The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling

[Campbell]

These folks have a strategy and a plan. The stock market is run by rich folks and insiders. The traders will run along with a day-to-day, week-to-week basis where every few days or weeks they test the bottom...that is they find out where the level is which represents long range investors and then they trade above and a little below that. Sometimes when the opportunity presents itself they come out screaming, "You Better Get Out"

Then they get out of the market for a month or two and wait till it falls as far as those who get scared and sell will take it and then they buy back in low and start the market up again:

Economist Caution: Prepare For 'Massive Wealth Destruction'

"Marc Faber, the noted Swiss economist and investor, has voiced his concerns for the U.S. economy numerous times during recent media appearances, stating, “I think somewhere down the line we will have a massive wealth destruction. I would say that well-to-do people may lose up to 50 percent of their total wealth.”

 

[Canell]

Yes, it is. :lol:

 

[RDS]

Alex Jones to the rescue.

 

[Papa bull]

These folks have a strategy and a plan. The stock market is run by rich folks and insiders. The traders will run along with a day-to-day, week-to-week basis where every few days or weeks they test the bottom...that is they find out where the level is which represents long range investors and then they trade above and a little below that. Sometimes when the opportunity presents itself they come out screaming, "You Better Get Out"

Then they get out of the market for a month or two and wait till it falls as far as those who get scared and sell will take it and then they buy back in low and start the market up again:

Economist Caution: Prepare For 'Massive Wealth Destruction'

"Marc Faber, the noted Swiss economist and investor, has voiced his concerns for the U.S. economy numerous times during recent media appearances, stating, “I think somewhere down the line we will have a massive wealth destruction. I would say that well-to-do people may lose up to 50 percent of their total wealth.”

How come you're not one of the evil rich since you've got the stock market all figured out? If you've got it figured out, getting rich should be a snap for you and yet all you do is bitch about how rich other people are. Whassupwithat?

 

[Campbell]

How come you're not one of the evil rich since you've got the stock market all figured out? If you've got it figured out, getting rich should be a snap for you and yet all you do is bitch about how rich other people are. Whassupwithat?

I don't have to get rich. My wife and I are both retired on the lake. I will mention that I have averaged about 14% gain per year on our two IRA's since 2010. I'm 79 years old and have raised, educated my children and we're all doing fine thanks.

 

[Papa bull]

I don't have to get rich. My wife and I are both retired on the lake. I will mention that I have averaged about 14% gain per year on our two IRA's since 2010. I'm 79 years old and have raised, educated my children and we're all doing fine thanks.

Just sayin'. You're wasting your talents knowing everything you know about the stock market secrets and only getting 14%.

 

[Campbell]

Just sayin'. You're wasting your talents knowing everything you know about the stock market secrets and only getting 14%.

Actually my financial advisor is the son of one of my high school classmates and he didn't have to tell me, though he did, that's we've done outstanding. For tax advantages, since Dec. 2010 I've raked $92,000 of pure profit from our two IRAs and started a new account.

 

[Masada]

These folks have a strategy and a plan. The stock market is run by rich folks and insiders. The traders will run along with a day-to-day, week-to-week basis where every few days or weeks they test the bottom...that is they find out where the level is which represents long range investors and then they trade above and a little below that. Sometimes when the opportunity presents itself they come out screaming, "You Better Get Out"

Then they get out of the market for a month or two and wait till it falls as far as those who get scared and sell will take it and then they buy back in low and start the market up again:

Economist Caution: Prepare For 'Massive Wealth Destruction'

"Marc Faber, the noted Swiss economist and investor, has voiced his concerns for the U.S. economy numerous times during recent media appearances, stating, “I think somewhere down the line we will have a massive wealth destruction. I would say that well-to-do people may lose up to 50 percent of their total wealth.”

I bet you had an orgasm over Faber's comment.

 

[Masada]

Actually my financial advisor is the son of one of my high school classmates and he didn't have to tell me, though he did, that's we've done outstanding. For tax advantages, since Dec. 2010 I've raked $92,000 of pure profit from our two IRAs and started a new account.

You rich snob. It's people like you that prevent the poor from eating. Lol

 

[Masada]

I don't have to get rich. My wife and I are both retired on the lake. I will mention that I have averaged about 14% gain per year on our two IRA's since 2010. I'm 79 years old and have raised, educated my children and we're all doing fine thanks.

You're 79, and liberal. Lol....

Better watch out old man, liberals won't allow you that life saving surgery you might need in a few years.

 

[Campbell]

You're 79, and liberal. Lol....

Better watch out old man, liberals won't allow you that life saving surgery you might need in a few years.

My voting record sir,

1956.....Eisenhower
1960.....Nixon
1964.....Goldwater
1968.....Nixon
1972.....Nixon
1976.....Did Not Vote
1980.....Anderson(I)
1984.....Reagan
I went from 1984 to 2004 and did not vote in a presidential election

I was a Republican when they left tax rates high enough to cover their spending. When Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates to pre depression levels, lowest they had been in 50 years, continued to spend on defense programs increasing the amounts each year That almost did it for me. What the Republicans have done since then makes it a no brainer. Republicans used to stand for balanced budgets, small government and individual liberty. Now they're in the pockets of the wealthy and corporations and their activism against individual liberties makes my arse crave lime juice.

I voted for a Democrat in 2004, 2008 and 2012. Actually I didn't. I voted against Republicans. I didn't leave the Republican party....they left me. I would vote for another one if it hare lipped a goats ass.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I say we avoid discussing personal finances and voting records in a thread that's about something much more important, which is the theory that we may be headed for another recession.

More folks should have noticed what was saving us from a long grinding recession that WOULD HAVE happened after the stock bust if the Fed had not put the housing bubble in its place. In 2005 we could have been so grateful to Greenspan, Bush, Democrats in Congress and everyone else for orchestrating a maneuver that would pretty much negate the painful result of the stock bust. But we're not thankful for it, in hindsight, because what was used to stave off what would have otherwise been a long and painful recession ended up triggering its own recession. In other words, the plan for fixing the problem created its own problem.

And so right now we should be asking ourselves the same question: what's saving us from a much longer, grinding recession were we not swapping out the financial market mania with fiscal and monetary mania? And is that strategy laden with its own problems that could trigger another even deeper recession after the scheme fails?

The Keynesian-esque meme going around is that this is a low-risk maneuver to prop up what would otherwise be a depressed economy, and that by doing it, the economy will suddenly begin "running on its own again." Repeatedly they simply point back to the 40s-60s for evidence that it's sure to work. In other words, their grand hypothesis requires disregarding or ignoring the profound differences between the US 60+ years ago and the US today. So if, just go with it, IF the neo-Keynesian hypothesis (that fiscal and monetary stimulus will cause economic recovery) just happens to turn out to have a critical foundational flaw, then in that case, yes, we really are talking about the sky falling, almost certainly within our lifetimes (with the possible exception of Campbell who has revealed his age).

Personally I believe that Keynesian stimulation can help stave off the pain of deep and prolonged recessions but only if there is a real literal source of genuine economic growth to follow. We had that in the 40s through 60s. It was our time, the undeveloped world was nowhere close to beginning to develop, and the US and the world were experiencing the most rapid period of oil discovery and development that the world will ever know. If this round of Keynesian craziness is going to work, it will be because some new opportunity presents itself. Think revolutionary new technology or vast new energy source. Stimulus does not run an economy, and it doesn't guarantee recovery. It's a symptom treater, not a cure.

 

[radioman]

.

Economist Caution: Prepare For 'Massive Wealth Destruction'

"Marc Faber, the noted Swiss economist and investor, has voiced his concerns for the U.S. economy numerous times during recent media appearances, stating, “I think somewhere down the line we will have a massive wealth destruction. I would say that well-to-do people may lose up to 50 percent of their total wealth.”

-----------------

Oh, hell.
I get these sorts of E-mails on a weekly basis, or I see these ads on various websites.
Although the "noted" investor, economist, billionaire ID may change, it's always the same spiel "... use my system to protect and grow your hard-earned wealth..."
They're just like the "buy gold" shills.......hmmmm.....I wonder what happened to those guys?

 

[Campbell]

I say we avoid discussing personal finances and voting records in a thread that's about something much more important, which is the theory that we may be headed for another recession.

More folks should have noticed what was saving us from a long grinding recession that WOULD HAVE happened after the stock bust if the Fed had not put the housing bubble in its place. In 2005 we could have been so grateful to Greenspan, Bush, Democrats in Congress and everyone else for orchestrating a maneuver that would pretty much negate the painful result of the stock bust. But we're not thankful for it, in hindsight, because what was used to stave off what would have otherwise been a long and painful recession ended up triggering its own recession. In other words, the plan for fixing the problem created its own problem.

And so right now we should be asking ourselves the same question: what's saving us from a much longer, grinding recession were we not swapping out the financial market mania with fiscal and monetary mania? And is that strategy laden with its own problems that could trigger another even deeper recession after the scheme fails?

The Keynesian-esque meme going around is that this is a low-risk maneuver to prop up what would otherwise be a depressed economy, and that by doing it, the economy will suddenly begin "running on its own again." Repeatedly they simply point back to the 40s-60s for evidence that it's sure to work. In other words, their grand hypothesis requires disregarding or ignoring the profound differences between the US 60+ years ago and the US today. So if, just go with it, IF the neo-Keynesian hypothesis (that fiscal and monetary stimulus will cause economic recovery) just happens to turn out to have a critical foundational flaw, then in that case, yes, we really are talking about the sky falling, almost certainly within our lifetimes (with the possible exception of Campbell who has revealed his age).

Personally I believe that Keynesian stimulation can help stave off the pain of deep and prolonged recessions but only if there is a real literal source of genuine economic growth to follow. We had that in the 40s through 60s. It was our time, the undeveloped world was nowhere close to beginning to develop, and the US and the world were experiencing the most rapid period of oil discovery and development that the world will ever know. If this round of Keynesian craziness is going to work, it will be because some new opportunity presents itself. Think revolutionary new technology or vast new energy source. Stimulus does not run an economy, and it doesn't guarantee recovery. It's a symptom treater, not a cure.

I think that anyone who didn't notice that George W. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy twice, 2001 and 2003 then started two wars, one totally unnecessary then proceeded to double the national debt really needs to do some serious soul searching.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I think that anyone who didn't notice that George W. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy twice, 2001 and 2003 then started two wars, one totally unnecessary then proceeded to double the national debt really needs to do some serious soul searching.

This partisan talking point neither affirms nor refutes what I said, in fact it really doesn't address my comments at all.

 

[washunut]

Actually my financial advisor is the son of one of my high school classmates and he didn't have to tell me, though he did, that's we've done outstanding. For tax advantages, since Dec. 2010 I've raked $92,000 of pure profit from our two IRAs and started a new account.

So you earned approximately 50% over a three year period and only earned $92K. Using a pretty small base to calculate returns.

 

[Verax]

Makes me laugh when the suckers come in and vouch for the financial industry as though its some pristine ecosystem of fairness. Its the most complex casino in the world and if you think the top dogs aren't constantly trying to find ways to play people for fools... you are just what they are looking for.

Not to mention knowing the game doesn't necessarily mean you can beat it at will. People that know the game well spend their whole lives trying to beat it. Some do pretty good and some get ****ed, it doesn't mean one is brilliant and the other is substandard, they were just at the right place at the right time and risks paid off for some and ruined others.

 

[Campbell]

This partisan talking point neither affirms nor refutes what I said, in fact it really doesn't address my comments at all.

Talking point?? These figures can be verified to the penny at the bureau of the debt web site:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00(Reagan slashed tax rates to levels not seen in 50 years

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00