It's not a loss until the asset is sold. Until then it's only a loss on paper.Kmarion wrote:
$1.1 trillion in market value lost today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … refer=home
The wealth lost today on the market just today exceeds the cost of the bailout considerably.
Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's not a loss until the asset is sold. Until then it's only a loss on paper.Kmarion wrote:
$1.1 trillion in market value lost today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … refer=home
The wealth lost today on the market just today exceeds the cost of the bailout considerably.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And do things loses mean actual value in stuff is gone, or did those billions just trade hands?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's not a loss until the asset is sold. Until then it's only a loss on paper.Kmarion wrote:
$1.1 trillion in market value lost today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … refer=home
The wealth lost today on the market just today exceeds the cost of the bailout considerably.
Is it only me that sees a future wherein a handful of banks, like 5, are all that's left?
I imagine $50.00 overdraft fees and $10.00 ATM transaction fees.
So much for all that bi-partisanship bullshit everyone was talking about.
Democrats supporting it 141-94, Republicans opposed it 66-132. The final tally was 207-226.. yea I'd say it was bi-partisan in defeating it.Spearhead wrote:
So much for all that bi-partisanship bullshit everyone was talking about.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It's true. Just because the market is down for home prices doesn't mean you lost anything until you actually sell the house. If your stocks are down, it's not a loss until you actually sell the stock. If the prices rebound and head back up before the asset is sold, then you didn't lose anything.Kmarion wrote:
Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's not a loss until the asset is sold. Until then it's only a loss on paper.Kmarion wrote:
$1.1 trillion in market value lost today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … refer=home
The wealth lost today on the market just today exceeds the cost of the bailout considerably.
Does anything, beyond that needed to sustain life, have a real value? Things only have a value because we assign value to it. Is gold really worth anything? Not really. It can't feed you, hydrate you, protect you, or provide shelter. It's just a pretty metal, but because we are enamored with it, we assign value to it. The money didn't trade hands, the value decreased because it's only worth what some one is willing to pay for it.ATG wrote:
And do things loses mean actual value in stuff is gone, or did those billions just trade hands?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's not a loss until the asset is sold. Until then it's only a loss on paper.Kmarion wrote:
$1.1 trillion in market value lost today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … refer=home
The wealth lost today on the market just today exceeds the cost of the bailout considerably.
Is it only me that sees a future wherein a handful of banks, like 5, are all that's left?
I imagine $50.00 overdraft fees and $10.00 ATM transaction fees.
I'm aware that if the market comes back it's "no harm no foul". What you need to ask is --> why did it drop? Could it have been because there was a sell off? So yes, a lot of people lost a lot of money today.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's true. Just because the market is down for home prices doesn't mean you lost anything until you actually sell the house. If your stocks are down, it's not a loss until you actually sell the stock. If the prices rebound and head back up before the asset is sold, then you didn't lose anything.Kmarion wrote:
Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's not a loss until the asset is sold. Until then it's only a loss on paper.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
gold does have value in computer and electronics engineering
And what if you have to sell? Relocation? Can't afford the payments? .. you're toast.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's true. Just because the market is down for home prices doesn't mean you lost anything until you actually sell the house.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The reason for the sell doesn't matter. My point is simply that no actual losses are incurred until the time that an asset is sold for less than one paid for it.Kmarion wrote:
And what if you have to sell? Relocation? Can't afford the payments? .. you're toast.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's true. Just because the market is down for home prices doesn't mean you lost anything until you actually sell the house.
I'm sure there were people that lost actual money due to the sell of an asset at less than what they paid for it. However, not all of the losses in the market were actual losses from people selling stuff. It was mostly attributed to devaluation.
The correct way to think of this is that this loss occured over the last 10 years due to the over inflation of the housing market. It's just that for the last few years most people have been blissfully ignorant of the losses. The losses that are being seen in recent weeks are a result of the stock market being forced to take account the bursting of a massive bubble that shouldn't have been there in the first place.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Does anything, beyond that needed to sustain life, have a real value? Things only have a value because we assign value to it. Is gold really worth anything? Not really. It can't feed you, hydrate you, protect you, or provide shelter. It's just a pretty metal, but because we are enamored with it, we assign value to it. The money didn't trade hands, the value decreased because it's only worth what some one is willing to pay for it.ATG wrote:
And do things loses mean actual value in stuff is gone, or did those billions just trade hands?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's not a loss until the asset is sold. Until then it's only a loss on paper.
Is it only me that sees a future wherein a handful of banks, like 5, are all that's left?
I imagine $50.00 overdraft fees and $10.00 ATM transaction fees.
The drop in the stock markets is a return to reality and a good thing. The US economy can now focus on getting itself back on track without worrying about being based on a big fat lie.
At the very worst you can at least console yourself with the fact that the stock market doesn't in fact track with the realities of the economy as well as most people think. Financial exhuberance and pessimism tend to cause much larger shifts in the stock market (which are only a significant interest to the richest 10 or so percent of the populace) than in the economy as a whole. A lot of the drop in the stock market is simply investors finally taking stock of reality. Yes, a lot of rich people are going to lose a lot of money, but tomorrow the hard working, innovative ones are going to walk into their board room with a plan to make that money back. Those who didn't go along with the high risk/high profit ethos and stuck to true fiscal conservatism are going to benefit from this.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b … 842158.ece
I just love how Nancy managed to throw everyone that was on the fence away from the bill with her wonderful bi-partisan speech.Kmarion wrote:
Democrats supporting it 141-94, Republicans opposed it 66-132. The final tally was 207-226.. yea I'd say it was bi-partisan in defeating it.Spearhead wrote:
So much for all that bi-partisanship bullshit everyone was talking about.
She has come to epitomize everything that is wrong with Congress.
Well then your point is rather obvious. What you seem to be ignoring is that not everyone is capable of waiting it out. Also, when the value of a company drops that companies future is impacted. Layoffs and cuts will follow. That loss is felt immediately. It matters not if you were forced into selling your shares.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
The reason for the sell doesn't matter. My point is simply that no actual losses are incurred until the time that an asset is sold for less than one paid for it.Kmarion wrote:
And what if you have to sell? Relocation? Can't afford the payments? .. you're toast.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It's true. Just because the market is down for home prices doesn't mean you lost anything until you actually sell the house.
I'm sure there were people that lost actual money due to the sell of an asset at less than what they paid for it. However, not all of the losses in the market were actual losses from people selling stuff. It was mostly attributed to devaluation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What about the idea of the "value of a company" not actually being completely tied to that company, but on investor speculation? It is at the very core a "market correction" - the market in general was overinflated, and companies stocks are worth more than they should be. The problem is that while certain individuals can manipulate their vast portfolios to either miminize their losses or actually come up in the black, many ordinary everyday people (of which the economy is intimately tied) will be or have lost their life savings. I still see this as a negative transfer of wealth from people who need it to people who just really want it.Kmarion wrote:
Well then your point is rather obvious. What you seem to be ignoring is that not everyone is capable of waiting it out. Also, when the value of a company drops that companies future is impacted. Layoffs and cuts will follow. That loss is felt immediately. It matters not if you were forced into selling your shares.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong … votes/672/
My question is why didn't it pass? Simple...it's an election year. Every single member of Congress is going to tack on their "support" as a price. The original draft was 3 pages long, now its 150...and it's going to grow.
And after its all over, they're all going to go back to their districts and say "see....I got that XXX that I promised during the campaign. Vote for me". Complete bullshit.
I think that they're going to end up voting for it the next time around...this is total douchebaggery.
And I love that the Senate posponed their vote until Thursday...so the house takes the heat.
All of them should be fired. Git er done.
Oh yeah...and in the link...I noticed something...breakouts by state, gender and....wait for it....astrological sign???? WTF
Oh...and lastly...why do I think it's gonna pass next time? The drop in the market. I'm sure that'll get their attention.
My question is why didn't it pass? Simple...it's an election year. Every single member of Congress is going to tack on their "support" as a price. The original draft was 3 pages long, now its 150...and it's going to grow.
And after its all over, they're all going to go back to their districts and say "see....I got that XXX that I promised during the campaign. Vote for me". Complete bullshit.
I think that they're going to end up voting for it the next time around...this is total douchebaggery.
And I love that the Senate posponed their vote until Thursday...so the house takes the heat.
All of them should be fired. Git er done.
Oh yeah...and in the link...I noticed something...breakouts by state, gender and....wait for it....astrological sign???? WTF
Oh...and lastly...why do I think it's gonna pass next time? The drop in the market. I'm sure that'll get their attention.
Last edited by Pug (2008-09-29 18:27:58)
Still nothing like Black Monday.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Once it drops lower than 9000, it will wipe 5 years of growth off instantly.jsnipy wrote:
But the dow is still above 9000!
http://tinyurl.com/yrc3pc -22.6%
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Someone needs to tell congress that Wall Street doesn't shut down for joo holidays.
There's a racist joke somewhere in thatReciprocity wrote:
Someone needs to tell congress that Wall Street doesn't shut down for joo holidays.
Just the concept of "lets rush a package of money into a broken system" amazes me ... they could have played this entirely different, they could have just given a signal to the market that they had a plan coming but that it would take some time to find the correct one to counter the recession ... that alone would have stabilized the market enough and the mess yesterday would have been avoided ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Right before a election, both sides want to look like the heroes for "saving" the economy.Varegg wrote:
Just the concept of "lets rush a package of money into a broken system" amazes me ... they could have played this entirely different, they could have just given a signal to the market that they had a plan coming but that it would take some time to find the correct one to counter the recession ... that alone would have stabilized the market enough and the mess yesterday would have been avoided ...
"The Dow lost 778 points, its largest point decline in history, and posted its biggest daily percentage slide since the 1987 stock market crash." wow
and
"World stocks, as measured by MSCI's all country world index, lost about $1.7 trillion for the day. "
ouch
and
"World stocks, as measured by MSCI's all country world index, lost about $1.7 trillion for the day. "
ouch
The causes were different: in 1987 the causes were program trading, overvaluation, illiquidity, and market psychology (see your ref), while at this moment there is a financial crisis.Kmarion wrote:
Still nothing like Black Monday.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Once it drops lower than 9000, it will wipe 5 years of growth off instantly.jsnipy wrote:
But the dow is still above 9000!
http://tinyurl.com/yrc3pc -22.6%
Now i don't care about the height or low of stocks, they don't reflect the actual value of the company, and as long as you don't have to sell your shares your loss is only indicative. However I wouldn't want to be going on retirement within the next few years hoping to rely on selling my stocks, because when you have to sell them you'll feel the actual loss more than ever.
What do you mean by financial crisis? It is a very broad term.Pierre wrote:
The causes were different: in 1987 the causes were program trading, overvaluation, illiquidity, and market psychology (see your ref), while at this moment there is a financial crisis.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
If people are basing their decisions on the speach of one person, right before the vote. Then they're perhaps the most stupid politicians in the world. You can't judge something so important over something so trivial. These people are in the wrong job if they've done that.SgtHeihn wrote:
I just love how Nancy managed to throw everyone that was on the fence away from the bill with her wonderful bi-partisan speech.Kmarion wrote:
Democrats supporting it 141-94, Republicans opposed it 66-132. The final tally was 207-226.. yea I'd say it was bi-partisan in defeating it.Spearhead wrote:
So much for all that bi-partisanship bullshit everyone was talking about.
She has come to epitomize everything that is wrong with Congress.
Although, I'm personally still happy that the bill was rejected, I'm still saying if alot of members rejected it based on her speech, then that's worrying.