amanda more

He is pulling links from emails he gets or "he" is more than one person. I have met people who run a social media company who pay people and get paid to go into sites and add content. They usually talk about the latest style jeans but I can imagine it is a part of "social media strategy" for politicos too. The more links you add the more you get paid. The Tea party is well funded so I can see his laundry list of links could be paid for by them. His inability to respond to anyone else's input doesnt bode well for someone who cares to use forums to think and respond. So is the reason no one cares and/or cares to examine the huge number of food insecure children what? Here the facts get in the way of what? I am truly asking. It mystifies me that so little concern during a recession perhaps depression is turned towards this. Why?

The first article show a revising up from a revising down so a net revising down. I guess if there is unscientific skewing I am ok with "erring on the side of caution" and not saying it is a smidgeon worse than it is. I do stand kind of corrected because I was following by hearing media instead of going to the source. GDP from the source http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm : The graph doesnt look good to me. I hate it that they dont date their pages so dont know if this is current revision. Reason: Stimulus had a huge effect enriching Washington DC drawing college graduates which has skewed the attitudes of people who run us causing them to talk of ridiculous stuff because reality of the country is so easy to ignore. That does not bode well for the future economy when the tiny minority by wealth and geography gives no consideration of the rest of us. It is like Detroit executives sitting in Michigan happy physically seeing SUV's and ignoring the land of Toyotas and Hondas like LA.

Have you noticed this thing that they revise the previous quarters and months and it is always down? If the wrong numbers were totally random one would think some revised up - some down. The news media doesnt splash it that the first quarter GDP was revised down recently. I guess play it rosy until you cant. So now the news media does find it necessary to publicize the bad jobs numbers. Was it so the debt fiasco wouldn't immediately crumble everything? There was the rosy consumer price report but commentators admitted half was inflation. If that then gets revised will it be so distorted as a rosy report was actually zero growth and only inflation? Is stagflation totally here and has been? In the paper last week they said the actual counties with food insecure children. I can't believe a third of the kids look at bare shelves some of the month. The politicians make money while in office. We have corporate welfare- wall street, military-industrial welfare- Lockheed Martin etc. and now career politico welfare. All we will here about is the mythical welfare queen driving a cadillac. A third of the children feel hunger at least part of a month. Reason Parents are too discouraged looking at hungry kids to vote for the right people and so the system crashes around our heads taking the stock market with it. All the while rosy reports feed the media beast until it can't anymore.

I met the activist founder of Food not Bombs hanging out in a coffee shop. No matter if only a penney that makes its way to the consumer, subsidizing food for food even for the big guys has to assist prices. Subsidizing for ethanol wouldn't. Should this ever pan out where say grass can be used economically then it will help lower prices in the future- I'd say far future like 20 years. The poor are then subsidizing a research project and starving. There has to be a lot of 15 year old active growing boys that are hungry as they need 4800 calories. To feed them in the "food wars" method of greens etc. costs $48 a day. Not happening. I wrote a super simple book "Eating on $1" in amazon that merely called out prices and calories. Oddly revolutionary, I suppose. Those on the left don't want to think a teenager needs empty calories and those on the right think $7 a day is a huge program and superfluous even as more children have fallen into poverty just as prices have risen. Everyone is ignorant that the Clintons were successful. Except for droves of people that recently found that "no safety net" means no cash for heating/cooling, a roof over the head and gas to go to food banks. By getting that whopping $7 per kid families have squeaked by. The single guy who has no work? I guess he could try thumbing a ride to and from a food bank. Unlike food stamps which he needs disability for he will only get $30 worth and so cant spend gas to get to and from. The book shows that since 1600 calories of rice is like 60 cents it is possible to get calories. One would still die on that. Exceedingly simple science shows- food costs money. But not particularly a talking point for anyone in politics today.

Normally, no, but if it goes over Wall Street . . .

I would think traders will be royally bummed. I wonder if Wall Street has had a force one hurricane ever. It depends if it just skirts the Carolinas which is what they are predicting. Unlike Houston watch how no one leaves. Much more intense than a mere stock market. Now is the time for many to leave for an early weekend as long as it is somewhere on high ground. I guess they would close the market Monday if it hits. Andrew because insurance was solvent paid money into the economy. Expensive areas I wonder if they have flood protection. The terms infuriate me. Landfall is for the eye- they should call it eyefall. Storm force winds can hit hours before for slow moving storm. Storm surge of ten feet sounds like it is ten feet further up on to the beach. Think the tsunami in height and coming in at a hundred miles an hour. Just call it tidal wave all along. If people get accustomed to these things then they can work to save lives. I suppose it will be federal flood insurance. Most of the world's population lives near an ocean. One the plus side maybe it will flood those darn trading computers . . . . . .

A big problem with statistics is that one has to have sufficient time for the 6% to come about. Oddly enough a lot of retired people appear to have latched on to the market as a substitute for a job. Often, even an 85 year old has trouble seeing his days as numbered. So, despite that the age percent thing has been widely publicized there are lots of seniors with all their savings/retirement in the stock market. Many younger people have been able to use their retirement dollars in a last ditch effort to live on some cash once they are unemployed. Will Rogers once said, "I'm not concerned with the return on my money, just the return of it."

You may have no relatives like this. I would invite you to consider bringing it up in conversation. I've gotten "I don't have stocks." " Then so you haven't used a 401k or IRA?" "Well yes I have one but I don't think about it" "So, this basically brings us back to what was said on page 1 of this thread. Folks like you should probably avoid getting into the stock market at all if you're not comfortable with the risks or feel you don't have adequate information to make intelligent decisions." Intelligent decisions one would think would include simple contingency theory. A little arithmetic is beyond the average investor? It is challenging for many to think of the common language mentioned above. The question here is what risk and how much and quantifying it. So, slightly tongue in cheek: Reason : Those who resist simple contingency planning using simple arithmetic should be avoiding the risk of a dime due to their inability to have a clear-eyed view of risk. Since few do, it endangers the stock market with more highly intense emotion causing crashes. P.S. Just heard Libyan liberation of Tripoli

1)I am first just kind of observing. Hypothesizing. 2)Mathematically a 20% grab from an individual's stocks that will have a realized loss is a risk that I am advocating is acceptable. At a crash of 50% then the savings is much more precious than the perceived loss. What you paid and what the stock is currently worth are two different things. Let's say there is a run of a bank. Would anyone have advocated that people do a run on a bank? Would they rather the government have prevented it? Observing similar to a natural event, can it be described and analyzed? This is like a run on the bank. Sensible people could have prevented this to begin with. Our government could have prevented it but paralysis appeared to be a political tactic. So it is two very different questions. -Aunt Mable wonders if she should go down and be first in line otherwise she will lose everything and come live with you. -One advocates that everyone suddenly do a run on a bank. As similar as they appear there is some thorniness. One friend said bank runs are illogical. But for Aunt Mable to go get in line is very logical. Is she being then irresponsible? If she has little Elroy to take care of she would be irresponsible not to try to get her money to feed him? As collective advice is it irresponsible and illogical? This I truly advocate: At 7-11 for state lotteries- on the ticket: "This is gambling. For every $1 you wager you will get back 50 cents in the long run" Business programs instead of "past returns are no guarantee of future profits" "The stock market is gambling. You can lose all the money invested in stocks." More than Truth in Lending why must we as a culture go through these experiences over and over? The main thing I advocate is increased truth telling. Or rather attempts at truth telling. Constant daily truth telling works a lot better than a sudden shock that deepens losses. In the example they are now saying there is a recession coming. Others have said a second recession has to be a depression because there aren't scenarios for getting out of it.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2099556994 It was late at night so maybe I did dream some of it. For this show we have actually a lack of a pundit saying :stay the course. Now if they had always had shows that had clear disclaimers instead of gobblygook bizspeak then it wouldn't be so startling. Surprising Morgan Stanley warns of a depression but maybe they are preventing lawsuits. Surprised this is associated with Forbes connection no less: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuabrown/2011/08/19/ten-rules-for-surviving-a-market-crash/ Reason: Once no one will step forward with the usual calming "everything will be allright speech" on Biz programs then the market really tanks. All along if more realistic programs cautioned and emphasized the betting nature of the stock market there would have been a more ethical approach and there wouldn't be such a strong shock when it comes causing an even worse market.

Perhaps this is oversimplification. Assuming the stock market is crashing- why is that? I invite to somehow sanitize this with a different thread to prevent any lively misinterpretation as fear mongering. Most scientific thoughts do have an emotional component of fear. Global warming etc. anyone? The intent here for myself is to counter the staid pundits populating conventional airwaves. Challenged to stay on topic it could be found here. In that venue perhaps any negative truth telling should be examined for the fear factor. This forum doesnt have millions watching. Perhaps for those who have missed the intent. My longstanding interest in economics and some history has always made me ponder the multifactorial causes of The Great Depression. Most almost intensely have accused me of deep thought and almost brutal objectivity. Perhaps an advantage to a cyber life is to step away from one's true self. Hindsight is 20 20. Weather predictions are 100% as the hurricane is overhead. This is an attempt to see reality in real time. Only an attempt. Reason: Reality is tough and the realization of the then pure arbitrariness of their fate and especially the stock market has effected outlooks of traders and consumers alike. All it takes is one example of precarious situations like the debt ceiling debacle to call attention to the possible downside. It is surprising because this downside discussion is generally avoided in the media and even in online social media. "Media conspiracy to keep investors in the market? I don't find that convincing." So one might be able to guess that viewers of stock market programs generally have stocks in the stock market and have not exited their position in stocks. Pundits who advocate exiting of positions don't increase viewership do to people getting away from stocks and are very rare on the airwaves. Shows are compelled to produce say two reasons but they interview an "expert" who presents the oddly rosy view with more airtime. This is an if then statement If the stock market was to crash then what would be the causes. (note The fine print said- assuming it is.) Can you consider the highly negative viewpoint that the stock market is in the process of crashing and hypothesize and consider some reasons. The thesis is therefore -not- is the stock market crashing? There may be a tendency to believe that picking only one reason has some kind of a benefit. Currently a simple turn of the dial on any day can have one hear multiple things. Economics is multifactorial. So this reminds me of a reason. Reason: As markets decrease on any one day the public is actually exposed to reasons for each individual fall usually a short two reasons. This is unable to be counteracted by the usual long talk by a pundit again saying that investors have to take a long view. At some point negative assertions however do weigh on the psyche of investors even if it is always multifactorial and they feel a chance of a bear market is more likely.

I've been practically begging you to address the topic at hand and assuming the stock market is crashing, the reasons that could end up being the cause. Negating others forays into odd repetitive rhetoric however exacting does not address the question. In a science forum since when is taking a viewpoint to establish some reasons suddenly fear mongering? Postulate a cause- see if it holds up. You have done some of it but I have been modeling a reply then a short sentence. One reason that media keeps parroting (as long as you dollar cost average etc) to the individual investor is to keep them in the market which increases viewership. Reason: Those who take an objective approach to reasons regarding stock market and economic downsides are immediately accused of fear mongering which tends to decrease intellectual activity and deludes participants into making bad decisions. This heightens swings as truth has a hard time being denied and provides more energy for crashes. Support of my position? The above post.

So Hoover wasn't a Hooverist? a) to avoid the bank depositors' and credit panics which had so generally accompanied previous violent slumps; Bush did this (b) to cushion slowly, by various devices, the inevitable liquidation of false values so as to prevent widespread bankruptcy and the losses of homes and productive power; Cushion slowly- in a plummeting market © to give aid to agriculture; this was now what 30% of the economy? (d) to mitigate unemployment and to relieve those in actual distress; except he kept believing being strong would do the trick (e) to prevent industrial conflict and social disorder; Many places became a police state over riots over bread (f) to preserve the financial strength of the United States government, our credit and our currency, as the economic Gibraltar of the earth—in other words, to assure that America should meet every foreign debt, and keep the dollar ringing true on every counter in the world; Again, wait for a war to spend because I am only the measure of my bank account (g) to advance much-needed economic and social reforms as fast as could be, without such drastic action as would intensify the illness of an already sick nation; drastic oooh G. forbid (h) to sustain the morale and courage of the people in order that their initiative should remain unimpaired, and to secure from the people themselves every effort for their own salvation; constantly tell people it was their own fault (i) to adhere rigidly to the Constitution and the fundamental liberties of the people. we hear this especially from the oligarchy I suppose the discomfort of great grandfathers got passed down to the current crop of believers. Far be it from me to particularly disparage your honored ancestor but it isn't any better than the "old wives tales" except "old husbands tales" History says different

So Jackson, you may be the most rational here. Exactly how much are you getting paid for your "social media" strategy?

Currently,corporations remind me of a run at the bank. Individually being the front of the line makes eminent sense- you get your money. But "runs on banks" are so illogical - destructive. Each corporation couldn't help itself. It pays for elections and pays for legislation and judicial rulings to make it legal to pay for elections. For corporation ABC everyone pats each other on the back. But collectively, they strangled the golden goose. We let them. This kind of self-interest thing just like in life is such a short term strategy. Considering your environment, the world, others, reason helps in the long run and is then in your true self-interest. One bright spot: The national dining chains have tanked around me helping in the bringing back of the humanity of the Mom and Pop cafe. Reason: Corporations have had legislation for so long preventing taxation (taxrate doesnt matter if you never collect) that they don't feel vested in the country they are in which leads to a kind of lack of responsibility and extreme shortsighted thinking. Reasons? Optimistic data? Your grandmother's advice? So wouldn't then your definition of a crash be the markets overreacted? Reason: Pundits have marketed such weird Orwellian speech that those who invest parrot nonsensical things having to do with emotional responses of the market. Said "emotional responses" even if true are still not essentially relevant because one still loses cash. Reason for crash? You can't fool all the people all the time.

Jackson, this is the most lucid discussion I have ever experienced regarding our current state of affairs. You have articulated quite well a point of view that has a lot of good company. Previously, I have been totally lost trying to see this point of view. The responses you have engendered have then been very colorful and exacting. Too bad this couldn't be a bigger platform. I see so few who step up to scrutinize ideas the way you have. And now- drumroll the Stock Market: NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Wall Street got socked on Thursday as renewed concerns about the U.S. and global economies sent major indexes plunging, pushed gold to a new high and bond yields to a record low. Stocks were hit with bad news on multiple fronts. Morgan Stanley put out a dismal forecast for global economic growth. A key reading on U.S. housing came in worse than expected. And a report showed a significant slowdown in the domestic manufacturing sector.Investors rushed to move their money into safe U.S. government bonds -- and the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury briefly fell below 2%. "We had a couple days to stabilize and breathe, but you forget that it's a war zone out there and there's just too much uncertainty about the economy," said Frank Davis, director of sales and trading at LEK securities. At the preliminary close, the Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) dropped 418 points, or 3.7%, to close at 10,991. The blue chips fell as much as 528 points. The S&P 500 (SPX) lost 53 points, or 4.5%, to 1,141; and the Nasdaq Composite (COMP) lost 131 points, or 5.2%, to 2,380. At the center of Thursday's sell-off were renewed macroeconomic fears about a possibly slowing global economy. In a gloomy report from Morgan Stanley, the investment bank slashed its global growth outlook for 2011 and 2012, adding that the U.S. and Europe are "hovering dangerously close to a recession." "The fact that Morgan Stanley has downgraded its global growth forecast really highlights the concerns and problems facing the global economy," said Michael Hewson, market analyst at CMC Markets in London. "It begs investors to question where future growth will come from."

Hoover's Inaction At first, President Herbert Hoover and other officials downplayed the stock market crash, claiming that the economic slump would be only temporary and that it would actually help clean up corruption and bad business practices within the system. When the situation did not improve, Hoover advocated a strict laissez-faire (hands-off) policy dictating that the federal government should not interfere with the economy but rather let the economy right itself. Furthermore, Hoover argued that the nation would pull out of the slump if American families merely steeled their determination, continued to work hard, and practiced self-reliance. Hoover’s Failure Hoover’s inability to recognize the severity of the Great Depression only magnified the depression’s effects. Many historians and economists believe that Hoover might have been able to dampen the effects of the depression by using the federal government’s authority to establish financial regulations and provide direct relief to the unemployed and homeless. However, Hoover continued to adhere rigidly to his hands-off approach. This inaction, combined with Hoover’s treatment of the “Bonus Army” and his repeated arguments that Americans could get through the depression simply by buckling down and working hard, convinced Americans that he was unfit to revive the economy and destroyed his previous reputation as a great humanitarian. http://www.sparknote.../section4.rhtml

Thanks for the graphs. I do love data. The nearby Target store took out plants and some other things and replaced with food. I know that increased its sales. I read a Manager's book about Wal-Mart requiring managers to cut personnel on Fridays. They promoted rotten service. My experience I had with K-mart was that I would go in for a few things and spending a lot on things I didn't really need. I got to where I bought things at Walgreens instead. Target has a card - I haven't used yet that gives 5% off. Since that is the profit for food generally, high use would hurt profits. So, they may have been angling for some kind of better position in the markets. Or the strategy worked and more people are shifting department store to Target purchases after coming in for food. So what I am saying is with these few nit-picking details that it may not be that Target is all that healthy and maybe people on hard times dislike the added stress of a hateful fifteen minutes in a line at Wal-Mart. Another Econ 101 thing that many don't realize with Jackson etc. is the multiplying effect. Henry Ford said he wanted to pay factory workers the outrageous level of $5 a day because then they could afford to buy cars. That factory worker may have paid 20 cents to the diner down the street at lunch break. He could save for a home which paid carpenters etc. the $20 etc. as part of the expense for the $1000 home. The clothing store could count on selling a few even $15 suits so he could look great on Sundays. When he pays these bills these people in turn pay their bills and it is a multiplying effect. There are even equations to show how income from employment gets spent. The opposite happens when government cuts jobs and money. Joes Diner down the street from the federal building notices some familiar faces aren't there. Without a minimum amount of business can they pay the light bill? They have fixed expenses and may have to close down without a certain minimum number of customers. Joe used to buy himself a nice car occasionally but now he is working as a fry cook for minimum wage. "limitations here are political or ideological in nature, not economic." The banks did the equivalent of holding a gun to our heads , "Your money or you financial life." But in spite of feeding wall street fat cats and foreign corporations the banks are in trouble now and they may still tank. So will the result be that the government will wholeheartedly increase the supply of jobs and therefore money at this late stage? Or will they again take the waitress's wages and hand it to BOA? Reason: Paralyzed or destructive government politicos hamstring a full implementation of a massive Roosevelt style New Deal crashing Banks again which causes government to have to spend again on them instead of the economy.

So, the dollar would normally be such that it takes more dollars to buy foreign goods (inflation) The trade deficit has currently increased. Wholesale prices have suddenly risen. For the trade deficit to decrease this country would need to either stop buying as much goods and since they normally come from abroad then that decreases the deficit. Or companies gear up to produce American goods that are sold overseas or replace goods normally bought overseas. The dollar with however bad the US economy may get, may end up as strong do to being the only game in town. Anyone for Euros or Yens? That strong dollar may prevent an effect to decrease the trade deficit? Reason: An oddly strong dollar could prevent increases in manufacturing for foreign customers further crippling the economy and the stock market.

Well, that is like saying ignore the sick patient because it is highly likely he won't die today. A concerned physician even would be chicken little. This question came from Why is the American economy deteriorating? There was little argument there that it was. There seems to be this huge disconnect. Businesses close around us. People known to us to be industrious aren't working. It is easier to get to work as there aren't traffic jams (unless you are in Washington DC or Houston) Companies today are often not in the business of goods and services. They are in the business of paper. And Wall Street is happy to trade on paper. Until it isn't. There are big words that are thrown around. Fundamentals show that the economy is sick. An understanding of these would well point to a then sickened stock market. My interest is to ferret out all the downside reasons. Optimism may well, somehow win out. America is infected with Horatio Algerism as its current religion. Precious data on it. Just announced huge numbers of children in poverty. I wonder, of course, about European fatalism. Either is centered on emotions. An observation: Economic data which has shown increased sales are, instead, a measure of stagflation. Food prices have been impacted by $1 box of food now with $.70 in it. When it sells for $1.40 that is not a 40% increase over the last few years but a de facto 100% increase. Households switch to bulk rice muting overall prices. That can't continue to have effects as prices rise. Reason: Stagflation is already happening causing increased havoc and then stock market woes. (plus Federal Reserve has judged it won't intervene on inflation usinf interest rate for a couple of years)

Very well put. Now for some market analytics. Ever heard of the VIX? I hadn't. But I have heard of system theory. I couldnt upload the graph. Since it is a measure of volatility and is going nuts recently it may mean lots. It -can- presage crashes as imminent. The market appears unstable. Here I had thought it would have immediately tanked. Reason: US govt folly and other bad news sent the market into wide swings causing instability and soon to be crash.

Whose general US sentiments are falling in line with what? Policy generally swings back and forth. Off the golf courses there is a sea change in attitude. People are currently too overwhelmed. But the wild outlaw cowboys may have to leave the prairie town. The townspeople want the sheriff back. Even if no one yet is putting a posse together to immediately get some law and order.

First paragraph is in response to: mississippichem, on 15 August 2011 - 05:51 PM, said: "I'm not one to take tax increases likely but I've thought for some time now that there should be a fairly hefty tax on corporate retained earnings. This could incentivize the big blue chip companies to not keep as much on the books in these down economic times perhaps leading to employment expansion and a greater desire to acquire physical capital (trucks, buildings, land, etc.)." For the second paragraph, I see you are from oil country. Do you find that those in the oil industry understand the need for alternatives better? (that would be rather ironic) So, we could be having lean times and a volatile stock market due to lack of incentives to move retained earnings into better areas. Does R and D still have big tax advantages? If retained earnings are taxed it may further push into R and D to not pay the tax.

And yet you state a question. Perhaps you could mention something which is on topic. You may actually want to mention some idea,concept reason which effects the American stock market.

This is so very basic. Where were these people raised that they missed this? Or are they just so blinded with some skewed self-interest that such basics are too disturbing? Perhaps history will point to a simple little rule change by an organization we think of as dealing with entertainment. The repeal of the FCC guidelines on equal time opened the floodgates. We own the airwaves but now have such distortion that many have been raised with this. This has taken modern thought a huge step back from rational thinking and discourse. It isn't like people's characters are much different from Roman times. I'm sure the Coliseums were packed as christians lost to lions. So the argument that it sells is pretty lame. It is after all, our coliseum. My money is now though on the elite- that upper 2%. It has certainly been fun for over a generation. My Great Depression experienced 85 year old friend said several years ago that economic collapse means riots in the streets. I listened but didn't believe. I knew things can get wild in Europe. But England? Even the rich follow fads. The tide may turn and a realization hits that for those who have found it less fun to hang in Barcelona or Paris they may want to enjoy the USA. Riots here would be disconcerting even to them. The penthouses can still view the streets. Someone I know who hates the liability of an ER may get health insurance today. Young adults will have the grandparent who managed to get to 65 but the babyboomer parents are currently being done in in their fifties. Who wants to insure them? Why as a culture must the 80 year old watch grandchildren left without parents? One 62 year old worked weeks on it, got opportunity to spend 650 a month for health insurance and had short hospital stay. She knows she would have died with only ER care. The rich- the ones I know are already out of the market so this downturn effected 401ks but not them. The rich just got richer-again. Which brings power. I think the future belongs to them as it probably always has. So, even if personally not suffering will the rich allow policies to prevent tanking the economy and prevent the stock market from continuing a risk of crashing? If not, by standing idly by when it is in their power to be ethical will the wealthy have caused the crash? Better phrased- Oligarchy causes stock market crashes.