lost about 13 today, still falling at 152.35 in after hours trading. That's a $40 loss since Oct 22.<br><br><br>

AAPL seems like a decent stock but when you build your base on the American economy today you are building on quicksand, It is a house of cards. A Ponzi scheme which is now owned by the Chinese. Our government has floated one too many treasury notes to back a ballooning debt. <br><br>We likely won't pay for it this week. Chances are the stock market will just have a hiccup. Or not. Bobsled to hyperinflation is inevitable and these might be the outward signs.<br><br>It is really very simple. Look at our national debt. That number which keeps getting bigger. As the millions of people who are having their houses this month sold at auction, you cannot keep mortgaging your house endlessly. Sooner or later you have to pay up.<br><br>Gee, but the rich aren't screwed. Bush is not screwed. The only people screwed are fixed income or slow rising salaries. Double digit inflation will chew you up and spit you out.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

High inflation has a couple of terrific advantages for people with lots of cash--they can earn a high interest rate with almost zero risk. It's also great for people with a lot of debt--the money borrowed when a dollar cost a dollar will be repaid when the dollar costs a fraction of a dollar. Pretty sucky for everyone else.<br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;

With hyperinflation it is best to have both. Big debt and a lot of cash. Shoot, it's those rich people who would be smart enough to have debt which becomes less onerous and cash to make hyper interest on. <br><br>Makes perfect sense. Greed will be good again because if you aren't greedy you are toast. Where did my cheese go? (That is a sarcastic reference to the cheese, I never bought the book but the era is right.)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

I'm buying some AAPL tomorrow<br><br>zweisoft<br>

it's still up pretty good since August . . . actually, on 8.17.07 it was $117 and today it's in the $150s. that's a great profit!<br><br>

Gee, but the rich aren't screwed.<br><br>I want to ask a question pertaining to that statemnent. Not being sarcastic or trying to set anyone up, but an honest question.<br><br><br>Isn't it a bit unfair to say that in relation to the economy and inflation? To lump everyone who is rich into one pile?<br><br>I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. But my oldest brother would probably be considered rich. He made his money through real estate (buildings, not houses) and retired when he was 38.<br><br>He made his money by investing and buying out a owner. <br><br>Another example is Bill Gates. (I'm not comparing my brother to him! heh) Granted, Bill started up Microsoft and I'm sure that the business practice isn't the best, but he did make a lot of money. Now he donates a lot to charity and stuff. (I don't want to get into where and how because I don't know and don't care)<br><br>The point is that why do people have a tendency to say rich people are bad? Sure, some may be, but not all....<br><br>

There are certainly many levels of "rich" - my wife would argue that we are rich, because we have everything we need. Like you, I don't consider myself money-rich by any stretch.<br><br>However, getting back to the topic (sort of). Most "rich" people are thought of as bad because they're assholes about it. Plain and simple. They get money and all of a sudden they've forgotten what real life is about, and what a real "problem" is. Nothing pisses me off more than hearing someone who's obviously money-rich complaining about the economy.<br><br>CreativeGuy for daily tips, tricks and commentary on all things graphic design.

I understand what you are saying and I'm not defending the snobby ones.<br><br><br>But, if a rich person is invested in stocks, which I'm sure some are, wouldn't the effects of the economy affect them too?<br><br>

Did I say the rich are bad? That would be nutty. And unless your brother has more than five million in equity, he isn't what I define as rich. I mean the top 2%. The rules are being rewritten so that this ultra rich (new definition) rake in more, keep more, while the bottom really lose out.<br><br>Your brother is likely smart enough to keep his riches in investment tools which are hyper inflation resistant. He hopefully has that elbow room. He is not tied to a salary which cannot rise more than 6% per year or be tied to an income that cannot rise at 20% or more per year. <br><br>I'm not saying that being able to buffer oneself from hyper inflation is bad but that the people who are setting us up for hyper inflation are not going to be hurt by it.<br><br>Example: Bush and the Iraq war will likely be the tipping point for our national debt. The chinese will stop buying our treasury paper. The US will then have to allow that paper debt to become much less of a burden. The only way that can happen is hyper inflation. A trillion dollars is just not that big a deal if it only buys a tenth of what it does today. In order to buy a loaf of bread or a cup of coffee will be difficult for people who only have so many static dollars to buy that coffee. The "rich", and your brother likely is one of them, will not feel this pinch because all of his investments will rise with the hyper inflation tide.<br><br>Salaried employees will not fare so well. If you aren't making good six figures you will be having a hard time getting your kid's college paid for.<br><br>So, to reiterate, nothing against the rich, just the way some rich are protecting themselves from being poor. George Soros says it is ludicrous that his tax rate is less than his secretary's tax rate. I wold agree. George Bush thinks it is great.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>