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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (108730)	6/14/2001 10:39:40 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

I think the point that is being made by Corrigan by that chart is that we are "off the charts" -- in uncharted territory. I don't think you are going to find enough data pts to get a correlation except on "milder" variations of that ratio ... Again, I'd like to do that calc myself and then look at it -- I suspect the ratios you mention are not ratios of running sums. I'll look when I get time ... I think economics is not primarily about predicting the course of future events as it is about explaining how difference forces interact in the marketplace -- whether that be historical or predictive -- how resources are allocated to various ends -- impacts on societies, governments individuals and how the choices made by the same feedback to affect the marketplace ... Econometrics which uses linear regression as a tool is just one branch of economic investigation, IMO -- not necessarily the core I do think the things you mentioned are worth looking into ...

To: Ilaine who wrote (108730)	6/14/2001 10:56:14 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

CB - ...The goal of economics is being able to predict the future, right? ... No, not unless the goal of statistics is to predict three lemon drops in a Vegas slot machine. Regards, Don

To: Ilaine who wrote (108730)	6/14/2001 11:40:48 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Excessive public debt is significant because it crowds out private investment. We heard this a lot back in the early eighties when the Reagan tax cuts were first put in without offsetting cuts in spending and the deficit ballooned. Funny thing was that excessive public debt didn't keep us from having a couple of decades of spectacular economic growth (which in turn made a good part of that debt disappear). It seems to me that private consumer debt has two major significances (is that a word?): - if the borrower can't borrow any more, then there's no more purchasing power; - if the borrower can't service the debt, then the borrower may default. Consummer debt is self limiting in this respect. People as opposed to governments can't borrow way beyond their means for very long. BTW you usually get more debt defaults and bankruptcies at the beginning of a recovery than in the beginning or trough of a recession at least according to my loan officer at the bank. The great thing about the US is that we have lots of practice writing off huge amounts of debt. Remember the S&L debacle? The real problem in the economy now isn't debt, it's profits. No one can figure out how to make 'em in a situation where everyone has access to cheap information.