The top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
market authors
selected for publication
Thursday, December 24 2009 |
10:35 EDT |
DJIA (DIA)
S&P 500 (SPY)
- House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank - who favors a "council of regulators" over the Federal Reserve when it comes to watching systemic risk - is backing Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill, which is facing no significant opposition in the House.
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See all
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Joseph L. Sha...
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This news story has 20 comments:
www.congress.org/congr...
Enron was audited too.
Barney is just giving it a gentle shove so he and his ilk can rewrite the next chapter in this great crime novel.
"The Feds books wook vewy vewy scwewy. Wets awe go down to the UN and wet them pwint ow money."
Barney (along with maxine) said fnm was doing an outstanding job of doling out mtg loans. (2004)LOL!
Pathetic! A F$#@$# Bum.
Any maybe the Russians could learn a thing or two from Barney about how to really kill capitalism with a slick and easy housing bubble.
It's like a conga line of idiots from the John Birch school of delusional economics writing these comments.
On Sep 25 01:47 PM jpiretti wrote:
> Boy,
> It's like a conga line of idiots from the John Birch school of delusional
> economics writing these comments.
On Sep 25 02:48 PM Whippet wrote:
> A conga line of idiots following 3000 years of financial history
> up until 1913. As viewed from your Keynesian elitist clusterf^&k.
>
In every other case it's a logical fallacy.
On Sep 25 03:51 PM jpiretti wrote:
> Oh I bet your a real critical thinking historian. Let me guess...the
> parabolic move in economic metrics after March 1933 had nothing to
> do with New Deal policies. 1930-1933 (New Deal) GDP continued to
> decline 22%, unemployment went from 8.9% to 25.2%, Real Investment
> declined 33%, Nominal wages declined 20.6%, From 33-37 GDP up 36%,
> unemployment 25% to 14% (only private sector #'s), Real Investment
> recovers 100% of 30-33 loss, Nominal wages up above 1930 high. What
> say you Mr. Historian?
And what exactly does your New Deal fetish have to do with this comment string?
On Sep 25 03:51 PM jpiretti wrote:
> Oh I bet your a real critical thinking historian. Let me guess...the
> parabolic move in economic metrics after March 1933 had nothing to
> do with New Deal policies. 1930-1933 (New Deal) GDP continued to
> decline 22%, unemployment went from 8.9% to 25.2%, Real Investment
> declined 33%, Nominal wages declined 20.6%, From 33-37 GDP up 36%,
> unemployment 25% to 14% (only private sector #'s), Real Investment
> recovers 100% of 30-33 loss, Nominal wages up above 1930 high. What
> say you Mr. Historian?
This is obviously not the Barney Frank-Jpirette mutual admiration society.
I'm not a doctor, but I'd recommend a hycolonic and decaf.
In the Reagan-Clinton years there was no stopping our economy. When the social reformation DNC party gained strength due to owning the universities (like Columbia) the anti-business climate came with it.
No one here, including you, will argue that the DNC or the B.O. Admin are friendly to business, unless they own them. But free trade was the proverbial nail that killed the economy We can not compete with foreign workers making MP3 players that sell for less than it costs us to ship them to the next state. I will argue that with one of these hits, we could have survived somehow. But with both put together in the hands of the social reformers, it's basically over for us.
The only solution after that happens (and it will) is a different social and global economic model that works.
BTW: China just inked a deal to put their HK car factory in the deep south. How are Chrysler and GM going to compete with that?
6000 non-union jobs and "no speaky" [sic] English.
On Sep 26 11:00 AM Mad_Max_A_Million wrote:
> jpiretti: from you last comment, I can say for sure now that you
> are M.A.D. = (Misinformed - Angry - Disenfranchised).
> In the Reagan-Clinton years there was no stopping our economy. When
> the social reformation DNC party gained strength due to owning the
> universities (like Columbia) the anti-business climate came with
> it.
> No one here, including you, will argue that the DNC or the B.O. Admin
> are friendly to business, unless they own them. But free trade was
> the proverbial nail that killed the economy We can not compete with
> foreign workers making MP3 players that sell for less than it costs
> us to ship them to the next state. I will argue that with one of
> these hits, we could have survived somehow. But with both put together
> in the hands of the social reformers, it's basically over for us.
>
> The only solution after that happens (and it will) is a different
> social and global economic model that works.
> BTW: China just inked a deal to put their HK car factory in the deep
> south. How are Chrysler and GM going to compete with that?
> 6000 non-union jobs and "no speaky" [sic] English.