PDA

View Full Version : Economics Dow to 5,000


Stewie
10-17-2008, 03:17 PM
Within 18 months the Dow IA will be at 5,000 in real dollar terms. That's Stewie's prognostication. Mark this thread for early/mid 2010.

jAZ
10-17-2008, 03:20 PM
Ugh.

jidar
10-17-2008, 03:22 PM
I disagree because Inflation will help to keep it up.

It might however be that low in real value compared to todays dollars.

seclark
10-17-2008, 03:23 PM
Within 18 months the Dow IA will be at 5,000 in real dollar terms. That's Stewie's prognostication. Mark this thread for early/mid 2010.

well, there's a good old friday afternoon kick in the nuts.
sec

Stewie
10-17-2008, 03:25 PM
I disagree because Inflation will help to keep it up.

It might however be that low in real value compared to todays dollars.

That isn't compared to the dollar on the FOREX.

Taco John
10-17-2008, 03:32 PM
I think 5000 is too low. I think we'll bottom out at around 6500, and at that point there will be some real bargains and growth stocks available for long term investors that will keep the ship afloat from there.

So 6200... that makes me the optimist here? ;)

SBK
10-17-2008, 03:36 PM
I think 5,000 is a fair number. I'm more interested to see where credit and real estate markets end up.

I think in a few areas (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Naples, Miami Conods, Sacramento) for example we'll see home prices more than 60% below their peak prices.

WilliamTheIrish
10-17-2008, 03:38 PM
You think it'll take that long stew? I really feel it'll all come tumbling down long before '10. Like May 09.

memyselfI
10-17-2008, 04:03 PM
I said this the day after the 'bailout' and I believe it could happen. I think the situation is being patch worked to get us past the new year and then all hell will break loose. Both parties know this and that is why they were so willing to jump in and try to do something lest they be blamed for doing nothing before the bottom fell out.

Saggysack
10-17-2008, 04:37 PM
Ouch. I'm not that pessimistic. I'm have been thinking 6500. Having said that, trying to find bottom is such a crap shoot.

Saggysack
04-20-2009, 05:46 AM
early bump

52 Week Low 6,469.95

Presently 8,131.33

Will it climb? Will it sink?

Anybody gained anything back?

***SPRAYER
04-20-2009, 06:24 AM
I think 5,000 is a fair number. I'm more interested to see where credit and real estate markets end up.

I think in a few areas (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Naples, Miami Conods, Sacramento) for example we'll see home prices more than 60% below their peak prices.

I'm focused on the unemployment rate-- I figure it should be in the double digits mid-summer, what with all the new HS grads and college grads flooding the job market.

KC native
04-20-2009, 09:40 AM
You think it'll take that long stew? I really feel it'll all come tumbling down long before '10. Like May 09.

Ever heard the axiom, "Sell in May and Go Away."

This rally has been based on nothing. Financials' books have been cooked. The economic situation hasn't improved much (although credit markets are starting to calm down). There's also some incredibly wonky stuff I could point you to if you would like (it's really difficult to read) that shows that we are at risk of crashing harder and faster than we already have (it's due to quantitative funds, deleveraging, and broken models).

KC native
04-20-2009, 09:43 AM
I disagree because Inflation will help to keep it up.

It might however be that low in real value compared to todays dollars.

We're in the middle of deflation. Inflation is a ways off. We probably won't see it until late 2010 at the earliest. We have a ton of excess capacity out there and consumers who are slowing spending so we are safe on the inflation front for awhile.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-20-2009, 10:13 AM
Ever heard the axiom, "Sell in May and Go Away."

This rally has been based on nothing. Financials' books have been cooked. The economic situation hasn't improved much (although credit markets are starting to calm down). There's also some incredibly wonky stuff I could point you to if you would like (it's really difficult to read) that shows that we are at risk of crashing harder and faster than we already have (it's due to quantitative funds, deleveraging, and broken models).

Sad but true.

Cave Johnson
04-20-2009, 10:15 AM
Ouch. I'm not that pessimistic. I'm have been thinking 6500. Having said that, trying to find bottom is such a crap shoot.

And the award for calling the bottom (for now) goes to, Saggysack.

SBK
04-20-2009, 10:38 AM
I've seen and read many investors say that when the dow was crashing to hold your stocks, wait for the uptick, then sell because a huge crash would follow. If they're right we're just seeing the uptick.

***SPRAYER
04-20-2009, 01:01 PM
Pretty big crash, today.

Remember, the toxic assets are still on the bank books. That was the whole reason this entire bailout nonsense started in the first place--- to buy them and get them off the books.

ROFL

KC native
04-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Pretty big crash, today.

Remember, the toxic assets are still on the bank books. That was the whole reason this entire bailout nonsense started in the first place--- to buy them and get them off the books.

ROFL

:rolleyes: A 3% move isn't a crash. 3-4% daily moves have been quite common since September '07.

Also, not all of the toxic assets are still on the books. When AIG was unwinding CDS positions, after bailout money for them, they were closing the positions at considerable losses to them and gains to their counterparty which means the bailout of AIG was simply a transfer of tax payer funds to these counterparties (places like GS, BofA, Citi, etc).

Silock
04-20-2009, 03:01 PM
Yup, not a crash today. Just a good day to start buying.

Personally, I've stopped caring whether or not it's real. I'm just going to trade it and make what money I can.

WilliamTheIrish
04-20-2009, 08:00 PM
Ever heard the axiom, "Sell in May and Go Away."

This rally has been based on nothing. Financials' books have been cooked. The economic situation hasn't improved much (although credit markets are starting to calm down). There's also some incredibly wonky stuff I could point you to if you would like (it's really difficult to read) that shows that we are at risk of crashing harder and faster than we already have (it's due to quantitative funds, deleveraging, and broken models).

Link away my good man. I'm always interested.

KC native
04-20-2009, 10:05 PM
Link away my good man. I'm always interested.

Start with this one I excerpted the beginning but you have to go to the link because the charts (which won't post here) are necessary to follow his argument.

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/incredibly-shrinking-market-liquidity.html

Friday, April 10, 2009
The Incredibly Shrinking Market Liquidity, Or The Upcoming Black Swan Of Black Swans
Posted by Tyler Durden at 3:40 PM
"Anyone who is doing anything sensible right now is either losing money or is out of the market entirely." These are the words of a quant trader, who is seeing something scary in the capital markets. Scary enough to merit a warning that we could be on the verge of another October 87, August 2007, or January 2008.

Let's back up. I recently posted a chart which tracks equity market neutral strategies: in essence a cross section of quant funds for which there is public performance tracking. The chart is presented below.

There is not much publicly available data to follow what goes on in the mystery shrouded quant world. However, another chart that tracks the market neutral performance is the HSKAX, or the Highbridge Statistical Market Neutral Fund, presented below. As one can see we have crossed into major statistically deviant territory, likely approaching a level that is 6 standard deviations away from the recent norms.



What do these charts tell us? In essence, that there is a high likelihood of substantial market dislocations based on previous comparable situations. More on this in a second.

Why quant funds? Or rather, what is so special about quant funds? The proper way to approach the question is to think of the market as an ecosystem of liquidity providers, who, based on the frequency of their trades, generate a cushioning to the open market trading mechanism. It is a fact that the vast majority of transactions in the market are not customer driven buy/sell orders, but are in fact high frequency, small block trades that constantly cross between a select few of these same quant funds and program traders.

This is a market in which the big players are Renaissance Technologies Medallion, Goldman Sachs and GETCO. Whereas the first two are household names, the last is an entity known primarily to quant market participants. Curiously, the Philosophy section in GETCO's website exactly captures the critical role that quant funds play in an "efficient" market.

Then move onto http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/imminent-disinformation-schism.html

Next,

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/quants-role-in-perpetuating-market.html

And if your brain hasn't melted yet

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/risk-of-deleveraging-only-gets-larger.html

Now these aren't all of his posts but Tyler Durden's work on Zero Hedge is top notch. It definitely isn't easy reading but he gives great insight into areas of the market that most have no clue about.

The Big Picture is also great but he has a lot going on so he has less meat and potato posts recently.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/

Finally I always stop in at Naked Capitalism (which she is writing a book so less meat and potatoes now but still plenty to digest.)

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

These three website in combination with all of the major sites (stick with Bloomberg and Financial Times) will keep you fully aware of what's going on. They consistently highlight others good work and produce great work on their own.

KC native
04-22-2009, 03:31 PM
he has the offer sheets in the posting if you want to actually click through to the posting.

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-lettter-to-sec-regarding-wall.html

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Open Letter To The SEC Regarding Wall Street's REIT Bait-And-Switch
Posted by Tyler Durden at 9:12 AM
Zero Hedge is well aware that our regulatory friends at the SEC and FINRA enjoy going through our articles in search of the "next big scam." We are always happy to make their lives a little easier and not only connect the dots but give them everything they need on a silver platter so that even a green securities lawyer, 4 hours fresh out of law school, would be able to comprehend and litigate.

A few weeks ago I caught on a troubling trend whereby Merrill Lynch/Bank of America embarked on an epic quest to underwrite equity follow on offerings for a vast majority of the lowest quality REITs including Kimco, ProLogis, Duke Realty and others. I say lowest quality, because Merrill's own analysts had a Sell rating on these names as recently as March 31 (for Kimco) and January 6 (for ProLogis). How the global economy has really changed for the better of REITs since then is still a mystery to me. But I digress.

In the true and tried Wall Street mantra "if something works why fix it" late last week (April 16th to be exact: bear with me, this will be very relevant in a moment) Merrill Lynch also underwrote yet another follow on offering, this time for marginal Southwest-focused REIT Weingarten Realty Investors (checking the holders yields no real surprises: Cohen and Steers at number 5, with 3.3 million shares; much more ominously for new shareholders, Barclays Global Investors is at number 1...readers who have been following the quant theme at ZH should appreciate the connection). And while Merrill analyst Steve Schmidt has not upgraded the company yet, presumably as he is still restricted while the 4.2 million overallotment is exercised, I am willing to place a bet for $xxx - you name it - with any reader, that within 3 days WRI will see an upgrade from Sell to at least Neutral by Mr. Schmidt, with a report titled "Upgrade to ___ on improved balance sheet." (disclaimer: Zero Hedge has absolutely no insight what occurs inside BofA/ML's research department, but can use its head).

Yet, as much as I want to keep focusing on Merrill Lynch, it is another company that piques the interest on this occasion. The company at hand is smallish Wachovia, which, at least, in theory does not exist anymore as an entity separate from its recent acquiror, Wells Fargo.

First, I present the back cover page of the WRI prospectus through which Weingarten Realty sold 28 million shares at $14.25, where one can clearly see the prominent role of Wachovia/Wells Fargo.



Also don't let the date on the prospectus fool you: the formal dilution press release announcement came out at 4:13 pm on April 16.

Why is this relevant: As the prospectus itself says in the Use of Proceeds section: "Affiliates of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC, BBVA Securities, Inc., and J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC are lenders under our unsecured credit facility and will receive a share of the net proceeds from this offering used to repay borrowings under the credit facility proportionate to their respective commitments under the facility."

How much longer will banks keep offloading their REIT credit exposure to unwitting equity investors? Yes, the i's are dotted with this terrific one sentence disclaimer, however we don't get it. If these companies are such great and worthwhile investment prospects, why are banks rushing to offload their credit exposure, which by the way is the least risky part of the capital structure, while investors are buying equity to pay down the banks credit exposure, and taking on the first-loss risk in the balance sheet? The use of proceeds in every single REIT follow-on offering has been to pay back the banks that have underwritten it. Is it that complicated to see this for the bait-and-switch it is?

Zero Hedge tries to preserve investors what little capital they may have left. However, some just seem hell bent on throwing their money into the CRE fire pit.

But I digress... again. Back to Wachovia. As readers can recall, Zero Hedge had some heartfelt words for Merrill analyst Schmidt, who the day of the ML/BofA offering, decided to upgrade Kimco stock from a Sell to a Buy. Ok, one can structure conspiracy theories about this event, but for all intents and purposes it is not outright illegal... regardless of how many Ambien CRs said analyst has to take at night to sleep soundly. However, taking a look at the WRI offering, some much more serious questions come to mind: like does Wachovia/Wells Fargo have a compliance department and is it aware that its REIT analyst is issuing an upgrade on the stock, a day before Wachovia/Wells Fargo will issue stock in the upgraded company in order to repay Wachovia/Wells Fargo's credit facility.

The facts: on April 15th, a day before the WRI stock offering, Wachovia/WF analyst Jeffrey Donnelly, CFA, releases an upgrade report on WRI with the following title "WRI: Upgrading To Market Perform, More Confident In Capital Plan Raising Estimates On Possibility Of Shallower Near-Term Trough." Donnelly had downgraded the stock to a Sell a mere two months prior, on February 23, providing a 2009 FFO target of $2.25/share (his upgrade, as seen below, upward adjusts his 2009 FFO target by a whopping 7 cents to $2.32/share which in any book is worthy of an upgrade).



It is unfathomable how Mr. Donnelly would not be restricted by his compliance department, by his research supervisor and by his capital markets desk from publishing a material, stock moving report 24 hours ahead of a follow on offering in which his bank is a key underwriter. The first rule for any sell-side analyst is do not publish research reports that could get you in hot water with the regulators. Wachovia squarely broke that rule. The only logical (and legal) explanation is if the WRI offering was put together so haphazardly and hurriedly, that the bank really had no idea it would be an underwriter until the day of the offering and thus did not even give Donnelly the chance to get restricted. Of course, this possibility only spells doom for any investors who got caught in the manic rush to catch the last minute window of capital markets access as underwriters were scrambling to allocate share blocks to their respective syndication desks, knowing full well the window would close within hours (not days) and the stocks would come tumbling down. However, both possibilities reside strongly in the ethical twilight zone, with the first one likely being so in the legal zone as well. It is, again, shocking, that Wells Fargo's compliance team did not catch this report before it came out, as its publication will inevitably cause serious headaches for all parties involved, especially if WRI stock proceeds to crash over the next several days and the class action lawsuits start trickling in.

Adding insult to injury, WRI management itself came out on April 17th and stated that it now expects its 2009 FFO (see above) to be in the $1.83-$2.06/share range, after giving effect to the offering (yes it is diluted, and yes it is a about 20% lower than Donnelly's $2.35/share target, serving as the basis for his upgrade report).

Speechless.

And of course it doesn't end there.

JP Morgan and Wachovia announce yesterday they are doing a follow on offering for Regency Centers Corporation, another small REIT. What is the use of proceeds? Yup, you guessed it: "We intend to use approximately $205 million of these net proceeds to repay outstanding indebtedness under our line of credit. Our line of credit matures in February 2011 and currently has a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 40 basis points, which as of April 17, 2009 was 0.96%."

Zero Hedge wonders yet again, just which banks benefit from new investors parting with their money so that banks can minimize their secured credit exposure to yet another REIT. Come to think of it, it is about time FINRA and the SEC did too.

Guru
04-22-2009, 03:33 PM
shore your holdings up before June.

Silock
04-22-2009, 05:06 PM
I'm going to sell off here in the next two weeks and then buy everything back at lower prices after everyone else panics out of the market.

Calcountry
04-22-2009, 05:27 PM
I disagree because Inflation will help to keep it up.

It might however be that low in real value compared to todays dollars.You obviously don't remember the markets, and how they behaved in the 70's when we had double digit inflation?

2 year CD's paid as much as 19 % at one point.

Calcountry
04-22-2009, 05:28 PM
I'm going to sell off here in the next two weeks and then buy everything back at lower prices after everyone else panics out of the market.I never bought back into this trap.

Obama has shown me nothing that relieves fear and uncertainty about the future.

I don't know what the rules from radicals will be in 6 to nine months.

Calcountry
04-22-2009, 05:30 PM
early bump

52 Week Low 6,469.95

Presently 8,131.33

Will it climb? Will it sink?

Anybody gained anything back?you got me

Nightfyre
04-22-2009, 08:04 PM
We're in the middle of deflation. Inflation is a ways off. We probably won't see it until late 2010 at the earliest. We have a ton of excess capacity out there and consumers who are slowing spending so we are safe on the inflation front for awhile.

When it comes, I predict it will come fast and hard and nothing Bernanke will do can stop it.

Silock
04-22-2009, 11:03 PM
I never bought back into this trap.

Obama has shown me nothing that relieves fear and uncertainty about the future.

I don't know what the rules from radicals will be in 6 to nine months.

It's not a trap. Companies with solid fundamentals won't be going anywhere.

Besides, there are always things like Apple, who reported earnings today. They always underestimate their earnings so that if they miss, they don't *actually* miss, and they usually beat the street. It's going nuts in after-hours trading. I'm making a killing on it.

You just have to know what you're doing. Sure, it's a risk, but risk is good. Makes life interesting. As long as you're hedged, you'll be fine.

The key is to not commit large amounts of capital to shaky industries that may not be around.

Silock
04-22-2009, 11:04 PM
Anybody gained anything back?

I'm back to where I was last October, actually. So, not bad. If I had been smart and cashed out in September, I'd be doing very well right now.

LOCOChief
04-23-2009, 11:38 AM
5,000? how about a little lower, who would or could invest with what lies ahead?

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............

Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.'

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:

'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'.'

Calcountry
04-23-2009, 11:54 AM
When it comes, I predict it will come fast and hard and nothing Bernanke will do can stop it.Well, let's see, Bernanke can lower interest rates to negative. IOW, they can charge savers an interest rate for saving instead of spending.

Step right up folks, take out that passbook savings account, it will only cost you 1% APR, but it will BE SAFER than your mattress, and highly accessable with our debit visa card.

KC native
04-23-2009, 02:56 PM
5,000? how about a little lower, who would or could invest with what lies ahead?

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............

Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.'

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:

'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'.'

Check out snopes.com this isn't true

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

DJ's left nut
04-23-2009, 02:59 PM
Check out snopes.com this isn't true

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

Nancy Pelosi, as GD stupid as she is, isn't even that stupid.

Not that I would put the legislation past this congress or this administration, I just don't think Pelosi would ever come out and say what she actually thinks.

***SPRAYER
04-23-2009, 03:05 PM
5,000? how about a little lower, who would or could invest with what lies ahead?

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............

Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.'

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:

'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'.'

ROFL

We are so f'd.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-23-2009, 03:06 PM
Bush started it.

Pitt Gorilla
04-23-2009, 03:08 PM
5,000? how about a little lower, who would or could invest with what lies ahead?

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income

Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying. Read below...............

Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.'

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:

'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'.'I'm pretty sure you aren't really this stupid.

DJ's left nut
04-23-2009, 03:11 PM
Bush started it.

So that makes continuing it a good idea?

I sometimes wonder if your average liberal understands the difference between a party and an ideology...I don't really think they do.

Republican = party
Conservative = ideology

Your average ideological conservative thinks that GWB was damn near as stupid as Obama when it comes to government growth and the economy. I have no problem saying that the Bush presidency will ultimately have done more harm than good to the country due to the fact that it continued, even accelerated, the growth of the federal government.

I don't give a rip which party does it, but somebody absolutely has to slow this federal mechanism down before it takes over the whole show.

I'm telling ya folks, abandon both parties. Just vote for the other guy. From now until something changes, I'm voting against every incumbant regardless of affiliation. It's apathy and lack of accountability on the part of our elected officials that is causing this. Kick all their asses out and maybe they'll get the idea.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-23-2009, 03:14 PM
So that makes continuing it a good idea?

I sometimes wonder if your average liberal understands the difference between a party and an ideology...I don't really think they do.

Republican = party
Conservative = ideology

Your average ideological conservative thinks that GWB was damn near as stupid as Obama when it comes to government growth and the economy. I have no problem saying that the Bush presidency will ultimately have done more harm than good to the country due to the fact that it continued, even accelerated, the growth of the federal government.

I don't give a rip which party does it, but somebody absolutely has to slow this federal mechanism down before it takes over the whole show.

I'm telling ya folks, abandon both parties. Just vote for the other guy. From now until something changes, I'm voting against every incumbant regardless of affiliation. It's apathy and lack of accountability on the part of our elected officials that is causing this. Kick all their asses out and maybe they'll get the idea.

I don't know if you're a regular in this forum, but I'm not a party guy in any way shape, or form. I voted for Obama, but I'm nowhere near a fan boy. I'm hopeful, but that's just me in general. My comment you quoted was entirely tongue in cheek.

KC native
04-23-2009, 03:20 PM
ROFL

We are so f'd.

It's not true you fvcking moron.

DJ's left nut
04-23-2009, 03:21 PM
I don't know if you're a regular in this forum, but I'm not a party guy in any way shape, or form. I voted for Obama, but I'm nowhere near a fan boy. I'm hopeful, but that's just me in general. My comment you quoted was entirely tongue in cheek.

Ah. My apologies, but it's hard to discern between sarcasm and a moonbat.

Carry on.

KC native
04-23-2009, 03:21 PM
Nancy Pelosi, as GD stupid as she is, isn't even that stupid.

Not that I would put the legislation past this congress or this administration, I just don't think Pelosi would ever come out and say what she actually thinks.

There is no way in hell that any politician in this country is considering this. This was one of those stupid made up emails from the campaign season.

DJ's left nut
04-23-2009, 03:25 PM
There is no way in hell that any politician in this country is considering this. This was one of those stupid made up emails from the campaign season.

I'm well aware it's a fabrication.

No, they wouldn't attempt it because you don't screw with old people (they vote).

But you don't think that Reid and Pelosi would do it in a heartbeat if they could? Hell, it's not far beyond increasing the cap gains tax and they're chomping at the bit to pull that off. I'll grant you that they'd at least funnel the increased revenue into some seemingly innocuous gov't program, but they'd shell game it into wealth redistribution before you know it.

I'm not even attempting to cast aspersions here, Nancy Pelosi is a socialist.

KC native
04-23-2009, 03:31 PM
I'm well aware it's a fabrication.

No, they wouldn't attempt it because you don't screw with old people (they vote).

But you don't think that Reid and Pelosi would do it in a heartbeat if they could? Hell, it's not far beyond increasing the cap gains tax and they're chomping at the bit to pull that off. I'll grant you that they'd at least funnel the increased revenue into some seemingly innocuous gov't program, but they'd shell game it into wealth redistribution before you know it.

I'm not even attempting to cast aspersions here, Nancy Pelosi is an IDIOT.

FYP

Beyond that no one in their right mind would even consider this. It's no where close to increasing the cap gains tax. FTR, the cap gains is going back to where it was under Clinton. Trying to compare a confiscation to allowing a tax cut to expire and go back to the previous level is retarded. We've tried the supply side experiement for almost 30 years. Tax cuts are not a prerequisite to growth nor do they pay for themselves.

DJ's left nut
04-23-2009, 03:38 PM
FYP

Beyond that no one in their right mind would even consider this. It's no where close to increasing the cap gains tax. FTR, the cap gains is going back to where it was under Clinton. Trying to compare a confiscation to allowing a tax cut to expire and go back to the previous level is retarded. We've tried the supply side experiement for almost 30 years. Tax cuts are not a prerequisite to growth nor do they pay for themselves.

If we're referencing our hypothetical 'retirement windfall tax' I fail to see how it is a 'confiscation' whereas raising cap gains back to where they were isn't.

If I used to take 1/2 of your check from you, then decide to only take a third...and later go back to taking 1/2, how have I not 'confiscated' the additional 17% I just took over and above the reduced rate I was taking?

That 'tax' says it would add a tax on earnings from retirement accounts, 401Ks and stock market earnings....how does this differ from raising the rate? When you're talking about taxes, increasing a tax rate on substantially similar income is no different than simply adding a tax on said income.

As for the rest of it, it's a different topic. You can say tax cuts don't encourage growth, but for every person that says it, there's another that can show you why it's wrong. There are no absolutes here. Look at the empirical studies on urban development projects, they're stupendous failures, which strongly suggests that a bottom up approach doesn't work either. In either event, it's immaterial to my basic stance on this stuff. My position centers on property rights -- when the government decides it wants to take MORE of what I've rightfully earned so it can give it to those that haven't earned it, I have a problem with that, growth or no growth.

KC native
04-23-2009, 03:43 PM
If we're referencing our hypothetical 'retirement windfall tax' I fail to see how it is a 'confiscation' whereas raising cap gains back to where they were isn't.

If I used to take 1/2 of your check from you, then decide to only take a third...and later go back to taking 1/2, how have I not 'confiscated' the additional 17% I just took over and above the reduced rate I was taking?

That 'tax' says it would add a tax on earnings from retirement accounts, 401Ks and stock market earnings....how does this differ from raising the rate? When you're talking about taxes, increasing a tax rate on substantially similar income is no different than simply adding a tax on said income.

As for the rest of it, it's a different topic. You can say tax cuts don't encourage growth, but for every person that says it, there's another that can show you why it's wrong. There are no absolutes here. Look at the empirical studies on urban development projects, they're stupendous failures, which strongly suggests that a bottom up approach doesn't work either. In either event, it's immaterial to my basic stance on this stuff. My position centers on property rights -- when the government decides it wants to take MORE of what I've rightfully earned so it can give it to those that haven't earned it, I have a problem with that, growth or no growth.

In the supposed quote from Pelosi, it says 100% tax rate. That is a confiscation not a tax rate raise.

Please show me some one can prove that tax cuts lead to growth. The Laffer curve only works at extremely high tax rates (70% range). I'm very familiar with the theory and the lack of real world evidence to back it up.

DJ's left nut
04-23-2009, 03:51 PM
In the supposed quote from Pelosi, it says 100% tax rate. That is a confiscation not a tax rate raise.

Please show me some one can prove that tax cuts lead to growth. The Laffer curve only works at extremely high tax rates (70% range). I'm very familiar with the theory and the lack of real world evidence to back it up.

First -- the quote says it will 'tax all' retirement income, not 'take all'. It doesn't mention a 100% tax rate, it says only that all retirement income, including those that are currently tax exempt like 401(k) income, would be subject to the tax. So I ask again -- how does that differ from raising cap gains?

As to the rest, c'mon, that's not even close to homework I feel like doing.

Are you saying that the concept of supply-side economics has been disproven? The word 'prove' is a pretty damn high hurdle, and not one that I threw around. I said only that there are plenty of folks on both sides of the debate, all of whom have a fair amount of evidence for both sides of the discussion.

The fact that you have drawn such an absolute conclusion tells me only which side of the argument you take stock in, not which side is unassailably correct.

KC native
04-23-2009, 04:07 PM
First -- the quote says it will 'tax all' retirement income, not 'take all'. It doesn't mention a 100% tax rate, it says only that all retirement income, including those that are currently tax exempt like 401(k) income, would be subject to the tax. So I ask again -- how does that differ from raising cap gains?

As to the rest, c'mon, that's not even close to homework I feel like doing.

Are you saying that the concept of supply-side economics has been disproven? The word 'prove' is a pretty damn high hurdle, and not one that I threw around. I said only that there are plenty of folks on both sides of the debate, all of whom have a fair amount of evidence for both sides of the discussion.

The fact that you have drawn such an absolute conclusion tells me only which side of the argument you take stock in, not which side is unassailably correct.

If you read the entire piece and not just what was posted here it has the 100% quote. Go to snopes and check it out.

On supply side being disproven, yes it has been. It's had it's trial not only in the theoretical world but also the real world and unless tax rates are north of 70% supply side economics fails. Ronnie Raygun and Shrub both pushed hard core supply side policies and both times it led to severe problems.

DJ's left nut
04-23-2009, 04:33 PM
If you read the entire piece and not just what was posted here it has the 100% quote. Go to snopes and check it out.

On supply side being disproven, yes it has been. It's had it's trial not only in the theoretical world but also the real world and unless tax rates are north of 70% supply side economics fails. Ronnie Raygun and Shrub both pushed hard core supply side policies and both times it led to severe problems.

The New Deal was a collosal failure, it only took a World War to bail us out of that cluster!@#$. That doesn't keep you folks from plugging at it. Supply side economics have led to increases in gross receipts by the government.

It also led to some sizeable defecits in large part due to the gubbaments inability to handle this newfound wealth without spending like drunken teenagers. Reagan's policies drove us out from under an economic climate that dwarves the current 'crisis'. Bush's...well he just half-assed them in an attempt to please everyone. Again, his tax cuts spurred the economy forward when we were stalling out. The problem came with how that income was spent (uhhh.....lavishly would be putting it nicely).

Government spending and government income are two entirely different animals.

Whatever study you present 'disproving' supply side theories, I can guarantee you there's a supply sider with a counter to it. And as to the real-world application, there's far to many ceteris paribus factors to ever say that the theory has been debunked. And if you could, why again are we pushing New Deal garbage?

KC native
04-23-2009, 04:39 PM
The New Deal was a collosal failure, it only took a World War to bail us out of that cluster!@#$. That doesn't keep you folks from plugging at it. Supply side economics have led to increases in gross receipts by the government.

It also led to some sizeable defecits in large part due to the gubbaments inability to handle this newfound wealth without spending like drunken teenagers. Reagan's policies drove us out from under an economic climate that dwarves the current 'crisis'. Bush's...well he just half-assed them in an attempt to please everyone. Again, his tax cuts spurred the economy forward when we were stalling out. The problem came with how that income was spent (uhhh.....lavishly would be putting it nicely).

Government spending and government income are two entirely different animals.

Whatever study you present 'disproving' supply side theories, I can guarantee you there's a supply sider with a counter to it. And as to the real-world application, there's far to many ceteris paribus factors to ever say that the theory has been debunked. And if you could, why again are we pushing New Deal garbage?

Just shut up now please. I swear this place is revisionist history central. Are you an Austrian too?

Nightfyre
04-23-2009, 06:21 PM
Well, let's see, Bernanke can lower interest rates to negative. IOW, they can charge savers an interest rate for saving instead of spending.

Step right up folks, take out that passbook savings account, it will only cost you 1% APR, but it will BE SAFER than your mattress, and highly accessable with our debit visa card.

And thus proliferate inflation further?

BucEyedPea
04-23-2009, 07:13 PM
And thus proliferate inflation further?

He was being facetious.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2009, 07:18 PM
The New Deal was a collosal failure, it only took a World War to bail us out of that cluster!@#$. That doesn't keep you folks from plugging at it.

Yes it was a failure...but the war pulling us out is a fallacy too. So they unemployed were off the streets due to a war. That's massive govt too. ( not arguing if the war was necessary or right/wrong here). The people at home were poor during the war. Things including food and necessities were rationed. War is a command economy too. Technically we didn't get out of the Depression until after the war....when spending by govt was significantly decreased. That sparked a boom. But the Keynesians will deny it until their death.

Supply side economics have led to increases in gross receipts by the government.
That's supposed to be debatable. SS is just Keynesianism with cuts on top because they try to be revenue neutral. The don't want to address spending. They're cop- outs.
It's just trimming around the edges and never addresses the real issue and problem—spending.

LOCOChief
05-02-2009, 03:48 PM
If you read the entire piece and not just what was posted here it has the 100% quote. Go to snopes and check it out.

On supply side being disproven, yes it has been. It's had it's trial not only in the theoretical world but also the real world and unless tax rates are north of 70% supply side economics fails. Ronnie Raygun and Shrub both pushed hard core supply side policies and both times it led to severe problems.

I just went back and read your posts on this thread, and I must say you're an idiot.

KC native
05-02-2009, 05:52 PM
I just went back and read your posts on this thread, and I must say you're an idiot.

:thumb: Great contribution there buddy. Feel free to cite any specifics you disagree with.

jAZ
08-03-2009, 03:59 PM
I've seen and read many investors say that when the dow was crashing to hold your stocks, wait for the uptick, then sell because a huge crash would follow. If they're right we're just seeing the uptick.

Still?

wild1
08-03-2009, 04:01 PM
With the US Mint's printing presses running non-stop, it would seem serious inflation is sure to follow. Major purchases might be wise in the near term rather than long term, before our hope/change/asking you to believe blowback starts to take hold.

Calcountry
08-03-2009, 04:13 PM
He was being facetious.It's o.k., 4 years of econ and 20 years in business, I don't know wtf I am talking about.

Calcountry
08-03-2009, 04:15 PM
With the US Mint's printing presses running non-stop, it would seem serious inflation is sure to follow. Major purchases might be wise in the near term rather than long term, before our hope/change/asking you to believe blowback starts to take hold.If they extend unemployment for a couple of years, then your productivity numbers are going to get screwed.

money for nuthin and your chicks for free.

Fat Elvis
08-03-2009, 04:49 PM
If they extend unemployment for a couple of years, then your productivity numbers are going to get screwed.

money for nuthin and your chicks for free.

What do you think of TIPS now?

beer bacon
08-03-2009, 05:01 PM
The New Deal was a collosal failure, it only took a World War to bail us out of that cluster!@#$. That doesn't keep you folks from plugging at it. Supply side economics have led to increases in gross receipts by the government.

It also led to some sizeable defecits in large part due to the gubbaments inability to handle this newfound wealth without spending like drunken teenagers. Reagan's policies drove us out from under an economic climate that dwarves the current 'crisis'. Bush's...well he just half-assed them in an attempt to please everyone. Again, his tax cuts spurred the economy forward when we were stalling out. The problem came with how that income was spent (uhhh.....lavishly would be putting it nicely).

Government spending and government income are two entirely different animals.

Whatever study you present 'disproving' supply side theories, I can guarantee you there's a supply sider with a counter to it. And as to the real-world application, there's far to many ceteris paribus factors to ever say that the theory has been debunked. And if you could, why again are we pushing New Deal garbage?

GDP prior to FDR becoming President:

1930: -8.6%
1931: -6.4%
1932: -13%


1933 (FDR's first year): -1.3%
1934: +11%
1935: +8%
1936: +13%
1937: +5%
1938: -3%
1939: +8%
1940: +9%

Wow, what an abject failure!

Also, the highest the federal deficit ever reached during FDR's Presidency prior to the USA entering WWII was 4.76% of GDP in 1936. On the other hand, the deficit exploded during the war you credit with saving us from the New Deal. In 1942 the federal deficit was 12% of GDP. In 43 it increased to 28%. It then shrank down to a modest 22% in 44 and 24% in 45.

jAZ
08-30-2009, 02:45 AM
Still?

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 05:17 AM
GDP prior to FDR becoming President:

1930: -8.6%
1931: -6.4%
1932: -13%


1933 (FDR's first year): -1.3%
1934: +11%
1935: +8%
1936: +13%
1937: +5%
1938: -3%
1939: +8%
1940: +9%

Wow, what an abject failure!

Also, the highest the federal deficit ever reached during FDR's Presidency prior to the USA entering WWII was 4.76% of GDP in 1936. On the other hand, the deficit exploded during the war you credit with saving us from the New Deal. In 1942 the federal deficit was 12% of GDP. In 43 it increased to 28%. It then shrank down to a modest 22% in 44 and 24% in 45.

GDP product is not a reliable indicator and is false statistic manipulated by politicians. It is based on spending which is not wealth creation. That GDP includes govt spending which crowded out private sector spending. Look at FDR's unemployment numbers. These hovered around 16-17% for nearly ten years with a peak around 25%. Sorry, but he kept us in it for a decade+! During the war many goods were rationed and the people couldn't get much. The only reason unemployment looked improved is because the men went off to war and the women took over their jobs in what was a war economy ( command and control). Another camoflaged statistic. It ended after the war when govt expenditures were halved which resulted in a boom.

Don't forget some of the Bushies were using his GDP numbers to say the economy was strong when it really wasn't.

Supply-side economics is bogus too because it's the same Keynesianism ( love those increased revenues for the state) with just a tax cut on top. It doesn't rectify real problems. It's neocon economics.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 05:24 AM
If they extend unemployment for a couple of years, then your productivity numbers are going to get screwed.
But the left will use that as a positive statistic. LMAO

***SPRAYER
08-30-2009, 07:57 AM
A new wave of Subprime mortgages are going to reset in 2010 and 2011. In the meantime, people with "good" mortgages are losing their home to foreclosure because they lost their jobs.

good ol' B.O. says the economy is shovel ready!

Yup, ready to get buried.

Not only are we not out of this recession, we haven't hit bottom yet. And then we get kicked while we are down--- double digit inflation.

whatsmynameagain
08-30-2009, 09:09 AM
dead cat bounce.....
Posted via Mobile Device