You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NWR: Financial chaos
- Thread starter SFJoe
- Start date
originally posted by SFJoe:
Thoughtfor the day.
Money is too important to be left to central bankers. You essentially have a group of unelected people who have enormous power to affect the economy. Ive always been in favor of replacing the Fed with a laptop computer, to calculate the monetary base and expand it annually, through war, peace, feast and famine by a predictable 2%, said Milton Friedman, who passed away on Nov 16, 2006.
originally posted by JasonA:
And another thought...originally posted by SFJoe:
Thoughtfor the day.
Money is too important to be left to central bankers. You essentially have a group of unelected people who have enormous power to affect the economy. Ive always been in favor of replacing the Fed with a laptop computer, to calculate the monetary base and expand it annually, through war, peace, feast and famine by a predictable 2%, said Milton Friedman, who passed away on Nov 16, 2006.
I'm not much of a Friedman guy, but I like the idea of turning things lot that over to computers. That's what they are good at.
Arjun Mendiratta
Arjun Mendiratta
originally posted by VLM:
Gotta say, at first I thought this was jokey, but it turns out he's really serious.
Really? Seemed like a joke to me.
Steve Guattery
Steve Guattery
originally posted by VLM:
I'm not much of a Friedman guy, but I like the idea of turning things lot that over to computers. That's what they are good at.
If you don't agree with Friedman, then why would you think the correct policy would be his apparently simple, fixed 2% solution? And in any case, I'm not willing to concede that the 2% solution could be reliably programmed until I see the whole specification of the problem...
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
originally posted by VLM:
I'm not much of a Friedman guy, but I like the idea of turning things lot that over to computers. That's what they are good at.
If you don't agree with Friedman, then why would you think the correct policy would be his apparently simple, fixed 2% solution? And in any case, I'm not willing to concede that the 2% solution could be reliably programmed until I see the whole specification of the problem...
No, not 2%, but I think there should be an algorithmic answer.
originally posted by Arjun Mendiratta:
originally posted by VLM:
Gotta say, at first I thought this was jokey, but it turns out he's really serious.
Really? Seemed like a joke to me.
Me too, but I really think he was serious.
I can't tell.
Damn interweb.
Anyone know?
Arjun Mendiratta
Arjun Mendiratta
Based on the tone and sentiment of Liar's Poker, I'm pretty sure he's joking. And this excerpt seems pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek:
Hmm...sounds like something the politburo could address.
What's needed is a broader ban on pessimism of any sort. Worrisome newspaper articles, whispered conversations, mildly skeptical thoughts, anything that might adversely affect Goldman's share price: all these, too, must be outlawed.
Hmm...sounds like something the politburo could address.
originally posted by SFJoe:
Arjun is correct. It's a joke.
Have we come to this pass, where ironic humor has to be pointed out to seasoned Disorderists? True, Coadian humor will probably always come with its well-thumbed footnotes for those who haven't purchased the study guide, but plain vanilla irony? Sheesh.
Mark Lipton
originally posted by SFJoe:
Another serious interview.
I've seen that before, it's great. I think you either sent it to me or posted it somewhere else.
originally posted by SFJoe:
Another serious interview.
Who are those guys by the way?
Is there a regular BBC show or something?
Why did Joe pick the one with the weird language? I have no idea what that is. Cypriot?
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
originally posted by VLM:
I'm not much of a Friedman guy, but I like the idea of turning things lot that over to computers. That's what they are good at.
If you don't agree with Friedman, then why would you think the correct policy would be his apparently simple, fixed 2% solution? And in any case, I'm not willing to concede that the 2% solution could be reliably programmed until I see the whole specification of the problem...
No, not 2%, but I think there should be an algorithmic answer.
You'd need a heuristically programmed algorithmic computer.
originally posted by VLM:
HmmmEdited because I missed the joke.
Damn New Yorkers and their "in-jokes"!
I think that's what got us into this mess.
New Yorker in-joke.originally posted by Hoke:
originally posted by VLM:
Hmmm
Edited because I missed the joke. Damn New Yorkers and their "in-jokes"!