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.
Sucker Ralley, the fundmentals have not changed. The more the Fed prints the more the dollar devalues. The futher the market will fall. just my opionion
From a financial standpoint, the more the dollar devalues, the higher the market goes.
It means that $10 stock needs to become $12 in order to be the same = higher stock prices but lower spendable income.
Wall Street is NOT main street. Wall Street is full of bankers and traders who trade big bucks and have bigger odds than you can imagine.
Wall Street used to be for the elite, the speculators, the wealthy.
Sorry you got caught up in the hoopla of "what goes up never comes down". The bankers got out. The hedge fund guys got out. All the elite got out and left Joe Mainstreet to hang high and dry. Whoever big that didn't get out is currently getting bailed out by our future tax dollars.
Wall Street is just another Vegas.
Happy Texan is exactly right; whereas the CEO/worker wage disparity was $4.00/$1.00, it had reached the disparity of roughly $400/$1.00. The $400
people took very good care of money, both their own and that of their friends.
They cleared a path using deregulation and made even more money by enticing the $1.00 people to buy into the market themselves.
In short, the $4.00 people exist to "make" money on the $1.00 people, like the odds at a casino...they exist to get your money, and they're pros at it.
This is really funny. First of all the article is hardly up to date (2005) and second here is a typical example of debate about sources. I don't see the BBC as a reputable source and I've never heard of their source, the British journal Nature.
But as Irishvanguard pointed out, we're getting away from the point and this isn't about Wikipedia which I still believe is not a viable reference point.
I said Obama wants to "spread the wealth around" and you said I took the remark out of context. He said it. If you want me to find the video on YouTube to prove he said it I'll try to find the time to do that today.
But I don't buy that you didn't hear him say that during his campaign. His words were very clear and not taken out of context. That is his plan, that is his aim, and everything he is doing so far points to that.
So what if the article is four years old? It looked at error rates. I have heard of Nature. If you are interested in science, you've heard of it. That article was also reported in Newsweek. Funny, first you don't like my source, Wikipedia, then you discredit the BBC(?), and have never heard of a respectable science journal! So who/what do you think is a credible source? If the BBC isn't, FOX news CERTAINLY isn't.
"Nature is a prominent scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869.
Although most scientific journals are now highly specialized, Nature is one of the few journals, along with other weekly journals such as Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that still publishes original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields."
We're almost done here. As I mentioned, you are completely off the subject. Wikipedia in my opinion is not a reliable source. In your opinion it is. So we disagree and your opinion is certainly no more viable than mine. The article is 4 years old so it doesn't speak to today.
All that means nothing because you're skirting around the point which is what libbers do. Distract, spin ... smoke and mirrors. It's all a game but one we're catching on to.
You provided the link to Wikipedia to somehow prove that Obama doesn't want to "share the wealth".
He said he does. He's proving he does. So all the rest of this is just a whole lot of fluff and nonsense.
Finally, since you so love links here are a few that support my view that we can always find internet sources to back up what we say. Here are mine:
The market finished up 175/pts. I am not a huge fan of Wall Street but nonetheless the Market has made some significant gains over the last 10 days and that is a positive thing, right?
it could be good, or it could be absolutely terrible. The stock market in 1939 made a massive gain just before it fell to the floor. Only time will tell, I sure hope we have reached the bottom of the market, my retirement plan cannot stand much more losses
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.
.
. As I mentioned, you are completely off the subject. Wikipedia in my opinion is not a reliable source. In your opinion it is. So we disagree and your opinion is certainly no more viable than mine. The article is 4 years old so it doesn't speak to today.
