Economy:4-4-07 Rich lose confidence in stock market

Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: Vic

You're looking at it from a lopsided point of view. Economies are not static, the amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.

I agree with you that wealth does not exist in static quantities and that wealth first has to be produced before it can be begged for or stolen. (Remember, I used to go around hitting people upside the head with hardcover copies of Atlas Shrugged.)

They're not "leaching off us," it's mutually beneficial, as free trade generally is (who would freely and knowingly enter into a trade agreement that hoses them?). They get more jobs and higher wages than they had before, with massive investment in their infrastructure, we get cheaper goods and open up larger markets that were not previously capable of purchasing our products.

And...what do we get? Cheaper goods--at what expense? At the cost of lower middle class and middle class jobs?

If free trade is always necesarily beneficial and if all international trade is necessarily an instance of comparative advantage, then why has our trade deficit been skyrocketing in recent years and why has the U.S. economy failed to produce jobs in import-export sensitive areas? Is it possible that what we are witnessing is not comparative advantage but rather an instance of absolute advantage?

You say that we are opening up their markets to our goods (assuming that these nations would relax their own trade protections), but why would they purchase goods and services produced by expensive American labor when (1) they can produce them less expensively themselves and (2) as a result of having lower wages they couldn't afford to purchase American-produced goods and services in any significant quantity?

Granted there are larger issues, like the environment as you mentioned, but no amount of tariffs will ever resolve that issue. If they can't be forced to be more green through international pressures, then it is a certainty that with economic advancement and prosperity, their increasingly educated populaces will demand more environmental protection, just like every other developed country in the world already has.

Oh--and I would tend to agree with you that eventually, over time, if all of these nations adopted free market economies and that if we had unrestricted international trade that the end result of global labor arbitrage would be an averaging out of the standard of living worldwide and that the standards of living in these other countries could rise to the standard of living in the U.S., preventing any further declines in the standard of living. So, eventually the U.S. wouldn't need to lower its environmental standards in order to compete because other countries would have similarly high standards.

That's just wonderful and it gives us all warm-fuzzy feelings. Unfortunately, because the overwhelming majority of the world's 6.5 billion people are deeply impoverished, it could take centuries before global labor arbitrage becomes an insignificant force and before the American standard of living returns to its previous high. That will be great 300 years from now.

However, in the meantime, if you're going to live the bulk of your adult life over the next 50 years it's going to suck as the U.S. standard of living is dragged down to meet the standard of living in the third world.

Of course, you know my prediction: The United States is going to become an overpopulated, impoverished third world country as a result of the popularly-held morality of altruism, a lack of any sense of rational selfish economic interest, and a failure of the populace to understand basic economic principles while embracing free trade dogma.

Not in our lifetimes, and certainly not in our children's either. Perhaps you need to travel to a few 3rd world countries to understand what REAL poverty is. The percentage of families living in extreme poverty is astronomicaly low. Im not blowing my own horn or anything, but my passport is filled with entry stamps from over 35 countries, many of which are ridden with poverty, and certainly far far lower than here in the US.

"Standard of living" is relative depending on where you go. My wife is a tax preparer, and every year she's amazed how people get by. You see, if your income is greater than $10,200, you pay taxes. Below that, you dont. Many many people come rolling in to do their taxes in a decent car, wearing decent clothes, and getting $2000+ refunds (on UNTAXED INCOME) due to head of household and child credits. Go to a third world country and see how many "poor" have a non leaking roof over their head. Or a car. Or a TV. Or a microwave. Or a washer and dryer. Or an oven. Or government paid food. The list goes on and on.

Im sick and tired of people crying about how bad the middle class has it in this country. Spend some time in a REAL poverty stricken country and you will appreciate what you have as you climb into your warm bed, under a non leaking roof, surrounded by walls that dont leak.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Not in our lifetimes, and certainly not in our children's either. Perhaps you need to travel to a few 3rd world countries to understand what REAL poverty is. The percentage of families living in extreme poverty is astronomicaly low. Im not blowing my own horn or anything, but my passport is filled with entry stamps from over 35 countries, many of which are ridden with poverty, and certainly far far lower than here in the US.

"Standard of living" is relative depending on where you go. My wife is a tax preparer, and every year she's amazed how people get by. You see, if your income is greater than $10,200, you pay taxes. Below that, you dont. Many many people come rolling in to do their taxes in a decent car, wearing decent clothes, and getting $2000+ refunds (on UNTAXED INCOME) due to head of household and child credits. Go to a third world country and see how many "poor" have a non leaking roof over their head. Or a car. Or a TV. Or a microwave. Or a washer and dryer. Or an oven. Or government paid food. The list goes on and on.

Im sick and tired of people crying about how bad the middle class has it in this country. Spend some time in a REAL poverty stricken country and you will appreciate what you have as you climb into your warm bed, under a non leaking roof, surrounded by walls that dont leak.

I don't see any reason why U.S. standards couldn't fall towards third world standards. Perhaps it won't happen in my lifetime, but I believe that it is possible.

Sure, the poor in America are better off than in the third world, but I'd prefer not to be poor and to be at least middle class, which is why I and millions of other Americans are concerned. Just because there is extreme poverty in the third world doesn't mean that America's poor should be happy being poor.

Oh...and I'm not really crying about how bad the middle class--those people who are solidly middle class--have it in this country. Rather, I'm bemoaning the people who are losing their middle class status and the loss of ladders of upward mobility to middle class status.

So, yeah, I guess you could say that I bemoan poverty and lower class standards of living in the U.S. Do you have a problem with that or do you think that Americans should feel contented with driving unreliable cars while renting 500 ft apartments and begging for health care while having little hope for a better life in the future?

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Not in our lifetimes, and certainly not in our children's either. Perhaps you need to travel to a few 3rd world countries to understand what REAL poverty is. The percentage of families living in extreme poverty is astronomicaly low. Im not blowing my own horn or anything, but my passport is filled with entry stamps from over 35 countries, many of which are ridden with poverty, and certainly far far lower than here in the US.

"Standard of living" is relative depending on where you go. My wife is a tax preparer, and every year she's amazed how people get by. You see, if your income is greater than $10,200, you pay taxes. Below that, you dont. Many many people come rolling in to do their taxes in a decent car, wearing decent clothes, and getting $2000+ refunds (on UNTAXED INCOME) due to head of household and child credits. Go to a third world country and see how many "poor" have a non leaking roof over their head. Or a car. Or a TV. Or a microwave. Or a washer and dryer. Or an oven. Or government paid food. The list goes on and on.

Im sick and tired of people crying about how bad the middle class has it in this country. Spend some time in a REAL poverty stricken country and you will appreciate what you have as you climb into your warm bed, under a non leaking roof, surrounded by walls that dont leak.

I don't see any reason why U.S. standards couldn't fall towards third world standards. Perhaps it won't happen in my lifetime, but I believe that it is possible.

Sure, the poor in America are better off than in the third world, but I'd prefer not to be poor and to be at least middle class, which is why I and millions of other Americans are concerned. Just because there is extreme poverty in the third world doesn't mean that America's poor should be happy being poor.

Oh...and I'm not really crying about how bad the middle class--those people who are solidly middle class--have it in this country. Rather, I'm bemoaning the people who are losing their middle class status and the loss of ladders of upward mobility to middle class status.

So, yeah, I guess you could say that I bemoan poverty and lower class standards of living in the U.S. Do you have a problem with that or do you think that Americans should feel contented with driving unreliable cars while renting 500 ft apartments and begging for health care while having little hope for a better life in the future?

No, I dont have a problem with it at all; however, in a free market republic, we're not all the same financially. Its just a reality, and by design. The bottom line is that it's not the federal governments responsibility to provide a comforable living for all of it's citizens. That would be socialism. As it is already, the poor can already get subsidized housing, subsidized healthcare, and subsidized meals, at the expense of taxpayers. The rest is up to them.

IMHO
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
3-20-2007 Inflation is eating US wage gains

The economy may be a bit cooler than it was a year ago, but inflation is still running hot. It's not like the runaway price train of the '70s, but it's enough so that people notice at the grocery checkout, when they pay for day care, or when they buy college textbooks.

Some prices ? namely for housing, food, and medical care ? have been more noticeable than others of late, jumping at a 6 percent annual rate during the three-month period from December through February, the government reported Friday.

Doug Stoddard, who works at a computer job in Boston, doesn't need government reports to tell him about rising prices. He's seen them in numerous bills over the past year.

"Rent went up. Cable went up. My gym membership went up," he says.

His subway pass rose from $44 to $59 a month. And he's noticed higher prices for gasoline and groceries.

Mr. Stoddard figures that all this has outstripped the change in his income. Higher health-insurance costs alone ate up most of his last raise, he says.

Wage gains of Fall 2006 dissipate
Millions Americans face a similar touch-and-go battle to keep up with rising prices.

In the past two months, average weekly earnings have fallen in real terms (adjusted for inflation). That marks a reversal from last fall when, thanks to a dip in energy prices, real incomes were enjoying sturdy gains.
==================================

:laugh: The radical right based wage gains on gas prices :laugh:

Let's see them do that now
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
3-20-2007 Inflation is eating US wage gains

The economy may be a bit cooler than it was a year ago, but inflation is still running hot. It's not like the runaway price train of the '70s, but it's enough so that people notice at the grocery checkout, when they pay for day care, or when they buy college textbooks.

Some prices ? namely for housing, food, and medical care ? have been more noticeable than others of late, jumping at a 6 percent annual rate during the three-month period from December through February, the government reported Friday.

Doug Stoddard, who works at a computer job in Boston, doesn't need government reports to tell him about rising prices. He's seen them in numerous bills over the past year.

"Rent went up. Cable went up. My gym membership went up," he says.

His subway pass rose from $44 to $59 a month. And he's noticed higher prices for gasoline and groceries.

Mr. Stoddard figures that all this has outstripped the change in his income. Higher health-insurance costs alone ate up most of his last raise, he says.

Wage gains of Fall 2006 dissipate
Millions Americans face a similar touch-and-go battle to keep up with rising prices.

In the past two months, average weekly earnings have fallen in real terms (adjusted for inflation). That marks a reversal from last fall when, thanks to a dip in energy prices, real incomes were enjoying sturdy gains.
==================================

:laugh: The radical right based wage gains on gas prices :laugh:

Let's see them do that now

Well...seeing how Democrats are in charge now, its the lefts way of manipulating the sheeple into looking to the government for relief. You think this wasnt planned? Please. It was Peloski and co. who did it.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
3-20-2007 Inflation is eating US wage gains

The economy may be a bit cooler than it was a year ago, but inflation is still running hot. It's not like the runaway price train of the '70s, but it's enough so that people notice at the grocery checkout, when they pay for day care, or when they buy college textbooks.

Some prices ? namely for housing, food, and medical care ? have been more noticeable than others of late, jumping at a 6 percent annual rate during the three-month period from December through February, the government reported Friday.

Doug Stoddard, who works at a computer job in Boston, doesn't need government reports to tell him about rising prices. He's seen them in numerous bills over the past year.

"Rent went up. Cable went up. My gym membership went up," he says.

His subway pass rose from $44 to $59 a month. And he's noticed higher prices for gasoline and groceries.

Mr. Stoddard figures that all this has outstripped the change in his income. Higher health-insurance costs alone ate up most of his last raise, he says.

Wage gains of Fall 2006 dissipate
Millions Americans face a similar touch-and-go battle to keep up with rising prices.

In the past two months, average weekly earnings have fallen in real terms (adjusted for inflation). That marks a reversal from last fall when, thanks to a dip in energy prices, real incomes were enjoying sturdy gains.
==================================

:laugh: The radical right based wage gains on gas prices :laugh:

Let's see them do that now

Well...seeing how Democrats are in charge now, its the lefts way of manipulating the sheeple into looking to the government for relief. You think this wasnt planned? Please. It was Peloski and co. who did it.

*taps meter*
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
3-20-2007 Inflation is eating US wage gains

The economy may be a bit cooler than it was a year ago, but inflation is still running hot. It's not like the runaway price train of the '70s, but it's enough so that people notice at the grocery checkout, when they pay for day care, or when they buy college textbooks.

Some prices ? namely for housing, food, and medical care ? have been more noticeable than others of late, jumping at a 6 percent annual rate during the three-month period from December through February, the government reported Friday.

Doug Stoddard, who works at a computer job in Boston, doesn't need government reports to tell him about rising prices. He's seen them in numerous bills over the past year.

"Rent went up. Cable went up. My gym membership went up," he says.

His subway pass rose from $44 to $59 a month. And he's noticed higher prices for gasoline and groceries.

Mr. Stoddard figures that all this has outstripped the change in his income. Higher health-insurance costs alone ate up most of his last raise, he says.

Wage gains of Fall 2006 dissipate
Millions Americans face a similar touch-and-go battle to keep up with rising prices.

In the past two months, average weekly earnings have fallen in real terms (adjusted for inflation). That marks a reversal from last fall when, thanks to a dip in energy prices, real incomes were enjoying sturdy gains.
==================================

:laugh: The radical right based wage gains on gas prices :laugh:

Let's see them do that now


So what you're saying is, that while Republicans were the majority, wages were up, now that Democrats hold the majority, wages are down. Seems pretty clear, thanks.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
3-20-2007 Inflation is eating US wage gains

The economy may be a bit cooler than it was a year ago, but inflation is still running hot. It's not like the runaway price train of the '70s, but it's enough so that people notice at the grocery checkout, when they pay for day care, or when they buy college textbooks.

Some prices ? namely for housing, food, and medical care ? have been more noticeable than others of late, jumping at a 6 percent annual rate during the three-month period from December through February, the government reported Friday.

Doug Stoddard, who works at a computer job in Boston, doesn't need government reports to tell him about rising prices. He's seen them in numerous bills over the past year.

"Rent went up. Cable went up. My gym membership went up," he says.

His subway pass rose from $44 to $59 a month. And he's noticed higher prices for gasoline and groceries.

Mr. Stoddard figures that all this has outstripped the change in his income. Higher health-insurance costs alone ate up most of his last raise, he says.

Wage gains of Fall 2006 dissipate
Millions Americans face a similar touch-and-go battle to keep up with rising prices.

In the past two months, average weekly earnings have fallen in real terms (adjusted for inflation). That marks a reversal from last fall when, thanks to a dip in energy prices, real incomes were enjoying sturdy gains.
==================================

:laugh: The radical right based wage gains on gas prices :laugh:

Let's see them do that now

Well...seeing how Democrats are in charge now, its the lefts way of manipulating the sheeple into looking to the government for relief. You think this wasnt planned? Please. It was Peloski and co. who did it.

*taps meter*

Good man ;)
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Your example person comes from the Boston ara. Home of the Kennedys and hard core east coast socialists.

The state government handles the MBTA costs. Why did their costs go up.
to support the unionis and government handouts?

Remember the min wage increase that went into effect - you stated that it would not cause any harm.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Looks like the USSC will confirm what I have been saying for quite some time now, that the U.S. no longer has a "Free Market".

The resident Republicans have been denying this but here it is in Black & White:

3-27-2007 SCOTUS Case May End Sale Prices

We are increasing moving away from a free market, the DMCA and other laws have created new government sanctioned monopolies -- for example, you can't buy anything except an iPod and expect it to work with iTunes.

Increasingly, products are intangible and as such are protected from competition by copyright law, or they are tangible products that are protected by patent law. Free markets really only work when there are viable alternatives.


3-27-2007 Supreme Court Preview -- Resale Price Maintenance

fundamental rule of our free-market system is at stake in Leegin v. PSKS: the rule that manufacturers may not prevent retail discounting by colluding with dealers to fix the prices at which their products are sold at retail. The question presented is whether such minimum resale price maintenance (?RPM?) agreements should continue to be per se illegal or, rather, should be evaluated under a very lenient standard, which in antitrust parlance is called the ?rule of reason.?

When employed, RPM prevents consumers from ?shopping around? for the best price because it prevents retailers from putting on sale any and all types of products, including not only large purchases, but also everyday purchases?from groceries to gasoline.

For nearly a century, since the Court decided Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), it has been a per se illegal ?restraint of trade? under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, for manufacturers and retailers to agree to fix a minimum retail price. During that time, the per se rule against RPM has safeguarded low consumer prices and an abundance of consumer choice, witnessing an unparalleled period of dynamic innovation in retailing by fostering competition at the retail and manufacturing levels.

By preventing RPM, which is designed to discourage price cutting, the per se rule has set the stage for innovative retailers to continually enter the market, offering new and lower priced alternatives to consumers. By encouraging such entry, the per se rule has enhanced ?intertype competition,? that is, competition among different kinds of retailers, such as boutiques, department stores, superstores, and online sellers?providing substantial benefits to consumers.

There is no good reason to abandon the venerable Dr. Miles rule.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
It seems like this presidency (and it's USSC appointees) are playing a horribly successful game of "let's see how many different ways can we fvck the average joe over".
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: ebaycj
It seems like this presidency (and it's USSC appointees) are playing a horribly successful game of "let's see how many different ways can we fvck the average joe over".

So basically they are yammering about something that hasn't happened yet. Your implication is incorrect, they are basing their issue on the fact that the court has been following this course for 30 years, which for the intellectually challenged is before Bush. :)

Well look to companies like Wal-Mart to get it fixed if it happens. Big retailers won't stand for it and their lobbies will bend Congress's ear.

Great example from /. about the power some retailers will have over companies that might plan to extort this issue should it get narrowed.

Supplier: No one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars.
Wal-Mart: We want to sell it for X-1 dollars. If we can't, we won't bother stocking it at all.
Supplier: Oops, we meant to say that no one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars, unless they're Wal-Mart, who can sell it for X-1 dollars.

Maybe this will be made illegal, but until then, this is how it will work. Walmart is the one with the power in this situation.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: ebaycj
It seems like this presidency (and it's USSC appointees) are playing a horribly successful game of "let's see how many different ways can we fvck the average joe over".

So basically they are yammering about something that hasn't happened yet. Your implication is incorrect, they are basing their issue on the fact that the court has been following this course for 30 years, which for the intellectually challenged is before Bush. :)

Well look to companies like Wal-Mart to get it fixed if it happens. Big retailers won't stand for it and their lobbies will bend Congress's ear.

Great example from /. about the power some retailers will have over companies that might plan to extort this issue should it get narrowed.

Supplier: No one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars.
Wal-Mart: We want to sell it for X-1 dollars. If we can't, we won't bother stocking it at all.
Supplier: Oops, we meant to say that no one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars, unless they're Wal-Mart, who can sell it for X-1 dollars.

Maybe this will be made illegal, but until then, this is how it will work. Walmart is the one with the power in this situation.

You understand the reason this is happening is volume. Because WalMart is the worlds largest retailer, they get tremendous savings wholesale. Same thing with Costco, Sma's, et al. The reason their prices are lower and their wholesale prices are lower isnt because they strongarm anyone. Its because of the volume.

As a side note...I think it's interesting the assertions Dave makes about free market getting killed off...that is exactly what he would LOVE to see were he king for a day ;)
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: ebaycj
It seems like this presidency (and it's USSC appointees) are playing a horribly successful game of "let's see how many different ways can we fvck the average joe over".

-snip
.[/i]

The reason their prices are lower and their wholesale prices are lower isnt because they strongarm anyone. Its because of the volume.

As someone in the business world, with clients and acquantences who've sold to Walmart, I can assure you that they do STRONGARM people/companies. Any assertion to the contrary is factualy incorrect.

Walmart has ruined/killed a number of otherwise good companies with their strongarm tactics. Unfortunately, these companies failed to understand failed to understand the complexity of competition: A large customer is one of your most dangerous competitors.

Fern
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
You have to know how to read between the lines. Many people buy houses as investments. Basically they buy a house for more money than they can afford because they are banking on being able to sell it five years later for a 25% Profit or more. Sometimes the profit is like 50-100%. These people are also driving up the price in the market.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Looks like the USSC will confirm what I have been saying for quite some time now, that the U.S. no longer has a "Free Market".

If SCOTUS does reverse and permit RPM agreements, it'll be bad for the economy (inventories will rise, higher prices = inflation, less sales mean less governmnet revenue - sales tax etc).

I think you'll also see an increase in "gray market" re-sellers at the wholesale level - these operations are the "prefect tool" to circumvent RPM agreements.

Fern
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: ebaycj
It seems like this presidency (and it's USSC appointees) are playing a horribly successful game of "let's see how many different ways can we fvck the average joe over".

-snip
.[/i]

The reason their prices are lower and their wholesale prices are lower isnt because they strongarm anyone. Its because of the volume.

As someone in the business world, with clients and acquantences who've sold to Walmart, I can assure you that they do STRONGARM people/companies. Any assertion to the contrary is factualy incorrect.

Walmart has ruined/killed a number of otherwise good companies with their strongarm tactics. Unfortunately, these companies failed to understand failed to understand the complexity of competition: A large customer is one of your most dangerous competitors.

Fern

As someone who's father is a VP for Proctor and Gamble and obviously does ALOT of business with them, and who has had many meetings with VP+ with the company including Walton himself when he was alive, I can tell you they dont.

*shrug* maybe its interpretation
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
This guy must live in Egypt in a city called Denial.

3-28-2007 Bernanke: mortgage woes not spreading

"At this juncture ... the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime markets seems likely to be contained," Bernanke said in testimony to Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

There are some fears that consumers ? whose confidence is sagging ? and businesses could clamp down on spending and investing, thus short-circuiting overall economic growth. Rising prices for gasoline and other items also are raising concerns about inflation. These economic crosscurrents can complicate the Fed's job of trying to keep the economy and inflation on an even keel.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
4-4-2007 Millionaires lose optimism amid market upheaval

Choppy markets are taking their toll on confidence among even those with the greatest wherewithal to weather any big downturns: millionaires.

The Spectrem Millionaire Investor Index fell by 14 points to a reading of 5 in March, indicating millionaires have shifted their outlook to neutral from mildly bullish the previous month. The drop was the largest one-month pullback since the survey's inception in February 2004.
======================================
This just can't be happening according to the resident Republicans.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Where to begin. Lets get this out of the way...Dave, youre a g'damn article misrepresenting cherry picking out of your friggin mind know nothing about economics TOOL.

Did you even read the article you posted? Better yet, did you understand it?

Where in God's name did you pull this thread title from :Economy:4-4-07 Rich lose confidence in stock market, biggest drop since 911.? Youre a fvcking tool. First off, no where does it say that. Second off, this millionaire group didnt even start until 2004. HELLLOOOO thats AFTER 9/11 dumbass. Third, lets look at actual numbers shall we?

9/11------>now:
Dow Jones: 9605------>12530
S&P 500: 1092------>1439
Nasdaq: 1695------>2458


Dave you are a dolt. As usual. I really dont understand why mods allow such blatent lies from you. I think I'll try it and see what happens. Keep an eye out.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Where to begin. Lets get this out of the way...Dave, youre a g'damn article misrepresenting cherry picking out of your friggin mind know nothing about economics TOOL.

Did you even read the article you posted? Better yet, did you understand it?

Where in God's name did you pull this thread title from :Economy:4-4-07 Rich lose confidence in stock market, biggest drop since 911.? Youre a fvcking tool. First off, no where does it say that. Second off, this millionaire group didnt even start until 2004. HELLLOOOO thats AFTER 9/11 dumbass. Third, lets look at actual numbers shall we?

9/11: now:
Dow Jones: 9605 12530
S&P 500: 1092 1439
Nasdaq: 1695 2458


Dave you are a dolt. As usual. I really dont understand why mods allow such blatent lies from you. I think I'll try it and see what happens. Keep an eye out.


I'll be looking forward to it, this kind of crap is absolutely ruining this forum forum for me. I don't understand how one member is allowed to post blatant lies and misrepresentations over and over with no reprecussions, its absolutely ridiculous.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
BTW Dave, did you realize that the drop in the market that they are referring to was over a month ago, not "4-4-07"?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: JD50
BTW Dave, did you realize that the drop in the market that they are referring to was over a month ago, not "4-4-07"?

The article is from today.

Have a problem with the journalist's take it up with them.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave - You have a PM alerting you to the comment/post that hI have just entered below

Anandtech Moderator
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: JD50
BTW Dave, did you realize that the drop in the market that they are referring to was over a month ago, not "4-4-07"?

The article is from today.

Have a problem with the journalist's take it up with them.

YOU are the one that phrases your thread title to make it look like the market had a huge drop today........"4-4-07 blah blah biggest drop since 911" makes it appear that the drop in the market occured today.

 

AnandTech Moderator

Staff member
Oct 12, 1999
5,704
2
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: JD50
BTW Dave, did you realize that the drop in the market that they are referring to was over a month ago, not "4-4-07"?

The article is from today.

Have a problem with the journalist's take it up with them.

Deception in the thread title has been removed.

Artificial FUD is not acceptable