Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
ParticipantIt’s good to hear what Larry Yun thinks about this limit on mortgage interest deductions. Larry and the NAR have a lot of credibility. /snark off
ParticipantIt’s good to hear what Larry Yun thinks about this limit on mortgage interest deductions. Larry and the NAR have a lot of credibility. /snark off
ParticipantIt’s good to hear what Larry Yun thinks about this limit on mortgage interest deductions. Larry and the NAR have a lot of credibility. /snark off
Participant[quote=underdose][quote=Casca]Bernanke isn’t stupid. He’s obviously trying to land this turkey in the river, instead of the middle of Wall St. A good man in a bad cause.
[/quote]Really? Have you read his 2002 speech? He is either grossly misguided (ie, stupid, incompetent) or downright malevolent (ie, evil). A good man would either not have taken the job knowing full well the turkey can’t be landed in the river, or would have more honest candor about what truly needs to be done…. [/quote]
BB is clever. I agree that he is not a particularly good man. He convinces himself that he shouldn’t cater too much to concerns over moral hazard. That’s just a fancy way to say that he believes it’s OK to support and encourage immoral behavior. And he has a lot of company. I would guess that at least 2/3 of the population is rooting for immoral behavior that will personally enrich themselves, by levitating their house prices some more.
Participant[quote=underdose][quote=Casca]Bernanke isn’t stupid. He’s obviously trying to land this turkey in the river, instead of the middle of Wall St. A good man in a bad cause.
[/quote]Really? Have you read his 2002 speech? He is either grossly misguided (ie, stupid, incompetent) or downright malevolent (ie, evil). A good man would either not have taken the job knowing full well the turkey can’t be landed in the river, or would have more honest candor about what truly needs to be done…. [/quote]
BB is clever. I agree that he is not a particularly good man. He convinces himself that he shouldn’t cater too much to concerns over moral hazard. That’s just a fancy way to say that he believes it’s OK to support and encourage immoral behavior. And he has a lot of company. I would guess that at least 2/3 of the population is rooting for immoral behavior that will personally enrich themselves, by levitating their house prices some more.
Participant[quote=underdose][quote=Casca]Bernanke isn’t stupid. He’s obviously trying to land this turkey in the river, instead of the middle of Wall St. A good man in a bad cause.
[/quote]Really? Have you read his 2002 speech? He is either grossly misguided (ie, stupid, incompetent) or downright malevolent (ie, evil). A good man would either not have taken the job knowing full well the turkey can’t be landed in the river, or would have more honest candor about what truly needs to be done…. [/quote]
BB is clever. I agree that he is not a particularly good man. He convinces himself that he shouldn’t cater too much to concerns over moral hazard. That’s just a fancy way to say that he believes it’s OK to support and encourage immoral behavior. And he has a lot of company. I would guess that at least 2/3 of the population is rooting for immoral behavior that will personally enrich themselves, by levitating their house prices some more.
Participant[quote=underdose][quote=Casca]Bernanke isn’t stupid. He’s obviously trying to land this turkey in the river, instead of the middle of Wall St. A good man in a bad cause.
[/quote]Really? Have you read his 2002 speech? He is either grossly misguided (ie, stupid, incompetent) or downright malevolent (ie, evil). A good man would either not have taken the job knowing full well the turkey can’t be landed in the river, or would have more honest candor about what truly needs to be done…. [/quote]
BB is clever. I agree that he is not a particularly good man. He convinces himself that he shouldn’t cater too much to concerns over moral hazard. That’s just a fancy way to say that he believes it’s OK to support and encourage immoral behavior. And he has a lot of company. I would guess that at least 2/3 of the population is rooting for immoral behavior that will personally enrich themselves, by levitating their house prices some more.
Participant[quote=underdose][quote=Casca]Bernanke isn’t stupid. He’s obviously trying to land this turkey in the river, instead of the middle of Wall St. A good man in a bad cause.
[/quote]Really? Have you read his 2002 speech? He is either grossly misguided (ie, stupid, incompetent) or downright malevolent (ie, evil). A good man would either not have taken the job knowing full well the turkey can’t be landed in the river, or would have more honest candor about what truly needs to be done…. [/quote]
BB is clever. I agree that he is not a particularly good man. He convinces himself that he shouldn’t cater too much to concerns over moral hazard. That’s just a fancy way to say that he believes it’s OK to support and encourage immoral behavior. And he has a lot of company. I would guess that at least 2/3 of the population is rooting for immoral behavior that will personally enrich themselves, by levitating their house prices some more.
Participant[quote=cr]…Pot is a drug, like heroin, coke, etc. You legalize one, where does it stop? ….how do you justify legalizing this, but not that, and minimize the risk of raising a generation of tweakers?…[/quote]
I think you found your answer about drawing lines. Each drug would be studied for its economic effects, primarily on the non-users. Those that cause high costs would continue to be limited. But the degree of the limits and the particular form of the limits would be designed solely to minimize the total costs to the rest of society. Methamphetamines would be hit hard, perhaps with the full criminalization we have today, whilst pot would be taxed like tobacco and sold in the same stores.
Participant[quote=cr]…Pot is a drug, like heroin, coke, etc. You legalize one, where does it stop? ….how do you justify legalizing this, but not that, and minimize the risk of raising a generation of tweakers?…[/quote]
I think you found your answer about drawing lines. Each drug would be studied for its economic effects, primarily on the non-users. Those that cause high costs would continue to be limited. But the degree of the limits and the particular form of the limits would be designed solely to minimize the total costs to the rest of society. Methamphetamines would be hit hard, perhaps with the full criminalization we have today, whilst pot would be taxed like tobacco and sold in the same stores.
Participant[quote=cr]…Pot is a drug, like heroin, coke, etc. You legalize one, where does it stop? ….how do you justify legalizing this, but not that, and minimize the risk of raising a generation of tweakers?…[/quote]
I think you found your answer about drawing lines. Each drug would be studied for its economic effects, primarily on the non-users. Those that cause high costs would continue to be limited. But the degree of the limits and the particular form of the limits would be designed solely to minimize the total costs to the rest of society. Methamphetamines would be hit hard, perhaps with the full criminalization we have today, whilst pot would be taxed like tobacco and sold in the same stores.
Participant[quote=cr]…Pot is a drug, like heroin, coke, etc. You legalize one, where does it stop? ….how do you justify legalizing this, but not that, and minimize the risk of raising a generation of tweakers?…[/quote]
I think you found your answer about drawing lines. Each drug would be studied for its economic effects, primarily on the non-users. Those that cause high costs would continue to be limited. But the degree of the limits and the particular form of the limits would be designed solely to minimize the total costs to the rest of society. Methamphetamines would be hit hard, perhaps with the full criminalization we have today, whilst pot would be taxed like tobacco and sold in the same stores.
Participant[quote=cr]…Pot is a drug, like heroin, coke, etc. You legalize one, where does it stop? ….how do you justify legalizing this, but not that, and minimize the risk of raising a generation of tweakers?…[/quote]
I think you found your answer about drawing lines. Each drug would be studied for its economic effects, primarily on the non-users. Those that cause high costs would continue to be limited. But the degree of the limits and the particular form of the limits would be designed solely to minimize the total costs to the rest of society. Methamphetamines would be hit hard, perhaps with the full criminalization we have today, whilst pot would be taxed like tobacco and sold in the same stores.
ParticipantI have to agree, macromaniac. But there is still a strong belief amongst our leaders that if we just got some more ‘confidence’ we’d all jump off the cliff of personal irresponsibility per their desires. And they will be painting a tempting picture of the bottom of the cliff for as long as they can get away with it.
-
AuthorPosts
