Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A positive day on the markets


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: A positive day on the markets Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 4:02:35 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		Using fast reply..........

I would wait until first quarter reports come out before getting too excited. Citi isn't as solid as their words implied. They've sold off most of their good assets and are holding a lot of negative ones.

Just because they managed to sell some stuff, lay off a bunch of people, and show some black ink, doesn't mean they are solid.

HOWEVER........things are not as bad as the numbers show, over all in the markets, either. Many stocks are seriously under valued and worth sinking money into.

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 5:05:22 AM   
TNstepsout


Posts: 1558
Joined: 8/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

In short, my point was not that a single good day in the stock market at this point is any sign of success and a bad day no sign of failure. If one is going to engage in one side of that thinking, one should engage in both. I would far prefer that people engaged in neither.



I got it, even if some people don't.  The hatred of Obama is quite irrational. I would't waste too much time using logic to fight it.

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 6:29:41 AM   
UncleNasty


Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

In short, my point was not that a single good day in the stock market at this point is any sign of success and a bad day no sign of failure. If one is going to engage in one side of that thinking, one should engage in both. I would far prefer that people engaged in neither.



I got it, even if some people don't.  The hatred of Obama is quite irrational. I would't waste too much time using logic to fight it.



Emotions are specifically un-rational. Strong emotions tend to "blind" us and overpower logic, reason, ration, thought, etc. It is doubtful that any of those can be used to effectively sway emotion.

Certainly your statement is true, as would be statements on the other end of the emotional spectrum:

The adoration of Obama is quite irrational.

I don't sit above any of this. I can be swayed by emotion too, and can also deny that is what is happening even when pointed out to me. Never underestimate the power of emotion, or the power of denial.

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 6:54:56 AM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline 		Markets starts off today as up as well.

_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to UncleNasty)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 7:31:30 AM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

I by no means was trying to indicate that a one day uptick in the stock market had any meaningful comment on the current economic policies. My point is that the downturn also has less to do with the current economic policies of the government than some would like to suggest. This is a complicated situation that puts us in rather uncharted waters and it's not going to be fixed in two months or by one piece of legislation no matter what that legislation contains.


That's impossible to believe. If that's not what you were suggesting, then why did you say -

quote:

Now I can't wait for the same people who blame Obama every time the stock market goes down to explain why it's despite him, not because of him, when it goes up.... And if one is going to point at a decline as proof of a failing policy, one must be willing to point to a gain as a sign of success or else show themselves as hypocrites.


...unless you felt that the rally was a "meaningful comment" on the policies you were defending? If you didn't think it was meaningful, why would you challenge people to prove it wasn't? That doesn't make any sense.




quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales
Was my initial posting a bit sarcastic? I will admit to that. But the target of that sarcasm were not the economists analyzing the situation nor anyone with reasonable doubts about the effectiveness of the policies in question. The target of that sarcasm were those posters who take every bad day wall street has and waves it like a flag to show how this administration has already failed.


Two things. First of all, you just contradicted yourself. Again. In your first paragraph, you stated that you didn't think yesterday's rally was any significant indicator of the validity of Obama's policies - yet here, you use that same rally to make the point that those who criticize his policies are wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either you do believe it was significant enough that it proves the people who criticize Obama are wrong, or you know it was meaningless and you were just posting flamebait.

And second, I don't know if the statement I bolded simply represents a total misunderstanding of the facts, or a deliberate misrepresentation of them. I'd hate to think it was the latter, but at this point, I don't know which to believe. But either way, it's a completely inaccurate statement.

The Dow opened around 8280 on Inauguration Day, if I recall correctly, and dropped over 330 points by the end of the day. It has continued to drop almost without any significant interruption ever since, and for most of the last 3 weeks has essentially been in a state of freefall - at one point closing in the mid-6500s, a drop of over 21% since Obama took office. Those of us criticizing his policies have consistently pointed to this continued trend to support our position - that at this point in time, the policies are failing to address a key factor in the economic crisis, and that the economy is suffering more than it perhaps needs to do because of that. In other words, we have been pointing to a body of data, a continuing and deepening trend of several weeks in length, to make our argument. For you to dismiss that as "pointing to every bad day on Wall Street and waving it like a flag" shows that the data with which we are supporting our position is either sailing right over your head, or that you're willing to deliberately misrepresent it in order to make your point. Neither reflects well on you.



quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales
In short, my point was not that a single good day in the stock market at this point is any sign of success and a bad day no sign of failure. If one is going to engage in one side of that thinking, one should engage in both. I would far prefer that people engaged in neither.



Then don't. Because thus far, you're the only person in this debate who has done so. We're basing our argument on a minimum of 3 weeks worth of data, and arguably as many as 7 weeks worth, and you're trying to disprove the validity of our argument with a 1-day rally. If you truly do not see the inconsisntency of that, I suggest you read your own posts more carefully to make sure you're not falling into that trap, or - if you're unable to see the mistake you made here - perhaps refrain from posting on this subject altogether until you have a better understanding of the issue you're debating.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 7:36:18 AM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

In short, my point was not that a single good day in the stock market at this point is any sign of success and a bad day no sign of failure. If one is going to engage in one side of that thinking, one should engage in both. I would far prefer that people engaged in neither.



I got it, even if some people don't.  The hatred of Obama is quite irrational. I would't waste too much time using logic to fight it.



Whether it is or is not, what does it have to do with those of us who don't hate Obama but do find fault with his policies? To those of us who voted for him, support him, but think he's making some serious mistakes? To summarily dismiss all criticism as "hatred of Obama" is intellectually dishonest and quite unfair to a number of people who are making sincere, good faith arguments.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 8:18:37 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		How come this uptick isn't being labeled as a carry over of the last Administration, like the earmarks, and the downturn?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
To summarily dismiss all criticism as "hatred of Obama" is intellectually dishonest and quite unfair to a number of people who are making sincere, good faith arguments.

Forget it TDP, there is no wrong to be assigned to this Administration, all good comes from Obama, anything bad or wrong is due to somebody else. I guess the Presidential office is impotent to affect the 'CHANGE!' promised by campaign rhetoric. Point to anything; the deficit, the escalation of troop deployment in foreign wars, pork spending, PAC contributions, corruption and tax evasion of political appointment  (Latest: FREEMAN WITHDRAWS DUE TO CHINA/SAUDI TIES); and the litany of excuses is the only response generated. Who would have thought that after only a couple of months the only answer the rationalization crowd's can provide starts with; "Well Bush did..."?

There can be no rational debate when the responsive argument is faith based. You can't argue a matter of faith, no matter how much factual evidence you provide. When you get a; "What would you do?" instead of a counter argument - it indicates their faith's been challenged. Next thing you'll get is a label, insult, or hysterical giggling. Take solace and enjoy the hypocrisy. For instance, how ironic to read in this thread; "There are as many economists with impeccable credentials who think Obama on the right track as there are those who claim he's ruining the economy." How come that same logic doesn't apply to the global warming religion? Why is it required to spend billions on the side of the prophets of doom on that argument? It takes a hypocrite like Pelosi, who not only has a large carbon footprint, but spends $22k/hour in taxpayers money to fly her C-22 to champion a pork bloated budget in the face of the huge deficit.

The stock market went up for a day, maybe two days today; there are still mutual fund managers who are buying. There are commitments for delivery on short sell purchases, and don't think the impact of China, and the middle east oil nations purchasing stock to protect it's investment in the US. However, the policy of creating a situation where public employees are the majority and public employee unions have achieved 'sacred cow' status in any budget, State or National, can not succeed pragmatically based on the source of funds to pay for them and their mandated, life long medical and retirement benefits. Similar to the situation with the UAW which bankrupted the auto makers, the public employees will bankrupt the tax payers.

I think the current upturn in the market is an indication that Bush's economic policy is finally working! (I don't really, but it makes as much sense as grasping at this 'straw' to indicate a trend or movement to the economy having faith in this Administration's economic policy.)

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 8:23:15 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline


"I think the current upturn in the market is an indication that Bush's economic policy is finally working"

meh...there`s no doubt this`ll be part of  the con talking points....


"finally working"  <snort>

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 3/11/2009 8:28:06 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 8:35:17 AM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I think the current upturn in the market is an indication that Bush's economic policy is finally working! (I don't really...)


That damned near cost me a laptop. I'm still in bed while I wait for the fireplace to warm up the living room and kitchen, and when I read that I laughed so hard the computer fell off of my stomach and almost tumbled to the floor. But it was funny enough that it would have been worth it.

Merc, tell me, if you will... I've been banging away on this "It's the financial sector, stupid!" drum for weeks now, and it seems as though either nobody here gets that or nobody here agrees. I can't tell which; maybe a little of both. My point is that unless the financials are stabilized, it doesn't matter what else does get fixed, because the foundation is still broken (I likened it to painting the living room while the basement is on fire), that thus far, Obama has not offered any significant details on how he plans to fix that, and that until he does, the economy will continue to suffer. From your expertise in the banking industry, do you think I've gotten ahold of the wrong end of it? Am I overstating this or oversimplifying it, or missing the point in some other way? Because I'm starting to feel like the lone voice in the wilderness here. What do you think?


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 8:51:11 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		Yup,that`s pretty much it. Stability.As well, getting the bad players out of the financial sector(people and institutions).

Otherwise folks are going to put their money in T-bills or some other guaranteed investment.Like they are now,even though it`s just a point or two interest earned,at least it`s stable and they won`t loose.

I heard there`s a secondary market(on Treasury bonds) where folks were buying them at zero % interest ,just so they wouldn`t loose money.Wow.

There`s also going to be a huge regulatory clamp down and a revisiting of the laws passed just after the Great Depression that were meant to keep the cerent mess from happening again.


< Message edited by Owner59 -- 3/11/2009 8:54:08 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 9:35:49 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
 

"I think the current upturn in the market is an indication that Bush's economic policy is finally working"

meh...there`s no doubt this`ll be part of  the con talking points....
"finally working"  <snort>


I point to this, quoted in its entirety, as a religious, faith based requirement for believing in the policies of this Administration. A perfect reference in lock step with the talking heads who are required to have the same selective thought process.

I suggest you keep this example in mind before assigning credibility to anything from this source.

My quote in its entirety; "I think the current upturn in the market is an indication that Bush's economic policy is finally working! (I don't really, but it makes as much sense as grasping at this 'straw' to indicate a trend or movement to the economy having faith in this Administration's economic policy.)"

The desperation is obvious for all to see and it isn't a small group so affected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Obama has not offered any significant details on how he plans to fix that, and that until he does, the economy will continue to suffer.
TDP, the lack of confidence in the policy of this Administration is the cornerstone of the problem. The crisis of confidence is a result of the actions taken thus far. There has been no support for any of the financial institutions NOT failing. Seeing the capital, both political and actual, being wasted on the dead and dying is making the living and viable bunker down in a defense mode instead of participating in the recovery process.

There are many, such as myself, making minor speculating buys, but nobody is committing to the expansion and growth which is required to turn this around. As you point out, the "foundation is broken". 'Fixing it' doesn't create a modern efficient foundation. Instead it sets up a precarious foundation awaiting the next crisis. Building a new foundation would be more practical, less expensive, and more efficient.

However, pragmatically its not possible in this environment with the philosophy of 'rewarding failure' being implemented by this Administration. Look to CA as a example. It is impossible to fix this State's problem because 100% of the politicians are committed and on the payroll of the public employee unions. Most recent case in point; the school system, spending the most of any state has one of the poorest graduation results. The student population has decreased dramatically. The salaries of teachers are at, or near the top. Upon tenure, they are guaranteed life long medical benefits, and a pension. You can't lay off one of them. You can't put in place incentive based pay. The same holds with every CA employee's union. Instead of putting in practical solutions, taxes are raised.

As of April 1st we'll have the highest sales tax, and the highest income tax with the lowest threshold (I think its $46k before it hits the maximum) of income to hit the max rate, and the highest corporate tax. Result - people and businesses are leaving. Intel, born and raised in CA, is expanding and creating 5000 jobs - in Oregon. The tax rate affects everything from car sales to candy stores. Those who can - will leave. Those left behind will she their biggest nest egg, their RE, decrease in value; look at recent reevaluations. As a result the property tax base for the local municipalities will fall - speeding up the decent. There are not enough tax payers to support the taxes required to fund the entitlement programs and pay off the pubic employee unions. No economic stimulus package rewarding the failures or keeping people in houses they couldn't really afford will change that.

Gerrymandering of election districts makes the distinction of Republican/Democrat meaningless. They say that CA is ahead of the rest of the US by two years. There is little or no distinction between what has happened here and what is being put in place as policy in Washington.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 3/11/2009 10:16:24 AM >

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 10:41:22 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

The answer is simple, and is very clearly and accurately explained on the very same financial websites and by the very same market analysts that have, for the past several weeks, repeatedly explained - just as clearly and just as accurately - exactly how the administration's missteps have been damaging the economy. You either didn't believe or didn't understand them then, why would you care what they have to say now? I don't feel like playing child's games at the moment. You want to troll for flames, state a position and post some actual flamebait, not this passive-aggressive taunting.



Are these the same financial websites and the very same market analysts that "repeatedly explained - just as clearly and just as accurately"  how fundamentally strong the market and the economy were, just a few short months ago?

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 3/11/2009 10:59:17 AM >

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 10:46:16 AM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		How on earth could CITI not show a profit ? They just got a 30 billion dollar gift from the tax payers at 0 %. They are lending it out at 18 %. 8 billion was loaned to Dubai. Good grief..

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 11:02:08 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline 		No, I think the point of the thread was that we have been hearing about how Obama's policies have been responsible for the market losses when almost all of his policies are just in the process of being implemented.

Now that there is a market rally it can be no more attributed to those still not-in-effect policies than the market downturns can be.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 11:22:06 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

No, I think the point of the thread was that we have been hearing about how Obama's policies have been responsible for the market losses when almost all of his policies are just in the process of being implemented.

Now that there is a market rally it can be no more attributed to those still not-in-effect policies than the market downturns can be.


Rule,
I'll respectfully disagree.

Have you ever taken over a company; failing, thriving, or somewhere in between? As a leader, manager, owner, whatever; you 'own' the results from day 1. On day 1 you may find a $2 Million liability that was the result of something done years before you got there; but from day 1 - its yours to handle. It is incumbent on you to know the conditions of the job you decided to take. You want to apply a different standard to the office of President of the US?

Similar to the lack of proper vetting for his appointments; the Administration's apparent lack of appreciating the economy at the time they took office, brings doubt upon them. October happened prior to his inauguration; however the agenda of increasing spending and entitlements wasn't curtailed or soft pedaled in the face of not having the resources expected. As a result his attempts to implement them, without a clear ability to pay for them added to the crisis. Sorry - but that was a conscience decision and the resulting Wall Street losses of Trillions of dollars of corporate and personal wealth a direct result.

I don't remember anyone saying that they expected the Administration of President Obama to be an overnight success. But they did expect he would come in and bring some integrity and accountability to the office. Where has that been exhibited? Instead we have a blanket; "its the other guys fault" response to everything from Wall Street to 'Pork Spending'. We saw no success or turn around from 'Stimulus I' yet the 'new' Administration follows the old and implements 'Stimulus II' approved by a Congress that proudly represents they haven't even read the document nor know if it will work; instead increasing the panic with; "we have to do something!" "Something" obviously defined as adding pork and payoff to the special interests that elected them. Those are the primary reasons for the lack of confidence in this Administration and the cause for continuing concern. 

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 11:36:37 AM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline 		Okay....let's look at it this way then...

To call it even, the first of the year the DJIA (DOW Jones Industrial Average) was at about 9000, now it's just under 7 (as of today at 2:34 EST)...just rounding numbers. So by these standards Merc, Let's say Obama is responsible for 2 thousand points being lost. Now lets look at 2007 of DJIA...the point ratings were above 14000 and in the last year of Bush's Presidency, according to the rules you want to play by, the DJIA lost 5,000 points. If those YTD losses are Obama's responsibility, what's Bush's responsibility to the 5,000 point loss between 2007 and the end of 2008? I mean I know we have Obama NOW responsible to clean it up...

I'm not saying "it's Bush's fault" I'm asking you, with those facts...which President's fault is it?

< Message edited by BoiJen -- 3/11/2009 11:37:55 AM >

_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 12:18:34 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Okay....let's look at it this way then...

To call it even, the first of the year the DJIA (DOW Jones Industrial Average) was at about 9000, now it's just under 7 (as of today at 2:34 EST)...just rounding numbers. So by these standards Merc, Let's say Obama is responsible for 2 thousand points being lost. Now lets look at 2007 of DJIA...the point ratings were above 14000 and in the last year of Bush's Presidency, according to the rules you want to play by, the DJIA lost 5,000 points. If those YTD losses are Obama's responsibility, what's Bush's responsibility to the 5,000 point loss between 2007 and the end of 2008? I mean I know we have Obama NOW responsible to clean it up...

I'm not saying "it's Bush's fault" I'm asking you, with those facts...which President's fault is it?

BoiJen,
"Fault" or "credit" isn't the point I was making. No matter what happens after inauguration day - this Administration is accountable. The Market did what it did and was what it was under President Bush. Its now under President Obama.

You seem to want a percentage of blame assessed so that President Obama's failure is not seen as bad as President Bush. I don't know what purpose that will serve, but I'll answer your question as if I were answering it for a business I bought where I fired the old regime and brought in a new manager and management team. Where they to come to me Excel spreadsheets and having the same position; this is what I would say: 

"You want percentage of blame - I want results. Spend less of your time proving to me that you and your staff are not as bad as who I fired. It's insulting to my decision to replace them with you. Stop worrying about who to blame and focus on results. What are you doing today to change the situation besides keeping score? If you and the team I allowed you to put in place want to continue I suggest that should be more important to you. Besides pointing out how you compare a little more favorably than the failure I fired is more likely to generate a similar consequence. I suggest you try something different."

I have no respect for someone pointing blame or credit to any other person or institution when its his signature going on the budget document. The very budget document he was elected to sign fulfilling his representation that; "The era of ear-marks is over!"

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 1:06:00 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Rule,
I'll respectfully disagree.

Have you ever taken over a company; failing, thriving, or somewhere in between? As a leader, manager, owner, whatever; you 'own' the results from day 1. On day 1 you may find a $2 Million liability that was the result of something done years before you got there; but from day 1 - its yours to handle. It is incumbent on you to know the conditions of the job you decided to take. You want to apply a different standard to the office of President of the US?

Similar to the lack of proper vetting for his appointments; the Administration's apparent lack of appreciating the economy at the time they took office, brings doubt upon them. October happened prior to his inauguration; however the agenda of increasing spending and entitlements wasn't curtailed or soft pedaled in the face of not having the resources expected. As a result his attempts to implement them, without a clear ability to pay for them added to the crisis. Sorry - but that was a conscience decision and the resulting Wall Street losses of Trillions of dollars of corporate and personal wealth a direct result.

I don't remember anyone saying that they expected the Administration of President Obama to be an overnight success. But they did expect he would come in and bring some integrity and accountability to the office. Where has that been exhibited? Instead we have a blanket; "its the other guys fault" response to everything from Wall Street to 'Pork Spending'. We saw no success or turn around from 'Stimulus I' yet the 'new' Administration follows the old and implements 'Stimulus II' approved by a Congress that proudly represents they haven't even read the document nor know if it will work; instead increasing the panic with; "we have to do something!" "Something" obviously defined as adding pork and payoff to the special interests that elected them. Those are the primary reasons for the lack of confidence in this Administration and the cause for continuing concern. 



Yes, you as an owner can come into a new business and change things at your will, within the constraints of whatever labor, materials, or financial contracts were in place when you bought the business.

How is this any different?

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 1:07:02 PM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline 		I can understand that. What I'm asking, is that if you were two months into a management team and a new manager, would give them more time to handle this bad of a situation? Even an accountant on that team would still be balancing the books right now and marketing would still be planning a strategy that didn't bankrupt the company.

Now, this being a one day rally and a second day seesaw, I know the market has not stabilized much less grown. It's not going to.

What I would expect from a new manager (with limited experience) and a management team (with more experience) is to have a plan and be working on implementing it right about now. I also understand that results take time and in SOME cases (not all) the old saying "you have to spend money to make money" would apply.

The average American knows that spending can (not always will but can) help. If spent properly. I don't approve of all of Obama's choice just a vast many of them more than Bush's. The Average American knows that if they invest properly and spend their money wisely planning, they will likely see a return on those investments. It's never an immediate return on that, in fact it could take several quarters before a profit is shown. Why would the gov't's investments be any different?

I'd like to see these market conditions change over night. I'd like to see them different by next quarter. The sooner the better. And I have to keep my expectations realistic. Even as a business owner, Merc, I'm sure you can agree with realistic (yes, I understand we may have different expectations of that but there's got to be some kind of cross over.)

Besides, did you "fire" the poor management of the Bush Presidency because of financial failure? Would you hire another guy from the same management company to fill his spot, if this were actually a business?

I don't think anybody knows how to "fix" this situation. I think that there are good intentions and selfish intentions of every single one of the memebers of our gov't. I'm just willing to try the other guy on for a while and give him a realistic chance at making things work. If he can't do that I'll "fire" him to.

boi

As a side note: I'd really like to see a distinction between good assets and bad assets and if there's going to be a "stimulus" added to anyone's budget it should be the budget of the "good" assets. Not blind donation to banks. (Which is what I consider most of this)


< Message edited by BoiJen -- 3/11/2009 1:09:47 PM >

_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: A positive day on the markets - 3/11/2009 1:12:49 PM   
MasterShake69


Posts: 752
Joined: 11/30/2005
Status: offline 		i think the same line was used often about Bush haters ;)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

In short, my point was not that a single good day in the stock market at this point is any sign of success and a bad day no sign of failure. If one is going to engage in one side of that thinking, one should engage in both. I would far prefer that people engaged in neither.



I got it, even if some people don't.  The hatred of Obama is quite irrational. I would't waste too much time using logic to fight it.


(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: A positive day on the markets Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.113