Volatility Index Spikes
Lisa Lisa
VIX Index Surges to 13-Month High as Stocks Tumble (Update5)
By Jeff Kearns
July 26 (Bloomberg) -- The benchmark for U.S. stock volatility surged
to the highest in 13 months on concern that bond market turmoil
triggered by the subprime loan crisis will lead to bigger share-price
swings.
The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index jumped as much as
29 percent to 23.36, the highest since June 2006. Higher readings in
the so-called VIX, derived from prices paid for options on the
Standard & Poor's 500 Index, indicate traders expect more volatility
in the next 30 days.
``When it shoots up that means there's a great deal of uncertainty,''
said Michael Koskuba, who helps manage $59 billion at Victory Capital
Management in New York. The S&P 500's 2.3 percent slide today, the
most since February, is a ``pretty good jab to the ribs.''
Spikes in the VIX have coincided with stock-market declines. The index
rose the most ever on Feb. 27, climbing 64 percent to 18.31, as the
U.S. equity market suffered the worst rout in almost four years.
The VIX has come within 2 points of 50 on only three occasions in the
past decade. The first, on Oct. 8, 1998, came as losses mounted from
Russia defaulting on its debt. It reached another peak 10 days after
the terrorist attacks in September 2001, and again surged in July 2002
as fallout from Enron Corp.'s collapse drove down shares of its main
lenders and former rivals.
`Panicking'
The CBOE on its Web site says the VIX is ``considered by many to be
the world's premier barometer of investor sentiment.''
``People are panicking,'' said Rick Campagna, who helps manage $3
billion at Provident Investment Counsel in Pasadena, California.
``Volatility usually rises when you have big moves in the market and
moves down tend to be more violent than moves up.''
When the S&P 500 reached a record high on July 19, the VIX finished
the day at 15.23. While the S&P 500 has gained four straight years,
the VIX has fallen every year since 2002. In November, the index fell
below 10 for the first time since 1994 and in December fell to a 13-
year low of 9.39.
The number of shares changing hands also increased today, another sign
of volatility. Some 2.78 billion shares traded on the New York Stock
Exchange, the most since July 24, 2002. In the U.K., the London Stock
Exchange said 798,800 trades were made today, the most at the bourse.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Kearns in New York at
jkea...@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: July 26, 2007 16:15 EDT
Vid...@tcq.net
>
> Last Updated: July 26, 2007 16:15 EDT
i hope they panic to the point of jumping. who cares what happens to
these cretins. they are nothing more than parasites who are addicted
to amassing fortunes via the old fashioned way, that way is any way
they can including rape, pillaging, and exploitation.
they are not unlike cocaine or meth addicts. everything they touch,
every one who is within reach of their feverish claws gets destroyed.
whole countries are being starved to death because of their ferocious
appetite for more.
left alone they always bring on destruction, not only to themselves,
but also the rest of us. its like having a heroin addict in the
family. they will steal anything and everything to satisfy a addiction
that can never be satisfied.
Foxtrot
>Lisa Lisa <mando...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> VIX Index Surges to 13-Month High as Stocks Tumble (Update5)
>> July 26 (Bloomberg) -- The benchmark for U.S. stock volatility surged
>> to the highest in 13 months on concern that bond market turmoil
>> triggered by the subprime loan crisis will lead to bigger share-price
>> swings.
>>
>> The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index jumped as much as
>> 29 percent to 23.36, the highest since June 2006. Higher readings in
>> the so-called VIX, derived from prices paid for options on the
>> Standard & Poor's 500 Index, indicate traders expect more volatility
>> in the next 30 days.
> i hope they panic to the point of jumping. who cares what happens to
>these cretins. they are nothing more than parasites who are addicted
>to amassing fortunes via the old fashioned way, that way is any way
>they can including rape, pillaging, and exploitation.
> they are not unlike cocaine or meth addicts. everything they touch,
>every one who is within reach of their feverish claws gets destroyed.
>whole countries are being starved to death because of their ferocious
>appetite for more.
A huge number of Americans invest their retirements in stocks, you
dumbass. You think your vindictive hatred only affects billionaires but
it affects all of us with retirement accounts such as 401Ks.
> left alone they always bring on destruction, not only to themselves,
>but also the rest of us. its like having a heroin addict in the
>family. they will steal anything and everything to satisfy a addiction
>that can never be satisfied.
Yeah how dare those greeeedy middle class families try to save for
their retirements so they won't have to rely solely on their Social
Security checks.
Blash
> i hope they panic to the point of jumping. who cares what happens to
> these cretins. they are nothing more than parasites who are addicted
> to amassing fortunes via the old fashioned way, that way is any way
> they can including rape, pillaging, and exploitation.
> they are not unlike cocaine or meth addicts. everything they touch,
> every one who is within reach of their feverish claws gets destroyed.
> whole countries are being starved to death because of their ferocious
> appetite for more.
> left alone they always bring on destruction, not only to themselves,
> but also the rest of us. its like having a heroin addict in the
> family. they will steal anything and everything to satisfy a addiction
> that can never be satisfied.
.......sounds like you've been quite a success in your life.......
Vid...@tcq.net
considering that every time middle class america gets involved in the
ponzi scheme, they get fleeced. remember 1929?
the stock market is not a retirement savings account. its a ponzi
scheme.
if you would have put your money into the ponzi scheme in the 1920's,
you did not reach parity back again till around the late 1950's, that
is if the companies you invested in were still around, and you were
still alive. some retirement account.
the ponzi scheme is for the really foolish who are addicted to
gambling, the few who believe in the get rich quick crap, and the
really rich who fleece the foolish and the true believers.
every time i hear that it would hurt some middle class person, i
reach for the vomit bucket.
if the market was so worried about the financial health of the middle
class they would not do what they are doing to them right now.
your schemes always collapse's under the weight of their own greed,
stupidity and mismanagement.
so any middle class person that gets suckered into it with the easy
available history of the stock market gets what they deserve.
the only problem is we all suffer from letting the tail wag the dog.
after 1929 the middle class of america used to spit at the words
"stock market" if they were uttered. that could come back again in the
near future.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote on 7/29/07 2:40 PM:
true.
Foxtrot
>Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Vide...@tcq.net wrote
>> > i hope they panic to the point of jumping. who cares what happens to
>> > these cretins. they are nothing more than parasites who are addicted
>> > to amassing fortunes via the old fashioned way, that way is any way
>> > they can including rape, pillaging, and exploitation.
>> > they are not unlike cocaine or meth addicts. everything they touch,
>> > every one who is within reach of their feverish claws gets destroyed.
>> > whole countries are being starved to death because of their ferocious
>> > appetite for more.
>> > left alone they always bring on destruction, not only to themselves,
>> > but also the rest of us. its like having a heroin addict in the
>> > family. they will steal anything and everything to satisfy a addiction
>> > that can never be satisfied.
>>
>> .......sounds like you've been quite a success in your life.......
>
> true.
How old are you? I'm guessing under 20, recently brainwashed into
thinking that capitalism is bad, and everybody should rely on the
federal government as though it is a big nipple for us to suckle
for our entire lives.
Blash
> the only problem is we all suffer from letting the tail wag the dog.
> after 1929 the middle class of america used to spit at the words
> "stock market" if they were uttered. that could come back again in the
> near future.
After reading your incessant whining, I think another problem this country
faces came about when they closed the "institutions".......
Blash
fox...@null.com wrote on 7/29/07 6:17 PM:
I don't think his age has anything to do with his attitude........It sounds
like he's been a flop all his life and is pissed at anyone who has made
something of themselves........
Davinchi
Some of the language is a bit extreme, but I can say this
without question: I someone invests poorly and doesn't get
the return someone else gave them the expectations of, then
then at least one of those parties has to take some
responsibility. Perhaps both parties need to assume some
responsibility, and no doubt both will. The financial
responsibility may fall primarily on the investor, but
without question the broker and market will take on some
diminished reputation, confidence, and marketshare in
addition to losses on private holdings.
Don't expect that somebody who cannot crawl their way into
the investment class, who may have a job without
pension/ira/msa, etc., to apologize for commenting about
market contraction or failed investments by the investing
class. A provincial argument that "a huge number of people
".... actually holds very little weight in my book - That is
rhetoric, a logical fallacy - look it up you dumbasses out
there.
If the market contracts to the point where there is
exceptional difficulty finding a reasonable investment, then
perhaps that market is oversold, perhaps it has marketed
it's products with asymmetrical information to a point where
a major correction to establish equilibrium is inevitable.
Perhaps a delayed change to stabilize the market will be too
late, and some may take drastic measures. Too bad, but I
(for one) cant help it. Markets fail, governments fall, the
whole of the human race is on the precipice all the gd time.
-----
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from
which they draw their gains.--Thomas Jefferson
.....
3637 Dead
Video, you have said unkind things about Foxtrot and Blash's masters,
and now they must yip furiously at you so they can earn some table
scraps tonight.
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Don Tiberone
> in article 964qa3tv3bfmufvkadood2n8aqcriq2...@4ax.com, Foxtrot at
> foxt...@null.com wrote on 7/29/07 6:17 PM:
It's sour grapes for being wrong year after year. Considering how
wrong the perma-bears have been, might as well let them celebrate for
a change.
Foxtrot
How do *you* suggest people save for their old age? (This ought
to be humorous...)
Judging the stock market on 1929--what a fucking idiot!
>Some of the language is a bit extreme, but I can say this
>without question: I someone invests poorly and doesn't get
>the return someone else gave them the expectations of, then
>then at least one of those parties has to take some
>responsibility. Perhaps both parties need to assume some
>responsibility, and no doubt both will. The financial
>responsibility may fall primarily on the investor, but
>without question the broker and market will take on some
>diminished reputation, confidence, and marketshare in
>addition to losses on private holdings.
>
>Don't expect that somebody who cannot crawl their way into
>the investment class, who may have a job without
>pension/ira/msa, etc., to apologize for commenting about
>market contraction or failed investments by the investing
>class. A provincial argument that "a huge number of people
>".... actually holds very little weight in my book - That is
>rhetoric, a logical fallacy - look it up you dumbasses out
>there.
You're actually denying that huge numbers of Americans invest in
stocks?!? According to MSNBC, 48.6% of Americans owned stocks
in 2004, either directly or through mutual funds. IIRC the US population
is about 300 million. So about 146 million Americans have stocks. So
yeah I'd say that qualifies as a huge number. Sheesh
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11520738/
>If the market contracts to the point where there is
>exceptional difficulty finding a reasonable investment, then
>perhaps that market is oversold, perhaps it has marketed
>it's products with asymmetrical information to a point where
>a major correction to establish equilibrium is inevitable.
>Perhaps a delayed change to stabilize the market will be too
>late, and some may take drastic measures. Too bad, but I
>(for one) cant help it. Markets fail, governments fall, the
>whole of the human race is on the precipice all the gd time.
They sky is falling, eh Chicken Little? LOL
Stock prices ebb and flow all the time.
>-----
> Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
>does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from
>which they draw their gains.--Thomas Jefferson
Quoting Jefferson in a sig is a surefire indicator of a pompous
ass.
Davinchi
Not my post, follow the thread.
People should save the best way they can. If brokers or the
press are giving them incomplete information then they will
have to get it themselves.
>
>> Some of the language is a bit extreme, but I can say this
>> without question: I someone invests poorly and doesn't get
>> the return someone else gave them the expectations of, then
>> then at least one of those parties has to take some
>> responsibility. Perhaps both parties need to assume some
>> responsibility, and no doubt both will. The financial
>> responsibility may fall primarily on the investor, but
>> without question the broker and market will take on some
>> diminished reputation, confidence, and marketshare in
>> addition to losses on private holdings.
>>
>> Don't expect that somebody who cannot crawl their way into
>> the investment class, who may have a job without
>> pension/ira/msa, etc., to apologize for commenting about
>> market contraction or failed investments by the investing
>> class. A provincial argument that "a huge number of people
>> ".... actually holds very little weight in my book - That is
>> rhetoric, a logical fallacy - look it up you dumbasses out
>> there.
>
> You're actually denying that huge numbers of Americans invest in
> stocks?!? According to MSNBC, 48.6% of Americans owned stocks
> in 2004, either directly or through mutual funds. IIRC the US population
> is about 300 million. So about 146 million Americans have stocks. So
> yeah I'd say that qualifies as a huge number. Sheesh
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11520738/
>
Ok, it's a big number - that's the top half (well not even),
what about the other half?
What you've demonstrated is that less than half the
population invests in this way.
>> If the market contracts to the point where there is
>> exceptional difficulty finding a reasonable investment, then
>> perhaps that market is oversold, perhaps it has marketed
>> it's products with asymmetrical information to a point where
>> a major correction to establish equilibrium is inevitable.
>> Perhaps a delayed change to stabilize the market will be too
>> late, and some may take drastic measures. Too bad, but I
>> (for one) cant help it. Markets fail, governments fall, the
>> whole of the human race is on the precipice all the gd time.
>
> They sky is falling, eh Chicken Little? LOL
>
I don't put much thought into celluloid. You are big on name
calling (in your reply to the previous poster) and ad
hominems it seems - so i'm simply not going to respond.
> Stock prices ebb and flow all the time.
>
I think it's obvious. I concentrated on the possibility of
contraction, but the expansion is obvious to all, and
various cycles are a historical fact that most are aware of.
Perhaps you are not fully integrated into using the same
terminology that I use. we'll just have to muddle through it.
>> -----
>> Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
>> does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from
>> which they draw their gains.--Thomas Jefferson
>
> Quoting Jefferson in a sig is a surefire indicator of a pompous
> ass.
>
Another direct ad hominem, and with such nasty language.
What evidence do you have to back this up?
maybe you will like this better....
-----
What has destroyed every previous civilization has been
the tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth and
power.--Henry George
This seems to be the route that America is taking.
.....
Davinchi
Just to be fair, I read though the entire thread and Vid.
has not made any personal or direct attack at any particular
individual or poster that I see. There is a lot of "they"
and "your" referring to a class or strata. However there
are other poster(s) who appear to be on the other side of
the debate that have resorted to name calling, direct
attacks, and profanity.
What poor form. I guess they are just frustrated from last
weeks market close. That doesn't mean I will excuse them.
That's not my place.
-----
The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been
proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and
moral courage it contained. That so few now dare to be
eccentric marks the chief danger of the time.--John Stuart Mill
.....
Foxtrot
Duh. I've been a regular in these newsgroups since the 1990s. So
spare me the silly instructions. Sheesh
>People should save the best way they can. If brokers or the
>press are giving them incomplete information then they will
>have to get it themselves.
And they do save the best way they can. With the internet, there's no
reason why people can't get all of the information they need.
If they are defrauded by crooks who cook the books, like the Enron
pricks did, then we need to throw the book at them and send them to
prison for a LONG time. Our economy relies on legitimate business,
securities fraud lowers investment confidence and cannot be tolerated.
You're missing the point. The previous poster attacked us (I have a
401K) investors calling us cretins and parasites and accusing us of
"rape, pillaging, and exploitation". He's venomously attacking about half
of us Americans! And not just mega-wealthy people who own private
jets and are chauffered around--ordinary middle class folks who are
merely trying to save for our futures.
Such vile hatred for those of us who are only trying to provide as
comfortable futures for ourselves as possible is truly misguided and
unhealthy, doncha think?
It's not like we're trying to steal food from children or kick the elderly
into the gutters fer chrissakes.
Rather than resenting those who invest in stocks, wouldn't it be better
if we help to raise as many people in the bottom half of the population
up to the level where they can start saving for their futures?
>>> If the market contracts to the point where there is
>>> exceptional difficulty finding a reasonable investment, then
>>> perhaps that market is oversold, perhaps it has marketed
>>> it's products with asymmetrical information to a point where
>>> a major correction to establish equilibrium is inevitable.
>>> Perhaps a delayed change to stabilize the market will be too
>>> late, and some may take drastic measures. Too bad, but I
>>> (for one) cant help it. Markets fail, governments fall, the
>>> whole of the human race is on the precipice all the gd time.
>> Stock prices ebb and flow all the time.
>>
>I think it's obvious. I concentrated on the possibility of
>contraction, but the expansion is obvious to all, and
>various cycles are a historical fact that most are aware of.
> Perhaps you are not fully integrated into using the same
>terminology that I use. we'll just have to muddle through it.
Occassionaly contraction is to be expected. Nobody claimed that
investments increase in any linear way. Trying to use the periodic
contractions as some sort of condemnation of capitalism is lame.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> >Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Vide...@tcq.net wrote
> >> > i hope they panic to the point of jumping. who cares what happens to
> >> > these cretins. they are nothing more than parasites who are addicted
> >> > to amassing fortunes via the old fashioned way, that way is any way
> >> > they can including rape, pillaging, and exploitation.
> >> > they are not unlike cocaine or meth addicts. everything they touch,
> >> > every one who is within reach of their feverish claws gets destroyed.
> >> > whole countries are being starved to death because of their ferocious
> >> > appetite for more.
> >> > left alone they always bring on destruction, not only to themselves,
> >> > but also the rest of us. its like having a heroin addict in the
> >> > family. they will steal anything and everything to satisfy a addiction
> >> > that can never be satisfied.
>
> >> .......sounds like you've been quite a success in your life.......
>
> > true.
>
> How old are you? I'm guessing under 20,
ROTFLOL.
recently brainwashed into
> thinking that capitalism is bad,
bull crap. there are many forms of capitalism, this one stinks, like
it did from 1870-1890, and 1920-1932.
and everybody should rely on the
> federal government as though it is a big nipple for us to suckle
> for our entire lives.
the above statement says it all.
if this goes down in flames you will get what you deserve.
the only reason so many middle class people came back to the markets
is because of sane new deal business regulatory institutions like the
sec. which gave the little people some confidence.
today the sec is being run by what you are, a conservative/
libertarian idiot.
we had stable markets for decades till your type wormed your way into
power in the 1970's, ray-gun sent us down the mountain like a steam
roller once he got in. the rest is history.
enjoy the ride, its your baby.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote on 7/29/07 5:49 PM:
nothing again i see:)
Vid...@tcq.net
> in article 964qa3tv3bfmufvkadood2n8aqcriq2...@4ax.com, Foxtrot at
> foxt...@null.com wrote on 7/29/07 6:17 PM:
again, nothing.
Vid...@tcq.net
a sane response. i agree with some of it. the jefferson quote is true.
he was no believer in the free market. he did not trust them. we
rebelled because of corporate rule.
the new free marketers even say they have no loyalties.
Vid...@tcq.net
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:37:51 -0400, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >foxt...@null.com wrote on 7/29/07 6:17 PM:
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
>
> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
yep, when someone degrades their cult in public, the years of
indoctrination and reinforcement causes infuriation.
Vid...@tcq.net
ROTFLOL. the bears play the market also. i do not. i worry about the
big picture.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Davinchi <mulld...@noat.gmail.com> wrote:
same way i do. i made 7% or better the last 20 plus years. while the
market went crazy, and most lost, till today which might be a false
gain.
a few times i dipped below 7%, but not for long. even went higher a
few times.
year in, year out thats pretty good.
safe insured vehicles.
> Judging the stock market on 1929--what a fucking idiot!
>
no, you are the idiot. any one who cannot understand ideology and how
it governs, is looking for a good shearing.
markets were unstable, and wide open to fraud and manipulation till
the important new deal regulatory institutions were created.
markets crashed after that, 1959, early 60's, again in the early
70's. we hummed along ok. only the very wealthy got hurt, they are the
parasites, so what.
you got your wild west back today, you might even understand the
difference someday if the boom drops on you.
1928, and today look real close.
here is something for you to read, try and absorb it if you can. but
i bet your reaction will cement my beliefs in your intellect.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
TIMELINES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION:
This page features two timelines: the first for general events of the
Roaring 20s and the Great Depression, the second for leading economic
indicators.
The importance of these timelines cannot be emphasized enough. Seeing
the order in which events actually occurred dispels many myths about
the Great Depression. One of the greatest of these myths is that
government intervention was responsible for its onset. Truly massive
intervention began only under the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in
1933, who was sworn in after the worst had already hit. Although his
New Deal did not cure it, all the leading economic indicators improved
on his watch.
But don't take my word for it -- here is the raw data:
TIMELINE OF GENERAL EVENTS
1920s (Decade)
During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax
collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the
budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy
invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will
see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors
of the economy.
An average of 600 banks fail each year.
Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually
depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually
decline.
The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.
Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine
Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to
75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1
million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.
"Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many
as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic
machinery.
Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000
previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will
control over half of all American industry.
By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners
will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will
fall throughout the decade.
By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's
wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop
in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.
The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.
Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from
1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the
number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156
to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other
decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.
1922
The conservative Supreme Court strikes down federal child labor
legislation.
1923
President Warren Harding dies in office; his administration was easily
one of the most corrupt in American history. Calvin Coolidge, who is
squeaky clean by comparison, becomes president. Coolidge is no less
committed to laissez-faire and a non-interventionist government. He
announces to the American people: "The business of America is
business."
Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of
Columbia.
1924
The Ku Klux Klan reaches the height of its influence in America: by
the end of the year it will claim 9 million members. It will decline
drastically in 1925, however, after financial and moral scandals rock
its leadership.
The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to
the rest of the economy.
1925
The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the
eight decades since World War I.
Supreme Court rules that trade organizations do not violate anti-trust
laws as long as some competition survives.
1928
The construction boom is over.
Farmers' share of the national income has dropped from 15 to 9 percent
since 1920.
Between May 1928 and September 1929, the average prices of stocks will
rise 40 percent. Trading will mushroom from 2-3 million shares per day
to over 5 million. The boom is largely artificial.
1929
Herbert Hoover becomes President. Hoover is a staunch individualist
but not as committed to laissez-faire ideology as Coolidge.
More than half of all Americans are living below a minimum subsistence
level.
Annual per-capita income is $750; for farm people, it is only $273.
Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than the year
before. Public consumption markedly down.
Freight carloads and manufacturing fall.
Automobile sales decline by a third in the nine months before the
crash.
Construction down $2 billion since 1926.
Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash.
During this two month period, production will decline at an annual
rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and personal
income at 5 percent.
Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29 "Black
Tuesday." Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an astronomical
sum in those days.
Congress passes Agricultural Marketing Act to support farmers until
they can get back on their feet.
1930
By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate from
6 to 4 percent. Expands the money supply with a major purchase of U.S.
securities. However, for the next year and a half, the Fed will add
very little money to the shrinking economy. (At no time will it
actually pull money out of the system.) Treasury Secretary Andrew
Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself
out: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate real estate... values
will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from
less-competent people." (More)
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming only 6
percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an effective
tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is compensated for by
the fact that American businesses are no longer investing in Europe,
but keeping their money stateside. The consensus of modern economists
is that the tariff made only a minor contribution to the Great
Depression in the U.S., but a major one in Europe. (More)
The first bank panic occurs later this year; a public run on banks
results in a wave of bankruptcies. Bank failures and deposit losses
are responsible for the contracting money supply.
Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not violate anti-
trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter how negligible.
Democrats gain in Congressional elections, but still do not have a
majority.
The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate
climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
1931
No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
A second banking panic occurs in the spring.
The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.
1932
This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression.
For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6
percent.
Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930.
10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total.
About $2 billion in deposits have been lost since 1929.
Money supply has contracted 31 percent since 1929.
GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.
Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.
Capital growth investments have dropped from $16.2 billion to 1/3 of
one billion since 1929.
Farm prices have fallen 53 percent since 1929.
International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.
The Fed makes its first major expansion of the money supply since
February 1930.
Congress creates the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. (More)
Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the Glass-Steagall
Act of 1932. (More)
Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late.
Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall election.
Democrats win control of Congress.
At his Democratic presidential nomination, Roosevelt says: "I pledge
you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."
1933
Roosevelt inaugurated; begins "First 100 Days" of intensive
legislative activity. (More)
A third banking panic occurs in March. Roosevelt declares a Bank
Holiday; closes financial institutions to stop a run on banks.
Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to
the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and
J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup
and install a fascist government. The businessmen try to recruit
General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited
financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled
when Butler reports it to Congress. (More)
Congress authorizes creation of the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit
Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration,
the Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
(More)
Congress passes the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of
1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and
the Truth-in-Securities Act. (More)
U.S. goes off the gold standard.
Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor,
but is obsessed with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes'
advice to begin heavy deficit spending.
The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1
percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.
1934
Congress authorizes creation of the Federal Communications Commission,
the National Mediation Board and the Securities and Exchange
Commission. (More)
Congress passes the Securities and Exchange Act and the Trade
Agreement Act. (More)
The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment
falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.
Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great
Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending.
(More)
1935
The Supreme Court declares the National Recovery Administration to be
unconstitutional.
Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress Administration, the
National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification
Administration. (More)
Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief
Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social
Security Act. (More)
Economic recovery continues: the GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and
unemployment falls to 20.1 percent.
1936
The Supreme Court declares part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act to
be unconstitutional.
In response, Congress passes the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act. (More)
Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent;
unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.
Germany becomes the second nation to recover fully from the Great
Depression, through heavy deficit spending in preparation for war.
1937
The Supreme Court declares the National Labor Relations Board to be
unconstitutional.
Roosevelt seeks to enlarge and therefore liberalize the Supreme Court.
This attempt not only fails, but outrages the public.
Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government
spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an
unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation
plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0
percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.
1938
Congress passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Fair
Labor Standards Act. (More)
No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to
Roosevelt's weakened political power.
The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5 percent,
and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.
Britain becomes the third nation to recover as it begins deficit
spending in preparation for war.
1939
GNP rises 7.9 percent; unemployment falls to 17.2 percent.
The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it
borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to
1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will
have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming
hostilities.
World War II starts with Hitler's invasion of Poland.
1945
Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the United
States emerges as the world's only economic superpower. Deficit
spending has resulted in a national debt 123 percent the size of the
GDP. By contrast, in 1994, the $4.7 trillion national debt will be
only 70 percent of the GDP!
The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until
1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will
experience the greatest economic boom it has ever known.
ECONOMIC TIMELINE
The following timeline shows the order of economic events during the
Great Depression. Notice the effect that deficit spending had on
economic growth:
Receipts: Tax receipts as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product
Spending: Federal spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic
Product
GNP: Percent change in the Gross National Product
Unemp.: Unemployment rate
Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
-------------------------------------------------
1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great
Depression begins
1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7
1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9
1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins;
contraction ends March
1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May
1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June
1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
1940 6.9 9.9
1941 7.7 12.1
1942 10.3 24.8
1943 13.7 44.8
1944 21.7 45.3
1945 21.3 43.7
As you can see, Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending
that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some
astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent
during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent
growth during his so-called "Seven Fat Years!") When 1936 saw a
phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the
deficit spending, overly worried about balancing the budget. But this
only caused the economy to slip back into a recession, as the above
chart shows.
I have been unable to find reliable economic growth figures from World
War II, but as a generalization it is safe to say the economy
exploded, experiencing it's greatest growth in U.S. history. Between
1940 and 1945, the GDP nearly doubled in size, from $832 billion to
$1,559 billion in constant 87 dollars. And this occurred as deficit
spending soared, to levels Keynes had earlier and unsuccessfully
recommended to Roosevelt.
Next Section: Summary
Return to The Great Depression Homepage
Sources:
T.H. Watkins, The Great Depression: America in the 1930s (New York:
Little, Brown and Company, 1993)
Kevin Phillips, Boiling Point (New York: HarperCollins, 1993)
Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor (New York: Random House,
1990)
The 1995 Grolier Encyclopedia (Entries: New Deal, Depression of the
30s, Roosevelt, Coolidge.)
The Encyclopedia Brittanica Online (Entries: New Deal, Great
Depression.)
Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: What Went Wrong? (Kansas
City: Andrews and McMeel, 1992)
Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994)
James MacGregor Fox, Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox (New York:
Konecky and Konecky, 1956)
Elaine Schwartz, Econ 101½ (New York: Avon Books, 1995)
Peter Pugh and Chris Garratt, Introducing Keynes (Cambridge, England:
Icon Books, Ltd., 1993)
Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity (New York: W.W. Norton and Company,
1994)
Online sources:
History lecture notes: http://www.marshall.edu/history/mccarthy/hst331/lecture/greatdep.1
Gary H. Stern (President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis),
"Achieving Economic Stability: Lessons From the Crash of 1929," 1987
Annual Report Essay, http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/pubs/ar/ar1987.html
Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Tables 1.2 and 10.1,
http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/histtoc.html
>
>
> >Some of the language is a bit extreme, but I can say this
> >without question: I someone invests poorly and doesn't get
> >the return someone else gave them the expectations of, then
> >then at least one of those parties has to take some
> >responsibility. Perhaps both parties need to assume some
> >responsibility, and no doubt both will. The financial
> >responsibility may fall primarily on the investor, but
> >without question the broker and market will take on some
> >diminished reputation, confidence, and marketshare in
> >addition to losses on private holdings.
>
> >Don't expect that somebody who cannot crawl their way into
> >the investment class, who may have a job without
> >pension/ira/msa, etc., to apologize for commenting about
> >market contraction or failed investments by the investing
> >class. A provincial argument that "a huge number of people
> >".... actually holds very little weight in my book - That is
> >rhetoric, a logical fallacy - look it up you dumbasses out
> >there.
>
> You're actually denying that huge numbers of Americans invest in
> stocks?!? According to MSNBC, 48.6% of Americans owned stocks
> in 2004, either directly or through mutual funds. IIRC the US population
> is about 300 million. So about 146 million Americans have stocks. So
> yeah I'd say that qualifies as a huge number. Sheesh
>
yea, buy how deep does that run. i have read most middle class people
that own a little stock, do not own a lot. and its not the real
valuable stuff like the wealthy own.
you are using the numbers of forced 401k people. whom if they get
burnt, i feel sorry for them for being stuck in a rotten conservative
system.
if they are true believers though, so what.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11520738/
>
> >If the market contracts to the point where there is
> >exceptional difficulty finding a reasonable investment, then
> >perhaps that market is oversold, perhaps it has marketed
> >it's products with asymmetrical information to a point where
> >a major correction to establish equilibrium is inevitable.
> >Perhaps a delayed change to stabilize the market will be too
> >late, and some may take drastic measures. Too bad, but I
> >(for one) cant help it. Markets fail, governments fall, the
> >whole of the human race is on the precipice all the gd time.
>
> They sky is falling, eh Chicken Little? LOL
>
> Stock prices ebb and flow all the time.
>
and flows so low sometimes it takes decades to reach parity again,
and then you need to look at the years of no gains. its a poor way to
save.
> >-----
> > Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on
> >does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from
> >which they draw their gains.--Thomas Jefferson
>
> Quoting Jefferson in a sig is a surefire indicator of a pompous
> ass.
unless you have no idea what, and who jefferson was. and how he got
his beliefs.
Vid...@tcq.net
henry george was correct, and your last statement is correct. fooled
you didn't i. you thought i was a complete raving lunatic. i am only a
partial raving lunatic.
Vid...@tcq.net
> 3637 Dead wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:37:51 -0400, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> foxt...@null.com wrote on 7/29/07 6:17 PM:
that is correct. i am not howling about the little guy, i am howling
with rage at the big market players that are ruining it for all.
including the little investor!
Davinchi
tolerated. But it is tolerated to some extent, for example
the "too big to fail" mentality has been used to promote
horizontal integration from within by some of the financial
service sectors. Regulation and restructuring are slow to
be adopted in return, and for every regulation there is
somebody out there trying to figure away around it via
complex scheme, nexus of contract formations, and the like.
"too big to fail" could be viewed as corporate welfare in
addition to the idea that it is necessary to keep stability.
And how long did it take the SEC to require full disclosure
of executive pay? You see what I mean, there is an effort
to use asymmetrical information in a non competitive manner
to advance shareholder profits. It's in the marketing, and
it's in the equity valuations, and it still exist in todays
markets.
"attacked US", but did that poster call you specifically and
singularly a profane name? no, don't make excuses for bad
behavior. There's this thing in language called a metaphor,
and using a vile metaphor may be wrong and inflammatory; But
specific and singularly directed profane name calling does
not have any of the context or information that a metaphor
provides, and quite frankly imho it's just lowest class of
failed intellectualism. If your going to get that base
(and I've done it myself, so I know) I think it's best just
to state your piece and then abandon the thread. There low
(I'm not agreeing with that use of metaphor), and there is
going even lower, it doesn't bolster you position at all.
Back on point, you seem happy to use classism for your 48
percent side of things to make your point, so why is it
patently wrong for someone else to do the same thing? And
you didn't address my point about the other half. In our
society your 48 percent sample wouldn't do so well without
the inputs of the other half (the labor input, the
productivity, the tax base, etc.). If somebody who isn't in
that 48 percent comes out and says they don't give a stain
about the other halves wellbeing and that they deserver
whatever might be coming down the pike, deal with it.
That's just another ebb and flow in some sense, it's just a
different market with different actors; Create an
environment conducive to equilibrium - use what you know and
what you think, not just what you think. Hobbs, Locke,
George, Galbraith, Freidman, Tideman, Greenspan, Barro,
Stiglitz, something works I'm pretty sure.
> Such vile hatred for those of us who are only trying to provide as
> comfortable futures for ourselves as possible is truly misguided and
> unhealthy, doncha think?
>
I agree, it's over the top and misguided. I also think a
major correction in the markets are past due, and your not
going to be a happy camper. Don't be surprised if you get
some of these "i told you so" in the process.
The brokers and consolidators are definitely marketing some
overvalued commodities, while leaving themselves a landing
zone. The RE market has been heated to extreme by the cycle
of value and assessment, and is fragile because some treat
the houses as ATMs with second mortgages and equity loans.
Regulation isn't stabilizing or securing the markets in any
meaningful way. And the Debt and trade balance, well...
don't get me started. That's my opinion.
We're stifling a Green economy (proposed by Carter decades
ago), blowing the biotech industry (Big Pharma, but no stem
cells), we can't get our kids to learn science and
technology (fuel, farms and family are what wins at the
voting booth), we're playing into foreign investments hands,
the government is corrupt as hell, and basically we act like
a second world nations (healthcare for example). We might
actually get there before you or I strike off this mortal coil.
> It's not like we're trying to steal food from children or kick the elderly
> into the gutters fer chrissakes.
>
Not you individually, but you need to take a good hard look
at the concentration of wealth in this country over the last
three decades. Now put that into context with economics -
the study of the allocation of limited goods to competing
uses. Sure wrap it up in nice phrases like "nutritionally
challenged" or "low food security” and children in this
country don't go hungry? I'm not buying it, I volunteer
some of my time at the food bank.
You might expect high levels of hunger and poverty in a
third world country, but here we are in amerika and look
what we have. And we are doing it to ourselves - it's a
self inflicted wound, but we can afford to let 12 billion go
to big oil and give the top 5% *another* tax cut. It's not
too hard to figure out why some people might be a little
bitter about the values that we embody in our system and
lash out.
I'm not in anyway saying you stole from someone. But maybe
you didn't have to because somebody else wouldn't contribute
their share for the security of the less fortunate or did it
for you as a contractor or agent many contracts divorced. I
don't know. There's a bigger picture to look at; It's said
that society can be judged by how it treats the least
advantaged members of it society - so as a whole how do you
think we are doing collectively?
really? don't hold back.
> Rather than resenting those who invest in stocks, wouldn't it be better
> if we help to raise as many people in the bottom half of the population
> up to the level where they can start saving for their futures?
>
We have to actually try to do that. And we don't do a very
good job in recent history from the looks of it.
>>>> If the market contracts to the point where there is
>>>> exceptional difficulty finding a reasonable investment, then
>>>> perhaps that market is oversold, perhaps it has marketed
>>>> it's products with asymmetrical information to a point where
>>>> a major correction to establish equilibrium is inevitable.
>>>> Perhaps a delayed change to stabilize the market will be too
>>>> late, and some may take drastic measures. Too bad, but I
>>>> (for one) cant help it. Markets fail, governments fall, the
>>>> whole of the human race is on the precipice all the gd time.
>
>>> Stock prices ebb and flow all the time.
>>>
>> I think it's obvious. I concentrated on the possibility of
>> contraction, but the expansion is obvious to all, and
>> various cycles are a historical fact that most are aware of.
>> Perhaps you are not fully integrated into using the same
>> terminology that I use. we'll just have to muddle through it.
>
> Occassionaly contraction is to be expected. Nobody claimed that
> investments increase in any linear way. Trying to use the periodic
> contractions as some sort of condemnation of capitalism is lame.
Your right about occasional contraction. Wasn't even
condemning capitalism - you'll note I spoke in terms of
"perhaps....a major correction to establish equilibrium".
I'm not going to let you get away with restating my thoughts
because you read it to mean something far off from that
which I intended. Your exaggerating to the point that it
not only doesn't pass the reasonable man test, it doesn't
even pass the sniff test.
However, I fear you hold some belief that capitalism is good
for capitalisms sake (it's not necessarily so), and (even
more absurd) that we have anything close to a pure
capitalist economy (we don't).
last first - Fully a third of the economy is Government - a
la a command economic structure; Now before you moan that
it shouldn't be that way, let's remember that Govt. builds
roads, dams, power plants, maintains markets, and provides
civil defense - do you really think this is all bad?
I seem to remember some study that said if we had a private
road system it would cost the average American well over a
hundred dollars a day just to get to work; Now multiply all
the public goods, and infrastructure costs out, and add in
the added overhead and civil disputes that consumers would
pay for, and you can see that some common budget
expenditures can be a very good way to produce and manage
some goods and provide services that we all enjoy.
Now for the first, you need to consider all the assumption
that go into an analysis of a capitalist economy (a simple
model, because we can't accomplish a full real time model)
that promote the system in terms of efficiency (all three
productive, allocative, and distributive) which is the basis
of the determination that the system maximizes the benefits
for society. Those assumption leave out an awful lot:
negative externalities, sticky preferences, difficult to
determine rates of change, hidden changes in technology, and
I could go on. oh, and a big one from the point of view
where we have the technology to make human life on the
planet extinct in about 15 minutes - the cost to maintain a
"civil society". Can you imagine that an extreme form of
competition in one area could lead to extreme competition in
another area? Could this promote divisions between nation
states or nuclear powers? Now that IS something to
consider. No ambassadors or trade officials to negotiate an
ordered relationship, the bombing begins in five minutes.
And nothing could be done that would avoid a Marxist style
revolution within any society at some point either.
We have a mixed economy, and there are some very valid
reasons why this is so.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Davinchi <mulld...@noat.gmail.com> wrote:
> >Foxtrot wrote:
> >> Davinchi <mulld...@noat.gmail.com> wrote:
really. you can see fraud a head of time?
> If they are defrauded by crooks who cook the books, like the Enron
> pricks did, then we need to throw the book at them and send them to
> prison for a LONG time. Our economy relies on legitimate business,
> securities fraud lowers investment confidence and cannot be tolerated.
>
so who will enforce your intoleration, the federal tit, snicker.
then you no longer have a free market, but a regulated one. congrats
on becoming a informed new dealer:)
bullcrap. i am attacking the big market players. you are not one,
otherwise you would not be posting here.
And not just mega-wealthy people who own private
> jets and are chauffered around--ordinary middle class folks who are
> merely trying to save for our futures.
>
good, you are at least trying. you might win to, who knows, but the
deck is stacked against you in the market.
just look a the lag times in history where it took many years to
reach parity after a economic tsunami. let alone get caught up on the
gains for all of the years of it takes just to gain parity back.
today it took how long to come back, 6 years. and to now reach some
sort of parity, you really need to put the peddle to the metal to make
up for the years of no gains, and its falling back already, maybe not
for long, or maybe for a long time.
you have been lulled into thinking the markets work because greenspan
covered your loss's. those days might be over. you might get a real
bad taste in your mouth in the near future.
i hope not, it will hit me to, but i know the history of conservative
economics, it ain't pretty.
> Such vile hatred for those of us who are only trying to provide as
> comfortable futures for ourselves as possible is truly misguided and
> unhealthy, doncha think?
>
its not aimed at you. you are reaching. but if you are a true
believer, you live by the sword, i have said that. and you admit to
it.
> It's not like we're trying to steal food from children or kick the elderly
> into the gutters fer chrissakes.
>
no you are not. but the obscenely rich are.
> Rather than resenting those who invest in stocks,
i could care less what you invest in. just do not allow the tail to
wag the dog.
wouldn't it be better
> if we help to raise as many people in the bottom half of the population
> up to the level where they can start saving for their futures?
>
hmmm, then what am i doing? you are correct, for the wrong reasons,
and davinchi is correct. there is more than one way to skin a cat.
>
>
> >>> If the market contracts to the point where there is
> >>> exceptional difficulty finding a reasonable investment, then
> >>> perhaps that market is oversold, perhaps it has marketed
> >>> it's products with asymmetrical information to a point where
> >>> a major correction to establish equilibrium is inevitable.
> >>> Perhaps a delayed change to stabilize the market will be too
> >>> late, and some may take drastic measures. Too bad, but I
> >>> (for one) cant help it. Markets fail, governments fall, the
> >>> whole of the human race is on the precipice all the gd time.
> >> Stock prices ebb and flow all the time.
>
> >I think it's obvious. I concentrated on the possibility of
> >contraction, but the expansion is obvious to all, and
> >various cycles are a historical fact that most are aware of.
> > Perhaps you are not fully integrated into using the same
> >terminology that I use. we'll just have to muddle through it.
>
> Occassionaly contraction is to be expected. Nobody claimed that
> investments increase in any linear way. Trying to use the periodic
> contractions as some sort of condemnation of capitalism is lame.
there are many forms of capitalism. you endorsed a regulated one
yourself. so is that a form of condemnation?
Vid...@tcq.net
hey divinchi, well said. although i am not in complete agreement with
all. i am in agreement with most of it. you can say it with style. i
am in no mood for it, and i am rather gruff. so good for you.
a mixed economy is the best. but government must not be run by the
tail. it must be fast and light on its feet to defeat the clever in
the tail. and the clever are the pillagers.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
>> >Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Vide...@tcq.net wrote
>> >> > i hope they panic to the point of jumping. who cares what happens to
>> >> > these cretins. they are nothing more than parasites who are addicted
>> >> > to amassing fortunes via the old fashioned way, that way is any way
>> >> > they can including rape, pillaging, and exploitation.
>> >> > they are not unlike cocaine or meth addicts. everything they touch,
>> >> > every one who is within reach of their feverish claws gets destroyed.
>> >> > whole countries are being starved to death because of their ferocious
>> >> > appetite for more.
>> >> > left alone they always bring on destruction, not only to themselves,
>> >> > but also the rest of us. its like having a heroin addict in the
>> >> > family. they will steal anything and everything to satisfy a addiction
>> >> > that can never be satisfied.
>>
>> >> .......sounds like you've been quite a success in your life.......
>>
>> > true.
>>
>> How old are you? I'm guessing under 20,
>
>ROTFLOL.
Ashamed to answer the question, eh?
>recently brainwashed into
>> thinking that capitalism is bad,
>
> bull crap. there are many forms of capitalism, this one stinks, like
>it did from 1870-1890, and 1920-1932.
America's GDP per capita is among the highest in the world. What
stinks about it? Be specific. Make sure you cite its faults within the
last couple of decades, eh? Nobody gives a flying turd about what
happened when Chester A Arthur was president.
> and everybody should rely on the
>> federal government as though it is a big nipple for us to suckle
>> for our entire lives.
>
> the above statement says it all.
> if this goes down in flames you will get what you deserve.
> the only reason so many middle class people came back to the markets
>is because of sane new deal business regulatory institutions like the
>sec. which gave the little people some confidence.
LOL, now I know you are young. Only children who were freshly
indoctrinated in public schools actually believe that the New Deal
solved anything. FYI the Great Depression painfully grinded on for
about a half dozen years after it was implemented. WW2 brought us
out of the depression, not the colossally incompetent FDR.
> today the sec is being run by what you are, a conservative/
>libertarian idiot.
> we had stable markets for decades till your type wormed your way into
>power in the 1970's, ray-gun sent us down the mountain like a steam
>roller once he got in. the rest is history.
Mr Reagan peacefully won the Cold War. He brought us many years
of great prosperity. He was a BRILLIANT VISIONARY.
It really eats you libs up, doesn't it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!
> enjoy the ride, its your baby.
I will. I expect to retire before I'm 55, courtesy of that stock market
system that you despise and other investments. Yeah, no doubt
there will be corrections but the system will survive. Thanks for
asking.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> Davinchi <mull...@noat.gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Foxtrot wrote:
>>>> Judging the stock market on 1929--what a fucking idiot!
>>> Not my post, follow the thread.
>>
>> Duh. I've been a regular in these newsgroups since the 1990s. So
>> spare me the silly instructions. Sheesh
>>
>>> People should save the best way they can. If brokers or the
>>> press are giving them incomplete information then they will
>>> have to get it themselves.
>>
>> And they do save the best way they can. With the internet, there's no
>> reason why people can't get all of the information they need.
>>
>> If they are defrauded by crooks who cook the books, like the Enron
>> pricks did, then we need to throw the book at them and send them to
>> prison for a LONG time. Our economy relies on legitimate business,
>> securities fraud lowers investment confidence and cannot be tolerated.
>>
>Your right, if it's not legit. then it should not be
>tolerated. But it is tolerated to some extent, for example
>the "too big to fail" mentality has been used to promote
>horizontal integration from within by some of the financial
>service sectors. Regulation and restructuring are slow to
>be adopted in return, and for every regulation there is
>somebody out there trying to figure away around it via
>complex scheme, nexus of contract formations, and the like.
> "too big to fail" could be viewed as corporate welfare in
>addition to the idea that it is necessary to keep stability.
Refresh my memory. When was "too big to fail" used as an excuse
to keep corporations artificially afloat?
>And how long did it take the SEC to require full disclosure
>of executive pay? You see what I mean, there is an effort
>to use asymmetrical information in a non competitive manner
>to advance shareholder profits. It's in the marketing, and
>it's in the equity valuations, and it still exist in todays
>markets.
IMHO if corporations refuse to disclose what its executives are
paid, then shareholders have every right to demand that they
do so or they are perfectly free to sell their stocks. Who needs
the SEC for that?
>> You're missing the point. The previous poster attacked us (I have a
>> 401K) investors calling us cretins and parasites and accusing us of
>> "rape, pillaging, and exploitation". He's venomously attacking about half
>> of us Americans! And not just mega-wealthy people who own private
>> jets and are chauffered around--ordinary middle class folks who are
>> merely trying to save for our futures.
>>
>"attacked US", but did that poster call you specifically and
>singularly a profane name? no, don't make excuses for bad
>behavior. There's this thing in language called a metaphor,
>and using a vile metaphor may be wrong and inflammatory; But
>specific and singularly directed profane name calling does
>not have any of the context or information that a metaphor
>provides, and quite frankly imho it's just lowest class of
>failed intellectualism. If your going to get that base
>(and I've done it myself, so I know) I think it's best just
>to state your piece and then abandon the thread. There low
>(I'm not agreeing with that use of metaphor), and there is
>going even lower, it doesn't bolster you position at all.
BFD. Poking fun at each other and mocking each others' names is
a traditional part of the usenet vernacular. My political opponents
call me Fuxsnot, Fauxy and lots of other light hearted names. As
long they generally stay on topic, nobody cares. Lighten up.
>Back on point, you seem happy to use classism for your 48
>percent side of things to make your point, so why is it
>patently wrong for someone else to do the same thing?
You're still missing my point. I'm not using classism. I'm simply
pointing out that by attacking the motives of stockholders, the
previous poster is insulting nearly half of Americans, including
most of the highly respectable hard working Heartland Americans
that make this country great. It's not very wise to insult such a
large and respected demographic, doncha think?
>And
>you didn't address my point about the other half. In our
>society your 48 percent sample wouldn't do so well without
>the inputs of the other half (the labor input, the
>productivity, the tax base, etc.).
Sez who? America needs people who do manual labor and entry
level jobs too.
>> Such vile hatred for those of us who are only trying to provide as
>> comfortable futures for ourselves as possible is truly misguided and
>> unhealthy, doncha think?
>
>I agree, it's over the top and misguided. I also think a
>major correction in the markets are past due, and your not
>going to be a happy camper. Don't be surprised if you get
>some of these "i told you so" in the process.
The market grows at rates that can withstand corrections. We all
know it. Anybody who's counting on being able to cash out in a
hurry may suffer, but those of us who are in the market for the
long term will prosper.
>The brokers and consolidators are definitely marketing some
>overvalued commodities, while leaving themselves a landing
>zone. The RE market has been heated to extreme by the cycle
>of value and assessment, and is fragile because some treat
>the houses as ATMs with second mortgages and equity loans.
>Regulation isn't stabilizing or securing the markets in any
>meaningful way. And the Debt and trade balance, well...
>don't get me started. That's my opinion.
True, too many Americans are way too far in debt. And greedy
lenders were more than happy to risk their investor's money by
making risky loans. They can expect some well deserved losses
caused by their greed.
This is no surprise to anybody.
>We're stifling a Green economy (proposed by Carter decades
>ago), blowing the biotech industry (Big Pharma, but no stem
>cells), we can't get our kids to learn science and
>technology (fuel, farms and family are what wins at the
>voting booth), we're playing into foreign investments hands,
>the government is corrupt as hell, and basically we act like
>a second world nations (healthcare for example). We might
>actually get there before you or I strike off this mortal coil.
I agree that we need to revamp our health care system and make
decent health care available to all legal Americans. But not by
socializing it.
Any trouble we're having teaching our students is a direct result
of what the teacher's unions--who are in bed with the Democrat
party--have done to our public schools.
>> It's not like we're trying to steal food from children or kick the elderly
>> into the gutters fer chrissakes.
>>
>Not you individually, but you need to take a good hard look
>at the concentration of wealth in this country over the last
>three decades. Now put that into context with economics -
>the study of the allocation of limited goods to competing
>uses. Sure wrap it up in nice phrases like "nutritionally
>challenged" or "low food security” and children in this
>country don't go hungry? I'm not buying it, I volunteer
>some of my time at the food bank.
A very large number of American children are **OBESE**. Now
exactly how can hunger be a problem?
>You might expect high levels of hunger and poverty in a
>third world country, but here we are in amerika and look
>what we have. And we are doing it to ourselves - it's a
>self inflicted wound, but we can afford to let 12 billion go
>to big oil and give the top 5% *another* tax cut. It's not
>too hard to figure out why some people might be a little
>bitter about the values that we embody in our system and
>lash out.
IIRC ALL taxpayers got a tax cut under Bush's tax cuts. So what if
it translated into more money for the wealthy? Exactly what do you
think they do with their money? They invest it in business, which
goes directly back into the economy and results in jobs for
Americans.
This is why cutting taxes leads to prosperity. It's why Bush's tax
cuts helped us recover from the Clinton Recession.
>I'm not in anyway saying you stole from someone. But maybe
>you didn't have to because somebody else wouldn't contribute
>their share for the security of the less fortunate or did it
>for you as a contractor or agent many contracts divorced. I
>don't know. There's a bigger picture to look at; It's said
>that society can be judged by how it treats the least
>advantaged members of it society - so as a whole how do you
>think we are doing collectively?
>really? don't hold back.
So slash taxes and we'll have more to contribute to charity.
>>> I think it's obvious. I concentrated on the possibility of
>>> contraction, but the expansion is obvious to all, and
>>> various cycles are a historical fact that most are aware of.
>>> Perhaps you are not fully integrated into using the same
>>> terminology that I use. we'll just have to muddle through it.
>>
>> Occassionaly contraction is to be expected. Nobody claimed that
>> investments increase in any linear way. Trying to use the periodic
>> contractions as some sort of condemnation of capitalism is lame.
>
>Your right about occasional contraction. Wasn't even
>condemning capitalism - you'll note I spoke in terms of
>"perhaps....a major correction to establish equilibrium".
>I'm not going to let you get away with restating my thoughts
>because you read it to mean something far off from that
>which I intended. Your exaggerating to the point that it
>not only doesn't pass the reasonable man test, it doesn't
>even pass the sniff test.
>
>However, I fear you hold some belief that capitalism is good
>for capitalisms sake (it's not necessarily so),
I never said that. I believe in capitalism because it has been proven
to be the best avenue to freedom and prosperity--not merely for
the sake of capitalism.
>Fully a third of the economy is Government - a
>la a command economic structure; Now before you moan that
>it shouldn't be that way, let's remember that Govt. builds
>roads, dams, power plants, maintains markets, and provides
>civil defense - do you really think this is all bad?
Most of those things should be done by private industry.
>I seem to remember some study that said if we had a private
>road system it would cost the average American well over a
>hundred dollars a day just to get to work; Now multiply all
>the public goods, and infrastructure costs out, and add in
>the added overhead and civil disputes that consumers would
>pay for, and you can see that some common budget
>expenditures can be a very good way to produce and manage
>some goods and provide services that we all enjoy.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the US government does anything
more efficiently than the private sector. If you had an important
document to send, would you use the US Postal Service or Fed Ex?
>Now for the first, you need to consider all the assumption
>that go into an analysis of a capitalist economy (a simple
>model, because we can't accomplish a full real time model)
>that promote the system in terms of efficiency (all three
>productive, allocative, and distributive) which is the basis
>of the determination that the system maximizes the benefits
>for society. Those assumption leave out an awful lot:
>negative externalities, sticky preferences, difficult to
>determine rates of change, hidden changes in technology, and
>I could go on. oh, and a big one from the point of view
>where we have the technology to make human life on the
>planet extinct in about 15 minutes - the cost to maintain a
>"civil society". Can you imagine that an extreme form of
>competition in one area could lead to extreme competition in
>another area? Could this promote divisions between nation
>states or nuclear powers? Now that IS something to
>consider. No ambassadors or trade officials to negotiate an
>ordered relationship, the bombing begins in five minutes.
>And nothing could be done that would avoid a Marxist style
>revolution within any society at some point either.
WTF did you just say????
Davinchi
CA energy restructuring, the second time around
Fannie Mae
>> And how long did it take the SEC to require full disclosure
>> of executive pay? You see what I mean, there is an effort
>> to use asymmetrical information in a non competitive manner
>> to advance shareholder profits. It's in the marketing, and
>> it's in the equity valuations, and it still exist in todays
>> markets.
>
> IMHO if corporations refuse to disclose what its executives are
> paid, then shareholders have every right to demand that they
> do so or they are perfectly free to sell their stocks. Who needs
> the SEC for that?
The companies that avail themselves of the commons, by
issuing shares to be traded in the public, have had to abide
by some uniform practices for some time. Accounting
practices, investment disclosures, etc. Otherwise how could
one ever compare firms. You understand that one of the
vertically integrated markets is data/information right?
Think of all the fraud that could happen if this
standardization didn't happen at all, not to mention there
probably wouldn't be mutual funds and you wouldn't have much
of an options market if any reporting method could be
changed at any time by any manager. Most market confidence
would evaporate in about two hours.
>
>>> You're missing the point. The previous poster attacked us (I have a
>>> 401K) investors calling us cretins and parasites and accusing us of
>>> "rape, pillaging, and exploitation". He's venomously attacking about half
>>> of us Americans! And not just mega-wealthy people who own private
>>> jets and are chauffered around--ordinary middle class folks who are
>>> merely trying to save for our futures.
>>>
>> "attacked US", but did that poster call you specifically and
>> singularly a profane name? no, don't make excuses for bad
>> behavior. There's this thing in language called a metaphor,
>> and using a vile metaphor may be wrong and inflammatory; But
>> specific and singularly directed profane name calling does
>> not have any of the context or information that a metaphor
>> provides, and quite frankly imho it's just lowest class of
>> failed intellectualism. If your going to get that base
>> (and I've done it myself, so I know) I think it's best just
>> to state your piece and then abandon the thread. There low
>> (I'm not agreeing with that use of metaphor), and there is
>> going even lower, it doesn't bolster you position at all.
>
> BFD. Poking fun at each other and mocking each others' names is
> a traditional part of the usenet vernacular. My political opponents
> call me Fuxsnot, Fauxy and lots of other light hearted names. As
> long they generally stay on topic, nobody cares. Lighten up.
>
I'll lighten up when I gd feel like it.
Seems like I care, I'm not a nobody (yep, i'm still taking
up three dimensional space). Logically, your conclusion
represents a fallacy. It simply doesn't follow: a is to b,
c is to d, doesn't mean a is to d unless b is to c.
>> Back on point, you seem happy to use classism for your 48
>> percent side of things to make your point, so why is it
>> patently wrong for someone else to do the same thing?
>
> You're still missing my point. I'm not using classism. I'm simply
> pointing out that by attacking the motives of stockholders, the
> previous poster is insulting nearly half of Americans, including
> most of the highly respectable hard working Heartland Americans
> that make this country great. It's not very wise to insult such a
> large and respected demographic, doncha think?
>
I see your point, but I thought you just said mocking and
name calling was part of the vernacular, so don't now get
all high and mighty about the details of the mocking and
name calling that targeted what I assume is the demographic
you consider yourself to be in. If your then going to
target a single actor, referring by proper pronoun, with an
expletive then your past mocking, have gone a step further
than your detractor, and are way past light hearted name
calling.
>> And
>> you didn't address my point about the other half. In our
>> society your 48 percent sample wouldn't do so well without
>> the inputs of the other half (the labor input, the
>> productivity, the tax base, etc.).
>
> Sez who? America needs people who do manual labor and entry
> level jobs too.
Exactly, and from what I've seen in recent times is that
most of those jobs don't pay enough for the people to save
much at all and don't come with any pension plan.
>
>>> Such vile hatred for those of us who are only trying to provide as
>>> comfortable futures for ourselves as possible is truly misguided and
>>> unhealthy, doncha think?
>> I agree, it's over the top and misguided. I also think a
>> major correction in the markets are past due, and your not
>> going to be a happy camper. Don't be surprised if you get
>> some of these "i told you so" in the process.
>
> The market grows at rates that can withstand corrections. We all
> know it. Anybody who's counting on being able to cash out in a
> hurry may suffer, but those of us who are in the market for the
> long term will prosper.
That's all good if you don't get sick, have an accident,
have to care for a relative, or face any of a thousand
challenges that change your position. Even if you get back
in the game, your compounded gains are gone forever.
Oh, and while we are on the subject of long term
expectations - back to concentrations of wealth as an
indicator of failures, that's the trend that has accelerated
at warp speed since the Regan era.
>
>> The brokers and consolidators are definitely marketing some
>> overvalued commodities, while leaving themselves a landing
>> zone. The RE market has been heated to extreme by the cycle
>> of value and assessment, and is fragile because some treat
>> the houses as ATMs with second mortgages and equity loans.
>> Regulation isn't stabilizing or securing the markets in any
>> meaningful way. And the Debt and trade balance, well...
>> don't get me started. That's my opinion.
>
> True, too many Americans are way too far in debt. And greedy
> lenders were more than happy to risk their investor's money by
> making risky loans. They can expect some well deserved losses
> caused by their greed.
>
> This is no surprise to anybody.
>
>> We're stifling a Green economy (proposed by Carter decades
>> ago), blowing the biotech industry (Big Pharma, but no stem
>> cells), we can't get our kids to learn science and
>> technology (fuel, farms and family are what wins at the
>> voting booth), we're playing into foreign investments hands,
>> the government is corrupt as hell, and basically we act like
>> a second world nations (healthcare for example). We might
>> actually get there before you or I strike off this mortal coil.
>
> I agree that we need to revamp our health care system and make
> decent health care available to all legal Americans. But not by
> socializing it.
>
socialized medicine isn't likely to happen, but watch what a
single payer system get called if that gets on the agenda.
A single payer system is not the same as socialized medicine
any more than social studies is teaching socialism.
> Any trouble we're having teaching our students is a direct result
> of what the teacher's unions--who are in bed with the Democrat
> party--have done to our public schools.
>
Now your just being silly, first off the union has buttered
both sides of the bread so to speak, second it's the
republicans that instigated no child left behind and then
wouldn't even fully fund their own program four years later
(with control of the executive and both branches). How is
that the union or the democrats fault.
The big winner has been the independent testing
organizations, which are large corporations. For all that
money you could get better teachers by raising the
compensation levels, and that unfunded federal mandate issue
might very well be a moot point. Of course you might not
get funding back even to the original levels because the new
voucher system for private magnet schools will eat up a part
of it, that's not the democrats or unions fault. There may
be some benefits of privatization, but guess what - anybody
who wants to and can afford it can do that anyway. How is
it going to be better in the future if resource drain leads
to even higher illiteracy and drop out rate than we have now?
You might like to think it can't get worse, but it can.
>>> It's not like we're trying to steal food from children or kick the elderly
>>> into the gutters fer chrissakes.
>>>
>> Not you individually, but you need to take a good hard look
>> at the concentration of wealth in this country over the last
>> three decades. Now put that into context with economics -
>> the study of the allocation of limited goods to competing
>> uses. Sure wrap it up in nice phrases like "nutritionally
>> challenged" or "low food security” and children in this
>> country don't go hungry? I'm not buying it, I volunteer
>> some of my time at the food bank.
>
> A very large number of American children are **OBESE**. Now
> exactly how can hunger be a problem?
>
Your talking about calories, not nutrition. Big difference.
A good salad can cost four or five times what a happy meal
does - sometimes the kids eat crappy food because the
parents don't know any better (I swear we should make people
go to parenting school, and we should make drivers pass a
physic class too) but often it's because what the family can
afford isn't the best nutritional food. Big business has
it's hand in keeping it this way too.
>> You might expect high levels of hunger and poverty in a
>> third world country, but here we are in amerika and look
>> what we have. And we are doing it to ourselves - it's a
>> self inflicted wound, but we can afford to let 12 billion go
>> to big oil and give the top 5% *another* tax cut. It's not
>> too hard to figure out why some people might be a little
>> bitter about the values that we embody in our system and
>> lash out.
>
> IIRC ALL taxpayers got a tax cut under Bush's tax cuts. So what if
> it translated into more money for the wealthy? Exactly what do you
> think they do with their money? They invest it in business, which
> goes directly back into the economy and results in jobs for
> Americans.
Read up on the subject of economic dark matter, it's a
fallacy that rent seeking investment is very productive, or
benefits the economy to the extent that many would have you
believe. In fact they can actually drag the economy down by
keeping investment from production activities.
>
> This is why cutting taxes leads to prosperity. It's why Bush's tax
> cuts helped us recover from the Clinton Recession.
Wow, your out of touch with the facts and how the economy
work. First off, Clinton's recession wasn't unexpected or
unplanned for; Remember Greenspan's "soft landing" speech
at three consecutive congressional meetings. This was
simply what was required to wipe out the deficits run up by
Bush senior - keep in mind the pipeline runs a couple of
years into the subsequent administration. Clinton ended
with a slow, but by no means horrible, economy; But he was
showing a surplus - also remember that compounded interest
works both ways, so you could easily argue that this was the
best he could possibly do under the circumstances. Now Bush
the second has had his tax cuts, and the republican
controlled government spent like drunken sailors and more;
Are we clearly better off, will we be as well off when we
are paying interest on top of interest for the additional
debt? I like to put it this way, it's not a tax cut if your
borrowing from you children's future income; And that's
pretty much what you have, and you also loose any options
you have as to whether you will manage your debt or
capitalize on infrastructure - now there is no choice (the
choice that Clinton left us) but to manage the debt.
As far as your investment conclusion goes
you should see this
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/12_akerlof.shtml
We have seen that tax cuts can also increase the deficit -
that ends up costing too. The investment you mention would
stimulate the economy, but the Fed will keep growth rates
under control by raising interest (they don't want to see
wage inflation that is unmanageable when employment rates
are relatively high and highly persistent- remember Keynes
first mistake of sticky income preferences that caused a
total rework of his models), Since the very wealthy hold the
most interest bearing bonds, they will benefit over and over
again, while the majority who hold debt (mortgages and
loans) will will have to pay higher amounts or face longer
compounded interest charges. so, did the tax cut enforce
any measure that would direct the saving to productive
investment? or keep the bond bearers from making foriegn
investments? No it didn't, so there is no reaching your
conclusion. A tax credit targeting investment in the
productive sector of the economy is the only way assure your
conclusion, Bush specifically rejected that proposal by the
democratic minority. The Brookings Institute has a study
that concluded most households will be worse off, that looks
to be accurate at this point.
Bush's tax cuts were very risky, and he didn't know how to
manage the risk or the economy. He did it because it
sounded good, was good for his base, but he never put a
second thought into whether it was actually the best option.
My gosh if Dem. wanted to do something, it must be a bad
idea, right? (But Brownie did a heckuva job) Bush wanted
that money train to keep moving towards his White House and
the GOP, and couldn't even bother to figure out what fueled
the train in the first place. Had he adopted the tax credit
proposal, we most certainly would have seen better stimulus
and higher job creation.
>
>> I'm not in anyway saying you stole from someone. But maybe
>> you didn't have to because somebody else wouldn't contribute
>> their share for the security of the less fortunate or did it
>> for you as a contractor or agent many contracts divorced. I
>> don't know. There's a bigger picture to look at; It's said
>> that society can be judged by how it treats the least
>> advantaged members of it society - so as a whole how do you
>> think we are doing collectively?
>> really? don't hold back.
>
> So slash taxes and we'll have more to contribute to charity.
Why would one conclude that contributions to charity
automatically follow from tax cuts. That may describe you,
but it's not clear at all that this will happen as a whole.
From my nonprofit econ class I can tell you their are many
charity sectors that are horrible in terms of efficiency.
Religious charities are the worst, and these are the people
you would think have the most incentive to do a good job
philanthropically. (Maybe they have the incentive, but are
just no good at it - and these organizations are where the
vast majority of those school vouchers go to. mmmmmm.
I think relocating pedophile priest and buying stained glass
is cutting into their coffers.) Back to the point, why
would anyone insist on a tax cut, when tax credit that
targets the desired sector will do a better job. Just
because it sounds better, that's foolish.
>
>>>> I think it's obvious. I concentrated on the possibility of
>>>> contraction, but the expansion is obvious to all, and
>>>> various cycles are a historical fact that most are aware of.
>>>> Perhaps you are not fully integrated into using the same
>>>> terminology that I use. we'll just have to muddle through it.
>>> Occassionaly contraction is to be expected. Nobody claimed that
>>> investments increase in any linear way. Trying to use the periodic
>>> contractions as some sort of condemnation of capitalism is lame.
>> Your right about occasional contraction. Wasn't even
>> condemning capitalism - you'll note I spoke in terms of
>> "perhaps....a major correction to establish equilibrium".
>> I'm not going to let you get away with restating my thoughts
>> because you read it to mean something far off from that
>> which I intended. Your exaggerating to the point that it
>> not only doesn't pass the reasonable man test, it doesn't
>> even pass the sniff test.
>>
>> However, I fear you hold some belief that capitalism is good
>> for capitalisms sake (it's not necessarily so),
>
> I never said that. I believe in capitalism because it has been proven
> to be the best avenue to freedom and prosperity--not merely for
> the sake of capitalism.
I don't believe you've ever seen pure capitalism, so how
would you know? But let say we try it on: then prostitution
is fine, legalize all drugs - fine, child labor - fine,
dumping toxic waste wherever you can get away with it -
fine, the old injured or indigent can just go off to the
glue factory - that's ok. In the extreme what you want is
brutish, narcissistic, uncivil, and destine eat it's young,
cast off every bit of humanity, and finally collapse in a
mess of conflict and waste.
>
>> Fully a third of the economy is Government - a
>> la a command economic structure; Now before you moan that
>> it shouldn't be that way, let's remember that Govt. builds
>> roads, dams, power plants, maintains markets, and provides
>> civil defense - do you really think this is all bad?
>
> Most of those things should be done by private industry.
>
Some maybe, but how many toll roads, how many private armys,
how many planes crashing? And the minute you walk off your
property there will be a new and arbitrary system of law, or
no law at all. At any time the law could be, if you
trespass you are my slave for life (yesterday's reciprocal
agreement is no longer valid so your trespassing, that the
end of you life).
blind conservatism is just as dangerous as any liberal
thinking, the mixed economy requires compromise and funding,
dogma persists across social settings, and there's a quote
from Ronald Reagen to prove how ugly that actually is.
I guess I made my point.
Now go learn some economics before you embarrass yourself
again.
-----
Every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the
prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by
the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an
army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of
citizens on slight evidence.--Milton Friedman
.....
Davinchi
what a hoot, you crack me up Vid.
-----
"Just let me realign the dilithium crystals"
.....
Davinchi
>
> henry george was correct, and your last statement is correct. fooled
> you didn't i. you thought i was a complete raving lunatic. i am only a
> partial raving lunatic.
>
lunatics I can handle, it the people who don't even try that
I want to practice retroactive birth control on.
Davinchi
> last couple of decades, eh? Nobody gives a flying turd about what
> happened when Chester A Arthur was president.
>
I take offense at that Chester Arthur comment, If a shelf
life is the criteria, when why are people still going on and
on about this Jesus guy??????
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> >Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
> >> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> >> >Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> Vide...@tcq.net wrote
> >> >> > i hope they panic to the point of jumping. who cares what happens to
> >> >> > these cretins. they are nothing more than parasites who are addicted
> >> >> > to amassing fortunes via the old fashioned way, that way is any way
> >> >> > they can including rape, pillaging, and exploitation.
> >> >> > they are not unlike cocaine or meth addicts. everything they touch,
> >> >> > every one who is within reach of their feverish claws gets destroyed.
> >> >> > whole countries are being starved to death because of their ferocious
> >> >> > appetite for more.
> >> >> > left alone they always bring on destruction, not only to themselves,
> >> >> > but also the rest of us. its like having a heroin addict in the
> >> >> > family. they will steal anything and everything to satisfy a addiction
> >> >> > that can never be satisfied.
>
> >> >> .......sounds like you've been quite a success in your life.......
>
> >> > true.
>
> >> How old are you? I'm guessing under 20,
>
> >ROTFLOL.
>
> Ashamed to answer the question, eh?
>
its a pathetic question from a immature person.
> >recently brainwashed into
> >> thinking that capitalism is bad,
>
> > bull crap. there are many forms of capitalism, this one stinks, like
> >it did from 1870-1890, and 1920-1932.
>
> America's GDP per capita is among the highest in the world. What
> stinks about it?
that of course is the milton freidman approach. which of course is
completely wrong.
it is how the gdp is divided up. you can have a growing gdp, but if
it almost all goes to a economic aristocracy, then its all smoke and
mirrors.
if its shared thru out society than its a good deal. we no longer
have a good deal. almost all the gravy goes to the top. we have a raw
deal.
plus gdp in the last 20-30 years has really only measured inflation,
we have had no real growth since we went the free market route. we are
broke.
Be specific. Make sure you cite its faults within the
> last couple of decades, eh?
look up.
Nobody gives a flying turd about what
> happened when Chester A Arthur was president.
>
that of course is a conservative short term answer, and was expected.
those who shun history will repeat it.
> > and everybody should rely on the
> >> federal government as though it is a big nipple for us to suckle
> >> for our entire lives.
>
> > the above statement says it all.
> > if this goes down in flames you will get what you deserve.
> > the only reason so many middle class people came back to the markets
> >is because of sane new deal business regulatory institutions like the
> >sec. which gave the little people some confidence.
>
> LOL, now I know you are young. Only children who were freshly
> indoctrinated in public schools actually believe that the New Deal
> solved anything. FYI the Great Depression painfully grinded on for
> about a half dozen years after it was implemented.
really, did you read what i posted. what a intellect. of course it
did not completely cure it, the article said so.
what it did do was to set up america for the largest most wealthy
middle class in the entire history of the world.
WW2 brought us
> out of the depression, not the colossally incompetent FDR.
his was a real gdp that beat ray-guts out by a mile.
ww2 did do the job of spending that fdr wanted to do, was advised to
do by keynes, but could not do because of conservative opposition,
stupidity at its height.
>
> > today the sec is being run by what you are, a conservative/
> >libertarian idiot.
> > we had stable markets for decades till your type wormed your way into
> >power in the 1970's, ray-gun sent us down the mountain like a steam
> >roller once he got in. the rest is history.
>
> Mr Reagan peacefully won the Cold War.
ROTFLOL, ROTFLOL, OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
man you really know history don't you:)
the collapse of the soviet union was predicted in the early 1970's.
indoctrination into a cult does not mean you have smarts.
it means you repeat or parrot what the cult leaders want you to.
He brought us many years
> of great prosperity. He was a BRILLIANT VISIONARY.
>
he tripled the debt, and committed treason(iran/contra).
he left office a broken man with little respect.
we have had no real growth since him, but lots of debt and deficits,
except for a period in the 1990's when the democrats raised tax's, we
had a boom, and the deficit almost disappeared. a direct contradiction
to the fables coming out of conservative lala land.
> It really eats you libs up, doesn't it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!
>
actually it does not. i do not admire stupidity, i pity it.
the problem with stupidity is, if it gets a hold of a country its all
down hill after that.
the younger generations do not seem to like conservatism much, its
the road to serfdom, and they are on it.
> > enjoy the ride, its your baby.
>
> I will. I expect to retire before I'm 55, courtesy of that stock market
> system that you despise and other investments.
hehehe, that is a lazy conservative carrot, that the conservatives
have been dangling in front of america for years.
some do make it, i will admit that. but its not good. they become
parasites who add nothing, but the suck on the tit of the system.
i on the other hand am around the age of your retirement dream(so now
you know, you are very immature).
i am very active creating value. i will never be lazy, if i retire,
it will be a forced one from medical reasons, or something like that.
i plan to work till i can't. i employ americans, i create value.
i will be shipping tomorrow to france. today it was the u.k, and the
northwest territories of canada.
i could never suck on the tit unless i was forced to.
being lazy in a prime period of your life is despicable.
it represents everything that is wrong with america.
Yeah, no doubt
> there will be corrections but the system will survive. Thanks for
> asking.
great, good luck.
Vid...@tcq.net
waste your time on a ninny. he will never understand.
this is what he is,
conservatives and libertarians are constantly outraged at the results
of their own policies. they always blame government for their own
failures.
Vid...@tcq.net
<dotmulldrdo...@noat.nodotnodot.gmail.com> wrote:
just put a quarter in me and wind me up:)
Vid...@tcq.net
hehehe.
Vid...@tcq.net
it is the answer i expected, nothing less. he did not let me down.
forbi...@msn.com
> How do *you* suggest people save for their old age?
The first thing to note is that one cannot save for one's
old age. Instead one acquires control of the resources
the next generation of laborers will need to survive and
produce so they will trade the fruits of their labor for
access to it.
The boomers are going to have a hard time of it because
they are trying to acquire capital during a time when lots
of people are trying to "save" for their retirement and
they will sell when lots of people are trying to provide
funds for their needs during retirement. If you buy when
everyone is buying and sell when everyone is selling you
won't get top dollar. Plus the boomers will be bidding
for services from a smaller labor market.
During the 1960s a 10 to 12 price earning ratio for stock
indicated speculation. Now Blue Chips sell for 18 to 20 PE
ratio.
Vid...@tcq.net
and just think what will happen when they decide to sell. there gains
will be wiped away quick with all of the stock flooding the market.
then there are those who will retire early and find their gains wiped
out because of all of the selling of stocks, and they have no job.
real estate also will be a problem, if it ever recovers from this
debacle.
but in the case of real estate, if its located in a good area it
might not matter so much. so if you live on or near lets say, a lake,
or close to a good hospital and school, or all of the above. real
estate may still be a good deal.
cash will be king also, stocks are just paper.
Alan Bowler
> and just think what will happen when they decide to sell. there gains
> will be wiped away quick with all of the stock flooding the market.
> then there are those who will retire early and find their gains wiped
> out because of all of the selling of stocks, and they have no job.
> real estate also will be a problem, if it ever recovers from this
> debacle.
> but in the case of real estate, if its located in a good area it
> might not matter so much. so if you live on or near lets say, a lake,
> or close to a good hospital and school, or all of the above. real
> estate may still be a good deal.
> cash will be king also, stocks are just paper.
I doubt there will be a flood of selling. You don't
liquidate your entire portfolio the day you retire.
You just start drawing it down over a long period (30 years
or so). The boomers are retiring over a 30 year period,
that has already started. Gradually selling off some
portfolios between now and 2050 just does not qualify as
as "flooding the market". Their are younger people building
their investments that will be buying.
I think the worry is something different. Many boomers have
not been saving enough.