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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (102215)	9/19/2009 7:47:41 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

If the banks had dumped their foreclosed properties as they came up, their sales price would have been higher. Instead they saved up almost all of their foreclosed properties for four years. Then, after prices had tumbled by 30%, banks then offered them up for sale all at once and the market took an even larger dive. This decision to take lower prices later on may have helped someone, but it certainly didn't help the banks. The heavily indebted like yourself will always imagine there's some scheme which will certainly prop the market up at artificial levels, but they always fail. Market forces will not be denied. .

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (102215)	9/20/2009 3:50:43 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

>>And I understand your objection to reality.. You serve your economic master well, and yet you fail to realize that economic theory is ALWAYS subordinate to political realities. There is NO SUCH THING as a free market and never will be in a society where the government is accountable to its special interest base.<< there, fixed that for you. the role of the voter is to be fooled while the looting commences. how much of the trillions given to banks have made it back into the hands of the politicians?