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: carranza2 who wrote (85565)	1/4/2012 8:53:21 AM
From: prometheus1976	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217979

And that positioning is on a macro and global outlook...i am wondering if perhaps a mini micro would be good since few of us here are forced into the global arena by the size of our accounts.. A small hotel in the Philippines , or perhaps some real estate or going concern in Punta del Estes,perhaps a suntan lotion application service?..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5fgsxe8GM0&feature=related regards,p1976

To: carranza2 who wrote (85565)	1/4/2012 11:49:52 AM
From: Gemlaoshi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217979

The trenchant testicle-testing question is this, IMO: in a deleveraging cycle, one btw you and I have never seen, can or will the CBs print enough to reverse it? C2, A second part to your question is, "should the CBs print mucho paper in order for the soverign to assume the leverage that is being shed by the private sector?" As you point out, deleveraging is necessary and must take place. Do we allow the private sector to delever its bad bets (and individual entities collapse), or do we create a larger problem by multiple QEs as the CBs assume the leverage that should have been cleansed in the private sector?