References please?
The best I can come up with is this and anything else I've read don't seem to support your conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Stock Market Panic!?
- Thread starter InTheBum
- Start date
The best I can come up with is this and anything else I've read don't seem to support your conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
What kind of salary is this employ being payed in the first place .. Not $10.00 an hr !
Here in Canada exstended medical coverage above the $57.00 a month we are obligated to pay is usually about $110 .00 more a month Government employ plans cover more and cost more .
Here in Canada exstended medical coverage above the $57.00 a month we are obligated to pay is usually about $110 .00 more a month Government employ plans cover more and cost more .
I still don't arrive at your concussions, because if I had a choice of paying health costs currently of $14,196 or instead paying a $2,000 penalty, why wouldn't I just pay the penalty and save myself $14,196 - 2,000) = 12,196 per employee?
I'd be happy as hell with those options, not sure if my employees would be but I would be. And given the unemployment rate it's not as if people are going to be headed for the door looking for better opportunities elsewhere, because they likely don't exist.
Certainly to blame the whole unemployment issue on Obama care is just a plain lazy analysis. Please show me an analysis that arrives at your conclussions cause all you've done was take one piece of information and extrapolated it into a conclussion with no analysis whatsoever.
The facts are the US is in what's called a balance sheet induced recession. meaning it was incurred directly as a result in the meltdown of the financial sector. Economist has studied the ramifications of what causes recessions and they've concluded that this type of recession generally lasts longer and doesn't create jobs anywhere near the same rate as a normal economic recession. Hence the difference between the recovery under Reagan verse Obama. They've also just revised the GDP figures for 2008, and 2009 and it shows that the recession was far deeper than previously thought. This could possibly explain why the stimulus package didn't work as intended, because it was actually too small (I'm sure the Republican's would get a laugh out of that) but this is essentially a quote from the Economist and it does make sense if you believe in Keynesian economics, which was the basis of ending the depression in 1930's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Rather the main reason companies are hoarding money is because they don't have a handle on what future demand is going to be. High unemployment tends to reduce demand which in turn results in lay off's. It's essentially a deflationary spiral downward.
Now in Japan this has be going on for 10+ years with really no end in sight (and no Obama care to blame).
Add to that the soveign debt crisis in Europe, the possiblity of a double dip recession, the gridlock in Washington, and not knowing how the deficit is going to be tackled or where future tax rates are going and you have a far more complete picture than simply blaming Obama care for the unemployment rate.
Last edited:
Can't argue that Obama care isn't a form of payroll tax, as it clearly is. But having watched the vote take place regarding passing Obama Care, especially in the Senate, I have no doubt whatsoever that a single payee system such as we have in Canada was never a viable option. There simply wasn't enough votes to pass this type of bill. That aside, I'm sure it was his first choice but for better or worse reality got in the way.
I also think he could have done more in terms of removing the Bush cuts and regulating the financial industry, but that said, I don't think the blame lies squarely with him. With the polarization of US politics one can only imagine how many Tea Partiers there'd be in Congress now had he eliminated the Bush tax cuts, in the middle of a recession no less.
I personally think this recession has hamstrung him to a great extent, and while I basically agree with you regarding corporate bail outs, I do think GM and AIG really had to be bailed out, and I'm sure if they could have done it again they would have bailed out Lehman Brothers.
Essentially all were too big to fail.
As for Chrysler, it too probably needed bailing out as well, as the whole support industry in the auto sector would have collapsed, and since much of the vehicle production is outsourced, it could very well have taken Ford down with it. But philosophically I don't think anyone was overly keen on having to go down this path, it just happened to be the best out of a bunch of lousy options to chose from. (ie the least worst option)
I also think he could have done more in terms of removing the Bush cuts and regulating the financial industry, but that said, I don't think the blame lies squarely with him. With the polarization of US politics one can only imagine how many Tea Partiers there'd be in Congress now had he eliminated the Bush tax cuts, in the middle of a recession no less.
I personally think this recession has hamstrung him to a great extent, and while I basically agree with you regarding corporate bail outs, I do think GM and AIG really had to be bailed out, and I'm sure if they could have done it again they would have bailed out Lehman Brothers.
Essentially all were too big to fail.
As for Chrysler, it too probably needed bailing out as well, as the whole support industry in the auto sector would have collapsed, and since much of the vehicle production is outsourced, it could very well have taken Ford down with it. But philosophically I don't think anyone was overly keen on having to go down this path, it just happened to be the best out of a bunch of lousy options to chose from. (ie the least worst option)
Unless S&P is planning on downgrading France's credit rating, I'm surprised they haven't issued a statement saying otherwise. About a 1 Trillion dollars was lost in markets yesterday largely related to the fear that France's credit rating was going to get downgraded. In otherwords this loss was largely do to rumors, rather than reality.
I think we've hit the bottom of the market as this was simply a run based on fear. If nothing happens tomorrow, which I highly suspect will be the case, then the market could climb dramatically, and if something does happen, ie France's credit rating downgraded, well it seems to me the market's already priced that in. Gold could drop significantly as well if there's no bad news.
Just Wondering....
When you go to sell those gold bars/coins, will you be subject to any kind of Capital Gains??
I know that if it were a mutual fund/stock, etc., we always have to worry about capital gains...what is the situation when the item is being sold is a "physical coin"?
Just curious....
Cruiser
I have a client of mine who bought 10lbs of gold when it was at $500 bucks. He's made some serious dough.
That depends on how you sell gold....if you take it to a bullion dealer such as Albern Coins you can avoid the CRA...also if you sold it privately via a classified such as Kijiji or even here on PERB for cash the CRA will not be in the know.....you just have to figure out how to make that cash clean if you are going to re-invest it but have no worries if you are going to use said profits/gains for say a cash payed activity like pooning....my oh my what a pooning warchest I would have had I gone for 40 ounces of gold in 2007 instead of taking an interest in sportscars LOL.....of course there is the 1 question that pops up 99% of the time when a prospective buyer holds those 1 ounce Maple leaf gold coins and says "the face value is $100"......you have to explain that ALL countries place a nominal value of $100 on their 1 once gold coins and it is meaningless with regards to the value of an ounce of gold....you will of course be asked the question again.....this will lead you to reply "well do you think the fucking value magically changes because gold goes up and down in value?"
SR
You do realize that tax evasion is illegal don't you? Worse still, is that if everyone did that no one would need people like me.
2012 Elections = Stock Market Down = Bailout = Investment Banks = Private Donor = Campaign Funds
I hope the people south of the border wakes up. They'll be taken in for another ride again. :nod:
I hope the people south of the border wakes up. They'll be taken in for another ride again. :nod:
Hard to say. For sure Steve Jobs was critical to their revival, but he didn't do it all himself, he had to have a good exec team to work with him. They say the product pipeline for the next 3 years is set anyways, they've got 78 billion in cash, I'm still expecting them to post record profits for the next several quarters. Short term the stock will suffer, but I think the stock will recover nicely. The stock dropped when he announced he was going on medical leave in Feb, and the stock recovered afterwards. Also, Steve Jobs has not left Apple, he's only stepping down as CEO, still staying on as chairman (I don't think they've had a chairman for the last few years). Most analysts had predicted that Tim Cook would be the eventual successor, and had been pressing Apple to make their succession plan transparent for a while now, so hopefully this settle the matter once and for all. But really, it's anybody's guess what will happen, it's all speculation...Gold $1764.10 at close today. Sometimes even an incompetent like me comes out smelling like a rose.
Steve Jobs has left Apple. Steve Jobs is Apple. When the Directors booted him years ago, Apple almost died. When Steve Jobs borrowed money from Bill Gates to take his company back, he rebuilt Apple to what it is today. Today, I'm happy I don't own any Apple anymore. The stock is going to lose value.
Last edited:
Apple shares down 5.4 %. I will take advantage of the buying gift opportunities brought about by Steve Jobs' decision ( Cook has been running Apple since the start of the year anyways ) and accumulate more shares and hold on to it for years to come. $ 76 Billion in CASH in the balance sheet and counting. Apple has more cash than the US Treasury. Has more cash than Microsoft and Exxon/Mobil. Apple has product momentum ( new Iphone is coming out October ) and is the most successful retailer in the solar system. :thumb:
With regards to Apple shares being down....MEH.....with regards to making a profit on it for the upside...good fucking luck considering 100 shares of Apple will cost you 37 grand.....and the only way to really make money on buying stocks that have faltered and will recover is with a large volume of shares....so if anybody on PERB has 3.8 million in handy cash right now he can afford 10,000 shares of Apple ans hopefully he can ride this drama out and make a profit.....I myself wish I had invested 70,000 when the stock was trading at $3 a share and got in on the stock split......I would have enough money now to buy my own fricken country......well it would be a tropical island.....about 20 hectares....self sufficient with regards to electricity.
Good luck making any money on Apple stock unless you have a shitload of money.....as in at least 4 million in liquid cash.
SR
Good luck making any money on Apple stock unless you have a shitload of money.....as in at least 4 million in liquid cash.
SR
Apple share price just crossed the $ 400 mark again. :thumb: The investors have already discounted the decision of Steve Jobs last August and is now comfortable with new CEO Tim Cook.
" I Believe I Can Fly " - R. Kelly
" I Believe I Can Fly " - R. Kelly
I was just reading about apple down last month ... Why did you guys not buy 60 day Call s on Apple .. You would of made that profit that you all saw coming with out paying 360 .. i I did not have the money last month but will next month .... I guess i will have to invest some time it watching the market a gain
If there is some under valued stock out there i will buy Calls and it there are a few going t in to a slide i will go for Puts
If there is some under valued stock out there i will buy Calls and it there are a few going t in to a slide i will go for Puts
If you enjoy reading economics I would recommend you subscribe to the Economist. It's an excellent magazine who's only fault is that it takes several days to read and digest it all, and just when you've finished another issue arrives. When I renewed I actually told them I wish it came out every two weeks instead of weekly.
I know it's an ad, but ...
an awful lot of what's being said seems to make sense ...
http://w3.newsmax.com/a/aftershockb/video.cfm?PROMO_CODE=CD97-1
an awful lot of what's being said seems to make sense ...
http://w3.newsmax.com/a/aftershockb/video.cfm?PROMO_CODE=CD97-1
