Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course the banking danger was there. But the Fed took care of that. The Fed didn't and probably couldn't do enough for the broad middle class. So banks subsequently came back, but housing and general demands sunk.
The Fed could also take care of our energy sector if it should crump. I don't think the energy will crisis near to the level as 2008, and I don't think that this will need to happen:
The Fed did not bail out the middle class because the Fed does not work in the best interest of the citizen's.
It's constituency are the banks and Wall St. If you think the Fed is going to bail out a bunch of wildcat drillers you are sadly mistaken, they could not care less.
It never ceases to amaze me how people still naively believe that the powers that be are working in their best interests. The wealthy get wealthy by taking what you work to accumulate. That is how the top 10% of the population ends up with 75% of all the wealth.
Like I said before, if you believe the future is rosy, then put your money where your mouth is and stay fully invested. Just don't complain when you get your backside handed to you because you were warned.
I remember an economist at work that said the Dow will hit 14,000. He said he would never sell his stocks. He lost most of his money when the markets dumped.
He told me the Dow would hit 14,000 in 1975.
I believe that the Dow will be at 31,000 and then make it to 50,000. Will that be next year or 30 years from now. A lot can happen between now in then.
The Fed did not bail out the middle class because the Fed does not work in the best interest of the citizen's.
It's constituency are the banks and Wall St. If you think the Fed is going to bail out a bunch of wildcat drillers you are sadly mistaken, they could not care less.
It never ceases to amaze me how people still naively believe that the powers that be are working in their best interests. The wealthy get wealthy by taking what you work to accumulate. That is how the top 10% of the population ends up with 75% of all the wealth.
Like I said before, if you believe the future is rosy, then put your money where your mouth is and stay fully invested. Just don't complain when you get your backside handed to you because you were warned.
I am wealthy, in many ways due to Fed policy and interventions over the years. So of course I won't be complaining.
The Fed is a private/public hybrid. Although I have zero doubts it works in the best interest of banks, it also has other mandates affecting the general economy and public at large, including stabilizing our money, economy and employment. The Feds works with the Executive, Treasury and Congress in many of its workings and dealings, in so many cases in line with and support of our general economic best interests.
The Fed is there as the lender of last resort, and has already proven to help shore up grave economic failings, more so than many would have liked of course. Like I said, I doubt that the energy sector will bring down our general economy. But the Fed has the capacity to intervene if another abyss starts to open as a result. I like that kind of security.
The poor we take of. The middle class is at great loss due to poor (but improving) employment and wage numbers. I anticipate that these will trend upward short/medium term, despite the loss of energy jobs. Because of the overall cheap energy effect on the broader economy. IMO our short/medium term outlook is turbulent, but net positive. Rosy is possible, but this is optimistic look considering the rest of the world. I am fully invested, but of course not all in the stock markets.
Why am I not surprised by this response? While I think 31,000 in 3 years is overly optimistic and not realistic it's certainly not impossible. Interesting to think +21% a year is fantasy but you think -43%+ a year is more likely? Well if this isn't a negative view point I don't know what is
jimhcom doesn't post negativity, he is only trying to help us! Stop puzzling him!
Besides we get to revisit his DJIA "prediction" in 3 years. So, that could be fun.
I expect 6-8% growth on the S&P in 2015 like I do every year! LOL
Predicting beyond 2015 is really ludicrous, but that being said: if housing improves and begins to assist with economic growth, we could have a few more good years in store for us. That is my humble opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oh okay we will see
