Mythbusting: How Presidential Elections Affect Markets [View article]
I think Romney might not be as good a candidate as you think. He is not going to solve the fiscal problem. He wants to keep taxes low for the "rich". I think the most important thing for the US to solve is the fiscal problem. It has to be solved by:
1- Increasing taxes 2- Cutting expenses
Now, I think that the tax increase should happen FIRST on the "rich". This economy still needs consumer spending and lets face it, the middle class is where this money comes from. The rich has so much money that they can't spend it. What they do is lend it. We don't need that. Increase the taxes back to where they were before the Bush tax cuts (I would even say a 1% higher). Wait a year or two, depending on how the economy behaves to increase the pre Bush tax cuts to everyone else.
Regarding the spending, I would concentrate more on the defense budget. Why? Because it is 20% of the budget. We spend more in defense than the rest of the next 15 countries combined! Look it up:
Really, what the hell are we thinking!? We have a fiscal problem that will create havoc in the economy and we are spending in planes, rockets and bombs like there is no tomorrow. Reduce spending there to $200B. Not at once, but in a schedule type of thing.
Things like this are what we need. And it may be easier for a second term president to make non-popular choices like this. I know Ron Paul would not give a crapshoot and do them in his first term.
Americans are idiots. They don't see that the last two wars (all of them) are just instruments for the 1% to make big money. That's all it is. And to control important things like oil, etc. They send theirs kids to fight, and die. I am an US citizen, and I would be the first going to a war and fighting a country that target my family. But the reasons have to be right. This Iraq war cost us already 4Trillion dollars. Initial estimates by the Bush admin was like 200B, way off. I find it funny that my Republicans friends still defend Bush, even after knowing that we went to a war in which there were weapons of mass destruction and plans to attack America. The best thing Bush could have done was not to go to war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911, and not to expend so much money and lives for something that a small group of people did. Another war like this and we are toast.
Why Apple Will Never Trade At $1,000 [View article]
I read your article and I have to disagree. The comparison with the AT&T-TMobile is not applicable in this case. Consumers have a lot of choice when it comes to the phones they buy, music player and even tablet PCs. For example, go to Verizon wireless website and look at the overwhelming amount of phones to choose from. Apple is not dominating because they are the only ones making the product, there is competition. Consumers are just choosing to buy AAPL. I don't see how the governement can stop AAPL on the grounds your article says.
Surviving And Prospering Over The Next 4 Years Of Economic Darkness [View article]
Look Bret, I agree with some of your article. But I think the article has too much Republican bias on it. And thus I don't consider it a good article. The deficit needs to be addressed ASAP. But you make it sound as if Romney would have done this job better. His plan does not make sense. He proposed cutting taxes 20% across the board. He proposed increased military spending at the tune of 2 trillion more. It just does not adds up. The Republicans need to bring the tax increase to the table. The Democrats need to bring the spending cuts. Both parties need to compromise. So far Republicans have not compromised, not the President. They wanted to block everything he proposed and make him a one term president. Hopefully now they will work with the guy as opposed to against the guy.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
Spending cuts should be focused on Medicare and defense spending. Social Security should be left alone. FICA taxes should be imposed on the whole income, not just the first $100k. And Social Security benefits should be capped to some maximum, independent of how much FICA tax you paid. Granted, that maximum would be pretty high (about 75k a year). Tax rates should go back to Clinton rates for everyone in the US. I agree to first increase it in the first two brackets. But then increase it for everyone else too. Regarding investments, long term capital gains should be taxed at 15% for everyone making 250k or less, and as regular income on the excess. That way, people like Mitt Romney who make all their millions from capital gains can pay a higher rate as the rest of us, and not 13%. Dividend income should be tax free for families making 50k or less (think all the retirees living on ther 401(k) savings). There should be an exemption like that. After all, dividend income money already has been taxed at the corporate level. I would prefer no tax on dividend income, but I guess I have to compromise. Also, corporate taxes need to get in line. No corporation should be allowed to make billions in profits and pay 0% a year on that. The corporate tax code needs to be rewritten, as well as the individual tax code. Deductions need to be capped to a maximum. A guy who has a home worth 100 million and who pays 1 million a year in interest should not be able to deduct that million. Put a cap that makes sense (say 25k) and adjust it for inflation. Also, change the maximum deduction from investment loses to 10k from 3k. 3k is just too low. It has been the same for 40 years and it is unfair. Those are some of my ideas. What do you SA readers think?
Investors Don't Understand Apple's Math - A Mistake [View article]
WoW, I stopped reading after "Try to think about AAPL losing 90% if its value...". So you think AAPL market cap price CAN be lower than their cash equivalent holdings? Dude, keep working as an IT professional and leave investing to the big boys.
I have to say I was an Android user (Apple shareholder). I got a iPod touch as a gift and I began using it. I prefer my iPod touch to my Samsung android phone. I would consider buying a iPhone in the future and become a user, not just a shareholder.
Mythbusting: How Presidential Elections Affect Markets [View article]
Typical right response. Which one of the remarks above is delusional? The fact is that you can't have a healthy debate without resorting to insulting me. I invite you to watch this documentary: "Ethos". And then, after you watch it, let's see if your perspective changes.
Mythbusting: How Presidential Elections Affect Markets [View article]
You do know that that had nothing to do with him winning. If McCain won, the same would have happened. We were in the middle of a big financial crisis and the markets continued to fall until March 09s low. Why I am 100% sure the same thing would have happened under McCain. These are the reasons:
1- After Obama won, those 3 days you cite the market fell were not under his term. He took office a month later.
2- As the author suggested, policies are the only thing that can change the market direction. There is no way McCain or Obama would have been able to implement new policies in a day. It is not like they take office and say: "Hey, we know what we need to do. It is written in this memo of 200 pages and we need to review it, pass a vote and sign it. Voila!". In the news, markets skyrocket 500 points thanks to the president new policy.
James, you need to go to college (or asssuming you went already go again and ask for your money) so you can understand how the markets REALLY work. The markets are complex and is not all about the government, there are other big factors that Washington can't control.
This is not a rant because of ideologies, I am a neutral guy. I would consider voting for Ron Paul because he gets it. Now, Romney is just a Manchurian candidate that doe not know much and in my opinion I can't understand how can someone be so incompetent after expending time in a PE shop.
Why You Should Short Amazon This Fall [View article]
In the amount of characters you typed that silly comment you could have brought something to the discussion. It seems you think I can't do my homework and have not read much about investing. In that regard you are just plain wrong. I have read as much as you, just not about shorting. And this is the place to ask such questions. This is an investing website. I think seekingalpha is a place for small investors to help each other out. I don't see how my questions are inapropiate for this site.
Thanks OldWarrior for pointing to the TD Ameritrade teaching tools. And you too Nolesince87 for mentioning it too. I'll head into that direction for more info regarding this topic.
Mythbusting: How Presidential Elections Affect Markets [View article]
Iron Hamster,
Don't give me an example of the supermarket girl. The fact is I am an engineer with a Masters and I find it appalling that the CEO of my company makes 400 times as mush as I do. I'm not going to say which corporation ;) I am the middle class, and I am ok with working and earning my way. The problem is that the top 1% wants to take a bigger piece of the pie, ever increasing! From 1960s to today they have been increasing their share. Now, if you believe that a company is the CEO, board of directors and bullshit executives, you are wrong. The work the middle class does is what makes it happen. In my work, the engineers are the ones that come up with the IDEAS and design them and make the parts and assemble, etc. I am not saying we should earn more than the CEO, I am ok with a salary hierarchy. What I find disgusting is that I get a 2% salary increase (below inflation) year over year except on promotions while company executives likes CEO's get 30% increases on millionaire payouts. Heck, not even when I get a promotion it is more than 8%. Even companies whose stock price goes down by more than 50% have CEO's making millions. That is the problem, the ever increasing disparity between the middle class and the rich. The problem that the rich don't see is that this disparity creates havoc in the economy. In part, the 2008 recession had some of it roots on this problem. So when you say: "taking money from productive people", I have to call bs on that. Tax the 1%, after all, do you really need to make over 25million a year to live while your employees barely make it and live paycheck to paycheck?
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
Again, my compensation includes salary increases based on performance, just like the CEO. The difference is that the pool of money available for us, low level employees is small in comparison to the CEO. So small that the CEO gets a 30% salary increase when we get a 2% salary bump. We basically keep up with inflation, while the executives wages actually increase. Is the CEO doing more work this year than before to deserve 30% more money, on a salary that already is on the 20+ Millions? My bet is not. His responsibilities are pretty much the same year in, year out. If you actually followed a day on the life of a CEO and see what they actually do, you would agree with me. US CEOs are overpayed. Period.
Your comparison with the contractor is not relevant. He is paid for a job and after he is done, he leaves. Employees of a company don't leave after finishing a specific task. They move on to a new task. Apple and oranges.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
bbrady413,
You need to stop misreading my comments. I don't know if it is on purpose, or you have some reading comprehension issues. But you need to stop. I don't know how to make my argument more clear for you. Maybe if I put some numbers you can follow my arguments. Let's say company A makes $4Billion in 2011. In 2012, thanks to the work of all the employees (CEO, all the way to the new hire), they make $4.5Billion. They have earned an extra 500 million this year. That money needs to be divided between shareholders and employees. I am not going to say what percentage goes to which of those two groups. For the sake of argument let's say it is 65% shareholders, 35% employees. That $175 millions for the employees to be paid as raises and other benefits. What is wrong with that picture? Shareholders are making money. I don't have an issue with that. Me, as a shareholder of numerous companies, understand that I am only making money because the employees are doing their jobs. I am only holding a number in my brokerage account. I think employees deserve a piece of the pie too. Some people here want to go back to the 1900s in which there was no minimum salary and "job creators" took advantage with cheap labor. I think you can be an investor, make money, and have some social justice. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Yes, I would make less money in my investments. So what, I would make some more as an employee. And I would live in a country in which the citizens were more happy and content, and there would be less crime. Plus, I think it is wrong to just think of yourself. That's not an American value. And don't mention charity, screw that. People want to work for their own, they just need an income they can actually live on. But I guess you can only reach this level of thinking when you have experienced this growing up. Probably you have not seen it first hand. And I am talking about having family members who are poor. I am not talking about going on a trip, and building a house for poor people. If you had this first hand experience, you would understand that our system has different rules for different citizens. That not everybody has the same opportunities. That people are not poor because they don't like to work.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
When you push more and more people into poverty, to the point that they become the majority, head are chopped. Look at what is happening in Greece, Spain, all those riots in the Middle East. If that is what you want the US to become, keep going the way you are. An equal society is more stable than one where the wealth gets concentrated on just a few. I want to be rich in a fair country. But hey, that is just me.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
Actually the government is taking care of lots of family living below the poverty line. And I would argue that a big percentage of those families actually WORK. They just don't get paid enough. There's people working in fast food chains for example. They get paid the minimum pretty much forever. No matter how many years you been working for them. And in some places like NYC, the minimum does not cover the basic necessities. Those people have to apply for government aid. So, we the tax payers pay for the lack of wages of private companies. How is this for fair. If they paid their employees a fair wage, they would not need government assistance. The big increase in number of citizens needing assistance can be traced back to the greedy corporations underpaying their employees.
I know you will counter with the argument that those people should take a higher paying job. But let's be real, we NEED them. We need people doing all kinds of jobs. A guy picking up your trash, a guy flipping the burger you go buy at MCDs, a janitor cleaning bathrooms at the place you work. If EVERYONE took a job as a lawyer, engineering, doctor, banker, there would not be anyone to pick the tomatoes! We need all kind of workers. And yes, those jobs should pay way less than being an engineer, banker, etc. But, and this is the key here, those lower level jobs need to pay their employees enough to cover basic living necessities. It is not so hard. If they don't do it, the taxpayer does. And at the end, isn't it the same? The rich will get their tax rates increased to pay for the deficit, which a big chunk of the deficit is because of the explosion of people needing government assistance. So when you say that no one is better because of taxes on the rich, I say yes, the people getting government assistance are better off. So that is my thinking, if employers don't pay their employees a "livable" wage, then tax the heck out of them and give assistance to the people. This is a less than optimal solution, because it will result in lots of Americans becoming dependent on the government. The right thing to do is for the government to increase the minimum wage and keep increasing it at the same rate of inflation. Companies won't do the right thing. The CEO just wants his options to be worth more, at the expense of everyone else.
Mythbusting: How Presidential Elections Affect Markets [View article]
1- Increasing taxes
2- Cutting expenses
Now, I think that the tax increase should happen FIRST on the "rich". This economy still needs consumer spending and lets face it, the middle class is where this money comes from. The rich has so much money that they can't spend it. What they do is lend it. We don't need that. Increase the taxes back to where they were before the Bush tax cuts (I would even say a 1% higher). Wait a year or two, depending on how the economy behaves to increase the pre Bush tax cuts to everyone else.
Regarding the spending, I would concentrate more on the defense budget. Why? Because it is 20% of the budget. We spend more in defense than the rest of the next 15 countries combined! Look it up:
http://bit.ly/w1w2Ei
Really, what the hell are we thinking!? We have a fiscal problem that will create havoc in the economy and we are spending in planes, rockets and bombs like there is no tomorrow. Reduce spending there to $200B. Not at once, but in a schedule type of thing.
Things like this are what we need. And it may be easier for a second term president to make non-popular choices like this. I know Ron Paul would not give a crapshoot and do them in his first term.
Americans are idiots. They don't see that the last two wars (all of them) are just instruments for the 1% to make big money. That's all it is. And to control important things like oil, etc. They send theirs kids to fight, and die. I am an US citizen, and I would be the first going to a war and fighting a country that target my family. But the reasons have to be right. This Iraq war cost us already 4Trillion dollars. Initial estimates by the Bush admin was like 200B, way off. I find it funny that my Republicans friends still defend Bush, even after knowing that we went to a war in which there were weapons of mass destruction and plans to attack America. The best thing Bush could have done was not to go to war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911, and not to expend so much money and lives for something that a small group of people did. Another war like this and we are toast.
Sorry for the rant people, back to investing ;)
Why Apple Will Never Trade At $1,000 [View article]
Surviving And Prospering Over The Next 4 Years Of Economic Darkness [View article]
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
Investors Don't Understand Apple's Math - A Mistake [View article]
Apple: Take The Money And Run [View article]
Mythbusting: How Presidential Elections Affect Markets [View article]
Mythbusting: How Presidential Elections Affect Markets [View article]
1- After Obama won, those 3 days you cite the market fell were not under his term. He took office a month later.
2- As the author suggested, policies are the only thing that can change the market direction. There is no way McCain or Obama would have been able to implement new policies in a day. It is not like they take office and say: "Hey, we know what we need to do. It is written in this memo of 200 pages and we need to review it, pass a vote and sign it. Voila!". In the news, markets skyrocket 500 points thanks to the president new policy.
James, you need to go to college (or asssuming you went already go again and ask for your money) so you can understand how the markets REALLY work. The markets are complex and is not all about the government, there are other big factors that Washington can't control.
This is not a rant because of ideologies, I am a neutral guy. I would consider voting for Ron Paul because he gets it. Now, Romney is just a Manchurian candidate that doe not know much and in my opinion I can't understand how can someone be so incompetent after expending time in a PE shop.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Why You Should Short Amazon This Fall [View article]
Thanks OldWarrior for pointing to the TD Ameritrade teaching tools. And you too Nolesince87 for mentioning it too. I'll head into that direction for more info regarding this topic.
Mythbusting: How Presidential Elections Affect Markets [View article]
Don't give me an example of the supermarket girl. The fact is I am an engineer with a Masters and I find it appalling that the CEO of my company makes 400 times as mush as I do. I'm not going to say which corporation ;) I am the middle class, and I am ok with working and earning my way. The problem is that the top 1% wants to take a bigger piece of the pie, ever increasing! From 1960s to today they have been increasing their share. Now, if you believe that a company is the CEO, board of directors and bullshit executives, you are wrong. The work the middle class does is what makes it happen. In my work, the engineers are the ones that come up with the IDEAS and design them and make the parts and assemble, etc. I am not saying we should earn more than the CEO, I am ok with a salary hierarchy. What I find disgusting is that I get a 2% salary increase (below inflation) year over year except on promotions while company executives likes CEO's get 30% increases on millionaire payouts. Heck, not even when I get a promotion it is more than 8%. Even companies whose stock price goes down by more than 50% have CEO's making millions. That is the problem, the ever increasing disparity between the middle class and the rich. The problem that the rich don't see is that this disparity creates havoc in the economy. In part, the 2008 recession had some of it roots on this problem. So when you say: "taking money from productive people", I have to call bs on that. Tax the 1%, after all, do you really need to make over 25million a year to live while your employees barely make it and live paycheck to paycheck?
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
Your comparison with the contractor is not relevant. He is paid for a job and after he is done, he leaves. Employees of a company don't leave after finishing a specific task. They move on to a new task. Apple and oranges.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
You need to stop misreading my comments. I don't know if it is on purpose, or you have some reading comprehension issues. But you need to stop. I don't know how to make my argument more clear for you. Maybe if I put some numbers you can follow my arguments. Let's say company A makes $4Billion in 2011. In 2012, thanks to the work of all the employees (CEO, all the way to the new hire), they make $4.5Billion. They have earned an extra 500 million this year. That money needs to be divided between shareholders and employees. I am not going to say what percentage goes to which of those two groups. For the sake of argument let's say it is 65% shareholders, 35% employees. That $175 millions for the employees to be paid as raises and other benefits. What is wrong with that picture? Shareholders are making money. I don't have an issue with that. Me, as a shareholder of numerous companies, understand that I am only making money because the employees are doing their jobs. I am only holding a number in my brokerage account. I think employees deserve a piece of the pie too. Some people here want to go back to the 1900s in which there was no minimum salary and "job creators" took advantage with cheap labor. I think you can be an investor, make money, and have some social justice. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Yes, I would make less money in my investments. So what, I would make some more as an employee. And I would live in a country in which the citizens were more happy and content, and there would be less crime. Plus, I think it is wrong to just think of yourself. That's not an American value. And don't mention charity, screw that. People want to work for their own, they just need an income they can actually live on. But I guess you can only reach this level of thinking when you have experienced this growing up. Probably you have not seen it first hand. And I am talking about having family members who are poor. I am not talking about going on a trip, and building a house for poor people. If you had this first hand experience, you would understand that our system has different rules for different citizens. That not everybody has the same opportunities. That people are not poor because they don't like to work.
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
On The Road To The Endgame: The Farcical Cliff [View article]
I know you will counter with the argument that those people should take a higher paying job. But let's be real, we NEED them. We need people doing all kinds of jobs. A guy picking up your trash, a guy flipping the burger you go buy at MCDs, a janitor cleaning bathrooms at the place you work. If EVERYONE took a job as a lawyer, engineering, doctor, banker, there would not be anyone to pick the tomatoes! We need all kind of workers. And yes, those jobs should pay way less than being an engineer, banker, etc. But, and this is the key here, those lower level jobs need to pay their employees enough to cover basic living necessities. It is not so hard. If they don't do it, the taxpayer does. And at the end, isn't it the same? The rich will get their tax rates increased to pay for the deficit, which a big chunk of the deficit is because of the explosion of people needing government assistance. So when you say that no one is better because of taxes on the rich, I say yes, the people getting government assistance are better off. So that is my thinking, if employers don't pay their employees a "livable" wage, then tax the heck out of them and give assistance to the people. This is a less than optimal solution, because it will result in lots of Americans becoming dependent on the government. The right thing to do is for the government to increase the minimum wage and keep increasing it at the same rate of inflation. Companies won't do the right thing. The CEO just wants his options to be worth more, at the expense of everyone else.