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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (21839)	7/29/2002 8:28:30 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Respond to of 74559

Hi Jay: I havent noticed anything of interest in this regard lately. Will keep the watch. Got straffe England - or whomever - Your Wacht am Rhein

To: TobagoJack who wrote (21839)	7/29/2002 9:42:00 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Jay, the real estate sector is putting a lot of property for sale here in Thailand and the banks are there to finance. It appears they want to make THB out of the brick and mortar. Perhaps expecting a raise against the USD?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (21839)	7/29/2002 11:42:56 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Jay - Re: Message 17334840 The Anderson article seems to be based on Murray Rothbard's history of the Great Depression, which leaves a lot to be desired as a history, in my opinion. The Fed tight-money/loose-money argument is sort of a chicken-and-egg argument. Rothbard argued, as was popular at the time, that the reason the stock market crashed was because it got too high to begin with, ergo, blame it on loose money. There is no doubt whatsoever that Hoover persuaded the Fed to stomp on the stock market, and that is what caused the stock market to decline. The crash of October 1929 was probably triggered by the collapse of the Hatrey empire, the Enron of its day. members.cox.net Which is different from what caused the Great Depression. My favorite explanation for the cause of the Great Depression is found here: csu.edu.au A synthesis of Keen's Debt-Deflation theory and the Mundell-Fleming theory is probably the best explanation, and I am contemplating how to put that into plain English -- I don't think I can explain it to anyone who isn't familiar with the history, so it would take quite a bit of work. I've got some more stuff here: members.cox.net There was NO liquidity crisis immediately after the crash - take a look at interest rates. There was a liquidity crisis in October 1929. The bank failures were probably the result of the Great Deflation, see here: members.cox.net I am still working on Roosevelt. It seems clear that the economy turned around after Roosevelt shut down all the bad banks, and maybe going off gold and raising the gold-dollar exchange rate helped too. I think the gold-dollar exchange rate was artificially low, which helped cause the Great Deflation. In other words, that was then, this is now.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (21839)	7/29/2002 12:59:25 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Robert Mundell's Nobel Prize lecture, "A Reconsideration of the 20th Century," is finally available online. It is extremely cogent, and I think useful in understanding the present economic situation. Edit: in fact, it is the single most useful brief analysis of 20th century economic history I have encountered. I disagree with him about flexible exchange rates -- he is, after all, a Canadian.;^) robertmundell.net I also recomment Karl Polanyi's "The Great Transformation."

To: TobagoJack who wrote (21839)	7/29/2002 11:45:45 PM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 74559

Jay, I think you are taking all this Lyndon LaRouche type of conspiracy stuff a little too seriously. Uncle Al is out there patrolling the Gold Bar ranch on his titanium forklift, rounding up the strays and shifting the assets from paddock to paddock, keeping Starship Enterprise on an even keel. He'll make sure the gold is there on the day the auditors show up. <g>

To: TobagoJack who wrote (21839)	7/30/2002 12:16:41 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

Gidday Jay. They are thinking of copying my Q plan. But they have a problem. They aren't really fit to run such a money supply. Hong Kong did okay with a currency and stock market double attack on the collapse of the Hang Seng a few years ago, but that was not an attempt to form a currency foundation - it was a successful attempt to stabilize an unstable situation and to make some profits. Governments don't need to run money systems, just as they don't need to be in the supermarket or petrol station business. They just need to manage the transition to share-backed currencies rather than to try to get in on the act themselves. They just need to maintain the value of their currencies until the others take over. While other people can trade shares, form mutual funds and trade in cyberspace, governments will have so much competition that they'll lose market share. I don't think communism and state ownership of shares will win. Neither will God-bothering paper money or Aztec incantations, both of which have had their day [well, okay, they are still having their day, but sunset's coming]. Mqurice