So, after the current ecconomic crisis is past, what are the chances for a decade of (mega) inflation?
-
Foolhardy policies causing rampant growth at the expense of good economic sense. Where individuals should be encouraged to treasure their monies and not to spend (squander) unsustainable amounts on credit they, and consequently, the country (and the world), can ill afford. Such foolhardy policies might give the illusion that all is well, but it is an illusion. With better regulation, and enforcible regulation, growth is better managed, thus, there is a reduction in monetary related risks.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
With better regulation, and enforcible regulation, growth is better managed, thus, there is a reduction in monetary related risks.
Nope. Growth cannot be managed or regulated. Only decline can. Growth is about risk taking. Always has been, always will be.
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.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
With better regulation, and enforcible regulation, growth is better managed, thus, there is a reduction in monetary related risks.
Nope. Growth cannot be managed or regulated. Only decline can. Growth is about risk taking. Always has been, always will be.
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 wrote:
Growth cannot be managed or regulated
Are you sure about that. From the following "The Fed should use the basic Money-GDP Growth Formula cited above to target potential (full-employment trend) real GDP, by carefully monitoring the Money-Demand Ratio's trend growth rate, and controlling money growth accordingly -- by precise control of bank reserves. Monitoring the MDR trend requires just as skillful economic analysis as Greenspan's current policy. But the Money-Growth Formula approach is more precise, credible and "transparent" (understandable), and would tend to increase business confidence." [^]. Perhaps you might change your mind.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Growth cannot be managed or regulated
Are you sure about that. From the following "The Fed should use the basic Money-GDP Growth Formula cited above to target potential (full-employment trend) real GDP, by carefully monitoring the Money-Demand Ratio's trend growth rate, and controlling money growth accordingly -- by precise control of bank reserves. Monitoring the MDR trend requires just as skillful economic analysis as Greenspan's current policy. But the Money-Growth Formula approach is more precise, credible and "transparent" (understandable), and would tend to increase business confidence." [^]. Perhaps you might change your mind.
which part of...
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
tend to increase business confidence
...are you confused by? Confidence in what? Confidence in risk taking, thats what. But it is just that kind of thinking that led directly to the current fical crisis - the government trying to manipulate the system giving businesses false confidence.
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.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
With better regulation, and enforcible regulation, growth is better managed, thus, there is a reduction in monetary related risks.
Nope. Growth cannot be managed or regulated. Only decline can. Growth is about risk taking. Always has been, always will be.
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.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Straight to Davy Jones locker.
Stan wants to lose his life savings and house every 10 years and start over. It's the Jeffersonian way. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Straight to Davy Jones locker.
That is a risk that you have to compare to the certainty of dieing a long and lingering death in quiet seas.
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, May 20, 2009 6:06 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is a risk that you have to compare to the certainty of dieing a long and lingering death in quiet seas.
Give it a rest, Stan. No-one takes risks without calculating the reward and trying to manage the risk. Except psychopaths.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
With better regulation, and enforcible regulation, growth is better managed, thus, there is a reduction in monetary related risks.
Nope. Growth cannot be managed or regulated. Only decline can. Growth is about risk taking. Always has been, always will be.
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 wrote:
Growth cannot be managed or regulated
Really? So which corproartion succeed and which fail is just a roll of the dice? No management skills needed?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Growth cannot be managed or regulated
Really? So which corproartion succeed and which fail is just a roll of the dice? No management skills needed?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
No management skills needed?
I was obviously referring to management external to the risk takers themselves.
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 wrote:
That is a risk that you have to compare to the certainty of dieing a long and lingering death in quiet seas.
Give it a rest, Stan. No-one takes risks without calculating the reward and trying to manage the risk. Except psychopaths.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Give it a rest, Stan. No-one takes risks without calculating the reward and trying to manage the risk. Except psychopaths.
I never suggested otherwise, but a dead sea holds no risk at all. It holds a certainty of death. Calculating and managing the risks is entirely the responsibility of those seeking the reward.
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 wrote:
Give it a rest, Stan. No-one takes risks without calculating the reward and trying to manage the risk. Except psychopaths.
I never suggested otherwise, but a dead sea holds no risk at all. It holds a certainty of death. Calculating and managing the risks is entirely the responsibility of those seeking the reward.
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 wrote:
It holds a certainty of death
Until you tell the engineer to fire up the boilers, or use some reaction mass, or tell the mate to get out the oars. Even the Ancient Mariner finally got out. Certainty of death - for quitters, maybe.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
To answer the header - somewhere between 99% and 101%.
fat_boy wrote:
So perhaps this is a good way to take the heat out of house proces without changing their digit values
It's a good way to get out of owing China half of the United States' GNP.
fat_boy wrote:
and reduce debt overall, taxpayers included.
Problem is, progressive income tax takes a larger bite out of an inflated paycheck.
fat_boy wrote:
Any answers from the financially astute out there?
Gold if you think civilization is going to survive without another dark ages; gold and lead if you don't.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
I was waiting for someone to say gold. Its always the obvious, and probably best answer. Of course, here in the evilised world lead isnt so important... :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Of course, here in the evilised world lead isnt so important...
Sooner or later the Boche are coming across the Rhine again - if only because they are running from the Poles. . .who will be running from the Russians. . .who will be running from the Chinese.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin