Search results

And yesterday their boss said "the likelihood of a global catastrophe has in fact declined over the past couple of weeks". That's a direct quote. This tells me that even he believes that not only is "global catastrophe" a possibility, but there is still a chance (>0%) that such an event...

The only variable I hypothesised upon was price. This is a very reasonable thing to do, not "out there" at all. The refusal to countenance a hypothetical lower price is effectively discounting the possibility that current prices are in a credit-financed speculative-bubble to zero!

Yes. But it is rude for you not to. :rolleyes: Less likely. More likely*. But at the same time, the trend would have fallen. Hence it is of no predictive value as it moves opposite to logic. It was predicting higher growth in 2003 than it predicts today. Why? Because it didn't then have and...

:confused: Not at all. Can you simply answer a simple question? If prices today, in today's environment, were lower than the current average home price of around $420k, would they be more likely or less likely to rise? And based on this, what would extrapolation of a perceived...

How can all other variables not be the same in a hypothetical where all other variables are the same? :confused: Or, for that matter, how can all other variables not be the same in a reality where all other variables are the same and only price is hypothetically changed? :confused:

Again, the belittlement? Why? Does this kind of behaviour further your argument? :confused:

Good. Well how about you explain where Shadow is wrong then? I've been getting paid good money lately modelling growth functions and undertaking risk analysis and NPV optimisation using monte carlo simulation for a very large industry. Peer-reviewed too. Are you kidding? I'm talking about...

I take it you've never studies statistics at all then? Think about what you're saying. The implication here is that the further prices have already risen (ie the higher they are today), the further they are likely to rise in the future. Does this really make any sense as a conclusion...

Debt is good if it is used to increase real productivity. But when used to increase the price rather than the productivity of existing assets it just doesn't make sense.

Hi Folks! I'm back! .. . Whoops, slight temporal dislocation issue there... I know how we can settle this! To the DeLorean! Or we could just resort to mockery and caricature? Yes? That's how adults interact isn't it, when somebody disagrees with them?

Too obtuse for you tcoc? I thought a picture was worth a thousand words? I was pointing out the folly of exponential extrapolation and how the expectations of those who did so in the past have been dismally underwhelmed by reality! And if prices fall, such people continue to fit long-term...

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race has been its failure to understand the exponential function"

First: Can you spot it? The big one? Hint - Stocks and flows. ;) Second: When was the RBA piece written? Can you think of anything that might have happened since then that would directly impact the conclusion? Third: Draw up a spreadsheet that compares the future earning capacity and therefore...

Thank you for telling me: What I think Why On both points you are wrong. This is why I refuse to discuss this with you. I won't even point out several major flaws in your preceding analysis. So you should feel free to continue to spam them as if the absence of criticism equals the correctness...

Sure, it's far-fetched if you don't understand the dynamics of debt deflation. If you do understand the dynamics of debt deflation it falls well within the realm of possible. I would simply suggest that anybody who wishes to criticise Keen's perspective from an informed position should at least...

No, that's not "black and white". And it's most certainly not "his own words", it's your derivation. Keens first quote (his best case scenario) did not mention an unemployment figure, it related to changes in GDP only. GDP and employment are related but not by a strictly quantifiable...

Well I read it on 'The Forum that Must Not Be Named' quite a while before I posted here. Which is why I was so confident that you could not substantiate your claim that Keen had forecast 20% unemployment. ;) Otherwise why would I have challenged you? That would have been foolish. I like to...

Right. "Worst case is something up to ... 20 per cent unemployment" That is not the way it was portrayed in the Henderson article. It was grossly misrepresented.

Yep, that is the truth I knew already. It puts a lie to Henderson's words: "he notched up his estimate of looming unemployment to 20 per cent." He didn't at all. It also puts the lie to your words: "To give credibility to someone saying 40% falls, 20% unemployment and depression (in...

To turn your own words against you: First. Where has he said 20% unemployment? Find me the quote and reference it please. Otherwise please stop putting words in his mouth. ;) Oh the irony here is delicious! http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588322537.html