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.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MythMan who wrote (388688)6/15/2009 7:27:37 AM
From: Real Man  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
Yeah, right. Unemployment is sure improving. Shooting up to
GD highs, the greenest shoot out there. No indications of
stopping there either. That chart is not in recession
category already. Bums don't consume stuff, but chit
can and will go up in price as Ben burns the dollar, especially
da chit bums do need to consume - food and gas. -s-

Oh, chit, that's impossible! Inflation in a depression.
Welcome to da worst of TL & EV, and a monetary policy (Fed)
failure in May this year as interest rates went through
the roof against their bid. 100 bp. above where they promised
to drive them by Summer. -ng-

That chit in da same category of chit as PEG failure in
currencies. We just need to watch wat develops. Could be
Argentina type, although I don't think Argentina ever
happened to a large developed country. Sudden stop?
Geez. Ho knows. Chit's not better elsewhere.



To: MythMan who wrote (388688)6/15/2009 7:45:14 AM
From: Real Man  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258
 
The Fed is just making sure the money goes from the prudent to the
imprudent, from the competent to the incompetent, so the
incompetent can amplify the mess. Good small banks must
fail and be gobbled up by Fed-supported derivative monsters. -g-

Wherever the Spoos goes, 400 or 2K, TL & EV is here to stay. -ng-



To: MythMan who wrote (388688)6/15/2009 9:22:44 AM
From: Giordano Bruno  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258
 
We're going backwards -g- reuters.com