home

Stock Market Plunging Open Thread

The Dow is down 440 points in the first half hour of the trading day. The Fed held an emergency meeting and cut the prime interest rate of 3/4 by a point. Recession seems to be here. And George W. Bush is the President for the next year. This is not good. This is an Open Thread.

< The Debate On Healthcare: Mandates | Who Went Negative Last Night? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    CNBC is Hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    "300 Isn't that much." "Let's look at the stocks that are up."

    They are all positively frightening (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:58:17 AM EST
    aren't they?  I haven't turned anything on yet.  I'm not ready to hear the utter BS, need more coffee.

    Parent
    Will I (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    Will I have to pay taxes on the check I get?

    You talking about.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:58:17 AM EST
    Bush's proposed 8 hundo rebate?

    Best idea he's ever had....hope it happens.  Going to Vegas in March and could use a boost to the roll.

    Parent

    Tip well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:06:42 AM EST
    Those show girls got families to feed. Really.

    Parent
    I don't believe in tipping..... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    I believe in over-tipping:)

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    it will be tax credit on taxes owed.

    That means no money if you haven't paid anything.

    Parent

    I pay..... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    all year long I pay.  800 back would be a most pleasant surpise.

    Parent
    Yes it would (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    We'll see what the Demo controlled Congress comes up with.

    Parent
    Being a big election year.... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:12:56 AM EST
    I'd say the chances are good...it's pandering season:)

    Maybe the parties will start a bidding war and keep upping the rebate....

    Hillary:  800/1600 is not enough for working families to combat inflation, I propose 1000/2000.

    Bush:  Oh no you don't, nobody out tax cuts my party, 1200/2400.  Legacy saved!

    Obama:  We need change, 1500/3000.

    Rudy:  Only a larger rebate can prevent the next attack, 2000/4000.

    And so on, and so on.

    Parent

    Times like this.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:55:09 AM EST
    I'm glad I only gamble on cards, ponies and the roulette wheel.  

    Sell Mortimer...Sell !!!!!  Turn the machines back on !!!!

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:56:58 AM EST
    Trading Places? (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    I've worked in the building in Philadelphia where part of the movie was shot.

    Parent
    You bet..... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:08:43 AM EST
    One of my alltime favorite comedies.

    Whatever happened to Beeks?

    Parent

    this is only a patch (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:04:43 AM EST
    They have basically just delayed the problem. They are buying time to get a plan in place.

    How long the "patch" will last? Who knows. History of the 1982 recession... lesson ...inflation with interest slash only postpones recessions.

    If they manage to pull off the delay... we may have a president in office that knows what they are doing.

    first thing i would do, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    is buy as much of that lower priced stock as i could, now, before they wake up and realize the world as we know it hasn't ended.

    jim, you are clearly ignorant of certain economic fundamentals:

    • "homeownership at record levels": forclosures, especially in the sub-prime market, are also at record levels. this is the market that fed that record level of home ownership.

    • "unemployment is near 5%": the count fails to include those still unemployed after 18 months, so that % is itself a fiction. being employed, at $10 an hour, with no benefits, is probably worse than being unemployed.

    • "interest rates are low": because the fed, in a desperate effort to feed a recession, has been dropping the discount rate for two years now. it hasn't worked. credit card & revolving charge rates are at historic highs.

    • "the stock market, even at 11,600 is near a record high...": fair enough. however, if your 401(k) (invested in those stocks suffering a huge drop in mv) lost 20% of its value overnight, this probably comes as small comfort to you.

    the drop in the stock market is not the end of the world. it is, however, indicative of the overall fiscal mismanagement consistently displayed by the current administration.

    Oh where do I begin... (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    My portfolio is off about 15%. Am I happy? No. But I still have large long term gains. The most honest thing a broker ever told me was that investing was long term. Trying to "beat" the market with short term buying/selling was gambling.

    The average person trying to "beat" the market would have a better chance if they went to Las Vegas and played blackjack. They will know more about what they are doing, plus they can get free booze, food and lodging...

    Interest rates have been lowered in an attempt to help those in trouble. Just ask those with ARMs.

    5% is 5% and your claim re 18 months is a standard claim of the Demos and the Left. Show some facts.

    The subprime is a mess and we need to take a long hard look at how we got there and put up some firewalls. But the real problem is not subprime loans. Let me explain:

    A subprime loan is one in which the intrest rate is higher than "prime." Say the prime is 5.5% on a 30 year fixed... it has been around that for several years.. That's what Jack Has Good credit risk with 20% down gets. He pays about $1100/month/30 years plus taxes/insurance.

    Up comes Joe Hasn't Paid his bills, and he gets about 7%. He pays about $1400/month/30 years plus taxes/insurance/PMI. Actually, it is worse than that.

    Jack paid 20% down. Joe paid 5% down, so his mortgage is $237,500. So now he pays about $1650/month/30 years plus taxes/insurance/PMI.

    Oh, that PMI? That's mortgage insurance Joe buys to protect the lender in the case Joe defaults. I don't know the current rates, but I would guess on Joe's mortgage it would be about $150. So his payment is now $1700 a month plus taxes and insurance. (PMI can usually be terminated when the borrower's equity reaches 20%, either by appraised value and/or paying down the loan.)

    Now Joe couldn't pay $1100 a month with enough confidence to lend him money at 5.5%, so how can he pay $1700??

    Enter the VILLIAN, Mr. Adjustable Rate Mortgage.

    They sell Joe an ARM at 3%, that adjusts a max of 2% (up or down)interest rate changes a year based on the CMT

    His initial payment is about $1150 plus PMI, taxes, insurance... Now that's tight, but doable... But the CMT goes up and now it is 5% and he is at about $1300... comes the second year and the CMT goes up and he is at 7% and he's at $1600... actually $1750 with PM and he's in deep dodo.

    Now. Go back to the CMT. Watch how it started falling in 2000 in response to the Internet bubble bursting... watch it fall to a bottom in 2003 remain flat and then start to climb in 2005 peaking in 2007.... And that, dear cpinva, is what drove the downturn...The new Fed chairman started cutting, but the cuts weren't quick enough or deep enough.

    And that's why all of last year I was taking money out at the highs and buying back at the lows. I call it "milking."

    btw - The market has gained back about 320 points...will it get better or worse?? I have no idea. But I do know the economy is basically sound, but we do have some problems. And it isn't housing.... It is the cost of energy. Why? Because that is the straw that broke Joe's back and has bruised Jack.

    Perhaps the Left will join me in condemning all the nutso environmental wackos who have blocked nuclear power and drilling for oil wherever we can find it.

    In my world people are more important than polar bears, snail darters or pigeons. But then I am a social liberal and not a Leftie.


    Parent

    Just a few snippets from German radio (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    As I write this, the station I listen to is having their evening news, 5:30 PM their time.  
    First, they are pretty clear that this is as bad a crash - and they use the German word for "crash" - as has been seen in a very long time.

    At one point, the announcer makes a remark about "how much of your retirement do you have in stock?" and, at another, about the old joke "Wanna buy some stock?" (the same one I remember cracking, feeling smug for having chosen law school a few weeks before one of the big '80s crashes) regaining currency.

    Then, there's a brief backgrounder-type piece, about bubbles and crashes throughout history.  They recapitualate the history of the Dutch Tulip Bulb craze, skip the South Seas bubble (not relevant to their history), talk about the panic of 1873 (relevant to their history) and then about 1929.  They rehearse the statements of economists prior to the 1929 crash, about how the market has reached a new high plateau and is not expected to decline, ever, from there.  And then they talk about the sequelae of the 1929 crash.

    They conclude the commentary by noting that responsible experts do not see any bottom, soon (or otherwise).

    Button up, kids.  It's gonna get a lot colder.

    Did they mention 1987?? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:39:45 AM EST
    No. (none / 0) (#71)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:31:37 PM EST
    Nothing about 1987.  Didn't really affect them, as stock ownership really didn't get started in Europe (as a widespread thing) until very recently.  Part of that, IIRC, was that stock splitting was never really undertaken on anything resembling the scale it takes on here.  So, that one share of X GmbH that Count Great-Grandpa bought way back when might trade at 10,000, instead of having split over the years to become 100 shares trading at 100.  Entry cost in stocks for average people was just too high.  And, another part was extensive government and institutional holdings of European stocks, done to get seats on the board and thereby effect government policy through the corporations.  (sort of the reverse of what goes on here, where corporations own the government)

    They did remark on the telecom bubble, and inferred this is the real estate bubble.


    Parent

    The Demos need to act (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    So, that one share of X GmbH that Count Great-Grandpa bought way back when might trade at 10,000, instead of having split over the years to become 100 shares trading at 100.

    Stock splits often depress the value. It is not unusual to see a 2 for 1 that was trading at $100 take a 10% or so per cent hit.

    And yes, this is the real estate bubble, actually the bank bubble. And that's why I'm optimistic. The problem is defined, and can be fixed before it becomes wide spread... If the Demo controlled Congress will get off it collective as* and act.  The fact that Demos have no vested interest in having a great economy in the near term scares the hell out of me.

    Parent

    My point about splits was more (none / 0) (#78)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:30:27 AM EST
    that the lack of them in European stocks created highly valued stocks that ordinary folks could not afford to buy.  In other words, no splits created a barrier to entry by ordinary people.  I was not discussing the aspect of value hits following splits.  

    The barrier(s) to entry into the stock market by ordinary people effectively kept them out of the investment market until very recently - which meant the ups and downs of the market had very little direct effect on their pocketbooks.  By "direct", I mean "OMG, my stock is today worth half/double what it was yesterday!" with the concomitant poverty/wealth effect on the individual's life.

    Parent

    Any reactions to Hillary Clinton's (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    throw away line at last night's debate about how the biggies ask for money from a middle eastern county (can't remember which one) and make it through while the little people lose their homes?

    Bush may (none / 0) (#7)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:00:23 AM EST
    up the $ for stimulus plan. Lowering the 3/4 point with inflation concerns may not be the best way to handle the economy.

    75 basis points (none / 0) (#9)
    by Klio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    that's a blunder by the fed.  did they really think it would calm the markets?


    My first thought. . . (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:30:56 AM EST
    holy frijoles, this must be serious.

    (Not frijoles, exactly, but my actual thought is redacted according to site guidelines).

    Parent

    You're race baiting . . . (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:33:02 AM EST
    I'm the master. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    They are trying to do something (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    .....anything.  Too late though.  Bush tanked it before he left office and thank God it happened on his watch since he and his minions DID IT!

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM EST
    What exactly is that "they" did??

    Unemployment is near 5%, home ownership at record levels, interest rates are low... The stock market, even at 11,600 is near a record high...

    Tell me oh financial guru, what did he do?

    Parent

    The stock market performance (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:41:50 AM EST
    is not one to tout under the Bush Administration.

    The Bush economic record overall is well nigh disastrous imo.

    But it is a fact that the stock market has been performing as poorly as it has in decades under the Bush Administration.

    Parent

    If you believe that (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:20:53 AM EST
    then I believe that you are a better lawyer than a financial guy.

    Parent
    About the stock market? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    Sorry that is a fact.

    Parent
    heh (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    Tell us what is bad??

    Go back to Jan 2001....and then play it forward..

    Do you even remember what happened in late 2000??

    Parent

    Try some facts. (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    1967 - 1982: Bear market. Traders deal with a stagnant economy in an inflationary monetary environment. The Dow enters two long downturns in 1970 and 1974; during the latter, it falls nearly 45% to the bottom of a 20-year range. The index approaches the 1,000 milestone at the top of its range three times in 1972, 1976 and 1981, but fails to break the mark decisively.

    1982 - 2000: Superbull market. The Dow experiences its most spectacular rise in history. From a meager 777 on August 12, 1982, the index grows more than 1,500% to 11,722.98 (actual and theoretical intra-day highs of 11,750.28 and 11,908.50) by January 14, 2000, with the exception of a slight turndown in the late 1980s.

    2000 - 2003: Bear market. The Dow struggles with the 10,000 - 11,000 range for a year and then deteriorates into a panic atmosphere of severe declines punctuated by brief and violent rallies. The index hits a closing low of 7,286.27 (actual and theoretical intra-day lows of 7,197.49 and 7,181.47 the following day), 38% below its highs, on October 9, 2002. The records of early 2000 stand until the fourth quarter of 2006.

    2003 - present: Bull market

    Yes, I'm gonna say we are still in a bull market, although I may be wrong.

    link

    Parent

    hehe (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    Most of the above was written before the end of trading in the US.

    In fact, the Toronto part was written yesterday. \

    The Kuwait market is about 9 hours ahead, the SE Asia markets  are about 24 hours ahead...

    These were undoubtedly  a factor in the NYSE's early performance TODAY.

    The market gained back about 340 points, for a net loss of about 120 points.

    Where's it going??? I don't know and neither do you.

    Remember those now crying gloom and doom were shilling joyful news a year ago.

    Parent

    enjoy (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:21:15 PM EST
    Ya got me, I should have said a day.. It's now 3:15AM Thursday in Tokoyo...5:15AM in Sydney

    Parent
    Nothing to be concerned about, ppj... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    ...as long as you keep the blinders on nice and tight.

    Last week sucked in the US stock market. It posted its worst week in five years. As if it weren't bad enough, the developmentally disabled son of the Bush family, George, announced his economic rescue package, which was so embarassing it sent a shock wave around the world. (It had something to do with giving US citizens $800 to spend shopping at Wal-mart -- or something like that.)

    As a result, the entire world sold off their markets overnight (Monday).

    Europe was thrashed. Europe's Dow Jones Stoxx 600 index fell 4.1%. That's the most it's plummeted since the September 11th attacks. The German Dax fell the most since 2003 (down 5.3%). The CAC 40 (which tracks French stocks) and FTSE 100 (which tracks the U.K.) also sank tremendously.

        It wasn't any better in the Far East. Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index had its biggest drop in six years - 5.5%. Japan's Nikkei 225 Index slipped 3.9%. India's Sensitive Index dropped the most since 2004. Australia's stock market fell for the 11th straight day.

    The world is now convinced that a recession is coming in the United States. And a US recession will cause other economies around the world to slow down.

    Furthermore, the Fed can't cut interest rates fast enough at this point to save the economy.



    Parent
    How much money do you (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    have in the market??

    Parent
    After eight years of Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:47:10 AM EST
    and after her policies iron all this out and our economy is stable again and the middle class is living on tangible wealth again do all of you conservative voodoo Reaganomics cheerleaders promise to stop acting this naive about what your destructive to everyone but the rich policies tend to do to the overall wellbeing of America?

    Parent
    Hilarconics??? (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    Yes, what we need is a tax increase to take money out of the economy. Let me see.... my take home just went down 10% so what do I do...

    I know!!!  Spend less!!!

    BTW - Do you realize that if you want to drop the price of gas, all you have to do is get rid of the approximately 50 cents per gallon taxes...

    Next time you fill up, say 14 gallons.... remember that you are giving the governments about $7.00.
    Think about that.

    Parent

    Heh, I knew that would chap (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    your fanny.  You're so easy ;)

    Parent
    So you don't want a solution?? (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    Hey, I understand.

    It is all about power for the Left. That is why they attacked the war, and now attack the economy.

    All they want is to be elected.

    To heck with Joe and Jane Sixpack.

    Parent

    What's Clinton's plan? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:13:14 AM EST
    More Walmarts? More NAFTA? More media consolidation? The last Clinton gave us voodoo lite.

    Parent
    He squandered (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:54:54 AM EST
    a trillion dollars of our kids future in a stupid, unneccessary (sp) war.  He presided over 2 recessions.  He did almost nothing for job creation or investing in growth.  Foreclosures are at an all time high as a result of predatory lending, false security and a direct order from the pres to "spend".

    Economically, GWB will be rated in the top 3 worst of all time.

    Parent

    One could say.... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    the "ownership" society is going belly up, headed to foreclosure.

    In a capitalist system, not everyone can be an owner.  Capitalist systems need ditchdiggers too, Danny.

    Parent

    I own (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:10:08 AM EST
    a credit card.

    Parent
    I suppose that also means (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    the credit card company owns you....

    Parent
    Don't give 'em ideas...... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    I wonder if everybody stopped paying their credit card bills all at once, how long it would take till debtors prisons opened up again.

    Parent
    So that's what he meant.... (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    by ownership....ownership of a pile of debt:)

    Parent
    I grew up (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    in a world where we had no money, no credit cards, owned no homes....

    Do you think that was better?

    You are complaining with your mouth full.

    Parent

    And you are talking with your head empty. (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    What an ignorant comment. (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    Accurate. (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    Wants substantiation? Read your comments.

    Parent
    What an ignorant comment. (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:15:37 PM EST
    Tough huh, ppj. (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:04:24 AM EST
    You really hate being called on being yourself don't you... There's a simple solution. Stop being so ignorant.

    Parent
    What an ignorant comment. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    Another one, huh... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    Is that all you have?

    Parent
    What an ignorant comment. (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    Yes, I know that's all you have, ppj. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    You're off the hook now. We know you can't help yourself.

    Parent
    What an ignorant comment. (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:09:03 PM EST
    You mean you can help yourself? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:04:26 PM EST
    And you you don't think you should be let off the hook?

    Parent
    edgey (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:23:08 PM EST
    You wouldn't know hard times if it walked up an but you on the butt.

    Parent
    Nice to know you are an expert on my life, ppj (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    You must be. Otherwise you'd be talking with your head empty. Again.

    Parent
    Hard times is what makes (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:24:33 PM EST
    you dance to Massa's tune. Everyday, all the time. Apparently.

    They used call that being called up to the big house.

    Parent

    I'm not complaining..... (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    I'm well aware that my belly is full and my bed is warm and thats all you really need.  In fact, I thought I was gloating because my cards and ponies are running better than your stocks at the moment:)

    It just rubs me the wrong way when people spread this fantasy that we can all own a home and be executives.  It's possible for any individual to do it in our system...but not all of society.  Our system doesn't work that way...no system does.  

    Parent

    Are you telling me (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    that there can't be a chicken in every pot??

    ;-)

    As for my stocks... How do you know I don't have a bunch of'em shorted??

    Parent

    You said you're down 15%.....n/t (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    You're right... (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    But I wish I had shorted....

    The 15% is since the first of the year.. Thankfully I took a chunk out and moved it into money markets..

    Still, from 03 through 07 my annual return was better than 11%. (11.56%)


    Parent

    There's something happening here. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    What is ain't exactly clear.

    To some people.

    Parent

    If economic fears stay the #1 issue this year (none / 0) (#10)
    by mtj on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:07:38 AM EST
      it will help Romney and Clinton in the primaries. It would also help Clinton more in the general election. McCain knows nothing about the economy. In fact, he's even admitted it. Obama doesn't have the  the same credibility on the economy the Clintons. Experience is now becoming important. Things can change quickly but Obama's change message and McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" message are going to be drowned out for a while. It's the economy stupid!    

    The race is over (none / 0) (#33)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    It will be between Clinton and McCain. Let's start hearing some plans for digging out of this mess.

    Parent
    According to a (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    newly published global oil supply report to be presented by the Energy Watch Group at the Foreign Press Association in London, world oil production peaked in 2006. Production will start to decline at a rate of several percent per year. By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame.

    "The most alarming finding is the steep decline of the oil supply after peak", warns Jörg Schindler from the Energy Watch Group. This result, together with the timing of the peak, is obviously in sharp contrast to the projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA). "Since crude oil is the most important energy carrier at a global scale and since all kinds of transport rely heavily on oil, the future oil availability is of paramount importance as it entails completely different actions by politics, business and individuals.", says Schindler.

    This cautious energy outlook corresponds with statements made by former US Defense Secretary and CIA Director, James Schlesinger, who said at a recent oil summit in Cork: "The battle is over, the oil peakists have won. Current US energy policy and the administration's oil strategy in Iraq and Iran are deluded."
    ...
    "The oil boom is over and will not return. All of us must get used to a different lifestyle.", said King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the largest global oil producer. For quite some time, a hot debate has been going on regarding peak oil. Institutions close to the energy industry, like CERA, are engaging in a campaign trying to debunk peak oil as a "theory". However, the EWG report shows that peak oil is real. The world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system. This change will be triggered by a sharp decline of fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of daily life.
    ...
    "My experience of debating the peak oil issue with the oil industry, and trying to alert Whitehall to it, is that there is a culture of institutionalised denial in government and the energy industry. As the evidence of an early peak in production unfolds, this becomes increasingly impossible to understand", says Jeremy Leggett, the Solarcentury CEO and former member of the British Government's Renewables Advisory Board.

    video presentation...

    Peak oil (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    is a theory that came out of the mouths of oil execs. I don't believe it. I think we'll melt the poles before we run out of oil. Both poles.

    In 1975 the other George Bush, on his way out as head of the CIA, dropped a report on Jimmy Carter's desk saying that the USSR would start running out of oil within five years and would invade the Middle East. That was a big lie then. Why would you believe it now? The oil companies want to justify using the U.S. military so that they can extract oil cheaply and sell it for more money. If you remember the oil shortage in 1980, there were tankers sitting offshore in order to produce a shortage. Refineries were shut down, which is another trick the oil companies use.

    There is nothing more important that the oil companies want than to make people so afraid that they are willing to engage in wars so that oil companies can get a better price.

    Parent

    You might want to do a little more research. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    Although it sounds like you'd rather not.

    Parent
    Gotta say, I'm with Bob on this one (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    I know - about as solidly as can be known - that the price of gas was deliberately kept low in 2006 so the Repugs wouldn't take a worse beating than they did.

    Parent
    It was, yes. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:54:37 AM EST
    But that really has not much to do with the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource.

    Did you watch the video?

    Parent

    I Think It Is A (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    Coin toss as to how much oil there is. Palast  has written a lot about Venezuela's oil bounty. I do not trust the BushCo OPEC people at all. They gain the most by stories about dwindling oil supply.

    As far as I know there is no way to tell about dwindling oil supplies. It seems that a market that is totally artificial, IOW where the supply is controlled by the producers and the price is set by the producers is arbitrary.

    It also seems odd that whenever conservation measures are attempted to be legislated they never stick. The auto industry is a perfect example.

    Still it would be to our advantage to harness wind, solar, hydrogen etc so that we get those guys off out backs.

    Parent

    These are not BushCo people I quoted. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    I Know (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    Besides (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:13:41 PM EST
    The report is theoretical. There is no information available on the amount of oil in the ground because the oil producers will not release that data.

    The analysis in this paper does not primarily rely on reserve data which are difficult to assess and to verify and in the past frequently have turned out to be unreliable. The history of discoveries is a better indicator though the individual data are of varying
    quality. Rather the analysis is based primarily on production data which can be observed more easily and are also more reliable.

    Do I believe King Abdullah? No.

    Do I believe Chavez? Not really but a little more than the others.

    Parent

    Not theoretical. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    Methodology
    The analysis in this paper does not primarily rely on reserve data which are difficult to assess and to verify and in the past frequently have turned out to be unreliable. The history of discoveries is a better indicator though the individual data are of varying quality. Rather the analysis is based primarily on production data which can be observed more easily and are also more reliable. Historical discovery and production patterns allow to project future discoveries and - where peak production has already been reached - future production patterns.

    The analysis is based on an industry database for past production data and partly also for reserve data for certain regions. As reserve data vary widely and as there is no audited reference, the authors have in some cases made their own reserve estimates based on various sources and own assessments. Generally, future production in regions which are already in decline can be predicted fairly accurately relying solely on past production data.
    ...
    Only oil that has been found before can be produced. Therefore, the peak of discoveries which took place a long time ago in the 1960s, will some day have to be followed by a peak of production.

    EWG Oil Report Executive Summary (.pdf)

    Parent
    Yes I Saw THat (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    The analysis is based on an industry database for past production data and partly also for reserve data for certain regions

    I believe that it is a theoretical analysis because it is based on abstractions, not actual measurements of the oil in the ground. Many want to know how much oil the producing countries have. From what I understand it is a closely guarded secret.

    That being said I am also arguing for getting off the stuff and investing in renewable energy sources that are less damaging to the environment.

    Parent

    The way I read it, really... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    ...is that we are either at or past "real" peak oil, OR... we are either at or past an "oil company contrived" peak oil.

    Same effect, either way....

    Parent

    Well I certainly hope Hiillary has some (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:56:23 AM EST
    good ideas on how to get out of the subprime mess, considering it was her husband and Henry Ciseros who
    encouraged the development of the subprime debacle through legislation like [Clinton's] Community Reinvestment Act, which they say forces banks to lend to otherwise uncreditworthy consumers.[39] Economist Robert Kuttner has criticized [Clinton's] repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the subprime meltdown.