On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Randy wuller wrote:
Ed:
The housing bubble didn't almost bring down the entire world
economy. That is pure sensationalism. As with any bubble, when it
pops those holding the bag usually suffer. In the case of 2008, the
bag holders got the world governments to spread the suffering.
That conclusion is in conflict with what was claimed at the time and
provided justification for the Tarp funding. As for pessimism, this
is the description someone applies when they do not believe what is
being described. The description is acknowledged as being a true
representation of reality if a person believes what is said. The
question at this point is, who's view of reality is correct? In 2008
and in 1929, a "pessimist" would have taken their money out of the
stock market. The optimist did not. Your choice. We all make choices
that have consequences and these choices must be based on what is
real. I'm trying to understand what is real. Are you?
By the way, what ends the age of pessimism? Do people get their
jobs and homes back? How soon does this happen?
Ed
Your comments sound like many of the doomsday predictors, "peak oil"
etc so prevalent today. Your concern is understandable given this
age of pessimism but instead of getting worked up maybe you should
stick to LENR, if that technology verifies this age of pessimism
will certainly end and all your concerns will evaporate. By the
way, my take is that this age of pessimism is going to end soon even
without LENR.
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on
employment
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Ed Storms wrote:
Thanks Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what
the
people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because they
predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. . . .
Krugman did predict it, and warned against it several times. Such
as here, in 2005:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0
He repeatedly described the banks' investments in real estate as
junk.
Jed, I read this article and I see no concern except the usual
generalities. He observes that a bubble was being created in the
housing market. He even observed, apparently approvingly, that the
government would create another after this one bursts, although he
did not anticipate the way this is presently being done. He made no
mention that this bubble would almost bring down the entire world
ecconomy. I will give him some credit, He was not as calm about
the problem as was Sir Greenspan. Meanwhile, other people were very
exact about what would happen and when - three years later from this
article.
In fact the
difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman sees no
problem with the status quo while the people I read are in a panic.
Wrong again. He is very much against the status quo. He is not in a
panic for the same reason I am not, and my mother would not be. It
is a personality thing.
I also do not like to be in a panic. As a result, I lost a lot of
money during the 2008 collapse by not taking the panic seriously. I
do not intend to let this happen again.
Ed
We don't get into a tizzy, perhaps even when we should. Case in
point: my mother was riding a trolley car past the Blair House on
November 1, 1950. President Truman was living there while the White
House was being rebuilt. There was a series of loud bangs. Someone
said, "they're trying to assassinate the president!!" My mother
said, "don't be silly; it is just a car backfiring" and went back
to her newspaper. It turned out someone was trying to assassinate
the president.
- Jed
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2639/5565 - Release Date:
01/29/13
