Where is the US economy headed?

@hawkeye10,

same story via WP

Quote:

By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 10, 2008; Page A01

The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression is claiming another casualty: American-style capitalism.

Since the 1930s, U.S. banks were the flagships of American economic might, and emulation by other nations of the fiercely free-market financial system in the United States was expected and encouraged. But the market turmoil that is draining the nation's wealth and has upended Wall Street now threatens to put the banks at the heart of the U.S. financial system at least partly in the hands of the government.

The Bush administration is considering a partial nationalization of some banks, buying up a portion of their shares to shore them up and restore confidence as part of the $700 billion government bailout. The notion of government ownership in the financial sector, even as a minority stakeholder, goes against what market purists say they see as the foundation of the American system.

Yet the administration may feel it has no choice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903425.html?hpid=topnews

0 Replies

Both Mr Bush and Mr Obama have just been seen on our TV addressing themselves to the financial crisis in the markets.

Neither said anything of the remotest interest or meaning which is the likely reason for the market's negative response to their speeches.

It was all high sounding bullshit.

The first half hour of trading on Wall Street was pure farce.

1 Reply

@spendius,

A recession is due. Funny money is being printed and everything will be more expensive. People with low paying jobs with be the majority as multi-nationals have outsourced the high-paying jobs. When big ticket items are not bought businesses will be making less money and jobs cut.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Did any of you see my prediction that the DOW will hit 9,000? Also, that I sold some of our funds when it was over 14,000? When it hits about 9,000, I'm buying back the funds I sold - even if it goes lower, because I think the bottom is about 8,000.

Whats in store this coming week, ci?

2 Replies

@okie,

Perhaps this bodes well for Monday morning?

Asian Markets Mostly Up After Dramatic Plunge

"Wall Street futures indicated a sharp rebound is in store for the major indexes ahead of the opening bell on Monday. Dow Jones industrials futures rose 235 points, or 2.8 percent, to 8,605. Nasdaq 100 futures rose 38.5, or 3 percent, to 1,321.00; and Standard & Poor's 500 futures added 31.8, or 3.5 percent, to 922.80."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436664,00.html

1 Reply

@okie,

Do you mean okie that nationalisation of everything is looking good?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Do you mean okie that nationalisation of everything is looking good?

No, I don't. We now have the mindset that we have to rescue everything. Freedom is the freedom to fail as well as succeed, and somehow we have forgotten that. But given the inevitable, I am simply looking at the reality of the situation as regards to the situation. Now that the house has been made a tinderbox and set on fire, about all we can do is try to put out the fire so that it doesn't burn down the surrounding structures. We can't rebuild the house in the proper way right now until the fire is out.

Spendius, the chickens have come home to roost in regard to one aspect of this, FDR's Fannie Mae created in 1938, which in my opinion should never have happened. If a bank cannot make a sound loan, according to sound business practice, then the loan should never have been made. Now, one could argue that if proper government oversight could have been maintained, then fine, however such agencies inevitably become the politicians' little sandbox of social engineering and are always mismanaged at some point. If only a bank, relatively small compared to the government, then they could go broke, no big deal, but in the case of Fannie and Freddie, they had no competition, they are huge to the order of being involved in 5 TRILLION in home loans, and they are deemed backed by taxpayers, and this is criminal. People should go to jail, but they probably never will.

Other schemes called Social Security and Medicare are as we speak digging even a bigger chasm in which the country and its economy will eventually be sucked into.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, I do not try to predict the weekly swings of the market; that's a fool's game.

I look at the long-term macro to guess what I think will happen. There are no guarantees or contracts on my opinions, because they are only guesses just like the experts. They cannot guarantee anything.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, One of your more astute posts on a2k.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Looks like things are improving today on the stock exchange.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, One of your more astute posts on a2k.

ci, thanks. You make comments about particular posts now and again, but I would like to say I believe all of my posts are totally consistent with an underlying philosophy, that being conservatism. I hope you can say the same for yourself?

1 Reply

@Miller,

It's my "personal" belief that the market's uptick is temporary with more volatility in our future.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, I've always thought that; maybe you missed it, but all my siblings are christians and republicans, and have mentioned that fact often. My younger brother is a (R) legislator here in California. I have disagreements with them - regularly, and it's not only about politics or religion.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, I've always thought that; maybe you missed it, but all my siblings are christians and republicans, and have mentioned that fact often. My younger brother is a (R) legislator here in California. I have disagreements with them - regularly, and it's not only about politics or religion.

No, ci, I have been aware of this political landscape in your family. My impression is that you have conservative leanings way down deep in your being, but somehow on certain issues you have bought into the liberal view of things.

For example, you are fiscally conservative and you believe in personal responsibility, especially in your personal life, but yet you are supporting Democrats which are historically big spenders and they historically take the view that government is responsible for personal failure and therefore responsible to bail out every person. Perhaps you don't see these two views as inconsistent, but I do, and I think perhaps you will someday come back around to your true leanings at your core?

Perhaps another factor is that Republicans have veered off course in regard to truly supporting conservative principles. Perhaps you would agree more with a Ron Paul, which is very conservative on many issues, but is a little out in left field on some?

But the fact remains that Democrats are even worse off course in regard to supporting conservative principles, so this is my explanation for supporting Republicans. I am conservative first, party second, which is Republican now.

Interesting that Ron Paul warned us about this financial meltdown.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

For example, you are fiscally conservative and you believe in personal responsibility, especially in your personal life, but yet you are supporting Democrats which are historically big spenders and they historically take the view that government is responsible for personal failure and therefore responsible to bail out every person. Perhaps you don't see these two views as inconsistent, but I do, and I think perhaps you will someday come back around to your true leanings at your core?

Your broad brush missed the most important point of history; our economy did best under democratic control of our government, but especially when the president was "moderate." Under democrats, the big spending was supported by big revenues, because most Americans made a decent living.

Yes, I'm a conservative at heart, but the GOP has not lived what they believe. The only premise that remained was "lower taxes" without any regard to spending. I believe in "self-sufficiency" to a point, but believe we must help those who are unable to care for themselves such as the handicapped and elderly who are responsible for creating the biggest and strongest economy in the world with their hard work. I believe what they accomplished was a miracle; they were able to make us the superpower both economically and militarily with only five percent of the world population. That's some accomplishment that I believe will never be repeated by mankind.

Yes, Ron Paul was one of my favorites running for president during this election. But I have also said several times that I wished we had two different candidates running for president. The "old" McCain would have gotten my vote.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, I'm a conservative at heart, but the GOP has not lived what they believe. The only premise that remained was "lower taxes" without any regard to spending. I believe in "self-sufficiency" to a point, but believe we must help those who are unable to care for themselves such as the handicapped and elderly who are responsible for creating the biggest and strongest economy in the world with their hard work. I believe what they accomplished was a miracle; they were able to make us the superpower both economically and militarily with only five percent of the world population. That's some accomplishment that I believe will never be repeated by mankind.

Fascinating opinion. By and large, Democrat leaning politicians create the programs that have to be funded, which builds constituents or addicts to the programs, also voters, so Republicans attempt to reduce government ends up being reducing tax rates without the corresponding program reductions. I see the Dems the foundational culprit here, but yes both approaches have flaws. Throw in the other wild card that tax rates going up or down does not necessarily translate to tax revenues going up or down. The equation is not directly proportional. I view it as a tug of war between the two idealogies, pulling at more than one point in this scenario.

Quote:

Yes, Ron Paul was one of my favorites running for president during this election. But I have also said several times that I wished we had two different candidates running for president. The "old" McCain would have gotten my vote.

Here is where I think you are a little off base. The new McCain is the same as the old McCain, only the media reporting of McCain has changed. There is good evidence for this, number one being McCain is McCain, he is the same guy. I see him as the same old politician, with the same approach. The fact that you don't indicates to me that you are easily swayed by the artificial and superficial evaluations presented by the press. I long predicted that once the media darling McCain ran for president, the press would turn against him and cast him in a totally different light. That has happened. McCain is the same McCain. It is the reporting that has changed. I am surprised that as an intelligent observer of politics that you do not recognize this obvious fact?

3 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Here is where I think you are a little off base. The new McCain is the same as the old McCain, only the media reporting of McCain has changed. There is good evidence for this, number one being McCain is McCain, he is the same guy.

That's a tautology, Okie. McCain is the old McCain because he is the old McCain? Nonsensical. The truth is that he is not the 'old McCain,' as the old McCain wouldn't have hired the people who slimed him in 2000 to do the same for his side this time, amongst many other things.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

McCain is the same McCain. It is the reporting that has changed. I am surprised that as an intelligent observer of politics that you do not recognize this obvious fact?

So you're saying that McCain is the same old McCain that you never wanted to become the Republican candidate in the first place?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

The new McCain is the same as the old McCain, only the media reporting of McCain has changed.

Goes to show you are not paying attention to what McCain used to say, and what he now says during his campaign. The only thing same about McCain is his biology, but his mental capacity has changed dramatically. He's old and decrepit, and thinks his status as a POW owes him the presidency. He also approved torture before he was against torture by our country. His "straight talk" has become mostly negatives against Obama rather than talk about what most Americans are interested in; the economy and the war in Iraq. His flip-flops does not provide us with the old McCain's stability on issues. He now even promotes liberal ideas to win votes rather than stick to conservative policies.

Too bad you are blind to all of this old and new McCain.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
McCain is the same McCain. It is the reporting that has changed. I am surprised that as an intelligent observer of politics that you do not recognize this obvious fact?

So you're saying that McCain is the same old McCain that you never wanted to become the Republican candidate in the first place?

Thats right. I would have preferred another candidate, but in politics you take what you can get, thats reality. McCain, even with his flaws, is far better than Obama.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know