> raghu, > > Isn't what you are saying almost tautological ? The majority of > speculators in a bubble couldn't be shorting by definition of a > bubble, no ? A speculative bubble _is_ a whole lot of speculation on > prices rising in something ,or not ? >
It is a tautology that a bubble is caused by speculators predominantly betting on rising prices. ^^^^ CB: Given your statement below, _some_ bubbles are caused by specs predominantly betting on rising prices ? Does anything besides speculators predominantly betting on rising prices create bubbles ? ^^^^ It not a tautology that speculators always and everywhere create bubbles. Whenever and wherever there is speculative money available, a bubble is absolutely inevitable. ^^^^ CB: Is the second sentence supposed to be "not absolutely inevitable " ? Otherwise, it seems to contradict the first sentence. Should the first sentence be " It is not true that speculators always and everywhere create bubbles ? ^^^^^ I don't think this point has been well recognized. The consensus seems to be that speculators *sometimes* cause bubbles when they go out of control. Not true. -raghu. ^^^^^ CB: Are you saying all bubbles are created by speculators ? or Speculators never fail to create bubbles ? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
