cavanami Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Dollar Will Weaken, 3 Sectors Will Rule: Strategists Play the game Stocks slipped Friday after the US government report showed more jobs were lost last month than expected. Quincy Krosby, chief market strategist at Prudential Financial, and David Spika, vice president and investment strategist at WHG Funds, discussed their insights. “The job report this morning is confirmation of why you want to invest in companies with exposure to faster-growing foreign markets,†Spika told CNBC. US employment fell for a second straight month in July with non-farm payrolls falling 131,000, according to the Labor Department. Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct Spika said the recovery is going to remain slow and consumer spending will be constrained due to high levels of unemployment... http://www.infowars.com/dollar-will-weaken-3-sectors-will-rule-strategists/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Spika said the recovery is going to remain slow and consumer spending will be constrained due to high levels of unemployment... http://www.infowars.com/dollar-will-weaken-3-sectors-will-rule-strategists/ This part coincides what I read yesterday here: http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110258/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich I was amazed to read that the top 5% of "richest" Americans account for 37& of spending. Not coincidently, these "rich" are the the ones who do hiring, directly/indirectly through investment. Yet, it is this group of people who numbnuts Obama wants to tax even more. So, under Obama's leadership, don't expect recovery to be quick. Expect it to take a long, long time. Long after he's gone. Like I've said before, this commie/socialist/"progressive" makes Carter look like a genius. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 ... well Warren Buffet agrees that the marginal rates of those making over $200K should go up! Buffet says now he pays a lower % of his income in taxes than his secretary! Remember Clinton increased rates on the rich and the economy began a long growth phase, and deficit spending was eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizardKing Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Save your breath. You are talking to true believers. It's like arguing with fundamentalist Xtians. No matter how logical your argument or how strong your facts, that just makes them believe harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchapstick Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Feel free to complain when YOUR taxes go up HH. And when you stop living off of taxpayer largess ... BTW, you have been awfully quite on the Missouri healthcare vote thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Okay Shygay and LK... Here's some info addressing the Clinton tax increases and the idea that same somehow stimulated the economy. After reading it, perhaps one of you can counter the points made in this rather lengthy dissertation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/03/Tax-Cuts-Not-the-Clinton-Tax-Hike-Produced-the-1990s-Boom HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 These are the same "Hooverists" that claimed Clinton increasing the rates for the rich would devastate the economy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Well, attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message kind of presents a tacit agreement with what was written. :content: (However, I was anticipating such a response.) If you need further evidence in support of the thesis noted in the article, just check out the NYSE composite index figures for, say, 1980-2007. I think those numbers significantly support the idea that the tax increases did not spur investment; that after the tax cuts were implemented, more investment was made. You can start your analysis here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5ENYA&a=11&b=31&c=1965&d=07&e=11&f=2010&g=m&z=66&y=132 It would seem to me that our "green" President would want to spur investment by individuals in emerging technologies, rather than tax the shit out of people for his bullshit stuff like "cash for clunkers", "calking", and turtle tunnels. On the otherhand, commies/socialists/"progressives" do tend to favor government control of everything under the guise of "economic and social justice", no? Some of these folks are hardcore idealogues, some are plain dumb shits, some are good and decent folks who really don't think about the consequences of following the path laid out by "lefties". Obama is in the first group. Most of those who voted for him are in the last two groups, IMO. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 I remember these "Heritage" economists types stating during the debate raising taxes on the rich would crater the economy and make the deficits worse. They were wrong on both counts! Of course reducing to zero deficit spending under Clinton reduced government borrowing and thus more money was available for private lending. This never happened under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHWB, or GWB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted August 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2010 ...and it has gotten far worse under Obama! Trillions in "bailouts"? Very soon, maybe before the end of this year, you will see the US dollar completely worthless!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.