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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (41960)	3/11/2010 7:48:57 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: [So what claim 'about the evidence' are you making?] "That there is no solid evidence (solid evidence suggesting that GS made a significant positive difference)" AND... we are right back to exactly the spot where we started the discussion out. NEITHER one of us has yet done the detailed statistical work, (or put the possibly months in that would be required), to establish the facts of the matter. And neither one of us is willing to do that. So, we might as well leave it there. All I can point out (in closing) is that: A) Financial panics in the U.S. were MUCH more frequent in the fifty years before G-S then they were in the fifty years thereafter. (However I am aware that that doesn't "prove" anything.) And, B) That the majority (although clearly not ALL) of economic historians do tend to believe that the enactment of G-S tended to promote stability and a sense of dependability in the financial system, which therefore enabled strong and more sustainable (less frequent collapses then previously happened) growth in the American financial sector. (Although I am also aware that the mere opinions of many 'economists' and 'historians' does not, in itself, "prove" anything either.)