[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
and you can find the same predictions on the book lists every year for the last 30. As I said, keep throwing darts eventually youll get it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your point? Show me works where Austrian influenced economists predicted a rise in gold for periods where the opposite happened.

Just because someone, somewhere said gold is going to go up every year does not mean that those who had a grounding in the economic factors involved, i'll group them as Austrian influenced, didnt predict events more often than random chance or average market expectations.

[ QUOTE ]
No. Ive read all of Mises and Rothbard extensively, as well as the counters to AE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet this is not true. I can infer that from the awareness of the vast amount of literature produced by those two individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to think that there are a lot of "long term profitable investors" who made those profits through publicly available information. That isnt supported by the data. In an essentially random process there will be outliers for any given period of time. Again, no professional investment firm has beat the market for more than two consecutive periods of 5 years or longer, after transaction costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please cite something other than your word to back this up?

Im also not saying there a lot of long term profitable investors. Im saying there are enough of them to show that this occurs more often than random chance, and made more true by the fact they almost all happen to follow a similar brand of economics (value investors, Austrians, etc.).

[ QUOTE ]
ROFLMAO. Talking about reducing your own arguments to an absurdity. Minimizing (or more accurately balancing) risk and increasing profits are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they are. See Gambling Theory by Mason Malmuth, specifically the chapter "The Silly Subject of Money Managment".

[ QUOTE ]
I never said indices are mispriced. I will restate what I said more clearly. Stock averages grow over time not because of "mis-pricing" but because underlying broad market growth is productivity growth. Broad indices capture that productivity growth and are therefore expected to be profitable (and have proven to be in the past).

[/ QUOTE ]

Future earnings are attempted to be priced into securities. If indicies rise over an extensive time they are mispriced in the past.

Not every index is destined to do well over time either.

[ QUOTE ]
You find the ones that can. Ive sat on investment committees for the last 30 years where fund managers track every major investment companies returns vs benchmark for 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20 year periods..to the extent that some of them survive that long. There are none (at least none that publish their results) that have consistent success at beating the indices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would i spend time looking for a study i dont think exists? You can believe that by all means. You cant expect someone else to believe that in debate on your word, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
you can characterize things as "artificially high" as much as you want. People have been doing it with regard to one statistic or another as long as there has been a study of economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you please address the point. I showed that your use of empirical standard of living provides little relevance to the discussion of the pros and cons of monetary policy. A n economy can clearly have a high standard of living while operating a poor monetary policy.

Also is your answer to everything just to be dismissive?

[ QUOTE ]
"Artificial again", lol. If I can even parse my way through the awful English here, you are wrong. Maybe if I capitalize it you will understand better. THE CURRENT RATE OF SUB-PRIME DEFAULTS ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN HISTORICAL STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY RESIDENCES. THE DEFAULTS ARE PRIMARILY FROM SPECULATORS WHO GOT INTO THE MARKET TOO LATE AND TOO THINLY CAPITALIZED.

[/ QUOTE ]

we'll have to agree to disgaree on this. the future will be very telling though.

[ QUOTE ]

However, there is no reason for the current level of panic.


[/ QUOTE ]

again we must agree to disagree. I think the current level of panic is more than justified.

[ QUOTE ]
Because "dueling quotes" isnt a game I enjoy. I much prefer analysis of fundamentals over public statements that are often as much window dressing as substantive policy indications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its only dueling quotes if the fed contradicted themselves in statements. I havent seen that recently so i must assume you arent providing statements to the contrary because they dont exist.

Did you also think the fed was going to cut rates at the last meeting? What indication has the fed giving by any measure that interest rates went up for too long, inflation is not a problem, and interest rates cuts are no not an inflationary disaster?

If you think you have such exclusive information that the public doesnt have, id hope you make a lot of money by investing in private equity firms and lenders if you think borrowing costs are ready to go down and stay down.

[ QUOTE ]
Where in the quoted statement is anything said about what the Fed is or isnt considering? It discusses what the market is CALLING FOR. Despite your jumping off track, the obvious answer is that the Fed is ALWAYS seriously considering cuts or increases. There last release prior to the injection of funds into the market certainly implied that while their focus is still on inflation they recognized that "Readings on core inflation have improved modestly in recent months." and that "...the downside risks to growth have increased somewhat". That is the kind of language that indicates that rates arent going up and they are looking at decreases. Layer on top of that any failure of the markets to respond to the increased liquidity and its obvious that cuts would seriously be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said rates are going up. Ive been saying they are going to stay flat for a while. This because the fed has their hands tied. They have a catch 22 because they cant help the market and inflation at the same time so they've been defaulting in a stand still, trying to give as much lip service as possible to both sides.

[ QUOTE ]
Again you need a reading comprehension course. I said that the Dems would be a disaster, not that that no problems might occur if they lose.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you bring it up at all? What in the discussion encouraged you to say such a thing?

[ QUOTE ]
No, I dont read them as saying they "must be very conservative now". The language of the last release was typical of indications of the possibiity of rate cuts. In fact part of the recent market decline was caused by disappointment that there werent cuts, despite them giving some hope for them

[/ QUOTE ]

The recent statement said that even though there has been rising problems in the market they still cant shift their bias from inflation.

Regardless, i dont deny that the fed wants to help the market but they realize that the economy has strong inflationary concerns. This is very different from your position which states that the markets need a rate cut now because the fed has been too hawkish in the past.

[ QUOTE ]

You really like to put words in peoples mouths, eh? I never said the current market is deflationary, I said inflation was moderate. Whether you characterize moderate inflation as "inflationary" or not I dont know, since that word is generally not used in the absolute, but to indicate more than acceptable inflation. Further, you seem to be reversing cause and effect. Monetary policy is used to influence interest rates, not the reverse. How does a rate cut increase money supply?

[/ QUOTE ]

You said interest rates rose too fast and they are in need of a rate cut? How would that not be the relative equivalent of saying the market is deflationary and in need of an inflation boost?

Rate cutes increase money supply by encouraging borrowing and a decrease in savings, in short.

[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing appeals to majority with appeals to authority, and the latter are only a logical fallacy when the authorities can be shown to be unreliable. There as no "appeal to status quo".

[/ QUOTE ]

i have shown the authorities to be unreliable.

Look at the greenspan quote i posted in this thread btw.

[ QUOTE ]
it sure sounds like your guessing here, espcially with regard to timing. "little reason", "may", "tempt", "may",

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is certain. However if i think specific likelihood of events arent fully priced into the market i can benefit. For examples these could be more substantial risks than realized by the market. I dont have to know for certain what will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
because the market was on a steady climb with the exact same information it has now with regard to the election. Is it possible some of the democratic risk is built in the volatility since 14,000? sure, but there is no reason to think it is

[/ QUOTE ]

If i said something like this your answer would be something like, "tons of people have been saying election premiums havent been priced in over time and not all of them have been right therefore you're wrong".

What do you mean there is no reason to think that it is. Is it public information?

Did you not say: "You seem to think that there are a lot of "long term profitable investors" who made those profits through publicly available information. That isnt supported by the data."