> Mr. Morgan, > Loved the article. But allowed me to be pedantic about one point. > > > Any good physical scientist will tell you that "negative feedback" > leads to stability, whereas "positive feedback" causes instability > and oscillations. The serious economists use the terms "procyclical" > and "countercyclical." The dumb procyclical effects we have built > into our financial system will generate both the booms and the busts. > > > The term you meant to use in the above piece is "procyclical feedback" > or maybe "adverse feedback." Thanks again for providing some wheat > to SA and not more chaff.
Thanks, I don't know what happened to the format but the article was submitted with tables. I'll check with SA editorial to see if there is a better way to keep the formatting next time.
Herb
On Mar 20 06:17 PM betweenthenumbers wrote:
> I greatly appreciate the tone of this article, that of a humble commentator > trying to present facts, regardless of the actual content. I'm not > so keen myself on the Fed's actions - they are literally the most > powerful organization in the world now, completely on tilt, trying > to make drastic interventionism the solution to all problems, and > growing their balance sheet to the size of France's GDP ($2.5T) in > 6 weeks...but I digress. I can respect his points, and like the way > they are presented (maybe some tables instead of data points in a > list). > > I really liked the statement "...getting tired of the financial news > media selecting guests based on their ability to spew extreme and > absolute clairvoyance about the direction of markets." That shrill > screaming does nothing but prevent the measured discussion that is > necessary given the current circumstances. I would even end my months > long MSNBC boycott to watch a show if they would bring Mr. Morgan > on.
Bowling Ball Bounce for Markets [View article]
Herb
On Mar 20 01:01 PM THofler wrote:
> Mr. Morgan,
> Loved the article. But allowed me to be pedantic about one point.
>
>
> Any good physical scientist will tell you that "negative feedback"
> leads to stability, whereas "positive feedback" causes instability
> and oscillations. The serious economists use the terms "procyclical"
> and "countercyclical." The dumb procyclical effects we have built
> into our financial system will generate both the booms and the busts.
>
>
> The term you meant to use in the above piece is "procyclical feedback"
> or maybe "adverse feedback." Thanks again for providing some wheat
> to SA and not more chaff.
Bowling Ball Bounce for Markets [View article]
Herb
On Mar 20 06:17 PM betweenthenumbers wrote:
> I greatly appreciate the tone of this article, that of a humble commentator
> trying to present facts, regardless of the actual content. I'm not
> so keen myself on the Fed's actions - they are literally the most
> powerful organization in the world now, completely on tilt, trying
> to make drastic interventionism the solution to all problems, and
> growing their balance sheet to the size of France's GDP ($2.5T) in
> 6 weeks...but I digress. I can respect his points, and like the way
> they are presented (maybe some tables instead of data points in a
> list).
>
> I really liked the statement "...getting tired of the financial news
> media selecting guests based on their ability to spew extreme and
> absolute clairvoyance about the direction of markets." That shrill
> screaming does nothing but prevent the measured discussion that is
> necessary given the current circumstances. I would even end my months
> long MSNBC boycott to watch a show if they would bring Mr. Morgan
> on.
Shadow Banking System: Death from Nowhere [View article]
Five Opportunities To Consider Amidst This Selloff [View article]