Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 09 Apr 2019, 14:29:10

marmico wrote:Image

So is 3+ percent growth a "crash", re Armageddon's claim?

Since he seems to call ANYTHING he can find that he can paint as negative, regardless of source reliability or context, as "a crash", I just wondered where the line gets drawn. :roll:

I'd call 3+ percent boringly normal, given the overall global growth rate we've been having for several+ years now.

I still think, given the cherry picking, that a favorite tactic of the fast crash doomers is to find a statistic coming down toward normal, off a recent record or booming numbers, as some kind of sign of catastrophe.

Car sales numbers would be a great example. Pretending like "normal" is constant record setting, always, is MORE than a little delusional. It's a deliberate attempt to portray doom where none exists.

That would seem to fit in quite well with the horrendous track record of such folks, re accuracy of predictions.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby Armageddon » Tue 09 Apr 2019, 14:58:37

Trump calling for more QE and rate cuts

Has he been reading my posts on here? 8)


But,but, we are booming.... booming so much we need more printed money and lower rates.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4803
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby Armageddon » Tue 09 Apr 2019, 15:50:35

ON LIVE TV Art Cashin ADMITS US/China trade deal being used as a "prop" for the market


No....really? I said this months ago.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4803
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Tue 09 Apr 2019, 16:21:21

According to the World Bank, world GDP between 20014 and 2017 grew at an average annual rate of 0.065%. Apparently the IMF and the World Bank don't talk to each other very much? One can only wonder if the IMF noticed that in 2007 world debt was $100 trillion with a GDP of $58, and in 2017 it was $243 trillion with a GDP of $80. They probably haven't noticed that Peak has arrived either.

By the way, in Venezuela the morgues are so full the bodies are exploding, and the grave robbers are stripping the corpses of everything including their bones. But let's not pay any attention to all that "doomer" stuff.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 5994
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Tue 09 Apr 2019, 16:45:29

ON LIVE TV Art Cashin ADMITS US/China trade deal being used as a "prop" for the market


They have to do something or the stock market will fold. With companies buying their own stock back (being the only ones buying) this $7 trillion Ponzi is getting a little rickety. After the stock market crashes people may start to figure out that things aren't all that hunky dory in OZ. The Wizard is going to have to do some explaining to do.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 5994
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby Armageddon » Tue 09 Apr 2019, 22:24:10

Lowering the forecast for world GDP but raising future cost of oil and gasoline?

Wouldn’t demand be down in a global downturn and in effect lower prices?

Wouldn’t be surprised if we were past peak especially with the actions of the US recently (Venezuela, Libya)
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4803
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby Armageddon » Wed 10 Apr 2019, 07:42:38

'Retail Apocalypse Now': Analysts say 75,000 more U.S. stores could be doomed

[link to www.cnbc.com (secure)]


Clothing retailers, consumer electronics companies and home furnishing businesses will need to close more stores across the U.S. as e-commerce sales proliferate, according to UBS.

In a note to clients this week, the investment firm said "store rationalization needs to accelerate meaningfully as online penetration continues to rise." Assuming online sales' share of total retail sales in the U.S. grows to 25% by 2026, from 16% today, roughly 75,000 more retail doors, excluding restaurants, need to close, analysts Jay Sole and Michael Lasser said. That means for every 1% increase in online penetration, roughly 8,000 to 8,500 stores need to close. A lot of that growth is being fueled by Amazon, which is expected to account for about half of the U.S. e-commerce market.

Within that 75,000 number, about 21,000 clothing stores, 10,000 consumer electronics stores, 8,000 home furnishing stores and 1,000 home improvement stores should close, UBS estimated, based on the firm's assumed growth rates of online penetration within each retail subsector. It added about 7,000 grocery stores could close if online grocery penetration rises to 10%, from 2%, by 2026.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4803
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 10 Apr 2019, 10:37:47

Lowering the forecast for world GDP but raising future cost of oil and gasoline?

Wouldn’t demand be down in a global downturn and in effect lower prices?

Wouldn’t be surprised if we were past peak especially with the actions of the US recently (Venezuela, Libya)


Very simple calculations show that we are at Peak, and unless the Martians start delivering drilling rigs, and the money to run them the production profile is all down hill from here. The Shale patch is now short 307 rigs, and about $2 billion to prevent Peak from occurring. As simple as that is, it appears that the "experts" are having difficultity getting their heads wrapped around it? Maybe its like bad breath, no one wants to mention it?

The price of oil is capped at a level that allows it to be used by the economy. The logic is again simple; no one is going to spend $2 for the petroleum required to produce $1 worth of goods and services; at least not for very long. Oil is already over its Maximum Affordability level, and about $1.7 trillion a year is being put on the world's debt tab to keep it flowing. By 2025 that will be $8.5 trillion a year, and by 2030 it will require more than half of the entire planet's GDP to keep it flowing. The world will then be scrapping 1,000 $trillion of infrastructure that requires petroleum to be useable. The loss from stranded assets will bankrupt the world.

The quality of petroleum has been declining since the first barrel was produced. The oil from high permeability, onshore formations was the first to be extracted. Then offshore, then ultra deep water, then bitumen, and now it is being extracted from the equivalent of a brick. Each step downward in quality produced less dollar return for the economy for dollar invested. The ERoEI of petroleum has been going down. When the return goes negative oil transforms from a necessity to a luxury, and people will be riding Old Nelly to the county fair to see the oil powered machine.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 5994
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 10 Apr 2019, 11:22:18

The logic is again simple; no one is going to spend $2 for the petroleum required to produce $1 worth of goods and services;

The price of those goods would then be $3 unless someone could produce them without oil.
You have fixated on rig count in the Permian. What about the yet unexplored regions of Russia or the war disrupted regions of Iraq and sanctioned curbs on Iran.
Until every promising formation in the world has been drilled with maximum effort with declining results we will not have a geologic peak production. Political peak may happen before that but the chaos that will cause will place people in charge that will do that maximum drilling effort.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 10 Apr 2019, 11:33:58

The price of oil is capped at a level that allows it to be used by the economy. The logic is again simple; no one is going to spend $2 for the petroleum required to produce $1 worth of goods and services; at least not for very long. Oil is already over its Maximum Affordability level


What a load of hooey. Nobody is spending more on oil than they get from goods and services. The easiest way to see this is to look at crack spreads which are not negative which they would be if you are correct. And demand is still increasing which it would not be if nobody could afford it.
Jeff Currie head of Goldman Sachs commodities research department spoke to global demand last week:

Asked if he saw any evidence that oil demand is beginning to decline, Currie replied: “No — absolutely the opposite. Commodities demand is relatively rock solid, demand is so solid in China right now ... Bottom line, demand looks really good right now.”


The quality of petroleum has been declining since the first barrel was produced. The oil from high permeability, onshore formations was the first to be extracted. Then offshore, then ultra deep water, then bitumen, and now it is being extracted from the equivalent of a brick. 


The oil quality has not been declining. The shale formations that are being produced (eg. Eagleford, Marcelus, Wolfcamp, Bakken etc) are all the source rock for the accumulated and produced conventional reservoired oil that has been powering the US economy for decades. It is the same oil, same quality. Indeed a comparison of Eagleford crude stands up pretty well with Brent or Louisiana Light. Condensates produced from the Eagleford look exactly like condensates produced from conventional reservoirs. The offshore oil is likewise of high quality. Costs to extract various hydrocarbons are not commensurate with oil quality. And the term quality is in the eye of the beholder as refiners who need heavy oil look to it as an attractive “quality” grade.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6778
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 10 Apr 2019, 16:30:01

shortonoil wrote:
Lowering the forecast for world GDP but raising future cost of oil and gasoline?

Wouldn’t demand be down in a global downturn and in effect lower prices?

Wouldn’t be surprised if we were past peak especially with the actions of the US recently (Venezuela, Libya)


Very simple calculations show that we are at Peak, and unless the Martians start delivering drilling rigs, and the money to run them the production profile is all down hill from here. The Shale patch is now short 307 rigs, and about $2 billion to prevent Peak from occurring. As simple as that is, it appears that the "experts" are having difficultity getting their heads wrapped around it? Maybe its like bad breath, no one wants to mention it?

It's unaffordable according to you, yet the price trend is solidly up. According to you the MAP WTI price was about $41 at the end of 2018 and will be more like $25 the end of this year, and yet in the real world, we're approaching $65 in 4/2019 with no sign of the rise stopping.

Speaking of Martians, apparently your forecasts / logic relative to oil apply more to Mars than the real world. Given that and re your track record about predicting financial doom, why in the world should anyone listen to your predictions?

OK, doomers like to hear preaching about doom -- I get that. I mean rational people who want predictions to be at least a little accurate and/or actionable, vs. plain old FUD.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 10 Apr 2019, 18:18:35

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Yes, but there is relative poverty and absolute poverty. With the pie getting 4x bigger, even "the poor" aren't so poor any more in first world countries.
For most first world countries this is true. If you are talking about the US, that is a different story. The poor's pie slice actually got smaller. Not just relatively smaller. Absolutely smaller as well.

Between 1963 and 2016, families near the bottom of the wealth distribution (those at the 10th percentile) went from having no wealth on average to being about $1,000 in debt.
Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America

During the 11 years between the last two Census wealth reports, U.S. median wealth fell. It was $73,874 in 2000, declining to $68,828 in 2011. But that wasn't because every quintile saw a loss. Instead, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Between 2000 and 2011, wealth increased for those in the top two quintiles, while it decreased for those in the bottom three.
Code: Select all
Quintile  Median        Change by 2011
          Net Worth(2000)
Bottom    -$905          -566%
Next    $14,319          -49%
Middle  $73,911          -7%
Next   $187,552          +10%
Top    $569,375          +11%
What Is the Average American Net Worth?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4479
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 10 Apr 2019, 19:35:51

Consider that a poor person in America with a child or two qualifies for public assistance and tax credits that on average amount to $28,800 per year which is equivalent to having $600,000 in the bank paying five percent interest.
This is something they never consider when they add up wealth because it can't be passed on to your children when you die but day to day it spends just as well as a trust fund and if used wisely can place your family in a much better position over the time you can draw it then if you had to just get by on minimum wage.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 10 Apr 2019, 22:51:11

vtsnowedin wrote:Consider that a poor person in America with a child or two qualifies for public assistance and tax credits that on average amount to $28,800 per year which is equivalent to having $600,000 in the bank paying five percent interest.
This is something they never consider when they add up wealth because it can't be passed on to your children when you die but day to day it spends just as well as a trust fund and if used wisely can place your family in a much better position over the time you can draw it then if you had to just get by on minimum wage.
Incorrect. That $28k figure is from a Cato Institute report that has already been debunked years ago.

The Cato Institute recently released a wildly misleading report by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes, which essentially claims that what low-wage workers and their families can expect to receive from “welfare” dwarfs the wages they can expect from working.

So what makes this so misleading?

For one, Tanner and Hughes make the assumption that these families receive simultaneous assistance from all of the following programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, Housing Assistance Payments, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC), and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). It is this simultaneous assistance from multiple sources that lets the entire “welfare benefits package” identified by Cato add up to serious money. But it’s absurd to assume that someone would receive every one of these benefits, simultaneously.

What’s more, their report carries the clear implication that welfare is (or should be expected to be) pulling low-wage workers out of the labor market by making life on welfare so attractive. In actuality, many low-income working families receive assistance through these programs.

Sharon Parrott and LaDonna Pavetti at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provide some solid evidence against some of the claims made by Tanner and Hughes. They provide detailed statistics on how little overlap there is in the assistance families receive for multiple programs, and how few eligible families actually receive any benefits at all.

The Congressional Budget Office provides comprehensive data on sources of income for households by income fifths. We looked at this in some detail in the poverty chapter of State of Working America (see here). These reputable data tell a very different story about how low-wage workers live their lives. They are getting far less from government assistance than the Cato report implies and are relying much more on income gained from working.

In 2009, average transfer income for the lowest fifth of workers was $4,633 and average labor income was $12,871. Two things are clear here: government transfers are far less than what Tanner and Hughes claim, and labor income far exceeds government transfers for the lowest income group, meaning that real-world low-income families don’t feel so coddled by lavish welfare benefits that they don’t need to work.

Tanner and Hughes are not telling a realistic story about the lives of low income Americans and the income provided to them by transfer programs.
Cato Study Distorts the Truth on Welfare and Work
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4479
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 11 Apr 2019, 01:33:24

vtsnowedin wrote:Consider that a poor person in America with a child or two qualifies for public assistance and tax credits that on average amount to $28,800 per year which is equivalent to having $600,000 in the bank paying five percent interest.
This is something they never consider when they add up wealth because it can't be passed on to your children when you die but day to day it spends just as well as a trust fund and if used wisely can place your family in a much better position over the time you can draw it then if you had to just get by on minimum wage.

Regardless of the precise figure, the principle holds. The poor are getting more income over time, through more government programs, including big tax credits. I was going to point out that the poor have essentially no property, so this misses the main point. Social programs for the poor have greatly increased. The EITC started in 1975, for example. Married with 1 to 3 children, the credit in 2012 didn't go to zero until income reached $42 to $50,000 dollars. That's mighty close to the median household income. The EITC costs over $65 billion a year as of 2017.

The child tax credit didn't start until 1997. That program costs $59 billion a year as of 2017.

When people essentially spend all they get their hands on, then their financial well being is almost completely tied to their income. For anyone but the very rich, income is a significant chunk of economic well being.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-e ... ctiveness/

It's not hard to see why social spending is NEVER deemed close to enough by the far left if they're going to say the poor are getting poorer no matter how much income they get from social programs.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6691
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby kublikhan » Thu 11 Apr 2019, 03:11:00

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Regardless of the precise figure, the principle holds. The poor are getting more income over time, through more government programs, including big tax credits. I was going to point out that the poor have essentially no property, so this misses the main point. Social programs for the poor have greatly increased. The EITC started in 1975, for example. Married with 1 to 3 children, the credit in 2012 didn't go to zero until income reached $42 to $50,000 dollars. That's mighty close to the median household income. The EITC costs over $65 billion a year as of 2017.

The child tax credit didn't start until 1997. That program costs $59 billion a year as of 2017.

When people essentially spend all they get their hands on, then their financial well being is almost completely tied to their income. For anyone but the very rich, income is a significant chunk of economic well being.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ib370-e ... ctiveness/
And yet despite all those credits and social programs and transfers, income still fell:

Congressional Research Service
Between 2000 and 2015, average incomes rose at relatively modest rates for the top two quintiles (i.e., the top 40% of the distribution) and fell for the bottom three quintiles (i.e., bottom 60%).

Census Bureau and WID Income Statistics
Census statistics describe household money income, which is pre-tax cash income received by households on a regular basis from market and nonmarket sources. Market income includes labor income, in the form of salaries and wages, self-employment earnings, and capital income, in the form of interest and dividend income, rents, royalties, estate and trust income, and nongovernment pensions and annuities. Nonmarket sources of income include the value of all public cash transfers (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security benefits) and other regular, nongovernment sources of income (e.g., child support).


Outcast_Searcher wrote:It's not hard to see why social spending is NEVER deemed close to enough by the far left if they're going to say the poor are getting poorer no matter how much income they get from social programs.
And yet somehow the poor in other first world countries have managed to grow their wealth:

As might be expected, the value of financial assets held by households in the bottom quintile is relatively low, an average of USD 5 300, though again with some variation across countries. Households in the bottom wealth quintile own an average of USD 15 700 in financial assets in Korea and Japan. In both countries, this reflects the importance of deposits and voluntary private pensions/life insurance for this group, with other non-pension financial assets also significant in Korea. The average value of financial assets in the bottom wealth quintile is also relatively high in Norway and France, with deposits as the main source of financial wealth in Norway, and business assets in France.[US Households in the bottom 40% of the distribution have a negative wealth share reflecting household debt exceeding the value of their assets.]

In absolute terms, households in Japan have the highest level of financial assets among those in the middle of the distribution, with an average value of USD 78,700, followed by Korea (USD 61,300) and Luxembourg (USD 59,400). Financial assets also make up a large proportion of overall gross assets in Germany and Austria. In most of these countries, deposits (including savings accounts) represent the largest component of financial assets for the middle quintile, though in Korea voluntary private pension funds, individual life insurance and other non-pension financial assets are also important.

Financial assets are much more unequally distributed than non-financial ones (Figure 2.6). Across the 28 OECD countries covered by the OECD WDD, households in the top wealth quintile have average financial wealth around 72 times that of those in the bottom quintile, compared with around 23 times for real-estate wealth. The gap between the top and bottom quintiles for financial assets is even wider in some countries (with a value 525 times that of the bottom quintile in the United States and 405 times in the United Kingdom). By contrast, the ownership of financial assets is much more evenly distributed in Korea (13 times) and the Slovak Republic (19 times).
Inequalities in household wealth across OECD countries: Evidence from the OECD Wealth Distribution Database
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4479
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 11 Apr 2019, 06:04:26

The exact figure is not the point. The one I used was the second one I found and I don't know it's accuracy. The point I was making is that all those benefits need to be considered when measuring the relative wealth of poor people. Also consider that people with money in the bank or other assets don't qualify for many benefits in the US until they spend them down or manage to hide them and that leads to distorted figures.
Of course not all people apply for and receive every benefit allowed but few living in section eight subsidized housing are not also getting Snap (food stamps) and getting their healthcare from medicaid or medicare.
There are (government figure) 2.2 million households living in rent subsidized housing at an annual cost of 19 billion dollars.
The present budget bills in Congress look like this.
Major HUD Program Funding in Millions
2017 Trump 2018 House 2018 Senate 2018
Housing Vouchers
Total $20,292 19,318 $20,487 $21,368
Renewals $18,355 $17,584 $18,710 $19,370
Administration $1,650 $1,550 $1,550 $1,725
Tenant Protection $110 $60 $60 $75
Veterans (VASH) $47 $7 $7 $45
Family Unification $10 $0 $0 $20
People with Disab. $120 $107 $150 $130
Section 8 pjr. $10,816 $10,751 $11,082 $11,507
Public Housing $6,342 $4,528 $6,250 $6,445
Homeless Ass. $2,383 $2,250 $2,383 $2,456
Section 202 Housing for Elderly
$502 $510 $573 $573
Section 811 Housing for People with Disabilities
$146 $121 $147 $147
Housing Opportunities for People with HIV/AIDS
$356 $330 $356 $330
Community Development Block Grant
$3,000 $0 $2,900 $3,000
HOME Investments Partnership
$950 $0 $850 $950
Last edited by vtsnowedin on Thu 11 Apr 2019, 06:13:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 11 Apr 2019, 06:12:16

Sorry about that. When you go to post a table there is something in the artificial dumbness of the site that takes out all the spaces and renders it unreadable.
If you want to see it in table form look here.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/c ... ucher-cuts
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9770
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby Armageddon » Thu 11 Apr 2019, 10:31:10

BREAKING! What an admission!!!! Larry Kudlow said: "interest rates may never rise again in his lifetime."

LOL
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4803
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Stock Market Crash! (merged) Pt. 6

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 11 Apr 2019, 11:59:40

BREAKING! What an admission!!!! Larry Kudlow said: "interest rates may never rise again in his lifetime."

LOL


What is the market going to do if he drops dead next week? Buy more Tesla?
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 5994
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests