Arthur
Honorary Master
Hehe. You are funny.
Its application to breasts is metaphorical and euphemistic. Like hooters for tits (no, I haven't done an image search - my wife is perfectly fine). My usage is the main one.
Last edited:
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Warning: Stocks Will Collapse by 50% in 2014 ??????????
- Thread starter Seriously
- Start date
Its application to breasts is metaphorical and euphemistic. Like hooters for tits (no, I haven't done an image search - my wife is perfectly fine). My usage is the main one.
my juvenile (or is it Juvenal ...) side is always deeply amused by these sorts of grand predictions that completely and utterly ignore the complexity (which is not the same thing as difficulty) of economic and financial systems. There is a massive disconnect between the financial markets and the "real economy" and there are asset bubbles and a massive pile of faithless obligations [the trillions of dollars of government debt in the United States - federal, state and municipal] that essentially amounts to losses waiting to be distributed. Losses being distributed hardly represents a financial meltdown.
The_Assimilator
Executive Member
This thread needs more question marks. MORE I say!
Arthur
Honorary Master
We'd need another 2008 event for that to happen and I don't see it...
even something exceptionally toxic is unlikely to cull of more than 15% IMHO
Arthur
Honorary Master
I am less confident about making predictions one way or the other than many above, other than that the present madness cannot continue indefinitely. It seems obvious to me that one cannot solve debt with more debt without real growth to cover at least the interest, else future values decline and you start sawing off the branch you're sitting on. Debt levels are close to historical highs. Only the deity is capable of ex nihilo creation, the rest of us have to use existing stuff such as borrow from the future. We've done that at an unprecedented level for years, and in decadal terms the rate is increasing. Forget the Fed's very recent and inevitably temporary easing of fiat liquidity, in the medium term there is no way but up, and we're already in the stratosphere. As the fuel runs out, gravity reasserts itself. So I am preparing for the inevitable pain ahead. How far we'll drop is impossible to say. We do know that in 2005-2007 the Major Recognised Experts scoffed at any notion of a popping bubble. Eight months later they were proved wrong. Spectacularly wrong.
Last edited:
a fair number of "Major Recognized Experts" were pretty clear on why they did not see a bubble popping and the reasoning is damn sound, its the facts that get in the way.
The mortgage crisis and toxicity it caused involved more than debt levels - it involved rampant fraud and government malfeance. If you don't have honest facts in front of you your assessment is likely to be wrong. Don't criticize the jury for convicting on perjured evidence.
The mortgage crisis and toxicity it caused involved more than debt levels - it involved rampant fraud and government malfeance. If you don't have honest facts in front of you your assessment is likely to be wrong. Don't criticize the jury for convicting on perjured evidence.
Hedge fund manager trying to save his hedge fund
Economic experts should stop trying to make predictions. I'm still waiting for gold to hit $2000 as predicted for the end of 2011 and 2012. The funniest I heard was that a paid economist stated the rand will be between R10-R20 to the dollar this year.
Hedge fund manager trying to save his hedge fund
Economic experts should stop trying to make predictions. I'm still waiting for gold to hit $2000 as predicted for the end of 2011 and 2012. The funniest I heard was that a paid economist stated the rand will be between R10-R20 to the dollar this year.
I called bullschit on that one and took some flak. People claimed they'd return to the thread a year later to laugh at me. I'm still waiting...
Arthur
Honorary Master
Of course there was malfeasance, deceit and outrageously reckless pumping of derivatives.
But even that was foreseen. And those who called it as early as 2005 were dismissed with public derision by the Keynesians like Krugman.
Here's macroeconomist Dean Baker in 2005 calling the mortgage bubble. He was panned by all & sundry at the Fed, the NYT and the crypto-state media.
Here's Peter Schiff in December 2006 saying "wake up people! There's a massive bubble with high toxicity. It's gonna blow, and it won't be pretty.". Of course he was dismissed as a naive Chicken Little and ideologue.
There are several others, like Mike Evans, who also called it early.
But most of the Recognised Experts cannot see it because they wear the same Keynesian blinkers and practice the same Keynesian economic quackery.
There. Got that off my chest.
But even that was foreseen. And those who called it as early as 2005 were dismissed with public derision by the Keynesians like Krugman.
Here's macroeconomist Dean Baker in 2005 calling the mortgage bubble. He was panned by all & sundry at the Fed, the NYT and the crypto-state media.
Here's Peter Schiff in December 2006 saying "wake up people! There's a massive bubble with high toxicity. It's gonna blow, and it won't be pretty.". Of course he was dismissed as a naive Chicken Little and ideologue.
There are several others, like Mike Evans, who also called it early.
But most of the Recognised Experts cannot see it because they wear the same Keynesian blinkers and practice the same Keynesian economic quackery.
There. Got that off my chest.
Last edited:
Just put expert behind your job name and you can sell manure to the world.
not sure Krugman should be considered an expert outside of NTT
From about 2004 there was knowledge of the bubble but that simply means knowledge of a bubble and risk, however in non of the early warnings do I detect a hint of an understanding of what has since been revealed. You can be right for the wrong reasons ...
From about 2004 there was knowledge of the bubble but that simply means knowledge of a bubble and risk, however in non of the early warnings do I detect a hint of an understanding of what has since been revealed. You can be right for the wrong reasons ...
Arthur
Honorary Master
One can of course be right for the wrong reasons.
But Schiff's reasons are the right ones in my view. He didn't know about the lies and deceit, but he most certainly spotted the efficient cause, to lapse into an Aristotelianism. High debt. Overvalued assets. Artificial liquidity. This is made possible not by the free market but by state interventions that distort the money supply and prevent the market from operating as it otherwise would.
The problem is, Keynesians are philosphical Nominalists and Postivists, and so their "fiat" cure is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. This is unprecedented in modern times.
I agree that Krugman is no economist. But he's the mouth for the Keynesians who rule today.
But Schiff's reasons are the right ones in my view. He didn't know about the lies and deceit, but he most certainly spotted the efficient cause, to lapse into an Aristotelianism. High debt. Overvalued assets. Artificial liquidity. This is made possible not by the free market but by state interventions that distort the money supply and prevent the market from operating as it otherwise would.
The problem is, Keynesians are philosphical Nominalists and Postivists, and so their "fiat" cure is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. This is unprecedented in modern times.
I agree that Krugman is no economist. But he's the mouth for the Keynesians who rule today.
Last edited:
CataclysmZA
Executive Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 5,595
- Reaction score
- 1,613
I would have taken this somewhat seriously if the other half of this article hadn't suddenly switched into a sales blurb for Sean Hyman and his crappy DVD video-thing that has this magical calendar for trading on the stock market.
As with Marx most "Keynesians" don't understand Keynes ...
There are plenty of illustrations of fiat being exercised as a "cure" to economic woes and the results are always disastrously the same.
There are plenty of illustrations of fiat being exercised as a "cure" to economic woes and the results are always disastrously the same.
You mean like the great fiat disaster called the great depression? Oh! Wait...
Arthur
Honorary Master
The causes of the 1930s Depression, which followed some time after the '29 Crash, are still hotly debated. I am with Hayek and others that State-induced distortions in M2 supply allowed an artificial spurt that blew up the bubble in the first place. Basically, the then 40% legal requirement for gold-backed reserves prevented a normal correction from taking place because it provided a state-created backing and endorsement of fractional reserves banking, which essentially is state-induced private fiat. Subsequent state actions in reaction to the previous state-induced errors only poured fuel on the fire and prolonged the Depression needlessly. In other words, unlike the conventional Keynesian narrative, the Depression was a direct consequence of State distortions and not the result of a lack of regulation or an unfettered market.
Most Recognised Experts drink the same kool-aid.
Most Recognised Experts drink the same kool-aid.
Last edited:
Peter Schiff recons there is one coming up... the 2008 fiasco was only a "precursor" as they patched the ship temporarily - we have yet to see the real effect.