The End Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Boston 2 to NOTHIN' So far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian4 Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Just watched the Global national news and here is Paul Celucci a Bush neo-Con nut who is U.S. Ambassador to Canada saying at a News Conference in Ottawa that Canada should give the U.S. flu vaccine cuz they need it. A reporter says BUT why?? should we?? you are putting an illegal duty on our Hogs and our Lumber and on Lumber you have lost 5 straight appeals and are now mounting an extraordinary last ditch challenge you know you will lose. On Beef we now test more Cattle than you do for BSE and still you lock us out of your market and Canadian Companies and farmers are going broke...Cellucci says this is different ..lives are at stake... a different reporter says ...But all your Politicians and Convicts are getting vaccinations and Cellucci says ...the Pols are our leaders and the Cons need it cuz they are in close proximity to one another...What is wrong with this picture...Canada will probably do the right thing..but do NOT underestimate how pissed we are getting..should Shrub be re-elected and maintain the same policies look out.. Paul martin has already promised a free Parliament vote among all Parties on the proposed Missile Shield so i can tell you THAT is dead on arrival! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 D, Tanks for postin' that chart of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Brian, NO prez has ever one re-election when the market was down during his first term. NEVER. If I keep repeating this, maybe it will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traderfromhell Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Boston 2 to NOTHIN' So far. Can't be a Red Sox fan and a Met fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Boston 2 to NOTHIN' So far. Can't be a Red Sox fan and a Met fan. TRUE but, as a Mets fan, I ain't no yanks fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfield 8 Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Anyone care to comment on the Oct 22 turn date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traderfromhell Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Boston 2 to NOTHIN' So far. Can't be a Red Sox fan and a Met fan. TRUE but, as a Mets fan, I ain't no yanks fan. Well the Curse is now reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depends Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 D, Tanks for postin' that chart of yours. TE - yer welcome - I noticed that volume is still light and the buy/sell ratio was only up a tiny bit today. I remain in short the rally mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 SIX TO NOTHIN' Sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistolpapa Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Pistolpapa, Thank you for responding!? Perhaps part of the problem is trying to understand what might happen, price wise, by using the limiting terms of deflation and inflation. The term inflation, particularly, should be retired? as you've shown that there can be no inflation (as it is traditonally defined) without rising wages. There is? definitely an oversupply of everything right now, so a future where there are inadequate supplies is counterintuitive. Part of the problem with the prices up or prices down debate is people are extrapolating from the? history of their own economy,when? they should be looking at what happens in banana republics in other parts of the world, for fresher more appropriate examples. The closest present analogy may be the currency meltdowns of the nineties in Asia and the reactions of prices (not wages) in Venezuela, when their currency was depegged from the dollar.? Though these are very rough comparisons, what struck me is that the price of housing went down while most everything else went up. Take for example a gallon of milk. Say it's 5.00 today and realistically can't go lower, as so much of the cost is delivery, servicing the dairy's debt, etc..etc... No pricing power. Say, all the other dairies are in roughly the same spot. What's to keep it from doubling in price? The average person will just drink less milk and pay the 10.00 per gallon. They may drink half the usual amount, if their income remains somewhat stable and they may drink one third to one quarter their former consumption if they experience dropping wages. I don't mean to sound pedagogic. It's not that I think anyone on the board is retarded, I'm just trying to clarify this for myself.? :wink2: We're all trying to clarify it for ourselves. We have to take it slow looking at one thing at a time and try not to use economic lessons of the past. It is different now. Any more price inflation in the items we need is deflationary in that it will send the system into recession. The consumer will have less money to spend on things he does not need. The service sector economy is mainly based on things we do not need. (car washes, fast food, pedicures etc.) As he quits spending money on those things, service businesses fail. When this happens, our service sector economy implodes. Hate to beat a constipated elephant here, but... As MH has mentioned previously, the inevitable recession that you are referring to in the form of a service economy slowdown does not necessarily mean that deflation will follow. Prices do not have to go down. Deflation is a combination of the following factors: The supply of money goes down. The supply of goods goes up. Demand for money goes up. Demand for goods goes down. So even if the supply of goods increases and the demand for those goods decreases, the govt. can increase the supply of money to offset the other two. Stagflation, by definition. Yes, a return to the 70's seems more and more likely. Sorry, if this explanation is too academic and tired for some of you. But I hope some will appreciate it. The supply of money (credit) has been increasing exponentially for a few years now, especially through the GSE's. A stock market bubble, a bond market bubble, a real estate bubble and the beginning of a commodity market bubble are the result of the massive increases in the money supply. The money now, is not going where it is needed most -- to support the real economy. The government is made up of politicians. Except in rare cases, they only care about retaining their positions or moving up the ladder. To do this, they need to please only their contributors. Hate to pop your bubble, Bud, but the government never gives a damn about the real economy until it is too late. It is already too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian4 Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 TE- you know I agree and you and I will on election night be poorer or richer and I do expect the latter. But mi-God if Shrub wins he is like a giant wrecking ball when it comes to American Allies..if he wins there won't be any Allies left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traderfromhell Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Pistolpapa, Thank you for responding! Perhaps part of the problem is trying to understand what might happen, price wise, by using the limiting terms of deflation and inflation. The term inflation, particularly, should be retired as you've shown that there can be no inflation (as it is traditonally defined) without rising wages. There is definitely an oversupply of everything right now, so a future where there are inadequate supplies is counterintuitive. Part of the problem with the prices up or prices down debate is people are extrapolating from the history of their own economy,when they should be looking at what happens in banana republics in other parts of the world, for fresher more appropriate examples. The closest present analogy may be the currency meltdowns of the nineties in Asia and the reactions of prices (not wages) in Venezuela, when their currency was depegged from the dollar. Though these are very rough comparisons, what struck me is that the price of housing went down while most everything else went up. Take for example a gallon of milk. Say it's 5.00 today and realistically can't go lower, as so much of the cost is delivery, servicing the dairy's debt, etc..etc... No pricing power. Say, all the other dairies are in roughly the same spot. What's to keep it from doubling in price? The average person will just drink less milk and pay the 10.00 per gallon. They may drink half the usual amount, if their income remains somewhat stable and they may drink one third to one quarter their former consumption if they experience dropping wages. I don't mean to sound pedagogic. It's not that I think anyone on the board is retarded, I'm just trying to clarify this for myself. :wink2: We're all trying to clarify it for ourselves. We have to take it slow looking at one thing at a time and try not to use economic lessons of the past. It is different now. Any more price inflation in the items we need is deflationary in that it will send the system into recession. The consumer will have less money to spend on things he does not need. The service sector economy is mainly based on things we do not need. (car washes, fast food, pedicures etc.) As he quits spending money on those things, service businesses fail. When this happens, our service sector economy implodes. Hate to beat a constipated elephant here, but... As MH has mentioned previously, the inevitable recession that you are referring to in the form of a service economy slowdown does not necessarily mean that deflation will follow. Prices do not have to go down. Deflation is a combination of the following factors: The supply of money goes down. The supply of goods goes up. Demand for money goes up. Demand for goods goes down. So even if the supply of goods increases and the demand for those goods decreases, the govt. can increase the supply of money to offset the other two. Stagflation, by definition. Yes, a return to the 70's seems more and more likely. Sorry, if this explanation is too academic and tired for some of you. But I hope some will appreciate it. The supply of money (credit) has been increasing exponentially for a few years now, especially through the GSE's. A stock market bubble, a bond market bubble, a real estate bubble and the beginning of a commodity market bubble are the result of the massive increases in the money supply. The money now, is not going where it is needed most -- to support the real economy. The government is made up of politicians. Except in rare cases, they only care about retaining their positions or moving up the ladder. To do this, they need to please only their contributors. Hate to pop your bubble, Bud, but the government never gives a damn about the real economy until it is too late. It is already too late. Pistol been meaning to ask you. Do you fall in the $200 Gold Camp or the $1000+ Camp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowfish Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 LOS ANGELES (CBS.MW) -- Shares of Electronic Arts fell Wednesday after the video-games maker overnight lowered the bar for its fiscal third quarter, which encompasses the important holiday selling season, due to the delay of several games. ERTS got hammered at the close today, looks like it may retest the Dec 03 low @ 40.60. I got a tip yesterday but did not pull the trigger DOH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockLedge Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Anyone care to comment on the Oct 22 turn date? When recess is over.. maybe. BB, you reminded me of when I first stepped in the stool,.. it was Yobobs mention by William Fleckenstien(sp). Oh yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh 6 to nuttin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.