Robespierre

Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

while increase their wealth via taxpayers subsides.

Should read: while the wealth of bankers increases via taxpayers subsides.


On Aug 06 07:57 AM Robespierre wrote:

> "There’s a concerted effort in officialdom and with their Wall Street
> brethren to lift markets they’ll use whatever new rules and tools
> are needed to get things going."
>
> My guess is that the government agreed to give the IBs all the cheap
> money they need to prop up the market to make people feel better
> so they start spending again. In exchange the IBs get to keep all
> their ill gotten gains.
>
> It will not work. The reason people were able to spend way beyond
> their means is that they were able to extract cash from their homes.
> That is no longer available in any meaningful way. Moreover with
> real unemployment running at double digits most people are to scared
> to spend away.
>
> What this government/IBs incestuous relationship will accomplish
> is a huge backslash to the current administration when main-street
> realizes that that their standard of living keeps dropping while
> increase their wealth via taxpayers subsides.

Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

"There’s a concerted effort in officialdom and with their Wall Street brethren to lift markets they’ll use whatever new rules and tools are needed to get things going."

My guess is that the government agreed to give the IBs all the cheap money they need to prop up the market to make people feel better so they start spending again. In exchange the IBs get to keep all their ill gotten gains.

It will not work. The reason people were able to spend way beyond their means is that they were able to extract cash from their homes. That is no longer available in any meaningful way. Moreover with real unemployment running at double digits most people are to scared to spend away.

What this government/IBs incestuous relationship will accomplish is a huge backslash to the current administration when main-street realizes that that their standard of living keeps dropping while increase their wealth via taxpayers subsides.

If It Looks Like a Bull, Walks Like a Bull, Acts Like a Bull…

I'm so amaze how a bunch of charts make forecasting look like a science. So here you have this author comments on Sep. 2007:

While a Fed rate cut is one of many factors that will influence stocks over the next 12 months, it is one of the most important in the eyes of Wall Street. In very simple terms, based on these four historical cases, which are similar to today’s environment, there is a 75% chance stocks will be higher a year from September 18, 2007. This does not call for blind optimism, but it does call for controlled optimism.

seekingalpha.com/artic...

Now I'm not trying to berate the author. Every one know how difficult it is to predict the market. All I'm saying is do your own DD before blindly follow the experts...


On Jun 12 08:00 AM redbaron wrote:

> You have said it much better, and had much better data, than what
> I have been posting here on SA. I can't wait to see to see how all
> the doomsdayers jump all over you, like they jump all over me when
> I postulate such thoughts. And while the debate goes on, the market
> climbs that wall of worry.

Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets

David White writes:
FNM and FRE own over half of the mortgages. We cannot afford for them to go under. Certainly some of the banks reported bad earnings. But even those seemed to forcast improvement in the near future (for example Wachovia).

So I have several questions for you:
Why can't we let them go under? We let real industries go under all the time and they create real wealth unlike fred/fani. Isn't letting bad companies fail the idea of free markets? Or are we now the new soviet union? And if they are too big to fail how is making them bigger good for the tax payers?

Also on bank's earnings: Why would you trust the banks forecast from the same banks that not long ago said all was well we need no new capital?