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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (100659)	5/17/2013 1:03:57 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217545

ElM, there wasn't really a collapse. When there's a real collapse, unemployment zooms way past the 10% which the USA went to from 5% or so. Something like 30% or 50% is more like it. See Greece, Spain, Argentina back in the day. GDP in the USA hasn't fallen. When you see 30% GDP fall, then you can say there's an actual collapse. Even 20% would be quite nasty for a lot of people. What happened as a result of the speculative bust in USA housing was that a swarm of speculating banks which had gambled that "house prices always rise" found themselves with all sorts of counter-party derivatives risks and no financial backing. After a spot of tarping and with a few being sold off for parts such as Lehman to Barclays, everything is back on track. There remains the matter of huge deficits and wildly promissory notes issued by politicians, with no hope of paying their promises with actual value [see Greek pensioners for example, with Portugese in a spot of bother too]. That will be taken care of by diluting the US$ until the promises match reality. Iceland and Iraq took care of creditors by telling them to take a hike, which was a sensible strategy rather than trying to force people who didn't borrow the money to repay the loans. In Ireland, they are trying to force the public to pay the bills. There never was a financial collapse of 2001, or beyond. There was a Biotelecosmictechdot.com bust, which was well deserved because it was puffed up with irrational exuberance. Same happened with houses a few years later. Gold got into some irrational exuberance when it nearly reached $2000 an ounce. Note the price of gold is heading for my 30 June prediction following the dead cat bounce. Mqurice

To: elmatador who wrote (100659)	5/17/2013 3:51:48 AM
From: Arran Yuan	Respond to of 217545

In the early stage of collapsing?

To: elmatador who wrote (100659)	5/17/2013 7:09:30 AM
From: Metacomet	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217545

Its effects have been delayed by QE's. Ya think? The US economy is in the shitter, but it isn't from QE.... May be time to visit some facts Congress has tackled the deficit — at the cost of the economy This morning, Eric Rosengren, chief executive of the Boston Federal Reserve, cautioned lawmakers against further fiscal retrenchment, lest they slow the recovery. As he said at the Global Interdependence Center’s Central Banking Conference in Italy: “Given the economic realities I would urge policymakers to consider scenarios where some elements of fiscal rebalancing take effect only after the economy has more fully improved.” He’s right, in large part because Congress has already done a fair amount of deficit reduction. Beginning in 2011, with unemployment still high and the economy on a long, slow climb out of recession, Congress — led by a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives — moved to make big cuts in medium-term discretionary spending. It slashed $1 trillion with the Budget Control Act of 2011, and followed that with hundreds of billions more in spending cuts and tax increases with the fiscal cliff deal and sequester. Now, as a result of this deficit reduction, the Congressional Budget Office projects a $642 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2013, down $200 billion from its projection at the beginning of the year, and the lowest level of deficit spending since President Obama entered office. The near-term deficit projection also shows improvement; the CBO estimates a 2015 deficit of $378 billion. For Washington’s deficit hawks, this is cause for celebration. It’s a sign the federal government is on its way to a more sustainable debt load. But this rapid deficit reduction is far less of a boon for most Americans, who have to live in an economy that’s been largely stalled by Congressional inaction. At 7.5 percent, unemployment is still too high, and there’s little sign of rapid improvement. According to most projections, joblessness won’t reach pre-recession levels for another three years. Congress’ push for deficit reduction has a lot to do with this. As noted in the New York Times last week: “The nation’s unemployment rate would probably be nearly a point lower, roughly 6.5 percent, and economic growth almost two points higher this year if Washington had not cut spending and raised taxes as it has since 2011.” To put that in more concrete terms, 1.5 million more Americans would have jobs if not for Washington’s decision to pursue deficit reduction in the midst of a sluggish economy. Unfortunately, news of successful deficit reduction is unlikely to result in any respite from new cuts or tax increases. The Obama administration still has its Social Security cuts on the table — as part of a potential “grand bargain” — and Congressional Republicans are gearing up to demand still more spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Will Washington avoid endangering the still-fragile recovery with further deficit reduction? If the refusal to end or replace the sequester is any indication, I wouldn’t hold my breath. washingtonpost.com