On the Fed's ability to control unemployment, and other silly Ricter thoughts...

You are not talking about stockpiling ammo, and liberals being "culled" and all of that, you are gun enthusiast, not a gun nut.

 

LOL. How about Beach Tao?

 

How about taoelie?

 

I suppose I could change the moniker depending on where I went. I wouldn't mind Beach Tao one bit!

 

Yeah that's good too. I like play on words. There's been a few good ones on me that. Ale me chuckle. And some of 377 rants against me are humorus too.
What beach Tao failed to understand is his thoughts on this as expressed in the cut and paste article contradicted itself. No way to explain it away like bath Tao tried but failed to do. There wasn't any subtle meaning. The writer was wrong, I pointed that out and Tao is upset about it so he curses and calls names and basically throws a fit. Man up bath Tao, just admit you didn't notice the mistakes in the article. No biggie.

 

Not upset at all. If you are unable to counter the points I made in response to your one-and-only on subject post, then that's not my fault - it's yours.

And I'm not at all surprised!

Taohead

 

Oh, and one more thing. You keep going on about the cut-and-paste aspect of my original post. Isn't that what pretty much every single thread in this forum begins as? An article or editorial that begins a discussion on a particular topic?

I mean, if I just posted a thread begun by me and mentioned all sorts of economic facts, wouldn't someone just come along and yell "source?" at me? Then I'd have to go post a source, which is "cut and paste"?

Just curious. What do you expect threads in message forums like this to be based off, if not some article or editorial somewhere? Honest-Abe question.

Triple-Ply Tao

 

If one tries to walk on hot coals one can get...........wait for it........................

a singed toe.

 

LOL good one Tao.
There's nothing to discuss. I posted the contradiction in the quotes. It stands on its own.
There is nothing to argue about.

 

First the article talks about how marginally qualified borrowers will borrow more due to the low interest rates. Then he says the banks are wary of loaning to marginal borrowers.

“At 1%, marginal borrowers (the kind who are most likely to default) qualify for loans.”

“Talk about unintended consequences. The Fed's ZIRP punishes the prudent and rewards financier gamblers and encourages marginal borrowers who are tomorrow's defaulters.”

“The top 5% have improved their debt-income ratios, but the lower 95% don't qualify for new loans or refinancing. Now that the banks are weighed down with bad debt and writedowns, they are wary of loaning more to marginal borrowers.”