Roger's Matters Arising...

[Michael Eisenstadt]

Which of the 2 or 3 items are you asking me about? Not the Bush
administration's encouragement of Fed employees to help the 
Republicans, I suppose. You are asking then about the 
remarks forwarded from energyresources@yahoogroups.com 
maillist plus Roger's unintelligible predictions.

The remarks from the maillist claim that the dollar amount 
of money is many times the dollar amount of goods and that
"when and if everyone calls in their chits, a huge tangle of 
complex international financial transactions will be found 
to depend on a comparatively tiny base of real assets."

Sounds like crackpot economics to me. What would it mean
to "call in one's chits"? This amateur Cassandra refers to
the "tiny base of real assets." This is totality disconnected 
from the reality of the enormity of real assets in the real 
world, improved and unimproved real estate and movables. If 
there were more money than assets then the assets would be 
revalued and priced up to correspond with the supply of money. 

For Roger it is always chickie lickie the sky is falling so
it is no surprise that these remarks rattled his chain
especially as it seems to be somehow wrapped around the 
Huppert's Peak hypothesis that there will be no more oil the
day after tomorrow.

As Jim Baldauf, a subscriber to energyresourses@yahoogroups.com
pointed out, the less hysterical and more convincing contributors
to this maillist reject the Huppert's Peak hypothesis. If
interested you can always subscribe to energyresourses@yahoogroups.com
and judge for yourself the arguments for and against.

I have no idea what the numbers in Roger's statement relate to:

> Our good economists, who tell me the "8/288 syndrome" is simply the
> workings of an "efficient market" are going to find it impossible 
> to deal with a devaluation of currency at the 36X factor level 
> implied by the "8/288 syndrome"

Is Roger is too chicken shit to defend himself in this forum?
We'll see.

best,

Mike

Connie Clark wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> ...Anyway, here is something Roger sent out this morning, of 
> interest, I think. I am interested in your response, as you 
> and I once compared impressions of the volatility of our 
> nation's economy, and I am still pessimistic.-Connie