"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:58:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

May your IRAs and 401Ks be filled with US dollars and not
spondulicks this holiday season.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

George, there is only one US currency. It's the same currency no matter
where you have it.

--
Ed Huntress
-----------
Then why are the banks, brokerages, insurance companies, and
other financial institutions screaming like a stuck pig when they
must convert their bonds and other securities from spondulick
valuation to real dollar valuation, otherwise know as "mark to
market" under Sarbanes-Oxley?

That's valuation, not currency. We have only one currency.


This is analogous to the NPV calculations to determine what one
dollar to be received [or which may be received if things go
right] 3 years from now is worth today.

That isn't currency. That's future-value calculations.


I would suggest that 100$ cash under my mattress is worth
considerably more than 100$ "invested" in GM stock or 2033 bonds,
particularly if the "investment" was made 6 months or a year ago.

So, you traded your currency for stocks or bonds. Your stocks and bonds are
not currency; they have their own up-and-down life.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:58:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

May your IRAs and 401Ks be filled with US dollars and not
spondulicks this holiday season.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

George, there is only one US currency. It's the same currency no matter
where you have it.

--
Ed Huntress
-----------
Then why are the banks, brokerages, insurance companies, and
other financial institutions screaming like a stuck pig when they
must convert their bonds and other securities from spondulick
valuation to real dollar valuation, otherwise know as "mark to
market" under Sarbanes-Oxley?

That's valuation, not currency. We have only one currency.

OK then Ed, it's really monetization and the good thing is that it isn't
inflationary.


JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:58:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

May your IRAs and 401Ks be filled with US dollars and not
spondulicks this holiday season.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

George, there is only one US currency. It's the same currency no matter
where you have it.

--
Ed Huntress
-----------
Then why are the banks, brokerages, insurance companies, and
other financial institutions screaming like a stuck pig when they
must convert their bonds and other securities from spondulick
valuation to real dollar valuation, otherwise know as "mark to
market" under Sarbanes-Oxley?

That's valuation, not currency. We have only one currency.

OK then Ed, it's really monetization and the good thing is that it isn't
inflationary.

That use of the term "monetization" really refers to exchanging something --
securities, in this case -- for money. In other words, they're sold.

Calling that "monetization" is really jargon for selling the asset. The
asset isn't currency. One may be disappointed at how much it can be sold
for, but that's just the value of the asset itself. It doesn't affect the
value of the currency.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:58:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

May your IRAs and 401Ks be filled with US dollars and not
spondulicks this holiday season.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

George, there is only one US currency. It's the same currency no matter
where you have it.

--
Ed Huntress
-----------
Then why are the banks, brokerages, insurance companies, and
other financial institutions screaming like a stuck pig when they
must convert their bonds and other securities from spondulick
valuation to real dollar valuation, otherwise know as "mark to
market" under Sarbanes-Oxley?

That's valuation, not currency. We have only one currency.

OK then Ed, it's really monetization and the good thing is that it isn't
inflationary.

That use of the term "monetization" really refers to exchanging
something -- securities, in this case -- for money. In other words,
they're sold.

Calling that "monetization" is really jargon for selling the asset.

I guess but this is how losses and gains are "monetized" and that loss or
gain can be looked at from either end of the telescope Ed.

The asset isn't currency. One may be disappointed at how much it can be
sold for, but that's just the value of the asset itself. It doesn't affect
the value of the currency.

It can. The Fed has pumped a stagering amount of liquidity into the central
banks oaround the world but so far most of that is just bits and bytes. When
it's traded for an asset or asset class it's actually "monetized", not
before. Until that time it hasn't any velocity.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:58:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

May your IRAs and 401Ks be filled with US dollars and not
spondulicks this holiday season.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

George, there is only one US currency. It's the same currency no
matter
where you have it.

--
Ed Huntress
-----------
Then why are the banks, brokerages, insurance companies, and
other financial institutions screaming like a stuck pig when they
must convert their bonds and other securities from spondulick
valuation to real dollar valuation, otherwise know as "mark to
market" under Sarbanes-Oxley?

That's valuation, not currency. We have only one currency.

OK then Ed, it's really monetization and the good thing is that it isn't
inflationary.

That use of the term "monetization" really refers to exchanging
something -- securities, in this case -- for money. In other words,
they're sold.

Calling that "monetization" is really jargon for selling the asset.

I guess but this is how losses and gains are "monetized" and that loss or
gain can be looked at from either end of the telescope Ed.

The asset isn't currency. One may be disappointed at how much it can be
sold for, but that's just the value of the asset itself. It doesn't
affect the value of the currency.

It can. The Fed has pumped a stagering amount of liquidity into the
central banks oaround the world but so far most of that is just bits and
bytes. When it's traded for an asset or asset class it's actually
"monetized", not before. Until that time it hasn't any velocity.

JC

Think about how this question arose. I said you can't have simultaneous
inflation and deflation. George says you can if you have multiple
currencies. I said we have only one currency. So George brought up
"spondulucks" or whatever and the fact that these securities act like money.

Hell, sheep act like money, if you barter for them. But that doesn't make
them a currency. They're just an asset you can trade or sell for currency.

"Monetizing" securities is a jargony way of saying "selling them."
Governments monetize thin air; gold can be monetized; saying that securities
can be monetized means that they can be sold. It's pure jargon, and it
clouds the issue. And the issue is that sheep may come and sheep may go, but
their ups and downs do not reflect a currency inflation or deflation. Their
ups and downs are *measured* by their value in currency.

So there is no simultaneous inflation and deflation when you have a single
currency. You can have one or the other. The price of sheep, or securities,
may rise or tank, but unless they're rising or falling because *currency* is
inflating or deflating, they have no relationship to general inflation or
deflation. As a commodity, or an asset, their value is just rising or
falling relative to everything else. And "everything else" is measured in
relation to currency.

Finance would be less opaque to us non-specialists if people just said what
they mean. d8-) If you "monetize" your "highly liquid assets," you mean you
just sold something that somebody wanted to buy -- today.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:58:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Think about how this question arose. I said you can't have simultaneous
inflation and deflation. George says you can if you have multiple
currencies. I said we have only one currency. So George brought up
"spondulucks" or whatever and the fact that these securities act like
money.

I'd forgotten that. Good old Spondulucks.
Currency only moves in a single direction at a time, that's true.


Hell, sheep act like money, if you barter for them. But that doesn't make
them a currency. They're just an asset you can trade or sell for currency.

"Monetizing" securities is a jargony way of saying "selling them."
Governments monetize thin air; gold can be monetized; saying that
securities can be monetized means that they can be sold. It's pure jargon,
and it clouds the issue. And the issue is that sheep may come and sheep
may go, but their ups and downs do not reflect a currency inflation or
deflation. Their ups and downs are *measured* by their value in currency.

OK but I believe it's Georges contention that "spondulucks" are an alternate
currency, or that was what was intended.
He's correct. Do you understand the purpose the original credit defaults
served? They provided a hedge for commercial paper that short circuited the
requirement for someone to find, and then physically borrow a bond.


So there is no simultaneous inflation and deflation when you have a single
currency. You can have one or the other. The price of sheep, or
securities, may rise or tank, but unless they're rising or falling because
*currency* is inflating or deflating, they have no relationship to general
inflation or deflation. As a commodity, or an asset, their value is just
rising or falling relative to everything else. And "everything else" is
measured in relation to currency.

I could as easily contend that the asset values are not what is
fluctuating - it's the value of the currency.
It's a matter of focus and field of view, two more industry obfuscations.
LOL


Finance would be less opaque to us non-specialists if people just said
what they mean. d8-) If you "monetize" your "highly liquid assets," you
mean you just sold something that somebody wanted to buy -- today.

The opaqueness is necessary largely because of people unlike you Ed, who
don't or can't do the research.
Were anyone to speak the plain truth - they wouldn't buy a damned thing. The
investment would be obviously stupid.
You'd also put all of those 35 year old analusts out on the street. You
know, the ones producing wads of metrics indicating that the Turkey is doing
great.
The snarky pitter patter that surrounds finance serves the same purpose sex
appeal does in other products advertising.
The patina of insider buzz words keeps otherwise intelligent sheep coming in
for repeated shearings G
Lobbyists do the same, har dee har.
How far do you think Wayne would have gotten telling the plain truth?
There is a guy monetizing fear and he's done well by himself doing it.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:58:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Think about how this question arose. I said you can't have simultaneous
inflation and deflation. George says you can if you have multiple
currencies. I said we have only one currency. So George brought up
"spondulucks" or whatever and the fact that these securities act like
money.

I'd forgotten that. Good old Spondulucks.
Currency only moves in a single direction at a time, that's true.


Hell, sheep act like money, if you barter for them. But that doesn't make
them a currency. They're just an asset you can trade or sell for
currency.

"Monetizing" securities is a jargony way of saying "selling them."
Governments monetize thin air; gold can be monetized; saying that
securities can be monetized means that they can be sold. It's pure
jargon, and it clouds the issue. And the issue is that sheep may come and
sheep may go, but their ups and downs do not reflect a currency inflation
or deflation. Their ups and downs are *measured* by their value in
currency.

OK but I believe it's Georges contention that "spondulucks" are an
alternate currency, or that was what was intended.

Yes, it is, apparently. And it's my contention that you have to pick
something of accepted value as the basis for determining what is inflating,
and what is deflating. If you paid your bank loans in sheep or spondulucks,
if you could stick them in a parking meter, or deposit them in a savings
account, then sheep or spondulucks could be your currency, or an alternate
currency, and you would have a new question, which is, which currency is the
one that inflates or deflates? Because, in a free market, one is always
inflating relative to the other, and vice versa, making it impossible to say
whether you're suffering from currency inflation or sheep deflation. g

Which, of course, makes the question meaningless and therefore useless. You
need someplace to stand. To be useful for considering economic issues, you
have to pick one currency and define the dynamics of an economy in terms of
that. Since we have only one currency (have you tried paying a traffic
ticket in sheep?), the issue reduces to this: How are aggregate prices
rising or falling in terms of that currency? That's the meaningful
definition of inflation and deflation.

He's correct. Do you understand the purpose the original credit defaults
served? They provided a hedge for commercial paper that short circuited
the requirement for someone to find, and then physically borrow a bond.


I think so, but those price relationships have little to do with inflation
or deflation in the real economy. Those are the machinations of finance,
which, even in good times, are nothing more than (financial) products rising
and falling in price -- as measured by the underlying currency -- in a given
market. They don't tell you whether your paycheck is going to rise and fall
next week.

They of course have an influence on the economy and thus they have an
indirect effect on inflation or deflation. But they are not the inflation or
deflation itself. Nor do they measure it directly. All they can tell you is
if the markets are happy or unhappy, and what the fallout might be.


So there is no simultaneous inflation and deflation when you have a
single currency. You can have one or the other. The price of sheep, or
securities, may rise or tank, but unless they're rising or falling
because *currency* is inflating or deflating, they have no relationship
to general inflation or deflation. As a commodity, or an asset, their
value is just rising or falling relative to everything else. And
"everything else" is measured in relation to currency.

I could as easily contend that the asset values are not what is
fluctuating - it's the value of the currency.

It may be. But if the currency is what you are being paid, and what you pay
your bills and loans in, then it's the thing that matters.

It's a matter of focus and field of view, two more industry obfuscations.
LOL

g This one, though, can be dealt with fairly easily. Inflation and
deflation have meaning in terms of their broad effects on an economy, such
as general employment levels, interest rates, and so on. Rising sheep prices
may just reflect a newly acquired taste for lamb. Bonds may rise in price
because stocks are falling, which may reflect something other than general
price rises or declines. Prices can remain static while the stock and bond
markets sort themselves out.



Finance would be less opaque to us non-specialists if people just said
what they mean. d8-) If you "monetize" your "highly liquid assets," you
mean you just sold something that somebody wanted to buy -- today.

The opaqueness is necessary largely because of people unlike you Ed, who
don't or can't do the research.
Were anyone to speak the plain truth - they wouldn't buy a damned thing.
The investment would be obviously stupid.

I don't mind having an economy that runs by fiat -- confidence in the
government's management of the currency -- but I am not happy about one that
runs as a perpetual shell game. I'd like to see plain language applied to
it, for the same reason I want to see plain language applied to the law.

You'd also put all of those 35 year old analusts out on the street. You
know, the ones producing wads of metrics indicating that the Turkey is
doing great.
The snarky pitter patter that surrounds finance serves the same purpose
sex appeal does in other products advertising.
The patina of insider buzz words keeps otherwise intelligent sheep coming
in for repeated shearings G
Lobbyists do the same, har dee har.
How far do you think Wayne would have gotten telling the plain truth?
There is a guy monetizing fear and he's done well by himself doing it.

But, as you know, my career can be described as one that has tried to
undermine those people and what they do. And I have some experience at it,
having been a marketing manager and having owned an advertising agency.
Finance is too shameful even for me. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:00:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Think about how this question arose. I said you can't have simultaneous
inflation and deflation. George says you can if you have multiple
currencies. I said we have only one currency. So George brought up
"spondulucks" or whatever and the fact that these securities act like money.

Hell, sheep act like money, if you barter for them. But that doesn't make
them a currency. They're just an asset you can trade or sell for currency.
snip

At the limit, and under pathological economic conditions
simultaneous inflation and deflation are indeed possible with a
single "money of account" unit, if careful attention is paid to
definitions.

In Econ101 "Money" is defined as a medium of exchange and measure
and store of value.

When hyper inflation occurs, as in 1920s Germany, there is plenty
of "marks" in circulation, but the mark is no longer a medium of
exchange because no one will accept it, and by definition,
because of hyper inflation, cannot be a measure and store of
value. Thus there is no Econ 101 money available, operationally
causing a depression/deflation.

While most everyone knows about the German hyper inflation and
havoc this caused, does anyone know why the Weimar government
turned on their printing presses and let them run full speed 24/7
when this was obviously destroying their
government/society/economy? What possible alternative could have
been worse?


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:00:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Think about how this question arose. I said you can't have simultaneous
inflation and deflation. George says you can if you have multiple
currencies. I said we have only one currency. So George brought up
"spondulucks" or whatever and the fact that these securities act like
money.

Hell, sheep act like money, if you barter for them. But that doesn't make
them a currency. They're just an asset you can trade or sell for currency.
snip

At the limit, and under pathological economic conditions
simultaneous inflation and deflation are indeed possible with a
single "money of account" unit, if careful attention is paid to
definitions.

In Econ101 "Money" is defined as a medium of exchange and measure
and store of value.

When hyper inflation occurs, as in 1920s Germany, there is plenty
of "marks" in circulation, but the mark is no longer a medium of
exchange because no one will accept it, and by definition,
because of hyper inflation, cannot be a measure and store of
value. Thus there is no Econ 101 money available, operationally
causing a depression/deflation.

George, we do not have such a situation. We have a functioning currency.
Regardless of what you're saying about Weimar Germany (and I would disagree
with your conclusions, but it's not an issue here), our situation is that we
have one currency, and thus cannot have simultaneous inflation and
deflation.

The only country I can think of that has two official currencies, and in
which goods are priced in both, is Cuba. Other countries have official plus
unofficial currencies (often the US dollar), and they can have screwy
situations, too. Many countries accept two different currencies (Canada used
to; I don't know if they still do), and they're always adjusting up and down
relative to each other. But that does *not* mean they have simultaneous
inflation and deflation. It just means they're pricing goods in another
currency as well as their own, and the exchange rates fluctuate. If they
have inflation in their own currency -- in other words, in their real
economy -- prices in a more stable economy will be deflating in relative
terms.

Neither does the US have simultaneous inflation and deflation; nor could it,
unless we had an additional official currency.

Ok?

--
Ed Huntress