Socialism cannot compete!

Total Rating:
+92 / -38

329 Comments

    • Fri Oct 24th 13:54 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Bargains Abound in Four Large-Cap Leaders
      Brand name is not recession proof. We all "want" things. But this isn't the economy for "wants". And I don't care whether parks are only 10-20% of rev, that doesn't mean their other rev doesn't decline as well! DIS is discretionary...eating... is not!
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 23rd 18:29 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Bargains Abound in Four Large-Cap Leaders
      DIS has alot of revenue that is highly elastic for a tapped-out consumer: most are likely to continue purchasing a DVD here and there, but I bet trips to the theme parks drop off significantly. Why would I spend a couple thousand on DisneyLand for a week...when I can spend a couple hundred to go camping for a week, and probably have a lower stress, healthier vacation to boot?

      KO - i agree; we don't stop drinking or eating what we like to eat or drink, generally. I think KO is much safer than DIS.
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 23rd 18:14 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Response to Bloomberg's 'Gold May Pay Only in Case of Maximum Despair'
      @mark mchugh: section (q) number 1:

      "(1) In general.— Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, the Secretary shall commence striking and issuing for sale such number of $50 gold bullion and proof coins as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate, in such quantities, as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe."

      Notice "shall commence", *but* "such number...as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate..." etc. As it says, it's about the Secretary's discretion. There's no minimum number specified. "Shall commence" could be fulfilled by minting a single coin.
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 23rd 17:39 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Beware of Congressmen with Checkbooks
      Heh. Was this ever a question? There's 2 sides to a trade...if the banks were gonna come out ahead, the Fed was gonna lose!
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 23rd 17:05 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Picking Some Stocks to Survive This Market
      @Chicagawaukee: "I would add some low priced, higher yielding stocks such as DOW, ED, DUK, MRK, until the market calms down." ABSOLUTELY! I've bought some ED on recent dips below 40. A 6% yield is nice to hang onto, and I don't think we're shutting off the grid anytime soon.

      @JonT & TomB: Again, ABSOLUTELY! MSFT is DIW. Server rooms are going Linux...there goes your enterprise OS $. Consumer is DIW. OpenOffice = no need for MS Office in these economic conditions. I see little reason to expect much from MSFT for at least several years!

      I'm going with some yields: ED, INTC (for the long haul - it will suffer from the short-term consumer dip like MSFT, but has much better product & strategy!), NLY (benefits from steep yield curve & declining LIBOR...& the Feds are backstopping the mortgage debt. Currently yielding 18%...what's not to like?), KO (declining commodity prices, still growing abroad & continued expansion in non-carbonated segment).
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 23rd 13:23 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Inflation: One Worry to Cross Off the List
      Check out the M1 money supply, buddy! Short-term we are deflating...but hold on to your seat!!
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 22nd 22:37 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Seagate Warns, But Says Rivals Are in Worse Shape
      And what about WDC? lol Thought so.
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 22nd 22:36 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why Stock Market Volatility Is Perfectly Natural
      Bonds may have been easier to price in the past, but not by this degree. What is clear is that Mr. Salmon is overstating the case -- this degree of volatility is *not* normal! And it is due to the federal government continually changing the rules of the game!! The market clearly does not like all the socialism -- that is what is going on right now. And it's why we don't know how to price anything at the moment. If we went by earnings, Q3 is looking fine, outside of Financials, IMO. Going *forward*, however, the socialistic moves and government not allowing capitalism on the down side is what demolishes the ability to price and renders markets non-functional!
      View article »
    • Mon Oct 20th 17:26 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Here I Go, Criticizing Warren Buffett
      @righttoweb: sorry...warren bought those for his *private* portfolio, not for berkshire! at least, that is my understanding. besides, who wants the dilution of berkshire? the point is that those particular deals were really sweetened.
      View article »
    • Mon Oct 20th 17:24 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Don't Blame Declining Lending Standards for Subprime Mess
      @dinochick: you are wrong on at least 3 points!

      1) stated income is not the problem -- the problem is that the government takes 30-40% off the top of most working Americans' checks, for fed taxes alone! time to get that back where it oughta be so that people have their own money to do with as *they* need.

      2) control house prices -- you mean like communists would do? we don't operate like that here for a reason -- it doesn't work! there are already *natural* barriers in place, such as cost to build.

      3) the last thing we need is another agency and more property taxes! cut the d@mn bloody taxes and then we can afford our mortgages! you actually want to cap what people can sell for, and require approval by an agency to exceed that? where's freedom anymore?
      View article »
    • Mon Oct 20th 12:29 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Don't Blame Declining Lending Standards for Subprime Mess
      dawdler: Sorry, but there *was* strong-arming of banks going on! It is well-known that Fannie & Freddie were given "goals" that they had to have 50% of their mortgages be subprime. A
      View article »
    • Mon Oct 20th 12:02 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Here I Go, Criticizing Warren Buffett
      You're right to criticize Buffett...his recent moves are *exactly* the types of moves that illustrate inequal access to *public* trading of equities. If the companies in question don't want to be publicly listed, they should go private. Otherwise, no sweetheart deals -- you need $3B in capital, you make those same terms available at retail to anyone who wants in. Period. I would assume that the deals as they were, are nonetheless subject to shareholder approval? Boards are dysfunctional...I'm starting to like Icahn's "shareholder rights" movement more and more!
      View article »
    • Fri Oct 17th 13:35 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Will We Know When We've Made a Low?
      The real lesson is that buy and hold is not a strategy that is going to work. You buy in increments, and sell when you achieve reasonable gains -- to hang on past that increases your chances of losing, as seen by the fact we are now flat over the past 10 years. If the S&P averages a 10-12% return, and I'm up that much, I'm gonna start scaling out -- again, not all at once...but that is the clue that it's time.

      As for calling a bottom and when to buy, again, buy incrementally. To be in cash right now would have been good...but at these valuations, *some* increment should be going into the market right now! Save some for the next decline. If we start having lower lows and higher highs...then you can feel better about putting more increments on. But you never go all in. Leave 20% even if you think it's all up from here.
      View article »
    • Fri Oct 17th 10:58 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Coming Soon: The $600 Trillion Derivatives Emergency Meeting
      "...and that's why ALL banks were encouraged to simultaneously belly up to the TARP bar; that is, so that there would be no "looks like they had to" going on among the big boys."

      You do realize what you just wrote (and what the Fed just did)?? Forced a transaction for the sake of appearances? What happened to transparency? Did the Fed not just violate SarBox, by obscuring from the market the condition of certain of those 9 banks, by forcing the other good ones to in effect camouflage them???

      This entire bailout is Unconstitutional, and this bank buy-in was the worst piece yet!!!

      P.S. -- I don't give a FLIPPIN' RIP if it ends up working, if it's illegal and also undermines the principles of free markets, which are economic expressions of personal liberty! This deal was WRONG. Period.
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 16th 19:07 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Program Trading, Dark Pools and Gold
      Mr. Schaefer -- thank you for an excellent article! One truly has to wonder what the motivation was for the Feds to remove these safeguards in such an already questionable environment during 2007. If I was a conspiracy advocate, they would certainly have given me fuel for my theory! Indeed, I may yet begin to think that a small cabal of socialist-globalists is eager to undermine the American financial system and subjugate it to the "World Bank"!

      What am I buying right now? Stocks: food and gold miners. Real goods: canned food, guns and ammo. No, I'm not kidding...and yes, I have taken time to think about it rationally -- every American ought to have at least one gun in the house for self-defense as well as procurement of wild game in the event that our ag, food-processing, or distribution systems fail or come under attack. It's the kind of thing that one hopes to never need, but can't count on acquiring when the needing is worst. Be prepared.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»