Donald Trump Tells Fox News We're Going To Have A Depression & It's Bush's Legacy

Discussion in 'Economics' started by ByLoSellHi, Nov 5, 2008.

  1. Cutten


    Actually most of these projects, Trump just attaches his name. Developers will pay him for the right to call it the "Trump Towers" or "Trump Condos" or whatever. He gets the money and takes none of the risk and does none of the work. Pretty smart business model.

    Trump sucks at operating businesses, one of his casino operations went bust *during the boom*. But he is great at branding and marketing himself.
    #71     Nov 11, 2008
  2. Excellent points.
    #72     Nov 11, 2008
  3. How so?

    Are stocks regulated?
    #73     Nov 11, 2008
  4. This is why he is so pissed.........
    #74     Nov 11, 2008
  5. We are in the 50/50% for either a recession or depression.

    The markets will signal long before. If the SP 500 breaks to the 500 level, INDU to 7000/6900, could force the chance in favor of the depression.

    Nevertheless, if you do not have "Chips"stacked up, assets that can survive a depression, you are fubared. If you are in debt, car, home, credit cards and you live beyond your means, your screwed either way.

    Unemployment will reach far above 10% IMHO. We are at 6.5 now. 09 will see the biggest layoff numbers in the history of the US.
    #75     Nov 11, 2008
  6. Depression, no doubt. No recession has ever gained this momentum and NOT turned into depression. Not one. And with the Fed's little bag of tricks all but used up, my shorts are in.

    Unemployment is already at 13%, if you measure true numbers before Clinton toyed with them to make them look better than reality. I'm no gloomer, bring it, I make money either way.
    #76     Nov 11, 2008
  7. fhl


    If dereg was bad, then reg must be good.
    Oops, fnm and fre were regulated. By Barney Frank and co.

    The question is, why would anyone think that letting Barney Frank and co regulate wall street credit swaps would work out any better than their regulation of fnm?

    Since the requirement of fnm to guarantee lousy loans was at the heart of the whole thing, I think it not only bears prime responsibility, but more like 90% of the responsibility. The other 10% would go to wall street not hedging or reserving for their swaps properly, cheating mortgage loan originators, and bs credit rating agencies that rated this crap as creditworthy. But, NO REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LOANS, NO CRISIS.

    If these loans would not have been made, and if the ratings agencies had not deemed them creditworthy, then credit default swaps would not have stunk up wall street.
    #77     Nov 11, 2008