Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Trumptown who wrote (376651)	10/20/2008 6:36:14 PM
From: Terry Maloney	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436259

This crap is more the result of McGoo's handling of the 'irrational exuberance', Clinton years and after, imo. The cfz was pitying whichever poor sob won back before the 200 election, don't forget, it's not like anybody thinks Clinton was blameless. But Bush was supposed to the first MBA president, with your government run by businessmen who knew what they were doing and all ... they should have seen the reinflating of the housing bubble (we did here -- wtf?), never mind the balance sheet problem of starting a trillion dollar war while cutting taxes, etc, etc, etc. As for the last 7-8 years, I'm really kind of amazed that it took so long, given the bearishness around here back in 2000 ... so I'm kind of glad 43 came along, if it weren't for all of the above, half of us bears would probably have died of old age wondering if we'd been crazy all along. <g>

To: Trumptown who wrote (376651)	10/20/2008 7:16:28 PM
From: stan_hughes	9 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436259

Wrote you a long reply but my PC ate it, so this is my second and consequently delayed attempt at a response I agree that many people are to blame, and on this occasion I wasn't trying to be political -- my reference to the last 7-8 years was to the unbelievably low interest rate environment during that period that spawned the housing and mortgage mania, as irresponsibly facilitated by Fannie & Freddie and the ludicrous CDO market that was allowed to evolve, without which this nightmare would not have been allowed to grow to such proportions If we really want to go to the source of the mess, we could go back to 1913 and the creation of the current central bank, but that's more Jim Rogers territory than mine. Let's just agree there is plenty enough blame to go around As a simple consumer, I knew something was not right back in 1999 when I started getting unsolicited letters in the mail from strange institutions I did not do business with who wanted to advance me large sums of money at very attractive interest rates, and on a completely unsecured basis much less by lodging any RE collateral. In some cases it was even free money, i.e. at 0% with no transaction fees. That's not how credit is supposed to be created -- i.e. it should follow the demand, not lead it I played the game for a while, just like we all did, but I always knew it had to end, and end badly -- the rest, as they say, is history, but this crisis is far from being over and is still playing out as I write Now picture that lots of people saw the Nasdaq fall 89%, but since they were unaffected by that directly, many people now think this recent selloff is probably no big deal either, or at least it's something they think they can handle if they play their cards right -- however, these people (a) keep getting told incorrectly in the media that the crisis is over or virtually over, and (b) they think they know what a bottom is, even though they've probably never seen one unless they are over 65-years-old, or maybe 55 if they were engaged in the stock markets at a fairly early age This is how a bunch of people who need to get back to breakeven become mixed in with a bunch of bottom fishers to become cannon fodder for the next bear leg down that takes all of their money, along with all the remaining funds of the people who stoicly stayed invested for the entire ride down because they "didn't want to panic" and their advisors told them to stay put. Good advice maybe in 2002, but IMO not so much in 2008, because this time it's the banking system itself that's failed and that makes all the difference History shows that although it was nasty, it wasn't so much the 40% hit in 1929 that did people in, it was the 1930-1933 grind down afterward -- it certainly wiped out most professional traders, many of whom had avoided the original crash but bought back in later -- I'm not trying to say this is 1930 or 1931, but most people simply don't get it that their stock market game they grew up with has fundamentally changed forever and that we are in for years of hurt If I'm wrong and the economy quickly recovers in say 2 years instead of 10, there will still be plenty of chances to buy in at a much lower risk once some kind of evidence of a recovery shows up -- but for now the economy has just pulled out onto the southbound expressway to hell and I don't see anything changing for the positive for the foreseeable future