Or at least the prospect for a Democrat win is. Investors expect a high tax year… they are selling most of their stocks and putting a lot of money into an index of tax free municipal bonds.

What say you?:)

Very perceptive. Isn't that what the Dems do? Deflate the bubble the Republicans have blown up to the point of bursting? When the inflation tax is gone, they raise real taxes to take its place. Left-right. Up-down. Inflation-deflation. That is an integral part of the federal reserve system, our two party system and the stock market. The nature of the beast. The whipsaw effect. God forbid we have a nice steady rate of growth with balance and value instead of uncontrollable spending and debt.
And yes, Hellary is their girl.

Forgive me if I don't celebrate. They are all a bunch of liars and power whores, but Hillary has to be the bottom of the barrel in my opinions. Of course, the Republicans deserve to lose... GW has destroyed any scrap of respectability the party had.

I hate politics, and I hate politicians. Nevertheless, I have a civic duty to vote for one of the scumbags.

Without giving the name of the candidate, would everyone please put the year in which you last casted a vote for President that you TRULY were happy with? A vote that wasn't the least of the evils, but rather for a candidate that you felt was being straightforward with his record and campaign promises? I suspect many of the answers will have to go back quite a long way.

The answer for me is... never. I was too young to vote for Reagan.

I think the stock market is going through one of those periodic corrections it goes through . I sheltered some of my investment when the market was approaching Dow 14,000 . I intend to start buying again soon . The correction is around 20% so I think it is close to bottoming out. (buy low sell high never loses) Yesterday there was a wild swing from minus 300 to a closing of 298 gain. That means that the investors are looking for bargains and not selling off ;although I agree that there is some cash-hoarding going on.

I think there is a good chance of a Dem . Win because despite the fact that the economy has grown for an almost unprecedented number of months in a row ( we are still seeing economic growth ) ,the press has turned the price of gas and a housing bubble that affected very few people,and turned it into a semi-panic.This is a slow down not a recession.

Hillary's Government -side economy would be a disaster . She is cheer-leading for a recession because it improves her prospects. The Dems primarily ;but also some of the Republicans are beginning to sound like William Jennings Bryan populists . Thompson was the only candidate to my knowledge who properly rejected the silly notion that a rebate would stimulate the economy.Now he is out of the race .

You want a Democrat who is talking sense on the economy ? Look to Charlie Rangel . He wants a middle class tax cut. He wants to slash the corporate tax rate to something close to world standards . That is a plan that he and the President could work on that makes sense. They should also do away with or reformulate the AMT. Too many middle class people are falling into that bracket. It was never intended to tax the middle class and it is a crime that it does so ever more frequently.

I guarantee that any legislation to authorize these rebate checks is going to be so laden with pork that it will be a massive spending bill that will do little good.In fact; more spending is the worse idea .Neither party is addressing the fact that the government spends too much.

Tom, buy low sell high is the ticket; problem is if it stays low for a long period of time…the up side is that you would be liquid.
I hope the investors are wrong as they were in 1980. The stimulus package is not even a band aid because it is a short time fix for a long time problem, and I'm sure you're right about the pork. I'm sure you are aware of all the foreign investment that will help in one to keep our economy afloat.

Gold is up 200% from two years ago, commodities are up, long term t-bonds are being heavily invested in, all meaning people are afraid of the dollar, and we then pretend to "fix" the ecomony with more foreign money, urging an indebted public to spend more money... which they probably will, just on imported goods, pumping even more money overseas?? Hard to hear or see the train that's about to hit you when your head is up your arse.

Time to take a big kick in the rear. Going to be ugly.

Or pretty, depending on your perspective. Money is made when you buy, just collected when you sell. Going to be an interesting couple of years for investment opportunities.

Tom, buy low sell high is the ticket; problem is if it stays low for a long period of time…the up side is that you would be liquid.
That of course is the risk that is taken when we adopt Keynesian economic solutions. I have no desire to repeat the 1970s over again .


I'm sure you are aware of all the foreign investment that will help in one to keep our economy afloat. Yes I am .They would not be investing here if we weren't a good buy . Too bad our retro-business policies drives our companies to do business elsewhere.

That of course is the risk that is taken when we adopt Keynesian economic solutions. I have no desire to repeat the 1970s over again .

Yes I am .They would not be investing here if we weren't a good buy . Too bad our retro-business policies drives our companies to do business elsewhere.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, leaders are concerned about a potential U.S. recession and the recent volatility of financial markets.

60% of the economist and bankers at the meeting are concerned about the central banks, compared to none last year.

NPR: Market Turmoil Looms over Davos Conference (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18368590&ft=1&f=1001)

Davos must be an excellent hang out this time of year . If they are depressed now wait until the Goracle makes his presentation... yeah carbon credits ;that's the ticket ! Already heard from that wind bag hedge fund mogul and Hillary shrill George Soros .Bono will be there with his hat out ;and John Kerry("I was for John Edwards before I was against him") is probably there to talk smack about the US from a safe distance . I'm waiting to hear what the conspiracy theorists on this board have to say about these globalists and CFR ers deciding the direction of the world economy and who will be the next President of the US.

What they should be asking is if a regulated economy works so well then how did Societe Generale get ripped off so badly ?



Yesterday in 1/2 a session the Dow went up 600 pts.

Yesterday in 1/2 a session the Dow went up 600 pts.

This doesn't impress me at all. How did this fix the declining dollar? How did this prevent the us from borrowing more foreign money to get its quick fix in keeping the economy "high" going... if you can call it that. At some point you need to get off the "smack".

We save too little, we export too little, and we have apparently no balls to weather economic hard times so we borrow more smack our foreign daddies.

China has a savings rate of 50% . Do you think the people there are better off because of it ?

China has a savings rate of 50% . Do you think the people there are better off because of it ?^^ Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman)

how did this fix the declining dollar?

we export too little
If you think we need to export more, why do you think the declining dollar needs to be "fixed"? A cheap dollar stimulates exports.

Who started the subprime investments debacle and why?

NK ;if my comment about China's saving rate is a straw man then so is kp's comment about our savings rate . Both are tied to our borrowing and their holding onto US currency . As James Fallows of Atlantic wrote in this month's issue

The Chinese government did not explicitly set out to tighten the belt on its population while offering cheap money to American homeowners. But the fact that it does results directly from explicit choices it has made.

But why is the American consumer worse off from this arrangement ?

You want higher savings rates ? Go to a country like China that forces it on it's people .

who started the subprime investments debacle and why?

In my view it was the Congress that caused this by pressuring banks to make home ownership more available to people who could not afford it .

That of course is the risk that is taken when we adopt Keynesian economic solutions. I have no desire to repeat the 1970s over again .

Yes I am .They would not be investing here if we weren't a good buy . Too bad our retro-business policies drives our companies to do business elsewhere.

Bush has taken the Keynesian approch with his "redistribution of wealth." Lower income folks will run out and buy X boxes, boom boxes, and jewerly boxes. That economic stimulation will save our economy!

Why bother? The way the fed is cutting interest rates, money will soon be free and we will all be rich. HOORAAAY for us.

When you borrow $1,000.00 you can expect to pay back $1,000.00, plus interest. If the dollar devaluates (inflation) at say, 20% in the meantime, then you will be paying back $800.00, in real time, real money. (Good deal!) But, what happens if we borrow that money now, in a hyperinflated state, and the dollar revalues say, 20%?(recession). Are we not paying more? ($1,200) Will that start to happen if they decide to start raising interest rates, slowing the borrowing, or creation of money?

In my view it was the Congress that caused this by pressuring banks to make home ownership more available to people who could not afford it .
But why, to fix what?

Bush has taken the Keynesian approch with his "redistribution of wealth." Lower income folks will run out and buy X boxes, boom boxes, and jewerly boxes. That economic stimulation will save our economy!

On that we agree. This stimulus proposal is election year pandering .

But why, to fix what?

The quick answer is racial disparity in home ownership

To: National Desk, Business Reporter
Contact: Valerie Coffin, 410-467-6111 Allison Conyers, 202-547-2500 both of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, ACORN has released a study documenting racial and economic disparities in the mortgage lending market. The report analyzes data on a national scale and in 115 metropolitan areas. Nationally, the study finds that in 2002 African American homebuyers were more than twice (2.38 times) as likely to be denied a conventional purchase loan than were white borrowers, and Latinos were rejected one and a half times (1.63 times) more often. This disparity is greater than it was in 2001, and an even bigger increase from what it was in 1997. In some cities the differences are still more dramatic.
Racial disparities remain even when controlling for income. African American and Latino borrowers are more likely to be denied credit than white borrowers in the same income category. Upper income African Americans are more likely to be rejected for conventional purchase loans than white applicants whose incomes are less than half as large.
Residents of low income neighborhoods, regardless of race, are more likely to be denied mortgage loans than residents of higher income communities. Residents of low income neighborhoods were 2.98 times more likely to be turned down for a conventional purchase loan than residents of upper income neighborhoods
On the positive side, while minority borrowers continue to get far less than their fair share of conventional mortgages, there has been a meaningful increase in the volume of loans going to Latino borrowers, and the share of loans going to Latino borrowers is increasing.
While the national homeownership rate rose very slightly to 68.1 percent in 2002 there remains a 26.5 percentage point difference between white and African American rates of homeownership, a gap that is the same size it was last year, and only less than one half a percent smaller than it was five years ago. Hispanic families have made a little more progress, but they are still behind, and still have the lowest rates of homeownership in the country. In 2002, 74.7 percent of white families owned their own homes, compared to only 48.2 percent of African-Americans and 47.5 percent of Latinos. If minority families owned homes at the same rates as whites of similar ages and incomes, the United States would have an additional 3.2 million minority homeowners.
To decrease the lending disparities found in the report, ACORN recommends changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act that Congress is presently considering. Other recommendations address subprime lending and increased funding for housing counseling and fair housing programs.
Additional National Findings Include:
-- African Americans comprise 13 percent of the population, but receive just 5.1 percent of conventional purchase loans. This is a slight increase from last year, but a decrease from 1997, when they received 5.5 percent of such loans.
-- Latinos comprise 12.5 percent of the U.S, population, and received 8.5 percent of purchase loans, up 13.3 percent from 2001, and an increase of 60 percent from 1997.
-- Low and moderate income neighborhoods, including people of all races, comprise 25.7 percent of the country, but receive just 11.3 percent of conventional loans.
-- Higher cost subprime lenders originated 26.37 percent of the conventional purchase loans made to African Americans, 19.96 percent of those made to Latinos, and 7.5 percent of those made to whites. About 3/4 of the total increase in conventional purchase lending to African Americans since 1997 is accounted for by subprime loans, which have default and foreclosure rates 5, 10, and even more times higher than those for 'A' loans.
"Owning a home makes a tremendous difference in families' lives, and in their futures," said ACORN president Maude Hurd. "That is why it is so important that more be done to make sure that families have a fair and equal chance to buy, and keep, a home. It is an outrage that minority borrowers continue to be denied loans so much more frequently," she continued. "Lenders need to do better, and regulators and legislators need to demand more. Progress in increased lending to Latino borrowers is a good sign that things can change - it needs to continue and to expand to include everyone who has been unfairly shut out of the American dream."
The report is available to reporters online with a password prior to the release date.
------ ACORN is an acronym, and each letter should be capitalized. ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, with over 150,000 member families organized into 700 neighborhood chapters in 60 cities across the country. Since 1970 ACORN has taken action and won victories on issues of concern to our members. Our priorities include: better housing for first time homebuyers and tenants, living wages for low-wage workers, more investment in our communities from banks and governments, and better public schools. We achieve these goals by building community organizations that have the power to win changes -- through direct action, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation.

New Study Finds Increased Racial Disparity in Nation's Mortgage Lending (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1002657/posts)

Subprimes were around for a while . Easing the requirements for obtaining them was the problem.

Yes Tom, you’re right on as you often are … Deregulation. Congress adopted the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act. Ever hear of the so-called "Keating Five," which included John McCain who turned it all into his web of corruption. All the while Washington walked away from its responsibility to protect consumers with rules, regulations, and enforcement

Reagan came along and slashed funding for low-income housing cutting FHA adrift.

“At the heart of the crisis are the conservative free market ideologists whose views increasingly influenced American politics since the 1980s, and who still dominate the Bush administration. They believe that government is always the problem, never the solution, and that regulation of private business is always bad. Lenders and brokers who fell outside of federal regulations made most of the sub-prime and predatory loans.”

What do you have to say about that?:)

The Conservative Origins of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis | The American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_conservative_origins_of_the_s ubprime_mortgage_crisis)

I understand a low dollar should encourage exports... id just prefer to have a stronger trade balance AND a dollar that's not weakening. Please santa? Can't a robust ecomony have a strong dollar and have products the world wants? And if we don't have what the world is willing to buy at a higher price, what does that say about our position? I know. I want it all.

And I understand china and the us are tied together economically... we will continue to buy their goods and they will not stop buying our dollars... I'm just not sure its in our long term interests to be in this position.

And its not like I'm not welcoming some correction. If anything, I'm hoping we allow for it rather than try to cover it up. Hopefully they'll be some great investments to be had.

I agree on the subs. Issues with regulation but also with people who made some dumb personal decisions.

I just want a strong dollar my vacation in St. Barts is expensive enough. The housing market stopping its plummet would be nice too.

Yeah, my last trip I could hardly get my boat in the harbor:p

http://www.stbarth.com/hotels/CarlGustaf/images/view_6.jpg

I don't have a yacht, so I have to fly in.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2217587180_a35d953aaa.jpg

the press has turned the price of gas and a housing bubble that affected very few people,and turned it into a semi-panic

Funny you should say that. The economic 'crisis' has been front page news here for the past two weeks. Yesterday's above the fold headline was "Economy in Crisis." Below that was a photo of nervous looking traders wringing their hands. Today's story on yesterday's stock gains was the very last article in my paper, lol.

Nice air strip. Naw, I could get my boat in, the Yacht is too big though. :D

http://www.eagleshippingltd.com/tmp/liten_ikon_246.jpg

Funny you should say that. The economic 'crisis' has been front page news here for the past two weeks. Yesterday's above the fold headline was "Economy in Crisis." Below that was a photo of nervous looking traders wringing their hands. Today's story on yesterday's stock gains was the very last article in my paper, lol.
Funny too you think stocks are the whole of the economy :)


EDIT: House leaders and the administration reached agreement today on a roughly $145 billion economic stimulus package.

Funny too you think stocks are the whole of the economy :)

Come on DC, you know I was speaking of the media - driving the panic is front page, a little good news now is back page :D

Right, just having a little fun at your expense. :D

More bad news... French bank Societe Generale said Thursday it has uncovered a 4.9 billion euro ($7.14 billion) fraud. The bombshell destabilized a major bank already exposed to the subprime crisis. France's second-largest bank by market value said it would be forced to seek euro5.5 billion (US$8.02 billion) in new capital.

"This is a bad time for banks and the industry in general. But detecting the fraud over the weekend was problematic because world stock markets on Monday and Tuesday fell hugely around the world. When the positions had to be unwound, the bank did that in a terrible market of falling equities," said Janine Dow, senior director at Fitch Ratings financial institution group in Paris

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8UCCE4O1.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_busines sweek+exclusives

i understand a low dollar should encourage exports....id just prefer to have a stronger trade balance AND a dollar thats not weakening. please santa? can't a robust ecomony have a strong dollar and have products the world wants? and if we dont have what the world is willing to buy at a higher price, what does that say about our position? i know. i want it all.
Why do you think the dollar is undervalued? How could you tell if it was overvalued? I think part of the problem in discussions about exchange rates is the "strong" and "weak" terminology. It would be more accurate and less emotionally laden to just say "high-priced and "low-priced".

Because nobody wants anything about America to be ".

Because nobody wants anything about America to be " we get the spectacle of Georgie-boy and Treasury Secretary Paulson ritually intoning "We have a strong dollar policy, we have a strong dollar policy." like bobble-head dolls even though there's precious little, policy-wise, that they can do to affect it one way or the other.

Low US interest rates make it less attractive to hold dollar-denominated securities (and vise-versa), so the Fed's monetary policy choices can affect the exchange rate that way, but the Fed's primary objective of keeping domestic inflation in check has to take precedence over any attempt to manipulate currency exchange rates. Besides, the Fed is an independent agency not under the control of the Executive branch, so George and Henry really have no policy levers to pull.

Yes Tom, you’re right on as you often are … Deregulation. Congress adopted the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act. Ever hear of the so-called "Keating Five," which included John McCain who turned it all into his web of corruption. All the while Washington walked away from its responsibility to protect consumers with rules, regulations, and enforcement

Reagan came along and slashed funding for low-income housing cutting FHA adrift.

“At the heart of the crisis are the conservative free market ideologists whose views increasingly influenced American politics since the 1980s, and who still dominate the Bush administration. They believe that government is always the problem, never the solution, and that regulation of private business is always bad. Lenders and brokers who fell outside of federal regulations made most of the sub-prime and predatory loans.”

What do you have to say about that?:)

The Conservative Origins of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis | The American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_conservative_origins_of_the_s ubprime_mortgage_crisis)


So should not those who made unwise lending[s] or borrowing choices face the
consequences and not expect the government / taxpayor to bail them out?

Personal responsibility a conservative value.

Good question lets take an example, food. There are plenty of poor fools, or very poor people who would buy spoiled food were it not for the federal food laws. Mortgage brokers did a fast sell on many of those people and made tons of money, what about them. I believe too that people's optimism also caught them up when they assumed that property value would continue climbing when it didn't. There is no doubt that whatever the cause, the people who lost their homes are paying the price.

Why do you think the dollar is undervalued? How could you tell if it was overvalued? I think part of the problem in discussions about exchange rates is the "strong" and "weak" terminology. It would be more accurate and less emotionally laden to just say "high-priced and "low-priced".


You know what? You might damn well be right... and I'm not being my normal smarta$$ self here. I'm biased because I deal with buying overseas and the point is reasonable... maybe the dollar is perfectly "valued"...

More bad news... French bank Societe Generale said Thursday it has uncovered a 4.9 billion euro ($7.14 billion) fraud. The bombshell destabilized a major bank already exposed to the subprime crisis. France's second-largest bank by market value said it would be forced to seek euro5.5 billion (US$8.02 billion) in new capital.
Imagine that... don't the French regulate their banking ? I think they do to a much higher degree than we do. How could this happen in a regulated economy?

Not that I agree with this in principle ;but I think the homeownwers who got suckered into these bad loans should be helped. WE bailed out the auto and airline industries didn't we ? We should be consistent here.

Not that I agree with this in principle ;but I think the homeownwers who got suckered into these bad loans should be helped. WE bailed out the auto and airline industries didn't we ? We should be consistent here.Isn't the conservative stance to have the government be less intrusive in a person's affairs? No one got "suckered" into bad loans, no one held a gun to their heads. Dear God Tom, you're starting to sound like a Liberal!!

NK the caveat is that I would not help out those who's early payment defaults had fraudulent misrepresentations on their original loan applications. The rest of them should be offered a reasonable refinance arrangement if they are facing bankruptcy .Since this is partly the governments fault they should be part of the solution. A liberal solution would be to throw money at the problem. I am looking for a much narrower bail out then what is being debated now. Call it my attempt at bipartisanship.

Hillary seems to have found herself in another embarrassing situation. After her "slum landlord" comment to Obama the other night a photo has turned up that appears to show Bill and Hill with the slum lord himself.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/files/2008/01/clintons_rezko.jpg

Reminds me of another interesting photo...

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2007/08/30/1188530216_6609/410w.jpg