|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
What happens when the housing bubble
bursts?
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Bobh
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
Actually you repeated yourself on both counts
along with answering my question in the affirmative. <FONT
face=Verdana size=2>It's so easy to criticize but please tell us what your
solutions would be.
Would you prefer higher taxes? We know
from the luxury tax on yachts to the more recent tax on cars that NJ tried
(and countless other examples) that when you tax something you get less of
it. We also know that Hoover tried this in the post bubble era in
the 1930's with less than spectacular results.
Would you prefer higher interest rates, or
tight monetary policy? How about more regulation? Or better yet, instead
of torte reform why don't we give the trial attorneys even more freedom
to ravage the economy?
How about more social welfare programs which
would expand the already, er um, Massive size of the federal government?
Call me silly but it seems to me that government should be doing the same
thing that corporations have been doing the past three years.
Unfortunately that's a pipe dream as the votes don't exist in the Senate to
cut spending and/or eliminate waste/pork.
It's certainly a challenge to "create" jobs or
"grow" an economy in a post bubble era where businesses are all
recovering from the over-investing/over-hiring binge they embarked
on in the late 90's. Toss in 9/11 and you have an even more
challenging environment. From history we know that time is the only real
cure for any of this and it's only been three short years since the bubble
popped. In any event it looks to me like Bush has it largely
right in the areas they can influence - despite your empty criticisms to the
contrary.
Bob
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Dan
Goncharoff
To: <A
title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 5:23
AM
Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
In evaluating economic policy, admittedly a complex subject,
I would consider:* the capabilities of the people developing the
policy* the cogency of the policy itself.On the first point
(recognizing I am repeating myself), all the people who have been working on
his economy policy at a top level have either been fired or have left of
their own accord. Although many of the individuals (including some of those
who have gone) are/were talented, they show no sense of working as a team to
promote a single policy.On the second point, the administration has
failed to outline an overall economic policy approach, which I attribute to
the absence of an economy policy manager similar to the role Rice plays on
foreign policy. Given Bush's management style, I think this is a major
problem in the formulation and implementation of economic policy -- there is
no one responsible for 'economic policy' as a single thing.Bush is
failing on both counts.RegardsDanGBobh wrote:
So, your judgment on the policy is based on
your opinion of the individual/team that created it rather than on the
merits of the policy(s) itself?
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Dan
Goncharoff
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Monday, May 26, 2003 3:47 AM
<DIV
>Subject:
Re: [RT] spx daily
Bush may (or may not) be smart politically, but there is
clearly a difference between his foreign policy team, which incorporates
a diversity of views, and his economic team, where very member of the
original team has quit or been pushed out. Bush seems to be lacking the
economic policy equivalent of Rice, someone who defines a longer-term
consistent message. Until he gets one, I will not trust Bush's policy to
be well thought-out.That to me is the biggest reason to be
worried about the future of the US economy -- a president (or
administration) that doesn't understand what it is doing can cause a lot
of damage.RegardsDanGKent Rollins wrote:
>The
current economic condition is SYSTEMIC....and thus resistant to "Quick
fixes".
Three years of a down economy is
not "quick". And "resistant" is not impermeable.
<FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>>Bush fired Laurel and Hardy (O'Neill and Lindsay)
because they told him you can't cut taxes, wage expensive war, and
continue sponsoring a huge, costly bureaucracy in Washington....it's
economic suicide in the long run.
<FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>>That's why he fired them....but THEY were
right.
<SPAN
class=930204604-25052003>
If O'Neill and Lindsay were in
your opinion right, then why do you refer to them as Laurel and
Hardy. This is part of your problem, MASSIVE Mark. You
are overly critical of everything. We're either going to
have MASSIVE inflation or MASSIVE deflation. You don't care
which as long as it is MASSIVE and destructive.
<FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>>These deficit projections are just the
tip-of-the-iceberg.......and incredibly, there is still no talk of
government cut-backs in spending programs and transfer
payments.....just incredible !
Bush is smart politically.
There was a study done in the late 80's that said for every new dollar
of tax money brought to the government by economic growth, Washington
spent $1.30 (or some figure like that). That was the 80's.
I doubt things have changed. Bush is choking of Washington's
money supply. That's the only way to get them to reduce
spending. It's the only way PERIOD. You seem to think that
these bigger deficits are a problem. Recently, there was a book
published that studied the effects of large national debts on
countries. England in the 1800's had a national debt that was
300% of GDP. THAT'S MASSIVE, MARK. A number even you would
appreciate. They built up that debt thru wars and empire
building. But it wasn't a problem for England. They paid
it off and now they are just fine.
The only way to make Tiny Daschle
say "Well, I guess we don't have money for new social-dependency (aka
vote-buying) programs." is to put him in a deficit position.
What are the Dumocrats really complaining about today? Listen
carefully. They are complaining that they can't enact a drug
benenfits program (aka social dependency program, aka vote-buying
program). They are complaining that they can't make healthcare
free for everyone. They don't want to pay down the debt.
They want to take our money from us and use it to make us dependent on
a social welfare State. Despite the fact that we know socialism
and welfare failed...MASSIVELY.
The only way...THE ONLY WAY...to
cut Washington's spending habit is to take away their money. And
THAT is exactly what Nucular George is doing.
Do you see anything in the world
today that is going right, MASSIVE Mark? Anything
positive?
Kent Rollins
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Mark
Simms
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 12:55 AM
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
I'm not
thinking MASSIVE here, only LONG-TERM.
Part of
my bearishness comes from the current high PE Ratios for one....there
just seems to be so much ANTICIPATION for a big recovery
here...
I don't
see it, quite frankly.
Bush
fired Laurel and Hardy (O'Neill and Lindsay) because they told
him you can't cut taxes, wage expensive war, and continue sponsoring a
huge, costly bureaucracy in Washington....it's economic suicide in the
long run.
Bush
did not want to hear this....moreover, h<SPAN
class=930204604-25052003>e's
"dumb"...economically.
That's
why he fired them....but THEY were right.
These
deficit projections are just the tip-of-the-iceberg.......and
incredibly, there is still no talk of government cut-backs in spending
programs and transfer payments.....just incredible
!
<FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>Unfortunately, Bush may be out of office before this is proven
correct.....
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Kent Rollins [<A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="">mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent:
Friday, May 23, 2003 8:16 AMTo: <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
Re: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
How can YOU ignore everything besides
the tech sector? If everything but the tech sector has turned
the corner on the economy, that sounds like a good thing to
me.
With respect to the "derivatives
bubble", prove to me that there is one. This is the first I've
heard about it. Lately, Warren Buffet has been
saying a lot of stuff with which I don't agree.
FYI, consumers have been repairing
their balance sheets as well. Sorry I can't remember the
numbers on that one either. It's not as dramatic as the
improvements on the corporate side, but it was an
improvement.
So you're joining Simms on
predicting MASSIVE Great Depression II.
Kent Rollins
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Brad
Cline
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 2:08 AM
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>How can you ignore the tech sector? That's like pro forma
accounting. If I didn't have to make my house payment
everything is rosy. The markets have seen their lows only if the
derivitivies bubble doesn't burst, or consumer debt doesn't come
home to roost. Warren Buffet has said that derivities are a "time
bomb" waiting to happen. Maybe the fed will be able to balance
everything out over time but I wouldn't bet on
it.
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Kent Rollins [<A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="">mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Sent:
Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:12 PMTo: <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject:
Re: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
Corporations have been doing balance
sheet repair for 2 years now. AT&T alone has eliminate
over $50 BILLION in debt. I saw on the tube last week
someone who had a stunning statistic on what the S&P profits
are if you ignore the tech sector. Wish I could remember
what that statistic was. And the tech sector will fall in
line soon enough. You are stuck in a rut. The
markets have seen their lows. Shake it off.
Kent
RollinsTo unsubscribe from
this group, send an email to:<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of
Service. To unsubscribe from
this group, send an email to:<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of
Service. To unsubscribe from this group, send
an email to:<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of
Service. To unsubscribe from this
group, send an email to:<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of
Service. To unsubscribe from this
group, send an email to:<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|