Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participant[quote=qwerty007]Come one, this has got to be more important than LCDs and hand guns.[/quote]
Nope. Well, yes on hand guns, but no on TVs. We know that most economists don’t have a clue. So listening to their consensus is amusing, and helpful in analyzing how markets might move next week, but doesn’t tell you much about what the economy or markets will be doing a year from now.
Participant[quote=qwerty007]Come one, this has got to be more important than LCDs and hand guns.[/quote]
Nope. Well, yes on hand guns, but no on TVs. We know that most economists don’t have a clue. So listening to their consensus is amusing, and helpful in analyzing how markets might move next week, but doesn’t tell you much about what the economy or markets will be doing a year from now.
Participant[quote=qwerty007]Come one, this has got to be more important than LCDs and hand guns.[/quote]
Nope. Well, yes on hand guns, but no on TVs. We know that most economists don’t have a clue. So listening to their consensus is amusing, and helpful in analyzing how markets might move next week, but doesn’t tell you much about what the economy or markets will be doing a year from now.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM in reply to: Obama wants to arrest the fall of home prices – Glenn Beck explains #358060ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM in reply to: Obama wants to arrest the fall of home prices – Glenn Beck explains #358362ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM in reply to: Obama wants to arrest the fall of home prices – Glenn Beck explains #358503ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM in reply to: Obama wants to arrest the fall of home prices – Glenn Beck explains #358536ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM in reply to: Obama wants to arrest the fall of home prices – Glenn Beck explains #358639ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
Participant[quote=AK]Hey, that foreign aid budget keeps Pakistan afloat … otherwise their nukes fall into the hands of even bigger nutjobs. They’re officially “too big to fail” now.
[/quote]I’d much prefer that we spent an extra $50 billion a year on foreign spending to get what we want instead of spending many times that to fight foreign wars.
Think what might happen if we told Pakistan that we would send them $5 billion in cold hard cash the day after they sent us clearly identifiable key body parts of Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawhari, but we would cut the rest of our 2009 aid to them by 25%. I bet all that “it’s so difficult for us to have any influence in these lawless provinces where they are hiding” stuff would mean nothing.
After that’s done, agree to pay them more cold hard cash for more actual and objectively measurable results on the ground. Like drops in the number of Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, and replacement of Wahhabi youth training camps with good quality real schools for the 21st century. Let them argue amongst themselves about how hard it is – just pay on a published formula based solely on objective results, not effort.
Foreign aid could be very powerful, if directed ruthlessly to what we really want done. Of course, I suspect that instead a lot of it will flow to support the “Middle East peace process”. A total waste of our time and money.
Participant[quote=AK]Hey, that foreign aid budget keeps Pakistan afloat … otherwise their nukes fall into the hands of even bigger nutjobs. They’re officially “too big to fail” now.
[/quote]I’d much prefer that we spent an extra $50 billion a year on foreign spending to get what we want instead of spending many times that to fight foreign wars.
Think what might happen if we told Pakistan that we would send them $5 billion in cold hard cash the day after they sent us clearly identifiable key body parts of Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawhari, but we would cut the rest of our 2009 aid to them by 25%. I bet all that “it’s so difficult for us to have any influence in these lawless provinces where they are hiding” stuff would mean nothing.
After that’s done, agree to pay them more cold hard cash for more actual and objectively measurable results on the ground. Like drops in the number of Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, and replacement of Wahhabi youth training camps with good quality real schools for the 21st century. Let them argue amongst themselves about how hard it is – just pay on a published formula based solely on objective results, not effort.
Foreign aid could be very powerful, if directed ruthlessly to what we really want done. Of course, I suspect that instead a lot of it will flow to support the “Middle East peace process”. A total waste of our time and money.
Participant[quote=AK]Hey, that foreign aid budget keeps Pakistan afloat … otherwise their nukes fall into the hands of even bigger nutjobs. They’re officially “too big to fail” now.
[/quote]I’d much prefer that we spent an extra $50 billion a year on foreign spending to get what we want instead of spending many times that to fight foreign wars.
Think what might happen if we told Pakistan that we would send them $5 billion in cold hard cash the day after they sent us clearly identifiable key body parts of Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawhari, but we would cut the rest of our 2009 aid to them by 25%. I bet all that “it’s so difficult for us to have any influence in these lawless provinces where they are hiding” stuff would mean nothing.
After that’s done, agree to pay them more cold hard cash for more actual and objectively measurable results on the ground. Like drops in the number of Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, and replacement of Wahhabi youth training camps with good quality real schools for the 21st century. Let them argue amongst themselves about how hard it is – just pay on a published formula based solely on objective results, not effort.
Foreign aid could be very powerful, if directed ruthlessly to what we really want done. Of course, I suspect that instead a lot of it will flow to support the “Middle East peace process”. A total waste of our time and money.
Participant[quote=AK]Hey, that foreign aid budget keeps Pakistan afloat … otherwise their nukes fall into the hands of even bigger nutjobs. They’re officially “too big to fail” now.
[/quote]I’d much prefer that we spent an extra $50 billion a year on foreign spending to get what we want instead of spending many times that to fight foreign wars.
Think what might happen if we told Pakistan that we would send them $5 billion in cold hard cash the day after they sent us clearly identifiable key body parts of Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawhari, but we would cut the rest of our 2009 aid to them by 25%. I bet all that “it’s so difficult for us to have any influence in these lawless provinces where they are hiding” stuff would mean nothing.
After that’s done, agree to pay them more cold hard cash for more actual and objectively measurable results on the ground. Like drops in the number of Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, and replacement of Wahhabi youth training camps with good quality real schools for the 21st century. Let them argue amongst themselves about how hard it is – just pay on a published formula based solely on objective results, not effort.
Foreign aid could be very powerful, if directed ruthlessly to what we really want done. Of course, I suspect that instead a lot of it will flow to support the “Middle East peace process”. A total waste of our time and money.
Participant[quote=AK]Hey, that foreign aid budget keeps Pakistan afloat … otherwise their nukes fall into the hands of even bigger nutjobs. They’re officially “too big to fail” now.
[/quote]I’d much prefer that we spent an extra $50 billion a year on foreign spending to get what we want instead of spending many times that to fight foreign wars.
Think what might happen if we told Pakistan that we would send them $5 billion in cold hard cash the day after they sent us clearly identifiable key body parts of Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawhari, but we would cut the rest of our 2009 aid to them by 25%. I bet all that “it’s so difficult for us to have any influence in these lawless provinces where they are hiding” stuff would mean nothing.
After that’s done, agree to pay them more cold hard cash for more actual and objectively measurable results on the ground. Like drops in the number of Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, and replacement of Wahhabi youth training camps with good quality real schools for the 21st century. Let them argue amongst themselves about how hard it is – just pay on a published formula based solely on objective results, not effort.
Foreign aid could be very powerful, if directed ruthlessly to what we really want done. Of course, I suspect that instead a lot of it will flow to support the “Middle East peace process”. A total waste of our time and money.
March 1, 2009 at 8:41 PM in reply to: CNBC Anchors Mortified that Ron Paul Was Allowed Air Time #358111Participant[quote=mike92104]It’s time to start a PAC to rid us of Frank, Dodd, and Schumer. Since we can’t vote them out, maybe we can help fund someone who can beat them.[/quote]
For every $1 that PAC receives, $1,000 would go to funds to re-elect these folks. People who believe in the kind of governmental financial probity that Ron Paul advocates are a (small) minority in the USA. Most people want a government that will bail them out when they are hurting, regardless of the bigger consequences.
-
AuthorPosts
