One more rally before the markets collapse

[HeXploiT]

That's right people you have one more chance to get out while you still can. When the bailout package passes and I say when, and not if, when it passes there will once again be a market rally probably very similar to last weeks. Have no delusions about this bill. There is not so much division between the Republicans & Democrats as appears on the surface.
After this rally the dow will very quickly seek 9500.
I've never looked into the timing of inflation, that is, from the time that the "new cash" hits the street to the time when the dollars "new value" is realized but under these circumstances I believe there will be a run on the dollar in the short term. Who in their right might will invest in the dollar with unlimited bailout potential of the once "free" market?

You ain't seen nothing yet folks. The roughest waters still lie ahead.

 

[NoStateofMind]

and no one pays attention.....

 

[First]

^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
and no one pays attention.....

Because every nut job out there has a prediction. Who cares.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am very important because I know about doom. Look at me Mommy! Don't look at Jimmy, he's no good. Pay some attention to me or I'll die.

We are all loved and have all been forgiven.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Some think they are market guru's but in reality have no idea of their own idiocy.

Yet some others don't care. Why post?

Everyone hates themselves.

 

[Eeezee]

I'm very interested to see, actually. I want to start a Roth IRA this year, but I don't want to start it until the very last minute

I think we haven't hit the bottom yet, but I don't know where the bottom is.

 

[piasabird]

The worst part is that the average joe can do nothing about it while his retirement money becomes a big fat zero.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

And yet, despite their lockstep zealotry of Ron Paul, the fact is that his stances have been panning out quite well, haven't they? Rather like he's said they would. The question is whether he was entirely right, in which case we're f**ked, or only partially. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Is Perry wrong about what he said about investing in a dollar that can be made on a whim? No. If alchemists had figured out how to make gold, it would have lost all its value. Once something can be made infinitely on a whim, it no longer is attractive as an investment.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
I'm very interested to see, actually. I want to start a Roth IRA this year, but I don't want to start it until the very last minute

I think we haven't hit the bottom yet, but I don't know where the bottom is.

Sadly no one knows where the bottom is. Those who say they do are fooling themselves. Now is just as good a time as any to start buying.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The worst part is that the average joe can do nothing about it while his retirement money becomes a big fat zero.

If that's what you really think, they yea, your retirement money is as good as gone. Smart people...oh my gosh, I can't believe that I'm going to share this secret...INVEST IN SOMETHING ELSE!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

And yet, despite their lockstep zealotry of Ron Paul, the fact is that his stances have been panning out quite well, haven't they? Rather like he's said they would. The question is whether he was entirely right, in which case we're f**ked, or only partially. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Is Perry wrong about what he said about investing in a dollar that can be made on a whim? No. If alchemists had figured out how to make gold, it would have lost all its value. Once something can be made infinitely on a whim, it no longer is attractive as an investment.

He has panned out as much as dmcowen's stances. When someone preaches doom and gloom for long enough eventually they will be "right" because all economies are bound to have recessions and periods of high growth.

Hs economic policy is not sound. Gold only has value because people say it does -- just like the dollar. Other than using it for electrical devices and a few other things, what real value does it have?

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

And yet, despite their lockstep zealotry of Ron Paul, the fact is that his stances have been panning out quite well, haven't they? Rather like he's said they would. The question is whether he was entirely right, in which case we're f**ked, or only partially. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Is Perry wrong about what he said about investing in a dollar that can be made on a whim? No. If alchemists had figured out how to make gold, it would have lost all its value. Once something can be made infinitely on a whim, it no longer is attractive as an investment.

He has panned out as much as dmcowen's stances. When someone preaches doom and gloom for long enough eventually they will be "right" because all economies are bound to have recessions and periods of high growth.

Hs economic policy is not sound. Gold only has value because people say it does -- just like the dollar. Other than using it for electrical devices and a few other things, what real value does it have?

Are you serious? Gold is in high demand because not only are its properties unique, abundance short and highly useful(it can be made just a few molecules thick) but it is beautiful as well.
If you do a search on my posting history here on anandtech you will find that I was actually rather bullish up until about two years ago.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

And yet, despite their lockstep zealotry of Ron Paul, the fact is that his stances have been panning out quite well, haven't they? Rather like he's said they would. The question is whether he was entirely right, in which case we're f**ked, or only partially. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Is Perry wrong about what he said about investing in a dollar that can be made on a whim? No. If alchemists had figured out how to make gold, it would have lost all its value. Once something can be made infinitely on a whim, it no longer is attractive as an investment.

He has panned out as much as dmcowen's stances. When someone preaches doom and gloom for long enough eventually they will be "right" because all economies are bound to have recessions and periods of high growth.

Hs economic policy is not sound. Gold only has value because people say it does -- just like the dollar. Other than using it for electrical devices and a few other things, what real value does it have?

Are you serious? Gold is in high demand because not only are its properties unique, abundance short and highly useful(it can be made just a few molecules thick) but it is beautiful as well.
If you do a search on my posting history here on anandtech you will find that I was actually rather bullish up until about two years ago.

What real value does it have? Other than usage in certain electronics or industrial applications what value does it have? Sure, people say it has value and they like the way it looks, but so what? Perhaps I like the way paper money looks. For the record, I own some gold in my portfolio, but as a currency it is a stupid idea.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: Mill
Hs economic policy is not sound. Gold only has value because people say it does -- just like the dollar. Other than using it for electrical devices and a few other things, what real value does it have?

You can't give something value by saying it has value. People can demand and want money in an economy, sure, to avoid the inefficiency of barter. Money is an extremely useful thing, it serves as a common means of exchange. Paper notes and gold can both fill that role. Unfortunately, paper notes are manufactured by men to be scarce, therefore it can manufactured by men to be as common as the material with which its made. Gold's scarcity is based on the material itself, so there is always the labor and material it took to obtain it backstopping its value. With a money like that, politicians are thus restricted to physical appropriations of it when it wants to finance something. They can't just legally counterfeit for itself while everyone who has to work for it helplessly watches prices go up. Governments have unlimited spending appetites, and they eventually found a way to subvert the constitution's gold standard that brought us from a nobody to the world's reserve currency and largest creditor nation after WWII. After we left the standard, Volcker was pretty much the only benevolent dictator the Keynesians had. Then it went to utter shit as expected and we are now the world's largest debtor with an ass-backwards economy perpetually dependent on credit extensions to buy imported products we no longer make ourselves. And now we're about to enter a crisis window that could reduce this country to squalor, as the nonsense has been allowed to fester for quite some time now.

 

[bdude]

Might as well invest in HD TV's...everybody wants one!

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: bdude
Might as well invest in HD TV's...everybody wants one!

Not easily divisible or transportable, and as it stands for a technological concept, better technology will make its value diminish. Wouldn't be a good investment or money. An investment yields a return, like giving money to someone to make more products than the capital you gave them stood for.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: bdude
Might as well invest in HD TV's...everybody wants one!

Actually if runaway inflation is the future this is a wise investment. Washers, dryers, refrigerators...

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

And yet, despite their lockstep zealotry of Ron Paul, the fact is that his stances have been panning out quite well, haven't they? Rather like he's said they would. The question is whether he was entirely right, in which case we're f**ked, or only partially. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Is Perry wrong about what he said about investing in a dollar that can be made on a whim? No. If alchemists had figured out how to make gold, it would have lost all its value. Once something can be made infinitely on a whim, it no longer is attractive as an investment.

He has panned out as much as dmcowen's stances. When someone preaches doom and gloom for long enough eventually they will be "right" because all economies are bound to have recessions and periods of high growth.

Hs economic policy is not sound. Gold only has value because people say it does -- just like the dollar. Other than using it for electrical devices and a few other things, what real value does it have?

Are you serious? Gold is in high demand because not only are its properties unique, abundance short and highly useful(it can be made just a few molecules thick) but it is beautiful as well.
If you do a search on my posting history here on anandtech you will find that I was actually rather bullish up until about two years ago.

What real value does it have? Other than usage in certain electronics or industrial applications what value does it have? Sure, people say it has value and they like the way it looks, but so what? Perhaps I like the way paper money looks. For the record, I own some gold in my portfolio, but as a currency it is a stupid idea.

Who is arguing that? I thought we were just talking about the value of gold?
Anyway with that philosophical argument nothing has any value.
Some things however are better than other as a currency. Obviously you're not going to want to use stones as currency because inflation would rival that of paper money when people started going to the beach and collecting stones.
Obviously if you're going to have a solid backing you want something that cannot be easily created.
Anyway the problem isn't so much paper money but who's in control of it. Currently the government is not.
maybe I should make the argument for colonial scrip.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

And yet, despite their lockstep zealotry of Ron Paul, the fact is that his stances have been panning out quite well, haven't they?

The last 6-9 months? Sort of, yes. The last 25 years, where Ron Paul has been saying the exact same stuff? Nope, not so much. And in the end, he's right for the wrong reasons.

Rather like he's said they would. The question is whether he was entirely right, in which case we're f**ked, or only partially. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Is Perry wrong about what he said about investing in a dollar that can be made on a whim? No. If alchemists had figured out how to make gold, it would have lost all its value. Once something can be made infinitely on a whim, it no longer is attractive as an investment.

You can create scarcity with fiat, this is a fact that has worked for decades and ushered in historically great standards of living. Greenspan was a big proponent of gold-backed dollars in the 50's, writing glowing papers on it, and even he eventually was convinced that fiat works.

In any case, I've said it before and it's still 100% true today; increasing the money supply by billions of dollars makes absolutely no difference in inflation if the velocity of money is rapidly increasing at a higher rate than said increase. If transactions per dollar increase at a proportionally higher rate than an increase in money supply, this would actually lead to deflation. Core CPI, in fact, says we had a little bit of deflation last quarter. Inflation (and the predictions of hyperinflation) are laughably misinformed, because those who claim such things know nothing of velocity of money or the quantity theory of money. All gold is, is a commodity now, like silver, and it will be speculated/traded based on its importance in that narrow field of investment; for example, gold is a nice way to diversify a portfolio to mitigate nonsystematic risk for individual investors. Banks in no way, shape, or form would like a return to gold-backed dollars because they realize they can stay far more liquid by floating their fiat securities to, for example, foreign entities for better than customer-deposited interest rates. This allows firms to more easily raise capital, which has a whole slew of wonderful results; small business expansion, increased employment, creation of new industries and higher wages, and increased innovation, to name a few. Gold-backed dollars reduce the upper limit of what banks can give in interest and gain back in (higher) interest on securities, and reduces the upper limit on debt financing. These simple facts are exactly why few sound bankers (or informed humans) would want a return to 19th century gold-backed lunacy.

In the end, Ron Paul's understanding of finance and economics is purely anecdotal.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
and no one pays attention.....

Because you and others on this board have been predicting catastrophe for years, to the point that you and the OP are basically gloating right now even though you made no predictions of any value. Instead, you posted the same crap over and over again about how we're all doomed and, suddenly, when a crisis you couldn't predict stumbled into the market you expect us all to bow down and suck at your collective teat. No thanks.

The market might get hammered, but it isn't the end of the world, it won't be the end of America, and it certainly won't be a guns and ammo doomsday scenario.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
and no one pays attention.....

Because you and others on this board have been predicting catastrophe for years, to the point that you and the OP are basically gloating right now even though you made no predictions of any value. Instead, you posted the same crap over and over again about how we're all doomed and, suddenly, when a crisis you couldn't predict stumbled into the market you expect us all to bow down and suck at your collective teat. No thanks.

The market might get hammered, but it isn't the end of the world, it won't be the end of America, and it certainly won't be a guns and ammo doomsday scenario.

What's funny is that they can't even point out something specific that wasn't obvious many months/years ago. We had plenty of experts talking about a subprime mortgage bubble in 2006, yet these nuts act think that because they said some generic shit about "housing" a few months ago they're Nostradamus. Funny if it weren't so predictable.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
and no one pays attention.....

Because you and others on this board have been predicting catastrophe for years, to the point that you and the OP are basically gloating right now even though you made no predictions of any value. Instead, you posted the same crap over and over again about how we're all doomed and, suddenly, when a crisis you couldn't predict stumbled into the market you expect us all to bow down and suck at your collective teat. No thanks.

The market might get hammered, but it isn't the end of the world, it won't be the end of America, and it certainly won't be a guns and ammo doomsday scenario.

Please excuse me? Where have I been gloating?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

And yet, despite their lockstep zealotry of Ron Paul, the fact is that his stances have been panning out quite well, haven't they?

The last 6-9 months? Sort of, yes. The last 25 years, where Ron Paul has been saying the exact same stuff? Nope, not so much. And in the end, he's right for the wrong reasons.

Rather like he's said they would. The question is whether he was entirely right, in which case we're f**ked, or only partially. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Is Perry wrong about what he said about investing in a dollar that can be made on a whim? No. If alchemists had figured out how to make gold, it would have lost all its value. Once something can be made infinitely on a whim, it no longer is attractive as an investment.

You can create scarcity with fiat, this is a fact that has worked for decades and ushered in historically great standards of living. Greenspan was a big proponent of gold-backed dollars in the 50's, writing glowing papers on it, and even he eventually was convinced that fiat works.

In any case, I've said it before and it's still 100% true today; increasing the money supply by billions of dollars makes absolutely no difference in inflation if the velocity of money is rapidly increasing at a higher rate than said increase. If transactions per dollar increase at a proportionally higher rate than an increase in money supply, this would actually lead to deflation. Core CPI, in fact, says we had a little bit of deflation last quarter. Inflation (and the predictions of hyperinflation) are laughably misinformed, because those who claim such things know nothing of velocity of money or the quantity theory of money. All gold is, is a commodity now, like silver, and it will be speculated/traded based on its importance in that narrow field of investment; for example, gold is a nice way to diversify a portfolio to mitigate nonsystematic risk for individual investors. Banks in no way, shape, or form would like a return to gold-backed dollars because they realize they can stay far more liquid by floating their fiat securities to, for example, foreign entities for better than customer-deposited interest rates. This allows firms to more easily raise capital, which has a whole slew of wonderful results; small business expansion, increased employment, creation of new industries and higher wages, and increased innovation, to name a few. Gold-backed dollars reduce the upper limit of what banks can give in interest and gain back in (higher) interest on securities, and reduces the upper limit on debt financing. These simple facts are exactly why few sound bankers (or informed humans) would want a return to 19th century gold-backed lunacy.

In the end, Ron Paul's understanding of finance and economics is purely anecdotal.

I am in complete agreement here. Sound economics.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Probably because you nuts are fucking clueless. :laugh:

And yet, despite their lockstep zealotry of Ron Paul, the fact is that his stances have been panning out quite well, haven't they?

The last 6-9 months? Sort of, yes. The last 25 years, where Ron Paul has been saying the exact same stuff? Nope, not so much. And in the end, he's right for the wrong reasons.

Last 6-9 months? Try 2002 when he predicted the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

What was his doing for the past 25 years? He was promoting the return of sound economic policy ever since he stepped into office. He lived through Nixon's closing of the gold standard and immediately began raising awareness against it. As quoted from Wikipedia,

"He clearly remembers August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon closed the "gold window" by implementing the U.S. dollar's complete departure from the gold standard, as the day he realized what the Austrian school economists wrote was coming true.[32] That same day, the young physician decided to enter politics, saying later, "After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded."[25]"

Ron Paul is such a man of great conviction that even John McCain (back when he wasn't a neocon) said, "You're working with the most honest man in Congress." (citation)