If you think Obamanomics is a failure and is going to be a failure, then keep your money in your mattress.

Do you know how many people have stop-loss limits on their equity holdings? You could have lost everything on Thursday depending on what stocks you hold (or, held).

No offense but if you have all your money tied up in stocks and have stop-loss limits on them then you deserve to lose it all. These people probably made a ton of money with those same stop-losses also at other times by avoiding bigger losses. That's why it's a risk.

What does that mean that people probably made a ton of money using stop-losses? I don't know if I would consider it "making money" if someone stops the bleeding when a stock declines. I thought people typically used a stop-loss because they don't monitor their positions on a daily basis, or are afraid they won't be able to access their accounts at a critical time.

I would think that if someone sets-up a stop loss at a certain amount, they should have a reasonable expectation in a fair market that they will get something close to that amount if the stop-loss is triggered.

Getting back a penny when you had a stop-loss at $30, and seeing someone else ride the stock back up to $30 ten minutes later, is not something that is going to encourage people into thinking we have an honest marketplace.

The SEC cant come out and say "Were pretty sure Firm x had an error", but they know.

You guys seem to be talking about professional traders here. But you know and I know those commercials for Charles Schwab and e-trade run all the time on TV, enticing average Joe's to buy equities. These people don't know anything about puts or calls, or derivatives. They just open up an account, and since they heard that, say, Apple is a good company, they put $1000 into it, hoping to make a buck or two over the next year or so.

Say Apple trades for $200. Mr. Average Joe doesn't want to lose a large portion of his investment, so he tells Chuck to sell if the price falls to $180. He figures, worst case scenario, he'll lose $100 of his $1000.

Then on Thursday, he hears about this "glitch" or somebody's "fat finger", so he logs on to his account. Lo and behold, Chuck sold his shares at $150, even though Apple opened - and closed - over $200.

Are you guys saying, caveat emptor, pal? I just don't think that's right. I see your point if a guy signs up at an internet poker site and doesn't know if a flush beats a straight. But we're talking about people investing in legitimate companies in a fair and regulated marketplace, and the fact that this analogy to online poker can even be made, is what's troubling.

The Stock Market is a Gamble. Thats why its in this section. Its not safe in any way. It never has been. If you want safe investments you go nowhere near Stocks.

The basic principle of a dollar lost is a dollar gained. Someone is always losing and someone is always winning.

Those people deserve to lose everything. I'm sorry, but if I'm so stupid to not understand a stop loss and so lazy as to simply open an account and throw my money at a company I've heard of then I'm a terrible investor.

Don't feel sorry for them just like you don't feel sorry for someone that bought XM at $25 and it's now at less than a dollar. It's the market. You don't win every battle.

If the economy is so bad, as some political junkies with a particular point of view like to claim, then how are all these companies doing so damn well?

Coast saw his shadow so we'll have 6 more weeks of summer.

We are halfway to the two year mark of this bet and are right on track to hit the 20% in two year goal. On April 13, 2011, the DJIA closed at 12,270, compared to 11,019 one year ago. 11.4%. Yeah, I know it's not a get rich quick scheme, but a double digit return in any year is solid.

Like Peter Schiff, I would suggest investing in companies that have no dependence on the US economy and transact as little business as possible in US dollars.

The Dow closed at 11,019 today. A 20% rise from here (on top of the 68% increase in the last 13 months) would take it to 13,222 within two years.

David Stockman economy Q&A: Economic disaster in the works
By Bernard Condon, Associated Press
Updated 3/5/2012 2:14 PM

NEW YORK – He was an architect of one of the biggest tax cuts in U.S. history. He spent much of his career after politics using borrowed money to take over companies. He targeted the riskiest ones that most investors shunned — car-parts makers, textile mills.

That is one image of David Stockman, the former White House budget director under Ronald Reagan who, after resigning in protest over deficit spending, made a fortune in corporate buyouts.

But spend time with him and you discover this former wunderkind of the Reagan revolution is many other things now — an advocate for higher taxes, a critic of the work that made him rich and a scared investor who doesn't own a single stock for fear of another financial crisis.

Stockman suggests you'd be a fool to hold anything but cash now, and maybe a few bars of gold. He thinks the Federal Reserve's efforts to ease the pain from the collapse of our "national leveraged buyout" — his term for decades of reckless, debt-fueled spending by government, families and companies — is pumping stock and bond markets to dangerous heights.

Known for his grasp of budgetary minutiae, first as a Michigan congressman and then as Reagan's budget director, Stockman still dazzles with his command of numbers. Ask him about jobs, and he'll spit out government estimates for non-farm payrolls down to the tenth of a decimal point. Prod him again and, as from a grim pinata, more figures spill out: personal consumption expenditures, credit market debt and the clunky sounding but all-important non-residential fixed investment.

Stockman may seem as exciting as an insurance actuary, but he knows how to tell a good story. And the punch line to this one is gripping. He says the numbers for the U.S. don't add up to anything but a painful, slow-growing future.

Now 65 and gray, but still wearing his trademark owlish glasses, Stockman took time from writing his book about the financial collapse, The Triumph of Crony Capitalism, to talk to The Associated Press at his book-lined home in Greenwich, Conn.

Within reach was Dickens' Hard Times— two copies.

Below are excerpts, edited for clarity.

Q: Why are you so down on the U.S. economy?

A: It's become super-saturated with debt.

Typically the private and public sectors would borrow $1.50 or $1.60 each year for every $1 of GDP growth. That was the golden constant. It had been at that ratio for 100 years save for some minor squiggles during the bottom of the Depression. By the time we got to the mid-'90s, we were borrowing $3 for every $1 of GDP growth. And by the time we got to the peak in 2006 or 2007, we were actually taking on $6 of new debt to grind out $1 of new GDP.

People were taking $25,000, $50,000 out of their home for the fourth refinancing. That's what was keeping the economy going, creating jobs in restaurants, creating jobs in retail, creating jobs as gardeners, creating jobs as Pilates instructors that were not supportable with organic earnings and income.

It wasn't sustainable. It wasn't real consumption or real income. It was bubble economics.

So even the 1.6% (annual GDP growth in the past decade) is overstating what's really going on in our economy.

Q: How fast can the U.S. economy grow?

A: People would say the standard is 3, 3.5%. I don't even know if we could grow at 1 or 2%. When you have to stop borrowing at these tremendous rates, the rate of GDP expansion stops as well.

Q: But the unemployment rate is falling and companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 are making more money than ever.

A: That's very short-term. Look at the data that really counts. The 131.7 million (jobs in November) was first achieved in February 2000. That number has gone nowhere for 12 years.

Another measure is the rate of investment in new plant and equipment. There is no sustained net investment in our economy. The rate of growth since 2000 (in what the Commerce Department calls non-residential fixed investment) has been 0.8% — hardly measurable.

(Non-residential fixed investment is the money put into office buildings, factories, software and other equipment.)

We're stalled, stuck.

Q: What will 10-year Treasurys yield in a year or five years?

A: I have no guess, but I do know where it is now (a yield of about 2%) is totally artificial. It's the result of massive purchases by not only the Fed but all of the other central banks of the world.

Q: What's wrong with that?

A: It doesn't come out of savings. It's made up money. It's printing press money. When the Fed buys $5 billion worth of bonds this morning, which it's doing periodically, it simply deposits $5 billion in the bank accounts of the eight dealers they buy the bonds from.

Q: And what are the consequences of that?

A: The consequences are horrendous. If you could make the world rich by having all the central banks print unlimited money, then we have been making a mistake for the last several thousand years of human history.

Q: How does it end?

A: At some point confidence is lost, and people don't want to own the (Treasury) paper. I mean why in the world, when the inflation rate has been 2.5% for the last 15 years, would you want to own a five-year note today at 80 basis points (0.8%)?

If the central banks ever stop buying, or actually begin to reduce their totally bloated, abnormal, freakishly large balance sheets, all of these speculators are going to sell their bonds in a heartbeat.

That's what happened in Greece.

Here's the heart of the matter. The Fed is a patsy. It is a pathetic dependent of the big Wall Street banks, traders and hedge funds. Everything (it does) is designed to keep this rickety structure from unwinding. If you had a (former Fed Chairman) Paul Volcker running the Fed today — utterly fearless and independent and willing to scare the hell out of the market any day of the week — you wouldn't have half, you wouldn't have 95%, of the speculative positions today.

Q: You sound as if we're facing a financial crisis like the one that followed the collapse of Lehman Bros. in 2008.

A: Oh, far worse than Lehman. When the real margin call in the great beyond arrives, the carnage will be unimaginable.

Q: How do investors protect themselves? What about the stock market?

A: I wouldn't touch the stock market with a 100-foot pole. It's a dangerous place. It's not safe for men, women or children.

Q: Do you own any shares?

A: No.

Q: But the stock market is trading cheap by some measures. It's valued at 12.5 times expected earnings this year. The typical multiple is 15 times.

A: The typical multiple is based on a historic period when the economy could grow at a standard rate. The idea that you can capitalize this market at a rate that was safe to capitalize it in 1990 or 1970 or 1955 is a large mistake. It's a Wall Street sales pitch.

Q: Are you in short-term Treasurys?

A: I'm just in short-term, yeah. Call it cash. I have some gold. I'm not going to take any risk.

Q: Municipal bonds?

A: No.

Q: No munis, no stocks. Wow. You're not making any money.

A: Capital preservation is what your first, second and third priority ought to be in a system that is so jerry-built, so fragile, so exposed to major breakdown that it's not worth what you think you might be able to earn over six months or two years or three years if they can keep the bailing wire and bubble gum holding the system together, OK? It's not worth it.

Q: Give me your prescription to fix the economy.

A: We have to eat our broccoli for a good period of time. And that means our taxes are going to go up on everybody, not just the rich. It means that we have to stop subsidizing debt by getting a sane set of people back in charge of the Fed, getting interest rates back to some kind of level that reflects the risk of holding debt over time. I think the federal funds rate ought to be 3% or 4%. (It is zero to 0.25%.) I mean, that's normal in an economy with inflation at 2% or 3%.

Q: Social Security?

A: It has to be means-tested. And Medicare needs to be means-tested. If you're a more affluent retiree, you should have your benefits cut back, pay a higher premium for Medicare.

Q: Taxes?

A: Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Let the capital gains go back to the same rate as ordinary income. (Capital gains are taxed at 15%, while ordinary income is taxed at marginal rates up to 35%.)

Q: Why?

A: Why not? I mean, is return on capital any more virtuous than some guy who's driving a bus all day and working hard and trying to support his family? You know, with capital gains, they give you this mythology. You're going to encourage a bunch of more jobs to appear. No, most of capital gains goes to speculators in real estate and other assets who basically lever up companies, lever up buildings, use the current income to pay the interest and after a holding period then sell the residual, the equity, and get it taxed at 15%. What's so brilliant about that?

Q: You worked for Blackstone, a financial services firm that focuses on leveraged buyouts and whose gains are taxed at 15 percent, then started your own buyout fund. Now you're saying there's too much debt. You were part of that debt explosion, weren't you?

A: Well, yeah, and maybe you can learn something from what happens over time. I was against the debt explosion in the Reagan era. I tried to fight the deficit, but I couldn't. When I was in the private sector, I was in the leveraged buyout business. I finally learned a heck of a lot about the dangers of debt.

I'm a libertarian. If someone wants to do leveraged buyouts, more power to them. If they want to have a brothel, let them run a brothel. But it doesn't mean that public policy ought to be biased dramatically to encourage one kind of business arrangement over another. And right now public policy and taxes and free money from the Fed are encouraging way too much debt, way too much speculation and not enough productive real investment and growth.

Q: Why are you writing a book?

A: I got so outraged by the bailouts of Wall Street in September 2008. I believed that Bush and (former Treasury Secretary Hank) Paulson were totally trashing the Reagan legacy, whatever was left, which did at least begin to resuscitate the idea of free markets and a free economy. And these characters came in and panicked and basically gave capitalism a smelly name and they made it impossible to have fiscal discipline going forward. If you're going to bail out Wall Street, what aren't you going to bail out? So that started my re-engagement, let's say, in the policy debate.

Q: Are you hopeful?

A: No.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Of course interest rates are going to go up. They are at historic lows. And I did not suggest the time is right to invest in real estate, especially if your horizon is short. But there are plenty of other sectors that are heating up...tech, manufacturing, commodities...hell, even some retailers are having solid quarters.

At any point in time, one can point to one indicator or another (interest rates, deficits, foreclosures) and think that one indicator tells them the sky will surely fall. Yes there is meaning to any indicator and yes, real estate is not going to be a big part of this recovery in the next few years. Yes, that is different than previous recoveries. But to suggest that a continuing down real estate market is going to makes economic growth in other sectors unsustainable doesn't quite fit in today's economy.

A good exercise for all the chicken littles is to check their 401k. Consider the 30-60% gain they likely earned in the last 13 months and then ask, how exactly did that happen.

But thanks for the skepticism. I love it. When the skeptics realize the boom of 2009-2014 is passing them by and they start investing a few years out, I'll get out and cash in my gains and move on to something else..maybe real estate by then. By the time the market looks all rosy to Joe Public, the best gains are gone. Just like sports betting. Public perception is usually wrong and over-priced.

The Dow closed at 11,019 today. A 20% rise from here (on top of the 68% increase in the last 13 months) would take it to 13,222 within two years. See you in two years, if not before. It's not a long term winning proposition -- in any investment or sports wager -- to bet against the market and the smart money. But if that's your style, go for it. Enjoy the mattress.