S&P Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating

[gangrene]

But, in the past there has normally been a grain of economic hope for the investor to grab hold of. Not so much this time. I see it bottoming out around 8,000 before Christmas.

Now that's a bold prediction. I learned long ago that any attempts to predict future stock market levels were virtual exercises in futility. That being said, I don't dispute it's a definite possibility. However, I do feel the real economic data, for those investors who choose not to ignore it, is more favorable now than it was in 2008. The VIX doesn't necessarily back up that statement but there have been some fair to decent earnings reports in the last quarter.

We shall see. I'm long so the day-to-day fluctuations don't really concern me as much, but I'd hate to be a day trader.

[eulesseagle]

Yep when I want unbiased information I tend to go to knowingly conservative sites, since obviously they tend to be unbiased.

As far as the reviews, I would suspect most (obiously not all) of his readers subscribe to his world view, therefore you would tend to expect in general positive reviews of the material. Obviously is I go to books of someone well known, like Sean Hannity or Michael Moore, I would expect to see a lower review score since their notoriety would most likely lead to people from the other side writing reviews to simply give the books a 1.

I really do not think I would form any opinion on what Hannity or Moore had to say. Over exposed pop figures just want to sell you a book of simplisticaly trite information that is yesterday's news and nothing "in depth."

Most of the turn of the 19th to 20th century books dealing with this subject are extremely informative and I would say up to 1965. Books after 1965 I am a little more careful about.

Abe's Books is good for all around information that you can purchase from all around the world. Bolerium Books is pretty much left leaning even though I have purchased some good conservative material.

To understand the future you have to understand the past and understand how they were looking at the future....and not how we look at the past today.

[Quoner]

Most of the turn of the 19th to 20th century books dealing with this subject are extremely informative and I would say up to 1965. Books after 1965 I am a little more careful about.

What put you over the top: LBJ, the march from Selma, the Second Vatican Council, the Watts riots or Vietnam?

[Censored by Laurie]

What put you over the top: LBJ, the march from Selma, the Second Vatican Council, the Watts riots or Vietnam?

Maybe Norman Mailer's "An American Dream" hits a little too close to home?

[UNT90]

Now that's a bold prediction. I learned long ago that any attempts to predict future stock market levels were virtual exercises in futility. That being said, I don't dispute it's a definite possibility. However, I do feel the real economic data, for those investors who choose not to ignore it, is more favorable now than it was in 2008. The VIX doesn't necessarily back up that statement but there have been some fair to decent earnings reports in the last quarter.

We shall see. I'm long so the day-to-day fluctuations don't really concern me as much, but I'd hate to be a day trader.

Yep, and you are 100 percent correct. No one can predict the market. If I could I'd be one hell of a rich man.If I was trading in the short term, I would be real hesitant to be in this market right now. I got out of the market once it got back to 11,800. I wont get back in until it hits 8,500. But that is just me. If I was realy smart, I would gone hard into gold once the housing bubble burst in 2008. Hindsight is 20/20.

[meangreenacct]

I really do not think I would form any opinion on what Hannity or Moore had to say. Over exposed pop figures just want to sell you a book of simplisticaly trite information that is yesterday's news and nothing "in depth."

Most of the turn of the 19th to 20th century books dealing with this subject are extremely informative and I would say up to 1965. Books after 1965 I am a little more careful about.

Abe's Books is good for all around information that you can purchase from all around the world. Bolerium Books is pretty much left leaning even though I have purchased some good conservative material.

To understand the future you have to understand the past and understand how they were looking at the future....and not how we look at the past today.

Sorry - I think bringing in Hannity and Moore confused my point. My point was this, the author of this book isn't well known enough by liberals/people who disagree with him for them to go out of their way to write a review just to trash his rating - which is what you see with the people like I mentioned. His audience is primarily only people who agree with his agenda, which is to abolish the fed, thus pretty much ensuring mostly positive feedback. If I want a historical view on a topic, I won't go to someone whose intent is to abolish the thing I'm researching.

That would be like if I wanted a historical view on the civil rights act...asking you.

That's my point, obviously history is important.

[CMJ]

If Pres. Obama is as weak next year as he is right now, expect the nominee form the Republican party to be very to extremely conservative. That is what political parties do. Look at 2008. Bush had been vilified and had an approval rating in the high 20s. The Republicans do a give up with McCain as the nominee, and the Dems answer with easily the most liberal nominee ever put before the American people.

Same thing in 1980. Carter was a disaster of a President. The Republicans nominate Reagan, who many in the media believed would start WW3 because he was so conservative and such a hawkl.

What do these elections have in common? Landslide victories for the party out of power.

Absent a Romney (or other Rhino nomination) or a miraculous economic recovery, this is what you will see in 2012.

How do you explain the Goldwater (considered even more likely to start WWIII) or McGovern then. Or Mondale, for that matter.

No way in hell is Obama the most liberal nominee ever. Hell, I'd argue that Kerry is way more to the left than Obama, and that was just the previous election cycle.

[UNT90]

How do you explain the Goldwater (considered even more likely to start WWIII) or McGovern then. Or Mondale, for that matter.

No way in hell is Obama the most liberal nominee ever. Hell, I'd argue that Kerry is way more to the left than Obama, and that was just the previous election cycle.

Pres. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate when he ran in 2008. Way more liberal than Kerry. Pres. Obama pushed through, against the wishes of the American People, an entitlement program that will become the largest of all entitlement programs if enacted (health care). Easily the most liberal nominee ever, far more liberal than Mondale and McGovern..

McGovern, Mondale, and Goldwater were all sure defeats. McGovern and Mondale were facing very popular incumbents, while Goldwater was facing Johnson shortly after the Kennedy assasination. In short, it goes both ways. Parties go further toward their base whenever they are assured of a victory or a defeat.

[Green2012]

Yep, and you are 100 percent correct. No one can predict the market. If I could I'd be one hell of a rich man.If I was trading in the short term, I would be real hesitant to be in this market right now. I got out of the market once it got back to 11,800. I wont get back in until it hits 8,500. But that is just me. If I was realy smart, I would gone hard into gold once the housing bubble burst in 2008. Hindsight is 20/20.

You could buy and sell options and collect the premiums.

Looking at it now Gold looks good but it'll bust too if people keep pressing it and over value it.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Green2012

[CMJ]

I think you slightly misunderstood my point with bringing up past elections UNT90. If the Republicans were a sure loser in 2008 as you imply, shouldn't they have run someone more conservative to go with your theory? Before you floated it in your last reply, you gave the indication that because the GOP knew they were going to lose, they ran McCain. But if that was the case all those other big time losses I referenced should have run more moderate choices. Now you flipped the script, but it throws your opinion of McCain's nomination out the window doesn't it?

BTW - I still believe McCain was the only possible shot the GOP had of winning. None of the other candidates would have gotten a sniff of moderates votes like myself. Hell, I even voted for him, and I hadn't voted for a major party candidate in a presidential election since 1996.

Edited August 9, 2011 by CMJ

[UNT90]

I think you slightly misunderstood my point with bringing up past elections UNT90. If the Republicans were a sure loser in 2008 as you imply, shouldn't they have run someone more conservative to go with your theory? Before you floated it in your last reply, you gave the indication that because the GOP knew they were going to lose, they ran McCain. But if that was the case all those other big time losses I referenced should have run more moderate choices. Now you flipped the script, but it throws your opinion of McCain's nomination out the window doesn't it?

BTW - I still believe McCain was the only possible shot the GOP had of winning. None of the other candidates would have gotten a sniff of moderates votes like myself. Hell, I even voted for him, and I hadn't voted for a major party candidate in a presidential election since 1996.

You have a point. But, McCain was another unelectable candidate. He had zero shot at winning and ran a terrible campaign. The exception to the rule.

I actually think a more fiscal conservative candidate would have had a slightly better shot (an incumbent cant win an election when the economy tanks 6 monhs, or even a year and a half, before. A lesson soon to be learned by Pres. Obama). Kinda like saying I got a better shot at sleeping with J.Lo than my brother.

By more fiscal conservative candidate, I mean more than Bush. And that candidate would have needed to criiticize Bush harshly on his fiscal policies, which would never have happened.

Romney will not be the nomine. Bet the house.

[Mean Green Matt]

Romney will not be the nomine. Bet the house.

Yeah. When things really get going and the criticism starts (like for real starts) I don't see Romney surviving because of his healthcare plan in Massachusetts.

[CMJ]

You have a point. But, McCain was another unelectable candidate. He had zero shot at winning and ran a terrible campaign. The exception to the rule.

I actually think a more fiscal conservative candidate would have had a slightly better shot (an incumbent cant win an election when the economy tanks 6 monhs, or even a year and a half, before. A lesson soon to be learned by Pres. Obama). Kinda like saying I got a better shot at sleeping with J.Lo than my brother.

By more fiscal conservative candidate, I mean more than Bush. And that candidate would have needed to criiticize Bush harshly on his fiscal policies, which would never have happened.

Romney will not be the nomine. Bet the house.

Then how do you explain Bob Dole?

The thing I see with the GOP is they usually nominate the "next guy" - in these things. Other than W. Bush, they've gone with what could be argued as the previous heir apparent for nearly 50 years (and I suppose he could as well given his dad & no one else who ran in '00 really had been a leading contender before). Kind of goes into a conservative stereotype in a way....you have to suffer, work your way back up, to prove you should have the nomination.

2008 - McCain gave Bush a tough primary challenge in 2000

1996 - Dole wins nomination, previous VP nominee in 1976, and was Bush's main rival in 1988

1988 - Bush, as VP was the heir apparent to Reagan

1980 - Reagan lost a bitter primary fight to Ford in 1976, went to the head of the line after Gerald barely lost his bid for own term

1976 - Ford even conceivably counts simply because he was not even elected to the VP, much less presidency. But he was sitting there, and had to face a spirited challenge by Reagan

1968 - Nixon comes back from the dead, mostly because the GOP is still picking up the pieces from the '64 debacle, and he is the standard bearer from 1960 (and Ike's VP).

Basically all of these guys were next in line choices. That leaves Romney.

Edited August 9, 2011 by CMJ

[UNT90]

Then how do you explain Bob Dole?

The thing I see with the GOP is they usually nominate the "next guy" - in these things. Other than W. Bush, they've gone with what could be argued as the previous heir apparent for nearly 50 years (and I suppose he could as well given his dad & no one else who ran in '00 really had been a leading contender before). Kind of goes into a conservative stereotype in a way....you have to suffer, work your way back up, to prove you should have the nomination.

2008 - McCain gave Bush a tough primary challenge in 2000

1996 - Dole wins nomination, previous VP nominee in 1976, and was Bush's main rival in 1988

1988 - Bush, as VP was the heir apparent to Reagan

1980 - Reagan lost a bitter primary fight to Ford in 1976, went to the head of the line after Gerald barely lost his bid for own term

1976 - Ford even conceivably counts simply because he was not even elected to the VP, much less presidency. But he was sitting there, and had to face a spirited challenge by Reagan

1968 - Nixon comes back from the dead, mostly because the GOP is still picking up the pieces from the '64 debacle, and he is the standard bearer from 1960 (and Ike's VP).

Basically all of these guys were next in line choices. That leaves Romney.

Curious why you think Romney is "next in line". He wasn't Vice-President. Hasn't been really involved in the National Republican Party (because many see him as way too liberal). Just because he ran in the primary and lost last election cycle, that makes him next in line? Hardly.

You will not see a Rhino come out of this nomination process. It will be a hard line conservative, especially on financial issues. Romney has more in common with the Democrats than conservatives.

[oldguystudent]

Amazing knowledge base you have. I mean, to know the name of every single corporation in America is astounding, much less to know the wage of every single employee for every single corporation and to know that none of these millions of people have gotten a raise.

This idea piqued my curiosity. Going with the assumption that when n>30, the confidence level is 90%, I chose the 30 most actively traded stocks as of the close of trading Monday and looked at net income before adjustments for preferred stock for each. In sum, those companies made profits of $45 billion in 2008 and $141 billion in 2010, an increase of 209%. The valid criticism in this is that my 30 companies were not necessarily chosen at random. I need to come up with a way to get a more random sampling of companies and see if this trend holds true. I was considering just watching the ticker and writing down the next 30 symbols that came across, but I still don't know if that would be TastyGreek approved random sampling or not.

As for employee wages, I just don't even know where to begin to look for data that would debunk or validate the claims of stagnant wages. For that I can only provide anecdotal evidence, and that in no way represents a true distribution of wages.

[meangreenacct]

This idea piqued my curiosity. Going with the assumption that when n>30, the confidence level is 90%, I chose the 30 most actively traded stocks as of the close of trading Monday and looked at net income before adjustments for preferred stock for each. In sum, those companies made profits of $45 billion in 2008 and $141 billion in 2010, an increase of 209%. The valid criticism in this is that my 30 companies were not necessarily chosen at random. I need to come up with a way to get a more random sampling of companies and see if this trend holds true. I was considering just watching the ticker and writing down the next 30 symbols that came across, but I still don't know if that would be TastyGreek approved random sampling or not.

As for employee wages, I just don't even know where to begin to look for data that would debunk or validate the claims of stagnant wages. For that I can only provide anecdotal evidence, and that in no way represents a true distribution of wages.

I think the first part is reasonable...you could also say pull some kind of sample out of the Fortune 500 list.

The second part would be almost impossible to track based on financials. Even if salaries & wages were disclosed, you would have trouble getting an accurate headcount to gauge whether any changes in salaries & wages was attributable to changes in salaries for employees, or purely a function of changes in headcount.

[oldguystudent]

I think the first part is reasonable...you could also say pull some kind of sample out of the Fortune 500 list.

And the other thing to consider is that 2008 was probably an outlier across the board for corporate profits. A more accurate picture of this would probably be to go back, say ten years and see what corporate profits across a random sampling of companies for each year was then trend out the annual increases to smooth out years like 2008.

As an aside, it's a pet peeve of mine when I read "XYZ Corp paid NO taxes in 2010 but made a profit of $XX billion!" Nice sound bites, but nobody's looking at loss carryovers from 2008 that are going to provide tax benefits for years to come. Mmmm...M-3 Reconciliations. Learn them! Read them! Love them!

[meangreenacct]

And the other thing to consider is that 2008 was probably an outlier across the board for corporate profits. A more accurate picture of this would probably be to go back, say ten years and see what corporate profits across a random sampling of companies for each year was then trend out the annual increases to smooth out years like 2008.

As an aside, it's a pet peeve of mine when I read "XYZ Corp paid NO taxes in 2010 but made a profit of $XX billion!" Nice sound bites, but nobody's looking at loss carryovers from 2008 that are going to provide tax benefits for years to come. Mmmm...M-3 Reconciliations. Learn them! Read them! Love them!

Yea - 2008 is definitely an outlier, especially when looking at companies in the financial sector. As far as the salary issue, I do know of several companies that instituted both pay cuts and salaries freezes (again ancedotal) and many have not restored them despite the uptick in profits. It would be interesting to know if that was the case with many companies, or if most have at minimum restored salary to where it was before. If companies haven't done that, then glicks claim might hold water. Although with any statement like that it would be extremely hard to prove (at least the salary component of the arguement).

[MeanGreenTexan]

You know, after having the weekend to really think about this, I think this may be a good thing.

I mean, Gilmer, Celina, Cuero and Abilene Wylie are all really good teams that dominate the AAA class every year. I think the American Economy would have had a tough time this year against those teams.

At least in the AA+ class, it will only have to compete with Dangerfield for dominance.

We're talking football right?

[UNTFan23]

As an aside, it's a pet peeve of mine when I read "XYZ Corp paid NO taxes in 2010 but made a profit of $XX billion!" Nice sound bites, but nobody's looking at loss carryovers from 2008 that are going to provide tax benefits for years to come. Mmmm...M-3 Reconciliations. Learn them! Read them! Love them!

And our politicians want to eliminate some of these tax breaks.

[glick1980]

Nothing to see here, move along!

Edited August 9, 2011 by TheTastyGreek
Violation of forum rules

[MeanGreenTexan]

... Congratulations, you win the "I am a dumb piece of **** award" today.

Fixed for you, and by the way, welcome to ban-ville.

You should check out the forum rules.

[meangreenacct]

Actually those were for fortune 500 companies and it was on CNN, and since corporations are you know, public, as in they have to disclose their information to the you know, the public, it isn't uncommon knowledge. Well I guess for you it is, because you are the type of person that obviously attacks someone for doing research. Congratulations, you win the "I am a dumb piece of shit award" today.

Take it down a notch man.

If you would have linked where you got it from, the response would have been a little different (maybe). When you go throwing out statements without support, then obviously everyone will be skeptical.

[KRAM1]

Yep, it was pretty much as bad as I thought it might be. I bought on the way down, but it just kept falling. My portfolio took an 8% hit. Today's point drop places it at #6 on the all time list. Last Thursday is now #10. The good news is that what goes down usually comes back up in the stock market. Many of the best, single-day point gains occurred within a few days of the worst days. Hopefully, that pattern will repeat itself.

Unless you sold you have not lost a dime. GREAT buying opportunity...since you bought on the way down, you'll do fine whether you bought at the absolute low or not...just like in 2008. Right now on Tuesday the DOW is UP 38 points and both the NASDCAQ and S&P are also both up. The sky did not fall...it won't and there will be buying opportunities for those who do not panic. This is a temporary drop...chill out, relax and enjoy the ride.

Anyone below the age of 65 should be buying!

GO MEAN GREEN!

[TheTastyGreek]

Now is a good time for everyone to refresh themselves on the rules for both GMG as a whole, and this forum in particular.

Also, please be aware that there is a "Report" button on each post. If someone flagrantly crosses a line, please flag the post.