[sdduuuude]

Just keep drinkin’ the koolade, kewp. You’ll be happier that way.

[sdduuuude]

Just keep drinkin’ the koolade, kewp. You’ll be happier that way.

[sdduuuude]

Just keep drinkin’ the koolade, kewp. You’ll be happier that way.

[sdduuuude]

Just keep drinkin’ the koolade, kewp. You’ll be happier that way.

[sdduuuude]

Interesting article. Has to do with timing of the stock market and a second bottom in 2014. That matches up with my thoughts on a double-recession so I thought I’d post it here.

Tobin’s Q Ratio Says Equity Bottom Much, Much Lower

[sdduuuude]

Interesting article. Has to do with timing of the stock market and a second bottom in 2014. That matches up with my thoughts on a double-recession so I thought I’d post it here.

Tobin’s Q Ratio Says Equity Bottom Much, Much Lower

[sdduuuude]

Interesting article. Has to do with timing of the stock market and a second bottom in 2014. That matches up with my thoughts on a double-recession so I thought I’d post it here.

Tobin’s Q Ratio Says Equity Bottom Much, Much Lower

[sdduuuude]

Interesting article. Has to do with timing of the stock market and a second bottom in 2014. That matches up with my thoughts on a double-recession so I thought I’d post it here.

Tobin’s Q Ratio Says Equity Bottom Much, Much Lower

[sdduuuude]

Interesting article. Has to do with timing of the stock market and a second bottom in 2014. That matches up with my thoughts on a double-recession so I thought I’d post it here.

Tobin’s Q Ratio Says Equity Bottom Much, Much Lower

[sdduuuude]

[quote=kewp]Read a good summary of how this mess is entirely a product of the Federal Reserve and the excesses of the free market.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901%5B/quote%5D

Dude, how many times do I have to tell you – it isn’t a free market if the Federal Reserve is one of the causes.

Yes, it is a free-market response to a manipulated system, but the manipulations of the Fed take precedence. If the manipulation of the Fed wasn’t there, the free market would not have created this.

Maybe, given the fact that the Fed was handing out cheap cash, additional regulation was needed to keep the free market from burning through it so fast. Really, it just goes to show that when the gov (Fed in this case) starts manipulating things, shit happens that they didn’t count on in the first place. Then they say “we should have regulated more.” When in fact, they shouldn’t have started manipulating in the first place.

You have fallen into the classic trap. The Govt implements a plan and calls it “unregulated.” It isn’t really unregulated because the government made it and controls it. But they call it “deregulated” because it sounds good.

Then it gets completely screwed up and they say “deregulation is bad” and guys like you nod and recite “regulation bad.”

I guess that’s what happens when you get your economic news from Vanity Fair.

Seriously, I hear what you are saying – given the Fed was giving out cheap cash, maybe they should have put in more rules to to keep the market in check. That makes sense, but only if you believe that the Fed should be manipulating rates in the first place, which I surely don’t.

But, you can’t call it a free market or a failure of the free market. That just isn’t correct given the interest rate manipulation and government attempts to increase homeownership.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=kewp]Read a good summary of how this mess is entirely a product of the Federal Reserve and the excesses of the free market.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901%5B/quote%5D

Dude, how many times do I have to tell you – it isn’t a free market if the Federal Reserve is one of the causes.

Yes, it is a free-market response to a manipulated system, but the manipulations of the Fed take precedence. If the manipulation of the Fed wasn’t there, the free market would not have created this.

Maybe, given the fact that the Fed was handing out cheap cash, additional regulation was needed to keep the free market from burning through it so fast. Really, it just goes to show that when the gov (Fed in this case) starts manipulating things, shit happens that they didn’t count on in the first place. Then they say “we should have regulated more.” When in fact, they shouldn’t have started manipulating in the first place.

You have fallen into the classic trap. The Govt implements a plan and calls it “unregulated.” It isn’t really unregulated because the government made it and controls it. But they call it “deregulated” because it sounds good.

Then it gets completely screwed up and they say “deregulation is bad” and guys like you nod and recite “regulation bad.”

I guess that’s what happens when you get your economic news from Vanity Fair.

Seriously, I hear what you are saying – given the Fed was giving out cheap cash, maybe they should have put in more rules to to keep the market in check. That makes sense, but only if you believe that the Fed should be manipulating rates in the first place, which I surely don’t.

But, you can’t call it a free market or a failure of the free market. That just isn’t correct given the interest rate manipulation and government attempts to increase homeownership.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=kewp]Read a good summary of how this mess is entirely a product of the Federal Reserve and the excesses of the free market.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901%5B/quote%5D

Dude, how many times do I have to tell you – it isn’t a free market if the Federal Reserve is one of the causes.

Yes, it is a free-market response to a manipulated system, but the manipulations of the Fed take precedence. If the manipulation of the Fed wasn’t there, the free market would not have created this.

Maybe, given the fact that the Fed was handing out cheap cash, additional regulation was needed to keep the free market from burning through it so fast. Really, it just goes to show that when the gov (Fed in this case) starts manipulating things, shit happens that they didn’t count on in the first place. Then they say “we should have regulated more.” When in fact, they shouldn’t have started manipulating in the first place.

You have fallen into the classic trap. The Govt implements a plan and calls it “unregulated.” It isn’t really unregulated because the government made it and controls it. But they call it “deregulated” because it sounds good.

Then it gets completely screwed up and they say “deregulation is bad” and guys like you nod and recite “regulation bad.”

I guess that’s what happens when you get your economic news from Vanity Fair.

Seriously, I hear what you are saying – given the Fed was giving out cheap cash, maybe they should have put in more rules to to keep the market in check. That makes sense, but only if you believe that the Fed should be manipulating rates in the first place, which I surely don’t.

But, you can’t call it a free market or a failure of the free market. That just isn’t correct given the interest rate manipulation and government attempts to increase homeownership.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=kewp]Read a good summary of how this mess is entirely a product of the Federal Reserve and the excesses of the free market.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901%5B/quote%5D

Dude, how many times do I have to tell you – it isn’t a free market if the Federal Reserve is one of the causes.

Yes, it is a free-market response to a manipulated system, but the manipulations of the Fed take precedence. If the manipulation of the Fed wasn’t there, the free market would not have created this.

Maybe, given the fact that the Fed was handing out cheap cash, additional regulation was needed to keep the free market from burning through it so fast. Really, it just goes to show that when the gov (Fed in this case) starts manipulating things, shit happens that they didn’t count on in the first place. Then they say “we should have regulated more.” When in fact, they shouldn’t have started manipulating in the first place.

You have fallen into the classic trap. The Govt implements a plan and calls it “unregulated.” It isn’t really unregulated because the government made it and controls it. But they call it “deregulated” because it sounds good.

Then it gets completely screwed up and they say “deregulation is bad” and guys like you nod and recite “regulation bad.”

I guess that’s what happens when you get your economic news from Vanity Fair.

Seriously, I hear what you are saying – given the Fed was giving out cheap cash, maybe they should have put in more rules to to keep the market in check. That makes sense, but only if you believe that the Fed should be manipulating rates in the first place, which I surely don’t.

But, you can’t call it a free market or a failure of the free market. That just isn’t correct given the interest rate manipulation and government attempts to increase homeownership.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=kewp]Read a good summary of how this mess is entirely a product of the Federal Reserve and the excesses of the free market.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901%5B/quote%5D

Dude, how many times do I have to tell you – it isn’t a free market if the Federal Reserve is one of the causes.

Yes, it is a free-market response to a manipulated system, but the manipulations of the Fed take precedence. If the manipulation of the Fed wasn’t there, the free market would not have created this.

Maybe, given the fact that the Fed was handing out cheap cash, additional regulation was needed to keep the free market from burning through it so fast. Really, it just goes to show that when the gov (Fed in this case) starts manipulating things, shit happens that they didn’t count on in the first place. Then they say “we should have regulated more.” When in fact, they shouldn’t have started manipulating in the first place.

You have fallen into the classic trap. The Govt implements a plan and calls it “unregulated.” It isn’t really unregulated because the government made it and controls it. But they call it “deregulated” because it sounds good.

Then it gets completely screwed up and they say “deregulation is bad” and guys like you nod and recite “regulation bad.”

I guess that’s what happens when you get your economic news from Vanity Fair.

Seriously, I hear what you are saying – given the Fed was giving out cheap cash, maybe they should have put in more rules to to keep the market in check. That makes sense, but only if you believe that the Fed should be manipulating rates in the first place, which I surely don’t.

But, you can’t call it a free market or a failure of the free market. That just isn’t correct given the interest rate manipulation and government attempts to increase homeownership.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=TheBreeze]Of course, when you have crony capitalists like Chimpy and sduuuude in charge of government, you get ridiculous corporate welfare programs …
[/quote]

It is clear from this you have no clue about my position on the matter.

First of all, “Capitalist” and “Corporate Welfare” are 100% at odds with each other, in my view.

Second, if I’m anti-government, why the hell would I want to be “in charge of the government.”

The Soviet Union pre-1980 called. They want theBreeze back.

Moron.

[Author]

Posts