Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
So, I can assume that you will provide facts showing the commodities prices during that period? I shall eagerly await your posting of those facts.
Edit, I do not recall you posting any numbers nor stating where you got them from.
Ed Wallace of Ft Worth Star Telegram wrote about it 7 or 8 years ago. I don't have a link nor do I feel like searching it out.
nwtk2007 wrote:
Ed Wallace of Ft Worth Star Telegram wrote about it 7 or 8 years ago. I don't have a link nor do I feel like searching it out.
Without proof of claim, I must ignore claim. I am not a sheeple, I don't do conspiracy theories or buy a car without looking under the hood.
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Without proof of claim, I must ignore claim. I am not a sheeple, I don't do conspiracy theories or buy a car without looking under the hood.
Ed Wallace does not do conspiracy theories. Do a little research yourself.
http://www.insideautomotive.com/index.htmHe also does History of Rock and Roll, The Backside of History, and writes for the Ft Worth Star Telegram.
http://muckrack.com/ed-wallace/articles
I looked at your first link for his site, he doesn't do articles either it seems, those are all links to other peoples articles so therefore, if he links to an article written by a conspiracy theorist, he does do conspiracy theories.
Without confirmation, I do not take anyone for their word unless they seem non-biased, seem to know what they are talking about, provides links/sources or verifiable facts (don't need to take one at their word if they provide links/sources or verifiable facts).
As your claim DOESN'T sound credible, I MUST verify before I just take your word for it, since you can't provide direction to your sources, I can't verify and therefore MUST ignore these so called "facts". If later you find the links, I will be happy to look them over and to consider their worth.
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
I looked at your first link for his site, he doesn't do articles either it seems, those are all links to other peoples articles so therefore, if he links to an article written by a conspiracy theorist, he does do conspiracy theories.
Without confirmation, I do not take anyone for their word unless they seem non-biased, seem to know what they are talking about, provides links/sources or verifiable facts (don't need to take one at their word if they provide links/sources or verifiable facts).
As your claim DOESN'T sound credible, I MUST verify before I just take your word for it, since you can't provide direction to your sources, I can't verify and therefore MUST ignore these so called "facts". If later you find the links, I will be happy to look them over and to consider their worth.
I looked at your first link for his site, he doesn... (
show quote)
He went to the tables and pulled up prices of 30 to 40 commodities, by hand. From the last day of Clinton to 2010, the average Inc varied from 300 to 500% Inc. I don't care if you believe me. It is was it was. But, did we hear about inflation? No.
I know Wallace. Been listening to him for years. I'll trust his numbers. Do the research yourself and prove him wrong.
nwtk2007 wrote:
He went to the tables and pulled up prices of 30 to 40 commodities, by hand. From the last day of Clinton to 2010, the average Inc varied from 300 to 500% Inc. I don't care if you believe me. It is was it was. But, did we hear about inflation? No.
I know Wallace. Been listening to him for years. I'll trust his numbers. Do the research yourself and prove him wrong.
Not very easy to pull up such old data especially when related to stock prices which are so volatile, unless you know of such an archive. I am not going to go to such great effort, I didn't make the claim, claimant has the burden of proving their claim, not the other way around.
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Not very easy to pull up such old data especially when related to stock prices which are so volatile, unless you know of such an archive. I am not going to go to such great effort, I didn't make the claim, claimant has the burden of proving their claim, not the other way around.
I have no burden. Take it hypothetically. If true, what does it mean?
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Not very easy to pull up such old data especially when related to stock prices which are so volatile, unless you know of such an archive. I am not going to go to such great effort, I didn't make the claim, claimant has the burden of proving their claim, not the other way around.
Do you remember anything about huge inflation from 2000 to 2011?
Now we call it a boom. Lol! It was the lead up to recession.
nwtk2007 wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_commodities_boom
Do you remember anything about huge inflation from 2000 to 2011?
Now we call it a boom. Lol! It was the lead up to recession.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere, though they didn't all "boom" in unison nor do those commodities make up a large enough portion of GDP that I would think they alone could trigger a rise in interest rates though I do think that their values and perhaps the quantity may warrant consideration in considering whether a rise in interest rates might be warranted.
I did notice that very few of them showed a rise in value of 300%+ that you mentioned, though so few that the claim may have been unduly prejudicial. This rise also took quite a few years to rise by that much as well as they were also rising from a depressed value.
All things must be considered when deciding whether to Raise interest rates. I don't think those rises, all things considered, are enough to warrant a rise in interest rates. Of course I am not an economist, I didn't major in economics, I do not now, nor have I ever, worked for the Fed, so take my opinion at face value.
Edit: Additional consideration, they "boomed" right after the housing bubble burst so they were also taking up the slack left by the housing bubble collapse.
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Okay, now we are getting somewhere, though they didn't all "boom" in unison nor do those commodities make up a large enough portion of GDP that I would think they alone could trigger a rise in interest rates though I do think that their values and perhaps the quantity may warrant consideration in considering whether a rise in interest rates might be warranted.
I did notice that very few of them showed a rise in value of 300%+ that you mentioned, though so few that the claim may have been unduly prejudicial. This rise also took quite a few years to rise by that much as well as they were also rising from a depressed value.
All things must be considered when deciding whether to Raise interest rates. I don't think those rises, all things considered, are enough to warrant a rise in interest rates. Of course I am not an economist, I didn't major in economics, I do not now, nor have I ever, worked for the Fed, so take my opinion at face value.
Edit: Additional consideration, they "boomed" right after the housing bubble burst so they were also taking up the slack left by the housing bubble collapse.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere, though they di... (
show quote)
This isn't Wallace's work. He looked at more. Remember, wiki is written by laymen, to say what laymen want.
nwtk2007 wrote:
This isn't Wallace's work. He looked at more. Remember, wiki is written by laymen, to say what laymen want.
Without more, I don't see enough to say that I think a rise in interest rates are warranted, don't forget, it was on the heels of the housing market crash.
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Without more, I don't see enough to say that I think a rise in interest rates are warranted, don't forget, it was on the heels of the housing market crash.
Commodities rose beyond 2007. You are missing the point. We weren't being told there was huge inflation when, in fact, there was. The data regarding the interest rates set by the Fed is doctored in the same manor.
nwtk2007 wrote:
Commodities rose beyond 2007. You are missing the point. We weren't being told there was huge inflation when, in fact, there was. The data regarding the interest rates set by the Fed is doctored in the same manor.
On the heels of a housing market crash, one balloon taking over where another left off is hardly justification for raising interest rates unless the new "boom" is of enough of a greater value to exceed the crashed market by enough to justify a rise in rates. The interest rates were raised for the housing market bubble, the commodities bubble started on the heels of the housing market crash, if they were of equal values, they cancel each other out. By 2010, we had a recession and that DEFINITELY canceled out any "boom" that was in effect at same time, the recession hit in 2007.
A recession trumps a commodities "boom", in fact, it likely AIDED the commodities "boom". During a market crash be it stocks or housing or basically any market, people typically tend to look for alternate cash sinks, a way to defend against a fall in the dollar, a safe guard in case the bottom falls out of cash. Precious metals are a favorite.
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
On the heels of a housing market crash, one balloon taking over where another left off is hardly justification for raising interest rates unless the new "boom" is of enough of a greater value to exceed the crashed market by enough to justify a rise in rates. The interest rates were raised for the housing market bubble, the commodities bubble started on the heels of the housing market crash, if they were of equal values, they cancel each other out. By 2010, we had a recession and that DEFINITELY canceled out any "boom" that was in effect at same time, the recession hit in 2007.
A recession trumps a commodities "boom", in fact, it likely AIDED the commodities "boom". During a market crash be it stocks or housing or basically any market, people typically tend to look for alternate cash sinks, a way to defend against a fall in the dollar, a safe guard in case the bottom falls out of cash. Precious metals are a favorite.
On the heels of a housing market crash, one balloo... (
show quote)
Totally missed the point. Never mind.
nwtk2007 wrote:
Totally missed the point. Never mind.
No, it would seem you are, you don't raise interest rates on one market "boom" during a depressed market that counters that "boom", especially during a recession.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.