If you don't know that bubbles affect markets, then open a economics text book.
There are no accepted textbooks that present your silly bubble theories. The vapid and deluded see bubbles everywhere. What's actually there is the simple fact that markets go both up and down. This is the nature of markets -- it's what they do. But the talentless are not able to see that far.
Such a lame excuse. You don't have time to add one sentence on wikipedia. But you do obviously have time to post here here all the time. As pointed out, if your point has any merit you should be able to change it.
No, material for wiki has to be tightly proofed and sourced. You've obviously never added anything to wiki before. And as I've posted many times, DP is a time filler for me. Today for example, I must wait for the UPS guy to show up with our packet of post-season baseball tickets (signature required in person). And it is raining outside. Thus, I have some free time between stages of kitty litter changing in which to disabuse the massively disinformed of some of their sillier notions.
So why aren't you? Are you afraid those lame people at wikipedia would laugh in your face, after you tried to use yourself as a source?
You are correct insofar as that was a claim that wikpedia does not accept original research. All of wikipedia is derivative information. Your correctness both begins and ends with that point, however.
I never contested that you have a degree in economics. A lot of people do, that doesn't mean they get economics. However the rest of your post is a lie. No one is interested in your lies.
I would have rather more than "a degree in economcis", and contrary to your pointless and feeble critiques, quite a number of people are and have been interested in my economic research and analysis over quite a long time. So much so that they have been willing to part with figures such as $300 per hour in order to obtain it. What is it that you do again?
Am I talking about myself here? Why do you feel the need to pretend you are something you are not?
Have you forgotten already? I noted that no one had ever paid Sarah Palin for economic research and analysis. Someone was then sufficiently out of the loop to suggest that no one had ever paid me either. I am merely again correcting someone who was ignorant of the facts.
If you were so successful, why are you posting so much here. I know very well that old people who come to political forums, and talk about how awesome they think they are, are not successful at all. They are running away from something.
May I suggest that you have no more future in psychology than you do in economics? Most of the last roughly 15 years of my economics work has been within the political sphere. By that I mean having one foot on K Street and the other on Capitol Hill. Maybe you are familiar with one or both of those from some once-upon-a-time ride past on a Tourmobile. But as I am in my late 60's now, I no longer have the energy for that on a full-time basis. It's a younger man's game. So, I'm easing now into semi-retirement, restricting work to that done through an LLC that I've long been a partner in. That lets me work only on what I want when I want, which presently means that work takes up maybe 35-40% of my time. I also direct my own modest 501(c)(3) charity and sit on the board of a larger one. There goes another 10-15% of my time. Still leaves a good chunk left over in which to amuse myself and potentially help others by cruising the relative slums of DP correcting the hapless right-wing blunderers as they blunder. I meanwhile don't bring any of this to the fore unless and until directly challenged on it. You won't find any mention of any of it in my profile, for example. But it was overtly put on the table here. Blame the guy who did that if you like.
Real successful people do not feel the need to talk about how successful they think they are. They don't care.
Quite so, I don't at this point need to care about having been in the top 1% of income for so long or in wealth terms, about being a millionaire this many times over, but I certainly suspect that you do which is why I mention it. Meanwhile, between my professional and charitable work, I've been quietly going one-on-one with very successful people for many, many years. I'd be pretty confident that I know more about the type than you do.
Oh.. right, it was just the timing. However Democrats took over congress earlier.
Democrats took control of Congess in January 2007. 2007 was later than 2006, not earlier. The credit crisis horses were all out of the barn by January 2007. Yet again, your notions are seen to be frauds based on easily refuted disinformation.
So using your arguments I guess the property markets headed south because they were afraid of democrats taking over.
Prices of long-term assets vary inversely with interest rates. Houses are long-term assets. Between mid-2004 and mid-2006 the federal funds target rate went from 1% to 5.25%. Can you do the math?
Shall I tell you a secret? Elections does not mean jack.
LOL!!! Why don't you post
THAT on wikipedia and see how long it lasts? The grammar alone is atrocious.
What kind of power do you think the President have? A president does not have power over congress..
Of course not. This is why Presidents may only
suggest new rules for earmarks.
...they do not have power over state policy...
Yes, they do. In faithfully executing the laws of the land, the very role of the Executive Branch is in fact to develop and apply state policy.
One of their only power is to veto bills.
Really? Not head of state? Not commander in chief of the military? Not the boss of every federal department? Not the guy whose staff drafts much of the legislation that Congress considers? I'm afraid there is an awful lot that has simply gotten past you. Civics is apparently right up there with economics and psychology.
And in addition presidents tend to moderate themselves when they get in office. Who really has power is congress, and congress was heading democratic.
Congress does not head. It either is or is not controlled by a particular party. It was controlled exclusively by Republicans during the years in which the history of the credit crisis was written. No Democrat had his hand on any federal lever of power at all. No Barney Frank. No Chris Dodd. No Nancy Pelosi. It was ALL Republicans ALL the time.
Your thinking is just as silly as republicans who think Obama getting kicked out of office will make a big difference.
LOL! It would make a huge and terrible difference. Fortunately, with each time Romney opens his fool mouth, it is becoming increasingly unlikely.
What they and you don't get is that investors don't care. Especially not in 2000 when confidence was high. They care about consumers, are anyone going to buy their products. That is why bubbles are so much more important, because when a bubble pops then demands drops.
This reminds of that game where you put word-dice into a cup, then roll them out on the table and see if you can make a sentence out of them. What a sorry and unsupportable ramble. You'd be better off just sticking to your crude attempts at personal insult.
