TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating from AAA
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by Mise "We will do anything to maintain the status quo and keep our "donators" in power along with the companies they own, in a facade to keep half of you employed while they rob from all of you. thank you, Don't panic!" Now, let's return to your scheduled programming.... American idol!

What a fucking mess

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Uh oh. This just in: http://www.politico.com/news/storie...l#ixzz1UIySO373

I saw that coming from a mile away. What is interesting, day after the US lost its AAA credit, there was an article blaming a Canadian at S&P

I wonder how fucked up the market would be if the US got downgraded to like A.

quote:

Australia AAA Austria AAA Canada AAA Denmark AAA Finland AAA France AAA Germany AAA Guernsey AAA Hong Kong AAA Isle of Man AAA Liechtenstein AAA Luxembourg AAA Netherlands AAA Norway AAA Singapore AAA Sweden AAA Swiss Confederation AAA United Kingdom AAA United States AA+ Abu Dhabi AA Belgium AA Bermuda AA China AA Japan AA Kuwait AA New Zealand AA Qatar AA Saudi Arabia AA Slovenia AA Spain AA Taiwan AA Andorra A Aruba A Botswana A Chile A Czech Republic A Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah A Estonia A Israel A Italy A Korea, South A Malaysia A Malta A Oman A Slovakia A Poland A-

One thing, I have a feeling a lot of people that have Bank of America shares are having heart attacks right now. The stock is down over 13% the last time I checked. The company lost C$11B so far.

quote:

Originally posted by jester One thing, I have a feeling a lot of people that have Bank of America shares are having heart attacks right now. The stock is down over 13% the last time I checked. The company lost C$11B so far.

Should be 22% by now?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/here-...cy-contemplated


Also, I hope PKC still thinks Ben managed to save the world economy. Time for another QE? LOL.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the GOP were more than happy to let the previous CCB act (whatever that was called) expire once clinton was out of office. im sure you were up in arms about it, lulz.

But there was no tea party wing of the GOP back then, and the tea-party politicians were elected on the basis of literally one issue, cutting government spending. Back then there were only neo-cons, who don't want to cut anything besides Planned Parenthood and NPR.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/08/mar..._bin&hpt=hp_bn3

quote:

Wall Street had its worst day since the 2008 financial crisis, as fearful investors reacted to the United States losing its coveted AAA credit rating. All three major U.S. stock indexes sank between 5% and 7%, pushing the Dow below 11,000 for the first time since last November. U.S. stocks have fallen 15% during the past two weeks. Though observers said S&P's downgrade shouldn't matter all that much, the market wasn't buying it. "Investors are having one reaction to the downgrade: sell first and ask questions later," said Paul Zemsky, head of asset allocation with ING Investment Management. Even if investors dismissed the downgrade, they'd still have to contend with the European debt crisis and rising fears of a new U.S. recession. Those are the factors that led to a drop of more than 6% last week, the worst since the financial crisis of 2008. The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) sank 635 points, or 5.6%, to 10,810. The S&P 500 (SPX) lost 80 points, or 6.7%, to 1,120. And the Nasdaq Composite (COMP) dropped 175 points, or 6.9%, to 2,358. The sell-off was worse than the 512-point drop stocks experienced only three trading sessions ago. Few companies were spared. All members of the Dow 30 and all members of the S&P 500 traded lower. Financial stocks were among the hardest hit, with Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) plunging 20%, and Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500) dropped roughly 15%. The VIX (VIX) -- Wall Street's so-called "fear' index -- jumped 44% to 45.98, the highest level since early 2009.

quote:

Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! Also, I hope PKC still thinks Ben managed to save the world economy.

I quizzed you on your opinions back then, and like the uninformed faggot you are, you turned tail and ran.

Ben did save the world economy, and particularly the US, from imploding. Nobody said politicians couldn�t fuck that up though Einstein.

quote:

Time for another QE? LOL.

These issues have nothing to do with liquidity or credit crunches so your retarded comment is way off base.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Ben did save the world economy, and particularly the US, from imploding.

So if billions of dollars weren't created out of thin air and failing companies weren't saved, we'd actually be in a worse position then we are today? If the markets were allowed to allocate scarce resources back to where they are most in demand, the economy would be in much worse shape? Please, explain.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT So if billions of dollars weren't created out of thin air and failing companies weren't saved, we'd actually be in a worse position then we are today? If the markets were allowed to allocate scarce resources back to where they are most in demand, the economy would be in much worse shape? Please, explain.

It is an unfortunate fact that our modern economies are dependent upon sound financial structures in order to function effectively. Look at the credit crisis even with the lending of last resort on an unprecedented scale. There were still more than 100 bank collapses. Look at the systemic risk in play once lehman fell. Nobody knew exactly how deep that hole would be if the dominoes were allowed to keep falling. So yes, absolutely the US would be in a worse position without the intervention(s) taken. Credit markets would have disappeared, businesses that depend on credit would have been squeezed, unemployment would have risen even further. Your lip-service �scarce resources� would have been non-existent.

Sure, we could argue all day about the ifs/buts/maybes, which is nice and easy for us armchair critics, and in your case, ideologue fanatics. But for those people actually places where their decisions had meaningful impacts, it would�ve been a ballsy Fed or Treasury that decided to say �fuck it� and then watch the fireworks go.

But, I know that market externalities are a figment of imagination according to people like you, and government intervention is always evil. So I don�t expect your opinions to intersect with reality at all.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN It is an unfortunate fact that our modern economies are dependent upon sound financial structures in order to function effectively. Look at the credit crisis even with the lending of last resort on an unprecedented scale. There were still more than 100 bank collapses. Look at the systemic risk in play once lehman fell. Nobody knew exactly how deep that hole would be if the dominoes were allowed to keep falling. So yes, absolutely the US would be in a worse position without the intervention(s) taken. Credit markets would have disappeared, businesses that depend on credit would have been squeezed, unemployment would have risen even further. Your lip-service �scarce resources� would have been non-existent. Sure, we could argue all day about the ifs/buts/maybes, which is nice and easy for us armchair critics, and in your case, ideologue fanatics. But for those people actually places where their decisions had meaningful impacts, it would�ve been a ballsy Fed or Treasury that decided to say �fuck it� and then watch the fireworks go. But, I know that market externalities are a figment of imagination according to people like you, and government intervention is always evil. So I don�t expect your opinions to intersect with reality at all.

I just wanted to know where you were coming from with your comment. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by jester

Which brings up the unfortunate insurance policy the US has that allows our government to basically do whatever they want:



Our dollar is backed by our military might. In theory, if we run out of money, we have the power to go take it from somebody else.

and for some reason it concerns me that over 70% of trading at the NYSE is completely done by computers . . .

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



http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ries-abound.ars

quote:

Originally posted by Quazar Which brings up the unfortunate insurance policy the US has that allows our government to basically do whatever they want: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RaZ7btje5...r-bomb-test.jpg Our dollar is backed by our military might. In theory, if we run out of money, we have the power to go take it from somebody else.

China's got lots of nukes, too. And waaaay more manpower. That's a fight nobody really wants, and posturing about it would just be idiotic.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions China's got lots of nukes, too. And waaaay more manpower. That's a fight nobody really wants, and posturing about it would just be idiotic.

I'm not saying the US will posture, I'm simply saying that's the underlying principle behind the fact that the US is allowed to continue borrowing. Our existence as a nation is "guaranteed" for a long time due to our military, and therefore we'll be around for a theoretical infinity in which to pay back the money.

quote:

Originally posted by Quazar I'm not saying the US will posture, I'm simply saying that's the underlying principle behind the fact that the US is allowed to continue borrowing. Our existence as a nation is "guaranteed" for a long time due to our military, and therefore we'll be around for a theoretical infinity in which to pay back the money.

The Soviets had more nukes and a larger army...

Military won't run without money to buy fuel, raw materials, and pay soldiers. The better guarantee is our earning power, due to our large workforce, (crumbling) infrastructure, and (now increasingly beset) financial system.

That is also what Soviets lacked. You can direct a huge proportion of GDP to military spending all you want. Won't matter if your GDP shrinks to nothing.

I wasn't trying to say it was a smart way to do things, I was just saying how it is.

Our borrowing power has long been backed by our military supremacy. The "strongest" nation on the planet gets to borrow the most money cause they're (supposedly) more likely to stick around than even the country that lent it to them.

borrowing power has nothing to do with the military (directly). Borrowing power is determined purely on the belief that a country is good for the debt.

We totally are. I thrust my trust upon the bust of THE17SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN borrowing power has nothing to do with the military (directly). Borrowing power is determined purely on the belief that a country is good for the debt.

Exactly. You don't borrow with military power. You take.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You don't borrow with military power. You take.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN borrowing power has nothing to do with the military (directly). Borrowing power is determined purely on the belief that a country is good for the debt.

And one of the reasons we're believed to be good for the debt is that our military ensures our existence long-term. That's all I'm saying. I didn't say they were directly related, but they are related.

You could say that about every single nation that isn�t a cesspool of instability. The size or strength of one�s military is unrelated. Japan has a monster debt and have no real military to speak of.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN You could say that about every single nation that isn�t a cesspool of instability. The size or strength of one�s military is unrelated. Japan has a monster debt and have no real military to speak of.

True, but they're backed by our's. (though they can't use our's to go take another nation's wealth, so my point becomes a little moot here)

If our military isn't what ensures our "credit", then what would you say does most-of-all? GDP? Control of the World Bank/IMF?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.