<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stimulus  Coupled With Strong Stock Market Performance Creates Bullish Outlook</title>
	<atom:link href="http://moneymorning.com/2009/03/30/stock-market-rally/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://moneymorning.com/2009/03/30/stock-market-rally/</link>
	<description>Global Investment News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:41:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: D W</title>
		<link>http://moneymorning.com/2009/03/30/stock-market-rally/comment-page-1/#comment-5984</link>
		<dc:creator>D W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=6393#comment-5984</guid>
		<description>Can someone wiser than me please explain how Geithner&#039;s &quot;plan to draft private-sector investors to finance as much as $1 trillion in distressed bank assets&quot; is actually going to work.

I&#039;m an engineer by trade, not an economist, so this just isn&#039;t making sense to me.

If a bank makes a loan for $100K for a house that&#039;s now worth $80K, then sells it someone else to get it off there books, noone is going to pay more than the $80K for that asset.  I wouldn&#039;t even think they would pay that much.

Let&#039;s take best case scenario and they did $80K, didn&#039;t they just loose $20K?  How is this a good thing?  Maybe I just don&#039;t get it and I&#039;m hoping someone can explain it a little better to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can someone wiser than me please explain how Geithner's "plan to draft private-sector investors to finance as much as $1 trillion in distressed bank assets" is actually going to work.</p>
<p>I'm an engineer by trade, not an economist, so this just isn't making sense to me.</p>
<p>If a bank makes a loan for $100K for a house that's now worth $80K, then sells it someone else to get it off there books, noone is going to pay more than the $80K for that asset.  I wouldn't even think they would pay that much.</p>
<p>Let's take best case scenario and they did $80K, didn't they just loose $20K?  How is this a good thing?  Maybe I just don't get it and I'm hoping someone can explain it a little better to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AI</title>
		<link>http://moneymorning.com/2009/03/30/stock-market-rally/comment-page-1/#comment-5985</link>
		<dc:creator>AI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=6393#comment-5985</guid>
		<description>This letter is a nice cherry-picking of facts. It leaves one with the feeling that the publisher decided bad news is too rampant in general, so why not churn out &quot;good news&quot; however thin? The problem with this approach is one of scale. Unprecedented unemployment, a gov&#039;t supported GM bankruptcy, debt at the destructive level, did not make as much as a footnote in this article. It is 100% unabashed theory leaning of course far too much on then=now thinking, and this is leading people down the path to be fleeced.

Report to us, but please use the newsletter as an attempt to manipulate us. We pay for this newsletter. Tell us first if you think we need manipulating. We are paying you, not the other way around. Pollyanna opinions and theories are not useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This letter is a nice cherry-picking of facts. It leaves one with the feeling that the publisher decided bad news is too rampant in general, so why not churn out "good news" however thin? The problem with this approach is one of scale. Unprecedented unemployment, a gov't supported GM bankruptcy, debt at the destructive level, did not make as much as a footnote in this article. It is 100% unabashed theory leaning of course far too much on then=now thinking, and this is leading people down the path to be fleeced.</p>
<p>Report to us, but please use the newsletter as an attempt to manipulate us. We pay for this newsletter. Tell us first if you think we need manipulating. We are paying you, not the other way around. Pollyanna opinions and theories are not useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry</title>
		<link>http://moneymorning.com/2009/03/30/stock-market-rally/comment-page-1/#comment-5982</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=6393#comment-5982</guid>
		<description>Yes, this is all wonderful news - so glad the &quot;stimulus&quot; plan (now that the details are clarified) has put all of this uncertainty to rest.

After all, who cares if the Obamarxist administration&#039;s goal is to control all U.S. business, if not every aspect of our lives? Today, Detroit - tomorrow ... Big Oil!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, this is all wonderful news &#8211; so glad the "stimulus" plan (now that the details are clarified) has put all of this uncertainty to rest.</p>
<p>After all, who cares if the Obamarxist administration's goal is to control all U.S. business, if not every aspect of our lives? Today, Detroit &#8211; tomorrow &#8230; Big Oil!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harry Henry</title>
		<link>http://moneymorning.com/2009/03/30/stock-market-rally/comment-page-1/#comment-5983</link>
		<dc:creator>Harry Henry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=6393#comment-5983</guid>
		<description>William, why pose a question to which it seems  you have no intention of giving a clear answer??? After reading through your article, we still don&#039;t know whether you believe this is the start of a Bull We&#039;re no wiser as to whether you believe it is the start of a Bull run, or just a dead cat bounce. A clear question desrves a clear answer. Harry</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>William, why pose a question to which it seems  you have no intention of giving a clear answer??? After reading through your article, we still don't know whether you believe this is the start of a Bull We're no wiser as to whether you believe it is the start of a Bull run, or just a dead cat bounce. A clear question desrves a clear answer. Harry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

