RCA's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/207322/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/134132-swine-flu-don-t-believe-the-hype?source=feed#comment-484051 484051 "As with the Bird Flu, (which in my novice opinion was worse economically because it was passed from birds to people and then [sic] from people to people)..."

You have exactly backward! The swine flu is far more dangerous because it can be transmitted from person to person. The chance that someone would come into contact with a bird carrying H5N1 was extremely low. The chance that a person will come into contact with another human with swine flu are magnitudes greater!

James said:
"Thus, so far, the swine flu has an estimated mortality rate well within "normal" flu limits at roughly 6%. Thus, when looked at statistically, swine flu has yet to even come close to the 25% level needed to be considered a serious threat."

The big difference between swine flu and the common flu is that there currently is no vaccine available for it. We are months away from having one. As rapidly as this flu seems to be spreading, we could be in for a major problem before a vaccine is ready.

Swine flu is not a great threat because of its mortality rate. It is a great threat because we have no way to stop it. It has the potential to rapidly spread throughout the world population.

Even if swine flu mortality is no greater than common flu mortality, it will have a much more profound impact. Ten percent of several billion people at risk is quite a lot of cadavers. Not to mention the disruption to commerce when half or more of the work force is out sick.

]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:05:38 -0400 "As with the Bird Flu, (which in my novice opinion was worse economically because it was passed from birds to people and then [sic] from people to people)..."

You have exactly backward! The swine flu is far more dangerous because it can be transmitted from person to person. The chance that someone would come into contact with a bird carrying H5N1 was extremely low. The chance that a person will come into contact with another human with swine flu are magnitudes greater!

James said:
"Thus, so far, the swine flu has an estimated mortality rate well within "normal" flu limits at roughly 6%. Thus, when looked at statistically, swine flu has yet to even come close to the 25% level needed to be considered a serious threat."

The big difference between swine flu and the common flu is that there currently is no vaccine available for it. We are months away from having one. As rapidly as this flu seems to be spreading, we could be in for a major problem before a vaccine is ready.

Swine flu is not a great threat because of its mortality rate. It is a great threat because we have no way to stop it. It has the potential to rapidly spread throughout the world population.

Even if swine flu mortality is no greater than common flu mortality, it will have a much more profound impact. Ten percent of several billion people at risk is quite a lot of cadavers. Not to mention the disruption to commerce when half or more of the work force is out sick.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/19358?source=feed#comment-416501 416501 ]]> Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:07:11 -0500 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/19153?source=feed#comment-413028 413028
Obama, You Can't Dismiss This Market - By Jim Cramer

www.thestreet.com/p/_h...

]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:02:38 -0500
Obama, You Can't Dismiss This Market - By Jim Cramer

www.thestreet.com/p/_h...

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/19153?source=feed#comment-413025 413025
"Americans sense the importance of smaller firms, especially start-ups. In a Zogby poll last week, 63 percent of those sampled said they thought small business owners and entrepreneurs would lead us out of our current economic difficulties, compared to 31 percent who expressed confidence in our government leaders to find the answers to our economic problems, and 21 percent who thought executives of big businesses would show us the way to a new economic future."

Yes, Americans sense the importance of small business and entrepreneurship, but sadly, the government does not. There are too many stifling regulations, taxes, and other obstacles like health insurance being melded into the ball-and-chain on the leg of the small business owner.

Obama had a great opportunity to help America solve the economic crisis, keep people in their homes, keep people employed, and help small businesses thrive. But he chose partisan politics and assuaging the "spend, spend, spend" Democrats instead. The Obama Stimulus Package was quickly turned into the Pelosi Porkulus Package and America loses.

]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:01:07 -0500
"Americans sense the importance of smaller firms, especially start-ups. In a Zogby poll last week, 63 percent of those sampled said they thought small business owners and entrepreneurs would lead us out of our current economic difficulties, compared to 31 percent who expressed confidence in our government leaders to find the answers to our economic problems, and 21 percent who thought executives of big businesses would show us the way to a new economic future."

Yes, Americans sense the importance of small business and entrepreneurship, but sadly, the government does not. There are too many stifling regulations, taxes, and other obstacles like health insurance being melded into the ball-and-chain on the leg of the small business owner.

Obama had a great opportunity to help America solve the economic crisis, keep people in their homes, keep people employed, and help small businesses thrive. But he chose partisan politics and assuaging the "spend, spend, spend" Democrats instead. The Obama Stimulus Package was quickly turned into the Pelosi Porkulus Package and America loses.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/18858?source=feed#comment-406859 406859 Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:49:57 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/120016-in-praise-of-suze-orman?source=feed#comment-384713 384713
Thanks for the good words for Suze Orman. The fact that you were compelled to provide them speaks volumes of the sad state of American culture. We are a nation of windmill-tilting critics who love to bash the people we don't personally find interesting, entertaining, or intellectually challenging. And for what? Aside from hearing ourselves talk, it gives us a sense of superiority. Not exactly something to be proud of, is it?

What has happened to civility and class? Everyone seems more interested in in-your-face, confrontational deprecations and self-congratulatory one-upmanship than in extending courtesies and graciousness. It has become fashionable to be snippy and snide. Rudeness is de rigueur.

Most days, I am ashamed of the tenor of the American conversation, and of the puerile mentality which guides it. Why are we not striving to foster and promote the best that human nature has to offer instead of the worst? Have we given up on that dream? Have we abdicated mankind's birthright to reach for the stars? Sadly, it seems that there are far more people reaching for the gutter. Our instinct for a higher nature has succumbed to our reptilian drive for narcissistic gratifications.

]]> Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:16:00 -0500
Thanks for the good words for Suze Orman. The fact that you were compelled to provide them speaks volumes of the sad state of American culture. We are a nation of windmill-tilting critics who love to bash the people we don't personally find interesting, entertaining, or intellectually challenging. And for what? Aside from hearing ourselves talk, it gives us a sense of superiority. Not exactly something to be proud of, is it?

What has happened to civility and class? Everyone seems more interested in in-your-face, confrontational deprecations and self-congratulatory one-upmanship than in extending courtesies and graciousness. It has become fashionable to be snippy and snide. Rudeness is de rigueur.

Most days, I am ashamed of the tenor of the American conversation, and of the puerile mentality which guides it. Why are we not striving to foster and promote the best that human nature has to offer instead of the worst? Have we given up on that dream? Have we abdicated mankind's birthright to reach for the stars? Sadly, it seems that there are far more people reaching for the gutter. Our instinct for a higher nature has succumbed to our reptilian drive for narcissistic gratifications.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/117884-a-depression-in-21st-century-america-is-impossible?source=feed#comment-373779 373779
Of course, economics (the "dismal science") is full of loopholes. There are relatively very few empirically tested macro models. So if we do not go into a depression, Mr. Hansen is bound to say, "See, I knew it was impossible!"]]> Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:34:03 -0500
Of course, economics (the "dismal science") is full of loopholes. There are relatively very few empirically tested macro models. So if we do not go into a depression, Mr. Hansen is bound to say, "See, I knew it was impossible!"]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/117919-bad-news-for-rails-putting-lipstick-on-a-pig?source=feed#comment-373695 373695

On Feb 02 01:13 PM DanielG wrote:

> In order to get goods to or from the airport rails are used heavily?
> What? I've been in the business 31 years and watching for more than
> 45 and have yet to see a siding in an airport for freight. Quantify
> that statement Mr. Sullivan.

My interpretation is that goods must travel by rail and by truck to get to an airport. Much of the long-haul freight is done by rail, and trucks are used to bridge the short-haul gap from rail terminals to air terminals.
]]> Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:12:53 -0500

On Feb 02 01:13 PM DanielG wrote:

> In order to get goods to or from the airport rails are used heavily?
> What? I've been in the business 31 years and watching for more than
> 45 and have yet to see a siding in an airport for freight. Quantify
> that statement Mr. Sullivan.

My interpretation is that goods must travel by rail and by truck to get to an airport. Much of the long-haul freight is done by rail, and trucks are used to bridge the short-haul gap from rail terminals to air terminals.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/117667-options-trader-friday-outlook-gdphew?source=feed#comment-371123 371123 Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:30:24 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/16332?source=feed#comment-368765 368765
That Schiff is "livid" and that he reacted so defensively to what is apparently a fair assessment of his recent market performance is astonishing. The facts should speak for themselves, and at the moment, the blogospher seems to believe that Mish's account was quite factual.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the supposed WSJ article in the works. If Mish's assertions are corroborated, he has much to gain in credidibility and readership, while Schiff would have much to lose. Of course, if Mish's assertions cannot be corraborated, or are discredited, the reverse is true.]]> Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:38:55 -0500
That Schiff is "livid" and that he reacted so defensively to what is apparently a fair assessment of his recent market performance is astonishing. The facts should speak for themselves, and at the moment, the blogospher seems to believe that Mish's account was quite factual.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the supposed WSJ article in the works. If Mish's assertions are corroborated, he has much to gain in credidibility and readership, while Schiff would have much to lose. Of course, if Mish's assertions cannot be corraborated, or are discredited, the reverse is true.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/15565?source=feed#comment-361048 361048 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:45:31 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/15617?source=feed#comment-361044 361044
My fear is that it was not the plan which was set up to intentionally fail, but that the players in this comic opera are determined to have it fail so that they can wrest more largesse from the Treasury.

My hope is that, should this latter scenario be the case, congress will overrule it and just say, "No!"]]> Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:41:38 -0500
My fear is that it was not the plan which was set up to intentionally fail, but that the players in this comic opera are determined to have it fail so that they can wrest more largesse from the Treasury.

My hope is that, should this latter scenario be the case, congress will overrule it and just say, "No!"]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115369-will-there-be-an-obama-bounce?source=feed#comment-360227 360227
> Obama bounce this week, Obama Crash next week once people realize
> numbers haven't actually changed.

Jenny, you have the cycle right (bounce then reversal), but I believe it will last a little longer than a week.

Contrary to the original thesis by author, Kathy Lien, there will be a bounce. Ms Lien does pay homage to the unique situation of tomorrow's inauguration when she likens Obama to Kennedy. But what Ms. Lien fails to recognize is that the current inauguration scenario is unlike any we have ever seen.

There will be a euphoric bounce due to the fact the we are inaugurating our first black president ever, and this will receive additional momentum because of the hope and hype about Obama's infrastructure spending.

I believe this has the potential to carry the market for a couple of weeks, with the caveat that no bombshells are dropped by Treasury, the Fed, the OMB, or other government reports (I know, that is a big "if").

In late January or early February, however (bombshells or not) people will come to their senses as earnings reports continue to disappoint, and they realize that even "shovel-ready" projects will take months to have any impact on the economy. Fear will replace jubilation, and the Obama bounce will be recognized for what is always was - a bear-market rally based on irrational hope.]]> Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:52:18 -0500
> Obama bounce this week, Obama Crash next week once people realize
> numbers haven't actually changed.

Jenny, you have the cycle right (bounce then reversal), but I believe it will last a little longer than a week.

Contrary to the original thesis by author, Kathy Lien, there will be a bounce. Ms Lien does pay homage to the unique situation of tomorrow's inauguration when she likens Obama to Kennedy. But what Ms. Lien fails to recognize is that the current inauguration scenario is unlike any we have ever seen.

There will be a euphoric bounce due to the fact the we are inaugurating our first black president ever, and this will receive additional momentum because of the hope and hype about Obama's infrastructure spending.

I believe this has the potential to carry the market for a couple of weeks, with the caveat that no bombshells are dropped by Treasury, the Fed, the OMB, or other government reports (I know, that is a big "if").

In late January or early February, however (bombshells or not) people will come to their senses as earnings reports continue to disappoint, and they realize that even "shovel-ready" projects will take months to have any impact on the economy. Fear will replace jubilation, and the Obama bounce will be recognized for what is always was - a bear-market rally based on irrational hope.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114929-jpmorgan-beats-for-banks-this-is-as-good-as-it-gets?source=feed#comment-356602 356602
It is disingenuous and misleading to declare, "JPM Beats..." without some context. They certainly didn't beat expectations of a few weeks ago, and they certainly didn't beat prior year or prior quarter. In fact, in every meaningful way, they did NOT beat anything!

On Jan 15 08:47 AM Jarret wrote:

> It is a bit crazy to say they BEAT estimates when in fact 2 weeks
> ago consensus estimates were .31 cents a share. They beat the "new
> lowered" estimates that Wall Street scambled to provide prior to
> today.
]]> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:21:54 -0500
It is disingenuous and misleading to declare, "JPM Beats..." without some context. They certainly didn't beat expectations of a few weeks ago, and they certainly didn't beat prior year or prior quarter. In fact, in every meaningful way, they did NOT beat anything!

On Jan 15 08:47 AM Jarret wrote:

> It is a bit crazy to say they BEAT estimates when in fact 2 weeks
> ago consensus estimates were .31 cents a share. They beat the "new
> lowered" estimates that Wall Street scambled to provide prior to
> today.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112354-the-economic-meltdown-dismantling-yes-doom-no?source=feed#comment-339171 339171
Suppose Wilson is correct in his prediction (and hope) that in their restructuring, the automakers will adopt a far more efficient distribution model, using internet purchases and direct delivery in lieu of a dealer network. There are some important reasons why this is problematic, but let's just suppose that it does come to pass.

If the Big 3 implemented such a model because it reduced their overhead significantly and gave them a competitive advantage, do you not think that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mercedes, et al would also adopt this business model? In fact, they would suffer less hardship in converting from the current dealer-model because their dealership networks are less entrenched and less powerful than those of the American car makers.

Lets look at another industry that Wilson talks about: mainstream media. If American newspapers and magazines get universally transformed from printing presses and physical delivery infrastructures, why would foreign newspapers and magazines prosper under the current model of physically printing and delivering content?

You actually make no hard case for your thesis that the US war makes things different for US companies - that this is the reason they will transform their business models. The sea-changes that are coming for industries world-wide, will be hastened by the war and its financial effects for American companies. But the changes will occur internationally, nevertheless. If anything, this would bode well for American industries, if they are ushered into a more prosperous future earlier than their international counterparts.

This piece, cloaked in the garment of "analysis," is a thinly veiled effort to espouse your political views rather than to inform. The internet will transform (is currently transforming) many businesses in many industries. The financial implications of the US war effort may hasten this metamorphosis for America, but the rest of the world will follow. If the business climate is better, and operations more profitable under a bit-based economy, there is no reason why they wouldn't.

I, too, deplore the way the Iraq war was (mis)handled. I, too, believe that it was criminal to divert so many billions of dollars on this trumped-up war when it could have been spent on education or health care in this country. But you do yourself and your argument a disservice with a red herring effort to cite the war as the reason that American companies will be changed by the Internet.

The Internet will change business globally simply because it will make business sense. American business may be forced into this change prematurely because of the financial drain of our war efforts. But this is ancillary, not causal.]]> Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:04:33 -0500
Suppose Wilson is correct in his prediction (and hope) that in their restructuring, the automakers will adopt a far more efficient distribution model, using internet purchases and direct delivery in lieu of a dealer network. There are some important reasons why this is problematic, but let's just suppose that it does come to pass.

If the Big 3 implemented such a model because it reduced their overhead significantly and gave them a competitive advantage, do you not think that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mercedes, et al would also adopt this business model? In fact, they would suffer less hardship in converting from the current dealer-model because their dealership networks are less entrenched and less powerful than those of the American car makers.

Lets look at another industry that Wilson talks about: mainstream media. If American newspapers and magazines get universally transformed from printing presses and physical delivery infrastructures, why would foreign newspapers and magazines prosper under the current model of physically printing and delivering content?

You actually make no hard case for your thesis that the US war makes things different for US companies - that this is the reason they will transform their business models. The sea-changes that are coming for industries world-wide, will be hastened by the war and its financial effects for American companies. But the changes will occur internationally, nevertheless. If anything, this would bode well for American industries, if they are ushered into a more prosperous future earlier than their international counterparts.

This piece, cloaked in the garment of "analysis," is a thinly veiled effort to espouse your political views rather than to inform. The internet will transform (is currently transforming) many businesses in many industries. The financial implications of the US war effort may hasten this metamorphosis for America, but the rest of the world will follow. If the business climate is better, and operations more profitable under a bit-based economy, there is no reason why they wouldn't.

I, too, deplore the way the Iraq war was (mis)handled. I, too, believe that it was criminal to divert so many billions of dollars on this trumped-up war when it could have been spent on education or health care in this country. But you do yourself and your argument a disservice with a red herring effort to cite the war as the reason that American companies will be changed by the Internet.

The Internet will change business globally simply because it will make business sense. American business may be forced into this change prematurely because of the financial drain of our war efforts. But this is ancillary, not causal.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111853-hedge-fund-redemptions-may-crash-q1-markets?source=feed#comment-335674 335674
When hedge funds receive redemption requests, does that obligate them to sell holdings immediately? Or can they cover the redemptions with cash on hand and sell when the timing is more beneficial to them?

I'm just wondering if all of the YE selling is done, even though all of the YE redemptions are done.]]> Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:33:44 -0500
When hedge funds receive redemption requests, does that obligate them to sell holdings immediately? Or can they cover the redemptions with cash on hand and sell when the timing is more beneficial to them?

I'm just wondering if all of the YE selling is done, even though all of the YE redemptions are done.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111397-spdr-gold-shares-etf-hits-record-high-inventory?source=feed#comment-333158 333158
> wake up rca.... my point is----no meaningful conclusion can be deduced
> from this chart...

That was my interpretation of your remarks exactly, and, based on the chart, I humbly disagree with you. Take another look and think about it.]]> Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:56:24 -0500
> wake up rca.... my point is----no meaningful conclusion can be deduced
> from this chart...

That was my interpretation of your remarks exactly, and, based on the chart, I humbly disagree with you. Take another look and think about it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111397-spdr-gold-shares-etf-hits-record-high-inventory?source=feed#comment-333071 333071 ]]> Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:57:21 -0500 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110739-is-the-second-great-depression-imminent?source=feed#comment-331061 331061
> RCA, Not so fast. That is, it takes time to drill and establish producing
> wells. Do you think they haven't been looking?

Yes, of course they have been looking. And much has been found.

Many large (if not huge) reserves have been found, but they are in places that are very uneconomic to pursue at today's prices. Some require new drilling technology, but at $200/bbl many of these start to look attractive, new technology will be developed, and drilling will commence.

There will be some latency in getting this bonanza to market, and there will be some latency in getting alternative fuels ramped up. There will be disruptions. But it will happen, and sooner than most people would (or want to) believe, peak oil will not matter anymore.

Pollyanna? No, more akin to Cassandra, who was endowed with the gift of prophecy but fated by Apollo never to be believed.

I am simply a realist who has witnessed many amazing realities that the popular "wisdom" proclaimed couldn't be done. Human ingenuity, when motivated by feasible, realistically obtainable profits and a nay-saying public always wins. The fact that there are skeptics is a tautological necessity.]]> Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:08:46 -0500
> RCA, Not so fast. That is, it takes time to drill and establish producing
> wells. Do you think they haven't been looking?

Yes, of course they have been looking. And much has been found.

Many large (if not huge) reserves have been found, but they are in places that are very uneconomic to pursue at today's prices. Some require new drilling technology, but at $200/bbl many of these start to look attractive, new technology will be developed, and drilling will commence.

There will be some latency in getting this bonanza to market, and there will be some latency in getting alternative fuels ramped up. There will be disruptions. But it will happen, and sooner than most people would (or want to) believe, peak oil will not matter anymore.

Pollyanna? No, more akin to Cassandra, who was endowed with the gift of prophecy but fated by Apollo never to be believed.

I am simply a realist who has witnessed many amazing realities that the popular "wisdom" proclaimed couldn't be done. Human ingenuity, when motivated by feasible, realistically obtainable profits and a nay-saying public always wins. The fact that there are skeptics is a tautological necessity.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110722-what-s-exactly-is-happening-inside-those-retirement-plans?source=feed#comment-330308 330308
> When have we not been a nation based on "socialism for the wealthy."
> We have always been an oligarchic/plutocratic governed society; just
> more semantic window dressing because "socialism" is so plebian.

Regardless of semantic gamesmanship, we can do much better than that.]]> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:37:14 -0500
> When have we not been a nation based on "socialism for the wealthy."
> We have always been an oligarchic/plutocratic governed society; just
> more semantic window dressing because "socialism" is so plebian.

Regardless of semantic gamesmanship, we can do much better than that.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/13311?source=feed#comment-330228 330228 Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:19:14 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/110722-what-s-exactly-is-happening-inside-those-retirement-plans?source=feed#comment-330081 330081
> Mitch Williamson
>
> Get a life. So what if something is wrong. Go to school and teach
> if that is your claim to fame. This site doesn't need MORE MORONS.

Sir, you are correct in the tenor of your admonishment, but sadly lacking in tact. Neither this site, nor any site, needs snarky, in-your-face comments.

A lack of consideration and civility is a co-conspirator with greed in causing the economic turmoil we are seeing. Not until we return to civility will we see an improvement in our fortunes. Not until we eliminate the "me first" mentality will there be any changes in the corrupt system promulgated by greedy corporate executives and politicians.

Please accept an invitation to look at Robert Nabloid's posting on this site this morning. He is on the right track. We each need to take personal responsibility for our own actions, while at the same time insisting on accountability and honesty from Washington and Wall Street. Anything less will destroy us as a society and a world power.

Are we destined to continue to self-destruct into a corrupt third-world state inspired by socialism for the wealthy? I think we can do better than that! Much, much better.
]]> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:07:58 -0500
> Mitch Williamson
>
> Get a life. So what if something is wrong. Go to school and teach
> if that is your claim to fame. This site doesn't need MORE MORONS.

Sir, you are correct in the tenor of your admonishment, but sadly lacking in tact. Neither this site, nor any site, needs snarky, in-your-face comments.

A lack of consideration and civility is a co-conspirator with greed in causing the economic turmoil we are seeing. Not until we return to civility will we see an improvement in our fortunes. Not until we eliminate the "me first" mentality will there be any changes in the corrupt system promulgated by greedy corporate executives and politicians.

Please accept an invitation to look at Robert Nabloid's posting on this site this morning. He is on the right track. We each need to take personal responsibility for our own actions, while at the same time insisting on accountability and honesty from Washington and Wall Street. Anything less will destroy us as a society and a world power.

Are we destined to continue to self-destruct into a corrupt third-world state inspired by socialism for the wealthy? I think we can do better than that! Much, much better.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110736-our-economic-crisis-the-grand-experiment?source=feed#comment-329924 329924
> If we can't
> count on the people that are supposed to represent us, who can we
> trust?

Bingo!]]> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:12:55 -0500
> If we can't
> count on the people that are supposed to represent us, who can we
> trust?

Bingo!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110739-is-the-second-great-depression-imminent?source=feed#comment-329794 329794
We will most assuredly run out of *cheap* oil within the next decade. But several things will happen to alleviate the dire circumstances you portray.

- With the concomitant high price of oil the world will find it profitable to drill in previously uneconomic locations which warehouse a large untapped reserve.

- The high price of oil will also rejuvenate the alternative fuels industry. Electricity, natural gas, hydrogen, et al will find it easy to compete when gasoline is $8+ a gallon.

- Habits and philosophies will change. Gone will be the gas-guzzling trucks, SUVs, and muscle cars. Replacing them will be super-mini bug-like pods which get up to 120 miles a gallon, as people are forced to realize they just can't afford to maintain old lifestyles and habits. These cars will be supplied by auto manufacturers that don't even exist now, as the BIG three and most foreign companies won't be able to change designs, downsize, and retool fast enough. The biggest challenge will be trying to make a profit on such a significantly smaller usage of labor and materials. New companies with new paradigms and business models will be able to do that.

Npne of this will prevent the eventual, inevitable shrinking of the world's oil supply to nothing (nothing that anyone wants to exploit). But it will postpone that occurence until it is no longer relevant.

]]> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:38:13 -0500
We will most assuredly run out of *cheap* oil within the next decade. But several things will happen to alleviate the dire circumstances you portray.

- With the concomitant high price of oil the world will find it profitable to drill in previously uneconomic locations which warehouse a large untapped reserve.

- The high price of oil will also rejuvenate the alternative fuels industry. Electricity, natural gas, hydrogen, et al will find it easy to compete when gasoline is $8+ a gallon.

- Habits and philosophies will change. Gone will be the gas-guzzling trucks, SUVs, and muscle cars. Replacing them will be super-mini bug-like pods which get up to 120 miles a gallon, as people are forced to realize they just can't afford to maintain old lifestyles and habits. These cars will be supplied by auto manufacturers that don't even exist now, as the BIG three and most foreign companies won't be able to change designs, downsize, and retool fast enough. The biggest challenge will be trying to make a profit on such a significantly smaller usage of labor and materials. New companies with new paradigms and business models will be able to do that.

Npne of this will prevent the eventual, inevitable shrinking of the world's oil supply to nothing (nothing that anyone wants to exploit). But it will postpone that occurence until it is no longer relevant.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110592-caterpillar-does-it-deserve-the-goldman-downgrade?source=feed#comment-329172 329172 Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:29:05 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/110599-fundamentals-remain-negative-this-week?source=feed#comment-329024 329024
> Sitting at 100% cash right now. I see no reason to buy stocks at
> $30 a share when they'll be at $22 in a couple months

And in a couple of months will you be saying, "I see no reason to buy stocks at $22 a share when they will be at $16 in a couple of months."?]]> Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:18:26 -0500
> Sitting at 100% cash right now. I see no reason to buy stocks at
> $30 a share when they'll be at $22 in a couple months

And in a couple of months will you be saying, "I see no reason to buy stocks at $22 a share when they will be at $16 in a couple of months."?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110199-heebner-turns-really-bullish-on-market?source=feed#comment-327728 327728
> Too bad (for all of them) I'm taking this market to NEW LOWS before
> they can blink.

I, for one, would not want to bet against it. There are a lot of anvils hanging on the market right now. A little bit of hammering could do a lot of damage.]]> Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:03:57 -0500
> Too bad (for all of them) I'm taking this market to NEW LOWS before
> they can blink.

I, for one, would not want to bet against it. There are a lot of anvils hanging on the market right now. A little bit of hammering could do a lot of damage.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/13187?source=feed#comment-327657 327657
> Business leaders are the source of the problem!

Indeed, they are! Today's business "leaders" exhibit neither leadership nor ethics. Carly split a $130 million bonus for the HP-CPQ merger with Michael Capellas, and then a few months later received many millions of dollars more in a golden parachute.

Greed and short-term thinking by today's "leaders" ravish corporate coffers and destroy shareholder equity. The vast majority of them see their fiduciary responsibility as nothing more than a gravy train for their own self-aggrandizement.

Just as the treasury and the Fed are now robbing the taxpayer in order to keep wealthy and unethical business cronies wealthy, many, if not most business leaders routinely rob shareholders to pad their own net worth.

The only way to correct this unethical system is to let the companies suffer the fate they deserve - bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the fox is guarding the chicken coop, and Paulson, et al will make sure that the miscreants who caused the mess will be rewarded for their folly at the taxpayer's expense.

Heads they win... tails, we lose.
]]> Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:00:05 -0500
> Business leaders are the source of the problem!

Indeed, they are! Today's business "leaders" exhibit neither leadership nor ethics. Carly split a $130 million bonus for the HP-CPQ merger with Michael Capellas, and then a few months later received many millions of dollars more in a golden parachute.

Greed and short-term thinking by today's "leaders" ravish corporate coffers and destroy shareholder equity. The vast majority of them see their fiduciary responsibility as nothing more than a gravy train for their own self-aggrandizement.

Just as the treasury and the Fed are now robbing the taxpayer in order to keep wealthy and unethical business cronies wealthy, many, if not most business leaders routinely rob shareholders to pad their own net worth.

The only way to correct this unethical system is to let the companies suffer the fate they deserve - bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the fox is guarding the chicken coop, and Paulson, et al will make sure that the miscreants who caused the mess will be rewarded for their folly at the taxpayer's expense.

Heads they win... tails, we lose.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/109837-saut-when-stocks-ignore-bad-news-that-s-good-news?source=feed#comment-324771 324771
> Last Friday’s equity market trading reminded us of this old Wall
> Street saying,
>
> “The market bottom is defined when it stops going down on bad news.”

Hmmm... the old Wall Street saying I remember is,

"The market bottom is defined when it fails to rally on good news."

The logic is that when even good news can't raise buying interest, we have exhaustion which confirms the capitulation. There is a wide-spread misconception about the meaning of capitulation. Many people and pundits think it is when we have a large downdraft in stocks, and indexes find new lows.

That is a necessary occurrence, but not a sufficient one for a complete capitulation.

Capitulation occurs during and *after* the downdraft, when the majority of market participants just throw up their hands in dismay, throw in the towel, and say, "I'm done!" After capitulation, the market languishes and even good news can't make it smile.

> "Bear declines end in only one way -- in exhaustion."

Exactly. The market is exhausted of energy and the market participants are exhausted trying to fight the downward trend.

The current generation of investors has been conditioned, thanks in large part to the Internet (and also to a pervasive herd-mentality of short-term thinking), to believe that things always happen in Internet time, and events have the longevity of a sound-bite. "OK, the market has bottomed, we can check that off the list. Now we will rally."

The "real world," however, (as opposed to the virtual world that has become the new shibboleth) does not operate like that. We are currently in a bear-market rally, and we have not yet seen the capitulation. Those who feel strongly that we have, will soon be parted from their money.

The economy is getting palpably worse every day, every hour! Do you really think that the companies you are investing in are going to prosper near term? Massive layoffs have been announced and more will come soon. Retail is in the doldrums. Manufacturing has all but ground to a halt. International trade simply is not happening. Foreclosures are causing even safe and sane mortgage borrowers to be upside down in the homes.

All of the recessions and downturns in recent memory have been "bailed out" by consumer spending. Today's circumstances are far worse than any of the others until you go back to the Great Depression. And the outcome will be much worse, and last much longer because (I hate to break it to you, but...) the consumer will not be carrying the economy on their backs this time.

Too many consumers have lost and will lose their jobs. Too many consumers are already mired in debt and consumer credit is drying up. Too many consumers have witnessed a major loss in their retirement portfolio. Too many consumers have seen their home equity evaporate.

A report on NPR this morning detailed the problems that a large wholesale clothing distributor in NY is having. They have a warehouse crammed full of top line suits, shirts, slacks, and other apparel that they can't move. They normally supply major retailers with this merchandise, but within the last three weeks, five of their seven largest customers have cancelled orders and say they will not be buying anything for at least a month, maybe longer.

Do you really think that we can spend our way to prosperity this time? What fairy tale events are you perceiving that are going to magically produce profits for companies that are retrenching and not conducting business?

Although my words may seem harsh, I offer this rebuke respectfully and this admonishment gently because my beliefs are not doctrine. I admit the possibility that I could be wrong. But I fear that I am right.

]]> Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:57:57 -0500
> Last Friday’s equity market trading reminded us of this old Wall
> Street saying,
>
> “The market bottom is defined when it stops going down on bad news.”

Hmmm... the old Wall Street saying I remember is,

"The market bottom is defined when it fails to rally on good news."

The logic is that when even good news can't raise buying interest, we have exhaustion which confirms the capitulation. There is a wide-spread misconception about the meaning of capitulation. Many people and pundits think it is when we have a large downdraft in stocks, and indexes find new lows.

That is a necessary occurrence, but not a sufficient one for a complete capitulation.

Capitulation occurs during and *after* the downdraft, when the majority of market participants just throw up their hands in dismay, throw in the towel, and say, "I'm done!" After capitulation, the market languishes and even good news can't make it smile.

> "Bear declines end in only one way -- in exhaustion."

Exactly. The market is exhausted of energy and the market participants are exhausted trying to fight the downward trend.

The current generation of investors has been conditioned, thanks in large part to the Internet (and also to a pervasive herd-mentality of short-term thinking), to believe that things always happen in Internet time, and events have the longevity of a sound-bite. "OK, the market has bottomed, we can check that off the list. Now we will rally."

The "real world," however, (as opposed to the virtual world that has become the new shibboleth) does not operate like that. We are currently in a bear-market rally, and we have not yet seen the capitulation. Those who feel strongly that we have, will soon be parted from their money.

The economy is getting palpably worse every day, every hour! Do you really think that the companies you are investing in are going to prosper near term? Massive layoffs have been announced and more will come soon. Retail is in the doldrums. Manufacturing has all but ground to a halt. International trade simply is not happening. Foreclosures are causing even safe and sane mortgage borrowers to be upside down in the homes.

All of the recessions and downturns in recent memory have been "bailed out" by consumer spending. Today's circumstances are far worse than any of the others until you go back to the Great Depression. And the outcome will be much worse, and last much longer because (I hate to break it to you, but...) the consumer will not be carrying the economy on their backs this time.

Too many consumers have lost and will lose their jobs. Too many consumers are already mired in debt and consumer credit is drying up. Too many consumers have witnessed a major loss in their retirement portfolio. Too many consumers have seen their home equity evaporate.

A report on NPR this morning detailed the problems that a large wholesale clothing distributor in NY is having. They have a warehouse crammed full of top line suits, shirts, slacks, and other apparel that they can't move. They normally supply major retailers with this merchandise, but within the last three weeks, five of their seven largest customers have cancelled orders and say they will not be buying anything for at least a month, maybe longer.

Do you really think that we can spend our way to prosperity this time? What fairy tale events are you perceiving that are going to magically produce profits for companies that are retrenching and not conducting business?

Although my words may seem harsh, I offer this rebuke respectfully and this admonishment gently because my beliefs are not doctrine. I admit the possibility that I could be wrong. But I fear that I am right.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/109755-why-elizabeth-warren-is-a-brilliant-choice-to-oversee-tarp?source=feed#comment-324315 324315
American Express (isn't it a bank now?) is doing away with my (and everyone else's) business line of credit. Chase just sent me a two page brochure in fine print explaining that they are raising rates and late payment fees for their credit card. Of course I opted out of the card altogether.

But banks, in general, are all tightening their loan terms and underwriting criteria. Many have put a hiatus on all lending, at least for now. I don't feel like we taxpayers and consumers are in the driver's seat. More like a rumble seat.]]> Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:27:24 -0500
American Express (isn't it a bank now?) is doing away with my (and everyone else's) business line of credit. Chase just sent me a two page brochure in fine print explaining that they are raising rates and late payment fees for their credit card. Of course I opted out of the card altogether.

But banks, in general, are all tightening their loan terms and underwriting criteria. Many have put a hiatus on all lending, at least for now. I don't feel like we taxpayers and consumers are in the driver's seat. More like a rumble seat.]]>