Dow plummeting towards 11,000

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Buy gold.
Buy silver (especially).

Sleep tight.

Amen, we haven't seen nothin' yet, hold onto your shorts folks, and be prepared to watch the baby boomers get poor.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Buy gold.
Buy silver (especially).

Sleep tight.

who would have imagined all those late-night infomercials would have been right. :laugh:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Remember, the vast majority of the increase in the price of oil has been caused by the fall of the dollar, not a rise in the value of oil.

wrong answer.

please have your friend look up the word "speculation"...

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: JS80
Citigroup bankruptcy within 1.5 years. Mark this post.

Can you please elaborate? This really worries me since most of my parent's savings are in Citibank

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I just asked my friend what he would do to fix things...

start cutting taxes left and right - the only way to grow without inflation is from innovations so you have to reduce the cost of development. Also would cut government spending because of course inflation is just a hidden tax. The first place where spending would get cut would be in Iraq of course - ie, bring troops home within one month and not drop another dime there. Second place would be "drug" war.Then, we would legalize competing currencies so Fed Reserve mistakes have less of an impact on the market. Now, there is no avoiding a market correction - if there is a bubble, it has to deflate one way or another. But these are all steps that would increase long term growth and reduce the risk of the next bubble occurring. Remember, the vast majority of the increase in the price of oil has been caused by the fall of the dollar, not a rise in the value of oil.

Competing currencies... what?
And you're DEAD WRONG on the latter, crude has been climbing in all denominations. Dollar has declined some 13% against a basket, crude is up over 100% YoY

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well I don't know how you all are fairing but I just got my 401K statement yesterday and I am taking a beating.

I'm debating on whether to stop contributing until things turn around and rolling it over into something else.

I know. Every time my local store has a sale, I tell my wife we better not buy any groceries this week! I only buy items when they are high-priced!

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well I don't know how you all are fairing but I just got my 401K statement yesterday and I am taking a beating.

I'm debating on whether to stop contributing until things turn around and rolling it over into something else.

I know. Every time my local store has a sale, I tell my wife we better not buy any groceries this week! I only buy items when they are high-priced!

LOL, you suck at dollar cost averaging your groceries

 

[miketheidiot]

this thread is a flaming pile of stupidity

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I just asked my friend what he would do to fix things...

start cutting taxes left and right - the only way to grow without inflation is from innovations so you have to reduce the cost of development. Also would cut government spending because of course inflation is just a hidden tax. The first place where spending would get cut would be in Iraq of course - ie, bring troops home within one month and not drop another dime there. Second place would be "drug" war. Then, we would legalize competing currencies so Fed Reserve mistakes have less of an impact on the market. Now, there is no avoiding a market correction - if there is a bubble, it has to deflate one way or another. But these are all steps that would increase long term growth and reduce the risk of the next bubble occurring. Remember, the vast majority of the increase in the price of oil has been caused by the fall of the dollar, not a rise in the value of oil.

Are you a fucking moron?


Your last point highlights it as fact. Since Nov 2001, oil has gone up 620%. The dollar has fallen 35%.

Thus, using simple math, 35/620 = 5%. The falling dollar has only had a 5% effect on oil.

Idiot.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: JS80
Citigroup bankruptcy within 1.5 years. Mark this post.

Care to make a wager on that?

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: JS80
Citigroup bankruptcy within 1.5 years. Mark this post.

Care to make a wager on that?

how bout one of you buy and one of you short Citi?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
this thread is a flaming pile of stupidity

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: JS80
Citigroup bankruptcy within 1.5 years. Mark this post.

Care to make a wager on that?

how bout one of you buy and one of you short Citi?

How about I buy C Jan 2010 5.0000 put (WRVMZ.X) and jman19 writes it?

 

[sportage]

Retirement Planning

If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00.

With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1000.00.

With $1000.00 WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left.

If you had purchased $1000 of Delta Air Lines stock, you would have $49.00 left.

But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer/wine one year ago, drank all the beer/wine, then turned in the cans/bottles for the aluminum and glass recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.00.

Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to Drink heavily and recycle.

 

[nageov3t]

lol... I've really been doing my best to not even look at my 401K statements.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
The President does the economic planning and frames the budget, while Congress studies and votes upon the proposals.

Just because techs is a hack doesn't mean you both need to be too.
However, his argument of deficit spending is correct in that this was probably the single most important factor playing into the current situation, albeit amidst countless other factors.

How does what I said make me a hack? I pointed out how ridiculous it is to even say that the president is responsible for the economy when his job has nothing to do with the economy. The job of the president is to enforce laws. The job of the legislature, whether or not they choose to actually do it, is to propose and pass laws, including budgets. The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today is that everyone, even you apparently, seems to forget that and everything gets blamed on the president. Why don't we just do away with the legislature altogether if we want it to be a one man show? Or, why don't we hold accountable those who actually are responsible for these things rather than trying to force the president to be a king?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
there was no toilet paper in the men's restroom stall today. Damn you Bush, Damn you! Thanks for nothing.

Print your post out, it's perfect for it.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: boomerang
Look at the chart of the DJI since the thirties and look at the trend. What's happening now is just a small blip.

DJI

Stay the course. Don't look at your statements if it's going to throw you into a tizzy.

It's a GREAT time to buy.

I would wait to see if it falls below 11 000 first. Its not so visible on your chart, but look at this one DJ 10 years

There is a head-shoulder pattern beeing drawn now, and the first part of the broad neck line starts at 11 000. If 11 000 and then 10 500 is broken the potential is a fall down to 7500 - 8000 as it where in 2002-2003.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
The President does the economic planning and frames the budget, while Congress studies and votes upon the proposals.

Just because techs is a hack doesn't mean you both need to be too.
However, his argument of deficit spending is correct in that this was probably the single most important factor playing into the current situation, albeit amidst countless other factors.

How does what I said make me a hack? I pointed out how ridiculous it is to even say that the president is responsible for the economy when his job has nothing to do with the economy. The job of the president is to enforce laws. The job of the legislature, whether or not they choose to actually do it, is to propose and pass laws, including budgets. The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today is that everyone, even you apparently, seems to forget that and everything gets blamed on the president. Why don't we just do away with the legislature altogether if we want it to be a one man show? Or, why don't we hold accountable those who actually are responsible for these things rather than trying to force the president to be a king?

The President, as chief executive, proposes the budget.

I corrected your misleading statement. Straw men like I want a king were completely unnecessary.

And more to the point, both the executive and the legislative were controlled by the same party for the first 6 years of Bush's admin, with the first budget approved by the new Dem-majority (barely) congress not coming into effect until this October.

The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today IMO is that people are always trying to spin the facts to suit their own purposes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
The President does the economic planning and frames the budget, while Congress studies and votes upon the proposals.

Just because techs is a hack doesn't mean you both need to be too.
However, his argument of deficit spending is correct in that this was probably the single most important factor playing into the current situation, albeit amidst countless other factors.

How does what I said make me a hack? I pointed out how ridiculous it is to even say that the president is responsible for the economy when his job has nothing to do with the economy. The job of the president is to enforce laws. The job of the legislature, whether or not they choose to actually do it, is to propose and pass laws, including budgets. The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today is that everyone, even you apparently, seems to forget that and everything gets blamed on the president. Why don't we just do away with the legislature altogether if we want it to be a one man show? Or, why don't we hold accountable those who actually are responsible for these things rather than trying to force the president to be a king?

The President, as chief executive, proposes the budget.

I corrected your misleading statement. Straw men like I want a king were completely unnecessary.

And more to the point, both the executive and the legislative were controlled by the same party for the first 6 years of Bush's admin, with the first budget approved by the new Dem-majority (barely) congress not coming into effect until this October.

The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today IMO is that people are always trying to spin the facts to suit their own purposes.

But speaking of spin, you are usually pretty level headed in your view of the political climate, but you appear to be falling into that spin trap as of late.


The current economic climate is largely caused by the high price of oil. Is the current admin responsible for that, yes to some extent, but the answer remains largely no. The price of oil has more to do with 7million(and rising quickly) cars being sold in china a year and aging oil fields that have not received the investment they need from state owned oil companies.

You can fault bush and republicans for excessive spending, but that has little to do with the price of oil. But you would be fooling yourself if you think the dems would have done any better on spending, the last budget proves they would not. You can fault him for a weak dollar, but that has positive side effects as well.
You can fault him for the ethanol debacle, but that was popular with both parties.
You cant fault him for trying to increase domestic supply, which has largely been beat down by the democrats.
You can cant fault him for improving cafe standards(twice), you can argue they are too weak, but gas prices are having a far larger impact than cafe ever did.

And in case you missed it, in a recent survey HMOs are now more respected than congress.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Even if you just look at Bush's responsibility to execute the law, his policies have damaged the economy. His "hands off" attitude toward regulation has allowed the banking industry to shoot themselves in the foot. Oil industry. Commodities market. Foreign trade. Farming. Bottomless money pit in Iraq.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
The President does the economic planning and frames the budget, while Congress studies and votes upon the proposals.

Just because techs is a hack doesn't mean you both need to be too.
However, his argument of deficit spending is correct in that this was probably the single most important factor playing into the current situation, albeit amidst countless other factors.

How does what I said make me a hack? I pointed out how ridiculous it is to even say that the president is responsible for the economy when his job has nothing to do with the economy. The job of the president is to enforce laws. The job of the legislature, whether or not they choose to actually do it, is to propose and pass laws, including budgets. The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today is that everyone, even you apparently, seems to forget that and everything gets blamed on the president. Why don't we just do away with the legislature altogether if we want it to be a one man show? Or, why don't we hold accountable those who actually are responsible for these things rather than trying to force the president to be a king?

The President, as chief executive, proposes the budget.

I corrected your misleading statement. Straw men like I want a king were completely unnecessary.

And more to the point, both the executive and the legislative were controlled by the same party for the first 6 years of Bush's admin, with the first budget approved by the new Dem-majority (barely) congress not coming into effect until this October.

The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today IMO is that people are always trying to spin the facts to suit their own purposes.

But speaking of spin, you are usually pretty level headed in your view of the political climate, but you appear to be falling into that spin trap as of late.


The current economic climate is largely caused by the high price of oil. Is the current admin responsible for that, yes to some extent, but the answer remains largely no. The price of oil has more to do with 7million(and rising quickly) cars being sold in china a year and aging oil fields that have not received the investment they need from state owned oil companies.

You can fault bush and republicans for excessive spending, but that has little to do with the price of oil. But you would be fooling yourself if you think the dems would have done any better on spending, the last budget proves they would not. You can fault him for a weak dollar, but that has positive side effects as well.
You can fault him for the ethanol debacle, but that was popular with both parties.
You cant fault him for trying to increase domestic supply, which has largely been beat down by the democrats.
You can cant fault him for improving cafe standards(twice), you can argue they are too weak, but gas prices are having a far larger impact than cafe ever did.

And in case you missed it, in a recent survey HMOs are now more respected than congress.

I can fault him for his stupid fucking Middle East meddling policy which created tons of instability in the region and lots of the rheortic that we're seeing from those countries that driving crude through the roof.

As for the Democrats spending, the difference is that they tell you they are going to spend and they raise taxes to pay for "more" of it unlike BushCo and the GOP who has spend just as much (if not more) than the Dems do and cut taxes like hell. Adding 4 trillion to a 5.6 trillion debt (9.6 or higher when he leaves) isn't chicken feed and is helping to undermine the dollar (yes, positive side effects but not enough to overcome the higher oil - i.e. see trade deficit and see how that's going).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
The President does the economic planning and frames the budget, while Congress studies and votes upon the proposals.

Just because techs is a hack doesn't mean you both need to be too.
However, his argument of deficit spending is correct in that this was probably the single most important factor playing into the current situation, albeit amidst countless other factors.

How does what I said make me a hack? I pointed out how ridiculous it is to even say that the president is responsible for the economy when his job has nothing to do with the economy. The job of the president is to enforce laws. The job of the legislature, whether or not they choose to actually do it, is to propose and pass laws, including budgets. The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today is that everyone, even you apparently, seems to forget that and everything gets blamed on the president. Why don't we just do away with the legislature altogether if we want it to be a one man show? Or, why don't we hold accountable those who actually are responsible for these things rather than trying to force the president to be a king?

The President, as chief executive, proposes the budget.

I corrected your misleading statement. Straw men like I want a king were completely unnecessary.

And more to the point, both the executive and the legislative were controlled by the same party for the first 6 years of Bush's admin, with the first budget approved by the new Dem-majority (barely) congress not coming into effect until this October.

The biggest problem with the political situation in this country today IMO is that people are always trying to spin the facts to suit their own purposes.

But speaking of spin, you are usually pretty level headed in your view of the political climate, but you appear to be falling into that spin trap as of late.


The current economic climate is largely caused by the high price of oil. Is the current admin responsible for that, yes to some extent, but the answer remains largely no. The price of oil has more to do with 7million(and rising quickly) cars being sold in china a year and aging oil fields that have not received the investment they need from state owned oil companies.

You can fault bush and republicans for excessive spending, but that has little to do with the price of oil. But you would be fooling yourself if you think the dems would have done any better on spending, the last budget proves they would not. You can fault him for a weak dollar, but that has positive side effects as well.
You can fault him for the ethanol debacle, but that was popular with both parties.
You cant fault him for trying to increase domestic supply, which has largely been beat down by the democrats.
You can cant fault him for improving cafe standards(twice), you can argue they are too weak, but gas prices are having a far larger impact than cafe ever did.

And in case you missed it, in a recent survey HMOs are now more respected than congress.

I can fault him for his stupid fucking Middle East meddling policy which created tons of instability in the region and lots of the rheortic that we're seeing from those countries that driving crude through the roof.

And Iraq is currently pumping about 2.5M barrels a day now, so that is not really a root cause of high oil prices now either.

As for the Democrats spending, the difference is that they tell you they are going to spend and they raise taxes to pay for "more" of it unlike BushCo and the GOP who has spend just as much (if not more) than the Dems do and cut taxes like hell. Adding 4 trillion to a 5.6 trillion debt (9.6 or higher when he leaves) isn't chicken feed and is helping to undermine the dollar (yes, positive side effects but not enough to overcome the higher oil - i.e. see trade deficit and see how that's going).

And debt ratios are not all that bad either. They only differ a few point over the last 7 years. And in case you have not noticed, the dollar has been on the rebound as of late and has not made oil drop any. The weak dollar has very little to do with the price of the oil.

I wish the democrats luck on passing tax hikes in the current economic conditions.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic
$ 9 , 3 7 2 , 3 0 1 , 6 3 7 , 9 9 0 . 7 4

The estimated population of the United States is 304,250,932 so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,806.82

That is pretty alarming to me.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
And Iraq is currently pumping about 2.5M barrels a day now, so that is not really a root cause of high oil prices now either.

Wow, back to prewar production levels. Oh, and it isn't just about Iraq either, it's abou the Middle East in general. The geopolitical tensions in that region are a big part of ammunition for the traders/speculators to be driving oil where it is now.