The Hard Science of Economics

Stan Shannon

Yes, the experiment has been conducted and the results are in. Free market capitalism is unstable, but predictiably increases general social prosperity over time. Collectivism provides stability but predictably decreases general social prosperity over time.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

modified on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:53 PM

Chris Austin

Ed Gadziemski wrote:

here is substantial proof that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and others were specifically targeted and driven into failure, which caused the cascading effect on the financial system we now witness.

Can you share a link on this? I love a good conspiracy. Also, I was shorting (via put options) those companies you mentioned as long as it was allowed. For me, there was no desire to ruin a company but rather to trade the obvious trend. Does the proof that you mention spell out a certain group of traders that were attacking those companies along with their motive?

Ed Gadziemski wrote:

Because of the two shortfalls I described above, economics will at best be 60% accurate.

I hate to be a pendant but is there any research or data that backs this assertion? I have no problem with your logic but science requires data for formalization and review.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?

Ed Gadziemski · modified on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:53 PM

You're right. It seems the Chinese are trying to meld the two systems together. Should be interesting to see how it works out.

Oakman

Ed Gadziemski wrote:

A prime example of this is the periods of rapid inflation the followed the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.

Say what? In the last four years of the Eisenhower administration the inflation rate ranged from 1.01 to 3.34, the last year's rate being 1.46. Kennedy's rate ranged from 1.07 to 1.24, completely within the boundaries of the Eisenhower rate. In 1963, it took $1.02 to buy the same goods that it took $1.00 to buy in 1961. Carter's inflation rate went steadily north starting at 6.50 and ending at 13.58. Reagan's first year saw the rate drop to 10.35 and by the sixth year of his term it was at 1.61. By the 8th is had risen again to 4.08 still only 2/3rds of what it had been at it lowest point under Carter. When Carter left office it took $1.36 to buy what had cost $1.00 when he took office 4 years earlier. :omg: After 4 years with Reagan in office, it took $1.14 to buy what had cost $1.00. Even after 8 years in office, Reagan hadn't quite matched the inflation we experienced under his predecessor who had only lasted four years. We spent $1.30 buying the same goods in 1988 that had cost $1.00 8 years earlier. Whatever positive or negative effects their tax cuts may have had, causing inflation was not one of them. Anyone who told you otherwise was fudging the data. Note: edit made to correct typo

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

modified on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:00 PM

Ed Gadziemski

Chris Austin wrote:

I was shorting (via put options) those companies you mentioned as long as it was allowed

Shorting is a time-honored tradition and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Chris Austin wrote:

Can you share a link on this? I love a good conspiracy.

Jim Cramer Uses CNBC to Manipulate Stocks[^]

Stan Shannon

Ed Gadziemski wrote:

You're right. It seems the Chinese are trying to meld the two systems together. Should be interesting to see how it works out.

My hypothesis is that they will get the worst of both systems - even greater instability and decrease in prosperity over time. Each will tend to amplify the negative characteristics of the other in a positive feed back loop.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Cramer was one of Obama's greatest supporters during the election. He loved the guy. He is a socially left leaning democrat.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

Cramer was one of Obama's greatest supporters during the election. He loved the guy. He is a socially left leaning democrat.

Who has probably contributed more to the Democratic party than you and I have made, put together. But no-one, I mean no-one, survives pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. Wait until they reveal that Cramer was really the guy yelling the n-word at the comedy club in Los Angeles, a couple of years ago.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Wait until they reveal that Cramer was really the guy yelling the n-word at the comedy club in Los Angeles, a couple of years ago.

:laugh: The attack machine really is a quite amazing thing to watch. And the Kos is nothing but a cog in that machine. This[^] was a very revealing report out today.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Chris Austin

Ed Gadziemski wrote:

horting is a time-honored tradition and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Oh yeah, I took no offense. I am just pointing out that for me the choice to short is based on a trend rather than any instinct or emotion.

Ed Gadziemski wrote:

Jim Cramer Uses CNBC to Manipulate Stocks[^]

That makes more sense. No one could be as incompetent as Cramer was with his picks. I'll never forget "BEAR STERNS IS FINE!" Meanwhile, technical analysis told me to short BS as much as possible. Did you ever see Cramer watch while it was still up? They had a monkey pick stocks vs Jim Cramer. The monkey was in a statistical dead heat with Cramer on his picks. Funny stuff.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?