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.
Even the stock market is still in the red for the year
#69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Heck of a lot more than 200K as long as the LFPR is in the tank. And no, S&P 500 is not at their highest for the year, and DOW is significantly lower from its peak (might have broken even with Jan 1).
I said the S&P500 was up for the year to date, not at the high. good try but I was correct then and im still correct even with todays couple point drop in the S&P.
you said the stock market was DOWN(in the red) year to date, now you are changing that to " lower from the peak" since you got called out on it as you were factually incorrect to try to save face Cute backpedal, but you will need to be smoother than that to get past someone sharp like me.
play the market you have, not the one that you want to have
You obviously dont know markets and was trying to peddle FUD hoping someone that does follow market doesnt call you out on it.
Last edited by tripleh; 06-07-2018 at 12:52 PM..
Reason: typos
Yes, those who have liquidity on the side waiting for a down turn are poised to do well. Giant firms like Goldman are in the business of doing this, so for the most part it works out, I was talking more about individuals making decisions on how to "drive" the economy. Anyone with the disposable income and basic understanding of the markets knows to always have some dry powder for downturns.
Sure seem to have changed your tune from this statement:
"And they were also some of the same ones who lost a ton of money when the crash happened? "
Oh yes they were poised to do well since the people they bribed into office bailed out the AIG patsy. GS pretended to pay insurance and AIG pretended to provide it. da gubermet to the rescue.
You made the comment "those who are in the know", and it all went from there:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
"Those who are in the know" knew how to fix it, but didnt? And they were also some of the same ones who lost a ton of money when the crash happened? Sorry, not buying that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Really? So Goldman Sachs got wrecked in all this now did they? I have news for you. During depressions people become enormously wealthy. The nominal values fall, but those with any liquidity snap it up at bargain prices. Real wealth changes hands.
Put the bottles of Krug on ice. Golden days are here again for elite investment banks. Goldman Sachs is gearing up to pay its biggest ever bonuses to its 31,700 employees after raking in profits at a rate of $35m (£21.5m) a day, in the clearest signal yet that the Square Mile and Wall Street are returning to their old ways of money-making prosperit
Yes I think the shadow bailout of Goldman Sachs though AIG worked wonders for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Yes, those who have liquidity on the side waiting for a down turn are poised to do well. Giant firms like Goldman are in the business of doing this, so for the most part it works out, I was talking more about individuals making decisions on how to "drive" the economy. Anyone with the disposable income and basic understanding of the markets knows to always have some dry powder for downturns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Sure seem to have changed your tune from this statement:
"And they were also some of the same ones who lost a ton of money when the crash happened? "
Oh yes they were poised to do well since the people they bribed into office bailed out the AIG patsy. GS pretended to pay insurance and AIG pretended to provide it. da gubermet to the rescue.
Nah, you just missed my point in a prior post when I clarified it for you. People making decisions and your "in the know" people who are there to be the fixers are the government based on what I'm getting from you, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Again I give VERY minimal credit to ANY President for the economy during their term, good or bad performance. There are way too many other factors that go into the market and economy. I'm sure they have some very small impact but there are just too many other factors. As far as I'm concerned, swap Obama and Trump terms and you would see very similar outcomes due to the natural up and down cycle of how the economy and markets roll. And a down turn IS COMING, regardless of who is in office.
You do realize, of course, you are wasting your time with a troll poster(with TDS) who constantly shows himself starved for attention by posting grade school memes. He does not cite any data or evidence of anything because he is either a seriously low self-esteem individual starved for attention or a burn out that someone blew out the light in his pumpkin a long time ago, clearly incapable of intelligent debate or higher thinking. The TOS of forum says trolling isnt allowed but this poster is in multiple threads constantly trying to troll and trigger and its allowed to continue . Now that Ive given 1 minute too much of my time to this, Im out.
I do hope the poster that I constantly prove wrong with facts about the stock market shows up again to defend his incorrect statements but, I kinda doubt it.
OT: I agree there will be a downturn in the future, I have enough humility to not know when exactly or even try to forcast it. Also agreed it doesnt matter who is in office. The economy is naturally cyclical, a back test proves this.. if you dont know what a back test is, look it up.
You made the comment "those who are in the know", and it all went from there:
Nah, you just missed my point in a prior post when I clarified it for you. People making decisions and your "in the know" people who are there to be the fixers are the government based on what I'm getting from you, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I'll clear it up for you. Lots of people who know how finance works knew how to stabilize the economy for the masses. They just don't care, especially because they know ordinary people don't know how it works. They could have sent cash straight to households with the provision mortgage debt would be reduced first. This would have made more performing loans. It would have reflected that 2006 housing prices were bogus and too high for the reality.
Instead they just handed cash to banksters to shore up their balance sheets.
You do realize, of course, you are wasting your time with a troll poster(with TDS) who constantly shows himself starved for attention by posting grade school memes. He does not cite any data or evidence of anything because he is either a seriously low self-esteem individual starved for attention or a burn out that someone blew out the light in his pumpkin a long time ago, clearly incapable of intelligent debate or higher thinking. The TOS of forum says trolling isnt allowed but this poster is in multiple threads constantly trying to troll and trigger and its allowed to continue . Now that Ive given 1 minute too much of my time to this, Im out.
I do hope the poster that I constantly prove wrong with facts about the stock market shows up again to defend his incorrect statements but, I kinda doubt it.
OT: I agree there will be a downturn in the future, I have enough humility to not know when exactly or even try to forcast it. Also agreed it doesnt matter who is in office. The economy is naturally cyclical, a back test proves this.. if you dont know what a back test is, look it up.
True, I don't know why I bother sometimes...just get caught up I guess.
I'll clear it up for you. Lots of people who know how finance works knew how to stabilize the economy for the masses. They just don't care, especially because they know ordinary people don't know how it works. They could have sent cash straight to households with the provision mortgage debt would be reduced first. This would have made more performing loans. It would have reflected that 2006 housing prices were bogus and too high for the reality.
Instead they just handed cash to banksters to shore up their balance sheets.
Thanks for clearing things up, I didn't realize we could solve the problem by handing out free money to consumers who already made horrible financial decisions in many cases. I don't want the government handing out money to individuals OR corporations, and picking winners. Bad decisions have consequences, people and companies need to learn that but our government seems to want to play "pick the winner" too often.
It was in a meltdown because of a particular event (mortgage crisis), not from a regular ebb and flow economy.
The economy most likely would bounce back that event, which made it easy for Obama.
It was an economic event that took out all the large investment banks and resulted in the middle class losing trillions of dollars in wealth. Recovery was anything but a given. I'm amazed that the US economy didn't sink into a depression.
Obama didn't show up with a bunch of "brilliant ideas' that no one had ever thought of when he became president.
And Democrat economists are no better then Republican ones.
Somehow the economy got fixed. I didn't like Obama's economy; it had too much stimulus money just being tossed around, I didn't like Cash for Clunkers, and there were way to many people on food stamp programs.
So far, I like Trump's economy; there are fewer regulations, less interference, and fewer people who can't find a job. It's what I wanted all along. It will be a cold day in hell when Trump asks for a stimulus fund of $1T. He would rather cut taxes and let people spend money the way they wish.
Was there a stimulus request for 1 trillion during the Obama administration?
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.
but I was correct then and im still correct even with todays couple point drop in the S&P.
Cute backpedal, but you will need to be smoother than that to get past someone sharp like me. 
. Now that Ive given 1 minute too much of my time to this, Im out. 
I don't want the government handing out money to individuals OR corporations, and picking winners. Bad decisions have consequences, people and companies need to learn that but our government seems to want to play "pick the winner" too often.
