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 : Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (1507)	4/3/1999 12:45:00 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1722

Porc, >>[According to the interviewee at investmentrarities.com the AS has now quanitified its assertions. porc would like to know: just when would a Fed-less economy would have pulled these workers into the economy? << You should ask them? They are very helpful when it comes to explaining their views on how the economy really works. mises.org I can't speak for them but from my understanding they would say two things. 1. The amount of money in the economy has nothing to do with level of "sustainable" economic growth. Money is just the medium of exchange. The Fed can only create a malinvestment credit boom. We could grow like crazy without ever changing the money supply. Prices would just be different. 2. They would not have been unemployed in the last recession to begin with because there wouldn't have been a commercial real estate bust, an LBO bust, a junk bond collapse, a savings and loan debacle, a downturn in financial services related to all the above, a Wall St. hangover from the liquidity driven crash of 87, and all the indirect economic downturns related to the above. Again, I suggest you talk to them about it because they are the economists. I'm only giving my understanding of it. It may be incorrect or incomplete. WC