DAK, you seem unable to use reasoning. Suit yourself.
You just quoted a bunch of links, which didn't refer to what I said. Neither did you. That's because you have "complete misunderstanding of basic economics" and, since we are doing personal analysis instead of focusing on the point, you lack intelligence so can't recognize logic or a scientific principle if you fall over it.
Try reading it again, then explain, if only to yourself, why printing of money caused the boom in share prices, but magically, doesn't now that there is REALLY some major pixelation and credit expansion going on.
Explaining to me how ignorant I am, doesn't actually change the argument. Perhaps if you focus on the argument instead of me, you'll do better.
Go on, explain why vast credit creation hasn't caused a stock market bubble. I'll explain it for you. On the way up, it wasn't the credit creation which caused people to think they were all going to be rich. It takes no extra money to bid a share price up. 100 shares can change hands, rising in price each time the same two people pass them back and forwards, trading fewer and fewer as the price rises, day trading their way to riches, and all the other shares are reported as having that value. How much money is in circulation is irrelevant. The key factor is that people think they are going to get rich from share price rises.
I doubt you are able to follow that logic.
You gave me a link. Here's one for you. It actually explains the point, so you'll be able to understand it. Subject 53236
Well, you won't be able to understand it, but have a go.
Gee, it's fun being rude on the internet. Thanks for the pointers on how to do it. Anyway, do you understand now?
Mqurice |
