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: dealmakr who wrote (257387)	6/29/2010 1:18:57 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

"The error was for the Fed to buy the bonds from the banking system (and we all hate the banks, don’t we) rather than going straight to the non-bank private sector." On the other hand, that means all the money goes to Pimco. We've collapsed the system into so few hands that there's no way to turn away from crony institutions.

To: dealmakr who wrote (257387)	6/29/2010 1:29:56 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

ROTFL, the arrogance is simply breathtaking! The same morons who got us in the mess we're in purport to being the ONLY ones capable of getting us out of it? He can GFH AND the horse he rode in on.....<NG>

To: dealmakr who wrote (257387)	6/29/2010 1:30:48 PM
From: JBTFD	Respond to of 306849

Economics PhDs are the real threat to public order.

To: dealmakr who wrote (257387)	6/29/2010 2:33:53 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

>>>continue to pursue a path of leveraged credit and debt that dooms the financial future of the country.<<< I put up a Marc Faber quote a few weeks back to the effect: 'If the printing of money was such a good thing, then Zimbabwe would be the richest country, the leader of which by the way, Robert Mugabe, was the mentor of Ben Bernanke.' We all got a lot of laughs. But the evidence is right in front of us. The United States has not run an operational surplus since 1957. There was a time in the late Clinton years where the social security surplus was sufficient to cover the operational deficit, but in that instance, the government borrowed from itself instead of from itself AND the public. So if all of this deficit spending was/is so good, then why all the tears??? Let me explain the nature of life, as informed in part by the venerable Chris Martenson. If you borrow money, you have to pay it back with interest. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money, but you must set it against an enterprise which will grow and earn. A house or flat screen TV don't do that. The first requires a lot of expenditures just to stay even (roof, painting, taxes, etc.) and the latter loses both functionality (electronics go zap) and market value (is replaced by something new and improved). There is absolutely nothing wrong with government deficit spending. But like everything else, the spending must be set against something which will have a return. How many here think that the focus of government workers is earning a profit? How many think that the best intentioned of government workers are capable of driving a business and making good market choices? The government is simply not equipped to do that. Yet as we increase the tax burden, the decision making shifts from the private good business people to the inefficient government. It's simple. If we print/borrow money to pay somebody unemployment, and we get no production, then all we have is an unemployed worker three months down the road, with a lot more debt and service to show for it. That is not sustainable. The notion that the government (or private sector) can suddenly organize itself to spend $1 tri$$ion efficiently, is laughable. To be kind, Kartik Athreya can't see the forest for the trees.