| 0 |
Subject: New Stock Market meltdown Thread
Posted by: nerveclinic
- [105222] Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 14:31
Sorry with all the cut internet cables in my neck of the woods that last thread was taking too long to load.
My bet is this is an article that both Bili and B7 will appreciate.
Bubble Economy
kinda creepy...
|
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 144 | The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 18:27
|
Nice pop for the Dow today, and Lehman and Goldman numbers didn't look awful. Dollar has rallied back about 5% since the Yen since hitting a low, even with the rate cut. I'd love to think that maybe we're going to be OK, but then I look at that ARM reset chart and I just can't see us getting off that easily.
|
| 145 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 18:56
|
The Fed took 30 billion in Bear mortgage backed securities as collateral on their loan. Jeezus. That's a bailout in my book. If it's almost a bankruptcy, we should have let them go bankrupt without getting stuck with used toilet paper in the process.
First of all it's almost certainly not used toilet paper. The problem wasn't the value of the company and it's assets, the problem was they ran out of cash.
Given time, they more then likely easily had enough assets worth far more then $2 a share so your toilet paper premise is inaccurate. It's very possible JP Morgan (and the Fed and the American taxpayer) got a steal.
There's a lot of pissed Bear stock holders right now who think they were under paid for their "toilet paper".
Bear is gone. There was no bail out.
The keys were handed to JP Morgan. They were insolvent, the reason the Fed kept the $2 on the books was to protect the average American who bought their stock portfolios through Bear. JP and the Fed likely got a company worth far more then $2 a share.
If Bear goes completely bankrupt then anyone who bought stocks, bonds etc through their bank has all their money tied up until the loose ends get fixed. How would that affect a retired person, for example who had their 401K/IRA through Bear?
My God Bear was a "bail out " in your book? All the big wigs lost everything. All the stock holders lost everything. What is 2 bucks a share when the stock was at 160 less then a year ago?
The 2 bucks is symbolic to keep the brokerage division functional so people still have access to their solvent funds in unrelated stocks.
If the Fed let them completely fail you'd be complaining about the retirees who can't access their IRA's held by Bear.
Try telling someone who bought stock in Bear Friday at $30, let alone $160 this was a bail out.
The Fed opened the door on the plane and tossed Bear Sterns out.
Bear is history. Usually bail out doesn't mean your "history".
|
| 146 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 19:25
|
I can think of a few ways to keep servicing all these FDIC insured accounts without taking on 30 billion in securities as collateral which, I would guess optimistically is worth 50 cents on the dollar. Morgan appears to have seamlessly taken over Bear's obligations. I don't know why that required the 30 billion gift loan to JP Morgan.
I don't claim to understand the intricacies of the deal, however. Why couldn't JP Morgan just buy them outright? Why did the deal hinge on the Fed getting stuck with paper of dubious worth, with no recourse to JP Morgan if they are, as I suspect, crap paper?
|
| 147 | PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 20:48
|
Did anyone get in on the Visa buy?
|
| 148 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 20:50
|
Visa is tomorrow.
|
| 149 | PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 21:04
|
Oh, wasn't sure who all was able to get in before. Has that just been brokers?
|
| 150 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 00:52
|
I can think of a few ways to keep servicing all these FDIC insured accounts without taking on 30 billion in securities as collateral which
Well you should have called Bernake and advised him then, there have been plenty of cases in the past when servicing FDIC accounts hasn't gone on when a company goes under, it can take months or even years for people to get to their money. It could have further clogged the securities system by locking these investments up until they could be straightened out.
I don't know why that required the 30 billion gift loan to JP Morgan.
My understanding is the 30 Billion was incentive to get JP Morgan to take the deal. They didn't "give" it to them, it's basically just a guarantee against any big problems that might come up as they unwind Bear.
My understanding is it's very likely the money won't be used. Without the guarantee JP might have just said "good luck" and then you would have an nonoperational bankrupt Bear...not so seamless.
I don't understand a lot about the deal yet either but I heard a number of economists explain it briefly and this is the explanation I've heard.
A bailout is what they did to Chrysler where they literally lent them the money to remain operational, like wise the NY City bailout. In the end by the way the Federal government made a lot of money on the Chrysler loan. Bear Sterns wasn't saved. The name might stay on the building, but it's JP Morgan now.
There are economists suggesting the taxpayer may actually come out ahead on all the mortgage backed securities the Fed is taking over. It's not that they are worthless, they just aren't liquid until this thing unwinds. The Fed and the tax payer will own the mortgages and the property that backs them.
|
| 151 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 04:15
|
Oh, wasn't sure who all was able to get in before. Has that just been brokers?
Fidelity sent me an email offering to let me get in on the IPO at 44.00 a share. I didn't even bother checking into it because I am sure the minimums would have been far to rich for my blood.
|
| 152 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 04:56
|
I'd rather see our government holding the defaulted property than 'foreign sovereign interests' [read saudi] buying america up on the cheap. Not sure if that is how it works but prolly.
|
| 153 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 05:00
|
Honest, I posted that before I just found this.
|
| 154 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 07:30
|
Baldwin post 152
The Abu Dhabi group saved Citi's ass with their infusion of cash.
What are you scared of? What exactly is it you think they will do? Give me a concrete, real world example?
Yeah if it gets out of hand, and the capital ownership becomes huge it could be an issue but these are small percentages of ownership.
The USA invests in foreign companies. Is this another example of it's OK for the USA but not other countries?
Please don't put Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the same sentence as Saudi. It's like night and day. This is where the Saudi's are coming to party.
The fact is we've dug this hole our selves with obscene debt and we need the capital. It's sad but reality. We should be grateful they are willing to help bail us out. They may not be interested since they lost so much on Citi Bank.
Is WND the best source you can find for your concerns?
Honestly Baldwin you would love it here.
1) Abortion is illegal.
2) No kissing in public.
3) Homosexuality is well hidden
Theocracy in action.
This would be paradise for you.
|
| 155 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 08:13
|
Baldwin I read the entire WND article and I still can't figure out what exactly it is they are concerned these foreign investment firms will do. There's no concrete examples given.
Everyone was worried about Japan investing in the USA in the late 80's.
|
| 156 | Perm Dude
ID: 9211197
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 10:08
|
Jim Cramer misses one.
Hope "Peter" didn't take his advice. Silly man.
|
| 157 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 10:12
|
nice find PD. Have to wonder in fairness though, how often has he been spot-on? (I honestly dont know, so I'm not asking to be the devils advocate.)
|
| 158 | Mac Daddy
ID: 31242198
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 10:47
|
Heard his show last night. He was spot on, according to him. The question was asked if the e-mailer should pull his deposits with Bear, not if it was OK to be invested in Bear stock.
|
| 159 | Perm Dude
ID: 9211197
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 10:53
|
Interesting. That distinction, however, isn't clear in the original. Peter merely asks if "he should get my money out of there" which could mean stocks or could mean deposits. Interesting that Cramer himself didn't make that distinction either, so one could say that either he was being intentionally vague or that he advocated people keeping both stocks & deposits in bith Bear.
|
| 160 | Myboyjack
ID: 44249198
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 10:55
|
You missed the nuance, PD.
|
| 161 | Perm Dude
ID: 9211197
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 10:56
|
Nuance in the video? I must have.
|
| 162 | PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 11:38
|
They showed Cramer on G4's AOTS as the Epic Fail.
|
| 163 | The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Wed, Mar 19, 2008, 23:59
|
Prediction:
The next two FOMC meetings are on April 29-30 and June 24-25. By the end of the day June 25, we will be below a 1% Fed Funds Rate.
Discuss.
|
| 164 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Mar 20, 2008, 01:10
|
The next two FOMC meetings are on April 29-30 and June 24-25. By the end of the day June 25, we will be below a 1% Fed Funds Rate.
Hard to guess now since they will use the data that comes out in between, They signaled more concern about inflation at the last meeting which is why commodities are falling.
Price of gold was down 59.00 yesterday which implies the gold market doesn't think they will cut that much as well as the strengthening of the dollar also implying the cuts will slow down.
That having been said, it all depends on the inflation, employment and growth data and health of the banks between now and then so it's hard to know this early.
|
| 165 | The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Fri, Mar 21, 2008, 00:21
|
Agreed, nerve. The move down in gold the past two days has been enormous. The wild gyrations all over the map are just nuts. Any day traders that have stuck it out this long have some real opportunity with all the volatility.
|
| 166 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 19:37
|
Widdle: How do you research a company ? What exactly are you looking for to see if a stock is a good value or overpriced ?
Well if you're looking to add a new company to your portfolio versus adding to an existing position there are slightly different roads to take. Holding period also comes into play.
To see if a stock is a good value or overpriced you've really got to do your homework.
Look at other companies in its sector. How does the stock grow and decline compared to the sector? Is it more volatile? If so, are you compensated for that in terms of higher returns or higher dividends?
Look at the PE ratio for companies in the sector. Is the one you're reviewing higher or lower? Why is that so?
To determine if a stock is a value play or overpriced I don't think it's fair to compare it to the market, I think a sector comparison is a fairer measure.
[Boxman proofreading: For whatever reason I got on the below tangent. I was going to delete because I have no idea what it has to do with your question, but I decided to leave it in here and just put up a disclaimer.] :)
If you're going to add a new company, then you've really got to learn the sector they're in, what drives it up and down. Look at the beta of the stock. You can find this at Yahoo! Finance. Even better, calculate your own relative to the DOW or S&P. I use the DOW. That isn't a slap at the S&P. I just use the DOW. If you use the S&P, I'm sure you'll be fine.
So then let's say the stock has a beta relative to the DOW of 1.25. That means for every dollar the DOW goes up, the stock goes up 1.25. Conversely, every dollar the DOW goes down the stock goes down 1.25. Yes, it's possible to have a negative beta where your stock goes down in an up market and up in a down market.
If you foresee a market upturn or downturn, forecast your purchase accordingly as it relates to the beta and other more qualitative factors like analyst opinion, earnings calls, etc.
Now, if you're adding to an existing position, life got a lot easier. You should already know what I've mentioned above and then you can figure out the cyclical movement of the stock and time your buying and selling accordingly. It isn't perfect, but it works.
|
| 167 | biliruben
ID: 32237209
Tue, Mar 25, 2008, 10:03
|
Now Wells Fargo is like, "dude! "
"If you are bailing out companies on the taxpayer dime and then
giving the companies away, we are like, so in!
Toss us National City, baby."
When you consider that the shattered remnants of welfare is less
than half the cost of this bailout, any conservative with any
actual philosophical objection to entitlements should be
shouting to the skies about how disgusting this is.
We should have just nationalized Bear.
Need More Chavez!
|
| 168 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Mar 25, 2008, 13:26
|
"If you are bailing out companies on the taxpayer dime and then giving the companies away, we are like, so in!
Are you still making the case that Bear was "bailed out"?
If so I think you should read a bit more about the terms. I've read a dozen "financial" articles and comments by economist and none of them call it a bail out...just a few screaming headlines did.
It's only on the taxpayers dime if the paper is worthless...they are mortgage backed securities, the taxpayers own the houses at worst.
We could actually make money on the deal.
You honestly like Chavez? Or was that a joke?
|
| 169 | biliruben
ID: 51232515
Tue, Mar 25, 2008, 17:12
|
If we could make money on the deal, then a company, not the
Fed would have bought them.
50 cents on the dollar at best on that trash.
Nearly every non-shill economist I have read has said it's a bail-
out in every sense except the simple technicality regarding the
Fed's status as a private company.
Bear was insolvent. They had more liabilities than assets.
They're shareholders shouldn't even be getting one red cent.
The only reason they are is because the benevolent Fed is giving
it to them. And that's just a small bit of what we are on the
hook for. Who ever said this isn't a bailout doesn't have a clue.
There are certainly many things about Chavez I don't like, but
engaging in corporate welfare is not one of them. At least he
make some attempt to help the needy, not some investors who
made poor decisions.
|
| 170 | Building 7
ID: 22271821
Tue, Mar 25, 2008, 20:24
|
If Bear Sterns were allowed to go bankrupt, a value would have to placed on their derivatives. And the counter party would then have a value on their worthless derivatives. Ditto with Countrywide and E-Trade. This could cause the whole financial system to spazz out. Now that JP Morgan bought them it can be deferred.
|
| 171 | biliruben
ID: 51232515
Tue, Mar 25, 2008, 21:16
|
Tell it to Japan. Let's find out who's swimming naked sooner rather
than later to we can get on with recovery.
|
| 172 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 12:32
|
Bili They had more liabilities than assets. They're shareholders shouldn't even be getting one red cent.
Bili that just isn't a factually accurate statement. They were insolvent, meaning they didn't have the cash to cover immediate debt that was due, but that doesn't mean their liabilities are more then their assets.
Why do you think JP is offering to go from $2 to $10 per share now if the company has no assests. Sheez
Shareholders are pissed about this not happy, they are concerned they are getting ripped off.
The extent that the Fed "bailed them out" was to keep the company running, so people had access to their stocks, and money markets. Had they let the whole thing crash speculation is it would have been a domino effect and we would have had that golden run on the banks you love to talk about.
A true bail out and the company would have been saved...(Chrysler)
If we could make money on the deal, then a company, not the
Fed would have bought them.
Ahhh Bili, check it out. The week before the CEO of Bear said everything was fine, (liar) on Friday it was $30.00 per share, over the weekend debts were called in they couldn't meet so they were insolvent. Who was going to buy a company as big as Bear, under that scenario, that fast, like by stock market open Monday?
No one really knows what will happen with these assets. The Fed just created a relationship with Blackrock to start to filter through the mortgages to see what they got. No one has a clue right now, it was an emergency.
I'm not talking about if it was right or wrong, good or bad for the tax payer. I'm just saying that to characterize it as a true bailout of Bear Sterns is wrong. They are busted.
At least he (Chavez)makes some attempt to help the needy, not some investors who made poor decisions.
160 to 2 dollars is helping an investor who made a bad decision? Dude those investors were thrown out with the trash. The car door was opened and they were kicked to the pavement, they are bloody, and broken and beaten. Do you have any sense of reality this week?
For God sakes Bili, are you saying if you bought the shares for $30 Friday and Monday morning you were told that the Fed was saving your a$$ giving you $2.00 per share you would feel "bailed out". Geez dude what are you tripping on? Or are you letting your political agenda get in the way of reality?
Tell it to Japan.
The difference is, Japan really would have bailed out Bear, in the true sense of the word.
|
| 173 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 12:46
|
I don't know if it's a "political agenda" I just get angry when a government that won't even pony up to pay for healthcare for poor toddlers is eager to toss 30 billion of good money after bad in order to save an out of control banking system who members desperately need to learn a lesson: if they fcuk up, they could lose it all.
Right now anyone who thinks they might be considered a domino is free to take outrageous risks and expect uncle Sammy to come to the rescue.
Burn it down if that's the system we have, because it's a corruption of true capitalism and deserves to be destroyed. Capitalism is bad enough when it's working properly. It's destructive as well as evil when it's not.
You can call it anything you want, but absent kindly uncle Sammy, all Bear stockholders would be getting $0 and zero cents per share. Bailout in any sense of the word that means anything.
Bond-holders were buying on Friday, knowing they were going to get less than their full buck back. They get paid before stock-holders. A+B= stock shares were worthless.
|
| 174 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 14:34
|
I just get angry when a government that won't even pony up to pay for healthcare for poor toddlers is eager to toss 30 billion of good money after bad in order to save an out of control banking system who members desperately need to learn a lesson:
Look I'm not arguing with you on that point. I'm not worried about the bankers, I'm worried about the country. Letting Bear Sterns go completely bankrupt and the further domino effects could have hurt everyone, it could have sent the economy further down the drain.
Consequences become many lost jobs, more poverty, more people without health care coverage...it's like you don't look at that angle.
That's the angle I am worried about, not the bankers. I don't shed a tear for the people who brought this on, it's the collateral damage.
|
| 175 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 14:52
|
I do consider that angle. As much as I come off as an alarmist sometimes, I actually think our global financial infrastructure is quite robust.
I don't think if bear went down there would be significant dominoes. I think in might take out a few more banks, hedge funds and shadow structures and cause some hardship among those using Bear as an investment bank, but on balance the economy would be largely untouched. Untouched, meaning we would still be going into a recession, but I don't think it would be any nastier than the one we would go in if the government just watched Bear burn. It would be messy but not catastrophic.
The plus side would be that it would force us to price the nuclear waste securities that Bear couldn't offload, and help us mark other assets on other people's books. Sure, this could send someone like Lehman down the tubes, but it would also be a cleansing procedure that would begin to rebuild trust and transparency and help our economy recover more quickly.
I prefer a shorter and slightly deeper recession. As I see it, we could be in for a long, drawn-out down turn. That would also suck. I prefer the sucking that doesn't come with us making sure billionaires don't become hundred millionaires, by softening the impact of IB bankruptcies.
I'm sure there are some grannies that could be trotted out that can't access their retirement account for a month or two while we straighten out the mess. Spend that 30 billion compensating them.
|
| 176 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 15:38
|
Bili
What is your comment on the fact the offer was raised from $2 to $10 if bear was really worthless? Just JP being charitable?
|
| 177 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 15:54
|
Bear Stearns Memorabilia. A T-shirt "bearing" the Bear Stearns logo sold for $151.76 on eBay, as memorabilia from the investment bank have become hot items since its demise last week.
Wait they were bailed out, how could there be a "demise"?
Several more Bear items are currently up for sale on the auction site, including umbrellas, tote bags, golf balls, and even a plastic "bear" toy.
|
| 178 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 17:44
|
Well, now that there is 30 billion in tax-payer money taking the majority of the risk, Bear is suddenly worth something.
JP Morgan needs to get shareholder approval. Their risking the first billion by upping the price is still a bargain now that the tax-payer is willing to back the majority of the nuclear waste.
When you take away a large amount Bear's liability and place it in the taxpayer's lap, the remainder of Bear is probably worth quite a bit. A billion's probably a bargain.
Wells Fargo is hoping for a similar deal for bankrupt Nat. City.
Such a deal! Buy viable company with the taxpayer taking on the risk for you!
I wish I had a billion. I'd do it too.
|
| 179 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 17:45
|
The stockholders were bailed out, not the company.
JP Morgan was just handed a gift. They weren't bailed out.
|
| 180 | Building 7
ID: 22271821
Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 22:43
|
What is your comment on the fact the offer was raised from $2 to $10 if bear was really worthless?
If I may interject here. I read where their building on prime NYC real estate was worh more than $2 a share. Probably $10. And the shareholders were not happy at that. There will be lawsuits. One dude lost a billion dollars.
You two are just arguing semantics. Bailout, demise, bankruptcy.....whatever, nobody's happy about it. It's academic. I love when I get a chance to use that word. Not only that it's a moot point. Another favorite. Frankly, anybody who would name a Wall street firm Bear anything deserves to go out of business. Even if it took 80 years.
|
| 181 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 14:40
|
B7 You two are just arguing semantics. Bailout, demise, bankruptcy.....whatever, nobody's happy about it. It's academic.
Yeah I know that. Bili and I love to debate and while we sometimes take contrasting positions, the further the debate goes semantics often comes out the winner. It's something I've noticed on a number of occasions...what to do?
|
| 182 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 14:47
|
get a new Thesaurus?
|
| 183 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 14:53
|
B7- In any rational world, the taxpayer just bought that 2 billion dollar building. Hands off, JP.
The proper thing to do would be to use it to house victims of foreclosure that was the result of fraud, or personal catastrophe.
Yeah, you are right. Semantics. Bah. The important thing is that taxpayer monies were used, and it is very unlikely it will be the last time, before this mess is all over. As long as we all recognize that, it doesn't matter what we call it. I call it shitty, you call it pragmatic.
|
| 184 | Boldwin
ID: 332562616
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 17:11
|
How was JP Morgan handed a gift? They have to pay 5X the price before the government got involved.
|
| 185 | Boldwin
ID: 332562616
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 17:17
|
ARMs were by no means the only shakey financial instruments just waiting to break the system when put under strain. If the government can gradually let the air outta this balloon without a loud popping sound I am all for it. That would be bailing us all out.
|
| 186 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 17:37
|
No. That's not how I understand it.
The $2 price tag was negotiated with the Fed at the table, already pushing their 30 billion onto the table, and Bear twisting in the wind with certain bankruptcy as soon as the Asian markets opened on Monday. The $10 raise was just to get the shareholders to go along.
I very much doubt JP would have seen worth that was worth the risk to bid even 2 cents on Bear, until the Fed said, "no sweat, you take the company we'll pawn off the risk onto the taxpayer."
I don't agree with your balloon analogy.
I would say it's more like water pouring over a ever-increasing holes in a damn. There are a number of dead bodies with cement overshoes that have been tossed in the lake on the other side of the damn over the last number of years. The Fed is desperately trying to staunch the flow of water and keep the number and names of the bodies concealed by throwing innocent American bodies into the ever widening holes. We can't begin to rebuild the damn until the pressure is relieved, the bodies exposed and the murderers found and prosecuted.
I agree this certainly isn't about ARMs anymore.
|
| 187 | Building 7
ID: 22271821
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 20:00
|
The important thing is that taxpayer monies were used, and it is very unlikely it will be the last time, before this mess is all over. As long as we all recognize that, it doesn't matter what we call it. I call it shitty, you call it pragmatic.
I'm in favor of eliminating the Federal Reserve and voted for the only candidate who would do that.
|
| 188 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 20:20
|
b7 I'm in favor of eliminating the Federal Reserve and voted for the only candidate who would do that.
so what would replace it B7...gold standard?
do you know what would have to happen to make that a reality?
|
| 189 | Building 7
ID: 22271821
Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 23:12
|
so what would replace it B7...gold standard?
At the minimum a currency backed substantially by gold and silver. The country somehow managed to survive from 1776 to 1913 under the gold standard with little inflation.
do you know what would have to happen to make that a reality?
Yes. Congress would have to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Or the Supreme Court would have to rule the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as unconstitutional, which it is.
|
| 190 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 13:46
|
Yes. Congress would have to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Or the Supreme Court would have to rule the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as unconstitutional, which it is.
In the short term, spending would have to match up with the amount of gold reserves, correct?
There's a 7 Trillion dollar US float, know gold reserves in the entire world at $1,000 an ounce is much smaller then this. IN THE WORLD.
So we can't go back to a gold standard "overnight", just by repealing some bill.
I'm doing this off the top of my head and I don't know how close I am to the truth but...
How deep of a depression would we go into getting there overnight?
Now parts of this I like.
All troops would have to come home, incl Korea and Germany and of course Iraq.
No deficit spending whatsoever no matter how bad the economy gets.
Dramatic increase in taxes to immediately pay down the difference between the budget surplus and actual holding in gold. B7 are you for 50% 60% 70% tax rates to get there?
These increases in taxes would trigger an economic slowdown, massive loss of jobs.
Huge cuts in social programs, incl Social Security and Medicare. Just tell grandma and grandpa they have to get by in the streets?
It's funny, I hear economist after economist questioned about this...it comes up from time to time on the Bloomberg podcasts, and I haven't heard one yet say it's a good idea.
It's not as simple as saying "repeal the act" and there are no consequences.
Maybe I exaggerate some of the points, I am guessing, but it won't come without EXTREME consequences.
You make it sound so easy.
Why don't we start by demanding Congress and Bush stop this excessive surplus sending. That would be a great short term move in the right direction (We were headed there during the 90's)
Here we go again, talking about this in the stock market thread when we started a seperate thread to discuss this issue.
|
| 191 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 13:48
|
Here we go again, talking about this in the stock market thread when we started a seperate thread to discuss this issue.
No wonder. I'm the dumbass who opened the first stock market thread because I was looking for an old post.
Sorry B7
Let's let this thread die.
|
| 192 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 13:51
|
Wrong again this is the newest thread...sheez and I haven't even started drinking yet tonight.
|
| 193 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, May 07, 2008, 07:36
|
Boxman:
drop me an email when you get a chance I want to discuss something with you off board and I don't know how to reach you.
Nerve
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|