Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
ParticipantRegardless of whether you are in favor or opposed to the library, you should take a hard look at the way this is being spun. Contrast this article to an article the UT ran about building the chargers a new stadium
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/19/chargers-release-downtown-stadium-plan/
Where in the stadium article are the complaints about how the city is going bankrupt and can’t afford this? Notice that the stadium would put the city on the hook for 500 million whereas the library is significantly less.
Notice that this library article casually references the charger’s ticket deal, as if there is some link or similarity between this library plan and the charger’s ticket deal, but that article for the stadium doesn’t mention the charger’s ticket deal at all.
Note also that in this article (and in others I’ve seen in the UT) that they stress the concept that if the donors pull out the city will be on the hook, but none of the stadium articles ever bring up the same issue, if the charger’s renig on their deal the city will be screwed.
I find it really amazing that this kind of spun story is the norm for what passes as journalism in this day and age. Is it any wonder people are abandoning newspapers and going with bloggers?
ParticipantRegardless of whether you are in favor or opposed to the library, you should take a hard look at the way this is being spun. Contrast this article to an article the UT ran about building the chargers a new stadium
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/19/chargers-release-downtown-stadium-plan/
Where in the stadium article are the complaints about how the city is going bankrupt and can’t afford this? Notice that the stadium would put the city on the hook for 500 million whereas the library is significantly less.
Notice that this library article casually references the charger’s ticket deal, as if there is some link or similarity between this library plan and the charger’s ticket deal, but that article for the stadium doesn’t mention the charger’s ticket deal at all.
Note also that in this article (and in others I’ve seen in the UT) that they stress the concept that if the donors pull out the city will be on the hook, but none of the stadium articles ever bring up the same issue, if the charger’s renig on their deal the city will be screwed.
I find it really amazing that this kind of spun story is the norm for what passes as journalism in this day and age. Is it any wonder people are abandoning newspapers and going with bloggers?
Participant[quote=zk]Here are two of our most prominent economic minds (Krugman & Greenspan) saying, at the same time, pretty much the exact opposite thing[/quote]
If you mean prominent as wise, informed and admirable, I would have to disagree. If you mean prominent as in extremely successful ideologically bound self promoters popular in the mainstream media, then I agree.
On the one hand we have Greenspan, bound to the ideology that free markets are self correcting and will automatically deliver the best result, on the other hand we have Krugman, bound to the ideology that it’s the government’s job to constantly fine tune the markets and keep them from their own self destruction.
Personally, I find both of them lacking in practical solutions, only ideological dogma.
Participant[quote=zk]Here are two of our most prominent economic minds (Krugman & Greenspan) saying, at the same time, pretty much the exact opposite thing[/quote]
If you mean prominent as wise, informed and admirable, I would have to disagree. If you mean prominent as in extremely successful ideologically bound self promoters popular in the mainstream media, then I agree.
On the one hand we have Greenspan, bound to the ideology that free markets are self correcting and will automatically deliver the best result, on the other hand we have Krugman, bound to the ideology that it’s the government’s job to constantly fine tune the markets and keep them from their own self destruction.
Personally, I find both of them lacking in practical solutions, only ideological dogma.
Participant[quote=zk]Here are two of our most prominent economic minds (Krugman & Greenspan) saying, at the same time, pretty much the exact opposite thing[/quote]
If you mean prominent as wise, informed and admirable, I would have to disagree. If you mean prominent as in extremely successful ideologically bound self promoters popular in the mainstream media, then I agree.
On the one hand we have Greenspan, bound to the ideology that free markets are self correcting and will automatically deliver the best result, on the other hand we have Krugman, bound to the ideology that it’s the government’s job to constantly fine tune the markets and keep them from their own self destruction.
Personally, I find both of them lacking in practical solutions, only ideological dogma.
Participant[quote=zk]Here are two of our most prominent economic minds (Krugman & Greenspan) saying, at the same time, pretty much the exact opposite thing[/quote]
If you mean prominent as wise, informed and admirable, I would have to disagree. If you mean prominent as in extremely successful ideologically bound self promoters popular in the mainstream media, then I agree.
On the one hand we have Greenspan, bound to the ideology that free markets are self correcting and will automatically deliver the best result, on the other hand we have Krugman, bound to the ideology that it’s the government’s job to constantly fine tune the markets and keep them from their own self destruction.
Personally, I find both of them lacking in practical solutions, only ideological dogma.
Participant[quote=zk]Here are two of our most prominent economic minds (Krugman & Greenspan) saying, at the same time, pretty much the exact opposite thing[/quote]
If you mean prominent as wise, informed and admirable, I would have to disagree. If you mean prominent as in extremely successful ideologically bound self promoters popular in the mainstream media, then I agree.
On the one hand we have Greenspan, bound to the ideology that free markets are self correcting and will automatically deliver the best result, on the other hand we have Krugman, bound to the ideology that it’s the government’s job to constantly fine tune the markets and keep them from their own self destruction.
Personally, I find both of them lacking in practical solutions, only ideological dogma.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano quoting John Hussman]In any event, unemployment emphatically does not prevent the inflationary consequences of reckless creation of government liabilities.”[/quote]
If I read Hussman’s view correctly, he’s only saying that if the govt wants, it can always create inflation. (Which is pretty much Bernanke’s view as well) So, that begs the question, is it your view that the govt will print enough money to cause inflation? (And I guess what measure will we use is another issue.)
While I could easily be wrong, I suspect they won’t print enough to cause significant inflation for three reasons.
1) While they are doing all they can to reinflate the various bubbles, they will stop (and put on brakes if necessary) as soon as the bubbles appear to be reinflated. (This is because although they don’t admit it, I bet they are scared of bubbles getting out of hand after the last couple of years)
2) To cause inflation they have to print enough money to compensate for all the lost money due to defaulting loans, and then some more.
3) Like most experts, the fed overestimates their abilities and powers. We see that today as they talk of how the recovery is progressing and there won’t be a double dip. Thus they are currently coming off the money printing throttle. If they are wrong, that’s all the more money they will have to print just to fight deflation.
I will grant you however, that if they get particularly out of hand they could create inflation. I just don’t think that they’ll get that out of hand.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano quoting John Hussman]In any event, unemployment emphatically does not prevent the inflationary consequences of reckless creation of government liabilities.”[/quote]
If I read Hussman’s view correctly, he’s only saying that if the govt wants, it can always create inflation. (Which is pretty much Bernanke’s view as well) So, that begs the question, is it your view that the govt will print enough money to cause inflation? (And I guess what measure will we use is another issue.)
While I could easily be wrong, I suspect they won’t print enough to cause significant inflation for three reasons.
1) While they are doing all they can to reinflate the various bubbles, they will stop (and put on brakes if necessary) as soon as the bubbles appear to be reinflated. (This is because although they don’t admit it, I bet they are scared of bubbles getting out of hand after the last couple of years)
2) To cause inflation they have to print enough money to compensate for all the lost money due to defaulting loans, and then some more.
3) Like most experts, the fed overestimates their abilities and powers. We see that today as they talk of how the recovery is progressing and there won’t be a double dip. Thus they are currently coming off the money printing throttle. If they are wrong, that’s all the more money they will have to print just to fight deflation.
I will grant you however, that if they get particularly out of hand they could create inflation. I just don’t think that they’ll get that out of hand.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano quoting John Hussman]In any event, unemployment emphatically does not prevent the inflationary consequences of reckless creation of government liabilities.”[/quote]
If I read Hussman’s view correctly, he’s only saying that if the govt wants, it can always create inflation. (Which is pretty much Bernanke’s view as well) So, that begs the question, is it your view that the govt will print enough money to cause inflation? (And I guess what measure will we use is another issue.)
While I could easily be wrong, I suspect they won’t print enough to cause significant inflation for three reasons.
1) While they are doing all they can to reinflate the various bubbles, they will stop (and put on brakes if necessary) as soon as the bubbles appear to be reinflated. (This is because although they don’t admit it, I bet they are scared of bubbles getting out of hand after the last couple of years)
2) To cause inflation they have to print enough money to compensate for all the lost money due to defaulting loans, and then some more.
3) Like most experts, the fed overestimates their abilities and powers. We see that today as they talk of how the recovery is progressing and there won’t be a double dip. Thus they are currently coming off the money printing throttle. If they are wrong, that’s all the more money they will have to print just to fight deflation.
I will grant you however, that if they get particularly out of hand they could create inflation. I just don’t think that they’ll get that out of hand.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano quoting John Hussman]In any event, unemployment emphatically does not prevent the inflationary consequences of reckless creation of government liabilities.”[/quote]
If I read Hussman’s view correctly, he’s only saying that if the govt wants, it can always create inflation. (Which is pretty much Bernanke’s view as well) So, that begs the question, is it your view that the govt will print enough money to cause inflation? (And I guess what measure will we use is another issue.)
While I could easily be wrong, I suspect they won’t print enough to cause significant inflation for three reasons.
1) While they are doing all they can to reinflate the various bubbles, they will stop (and put on brakes if necessary) as soon as the bubbles appear to be reinflated. (This is because although they don’t admit it, I bet they are scared of bubbles getting out of hand after the last couple of years)
2) To cause inflation they have to print enough money to compensate for all the lost money due to defaulting loans, and then some more.
3) Like most experts, the fed overestimates their abilities and powers. We see that today as they talk of how the recovery is progressing and there won’t be a double dip. Thus they are currently coming off the money printing throttle. If they are wrong, that’s all the more money they will have to print just to fight deflation.
I will grant you however, that if they get particularly out of hand they could create inflation. I just don’t think that they’ll get that out of hand.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano quoting John Hussman]In any event, unemployment emphatically does not prevent the inflationary consequences of reckless creation of government liabilities.”[/quote]
If I read Hussman’s view correctly, he’s only saying that if the govt wants, it can always create inflation. (Which is pretty much Bernanke’s view as well) So, that begs the question, is it your view that the govt will print enough money to cause inflation? (And I guess what measure will we use is another issue.)
While I could easily be wrong, I suspect they won’t print enough to cause significant inflation for three reasons.
1) While they are doing all they can to reinflate the various bubbles, they will stop (and put on brakes if necessary) as soon as the bubbles appear to be reinflated. (This is because although they don’t admit it, I bet they are scared of bubbles getting out of hand after the last couple of years)
2) To cause inflation they have to print enough money to compensate for all the lost money due to defaulting loans, and then some more.
3) Like most experts, the fed overestimates their abilities and powers. We see that today as they talk of how the recovery is progressing and there won’t be a double dip. Thus they are currently coming off the money printing throttle. If they are wrong, that’s all the more money they will have to print just to fight deflation.
I will grant you however, that if they get particularly out of hand they could create inflation. I just don’t think that they’ll get that out of hand.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=waterboy]Has La Jolla had a 3/2 SFR close under $800k yet thats village close or west of soledad road?[/quote]
Can’t think of one that has been under $800k, but a couple in the 800’s come to mind.
The first was in pretty bad shape, but a great location and I imagine for a couple hundred grand could be fixed up fairly nicely.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100021016-6655_Avenida_De_Las_Pescas_La_Jolla_CA_92037This second one is pretty small and the lot is small too.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100027374-530_Fern_Gln_La_Jolla_CA_92037But think what you’re asking! A couple years ago you couldn’t buy anything in LJ that met your criteria for less than 1.2m at best and if you wanted the house to be livable, well probably not for less than 1.5m
Participant[quote=waterboy]Has La Jolla had a 3/2 SFR close under $800k yet thats village close or west of soledad road?[/quote]
Can’t think of one that has been under $800k, but a couple in the 800’s come to mind.
The first was in pretty bad shape, but a great location and I imagine for a couple hundred grand could be fixed up fairly nicely.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100021016-6655_Avenida_De_Las_Pescas_La_Jolla_CA_92037This second one is pretty small and the lot is small too.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100027374-530_Fern_Gln_La_Jolla_CA_92037But think what you’re asking! A couple years ago you couldn’t buy anything in LJ that met your criteria for less than 1.2m at best and if you wanted the house to be livable, well probably not for less than 1.5m
-
AuthorPosts
