Forum - The Sexiest Forum on the net

fantasm

This member has been with us 15 years or more! (Joined 19 years ago)

This shield means the member is a Verified Poster

Member Since: 30-Apr-05
Location: US
Posts: 18693

Forum Level:

Super Contributor

the rising US stock market

29-Jan-11 07:04

Unemployment remains high and the "recovery" isn't producing impressive numbers. All signs are that government deficit spending will continue to grow. Why, then, has the US stock market rebounded so amazingly?

It's something I just don't understand, and would love to hear explained.

--fantasm

If this thread breaks our rules please

manwhore1

This member has been with us 15 years or more! (Joined 19.1 years ago)

Member Since: 28-Mar-05
Location: AU
Posts: 1777

Forum Level:

A Thinker

30-Jan-11 01:43

I suppose theres a lot of companies still making big profits from a foreign work force, companies (and people) are still paying down debt at a fast rate, multinational companies are making big bucks in asia and south america.

Unemployment Warren Buffett has said that will not come down for a few more years yet, as for the government defecit well this is Americas last if the debt doesnt get paid down quick when things get better - its gonna hurt the next time more than whats its hurting now.

If this reply breaks our rules please

manwhore1

Member Since: 28-Mar-05
Location: AU
Posts: 1777

Forum Level:

A Thinker

30-Jan-11 01:44

@ fantasm

BY the way love your pics

If this reply breaks our rules please

lennynatural

This member has been with us 15 years or more! (Joined 19.5 years ago)

Member Since: 23-Oct-04
Location: US
Posts: 11825

Forum Level:

Regular Contributor

30-Jan-11 02:44

It's because profits are increasing and business is improving. You have to remember, and maybe this is lost on many ppl, the economy was almost in depression in 2008 and the recovery from those levels will be long and slow. We have a long way to go but overall things are going well.

If this reply breaks our rules please

RickGreen

3-Feb-11 21:51

The US stock markets react to two things, data and emotions. The recovery, though as Fantasm said best, is unimpressive but it IS underway and the data points to that which keeps the market steadily climbing when you look at the trend. It(the recovery) hasn't hit the little guy yet because big companies are gun shy and still not spending because they all got obliterated in 2008 and don't want to get caught with their pants down again. There is more un-invested cash on the "sidelines" right now than any time in history out of fear and it is gradually creeping back in as confidence builds (problem with that is human nature leads us to buy high after the run up and sell low right after the crash). Keep in mind we are also still in a recovery curve from a catastrophic 2008 when the markets got cut in half and are just now getting back to the mean of where we "should" be if you are a chartist who believes in fundamentals and reversion to the mean.

Having said that, it's a fragile market right now subject to the global fears going on (emotional aspect) and also subject to government intervention and possibly over or under -tinkering (interest rates specifically). For 2011 trade and currencies will drive the markets. As everyone around the world devalues their currency to boost trade, you can get volatility and inflation but there are areas to capitalize on this (emerging markets, commodities, natural resources etc).

In short, the markets and the economy do not perform in direct correlation, there is a lag. Typically the markets are ahead of the economy (especially if you believe markets are efficient, as I do).

If this reply breaks our rules please

shall we play a game

4-Feb-11 03:35

A very good reason is that Fed has kept the interest rate too low. Well capitalized speculators are borrowing money in huge amounts on the cheap and are bidding up oil,corn,metals and a dozen other futures that are already "tight".
In essence short term borrow in massive amounts for 2% cost and short term ROI of 10% or more. Plus, the resulting instability causes more short term gains. You have Bill Clinton and his cronies to thank for this. He watched it and encouraged it as President.

If this reply breaks our rules please

feschie

4-Feb-11 17:01

^^^^^^^^ soooo hawwwt when talking dirty...

If this reply breaks our rules please

muffmuncher1

30-Mar-11 09:31

fantasm is soooooooooo Hawt

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

This member has been with us 15 years or more! (Joined 15.3 years ago)

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

30-Oct-11 14:10

I do not pretend to understand everything Karl Marx wrote. He obviously made mistakes. Nevertheless, he did say that the natural tendency of capitalism is to increase the amount of wealth, while reducing the average standard of living.

Beginning with the New Deal the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes counteracted this tendency through policies like steeply progressive taxation, a high minimum wage, strong labor unions, and so on.

Beginning with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1981 Keynesian economic policies have been reversed with weakened labor unions, a flatter tax system, and minimum wage increases that have lost ground to inflation. These are only some of the changes in policy, but they are some of the more obvious changes.

Consequently, the tendency detected by Marx as early as 1848, when he wrote The Communist Manifesto, is becoming more apparent.

Marx also predicted increasingly severe economic downturns. One can argue that in 1848 he predicted the Great Depression. Since 1980 recessions have become more severe.

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

30-Oct-11 14:21

muffmuncher1 said: fantasm is soooooooooo Hawt

Agreed.

If this reply breaks our rules please

46SIZE2

This member has been with us 15 years or more! (Joined 16.4 years ago)

Member Since: 17-Dec-07
Location: US
Posts: 2562

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

4-May-12 16:59

Get into tangible assets, such as gold. With the debts we have, we can only afford to pay them back by devaluing the dollar so that we are paying back a lower amount than we have borrowed. Gold on the other hand has remained a hedge against inflation since Roman days, people say it's gone up but another way of looking at it is that currencies have fallen against it.
Try reading James Turk's views on the subject!

If this reply breaks our rules please

WuzRunt

4-May-12 20:39

If you look at the crimes and greed commited by Wall Street and the big banks you will see that they are not properly regulated.
The notion that these people make big money because they are the best and brightest is utter bull shit. One of my very rich customers who owned a brokerage company ,had the honesty to admit to me he is a glorified order taker and it took no brains or skill. And from every stock broker I've ever met Id say he's right.
Obama is a whore to big banks and wall street . In all fairnes though theres not a snow flakes chance in hell the propper regulation would ever get passed.Dodd Frank is woefully inadequeate. The irony here is Obama critics say he is anti capitalist, ani business but from what I see his fault is ,he is far too favorable to big business.
All of wall streets greed is facilitated by one thing - DEREGULATION !!
So foget about who is actually in power this is an argument as to whether deregulation and trickle down works.

If this reply breaks our rules please

julesjammin

5-May-12 19:53

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

just jealous

If this reply breaks our rules please

WuzRunt

9-May-12 16:10

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

just jealous

If this reply breaks our rules please

vb_again

it's all starting to make sense now...

15-May-12 04:19

zeebop said: I do not pretend to understand everything Karl Marx wrote. He obviously made mistakes. Nevertheless, he did say that the natural tendency of capitalism is to increase the amount of wealth, while reducing the average standard of living.

Beginning with the New Deal the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes counteracted this tendency through policies like steeply progressive taxation, a high minimum wage, strong labor unions, and so on.

Beginning with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1981 Keynesian economic policies have been reversed with weakened labor unions, a flatter tax system, and minimum wage increases that have lost ground to inflation. These are only some of the changes in policy, but they are some of the more obvious changes.

Consequently, the tendency detected by Marx as early as 1848, when he wrote The Communist Manifesto, is becoming more apparent.

Marx also predicted increasingly severe economic downturns. One can argue that in 1848 he predicted the Great Depression. Since 1980 recessions have become more severe.

DL...you adore communism...and you despise Reagan.

Marx also predicted increasingly severe economic downturns. One can argue that in 1848 he predicted the Great Depression. Since 1980 recessions have become more severe.

Do you also own a Mayan calender as well?

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

15-May-12 13:49

vb_again said:
[zeebop] you adore communism...and you despise Reagan.

You are partially correct. I am not given to political hatreds. Nevertheless, I do think Ronald Reagan's administration and legacy were bad for the United States. In this thread I explain why.

I do not admire Communist governments. I do admire Scandinavian Social Democracy. In this thread I explain why.

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

Industries Find Surging Profits in Deeper Cuts

15-May-12 13:58

The New York Times
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: July 25, 2010

By most measures, Harley-Davidson has been having a rough ride.

Motorcycle sales are falling in 2010, as they have for each of the last three years. The company does not expect a turnaround anytime soon.

But despite that drought, Harley’s profits are rising — soaring, in fact. Last week, Harley reported a $71 million profit in the second quarter, more than triple what it earned a year ago.

This seeming contradiction — falling sales and rising profits — is one reason the mood on Wall Street is so much more buoyant than in households, where pessimism runs deep and joblessness shows few signs of easing.

Many companies are focusing on cost-cutting to keep profits growing, but the benefits are mostly going to shareholders instead of the broader economy, as management conserves cash rather than bolstering hiring and production. Harley, for example, has announced plans to cut 1,400 to 1,600 more jobs by the end of next year. That is on top of 2,000 job cuts last year — more than a fifth of its work force.
The Rest of the Story

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter

15-May-12 14:11

The New York Times
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: November 23, 2010

The nation’s workers may be struggling, but American companies just had their best quarter ever.

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago.
The Rest of the Story

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to push for more tax cuts for businesses and rich people. How will these tax cuts reduce unemployment, and the national debt?

If this reply breaks our rules please

vb_again

60 WHOLE FUCKING YEARS AGO????

16-May-12 23:19

zeebop said: The New York Times
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: November 23, 2010

The nation’s workers may be struggling, but American companies just had their best quarter ever.

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago.
The Rest of the Story

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to push for more tax cuts for businesses and rich people. How will these tax cuts reduce unemployment, and the national debt?

You're bitching about shit that happened 60 years ago???

How selfish are you? I do hope that you aren't part of the "Me Me" generation

60 years????...really???

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

17-May-12 06:04

vb_again said:

zeebop said: The New York Times
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: November 23, 2010

The nation’s workers may be struggling, but American companies just had their best quarter ever.

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago.
The Rest of the Story

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to push for more tax cuts for businesses and rich people. How will these tax cuts reduce unemployment, and the national debt?

You're bitching about shit that happened 60 years ago???

How selfish are you? I do hope that you aren't part of the "Me Me" generation

60 years????...really???

Read my post. What it says is that corporate profits are higher than they have been for at least 60 years.

If this reply breaks our rules please

vb_again

exactly when did "corporate profits" become such a negative phrase for you?

17-May-12 06:41

zeebop said:

vb_again said:

zeebop said: The New York Times
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: November 23, 2010

The nation’s workers may be struggling, but American companies just had their best quarter ever.

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago.
The Rest of the Story

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to push for more tax cuts for businesses and rich people. How will these tax cuts reduce unemployment, and the national debt?

You're bitching about shit that happened 60 years ago???

How selfish are you? I do hope that you aren't part of the "Me Me" generation

60 years????...really???

Read my post. What it says is that corporate profits are higher than they have been for at least 60 years.

and exactly when did you become jealous of other ppl earning more than you are capable of earning???

Are you jealous of a pro NFL/MLB/NBA player for their income?

Jealous of your favorite movie star mebbe?

Oil company "profits" are roughly $.05 per gallon of gas....

Next time you fill you tank...look and see how much you're paying in "taxes"....

"Corporations" is a big word...when one types it out and mouths the syllables....it's a very hard word to comprehend... I understand.

Corporations also employ millions....

Keep drinking the kool-aid....

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

10-Jun-12 13:06

vb_again said:
and exactly when did you become jealous of other ppl earning more than you are capable of earning???

The last quarter of the nineteenth century and the 1920s were periods of high and growing economic inequality. Nevertheless, most Americans benefited somewhat, so it was politically sustainable. Since President Clinton left office the rich have gotten richer, while most Americans have lost ground economically.

Press here for confirmation.

I do not believe this can continue without generating a political backlash that will benefit the Democrats.

If this reply breaks our rules please

vb_again

Reaching in to your back pocket for this one eh?

12-Jun-12 02:52

zeebop said:

vb_again said:
and exactly when did you become jealous of other ppl earning more than you are capable of earning???

The last quarter of the nineteenth century and the 1920s were periods of high and growing economic inequality. Nevertheless, most Americans benefited somewhat, so it was politically sustainable. Since President Clinton left office the rich have gotten richer, while most Americans have lost ground economically.

Press here for confirmation.

I do not believe this can continue without generating a political backlash that will benefit the Democrats.

The last quarter of the nineteenth century and the 1920s were periods of high and growing economic inequality. Nevertheless, most Americans benefited somewhat, so it was politically sustainable.

Please explain politically sustainable to me. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sustainable" target="_blank" class="forum-link">

I don't think I want to live in the same country that you do...

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

12-Jun-12 23:42

vb_again said:
Please explain politically sustainable to me.

I already did, but I will try again. If the standard of most Americans continues to decline while the rich get richer I expect a political backlash that will benefit the Democrats.

It may take awhile. However, as recently as January 18, 2012, "A majority of Americans believe that former President George W. Bush is more responsible than President Obama for the current economic problems in the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

"Fifty-four percent of respondents said that Bush was more to blame while 29 percent put the blame on Obama; 9 percent said both men deserved blame while 6 percent said neither did. Among registered voters, the numbers are almost identical; 54 percent blame Bush, while 30 percent blame Obama."
The Rest of the Story

This may change by November. Nevertheless I see nothing in what Mitt Romney and the GOP propose that will benefit most Americans. Judging from the previous economic history of the United States, cuts in government employment will have a depressing effect on overall job creation, while tax cuts for the rich will increase the national debt.

If most of the voters conclude that the broadly based economic growth of the post World War II era is no longer possible, I think they will opt for economic redistribution. That will benefit the Democrats.

If this reply breaks our rules please

schweddy_balls

18-Jun-12 19:34

one good quarter does not make a year.....the dow is down from the 13,000+ mark and worries about the world economy plague it especially greece.... spain and a few others...china and the middle east is also of concern.... plus there is a lot more yet to come.....

just remember.... ITS ALL THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS FAULT!!!!!

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

Americans Still Blame Bush More Than Obama for Bad Economy - About half of Republicans blame Bush

9-Jul-12 17:34

schweddy_balls said: one good quarter does not make a year.....the dow is down from the 13,000+ mark and worries about the world economy plague it especially greece.... spain and a few others...china and the middle east is also of concern.... plus there is a lot more yet to come.....

just remember.... ITS ALL THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS FAULT!!!!!

Gallup June 14, 2012

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans continue to place more blame for the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago. The relative economic blame given to Bush versus Obama today is virtually the same as it was last September...

Gallup first asked this "blame assessment" question in July 2009, six months after Obama became president. At that point, 80% of Americans gave Bush a great deal or a moderate amount of blame, compared with 32% who ascribed the same level of blame for the bad economy to Obama. The percentage blaming Bush dropped to about 70% in August 2010, and has stayed roughly in that range since. Meanwhile, about half of Americans have blamed Obama since March 2010, with little substantive change from then to the present.
The Rest of the Story

--------

I blame George W. Bush, the Republican Congress he had from 2001 to 2007, President Obama, and a Republican House of Representatives that opposes policies that in the past reduced unemployment, while promoting economic growth.

If this reply breaks our rules please

vb_again

FINALLY! WE'VE STOPPED BLAMING REAGAN!

14-Jul-12 09:34

zeebop said:

schweddy_balls said: one good quarter does not make a year.....the dow is down from the 13,000+ mark and worries about the world economy plague it especially greece.... spain and a few others...china and the middle east is also of concern.... plus there is a lot more yet to come.....

just remember.... ITS ALL THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS FAULT!!!!!

Gallup June 14, 2012

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans continue to place more blame for the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago. The relative economic blame given to Bush versus Obama today is virtually the same as it was last September...

Gallup first asked this "blame assessment" question in July 2009, six months after Obama became president. At that point, 80% of Americans gave Bush a great deal or a moderate amount of blame, compared with 32% who ascribed the same level of blame for the bad economy to Obama. The percentage blaming Bush dropped to about 70% in August 2010, and has stayed roughly in that range since. Meanwhile, about half of Americans have blamed Obama since March 2010, with little substantive change from then to the present.
The Rest of the Story

--------

I blame George W. Bush, the Republican Congress he had from 2001 to 2007, President Obama, and a Republican House of Representatives that opposes policies that in the past reduced unemployment, while promoting economic growth.

Do I have to wait 4 more years before I can start blaming Obama Zee?

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

24-Jul-12 23:02

vb_again said

o I have to wait 4 more years before I can start blaming Obama Zee?

Only if Obama wins decisively in the next election, and has comfortable Democratic margins in both Houses of Congress.

If this reply breaks our rules please

vb_again

Whom shall I blame in the meantime?

29-Jul-12 08:15

zeebop said:

vb_again said

o I have to wait 4 more years before I can start blaming Obama Zee?

Only if Obama wins decisively in the next election, and has comfortable Democratic margins in both Houses of Congress.

afterall...somebody is to blame...it's not my fault...

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

Poll: If Hillary Clinton ran in 2012...

30-Jul-12 22:18

vb_again,

I am disappointed with President Obama. I think he is well meaning, but incompetent. I wish he would pull out of the race, and encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president.

When Harry Truman's approval rating dipped below 30 percent in 1952 he encouraged Adlai Stevenson to run. Stevenson lost, but he lost to a war hero. Mitt Romney is not any kind of a hero to anyone but fellow investors.

--------

October 27th, 2011

(CNN) – If Hillary Clinton were on the ballot in 2012 as the Democratic presidential nominee she would fare better against the Republican candidates than her current boss, President Barack Obama, according to a new national poll.

Although the secretary of state has repeatedly said she will not run for president in the next election, Clinton beat the top GOP candidates among likely voters in hypothetical matchups.

The TIME survey taken on Oct. 9 and Oct. 10 showed Clinton ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 55% to 38%...

Obama did not fare as well against the same candidates, edging out Romney by three percentage points, 46% to 43%.
The Rest of the Story

--------

Still, I am what they call in the South "a Yellow Dog Democrat," so I will vote for Obama.

If this reply breaks our rules please

vb_again

Holy shit...

31-Jul-12 00:57

Still, I am what they call in the South "a Yellow Dog Democrat," so I will vote for Obama.

You're part of the problem...

and yet you don't even realize that you are...

When was the last time you had an original thought?

one that you didn't have to *click here for confirmation*....

If this reply breaks our rules please

User not found

Comments


	NN Matchmaker: I am a: find looking for me. must have a pic. Help NN grow - put this search on your site - FREE!