Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,382
- 1,830
It would be cool if he was on America's side. Hell--we need SOMEBODY on our side.
If he were, he wouldn't have come out and claimed ignorance, and blamed deregulation.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It would be cool if he was on America's side. Hell--we need SOMEBODY on our side.
WARNING! WARNING! DANGER! DANGER! Will Robinson..
Some of you people are beginning to sound like me when it comes to this issue.
Welcome to Conspiracy Theory Road, citizens.
Yes, it does rather stretch one's credibility quota, doesn't it?
For in order to believe that, we have to believe that the brightest people in the world of economics couldn't see that shipping millions of high paying industrial jobs off shore, and then lending enormous sums of money to the working class which have been losing purchaing power for the last fourty years wouldn't lead to SOME KIND OF INSOLVENCY problem, eh?
Of courrse if their real agenda was bankrupting the nation and it's working class (and investing middle class, too, BTW) to make them pliable to accepting their inevitable serfdom, and the gowing police state, then of course one doesn't have to believe that the master class is entirely incompetent.
But THOSE are our choices.
We either believe that all the Kings economists and bankers couldn't see what steel workers with 8th grade educations were warning me about in 1969, and that they had NO IDEA that those morgage backed bond ratings were total bullshit, OR one can believe that at least some of the master class knew EXACTLY what was going to happen.
Of course we all know that none dare call it conspiracy
That's not exactly a problem. Maybe the policy-makers should have listened?
They saw this particular housing mess coming as early as 2002. How come no one else did?
Lots of people saw the housing bubble coming, including me.
I generally agree with the Austrian school of thought on inflation, but I find many of these people to be as dogmatically rigid as Marxists. That's why they have been reduced to fringe status in the economic world.
Its not that the Austrians were wrong about this in the end. The problem is that when you have predicted apocalypse for a generation and prepare yourself for it, you miss tremendous opportunities in the mean time.
I agree. But it's not just about opportunities. Getting rich while the country is going down the drain isn't exactly my cup of tea. That helps no one but the ones getting rich, as we can plainly see.
Maybe the reason they're so rigid is because they keep getting proven right. At what point do you start advocating at least SOME of their main ideals in US monetary policy?
I know the answer. You DON'T, until you kick the Keynesians out. That's kind of hard when we're infested with them.
The Austrian aren't always right. If they were, then there would be no debate in economics.
Markets are not always efficient because efficient markets require perfect information and because people are human beings, not automotrans. Highly efficient markets assume that people are always maximizing utility. But that is not correct. The human beings assumed as homo economicus bear little resemblance to human beings studied by psychologists, in theory and in clinical trials.
I didn't claim they were ALWAYS right. I just said they keep being proven right. Meaning, a lot of the things they've been warning about are coming true. That's enough for me.
They are right a hell of a lot more often than the Keynesians.
Why can't the market determine interest rates through supply and demand of money? Supply and demand is the most basic tenet of economics.
Could it be that if central banks relinquished that power, then they would no longer be relevant, much less have power and control?
Here's what's going on, as I see it. Bankers have the power, because they control the money. The bankers have long since bought most of Congress, and congress prefers to vote on their careers, rather than the best interest of the nation. So we perpetually get bad policy, because no one is representing us. Politicians do not want to let the market correct, because of the pain that would accompany the correction, and it would probably lead to most of them being voted out.
This needs to stop. Someone has to have the balls to say enough is enough, and let the market correct the only way it can.
Do you really think we're going to recover from over 2 trillion dollars of debt and deficit being thrown at this mess? The wars are not going to stop, so there goes all that savings. The entitlements aren't going to stop, so there goes all that savings. The social spending isn't going to stop, so there goes all THAT savings.
Where are the fundamentals that would lead one to believe that there's any hope for the Dollar, much less the United States?
Lots of people saw the housing bubble coming, including me.
I generally agree with the Austrian school of thought on inflation, but I find many of these people to be as dogmatically rigid as Marxists. That's why they have been reduced to fringe status in the economic world.
Its not that the Austrians were wrong about this in the end. The problem is that when you have predicted apocalypse for a generation and prepare yourself for it, you miss tremendous opportunities in the mean time.
Maybe, if we would admit that the function of banks should be service, not profit and that that portion of economics would be best run by the government entirely. We should eliminate the private banks thru socialization, not eliminate the central bank. Then government could run them for the benefit of the country and not for the benefit of the bankers.
The banks should serve business not control it.
Lots of people saw the housing bubble coming, including me.
I generally agree with the Austrian school of thought on inflation, but I find many of these people to be as dogmatically rigid as Marxists. That's why they have been reduced to fringe status in the economic world.
They've been reduced to the fringes because their policy recommendations are not what governments and bankers want to hear.
Why can't the market determine interest rates through supply and demand of money? Supply and demand is the most basic tenet of economics.
The IMF put out a report saying that home prices were not in a bubble, at least not around the world, and that some countries, i.e. Canada, were cheap. I believe they said that the US was somewhat overvalued but not a bubble, though I can't remember exactly. I have it somewhere. I'll see if I can post it.
I track these things on a daily basis. I can assure you, two years ago, the IMF was gushing over how this was the greatest era of co-ordinated global growth in decades.
The market does determine the interest rate through the supply and demand for money. The operations of most central banks are through the short-term money markets. Long rates are set almost entirely through the market. The supply of money is a function are several factors, including the velocity of money, the introduction of new technology, trade, etc., that have little or nothing to do with government. In fact, the setting of interest rates is done both by the government and by the market.
If he were, he wouldn't have come out and claimed ignorance, and blamed deregulation.
The problem is that the Austrians saw it coming 25 years ago.