Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › What is it with all the doomsday predictions
- This topic has 160 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
Dukehorn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM #315636December 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM #315156
peterb
Participant“We’re from the government and we’re here to help”
The NY Fed threw 6 times it’s allowable level of funds at the banks in 1930. It didnt help. Again, our problem is not liquidity, it’s solvency. $12/hour jobs will do nothing more than keep us from riots. And that’s for those that are able to do this kind of work. All these tactics and govt intervention is to stave-off collapse and choas. I would not characterize this as a recovery. Life-support would be more accurate. Much like FDR’s WPA projects. War in the Europe brought us out of this contraction, not works projects. First by paying us to supply them, then by us joining the conflict.Check out the technical charts and series of events. The paralell is very much in 1929, not 1933, as you suggest. I really dont see how you can come to such a conclusion?! If anything, one could contend that we’re in 1930, but not 1933! The Dow had fallen about 80% by then and completed a 3 year contraction. which is a historical norm.
December 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM #315512peterb
Participant“We’re from the government and we’re here to help”
The NY Fed threw 6 times it’s allowable level of funds at the banks in 1930. It didnt help. Again, our problem is not liquidity, it’s solvency. $12/hour jobs will do nothing more than keep us from riots. And that’s for those that are able to do this kind of work. All these tactics and govt intervention is to stave-off collapse and choas. I would not characterize this as a recovery. Life-support would be more accurate. Much like FDR’s WPA projects. War in the Europe brought us out of this contraction, not works projects. First by paying us to supply them, then by us joining the conflict.Check out the technical charts and series of events. The paralell is very much in 1929, not 1933, as you suggest. I really dont see how you can come to such a conclusion?! If anything, one could contend that we’re in 1930, but not 1933! The Dow had fallen about 80% by then and completed a 3 year contraction. which is a historical norm.
December 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM #315546peterb
Participant“We’re from the government and we’re here to help”
The NY Fed threw 6 times it’s allowable level of funds at the banks in 1930. It didnt help. Again, our problem is not liquidity, it’s solvency. $12/hour jobs will do nothing more than keep us from riots. And that’s for those that are able to do this kind of work. All these tactics and govt intervention is to stave-off collapse and choas. I would not characterize this as a recovery. Life-support would be more accurate. Much like FDR’s WPA projects. War in the Europe brought us out of this contraction, not works projects. First by paying us to supply them, then by us joining the conflict.Check out the technical charts and series of events. The paralell is very much in 1929, not 1933, as you suggest. I really dont see how you can come to such a conclusion?! If anything, one could contend that we’re in 1930, but not 1933! The Dow had fallen about 80% by then and completed a 3 year contraction. which is a historical norm.
December 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM #315569peterb
Participant“We’re from the government and we’re here to help”
The NY Fed threw 6 times it’s allowable level of funds at the banks in 1930. It didnt help. Again, our problem is not liquidity, it’s solvency. $12/hour jobs will do nothing more than keep us from riots. And that’s for those that are able to do this kind of work. All these tactics and govt intervention is to stave-off collapse and choas. I would not characterize this as a recovery. Life-support would be more accurate. Much like FDR’s WPA projects. War in the Europe brought us out of this contraction, not works projects. First by paying us to supply them, then by us joining the conflict.Check out the technical charts and series of events. The paralell is very much in 1929, not 1933, as you suggest. I really dont see how you can come to such a conclusion?! If anything, one could contend that we’re in 1930, but not 1933! The Dow had fallen about 80% by then and completed a 3 year contraction. which is a historical norm.
December 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM #315641peterb
Participant“We’re from the government and we’re here to help”
The NY Fed threw 6 times it’s allowable level of funds at the banks in 1930. It didnt help. Again, our problem is not liquidity, it’s solvency. $12/hour jobs will do nothing more than keep us from riots. And that’s for those that are able to do this kind of work. All these tactics and govt intervention is to stave-off collapse and choas. I would not characterize this as a recovery. Life-support would be more accurate. Much like FDR’s WPA projects. War in the Europe brought us out of this contraction, not works projects. First by paying us to supply them, then by us joining the conflict.Check out the technical charts and series of events. The paralell is very much in 1929, not 1933, as you suggest. I really dont see how you can come to such a conclusion?! If anything, one could contend that we’re in 1930, but not 1933! The Dow had fallen about 80% by then and completed a 3 year contraction. which is a historical norm.
December 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM #315166stockstradr
ParticipantI strongly agree with the posts by 4plexowner and peterb, essentially warning everyone: “when you are sure this US stock market has bottomed, think again (because it might still have a very nasty leg down ahead of it)”
Just guessing here, but this is the future I envision:
I think US stocks will eventually come down to about 600 or 650 (S&P500) then I’ll jump to ride the expected nice fool’s rally, and sell as soon as it has come up say 20%. This will be sometime in 2009. Then after the mini-rally, I will get out of US stocks and stay out, but I will buy heavily into Chinese stocks when I see Shanghai index fally below 1200.
So I believe returns for US stocks will be horrible for many years to come.
December 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM #315522stockstradr
ParticipantI strongly agree with the posts by 4plexowner and peterb, essentially warning everyone: “when you are sure this US stock market has bottomed, think again (because it might still have a very nasty leg down ahead of it)”
Just guessing here, but this is the future I envision:
I think US stocks will eventually come down to about 600 or 650 (S&P500) then I’ll jump to ride the expected nice fool’s rally, and sell as soon as it has come up say 20%. This will be sometime in 2009. Then after the mini-rally, I will get out of US stocks and stay out, but I will buy heavily into Chinese stocks when I see Shanghai index fally below 1200.
So I believe returns for US stocks will be horrible for many years to come.
December 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM #315556stockstradr
ParticipantI strongly agree with the posts by 4plexowner and peterb, essentially warning everyone: “when you are sure this US stock market has bottomed, think again (because it might still have a very nasty leg down ahead of it)”
Just guessing here, but this is the future I envision:
I think US stocks will eventually come down to about 600 or 650 (S&P500) then I’ll jump to ride the expected nice fool’s rally, and sell as soon as it has come up say 20%. This will be sometime in 2009. Then after the mini-rally, I will get out of US stocks and stay out, but I will buy heavily into Chinese stocks when I see Shanghai index fally below 1200.
So I believe returns for US stocks will be horrible for many years to come.
December 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM #315579stockstradr
ParticipantI strongly agree with the posts by 4plexowner and peterb, essentially warning everyone: “when you are sure this US stock market has bottomed, think again (because it might still have a very nasty leg down ahead of it)”
Just guessing here, but this is the future I envision:
I think US stocks will eventually come down to about 600 or 650 (S&P500) then I’ll jump to ride the expected nice fool’s rally, and sell as soon as it has come up say 20%. This will be sometime in 2009. Then after the mini-rally, I will get out of US stocks and stay out, but I will buy heavily into Chinese stocks when I see Shanghai index fally below 1200.
So I believe returns for US stocks will be horrible for many years to come.
December 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM #315652stockstradr
ParticipantI strongly agree with the posts by 4plexowner and peterb, essentially warning everyone: “when you are sure this US stock market has bottomed, think again (because it might still have a very nasty leg down ahead of it)”
Just guessing here, but this is the future I envision:
I think US stocks will eventually come down to about 600 or 650 (S&P500) then I’ll jump to ride the expected nice fool’s rally, and sell as soon as it has come up say 20%. This will be sometime in 2009. Then after the mini-rally, I will get out of US stocks and stay out, but I will buy heavily into Chinese stocks when I see Shanghai index fally below 1200.
So I believe returns for US stocks will be horrible for many years to come.
December 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM #3151764plexowner
Participant“what made the Great Depression so bad was really the chain of bank failures in 1931-32”
two more bank closures friday after the close
that puts us to 25 so far for 2008
add in a handful of credit unions going into receivership
do you define almost 30 as a chain of bank failures or do we have to wait a few more weeks?
~
Keynesian economics were very much in place during the 20’s and 30′ – not sure what you are saying with your comment – you might argue that the electronic financial system of today allows us to pump Keynesian economics more effectively than was possible during the 20’s/30’s but Keynesian economics was alive and well during that time frame
extra credit question: why do Austrian economist never earn the Nobel prize?
December 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM #3155324plexowner
Participant“what made the Great Depression so bad was really the chain of bank failures in 1931-32”
two more bank closures friday after the close
that puts us to 25 so far for 2008
add in a handful of credit unions going into receivership
do you define almost 30 as a chain of bank failures or do we have to wait a few more weeks?
~
Keynesian economics were very much in place during the 20’s and 30′ – not sure what you are saying with your comment – you might argue that the electronic financial system of today allows us to pump Keynesian economics more effectively than was possible during the 20’s/30’s but Keynesian economics was alive and well during that time frame
extra credit question: why do Austrian economist never earn the Nobel prize?
December 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM #3155664plexowner
Participant“what made the Great Depression so bad was really the chain of bank failures in 1931-32”
two more bank closures friday after the close
that puts us to 25 so far for 2008
add in a handful of credit unions going into receivership
do you define almost 30 as a chain of bank failures or do we have to wait a few more weeks?
~
Keynesian economics were very much in place during the 20’s and 30′ – not sure what you are saying with your comment – you might argue that the electronic financial system of today allows us to pump Keynesian economics more effectively than was possible during the 20’s/30’s but Keynesian economics was alive and well during that time frame
extra credit question: why do Austrian economist never earn the Nobel prize?
December 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM #3155894plexowner
Participant“what made the Great Depression so bad was really the chain of bank failures in 1931-32”
two more bank closures friday after the close
that puts us to 25 so far for 2008
add in a handful of credit unions going into receivership
do you define almost 30 as a chain of bank failures or do we have to wait a few more weeks?
~
Keynesian economics were very much in place during the 20’s and 30′ – not sure what you are saying with your comment – you might argue that the electronic financial system of today allows us to pump Keynesian economics more effectively than was possible during the 20’s/30’s but Keynesian economics was alive and well during that time frame
extra credit question: why do Austrian economist never earn the Nobel prize?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.