flipper wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:10:06 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:38:40 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
She-e-e-esh ****!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...N8L2k&refer=us

Are you surprised? Good thing the Senate jumped in to save the
economy, now the market is down 300.....dickheads.


And you think it would be 'up' if there was no bill?

It was yesterday, wasn't it? Oh that's right, it's only because of
the hope of the bill still becoming law. Now that there's really
hope for the bill, why is the market tanking? In case you hadn't
noticed, the dollar posted its strongest gains in over 5 years when
their was no bill. The price of oil also fell. Do you think these
things were bad?

Depends on how one defines 'bad'. Oil is lower because they expect
demand to be lower in a recession. Is a recession 'bad'?

Would higher oil prices help?

Gee look, the markets were up all day, right until they passed the
ballout.

You don't suppose factory orders being dramatically lower and higher
than expected unemployment figures, to name but a few factors, had
anything to do with it, eh?

The market was still moving up after all that bad news came out and didn't
really start tanking until they started voting. Just look at the timeline;
it speaks for itself.

And looky there, now you just can't shut the *******s up on how
"this wasn't meant to have any immediate effect"

I guess "the *******s" felt it necessary to remind idiots that nothing
'real' happens overnight, especially not a 700 billion plan that
they've told you can be spent no faster than 50bn a month even if you
just shoved bags of money into helicopters and rained it down on
people.

"Only" 50B/month... Makes me wonder if you actually have any comprehension
of what kind of money that is?

and if "it works as we hope". No
promises now,

There never were any 'promises' other than it being the 'best thing'
they could think of.

Sure there were promises, but "fear mongering" would be a better term for
them. Remember if we didn't do it, there was going to be a "long and
painful" recovery, they promised.

Doesn't mean I agree it's the 'best thing' but at least I'm not dumb
enough to think the economy is going to be 'cured' overnight from
simply 'hearing' a bill was passed.

Only an imbecile would think that the cure to a problem caused by mis-spent
money is to give more money to the same individuals that caused the problem.
This "solution" was proposed by the very people that didn't even see it
coming, what makes them qualified? Can you provide any example of where
something like this has worked before anywhere in the world? Can you tell
me of any economy that recovered after being 11 Trillion dollars in debt?

It also isn't, even if it 'works', going to return the 'economy' to
2005 and the heyday of cheap subprime loans people can't afford
because that's how we got into this mess. At least we hope that
mistake isn't repeated.

Who would want that? People like Lou Dobbs were trying to tell us what a
bad idea that was back then. Now those same people are telling you that the
bailout is/was a serious mistake. But then what the hell does Lou Dobbs
know about economics.... or running a socialistic country for that
matter....

even though they had to cram it down our throats with a big
side order of pork. Let's do the math, about 2 trillion in
circulation (best guess since it seems to be a secret these days),
the Fed will just print up another 700B. That should only devalue
everything we all own by roughly 25-30%, what a sweet deal for us,
huh?


How does buying an asset 'devalue' the asset?

I didn't say that it did, but then how would buying a worthless asset
suddenly make it worth something? My point was that printing more money has
a consequence. If you don't understand that basic economic consequence,
then this debate is a complete waste of time.