<?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: Green Shoots or Inflation Pressure Futures</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:23:06 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Deeply Oversold Bounce, Not Green Shoots &#124; The Big Picture</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-2/#comment-190094</link>
		<dc:creator>Deeply Oversold Bounce, Not Green Shoots &#124; The Big Picture</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-190094</guid>
		<description>[...] case in point is the absurdly foolish Green Shoots compost.  As we have detailed since this nonsense first started spreading earlier this year, the data simply did not support the notion of  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] case in point is the absurdly foolish Green Shoots compost.  As we have detailed since this nonsense first started spreading earlier this year, the data simply did not support the notion of  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: leftback</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-2/#comment-180656</link>
		<dc:creator>leftback</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180656</guid>
		<description>Yields on the 2-yr are still increasing, 1.42% mama mia!

Karen, not surprising you like Del Monte. We all think you are a peach...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yields on the 2-yr are still increasing, 1.42% mama mia!</p>
<p>Karen, not surprising you like Del Monte. We all think you are a peach&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: karen</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-2/#comment-180655</link>
		<dc:creator>karen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180655</guid>
		<description>Whammer, that is so interesting.. i&#039;ve actually played around on the Del Monte site... it&#039;s quite consumer friendly.. thanks for following up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whammer, that is so interesting.. i&#8217;ve actually played around on the Del Monte site&#8230; it&#8217;s quite consumer friendly.. thanks for following up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Whammer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-2/#comment-180653</link>
		<dc:creator>Whammer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:16:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180653</guid>
		<description>@Karen -- unfortunately, you got me curious about the Daniel Craig popsicles.......

Turns out DLM isn&#039;t doing it, but a licensee of their name is responsible:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney/idUS378154280220090603</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Karen &#8212; unfortunately, you got me curious about the Daniel Craig popsicles&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p>Turns out DLM isn&#8217;t doing it, but a licensee of their name is responsible:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney/idUS378154280220090603" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney/idUS378154280220090603</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: karen</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-2/#comment-180628</link>
		<dc:creator>karen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:13:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180628</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t forget DLM if you are thinking canned goods or Daniel Craig popsicles...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t forget DLM if you are thinking canned goods or Daniel Craig popsicles&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat G.</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-2/#comment-180621</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat G.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180621</guid>
		<description>10yr at 3.86%.  Hurry Ben, time to monetize more debt.  Eastwood; &quot;Make my day.&quot;  lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>10yr at 3.86%.  Hurry Ben, time to monetize more debt.  Eastwood; &#8220;Make my day.&#8221;  lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: leftback</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-2/#comment-180607</link>
		<dc:creator>leftback</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180607</guid>
		<description>&quot;Double dip recession could be on the horizon&quot;

Absolutely baked in the cake. 

Drop money from helicopters to stem panic and then retire to a safe distance and begin jawboning, while accumulating canned goods. Paul Kasriel called this one from the start of the year almost, also Paul Kedrosky.

Just when you thought W was out of the way, it&#039;s the W-shaped recovery. The $ has already begun to rally. More ugliness lies ahead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Double dip recession could be on the horizon&#8221;</p>
<p>Absolutely baked in the cake. </p>
<p>Drop money from helicopters to stem panic and then retire to a safe distance and begin jawboning, while accumulating canned goods. Paul Kasriel called this one from the start of the year almost, also Paul Kedrosky.</p>
<p>Just when you thought W was out of the way, it&#8217;s the W-shaped recovery. The $ has already begun to rally. More ugliness lies ahead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: recommender11</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-180604</link>
		<dc:creator>recommender11</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180604</guid>
		<description>I find it very noteworthy, the suddenness with which this &#039;meme&#039; of raising rates has come about.  To me, it smells like a jawboning campaign by the Fed, to threaten to do something that they have no intention of doing, and indeed, cannot do at the present time. 

I find that you can learn a lot by looking the body of language of people when they talk. I watched Ben Bernanke&#039;s testimony before Congress last week. When he was talking about the millions of people who are currently unemployed, he looked like he was back in eighth grade, explaining to his parents how he got that B- on his algebra quiz, and how that would never happen again; when he talked of the dangers of inflation, his body language showed that he was contemptuous and dismissive of the possibility of real inflation taking hold.

Raising rates would serve only one purpose at the present time: to keep the prices of the long bonds from cliff-diving. If the Fed did raise the federal funds rate, that would just hinder the profitability of the banks, because they would no longer be able to borrow short and lend long at higher rates, and making the banks more unprofitable is the last thing they want to do. Raising rates wouldn&#039;t even curtail lending, because the banks aren&#039;t lending anyway, they are just collecting interest on their reserves with the Fed, since the Fed started paying interest on reserves back in October. Does anyone really see inflation in so-called &#039;core&#039; items anyway? (Core items being the things that the Fed really cares about, supposedly.) The only inflation is showing up in food and energy, and these are non-core items. Core items are probably still in deflation.

To me, this talk of raising rates comes across as part of a marketing campaign to help sell long bonds. How convenient, because the Treasury is trying to sell a ton of long bonds this week.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it very noteworthy, the suddenness with which this &#8216;meme&#8217; of raising rates has come about.  To me, it smells like a jawboning campaign by the Fed, to threaten to do something that they have no intention of doing, and indeed, cannot do at the present time. </p>
<p>I find that you can learn a lot by looking the body of language of people when they talk. I watched Ben Bernanke&#8217;s testimony before Congress last week. When he was talking about the millions of people who are currently unemployed, he looked like he was back in eighth grade, explaining to his parents how he got that B- on his algebra quiz, and how that would never happen again; when he talked of the dangers of inflation, his body language showed that he was contemptuous and dismissive of the possibility of real inflation taking hold.</p>
<p>Raising rates would serve only one purpose at the present time: to keep the prices of the long bonds from cliff-diving. If the Fed did raise the federal funds rate, that would just hinder the profitability of the banks, because they would no longer be able to borrow short and lend long at higher rates, and making the banks more unprofitable is the last thing they want to do. Raising rates wouldn&#8217;t even curtail lending, because the banks aren&#8217;t lending anyway, they are just collecting interest on their reserves with the Fed, since the Fed started paying interest on reserves back in October. Does anyone really see inflation in so-called &#8216;core&#8217; items anyway? (Core items being the things that the Fed really cares about, supposedly.) The only inflation is showing up in food and energy, and these are non-core items. Core items are probably still in deflation.</p>
<p>To me, this talk of raising rates comes across as part of a marketing campaign to help sell long bonds. How convenient, because the Treasury is trying to sell a ton of long bonds this week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DL</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-180602</link>
		<dc:creator>DL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180602</guid>
		<description>I think the Fed will do more or less what Obama wants them to do.   

What Obama wants is for the unemployment rate to be as low as possible in October of 2012.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the Fed will do more or less what Obama wants them to do.   </p>
<p>What Obama wants is for the unemployment rate to be as low as possible in October of 2012.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat G.</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/ugly-futures/comment-page-1/#comment-180597</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat G.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=28496#comment-180597</guid>
		<description>I believe it was Karen the other day who said that one of her cohorts indicated, that the FED doesn&#039;t normally raise rates until the jobs numbers show gains for six consecutive months.  If that&#039;s correct rates won&#039;t be raised for sometime.  Until then, the FED&#039;s just jawboning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe it was Karen the other day who said that one of her cohorts indicated, that the FED doesn&#8217;t normally raise rates until the jobs numbers show gains for six consecutive months.  If that&#8217;s correct rates won&#8217;t be raised for sometime.  Until then, the FED&#8217;s just jawboning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
