Seeking Alpha

Mark Bern, CFA's  Instablog

Mark Bern, CFA
  • on Portfolio Strategy & Asset Allocation
  • on Income Investing Strategy
Send Message
Mark Bern (formerly K202) intends to continue writing solo and has shed other work-related relationships that required anonymity. CPA since 1990 a CFA charter holder since 2000. He has a bachelors degree in Business Admin. with a concentration in Economics. His experience includes both private... More
Back To Mark Bern, CFA's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (108)
Track new comments
  • Mark Bern, CFA
    , contributor
    Comments (5715) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » The last comment on QC # 112 was made by Tripleblack:

     

    A topic we have watched in the past...

     

    Indian gold demand: ibtimes.com/articl...

     

    Unlike last year this time, the picture there is upbeat. September is the biggest month for weddings and the gold demand that drives, but they are looking toward a continuing bright future for gold in India:

     

    [quote] Most market participants believe that some correction in prices from every level see buying by actual users. However, WGC highlights several factors that can support gold demand in the coming months, apart from buying during the marriage season.

     

    Rising income levels of urban Indians, tax concession in the Union Budget 2010-11, normal monsoon forecasts for this season, overall acceptability of gold as the most liquid asset among rural population and investors' preference are some of the factors which could keep gold in demand in the days to come.

     

    "WGC believes that Indian investors may continue to move into gold as an insurance policy to protect their wealth from the aftermath of the global financial crisis, since there are few assets that have the ability to hold their value during extreme conditions."

     

    "Given the rebound in gold demand and higher price expectations, WGC expects a positive outlook for the Indian gold market for 2010." [quote]
    27 Oct 2010, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Just reviewing some interesting numbers over on kitco...

     

    Gold supply (production) in 2009 was about 119m/oz

     

    Gold demand (industrial, jewelry, dental, etc) in 2009 was about 72m/oz

     

    Additionally, ETF physical gold demand was 48m/oz

     

    Industrial demand Plus ETF demand exceeded production/supply by 1 million oz in 2009.

     

    Demand is decreasing (reacting to prices) over the past few years, and was off about 8% in 2009 (and a similar amount the prior 2 years. Using the existing trends, demand for 2010 is likely to drop to about 70m/oz.

     

    ETF demand, however, has been skyrocketing, and was up 60% yoy in 2009. A similar increase in 2010 would create an ETF demand for physical gold of about 57m/oz.

     

    Production, meanwhile is also increasing about 4% per year, or about 5 million ounces per year.

     

    This yields a picture in which we see a 2010 demand of about 127m/oz vs supply of about 125m/oz.

     

    Needless to say the existing stockpiles are easily absorbing these variations, but I find it interesting that current conditions leave essentially zero available supplies for central banks, and national treasuries to increase their gold holdings UNLESS others sell them gold from their stocks.

     

    Current trends show a steadily tightening supply, though certainly not an emergency as such. A supply deficit of 2m/oz (or 1.6%) is likely to exist, based on last year. With most central banks and the IMF recently closing down their gold sales, this creates an interesting potential situation...
    27 Oct 2010, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    Well, Cramer touted (AEM) again last night, so someone must be selling right now. Probably see a spike for a few days. Especially is (DXY) continues to weaken a bit - now $77.73 from yesterday's close of $78.15.

     

    BTW, JPM, HSBC sued for silver manipulation! DOH!

     

    www.marketwatch.com/st...

     

    HardToLove
    28 Oct 2010, 06:00 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    About time. Now we'll see if its to be a slap on the wrist - a whitewash - or something real.
    28 Oct 2010, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    TRIPLEBLACK

     

    Marc has suggested i drop you a line as a new commodity investor, would you be adding PM to your portfolio at this time?? I am new and opened up an ETF for silver, additionally i own SIL, SLW, AND REVETT. I already own som PM most in silver. Your advice on about 15k in SLV to be redistributed to other investments, should i add all to PM ??? Thanks
    27 Oct 2010, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (10768) | Send Message
     
    About a month or two ago, but then also a year or two ago I wondered if things could be this simple. Especially for one who did not want to invest time in managing their non-yielding, high beta, ahh...I want to make a bet on this risk taking side of my portfolio-- every year, with "odds" in my favor.

     

    And win most every year.

     

    Pretty cool premise, eh?

     

    Here's my thesis: Set aside some money allocated just for buying gold mining stocks, or rather, ease/average into gold mining stocks up to September, starting say, late July (on the down days), then sell all gold mining stocks the first week in October. Lay low the rest of the year with this side of the allocated gambling account.

     

    This is totally dependent upon of the India seasonal wedding buying spree. If the market expects gold to go up this time of year, every year, then it's likely going to happen. Unless...all the 100's of millions of new middle class citz of the world also want to partake of owning the most desired metal on the planet, decide not to do so.

     

    Probably not.

     

    I have not done enough year to year study on this thesis, but I'm "loosely" guessing one would have annually out performed the indexes over time.

     

    And when the crap hits the fan, one chooses to not participate.

     

    Comments, please!
    27 Oct 2010, 11:53 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    I believe the spring wedding season in India is actually larger than the fall...

     

    But I LIKE the concept.

     

    Maybe take the same idea and double down, with a spring initiative, then lie fallow, then a fall initiative, repeat...

     

    But the season is STILL on in India (though late, past its peak and near the end). History (Kitco has a good bit) might indicate if, as your narrative implies, September is the key month (and maybe April for spring).
    28 Oct 2010, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    (HYGS): Hydrogenics to Host Third Quarter Conference Call November 10, 2010

     

    Results released BMO that day, CC 10:00 A.M. Eastern.

     

    www.globenewswire.com/...

     

    HardToLove
    28 Oct 2010, 06:57 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    (CPST): In the marine generation market via Kilo-pak and Reagan Equipment.

     

    A little pop today?

     

    investorshub.advfn.com...

     

    HardToLove
    28 Oct 2010, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    HTL posted this data over in the REE Concentrator, but there have been some queries about this here, so this is the new REE ETF:

     

    (REMX) finance.yahoo.com/q?s=...
    28 Oct 2010, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Buying stocks this morning. Adding to existing positions in (ATPG), (BBEP), (CPST), (FTR), (GBG), (GPRLF.PK), (HGT), (LYSCF.PK), (NATUF.PK), (PBT), and (TOO).

     

    Initiated position in (REMX).

     

    Bansai!
    28 Oct 2010, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • lower98th
    , contributor
    Comments (1418) | Send Message
     
    Nice list. Bought in REMX...read the funds profile...I guess we'll see how it tracks.
    Am building a conservative position in some natgas related issues, including HGT and CHKM.

     

    Voted Wed. In FL we have early voting (seems wrong, somehow...suppose something changes before Tuesday?). Based on the voting to date, I think our area is just about done already.
    28 Oct 2010, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    I've been in (HGT) for about a year - one of my favorite Royalty Trusts. I also like (PBT) and (SJT), and lately (MARPS).

     

    I just got 100 shares of (REMX) to track it and see what happens, though I am hoping that it will give me exposure to REE stocks I might miss. Though virtually the entire REE space is heading up right now, there WILL be winners and losers eventually.
    28 Oct 2010, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Hmmm, turns out my order for 100 (REMX) did not go through. I suspect my broker is not ready for REE prime time on that one, yet. I'll have to check tomorrow...
    28 Oct 2010, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    Re: Rees
    Wanted: Rare Earth ETFs
    email Email Print Print
    Tue, Oct 26, 2010
    Feature Articles

     

    The world has caught on to the importance of rare earth elements in the global market. The metals are crucial to high tech products, renewable energy sources, medical devices and the automotive industry to name a few. The cut backs on exports, and a looming ban for the rest of the year, have made uncertainty and prices for the metals skyrocket. Investors have been showing an increased interest in capitalizing on the rare earth market, but have very few options to invest in outside of a few non-Chinese mining companies. What scares investors is the uncertainty and risk involved with investing in individual mining companies.

     

    Enter exchange traded funds (ETFs). Commodity ETFs usually hold the physical metal for investors, freeing them of the hassle of storing the commodity themselves. The gold sector, for example, has benefited immensely from these funds as the average investor can now buy into the market with these barriers removed. The demand, and need for a rare earth ETF is high right now, however, with only a limited number of mining companies out side of China, and a lack of available materials for physical purchase, the creation of a viable ETF is challenging.

     

    The Swiss Finacial Market Authority (FINMA) approved an REE fund “that invests worldwide in companies with activity in mining, refining and manufacturing of Rare Earth Elements,” according to the fund’s website.

     

    However, some analysts are at odds with this type of fund as opposed to other commodity ETF’s. “The funds are not organized quite like other metal ETF’s… For the first time, we see the financial community take an almost preemptive role in developing financial products in advance of the industrial firms who have yet to secure raw material supply or make strategic investments in key rare earth metal companies,” stated Lisa Reisman, for Metal Miner.

     

    What’s troubling about this new REE fund is the fact that it will be investing in junior mining companies, and processing companies that have yet to physically produce rare earth oxides. While beneficial for the companies involved, the risk to investors may be extremely high if these companies do not produce the results promised.

     

    Van Eck Global is working on a similar ETF that looks to cash in on the growing interest in rare earths. The fund’s name, recently changed from ‘Minor Metals ETF’ to Market Vectors Rare Earth/Strategic Metals ETF with the ticker symbol ‘REMX’, will invest in nearly the same way as its Swiss counterpart.

     

    “The Market Vectors Minor Metals ETF that’s in the works will replicate the performance of the Minor Metals Index, which comprises a group of about 30 publicly traded companies engaged in the mining, refining and manufacturing of such metals,” reported Steve Dew, for Index Universe. The fund will have a 0.57 percent annual fee, and will track a rules-based, modified capitalization-weighted, float-adjusted index.

     

    Other analysts have suggested round about ways to invest in the growing demand for rare earths while waiting for rare earth ETF to take off. One in particular, Gary Gordon, of ETF Expert, takes an interesting angle on the subject. Since 60 percent of world rare earth consumption is used by the Chinese middle class consumer, one way of investing in rare earths is to buy a position in Chinese consumer index funds, including Claymore-AlphaShares China Small Cap Index Fund (NYSE:HAO).

     

    “The middle class Chinese consumer is buying electric/hybrid cars from Chinese automaker BYD as well as consuming the energy from wind turbines. The best investment to focus on the strength of the Chinese consumer is the Claymore-AlphaShares China Small Cap Index Fund,” stated Gary Gordon.

     

    In a follow up article Gordon also suggests looking at another fund, the Global X China Consumer (NYSE:CHIQ) as a way to tap into the Chinese demand for rare earth. While these funds will probably perform well with projections for Chinese growth, the abstract way in which they tie into the rare earth market may be a little to distant for the average investor looking to get into rare earth.

     

    A more direct way to invest in this market is coming from Dacha Strategic Metals Inc. (CVE:DSM), which buys, holds, and sells an inventory of rare earths. The company published their holdings in a press release, currently the company holds 216,900 kgs of various rare earths with a market value of over $25 million. This individual company is much like an ETF in this regard.

     

    The company also announced that it had, through the acquisition of a trading company, acquired an operating license in the Peoples Republic of China. “Dacha’s business model has been significantly enhanced with this transaction. Our ability to freely transact in Rare Earth Elements in both the domestic and export markets within China will be a significant driver of value to our shareholders,” stated Dacha CEO, Scott Moore.

     

    With help from Assistant Edtor Vivien Diniz

     

    Questions about this article? Leave a comment below or contact our editorial team at editor@resourceinvesti...
    28 Oct 2010, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    With China changing their mind today about selling REE do you still think the new ETF is a solid investment or would you wait for a period of time before investing in it. I am still new to commodities and have been advised to read what you and a few others have to say. Thanks in advance for your time
    28 Oct 2010, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    No one knows your risk tolerance. Most of these REE companies aren't producing yet, these companies are risky. Read more about it and then make your own plan. How much can you afford to risk? What will you do if the price falls? What will you do if the price rises? Is this a long term investment, or a short term trade?
    I can't tell you what to do, talk to your stock broker for individual advice.
    28 Oct 2010, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • Silentz
    , contributor
    Comments (716) | Send Message
     
    I'd echo what OG has to say. These guys have put together one of the most comprehensive(and impressive) body of research on REEs that I've ever seen. There's not a lot of boilerplate that you have to sift through to get to the meat of the matter.

     

    While no one here will give anyone advice, and rightfully so because everyone's situation is different, there's a TON of information you can read up on that will help you make your own decisions.

     

    When you have a few minutes(or weeks), I'd suggest going back and reading through the previous QCs and the new REE concentrator. You'll come out of it armed with much more information, and a better understanding of the sector.
    29 Oct 2010, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    here's Schiff's videoblog w/ good comments about the G20 meeting last weekend:
    www.europac.net/media/...
    28 Oct 2010, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    I've been poking around the oil space, and its been a headache trying to pick a few winners. I already have plenty of oil/gas royalty trusts, so for this exercise I am looking for oil/gas/service companies.

     

    (RIG) Transocean looks oversold to me, though it still has some fallout from the Gulf disaster to wade through. Buy@ $62

     

    (DO) Diamond Offshore is in the same boat as (RIG), and I came to the same conclusion and a similar Buy@, $64

     

    (BDCOV.PK) Is a small company where I just like their story. Buy@ $1.90

     

    (BPZ) Buy@ $3.30

     

    (COG) Buy@ $27.50

     

    (CPE) Callong Petro. Buy@ $4.00

     

    (CIE) Cobalt Intl. Buy@ $8.00

     

    (EXLP) Exterran Buy@ $21.80

     

    (HENC.OB) Holloman Buy@ $.20

     

    (VTG) Vantage looks good to me Buy@ $1.40

     

    Still looking around, but this is the first cut and the rough list. I already own (ATPG), of couse.
    28 Oct 2010, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Correction: BDCOV.PK is incorrect, Blue Dolphin's symbol is (BDCO).

     

    Oil is up slightly this morning, no stocks at my Buy@ targets just yet...
    29 Oct 2010, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    IMAX popped over 13% today. They are 3D rockets flying high.
    28 Oct 2010, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    ok, what does China's change of mind do to REE and the new ETF. Still a buying opportunity for someone who doesn't have the best background to establish a winner from a loser .....
    28 Oct 2010, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    As O.G. said, there are too many variables and individual traits involved for anyone to give specific advice. Further, we all know the market can turn viciously against us at any time so even if any particular equity is good today, it may still have short or long-term loses as time passes. That's why O.G. mentioned your risk tolerance and what you would do "if".

     

    These are things you must determine. Some good consultation with a knowledgeable professional, who will know what questions to ask and help you develop a plan well suited to your goals, risk tolerance, personality, financial position, stage in life, ... should be your first step in my opinion.

     

    This market, in fact the whole economic environment, is not "user friendly". It is designed to take your money. It is very good at doing so. None of us here want to aid it in that goal.

     

    All we do is try to help out each other by sharing ideas, thoughts and information. As we have come to know each other better, it sometimes goes a bit beyond that, but not very much or often.

     

    And do keep in mind that speculative stocks, as many of those mentioned in this group can be, are high risk. Even the best of them (and how does one determine "the best" for their individual profile?) may fail or take way too long to come to fruition (tying up your $) or never develop. And many of them are mentioned in a *trading* context, not an investing context (another decision for you to make) and many are both.

     

    HardToLove
    29 Oct 2010, 05:54 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    (GE) Plans Biggest Electric-Vehicle Order in ‘Huge’ Industry Step

     

    Supposed to be "tens of thousands".

     

    www.businessweek.com/n...

     

    HardToLove

     

    P.S. HT to matagordas at Investor Village for this find.
    29 Oct 2010, 06:05 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (8824) | Send Message
     
    Interesting. When I worked at GE all the big wigs (ultra big wigs) were provided with BMW company cars. Wonder if they are down grading to the electric too or will it just be the sales force to put on a good face.

     

    I expecially liked Jeffrey's comment about going forward courageously withlout the government at their backs. Does that mean they have paid back the 5 billion they got from TARP?

     

    Until that's paid back I would say the govt still has your back Jeffrey.
    29 Oct 2010, 08:25 AM Reply Like
  • Mark Bern, CFA
    , contributor
    Comments (5715) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I'm not sure that "back" is the right anatomical part that the government has hold of in this instance. I think I'd better leave it there.
    29 Oct 2010, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    (GE) is being run by some questionable types. Until they change management, they are a poor risk. Sad story, overall.
    29 Oct 2010, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (8824) | Send Message
     
    I am surprised that Jeffrey still has a job. The stock was a dismal failure prior to the crisis. Its on TARP (life) support now.
    29 Oct 2010, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    "Emerging markets inflows slow in latest week
    Money market flows turn positive, fund-tracker EPFR says"

     

    and in the article

     

    ============
    Flows into commodity sector funds in the latest week were less than a quarter of the previous week’s total, “as speculation mounted that the second round of easing might proceed at a slower-than-hoped-for pace,” EPFR said.

     

    Money market flows turn positive

     

    Money market funds — a proxy for cash — reversed last week’s outflows and attracted $20.2 billion, which was a 14-week high for that fund group and the third-highest weekly tally this year, the researcher said.
    ================

     

    And Brazil is raising taxes on foreign fixed income investments and margin deposits on futures by a *huge* multiple.

     

    www.marketwatch.com/st...

     

    HardToLove
    29 Oct 2010, 06:58 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (8824) | Send Message
     
    Reality setting in.
    29 Oct 2010, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    The moves in Brazil are the canary in the mineshaft (look for similar from other governments around the world, not to mention quite close to home...)
    29 Oct 2010, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (8824) | Send Message
     
    Found this while searching for info on food investments but it has hit almost all my hot buttons in one sweep. Unbelievable. REE's are in there too.

     

    www.businessinsider.co...
    29 Oct 2010, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (8824) | Send Message
     
    There was no biotech in here however like NVAX.

     

    Renegades have it covered.
    29 Oct 2010, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (8824) | Send Message
     
    OK, silver has popped over the 24.07 mark now....not just on monex.
    29 Oct 2010, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    I got an email from that "lying liar", author, and senator AL Frankenstein's monster Franken. My response to Senator Franken:
    Choke on your oatmeal.
    Here's his letter:
    Here are two thought experiments. Indulge me, won’t you?

     

    It’s the morning after Election Day. 8 a.m. You stumble out of bed. Make some oatmeal. Turn on the TV to find out what happened in that Senate race, the one that was too close to call all night. But you gave $5 to the DSCC by clicking on this link. And, lo and behold, your favorite Democrat — maybe Russ Feingold or Patty Murray — pulled it out by a few votes. Oatmeal never tasted so sweet.

     

    But there’s another way it could go. 8 a.m. Oatmeal. TV. But in this example, you DIDN’T give to the DSCC. And, by a few hundred votes, some Tea Party extremist is now a U.S. Senator-elect — and Republicans have captured the majority. How’s that oatmeal taste now?

     

    You still have time to decide which scenario will become reality. But when I say “time,” I don’t mean days. I mean minutes. Don’t wait for tomorrow. Don’t even wait to read the rest of this email. Click here right now and make a contribution of $5 or more — it will be matched two to one, tripling its impact!

     

    You’ve seen the polls — we’re neck and neck in race after race. Moving the numbers just a little bit could mean the difference between victory and defeat — trust me, I’ve been there.

     

    And nobody moves numbers like the DSCC. Thanks to people like you clicking on links like this one, we’ve pulled ahead in California and Connecticut and tied it up in Colorado and Pennsylvania.

     

    But with just hours to go until the polls close, every minute counts. Your contribution won’t be funding some far-off future plan — it’ll be the money that goes out the door first thing tomorrow. It could be your $5 that makes the difference for Barbara Boxer, keeps Sharron Angle or Rand Paul out of the Senate, or even saves our majority.

     

    So make a contribution of $5 or more to the DSCC right now — it’ll be on the air in a battleground state or in the field as part of a get-out-the-vote program by tomorrow morning. And, even better, it will be matched two-to-one, tripling its impact.

     

    If you want to know why I’m standing with the DSCC in the final days of this election, here’s why: On November 3, I don’t want my oatmeal to taste like regret. I want my oatmeal to taste like victory.

     

    How about you?

     

    Thanks,

     

    Al Franken
    29 Oct 2010, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Talk about an appetite suppressant...
    29 Oct 2010, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    John Lounsbury recently posted an article, "Is Socialism Winning the Wealth Game?" here

     

    seekingalpha.com/artic...

     

    An excellent article and excellent discussion in the comments.

     

    But I wanted to mention it here for a comment that John posted here

     

    seekingalpha.com/autho...

     

    and he included a link to another comment on another site by an respected poster. I *highly* recommend reading this as it ties together some pieces of what we now observe, wherein wealth disparity is a major factor.

     

    econintersect.com/word...

     

    Many thanks to John for this.

     

    HardToLove
    29 Oct 2010, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Oh yes, well familiar with that sort of discussion.

     

    Here is the comment I added:

     

    "There is an interesting unifying factor in that list of Top 10. 9 have actively REDUCED the portions of their economies which are socialist/government controlled over the past 10 years, while 1 has move in the exact opposite direction."

     

    Needless to say, the country jumping by leaps and bounds onto the socialist bandwagon (while all the others are busily climbing down) is the United States. No coincidences involved.

     

    There are plenty of other factors, too, many of which have been bandied about for over a decade on the politcal usernets...

     

    Predictions that things like this would happen if immigration continued unchecked (after all, new immigrants, particularly illegal ones, don't help the equation) is one concept frequently examined. Drop the US population factor by 5%, and it makes a big difference.

     

    There are tons of other factors, things like exporting virtually all of our manufacturing jobs (and now, even service jobs)... Suppressing oil exploration, minerals exploration, and attempts to exploit our own natural resource - then replace them with imports, while tossing away those millions of good paying jobs...

     

    It goes on and on.

     

    The hopefully temporary effects of the recession and financial meltdown (though given the lack of ability and spine in our National leadership, how "temporary" it can be is worrisome)...

     

    Can the U.S. come back from this rough spot?

     

    Yes, I believe so. But it won't be by emulating the things the leaders USED to do, but by studying what they are doing NOW that works better.

     

    France has the most advanced energy grid on the planet, and I am NOT talking about wind turbines and moonbeams, but nuclear power. 40 years ago we threw the clear world leadership in this area away. Now we need to get it back. The good news is that like any advanced technology, it is possible to leapfrog when you initiate your program using the best current tech.

     

    Switzerland (#1) got there AGAIN (it used to be in this catbird seat all the time, then got waylaid by the Eurozone when the Euro came in and screwed up their Franc, and screwed them sideways until they figured out how to handle the problem), and its possible that they will be #1 or #2 for a long time. We should study how they have defended their currency and economy from their predatory neighbors, though I suspect the exclusionary measures they took would require we abrogate NAFTA and really anger our neighbors to the north and to the south...

     

    I could go on and on.

     

    Elections next week...

     

    And elections DO have consequences...

     

    This list could need revision in 2 or 3 years.
    29 Oct 2010, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Mark Bern, CFA
    , contributor
    Comments (5715) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I saw a headline news story that caught my eye and clicked on the link. I was surprised to find it was from the Washington Post. But the author still made me think; can the politicians really put off another crisis until at least 2012? I thought it was worth a read.

     

    www.washingtonpost.com...
    29 Oct 2010, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    I had to laugh! Although not funny, I kept thinking of Keystone Kops! I've been calling our legislators the House of Clowns, little realizing just how accurate that appears when reading that article.

     

    Thanks,
    Bill
    29 Oct 2010, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    To those who took the time to give me an education i thank you. I understand this is a very tough market as well . I will probably just stay silent and learn from you folks way ahead of me. In the meantime i will be doing my homework of trying to play catch up. Probably will always be trailing the heard but knowledge never stops. Appreciate the truth some had written directly to me and look forward to posting some thoughts along the way. I have learned more out of what to expect and what to find out. Thanx....
    29 Oct 2010, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4819) | Send Message
     
    Here you go guys:

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...
    29 Oct 2010, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • lower98th
    , contributor
    Comments (1418) | Send Message
     
    DM...I wish it were just the Democrats. For years I had coffee every morning out of my "Bush Sucks" cup. Now I've added an Obama one to the collection. The nightmare of turning over the core of the country to a financial cartel and the government to their lobbyists is two-party problem. If secssion from the US was on the ballot, I would vote for it.
    30 Oct 2010, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Political parties are the ETF's of elections. They tend to lose their edge via the averaging of divergent ideas, and turn even the most interesting narratives into mush. True, sometimes one will have slightly tastier or more effective mush...

     

    Another reason why I prefer to pick the individual candidate, er, stock.

     

    Libertarians and other alternatives (I am trying to school myself to lose the conditioning to call them all "third" parties) are rapidly gaining in scope.

     

    It is likely, however, that coincident with their attaining some measure of size to where they can project real political power, they too will transform into mush-machines.

     

    I suppose we WOULD be better off with a greater diversity of mush, but there will never be a substitute for the individual choice.
    30 Oct 2010, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4819) | Send Message
     
    Right there with you, L98. My background and history is more Democratic than it is Republican. About the time Clinton was in office I started getting disillusioned with politicians being politicians instead of statesmen and it has only gotten worse since then. It seems even things that start with a germ of a good idea from either side get so corrupted by the process that by the time anything becomes legislation it is packed with corrupting exceptions and unrelated amendments. One party that hasn't even been in power all of the time over the last 20 years could not screw things up this badly. It takes both parties playing their roles to achieve the mess we have now. I think the clip would be funny with either party in the punch line, but I think it is funnier if it is the party in power.

     

    But you'll get no argument from me... There's plenty to be disappointed about from both parties. I for one would like to see the two party system overturned. It is not mentioned nor even anticipated in the Constitution and I think it is responsible at least in part for the inability to see past party lines and take real steps to improving government.
    30 Oct 2010, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Most Americans don't realize that political parties are PRIVATE associations. They are mainly controlled by small, oligarchal groups at the state and county level. When they hold primary elections, those are not true government fuctions, but the interal affairs of the various State parties. This is the reason why there are no national rules pertaining to how these things occur. Some states hold their primaries in one manner, while others hold caucuses, townhall meetings, all manner of variations.

     

    Anyone who has never done so should attend their county functions. Pretty soon you will see where a few dozen very active individuals are essentially setting up the rules and choosing the candidates for that county's offices - and in turn a few hundred people are doing the same for the entire state. This is the secret power of the parties, and why change is so slow to penetrate - mainly because those all-important grass root activities are completely under the radar of over 99% of the voting public. Do you want to increase your own personal political impact 1000fold? Just start showing up at all the local meetings, and get involved.

     

    You'll be a junior member of the oligarchy before you can finish signing your name on you slap-on sticky badge.

     

    Ask everyone you know how many have ever attended their local party (no matter WHICH party) functions. I have done this at large parties, and received blank looks and no hands raised. (Of course, those were NOT parties held at the state Bar association or the Realtors ball).
    30 Oct 2010, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    [quote] Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf says that the greatest effect ObamaCare will be driving people out of the job market. Read that again. The greatest effect of ObamaCare will NOT be lowering healthcare costs, it will NOT be covering more Americans, it will NOT be better quality care. No. The greatest effect of ObamaCare will be driving people out of the job market. CNSNews explains, "He explained that people would choose not to work because they could subsist on the generous federal insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments contained in the health care overhaul." [quote]
    29 Oct 2010, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • Mark Bern, CFA
    , contributor
    Comments (5715) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » They will work minimally in part-time status if that still allows them to qualify because they otherwise will miss out on several thousand dollars from the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit and the making work pay tax credit. Add to that the new insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments and the poor will do quite well; maybe we'll be able to bring them up above the poverty level in total income all without working more than 10 hours a week!
    (realistically, I don't think that's really possible, but still...)

     

    It's getting pretty scary.
    30 Oct 2010, 01:10 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    I apparently did not highlight this comment in my post above about the John Lounsbury article, so I would like to bring it to the forefront here.

     

    econintersect.com/word...

     

    For me, this is a seminal missing piece of a puzzle I've been trying to learn. If the author's assessment is correct, and it makes a lot of sense to me, it explains why:
    - we experience "business cycles" even when we had no centralized bank
    - why the efforts of the Federal Reserve, and others, to simultaneously increase expectations of inflation and reduce yields on traditional "safe" investments is an important action (don't misread me - I still think we should abolish the Fed and eliminate a "debt money" system)
    - why money will eventually leave the U.S. *until* attractive yields in both riskier and safer investments return to this country,
    - why we have *severe* income disparity and concentration of wealth as a side-effect of the "business cycles" (short form: policies that encourage, aid and abet concentration and hoarding of wealth combined with inconsistent policies that should encourage more "natural" distribution of wealth through "natural" economic behavior).

     

    There's much more that is implied, if the author's view is correct.

     

    IMO, policies constructed around the central tenet of what the author describes could reduce the frequency, severity and duration of the downward business cycle and bring a greater stability to the economy.

     

    It casts a shadow of doubt about the net effect of tax policies, whether to increase or decrease - when they should be just plain stable at some "fair" level. When taxation is low, we know that vitality is increased in the economy, tax collections *may* increase and wealth distribution over the longer haul is greater. We know that tax increases have an opposite effect, although some less efficient distribution of the wealth is accomplished at great loss of efficiency and degree of benefit. There is an implication, to me, that tax policies could be constructed which remain stable and encourage distribution of wealth among a greater percentage of the population without government involvement on a "daily" basis and without bringing severe damage to those that are adept at generating and accumulating wealth.

     

    Anyway, that's all I wanted to bring up. I hope you all take the time to read the comment.

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    As I believe we both are FairTax proponents, I can see your (and John's) point. Taxes are a necessary evil - and so long as they can be limited to a bearable load on the economy - and achieve some version of "fairness" (again with the little word which has launched many wars) - it can fulfill its function in society.

     

    This is the underlying thinking of many tax systems, including even our own current existence. I believe that tax systems that are extremely simple - and hence very difficult to game - have distinct advantages over the more byzantine, multi-layered systems (such as those currently installed here).

     

    Tax infrastructure lies buried at the heart of EVERY political system, regardless of ideology. Socialism, marxism, despotism, capitalism, fascism, communism, every ism has overhead and the police power of the state, using the threat of force, to collect their pound of flesh from the governed. In an age of technological marvels and mechanical miracles, the human race yet clings to the most antique of isms - and lards them with layers of equally obsolete taxation regimes.

     

    In a rather disturbing potential immediate future for our own country, I can see where a fascist/marxist regime could well seize upon the efficiencies and advantages of the FairTax (even though that proposal is currently shepherded by primarily libertarians and free thinkers among both major parties). In that case, though the Regime does many other things very poorly and causes much heartache, they might hope to save themselves and perpetuate power for many long years on the back of the gains which would flow from the improved taxing methodology.

     

    The truth is that method is (at least short or even middle term) perhaps as important as ideology in forming the tax structure which supports a government.

     

    Oh, I still believe that in the end, ideological goals focused on equality of outcome for the collective rather than the liberty of the individual will corrupt and destroy the efficiencies and benefits of anything like the FairTax, but the short term effects would be dramatic.
    30 Oct 2010, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4819) | Send Message
     
    Fantastic stuff, HTL. Thanks for this. The one thing missing, though, is a nod to how even in a fixed money supply wealth grows through productivity. He is using a rather concise produce/sell, buy/consume model for his example. But if we look at the existence of things which are not easily consumed in a lifetime -- a good house or finely crafted (value added) tools or jewelry -- we see that labor is transformed into a physical product that can sometimes be used up right away (food) and sometimes be passed down to the next generation (a house). So strictly speaking even in a fixed money supply, the cycle of wealth does not behave exactly as he described due to the accumulation of wealth even in the hands of the "consumer". This is inflationary, which seems counter intuitive in a fixed money supply. The reason it is inflationary is that these new forms of wealth become stand-ins for money (as in I can borrow against the value of my house) and the fixed money supply, we find, is a myth. There is no fixed money supply, even in a system with a finite amount of gold coins being circulated, if we ascribe to other products a financial value (which of course we do). The value is not a myth -- it is created by transforming our labor (often with labor leveraging devices like fixed capital). So the size of the economy grows even as the number of chips stays the same. The inflation is accommodated by increased velocity to some extent, but also with property used as a stand-in for money, it is actually an expanding money supply.

     

    The downside of this oversight is that it doesn't prove that business cycles are not tied to money supply, because the author fails to cite a system where the money supply is actually finite. In fact using this analysis the "malinvestment" that takes place during war can be seen as the destruction of capital but can also be seen as destruction of money.

     

    As long as anything we use has a monetary value, it is as good as money. eBay single handedly expanded the money supply by converting such previously illiquid items as old am radios into cash.

     

    It's fascinating stuff to think about, but I need to get to work...
    30 Oct 2010, 01:18 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Good observations, DM.

     

    The last time we actually had nothing but hard currency at work in our economy was back prior to the Revolutionary War. And indeed, perhaps half of all commerce was a form of barter, particularly as a local endeavor. Reversion to a similar system would immediately create a need for the same innovations (letters of credit, barter "points" kept on ledgers, paper "cheques" for larger transactions, etc, etc, etc). I can point anyone interested to some good SciFi books on various such scenarios...

     

    But I'm thinking that John is onto a potentially BETTER methodology, though perhaps it will never be possible to fully model all the variables (the Global Warmists can attest to this). As a quick essay laying out the bare bones, its impressive and contains some truly new ways of looking at old data that intriques me.

     

    If his system could be successful at controlling, say, 50% of the economy, with the other 50% operating in a purely free capital market form at a lower level, what would that mean? I'm thinking that it might just be a very nice compromise - and when it comes to huge macroeconomic systems, "a very nice compromise" may be the best possible outcome.

     

    Like many things in life, it could end up being "a flawed but functional" system that was ALSO "the best available system".
    30 Oct 2010, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    Your points are spot on. However, although the author did not choose to address credit, I'm sure in his deeper thinking not addressed there, he's probably on-board with that too.

     

    Anyway, we bnow that credit is also "money" that is created at the time a loan is extended and that created money will also achieve some velocity in a normal healthy economy. And since some interest is associated with that credit, there is a transfer (distribution) of wealth associated with that action which might tend to concentrate again. The lender is richer by, say, 3% while the borrower is "poorer" by this same percentage... but not necessarily so.

     

    If the loan is a "productive" loan, such as a small business might utilize to increase wealth, we end up with the lender being richer by 3% and the borrower ending up richer by, say, 5%.

     

    This 2% differential is newly-created "wealth", some of which may stay concentrated in the hands of the borrower while some is "consumed" and enters the economy and gains "velocity".

     

    And we have now a situation wherein the wealth has been both accumulated (by both the lender and the borrower - some percentage possibly "saved" long-term) and some has entered the economy and been "distributed", possibly assisting in the (re)creation of our middle-class.

     

    And no government involvement required either.

     

    Given this sort of scenario, there is not a rational that I've encountered to support a fixed-asset currency base, such as a gold standard.

     

    Money supply is supposed to expand and contract to support the economic activity of the nation's people. That's the way it was intended when congress gave the government the obligation and right to "issue the nation's money". It was supposed to meet the needs of the economic activity of the people, being niether too plentiful nor to "dear".

     

    It was intended to be "fiat" (i.e. a "controlled currency") from the beginning, I think. International exchange considerations probably brought about the need for some commodity-based exchange system. In today's world, with computers, instantaneous communication, ... this should not be needed. *Trust* in the honesty and transparency of all the governments' banks would be needed, so we are probably stuck with some sort of international exchange system involving commodities of some kind.

     

    Oh well, I'm certainly getting to the fringe of my knowledge and rather long-winded, so I'll stop.

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Derryl is one smart cookie, and communicates clearly and simply about incredibly complex topics. Kudos!
    30 Oct 2010, 05:40 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    "ideological goals focused on equality of outcome for the collective rather than the liberty of the individual"

     

    What if that statement was "ideological goals focused on equality of OPPORTUNITY for the individuals of the collective"? Hm, U.S. constitution?

     

    We can all support that I think. As to the Fair Tax, I still have only one objection to it - it still let's the Federal Government reach directly into our pockets with an effectively unlimited budget, hence an unlimited power of growth of size and of power.

     

    A Fair Tax that put the taxing power elsewhere would have my unqualified support even if it had some obvious flaws to be rectified by due consideration and adjustment over time. Even if it was contentious to hammer out the details and achieve something workable. Even if it wasn't *my* ideal.

     

    This new system would have to eliminate the ability of the government to take from the citizens and states by edict and force, and eliminate the government's ability to "return" *some* of the funds back to the states and the people as bribery via earmarks, as "incentives" via coercion (highway funds being a prime example of the coercive nature), ...

     

    Long ago and far away, the government was funded by the likes of tariffs on imports. Would it be practical today? I've given it no serious thought. But if it was practical, think how the revenues of government would rise and fall with the economic fortune of its citizens' ability to purchase goods from abroad. The fiscal and economic policies of the government would have to be dramatically altered to account for this, rather than being able to count on a never-ending stream of taxes and fiat-money creation to get it over the humps and fund itself.

     

    In short, it would have to espouse policies which should be good for citizenry over the long haul and provide a stable economic environment.

     

    There are other funding mechanisms that might be considered, such as bringing the source of funds closer to the people, but that would be an even more difficult task.

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    "What if that statement was "ideological goals focused on equality of OPPORTUNITY for the individuals of the collective"? Hm, U.S. constitution?"

     

    LOL, then it would mean precisely the opposite, would it not? Obviously, as a Libertarian I hold the Constitution to be sacred. And in a literal sense.

     

    In fact, that premise, literally "...ideological goals focused on equality of opportunity.." IS what the Libertarian ideology is built upon. As for the part about "...the collective..." that is the subject of much debate from those who frequently seek to twist segments of the Constitution into a "living document" to meet their ideological needs. I suppose there might be SOME who do this who are not focused upon the collective to the exclusion of the individual, but I can't put my finger on which group that might be.

     

    The FairTax is a methodology ONLY - as you correctly point out, it contains no mechanism for imposing any other slate or government checks and balances. I realize that even the FairTax can be abused and misused - in fact, I took pains to point this out in my own comment. I would also view any attempt to weigh down the FairTax program with further, extraneous agendas would be a large and perhaps lethal mistake.

     

    I would of course support a seperate bill that would, for instance, require that the Federal Government create a budget each year (a requirement which was not long ago laughed at by Democrats as just fear mongering, BEFORE they actually did no budget this year of course). Combine that with the same restrictions most state governments must meet, ie, to limit spending to the budgeted amounts. Beyond that it gets more intricate, but yes, reversion to a Constitutional government (vs the extraConstitutional monstrosity we currently labor beneath) would be a wonderful thing.

     

    In the end, however, no human constructed paper maze will replace (or withstand) the power of elected officials. We Americans have the power to change everything, if we but exert ourselves just a little, and once again take up the duty of citizenship. In the end it is that, and the choices we make for those who will lead us, that are most important. And those things, unlike the enduring qualities of the Constitution, or the power of black letter Law in a Republic under the Rule of Law, must be upheld and maintained every single day.
    30 Oct 2010, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    "Constitution into a "living document"".

     

    We both have the same feeling about that one!

     

    "FairTax can be abused and misused - in fact, I took pains to point this out in my own comment".

     

    Yes, again my focus and haste towards my desire to spit out what I had floating around those two active brain cells ...

     

    "attempt to weigh down the FairTax program with further, extraneous agendas would be a large and perhaps lethal mistake"

     

    Here, I am really sorry to report that I *must* agree with you. I guess, like zealots of any stripe, I want to jump directly to the "ultimate best result". But the practicalities of the matter may demand a process of transition - a step here, then another, ...

     

    Sort of like Boone's "bridge fuel" using NG in the interim. I think that I also have a fear that we'll get something like the Fair Tax and stop, when so much more, IMO, needs doing.

     

    "In the end, however, no human constructed paper maze will replace (or withstand) the power of elected officials" and I agree with the rest of the paragraph!

     

    On this one I just wanted to comment how when I was younger and naively had belief in the government and our elected officials, I hated the loss of choice that would be imposed by term limits. As I've aged, gained some experience (and *hopefully* understanding and "wisdom", <*chuckle*>) I've come to believe that the only real long-term solution is to limit terms to, say, two terms and then they have to go back home and live with their neighbors a few years before they can stand again for election. And if we could shrink the government's scope too, why we could even limit how long congress can stay in session (OTOH, this might be they way to limit the growth and scope of government).

     

    Anyway, you know whether we agree or not (and I think we do 5 9s worth), your willingness to interact is *always* valued and I couldn't be upset even if we disagreed.

     

    HardToLove

     

    P.S. I found the SA instance of the author of that comment and will be posting links to his blog below. Much of it will be basically known, but the presentation is so cogent and well elucidated that I want to at least get a link to them here. I'm resisting the urge to post the many other links that discuss "debt money" and other sins of our system.

     

    You can thank me later for exhibiting that restraint! ;-))
    30 Oct 2010, 04:28 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    HTL: I know you realize I am not arguing with your points - we agree extremely closely on this topic, and I find John's work praiseworthy and very valuable.
    30 Oct 2010, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    My apologies. I knew you were not at odds. I just got into a hurry to launch into my response and didn't consider (again! :-(( ) how it was going to sound.

     

    But your phrase provided the "launch platform", with suggested modification, to squeeze in the reference to The Constitution.

     

    Again, my apologies!

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    No problems, my friend, I am just trying to make certain there was no friction - I'm not thin-skinned about political topics. But I'm also aware that I (underline that) might come across as argumentative or pedantic when I'm really not trying to be. If anyone can inadvertently ignite an argument (without trying to) its me.

     

    Like the AA programs for alcoholics and other addictions, I have to watch out for the slippery slope.

     

    Important elections like the one next week tend to make folks like me "edgy", too. At the same time that political debate starts to exert a growing attraction, I know from experience I need to be doubly on my guard against my own failings. Surrounded by temptation, its easy to slip.
    30 Oct 2010, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (12048) | Send Message
     
    Most Libratarians don't know the meaning. Limited or no government and the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights has broad (not conservative implications).

     

    Why should the State recognize marriage? Marriage is a condition by religious leaders. The state should have no role in it and no difference in taxing individuals. Gun ownership, ownership of anything would be legal as long as it wasn't misused. Police services would be curtailed to the minimum (maybe be voluntary). Illegal drugs would not be criminalized nor prostitution. Corporations would be ok to pursue monopolistic powers as long as they don't impede on individual rights. Regulation on everything would revert closer to buyer beware, but more choice could be offered. People would be free to use their land however they wanted to unless restricted by contract.

     

    In general, I tend to go along with the belief that nothing should be law or enforced unless 80% agree to it, and even then, it can not infringe on basic Constitutional rights. If employed both Conservatives and Liberals may be shocked at what we would have: an America that is more free and less paternalistic, but offers less security and requires more caution.

     

    It is fiscally more conservative but is socially more liberal (save gun control, property rights, and unionization which could not be imposed on anyone, and a few other things). Simply put, it believes in a minimalist state that doesn't enforce social mores by you or others onto anyone else. In general, this is pretty agreeable with me, but perhaps would make life too difficult for most people.
    30 Oct 2010, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    "It is fiscally more conservative but is socially more liberal"

     

    I didn't realize I was "libertarian" in so many ways. I have used that exact phrase to describe myself countless times.

     

    Heh! Now that "I are one", I guess I need to consider how to view any "official" prohibitions on personal behavior which is known to be deleterious to society as a whole.

     

    <*sigh*> Can't anything important in the life of a "good citizen" be *easy*?

     

    I guess not or everybody would be one! ;-))

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Yep, you're a Libertarian all right...

     

    Of course, just as with the big parties, there are LOTS of different "flavors" of Libertarians.

     

    Bob Barr, Neal Boortz, Ron Paul, all represent various "types".

     

    LOL, then there are us stone-age Libertarians, who used to be Objectivists back before there WAS a Libertarian Party.

     

    "Libertarian", however, is frequently confused with "libertine" by the uninitiated. Ha. I should have so much fun!
    30 Oct 2010, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    LoL!

     

    Even at my age, I still light up at the thought of "having so much fun" as a libertine!

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    Taxes, my major concern is the burden left for our children and granchildren. However we survived the 70 's , I remember my first car loan at 18 % . Hell, i thought i was buying a car from the mafia. This being the case then why aren't TIPS a solid investment for the future. Please don't tell me we have no inflation in our economy now. Everything is more expensive from food to clothes. If the REE will eventually cost more i think a small portion of a portfolio should include these bonds. Any thoughts,,,,,I may be a few months or years ahead of the truth coming out however
    30 Oct 2010, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Yep. I bought a HOUSE at 18.4% interest. Got to love Jimmah Carter stagflation!

     

    TIPS just this past week were selling for MINUS interest rates! There's an indicator.

     

    There are some corporate bonds which have a high enough yield to outrun some inflation, too.

     

    IF the stimulus monies poured into the economy had been applied directly to the people (tax holidays, my favorite concept) it would have made a great deal more sense than just parking them in the 2big2fail zombies and the Fed.
    30 Oct 2010, 04:28 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    "There are some corporate bonds which have a high enough yield to outrun some inflation, too"

     

    Heh! As long as they're not those IBM bonds that just got issued!

     

    I'll tell ya', IBM got themselves a really good deal there. But maybe I'm just not (mentally) old enough yet to appreciate *safety* *that* much.

     

    I guess it's that ol' "libertine" persuasion still residing within me. ;-))

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    WalMart and GS, too.
    31 Oct 2010, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Just finished a complete run down of the latest polling (plus my very own version of tweaking) to the upcoming US House races. The polls are predicting a near-certain Republican takeover of the House, with the most reliable number about a 63 seat pickup by the GOP.

     

    When I add my own spin, I see an 84 seat pickup for the Republicans, with 2 more seats which might go either way.

     

    I don't know where all the 'Gades come from, but I do know we have folks here from Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania...

     

    Florida's House delegation will see one of the more extreme shifts, with 4 Democratic seats changing to "R". Those are:

     

    FL District 2 Southerland (R) vs Boyd (D) (Boyd is one of many "Blue Dog" moderate democrats who will be masacred this election)

     

    FL District 8 Webster (R) vs Grayson (D)

     

    FL District 22 West (R) vs Klein (D)

     

    FL District 24 Adams (R) vs Kosmas(D)

     

    Pennsylvania will also see a marked change to its large contingent, with 6 Democratic seats lost to the Republicans:

     

    PA District 3 Kelly (R) vs Dahlkemper (D)

     

    PA District 7 Meehan (R) vs Lentz (D)

     

    PA District 8 Fitzpatrick (R) vs Murphy (D)

     

    PA District 10 Marino (R) vs Carney (D)

     

    PA District 11 Barletta (R) vs Kanjorski (D)

     

    PA District 12 Burns (R) vs Critz (D) (this will be a close one)

     

    Ohio will see a total of 6 lost seats for the Democrats:

     

    OH District 1 Chabot (R) vs Driehaus (D)

     

    OH District 6 Johnson (R) vs Wilson (D)

     

    OH District 15 Stivers (R) vs Kilroy (D)

     

    OH District 16 Renacci (R) vs Boccieri (D)

     

    OH District 18 Gibbs (R) vs Space (D)

     

    I hope these elections are going your way. If anyone wants to know which other races I show changing hands, let me know - I have a long list.
    30 Oct 2010, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    Well, here in N.C, I'm hoping to see a few unusual looking possums laying in the middle of the electoral road when all is said and done.

     

    Got any thoughts on that?

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4819) | Send Message
     
    In VT there is one rep. Welch (D). The state of VT is one of those states which has a louder voice in the Senate (2 senators) than it does in the House (1 Rep). It makes VT an all or nothing state House wise and it appears solidly Dem for the time being... The interesting race in my state is for the Gov with the R and D both polling at 44% with 8% undecided (neither is an incumbent). I think the difference will be turnout and this is why I suspect the Republican will win. Turnout is on the side of R all over the map.

     

    I've mentioned that VT is a split ticket voting state, but it goes beyond that. Vermonters will often vote for a different party down ticket BECAUSE they voted for the other party in the other elections. We hate when one team has the ball to themselves. This is another thing that favors the Republican gubernatorial candidate. With Sen Leahy and Rep Welch assured of getting high vote counts, many folks will feel compelled to vote R for Gov just so they're not voting all D. We supported Obama overwhelmingly in 2008 and easily reelected our departing R Gov as well. I'm not sure if we're Independant or just muddled in our thinking...
    30 Oct 2010, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    HTL: I'm showing the GOP picking up 4 in North Carolina (I lived at Fort Bragg when I was a kid, Spring Lake, outside Fayetteville...

     

    NC District 2 Ellmers (R) vs Etheridge (D)

     

    NC District 7 Pantano (R) vs McIntyre (D) (Close one, real close)

     

    NC District 8 Johnson (R) vs Kissell (D)

     

    NC District 12 (? my handwriting is smudged) Berg (R) vs Pomeroy (D)
    31 Oct 2010, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    That's good news. I've not been at all impressed without our "gaggle" of Dems here. Well, in all honesty, some of the Repubs haven't impressed me much either.

     

    HardToLove
    31 Oct 2010, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    I agree. This will be "interesting times" for the Republican leadership in the House. More than 40% of their membership will be brand new Congressmen, most of them either outright grass roots/tea party supported, or very different from the mccainiac/neocon tilting leadership. The balance of power WILL be upset, and it won't be business as usual.
    31 Oct 2010, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Vermont (according to my tracking, and its partly scientific, and partly utterly subjective, LOL) is the second most Liberal state.

     

    I do agree that the Governor race is still a tossup, though the consensus among professional pollsters is that the Democrat will win. Using my own (top secret, illogical) metrics, I see the Republican winning in a dead heat.
    31 Oct 2010, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    OK, I was wrong, there is only a 5 seat pickup for the GOP in Ohio. Sorry for the error. I had a pickup from Oregon mixed in there on my list.
    30 Oct 2010, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    "This being the case then why aren't TIPS a solid investment for the future"

     

    Keep in mid you're listening to a total amateur here.

     

    Among other reasons, they, for the first time ever, traded at a negative yield just yesterday (or the day before - I forget precisely). This means that the price for them, relative to historical norms, is extremely high at this time.

     

    My favorite reason is because the actual yield relative to the real inflation rate is *always* negative. Don't forget that they use official inflation figures, which were changed to exclude certain "volatile" items nobody needs like houses, cars, ..., so that the government could save money on the COLA adjustments for social security.

     

    IOW - the government lies to you.

     

    For a more traditional view of what might be the real inflation rate, visit shadowstats.com where John Williams offers *many* alternative views of inflation, unemployment, ... using previous measuring methods.

     

    Another reason, for me, is that as the economy and markets vary due to many (un)natural influences, the actual prices (i.e. current value) of bonds of all sort will vary based on risk/reward analysis. So unless you are at the age where a guaranteed income stream is really important, you risk loss of principal if you decide to, or must, sell the bonds at an inopportune moment. For younger folks that can afford more risk I believe some other vehicles might be examined. Of course, nothing wrong with a little diversification which includes some "safe" assets, like bonds.

     

    BTW, these comments apply in many ways to government bonds in general. Just within the last few weeks, IIRC, we had 30 year bonds trading at yields of less than 4% (IOW, high price) and they have already dropped back in price (yield now above 4%, but no where near the ~4.35% of just a year or so ago - IIRC)

     

    There are many good bonds, both government and corporate, that might offer a combination of safety (relative) and yield that your investment advisor could mention. Bonds in general have a lot of considerations, including tax consequences, relative safety vs. yield, ... A short session with a good advisor might be well worth the modest expense.

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    HTL

     

    If the comment of an ameteur was meant for me no need to repeat what i say in most of my postings, you kinda hurt my feelings...

     

    ACE
    31 Oct 2010, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    Not at all. This sentence, "Keep in mind you're listening to a total amateur here" was to remind you that you should consider everything in light of the fact that I'm both not a professional and also new at this (having started only in late 2007).

     

    That's the doggone trouble with these things - no body language or face-to-face to convey additional clarity to the intended meanings.

     

    I'm sorry you misunderstood.

     

    He-he - now for some defensive footwork humor.

     

    I try to speak fairly precisely. When I am responding to you, "you're" translates into "you are" - the subject of the sentence. "Total amateur" is the object in the sentence and "listening" is the verb. Just trying to warn about my qualifications, not implying you were silly for listening.

     

    Obviously, the meaning was garbled by the filters on the receiving end! :-)) Must be that "New Yawk State of Mind" - one of the greatest songs of the era, IMO. Billy Joel did a fantastic job of it too!

     

    In all good humor,
    HardToLove
    31 Oct 2010, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    GOT IT !!!!
    31 Oct 2010, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    HTL talks like that all the time, Ace. He's talking about himself in the third person is all. He'll be buying and selling all the rest of us in 10 years, mainly because he's knowledgeable as heck and a true student of the craft, but he'll still be telling us how new he is to investing, and how little he knows.
    31 Oct 2010, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    Here's a salient quote from the first of the links I promised.

     

    ==========
    The solution to our present global financial crisis is not an economic solution. It is an arithmetic solution, a monetary solution. I cannot stress strongly enough that no amount of economic effort can make a single bit of difference to our monetary problems. We have reached the "credit limit" of our debt-money monetary system. Our options now are to revise the system or let it take us over the edge into the abyss of Depression. The macro problem is that there is more debt in the world than there is money to repay that debt. The solution is to add non-debt money into the monetary arithmetic equation so that we have "real" money rather than bank balance sheet fantasy money to balance our monetary books.
    ==========

     

    The lead up to this quote details why. It's a long read, but well worthwhile for many folks unfamiliar with our "debt money" system. Examples and analogies are given as to why the economy and our money are two completely unrelated systems and one of them needs to be fixed soon.

     

    seekingalpha.com/insta...

     

    HardToLove

     

    P.S. BTW, don't laugh at his proposed solution, which follows shortly after that quoted paragraph, until you read through the rest of the instablog.
    30 Oct 2010, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    And read comments too! You'll find gems of truth such as this.

     

    ===========
    ... not since the Medicis invented "bonds" and learned how to profit from getting governments into permanent debt. The bond market evolved into our modern monetary systems where money is owned and operated by private enterprise for its own profits. That is precisely the system that America's founding fathers warned against.
    ===========

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    "Ponzi Money", the other blog entry I promised to link to, starts here.

     

    seekingalpha.com/insta...

     

    This appears to be the precursor to the other article as it essentially introduces the "arithmetic" problem existing in our current monetary system that the other blog details extensively through example and then goes on to distinguish from the "real" economy.

     

    Some may find it useful and interesting since it avoids the entanglements with the real economy and some of the detailed machinations used in the other article.

     

    HardToLove
    30 Oct 2010, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Figuring out my Senate race predictions is even harder than the House.

     

    The pundits and pollsters are predicting an 8 seat pickup by the Republicans, and I agree on those 8:

     

    Arkansas Boozman (R) vs Lincoln (D)

     

    Colorado Buck (R) vs Bennet (D)

     

    Illinois Kirk (R) vs Giannoulias (D)

     

    Indiana Coats (R) vs Ellsworth (D)

     

    Nevada Angle (R) vs Reid (D)

     

    North Dakota Hoeven (R) vs Potter (D)

     

    Pennsylvania Toomey (R) vs Sestak (D)

     

    Wisconscin Johnson (R) vs Feingold (D)

     

    I disagree with their close calls in 2 othere states, however. I believe the Republicans will pickup a total of 10:

     

    Washington Rossi (R) vs Murray (D)

     

    West Virginia Raese (R) vs Manchin (D)

     

    Should this occur, the Republicans will run the US Seante 51-49 (assuming the 2 independents continue to caucus with the Democrats).
    31 Oct 2010, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    www.dailymail.co.uk/sc...

     

    Jaguar's new hybrid electric/multifuel turbine supercar.

     

    I wonder if Capstone (CPST) has talked to Tata about this project?

     

    Also, some interesting research being pursued to try to figure out why lithium batteries die:

     

    www.eurekalert.org/pub...

     

    Maya, this one looks like a natural for the battery dudes.
    31 Oct 2010, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    (CPST): re the Jag.

     

    The Jag, for now, seems to be using an axial-flow turbine (yet to be produced - so that's something to consider) that is substantially more expensive to produce. I'm sorry I've forgotten the name of the company in England for now.

     

    Given the generally long lead-times for development completion, prototyping and trials and evaluation, plus a little lead time for "commercialization" to occur, I would expect that the financial wizards at TaTa will be "consulting" with the Jag engineers on such a matter.

     

    No indications of any kind from CPST about this. Not surprising considering we've been in an almost totally "silent" period for the month and a half or so.

     

    From my constant scanning of the various boards, the unusual lack of PR, readings of various trades rags presented, I feel something interesting will come of the 11/9 conference call, and probably news releases the day of the results release.

     

    Plus there are some trading patterns that add weight to this feeling, including blatant price suppression Friday, 10/29.

     

    So as not to pollute this list further, visit investorhub's capstone board

     

    investorshub.advfn.com...

     

    See the various posts 10/29.

     

    HardToLove

     

    P.S. Bladon Jets, in England, from this article.

     

    www.popularmechanics.c...
    31 Oct 2010, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    (CPST): Market Edge, for 11/1, rates CPST "Long Upgraded..Strong Upward trend....Stock is under accumulation"

     

    But, my ETrade ratings system shows that market edge has a poor track record - 1 year 0%. LoL!

     

    Smart Consesus does better at 33% over a year and rates CPST a hold.

     

    The free version of stock consultant seems ambivalent, indicating traders have good opportunities in either bullish or bearish direction.

     

    www.nasdaq.com/asp/sto...

     

    I think a lot depends on how many folks believe Market Edge for now. Me? I'm holding my substantial position static through reporting and conference call, even though my gut says buy if I want to get greedy.

     

    HardToLove
    31 Oct 2010, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    Apparently some folks object to a separate jet to fly the POTUS dog to a vacation spot. Of course, the $102K/year for the dog's handler helps combat the decline of the middle class here in the U.S.

     

    messages.finance.yahoo...

     

    HardToLove
    31 Oct 2010, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    LOL, who says that Voldemort's Regime created no jobs?

     

    I wonder which government union the dog nanny belongs to? SEIU?
    31 Oct 2010, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Wrapping up the political predictions...

     

    Governors. RIght now, Democrats control 26 state executive posts, while the Republicans have 24. Pretty even split...

     

    That's about to change dramatically.

     

    The better pundit pollsters have the Republicans picking up a net gain of 6 seats, making the Score R-30, D19, and Independents (Rhode Island) 1. That would be a strong reversal of field, but my estimates are that the change will be far more...

     

    I put the final tally at Republicans picking up 11 governorships, and another 5 (including the Independent RI pick) I am rating as tossups. If the parties split the tossups (and OK, 1 goes to the independent)...

     

    The score would be 37 (R), 12 (D), and 1 (I).

     

    These are important elections at any time, of course, but PARTICULARLY following a census. These state level posts (and the legislatures which are also critically important) will be tasked with redistricting the states according to the results of the new census. Needless to say, if most of the governships and statehouses are run by Republicans, they can be expected to draw the lines to benefit their own interests...
    31 Oct 2010, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    townhall.com/columnist...

     

    Gridlock is coming to Washington next year, though we don't yet know whether it will include a Republican controlled Senate or not.

     

    There is a case that can be made that the markets do rather well during periods of gridlock. The Libertarian in me instinctively agrees with this concept...

     

    But there is another thing coming that might NOT be good for the newly empowered Republicans...

     

    Another shutdown of the Federal Government.

     

    Most of us remember the last time this happened. President Clinton and the Republican House just could NOT agree on things, and the funding authorization ran dry, and the government partially shut down - for a whole 21 days.

     

    Of course, back in those days the lamestream media WAS 100% of the media, and essentially 100% liberal. The reaction of that media to the Federal Government ceasing 24/7 nannying of Americans was intense. LOL, if someone had been trapped in a coal mine and resurfaced in the middle of it, and turned a tv to one of the networks, it would have been like Orson Welle's 'War of the Worlds' radio spoof - they would have run to get their guns to repel aliens.

     

    That was 16 years ago, and much has changed, but WILL the Regime dredge up the "get the Republicans to shut down government and win the next election with it" plan? I think so, and in fact I think its inevitable.

     

    What hope we have for a different outcome this time lies with the hundred new faces we are dispatching to Congress next week, and the fact that the internet and Fox have now pierced the mono-ideological stranglehold of the Liberals on the media.

     

    We'll see how this goes. Gridlock first, and then a shutdown. Will it go for longer than 21 days?

     

    I think so. We can start a pool when it happens.
    31 Oct 2010, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    hey guys, don't u watch football????? lol
    31 Oct 2010, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Not I. Ex-sports fan, here. I quit following the Braves when we had the "season without a series" (I used to have season tickets, I was even a proud attendee at the game where they set the major league record for poor attendance). I decided that I would follow sports which did NOT unionize.

     

    I like golf (though I can no longer play, bursitis and arthritis took care of that), and various types of other sports though.

     

    I used to attend my old high school's football games sometimes, until the school board turned it into a middle school.

     

    LOL, I am pretty politically focused. Now that we are close to the elections, far as I'm concerned, "The Game's on".
    31 Oct 2010, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    and our gov't isn't unionized ?????
    31 Oct 2010, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    Certainly you aren't implying he watches "our government" for entertainment! ... O h wait! He probably does!

     

    TB, "Now cut that out"!

     

    As to football, sometimes. If the home team, Carolina Panthers are being competitive, I do. Not looking good so far this year. I'll wait until they get above 1 - 5 again. Today *might* make 2 - 5.

     

    HardToLove

     

    P.S. Never heard of "multi-tasking"? You know, texting, gabbing on the phone, twitting, browsing the web, watching TV al at once? with a drink in the "free hand". ;-))
    31 Oct 2010, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13565) | Send Message
     
    Oh, but of course it is... and at several levels.

     

    But let's not confuse "government" with "politics".

     

    Also, I'm not anti-union. I will purchase products which are made by unionized companies so long as those products are a good value (quality and price-wise). In some industries unions have a long and proud history.

     

    Its not that I am anti-union, no, just that I dislike the effect they have on some human endeavors - like sports. Sports are a source of recreation and fun (or should be). Unions have affected them in ways which have reduced the fun factor for me, and I have therefore shifted my attentions elsewhere.

     

    As for politics, they have been called "war by another means". I know, some also confuse sports with a battlefield, but at the risk of simply drowning in metaphor, having been there, and as any veteran will tell you, the playing field and the battlefield are very different.

     

    Some areas of the Federal government should be exempted from unionization. Imagine a military composed of various unions (actually, many of the critical functions which have been outsourced by our military ARE unionized). Or the problems when core functions of the central government are unionized. Mixed loyalties and confused chains of command can be catastrophic.

     

    Its one thing when a private corporation enters into a contract with a unionized workforce - presumably they have made a calculated choice to do so. (OK, in some states and some industries this is not true, but it SHOULD be). Its another thing entirely when the Federal government does so. Governments tend to pass laws regulating their own actions, and then create regulations to further structure how those laws are enacted. Elections, which SHOULD bring in a fresh set of ideas and commitments up and down between the taxpaying citizens and the public servants, lose much of that key concept when unions are present.

     

    Of course, we LIbertarians see things via a Constitutional lens. The Federal government is distinctly segregated from the States, where these issues should be determined locally.

     

    Speaking to the State and Local issues, If nothing else, critical functions (police, fire, emergency health care) should be protected from unions, just because of the types of roles they perform. However, IF we were to revisit Constitutional verities (instead of the extra-Constitutional blob we actually live with), I would be content to let the States make these decisions individually, and shop among them as to where I would prefer to live based upon those differences.

     

    Notice that I do NOT mention "teachers" or their unions as problems. In their case, the problem is NOT that the Federal government is dominated by teacher unions (this is not really true, though of course they exercise a good deal of influence), but that it is in the education business in the first place.
    31 Oct 2010, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    TRIPLE & HTL

     

    well i can't argue with you with what unions can do. I was a season ticket holder for 25 years with the Jets. Then they invent this PSL ( PERSONAL SEATING LICENSE) which would have cost me 15k per seat , not including the price of the ticket.

     

    Can you imagine paying 60 grand( 4 seats) , that they would finance at a high interest rate if needed, just to have the HONOR of buying tickets to 10 games per year. What balls, I elected to go to the top of the stadium and have zero PSL. with my back condition i usually gave my tickets to clients. So now all of us lifers are filling the upper bowl of the stadium and the corps. have bought these massively priced psl's. In fact some psl's are up to 50k per seat !!!

     

    So all my cronies who have poor eyesight anyway now have stewardesses taking care of us ...lol.... I rather buy a condo in Fla than give ownership 60k for their unionized players. The Giants didn't even give their customers a non psl option. So they have to pay it wherever they sit. I always felt the Giants fans were fools anyway ( sorry dad).

     

    They were suppose to come with conditions like first choice of concerts, or other events, but that never happened. And if they build a new stadium 30 years from now the payment has no value, like rent, AMAZING...

     

    But they fill those lower seats so some company are paying it, not me, i am not that foolish with my money !!!
    31 Oct 2010, 04:34 PM Reply Like
  • one eye
    , contributor
    Comments (647) | Send Message
     
    there's football and there's Dah Bears.

     

    Listen ocassionally, stopped watching years ago.
    31 Oct 2010, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    Here we seem to have an article that notes the first signs of things that will eventually push the market downward sometime out in the medium-term (3 6 months?) or sooner. If the market truly is forward-looking ~ 6 months, ...

     

    "Cost-Push Margin Compression Begins" from Karl Denninger is a quick read and I expect that as time passes and various input commodity prices rise, we'll see more similar articles.

     

    seekingalpha.com/artic...

     

    The unknown: does the Fed or U.S. Government have any way *they* recognize to stop this sequence? Me thinks they have themselves painted into a very small corner ATM.

     

    HardToLove
    31 Oct 2010, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18511) | Send Message
     
    "Can the U.S. Successfully Achieve a 'Turnaround'?" by John M. Mason

     

    discusses the attributes needed by, and problems encountered with, the management team to produce a successful "turnaround". There's a few decent comments to the article too.

     

    With some key "management" rapidly bailing, I think John's take is spot on!

     

    seekingalpha.com/artic...

     

    HardToLove
    31 Oct 2010, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    Didn't realize you guys live where there really isn't much football to watch, come on up to NY we take visitors.

     

    As far as our govt. go , yeah i watch the comedy way too often...
    31 Oct 2010, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (12048) | Send Message
     
    Football? Shouldn't we be watching baseball right now?

     

    As for me, I'm anti-union when it comes to the public sector. Public sector unions should be disbanded. They serve the people and there is already too much pressure to protect their job regardless of performance without heaping on arbitrators and attorneys. If we continue like this garbage men will make more than 90% of Americans and when we complain our streets will look like France's (their union protests right now are leaving weeks of garbage laying in the road) and we will be reading in the newspapers about public service coming to a standstill every day.

     

    I remember when Regan had to break the air controller's strike by disbanding them. He hired replacements that cost half as much and did as well if not better by the end of that month. Public service means public service not guaranteed wealth of the ignorant taxpayer.
    31 Oct 2010, 06:32 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    Not to mention sanitation workers who purposely pass by restaurants unless they line their pockets, or fireman and cops who mysteriously get hurt on the job at retirement time so that they get pensions larger and tax free !!!! Please don't tell me it doesn't go on as i know plenty who did the above. Who eats that bill??? The taxpayer.

     

    Now our mayor is looking into this when he looked the other way for way too long....
    31 Oct 2010, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (12048) | Send Message
     
    How about a councilman who is a disabled police officer and gets 2 paychecks from taxpayers. Feel free to protest.

     

    forums.siliconvalley.c...
    1 Nov 2010, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • acehart
    , contributor
    Comments (1795) | Send Message
     
    Baseball ended when the Yankees lost, sorry but no one in NY really talks about baseball anymore. We have the Jets and Giants !!!!!
    31 Oct 2010, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • Mark Bern, CFA
    , contributor
    Comments (5715) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Please go to the new QC # 114 at the following link:

     

    seekingalpha.com/insta...
    31 Oct 2010, 10:38 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.