Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
If we don't post in favor of a higher level of presentation here, complete with linked text in support of our points, much of the potential of the internet is reduced to just "shooting the shit" with each other. We can do that over on the Gen. Diss. forum...or in the parking lot, and next to the office watercooler.
|
We can not get off of first base because of a fundemental difference in your view of economics and mine.
Example:
If widgets historically sell for $1.
$1 is the generally accepted value of a widget, given all production costs and reasonable profit.
Then speculators enter the market, and over time they bid the price up to $100. They buy, sell, finance, profit, etc. because of this speculation.
Then over a shorter period of time the value of widgets goes back to $1.
You seem to want to call the drop from $100 to $1 a crash. You seem to use the logic that the drop from $100 to $1 will have a lasting adverse impact on the market in which these widgets sell.
Since we don't see the above the same, You can post reams of material supporting your view and I can do the same, and the exchange of that data was a waste.
When I was on my highschool debate team, the first thing the coach always said was define your terms. I tried to get you to do that with subprime, but in all the material you posted, none of it defined what was actually meant by subprime. Hell, almost nobody can get a loan at prime, and almost nobody who needs a loan goes into the process as a "prime" loan candidate. Everyone has some potential re-payment risk.
Perhaps you should stop ignoring direct questions.