Comments on: She Wants Who to Save Us?

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:32:05 +0000

#9
Sure Mortimer. We’ll make it “the usual amount”.

I don’t know why you would emphasis 2-5 going to 3-5 though. The long term figure is what really matters and yes I think we could be at those levels by this time in 2013 (I wonder who the president will be then?). GL Mortimer.

By: sarabeth

sarabeth — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:08:57 +0000

So are you or are you not willing to bet that rates will go above 8% in 2-5 years (now amended to 3-5 years)?

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:04:35 +0000

#7
I’m primarily talking about CD’s but I also like zero-coupon bonds. Is 6% a certainty? No, but getting there isn’t really that big of a stretch; I was able to get 6.25% on a 18 month CD back in Sep of 2006. Look at how quickly we came down to 2.25. It won’t take more than 18-24 months to get back above 5 once the rate increases begin. I actually meant 3-5 yrs because it will most likely take 18-24 months just to get above 5% and I’m expecting a fed funds rate of over 6%. The 3-5 yr timeframe seems quite realistic unless you think rates are going more than .25-.50 lower from here (I certainly hope not) and that we won’t have started a rate increase cycle by early next yr (I certainly hope we have by then).

I’d put 15-20% of my assets into such 8%+ ylding CD’s and zero-coupon bonds.

By: sarabeth

sarabeth — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:52:40 +0000

How much money are you willing to bet, and what rate exactly are you betting will be at 8% 2-5 yrs from now?

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:14:27 +0000

“Volcker caused massive pain in the economy to solve the crisis of the 1970â€™s stagflation.”

Yes, but I wouldn’t mind a little Volcker type action in the future. Not now for sure but maybe from mid 2009 to mid 2010. A nice fed funds rate of around 6-7% to help strengthen the dollar and bring down inflation (helped by getting rid of corn ethanol- let’s use food for food “not fuel”). People should really be considering taking out as big a mortgage as they can “easily” pay while interest rates are under 5-6% so they can invest the difference at higher rates. I can’t wait to buy some bonds and CD’s when I’m getting 8% on my investment 2-5 yrs from now. I don’t know exactly when rates will be that high but I bet it’s within that timeframe.

By: matt

matt — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:59:22 +0000

But would it surprise anyone if the recommendation at the end was more easy credit, lower rates, more inflation, and more bubbles?

all academic at this point, but i’d be very surprised if volcker stuck around for that kind of conclusion.

By: foreclosurefish

foreclosurefish — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:51:04 +0000

Clinton probably recognizes that Volcker caused massive pain in the economy to solve the crisis of the 1970′s stagflation.

Greenspan, on the other hand, just looks for a new bubble to inflate to keep up the facade of prosperity.

Carter was blamed for the poor economy while Bill Clinton shared some of the spotlight for the strong economy of the 1990′s. I’d guess Hillary just wants to keep up appearances of a strong economy while sending the bubble in another direction for a few more years.

Yes, she named both Volcker and Greenspan as possible members of her commission. But would it surprise anyone if the recommendation at the end was more easy credit, lower rates, more inflation, and more bubbles?

By: sarabeth

sarabeth — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:55:52 +0000

some things would inflate, though

By: matt

matt — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:15:22 +0000

i want $100 bills with brittneyâ€™s bald beaver in place of ben franklin.

i think that would be massively deflationary.

By: tom

tom — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:00:09 +0000

i want $100 bills with brittney’s bald beaver in place of ben franklin.

also, the best winston wolf quote: “let’s not start sucking each other’s dicks quite yet.” that shit cracks me up.