lose 40% of my saving, and I am out

Quote from wiesman02:

that might be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. You must be a democrat to somehow think like that.

It blew up after the internet bubble b/c housing prices reached their peak and began their fall down, u twat.
More...

Yea? While the housing prices was peaking, anyone did anything at all? If CRA is SOOO bad, how come no one try to change it?

Now, go back and play with your toys.
 
Quote from mayo367:

A few years ago when the tech bubble burst, a professor of mine was complaining that the money earmarked for his daughter's education was nearly depleted, if he only knew what I knew back then he would've known that there was different options or alternatives to just holding, wishing & praying for the best.
More...

Because the public is taught that buy and hold is the best thing since sliced bread and that you can't outperform the market. Then they are taught that anything besides investing based on purely fundamentals is outlandish and praying for the market gods to reward them is the surest path to turning a profit on their investment.

I feel for these people but hey they provide a constant stream of liquidity.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Hey trader, i could be wrong, but i think Greenspan actually took the discount rate as low as 0.87 % in Nov. of 2003. If you check out the SPX during that period it is very clear that we were coming out of the recession by November. Since we were already at a very low rate, as the Fed had been easing for months, you have to think that the right move in Nov of 2003 was either to hold steady or start tightening. So why on earth did Greenspan take the discount rate still lower that late in the cycle?? That's a question i have asked myself many times. Unfortunately the only answer i've come up with that makes any sense to me is that he wanted to give the economy a super goose to help get Bush "re-elected" in the upcoming 2004 election, and making this move one year out from election day would give time for the rate drop to really kick in. Greenspan is a Republican and an acknowledged Zionist and he must have believed that Bush would be more likely to give Isreal a blank check than Kerry. It pains me to say this, but it does appear that Greenspan let political partisanship interfere with sound monetary policy. His unwise support of still lower rates in late 2003 exacerbated the already existing problem of too much money chasing too few qualified borrowers, and we all know were that eventually led. We had previously done away with Glas-Steagal, and that turned out to be a bad thing. That again can largely be blamed on Republican initiatives, as they were champions of the idea of letting banks compete in all sorts of areas they had been barred from after the depression. I don't know this to be true, but i'd be shocked if Phil Gramm did not play a role in doing in Glas-Steagal.
More...

ye greenspan took it down to .87, bernanke i heard on cnbc has taken the rate down to as low as .5 recently, i have a feeling we are going to have another bubble like scenario in 5-6 years except it will be even worse because bernanke has taken the rate down so low and the banks have been hoarding this cash as evidenced by libor...
 
Quote from nyxtrader:

Actually, YOU are way off base.
More...

You don't even know what my stance is, let alone the truth. The subprime mortgages are not a problem, it's the worthless paper written on them, you know, the derivatives. The political theatre production stayed out of that till this year. You guys keep bickering what what Democrats or Republicans did that year and this year, while missing the issue, let alone failing to realize that it is a ONE party system.

Once you figure that out, maybe you will understand why the rest of your post is irrelevant.
 
Quote from MKTrader:

Oh my. I hope that was sarcasm.
More...

The fact that you have to hope and do not just know, makes me much less hopeful about the potential to fight what is going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top