Cicero

31 Comments

    • The Globalization Boom and Bust Cycle [view article]
      "The Anglo-American model surged with its perceived advantages over more managed enterprise economies"? "The free market, multinational led globalization of the 1990s?"

      The author misses the macro trend completely. We have lived under a corporatocracy, and not in a free market, for decades. This NY Times article details the bipartisan corruption that allowed Fannie and Freddie to enjoy huge advantages over their truly private competitors: www.nytimes.com/2008/0...

      Read Bernanke’s explanation of the malinvestment Congress created with Fannie and Freddie and how this collusion set the stage for today’s problems in his March 2007 speech here: www.federalreserve.gov...

      Read this Barrons story to understand how they figure the taxpayer losses as a result of the current mess could end up at 2 TRILLION dollars (subscription required for most Barrons articles): online.barrons.com/art...

      Congress colludes with the private bankers at the Federal Reserve, who create fiat money out of nothing and loan it to our gov't. They flood the market with money and credit, inflating the supply and driving down the value of the dollar. This is the major source of inflation. This easy credit creates prolific malinvestment and the long chain of bubbles we have endured. The profits are huge and private; the losses are much more socialized. The facts are right on the Federal Reserve website and in the NY Times and in Barrons, who called for the abolition of the Fed two weeks ago. That’s the new macro trend we need – a return to Constitutional government, with the Fed the first creature of Congress to be taken out and shot!

      The NY Times article “The Nixon Recovery” of 2/4/04 admits the Fed is independent and that they print or don't print money to sway elections, causing the runaway inflation of the 70's. (link: query.nytimes.com/gst/... )

      The NY Times, article, “The Education of Ben Bernanke” reiterates that the Fed manipulated that election for Nixon, creating the massive double digit inflation of the 70’s and fixing that mess by raising rates and creating the “brutal recession” that followed. We learn that idle builders (my father was a carpenter) “were so enraged that some sent him two-by-fours in the mail.” It admits the Fed is created the housing bubble by pumping easy money in an effort to stem the damage of the dot.com bubble (that they fueled with easy money). It notes the Fed “…has vast powers over the economy” with its “…control over the supply of money” and that “only the…Fed can create new money.” It notes the Fed ignored warnings (of people like Ron Paul) and “the speculative lending continued.” (link: www.nytimes.com/2008/0... )

      Bernanke admits Fed caused depression in the conclusion of this 2002 Speech here on Fed Website: www.federalreserve.gov...

      Bernanke admits creating money from nothing in a speech on 11/21/02 on the Fed’s website: www.federalreserve.gov.../ (4th paragraph under heading “Curing Deflation”).

      This Barrons cover story blames the long chain of bubbles on the Fed: online.barrons.com/pub...

      This Barrons article calls for the abolition of the Fed: online.barrons.com/art...

      Aug 07 10:50 AM
    • Leveraging Up on Precious Metals Ahead of Fed Meeting [view article]
      The Fed held steady; the stock dropped. Any thoughts? Time to buy some? Aug 05 03:24 PM
    • Alternate Ways to Invest in Clean Energy [view article]
      You like PBD over PBW because it is more diversified (~80 v. ~50 stocks; ~two-thirds v. ~ one-fourth foreign). You like GEX even better because of its global focus and lower expenses. Yet PBD seems considerably more diverse than GEX. Both hold about two-thirds foreign stock, but PBD has ~80 stocks v. only ~30 stocks for GEX, and PBD is less diversified in terms of industry. Am I missing something? Jul 21 08:24 AM
    • Fertilizer Bulls Are Ignoring Planting Cycles [view article]
      Visaman, I disagree. The author clearly notes that the thesis of fertilizer bulls revolves around two prongs, "surging world demand" and "the recent flooding in the Midwest". He agrees with the former prong and then clearly and conscioulsy devotes his piece to offering insight into the latter. The Midwest flooding is a short term event here in the US. What does the World Market in the short term have to do with it perhaps being too late to replant corn (other than enticing a farmer to push the risk due to higher reward)? Other commenters added valuable insight (such as, Duh! They can plant other crops later than corn). Jul 03 06:18 AM
    • Days of Cheap Energy-Fueled Innovation Coming to an End [view article]
      I Think, were you one of the speakers at the Freedom Rally in DC back in April? Ron Paul really needs some support in Congress - he's been holdng down the fort for decades. Jul 03 06:09 AM
    • Fertilizer Bulls Are Ignoring Planting Cycles [view article]
      Linda, read the posts before commenting. See mine above, before you posted. Your criticism is off base.

      Micheal, it seems as if your tidbit is vital - it's too late for corn, but you can still plant another crop.       Jun 30 11:30 PM
    • Fertilizer Bulls Are Ignoring Planting Cycles [view article]
      The author clearly notes that the thesis of fertilizer bulls revolves around two prongs, "surging world demand" and "the recent flooding in the Midwest". He explains their reasoning about flooding: “fertilizer bulls have argued that the flooding will act as a catalyst" as farmers replant. He specifically notes that he agrees with the bulls about one prong: "I have no doubt that the long-term thesis for fertilizer stocks is correct", before clearly zeroing in on just the flooding prong: "short term I believe that the fertilizer bulls are mistaken, as ...it is simply too late for farmers to replant in an economic manner." He goes on to do a good job substantiating his opinion. I don't think he could have been much clearer. Jun 28 06:37 PM
    • Emerging Market Investing: Really an Ex-Communist Play? [view article]
      Flash, my point is that private control of the money supply and interest rate is not capitalism. If the fedgov didn't force us to use fiat money and if they didn't force us to pay interest to the private bankers, we would be free to seek alternatives (and would inevitable end up with a gold or silver backed currency, unless a new form arises). I agree 100% that the fed alone couldn't create the .com or subprime disasters - greed and stupidity on the parts of the lenders and investors and individual home owners were vital ingredients.

      Inflation, on the other hand, seems to rest squarely on the shoulders of the Fed and Congress, who allows the shell game to take place. Only the Fed can inflate the money supply. This IS inflation. Rising prices are the results, just as wet streets are the result of rain, and not rain. Prices can rise and fall in any given geogrpahic area or section of the economy, but on a large scale across the economy as a whole, only the creation of more money causes inflation. Think of the nutritional vale of any pot of soup. Add a bit ore water to thin it down, and you don't notice the difference. Double the water and you need two cups of soup to get the same nutrition as you got in one before. Check out how many times they have doubled the supply of money in our economy, and you realize how thin our monetary soup has become. And I'm not even getting into "fractional reserves", which allows them to loan $9 for every new $1 they create from nothing.       Jun 28 04:15 PM
    • Emerging Market Investing: Really an Ex-Communist Play? [view article]
      The rule of law and capitalism does not eliminate human greed and stupidy and ignorance, it merely minimizes them and maximizes human creativity, ingenuity, and voluntary good will (charity). America is doing as well as it is DESPITE our slide into collectivism. The Kleptocracy in DC sees private bankers and corporations colluding with Congress to skim off most of the cream and a good bit of the milk too. What's left is still healthier and more nutrious than any other nation at any other time in history. Can you imagine how much propserity might be unleashed in the world if statesmen like Ron were elected and we tried re-applying the Constitution? For decades Paul warned Congress about our decades long unconstitutional and immoral meddling in the Mid East and for about the private "Federal Reserve" (not federal and there are no reserves) creating money at essentially no cost and reaping perpetual interest payments out of taxpayers' pockets because Congress makes us pay about 8% of our national debt in interest only payemts to this private mafia.

      Sources on Ron Paul's speeches to Congress are all public records and easily proven (his book Foreign Policy of Freedom is a collection on just that topic). And here's proof about the Fed courtesy of the NY Times and the Federal Reserve itself:

      The NY Times article “The Nixon Recovery” of 2/4/04 admits the Fed is independent and that they print or don't print money to sway elections, causing runaway inflation (as in the 70's): query.nytimes.com/gst/...

      The NY Times, article, The Education of Ben Bernanke admits the Fed is independent and that they created the housing bubble by pumping easy money in an effort to stem the damage of the dot.com bubble (that they fueled with easy money in the 90’s): www.nytimes.com/2008/0...
      It notes the Fed has “…control over the supply of money” and that this “…power ...is unique... only the…Fed can create new money.” It notes Bernanke helped create the housing bubble and that the Fed ignored the warnings (of people like Ron Paul) and “the speculative lending continued.”
      The same article notes the Fed flooded the economy with money specifically to manipulate the 72 election for Nixon, creating the “brutal recession” and massive double digit inflation that marked the economic havoc of that decade. We learn that idle builders (my father was a carpenter) “were so enraged that some sent him two-by-fours in the mail.”

      Bernanke admits Fed caused depression in the conclusion of this 2002 Speech here on Fed Website: www.federalreserve.gov...

      Bernanke admits creating money from nothing in a speech on 11/21/02 on the Fed’s website: www.federalreserve.gov.../ (4th paragraph under heading “Curing Deflation.” He is duplicitous in stating the US gov’t creates it – if this is so, why pay independent private bankers 8% of our national budget in interest? Talk about an investment! Imagine spending $3,000 to print a million back in 1960, lending it to the fedgov, and collecting 3% “interest only” for life. That’s $30,000 a year for perpetuity – a 1000% return on investment each and every year for perpetuity without investing another dime.

      Wake up America, join the revolution!       Jun 27 07:21 AM
    • The Global Economy: U.S. vs. World Growth [view article]
      Temper your tongue Jerbear, though CLH should learn that not every post has to draw firm conclusions or even suggest possible conclusions. This was interesting info readers can use as fodder for discussion and input into the macro picture. Jun 27 06:58 AM
    • Meet Mr. Market: Jim Cramer [view article]
      The basic emotion is real. It is exaggerated and hyped for entertainment value, like Lucy and Ricky's personalities (based on real life but condensed, scripted, and sold). But that does not mean there is not remarkable intelligence and a huge heart underneath, and does not discount the info and insights he offers. The market is always in flux and he responds - he doesn't often flip flop that quickly though. I bet JC's long term record and his return over any given rolling period blows away Todd's and is on the top end of the bell curve for stock advisors. He covers both long term trends and short terms swings. If you read his books he never advocates day trading with a higher percentage of your portfolio than you can afford to gamble with. Each person must decide how much that is and be responsible for their choices. He seems to do better than most with his day-to-day trades and has way above average instincts into longer term market trends. His viewership speaks for itself. There are not that many new investors continually hopping into the market. If most people were losing money trading on his ideas, his viewers would gradually drop out and his shows cancelled. And if he is not outperforming other advisors, at the very least it is obviouls that most people are having at least as much financial success as with him as they are with other sources, even if they stay with him for the entertainment value rather than the outsized returns.
      Jun 26 07:48 AM
    • Investing in Emerging, Frontier and Obscure Markets [view article]
      What about TRAMX? Jun 25 08:25 AM
    • Cummins' Mysterious Rise [view article]
      Ecap and Seemer, you folks need to lighten up a tad. All of the rest of us who can't math your unblemsihed records of never missing an otherwise obvious connection feel human enough without having to worry that you are hovering over a keypad waiting to sling a poisoned barb. Jun 15 07:53 AM
    • Does Buy-and-Hold Work on Major Blue Chips? [view article]
      Exclusion of dividends from stock charts is my pet peeve. It astounds me that more people don't notice/care. StockCharts.com is one of the few sources I know of that incorporates dividends into their charts. Yahoo can denote the dates and amounts of dividends, but you have to do the math, as opposed to seeing results visually. Mornigstar uses total return in their snapshot version, but I don't think you can compare two stocks or funds on the same graph. Jun 10 11:35 AM
    • Green Bio-Refining Up, Solar Stocks Down [view article]
      I don't consider that a quibble - it's a matter that must be given serious consideration. Jun 06 06:30 AM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»