fed to cut rates AGAIN

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

The kind of retard that has followed the market a hell of lot better than your finger pointing, nay-saying ass did just two days ago.

"Freddie Mac jumped nearly 15% and Fannie Mae rose 8.8%..."
 
a bag of dicks with my head up my ass?
what kind of fucking retard are you?
grow the fuck up

I didn't stutter, did I?

Clearly I'm joking around when I make outlandish comments like that to you. As I said earlier, quit getting your panties in a bunch its just the internet.

Don't take my insults to heart, because I still <3 you. <3
 
ahahaha.

I'll be sure to "pack my pistol" and travel without a "permit" if you know what I'm saying Nick. Yeah, you know what I'm saying!
 
ahahaha.

I'll be sure to "pack my pistol" and travel without a "permit" if you know what I'm saying Nick. Yeah, you know what I'm saying!
why do you have to go there? huh? this isn't what the thread is about. :lol:
 
When oil prices go up, so does the price of KY Jelly.....


either way, it's going to be a pain in the ass in the long run.
 
just of curiosity, do you make a shit load of money totalburnout? it sounds like you know what you're talking about because i sure the hell dont know anything about econ except 101 stuff.
 
just of curiosity, do you make a shit load of money totalburnout? it sounds like you know what you're talking about because i sure the hell dont know anything about econ except 101 stuff.


<---- Graduating in May. I'm not a finance major, just an Interdisciplinary Business major (a course curriculum very similar to what most other schools have for business administration) and I tend to listen and read quite a bit.

I won't always have the right answer, but generally if I care even the slightest I'll research and research and research. For instance I was just educating myself on the workings of Hedge Funds before I fell to asleep and was awoken by my furnace damn near exploding.

Irregularly I also listen to Jim Cramer's Mad Money and I took up watching some financial analysts shows today because its important. They're all pretty much saying the same thing that the WSJ article I posted was echoing; we've hit a bottom and we should start seeing some growth now, especially in tech.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are up 50% for the week. I just pulled some ticker quotes from yahoo finance and Fannie was up 11.xx% for the day and Freddie is up 8.96%.

Commodities are said to be going down, because we just saw some gain in the dollar today after some Fed Reserve injections into specific sectors and many of the analysts were talking about the commodities bubble about to burst and going through a market correction. In the past two days gold is down $75, supposedly a lot of people had sell orders at around $960ish and as people tried to sell gold all at once and increased the supply, the price was driven down the other day. I guess today a second wave of people trying to protect their profits must be selling their hard currency.

The other stuff like agriculture and the ethanol/corn and other grain issue has been floating around in the news as well. I'm sure any engineer that works with alternative energy sources or any agri. major would probably bury me in knowledge in whats currently happening, but its about putting all of these small factors together to make up a wider market.

Now don't get me started on beta values, r squared values, and alpha values because I'm just learning those and am a bit in over my head. Complex economic ideas such as analyzing trends through graphical analysis and economic theory is mainly over my head as well.

I'm not usually a numbers guy, but I care about finance because in a couple months thats where this little guy is going to be sticking his money.

...oh yeah and I interned at a financial co. as well.

/end the being woken up by my superheating furnace at 5:30 in the morning rant.
 
I also like to eat alive conspiracy theorists, dooms dayers, and nay sayers.

They had some clown on CNBC today along with a handful of other analysts that kept being a dooms dayer and saying that the Fed. was doing a terrible job handling the problems of the market and interest rates. When asked to give a number for what the interest rate should be, he bucked, until he was prompted to answer four times and then he just calmly threw out an arbitrary number since he had no real answer. What a dipshit.
 

The thing about this article is that its all speculation. It assumes that foreign investors will all call upon US debts and essentially withdrawal from the US market.

Fact of the matter is as a nation we are a huge importer and therefore a huge source of income for foreign companies. Therefore foreign countries have a high stake in the success of the United States economy and would be highly improbable to call upon huge portions of US debt at this time. Doing so would simply be cause for the Fed to inject more money into the economy, depreciating the dollar and making the situation a losing stake for all.

In short, the article is speculative bullshit from what I can deduct but perhaps I'm wrong.

Also they liken a decrease in bond yields to that of the fall of Bear Sterns. Bear Sterns fall was caused by a unique situation; as an investment bank, your investors must have the utmost faith in you, as soon as they lose faith and stop investing with you, the company will stagnate and die. Everyone lost faith in Bear Sterns and were calling on their investment simulataneously for which Bear Sterns did not have the liquidity to cover.

As a government, the US can theoretically have as much liquidity as it desires by printing an infinite amount of money. Also, as a country, foreign investors will not lose all their faith, like investors did with Bear Sterns, because too significant of foreign income is derived from the United States. Foreigners may have less faith in the US market, but the fact is they still have substantial faith with good reason.
 
thats cool.. my friend is doing her master's right now in business with emphasis in graphical analyst with calculus and what now..:ph34r:

im pretty good at math and what not (asian, i guess :p), and a pretty grasp on econ, but that financial stuff kind of bores me. thats why i turned into a biological science major. it was that or computer science.

anyway, i dont believe ethanol is the correct fuel alternative. its easy binds to water and easily contaminates the water supplies. also, it requires much more ethanol to produce as much power as regular gasoline. it produces the same amount of carbon based gases as regular fuel and requires fossil fuel to make it. in addition, much of corn is for food ie sodas, baking goods, etc or for feed for cattle. there is a surplus of it, but thats thanks to genetics. Corn was getting ravaged by pests and such, but genetically modified corn, Bt-corn, was created and helped with the production. now imagine if ethanol was used for fuel like fossil fuel is. the demand will skyrocket and i dont think everyone would like the fact of eating bt-corn. i for one dont mind, but you get those mac people who do care.
 
Irregularly I also listen to Jim Cramer's Mad Money and I took up watching some financial analysts shows today because its important. They're all pretty much saying the same thing that the WSJ article I posted was echoing; we've hit a bottom and we should start seeing some growth now, especially in tech.
cramer is a television host. he is there for entertainment. if people followed his advice, they would lose a shit-ton of money. he has a shot-gun approach. he'll throw enough ideas out there that something has to hit. i like to watch him, but i know that i can't bank on every idea he has.

as for the analysts on tv. they are on tv because they were bad analysts. if they were good analysts, they would be making billions on the market. and yes, there are people who do make billions. i remember when VH1 wall street ballers was on. one of the guys on there was one of marsha's clients. she spoke with him about once a week. that is where the money is. yes, these guys are smarter than i am, but only use it for entertainment. their word is not the gospel. ^_^
 
...you do realize that Cramer still manages his own fund, writes financial advice books, and keeps a running tally of how his recommendations have faired in the market (he's up for the record), right?

Jim Cramer made his money in finance, although people may not understand him and he may have overhyped antics, that doesn't equate to poor advice. I've went along with a ton of his plays and they've been spot on. In fact, my housemate keeps a running tally of how much he would have made had he bought UNP (union pacific railroads) when it was suggested the other year.

Also most of the TV analysts that are worth their weight, still do make millions and enjoy teaching others. Its very much like the professors at many top notch schools. The Dean of my business school made millions before he came to the world of academics and most of the professors here have proven themselves in the business world, where they've made their money, they're simply comfortable enough to go into a different world thats a slower pace where they can do their own thing.

I'm not talking about political TV anchors or any arm chair analysts such as that, I'm talking about guest experts that come on and share their opinions. Warren Buffett was just on CNBC this morning and they have an entire webpage dedicated to following his financial movements.

Like I said, I've worked in the same sort of places that you work ;). I've heard advice on the personal level and I've also listened to the huge talking heads. I don't have it all right but don't be fooled, I'm not going to listen to some unproven dumbass.
 
yeah, you are right. i definitely don't want this to turn into a debate.

cramer is a genius. but he does throw a lot of advice out that is good and a lot that is bad. nobody can be 100%. our job as consumers is to take his advice and research it and make an informed decision. he takes a little bit of knowledge and shoots from the hip.

i look at the analysts on msnbc like i look at espn. they take older players to give input or advice since they were on the field/court. they aren't always the best, but they have the insiders view.
 
anyway, i dont believe ethanol is the correct fuel alternative. its easy binds to water and easily contaminates the water supplies. also, it requires much more ethanol to produce as much power as regular gasoline. it produces the same amount of carbon based gases as regular fuel and requires fossil fuel to make it. in addition, much of corn is for food ie sodas, baking goods, etc or for feed for cattle. there is a surplus of it, but thats thanks to genetics. Corn was getting ravaged by pests and such, but genetically modified corn, Bt-corn, was created and helped with the production. now imagine if ethanol was used for fuel like fossil fuel is. the demand will skyrocket and i dont think everyone would like the fact of eating bt-corn. i for one dont mind, but you get those mac people who do care.

Yes, if you follow agri. trends than you see that the demand between ethanol and growing nations (primarily the two fastest growing economies, with the largest amount of people in the world; India and China) has caused a rise in the price of grain. This fact has already been realized.

The trickier part that I was talking about with agri. is how the shift to increased demand for corn, in a corn based society (we use corn for virtually everything; corn starch, high fructose corn syrup as a cheap sweetener, etc., etc.), has effected the price of other grains. Wheat is hitting an all time high as is corn.

As you said, ethanol produces less energy than diesel. The exact figure is pretty daunting but I forget the number off of the top of my head. Further as you pointed out, it takes a lot of energy to produce ethanol. Running that farm manufacturing equipment requires mass amounts of energy from some source.

The kicker is that recent studies have shown that ethanol may be worse for the environment, due to the energy expended while producing ethanol but also because of the removal of crops removes a primary source of carbon removal from the air. They're clearing huge plots of land, cutting down the forestry and then periodically harvesting the grain which leaves less plant life to filter carbon out of the air.

I don't know why we don't use switch grass for ethanol like Brazil does, but that much of the topic I'm very vague on the information.

Hybrids are the answer for our fuel consumption in the present. In 2010 and 2011, GM and Toyota are supposed to debut full plug in hybrids that are supposed to be much more fuel efficient. Toyota was supposed to release their hybrid in the next year but when one of the laptop manufactures had a recall on their batteries (i think it was sony, hp, or dell) Toyota found out that their batteries were using the same technology and decided to do more extensive testing before letting them hit the market.

Short term hybrids are the only real feasible answer because we don't have the infrastructure in place for any other new technology to rapidly hit the market. Plus transportation is by far the number one consumer of energy in America. If we reduce the amount of energy required there then demand will fall, making prices settle and also the harmful effects on the environment will be greatly lessened.

Bush was foolish when he dedicated all that money to hydrogen as an alternative fuel source, simply because its not a sound short term play. We don't have the infrastructure in place and Toyota even has said its years off. Although, I heard just the other day BMW released some hydrogen cars to go along with the one or two hydrogen filling stations in Germany. I don't know how they'll run or if any other car manufacturers are ahead of where Toyota claimed to be in the last year.

Bush should have taken that money and reinstated the tax rebates for hybrid vehicles to try to entice greater demand by subsidizing the increased price of hybrids. His bad.

I think the real key is that no one really knows what is the next big alternative technology after hybrids.
 
Last edited:
yeah, you are right. i definitely don't want this to turn into a debate.

cramer is a genius. but he does throw a lot of advice out that is good and a lot that is bad. nobody can be 100%. our job as consumers is to take his advice and research it and make an informed decision. he takes a little bit of knowledge and shoots from the hip.

i look at the analysts on msnbc like i look at espn. they take older players to give input or advice since they were on the field/court. they aren't always the best, but they have the insiders view.

I understand your point and my rebuttal wasn't meant to turn anything into a debate.

Investing is very personal and many people have many different philosophies. You may not subscribe to Cramer's philosophy, I just happen to think he has a good handle on the markets and he's one analyst that I enjoy listening to and think he has provided me with some sound financial advice.

...but as always, your mileage may vary.
 
Back
Top