[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]….Read Bill O’Neils’ books for a careful historical study of how stock investments really pay-off. It has been my experience that his concepts apply to all investing activities.[/quote]

peterb, what is the basic idea in those books that leads you to say that there is no useful distinction between investing and speculating?

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]….Read Bill O’Neils’ books for a careful historical study of how stock investments really pay-off. It has been my experience that his concepts apply to all investing activities.[/quote]

peterb, what is the basic idea in those books that leads you to say that there is no useful distinction between investing and speculating?

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]….Read Bill O’Neils’ books for a careful historical study of how stock investments really pay-off. It has been my experience that his concepts apply to all investing activities.[/quote]

peterb, what is the basic idea in those books that leads you to say that there is no useful distinction between investing and speculating?

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]….Read Bill O’Neils’ books for a careful historical study of how stock investments really pay-off. It has been my experience that his concepts apply to all investing activities.[/quote]

peterb, what is the basic idea in those books that leads you to say that there is no useful distinction between investing and speculating?

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[patientrenter]

urbanrealtor, rich can present the case much better than I can, but the basic argument on why Krugman is wrong to dismiss inflation is that although some deflation is what’s happening now, the actions the govt is taking will lead to future inflation.

Recall home prices in 2000-2007? Based solely on what was actually happening at the time, you could justify an argument that home prices only go up, and any amount of lending against home prices was good. You had to go one layer deeper to diagnose and underlying over-extension of credit and an inevitable pullback.

In the same way, the govt’s vast expansion of credit and spending may look – and even actually be – just right to offset current contraction in spending elsewhere, but that ignores the simple fact that, once the govt starts programs that spend a lot of money, or that allow other people to easily spend a lot, then the govt cannot be stopped.

Let’s suppose you discovered that heroin could reduce the duration of a patient’s measles by 5 days. Prescribing it might seem good, if you allowed yourself to forget the addictive properties of the heroin.

It goes deeper than this. Inflation brings with it a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers. We all understand that this transfer could make life a lot easier for borrowers, and the suspicion is that this is a political goal of Krugman and many others. Inflation may not be an unlikely and incidental and undesired consequence of current govt easy money policy – it may be an unspoken goal.

[patientrenter]

Rt 66, do you think American borrowers will vote to pay off their personal debts in full, or vote to pay back less than they personally borrowed (and have the rest of the real burden of debt reduction covered by the general taxpayer and by domestic/foreign savers through inflation/currency devaluation)?

I have an idea myself, but I am curious what you think the voters at large will choose to do.

[patientrenter]

Rt 66, do you think American borrowers will vote to pay off their personal debts in full, or vote to pay back less than they personally borrowed (and have the rest of the real burden of debt reduction covered by the general taxpayer and by domestic/foreign savers through inflation/currency devaluation)?

I have an idea myself, but I am curious what you think the voters at large will choose to do.

[patientrenter]

Rt 66, do you think American borrowers will vote to pay off their personal debts in full, or vote to pay back less than they personally borrowed (and have the rest of the real burden of debt reduction covered by the general taxpayer and by domestic/foreign savers through inflation/currency devaluation)?

I have an idea myself, but I am curious what you think the voters at large will choose to do.

[patientrenter]

Rt 66, do you think American borrowers will vote to pay off their personal debts in full, or vote to pay back less than they personally borrowed (and have the rest of the real burden of debt reduction covered by the general taxpayer and by domestic/foreign savers through inflation/currency devaluation)?

I have an idea myself, but I am curious what you think the voters at large will choose to do.

[patientrenter]

Rt 66, do you think American borrowers will vote to pay off their personal debts in full, or vote to pay back less than they personally borrowed (and have the rest of the real burden of debt reduction covered by the general taxpayer and by domestic/foreign savers through inflation/currency devaluation)?

I have an idea myself, but I am curious what you think the voters at large will choose to do.

[patientrenter]

Rt 66, all you’re seeing on credit is some retrenchment toward historical norms. On housing, the biggest user of credit in our economy, the govt continues to allow vast amounts of truly incredibly easy and cheap money.

Check this story from the Housing Wire:

http://www.housingwire.com/2009/05/29/hud-details-use-of-tax-credit-toward-closing-costs/

Apparently 3.5% downpayments were too high. I think downpayments of less than 30% or so in an environment of severe price drops in RE are ludicrously small. And 20% is an historical minimum standard for most people.

[Author]

Posts