pearl2k's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/199021/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/160360/comments?source=feed#comment-666845 666845

On Sep 08 08:50 AM long_on_oil wrote:

> With these numbers how can any politician campaign on the platform
> of cutting the pay of government workers. No matter the party they
> would not get a single government worker vote. The snow ball is
> rolling downhill and you better not get in its path.
> Articles like this make me sick for Americas future. Reagan said,
> government is not the solution, government is the problem.
> IMO the only way we can stop this is to elect reps and senators who
> will support term limits. Party is irrelevant, just elect reps that
> will support a constitutional amendment to limit terms. If we had
> term limits the reps could cut government workers pay without worring
> about not getting re elected. There is no other way to stop this
> snowball.]]> Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:09:58 -0400

On Sep 08 08:50 AM long_on_oil wrote:

> With these numbers how can any politician campaign on the platform
> of cutting the pay of government workers. No matter the party they
> would not get a single government worker vote. The snow ball is
> rolling downhill and you better not get in its path.
> Articles like this make me sick for Americas future. Reagan said,
> government is not the solution, government is the problem.
> IMO the only way we can stop this is to elect reps and senators who
> will support term limits. Party is irrelevant, just elect reps that
> will support a constitutional amendment to limit terms. If we had
> term limits the reps could cut government workers pay without worring
> about not getting re elected. There is no other way to stop this
> snowball.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123240/comments?source=feed#comment-407022 407022
> 5. Don't repave the roads a million times and call it infrastructure
> improvements]]> Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:03:51 -0500
> 5. Don't repave the roads a million times and call it infrastructure
> improvements]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121870/comments?source=feed#comment-398473 398473
What would a BOA receivership look like to the average Joe in terms of the bank-run/shock/chaos scenario you're proposing. And hasn't the FDIC already extinguished that flame by raising the level of deposit insurance on 100% of the deposits in the industry?]]> Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:28:25 -0500
What would a BOA receivership look like to the average Joe in terms of the bank-run/shock/chaos scenario you're proposing. And hasn't the FDIC already extinguished that flame by raising the level of deposit insurance on 100% of the deposits in the industry?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120861/comments?source=feed#comment-392202 392202
I don't think those formerly employed in domestic auto manufacturing, domestic programming, domestic call centers, etc. have a problem interpreting the complexities of a dynamic labor market. Neither do recently unemployed real estate agents, financial service workers, construction workers etc. I think mainstream media and the public are well aware of which way the wind is blowing.


On Feb 17 08:30 AM 2braincells wrote:

> Maybe people are factoring in what the future outlooks appears to
> be... there's a negative perception there... that's a problem.

>
>
> You don't need a weathervane to tell which way the wind blows.]]> Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:21:03 -0500
I don't think those formerly employed in domestic auto manufacturing, domestic programming, domestic call centers, etc. have a problem interpreting the complexities of a dynamic labor market. Neither do recently unemployed real estate agents, financial service workers, construction workers etc. I think mainstream media and the public are well aware of which way the wind is blowing.


On Feb 17 08:30 AM 2braincells wrote:

> Maybe people are factoring in what the future outlooks appears to
> be... there's a negative perception there... that's a problem.

>
>
> You don't need a weathervane to tell which way the wind blows.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120482/comments?source=feed#comment-387461 387461
How about a free trader describe what America's piece of the cookie should like, according to the theory, and what it looks like in reality. To me it now seems smaller than promised, and that all the chocolate chips are in someone else's piece.


]]> Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:30:56 -0500
How about a free trader describe what America's piece of the cookie should like, according to the theory, and what it looks like in reality. To me it now seems smaller than promised, and that all the chocolate chips are in someone else's piece.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120138/comments?source=feed#comment-385866 385866

On Feb 12 10:27 AM kelm wrote:

> This is interesting. If I understand you correctly there is a distortion
> in the value of the assets because they have been securitized. As
> securitized assets the mark-to-market is under different reporting
> standards then if they were a collection of loans owned outright.
> If I have got that correct this is huge and something I have heard
> no one else discuss. The answer then would indeed be to break the
> securitized instruments up so banks go back to owning the loans (or
> crap) that they created in the first place and valuing those according
> to standard accounting practices. This would actually enhance transparency
> as it would eliminate the opacity caused by the securitization.]]> Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:00:11 -0500

On Feb 12 10:27 AM kelm wrote:

> This is interesting. If I understand you correctly there is a distortion
> in the value of the assets because they have been securitized. As
> securitized assets the mark-to-market is under different reporting
> standards then if they were a collection of loans owned outright.
> If I have got that correct this is huge and something I have heard
> no one else discuss. The answer then would indeed be to break the
> securitized instruments up so banks go back to owning the loans (or
> crap) that they created in the first place and valuing those according
> to standard accounting practices. This would actually enhance transparency
> as it would eliminate the opacity caused by the securitization.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120166/comments?source=feed#comment-385764 385764
The crisis of confidence is whether the government has any will to do something about it to prevent the 3rd "hundred year storm" in as many decades.

Don't these storms own a calendar?


On Feb 12 10:43 AM antiquary wrote:

> I agree this is at least in part a crisis of confidence. We see
> these things which have rarely or never happened before and suddenly
> we come to think anything is possible; that nothing can be counted
> upon. The one thing we can be sure of is that if we freeze like
> a deer in the headlights, dithering, uncertain and terrified of losing
> anything by making a move, we're gonna get hit, and lose everything.
> We have to keep moving.]]> Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:12:26 -0500
The crisis of confidence is whether the government has any will to do something about it to prevent the 3rd "hundred year storm" in as many decades.

Don't these storms own a calendar?


On Feb 12 10:43 AM antiquary wrote:

> I agree this is at least in part a crisis of confidence. We see
> these things which have rarely or never happened before and suddenly
> we come to think anything is possible; that nothing can be counted
> upon. The one thing we can be sure of is that if we freeze like
> a deer in the headlights, dithering, uncertain and terrified of losing
> anything by making a move, we're gonna get hit, and lose everything.
> We have to keep moving.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/119682/comments?source=feed#comment-384243 384243
On Feb 10 10:59 PM John Lounsbury wrote:

> I have been doing quite a bit of reading about The Great Depression
> (history) lately. It appears that one of the two major mistakes
> made in the Roosevelt years was the attempt to artificially support
> some wages and some prices in 1937-38. This took what had been a
> three year recovery and (along with the other major mistake-raising
> taxes in 1937) pushed the economy right back into recession.
>
> This is why talk of supporting house prices makes me shudder. Throughout
> our history, supporting or restricting prices or wages has been a
> very negative influence on the economy.
>
> I know that housing prices was only mentioned in passing early in
> the quote, but I feel strongly that attempts to put an artificial
> floor under them would just delay the start of a recovery.]]> Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:27:41 -0500
On Feb 10 10:59 PM John Lounsbury wrote:

> I have been doing quite a bit of reading about The Great Depression
> (history) lately. It appears that one of the two major mistakes
> made in the Roosevelt years was the attempt to artificially support
> some wages and some prices in 1937-38. This took what had been a
> three year recovery and (along with the other major mistake-raising
> taxes in 1937) pushed the economy right back into recession.
>
> This is why talk of supporting house prices makes me shudder. Throughout
> our history, supporting or restricting prices or wages has been a
> very negative influence on the economy.
>
> I know that housing prices was only mentioned in passing early in
> the quote, but I feel strongly that attempts to put an artificial
> floor under them would just delay the start of a recovery.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/108015/comments?source=feed#comment-315935 315935 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:06:35 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/108015/comments?source=feed#comment-315932 315932
Hyper-inflation causes people to spend money as soon as they get it. Clearly. Deflation prompts people to save money, because they can buy something for less money by waiting? It sounds logical, but is that what's really happening right now? Isn't the American consumer plain tapped out? Isn't it worth the distinction, if we want to raise the spectre of deflation?

Deflation in Japan, I don't know much about that. But I do know that the Japanese have always been notorious savers. Hasn't their government always had a problem stimulating consumer spending? We don't have that problem here, in fact, we have the opposite problem.

Can anyone paint a real picture of what deflation in the US would look like, and why it would be disastrous, aside from deflation as the corollary to hyperinflation. The author refers to it..." The U.S. economy has experienced deflation in the past, but not in a very long time." Was it really that bad? I don't know, I was a kid then.

I live in Los Angeles. Home sales are up because prices are down. Something like 50% of homes sold were foreclosures last month. The market is moving. Sounds like deflation is working to me.

Seriously, anyone with a better explanation.


]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:00:58 -0500
Hyper-inflation causes people to spend money as soon as they get it. Clearly. Deflation prompts people to save money, because they can buy something for less money by waiting? It sounds logical, but is that what's really happening right now? Isn't the American consumer plain tapped out? Isn't it worth the distinction, if we want to raise the spectre of deflation?

Deflation in Japan, I don't know much about that. But I do know that the Japanese have always been notorious savers. Hasn't their government always had a problem stimulating consumer spending? We don't have that problem here, in fact, we have the opposite problem.

Can anyone paint a real picture of what deflation in the US would look like, and why it would be disastrous, aside from deflation as the corollary to hyperinflation. The author refers to it..." The U.S. economy has experienced deflation in the past, but not in a very long time." Was it really that bad? I don't know, I was a kid then.

I live in Los Angeles. Home sales are up because prices are down. Something like 50% of homes sold were foreclosures last month. The market is moving. Sounds like deflation is working to me.

Seriously, anyone with a better explanation.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/108057/comments?source=feed#comment-315897 315897 shadowstats.com


On Nov 26 02:49 PM Smarty_Pants wrote:

> USDebt:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): $2.44 Trillion
> 2008: $10.65 Trillion
>
> Seems like we are dragging around 4x as much government debt as we
> were in 1980. I couldn't find readily available numbers for private
> debt levels to compare, but I would guess that they are much higher
> today than they were in 1980 as well.
>
> Ditto for budget deficits and trade deficits.
>
> And how about banking sector reserve balances? Things are much worse
> now than ever before:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): +$52 Billion
> 2008: -$330 Billion
>
> So banks are over 6x further in the red than they were in the black
> in 1980.
>
> Things actually are different from 1980 and in areas where the differences
> matter. Your above comparison is superficial at best.]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:25:22 -0500 shadowstats.com


On Nov 26 02:49 PM Smarty_Pants wrote:

> USDebt:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): $2.44 Trillion
> 2008: $10.65 Trillion
>
> Seems like we are dragging around 4x as much government debt as we
> were in 1980. I couldn't find readily available numbers for private
> debt levels to compare, but I would guess that they are much higher
> today than they were in 1980 as well.
>
> Ditto for budget deficits and trade deficits.
>
> And how about banking sector reserve balances? Things are much worse
> now than ever before:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): +$52 Billion
> 2008: -$330 Billion
>
> So banks are over 6x further in the red than they were in the black
> in 1980.
>
> Things actually are different from 1980 and in areas where the differences
> matter. Your above comparison is superficial at best.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/108057/comments?source=feed#comment-315896 315896 shadowstats.com


On Nov 26 02:49 PM Smarty_Pants wrote:

> USDebt:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): $2.44 Trillion
> 2008: $10.65 Trillion
>
> Seems like we are dragging around 4x as much government debt as we
> were in 1980. I couldn't find readily available numbers for private
> debt levels to compare, but I would guess that they are much higher
> today than they were in 1980 as well.
>
> Ditto for budget deficits and trade deficits.
>
> And how about banking sector reserve balances? Things are much worse
> now than ever before:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): +$52 Billion
> 2008: -$330 Billion
>
> So banks are over 6x further in the red than they were in the black
> in 1980.
>
> Things actually are different from 1980 and in areas where the differences
> matter. Your above comparison is superficial at best.]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:25:22 -0500 shadowstats.com


On Nov 26 02:49 PM Smarty_Pants wrote:

> USDebt:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): $2.44 Trillion
> 2008: $10.65 Trillion
>
> Seems like we are dragging around 4x as much government debt as we
> were in 1980. I couldn't find readily available numbers for private
> debt levels to compare, but I would guess that they are much higher
> today than they were in 1980 as well.
>
> Ditto for budget deficits and trade deficits.
>
> And how about banking sector reserve balances? Things are much worse
> now than ever before:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): +$52 Billion
> 2008: -$330 Billion
>
> So banks are over 6x further in the red than they were in the black
> in 1980.
>
> Things actually are different from 1980 and in areas where the differences
> matter. Your above comparison is superficial at best.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107086/comments?source=feed#comment-310927 310927
However, N American operations for both GM and Ford are completely out of touch. Both companies do outstanding in Europe, and are successfully penetrating China, Russia etc. Amazing cars in other countries which leaves you scratching your head, why don't we get these cars. Well, NA can only make a profit selling high margin trucks. The union/labor legacy issue has to be dealt with. Where else can you go to work at 18, retire after 40 years, then have someone pay you to do nothing for the next 25? We live longer and our health care costs more. Defined benefit plans all across the country are going to be in the same boat. They have to go. It's a raw deal for workers, but that's a holdover from another era.

On Nov 20 11:51 AM John D wrote:

> Now that it's getting down to the crunch can someone explain ONE
> thing to me, in a country where the government spends TRILLIONs on
> WAR in other countries (I realize it's to protect the US as well,
> but) why would the government not do as much at home to protect democracy
> & the industry that has been supporting a VERY large part of
> the country for a century now. Is it fair to bail out Wall St. (they
> finally found the weapons of mass destruction - right on Wall St.)
> and not the millions of citizens that will lose the taxpaying jobs
> that would help contribute to the taxes to cover the financial system
> failure. I find that much of the resistance is nothing more than
> the arrogance of certain senators who's states are not affected as
> much. If they feel that Toyota & Honda will contribute as much
> to their country than GM - Ford & Chrysler they are seriously
> mistaken - those profits SUPPORT their countries - Americans are
> just paying for it. Perhaps the question they should be asking is
> why North American Auto makers are not allowed to sell freely in
> Japan & Korea, maybe it's because those governments are not blinded
> by arrogance. If the North American governments had sought an EQUAL
> trade deal instead of a FREE trade - dump what ever you want here
> - deal, the Big 3 would have been sitting in a much different position
> now and actually be helping to pull the economy out of recession
> - "Buy an import and drive North America into DEPRESSION"]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:17:03 -0500
However, N American operations for both GM and Ford are completely out of touch. Both companies do outstanding in Europe, and are successfully penetrating China, Russia etc. Amazing cars in other countries which leaves you scratching your head, why don't we get these cars. Well, NA can only make a profit selling high margin trucks. The union/labor legacy issue has to be dealt with. Where else can you go to work at 18, retire after 40 years, then have someone pay you to do nothing for the next 25? We live longer and our health care costs more. Defined benefit plans all across the country are going to be in the same boat. They have to go. It's a raw deal for workers, but that's a holdover from another era.

On Nov 20 11:51 AM John D wrote:

> Now that it's getting down to the crunch can someone explain ONE
> thing to me, in a country where the government spends TRILLIONs on
> WAR in other countries (I realize it's to protect the US as well,
> but) why would the government not do as much at home to protect democracy
> & the industry that has been supporting a VERY large part of
> the country for a century now. Is it fair to bail out Wall St. (they
> finally found the weapons of mass destruction - right on Wall St.)
> and not the millions of citizens that will lose the taxpaying jobs
> that would help contribute to the taxes to cover the financial system
> failure. I find that much of the resistance is nothing more than
> the arrogance of certain senators who's states are not affected as
> much. If they feel that Toyota & Honda will contribute as much
> to their country than GM - Ford & Chrysler they are seriously
> mistaken - those profits SUPPORT their countries - Americans are
> just paying for it. Perhaps the question they should be asking is
> why North American Auto makers are not allowed to sell freely in
> Japan & Korea, maybe it's because those governments are not blinded
> by arrogance. If the North American governments had sought an EQUAL
> trade deal instead of a FREE trade - dump what ever you want here
> - deal, the Big 3 would have been sitting in a much different position
> now and actually be helping to pull the economy out of recession
> - "Buy an import and drive North America into DEPRESSION"]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107086/comments?source=feed#comment-310926 310926
However, N American operations for both GM and Ford are completely out of touch. Both companies do outstanding in Europe, and are successfully penetrating China, Russia etc. Amazing cars in other countries which leaves you scratching your head, why don't we get these cars. Well, NA can only make a profit selling high margin trucks. The union/labor legacy issue has to be dealt with. Where else can you go to work at 18, retire after 40 years, then have someone pay you to do nothing for the next 25? We live longer and our health care costs more. Defined benefit plans all across the country are going to be in the same boat. They have to go. It's a raw deal for workers, but that's a holdover from another era.

On Nov 20 11:51 AM John D wrote:

> Now that it's getting down to the crunch can someone explain ONE
> thing to me, in a country where the government spends TRILLIONs on
> WAR in other countries (I realize it's to protect the US as well,
> but) why would the government not do as much at home to protect democracy
> & the industry that has been supporting a VERY large part of
> the country for a century now. Is it fair to bail out Wall St. (they
> finally found the weapons of mass destruction - right on Wall St.)
> and not the millions of citizens that will lose the taxpaying jobs
> that would help contribute to the taxes to cover the financial system
> failure. I find that much of the resistance is nothing more than
> the arrogance of certain senators who's states are not affected as
> much. If they feel that Toyota & Honda will contribute as much
> to their country than GM - Ford & Chrysler they are seriously
> mistaken - those profits SUPPORT their countries - Americans are
> just paying for it. Perhaps the question they should be asking is
> why North American Auto makers are not allowed to sell freely in
> Japan & Korea, maybe it's because those governments are not blinded
> by arrogance. If the North American governments had sought an EQUAL
> trade deal instead of a FREE trade - dump what ever you want here
> - deal, the Big 3 would have been sitting in a much different position
> now and actually be helping to pull the economy out of recession
> - "Buy an import and drive North America into DEPRESSION"]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:17:02 -0500
However, N American operations for both GM and Ford are completely out of touch. Both companies do outstanding in Europe, and are successfully penetrating China, Russia etc. Amazing cars in other countries which leaves you scratching your head, why don't we get these cars. Well, NA can only make a profit selling high margin trucks. The union/labor legacy issue has to be dealt with. Where else can you go to work at 18, retire after 40 years, then have someone pay you to do nothing for the next 25? We live longer and our health care costs more. Defined benefit plans all across the country are going to be in the same boat. They have to go. It's a raw deal for workers, but that's a holdover from another era.

On Nov 20 11:51 AM John D wrote:

> Now that it's getting down to the crunch can someone explain ONE
> thing to me, in a country where the government spends TRILLIONs on
> WAR in other countries (I realize it's to protect the US as well,
> but) why would the government not do as much at home to protect democracy
> & the industry that has been supporting a VERY large part of
> the country for a century now. Is it fair to bail out Wall St. (they
> finally found the weapons of mass destruction - right on Wall St.)
> and not the millions of citizens that will lose the taxpaying jobs
> that would help contribute to the taxes to cover the financial system
> failure. I find that much of the resistance is nothing more than
> the arrogance of certain senators who's states are not affected as
> much. If they feel that Toyota & Honda will contribute as much
> to their country than GM - Ford & Chrysler they are seriously
> mistaken - those profits SUPPORT their countries - Americans are
> just paying for it. Perhaps the question they should be asking is
> why North American Auto makers are not allowed to sell freely in
> Japan & Korea, maybe it's because those governments are not blinded
> by arrogance. If the North American governments had sought an EQUAL
> trade deal instead of a FREE trade - dump what ever you want here
> - deal, the Big 3 would have been sitting in a much different position
> now and actually be helping to pull the economy out of recession
> - "Buy an import and drive North America into DEPRESSION"]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/102968/comments?source=feed#comment-295089 295089 Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:51:24 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/90622/comments?source=feed#comment-229837 229837 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:51:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/88544/comments?source=feed#comment-220318 220318 Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:22:44 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/79506/comments?source=feed#comment-177327 177327 Sat, 31 May 2008 14:38:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/79309/comments?source=feed#comment-176486 176486
"Incidentally, I see the dot-com boom as being primarily driven by corporate Y2K spending.."

Pets.com et al was Y2K corporate spending? I see.]]> Fri, 30 May 2008 02:02:00 -0400
"Incidentally, I see the dot-com boom as being primarily driven by corporate Y2K spending.."

Pets.com et al was Y2K corporate spending? I see.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78433/comments?source=feed#comment-173056 173056
Is the DeWind turbine special? Someone has mentioned it doesn't need expensive, patented, power conversion gear the GE turbines have.

How and where does DeWind plan on cashing in? Internationally? Any thoughts Windpro?]]> Fri, 23 May 2008 23:58:04 -0400
Is the DeWind turbine special? Someone has mentioned it doesn't need expensive, patented, power conversion gear the GE turbines have.

How and where does DeWind plan on cashing in? Internationally? Any thoughts Windpro?]]>