WM up 56%!!!
ETFC up 22%!!!
WB up 64%!!!
BAC up 15%!!!
AIG up 16%!!!
C up 24%!!!!
KBE up 14%!!!
GE up 8%!!!
S up 8%!!!
(glad i bought these yesterday!!)
gov't will create entity to hold bank's debt...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080918/wall_street.html
The federal government is discussing buying foreclosed homes from the banks. Of course Wall Street will love that.
Quote from: Driven1 on September 18, 2008, 03:52:54 PM
WM up 56%!!!
ETFC up 22%!!!
WB up 64%!!!
BAC up 15%!!!
AIG up 16%!!!
C up 24%!!!!
KBE up 14%!!!
GE up 8%!!!
S up 8%!!!
(glad i bought these yesterday!!)
gov't will create entity to hold bank's debt...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080918/wall_street.html
My question is this: (and yes, it's a question, not meant to stir the puddin')
Dow Down 5% one day, then up 1%, then down another 4%, then up another 4.5%. Basically, is this just fear setting in, creating widespread panic and irrational activity??
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2008, 03:57:21 PM
The federal government is discussing buying foreclosed homes from the banks. Of course Wall Street will love that.
Nationalizing (Socializing?) private debt?
We will see a lot of volatility in the months to come; big drops and big gains........
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2008, 03:57:21 PM
The federal government is discussing buying foreclosed homes from the banks. Of course Wall Street will love that.
And so will property owners everywhere. I do question the long term wisdom although it will probably help in the short run.
Quote from: Doctor_K on September 18, 2008, 03:58:04 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on September 18, 2008, 03:52:54 PM
WM up 56%!!!
ETFC up 22%!!!
WB up 64%!!!
BAC up 15%!!!
AIG up 16%!!!
C up 24%!!!!
KBE up 14%!!!
GE up 8%!!!
S up 8%!!!
(glad i bought these yesterday!!)
gov't will create entity to hold bank's debt...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080918/wall_street.html
My question is this: (and yes, it's a question, not meant to stir the puddin')
Dow Down 5% one day, then up 1%, then down another 4%, then up another 4.5%. Basically, is this just fear setting in, creating widespread panic and irrational activity??
It makes you wonder about the wisdom of crowds...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_crowds
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 05:24:44 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on September 18, 2008, 04:28:12 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2008, 03:57:21 PM
The federal government is discussing buying foreclosed homes from the banks. Of course Wall Street will love that.
And so will property owners everywhere. I do question the long term wisdom although it will probably help in the short run.
are you kidding?
River, you have spent two and a half years on these boards, calling every bill that a democrat mentioned in a sentence a 'socialist/marxist' shot in your imaginary 'class warfare' fantasy.
Now here we are, with a republican regime nationalizing everything in sight, with the Federal Government that you hate so much using OUR TAX DOLLARS to pay for it.
Don't you think its time to admit that you are actually a socialist?
Actually, socialists are supporting Obama. He is the man of the left, not me.
And, re the potential home bailout, I stated:
QuoteI do question the long term wisdom although it will probably help in the short run.
Meanwhile, the smart money is buying:
QuoteBuffett's Berkshire Accelerates Pace of Acquisitions (Update2)
By Erik Holm
Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which today agreed to buy Constellation Energy Group Inc., is increasing the pace of deals as debt markets freeze up and stocks fall.
The deal to pay $4.7 billion for Constellation is Buffett's eighth acquisition announced since October, compared with six in the prior 12 months, when the largest was a $350 million purchase of an underwear and pajama company. Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire, which had $31.2 billion in cash on June 30, is acting as buyouts by competitors slow amid a worldwide credit crunch.
``This is the kind of environment that opens up more opportunities for someone like Berkshire who does still have a lot of cash,'' said Gary Ransom, an analyst with Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller. ``Opportunities to put it to work are expanding right now.''
Berkshire's recent deals include the $4.5 billion purchase of Marmon Holdings Inc., the Pritzker family's collection of 125 companies, completed in March. Buffett agreed in April to provide $6.5 billion to help Mars Inc. buy Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. in a deal giving him a discounted stake in the chewing gum maker and in July he pledged $3 billion to Dow Chemical Co.'s $15.4 billion purchase of Rohm & Haas Co.
Buffett is making deals at a time when others can't. A yearlong contraction in global credit markets has choked funding for leveraged buyouts and reduced corporations' ability to acquire rivals, shrinking the value of announced mergers 29 percent to $2.29 trillion this year from the same period in 2007, Bloomberg data show.
`Extra Money'
``When there are market dislocations, we're always going to take advantage of them,'' Buffett said during the company's annual meeting in May. ``Berkshire will make some extra money out of this.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahgsBrJatCso&refer=worldwide
Stephen, enough with the nationalism diatribe, please. What do you think should be done with the crisis? Should we let the institutions fail? You have offered nothing in solutions, from what I've read. If you have a better solution, by all means, let's hear it.
Quote from: RiversideGator on September 18, 2008, 06:17:27 PM
Meanwhile, the smart money is buying:
why, thank you!! ;) the port was up 7.1% today (after being down cumulative 9% since Monday - i had some in cash earlier and started buying more on the drop days).
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 07:50:54 PM
Well its tricky isnt it?
I say let them fail. Prosecute every last one of the profiteers and executives who took their golden parachutes.
Take away their ill gotten gains and begin paying back the taxpayers whose money is bailing them out.
When the positions were reversed, they visited the same attitude on their own investments and debtors.
Perhaps there is presently capital in the world besides the easy chinese money.
If we are going to borrow however, then dont borrow from an economy strong enough to overpower us, and thereby put our nation's competitive future in thrall. Its poison.
Let it fall, restructure, and start again from scratch.
The things that made this country prosperous and great are still there, and with our strategic alliances with NAFTA and NATO, we will go through a hard time, a VERY hard time, but at the end of it we will be stronger and wholly self sustaining.
The Japanese suffered just such a humiliation at the end of WW2, and they recovered.
Pretty good points overall, Stephen. The only problem is that considering agencies like the FDIC, I don't think it's possible to let them completely fail like we did in the Depression. Good point about Japan, except for one thing: the US helped the country rebuild and thrive. I doubt any country in this world will help us in this case.
Letting them fail; isn't that what we did with Enron, or was that a different issue?
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 07:50:54 PM
Well its tricky isnt it?
I say let them fail. Prosecute every last one of the profiteers and executives who took their golden parachutes.
Take away their ill gotten gains and begin paying back the taxpayers whose money is bailing them out.
When the positions were reversed, they visited the same attitude on their own investments and debtors.
Perhaps there is presently capital in the world besides the easy chinese money.
If we are going to borrow however, then dont borrow from an economy strong enough to overpower us, and thereby put our nation's competitive future in thrall. Its poison.
Let it fall, restructure, and start again from scratch.
The things that made this country prosperous and great are still there, and with our strategic alliances with NAFTA and NATO, we will go through a hard time, a VERY hard time, but at the end of it we will be stronger and wholly self sustaining.
The Japanese suffered just such a humiliation at the end of WW2, and they recovered.
Well if they have actually broken any laws then by all means prosecute them. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that anyone actually has broken any laws. Ethics possibly, common sense certainly. But I'd like to see the inditements before we haul them into a star chamber. Being a profiteer in and of itself is not a crime. I'm a profiteer, self employed and maximize my profits with no apologies.
The public bailout is a major mistake, witness the auto makers getting in line now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYI0mHWQeD8
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 11:16:18 PM
exactly civil.
I got this in my email, dont know the original author:
How many times do we have to hear:
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Social Security.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Medicare.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to provide health care to ALL Americans.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help out Americans losing their homes.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help all our veterans returning from war.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to rescue "no child left behind".
BUT...
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Bears Stearns.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out AIG.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to pay for an unnecessary TRILLION DOLLAR war.
When the LITTLE GUY needs help, they scornfully say, "GET A JOB!"
But when one of their BIG GUY CRONIES need a bailout, what do they say? SURE, NO PROBLEM. Where's the checkbook?
"But what about the debt we're leaving on the backs of our childen and their future?"
"Children? WHOSE Children? OUR children won't have to pay for this. YOUR children will."
The Administrations has had their hands in our pockets for well over 8 years.
Now they are robbing us blind IN BROAD DAYLIGHT and smiling about it!!!!
The same players have shown their true colors and now they expect us to vote them back into office?
The problem with this Stephen is the Clinton or Obama administrations would have had NO choice but to do something similar to save these institutions. They would not have let them fail either. To claim that this is simply a bailout of Bush cronies is false and YOU know it Stephen. YOU Stephen should be ashamed because you know better. You are using this crisis to promote your political views and candidate. For you to state that you prefer these institutions to fail is disingenuous because you... of all people... understand the extreme consequenses of that action and why it must be avoided at virtually any cost. The democrats in congress are now falling in line with the administration to find solutions to this crisis. Apparently THEY feel the same way. These institutions cannot be allowed to fail.
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 05:24:44 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on September 18, 2008, 04:28:12 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2008, 03:57:21 PM
The federal government is discussing buying foreclosed homes from the banks. Of course Wall Street will love that.
And so will property owners everywhere. I do question the long term wisdom although it will probably help in the short run.
are you kidding?
River, you have spent two and a half years on these boards, calling every bill that a democrat mentioned in a sentence a 'socialist/marxist' shot in your imaginary 'class warfare' fantasy.
Now here we are, with a republican regime nationalizing everything in sight, with the Federal Government that you hate so much using OUR TAX DOLLARS to pay for it.
Don't you think its time to admit that you are actually a socialist?
I think a better word is "socializing" not "nationalizing." I think Bush would love to start a war or have something else catastrophic happen so he can stay in office; he signed a bill a couple of years ago enabling him to have all power in the event of a major crises. Then everything would be socialized.
Heights Unknown
Quotehe signed a bill a couple of years ago enabling him to have all power in the event of a major crises.
Really?? What specific bill would that be?
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 07:50:54 PM
Well its tricky isnt it?
I say let them fail. Prosecute every last one of the profiteers and executives who took their golden parachutes.
Take away their ill gotten gains and begin paying back the taxpayers whose money is bailing them out.
When the positions were reversed, they visited the same attitude on their own investments and debtors.
Perhaps there is presently capital in the world besides the easy chinese money.
If we are going to borrow however, then dont borrow from an economy strong enough to overpower us, and thereby put our nation's competitive future in thrall. Its poison.
Let it fall, restructure, and start again from scratch.
The things that made this country prosperous and great are still there, and with our strategic alliances with NAFTA and NATO, we will go through a hard time, a VERY hard time, but at the end of it we will be stronger and wholly self sustaining.
The Japanese suffered just such a humiliation at the end of WW2, and they recovered.
Stephendare;
I respect your posts and opinions. But I must ask, did you go to college? You must have been taught the basics of economics while in High School and College. Do you have any idea what would happen if we just let these banks (especially the large ones) fail? It would be catastrophic for America and the entire world (economically) and would spell certain death to the way of life that everyone is now used to. Think real carefully about what you are saying.
It would be like nuking the entire world without nuclear missiles/warheads.
Heights Unknown
I agree... and he knows better.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 19, 2008, 08:02:06 AM
Quotehe signed a bill a couple of years ago enabling him to have all power in the event of a major crises.
Really?? What specific bill would that be?
My bad; it is not a bill but a directive. It is National Security Presidential Directive 51 which gives the President (and in the present scenario President Bush) all power in the event of a major catastrophic emergency; it supersedes the previous National Emergency Act or National Continuity Act which was initiated by the Clinton Administration. He would in effect have all absolute power over the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It was signed in May 2007. Here is a small excerpt that describes the President's role during and after a major catastrophic crises or emergency:
"According to the directive, in the event of a “catastrophic emergency,†the president would lead the entire federal government, not just the executive branch, and would be responsible “for ensuring constitutional government.†Such an emergency is defined by the document as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.†Incidents falling into this category would not be limited to hostile attacks, the document makes clear, but would also include “localized acts of nature†and “accidents.†While the directive says that there would be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government,†this effort would be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.†"
Many fear the President would have certain, absolute dictatorial powers and the country (nation) would become a marxist, socialist dictatorial regime, the very thing that at present we try to prevent.
The thing that "worries" me is that Bush changed this directive secretly, and quietly without much fanfare and did not consult with any other constitutents in Congress or the Senate. Another thing that worries me is that I don't trust this man; he could instigate or start something in the world in order for him to justify this possible "power grab."
Please pass this info to all others in the forum. ;)
Heights Unknown
More info...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive
Turns out it is not to out of the ordinary...
QuoteWhile similar executive security directives have been issued by previous presidents, their texts have been kept secret; this is the first to be made public in part.
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 07:50:54 PM
Well its tricky isnt it?
I say let them fail. Prosecute every last one of the profiteers and executives who took their golden parachutes.
Take away their ill gotten gains and begin paying back the taxpayers whose money is bailing them out.
When the positions were reversed, they visited the same attitude on their own investments and debtors.
Perhaps there is presently capital in the world besides the easy chinese money.
If we are going to borrow however, then dont borrow from an economy strong enough to overpower us, and thereby put our nation's competitive future in thrall. Its poison.
Let it fall, restructure, and start again from scratch.
The things that made this country prosperous and great are still there, and with our strategic alliances with NAFTA and NATO, we will go through a hard time, a VERY hard time, but at the end of it we will be stronger and wholly self sustaining.
The Japanese suffered just such a humiliation at the end of WW2, and they recovered.
If we let them fall, there may not be anything left to enable restructuring or rebuilding of America and the world's economy and/or finances; this is why it must be fixed NOW! (in all due respect)
Heights Unknown
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 19, 2008, 08:38:25 AM
More info...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive
Turns out it is not to out of the ordinary...
QuoteWhile similar executive security directives have been issued by previous presidents, their texts have been kept secret; this is the first to be made public in part.
True "Troll" it may not be out of the ordinary (the directives for the President's role in the event of a national emergency), but it is unusual in that the previous directives did not give the President "all out power;" this one does, and, he did it secretly without consulting with anyone outside of his immediate advisory circle.
Heights Unknown
At present we are in a crises, but it is not yet an emergency; it will become an emergency if more banks fail and the stock market and economy crashes.......then Bush could declare the emergency and step in and control the entire federal government; in essence, he could do pretty much anything he wants. People read this directive (NPSD-51), very carefully, and with a fine tooth comb; it is not as ordinary and harmless as you might think.
Heights Unknown
Get ready for another potential blockbuster day, in the positive direction:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080919/wall_street.html
Quote
Stocks head for big rally after US government indicates it is working on a bank rescue plan
NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street headed for a huge rally Friday after the U.S. government said it is creating a plan to rescue the nation's troubled banks from their souring debts.
If a plan is put in place to help the banking industry, it could help alleviate the uncertainty that has been sending the markets into tumult over the past week. Lending has grinded to a virtual standstill in the wake of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
...
Ahead of the market's open Friday, Dow Jones industrial futures rose 334, or 3.04 percent, to 11,319. Standard & Poor's 500 index futures surged 47.70, or 3.96 percent, to 1,250.90. Nasdaq 100 index futures rose 37.50, or 2.19 percent, to 1,746.00.
Overseas stock markets soared.
Japan's Nikkei stock average jumped 3.8 percent, and Hong Kong's Hang Seng index surged 9.61 percent. In Europe, Britain's FTSE 100 was up 7.54 percent, Germany's DAX index was up 4.58 percent, and France's CAC-40 was up 6.91 percent.
More Wisdom of the Crowds, or obscene profit-taking setup on the trading floor? Or both? Or something else?
Definitely crazy times in progress.
Here is the entire document...
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-51.htm
I do not think it is as evil as you are making it out to be... an excerpt
Quote
(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.
Uncertain times indeed; but they'd better work hard, long, and thorough because if none of this works, and if none of what they are doing is permanent (a cure), the world is in for a very long, hard haul!
Heights Unknown
It's time to throw caution to the winds and go all in! The feds will pick up your slack! (This is sarcasm.)
I respectfully disagree Troll, and we are all entitled of course to our opinions. In my OPINION there is no need for the President to have ALL OUT POWER in times of emergency; though the text of the NSPD states that the three branches would work together with the President vice one over the other it is clear that ONE MAN will be DICTATING all of the government's affairs and decision making which in my opinion is DICTATORSHIP. This is not how the American government is supposed to work, emergency or none.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 19, 2008, 07:05:51 AM
The problem with this Stephen is the Clinton or Obama administrations would have had NO choice but to do something similar to save these institutions. They would not have let them fail either. To claim that this is simply a bailout of Bush cronies is false and YOU know it Stephen. YOU Stephen should be ashamed because you know better. You are using this crisis to promote your political views and candidate. For you to state that you prefer these institutions to fail is disingenuous because you... of all people... understand the extreme consequenses of that action and why it must be avoided at virtually any cost. The democrats in congress are now falling in line with the administration to find solutions to this crisis. Apparently THEY feel the same way. These institutions cannot be allowed to fail.
Quote from: heights unknown on September 19, 2008, 08:09:03 AM
Stephendare;
I respect your posts and opinions. But I must ask, did you go to college? You must have been taught the basics of economics while in High School and College. Do you have any idea what would happen if we just let these banks (especially the large ones) fail? It would be catastrophic for America and the entire world (economically) and would spell certain death to the way of life that everyone is now used to. Think real carefully about what you are saying.
It would be like nuking the entire world without nuclear missiles/warheads.
I have to admit I'm not entirely informed on the financial crisis that has been getting out of control, so I withheld complete judgement on Stephen's explanation. While his approach is
very laissez-faire, it is also very dangerous, as both of you have pointed out. Like I said in my response to Stephen's "solution", our country's circumstances are very different in comparison to Japan's, and since we have instituted the FDIC, the agency is
required to pay and insure all accounts up to $100K, no matter what. In other words, the government (taxpayers) would be funding some sort of bailout, either with each individual account in the failed institutions or with the entire company overall...the latter choice is being made.
Quote from: heights unknown on September 19, 2008, 09:00:51 AM
I respectfully disagree Troll, and we are all entitled of course to our opinions. In my OPINION there is no need for the President to have ALL OUT POWER in times of emergency; though the text of the NSPD states that the three branches would work together with the President vice one over the other it is clear that ONE MAN will be DICTATING all of the government's affairs and decision making which in my opinion is DICTATORSHIP. This is not how the American government is supposed to work, emergency or none.
Heights Unknown
Read the document. This is not what it says....
QuoteIt is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.
But...the FDIC is effective only up to a certain point (insurance deposit money to cover those account losses); in other words, there is only so much money the FDIC has to cover those losses/failures. This is why the Feds (though I in general and normally disagree) must intervene because this crises is getting ready to spiral out of control, and if the Feds don't intervene, this crises could eat up all of the insurance deposits to cover those losses if not fixed now, and then we will have a nationwide and worldwide emergency. It is not proper nor appropriate, in my personal opinion, for the federal government to intervene in business or commercial affairs, however, in times of crises or emergency, where it affects the financial health of the economy and/or the stock market, I will allow it.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 19, 2008, 09:07:30 AM
Quote from: heights unknown on September 19, 2008, 09:00:51 AM
I respectfully disagree Troll, and we are all entitled of course to our opinions. In my OPINION there is no need for the President to have ALL OUT POWER in times of emergency; though the text of the NSPD states that the three branches would work together with the President vice one over the other it is clear that ONE MAN will be DICTATING all of the government's affairs and decision making which in my opinion is DICTATORSHIP. This is not how the American government is supposed to work, emergency or none.
Heights Unknown
Read the document. This is not what it says....
QuoteIt is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.
I still respectfully disagree. I respect President Bush as our Commander In Chief, but I just don't (respectfully) trust him. Sorry this is just my take on the matter. I won't discuss this issue anymore.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: heights unknown on September 19, 2008, 09:14:25 AM
But...the FDIC is effective only up to a certain point (insurance deposit money to cover those account losses); in other words, there is only so much money the FDIC has to cover those losses/failures. This is why the Feds (though I in general and normally disagree) must intervene because this crises is getting ready to spiral out of control, and if the Feds don't intervene, this crises could eat up all of the insurance deposits to cover those losses if not fixed now, and then we will have a nationwide and worldwide emergency. It is not proper nor appropriate, in my personal opinion, for the federal government to intervene in business or commercial affairs, however, in times of crises or emergency, where it affects the financial health of the economy and/or the stock market, I will allow it.
I can understand and appreciate your concern that if the FDIC actually applied its job in conjunction with the bank failures, it might eat up all of the insurance deposits.
My next question would be how does membership to the FDIC work? Do banks pay annual dues to the agency to continue coverage? What does it do with that money (does it draw interest, etc.)?
If the FDIC has some sort of cash flow, I wouldn't be too worried about the insurance deposits being taken away. Using the FDIC in this case would indeed weaken it, leaving it unable to insure other institutions that fail in the future. However, the underlying question is how much can the agency take?
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2008, 10:32:52 AM
I dunno, Heights.
A few people were being called marxists and socialists on this site for suggesting things like municipal internet services, or civil defense measures being re-implemented.
One especially obnoxious poster was describing a candidate as a 'dangerous marxist' as recently as five days ago, for suggesting that the government actually pay its bills and fullfill its constitutional functions.
How are these same people now justifying the largest marxist bailout in the history of mankind?
just curious?
And where is all this money going to come from?
After all, we certainly couldnt afford health care, and that was only 1/30th of the cost.
More, after coffee.
O.K.
Heights Unknown
Quote from: Driven1 on September 18, 2008, 08:35:28 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on September 18, 2008, 06:17:27 PM
Meanwhile, the smart money is buying:
why, thank you!! ;) the port was up 7.1% today (after being down cumulative 9% since Monday - i had some in cash earlier and started buying more on the drop days).
up another 11.5% today so far.
banks are killing it for me again.
just finished putting client orders in for 2 and half hours straight (all buys). exhausted. i am actually optimistic we have now seen the worst - as far as the bear market is concerned.
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2008, 12:39:55 PM
Meaning that you thing the 'bear market' is over or that you think it is NOT over?
i think that it is over...lol - i just saw that i typed "pessimistic" instead of "optimistic". correcting now.
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 11:16:18 PM
exactly civil.
I got this in my email, dont know the original author:
How many times do we have to hear:
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Social Security.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to fix Medicare.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to provide health care to ALL Americans.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help out Americans losing their homes.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to help all our veterans returning from war.
We don't have ENOUGH MONEY to rescue "no child left behind".
BUT...
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out Bears Stearns.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to bail out AIG.
We DO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to pay for an unnecessary TRILLION DOLLAR war.
When the LITTLE GUY needs help, they scornfully say, "GET A JOB!"
But when one of their BIG GUY CRONIES need a bailout, what do they say? SURE, NO PROBLEM. Where's the checkbook?
"But what about the debt we're leaving on the backs of our childen and their future?"
"Children? WHOSE Children? OUR children won't have to pay for this. YOUR children will."
The Administrations has had their hands in our pockets for well over 8 years.
Now they are robbing us blind IN BROAD DAYLIGHT and smiling about it!!!!
The same players have shown their true colors and now they expect us to vote them back into office?
Oops. Looks like Stephen's candidate, Obama, supports the Bush bailout while McCain condemns it. Will Stephen be changing his vote now:
QuoteMcCain Condemns `Lax' Rules as Obama Backs Bush Economy Plans
By Kim Chipman and Hans Nichols
Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain condemned ``lax'' regulation and urged the Federal Reserve to ``get out of the business of bailouts,'' as his Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama supported Bush administration plans to address the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression.
While backing efforts by the Fed and U.S. Treasury to ease the turmoil on Wall Street, Obama said he will hold off crafting a more detailed plan until he meets with his economic advisers.
Obama gained in the polls this week as the global financial crisis cost investors more than $3 trillion in market value, and the focus of the presidential campaign shifted to the economy.
McCain, speaking in Green Bay, Wisconsin, today, criticized regulators who, he said, have been ``egregiously lax'' in protecting the American public.
`The Federal Reserve should get back to its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation,'' he added. That would lead to a strong dollar, he said, to reduce energy and food prices ``and get this economy moving again.''
He also expanded on his call yesterday for the firing of President George W. Bush's chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christopher Cox.
McCain proposed creation of a Mortgage and Financial Institutions Trust to ease the crisis. The agency, to be housed within the Treasury Department, would identify troubled institutions and strengthen them before they become insolvent, the McCain campaign said.
Obama is meeting with senior economic advisers in Coral Gables, Florida, this morning, including former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett will participate by phone.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRK5zGMLJWl4&refer=home
Quote from: heights unknown on September 19, 2008, 08:09:03 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2008, 07:50:54 PM
Well its tricky isnt it?
I say let them fail. Prosecute every last one of the profiteers and executives who took their golden parachutes.
Take away their ill gotten gains and begin paying back the taxpayers whose money is bailing them out.
When the positions were reversed, they visited the same attitude on their own investments and debtors.
Perhaps there is presently capital in the world besides the easy chinese money.
If we are going to borrow however, then dont borrow from an economy strong enough to overpower us, and thereby put our nation's competitive future in thrall. Its poison.
Let it fall, restructure, and start again from scratch.
The things that made this country prosperous and great are still there, and with our strategic alliances with NAFTA and NATO, we will go through a hard time, a VERY hard time, but at the end of it we will be stronger and wholly self sustaining.
The Japanese suffered just such a humiliation at the end of WW2, and they recovered.
Stephendare;
I respect your posts and opinions. But I must ask, did you go to college? You must have been taught the basics of economics while in High School and College. Do you have any idea what would happen if we just let these banks (especially the large ones) fail?
No.
market is not the economy btw.
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2008, 02:48:35 PM
And incidentally, considering that you were the prime cheerleader on this site for EVERY ONE OF THESE CATASTROPHIC policies, one would think you would keep your head down.
Stephen...River's head is down...its in the sand!
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 19, 2008, 02:59:17 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2008, 02:48:35 PM
And incidentally, considering that you were the prime cheerleader on this site for EVERY ONE OF THESE CATASTROPHIC policies, one would think you would keep your head down.
Stephen...River's head is down...its in the sand!
Speaking of heads in sand, here is a great letter to the editor which sums up the origins of the subprime crisis: government forces banks to lend to deadbeats:
QuoteWe are all talking about subprime loans and the havoc they've wreaked on the economy, but no one is talking about why banks give out these loans -- they are required to by law. Since the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, Congress requires banks to offer loans to minorities in low-income areas, even if the clients can't make down payments, don't have good credit histories, or even employment histories.
Since these clients are high-credit risks, the only loans lenders can offer are high-interest loans that don't require a down payment or good credit history. These loans frequently default.
Iin order to cut down on the number of subprime loans an institution must make, it must cut down on all loans, because its subprime business is a proportion of its overall business.
Are we willing to crash our economy over some misplaced idealism? Congress must rescind the CRA or this problem will continue beyond today's bailouts.
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/09/19/the_partys_over
The Party's Over
Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Crash of 2008, which is now wiping out trillions of dollars of our people's wealth, is, like the Crash of 1929, likely to mark the end of one era and the onset of another.
The new era will see a more sober and much diminished America. The "Omnipower" and "Indispensable Nation" we heard about in all the hubris and braggadocio following our Cold War victory is history.
Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics, a failure of conservatism.
This is nonsense. What we are witnessing is the collapse of Gordon Gecko ("Greed Is Good!") capitalism. What we are witnessing is what happens to a prodigal nation that ignores history, and forgets and abandons the philosophy and principles that made it great.
A true conservative cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means.
Is that really what got Wall Street and us into this mess -- that we followed too religiously the gospel of Robert Taft and Russell Kirk?
"Government must save us!" cries the left, as ever. Yet, who got us into this mess if not the government -- the Fed with its easy money, Bush with his profligate spending, and Congress and the SEC by liberating Wall Street and failing to step in and stop the drunken orgy?
For years, we Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt -- all are at record levels. And with pensions and savings being wiped out, much of that debt will never be repaid.
Our standard of living is inevitably going to fall. For foreigners will not forever buy our bonds or lend us more money if they rightly fear that they will be paid back, if at all, in cheaper dollars.
We are going to have to learn to live again without our means.
The party's over
Up through World War II, we followed the Hamiltonian idea that America must remain economically independent of the world in order to remain politically independent.
But this generation decided that was yesterday's bromide and we must march bravely forward into a Global Economy, where we all depend on one another. American companies morphed into "global companies" and moved plants and factories to Mexico, Asia, China and India, and we began buying more cheaply from abroad what we used to make at home: shoes, clothes, bikes, cars, radios, TVs, planes, computers.
As the trade deficits began inexorably to rise to 6 percent of GDP, we began vast borrowing from abroad to continue buying from abroad.
At home, propelled by tax cuts, war in Iraq and an explosion in social spending, surpluses vanished and deficits reappeared and began to rise. The dollar began to sink, and gold began to soar.
Yet, still, the promises of the politicians come. Barack Obama will give us national health insurance and tax cuts for all but that 2 percent of the nation that already carries 50 percent of the federal income tax load.
John McCain is going to cut taxes, expand the military, move NATO into Georgia and Ukraine, confront Russia and force Iran to stop enriching uranium or "bomb, bomb, bomb," with Joe Lieberman as wartime consigliere.
Who are we kidding?
What we are witnessing today is how empires end.
The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars.
What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a Katrina-like failure of government, of our political class, and of democracy itself, casting a cloud over the viability and longevity of the system.
Notice who is managing the crisis. Not our elected leaders. Nancy Pelosi says she had nothing to do with it. Congress is paralyzed and heading home. President Bush is nowhere to be seen.
Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Ben Bernanke of the Fed chose to bail out Bear Sterns but let Lehman go under. They decided to nationalize Fannie and Freddie at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of billions, putting the U.S. government behind $5 trillion in mortgages. They decided to buy AIG with $85 billion rather than see the insurance giant sink beneath the waves.
An unelected financial elite is now entrusted with the assignment of getting us out of a disaster into which an unelected financial elite plunged the nation. We are just spectators.
What the Greatest Generation handed down to us -- the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved -- the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away.
BUNCH OF BAD NEWS!! but i'm up 20% on it over the last 2 days. bring on the bad news!!! :)
btw...did you see the other news??
London markets record greatest surge in history...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/09/19/bcnftse219.xml
Russian markets suspended due to massive surge...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080919/eu_russia_markets.html?.v=13
This is definitely the kind of surge I can support. ;D
Quote from: Driven1 on September 18, 2008, 03:52:54 PM
WM up 56%!!!
ETFC up 22%!!!
WB up 64%!!!
BAC up 15%!!!
AIG up 16%!!!
C up 24%!!!!
KBE up 14%!!!
GE up 8%!!!
S up 8%!!!
(glad i bought these yesterday!!)
gov't will create entity to hold bank's debt...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080918/wall_street.html
Good for you!
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2008, 03:23:13 PM
now if we could only do something about the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money that went into the artificial numbers we are looking at today, we'd have something the cheer about.
don't worry - those dirty, rich Republicans (the ones who got us into this mess to begin with & the ones who pay all the taxes) will eventually pay it all off by paying even MORE taxes (heaven forbid we ask a democrat to pay tax - isn't their job to tell Republicans how much in tax they have to pay???)
just an update here...today's numbers from the financial firms i follow...
AIG up 62%
BAC up 17%
C up 22%
ETFC up 14%
GE up 8%
KBE up 11%
S up 14%
TMA up 30%
WB up 24%
WM up 29%
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2008, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on September 19, 2008, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2008, 12:39:55 PM
Meaning that you thing the 'bear market' is over or that you think it is NOT over?
i think that it is over...lol - i just saw that i typed "pessimistic" instead of "optimistic". correcting now.
excellent. Ill bookmark the post. thats great news.
looks like i am not alone in thinking that was the "market bottom" we just saw on Wed...
Quote"It does feel -- and did feel yesterday -- like all the earmarks of a major bottom," are in place, says Tom Brown, chairman of Bankstocks.com.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/64312/After-the-Bailouts-Will-This-Be-the-Market-Bottom?tickers=MS,GS,^DJI,^GSPC,FHN,HBAN,XLF
Quote from: Driven1 on September 19, 2008, 03:35:13 PM
don't worry - those dirty, rich Republicans (the ones who got us into this mess to begin with & the ones who pay all the taxes)
wow....how can I get a refund for all the federal taxes I've been paying as a Democrat (over $10,000 last year)?
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2008, 03:23:13 PM
Yeah, it was awesome. The Wall Street Journal called it: Market Roars Back....to Flat.
now if we could only do something about the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money that went into the artificial numbers we are looking at today, we'd have something the cheer about.
Or maybe un Nationalize our financial institutions.
That would be cool.
Its weird living in a communism.
Yeah, for all the 'get government off our backs', 'let markets decide the winners and losers' , and 'government regulation is restricting prosperity' bullshit the GOP has been spouting for decades, they sure don't have any problems accepting bailouts from the Feds.
Gator thinks that the Department of Education should be disbanded for a savings of $56 billion (actually, not a bad idea if executed correctly) but where is the outrage about $1 TRILLION in bailouts? That's EIGHTEEN Departments of Education.
Of course, there would be PLENTY of GOP outrage if their were a Democrat in the White House, as their was during the Chrysler bailout.
Food for thought: If a company is so large that it's singular demise will wreck the entire US economy, maybe that company is in voilation of anti-trust laws, or at least what anti-trust laws SHOULD be.
a f'ing 4 year old thread get a life stephen
i Believe I have hit a nerve, what was it the five sided pyramid comment?