[quote]Paste42 wrote:
I heard that stocks are supposedly going to be going up for the next 4-8 weeks consistently. I was thinking of just throwing in $1000 into S&P 500 index. Any thoughts?[/quote]
If you think that the S&P is going to rise you could just buy a call option to buy the S&P with a strike at today’s price. That way if you’re wrong all you have to pay is the option premium. Whereas if you’re right you’ll get the returns (minus transaction fees and option premium).
Also caveat emptor still applies. Don’t wager money you need to live on, should be an obvious warning as well. Betting on the market should be done with disposable income.
[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
Also caveat emptor still applies. Don’t wager money you need to live on, should be an obvious warning as well. Betting on the market should be done with disposable income.[/quote]
The operative word is “betting”. Options are Las Vegas east.
Ever hear the old saying about options? The best way to make a million dollars in options trading is to start with two million.
Options (with the exception of maybe covered calls) are a “wasting asset”:
Covered calls are a different story.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
People AREN’T spending. That’s the problem.
WRONG. JUST! PLAIN! WRONG! This is the fix. Individuals know better than some stupid fucking bureaucrat when it is ok to spend their money and when it isn’t. We need savings not more debt.[/quote]
Evidently they don’t, because that’s the cause of a recession in the first place, jackass.
Wrong again, that’s why it makes sense for the government to spend while people get back on their feet.
I don’t know I’m talking about? You’re arguing the wrong fucking thing. I suggest you read about the multiplier effect.
Like who? You? What a joke. It figures you’d link to mises.org.
It creates jobs, some temporary, some longer term. Last time I checked, being paid for work is not being paid for “nothing.” That privilege is reserved for bankers and other executives.
You know what really kills productivity? Making the same wage, or sometimes less, for thirty years, no matter what you do, which is the situation workers have been in for many countries for many years. I
nvestors supposedly need incentives to “create jobs” and other things, but the worker is just supposed to shut up and work harder and harder for no prospect of reward? And if he doesn’t, he’s “lazy.” Maybe you don’t think this way, but I’ve met plenty of people who do.
I don’t listen to Limbaugh, but I generally keep up with the news, and he’s been in the headlines the last month or so. Not so much in the past week or thereabouts, but I’ve seen his ugly, fat, pasty, slimy, slug-like ass on the TV more than I care to recently.
[quote]Can you honestly say that college students and house wives working over the holidays make enough contribution to create a recovery? I think not!
Creating temporary work creates a temporary bubble, that’s all it does. Which, if you allow a little thing like logic to dictate, will lead to yet another drop…The only thing that has been proposed that will sustain is the crippling debt. We are dangerously close to not even being able to create enough capital to cover the interest. If that happens, we are bankrupt. The little positiveness that the stimulus will cause will be temporary, then what? Another stimulus?[/quote]
No, but then again, I didn’t say that. All I said was that their productivity didn’t magically disappear because they only desired the job temporarily, as you seemed to be doing. Temporary work does not create a bubble.
In does allow people to sustain themselves during a downturn, and much of the spending is designed to facilitate future productivity, like the infrastructure investment and smart power grid initiative.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote: We are dangerously close to not even being able to create enough capital to cover the interest. If that happens, we are bankrupt. The little positiveness that the stimulus will cause will be temporary, then what? Another stimulus?
And in all actuality capital consumption without productivity is what will really mess people up. This will cause massive price increases as entrepreneurs go to spend inflated currency on capital goods that do not exist.
Imagine a small island with a population of 100 people and 20 pigs. Pig prices are thru the roof, people are going hungry, and the King decides there is a problem so he calls up Ben Bernanke for some advice.
Ben tells him the solution to his problem is simple: just consume more and to help everyone along print up some new money and the rest will work itself out. So the King decides to print up 100 new Simoleons (the local currency named after the King) for every citizen on the island. Every family of 4 then rushes out to buy some pigs with their newly found wealth but the problem remains...there are still only 20 pigs for 100 people. As the bidding begins prices rise ever more until they become so expensive that even the King himself cannot afford one.
Luckily, one of the King's staff is an intelligent person and tells the King he ought to open up his own coffers to the public and give back the pigs that he initially taxed. As a result 50 new pigs find their way to the market and prices come down to pre-inflation prices.
The king decides this can never happen again so he makes a decree that he will no longer take pigs from the farmers as payment for taxes but rather will now allow his own lands to be used for pig farming, too.
The island lives happily ever after forgetting the name Ben Bernanke.[/quote]
This analogy is so fucking flawed it's ridiculous. In a recession, the problem, to continue with your analogy, is not that there are only 20 pigs. That's a supply problem and monetary policy won't help, and no sober economist would even think to recommend it. In a recession, it's more like there are plenty of pigs, but not many Simoleons.
People are hesitant to buy pigs because then they won't have much money to spend on other things. In this case, printing more Simoleons will indeed be all you need do to end the recession. With more currency to go around, people aren't afraid of running out anymore, and so demand for pigs returns.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush threw away trillions of dollars that got us nothing. At least the money Obama is spending is for some purpose.
I still think it’s funny that people like pat and hedo think they know better than people like Stiglitz what’s best for the economy. Especially when their criticism boils down to, “Well, I mean, that’s a LOT of money!” As well as the association of “socialism” with “spending lots of money.” The laughs never cease.
It’s simple common sense since I actually work and participate in the economy. Not only that support for the massive spending bill is not universal. In fact most businessmen oppose it. So yes I guess I do know more about how the economy works since I have principles. Your attempt to paraphrase what I think is comical at best and highlights how naive you are. Keep laughing though, it’s a good outlet.
If it was a true stimulus bill I might give it some support but it is a spending bill on a massive scale wrapped in double speak. Of course it is beloved by Democrats.
By the way Bush didn’t throw away trillions. Obama in 60 days quadrupled the deficit and will bankrupt the country in 4 years. By comparison Bush was a tightwad who left a far smaller deficit, which I also opposed. Get your facts straight. Your out of your depth here.
Blah blah blah, rationalizing, Bush-apologetics. Same old.
Same old facts. They haven’t changed.
Try adding something intelligent.
[/quote]
Like a link to the fucking Heritage Foundation? You’re killing me.
[quote]hedo wrote:Kids in college get jobs over the summer and winter holidays. Adults have careers that they work at full time. You’ll see one day.
Jobs are created by the private sector not government.
Take an econ course next semester. Maybe they’ll explain it to you.[/quote]
You said nothing in this post. If we’re recommending courses to each other, in addition to an econ course for you (which I’ve already taken), I’ll add an English course, so you can work on writing coherent sentences.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush threw away trillions of dollars that got us nothing. At least the money Obama is spending is for some purpose.
I still think it’s funny that people like pat and hedo think they know better than people like Stiglitz what’s best for the economy. Especially when their criticism boils down to, “Well, I mean, that’s a LOT of money!” As well as the association of “socialism” with “spending lots of money.” The laughs never cease.
It’s simple common sense since I actually work and participate in the economy. Not only that support for the massive spending bill is not universal. In fact most businessmen oppose it. So yes I guess I do know more about how the economy works since I have principles. Your attempt to paraphrase what I think is comical at best and highlights how naive you are. Keep laughing though, it’s a good outlet.
If it was a true stimulus bill I might give it some support but it is a spending bill on a massive scale wrapped in double speak. Of course it is beloved by Democrats.
By the way Bush didn’t throw away trillions. Obama in 60 days quadrupled the deficit and will bankrupt the country in 4 years. By comparison Bush was a tightwad who left a far smaller deficit, which I also opposed. Get your facts straight. Your out of your depth here.
Blah blah blah, rationalizing, Bush-apologetics. Same old.
Same old facts. They haven’t changed.
Try adding something intelligent.
Like a link to the fucking Heritage Foundation? You’re killing me.[/quote]
Can you dispute the actual facts as false, or do you think, just 'cause YOU said it, it means something. Other than double talk around the fringes, you have offered no defense and not a single shred of evidence to back up anything you said.
Is that how all you mega-leftists operate? Statements with out fact, slogans and no evidence.
If you are fucking broke, borrowing and spending an assload of money won’t fucking fix it. A kindergartner can figure it out and you can. Perhaps getting an education would help…Al least then you may have the good sense not to wait around with you hand out hoping somebody will put something in it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:Kids in college get jobs over the summer and winter holidays. Adults have careers that they work at full time. You’ll see one day.
Jobs are created by the private sector not government.
Take an econ course next semester. Maybe they’ll explain it to you.
You said nothing in this post. If we’re recommending courses to each other, in addition to an econ course for you (which I’ve already taken), I’ll add an English course, so you can work on writing coherent sentences.
[/quote]
I will translate it for you:
See Spot, a job.
See Spot a career.
See Spot a job is part of a career.
See Spot a career is not a job.
See Spot, the young person.
See Spot young person get job that does not pay a lot.
See Spot, young person quits jobs, goes to school, gets high.
See Spot older person, done with school.
See Spot older person, done with school get a job.
See Spot, older person job lasts long time.
Second point:
See Spot government.
See Spot private sector.
See Spot government jobs with low pay.
See Spot private sector jobs with high pay.
See Spot, private sector makes money.
See Spot, government make money when private sector makes money.
See Spot, governement not make money from people with shitty government jobs.
Is that clear? Can’t make it much simpler than that.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Evidently they don’t, because that’s the cause of a recession in the first place, jackass.[/quote]
Er, um…there is no more credit so everything is fine now. People have to save if they want to spend. And if you think about it logically that is what debt it…saving in reverse.
And you definitely don’t understand anything…not everyone is in a “recession”. For example, I am pretty well set for the time being.
The government doesn’t have any money! so who are they going to take it from?!
Ha! Whatever.[quote]
Like who? You? What a joke. It figures you’d link to mises.org.
[/quote]
There are at least a few people who post on this site that have already given you a sound thrashing.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
=This analogy is so fucking flawed it’s ridiculous. In a recession, the problem, to continue with your analogy, is not that there are only 20 pigs. That’s a supply problem and monetary policy won’t help, and no sober economist would even think to recommend it. In a recession, it’s more like there are plenty of pigs, but not many Simoleons. People are hesitant to buy pigs because then they won’t have much money to spend on other things. In this case, printing more Simoleons will indeed be all you need do to end the recession. With more currency to go around, people aren’t afraid of running out anymore, and so demand for pigs returns.
[/quote]
you have proven in your recent posts that you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. You need to take a step back and really understand the basics.
Start with supply and demand and the business cycle.
Then move on to speculation. How it drives the market and what it requires of the market.
Then think about, I mean really think about, where all economic knowledge resides. Then ask yourself why we would want to take the enocomy out of hands of those who hold actual economic knowledge. Those that actually drive the economy.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This analogy is so fucking flawed it’s ridiculous. In a recession, the problem, to continue with your analogy, is not that there are only 20 pigs.That’s a supply problem and monetary policy won’t help, and no sober economist would even think to recommend it.[/quote]
Debt is also a supply problem…were in debt because we do not supply enough goods to our creditor nations.
No you got it exactly backwards. If there is no production there is nothing to spend money on. I don’t know why you would think that somehow goods and services magically fall out of the sky just because I have a crisp, new $100 bill in my back pocket.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:Bubble up economics’ inherent flaw is that it reward money for nothing.
It creates jobs, some temporary, some longer term. Last time I checked, being paid for work is not being paid for “nothing.” That privilege is reserved for bankers and other executives.
[/quote]
Ok what jobs are long term…You gonna get a shovel and build a road?
Are you saying that if you were offered the postion of executive with a lucrative salary you would turn it down to do something lesser for the greater good, you know like you friend marx? Or are you say ALL executives are cheats and evil and don’t deserve what they have.
Perhaps it’s you who does not deserve what you have. If you want to “spread the wealth around” start with your money not mine.
How much do you give to help your fellow man since you are concerned with it? Or is it you waiting for your slice of the pie with out having to earn it.
Spoken like a person who has never worked for anything a day in his life. Your a spoiled brat…Perhaps you should stop sucking off your parents.
If you do not listen to him, how do you know what he says? It’s like critiquing a book you never read. Hell you may even like him if you listen to him. Or perhaps you would find yourself agreeing with him…If you don’t listen you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
Explain how this stimulates the economy…I want details and facts. Because your dead fucking wrong. Look no further than FDR, who sustained the depression 7 years longer than it should have because he kept string people along with shitty jobs and social programs and they could never advance; they had to take what was given them. In '37 he further fucked them up with a major tax hike.
BTW, it was the tax hike by Herbert Hoover that turned the recession in to the depression. The depression ended with WW 2, he had nothing to do with it. History has beared this out time and time again.
Please for crying out loud study history and get your fucking facts strait.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Covered calls are a different story.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coveredcall.asp[/quote]
Investopedia aside, covered calls are no different from a put except with an addition transaction fee.
[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Covered calls are a different story.
[/quote]
Investopedia aside, covered calls are no different from selling a put except with an addition transaction fee.
FIXED
Meant to say selling a put in above
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote: We are dangerously close to not even being able to create enough capital to cover the interest. If that happens, we are bankrupt. The little positiveness that the stimulus will cause will be temporary, then what? Another stimulus?
And in all actuality capital consumption without productivity is what will really mess people up. This will cause massive price increases as entrepreneurs go to spend inflated currency on capital goods that do not exist.
Imagine a small island with a population of 100 people and 20 pigs. Pig prices are thru the roof, people are going hungry, and the King decides there is a problem so he calls up Ben Bernanke for some advice.
Ben tells him the solution to his problem is simple: just consume more and to help everyone along print up some new money and the rest will work itself out. So the King decides to print up 100 new Simoleons (the local currency named after the King) for every citizen on the island. Every family of 4 then rushes out to buy some pigs with their newly found wealth but the problem remains...there are still only 20 pigs for 100 people. As the bidding begins prices rise ever more until they become so expensive that even the King himself cannot afford one.
Luckily, one of the King's staff is an intelligent person and tells the King he ought to open up his own coffers to the public and give back the pigs that he initially taxed. As a result 50 new pigs find their way to the market and prices come down to pre-inflation prices.
The king decides this can never happen again so he makes a decree that he will no longer take pigs from the farmers as payment for taxes but rather will now allow his own lands to be used for pig farming, too.
The island lives happily ever after forgetting the name Ben Bernanke.
This analogy is so fucking flawed it's ridiculous. In a recession, the problem, to continue with your analogy, is not that there are only 20 pigs. That's a supply problem and monetary policy won't help, and no sober economist would even think to recommend it. In a recession, it's more like there are plenty of pigs, but not many Simoleons.
People are hesitant to buy pigs because then they won't have much money to spend on other things. [b]In this case, printing more Simoleons will indeed be all you need do to end the recession. With more currency to go around, people aren't afraid of running out anymore, and so demand for pigs returns.[/b]
[/quote]
That is a woefully ignorant statement.
If you printed off money and tossed it from the rooftops, the only resulting effect would be an increase in prices. Nobody would have increased buying power; the recession would continue.
If you print off money and [b]don't[/b] distribute it evenly (and I haven't noticed any money magically appearing in my mailbox), people would [b]lose[/b] buying power, and the recession would get even worse!
You can't just print wealth. You can print money, but not wealth. If the island just printed off more money, the price of pigs would rise right along with the resulting fall in the value of the Samolean. The people would be no better off, and worse off if they didn't directly receive any of the new money.
Here's a clip from Duck Tales that explains it such that even seven-year-olds can understand it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4
That's the folly of thinking that gov't spending can get us out a recession.
Problem: Consumers have depleted their accumulated capital, and demand has fallen.
Solution!: Government will spend in place of consumers to keep demand high.
Problem: Where does government get [i]their[/i] money?
Solution!: They can tax it!
Problem: The people they're taxing don't have enough money to begin with, or else demand wouldn't have cratered! Taking more of what money they do have will reduce their buying power, thus reducing demand further, thus deepening the recession!
Solution!: They can print it!
Problem: That just spurs inflation, and effectively reduces the buying power of consumers, which would just exacerbate the problem we're trying to solve!
Solution!: Reduce taxes, leaving more money in consumers' pockets, and deflate the currency, increasing the buying power of what money they do have. Prices will fall, capital will accumulate, and demand will return in time. Recession over.
Printing more money and increasing taxes to pay for gov't spending is exactly the wrong course of action, and we're about to prove it for at least the third time.[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:Kids in college get jobs over the summer and winter holidays. Adults have careers that they work at full time. You’ll see one day.
Jobs are created by the private sector not government.
Take an econ course next semester. Maybe they’ll explain it to you.
You said nothing in this post. If we’re recommending courses to each other, in addition to an econ course for you (which I’ve already taken), I’ll add an English course, so you can work on writing coherent sentences.
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to educate you. I was insulting you. Now do you understand the difference. Idiot.
Try and think up something original now. People will at least tolerate you instead of dismissing you as a naive college kid.