mikebrah's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/167072/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/163634-when-recession-becomes-the-norm-what-happens-to-stocks?source=feed#comment-694009 694009
MM

On Sep 28 11:04 AM Brad Denny wrote:

> Somewhere along the line, Jason said that his post was going to be
> about economics, not politics. Insofar as he stuck to economics,
> I would give his post high marks for insight and connecting the dots,
> but then he had to go on and sing the praises of that half witted
> movie actor Ronald Reagan as president while trashing Barack Obama
> on the basis that Obama is a "Sunday morning celebrity."
>
> Good grief. Ronald Reagan was a Saturday night shoot em up hoot
> owl who couldn't remember the difference between reality and the
> films he had acted in. The last time I checked, no human being was
> perfect, but Obama's record so far in dealing with the problems bequeathed
> to him by the previous 30 years of maladministration in Washington
> has been superb. I would hate to think of where we would be with
> Reagan as president.]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:00:52 -0400
MM

On Sep 28 11:04 AM Brad Denny wrote:

> Somewhere along the line, Jason said that his post was going to be
> about economics, not politics. Insofar as he stuck to economics,
> I would give his post high marks for insight and connecting the dots,
> but then he had to go on and sing the praises of that half witted
> movie actor Ronald Reagan as president while trashing Barack Obama
> on the basis that Obama is a "Sunday morning celebrity."
>
> Good grief. Ronald Reagan was a Saturday night shoot em up hoot
> owl who couldn't remember the difference between reality and the
> films he had acted in. The last time I checked, no human being was
> perfect, but Obama's record so far in dealing with the problems bequeathed
> to him by the previous 30 years of maladministration in Washington
> has been superb. I would hate to think of where we would be with
> Reagan as president.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162305-funding-a-rally-extension?source=feed#comment-683498 683498
MM]]> Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:29:05 -0400
MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/98115-john-lounsbury/26974-criticize-the-fed-and-die?source=feed#comment-670447 670447
Dissension results in excommunication
Both operate in secrecy
Unquestioned authority in relative field
Any/all indecencies are quieted and/or ignored
Virtually unlimited resources
Dominate the political arena
Devoted to maintaining status quo
Highly refined propaganda machines

So many more that I am probably missing....

MM ]]> Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:03:26 -0400
Dissension results in excommunication
Both operate in secrecy
Unquestioned authority in relative field
Any/all indecencies are quieted and/or ignored
Virtually unlimited resources
Dominate the political arena
Devoted to maintaining status quo
Highly refined propaganda machines

So many more that I am probably missing....

MM ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32006?source=feed#comment-664685 664685
MM]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:22:15 -0400
MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32006?source=feed#comment-664397 664397
MM]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:40:31 -0400
MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32006?source=feed#comment-664339 664339
Thanks for your response. But I am struggling to see where our views differ and why you initially called me ignorant?

I find your situation completely unacceptable. Nothing in my previous statements suggested otherwise. I was ridiculing the notion of more, more, more, and free, free, free. I think our current system is completely broken and in need of drastic overhaul.

Did you misinterpret me, did I misspeak, or have I misunderstood your position in some way?

Another poster mentioned the over-prescription syndrome that is so prevalent today. I completely agree with this as it seems anyone over the age of 40 is on AT LEAST blood pressure and/or cholesterol medicine. Not that there is anything categorically wrong about taking a pill, but the notion that entire subsections of the population are taking certain pills every day seems inappropriate. It seems the notion of diet and exercise lost the same fight as saving vs. borrowing--inconvenient.

So I am in total agreement that the system needs drastic overhaul to the tune of massive shrinking in both scope and cost. We are not talking about someone getting shot and not being treated. Or someone getting a gash and not getting stitches. Or a broken arm not getting a cast. We are talking about chronically sick, usually elderly people receiving a disproportionate chunk of the treatments at a very high cost to the still-productive, such as yourself. We are talking about Big Business getting together with Big Government and dicking over people such as yourself. Like the banks, size and collusion are our enemies.

Further intrusion is not the solution, IMO.

MM

]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:58:39 -0400
Thanks for your response. But I am struggling to see where our views differ and why you initially called me ignorant?

I find your situation completely unacceptable. Nothing in my previous statements suggested otherwise. I was ridiculing the notion of more, more, more, and free, free, free. I think our current system is completely broken and in need of drastic overhaul.

Did you misinterpret me, did I misspeak, or have I misunderstood your position in some way?

Another poster mentioned the over-prescription syndrome that is so prevalent today. I completely agree with this as it seems anyone over the age of 40 is on AT LEAST blood pressure and/or cholesterol medicine. Not that there is anything categorically wrong about taking a pill, but the notion that entire subsections of the population are taking certain pills every day seems inappropriate. It seems the notion of diet and exercise lost the same fight as saving vs. borrowing--inconvenient.

So I am in total agreement that the system needs drastic overhaul to the tune of massive shrinking in both scope and cost. We are not talking about someone getting shot and not being treated. Or someone getting a gash and not getting stitches. Or a broken arm not getting a cast. We are talking about chronically sick, usually elderly people receiving a disproportionate chunk of the treatments at a very high cost to the still-productive, such as yourself. We are talking about Big Business getting together with Big Government and dicking over people such as yourself. Like the banks, size and collusion are our enemies.

Further intrusion is not the solution, IMO.

MM

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32006?source=feed#comment-664134 664134
MM


On Sep 06 12:52 PM dshark wrote:

> I am glad you stated your age, it goes along with your ignorance!
>
>
> SHARK]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:55:46 -0400
MM


On Sep 06 12:52 PM dshark wrote:

> I am glad you stated your age, it goes along with your ignorance!
>
>
> SHARK]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32006?source=feed#comment-664116 664116
Would it be cool to live alone in an awesome apartment or an awesome house, drive an awesome car, wear awesome clothes, do awesome things and just be generally all-around awesome? Sure...and someday I will. When I can afford it. Right now is not that time.

Like any magnificent skyscraper, an individual is only as good as their foundation. Figuratively and literally we are watching the cheaply built structures of our society crumple. I only hope the lesson learned will be to build better foundations and not something perverse along the lines of, "if only we had a little more duct tape"

MM]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:39:55 -0400
Would it be cool to live alone in an awesome apartment or an awesome house, drive an awesome car, wear awesome clothes, do awesome things and just be generally all-around awesome? Sure...and someday I will. When I can afford it. Right now is not that time.

Like any magnificent skyscraper, an individual is only as good as their foundation. Figuratively and literally we are watching the cheaply built structures of our society crumple. I only hope the lesson learned will be to build better foundations and not something perverse along the lines of, "if only we had a little more duct tape"

MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32006?source=feed#comment-664096 664096
I can only assume your mom is living with you or a relative right? Right? You're not suggesting that YOUR sick, old, blind mother is my responsibility right?

So with that in mind, what does a blind, sickly 83 year old lady living with her son WITH medicare need more than $2k/month for? I am confused. Up until the last twenty years or so it was EXPECTED that the elderly would be taken care of by their progeny. In fact, that was basically the function of a family--to take care of one another. And it will be again soon as the debt-bubble continues to implode. Reality will set in and the notion of kicking parents to the curb, shirking individual responsibility under the pretense that society should pick up the slack, will end.

Any "society" is only a composition of individuals. The idea that we can be socially responsible without any individual accountability is absurd and an excellent illumination to our present mess.

Oh, and your anecdotal widow who tried to game the system and lost is sad, but just another manifestation of my point. No different than the grasshopper who spends all summer frolicking then becomes indignant in the winter when he has no food. She took the cash and ran. Now she wants a re-do. Oops.

Like I said, its harsh but people need to be smacked out of the thoughtless coma from which the entitlement-State has induced them.

MM
On Sep 06 11:07 AM Niner wrote:

>
> What's your income? You don't have the faintest idea what it's like
> to live in poverty. And you blame those that aren't as fortunate
> as you. You think they could do better if only they wanted. That
> is the elitest opinion that you and others have and isn't anything
> close to reality. Shall we discuss my mom. She's 83 and legally
> blind. Dad died 10 years ago and had a decent retirement with medical
> benefits. The company dad worked for filed bankruptcy. The bankruptcy
> judge drop kicked all the retirees pensions and medical benefits
> out the back door. Mom's social security and survivors benefits
> is less than 2000 per month. Yeah she is on medicare. But, if it
> weren't for the union providing her with a medicare supplement she
> would be down another 2-300 bucks. 15 years ago she had 5 bypasses.
> I don't know if that makes a difference on supplement premiums or
> not. Mom was lucky because dad retired at the right time and was
> covered under some special laws. Others I know personally, just
> lost their health care and pensions after 30 or 40 years of hard
> work. One works at the local City park so that he can health care.
>
>
> Shall I tell you about the widow who isn't old enough for medicare.
> She has only a HS education and is over 60 and therefore has limited
> job opportunities. She worked for the school system and carried
> there plan b ins. She felt she could better use the difference in
> prem between A and B to live on. Now that she has some minor health
> problems and the plan A would serve her better, the ins company won't
> let her move up because she has a pre existing condition.
>
> Bottom line is you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
> ]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:31:18 -0400
I can only assume your mom is living with you or a relative right? Right? You're not suggesting that YOUR sick, old, blind mother is my responsibility right?

So with that in mind, what does a blind, sickly 83 year old lady living with her son WITH medicare need more than $2k/month for? I am confused. Up until the last twenty years or so it was EXPECTED that the elderly would be taken care of by their progeny. In fact, that was basically the function of a family--to take care of one another. And it will be again soon as the debt-bubble continues to implode. Reality will set in and the notion of kicking parents to the curb, shirking individual responsibility under the pretense that society should pick up the slack, will end.

Any "society" is only a composition of individuals. The idea that we can be socially responsible without any individual accountability is absurd and an excellent illumination to our present mess.

Oh, and your anecdotal widow who tried to game the system and lost is sad, but just another manifestation of my point. No different than the grasshopper who spends all summer frolicking then becomes indignant in the winter when he has no food. She took the cash and ran. Now she wants a re-do. Oops.

Like I said, its harsh but people need to be smacked out of the thoughtless coma from which the entitlement-State has induced them.

MM
On Sep 06 11:07 AM Niner wrote:

>
> What's your income? You don't have the faintest idea what it's like
> to live in poverty. And you blame those that aren't as fortunate
> as you. You think they could do better if only they wanted. That
> is the elitest opinion that you and others have and isn't anything
> close to reality. Shall we discuss my mom. She's 83 and legally
> blind. Dad died 10 years ago and had a decent retirement with medical
> benefits. The company dad worked for filed bankruptcy. The bankruptcy
> judge drop kicked all the retirees pensions and medical benefits
> out the back door. Mom's social security and survivors benefits
> is less than 2000 per month. Yeah she is on medicare. But, if it
> weren't for the union providing her with a medicare supplement she
> would be down another 2-300 bucks. 15 years ago she had 5 bypasses.
> I don't know if that makes a difference on supplement premiums or
> not. Mom was lucky because dad retired at the right time and was
> covered under some special laws. Others I know personally, just
> lost their health care and pensions after 30 or 40 years of hard
> work. One works at the local City park so that he can health care.
>
>
> Shall I tell you about the widow who isn't old enough for medicare.
> She has only a HS education and is over 60 and therefore has limited
> job opportunities. She worked for the school system and carried
> there plan b ins. She felt she could better use the difference in
> prem between A and B to live on. Now that she has some minor health
> problems and the plan A would serve her better, the ins company won't
> let her move up because she has a pre existing condition.
>
> Bottom line is you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32006?source=feed#comment-664036 664036
This is an appalling (and completely unsubstantiated) statement. There is nothing about health care in the Constitution, or even any statement that could be abstracted to make such a bogus claim.

The idea that individuals who spend 10+ years studying and training, and incur up to $500k in debt should then have their services extorted by anyone with a boo-boo or a tummy ache is as UNamerican as it gets.

Historically, doctors have always been amongst the highest earners of both income and prestige. Our modern health care is turning them into wards of the State and there is a reason why fewer and fewer ambitious, industrious individuals are entering the medical field. Hmmm...10 years and $500k so that one day I can be the State's bitch? Or 2 years getting an MBA and make 6-8 figures as a Stock Jockey? Tough call.

All those would-be doctors are now misguided souls in the banking, law, or accounting sectors. Both the individual and the society gets what it pays for. ]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:09:26 -0400
This is an appalling (and completely unsubstantiated) statement. There is nothing about health care in the Constitution, or even any statement that could be abstracted to make such a bogus claim.

The idea that individuals who spend 10+ years studying and training, and incur up to $500k in debt should then have their services extorted by anyone with a boo-boo or a tummy ache is as UNamerican as it gets.

Historically, doctors have always been amongst the highest earners of both income and prestige. Our modern health care is turning them into wards of the State and there is a reason why fewer and fewer ambitious, industrious individuals are entering the medical field. Hmmm...10 years and $500k so that one day I can be the State's bitch? Or 2 years getting an MBA and make 6-8 figures as a Stock Jockey? Tough call.

All those would-be doctors are now misguided souls in the banking, law, or accounting sectors. Both the individual and the society gets what it pays for. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160052-why-doesn-t-the-media-take-a-truly-independent-unbiased-look-at-the-big-banks-in-the-u-s?source=feed#comment-663190 663190 Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:04:51 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/317799-cautiousinvestor/25943-money-on-the-sidelines-1930-vs-2009-zh?source=feed#comment-659369 659369
MM]]> Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:43:57 -0400
MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159400-back-to-school-where?source=feed#comment-658771 658771
TIA!
MM]]> Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:30:46 -0400
TIA!
MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159222-due-for-a-correction-market-is-already-priced-for-grim-future?source=feed#comment-655714 655714
MM


On Aug 31 10:37 PM User 400260 wrote:

> ]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:25:58 -0400
MM


On Aug 31 10:37 PM User 400260 wrote:

> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159222-due-for-a-correction-market-is-already-priced-for-grim-future?source=feed#comment-655713 655713

On Aug 31 09:23 PM E Nuff Sed wrote:


> I like your thoughts as a economist but your politics need some work.
> It is not consistent. There are many things the government does
> better than the private sector - healthcare, defense, primary education,
> public infrastructure, law and order being the primary examples.


I find this statement to lack credibility considering no living American has ever experienced a time when any of the mentioned items were ever privatized.

I find our public education to be truly atrocious. International rankings confirm this. DC is one of (if not THE) lowest rated school systems in America and yet has one of (if not THE) highest per capita costs of students in America.

Have you ever lived in Chicago? Despite high taxes and ridiculous gas taxes, virtually every highway is a toll-road. And to boot, they are all in terrible condition.

Like I said, no living American has ever actually lived in a world where the items you mention were privatized or open to competition. Please don't be so blatantly close-minded. This country was made great by open-mindedness and competition--not a nanny State.

MM ]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:25:26 -0400

On Aug 31 09:23 PM E Nuff Sed wrote:


> I like your thoughts as a economist but your politics need some work.
> It is not consistent. There are many things the government does
> better than the private sector - healthcare, defense, primary education,
> public infrastructure, law and order being the primary examples.


I find this statement to lack credibility considering no living American has ever experienced a time when any of the mentioned items were ever privatized.

I find our public education to be truly atrocious. International rankings confirm this. DC is one of (if not THE) lowest rated school systems in America and yet has one of (if not THE) highest per capita costs of students in America.

Have you ever lived in Chicago? Despite high taxes and ridiculous gas taxes, virtually every highway is a toll-road. And to boot, they are all in terrible condition.

Like I said, no living American has ever actually lived in a world where the items you mention were privatized or open to competition. Please don't be so blatantly close-minded. This country was made great by open-mindedness and competition--not a nanny State.

MM ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158895-speculative-trading-indicates-rally-losing-steam?source=feed#comment-653314 653314
Are you serious?

MM


On Aug 30 05:11 AM aarc wrote:

> There is a big big difference between 1999 and 2009 for these kind
> of stocks and stock runs.
>
> In 1999, the dot.coms did not provide enough retracements or pullbacks
> ... so they did not have enough base preparations to sustain their
> rallies into the year 2000. They simply kept going up without the
> necessary corrections to support sustainable upsides. And so they
> fell like a rock when the wind was taken out of their wings.
>
> Now look at AIG, FNM, and FRE; they kept building their bases from
> March to July 2009 after an intial vertical rally in early March;
> it is called a pullback or a correction and a significant one. Naturally,
> after enough preparations had been made; the ensuing rally has a
> better chance of sustaining itself for sometime before the next major
> pullback or corrective action similar to the last one becomes necessary.
>
>
> There is a good chance AIG will be able to reach the $62 to $75 range
> but highly unlikely be able to reach or break above $110 upper run
> rate limit before it will require another major pullback or correction
> that can last 3 to 5 months.
>
> For FNM, the volume support of last week should be able to sustain
> further runs into the $2.26 to $2.67 range with upside limit of $3.40
> before it will need 3 to 5 months rest. Volume should start tapering
> off as it approaches those upper ranges on the daily and weekly charts.
>
>
> FRE and FNM are basically in tandem so they will rise and fall more
> or less in synch with each other on the daily basis.
>
> It is very hard to make a bet against them when the volume of the
> last few weeks indicated impulsive runs rather than corrective C-wave
> run of a normal ABC upside correction or a bear rally or a bear flag
> as most traders call it.
>
> Obviously, they are in a 1-2-3 Elliott Wave runs to the upside and
> will need 3 to 5 months of 4-th wave correction before they can execute
> the 5-th wave rally to complete the 1-2-3-4-5 basic pattern.
>
> After that, they will need bigger, longer and perhaps deeper corrections
> that should not break the bottom lows in order to sustain further
> rallies into the years/decades ahead. You may call it resting or
> healing process or base building or a selloff or even a meltdown;
> TAs called them pullbacks or corrections. Necessary ingriedient
> toward building supports to sustain further rallies.
>
> It takes time and time is the essence in such a dibilitating circumstance
> that should have bankcrupted them immediately.
>
> So unless any or all of them cannot heal themselves and build enough
> bases in order to become profitable into the years and decades ahead;
> they have the necessary volume supports right here at this tentative
> bottom just by looking at their monthly charts.]]> Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:44:57 -0400
Are you serious?

MM


On Aug 30 05:11 AM aarc wrote:

> There is a big big difference between 1999 and 2009 for these kind
> of stocks and stock runs.
>
> In 1999, the dot.coms did not provide enough retracements or pullbacks
> ... so they did not have enough base preparations to sustain their
> rallies into the year 2000. They simply kept going up without the
> necessary corrections to support sustainable upsides. And so they
> fell like a rock when the wind was taken out of their wings.
>
> Now look at AIG, FNM, and FRE; they kept building their bases from
> March to July 2009 after an intial vertical rally in early March;
> it is called a pullback or a correction and a significant one. Naturally,
> after enough preparations had been made; the ensuing rally has a
> better chance of sustaining itself for sometime before the next major
> pullback or corrective action similar to the last one becomes necessary.
>
>
> There is a good chance AIG will be able to reach the $62 to $75 range
> but highly unlikely be able to reach or break above $110 upper run
> rate limit before it will require another major pullback or correction
> that can last 3 to 5 months.
>
> For FNM, the volume support of last week should be able to sustain
> further runs into the $2.26 to $2.67 range with upside limit of $3.40
> before it will need 3 to 5 months rest. Volume should start tapering
> off as it approaches those upper ranges on the daily and weekly charts.
>
>
> FRE and FNM are basically in tandem so they will rise and fall more
> or less in synch with each other on the daily basis.
>
> It is very hard to make a bet against them when the volume of the
> last few weeks indicated impulsive runs rather than corrective C-wave
> run of a normal ABC upside correction or a bear rally or a bear flag
> as most traders call it.
>
> Obviously, they are in a 1-2-3 Elliott Wave runs to the upside and
> will need 3 to 5 months of 4-th wave correction before they can execute
> the 5-th wave rally to complete the 1-2-3-4-5 basic pattern.
>
> After that, they will need bigger, longer and perhaps deeper corrections
> that should not break the bottom lows in order to sustain further
> rallies into the years/decades ahead. You may call it resting or
> healing process or base building or a selloff or even a meltdown;
> TAs called them pullbacks or corrections. Necessary ingriedient
> toward building supports to sustain further rallies.
>
> It takes time and time is the essence in such a dibilitating circumstance
> that should have bankcrupted them immediately.
>
> So unless any or all of them cannot heal themselves and build enough
> bases in order to become profitable into the years and decades ahead;
> they have the necessary volume supports right here at this tentative
> bottom just by looking at their monthly charts.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158895-speculative-trading-indicates-rally-losing-steam?source=feed#comment-653311 653311
The "stimulus" (read: debt) being created by the FED/Treasury is all being strapped to an already over-strapped consumer. The benefits of the added debt go the elite.

If you think this is a prosperous system, then I can only assume you are a staunch supporter of colonial slavery as well? Though (arguably) less cruel, our modern economic system is in principle the same. The slaves do the work, and the masters get the bounty.

Keep in mind that even the most fiscally responsible, conservative citizens are being saddled with involuntary debt. Regardless of your lifestyle, you will be paying your portion of TARP, TALF, CARS, et al.

That is not Democracy, and it certainly isn't the system envisioned by the patriots that fought a war for their ideals.

MM

MM

On Aug 29 01:51 PM ari5000 wrote:

> Everyone's been calling the top for the last 3 months.
>
> Instead of wondering -- why is the market still going up?
>
> There's something new taking place. The Government has essentially
> made an ALL IN bet by stimulating. The govt. has now replaced all
> spending by the private sector and consumers in an attempt to keep
> the economy alive. The financial sector only thrives if the economy
> outside Wall Street thrives. By backstopping the banks, the Fed
> is trying to have the tail wag the dog -- stimulate the banks and
> hopefully, somehow, the financial dealings will stimulate the greater
> economy.
>
> I believe this is why the zombie banks are now leading the pack --
> it's an attempt by the Fed to up-end the nature of the business cycle.
> It makes perfect sense as a government drowning in debt and creating
> more each day -- absolutely NEEDS a growing economy... even if that
> growth comes by simply through inflation.
>
> Predictions of a 1000 point drop are almost ridiculous at this point.
> It shows a total lack of understanding of how a bankrupt entity like
> AIG could rise 100% in the first place. The Fed cannot stop what
> it has started. If the stimulus package fails, they will start a
> new one... TARP, TALF, cash for clunkers, housing credits... I've
> left out a dozen more. A crash? How? The Fed can spend more money
> than the entire world. What could possibly cause a crash when the
> Fed can spend infinite $$ ?? The Fed has supreme power now. Nobody
> can stop them. The taxpayers have no voice. Congress work for the
> corporations that benefit from Ponzi spending.
>
> The Fed has spent an is backstopping bets that probably equal a few
> hundred grand per citizen. All traders need to maximize their share
> of the takings. 90% of the trillions spent will go to a small percentage
> of insiders. We are living in a country that no longer has a rational
> government. The stock market, with zombie banks leading, clearly
> reflects the new mentality.
>
> I feel sorry for those who 'cashed out' or are sitting in gold (which
> the FCBs control an will never let rise) -- they are missing the
> greatest giveaway this generation will ever see. And I really doubt
> this is going to end any time soon.
>
> I can only dream of the next round of programs to come. But I will
> stay fully invested to capture as much upside as I can.]]> Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:43:15 -0400
The "stimulus" (read: debt) being created by the FED/Treasury is all being strapped to an already over-strapped consumer. The benefits of the added debt go the elite.

If you think this is a prosperous system, then I can only assume you are a staunch supporter of colonial slavery as well? Though (arguably) less cruel, our modern economic system is in principle the same. The slaves do the work, and the masters get the bounty.

Keep in mind that even the most fiscally responsible, conservative citizens are being saddled with involuntary debt. Regardless of your lifestyle, you will be paying your portion of TARP, TALF, CARS, et al.

That is not Democracy, and it certainly isn't the system envisioned by the patriots that fought a war for their ideals.

MM

MM

On Aug 29 01:51 PM ari5000 wrote:

> Everyone's been calling the top for the last 3 months.
>
> Instead of wondering -- why is the market still going up?
>
> There's something new taking place. The Government has essentially
> made an ALL IN bet by stimulating. The govt. has now replaced all
> spending by the private sector and consumers in an attempt to keep
> the economy alive. The financial sector only thrives if the economy
> outside Wall Street thrives. By backstopping the banks, the Fed
> is trying to have the tail wag the dog -- stimulate the banks and
> hopefully, somehow, the financial dealings will stimulate the greater
> economy.
>
> I believe this is why the zombie banks are now leading the pack --
> it's an attempt by the Fed to up-end the nature of the business cycle.
> It makes perfect sense as a government drowning in debt and creating
> more each day -- absolutely NEEDS a growing economy... even if that
> growth comes by simply through inflation.
>
> Predictions of a 1000 point drop are almost ridiculous at this point.
> It shows a total lack of understanding of how a bankrupt entity like
> AIG could rise 100% in the first place. The Fed cannot stop what
> it has started. If the stimulus package fails, they will start a
> new one... TARP, TALF, cash for clunkers, housing credits... I've
> left out a dozen more. A crash? How? The Fed can spend more money
> than the entire world. What could possibly cause a crash when the
> Fed can spend infinite $$ ?? The Fed has supreme power now. Nobody
> can stop them. The taxpayers have no voice. Congress work for the
> corporations that benefit from Ponzi spending.
>
> The Fed has spent an is backstopping bets that probably equal a few
> hundred grand per citizen. All traders need to maximize their share
> of the takings. 90% of the trillions spent will go to a small percentage
> of insiders. We are living in a country that no longer has a rational
> government. The stock market, with zombie banks leading, clearly
> reflects the new mentality.
>
> I feel sorry for those who 'cashed out' or are sitting in gold (which
> the FCBs control an will never let rise) -- they are missing the
> greatest giveaway this generation will ever see. And I really doubt
> this is going to end any time soon.
>
> I can only dream of the next round of programs to come. But I will
> stay fully invested to capture as much upside as I can.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158838-while-citigroup-jumps-on-john-paulson-s-investment-aig-jumps-on-anything?source=feed#comment-650913 650913
I've said this before, but simply NOT going bankrupt doesn't make these stocks a good investment. At some point people will realize they are paying virtually infinity PEs for these "zombies" and the silliness will stop. OK, so BAC is not going bankrupt. Fine. That fact alone doesn't make it worth $156B which is the current market price.

Most "bull" arguments I read essentially come down to this: yeah, I know its all BS, but I don't want to miss it and I'll just get out before it gets bad!

Not exactly what I would call sound.

MM]]> Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:20:50 -0400
I've said this before, but simply NOT going bankrupt doesn't make these stocks a good investment. At some point people will realize they are paying virtually infinity PEs for these "zombies" and the silliness will stop. OK, so BAC is not going bankrupt. Fine. That fact alone doesn't make it worth $156B which is the current market price.

Most "bull" arguments I read essentially come down to this: yeah, I know its all BS, but I don't want to miss it and I'll just get out before it gets bad!

Not exactly what I would call sound.

MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157442-cash-for-clunkers-coming-soon-to-your-kitchen-and-laundry-room?source=feed#comment-639788 639788

As for Michigan's 6% sales tax, I am quite jealous. Here in CA we pay 9.75% and it's only looking to go higher in the near future.

The thing that keeps me sane and optimistic is that ultimately the solution is quite QUITE simple. Cut spending, shrink government, increase individual accountability.

It's like weight loss. No matter how fat you get, the solution is the same and you will see results immediately once you change your lifestyle. That is what lets me hold on to the hope that at SOME point, collectively we will have our "aha" moment and decide to change.

Hopefully it will be more peaceful than the last time.

MM]]> Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:30:32 -0400

As for Michigan's 6% sales tax, I am quite jealous. Here in CA we pay 9.75% and it's only looking to go higher in the near future.

The thing that keeps me sane and optimistic is that ultimately the solution is quite QUITE simple. Cut spending, shrink government, increase individual accountability.

It's like weight loss. No matter how fat you get, the solution is the same and you will see results immediately once you change your lifestyle. That is what lets me hold on to the hope that at SOME point, collectively we will have our "aha" moment and decide to change.

Hopefully it will be more peaceful than the last time.

MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156948-healthcare-debate-dominated-by-shouting-and-lobbies?source=feed#comment-637470 637470
You suggest that people will take a more proactive interest in health care if they are financially motivated. But people are physically motivated to take a proactive interest in their health and have utterly and completely failed.

If people were as capable as you seem to think they are, then we wouldn't have this current housing/debt crisis. After all, our present situation essentially comes down to the average American not being able to manage a checkbook. People who make $50k/year and try to buy a $300k house are going to suddenly start making fiscally responsible choices about what's best for their health care? Really?

If the average American had even a modicum of the intelligence and discipline you suggest, then 30% of the nation wouldn't be obese and 70% overweight. The easiest, most effective reduction to health care would be for our nation TO BE IN GOOD HEALTH.

A simple 30 minute walk after dinner and consuming less than 3k calories per day would be an enormous reduction to our country's overall health care costs. I just find it hard to believe that these amorphous blobs who go to town hall meetings and yell, or sit at the tv and yell, or sit at the computer and yell are capable of the task at hand.

To me, the actual HEALTH of our nation is the most disturbing issue.

MM]]> Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:32:09 -0400
You suggest that people will take a more proactive interest in health care if they are financially motivated. But people are physically motivated to take a proactive interest in their health and have utterly and completely failed.

If people were as capable as you seem to think they are, then we wouldn't have this current housing/debt crisis. After all, our present situation essentially comes down to the average American not being able to manage a checkbook. People who make $50k/year and try to buy a $300k house are going to suddenly start making fiscally responsible choices about what's best for their health care? Really?

If the average American had even a modicum of the intelligence and discipline you suggest, then 30% of the nation wouldn't be obese and 70% overweight. The easiest, most effective reduction to health care would be for our nation TO BE IN GOOD HEALTH.

A simple 30 minute walk after dinner and consuming less than 3k calories per day would be an enormous reduction to our country's overall health care costs. I just find it hard to believe that these amorphous blobs who go to town hall meetings and yell, or sit at the tv and yell, or sit at the computer and yell are capable of the task at hand.

To me, the actual HEALTH of our nation is the most disturbing issue.

MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156984-the-case-for-shorting-bank-of-america?source=feed#comment-637342 637342
Government sponsorship isn't a business model that INVESTORS will applaud long term. Sure, the top executives, directors, etc. will make out handsomely from the government tit. But that's not exactly strong motivation for rational investors to hold or open new long positions in this stock.

If the Post Office had an IPO tomorrow, would you buy it?

MM]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:27:28 -0400
Government sponsorship isn't a business model that INVESTORS will applaud long term. Sure, the top executives, directors, etc. will make out handsomely from the government tit. But that's not exactly strong motivation for rational investors to hold or open new long positions in this stock.

If the Post Office had an IPO tomorrow, would you buy it?

MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156891-have-americans-been-brainwashed-by-the-deflation-bogeyman?source=feed#comment-635510 635510
That is incorrect because PROFIT is the bottom line. Revenues may decrease but if the bottom line goes up that is all any REAL investor cares about. Revenue could drop by 50% but if costs drop by 60% then Company X's PROFIT has INCREASED.

MM]]> Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:43:14 -0400
That is incorrect because PROFIT is the bottom line. Revenues may decrease but if the bottom line goes up that is all any REAL investor cares about. Revenue could drop by 50% but if costs drop by 60% then Company X's PROFIT has INCREASED.

MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156211-from-today-s-numbers-a-recovery-is-hard-to-see?source=feed#comment-632563 632563
MM


On Aug 16 02:43 PM hep wrote:

> Asians....what about the mexicans that the us government is spending
> a fotune on trying to keep out. Let em all in, they just want to
> work, buy stuff at our stores, buy houses, cars etc. The problem
> with our system is overcapacity resulting in falling prices. The
> only way to soak up this overcapacity is to increase demand, i.e.
> more people to buy things. Whoever wants to come into the county
> and work, should be let in.]]> Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:12:09 -0400
MM


On Aug 16 02:43 PM hep wrote:

> Asians....what about the mexicans that the us government is spending
> a fotune on trying to keep out. Let em all in, they just want to
> work, buy stuff at our stores, buy houses, cars etc. The problem
> with our system is overcapacity resulting in falling prices. The
> only way to soak up this overcapacity is to increase demand, i.e.
> more people to buy things. Whoever wants to come into the county
> and work, should be let in.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156358-look-it-s-a-v-shaped-recovery?source=feed#comment-631987 631987
MM


On Aug 16 10:49 AM j-dub wrote:


> Ever heard of the old saying- "Every economist knows 75 different
> ways to make love, they just don't know any women."]]> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:48:25 -0400
MM


On Aug 16 10:49 AM j-dub wrote:


> Ever heard of the old saying- "Every economist knows 75 different
> ways to make love, they just don't know any women."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146547-california-the-haves-and-have-nots?source=feed#comment-571935 571935
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. All programs start by using a situation similar to yours, but before you know it we have 20% of the population collecting unemployment insurance.

All presently terrible programs were conceptualized in nobility.

If they came out and said "we are going to arbitrarily confiscate and redistribute money at our choosing" no one would sign up.

The saving grace is that the solution is quite simple. Like an alcoholic who hits bottom and realizes he needs to stop drinking, someday people will realize not even governments can spend money they don't have ad infinitum.

Or we'll just drink ourselves to death. Either/or...


On Jul 02 01:08 PM masf wrote:

> Why do we keep insisting on buying spilled milk instead of milk we
> can drink? Consider the costs of these "savings" in prisons, emergency
> rooms, and lost productivity. I'm a Californian who has benefited
> from some of these programs. I became disabled shortly after my
> baby was born 11 years ago. Despite outstanding education and pushing
> myself to the point where I was literally passing out, I could no
> longer hold a job. Guess what? If you work hard and are very, very
> determined... you can still be stopped. Thanks to my fellow tax
> payers, I have completed a vocational rehabilitation program, found
> a part-time job, and have good chances of working full-time soon.
> Compare this outcome with the alternative: the state bringing my
> child up for me. And I think we Californians are at least as worthy
> of bailout funds as AIG.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:20:58 -0400
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. All programs start by using a situation similar to yours, but before you know it we have 20% of the population collecting unemployment insurance.

All presently terrible programs were conceptualized in nobility.

If they came out and said "we are going to arbitrarily confiscate and redistribute money at our choosing" no one would sign up.

The saving grace is that the solution is quite simple. Like an alcoholic who hits bottom and realizes he needs to stop drinking, someday people will realize not even governments can spend money they don't have ad infinitum.

Or we'll just drink ourselves to death. Either/or...


On Jul 02 01:08 PM masf wrote:

> Why do we keep insisting on buying spilled milk instead of milk we
> can drink? Consider the costs of these "savings" in prisons, emergency
> rooms, and lost productivity. I'm a Californian who has benefited
> from some of these programs. I became disabled shortly after my
> baby was born 11 years ago. Despite outstanding education and pushing
> myself to the point where I was literally passing out, I could no
> longer hold a job. Guess what? If you work hard and are very, very
> determined... you can still be stopped. Thanks to my fellow tax
> payers, I have completed a vocational rehabilitation program, found
> a part-time job, and have good chances of working full-time soon.
> Compare this outcome with the alternative: the state bringing my
> child up for me. And I think we Californians are at least as worthy
> of bailout funds as AIG.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142173-stocks-are-hot-but-do-the-americans-on-food-stamps-care?source=feed#comment-539042 539042
Yes, many of the big/internationals are screwing people over but more people are hired by small businesses than the behemoths. Pensions, health insurance, minimum wage, unemployment insurance...these things all cripple an employer's ability and incentive to hire more people.

The current system is not perfect, but then neither is capitalism itself when it's managed by humans. Human nature is flawed, and the more we try to tinker with things, and deny the facts of our own beings, the worse things become. Nothing that involves human decisions will ever be perfect, and in fact that is why our Constitution was created to try and remove any situations that relied on human nature to "do the right thing."

MM


On Jun 09 11:48 AM Living4Dividends wrote:

> Excellent post, TraderMark. Indeed you are correct. The 401K has
> been a disaster for average Americans.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:27:52 -0400
Yes, many of the big/internationals are screwing people over but more people are hired by small businesses than the behemoths. Pensions, health insurance, minimum wage, unemployment insurance...these things all cripple an employer's ability and incentive to hire more people.

The current system is not perfect, but then neither is capitalism itself when it's managed by humans. Human nature is flawed, and the more we try to tinker with things, and deny the facts of our own beings, the worse things become. Nothing that involves human decisions will ever be perfect, and in fact that is why our Constitution was created to try and remove any situations that relied on human nature to "do the right thing."

MM


On Jun 09 11:48 AM Living4Dividends wrote:

> Excellent post, TraderMark. Indeed you are correct. The 401K has
> been a disaster for average Americans.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142173-stocks-are-hot-but-do-the-americans-on-food-stamps-care?source=feed#comment-539013 539013
I'll start with a caveat: I am in total agreement about the general corruptness of our political/economic system. I just don't think a 401k vs. a pension is a part of this problem.

I think a moral society is one that allows its citizens the most choice possible. This is commensurate with a 401k. A lavish, or even a pauper retirement is not a right. That is my general belief. If you have the discipline and desire to save all your life and to defer the consumption of those dollars to some future date, more power to you. There are negatives to this; your present standard of living is diminished in the hope/expectation that your future standard will be increased.

If one fails, or is simply unable to fully accomplish this goal then they will have to figure out alternative means. Either living with relatives (as almost every elder person did until the past few decades), work a couple extra years, or work part-time to supplement whatever savings you do have.

But the notion that everyone over some arbitrary age should be labor-free is totally baseless, IMHO.

This is akin to the obesity problem in America. Should we legislate some type of weight-management system for all Americans? Is it our inalienable right for healthy, fit citizens to subsidize those that consistently, often defiantly make poor choices about their well-being? I do not think so.

I choose to be healthy. Because I WANT to be healthy. It is hard work, but I view the reward as absolutely worth it. If I were to get hit by a bus tomorrow, or have an unexpected aneurism I would not regret my past choices. Simply a "Black Swan" I could not account for. The same goes for my finances. I save and live below my means, but any number of things could destroy my financial well-being. But those are out of my control. The things I can control I try to do so as beneficially as possible. It is EASY to spend all your money and then blame "others" when you have nothing left. Or the analogous excuse, "I'm just big-boned."

Everything in life is a choice, and every choice has a consequence; from the minute to the massive. I live below my financial means, and similarly I only eat those foods I can "afford" calorically speaking. I exert energy maintaining my financial balance sheet, and my cardiovascular one too.

I think there is just to many calls for "Something has to be done about...", or "We really need to...." even on a lot of issues I agree with. Ironically, or perhaps hypocritically I guess that's what this post is, too. Oh well, no one's perfect. Certainly not me! :)

MM]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:15:47 -0400
I'll start with a caveat: I am in total agreement about the general corruptness of our political/economic system. I just don't think a 401k vs. a pension is a part of this problem.

I think a moral society is one that allows its citizens the most choice possible. This is commensurate with a 401k. A lavish, or even a pauper retirement is not a right. That is my general belief. If you have the discipline and desire to save all your life and to defer the consumption of those dollars to some future date, more power to you. There are negatives to this; your present standard of living is diminished in the hope/expectation that your future standard will be increased.

If one fails, or is simply unable to fully accomplish this goal then they will have to figure out alternative means. Either living with relatives (as almost every elder person did until the past few decades), work a couple extra years, or work part-time to supplement whatever savings you do have.

But the notion that everyone over some arbitrary age should be labor-free is totally baseless, IMHO.

This is akin to the obesity problem in America. Should we legislate some type of weight-management system for all Americans? Is it our inalienable right for healthy, fit citizens to subsidize those that consistently, often defiantly make poor choices about their well-being? I do not think so.

I choose to be healthy. Because I WANT to be healthy. It is hard work, but I view the reward as absolutely worth it. If I were to get hit by a bus tomorrow, or have an unexpected aneurism I would not regret my past choices. Simply a "Black Swan" I could not account for. The same goes for my finances. I save and live below my means, but any number of things could destroy my financial well-being. But those are out of my control. The things I can control I try to do so as beneficially as possible. It is EASY to spend all your money and then blame "others" when you have nothing left. Or the analogous excuse, "I'm just big-boned."

Everything in life is a choice, and every choice has a consequence; from the minute to the massive. I live below my financial means, and similarly I only eat those foods I can "afford" calorically speaking. I exert energy maintaining my financial balance sheet, and my cardiovascular one too.

I think there is just to many calls for "Something has to be done about...", or "We really need to...." even on a lot of issues I agree with. Ironically, or perhaps hypocritically I guess that's what this post is, too. Oh well, no one's perfect. Certainly not me! :)

MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142003-ddr-to-sell-malls-at-30-discount-to-2004-prices?source=feed#comment-538222 538222
MM]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:30:43 -0400
MM]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141887-can-the-u-s-break-the-oligarchy-cycle-a-fourth-time?source=feed#comment-538208 538208
And I would argue those 2 (and a slew of others) are far more detrimental than an often figurehead President.

MM


On Jun 08 10:54 AM Jimbo wrote:

> Regarding Jack Gordon's comments,above, I don't see the Democratic
> party doing much to solve the problem either. Both major parties
> have been co-opted by "influence" and Washington has become a house
> of political prostitution. We require a constitutional amendment
> to limit congressional terms of office and laws making it a felony
> for any former member of congress or any former federal employee
> to lobby congress. I only hope that a peaceful political revolution
> takes place before the situation becomes literally violent.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:09:49 -0400
And I would argue those 2 (and a slew of others) are far more detrimental than an often figurehead President.

MM


On Jun 08 10:54 AM Jimbo wrote:

> Regarding Jack Gordon's comments,above, I don't see the Democratic
> party doing much to solve the problem either. Both major parties
> have been co-opted by "influence" and Washington has become a house
> of political prostitution. We require a constitutional amendment
> to limit congressional terms of office and laws making it a felony
> for any former member of congress or any former federal employee
> to lobby congress. I only hope that a peaceful political revolution
> takes place before the situation becomes literally violent.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140448-why-is-oil-creeping-back-up?source=feed#comment-525280 525280
Personally, I'm expecting a drop (both in oil and the markets) but other than some long exposure to a couple drillers I am mostly avoiding this game right now.

MM

On May 31 01:00 PM CautiousInvestor wrote:

> A provocative article and many thoughtful comments.
>
> On this one I will join forces with George Soros and others who believe
> the recent bounce in oil prices is a result of speculators anticipating
> an economic recovery nothwithstanding the falling dollar, reduced
> oil shipments and stockpiling by China.
>
> Within the US, we are at a 25-year high in petroleum storage and
> have 139M barrels more in storage than last year - an average increase
> of nearly 3M barrels a week despite OPEC’s 29Mb/week production cut.
> And the same is true in Rotterdam, where oil storage is reaching
> record levels, and in England where tankers brimming with oil float
> off the south shore.
>
> Even Iraqi Oil Minister said last week: "We don’t think it’s a wise
> economic decision to produce oil from secure underground fields and
> then pay to store it in floating tankers. Future generations can
> benefit from it better than we can, if we don’t need it."
>
> To the extent that speculators are betting upon an economic recovery
> and attending increases in energy prices, it's somewhat ironical
> that the recent runup of over 50% could easily choke-off the very
> recovery they are betting on.
>
> ]]> Sun, 31 May 2009 13:35:21 -0400
Personally, I'm expecting a drop (both in oil and the markets) but other than some long exposure to a couple drillers I am mostly avoiding this game right now.

MM

On May 31 01:00 PM CautiousInvestor wrote:

> A provocative article and many thoughtful comments.
>
> On this one I will join forces with George Soros and others who believe
> the recent bounce in oil prices is a result of speculators anticipating
> an economic recovery nothwithstanding the falling dollar, reduced
> oil shipments and stockpiling by China.
>
> Within the US, we are at a 25-year high in petroleum storage and
> have 139M barrels more in storage than last year - an average increase
> of nearly 3M barrels a week despite OPEC’s 29Mb/week production cut.
> And the same is true in Rotterdam, where oil storage is reaching
> record levels, and in England where tankers brimming with oil float
> off the south shore.
>
> Even Iraqi Oil Minister said last week: "We don’t think it’s a wise
> economic decision to produce oil from secure underground fields and
> then pay to store it in floating tankers. Future generations can
> benefit from it better than we can, if we don’t need it."
>
> To the extent that speculators are betting upon an economic recovery
> and attending increases in energy prices, it's somewhat ironical
> that the recent runup of over 50% could easily choke-off the very
> recovery they are betting on.
>
> ]]>