September 17, 200818 yr My basic view of economics is this. There's gotta be a balance between supply side economic policies and Keynesian policies. That's all I needed to hear. With all due respect, those are more mainstream than your views.
September 17, 200818 yr This is a bear market any way you look at it. I don't think there's any real disagreement on that. Unfortunately, it will get worse. you can never tell if it is a bear market really until you are out of it or the drops are drastic like i said 15-20% drops daily. We are not there yet. I concurred I was wrong about the path it took today, but we do not know yet. It all could be a natural correction. we may lose a lot, but it could be correctng the markets. Same thing with recessions you do not ever know if you a really in one until it has passed. The market is clearly a bad market, but we can not tell if it is bear or corrective yet. 15-20% drops daily would mean we are in the worst depression in American history by far. I think you're way off base. sorry- not daily monthly. It is about a 3 month process of that continual lose before they consider it a bear market. This isn't my theory this is how the market is described. A huge difference between corrections and bear markets. I do not doubt we are on pace or almost there, but I think until we see a few more days of a big drops it might just be correcting itself.
September 17, 200818 yr Author The market was off by 20% from the 52-week high before this week, now it's 25%. A dip in the Dow in a bear market (which is defined as 20% off the 52-week high) is not a correction, but a crash. And it crashed twice this week already. EDIT: Well, OK. It peaked at 13,028 in May, so before this week it was 13% off. Now, it's 19.5% off. I'm not sure whether the 52-week high or the 6-month high is the better measure for a bear market.
September 17, 200818 yr The market was off by 20% from the 52-week high before this week, now it's 25%. A dip in the Dow in a bear market (which is defined as 20% off the 52-week high) is not a correction, but a crash. And it crashed twice this week already. EDIT: Well, OK. It peaked at 13,028 in May, so before this week it was 13% off. Now, it's 19.5% off. I'm not sure whether the 52-week high or the 6-month high is the better measure for a bear market. I am glad you brought out the full numbers and I think tomorrow anything over a 200point loss will make it a bear market. I just think even though this is happening it is still correcting itself. Bear market - yes market correction - yes I think it is much different than a traditional depression
September 17, 200818 yr I don't know why people look at the Dow... it's like looking at batting average.
September 17, 200818 yr Dow is only the top 30, but I think it is consistent with the market in general.
September 18, 200818 yr I think it represents about 3% of the overall market but the S&P 500 is about 70%. It pisses me off in the news when they give you the Dow and the Nasdaq but ignore the S&P which is the one that matters to me.
September 18, 200818 yr Author S&P 500: 52-week high: 1576.09 6-mo peak: 1426.63 Index at close last Friday: 1251.70 (20.6% off 52-week high, 13.3% off 6-mo peak) Index at close today: 1156.39 (26.7% of 52-week high, 19.0% off 6-mo peak) In other words, same as the Dow. Happy?
September 18, 200818 yr Bush and Co. have made our economic situation worse, by borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a war in Iraq that was a complete farce, and then despite claiming that our nation is at 'war', giving several rounds of tax cuts, by borrowing MORE money. I don't believe that if Gore had been president, we would be in Iraq. It is debatable whether or not he would have authorized so many tax cuts. I tend to think not.
September 18, 200818 yr Bush and Co. have made our economic situation worse, by borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a war in Iraq that was a complete farce, and then despite claiming that our nation is at 'war', giving several rounds of tax cuts, by borrowing MORE money. I don't believe that if Gore had been president, we would be in Iraq. It is debatable whether or not he would have authorized so many tax cuts. I tend to think not. Except that wars have in the past have had a positive impact on the economy. I know you like making everything about the war and blaming Bush, but really what's happening in the economy now is a result of activities that predate Bush and may even predate Clinton.
September 18, 200818 yr Yeah as many problems as I had with the war (and I do agree tax cuts during a war makes little sense), I think if there had been enough foresight to see what could happen with the housing industry and all that came with it (unregulated CDOs, swaps, etc) we wouldn't be in this situation, or at least not to this degree.
September 18, 200818 yr Bush and Co. have made our economic situation worse, by borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a war in Iraq that was a complete farce, and then despite claiming that our nation is at 'war', giving several rounds of tax cuts, by borrowing MORE money. I don't believe that if Gore had been president, we would be in Iraq. It is debatable whether or not he would have authorized so many tax cuts. I tend to think not. Except that wars have in the past have had a positive impact on the economy. I know you like making everything about the war and blaming Bush, but really what's happening in the economy now is a result of activities that predate Bush and may even predate Clinton. I don't think they predate Clinton. I think the government did not do enough a few years ago to help us avoid this problem. We've seen this coming, but President Bush didn't do anything.
September 18, 200818 yr Bush and Co. have made our economic situation worse, by borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a war in Iraq that was a complete farce, and then despite claiming that our nation is at 'war', giving several rounds of tax cuts, by borrowing MORE money. I don't believe that if Gore had been president, we would be in Iraq. It is debatable whether or not he would have authorized so many tax cuts. I tend to think not. Except that wars have in the past have had a positive impact on the economy. I know you like making everything about the war and blaming Bush, but really what's happening in the economy now is a result of activities that predate Bush and may even predate Clinton. I don't think they predate Clinton. I think the government did not do enough a few years ago to help us avoid this problem. We've seen this coming, but President Bush didn't do anything. You forget the GOP tried to reform Fannie and Freddie back in '05 but the Democrats blocked it in the Senate.
September 18, 200818 yr Bush and Co. have made our economic situation worse, by borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a war in Iraq that was a complete farce, and then despite claiming that our nation is at 'war', giving several rounds of tax cuts, by borrowing MORE money. I don't believe that if Gore had been president, we would be in Iraq. It is debatable whether or not he would have authorized so many tax cuts. I tend to think not. Except that wars have in the past have had a positive impact on the economy. I know you like making everything about the war and blaming Bush, but really what's happening in the economy now is a result of activities that predate Bush and may even predate Clinton. I don't think they predate Clinton. I think the government did not do enough a few years ago to help us avoid this problem. We've seen this coming, but President Bush didn't do anything. You forget the GOP tried to reform Fannie and Freddie back in '05 but the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. What were they going to do?
September 18, 200818 yr Bush and Co. have made our economic situation worse, by borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a war in Iraq that was a complete farce, and then despite claiming that our nation is at 'war', giving several rounds of tax cuts, by borrowing MORE money. I don't believe that if Gore had been president, we would be in Iraq. It is debatable whether or not he would have authorized so many tax cuts. I tend to think not. Except that wars have in the past have had a positive impact on the economy. I know you like making everything about the war and blaming Bush, but really what's happening in the economy now is a result of activities that predate Bush and may even predate Clinton. I don't think they predate Clinton. I think the government did not do enough a few years ago to help us avoid this problem. We've seen this coming, but President Bush didn't do anything. You forget the GOP tried to reform Fannie and Freddie back in '05 but the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. What were they going to do? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190 You may want to google news it and look in '05.
September 19, 200818 yr I hate how the public, media and gov is acting on this.... Now the SEC is planning to temp ban short selling, this is a stupid move!
September 19, 200818 yr I hate how the public, media and gov is acting on this.... Now the SEC is planning to temp ban short selling, this is a stupid move! only a 10-day ban but it is strange. there's some musings around the blogosphere (tiny grain of salt) about the bulk of the short-selling over the past week coming from overseas, and whether this could have been some kind of financial terrorism move. It did start right about the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks... and that maybe that was part of the reason the temp ban was put into place. probably nothing to it.
September 19, 200818 yr I hate how the public, media and gov is acting on this.... Now the SEC is planning to temp ban short selling, this is a stupid move! only a 10-day ban but it is strange. there's some musings around the blogosphere (tiny grain of salt) about the bulk of the short-selling over the past week coming from overseas, and whether this could have been some kind of financial terrorism move. It did start right about the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks... and that maybe that was part of the reason the temp ban was put into place. probably nothing to it. interesting comment on the overseas activities... I hate to see the Fed tampering with this. You have to have the funds in your accounts to be able to short sell, otherwise you get a margin call. Short sellers at the bottom of markets, sometimes are the fire to fuel bull-markets. short-selling is not evil
September 19, 200818 yr McCain is finally getting aggressive over Obama's connection to the crooks who ran Fannie and Freddie. He has an ad about the Raines connection and another about the Johnson connection and he's talking about it in his speech. This is from Wisconsin earlier today: Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent's trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search. This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote "extensive financial fraud" under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House. My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system.
September 24, 200818 yr Author McCain is finally getting aggressive over Obama's connection to the crooks who ran Fannie and Freddie. He has an ad about the Raines connection and another about the Johnson connection and he's talking about it in his speech. This is from Wisconsin earlier today: Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent's trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search. This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote "extensive financial fraud" under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House. My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system. And then McCain falls flat on his face, again, this time in the form of Rick Davis: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!
September 24, 200818 yr :lol LOL McCain: OBAMA IS CONNECTED TO FANNIE MAE, HOW DARE HE!!! Reporters: YOUR CAMPAIGN MANAGER HAS GOTTEN $2M IN FEES FROM FANNIE! McCain: STILL!!!
September 24, 200818 yr McCain is finally getting aggressive over Obama's connection to the crooks who ran Fannie and Freddie. He has an ad about the Raines connection and another about the Johnson connection and he's talking about it in his speech. This is from Wisconsin earlier today: Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent's trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search. This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote "extensive financial fraud" under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House. My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system. And then McCain falls flat on his face, again, this time in the form of Rick Davis: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!! :lol :lol :lol Good stuff, dude. McCain would be better off without this guy but to somehow equate McCain's ties with a lobbyist who did nothing illegal to Obama's ties with two CEOs who pocketed tens of millions by cooking the books is ridiculous.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.