Ed: An idiot would have taken their money out of the stock market in 2008 and 1929. Now a really good prognosticator would have taken their money out in 2007 and 1928 and put it right back into the market in 2009 and 1930, (but if you know any of those, you may want them to take a lie detector test) but truly pessimistic people rarely (the type who would have taken it out in 2007) find the courage to put it back in. They just see the next disaster.
However, had you stayed the course, your assets would be worth more today than in 2007. Also, keep in mind that secular bear markets (like the one we have been in since 2000) have a tendency to run their course in 15 years or so and we are at 13 now, so the market bear is getting really long in the tooth. And what ends the age of pessimism is always interesting and rarely identified until years later. I suspect it will have something to do with energy because that is one of the governors restricting world growth today. Which by the way is the reason I have been watching LENR and chose to sign up to the Vortex. Nanotechnology may also be the stimulus. ----- Original Message ----- From: Edmund Storms To: [email protected] Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment 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: [email protected] 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 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
