Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
underdose
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]
Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]
Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?
I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.
America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]
Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]
Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?
I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.
America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]
Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]
Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?
I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.
America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]
Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]
Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?
I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.
America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.
ParticipantWhy do you say no more than 30% for inflation? That is an extremely modest 3-4% per year, and the arguably grossly understated CPI was running 6% for much of the bubble. (Shadowstats put it closer to 14%.) But besides that, the bottom has nothing to do with matching reasonable prices. Usually the bottom overshoots the mean just because there is as much bearish momentum on the way down (and bad leverage wiping people out) as there was bullish momentum overshooting the mean on the way up.
I think the mainstream news will be about as accurate at predicting a bottom as they were at predicting a top. Seeing as they didn’t predict a top, we all know what their track record is. Anyone calling bottom now is being silly with foreclosures still on the rise and a slew of Alt-A resets coming over this year and next. Then, next year starts what I call the “retirement boom”. If 1945 was the start of the “baby boom”, 2010 is 65 years later, so look for even more asset liquidation. Also, any arguments concerning price to income while unemployment is soaring (therefore aggregate income is dropping) is also silly. msn money is good for a laugh, but little else…
ParticipantWhy do you say no more than 30% for inflation? That is an extremely modest 3-4% per year, and the arguably grossly understated CPI was running 6% for much of the bubble. (Shadowstats put it closer to 14%.) But besides that, the bottom has nothing to do with matching reasonable prices. Usually the bottom overshoots the mean just because there is as much bearish momentum on the way down (and bad leverage wiping people out) as there was bullish momentum overshooting the mean on the way up.
I think the mainstream news will be about as accurate at predicting a bottom as they were at predicting a top. Seeing as they didn’t predict a top, we all know what their track record is. Anyone calling bottom now is being silly with foreclosures still on the rise and a slew of Alt-A resets coming over this year and next. Then, next year starts what I call the “retirement boom”. If 1945 was the start of the “baby boom”, 2010 is 65 years later, so look for even more asset liquidation. Also, any arguments concerning price to income while unemployment is soaring (therefore aggregate income is dropping) is also silly. msn money is good for a laugh, but little else…
ParticipantWhy do you say no more than 30% for inflation? That is an extremely modest 3-4% per year, and the arguably grossly understated CPI was running 6% for much of the bubble. (Shadowstats put it closer to 14%.) But besides that, the bottom has nothing to do with matching reasonable prices. Usually the bottom overshoots the mean just because there is as much bearish momentum on the way down (and bad leverage wiping people out) as there was bullish momentum overshooting the mean on the way up.
I think the mainstream news will be about as accurate at predicting a bottom as they were at predicting a top. Seeing as they didn’t predict a top, we all know what their track record is. Anyone calling bottom now is being silly with foreclosures still on the rise and a slew of Alt-A resets coming over this year and next. Then, next year starts what I call the “retirement boom”. If 1945 was the start of the “baby boom”, 2010 is 65 years later, so look for even more asset liquidation. Also, any arguments concerning price to income while unemployment is soaring (therefore aggregate income is dropping) is also silly. msn money is good for a laugh, but little else…
ParticipantWhy do you say no more than 30% for inflation? That is an extremely modest 3-4% per year, and the arguably grossly understated CPI was running 6% for much of the bubble. (Shadowstats put it closer to 14%.) But besides that, the bottom has nothing to do with matching reasonable prices. Usually the bottom overshoots the mean just because there is as much bearish momentum on the way down (and bad leverage wiping people out) as there was bullish momentum overshooting the mean on the way up.
I think the mainstream news will be about as accurate at predicting a bottom as they were at predicting a top. Seeing as they didn’t predict a top, we all know what their track record is. Anyone calling bottom now is being silly with foreclosures still on the rise and a slew of Alt-A resets coming over this year and next. Then, next year starts what I call the “retirement boom”. If 1945 was the start of the “baby boom”, 2010 is 65 years later, so look for even more asset liquidation. Also, any arguments concerning price to income while unemployment is soaring (therefore aggregate income is dropping) is also silly. msn money is good for a laugh, but little else…
ParticipantWhy do you say no more than 30% for inflation? That is an extremely modest 3-4% per year, and the arguably grossly understated CPI was running 6% for much of the bubble. (Shadowstats put it closer to 14%.) But besides that, the bottom has nothing to do with matching reasonable prices. Usually the bottom overshoots the mean just because there is as much bearish momentum on the way down (and bad leverage wiping people out) as there was bullish momentum overshooting the mean on the way up.
I think the mainstream news will be about as accurate at predicting a bottom as they were at predicting a top. Seeing as they didn’t predict a top, we all know what their track record is. Anyone calling bottom now is being silly with foreclosures still on the rise and a slew of Alt-A resets coming over this year and next. Then, next year starts what I call the “retirement boom”. If 1945 was the start of the “baby boom”, 2010 is 65 years later, so look for even more asset liquidation. Also, any arguments concerning price to income while unemployment is soaring (therefore aggregate income is dropping) is also silly. msn money is good for a laugh, but little else…
Participant[quote=sd_bear]I think all the Obama bashing is hysterical. I don’t agree with the stimulus or the bailouts one bit, but I’m not fooling myself into thinking McCain wouldn’t do the exact same thing. It was Bush who pushed out the first 700 billion TARP and that 150 billion stimulus last year. As far as the economy goes both parties are completely in the dark and are taking the wrong actions. That’s why I base my vote generally on social issues.
[/quote]Agreed. I voted for Obama for social issues too. However that, and Bush/McCain’s guilt, do not absolve Obama for completely screwing the pooch. So far, to be fair, he has su-u-u-ucked. Less bad than the alternative, but still bad. Obama bashing isn’t hysterical at all. It’s very realistic. And it does not constitute a vote of confidence for the mainstream competition. It’s a vote of no-confidence for the lesser of two evils. That’s the very sad state we find ourselves in.
Participant[quote=sd_bear]I think all the Obama bashing is hysterical. I don’t agree with the stimulus or the bailouts one bit, but I’m not fooling myself into thinking McCain wouldn’t do the exact same thing. It was Bush who pushed out the first 700 billion TARP and that 150 billion stimulus last year. As far as the economy goes both parties are completely in the dark and are taking the wrong actions. That’s why I base my vote generally on social issues.
[/quote]Agreed. I voted for Obama for social issues too. However that, and Bush/McCain’s guilt, do not absolve Obama for completely screwing the pooch. So far, to be fair, he has su-u-u-ucked. Less bad than the alternative, but still bad. Obama bashing isn’t hysterical at all. It’s very realistic. And it does not constitute a vote of confidence for the mainstream competition. It’s a vote of no-confidence for the lesser of two evils. That’s the very sad state we find ourselves in.
Participant[quote=sd_bear]I think all the Obama bashing is hysterical. I don’t agree with the stimulus or the bailouts one bit, but I’m not fooling myself into thinking McCain wouldn’t do the exact same thing. It was Bush who pushed out the first 700 billion TARP and that 150 billion stimulus last year. As far as the economy goes both parties are completely in the dark and are taking the wrong actions. That’s why I base my vote generally on social issues.
[/quote]Agreed. I voted for Obama for social issues too. However that, and Bush/McCain’s guilt, do not absolve Obama for completely screwing the pooch. So far, to be fair, he has su-u-u-ucked. Less bad than the alternative, but still bad. Obama bashing isn’t hysterical at all. It’s very realistic. And it does not constitute a vote of confidence for the mainstream competition. It’s a vote of no-confidence for the lesser of two evils. That’s the very sad state we find ourselves in.
Participant[quote=sd_bear]I think all the Obama bashing is hysterical. I don’t agree with the stimulus or the bailouts one bit, but I’m not fooling myself into thinking McCain wouldn’t do the exact same thing. It was Bush who pushed out the first 700 billion TARP and that 150 billion stimulus last year. As far as the economy goes both parties are completely in the dark and are taking the wrong actions. That’s why I base my vote generally on social issues.
[/quote]Agreed. I voted for Obama for social issues too. However that, and Bush/McCain’s guilt, do not absolve Obama for completely screwing the pooch. So far, to be fair, he has su-u-u-ucked. Less bad than the alternative, but still bad. Obama bashing isn’t hysterical at all. It’s very realistic. And it does not constitute a vote of confidence for the mainstream competition. It’s a vote of no-confidence for the lesser of two evils. That’s the very sad state we find ourselves in.
Participant[quote=sd_bear]I think all the Obama bashing is hysterical. I don’t agree with the stimulus or the bailouts one bit, but I’m not fooling myself into thinking McCain wouldn’t do the exact same thing. It was Bush who pushed out the first 700 billion TARP and that 150 billion stimulus last year. As far as the economy goes both parties are completely in the dark and are taking the wrong actions. That’s why I base my vote generally on social issues.
[/quote]Agreed. I voted for Obama for social issues too. However that, and Bush/McCain’s guilt, do not absolve Obama for completely screwing the pooch. So far, to be fair, he has su-u-u-ucked. Less bad than the alternative, but still bad. Obama bashing isn’t hysterical at all. It’s very realistic. And it does not constitute a vote of confidence for the mainstream competition. It’s a vote of no-confidence for the lesser of two evils. That’s the very sad state we find ourselves in.
-
AuthorPosts