[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cashflow]I’ll move the discussion back to the initial commentby socratt.

Where to hold your cash….There’s been alot of talk on here about how Gold, although at a high, will still move higher and would be a good place to move some of your cash. Any ideas on what percentage of holdings to move to gold? Also, how risky would this move be?

There’s gotta be better ideas than stuffing your pillows with dollar bills (could end up being a paper filler as the printing presses keep going off).
[/quote]

Well you have a point. There will be an inflationary component. How that will interact with the deflationary component of reduced buying power is unclear. It is also unclear as to where commodities will be in terms of real wealth in the next couple of years.
Further, it is wise to remember that while the Fed and Paulson are essentially offering unlimited lines, it is not as though we are printing palettes of money (like Latin America in the 80’s, or Germany in the 30’s, or Zimbabwe now. Its unclear where the dollar will land relative to other forms of cash or commodity values. Considering that dollar-denominated items are the only wealth vehicle that are insured (though yes, in dollars) in a way I trust,they don’t seem like such a bad option.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cashflow]I’ll move the discussion back to the initial commentby socratt.

Where to hold your cash….There’s been alot of talk on here about how Gold, although at a high, will still move higher and would be a good place to move some of your cash. Any ideas on what percentage of holdings to move to gold? Also, how risky would this move be?

There’s gotta be better ideas than stuffing your pillows with dollar bills (could end up being a paper filler as the printing presses keep going off).
[/quote]

Well you have a point. There will be an inflationary component. How that will interact with the deflationary component of reduced buying power is unclear. It is also unclear as to where commodities will be in terms of real wealth in the next couple of years.
Further, it is wise to remember that while the Fed and Paulson are essentially offering unlimited lines, it is not as though we are printing palettes of money (like Latin America in the 80’s, or Germany in the 30’s, or Zimbabwe now. Its unclear where the dollar will land relative to other forms of cash or commodity values. Considering that dollar-denominated items are the only wealth vehicle that are insured (though yes, in dollars) in a way I trust,they don’t seem like such a bad option.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=equalizer]IF Sec Paulson & friends state that “In the interst of national security no dudes are allowed access to my files”, supremes would say we can not second judge, case closed.[/quote]

Yeah the problem with that assertion is that the final arbiter of whether that statute is reviewable is the court that would review it. Seriously, go back as far as Marbury vs. Madison. A major part of the SC’s mission has been asserting that they are relevant as interpreters on rules saying they can’t weigh in. EG: the elimination of habeus corpus in the statute addressing terror detainees. They have the right to interpret a law that says courts have no jurisdiction.

Further, they are literally infallible. The constitution says they are the final word on what is constitutional. By definition, they can never be constitutionally wrong. The constitution says so.

Unless the statutes are upheld explicitly, or the challenge to the stated rule is denied a hearing, Paulsons decisions can totally be reviewed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=equalizer]IF Sec Paulson & friends state that “In the interst of national security no dudes are allowed access to my files”, supremes would say we can not second judge, case closed.[/quote]

Yeah the problem with that assertion is that the final arbiter of whether that statute is reviewable is the court that would review it. Seriously, go back as far as Marbury vs. Madison. A major part of the SC’s mission has been asserting that they are relevant as interpreters on rules saying they can’t weigh in. EG: the elimination of habeus corpus in the statute addressing terror detainees. They have the right to interpret a law that says courts have no jurisdiction.

Further, they are literally infallible. The constitution says they are the final word on what is constitutional. By definition, they can never be constitutionally wrong. The constitution says so.

Unless the statutes are upheld explicitly, or the challenge to the stated rule is denied a hearing, Paulsons decisions can totally be reviewed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=equalizer]IF Sec Paulson & friends state that “In the interst of national security no dudes are allowed access to my files”, supremes would say we can not second judge, case closed.[/quote]

Yeah the problem with that assertion is that the final arbiter of whether that statute is reviewable is the court that would review it. Seriously, go back as far as Marbury vs. Madison. A major part of the SC’s mission has been asserting that they are relevant as interpreters on rules saying they can’t weigh in. EG: the elimination of habeus corpus in the statute addressing terror detainees. They have the right to interpret a law that says courts have no jurisdiction.

Further, they are literally infallible. The constitution says they are the final word on what is constitutional. By definition, they can never be constitutionally wrong. The constitution says so.

Unless the statutes are upheld explicitly, or the challenge to the stated rule is denied a hearing, Paulsons decisions can totally be reviewed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=equalizer]IF Sec Paulson & friends state that “In the interst of national security no dudes are allowed access to my files”, supremes would say we can not second judge, case closed.[/quote]

Yeah the problem with that assertion is that the final arbiter of whether that statute is reviewable is the court that would review it. Seriously, go back as far as Marbury vs. Madison. A major part of the SC’s mission has been asserting that they are relevant as interpreters on rules saying they can’t weigh in. EG: the elimination of habeus corpus in the statute addressing terror detainees. They have the right to interpret a law that says courts have no jurisdiction.

Further, they are literally infallible. The constitution says they are the final word on what is constitutional. By definition, they can never be constitutionally wrong. The constitution says so.

Unless the statutes are upheld explicitly, or the challenge to the stated rule is denied a hearing, Paulsons decisions can totally be reviewed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=equalizer]IF Sec Paulson & friends state that “In the interst of national security no dudes are allowed access to my files”, supremes would say we can not second judge, case closed.[/quote]

Yeah the problem with that assertion is that the final arbiter of whether that statute is reviewable is the court that would review it. Seriously, go back as far as Marbury vs. Madison. A major part of the SC’s mission has been asserting that they are relevant as interpreters on rules saying they can’t weigh in. EG: the elimination of habeus corpus in the statute addressing terror detainees. They have the right to interpret a law that says courts have no jurisdiction.

Further, they are literally infallible. The constitution says they are the final word on what is constitutional. By definition, they can never be constitutionally wrong. The constitution says so.

Unless the statutes are upheld explicitly, or the challenge to the stated rule is denied a hearing, Paulsons decisions can totally be reviewed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=kev374][quote=urbanrealtor]I disagree with you on 2 of your points.

1:
I think that bailing out poor or disadvantaged people is a lot of what governments do (and what they are supposed to do). While this is not the capitalist thing to do, it is the democracy-driven thing to do. Oftentimes democracy and capitalism are at odds. Its a big part of the reason that FDR (and Reagan) were re-elected.
[/quote]

You are joking right? Poor disadvantaged people who bought big mansions costing 10 times their income on liar loans, extracted home equity to live the high life, those that participated in rampant speculation and of course Wall St. who ran their companies to the ground while making huge commissions and bonuses…sure it’s the government’s job to bail these people out ..sarcasm off..
[/quote]
Poor decisions were made. Very stupidly in some cases. With guidance that was poor in others. But yeah, even though people put themselves in these positions, there are enough of them that they constitute a big percentage of voters. More importantly, there is an even bigger percentage who are in economic danger as peripheral effect (like most of the country in a truly widespread credit crunch). Any one wanting to get re-elected would be well advised to address the concerns of both groups. Wealth redistribution makes sense if enough people vote for it. But I do see your point about living foolishly. While I think of this strategically, my actual sympathy is often limited.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=kev374][quote=urbanrealtor]I disagree with you on 2 of your points.

1:
I think that bailing out poor or disadvantaged people is a lot of what governments do (and what they are supposed to do). While this is not the capitalist thing to do, it is the democracy-driven thing to do. Oftentimes democracy and capitalism are at odds. Its a big part of the reason that FDR (and Reagan) were re-elected.
[/quote]

You are joking right? Poor disadvantaged people who bought big mansions costing 10 times their income on liar loans, extracted home equity to live the high life, those that participated in rampant speculation and of course Wall St. who ran their companies to the ground while making huge commissions and bonuses…sure it’s the government’s job to bail these people out ..sarcasm off..
[/quote]
Poor decisions were made. Very stupidly in some cases. With guidance that was poor in others. But yeah, even though people put themselves in these positions, there are enough of them that they constitute a big percentage of voters. More importantly, there is an even bigger percentage who are in economic danger as peripheral effect (like most of the country in a truly widespread credit crunch). Any one wanting to get re-elected would be well advised to address the concerns of both groups. Wealth redistribution makes sense if enough people vote for it. But I do see your point about living foolishly. While I think of this strategically, my actual sympathy is often limited.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=kev374][quote=urbanrealtor]I disagree with you on 2 of your points.

1:
I think that bailing out poor or disadvantaged people is a lot of what governments do (and what they are supposed to do). While this is not the capitalist thing to do, it is the democracy-driven thing to do. Oftentimes democracy and capitalism are at odds. Its a big part of the reason that FDR (and Reagan) were re-elected.
[/quote]

You are joking right? Poor disadvantaged people who bought big mansions costing 10 times their income on liar loans, extracted home equity to live the high life, those that participated in rampant speculation and of course Wall St. who ran their companies to the ground while making huge commissions and bonuses…sure it’s the government’s job to bail these people out ..sarcasm off..
[/quote]
Poor decisions were made. Very stupidly in some cases. With guidance that was poor in others. But yeah, even though people put themselves in these positions, there are enough of them that they constitute a big percentage of voters. More importantly, there is an even bigger percentage who are in economic danger as peripheral effect (like most of the country in a truly widespread credit crunch). Any one wanting to get re-elected would be well advised to address the concerns of both groups. Wealth redistribution makes sense if enough people vote for it. But I do see your point about living foolishly. While I think of this strategically, my actual sympathy is often limited.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=kev374][quote=urbanrealtor]I disagree with you on 2 of your points.

1:
I think that bailing out poor or disadvantaged people is a lot of what governments do (and what they are supposed to do). While this is not the capitalist thing to do, it is the democracy-driven thing to do. Oftentimes democracy and capitalism are at odds. Its a big part of the reason that FDR (and Reagan) were re-elected.
[/quote]

You are joking right? Poor disadvantaged people who bought big mansions costing 10 times their income on liar loans, extracted home equity to live the high life, those that participated in rampant speculation and of course Wall St. who ran their companies to the ground while making huge commissions and bonuses…sure it’s the government’s job to bail these people out ..sarcasm off..
[/quote]
Poor decisions were made. Very stupidly in some cases. With guidance that was poor in others. But yeah, even though people put themselves in these positions, there are enough of them that they constitute a big percentage of voters. More importantly, there is an even bigger percentage who are in economic danger as peripheral effect (like most of the country in a truly widespread credit crunch). Any one wanting to get re-elected would be well advised to address the concerns of both groups. Wealth redistribution makes sense if enough people vote for it. But I do see your point about living foolishly. While I think of this strategically, my actual sympathy is often limited.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=kev374][quote=urbanrealtor]I disagree with you on 2 of your points.

1:
I think that bailing out poor or disadvantaged people is a lot of what governments do (and what they are supposed to do). While this is not the capitalist thing to do, it is the democracy-driven thing to do. Oftentimes democracy and capitalism are at odds. Its a big part of the reason that FDR (and Reagan) were re-elected.
[/quote]

You are joking right? Poor disadvantaged people who bought big mansions costing 10 times their income on liar loans, extracted home equity to live the high life, those that participated in rampant speculation and of course Wall St. who ran their companies to the ground while making huge commissions and bonuses…sure it’s the government’s job to bail these people out ..sarcasm off..
[/quote]
Poor decisions were made. Very stupidly in some cases. With guidance that was poor in others. But yeah, even though people put themselves in these positions, there are enough of them that they constitute a big percentage of voters. More importantly, there is an even bigger percentage who are in economic danger as peripheral effect (like most of the country in a truly widespread credit crunch). Any one wanting to get re-elected would be well advised to address the concerns of both groups. Wealth redistribution makes sense if enough people vote for it. But I do see your point about living foolishly. While I think of this strategically, my actual sympathy is often limited.

[urbanrealtor]

I disagree with you on 2 of your points.

1:
I think that bailing out poor or disadvantaged people is a lot of what governments do (and what they are supposed to do). While this is not the capitalist thing to do, it is the democracy-driven thing to do. Oftentimes democracy and capitalism are at odds. Its a big part of the reason that FDR (and Reagan) were re-elected.

2:
I think that the nature of this crisis is more akin to a nuclear attack than a Tsunami. We can’t avoid the pain by moving money to other vehicles (though there is some ability to minimize it). This is a global crisis and I really can’t think of an unaffected investment. Again, some may feel a touch less. It won’t wipe us out but it will change our lives.

[urbanrealtor]

I disagree with you on 2 of your points.

1:
I think that bailing out poor or disadvantaged people is a lot of what governments do (and what they are supposed to do). While this is not the capitalist thing to do, it is the democracy-driven thing to do. Oftentimes democracy and capitalism are at odds. Its a big part of the reason that FDR (and Reagan) were re-elected.

2:
I think that the nature of this crisis is more akin to a nuclear attack than a Tsunami. We can’t avoid the pain by moving money to other vehicles (though there is some ability to minimize it). This is a global crisis and I really can’t think of an unaffected investment. Again, some may feel a touch less. It won’t wipe us out but it will change our lives.

[urbanrealtor]

I disagree with you on 2 of your points.

1:
I think that bailing out poor or disadvantaged people is a lot of what governments do (and what they are supposed to do). While this is not the capitalist thing to do, it is the democracy-driven thing to do. Oftentimes democracy and capitalism are at odds. Its a big part of the reason that FDR (and Reagan) were re-elected.

2:
I think that the nature of this crisis is more akin to a nuclear attack than a Tsunami. We can’t avoid the pain by moving money to other vehicles (though there is some ability to minimize it). This is a global crisis and I really can’t think of an unaffected investment. Again, some may feel a touch less. It won’t wipe us out but it will change our lives.

[Author]

Posts