<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Danielle Park: Bernanke&#8217;s HyperInflation Quandry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/danielle-park-bernankes-hyperinflation-quandry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/danielle-park-bernankes-hyperinflation-quandry/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:17:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ironman</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/danielle-park-bernankes-hyperinflation-quandry/comment-page-1/#comment-179646</link>
		<dc:creator>ironman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28256#comment-179646</guid>
		<description>BR: You&#039;ll enjoy this then - there&#039;s a fund that puts its money in the S&amp;P 500 only when the U.S. Congress is out of session.  Historically, the strategy would have produced some &lt;a href=&quot;http://congressionalfund.com/inc/FundFactSheet.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pretty amazing returns&lt;/a&gt;, and since the fund has existed, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.willisms.com/archives/2009/06/trivia_tidbit_o_603.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it&#039;s outperformed the major indices&lt;/a&gt; by a wide margin (although that&#039;s just means it&#039;s lost a lot less money by comparison).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BR: You&#8217;ll enjoy this then &#8211; there&#8217;s a fund that puts its money in the S&amp;P 500 only when the U.S. Congress is out of session.  Historically, the strategy would have produced some <a href="http://congressionalfund.com/inc/FundFactSheet.pdf" rel="nofollow">pretty amazing returns</a>, and since the fund has existed, <a href="http://www.willisms.com/archives/2009/06/trivia_tidbit_o_603.html" rel="nofollow">it&#8217;s outperformed the major indices</a> by a wide margin (although that&#8217;s just means it&#8217;s lost a lot less money by comparison).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ironman</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/danielle-park-bernankes-hyperinflation-quandry/comment-page-1/#comment-179470</link>
		<dc:creator>ironman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28256#comment-179470</guid>
		<description>That’s why Obama’s deficits today are best thought of as &lt;a href=&quot;http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2009/06/generation-theft.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;generation theft&lt;/a&gt;.

If we’re right (see the link for the tool and numbers behind it), we can expect the maximum personal income tax rate will be increased from 35% today to 70% by 2010 or no later than 2011.  This rate could be lowered to 65-66% in the longer term, provided economic growth follows what the trustees of Social Security have forecast.  If not, then expect higher tax rates.

Alternatively, the government could keep income tax rates lower than that 70% level by imposing other taxes aimed more at those earning between $20,000 and $70,000 (that’s the income range &lt;a href=&quot;http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2008/04/because-they-make-most-money.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;where most of the money is&lt;/a&gt; in the U.S.).

I should also point out that the figures Blodget quotes Bernanke saying in his article don&#039;t appear to include intergovernmental transfers (debt held by Social Security&#039;s OASDI trust fund, etc.)  With those taken into account, the projected debt-to-income ratio for 2009 will be around 96.5% in 2011, not the 70% figure Bernanke cites.  So, yes, the total outstanding debt picture is somewhat bigger than he&#039;s presenting.

~~~~

&lt;strong&gt;BR&lt;/strong&gt;:  I am compelled to point out that we are coming off of an 8 year period of horrific spending, unfunded tax cuts, and flipping a surplus into a deficit. 

This is why I aman independent -- the GOP is as bad, if not worse, than the DEMs. Choose your poison: &lt;em&gt;Tax Cut &amp; Spend&lt;/em&gt;, or &lt;em&gt;Tax &amp; Spend&lt;/em&gt;.




</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That’s why Obama’s deficits today are best thought of as <a href="http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2009/06/generation-theft.html" rel="nofollow">generation theft</a>.</p>
<p>If we’re right (see the link for the tool and numbers behind it), we can expect the maximum personal income tax rate will be increased from 35% today to 70% by 2010 or no later than 2011.  This rate could be lowered to 65-66% in the longer term, provided economic growth follows what the trustees of Social Security have forecast.  If not, then expect higher tax rates.</p>
<p>Alternatively, the government could keep income tax rates lower than that 70% level by imposing other taxes aimed more at those earning between $20,000 and $70,000 (that’s the income range <a href="http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2008/04/because-they-make-most-money.html" rel="nofollow">where most of the money is</a> in the U.S.).</p>
<p>I should also point out that the figures Blodget quotes Bernanke saying in his article don&#8217;t appear to include intergovernmental transfers (debt held by Social Security&#8217;s OASDI trust fund, etc.)  With those taken into account, the projected debt-to-income ratio for 2009 will be around 96.5% in 2011, not the 70% figure Bernanke cites.  So, yes, the total outstanding debt picture is somewhat bigger than he&#8217;s presenting.</p>
<p>~~~~</p>
<p><strong>BR</strong>:  I am compelled to point out that we are coming off of an 8 year period of horrific spending, unfunded tax cuts, and flipping a surplus into a deficit. </p>
<p>This is why I aman independent &#8212; the GOP is as bad, if not worse, than the DEMs. Choose your poison: <em>Tax Cut &#038; Spend</em>, or <em>Tax &#038; Spend</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

