poverty is 100:1 leverage. only a fool with a 5000 usd deposit thinks he manages a 500k usd portfolio. it matters not where prices have been but only where they are going. When an entire population is thinking like the fool mentioned, you have a very poor society blinded by banks holdings in their current possession.
try, within the next few years. you are at the forefront of the biggest collapse america has ever seen. Let a big spender, big government politician into office and it will be your demise. dow 8000 within the next few years. not 30 not 50 but soon my boy. soon. how will you position yourself now to take advantage of these low equity prices in the future will dictate your own place in the new economy. If product does not move, erosion of collateral values will outperform inflation as companies go out of business and investors demand their capital back.
"Dow 8000 in a few years" is only the beginning of the problem. The REAL problem is when the Dow is 100,000, inflation is rampant, the $USD is on its ass and US assets are being bought up on the cheap by non-americans.
No no. that is not the way things work in depressions. equity prices both housing and companies will trade dirt cheap while commodities surge. You will have houses trading for nothing while it takes 500-1000 dollars to fill up your fridge. Food will be much more important than equities in this time frame. I predict americans will start eating eachother when things go really bad. An addict will do anything and everything to stay alive and high, especially when it is at his neighbors expense. It is this existentialist way of thought that will be the demise of many. Hillary is a big advocate of existentialism. You are here alone, you must eat or be eaten. Dont worry about anyone else as they dont care about you. Hillary- "but do vote for me because I care"
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4d-jxkzZbRo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4d-jxkzZbRo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
It seems to me that the only difference between cutting taxes and not , assuming everything else stays the same, is mainly were the cost of government shifts. If expenditures exceed revenues you borrow the difference and that leads to indirect taxation via inflation resulting from monetizing the debt. On the other hand, if you tax to raise revenue equal to expenditures that results in direct taxation. Direct and indirect taxation don't necessarily effect everyone the same, but the net result overall is virtually the same. Looked at from this angle, one realizes that, effectively, the Bush administration has not cut taxes at all, as they claim, but have actually increased our taxes via the indirect route. This preaching of tax cuts while at the same time inflating to an even greater extent then the cuts is a scam.