TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
I didn't say you said it, I said you act like it.[SUP]1[/SUP]
I don't know what your point is saying that a business has to have people spend money to make money.[SUP]2[/SUP] Um...true? yes? Doesn't change that if the value of people's money is systematically whittled away over time, it creates disincentive to save and incentive to spend. Good for big business, bad for people that would like to spend responsibly for things they need, and save as well to provide a safety net for themselves. Ah but that's where the vast increase in the size of government comes in...you don't have have your own safety net, they'll make one for you! All you have to do is give up, yes, more of your money, power and freedoms[SUP]3[/SUP].
You stumbled into my point yet again in another part of your post when you said "oh sure, easy money helped" but then tried to marginalize.[SUP]4[/SUP] It didn't help, it was the thing. It's exactly what Krugman called for and it's exactly what took place. The NASDAQ bubble -- aka not real growth -- burst and so a new ruse was needed to create the illusion of real growth. Krugman knew that. So what's the new bubble now?
Not really interested in market psychology because it only followed exactly what Krugman wanted.[SUP]5[/SUP]
1. Based on what? Do you think that I think Carnegie didn't have a successful business because the Fed wasn't around during his days? GMAFB
2. You, a couple posts ago: "Savers are getting creamed because corporate America doesn't make money from people not spending it." Nobody can make money from people not spending it, this has nothing to do with "corporate America." Savers are getting creamed because my interpretation is correct, there are a lot of people willing to lend money or pay down debts (savings actions) and not a lot of people who want to borrow. Supply and demand in action.
3. More Austrian hysterics, and I'd like to note that the personal savings rate is actually positively correlated with inflation.
4. No I didn't, I told you what actually happened. Monetary policy did lower rates, but it was still the banks' actions, abetted by hapless ratings agencies, that extended credit without regard to the borrower's ability to pay, under the assumptions of ever-rising house prices. Greenspan and Bernanke didn't build that.
5. I can't believe that I forgot about how Krugman was secretly controlling Greenspan, Bernanke, and Wall St during the Bush years. Not being interested in market psychology when discussing bubbles seems... unwise.
Last edited: