You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


diva305
Diva305  (Level: 146.7 - Posts: 1651)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 12:14 AM

DOW SLIDES BELOW 7,000

NEW YORK - WALL Street stocks dropped from 12-year lows at the opening on Monday (3/2/09) on heightened financial woes after a new bailout announced for insurance giant AIG.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average slid below 7,000 points for the first time since 1997, tumbling 137.87 points (1.95 per cent) to 6,925.06 in the first exchanges.

Ummmmm who was President in 1997?



sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 12:16 AM

Is this a test?

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.8 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 4:46 AM

If this is a partisan question, over time I believe Democratic Presidents have produced better stock markets than the Republicans. However, this market is clearly voicing its disapproval of Obama.

wordster
Wordster  (Level: 159.4 - Posts: 910)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 8:06 AM

I don't think it's got anything to do with Mr. Obama. It's more to do with AIG and others announcing BIG losses.

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 256.8 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 11:19 AM

Truthfully, it has more with me having a bunch of money in the market. My investments have always tanked. If I pulled out, I'm sure things would rebound.

garrybl
Garrybl  (Level: 279.5 - Posts: 6640)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 11:38 AM

Ken
And there was me thinking it was I who was responsible. I'm sure if we sold our apt. prices would rebound immediately.

thedon1
Thedon1  (Level: 3.0 - Posts: 45)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 11:44 AM

CLINTON AND HESSSSSSSSSSSSSS BACK WITH THE SAME PEOPLE

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 12:18 PM

Would just seem to make sense if any person in charge would quit leading the public to believe that Wall Street is all about the Bernie Madoffs. For the most part Wall Street is MAIN STREET with the 401Ks and all. Also might be a plus if the "genius' tax cheater might have a definite plan to fix financial and let people know what it might be- Linda


kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 256.8 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 12:27 PM

"Wall St. is about the Bernie Madoffs" has it inside-out. Wall Street is the world's biggest ponzi scheme. As long as people were shoveling money in, up it went. And now, the rest of us are left holding the bag. I still wonder who made off with my retirement money.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 12:38 PM

No One is denying that the people at the top were corrupt but the average small investor was not so quit pretending that anyone who bought stocks or had a retirement plan is. Anyone who thinks that the "SUPER" rich will not find another place to put their money is also mistaken. People who have always been the "takers" in our society probably think it sounds good to tax combined income-husband and wife-who earn over $250,000 because they don't work and don't care if small businesses don't hire anyone. In the end though they too will feel the pinch from the reduction of amounts super rich are allowed to declare for charitable deductions. Those super rich are the prime contributors to charity and in most cases doubt it is out of the "goodness of their hearts" . The math does not add up-not enough super rich to tax toi support these social programs-so who is next to be taxed? The average slob will certainly feel the bite in their utility bill but perhaps there will be a plan for me to pay there bill . Linda

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 256.8 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 12:55 PM

I wasn't even talking corruption. I'm talking the methodology in general of how it works. Anyone could have seen that the bubble would burst catastrophically sooner or later.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 12:57 PM

ic like the 90s tech bubble perhaps?? Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 1:00 PM

And this one was the housing "Bubble" believe it was people like Barney Frank that screamed everyone DESERVED to own a home- Linda

loveland
Loveland  (Level: 55.2 - Posts: 521)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 1:03 PM

Japan's stock index has hit a 25 year low.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 1:14 PM

Ken, if I am understanding you correctly your theory is that the Stock Market is one giant Ponzi scam or house of cards. Under your theory no person in heir right mind would invest there, right? Why was it then that just last week that the President who says he is looking out for "Main Street" would seem to infer the "common folks' said it was a good time to buy stock. Of course, immediately after he said that the Market tanked still further- Linda

allena
Allena  (Level: 255.4 - Posts: 1390)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 1:37 PM

It is clear ... Sploofusers take more responsibility than O'bama who thinks profit earnings ratios make the Dow Jones bounce and no one should bother with it.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 1:43 PM


diva305
Diva305  (Level: 146.7 - Posts: 1651)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 1:51 PM


Wall Street Sinks As Obama Warns of Oversight

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-S...-14464125.html


Financial Markets React Badly to Obama Economic Stimulus Plan

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8879.html


Dow Falls 382 as Wall Street Boos Bailout Plan

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...es-021009.aspx


Obama Speaks, Dow Falls

http://thurston-opinions.blogspot.co...dow-falls.html


Live Stock Drop-- Obama Opens Mouth , Dow Tanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U0R2uK1iHU


Obama Speaks, Market Tanks

http://lonestartimes.com/2009/02/25/...-market-tanks/


EXCERPT:

Yes, the economy is in a mess and the market’s queasiness reflects that. But the Obama administration has contributed greatly to falling share prices. Virtually every time an Obama administration official speaks, the market drops again — a vote of no confidence in the profusion of new programs and the prospect of ever-higher spending.

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1060337.html


When Obama Speaks, the Market Tanks



jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 1:53 PM

I know this is an oversimplification. But a lot of stereotyping is bouncing around.

There's nothing magic about the stock market. It's just people lending money to a company that enables them to do business and build their company even bigger and stronger, with the hope that the lent money will be paid back with an undetermined interest. But it is only a hope. It never has been a given.

There are so many companies there. To just stereotype them all together as corrupt is incorrect. It is also incorrect to just stereotype ALL the top companies as corrupt.

The boards in charge of running a company (whether public or private) take risks every day to build that company, but a million occurrences over the entire planet happen that will affect it, most of which are unforeseen. Some work to the company's advantage, some to their disadvantage, and that's why the stock market changes every few minutes.

Most people who go to Vegas or Atlantic City do not leave with more than they had when they arrived. Those huge, fancy casinos were not built on gamblers' winnings, but rather on their losses. HUGE losses.

There is corruption out there, there are foolish risks. But there are many more companies adhering to lawful compliance to sound business practices.

Everyone wants a well-paying job. Well paying jobs don't fall from the sky, they are not magic, there is no magic wand. They are created by well-run companies.

There have been warnings everywhere for months and months that many stocks were over-valued. For those companies that are run soundly, that's not the company's corruption. I think that's the buyer's greed. There's greed out here on THIS side of investing, too.

Day traders and short-term investers made huge gambles, but they absolutely were gambles, because that's not how the stock market really works. It is only for long-term investing, not short term over-night successes. People who want to get rich quick might as well throw their money into the lottery - at least some of that money goes for the good of their state (some lottery money goes for education here in Texas).

As long as a company hangs on during this downturn and we stop making huge financial decisions based on emotion rather than facts and figures, the investor will, long term, be ok. It's only a paper loss unless you sell - THEN it becomes a real loss.

The main way you lose money in the stock market (as long as the company does not go under) is if you buy high and sell low. Don't sell. Hang in there and wait till the economy grows again. There will be many companies that don't close and don't go bankrupt (though not all bankruptcy is bad - some results in much-needed restructuring and streamlining and repurposing). The stock will regain its value and the investor will have lost nothing in the end.

Remember how when you were a kid and you were taught about the stock market crash of 1929? Remember how stupid you thought it was for people to commit suicide over that? The stock market wasn't even to 400 yet back then.

Our perspective is so skewed. The majority of poor people today have TVs, cellphones, computers. They get manicures. They own more than one pair of shoes. They have more than a couple of sets of clothes.

My parents went through the Depression. If you have anyone in your family still around who lived then, ask them what life was like then.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 2:11 PM

Re Barney Frank: Linda, I heard an NPR interview with Barney Frank a couple of years ago where he said that the country should get away from a policy that everybody should own their own home, although he definitely had ideas for more affordable, decent rental housing for the poor and middle classes ( at least the middle class in large urban centers like NYC and Boston where rents are out-of-sight). Of course, advocating for better rental housing for people is not inconsistent with a belief that all people "deserve" to own a home, if, in fact, your recollection that Frank said this is correct.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 2:31 PM

Jank: (1) Stockholders in a corporation are owners of the company -- they are not lending the company money. Most stock transactions -- at least in publicly owned companies -- do not even involve a direct share purchase from the company. People who lend money to corporations outside the companies ordinary course of business are usually bondholders. (2) Did a company or companies create your job -- which I assume you believe is reasonably well-paying -- as a public school teacher? If your answer is yes, is there any government job that you believe was not created by a company or companies? (3) I happen to agree with you that stock markets work best when there is not a lot of short term speculation infecting the same. People who short stock (sell shares without owning them) and day trading are just two types of purely speculative activity that nonetheless impact on stock prices, with very real consequences for longterm investors. Given your belief that the markets are not meant for speculation versus longterm investing, would you support laws to prohibit short selling and day trading?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 2:36 PM

No sweety - my school is not on the stock exchange.

Nope - I don't support laws to keep people from making unwise investments. Let the buyer beware.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 2:52 PM

TSk not sure if this is considered a news source or a blog but will find more http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 2:55 PM

Know you do not hold with Fox credibility but there are many sources which show Frank's hand on the housing crash-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 3:00 PM


halston
Halston  (Level: 7.0 - Posts: 8)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 4:44 PM

Wow. This morning there were three little comments from 2 sploofers I come back and there is a major discussion. I wanted to respond to the very first remark about the responsibility of presidents. Wasn't Collioure confusing cause and consequence? In American politics, when the economy is going well, Republicans tend to win (example Prosperity, roaring Twenties and all) and when the economy gets mucky, Democrats tend to get elected. Depression = Roosevelt. People will trust the market until it collapses of its own doing, then they want State intervention. The market doesn't vote for presidents nor against them. There are mild fluctuations around major elections but that are peanuts compared to the kind of structural financial crisis the US is in.
Right now the crisis is not as bad as the Depression (response to Jank0614) because there are a lot more financial safeguard mechanisms than there were back then. But fundamentally the American crisis is based on less and less production, more and more consumption and therefore more and more financial tricks and fictions. From a French perspective, blaming a president rather than the system itself or than relocations and world competition or several other structural explanations you can think of is well...odd.


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.8 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 4:51 PM

I was not seeking to cite any cause or consequence, Halston.

I was just quoting the stats that I have read.

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I don't have a party.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 5:19 PM

Halston, you are so correct. Mine was an attempt to emphasize that everyone in the stock market is not corrupt.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 5:20 PM

Just the folks that own most of it.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.8 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 5:27 PM

Uh, I don't think so, Sandy

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 5:38 PM

Sandy, I have never had a 401K but two of my kids have. My daughter is raising her 2 kids alone and used to have quite a good job in the mortgage business before that whole thing tanked. She owns her home in a Detroit suburb along with her mortgage co. that is. She was able to get a so so day job and is waiting tables in a bar nights. My sons have some college my daughter none but they are good responsible kids. She is trying very hard to hang on to her 401k as that was intended for my oldest grandson's college-don't know if she will be able to do that or not. My one son also has a 401K and works in tech support for a Mi. internet company-his job like most others is always iffy-they are not "corporate nor Wall Street 'Fat Cats'"and neither am I. I really resent it when folks say that anyone who has any kind of investment- as that is what my kids believed the prudent thing to protect their kids futures-is somehow corrupt. This whole bailout or Recovery and Reinvestment plan m if that is what you chose to call it does nothing to help people like myself and my kids who have paid their bills on time and got a 2nd job if they were short. It helps the "TAKERS" in our society-just wish people would look at the "plan' if one can call it that- Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 5:41 PM

IF you think i am angry , you are correct and get angrier every time some politician talks about the "Greater Good" as know that excludes me and mine-Linda

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 256.8 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 6:13 PM

That talk of paper losses vs. total losses is utter bull. Let me explain.

Suppose you bought $10,000 worth of stock two years ago and your investments are now worth $5,000. Sleight-of-handers claim those are paper losses, because the market may go up, and you might be able to sell in two years for $15,000, a gain of $5,000. Yes, but ...

The plain fact is that had you been stashing that money under your mattress or in a safe low-interest bank account, you could now buy $10,000 worth of those same securities, and in two years, you'd be walking off with $30,000. That's not paper, that's real, and no force in the universe will prevent you now from selling with only half the money you would have had, had you the foresight to stay away from the market for a couple years longer than you did.

You say the only way to lose money in the market is to buy higher and sell lower. Yes, but I don't know about you, but the value of my investments has never recovered from what it was in March, 2000. How long will it take to get back to that level, plus what it could have gotten earning compound interest. A decade? Two? More? Some of us may not live that long!

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 6:25 PM

Linda, just have a feeling that the bankers (the big ones) and their cronies are faring better than us with their retirement funds.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 6:38 PM

It's really easy to blame the "withouts" Gosh, they have a cell (what else could they afford)? and cable tv (can you get any channels otherwise)? Don't think the poor folks created the housing or market decline.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.8 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 6:45 PM

Oooooh, Sandy just has a feeling (about bankers).

That's very impressive.

And it means that stockholders are corrupt.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 6:48 PM

That could be, Sandy. Linda I have always hated to be "grouped'" and try to look at things on an individual basis. I have great sympathy for anyone who is sick and cannot afford care or someone who has worked hard to pay their bills and because of something unforeseen are now losing their home- on the same note I oppose grouping people who benefit as think then a lot of the hard-working people are taking the hit for the "takers"- Linda The thing is I don't begrudge the wealthy folks simply because they are wealthy and don't really believe they owe me anything.

diva305
Diva305  (Level: 146.7 - Posts: 1651)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 6:48 PM

Sandy:
"Don't think the poor folks created the housing or market decline."

Maybe you should ask Freddie and Frannie about that one.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 6:54 PM

It does outrage me when people who do not have to ever be concerned about a mortgage or anything else telling me that it is for the "Greater Good" that me and mine take the hit. Linda

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 6:58 PM

ooh, coll, and I think you're a pompous a@@. The poor are robbing our country?

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 256.8 - Posts: 3936)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 7:11 PM

Yup, it is the greater good, including yours, Linda. When 10% of the population are living in the streets and 30% are jobless, that will wear on the haves as well as the have nots. That's what doing nothing would lead to, so be thankful you're not in such dire straits to need that kind of assistance.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 7:12 PM

That's it for me as far as political posts. Have never called someone a name and won't again.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.8 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 7:13 PM

Sandy, I just repeated the ridiculous non-sequiturs you posted.

Last week Bradd posted an excellent summary of how we got here. Perhaps you ought to read it and inform yourself further before gumming up a thread like this with unsubstantiated nonsense.

If you're looking for real dishonesty in this affair, the agencies (e.g., Moody's) that (over-)rated the subprime mortgage bonds have risen to the top of the list.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.8 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 7:23 PM


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 8:15 PM

Tsk - this is an honest question.

Don't the people who start a company usually keep ownership of the controlling interest so that all the stockholders together cannot go against the owner? I know it's not always, and I'd guess definitely not with super large corporations, but for the vast majority of companies that are not huge, would that be true?

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21599)
Sun, 8th Mar '09 9:01 PM

Ken, am clueless as to what you are talking about with the "paper loss" thing so won't comment on that. I do realize that I am now pretty fortunate but that has not always been the case. Something is wrong when bills are passed with earmarks on both sides without people reading it, and saying that because the last President was bad a lesser degree of bad is okay. Know my kids are not evil corporate folks nor am I and am going to look hard at things that I wasn't supposed to have to do "open and transparent" before I decide if unlimited terms for the DC folks who tell me what I should do for this " Greater" when I am not at all sure who the "Greater" might be or that any sacrifice me or mine make will be of any help or simply make a good election or reelection campaign speech. I am not mesmerized by anyone's words- Linda The Reids and Pelosis make me want to vomit!!!

halston
Halston  (Level: 7.0 - Posts: 8)
Mon, 9th Mar '09 4:54 PM

More structural argumentation. Old age pensions in Europe are social welfare budgets: the active working populations contributes, the elderly benefit. This system is in trouble because birth rates are too low, life expectancy is getting longer so the number of dependent elderly is rising proportionally to the number of younger working adults. Governments here are announcing that people will have to work longer, have to get lower pensions. Some suggest pension funds be invested in the stock market.
Now let us contemplate that alternative in the light of what is happening in the US. What is the first, best, most common way for a company to make instant profits to pay its stock brokers? To cut down on labor costs. Rarely is this accomplished through productivity gains, the main way is to relocate. Disguised relocation is any new activity started by a company is set up in FTZ in Asia. We're light years away from the Ford version of capitalism. Ford with his big cigar and top hat wanted his own workers to be able to buy the car his factories made within two years, and he payed them accordingly.
So today structurally, without anyone being particularly corrupt, you have a system where the elderly depend on laying off younger working adults. Where competition means you make things cheaper abroad but you have killed the buying power of your own market by massive lay offs. And that very honest people have in very good faith invested in a profit seeking logic that means that companies do not create jobs anywhere where people might have decent wages. Not to mention all the very weird speculation on speculation going on on the sidelines.
So I'll take the extra year of work and possibly the slightly lower pension and stick to the European model, it just makes more sens in the long term.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.8 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 9th Mar '09 5:17 PM

A bit oversimplified as your post seems to address a manufacturing economy which the USA no longer has.

The trick is to educate workers for the high-paying jobs of the new economy.

Manufacturing is headed abroad for competitive reasons. Keep yours in the US and you're going to fail.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Mon, 9th Mar '09 5:41 PM

Well he did say 'Change." Please keep the noise down as my 401K is in critical condition. God Bless Our Troops.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.8 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 9th Mar '09 7:12 PM

Best not to look, Felix.

Barack is waging war on capitalism.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus