More bad times ahead

[shnflacwav]

My company offers a plan with either Vanguard or TIAA Cref. If you pick Vanguard you have the option to make up your own portfolio, or go with a portfolio that is already balanced and aimed at your retirement age. The percentages of each type of fund in your portfolio changes from more aggressive for younger investors to less as you get closer to retirement age. AFAIC, while you might not always makes huge profits, you should not lose a huge chunk of your last 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 years of savings in the way that many Americans have. It's a disgrace. This is supposed to be a safe way to invest for retirement. It's the fault of the stockmarket/economy crash. When a hard working person puts the maximum amount allowed by a retirement plan (6%) of their pay each week, they don't expect to lose it years down the line. There are many crooks on Wall Street, and they have been allowed to run free (since at least the Reagan years) and it has finally caught up with our country, and mostly the "common" person.

A great deal of the economy crash and subsequent is related to housing. Which Republican has been responsible for that? The person who is in charge of that is Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat.

He sits at the center of power for the House Financial Services Committee, responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. BTW Freddie Mac has given Barack $126K in campaign contributions, second highest to any person in Congress.

[wanna be drummer]

Ok, let's not be Bill O Reilly here. Barney Frank may deserve some blame, but the problem was a lot bigger than just "It's Barney's fault!" ...if that's wahat you're getting at dude

[shnflacwav]

Ok, let's not be Bill O Reilly here. Barney Frank may deserve some blame, but the problem was a lot bigger than just "It's Barney's fault!" ...if that's wahat you're getting at dude

Actually, the root of the problem goes back to the Carter administration. Have you read up on the history of Frank and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac; and his relationship with executives at both?

If you have, how can you say with a straight face that he isn't a big part of the problem? He has constantly voted against new oversight, had inappropriate or conflict of interest relationships with people there, taken large contributions from them, and basically lied as late as July when he said everything was fine.

[wanna be drummer]

The entire economy is not falling apart because Barney Frank had a 30 second clip on TV a couple of months ago. That being said, he deserves a portion of blame yes.

But, many people are to blame.

And, honestly, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are not the only corporations to have led to this downfall.

We, as the American people, also deserve some blame for this mess, but I'm sure the Democrats will simply blame the Republicans, who will in turn blame Democrats. It's a retarded cycle. Why can't the people just admit that they deserve some credit and work on fixing the problem as opposed to just praying the government floods the market with a worthless $700 billion

Edited October 24, 2008 by wanna be drummer

[shnflacwav]

The entire economy is not falling apart because Barney Frank had a 30 second clip on TV a couple of months ago. That being said, he deserves a portion of blame yes.

But, many people are to blame.

And, honestly, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are not the only corporations to have led to this downfall.

We, as the American people, also deserve some blame for this mess, but I'm sure the Democrats will simply blame the Republicans, who will in turn blame Democrats. It's a retarded cycle. Why can't the people just admit that they deserve some credit and work on fixing the problem as opposed to just praying the government floods the market with a worthless $700 billion

The economy might be better off letting AIG die, as it should have, and giving the $70 Billion to the taxpayers instead. It works out to around $200K per individual / $300 something grand for families. Think of all the loans that could be paid down or off - home loans, car loans, education loans, back child support, etc. No new debt would be allowed. Put the rest away for retirement.

[wanna be drummer]

Let's not forget the massive inflation that would occur though

[shnflacwav]

Well, it was a joke, but wishful thinking. The point I was trying to make, and which I believe you understood and expanded on is that it's not just one person or party's fault. It's not all the Republican's fault, nor the Democrats, or the Government for that matter. I hope those fucks at AIG enjoyed their little spa get away after the bailout. Too many people here are too pro-their side. Sure, Bush the war-monger has made mistakes, but so did Carter (the great peacemaker). Nobody wants to own up for the problem, but rather blame the other side. A President only has so much power, the 535 jackasses across town have a lot, too (actually I think 1 seat might be empty).

So, if Obama wins, I only hope that Biden doesn't stand too close to him because if some idiot tries to kill Obama, we don't need both of them dead. Otherwise, we would be very screwed with Pelosi as Prez. If McCain wins, thank god his health care will be better than everyone elses, because I do not want him croaking and leaving us with an inexperienced outsider.

[The Rover]

Per Gongressional testimony today...... the US Govt. in NO way has the projected income to Fund Medicare for the Baby Boomers......

It could fund maybe half of what has been PROMISED by your Govt......

LA-LA Land Indeed ! ! ! !

----------------------------------------

And in another story.......

10-21-08

Fed to Provide Up to $540 Billion to Aid Money Funds --- That's Half a Trillion Dollars for you folks wondering.....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

[The Rover]

Banks borrow record amount from Fed

Oct 23, 4:57 PM (ET)

By JEANNINE AVERSA

WASHINGTON (AP) - Banks borrowed in record amounts from the Federal Reserve's emergency lending facility over the past week, while investment banks drew loans at a slightly lower - but still brisk - pace, a fresh sign of the credit stresses bedeviling the country.

The Fed's report, released Thursday, showed commercial banks averaged a record $105.8 billion in daily borrowing over the past week. That surpassed the old record - a daily average of $99.7 billion - from the prior week. On Wednesday alone, $107.5 billion was drawn, an all-time high.

For the week ending Wednesday, investment firms drew $111.3 billion. That was down from $131 billion in the previous week. This category was broadened last week to include any loans that were made to the U.S. and London-based broker-dealer subsidiaries of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley (MS) and Merrill Lynch.

The Fed report also showed that over the last week $114.2 billion worth of loans were made to money market mutual funds - via banks - to help the funds, which have been under pressure as skittish investors demand withdrawals. The Fed announced a new effort earlier this week to help shore up mutual funds.

Squeezed banks and investment firms are borrowing from the Fed because they can't get money elsewhere. Investors have cut them off, moving their money into safer Treasury securities. Financial institutions are hoarding whatever cash they have, rather than lend it to each other or customers. The lockup in lending has contributed to a sharp slowing in the overall economy.

The report also showed the Fed has loaned $90.3 billion to insurance giant American International Group. In mid-September, the Fed said it would provide the troubled company a two-year, $85 billion loan. And, recently the central bank said it would loan the company an additional $37.8 billion.

Also in the weekly report, the Fed said the portfolio of certain assets it took over from Bear Stearns is now estimated to be worth $26.80 billion as of Sept. 30, down from $29.53 billion as of June 30. Maiden Lane LLC holds the portfolio of assets.

The report comes as Washington policymakers battle the worst financial crisis since the stock market crash of 1929.

So far this year, 15 banks have failed, compared with three last year.

Last week the Bush administration announced it would inject up to $250 billion in banks - in return for partial ownership stakes. The government hopes that banks will use the capital infusions to rebuild their reserves and bolster lending to customers.

Investment houses in March were given similar, emergency-loan privileges as commercial banks after a run on Bear Stearns pushed what was the nation's fifth-largest investment bank to the brink of bankruptcy.

The identities of commercial banks and investment houses that borrow are not released. Commercial banks and investment companies now pay 1.75 percent in interest for the loans.

Since the Bear Stearns debacle in March, the Fed has taken a series of unprecedented steps to get lending - the economy's oxygen - flowing more freely again. The central bank has repeatedly tapped its Depression-era authority to be a lender of last resort not only to financial institutions, but also to other types of companies.

Critics worry the Fed's actions could put billions of taxpayers' dollars at risk.

Edited October 24, 2008 by The Rover

[Mary Hartman]

Where did you get that decoder ring. I sure would like to own one of those.

A. Cracker Jacks

B. Telepathy

...or C. Found underneath Asshat Award

Oh Lake, you do have a way with words child.

[marolyn]

A friend at work was talking about how much money she lost in her retirment fund when she received her last statement the other day. She is close to fifty and would probably like to be retired by age sixty-five. She said with the amount of money she lost in her 401 since the last statement, she could have taken a trip around the world with her immediate family, and then stayed at Disneyworld in the nicest accommodations for two months. Pretty horrifying to see so much you have worked for the last twenty years gone in a blink of an eye. What a disgrace.

you must explain to her that she hasn't lost anything unless she cashes in her funds...not completely comforting, but not the end of the world.

[~tangerine~]

you must explain to her that she hasn't lost anything unless she cashes in her funds...not completely comforting, but not the end of the world.

But what if she wants to retire in the next ten years or so? Is it really feasible to believe she will see most of what she has lost?

[Dzldoc]

My company offers a plan with either Vanguard or TIAA Cref. If you pick Vanguard you have the option to make up your own portfolio, or go with a portfolio that is already balanced and aimed at your retirement age. The percentages of each type of fund in your portfolio changes from more aggressive for younger investors to less as you get closer to retirement age. AFAIC, while you might not always makes huge profits, you should not lose a huge chunk of your last 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 years of savings in the way that many Americans have. It's a disgrace. This is supposed to be a safe way to invest for retirement. It's the fault of the stockmarket/economy crash. When a hard working person puts the maximum amount allowed by a retirement plan (6%) of their pay each week, they don't expect to lose it years down the line. There are many crooks on Wall Street, and they have been allowed to run free (since at least the Reagan years) and it has finally caught up with our country, and mostly the "common" person.

During Mardi-Gras, when I'm standing on Bourbon St. looking up at the chick on the balcony and shouting "Show your Tits!, Show your Tits!" and the greasy little pick pocket is slithering through the crowd taking peoples wallets is it the systems fault for not catching the crook or stopping the drunk hussey on the balcony from distracting the crowd gathering below or should I take some responsibility and put my wallet in my front pocket? Doh!

[~tangerine~]

During Mardi-Gras, when I'm standing on Bourbon St. looking up at the chick on the balcony and shouting "Show your Tits!, Show your Tits!" and the greasy little pick pocket is slithering through the crowd taking peoples wallets is it the systems fault for not catching the crook or stopping the drunk hussey on the balcony from distracting the crowd gathering below or should I take some responsibility and put my wallet in my front pocket? Doh!

Depends on how nice the beads are, is it worth your wallet? Well i have always been a bit paranoid in crowds. Even as a teenager when i would go to big events like rock concerts, i would usually put my money in my sock

But my feeling has been (for the last 20 + years i have worked full time) that when you work for a good company and they offer a good retirement plan, you should be able to retire off of it after working there most of your life. Now, more than ever, when the "idea" of a government based retirement, aka, Social Security, is probably a thing of the past. Who's fault? The government who wasn't keeping an eye on the best interests of it's citizens. They gave the rich more and more power, and much of the middle class got poorer. At least over the past eight years. It's one thing when people are aggressively dealing in the stock market and lose money. It's another when you take as much as you can afford out of each paycheck to put in a relatively "safe" retirement fund, and you still get screwed. I guess now we are all better off just taking that money and putting it under the mattress until we turn 65.

[I have got a horsey]

Well, it was a joke, but wishful thinking. The point I was trying to make, and which I believe you understood and expanded on is that it's not just one person or party's fault. It's not all the Republican's fault, nor the Democrats, or the Government for that matter.

America is always going to be more vulnerable to economic downturns due to the low level of Goverment involvement in the economy that Americans expect.

But aside from that, I think if you look at the bigger picture of the global economy and especially over a period of time, I think you can see that there's simpler, deeper issues going on here.

Without getting into technicalities, I think it's a simple case of too much credit, the end of a high boom and consumption period, crippling prices of oil and materials, I think we just can't afford as much.

When people look at the stock market or GDPs or financial year reports, people are looking for growth, more profit, more production, higher yields, bigger returns. I think in reality there's only so much of that you can have before there's contraction. Since the 1950's, we've been heading down the consumption based life-style. We buy so much more than our parents or grandparents did. In the 1990s our consumption levels were 3 times greater than in the 1950s. And this has been fueling our continued economic growth, so has massive economic growth in China, India et al. However this has also resulted in higher energy and materials costs, which has stretched our wallets to the limit.

I mean simply speaking, we buy now, pay later, and then work and work to pay off this continual debt we have, and we carry on working to buy the new iPhone, pay the cable, the internet, all the extra things we didn't have 40 years ago. This public consumption is what drives the world economy and we can only afford it for so long.

[Dzldoc]

Depends on how nice the beads are

"Fo Shizzle My Snizzle!"

[Mary Hartman]

Depends on how big your tits are. My 40 D's have been known to stop men, traffic and make an lovely umbrella.

They haven't failed me yet.

[marolyn]

But what if she wants to retire in the next ten years or so? Is it really feasible to believe she will see most of what she has lost?

i sincerely hope she does...gone are the days of guaranteed retirement checks...now it's just a gamble if you are going to have the funds to survive on...after all, we are supposed to know better than any government/business how to invest our retirement money, right?

[shnflacwav]

America is always going to be more vulnerable to economic downturns due to the low level of Goverment involvement in the economy that Americans expect.

But aside from that, I think if you look at the bigger picture of the global economy and especially over a period of time, I think you can see that there's simpler, deeper issues going on here.

Without getting into technicalities, I think it's a simple case of too much credit, the end of a high boom and consumption period, crippling prices of oil and materials, I think we just can't afford as much.

When people look at the stock market or GDPs or financial year reports, people are looking for growth, more profit, more production, higher yields, bigger returns. I think in reality there's only so much of that you can have before there's contraction. Since the 1950's, we've been heading down the consumption based life-style. We buy so much more than our parents or grandparents did. In the 1990s our consumption levels were 3 times greater than in the 1950s. And this has been fueling our continued economic growth, so has massive economic growth in China, India et al. However this has also resulted in higher energy and materials costs, which has stretched our wallets to the limit.

I mean simply speaking, we buy now, pay later, and then work and work to pay off this continual debt we have, and we carry on working to buy the new iPhone, pay the cable, the internet, all the extra things we didn't have 40 years ago. This public consumption is what drives the world economy and we can only afford it for so long.

Thank you for your post horsey boy. It reminded me of days of old, back in the early 90's and in college working towards the Economics degree I earned.

[The Rover]

Nouriel Roubini: I fear the worst is yet to come

When this man predicted a global financial crisis more than a year ago, people laughed. Not any more...

Contacted in Madrid on Friday, Roubini said the world economy was “at a breaking point”. He believes the stock markets are now “essentially in free fall” and “we are reaching the point of sheer panic”.

But it was a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in September 2006 that earned him his nickname Dr Doom.

Roubini told an audience of fellow economists that a generational crisis was coming. A once-in-a-lifetime housing bust would lay waste to the US economy as oil prices soared, consumers stopped shopping and the country went into a deep recession.

The collapse of the mortgage market would trigger a global meltdown, as trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unravelled. The shockwaves would destroy banks and other big financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America’s largest home loan lenders.

“I think perhaps we will need a stiff drink after that,” the moderator said. Members of the audience laughed.

Then, in February 2008, Roubini posted an entry on his blog headlined: “The rising risk of a systemic financial meltdown: the twelve steps to financial disaster”.

It detailed how the housing market collapse would lead to huge losses for the financial system, particularly in the vehicles used to securitise loans. It warned that “ a national bank” might go bust, and that, as trouble deepened, investment banks and hedge funds might collapse.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle5014463.ece

Edited October 27, 2008 by The Rover

[EpicForest]

Forecasters of doom and gloom are often ignored because everyone wants to see this rosey picture of their future and not be negative.

Flowers in your hair, everything is beautiful, the future's so bright I gotta wear shades. Yep, it's the "I told you so's" that are seeing their foresight come to fruition. Sweet? More bittersweet.

Not enough people try to truly be conservative, they wanna be fat and consumptive and anything less is WRONG!!! Enjoy the things Earth already has here, quit trying to be so productive in taking up space and leaving big footprints! Step lightly, simplify. Better to choose that than to have it forced onto you. Too late for some.

[EpicForest]

America is always going to be more vulnerable, BECAUSE WE'RE THE MOST OBNOXIOUSLY CONSUMPTIVE SOCIETY IN THE WORLD!!! < My own interjection.

In the 1990s our consumption levels were 3 times greater than in the 1950s. And this has been fueling our continued economic growth, so has massive economic growth in China, India et al. However this has also resulted in higher energy and materials costs, which has stretched our wallets to the limit.

I mean simply speaking, we buy now, pay later, and then work and work to pay off this continual debt we have, and we carry on working to buy the new iPhone, pay the cable, the internet, all the extra things we didn't have 40 years ago. This public consumption is what drives the world economy and we can only afford it for so long.

I can't stand the idea of more and more growth. When in the hell will people ever learn and respond in kind. Keep putting those babies out, it's such a joy! It's the bottom line of all the world's problems. OVERPOPULATION !!!!!

ZPG is our only hope. Just an example,

Economic miracle, environmental disaster

Decades of extraordinary growth have catapulted China to the top of the world's economic charts, earning the admiration of much of the rest of the world. .....Admiration? Fuck that! Economic, population growth idiots!!! < (My own again, of course.

Indeed, China's continued economic rise has been one of the few certainties of the 21st century. Increasingly, however, the China story is not one of economic miracle but of environmental disaster.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/27...ref=mpstoryview

Prepare for reality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#References

[wanna be drummer]

But if the population of the world suddenly started to decline heavily, we'd be screwed...so overpopulation may be a problem, but you cannot simply reverse on the number of kids people have. It wouldn't solve anything

[Rock Action]

But if the population of the world suddenly started to decline heavily, we'd be screwed...so overpopulation may be a problem, but you cannot simply reverse on the number of kids people have. It wouldn't solve anything

I respectfully disagree.

If we can get the population under control, it will reduce pollution, lighten the load on our resources and give us some space to breathe in. I'm not saying we should ban reproduction, but we SHOULD have the foresight to keep it to reasonable levels. All we're doing right now is literally screwing ourselves out of a place at the table.

What pisses me off is seeing a family of tree huggers yelling "GO GREEN" when they have 5-6 kids. That's quite common in this area. Talk about hypocrites...

[wanna be drummer]

I have no time to write anything, but my reasoning is economic as opposed to the enviornment.