« First « Previous Comments 248 - 249 of 249 Search these comments
Pakistan? North Korea? Iraq? Libya? Iran? Syria? All of which are confirmed are suspected to have nuclear weapons. Which is better for you? Nuclear Pakistan or Colonial India?
salk Says:
Pakistan? North Korea? Iraq? Libya? Iran? Syria? All of which are confirmed are suspected to have nuclear weapons.
Yes, but you said something like "Middle East dictators have nuclear weapons aimed at the west". Posessing nukes is very different from having the ability to deliver them.
Pakistan's nukes are aimed at India. Iraq does not have any. Libya does not either (confirmed by the CIA). Iran and Syria do not have the means to deliver these weapons to any target outside the middle east.
The only countries that have nukes _aimed_ at the "west" are Russia, China and (possibly) North Korea. None of which are in the middle-east.
Which is better for you? Nuclear Pakistan or Colonial India?
Is that a binary choice?
SP
« First « Previous Comments 248 - 249 of 249 Search these comments
So is helicopter Ben going to come to the rescue on 18th, cutting interest rates, and thereby proving to speculators that they can keep profits but count on ol' Ben to save them from losses? I think the answer, unfortunately, is yes.
Since lower interest rates encourage inflation, does this mean that responsible savers will see the value of their savings eroded to support irresponsible spenders and lenders?
Or could it be that mortgage interest rates will go higher anyway, ignoring the Fed? It seems possible that banks and investors have been spooked enough by the unclear liability for a trillion dollars of bad mortgages that they will still demand higher rates from borrowers, to compensate for the risk of mortgage lending these days.
Patrick
#housing