The family that bought my home in Phoenix, AZ paid me 3.5 times the amount I originally paid. Their mortgage was, to say the least, very creative. They could barely make the payments and are no longer in the house. Forfeitures are being snapped up at an incredible rate by people who have plenty of the ready. There are still lots of them.

If you think 700 billion is going to fix the problem, you're very naive. My money says the greedy bas****s that got us where we are, will remain greedy bas****s. They'll just be able to get their hands in more pockets.

As for fixing the economy by doing what criminals call a "share out", it's never worked before and it won't work now. Most of the people will crawl back in the same hole you dug them out of by spending their "share" like drunken sailors. I'm very much a sceptic when it comes to trusting others to spend either my or their money wisely. That's specially true when you're talking about the government: local, state, or federal.

Anyone notice how IBM is conspicuously absent from that list?

At $116.96 at the end of trading on Tuesday the 29th - it has been almost immune to the rollercoaster ride.

Didn't notice it until you brought it up, actually.

Impressive, if not a little suspicious.

Most, if not all, of the companies in the list depend greatly on consumer buying power.

IBM doesn't really fall into that category. Intentionally or not, they've placed themselves outside of the crisis as it stands now. (If the businesses they sell to start dropping, however, and we might see that change.)

Like Russell Crowe said last night on jay leno, there are about 300 million people in the U.S., why not give each and every person a million dollars and the problem would be solved. And it would be far cheaper to boot!

You'd think so, Lawrence01, but let's play that theory out for a bit: What would each person do with that million dollars? What are their choices?

1) Spend it, in which case there are monetary transactions that means the million dollars ends up in a bank;

2) Invest it (see above);

3) Put it in savings (ditto);

4) Hide it under the mattress. In which case, the bank doesn't get it, maybe someone else breaking into the house does get it (after which, any of the above three options becomes open to that person). Or if it stays under the mattress, it's one million more worthless dollars not contributing to the economy.

This is the problem that few people understand: The entire economy of the world is based on trust. If you can no longer trust the institutions in which our economies are invested, your only option is to find something or someone you can trust and invest in that. Without trust, money is not valuable. A trillion dollars tucked under the mattress is worthless, except maybe for noted economist Russell Crowe.

-SF3

Uhm...you want to divide 300 billion dollars into 300 million people? That's $2k each...to give one million dollars to each person in America would cost over 300 TRILLION...math is a wonderful thing isn't it?

What I think he is saying is instead of spending $700K to help companies and line CEO pockets the government should just give it to the people.

Why doesn't the government just 0 out all non corporate mortgages, good or bad and force these companies to release the deads to mortgage holders. If the company fails after that then those are the breaks.

Once the people no longer have such burdens on their backs and the stress from worrying about paying their mortgages or worse losing their mortgages they will start spending money. If they have the added income of not having to pay for their land then that's more money they can re-invest in the market.

It could be considered a socialist concept, but look at how well the capitalist market is doing. To me, this isn't socialist it's punishment for corporate greed.

I think we can fix capitalism by applying non-capitalist principles to jump start it again.

Everyone wins, and it doesn't cost $700,000,000,000.

"What I think he is saying is instead of spending $700K to help companies and line CEO pockets the government should just give it to the people."

The bill included provisions to prevent CEO's of "bailed out" companies from getting big bonuses. And it's not $700k, it's $700 BILLION.

"Why doesn't the government just 0 out all non corporate mortgages, good or bad and force these companies to release the deads to mortgage holders. If the company fails after that then those are the breaks."

That's a joke right? Do you realize how much it would cost to ZERO out ALL mortgages??! That's just insanity and a complete lack of understanding of the problem. I'd LOVE my mortgage to zero out, and your plan is a great one if you want the entire economy to just collapse and all the banks to shut their doors...if that's your goal, that's great. And believe me it will cost more then $700 billion.

I'm not saying the plan that got voted off was a great plan, but zeroing out all mortgages is just a joke.

You do realize this is exactly what the government is going to do, except that it is going to pay the banks for the mortgages and then make a profit on them themselves!

I do understand the problem, the provisions to prevent CEOs from gross profits were removed, did you happen to miss that?

Yes, it would cause investment banks to crash and burn but they're gonna crash anyway.

It's better that it crashes in a controlled manner that doesn't impact the people of this country. They (the banks, wall street, corporates) got greedy, now they need to pay the penalty and not push it down to the people.

We can recover from this, we don't need these investment banks to survive to do it either.

except maybe for noted economist Russell Crowe.

Excellent twist!

I love it when people quote Hollywood hacks concerning anything *other* than Hollywood. It's like playing an economist makes then an expert on the economy...right?

Crowe: Feel free to continue making movies that suck, but seriously...stop giving economic advice. Please...

*laughing*

Yeah...let's listen to what the "stars" have to say ... They've always been so insightful int he past...

Even ignoring the fact that he apparently cannot do basic math, he *must* be an expert economist, right?

"You do realize this is exactly what the government is going to do, except that it is going to pay the banks for the mortgages and then make a profit on them themselves!"

Yes...which is why this bill isn't REALLY going to cost $700 billions (I should say, wasn't), because the government would sell those mortgages back later, most likely at a loss, but not a complete loss which is the $700 billion estimate.

"It's better that it crashes in a controlled manner that doesn't impact the people of this country. They (the banks, wall street, corporates) got greedy, now they need to pay the penalty and not push it down to the people."

That's not controlled...do you realize how many trillions of dollars you'll be yanking out of the market? How many banks would close, how many businesses would not be able to get credit from banks that no longer exist, how many jobs would be lost? You can't just yank trillions of dollars out of the market and think everything will be rosey because you no longer have a mortgage. Not to mention how worthless the dollar will become.

Explain to me why it's better that they keep them rather than giving them to the people?

Lets make it even more of a socialist concept.

Lets say that they do buy all the loans, and the government says "everyone in America, you can choose to buy your loan for $3K (what $700b would cost if spread across each American) or you can continue to pay your mortgage as-is.

I promise you that every person in this country with a mortgage would come up with $3K, and the problem would still be solved.

Still, getting back to my earlier statement. It would be controlled. This is America, where those banks failed 5 more would appear. We would recover virtually overnight.

The dollar wouldn't lose any value, we lost more than the value of those mortgages last night and I don't see the sky falling.

"I promise you that every person in this country with a mortgage would come up with $3K, and the problem would still be solved."

The problem would NOT be solved...the problem would be HUGE, there would be NO BANKS...why is that so difficult to understand?

"Still, getting back to my earlier statement. It would be controlled. This is America, where those banks failed 5 more would appear. We would recover virtually overnight."

How would 5 banks appear? Where would the money come from?? Why would a bank even want to open up in the US where the Government can step in one day and say "hey, nobody owes you anything anymore, you're out of business now". How much do you think credit would cost if some bank gets the balls to open up in the US, and then grows even bigger ones to actually lend money out? Think 50% interest rates to mitigate the risk. C'mon now lets get back to reality.

It's difficult to understand because you have done nothing to make me believe what you are saying is true. I'm thankful that you are willing to share your opinion on the subject with me, but you aren't doing anything to make your opinion any more believable than mine.

You're taking trillions of dollars away from banks...banks without money file for bankruptcy. Other banks that rely on those banks to lend them money now also have no money, and they file for bankruptcy, now businesses (and people) can't get loans from any banks, they file for bankruptcy, bankrupt banks/companies don't need employees, so they let those employees go...domino effect, the economy collapses.

Russell got it wrong. Give everyone in the US a printing press, and we can print our own money!

I don't see how that's our problem. I'm talking about taking their assets in the form of mortgages and giving them back to the people as punishment for corporate greed. If they fail and cause the market to collapse then the people will still prosper. The only contingency would be the failure of regular banking institutions. I don't believe that they would be impacted enough to crash. If they did, well then that's their faults too.

Sure, it's extreme but so was the level of greed that caused this mess in the first place.

And how exactly would you decide who gets their home for a bargain price?

I have a mortgage. I can afford it. Should I get to buy it out for $3k?

My neighbor has a mortgage, they can't afford it. Should they be able to buy it for $3k?

The banks aren't the only ones to blame in this mess. The mortgage brokers and the borrowers who don't understand what they are getting are also to blame.

How will the people prosper if the economy collapses? You do realize that banks loan money to businesses every day so they could stay in business right? Businesses can't function if they have no money...people won't prosper if they have no jobs.

yes and yes I think by saying everyone I meant everyone. These companies were enablers, they misled the American people into believing they could afford what they could not.

That's not the people's fault.

Really, all you are doing here is crying that the sky will fall. You don't know that's true.

If you rob banks of trillions of dollars...that's exactly what will happen, the sky will fall. :)

This is America, where those banks failed 5 more would appear.

Why?

Who is going to put money in them?

Who is going to foot the bill for their operating capital?

Where will the money come from to pay their business insurance costs...and who will be there to sell them that insurance?

This goes *so* much deeper than banks.

Example: AIG. Gone. Major player in insurance. You don't think rates are going to skyrocket as more and more of them disappear? Who "appeared overnight" to replace them?

Rising insurance costs is only *one* factor to all of this. Again, it goes deeper and is spread to nearly every market in the country.

I don't see the sky falling.

Perhaps getting your head out of the sand might improve your grasp on the situation.

AIG announced less than an hour ago that they were selling some assets, but they aren't gone. Kiplinger currently recommends holding on to your AIG policy.

There have been ample instances in the last few days of the market recovering itself. WAMU, Wachovia, etc.

This does not imply impending doom.

The government bailed out AIG...AIG almost disappeared...

Yes, but "almost" isn't "gone".

You apparently only saw half of that sentence, so let me paste for you the relevant portion:

The government bailed out AIG.

Bail-out.

You said it wasn't needed, and then use an instance of that very same thing to support your argument. Can you see the hypocrisy?

You also completely ignored the greater portion of my post, choosing instead to focus on the one instance proving the Bail-out actually *could* be effective, if only to prop up institutions needed to keep the economy churning.

You walked right into that one, my friend...

People need to learn to do some of their own thinking.

Not totally in agreement with that. I do not think the vast majority of brokers and lenders *knew* that interest rates were about to jump due to the rug being pulled out from under them.

How cold they have known? As far as they knew, their mortgages, at least the riskier one's, we're backed, all but guaranteed, thanks to the FHA. They didn't find out the cookie jar was empty until it was too late.

No-one *knew* this was going to happen. Blaming the brokers is about as short-sighted as blaming Bush. This was all ticked off as far back as the 30's depending on how deep you feel like digging.

Yup. No worse than the geniuses here for whom mention of enterprise technology of financial analysis is considered offlimits and the average contributor - confused by choice- is limited to games and MP3 files.

Yup, and just like so many computer science programs in the US, what does math have to do either IT or economics?

I don't think I walked into anything. Just because the government bailed AIG out that doesn't mean they couldn't have bailed themselves out. All this just means is that they chose to get a corporate welfare check.

You are pointless to argue with since your intelligence and reasoning is simply not high enough to keep any valid arguments at this level. Just keep believing that the government could give everybody in the US 1 million dollars each and have it cost less then 700 billion or believe the government can zero out everybody's mortgage and make all the problems go away, or whatever it is you believe now...whatever makes you feel better. You can even keep believing that AIG would have survived on its own and just simply took a "welfare check". The rest of us will stay here in the real world, ok?

You need better arguments.

EDIT: You have lots of technical expertise, but your interpersonal/social skills seem to be worse than mine and that's saying something.

How could they have bailed themselves out? Please provide some proof for that assertion.

As far as Evansville, IN (about half an hour drive to the north of me) is concerned, "gone" would be rather appropriate. :)

Sure, pour in another 700 billion, but remember to add a gallon of miracle leak stop and then you're good to go for a ways before you have to stop, flush out the bad grease and actually patch the holes.

This was a bad deal and did nothing to fix the real problems.

Which is hopefully why it didn't pass.

Still hoping to see one come through that actually tries, at least a little, to keep this from happening again...and not just a band-aid, but some actual spending and market reform.

I'm dreaming, I know...

Nobody cares about the little guy. What about all those people who lost their homes? Sure, a lot of them had no business getting the loans they were getting, but there were a lot who didn't deserve losing their homes. You don't see anybody bailing THEM out. I think Stephen Colbert put it best when he said, if you're gonna screw up, then make sure you screw up royally. Screw up so badly that it affects the entire world's economy, because then you're more likely to get a bailout. He also said, do we really want to hand over 700 billion dollars to a group of people who obviously can't run a business? I mean, hey, we'll just let these banks do what they have to, when they have to, how they have to, in order to reap as much profit as possible and when it all goes belly up, we'll just give them some more money so they can do it all over again in the future!

Problem is, without the bailout, these people WILL lose their homes. With it, there was a chance some could keep them. The US has signed on for the lead-role in a global recession, IMO, and a number of large financial institutions are going to vanish before it's over. Good luck to the little guys. :p

they will loose them anyway because the loan were never solvable in the first place it was a legal scam.

Why not help people pay their loan or pay them a decent and affordable rate, with 700 billion I am sure one can .. and let the banks crash under the very laws they pretentend to live by : Free market and survival of the fittest ?

Maybe this way some will see that these 'laws' are no laws and certainly no human laws and maybe will we accept the responsability to really manage the world we live in.

Maybe

I doubt it.

Either you take it in two holes or in one.

The choice is up to you.

**** banks. They're run by such idiots it's unbelievable.

Never, Never, Never put your company on the stock market. You'll end up run by idiots.

It depends if you're in for the quick fortune or actually there for the creation of a good company.

Unfortunately, as we've seen, most are in for the "quick buck".

Here, this article explains the situation and how it happened pretty well. Might save a few people from making even more stupid posts.

http://techdirt.com/arti...080929/0426042403.shtml

in layman's terms... irresponsible banks lent out up to 2 trillion in loans to risky borrowers who had no business getting these loans. once the dollar started showing it's true value and oil prices skyrocketed, it pinched these borrowers pockets and they couldn't afford fuel costs and the rate increase on their ARMs. combined with rapid loss in jobs also meant that even responsible borrowers couldn't make their mortgage payments. rapid foreclosures ensued. now the banks that made all those loans are fugged. which means they're collapsing. these banks also support the industry leaders and job producers. once the banks go, the economy pretty much goes too. now the idea is to have BIG government step in and solve another problem by tossing more money at it. so they have the federal reserve print up more fiat currency to stuff a tampon in a huge gapping blast wound. it won't fix anything. in the end the tax payers will be stuck with the tab, which they won't beable to pay because jobs will be gone and so the tax base will shrink causing further economic turmoil.

That's basically what pisses me off about the whole ordeal.

I do not claim to know much about what's transpiring now, or even how it started to begin with... but my basic understanding is this:

Certain individuals got loans far above what they should have gotten, because certain banks were stupid enough to give them out, because the government pressured them into doing so. Over time, the bad loans got shuffled in with good loans over and over, being sold to one bank after another, and the whole thing snowballed?

In the long run, the rest of us were expected to foot the bill in an attempt to un-f#@k the situation... and why exactly were we not supposed to get upset over this?

Thank you very much for that, Banquo. It kept me up way past my bedtime. ;)

I'm glad the bill tanked.. $700 billion won't fix a damn thing. The Fed already dumps $2-3 billion to the markets each month to keep them artificially inflated. Don't believe me? Look up the Plunge Protection Team. I say let the whole effin system crash. America is long overdue for a bloody revolution.. The Bosheviks who ruined Russia in 1917 are now in control in Amerika...

ha...you're probably one of those guys that thinks the US government is really who took the WTC down right?

LOL I love conspiracy theorists...I can't help but laugh at you guys every year when I walk by you on every 9/11 right outside the WTC. My wife thinks you people are kind of sad...but I stand up for you, I think you're hilarious...I got your back conspiracy theorists, don't you worry! Just keep those laughs coming. :)

LMAO!! and you're one of those f-tards that actually believes that kerosene based jet fuel can get hot enough to melt steel into molten pools found buried under the rubble 6 weeks after the collapse. how do you suppose that happened you boot licking slave?? oh how is it that the box wielding terrorists got past Israeli security teams at Logan airport?? official 9/11 report drones like yourself are not worth the air you breathe.

Wow, Niro sure called it. I don't know whether you're a tinfoil hat wearing loon or just a troll but either way you're an idiot.

you're an idiot.. he didn't call anything. people that believe the official 9/11 report are the conspiracy nutjobs. a panel of over 200 scientists and physicists have proven that the report is full of gross inaccuracies and omissions. people that put faith in this corrupt system and believe the lies of 9/11 are nothing more than useless feeders...

Yeah ok, our own government flew planes into them while simultaneously setting off bombs or whatever idiotic nonsense you believe. Say that aliens took them down, whatever. You're a moron either way and since it's pointless trying to talk conspiracy nutjobs I'll just tip my hat and say good day.

The lack of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon did seem rather peculiar...

you lost the argument on the first post when you resorted to calling me an idiot or a tinfoil hat wearer. I've done my research. I've watched the videos, listened to the firefighters stories on YouTube,etc. You are either an Israel sympathizer, A.K.A a jewtool that likes to make people really believe that Islamofacism is the real enemy, or you really are just a dumb country bumpkin that believes whatever the mainstream media tells you to believe..

And you are a god that knows it all from its basement.

Except you don't, but It makes you feell important to believe so.

You just make a fool of yourself here.

Good call. You had him pegged... ;)

I'm one of the people always open to conspiracy theories (though rarely do I believe them fully).

There is usually doubt in my mind about how certain things can happen.

I do not doubt that kerosene is hot enough to weaken (note: not necessarily melt) steel.
I do though doubt how both towers can free-fall to the ground when levels quite high up are the only ones damaged.

Also, when the plane has not come out the other side as to how it doesn't fall down at a non-straight angle.

I am not saying a conspiracy theory is correct, I'm just saying I'm not fully satisfied with the information that has been released.

http://www.news.com.au/c...0341165-5003406,00.html

MYTH

The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. Security tape of the attack shows a white blur, not a plane, the entry hole in the building was only 5m wide and no plane wreckage was found.

TRUTH

The plane flew over morning commuters and hundreds of witnesses saw it hit the Pentagon.

Security cameras film at a very slow frame rate – far too slow to show an object moving at 240m per second.

Photographs taken after the attack and before the facade collapsed show a hole 30m wide, not 5m.

A Boeing 757 is 40m from wingtip to wingtip, but parts of both wings were sheared off when they struck a generator and external vent near the Pentagon.

Most of the plane was shredded on impact but the landing gear punched through three of the building's rings, and was recognizable in photographs.

There you go :)

Was just trying to see how much farther he would take it. ;)

"which at one point lost as much as 28% of its value at about 1:50 pm EDT, before recovering slightly to an 18% loss by 2:30 pm EDT at $105.48 per share -- still a 52-week low."

Check your figures. This is inaccurate.

**** the market.. if the market tanks because of a socialist bill didn't pass... Screw'em

Apparently you don't understand what's going on. The market is not tanking simply because a "socialist bill didn't pass"...there's a huge credit crunch out there and very large banks are failing on a weekly basis. The economy is going to get slammed regardless what happens, something needs to be done by the government to get this under control before your money becomes worthless.

But..you read something somewhere about socialism, so screw the market right? Who care about the economy....you don't work on wall st so you're immune from all this right?

The government has contributed to the problem of making money worthless. The continued debt of the country is devaluing the dollar.

Oh...thanks for clearing up how the we got to where we are...thanks that was very helpful in solving the problem...can you call congress and let them know that there really is no credit crisis, it's just our countries debt? That would be great, thanks.

and just how do you think they will fix the problem niro or should it be ziro.. should the fed just call up the federal reserve and tell them to fire up the printing presses and print $700 billion out of thin air that has absolutely no backing?? Let's solve the credit crisis by paying it off with another credit account with a high interest rate.. geezus you people amaze me.

No.

The hope is to keep it afloat long enough for it to correct and for us to *fix* the problems before it gets worse.

We're looking at another Great Depression here. Ever heard of it?

It's *not* just a credit crisis. It's not just bad home loans. This has the very real possibility of shutting the doors of *every* small business (franchise included) in the country due to failing financial institutions that sell the Small Business Insurance (required to operate one) which will *greatly* increase the cost of doing so.... Don't think that will affect you? Got a Gas station near your house? I bet it's a franchise.

Yes, printing up $700 billion would be pointless. It needs to be backed, it needs to be worth *at least* 60% of it's total, and it needs to come with a plan to fix the problems. That's hopefully why this one failed...because it didn't include all of the above.

PC_Tool,

How does it feel to be part of the 27%. Pretty lonely I bet.

"This afternoon, the storm was upgraded to a 'Cat-5.'"

Was that meant to be a technological pun?

Deary, deary me.

PC_Tool

and how in your smarter than everyone in the world attitude think this.

for all i know you some fat Lifess loser who lives in his parents basement just like you think the same thing of me

At least he knows how to use the Post a Reply button.

And now in English?

*LAUGHING*

Wow.

Are you *trying* to prove you are incapable of rational thought?

...it's working.

How would you know what I think of you? So you're clueless about the bail-out and what aided it. So what? You could be a friggin' rocket scientist for all I know or care.

You spouted BS. I called you on it...and now you're whining. What did you expect, a parade in your honor? Get that work done on cold-fusion and then we'll talk parades, K?

Kids these days....

Most kids are coherent.
Don't go slamming the kids :)

Yep... we're a dying breed these days, it seems. :)

at least Clinton had a stong US economy and not putting it in the tank on his watch. i don't care anyway i am not a US citizen or live there so all i got to say to ya is Good Luck

nice comeback Tool saying anyone with an opinion is clueless. go keep supporting George W while you loose your s***

*laughs*

...and keep on being a clueless bystander.

FYI: Your post wasn't an opinion, it was an accusation based on your utter lack of knowledge regarding the situation, which I can see has yet to be rectified...

...and where in my response did I say I supported Bush? Do you hear voices too?

Toolie,
Now is not the time to be a "Shrinking Violet", you must "Stand by your Man", or are you trying to rewrite history here! Rather predictable and true to type of neo/arch conservatives.
We know you and your fanboys' are the finest proponents here of these dudes' who sit at the right hand, indeed if not already are the right hand of the devil, Himself!

Why don't you crawl back under your rock for a while and reassess the situation? Your posts aren't anything but a demonstration of your frustration at not being able to articulate anything rational or logical. Please keep taking your medication, and if you have anything to say, perhaps run it by someone who is sane and can vet it first for public consumption. Just a few kind words of advice.

Yeah, seal him up in a nuclear reactor if you like. He's certainly "radioactive".

Can't we find you a nuclear reactor to play in? That way, you might actually be of use.

I love that the stock market people completely ignore the reason why this bailout plan was devised. It was because everyone was s***ting themselves and abandoning stock.

Yet still they do it even when this bailout plan is rejected.

Hooray for greed!

Yes...it was devised because everyone was s***ting themselves and abandoning stock. It had nothing to do with freeing banks of illiquid assets so they could start lending money again.

Hooray for cluelessness!

Do you think stock market prices have nothing to do with the amount of money a bank can lend?

Then you're wrong.

Greed is what has caused this, and there is no doubt about that.

Easy money caused this. Greed is simply a factor, not the cause.

woohoo go U.S.A! Looked what happened when you voted good ol George W in. and im sure you vote him in again if he could run again

*LAUGHING*

Yeah....cuz this is all GWB's administration's fault... /sarcasm

*yawn*

When will the clueless chuckleheads stop parroting BS concerning things they obviously know *nothing* about?

FYI, kholdstare: Google "Clinton" and "FHA". Thanks.

Actually I didn't vote for him and I lost at first, then a recount and I won, then another look at it and then Bush was in office. I will try one last time voting this year, but if the President doesn't quit going to the person with the most money to pay for the votes...I'll never vote again, seeing that I apparently have no control over who I vote for anyways.

I'm far from a conspiracy theorists, but two presidential elections later and this happening to my vote each time really pi$$es me off!

AND YES I LIVE IN OHIO!!!

You never really did.

The president is *not* elected by popular vote. The president is elected by the Electoral College.

IOW: Your representatives (who are elected by popular vote) vote for and elect the president. Your power in choosing the next president is therefore limited by the representatives you choose.

NOW is the time to buy Apple shares.

They're guaranteed to go up on October 14th.

If a stock were guaranteed to do anything at any time, the price would already reflect that.

There are no guarantees.

From the low that they are currently in, October the 14th isn't going to hurt it more.

Sounds like a Securities expert is speaking. Too bad it doesn't look like I have an open position any time soon...

Haha, yeah, nothing is safe. I understand that.

I personally cannot see a scenario where Apple shares go down further than they are now by October 14th.

If Mr Jobs died, it will plummet, unlikely but it COULD happen.

Hm...banks failing, confidence dwindling, jobs lost, inflation rising, spending falling...yea, apple shares will just go up because they announce a new ipod or something...yea sure. That will make investors feel better!

That is also a certainty in my eyes.

£10 says I'm right.

The current Apple shares are trading at 109.69 as I write this.

If they are above that at 4:00 p.m. EST on October 14th then I win. If they're not, you win.
If they're equal, then no one wins.

Odds set at evens (i.e. I win your £10 if I win, you win my £10 if I win).

Paypal fine with you?

I know how to solve this problem, and everybody will be happy... but I'm not tellin