What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Wealth and the distribution of wealth is what government is all about. Politics is the struggle for control of the wealth.

 

[busybody..]

The market will go up. Unless it goes down.

no DUMMY

the answer to the question of

What will the market do.....is......FLUCTUATE



or

If teh question is

Will the market go up or down?..........the answer is...............YES!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The market will go up. Unless it goes down.

Doubleplusgood!

 

[trysail]

My own feeling is that we’re just repeating the housing bubble in a different form. We’ve substituted an unsustainable buildup of government debt for what is an unsustainable buildup of consumer debt. This one really feels worse to me and more dangerous. I think we’re living in a time of false prosperity.

-Robert Goldfarb
Sequoia Fund​

 

[JohnnySavage]

-Robert Goldfarb
Sequoia Fund​

Internet bubble
Tech bubble
Biotech bubble
Real estate bubble
Bond bubble

Bubbles bubbles, everywhere a bubble...

 

[Chance_G]

Time to buy.

A little early yet.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Still up from when I purchased it.

There's deflation everywhere; that's the point of the article I posted yesterday about surplus stores, note that the Overstock.com commercials are even saying that, and why U_D is not seeing his price inflation even though we've had a money supply inflation.

People are too scared to consume other than commodity buying, which may eventually hit the panic point if the dollar proceeds to erode, and business is scared shitless to Capitalize, therefore, everyone is trying to hold steady and just keep what they have.

We need new leadership, leadership not based upon the ideas of Socialist Economy.

Looks to me like the banks are selling their gold. Maybe the gold bubble burst.

 

[RightField]

So, we seem to have people who are willing to work.

We have capital available to support it.

What we don't have is stability in rules and regulations that people are willing to take a risk on. Lets get a new administration who can bring us some stability in rules, regulations and economic policy and for heaven's sake, lets get rid of the yoke called Obamacare.

 

[koalabear]

milk outshines gold as top commodity performer

http://money.msn.com/money-video?vi...3-a4169f3183da&tab=Top Picks&from=en-us_msnhp

Got milk?

 

[JohnnySavage]

http://money.msn.com/money-video?vi...3-a4169f3183da&tab=Top Picks&from=en-us_msnhp

Got milk?

You shoulda seen the Pork Bellies before the CME stopped the trading! It was a beautiful time.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So, we seem to have people who are willing to work.

We have capital available to support it.

What we don't have is stability in rules and regulations that people are willing to take a risk on. Lets get a new administration who can bring us some stability in rules, regulations and economic policy and for heaven's sake, lets get rid of the yoke called Obamacare.

If we what have now isn't stable then such a thing doesn't exist.

Obamacare will last until an actual liberal improves upon it. You might as well live with it.

 

[jeninflorida]

Wealth and the distribution of wealth is what government is all about. Politics is the struggle for control of the wealth.

And this is where Government fails

 

[jeninflorida]

My gut is telling me we are heading back into a recession. DC is a mess. Obama has proven he is not a leader. Pretty sure all the stimulus money was spent and what will states do next year come budget time? Obama is still anti business.

Business still has no incentive to expand and hire people. American corporations are still moving assets overseas to reduce their income tax to be competitive. Sears/Kmart is closing what 100-120 stores.

hopefully I'm wrong

On page 509, we begin the celebration of the economy turning around and the cheering of a rising stock market.

Let's have a moment of reality √...



http://www.cnbc.com/id/45804289

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Wealth and the distribution of wealth is what government is all about. Politics is the struggle for control of the wealth.

No, this is wrong without the word (pick one) feudal, mercantile, communist, or any one of the communist variations...

In a true Liberal Republic, wealth and wealth redistribution are left to the efficiencies of the market.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Looks to me like the banks are selling their gold. Maybe the gold bubble burst.

Maybe. That's a better explanation than "deflation."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, we seem to have people who are willing to work.

We have capital available to support it.

What we don't have is stability in rules and regulations that people are willing to take a risk on. Lets get a new administration who can bring us some stability in rules, regulations and economic policy and for heaven's sake, lets get rid of the yoke called Obamacare.

Exactly the scenario and the problem with so many other countries, why risk Capital if it will be simply confiscated?

The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hey vette, check out the KO thread on Libertarians...




I think I scored a KO.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Where's your models now?

The development of modern neoclassical economics is the story of how a discipline lost its way. Before the mathematization of economics, economists tried to explain prices and macro patterns in the market place from individual human action. But modern "mathonomics" has evolved into a subfield of mathematics with no obvious ties to the real economy. Assuming "perfect" conditions and general equilibrium, the conclusions of economic analysis follow directly from the premises — as one would expect from solving mathematical equations — and are hence of little scientific interest. It follows that phenomena in the real economy that do not seem to fit the "perfect" models should be dismissed as imperfections; what remains to explain is the causes of action rather than its effect. The task of economics has therefore shifted from explaining the effect of human action to tracking the causes of it.

This radical shift suggests that we already know all there is to know about markets (at least to the limited extent predicted by mathematical models), while it provides a breeding ground for analysis of behavior instead of action. In other words, in order to track the ultimate causes of our mathematically precise economic models, economists shift focus toward psychology and the identifying building blocks of actors' perception of self. Economists have moved from being experts at explaining economic phenomena and the market process to being at best run-of-the-mill mathematicians and second-rate psychologists.

Considering this development, it is no wonder that economists are puzzled by phenomena like the "endowment effect." Indeed, I have myself experienced statements by established economist scholars about this psychological effect that is assumed to be a mystery. In layman terms, the endowment effect is

a hypothesis that people value a good or service more once their property right to it has been established. In other words, people place a higher value on objects they own than objects that they do not. In one experiment, people demanded a higher price for a coffee mug that had been given to them but put a lower price on one they did not yet own. (from Wikipedia)

From a mathematical-economic point view, the endowment effect demonstrates the inability of formal economics to explain what drives human action. Indeed, the endowment effect seems to shift an actor's indifference curves, and thus his subjective valuation of goods and services, depending not on qualities in the good itself or its price but on the contextual, circumstantial characteristics and psychological state of the instant and situation. The economic explanation to market valuation is therefore at odds with real valuation and the models need to be expanded to include psychological drivers of subjective valuation. And therefore economics must embrace behavioral studies and neuroscience.

From an Austrian point of view, however, there is no problem and never was one. The "endowment effect" is but an illusory problem that arises due to the confusion of means and ends in modern economics. The only reason economists today find bewilderment in such an "effect" is that they have adopted precise mathematics as the end of economic analyses rather than seeing it as one of its possible means. In fact, the endowment effect, while literally impossible in mathematical analysis and assumed away in indifference-curve analysis, is necessary in any type of exchange. Both Menger and Böhm-Bawerk were well aware of this, and neither they nor any later Austrians ever recanted — and for good reason.

http://mises.org/daily/5839/The-Mystery-of-the-Endowment-Effect

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Saw that, I'd have to agree.

The payoff of self-education, the kind the libs hate the most!

 

[jeninflorida]

Saw that, I'd have to agree.

Only Socialism will save us now!

When was the last time a Libertarians made any money?

Speaking of that, what about that crazy guy on MSNBC, no not Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann as he was fired. That real nut job Lawrence O'Donnell, what did that guy ever do? Now that he has a fat paycheck, wonder how much of his money goes to support charity as he's a socialist quack


I haven't watched the ED show in some time, but I think Ed Schultz is nuts
Last time I watched Dylan Ratigan he was turning more to the center

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Only Socialism will save us now!

Whether you think it was World War II or the New Deal doesn't really matter. Clearly that's what saved us last time according to pretty much every single person on the planet.

 

[jeninflorida]

You'd be 100% correct about those two wackos. Don't watch MSNBC but I've seen them enough to agree.

but I get to hear stuff like

DETROIT/HAMBURG — The United Auto Workers union is staking its future on the kind of struggle it hasn't waged since the 1930s: a massive drive to organize hostile factories.

This time, the target is foreign car makers, whose workers have rebuffed the union repeatedly. Specifically, Reuters has learned, the union is going after U.S. plants owned by German manufacturers Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG, seen as easier nuts to crack than the Japanese and South Koreans.

It's a battle the UAW cannot afford to lose. By failing to organize factories run by foreign automakers, the union has been a spectator to the only growth in the U.S. auto industry in the last 30 years. That failure to win new members has compounded a crunch on the UAW's finances, forcing it to sell assets and dip into its strike fund to pay for its activities.

In dozens of interviews with union officials, organizers and car company executives, a picture has emerged of UAW President Bob King's strategy. By appealing to German unions for help and by calling on the companies to do the right thing, King hopes to get VW and Daimler to surrender without a fight and let the union make its case directly to workers.

Why is it that one HAVE to be part of the union? Why can't union membership be optional?