Dean M's Comments

How to Trade the Rest of the Year - Goldman Sachs

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:05:56 -0500

I should take advice from the company that gave us Abby Joseph Cohen?

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:42:56 -0500

You have clearly changed your position based on my comments - you were initially attacking electric vehicles because you believed they were associated with renewable sources and because the electricity might require more btu's than running on gas, but when I essentially repeated the same argument 4 times that we could generate electricity with domestic sources such as coal and it would be a major benefit regardless of cost you finally realized what I was saying and took that position as your own. Now I'm done, you can call me a moron and get in the last word

On Nov 24 11:21 PM Dean M wrote:

> The name calling just proves you lack the intellect to debate me.

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:21:27 -0500

The name calling just proves you lack the intellect to debate me. You claimed electric vehicles weren't viable and I disagreed based on criteria that you have yet to make an intelligent rebuttal to after 4 rambling insult laden responses.

On Nov 24 11:16 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> Dean... I wasn't the one attacking my posts in response to why not
> only ethanol, but electric vehicles (brought up by someone else,
> not me) aren't the answer to the issue at hand, you were. I understood
> the context of what was being debated, you didn't. Of course you're
> also too proud to admit that YOU weren't the one listening... or
> did you forget posting this:
>
> I would think a charging station would be a hell of alot cheaper

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:52:11 -0500

Jim Please Listen: I don't care if we use more energy as long as it is from domestic sources. We have the resources, lets use them now. And you keep saying electricity uses oil and gas, actually oil is just a tiny, almost insignificant sliver of our power generation, coal-gas-nukes are the big 3

On Nov 24 10:30 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> First of all, the comments about wind and solar powered vehicles
> were sarcasm. If you're unfamiliar with the concept look up the
> word in the dictionary (or have someone do it for you). If you really
> think I believe that you should put a windmill on the back of your
> car then you're a bigger moron then your posts show.
>
> Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not we continue to
> use a combustion engine or an electric car... it has to do with fixing
> the primary source of the solution being offered; ELECTRICITY.
>
>
> If you really believe in using coal or natural gas to help generate
> electricity then in theory you should be on my side. You can't save
> oil and gasoline by using electricity until you fix the problem that
> using more electricity uses more oil and gasoline. This isn't a
> hard concept to grasp! To use an old phrase that predates combustion
> engine vehicles, worrying about electric cars before the delivery
> method of electricity is fixed is "putting the cart before the horse".
>
>
> I'll say it again... if you want to argue with me then get off your
> soap box and explain to me how using more oil and gas will save us
> oil and gas. Until you can do this you're just showing your lack
> of understanding of the discussion and your overall ignorance.

U.S. Economic Recovery and the Housing Sector Mirage

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:26:06 -0500

I don't know about that, I think many of our most valuable lessons in life are forced on us.

On Nov 24 07:01 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:

> Hi Dean.
>
> To begin with, the reduction in credit for most Americans is not
> VOLUNTARY. You can't claim to have "learned " new behavior if it
> is simply forced on you.
>
> Second, "Cash for Clunkers" proves Americans have learned NOTHING.
> A million Americans bought vehicles they didn't NEED - with the automakers
> clawing-back all their "subsidies" through higher sticker prices
> - so that those car-buyers saved NOTHING! Most of the rest of the
> country cheered-on this idiocy.
>
> Again: not the slightest sign of Americans "learning" anything.

>
> Third, to believe that the U.S. economy is currently "growing" implies
> believing that an economy which became hopelessly insolvent through
> excessive borrowing-and-spending has been FIXED by even MORE-excessive
> borrowing-and-spending.
>
> Obviously anyone who believes this fantasy has clearly not learned
> the lesson of "buying things they can't pay for".
>
> The fact that Americans are not DEMANDING the resignation of their
> entire government for CREATING a NEW subprime sector (100%-backed
> by taxpayer dollars) - while the U.S. housing sector is STILL plummeting
> downward from the collapse of the original bubble - shows that most
> Americans have learned nothing.

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:01:15 -0500

No I hear your point and I disagree, I would be willing to burn 20% more fuel to generate the same miles traveled, I don't care. The benefit would outweigh the costs of being reliant on foreign sources. Even though I doubt that what you say is really true because as a previous post pointed out, internal combustion engines are still only 35% efficient as opposed to over 90% for electric motors. And you completely miss the point if you think that electric cars can only operate on wind or solar generated electricity.

On Nov 24 09:54 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> Wow, you really miss the point. This isn't in response to the cost
> of anything, but to the best path to becoming energy independent
> of oil. Whether you believe it's because we're running out or don't
> want to support the Middle East really doesn't matter. The issue
> in this article (and the following discussion) is how to accomplish
> this by using alternative fuel sources for vehicles. My point is
> that electricity shouldn't be offered as a solution until the electricity
> can be delivered without consuming even more oil and gasoline then
> the so called "solution" will save us. The issue of price isn't
> a factor here (unless you want to count the increase in the price
> of electricity due to the increased demand).
>
> Either take a reading comprehension course or keep your soap box
> opinions to yourself, they aren't solutions to anything being discussed
> here.

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:22:11 -0500

Maybe you should have read my post before you started frothing at the mouth. I am calling for electric cars powered by coal and gas generated electricity. That is a viable alternative for energy independence. The real cost is much cheaper than oil if you factor in things like our damaging trade deficit and the wars in Iraq. I know wind and solar is not capable of delivering that much power and I don't think my original post said anything about that.

On Nov 24 06:05 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> Thanks for making my point. Cars running on electricity is not going
> to make us energy independent; it's not the answer to our fuel problem.
> For almost 40 years there's been an industry trying to push "alternative"
> fuels on the public, all the while wasting even more energy trying
> to find a method that works. It's not going to happen. Electric
> is a viable option but not until you find a delivery source that
> doesn't use more oil and gas then it saves. Get your head out of
> your @ss... your saviors have had 4 decades to come up with an answer
> and they can't do it. Admit that the perpetual motion machine doesn't
> exist... it runs on oil... and stop wasting even more of what you're
> worried about running out by running in circles.
>
> Whether you like it or not oil is an issue until this is solved,
> and windmills and electric cars are not the answer... they're just
> providing the excuse to "keep things as they are a little while longer
> until we find the answer". Thank your viewpoint for keeping us in
> battles for crude oil.
>
> Unless you're willing to move to nuclear power to deliver your electricity
> then it's all a fool's game, and you and the other fools will keep
> wasting everyone's time, not to mention their energy.
>
> BTW, I live just a few miles from Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania
> and have no issue with nuclear power.
>
> On Nov 24 04:51 PM Dean M wrote:

U.S. Economic Recovery and the Housing Sector Mirage

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:49:23 -0500

How can you make that claim when the graph you presented shows that Americans are reducing their debt levels for the first time in 40 years?

"Sadly, Americans apparently have still not learned the lesson that buying things, but not paying for them cannot possibly be the basis for a solvent economy, let alone a healthy one. "

GDP Misses by 20%

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:39:22 -0500

News flash :

THE ECONOMY IS BAD AND THE GOVERNMENT EXAGGERATES ECONOMIC STATISTICS!

That's the kind of insight you can only pick up here on SA.

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:46 -0500

Operative term: "some type" of fossil fuel. Do you want to use abundant US fossil fuels such as coal and gas delivered through the power grid or Al Qaida funding gasoline. What about the sunken cost of keeping the oil flowing in the middle east via US military support. If we taxpayers could get back our trillion dollars from Iraq I'm sure that would offset the cost differential between gas and electric powered vehicles if there really is one.

On Nov 24 04:08 PM Trader Jim wrote:

> Handsel... everything you discussed here requires some type of fossil
> fuel to generate the electricity to supply the power and for the
> manufacturing of the batteries, so far it's been shown that you use
> more energy than you save going down this road. Unfortunately there
> has been an entire industry based upon this flawed theory for decades
> now and there's a sunken cost effect involved... no one is willing
> to let it go and admit it's a waste of time.
>
> Unless you're willing to move toward nuclear power (which would take
> decades even if we started today) or turn your vehicle into a huge
> sailboat with a windmill strapped to the back of it you're not saving
> any energy.

Whatever Happened to Those Ethanol Companies?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:40:50 -0500

I would think a charging station would be a hell of alot cheaper than a gas station to build and maintain. I bet if electric car batteries come up to snuff, the infrastructure will follow in a hurry. Ethanol E85 lacks acceptance because the whole idea is ridiculous.

On Nov 24 08:28 AM Decoy wrote:

> Ethanol plus any other energy source that needs special filling facilities
> such as e85 pumps, hydrogen pumps, hydrogen pumps,special electric
> hook ups will have a hard time being accepted. Example,many cars
> on the east and west coast can & would use e85 but there are
> few if any pumps that can deliver it. The same will happen with plug
> in electrics unless someone builds out the charging stations throughout
> the nation.

What the Greatest Investor in the World Is Doing Right Now

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:11:26 -0500

So Paulson is making a $250 million dollar investment amid massive fanfare to drive up the value of his $6 Billion in existing holdings. How altruistic. Is he going to purchase the gold for his new hedge fund customers from his old hedge fund? No wonder you call him the worlds greatest investor. Think people, why is he telegraphing this move. Did he telegraph his cds purchases while he was accumulating them.

The Twenty Year Stock Bubble Is Still Inflated

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:59:39 -0500

This type of argument would appear to be based on the premise that potential profit growth for companies is based on the strength of 'our' underlying economy. But really all the growth potential is in developing markets now. Not to say that we're not in a bubble but we need an analysis that will factor this in.

Are We Exacerbating China's Pollution?

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:37:16 -0500

Your frequent market top calls have been a disaster so you're straining for something else to talk about. Maybe that means we are at a market top.

Are Stocks Making a Major Top?

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:38:36 -0500

as many people have been calling a top on the way up as had called the bottom on the way down. I'm sure someone will be correct and it will be due entirely to dumb luck.

The Global Oil Scam: 50 Times Bigger than Madoff

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:41:51 -0500

I wish oil would go to $1000/bbl so we could get rid of it once and for all in this country and let Ahmedinejad and Chavez drink it.

Property Values Set to Fall 43% from Current Depressed Levels

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:55:16 -0500

Sorry ten years is too short of a snapshot to make that extrapolation. I'm not disputing your thesis, just your lack of evidence. And I don't think it's incumbent on me to come up with an alternate analysis.

On Nov 04 06:05 PM Michael David White wrote:

> I did draw in the trend line based upon the first ten years having
> greater validity than the second ten years. It's interesting that
> you say my hypothesis for values has no value, but you offer nothing
> of value to support your opinion on values. Here's my opinion: Based
> upon price trends in the past three years, in which we have had a
> catastrophic loss in values, the bubble trend is a bubble and the
> non-bubble trend is a non-bubble. I assumed that the long-trend is
> the non-bubble trend. I hope this explanation has been of value to
> you. I am working on a longer-trend graph. Thanks for your note.
> mdw

Cramer Does It Again with CIT Call

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:07:24 -0500

The SEC should regulate him? Will they use the anti buffoonery clause?

Property Values Set to Fall 43% from Current Depressed Levels

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:52:55 -0500

It's very unclear how you arrived at that trend line. It almost looks like you fit the line to the first 10 years and assumed it should apply to the next ten years. If that was the basis of how you drew the trend line then I see no value in this analysis. I have seen really long term graphs, like 50-100 years - normalized to inflation and/or median income, I would welcome a refresh on that type of trend to see where we fall in.

On Bubbles and the Market Recovery

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:04:21 -0400

Interesting how all these heavyweights are coordinating their efforts to jawbone the market down all of a sudden. Maybe they are trying to cover up their own meager performance by year end.

Crashachusetts Sept. 2009 Existing Home Sales and Prices: Don't Be Fooled by Headline Numbers

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:46:25 -0400

What kind of analysis is that? Subtracting 5% from the actual figure on a graph is totally meaningless, any idiot could figure out that if you subtract 5% it will look that much worse.

Bill Gross: Six Month Rally Is 'At Its Pinnacle'

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:15:27 -0400

This commentary by Gross is consistent with what his outlook has been for quite a while. But calling a top on the stock market is something new for him and you have to wonder about his motives when someone of his stature does that.

Fantasy Housing Numbers a Prelude to the Next U.S. Crash

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:49:09 -0400

Of course I have biases but I'm not trying to sell a particular point of view to anyone with regards to the economy. Just trying to navigate the rough waters for myself. I guess 'ridiculous' was a little too strong, 'questionable' would have been a better choice of words.

On Oct 28 05:43 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:

> Let me get this straight, Dean.
>
> I look "ridiculous" when I cite an anecdote from my own, personal
> experience. However, it's NOT "ridiculous" when major news organizations
> report that heresay that ANONYMOUS "buyers" are (supposedly) having
> difficulty "finding" and distressed properties to purchase.
>
> It's a good thing that YOU have have no biases, Dean.

Fantasy Housing Numbers a Prelude to the Next U.S. Crash

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:28:07 -0400

So the government should subsidize 25% of the purchase price of a new house?

On Oct 28 11:53 AM Living4Dividends wrote:

> Caveat:
> The only thing they have done for homeowners is a $8000 credit. It
> is very restrictive. You only get it if you are a new homeowner,
> etc, etc. It does not help existing homeowners (unless they sell).
>
>
> $8000 for a $160,000 house is 5% of the purchase price
> $4500 for a $18,000 car is 25% of the purchase price.
>
> According to the government, cars are more important than houses.
>
>
> When the banks foreclose on the houses, the people can sleep in their
> shiny brand new cars.

Fantasy Housing Numbers a Prelude to the Next U.S. Crash

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:25:07 -0400

Jeff presents some worthwhile data but him calling the NAR biased is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. He is a gold salesman so he is heavily biased to present the armegeddon scenario. He makes himself look quite a bit ridiculous when he points to email spam as a measure of bank owned housing inventory.

iShares Files for New Type of Muni Bond ETF

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:41:58 -0400

Game changer

The Greatest Depression Is Coming

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:55:52 -0400

Thank you Senator McCarthy

On Oct 19 10:13 AM diogeron wrote:

> Take this anti-"socialist" pledge....
>
> Date:_________________...
>
> I, ________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles
> of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I
> shall strictly adhere to the following:
>
> I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I
> will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods
> and services including but not limited to the following:
>
> * Social Security
> * Medicare/Medicaid
> * State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
>
> * Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
> * US Postal Service
> * Roads and Highways
> * Air Travel (regulated by the FAA)
> * The US Railway System
> * Public Subways and Metro Systems
> * Public Bus and Light Rail Systems
> * Rest Areas on Highways & Sidewalks
> * All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Senator Grassley's
> Iowa 2009 -- grassley.senate.gov/is...
> federal appropriations of taxpayer money)
> * Public Water and Sewer Services (including but not limited to public
> toilets, showers, dishwashers, kitchen sinks, and outdoor hoses)
>
> * Public and State Universities and Colleges
> * Public Primary and Secondary Schools & Sesame Street
> * Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
> * Public Libraries & Museums
> * Public Parks and Beaches
> * State and National Parks
> * Public Zoos
> * Unemployment Insurance
> * Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
> * Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic Has Received Funding from Local,
> State or Federal Government
> * Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived from
> Any Government Grant or Research Funding
> * Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Velcro (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
>
> * Use of the Internet, email, and networked computers, as the DOD's
> ARPANET was the basis for computer networking
> * Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown with, Fed
> with, Raised with or Contain Crops Grown with Government Farm Subsidies
>
> * Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown with or
> Contain Inputs from Government Subsidies
> If a veteran of the government-run US military, I will forego my
> VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care.
>
> I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in
> Washington, D.C.
>
> I pledge never to take myself, my family, or my children on a tour
> of the following types of socialist locations, including but not
> limited to:
>
> * Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum
> of American History
> * The Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments
> * The government-operated Statue of Liberty
> * The Grand Canyon
> * The World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials
> * The government-run Arlington National Cemetery
> * All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state
> or in Washington, DC
>
> I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forego their government
> salary and government-provided healthcare.
>
> I will oppose and condemn the government-funded military of the United
> States of America.
>
> I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such
> as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics,
> Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds
> of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods
> for our socialist army.
>
> I will protest socialist national security departments such as the
> Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department
> of Justice and their socialist employees.
>
> Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist
> Social Security checks.
>
> Upon reaching age 65, I will forego Medicare and pay for my own private
> health insurance until I die.
>
> SWORN AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ________ IN THE YEAR _____.
>
> _______________________ _______________________ _____________________
>
>
> Signed Printed Name Town and State
>

The Greatest Depression Is Coming

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:15:07 -0400

If unemployment is really 2x the stated level then how come I don't know anyone out of a job among friends, family, neighbors etc. Maybe I'm an anomaly but that claim seems a load of bs. Even one of my close, terminally underemployed friends just got a really good job.

World Recovery Is in the Hands of OPEC

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:51:36 -0400

I wish oil would go to $1000 so we would stop using it, we have plenty of energy sources right here, the domestic energy producers just don't own politicians like big oil. Lets see Iran and Venezuela try to compete in the world economy on innovation instead of the dumb luck of sitting on massive oil reserves, that would be fun.

How Apple's Market Share Will Propel Stock to $500, Part 1

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:44:09 -0400

I bought a new Mac to learn iPhone programming on and I've had several in the past for work. I'm not particularly impressed, it has plenty of flakiness to rival Windows PCs. I saw in the Best Buy insert today that a Macbook Pro is $2400 vs 1200 for a comparably configured PC. The 100% price premium is inexplicable to me.