yank's Comments

The Greatest Depression Is Coming

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:15:34 -0400

Jerry:
"Even more if Repubs don't stop fighting it".
What the hell are you talking about? The Repubs are trying to stop us from sliding into socialism. If you think that is a "bad thing" I suggest you consider moving to Canada or Europe. If a Great Depression is coming I can't think of a more inexperienced, unqualified, naive narcisist to run this country into the ground than Obama. You idiots were the ones who voted for "change". That's exactly what you got morons.

Yank

On Oct 17 08:55 AM jerrydd wrote:

>
> Good article.
>
> Venndata, U6 is already at 17+% unemployment and many places like
> Fla are about 20% U-6, the old way of measuring it.
>
> Many in Washington, wall street just don't know or want to know how
> bad main street has become. Another number that gov has badly made
> is inflation. For most people from 2000 to 2008 real inflation, what
> we actually paid for things has went up 100% which means our wealth
> has dropped 50%.
>
> Now add our wages have barely increased and many have had a 40% pay
> cut in buying power. So those who think people spending is going
> to bring us out are fooling themselves. This is the same inflation,
> loss of real wealth that happened under Regean/Bush41.
>
> The whole US is going to be completely changed by this debt, mismanagement
> and it's going to take a decade to recover from. Even more if repubs
> don't stop fighting it.

Oil's Up and Down Ride

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:55:30 -0400

Article was absolute crap. No basis for any of the conclusions the author reached. Wishing for $20 oil is about as useful as wishing to become a billionaire. Nice but it ain't going to happen. The dollar bears over the past month or so have been "roasted alive". Burn baby burn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oil Traders Bullish; Analysts Aren't

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:28:11 -0400

No it isn't. We all have to come to grips with the fact that the "easy oil" is long gone. Gone too are the "good old days" of $20 oil. The "inflation" in operating costs for explorwers and drillers require a floor of $70 oil to be economically viable. When prices dip and remain below that threshold projects are either delayed or cancelled. I almost "lost my lunch" last week when Rex Tillerson (Exxon CEO) said oil demand would remain at depressed levels for 20 years. Now Rex is ordinarily one smart guy but he must have taken one too many puffs on the "bong". For oil demand to stay at these levels one of two things MUST happen:

1. At least a decade long global depression must occur.
2. Population growth rates in the "emerging markets" must either reverse or flatten out.

Sorry, I just don't see either of those things happening. I guess my main point is that demand will recover, OPEC will continue to restrain production to support prices, and Non-OPEC production will continue to lag.

Just my assessment as an investment advisor. I would go with the oil traders before the analysts any day. I don't think these analysts "know where their dick is."

Yank

On Oct 15 10:46 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> This is an interesting article, and pedagogically valuable. I can
> understand why analysts are not bullish though. In the light of the
> international macroeconomy, the price of oil is too high

Bernanke's Exit Strategy: Not Likely Any Time Soon

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:08:58 -0400

Peck:
You said you actually like what Obama is doing. What's to like? They guy is an overconfident, inexperienced narcissist. Is that what you want in your President? I sure as hell don't.

Yank

On Oct 10 11:05 AM Bolton Peck wrote:

> In laymen's terms: We'll just keep kissing the bank's asses for an
> indefinite period..
>
> There are a lot of great ideas floating around on this site, it's
> too bad most of them won't get put into play. This financial sector
> team will be the undoing of the Obama administration. That's too
> bad because I like him and what he's doing in a lot of other areas.

Crude Oil and Gasoline Prices: Like Déjà Vu All Over Again

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:15:54 -0400

Dream on. And one other thing. It is NOT correct what you said about gasoline demand going down. In the past two months gasoline demand has INCREASED considerably over year-ago levels. Hoping for lower oil prices does not make it so. And the USD will continue to head lower.

Scary Drop in Velocity of Money: Is Deflation Knocking?

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:34:51 -0400

The answer to your question about why gold isn't trading at $3,000 is quite simple. It has been continuously "capped" through gold leasing programs, swaps, and other subtrefuge by our fearless leaders at the Fed. There is a rumor (unsubstantiated of course) that if you went to visit the vaults at Ft. Knox and opened the door, you would find absolutely ZERO gold bars. It has all been leased/sold endlessly for the past 20 years to "suppress" gold prices. A few months ago the "criminals" that run the COMEX metals exchange were literally within hours of defaulting on a huge gold options contract. Panicked calls were made to Central Banks and money center banks everywhere to find the gold to "cover" the trade. Deustche Bank finally came up with the 800k oz. of gold needed just barely in the nick of time. These bankers are the worst type of whore and charlatan you have ever seen.

On Sep 04 12:00 AM C.S. Jefferson wrote:

> Deflationary pressure isn't knocking, it's here! It's been steadily
> eroding liquidity in the markets by not allowing the ol' Ponzi scheme
> of floating outrageous debt to equity ratios based on paper assets!
>
>
>
> All those that cry inflation are premature as to assessing the true
> risk in the markets.
>
> I believe Bernanke has a true understanding that the first priority
> is to protect against asset deflation when it comes to implementation
> of monetary policy.
>
> Want the proof? Why isn't gold trading at $3,000 per troy ounce--and
> why did it barely clip $1,000 in the height of the credit crisis/market
> crash during 2008?

Rayonier Attracts Unusual Options Trade

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:58:37 -0400

Joe:
All well and good except for the part of "overvalued and nearing its all-time high". I don't know what its "all-time" high is but RYN @$39 is trading 20% off its 5-yr high, which was $49.55
Just wanted to put your comment in its proper context. RYN may or may not be overvalued at this point but over the past 50 years timber has produced a return that easily matches or beats the S&P.

Yank

On Oct 01 08:38 AM Joe Kunkle wrote:

> Is it more likely the trader bought the calls as protection and went
> short 960K shares. I see the shares traded on an uptick, but for
> this size of a trade and the liquidity it could easily be a short
> equity position. I think that would make more sense as a trade....0.56
> delta on the calls offers protection, but not perfectly hedged. There
> does not appear to be much reason to be long shares int his over-valued
> REIT nearing all time highs.

Newspapers: Why Bail Out Another Failed Industry?

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:54:33 -0400

Leftfield:
Wholeheartedly agree with you. I guess the only other thing to point out to those "enchanted" with newsprint is to take notice that right now the NY Times has exactly ONE offer on the table for its "distressed" Newspaper, the Boston Globe. That offer is a "Take it or Leave it" offer of $35 million. In 1993 the NY Times paid $1.1 BILLION for the Boston Globe. Aren't you glad the NY Times isn't managing your portfolio? The Times is "toast" and will not survive in its present form until the next Presidentail election in 2012. Too bad.

Yank

On Sep 23 11:19 AM Leftfield wrote:

> The MSM has been killing themselves for far longer than just a few
> quarters of lousy revenues. They have constantly been on full left
> tilt since the 60's, in their "news" reports. Now there are alternatives.
>
> They were making money while the debacle that is wracking our country
> was building. Possibly the most amazing fact of all is the dog that
> didn't bark during that time, the MSM. Then or now.
> They've gotten the bloated government they asked for and the president
> they are most enchanted with. But, they are showing the results of
> it: A private economy on life-support and control by a few oligarchs.
> Their hope now seems to be, to join the breadline of privileged failures,
> for bailouts.

A Few Truths About Oil

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:55:58 -0400

Jerry:
Reality check for you. It was the Congress (controlled by Repubs from 1994-2000) that passed all these wonderful programs that you seem intent on giving Clinton credit for. Increasing taxes has NEVER led to prosperity anywhere. And once again let's shed some accuracy into the lies and distortions of the mass media. Tax revenues INCREASED from 2002-2006 after Bush's tax cuts. It was the out of control spending on the two wars and domestic programs that led to our ballooning deficit.

Yank

On Sep 22 08:03 AM jerrydd wrote:

> On Sep 22 06:46 AM Vitautas wrote:

Prepare for a Drop in Diesel and Gasoline Prices

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:54:56 -0400

Bob:
Wow. You are trying real hard to talk oil prices down. Unfortunately it will take a lot more than that to reduce the price of crude. One point to remember is that crude prices are not determined by what demand WAS during this past summer, this past Labor Day, blah, blah, blah. Crude prices are moving higher because traders believe we have turned the corner on this recession and 2010 will see growth returning to our GDP. That may or may not prove to be the correct call. The other part of the rise as you know is due to US Dollar (USD) weakness. Once again we are surrounded by "hand wringers" that forecast continued deflation and a flight to safety, thereby bolstering the USD. Sad to say it, but that trade is getting a bit old. Investors have decided that the USD is the new "carry trade" replacing the Japanese Yen. Continued monetization of US debt (as foreigner's appetite for US Treasuries wanes) adds even more weakness to the USD. All in all, I think your dream of $40 oil is nothing more than that. A dream.

Yank

Despite Earlier Contrarian Signals, China Keeps Buying U.S. Treasuries

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:52:13 -0400

Long-term Treasuries are a very dangerous gamble right now. With the inevitable rise in inflation any long-term debt instrument will be crushed as interest rates soar. The Chinese bettter be careful what they buy here.

On Sep 18 07:05 AM chap08 wrote:

> Yes, good article and something that should not be forgotten. China
> will keep buying treasuries until it no longer needs the US consumer.
> That will only happen when Asia has a fully developed middle class
> - which is years away. Given that China has to hold treasuries, it
> makes sense for them to hold longer term, rather than short term,
> as atleast they'll get some yield. Meanwhile, at the margin, they
> will continue to look for ways of diversifying their dollars.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Moving Towards Transparency

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:59:28 -0400

Brad:
I could be wrong but all this commodity trading "reform" will accomplish is a shift in commodity trading to foreign markets in places like London, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. Another case of our illustrious economic leaders shooting themselves in the foot again in an effort to provide "transparency".

Yank

Oil Supply: As Russian Production Tops Out, World Supply Will Continue to Slip

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:43:53 -0400

Runner:
a little touchy about the townhalls are we? Unfortunately Northstar is correct. The Dems are doing everything in their power to self-destruct. That includes ignoring constituents, continuing to milk the system for more graft and payoffs and ticking off their most important constituency, seniors who now will not vote for a Democrat if they were running for dog-catcher. The Dems are the party of corruption, cheating, mass media distortion, and union thugs trying to intimidate public speech. Are you sure you want to defend that track record? I sure as hell would not.

Yank

On Sep 13 12:19 PM Road Runner wrote:

> Take your conservative cult zombie talk somewhere else. This is not
> a town hall meeting.

Forget the 1930s; We're Reliving 1975 (Part II)

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:15:59 -0400

Ferdinand:
I suppose those "pesky" Presidential approval ratings which have plummeted from 63% in March to 42% this month are meaningless. No, what's really going on is that most peole have figured out correctly that the "Great Zero" is clueless whne it comes to managing anything. How could it be otherwise? We have basicaly elected a politician with ZERO economic experience, ZERO management experience, and ZERO foreign policy experience. Expecting him to succeed is an exercise in futility.

On Jul 28 09:12 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> If what you say is true, and it might be true, then there is no -
> what you call - "bad news". It's roses all the way.
>
> Sorry folks who had hoped to see Mr O. and his government fall on
> their face, and there are plenty of those in this site.

What the IEA Doesn't Want You to Know About Peak Oil

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:56:35 -0400

Your last sentence is absolutely false. I recently read an article less than a month ago that Peterbilt engines will be produced in the next year to run on natural gas. Production is estimated to be 500k engines in 2010. Check your facts before spouting off.

On Sep 06 02:40 PM Alan von Altendorf wrote:

> Tar sands are not interesting at $60. Grand Banks, Canadian Arctic,
> and Canadian Bakken are good plays. EnCana has US assets, Husky is
> prospecting internationally. Chinese are buying in to swap USD for
> energy assets all over the world. It doesn't have anything in particular
> to do with tar sands, although tar is a very low risk low tech resource
> -- just dig it up, add heat -- and slightly cheaper than gas-to-liquids.
> Canada is energy self-sufficient with marginal potential for net
> exports, depending on what happens in the Arctic frontier play.

>
> Mexico is kaput. Venezuela and Columbia are more or less on the edge
> of a first class wipeout: either war or industrial disaster IMO.
>
>
> Bottom line, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are #1 and #2 in terms of US
> liquids. Deepwater GOM is #3. That's why everybody is screaming for
> US natgas as a dependable cheap substitute for oil. Which is a misplaced
> article of faith. There won't be any NG-powered F-16s or 787s, no
> NG-powered Abrams tanks or Humvees, no shiny new Peterbilts that
> run on compressed natgas.

Run Up in Crude Prices Outpaces Baltic Dirty Tanker Index

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:46:29 -0400

If you are waiting for $30 bbl oil you are going to be waiting a LONG TIME. OPEC has zero interest in seeing oil go below $60 due to its massive CAPEX scheduled for the next 5-10 years. All of those projects are only viable if oil is above $60. Not to mention the fact that deep-sea finds like the one BP hit last week in the GOM require oil prices to remain over $60 in order to justify the expense of drilling that deep. I don't think the avg person has come to grips with the new paradigm, "peak oil". Peak oil does not mean that oil is running out. It just means that it is now in "hard to get at" places that require expensive equipment to reach. There is no free lunch. Oil at $30 bbl kills alternative energy and does nothing to "wean us off" fossil fuels. My prediction is that we will never see oil again at $30. Sorry about that, oil bears.

Is Being Bearish About the U.S. Market Unpatriotic?

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:58:41 -0400

Double:
Good for you. And you are correct that their arrogance is unforgivable. The way I see it is every day they choose to make an ass out of themselves (yesterday was Harry Reid's day) further tightens the noose around their neck. The Dems are in for a wicked surprise next November. I predict we will no longer have the "Wicked Witch of the West" Nancy Pelosi to kick around anymore. And as for poor Harry Reid, well he is trailing both Republican candidates for Senator badly as Vegas unemployment skyrockets above 13%. I will crack open a beer as the Dems "twist in the wind" next year. They deserve everything they get. This is the most incompetent Congressional leadership ever seen. They are "toast".

Yank

On Sep 02 09:18 AM doubleguns wrote:

> It appears that many of our politicians and media types that think
> they know what is best for us continue to panic when we think for
> our selves. Those of us that think for ourselves are getting a lot
> of name calling lately.
>
> In the past 6 months I have been called a right wing extremist by
> my govt (napoalitano) and unamerican by Pelosi.
>
> How dare they!!!!
>
> Their arrogance is unforgivable.
>
> Patriots think, they challenge ideas, they are not blind followers
> lead like lemmings to the sea. We take responsibility for ourselves
> and we are not easily buffaloed by bafoons.
>
> Keep your chin up and when they call you unpatriotic just consider
> the source.
>
> It simply appears its the pot trying to call the fine china black.

Due for a Correction? Market Is Already Priced for Grim Future

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:49:41 -0400

Merrill Lynch (Asia Office) has been doing some historical analysis of bear markets and their eventual demise. Based on their studies they have forecast a 40% rise in the S&P between now and December 2010. Before you keel over and faint, recognize that 2008 was the most disastrous year for the Dow and S&P since the 1930s. Bear markets do end, eventually. Unfortunately that is where the bad news comes in. After recovering to the 1400 level, the Merrill anlaysts expect the S&P to drop to 400 by December of 2014. This forecast somewhat meshes with all the Wave Count theories (Kondratieff winter, Prechter's anlaysis) that still believe we are in a long-term secular bear market not due to end until 2017-2018.
Are these findings controversial? You bet they are. But I would not rule out the possibility of a further rise in the S&P between now and the 4th qtr of 2010. In 1930-31 the Dow rose 52% off its bottom before declining again. Stranger things have happened.

Will Oil Be the Last Asset Standing?

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:13:44 -0400

kmi:
you are missing the point entirely. Since 2000 the costs of E&P for the oil cos has risen over 75%. The main point is these costs are not going down anytime soon. The Saudi oil minister isn't kidding when he says he needs $70 oil to justfiy spending billions to expand refineries, drill more wells, etc. All of us need to stop living in the past. The days of cheap oil ($10-20) are gone. FOREVER. And I don't buy for one minute that $70 oil will halt a global economic recovery. We saw last year that growth continued well above the $100 level. Do you realize that $2.50/gallon adjusted for inflation is about .35 cents in 1973 dollars, which is right about what we were paying at the pump before the oil embargo. There is absolutely no proof that the Chinese (or anyone else for that matter except Brazilians) are "diversifying" away from oil. Most geology experts confirm that fossil fuels will remain the dominant energy source well into the middle of this century. Alternative energy is a pipedream. Deal with it.

Yank

On Aug 25 08:56 AM kmi wrote:

> Oil @ $70+ makes users look at alt energy sources. Sure you can argue
> that $70 is where it needs to be in order for producers to want to
> bring more product online but users will be looking at other sources,
> i.e. demand will fall (and is). This is not an economy that supports
> expensive energy; investment strategy is focused on decreasing costs
> and energy is a big one.
>
> Chinese may be buying more cars but they are also diversifying away
> from petroleum faster than the US; also during the last peak in energy
> prices China had an earthquake offline a lot of its NG production
> pressuring up oil (diesel), that's no longer the case.
>
> Nevermind the fact that the oil spike encouraged drilling and exploration
> and encouraged huge investments into renewables; I can't count how
> many major energy users have outfitted their installations with renewables
> since $147/barrel.
>
> I think oil buyers are trying to front run a turn around in the global
> economy but are stalling it instead. $70+ oil in these conditions
> does not allow users to reinvest in the economy just forces them
> to set aside capital and wait. Growth from $70/barrel? Optimism misplaced.
>
>
> Generally though I agree with your opinions in 2nd part of article.

Energy Trend Setters: Canadian Income and Small Cap Stocks

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:51:22 -0400

Argumentum:
bravo. You nailed it with your comments on the "red herring" tax fairness argument that Flaherty made in crushing the income trusts. In addition to Price Waterhouse, CanAccord Adams did a phenomenal study which "destroyed" any credibility that the Govt had in its argument to defend the tax change. This was a sellout to ManuLife and the other giant finance/insurance cos that as you say could not or simply would not compete fairly with the income trust model. Sad to say the US Govt is not far behind with its incessant meddling in throwing money at banks, banning the shorting of financial stocks, and other idiotic ideas. It is a very pathetic state of affairs we are facing today. One final note to hearten energy investors is the fact that no currency that has ever lost more than 95% of its value has ever survived. The US Dollar has lost 98% of its value since 1930. You draw your own conclusions.

On Aug 20 12:03 PM argumentum ad crumenarum wrote:

> To cyberclark;As with all arguments against income trusts yours is
> thoughtless.The tax fairness plan is not designed to stop an unfair
> tax advantage .It is the destruction of an investment choice by investment
> vendors who could not or would not compete with them. It is an action
> by a govt interfereing in in the marketplace on behalf of a private
> interest unprecedented in canadian history.Start your study of income
> trusts by looking at the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on them so
> that you can speak with knowledge and not catchy sound bites.That
> sir,is not nonsense.

The Dollar's Race to the Bottom

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:20:17 -0400

Several currency traders are predicting now that the USD has broken a key support level (78) that the predicted low for the dollar index is now 68, which is expected to happen by the 4th qtr or 1st qtr of 2010 at the latest. This would equate to about another 15% gain in commodities from the current levels. As for interest rates, the author has made the case quite strongly as to why the Fed is "backed into a corner". But another reason why they CANNOT raise rates is the ugly fact that over $2 trillion in ARMs, interest-only, and other crappy toxic mortgages will be resetting over the next two years. HIgher rates during that time will simply explode the bankruptcy rate to all-time highs. Commodities are the only viable asset class to invest in at his time.

Google's Ad-Sales Reporting Is the Real Newspaper Killer

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:45:25 -0400

More proof that it's all over for newsprint media. Stick a fork in them. They are done. More evidence is available from posing a simple question to Gen Xers and Yers. How many of your friends read a daily newspaper? The uniformly negative answer is precisely NONE. Zero. Nada. Left-wing outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post have not helped their cause with their embarassingly one-sided coverage of last year's Presidential election. Not to pile on but when Warren Buffett was asked recently if he saw "value" in investing in beaten down media stocks his terse answer was "They are not a value at ANY price".
When I hear the ludicrous comment that we need newspapers as a watchdog over our Govt and business interests, my first reply is "you meant to say "lapdog" didn't you?"
Sorry Mr. Rather. You day in the sun is over. I say "Good riddance".

Remember $20 Oil? Looks Like It's Coming Back

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:23:44 -0400

Saying oil will go back to $20 is like saying milk will go back to .79 cents a gallon. Not happening people! What do you think has happened to the E&P costs of oil cos since oil was last in the $20-25 range? They have almost doubled in price. Consequently oil cos simply have no incentive/ability to support a price as low as $20. And please stop with the idea of how "stimulative" $20 oil would be. Yeah, and $25,000 mortgages would stimulate homebuying too. But it's not going to happen. When will people learn that there is a huge difference between a temporary surplus in crude and the longer-term picture of "peak oil". Geez.

$20 Oil by Year's End?

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:42:31 -0400

oil will never drop to $20 ever. Period. All that non-OPEC supply everyone crows about is just running in place to meet CURRENT demand. And trust me at $20 oil there will be "massive" cuts in oil /nat gas production. All the bitching about "high" gas prices totally misses the point. Adjusted for inflation pump prices at $2.50/gallon equate out to about .40 cents/gallon in 1973 dollars. The point is that even at $3/gallon, oil is cheap. Geez people. This isn't rocket science.

GE Results Validate Theory: Severe Economic Contraction

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:43:12 -0400

"Once healthcare is reigned in"
Dream on my friend. If you think Comrade Obama and Commissar Biden can control healthcare costs I have a bridge I want to sell you. Go back to the history books. FDR tried to spend his way out of a depression and it took a World War to finally end it. There is no successful example of a country ANYWHERE spending its way out of a severe contraction (i.e. Japan in the 1990s). I was trained as a hospital administrator and the health care "reform" policies being pushed by Obama are rubbish.

On Jul 18 10:35 AM joes wrote:

> I'm not so sure that you haven't fallen into the oldest bias in the
> book, once something is moving in a direction it will keep moving
> that way.
>
> Your claim, "and in order for revenue to come back to pre-bust levels,
> we would have to re-inflate the credit bubble - which simply cannot
> happen." Is not based on facts, just your attempt to apply the past
> to the future, always a fool's game.
>
> I think there are a lot on new jobs in the works, alternative energy,
> new car companies, commerce that is not tied to huge, inefficient
> platforms like malls.
>
> Once healthcare is reigned in small business people like myself can
> start hiring and giving raises and the money that we have been dumping
> into the Middle East, along with the productivity losses from Americans
> having to be soldiers instead of wage earners will make a difference.
>
>
> I like your wall of worry though, up nicely this year and see 2010
> as a very good year for real business, not phony banking profits/

Why Waxman - Markey Bill Is Bad for U.S. Consumer, Energy Industry

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:42:19 -0400

Cautious:
Agree with you 100%. Spain passed similar legislation back in 2000 and since that time for every "green" job created 2.2 jobs have been lost. Not such good math you think? Let me get this straight. We are facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, we have lost over 6 million jobs in the past year, and now is the time to "break the bank" by fixing both the energy industry and the health care system. Does anyone else out there think this is sheer lunacy? Absolute chaos is what Obama will create. You can thank the 20-30 year old age cohort. They are the ones who put him in office. You know, the ones who had never voted, never worked, never served in the military, and never raised a family. We let them decide our political future. STUPID!!!!!!!!!!

On Jun 28 11:50 AM CautiousInvestor wrote:

> It is horrible legislation and horrible policy.
>
> The impetus for the legislation rests upon the belief that greenhouse
> gasses are bringing about global climate warming. Seven hundred scientists
> dispute the role of greenhouse gasses; this more than thirteen times
> the number who authored the UN global climate plan.
>
> The legislation mandates that utility suppliers reduce their dependence
> upon fossil fuels and requires building codes being modified to achieve
> greater efficiency. It also subjects refiners, energy producers and
> manufacturers that produce energy on site to be subject to emission
> standards.
>
> All energy intensive industries will be hard hit, particularly farming.
>
>
> We are mandating a reduction in fossil fuel consumption, while imposing
> a tax, in the absence of a national energy policy. There is no firm
> plan to replace fossil fuels with either nuclear and/or renewable
> energy. The legislation simply assumes it will happen.
>
> "Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average
> of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively
> by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion
> poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it."
>
> "Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey
> also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing
> sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time
> from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the
> much-hyped green jobs are taken into account."
>
> Given the precarious state of the economy, the combined uncertainties
> of greenhouse science and the economic consequences of the legislation
> and the absence of a national energy plan, this legislation should
> not be passed.

Commodities Wrap-Up: Don't Get Too Long

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:09:45 -0400

wacha:
Good points. The Fed is playing a very dangerous game here. They publicly whine and moan about how bad "deflation" is and behind the scenes they are draining reserves from M2. Funny I thought this was the key lesson that Bernake learned from studying the Great Depression. Mainly the disastrous mistake made by Hoover's people to withdraw liquidity from the system. It was the "death knell" for the decade of the 1930s. Let's hope Bernanke does not repeat that mistake. Concerns about future inflation although legitimate are still far away on the horizon. The primary challenge right now is to stop deflation. I'm not sure the Fed understands that.

Yank

Natural Resources Out, Non-Cyclical Blue Chips In

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:09:15 -0400

There is no sound basis to support the assertion that cyclicals will command a lower p/e and non-cyclicals will reassert their dominance. What many still don't seem to understand is we remain in a long-term secular bear market that began in 2000. That does not preclude bear market rallies from time to time. However, the time for blue-chips like MSFT, GE, PFE, and others to shine has come and gone. However, the secular bull market in commodities still has 8-10 years to go. Whether it's copper, gold, aluminum, oil, or natural gas, in virtually every key commodity the demand outlook will outstrip supply blances for the foreseeable future. The clouded future of the US dollar (USD) will only add more fuel to this fire. If you have had a "blue-chip" portfolio since 2000, you have gone nowhere. So in essence with a "flat" return for almost an entire decade (while inflation moved up), the blue chips have actually dellivered a negative real return. Blue chip investing is a surefire way to ensure your investment capital remains "dead money" for years to come.

Jim Rogers Shares His Thoughts on the Market

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:49:23 -0400

The Chinese have gotten the message about how the US routinely "takes down" commodity prices (oil, gold, silver) in an effort to support the US Dollar (USD) without having to raise interest rates. In a brilliant move, this week the Chinese announced they will be making major investments in US hedge funds. Their idea is to pledge US Treasuries as "collateral" in margin accounts. If the US stupidly tries to cap gold or silver prices, the drop in account value will trigger a margin call, causing the sale of the Chinese-owned Treasuries thereby weakening the USD. This is China's way of putting a gun to the head of the US and getting them to stop their ridiculous manipulation of commodity prices. The US is screwed.

Certain Banks Are Still Broke

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:48:37 -0400

Steve:
Before you "jump in bed" with Buffett consider that his portfolio lost 38% last year and his BERK-A shares are trading at a 10 year low.

On Jun 11 12:38 AM Steve W from Ford wrote:

> So the author presents no evidence of his assertion WFC is "broke".
> He just makes a statement like it is obvious. Meanwhile Warren Buffet
> is adding more to his already large position in WFC. Hmm, why would
> Buffet throw good money after bad? Gee who to believe? Think I'll
> go with Buffet.