Search results

Given the recent history of the Federal Reserve, the odds that this happens anytime soon is infinitesimally small.

Can't you say that for anything though? How about the US dollar? You could certainly argue in the same way that it is a pyramid scheme. At least the Federal Reserve can't print gold at will.

They should replace the Fed with an interest rate formula. It would do a better job than Fed's abysmal performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature [B] How about everybody marches on Goldman Sachs and locks arms so that nobody can enter the building? Million man Goldman Sachs march?

BS.

Except for the fact that Goldman Sachs might not even exist today without the aid of others. I'd like to see his interview if Goldman Sachs was given no aid and AIG was allowed to fail.

This fact is probably not convenient to the author's point: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008100309 To be fair, Obama has continued the flawed policy of the previous administration.

Has anybody read F.I.A.S.C.O.? I wonder how large a portion of Goldman's profits are from unregulated derivatives? I don't believe you can read that book and then say that those derivative products have any redeeming social value. None whatsoever. In fact, it seems like the sole purpose of most...

Since America is essentially bankrupt, I don't understand why we should give any money away. Of course, since our money is essentially toilet paper and we can print it whenever we want, I say we give 100 Trillion in aid every year.

That's quite a generous assessment skewed in your direction. So you are right even before something happens? So how many times have you told us that Cramer is going to jail? I stand by that statement because it is true. And by the way, OSTK has been more than cut in half since I said that...

Classy as usual. I'm waiting in feverish anticipation for Cramer to be jailed! When do you think that will happen, all knowing one?

After the 100th time you've said this, you might get lucky and be right one of these days! Have you read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

And yet all that talent and brains put them in the following situation: 1. Had to switch to a bank holding company. 2. Had to cry to mommy (US gov.) for help so that they could exist.

Who started the thread? Who has the burden of proof for his somewhat outrageous claim?

Sorry dude, you are totally out of your element. I am not the one trying to prove to everyone that my theory is correct. The burden of proof is not on me. All I am saying is that if you don't invest in stocks that don't pay dividends, you are excluding a huge section of the market that can...

What it comes down to is that there is no guarantee your proposed way of investing makes me anymore money than investing in companies that do not pay a dividend. So because this is true, your arguments, although fun to think about in theory, have no practical value and should be ignored.

Yes, your argument still makes no sense. In theory it might be nice to think about. But in reality, everyday your theory is continually disproved in the open market.

And I am saying, it doesn't matter whether they pay the dividend or not.

And if you had invested in CSCO anytime before 1996, you would be up huge. You can play this stupid game if you want, but the fact is an investor can make money on a company regardless of whether or not it pays dividends. Should they? Debatable. Do they? Yes.

Yes, you'd be poor having invested in them. What a joke! I can't stand it when companies make me money!