[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by Biorin

When you're married to a billionaire, it's best you know a little bit about money. That being said, I came across this joke earlier...

Einstein dies and goes to heaven. His first day, he meets someone and asks, "What's your IQ?

"145

"Wonderful, we can talk about physics".

The next day, Einstein meets someone else, and asks their IQ.

"100"

"Wonderful, we can talk about music and the arts".

The next day, Einstein meets someone else and asks.

"85"

"What do you think interest rates are going to do?"

Hah. Funny. Good to know you aren't a Keynesian. though. I would've had to worry.

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by jtodd_fl

Hah. Funny. Good to know you aren't a Keynesian. though. I would've had to worry.

Picked this up on my last trip to B&N (granted, the last trip was almost a year ago).
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Keynes-W.../dp/1604190442

[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by Biorin

Picked this up on my last trip to B&N (granted, the last trip was almost a year ago).
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Keynes-W.../dp/1604190442

OK, shit just got real. Since you are actually into it, I have a question. So, I have a question about the "recovery" from the economic meltdown and whether it is a validation of Keynesianism and whether quantitative easing is a counterforce to the Keynesian ideal of government created demand by lowering interest rates to the point of pushing private investment to "lighten the load" carried by the government. I have heard some say that Keynesianism has been largely validated by the last 7 or 8 years of US policy and I have heard others say that QE had a greater effect and that, given it was done in deficit spending, we have yet to settle the bill created by the Keynesian path taken by Bernanke et al. What are your thoughts?

(Maybe this should be in Ask A Girl Anything - Lups was just complaining about it being quiet over there.)

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by jtodd_fl

OK, shit just got real. Since you are actually into it, I have a question. So, I have a question about the "recovery" from the economic meltdown and whether it is a validation of Keynesianism and whether quantitative easing is a counterforce to the Keynesian ideal of government created demand by lowering interest rates to the point of pushing private investment to "lighten the load" carried by the government. I have heard some say that Keynesianism has been largely validated by the last 7 or 8 years of US policy and I have heard others say that QE had a greater effect and that, given it was done in deficit spending, we have yet to settle the bill created by the Keynesian path taken by Bernanke et al. What are your thoughts?

(Maybe this should be in Ask A Girl Anything - Lups was just complaining about it being quiet over there.)

Shall the Thread Jackers pay a visit?

[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

[/I][/B]

Shall the Thread Jackers pay a visit?

Whenever I need something jacked, you're the man I call.





Wait wut?

[Mywifes335]

Originally Posted by Biorin

I have not read it. Fiat currency ...I mean, that 500X is fugly.

Wow. I like your homophonic use of the word Fiat.

[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by Mywifes335

Wow. I like your homophonic use of the word Fiat.

#nohomophone

[Mywifes335]

Originally Posted by ASBSECU E93

The illusion here - currency and commodity values are just that...an illusion.

Regardless of what standard is used - very few people have 'real control' to insulate for fluctuations of supply/demand.

Prime example of this: Milk

When fuel was $4/gallon, milk cost X price.

When fuel cost fell to $2/gallon, milk still cost X price.

The commodity of fuel fell by $2/gallon, but the cost of the related commodity did not...

Good example of perceived value of $1 and the fact we have no control over it. 100%, cost of fuel and milk are not highly correlated and are subject to different market forces.

Currency value is affected by the total impact of all goods and services...including our rapper-like government spending. Oh yeah. Big pimpin.

Heard smart money is moving back into precious metals...gold.

[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by Mywifes335

Good example of perceived value of $1 and the fact we have no control over it. 100%, cost of fuel and milk are not highly correlated and are subject to different market forces.

Currency value is affected by the total impact of all goods and services...including our rapper-like government spending. Oh yeah. Big pimpin.

Heard smart money is moving back into precious metals...gold.

[Mywifes335]

Originally Posted by jtodd_fl

Don't laugh.... I bought through Goldline before. At one point, in Europe, there were ATMs that dispensed gold.

I don't trust this guy, JW Wentworth's fuckin cousin? He was "Carter" in the movie "Payback".

[Banana Hammock]

Originally Posted by Mywifes335

Don't laugh.... I bought through Goldline before. At one point, in Europe, there were ATMs that dispensed gold.

I don't trust this guy, JW Wentworth's fuckin cousin? He was "Carter" in the movie "Payback".

He looks like an old Seth Mcfarland.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Mywifes335

Don't laugh.... I bought through Goldline before. At one point, in Europe, there were ATMs that dispensed gold.

I don't trust this guy, JW Wentworth's fuckin cousin? He was "Carter" in the movie "Payback".

So much win in that movie.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by jtodd_fl

OK, shit just got real. Since you are actually into it, I have a question. So, I have a question about the "recovery" from the economic meltdown and whether it is a validation of Keynesianism and whether quantitative easing is a counterforce to the Keynesian ideal of government created demand by lowering interest rates to the point of pushing private investment to "lighten the load" carried by the government. I have heard some say that Keynesianism has been largely validated by the last 7 or 8 years of US policy and I have heard others say that QE had a greater effect and that, given it was done in deficit spending, we have yet to settle the bill created by the Keynesian path taken by Bernanke et al. What are your thoughts?

(Maybe this should be in Ask A Girl Anything - Lups was just complaining about it being quiet over there.)

Originally Posted by MKSixer

[/I][/B]

Shall the Thread Jackers pay a visit?

You two old fucks should help a friend out when she's bored and stop bitching.

[ASBSECU E93]

Originally Posted by Mywifes335

Good example of perceived value of $1 and the fact we have no control over it. 100%, cost of fuel and milk are not highly correlated and are subject to different market forces.

Currency value is affected by the total impact of all goods and services...including our rapper-like government spending. Oh yeah. Big pimpin.

Heard smart money is moving back into precious metals...gold.

IMO - this is a risky calculated move, unless you KNOW how to trade this sector.

[ASBSECU E93]

Originally Posted by Lups

You two old fucks should help a friend out when she's bored and stop bitching.

@Lups !!!!

Sup?!?!

[Mywifes335]

Originally Posted by ASBSECU E93

IMO - this is a risky calculated move, unless you KNOW how to trade this sector.

True about anything. Anyhow, the recent funds flow into gold isn't for ST trading but rather capital preservation.

With gold today, I'm pretty comfortable with the downside risk (~30%). At last spot, I think was 1265....

[ASBSECU E93]

Originally Posted by Mywifes335

True about anything. Anyhow, the recent funds flow into gold isn't for ST trading but rather capital preservation.

With gold today, I'm pretty comfortable with the downside risk (~30%). At last spot, I think was 1265....

That's a LOT of down side....

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by ASBSECU E93

@Lups !!!!

Sup?!?!

Lups

HEY!!!! whazzup!

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by jtodd_fl

OK, shit just got real. Since you are actually into it, I have a question. So, I have a question about the "recovery" from the economic meltdown and whether it is a validation of Keynesianism and whether quantitative easing is a counterforce to the Keynesian ideal of government created demand by lowering interest rates to the point of pushing private investment to "lighten the load" carried by the government. I have heard some say that Keynesianism has been largely validated by the last 7 or 8 years of US policy and I have heard others say that QE had a greater effect and that, given it was done in deficit spending, we have yet to settle the bill created by the Keynesian path taken by Bernanke et al. What are your thoughts?

(Maybe this should be in Ask A Girl Anything - Lups was just complaining about it being quiet over there.)

I don't think it validates Keynesianism. I think that Keynesianism is a bit like, say, liposuction. They both provide a quick and effective solution to the problem at hand, but do not address the underlying cause, which is why we keep going through the same cycles again and again. Artificially lowered interest rates encourage malinvestment/poorly thought out investments, which then fail and end up supported by QE and similar plans. There's a quote from Paul Krugman back in 2001 or so saying how Greenspan needed to create a housing (or similar) bubble to replace the tech bubble. How about you don't fuck with interest rates and create bubbles that eventually crash?

To me, deregulation and lowered taxes are much more effective in the long term. The government taking money from people and acting as if it best knows how to allocate it to stimulate the economy (bureaucracy and special interests, mostly) is ridiculous. The broken window fallacy comes to mind.

That's really oversimplified, and probably doesn't answer your question, but yes.

[Mywifes335]

Originally Posted by ASBSECU E93

That's a LOT of down side....

If your downside risk is <30%, you probably shouldn't be invested in any markets. Not a dig, just being honest.

Nothing is safe these days. Interest rate hikes have been imminent for years...only way to go is UP, so debt markets will eventually get crushed. And we're flirting with sky high equities indices...fueled by lackluster earnings and a shaky global economic environment. What do you think the downside is here? Equities always have a downside risk of $0. People forget that.

Gold has intrinsic value and 30% downside is pretty much the floor.

Real estate? Maybe. But people have really short term memories. EVERYTHING was down in 2008/2009. I think in highly speculative South Florida, real estate was down over 50%? I'm just approximating.

[ASBSECU E93]

Originally Posted by Mywifes335

If your downside risk is <30%, you probably shouldn't be invested in any markets. Not a dig, just being honest.

Nothing is safe these days. Interest rate hikes have been imminent for years...only way to go is UP, so debt markets will eventually get crushed. And we're flirting with sky high equities indices...fueled by lackluster earnings and a shaky global economic environment. What do you think the downside is here? Equities always have a downside risk of $0. People forget that.

Gold has intrinsic value and 30% downside is pretty much the floor.

Real estate? Maybe. But people have really short term memories. EVERYTHING was down in 2008/2009. I think in highly speculative South Florida, real estate was down over 50%? I'm just approximating.

Good is not a commodity you can personally convert to cash at perceived market price when holding the actual precious metal.

I can rent my investments for market value everyday if the week. More not that supply is shrinking and affordability for many who had credit issues during the recession.

Also - I started buying in 2009 and progressively allowed the 'correction' to work in my favor.

To each their own - but I'd be leery of precious metals as a significant hold for future earnings.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Biorin

I don't think it validates Keynesianism. I think that Keynesianism is a bit like, say, liposuction. They both provide a quick and effective solution to the problem at hand, but do not address the underlying cause, which is why we keep going through the same cycles again and again. Artificially lowered interest rates encourage malinvestment/poorly thought out investments, which then fail and end up supported by QE and similar plans. There's a quote from Paul Krugman back in 2001 or so saying how Greenspan needed to create a housing (or similar) bubble to replace the tech bubble. How about you don't fuck with interest rates and create bubbles that eventually crash?

To me, deregulation and lowered taxes are much more effective in the long term. The government taking money from people and acting as if it best knows how to allocate it to stimulate the economy (bureaucracy and special interests, mostly) is ridiculous. The broken window fallacy comes to mind.

That's really oversimplified, and probably doesn't answer your question, but yes.

Thank you.