Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44

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

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2797166]
    The debt is the issue here, and that debt has been run up while the Republicans have been at the wheel.[/QUOTE]

    i'm not convinced you know what you are talking about.

    clarify your statement: do you mean debt or do you mean budgetary deficit?

    debt is a natural mechanism of finance. the first explosion of debt owed to the public in the country occurred during the civil war, to finance the war, etc.

    the 20th century has brought calamity upon calamity. and terrorism has spawned the most immanent threat to our economy and way of life since the civil war. terrorism is as much an economic weapon as a physical bringer of death and destruction.

    which is why it is curious that you are laying all of this issue of "debt" (pun not intended) on one president. it would seem as if circumstances beyond our control are in play here. notwithstanding the fact that this government has run up an immense [I]deficit[/I], which is why all the talk by Obama of creating "revenue" at the debate, by taxing.

    debt will never be neutral. it's tied into the growth of the economy as GDP.
    Last edited by Darth Vader; 10-09-2008 at 11:16 PM.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797251]oh, yeah, ok. CTM coming in as arbiter of truth again. watch out guys.:D[/QUOTE]

    Me? I've been here all week? :D

    Seriously though, I was going to buy gold over the summer when there was all the inflation concerns. It was trading in the mid 900's and BD was one of the few I read saying it's going to go down. I actually listened and by mid September is was down to the mid 700's.

    On another topic, when are you going to update your blog? Slacker ;)

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797287]i'm not convinced you know what you are talking about.

    clarify your statement: do you mean debt or do you mean budgetary deficit?

    debt is a natural mechanism of finance. the first explosion of debt owed to the public in the country occurred during the civil war, to finance the war, etc.

    the 20th century has brought calamity upon calamity. and terrorism has spawned the most immanent threat to our economy and way of life since the civil war. terrorism is as much an economic weapon as a physical bringer of death and destruction.

    which is why it is curious that you are laying all of this issue of "debt" (pun not intended) on one president. it would seem as if circumstances beyond our control are in play here. notwithstanding the fact that this government has run up an immense [I]deficit[/I], which is why all the talk by Obama of creating "revenue" at the debate, by taxing.

    debt will never be neutral. it's tied into the growth of the economy as GDP.[/QUOTE]

    Do you think it's a problem that nearly 10% of govt revenue pay interest on debt?

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=CTM;2797294]Do you think it's a problem that nearly 10% of govt revenue pay interest on debt?[/QUOTE]

    it is relative to the growth of the economy.

    so yes, it could be a problem, if things don't get under control.

    but that is a drastic scenario.

    debt is a natural means of finance. it always has been and always will be.

    the revolution issued debt. the civil war blew it up from 65 million to over a billion in a few short years.
    Last edited by Darth Vader; 10-09-2008 at 11:36 PM.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797244]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...[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=JCnflies;2797043]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.


    Thanks for the know - how.[/QUOTE]


    It's been proven in studies (not going to cite them, so you're going to have to believe me that my Finance professor said this), but President's often have very little effect on making an economy bad.

    The current situation happened becuase of lax regulation on subprime mortgage loans. These are the same regulations that have been around for awhile, even in the Clinton era.

    As far as I am concerned Bush is halfway torwards retarded, but to blame the economy on him isn't really fair.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2797236]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.[/QUOTE]

    What? What power does the Cabinet have? Zip, nada, nein

    Congress does all the work putting budget bills together...The only control a prez has is with the veto...he can try and persuade Congress to do what he wants them to do, but they can thumb their nose at him any time they want.

  7. #27
    Lobbyist put the bills together.

    [QUOTE=asuusa;2797341]What? What power does the Cabinet have? Zip, nada, nein

    Congress does all the work putting budget bills together...The only control a prez has is with the veto...he can try and persuade Congress to do what he wants them to do, but they can thumb their nose at him any time they want.[/QUOTE]

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797313]it is relative to the growth of the economy.

    so yes, it could be a problem, if things don't get under control.

    but that is a drastic scenario.

    debt is a natural means of finance. it always has been and always will be.

    the revolution issued debt. the civil war blew it up from 65 million to over a billion in a few short years.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, our entire economic system is based on debt. I'm not convinced that a) those levels are healthy and b) that public debt is a good idea unless in times of crisis.

    Taking on debt as an investment to fuel economic growth is 1 thing, taking on debt as part of daily operations, not so much. (imo)

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=eg37se;2797337]It's been proven in studies (not going to cite them, so you're going to have to believe me that my Finance professor said this), but President's often have very little effect on making an economy bad.

    The current situation happened becuase of lax regulation on subprime mortgage loans. These are the same regulations that have been around for awhile, even in the Clinton era.

    As far as I am concerned Bush is halfway torwards retarded, but to blame the economy on him isn't really fair.[/QUOTE]

    I agree, and am basically saying the same thing...

    securitization of mortgages is a big issue here. no one is talking about that because it let everyone in on a piece of the american dream. even people that were too risky to let own.

    maybe someone can look into when the MBS was created, and get back to the board. I'll give a hint. It wasn't during Bush's term. Either Bush.

    eg37sc: if you have some studies handy, email or PM them to me if you can.

    i like reading that stuff.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797287]i'm not convinced you know what you are talking about.

    clarify your statement: do you mean debt or do you mean budgetary deficit?

    debt is a natural mechanism of finance. the first explosion of debt owed to the public in the country occurred during the civil war, to finance the war, etc.

    the 20th century has brought calamity upon calamity. and terrorism has spawned the most immanent threat to our economy and way of life since the civil war. terrorism is as much an economic weapon as a physical bringer of death and destruction.

    which is why it is curious that you are laying all of this issue of "debt" (pun not intended) on one president. it would seem as if circumstances beyond our control are in play here. notwithstanding the fact that this government has run up an immense [I]deficit[/I], which is why all the talk by Obama of creating "revenue" at the debate, by taxing.

    debt will never be neutral. it's tied into the growth of the economy as GDP.[/QUOTE]

    I've been talking about debt here for a long time - I'm talking about Federal debt - which is now well over $10 trillion. If the US government liquidated all of its assets, the total amount made in dollar terms would still be short of paying off Federal debt by around $6 trillion.

    It's a cold stone fact that the debt was run up under the Republicans - you state that the Democrats benefited from a booming economy and that improved their surpluses, well, the Republicans have had a booming economy for a great part of the last 8 years, and they are so far from a budgetary surplus they might as well be in the next universe.

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797313]it is relative to the growth of the economy.

    so yes, it could be a problem, if things don't get under control.

    but that is a drastic scenario.

    debt is a natural means of finance. it always has been and always will be.

    the revolution issued debt. the civil war blew it up from 65 million to over a billion in a few short years.[/QUOTE]

    This shows you know nothing about what you are talking about - currently, just the repayments on the debt the US government owes is well over 10% of the US budget, in fact after the latest expenditure for the bank bailout, the amount spent on just keeping up with the interest payments will be a lot closer to a third of the total US annual Federal budget.

    In other words, we are already in a drastic situation - you yourself seem to be in la la land still talking about the 'growth of the economy' - what growth? The growth has come from a sea of public and private debt - now that is taken away, there will be no growth probably for over a decade, maybe longer.

    Thank you, Republicans.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=asuusa;2797341]What? What power does the Cabinet have? Zip, nada, nein

    Congress does all the work putting budget bills together...The only control a prez has is with the veto...he can try and persuade Congress to do what he wants them to do, but they can thumb their nose at him any time they want.[/QUOTE]

    So its Congress that controls spending, not the President?

    You are on some good ****. :leaf

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2797418]This shows you know nothing about what you are talking about - currently, just the repayments on the debt the US government owes is well over 10% of the US budget, in fact after the latest expenditure for the bank bailout, the amount spent on just keeping up with the interest payments will be a lot closer to a third of the total US annual Federal budget.

    In other words, we are already in a drastic situation - you yourself seem to be in la la land still talking about the 'growth of the economy' - what growth? The growth has come from a sea of public and private debt - now that is taken away, there will be no growth probably for over a decade, maybe longer.

    Thank you, Republicans.[/QUOTE]

    asswipe, [url]http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdphighlights.pdf[/url].

    stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about. Your line is getting old.

    BTW, you know, as well as I do, that "drastic" is when foreign sovereign holders of US debt get involved in a way that turns the situation into one with one set of options, into another situation with another set of options.

    things will hurt for a while. it's not the end of the universe.

    and it isn't one person's fault.

    your argument is not only simplistic superficially, its boring to listen to you parrot over and again that everyone that doesn't agree doesn't know what they are talking about.

    Again, this line makes you a part of the larger problem in this country.

    Finally, Bush has had to deal with two burst bubbles. The dot com bubble which peaked in 2000 and burst not long after, and now the housing bubble, as well as this spawned much larger mess.

    That isn't partisan, it is reality.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2797423]So its Congress that controls spending, not the President?

    You are on some good ****. :leaf[/QUOTE]

    To correct both of you, the executive has the most influence in spending: he submits a budget, which goes to Congress to assess, and appropriate but it's a give and take once it hits the Congress, with the People as Judge.

    The President doesn't just [I]control[/I] Spending.

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797448]asswipe, [url]http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdphighlights.pdf[/url].

    stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about. Your line is getting old.

    BTW, you know, as well as I do, that "drastic" is when foreign sovereign holders of US debt get involved in a way that turns the situation into one with one set of options, into another situation with another set of options.

    things will hurt for a while. it's not the end of the universe.

    and it isn't one person's fault.

    your argument is not only simplistic superficially, its boring to listen to you parrot over and again that everyone that doesn't agree doesn't know what they are talking about.

    Again, this line makes you a part of the larger problem in this country.

    Finally, Bush has had to deal with two burst bubbles. The dot com bubble which peaked in 2000 and burst not long after, and now the housing bubble, as well as this spawned much larger mess.

    That isn't partisan, it is reality.[/QUOTE]

    Pull your head in, mate. The overt insult is not wanted around here.

    My argument may well be simplistic, but its the same argument that is being and has been made by people for more schooled in economics and economic theory than you or me.

    I don't even live in your country - so I can't see how my opinion is a problem over there.

    Again, I've been predicting the deflationary scenario (busted housing bubble, now busted share market bubble, busted commodity bubble, soon to be busted everything else) for some time - certainly well before the credit crunch hit. I've also gone on record as saying that we will be in for a very very long period of extremely low growth, after which there will be a massive hyperinflationary scenario (before which you should buy as much gold/silver/any other commodity you can get your hands on).

    The housing bubble is a problem largely of his (Bush's) own making and that of the American bureaucracy. The fact of the matter is is that the US government should now be in a position to provide a largely fiscal stimulus to the US economy, but they can't - they are already trillions of dollars in debt and have wasted away the money they had on gratuitous tax breaks for their mates and an occupation of a country that is costing your country billions of dollars a day.

    Like the neo-cons who have shaped this current situation, you need to wake up and smell the coffee - your country is ****ed along with most of the rest of the world with it. This year the clock has been wound back to 1929 in economic terms.

    Having said that, I expect a strong stock market rally not too far down the track when bank to bank lending is reestablished - but that doesn't mean the world isn't in for a long period of asset deflation over the long term.
    Last edited by Soberphobia; 10-10-2008 at 02:40 AM.

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Darth Vader;2797448]

    Finally, Bush has had to deal with two burst bubbles. The dot com bubble which peaked in 2000 and burst not long after, and now the housing bubble, as well as this spawned much larger mess.

    That isn't partisan, it is reality.[/QUOTE]
    imo, this is where Bush holds a large part of the blame for this problem. The response to the tech bubble was to engineer the housing bubble. Again, I'm aware he owns no formal control over Greenspan, but I have to believe the right amount of pressure would've forced him to raise rates before we ever got in this mess. Unfortunately, this probably would've had us in a mild recession in 2004 rather then this mirage of a housing boom...

    I think we can all agree that the root cause of all this mess is the housing bubble, one that was created in good part by insanely low interest rates in the earlier part of this decade..

  17. #37
    Just a side note the P/E Ratio (price earnings) for alot of the stocks were in the 20s and 30s i.e. they were overvalued - and have been overvalued for years

    this is the correction we should have seen in 2001 or 2002

    my advice when you get a good strong stock with a P/E in the teens or lower (which is happening in the last couple days) buy and let the market conditions be darned.

  18. #38
    Whether it's fair or not, history will blame the President for what happened on their watch.

    Fair or not:
    Hoover is remembered for the great depression.
    LJB and Nixon are remembered for Vietnam
    Carter is remembered for gas lines and the hostages.
    Bush I is remembered for a recession.
    Clinton is remembered for getting a lewinsky while in office.
    Bush II will be remembered for this economic meltdown and 9-11 and the failed Iraq occupation.

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=dcJet;2797826]Bush II will be remembered for this economic meltdown and 9-11 and the failed Iraq occupation.[/QUOTE]

    don't forget playing the guitar while New Orleans drowned

    I will always remember him for breaking the most days taking vacation record in his 5th year

    ah... good times.

  20. #40
    "Just a side note the P/E Ratio (price earnings) for alot of the stocks were in the 20s and 30s i.e. they were overvalued - and have been overvalued for years

    this is the correction we should have seen in 2001 or 2002

    my advice when you get a good strong stock with a P/E in the teens or lower (which is happening in the last couple days) buy and let the market conditions be darned."


    Good point. Last night one of the commentators on CNBC said that as of yesterdays close, based on 2009 earnings estimates the S&P 500 is now trading at 12 x earnings. Even if those estimates are revised down 20%, to reflect a worsening economy, it's at 15x, which is it's average. The market was way overvalued for a long time and is just now getting fairly priced.

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