• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Citi Breaks Buck, GM Below $2 as Market Hits New Lows

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy Allison
  • Start date Start date

Free episodes:

T

Tommy Allison

Guest
Title: Citi Breaks Buck, GM Below $2 as Market Hits New Lows
Source: finance.yahoo.com
URL Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/
Published: Mar 5, 2009
Author: finance.yahoo.com


The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen another 200 points today on new concerns about the stability of General Motors and the ongoing uncertainty about the financial system. In afternoon trading, the Dow is down 228.35, or 3.32 percent, to 6,647.49, a low not seen since April 1997.
The Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 25.61, or 3.59 percent, to 687.26. The S&P has not traded below this level since October 1996. The Nasdaq composite index fell 39.54, or 2.92 percent, to 1,314.20.
Investors are having another change of heart and are selling stocks again after a one-day burst of optimism.
The major market indicators extended their slide to levels not seen in more than a decade Thursday as investors contended with more disheartening economic data. The big indexes were all down more than 2 percent.
Stocks fell across the board, with the beleaguered banking sector posting some of the steepest losses. Shares of Citigroup Inc., still shaky despite receiving billions in government aid, sank below $1. General Motors, meanwhile, dropped below $2 as it warned of possible bankruptcy.
The market is also extremely anxious ahead of Friday's February Labor Department report that is likely to show the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Even some positive news, including some better-than-expected retail sales and factory orders, was not enough to stoke investor confidence.
The reports failed to show a significant improvement and so the market gave back its big gain from Wednesday, said Doreen Mogavero, president of brokerage Mogavero, Lee & Co.
"The economic data is still obviously a huge worry," she said. "I don't think anyone thinks we're in the clear because the market was up yesterday."
Stocks fell initially after China deflated investors' hope that it would take new steps to stimulate its economy, but the discouraging economic data sent stocks even lower. The hope that China would unveil more government spending to help its economy was a major factor behind the market's bounce Wednesday, which sent the Dow Jones industrials up nearly 150 points. The rally followed a five-day pummeling.
"It's been this continuous (cycle of) hope leads to disappointment," said Todd Salamone, senior vice president of research, Schaeffer's Investment Research.
The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 15.87, or 4.27 percent, to 355.43.
On the New York Stock Exchange only 258 stocks advanced while 2,788 fell. Volume came to 884.9 million shares.
Investors moved out of stocks and back into safer assets like Treasurys and gold.
"We have the same story," said Alan Skrainka, chief market strategist at Edward Jones. "We have concerns about the stability of the financial system, concerns about the economy getting worse, and just a lack of confidence."
Wednesday's rally, built on the hope that China could boost its spending, showed how hungry the market is for good news, analysts said. But there are just too many other dismal economic factors to contend with that make a rally hard to sustain.
Since the Dow and the S&P 500 index plowed through their November lows last week, dashing hopes that the market had indeed hit a bottom, investors have been left wondering how much lower the market can go. At the same time, there is a contingent of investors with a "why sell now" mentality who are fearful of missing the next rally, Salamone said.
"A lot of people are banking we can't go much further, but if you look to the '30s, we could indeed go a lot lower," he said, referring to Wall Street's huge losses during the Great Depression. "Those are the very people that represent selling pressure in the future."
Discouraged by little evidence that Washington's efforts to stabilize the economy are working, investors have lost faith in the administration, he said.
"At this point, you've got to be asking will anything help?" Salamone said. "The fact could very well be that the government can't do very much. They may be able to eliminate some of the pain, but at the same time they may be simply prolonging what inevitably has to happen, which is continued deleveraging."
Among Thursday's gloomy reports, the Commerce Department said orders for manufactured goods fell by 1.9 percent during the first month of the year. While this was better than the 3.5 percent drop economists had expected, it marked a record sixth straight month of declines.
Meanwhile, government data showing that initial unemployment claims fell more than anticipated last week failed to buoy stocks. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters/IFR predict the Labor Department on Friday will report that U.S. employers slashed 648,000 jobs in February -- more than the 598,000 jobs cut in January.
"We know that there are lots of job losses," said independent market analyst Edward Yardeni. "The initial claims data didn't change that perception."
Rising unemployment is of particular concern because it means many consumers have less to spend. And consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, is crucial to helping the economy turn around. A handful of better-than-expected retail sales reports, including one from Wal-Mart Stores Inc., weren't enough to convince investors that consumer spending is improving.
The future of General Motors also plagued investors. The automaker said in its annual report that auditors raised serious doubt about its ability to continue operating. GM has already received $13.4 billion in federal loans, and is seeking a total of $30 billion from the government. GM dove 38 cents, or 17.3 percent, to $1.82.
Negative comments from Moody's Investors Service weighed on already depressed financial stocks. Concerns about capital levels led the ratings agency to downgrade the ratings of Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. Moody's also lowered the outlook on JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s ratings to negative. Bank of America shares dropped 32 cents, or 8.9 percent, to $3.27; Wells Fargo plunged $1.46, or 15.1 percent, to $8.20; JPMorgan tumbled $1.81, or 9.4 percent, to $17.49.
 
possibly TL;DR, but i found it a good read.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CLA20090227&articleId=12471

its all very classic locust species scenario.

overpopulation means overconsumption, you cant fix an overconsumption problem with more consumtion, but you can delay the inevitable that way.

the question that remains is for how long................

either the planet itself needs a dieback of this species, or we need to join an ET market and start exporting offplanet. for example would miners on mars pay a premium for earth chocolate, or wood products ?

we either take control of the future, or more territory
 
I wouldn't give up the ghost on humanity just yet. No need for die-off until better management of resources has been tried across the globe. We don't manage even in the US except for special interests. If we could eliminate the political paybacks (yeah, that ain't gonna be easy) resource management would allow for the existing population. Politics gets in the way.
 
I wouldn't give up the ghost on humanity just yet. No need for die-off until better management of resources has been tried across the globe. We don't manage even in the US except for special interests. If we could eliminate the political paybacks (yeah, that ain't gonna be easy) resource management would allow for the existing population. Politics gets in the way.

i can really recommend this site to give you a good idea of the problem

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

it is to my mind the greatest problem we face, and all the other problems hang off this primary screwup

optimum is 3 plus billion, we are already double that at 6 plus billion, and the model says we will be at 9 plus billion by 2050.

the chinese have taken control of their future, they saw the local model and decided to change their tomorrow......

procreation is no longer an unlimited natural right there, i wonder if the worlds democratically appointed govts have the will to do the same ?

we each of us use 4 acres of farmland a year to grow the food we each eat, not all of the earth is farmland, not nearly.... yet by 2050 the ratio of planet per person will be reduced to just that figure 4 acres each.
this equation runs side by side with similar models for energy consumption and mineral (metals) and other resource consumption.

we have already expanded beyond optimum levels, we are already twice the optimum level and heading hell for leather to being 3 times the optimum.

it is the single greatest challenge we face, everything else is a symptom, treating the individual symptoms wont provide a fix.

sadly we have a model to work from China.

like them, we too can see the problem, but will only do something when every last waterway is polluted, the air the quality we saw reported on at the last olympics, the sheer numbers of people translating to low quality of life for all concerned. too many ppl eating one pie means smaller slices of pie.

the existing population is already twice what it should be, so im forced to reiterate

we need to take control of the future like china has
or take control of new territory.

now taking control of the future is hard. by the numbers its murder of a sorts. in order to fix the problem or at least maintain current (over)populations, that is change the model so that in 2050 there is still 6 plus billion instead of 9 plus billion means 3 plus billion people who the model says will be added between now and 2050 (41 years from now, your children will inherit this reality) are no longer there.

from a non linear pov we are talking about wiping 3 billion people from the equation, and to really fix the problem another 3 plus billion..........

our locust like status, is our greatest challenge, but lets get real for a moment it is not even on most ppls radar's is it. ppl talk about global warming, and unemployment. the loss of fish stocks due to overfishing and general pollution issues ie cars, and waterways. but they all go home with a mindset that assumes its their god given right ("go forth and multiply") to procreate.

ppl dont talk about this problem at parties because its too close to home, no one wants to have their procreational rights regulated, the chinese ppl dont like the reality any more we do the contemplation.

but we must do it, either find new territory, or take control of the only territory left on the planet.......the future.

we are by function expansionist, each of us a weapon of mass consumption.

humanity needs a non proliferation treaty, to reduce and manage weapons of mass consumption......
 
Back
Top