gashouse gorilla

Total Rating:
0 / 0

23 Comments

    • Wed Sep 17th 02:05 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Mess on Wall Street: $4 Trillion Down the Drain
      I wish people wouldn't bash academics. When academics are chosen for leading positions in government, it's often on the basis of their willingness to do the politician's bidding. People chosen for those roles aren't necessarily "scholars seeking the truth no matter where it brings them".

      Just like scientists who, in order to pay the mortgage, follow the orders of the MBA's who pay them.
      View article »
    • Wed Sep 17th 01:51 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Russian Oil Is Worth the Risk
      Russia needs outside help to pump oil? Folks, take off the foam fingers and stop chanting for a moment. (You can put them back on again in a moment.) Yes, even though US technology (right now) is (I assume) superior, do you remember having any respect for Soviet military equipment, Sputnik, and Soviet scientists? Do you think Russian scientists are capable only of working with stone knives and bear skins? C'mon.

      Besides, if they really need something not homegrown, they'll buy the parts and know-how they need but avoid production-sharing agreements and instead keep the large profits to themselves. Just like any independent US producer would do.
      View article »
    • Sat Aug 2nd 14:08 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Los Angeles Declares War on Colonel Sanders (and Your Portfolio)
      Dylan, that's a classy first response. As to your subordinate's response (which you're adopting), I'll respond.

      >> Where did he ever insult the citizens of LA?

      Implicitly. Not explicitly. Which is no worse than what LA did. Let's review.

      According to Dylan, LA thinks some of its constituents make poor eating decisions. Well, also according to Dylan, we must help parents educate children or educate themselves about making better dining choices. So, you see, Dylan and LA are in agreement about one of the problem's root causes: some people don't know better.

      Now, nowhere does LA come out and call their people "stupid", "dense", etc. But, you READ THESE INSULTS INTO IT. Over what? Over the same observation Dylan made? Be careful: The fact that you suggest different policy prescriptions doesn't make a difference regarding the "insults". The fact is: you, too, Dylan, think some people need "help" making better decisions. LA hasn't been any more "insulting" to its citizens than you. If you want to read insults into it, then do the same with your piece.

      And then there's Dylan's reference to retarded people, the "people riding the little yellow buses". (Don't anticipate that I misread Dylan's explicit statement, because I didn't.) Yes, I read your statement "everyone you, Dylan, knows" knows junk food is junk food. Explicitly, you're saying "there isn't anyone who doesn't know just how bad junk food is" and, therefore, "I, Dylan, am not calling anyone retarded". But, as I said, if one of YOUR solutions is "education", then one of the problems is "lack of information". By definition, that means some people really DON'T know junk food is that bad for them. That contradicts your earlier statement. You DO believe some people lack information to make better decisions. Worse, LA never compared these people to retards. But, YOU DO. Not explicitly. But, this seems implicit to me.

      I'm sure you didn't (and maybe still don't) see it that way, or else you wouldn't have written the piece exactly this way. I understand.


      >> What he is saying is that citizens ARE smart enough to make their own decisions - especially when given proper financial incentives

      If they're "smart enough", then why do they need "financial incentives"? Don't you see the implicit contradiction here?

      >> For starters your suggestion that he replace "instead of" with "addition to" completely ignores

      Not "completely"... Yes, my one point doesn't address his whole sermon. But, it should provide cause for you to calm down.

      Dylan kept repeating "instead of, instead of, instead of". Some of his outrage comes from his *apparent* interpretation of LA's decision as "the only thing LA is going to do to combat the problem is this stupid law" (my paraphrasing). But, restricting fast food outlets isn't the only thing LA wants to do to help its citizens eat better.

      "Instead of" implies exclusive alternatives. If that wasn't the message intended, then perhaps Dylan's article should be edited to improve/refine his message. (Come to think of it, since you have his login, maybe that was part of your job? Would that explain why your response is hostile and even personal?)

      >> the basic premise of the article which is to get government out of the lives of citizens.

      If you want to get "government out of the lives of citizens", then why are you recommending "financial incentives" to get people to eat the food you want them to eat? I don't live in LA. But, to use an analogy that affects me greatly, is not the bailout of Fannie & Freddie "getting into my life", even though it's "only" a financial action?

      >> (i.e. tax breaks for certain kinds of food joints, tax breaks for parents of children deemed to be in good health, etc).

      So, restricting permitting to favor certain outcomes *IS* "the nanny state in action" but rigging the tax code to favor these same outcomes isn't?

      ...

      By the way, I heard on the radio yesterday that more and more LA urbanites have picked up GARDENING, so they can feed themselves healthier food. Land is somewhat fungible. So, when LA prevents the opening of new fast food outlets, some plot of land somewhere will become available for more gardening.

      LA's mayor has been encouraging this. So, you see, LA is doing more than just restricting the opening of new fast food outlets. I don't follow this story closely. But, I doubt that's the only thing either.

      Can/should they do more? Maybe you can help them brainstorm. If not now (because you're presently gainfully employed), then perhaps in the future.

      Good luck, Dylan and crew.
      View article »
    • Fri Aug 1st 15:22 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Los Angeles Declares War on Colonel Sanders (and Your Portfolio)
      >> Instead of
      >> Instead of
      >> Instead of

      No, it's not "instead of". It's "in addition to". With this obvious distinction in mind, maybe you be less outraged.

      >> Instead of looking at parenting or education or home life

      "Looking at..." is not a solution. What's your alternative? Be specific.

      Should they ban watching more than 1 hour of TV or video games a day? Even if it weren't a preposterous idea, how would you police that? Should they spend tax dollars on an anti-junk food campaign?

      What can a local government do? One thing they can do is make the junk food less accessible. It doesn't have to be the only way to combat the problem of obesity. But, it's the kind of decision a local government has some control over.

      >> Instead of lowering taxes for people so that they can afford to eat better foods, they thought it wiser to prevent any more Carl's Junior (SYM: CKE) or Burger King (BKC) restaurants from appearing.

      If certain restaurants serve junk, why should the majority of educated people not prevent them from opening and hurting the health of their "uneducated" patrons? *

      * It's hypocritical of you to on the one hand excoriate LA for recognizing many of its citizens make poor decisions when it comes to the food they eat while on the other hand mentioning (among the vague solutions you offer) "education" as the answer. Are there people out there who make bad eating decisions? There must be. Or else you wouldn't be recommending we "educate" them.

      So, for daring to recognize that some diners don't know better, do you intend to rip yourself a new one?

      >> Instead of creating incentives for businesses to come to Los Angeles to ...

      Again, it's not "instead of". You're viewing these as "exclusive choices" when they're not.

      ...

      Lastly, is this the kind of analysis and reasoning you use to evaluate investments? This sounds more like straight political argument. It's an issue worth debating. But, it seems out of place for "Seeking Alpha".
      View article »
    • Tue Jul 15th 04:53 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Oil/Gold Arbitrage Opportunity
      >> Look at the 2012 future prices for a barrel of oil...they are trading in the $70's
      >> 2012 will be "election season"....

      Ugh. Okay, I'll bite.

      The data might change. But, at the time I followed your link, May 2011 and Aug 2011 showed $70 *bids* on oil, too, while other months in the same year showed prices around $130. May 2011 isn't an election season. More importantly, there was NO volume at those prices.

      Please help me adjust my tin foil hat. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
      View article »
    • Tue Jul 15th 04:28 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Spotting Banks In Danger
      Minor quibble here...

      Why quote "# of banks" as though that's significant? After nearly 20 years of bank consolidations, "# of banks" is a misleading comparison.

      I read elsewhere that Texas banks in the 80's were often independent from one county to the next. Many small banks went under. Rather than quote "# of banks", maybe it's better to quote total cap in absolute terms or perhaps as a % of GDP.
      View article »
    • Sat Jul 12th 11:49 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Putting $1T Subprime Mortgage Losses in Perspective
      Are we having a pile-on?? On both Perry *and* Forbes?

      That's great, because I remember this "beauty" from Steve Forbes:
      www.wealthdaily.com/ar...

      I held my COP shares long after *that* prediction. But, thanks anyway for the tip, Steve!
      View article »
    • Wed Jun 18th 19:24 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      What China's Stock Market Implosion Means for Oil
      >> The parallels between the Chinese oil companies and the American airlines are strikingly similar: they are being thrown back and forth by their respective governments' regulations and they are dependent on subsidies.

      Yes. And this is one of the worst things a government can do: keep changing the playing field. How is an oil company supposed to decide on the best level of investment? C'est impossible.

      It's like the tax code: I wish people would just leave it alone. The biggest beneficiaries of "constant change" are H&R Block, Intuit, etc.

      >> anyone here been to china? on the real people level there is gas shortages all over the country ...like

      Heh heh...They have Nixonian price controls -- and its effects!

      I wonder: if they were to eliminate price controls, are Chinese willing to pay a lot more per gallon? Would the availability of more fuel at higher prices actually result in *more* rather than less consumption? That could be a surprise to people -- such as myself -- who expect eliminating subsidies/price-contro... to reduce consumption. I'm eager to see what happens here...
      View article »
    • Wed Jun 18th 19:15 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception: Part Two
      Xander,

      >> read democrats] have repeatably voted to block this relatively inexpensive oil development while voting to permit extremely expensive drilling hundreds of miles offshore louisiana in 8000 feet of water. so if you want cheaper oil vote out your economic enemies.

      I'm *completely* in favor of drilling off the coasts. That being said, look in the mirror, Xander.

      First, look at 2000-2006: the Republicans did NOTHING despite absolute rule. THAT was the time to act! It takes YEARS to explore and then build the infrastructure to handle it. (We don't even have enough rigs available to even start, because the existing rigs are pretty fully booked.) That was the time to do it. But, the Republicans failed to act.

      Second, the Republicans blocked every Democratic effort to raise EPA standards for TWENTY YEARS. How much more supply would we have right now if mileage standards were double? (Remember Ben Franklin's "a penny saved is a penny earned"?)

      So, go look in the mirror, Xander. If there's an objective bone in your body, you should be blaming yourself and your fellow Republicans who dared not question and complain ENOUGH about what your leaders both did and did not do. (AFTER you do that, go ahead and blame others. But, start with yourself.)
      View article »
    • Wed Jun 18th 11:30 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      What China's Stock Market Implosion Means for Oil
      >> China is very inefficient in converting energy use into GDP, the USA being 4x and Japan being 9x as efficient.

      Recent implosions in structured finance should be a lesson to be skeptical about accounting and what it does or doesn't hide.

      For instance, do those calculations back out the fictitious contributions from the USA's FIRE sector? If most US revenue (and profits) come from manufacturing that's been outsourced to China, how "efficient" are we really?

      Sorry, but each time I read figures like these, I hear "we're #1" and visualize foam fingers on the people doing the calculations.
      View article »
    • Sun Jun 15th 17:18 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Global Regulation Trend Favors PowerShares Global Clean Energy
      >> Global Warming is not science. It's politics of the socialist kind. And religion of the kind that says the earth is our mother. Sizing up to be one of histories biggest hoaz.

      Just like the ozone hole, second-hand smoke, tobacco smoke, and asbestos were hoaxes. Because the "X-is-junk-scienc... paid-for-by-industry crowd (and their unpaid followers) said so.

      Not.

      It's the same in every generation. There are:
      (a) those who see the problem and push for solutions (some poor, some good)
      (b) those who oppose doing anything, because it hurts their financial interest, and
      (c) those who oppose the (a) group because the (b) group convinced them that the (a) group "has an agenda" beyond the agenda on the table. It's the "if we don't continue X, the bad guys win" argument.
      View article »
    • Sun Jun 15th 17:06 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception
      Eric,

      Thanks for the article and for bothering to reply to so many readers.

      I'm not sure you've convinced me to exit my energy positions. But, you've expressed something I've been thinking about for a little while and given me reason to think of it again/more.

      Everyone and his grandmother has written about the fundamentals driving oil prices the past few years. It's nice to read a contrarian piece once in a while.
      View article »
    • Sun Jun 15th 16:51 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception: Part Two
      >> The Republicans actually did pass ANWR once when Newt was running the House, and they managed to get the 60 votes necessary at the same time in the Senate.

      Republicans had a supermajority back then. What happened? And what happened in the 2000-2006 timeframe when anything could've been done?
      View article »
    • Sun Jun 15th 16:51 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception: Part Two
      >> The Republicans actually did pass ANWR once when Newt was running the House, and they managed to get the 60 votes necessary at the same time in the Senate.

      Republicans had a supermajority back then. What happened? And what happened in the 2000-2006 timeframe when anything could've been done?
      View article »
    • Sun Jun 15th 16:48 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception: Part Two
      >> The real "inconvenient truth" is that these people have a grand plan in mind for us designed to limit our future economic development, and enrich their own wealth and power in the process.

      There you go again.... You paranoid nuts believe there is always an "agenda" behind preserving enough of the planet so that future generations may continue to enjoy it.

      The "agenda" is simple and right in front of your face: create a sustainable economy. That's it! That's the agenda. Take off the tinfoil hat and start looking at the facts and arguments anew.

      Who will profit from this? Anyone can. Companies with green tech are in the market. You can go long or short. If you had a usable skill, you could work for them.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»