Market crash: are we there yet ?

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by TropicCat

Even the new guy has it all wrong. Here chuckles: Greenspan just reversed himself and now agrees with me. I know, he's a socialist too...right? He must be as the rest of his republican buddies are busy Nationaizing everything they can lay their hands on.


By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2008; 12:19 PM


Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan called today for imposing some of the same sorts of regulations on mortgage securities he resisted when he was in office, acknowledging that the current financial crisis had exposed "a flaw" in his view of how the world and markets function.

A flaw? Gee...ya think? God save me from incompetent conservatives

Double posting Rick? I'll answer this one when you answer any of the posts where I expose your facts as wishful thinking. Until then I continue to read your posts because the joke thread is dry.
Must be something in the water in Florida.

I note your predication of a market crash this week hasn't happened yet. Care to rescind, or are you still hopeful?

[chris_gee]

I made the observation that in effect that free market had substantially failed through a failure to regulate or enforce regulation. The WP article claims that the market would be best left to itself. That may be however the same market has screamed for bailouts of well over a trillion, showing a lack of desire for the market to sort itself out.
It is quite hypocritical to cry free market then call for intervention when the results show themselves.
As to the old saw that the failure is due to Government intervention as espoused by the WP and sailaway that mythological ploy has been refuted elsewhere see The Big Picture | Private Sector Loan Losses vs Fannie/Freddie as an example.
One can hardly say that current market conditions are best for the functioning of business in the short term although in the long term they may be seen as part of the restorative process. Some authorities have pointed to the desirability of curbing market excesses to ameliorate the busts, unlike Greenspan who claimed he couldn't identify a bubble and who concentrated on propping the market up. I would agree that that is intervention on one side, but something Wall St screams for and came to expect. Maybe instead of Libertarians they are one way managed economy supporters.

[sailaway21]

Chris,
The financial community, previously known as the free marketeers, will call for aid only when they think they have a reasonable expectation of getting it. The only conviction they hold is to their own money, regardless of source. In that respect they are apolitical. And that also explains why most big business contributes equally to Dems and Reps.

As to your link, this PhD economist seems to disagree with the author.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Do Facts Matter?

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

Double posting Rick? I'll answer this one when you answer any of the posts where I expose your facts as wishful thinking. Until then I continue to read your posts because the joke thread is dry.
Must be something in the water in Florida.

I note your predication of a market crash this week hasn't happened yet. Care to rescind, or are you still hopeful?

You asked for the double post. It was always in this thread, added it to the other upon request.

As to that crash? Well, predicitions are an inexact science. However, I think today will qualify as the day.

The crash is NOW

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

Seems to me that quiet a number of folks are forgetful of the fact that the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for all but a very, very few years 1945 - present.

Sorry Chuckles, my days are getting a lot busier these days.

Now, your point is that congress passed the legislation, right? And that Republican Presidents had their veto's overturned by those Democratic hords?

I don't think so. I seem to remember the Amrtack and Conrail votes as I lived in Connecticut at the time.

As for Bush? Spare me, this is entirely a Republican gig.

[Bene505]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

One very odd and interesting thing that has been happening in the markets lately is in precious metals. Paper precious metals (futures, etc) have been dropping in price almost non-stop, and yet at the exact same time investors have been buying up physical metals like they are going out of style. The result is that there is a huge premium on bullion at the moment and that the market between paper metal and physical metal has essentially become disconnected and is now almost two entirely separate markets. The paper traders are saying metal is worth one thing, and the physical traders are saying it's worth something entirely different.

WM,

Intrigued by your post, I asked some friends, one of whom (Joe) once had a seat on the gold exchange, and now deals in another internationally traded commody. Here are the 2 replies. Enjoy:

----
From Bobby:

In one word: counter-party risk.

If you own the metal, you own the metal -- it's like money under your mattress. If you own a contract to purchase the metal, that contract is only as good as the person standing on the other side of the contract. With the recent failures of Bear, Lehman, the prop-ups for AIG, Fannie, Freddie, etc., counter-party risk is being examined, and a contract you own is only as good as the guy on the other side. If you have a contract to buy gold from someone and he ain't around to honor the contract, guess what: you don't own what you thought you did. But, if you own the actual bullion, that can't be taken away.

Think cash in the safe in your basement versus a deposit in a bank above FDIC coverage limits. If that bank goes under, you lose your money above the FDIC coverage limits. The cash in your safe is always cash in your safe. A bar of gold is always a bar of gold.

This is what I think is probably happening ... but I have done no analysis to confirm my hunch...

------
From Joe:

Bobby is correct; also weighing in on this situation is that there is a current shortage of physical gold bullion for delivery (all the Arabs have converted their Petrodollars into GOLD), thus there is a premium price for the physical. Traditionally, gold coins have run a small premium to the spot bullion price, but now this is running at abt $50/oz, which is significant. Gold is the only real money recognized globally throughout the history of time. This all goes to prove that gold will explode in price in the next 2 years. All the G7 countries will have to revert back to some modified Gold Standard to lend legitimacy to their currencies after this historically extreme inflationary expansion of the money supply.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by TropicCat

Sorry Chuckles, my days are getting a lot busier these days.

Now, your point is that congress passed the legislation, right? And that Republican Presidents had their veto's overturned by those Democratic hords?

I don't think so. I seem to remember the Amrtack and Conrail votes as I lived in Connecticut at the time.

As for Bush? Spare me, this is entirely a Republican gig.

You don't 'think' so????

Jaysus Rick, I posted the frigging link.

Do some research before you blather huh?

Living in Ct means your 'thinking' is infallible?

"Bush's economic recovery plan" is a Democratic party drafted piece of legislature, deal with the facts not the fantasy.

[TropicCat]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

"Bush's economic recovery plan" is a Democratic party drafted piece of legislature, deal with the facts not the fantasy.

Yep, and the minute his name went on the dotted line..it became his bill.

Thats the way it works.. now isn't it? You're amazing. He asked for legislation, get's it, signs it... and in your world it's the Dems that did it.

Pure fanatsy. I recommend you Get help..

[chucklesR]

Rick, study some constitutional law.

I really hate to slam you in two threads at the same time.

For those of you that don't know, the President can not sign, it still becomes a law 10 days later.

As to the President having any power, follow the money. Every year the President, through OMB puts out a budget, then Congress gets hold of it.
Last year, Congress (democrat for those of you that don't read) was for 2.9 Trillion dollars. Bush sends $2.9 trillion budget to Congress - Politics - MSNBC.com
Congress sent it back at considerably more and included provisions that penalized anyone trying to change it: The Democratic Congress's 2008 Budget: A Tax and Spending Spree
Now I grew up in a military culture where you damn well take accountability for your actions.
I would not have put my name on pretty much any of the trash coming out of Congress this year.

An NO Rick, I ask for a Chevy and you get me a Caddy, or worse, a frigging overpriced Yugo, I don't put my name on it.

[PBzeer]

Bush Bailout proposal - 3 pages

Bailout Bill passed - 452 pages

That's 449 pages of Congressional addons to the Bush proposal. But, to be fair, we'll give ya 49 pages of conditions for Bush's 3 pages. That still leaves 400 pages that had NOTHING to do with the original proposal.

Bush 3 pages. Congress 400 pages. Whose bill is it?