Have you been living under a rock. "Laissez fair[sic]" capitalism was discredited at least a century ago, practically no present day economists believe that totally unregulated capitalism is a good idea.
Those who came close to believing in it, such as Friedman and Greenspan, have been discredited by recent events with regard to their belief in unregulated markets self-correcting, and harmlessly moving back toward equilibrium on their own. Such an event is not precluded by Soros' Reflexivity theory, but when a market is far from equilibrium it can move even further. It won't necessarily self-correct and move back toward equilibrium in a harmless way. In fact, if it is far from equilibrium it is unlikely to do this on its own.
Soros' brilliant contribution to modern economics, which he calls Reflexivity Theory, explains how it is that realty can not only reflect on markets, but markets can reflect on reality, changing it. Markets are not simply passive responders to fundamentals, but rather market mis-pricing can reflect back on the fundamentals and change them!
According to Soros, market prices always distort the underlying fundamentals.
Soros' arguments and specific examples are compelling, and for the first time in the development of modern economic theory the real behavior of the markets are explained in a satisfactory way. Soros' deserves to be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for development of Reflexivity Theory. Whether he gets it or not will be a matter of politics. The Prize is highly political, and his theories step on a lot of toes.
well I believe in it, and I am definately "present day" but I will agree with you that I am no economist. This idea that we must prevent the extreme pain is very short sighted. Nobody wants to be the victim, but if you don't do right, that is how you will end up. Hence all the allegories and stories we have been told for years.
I don't see much difference between Keynesian economics and Christianity, they both let you screw up with no consequences.
Well I never developed much interest in the supernatural which is such a popular theme for PG-13 movies these days, and therefore I haven't much useful experience with Christianity. My impression is that it has a way of leading to trouble and doesn't deliver on its promises. If I were you, I would not count on it to make things all better once you've screwed up.
On the other hand I have studied Soros' economic theories. If correct, damaging bubbles are not inevitable, and the worst ones are preventable.
Soros says that monetary policy alone is not enough, and that other measures in conjunction with monetary policy have to be used. As an example, when there was too much credit and leverage available in the years leading up to the 2008 crises, Soros would have tightened credit and reduced leverage by increasing capital and margin requirements. Ideas that were dismissed by Alan Greenspan when they were suggested as a means of cooling down the recent housing/mortgage bubble. But now it is too late for that, the damage having been done.
Like Stiglitz, Krugman, and Keynes, Soros would not tighten up on credit and leverage now. In fact he credits the Fed with preventing another depression. On the other hand he would insist that extra liquidity pumped into the economy to save it from ruin must be taken back out later, just as Keynes said it should be.
Soros' contributions to economic theory go further then Keynes' however. Soros does a much better job explaining why bubbles, via positive feedback, form in the first place; widespread acceptance of his theory promises a better chance for early recognition and far more effective means of preventing damaging extremes.
Soros' contribution is major, and no mean feat. But there is much arrogance and hubris to be overcome among academics before such radical, but at the same time eminently sensible, ideas can gain general acceptance. It is never easy to let go of old ideas once one's pride has been invested in them. It may take years.
Well I never developed much interest in the supernatural which is such a popular theme for PG-13 movies these days, and therefore I haven't much useful experience with Christianity. My impression is that it has a way of leading to trouble and doesn't deliver on its promises. If I were you, I would not count on it to make things all better once you've screwed up.
On the other hand I have studied Soros' economic theories. If correct, damaging bubbles are not inevitable, and the worst ones are preventable.
Soros says that monetary policy alone is not enough, and that other measures in conjunction with monetary policy have to be used. As an example, when there was too much credit and leverage available in the years leading up to the 2008 crises, Soros would have tightened credit and reduced leverage by increasing capital and margin requirements. Ideas that were dismissed by Alan Greenspan when they were suggested as a means of cooling down the recent housing/mortgage bubble. But now it is too late for that, the damage having been done.
Like Stiglitz, Krugman, and Keynes, Soros would not tighten up on credit and leverage now. In fact he credits the Fed with preventing another depression. On the other hand he would insist that extra liquidity pumped into the economy to save it from ruin must be taken back out later, just as Keynes said it should be.
Soros' contributions to economic theory go further then Keynes' however. Soros does a much better job explaining why bubbles, via positive feedback, form in the first place; widespread acceptance of his theory promises a better chance for early recognition and far more effective means of preventing damaging extremes.
Soros' contribution is major, and no mean feat. But there is much arrogance and hubris to be overcome among academics before such radical, but at the same time eminently sensible, ideas can gain general acceptance. It is never easy to let go of old ideas once one's pride has been invested in them. It may take years.
Chrisitanity? You should try it, you'll like it. The problem is, once you start you can't go back or you will go to hell.
Where did you learn all that about Soros? From his biography? I was not aware of his economic writings, sounds interesting.
I'm just coming at it it from a naturalists point of view I got in an old class I took in college in the Geography department. Maybe it's changed, but back then, there was no known success in any endeavor involving human intervention to restore balance to any eco system. In particular we studied the plight of the wolf and the plight of the sheep farmer.
On the other hand, to make money I worked on a project in the Biology department trying to restore prarie grass to the praries of Illinois. It's a real bitch and darn near impossible, but doable if you are really willing to pay attention to every little detail.
Oldtime, it's almost 5 am here, and I have a long drive later today so must get some sleep first. So I'll keep this short.
Soros is the single most influential investor/trader alive today. But his influence comes not as much from his trading success as it does from his intellectual pursuits. He was one of Karl Popper's students as an undergraduate at the London School of Economics. Popper left a deep impression on him, and now that he is old and semi-retired from active trading it seems he has renewed his interest in philosophy. He has written widely, and there are many books both by him and about him. There is one book, however, that I cannot recommend too highly and that is the "Soros Lectures" given by him at the Central European University in Budapest. Available at Amazon for a few bucks.
The lectures themselves are on You Tube. And I gave a link to one of them in one of my posts above in this thread. If you go to that link I believe it will take you to most, if not all, of his lectures there. That would be a fine place to start. He crams a lot of material into a single lecture. He is without any doubt one of the intellectual giants of our time.
He has gained a certain amount of notoriety from his outspoken stance on politics and societal issues, and as a result he has ruffled many feathers. But that, to me, only makes him all the more fascinating.
I truly believe his reflexivity theory of markets, which builds on a foundation of Poppers ideas, will in time be recognized as one of the most important contributions to macroeconomic theory.
You are quite right. If anyone cared to research it they would find Rogers was saying to buy commodities as the market was plummeting. The average investor wouldn't have been able to ride out a storm like that, and he's been saying to short stocks for years -- years while stocks have done nothing but go up. Anyone who took his advice recently is dead broke.
jim rogers doesn't use leverage. jime rogers recommended shorting fannie mae and the banks. I don't recall him saying to short the market in general.
rogers doesn't margin to the hilt like ET posters.
"Anyone who took his advice recently is dead broke. "
can you show proof ?
