I am out of my element here talking about economics but I recall what I and many others did with the very first one then-President Bush sent us last year. I took my check from the government and promptly paid my bills. I did not buy anything new. I did not create any jobs. I did not add to the liquidity of the system.
Jumping to the more recent past, the automakers slunk (to move or go in a furtive, abject manner, as from fear, cowardice, or shame) to capital hill to beg for their lives. One congressman asked them how we knew if they would not come back in two months (or whatever) to beg for more. Sure enough, back they were Tuesday.
I wish I said it but someone else did - this bailout tarp is like pouring water on sand. After you are done pouring, the water is all gone and you still have a pile of sand.
Recipients are paying their bills (shoring up their capital) and not saving jobs (or making loans). And weren't jobs the whole point? We are not saving Chrysler (again) because we like them. It is because they hold thousands of jobs in the balance.
How can I get a piece of that bailout cash? Certainly not by being fiscally responsible and paying my bills on time on loans I am actually qualified to get.
I have every confidence in this country but not its leaders and financial architects. Greenspan spoke again recently but I would rather take economic postulating from my barber. At least he lives in the real world.
Nationalization. Socialism. Reworking legal mortgage contracts. Throwing good money after bad.
I admire our leaders efforts but I feel we are going down the wrong road. And tomorrow I have to write more about what used to be the ultimate in capitalism - Wall Street. The irony is killing me.
2 comments:
Michael, your blog is disappointing. I thought you were well versed on technical anlaysis like you have been for many years in Barrons. You give none of that here. If your deal with Barrons prevents you from discussing TA here, just tell us so, so we don't waste time visiting your blog to hear your ramdon thoughts about anything and everything.
Michael,
I do not believe that the market is 'terminal', just as there was not 'crash' in 1987. As I used to tell my clients after 10-19-87, a crash when flying means the plane hits the ground or a mountain side, if the market did crash it would have gone to 0 and not just to 1730 !
That said, the indicators that I rely on have decidedly turned negative once again. I dont know if how 'negative' they will become this time, but it would not shock me if after a bounce off of the SP5low of November, the market cracks and SP5 sinks to the 600 area along with Dow equivalent in 6000 area.
I dont fight the trend, I just go along with it just as I turn the wheel of my car when the road curves.
Post a Comment