Jesus, Rob, couldn't you just wish for appendicitis or a terrible disease of some sort to get out of the thesis? Some of us have finished the thesis and don't need the end of the world. Although a nice stock market crash is welcome. Gene Rob Schaap wrote: > G'day all, > > Enjoyed the equilibrium bash a lot. Ta. > > Jim, inimitably, writes: > > >For my part, the so-called "retreats" (glimpses of recognition of aspects of > >reality and the inability of the marginalist paradigm to seriously recognize > >or deal with those aspects--e.g. imperfect and asymmetric access to > >information, shaped rather than autonomously determined "revealed > >preferences, etc when challenged) of marginalism are like a sypillitic rash > >on which different types fo skin cream are being applied to attempt to make > >the rash go away. > > I reckon you only got sit back and try to apply the eyes you had a dozen > years ago to the stock markets of today. There is NO information on how > 'the new economy' might play out. NOBODY has that information - so I guess > it's symmetrical in that light. And if you use the right cream, I guess > you can hide syphillus's ugly markings right up to the point it kills you > dead. Like the syphillus victim, Wall St is going mad first. > > Anyone read that report HSBC's Stephen King wrote on the US economy stocks > bonanza? I realise he tends to use comparative empirical evidence and even > dares delve into history in his search for clues (very inappropriate for > gauging 'new economies', I s'pose), but apparently it's a > buttock-tightening lip-biter of a read. > > It culminates in a 12-point checklist for bubbleness: > > As the US economy boasts ten of 'em (a couple don't mean anything to me, > but most of you'll get it: above growth trend; below trend inflation; > global commodity price collapse; exchange rate rise; faster real money > supply growth; financial innovation; domestic monetary aims sub-ordinated; > current account deterioration; falling private sector savings; and this > 'paradigm shift' conventional wisdom), King reckons we're for it in a big > way. > > I only have the 1987 hiccough to go on from personal experience, and there > I found media nervousness to be a good indicator. People forget that the > stunning surprise of October 20 1987 had actually been anticipated and > discussed a fair bit through preceeding months - the media not just > reporting the news, but taking a visible hand in making it, perhaps? Half > this weekend's *Australian Financial Review* is reading a few hundred > points off (and the 'new economy' stocks are at the root of this) as so > many San Andrean rumbles. And this has been going on for three months. > > Even Greenspan has been trying hard to achieve that 'gentle prick', which, > for King, is doomed policy. Reserve banks either have no effect (as with > the first couple of hikes), or they break the camel's back (that last > little hike). And the Oz Reserve Bank's big banana (a rather impressive > bloke called Ian McFarlane) is already saying he's worried, but can say to > the institutions only that reserve banks are about all care and no > responsibility - that's what happens when you eschew conscious control and > throw your fate at the invisible hand, I guess ... > > Rid the world's economy of the US's gaping maws, and we're talking a lot of > the world's new neo-liberal fans hitting the shit, eh? > > I just thought it had been a while since last I declared the end of the > world, that's all. If it doesn't end soon, I'm gonna have to finish this > #!* thesis ... > > Cheers, > Rob.
