That's long term, it doesn't explain the rally on friday.
Well, if you believe the news reports (don't know if I do), investors were so thrilled with Obama's treasury secretary selection, that they bought bought bought.
I really think this is more of a flocking behavior. Look, anyone who claims to have any idea of where this thing will end up even 3 mos from now is a liar and a whore. So, if every investor in the world is running around like a chicken with their head cut off, they are desperate to find some answer to what's going on. When should they buy, when should they sell. So, you've got a lot of people hoping the collapse is done, and every cue to buy is being absorbed with zeal. That's why most of the selling off days have been of smaller quantities whereas the rallies have been quite large.
That's why I think the real sign to buy will be when volatility settles down.
Right now if Obama says anything the whole world reacts. Take a look at what happened with Lieberman. I think the DEM caucus would've kicked him out in a somewhat close vote. He makes a call to Harry Ried and says "I want him around still". The vote goes 80%/20% in Lieberman's favor. He's obviously being very careful with anything he says right now.
For those of you who are college football fans, there's been a ton of press about what he has said about the college playoff, not to mention his letter to the IOC to promote Chicago for getting the Olympics.
Rumors are that he has an auto bailout plan ready to go that is basically a quick streamlined bankruptcy with a bridge loan. Even though he technically can't introduce any legislation right now because he isn't president and he resigned from the senate, I'll bet if he really has something like this that he's working on we'll see a big surge once the details get announced. Which I would be wiling to bet he'll announce before Thanksgiving.
Well, as long as he gets that check to me by Christmas so I don't miss out on Starbucks' holiday drinks. Or that new plasma I've been eyeing. My infant daughter's grandchildren are going to have a lot of fun paying that back.
Well, as long as he gets that check to me by Christmas so I don't miss out on Starbucks' holiday drinks. Or that new plasma I've been eyeing. My infant daughter's grandchildren are going to have a lot of fun paying that back.
It's standard economics. In a recession, the government spends money on road and bridges, which puts people to work.
As long as it's not a $500B handout like W did in 2002, it'll do more good than harm.
Bah, work is overrated. Just send me my no strings attached check, thank you very much. If you seriously think that people will have to do something for the money, you are sorely mistaken.
Then how will the common folk get any money? Do you honestly think that people are going to volunteer to build bridges or roads when they just got 600 bucks in the spring for doing nothing? Prior to the election, both Obama and Hillary talked about another round of stimulus checks.
Then how will the common folk get any money? Do you honestly think that people are going to volunteer to build bridges or roads when they just got 600 bucks in the spring for doing nothing?
Gee, I don't know. If you have no income and bills to pay I think a series of $600 checks every week in exchange for building roads would sound like a pretty good exchange. Certainly it would sound better than a single $600 check even if it entails working. Denigrating the work ethic of other people is probably not the best solution to our current financial problems. I don't think the work ethic of Americans has ever been the problem, it's just that not really doing anything useful (flipping houses for example) became more profitable.
That's true that it came up in the campaign, but looks like it has been dropped from the current second plan, if it ever was there at all. I found an article from May saying that there was no plan to include stimulus checks direct to taxpayers. Funny thing was, I had a co-worker who thought we were going to get more checks and spent his 'check' just on the word of the second stimulus. :roll:
I wonder how much money is for public transportation infrastructure, if any?
Then how will the common folk get any money? Do you honestly think that people are going to volunteer to build bridges or roads when they just got 600 bucks in the spring for doing nothing?
Gee, I don't know. If you have no income and bills to pay I think a series of $600 checks every week in exchange for building roads would sound like a pretty good exchange. Certainly it would sound better than a single $600 check even if it entails working. Denigrating the work ethic of other people is probably not the best solution to our current financial problems. I don't think the work ethic of Americans has ever been the problem, it's just that not really doing anything useful (flipping houses for example) became more profitable.
The Great Depression ended via WW2, not the New Deal.
The Great Depression ended via WW2, not the New Deal.
That's called a nonsequitor. I pointed out that a regular paycheck that also happens to be rebuilding our infrastructure is better than a blanket check to everyone and you wanted to argue about the New Deal.
FWIW, most historians would agree that WWII ended the Great Depression, but would contend that the New Deal facilitated the next 20 years of economic expansion after the war. We needed the war victory to spur optimism and war research to spur innovation, but we also needed New Deal infrastructure to provide roads, telephone lines, and electricity across the country.
Could I just point out that while everyone is talking about what a president can do during his first 100 days...Obama is actually setting a new standard for what can be done during the 70 days prior to being sworn in. What Chuck posted about his ability to move markets and congress is true. But there's more going on right now that most people are putting together.
The toxic waste buyout plan (buying worthless debts) was passed, but last week it quietly was switched to a stock infusion plan (buy stocks in hurting companies to infuse cash, and get the money back later on a potential profit to tax payers). Stimulus check plans are getting switched over to infrastructure plans. Shoot, even the rhetoric over jobs has shifted to an actual plan for creating good US jobs (as opposed to blind optimism that the market will somehow do it).
Three weeks ago, if you had asked me what I thought Obama would actually be able to do if elected, I would have told you he'd do more than Bush, but less than his supporters expect. But, considering how the right decisions suddenly seem to be getting made, and contrasting that with the last 8 years, I have to say he's actually been more effective during the last two weeks as president elect (a post with no power whatsoever) than Bush has been over the last year as this crash developed. We're going to have a couple really rough years, but I'm actually optimistic now that it might not be more than that.
"Stimulus check plans are getting switched over to infrastructure plans"
All I'm saying is that I don't think this is what the PUBLIC wants. They want things to go on as before (home appreciation, consumption, etc.) and I believe that the government (Repub. or Dem) will do everything possible to keep this going.
"Stimulus check plans are getting switched over to infrastructure plans"
All I'm saying is that I don't think this is what the PUBLIC wants. They want things to go on as before (home appreciation, consumption, etc.) and I believe that the government (Repub. or Dem) will do everything possible to keep this going.
You might be surprised.
Back on topic...anyone expect a 500 pt rally today? I was expecting lower trading volume with Thanksgiving coming up. That we're this volatile this week is ominous.
"Stimulus check plans are getting switched over to infrastructure plans"
All I'm saying is that I don't think this is what the PUBLIC wants. They want things to go on as before (home appreciation, consumption, etc.) and I believe that the government (Repub. or Dem) will do everything possible to keep this going.
I think anyone who is unemployed would prefer a steady stream of paychecks vs a one time lump sum freebie. Most people who are employed would probably prefer the freebie. So on percentage, you're probably right. But the freebie doesn't do us any good.
I think anyone who is unemployed would prefer a steady stream of paychecks vs a one time lump sum freebie. Most people who are employed would probably prefer the freebie. So on percentage, you're probably right. But the freebie doesn't do us any good.
Maybe...but I have friends/family who are unemployed or underemployed. I would gladly trade a check I don't really need for them to have steady employment (even if it lasts just 2-3 years). I bet(hope) most people feel the same way.
I think anyone who is unemployed would prefer a steady stream of paychecks vs a one time lump sum freebie. Most people who are employed would probably prefer the freebie. So on percentage, you're probably right. But the freebie doesn't do us any good.
Maybe...but I have friends/family who are unemployed or underemployed. I would gladly trade a check I don't really need for them to have steady employment (even if it lasts just 2-3 years). I bet(hope) most people feel the same way.
The welfare queen is one of the great Reagan myths. Most people want a job and want to work. I would rather have a job for 2-3 years than a handout for a month or two. I think 99% of people would.
I think anyone who is unemployed would prefer a steady stream of paychecks vs a one time lump sum freebie. Most people who are employed would probably prefer the freebie. So on percentage, you're probably right. But the freebie doesn't do us any good.
Maybe...but I have friends/family who are unemployed or underemployed. I would gladly trade a check I don't really need for them to have steady employment (even if it lasts just 2-3 years). I bet(hope) most people feel the same way.
The welfare queen is one of the great Reagan myths. Most people want a job and want to work. I would rather have a job for 2-3 years than a handout for a month or two. I think 99% of people would.
I call BS on the fact that the "welfare queen" is a myth. In high school, I worked as a bagger at my small town's grocery store. There were women who would come in, pay with food stamps or WIC, and then get into a fairly new Lexus or other type of nice vehicle. Since it was such a small town, we also knew were they lived (government housing). I seem to recall that they were always decked out to the 9s in the nicest clothes too. If the welfare queen was such a myth, why did Bill Clinton of all people push for welfare reform when he was president? Why did you need reform if there wasn't a problem?
Another example: After Hurricane Katrina, businesses in New Orleans were having trouble finding workers and offering wages of 20 bucks per hour for food service work (McDonalds, etc.) Why were they having trouble finding help? Not because there weren't any workers, but because they had received their FEMA checks or other government assistance and figured, why work? The same thing went on after Hurricane Rita in SW LA. McDonalds and Wal-Mart were on limited schedules because they couldn't find people willing to work!
I call BS on the fact that the "welfare queen" is a myth.
Perhaps Chuck meant it was a myth in the sense of being far less common than what most people are led to believe due to news reports. E.g. deaths from mad cow disease are a myth. Yes, we've had some, but it's something like 20 cases over the last 10 years. Hence it's not strictly a myth, but the huge media scare made it sound like people were dying in the thousands due to it.
There was clear public outrage over a minority of people who grossly abused the system. And there was definitely valuable public discourse on how much aid is beneficial vs when does it encourage "dropping out". Anyways, I think you're both right. The welfare queen is real, and even in 1994 (or whenever) was less common than most people probably believed.
If you believe the news reports, the additional $20 B bailout for Citi spurred a 400 pt rally. So, why didn't the Fed's announcement today for an additional $800 B bailout to everyone cause a 16000 pt rally?
I call BS on the fact that the "welfare queen" is a myth.
Perhaps Chuck meant it was a myth in the sense of being far less common than what most people are led to believe due to news reports. E.g. deaths from mad cow disease are a myth. Yes, we've had some, but it's something like 20 cases over the last 10 years. Hence it's not strictly a myth, but the huge media scare made it sound like people were dying in the thousands due to it.
There was clear public outrage over a minority of people who grossly abused the system. And there was definitely valuable public discourse on how much aid is beneficial vs when does it encourage "dropping out". Anyways, I think you're both right. The welfare queen is real, and even in 1994 (or whenever) was less common than most people probably believed.
Yeah, that's just what I meant. No matter what and no matter where, there will always be people there to take advantage of any system. It's human nature. However, a person taking advantage of the welfare system to the tune of a couple thousand dollars a year, versus companies like Haliburton and Blackwater fleecing us to the tune of billions?
The welfare system and those who use is have always been a great strawman for the Right.
Also I'd never heard about people being offered $20 an hour to work at McDonald's? That seems really ridiculous to me. Sources?
Also I'd never heard about people being offered $20 an hour to work at McDonald's? That seems really ridiculous to me. Sources?
Is that wage even viable for business? In the fast food industry, the vast majority of unit costs are tied to the price of meat and employee wages. That's why they like to offer "value meals" so much; it doesn't add meat (just potatoes and soda) and it doesn't increase the number of employees.
If McDonald's had to offer $20 an hour, could they really stay open (and profitable) before 10:30am or after 8:00pm? For that matter would they even want to be open from 2:00pm - 4:00pm?
Frankly, that sounds like a madeup Limbaugh fact to me. Something that someone heard from somewhere who had a friend who know a guy who turned down a $20 an hour job at McDonald's because he wanted to still live in a shitty trailer and get $1000 a month for free. That makes sense.
It was my understanding that unemployment was not good down there, because the entire area was and is still a wasteland.
Also I'd never heard about people being offered $20 an hour to work at McDonald's? That seems really ridiculous to me. Sources?
Sorry, I do not have the time to Google for a couple of hours wasting my precious time and spending my own hard earned money to pay for articles which are now archived to one-up somebody on an Internet board. I LIVED in New Orleans through Katrina and also have family in SWLA. I SAW this first hand. But I guess I'm lying. Most people in Seattle haven't even been out of Washington, Oregon, and California and believe everything they read in the Times or the PI about what is going on in the rest of the world, so when you scoff with disbelief at something that goes on outside of your little universe, it makes you look more ignorant. RCC, you are correct that a business cannot pay wages that high forever, but when your store hasn't been open for weeks, you will pay anything to generate lost revenue. I'm not saying that's still going on now, just for a little while after the hurricanes. My point was that if people will generally take the free money instead of working for it.
People will take free money over working if they make the same amount either way. If they make more working, then they will work. At least the VERY high majority of people.
I think you can understand why I'm skeptical. It really doesn't make sense that a fast food restaurant would pay people that much and that people wouldn't take that job. FEMA was not giving people the equivalent of a $20 an hour salary.
I'm working on finding corroborating stories, and so far I've got this from the year after.
Target was one of several employers offering wages higher than the minimum; even fast-food restaurants were paying workers up to $10 an hour because of the shortage of labor after the city's evacuation.
Shane Nicaud, director of sales and marketing for Harahan supply company Bell Foods, said part of the labor challenge is fast-food restaurants like Burger King advertise on every street corner $10 and hour and a bonus.
That last story also talks about slightly better jobs (like drivers for food delivery) seeing 20% pay increases on average, but wages still significantly below $20 an hour. So, did it ever happen? Don't know. Maybe in one or two particularly bad parts of town it did, but the general stories seem to suggest wages spiked to half of that ($10/hr). In general, it's clear $20/hour is a gross exaggeration, which means it's not a valid example as proof that people are eager to take small handouts rather than work for much larger salaries.
Also David, what's the point on dissing everybody in the Pacific Northwest with the suggestion that A) they've never left the West Coast, and they are unqualified to ask or answer questions about events which have taken place outside of the local area. In crime, eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. "Being there" doesn't mean you have more accurate knowledge of an event.
Comments
Well, if you believe the news reports (don't know if I do), investors were so thrilled with Obama's treasury secretary selection, that they bought bought bought.
I really think this is more of a flocking behavior. Look, anyone who claims to have any idea of where this thing will end up even 3 mos from now is a liar and a whore. So, if every investor in the world is running around like a chicken with their head cut off, they are desperate to find some answer to what's going on. When should they buy, when should they sell. So, you've got a lot of people hoping the collapse is done, and every cue to buy is being absorbed with zeal. That's why most of the selling off days have been of smaller quantities whereas the rallies have been quite large.
That's why I think the real sign to buy will be when volatility settles down.
For those of you who are college football fans, there's been a ton of press about what he has said about the college playoff, not to mention his letter to the IOC to promote Chicago for getting the Olympics.
Rumors are that he has an auto bailout plan ready to go that is basically a quick streamlined bankruptcy with a bridge loan. Even though he technically can't introduce any legislation right now because he isn't president and he resigned from the senate, I'll bet if he really has something like this that he's working on we'll see a big surge once the details get announced. Which I would be wiling to bet he'll announce before Thanksgiving.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/p ... obs24.html
God help us.
Well, as long as he gets that check to me by Christmas so I don't miss out on Starbucks' holiday drinks. Or that new plasma I've been eyeing. My infant daughter's grandchildren are going to have a lot of fun paying that back.
It's standard economics. In a recession, the government spends money on road and bridges, which puts people to work.
As long as it's not a $500B handout like W did in 2002, it'll do more good than harm.
Gee, I don't know. If you have no income and bills to pay I think a series of $600 checks every week in exchange for building roads would sound like a pretty good exchange. Certainly it would sound better than a single $600 check even if it entails working. Denigrating the work ethic of other people is probably not the best solution to our current financial problems. I don't think the work ethic of Americans has ever been the problem, it's just that not really doing anything useful (flipping houses for example) became more profitable.
I wonder how much money is for public transportation infrastructure, if any?
The Great Depression ended via WW2, not the New Deal.
That's called a nonsequitor. I pointed out that a regular paycheck that also happens to be rebuilding our infrastructure is better than a blanket check to everyone and you wanted to argue about the New Deal.
FWIW, most historians would agree that WWII ended the Great Depression, but would contend that the New Deal facilitated the next 20 years of economic expansion after the war. We needed the war victory to spur optimism and war research to spur innovation, but we also needed New Deal infrastructure to provide roads, telephone lines, and electricity across the country.
Could I just point out that while everyone is talking about what a president can do during his first 100 days...Obama is actually setting a new standard for what can be done during the 70 days prior to being sworn in. What Chuck posted about his ability to move markets and congress is true. But there's more going on right now that most people are putting together.
The toxic waste buyout plan (buying worthless debts) was passed, but last week it quietly was switched to a stock infusion plan (buy stocks in hurting companies to infuse cash, and get the money back later on a potential profit to tax payers). Stimulus check plans are getting switched over to infrastructure plans. Shoot, even the rhetoric over jobs has shifted to an actual plan for creating good US jobs (as opposed to blind optimism that the market will somehow do it).
Three weeks ago, if you had asked me what I thought Obama would actually be able to do if elected, I would have told you he'd do more than Bush, but less than his supporters expect. But, considering how the right decisions suddenly seem to be getting made, and contrasting that with the last 8 years, I have to say he's actually been more effective during the last two weeks as president elect (a post with no power whatsoever) than Bush has been over the last year as this crash developed. We're going to have a couple really rough years, but I'm actually optimistic now that it might not be more than that.
All I'm saying is that I don't think this is what the PUBLIC wants. They want things to go on as before (home appreciation, consumption, etc.) and I believe that the government (Repub. or Dem) will do everything possible to keep this going.
You might be surprised.
Back on topic...anyone expect a 500 pt rally today? I was expecting lower trading volume with Thanksgiving coming up. That we're this volatile this week is ominous.
Unfortunately, that was my mentality back in February 2006. I've not had to pay the piper - yet.
I think anyone who is unemployed would prefer a steady stream of paychecks vs a one time lump sum freebie. Most people who are employed would probably prefer the freebie. So on percentage, you're probably right. But the freebie doesn't do us any good.
Maybe...but I have friends/family who are unemployed or underemployed. I would gladly trade a check I don't really need for them to have steady employment (even if it lasts just 2-3 years). I bet(hope) most people feel the same way.
The welfare queen is one of the great Reagan myths. Most people want a job and want to work. I would rather have a job for 2-3 years than a handout for a month or two. I think 99% of people would.
I call BS on the fact that the "welfare queen" is a myth. In high school, I worked as a bagger at my small town's grocery store. There were women who would come in, pay with food stamps or WIC, and then get into a fairly new Lexus or other type of nice vehicle. Since it was such a small town, we also knew were they lived (government housing). I seem to recall that they were always decked out to the 9s in the nicest clothes too. If the welfare queen was such a myth, why did Bill Clinton of all people push for welfare reform when he was president? Why did you need reform if there wasn't a problem?
Another example: After Hurricane Katrina, businesses in New Orleans were having trouble finding workers and offering wages of 20 bucks per hour for food service work (McDonalds, etc.) Why were they having trouble finding help? Not because there weren't any workers, but because they had received their FEMA checks or other government assistance and figured, why work? The same thing went on after Hurricane Rita in SW LA. McDonalds and Wal-Mart were on limited schedules because they couldn't find people willing to work!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/ ... 4369.shtml
Until you've lived in an environment where this is going on, don't comment on it and deny the fact that it goes on or that it's a "myth".
Perhaps Chuck meant it was a myth in the sense of being far less common than what most people are led to believe due to news reports. E.g. deaths from mad cow disease are a myth. Yes, we've had some, but it's something like 20 cases over the last 10 years. Hence it's not strictly a myth, but the huge media scare made it sound like people were dying in the thousands due to it.
There was clear public outrage over a minority of people who grossly abused the system. And there was definitely valuable public discourse on how much aid is beneficial vs when does it encourage "dropping out". Anyways, I think you're both right. The welfare queen is real, and even in 1994 (or whenever) was less common than most people probably believed.
As the subject says, this market makes no sense.
Yeah, that's just what I meant. No matter what and no matter where, there will always be people there to take advantage of any system. It's human nature. However, a person taking advantage of the welfare system to the tune of a couple thousand dollars a year, versus companies like Haliburton and Blackwater fleecing us to the tune of billions?
The welfare system and those who use is have always been a great strawman for the Right.
Also I'd never heard about people being offered $20 an hour to work at McDonald's? That seems really ridiculous to me. Sources?
Is that wage even viable for business? In the fast food industry, the vast majority of unit costs are tied to the price of meat and employee wages. That's why they like to offer "value meals" so much; it doesn't add meat (just potatoes and soda) and it doesn't increase the number of employees.
If McDonald's had to offer $20 an hour, could they really stay open (and profitable) before 10:30am or after 8:00pm? For that matter would they even want to be open from 2:00pm - 4:00pm?
It was my understanding that unemployment was not good down there, because the entire area was and is still a wasteland.
Sorry, I do not have the time to Google for a couple of hours wasting my precious time and spending my own hard earned money to pay for articles which are now archived to one-up somebody on an Internet board. I LIVED in New Orleans through Katrina and also have family in SWLA. I SAW this first hand. But I guess I'm lying. Most people in Seattle haven't even been out of Washington, Oregon, and California and believe everything they read in the Times or the PI about what is going on in the rest of the world, so when you scoff with disbelief at something that goes on outside of your little universe, it makes you look more ignorant. RCC, you are correct that a business cannot pay wages that high forever, but when your store hasn't been open for weeks, you will pay anything to generate lost revenue. I'm not saying that's still going on now, just for a little while after the hurricanes. My point was that if people will generally take the free money instead of working for it.
Back on topic.....
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081126/financial_meltdown.html
"New reports reveal battered economy; jobless claims remain high, spending, factory orders fall"
I predict a surge of 500 points today based on this news.
I think you can understand why I'm skeptical. It really doesn't make sense that a fast food restaurant would pay people that much and that people wouldn't take that job. FEMA was not giving people the equivalent of a $20 an hour salary.
Here's a November 2006 reportwith similar numbers.
And another story corroborating on $10/hour.
That last story also talks about slightly better jobs (like drivers for food delivery) seeing 20% pay increases on average, but wages still significantly below $20 an hour. So, did it ever happen? Don't know. Maybe in one or two particularly bad parts of town it did, but the general stories seem to suggest wages spiked to half of that ($10/hr). In general, it's clear $20/hour is a gross exaggeration, which means it's not a valid example as proof that people are eager to take small handouts rather than work for much larger salaries.
Also David, what's the point on dissing everybody in the Pacific Northwest with the suggestion that A) they've never left the West Coast, and