milkchaser

The Next Leg of the Crisis: Unavoidable Catastrophe

Where can I read about the problem of long-term decay in TBT?

Forget the 1930s; We're Reliving 1975 (Part 1)

Does it seem odd to anybody else to date the start of the recession to a single quarter of barely negative growth in Q407 that was followed by two quarters of mild positive growth?

Obama Basically Nixes Second (Third?) Stimulus

sethmcs -- I am convinced that this recession will not soon be forgotten, nor will Obama's misguided response to it.

Obama Basically Nixes Second (Third?) Stimulus

Keith Hennesy has an excellent response to Obama's Op-Ed here:
keithhennessey.com/200.../

He calls out Obama's use of "straw man" arguments.

Obama Basically Nixes Second (Third?) Stimulus

When he wanted this clunker passed, Obama said that it was absolutely and immediately necessary to save the economy now. Now he says that he always claimed that the stimulus would take time to work. Sounds like he is rationalizing its failure.

More Bad News for Retail Investors, Siegel Had It Wrong

TeresaE -- I take your points, but what kind of history teacher could gloss over slavery? Are you saying that they did not teach the Civil War? My experience (40 years ago) was that the Civil War was taught as the thing that ended the abomination of slavery, but the subsequent 80+ years of racism were glossed over. The states' rights argument was equated with racist slavery. It is only now that the issue of states' rights is beginning to re-emerge as legitimate having been separated from the ignominious history of slavery.

More Bad News for Retail Investors, Siegel Had It Wrong

GM is defunct. Should it have been excluded from indexes? Did no one profit from GM those many decades when it turned a profit?

Perhaps there was a "survivor" bias in Siegel's work, but that only diminishes his conclusion -- it does not reverse it. One can lose all one's capital in a year if one makes spectacularly bad investments. I suspect for all the rubber hat and canal stocks, one can find bonds that defaulted, as well. A fair study would examine stocks and bonds that accrued a heavy volume of investment, as blue-chip indexes do.

Zweig also makes a mistake of saying that, since we only have good figures from 1870 on, we only have 4 good 30 year periods in which to examine the performance of stocks vs. bonds. This is wrong. We have 109 30-year periods from 1870 to now, as each successive period contains the last 29 years of the previous period, plus the next full year.

To make things easier to count, I suggest looking for those few periods when bonds outdid stocks.

Austrian School of Economics Is on the Rise

The Mises Institute does inject anti-war, libertarian politics into its presentations, along with Austrian economics. They are fascinating presentations, nonetheless. I tend to dismiss the anti-war, anti-Lincoln stuff. Intelligent people often disagree.

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

There is only one solution: a Constitutional amendment that prohibits members of Congress who have served more than 5 years from seeking re-election from any state or district if the Federal Budget has not been balanced at least 4 of the previous 5 years.

Things would change in a hurry.

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

Obama's Treasury Sec'y is so "intelligent" he could not figure out how to do his taxes (and TurboTax flummoxed him). His VP is risible. Granted, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod are clever. I'll grant that, even though I detest their aims. But I do not think the Obama administration will distinguish itself from its predecessors (of either party) on the basis of its intellectuals. To believe so is to disclose one's pro-Obama bias.


On Jun 25 09:55 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> I'm impressed by your knowledge and writing ability, James, but you
> have gone too far.
>
> War is ten percent fighting, ten percent waiting, and 80 percent
> self-improvement according the The Chairman. That formula won't work
> with Americans, because self-improvement is exactly what they are
> not interested in any longer. The reason is because it requires patience.
>
>
> Tell your followers to forget about banks, governments, and the like.
> Work with young people, and particularly schools. Personally I support
> the present US government, because I think that Obama is not afraid
> to work with intelligent people. Of course all of those on his team
> could not be described as intelligent, but they can be replaced when
> the time comes.

Starve the Economic Beast, Part 3

Brilliant -- all three parts.

Back in the U.S.S.A.

I do not apologize for joining with my co-workers to help save a company imperiled by mistakes of former management. However, my personal circumstances at this time do not reflect the possibility that the American economy will revive and expand. I suspect that current Federal gov't policy is counter-productive, however, I hope I am wrong. I suspect Mr. Schiff agrees that the current course is mistaken, if I read the article correctly.

BTW, I second Mr. Schiff's approval of borshcht.


On Jun 22 04:47 PM User 357705 wrote:

> Whatever makes it easier for you to get out of bed and head to that
> no benefits no future job contractors job you are pretty sure you'll
> be sacked from in the fall.

Back in the U.S.S.A.

1. Obama was not born to particularly humble beginnings. His single mother was supported by fairly affluent grandparents.
2. How does one measure racism? What study can you find that measured the American population to be 25% racist?
3. The "ping pong ball" has a degree from Harvard and a higher GPA at Yale than his opponent in the 2004 race.
4. The expert he chose as Treasury Sec'y was either crooked or, by his own admission, confused by TurboTax. All Presidents surround themselves with experts. This is common practice and common knowledge.
5. As you point out, the term czar has been used for decades. The number of such positions is conspicuous in the Obama administration, however.
6. There are "bumper sticker" minds in both parties -- that would explain their popularity.
7. Obama may have inspired the Iranians with his Cairo speech. But then maybe having a democracy to their immediate east and west brought about by his predecessor contributed to their yearning to be free. Obama opposed much of that. One speech or the example of 40 million liberated, free-voting Muslims. I guess we will never know what did the trick.
8. You mis-characterize Bush and McCain supporters as morons. Do you find insulting those with whom you disagree to be an effective persuasive technique, or does it just make you feel good?
9. You distort the intention of those who advise Obama to speak out in support of the Iranian protesters. They merely point to the historic example of Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and Natan Sharansky who benefited from words of support from leaders of existing democracies. They advocate words of support, not interference. Tyrants often portray such words of support as meddling or interference -- that is testimony to its effectiveness. Why do what tyrants ask of us?
10. Don't knock sex with interns, staff, prostitutes or strangers in airport restrooms unless you've tried it.
11. When Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, the nation was hardly at the abyss. That occurred with Democrats in Congress -- a situation that persists to this abyss-clinging day. If Democrats knew how to improve upon the poor record of their Republican predecessors, judging by the trend in the GDP, I would say they have yet to demonstrate it.
12. Obama has every chance to turn things around. Let us hope he succeeds. If he does not, be honest with yourself.

On Jun 22 05:15 PM Ed [e-mail] wrote:

> It is amazing how the criticism of Obama started almost immediately
> from the same people who screwed up the economy and foreign policy.
> I am a 56 year old middle class (whatever that is !) white man with
> a law degree who was not born into the humble beginings that Mr Obama
> was born into. Yet despite all odds this half white half black man
> became president in a country where 25% of the people are racists.
> True he was preceeded by a President who had the mentality of a ping
> pong ball but you have to respect Mr Obama's accomplishments. He
> is smart enough to surround himself with experts and listens to them
> and makes an informed decision. While Mr Schiff is not one of the
> experts it may account for his juvenile name calling and making an
> issue of the word czar. When the republicans appointed a drug czar
> I did not hear talk then like the juvenile bumper sticker mentality
> that is the Republican party. When Obama gave his Cairo speech and
> stated his desire to engage in dialogue with Iran it caused the glue
> that held the factions in Iran to come un-glued as the death to America
> crowd lost its rallying bumper sticker. Now the same morons like
> Bush and McCain want Obama to give the glue back to the death to
> America crowd by interfering in Iran's struggle and internal strife.
> These are the same morons who elected Bush and had control of all
> three branches of government and literally brought the world and
> the USA to the abyss. They should shut up and have sex with their
> interns or staff or prostitutes or with strangers in airport restrooms
> as that is they only thing they seem competent at. I believe that
> Mr Obama and his expert pool should be given a chance to turn this
> thing around.
>
> On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

Back in the U.S.S.A.

I am interested in learning more about any studies you may have read that have convinced you we are relatively less prosperous. I am fairly certain that you would prefer life as we live it today to life in the 70s as it was truly lived. But that is no substitute for a rigorous economic study.

I am not arguing my personal situation is better, nor how I feel. I am arguing that technology has improved life so much in the last 30 or 40 years that the comparison of mere income is insufficient. There was a time when poor people did not have TV or telephones. Now the percentage of households without one or both is small. Is that not a sign of affluence?

Cell phones used to be considered luxuries or affectations. Now they are common and disposable. Does this count for nothing?

Once long-distance calls cost $1-per-minute. Now they are too cheap to meter.

Joint disease used to leave people in wheelchairs. Now hip and knee replacement are commonplace. How many different body parts are now routinely and affordably treated with lasers? (eyes, teeth, fat and hair removal, etc). Arthroscopic surgery was the stuff of science fiction back in the 70s. How many heart attack victims died on the way to the hospital? Now paramedics carry portable defibrillators.

Is this factored into studies along with inflation-adjusted total family income? I suspect today's median income could support a 1970s era lifestyle if only people were willing as people actually lived back then.

On the issue of debt, apparently we agree.

On Jun 21 08:11 PM a5fung wrote:

> I am merely stating a piece of fact I have come across that suggests
> average prosperity have not increased; however, if you feel richer
> than more power to you.
>
> You're correct, debt is not bad, nor is it good. It depends on what
> you do with the debt that matters. If you use to to consume, you
> are merely using up your future consumption, technically borrowing
> from your future. On the other hand, if you use it to increase your
> productivity and invest it wisely, than you can say debt is good.
>
>
> Take a look at something like education. Can the average student
> afford his/her own education without a government subsidy these days?
> Most likely not. Working part-time or a summer job is just not enough
> to cover the costs college today. But of course, nothing some debt
> cannot solve right?
>
> No doubt we have had a lot of technological advancements, but this
> does not necessarily translate to being richer (well, depends on
> how you want to define "rich"). We will most likely continue to have
> new technologies despite our economic conditions.
>
> On Jun 21 02:51 PM milkchaser wrote:

Back in the U.S.S.A.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. We may not agree, that is not evidence of delusion. Labeling an opponent's position is no substitute for a persuasive counter argument or contradictory evidence.


On Jun 22 04:37 PM User 357705 wrote:

> A bonifide true believer! Deacon of the 'Daddy Says Everything Is
> Just Great' Church of the Perpetually Deluded.