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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (132520)	4/1/2013 12:18:48 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

davidfrum @davidfrum Project for next week: write a living will to have my internet connection cut off by the kids when I get as cranky as David Stockman 7:01 PM - 31 Mar 13 == "The state-wreck originated in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt opted for fiat money (currency not fundamentally backed by gold), economic nationalism and capitalist cartels in agriculture and industry." Talk about having your head up your ass!!

To: RetiredNow who wrote (132520)	4/1/2013 9:00:45 PM
From: Sr K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I remember two things about David A. Stockman. One, he was famously "taken out to the woodshed" by Reagan. Two, 10 or 20 years early, he wouldn't buy a home in NYC so he rented because he thought property values were too high. He repeated the statement and reason on "Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser".

To: RetiredNow who wrote (132520)	4/2/2013 12:10:08 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

March 31, 2013, 1:14 pm 168 Comments Cranky Old Men Shorter David Stockman: We’ve been doomed, yes doomed, ever since FDR took us off the gold standard and introduced unemployment insurance. What about those 80 years of non-doom? Just a series of lucky accidents. Now we’re really doomed. I mean it! Actually, I was disappointed in Stockman’s piece. I thought there would be some kind of real argument, some presentation, however tendentious, of evidence. Instead it’s just a series of gee-whiz, context- and model-free numbers embedded in a rant — and not even an interesting rant. It’s cranky old man stuff, the kind of thing you get from people who read Investors Business Daily, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and maybe, if they’re unusually teched up, get investment advice from Zero Hedge. Sad.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (132520)	4/2/2013 12:10:40 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

More Stockman Not much more, I promise. As Mark Thoma points out, the verdict among everyone who knows anything is that Stockman’s piece, mysteriously given star treatment, was pathetic and embarrassing. It’s full of big numbers that are scary because they’re big numbers — we’ve run a current account deficit of $8 trillion. So? We have a $16 trillion a year economy; America’s net international investment position is a debt of about 30 percent of GDP, which isn’t that big; our balance of investment income is still positive. But it’s EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS! Anyway, I get especially annoyed when people portray all of US fiscal history since the 50s, or something, as a tale of bipartisan runaway spending. You should always have this picture in mind: We didn’t have anything you could call a deficit problem until 1980. We then saw rising debt under Reagan-Bush; falling debt under Clinton; rising under Bush II; and a sharp rise in the aftermath of the financial crisis. This is not a bipartisan problem of runaway deficits! Pre-1980, no problem at all; after 1980, deficits were very much a monopartisan issue until the financial crisis, which was a time when running deficits was appropriate. Anyone who says differently hasn’t done his homework.