Bobco23

Employment: Neither Quality Nor Quantity

Under capitalism man exploits man.
Under socialism its the reverse.

To that little homily you should understand that under capitalism the individual makes choices, under socialism, the state makes them for you; and not to your best interest. See world history.


On Nov 08 11:36 AM just mike wrote:

> I've seen this guy on CNBC a few times and now spent the morning
> reading several of his articles. I find him completely negative about
> everything the government and markets have done and are doing.<br/>I
> thank my lucky stars that he isn't running the country or the pain
> the common man would endure would be unbearable since the wealthy
> such as himself would come through it fine and on the backs and the
> suffering of the common man.
> He is a pure capitalist without any social conscience.

Report from Europe: Stocks Up Ahead of Key Earnings Week

Thanks for the remarks on AAUK. It is hard to find timely news on this company.

How to Profit From Greenhouse Gas Emission Restrictions and Incentives

Let's see. the atmosphere is made up of 78% N, 21% O2, and 1% of other stuff. CO2 is a small component of "other stuff." Man contributes less than 2% of the CO2 "pollution." So 2% of 1% is 2 ten thousandths of a percent. Man made global warming from CO2 is a scam.

The only ones who believe in it are fools and those who stand to profit from the scam.

The Great Shift: China Rising, U.S. Falling

I too am a simple accountant. The rationale for "free trade" never made sense to me, although like you, I have had that "religion" crammed down on me throughtout my university and business years. What corporation would open its market's freely to a competitor? The core business concept is to create a unique product or service or to obtain a competetive advantage to preclude others from entering (destroying) the corporation's market.

On a more philosophical sense, what good does it do America to open it's markets to elevate the overall prosperity of the world if in that process, the overall prosperity of the US declines? We have grown the pie through free trade, but greatly deminished the size of our slice.

We should begin build a system of "market access" fees to level the playing field against cheap labor and other market advantages enjoyed by foreign producers. Call these tariffs if you will (our country was initially financed on tariffs, until we discovered the wonderful concept of income taxes), but I prefer to think of them as "slotting" fees, similar to those used by supermarket chains.

In any event your post on the question of social cost in the quest of lowest cost production (for conspicious consumption) is one we hear too infrequently. Seeing your post gives me hope we will someday move past the alter of "free trade", because it isn't.

> A few comments on the Chinese ascendancy / US decadence meme:
>
> 1. China has developed and presently recognized the other side of
> the aggressive mercantilist policy. For example, so much of the state
> funding has gone into heavy industrial capacity, that the state has
> imposed a prohibition on the construction of new aluminum smelting
> plants, etc. This overcapacity can only be absorbed by steady foreign
> buying, and the US market will continue to be an important element.
> Just based on the size and maturity of its markets, the US can only
> fall so far, even if it is nowhere near its former heights .
>
> 2. US deindustrialization has been a long ongoing process (I remember
> writing papers and debating the matter as a university student in
> the 1980s, by which time there was already a considerable literature).
> The only possible remedy is a governmental policy solution which
> will be highly controversial. For example, the firm in which I work,
> a US manufacturer, was late to the Asia import game and entered only
> reluctantly. At that point, our competitors were "all in" and began
> to undercut our prices materially, so we faced a stark choice: either
> join the foreign sourcing party, or go out of business. In either
> case, we could not sustain the same level of domestic production
> and employment.
>
> We chose the lesser of two evils, and still employ some US manufacturing
> workers. Margins have eroded anyway, because buyers know the foreign
> sourced product is cheaper, and nobody in our industry has much pricing
> power. We live and raise our families in these communities, and would
> have preferred to maintain full employment. That would only have
> been economically feasible if something like a tariff had decreased
> the cost gap between foreign sourced and domestically produced goods.
> Is that an argument for protectionism? Would such a thing be viable?
> I understand perfectly well what economists say, having been educated
> by them.
>
> What about the indirect hard and soft social costs of deindustrialization?
> Unemployment insurance, law enforcement and prisons, falling property
> values, etc, social stability, human happiness. How much do any of
> these matter? Certainly the economists will have their answers for
> these as well.

Defense Contractors Pursue the Smart Grid

OK, let me get this straight. We now have a hacker proof "dumb" system, impervious to terriorist remote threats. Now we want to change this to a "smart" grid, vulnerable to terriorist remote hacking and disruption (read: destruction and death). Finally, we want the government in on this plan.

Sounds good to me. (not!)

Peak Oil: A Reality or a Lie?

Anybody interested in making money?

Most of the comments admit to future shortages, but assert that high prices will bring on demand, or they seek to place blame, or they seek to promote their personal solutions.

Anybody interested in making money?

If we all agree prices are going up, the SA question is, "Where can we most profitably invest", not who is to blame or how the world will evolve.

IMHO those companies with the most proven/potential OWNED reserves per cost (equity price) of ownership are the ones that will pay off the most over the short/medium term. (and if they pay rich dividends currently, so much the better). Isn't that what we are all looking for?

I can't feed my family on blame and ideas for fixes.

Anybody interested in making money?

Religious Muslims Now Have an ETF to Call Their Own

Peace?

This just in: from the Noble Quran, Surah 9:5

"Fight and slay the Pagans (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, and seize them, beleagure them, and lie in wait for them is every strategem (of war).."

You might also want to "educate" yourself by also reading the following Surahs: 4:89,47:4,9:123,8:67,8... and 5:51.
You can find all of them on the internet.

Isalm is the only major religion that REQUIRES believers to murder unbelievers.

The sarcastic comments you denegrate are on target. You, sir, are the ignorant one.






On Jul 07 09:39 PM oas wrote:

> marli andrew butter and others, i want to thank you for your comments.
> its sad to see even on this site i still witness idiots from all
> walks of life. those who dont know anything on islam...which 99%
> of you dont, i strongly suggest you read on islam..i can turn around
> and say..all capitalists are murderers..didnt they drop the atomic
> bomb??.and loads of comments..but it wont get us anywhere..so again
> i appreciate those who have made positive comments on islam and muslims..and
> for the record, your "capitalists" anglo saxon "barbarians" be european
> or north american, have actually studied the islamic financial models
> and economics and have stated many positive comments..wishing that
> it could apply to this society..shalom, salam peace

Cap-and-Trade Plan: Climate Change Reactions

There is a BIG question that global warming is real. Take the effort to read some contrarian opinions. Pick any of a bunch of sites off the web. Science is a process of forming a theory and testing it and accepting it, then retesting it again and again, always trying to disprove what is assummed. When I hear the "jury is out. There is no discussion," I know for sure there IS valid discussion.

Exxon and the other corporations can tell which way the tide is running. They are not going to stand in front of this train and lead the charge against the green house gas global warming sham. They will only draw criticism and skepticism. They have been cowered and know how to play a weak hand.

Here's the bottom line. If you believe in global warming, you are either a fool or in on the scam.


On Jun 28 09:21 AM CaptainJJack wrote:

> I have really mixed emotions.
>
> On the one hand, there is no question that global warming is real
> and getting worse. Nothing is ever completely certain in science,
> but when the National Academy of Sciences and the tree huggers at
> Exxon Mobil agree that it is a problem, it is a problem.
>
> For me, the biggest issue is that we are losing the snow pack in
> the Sierras and the Cascades, and more importantly, the Rockies.
> Of course, the snow pack levels vary from year to year, but on average,
> it is going, and the snow level is rising.
>
> If you want to see clear evidence, just take a trip to Lake Powell
> which is fed by the Colorado River.
>
> In short, the problem for me is not so much too much ocean water,
> it is too little fresh water. Fresh water is going to become precious.
>
>
> On the other hand, with China bringing on a cagillion coal fired
> power plants, ALL of the rest of the world's efforts get canceled
> out. Why should we put ourselves at an even bigger trade disadvantage
> with China?
>
> Still, I lean towards doing something vs doing nothing. At the very
> least, SOME kind of carbon tax (even if it is cap and trade) will
> encourage more investment in energy efficiency, and longer term,
> that is better for us, even if China doesn't go along.
>
> And, the Chinese are no fools. If they think we are going to end
> up with a competitive advantage by focusing on newer technologies,
> I am pretty sure they will change direction quickly.

Why Marc Faber Is Wrong About the CPI

Excellent point.

I would add that government at all levels has no credibility. Even if the measurements were fair and representative of "inflation", few of us are going to believe the government.


On Jun 21 04:07 PM sabre_jenn wrote:

> I don't think you and Faber are on the same page... I did not see
> Faber's CNBC interview, but I heard him speak in person recently
> (and he usually talks about the same things).
>
> Faber is talking about actual inflation experienced by the "average
> consumer" -- better known as the cost of living. A few comments note
> above that many prices such as utilities, education (college or local
> via property taxes) and healthcare are growing double digits, while
> the only things going down are stocks and home prices. The cost of
> living is skyrocketing.
>
> According to the BLS, CPI is supposed to be a **PRICE** index, not
> a cost of living index. That many people misuse CPI as an inflation
> measure does not change the fact that it is not an inflation measure
> -- it says so right on the BLS's website.
>
> As for the examples cited in the article -- I think the author did
> a lot to discredit CPI as either a cost of living index or a price
> index.
>
> For example, the article says health care and insurance are weighted
> 6.4% and 2.8% respectively. That's great in la-la land of government,
> but in the real world, health care spending is around 15% of GDP
> -- so says Obama, Republicans, insurance companies, hospitals, pharamaceutical
> companies, AARP, and the GAO. Basically, both political parties,
> as well as major suppliers and consumers of health care, all agree
> the correct weighting is around 15%
>
> The BLS weghting of 6.4% is just plain wrong, and the authors attempts
> to label detractors as conspiracy theorists just makes him look foolish.
> The correct weighting should be something close to 15%.
>
> Gross misweightings such as health care make CPI rather deceptive
> for its intended use as a PRICE index.
>
> CPI was never an appropriate gauge for cost of living -- no matter
> how many contracts use it as such. Even the BLS agrees with that

What's the Real Cost of the Cap-and-Trade Program?

Not only is it idiotic, it is a scam. The only people that believe in global warmning (or now called climate change to cover all possibilities) are fools and those in on the scam.

From an investment standpoint we can load up on the green plays for now, including cap and trade, but keep a tight stop. One day the crowd will declare the king has no clothes and the green play will replicate the dot com play.



On Jun 21 10:15 AM Dukk wrote:

> Sometimes sublety doesn't work...cap and trade is idiotic.

California's Permanent Crisis

The implications of any level of government being forced to cut costs in half makes me giddy. The tax and spend, grow and control paradigm is over. The beauty of it all is that CA is the first to fall.


On Jun 21 07:53 PM Northstar10000 wrote:

> They are in a complete state of unbelief. They have always have spent
> a ton and taxed a lot, never giving a thought to the idea that it
> could only end in tears. Wait until the magic potion of the market
> takes over and they see how much the scared cows howell. Start with
> the University of Cal budget. Cut prof's salaries in half. they do
> nothing, I know, I am one....

California Can't Print Money

California may be the light at the end of the tunnel.

Apparently there is a limit to taxation, the lifeblood of government. This could be the tipping point when the 100 year growth in government implodes under its own weight.

Thanks CA. This is the only thing good you have ever done for the rest of us.

Has Obama Run Out of Maneuvering Room Already?

Small problem. 100 million times $1 million equals $1,000 trillion (with a "T"). That would cause the mother of all inflation. Just a back of the envelope calculation, but the dollar of today would be worth about 5 one hundredths of a cent. A better plan would be to just stop spending more than is taken in.


On Jun 11 12:50 PM Donald Ingram wrote:

> An open letter to President Obama.
> Dear Sir,
> There are approximately 100 million 'first wave' baby boomers between
> the ages of 50 and 65. Instead of giving trillions more to banks
> and car companies, why not give 1 million dollars apiece to this
> group as severance pay on the following stipulations:
> 1. They MUST retire. Tens of millions of job openings. Unemployment
> fixed.
> 2. They MUST buy a brand new made in America car. Auto industry fixed.
>
> 3. They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage. Housing
> crises fixed.
> 4. They MUST send their kids or grand kids to school/college/university
> - crime rate lowered.
> 5. They MUST buy $50 of alcohol/tobacco/gasoline per week. There's
> a good portion of your money back in duty/tax etc.
>
> P.S. If more money is required have members of the senate and congress
> pay back their fat expense claims and pork barrel takings, along
> with the banksters obscenely high bonuses.
> Thank You.

Is the Employment Picture Really Better Now than in 1933?

Brilliant teacher of macroeconomics? Not likely. To pin the economic distress of today, the origin of which began after WW2 with the creation of the credit economy, on Bush is infantile.


On Jun 09 09:23 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> This is a very interesting and well written paper. The problem is
> that age-wise I am almost certainly closer than the author to the
> depression generation, and so I don't have to believe what that gentleman
> believes. In addition there was a short period when I was a brilliant
> teacher of macroeconomics, however even if I had never opened a macro
> book I could never accept the author's bottom line. Things are bad
> now, however it seemed to me that it required a war to scale down
> the Depression.
>
> I will admit though that the present government will have to do a
> lot of work to correct the mistakes of Mr Bush, and I for one hope
> that it doesn't attempt to solve the problems of the US while being
> overly concerned with the many shortcomings and woes of foreign friends
> and allies.

Is the Employment Picture Really Better Now than in 1933?

I was downsized in1997 at age 57. I went out and got another job. I still detest liberals.


On Jun 09 07:53 AM redbaron wrote:

> Good thoughts, well presented, and I agree with the main concepts.
> As I mentioned yesterday in another SA discussion on the unemployment
> rate, I quit using this statistic for economic activity measurement
> when calculation methodology was changed several years ago.
>
> I was gainfully employed for 31 years, and was a member of the working
> class until 1996, when at the age of 54 my long time employer decided
> that I was no longer needed, and could legally downsize me without
> repurcussions. That event changed me forever, and my political attitude
> was adjusted to the left, from slightly to the right of center. I
> often wonder how others political attitudes have similarly changed
> as a result of similar events.