Dow extends record run

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Congrats to the top 10% of Americans, who own nearly 90% of all directly held stock and over 75% of all stock whether direct or indirectly owned. Their ability to own a greater and greater share of the wealth in our society continues to increase at the rest of Americans' expense.

Do you have a retirement plan that includes stock?

 

[bobdelt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Congrats to the top 10% of Americans, who own nearly 90% of all directly held stock and over 75% of all stock whether direct or indirectly owned. Their ability to own a greater and greater share of the wealth in our society continues to increase at the rest of Americans' expense.

You should also thank them, without their investment, you probably wouldnt have a job.

 

[Craig234]

What does what I have to do with what's best for the nation?

More people own a little bit of stock; out of the bottom 90%, fewer than 30% own more than $10,000 of stock, so 'percent of Americans who own *any* stock' numbers are misleading compared to who owns how much.

You should also thank them, without their investment, you probably wouldnt have a job.

Always nice to see the sychophants post. Worship the rich, you are lucky they let you serve them.

What can I say to such an ignorant comment without writing a small book on the pros and cons of different distributions of wealth?

I can only summarize my view that this is the sort of Stockholm Syndrome nonsense which leaves most AMericans much less well off than they should be, as the basic ideas of justifiable differences in wealth that do good are taken to absurd extremes to justify harmful, enormous disparities and concentration of wealth. The money would help the economy far more being circulated and spent by average Americans than inceasing the ownership of the nation's wealth among the top few.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What does what I have to do with the issue of what's best for the nation?

More people own a little bit of stock; out of the bottom 90%, fewer than 30% own more than $10,000 of stock, so 'percent of Americans who own *any* stock' numbers are misleading compared to who owns how much.

Easy we want to see if you are benefitting from the rise in the stock market. It gives us an idea on how much you really believe in what you say.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry, but I believe in what I say regardless of how much stock I have. You should stick to the issue and not try to post lies and insinuations with ad hominem attacks.

If you can explain why the information is relevant to whether the policies I recommend are the right policies, I'd consider answering. But that's not the case.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Sorry, but I believe in what I say regardless of how much stock I have. You should stick to the issue and not try to post lies and insinuations with ad hominem attacks.

Heh it is like John F Kerry complaining the rich dont pay their fair share in taxes while using loopholes and shelters to get his effective rate down to 11%.

If you believe in what you say you should get out of the stock market. Obviously it is a tool of the evil corporations and wealthy elite.

 

[Craig234]

Your brain is not working well, genx. I'm wanting *more* Americans to own *more* stock. And I did not say wealthy corporations - that's the nonsense you right wingers put in liberals' mouths so that you can avoid having to understand the issues, and lets you instead just play with the straw men you make.

Corporations are great, important engines, which need regulation for the good of society, not elimination. But you simpletons equate any tax increase or restraint to balance the public interest with profit as saying corporation are 'evil'.

No wonder the right-wingers are so utterly confused and uninformed on the issues.

As for Kerry - what did he do wrong? He supported increasing the tax burden on all the very wealthy including himself, not simply paying more taxes himself. He's right.

 

[straightalker]

Nothing exists on the planet that's more phony and rigged that the USA Stock Markets. I'd say the Plunge Protection Team is just in there pushing more of their dope money into the DOW 30 to continue the smokescreens and illusions for another while longer...

...until it's time to sheer the sheeple once again.

...the smart money is getting out of the USA Stock Market in droves.

...oh they'll be back. After the crash.

 

[Genx87]

...the smart money is getting out of the USA Stock Market in droves.

I did read an interesting article the other day about money flowing into foreign markets. The biggest reasoning behind it is the increased regulation from SOX. It costs too much and is too cumbersome for investors and investee's alike. I found that rather interesting. The other thing I found interesting is in the Fortune 100 they avg 3.3 million dollars a year on SOX compliance.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Nothing exists on the planet that's more phony and rigged that the USA Stock Markets. I'd say the Plunge Protection Team is just in there pushing more of their dope money into the DOW 30 to continue the smokescreens and illusions for another while longer...

...until it's time to sheer the sheeple once again.

...the smart money is getting out of the USA Stock Market in droves.

...oh they'll be back. After the crash.

You keep thinking that, kiddo... us adults have business to attend to

 

[Craig234]

did read an interesting article the other day about money flowing into foreign markets. The biggest reasoning behind it is the increased regulation from SOX. It costs too much and is too cumbersome for investors and investee's alike. I found that rather interesting. The other thing I found interesting is in the Fortune 100 they avg 3.3 million dollars a year on SOX compliance.

That's not why money is flowing into foreign markets. My gosh, think about it - what is the average revenue of the fortune 100 and how much of that is $3.3 million?

The republicans have shot up our debt so sky high for the last 25 years outside of Clinton that prudent investors see the problems this will cause, and the US is help up largely by the need to protect their investments from the crash that doing what's otherwise prudent would bring.

The crooks who want to weaken Sox, of course, latch onto any garbage as to why you should do so. And you believe them...

I'm open to some review of Sox - by democrats. The republicans cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: straightalker
Nothing exists on the planet that's more phony and rigged that the USA Stock Markets. I'd say the Plunge Protection Team is just in there pushing more of their dope money into the DOW 30 to continue the smokescreens and illusions for another while longer...

...until it's time to sheer the sheeple once again.

...the smart money is getting out of the USA Stock Market in droves.

...oh they'll be back. After the crash.

You keep thinking that, kiddo... us adults have business to attend to

The business of the foxes in charge of the chicken coop.

 

[bobdelt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What does what I have to do with what's best for the nation?

More people own a little bit of stock; out of the bottom 90%, fewer than 30% own more than $10,000 of stock, so 'percent of Americans who own *any* stock' numbers are misleading compared to who owns how much.

You should also thank them, without their investment, you probably wouldnt have a job.

Always nice to see the sychophants post. Worship the rich, you are lucky they let you serve them.

What can I say to such an ignorant comment without writing a small book on the pros and cons of different distributions of wealth?

I can only summarize my view that this is the sort of Stockholm Syndrome nonsense which leaves most AMericans much less well off than they should be, as the basic ideas of justifiable differences in wealth that do good are taken to absurd extremes to justify harmful, enormous disparities and concentration of wealth. The money would help the economy far more being circulated and spent by average Americans than inceasing the ownership of the nation's wealth among the top few.

But the money is being circulated. These people dont hide their cash under their beds. They invest it. They give it to banks, which allows banks to give you that auto loan, or home mortgage. If the rich held their cash in a safe you'd have an arguement, but they dont, its out and about being used (and whoever uses it pays for it one way or another)

It is the same arguement as to having a small current account deficit isnt a big deal, because these other countries that hold that debt, invest it back into that country.


You should also focus on why the stock market has risen. It's been because of decent economy figures and strong corporate profits. What does these companies do with their profits, most dont pay dividends, most invest it back into the company, creating more jobs.

These fat cats you speak of getting rich of their capital gains. They are making money of other fat cats. They only make money when they sell, except for dividends of course. And according to you only the super rich own stock. So only the super rich are getting screwed over on the market too when they make an unwise investment. Someone has the buy the stock for the gain to be realized, somebody has to lose, for someone to win.

 

[Craig234]

It's not being circulated in nearly as useful a way, it's acquiring. That means concentration of wealth, which has a great social price compared to the money circulating by being *spent*, as the poorer Americans spent it all.

THe stock market has risen largely because of huge stimulus based on *borrowing by the government*, trillions worth. We're going broke in a 'good time', and we're on the road to disaster as a result.

So only the super rich are getting screwed over on the market too when they make an unwise investment. Someone has the buy the stock for the gain to be realized, somebody has to lose, for someone to win.

The market has the highest rate of return of any mainstream investment, and the rich are well diversified; a few bad investments is the price of playing and irrelevent when the *average* return is high. There's no price at all to those 'losses'.

The average American having a tiny bit of stock doesn't mean that they have a low percentage of their assets in stock or that they're unaffected by market problems; it only means they have little wealth, but they may have much of their *percent* of assets in stock. But I'm not arguing they suffer from market problems.

No one has to 'lose'; if a company's value is increasing, one person can ride the stock up 50%, and someone else buys it and rides another 50%. Again, on average, the market over time is an excellent place for money - and we know who has the money in the market.

 

[bobdelt]

The stock market boom is a result of "borrowing from the gov't" - which I assume you are refrencing the budget deficit? You have any real economics to back this up? It sounds like a strong arguement for why a budget deficit could be a good thing. If the government is running a deficit, they are issuing lots of bonds, which would take away from the investment into the market. If the deficit continues to grow, they need to offer higher interest rates, so even more people buy gov't bonds, again taking away money that would\could have been invested into the market.

"No one has to 'lose'; if a company's value is increasing, one person can ride the stock up 50%, and someone else buys it and rides another 50%" - Eventually it hits a wall, nobody can realize all the gains. Somebody has to buy at the top. Someone will lose.

So I assume your in favor of wealth distribution? How are you gonna go about doing this? Taxing the corporations more? (Even though the countries with a higher gdp per capita than the states have lower corp tax rates) Taxing the rich more would probably put less money into circulation then letting them invest it- all it would do is pay back China, it would hardly have any effects on the economy as whole.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

...the smart money is getting out of the USA Stock Market in droves.

I did read an interesting article the other day about money flowing into foreign markets. The biggest reasoning behind it is the increased regulation from SOX. It costs too much and is too cumbersome for investors and investee's alike. I found that rather interesting. The other thing I found interesting is in the Fortune 100 they avg 3.3 million dollars a year on SOX compliance.

Considering CEO bonuses are about 10x that amount, what's the big deal?

W/o knowing the article of which you speak, wouldn't surprise me if it a lot of was hedge fund or derivatives-based investments going to places w/less regulation and, therefore, a better chance at making money on a dubious basis.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
The stock market boom is a result of "borrowing from the gov't" - which I assume you are refrencing the budget deficit? You have any real economics to back this up? It sounds like a strong arguement for why a budget deficit could be a good thing. If the government is running a deficit, they are issuing lots of bonds, which would take away from the investment into the market. If the deficit continues to grow, they need to offer higher interest rates, so even more people buy gov't bonds, again taking away money that would\could have been invested into the market.

Repurchase Agreements and the DOW
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/bolser/2003/0602.htm


http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/rogers111106.html

U.S. Treasury Is Quietly Doing the Feds Work

For the past few years the U.S. Treasury has been quietly involved in what the financial markets call "repo" agreements, and this near-secret operation could explain why the nation's money supply seems to be confoundingly large.

It might also explain why Washington decided earlier this year to stop publishing M3 money supply figures, the broadest and most popular measure of money in circulation.

Repurchase agreements -- or repos -- have long been used by the Federal Reserve to get money quickly into the hands of financial institutions, which in turn can put the money into circulation in the form of loans.

Last Thursday, for example, the Fed executed $2.5 billion in overnight repos and $8 billion in 14-day repurchase agreements. These were reported on the financial wires.

The Treasury completed a $5.5 billion repo operation on the same day under what it calls the Term Investment Option. There was no mention of the Treasury operation on the wires. In the Fed's repo deals, the banks temporarily turn over securities to the central bank in exchange for cash.

With this type of thing happening, how can anyone know what's going on with overall money supply? Or perhaps that's the whole point.

Yet another bearish sign for Federal Reserve Notes is the Democratic take over of the U.S. Congress. I fear that this new Congress coupled with the Bush administration will cause spending to go through the roof and plunge this country further into bankruptcy. Despite a debt already in the trillions, we've already seen the U.S. government expand further in size under the Bush administration. A Democrat controlled Congress coupled with the Bush administration is a recipe for even larger government and more spending. I have absolutely no confidence in either of these political parties. You would think that our so called elected officials would show some sort of fiscal sanity and realize that our debt is at unsustainable levels and that we need to stop spending money. The fact that this has still not happened yet is beyond insane.

With all of these things to consider, I hope it is easy to see why I am a disgruntled customer of the Federal Reserve. They have bankrupted our government and they offer a lousy product that continues to lose value. This is why I am converting as many of my Federal Reserve Notes into gold and silver. With so much fiscal instability in our economic system, tangible assets are the only game in town.

M3b, REPOS & FED WATCHING
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0425.html


The bond market's dirty secret
A whiff of scandal threatens the Treasury repurchase market.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/...95437/index.htm?postversion=2006112809



Also, note this Dec. 6 Bloomberg article (don't have a direct link)

Dec 6 (Bloomberg)

Stock sales by America's corporate chieftains
exceeded purchases last month
by the widest margin since 1987,
suggesting they don't share the confidence of investors
who have sent the Standard and Poors's index to a six year high.

Executives including Microsoft Corp.'s Bill Gates,
Google Inc.'s Eric Schmidt and Kohl's Corp. William Kellogg
in aggregate Sold $63.18 of shares For Every $1 They Bought In November,
an analysis by Bloomberg
of data from the Washington Service showed.
That's the highest since at least January 1987.