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: Knighty Tin who wrote (109847)	11/9/2007 6:53:25 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

KT, >Bush DID appoint Greenspan in 2004. It was in all the newspapers and I think Fox Noise even reported it correctly.< This is how you lose credibility with me. You are trying to make a technical point because you are a political animal, not someone that actually wants to discuss what happened and the major points I am making. Let's be honest here, the probability of anyone firing Greenspan at that point was close to 0% because he was already glorified and sainted by the rape and pillage crew on Wall St. The very fact that he was also the Fed chief for Clinton's entire administration makes the same irrelevant point for in the other direction. As I explained, it wasn't who appointed him originally or who kept him on the job that mattered (though if you want to blame someone you can blame Reagan). He wasn't going anywhere. It was his actions that mattered - while he was in charge of the Fed for both republicans and democrats. >Rubin was the main force in balancing the budget, which kept Greenspan's monetary recklessness from sinking the dollar. Bush has appointed two Treasury Secretaries, neither of whom could walk and chew gum at the same time.< Rubin is a very smart guy, but he was far from perfect. IMO, he did everything in his power to use the IMF and other government institutions to advance the bubble and maximize the rape and pillage. Getting the budget under control was a very good thing, but it was only partially the result of prudent action on the part of that administration. Some of it had to do with favorable short term demographics, unwarranted capital gains taxes on stock options and other stock gains from the bubble he helped create, and shifting long term maturities to short term maturities to save interest costs in the short term (and of course expose the country to an unexpected rise in interest rates over the long haul). All this is also irrelevant to the point. The INTRINSIC VALUE of a currency over the long haul is almost 100% related to monetary policy, not these short term economic ups and downs that traders look at and that can influence short term market prices of currencies. Governments can overpromise, run deficits, and tax countries into oblivion. Over the long haul that can impact future monetary actions, but the recent fall of the Intrinsic Value of the dollar (as opposed to the market changes) is almost exclusively Greenspan's fault. Bernanke simply hasn't been here long enough to do much damage yet. At least a portion of the recent fall of the dollar is probably cyclical and not intrinsic anyway. As soon as the credit bubble washes out and rates can rise again, the dollar will rally again. But it may be a long and rough path from here to there. >You are simply wrong about govt. investment.< IMO, you do not understand why socialism and government almost always fails over the very long haul. I suggest you read some Mises. He does a great job of explaining how profits and losses are the signals required by the marketplace to know how and where to allocate capital in order to meet the demands of society successfully. Without such measurements, even brilliant people would fail often (and I see few brilliant capital allocators in Washington). It was insights like these that allowed him to predict the collapse of many governments long before they did while the socialists were still claiming superiority. Government has no such measurements to work with. It has goals. (satisfying constituents and getting re-elected)