Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, in your opinion they would be better off if the stock market had not recovered from the 2009 lows. A lot of people lost half of their retirement savings, and without the recovery, they would still be down 50%. I just want to make sure you understood the question.
They have had to reassure the markets that they will do whatever is necessary to keep the markets inflated. It doesn't matter what they call it. They say they are going to keep interest rates artificially low and you cant do that without a program like QE no matter what you want to call it. What they call their welfare programs doesn't matter, it's what they do that matters.
Actually in your own link they said the opposite. They said they are considering raising the rates sooner than before.
Quote:
The markets are at or near record highs. Why do you have to do anything? (About the 5th time I've asked this)
I have already answered it. If you do not like the answers, that's one thing, but I am not going to change my answers no matter how many times you re-post your questions. Besides, I have no clue why you expect me to defend the actions of the Fed. I already told you I would not lose any sleep if they were abolished next week. The Fed is nothing but a banking cartel.
So, in your opinion they would be better off if the stock market had not recovered from the 2009 lows. A lot of people lost half of their retirement savings, and without the recovery, they would still be down 50%. I just want to make sure you understood the question.
You addressed none of my points. If you want to address my points and explain why they are wrong, I would be happy to address yours. (nor have you answered the question I have asked you many times) If the markets are at record or near record high why does the Fed still have to prop it up?
Actually in your own link they said the opposite. They said they are considering raising the rates sooner than before.
No they didn't.
“The Fed said if data points move toward their objectives faster than expected they’ll raise rates sooner than expected,†Todd Salamone, senior vice president of research at Cincinnati-based Schaeffer’s Investment Research, said via phone. “That’s still a big ‘if.’â€
They aren't moving in the right direction. The fundamentals are all still dragging.
Quote:
I have already answered it.
No you haven't. Saying you aren't a fan isn't answering the question. Besides your words betray you.
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
So, in your opinion they would be better off if the stock market had not recovered from the 2009 lows. A lot of people lost half of their retirement savings, and without the recovery, they would still be down 50%. I just want to make sure you understood the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
You addressed none of my points. If you want to address my points and explain why they are wrong, I would be happy to address yours. (nor have you answered the question I have asked you many times) If the markets are at record or near record high why does the Fed still have to prop it up?
I answered your questions, but you do not have to answer mine. As a matter of fact a non-answer proves what I thought anyway.
So you are arguing that the liberal Reason.com is wrong that Obama's QE Trickle Down favors the rich.
You may have an argument that all of these workers have received benefits that have trickled down.
Yet remember, many people have low 401K balances and these Trickled Down benefits aren't realized yet, just on paper.
So you support Obama's Trickle Down?
I don't CARE what you call it - "trickle down" or whatever. The fact remains that MILLIONS of Americans have benefitted from the stock market rise - MILLIONS.
And NO they are NOT "just on paper". MILLIONS of Americans retire every year and begin to pull upon those boosted 401ks (myself included in that group).
Is your logic that everyone with a 401K is rich???
So we can cut it out with the growing inequality meme? And the children going hungry meme? And the 50 Million poor meme?
Also, do you understand the difference between realized gains and paper gains?
How is this not about Obama? Why don't you want him associated with the Trickle Down policies that he supports? Every pick he has made has been a QE Trickle Down supporter - QE Trickle Down didn't start until Obama won in 2008 and met with Bernanke. Then Obama renominated Bernanke and then picked Yellen.
The Top1% ALWAYS gain the most when the stock market rises - just as they tend to lose the most when the stock market falls. That's the nature of having more stock.
DUH!!!!!
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
