Fed to scale back bond buying

[grubb]

I used to read John Mauldin's newsletter but I thought he was equally bad in predicting future. So, Pot calling Kettle black?

One investment manager wrote about him..
http://investingcaffeine.com/2010/04/14/...ries-wolf/

After a while, I thought most of Mauldin's thoughts are quite rubbish..


Quoted from his april 2009 newsletter..
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlin...-mwo042409


2010-11: Back to the Future Recession

I think the country could re-enter a recession in 2010 and 2011; we would go right back into it when those tax hikes start to hit. What do tax increases do? They take money out of consumers' pockets -- and the consumers that actually spend. Plus, 75% of those who will see their taxes rise are small businesses that employ people, so we deflate ourselves.

Hi yeokiwi,

Some say that permabears like Mauldin (and Marc Faber, Nouriel Roubini) are like a stopped clock, i.e. they are eventually right because even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But there is an counter-argument which I read from Michael Pettis's book Avoiding the Fall

1. Being wrong so far does not make Mauldin wrong.
2. A premature warning is not wrong. It is just premature, that's all.

I do think that there are a lot of economists out there who are talking rubbish, and their track record (and everbody else too) of predicting the future is terrible. Nevertheless, in such volatile times and unprecedented central bank intervention, I think that there is some merit in listening to permabears. At least it keeps me cool in this crazy bull market.

[freedom]

I am very eager to see how RBA chief Glenn handles the future of the Australia and the Australian dollar.

Greenspan was praised many times before. But when subprime came, where were his former glories? However, to me, Alan Greenspan is still one of the greatest central bankers no matter how many people criticize him for subprime.

People are great not because they are said so or they are said not, but they are truly great.

[HitandRun]

HitandRun had explained the Bretton Wood but didn't go far enough

You are correct Sir! That's why I only hit and run. Just tell a little bit. For more (like everything else), there is google.....

[Temperament]

If the British Empire can fall, don't USA's "Imperialism" will one day too? When was China last call the MIDDLE KINGDOM?
Nothing stays the same forever. Benanke or no Bernanke.

[godjira1]

If the British Empire can fall, don't USA's "Imperialism" will one day too? When was China last call the MIDDLE KINGDOM?
Nothing stays the same forever. Benanke or no Bernanke.

nothing stays forever! students of history will find this peculiar fact that no great dynasty lasts for more than 400 years…
Tang Dynasty, Han Dynasty, Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, British Empire and now perhaps the setting of USA.

[Greenrookie]

If the British Empire can fall, don't USA's "Imperialism" will one day too? When was China last call the MIDDLE KINGDOM?
Nothing stays the same forever. Benanke or no Bernanke.

nothing stays forever! students of history will find this peculiar fact that no great dynasty lasts for more than 400 years…
Tang Dynasty, Han Dynasty, Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, British Empire and now perhaps the setting of USA.

Shang dynasty lasted 600 years and Zhou dynasty lasted 800 years. Anyway, 400 years is a long time. Great power even when overtaken stay powerful for quite some time.

Economically, china might overtake US in some GDP figures and it influence increasing. But for china's influence in foreign affairs to overtake US, my gut feel is that I won't get to see it in my life time. ( haha if 85 is my life expectancy, then there is a good 50 years later ...)

[godjira1]

If the British Empire can fall, don't USA's "Imperialism" will one day too? When was China last call the MIDDLE KINGDOM?
Nothing stays the same forever. Benanke or no Bernanke.

nothing stays forever! students of history will find this peculiar fact that no great dynasty lasts for more than 400 years…
Tang Dynasty, Han Dynasty, Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, British Empire and now perhaps the setting of USA.

Shang dynasty lasted 600 years and Zhou dynasty lasted 800 years. Anyway, 400 years is a long time. Great power even when overtaken stay powerful for quite some time.

Economically, china might overtake US in some GDP figures and it influence increasing. But for china's influence in foreign affairs to overtake US, my gut feel is that I won't get to see it in my life time. ( haha if 85 is my life expectancy, then there is a good 50 years later ...)

fair enough - i don't know much about Shang but Zhou Dynasty was the warring states era, so I guess they were still a power but just declined from their prime. In the same way, USA will remain a power, but it's dominance might decline over time.

[HitandRun]

I used to read John Mauldin's newsletter.....

I guess that you must have been very disappointed with all the analysts and economists then.... because none of them could get it right ALL the time.

IMHO, a good economist/analyst is one that open a reader's eyes to alternative possibilities and supported by facts. E.g. if Mario Draghi didn't step in with LTRO, what would be the downside? On that count, I think that JM is probably above average.

Notwithstanding the above, taking into consideration all the opinions that one can access, the final decision to buy, hold or sell rests with the investor alone.

[yeokiwi]

I used to read John Mauldin's newsletter.....

I guess that you must have been very disappointed with all the analysts and economists then.... because none of them could get it right ALL the time.

IMHO, a good economist/analyst is one that open a reader's eyes to alternative possibilities and supported by facts. E.g. if Mario Draghi didn't step in with LTRO, what would be the downside? On that count, I think that JM is probably above average.

Notwithstanding the above, taking into consideration all the opinions that one can access, the final decision to buy, hold or sell rests with the investor alone.

Yes. I seldom read these articles nowadays.
Even a good chef can only come out with a few good dishes per year and so what can you expect of an analyst that is going to turn up an article every week.
Basically, most are junks. As for the precious few good articles, they are only good after things have happened.
So, how to differentiate? I don't know. Does it make a difference to investment decisions? hardly.

Reading Hobbit is more enjoyable.

[specuvestor]

I used to read John Mauldin's newsletter.....

I guess that you must have been very disappointed with all the analysts and economists then.... because none of them could get it right ALL the time.

IMHO, a good economist/analyst is one that open a reader's eyes to alternative possibilities and supported by facts. E.g. if Mario Draghi didn't step in with LTRO, what would be the downside? On that count, I think that JM is probably above average.

Notwithstanding the above, taking into consideration all the opinions that one can access, the final decision to buy, hold or sell rests with the investor alone.

In my experience many economist can explain to you what HAD happened, but they cannot tell you what will happen. That's why my favourite economist is Keynes, not because of his pump priming ideas, but because he is actually a pragmatic economist, an oxymoron for most.

fair enough - i don't know much about Shang but Zhou Dynasty was the warring states era, so I guess they were still a power but just declined from their prime. In the same way, USA will remain a power, but it's dominance might decline over time.

I think history will mark 911 as the peak for Pax Americana