How bad is it? It's actually pretty darn good

Post Reply New Topic

How bad is it? It's actually pretty darn good

interesting.

Yes, the boom-bust is great for the people who sit at their desk number crunching and the fraudsters who get rewarded for throwing away other people's money. Not so good for those at the bottom of the pile, the home owners, workers etc. It's all artifice, the 'crash', the big bankers and brokers create it on purpose because they make money from it while the average joe picks up the bill. That's what happens when a nation's economy is based on paper and numbers on a screen and not on pysical goods.

So this is as bad as it gets?

Okay. So what are you gonna do?

My ex-wife's son & his wife bought a house with a variable rate, "interest only" mortgage. I knew it was a stupid thing to do, but kids won't listen to adults, and the members of the herd want the immediete gratification lifestyle. So have we learned anything? Do we think such mortgages are a good idea? Will you be getting one if you're ever in a position to buy a house?

I can't do anything to save the herd from being slaughtered. All I can do is avoid being just another member of the herd.

It'd odd. We have so contempt and derision for neurotypicals, sheeple, members of the herd, until they're being slaughtered, by predators who are just doing what comes naturally to them. Somebody recently said, "How can you blame people for making money doing illegal things when they're allowed to do so?"

I consider right now stocks are on sale and a wonderful time to buy.

It's not just 'Sheeple' that get trod on though. Everyone suffers uless they profit directly from it, what happens to the people who have been sensible who are told they have to leave their job because the company has to restructure? You can be sure the big bosses won't have to say no to their huge bonus but it has to be paid for someway.

Sure the sheeple accelerate the boom-bust but they are not the instigators. Now folk like you and me who are just minding our own business will have to pick up the pieces with everyone else who get's left behind in the mess.

You say you can't blame them for making money illegally when they are allowed - they are the law. Money rules and if you don't have enough then you are screwed. Like it or not we're all going to be part of a very big 'herd', the folk paying the price for other people's mistakes. Unless you have a fortune stashed away.

This was revealed in July 2006

http://www.naturalnews.com/019659.html

We're the richest brotherlovers in the world. Suffering is a very relative thing.

Declines – losing streak
Drop -- loss
Investor --gambler
buy --bet
stock market —betting parlor
brokerage firm —casino
Dow Jones Industrial —pay-outs
Broker --croupier
Vanguard Real Estate Investment Trust Index—Vinnies off-track betting establishment
Trading -- betting
Sell --cash-in
Fund --shop
Index Rx --Jimmy "The Weasel" Fratianno

Commentary: 'Bet when there's blood in the streets'
By Coadunate, Jimmy "The Weasel" Fratianno
Sept. 17, 2008

SAN ANTONIO (Jimmy "The Weasel" Fratianno) -- I just finished a telephone conversation with a friend who works for a large casino. He describes the typical mindset among his clients at the moment as one of panic and despair.

The average gambler, it seems, is considering giving up on the betting parlor and burying his money under a mattress (or in money-market funds). Should you, too, be thinking about the exit?

At times like these, I always turn to history.

By historical standards, Monday's 504-point losing streak in the pay-outs was indeed large -- the 86th-largest one-day percentage loss since 1928, and the 17th-biggest since World War II. Does this mean it's time to jump ship?

To answer, let's look at the 16 postwar losing streaks that were larger and ask the following question: What happened afterward? The answer may surprise you. It should certainly prevent you from shouting panicked cash-in orders at your croupier.

I calculated several averages for all 16 losing streaks that were larger than Monday's 4.4% loss. On average, the pay-out was 10.4% higher six months after the losing streak, 13.8% higher one year after, 27% higher two years after, and 45.6% higher five years after. By contrast, gambling in the pay-out on any random day from Jan. 2, 1946, through Monday's losing streak would have yielded 37.9% over on average over a five-year period.

Some would argue that Monday's loss was not large enough. In other words, the parlor had not "capitulated" and thus was likely to see further losing streaks. This may well be the case. But, interestingly enough, if we again crunch some numbers for the 16 largest one-day losing streaks, the correlation between the size of the initial losing streak and the size of the subsequent rise, though negative, was relatively low.
R-squared statistics are small (0.01, 0.05, 0.18, and 0.05 for six-months, one-year, two-year, and five-year periods, respectively). One way to interpret this is that, as long as the loss is large, it doesn't seem to matter how large -- the parlor is likely to bounce back strongly in the near future.

So, if history is any guide, you would be foolish to succumb to panic. In fact, you might even want to increase your holdings. Notice that for periods of up to two years, the parlor has tended to perform far better than usual following large losing streaks.

Given the worry that is all around, I doubt that most gamblers will be able to muster sufficient courage to follow this advice. But for the few brave contrarians with the foresight to "bet when there is blood in the streets," here's a potential play: the Vinnies off-track betting establishment.

That's right. Think about pouring some money straight into the sector that sparked the whole mess. Following the dictates of our history-based betting algorithm, Jimmy "The Weasel" Fratianno
recently purchased this shop with two of our model portfolios.

In the end, it's a question of whom you're going to trust -- the media, your own emotions or the guidance of history? I know which I'm putting my money on.

As I said elsewhere, my ex-wife refers to it as "playing the market." People who "play" the market lose money. People who get educated in economics and finance, then make careful, thoughtful investment choices make money. The herd doesn't do that.

When I began investing in mutual funds, I was so excessively conservative that I earned only about 3% annually. Slowly but surely I came to realize, "Hey, it looks like maybe I actually know what I'm doing here. I think maybe I can make a little money doing this." I'm a little less conservative now, earning 5-8% annually, except for the last couple of quarters, when nobody made money. I'm still very conservative. In a good quarter I turn 8-12%. In a bad quarter I typically lose less than 1%, though the last two quarters I lost about 5%. That's what happens in a recession.

I guess I should be listing economics and finance as one of my special interests.

Coadunate's reinterpretation is more accurate

They are gambling with the livelihoods of the gerneral population.

Are you going to be a member of the general population, or are you going to be one of the smarter ones who weathers the next economic storm better?

Are you going to take care of yourself financially, or are going to rely on the government, the fat cats, the fates, to take care of you?

I realize that a lot of you are half my age or less, and may at this time be struggling with more basic things like generating income. Things were pretty rough when I was coming of age in the 70s. If you're lucky and you're careful, you'll live longer. I'm very concerned about being old and poor. It's not too early to start learning, thinking, planning...