Comments on: Higgs on Bernanke

By: Zolpidem.

Zolpidem. — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:57:00 +0000

Zolpidem….

Zolpidem fedex. Zolpidem. Ppurchase zolpidem….

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:07:05 +0000

Who's the 'we', Sam?

All who identify themselves as libertarian. I think that describes many who post here.
I don't usually think about "Gil".

By: dg lesvic

dg lesvic — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:09:07 +0000

So, even if you can exonerate the Fed, you can't implicate the free market.

The fault was still entirely that of public policy, whether of the Fed or of some other public agencies.

By: dg lesvic

dg lesvic — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:04:31 +0000

That last statement of mine was not exactly correct.

It would have been so given a completely free market in America. But, with American public policy channelling the Chinese money to our housing market, there is some truth to saying that the Chinese money contributed to the fueling of the housing bubble.

But that is a half-truth. Saying that by itself implies that the Chinese money by itself was to blame. It wasn't the Chinese money that was to blame but its misallocation by American public policy.

The fault was still with public policy, not with the free market.

By: dg lesvic

dg lesvic — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 01:45:48 +0000

When Daniel has recovered from his Saturday night, and returns to his more serious dissipations, this is what he will say.

The Chinese money does not represent the time preferences of the market, but of a poltical authority, and is as apt to fuel bubbles as the Fed money.

Good point, Daniel, but still not right.

The Chinese money is still real money, and its availability for investment still represents a real time preference, whether of public or private individuals.