Hurray! CNBC reports:
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is repeating a pattern that appeared just before markets fell during the Great Depression, Daryl Guppy, CEO at Guppytraders.com, told CNBC Monday.
“Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it…there was a head and shoulders pattern that developed before the Depression in 1929, then with the recovery in 1930 we had another head and shoulders pattern that preceded a fall in the market, and in the current Dow situation we see an exact repeat of that environment,” Guppy said.
The Dow retreated 457.33 points, or 4.5 percent last week, to close at 9,686 Friday. Guppy said a Dow fall below 9,800 confirmed the head and shoulders pattern.
But what about all the jobs Obama has ‘created or saved’?
In 1929, the Fed, by loosening credit to the point that it became profitable to gamble on the stock market with other people’s money, caused the great depression. When there weren’t any more suckers around to buy at the inflated prices and they dropped, the banks started seeing a lot of defaults, and they couldn’t pay out on demand accounts. Banks went out of business and people lost their savings.
In 2007, the Fed, by loosening credit to the point that it became profitable to gamble in the housing market with other people’s money, caused the great recession. When there weren’t any more suckers around to buy at the inflated prices and they dropped, the banks started seeing a lot of defaults, and they couldn’t pay out on demand accounts. Only this time the demand accounts were covered by insurance, so everything’s “just fine.” A few investment banks become commercial banks to remain solvent and get bailed out, and we’re all back to the new normal.
No connection at all.
#15
“What has absolutely no track record of success for getting a nation out of a depression is massive government spending. It may do a lot of other things but it doesn’t help end a depression.”
ROFLMAO DUDE!!
Go back and read your history. Not only did Franklin Roosevelt get us out of the Great Depression with massive spending but, Ronald Reagan did in the early 80′s as well!!
Funny how most of the more ridiculously rabid Obama supporters are totally silent right now. Dallas, that Idiot Fusion, and others are eerily silent. Like whipped dogs the scurry off into the night.
What’s wrong boys? Where is your fucking savior now? Are you fair weather friends only?
#24–Centrist==so what is your critique besides being totally irrelevant?
Think greater tax cuts while letting the banks fail was the way to go?
Or do you have nothing at all to contribute?
Bobbo:
Centrist is really some mouth breathing tea bagger that’s trying to start a flame war. Ignore the troll.
Getting back to the subject at hand:
Funny thing–it seems like recessions and depressions usually start in Republican administrations (see Dubya) when they decide to tighten up the money supply to the benefit of banking firms.
The supposedly reckless Democrats then have to repair the economy afterward.
I think humans are destine to keep repeating our mistakes. We keep having wars, we keep getting into too much debt and the stock market will always correct when the economy tanks.
Still no response as to what were Hoover’s policies that supposedly caused the Great Depression.
#16 Thomas, It has been argued that what caused the stock market crash was the Smoot Hawley tariff. Key stumbling blocks prior to passage, and once it became certain it would pass, the market crashed.
#23
Not true. Roosevelt tried increased government spending for years and it did nothing. It wasn’t until the build up for WWII that we started pulling out of the depression. No question that Reagan increased defense spending, but defense expenditures wasn’t what got us out of the recession and in fact, even when Reagan started the largest defense budget increase in decades in 1981, it wasn’t until late 1982 that we started pulling out of the recession and the vast majority of what pulled us out of the recession was not defense related jobs.
As I said earlier, the Federal government simply does not have the ability to stimulate the economy through spending. However, they have more than enough ability to impede economic growth.
#18
Here’s the problem I have with an oil tax: I have absolutely zero confidence that it will be solely spent on alternative energy. None. Here in CA, the stories of additional taxes to help this thing or that thing but were instead used to pay for some idiotic program are legion. In fact, not too long ago, a proposition had to be passed to force the State to actually spend the gas taxes on transportation needs since for years it had been spending them on anything but road repair even though the original justification for the gas taxes was for road use.
I think that taxes to fund alternative energy, for a host of reasons, is the wrong approach. Instead, incentives would be a better approach. Tax breaks and such for companies that use less petroleum and perhaps even for individuals does less to hurt middle class and more to spurn innovation than a tax IMO.
That should read:
Tax breaks and such for companies that use less petroleum and perhaps even for individuals does less to hurt middle class and does more to spur innovation than a tax IMO.
#28
I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the true. Still, Hoover signed it so he has to take responsibility for it just as Adams has to take responsibility for the Alien and Sedition Acts even through it was against his character and he fought against it. In an eerily similar fashion, Hoover caved to his party’s interests and signed a bill he hated. That means the fault lies in part with Hoover.
#27: I’m really hoping you’re right, but have a bad feeling that someone out there will scheme another way to enrich himself (like Bernie Madoff, though that was a long term Ponzi scheme). The attempt will send the economy and stock market to hell in yet another way.
War gets us out of depression. We should probably start one. Maybe a land invasion of China.
Coolidge relaxed credit requirements and pushed out money from the Fed to stimulate the economy. Hoover, as Sec of Commerce, pushed banks and S&L’s to lend money for new long term mortgages spurring a construction boom. They also cut income tax and inheritance tax, which provided little real difference to lower income workers. Personal debt went up, stocks and real estate inflated and went through the roof, and it all eventually crashed with massive bank failures.
I swear I could have read this somewhere else recently.
Darrel Guppy is the equivalent of the ‘get rich with real estate’ guys that you see on late night TV.
“Buy my book for $19.95 and get rich… get even richer if you attend my seminar for only $1500, and get really rich of you sign up for coaching for only $5000 more. And if you don’t get rich…. it’s your fault because you didn’t exactly follow my techniques.”
Personally, I think that the market is really really cheap right now… look at what companies like US Steel (symbol: X) are selling for…
#26–gypkap==thanks for the heads up. As uniformily negative as I am, I still allow anyone to have “a bad day” or a bad post. So, I give all such posters the benefit of the doubt==and every once in a while, one of them will come back with a defensible position, or at least “something.”
Most are like Centrist though. They think in terms of bumper sticker dogma and respond with equal insight–ie: nothing. Hurling insults at passing bumper stickers is not good training for actually engaging in a dialectic ordered train of thought.
But every once in a while, so my search for intelligent right wingnuts continue until I can field a basketball team.
#30–Thomas==you are mixing up several issues to the point that you probably don’t know what you actually think either. It certainly isn’t clear by what you post.
I’ll break it down:
1. A direct tax on oil would create free market incentives to develop renewable energy sources. To say it won’t work because an oil tax won’t “SOLELY” be used for energy development is retarded and beneath you. If you don’t realize why immediately on having it pointed out, post back.
2. You say: “I think that taxes to fund alternative energy, for a host of reasons, is the wrong approach.” /// We could discuss that but first lets understand YOU are throwing out a red herring/straw man argument. What I said was the government should fund RESEARCH. Its sad you want to manipulate an otherwise fruitful discussion with such diversions. Why do you, and every wingnut that posts here, do that so uniformly? Is your thinking so biased you can’t even hear the issue put before you or do you fully recognize the issue and want to mislead other people?
Honest people would like to know.
@Shubee (#3),
Wow, you have moved from hating the SDA Church to hating Israel in your signature link. Have you had enough hating? Maybe you ought to find a new hobby, or maybe a church that doesn’t make you so angry…
#38
You have a habit of going off the deep end when you get an answer you do not like. We are talking about two different subjects:
1. Finding ways to spur the market into alternative energies
2. Funding research into alternative energies.
Again, I answered both of these. Increasing the cost of oil via a tax will increase the price of everything not just petroleum by more than five cents. The people hit hardest will be the poor and middle class. What you are basically proposing is to punish people using petroleum, either directly or indirectly, by artificially increasing the price of oil so that they will move into alternate energy sources or work to be more fuel efficient. If what you want to do is to spur the market, do it with incentives rather than taxes. I.e., rather than make the incentive based on increased production costs, make the incentive be lower production costs via tax breaks for lower use of petroleum. Effectively, you want to tax petroleum like a sin tax.
Secondly, the research angle is just that. It is a load of baloney as I have absolutely zero confidence that is on what it would be spent. But you don’t care about that do you?