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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (122234)	7/6/2009 7:34:06 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	2 Recommendations Respond to of 206131

>>Nobody would even countenance saying such a thing!<< CNBS says it night and day, as does Abbie Jo Cohen and most of the "market strategists" on wall street.

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (122234)	7/6/2009 7:36:17 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 206131

It sounds like blasphemy Not really. It's a possibility. Next few months will tell.

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (122234)	7/6/2009 7:42:07 PM
From: Cactus Jack	Respond to of 206131

I'm open to the possibility that the Fed knows enough and has enough data that they can walk the tightrope From your perspective, when has the Fed ever done so successfully? Not attacking, just curious. jpg

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (122234)	7/7/2009 1:59:08 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 206131

Arch, that's a possibility that must be considered. It's been somewhat amusing to read the daily parade of failed predictions by adherents to this or that economic theory, from the Austrian School of economics to interventionist fiat-money economists (which comprise prevailing global orthodoxy, practiced for decades). Few really understand what CBs are doing, but many are absolutely convinced it's wrong. With wild abandon, they mix precepts from different schools of economic thought - then fail to take their thinking to its logical extension. For instance, one of the more extreme possibilities is that this may be the point of failure for fiat-money interventionist economics *itself. Because it's just an economic theory: one of many. They call economics "the dismal science" for good reason: it's no "science" at all. Even economists are split: there's no consensus in their thinking, and they're supposed to be the "experts". Globally, we have historically high levels of government debt, so great it's possible it may "crowd out" private borrowing, with all that implies. We're in uncharted territory; I agree completely with your level-headed approach... be aware of all possibilities, don't get hung up on economic ideology, don't be guided by theory. An old saying, paraphrased: "Surplus is good, excessive debt is bad. All the rest is commentary."* Jim