Letters to the Editor
walter_map
Published Letters: 1429 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Anonymous
[Read the article: Bernanke presses the panic button]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A Free Market, Sometimes
There's no such thing as a 'free market'.
When corporate types refer to 'free markets' they don't mean 'unfettered competition' or a 'level playing field'. They mean freedom to rig markets, or at least dominate them.
They mean a reduction or elimination of regulation, because regulation prevents them from rigging the markets. Markets invariably gravitate towards oligopoly and monopoly because capital organizations invariably seek to maximize profit, typically by increasing market share, which increases pricing power and control over vendors. The natural goal is to dominate a market, which makes that market 'not free'.
The only recourse to this market domination and oligopoly or monopoly is regulation, like anti-trust regulation. Regulation can therefore make markets more free, by reducing the dominance of the larger players. But such markets are still 'not free'.
The "free market" is merely a public relations myth with no basis in reality.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar07/Whitney04.htm
Paid for by taxpayers, of course.
Naturally, the obscenely rich insist that they be subsidized - and their wealth insured - by the poor and middle class.
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel."
Lincoln
-
Nulla Sallus
[Read the article: Bernanke presses the panic button]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A 4% hit in the major US markets is ok.
We've already had a 14% hit in the last ten weeks. Is that okay too?
Or do you mean 4% per month?
Given the comparison of historical P/E ratios to current P/E ratios, by how much do so suppose the equity markets are overvalued? 20%? 50%?.
It might not be too late to start investing in a short strategy, but you might like to hurry.
-
al dole
[Read the article: Bernanke presses the panic button]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One sign of that this is mostly panic is the over-reaction to news on individual stocks.
If you really believe that vast and increasing debt, the loss of productive capacity, stagnant wages, and escalating income disparity are no big deal, and that economic fundamentals are really that good, then you should definitely buy some stocks.
Better yet, borrow a lot of money and buy even more stocks, since your enormous ROI on equities will easily cover your interest costs.
I dare ya.
-
al dole
[Read the article: Bernanke presses the panic button]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. . . no one is even sure if we are in a recession or if we will even have one.
Not true. I'm sure. Half the country has been in recession for years, and ten percent of the country has been in actual depression. But balance that against the vast gains realized by the obscenely rich and on average the country has been doing . . . just fine!
Honestly, do you really suppose the wealthy weasels who control the news media, the corporations, the government, and the Fed are going to give us the straight facts? Why should they do that, when it's obviously much more profitable to lie?
Rich to middle class: "Everything's fine. Go spend your asses off. We need the revenues."
-
droogoy
[Read the article: Bernanke presses the panic button]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks to the 75 basis points cut.
Which will do as little for the economy as the 25 bp cut a few weeks ago, and as little as the 50 bp cut a few weeks before that.
It will, however, get inflation jump-started.
Nobody wants to talk about that. In fact, that issue is being very conscientiously avoided. Along with a lot of other issues along the same lines. We do get a lot of blather which is obviously designed to confuse the issues, though.
The root causes of the current financial fiasco will not be addressed seriously in the MSM precisely because the ever-increasing fortunes of the extremely wealthy depend on avoiding the issues.
This guarantees the situation will get worse. The 'problem' last time was 'solved' by arranging for the extremely rich to get an even bigger share of the pie. In fact, whenever we have problems with the economy, the only solution the rich can think of is to enrich the wealthy.
This is called a 'virtuous' circle, mostly by billionaires.
Trickle-on Reaganomics assures us that making the rich a lot richer somehow makes the poor less poor. I kid you not.
Cheney: "Suckers!"
-
mmckinl
[Read the article: Bernanke presses the panic button]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your own posts have been the more admirable, I think, if only because they have a different perspective but come to very similar conclusions.
You're right about the general ignorance on economics and finance, though. If a larger percentage of the electorate really understood how they're getting shafted we'd probably see heads on pikes lining Wall Street. Fortunately for the golden-parachute crowd, most people are very easily lied to.
-
Nulla Sallus
[Read the article: Bernanke presses the panic button]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How old are you?
Google it up yourself. Not nearly old enough, I suppose, but most people could say that at any age.
Inflation is the real killer because if you do lose your job your liquid assets become worth far less far faster.
On the other hand, recession is the real killer because you soon lose any any liquid assets to become worth far less far faster.
Better to have something that nothing, eh?
-
Nulla Sallus
[Read the article: Bernanke presses the panic button]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Inflation is the real killer because if you do lose your job your liquid assets become worth far less far faster.
Which makes sense only to those who don't work for a living.
It does make sense for the rich, who don't need a job. Which one supposes is why you're making this argument: for the benefit of the wealthy, who have portfolios that can depreciate, rather than the working classes, who don't, and who instead rely on getting a paycheck.