economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:36:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:18:09 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2010 09:21:20 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


when you sell stocks you either gain or losr stay even

guess what happened to the folks who sold at the end of the day
yesterday?


My stop loss orders triggered so I am looking for a good bottom to get
back in. I already have some prices picked but I haven't placed the
orders. I am watching this Euro thing to see what will happen before I
get back in.

guess the right doesn't know that ALOT of trading is computer
controlled...which is why a trillion evaporated in one day

they keep denying it happened. just like they bitch about obama
spending a trillion over the course of a year.

the difference is that wall street is run by rich white guys.

obama's black.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 09:03:33 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/05/2010 8:21 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 08:03:10 -0600,
wrote:



You only don't see it because you are clueless.


says the guy who thinks '29 was a great boost for the free market

Nope, just the market reflecting the reality of the politics of the times.

and you love the idea of repeating it today

You someone believe the markets are out to get you or something.
Paranoia actually.

really? you mean 100M americans DIDNT get screwed by the market in the
last 3 years?

what planet you from? how's the weather there?


Markets are simple, they always seek a collective view on the economy.

actually markets are not simple; they are irrational. that's why
they're unpredictable.

One person can't change it, it is a collective

really? guess you dont know what h appens when greenspan says the
market's going to go up or down...or interest rates will rise.



Even big mouth Obama on his soap box can't do much as he is the problem.
A debt monger.

you're to stupid to know what happens to spending in a depression.

the right is absolutely cluess.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:28:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 06:37:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


you right wingers...dont even know how the stock market works...

No actually even if 10% of the people who owned a particular stock
tried to sell it all at once the stock would lose more than that much
value immediately.

Wall street prices are just the illusion of money.

really? ever sell any stock?


CDOs are not stock in the first place.

who said they were? again you dont know how the market operates.
people buy stock in companies that trade CDO's. when the CDO's come
due and cant be paid, they're trash...just like the stock in the
companies trading them

They are not collateralized
instruments and do not require any money to be escrowed when they are
created. It is simply a computer generated entity that gets traded
like it was actually worth something. As we found out with AIG, there
was no actual money behind them.

and AIG was a publicly held company with stock. it dealt in CDO's.

how'd that work out for AIG and its shareholders....and the taxpayer?

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 09:09:09 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



For example, you take a 10 year t-bill at 0.5% and say inlfation runs an
average of 10%, then loaning the government cost you 50% in value even
though the $$$ amount in 10 years is slightly up.

It is also why US/Canadian government can no longer borrow money and
create it off their own banks...inflationary ponzi money

really?

by the way...what's the rate of inflation nowadays?

oh. there isn't any.


That is, a second crash is inevitable at this point. As Obama and
democrats are jack asses if they think they can debt-spend their way out
of a debt depression.

worked in 39, didn't it? our debt burden was higher then than it is
now.

but you're right wing...not too bright....you think black guys will
destroy the US

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:33:20 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 08:02:32 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/05/2010 10:23 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2010 12:04:28 -0400, wrote:

in 1 day wall street wipes out a TRILLION DOLLARS from the
economy.

It was a trillion that never really existed in the first place. It was
just phony paper "money" they created out of thin air.

Some real truth to that. If you exclude dividents, where there is a
winner there is a loser. A zero sum game. The economy is say worth 100
units. Than the market swings are irrelivant, your percentage of the
units is all that maters.

Being a zero sum game, the odds are better than Vegas.


BP usually limits this rant to the CDOs and there is no equity
position in them.

do you know what the value of CDO's was in 2006? care to look it up?

yeah, i bitch about CDO's. because unlike you, i know how leveraged
they were.

you blame the middle class...

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 May 2010 12:04:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

in 1 day wall street wipes out a TRILLION DOLLARS from the
economy.

It was a trillion that never really existed in the first place. It was
just phony paper "money" they created out of thin air.


While it wasn't cash, if the stocks are sold (and many are), it would
certainly be real!

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 5/9/10 10:03 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlel7idnWiLI63lInvWnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 5/9/10 9:46 AM, BAR wrote:
In articler7CdnbMfxK9WK3vWnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 00:23:54 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 08 May 2010 12:04:28 -0400,
wrote:

in 1 day wall street wipes out a TRILLION DOLLARS from the
economy.

It was a trillion that never really existed in the first place. It
was
just phony paper "money" they created out of thin air.

really? i bet if your sold your stocks at the end of the day you'd
sse
it was real money.

you right wingers...dont even know how the stock market works...


Please tell us how YOU think the market works.

This ought to be interesting reading.

How the market works...

The little investor, typically, gets screwed in many different ways,
while the brokerage houses rip off the buyers and sellers.

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?






Tell us, oh educated one, are unions "little" investors? And most of the
unions with which I am familiar have extraordinarily diversified
investment accounts. And what has any of that to do with the fact that
brokerage houses rip off buyers and sellers?

You really are a pimp, aren't you?



--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Just how do the brokerage houses rip off the buyers and sellers? Are you
referring to big or small investors?

Is it like the employee's, union and non-union, that don't carry their share
of the work load, especially the ones employed by local, state and federal
units?

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

"hk" wrote in message
...
On 5/9/10 11:45 AM, BAR wrote:
In article1Y6dnXakXa8BSnvWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 5/9/10 11:35 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleVvKdneGGg9mESXvWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

You said the magic word, diversification, my financial planner is
always
telling me about the minimizing the downside. Diversificaiton
minimizes
the downside. Taking profits and distributing them among investments
is
the key to minimizing the downside and diversification.

I suppose you buy everything at cost? If you don't you are getting
ripped off by everyone.

My goal is to retire and have the same standard of living I have
today.
This is a foreign concept to you.


If I had the same standard of living you have today, I'd have to cut
way
back, *Boatless* Bert.

I have a mortgage to pay, we know you don't.





And once again, you demonstrate you are driven by your ignorance.

Do you have a mortgage to pay?



Yup.

More than one, actually.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

If I had a mortgage to pay I'd want my name on the deed. Unless of course
there was some nefarious reason for not having it there.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

In article ,
says...

Do you have a mortgage to pay?



Yup.

More than one, actually.


If I had a mortgage to pay I'd want my name on the deed. Unless of course
there was some nefarious reason for not having it there.


No assets means no judgements can be satisfied. Harry may be legally
destitute.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

Since 1950 the unions have succeded in two areas, corruption and killing
jobs.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:10:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:29:37 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:30:35 -0400, wrote:



BP doesn't actually play the market. He has told us that many times.
He has put all of his trust into one fund manager, the one that holds
his crumbling 401k.

guess he doesn't know what happened to the other 100,000,000 americans
who shared the same fate as i did.

the right thinks the middle class has tons of money. we don't. in
fact, over 50% of americans have less than 10K in their 401k's.

If you have only saved $10k how bad could you be hurt?

ROFLMAO!! i work ALL MY LIFE...save like a *******...

the right looks at this in 2 ways: both of which blame the middle
class

1. if you save ALOT then get screwed it's your fault because, in
addition to WORKING, you should spend ALL of your time watching your
stocks

2. if you save little, it's YOUR FAULT because you should have saved
more

dont you love it!


but the right ignores the middle class. they think only the rich
deserve any benefits at all

We have already established that you are making more money than me,
just not more solvent.

and i havent had a pay increase in 10 years. nor have the other 100M
americans in the middle class

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:34:50 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

no doubt the right thinks it is.

it's why the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 years

and that's a good thing, right?

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:46:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

Since 1950 the unions have succeded in two areas, corruption and killing
jobs.

and how did wall street do in the last 3 years? number of jobs
created? none.

pay increases to the middle class? none

unemployment? 8,000,000 jobs lost

thanks wall street!

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:50:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:34:50 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

The unions largely just priced themselves out of the market for any
job that could be exported. That is why the only unions that survive
nationally are government unions.

uh no. if that were the case then the germans would be in worse shape
than we are. 80% of their economy is export related, and their level
of unionization is FAR greater than ours.

more right wing bull****

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:14:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:34:03 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

notice he thinks 100,000,000 americans should spend all their time
sitting on their asses watching their stocks instead of raisin their
kids, building their communities, etc...

It should take you about an hour a week to manage investments. If your
financial security is not as important as watching Survivor on TV, you
are cheating your family.


gee. guess you havent heard that 100M americans are in the same shape
i am

a LOGICAL person would assume that some common cause was responsible.
after all, if 100M people were affected by a tsunami, would you blame
the dead?

if you're right wing, you would

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:16:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:35:44 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:36:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:18:09 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


the difference is that wall street is run by rich white guys.

obama's black.


That same computer executed my stop loss orders. I didn't have to do a
thing. I got a message that I traded, that was it.

i guess you didn't hear that the computer programs on wall street
destroyed a trillion. in 1 day.


Obama is a rich black guy, what;s your point?

irrelevant. that's another reason you hate him. an uppity black
guy...can't stand it, huh?

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:26:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:40:36 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Wall street prices are just the illusion of money.

really? ever sell any stock?


Yes, just last week and because of that I was part of the run on the
market that crashed the value of those stocks.

The fact remains that stock prices are based on what people are
buying, when they sell that "value" quickly disappears.

If there are a million shares of a stock that is selling for a buck
each you could say there was a million dollars worth of value out
there but if somebody actually tried to cash in more than a small
percentage of that stock it would quickly be a 50 cent stock.
In that regard the value is just an illusion.

hmm...it seems you dont know WHY companies are even ON wall street.
they are there for capitalization....looking for money to invest in
their companies. if wall street drops by a trillion, their
equty...their ability to raise money...drops by a trillion

All you have to do is look at a stock like Pets.Com to see that.
That was Clinton's bubble. In 2000 it looked like the economy was
booming but within a few months that booming stock market crashed when
people actually tried to cash in on that boom. The Nasdaq went from
6000 to 2000 in 12 months (Jan 2000 - Jan 2001). That was a crash you
can't blame on Bush.


that's OK. i can blame him for the one we're in now

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:28:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:42:16 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

by the way...what's the rate of inflation nowadays?

oh. there isn't any.


Bought any oil based products lately? (everything is oil based) There
is certainly inflation going on. The fed is just ignoring it and
borrowing to hide it by printing money.

really? got any proof?

or is the only proof you need listening to limballs?

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:33:13 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:43:06 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


BP usually limits this rant to the CDOs and there is no equity
position in them.

do you know what the value of CDO's was in 2006? care to look it up?


The value was zero, the price may have been high but we now know they
were worthless ... until the government threw tax dollars at them to
give them value.

ROFLMAO!! of COURSE THEY ARE WORTHLESS YOU MORON!! that's why we're in
a DEPRESSION

in 1996 CDO's were worth 1 trillion dollars

10 years later they were worth SIXTY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

and yet the right wing blames the middle class for wall street greed!

all you have to do is look at the numbers...but the right doesn't DO
this because they'd rather blame working folks



yeah, i bitch about CDO's. because unlike you, i know how leveraged
they were.


"leverage" is not a valid term when there were no real assets at all.
These were just side bets on leveraged securities with no direct
collateralized connection.

exactly the ****ing point you moron. wall street sold these things
like they were $10 whores. and when they went to 62 TRILLION,
investment houses said 'hey, we made our money, but we were just
joking'...

now let main street clean up the mess

but the right still blamed main street

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:38:41 -0400, wrote:

If you have only saved $10k how bad could you be hurt?

ROFLMAO!! i work ALL MY LIFE...save like a *******...

... and you don't have $10 grand?




We have already established that you are making more money than me,
just not more solvent.

and i havent had a pay increase in 10 years. nor have the other 100M
americans in the middle class

I suggest you find another job. I don't know anyone who has not had
some kind of raise in the last few years and several over the last 10
years.
Maybe it is time you moved on, your particular company is screwing you
and has you convinced it is that way for everyone.
That is simply not true.

pbuharic would rather soak in the pity, or full of BS. Mind you, with
the pity me attitude, maybe that is why he doesn't get a raise.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 10:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


Do you read your posts for fundimental rationality?

You say 7% of Amercians are union yet you say no unions exist in the
same sentance.

Have another drink **** for brains.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 11:46 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

Since 1950 the unions have succeded in two areas, corruption and killing
jobs.

No argument there.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 12:40 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:46:11 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

Since 1950 the unions have succeded in two areas, corruption and killing
jobs.

and how did wall street do in the last 3 years? number of jobs
created? none.

pay increases to the middle class? none

unemployment? 8,000,000 jobs lost

thanks wall street!


About 90,000,000 jobs. And think, the taxpayer didn't pay for any of them.

More like 20,000,000 but who is counting.

How many jobs did GM bailout create? Zero. They were long gone jobs.
Plenty a UAW/CAW out of work. Because people didn't need nor want their
over priced crap. So keep a GM, loose a Ford job...corruption.

Unions need a leash.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 5/9/10 4:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 09/05/2010 11:46 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

Since 1950 the unions have succeded in two areas, corruption and killing
jobs.

No argument there.




All the so-called union corruption from 1950 to the present day does not
add up to a large percentage of corporate corruption since 1980.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:21:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:38:41 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

If you have only saved $10k how bad could you be hurt?

ROFLMAO!! i work ALL MY LIFE...save like a *******...

... and you don't have $10 grand?

i dont have as much as i used to. and it's gonna take me awhile to get
back




We have already established that you are making more money than me,
just not more solvent.

and i havent had a pay increase in 10 years. nor have the other 100M
americans in the middle class

I suggest you find another job.

let me type this slowly so you, a right winger, can understand:

THE MIDDLE CLASS HAS NOT HAD A REAL INCREASE IN WAGES IN A DECADE...

OK get that?

middle class

no real wage increase

in 10 years

now, then, how many ways can i repeat that so even you understand?
unless you think the ENTIRE middle class is composed ONLY of me....

then you have to admit that's a problem

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:07:43 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/05/2010 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:38:41 -0400, wrote:

If you have only saved $10k how bad could you be hurt?

ROFLMAO!! i work ALL MY LIFE...save like a *******...

... and you don't have $10 grand?




We have already established that you are making more money than me,
just not more solvent.

and i havent had a pay increase in 10 years. nor have the other 100M
americans in the middle class

I suggest you find another job. I don't know anyone who has not had
some kind of raise in the last few years and several over the last 10
years.
Maybe it is time you moved on, your particular company is screwing you
and has you convinced it is that way for everyone.
That is simply not true.

pbuharic would rather soak in the pity, or full of BS. Mind you, with
the pity me attitude, maybe that is why he doesn't get a raise.

and you just love grabbing your ankles anyone with a 7 figure bank
account tells you to. it's what you live for

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:25:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:41:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:50:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:34:50 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

The unions largely just priced themselves out of the market for any
job that could be exported. That is why the only unions that survive
nationally are government unions.

uh no. if that were the case then the germans would be in worse shape
than we are. 80% of their economy is export related, and their level
of unionization is FAR greater than ours.

more right wing bull****

The Germans do not demand the kind of things American unions have
demanded. They are also holding the Greek's feet to the fire for the
stupid things their workers have negotiated for.

the germans have ALOT more vacation time than we do. they have ALOT
better unemployment insurance than we do. and it's a meaningless
statement to say that american unions have 'demanded' something the
germans havent

the fact is that

1. the rich have destroyed labor unions
2. the middle class wants to think of itself as 'professional' so
hates labor unions

THAT'S why there are no unions here


You also have a far more frugal society in Germany. They actually have
private savings, beyond what the pension plans save for them.

which has zip to do with labor unions. and americans have no pensions,
either.

see a pattern here? americans

-no wage increase in 10 years
-no pension
-work harder than any other industrialzed country
-rotten unemployment insurance
-no health insurance if you lose your job

and no labor unions...

gee....wonder if there's a connection

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:11:04 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/05/2010 10:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


Do you read your posts for fundimental rationality?

You say 7% of Amercians are union yet you say no unions exist in the
same sentance.

Have another drink **** for brains.

hey genius....7% means zip.

tell me which political party had 7% of the vote last year. 7% means
no power at all. none.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:42:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


a LOGICAL person would assume that some common cause was responsible.
after all, if 100M people were affected by a tsunami, would you blame
the dead?

if you're right wing, you would

If the 100m people went to the beach that day to see the tsunami I
would blame them.

gee. 100M people at the beach

well, i suppose if you're right wing, you HAVE to invent SOME idiotic
excuse....


If these people did not have any personal savings and they spent
significantly more than they made, I blame them too.

and if the middle class hasnt had a real wage increase in 10 years,
you have to invent SOME idiotic reason it's their fault...


BTW where do you get that 100m number you keep throwing around as
fact? If I believe the definition of middle class that was established
here ($100k to $200k) the total number of households is more like 13
million.

there are about 110M wage earners in this country. the middle class
generally is the middle 20-80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 2:17 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:07:43 -0600,
wrote:

On 09/05/2010 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:38:41 -0400, wrote:

If you have only saved $10k how bad could you be hurt?

ROFLMAO!! i work ALL MY LIFE...save like a *******...

... and you don't have $10 grand?




We have already established that you are making more money than me,
just not more solvent.

and i havent had a pay increase in 10 years. nor have the other 100M
americans in the middle class

I suggest you find another job. I don't know anyone who has not had
some kind of raise in the last few years and several over the last 10
years.
Maybe it is time you moved on, your particular company is screwing you
and has you convinced it is that way for everyone.
That is simply not true.

pbuharic would rather soak in the pity, or full of BS. Mind you, with
the pity me attitude, maybe that is why he doesn't get a raise.

and you just love grabbing your ankles anyone with a 7 figure bank
account tells you to. it's what you live for

No to the ankles, but I shake off the little weasels snipes when they
hang on.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:38:18 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:43:23 -0400, bpuharic wrote:



That same computer executed my stop loss orders. I didn't have to do a
thing. I got a message that I traded, that was it.

i guess you didn't hear that the computer programs on wall street
destroyed a trillion. in 1 day.

It was far more than a simple computer glitch. Greece and the possible
crash of the Euro was a lot more troubling than one trader typing
billion when he meant million. Most of that was recovered by the end
of trading.

uh, no. the market had dropped a few hundred points over the previous
week as the scope of the greek problem became news. a drop of 1
trillion in 1 day had zip to do with greece.



Obama is a rich black guy, what;s your point?

irrelevant. that's another reason you hate him. an uppity black
guy...can't stand it, huh?

Have you ever seem me type anything criticizing Obama's race?

hey i just leave the dead cats at the door. i look at you right
wingers HYSTERICAL about a black guy

and saying absolutely NOTHING about bush...nothing. not a peep.

now, why is that?

cite it.
You are just trying to deflect the conversation away from your
failures to plan.

yeah. me and 100M other working poeple

the right wants to blame the middle class instead of wall strteet

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 2:16 PM, bpuharic wrote:

THE MIDDLE CLASS HAS NOT HAD A REAL INCREASE IN WAGES IN A DECADE...

So? What did they do to improve themselves if they are in that
situation? Jacking crap? Poodle pumping?

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:45:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:45:59 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

really? ever sell any stock?



hmm...it seems you dont know WHY companies are even ON wall street.
they are there for capitalization....looking for money to invest in
their companies. if wall street drops by a trillion, their
equty...their ability to raise money...drops by a trillion

Perhaps you are the one who doesn't understand how stocks work. When a
company offers shares they get all the money they are going to get
right then. After that the stocks are just baseball cards that trade
without the company seeing another dime. They can sell more stock but,
again, it is a one time shot.

stock is fungible. companies can, and do buy and sell their own stock.
and their ability to raise MORE equity is affected when the stock
price drops

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 2:16 PM, hk wrote:
On 5/9/10 4:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 09/05/2010 11:46 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses?
Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

Since 1950 the unions have succeded in two areas, corruption and killing
jobs.

No argument there.




All the so-called union corruption from 1950 to the present day does not
add up to a large percentage of corporate corruption since 1980.


Agreed there. Corporate and governemnt corruption also had a part.

Ever notice how government revenue goes up and personal wealth goes down?

Hell, my gross is great it is the net after taxes that sucks.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:50:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:46:35 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:28:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:42:16 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

by the way...what's the rate of inflation nowadays?

oh. there isn't any.


Bought any oil based products lately? (everything is oil based) There
is certainly inflation going on. The fed is just ignoring it and
borrowing to hide it by printing money.

really? got any proof?

or is the only proof you need listening to limballs?


The proof I have is I go to the gas station, the grocery store and I
pay a cable bill (until I fired them). What is not going up?

?? so your little 7-11 grocery store is the entire US economy?

gee. i had no idea it was so busy


The BLS agrees with me but you know how those government people lie.

really? again, i ask

where's your proof?


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

EXACTLY!! finally you get it you IDIOT!!

inflation is running at about 2.5%. and it's been that way for YEARS.

but you right wingers think it's like zimbabwe...

paranoia...tin foil hat paranoia

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:55:26 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:49:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:33:13 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:43:06 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


BP usually limits this rant to the CDOs and there is no equity
position in them.

do you know what the value of CDO's was in 2006? care to look it up?


The value was zero, the price may have been high but we now know they
were worthless ... until the government threw tax dollars at them to
give them value.

ROFLMAO!! of COURSE THEY ARE WORTHLESS YOU MORON!! that's why we're in
a DEPRESSION

in 1996 CDO's were worth 1 trillion dollars

10 years later they were worth SIXTY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

You seem to be confusing "value" and "price".

There were people who paid a thousand dollars for a cabbage patch doll
but that did not mean they were worth $1000. A year later they were 99
cents at the Goodwill.

IOW you dont know what a financial instrument is.

figures. no wonder you want to blame the middle class.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 12:41 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:50:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:34:50 -0400, wrote:

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

The unions largely just priced themselves out of the market for any
job that could be exported. That is why the only unions that survive
nationally are government unions.

uh no. if that were the case then the germans would be in worse shape
than we are. 80% of their economy is export related, and their level
of unionization is FAR greater than ours.

more right wing bull****

Neither their unions, government nor corporations like GM and Citi are
as corrupt.

Simple answer.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:41:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:50:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:34:50 -0400, wrote:

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

The unions largely just priced themselves out of the market for any
job that could be exported. That is why the only unions that survive
nationally are government unions.

uh no. if that were the case then the germans would be in worse shape
than we are. 80% of their economy is export related, and their level
of unionization is FAR greater than ours.

more right wing bull****

The Germans do not demand the kind of things American unions have
demanded. They are also holding the Greek's feet to the fire for the
stupid things their workers have negotiated for.

Quite true. Not just the Germans either, Japan too. There the unions
are expected to and do consider the health of the company and it's products.

You also have a far more frugal society in Germany. They actually have
private savings, beyond what the pension plans save for them.

True again. US is a net debtor society. Totally out of balance. I
used to think mortgage deductability was good, but it causes people to
be 55 and in debt on their home. If you manage your finances at all, by
early 40's you should not be in debt at all.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 09/05/2010 12:39 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 9 May 2010 13:34:50 -0400, wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:40:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:19:26 -0400, wrote:

Tell me where the unions invest their pension funds? Mattresses? Tin
cans buried in the back yard? Stuffed in boxes in basements?

there are no unions in the US.

Certainly there are, they cover teachers,

7% of american workers are covered by unions. there are no unions in
the US. as the 'economist' magazine pointed out last month, the US has
the most anti-union work environment of 30 industrialized countries


And that is a good thing.

no doubt the right thinks it is.

it's why the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 years

and that's a good thing, right?

You mean the envious gutter snipes think it should be this way.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.