[sdduuuude]

Good point about politicians latching on to the idea. Barney Frank will probably claim to be the ghost writer for Ron Paul’s book.

—

RE: the bullet. I saw a remarkable documentary about a couple of guys who re-enacted the shooting with identical gun and period bullets. The bullet not only shattered on impact, but fragments created puncture wounds in similar places to those created by the “mystery” bullets. Mythbusting at its finest, I thought.

[sdduuuude]

Good point about politicians latching on to the idea. Barney Frank will probably claim to be the ghost writer for Ron Paul’s book.

—

RE: the bullet. I saw a remarkable documentary about a couple of guys who re-enacted the shooting with identical gun and period bullets. The bullet not only shattered on impact, but fragments created puncture wounds in similar places to those created by the “mystery” bullets. Mythbusting at its finest, I thought.

[sdduuuude]

Good point about politicians latching on to the idea. Barney Frank will probably claim to be the ghost writer for Ron Paul’s book.

—

RE: the bullet. I saw a remarkable documentary about a couple of guys who re-enacted the shooting with identical gun and period bullets. The bullet not only shattered on impact, but fragments created puncture wounds in similar places to those created by the “mystery” bullets. Mythbusting at its finest, I thought.

[sdduuuude]

Good point about politicians latching on to the idea. Barney Frank will probably claim to be the ghost writer for Ron Paul’s book.

—

RE: the bullet. I saw a remarkable documentary about a couple of guys who re-enacted the shooting with identical gun and period bullets. The bullet not only shattered on impact, but fragments created puncture wounds in similar places to those created by the “mystery” bullets. Mythbusting at its finest, I thought.

[sdduuuude]

A related chart from Mish:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/following-footsteps-of-japan.html

The flip side:

http://www.pcasd.com/the_us_government_will_not_choose_deflation

http://www.pcasd.com/us_not_going_down_japans_road

[sdduuuude]

A related chart from Mish:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/following-footsteps-of-japan.html

The flip side:

http://www.pcasd.com/the_us_government_will_not_choose_deflation

http://www.pcasd.com/us_not_going_down_japans_road

[sdduuuude]

A related chart from Mish:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/following-footsteps-of-japan.html

The flip side:

http://www.pcasd.com/the_us_government_will_not_choose_deflation

http://www.pcasd.com/us_not_going_down_japans_road

[sdduuuude]

A related chart from Mish:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/following-footsteps-of-japan.html

The flip side:

http://www.pcasd.com/the_us_government_will_not_choose_deflation

http://www.pcasd.com/us_not_going_down_japans_road

[sdduuuude]

A related chart from Mish:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/following-footsteps-of-japan.html

The flip side:

http://www.pcasd.com/the_us_government_will_not_choose_deflation

http://www.pcasd.com/us_not_going_down_japans_road

[sdduuuude]

[quote=tapdoubt]John Maynard Keynes rendered this self-referentiality nicely when he compared the stock market to a silly competition in which the participants have to pick several pretty girls from a hundred photographs, the winner being the one who chooses girls closest to the average opinion: “It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest.[/quote]

I hate this analogy.

This is really only true in the short term. Keep in mind, you and the entire market can change your minds at any time. Also, beauty is subjective, but profitability is completely objective. Eventually, the fundamentals exert their effect on the market and those who chose the most profitable early will win.

In the long run, it isn’t about guessing an opinion of an opinon, but guessing who will be the most profitable.

Also, some companies will be profitable at different times, while the beauty of a particular girl remains constant.

The market presents an ever-changing objective value. Pretty girls present a constant value that is viewed subjectively.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=tapdoubt]John Maynard Keynes rendered this self-referentiality nicely when he compared the stock market to a silly competition in which the participants have to pick several pretty girls from a hundred photographs, the winner being the one who chooses girls closest to the average opinion: “It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest.[/quote]

I hate this analogy.

This is really only true in the short term. Keep in mind, you and the entire market can change your minds at any time. Also, beauty is subjective, but profitability is completely objective. Eventually, the fundamentals exert their effect on the market and those who chose the most profitable early will win.

In the long run, it isn’t about guessing an opinion of an opinon, but guessing who will be the most profitable.

Also, some companies will be profitable at different times, while the beauty of a particular girl remains constant.

The market presents an ever-changing objective value. Pretty girls present a constant value that is viewed subjectively.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=tapdoubt]John Maynard Keynes rendered this self-referentiality nicely when he compared the stock market to a silly competition in which the participants have to pick several pretty girls from a hundred photographs, the winner being the one who chooses girls closest to the average opinion: “It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest.[/quote]

I hate this analogy.

This is really only true in the short term. Keep in mind, you and the entire market can change your minds at any time. Also, beauty is subjective, but profitability is completely objective. Eventually, the fundamentals exert their effect on the market and those who chose the most profitable early will win.

In the long run, it isn’t about guessing an opinion of an opinon, but guessing who will be the most profitable.

Also, some companies will be profitable at different times, while the beauty of a particular girl remains constant.

The market presents an ever-changing objective value. Pretty girls present a constant value that is viewed subjectively.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=tapdoubt]John Maynard Keynes rendered this self-referentiality nicely when he compared the stock market to a silly competition in which the participants have to pick several pretty girls from a hundred photographs, the winner being the one who chooses girls closest to the average opinion: “It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest.[/quote]

I hate this analogy.

This is really only true in the short term. Keep in mind, you and the entire market can change your minds at any time. Also, beauty is subjective, but profitability is completely objective. Eventually, the fundamentals exert their effect on the market and those who chose the most profitable early will win.

In the long run, it isn’t about guessing an opinion of an opinon, but guessing who will be the most profitable.

Also, some companies will be profitable at different times, while the beauty of a particular girl remains constant.

The market presents an ever-changing objective value. Pretty girls present a constant value that is viewed subjectively.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=tapdoubt]John Maynard Keynes rendered this self-referentiality nicely when he compared the stock market to a silly competition in which the participants have to pick several pretty girls from a hundred photographs, the winner being the one who chooses girls closest to the average opinion: “It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest.[/quote]

I hate this analogy.

This is really only true in the short term. Keep in mind, you and the entire market can change your minds at any time. Also, beauty is subjective, but profitability is completely objective. Eventually, the fundamentals exert their effect on the market and those who chose the most profitable early will win.

In the long run, it isn’t about guessing an opinion of an opinon, but guessing who will be the most profitable.

Also, some companies will be profitable at different times, while the beauty of a particular girl remains constant.

The market presents an ever-changing objective value. Pretty girls present a constant value that is viewed subjectively.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=tapdoubt]
This unexpected overlapping of the left’s views with those of conservative Republicans should give us pause. What the two perspectives share is their contempt for the big speculators and corporate managers who profit from risky decisions but are protected from failure by “golden parachutes.”
[/quote]

Yes, both have contempt, yet the bailouts continue. Do they really have contempt, or are they just saying they have contempt while funnelling money to the bankers ?

This is not a failure of either political ideology. It is a failure of Congress to realize that the Reserve Banking system is not good for either ideology.

[quote=tapdoubt]
Is the bailout then really a “socialist” measure? If it is, it takes a very peculiar form: a “socialist” measure whose primary aim is to help not the poor but the rich, not those who borrow but those who lend. In a supreme irony, “socializing” the banking system is acceptable when it serves to save capitalism. Socialism is bad—except when it serves to stabilize capitalism.
[/quote]

The bailouts aren’t saving capitalism at all. The bailouts are saving a small group of people. It just shows that Repubs have simply jumped the shark. They aren’t capitalists any more, they are simply crooks, funnelling money to the bankers in the name of saving capitalism.

The bailouts are ruining capitalism by keeping bad decision makers solvent. True capitalism would allow these screw-ups to collapse and disappear, to be replaced by something else more efficient. In short, the politicians are lying to us or simply don’t understand.

And somehow, the Dems have been convinced that saving the banks is necessary to help regular every day Americans.

The stupidity of socializing the system to save capitalism is simply a logical failure. Never should have happened.

[quote=tapdoubt]
… one just has to take one side or the other, politically.

There is a real possibility that the primary victim of the ongoing crisis will not be capitalism but the left itself, insofar as its inability to offer a viable global alternative was again made visible to everyone. It was the left that was effectively caught out, as if recent events were staged with a calculated risk in order to demonstrate that, even at a time of shattering crisis, there is no viable alternative to capitalism. [/quote]

You don’t have to take one side, politically because both sides supported the bailouts.

Certainly, capitalism, needs to survive, but there are no capitalists left. The Repubs are crooks and the Dems want to socialize the system but realize that socializing the system helps the bankers.

[Author]

Posts