OT - Obama now bringing stock market down
topcat
clue*. Guess that's what happens when you never had a real job. Never had to
make a real payroll. Never had to pay a real expense.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100122/D9DCPH880.html
Oh....and what do investors think, you know, the people who help drive the
wealth creation that keeps us all employed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100121/pl_bloomberg/a8uii1bcrdmy
TC
Salad
And our resident facist extolls the virtues of anything goes, no rules
for banks or Wall St.
topcat
"Salad" <sa...@oilandvinegar.com> wrote in message
news:iMydnS8lOeGfQcTW...@earthlink.com...
Vee must eliminate the evil rich...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI
TC
Salad
You being a Vegas man, a Bill Bennett wannabee, you'd be against Obama's
desire for regulation of gambling America away.
Then complain when you lost your wad. Gambling addicts do have a
support group. Let me point you in the right direction.
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/.
topcat
Yes Salad, everyone who goes to Vegas is a gambling addict. Now go adjust
your tin foil hat.
TC
JRStern
>Hate to be an "I told you so"......uh....no I don't. This President has *no
>clue*. Guess that's what happens when you never had a real job. Never had to
>make a real payroll. Never had to pay a real expense.
>
>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100122/D9DCPH880.html
I disagree with the article that says the suggested bank regulations
are forcing the market down.
warning: put on your aluminum foil hat, here it comes:
The market doesn't have to be forced down, it has been held up over
the last year by giant bags of financial hydrogen. Apparently
Geithner was on tv last night disagreeing with Obama's proposed
regulations (hey, WHAT proposals, exactly? "We want our money back!"
is not a proposal). So, maybe Geithner decides to let just a little
hydrogen out of the bags, to make his point.
ok, you can take off your hat now.
Myself, I'm with Obama on this - I'm way ahead of Obama. I want to
hear some specifics out of Zero, not just more speechifying. If he's
not up for the job, maybe he should step down. BTW, I *hate* it that
the Republicans are not way out front on this issue, they're just
grumbling a little about TARP but not being very specific, either.
J.
Starcade
I think he's a co-participant in all of this, and a DINO, if that.
Fact is: I think he was a nice, slick production to get people to
believe something good might happen, and he's the same stuff, if not
worse.
My friend and roommate believes he might have all the qualities of the
anti-Christ, and she is by no means a Rethuglipig.
I think they have a clue more than you give credit for. I think
they're heading for the exits, and Plan X might be starting.
Mike
Starcade
> In article <hjcmhi02...@news5.newsguy.com>, top...@aboy.com says...
> 401k's who are taking BIG hits as a result of Obama's latest "goals" to
> come out of his piehole.
Here's a hint, Bob: Everything in those 401K (<$100K or not!) is
paper fraud.
Everything.
I became convinced a long time ago (on the basis of "This all has to
come from somewhere...") that, when the notational derivatives and the
like go away, so does everything else.
We're between TEOTWAWKI and TSHTF right now, and TSHTF is
_inevitable_.
I pray you're armed, Bob, or you'll survive little longer than I do.
American Idol won't keep the masses quiet when they have nothing to
eat.
Mike
Anim8rFSK
"briant...@gmail.com" <briant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, that aside, I will say this... Obama is right to be concerned
> about the risks banks take with insured deposits. I'm with him on that,
> but unfortunately he has incorrectly diagnosed the problem. The problem
> is not that banks are taking risks. The problem is that the deposits
> are insured by the federal government! Because the only reason banks
> can be so reckless with the money they have on deposit is because the
> depositors don't care! Why should they care what kind of risks the
> banks take with their money when the government has already told them
> that their deposits are guaranteed? And conversely, if the government
> wasn't in the business of insuring these deposits in the first place,
> then the banks couldn't take all these risks because their depositors
> wouldn't allow it; they'd withdraw all their money
Well, no. Banks try like crazy to get us to put our money in non FDIC
accounts that yield higher interest rates. They don't want you in the
no risk stuff.
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a way to go-go"
JRStern
<briant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>* http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2213936220100123 - "Bernanke
>second term in doubt"
Brian, what do you think, should Bernanke be confirmed or
defenestrated?
J.
topcat
"Bob Rudd" <bob...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.25c50dddd...@news.albasani.net...
> In article <peeml516t0sm7apa6...@4ax.com>,
> JRS...@foobar.invalid says...
> myself vacillating on it but today leaning to not confirming him.
> --
>
I'm not J, but I feel this way. I don't like what he's doing, but given who
would be appointing the new guy, the devil we know may be better than the
devil we don't know.
TC
topcat
<briant...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D095BEE070...@85.214.113.135...
> "topcat" <top...@aboy.com> wrote in news:hjcbn...@news2.newsguy.com:
>
>> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100122/D9DCPH880.html
>
>
> This guy's level of incompetency is really getting frightening. Let us
> not forget, that it was government itself that convinced a good many of
> the financial firms to become banks! E.g., Goldman Sachs wasn't a bank
> until it converted. And why did it convert? So it could borrow from
> the Fed's discount window! So firms like Goldman didn't even have
> insured deposits to gamble with before, and now only have them because
> they wanted to get bailed out by the government!! And how about B of A?
> Bank Of America, at the URGING of government, took over Merrill Lynch
> and therefore put its insured deposits at risk by taking on Merrill's
> tremendous liabilities. But now, all of a sudden, we have Barack
> telling us he doesn't want the banks to be doing EXACTLY what government
> told them and wanted them to do!! And his top two economic advisors -
> chosen BY HIM - even advised him not to turn around and take on the
> banks. So you have to wonder where the hell most of his appointments
> come from if not the inner recesses of his ass at this point. But, it's
> just an absolute circus, and the incompetency is really frightening.
>
> But, that aside, I will say this... Obama is right to be concerned
> about the risks banks take with insured deposits. I'm with him on that,
> but unfortunately he has incorrectly diagnosed the problem. The problem
> is not that banks are taking risks. The problem is that the deposits
> are insured by the federal government! Because the only reason banks
> can be so reckless with the money they have on deposit is because the
> depositors don't care! Why should they care what kind of risks the
> banks take with their money when the government has already told them
> that their deposits are guaranteed? And conversely, if the government
> wasn't in the business of insuring these deposits in the first place,
> then the banks couldn't take all these risks because their depositors
> in its interference with the free market by guaranteeing bank deposits,
> creates a moral hazard for both the depositors AND for the depositing
> institutions, and so now we need government regulation to undue the
> problem caused by .... government regulation! Awesome.
>
> Then of course, in this speach, he made a number of false statements
> when announcing his proposed new bank regulations. He said the
> financial crisis was caused by greedy bankers who were trying to make a
> quick buck, and that his proposed regulations would prevent the next
> crisis. Wrong. That isn't what caused the crisis, and isn't scratching
> the surface of what needs to happen to stop another one down the road.
> In fact he even has it backwards. It was the crisis itself which caused
> bankers to be able to act on their greed. Obama is, as has been is MO
> throughout year 1, not describing the actual cause of the crisis but
> rather the symptoms of the crisis. The true root cause of the crisis
> was that the Federal Reserve irresponsibly lowered interest rates to 1%.
> The crisis was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing
> mortgages that people couldn't repay. The crisis was everything the
> government did to interfere with the free market that created the real
> estate bubble, that made the collapse inevitable, and that made possible
> all the rampant speculation on both Wall Street and Main Street. And
> Barack Obama is doing absolutely nothing to address the underlying
> causes of the financial crisis at all! In fact, so far during the Obama
> tenure, the Fed has been acting more irresponsibly than ever and yet its
> chair was renominated by the president (though it looks like his
> confirmation may actually be in peril*), the government has been
> intruding in to the free market more than ever, and the government has
> been even MORE involved in the housing market and has created even more
> moral hazards (not only in the housing market but also in the financial
> industry with all their bailouts and the idea these institutions are too
> big to fail). So the underlying causes of the financial crisis are not
> only still intact, but are still fully enabled to do further economic
> damage. And Obama, therefore, is not only doing nothing to protect
> against the next crisis, but he is ensuring that there WILL BE a next
> crisis and that it will be even greater than the previous one. BATTEN
> DOWN THE HATCHES BABY!!!
An angle I had forgotten about there in your first paragraph. Thanks for
pointing that out.
TC
JRStern
>"Bob Rudd" <bob...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.25c50dddd...@news.albasani.net...
>> In article <peeml516t0sm7apa6...@4ax.com>,
>> JRS...@foobar.invalid says...
>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:02:14 +0000 (UTC), "briant...@gmail.com"
>>> <briant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >* http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2213936220100123 - "Bernanke
>>> >second term in doubt"
>>>
>>> Brian, what do you think, should Bernanke be confirmed or
>>> defenestrated?
>>
>> That's a tough call, a very tough call. What do you think, J.? I find
>> myself vacillating on it but today leaning to not confirming him.
>> --
>
>I'm not J, but I feel this way. I don't like what he's doing, but given who
>would be appointing the new guy, the devil we know may be better than the
>devil we don't know.
That's an excellent point.
However, my father used to cite a rule: when you see shit, flush the
toilet.
Here's my thinking. Bernanke sees himself as a junior Greenspan, a
neutral technician, with nothing but good intentions. And you know
what's paved with those. I'm not sure Bernanke had a choice in 90% of
what he's done. He even took what I thought was the right move as
soon as he took office, which was to try to sneak rates higher.
Didn't work, but I don't think it precipitated the disaster, that was
coming anyway. Maybe it even did precipitate it sooner rather than
later, which under the circumstances might actually have been a good
thing.
I dunno.
Even with TC's point, I think I'd flush.
Even if Bernanke did everything "right", I think I'd flush.
J.
JRStern
<briant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
>news:agnml5hsm16qcfhlq...@4ax.com:
>
>> I'm not sure Bernanke had a choice in 90% of
>> what he's done. He even took what I thought was the right move as
>> soon as he took office, which was to try to sneak rates higher.
>
>I don't know why you always site that as some sort of evidence that he
>tried to do the right thing but had no choice in the matter. The Dow was
>still hovering above 13K, the banks were still lending, and Bernanke firmly
>believed the economy was stronger than it really was and that a declining
>housing market would be containable. It had nothing to do with an inner
>yearning of his to adhere to proper and responsible elastic money supply
>principles. If you've read any of Ben's writings over his career prior to
>becoming Fed chair, you'd see what he thinks the right thing really is
>under those circumstances. And now that we're two years removed from that
>rate increase, it should be more obvious than ever that it was nothing more
>than Ben's own misreading of the actual underlying conditions at the time.
I cite it because I agree with it and count it in his favor.
It's in many other things, TARP and the like, that I think he had no
choice, that is, made a strongly defensible choice, that I cannot
really disprove.
You've lost me on the rest, what do you think from his writings he was
trying to do, in what economic conditions? On the surface things
looked fine, although there was already a lot of murmering about the
real estate bubble and the sub-prime bubble. It looked in most ways
like he had the slack to restore interest rates.
I think he was trying to restore rates to natural market conditions,
above rather than below the rate of inflation. He recognized what
Greenspan had been doing wrong and tried to fix it.
J.
JRStern
>> I cite it because I agree with it and count it in his favor.
>
>But he did it only because he had completely misjudged the
>circumstances. I.e. he did the right thing for the wrong reason. It is
>no point in his favor. It is an illustration of his incompetence.
OK, you're saying he did it for fiscal, macro reasons and not
monetary, but I don't know how you can know that.
>> It's in many other things, TARP and the like, that I think he had no
>> choice, that is, made a strongly defensible choice, that I cannot
>> really disprove.
>
>He didn't need to be given a choice. TARP and the like have Ben
>Bernanke written all over them! But don't take my words for it. Read
>his. And it was basically Bernanke and Paulson who brought forth the
>mega financial sector bailout package that "respectable opinion" urged
>Americans to wholesale accept. From them, the Emergency Economic
>Stabilization Act was born. That's clearly recorded history at this
>point and a perfect fit for his philosophy.
Yes, but that doesn't make it wrong. Or right.
>> You've lost me on the rest, what do you think from his writings he was
>> trying to do, in what economic conditions? On the surface things
>> looked fine, although there was already a lot of murmering about the
>> real estate bubble and the sub-prime bubble. It looked in most ways
>> like he had the slack to restore interest rates.
>
>If he had properly assessed the underlying problems in the economy at
>that time, then in keeping with his economic philosophy, he'd have
>decreased rates. For example, in late 2007 sometime he can be roughly
>quoted as saying "We do not expect significant spillovers from the
>subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system."
>I think I have that one memorized to a tee.
He was not alone in that, either as a real belief, or a hopeful lie.
Not that I expect his, or anyone's, public pronouncements to ever
reflect all of their real thinking.
> There is no question
>whatsoever that he hadn't a clue what was coming. It's not even
>debatable. And it was during this time of utter cluelessness that he
>raised rates. It was an epic failure - that is if you subscribe to his
>school of thought.
In retrospect.
But nobody saw the market failure coming.
They SHOULD have, but did not.
I am not aware of ANYONE forecasting that. Bubble bursting on a
valuations basis, yes. Market collapse, no. Different beasts
entirely.
I'm sure some said it, but were dismissed as crackpots. Or
inconvenient party-poopers. I'm talking market failure, where you
could not sell a basket of goods with a long-term value of $900,000
for that amount, but had to take some token value or hold it against
your will. In other words, most of 2008.
>> I think he was trying to restore rates to natural market conditions,
>> above rather than below the rate of inflation. He recognized what
>> Greenspan had been doing wrong and tried to fix it.
>
>Not at all. The natural market rate would have been sky high at that
>point as the real savings rate was negative. He was implementing
>classic Keynesian money management based on a horrifically misguided
>assessment of economic conditions - or as I said, accidentally doing the
>right thing.
But even according to you the fiscal and monetary moves were the same
at that point, so he did them. How is that a misjudgement?
>And by the way, yes, he should be defenestrated.
Finally, an answer!
J.
Starcade
> In article <77937413-ed67-4b9d-af42-4259d1f4326a@
> 14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, darkstar7...@gmail.com says...
> assuredly real and critically important to the lives of everyone who has
> anything in one of them....be it a 401, IRA etc.
Not exactly my point, Bob.
My point is that anything of perceived value right now (including the
currency) is so far sunk into these derivative bets that, when TSHTF,
it all goes to zero.
Mike