How low will the Dow Go?

How low will the Dow go before recovering?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Billy. Most of my stock exchange deals are imaginary.
I had an urge to buy Platinum when that cold fusion news hit the headlines.
The cold fusion had cold water poured on it, but it would have been a fortunate mistake given the future surge in value of the metal.

We have a peculiar situation in the UK where we have a Prime Minister who is deeply unpopular, but to whom the World is looking for solutions.
It's like when Grandad turns out to be a war hero.

There needs to be a sea change in world economics.
We need a new system.

If we stick with the status quo, there will be a long recession.

Common sense says "How is the world any different from the way it was two weeks ago"

Well, actually it isn't.
Well is it?

It is the system which has gone belly up, and if we stick with it we must accept the consequences.
Let's have a rethink.

1st step. Lets start thinking in term of long term benefits instead of short term profits.

"2nd Step. Lets have a system where more than 7 countries are involved in formulating world economic policy.

I have opened a thread suggesting that we have a G-195. This is obviously a non-starter (though no-one has properly argued against me yet)
but a G-20 would be an improvement.
 
Last edited:
...There needs to be a sea change in world economics. We need a new system. ...
1st step. Lets start thinking in term of long term benefits instead of short term profits.
I agree. I am coming to think that even well regulated capitalisms (my long time favorite) may not be it. Communism and even socialism are worse than that. So what is there?

Answer: What China is exploring (and the Scandinavian countries have practiced longer.)

I never really understood what "debt swaps" were until recently (not sure I fully do still); but they illustrate what is the fundamental problem with "well regulated capitalism." - I.e. the cleverness of greed-driven men. "Debt swaps" are insurance, but insurance is too well regulated so it is not true, before the law, that a rose by any other name is still a rose. The margin requirements and other insurance rules do not apply to "debt swaps." so leverage more than 30 fold was common.

I.e. clever greedy men will always be one step ahead of the regulators.

Basically the better idea seems to be a hybrid - ordinary needs of population are met by the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith working in the free market and the infrastructure needs are met by government planning. China has 10 "five year" plans that make up the "50 year plan" so they can and are signing 30 year contract all over the undeveloped world for the supplies they need far into the future. Even their president who will take over in the next five year plan was selected last year. US does not know who will be president a month from now.

The US is very arrogant and that is major part of the US's problem. For example, the French, who could speak the language used by the educated in Vietnam, had fought the communist there for more than a decade and finally were defeated. Then the US, who could not tell friend from foe, because lack of language skills, went in expecting to quickly win (after all they were Americans, not mere French!) You can see this arrogance in McCain's debates "We are Americans, the best .... Etc." It will be very difficult for the US to adopt better ideas from others. Look at health care - All the developed world except America, has better and cheaper system. For example in EU the life expectance is 3 years longer and the annual cost / person is $3000 is less, but it is an "evil socialistic system" - not American enough. US wants private insurance companies to take a cut of the profits. Let doctors charge whatever the traffic will bear etc. Treat the poor in hospital emergency rooms where cost is 30 times greater than if they had had preventive care earlier. Etc.
 
Everything will go up when hyperinflation hits, that's what inflation is ;)

Gold won't do you much good if the currency collapses, it'll only give you a head start when the currency is re-valued or replaced afterward.
 
I agree. I am coming to think that even well regulated capitalisms (my long time favorite) may not be it. Communism and even socialism are worse than that. So what is there?

Answer: What China is exploring (and the Scandinavian countries have practiced longer.)

I never really understood what "debt swaps" were until recently (not sure I fully do still); but they illustrate what is the fundamental problem with "well regulated capitalism." - I.e. the cleverness of greed-driven men. "Debt swaps" are insurance, but insurance is too well regulated so it is not true, before the law, that a rose by any other name is still a rose. The margin requirements and other insurance rules do not apply to "debt swaps." so leverage more than 30 fold was common.

I.e. clever greedy men will always be one step ahead of the regulators.

Basically the better idea seems to be a hybrid - ordinary needs of population are met by the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith working in the free market and the infrastructure needs are met by government planning. China has 10 "five year" plans that make up the "50 year plan" so they can and are signing 30 year contract all over the undeveloped world for the supplies they need far into the future. Even their president who will take over in the next five year plan was selected last year. US does not know who will be president a month from now.

The US is very arrogant and that is major part of the US's problem. For example, the French, who could speak the language used by the educated in Vietnam, had fought the communist there for more than a decade and finally were defeated. Then the US, who could not tell friend from foe, because lack of language skills, went in expecting to quickly win (after all they were Americans, not mere French!) You can see this arrogance in McCain's debates "We are Americans, the best .... Etc." It will be very difficult for the US to adopt better ideas from others. Look at health care - All the developed world except America, has better and cheaper system. For example in EU the life expectance is 3 years longer and the annual cost / person is $3000 is less, but it is an "evil socialistic system" - not American enough. US wants private insurance companies to take a cut of the profits. Let doctors charge whatever the traffic will bear etc. Treat the poor in hospital emergency rooms where cost is 30 times greater than if they had had preventive care earlier. Etc.

BillT, I agree to an extend. We have had a well regulated system untill 2000 when The United States repealed the Glass-Stegal Act of 1935. That act was the result of learned experiences from the Great Depression. The Act was repealed by an Republican Congress and signed into law by a Democrat president.

Corruption exists both in private industry and in the halls of government. As long as government has some degree of freedom from corruption, regulation can be well managed. But when government is riddled with corruption as is now the case in the U.S. regulation is in name only. Credit Swaps would not have been permitted under Glass-Stegal.
 
Gold will do a lot of good when currency collapses...that is because people can use it to buy and sell essential goods. That has been going on for the last 5000 years.
 
A real Dow bruiser would be an Israelli attack on an Iranian nuclear enrichment plant.

Say the week after next.
 
I never really understood what "debt swaps" were until recently (not sure I fully do still); but they illustrate what is the fundamental problem with "well regulated capitalism." - I.e. the cleverness of greed-driven men. "Debt swaps" are insurance, but insurance is too well regulated so it is not true, before the law, that a rose by any other name is still a rose. The margin requirements and other insurance rules do not apply to "debt swaps." so leverage more than 30 fold was common.

I.e. clever greedy men will always be one step ahead of the regulators.

I suppose human greed to convert lead in to gold or print money does not disappear. If they can not print money, leveraging 30 to 50 times with convoluted or elaborate processes is the next best thing....

Which means, there has to be a regulating entity that watches over all the schemes greedy people plot...for the national economic security....which is more damaging than drug wars or war in Iraq....

"Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty" (Wendell Phillips 1811-1884) is more apt than ever.
 
I suppose human greed to convert lead in to gold or print money does not disappear. If they can not print money, leveraging 30 to 50 times with convoluted or elaborate processes is the next best thing....

Which means, there has to be a regulating entity that watches over all the schemes greedy people plot...for the national economic security....which is more damaging than drug wars or war in Iraq....

"Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty" (Wendell Phillips 1811-1884) is more apt than ever.

Truer words were never written. Since the Republican take over of congress, corruption has reigned in Washington.
 
Ron Paul has been talking about the next Great Depression and if it comes quick and hard it should leave us much better in the long run. Get smacked hard enough and you'll find Americans will be willing to look at other ways of doing things.
 
To milkweed:

I will not reply in detail until you give a few numercial facts with reference support your claims/ opinions of the last post. What is it that China is reducing in its imports? What specifically and by how much? etc lets have some quantative information like I give you.

True during the olymics China did close some factories that were making air polution but not the ports so a small dip in inports may have occurred for that reason, but not because of economic problems.

Can you say "stagflation" or "in-de-flation" ? If not, start practicing - you will need those terms soon.
"China is expected to become slightly less dependent on foreign sources of soybeans in 2008/09 as additional domestic production is forecast to meet growing demand. This lower import demand parallels a global reduction in the demand for soybean imports due in part to high prices."

"South American 2007/08 soybean meal exports (Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia)
are reduced a combined 0.8 million tons as import demand is expected to decline in the 3rd quarter of 2008."

http://www.fas.usda.gov/oilseeds/circular/2008/Sept/oilseedsfull0908.pdf

Keep in mind, the soy harvest is not complete in the USA at this time.

"4 Chinese steel makers plan to trim production
Friday, Oct 10, 2008"

"The steel slowdown, together with a pileup of iron ore stocks in China, has undermined the shipping market, which had enjoyed a boom because of Chinese trade. The Baltic Dry shipping index has tumbled from 11,793 in May to 2,922 on Tuesday."

http://www.yourmetalnews.com/news_item.php?newsID=12467

China copper imports down 4% in August [UPDATE]

Shanghai 10 September 2008 08:19

Chinese imports of unwrought copper and semi-copper products fell 4% month-on-month in August to 178,047 tonnes. The newly released figures from Chinese customs bring total copper import volumes in the first eight months of 2008 to 1.69 million tonnnes, 12% lower year-on-year.

http://www.metalbulletin.co.uk/Article.aspx?ArticleId=2008791&Category=NonFerrous

Note the above copper drop occurred before the global collapse of the market.
 
Ron Paul has been talking about the next Great Depression and if it comes quick and hard it should leave us much better in the long run. Get smacked hard enough and you'll find Americans will be willing to look at other ways of doing things.

Michael, Ron Paul's positon was dubunked 80 years ago. It is essentially the positon adopted by Herbert Hoover and led to a prolonged devastating depression with 30 percent unemployment.
 
Michael, Ron Paul's positon was dubunked 80 years ago. It is essentially the positon adopted by Herbert Hoover and led to a prolonged devastating depression with 30 percent unemployment.

Wrong, Paul's position advocates liquidation of bad debt and assets absent of government intervention to allow for a market correction. Hoover did the opposite and tried to prop up the market. That's what helped prolong the depression.

It's amazing how easily history repeats itself.
 
Ron Paul advocates non intervention. Hover advocated non intervention. How is that different? FDR advocated intervention and did intervene....though very late in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Note the improved economic results after the installation of FDR as president:

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/EconomicCatastrophe/GreatDepression.html

FDR began his presidency in March of 1933.

So I can not see how the facts support your position.
 
Ron Paul advocates non intervention. Hover advocated non intervention. How is that different? FDR advocated intervention and did intervene....though very late in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Note the improved economic results after the installation of FDR as president:

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/EconomicCatastrophe/GreatDepression.html

FDR began his presidency in March of 1933.

So I can not see how the facts support your position.

Not sure how you can say that, the facts in the very wikipedia article on Hoover you cited support me.

Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Those ideals, as well as the economy were put to the test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.[17] Critics[who?], on the other hand, accused Hoover of sharing Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint. It is often inaccurately stated that Herbert Hoover did nothing while the world economy eroded. President Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression. His policies, however, had little or no effect. As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. [Ashura: note that they don't seem to include federal building projects as part of federal intervention] Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions. [Ashura: This flies in the face of the facts, as I'll show below.]

In 1929, President Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program. To combat rampant unemployment, the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs, the program was largely a forced migration of an estimated 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico. The program continued through 1937.

Congress approved the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. The legislation, which raised tariffs on thousands of imported items, was signed into law by President Hoover in June of 1930. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and nations outside the U.S. increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.[18] [Ashura: 1930 certainly isn't the end of his term, and sharply raising tariffs certainly counts as intervention. The act was part of the reason why the depression was so severe.]

In 1931, Hoover issued the Hoover Moratorium, calling for a one-year halt in reparation payments by Germany to France and in the payment of Allied war debts to the United States. The plan was met with much opposition, especially from France, who saw significant losses to Germany during World War I. The Moratorium did little to ease economic declines. As the moratorium neared its expiration the following year, an attempt to find a permanent solution was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. A working compromise was never established, and by the start of World War II, reparations had stopped completely.[19][20]


President Hoover, in 1931, urged the major banks in the country to form a consortium known as the National Credit Corporation (NCC).[21] The NCC was an excellent example of Hoover's belief in volunteerism as a mechanism in aiding the economy. Hoover encouraged the member banks of the NCC to provide loans to smaller banks in order to prevent them from collapsing. Unfortunately, the banks within the NCC were often reluctant to provide loans, usually requiring banks to provide their largest assets as collateral. It quickly became apparent that the NCC would not be capable of fixing the problems it was designed to, and it was abandoned in favor of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

By 1932, the Great Depression had spread across the globe. In the U.S., unemployment had reached 24.9%[22] , a drought persisted in the agricultural heartland, businesses and families defaulted on record numbers of loans, and more than 5,000 banks had failed[23]. Tens-of-thousands of Americans found themselves homeless and they began congregating in the numerous Hoovervilles (also known as shanty towns or tent cities) that had begun to appear across the country. The name 'Hooverville' was coined by their residents as a sign of their disappointment and frustration with the perceived lack of assistance from the federal government. In response, President Hoover and Congress approved the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, to spur new home construction, and reduce foreclosures. The plan seemed to work, as foreclosures dropped, but it was seen as too little, too late.

Prior to the start of the Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, had proposed, and saw enacted, numerous tax cuts which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. As the depression worsened, Congress, desperate to increase federal revenue, enacted the Revenue Act of 1932. The Act increased taxes across the board, and the percentage increased with income, to near pre-1928 levels for top income earners. It also implemented a 13.75% tax on corporations. The unintended result of the Act, was decreased spending among consumers and businesses alike, and the country sank deeper still into the Great Depression.

The final attempt of the Hoover Administration to rescue the economy was the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act which included funds for public works programs and the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932. The RFC's initial goal was to provide government-secured loans to financial institutions, railroads and farmers. The RFC had minimal impact at the time, but was adopted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and greatly expanded as part of his New Deal.

All I see is intervention joe, Paul would be against almost all of these things. So perhaps you should instead defend your belief that Hoover was a non-interventionist.
 
[edit] Great Depression
Main article: Great Depression
Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Those ideals, as well as the economy were put to the test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.[17] Critics[who?], on the other hand, accused Hoover of sharing Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint. It is often inaccurately stated that Herbert Hoover did nothing while the world economy eroded. President Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression. His policies, however, had little or no effect. As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

The points you cite were really of no consequence...deporting illegals, trade barriers. Those were not positive. He did not understand the government needed to intervene as they have done and continue to do around the globe today. Any self respecting economist will tell you government intervention is needed. Hoover was trying to maintain a balanced budget and positive trade balances...not something you do in a depression and exactly opposite of what the government is doing today.
 
Last edited:
[edit] Great Depression
Main article: Great Depression
Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values. Those ideals, as well as the economy were put to the test with the onset of The Great Depression. At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.[17] Critics[who?], on the other hand, accused Hoover of sharing Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint. It is often inaccurately stated that Herbert Hoover did nothing while the world economy eroded. President Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression. His policies, however, had little or no effect. As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

I've already demonstrated how some of the rhetoric in there is BS. While Hoover spoke of preferring volunteerism, he did intervene in serious ways. Whether or not you accept it as such is irrelevant to the fact.

The points you cite were really of no consequence...deporting illegals, trade barriers. Those were not positive. He did not understand the government needed to intervene as they have done and continue to do around the globe. Any self respecting economist will tell you government intervention is needed.

Trade barriers that slowed trade to a halt, raising taxes to the point where spending by both businesses and individuals greatly decreased, the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, these aren't insignificant things. No self respecting economist would cast aside the Smoot-Hawley tariff act as you just did. And no Austrian school economist would agree with your diagnosis.

Aside from all that, we're moving away from your earlier assertion, that Paul's recommendations of nonintervention as a solution to the current crisis were discredited decades ago vis a vis Hoover's policies. I think I've debunked that assertion quite soundly by showing that Hoover did intervene quite a bit, and Paul wouldn't have supported any of it.
 
I've already demonstrated how some of the rhetoric in there is BS. While Hoover spoke of preferring volunteerism, he did intervene in serious ways. Whether or not you accept it as such is irrelevant to the fact.

Trade barriers that slowed trade to a halt, raising taxes to the point where spending by both businesses and individuals greatly decreased, the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, these aren't insignificant things. No self respecting economist would cast aside the Smoot-Hawley tariff act as you just did. And no Austrian school economist would agree with your diagnosis.

Aside from all that, we're moving away from your earlier assertion, that Paul's recommendations of nonintervention as a solution to the current crisis were discredited decades ago vis a vis Hoover's policies. I think I've debunked that assertion quite soundly by showing that Hoover did intervene quite a bit, and Paul wouldn't have supported any of it.

I will grant you he did some small things but he did not do what he should have done. He did not do what any economist of merit today would recommend doing. He deported illegals (something we have been doing) and really has no impact on the economy. He raised taxes...wrong move in a depression. He put up trade barriers...not something anyone would recommend today.

So while I gant you that he did do some very minor things to combat the depression, he largely stayed away from direct intervention that FDR exhibited. And you can see the impact FDR's reforms had on the economy per previous post. There is just no arguing with results.
 
Back
Top