Consumer Sentiment Plunges to 4-Month Low as Food Prices Spike---Thank You Obama

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

That in no way makes it better. Even Greenspan admits it was a mistake to not address asset bubbles through raising rates.

Really, if he wants to argue that it was better to have allowed the crash rather than to have addressed the bubble I will grant you the point that he is a moron and anything he has said should be dismissed.

It's not clear what you are saying here. Are you referring to Lacker or Greenspan as 'he' in the second paragraph? Lacker is simply not stating that it would be better to allow the crash, if that is what you are saying. Lacker is also not the fed chair, or a voting member of the fed board.

Originally Posted by pknopp

Didn't we just do this in the late 90's? What did we learn? Its good to make the same mistakes? She could stop this.

How do you think that the economy of the 90s compares to today? If you are supposing that there is a growing tech bubble, a la dot-coms, then the data is mixed, at best:

Are we in a tech bubble? VCs say yes and no — Tech News and Analysis

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talki...000928570.html

The IPO and revenue environment looks pretty different today in tech than it did in the late 90s--early 00s. Again, pretty far afield from food prices, but I guess we are going down the rabbit hole.

[ambient]

Originally Posted by gretsky99

For ruining the US economy with your radical socialism.

Consumer Sentiment in U.S. Declines to Lowest in Four Months

Oh, my god - a FOUR MONTH LOW!!! You must be pissing your pants and loading the shotgun shells!!!!

Consumer sentiment always fluctuates, and "four months" tells you absolutely nothing and has nothing to do with "radical socialism."

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

It's not clear what you are saying here. Are you referring to Lacker or Greenspan as 'he' in the second paragraph? Lacker is simply not stating that it would be better to allow the crash, if that is what you are saying. Lacker is also not the fed chair, or a voting member of the fed board.

He is. This is why I don't bother.

How do you think that the economy of the 90s compares to today? If you are supposing that there is a growing tech bubble, a la dot-coms, then the data is mixed, at best:

Are we in a tech bubble? VCs say yes and no — Tech News and Analysis

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talki...000928570.html

The IPO and revenue environment looks pretty different today in tech than it did in the late 90s--early 00s. Again, pretty far afield from food prices, but I guess we are going down the rabbit hole.

It makes no difference what I think. I was discussing Yellens statement. She believes they are overinflated. We know what that leads to.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

He is. This is why I don't bother.

Your posts are unclear. Are you referring to Lacker or Greenspan? If you are referring to Lacker, he is only saying that monetary policy should be directed at inflation and not asset bubbles. So are you attempting to say that addressing inflation caused the crash? Because his remarks do not indicate that, nor do they indicate that the fed should have allowed the crash.

Originally Posted by pknopp

It makes no difference what I think. I was discussing Yellens statement. She believes they are overinflated. We know what that leads to.

She never said that social media stocks look like the dotcom bubble of the late 90s. There is a chasm between "social media stocks are overweight" and "OMG dotcom bubble burst 2.0." You are the one who injected the late 90s into this discussion, so what do you think compares between the late 90s and the present?