Jan Rogozinski's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/124262/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/146864-oh-so-now-there-are-no-green-shoots?source=feed#comment-574167 574167
Surely, Mr Nussbaum, that means the market is set to go straight up. Market sentiment has been a contrary indicator for years.. ]]> Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:45:39 -0400
Surely, Mr Nussbaum, that means the market is set to go straight up. Market sentiment has been a contrary indicator for years.. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133558-we-can-t-rely-on-the-fed-to-prevent-inflation?source=feed#comment-480508 480508
Perhaps true. There was a lot of volatility but essentially no inflation over the long term under the gold standard from about 800 to World War I. Since then the major currencies have lost something like 95% of their pre-World War I value.
The trend is unlikely to change.

However, as of today, Your "at some point" looks to be years away. We're in a great Depression, and prices are falling.

Anyone who takes steps agings inflation today is like someone who puts on long johns and a heavy coat today because he fears freezing temperatures . If one lives in NY, London, or Paris, there will be below 32 F temperatures at some point, but not for months to come.

]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:26:48 -0400
Perhaps true. There was a lot of volatility but essentially no inflation over the long term under the gold standard from about 800 to World War I. Since then the major currencies have lost something like 95% of their pre-World War I value.
The trend is unlikely to change.

However, as of today, Your "at some point" looks to be years away. We're in a great Depression, and prices are falling.

Anyone who takes steps agings inflation today is like someone who puts on long johns and a heavy coat today because he fears freezing temperatures . If one lives in NY, London, or Paris, there will be below 32 F temperatures at some point, but not for months to come.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124403-the-free-market-votes-still-no-change-we-can-believe-in?source=feed#comment-414945 414945
We are in the current depression because hundreds of thousands (a least) of bankers and brokers and CEOs, and CFOs (many paid millions of a dollars a year because they were considered "geniuses") bought crappy worthless bonds and derivatives; and millions on "main street" bought houses for 200% to 600% of their historical price.

In real life, half of investors are thieves and liars, and the other half are fools. On main street, all car-dealers, realtors, lawyers, etc are theives, and the average home buyer clearly is a fool.

I agree that it is stupid to bail out the banks. They ought to be allowed to go bankrupt and the top 100 officers at each bank should be jailed at Guantanamo and "water-boarded" for failing their fiduciary duties to their stock and bond holders.

However, the last 30 years have shown that we need to bring back all the governmental regulations like Glass-Steagal that the Bushies abrogated. And if the government cannot finger out how to adequately regulate a certain class of derivatives, then it should be made a crime to sell that class of derivatives. ]]> Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:12:56 -0500
We are in the current depression because hundreds of thousands (a least) of bankers and brokers and CEOs, and CFOs (many paid millions of a dollars a year because they were considered "geniuses") bought crappy worthless bonds and derivatives; and millions on "main street" bought houses for 200% to 600% of their historical price.

In real life, half of investors are thieves and liars, and the other half are fools. On main street, all car-dealers, realtors, lawyers, etc are theives, and the average home buyer clearly is a fool.

I agree that it is stupid to bail out the banks. They ought to be allowed to go bankrupt and the top 100 officers at each bank should be jailed at Guantanamo and "water-boarded" for failing their fiduciary duties to their stock and bond holders.

However, the last 30 years have shown that we need to bring back all the governmental regulations like Glass-Steagal that the Bushies abrogated. And if the government cannot finger out how to adequately regulate a certain class of derivatives, then it should be made a crime to sell that class of derivatives. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/18873?source=feed#comment-408462 408462
Folk that complain because their neighbors are getting help are truly loathsome and disgusting and down-right ugly.

No one can know whether those getting help are "over-leveraged."

But what can one expect from someone that flunked out of fourth grade. (1) Learn the difference between "there" and "their." (2) neighbor . . . . not managing their money properly." "Neighbor" is singular; "their" is plural. If you were literate, you would know that a pronoun must agree with the proceeding noun in number and case." (3) You misspell "leverage."

Lordly, three really gross mistakes in one sentence. Your conceit definitely is over-leveraged. ]]> Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:19:38 -0500
Folk that complain because their neighbors are getting help are truly loathsome and disgusting and down-right ugly.

No one can know whether those getting help are "over-leveraged."

But what can one expect from someone that flunked out of fourth grade. (1) Learn the difference between "there" and "their." (2) neighbor . . . . not managing their money properly." "Neighbor" is singular; "their" is plural. If you were literate, you would know that a pronoun must agree with the proceeding noun in number and case." (3) You misspell "leverage."

Lordly, three really gross mistakes in one sentence. Your conceit definitely is over-leveraged. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122134-the-money-supply-and-the-stock-market?source=feed#comment-400506 400506
It's true that increasing money supply has led to bubbles. But note that the last stock market bubble was in 2001 with tech stocks. The next time Greenspan flooded the money supply, folks flipped houses, instead of stocks.

Secondly, one only gets these kinds of bubbles when one has an extremely unequal society, as we do in the US. At present the top 1% own most of the country. And the bottle 40% are scrapping to buy food. At the same time, the rich in the USA pay very low taxes because the tax rates are extremely regressive. [Hint. I'm talking about all the taxes folk pay, including FICA, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on electricity usage, water usage, telephone usage, etc., etc. There is no one in the USA who does not pay taxes, Adan the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich.]

Thus when the money supply grows, the money goes only to the top 5% who already have bought everything they want. When one is being paid 500 million a year and one already has seven homes and three yachts and 12 automobiles, there is nothing to spend the money on. So it goes into bubbles.

Because of our inequality the USA is a country of bubbles, blown by the very rich. But remember the stock market is not the only thing the very rich can bubble. Who knows? The next bubble may be in "art" again or even rare comic books. ]]> Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:48:03 -0500
It's true that increasing money supply has led to bubbles. But note that the last stock market bubble was in 2001 with tech stocks. The next time Greenspan flooded the money supply, folks flipped houses, instead of stocks.

Secondly, one only gets these kinds of bubbles when one has an extremely unequal society, as we do in the US. At present the top 1% own most of the country. And the bottle 40% are scrapping to buy food. At the same time, the rich in the USA pay very low taxes because the tax rates are extremely regressive. [Hint. I'm talking about all the taxes folk pay, including FICA, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on electricity usage, water usage, telephone usage, etc., etc. There is no one in the USA who does not pay taxes, Adan the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich.]

Thus when the money supply grows, the money goes only to the top 5% who already have bought everything they want. When one is being paid 500 million a year and one already has seven homes and three yachts and 12 automobiles, there is nothing to spend the money on. So it goes into bubbles.

Because of our inequality the USA is a country of bubbles, blown by the very rich. But remember the stock market is not the only thing the very rich can bubble. Who knows? The next bubble may be in "art" again or even rare comic books. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/118725-executive-pay-restrictions-will-deplete-wall-street-s-elevator-assets?source=feed#comment-376638 376638 .
(1) The senior staff of these companies absolutely failed. They destroyed their companies and drove them into bankruptcy. They deserve to be put in Guantanamo and tortured daily for the rest of their years. Yet they have the chutzpah to complain about a mere pay cut.

(2) They drove their companies into bankruptcy precisely because they were insanely overpaid. If someone is paid 500,000 a year, he might think in 10 year terms. But when CEOs CFOs etc are paid 20,000,000 to 800,000,000 a year, they don't need to think Moe than a year or two ahead. After a year or two they are so rich, it doesn't matter if the company goes bankrupt; they can spend the rest of their disgusting lives in debauchery.

(3) HOWEVER, it would be better if share-holders cut their pay and not the government. Set a rule that no executive in any industry can earn more than 5,000,000 a year unless the overage is approved by 2/3 of stockholders and 2/3 of bondholders in a proxy statement.

If anyone demands more than 5,000,000 a year, one knows he doesn't intend to stay at that company for long. But there may be exceptions. Let the stockholders and bondholders decide.. That would be capitalism, which now is extinct and replaced by thug CEOs and bribed compensation committees., ]]> Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:49:53 -0500 .
(1) The senior staff of these companies absolutely failed. They destroyed their companies and drove them into bankruptcy. They deserve to be put in Guantanamo and tortured daily for the rest of their years. Yet they have the chutzpah to complain about a mere pay cut.

(2) They drove their companies into bankruptcy precisely because they were insanely overpaid. If someone is paid 500,000 a year, he might think in 10 year terms. But when CEOs CFOs etc are paid 20,000,000 to 800,000,000 a year, they don't need to think Moe than a year or two ahead. After a year or two they are so rich, it doesn't matter if the company goes bankrupt; they can spend the rest of their disgusting lives in debauchery.

(3) HOWEVER, it would be better if share-holders cut their pay and not the government. Set a rule that no executive in any industry can earn more than 5,000,000 a year unless the overage is approved by 2/3 of stockholders and 2/3 of bondholders in a proxy statement.

If anyone demands more than 5,000,000 a year, one knows he doesn't intend to stay at that company for long. But there may be exceptions. Let the stockholders and bondholders decide.. That would be capitalism, which now is extinct and replaced by thug CEOs and bribed compensation committees., ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/117670-five-most-promising-emerging-market-etfs-for-2009?source=feed#comment-373113 373113 (1) Some brain-dead folk think that huge government deficits, 0% interest rates, and vast increases in the amount of paper money AUTOMATICALLY lead to inflation. They don't. Consider the 2000's. Greenspan kept interest rates at 1% year after year. Bush combined $3 or 4 trillion worth of silly aggressive wars with ending taxes for the rich, doubling the deficit every year. Meanwhile the Fed happily monetized Bush's deficits.
SO, DO WE NOW HAVE INFLATION?? OR DO WE HAVE DEFLATION?

(2) However, brain-dead folk still think we will inflation "some beautiful day" and their silliness moves markets. Hence, for example, the run up in gold. So one might well have bought gold, even though one knew it is, as far as reality goes, a dumb investment.]]> Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:49:05 -0500 (1) Some brain-dead folk think that huge government deficits, 0% interest rates, and vast increases in the amount of paper money AUTOMATICALLY lead to inflation. They don't. Consider the 2000's. Greenspan kept interest rates at 1% year after year. Bush combined $3 or 4 trillion worth of silly aggressive wars with ending taxes for the rich, doubling the deficit every year. Meanwhile the Fed happily monetized Bush's deficits.
SO, DO WE NOW HAVE INFLATION?? OR DO WE HAVE DEFLATION?

(2) However, brain-dead folk still think we will inflation "some beautiful day" and their silliness moves markets. Hence, for example, the run up in gold. So one might well have bought gold, even though one knew it is, as far as reality goes, a dumb investment.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115465-omnipotent-property-depression-history-s-ominous-precedent?source=feed#comment-360662 360662
What I don't get is this. (a) The great rise in housing prices was a Ponzi scheme and a bubble. Real Estate prices now are returning to a price set by normal supply and demand. Why is that bad for the economy?
(2) The problem is that real estate agents have convinced Americans to believe stupidly that their home is an investment. Graham-Dodd type analysis shows that the place one lives in never is an invest men; it always is 100% an expense. 95% of folk have mortgages they can afford to pay. Those that are sane will ignore totally that the notional value of their home has declined; they simply will live in the house and keep warm in the winter and be happy.
(3) In almost all cases those that sell stocks now will sell at a loss and probably at the bottom.
(4) If the Depressions gets so bad that every company goes bankrupt, including companies such as Exxon and Johnson and Johnson, and stocks are worthless, then all money in cash or banks will be useless. Gold also would be useless. Since no one would be making anything to purchase. So if one believes this crazy crap, then one ought to commit suicide now.
]]> Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:21:08 -0500
What I don't get is this. (a) The great rise in housing prices was a Ponzi scheme and a bubble. Real Estate prices now are returning to a price set by normal supply and demand. Why is that bad for the economy?
(2) The problem is that real estate agents have convinced Americans to believe stupidly that their home is an investment. Graham-Dodd type analysis shows that the place one lives in never is an invest men; it always is 100% an expense. 95% of folk have mortgages they can afford to pay. Those that are sane will ignore totally that the notional value of their home has declined; they simply will live in the house and keep warm in the winter and be happy.
(3) In almost all cases those that sell stocks now will sell at a loss and probably at the bottom.
(4) If the Depressions gets so bad that every company goes bankrupt, including companies such as Exxon and Johnson and Johnson, and stocks are worthless, then all money in cash or banks will be useless. Gold also would be useless. Since no one would be making anything to purchase. So if one believes this crazy crap, then one ought to commit suicide now.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114468-punishing-the-savers?source=feed#comment-354377 354377
For further information there is a Muslim mutual fund called Amana, which follows the Jewish/Christian/Musli... rules, and which has done well during the last year compared to other funds.

For 2000 years the three traditions have considered usury to be much the same as sodomy. (Because your interest is the reward for a sterile investment in the same way that anal-genital intercourse is sterile and does not produce children.). So if they aren't paying you your "interest," that means that you temporarily are somewhat less of a pervert than usual. ]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:27:49 -0500
For further information there is a Muslim mutual fund called Amana, which follows the Jewish/Christian/Musli... rules, and which has done well during the last year compared to other funds.

For 2000 years the three traditions have considered usury to be much the same as sodomy. (Because your interest is the reward for a sterile investment in the same way that anal-genital intercourse is sterile and does not produce children.). So if they aren't paying you your "interest," that means that you temporarily are somewhat less of a pervert than usual. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112272-when-will-the-housing-market-bottom?source=feed#comment-338162 338162
(1) Considered as an investment, house prices have a long way down before they stabilize at what they were in 2000 or 2002 or at a lower price than that.

It was all a bubble based on economic reality. After all, the NASDAQ still is way below what it was in 2000 during that other bubble.

(2) The housing market probably is the most imperfect market there is. Unlike stocks or bonds (or ETFs and mutual funds), one cannot sell whenever one wants to.
With financial markets, one can get out when one is down, say 10%. With housing, one usually can't. And the market may never come back to what one paid. Think of Detroit, for example or any other rust belt town, where home values have disappeared.

Since homes are a lousy investment, there must be some psychological and emotional need that is satisfied by real property. I guess it is that one can go and touch the House. But then so can arsonists and termites.

I'm not saying, never buy a house to live in. Americans are so incredibly rude, that living in an apartment or a condo sucks. The more space between one self and one's "neighbors," the better. But the house one lives in is entirely an expense and never a investment. And houses other than the one one lives in are a truly lousy investment. ]]> Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:00:53 -0500
(1) Considered as an investment, house prices have a long way down before they stabilize at what they were in 2000 or 2002 or at a lower price than that.

It was all a bubble based on economic reality. After all, the NASDAQ still is way below what it was in 2000 during that other bubble.

(2) The housing market probably is the most imperfect market there is. Unlike stocks or bonds (or ETFs and mutual funds), one cannot sell whenever one wants to.
With financial markets, one can get out when one is down, say 10%. With housing, one usually can't. And the market may never come back to what one paid. Think of Detroit, for example or any other rust belt town, where home values have disappeared.

Since homes are a lousy investment, there must be some psychological and emotional need that is satisfied by real property. I guess it is that one can go and touch the House. But then so can arsonists and termites.

I'm not saying, never buy a house to live in. Americans are so incredibly rude, that living in an apartment or a condo sucks. The more space between one self and one's "neighbors," the better. But the house one lives in is entirely an expense and never a investment. And houses other than the one one lives in are a truly lousy investment. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107463-gm-bankruptcy-is-no-longer-an-option?source=feed#comment-313248 313248
You really should not use words, the meaning of which you do not understand.

The word "Socialism" has a very precise meaning. It means that all aspects of the economy are owned and controlled by the government. The author nowhere advocates Socialism.

For you, the word has no meaning, other than "Duh! I don't like that." Which makes your comment gibberish.

]]> Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:13:03 -0500
You really should not use words, the meaning of which you do not understand.

The word "Socialism" has a very precise meaning. It means that all aspects of the economy are owned and controlled by the government. The author nowhere advocates Socialism.

For you, the word has no meaning, other than "Duh! I don't like that." Which makes your comment gibberish.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105061-should-we-really-bail-out-the-big-three-automakers-with-73-20-per-hour-labor?source=feed#comment-306667 306667
But that's not the point. The point is bankruptcy will end the car manufacturers in the US. Including many of the Jape plants that pay slave wages. (The good guys and the Japes have many of the same suppliers.) No one will buy a car from a bankrupt company that might not be around to make parts for repairs.

The day they declare bankruptcy, the Dow will be down 2,000 points. Soon after, unemployment will go to 30 percent between the auto workers, auto suppliers, and all the people they support with there purchases. The crash in consumer confidence will drive it to 40 or 50 percent. At the end the Dow will be down to 20.

Ultimately, the US govt deficit will be so large, that the US govt will have to default. You see, dumb-dumb, folk without jobs--and auto retirees whose pensions have stopped-- dint' pay income taxes, folks without income don't Pu any thing, so they don't pay sales taxes. Without income, they won't be able to pay property taxes.

it's not a question of "fairness." It's a question of the US surviving. Anyone that opposes giving the auto companies whatever they need to keep going--anyone that does so has an IQ in negative numbers.]]> Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:30:20 -0500
But that's not the point. The point is bankruptcy will end the car manufacturers in the US. Including many of the Jape plants that pay slave wages. (The good guys and the Japes have many of the same suppliers.) No one will buy a car from a bankrupt company that might not be around to make parts for repairs.

The day they declare bankruptcy, the Dow will be down 2,000 points. Soon after, unemployment will go to 30 percent between the auto workers, auto suppliers, and all the people they support with there purchases. The crash in consumer confidence will drive it to 40 or 50 percent. At the end the Dow will be down to 20.

Ultimately, the US govt deficit will be so large, that the US govt will have to default. You see, dumb-dumb, folk without jobs--and auto retirees whose pensions have stopped-- dint' pay income taxes, folks without income don't Pu any thing, so they don't pay sales taxes. Without income, they won't be able to pay property taxes.

it's not a question of "fairness." It's a question of the US surviving. Anyone that opposes giving the auto companies whatever they need to keep going--anyone that does so has an IQ in negative numbers.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/104886-the-chickens-of-irresponsibility-come-home-to-roost-under-obama-s-reign?source=feed#comment-301441 301441
The trillion dollars or more that the US spends every year to maintain its military empire, with 700 bases in 110 countries (or something like that) and 18 separate spy agencies.

Whiteout even counting the spy agencies (some of which have secret, hidden budgets, the US already spends much more on the military than all the other countries in the world (including Russia and China) combined.

This has been going on since Kennedy got the US into the Vietnam War. So that's 48 years! With spending on the empire accelerating every year since Reagan.

The Republicans keep saying, "we believe in small government," while constantly increasing military spending and thus constantly swelling the size of the government. And Obama is going to be just as bad-- except that he isn't a hypocrite like the Republicans. I've read that he wants to add another 100,000 soldiers to the existing number.

Spending money on the military is like piling up 100 dollar bills and setting them on fire. Military spending is useless and contributes nothing to our welfare. The stuff we buy either is stored up until it rusts, or it is used and thus destroyed in the case of bombs, or consumed the case of ammunition.

But it gets even worse when all the trillions of dollars spent on the empire since Reagan in 1980 has been borrowed. Thus increasing interest payments very year.

Imagine where we would be if all the unneeded military spending over that last 50 years had been used to build infrastructure here at home. Or alternatively used to cut taxes by 50% while paying off the national debt.]]> Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:41:10 -0500
The trillion dollars or more that the US spends every year to maintain its military empire, with 700 bases in 110 countries (or something like that) and 18 separate spy agencies.

Whiteout even counting the spy agencies (some of which have secret, hidden budgets, the US already spends much more on the military than all the other countries in the world (including Russia and China) combined.

This has been going on since Kennedy got the US into the Vietnam War. So that's 48 years! With spending on the empire accelerating every year since Reagan.

The Republicans keep saying, "we believe in small government," while constantly increasing military spending and thus constantly swelling the size of the government. And Obama is going to be just as bad-- except that he isn't a hypocrite like the Republicans. I've read that he wants to add another 100,000 soldiers to the existing number.

Spending money on the military is like piling up 100 dollar bills and setting them on fire. Military spending is useless and contributes nothing to our welfare. The stuff we buy either is stored up until it rusts, or it is used and thus destroyed in the case of bombs, or consumed the case of ammunition.

But it gets even worse when all the trillions of dollars spent on the empire since Reagan in 1980 has been borrowed. Thus increasing interest payments very year.

Imagine where we would be if all the unneeded military spending over that last 50 years had been used to build infrastructure here at home. Or alternatively used to cut taxes by 50% while paying off the national debt.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/103509-is-the-commodities-bull-really-over?source=feed#comment-296629 296629
For example, folk that say things like "There will be bounces, but the bull is dead."

Since you give no explanation for your opinion and no facts at all, and since we have no idea how skilled an investor you are, no sane person anywhere cares what you say.

My gut feeling is that the guy is dead on. I might explain that by, for example, noting that oil probably will go up over the long run because changing to "alternative" energy would l cost trillions upon trillions--for example, to use wind power effectively we would need a vastly superior energy grid to transmit power from where the wind blows to where it isn't blowing and usually doesn't blow.

But why should I bother citing facts when everyone else commenting to statements on this web site never cites facts. Based on the quality of the audience, I would never blog here on a lot of other blogs. What a waste of their time.
. ]]> Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:28:06 -0500
For example, folk that say things like "There will be bounces, but the bull is dead."

Since you give no explanation for your opinion and no facts at all, and since we have no idea how skilled an investor you are, no sane person anywhere cares what you say.

My gut feeling is that the guy is dead on. I might explain that by, for example, noting that oil probably will go up over the long run because changing to "alternative" energy would l cost trillions upon trillions--for example, to use wind power effectively we would need a vastly superior energy grid to transmit power from where the wind blows to where it isn't blowing and usually doesn't blow.

But why should I bother citing facts when everyone else commenting to statements on this web site never cites facts. Based on the quality of the audience, I would never blog here on a lot of other blogs. What a waste of their time.
. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99373-who-we-should-blame-for-this-crisis?source=feed#comment-278694 278694
Thus Americans believe that every statement is as good as any other. No only do they not seek the truth; they cannot believe anyone anywhere seeks the truth.

Given this cynical laziness, there is no monetary or spiritual reward for attacking lies and crazy statements made by nuts like Greenspan. So no one ever does.

A good example is Bush 3 trillion dollar silly little adventure in Iraq. As soon a he proposed something so obviously crazy as invading Iraq, everyone should have agreed that he is either a moron, insane, lying, or all of the above.

By not paying for the war, Bush doubled the deficit and destroyed the currency. Which played a large role in causing our current problems.

Everyone who knows anything about the subject understands that the two paragraphs immediately above are 100% true. Yet the media keeps thinking there are two sides to the story. Ya gotta be "fair and balanced." But error has no rights.

Thus, unless and until parents and teachers stat rt clear to students that there is such a thing as reality and that there is only one reality at any time, this crash will be followed by another.

One thing that can be done in November is to throw out the Republicans. I have never voted for a Democrat for President before, but now we all must vote Democrat at every level.. The Republicans in Congress have know the war is crazy, but they never stopped funding it. They must be punished.]]> Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:46:42 -0400
Thus Americans believe that every statement is as good as any other. No only do they not seek the truth; they cannot believe anyone anywhere seeks the truth.

Given this cynical laziness, there is no monetary or spiritual reward for attacking lies and crazy statements made by nuts like Greenspan. So no one ever does.

A good example is Bush 3 trillion dollar silly little adventure in Iraq. As soon a he proposed something so obviously crazy as invading Iraq, everyone should have agreed that he is either a moron, insane, lying, or all of the above.

By not paying for the war, Bush doubled the deficit and destroyed the currency. Which played a large role in causing our current problems.

Everyone who knows anything about the subject understands that the two paragraphs immediately above are 100% true. Yet the media keeps thinking there are two sides to the story. Ya gotta be "fair and balanced." But error has no rights.

Thus, unless and until parents and teachers stat rt clear to students that there is such a thing as reality and that there is only one reality at any time, this crash will be followed by another.

One thing that can be done in November is to throw out the Republicans. I have never voted for a Democrat for President before, but now we all must vote Democrat at every level.. The Republicans in Congress have know the war is crazy, but they never stopped funding it. They must be punished.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98697-john-hussman-depression-fear-mongering-ridiculous?source=feed#comment-275295 275295 ]]> Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:44:30 -0400 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/97885-dollar-goes-down-along-with-bailout-plan?source=feed#comment-269394 269394
Well what should one expect? The one thing all Americans have in common is that the sole reason they or their ancestors came here--leaving family, Friends, Carree, and the village their ancestors had lived in for ten thousand years--to become filthy rich without working. (The only exception is Blacks, but only those whose ancestors came here before 1807, when the slave trade ended; Blacks and "Hispanics" coming to the US since 1865 are just as greedy, often more greedy as whites.)

Americans have in their genes total selfishness. Well you guys deserve what you get.
]]> Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:23:38 -0400
Well what should one expect? The one thing all Americans have in common is that the sole reason they or their ancestors came here--leaving family, Friends, Carree, and the village their ancestors had lived in for ten thousand years--to become filthy rich without working. (The only exception is Blacks, but only those whose ancestors came here before 1807, when the slave trade ended; Blacks and "Hispanics" coming to the US since 1865 are just as greedy, often more greedy as whites.)

Americans have in their genes total selfishness. Well you guys deserve what you get.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93386-the-election-s-impact-on-the-market?source=feed#comment-243033 243033
Any announcement that oil companies would be allowed to drill for oil would cause to lower options and thus lower current gas prices. If the oil producers actually found a lot of oil reserves (which no one can know until they drill), current prices for gas and heating oil would very significantly drop.

Obama's statement that drilling off-shore and in Alaska will not lower prices "today" thus testifies to his total ignorance of economics.

Indeed, Obama to be ignorant about all of reality, economic and otherwise. Note that although he has an advanced degree, he never has done research about anything and never has published any magazine article or book dealing with a subject other than himself. ]]> Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:42:57 -0400
Any announcement that oil companies would be allowed to drill for oil would cause to lower options and thus lower current gas prices. If the oil producers actually found a lot of oil reserves (which no one can know until they drill), current prices for gas and heating oil would very significantly drop.

Obama's statement that drilling off-shore and in Alaska will not lower prices "today" thus testifies to his total ignorance of economics.

Indeed, Obama to be ignorant about all of reality, economic and otherwise. Note that although he has an advanced degree, he never has done research about anything and never has published any magazine article or book dealing with a subject other than himself. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84565-oil-price-100-before-150-but-200-before-50?source=feed#comment-204129 204129
I suppose folk write for SA because it helps publicize their website or has some other benefit. But I often wonder if the aggravation is wrote the benefits. Certainly I have no intention of ever doing so and then putting up with abuse from folk spouting rude gibberish.

Americans are brought up with the undying conviction that they were born knowing everything that it is possible to know.

One result of this is that they never read books or do research, and they thus die in total ignorance of every subject.

Another is that politicians can get away with saying, as McBush does, we can balance the fed budget by saving 30 billion a year in "earmarks" while simultaneously increasing war and military spending by 500 billion to 2 trillion a year. Duh.

Another result is that they send these rude and hostile emails to the authors of essays on subjects they know nothing about.


]]> Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:46:24 -0400
I suppose folk write for SA because it helps publicize their website or has some other benefit. But I often wonder if the aggravation is wrote the benefits. Certainly I have no intention of ever doing so and then putting up with abuse from folk spouting rude gibberish.

Americans are brought up with the undying conviction that they were born knowing everything that it is possible to know.

One result of this is that they never read books or do research, and they thus die in total ignorance of every subject.

Another is that politicians can get away with saying, as McBush does, we can balance the fed budget by saving 30 billion a year in "earmarks" while simultaneously increasing war and military spending by 500 billion to 2 trillion a year. Duh.

Another result is that they send these rude and hostile emails to the authors of essays on subjects they know nothing about.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83791-commodity-driven-role-reversal?source=feed#comment-198706 198706
Why does everyone let McCain and the other Republicans get away with calling the Democrats big spenders. War is the most expensive thing there is. Saving 20, 30 100 billion a year in "earmarks" woudl be penny pinching with no benefit no effect, as long as the colonial adventure continues cosing 100 billion a month, which then is borrowed.. ]]> Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:08:03 -0400
Why does everyone let McCain and the other Republicans get away with calling the Democrats big spenders. War is the most expensive thing there is. Saving 20, 30 100 billion a year in "earmarks" woudl be penny pinching with no benefit no effect, as long as the colonial adventure continues cosing 100 billion a month, which then is borrowed.. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83001-the-deflation-inflation-stagnation-debate?source=feed#comment-195426 195426
It was the bubble of all bubbles. So why should anyone want to stop housing pieces from falling back to where they were in 2000? It's not possible so to do, but why would anyone want to do something so dumb.

Folk are losing money because they were greedy. Bears can make money, bulls can make money; in the not so long run, pigs lose and deserve to lose.

The problem is that Americans are dumb enough to think that the House they live in is an "investment." Anyone that has taken either accounting 101 or economics 101 knows that all housing costs, including the initial purchase price and mortgage payments, always are 100% an expense, never an investment. In addition, housing is a totally messed up market. At least with stocks one can sell them at any time. So one can get out with a smaller lose.





]]> Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:19:03 -0400
It was the bubble of all bubbles. So why should anyone want to stop housing pieces from falling back to where they were in 2000? It's not possible so to do, but why would anyone want to do something so dumb.

Folk are losing money because they were greedy. Bears can make money, bulls can make money; in the not so long run, pigs lose and deserve to lose.

The problem is that Americans are dumb enough to think that the House they live in is an "investment." Anyone that has taken either accounting 101 or economics 101 knows that all housing costs, including the initial purchase price and mortgage payments, always are 100% an expense, never an investment. In addition, housing is a totally messed up market. At least with stocks one can sell them at any time. So one can get out with a smaller lose.





]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/74664-white-noise-around-strong-current-negative-trends?source=feed#comment-159190 159190
Check his record. That's what counts. See if he has an archive on his blog. If so, read some of the older posts, and see if they proved prescient. That takes work. But you get nothing for noting.. ]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:11:43 -0400
Check his record. That's what counts. See if he has an archive on his blog. If so, read some of the older posts, and see if they proved prescient. That takes work. But you get nothing for noting.. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/74111-oil-surge-weak-data-pare-dollar-gains?source=feed#comment-157181 157181 However, the bush league keep making threats against Iran. It was insane and dumb to commit aggression against Iraq. Which took a lot of supply out of the market. It may well be that bush is insane and stupid enough to commit aggression against Iran, which would take oil past $300 a barrel That possibility is a reason to keep some money in oil futures.]]> Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:28:59 -0400 However, the bush league keep making threats against Iran. It was insane and dumb to commit aggression against Iraq. Which took a lot of supply out of the market. It may well be that bush is insane and stupid enough to commit aggression against Iran, which would take oil past $300 a barrel That possibility is a reason to keep some money in oil futures.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/74111-oil-surge-weak-data-pare-dollar-gains?source=feed#comment-157178 157178
HOWEVERRmoil futures ]]> Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:25:10 -0400
HOWEVERRmoil futures ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/72898-the-global-agricultural-boom-no-bubbles-here?source=feed#comment-153742 153742
For those rare few that want to know something about a subject before they opine, this weeks Economist has an excellent article on the entire ag sitution. I guess it would also be OK for soeoene to read it after they've opnined. ]]> Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:03:37 -0400
For those rare few that want to know something about a subject before they opine, this weeks Economist has an excellent article on the entire ag sitution. I guess it would also be OK for soeoene to read it after they've opnined. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/72663-it-s-time-to-focus-on-the-value-of-the-dollar?source=feed#comment-152569 152569
Keynes taught that the government should be a countervailing balance. That is the government should run a surplus in good times, so that it can run at a deficit in bad times. He is correct.

The problem is that Bush ran a deficit in good times by doing away with taxes on the very wealthy while pouring 2 or 3 trillion into his unnecessary Iraq war.
So now that we are in bad times, the government can't run as big a deficit as needed.

Keynes was correct. Bush is a moron.]]> Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:22:58 -0400
Keynes taught that the government should be a countervailing balance. That is the government should run a surplus in good times, so that it can run at a deficit in bad times. He is correct.

The problem is that Bush ran a deficit in good times by doing away with taxes on the very wealthy while pouring 2 or 3 trillion into his unnecessary Iraq war.
So now that we are in bad times, the government can't run as big a deficit as needed.

Keynes was correct. Bush is a moron.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68454-morningstar-s-vastly-superior-etf-research?source=feed#comment-126275 126275
over all, , there is something very wrong with their entire method of viewing risk. One example. There's a fund called Permanent Portfolio, which has never had a down or negative year since about 1980. And which over time has had (unlike savings accounts or CDs) positive returns much higher than than the inflation rate. . Nevertheless, they rate it as "very risky." That's just nuts. The reality is that the fund is safer than a CD or a US treasury bond. So how could it be risky.

I finally have decided that they confuse short term volatility with long term risk. So if a stock or fund fluctuates in value as it's return is rising, they think it is risky-- even when the overall trend always is higher, year after year. Meanwhile, they think a stock or fund is without risk if it goes along rising .00000000010% a year over time but without it's price fluctauating. in teh short term..

My advice. Use their abundance of data. But totally ignore their so-called analyses. ]]> Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:53:07 -0400
over all, , there is something very wrong with their entire method of viewing risk. One example. There's a fund called Permanent Portfolio, which has never had a down or negative year since about 1980. And which over time has had (unlike savings accounts or CDs) positive returns much higher than than the inflation rate. . Nevertheless, they rate it as "very risky." That's just nuts. The reality is that the fund is safer than a CD or a US treasury bond. So how could it be risky.

I finally have decided that they confuse short term volatility with long term risk. So if a stock or fund fluctuates in value as it's return is rising, they think it is risky-- even when the overall trend always is higher, year after year. Meanwhile, they think a stock or fund is without risk if it goes along rising .00000000010% a year over time but without it's price fluctauating. in teh short term..

My advice. Use their abundance of data. But totally ignore their so-called analyses. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/67682-the-john-mccain-market-selloff?source=feed#comment-124161 124161
The US now spends about $1,000,000,000,000 a year on wars and preparing for wars (euphemistically and dishonestly called "national defense") The deficit has doubled under Bush.

McCain says he is is determined to increased military spending--both to fund aggression against more countries and also to keep the war on the Iraqi people going for a hundred years. And he also says he wants even more tax cuts for the very rich.

So, if McCain wins, the deficit will double again, or even triple or quadruple.


Given that if McCain wins, the dollar will be worth 5 Euros or less, any feigner would be nuts to buy US stocks or bonds. So the prospect of a McCain presidency removes a large number of buyers from the market. It's simple question of supply and demand.]]> Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:49:34 -0400
The US now spends about $1,000,000,000,000 a year on wars and preparing for wars (euphemistically and dishonestly called "national defense") The deficit has doubled under Bush.

McCain says he is is determined to increased military spending--both to fund aggression against more countries and also to keep the war on the Iraqi people going for a hundred years. And he also says he wants even more tax cuts for the very rich.

So, if McCain wins, the deficit will double again, or even triple or quadruple.


Given that if McCain wins, the dollar will be worth 5 Euros or less, any feigner would be nuts to buy US stocks or bonds. So the prospect of a McCain presidency removes a large number of buyers from the market. It's simple question of supply and demand.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/67663-5-reasons-why-the-u-s-dollar-will-weaken-further?source=feed#comment-124158 124158
Bush's deficits contribute to the dollar's decline through simple supply and demand economics. How many more treasury bonds will China eat, how many can China eat?

Moreover, the weak dollar is in a vicious cycle. A foreigner in a foreign country (as apposed to the 20+ foreigners who illegally live in the USA would be a chump to buy US stocks and bonds with his own currency. (Buying physical assets as the foreign sovereign government investment funds do makes real sense, on the other hand).

McCain is proposing more wars and more tax cuts and thus even higher government deficits. If he wins, the dollar will go to 5 Euros and oil to $400 a barrel.. ]]> Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:39:16 -0400
Bush's deficits contribute to the dollar's decline through simple supply and demand economics. How many more treasury bonds will China eat, how many can China eat?

Moreover, the weak dollar is in a vicious cycle. A foreigner in a foreign country (as apposed to the 20+ foreigners who illegally live in the USA would be a chump to buy US stocks and bonds with his own currency. (Buying physical assets as the foreign sovereign government investment funds do makes real sense, on the other hand).

McCain is proposing more wars and more tax cuts and thus even higher government deficits. If he wins, the dollar will go to 5 Euros and oil to $400 a barrel.. ]]>