fjd10595's Comments

A Look at George Soros's Recent Trades

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:48:47 -0500

"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

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:42:44 -0500

"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

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:23:19 -0500

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

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:20:26 -0500

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

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:20:04 -0500

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

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:10:23 -0500

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

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:10:06 -0500

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

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:06:28 -0500

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

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:56:16 -0500

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

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:10 -0500

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

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:24:17 -0500

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.

>
> 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

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:16:36 -0500

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

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:05:57 -0500

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

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:04:18 -0500

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

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:55:53 -0500

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)

Global Markets in Review: Reversal in Financial Markets

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:53:45 -0500

Sorry Joe,, some of us like to pay our bills- not hand them to our kids. I suggest you try reading some books on climate change at which point you will understand it is real. The price of carbon fuels are kept artifically low by government policies that fail to recognize the real costs to society.

On Nov 01 04:05 PM Joe Shareholder wrote:

> Are you in Obama's inner circle or just a moron? Carbon taxing spells
> doom to a US economy that is searching for itself right now and teetering
> on fragile footing. Green industries were created as profitable scams,
> not for profitable businesses as most of these companies cannot exist
> without strong gov subsidies from which many profit. Good book for
> everyone to read is "architects of ruin" by Peter Schweizer. It will
> open your mind about what is happening right now. Liberals, you want
> to talk about open-mindedness? Open your minds and read this book.
>

Bear Market Rallies and Lessons of History

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:47:53 -0500

You have to be kidding. We still have time to impliment proper policies? We don't have the political will for that. It means imparting pain to the public. The public doesn't want pain, it would rather enjoy whatever it can now, and pass the bill for the largess to the future, to our children. Politicians cater to that view, and lean on career public servants who are supposed to be insulated from public opinion to enforce what the public wants, or to enforce what their contributors want, i.e. the big banks. No, sadly there will be no change until there is "blood in the streets." The public would rather watch reality TV shows than to understand the grave issues facing the nation, and facing future generations.

Global Markets in Review: Reversal in Financial Markets

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:40:34 -0500

Right, and once government policies properly reflect the true costs of using carbon fuels, environmental damage, smog, fallouot of metals into our waterways, and much more, green fuels will suddenly be competitive. I don't believe in handing the bill for what I use to my kids, you know, the conservative way. Give us cheap gasoline now and force our kids pay the true cost of that usage when they inherit a damaged world.

On Nov 01 11:17 AM jay brebner wrote:

> carbon tax/cap-and-trade to raise revenues and pay off debt is an
> absolute policy proposal must in 2012 election. unfortunately it
> will not happen until then when contribution to GDP of green tech
> can be properly evaluated. the gold bugs will hate this but hyperinflation
> will equal armageddon for the US.

Global Markets in Review: Reversal in Financial Markets

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:43:01 -0500

LT PE ratios may be around 16 (according to your article), but is that really the point that this market should assume, with jobs continuing to disappear, and with consumer credit continuing to evaporate.

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:21:31 -0400

There was debt contraction then, and debt contraction now, but, now, there''s been a flood, worldwide, of currency introduction that will have dramatically different consequences than the '30's.

I have to admit that your comment was long, and thus I did not read it fully, but I say this: the liquidity that has been added cannot have lasting effect until it is loaned or put to work in the economy. You say the 'banks will soon loan to the vast majority still employed'. I guess so, assuming that they want the money. Is is possible that we are about to embark on a multi year, or decade, time frame in which we spend more and save less? I would expect deflation, or something near it, for an intermediate period of time.

On Oct 15 10:12 PM Tack wrote:

> Just two quick rebuttals:
>
> 1) The current situation is nothing --not even close-- like the '30's
> deflation. In the '30's the money supply, due to a tragic government
> mistake, contracted from 1929 to 1935, whereupon it began to exapnd
> again, but didn't even reach 1929 levels, again, until the end of
> 1938. This was the proximate cause of the deflation, and the government's
> lack of recognition of the mistake they made, followed by a rather
> tepid attempt to correct it, resulted in many years of deflation
> and stagnant economic circumstances.
>
> There was debt contraction then, and debt contraction now, but, now,
> there''s been a flood, worldwide, of currency introduction that will
> have dramatically different consequences than the '30's.
>
> The trouble is that in today's impatient world if we don't see the
> logical and inevitable effects of these actions in a few months or
> a year, we immediately conclude that 'this time it's different,"
> and formulate new theories. It's not different, and the consequences
> of a monetary flood will be the same as they've been in all other
> economic contractions, but possibly more so this time, given the
> unprecedented magnitude of the monetary largesse.
>
> 2) Everybody repeats over and over, ad nauseum, that all that new
> capital is tied up on bank balance sheets and isn't and won't be
> used for anything other than to counterbalance worthless paper, that,
> if it were marked own to true market values, would make many banks
> insolvent.
>
> There are two problems with this argument: a) the mark-to-market
> values that critics espouse were/are nothing more than the result
> of highly-manipulated and thinly-trade debt indices that clever shortsellers
> used, in conjunction with CDS positions, to decimate bank balance
> sheets and the market. They bear no relationship whatsoever to classical
> valuations based on actual cashflows being received and expected
> to be received by the actual note holders. That's why holders of
> debt assets re unwilling to dump them at nonsensical prices, thankfully,
> as this would result in the destruction of the financial system because
> fictitious losses, represented by "market" values, would suddenly
> be realized; b) for those that wish to track such information, the
> beleaguered debt indices that created all this angst have been steadily
> rising for several months, narrowing the gap between the genuine
> value of debt assets and the hysterical values previously created
> in the markets. Soon, this will result in the banks having excessive
> reserves that will start to be released back into earnings and will
> result in the banks being overcapitalized.
>
> When the foregoing happens, banks will start looking assiduously
> to put all that "dead" money to work. Coupled with increasing confidence
> by the vast majority of people employed, this will result in an increase
> in loan demand that will find amply funds to service it.
>
> The real risk for this economy, as with previous periods of monetary
> largesse, is that the government will fail to make timely reduction
> in the money supply until the demand-inflation cycle is well under
> way, so we'll get the same inflation that has followed most recessionary
> recoveries.

Global Markets in Review: Risky Assets Disconnect from Fundamentals

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:25:28 -0400

"It is still early days in this period, but 85% of U.S. companies have so far beaten earnings estimates. According to Bespoke, the current beat rate is well above any other quarter since at least 1998."

Gee, did Bespoke explain why we have these tremendous beats? Job cuts that will not be replicated infinitely into the future. What about revenue losses at all of these firms? What about unemployment continuing upward, and consumer credit continuing downward?

This article has too much information. I don't care for this style of writing. I would rather have something more focused. Give us what others are saying, in brief, and then give us your opinion, disagree or agree, and why.

Volcker Should Advocate VAT and Drop the Carbon Tax Recommendation

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:11:49 -0400

"there are plenty of scientists who don't believe carbon is the cause..."

Really? My obversation is the opposite of what you say. Most believe in the link between carbon and temperature. What do you define as "plenty". There are always contrary opinions. That is the way science works, there is a constant examination and reexamination of an issue. We understand that. The point is that the consensus is that there is a link. Do you take medicines, or know anyone who takes them? Do you doubt the science behind the use of medicines? Read some books.

On Oct 08 05:08 PM optionsgirl wrote:

> Even if carbon dioxide did cause climate change ( and there are plenty
> of scientists who believe it doesn't) why would you believe a system
> of trading carbon tax credits would "cure" anything? Don't you understand
> that this is still another tax, disguised as a solution to "climate
> change"? All John Q. Public gets out of the deal is higher costs
> for energy.

Volcker Should Advocate VAT and Drop the Carbon Tax Recommendation

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:25:38 -0400

"Cosmoclimatology and its accumulating evidence that solar activity and cosmic rays are the primary drivers of global temperature changes, not carbon-dioxide concentrations"

Are you joking, or should we just conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. Solar activity is not a primary driver. The science says that carbon dioxide concentration is a primary driver and is extremely well correlated with global temperatures. Try reading some books on climate change, instead of spreading misinformaton.

Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:12:14 -0400

I see the same thing in the malls in Westchester County, NY. It is very quiet, a lot of sales on clothing, etc. As the dollar has dropped, stocks have risen- I guess because it helps our companies sell overseas. But in my opinion, with or without a weak dollar, the fundamentals don't support sustained earnings growth. I would say that when the dollar makes a rebound, stocks will correct.

Friday Roundup: Reality Bites Bulls

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:26:17 -0400

"Bulls were expecting the economic recovery to continue and gain more steam. However, the reality is an economic recovery is going to take some time. "

"Take some time?" Yeah, as in a few years, not months. Stock buyers are delusional. One thing that would concern me from a bear point of view is the VIX- if it rises too fast or too far, then I would tend to think that the market will stabilize.

Options Trader Monday Outlook: Microbe Mania

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:19:06 -0400

I am in Westchester County , NY, just above NYC. I went to a mall this weekend. There were a moderate number of people there (it was Saturday evening), but I noticed that most shoppers seemed to be just walking, I saw few bags in people's hands. I needed some clothes and I went into JC Penny. Much of the stuff was steeply discounted, and I was also struck by the lack of choice in merchandise. It seemed to me that there was not a lot on the floor. It is the same thing I've been noticing for a year now.

Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:14:59 -0400

We understand that markets move in anticipation of earnings. But let me ask, do you expect that the higher earnings shown recently will be sustainable? On what basis? Continued cost and job cuts for the next few years? Increased consumer demand? But consumer credit has collapsed, as have home prices. People are being put out of work. The stock market is wrong at these levels, like it was wrong prior to last year's fall. I would look to the smarter bond investor for a truer reading of the economy.

On Sep 17 11:56 AM TLassen wrote:

> Dr. O
> with respect, let me point out that the markets move in anticipation
> of the revenue or earnings growth. Market is forward looking. Waiting
> for confirmation always leaves the investor behind. Now....granted,
> should those earnings not materialize as expected...then we all panic.
>
>
> "One of the greatest declines in history followed by one the greatest
> rallies in history. World wide" and this is worrisome because?..........
>
>
> On Sep 17 07:08 AM Dr. O wrote:

Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:10:46 -0400

IT is the wrong time to deploy money, the fundamentals are not there and if that is not enough, we zoomed 50% in a few months. This, after the greatest financial stress since the depression? If you think it has reversed in one year, you are wrong.

On Sep 17 03:26 AM SeeTheLight wrote:

> Against my true feelings, I put some weight back into equities not
> because I believe in this market but I fear it. I read a comment
> somewhere we are in a barbell market, where on one side we have many
> people playing the deflation trade and on the other many are playing
> the hyperinflation (but really stagflation) trade.
> It certainly does feel like we are walking a high wire here with
> a barbell as our balancing pole and no net below.
>
> Anyways, the recommendation was you weigh your portfolio equally
> for each outcome so thus I have still a lot of cash (for deflation)
> but have put the rest into assets that will win in a stagflation
> environment - precious metals, commodities, equities tied to those
> markets as well as beaten down equities.
>
> Yesterday I timed it well making my moves at 10 o'clock dip, dropping
> my UUP hedge (betting against this market is foolhardy so I removed
> my hedge) and buying back some older positions that remarkably had
> dropped in the past 3 weeks. Obviously trailing stops are critical.
>
>
> As I mentioned above I fear this market more than I believe it in,
> but I fear a parabolic ramp here. I suspect this market will go parabolic
> before it crashes and I feel I have to position myself to take advantage
> of that possibility using a portion of my portfolio.
>
> Dave you nailed it, we are in Hotel California, where do I sign up
> for an ARM to buy a McMansion before they take away my leg? All hail
> Bernanke and his broken dreams of stagflation for everyone.
>
> Good Luck all.

Closing Update for Thursday, Sept. 10: Rally Gets New Life

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:31:16 -0400

You are too late to the party, pull that money back. Trees don't grow to the sky, there is too much optimism after a 50% run in stocks in a few months, and the fundamentals don't support the run. There will be better buying opportunities later.

On Sep 10 07:28 PM Windsun33 wrote:

> People are tired of getting 1/4 of 1% on money market accounts, and
> desperate to put some money to work, anywhere.
>
> I got back in the market after the mini-correction a couple weeks
> ago, but have trailing stop losses on just about everything.

Friday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:54:16 -0400

I'm starting to believe this rally and now i'm starting to think all this cheap money could spark the mother of all booms in just about every asset class until it is reigned in.

I don't think that is correct. Much of the 'extra money' placed in the system is idle, banks not lending, stronger consumer credit standards, end users not even wanting the credit after feeling all of the pain. Just when everyone thinks that this rally is real is when it will reverse.

On Sep 11 07:38 AM ozcutty wrote:

> Chuckys not buying and Buckys falling, i like it David!
> I'm starting to believe this rally and now i'm starting to think
> all this cheap money could spark the mother of all booms in just
> about every asset class until it is reigned in. See todays Bloomberg
> about all the Chinese gearing up to invest in shares and posible
> sovereign wealth fund investment in US realestate. If you take away
> all the inventory, things could move from bust to boom incredibly
> quickly. Just look what clunkers did to cars.