The Economy


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby Vince » Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:07 am

malmo wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:What happened at some of these companies is that CEO's like Ken Lay would pass the blame onto the CFO and claim ignorance of how the books were being kept. This law eliminated that loophole.

Actually there was no evidence that Lay was involved in any criminal activity. His conviction was almost certain to be overturned upon appeal.


Oh, I see you said "was" almost certain to be overturned....which I thought was unlikely since he was dead.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:23 am

Vince wrote:
malmo wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:What happened at some of these companies is that CEO's like Ken Lay would pass the blame onto the CFO and claim ignorance of how the books were being kept. This law eliminated that loophole.

Actually there was no evidence that Lay was involved in any criminal activity. His conviction was almost certain to be overturned upon appeal.


Oh, I see you said "was" almost certain to be overturned....which I thought was unlikely since he was dead.


Wow, you certainly are a quick study.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:26 pm

malmo wrote:
Vince wrote:
malmo wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:What happened at some of these companies is that CEO's like Ken Lay would pass the blame onto the CFO and claim ignorance of how the books were being kept. This law eliminated that loophole.

Actually there was no evidence that Lay was involved in any criminal activity. His conviction was almost certain to be overturned upon appeal.


Oh, I see you said "was" almost certain to be overturned....which I thought was unlikely since he was dead.


Wow, you certainly are a quick study.


Yes, thank you, but not as quick as you making a prediction that can't possibly be proven.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Double R Bar » Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:35 pm

Once Congress finally agrees on a bailout plan, do you think the stock market will gain back most of its losses? Also, how much of this mess could have been prevented had most Americans saved money the way the Chinese or Japanese do?
Double R Bar
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Mineral City

Postby lonewolf » Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:39 pm

The market rebounded 500 points today and will work its way back when something is settled, one way or the other. This was a hiccup, a big hiccup but not on the magnitude of 1929 and even 1987.
True, American do not save to the extent Japanese do but the problem is many American's savings are affected if they were directly tied to the companies involved in this boondoggle
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby paulthefan » Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:08 pm

Double R Bar wrote:Once Congress finally agrees on a bailout plan, do you think the stock market will gain back most of its losses? Also, how much of this mess could have been prevented had most Americans saved money the way the Chinese or Japanese do?


China's immense trade deficit with us is really not a strong function of their savings rate but it is a strong function of our spending rate.

We could very easily increase savings in the US by simply providing a tax break for it, we could easily solve the trade deficit (with china) by imparting a mild tariff on goods made in china... alas both of these solutions would cut into the profits of the corporations that fund our noble two parties.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby sprintblox » Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:40 am

malmo wrote:The biggest single expense of one's lifetime and you're telling me people don't know when it is overpriced? You mean to say that mom and pop middle America would pay $60,000 for a Toyota Camry and not know it's overpriced? Mom and pop are really good at seeking deals at flea markets, why do they pay too much for a home?

A Camry sells for the same price (plus or minus 5-10%) in every part of the US, and from year the price doesn't change by more than 2-3%. So it's easy to know if it's overpriced or not.

At the flea market, you know what similar goods sell for in shops, so it's easy to know if you're paying too much or getting a good deal at the flea market.

With housing, the price will vary widely in time and place. You can't say a Boston house is overpriced at $400K just because the same thing in rural Kentucky would cost $70K. You have to look at other places in Boston.

Maybe you'll see several other places of similar size and quality going for $450K and figure that $400K is a good deal. So you buy it. But then over the next 12 months the place (and others like it in Boston) drop to $300K. How the heck was an average Joe supposed to predict that, without having an understanding of the various instruments being traded in the financial markets and how they are affecting and will affect house prices?

But if somebody bought an item for $60 at a flea market, after seeing it for $80 at the mall and the other shops, and then one year later the market price of it drops to $40, you wouldn't know, care, or say that $60 was too much. So the prices on other items aren't subjected to the across-the-years comparison like what happens in housing.

To know if a house is overpriced, you have to be able to compare not just with similar houses in the same town, but also the house prices in the future. It is a really bad analogy to liken them to car prices and flea markets.
sprintblox
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:43 am

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:36 am

Regardless of the price of comparable houses in a given location, a house is overpriced for you if you cannot sustain the payments. If you are walking a financial highwire without a net, downsize. If stuff happens, I don't want to bail you out. No one has ever subsidized my bad decisions or bad luck.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:51 am

lonewolf wrote:The market rebounded 500 points today and will work its way back when something is settled, one way or the other. This was a hiccup, a big hiccup but not on the magnitude of 1929 and even 1987.
True, American do not save to the extent Japanese do but the problem is many American's savings are affected if they were directly tied to the companies involved in this boondoggle


My understanding of statistical definition of savings is having money in the saving (possibly checking with interest) account in a bank or some savings/loan institution. Having it invested in the market, even conservatively, does not count.
The interest rate has been pittance for years, plus it is taxed as ordinary income. It is not a lot better than having the money in a mattress.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:58 am

Pego wrote:
lonewolf wrote:The market rebounded 500 points today and will work its way back when something is settled, one way or the other. This was a hiccup, a big hiccup but not on the magnitude of 1929 and even 1987.
True, American do not save to the extent Japanese do but the problem is many American's savings are affected if they were directly tied to the companies involved in this boondoggle


My understanding of statistical definition of savings is having money in the saving (possibly checking with interest) account in a bank or some savings/loan institution. Having it invested in the market, even conservatively, does not count.
The interest rate has been pittance for years, plus it is taxed as ordinary income. It is not a lot better than having the money in a mattress.


I agree, Mr. Pego.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby sprintblox » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:48 pm

lonewolf wrote:Regardless of the price of comparable houses in a given location, a house is overpriced for you if you cannot sustain the payments.
That's a different matter from knowing whether a house will hold its value or not, and I certainly agree that people are responsible for knowing how much they can personally afford.
If you are walking a financial highwire without a net, downsize.

Unfortunately, that is impossible for many people to do in a housing downturn, because selling the house may mean having to find tens of thousands of dollars to pay the bank due to the negative equity created by the falling home prices.
If stuff happens, I don't want to bail you out. No one has ever subsidized my bad decisions or bad luck.

I agree in principle, but failures of this magnitude drag other people down who were not irresponsible. Not saying that a bailout is necessary, but if one is going to happen I'd want to see the money go towards helping those suffering the side effects, rather than those who created the mess.

For example, some businesses have seasonally fluctuating revenue and regularly rely on short-term loans to make payroll until their peak hits (e.g. retail shops that peak in December) and then they pay it back. If it becomes a pervasive problem where a couple million employees across the country don't get paid because of their employers' inadequate access to credit, it means the employees can't pay their bills, which in turn causes the businesses the employees buy from to be unable to make payroll, which sets off a chain reaction of all sorts of layoffs and business failures across the country. Perhaps funneling some Federal funds through the few good banks still standing so they could lend to those businesses, would be a preferable solution to either bailing out the bad banks or letting everything collapse.

I think the government should do something to penalize those who created the mess, soften the blow to those not at fault, and strengthen regulations (or enforcement of existing ones) to prevent a repeat of this mess, but I'm not professing to be an economics expert who has all the answers for what they should do.
sprintblox
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:43 am

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:59 pm

sprintblox, we are pretty much on the same page. My reference to downsizing was to original purchase above your means, which too many people did. The fact that too loose lending made it possible does not absolve the individual.

Granted the magnitude of this debacle calls for rescue measures but not for the mismanagers who ran great institutions into bankruptcy.

True, a general downturn in the economy will affect innocent people who have no connection to the real estate fiasco.

Who is going to seperate the wheat from the chaff?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby rasb » Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:43 pm

lonewolf wrote:sprintblox, we are pretty much on the same page. My reference to downsizing was to original purchase above your means, which too many people did. The fact that too loose lending made it possible does not absolve the individual.

Granted the magnitude of this debacle calls for rescue measures but not for the mismanagers who ran great institutions into bankruptcy.

True, a general downturn in the economy will affect innocent people who have no connection to the real estate fiasco.

Who is going to seperate the wheat from the chaff?


You pretty well nailed it, lw, at least in my opinion. The various machinations, politically and economically, at home and around the globe, are much too complicated for many of us to understand down to the finest details. But when Buffett is weighing in with up to $6 B. for GE, on top of his other recent acquisitions, and dozens of International Banks are going under or being nationalized, this seems like a "big deal". And if the "rescue" passes on Friday, the next step(s) seem very hard to predict. Especially in terms of who the "experts" will be, who are charged with leading the decision-making.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby jamese1045 » Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:33 am

tandfman wrote:Are you saying that they went out and bought houses that they knew they could not afford?


They stayed in and bought houses they hadn't a clue about whether they could afford but wanted and vaguely thought they could get away with.
jamese1045
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Postby cullman » Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:01 am

jamese1045 wrote:
tandfman wrote:Are you saying that they went out and bought houses that they knew they could not afford?


They stayed in and bought houses they hadn't a clue about whether they could afford but wanted and vaguely thought they could get away with.

Do you mean like Oprah Winfrey's mother? Granted, it's not a house but it makes you scratch your head.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431191,00.html

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby tandfman » Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:27 am

Pego wrote:My understanding of statistical definition of savings is having money in the saving (possibly checking with interest) account in a bank or some savings/loan institution. Having it invested in the market, even conservatively, does not count.

I don't know if that's really how "savings" is defined, but if it is, it's hopelessly out of date in an era when so many individuals invest in mutual funds, rather than in individual stocks and, more important, when legislation has created vehicles specifically, designed for retirement savings, that a very suitable for long term equity investments (401(k)'s, IRA's, etc.). Every responsible financial planner will advise that some portion of one's savings be "in the market."
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:43 am

On Monday, 9/29, Congress voted down the bailout bill because they said it was too much money. Yesterday, 10/03, Congress passed the bailout bill after $110 billion in pork was added to it. It would make you laugh, if it didn't make you cry. :cry:

I would like to see the list of the congressmen who voted against the $700 billion bill but for the $810 billion bill, because they give doublespeak a bad name.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:On Monday, 9/29, Congress voted down the bailout bill because they said it was too much money. Yesterday, 10/03, Congress passed the bailout bill after $110 billion in pork was added to it. It would make you laugh, if it didn't make you cry. :cry:


The american people were probably polling 70% against the $700b bill but were too busy working from January to May to pay their taxes to actually study it. They were rewarded by their representatives with the inclusion of June. Would be an interesting report (that the media will likely not pursue) regarding where exactly is the couple of billion dollars in cash bonsuses that banking execs were giving themselves over the past 10+ years. Cash dollars subtracted off the ledger, into the pockets of multi-mllionaires, in return for heaps of bad debt placed on the ledger and insured by americans earning 60k per year. Where are those billions stashed/invested, what banks are they stored in?

Your local bank teller would not dare to do with 25 cents what the executives routinely did with 25million.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Vince » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:45 am

jazzcyclist wrote:On Monday, 9/29, Congress voted down the bailout bill because they said it was too much money. Yesterday, 10/03, Congress passed the bailout bill after $110 billion in pork was added to it. It would make you laugh, if it didn't make you cry. :cry:

I would like to see the list of the congressmen who voted against the $700 billion bill but for the $810 billion bill, because they give doublespeak a bad name.


The ones who voted for either version need to return to a job not paid for by the tax payers. One thing about doublespeak. It seems 'pork, or earmark spending' now includes a tax reduction. We hear all the networks saying 110 billion in "spending" was added, but much of that was possible tax reductions, not spending.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:16 pm

I don't know if the basic "rescue" legislation was necessary. I do know those congress people who loaded the bill with last minute pork should be drawn and quartered on the capitol steps at high noon. :evil: Unless someone can come up with a more severe punishment. :)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Daisy » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:27 pm

lonewolf wrote:I do know those congress people who loaded the bill with last minute pork ........


There is a list of them?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:16 am

All those amendments attached to bills, pork, ideology, whatever, make them either dead, bloated, impractical, or simply bad legislature.
Every president asks and many governors have a line item veto. For obvious reasons, the Congress does not like it, therefore won't legislate it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby lonewolf » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:33 am

Daisy wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I do know those congress people who loaded the bill with last minute pork ........


There is a list of them?


I'm sure there is but we are more likely to get the formula for Coca Cola or KFC than that list of charlatans.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Daisy » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:40 am

lonewolf wrote:Coca Cola

There's a formula? I thought it was just carbonated, caffienated, coloured sugar water? I guess the nuance is lost on me. :lol:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:28 pm

Daisy wrote:
lonewolf wrote:Coca Cola

There's a formula? I thought it was just carbonated, caffienated, coloured sugar water? I guess the nuance is lost on me. :lol:


Reportedly the Coca Cola formula is so secret no one person knows it all...don't know how they wind up with the final product.
KFC recently publicized the transfer of its secret herbs and spices recipe to a more secure repository.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby bad hammy » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:46 pm

lonewolf wrote:I don't know if the basic "rescue" legislation was necessary. I do know those congress people who loaded the bill with last minute pork should be drawn and quartered on the capitol steps at high noon. :evil: Unless someone can come up with a more severe punishment. :)

The Senate (I beleive) was the side that loaded it with pork, and one prominent Senator who is looking for a job upgrade and is running on an anti-earmark campaign voted for it along with most of the rest of the Senate.

I note that my Representative, one of the most liberal in the land - the only member of Congress to vote against the 9-15-2001 resolution authorizing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11 - switched from a no vote on the bailout to a yes. Her quoted reason: "We should be honest about the fact that we don't know whether or not this bill will work. And we must be honest about the fact that we can't afford to risk the potential consequences of inaction. I spoke with our California state treasurer this week (before California asked for a $7 billion hand from the Feds to cover a short term credit crunch) and he assured me that people will suffer greater pain, including cuts to critical state-funded services, if we don't do something to stop the hemorrhaging. That is why I will support this bill today."
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:04 pm

lonewolf wrote:
Daisy wrote:
lonewolf wrote:Coca Cola

There's a formula? I thought it was just carbonated, caffienated, coloured sugar water? I guess the nuance is lost on me. :lol:

Reportedly the Coca Cola formula is so secret no one person knows it all...don't know how they wind up with the final product.

Here's wiki on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby paulthefan » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:45 pm

bad hammy wrote:I note that my Representative, one of the most liberal in the land - the only member of Congress to vote against the 9-15-2001 resolution authorizing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11 - switched from a no vote on the bailout to a yes. Her quoted reason: "We should be honest about the fact that we don't know whether or not this bill will work. And we must be honest about the fact that we can't afford to risk the potential consequences of inaction. I spoke with our California state treasurer this week (before California asked for a $7 billion hand from the Feds to cover a short term credit crunch) and he assured me that people will suffer greater pain, including cuts to critical state-funded services, if we don't do something to stop the hemorrhaging. That is why I will support this bill today."


allow me to paraphrase: This bill has as much to do with saving the economy as the iraq war does, but since we as a state can use it to get a handful and delay real necessary action Im going to press the easy button.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby lonewolf » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:57 pm

The wiki reference to the New Coke experiment in 1985 reminded me of a semi-humorous incident involving Coca Cola.
In my pre-diabetic days I drank copious amounts of Coke. I was sorely vexed when Coke dropped it for the new procuct. In those days, I was wandering the USof A photographing courthouses. I stumbled on a cache of Old Coke at a remote, remote general store/gas station in North Dakota hard by the Canadian border. I bought all the Old Coke I could cram in that Lincoln.
When I got home, I stashed it at the front of my garage under sundry stuff and meted it out sparingly, figuring it had to last until Coke came to their senses.
One fine weekend, my teenage daughter threw a pool party for a few hundred of her closest friends. Good bye Old Coke.
I am proud (and relieved) that was her biggest teenage transgression and forgave her as soon as I stopped laughing.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Double R Bar » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:30 pm

Some economists are now saying the market will rebound around October 23. Of course it won't gain everything it has lost, but at least will not drop. Can you imagine the market going under 5,000? Let's hope not.
Double R Bar
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Mineral City

Postby cullman » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:17 am

Wakey, Wakey...things are going into the tank in Asia and Europe. Fascinating stuff...almost as good as night baseball. It's been a lively few hours.

3:15 AM PDT...I'm off to bed.

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!" - Bette Davis, "All About Eve"

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby tandfman » Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:30 am

OK, cullman, I'm awake. The Nikkei closed down 10%, European markets are currently down 7%, and Dow futures are down 250. Enough to make one want to go back to bed and stay there. :(
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby catson52 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:56 am

bad hammy wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know if the basic "rescue" legislation was necessary. I do know those congress people who loaded the bill with last minute pork should be drawn and quartered on the capitol steps at high noon. :evil: Unless someone can come up with a more severe punishment. :)

The Senate (I beleive) was the side that loaded it with pork, and one prominent Senator who is looking for a job upgrade and is running on an anti-earmark campaign voted for it along with most of the rest of the Senate.

I note that my Representative, one of the most liberal in the land - the only member of Congress to vote against the 9-15-2001 resolution authorizing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11 - switched from a no vote on the bailout to a yes. Her quoted reason: "We should be honest about the fact that we don't know whether or not this bill will work. And we must be honest about the fact that we can't afford to risk the potential consequences of inaction. I spoke with our California state treasurer this week (before California asked for a $7 billion hand from the Feds to cover a short term credit crunch) and he assured me that people will suffer greater pain, including cuts to critical state-funded services, if we don't do something to stop the hemorrhaging. That is why I will support this bill today."


Interesting posting. I can guess who your Representative is, but would welcome clarification here. As with something like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964 ?), history makes a note of a person having the guts to say "no" to handing over too much power, without seeing full (proper) evidence.
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Postby catson52 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:02 am

Double R Bar wrote:Some economists are now saying the market will rebound around October 23. Of course it won't gain everything it has lost, but at least will not drop. Can you imagine the market going under 5,000? Let's hope not.


What's special about Oct. 23 - did Nostradamus predict this? We are all keeping our fingers crossed, but right now it seems like some more fall is just around the corner. I hope I am wrong, but suspect the DJIA will stabilize somewhere around 7500. This is what Paul Krugman said on The Newshour some years back, and was my first confirmation, that I was not totally off base in some of my thoughts.
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:24 am

bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:43 am

bad hammy wrote:I note that my Representative, one of the most liberal in the land - the only member of Congress to vote against the 9-15-2001 resolution authorizing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11 - switched from a no vote on the bailout to a yes. Her quoted reason: "We should be honest about the fact that we don't know whether or not this bill will work. And we must be honest about the fact that we can't afford to risk the potential consequences of inaction. I spoke with our California state treasurer this week (before California asked for a $7 billion hand from the Feds to cover a short term credit crunch) and he assured me that people will suffer greater pain, including cuts to critical state-funded services, if we don't do something to stop the hemorrhaging. That is why I will support this bill today."

One of the most liberal? :? I thought that fact was incontrovertible. That's like saying that Eugene, OR is one of the most track friendly cities in the land. Hasn't she in the past written letters to people in which she has addressed them as "comrade"? I'm not saying that liberal is a bad thing, because I am one myself, but if she's not the most liberal, who is?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:51 am

Double R Bar wrote:Some economists are now saying the market will rebound around October 23. Of course it won't gain everything it has lost, but at least will not drop. Can you imagine the market going under 5,000? Let's hope not.


Hey, it might happen today. It is already under 8000 and dropping fast.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby paulthefan » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:56 pm

I was on record last year that we were headed for 8k, we have a 50-50 chance of being below 6k one year from now. but be advised paulthefan has been paulthebear all his life.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby lonewolf » Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:53 am

paulthefan wrote:I was on record last year that we were headed for 8k, we have a 50-50 chance of being below 6k one year from now. but be advised paulthefan has been paulthebear all his life.


Now, this is interesting. I have been lonewolfthebull (forgive the mixed metaphor) all my life and it has worked out pretty well. Maybe the secret is to have a long, long life because in the long, long run the US economy recovers.

Closer to home, the lead article in todays local newspaper revealed that one of our few local high-profile billionaires, literally a "self-made" success, famous for investing in his own company and for his philanthropy was forced to sell "most" of his three billion dollars worth of company stock, which turns out was bought on margin. The 60% drop in stock price last week precipitated a margin call he could not meet.
As Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, suprise, surprise."

I know, a sad story but since he "earned" 25 mill last year, do not expect to see him on the soup line anytime soon.

Please understand, I am not gloating. He is genuinely a "nice guy" that I have known since he was a young landman hustling oil leases trying to make five bucks an acre. Just an example of stuff happens.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Double R Bar » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:05 am

This might be the week the market levels. Let's hope for more good economic news around the world.
Double R Bar
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Mineral City

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests