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
