Search results

They certainly would be better off. It would help take some of the political heat off of them, at least temporarily. Same as how the oil companies wanted to reduce massive profits when oil spiked. The public does not like excessive profit.

Rather presumptuous, don't you think?

Which way are job losses trending? The market will continue to price in less unemployment for as long as the trend continues. For the market to fall, job losses would need to be: 1. Trending towards greater job losses. 2. Worse than expected job losses. This theory breaks down if...

Joined in August 2009... So I see you have been rebelling against the mods for what... four whole days now?

A USA recovery is highly speculative? Really? You don't think GDP growth and declining unemployment will happen in the future? It's not a matter of if, but when. And I happen to think it will be sooner rather than later. I think of jobs and the economy is a real chicken and the egg...

The need for humans to feel safe and secure is the reason for faith and hence bible book sales. Many humans would rather believe that if they act a certain way, everything will be OK for them for eternity. It is much easier than believing that each of us is responsible for their own fate, and...

But who created god? Did god appear out of nothing?

I'd put Power at the top of that list.

Yeah, you stand with the government or in jail. Two options.

Despite who wrote it, you can't ignore the good news he speaks about.

I wouldn't be shorting right now. Maybe $71.50 is too high, maybe not, but I don't think we'll see $30 any time soon. Growth in China alone will keep prices out of that level, not to mention a looming recovery in the USA.

+1

I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt, but refusal to post P/L blotter has damaged your credibility beyond repair.

We can only pray they listen.

Yes this is true. But if G is increased until C+I recover (as is happening now), then it alleviates the pressure. This risk is if G continues to increase without a recovery in C+I which remains to be seen.

Don't know if slippage and commissions make sure it doesn't work, but it will severely hurt it's chances. I don't think people are putting enough stock into this fact.

My argument is that Americans spent too much, saved too little in the past, causing defaults. An increase in savings now is a good thing to get consumers back on their feet. As long as savings don't increase TOO MUCH. There is certainly a point where the economy will be crippled if...

Absolutely correct. As soon as the market realized the entire financial system wasn't going to collapse and bring down the economy with it, it began to go up, discounting a recovery at some point in the future.

I'm not denying the fact government sometimes manipulates data, but too many bears use it as an excuse to discredit any good news. Bears should consider the fact that just maybe, the economy IS improving! Of course I could be wrong, by all means it has happened before. But that would also...

Yes. GDP = C+I+G. So why are you trying to evaluate GDP as C+I? Government spends to increase G while C and I are low. Once C and I increase, government decreases G. It's not a fool proof theory, but the logic makes sense. If government didn't spend, GDP would in larger negative...