Tim H.

Newspapers: Three Nails, One Coffin

Jeff Jarvis we get it!!! You think Newspapers are dead. Geezz. Tell you what Jeff I work for Gannett and yeah they treat their employee's like crap. BUT Jeff I bought 9,000 shares of GCI stock at $3.60 in my 401K in June mainly because of negative nellies like you and the high short interest. Sold 7000 shares today at $8.65. What is that? $45,000 in profit? Yeah I lost money last year (33% hit) but whose singing the tune today Jeff? I was down 11% for this year now up around 40%. What Jeff doesn't do is give you a timeline date when newspapers will be obsolete. Newspaper stocks are now trading stocks. With heavy short interest and some DD there is risk/reward potential. There are profits to be made in some of these companies. You just have to keep your nose to the grindstone. No doubt Gannett has some debt issues but fact is Gannett still making money. Jobs come back in improving economy GCI owning 50% interest in website such as Career Builder will increase revenue. As it is GCI came close to my $9 target. So I sold majority of it. A nice freaking trade thanks to people such as Jeff Jarvis. Thanks Jeff. keep up the negative slant.

Will 'Cash for Clunkers' Bring the Feared Double Dip?

I think I will run out and turn in my clunker just so I can stick it to you. Ford Explorer... Hah watch out for the rollover. If your too stupid not to trade it in for say the new FORD FOCUS which has gotten rave reviews... Compared to the Ford Explorer. Who's freaking fought is that? Not the government but your dumb_ss!


On Aug 04 08:31 AM Tony Petroski wrote:

> The author: "I suspect that when we look back at the history of this
> whole period in a couple of years, C4C will be a footnote."
>
> You are correct.
>
> What will be noted by historians is the continued slide towards government
> actively managing outcomes while allies in the media slant the news
> to put the best gloss on things.
>
> I'm one of those who doesn't need a car and I own a "gas guzzler,"
> a Ford Explorer that I like a lot. I get to watch other people get
> part of my tax money to get freebies while I get nothing. Living
> the free life becomes a game of finding out what the latest subsidies
> are and making those purchases in a timely manner to game the system.
> Within a few months we will be hearing about all the re-sold vehicles
> from those who got a big subsidy to buy their KIA and now are reselling
> the vehicle they never used for a tidy profit.
>
> The march of Progressivism rolls on.

Will 'Cash for Clunkers' Bring the Feared Double Dip?

I have totally lost all respect for Seeking Alpha's website. As it has been infiltrated by the same viewpoints as those on CNBC. Why isn't Seeking alpha pumping up gold miner stocks and Gold? Those were all going to be such big winners. the commodity market bullish run would never end. i support President Obama, I also have made 25% return last 3 weeks. Rest assured their will be more pullbacks. But recession will be over by next Summer. So you just keeping posting your comments clouded by your political ideology. Wall Street and the finnacial markets in their greed brought us this awful recession. Anyone reading my comments must NEVER EVER FORGET THAT FACT!! These people writing on Seeking alpha were same one's pumping up price of oil and commodity's market as having a bullish run for many more years.... DO NOT FORGET THAT FACT. BTW yes I invest but I also have my eyes wide open. Use your own Due diligence and research when investing. Also take a grain of salt with any investing advice you read or hear and use it as just one small percentage of your investing tool. Best advice I ever read is from Buffett and huge retired money manager. It is: Buy into the markets that wall street is negative on but has real long term growth. Then be patient. The markets will return. Second part is when buying... Always buy on dips. Momentum trading is how to lose money. Always buy on the dips in a market you like. Follow those 2 basic ideas and you will make money in the stock market.

Cash for Clunkers: Short-Term Gain = Long-Term Pain

You are sooo freaking WRONG. This attempt to portray Cash for clunkers as a bad idea is because it was thought up by the government who bailed out the auto industry. In a tough economic landscape the cash for clunkers has gotten cars off road people were holding onto, helped auto dealerships and industry, helped the environment and helped the AD/media industry with advertising. I know a guy turned in an old truck got a new Ford Focus, This program has been successful with mostly the middleclass. So it's no wonder the upper incomes would look on with disdain at the program. People will work on their old cars until given a bargain to get rid of them. I find it amusing the attempted backlash on this program. It's okay to bail out the banks but for some reason it's not okay to try and save a manufacturing base that helped this country win world war 2. The anti-clunker sentiment is an attempt to to deny the fact that a goverment stimulus plan actually is working. Partly due to fact that since government owns part of auto industry and this program is helping said auto industry. The negative sentiment is actually pure politics because said sentiment is against government interfering in private industry. There is nothing wrong with this cash for clunkers program other than from a pure political ideology viewpoint.

The Unraveling of Newspaper Economics

I still think newspaper have a role and it is LOCALITY! You can get the national/international news from other media especially online. But local stories... Human interest stories... People still like to read that. What person/family still doesn't like to get story about themselves or area/a picture in the local city newspaper? From personal example. My aunt gave up subscription awhile back. Well there was a story about her son in business section. Yeah she could read it and print it online. But she also ran out bought several copies. Look at Obama winning election. All the newspapers people ran out and bought because of first black President. I know several people who wanted press plates. Also include local political squabbles or scandals. Just saying you can SELL that to advertisers & subscribers.

Outlawing Links Won't Save Newspapers

Sam you are wrong!!! When a website such as Huffington Post reports a story rephrasing the headline and commenting on subject. Then links the story with a paraphrase: READ THE WHOLE STORY HERE. The link in turns takes you to say... Wash Post story. The Post or any newspaper/print media should be entitled to some kind of revenue payment as compensation. SINCE the website is using that journalist work and his employer is not being compensated for the money said journalist is being paid to report. In a nutshell you are wrong Sam. Same goes with AP's complaint against Google. These web site's should pay a royalty fee to print media content which they are using for free. Then proclaiming the death of newspapers. Freedom of press will sorely be harmed if all print operations seize to exist. Web only sites do not have the financial resources to do say Watergate reporting. Nor do they have the journalistic integrity with regards to in depth investigative reporting. This topic may not save newspapers. But they have a legit complaint. I hope newspaper's SUE online sites for filfering their content for free and gaining AD revenue at their expense. You are flat wrong and no suprise by your opinion considering who butters your bread Sam.

Newspaper Economics at Zero?

This Craig Huber is wrong! There was just a story out off Seeking Alpha week or so ago from another writer who was friends with LA Times editor. The editor crunched numbers on an LA Times Online only business model. After cost cuts etc... Said model would be profitable. Sooo say NY Times filed for chapter 11 and erased all it's debt, cut the costs necessary for online paper etc... Then ran all it's owned papers as online only. Your going tell me NY Times wouldn't turn a profit??? Now as a newspaper reader I don't want that to happen. I am merely pointing out this barclays analyst is wrong. WORD for the wise. I realize bad situation in industry. But be very wary of seeking alpha writers and analysts who comment on industry. Very few cover industry and same goes for seeking alpha writers... I follow one's advice who over a long time have commented on industry. Ron Fountier of Seeking alpha is one. The writer for CBS Friedman is another one. I will use an example: Showing my bias I work for gannett. A co worker talked to a finnacial advisor and she told him Gannett was going bankrupt that he better get another job etc... gannett has issues but still made 25 cents a share (77 mil) in profit last qtr. Now just recently a value fund investment company increased it's shares in Gannett by 7.9% to almost 13% now owning $80 + mil in Gannett stock. New investment equaled around $50 mil. So whose dvice would you believe here? Some anaonymous financial advisor saying GCI is going bankrupt or someone who just invested almost $50 mil more in stock at $2.60. Stock at $3.50. My point being I follow where the money flows. Not saying GCI a good investment but I would question the argument GCI is going bankrupt any time soon. Long term no one knows...

Most Likely Scenario for the U.S.: Decade-Long Recession

I disagree. I will not predict future market movements. I will say the bottom is in. Worst case scenario was 5000 DOW! DOW at what 6300?? Was the bottom. I will agree we could retest thatnumber. I am hopeful DOW 7500 will be bottom any retesting. About that decades long recession... PLEASE! The Great Depression lasted 4 years 7 mos. This recession is not as bad as that depression. I am predicting this October to be the bottom in market and we will be 60% into the recession which started in December 07. I am looking for this recesson be over mid 2011.

A Paperless News World: Kinsley Nails It Again

I agree Vobo... As Jarvis points out about Huffington Post. Go read Huffington. Majority of articles on Huffington are stolen from other news sources especially print media and then refabricated with Huffington's own headlines. Their is a short Huffington rift on article. Then a link to news source which is not Huffington. Huffington has it's own bloggers and reporters (Sam Stein). But mainly it's content is linked from print/online sources. It is in effect a left leaning news reader website. Which is fine. Similar but not as popular news websites abound on web. I don't agree about newspapers charging fees to read their news. But I do agree that newspapers will figure out how to charge websites like Huffington a fee for using their content which helps keeps the Huffington Post relevant. In other words what do newspapers GET out of news websites filfering their content to be used for their own content?


On Apr 06 05:59 PM Vobogeck wrote:

> Just out on Reuters: "Associated Press unveiled rate cuts on Monday
> to help member newspapers reeling from declining advertising revenue
> and said it would sue websites that use its members' articles without
> permission."
>
> Jarvis assumes a static status quo, which is nonsense. The AP response
> is typical of what will happen, as the news providers stop giving
> their stories away free to Google etc. Although they may be slow
> to change, the newspapers will adapt and thrive. They will compensate
> for reduced advertising with a higher subscription, for those readers
> willing to pay for in-depth news. If they don't we will be left with
> the worthless drivel that passes for journalism on sites like Seeking
> Bears.
>
> I am curious Jeff: how much does Seeking Bears pay you for posting
> on its web site? Do you get a cut of its advertising revenue? If
> not, how much longer will you continue to give away your time for
> free?

Barron's Calls a Bottom

We won't know until years later whether this was a time to buy or stay on sdelines waiting for lower market. Will you say d_mn I wish I'd went 100% in stocks March of 09 5 years from now? As for Obama... I invest, I am down in my 401K and I own AMSC which is holding it's own from where I bought it ($15). Who on here did not see last several years all these wall street deals, derivative trading making big bucks fora select few in a very short-time? This is what lead to the greed unchallenged by government oversite while mainstreet USA saw their paychecks shrink and health care, energy expenses rise? Plus the infrastructure of our country decline? Now Obama has made mistakes and like any person is fallible. But I support in what Obama i trying to do. He is looking long term at what is best for this country. Heck now he is getting push back from DEMs in congress. Look at health care. Why is street and soo many in insurance/hospitals etc... Afraid of giving Americans a choice of pvt insurer or health insurance such as congress gets? Because they know what people would do. But that recent study out by that non profit group showing such a program would save 2 Trillion dollars over 11 years and cut a person's health insurance 20%. Now forget about all the arguments for a minute and think about that. Health care reform that would save 2 Trillion over 11 years and cut premiums 20%. What do you think a plan such as that would do for the overall health of the US economy in future? Would it not be good? The idea of getting off dependence on foreign oil by alternative energy. Is this not a good idea? Making the quality of our education better. Is this not good? Investing in infrastructure for this country. Is this not good? Yes short-term we all see alot of pain but long term... I am talking 10-20 years these ideas, plans could pay off huge for our nation. If mainstreet does well wall street will do well. Rather than wall street doing well at the expense of mainstreet!

Bernanke's Words of Encouragement: Did I Miss Something?

I submit to your point number 2 how will the government debt be paid off? AFTER the economy recovers a national gas tax which proceeds will be used to pay off the debt and encourage energy conservation AND promote alternative energy. In fact a book author on alternative energy transportation recently stated a base in the price of gas needs to be established to really get the alternative energy travel infrastructure going. I submit people were willing to pay $4.00 a gal gas and we are significantly below that even if price increases with recovered economy. Refineries have scaled back gas production to keep prices where they are today. Add to automakers agreeing to raise the miles per gal standards in coming years. If you buy my agument then I just submitted the answer to your point #2.

Recent Policy Decisions and a Greater Depression

I disagree with your analysis and here is why: A few years ago I had a discussion with my brother when the Iraq war was looking like as McCain said: "we will be there 100 years." Spending billions more on Iraq in process while this country's infrastructure decayed. Why were you not writing an article a few years ago stating the significant increase in cost of Iraq war was leading to a huge national debt and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 needed to be rescinded to help pay for the cost of war? My post is not an anti-war or anti-Bush rant. Merely my point is it seems to be okay to spend billions of US tax money to fund a war of choice. Yet when the government roles out stimulus bill which is more than just creating jobs but rebuilding the county's infrastucture. The people who were silent about the money spent in Iraq are now screaming bloody mary about the stimulus bill? Just seems kinda screwed up that this country spends billions on another country and that's okay. But if this country spends billions on itself. That's not right. Explain to me please why that is? I will use an example: There is $8 bil in bill to build high speed rail across country. This intent is to help decongestion our nation's roadways and air travel and promote conservation of energy. Being more energy efficient whether it's weather proofing, higher mileage in auto's or using power sources that use less energy (solar panels, energy efficient light bulbs) all lead USA to becoming more energy independent. So that stimulus bill is just not to create jobs but to upgrade this country's infrastructure. As for the foreclosure help... Fact is until the massive foreclosing's stop's this country's economy is never going to get revved back up. I understand the argument those people agreed to those terms but the foreclosing's need to be slowed down so people can stay in their homes. How does a foreclosed home that sits with no buying occupant help anyone? I find it really interesting that despite columns such as the one above and wall street's lack of excitement over what Obama is doing. His poll rating still remain high. Wall Street made alot of money in past few years and now the punch bowl has been taken away. Main street seems to approve. That bailout money is in loans so it is suppose to be repaid to tax payers years from now. As for the debt that is being created today. Under Reagan the national debt significantly increased yet I saw few columnist stating we were on our way to a great depression. Early in Reagan's term we were in a very bad recession too. No doubt down road the debt being created needs to be repaid and Obama has acknowledged this fact. Personally I think after economy recovers... A national gas tax is quickest way to repay that debt. This would force consumers to not go back to old driving habits, conserve energy and promote alternative energy travel. An author of a book about alternative energy said the technologies are there but to get the green energy infrastructure moving a base in the price of gas needs to be established. Bottom line is I disagree with this article but if the article is correct. Then Obama will have failed and as he told that audience in Florida: "We will have a new President." I hope Obama doesn't fail because it will be good for the country if he succeeds!

Geithner's Vagueness Explained

What I am seeing is alot of rock throwing... Everyone has an opinion on what should be done and i have seen many different ideas with pros and cons. This just shows how screwed up and complicated the whole mess is... But warnings were there. When you buy a home and your mortgage contract ends up packaged with other securities and ends up in China somewhere. Something is F'd up. True story in USA Today. Some guy lost his job living in his home without payments for over a year in Fla (mid 6 fig price). Banks couldn't force him out because they could not produce his original mortgage. So Judge wouldn't foreclose. Guy said produce contract and I will leave. Just another example how screwed up things are... I am actually optimistic going forward. 2009 is gonna be rough. but I still have my job and holding on for better days ahead after 09.

Barron's Takes Down Cramer, Again

Cramer sux... Anyone buys off his recommendations deserves lose money. Google that youtube Vid where cramer basically admits how he and his trader buddies manipulate the market. What about the infamous Vid from Mad Money when a caller wanted to know if they should sell Bear Stearns at $50 after falling from $80's over financial equity concerns... Cramer said NO, NO, Don't sell. 3 days later Bear Stearns tanked and we all know the rest of story...


On Feb 08 05:06 PM Ant wrote:

> Besides the fact that Cramer admits that he gets things wrong, who
> on this planet, has called this crazy Market 100% right? This is
> the worst Market in HISTORY! Nostradamus couldn't get every call
> right in this Market.
> If you feel that Cramer, or ANYONE, is giving bad advice, listen
> to yourself. Let;s see how well you do.

Why Capping Pay Is Likely to Work

Robert Perrego you didn't answer my question. If these commercial bankers etc... If they are soo smart and brilliant. How did they allow this crisis to happen? An average dumbazz can figure out that if you give someone a loan for a house they cannot afford. Then set up a subprime loan that's interest rate will kick in much higher when said loanee has no business geting loan in first place. Plus the loanee has crappy credit rating. That the first chance things go bad for loanee. The loanee will walk away from the home and default. Do you have to be a brilliant Ivy league Grad to figure out how screwed up that idea is? Yet these people looked the other way or OK'd the deals. This is unbelievable. I am outta here... BTW a good friend of mine just lost his job at a bank. So sit on that! Cutbacks ya know? Times are tough!