Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (78881)	4/1/2000 4:57:00 PM
From: Terry Maloney	Respond to of 132070

Hi Tomasso, Thanks for the post. I'm afraid I'm don't know enough about monetary matters to keep up my end of a conversation, but everything I've read over the past few years leads to the conclusion that it's a credit-induced mania all right. That evaporation of wealth is going to be awesome, and awful in its consequences. Why do you say monetarism would be meaningless, when the "core rate" is known to be fixed? You can't disprove a theory with false data, after all ... Regards, Terry

To: Tommaso who wrote (78881)	4/2/2000 12:28:00 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

T, >>Indeed, the 1920s have never been sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.<< I agree with your statement, but I think there is also a political component to the debate. One group believes that "bubbles" and economic misallocations are caused by unsound money, fractional reserve banking, and central bank intervention. The establishment believes (or says) otherwise. Getting bankers, Wall St., politicians, and hired economic guns to admit that a system that benefits them to an extreme was the core reason for the 20s boom and 30s bust (and other booms and busts around the world) is a lot to ask for. If anything they will argue for more intervention and control of money. So I think there IS a debate, but there is also a lot self-interested denial at work. Wayne