,356,437

There seems to have been no significant change in money supply during the bubble.

[r3volution 3.0]

Why did it only effect tulips? Shouldn't all or at least most things go into a bubble if it was monetary policy and not emotions?

When the money supply increases, the new money isn't evenly distributed to everyone/every sector (if it were, there would be [ignoring the diminishing marginal utility of money and a few other minor issues] no effect on relative prices and no change in the 'real' economy). It ends up concentrating in certain people's hands/certain sectors. Sometimes this is a straightforward result of government policy (as with federal housing guarantees driving money into housing in the lead up to 2008), and other times it's just a matter of whatever happens to be on the upswing in the market.

I find this information from Mises (the bubble burst in 1637):

https://mises.org/library/truth-about-tulipmania

There seems to have been no significant change in money supply during the bubble.

That chart shows a nearly 50% increase in two years, right at the height of the bubble.

[Zippyjuan]

When the money supply increases, the new money isn't evenly distributed to everyone/every sector (if it were, there would be [ignoring the diminishing marginal utility of money and a few other minor issues] no effect on relative prices and no change in the 'real' economy). It ends up concentrating in certain people's hands/certain sectors. Sometimes this is a straightforward result of government policy (as with federal housing guarantees driving money into housing in the lead up to 2008), and other times it's just a matter of whatever happens to be on the upswing in the market.



That chart shows a nearly 50% increase in two years, right at the height of the bubble.

Your chart seems to be showing tulip prices- not money supply. "Gouda Tulip Bulbs- selected prices in Guilders".

[r3volution 3.0]

Your chart seems to be showing tulip prices- not money supply. "Gouda Tulip Bulbs- selected prices in Guilders".

It does show tulip prices.

I'm saying that your chart shows a nearly 50% increase in money supply during the height of the bubble depicted on my chart.

[Zippyjuan]

It does show tulip prices.

I'm saying that your chart shows a nearly 50% increase in money supply during the height of the bubble depicted on my chart.

Only during the final year- after the bubble had already run its course. It was basically unchanged the years before that on the chart. If a bump in money supply was the cause of the bubble, that should happen at the start of or before the bubble- not afterwards.

[r3volution 3.0]

Only during the final year- after the bubble had already run its course. It was basically unchanged the years before that on the chart. If a bump in money supply was the cause of the bubble, that should happen at the start of or before the bubble- not afterwards.

The figures in the money supply chart are for January 31st of the year indicated.

i.e.

3,992,338 is for January 31st 1636

5,680,552 is for January 31st 1637

That's a 42% increase in 1 year, 1/31/1636 - 1/31/1637.

Look at the price chart I posted, that corresponds exactly to the build-up of the bubble.

[Zippyjuan]

The figures in the money supply chart are for January 31st of the year indicated.

i.e.

3,992,338 is for January 31st 1636

5,680,552 is for January 31st 1637

That's a 42% increase in 1 year, 1/31/1636 - 1/31/1637.

Look at the price chart I posted, that corresponds exactly to the build-up of the bubble.

1637 was when the bubble broke- it inflated prior to then. Your chart shows it starting in 1634 and ends in February 1637 with prices crashed to near zero by then. If inflating the money supply led to the bubble, we need to see the money supply inflating prior to the bubble. Do we?

What did the money supply do before 1634? It stayed pretty close to 4 million guilders- all the way until 1637. By then the bubble was over . It did grow 16% in 1633 but declined the following two years.

1630: 4,166,159

1631: 3,784,047

1632: 3,636,079

1633: 4,272,224

1634: 3,995,666

1635: 3,860,342

1636: 3,992,338

1637: 5,680,522

[dannno]

[oyarde]

Did monetary policy cause the tulip fascination in Holland or the Beanie Baby Craze in the US?

Bubbles are emotional- a few get interested in something. Others learn about it and maybe get interested to. The asset is perceived to be more valuable. Others think they too can make money so they jump in- higher demand drives up the price. Others don't want to feel left out so they jump on too. Eventually you run out of people to enter the market and drive up the price so demand falls and once the price starts to fall, all the more casual people drop out, causing the price to fall even more.

In another month or so I should have some more tulips available at low , low prices .

[DamianTV]

Booms and busts happen no matter what you use for money. It is human nature- not the nature of money.

Any time you make the value of a currency a variable depending on the interest rate of a Central Bank you have Boom & Bust cycles. Sound / Honest Money remains constant and the value is held by those who create, build and produce, not market manipulators.

Please stop trying to discredit Sound Money or other topics that Ron Paul was pushing strongly for, youre only making yourself look worse and worse. Youre not gonna get yourself out of your Reputation Hole that you have dug for yourself by digging that hole deeper. Doesnt work with Reputation, it wont work with Money. So just quit even though you are dead last.

[r3volution 3.0]

@Zippyjuan

Over 1634 and 1635, the money supply was about flat, and tulip prices approximately doubled (natural bull market).

Over 1636 and 1637, the money supply increased 42% and tulip prices rose 30X (inflationary bubble).

I don't know how much clearer it can be...

When the money supply increases, the new money isn't evenly distributed to everyone/every sector (if it were, there would be [ignoring the diminishing marginal utility of money and a few other minor issues] no effect on relative prices and no change in the 'real' economy). It ends up concentrating in certain people's hands/certain sectors. Sometimes this is a straightforward result of government policy (as with federal housing guarantees driving money into housing in the lead up to 2008), and other times it's just a matter of whatever happens to be on the upswing in the market.

[TheCount]

If the market was brought down by the deep state, was the rebound the rest of the pure American greatness of Trumpkins? Dank memes?

[nikcers]

If the market was brought down by the deep state, was the rebound the rest of the pure American greatness of Trumpkins? Dank memes?

The market is shakey right now especially because congress can't agree on how much of an increase in spending they are going to do. They probably just haven't received all of their marching orders and know they can use artificial "deadlines" to pass "must pass" bills to fund government to avoid nasty shut downs that are unpopular to the public. All of this uncertainty is causing panic, especially when there might be more lucrative opportunities to lobby government for more money then they can make in the stock market. So yeah basically the state, not the deep state.

[dannno]

If the market was brought down by the deep state, was the rebound the rest of the pure American greatness of Trumpkins? Dank memes?

[r3volution 3.0]

[Influenza]

People often say "the market is rational," but I don't really think that's the case. With my limited trading experience, I see stocks getting pumped up 70-80% on little/no news, and crashing hard when a really small piece of bad news comes. These kind of intraweek 1000% gains and 60% losses that have happened to a few companies, like $HMNY for example, are fairly common and indicative of a highly irrational market, in my opinion...

I don't think trump's policies have anything to do with this pullback, but similarly, they didn't have much to do with the huge gains of recent either. But when Trump unjustifiably takes credit for the stock market gains, he should also take credit for their losses.