Search results

market making ftmfw.

I don't see this happening. You can only punish businesses for being successful so much. If Obama does this now the MA. senate vote/referendum will evolve into a shitstorm for his administration.

You are a douche. Go to lunch early, order your "water with lemon" and let the men get back to business. Better yet, go back to the yahoo boards you tin-foil hat wearing nutbag.

No. You are missing truckloads of knowledge.

Interesting question: I would say no. By definition a bubble only exists because the counter-trend forces are so weak as to allow the bubble to expand.

whatever you say boss...

lol. every major exchange has processes in place to check the purity of the commodity - be it oil or gold or something else. Those CoAs are 99.9999999% of the time demanded by the counterparty before settling. There are too many "reported" and "assuming" statements in that link to be...

you don't need to know anyone to understand that when the cost of doing business increases, the cost of goods/services increase.

agreed. lots of them with recent join dates lately.

I call bullshit.

yes. if you don't like the terms find someone else. no one is forcing you to do business with them.

Yes, they do. I challenge you to find me a registered broker-dealer that doesn't.

I just read that drivel ZH posted - every broker on the planet has similar statements in the disclosures that you agree to when you sign up. Is this what makes for news these days?

I was waiting for someone to say it. That poster that mentioned reading foreign newspapers: instead of patting yourself on the back becuase you found a different perspective you should first determine the validity, and integrity, of that perspective.

not all wealthy people got that way by investing - in fact most are experts in something unrelated.

where did the 133T number come from? Most of the article is an op-ed piece based on the assumption of this 133T number, which the author fabricates based on conjecture. 100T in "unfunded national obligations" ?

not sure - i spent a few minutes looking for the pdf from the treasury where i got that number but can't find it. I put stock in it because of a few articles citing the same number, give or take 500 billion.( was around 13T) I do remember digging into the number and it seemed reasonable given...

you must be new here.

lol. Basically...... ;)

Budgetary is yoy - not cumulative, which is the 13T number. If Clinton left with a ~550B 1-4yr surplus, that's only ~26 years of surplus worth to build those reserves, and we've been at it ~300 years.(including the time-value of money, investment, and all the years the budget was blown to crap)