Financial Crisis

[jazzbo]

"Well done...In some, in fact, many respects we like Dr. Doom too although we don't ask him to manage any money.

Kuhn PG -- Thank you... The 'sneer' was that when I mentioned that a condition of my receiving a share of the proceeds from a company I helped start nearly 40 years ago was that the funds be put in Trust, one of the usual suspects wrote that he "feels sorry" for anyone with a managed portfolio... minimum balances and all. I do however maintain a much smaller discretionary account/Jazzbo

[jcon]

.... ah I decided against it.....

Edited March 17, 2010 by jcon

[jazzbo]

No problem Kuhn J ... You too can join the 'Usual Suspects': Just click your heels 3 times and say to yourself "The World would be a much better place if I were in charge."

[sokal]

CAD hit .99 today My biggest position by about 85%

[sokal]

BTW3 If you pay much attention to what is posted here then you must be short The Universe and that takes a lot of time to cover all those positions

Peter Schiff- "Paul Krugman should give up his nobel prize for not knowing anything about economics."

[jazzbo]

Great... Maybe Dr. Krugman should give up his Nobel Prize and give it to Schiff because anyone who advises Ron Paul deserves one... and feels like the 'Usual Suspects' the world would be better off if he were in charge...

[Gambles]

Thanks Paul

I agree that these are all short term correlations between dollar & gold/metals since priced in such.

But I am not positive or even worried whether or not Central Banks pretend to care or not.

So for me I am not talking about CB's...although I do not think they will not run ( maybe quietly) towards increased reserves soon enough.

I realize their impact even now but more so on the trading of paper gold.

I still think that ultimately the true value of free held physical metals will disconnect from paper traded all together.

In many ways it is even now as shown by premiums. But will make a large leap soon enough as the paper game is seen for what it really is....just another ponzi/shell game with folks shorting what they do not hold & others leasing out more than they do hold.

I realize this is not the gold thread so will stop there.......

btw.... this is a good site with interesting perspectives if you have time.... http://fofoa.blogspot.com/

Thanks flying

I agree that there are plenty of long, medium and short term impetuses and at times these are extremely contradictory. I actually feel that we might be looking for a major pullback a little too early - I recall that the last time that we felt that gold had gotten really bubbly was when it was headed, too fast for our own liking towards 700. We reduced exposure and gold rose another 10% before falling back below 600 when we started to increase again. We don't believe that you can reliably predict timing or short term pricing and we're not short term traders but right now there just looks to be more risk than upside. It could very much go either way in the short term but on balance our view remains positive, just that, right or wrong, we wouldn't chase gold at these prices.

Thanks for the link - I discovered this site recently and I agree, it's worth reading and thinking about.

Cheers,

Paul

[Gambles]

"Well done...In some, in fact, many respects we like Dr. Doom too although we don't ask him to manage any money.

Kuhn PG -- Thank you... The 'sneer' was that when I mentioned that a condition of my receiving a share of the proceeds from a company I helped start nearly 40 years ago was that the funds be put in Trust, one of the usual suspects wrote that he "feels sorry" for anyone with a managed portfolio... minimum balances and all. I do however maintain a much smaller discretionary account/Jazzbo

I'm not sneering.

Just the opposite - it sounds like you earned your rewards for your endeavours and you've been smart with your money since then. By trust I guess we're talking about 3rd party custody - which should be a sine qua non for virtually all investors.

For all the macro views that I study, a well-managed diversified portfolio is the foundation to financial success moreso than getting any particular calls right. Congratulations, Jazz.

Paul

[jazzbo]

'Trust' in the USA is a specific legal entity along with Corporation, Partnership, etc.

[jazzbo]

Peter Schiff- "Paul Krugman should give up his Nobel prize for not knowing anything about economics." Peter Schiff... Schiff... Where have I heard that name before? Not Peter Schiff but his father, Irwin Schiff (from Wikipedia):

Irwin A. Schiff (born 1928) is a prominent figure in the tax protester movement. Schiff is known for writing and promoting literature that claims the United States income tax is applied incorrectly. He has lost several civil cases against the federal government and has a record of multiple convictions for various federal tax crimes. Schiff is serving a 13-plus year sentence for tax crimes (with his location listed as the Terre Haute Federal Correctional Institution). His projected release date is 7 October 2016.[1] Irwin Schiff is also the father of stockbroker and US senate candidate Peter Schiff.

However not to visit upon the son the sins of the father... Peter Schiff himself as a former adviser to Ron Paul is familiar with the concept of 'enlightened ineptitude' in that even Ron Paul's staff has been quoted saying they introduce legislation that they know has virtually zero chance of passage...

BTW it would interesting to analyze the track records of persons in fiscal/monetary positions in the US Government who have followed the teachings and concepts of the Austrian School... if you could find any...

[Naam]

BTW it would interesting to analyze the track records of persons in fiscal/monetary positions in the US Government who have followed the teachings and concepts of the Austrian School... if you could find any...

i don't think to many of them went to austrian schools except Arnold Schwarzenegger who's financial track records are...

[sokal]

Peter Schiff- "Paul Krugman should give up his Nobel prize for not knowing anything about economics." Peter Schiff... Schiff... Where have I heard that name before? Not Peter Schiff but his father, Irwin Schiff (from Wikipedia):

Irwin A. Schiff (born 1928) is a prominent figure in the tax protester movement. Schiff is known for writing and promoting literature that claims the United States income tax is applied incorrectly. He has lost several civil cases against the federal government and has a record of multiple convictions for various federal tax crimes. Schiff is serving a 13-plus year sentence for tax crimes (with his location listed as the Terre Haute Federal Correctional Institution). His projected release date is 7 October 2016.[1] Irwin Schiff is also the father of stockbroker and US senate candidate Peter Schiff.

However not to visit upon the son the sins of the father... Peter Schiff himself as a former adviser to Ron Paul is familiar with the concept of 'enlightened ineptitude' in that even Ron Paul's staff has been quoted saying they introduce legislation that they know has virtually zero chance of passage...

BTW it would interesting to analyze the track records of persons in fiscal/monetary positions in the US Government who have followed the teachings and concepts of the Austrian School... if you could find any...

Thats an easy one, Paul Volker comes to mind. He only raised interest rates to 20%, you seen it right, 20%. Now he is considered the only remaining God of central banking.

[Abrak]

BTW it would interesting to analyze the track records of persons in fiscal/monetary positions in the US Government who have followed the teachings and concepts of the Austrian School... if you could find any...

i don't think to many of them went to austrian schools except Arnold Schwarzenegger who's financial track records are...

As far as I can tell Austrian Economics is a political theory rather than an economic one. I dont think it is actually studied in universities as economic theory as far as I know. It sort of occupies a vaguely religious ground along with memetics and false consciousness theories.

It seems to me that as a political theory it has a degree of validity in that it argues that Governments are inherently incompetent. And really if you look at the Austrian advocates - Faber (in particular) even Ron Paul - they just believe that Governments are destructive.

Even Sokal's hatred of Keynes amounts to little more than this. All Keynes's theories - fiscal, monetary, exchange rates - assume that Government's act responsibly while the likes of Sokal basically believe that Governments are inherently irresponsible.

Some Austrian's basically argue that there is no such thing as economic theory because it is not a science. Some have made vague attempts at justifying laissez-faire (and minimal Government intervention) as producing a reasonable economic outcome (aka Sokal) but they have failed dismally because you cant stretch the assumptions that far. And, of course, you cant make a theory out of an inherent 'belief' that Government's are destructive.

And it is clear that the idea of a gold backed currency is so insanely stupid that these guys havent given it a moments thought (I doubt there is an economist in the world that believes or advocates it.) They just believe that a fiat based economy will end in disaster.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Abrak

[Abrak]

BTW3 If you pay much attention to what is posted here then you must be short The Universe and that takes a lot of time to cover all those positions

Peter Schiff- "Paul Krugman should give up his nobel prize for not knowing anything about economics."

To be honest Sokal, I can handle you calling Krugman a 'moron' (in fact it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside) but quoting a broker like Schiff as though he had some credibility in the economic world is ridiculous. I mean how is he qualified to make that judgment (not really the implication that Krugman is not credible but that the Nobel committee are incompetent as well.) It just makes him look ridiculous in my eyes. Let's face it, if a rational person has to make an assumption about whether Krugman and the Nobel Committee are stupid or Peter Schiff is incredibly stupid, which are they going to choose?

[flying]

(not really the implication that Krugman is not credible but that the Nobel committee are incompetent as well.)

Well judging by who the Nobel committee chose for the peace prize....

[sokal]

BTW3 If you pay much attention to what is posted here then you must be short The Universe and that takes a lot of time to cover all those positions

Peter Schiff- "Paul Krugman should give up his nobel prize for not knowing anything about economics."

To be honest Sokal, I can handle you calling Krugman a 'moron' (in fact it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside) but quoting a broker like Schiff as though he had some credibility in the economic world is ridiculous. I mean how is he qualified to make that judgment (not really the implication that Krugman is not credible but that the Nobel committee are incompetent as well.) It just makes him look ridiculous in my eyes. Let's face it, if a rational person has to make an assumption about whether Krugman and the Nobel Committee are stupid or Peter Schiff is incredibly stupid, which are they going to choose?

Peter Schiff said it, I didn't. He makes a fairly good case in his video too.

Peter Schiff does have credibility in the economic world, he is the first name that comes up when you google "predicting the economic crisis" He makes weekly appearances on financial TV all across the world. He even made an apperance on The Oracle with Max Kieser and Al Jazzera. The video Peter Schiff was right " is the most popular youtube video about the economy

[Abrak]

BTW3 If you pay much attention to what is posted here then you must be short The Universe and that takes a lot of time to cover all those positions

Peter Schiff- "Paul Krugman should give up his nobel prize for not knowing anything about economics."

To be honest Sokal, I can handle you calling Krugman a 'moron' (in fact it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside) but quoting a broker like Schiff as though he had some credibility in the economic world is ridiculous. I mean how is he qualified to make that judgment (not really the implication that Krugman is not credible but that the Nobel committee are incompetent as well.) It just makes him look ridiculous in my eyes. Let's face it, if a rational person has to make an assumption about whether Krugman and the Nobel Committee are stupid or Peter Schiff is incredibly stupid, which are they going to choose?

Peter Schiff said it, I didn't. He makes a fairly good case in his video too.

Peter Schiff does have credibility in the economic world, he is the first name that comes up when you google "predicting the economic crisis" He makes weekly appearances on financial TV all across the world. He even made an apperance on The Oracle with Max Kieser and Al Jazzera. The video Peter Schiff was right " is the most popular youtube video about the economy

Dont you have any idea that 'credibility' and 'popular youtube video' do not belong in the same paragraph. And seriously is that how you define 'credibility'?

[jazzbo]

My approach to this Forum Topic is simple: The Usual Suspects are smart -- everybody else is stupid... makes for an easy 6 AM read. Volcker?

[Abrak]

My approach to this Forum Topic is simple: The Usual Suspects are smart -- everybody else is stupid... makes for an easy 6 AM read. Volcker?

Read one of your posts for the first time in six months. Whinge about the thread. Nothing to add. I do inherently agree though that if you wish to call Krugman, Bernanke,Keynes actually any decent economist 'stupid' it really reflects badly on your underlying intelligence. Just who is likely to be the stupid one?

Actually Sokal's suggestion that Schiff is qualified to say Krugman knows nothing about economics based on 'youtube popularity' 'TV show appearances' really takes the biscuit. Still I never know when he is taking the piss.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Abrak

[Gambles]

hmm, I turn my back for my one minute and WW III breaks out!

As someone who spends way too much of his professional time, studying, researching and reading I actually find it sad that there seems to be a lot of dogma breeding mutual disrespect sometimes. Not sad from a spectator point of view - a good verbal punch up is always entertaining but just because I think that by becoming too partisan sometimes this can actually impede open minded thinking and understanding.

From my own point of view, I would say that both Keynes and Mieses did exemplary pioneering work in the field and although many of their basic assumptions were shown to be flawed when better data and understanding became available, that doesn't diminish what they did with what they had available to them. In both cases their successors have done outstanding work - with all its flaws Murray Rothbard's work on the Great Depression is what everyone should read first on the subject. Steve Keen (thefundamentalanalyst.com and debtwatch) claims himself to be a Neo-Keynesian and the circuit theory of money is perhaps the single most important and relevant economic theory at this point of where we are in the global economy. I even learn a lot from the monetarist critiques of Keynes and the Austrians - the monetarists under Friedman made huge advances in terms of understanding the Great Depression and the fact that their central hypothesis is built around one crucial flaw - cf the circuit theory of money - doesn't diminish that they are very right in other aspects. It's just worrying that the Fed and Treasury are basing all their outcomes on a monetarist solution and don't seem to have any new response to how to deal with the great flaw in their approach - have I mentioned the circuit theory of money yet?

I study this stuff all the time and I try to figure what makes sense and what doesn't from economists of all political and economic shades because I still believe that we're working towards a single coherent answer but that we don't have that yet. And by the way I did predict the sub-prime crisis, the crunch and the GFC on many, many occasions in talks and articles in 2006/7/8 - people repeatedly asked me not to be so gloomy. They're asking me that again now too, when I talk about the medium term.

Quick Quiz

Which of these best describes the Bernanke approach to economic policy

A) if I always do what I always did I'll always get what I always got

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

C) fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me

D) All of the above

Answers on the back of a post card to Washington DC...

There's a lot of really good debate on here but I would have thought that what we can currently see when we look out of our windows in Bangkok ought to be enough of a reminder of the dangers of factionalism

and now I'm ready to be viciously shot down in flames by all sides successfully united against the common enemy (me)

[Abrak]

C) fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me

Dont worry Gambles, I insult Sokal, he insults distinguished economists, just to get back at me I suspect. He doesnt take it to heart. Incidentally Murray Rothbard is one of my pet hates - 70 pages on Robinson Crusoe economics. Personally I think the Fed is just recovering from the largest financial disaster avoidance strategy in living memory. I see no chance of real recovery for the US until they get China off their back. They have used up all their ammo.

Anyway here is a question for you or anyone.

I called a central reserve currency backed by gold 'insanely stupid' while whinging about others calling people stupid.

Conceptually I see a central reserve gold backed currency as a recipe for bankruptcy (assuming you dont move to fiat.)

Now assuming say the US started with 60,000 tonnes fully backing its currency in what theoretical way could it avoid bankruptcy in the future (other than collapsing global growth.)

You can make any assumptions you like (no ladders, no reciprocal altruism, no large gold discoveries, constant increases in velocity). You can debase gold if you like, or inflate the price. Adjust interest rates. All roads lead to bankruptcy. Oh and go for capital controls, taxes on surpluses, import tariffs etc.

It just seems inherently intuitive. The Chinese have large surpluses being paid for by ticker tape, what if the dollar was backed by gold. Eventually you have to debase as you fund global liquidity which eventually leads to the loss of all your gold and bankruptcy. This can all be avoided by artificially destroying the global economy.

It virtually ruined the UK economy and did a pretty good job on the US. Just need a theoretical answer.

[flying]

hmm, I turn my back for my one minute and WW III breaks out!

Dont mind that stuff

As someone who spends way too much of his professional time, studying, researching and reading I actually find it sad that there seems to be a lot of dogma breeding mutual disrespect sometimes. Not sad from a spectator point of view - a good verbal punch up is always entertaining but just because I think that by becoming too partisan sometimes this can actually impede open minded thinking and understanding.

I like the way you think..... Tis true

I study this stuff all the time and I try to figure what makes sense and what doesn't from economists of all political and economic shades because I still believe that we're working towards a single coherent answer but that we don't have that yet.

I do not study it but find it interesting.... As such I wondered when you said ... I still believe that we're working towards a single coherent answer

Many times viewing info that has surfaced after TARP was released....Who was bailed & who was not etc...I do not feel TPTB are working towards a single answer at all. Seems like more of the same old....In which case answer A of your question fits best.

Then again I personally would pick D

But if you mean we as in the people or armchair wonderer's well that is a different story.

[Abrak]

I study this stuff all the time and I try to figure what makes sense and what doesn't from economists of all political and economic shades because I still believe that we're working towards a single coherent answer but that we don't have that yet. And by the way I did predict the sub-prime crisis, the crunch and the GFC on many, many occasions in talks and articles in 2006/7/8 - people repeatedly asked me not to be so gloomy. They're asking me that again now too, when I talk about the medium term.

Actually I am reasonably optimistic in many senses. The one thing that I think frustrates everyone more than anything in this thread is that some of the structural problems are not even being accepted let alone tackled. Shoring up one asset bubble by trying to create another, private sector deleveraging simply being replaced by public sector leveraging. No bank sector reform or sign of it etc. Massive global exchange rate imbalances that are now mutually destructive to all economies. I dont think it is rocket science and rebalancing, restructuring will happen. I actually think that the average person understands the issues and wants to address them while many of the policy makers have economic models based on ever increasing private sector debt. The financial crisis was the best thing that ever happened to the Thai economy. It would be incredibly disappointing if the US financial crisis didnt lead to fundamental structural changes.

Has the Fed or the Government ever actually stated that the US private sector was either overleveraged or overindebted. Never.

How incredibly could the UK during a time of plenty waste its entire old inheritance and still be in shit? What a strategy. Waste the oil. Borrow from future generations and then leave those future generations to be financed by a smaller number of people who that have just screwed.

Oh well zero interest rates and inflation (apart from the euros).

[sokal]

Dont you have any idea that 'credibility' and 'popular youtube video' do not belong in the same paragraph. And seriously is that how you define 'credibility'?

If you actually viewed the content of the video you would realize that he has credibility. This video has Bernankes predictions in the same time period as Schiffs video.

As for credibility, the tapes speak for themselves Edited March 19, 2010 by sokal

[sokal]

hmm, I turn my back for my one minute and WW III breaks out!

As someone who spends way too much of his professional time, studying, researching and reading I actually find it sad that there seems to be a lot of dogma breeding mutual disrespect sometimes. Not sad from a spectator point of view - a good verbal punch up is always entertaining but just because I think that by becoming too partisan sometimes this can actually impede open minded thinking and understanding.

From my own point of view, I would say that both Keynes and Mieses did exemplary pioneering work in the field and although many of their basic assumptions were shown to be flawed when better data and understanding became available, that doesn't diminish what they did with what they had available to them. In both cases their successors have done outstanding work - with all its flaws Murray Rothbard's work on the Great Depression is what everyone should read first on the subject. Steve Keen (thefundamentalanalyst.com and debtwatch) claims himself to be a Neo-Keynesian and the circuit theory of money is perhaps the single most important and relevant economic theory at this point of where we are in the global economy. I even learn a lot from the monetarist critiques of Keynes and the Austrians - the monetarists under Friedman made huge advances in terms of understanding the Great Depression and the fact that their central hypothesis is built around one crucial flaw - cf the circuit theory of money - doesn't diminish that they are very right in other aspects. It's just worrying that the Fed and Treasury are basing all their outcomes on a monetarist solution and don't seem to have any new response to how to deal with the great flaw in their approach - have I mentioned the circuit theory of money yet?

I study this stuff all the time and I try to figure what makes sense and what doesn't from economists of all political and economic shades because I still believe that we're working towards a single coherent answer but that we don't have that yet. And by the way I did predict the sub-prime crisis, the crunch and the GFC on many, many occasions in talks and articles in 2006/7/8 - people repeatedly asked me not to be so gloomy. They're asking me that again now too, when I talk about the medium term.

Quick Quiz

Which of these best describes the Bernanke approach to economic policy

A) if I always do what I always did I'll always get what I always got

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

C) fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me

D) All of the above

Answers on the back of a post card to Washington DC...

There's a lot of really good debate on here but I would have thought that what we can currently see when we look out of our windows in Bangkok ought to be enough of a reminder of the dangers of factionalism

and now I'm ready to be viciously shot down in flames by all sides successfully united against the common enemy (me)

I would pick B, those who fail to learn from their mistakes are destined to repeat them.

Can you elaborate on your comment about looking out the window in BKK ? im not sure if I get it...

[sokal]

My approach to this Forum Topic is simple: The Usual Suspects are smart -- everybody else is stupid... makes for an easy 6 AM read. Volcker?

Read one of your posts for the first time in six months. Whinge about the thread. Nothing to add. I do inherently agree though that if you wish to call Krugman, Bernanke,Keynes actually any decent economist 'stupid' it really reflects badly on your underlying intelligence. Just who is likely to be the stupid one?

Actually Sokal's suggestion that Schiff is qualified to say Krugman knows nothing about economics based on 'youtube popularity' 'TV show appearances' really takes the biscuit. Still I never know when he is taking the piss.

Again these are not my words Today Stephen Roach said. "We should take out the baseball bat on Paul Krugman -- I mean I think that [his] advice [to push China to revalue the Renminbi] is completely wrong.”

The Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia is about as direct as one can be in the following Bloomberg interview: "We should take out the baseball bat on Paul Krugman -- I mean I think that [his] advice [to push China to revalue the Renminbi] is completely wrong.” Well, somebody had to finally say it. So instead of pointing the scapegoating finger somewhere else, which seems to be the norm these days (cue G-Pap and his quadrillionth repetition that Greece is perfectly solvent and that unless somebody bails him out (ignore the lack of logic for a second), he will start playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun), Roach looks in the mirror: "America does not have a China problem. America has a savings problem. America has the biggest savings shortfall of any leading country in modern history, When you don't have savings you have to run current account deficits to import surplus savings from abroad and run massive trade deficits to attract the capital... Isn't it the height of hypocrisy that America can articulate a particular position in its currency but the Chinese are not allowed to do that." Also some not so kind words about Senator Schumer: "He always has a view no matter where the Renminbi is, that it is 27.5% undervalued."

. Edited March 19, 2010 by sokal

[Abrak]

Again these are not my words Today Stephen Roach said. "We should take out the baseball bat on Paul Krugman -- I mean I think that [his] advice [to push China to revalue the Renminbi] is completely wrong.”

The Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia is about as direct as one can be in the following Bloomberg interview: "We should take out the baseball bat on Paul Krugman -- I mean I think that [his] advice [to push China to revalue the Renminbi] is completely wrong.” Well, somebody had to finally say it. So instead of pointing the scapegoating finger somewhere else, which seems to be the norm these days (cue G-Pap and his quadrillionth repetition that Greece is perfectly solvent and that unless somebody bails him out (ignore the lack of logic for a second), he will start playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun), Roach looks in the mirror: "America does not have a China problem. America has a savings problem. America has the biggest savings shortfall of any leading country in modern history, When you don't have savings you have to run current account deficits to import surplus savings from abroad and run massive trade deficits to attract the capital... Isn't it the height of hypocrisy that America can articulate a particular position in its currency but the Chinese are not allowed to do that." Also some not so kind words about Senator Schumer: "He always has a view no matter where the Renminbi is, that it is 27.5% undervalued."

.

Look Sokal, when you start listening to brokers, you might as well go back to youtube.

What do you think the Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia does for a job.

And his argument is nonsensical. Trade must balance. The US has a savings problem because China saves too much. Reducing excessive trade surpluses is as much a responsibility as reducing excessive trade deficits. And remember that Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea are all basically pegged to the yuan, so it is only half the problem. And China doesnt need to articulate a particular position in its currency because it can simply set it where they want due to capital controls. Still I am sure that speech went down well for the pitch to Hyai Kung Kai flotation this morning. Anyway this is why Keynes suggests a tax on C/A surpluses because you are basically growing on the back of your customers. Smaller surpluses create smaller deficits. I hate to think what the Chinese current A/C surplus would be if they werent paid in useless dollars.

[jazzbo]

Read one of your posts for the first time in six months. Whinge about the thread. Nothing to add.

So what does that mean -- do I subtract? What I mostly see here is a group of frustrated guys who think they have a handle on the world's macro-economic affairs but can find time to post in a forum such as this which will have zero impact on anything or anybody who might be in a position to change things ... they insult and belittle the persons in charge and whether I agree with the p-i-c's or not they are the ones in charge and that are determining our collective fates... not you guys in the hinterlands.

I hearken to the line in The Caine Mutiny screenplay after Captain Queeg has been destroyed on the witness stand:

You don't work with the captain because of his hairstyle, -- but because he's got the job, or you're no good.

... and if some of you guys are as smart as you think you are why don't you get off your a-- and do something about the perpetual Financial Crisis instead of writing here about how everybody but yourselves -- and maybe the good Dr. Paul -- has it all wrong.

... and since practically none of it has anything directly to do with Thailand maybe one of the Mods will just come in and just shut it down.

Edited March 19, 2010 by jazzbo

[Naam]

1. What I mostly see here is a group of frustrated guys who think they have a handle on the world's macro-economic affairs but can find time to post in a forum such as this which will have zero impact on anything or anybody who might be in a position to change things ... they insult and belittle the persons in charge and whether I agree with the p-i-c's or not they are the ones in charge and that are determining our collective fates... not you guys in the hinterlands.

2. ...and since practically none of it has anything directly to do with Thailand maybe one of the Mods will just come in and just shut it down.

1. you are right Jazzbo!

2. you are wrong Jazzbo!

[jazzbo]

OK. On 2., that is their call... you have to go back several pages before you even see the word 'Thailand'