Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Chris Horlacher  

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Platinum: The Other Gold [View article]
    Here's a list of some products:

    Of course, buying the physical stuff is always the least risky.
    Oct 1, 2011. 07:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold Has Broken Technically And The Selling Will Be Scary [View article]
    I'll just leave this here:
    Sep 22, 2011. 10:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold Has Broken Technically And The Selling Will Be Scary [View article]
    And investors have been fleeing Europe a lot longer than that too. This is natural ebb and flow. Gold contracts don't settle in euro's, they settle in dollars.
    Sep 22, 2011. 10:15 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold Has Broken Technically And The Selling Will Be Scary [View article]
    Gold is up over 20% this year even after this drop, which coincidentally occurred right after a $300/oz run up in price that occurred in just 6 weeks. It's sitting at about the original trendline's trajectory now, hardly what I'd call broken technicals. And fundamentally, the market hasn't changed. The Euro is still in the toilet, the Swiss sold out and the US is charging in to debt-oblivion. The only reason for the dollar rally today is because investors are fleeing Europe. The dollars they just bought will wind up in gold and other commodities when they figure out that US debt and dollars are performing no better than Euro's.
    Sep 22, 2011. 10:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Gold Rush Has Just Started [View article]
    Exchange approved yes, but not registered. Here's a list of CME depositories and their stocks that can take delivery of gold contracts:
    Sep 10, 2011. 10:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Federal Reserve Notes Explained: Why Fiat Currency Is Just an Economic Fantasy [View article]
    Try applying basic supply/demand to the concept of currency.

    You may want to look up what legal tender is. It's not what you think.
    May 24, 2011. 07:13 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Federal Reserve Notes Explained: Why Fiat Currency Is Just an Economic Fantasy [View article]
    Your spoon analogy is flawed. The economy isn't a dishwasher with extra space and, all other things being equal, it's simply impossible to avoid inflation by increasing the money supply (or adding spoons in your case).

    The gold standard regulates it's own quantity of money very nicely. It works just like any other good and I think the reason why you've made the mistakes you have in your comment is because you think 'money' has some sort of special rules. Money follows the same laws of supply/demand as anything else. If more circulating medium of exchange in needed, its value rises to the point where it's profitable to go out and get more. In gold's case, that means mines reopen or new techniques to get gold are worked out.

    Furthermore, the trade deficit is hardly a measure of economic health. Gold would mean that the USA actually has to pay for its exports, and that's something only the inflationists fear because that means the end of their con. The real question is "How can we keep up WITHOUT hard money?" By running such a large trade deficit for so long, the USA has delivered an economic weapon of mass destruction to foreigners. Just look at what USA did to the UK during the Suez Canal crisis when they held a vast amount of UK debt and currency.

    Next, you raise the boogeyman of deflation. You forget though, that deflation only occurs because of the previous inflation (boom). Without the monetary expansion in the first place, you wouldn't see the markets getting whipsawed like you did from 2002-2008. As populations grow, prices would fall on a fixed monetary base. We have had 6,000 years of experience with gold and have never once seen deflation ruining a civilization, only printed fiat money and inflation. Printing money and injecting it in to the economy has never helped the general population, only the cronies that manage to get the new money first.

    I have another article, "The Power of Gold" that you would really enjoy.
    May 24, 2011. 11:12 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Statist Hoax [View article]
    Oh I haven't forgotten about offshoring, it just doesn't have anything to do with the crash in 2008, which was the subject of the article.
    Jan 28, 2010. 11:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Statist Hoax [View article]
    Ah yes, when you can't argue rationally, call people names.

    Well done.
    Jan 28, 2010. 11:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Statist Hoax [View article]
    "My argument is this system will eventually fail completely"

    The system we live under is anything but capitalism.
    Jan 28, 2010. 11:21 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • People vs. Profits: The Great Health Insurance Myth [View article]
    Some problems I noticed with your reply:

    1. The average monthly premiums come from a survey of 227,000 individuals, whatever your personal premium happens to be is irrelevant to the overall discussion.

    2. If you're paying a higher than average premium, that only strengthens my position, as the annuity based on it would only be worth exponentially more. Just do the math yourself, that's why I included the formulas.

    3. You're considering the US market as an example of how insurance would work in a free system, something that I've already refuted.

    4. Where recent medical breakthroughs are coming from are not relevant to this discussion, nevertheless the USA is still leading in this field.

    5. The fact that all people will need medical services at some point in their life just shows that you don't really understand the purpose of insurance. Insurance isn't supposed to cover normal expenses (that's what savings is for), it's for the unexpected and catastrophic ones.

    6. I am not defending the current insurance system in the USA, merely health insurance as a concept because that's what's under attack by the 'People vs. profits' nonsense. Read my last paragraph.

    On Dec 21 08:03 AM MJJP wrote:

    > Spartacus
    > I don't believe you know a whole lot about insurance or what the
    > average person is paying per month in premiums. Since most people
    > that have insurance do so via their employer your $103 to $300 per
    > month assumption is way off base since the employer pays the bulk.
    > Since their are too many plans and companies to go over here let
    > me describe my own situation which occurred several years ago. I
    > was laid off from my employer which under which I had very good coverage.
    > In order for me to continue my insurance which covered me my wife
    > and daughter it would have cost me out of pocket under COBRA $1200.00
    > per month and that was my employers costand my contribution which
    > is way below what I would be paying on my own to secure my own insurance.
    > Yes we all know or should know how insurance works and I know first
    > hand because my wife sells insurance and has done so for years. Companies
    > sell insurance to people that are betting that something will happen
    > to them like fire , theft , accident etc. Let me ask you how much
    > insurance policies do you think would be written for lets say fire
    > coverage if the statistics indicated that every policy would have
    > at least one substantial claim or more? Do you think that insurance
    > companies would write policies for fire coverage? I think most people
    > can come to the correct conclusion that insurance companies exist
    > because most people will not have their house burn down in their
    > life time. This is a good bet for the insurance companies and that
    > is why they sell the policies. Now the reality is that every person
    > alive will at some time need health and some more than others even
    > if it is just caused by getting older. So how is it that taking these
    > two facts together insurance companies have somehow managed to realize
    > the most profits in their history last year? Lets not forget that
    > so far insurance companies are allowed to boot you off the policy
    > or deny you a policy if you have substantial claoms unless you are
    > covered by under an employer. Letting the free market dictate health
    > care is not the way to go as has been proved time and time again
    > in most modern countries. I have also noticed recently that some
    > of the more important medical break throughs are occurring in single
    > payer systems like Canada and Europe where I might add I don't hear
    > people complaining . In single payer systems there is a real and
    > genuine motivation to find cures and improve prevention methods because
    > it does cut costs unlike the here in the US R&D occurs if they
    > can make money doing it.
    Dec 22, 2009. 11:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • People vs. Profits: The Great Health Insurance Myth [View article]
    All the objections so far seem to be coming from within the context of the American health insurance system. It's a complete mistake to approach it from this angle and I explained why in the final paragraph so I won't bother addressing those non-sequiturs. Complaints about pre-existing conditions are totally outside the scope of what I was addressing, which was denials of claims.

    However, one commenter mentioned that I failed to take into account the varying risk levels that actuaries incorporate. This is a valid objection but it's still wrong since I used a range of insurance premiums ($100-$300), which would have incorporated those different risk levels.
    Dec 20, 2009. 06:28 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • People vs. Profits: The Great Health Insurance Myth [View article]
    Thanks for your comment, however you're missing the point of my article. In a free market, nothing I've said in my article would be wrong. However in the current insurance market in the USA, there are obviously problems and I addressed that in the final sentence.

    On Dec 18 10:01 AM JustaFinanceGuy wrote:

    > Spartacus - i see from your profile you are a Senior accountant at
    > a big 4 firm. Congrats a great place to start your career, it is
    > what i did.
    > But at risk of sounding like a cranky old man, which i am not, know
    > your place in the world. You came close to embarrassing yourself
    > with your claim, well if insurance companies denied claims, their
    > clients would leave.
    > Given you are likely young based on your position as you describe
    > it you likely are mid-20's and probably (generalization) had any
    > medical conditions that required much contact with a carrier. I assure
    > you they deny claims all the time and it is up to the consumer to
    > press them to do what is required, and even that doesn't always work.
    > There is NO competition for insurance - most companies offer plans
    > from just one carrier - and the personal insurance market is a joke.
    > so that is why they do this and will continue to do this.
    > While I don't know what the answers are, or if health reform being
    > discussed will help this, the ONLY way the problem will begin to
    > be solved is for all sides (Rep/Dem/Ind and even that 'Baggers')
    > to least agree that there is a major problem with our health care
    > system, it is serious and it can affect anybody of any age, at any
    > company, insured or uninsured. There is a myriad of problems -
    > fee for service, malpratice/defenseive medicine, lack of real competition
    > or individual insurance plans. One side seems to want to simply
    > score points/regain power and has suggested nothing, absolutely nothing,
    > that will touch these problems in a comprehensive way. The other
    > side continues to disappoint as well/usual.
    Dec 20, 2009. 06:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • People vs. Profits: The Great Health Insurance Myth [View article]
    Are you saying a sick person making repeated claims is going to be more profitable than a healthy person who pays their premiums and is never heard from?

    On Dec 18 12:25 AM Machiavelli999 wrote:

    > "Health insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping you
    > alive and healthy for as long as possible."
    > Keeping you alive, maybe. Keeping you healthy? No way.
    > As an example, I know of a case where a man's treatment for diabetes
    > was not covered, but they covered the amputation of his leg which
    > was needed due to the untreated diabetes. So, I guess he is alive...
    Dec 20, 2009. 06:11 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • People vs. Profits: The Great Health Insurance Myth [View article]
    1-4 are completely false
    5-8 are irrelevant non-sequiturs

    If you're going to comment on the article, at least make an attempt to address the actual subject matter.

    On Dec 15 10:08 AM YoYoMama wrote:

    > Here is what I know about the author:
    > 1. He is covered by a group plan of some sort.
    > 2. He has never had to shop for personal health insurance.
    > 3. He has never been through the underwriting process for personal
    > insurance.
    > 4. He has never, on personal insurance, had to fight the insurance
    > company to pay a claim.
    > 5. He does not have pre-existing conditions which exclude him from
    > qualifying for personal insurance.
    > 6. He does not have a child with pre-existing conditions.
    > 7. He does not understand that rescission rates, according to insurance
    > companies, is 15%, while independent studies show the rescission
    > rate is more like 30%.
    > 8. He does not understand that medical bankruptcies account for
    > over 60% of all filings, and of those filers, over 75% HAVE INSURANCE.
    > He is basing his argument on theory. The facts of how insurance
    > operates is very different, and don't fit so neatly into his facts
    > and figures.
    > This is where those on group insurance (through employer) simply
    > don't get it. There simply is no "approval" process for those on
    > group insurance. You simply are granted your insurance, it pays
    > your claims, and you think it works that way for everyone. Not true.
    > Those on personal insurance live in a different world.
    > First, qualifying for personal insurance in the first place. Ever
    > hear of the underwriting process? This is where insurance takes
    > a complete inventory of your health history, and then either accepts
    > or denies you for coverage. It takes very little to get denied coverage.
    > Does this demonstrate that insurance companies are ready and willing
    > to pay on claims?
    > When you are on group insurance, you are part of a larger employer.
    > This grants you access to an HR department to assist with claim disputes.
    > With personal insurance, there is NO ONE to hold the insurance company
    > accountable to pay the claim. They basically have nothing to lose
    > by violating their own policy. Having been on personal insurance
    > for 7 years, I can tell you that they average they pay on claim is
    > about 30%, although the policy states they are supposed to pay 80%.
    > How can they do it? Well, who is holding them accountable? There
    > is no HR department or large group to answer to. Does this demonstrate
    > insurance companies are ready and willing to pay on claims?
    > When you are on group insurance, you do not face rescission of your
    > policy. You are guaranteed for coverage. Not so with personal insurance.
    > You can pay on a policy for years, THEN get sick, and get your insurance
    > cut off. The minimum rescission rate is 15%, and probably more like
    > 30%. Does this demonstrate insurance companies are ready to pay
    > on claims?
    > How about those bankruptcy rates? If insurance companies are so
    > willing to pay - and not deny - claims, how is it that the MAJORITY
    > of medical bankruptcy filers HAVE INSURANCE.
    > Sorry, Spartacus, but your article is theoretical nonsense. Margins
    > for insurance are razor thin. How then, do you think, they are making
    > any money? By paying out as little as possible on claims. And the
    > "best" place for them to do so - where the risk for margin loss is
    > slim - is the personal insurance arena.
    Dec 20, 2009. 06:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment