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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (41988)	3/12/2010 11:05:38 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

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.* No detailed statistical work is necessary to claim their is no solid evidence for something. You only need such detail if you want to claim reasonably solid evidence that either it did have such an effect or that it didn't. Not that there is no evidence for the effect. 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.)* It not only doesn't prove anything, it isn't significant evidence. G-S was hardly the only difference, many other policy changes where made. And many non policy factors have changed over the years. The economy has gone through many changes. People's opinions about risk have changed (after the depression people where much more concerned about financial risk than they have been in recent decades before the financial panic, or probably even after it). And all sorts of other factors have changed. That the majority I don't think its true that the majority think that it had a major and consistently positive effect.