Bad Dog

Why the Stock Market Should Crash

Greed? Isn't it logic rather? I would think that the stock market represents assets that, from a foreign perspective look cheap and from a domestic perspective are cheap if you borrowed money at zero percent.


On Nov 17 08:38 AM jimmy Turano wrote:

> CHARLES YOUR ARTICLE MAKES SENSE AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS AS WELL
> ARE VERY GOOD IN DEED.
> The Dow currently is reflecting only greed and not accurate at all.
>
> Things are getting worse in all aspects and the Dow has to collapse
>
> to a 7,000 level before things begin to get better in my opinion.
>
> In the New york areas, many stores are empty, the remaining store
> owners are suffering financially. People are asking for credit in
> stores, and in Manhattan,Brooklyn, and Queens areas, you can witness
> first hand how citizens are now taking food out of the garbage, after
> people discard what they have just finished eating for Breakfast,
> or lunch, or Diner. I have experienced an onslaught of individuals
> stopping in my place of business looking for work.
> People come in crying that they may loose their homes, or be put
> out of their apartments lately. They say the Recession is over, but
> I have stated for the past 6 months that we are in a DEPRESSION.
>
> To be ahead of the curve, the only way of complete recovery, for
> all Americans, and our Country, is a very obvious result.
> One that will take years, however the outcome won't be pretty at
> all. And Charles the answer is on the Wall. It is 'WAR'.
> LIKE YOU SAID IN THE BEGINNING, OF YOUR ARTICLE,
> MAYBE NOT TODAY, OR EVEN NEXT YEAR, BUT WITHIN 4 YEARS, THIS IS THE
> ONLY SOLUTION TO THE BIGGEST
> PROBLEM OUR COUNTRY FACES SINCE 1929!
> GOD HELP US!

U.S. Quantitative Easing Has Just Begun

Oh and you are full of crap. Forgot to add that one. "Full of marxists" indeed! If only they were!! At least they'd be on the right side of the barricades!! Nitwit!!


On Sep 23 01:36 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:

> If Bernanke and Obama were truly concerned about preserving jobs,
> they would have allowed bad banks to fail, and supported businesses
> and consumers with real, substantial tax cuts...along with accompanying
> large cuts to government. China's economy didn't rocket out of recession...they
> were NOT IN one. They went from double digit growth down to mid-to-upper
> single digits for a while. That's not recession...merely slower
> growth.
>
> But the Obama administration has gone the opposite way -- endorsing
> continued fiscal insanity, continuing the errant Bush policy of propping
> up the failed banks...and that can only cause more job losses and
> further strain on the taxpayer.
>
> It's not that the White House completely ignores job losses. It's
> just that the White House is full of Marxists who see the opportunity
> to "never let a crisis go to waste." At present, that means expansion
> of government and an opportunity to impose conditions and control
> over businesses that further restrain capitalism. I can imagine
> the Europeans, as they are very familiar with 10% unemployment on
> an ongoing basis, wondering what the heck America is doing. America's
> focus on personal responsibility is waning, and we are becoming like
> the socialist European nations whose national defense and general
> economies our prosperity has subsidized for decades. Extending our
> already generous unemployment compensation *entitlement* will only
> further strain the nation's finances and lead to reduced personal
> incentive. Will Europe subsidize our national defense and general
> economy, as we have done for them, now that we've fallen out of the
> role? They can't afford to. The stimulus plan will either expire
> and the propped-up U.S. will fall sharply...or it will be expanded
> until hyperinflation forces a complete reset -- what should have
> been allowed to happen to begin with.

U.S. Quantitative Easing Has Just Begun

At the very least, have government representation on the BOD of banks receiving bailout money! When you buy a big chink of a Company you get a set on the board, but taxpayers got nothing. So the banks can continue to lie, cheat and steal, and we are paying for it. And they sent Bernie Madoff to jail! He's an amateur compared to B of A.


On Sep 23 01:36 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:

> If Bernanke and Obama were truly concerned about preserving jobs,
> they would have allowed bad banks to fail, and supported businesses
> and consumers with real, substantial tax cuts...along with accompanying
> large cuts to government. China's economy didn't rocket out of recession...they
> were NOT IN one. They went from double digit growth down to mid-to-upper
> single digits for a while. That's not recession...merely slower
> growth.
>
> But the Obama administration has gone the opposite way -- endorsing
> continued fiscal insanity, continuing the errant Bush policy of propping
> up the failed banks...and that can only cause more job losses and
> further strain on the taxpayer.
>
> It's not that the White House completely ignores job losses. It's
> just that the White House is full of Marxists who see the opportunity
> to "never let a crisis go to waste." At present, that means expansion
> of government and an opportunity to impose conditions and control
> over businesses that further restrain capitalism. I can imagine
> the Europeans, as they are very familiar with 10% unemployment on
> an ongoing basis, wondering what the heck America is doing. America's
> focus on personal responsibility is waning, and we are becoming like
> the socialist European nations whose national defense and general
> economies our prosperity has subsidized for decades. Extending our
> already generous unemployment compensation *entitlement* will only
> further strain the nation's finances and lead to reduced personal
> incentive. Will Europe subsidize our national defense and general
> economy, as we have done for them, now that we've fallen out of the
> role? They can't afford to. The stimulus plan will either expire
> and the propped-up U.S. will fall sharply...or it will be expanded
> until hyperinflation forces a complete reset -- what should have
> been allowed to happen to begin with.

Today in Commodities

What a load of crap. And not just crap, irrelevant crap.


On Jul 30 04:08 PM hungry4food wrote:

> Health care House Bill assaults the elderly . Page 425 is mandating
> a counseling session to learn how to end their life for societies
> best interest . listen to the interview ....
>
>
> fredthompsonshow.com/p...;headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC...
>
> MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydW...
> XlsaXN0U2l6ZT01
>
>
> you will have to click on this persons link to hear the interview
> once on the site of the Fred Thompson interviews
>
> Betsy McCaughey Interview July 27, 2009
> Patient Advocate and Founder of the Committee to Reduce Invectious
> Deaths Betsy McCaughey calls in the show.
> Download

Five Ways This Bubble May End

Obama has no choice but to let GM go into bankruptcy. The ground has been prepared. It's a matter of time. The union votes are going to Obama no matter what happens with GM. With the GOP essentially the Party of the Confederacy, it's unlikely that Obama is thinking about GM as an electoral issue. GM is over; all we are arguing over is where to bury the corpse.

My suggestion for an end to the bubble is a complete collapse of the Pakistan government and the accession to power of the Taliban. The Pakistani government has now lost the Swat valley, much of Baluchistan, and the western provinces, the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). There is no much left to lose. The next step for the Taliban, and its Al Qaeda allies, is Islamabad. At that point, it's pretty much over. Then you will have a very radical, nuclear-armed regime in charge in Pakistan, and the world will have to face a very alarming prospect.

The Final Market Bubble

To those who think that the US is drowning in debt, I have to say that WW2 left the US with debts exceeding 120% of GDP. We had just paid millions of people to stop what they were doing and start building machines that would mostly be destroyed or scrapped at some point. We built ships, loaded them with goods, and sent them out into the Atlantic or Pacific to be sunk by an enemy submarine. Then we made things worse by paying for much of the reconstruction of western Europe, and on top of that built the interstate highway system. Surely, after all this "wasteful spending" the US was in an even bigger whole than it was in 1932? I rest my case.

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

Uh, dude, he's been President for only 10 days or so. I think you're asking the wrong guy. Bush appointed people like Chris Cox (Mr. What? Me worry?) and Paulson (Mr. Goldaman Sachs), and they did about as good a job as Ol' Brownie after Katrina. Those are the folks you should be mad at, or doesn't your memory go back beyond 2 weeks?


On Jan 30 09:18 AM markg wrote:

> Sure Obama and company can whine belatedly about TARP money going
> for bonuses, but where was the oversight before this happened? What
> can they do now? Same thing they did before, nothing!
>
> The money is gone and it is going to stay gone.

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

But this idea did not come from the socialists! It came from your friends: the titans of the banking world, the most free-market ideologues one could imagine, and the Wall Street folks like Bernie Madoff. The socialists don't want the capitalists bailed out! So I wouldn't go around blaming the socialists. They are on your side even though you can't seem to work that out!


On Jan 14 08:15 AM PrudentMan, CFA wrote:

> Consumer Confidence? Why would anyone be confident in the economy,
> which is only our fifth worst since the end of WWII, when the, Fed
> Administration, Congress and especially Obama all tell everyone it
> is going to get worse? In the previous recessions the government
> pretty much kept their mouths shut and did their job instead of being
> much too vocal
>
> Why are all the Fed members talking so much. In my fifty years as
> a professional investor I never heard so much said by people who
> proved they know so little. If all these rear-mirror economists,
> who are behind the curve, would spend their time doing some analysis
> instead of brushing up their resumes they may have seen the problem
> with credit years ago. Because the non-discounting stock markets
> kept going up all these people were just Pollyandas.
>
> Whey is Obama and Congress so vocal? These Socialists see and opportunity
> in the false "worse receission since the Great Depression, and I
> lived in that time that was exacerbated to unnecessarily last ten
> years, they can make the greatest theft of taxpayer money in history.
> As we all know, those who have the money have the control.
>
> If the Fed Congress and the Administration would have said that the
> Free Market will work things out so property will revert to their
> rightful owner this recession would be over. The promise of bailing
> out loser at the cost of winners is very far from Free Market Capitalism
> as it is Socialist Capitalism. Are problems started decades ago
> and the Fed and Congress could very easily have reighned it in with
> the laws on the books.
>
> I think this is the best time for rational investors support and
> end encourage Congressional Term Limits.

U.S. Records Huge Trade Deficit

Right. But there is a determined effort by the rest of the world to ensure that the USD remains strong. In order to make the USD weaker, direct counter actions have to be taken to increase the perceived risk of owning USD. In fact, I would argue that, rather than put huge amounts into tax cuts, the US government should just start buying foreign currencies and make FOREX trading a little harder to do, perhaps by enacting some kind of transaction tax.


On Jan 13 12:35 PM socrateazz wrote:

> Here is the arrow that would hit the heart of the problem. The value
> of the US dollar needs to drop. Foriegn goods become more expensive
> so US companies can better compete. Of course that makes goods americans
> want more expensive! And you still end up with consumers having
> less. There is a trade off...but if nothing is done the trade off
> becomes more extreme. The reality is nobody can consume more than
> they produce without some subsidy. When the subsidy becomes greater
> than the production, problems are brewing! Obamanomics need to be
> excellent to solve those problems