BREAKING 🚨: #Lumber Timberrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 📉📉

On a mission 😎 from #God #Video #Blues #Brothers #Chicago

Nasdaq $QQQ relative to M2 Money Supply 🚨 Dot Com Bubble vs. Now 🤯🤔

Bitcoin doesn’t need politicians. It doesn’t need corporate treasuries. Bitcoin has already won – and so have we. Stack like a maniac. Don’t sell unless you absolutely have to. HODL like your life depends on it. SBR or no SBR – Bitcoin already won.

Double continuation vehicles let #PE firms sell assets to themselves repeatedly while collecting fees each time. Sometimes the best customer is yourself.

#USD #Ultimate #Shit #Coin

What would you do if it started raining #baseballs in your yard??? (Footage is Baseball-sized hail in Texas) 👇 #Video

#Beyond #Meat headed to Chapter 11 #bankruptcy The market doesn't exist for this product. Real meat eaters didn't have any interest. Vegetarians and vegans are not interested in pretending to eat meat. The plant-based meat company has reported falling sales and dwindling cash.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2025/08/18/crypto-jb-pritzker-donald-trump-digital-currency-cryptocurrency-scam-illinois #Illinois #Governor #Pritzker #Anti #Bitcoin and #Business

One of the great challenges of modern life is avoiding distractions. In our daily lives, we are flooded by breaking news, music on planes, ads in taxis and little numbers, gazing up at us from phone apps, saying that somebody has something to say. In the investment world, we are bombarded by scrolling tickers, new products and jargon, impenetrable financial reports and the analysis of every twist and turn of government policy. The key, of course, is not to get distracted by things that are not important. One of those things is the money supply. There was a time when the money supply could tell you a great deal about the direction of the economy. There was even a brief period when the Federal Reserve conducted monetary policy by targeting the growth in the money supply. However, those days are long gone and investors today should simply ignore movements in monetary aggregates. But before dismissing the issue altogether, it’s worth understanding why the money supply was once important and why it has lost its relevance. It’s also important to consider how to track and forecast the economy in a world where money isn’t talking any more. The Rise of Monetarism In 1963, Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz published “A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960”. Even in paperback, it is a formidable tome, weighing in at 860 pages, including footnotes and references. Its implicit punchline is Friedman’s most famous quote: “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”[1]. The implication is that, if you want to control inflation, you don’t need to curb aggressive unions, greedy businessmen, natural disasters or profligate governments – you simply need to control the growth of the money supply. The easiest way to understand this idea is to consider the equation of exchange which is taught to all undergraduate economics students: M x V = P x Y Where: M = the stock of money V = the velocity of money (or the number of times each dollar is used in transactions) P = the price level, and, Y = real output. Putting meat onto the bones, economists commonly define the stock of money as M2, which is the sum of currency in circulation and balances held in checking and savings accounts (otherwise known as M1) plus small-denomination time deposits and retail money market funds. They also define Y as real GDP and P as the GDP deflator. P x Y is then just nominal GDP and velocity is simply defined as nominal GDP divided by M2. If velocity is constant, then faster growth in M2 must show up either in higher inflation or more real output. If the economy is already running at close to maximum real output, excessive growth in the money supply must lead to excessive inflation. It’s that simple. Moreover, it seemed simple enough empirically. As just one example, every surge or decline in nominal GDP growth seen in the 1960s and 1970s, was preceded by an equivalent surge or decline in M2 growth. It also seemed clear in the historical episodes examined by Friedman and Schwartz, as well as innumerable international inflation flareups in the 19th and 20th centuries. When the mild price increases of the 1960s morphed into the raging inflation of the 1970s, Friedman’s focus on controlling the money supply, or monetarism, became the dominant school of economic thought. The Federal Reserve had been setting broad target ranges for the growth in two monetary aggregates, M1 and M2, since the mid-1970s but had narrowly focused on controlling the federal funds rate. However, in October 1979, with inflation surging to 12% year-over-year, and under the leadership of its new Chairman, Paul Volcker, the Fed explicitly moved its focus from targeting the federal funds rate to targeting the growth in the money supply. This led to much higher short-term interest rates, with the federal funds rate jumping to over 20%, both in December 1980 and July 1981. This extreme monetary restraint, whether expressed in terms of the growth in the money supply or interest rates, triggered two recessions, with inflation falling sharply to just 2.5% by the summer of 1983. Before that, however, the Fed had recognized that targeting the money supply was causing way too much volatility in short-term interest rates and it returned to targeting the federal funds rate[2] – a policy that, with a few adjustments, is has followed ever since. The Fall of Monetarism Ironically, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, at the exact moment in history when the Fed started to focus on controlling the money supply, it lost its power both as an instrument of policy and a predictor of economic trends. The relationship between the growth in M2 and nominal GDP became highly unstable – as indeed it is today. Surges in the money supply, such as in the Great Financial Crisis and in the Pandemic, were met with offsetting collapses in velocity, with no obvious impact on either real growth or inflation. Most recently, in the year ended in June 2025, M2 grew by 4.3% while nominal GDP grew by 4.5% - close enough. But in the previous 12 months, M2 grew by just 1.1% while nominal GDP rose by 5.7% and, in the year before that, M2 actually fell by 4.3% while nominal GDP climbed by 6.4%. So why isn’t the relationship tighter? The problem lies in very definition and uses of money in the modern economy. In the century after the civil war, the century covered in Friedman and Schwartz’s book, the concept of money was fairly stable. Money was currency in circulation or deposits you held in a checking account at the bank. Neither paid you any interest, so, out of economy, you would try to minimize your money holdings, with most of your savings diverted to long-term assets such as real estate, family businesses and publicly-traded stocks and bonds. That being said, you needed to have some liquid assets since, both in business and in family life, you never knew precisely how much money you might need at any point in time and you might not be able to cash in long-term assets quickly. So, as the economy grew, the demand for money grew in lockstep and velocity was roughly constant. However, starting in the late 1970s, banks began to offer checking accounts that paid interest, reducing the opportunity cost of holding money at the bank, while lower inflation, in the 1980s and 1990s, reduced the opportunity cost of holding currency. On the other side, the use of credit and charge cards for transactions grew. In time, people would use personal computers and mobile devices to pay bills and transfer money. Indeed, by October 2024, according to an annual survey conducted by the Atlanta Fed[3], cash and checks combined accounted for just 15% of the value of consumer transactions – everything else was accomplished electronically. Over the years, it has become immensely faster and cheaper to liquidate stocks, bonds, mutual funds and ETFs. Accumulating wealth is, as always, a complicated issue. However, if you have wealth, it has become very easy to access liquidity. The net effect of these two sets of innovations was to reduce the liquidity decision – that is how much money to hold - to an afterthought. Consequently, when the money supply soars, as was the case after the Great Financial Crisis or in the pandemic, businesses and consumers passively mop it up and money velocity collapses. Tracking the Economy Without a Monetary Signal The Fed has realized the pointlessness of targeting monetary aggregates for many years and so the money supply is never referenced in FOMC statements and comes up only infrequently in Fed speeches and testimony. Indeed, in February 2021, the Fed stopped publishing data on monetary aggregates on a weekly basis, switching to a monthly publication. The monthly numbers for July will be released on August 26th. It might be possible for some enterprising research department to piece together a forecast of these numbers based on other data. However, I can’t think of any reason why they should do so. But if the growth in the money supply no longer provides us with timely or useful information on the direction of economic growth and inflation, is forecasting impossible? Not at all. In the short run, economists can still measure and forecast the components of demand in the economy such as consumer spending, housing, business investment spending, international trade and government spending. They can then look at the cyclical position of the economy and figure out what these trends, combined with monetary and fiscal policy, imply for inflation and unemployment. In the long run, they can forecast the growth in labor supply and productivity to predict longer-term economic growth. This, of course, entails a good deal more work than simply looking at a chart showing the growth in the money supply. However, it is necessary in order to begin to understand today’s economy. In a lecture in Oxford in 1933, Albert Einstein noted a problem that is common to both physics and economics. He said: It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple as possible and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.[4] Somewhat ironically, he has ever since been misquoted as saying, far more succinctly: Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. In 2025, using the money supply to explain or predict either inflation or economic growth clearly violates that maxim. Disclaimer Opinions and estimates offered constitute our judgment and are subject to change without notice, as are statements of financial market trends, which are based on current market conditions. The views and strategies described may not be suitable for all investors. Any forecasts contained herein are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be relied upon as advice or interpreted as a recommendation. Content is intended for institutional/wholesale/professional clients and qualified investors only (not for retail investors) as defined by local laws and regulations. J.P. Morgan Asset Management is the brand for the asset management business of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates worldwide (collectively “JPM”). Opinions and comments may not reflect those of J.P. Morgan or its affiliates. Content is intended for US audience only, and should not be considered a recommendation or endorsement by JPM for any product, service or strategy specific to any individual investor’s needs. JPM is not responsible for third-party posted content. "Likes", "Favorites", shares, similar functionality or content appearing on third party websites should not be considered an endorsement of JPM products or services. [1] Inflation: Causes and Consequences. First Lecture. Bombay: Asia Publishing House for the Council for Economic Education (Bombay), 1963 [2] Managing the New Policy Framework: Paul Volcker, the St. Louis Fed, and the 1979-82 War on Inflation. Kevin L. Kliesen and David C. Wheelock, Federal Reserve Back of St. Louis Review, First Quarter 2021. [3] “2024 Survey and Diary of Consumer Payment Choice”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, April 2025 [4] “On the Method of Theoretical Physics”, The Herbert Spencer Lecture, Oxford, June 10th, 1933

https://youtube.com/shorts/6SJUcLL6ZCo #Netflix & #Chill

https://youtube.com/shorts/RtCkUshDu0U #SouthPark #Cartman #Clyde #Video

I know what you mean Fren 🤣

Exactly Fren 😂

Great notes Frens

#Bitcoin now makes up 1.7% of global money, worth $2.4T.