Dow just broke 15,000

[GostHacked]

It's irrelevant who Obama hires.

Its not irrelevant. He hires certain people for a reason.

It's his horrible economic policies that are the problem.

It's part of it, but not the whole picture.

Quantitative Easing isn't any sort of so-called trickle down economics. It's actually trickle down government. It's the government printing money out of thin air to keep the stock market inflated.

And they have been printing money since 1913.

[Bonam]

i hope today the fear in the markets will subside, but with the soft economic reports, it's hard to say what will happen.

I hope the market drops some more and presents a better buying opportunity in the next few days

[Argus]

Told ya that was coming several months ago, a

Uh huhhhh. "There's gonna be a correction! The market's going to collapse! Buy gold!" God, how many times have I heard the doomsayers say these things over the past years? Every day, I think.

Several months ago? Well, my stocks were up about 15% in November/December, and down 3.62% so far this year. So if I'd listened to you I would have lost out on the opportunity to make a lot of money.

Which is why I don't listen to doomsayers.

[sharkman]

Black Monday. Dot com bubble. Subprime mortgage collapse. Whatever 1980 was. You can save you a lot of trouble by watching for the warning signs, or take a bath every time something comes along.

Edited February 5, 2014 by sharkman

[Argus]

Black Monday. Dot com bubble. Subprime mortgage collapse. Whatever 1980 was. You can save you a lot of trouble by watching for the warning signs, or take a bath every time something comes along.

Market collapses don't generally give much warning.

[GostHacked]

Market collapses don't generally give much warning.

Actually they do, it's called trending. As an example Peter Schiff clearly called it in detail the housing market collapse in the USA and told you the reasons why he was able to predict it.

[cybercoma]

Actually they do, it's called trending. As an example Peter Schiff clearly called it in detail the housing market collapse in the USA and told you the reasons why he was able to predict it.

For everyone interpreting a collapse, there's another person interpreting a recovery.

[TimG]

Actually they do, it's called trending. As an example Peter Schiff clearly called it in detail the housing market collapse in the USA and told you the reasons why he was able to predict it.

1000 monkeys at typewriters will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. 1000s of stock market gurus are making predictions at any given time but some will always be right. Most will be wrong. The next time around it is always a different guru who is right which suggests dumb luck plays a big part. Edited February 5, 2014 by TimG

[sharkman]

1000 monkeys at typewriters will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. 1000s of stock market gurus are making predictions at any given time but some will always be right. Most will be wrong. The next time around it is always a different guru who is right which suggests dumb luck plays a big part.

Which is why one shouldn't listen to a single guru type 'crying in the wildness'. Greed will let you down, and always be willing to leave some money on the table.

Edited February 6, 2014 by sharkman

[kimmy]

It's irrelevant who Obama hires. It's his horrible economic policies that are the problem.

The policies have worked great at what they're intended to do. Corporate profits have never been higher, and the stock market has done incredibly well under Obama. What's this "problem" you speak of? Jobs? It seems pretty unlikely to me that "jobs" is the real priority of the decision-makers who set the economic policies.

Quantitative Easing isn't any sort of so-called trickle down economics. It's actually trickle down government. It's the government printing money out of thin air to keep the stock market inflated.

They're transferring money into the pockets of the financial sector and the wealthy based on the premise that making life easier for the financial sector and the wealthy will produce benefits that "trickle down" to everybody else. You can quibble over the point that it's not tax breaks in this instance, but the overall theory is the same: if the rich guy train gets rolling, everybody gets to ride!

And you don't get to call every government policy you don't like "trickle down government". I understand the term when you're applying it to cases where the government is stimulating spending by putting money in the hands of poor-people through food stamps and shovel jobs and that sort of thing. But applying it to quantitative easing is not an accurate use of the term in the accepted Breitbart sense. You're abusing your own terminology.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

...They're transferring money into the pockets of the financial sector and the wealthy based on the premise that making life easier for the financial sector and the wealthy will produce benefits that "trickle down" to everybody else.

I doubt that....any such "trickle down" is secondary to the preservation of capital markets. "Everybody else" is an abstraction that few purposely care or worry about. There will always be winners...and losers.

[kimmy]

I doubt that....any such "trickle down" is secondary to the preservation of capital markets. "Everybody else" is an abstraction that few purposely care or worry about. There will always be winners...and losers.

Of course. But that's the premise it's being sold to voters under. "A rising tide raises all boats!" remember?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course. But that's the premise it's being sold to voters under. "A rising tide raises all boats!" remember?

Meh...might as well be "A rising U.S. lifts Canada". Lots of boats stay sunk.

[cybercoma]

It's ok to artificially preserve the wealthy's share in the economy, but don't you dare intervene on behalf of the poor and middle class. That would be disastrous. </sarcasm> I always find it funny how economics got turned on its head. It went from Adam Smith's idea that the demand encourages businesses to produce and do business, to the idea that businesses will expand somehow on their own with no signal from the market and create jobs as long as they get to keep their more of their money (i.e., not pay as much in taxes or be subsidized when failing). Thirty some odd years of supply-side madness has been long enough. It's time to focus on creating demand for industry instead of focusing on artificially propping up industries for which there is no demand.

Edited February 10, 2014 by cybercoma

[Argus]

It's ok to artificially preserve the wealthy's share in the economy, but don't you dare intervene on behalf of the poor and middle class.

The best way, generally, to help the middle class is to tax them less. The problem with tax cuts is they always disproportionately help the rich since they pay the most taxes. And, of course, they don't help the poor at all since they pay no taxes.

But everyone likes to hear a politician talk of tax cuts. Helping the poor requires tax increases so you can spend more on the poor. Spending more does not make politicians popular

What actually needs to be done is to tax investment income as it used to be taxed, at the same rate as any other kind of income. It's investment income, capital gains and dividends which are makign the rich obscenely rich.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Argus