While the $50B we spend on non-military aid to other countries isn't small potatoes, it kind of pales in comparison to the rest of the budget.
And it's true that Clinton initiated a huge wave of home ownership. I bought my first house through an FHA loan under Clinton and it was a great opportunity. However, after 8 years of a Republican administration and mostly Republican House and Senate, it's hard to blame the current meltdown on a 10-year-old initiative by a previous administration. THAT is virtually the DEFINITION of political spin.
Fine - blame the Republicans but stop saying 8 years. The Dems have had control for the past 2 so, at most, it's 6. Also, if you're not going to be biased you should blame BOTH Clinton and Bush. Clinton for starting the giving of loans to people who were more likely to default and Bush for continuing the stupid plan.
Yeah, I got my house through an FHA loan as well and it was nice but if I had to save up a little longer to get a house to keep 700 BILLION of tax payer dollars from going to companies who are stupid then I'll deal with that.
Edit: You don't get the whole "straw that broke the camels back" thing huh? This has been building up since Clinton started that plan and it's finally at the point where the camel can't support it any longer...
First, she said, PC unit growth is decelerating to the point where the remaining growth opportunities largely exist in the sub-$1,000 market, a segment where Apple doesn't yet compete.
Bring back the Cube.
Shuttle already make one and it can take a quad CPU:
It doesn't matter how low Apple price the iMac by cutting margins, the display + the laptop parts keep the price high, same with the laptops. If they made a Cube then they can keep margins fairly high but still be about $200-300 cheaper at least.
There would be about 3 purchases from me if they made one 'cos I need to upgrade my home computer and a couple at work could use upgrading but a Mac Pro is too much money. We have the Mini and it's not fast enough and the iMac is shiny as well as not being as fast/cheap as an equivalent Cube. We already have very nice displays so we don't need to buy new ones that can get dead pixels and need sent away like the iMacs we already have that are outside of warranty and won't be replaced with other ones.
I'm not suggesting that Apple's share price drop is because they don't sell this model - everyone is suffering - but there is a huge market that people all over the world keep telling Apple is there for the taking and they just don't do it.
PC manufacturers are already there and they have the users so they will never see any growth there. Apple don't have the market and can take a significant portion so that they don't suffer so much during this period. Maybe they don't have to care with so much money in the bank but why try to compete with PC manufacturers when the market is strong? They can do some serious damage if they hit the PC crowd right in their comfort zone.
If they don't release new machines soon whatever they are, it looks likely AAPL will slide below 100.
I'm not sure why they released the iphones first to be honest. The back to school segment is already in school probably with whatever new laptop they had to get so they're not exactly going to jump on a new model in the middle of October.
Actually it was Clinton that started this mess - I know that makes all of this "it's Bush's fault" thing not quite as good but we should really be after facts - not political spin...
No, this started with the Fed basically printing money and flooding lenders with easy capital, leading to foolish lending practices which lured dangerously uninformed homebuyers into catastrophic situations.
Apples going to eat up market share like Bank of America is eating up banks!
Nasdaq is currently valued at 100:1 and the Dow at 10:1 per share to actual value.All these companies are over valued fundamentally.Apple is going to make strong progress.
The EU economy is $16 trillion a year and it's percentage of debt is considerably lower than the US.Maybe,it's not fair to compare the two,but it makes the euro look even more attractive,adding further weight to the falling dollar and in turn the US debt.
Fine - blame the Republicans but stop saying 8 years. The Dems have had control for the past 2 so, at most, it's 6. Also, if you're not going to be biased you should blame BOTH Clinton and Bush. Clinton for starting the giving of loans to people who were more likely to default and Bush for continuing the stupid plan.
Yeah, I got my house through an FHA loan as well and it was nice but if I had to save up a little longer to get a house to keep 700 BILLION of tax payer dollars from going to companies who are stupid then I'll deal with that.
Edit: You don't get the whole "straw that broke the camels back" thing huh? This has been building up since Clinton started that plan and it's finally at the point where the camel can't support it any longer...
I think you misunderstand the problem. The problem is lack of oversight on stupid interest-only loans and packaging them into "investment vehicles" that had a skewed risk analysis. Clinton was right, and his plan was sound. The problem was the subsequent "keep the government out of business" mentality removed almost all oversight and allowed the system to melt down.
As for the "6 years versus 8" I did say "most of the last 8 years". But if you want to be picky, the Republicans had control of Congress from 1994-2006, with 6 of those years also having control of the executive branch, and it's hard to fix everything overnight. Especially when you only have a 50/49 (plus Lieberman, if you count him) majority in the senate. You can't even call a vote on a bill with 51 votes in the senate.
With 6 years of Republicans dominating essentially all three branches of government, the current nation pretty much exactly reflects the outcome of a country run according to Republican ideals.
No, this started with the Fed basically printing money and flooding lenders with easy capital, leading to foolish lending practices which lured dangerously uninformed homebuyers into catastrophic situations.
It's simply AMAZING how Republican defenders CAN spin the truth...you have had 8 DAMN years to lead a giant country, just to bring it to its knees...
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault for deciding to engage in an illegal war that bleeds billions of dollars per year.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let the Fed flood your fragile market with worthless dollars, soon to become a big collection of green paper all over the world.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let Wall Street play with financials as if they were a game of monopoly without a single drop of decent regulation.
And you STILL wanna vote for that old man and his whorish vice-president? Gimme a break, yankees! GO FIGURE!
No, this started with the Fed basically printing money and flooding lenders with easy capital, leading to foolish lending practices which lured dangerously uninformed homebuyers into catastrophic situations.
The truth is the borrower/homebuyer actually fund the "loans" they take. Banks do not lend money they create it.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let Wall Street play with financials as if they were a game of monopoly without a single drop of decent regulation.
And you STILL wanna vote for that old man and his whorish vice-president?
Your last sentence shows your intelligence. I always say they should teach basic economics and finance in school, right up there with reading, writing, and math/science.
The current financial meltdown is not due to low taxes or evil doings by the Fed. The market's failures are complex and go back a ways. There is plenty of blame to go around. During Clinton's admin, taxes were so high that people were employing dangerous strategies to avoid taxes.
During Bush's term, banks were allowed to give loans to people who could not pay back the loans. Similar to throwing people who can't swim in a pool and then acting surprised when they drown.
Greed does not self regulate. We need intelligent regulations. Key word: Intelligent. If we knee jerk this and the pendulum swings too far the other way, we'll be back discussing unintended consequences of crossing the line between free market capitalism and over control.
Apple doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's stock will take a hit as the economy sorts out the bailout package and housing finds a floor. Right now, Fear is in control.
Deflating bubbles are painful. We've had two rather painful ones since the early 90s.
Your last sentence shows your intelligence. I always say they should teach basic economics and finance in school, right up there with reading, writing, and math/science.
The current financial meltdown is not due to low taxes or evil doings by the Fed. The market's failures are complex and go back a ways. There is plenty of blame to go around. During Clinton's admin, taxes were so high that people were employing dangerous strategies to avoid taxes.
During Bush's term, banks were allowed to give loans to people who could not pay back the loans. Similar to throwing people who can't swim in a pool and then acting surprised when they drown.
Greed does not self regulate. We need intelligent regulations. Key word: Intelligent. If we knee jerk this and the pendulum swings too far the other way, we'll be back discussing unintended consequences of crossing the line between free market capitalism and over control.
Apple doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's stock will take a hit as the economy sorts out the bailout package and housing finds a floor. Right now, Fear is in control.
Deflating bubbles are painful. We've had two rather painful ones since the early 90s.
I surely have had more high-level Economics than you, judging from your pitiful answer. Bush's government would've been able to see the writing on the wall, as any reasonable economist would tell you. But they stated the OPPOSITE and said all was fine. This has nothing to do with Democrat policies that occurred 8 years ago. This has to do with the "laissez faire, laissez passer" orientation that has proven ruined for years and years in several other situations. And also with financing a gigantic deficit via other countries that, just now, are realizing their mistakes.
I am glad you said my last statement shows my intelligence, as I would never vote for the continuation of such ridiculous policies. Reality is: your government has always trusted that the "invisible" hand of the market would regulate itself.
Fact: a financial system without clear and firm regulations is like a balloon in the air. And the bubble is bursting badly now, and solely because of your "deregulated" beliefs.
It's simply AMAZING how Republican defenders CAN spin the truth...you have had 8 DAMN years to lead a giant country, just to bring it to its knees...
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault for deciding to engage in an illegal war that bleeds billions of dollars per year.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let the Fed flood your fragile market with worthless dollars, soon to become a big collection of green paper all over the world.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let Wall Street play with financials as if they were a game of monopoly without a single drop of decent regulation.
And you STILL wanna vote for that old man and his whorish vice-president? Gimme a break, yankees! GO FIGURE!
I think you misunderstand the problem. The problem is lack of oversight on stupid interest-only loans and packaging them into "investment vehicles" that had a skewed risk analysis. Clinton was right, and his plan was sound. The problem was the subsequent "keep the government out of business" mentality removed almost all oversight and allowed the system to melt down.
As for the "6 years versus 8" I did say "most of the last 8 years". But if you want to be picky, the Republicans had control of Congress from 1994-2006, with 6 of those years also having control of the executive branch, and it's hard to fix everything overnight. Especially when you only have a 50/49 (plus Lieberman, if you count him) majority in the senate. You can't even call a vote on a bill with 51 votes in the senate.
With 6 years of Republicans dominating essentially all three branches of government, the current nation pretty much exactly reflects the outcome of a country run according to Republican ideals.
But you're giving all credit to Clinton for the work of Clinton combined with a Republican Congress. If Clinton's plan was sound and right (no idea how in the world you can argue that giving loans to people who are of higher risk to default can EVER be construed as sound or right but ok) then you need to give credit to BOTH the congress and the president. So, either both Clinton and Bush were stupid to encourage this OR the Republican Congress of 1994-2000 did a good job. I won't argue with either conclusion.
I've always been one to support a split Executive and Legislative branch. Almost nothing of usefullness happens when 1 party is in charge of all of it. If you don't like what the Republicans have been doing it's not because they are Republicans it's because Congress, the Senate and the president were all of the same party and they didn't even care about working across the aisle. Don't make the same mistake again...
Hopefully you might be able to show the rest of the world that you are still a sane country based on sound principles, multilateral cooperation and conformity with international law...hopefully.
Fact: a financial system without clear and firm regulations is like a balloon in the air. And the bubble is bursting badly now, and solely because of your "deregulated" beliefs.
Arguing that an analogy that you just made up is "Fact" is a pretty bad argument - just FYI...
She cut her price target on the Mac maker's shares from $178 to $115.
And people want to bail these pricks out? Apple will produce a hefty profit this quarter and this fraud is allowing large chunks of stock to be consolidated with a few power brokers.
Actually it was Clinton that started this mess - I know that makes all of this "it's Bush's fault" thing not quite as good but we should really be after facts - not political spin...
Also, the US would be better off if we stopped giving the rest of the world our money but nobody talks about that... The only reason we'd need help is because we've insisted on helping the rest of the world... But I suppose helping the country that's helped the most is out of the question huh?
What about when the banks got together and bought tons of the EURO because it had fallen to 80 cents per USD but they sat idly by and didn't give a crap as the USD fell to less than 70 cents per EURO...
No Reagan did start the mess. Reaganomics turned out to be a huge failure.
What Clinton did in the 90's was good for everybody and, most importantly, possible with the then healthy economy. Bush turned a great economy into a mess in just a few years, and instead of making good adjustments he worsened them... well for 99% of us, not for the 1% that became hugely rich because of it.
And that bit about the US giving huge amounts of money to the rest of the world and never getting anything back... The US never helped without gaining profit of it themselves, and there is nothing wrong with that, this includes the rebuilding of Europe after WWII, a huge investment from the US, but they earned it back a 100000 times too.
A couple of observations here... saying that you were 40% off on your target days before doesn't instill much confidence in me that you know what you are talking about. Follow the leader on the downgrades?
And, a lot of people know (or think they know) that new laptops are coming out soon, and that the imac and Mac Pro are due for a refresh/remake, thus the sudden moderation in intent to purchase.
I am buying more AAPL at these levels.
I think Apple will buck the trend as consumers want value for their money.
woahhh! you just made my spit coke all over my desk!!
Apple = VFM??
you REALLY think that?
they may make good products, nice and well designed products but nothing they do is VFM.
for the 'internet masses' you could easily put together a really nice rig running Ubu for under $400.
Comments
While the $50B we spend on non-military aid to other countries isn't small potatoes, it kind of pales in comparison to the rest of the budget.
And it's true that Clinton initiated a huge wave of home ownership. I bought my first house through an FHA loan under Clinton and it was a great opportunity. However, after 8 years of a Republican administration and mostly Republican House and Senate, it's hard to blame the current meltdown on a 10-year-old initiative by a previous administration. THAT is virtually the DEFINITION of political spin.
Fine - blame the Republicans but stop saying 8 years. The Dems have had control for the past 2 so, at most, it's 6. Also, if you're not going to be biased you should blame BOTH Clinton and Bush. Clinton for starting the giving of loans to people who were more likely to default and Bush for continuing the stupid plan.
Yeah, I got my house through an FHA loan as well and it was nice but if I had to save up a little longer to get a house to keep 700 BILLION of tax payer dollars from going to companies who are stupid then I'll deal with that.
Edit: You don't get the whole "straw that broke the camels back" thing huh? This has been building up since Clinton started that plan and it's finally at the point where the camel can't support it any longer...
First, she said, PC unit growth is decelerating to the point where the remaining growth opportunities largely exist in the sub-$1,000 market, a segment where Apple doesn't yet compete.
Bring back the Cube.
Shuttle already make one and it can take a quad CPU:
http://eu.shuttle.com/en/DesktopDefa...70_read-14950/
Note how the price list goes from very cheap up to about £1000 - some of the lowest prices are just the enclosure though.
So many applications but very few models:
http://eu.shuttle.com/en/desktopdefa.../noblendout-1/
But one huge problem - they're hideous.
It doesn't matter how low Apple price the iMac by cutting margins, the display + the laptop parts keep the price high, same with the laptops. If they made a Cube then they can keep margins fairly high but still be about $200-300 cheaper at least.
There would be about 3 purchases from me if they made one 'cos I need to upgrade my home computer and a couple at work could use upgrading but a Mac Pro is too much money. We have the Mini and it's not fast enough and the iMac is shiny as well as not being as fast/cheap as an equivalent Cube. We already have very nice displays so we don't need to buy new ones that can get dead pixels and need sent away like the iMacs we already have that are outside of warranty and won't be replaced with other ones.
I'm not suggesting that Apple's share price drop is because they don't sell this model - everyone is suffering - but there is a huge market that people all over the world keep telling Apple is there for the taking and they just don't do it.
PC manufacturers are already there and they have the users so they will never see any growth there. Apple don't have the market and can take a significant portion so that they don't suffer so much during this period. Maybe they don't have to care with so much money in the bank but why try to compete with PC manufacturers when the market is strong? They can do some serious damage if they hit the PC crowd right in their comfort zone.
If they don't release new machines soon whatever they are, it looks likely AAPL will slide below 100.
I'm not sure why they released the iphones first to be honest. The back to school segment is already in school probably with whatever new laptop they had to get so they're not exactly going to jump on a new model in the middle of October.
Actually it was Clinton that started this mess - I know that makes all of this "it's Bush's fault" thing not quite as good but we should really be after facts - not political spin...
http://www.huduser.org/publications/txt/hdbrf2.txt
No, this started with the Fed basically printing money and flooding lenders with easy capital, leading to foolish lending practices which lured dangerously uninformed homebuyers into catastrophic situations.
Nasdaq is currently valued at 100:1 and the Dow at 10:1 per share to actual value.All these companies are over valued fundamentally.Apple is going to make strong progress.
The EU economy is $16 trillion a year and it's percentage of debt is considerably lower than the US.Maybe,it's not fair to compare the two,but it makes the euro look even more attractive,adding further weight to the falling dollar and in turn the US debt.
Fine - blame the Republicans but stop saying 8 years. The Dems have had control for the past 2 so, at most, it's 6. Also, if you're not going to be biased you should blame BOTH Clinton and Bush. Clinton for starting the giving of loans to people who were more likely to default and Bush for continuing the stupid plan.
Yeah, I got my house through an FHA loan as well and it was nice but if I had to save up a little longer to get a house to keep 700 BILLION of tax payer dollars from going to companies who are stupid then I'll deal with that.
Edit: You don't get the whole "straw that broke the camels back" thing huh? This has been building up since Clinton started that plan and it's finally at the point where the camel can't support it any longer...
I think you misunderstand the problem. The problem is lack of oversight on stupid interest-only loans and packaging them into "investment vehicles" that had a skewed risk analysis. Clinton was right, and his plan was sound. The problem was the subsequent "keep the government out of business" mentality removed almost all oversight and allowed the system to melt down.
As for the "6 years versus 8" I did say "most of the last 8 years". But if you want to be picky, the Republicans had control of Congress from 1994-2006, with 6 of those years also having control of the executive branch, and it's hard to fix everything overnight. Especially when you only have a 50/49 (plus Lieberman, if you count him) majority in the senate. You can't even call a vote on a bill with 51 votes in the senate.
With 6 years of Republicans dominating essentially all three branches of government, the current nation pretty much exactly reflects the outcome of a country run according to Republican ideals.
That and under jobs every product tends to be either a giant hit or a huge disaster. Not much room in between.
Which products have been a huge disaster ?
No, this started with the Fed basically printing money and flooding lenders with easy capital, leading to foolish lending practices which lured dangerously uninformed homebuyers into catastrophic situations.
It's simply AMAZING how Republican defenders CAN spin the truth...you have had 8 DAMN years to lead a giant country, just to bring it to its knees...
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault for deciding to engage in an illegal war that bleeds billions of dollars per year.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let the Fed flood your fragile market with worthless dollars, soon to become a big collection of green paper all over the world.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let Wall Street play with financials as if they were a game of monopoly without a single drop of decent regulation.
And you STILL wanna vote for that old man and his whorish vice-president? Gimme a break, yankees! GO FIGURE!
No, this started with the Fed basically printing money and flooding lenders with easy capital, leading to foolish lending practices which lured dangerously uninformed homebuyers into catastrophic situations.
The truth is the borrower/homebuyer actually fund the "loans" they take. Banks do not lend money they create it.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let Wall Street play with financials as if they were a game of monopoly without a single drop of decent regulation.
And you STILL wanna vote for that old man and his whorish vice-president?
Your last sentence shows your intelligence. I always say they should teach basic economics and finance in school, right up there with reading, writing, and math/science.
The current financial meltdown is not due to low taxes or evil doings by the Fed. The market's failures are complex and go back a ways. There is plenty of blame to go around. During Clinton's admin, taxes were so high that people were employing dangerous strategies to avoid taxes.
During Bush's term, banks were allowed to give loans to people who could not pay back the loans. Similar to throwing people who can't swim in a pool and then acting surprised when they drown.
Greed does not self regulate. We need intelligent regulations. Key word: Intelligent. If we knee jerk this and the pendulum swings too far the other way, we'll be back discussing unintended consequences of crossing the line between free market capitalism and over control.
Apple doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's stock will take a hit as the economy sorts out the bailout package and housing finds a floor. Right now, Fear is in control.
Deflating bubbles are painful. We've had two rather painful ones since the early 90s.
Seriously, you will thank yourself in 3 months.
Don't be left saying 'I wish I had gotten in when AAPL was...', cos now is that time, they say buy low, well here is your chance.
Your last sentence shows your intelligence. I always say they should teach basic economics and finance in school, right up there with reading, writing, and math/science.
The current financial meltdown is not due to low taxes or evil doings by the Fed. The market's failures are complex and go back a ways. There is plenty of blame to go around. During Clinton's admin, taxes were so high that people were employing dangerous strategies to avoid taxes.
During Bush's term, banks were allowed to give loans to people who could not pay back the loans. Similar to throwing people who can't swim in a pool and then acting surprised when they drown.
Greed does not self regulate. We need intelligent regulations. Key word: Intelligent. If we knee jerk this and the pendulum swings too far the other way, we'll be back discussing unintended consequences of crossing the line between free market capitalism and over control.
Apple doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's stock will take a hit as the economy sorts out the bailout package and housing finds a floor. Right now, Fear is in control.
Deflating bubbles are painful. We've had two rather painful ones since the early 90s.
I surely have had more high-level Economics than you, judging from your pitiful answer. Bush's government would've been able to see the writing on the wall, as any reasonable economist would tell you. But they stated the OPPOSITE and said all was fine. This has nothing to do with Democrat policies that occurred 8 years ago. This has to do with the "laissez faire, laissez passer" orientation that has proven ruined for years and years in several other situations. And also with financing a gigantic deficit via other countries that, just now, are realizing their mistakes.
I am glad you said my last statement shows my intelligence, as I would never vote for the continuation of such ridiculous policies. Reality is: your government has always trusted that the "invisible" hand of the market would regulate itself.
Fact: a financial system without clear and firm regulations is like a balloon in the air. And the bubble is bursting badly now, and solely because of your "deregulated" beliefs.
This is a HUGE buy opportunity for those wanting to get into AAPL.
Seriously, you will thank yourself in 3 months.
Don't be left saying 'I wish I had gotten in when AAPL was...', cos now is that time, they say buy low, well here is your chance.
Unless...it hasn't hit bottom yet.
It's simply AMAZING how Republican defenders CAN spin the truth...you have had 8 DAMN years to lead a giant country, just to bring it to its knees...
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault for deciding to engage in an illegal war that bleeds billions of dollars per year.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let the Fed flood your fragile market with worthless dollars, soon to become a big collection of green paper all over the world.
Yes, it IS BUSH's fault to let Wall Street play with financials as if they were a game of monopoly without a single drop of decent regulation.
And you STILL wanna vote for that old man and his whorish vice-president? Gimme a break, yankees! GO FIGURE!
Not all of us
I think you misunderstand the problem. The problem is lack of oversight on stupid interest-only loans and packaging them into "investment vehicles" that had a skewed risk analysis. Clinton was right, and his plan was sound. The problem was the subsequent "keep the government out of business" mentality removed almost all oversight and allowed the system to melt down.
As for the "6 years versus 8" I did say "most of the last 8 years". But if you want to be picky, the Republicans had control of Congress from 1994-2006, with 6 of those years also having control of the executive branch, and it's hard to fix everything overnight. Especially when you only have a 50/49 (plus Lieberman, if you count him) majority in the senate. You can't even call a vote on a bill with 51 votes in the senate.
With 6 years of Republicans dominating essentially all three branches of government, the current nation pretty much exactly reflects the outcome of a country run according to Republican ideals.
But you're giving all credit to Clinton for the work of Clinton combined with a Republican Congress. If Clinton's plan was sound and right (no idea how in the world you can argue that giving loans to people who are of higher risk to default can EVER be construed as sound or right but ok) then you need to give credit to BOTH the congress and the president. So, either both Clinton and Bush were stupid to encourage this OR the Republican Congress of 1994-2000 did a good job. I won't argue with either conclusion.
I've always been one to support a split Executive and Legislative branch. Almost nothing of usefullness happens when 1 party is in charge of all of it. If you don't like what the Republicans have been doing it's not because they are Republicans it's because Congress, the Senate and the president were all of the same party and they didn't even care about working across the aisle. Don't make the same mistake again...
Not all of us
Hopefully you might be able to show the rest of the world that you are still a sane country based on sound principles, multilateral cooperation and conformity with international law...hopefully.
Fact: a financial system without clear and firm regulations is like a balloon in the air. And the bubble is bursting badly now, and solely because of your "deregulated" beliefs.
Arguing that an analogy that you just made up is "Fact" is a pretty bad argument - just FYI...
She cut her price target on the Mac maker's shares from $178 to $115.
And people want to bail these pricks out? Apple will produce a hefty profit this quarter and this fraud is allowing large chunks of stock to be consolidated with a few power brokers.
What a joke.
Actually it was Clinton that started this mess - I know that makes all of this "it's Bush's fault" thing not quite as good but we should really be after facts - not political spin...
http://www.huduser.org/publications/txt/hdbrf2.txt
Also, the US would be better off if we stopped giving the rest of the world our money but nobody talks about that... The only reason we'd need help is because we've insisted on helping the rest of the world... But I suppose helping the country that's helped the most is out of the question huh?
What about when the banks got together and bought tons of the EURO because it had fallen to 80 cents per USD but they sat idly by and didn't give a crap as the USD fell to less than 70 cents per EURO...
No Reagan did start the mess. Reaganomics turned out to be a huge failure.
What Clinton did in the 90's was good for everybody and, most importantly, possible with the then healthy economy. Bush turned a great economy into a mess in just a few years, and instead of making good adjustments he worsened them... well for 99% of us, not for the 1% that became hugely rich because of it.
And that bit about the US giving huge amounts of money to the rest of the world and never getting anything back... The US never helped without gaining profit of it themselves, and there is nothing wrong with that, this includes the rebuilding of Europe after WWII, a huge investment from the US, but they earned it back a 100000 times too.
Unless...it hasn't hit bottom yet.
Even if it hasn't hit bottom yet, it's still a good time to buy for the longterm.
A couple of observations here... saying that you were 40% off on your target days before doesn't instill much confidence in me that you know what you are talking about. Follow the leader on the downgrades?
And, a lot of people know (or think they know) that new laptops are coming out soon, and that the imac and Mac Pro are due for a refresh/remake, thus the sudden moderation in intent to purchase.
I am buying more AAPL at these levels.
I think Apple will buck the trend as consumers want value for their money.
woahhh! you just made my spit coke all over my desk!!
Apple = VFM??
you REALLY think that?
they may make good products, nice and well designed products but nothing they do is VFM.
for the 'internet masses' you could easily put together a really nice rig running Ubu for under $400.