The end of the world -- I can't take it anymore!

It really pi$$es me off that white collar crime is OK!

You and I steal $50.00--off to jail.

50 billion--house arrest

I guess most Judges are white collar criminals at heart.

There are many sheeple: people believe what the media, no matter how biased, ignorant, or misguided, tells them, so it must be true. I haven't watched the media regularly for years, it's too depressingly with trivial points. And yes, I believe the economy is much worse because of the media; the media is a business and must get viewers to get paid. And there is no news like bad news.

I think there are some people who are influenced by what the media says but they are in the minority. Most people are influenced more by what they see and experience for themselves in their own lives. The vast majority of people who are not spending are doing so because they simply don't have the money to spend, not because of some media invented so-called "lack of confidence" in the economy.

mattograph wrote in post #7222366
Thanks for the "self-control". You hit it on the mark. The media appears to want to keep singing from the same doom and gloom hymnal.

Yes, and that's what they believe their job is, to sensationalize everything to attract viewers. That's been broadcasting journalism's tactic for years now instead of doing real news gathering and reporting. Remember, "If it bleeds, it leads". It's cheaper and easier to attract viewers with the "sky is falling", of course reported as "Breaking News", of which we will have "Team Coverage" to tell you how it's going to make your life worse. Then we can bring on one self-proclaimed financial expert after another to tell us exactly how bad it's going to get and then the "feel good" ones to tell us how to "survive" this "crisis"
Welcome to TV, Radio, and print coverage of the news, 21st century style.

And that, sadly enough, is nothing new. It's been happening for years. I don't have a better idea but somehow there has to be a better way of running this county's economy than with a system that rewards a company for being "more profitable" by ruining the lives of the people who worked for them. And you're right that in many cases it's not a company in trouble trying to trim costs in an effort to simply stay in business, it's just to improve a bottom line to make shareholders and Wall Street happier.

mattograph wrote in post #7222366
It's not me I'm worried about. Its the people that get laid off next week because some company who is still turning a profit feels like they have to make Wall Street happy.

Businesses don't lay people off and cut production because of the news, perceptions or to make Wall St. happy. Profits make Wall Street happy. As long as they are making profits they will continue to do the same thing that makes them the profits. They lay people off and cut production when there is less demand for their products and services. Neither do they hire people to produce more products on that basis, they hire to produce more when there is a demand.

Auto manufacturers are not going to hire workers to produce more cars if there is no one that can afford to buy them. Neither will they do so because their taxes are reduced. They will only hire more and produce more when there is a market which demands it.

hawkeye60 wrote in post #7232822
Businesses don't lay people off and cut production because of the news, perceptions or to make Wall St. happy. Profits make Wall Street happy. As long as they are making profits they will continue to do the same thing that makes them the profits. They lay people off and cut production when there is less demand for their products and services. Neither do they hire people to produce more products on that basis, they hire to produce more when there is a demand.

Auto manufacturers are not going to hire workers to produce more cars if there is no one that can afford to buy them. Neither will they do so because their taxes are reduced. They will only hire more and produce more when there is a market which demands it.

No offense intended, but this is not reality. Profits don't make wall street happy. Beating estimates makes wall street happy.

Two examples -- Amazon stock traded well over $100 a share before they ever made a dime? How? Because they continually exceeded the streets predictions. That meant, for several years, not having losses as bad as predicted -- even though they lost money.

GE -- GE made $33 BILLION last year. This time, last year, the stock traded at $38.00 per share. Today, it trades at $12. Why? The fact that anyone made a dime in the recession last year (started in 2007) should be applauded, right? But GE didn't meet estimates, and, in addition, has a financial arm, which is taboo right now. So they get pummelled even though they returned the same dollar to the shareholder that they did in 2007 -- no change.

As far as the news affecting the street -- have you been paying attention to Apple lately? If you had Steve Jobs nurses cell number, you could have made a fortune as a day trader.

No offense intended here either but...What they are estimating is earnings, which is simply another word for profit. They look at quarterly profits to see if they met the estimates. And value is based on this. If there is a healthy market, laying people off and producing less only further reduces earnings. If the marketplace does not support the level of production, then laying off and cutting production is an effective cost saving measure which is designed to raise profits by reducing overhead.

I never said that news doesn't affect Wall Street. Of course it does, stock prices are as much based on perceptions as they are on actual earnings, but only on a temporary basis. What they are perceiving is the abilty of a company to earn (make profits) in the future and that is the foundation on which Wall Street bases value. When the news reports lost jobs and poor retail sales it indicates a shrinking marketplace and very likely future earnings will decline due to this, therefore values plummet.

hawkeye60 wrote in post #7233972
No offense intended here either but...What they are estimating is earnings, which is simply another word for profit. They look at quarterly profits to see if they met the estimates. And value is based on this. If there is a healthy market, laying people off and producing less only further reduces earnings. If the marketplace does not support the level of production, then laying off and cutting production is an effective cost saving measure which is designed to raise profits by reducing overhead.

In a micro-economic sense, this is certainly correct. But it is not reality. Mass layoffs often carry with them huge costs -- most are often a combination of attrition, early retirement, etc. Very rarely are they "thanks, heres your last check."

It is very common to see the old "one time charge" associated with profit reports. Many times, analysts will ignore these in their evaluations, but the money is spent -- gone.

A perfect example -- the auto industry. I live down the street from a ford plant, where the workforce has been reduced by 30% over the past 10 years -- but guess what? Many of those "laid off" folks are actually still receiving paychecks, and have been for two years.