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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (247697)	5/12/2010 1:54:52 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 306849

>>I completely agree that the FED has screwed up. In any system, the people running it can do a poor job. That does not per se mean the system is bad.<< this wasn't a mistake... market-ticker.denninger.net it was a plan executed to break the black letter federal reserve mandate law. not only that, some in the fed knew there was a housing bubble and greenspan made sure the public heard nothing of it! huffingtonpost.com >>AFAIK, the fundamental problem with the FED & credit was that Greenspan was a devote of Ayn Rand and was sure that there really was no such thing as a bubble, because the prophetess had assured him that markets are magical.<< this is the spin, but doesn't match the following facts: the federal reserve mandate, the LEGAL FEDERAL RESERVE MANDATE, is crystal clear... don't take credit parabolic to GDP... and greenspan and bernanke delivered ILLEGAL parabolic credit growth compared to GDP... market-ticker.denninger.net he can have whatever philosophy he wants, but HE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CRIMINALLY BREAK BLACK LETTER FEDERAL RESERVE LAW! this was the result of law breaking, not philosophy. look at the chart again - a 5th grader knows that the trend in "candy money spent" (red) is unsustainable given the "allowance" (green). a freaking 5th grader. print the chart. explain red is money spent and green is allowance. then ask the child if that trend can continue without interruption. most will tell you know. >>But your system is structurally screwed and might be run by an idiot to boot.<< so you are portraying The American Party's plan as centrally controlled by a single person? I don't think that's accurate. >>Any job that has a lot of power requires careful selection of people given the responsibility, and oversight of what they do. It does not matter what the mandate of the job is, or what the tools are if you don't actually work effectively with what you have.<< with care to avoid special interest... like a federal reserve controlled by private banks. >>Greenspan has more or less admitted this about himself.<< what? >>How do you think one should determine the price of RE & stocks using a government committee? Do you really think that is a good idea?<< that's the way it is now. the housing bubble was created by the committee that broke the law and did this... market-ticker.denninger.net if the law had been followed, liar's loans could not have existed. >>I think it is fine, even desirable to have some active attempts at squishing bubbles,<< how about not ILLEGALLY creating them in the first place? oh, that's right, they knew the banks (that control the fed and its policies) where leveraged to the hilt and had to continue to see increasing asset prices and the only way to do that was to criminally break the and blow a credit bubble. this credit bubble: market-ticker.denninger.net >>and also smoothing out recessionary dips. But this is much different than thinking the government can determine the "true" long term trends.<< i don't think that's a fair representation of Nathan's approach. his approach is to 1. eliminate the debt based money supply. this will free up $100s of billions to actually work for the people FOR FREE! the only losers are the criminal bankers, 2. to target low or no inflation so that people aren't forced into an investing ponzi scheme to avoid being wiped out. he doesn't say the government controls individual prices. they are free to go up and down depending on demand. but forcing currency devaluation as a matter of private banker committee would be ended - and good riddance.