Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: A Question for those in the financial know....

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like

    A Question for those in the financial know....

    I started thinking of the stock free fall and what the reasons could be. Not only have the stocks plummeted about the same time as the Fannie and Fredy / Lehman collapse (as expected), but I am not sure it was expected to maintain itself.

    Then I started thinking about something some guys who I know invest heavily and successfully said, "If Obama gets elected, the first thing I am going to do is take my money out of stocks."

    My question is this........ do you believe that the continued downturn in the market is, to some degree, a reflection of a lack of faith in the economic policies they expect Obama to adopt?

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JCnflies;2796871]I started thinking of the stock free fall and what the reasons could be. Not only have the stocks plummeted about the same time as the Fannie and Fredy / Lehman collapse (as expected), but I am not sure it was expected to maintain itself.

    Then I started thinking about something some guys who I know invest heavily and successfully said, "If Obama gets elected, the first thing I am going to do is take my money out of stocks."

    My question is this........ do you believe that the continued downturn in the market is, to some degree, a reflection of a lack of faith in the economic policies they expect Obama to adopt?[/QUOTE]

    If so, it's probably no more than 5% of the reason. The market is being sold because stocks require earnings in order to appreciate and most U.S. companies will be earning far less money in the coming months and years than they were expected to. Also, the basic plumbing of the banking system is clogged and banks can't flush their crap (mortgages, CDOs, etc.) Because of that, they're not lending money. Because they're not lending money companies aren't expanding, hiring or investing.

    As much as I dislike Obama's potential economic policies, he is not even a small reason that this stock market is tanking.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,576
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JCnflies;2796871]I started thinking of the stock free fall and what the reasons could be. Not only have the stocks plummeted about the same time as the Fannie and Fredy / Lehman collapse (as expected), but I am not sure it was expected to maintain itself.

    Then I started thinking about something some guys who I know invest heavily and successfully said, "If Obama gets elected, the first thing I am going to do is take my money out of stocks."

    My question is this........ do you believe that the continued downturn in the market is, to some degree, a reflection of a lack of faith in the economic policies they expect Obama to adopt?[/QUOTE]

    The continued downturn is systemic. It has nothing to do with any one politician or political party. It is the inevitable consequence of this debt-based monetary system where there isn't enough money to pay perpetual interest on perpetually created debt. The system reached a mathematical limit and the house of cards of illusory debt-based wealth collapses.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,886
    Post Thanks / Like
    I actually think an Obama victory will give a nice little bump to the world markets.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockland, New York
    Posts
    5,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2796886]The continued downturn is systemic. [B]It has nothing to do[/B] with any one politician or political party. It is the inevitable consequence of this debt-based monetary system where there isn't enough money to pay perpetual interest on perpetually created debt. The system reached a mathematical limit and the house of cards of illusory debt-based wealth collapses.[/QUOTE]

    It's not "nothing to do" it's more like, it's "not entirely because of." Our debt-based monetary system is very much the reason we are in the position today. President Bush is very much responsible for our out-of-control spending that perpetuates the national debt.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jets Voice of Reason;2796889]It's not "nothing to do" it's more like, it's "not entirely because of." Our debt-based monetary system is very much the reason we are in the position today. President Bush is very much responsible for our out-of-control spending that perpetuates the national debt.[/QUOTE]

    I pin a ton of blame on Bush, too.

    I can accept (though maybe not agree) with the reasons for Iraq. But by far the biggest disaster of hte Bush presidency is his refusal to cut spending.

    Next on the list is trusting Rumsfeld.

    I have a 403b as a teacher. I sink $300 in every two weeks. I retire in 9 years, 34 weeks, 1 day:) My primary fund (ICA American Fund) has never had a 5 year losing period (about 90 years) and averaged about 13% a year over that time.

    For our country's sake, I hope the collapse rectifies itself sooner rather than later (kind of like when the tech bubble burst). In the meanwhile, I think my investment $$$ will be getting a good buy.

    Thanks for the know - how.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is just another symptom of a much larger disease that people are blaming this on Bush.

    People simply have lost touch with reality.

    It must be the other guy's fault. Preferably Bush.

    What are you people going to do when he's out of office?

    Lemme guess. You'll still blame Bush for what goes wrong.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockland, New York
    Posts
    5,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797070]It is just another symptom of a much larger disease that people are blaming this on Bush.

    People simply have lost touch with reality.

    It must be the other guy's fault. Preferably Bush.

    What are you people going to do when he's out of office?

    Lemme guess. You'll still blame Bush for what goes wrong.[/QUOTE]

    Again, he's not [B]the only one[/B] to blame, but you can't exactly absolve him of blame. He's largely responsible for the gigantic national debt that stunts our economy. He's got his share of blame for polarizing congress against him. He's not just a scapegoat here.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797070]It is just another symptom of a much larger disease that people are blaming this on Bush.

    People simply have lost touch with reality.

    It must be the other guy's fault. Preferably Bush.

    What are you people going to do when he's out of office?

    Lemme guess. You'll still blame Bush for what goes wrong.[/QUOTE]

    The current situation is in large part due to policies pursued by the Republican Party over a significant period of time, since the very first days of Reagan's Presidency.

    The Democrats have been far more economically responsible in comparison.

    So, yes, I blame Bush, but not only him - the Republicans in general have a lot to answer for in flushing the American economy down the toilet.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2797091]The current situation is in large part due to policies pursued by the Republican Party over a significant period of time, since the very first days of Reagan's Presidency.

    The Democrats have been far more economically responsible in comparison.

    So, yes, I blame Bush, but not only him - the Republicans have a lot to answer for in flushing the American economy down the toilet.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, sure. You are fulfilling my statement: a part of the problem, my friend, not the solution.

    This is definitely NOT a partisan issue, and if democrats try to turn it into one, they're going to get burned.

    Be my guest.

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,576
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2797091]The current situation is in large part due to policies pursued by the Republican Party over a significant period of time, since the very first days of Reagan's Presidency.

    The Democrats have been far more economically responsible in comparison.

    So, yes, I blame Bush, but not only him - the Republicans in general have a lot to answer for in flushing the American economy down the toilet.[/QUOTE]

    It was Clinton who allowed investment banks and commercial banks to merge. That played a significant role in causing this crisis. Artificially low interest rates throughout the 90s also contributed.
    The Democrats were the driving force behind the Fannie/Freddie debacle.

    Stop playing partisan politics with this issue. It just shows how little you know about the economics of the situation. This is a MONETARY crisis. Congress contracts control of the currency out to the private banks. Both parties sponsor this flawed, unconstitutional policy.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2797106]It was Clinton who allowed investment banks and commercial banks to merge. That played a significant role in causing this crisis. Artificially low interest rates throughout the 90s also contributed.
    The Democrats were the driving force behind the Fannie/Freddie debacle.

    Stop playing partisan politics with this issue. It just shows how little you know about the economics of the situation. This is a MONETARY crisis. Congress contracts control of the currency out to the private banks. Both parties sponsor this flawed, unconstitutional policy.[/QUOTE]

    I've been dropping the name, "Paul Volcker" around here for like months.

    Not one person has noticed.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797102]Yeah, sure. You are fulfilling my statement: a part of the problem, my friend, not the solution.

    This is definitely NOT a partisan issue, and if democrats try to turn it into one, they're going to get burned.

    Be my guest.[/QUOTE]

    It is a partisan issue when the Federal government, when the Republicans have been in charge, have been spending like a drunk sailor at a brothel.

    The debt is the issue here, and that debt has been run up while the Republicans have been at the wheel.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2797106]It was Clinton who allowed investment banks and commercial banks to merge. That played a significant role in causing this crisis. Artificially low interest rates throughout the 90s also contributed.
    The Democrats were the driving force behind the Fannie/Freddie debacle.

    Stop playing partisan politics with this issue. It just shows how little you know about the economics of the situation. This is a MONETARY crisis. Congress contracts control of the currency out to the private banks. Both parties sponsor this flawed, unconstitutional policy.[/QUOTE]

    Au contraire, I have been stating for some years on this forum the dangers of US debt, and the huge recession that was at the end of this particular track. You can't come on here and bellyache all of a sudden and accuse me of knowing little - I've been warning about this well before the credit crunch hit.

    Partially this is a monetary issue, but partially it is also a fiscal one - if you are too blind to see that it is you that knows eff all, and not me.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2797166]It is a partisan issue when the Federal government, when the Republicans have been in charge, have been spending like a drunk sailor at a brothel.

    The debt is the issue here, and that debt has been run up while the Republicans have been at the wheel.[/QUOTE]

    Spending has been a huuge problem with this administration. yes, that is a big problem, but that doesn't get to the core of the issues, either in their present or their historic sense.

    everyone should really hit the books and do their research before saying so and so is at fault. Again, it's just reactionary partisanship. There's a lot under the surface that has caused these problems.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2797091]The current situation is in large part due to policies pursued by the Republican Party over a significant period of time, since the very first days of Reagan's Presidency.

    The Democrats have been far more economically responsible in comparison.

    So, yes, I blame Bush, but not only him - the Republicans in general have a lot to answer for in flushing the American economy down the toilet.[/QUOTE]

    Baloney...before the surplus in 1997, we had 28 consecutive years of deficits!
    How many of those years did the 'pubs control Congress? That first surplus in '97 was three years after a 'pub takeover of Congress!

    The Contract with America wanted this:

    [QUOTE]An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget, unless sanctioned by a three-fifths vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, [b]passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, 1/26/95; rejected by the US Senate Roll Call: 65-35,[/b] 3/2/95, two-thirds required), [/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797214]Spending has been a huuge problem with this administration. yes, that is a big problem, but that doesn't get to the core of the issues, either in their present or their historic sense.

    everyone should really hit the books and do their research before saying so and so is at fault. Again, it's just reactionary partisanship. There's a lot under the surface that has caused these problems.[/QUOTE]

    Meh, I don't know... Black Death has been by far the most right on JI about this since I've been following it here.

    Besides the fact that I think focusing solely/primarily on Fannie/Freddie and Barney Frank is sniffing up the wrong tree a bit. Poor people getting loans for houses they can't afford does not bring down the global economy..

    Had the Fed raised the rates much sooner, the Housing bubble never would've inflated as big and there wouldn't be nearly the cataclysmic burst we've seen.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2797218]Baloney...before the surplus in 1997, we had 28 consecutive years of deficits!
    How many of those years did the 'pubs control Congress? That first surplus in '97 was three years after a 'pub takeover of Congress!

    The Contract with America wanted this:[/QUOTE]

    Usual clueless spewful spin - it took the USA 200 years to run up a $1 trillion deficit, it took the Republicans, under Reagan and Bush 1, to over quadruple that amount.

    Your statement shows you know nothing - keep on appealing to Congress when it suits you to apportion blame. Blame Congress when there is a Republican President, and praise Congress when there is a Democrat President to blame. The fact of the matter is that the President and his cabinet are the ones who control spending and not Congress.

    Come back and post when you have an idea.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2797218]Baloney...before the surplus in 1997, we had 28 consecutive years of deficits!
    How many of those years did the 'pubs control Congress? That first surplus in '97 was three years after a 'pub takeover of Congress!

    The Contract with America wanted this:[/QUOTE]

    FWIW, the surpluses of the 90s were also fueled by an unexpected over-performing economy. wall street went nuts and the dot-com bubble was still ballooning.

    oh, and social security taxes...

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2797235]Meh, I don't know... Black Death has been by far the most right on JI about this since I've been following it here.

    Besides the fact that I think focusing solely/primarily on Fannie/Freddie and Barney Frank is sniffing up the wrong tree a bit. Poor people getting loans for houses they can't afford does not bring down the global economy..

    Had the Fed raised the rates much sooner, the Housing bubble never would've inflated as big and there wouldn't be nearly the cataclysmic burst we've seen.[/QUOTE]

    oh, yeah, ok. CTM coming in as arbiter of truth again. watch out guys.:D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us