Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
2013-14 Shelby GT500
THE FUTURE COLLECTIBILITY AND VALUE OF OUR 2013/2014 SHELBY GT500s...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Simon_C" data-source="post: 13573372" data-attributes="member: 153320"><p><span style="color: white">This is correct but doesn't tell the full story. As you know, it is unlawful for the FED to buy treasuries directly from the Treasury (monetizing the debt). When the US Govt. issues treasuries, these are purchased by investment banks at a discount to market. These are then sold to the Federal Reserve. It is this money that is being invested by investment banks on stock markets as opposed to being lent. Last time I checked banks were near 100 percent reserves.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: white">I do agree that low interest rates make stocks more attractive and this certainly is a factor. And QE unlimited means that the FED is actively buying mortgages. So I agree that not all stimulus inflates the stock market.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: white">I am grounded in the Austrian School of Economics. I can categorically state that spending does not create productivity. It is only the Austrian School that links interest rates to the structure of production. It is savings that increase productivity. Savings are invested in capital goods which make labor more productive. Productivity is output per given factor of production. In a productive economy things get cheaper not more expensive. Look at computers.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: white">At the very best all spending can do is maintain the status quo. But even this can only be short term as capital goods wear out and need replacing.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: white">There have been central banks in the US prior to 1913. But even if there weren’t, inflation can be caused by fractional reserve banking as well as printing money.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: white">To prove that the stock market has been inflated compare P/Es from the 1980s to today’s P/Es. And this is even with inflated earnings due to today's controversial accounting practices allowing corporations to hide losses. If dividends (which can’t be manipulated) are used as a proxy for reported earnings then P/Es are very high.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: white">Now, I need to link this back to Shelbys to desperately try and stay on topic. As you know, inflation is not uniform. The first person to get the newly printed money gets full purchasing power and the purchasing power diminishes with circulation. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: white">Given the demographic of the average Shelby buyer (such as me), by the time the money gets to us it has been devalued. Consequently, as we are using devalued currency it takes more dollars to get the asset. So the Shelby should keep up with inflation? Unfortunately, since wages and salaries lag behind inflation, in an inflationary environment people’s disposable income typically falls. When the average consumer spends more on food and rent they have less for luxury items such as Shelbys.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: white">So unless the demographic of Shelby buyers changes I would not expect Shelbys to keep up with inflation.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: white">As you </span><span style="color: white">said – buy it to drive it and enjoy it.</span></span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Simon_C, post: 13573372, member: 153320"] [COLOR=white]This is correct but doesn't tell the full story. As you know, it is unlawful for the FED to buy treasuries directly from the Treasury (monetizing the debt). When the US Govt. issues treasuries, these are purchased by investment banks at a discount to market. These are then sold to the Federal Reserve. It is this money that is being invested by investment banks on stock markets as opposed to being lent. Last time I checked banks were near 100 percent reserves.[/COLOR] [COLOR=white]I do agree that low interest rates make stocks more attractive and this certainly is a factor. And QE unlimited means that the FED is actively buying mortgages. So I agree that not all stimulus inflates the stock market.[/COLOR] [COLOR=white]I am grounded in the Austrian School of Economics. I can categorically state that spending does not create productivity. It is only the Austrian School that links interest rates to the structure of production. It is savings that increase productivity. Savings are invested in capital goods which make labor more productive. Productivity is output per given factor of production. In a productive economy things get cheaper not more expensive. Look at computers.[/COLOR] [COLOR=white]At the very best all spending can do is maintain the status quo. But even this can only be short term as capital goods wear out and need replacing.[/COLOR] [COLOR=white]There have been central banks in the US prior to 1913. But even if there weren’t, inflation can be caused by fractional reserve banking as well as printing money.[/COLOR] [COLOR=white]To prove that the stock market has been inflated compare P/Es from the 1980s to today’s P/Es. And this is even with inflated earnings due to today's controversial accounting practices allowing corporations to hide losses. If dividends (which can’t be manipulated) are used as a proxy for reported earnings then P/Es are very high.[/COLOR] [COLOR=white]Now, I need to link this back to Shelbys to desperately try and stay on topic. As you know, inflation is not uniform. The first person to get the newly printed money gets full purchasing power and the purchasing power diminishes with circulation. [/COLOR] [COLOR=white][/COLOR] [COLOR=white]Given the demographic of the average Shelby buyer (such as me), by the time the money gets to us it has been devalued. Consequently, as we are using devalued currency it takes more dollars to get the asset. So the Shelby should keep up with inflation? Unfortunately, since wages and salaries lag behind inflation, in an inflationary environment people’s disposable income typically falls. When the average consumer spends more on food and rent they have less for luxury items such as Shelbys.[/COLOR] [COLOR=white]So unless the demographic of Shelby buyers changes I would not expect Shelbys to keep up with inflation.[/COLOR] [FONT=Calibri][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=white]As you [/COLOR][COLOR=white]said – buy it to drive it and enjoy it.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
2013-14 Shelby GT500
THE FUTURE COLLECTIBILITY AND VALUE OF OUR 2013/2014 SHELBY GT500s...
Top