fjd10595

A Look at George Soros's Recent Trades

"he tries to turn us into Europe". Much of what Soros says makes perfect sense. Do you think it is bad to criticize policies that one disagrees with, like going to war on false data? Give us a break. It would be a good idea to follow Europe, in some areas. They have affordable healthcare there. We run to the doctor for every little thing and demand drugs and have unsustainably high healthcare costs. This is what we are turning over to our children? This country has turned into a joke. It was called 'the greatest generation' during the last world war. No more. History will call this the selfish generation. It is not wrong to point this out. It is right, in the hope of correcting it. But we won't. We want everything without paying for it- the conservative way, "tax cut and spend". Woe to children. By the way, did you call george bush an extremist, for pandering to fundamentalist christians with extreme views. For changing scientific findings at the EPA and the FDA? I thought that scientists make such findings, and advise the political end in order that proper science based policies are implemented. Is the denial of science an extreme view? Which person put forth views that deny science, bush or soros?


On Nov 18 08:51 AM John Galt wrote:

> Soros politics get a lot of google hits because
> A) He's an extremist
> B) He's not shy to share his views
>
> Yeah Buffet and others will share their views if you ask them for
> their opinion, but Soros will be quick to volunteer his political
> views ( right or wrong). He comes from Europe to America, makes billions
> and then denounces our system and tries to turn us into Europe. It
> boggles people's minds.
>
> Buffet recently increased his holdings in
> XOM
> Wal-mart
>
> People will tout this as he believes in recovery yadda yadda yadda.
> It could also be a strong anti-dollar play
>
> XOM = commodity play on oil
> Wal-mart = will fare better than others in a prolonged recession
>
>
> Plus, you can't just look at what a guy is buying/selling without
> looking at a picture of their whole book. Soros has that huge bet
> on PBR, but people also say that he is or was also heavily shorting
> oil at the same time.

Soros Bets on Ford, AT&T, Wal-Mart, Home Improvement

"Keep going up". After it has tripled in a year? That is delusional thinking. Soros is holding for the long term, most likely. And the amount he purchased is very small for an investor like him. I would sell now, and buy back next year when the stock is back in the mid four dollar range.


On Nov 18 07:22 PM Nextel Accessories wrote:

> I bought ford at the beginning of the year at $2.50, one of my few
> good picks....keep going up!!!

The Trouble with Clean Coal

The science of climate is speculative? Where do you get your information, Rush Limbaugh.com? Read some books on it. It is not speculative.

On Nov 03 01:13 PM Jimbo wrote:

> Mr. Lounsbury: Your last comment is most pertinent. The "science"
> of climatology seems to me to be quite speculative. I can't help
> but be suspicious of the motives of many of Al Gore's friends and
> admirers. In 1977, a gentleman published a book entitled: "The Coming
> Ice Age". But the ice age never came. It is my understanding that
> this author is now an advisor to President Obama. I have always been
> a "conservationist" and have advocated soil and water conservation
> and intensive reforestation. Man has historically caused regional
> environmental disasters in the Middle East, China, the United States
> and Central America. But I see the Climate Change folks as using
> this supposed issue to seize control of society to promote yet another
> Utopian Paradise. The Utopians have caused more death, agony, and
> suffering than any other movement in human history. In conclusion,
> the climate guys cannot accurately predict the weather next year,
> let alone in the next decades.

The Trouble with Clean Coal

You don't know what you are talking about, try reading some books on the science of climate change. It is many orders of magnitude more exact than economics


Anyway, I personally don't
> think people should vote on science, but just let the research continue
> to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the science of climatology
> is about as dismal as the science of economics - too many uncontrolled
> variables. Does that ever leave room for opinions of all sorts to
> thrive.


On Nov 13 01:24 PM Wildebeest wrote:

>

The Trouble with Clean Coal

Absolutely, Greenland was green, and the ocens were much, much higher. We will have a green greenland, and we will lose florida, every island in the world and all development anywhere near present shores. Drinking water supplies will be destroyed by salt. Hundreds of millions of people will be uprooted, albeit over time.

Here is what you have to know: At one time there was more carbon in the air, and the planet was much different, closer to being a sauna than what we have now. All that carbon was locked up in long term storage by plants, changed to into a stable form in fossil fuels. This took tens or hundreds of millions of years. That same amount of carbon is being put back into the air in a few hundred years. You see the equation- it was removed in 100 million years, and it was put back in 300 years. We face extreme instability in our climate in the decades ahead. Woe to children, thanks to our selfishness in refusiing to stem growth to reign in this problem. And why? Unchecked growth is inherently unstable over the long term. It assumes infinite resources which is not reality. Do our policies take account of this? No, we still give tax credits to citizens to have children when instead we should be looking to level our population over the long term to take account of declining resources, destruction of our infrastructure and land, healthcare, etc. It is indiotic. Our children will pay a heavy price for our largess. Science told politicans about the problem of carbon, and little has been done.


terravario: while I may disagree on the methods and disagree again on the the history of climate change. (Greenland was Green a 1,000 years ago and Italian paintings describe a lush Italian tropical setting 500 years ago)


On Nov 04 02:05 AM Freya wrote:

> terravario: while I may disagree on the methods and disagree again
> on the the history of climate change. (Greenland was Green a 1,000
> years ago and Italian paintings describe a lush Italian tropical
> setting 500 years ago)
>
> I fully believe that the current Industrial movements are exacerbating
> the conditions which occurred in the past. But I do not see a respite
> of those conditions without worldwide cooperation
>
> The Developed World may be able to adjust but half of the planet
> is in the Industrial Revolution stage. They are cranking up their
> motors while we seek to forestall those efforts. I just don't see
> it happening.
>
> India announced that they will have to have GDP grow at an annual
> pace of 9-10% annually over the next 10 years to lift its people
> out of poverty levels. I do not begrudge this effort. Unfortunately,
> this sounds too much like Brazil's Rain forests.
>
> We can do what we can, but I do not believe it will be enough regardless
> of what we do.

The Trouble with Clean Coal

Planting is a good idea and brings other benefits as well, i.e. wildlife, shade in summer, and more, but it won't allow enough carbon to be sequestered. It means slowing development of land more than society will allow, unfortunately (though in the US we are makiing progress in this area, in forcing developers to recognize LT environmental costs, climate, water, energy). The other thing about locking up carbon in plants is that it is less durable than the other long term storage devices, soil, oceans and fossil fuels. But those devices sequester carbon far more slowly than do plants. It does not look good for our kids. This will go down in history as "the selfish generation". Most of us put current needs over LT needs, the bill for today's use of cheap fossil energy is passed to our kids with hardly a thought (by most of us). By the way, great posts here, possibly the best comments I have ever seen.
Frank

Since plants use sunlight, water and nutrients from the ground and CO2 from the air to "sequester" the carbon and release water and O into the air, why is the solution not to get the system back in balance by planting?


On Nov 03 05:23 AM H. T. Love wrote:

> I may be naive, but ...
>
> It seems to me that we are ignoring the obvious. An accelerating
> deforestation combined with increased CO2 production presents a plethora
> of problems that contribute to the global warming issue.
>
> Since plants use sunlight, water and nutrients from the ground and
> CO2 from the air to "sequester" the carbon and release water and
> O into the air, why is the solution not to get the system back in
> balance by planting?
>
> Uses sunlight as the energy source, removes CO2 from the atmosphere,
> releases O, cools the atmosphere as water is released, would help
> reduce creeping "desertification", ...
>
> Possible problems are insufficient ground water source for large
> swaths, depleted nutrients in the ground, local land use issues,
> ...
>
> Some of these issues are solved as natural local ecosystems are restored
> as the new forests mature. Others would require our help.
>
> Lots of side-benefits. Jobs created immediately. Reduced cost compared
> to toher solutions. Long-term solution with few downsides. Little
> or no capacity problems. Etc., etc., etc.
>
> Overall seems a more desirable and practical solution to me.
>
> HardToLove

Stocks Soar, Unemployment Rises, Dollar Slumps

They don't run to the doctor for every little thing, they don't give 50 treatments to someone who has two years to live. You try talking about here and both parties, but mostly republicans, blow you off the stage, remember the 'death panels'. Until the mindset of the spoiled american people changes, there is no hope for our kids in the long run. They will be destroyed by the debt we have forced on them.

If you doubt that then explain why the Dutch were able in 2006 to convert to a 100% privately run national healthcare system, 100% managed by Dutch private health insurers, 100% coverage for all citizens, and yet it costs less than 1/2 of the cost of US healthcare.


On Nov 09 06:27 PM untrusting investor wrote:

> Ok, so what's your suggestion?
>
> Remember, US healthcare is basically private enterprise and has been
> for many decades. So why haven't the alleged efficiencies of the
> so-called magical free market produced lower costs, greater benefits,
> etc that the so-called free-market private enterprise system is supposed
> to deliver via competition?
>
> Remember US healthcare costs about 16+% of GDP, produces much worse
> healthcare outcomes (according to many comparatives studies vs. other
> developed countries), and results in tens of millions of Americans
> with zero healthcare at all.
>
> When you compare the US healthcare system to any other developed
> country such as: Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Holland,
> or even Taiwan, Japan, or Hong Kong ... it is a proveable fact that
> US healthcare, including poorer outcomes and lack of coverage, costs
> anywhere from at least 2-10x more than any other developed country.
> But that's the wonder of capitalism and free enterprise when it is
> really nothing more than psuedo crooney oligarchical capitalism pretending
> to be a free market. That is what happens when you get vested oligarchical
> interests (insurance companies, drug companies, medical associations,
> hospitals) able to payoff politicans and lobbyists to write laws
> that protect the excess revenues going to the oligarchs.
>
> If you doubt that then explain why the Dutch were able in 2006 to
> convert to a 100% privately run national healthcare system, 100%
> managed by Dutch private health insurers, 100% coverage for all citizens,
> and yet it costs less than 1/2 of the cost of US healthcare.
> And the citizens are overwhelmingly satisfied with the functioning
> of the system. That's real private enterprise and real free markets
> with relatively minimal government oversight ..... not the corrupted
> pseudo crooney captialist system in the US that benefits a few politicans,
> lobbyists, and oligarchical private companies and grossly overpaid
> managements.

Stocks Soar, Unemployment Rises, Dollar Slumps

Sorry, I have never been to the site you mention, never in my life. that is all direct from my brain, not copied in any way. And I don't ever hear politicans in print or on TV from either party talk about the issues in this way, so you really are in left field.
Do you had the bill for what you use to your daughters? You know, the 'conservative way', tax cut and spend.

On Nov 10 12:00 AM raising4daughters wrote:

> Can't you do any better than copy-and-paste the BHO/DNC talking points?
>

Stocks Soar, Unemployment Rises, Dollar Slumps

no, it is not real. When will the market realize it? I don't know, but most likely everyone short will be insolvent before it happens.

As an aside, by any objective standard, police officers in NY and the Northeast are grossly overpaid, both their regular pay and their overtime rate of pay. Their 1/2 pay pension, not age dependent, is grossly out of proportion with what is paid in the private sector. The market may go down, but public employee pensions never do. The taxpayer picks up the tab. It is an utter disgrace.


On Nov 09 08:09 AM prudentinvestor wrote:

> Tom, Yes, 9.5% annual increase in productivity, but how is it defined.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is GDP per hour worked,
> and GDP includes government spending.
>
> So, when you drive past a "stimulus" road construction site at night,
> and see a dozen parked state police cruisers with their blue lights
> on permanent flash, and the officers sitting inside listening to
> music @ $100/hr overtime, this counts towards GDP growth. Extrapolate
> this to the majority of our stimulus spending, and you get 9.5% growth
> in "productivity". But is it real ?

Stocks Soar, Unemployment Rises, Dollar Slumps

Yeah, maybe it would be better if we follow the 'non bargaining' approach forced on Medicare by the last incompetent administration. When bush passed the big unfunded drug bill with false numbers ('get the bill on my desk'), he also got placed into the bill a provision that Medicare would be unable to bargain for lower rates on drugs. Wow! Nice deal for the drug companies? I'm sure they would go broke without that provision. In what other nation would you see that. The biggest buyer of drugs can't ask for lower rates. This is why there is no hope for the future. We don't have common sense in public policy.


On Nov 09 09:18 AM robert.b.ferguson wrote:

> I'm not sure what "Bonanza." the author is referring to. Under the
> bill passed by the house the new taxes and further restrictions imposed
> will lead to dropping revenues for Pharma and device makers. There
> will be less venture capital dedicated to R&D and higher prices
> for virtually every facet of medical care. Add to this spiraling
> legal costs and you get just the opposite of a bonanza. Trial lawyers
> are the only winners here and they will be raking in the cash from
> both sides.

Stocks Soar, Unemployment Rises, Dollar Slumps

Doctors and drug companies. But don't forget the entire mindset is different in other countries. They don't want to run to the doctor for every little thing. We are selfish and foolish. But I wonder how much of it has to do with 'drug advertising'. You know, how we have to be deluged with drug ads while having dinner and watching TV, viagra and everthing else. I think it is digusting to hear these ads which are non stop. It used to be illegal, if you wanted drug advice, you spoke to your doctor directly. The drug companies love advertising.

I am still waiting for the author of this article to tell us why it is wrong for this administration to attempt to tackle the problem of global warming, a problem that science has told us poses a grave threat to our children. I thought that economists, as a group, seek to properly account for economic costs. This economist dismisses a lot of costs, climate change, health care. If he said something like, "the real long term costs associated with climate change and global warming must wait until we 'fix' the economy by first bailing out wealthy bankers", I might understand.

On Nov 09 11:45 AM inthemoney wrote:

> > We grossly overuse health services here- soccer moms running kids
> to the doctor at the first sneeze. I don't remember it that way even
> thirty years ago. No matter, something must be done about it. <br/>
>
> That is because you need a presription for everything these days.
> In many other countries basic antibiotics are sold without a prescription.
>
> I see it as a job security for doctors. Nobody wants to go to the
> doctors more than they need to, but often we re being forced to.

Stocks Soar, Unemployment Rises, Dollar Slumps

1. We grossly overuse health services here- soccer moms running kids to the doctor at the first sneeze. I don't remember it that way even thirty years ago. No matter, something must be done about it. The true answer is 'rationing'- yes the dredded R word that both parties say is not in the mix. Great. The American way- give us a fix that costs nothing. Better yet- give me more at lower cost. In other words, pass the bill to children.
2. China won't grow 10% next year- not even close. Do you really believe the fake numbers? How do they get there, without Americians returning to their foolish ways of buying Chinese junk with abandon. I don't think the US consumer has the cash right now, or next year.
3. You dismiss Global Warming pretty lightly. Do you hand the bills for what you use to your kids? That is what we are doing with the environment on a massive scale- we are handing a damaged world to our children. We are returning to the air in a few hundred years all of the carbon that was removed from the air (sequestered in coal and oil) over tens of millions of years. When the carbon was in the air, the planet was a sauna. Do you understand now? The carbon cycle has been disrupted, massively. Read some books on the subject.
Bush ignored all of these problems. Is that the Morici way? Cheap gasoline that utterly fails to account for health and environmental damage? Pass the bill to the next generation? I understand that we have to have priorities. Healthcare reform (I say rationing) and climate change can't wait. These problems should have been dealt with during the 'great expansion'. Of course they were not dealt with since politicans only think to the next election cycle. Pushing back against politicians are career civil servants, i.e. EPA, FDA, etc, who generally do better, until they bow to political pressure. Woe to our children. This will go down in the books as "the selfish generation".

Bear Market Rallies and Lessons of History

True, but with the consumer being an extremely large part our service economy (we make very little here), and with consumer credit contracting faster than at any time since the Great Depression (I believe) and with the consumer no longer being able to take money out of his house to the same degree as before, would this have the effect of contracting, or expanding PE's

'You made some very good points and did not deserve any thumbs down. It is true that low interest rates and low inflation support higher PE ratios'


On Nov 01 04:16 PM John Lounsbury wrote:

> E Nuff Said - - -
>
> You made some very good points and did not deserve any thumbs down.
> It is true that low interest rates and low inflation support higher
> PE ratios. I had a feature article published in 1996 (AAII Journal)
> that analyzed that very point. Dave Wrixon made a very good reply
> regarding the forward looking nature of the market that might have
> a more negative effect in the future (with respect to interest rates
> and inflation). No one mentioned it, but continued deflation is not,
> in general good for supporting higher PE ratios. You might say a
> little bit of medicine is a good thing but an overdose can kill you.
>
>
> untrusting - - -
>
> I frequently read John Hussman. I am guilty of not quoting him and
> giving links often enough.

'Dollar Up Stocks Down' Will Likely Change Soon

US markets are permanmently broken, despite what the market says. It is only a question of time when it manifests itself and we have 'blood in the streets', now, 10 years or 50. I do not want that outcome, but I know it is guaranteed to occur at some point. We continue to mortgage our children's future. We continue to pay for current programs by spending our children's money. What reforms have been made? Practically none. We have not broken up large banks, as we should have. Early in 2008 the markets said that US stocks were worth far, far more than they were.

Global Markets in Review: Reversal in Financial Markets

OK, just tell us the titles of the books you read on the subject. Keep handing the bill for the resources you use to your kids. And try sleeping at night.


On Nov 01 07:09 PM ebworthen wrote:

> Actually, the "experts" were predicting global cooling in the 1970's;
> they needed to find a new dog and pony to keep the money flowing.
>
>
> Stewardship yes - indentured servitude to GE and Utilities and the
> FED - NO!
>
> I believe you have good intentions and your heart is in the right
> place. Please consider the possibility that you are being duped when
> you are told that the sky is falling, with your good personage being
> used as the fulcrum to make very few a very lot of money.
>
> (Privatized gains - socialized losses - again)