fjd10595

Options Trader: Monday Market Movement

Hopefully we will let science dictate our policies on climate change, as opposed to what we had in the disgraced former administration where fundamentalists and other insiders with extreme views dictated policy to scientists at the EPA (and FDA). I'm surprised that Bush's education department didn't try to put creationism back into textbooks (maybe they did). It is actually a national disgrace that the public allowed this to happen. Enjoy cheap fossil fuels today, and pass the bill for the damage to children? Yes, I'm afraid. It is the conservative way. You can rationalize it by saying that the public is too busy going to work and paying bills to get involved and the lobby groups control. It is still a national disgrace.

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.

Bear Market Rallies and Lessons of History

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: Risky Assets Disconnect from Fundamentals

"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.

Will the Market 'Melt Up'?

This guy is nuts. "vastly improving economy". Where? This is what I see around me, people being put out of work or having their pay cut, homes that don't sell, businesses closing, and stores with few customers. Add to this that consumer credit has contracted.

Why This Rally Will Continue

"GDP growth is almost universally projected to be positive."

Good point, and because this opinion is universal or widely held, we may safely conclude that GDP will instead be flat or negative.

Why This Rally Will Continue

"Furthermore, firms will continue to beat low earnings estimates, which will provide the market the momentum it needs to continue its upward march."

Really, I though that markets were efficient in the long run. So you are saying that the market continues to go up based, in part, on companies beating low earnings estimates. But won't enough market participants ultimately understand that the "low earnings estimates" are basically a reflection of lower growth, and then bring the market down?

Unemployment: Historical Chart Sends Scary Message

ok, but why isn't the stock market "on borrowed time". I did not see an overlay of past stock markets with the unemployment rate. I see that you mention July 83 where the market went up 70%, and we are only up 40% now. In July 83, did they have the same amount of credit contraction occur as is the case now? The way I see it, we have more problems in this economy occurring all at once, then have ever occurred at any time in the past.

Alan Greenspan's Bosnia Moment

We don't need all this to know that Greenspan was reckless with monetary policy. His reputation is still far better than it should be, even with current bashing. He kept the party going when clearly he should have reigned in monetary policy. It was clear at the time that loose monetary (and fiscal) policies were causing asset inflation. Greenspan is a disgrace.