PDA

View Full Version : Wait until you see the stock market tomorrow !


Jorski
01-21-2008, 01:28 PM
Global markets getting smashed, Asia, Europe, Canada all of approximately 5%. U.S. closed today, tomorrow is going to be a rough one.

Workin' 4 Toys
01-21-2008, 02:10 PM
Get ready to BUY, BUY, BUY.

Sodar
01-21-2008, 02:20 PM
Get ready to BUY, BUY, BUY.

I'm ready to go!

YooperScott
01-21-2008, 02:28 PM
It's libel to be up. Just when you assume it is going to do something the opposite seems to happen. :(

Jorski
01-21-2008, 02:54 PM
It's libel to be up

I'll take that bet !

MYMC
01-21-2008, 02:55 PM
The sky is falling and the globe is warming...

Jorski
01-21-2008, 02:57 PM
Correct on both counts!;)

Leroy
01-21-2008, 03:17 PM
I missed the movement from Dec and I didn't sell, sell, sell on this turn down :(

I would give it even odds up/down tomorrow....

Jorski
01-21-2008, 03:29 PM
The rest of the world sold off by at least 5%. That includes many interlisted companies. As a result, even if the foreign markets rally tomorrow, the US markets likely go south just to catch up (even out).

While the U.S. market seemed relatively decent over the last few years the reality is that the S&P 500 is lower than it was in 2000, and the U.S. dollar has depreciated considerably against virtually every currency in the world. All is not rosy.

There will be some bargains in the coming months, but this will have to run its' course. There is just too much damage from the sub-prime debacle, for this to be over.

MYMC
01-21-2008, 04:08 PM
Those with real wealth will gain even more...the smart ones that play it right will become wealthy.


(by the way I am neither of the above, so I'm screwed:( )

TMCNo1
01-21-2008, 04:15 PM
All this and my outhouse door is froze shut! Why me??????????

KnoxX2
01-21-2008, 04:18 PM
The Market is like the weather. If you don't like it ..........wait long enough and it will change.

jbfootin
01-21-2008, 05:07 PM
The sky is falling and the globe is warming...
I was Lambeau Field yesterday, and the globe is definitly NOT warming;)

Ric
01-21-2008, 05:19 PM
The rest of the world sold off by at least 5%. That includes many interlisted companies. As a result, even if the foreign markets rally tomorrow, the US markets likely go south just to catch up (even out).

While the U.S. market seemed relatively decent over the last few years the reality is that the S&P 500 is lower than it was in 2000, and the U.S. dollar has depreciated considerably against virtually every currency in the world. All is not rosy.

There will be some bargains in the coming months, but this will have to run its' course. There is just too much damage from the sub-prime debacle, for this to be over. It' that damn Bush I tell ya! :rolleyes:

pkskier
01-21-2008, 05:25 PM
Doesn't the start of all downfalls lead back to bush?

TX.X-30 fan
01-21-2008, 10:07 PM
Correct on both counts!;)




How do you stay so positive??? :rolleyes:

Upper Michigan Prostar190
01-21-2008, 10:18 PM
wanna stock tip?

Bandit Car.


buy it.

Workin' 4 Toys
01-21-2008, 10:53 PM
Bandit Trans Am? If the price would go down....It would be a great time to buy....

TMCNo1
01-22-2008, 06:10 AM
I've been thinking of investing in the Bunny Ranch!

Ric
01-22-2008, 08:50 AM
fed funds rate cut of 3/4%

Monte
01-22-2008, 08:59 AM
I've been thinking of investing in the Bunny Ranch!

I bet you would get some good stock options;)

Sodar
01-22-2008, 09:46 AM
fed funds rate cut of 3/4%

I wish they would just leave it alone! They are tweaking it sooooo much, that I think we will be in more trouble in the long run. I wish they would let the bubble burst, let the economy sit at rock bottom for a few years and then let the prosperity come back ON ITS OWN!

Ric
01-22-2008, 09:47 AM
I wish they would just leave it alone! They are tweaking it sooooo much, that I think we will be in more trouble in the long run. I wish they would let the bubble burst, let the economy sit at rock bottom for a few years and then let the prosperity come back ON ITS OWN! It's reactionary at best

Jorski
01-22-2008, 02:17 PM
You guys are right about it being reactionary by the FED.

The thing is the housing/credit bubble was the result of the fed and the government being completely unwilling to let the market and the real economy worsen and properly deal with the excesses of the tech bubble.

In the end the constant pumping of liquidity to "save us" from the necessary economic contraction simply transferred the bubble from one asset class to another.

TX.X-30 fan
01-22-2008, 02:59 PM
From tech stocks to single family housing??? That logic seems confusing. Help!

MYMC
01-22-2008, 06:14 PM
You guys are right about it being reactionary by the FED.

The thing is the housing/credit bubble was the result of the fed and the government being completely unwilling to let the market and the real economy worsen and properly deal with the excesses of the tech bubble.

In the end the constant pumping of liquidity to "save us" from the necessary economic contraction simply transferred the bubble from one asset class to another.
What about the lending institutions making those loans? No culpability there???? Come on...Just because the money was cheap doesn't mean you have to be stupid, or greedy.

TMCNo1
01-22-2008, 07:06 PM
I think the rising cost of energy (crude oil prices) has finally caught up with us also, after spending time trickling down to the consumer for 3 years or so.:twocents:

sdesmond
01-22-2008, 07:25 PM
I think the rising cost of energy (crude oil prices) has finally caught up with us also, after spending time trickling down to the consumer for 3 years or so.:twocents:

No doubt about it. It all stems back to the price of crude. We hurt ourselves.

TX.X-30 fan
01-22-2008, 07:31 PM
I think the rising cost of energy (crude oil prices) has finally caught up with us also, after spending time trickling down to the consumer for 3 years or so.:twocents:



You make an excellent point #1, and your not even Canadian!!!! :D




30999

TMCNo1
01-22-2008, 08:11 PM
You make an excellent point #1, and your not even Canadian!!!! :D




30999


Well I have eat Canadian Bacon once or twice on McDonald's Egg McMuffins and that may have helped!:D

brat
01-22-2008, 08:40 PM
All you guys are so worried about your stock market. I bet you're wishing you had done like me and invested in those Dale Earnhardt Collector Series Plates.:D :D

Farmer Ted
01-22-2008, 09:16 PM
The rest of the world sold off by at least 5%. That includes many interlisted companies. As a result, even if the foreign markets rally tomorrow, the US markets likely go south just to catch up (even out).

While the U.S. market seemed relatively decent over the last few years the reality is that the S&P 500 is lower than it was in 2000, and the U.S. dollar has depreciated considerably against virtually every currency in the world. All is not rosy.

There will be some bargains in the coming months, but this will have to run its' course. There is just too much damage from the sub-prime debacle, for this to be over.


Don't believe the hype!

I recently heard a wise man say, "the media has correctly predicted 36 of the last 2 recessions"

fact

the US economy has not had 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, it hasn't had 1 consecutive month of negative growth

phecksel
01-22-2008, 09:27 PM
Take my approach to market investing. Buy high, sell low, go into debt :)

Bruce
01-23-2008, 12:24 AM
I won't say how hard I have been hit but donations of O positive would be great.

JBaker
01-23-2008, 01:11 AM
[LEFT]


Don't believe the hype!

I recently heard a wise man say, "the media has correctly predicted 36 of the last 2 recessions"

fact

the US economy has not had 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, it hasn't had 1 consecutive month of negative growth




So you believe the media errs on the bear side? What channel are you watching? :confused:

Keeping in mind that all we can do at this point is speculate, but I have only the slightest lingering doubt that when the NBER (responsible for declaring and dating recessions) does look back at 2007, they will determine that as I wrote this in January of 2008 we were already multiple months into a recession.:twocents:

Also remember that consecutive quarters of negative growth is not required by the NBER or most modern economists. I am also wondering what "1 consecutive month" is.:confused:

6ballsisall
01-23-2008, 01:17 AM
Everyones an "analyst" today.........

Funny enough, the super smart economists didn't pin point the housing recession until 4-5 months after it was already tanking.........

Opportunities are ALWAYS created in any market condition

JBaker
01-23-2008, 01:18 AM
I think the rising cost of energy (crude oil prices) has finally caught up with us also, after spending time trickling down to the consumer for 3 years or so.:twocents:

Very, very good point. Mind if I expand it to rising commodity costs as a whole? Not that many have outpaced crude....

Jorski
01-23-2008, 10:26 AM
From tech stocks to single family housing??? That logic seems confusing. Help!

Okay. First let's go back a bit and look at the cause of the tech bubble.

The tech stock bubble was created by easy money policies. When the Fed got scared about the failure of Long Term Capital, the Asian currency crisis and Russia defaulting on a sovereign bond, they aggressively cut interest rates to stem the apparent "crisis". The problem with that was that the economy was strong, and the stock market was already at high valuations ( Greenspan called it irrational exhuberence in 1996!).

Too much cheap capital, fueled the bull market, pushing it into a bubble. Too much cheap capital will always appear in the form of increased prices somewhere in the economy.

When everything got wildly overheated, the Fed became scared of inflation, and raised rates 9 times and the bubble burst in March of 2000.
Move ahead a little, and there is 9/11, a recession and the fed goes from worrying about inflation to a position of absolute panic about deflation. so what do they do, they start cutting interest rates.

The amount of cheap easy money increased dramatically, and once again there was too much of it. It had to appear somewhere in the form of rising prices, and it did. The prices of homes, fueled by a low cost of carry (cheap mortgages) rose dramatically. The funny thing is that if the prices of the things that you consume increase, such as food, we all get upset. When the prices rise of our assets (houses, stocks), we get happy.

So that is how the stock market bubble transferred to single family housing. The bubbles are the result too much money in the system. The Fed likes coming to the rescue in times of crisis - and partly that is their mandate. They do not however, like pulling the plug on a good party, and could have prevented the housing bubble, if the had taken the necessary steps and faced up to the kind of pain required to wring the necessary excesses out of the economy following the tech bubble.

MYMC. You mentioned the culpability of the lenders, and you are absolutely correct about that, but the were enabled by the fed and the government. Some simple lending policies, such as requiring lenders to get proof of income, and to require minimum levels of equity in home loans would have prevented the current housing problems.

Ric
01-23-2008, 10:39 AM
You're a limited government thinker Jorski?

MYMC
01-23-2008, 10:49 AM
You're a limited government thinker Jorski?
You had to go and ask that...:rolleyes:

Jorski
01-23-2008, 10:55 AM
I am not quite sure what that means; though I assume you want to know if I believe in less government as opposed to more. In general, I do believe in smaller government, though I think that the problem with the fed/gov't when it comes to the economy is the assymetry of the government's involvement.

I believe that there are public goods and externalities and that is what government is for. In the case of the Fed and monetary policy, and government and fiscal policy, I tend to think that they are over involved when things are bad (Fed to the rescue !), and under involved when things are good (don't worry, be happy). The net result economically is that they increase the size of the undulations we experience (peak to trough).

JBaker
01-23-2008, 11:37 AM
Okay. First let's go back a bit and look at the cause of the tech bubble.

The tech stock bubble was created by easy money policies. When the Fed got scared about the failure of Long Term Capital, the Asian currency crisis and Russia defaulting on a sovereign bond, they aggressively cut interest rates to stem the apparent "crisis". The problem with that was that the economy was strong, and the stock market was already at high valuations ( Greenspan called it irrational exhuberence in 1996!).

Too much cheap capital, fueled the bull market, pushing it into a bubble. Too much cheap capital will always appear in the form of increased prices somewhere in the economy.

When everything got wildly overheated, the Fed became scared of inflation, and raised rates 9 times and the bubble burst in March of 2000.
Move ahead a little, and there is 9/11, a recession and the fed goes from worrying about inflation to a position of absolute panic about deflation. so what do they do, they start cutting interest rates.

The amount of cheap easy money increased dramatically, and once again there was too much of it. It had to appear somewhere in the form of rising prices, and it did. The prices of homes, fueled by a low cost of carry (cheap mortgages) rose dramatically. The funny thing is that if the prices of the things that you consume increase, such as food, we all get upset. When the prices rise of our assets (houses, stocks), we get happy.

So that is how the stock market bubble transferred to single family housing. The bubbles are the result too much money in the system. The Fed likes coming to the rescue in times of crisis - and partly that is their mandate. They do not however, like pulling the plug on a good party, and could have prevented the housing bubble, if the had taken the necessary steps and faced up to the kind of pain required to wring the necessary excesses out of the economy followin the tech bubble.


:worthy:

In general I love and agree with this take. I don't necessarily think it makes a great argument for not adjusting rates, though as we may be facing an entirely different (but perhaps equal or more difficult) problem if monetary policy was left unchanged. I also respectfully disagree with your thesis that the LTCM bailout should be directly linked to the tech bubble. That is a little bit too big of a stretch for my liking but to each his own.

Jorski
01-23-2008, 11:58 AM
I also respectfully disagree with your thesis that the LTCM bailout should be directly linked to the tech bubble

Actually I was suggesting that it was indirectly linked. If you read my post more carefully you will see that I mentioned three large scale events that scared the fed into cutting interest rates at the wrong time. Further, I suggested that the direct cause of the tech bubble was an overly lax monetary policy.

Have no doubt that LTCM PLUS the Asian currency crisis PLUS the Russian bond default is what caused the fed to cut rates so aggressively.

JBaker
01-23-2008, 12:47 PM
Actually I was suggesting that it was indirectly linked. If you read my post more carefully you will see that I mentioned three large scale events that scared the fed into cutting interest rates at the wrong time. Further, I suggested that the direct cause of the tech bubble was an overly lax monetary policy.

Have no doubt that LTCM PLUS the Asian currency crisis PLUS the Russian bond default is what caused the fed to cut rates so aggressively.

A flight to quality/liquidity is almost always going to force the fed to cut. This is no secret. The result without cuts would be an egregious spread between bond yields and the funds rate.

I would like to hear you explain how you feel monetary policy was overly lax during the tech bubble run up. Keep in mind that rates dipped below 5% for only 8 months from '95-'00. Would you have suggested hiking rates despite sub-2% inflation?

Bruce
01-23-2008, 01:16 PM
Each time the "bowl effect" occurs there is usually something to drive the market as it comes out of the bowl i.e. tech, real estate etc. What is going to drive it this time ?

Jorski
01-23-2008, 02:34 PM
I would like to hear you explain how you feel monetary policy was overly lax during the tech bubble run up. Keep in mind that rates dipped below 5% for only 8 months from '95-'00. Would you have suggested hiking rates despite sub-2% inflation?


Well, I already did.

They cut rates aggressively in llate 1998 and early 1999, providing the fuel for the bubble. And yes, I would have raised rates despite sub 2% inflation, The reason is that there was asset inflation, as opposed to wage inflation or inflation in the price of goods. Either way it is inflation, and the corollary of asset inflation, is a consumer price index that is artificially low.

Leroy
01-23-2008, 02:39 PM
I think the technology bubble was caused by the emergence of the internet as a technology that was viewed as more revolutionary than it really was. Similar bubbles for the telephone, train, and oil many years ago.

Jorski
01-23-2008, 02:49 PM
The lure of the internet, explains the reasons for where the bubble occured, monetary policy explains why it happened.

If it hadn't happened in tech, it would have expressed itself elsewhere.

Workin' 4 Toys
01-23-2008, 03:28 PM
Leroy's chart shows back when I should have bought into Microsoft...1988/89.... Who would have thought.:o

JBaker
01-23-2008, 03:45 PM
Well, I already did.

They cut rates aggressively in llate 1998 and early 1999, providing the fuel for the bubble. And yes, I would have raised rates despite sub 2% inflation, The reason is that there was asset inflation, as opposed to wage inflation or inflation in the price of goods. Either way it is inflation, and the corollary of asset inflation, is a consumer price index that is artificially low.

That's simply inaccurate. The fed never cut rates in 1999. In fact, they raised rates in June, August and again in November.

In relation to asset inflation...it would be nice if we had a firm capital goods price index to use at least in conjunction with the CPI.

Let me reiterate, I think your general viewpoint carries a considerable amount of validity. I just feel you have focused too narrowly on not only monetary policy, but liquidity in general as the cause or effect of said economic problems.

On a more up-to-date note: What a ridiculous move(s) by the market today!

jmac197
01-23-2008, 05:09 PM
Dow (http://moneycentral.msn.com/stock_quote?Symbol=$INDU)12,270.17+ 298.98

I call it an buying opportunity. If only I had some money.......

TX.X-30 fan
01-23-2008, 07:58 PM
I don't have near the recollection of some here, but there are reasons for the housing boom and eventual slow down. Housing as well as commercial construction has always gone through these cycles, and yes some is caused by monitary policy, some by lending practices and more are caused by simple demand.

The current problems with single family housing have been caused by poooooooor lending practices, which in some respect was caused by the various fed. lending guarantors trying to get folks into homes that had no business in a home. This happened in the mid 80's for many of the same reasons.

This current oversupply will clear through the pipeline and construction will start back again. This is healthy for the industry, I only wish we could get the lending on course so the dips are much smaller and shorter in duration.

No bailouts for anyone, not 1 single dollar, if you bought bonds that paid sweet rates on sub prime mtgs. oh well, and if you bought 3X'S the house you knew you could afford well downsize!!

On a side note WWGD (what Would Greenspan Do)?

JBaker
01-23-2008, 08:00 PM
Dow (http://moneycentral.msn.com/stock_quote?Symbol=$INDU)12,270.17+ 298.98

I call it an buying opportunity. If only I had some money.......

I hope you are right. More importantly, I hope more investors are thinking along your lines (preferably the ones with money ;).) Beware of an undersold period within a downtrend...

JBaker
01-23-2008, 08:18 PM
I don't have near the recollection of some here, but there are reasons for the housing boom and eventual slow down. Housing as well as commercial construction has always gone through these cycles, and yes some is caused by monitary policy, some by lending practices and more are caused by simple demand.

The current problems with single family housing have been caused by poooooooor lending practices, which in some respect was caused by the various fed. lending guarantors trying to get folks into homes that had no business in a home. This happened in the mid 80's for many of the same reasons.

This current oversupply will clear through the pipeline and construction will start back again. This is healthy for the industry, I only wish we could get the lending on course so the dips are much smaller and shorter in duration.

No bailouts for anyone, not 1 single dollar, if you bought bonds that paid sweet rates on sub prime mtgs. oh well, and if you bought 3X'S the house you knew you could afford well downsize!!

On a side note WWGD (what Would Greenspan Do)?

Stuart, we all appreciate you taking a break from polluting to enlighten us.:D Certainly we are dealing with supply demand issues in the housing sector.

I would like to expand on your rebuttal of a bailout. Hey, I'm probably more conservative than the next, especially when it comes to government intervention. Your reasoning is sound, but let me give you a different scenario:

Let's say you purchased your home years ago and have been making your payments just fine. Then the government makes a conscious policy shift to facilitate homeownership. Afterall, Americans are notoriously bad at saving for retirement, but reasonably good at paying their mortgage. Then these unscrupulous lenders move-in and target the sub-prime candidate. Treating mortgages like credit cards, they advertise teaser rates then send the interest to astronomical, unpayable levels. Now the lender has a vested interest in the loan not defaulting so he isn't necessarily intending to set the individual up for failure. The lender is hoping for a two-for-one loan. He tells his client that his property will appreciate and when it does, he can re-fi before his adjustable rate kicks in. But what happened is some of the guys who took traditional adjustable rate loans during the Greenspan era paid the price for recent rate hikes, and we also learned why some of the sub-prime candidates had bad credit scores in the first place.

So there you are sitting on your property. You did nothing wrong. You didn't use poor lending practices and you paid your mortgage. But there goes the value of your home, down and down and down with each neighboring foreclosure. Wouldn't you rather pony up for a bailout rather than take the asset hit? I would, because foreclosed homes are more than just an economic issue. They are a social one as well.

Jorski
01-23-2008, 11:52 PM
JBaker,

To that point, there are cases where borrowers have been victimized by predatory lenders, those deserve some help.

In particular, I think that there have been a lot problems with the loan brokers. I forget the exact estimate that the fed gave, (20% rings a bell) but there is a relatively significant amount of people that could have qualified for normal mortgages who were pushed into bad loans by mortgage brokers in search of higher commissions.

Nasty stuff.

TX.X-30 fan
01-24-2008, 07:40 AM
J baker, yes I'm sure that has and will happen as it did in the mid to late 80's. The question lies in whether the fed govt should bail individuals out for bad decisions or unscrupulous lending practices? I wish the industry could police themselves, because the handwriting was on the wall years ago. The only difference than in the 80's was that rates were much lower and there were no neg-am loans this time.
So perhaps there is some culpability on the part of the federal govt.

Jorski, absolutely the brokers were running amok, and in some instances with the approval of FNMA and Freddie mac. A good friend of mine is a broker and some of the loans over the last 5 or so years he has gotten through would make me just shake my head. At this point where I live we have not seen the property devaluations of the past so the hit to the economy should not be as large as the S&L thing.

Its a very complicated issue when we decide who to help and who not to help. What I was was referring to earlier were people who just flat bought too much house and investors that enjoyed the above average returns on these risky financial vehicles.

I was a mortgage loan officer for 8 years and finally just didnt have the stomach for it. Management wanted maximum profit no matter what hard ship the borrower was saddled with for the next 30yrs.

It seems we seldom learn the lessons from the past?


Jbaker, good one on the polluting!!! :D

Ric
01-24-2008, 08:46 AM
soo. the fed stayed out of this until tuesday morning's emergency cut...

Today I'm hearing of a young frenchman accused of stealing approximately 7 billion...

Could this have been what caused the overseas markets to fall on Monday, leaving us with reaction to hype?


Global markets getting smashed, Asia, Europe, Canada all of approximately 5%. U.S. closed today, tomorrow is going to be a rough one.

Ric
01-24-2008, 10:13 AM
I cannot get enough of this.

Are we forced to believe that we are in a recession or a recession is near?

California has in increasing rate of unemployment.. as well as michigan..

overpriced housing in those areas increase default...

Recession because these areas have issues? SOrry, I aint buying it.

Jorski
01-24-2008, 11:19 AM
Recession is likely for a number of reasons, housing is just one of them.

Falling housing prices, must impact consumer confidence and by extension, consumer spending. Less spending increases the odds of a recession.

Cost of funds to banks (despite fed rate cuts) are increasing. Increased cost of funds means less lending, not more. Less lending increases the odds of a recession.


Cost of funds to corporations are rising. spreads on corporate debt are expanding rapidly. If the cost of money increases, the number of viable projects drops so corporate spending drops. Less spending increases the odds of recession.

Government spending is still rocking along, although, if there is any meaningful pull back in Iraq, this could drop dramatically (post election). Reduced government spending dramatically increases the odds of a recession.


In the end, the business cycle has not been repealed. We are due to enter a recession in the near term. Rate cuts and gov't bail out packages can defer the event but cannot cancel it. If all sectors of the economy reduce spending, that is by definition contraction.

I think that the economy needs this period to retrench and rebuild, then it can emerge stronger than ever.

Upper Michigan Prostar190
01-24-2008, 11:24 AM
There is no recession, the market on Bandit cars is booming.

Maristar210
01-24-2008, 11:32 AM
Recession is likely for a number of reasons, housing is just one of them.

Falling housing prices, must impact consumer confidence and by extension, consumer spending. Less spending increases the odds of a recession.

Cost of funds to banks (despite fed rate cuts) are increasing. Increased cost of funds means less lending, not more. Less lending increases the odds of a recession.


Cost of funds to corporations are rising. spreads on corporate debt are expanding rapidly. If the cost of money increases, the number of viable projects drops so corporate spending drops. Less spending increases the odds of recession.

Government spending is still rocking along, although, if there is any meaningful pull back in Iraq, this could drop dramatically (post election). Reduced government spending dramatically increases the odds of a recession.


In the end, the business cycle has not been repealed. We are due to enter a recession in the near term. Rate cuts and gov't bail out packages can defer the event but cannot cancel it. If all sectors of the economy reduce spending, that is by definition contraction.

I think that the economy needs this period to retrench and rebuild, then it can emerge stronger than ever.


Holy ****, you mean the sky ISN'T falling?

tex
01-24-2008, 11:32 AM
I hear LUX are on the rise! Buy LUX-Save the United States economy!

Jorski
01-24-2008, 11:34 AM
Holy ****, you mean the sky ISN'T falling?

Recession is a normal part of the economy, in the end it makes things better.

Maristar210
01-24-2008, 11:40 AM
Recession is a normal part of the economy, in the end it makes things better.

I was just messing with you. Lots of posturing in this thread. Some feel the need to share thier expertise, some don't.

Reminds me of the guy on the corner of Main street in a town near here. He stands there with a black and white sign that says "repent" and he keep screaming at the passing cars "the end is near". All I can think of is the end is very near for him if he steps off that f-ing curb :D

Ric
01-24-2008, 11:56 AM
I was just messing with you. Lots of posturing in this thread. Some feel the need to share thier expertise, some don't.

Reminds me of the guy on the corner of Main street in a town near here. He stands there with a black and white sign that says "repent" and he keep screaming at the passing cars "the end is near". All I can think of is the end is very near for him if he steps off that f-ing curb :D good analogy. Let him have his end. It does not mean the end for me!

Patrick Hardy
01-24-2008, 11:58 AM
All of this is capitalism at its finest. You must take the lows(hard times) with the highs(good times) with a even keel. Always look at the long term. And what do you mean by "what would Greenspan do?" These are Greenspans federal policies / reactions.

Upper Michigan Prostar190
01-24-2008, 12:13 PM
you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. I already TOLD you There is no recession and will be none as there is a strong market for Bandit cars.

TX.X-30 fan
01-24-2008, 07:51 PM
All of this is capitalism at its finest. You must take the lows(hard times) with the highs(good times) with a even keel. Always look at the long term. And what do you mean by "what would Greenspan do?" These are Greenspan's federal policies / reactions.




This fed chief seems more transparent than the last, and may feel uncomfortable with what has been laid in his lap? Greenspan would have never been as reactionary as to drop the funds rate 3/4 all at once, in my opinion this sent the wrong signal to the capitol markets and was too much too soon. I am no genius here as many on this forum can attest to ;) but Alan took the rates low and slow and eased them up the same way. Seems to me he averted most panic situations like what has just occurred?

Area's that soared too fast will feel the worst for a while, Cali, Vegas, Denver

Jorski in my opinion has it right that economies need to stand back and take a breath once in a while to reload and posture for the next upward move. We may have some stagnant growth for a few quarters, who knows this may lead to lower taxes on income, capitol gains, or incentives to grow business?

cbryan70
01-24-2008, 09:08 PM
there is a plan out now for a tax check of 600 to 1200 dollars. Didnt this send the wrong message the last time they tried this?

Leroy
01-24-2008, 10:55 PM
I think Greenspan had better vision and of course he had been doing this forever. So far Benanke doesn't seem to have the vision or anticipation of Greenspan yet. But he is very smart and did a good move with the 3/4 point reduction.

This fed chief seems more transparent than the last, and may feel uncomfortable with what has been laid in his lap? Greenspan would have never been as reactionary as to drop the funds rate 3/4 all at once, in my opinion this sent the wrong signal to the capitol markets and was too much too soon. I am no genius here as many on this forum can attest to ;) but Alan took the rates low and slow and eased them up the same way. Seems to me he averted most panic situations like what has just occurred?

Area's that soared too fast will feel the worst for a while, Cali, Vegas, Denver

Jorski in my opinion has it right that economies need to stand back and take a breath once in a while to reload and posture for the next upward move. We may have some stagnant growth for a few quarters, who knows this may lead to lower taxes on income, capitol gains, or incentives to grow business?

MYMC
01-25-2008, 12:13 PM
I'm not sure about this resession thing...Cessna aircraft is sold out of jets until the 4th quarter of 2010 and there are only 8 positions left for the next quarter in 2011!

MasterCraft is sold out of production through 2008...

Not sure about all of this, kinda feels like that whole global warming thing:rolleyes:

Maristar210
01-25-2008, 12:26 PM
I'm not sure about this resession thing...Cessna aircraft is sold out of jets until the 4th quarter of 2010 and there are only 8 positions left for the next quarter in 2011!

MasterCraft is sold out of production through 2008...

Not sure about all of this, kinda feels like that whole global warming thing:rolleyes:

Mike,

Don't let Jorski hear you say that. I hear he still has eleven 55 gallon drums of fuel oil leftover from the Y2K debacle :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

A customer of mine has a deposit on a Honda Jet, (the bas*ard) I Keep hoping for an invite to one of his weekend trips to Vegas in that thing Hoo WAAAA

MYMC
01-25-2008, 12:52 PM
Mike,

Don't let Jorski hear you say that. I hear he still has eleven 55 gallon drums of fuel oil leftover from the Y2K debacle :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

A customer of mine has a deposit on a Honda Jet, (the bas*ard) I Keep hoping for an invite to one of his weekend trips to Vegas in that thing Hoo WAAAA
They are building them right up the road...may need to take a road trip!

Jorski has fuel? ***...has he never heard of "greenhouse gases"? Jeez...have some damn compassion!