Yikes it keeps on getting murkier in the economy, it looks like the hosuing collapse has resumed here comes the turbulence.

There's just no telling how ugly its going to get this go around. I think the damage will be quite a bit swifter though as most people aren't going to have the stomach to ride it out and the forced selling is just gonna be brutal.

Bye bye credit bubble, look out for the crashing debt building in 2011

1/4/2011 1:44:38 PM

You're an idiot.

1/4/2011 4:58:01 PM

where's that monthly job gains/losses chart?

1/5/2011 9:50:19 AM

Why am I an idiot? Because I mentioned the housing predicament?

1/5/2011 1:17:34 PM

No, because you've been predicting another black swan for over a year now. Keep predicting it, long into the recovery, and maybe just maybe you'll be right one day.

Were you loaded up in PMs the past couple days waiting this oncoming shit storm? Have you been full up on the FXI over the past couple months as China has tanked?

You need to go back and read my post on the last page. There is nothing in the data (yet) that calls for the American economy to poop the bed any time soon.

[Edited on January 6, 2011 at 7:13 AM. Reason : .]

1/6/2011 7:12:48 AM

Unemployment rate drops to 9.4%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40960689/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

1/7/2011 2:45:52 PM

^Because people stopped looking for jobs.

1/7/2011 4:55:11 PM

^^

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/07/bleak-jobs-report-never-s_n_805797.html

1/7/2011 5:11:15 PM

WE'RE DIGGING OUT OF A HOLE!

1/7/2011 8:25:16 PM

Quote :

"^Because people stopped looking for jobs."

We can't expect all those that were formerly employed in mis-allocated sectors to find work in those sectors. We can only hope they left the workforce to gain new skills (like my father, a former textile worker for 30 years and is now a respiratory therapist) and they'll re-enter eventually as this sluggish economy finally shakes off the credit albatross.

1/8/2011 9:55:48 AM

Economy is getting worse, jobs numbers horrible again, inflation ramping up, housing ticking timebomb starting back downward, dollar still falling, interest rates heading upward...

all of this is bad

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 5:15 AM. Reason : add]

1/10/2011 5:15:16 AM

china makes more stuff than we do, zimbabwe has a million percent inflation, i cant get my car fixed, my girlfriend thinks my penis is small, staypuft marshmallow man destroying nyc, south still getting hammered by cold weather...

all of this is bad

1/10/2011 5:19:41 AM

Quote :

"Economy is getting worse, jobs numbers horrible again, inflation ramping up, housing ticking timebomb starting back downward, dollar still falling, interest rates heading upward..."

The only thing you got right in that entire rant was that house prices may be starting back downward. Everything else in there, you got it dead fucking wrong. I hope you aren't trading your own cash off of that sentiment.

1/10/2011 7:02:22 AM

All of that is correct. Adjust your timeline and look at the macro trend for anything you think I said was incorrect.

1/10/2011 7:56:15 AM

Ok, I went back to 1900, you're incorrect.

1/10/2011 8:04:07 AM

Oh shit. If you go back to 1850 we're FUCKED

1/10/2011 8:11:15 AM

Peak Horse hit almost a century ago! We must all be dead by now, unable to plow the family field for subsistence!

1/10/2011 11:54:03 AM

ill admit that was a funny barb, but my points are still correct.


Dollar was awful in 2010 measured against anything in the world except the Euro.

housing is starting to collapse again

rates are going up due to the insolvency of the US government

We are still shedding jobs in the manufacturing sector

inflation is ramping up, companies just havent gotten their inventories low enough yet to pass these on to consumer goods, but here it comes

1/10/2011 8:03:48 PM

when does it come?

1/10/2011 10:54:58 PM

Well it really depends on what type of inflation you are looking for.

If we go by the old definition then it's already here as we're experiencing rather severe inflation in commodities. Orange juice, oil, silver, cotton, corn it's all kissing the sky already.

If we want to base it on the government's more recent definition it should be here soon. And that's when the government will change the formula yet again to try to hide it from the regular joe's who watch the news.

Companies have been unable to pass on rising costs in this environment, but as they lower their inventories and get ready to do business in this environment, believe me they will.


One thing that is keeping the gov't inflation data from going up is the collapse of the housing bubble. They are going to start overweighting housing now that it's heading downward much like they started underweighting housing as it was skyrocketing upwards during the boom.

Have you checked out your healthcare premiums for 2011? Seen the price of tuition? Bought corn, milk, or bread at the store? Filled your gas tank?


We should be experiencing MASSIVE deflation right now due to the housing burst, credit contraction, recession, unemployment, etc but instead prices are staying flat, going up, or exploding upwards in some cases. That doesn't sound the alarm for you buddy?

This is massive currency debasement, and it ain't going to be pretty

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 11:46 PM. Reason : add]

1/12/2011 11:45:02 PM

I would say the massive spike in commodity prices (esp ag sectors) is a pretty good leading indicator

Who would want to own an american dollar when the Chinese currency is even more under-valued and commodities are usable resources?

1/12/2011 11:57:11 PM

Quote :

"We should be experiencing MASSIVE deflation right now due to the housing burst, credit contraction, recession, unemployment, etc but instead prices are staying flat, going up, or exploding upwards in some cases. That doesn't sound the alarm for you buddy?"

I would be upset if we were experiencing deflation, it's bad. The government is doing everything it can to fight deflation.

1/13/2011 12:03:18 AM

And that just proves you're a government shill that can't think for himself.

Deflation is bad, riiiiiight

God I hate when things get cheaper so that I can afford them, normally at the store I think if only this milk and bread cost more I'd buy a ton of it.


We need deflation right now to save us, you realize 20 something percentof the country is out of work right?

Market clearing prices, this is just basic economics dude

1/13/2011 9:29:44 AM

Standard response is going to be oh noes, if we have deflation all the businesses are going to go out of business and everyone loses their job. Nevermind the fact that we're not experiencing deflation, even by government numbers. We're having inflation, often right out in open (you have to wonder if deflationists just turn their brains off when they go to the grocery store, or if they have wives that do all the shopping), and increasingly through more deceptive means (keep the price the same, but including less of the actual product).

1/13/2011 10:55:40 AM

Quote :

"And that just proves you're a government shill that can't think for himself."

And your response shows that the amount of thinking you've put into this is equivelent to a fourthgrader's "I like to pay less for stuff" theory.

Quote :

"Deflation is bad, riiiiiight"

Well we have two driving forces for economic growth, spending and investing. Deflation works against both of these, as why would I start spending money that is worth more each day, and why would I take the risk of investing that money with someone else when I could just keep it under my bed and get growth. Circulation of money is what causes economic growth, trading. Deflation works against this.

Quote :

"We need deflation right now to save us, you realize 20 something percentof the country is out of work right?"

If I were an employer, why would I invest in expanding my business which comes with risk, but could give me a return of 4% if the deflation rate were 3%, the risk would only net me 1%, why would I be willing to give up my dollars?

Quote :

"this is just basic economics dude"

You're right about that.

Quote :

"Nevermind the fact that we're not experiencing deflation"

Because the government has taken measures to stop it. It's like you're standing under an umbrella in the rain and claiming it's not raining because you aren't getting wet.

Quote :

"and increasingly through more deceptive means (keep the price the same, but including less of the actual product)."

So what, now Tide is in on this massive inflationary conspiracy because they offer smaller bottles?

1/13/2011 11:15:57 AM

Quote :

"Dollar was awful in 2010 measured against anything in the world except the Euro"

The dollar ended the year higher than it started. And you can't point to its underperformance against other asset classes as a sign of the Apocalypse.

Quote :

"housing is starting to collapse again"

You mean *gasp* deflate? The very thing you are arguing for?

Quote :

"rates are going up due to the insolvency of the US government"

Rates are lower now than they were last April when the S&P 500 was lower. If the US is insolvent, you aren't finding that evidence in the 10 or the 30.

Quote :

"We are still shedding jobs in the manufacturing sector "

It takes time to rotate all those jobs that were aligned with home building into other sectors. Sure, the government likely slowed that progress, but again, this datapoint doesn't point to the Apocalypse.

Quote :

"If I were an employer, why would I invest in expanding my business which comes with risk, but could give me a return of 4% if the deflation rate were 3%, the risk would only net me 1%, why would I be willing to give up my dollars?"

Whaaaaaaa?

Quote :

"and increasingly through more deceptive means"

The bean counters aren't this stupid. They don't pick up a can of Campbells and say "this has the same sku as last period, must be the same thing". They compute inflation based the unit price of the good. Going to smaller sizes at the same price is just something goods makers do to fool consumers.

1/13/2011 6:45:33 PM

Quote :

"Whaaaaaaa?"

I really hate having to restate things you should be able to read. Suppose you have $1000, suppose there is a yearly deflation rate of 5%, and suppose you have a an investment opportunity that would net you 7.5% with some level of risk to principle. The deflation makes that investment less attractive because I could just sit on the money and make $50 (in today's dollars) rather than invest it and only make $25 more in the best case or lose money in the worst case. That said, reread my post and it should be clear that I was saying the same thing.

1/13/2011 7:12:13 PM

I can't believe you're botching something so fundamental. If you invest the 1000 and make 7.5%, you're getting 75, then tack on the fact that it is worth 5% more because of deflation and you can see why a business would invest. Not to mention in a deflationary environment a businesses input costs go down.

Btw, was the Great Depression an example of a true liquidity trap? Has there been one in history?

1/13/2011 7:23:18 PM

Quote :

"then tack on the fact that it is worth 5% more because of deflation"

No you don't. I specifically pointed this out in noting that you measure both in terms of today's dollars. Even with that obvious point withstanding, your downside is increased as well.

Quote :

"Btw, was the Great Depression an example of a true liquidity trap? Has there been one in history?"

A pointless exercise as history is always debatable, why don't you try to explain why one would not exist in theory? We could fully leverage logic in that debate.

1/13/2011 7:29:17 PM

You're patently wrong.

If I invest $1000 on January 1 2011 at 7.5% that is paid out once at year end, then on January 1 2012 I have $1075. This is before considering any sort of inflation or deflation. If inflation is 5% then I have only earned 2.5% in real terms. If inflation is -5% then I have earned 12.5% in real terms. The original $1000 I had buys 5% more on 1/1/12 and the $75 in interest buys more than $75 did on 1/1/11. Any other addons you had about more risk is irrelevant to the math.

How are you messing up this point so badly? Or, is it because you have some obtuse idea of an argument that you're again failing to articulate and when we call you out on the one you're appearing to make you shift the argument around so you won't be wrong yet again on the internets.

Quote :

"why don't you try to explain why one would not exist in theory?"

This is a fools errand and it's why academics will likely be our undoing as they don't recognize what they don't know by assuming that everything they do know is enough.

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 9:15 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2011 9:14:38 PM

Quote :

"If I invest $1000 on January 1 2011 at 7.5% that is paid out once at year end, then on January 1 2012 I have $1075. This is before considering any sort of inflation or deflation. If inflation is 5% then I have only earned 2.5% in real terms. If inflation is -5% then I have earned 12.5% in real terms."

You're still looking at it incorrectly. We must compare them in the same units. Thus if your investment of $1000 today dollars netted you $1075 later dollars then the investment was 12.5%, not 7.5%. I can understand how this might be confusing. Let's say widgets stay constant, $1000 will buy 1000 widgets at a rate of 1 to 1. I promise in 1 year to give you 1075 widgets. We know the rate of widgets will remain constant, and we know that I offered you a 7.5% gain over that year, yet the amount of later dollars those widgets would be worth is less than $1075. Now if I offer you 1125 widgets a year later, we would both agree that I have offered a 12.5% gain, yet in a year those widgets would be worth $1075. You have to compare the two in the same terms.

Quote :

"This is a fools errand and it's why academics will likely be our undoing as they don't recognize what they don't know by assuming that everything they do know is enough."

You may call economics a fool's errand, but I believe reality has proven it's fruitfulness.

1/13/2011 9:41:55 PM

Quote :

"Thus if your investment of $1000 today dollars netted you $1075 later dollars then the investment was 12.5%, not 7.5%."

Were you drunk last night? What part of this in my immediately preceding post

Quote :

"then on January 1 2012 I have $1075"

and

Quote :

"If inflation is -5% then I have earned 12.5% in real terms"

is different from what you just posted?

Quote :

" yet the amount of later dollars those widgets would be worth is less than $1075"

No, you already said they were worth 1:1, so those 1075 widgets are worth $1075.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 7:04 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2011 6:58:41 AM

Quote :

"No, you already said they were worth 1:1, so those 1075 widgets are worth $1075."

They are worth $1075 but in today's dollars, not in a year later's dollars. We stated that widgets remained stable right? They did not deflate like the currency did. So each year they become worth less than the original 1:1 ratio. Let's do the example again.

1. Widgets value remains constant
2. Dollars will deflate at a rate of 5% yearly
3. Right now $1000 buys 1000 widgets, this will change as the dollar deflates

So in one year I offer you 1075 widgets. That is a 7.5% return correct? Yet in 1 year those 1075 widgets will not sell for 1075 year later dollars, as the dollar has deflated.

1/14/2011 1:53:44 PM

Quote :

"We stated that widgets remained stable right?"

Quote :

"So each year they become worth less than the original 1:1 ratio"

Look out, divide by zero batman, does not compute.

I don't know what sort of dumb contorted argument you're trying to work yourself into, but math is math. Plug in the nominal rate of return with the inflation rate and get the real rate. With deflation, your real rate is higher, with inflation it's lower. It's just math, but being a big government guy it's only fitting you don't understand it.

1/16/2011 8:38:26 AM

Quote :

"ook out, divide by zero batman, does not compute."

They become worth less DOLLARS because DOLLARS are inflating, right? I have the feeling you're trying your best not to understand this.

1/16/2011 10:45:33 AM

Quote :

"Suppose you have $1000, suppose there is a yearly deflation rate of 5%, and suppose you have a an investment opportunity that would net you 7.5% with some level of risk to principle. The deflation makes that investment less attractive because I could just sit on the money and make $50 (in today's dollars) rather than invest it and only make $25 more in the best case or lose money in the worst case. That said, reread my post and it should be clear that I was saying the same thing."

I understand the point about downside, but not your math here.

If you got the expected rate of return at the expected rate of deflation, wouldn't you end up with greater than $1000 (future dollars)?

1/16/2011 11:10:45 AM

Quote :

"If you got the expected rate of return at the expected rate of deflation"

Unfortunately very few investments work like savings accounts, where you trade current money for future money so directly. We don't know what the inflation rate will be in the future, and we don't have the ability to measure return easily in next year dollars. Suppose I own a factory and considering expanding. I know how much the investment will cost in today's dollars, I have a pretty good idea of how much it will increase output, and I know how much that increased output would increase my income in today's dollars. I can only guess how my products will fare versus the US dollars I had to put in on this investment. If deflation happens then most likely what I am trying to sell has gone down versus US dollars, thus my investment's rate of return is decreasing as I have my product which is worth less and less, which I traded for US dollars which are worth more and more.

1/16/2011 11:33:28 AM

We need a Rivers-like animation of Obama's "laser focus" on the economy that he has done so well with.

1/16/2011 11:55:10 AM

^^Nice sidestep bro.

.95*1.075 = 1.02125 > 1

Am I missing something?

1/16/2011 1:09:07 PM

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking.

Quote :

"If you got the expected rate of return at the expected rate of deflation, wouldn't you end up with greater than $1000 (future dollars)?"

Sure you would, but it lowers the return. I stated this, and I will quote it below:

invest it and only make $25 more in the best case or lose money in the worst case.

I just did the math (1000 *1.075) - 1050 in terms of todays dollars in order to keep it clean. To answer your question, this does come up with $25 above your original investment, but my point was to show how deflation can eat away returns and discourage investing.

[Edited on January 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2011 1:20:22 PM

And taxes, including the expectation of future taxes, will eat away returns and discourage investment. As such, yes, the federal reserve should fight deflation by printing money. However, the means by which it does so should NOT be through debt financed stimulus.

1/16/2011 4:31:09 PM

The airplane will not take off from the tread mill.

1/16/2011 4:42:40 PM

Quote :

"I just did the math (1000 *1.075) - 1050 in terms of todays dollars in order to keep it clean."

Wtf is this shit? This isn't correct. Period. You're doing your damndest to theorize/demonstrate what might happen in a deflationary liquidity trap but you're using unrealistic numbers to work back to your point.

For starters,

Quote :

"Unfortunately very few investments work like savings accounts, where you trade current money for future money so directly"

it is good to see that you admitted your original point was DFW, so lets talk about your second scenario.

Quote :

"We don't know what the inflation rate will be in the future, and we don't have the ability to measure return easily in next year dollars."

Which undermines everything else following this point, but we'll continue just for fun

Quote :

" If deflation happens then most likely what I am trying to sell has gone down versus US dollars"

Sure, if you were originally selling it for $1 and now you are only selling it for $.95, you are getting less in nominal dollars, but those fewer nominal dollars are now able to purchase more things than they did before.

Quote :

"thus my investment's rate of return is decreasing as"

Well, it isn't that easy to calculate. Part of your investment in producing your good went to capital equipment. Part of it goes to operating costs, which are certainly going down as the inputs are becoming less expensive as well.

This is where the theory just kind of dies. It simply isn't obvious that a mildly deflationary environment would trigger a liquidity trap any more than a mildly inflationary environment would trigger a hyperinflation. Prudent policy would be to target inflation at 0%.

1/17/2011 8:54:02 AM

Quote :

"Wtf is this shit? This isn't correct. Period. You're doing your damndest to theorize/demonstrate what might happen in a deflationary liquidity trap but you're using unrealistic numbers to work back to your point."

I'm not doing any tricks, it's very simple:
(Initial investment * rate of return) - return from doing nothing = actual rate of return
And it's very important that you keep all of these in the same terms, all must be in today's dollars or all must be in next year dollars.
This isn't complicated stuff.

Quote :

"you are getting less in nominal dollars, but those fewer nominal dollars are now able to purchase more things than they did before"

Why are you trying so hard to try and not understand this. Suppose there are two stocks, one goes down in value, the other goes up. Now instead of those being stocks, imagine one is goods and the other is cash. Which one would you rather have your money in, the one going up or the one going down?

Quote :

"Part of your investment in producing your good went to capital equipment. Part of it goes to operating costs, which are certainly going down as the inputs are becoming less expensive as well."

My capital equipment is also worth less, and although my costs goes down, so does the value of the products I use them to make. This prevents me from getting the full rate of my investment as what I have moved my money into is inevitably working against deflation.

Quote :

"Prudent policy would be to target inflation at 0%."

I'm sure you realize that the idea that a mild inflationary environment is the most suitable to economic growth is, for the most part, mainstream economic thought.

1/17/2011 10:52:10 AM

Kris I'm not about to get into a long drawn out discussion about economics with a socialist. Your mind is already made up on the matter so its a waste of time. If you ever want to learn more from me just let me know and I'd be glad to help.

You are flat out wrong about deflation and Chance is demonstrating why you are wrong about the investment scenario and you are still arguing for some reason.

If I have $1,000 and I invest it and get $1,050 it doesn't fucking matter whether we have inflation or deflation. I'd prefer if we have deflation obviously.

Do you realize that this country had natural deflation until the creation of the federal reserve? Deflation is NATURAL, inflation is unnatural and is caused by money printing. The gov't loves to create inflation because it's a hidden tax that allows them to spend more than they collect in tax revenues. It's much more popular than raising taxes on the poor people (which we all can agree inflation is very regressive since for the most part the poor are pricetakers and the rich are pricemakers and are wise enough to invest to offset some of the effects while the poor see their limited savings and earnings get erased slowly).

Deflation is SUPPOSED to take place as technology makes it cheaper to farm, construct buildings, etc. Obviously, we can build nearly everything on the planet much more efficiently than we could 50 years ago and that is why those products cost less (adjusted for inflation) than they did 50 years ago. (There are obviously a few counter examples which are typically the effect of a scare commodity like oil).


The whole "deflation keeps people from spending money" is a laughable premise that the government economist shills created to pass off inflation to the general public as a good thing.

Iphones, LCD tvs, PC's, etc these all "deflate" significantly in price as technology advances yet people buy them in droves. Why wouldn't they just wait until prices are cheaper? Well, its because of DEMAND. They DEMAND these products now therefore they buy them now rather than later when they are cheaper.

I don't give a fuck if an apple is $0.50 today as opposed to $0.48 next week. I'm hungry now and I will pay the $0.50.


To say that deflation prevents investment is laughable. All anyone is concerned with is REAL RETURN.

If I invest $100 and get $105 back but inflation was 3% then I only netted 2%. If I invest $100 and get $102 back but inflation was 0% then I still netted 2%. If inflation was negative then I gained even more.

Deflation is sometimes a symptom of a weak economy (see housing, prices going down because there isn't enough demand) but it is NOT the cause of it. The cause is lack of demand and oversupply. The effect is lower prices. That is market equilibrium and it is NATURAL. It is what we want and what we should demand from our government.

Creating inflation with the idea to force people to invest in risky assets does not create wealth it creates a misallocation of resources. Some people refer to these as speculative bubbles.

You really need to study all this stuff man. You have been brainwashed by someone with a lack of fundamental understanding of economics. Unless you want to be an Econ professor at Harvard or a Economic Advisor to the President you will need to recognize the differences between voodoo economics and real economics.

1/17/2011 5:40:54 PM

Quote :

"Kris I'm not about to get into a long drawn out discussion about economics with a socialist."

You don't want to because I understand economics and you do not.

Quote :

"If I have $1,000 and I invest it and get $1,050 it doesn't fucking matter whether we have inflation or deflation."

It does if you are interested in the real value of that money, otherwise it is only a number.

Quote :

"Deflation is NATURAL, inflation is unnatural and is caused by money printing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Secondly, trade is not NATURAL. Animals do not trade, they do not value gold or currency. You can train a monkey to trade, but that's about the closest you can get.

Quote :

"which we all can agree inflation is very regressive since for the most part the poor are pricetakers and the rich are pricemakers and are wise enough to invest to offset some of the effects while the poor see their limited savings and earnings get erased slowly"

That is not true. Inflation helps those who are in debt and hurts those who have excess wealth.

Quote :

"I don't give a fuck if an apple is $0.50 today as opposed to $0.48 next week. I'm hungry now and I will pay the $0.50."

Buying an apple or a tv is a good bit different from investing as I don't buy them expecting a return.

Quote :

"You really need to study all this stuff man."

I have, in fact, I work in financials.

1/17/2011 6:37:26 PM

Quote :

"(Initial investment * rate of return) - return from doing nothing = actual rate of return"

Indeed, in one case we have $1075 after one year and the other we have $1000. This is about the only thing you've posted correct. Your filling in $1050 for return from doing nothing is about the funniest thing I've seen posted in a few months.

Quote :

"This isn't complicated stuff."

Hilarious.

Quote :

"Which one would you rather have your money in, the one going up or the one going down?"

I'd rather have my money in the stock that is going to give me the 7.5% RoR.

Quote :

"This prevents me from getting the full rate of my investment as what I have moved my money into is inevitably working against deflation"

!QED

Quote :

"I'm sure you realize that the idea that a mild inflationary environment is the most suitable to economic growth is, for the most part, mainstream economic thought."

There are all sorts of mainstream ideas regarding the inflation rate.

Quote :

"Inflation helps those who are in debt and hurts those who have excess wealth."

Zero % inflation neither helps or hurts either, seems more equitable to me.

Quote :

"I have, in fact, I work in financials."

Oh, so the quants give you the models to code and you code them? Or you write scripts to cull the data the people who actually know economics are interested in?

1/17/2011 6:58:46 PM

I just like visiting this thread so I can read the Kris comments which are purely hypothetical, absurdly unrealistic, and unrelenting when his lack of economic prowess is demonstrated

Quote :

"You don't want to because I understand economics and you do not "

This is basically the "nana-nana-boo boo" of replies

continue on

1/17/2011 7:47:10 PM

Quote :

"Your filling in $1050 for return from doing nothing is about the funniest thing I've seen posted in a few months."

It is the opportunity cost, correct?

Quote :

"I'd rather have my money in the stock that is going to give me the 7.5%"

That wasn't an option.

Quote :

"Oh, so the quants give you the models to code and you code them? Or you write scripts to cull the data the people who actually know economics are interested in?"

It's a bit more complicated than that, and lines aren't so clearly drawn, but I'm sure that won't keep you from looking down for having a job that I enjoy that gives me a level of personal exposure to this subject.

Quote :

"I just like visiting this thread"

Let me guess, to cock-jockey and cheerlead?

1/18/2011 1:42:03 AM

Quote :

"It is the opportunity cost, correct? "

No Kris, this isn't correct.

Quote :

"That wasn't an option."

Don't be absurd you little goal post mover you. The original scenario was one asset that gains 5% and one asset that gains 13.16%.

Quote :

"but I'm sure that won't keep you from looking down"

Dude, no one is looking down on what you do. We're looking down on you because the economic theories you subscribe to aren't connected to reality (or at best you have still been unable to clearly support them) and you think your work as a computer scientist somehow attains you a higher level of understanding of economics. Very often when you get pretty much dominated in threads because your copy-pastaing of theory runs out of steam you end up resorting to an appeal to your own authority.

But on a related note, how much economics are you really using to do your job and how much of it is code monkeying after the econ and finance PhDs around you tell you what to do?

1/18/2011 7:12:17 AM