Uhm... Business Week said WHAT?!?!?!

[AmericanBushi]

I would like to offer witty, intelligent comment on this BusinessWeek article.... but I can't, I just cant.. :mad::confused:

Don't Fear the Bubble
Speculative booms and busts are actually good for the long-term health of the economy. Here's why:

http://www.businessweek.com/investor...osition=link18

[Starving Steve]

Re: Uhm... Business Week said WHAT?!?!?!

If central banks can not protect the world from the excesses of bubbles, nor the ravages left when bubbles pop, what purpose do central banks serve in this world?

Even worse, the roller-coaster ride from bubbles seems to be getting worse in recent years because the bubbles are coming now, fast and furious, one right after another. And this is occurring just as central banks have become even more hell-bent on tinkering around with interest rates and money supply---- things that they really know almost nothing about.

[sadsack]

Re: Uhm... Business Week said WHAT?!?!?!

I got the most kick out of this section of the article:

But rather than a bubble, argues Mandel, the second half of the 1990s could just as easily be called an "age of exploration." "The low cost of capital enabled risk-taking people and companies to try out lots of new ideas simultaneously, and on a large enough scale that they got a fair test," he writes.

The quote above would make more sense had not the FIRE cabal rewritten the bankruptcy code to favor "debt feudalism."

The author of the article is confusing a level, entrepreneur-friendly playing field with a stacked-deck FIRE gambit: loan the money, package the risk as CDO's and sell it, service the loan, then call the loan to seize assets/wealth.

Sorry - Sapiens', Finster's, and Bart's points are clamoring in my head . . .

I'm sure EJ could provide highly relevant commentary on the above points . . .

[Verrocchio]

Re: Uhm... Business Week said WHAT?!?!?!

I got the most kick out of this section of the article:



The quote above would make more sense had not the FIRE cabal rewritten the bankruptcy code to favor "debt feudalism."

The author of the article is confusing a level, entrepreneur-friendly playing field with a stacked-deck FIRE gambit: loan the money, package the risk as CDO's and sell it, service the loan, then call the loan to seize assets/wealth.

Sorry - Sapiens', Finster's, and Bart's points are clamoring in my head . . .

I'm sure EJ could provide highly relevant commentary on the above points . . .

You're doing quite well yourself, sadsack. Farrell should (and probably does) know better. He's an award-winning journalist and graduated from the London School of Economics and Stanford University. 'Tis a pity that he's repeating such pandering drivel. Surely one of his profs mentioned the concept of misallocation of resources, normally associated with a deviation from perfect competition, but a central flaw that figures large in all bubbles.

[FRED]

Re: Uhm... Business Week said WHAT?!?!?!

You're doing quite well yourself, sadsack. Farrell should (and probably does) know better. He's an award-winning journalist and graduated from the London School of Economics and Stanford University. 'Tis a pity that he's repeating such pandering drivel. Surely one of his profs mentioned the concept of misallocation of resources, normally associated with a deviation from perfect competition, but a central flaw that figures large in all bubbles.

Don't forget, Business Week gave iTulip the Best of 2006 Financial Web Site Award. They may not like the award that iTulip gives them for this article :eek:

[GRG55]

Re: Uhm... Business Week said WHAT?!?!?!

Don't forget, Business Week gave iTulip the Best of 2006 Financial Web Site Award. They may not like the award that iTulip gives them for this article :eek:

Now wait a minute...it was EJ that wrote that the only thing worse than another bubble is no bubble at all...