Seeking Alpha

The Lonely Economist

View as an RSS Feed
View The Lonely Economist's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Palm's Future Success Remains Questionable [View article]
    Completely agree. And the truth behind the new iPhone 3GS isn't the hardware but the software. There are those who are just holding on to their old iPhone's and just upgrading to the 3.0 OS, because there really is no reason to buy the new 3GS. Apple sort of failed expectations on the hardware side.
    Jun 24, 2009. 06:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Palm's Future Success Remains Questionable [View article]
    If someone is already in on the stock, its really up to them to sell or not on earnings results, but if their not in yet, it would be best for them to wait. The stock is up based on hype, not numbers, those will come soon enough.
    Jun 24, 2009. 04:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Are Banks Paying Back Loans They Can't Afford? [View article]
    Yes, I'm aware of The Economist. It's an amazing magazine and I completely respect their work.

    However, I'm not declaring "The Economist" to be a named owned by name. It's just the user name that I've chosen. I don't pretend to own The Economist or any rights that it may own.

    Thank you for the comment though.

    On Jun 10 03:23 PM Genesis wrote:

    > I don't have a comment on the article.
    > However, I think a certain magazine has already copyrighted the name,
    > The Economist.
    Jun 10, 2009. 09:33 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Steals Palm's Thunder, RIM's Too? [View article]
    The iPhone is one of the best smartphones out there. With the new price cut to $99 for the 3G, you can only expect their market share to go up. RIM is set to come out with the new Blackberry Storm within the next 6 months, so that should wonders for it's stock in the short run. What Apple has in it's favor is the irrefutable power of the App Store. Without it, the iPhone might actually face real, hardcore competition.
    Jun 9, 2009. 06:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Justice Department: Oracle, Sun Not Getting Hitched Just Yet [View article]
    Glad you liked it. Thank you for reading it.
    Jun 30, 2009. 02:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • J.M Smucker: Folgers Boosts Earnings, But Company's Not Healthy [View article]
    Goodwill is recorded in mergers and it represents the book value of a business that does not include its assets or liabilities. It essentially a premium. Most companies have this on their balance sheets, that is true.

    Nevertheless, Goodwill is still an intangible asset, and should be approached with caution when looking at a companies health.

    J.M Smucker could have overpaid for Folgers and not realize it until later on down the road.

    They will take impairment charges, as is usual when a company acquires another company. This is understandable.

    On Jun 19 01:46 PM Haralambi wrote:

    > How unusual do you think it is for brand-driven companies to have
    > goodwill on their balance sheet? What are the accounting rules for
    > recording goodwill in mergers?
    > Find out, and may be your next article will be slightly more literate.
    Jun 19, 2009. 02:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Dependent Is Our Own Economic Recovery on Europe's? [View article]
    I agree. China will soon become a huge world power, and we don't change our way the dollar will no longer have the same value.

    We must change our ways, that's the truth.

    Thank you for the comment.
    Jun 17, 2009. 10:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ken Lewis: The Government Made Me Do It! [View article]
    A. I don't write for "The Economist", it's just a pseudonym.
    B. I'm American, born and raised. I still live here, so it's my government i'm criticizing.
    C. Ken Lewis sold out his shareholders and the public to listen to two men, Bernanke and Paulson. His duty was to the American public, not the interest of these two men.

    Thank you for the comment though.

    On Jun 12 08:32 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

    > What is it that I call The Economist? Now I remember: London wine-bar
    > gossip. I can just picture the Oxbridge wordsmith who wrote the above
    > piece of junk skurrying back to the Economist's offices late at night
    > to hack out his weekly quota of political wisdom. Of course, some
    > thinking was necessary. Take for example the last sentence in his
    > 'piece': The People are the Government. He deserves a 'first' for
    > that one.
    Jun 12, 2009. 02:41 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The New York Times Is Selling a Losing Product [View article]

    It's hard to argue with you comment on "quality and responsible" news reporting. I am in no way trying to demean what real reporters do on a daily basis. These are the same reporters who got a degree in journalism and love to report news for a living.

    Nevertheless, the online world is something that is very difficult to control and having laws that bar aggregators might be difficult because many sites now use them for various purposes. The Newspaper industry might like to save itself, but the truth is that such a reality will be difficult.

    Thank you for your comment though. Intellectual discussions are always good discussion no matter what point of view you may take on a matter.

    On Jun 11 02:59 PM jbofen wrote:

    > Newspapers are content PROVIDERS, (not aggregators). It costs
    > $$ to produce that content that we all are used to relying on, and
    > have been hugely taking for granted, and just because it's been 'free',
    > doesn't mean it should remain that way. Our current times are demanding
    > change in the industry. Only newspapers have the necessary resources
    > to produce what we demand in QUALITY, RESPONSIBLE news reporting.
    > Times are changing, and the 'free' on-line content from quality newspaper
    > establishments will not remain free forever. Those days will be
    > coming to an end, ( A change to the antiquated anti-trust and other
    > laws will help that along.) - You'll be 'getting what you pay for'
    > - ( If you want free, time-consuming unreliable blogs, or choose
    > right- to- the- source, reliable, one-stop news shops that you can
    > count on for accountable reporting). Also coming, other laws that
    > will change the way aggregators (such as Google) use that stolen
    > content.
    Jun 11, 2009. 06:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kudos to Microsoft for Finally Doing Something Right [View article]
    I would disagree with you. Any reasonable person would not think th at this post is from The Economist because they would not be publishing their highly-respected articles on other website.

    "The Economist" is just a username, a pseudonym. Nothing more.
    Additionally, my user icon is does not include the bright red they're magazine is famous for.

    These contributions that I make are free and I do not make any money from posting articles here.

    I do apologize though if you read my article under a misconceived notion that this article was from "The Economist". It was not my intention.

    Thank you for your comment either way, and again, my apologies.

    On Jun 10 02:59 PM jack dee wrote:

    > Any reasonable person would assume that this post is from the "The
    > Economist" using this name is clearly a breach of copyright and
    > ethics.
    Jun 10, 2009. 10:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kudos to Microsoft for Finally Doing Something Right [View article]
    You're right, it is mostly hype, which is why I'm mostly congratulating them for the great PR they've actually gotten compared to bad reviews they always manage to compile. I'm not a fan of Microsoft either way, but it never hurts to congratulate them every once on a while.

    Thank you for the comment.

    On Jun 10 06:54 PM stompoutgreenshoots wrote:

    > Don't get blindsided by the hype ..stomping out green shoots
    > good articles>
    Jun 10, 2009. 09:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Should Banks Be Allowed to Pay Back Their TARP Money? [View article]
    The banks shouldn't be allowed to pay back the loans because the reality of the situation is that they aren't in the position to do that. Unemployement is up, so is credit card delinquencies. Many of these banks will have to deal with the headache of having customers not be able to pay their credit card bills. This cuts into their future profits. Also, they still have toxic debts, that hasn't changed. They are going to find themselves in a world of pain if they return the money and later realize they need to borrow money again.
    Jun 9, 2009. 06:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment