87 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
87 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Do you think we're in the middle of another economic bubble?

by writeaway
71 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
How bad will the crash be? As bad as 2008 or will there be a softer landing?
  • Profile picture of the author laurencewins
    It has been quiet for me in Australia since the end of August so I don't know.
    Signature

    Cheers, Laurence.
    Writer/Editor/Proofreader.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9589453].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
    I'm anticipating a crash of epic proportion.

    Bubbles? They're everywhere. Economy. Student Loans. Housing. The Fed. Pick one.

    Source and works cited:

    Labor Force Participation 30 Year Low (http://seekingalpha.com/article/2554...ts-30-year-low)

    2014 Class Most Indebted Ever (Congratulations to Class of 2014, Most Indebted Ever - The Numbers - WSJ)

    Half Of Americans Cannot Afford Their Homes (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ove...ity-2014-06-03)

    One Third Of Americans Are In Debt Delinquency (A third of Americans delinquent on debt)

    49% Of American Households Receive Government Benefits (Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov)
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9589549].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author karlstech
      When will it come crashing down?

      Will it affect the online marketing world or what do you think?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9589552].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
        Originally Posted by karlstech View Post

        When will it come crashing down?

        Will it affect the online marketing world or what do you think?
        Who knows?

        There are too many variables to accurately predict anything right?

        That's why if you ask 100 economists they'll probably have different predictions.

        I don't think many people would contest that the world economy and markets are vulnerable, and volatile, though, right?
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590219].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          I don't know ... to be honest I never opted into the last recession, and if there's going to be another one coming up, I won't be opting into that, either. Too busy running my business.

          But I've been in business, realistically, only since the start of 2009, so maybe I've never known anything other than "recessionary times"? Not sure about this.

          If you're talking just about the US, then I know even less, but I estimate that probably 40% of my worldwide traffic/subscribers live there, and they're not buying any less. Yet.

          .

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590237].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lcombs
      Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

      I'm anticipating a crash of epic proportion.

      Bubbles? They're everywhere. Economy. Student Loans. Housing. The Fed. Pick one.

      Source and works cited:

      Labor Force Participation 30 Year Low (http://seekingalpha.com/article/2554...ts-30-year-low)

      2014 Class Most Indebted Ever (Congratulations to Class of 2014, Most Indebted Ever - The Numbers - WSJ)

      Half Of Americans Cannot Afford Their Homes (Half of Americans can)

      One Third Of Americans Are In Debt Delinquency (A third of Americans delinquent on debt)

      49% Of American Households Receive Government Benefits (Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov)
      The powers that be made an epic mis-judgement on the change in economic strategy.
      They sent the production jobs over seas for lower wages.
      They switched the American economy to a Service based economy and lowered the wages of the service jobs and the jobs of all the dis-placed production workers.

      But, they maintained/raised the prices of their products.
      Now, nobody can afford to buy their products.

      I heard on NPR today that the only people who benefited from the "recovery"
      were the top 0.1%.
      Not the top 1.% the top 0.1%.

      Crash?
      We're in an economic freefall....
      Signature
      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590601].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

        I heard on NPR today that the only people who benefited from the "recovery" were the top 0.1%. Not the top 1.% the top 0.1%.

        Crash?
        We're in an economic freefall....
        This is covered in Capital In The 21st Century.

        The reasons why it happened, and how to fix it. At least half of the people who read this post (or the book) are not going to like it, but there you have it.

        Something has to be done soon as we're rapidly reaching the point of no return.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590733].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

        The powers that be made an epic mis-judgement on the change in economic strategy.
        They sent the production jobs over seas for lower wages.
        They switched the American economy to a Service based economy and lowered the wages of the service jobs and the jobs of all the dis-placed production workers.

        But, they maintained/raised the prices of their products.
        Now, nobody can afford to buy their products.

        I heard on NPR today that the only people who benefited from the "recovery"
        were the top 0.1%.
        Not the top 1.% the top 0.1%.

        Crash?
        We're in an economic freefall....
        Well, as you imply, there was NOT any recovery! If there WERE a recovery:

        1. The ACA would NOT have been received so well.
        2. The minimum wage would NOT be such an issue.
        3. Unemployment terms would be FAR shorter.
        4. Welfare rolls would be SMALLER.
        5. We would STILL have the farm subsidies and welfare bills tied together
        6. The prime rate would be higher.
        7. They would NOT be apparently encouraging low class protected classes to buy homes.
        8. Markets would NOT be pausing for, and seesawing with, the feds announcements.
        9. We would not have all these talks about aid to western european nations, etc....
        10.We would NOT be offering free cell phones to the poor.

        I could go on and on! Sadly, some of the outsourcing WAS required. Take COMPUTERS, for example! It is INCREDIBLE how cheap they are. I still have the computer that I bought like 4-5 years ago for $250. Countries USED to treat the country as a country! That USED to be true of the US as well. They CAN provide a one way gate to the country. It is mentioned SPECIFICALLY in the constitution, and probably even in the Bible. It is called a DUTY! You would think they would be ALL FOR an IMPORT ************TAX*********** but NOOOOOOOOOO! They would rather raise OUR taxes, which affects AMERICAN products as well.

        But if unions, the US, and the like do what they can to raise the cost of american goods, and the government does all THEY can to help foreign governments take advantage of lower costs THERE, OF COURSE companies will move abroad.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590752].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I think the world is screwed until they get out from under World Bank. Period.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590234].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I think the market is being manipulated more than the average person might believe. They stole UNACCOUNTED FOR money from GREAT GREAT GREAT GRAND CHILDREN of people that were born like yesterday. And I believe they are using THAT, along with tricks by "the fed", etc... to prop things up.

    They have a larger plan that is SEMI public that obfuscates the issue and they may refer to it as quantitative easing. I believe we are still in "QE3". That is NOT queen Elizabeth folks! Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Anyway, this is just the PUBLIC stuff! And they have been wondering when the market would start tapering BIG TIME. When they are worried, the market is said to fall. The wars and the like don't help!

    For almost the entire past 2 weeks, MOST stocks lost money! The S&P covers 500 of the best, and the DJIA covers 30-32 of the best, so THEY have had some up days. STILL, the last 2 weeks were nauseating. People THOUGHT yesterday would be different. The NASDAQ was down most of the day, but the DJIA was up a LITTLE most of the day. The DJIA is down 115 for the day! BTW 80% of the DJIA LOST YESTERDAY Over 60% of the NASDAQ lost.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590486].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lcombs
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      I think the market is being manipulated more than the average person might believe. They stole UNACCOUNTED FOR money from GREAT GREAT GREAT GRAND CHILDREN of people that were born like yesterday. And I believe they are using THAT, along with tricks by "the fed", etc... to prop things up.

      They have a larger plan that is SEMI public that obfuscates the issue and they may refer to it as quantitative easing. I believe we are still in "QE3". That is NOT queen Elizabeth folks! Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Anyway, this is just the PUBLIC stuff! And they have been wondering when the market would start tapering BIG TIME. When they are worried, the market is said to fall. The wars and the like don't help!

      For almost the entire past 2 weeks, MOST stocks lost money! The S&P covers 500 of the best, and the DJIA covers 30-32 of the best, so THEY have had some up days. STILL, the last 2 weeks were nauseating. People THOUGHT yesterday would be different. The NASDAQ was down most of the day, but the DJIA was up a LITTLE most of the day. The DJIA is down 115 for the day! BTW 80% of the DJIA LOST YESTERDAY Over 60% of the NASDAQ lost.

      Steve
      The U.S. government is spending billions on cans of Pink Salmon
      in the name of feeding the poor.
      The truth is, They have millions of cans sitting in warehouses, going to waste.
      The real reason they keep buying them is to manipulate the market and keep Pink Salmon prices high.

      No telling how many more products are involved.

      The kicker is, they are using our tax money to make sure we pay higher prices.

      We're screwed!
      Signature
      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590754].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by lcombs View Post

        The U.S. government is spending billions on cans of Pink Salmon
        in the name of feeding the poor.
        The truth is, They have millions of cans sitting in warehouses, going to waste.
        The real reason they keep buying them is to manipulate the market and keep Pink Salmon prices high.

        No telling how many more products are involved.

        The kicker is, they are using our tax money to make sure we pay higher prices.

        We're screwed!
        That is ALSO BAD for the environment as it creates waste, and creates extra fishing of SALMON.

        One wonders WHY they need such high prices, etc... HECK, they store milk to raise milk prices. Prices can be regulated in many ways. They don't have to buy them out. They are doing the SAME with bullets and freeze dried food.

        As for the apparent gist of "Captal n Te 2000s", that wp referred to, the into says that it refers to how the difference of return can affect "inequality". Well *****************************DUH****************** ************! EVERYONE HERE does the SAME THING! lcombs above is talking about how the GOVERNMENT is depending on people following it. Lovers of that book want to use it to affect a businesses actions. IMAGINE if it did NOT work that way!

        BTW a hobby lobby near my home has closed. CONGRATS! All the >$15/hour, unskilled, jobs they offered are now GONE! ALL because they provided free healthcare even before "ACA", but refused to provide 4, of like 16 types, of "contraceptives".

        SORRY, if investment in general industry provides a better and more consistent return, people will invest THERE rather than their own business. But HEY, that means companies like Google can grow, hire more, and pay more people and pay them better. If you are thinking WELL, we can FORCE it lower, etc..... That will CUT BACK on companies like Google, cut back on salaries, and that IS the major way that 2007 hurt all those people and countries.

        It is IRONIC that they claim a bunch of right wingers that never read the book entered the 1star reviews, and I quickly see over a half dozen of those 1 star reviews claiming the same. But you can get the gist of the book from the introduction, and what books were purchased with it. If it is SO great and SUCH a great benefit to man kind, let them offer it for free. After all, they HATE the idea of the "haves" and "have nots".

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590802].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe Stewart
    Originally Posted by writeaway View Post

    How bad will the crash be? As bad as 2008 or will there be a softer landing?
    I don't like to be a pessimist, but I have a feeling it's going to be worse. As I mentioned once before a few months ago, I'm in an offshoot niche within the building/construction industry and I talk to people all over the country every week.

    This is supposed to be the "busy" season with the winter months being slower. I'm still waiting for it to get busy. Most of these companies took huge losses during the recession. I'm still selling a decent amount of expendables, but it's becoming more difficult to sell equipment. I keep hearing things like "we used to run 5 crews, but now it's just me and a part-time helper. I've got enough equipment for life."

    It's also been very odd in the way that I can have one customer staying really busy, but have another customer just a few miles away hardly working at all. Of course, it depends on the type of work they're doing, but I've heard of this scenario in 3 different states in the last month or so, Colorado, Utah and New York.

    The states where the oil industry is doing well are good for some companies, but not so much for others.

    I've heard time and again that this is becoming really competitive. Many companies are bidding so low that there's no way a smaller company could possibly match it without losing money. I've had a couple customers close their doors this year and take jobs for larger firms. They simply couldn't afford to try to compete anymore.

    I've also seen a few of my competitors branching off their product lines into other industries as well. They're trying to cast a broad net to get as many people on their site(s) as possible.

    In addition, I'm subscribed to the main major publication in my industry and it usually has 3-4 pages of full page ads in the center of the magazine this time of year (for the kind of stuff I sell). I just received it again last week and the guys that usually place that monster ad have reduced it to a single page in the very back. They're also promoting off the wall products so they can avoid going head to head with other big companies on more popular items.

    Last year wasn't great either and this year hasn't shown the improvement I'd hoped to see. If these guys aren't working it's a lot harder to sell them stuff. Honestly, I'm really trying to move out of this industry. It's beginning to feel like a slowly sinking ship.

    As far as online business being affected goes, I think it will be better than offline. Some markets will be affected more than others, but health, wealth, vanity, certain hobbies, services and other things will never go away. Of course, there still many people that have money, have learned from the recession and invested wisely and will need/want things, so I think there are plenty of options available for marketers.

    Time will tell. I think we'll know by this time next year, if not sooner. I'm still hoping for the best.

    A word of advice - try to keep your credit good, if possible, especially if you're renting a home or apartment. Rental prices are going up across the board and availabilty is become more and more scarce. If you have poor credit your odds of getting into a decent home aren't good.
    Signature

    My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!

    http://www.UnCENTSored.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590571].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Enfusia
      As IM'ers we are in the best position possible.

      We have the ability to be mobile and travel the world with a laptop.
      This gives us a distinct advantage over most people. The masses can't take their job with them.

      We can market in any country (with outsourcing, we can even do it if we don't understand the language). We can be in other countries and market in the USA as well.

      Start putting your mind to the fact that the world is your oyster. Just go where the pearls are because there are always pearls.

      Patrick
      Signature
      Free eBook =>
      The Secret To Success In Any Business
      Yes, Any Business!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590588].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    It's not an economic bubble we're in, it's an asset/investment bubble.


    Andrew
    Signature
    Online courses
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9590791].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by rondo View Post

      It's not an economic bubble we're in, it's an asset/investment bubble.


      Andrew
      WRONG! It is ALL!!!!!!!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9593229].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    We just had the 2nd worst economic crash since 1900AD.



    IMHO, We will not have another economic crash like in 2008-2009 for quite some time as in at least another 25-30 years.

    Yes, it's still not close to a robust economy but we're no where near where we were in 2008-2009 when we were losing 700K jobs per month.

    Now we're generating about 200K jobs per month and basically treading water as an economy.

    Events like the great recession do not happen often.


    The next one may be worse but IMHO, it won't happen anytime soon and whether it happens or not depends on who's in power and how long they stay in power.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9591899].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Stewart
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Now we're generating about 200K jobs per month and basically treading water as an economy.
      That's what we're being told. It's no different than the fake unemployment rate. Of those 200k jobs how many are actually good jobs and how many are part-time or temporary/seasonal? The "underemployed" sector is also rarely mentioned.

      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Events like the great recession do not happen often.
      I agree.

      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      The next one may be worse but IMHO, it won't happen anytime soon and whether it happens or not depends on who's in power and how long they stay in power.
      I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical.
      Signature

      My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!

      http://www.UnCENTSored.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9592278].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Joe Stewart View Post

        That's what we're being told. It's no different than the fake unemployment rate. Of those 200k jobs how many are actually good jobs and how many are part-time or temporary/seasonal? The "underemployed" sector is also rarely mentioned.





        I agree.



        I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical.

        You're right, we lost 7-10 million good paying jobs during the great recession and many are not coming back.

        I have no good reason to doubt the numbers put out by the BLS, they're like the CBO and just doing their job. And there are a couple measurements on the employment situation.

        I'm sure we're not losing 700-800K jobs per month anymore.

        If we didn't have that stimulus to put a floor under the economy back in 2009, it would have gotten a whole lot worse than it was.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9593053].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      We just had the 2nd worst economic crash since 1900AD.



      IMHO, We will not have another economic crash like in 2008-2009 for quite some time as in at least another 25-30 years.

      Yes, it's still not close to a robust economy but we're no where near where we were in 2008-2009 when we were losing 700K jobs per month.

      Now we're generating about 200K jobs per month and basically treading water as an economy.

      Events like the great recession do not happen often.


      The next one may be worse but IMHO, it won't happen anytime soon and whether it happens or not depends on who's in power and how long they stay in power.
      Why don't you save that bluster until 2007 is done! I have said for YEARS the cold war was NOT over! GUESS WHAT FOLKS! IT *****STILL***** ISN'T! Oh SURE, Russia THREATENED us, and started a real war against other countries, but WE still have a cold war. STILL, when they said "COLD WAR IS OVER" in $%^&*( SPEAK it means "WE HAVE PEACE"!

      HECK, BO is recorded on a recent video as saying "I ENDED THE WAR IN IRAQ"! HOW can he end the war if he is not the other party? HE COULDN'T! I guess he figured war meant people weren't there, and removing people thus ended the war. That is interesting, since almost NO war has started with people there. Was Poland fighting Germany when WWII started? NOPE! Was ANY other country? NOPE!

      BTW TL! 1987 had a crash. 1999 had a ******DIFFERENT****** crash! That was only 12 years for a DIFFERENT crash! We never REALLY got over the 1999 crash. I THOUGHT early 2001 we MIGHT be close to getting out of it, but..... 2007 built onto it. It was NEVER OVER WITH! If you DARE to think differently, PLEEEEEASE EXPLAIN QE, QE2, QE3, welfare and unemployment climbing, all the bankruptcies, etc.....

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9593251].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe Stewart
    I know that this individual has something for sale at the end of the video, but this was very enlightening and I highly recommend that those who are concerned about this topic watch it. This is NOT an affiliate link, at least not mine.

    The 25-Year Great Depression

    You can also just read it below.

    Jim Rickards: The Coming 25-Year Great Depression
    Signature

    My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!

    http://www.UnCENTSored.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9592360].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    We are definitely in an asset bubble caused an very low interest rates. But this may no longer be in the middle but near its end.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9592427].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Let's suppose that we had a money shredder that we had to feed 500 billion dollars every year. Saying the stimulus package saved us would be like taking out a high interest loan for 500 billion dollars to feed the shredder, and then claiming that we saved 500 billion of our own money by taking out the loan.

    For short sited people that only see the current numbers, it looks like it saves us. Anyone with fore-site and math skills knows that we'll be paying the piper soon.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9593175].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author writeaway
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Let's suppose that we had a money shredder that we had to feed 500 billion dollars every year. Saying the stimulus package saved us would be like taking out a high interest loan for 500 billion dollars to feed the shredder, and then claiming that we saved 500 billion of our own money by taking out the loan.

      For short sited people that only see the current numbers, it looks like it saves us. Anyone with fore-site and math skills knows that we'll be paying the piper soon.
      The weak spot to QE is the possibility of DEFLATION or INFLATION?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9593580].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Let's suppose that we had a money shredder that we had to feed 500 billion dollars every year. Saying the stimulus package saved us would be like taking out a high interest loan for 500 billion dollars to feed the shredder, and then claiming that we saved 500 billion of our own money by taking out the loan.

      For short sited people that only see the current numbers, it looks like it saves us. Anyone with fore-site and math skills knows that we'll be paying the piper soon.

      Gary, you must be playing devil's advocate.

      To not enact the stimulus when doing so would and did save the economy, from a highly possible great depression #2, also to borrow the money at such a low rate (and the rate was historically low - not high) ...

      ...would add further injury to the insult of your callous and dangerous disregard for the living standards of the American people and the economy.

      I guess you were in favor of the nation continuing to lose 700-800K jobs per month for who knows how long, or for it to get even worse - ...

      ... just to save 800 billion dollars.

      The fact that you didn't know or don't know that interest rates were/are at historically low rates speaks volumes and makes it clear that you have a thirst for knowledge when it comes to economics.

      Whether you like it or believe it or not, the 2009 stimulus saved this economy from falling off a cliff then, and it was the right, smart and very necessary thing to do.

      Look at the change in the GDP before and after the stimulus of Feb 2009.



      Look at the the job creation picture before and after the enactment of the stimulus... (Feb. 2009)




      I know you don't have a lot of respect for the opinions of anyone outside of your factually challenged think tank bubble but...

      Here's what the CBO director has to say regarding the 2009 stimulus...

      Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post


      What piper are you talking about Gary?

      Is it the scary national debt monster that was a big, big problem when we were running trillion dollar per year deficits - which we are not running anymore?

      I'll agree the nation has a lot of national debt but since we are not running trillion dollar yearly deficits anymore we are out of danger and just have a lot of debt that we're just going to have to carry and it is still manageable.


      BTW...

      Once again, you must be playing devil's advocate if you're suggesting the stimulus was a big waste of time, money and wasn't worth it.

      Perhaps you should stop reading that birther site - worldnetdaily.com, and yes you've posted links from there before.
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9597091].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Gary, you must be playing devil's advocate.

        To not enact the stimulus when doing so would and did save the economy, from a highly possible great depression #2, also to borrow the money at such a low rate (and the rate was historically low - not high)
        We will never know of course. Even if we COULD, we WOULDN'T, as IT IS NOT OVER! STILL, this is the LONGEST a recovery has ever taken! AGAIN, we'll get back to you when it is done!

        ...would add further injury to the insult of your callous and dangerous disregard for the living standards of the American people and the economy.
        You HAVE to disregard people like baggers at a store that want to practically OWN YACHTS on that income!

        I guess you were in favor of the nation continuing to lose 700-800K jobs per month for who knows how long, or for it to get even worse - ...

        ... just to save 800 billion dollars.
        AGAIN, the jobs ARE gone! WALMART is not even doing well, not to mention sears, etc....

        The fact that you didn't know or don't know that interest rates were/are at historically low rates speaks volumes and makes it clear that you have a thirst for knowledge when it comes to economics.
        YEP, that is a PROBLEM!!!!!!!!! It is NOT a GOOD thing! You THINK it is, because it allows people to get far more *****NOW*****! You are forgetting the way it affects the feds control, G* control, etc.... BTW I have been saying this since 1999, when they lowered it. I PREDICTED the 2007-2008 collapse. UNFORTUNATELY, I ALSO predicted that, before it could happen, the fed would raise rates to stop it. I was SHOCKED it took so long, but I didn't know about the 2007 conspiracy that basically threw gasoline on the smouldering embers! WHO could imagine they were THAT INCREDIBLY STUPID! ANYWAY, it happened BECAUSE rates were low! And the fed had NOTHING to fight back with! I mean they couldn't lower rates in areas to increase liquidity(they were already TOO low), and they couldn't raise rates(since it would be a disaster in such a bad situation).

        Whether you like it or believe it or not, the 2009 stimulus saved this economy from falling off a cliff then, and it was the right, smart and very necessary thing to do.
        AGAIN, will never know, but it is too early to say!

        Look at the change in the GDP before and after the stimulus of Feb 2009.
        And WHO controls how that is calculated, etc....? ENOUGH SAID!

        Look at the the job creation picture before and after the enactment of the stimulus... (Feb. 2009)
        AGAIN, NOT ENOUGH INFO TO BE OF USE! I WILL say one INDISPUTABLE FACT! The jobs are NOT as you imply because, if they were, you would NOT be calling for a higher minimum wage!

        I know you don't have a lot of respect for the opinions of anyone outside of your factually challenged think tank bubble but...

        Here's what the CBO director has to say regarding the 2009 stimulus...
        GEE, you ALL say this is the PAST! That it is HISTORY! SHOW us the declining welfare roles! They went UP! SHOW us all the people ecstatic for getting all the benefits and higher pay! YOU fought for a destructive forced plan and are demanding an EXTREMELY high wage!

        Is it the scary national debt monster that was a big, big problem when we were running trillion dollar per year deficits - which we are not running anymore?

        I'll agree the nation has a lot of national debt but since we are not running trillion dollar yearly deficits anymore we are out of danger and just have a lot of debt that we're just going to have to carry and it is still manageable.
        HEY, show us the declining debt, AND THE EFFECTS OF IT!

        According to what you say, it would have been so easy to shut us all up. You DIDN'T! NOW, the contrary proof has hit the fan. MUCH OF IT FROM YOU, TIM, UNIONS, #$%^&*, ETC.... HECK, even NPR! And they are NOT conservative, BTW.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9597274].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          We will never know of course. Even if we COULD, we WOULDN'T, as IT IS NOT OVER! STILL, this is the LONGEST a recovery has ever taken! AGAIN, we'll get back to you when it is done!



          You HAVE to disregard people like baggers at a store that want to practically OWN YACHTS on that income!



          AGAIN, the jobs ARE gone! WALMART is not even doing well, not to mention sears, etc....



          YEP, that is a PROBLEM!!!!!!!!! It is NOT a GOOD thing! You THINK it is, because it allows people to get far more *****NOW*****! You are forgetting the way it affects the feds control, G* control, etc.... BTW I have been saying this since 1999, when they lowered it. I PREDICTED the 2007-2008 collapse. UNFORTUNATELY, I ALSO predicted that, before it could happen, the fed would raise rates to stop it. I was SHOCKED it took so long, but I didn't know about the 2007 conspiracy that basically threw gasoline on the smouldering embers! WHO could imagine they were THAT INCREDIBLY STUPID! ANYWAY, it happened BECAUSE rates were low! And the fed had NOTHING to fight back with! I mean they couldn't lower rates in areas to increase liquidity(they were already TOO low), and they couldn't raise rates(since it would be a disaster in such a bad situation).



          AGAIN, will never know, but it is too early to say!



          And WHO controls how that is calculated, etc....? ENOUGH SAID!



          AGAIN, NOT ENOUGH INFO TO BE OF USE! I WILL say one INDISPUTABLE FACT! The jobs are NOT as you imply because, if they were, you would NOT be calling for a higher minimum wage!



          GEE, you ALL say this is the PAST! That it is HISTORY! SHOW us the declining welfare roles! They went UP! SHOW us all the people ecstatic for getting all the benefits and higher pay! YOU fought for a destructive forced plan and are demanding an EXTREMELY high wage!



          HEY, show us the declining debt, AND THE EFFECTS OF IT!

          According to what you say, it would have been so easy to shut us all up. You DIDN'T! NOW, the contrary proof has hit the fan. MUCH OF IT FROM YOU, TIM, UNIONS, #$%^&*, ETC.... HECK, even NPR! And they are NOT conservative, BTW.

          Steve

          Sure the jury is still out for you on whether the stimulus worked or not because you simply don't want to admit that it did its main job of preventing the economy from getting much, much worse.

          And, I'll say 50 something months of positive job creation would seem to the average person to be a whole lot better than losing 700-800K jobs per month - but you go right ahead and soldier on.

          You are entitled to the rest of your post.
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9597299].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author writeaway
    Where will the money for all the FED DEBT come from? Surely, the govt can't keep PRINTING money, right?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9593579].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    This should be interesting for those interested in the American economy and how it works.


    Short video and more here...

    [Sponsored Message] Morgan Spurlock Wants You To Understand The Economy
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9594916].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, let's assume GDP IS GDP! It ISN'T! They Keep changing the forumula, and all the Basis of it changes. So you are comparing apples with cumquats! BUT, even though we are trying to compare two car Dealers that used to both sell NEW chevys, and NOW one sells USED VWs, and the other sells toys, and they used to both be in Dollars and now one is Francs and the other is Pounds, let's assume they are IDENTICAL!


    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9595884].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW in an article today, they are musing about a QE4, and perhaps a QE5 or QE6!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9595887].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    There's one fact that's missing in this thread that is probably just as important as why Wall Street giants and banks that have actually done much illegal, very greedy, bullshyte over the last few years - and have yet to have even ONE person prosecuted for.

    The USD is losing reserve status. China and Russia are going in together to put a reserve currency out that is going to just completely tank this country - at least temporarily. If we get real smart, real fast, we'll go back to metal backed currency (a few states are set up to run with it already) and just tell World Bank to go take a long walk off a short pier.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9596087].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      The USD is losing reserve status
      You mean the rest of the world has a choice, and they don't need to send us physical goods in exchange for printed dollars to buy oil? What do you call this strange, pre-WWII form of economics?
      Signature

      I

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9596113].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

        You mean the rest of the world has a choice, and they don't need to send us physical goods in exchange for printed dollars to buy oil? What do you call this strange, pre-WWII form of economics?
        Hum that's not what reserve status means.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9596155].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Hum that's not what reserve status means.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency
          Around WWIII, a lot of countries put gold into fort knox! They traded it for credit. One such country was GERMANY! Such countries have an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED RIGHT to inspect and take delivery of the gold! Germany is REQUIRED BY GERMAN LAW to audit their reserves! $104,929,875,000 is MISSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you know who supposedly has it? The US federal reserve!
          They have been FORBIDDEN to have a true audit for THIRTY years! BTW that is HALF of germanies net worth. Doubt me?

          Here's THEIR story! Tracking down Germany

          BTW you may notice a slight 25%+ discrepancy in what I claim and what THEY claim. I am valuing it as of 10/14/2014. The article IS almost 2 years old, after all.

          This is NOT a good position for a country to be in! To have your "faith and credit" QUESTIONED! After all, that is ALL that backs the US dollar!

          Dollars USED to say they were backed by the full faith and credit. Apparently they DON'T now. But HEYE, HERE is a story of how the fed treats our currency!




          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9596289].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    Hum, the dollar used to be backed by gold. The only thing holding the dollar as the reserve status is we force the mid-east countries to price their oil in dollars. Ask Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya what happens when it's suggested that we use a different currency for oil.
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9596239].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      Hum, the dollar used to be backed by gold. The only thing holding the dollar as the reserve status is we force the mid-east countries to price their oil in dollars. Ask Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya what happens when it's suggested that we use a different currency for oil.
      Let me guess. You were being sarcastic in your other post.
      Some days I get it, some days I don't.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9596267].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      Hum, the dollar used to be backed by gold. The only thing holding the dollar as the reserve status is we force the mid-east countries to price their oil in dollars. Ask Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya what happens when it's suggested that we use a different currency for oil.
      That's world bank. They operate through the US and the UN and NATO. From what I understand, although I could be wrong on this, Russia and China are kicking them (WB) to the curb.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9596268].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MWatson
    For people willing to hustle, there will always be money to made.




    Cheers,
    Mark
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9597295].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    The talking point that things would have been much worse is a misnomer. In fact Obama himself predicted things to get much better much faster with his policies. But they haven't. This has been the slowest recovery in recorded history, including the one following the Great Depression.

    And yes it's easy to show a growth path chart making it appear as though we're doing something right, but if it were to be compared to natural recovery charts it would show that our growth rate has been greatly retarded.

    And speaking of the CBO, their own report says that we'll be paying the piper. The link you gave only shows the director of the CBO agreeing that small short term gains were made. However if you look at the actual CBO report, it actually says that the long term effect will be a negative one - hence the "paying the piper" remark.

    Here's the report: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/43945-ARRA.pdf

    And notice on page 8 it says:
    In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates-by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016...

    ARRA's long-run impact on the economy will stem primarily from the resulting increase in government debt. To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates...

    So even the CBO backs up my original statement: "Anyone with fore-site and math skills knows that we'll be paying the piper soon"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9597400].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      The talking point that things would have been much worse is a misnomer. In fact Obama himself predicted things to get much better much faster with his policies. But they haven't. This has been the slowest recovery in recorded history, including the one following the Great Depression.

      And yes it's easy to show a growth path chart making it appear as though we're doing something right, but if it were to be compared to natural recovery charts it would show that our growth rate has been greatly retarded.

      And speaking of the CBO, their own report says that we'll be paying the piper. The link you gave only shows the director of the CBO agreeing that small short term gains were made. However if you look at the actual CBO report, it actually says that the long term effect will be a negative one - hence the "paying the piper" remark.

      Here's the report: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/43945-ARRA.pdf

      And notice on page 8 it says:
      In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates-by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016...

      ARRA's long-run impact on the economy will stem primarily from the resulting increase in government debt.

      To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates...

      So even the CBO backs up my original statement: "Anyone with fore-site and math skills knows that we'll be paying the piper soon"

      Wow!

      Only in world of people who visit worldnetdaily.com would a decrease in national output of zero to 0.2 qualify as paying some sort of piper for making sure the economy didn't get any worse from losing 700-800K jobs per month.

      I thought you were talking about some sort of real apocalypse.

      If that's the price we had to pay to save the economy then it surely is a small price to pay.

      Of course when compared with other recoveries the growth has been retarded by IMHO, historic obstruction by your friends on the hill who clearly think like you do since only a three of them - in the entire house or the senate had the courage to buck the party and the foresight to vote for the stimulus - in the best interests of the nation.

      Thank you senators, Snowe, Spector and Collins.

      Your friends highly questionable historic and destructive obstruction is typified and made clear by the following...

      The only national debt problem we've had lately is the very same people who voted to increase the debt ceiling 5-8 times with the previous POTUS, who also voted to fight two wars on the nation's credit card, who also voted for two tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy -...

      ... while scuttling a 200 billion + yearly surplus left by the previous admin...

      ... leading to a doubling of the national debt in the process ...

      ... all of a sudden get anti-national debt religion...

      ... and decide they want to use the threat of a default on our national debt as leverage to gain some policy concessions from the current POTUS - which has never, ever been done before in this nations history.

      And don't bother bringing up and pointing to so-called principled stands against raising the debt ceiling by some people - after the votes were already counted as a way of saying other people have done it --- because those situations don't count.

      No one ever took the nation to the brink like your group above did and it typifies the dangerous mindset of someone who would do anything to regain the POTUS.

      So to be clear...


      ...Gary proudly would have not voted for a stimulus and allowed the economic carnage to continue in order to save 800 billion when nothing else would have stopped the bloodletting.


      Once again...

      Your callous disregard for the living standards of the American people is frightning but you keep on trucking with your economic philosophy (that has never worked for anyone but the already wealthy) and getting your info from places like worldnetdaily.com
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9598058].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Wow!

        Only in world of people who visit worldnetdaily.com would a decrease in national output of zero to 0.2 qualify as paying some sort of piper for making sure the economy didn't get any worse from losing 700-800K jobs per month.

        I thought you were talking about some sort of real apocalypse.

        If that's the price we had to pay to save the economy then it surely is a small price to pay.
        You really have no idea how the economy works do you?

        By the way - I've never heard of that website until you posted it here today. I may have to check it out.

        But I'm not the only one who realizes that Obama's stimulus will soon drag the economy down. Did you even read the next paragraph of the CBO report past the one that you quoted? It says:
        ARRA's long-run impact on the economy will stem primarily from the resulting increase in government debt.

        To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates...

        It says that in the long run each dollar of debt crowds out 33% of private domestic capital. That is a HUGE price to pay in anyone's book.

        Funny that you're even trying to argue this one, considering the fact that this report is proving itself true already in this weeks stock market activity.

        Many are even predicting that after the short term effects of the stimulus wears off that we'll be plunged into a worse predicament than we were in before the stimulus passed.

        Obama's stimulus beginning to drag economy down - Washington Times
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9598263].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          You really have no idea how the economy works do you?

          By the way - I've never heard of that website until you posted it here today. I may have to check it out.

          But I'm not the only one who realizes that Obama's stimulus will soon drag the economy down. Did you even read the next paragraph of the CBO report past the one that you quoted? It says:
          ARRA's long-run impact on the economy will stem primarily from the resulting increase in government debt.

          To the extent that people hold their wealth in government securities rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt tends to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital, CBO estimates...

          It says that in the long run each dollar of debt crowds out 33% of private domestic capital. That is a HUGE price to pay in anyone's book.

          Funny that you're even trying to argue this one, considering the fact that this report is proving itself true already in this weeks stock market activity.

          Many are even predicting that after the short term effects of the stimulus wears off that we'll be plunged into a worse predicament than we were in before the stimulus passed.

          Obama's stimulus beginning to drag economy down - Washington Times
          You forgot something, that THEY never dare mention! The government doesn't want to spend a PENNY! If a penny is "spent by the government", they simply fiddle with regulations and taxes to get it BACK from the tax payer. And that ALSO means they want still MORE for doing so.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9599220].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I forgot ANOTHER thing! If TL were RIGHT, the US credit rating would be as high as ever! IT ISN'T! It is LOWER than ever! BTW Chicago is "3 levels above JUNK"! That is a QUOTE from the latest news. OH, JUNK pays a LOT! If you luck out, you can do well. The REASON is because it is SOOOO risky, that investors demand more to invest in it.

    Anyone remember milken?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9599225].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      I forgot ANOTHER thing! If TL were RIGHT, the US credit rating would be as high as ever!

      IT ISN'T! It is LOWER than ever! BTW Chicago is "3 levels above JUNK"! That is a QUOTE from the latest news. OH, JUNK pays a LOT! If you luck out, you can do well. The REASON is because it is SOOOO risky, that investors demand more to invest in it.

      Anyone remember milken?

      Michael Milken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Steve
      Wasn't our credit rating downgraded for the first time in history after one of those debt ceiling fiascoes?

      I guess you forgot about that.

      It was another economic self-inflicted wound by you know who but I guess you'll argue over the cause of the downgrade.

      "The debt-limit standoff in 2011 led Standard & Poor's to lower its U.S. credit rating to AA+ from AAA.

      It was the first downgrade in the nation's history."

      Fitch takes U.S. credit rating off downgrade watch after debt deal - LA Times
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9599878].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Wasn't our credit rating downgraded for the first time in history after one of those debt ceiling fiascoes?

        I guess you forgot about that.

        It was another economic self-inflicted wound by you know who but I guess you'll argue over the cause of the downgrade.

        "The debt-limit standoff in 2011 led Standard & Poor's to lower its U.S. credit rating to AA+ from AAA.

        It was the first downgrade in the nation's history."

        Fitch takes U.S. credit rating off downgrade watch after debt deal - LA Times
        As I told you then, the Debt Ceiling is EXACTLY what the name implies! A CREDIT LIMIT!!!!!!!!! This would be like a kid saying that he didn't kill another kid because you didn't drain the pool before the kid drowned, even though HE was holding the kids head under water.

        NOW, and PLEASE read this next one carefully:

        S&P Official: U.S. Downgrade Was Due in Part to Debt-Ceiling Brawl - WSJ

        SUMMARY:

        S&P on Friday lowered its rating of long-term U.S. debt from AAA to AA+, saying the trajectory of future U.S. debt was unsustainable. It broke from rivals Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, which have recently upheld their top-notch ratings for U.S. debt despite concerns about future problems.
        WAIT! BUT....BUT....BUT.... YOU said that wasn't the case! I could say more, but let's just say that the rating companies did this ONLY to curtail it, and be honest. If they had any other motives, they would not have done it, because it would be like shooting themselves, and YKW will ALWAYS be considered blameless to his supporters.

        Steve.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9599992].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    This is good news...(to most people)

    Unemployment Benefits Applications Fall To 14-Year Low
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9600087].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Stewart
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      This is good news...(to most people)

      Unemployment Benefits Applications Fall To 14-Year Low
      That's because many people have simply run out of benefits and many others are underemployed. The average person is saying "okay, my unemployment benefits are finally gone and I have no choice but to go from my comfortable middle class income to taking whatever I can. Still, I can't find full-time employment because no one wants to pay for my benefits, so I'll have to work a part-time job for now, get food stamps and apply for government healthcare."

      So the unemployment benefits are no longer showing up in their statistics, but the food stamp and medical applications are on the rise. If someone can find part-time employment that pays $200-$300 per week (usually near the maximum amount of unemployment benefits) they'd actually be in better shape financially, depending on their family size.

      I read yesterday that under the current conditions, by 2017 millions of people will choose to remain on or get on government benefits because it will be more beneficial for them than finding a job, especially if they have a family.

      Crazy stuff.

      If anyone has watched the video I shared above it explains a lot about how the numbers are skewed. The American public is only being told what the government thinks we should know.
      Signature

      My New "Share All" Blog Is Coming Soon! Online & Offline Marketing, More!

      http://www.UnCENTSored.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9600175].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Joe Stewart View Post

        That's because many people have simply run out of benefits and many others are underemployed.

        The average person is saying "okay, my unemployment benefits are finally gone and I have no choice but to go from my comfortable middle class income to taking whatever I can. Still, I can't find full-time employment because no one wants to pay for my benefits, so I'll have to work a part-time job for now, get food stamps and apply for government healthcare."

        So the unemployment benefits are no longer showing up in their statistics, but the food stamp and medical applications are on the rise. If someone can find part-time employment that pays $200-$300 per week (usually near the maximum amount of unemployment benefits) they'd actually be in better shape financially, depending on their family size.

        I read yesterday that under the current conditions, by 2017 millions of people will choose to remain on or get on government benefits because it will be more beneficial for them than finding a job, especially if they have a family.

        Crazy stuff.

        If anyone has watched the video I shared above it explains a lot about how the numbers are skewed. The American public is only being told what the government thinks we should know.

        I thought the number in question was new applications filed for unemployment compensation per week and...

        "The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications for unemployment aid fell 23,000 to a seasonally adjusted 264,000, the lowest level since April 2000."

        Wow, it's a big, populous country, 264K filed for benefits and I didn't know that number wasn't simply those that lost a job and now they seek unemployment protection benefits and I never said it was a pretty picture out here but I thought it was good news nevertheless.

        - I'll admit that I didn't watch the video.

        You alluded that the video claims we're being lied to on some key numbers right?

        Could you quickly highlight a few major numbers from the video?

        Speaking of unemployment benefits...

        ... I'd like to know if you agree with the folks on the hill cutting off at least 2 million Americans from unemployment benefits. In prior recessions the nation would carry those folks until the unemployment rate dropped to a certain point - but not anymore - at least not lately.

        About two million people who had jobs will be spending a lot less money into the American economy.

        I also heard the cost to the nation would be around 30Billion per year.

        Anyways...

        - You also expressed concern that many more folks will opt out of looking for work and become freeloaders off the system right?

        I hear you and I personally don't think that problem will be as big a problem as some folks think it will be.

        But time will tell.

        I also have a question for you.

        I'm wondering if (in your mind) there is such a thing as a corporate freeloader?
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9600613].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Originally Posted by Joe Stewart View Post

        ... but the food stamp and medical applications are on the rise.
        Food stamps are actually going down Joe.

        The labor force is still weak and is the main reason interest rates are still low, but this latest report about unemployment applications going down is good news as it is a direct reflection of layoffs. Also, those who are leaving the labor force now are largely the baby boomers retiring. From 2007 to 2011 a good portion of those leaving the labor force were discouraged workers but that isn't the case now. Some of those who left the labor force are coming back and that was shown in a jobs/unemployment report a couple months ago when although there were over 200,000 jobs added the unemployment rate went up.


        You are right about many americans being underemployed, but that number has been going down also. Gallop tracks the underemployed and it shows it has gone from about 20% in Feb 2010 to a current 15.1%

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/ga...workforce.aspx
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9600658].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Food stamps are actually going down Joe.

          The labor force is still weak and is the main reason interest rates are still low, but this latest report about unemployment applications going down is good news as it is a direct reflection of layoffs. Also, those who are leaving the labor force now are largely the baby boomers.

          From 2007 to 2011 a good portion of those leaving the labor force were discouraged workers but that isn't the case now. Some of those who left the labor force are coming back and that was shown in a jobs/unemployment report a couple months ago when although there were over 200,000 jobs added the unemployment rate went up.
          I'm not sure what he means by medical applications are up but since the ACA kicked in I think that would be accurate.

          I wonder if he's interested in any type of plan/set of policies to get the economy going again or he's a "buy and holder" that is of the opinion like Gary and Seasoned and Steve J. and many others around here ...

          ...that nothing should be done and let the chips fall where they may?


          Tim, its been a slow, ugly recovery but that is to be expected thanks to a gaggle of self inflicted kamikaze attacks on the economy.

          At least the economy is not getting worse and who knows with the house, senate and the POTUS on our side this bad boy called the American economy just might get jump-started for another real post WW2 boom soon.


          BTW...

          Can you believe Gary's still saying we shouldn't have done the stimulus?

          I think he also said the 2nd Iraq war was the right thing to do.

          I wonder if Gary's also against the mortgage tax deduction like Steve J. is.


          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9600736].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Can you believe Gary's still saying we shouldn't have done the stimulus?
            Yes, I can.
            Signature
            Over 50 Dating
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9600831].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


            Can you believe Gary's still saying we shouldn't have done the stimulus?
            I'm not the only one. In fact - by this Admin's own predictions given back in 2009 the stimulus was a failure. According to their own chart - without the stimulus we'd be at 5% by now:



            http://www.thompson.com/images/thomp...onplanjan9.pdf

            This chart came from the Vice President's office when the President put him in charge of pushing the Stimulus plan.

            Those who still think that the stimulus was a success are only those blinded by their ideology. In their minds, things will have always been worse - even if by their own past predictions they've failed.


            So I'm not the only one. So far I've given you the CBO's own report that shows it to be an albatross on the economy - and now the Vice-President's own prediction that not having the stimulus would have actually been better for the economy.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9600932].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              I'm not the only one. In fact - by this Admin's own predictions given back in 2009 the stimulus was a failure. According to their own chart - without the stimulus we'd be at 5% by now:



              http://www.thompson.com/images/thomp...onplanjan9.pdf

              This chart came from the Vice President's office when the President put him in charge of pushing the Stimulus plan.

              Those who still think that the stimulus was a success are only those blinded by their ideology.

              In their minds, things will have always been worse - even if by their own past predictions they've failed.


              So I'm not the only one. So far I've given you the CBO's own report that shows it to be an albatross on the economy - and now the Vice-President's own prediction that not having the stimulus would have actually been better for the economy.

              I wouldn't call a forecast of zero to a .02 decrease in long term economic output an albatross on the back of the economy and neither did the CBO director - but you seem to be happy doing so.

              Remember zero could mean no effect at all.

              And I wouldn't call the long term loss of about 300 billion in private loans (from the 800 billion for the stimulus) an albatross either -...

              ... neither did the CBO director - but you can if you like.


              You said...

              ...and now the Vice-President's own prediction that not having the stimulus would have actually been better for the economy.


              I say...

              If that's true then why is this on page 4 of the report?


              Real GDP (billions of chained 2000 $) Payroll Employment

              - Without Stimulus $11,770 133,876,000

              - With Stimulus $12,203 137,550,000



              And this..

              "First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large.

              The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007.

              In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more.

              Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million.

              As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%,...

              ... which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.1"

              Where are you getting your logic from?

              - No where in that quote above is there an indication that the authors believe the economy would be better off without the stimulus.

              - And just because the prediction of the report than unemployment would be at 5% at the end of 2014 was wrong does not in any way mean the stimulus was a failure - except in your world.


              - If the admin did anything wrong it was that it didn't fight for a much bigger and better targeted package ---

              ( but I also heard that in order to get those highly necessary 3 votes from the other party, the package was watered down as far as size and it wasn't as targeted as it could have been.)

              ... and they said after the fact that they didn't realize the situation was far worse than it was.

              Where are you getting your logic from?

              I get it Gary.

              It stems from the mind of a very frustrated person/group who must at all costs and beyond any reason attempt to remake reality and also diminish any and all achievements of this admin in order to better their chances of regaining the POTUS.

              That's what the leadership of your crowd is doing...


              ... but the minions like yourself...


              ...really actually believe the kaleidoscope of counterproductive wild and crazy stuff/lies your leadership spews on you to regurgitate on the public at large.


              From now on, as far as you, me and the stimulus is concerned - you are entitled.

              The floor is all yours.

              All The Best!

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9601231].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                You said...

                ...and now the Vice-President's own prediction that not having the stimulus would have actually been better for the economy.


                I say...

                If that's true

                If that's true? It's right there in the chart - it shows that Unemployment would be at 5% right now in 2014 without the stimulus. It's 2014 - we've had the stimulus - and unemployment is above 6%. So yes without a doubt my statement is true. There's no way for you to spin out of that no matter how you try. sorry. And yes I'm entitled.
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post



                ...really actually believe the kaleidoscope of counterproductive wild and crazy stuff your leadership spews on you to regurgitate on the public at large.


                From now on, as far as you, me and the stimulus is concerned - you are entitled.

                TL
                I don't actually listen to anyone on this. I watch the news, and look at the numbers and reports and can make a logical and educated hypothesis.

                I'm not like you - I don't frequent the far leaning political websites for talking points.


                And by the way - you never read the next paragraph from the CBO report did you? It says that in the long run each dollar of debt crowds out 33% of private domestic capital.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9601282].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    TL,

    You ARE incredible! Even with the facts, you keep repeating the same old dreck! You even change what you say to suit what you are talking about. One moment, you will say the economy is going great, people have work, are not underemployed, etc.... The NEXT moment, you will say that %^&*( caused a bad economy, lost jobs, etc...

    And I LOVE the part about how food stamps went down(Never mind that they have new names for them now), and say the reasons are other(HUH?), disabled(ever watch 60 minutes?), and retired(again, 60 minutes, and things like how it is more lucrative to get food stamps than "work" for minimum wage.

    And people throw numbers around like they can be quantified so easily. I can see the low numbers in the way companies act, cut backs, low estimates, etc... I can see unemployment through all the people out of work, and underemployment, etc.... Times when things are going well may be harder to see, and are certainly hard to quantify. The government often tries to depend on the quantity of scale. We ALL know that the country is VERY large, and so it needs a LOT. If 16,000,000,000,000 were directly applied solely to the people in the US, it would be like $48000 per individual. That sounds GREAT, until you realize that some people will need to be paid over $1,000,000, and you have to pay for materials and other non domestic goods. So what looks lik it might be paradise ends up being what we have. Unfortunately, some try to twist it around.

    BTW About that $5,000,000(or MORE if you want), check, when are you going to pay it? You know, $5000000 NOW is worth more than that next month. But YOU must know that!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9601913].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      TL,

      You ARE incredible! Even with the facts, you keep repeating the same old dreck! You even change what you say to suit what you are talking about. One moment, you will say the economy is going great, people have work, are not underemployed, etc.... The NEXT moment, you will say that %^&*( caused a bad economy, lost jobs, etc...

      And I LOVE the part about how food stamps went down(Never mind that they have new names for them now), and say the reasons are other(HUH?), disabled(ever watch 60 minutes?), and retired(again, 60 minutes, and things like how it is more lucrative to get food stamps than "work" for minimum wage.

      And people throw numbers around like they can be quantified so easily. I can see the low numbers in the way companies act, cut backs, low estimates, etc... I can see unemployment through all the people out of work, and underemployment, etc.... Times when things are going well may be harder to see, and are certainly hard to quantify. The government often tries to depend on the quantity of scale. We ALL know that the country is VERY large, and so it needs a LOT. If 16,000,000,000,000 were directly applied solely to the people in the US, it would be like $48000 per individual. That sounds GREAT, until you realize that some people will need to be paid over $1,000,000, and you have to pay for materials and other non domestic goods. So what looks lik it might be paradise ends up being what we have. Unfortunately, some try to twist it around.

      BTW About that $5,000,000(or MORE if you want), check, when are you going to pay it? You know, $5000000 NOW is worth more than that next month. But YOU must know that!

      Steve
      You are even more incredible than I am.

      You can't find me saying that the economy is great.

      Perhaps it is your imagination running away with you.

      Question for you...

      Are you saying you would have not enacted some sort of stimulus to counter the great recession back in early 2009?

      Are you on the same page as Gary - even for this?
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9602418].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        You are even more incredible than I am.

        You can't find me saying that the economy is great.

        Perhaps it is your imagination running away with you.

        Question for you...

        Are you saying you would have not enacted some sort of stimulus to counter the great recession back in early 2009?

        Are you on the same page as Gary - even for this?
        I wouldn't have needed the stimulus, because I would have told congress to NOT pass those laws about corporations, and/or the fed NOT to raise rates so, and congress to NOT require that "affirmative action" loan deal, etc.... Of course, there was only one other time, that I am aware of, that a person threw money at a depression, and THAT didn't work EITHER!

        THINK ABOUT IT! WHERE did the money come from? If from taxes, you STOLE prosperity, that may have prevented the situation, to pay for the current problem. If from intentional inflation, it is an ILLUSION that will bite the future on its rear..

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9602471].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          I wouldn't have needed the stimulus, because I would have told congress to NOT pass those laws about corporations, and/or the fed NOT to raise rates so, and congress to NOT require that "affirmative action" loan deal, etc.... Of course, there was only one other time, that I am aware of, that a person threw money at a depression, and THAT didn't work EITHER!

          THINK ABOUT IT! WHERE did the money come from? If from taxes, you STOLE prosperity, that may have prevented the situation, to pay for the current problem. If from intentional inflation, it is an ILLUSION that will bite the future on its rear..

          Steve

          Great dodge.

          It's a yes or no question.

          I repeat, would you have enacted a stimulus plan if you came into office in Jan 2009?
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9602602].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Great dodge.

            It's a yes or no question.

            I repeat, would you have enacted a stimulus plan if you came into office in Jan 2009?
            I effectively said *****NO!!!!*****! BTW Reagan didn't either!

            And maybe people today don't remember 1987. I DO! The problem was exacerbated because people had to sell EARLY! The markets couldn't keep up with the orders. TODAY, if we had a day like the 1980s, it would be SCARY SLOW! I mean it would be SO slow that people would be SCARED why there is no movement. It would be like a GHOST TOWN! But THEN, the computers and all simply couldn't keep up.

            About the only real change the Reagan admin put in, as I recall, was a curb. If the market moved more than $75, IIRC, trading was stopped to help match orders and limit losses. Of course, that was something I believe CLINTON removed. In 1933, in answer to THAT crash, there were a WHOLE bunch of lawsput into place. Clinton moved some of THEM also! BTW THAT helped make the 1987 drops WORSE, and allowed many to sidestep the law and get TARP money! You should HATE that! The money went to (AHEM) "BANKS"!!!!!

            But YEAH, it WAS a "great dodge"! Instead of directly answering your loaded question, I simply answered your question AND shot down its entire premise!

            And the 2007 deal was created by the 110th congress, which started in January 4, 2007. They forced people to allow people that couldn't afford homes to buy homes. THIS, together with earlier laws allowing bundles of mortgages to be sold in bonds as a class group, together with the myth of THIS being the American dream, being so safe, loan "officers" that lie, commissions, etc..... Set up a tsunami of situations that bankrupted NATIONS! But you can't blame bush for THAT! He may not have even had access to that bill, and another may have been extorted.

            BTW Have you read the new York times recently?

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9602688].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              I effectively said *****NO!!!!*****! BTW Reagan didn't either!

              And maybe people today don't remember 1987. I DO! The problem was exacerbated because people had to sell EARLY! The markets couldn't keep up with the orders. TODAY, if we had a day like the 1980s, it would be SCARY SLOW! I mean it would be SO slow that people would be SCARED why there is no movement. It would be like a GHOST TOWN! But THEN, the computers and all simply couldn't keep up.

              About the only real change the Reagan admin put in, as I recall, was a curb. If the market moved more than $75, IIRC, trading was stopped to help match orders and limit losses. Of course, that was something I believe CLINTON removed. In 1933, in answer to THAT crash, there were a WHOLE bunch of lawsput into place. Clinton moved some of THEM also! BTW THAT helped make the 1987 drops WORSE, and allowed many to sidestep the law and get TARP money! You should HATE that! The money went to (AHEM) "BANKS"!!!!!

              But YEAH, it WAS a "great dodge"! Instead of directly answering your loaded question, I simply answered your question AND shot down its entire premise!

              And the 2007 deal was created by the 110th congress, which started in January 4, 2007. They forced people to allow people that couldn't afford homes to buy homes. THIS, together with earlier laws allowing bundles of mortgages to be sold in bonds as a class group, together with the myth of THIS being the American dream, being so safe, loan "officers" that lie, commissions, etc..... Set up a tsunami of situations that bankrupted NATIONS! But you can't blame bush for THAT! He may not have even had access to that bill, and another may have been extorted.

              BTW Have you read the new York times recently?

              Steve

              Many people are trying to claim the recession of 1980-1982 was just as bad as the great recession but this chart shows differently.




              Perhaps the 1980-1982 stock market drop was greater (which you seem to want to concentrate on) than the drop in the market related to the great recession...

              ...but the total overall negative impact on the economy can not be seriously compared to the great recession which was clearly the greatest economic downturn in U.S. history - since the great depression.

              IMHO, its a desperate and childish gambit to downplay the scope of the problem so that any credit this or any admin should get for successfully combating the worst economic downturn since the great depression - will be diminished.

              But you go right ahead and live in your fantasy bubble with the rest of your friends.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9602729].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lptrendin
    Hello,
    What kind of crash are you talking about? Economic slowdown?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9602425].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by lptrendin View Post

      Hello,
      What kind of crash are you talking about? Economic slowdown?
      OH, TL is on the idea that we had a 1929 style crash, or even WORSE, and obamasingle handedly prevented it. HERE is a SHOCKER!

      QUICK! QUICK! *****QUICK***** WHO was the president when we had the BIGGEST LOSS as a percentage !?!?!?!? Here is a hint! Though theydidn'toften get the credit, it was caused by the fed and the secretary of state!

      Stock Market Crash History: The Dow's 10 Biggest One-Day Percentage Losses






      HAVEYOU GUESSED YET?






      OK, ANOTHER hint! It is a shocker, and NOT who you think!






      OK, it was RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!! 10/19/1987 with a 22.67 percent loss. The fed thought things were going too well, so they lowered the dollar, and talked about lowering it more, and they raised rates/

      OK! ANOTHER! What were the next THREE largest crashes, in a cluster, same year? The 1929-1933 crash, with a totaldrop of over 35%.

      So WHERE does the 10/15/2008 crash come in? A mere 7.87%

      WOW! BUSH didn't even make the list! Check out the graph!

      Dow Jones Industrial Average (2000 - Present Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9602529].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        OH, TL is on the idea that we had a 1929 style crash, or even WORSE, and obamasingle handedly prevented it. HERE is a SHOCKER!

        QUICK! QUICK! *****QUICK***** WHO was the president when we had the BIGGEST LOSS as a percentage !?!?!?!? Here is a hint! Though theydidn'toften get the credit, it was caused by the fed and the secretary of state!

        Stock Market Crash History: The Dow's 10 Biggest One-Day Percentage Losses








        HAVEYOU GUESSED YET?






        OK, ANOTHER hint! It is a shocker, and NOT who you think!






        OK, it was RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!! 10/19/1987 with a 22.67 percent loss. The fed thought things were going too well, so they lowered the dollar, and talked about lowering it more, and they raised rates/

        OK! ANOTHER! What were the next THREE largest crashes, in a cluster, same year? The 1929-1933 crash, with a totaldrop of over 35%.

        So WHERE does the 10/15/2008 crash come in? A mere 7.87%

        WOW! BUSH didn't even make the list! Check out the graph!

        Dow Jones Industrial Average (2000 - Present Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

        Steve

        I've been saying that the great recession could have turned into another great depression - not that it was as bad as 1929.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9602595].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    TL,

    GEE, you QUOTED it,why didn't you read it?

    And the 2007 deal was created by the 110th congress, which started in January 4, 2007. They forced people to allow people that couldn't afford homes to buy homes. THIS, together with earlier laws allowing bundles of mortgages to be sold in bonds as a class group, together with the myth of THIS being the American dream, being so safe, loan "officers" that lie, commissions, etc..... Set up a tsunami of situations that bankrupted NATIONS! But you can't blame bush for THAT! He may not have even had access to that bill, and another may have been extorted.
    I said it BANKRUPTED NATIONS! You think that is DOWNPLAYING? I gave you the WHO, WHY, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW! You are looking at the WRONG PLACE, PEOPLE, ETC....

    DON'T cause a problem, come up with a NON SOLUTION, and then blame someone else, and claim you fixed it. EVENTUALLY, it WILL backfire! And they have stretched this band out to an INCREDIBLE length! MANY have, at some point, openly STATED goals that they would earlier never have dared to. And some supporters that years ago supported them 300% are now RIDICULING them! Eventually, that band will break or be released,and neither will be good for those stretching it. BTW budget deficit timelines make for an interesting read!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9603178].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      TL,

      GEE, you QUOTED it,why didn't you read it?



      I said it BANKRUPTED NATIONS! You think that is DOWNPLAYING? I gave you the WHO, WHY, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW! You are looking at the WRONG PLACE, PEOPLE, ETC....

      DON'T cause a problem, come up with a NON SOLUTION, and then blame someone else, and claim you fixed it. EVENTUALLY, it WILL backfire! And they have stretched this band out to an INCREDIBLE length! MANY have, at some point, openly STATED goals that they would earlier never have dared to. And some supporters that years ago supported them 300% are now RIDICULING them! Eventually, that band will break or be released,and neither will be good for those stretching it. BTW budget deficit timelines make for an interesting read!

      Steve
      Read what?

      OK, so your claim that the recession of 81-82 was just as bad as the great recession was easily debunked, ...

      ...so now we move on to the causes of the great recession right?


      No problem.

      First of all, there's plenty of blame to go around but I see you still choose to ignore one of the biggest players involved.

      And I see you still choose to blame everything on a couple million people who purchased homes they couldn't really afford instead of choosing to include the firms on wall street who (did not have to) ...

      ...created financial instruments such as derivatives that backfired on them and lead to a extra serious recession.

      The actions of the street were like throwing gasoline on a fire - they made a bad situation much, much worse.

      I say...

      A couple million bad housing loans would not have generated the great recession and would have only returned the housing market to normalcy - after a normal type of readjustment of the economy.

      But with wall street playing fast and loose with a bunch of bad mortgages - when they did not have to, that is what turned what would have been a normal recession into the great recession.

      Let's try to remember that wall street did not have to create those exotic financial instruments that backfired on them and kicked the recession into the great recession.
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9609066].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Read what?
        You quoted it yet AGAIN!

        OK, so your claim that the recession of 81-82 was just as bad as the great recession was easily debunked, ...
        First of all, there's plenty of blame to go around but I see you still choose to ignore one of the biggest players involved.
        NOPE! YOU are the one blaming the biggest players

        And I see you still choose to blame everything on a couple million people who purchased homes they couldn't really afford instead of choosing to include the firms on wall street who (did not have to) ...
        It seems like it was MORE than a couple million, but credit made it WORSE! Some home owners invested in things, loaned money, etc....and THAT dried up! BANKS had to change risk profiles, and THAT dried up. Some investors saw their investments go down, and THAT dried up. It MUSHROOMS! So even a couple million can add up. DON'T YOU REMEMBER? Banks got hurt, and the government had to help liquidity, and passed rules to try to help credit availability! HECK, some of the people that coud no longer afford their homes were MILLIONARES! They bought bigger homes because they had more credit, etc...

        And what of retirees? Some of them are business owners! MANY have BONDS, because they are supposed to be so safe. Those BONDS lost value and some became WORTHLESS! So THEY may have had to cut back, etc... Some of their EMPLOYEES may have been homeowners. This MUSHROOMS!

        You DO know that an atomic explosion is INFINITESSIMAL, right? I mean it is a JOKE! You might not even HEAR it or see it! Even the famous E=Mc2 shows how TINY it is! SURE, c is GIGANTIC, and squaring makes it that much larger, but M is INCREDIBLY tiny. When he made the formula, I don't even think he could even have a HOPE to ever see it. And trying to create the explosion is difficult. They have a HUGE explosive to create the tiniest little thing. But because the mass is so tiny, they can pack a bigger amount of it. And they are not really trying to create a nuclear explosion, but create the tiniest of little fizzles that sends off neutrons that make a few more fizzles, which is what is known as a CHAIN reaction! What you see isn't one explosion. It is BILLIONS of little fizzles that happen at almost the speed of light. HECK, light a match to a barbeque, the same sort of thing happens. With some fluorescent lights you can easily see what happens.

        Even that famous mushroom cloud starts with something less than a WHIMPER! These crashes happen the SAME way!

        ...created financial instruments such as derivatives that backfired on them and lead to a extra serious recession.
        NICE TRY! I was working on such things in the 90s! They had been around a LONG time before this happened. ALSO, many paid constant interest. They were ranked by RISK, but the CONGRESSIONAL laws messed up the risk profiles. So people bought securities that were supposed to be FAR less risky!

        The actions of the street were like throwing gasoline on a fire - they made a bad situation much, much worse.
        If a person goes bankrupt, or loses money on an investment, they often sell it. That spreads the risk. HECK, THAT is why a bank forecloses! They don't get the money they were promised, so the value of the asset drops. They then FORECLOSE so they can try to sell the home t recover SOMETHING! If they lose too much, they have to make more money elsewhere just to break even.

        A couple million bad housing loans would not have generated the great recession and would have only returned the housing market to normalcy - after a normal type of readjustment of the economy.
        You think that if say over 5% or more of homes, in addition to whatever the normal rate is, were foreclosed on that it would HELP the economy? NOW I HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING! BESIDES, YOUR side as gone on record saying EVERYONE should own their own home.

        But with wall street playing fast and loose with a bunch of bad mortgages - when they did not have to, that is what turned what would have been a normal recession into the great recession.

        Let's try to remember that wall street did not have to create those exotic financial instruments that backfired on them and kicked the recession into the great recession.
        And WHERE do you think that money went? The exotic instruments were created to try to get more money out of BONDS! If they didn't have BONDS, retirees would be poorer, there would be fewer businesses, and you can forget about home ownership. I wonder, are you still paying for those homes? If so, I bet there are bonds out there that LITERALLY have your name on them! Maybe not on the BOND itself, but with the paperwork that follows the base assets that go with them. Look at mcdonalds, for example, they are big enough that their name IS printed on the bonds.

        And what are YOU worried about anyway? You said YOURSELF that it was ONLY 2 million people or so! So how could THEY affect the market? NOPE! A temperature a few degrees too hot is no big deal. A couple too many people pulling out an asset or going under is no big deal. Two little pests in a place are no big deal. A termite certainly couldn't do any damage to a home! One atom losing integrity is no big deal.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9609210].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pauljones99
    NO. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS. It's like people need to worry about something no matter what the conditions are. Markets/companies/countries will boom and bust. Like always.
    Signature

    One stock at a time
    www.investmentswithadifference.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9604722].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by pauljones99 View Post

      NO. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS. It's like people need to worry about something no matter what the conditions are. Markets/companies/countries will boom and bust. Like always.
      ********WRONG SIDE*********! NOPE! It is like SOME people want to be lazy bums and STEAL, which means others HAVE to do this! If a country fails, the citizens often have hard times as well! If a company fails, those using it have to change. Since it is impossible to live a decent life in places like the US for most people, they DEPEND on the economic markets just to break even! If the market fails, THEY do ALSO! Social Security is a PIDDLING amount! It isn't even worth as much as minimum wage to most people.

      Try this experiment.

      1.Get a nice friendly Doberman.
      2.Feed it JUST enough to keep it happy
      3. Pick a day or two to not take it outside.
      4. Beat it if it goes to the bathroom in the house.
      5.Insist that it give you a 30% tax on all food.
      6. When it doesn't PAY you, hit it, and take 50% of the food.
      7. If you can, come back here and tell us the hilarious results!

      SOME will think what I just said is cruel and inhumane. It IS! I do NOT want you to do it. But IMAGINE what might happen to that lovable dog. It might get scared, and rip you to shreds! And if THAT is inhumane, WHY is it allowed with humans? You are just playing the part of a lot of the "benevolent" governments out there. China may keep you in all your life, and not feed you as much.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9605290].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    If you believe wall street can be held blameless and had no real impact on the greatest economic downturn in American history since the great depression - you are entitled.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9609450].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      If you believe wall street can be held blameless and had now real impact on the greatest economic downturn in American history since the great depression - you are entitled.
      I forgot to state the neatest little thing! What they did around 2007, to credit, they have now done to HEALTHCARE! They have done essentially the SAME thing in the SAME way for the SAME "reason", and it is based on the SAME false premise! IMAGINE! If things ran at the same speed(unfortunately they probably won't), we can expect a disaster by this time next year.

      Of course, I have been predicting 2019-2024, give or take a few years, simply because that is when the government said they will check and make sure the disaster happens. I figure the second "audit", originally slated for 2024, will be the final nail in the coffin. Of course, they DO have 2029, 2034,etc..., in case it isn't. They DESCRIBE what will happen "IF", but you can see by reading earlier parts that "IF" means "WHEN", and they don't state the scope, but earlier portions indicate it will be everything. And it is for the SAME reasons that the other things failed, and that garbage in 2008 happened, and that Russia and all the communist countries have had all the problems, etc..... IT IS *******UNSUSTAINABLE*******!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9609559].message }}

Trending Topics