![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL-cg1o0wPzRa7q7orw1wrlXEnml-9MxdTWRWxkQ1_2EviBuNbGPZfqGnwvGJBYZWaTDU7TFTSGq4bVOyduzxqaLW7tolJDm25yQTE1s8ZJGmwJ_Wvgw2qyzYBfgnt9cp4BRby/s320/MULT_Max_630_378.png)
This ain't good. My creaky-old Econ 101 memory tells me that money usually runs at about a 3.2 multiplier, which we haven't seen since the mid-'90's.
The period from 'the end of 3.2' to 2008 was kinda 'sticky-gooey' economically, come to think of it...
At any rate, a negative multiplier has serious implications if one is running the Hell out of the printing presses, as MarketTicker 'splains.
The question not answered: is the negative number a result of the money-pumping, or of the crash in housing and other assets?
No comments:
Post a Comment