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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (3300)	10/29/2001 11:40:08 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

it doesn't have a clue and tries to follow the market but that won't work either, will it? Nope. The feeling, "I've got to do something", is still very strong. I was clumsy, but I don't think I got to this, I'm challenging BoC, not you. For about forty of the last fifty years our currency has 'floated' and when we tried to peg it outright, it was disastrous. But it's still being 'pegged', sort of, isn't it? Yes. Canada tries to micromanage every aspect of economy and monetary policy is no exception. Socialists are control freaks because they're convinced the capitalist pigs will destroy the country to get more money. The socialists never take that thinking to its logical conclusion that if the capitalists destroyed the economy, they would destroy themselves. The socialists don't do that because they have a secret agenda, and that is to do what they claim the capitalists would do if not controlled. Eighty per cent of our economy is connected to the US, so an argument is made we need to adapt ourselves to the market and the caprice of the US Fed by having a floating exchange rate, The economy of Canada may have a big share with the US, but that doesn't mean that Canadian monetary policy needs to regard what the FED does at all. In fact, they shouldn't. They're stupid, weak, and illiterate, and so hide behind FED. Also, they fear arbitrage. They know Canada is no good, and so if they pursued policy different to FED, they're quite convinced that much of the money would leave Canada. Of course, they're completely wrong and the opposite would occur, but you can't get weaklings and intellectual pigmies to do anything else. Had we left rates alone in 1960, we'd likely still be eating your lunch the way we were then. Thiessen disagrees with this but then he would, wouldn't he? He was one of the guys setting the rates. Absolutely correct. Canada was a great capitalist nation until the "revolution" got there. Since the '60s Canada has turned into a disaster. Only its natural wealth saves it. The problem is Ottawa. There is none west of Montreal. That's what I got from Thiessen's essay! The only policy success was when they gave up targeting interest rates and did what the US Fed did. He says so. He just doesn't want to stick around and discuss the obvious conclusion leading from this. (By the way, I came across a very similar presentation on the Fed site). Like you say about AG, Thiessen knows better. Oh, they all do, but they think about that one fictitious person who might get hurt by responsible policy when it's their job to protect and prevent anyone from getting hurt. These are little men in a little era. Men who have no principle. James Coyne may have been an amateur by your standards and perhaps a control freak, but he certainly wasn't a hack or a hypocrite. He wasn't afraid of doing right or being 'unfair'. You must understand one thing. No one has the right policy. The only right policy is that which comes from all of us. We have a structure called a free market to determine what that is. It's the same as any democratic mechanism and no one likes democratic mechanisms because they're never perceived by individuals to be fair. They're perceived to be "asymmetric". He didn't resign until they tabled a bill to remove him. Heavy dude. I know all about the guy. He was no better than all the other clowns who trotted through over the decades. Consider that Diefenbacher had a good fiscal policy and restrictive monetary policy. This is what Coyne didn't like. But you can't reason about any of this since when the BoC was founded, it was based on absurd tenets: The preamble states that the purpose of the BoC is to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade prices and employment, so far as may be possible with the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada. This preamble is a statement of what a central bank shouldn't do.