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 : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oblomov who wrote (84929)	1/12/2009 6:40:27 AM
From: Real Man	Respond to of 94695

Not really. The destruction was more of a function of the size of the bubble. I agree with you, without interventions to make previous recessions much shorter we would not have the bubbles and the crises, as the banks would be more responsible if they didn't have the Fed to fall on. Here is my personal favorite: So, per this chart, did the Fed actually lead to stabilization or destabilization? The answer is clear. The long term growth also slowed down. Now what? Dark times no matter what. We are at 10. Liquidationists tend to curse Japan. Nevertheless, the country managed to go through 50% plus RE decline and 80% plus stock market decline WITHOUT significant jump in unemployment. Sure, there was slow or negative growth, that was inevitable. Nikkei is down some 70-80% from the peak almost 20 years ago. What about us? Well, our bubbles were worse, so...