or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anantksundaram

Yeah, maybe. Consider this. We'll all also be dead in 75 years. If that makes you want to live and plan for your life as though you'll be dead this evening, go right ahead! There'll be more for the rest of us! My point is quite simply that your economics ideas and predictions (like those of the guy who keeps liking your posts) are utterly clueless. Short of your common sense, I can't really appeal to appeal to much else to get you to stop.
OK, here's a fun Sunday project for you. You can easily go back to 1850 all the way to today and obtain GBP/USD data for this 216-year period. How often did the USD "collapse"? By how much (e.g., how many standard deviations) compared to, say, some long-run average? (Reworded a bit to clarify).
Do you have an iota of evidence that Keynesian policies have been a "tremendous anchor on said progress"? Does it, for example, matter whether we're in a recession or boom? He panicked? Cite? "Only the government (rulers)... can protect us"? Have you even bothered to read Keynes? What if I were to tell you that he never said that, and you're making an utterly ignorant statement? (But knock yourself out). The comparison to Bush is silly. I have no idea what the analogy to...
Your response is such a non-sequitur. And as always, when pressed for specifics, you always divert the topic and throw out platitudes. "$18 trillion in debt"? What the heck does that mean, independent of the size of the GDP and forecasted trajectory of the deficit? Just throw out some big numbers and you guys expect to won over the low-information types who are impressed by big numbers. For example, Apple has $55B in debt now, compared to zero five years ago. Is that bad?...
Really? What does you source say about Krugman's most recent op-ed on why debt can be a very good thing? What is mises.org's argument that persuades you?Please don't lazily give me a link. Explain how you understand it so that we can perhaps better understand your worldview.
But mine had more panache.
1) You really should parse sentences better. Where did I say that Ayn Rand (or Rand Paul) were economists!?2) Why don't you tell us -- unless you are, by profession, an economist -- what the source of your bold prediction authority is?3) Please spare us the lazy 'Krugman' reference. He's always your go-to bogeyman. (Although, I happen to think he's a pretty darn good economist to the extent that he relies on actual empirical evidence, not fantasy).
This is pure, unadulterated nonsense, propagated by Ayn Randian (and Rand Paulian) type economists.They've been going on about this for eight years now, yet the sheer weight of empirical evidence stacked against them has never changed their minds. The global economy has grown impressively, created great companies and products, produced hundreds of millions of jobs, created great wealth, and seen low inflation and interest rates during this period of 'loose monetary and...
Your point about inertia is important. In understanding movement in stock (for that matter, any asset) prices, it is critical to understand the distinction between average and marginal investors: it is always the marginal investor, i.e., the small proportion that goes out there buys or sells on any given day, that moves prices.Most of AAPL just stayed pat in the average investor's portfolio last week. As it well should.The motivation and the horizon of the two types of...
I did.But I am so overweighted on AAPL that I will probably stop.
New Posts  All Forums: