Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Ron Paul Questions and Concerns Well
- This topic has 266 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 28, 2011 at 1:43 PM #731506October 28, 2011 at 1:46 PM #731507
markmax33
Guest[quote=walterwhite]I prefer owls to eagles.
Isn’t it a tad late in the game to start acting responsibly with our currency?[/quote]
If you care about your children you better care about the currency. If you are a selfish old man the currency might last 20 years. The average fiat currency lasts 27 years and ours was born when Nixon delinked the dollar from the gold standard in 1971. It seems like we are a little overdue. It can be saved though. We would need to slash GOV spending and then start paying off the debt. Spending 1.5T overseas last year didn’t help!
October 28, 2011 at 1:51 PM #731508GuestSK in CV,
You should watch the 2010 documentary of the year – Inside Job – narrated by Matt Damon. You can easily see how the banks held a gun to Congress’s head and forced them to provide a bailout. There’s a good 20 references in there for you sir.October 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM #731509SK in CV
Participant[quote=markmax33]SK in CV,
Did you predict the housing bubble as a professional economist? I predicted it in 2003 for my thesis for my MBA class before I ever found this blog. Ron Paul predicted it and there are several videos to prove it. I think all economists should be immediately fired if they can’t predict a bubble forming in the economy because they are really easy to pick out. Look and see where the FED and the GOV are intervening in ANY market and there will be your next bubble. Again did you predict the housing bubble? Did you write any papers on it? Please share.[/quote]Yes, i did predict it. I sold my house in 2006, which I’d owned since 1993. It was a little early, it went up in value by another 10% before it fell by about 40%. My buyers got foreclosed on. I sold for $850K, it recently sold for $525K. I’ve rented since then.
You were a bit early in 2003, but good work.
October 28, 2011 at 2:04 PM #731510Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]SK in CV,
Did you predict the housing bubble as a professional economist? I predicted it in 2003 for my thesis for my MBA class before I ever found this blog. Ron Paul predicted it and there are several videos to prove it. I think all economists should be immediately fired if they can’t predict a bubble forming in the economy because they are really easy to pick out. Look and see where the FED and the GOV are intervening in ANY market and there will be your next bubble. Again did you predict the housing bubble? Did you write any papers on it? Please share.[/quote]Yes, i did predict it. I sold my house in 2006, which I’d owned since 1993. It was a little early, it went up in value by another 10% before it fell by about 40%. My buyers got foreclosed on. I sold for $850K, it recently sold for $525K. I’ve rented since then.
You were a bit early in 2003, but good work.[/quote]
SK in CV,
Obviously we are below 2003 inflation adjusted values so I was dead on at the time. If you predicted the housing bubble so late, maybe you are just behind the curve on the $14.8T on federal debt and how it will destroy our society and way of life if we don’t get it under control. I suggest you research it and then you will be motivated to correct the federal reserve system which distorts our markets.October 28, 2011 at 2:05 PM #731511Participant[quote=markmax33]SK in CV,
The grandparents and parents anology is far from anecedotal. It has happened to EVERY SINGLE family in the country. You seem to really not understand the term annecdotal?[/quote]Anecdotal Evidence:
Definition:
non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts.
Every single family? Really? Not a single one escaped?
(And I’m quite sure that wasn’t an analogy. A nice example, yes. But not an analogy.
analogy
noun, plural -gies.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. )October 28, 2011 at 2:10 PM #731512Participant[quote=markmax33]
SK in CV,
Obviously we are below 2003 inflation adjusted values so I was dead on at the time. If you predicted the housing bubble so late, maybe you are just behind the curve on the $14.8T on federal debt and how it will destroy our society and way of life if we don’t get it under control. I suggest you research it and then you will be motivated to correct the federal reserve system which distorts our markets.[/quote]Some markets are below 2003 inflation adjusted values, some aren’t. But no, I wasn’t behind the curve. If I had sold when you predicted the bubble, I would have been out about $450,000. I was early by about a year in predicting the end of the bubble.
And Paul was right on his prediction of the bubble. He was dead wrong on the cause.
By the way, have you ever reviewed the Fed audit? Interesting as always.
October 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM #731516aldante
Participant[And Paul was right on his prediction of the bubble. He was dead wrong on the cause.
SK please explain this statement? How was RP dead wrong?
October 28, 2011 at 3:46 PM #731521Participant[quote=aldante][And Paul was right on his prediction of the bubble. He was dead wrong on the cause.
SK please explain this statement? How was RP dead wrong?[/quote]
He predicted that it would all be related to the GSE’s. The GSE’s were a small player in the creation of the bubble. Their market share shrank, and their net portfolio size was stagnant during the bubble years. It was primarily non-GSE’s and non-federally chartered banks that fueled the bubble. (What fueled the lenders is a different piece of the puzzle.)
October 28, 2011 at 6:00 PM #731526Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]SK in CV,
The grandparents and parents anology is far from anecedotal. It has happened to EVERY SINGLE family in the country. You seem to really not understand the term annecdotal?[/quote]Anecdotal Evidence:
Definition:
non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts.
Every single family? Really? Not a single one escaped?
(And I’m quite sure that wasn’t an analogy. A nice example, yes. But not an analogy.
analogy
noun, plural -gies.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. )[/quote]Here is why it’s not anecdotal:
A family with a single income teacher could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income engineer could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income fire fighter could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income architect could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income police man could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
Now you couldn’t imagine doing that with any of those professions, THUS it is not anecdotal it is a rule. If it were one profession or a couple I would agree. It is every profession now. Only the top 3% of income earners can get away with this now when it used to be the top 50%.
October 28, 2011 at 6:07 PM #731527scaredyclassic
ParticipantA cheap dude with low college expectation can raise two measly kids n send em to college.
But the real issue is why does Ron Paul believe he should be entitled to 2 first names while virtually all of us have to make fo with just one?
October 28, 2011 at 6:12 PM #731529ParticipantWhy would the nation be better off by actually paying it’s incomprehensible debt rather than inflating it away?
October 28, 2011 at 6:15 PM #731530Participant[quote=markmax33]
Here is why it’s not anecdotal:A family with a single income teacher could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income engineer could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income fire fighter could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income architect could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
A family with a single income police man could raise 2 children in the 1950s and them to college.
Now you couldn’t imagine doing that with any of those professions, THUS it is not anecdotal it is a rule. If it were one profession or a couple I would agree. It is every profession now. Only the top 3% of income earners can get away with this now when it used to be the top 50%.[/quote]
It’s still an anecdote. But thanks for your list.
October 28, 2011 at 6:23 PM #731531Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=aldante][And Paul was right on his prediction of the bubble. He was dead wrong on the cause.
SK please explain this statement? How was RP dead wrong?[/quote]
He predicted that it would all be related to the GSE’s. The GSE’s were a small player in the creation of the bubble. Their market share shrank, and their net portfolio size was stagnant during the bubble years. It was primarily non-GSE’s and non-federally chartered banks that fueled the bubble. (What fueled the lenders is a different piece of the puzzle.)[/quote]
SK you are obviously wrong. Here is the man in his own words:
He very clearly explains the Federal Reserve’s position and the GSEs. How you can say the GSE’s had little or nothing to do with the housing bubble when 90% of the mortgages currently written are owned by fannie mae and freddie mac? You sir have lost all credibility. You are no economist.
October 28, 2011 at 6:28 PM #731532Guest[quote=walterwhite]Why would the nation be better off by actually paying it’s incomprehensible debt rather than inflating it away?[/quote]
You can not inflate your way out of a bubble. It leads to a larger bubble in another sector and then the currency defaults every time. You can see this trend hundreds of times over history, from the Roman Empire all the way to the Russian rubble. We defeated Russia in the cold war economically because we had a more efficient system and made them spend all their money on defense until the currency busted. It happens EVERY time. Gold is always the default currency after the fiat currencies fail because there is a finite amount and it’s perceived value is always high.
The federal reserve lowered interest rates after the tech bubble and created a larger bubble in the housing market by artificially fixing the market. If they had instead let the market fail completely, they would have never had the housing bubble. The FED distorts markets and screws all of us.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.