David in D

The Recovery Was Too Expensive

Nice article Chris. I'm curious though, your metaphor of taking a pay cut then borrowing to fill in the gap seems a bit simplistic here. The borrowing, in the case of the nation, comes from itself. While I agree that the fiscal crisis will probably not lead to serious reform, and while it probably cost more than it needed to, I think it is hard to quantify the downside of a crisis. In other words, it is easy (as you admit in your Monday morning quarterback comment) to sit back and say "we are really getting only limited value from this bailout" but this is really an impossible statement; isn't it? How do you know what might have happened if the fed's actions hadn't been taken?

In general, I'm in agreement with you. But I get a little annoyed on Seeking Alpha with all the "ditto heads" and permabears and really, perhaps Bernanke deserves some real kudos. Who knows, my point is we cannot.

We are but fallible humans (actually meaning-making animals) seeking to do the best we can for ourselves in our social contracts. I think it's better to live in gratefulness for what has been done than perenial cynicism.

The Deflation of the American Dream

Robert, excellent article.

Confidence Games and Ponzi Schemes: No Way to Run the World's Largest Economy

Zmartmoney, perhaps you should take another look at Tim's graphs. You will note that it has been the supposed "conservatives" who have expanded the deficit most aggressively. Are you for more "trickle down" economics? It is precisely the wealth gap, generated under conservatives, that has contributed most decisively to the American economic meltdown. So yes, we need the pendulum to swing back towards sanity a bit after the last 30 years... but of course, no one on Fox News is going to tell you that.


On Aug 07 11:22 AM Zmartmoney wrote:

> The liberal/socialist agenda emanating from Washington requires that
> we be awash in easy money. How else will they pay to have most of
> the people sitting in the wagon, and the remaining few pushing?
> The liberal mindset seeks to have wealth for all, taken from those
> with "too much" and generously distributed by an all-knowing, wise,
> benevolent government master to those with "too little." Along the
> way, it wouldn't hurt if the wise masters were able to corner the
> market on power, which would allow them to spread their wisdom that
> much further. Liberals love to castigate conservatives for their
> "stinginess." In truth, that stinginess is actually self-preservation
> - the ant storing harvest for the coming winter, instead of the foolish
> grasshopper who wants to party till the snow comes. Children's stories
> are still quite useful for demonstrating enduring truths of life.
> There is no free lunch - there is only that one taken from someone
> else. Who are you going to take yours from? Welcome to socialism.
> This party can't stop - Washington can't afford for it to, as there
> are way too many things they want to spend money on first, remaking
> America in their image. BTW - don't mistakenly assume that Liberal
> means Democrat and Conservative means Republican. Look at the last
> decade that was run by Republicans and show me Conservatives in leadership
> positions. Party on dude...

U.S. Housing Has Bottomed

I agree with Houston. I'm tired of the perpetual string of perma-bears that post comments on Seeking Alpha. Without a doubt, there is some "thaw" in housing and while the recovery will not be quick or consistently spread everywhere there are definite signs of recovery.


On Jul 27 05:10 PM Houston wrote:

> For a few months all you chicken littles have decried the end is
> nigh and the barbarians are still closing towards the gates...the
> alt-a's, the shadow foreclosures...yet the news keeps improving.
> Maybe because
> overall confidence amongst the many with jobs and money (that no
> one here wants to acknowledge) and low prices have provided a bottom
> that could not be quantified or predicted...just like nothing else
> about this has been quantified or predicted.(except by Schiller)
>
>
> It's like a cold front impacting a warm front early in the seasonal
> change, there are a lot of storms but there are many things offset...so
> often it's not so bad.
>
> The economy is coming back. The impact of the Alt-a's and shadow
> inventory will bleed into it and have an affect but not the catastrophic
> one it would have had when it added burden to an un propped economy.
>
>
> If you're in Phoenix and you bought at the top of the market mand
> are paying your mtg, you're effed for a good while. If you're in
> Dallas, not so bad.
>
> During the 80's oil bust I bought a condo that bottomed at less than
> one third of it's value. I rented, held and took a loss on it for
> 20 years until I could sell it for 2/3 of what I bought it for which
> was breakeven on the mtg at that point.
>
> Cal values will come back faster but it's gonna be a while. But overall
> the sun is beginning to shine.
>
> Don't tinkle on everybody's tennis shoes.

Jeff Bezos: Learning from an Incredible Entrepreneur

I find it helpful to actually read an article or watch a piece before commenting. But perhaps I learned that via my public school education which is clearly inferior to home schooling.


On Jul 25 07:51 AM Mike Stathis wrote:

> I didn't watch the video - didn't need to.
>
> Bezos is NOT a tech innovator. He is a strategist. Even more so
> he is able to EXECUTE.
>
> Here's the deal with Bezos......He has the unique ability to think
> on his feet. He is a leader in creative thought, unlike the vast
> majority of CEOs in America today.
>
> Is Bezos particularly intelligent? Most likely not according to
> standard measures. But who cares about standard measures? That's
> all trash anyway.
>
> His unique personality is what truly makes him a great CEO. He is
> somewhat of a maverick. He manages to get things done regardless
> of the hurdles.
>
> Is he a Steve Jobs?
>
> Not at all. Jobs is arguably the best marketing strategist in the
> world. However, Jobs isn't particularly good as a CEO.
>
> Bezos, on the other hand has a healthy mix of many elements. <br/>
>
> I'm willing to bet Bezos was seen as an odd-ball for much of his
> life. In America, that can often be a good sign, as America has
> become a nation of dumbed-down robots.
>
> If Bezos were a youth in today's modern America, it is likely he
> would be singled out as having one of more social/mental deficits
> - not because he is lacking - only because American society is continuing
> to force more youths into this ideal cookie-cutter image. And if
> they don't fit into it, they are claimed to have ADHD or some other
> mental issue.....perhaps "anger management" issues. I won't get
> into the government's atttempts to destroy individuality.
>
> One thing I am sure of...the future great business leaders of the
> future will predominantly come from non-tradiational educational
> backgrounds- perhaps homeschooling. There's no way they will come
> from the public (and in many cases) the private school system.
>
>
> Bezos is one of a kind. And if you cannot relate to his core psyche,
> don't even try to second-guess his judgment or you are likely to
> get burned.
>

The Mac vs. PC Debate Was Never Clearer

Nice article. I think you've pegged the market correctly.

Jon Stewart Takes on Goldman Sachs [Video]

ScroogeMcduck; if by "media's bias" you mean that the media by-and-large is sane (and for instance calls bullsh_ on items like Goldman Sacks), then "yes" the media is "biased."

Bet you can't wait to vote for Bush again or Palin!


On Jul 17 10:00 AM ScroogeMcduck wrote:

> Amazingly he hasnt somehow blamed this on the bush administration.
> His show is a clear example of the media's bias

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

user344210, actually I've spent a significant amount of time serving the poor and homeless. You clearly are the one that is disconnected with the plight of poor people in America.


On Jul 16 12:16 PM user344210 wrote:

> Spoken like a typical guy who doesn't know anyone poor. Yeah, they're
> just CLAMORING to buy some tofu burgers, but have to settle for Jimmy
> Dean sausage.
>
> "While many would like to buy healthy foods and eat well, they simply
> can't afford it. Thus, some sort of socially acceptable "food stamp"
> for things like fresh vegetables and fruits at the grocery store
> actually makes good sense."
>
>

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

Correction... I meant Mr. Zambardo not Philly Dan in prior response.

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

PhillyDan, unfortunately people are generally self-interested. You have to hold people's feet to the fire. That is one of the roles of government.


On Jul 16 09:48 AM Paul Zimbardo wrote:

> @PhillyDan
>
> Why should the "rich" be forced to sacrifice to support the poor?
> The wealthy should feel fortunate for their successes and voluntarily
> donate to those who are less fortunate but the government should
> not force them to do so.

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

Ryan, good article in general. I do think the right "first move" on this is to tax the wealthiest 1.5% of Americans. I am in agreement with you that congress will need to find other sources of revenue later, but really the wealthy in America have had a good gig for the last 25-28 years in terms of taxes and it is time for the pendulum to swing back to a more sane level.

I'm a big fan of taxing unhealthy foods. There is no reason why your average Big Mac shouldn't have another $.25 tax on it. If you are going to clog your arteries and then have a public health care plan pay for your bypass surgery, you should pay more into the system. That said, we should also provide some sort of "healthy food" assistance to low income Americans. While many would like to buy healthy foods and eat well, they simply can't afford it. Thus, some sort of socially acceptable "food stamp" for things like fresh vegetables and fruits at the grocery store actually makes good sense.

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

Wow, you are jaded and under informed! You speak mostly from fear of what will happen versus the actual reality of what has and is happening. Cynicism is easy, the truer path is to be a compassionate realist.


On Jul 15 07:54 PM Steve in Greensboro wrote:

> "...After running the numbers, the CBO determined that the measure
> would cost $1 trillion over ten years and would result in nearly
> all Americans being covered. A pretty good deal, most agreed..."
>
>
> No. No they didn't.
>
> "...an additional $9,000 burden for a family earning $1 million in
> a single year, these measures will probably act to discourage some
> economic activity among high earning families.."
>
> No. No it won't. It will just cause them to move their economic
> activity offshore. No problem. Raise tax rates all you want. Tax
> receipts will go down in the U.S. and go up in China.
>
>
> "...American also has fairly significant need for large-scale investment
> in things like infrastructure and education..."
>
> And don't forget turtle underpassess. And, and nationalized bikepaths.
> And, and subsidies to vote-fraud organizations like Acorn. Don't
> forget them!
>
> "...Revenues are going to have to rise to avoid a budget crisis somewhere
> down the road. And that means that taxes will have to rise..."<br/>
>
> You get zero credit for this answer. The correct answer is: "...Spending
> will have to be reduced to avoid a budget crisis down the road.
> And that means Social Security retirement age will have to be raised
> to a modest 98 years old..."
>
> And now the mask comes off. Obama will increase taxes on the poor
> and middle class.
>
> "...the use of a broadly shared tax burden to fund fairly progressive
> social safety nets in Europe seems to work well..."
>
> Yep. It works great for the drones in the political class.
>
> You poor Leftists. You voted for Obama to reduce foreign military
> expeditions. What did you get? A huge, Iraq-Petraeus-like surge
> in Afghanistan of all places. You voted for Obama to tax the rich.
> And you get a VAT tax, you get a carbon tax, etc. all of which are
> horribly regressive. The Germans have a word for what I am feeling.
> Es ist Schadenfreude.

Positioning for When Water Runs Out: Part II

The author wrote: "These folks are well-meaning but disappointingly misguided, given that the authors are mostly civil engineers. I am 110% in favor of using sun, wind, or tides, but our water problems are pressing now, not in 20 years. Couldn’t we just once plan ahead of a known catastrophe?!! What is available now is nuclear and natural gas, and dirty old coal and oil. You want water? Fess up to the reality that it takes energy, and the energy sources we hope to replace are still the energy sources which we have in abundance -- with a transportation and distribution infrastructure already in place."

Not paying attention to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will prove costly in the end. While I agree with a portion of your post (Joseph), I'd strongly urge to rethink your position here. It is precisely this sort of thinking that has and will accelerate climate change.

The Top 12 Brands Likely to Disappear

I think you are wrong about GAP Inc. I think its three brand lines are actually well-differentiated and while the company may have some lean times ahead, I think it will survive. Furthermore, if you were to cut one of the three, Old Navy is not the one to cut in a down economy. Old Navy is affordable and resonably relevant.

TARP Utilization: Is Obama Above the Law?

Tyler, Dave, Graham/Dodd, and maidenLane:

It's remarkable to me how much blame you have assigned Obama. You might recall that he has been in office a rough total of 140 days. You have VERY short memories.

Obama's administration didn't create the financial mess, he didn't initiate TARP, he didn't hold down interest to inflate the housing bubble, and he didn't run up the deficit for an unjustified set of military spending. While blame shifting seems to be the norm on Seeking Alpha you should at least have the basic sense to understand how long it takes for different governmental actions to occur.

When you claim that "Obam is at fault" when the man has been in office for 140 days you look immature at best and idiotic at worst.

You can judge Obama after he has been in office for about 1,000 days. At that point his early decisions will just be taking effect in the real markets. Otherwise grow some insight or maturity or both. I'm tired of the Obama bashing on this site.