The Pending Stock Market Crash

Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 1 month ago to Business
9 comments | Share | Flag

I appreciate the fact that the author doesn't beat about the bush as to the reasons for the crash: bad fiscal policy.

I'm not advocating the strategies BTW - more of noting the inevitability of what I have seen coming for years now.
SOURCE URL: http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/Stock-market-recession-alert/2014/02/03/id/550641/?promo_code=16610-1&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by hrymzk 10 years, 1 month ago

    The sky is not falling in.
    The new wave of energy production in the US
    will give us a chance to save or destroy the
    US financial position. Ellis Wyatt lives
    elect financially conservative politicians

    Harry M
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 1 month ago
      The EPA is already causing the shutdown of coal-fired electrical power plants despite the fact that there are no replacements. And without new refineries (which require permits and environmental studies) for the new energy being drilled in North Dakota, Wyoming, et al, all that oil won't be benefiting us very much. The EPA continues to mandate more and more absurd emissions standards for vehicles, and now they are even attempting to regulate wood burning stoves.

      Unless the EPA gets slapped hard by Congress, it won't matter how much energy we drill because we won't be able to use it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by hrymzk 10 years, 1 month ago

        To be more specific, I should have written the new wave of natgas production.
        The EPA is right to act against coal-fired plants These plants generate 45% of US electricity. I write this from Pa. Marcellus Shale is centered in Pa State govt has mandated electric utilities to produce 20% electricity from renewables in the next few years.
        Even Rand acknowledges limited govt intervention. The auto makers howled about 30 mpg requirements but they've met them..
        Climate Change and CO2 emissions is a recognized scientific correlation. A long time ago Rand refused to acknowledge the correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
        She paid with her life.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 1 month ago
          " our research has shown that:
          It doesn’t matter whether we double, treble or even quadruple the carbon dioxide concentration, carbon dioxide has no impact on atmospheric temperatures. "

          For the reasoning and evidence see:
          http://globalwarmingsolved.com/start-her...

          If you are of a different opinion, you have to explain:
          1. why there has been no increase in global temperatures over the past 16 years while carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily increased. and,
          2. why do the CO2 based climates models fail dramatically to predict while models using solar activity correlate well with observations.

          As for shale gas, the environmentalists fight vociferously against that as well.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 years, 1 month ago
          "The EPA is right to act against coal-fired plants These plants generate 45% of US electricity."

          You're not making any sense. There are NO new power plants coming on line, yet the EPA is causing existing plants to shut down. This only creates an energy shortage. You are in favor of this?

          Yes, the automakers have made cars lighter and lighter and as a result, fatalities from automobile accidents has gone up as a % of accidents. Having the government mandate emission standards is exactly what Rand would have decried. It is consumers who should be the ones asking - and paying - for that feature.

          I'm not even going to touch your absurd notion about climate change except to point you to NASA's chief scientist. His recent letter pointed out that 95% of those climate models - the ones saying CO2 is a pollutant - were hopelessly off and should be scrapped. If you really believe in that crap, I would challenge you to read Michael Crichton's work "State of Fear".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by hrymzk 10 years, 1 month ago

            NASA's Chief Scientist needs to review the documentation of the AAAS, The Am Assn for the Advancement of Science, the basic Science Assn for the US.
            Additionally, the World Meteorology Organization, and the UN-IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change
            Rather than fiction by Crichton.

            The coal-fired plants are being converted to Natgas. The utilities know a good thing when they see it.

            Harry M
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 10 years, 1 month ago
              The documents you are citing are all more fictional than Crichton's book. Because you've obviously never read it, here's the history: Crichton originally believed in global warming and wanted to write a book depicting the catastrophes that would take place as a result. The problem is that he did his research and had to completely re-write the book as a result when he found out that it was all nonsense. From falsified data (see the University of East Anglia debacle) to falsified algorithms, the whole climate change argument is scare tactics (installing a "state of fear" in the populace). Even our own geological information says that not 10000 years ago we were in the middle of an ice age. In the 1970's, the big rage was global COOLING - being promulgated and pushed just like the nonsense going on today. And they blamed it on the same things they still don't understand today.

              You're welcome to believe the UN if you want. It's not like they have a global agenda of control or anything (yeah, right). Me, I'm going to rely on the hubris of man as my benchmark. The second a scientist says that something is "settled science" is the time I remind them of Einstein's theory of relativity, Niels Bohr's atomic model, or Sir Isaac Newton's theory of gravity - all of which were updated with new understanding.

              When the weatherman can accurately predict the forecast for the next two weeks, THEN I'll consider the idea that humans can possibly predict global weather patterns. More importantly, when they can predict the next solar flare or coronal mass ejection (which has a LOT of effect on weather here), then I'll begin to believe them when they say they can predict the weather.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by hrymzk 10 years, 1 month ago

                Blarman
                You are a waste of time to read.
                The AAAS has just declared on CO2 emissions and Climate Change in the past month
                The other two organizations within the past
                several months.
                Additionally, you make your points with rude/insulting language.
                I have several Science degrees.
                I don't find it necessary to pay attention to any more of your posts. Especially, with the amount of space you take up on this listserv.

                Harry M
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 1 month ago
              science is not about consensus. How many of those scientists get funding from the govt for example? Smoking gun: On the famous hockey stick graph, it is well known that the researchers completely ignored the little ice age and then we found emails admitting they were manipulating data. The basic Ethical tenet of Science is that you must tell the truth about the data. They have cried wolf too many times. Hry, are you an Objectivist?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo