Johann Galt's Comments

Obama Draws a Blank on How Banks Really Work

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:53:34 -0500

Wow. Unfortunately, there is an increasing segment of our population who agree with this sentimentality. Wow.

On Dec 17 09:21 AM User 430110 wrote:

> Old White Men have been in control of this country ever since the
> being. Now you are trying to call someone ingnorant,when you people
> is the cause,and this president is trying save something that doesn't
> need to saved.This country foundational struture was build off of
> lies,slavery,evil,ingn... old white men who think they have all the
> answer. It time for the evil empire the fall.

Obama Draws a Blank on How Banks Really Work

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:50:03 -0500

You are incorrect about Bush pushing the home loan fiasco. His administration tried to present evidence to Congress twice that Fannie Mae was in dangerous territory. Once on 9/10/2001 (overcome by events), and again in 2004. Both times Barney and friends blustered, objected and ignored these warnings (including Republicans). This is when Barney issued his proclamation about Fannie Mae being in no trouble at all. I'm no Bush cheerleader, but to be fair- his administration tried to raise a warning flag.

Jim Rogers: Lessons from a Legend

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:36:08 -0500

Living somewhere else sounds, and is, probably, great until there is some upheaval- international or local. Then the utter lack of any constitutional protections will make for an interesting experience indeed. Especially as an easily recognizable foreigner with assets.

On Dec 11 07:30 AM Jabalong wrote:

> I like Jim Rogers, but his whole "buy a farm" line, which Marc Faber
> is fond of as well, is nonsense. If it was such a good idea, these
> guys would put their money where their mouths are and become huge
> farmland owners. But they haven't and they're not. Better advice
> on this score would be "move to Singapore" or some place like it
> (low taxes, good climate, strong economic growth, etc). That at least
> would seem more credible since that's what Rogers has done, as has
> Faber (lives in Hong Kong and Thailand). Now I do like commodities
> and investing in agriculture-related plays might be very good, but
> just don't go off trying to be a farmer just because guys like Rogers
> are fond of flippantly suggesting it.

Why Geithner's Executive Compensation Restrictions Are Effective Policy

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:18:38 -0500

I imagine they said the same things about Hitler in the early 1930's: "those evil rich folks need to be watched!" So gov't got involved w/ business, really involved, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Another question then: is the gov't to step in every time there is a financial crisis, and, who determines the parameters of the crisis?

Kenneth Feinberg, Pay Warrior

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:02:30 -0400

You have entirely missed the point. Yes, abuses ran, and still run rampant with respect to executive pay. But it is no answer to appoint some government official "Moses" and have him hand down what another's appropriate comepnsation should be. This kind of power will most certainly be abused. Joe Shareholder is correct- these corps should have failed- that would have solved the exec pay problem.

A far better solution would be to lessen the protections court's give officers of companies, and board members, as fiduciaries. It is nearly impossible to hold an executive responsible for looting a company. As bloated pay packages are clearly harmful to shareholders in many cases, a statutory abrogation of the court-created protections-that allows personal liability upon officers and board members- will alleviate this problem quickly.

But a "pay czar" in the United States of America? You must be kidding supporting this kind of collective thinking.

The Secret Paulson-Goldman Meeting

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:11:15 -0400

Perhaps he meant Bear Stearns?

On Oct 21 10:11 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

> Felix - - -
>
> Good post. The Sorkin book is being added to my must read list.

>
> I found the following quote you gave problematic:
>
> For the next hour, Paulson regaled his old friends with stories about
> his time in Treasury and his prognostications about the economy.
> They questioned him about the possibility of another bank blowing
> up, like Lehman, and he talked about the need for the government
> to have the power to wind down troubled firms, offering a preview
> of his upcoming speech.
>
> This doesn't make sense. The meeting was in June and Lehman blew
> up in September. The entire meaning would be changed and become consistent
> with history if the wording was changed as follows: "... the possibility
> of a major bank blowing up, like Lehman would later,..."

What's Next for Gold and the Dollar?

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:14:39 -0400

delofaz... wrote:

"In a democracy it is not nice to fool all of the people some of the times. The right sold America on their ability to manage their own wealth and life savings in Roths, IRAs and 401-K defined contribution pensions. It was a solution . It was the closest thing to Marx's Utopian idea of the proletariat owning the the means of production."

Clever, but I assume you mean the closest thing to ACTUALLY owning the means of production, i.e., GM, Chrysler, Citi, etc. I was following you until you threw in Rush and O'Reilly. The reality is the US can't pay for the checks it is kiting today. So is your point the citizen is hanging himself, or being led to the gallows by his elected officials?

Jim Rogers on the Next 10 Years

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:13:40 -0400

English will not be the standard in 20 years- it's too hard for most folks to learn. The new standard will most certainly be pig latin. anksthay orfay eadingray.

Washington's Dilemma: This Isn't a Recession, It's a Collapse

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:52:03 -0400

You've got style.

On Jul 14 03:58 PM finye wrote:

> I think you're pure dead magic and this, as usual, is absolute genius.

Supreme Court Rules Against Banks: A Win for Consumer Protection

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:04:32 -0400

Mr. Angry Banker- don't do business in states with overly burdensome regulation. It's that simple.

Your desire for uniformity does not trump each state's soveriegn right to pass its own laws. That's why this is a Republic Otherwise, why have states?

Obama's Financial Reforms: Who Stands to Lose

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:15:46 -0400

You have got to be kidding wrt SnL's: "the only change their customers may notice is that interest rates become a bit less generous[.]"???

Nice fluff piece. With the regulatory morass that comes with being a "bank" imposed upon SnL's the end result will surely be their extinction. Local SnL's can't afford the cast of characters necessary to maintain the auditing stds req'd of banks. Clearly, the change customers will notice is the rapid decrease of SnL's, as they are bought out by larger banks.

Great analysis- I look forward to hearing of your appointment as a regulator in this great new federal program!

Three Reasons Solar Sell-off May Be in Early Innings

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:22:58 -0400

This dude is in serious need of spell check. Can something this poorly written be given much validity?

What's Really Wrong With The Airline Industry - And Can It Be Fixed?

Tue, 27 May 2008 12:39:57 -0400

What the public wants, or is getting is immaterial. Raised prices = reduced demand = reduced flying. The problem for the airlines is that unlike other businesses, the airline must maintain trained personnel to meet anticipated demand. There is a lag time before the airline can attempt to adjust to the real vs. anticipated demand. During this lag time, the airline spends money.

Thus the downward spiral results as airline management chases its tail in a game it can't win without a booming economy. This industry needs a new economic model or genius entrepeneur with a new take on generation of profits. Otherwise, the "golden age" is over.