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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (96606)	4/17/2009 4:46:52 PM
From: benwood	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

"Krugman, Stiglitz, and many other top economists are all on the same page, so you are arguing with the smartest economists in the country." Everybody can actually be wrong at the same time, e.g. the earth does not go around the sun. At one time, zero geologists believed that massive transformations in the geological landscape could happen overnight. One guy thought of how an incredibly massive flood did such a thing. He was laughed about for the rest of his life. Eventually, he died, and later, another came up with the paper describing evidence of gigantic waves along the hills along certain valleys, and suddenly, a light went off in everybody's head in the room, and instantly, they all realized how wrong they had been for so long about the first guy's theory. I'm not saying "Don't do anything at all..." but I am saying that with gov't sponsored projects (infrastructure or whatever) a bureaucrat sitting at a desk in D.C., based on political, cultural, or coffee jitters, decides what infrastructure probably will be useful for the next 20 years, and so funds it. Suppose in 20 years, driving is 30% less than today (oil dropoff, costs exponentiate, etc.). That huge investment in unnecessary (or overcapacity) roads now seems foolhardy. The idea here is that the gov't is going to be one of the worst at using the investment monies efficiently. Here's an example btw of gov't supporting infrastructure in a way which proved extremely inefficient. In the late 70s and early 80s, you could get a sizeable tax credit for putting up storm windows. The energy savings were estimated at 25%. In the late 80s, Consumers Union (and others no doubt) debunked that claim and said, at best, the savings was 5%, and because of cost and interest expenses, one would never make their money back. Private sector improvements in the kinds of windows produced made window upgrades more cost effective a few years later. But even now, it's still only recommended if you need the overall upgrade for other reasons in addition to increased efficiency. And never in my wildest nightmares (nor yours I hope) would we be giving away our future to the very rogue souls who've damaged our real economy to such an extent. But THAT is one of the MASSIVE investments we are making right now.

To: koan who wrote (96606)	4/17/2009 5:23:30 PM
From: Paul Kern	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

Krugman, Stiglitz, and many other top economists are all on the same page, so you are arguing with the smartest economists in the country. "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable." - John Kenneth Galbraith

To: koan who wrote (96606)	4/17/2009 5:56:40 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

They feel if the government uses the deficit spending to build infrastructrue it will pay off in the end. LIke hihg speed rail and a new energy grid. I agree - Obama is doing all of that. But Krugman wants to spend magnitudes more yet. Great - just tell us how you expect it to be paid back Paul. Better yet, Koan, you tell us how you expect this money to be paid back. Paid back and doing health care and paid back while our entitlement programs continue to slip into bankruptcy. HOW DOES IT GET PAID BACK! I understand what they say the theory is - so stop just repeating that. That is not my complaint. steve

To: koan who wrote (96606)	4/17/2009 6:57:35 PM
From: Broken_Clock	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Krugman, Stiglitz, and many other top economists are all on the same page. === Stiggie is saying O's crew sold out. What say you now, koan? ---- To: Jonny Dough™ who wrote (384288) 4/17/2009 9:14:18 AM From: Jamie Dimon 1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) of 384335 Lol - April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s bank- rescue efforts will probably fail because the programs have been designed to help Wall Street rather than create a viable financial system, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said. “All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing ingredients,” Stiglitz said in an interview yesterday. The people who designed the plans are “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent.”

To: koan who wrote (96606)	4/17/2009 6:58:32 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Here's a smart economist arguing against her boss. ==== To: saveslivesbyday who wrote (196640) 4/17/2009 8:54:15 AM From: Jamie Dimon Read Replies (1) of 196747 A Minority Report Challenges US Economic Improvement Posted: April 17, 2009 at 5:09 am The President says he sees a faint light at the end of the tunnel. So does the Treasury Secretary and head of the Fed. They are joined by Lawrence Summers, who, not so long ago, was kicked out as president of Harvard for “conduct not becoming of an officer” They are being challenged by the head of the Federal Reserve in San Francisco, an outpost so far from Washington that no one may care. Janet Yellen has been a doomsayer since the beginning of the downturn and she has not wavered. Accoring to Reuters, she said, “The negative dynamics between the real and financial sides of the economy have created severe downside risks.” And added “While we’ve seen some tentative signs of improvement in the economic data very recently, it’s still impossible to know how deep the contraction will ultimately be.” It may be that Yellen as taken a closer look at foreclosure rates, growing unemployment, and anemic manufacturing than her colleagues have. It may be that she understands that there cannot be a recovery if the jobless rate goes to 11% or 12% and housing prices fall another 20%. And, it may be that she sees bank earnings turning down again from the effects of mortgage problems, commercial real estate defaults, and deteriorating consumer credit. And, it may be that she is right. Douglas A. McIntyre