Financial News

[StrangeSox]

The answer is alway infinity trillion stimulus dollars.

[Balta1701]

affordable housing is a good thing. the overpriced housing market correction was inevitable.

 

there are some realities here; all those jobs are gone to modernization or outsourcing. the cost of living in the United States probably needs to be reduced. you aren't against globalization are you?

 

if you are against globalization, how could you be such a cruel protectionist?

How exactly do you think that the cost of living in the U.S. is actually going to go down? Are you arguing that deflation would be a good thing?

[kapkomet]

How exactly do you think that the cost of living in the U.S. is actually going to go down? Are you arguing that deflation would be a good thing?

 

No, but you are.

[mr_genius]

How exactly do you think that the cost of living in the U.S. is actually going to go down? Are you arguing that deflation would be a good thing?

 

if unemployment is high, private sector salaries stagnant, and the end of some ridiculous bubble; some stuff is going to cost less (housing for example). so you are suggesting we go back to the boom prices? because anything other than unsustainable boom prices is unacceptable deflation i suppose.

 

EDIT:

 

I also support lower costs for health care. But I guess I shouldn't, because that would be deflation.

Edited June 27, 2010 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

S&P low below 500. 437.88 to be exact within 18 months..

How many years now have you been projecting this kind of thing to be coming soon? And its never happened, or even nearly happened.

 

You technical guys are great at finding edge in the short run, but you seem to think that means you can project numbers like that 18 months out. Its ridiculous.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

 

You're right... what am I going to do?

 

Seriously, though, it's setting up to be the worst year in modern times economically. There's several factors for it.

Bookmarked.

 

[Cknolls]

How many years now have you been projecting this kind of thing to be coming soon? And its never happened, or even nearly happened.

 

You technical guys are great at finding edge in the short run, but you seem to think that means you can project numbers like that 18 months out. Its ridiculous.

 

 

I am just predicting. Once again I missed the the 2009 low by 6 spx points, not bad. But us technical guys don't know anything. Buy and hold....and lose.....How did that work out last decade.....I have been out of mkt since OCT 2007. Sleep like a baby....That number comes from the same amplitude move from the 2007 high........

[Jenksismyhero]

First of all...I'm impressed that you can include firing 200k teachers as "pointless government jobs".

 

Secondly...if we can't keep printing more money, why do bond yields and inflation rates keep dropping?

 

And third...hypothetically, let's say we follow your path and fiscally retrench and try to rebalance budgets. Where do the jobs come from in your case? Businesses right now have enough cash to expand hiring if it is a good business decision, but none of them are doing so, because there's no demand for their products.

 

$8 trillion or so in consumer wealth was eliminated by the housing bubble. ON top of that, the average american hasn't gotten a raise in a decade, and unemployment has more than doubled. Your fiscal retrenchment proposal has an even worse problem with "where will the other jobs come from".

 

I'm sure it has more to do with them being worried about the potential increase in taxes they'll have to contend with in the coming years.

[Y2HH]

I am just predicting. Once again I missed the the 2009 low by 6 spx points, not bad. But us technical guys don't know anything. Buy and hold....and lose.....How did that work out last decade.....I have been out of mkt since OCT 2007. Sleep like a baby....That number comes from the same amplitude move from the 2007 high........

 

I buy and hold, and I stayed in the market from 2000 until 2010 -- and I'm ahead, a lot.

 

Explain that, please.

 

First off, if you are a buy/hold person, 10 years isn't long term, it's relatively short term. 20+ years is longer term, even more so than that, 30 years is what I consider "long term". It's called saving for the future, not saving for today. That's the basis of buy and hold. What it's not called is buy and hold for 5 years and sell.

 

You also seem to miss a big point/benefit of buy and hold. You don't buy things once and stop. You continuously buy them over time, so you are buying with the raises and dips, take a 401k for example. Over a span of 30 years, you will have bought shares at lows and highs, so long as you don't SELL at the lows, you don't care. Now if you do buy and hold with individual stocks, you can ALWAYS buy lows, as there are ALWAYS bargain stocks out there, you just have to look for them.

 

If you buy 100 shares of Pfizer at 30 and it goes down to 10, and buy another 100 shares, that means you bought 200 shares at 15. Over a span of time doing this, you will end up with an averaged out cost, and in the mean time make money on the dividends, etc. The key when you are nearing retirement is to NOT be greedy and sell. You don't say, well it's at 25 now, but it might go up to 30 in the next year before I retire. You get rid of it and recognize when good enough is good enough. When talking about decades, there is PLENTY of such opportunities.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I'm sure it has more to do with them being worried about the potential increase in taxes they'll have to contend with in the coming years.

 

I guess that explains the banking industry. They were worried about having to pay higher taxes if they were more profitable, so they decided that they all needed to go bankrupt.

[StrangeSox]

SCOTUS voted to uphold SOX in a 5-4 decision but changed the way the oversight board is controlled. Basically, it's easier to fire the members at-will instead of a protracted process. But the bulk of the law stands.

[kapkomet]

SCOTUS voted to uphold SOX in a 5-4 decision but changed the way the oversight board is controlled. Basically, it's easier to fire the members at-will instead of a protracted process. But the bulk of the law stands.

 

Right, but this opens the whole bill to review, not just that part. The way SOX was written, it's (almost) an all or nothing thing. With the "corporate hate" going on right now, it's going to get really interesting to see what happens to this.

[kapkomet]

"Somehow people say, why are you doing that, I'm not sure that's good politics. I'm doing it because I said I was going to do it and I think it's the right thing to do. People should learn that lesson about me because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step-up because I'm calling their bluff. We'll see how much of that, how much of the political arguments that they're making right now are real and how much of it was just politics." --Barackus the Great

 

So basically, let's translate this (bookmark this one, too NSS)...

 

"If you don't support a VAT, taxes up the ass, and the rape of our treasury system, I'm going to call your bluff and call you to the carpet for not supporting all my entitlement programs and then after the fact and raising taxes so high that productivity may never recover."

 

And notice it's always about ME, I, MYSELF... a little narcassitic... just a little.

[KipWellsFan]

So basically, let's translate this (bookmark this one, too NSS)...

 

"If you don't support a VAT, taxes up the ass, and the rape of our treasury system, I'm going to call your bluff and call you to the carpet for not supporting all my entitlement programs and then after the fact and raising taxes so high that productivity may never recover."

 

And notice it's always about ME, I, MYSELF... a little narcassitic... just a little.

 

 

I don't think Obama was talking about a VAT. Of course it's probably a good idea, but whatever...

[kapkomet]

I don't think Obama was talking about a VAT. Of course it's probably a good idea, but whatever...

 

 

It's always a great idea to create the biggest entitlement program in the history of the planet, and then tax the f*** out of everyone to pay for it.

 

If Europe is discovering after 50 years that it doesn't work (i.e. they have to kill entitlements and now the people are getting uber pissed off because their nanny government can't take care of them anymore... waaaah waaaaah), what the hell makes you think that it will work here?

 

Answer: it can't... but you'll not really understand that.

[KipWellsFan]

It's always a great idea to create the biggest entitlement program in the history of the planet, and then tax the f*** out of everyone to pay for it.

 

If Europe is discovering after 50 years that it doesn't work (i.e. they have to kill entitlements and now the people are getting uber pissed off because their nanny government can't take care of them anymore... waaaah waaaaah), what the hell makes you think that it will work here?

 

Answer: it can't... but you'll not really understand that.

 

 

Ummm, I'm not sure what words you're trying to put in my mouth, but I believe programs cuts combined with moderate tax increases will be necessary to bring some semblance of sanity back to American public finances. It's not really an ideological argument.

[kapkomet]

Ummm, I'm not sure what words you're trying to put in my mouth, but I believe programs cuts combined with moderate tax increases will be necessary to bring some semblance of sanity back to American public finances. It's not really an ideological argument.

 

Fine. Cut health care before it starts.

[KipWellsFan]

Fine. Cut health care before it starts.

 

Well if anything I hope what Obama has done actually makes Republicans examine the issue. They seem to be fairweather ideologues.

[Balta1701]

Fine. Cut health care before it starts.

Because you know what's been doing a dynamite job at saving money? The health care system we currently have.

[Y2HH]

Ummm, I'm not sure what words you're trying to put in my mouth, but I believe programs cuts combined with moderate tax increases will be necessary to bring some semblance of sanity back to American public finances. It's not really an ideological argument.

 

We would have to do this now, with the current entitlements we have (that we won't be cutting), in order to even *start* getting back to sanity when it comes to public finances. Make no mistake, there will be NO entitlement cuts in this country anytime soon, to even pretend there will be is what is insane, especially in turbulent economic times such as now. Cutting entitlements at this point is equivalent to punching your ticket out of office, so it's not happening, not now, and not in the near term future. We are expanding entitlements at record pace in addition to adding new ones, if anything. In order for these moderate tax increases to make even a small dent, we'd have to stop expanding anything and everything, let alone adding healthcare entitlements/subsidies to the equation (which we just did).

 

And here is something some of you may not have expected to hear from me:

 

Right now is the wrong time to cut anything -- the government is doing exactly as it should by expanding program funding and flooding the economy with money. This is how the system was designed. The problem is, when we do recover, they don't stop. In bad times, the government is supposed to spend, but when times turn good, the government is supposed to draw back and begin paying down everything it did during those bad times in order to float the economy.

[Y2HH]

I also support lower costs for health care. But I guess I shouldn't, because that would be deflation.

 

That's not deflation. That's paying fair value for a service, two completely different things. And the bill they signed will do nothing to lower the costs of health care. It *may* slightly lower the costs of health insurance to *SOME* people in need, while raising it for others. But the bills the hospitals and doctors send to the insurance companies will remain the same and/or increase...this was a point of contention I've had about the bill since the start, it was ignored, especially around here. But give it time, you'll all see.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

We would have to do this now, with the current entitlements we have (that we won't be cutting), in order to even *start* getting back to sanity when it comes to public finances. Make no mistake, there will be NO entitlement cuts in this country anytime soon, to even pretend there will be is what is insane, especially in turbulent economic times such as now. Cutting entitlements at this point is equivalent to punching your ticket out of office, so it's not happening, not now, and not in the near term future. We are expanding entitlements at record pace in addition to adding new ones, if anything. In order for these moderate tax increases to make even a small dent, we'd have to stop expanding anything and everything, let alone adding healthcare entitlements/subsidies to the equation (which we just did).

Oh come on, this joke again.

 

Let me state this as clearly as I can.

 

You can not complain about our unwillingness to make "Entitlement" cuts, when you opposed any and all efforts to improve the health care system.

 

The future budget deficit is entirely about health care. It was that way before the economic crisis, it was that way after it. When we tried to do anything about it, the money-saving public option was scrapped, things like end-of-life counseling became "death panels!" and the chorus of "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" was the common chant.

 

This graph from a couple years ago has 1 extra bump on it because of the economic collapse, but it's really all you need to know about entitlement cuts. When something the government is paying for is growing at 10% a year every year, it is going to swamp the government out in every projection.

 

[Y2HH]

Oh come on, this joke again.

 

Let me state this as clearly as I can.

 

You can not complain about our unwillingness to make "Entitlement" cuts, when you opposed any and all efforts to improve the health care system.

 

The future budget deficit is entirely about health care. It was that way before the economic crisis, it was that way after it. When we tried to do anything about it, the money-saving public option was scrapped, things like end-of-life counseling became "death panels!" and the chorus of "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" was the common chant.

 

This graph from a couple years ago has 1 extra bump on it because of the economic collapse, but it's really all you need to know about entitlement cuts. When something the government is paying for is growing at 10% a year every year, it is going to swamp the government out in every projection.

 

 

Way to ignore my entire point and nitpick the healthcare debate out of it.

 

Anyway.

 

I once again repeat to those of you who continue to willingly choose to ignore me that I do NOT oppose any/all efforts to improve the heath care system. I opposed the effort they made because they did NOTHING to improve the healthcare system. They merely changed the INSURANCE SYSTEM...and while related to the healthcare system, they aren't the same in any way whatsoever.

 

I once again repeat:

 

The medical bills you will receive from your doctor have not changed, they have not gone down, and they will not go down because of this bill. Queue the same for the bill you will receive from the drug companies, hospitals, nursing services, etc. You attacked the wrong bad guy and accomplished nothing. Congratulations.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

The medical bills you will receive from your doctor have not changed, they have not gone down, and they will not go down because of this bill. Queue the same for the bill you will receive from the drug companies, hospitals, nursing services, etc. You attacked the wrong bad guy and accomplished nothing. Congratulations.

Oh, so now you're in favor of the government cutting the bills that it pays to doctors and hospitals? Gosh, where have I been attacked repeatedly over that.

[Y2HH]

Oh, so now you're in favor of the government cutting the bills that it pays to doctors and hospitals? Gosh, where have I been attacked repeatedly over that.

 

Way to twist words. And no, that's not what I said, not even CLOSE to what I said. But thanks for playing.

 

Talking to you is often hard. I say blue, and you CHOOSE to hear red, and you literally convince yourself I said red, despite the fact that I didn't.