Seeking Alpha

Johann Galt

Johann Galt
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Johann Galt's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • American Airlines' (AMR -5.1%) board meeting has broken up with no major announcement filed yet. A blog covering the industry from top to bottom reports that AMR employees are bristling with the decisions of current management, begging for a change in a letter sent to the board: "You are the last line of defense. We implore you to make the difficult decisions to remove these executives from the company..."  [View news story]
    I would like a link to where management bonuses totaled $250 million. It sounds improbable. I am not trying to defend management by any stretch, but just sayin'.

    @mysuper80: You can vote your contract down, then wait for the bankruptcy court to make one for you. I'm sure you will get much more favorable terms.

    Disclosure: also an AMR employee
    Nov 17, 2011. 02:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
    I'm not an economist, but it seems to border on the obvious that one cannot create something from nothing. Thus, the concept of printing money to pay debt, ad infinitum, would seem to violate this simple adage.

    Goes right along with the credo:

    "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
    Nov 15, 2011. 03:50 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Shocking Comparison Of Poverty Levels Between The U.S. And Brazil [View article]
    This is blatantly idiotic. "Poverty" in Brazil means you don't have electricity, or live in a one room hovel, or both.

    In the U.S., the "poverty" stricken have satellite TV, cell phones, and drive SUVs. Just have a drive around the projects to confirm, if you don't believe it.
    Nov 8, 2011. 10:55 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Flat For Safety [View article]
    What if the market goes sideways? Don't you lose some percentage due to contango on the 3x ETF?
    Oct 21, 2011. 11:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Wall Street protesters have been sold a bill of goods, Peter Wallison writes: Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis. The private financial sector "cannot fairly be accused of causing the crisis when only a small minority of subprime mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity."  [View news story]
    I think that's apples and oranges. The VA loans to veterans in years past is in no way comparable to the loans over the past 15 years pushed and demanded by the federal gov't.
    Oct 12, 2011. 11:14 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Wall Street protesters have been sold a bill of goods, Peter Wallison writes: Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis. The private financial sector "cannot fairly be accused of causing the crisis when only a small minority of subprime mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity."  [View news story]
    Sure, but his Clinton Foundation is worth $100 million. From various countries, including millions from all around the Middle East. I wonder what his wife does?
    Oct 12, 2011. 11:05 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Wealthy Americans react harshly to critics, such as the Wall Street protesters, because they "realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is," Paul Krugman writes. They "got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that... helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens."  [View news story]
    Mr. Blankenhorn,

    You clearly don't run a business. The notion that the regulatory burden is the same now as it was in the past is absurd, and patently false.

    Similarly, I think you confuse "employment at will" and laws allowing workers to collectively bargain. If you have a contract (i.e., a collective bargaining agreement), you are no longer an at-will employee. Under the contractual duties in a CBA, an employee cannot be arbitrarily fired.

    But you contend an entirely different proposition. You propose that everyone has a "right" to their job. This right is not found in the Bill of Rights, but is among those proposed by "progressive" socialists as well as the "right" to a home, a "right" to healthcare, etc. In short, "rights" that must be provided by the government. Just back-door socialism, which philosophy has failed with disastrous results repeatedly.
    Oct 12, 2011. 10:24 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Wealthy Americans react harshly to critics, such as the Wall Street protesters, because they "realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is," Paul Krugman writes. They "got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that... helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens."  [View news story]
    Mr. Blankenhorn,

    Your dad did not operate in the current environment, which is stifling to the small businessman. I believe this is the point Mr. Grimes was making, and your ad hominem attack serves to underscore the invalidity of all of your comments.

    Further, "employee" status doesn't give someone extra rights. You've opined on the meaning of "America". Study up and feel free to opine on the meaning of "employment at will."
    Oct 10, 2011. 10:05 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Does the U.S. Federal Government Truly Do? [View instapost]
    You've answered your own question: "And I don't think it is right ..."
    Exactly. YOU don't think its right. Ignoring the race-bait, the folks in that "southern" city (or midwestern, or western) think it is right to restrict a teen girl's ability to obtain a surgical procedure with life-long implications.

    But that's exactly the beauty of the Republic our founders (whom you disregard) envisioned. Folks in Massachusetts can pass laws allowing their hamsters to have publicly funded abortions- if they so desire. Folks in Alabama can mandate a rifle in every car. Neither law affects the public policies of either state.

    What you propose, inherently, is for YOUR opinion to be enforced nationally. YOUR opinion is superior to those choices other states' have made, and they should be made to adhere to whatever you decide by the imposition of federal mandates. Yet, in which forum does a citizen have more pull, City Hall, just down the street, or Washington, D.C.? And under what method of government do you get to impose your will over another, who lives in a different community?

    I am far from an anarchist, and I do not assert we should have "no institutions to put [our] trust and faith in." I do not propose we return to the Articles of Confederation, far from it. I am dedicated to our national government; however, it has expanded well beyond its' original boundaries, to the extent that we are now subject to many of the degradations complained of in the Declaration of Independence. I'm not sure what you mean by saying you don't want to trust Pennsylvania with your rights. Every state has a constitution- and most of those contain MORE rights that those guaranteed by the Constitution. In other words, your state protects more rights than the federal government.

    Finally, no government can protect you from "the natural misfortunes of life." Governments are not God, although perhaps, like our current federal gov't, they can begin to think they are. Neither does any person have a "right" to be safe from misfortune What you propose is forced charity, and again, I imagine what is worthy of charity will be a determination made by someone in D.C., rather than locally. Not very charitable, is it?
    Sep 27, 2011. 09:35 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investment Themes In A Low Growth, Zero Rate, Deleveraging Economy [View article]
    Yes- Marx was correct! Governments following his philosophy built wonderful, open and equally distributed societies all across Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. Everything was so equally distributed that everybody had the right to their own small, drab concrete apartment- unless you were a political hack. They lived well.

    Your idiocy is possible only because it seems we suffer from short attention spans. Has it really been that long since we got our first good look behind the iron curtain, after the wall fell? And saw what a DISASTER "social democracy" was? Yeah, I'd love to live in a society that gives me the choice between a Trabant and a Yugo.

    Your social-democratic examples are misleading. Sweden and the Netherlands have financial troubles also. Norway doesn't- but all of its' wealth comes not from the championing of social democracy but from oil. Finally, and most absurd, while Switzerland certainly has a liberal social policy, you'd be hard put to find a more laissez faire approach to business.

    Talk to some folks who lived behind the Iron Curtain, then tell us how right Marx was.
    Sep 15, 2011. 01:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • So the U.S. lost S&P's AAA rating for the first time in a 70-year history; so what? Mark Thoma says this is S&P erring on the only side it can after blowing the pre-crisis situation. Always pragmatic Warren Buffett says solvency's not an issue when the debts are all in currency the U.S. can print; inflation, that's another story. Ready to buy on this coming dip?  [View news story]
    China publicly announced the need for a different reserve currency (they propose gold based, prob because they own alot of gold).

    More disturbing is that China also demanded, as the US's biggest creditor, that the US drastically reduce military spending. Just to protect their investment, of course.

    Oh, what could possibly go wrong with further deficit spending!?!
    Aug 6, 2011. 11:08 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ron Paul opines on the debt limit bill, saying there are no cuts, just reductions in planned spending increases. "Akin to a family saving $100K in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates ... (sticking with the) serviceable Honda."  [View news story]
    I don't see how increasing our national debt by 50% in 10 years is slowing spending at all. We've tripled our deficit amount in 3 years- from approx 458 billion in 2008 to 1.4 / 1.5 trillion in 2009-10 respectively. In other words, in 2 years we managed to add 40% to our debt load.

    Now we are to cheer the good sense of those who propose, with great fanfare, the addition of another 7 trillion dollars of national debt- an increase of 50%! It's laughable, if the implications were not so serious.
    Aug 1, 2011. 02:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tempting Tuesday: Murdochs Testify to Parliament [View article]
    Thank you Robespierre! If the "rich" don't respond to coercion to pay more taxes, it will be taken by force.

    You know, for 100 years after the American Revolution, French political philosophers wondered why they couldn't get democracy right. They'd accomplished about 4 revolutions during that period.

    You've managed to demonstrate that the French needn't have worried, we're headed in their direction.
    Jul 22, 2011. 08:45 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Former President Bill Clinton says he would declare the debt limit unconstitutional "without hesitation" if Congress does not raise it in time. It's an idea The Washington Post's Ezra Klein calls the best of a number of bad options if you consider the severe economic ramifications a Treasury default or prioritized payment plan could produce.  [View news story]
    Yes, by all means READ THE CONSTITUTION! Especially this part:

    "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and General Welfare . . . To borrow money on the credit of the United States . . . ." Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution.

    The President has no power to spend- such is vested solely with The Congress.

    Here endeth the lesson.
    Jul 19, 2011. 05:31 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tempting Tuesday: Murdochs Testify to Parliament [View article]
    Rubbish. Entirely. Filled with innuendo, non sequitur arguments, misleading facts, and outright idiocy. Although this article is filled with outlandish assertions, my favorite is the Bankruptcy Reform Bill of 2005 "make[s] sure there would never be an escape from debt for the working poor." During the 1-year period ending March 31, 2011, there were 1.57 million bankruptcy filings. During the 1 year period ending March 31, 2005 (prior to the 2005 reform being effective), there were 1.59 million filings. Further, the year after the 2005 reforms were enacted, bankruptcy filings increased to 1.7 million filings.

    Just one example of the glaring inaccuracies found throughout this article. Rubbish.
    Jul 19, 2011. 11:58 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
236 Comments
550 Likes