rcstocks

Nouriel Roubini, One on One: More Doom and Gloom

"There is a global recovery." No there isn't. There is global coordinated government spending, e.g., cash for clunkers. We truly are all socialists now that economic commentators accept this as a recovery. Marx has won.

Weak Dollar Will Jeopardize the U.S. Economic Recovery

"...there are more and more good news coming for the US economy" then "Evidently, without growth in employment, households can’t generate income (sic) and create demand which is necessary in elevating production levels. In addition, the biggest fiscal deficit on record combined with the anticipation of low interest rates for a long time is discouraging investors from leaving money in the United States and driving down the value of the dollar."

Thank you Mr. Smith. Everyone over here!!! I have found the Matrix.

Bank Failure Friday: Local Banks Problematic After All

So this is another way of saying that residential housing, in particular, and the majority of banks are now under water! So, is there any hope of a near-erm recovery?


On Oct 05 08:03 AM perceptions_now wrote:

> Whilst the current Bank failure headlines says something about the
> current status of US banks, it is also worth a thought what their
> status would be IF, MARK-to-MARKET VALUATION had been left to stand,
> instead of being suspended by the US Federal Government?
>
> If banks were reporting current market values on their assets, Residential
> housing in particular, then the majority of banks would now be under
> water!

Construction Spending: Hard to Get Excited over 30% YOY Decline

With all due respect, I do not understand this economic reasoning. If the rise in construction spending is the result of government spending, doesn't this mean that the government is diverting money from going into other areas of the economy? Doesn't this mean that it is hurting those other areas to the benefit of those it deems worthy? Of course, the people working on those jobs probably don't care that it's artificial. However, shouldn't the people who are now unemployed because their industry wasn't among the chosen care? And, as an analyst, shouldn't you care to point it out? Analysts judge the government by only its effect on certain industries while ignoring its effect on those industries it doesn't care to mention. How would we ever know if this is stable footing or not? You only look at half the balance sheet.

"Much of the activity we do see is a result of the policy actions by the government. The rise in construction spending is a result of government spending. Some might claim that this is artificial, but the people working on those jobs probably don’t care about that.

If the government stimulus were removed right now, it seems likely that the economy would resume its slide. We have not yet reached the point of a self-sustaining recovery. However, we seem to have found some stable footing, which is a precondition for starting a climb back up."

Cash for Clunkers May Cost Up to $45,354 Per Vehicle

I don't completely understand the debate here. Separate from whether the clunker plan "works" is it right for the government to decide such things? Where would this money have gone without this program? Was it "right" for the government to transfer money into an area of the economy it cares about rather than the areas it would have gone into without this program? What of those businesses and employees? Overall, nothing good comes from these programs. The whole discussion around them becomes deception. This program can only be said to be work if the car industry is said to be more important than every other conceivable place the money would have gone. And besides how long are we going to have the delusion that a group people, known as politicians, have in any way a clearer understanding of how money should be spent? As an adult, I'm offended by the notion that some other adult (a politician at that) should be allowed to make the decision about how my money should be spent. Any other adult should be likewise offended.

Investing In Russia: An Interview With Pharos' Peter Halloran

The "which hasn't ever invaded another country" refers only to Iran.

Investing In Russia: An Interview With Pharos' Peter Halloran

I don't get it. The USA invades at least two countries a decade for the better part of the last 100 years. It often invokes a quasi-religious chosen people justification for its actions. Yet Russia and Iran — which hasn't ever invaded another country — are called extremists. If the world is to get better it would be helpful if we argued for a better world rather than just for "our" side.