Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM in reply to: In the Beginning was the word, and the word is GOLD! #291636October 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM in reply to: In the Beginning was the word, and the word is GOLD! #291954
HereWeGo
ParticipantI’m not sure about gold in a deflationary/deleveraging environment where the jewelry market has collapsed by all reports.
October 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM in reply to: In the Beginning was the word, and the word is GOLD! #291987ParticipantI’m not sure about gold in a deflationary/deleveraging environment where the jewelry market has collapsed by all reports.
October 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM in reply to: In the Beginning was the word, and the word is GOLD! #291993ParticipantI’m not sure about gold in a deflationary/deleveraging environment where the jewelry market has collapsed by all reports.
October 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM in reply to: In the Beginning was the word, and the word is GOLD! #292031ParticipantI’m not sure about gold in a deflationary/deleveraging environment where the jewelry market has collapsed by all reports.
ParticipantI pretty much agree with all of kewp’s last post. Let me throw in a tangential point to consider, given the seeming abundance of all those bill eaters: Has the aggregate credit rating of US citizens and US businesses been irrevocably damaged, and if so, to what degree? What are the consequences of that drop in credit worthiness?
And maybe the second question: how much of the counterparty fear associated with the “credit crunch” is valid, and how much is invalid? There seems to be a conventional wisdom that the fear is mostly invalid, but I’m not sure that’s the case.
ParticipantI pretty much agree with all of kewp’s last post. Let me throw in a tangential point to consider, given the seeming abundance of all those bill eaters: Has the aggregate credit rating of US citizens and US businesses been irrevocably damaged, and if so, to what degree? What are the consequences of that drop in credit worthiness?
And maybe the second question: how much of the counterparty fear associated with the “credit crunch” is valid, and how much is invalid? There seems to be a conventional wisdom that the fear is mostly invalid, but I’m not sure that’s the case.
ParticipantI pretty much agree with all of kewp’s last post. Let me throw in a tangential point to consider, given the seeming abundance of all those bill eaters: Has the aggregate credit rating of US citizens and US businesses been irrevocably damaged, and if so, to what degree? What are the consequences of that drop in credit worthiness?
And maybe the second question: how much of the counterparty fear associated with the “credit crunch” is valid, and how much is invalid? There seems to be a conventional wisdom that the fear is mostly invalid, but I’m not sure that’s the case.
ParticipantI pretty much agree with all of kewp’s last post. Let me throw in a tangential point to consider, given the seeming abundance of all those bill eaters: Has the aggregate credit rating of US citizens and US businesses been irrevocably damaged, and if so, to what degree? What are the consequences of that drop in credit worthiness?
And maybe the second question: how much of the counterparty fear associated with the “credit crunch” is valid, and how much is invalid? There seems to be a conventional wisdom that the fear is mostly invalid, but I’m not sure that’s the case.
ParticipantI pretty much agree with all of kewp’s last post. Let me throw in a tangential point to consider, given the seeming abundance of all those bill eaters: Has the aggregate credit rating of US citizens and US businesses been irrevocably damaged, and if so, to what degree? What are the consequences of that drop in credit worthiness?
And maybe the second question: how much of the counterparty fear associated with the “credit crunch” is valid, and how much is invalid? There seems to be a conventional wisdom that the fear is mostly invalid, but I’m not sure that’s the case.
ParticipantWhile I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of an Obama presidency, I would certainly hope the Republicans would have at least 41 senators to provide some counterbalance.
The threat of trade protectionism is my biggest worry.
ParticipantWhile I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of an Obama presidency, I would certainly hope the Republicans would have at least 41 senators to provide some counterbalance.
The threat of trade protectionism is my biggest worry.
ParticipantWhile I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of an Obama presidency, I would certainly hope the Republicans would have at least 41 senators to provide some counterbalance.
The threat of trade protectionism is my biggest worry.
ParticipantWhile I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of an Obama presidency, I would certainly hope the Republicans would have at least 41 senators to provide some counterbalance.
The threat of trade protectionism is my biggest worry.
ParticipantWhile I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of an Obama presidency, I would certainly hope the Republicans would have at least 41 senators to provide some counterbalance.
The threat of trade protectionism is my biggest worry.
-
AuthorPosts