sigh

mmm... yeah... the stock market returning to uninflated levels is a good thing... also, there is more to the global economy than capital investment... withdrawing your paper cash in a panic will guarantee a meltdown... cash I might add that is only now redeemable for other paper cash i.e. is utterly valueless on its own as will become apparent in the event of a real disaster.

>>3

I'll take my chances; you take yours.

>>4
I'm not denying this will be trubulent, we can kiss quick credit and free overdrafts goodbye, free banking too most likely, savings will return less interest, and there will be a glut of unemployable financial service peons flooding the job centre, but the solution is not to bleed the banks dry of paper currency, that will make this all worse.

The banks over-borrowed from each other and funded too many financially unviable projects with this credit. Now some of them will pay the ultimate price.

This is a good thing, perhaps it will prevent the situation from getting this bad again?

>>5

>The banks over-borrowed from each other and funded too many financially unviable projects with this credit. Now some of them will pay the ultimate price

Unfortunately, it is WE (the taxpayers) who are paying the ultimate price. Regarding the bailout:

It is not just $700bn. That is a cap. They can have no more than that in hand at one time. Here is the scheme: Bring in a security worth $1000 that you paid to a bank. This gives the bank 100% of what they paid for it. Sell the security back to the same or a different bank for $800. Taxpayers eat the $200 difference, first bank is made whole on their investment, the next bank gets a great deal on the output of this money laundering scheme. Banks make profit galore, taxpayer gets hosed. They can keep crap coming in and going out for a long time without reaching the cap. It was initially thought the fund would take in that security already discounted to $800, but Paulson managed to get that section removed.

LOL, Money Masters.

Oh, and I only withdrew 2K, leaving a five-figure sum in my account. The real problem here was, is and always will be the fucking Federal Reserve and fractional-reserve banking.

There are only about 150 billion dollars in circulation on an estimated 6 trillion in deposits. Is it any coincidence that the Fed stopped publishing M3 data? Disgusting.

>>6
One question: Do you (or your parents) own your house?

401(k) more like 401(fffffffffffffffff)

>>6
There is a lot here that is true.

What you've done though, is confuse the crisis in capital reinvestment with "the Economy", capital E.

Very briefly: resource-based economics are underwritten by western governments, they can't fail. Now, the USA may not explicitly say it underwrites them like Frances for example, but if you check who funds what, the US Treasury directly underwrites (bypassing the fed) a wide range of corporate ventures in surplus areas such as defense and future tech, all of which just happen to be resource-heavy i.e. what we have here is state underwritten subsidy of a huge chain of resource-based industries in everything by name. And in this way they are protected from the debacle unfolding this week.

I totally agree you guys in the USA need to get rid of the Federal Reserve. And for fuck's sake say no to the bailout if you get the option. Protip: you wont get the option.

>>8
Oh, yes... you 401k guise get shafted yet again, but didn't you learn anything from Enron? Think of it as yet another wake up call: don't literally gamble on your future.

Capital reinvestment is for money you don't need to survive, retirement included: if you can't afford to reinvest, don't, you always end up worse off in the long run. Always. Same goes for 401k: you can't rely on it at all, so don't.

>>10
I don't think you even know what a 401k is. You seem to have a 401k confused with employees owning stock in the company they work for. A 401k is not a type of investment, it's merely a container vehicle allowing other investments that would otherwise be taxable to be tax-deferred or tax-free depending on type. Although company stock is one possible thing that could be stored in a 401k, many plans don't even offer company stock (mine doesn't). A 401k can contain individual stock, stock mutal funds, individual bonds, bond mutual funds, any other sort of mutual fund such as commodity, real estate, or foreign currency, or even basic money market for the risk-averse.

And for that matter, the US stock market is not "gambling", unless you try to beat market returns by trying to predict price rises & falls or by overweighting certain companies or sectors. Investing in the entire US stock market, as a whole, over a period of at least ten years, has the highest risk-adjusted return of any other investment class in the world.

Also, no matter how much the value of an investment declines, you haven't "lost" anything until you sell. With a long time horizon, declines in value early on are good because they let you buy in even more at a bargain price.

The US stock market has never had a losing decade... there is no point in history where you could have invested money in the entire US stock market (such as via an index fund) and not had a positive return 10 years later, usually very positive.

>>11
Most of this is true, BUT only if you have the capital to reinvest without hurting yourself financially.

This cannot be said of the average private investor, and as recent events have uncovered, some very powerful finacial powerhouses too.

And as for the 401k, it is commonly (foolishly, erroneously) treated as a nest egg in practice, counted before it hatches, relied upon, in other words, gambled upon. It is a sham from start to finish, of course, a promise to pay on a promise to pay, bizarre to say the least, but it seems to get the peons up out of bed in the morning, so can't be all bad.

So, yes, thanks, we know, that wasn't what we were talking about. It has shared elements, but a crucial caveat that is very important indeed, a caveat that is at the heart of the shitstorm.

>>12
I'm with the neko cute whatever person. People living off credit is another huge problem.

>>12 And as for the 401k, it is commonly (foolishly, erroneously) treated as a nest egg in practice, counted before it hatches, relied upon, in other words, gambled upon. It is a sham from start to finish, of course, a promise to pay on a promise to pay, bizarre to say the least, but it seems to get the peons up out of bed in the morning, so can't be all bad.

Again, you still don't know what a 401k is. A 401k or IRA is merely a container. Are you advocating keeping all your money in cash? You can do that with a 401k or IRA. You can keep it 100% cash if you want to. The only difference between keeping the money in cash in a 401k and in cash at your bank is the tax advantage. Gold? You can do it. Real estate? You can do it. The 401k or IRA is merely a tax-advantaged container for whatever you'd be doing with your money anyway, so you'd be a damn fool not to take as much advantage of the tax protection as you can. Of course, over a long time horizon, keeping all your money in cash is retarded -- the only thing that makes sense over a long time horizon is a fully diversified portfolio consisting primarily of US and international stock, with a lesser stake in bonds and a still lesser stake in cash. This of course doesn't count your emergency funds, which of course should be kept in cash or short-term bonds.

>>14
What does this have to do with the current financial situation? Protip: nothing.

>>15
I don't know, why don't you ask Mr. Pedro LOL-401K-IS-TEH-EVIL.

>>16
Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other derailing ploys, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

So where's this apocalypse then? Not anywhere around here.

Oh, and I love the way they spent a whole week saying "if you bail us out, we'll keep your private investments safe", got a bailout, and are now saying "we never said anything about keeping your private investments safe". Protip: blatantly lying about something you can edit together in a YouTube montage that proves you are blatantly lying is utterly lame.

THREAD TL;TR: AMERICA GETS FUCKED, THE WORLD LAUGHS.

>>19

>THREAD TL;TR: AMERICA GETS FUCKED, JUST AS PLANNED, THE NEW WORLD ORDER LAUGHS.

Fixed, but for once you were in the right ballpark, are you feeling alright?

>>17

Why yes, I would say that that's an accurate description of what you did. Your ability to look critically at yourself is appreciated.

but I want my crash :(
I own everything I have. I don't care who has money. I can survive effectively through poaching if it comes down to the collapse of civilization itself. And I personally believe an economic disaster is better then the nuclear fucking bomb.
Blood makes the grass grow but ashes do nothing.