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.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ahhaha who wrote (50336)1/19/2006 11:37:38 PM
From: NOW  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
so what is your point? <:



To: ahhaha who wrote (50336)1/20/2006 5:57:35 AM
From: Mike Johnston  Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 110194
 
Ok, now i really get it.

- inflation is low
- there is no real estate bubble, house prices are rising because of rising incomes, strong economy, low unemployment,low inflation, low interest rates, strong demand and shortage of available land
-consumer wealth is at record levels, rising home prices create massive wealth that allows consumers to spend more
-trade deficit is a sign of economic strength and the strength of rich american consumer.Let somebody else sweat and produce the stuff we consume. We have the money, they don't.
-budget deficit will be reduced by strong growth

If all of the above is true then AG et al are geniuses, who have invented "free lunch", economic utopia or perpetuum mobile whatever you want to call it.

The question comes to mind, why hasn't this been tried before, why have all the previous generations been so dumb ?
Fools, they even suffered Great Depression.
And why this is not being tried in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe or Argentina ?



To: ahhaha who wrote (50336)1/20/2006 12:02:17 PM
From: Tommaso  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
>>>Not one economist would agree with you. Why are they deluded and you enlightened? <<<

What makes you think that not one economist would agree with him?

I guess you are correct: Not one, but a number of economists, would agree with him. They may not be the majority and they may be wrong, but they exist.