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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (81449)	10/15/2011 5:01:36 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217860

Haim, are you going to "occupy"? ;) I have a mountain to hike tomorrow, else I would stop by and chat up our local occupiers.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (81449)	10/18/2011 7:53:40 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217860

haim, agree that the finance sector is way too big for societal good. but as long as central banks are allowed to exist on the premise that inflation should be targeted, promise on long term low interest rate can be made, and cretins can mouth off about secret weapon printing press, the financial sector shall remain bigger than good, because per above, the finance sector becomes the economy. the current 'occupy' movement (it hardly qualifies as a revolution, because revolution requires the sacrifice of much cleansing blood - we shall get to that stage, just not now and not yet) misses the mark when protesting on wall street as opposed to the capitol hill and the fed building. the target of the occupiers, the 1%, is also a bad direction, because the 1% is made up of only so few financiers, and even if one bankrupts all of them, so what, barely a dent would be made to the genie coefficient, and a new cohort of financial class would rise from the ashes of old, because the fed would still be standing, and capitol hill would still require financing. the wrong target of 1% is more clearly wrong in that unless the top 30% are wiped out, erased, downsized, or seriously adjusted, there would always be yet another 1% to be tee-up for reset. such 'moements' had never really ended well in the past. cheers, tj