Wouldn't everybody have been better off if all of those balloon payment loans had simply stayed "as is" for several more years? Over a year ago, when the stock market was still shooting upwards, I suggested a similar concept regarding credit-card-debt on my Credit-Card-Cap.com website.
Banks chose to foreclose and destroy homeowners who could actually afford a lower than desired monthly payment. Compared to getting zero dollars for that investment, was this really a wise course of action?
I believe a big elitist virus has been exposed. Loans MUST ENSLAVE the borrower for a long period of time. If the Loan does not enslave the borrower, the borrower did not borrow enough, or is paying too low of an interest rate.
One way to heal the economy is to offer interest free paydowns on ALL CREDIT CARD DEBT, but that is not acceptable to the banking elitists who can't stand the idea of unburdening the minions below them of their debt.
At some point in time, the flow of money from consumers who are PAYING DOWN THEIR DEBTS to the banks, is a good thing. Unfortunately, financial elitists don't want you to enjoy the freedom of being debt free and have instead chosen devaluation as a sordid solution to the world's economic situation.
One tip to remember regarding credit-card debt, if you cannot afford to pay down FOUR TIMES the MONTHLY MINIMUM DUE, you may never get out of credit card debt.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
What is Missing from the Bailout Proposals, and how MSNBC once again put their own agenda ahead of country.
Bailout Matching Funds. Has anybody in the media even mentioned the possibility of bailout matching funds?
Anyone needing a bailout from the government should have been required to submit cost saving measures that would be immediately implemented. The idea that big business put their hands out and asked for money without submitting any type of documentation that they too were getting leaner and meaner is something that the mainstream media, led by MSNBC, missed.
Instead of questioning the rapidness with which the bailout bill was moving forward, MSNBC chose to scapegoat John McCain and his desire to postpone the first debate and get back to Washington to discuss the bailout bill. MSNBC actually broadcast all day long with a position that the 700 billion dollar bailout bill MUST PASS!
Two months later and the big three automobile manufacturers want a 25 billion dollar loan, but can the big three offer some type of payroll and overhead costs reductions? The big three want a 25 billion dollar loan, can they put up 2.5 billion in cost cutting measures as collateral?
The term is Bailout Matching Funds, the matching funds don't have to match one to one, but at least put forth an effort. Once again, MSNBC compromised their role as a news reporting channel and instead steered the original bailout bill discussions into their own agenda of passage of the bailout bill without real discussion, while also attacking John McCain for wanting to focus on such an important measure by postponing the first debate.
And these MSNBC clowns want to run our country for the next four years?
Anyone needing a bailout from the government should have been required to submit cost saving measures that would be immediately implemented. The idea that big business put their hands out and asked for money without submitting any type of documentation that they too were getting leaner and meaner is something that the mainstream media, led by MSNBC, missed.
Instead of questioning the rapidness with which the bailout bill was moving forward, MSNBC chose to scapegoat John McCain and his desire to postpone the first debate and get back to Washington to discuss the bailout bill. MSNBC actually broadcast all day long with a position that the 700 billion dollar bailout bill MUST PASS!
Two months later and the big three automobile manufacturers want a 25 billion dollar loan, but can the big three offer some type of payroll and overhead costs reductions? The big three want a 25 billion dollar loan, can they put up 2.5 billion in cost cutting measures as collateral?
The term is Bailout Matching Funds, the matching funds don't have to match one to one, but at least put forth an effort. Once again, MSNBC compromised their role as a news reporting channel and instead steered the original bailout bill discussions into their own agenda of passage of the bailout bill without real discussion, while also attacking John McCain for wanting to focus on such an important measure by postponing the first debate.
And these MSNBC clowns want to run our country for the next four years?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
How come Stock Market Shares fall in Value during a Recession when a Company Breaks Even?
Does this make any sense? Why does a share of stock fall in value when a company breaks even during a recession? It seems to me that breaking even in dire economic times would actually be a good thing, no?
Lets factor in that many stocks no longer give dividends out. If you own a stock that gives no dividends out, and that company breaks even during tough economic times, why should the stock go down in value?
Yes, breaking even is the new profit, and that sure makes more sense than devaluing a stock when the parent company can break even in a recession.
How many of you would have been happy if the stock market would just stay stabilized in the past 2 months? If a company isn't losing any money nor making any money during a depression, why should your stock value go down if the company is not even paying you a dividend?
When a company breaks even, that means they paid all of their obligations, paid its employees, overhead, and taxed, but didn't have enough to create additional wealth for his investors. If the company didn't lose money, why is Wall Street devaluing my stock shares?
A simple question from a simple mind. Can you answer it? The company didn't make any profits during a recession, so that must mean the stock is now worth 20% less??? Huh? Why?
It is likely that a company that can break even during dire economic times probably will do ok if and when the economy picks up.
Me thinks some people on top are kind of stupid, either by design or ineptitude. Who gets removes them from their position, and when?
Lets factor in that many stocks no longer give dividends out. If you own a stock that gives no dividends out, and that company breaks even during tough economic times, why should the stock go down in value?
Yes, breaking even is the new profit, and that sure makes more sense than devaluing a stock when the parent company can break even in a recession.
How many of you would have been happy if the stock market would just stay stabilized in the past 2 months? If a company isn't losing any money nor making any money during a depression, why should your stock value go down if the company is not even paying you a dividend?
When a company breaks even, that means they paid all of their obligations, paid its employees, overhead, and taxed, but didn't have enough to create additional wealth for his investors. If the company didn't lose money, why is Wall Street devaluing my stock shares?
A simple question from a simple mind. Can you answer it? The company didn't make any profits during a recession, so that must mean the stock is now worth 20% less??? Huh? Why?
It is likely that a company that can break even during dire economic times probably will do ok if and when the economy picks up.
Me thinks some people on top are kind of stupid, either by design or ineptitude. Who gets removes them from their position, and when?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
