ahhaha's ahs | Stock Discussion Forums

SiliconInvestor

sponsor

Sponsor

Technology Stocks | ahhaha's ahs

Previous 10 | Next 10

To: ahhaha who wrote (20857)	4/25/2012 8:54:14 PM
From: frankw1900	of 23357

Pumping provides marginal confidence that encourages people to maintain their counter productive or marginally productive behavior. OK, that fits the picture. I'm not sure that's all there is to it since pumping is an effort to protect all asset prices Ridiculous. Where did you get that crazy idea? The past ten years history. It's what “everybody” wants. ('Cept me). but that's the political aspect of it, isn't it? Ridiculous nonsense. No FED chairman or FOMC..... That's not what I was thinking about. It's in the air – it's what “everybody” wants, even Berdoo. That's the politics. But I listened to Berdoo's press conference a couple of months ago and basically he said in response to a question, “Yes, I'll fuck the pensioners with real negative rates, gotta preserve stability.” “Stability” = protecting asset prices. Nobody, not homeowners, not banks, nobody, is supposed to take a loss on their crapola assets, no pain for nobody except those with interest income. That's the politics I was thinking about.

ahhaha's ahs \| Stock Discussion ForumsShare	Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20873)	4/25/2012 9:38:25 PM
From: ahhaha	of 23357

The past ten years history. It's what “everybody” wants. ('Cept me). Pumping hasn't protected asset prices. In fact, FED's accommodation was a major factor enabling the 2008 financial crisis. Operation Twist, merely a smokescreen to hide pumping, didn't even realize its nominal objective which was to achieve a form of asset price protection for Tpaper. it's what “everybody” wants, even Berdoo. Politics? FED isn't political. "...gotta preserve stability.” Berdoo said a lot of things today which disguise FED's true intentions. However, he wasn't asked any provocative questions as he was several months ago or previously. For example, "Is gold money"? This wasn't intentional by those questioning, rather, there wasn't a provocative topic available in the recent "conversation" from which a prickly question could be sluiced. “Stability” = protecting asset prices. Is 2% inflation price stability?. Unless you hold inflating assets, it isn't. Economic axiom : It is impossible to inflate all assets simultaneously. By the way, explicating that assertion is worth a PhD in econ since it entails lots of math. Nobody, not homeowners, not banks, nobody, is supposed to take a loss on their crapola assets, no pain for nobody except those with interest income. FED isn't that stupid. You have to lay that one on the 'crats. One always has to remember that FED is primarily motivated by their desire to maintain their independence. Presumably, right monetary policy will achieve that end so they try to deliver right monetary policy. However, there is only one right policy : zero inflation policy that painlessly can be delivered by free market in money. In 1978 FED, in an attempt to protect its independence, conceded the zero inflation objective to Dual Mandate. Dual Mandate guarantees periodic financial chaos, the essence of asset price instability. That's the politics I was thinking about. The politics of "anything goes" = cut throat.

ahhaha's ahs \| Stock Discussion ForumsShare	Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

From: ahhaha	4/26/2012 12:46:18 AM
	of 23357

Law is such total bullshit. It's fickle, and depends upon might, the Thrasymachus standard. Grace once reminded me, "we are not a society of men but a society of law". I told her she was full of bullshit. We are a society of tyrannical men whose primary function is to evade law. The law works adequately when its functioning has no material consequences. When it does have consequences, it rarely works although it appears to find justice.Fact is, there's no other way to resolve disputes except through some standard of conduct, but don't be fooled by the posturing of senators and judges about the glory of law. The only law you can't buy off are the laws of physics. The Harmons contend the rent-stabilization law is an unconstitutional “taking” of private property without compensation. They say previous Supreme Court decisions allow rent-control laws only for emergency situations and that New York’s decades-old system has effectively become permanent. “This simple case challenges the power of the city and state of New York to impose on the Harmons the unconstitutional burden of involuntarily and permanently renting a part of their residence to tenant-strangers,” the couple argued in their appeal. A New York-based federal appeals court threw out the Harmon suit on a 3-0 vote, rejecting their contention that the law was akin to a physical occupation of their property. New York City and state both asked the Supreme Court to reject Harmon’s appeal without a hearing. Previous Supreme Court decisions say that judges “should not sit as super-legislatures reviewing matters of economic policy, but should ask only whether a legislature’s policy judgments are rational,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman argued in court papers. No Mr. Schneiderman, belching out more duplicitous hypocrisy? How can judges or anyone decide what is rational and what isn't? That can't be a criterion of law even though it might be a criterion of criminality, but can it ever be a criterion of anything? Further, about everything the Supreme Court has been doing since the advent of the activist judge under FDR has been to act as a super legislature reviewing economic policy. That kind of specious legal approach which rejects the Constitution has come to dominate jurisprudence in NY, and everywhere else. It's clearly evident in the Harmon case.

ahhaha's ahs \| Stock Discussion ForumsShare	Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.