SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (41673)3/6/2010 3:22:31 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Re: [There is noting at all "bizarre" in asking you to try to EXPLAIN why you think that Glass Steagal did NOT have a beneficial impact] "I didn't assert that it did not have such an impact. I said there is no reason to think it did."

Yes, I know.

And then I asked you why you thought that. (A simple enough question....)

And then you answered by saying it was "bizarre" to even ASK why you thought that.

And then I asked why was it "bizarre" to EVEN ASK why you thought that.

And now we are up to speed in our conversation... (but I'm STILL wondering WHY you think it's "bizarre" to even think that Glass Steagal might have possibly had beneficial effects).

Re: We have conversations, not merely collections of unconnected posts. In that post you correctly pointed out it was a big assumption. I'm quite willing to drop the assumption if you are. But if its drop your earlier argument - "And... a GREATER PERIODICITY for mass financial panics and failures and crashes is most certainly *not* conducive to higher levels of either wealth or economic output." - is much weaker.

Don't think that I EVER made any direct argument that MORE FREQUENT OCCURRENCES for financial panics and collapses would be bad for the economic growth rate (all I did was point out that you were making a big assumption when you wrote that "assuming the longer time doesn't result in a more severe crash", even though that's probably an assumption I would agree with you on --- more infrequent financial crashes might mean that, when they came, they would all wind up as big ones)....

That said though, as to what you seem to have THOUGHT I was saying that FREQUENT FINANCIAL CRASHES would not only be bad for business (business, after all, relies upon regularity and dependability in the financial system), but also bad for economic growth... now that you have, in essence, asked me that question I am forced to answer that, YES.... indeed yes! I DO AGREE with that supposition.

YES, I'm certain that FREQUENT FINANCIAL CRASHES are very bad for business and for economic growth altogether....
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News