J Dub Lone Star

J Dub Lone Star
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • If Investors Get More Stimulus, Will They Take More Risk?  [View article]

    Thanks for the ideas.
    Feb 3, 2016. 02:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • If Investors Get More Stimulus, Will They Take More Risk?  [View article]

    Thanks. I have to do some work on my picture and bio before I can send a message. Will hit you up tomorrow.
    Feb 2, 2016. 06:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • If Investors Get More Stimulus, Will They Take More Risk?  [View article]
    If you just lost you income stream due to a severe change in your industries outlook, have a lot saved up but mostly in cash, don't have to have income but would like to supplement your loss of primary income with investment income, and have a minimum of 12-18 months forecast of any return of your primary income (at best) without making a significant change of careers.

    Do you stay in cash with no income, go to bonds (which and what risks in the higher yielding ones do you need to investigate further), or do you look to buy dividend stocks at the dips or some balance between the two?

    That is where I'm coming from and going towards.
    Feb 2, 2016. 05:12 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • If Investors Get More Stimulus, Will They Take More Risk?  [View article]
    Tack and JHooper,

    I would sincerely like to discuss much deeper your thoughts on what JHooper questioned, basically how to play this now or whether or not to play it all now.

    Rather than the general discussion of the markets or macro environment I'm looking for more actionable directions given my own personal scenario. Not looking for anyone to step out on a limb offering specific advice, I'm not a trader but I'm experienced and financially intelligent enough to take some direction and run with it.

    Before getting into details about my own current situation and goals I'd like to ask if you would be open to discussing further and if so where is the best place to do so (which thread, perhaps the "(96) - Best Ways to Invest - What's Your Opinion? A place to share Ideas)?

    Appreciate your time.
    Feb 2, 2016. 04:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • (95)-Best Ways To Invest -- What's Your Opinion? A Place To Share Ideas! #95  [View instapost]
    Real retail and food sales looks a bit different if you change it to "percent change from a year ago".
    Jan 28, 2016. 11:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • (93)-Best Ways To Invest -- What's Your Opinion? A Place To Share Ideas! #93  [View instapost]
    Plunge Protection Team
    Jan 27, 2016. 03:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • (93)-Best Ways To Invest -- What's Your Opinion? A Place To Share Ideas! #93  [View instapost]
    Jan 21, 2016. 11:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Is The Most Hated Bull Market Of All Time - Understanding The Folly Of Financial Engineering  [View article]
    Good article Joseph, it has been awhile.

    Just a couple of thoughts on something I didn't see addressed. Anti-trust, competition, and small business as well as accountability in government.

    Before we jump to your list for "strengthening the position of the working class and weakening the position of the capitalists" I think it might be wise to consider distributing the concentration of power both in the economy and the government.

    I think a lot of the ideas you listed for changing positions are useless without addressing the concentration of power. I think there has been a purposeful movement towards attacking small business growth in this country over the last several decades that is rarely discussed. Anti-trust laws are rarely used nowdays and corporations grow larger and own larger %s of market share every year. Hard to get elected without their support so government ends up writing laws at the bidding of the corporations who have no interest in helping small business owners eat into their market share or political power.

    What good does it do to change tax laws if the increase or changes in cash flow go into unaccountable government covers? What good does collective bargaining do if you only have 2 or 3 choices as a consumer and the cost of this gets passed on directly to the consumer?

    Just wanted to add that thought, I think if you address this concentration of power then many of the issues you are seeing end of being addressed. It is a fundamental requirement for the vision of government and economy this country was founded on and it is no wonder that its erosion is causing the need for central control to keep the economy alive.
    Aug 7, 2014. 06:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Depression With Benefits: The Macro Case For mREITs  [View article]
    Brofman, sorry for the confusion.
    Jul 22, 2013. 09:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Depression With Benefits: The Macro Case For mREITs  [View article]
    Ahhh, your a snake oil salesman er economist. Your degree and your logic in the article show lack of abilities in mathematics.
    Jul 11, 2013. 09:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Depression With Benefits: The Macro Case For mREITs  [View article]
    Complete and utter hogwash! Depression probably, causes and solutions not a chance.

    You were absolutely correct regarding the fact that WWII was the ONLY thing that lifted the economy out of the 30s depression. Props for that because most that promote centralized economic control attempt to argue that it was FDRs spending campaign that did it (absolutely 100% incorrect).
    Jul 11, 2013. 02:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Inflation Hoax  [View article]

    While I understand your point and for my circumstances it is "So What" regarding the price of potatoes it is a matter of fortune and perspective there.

    Today just as in 1980, the minimum wage worker can't afford gold. To millions of people in the US even those above minimum wage that sack of potatoes or gallon of gas represents a much bigger % of their income and it matters greatly. This impact although small on the individual household budget when multiplied by the masses can have big impacts throughout the economy, especially on small businesses which are the engine of job growth.
    Jun 24, 2013. 09:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Inflation Hoax  [View article]
    Good article. I think someone else touched on this but wanted to highlight it.

    "The U.S. dollar has lost 96% of its purchasing power over the last XYZ years." On the surface, this seems like a logical statement. Everyone knows that you could buy a candy bar 30 years ago for 5 cents, while that same candy bar today costs $1.00."

    I agree with your argument that wages increasing offset and sometimes over compensate with the devaluation. However, I think the "goldbugs" statement is typically in the context of USD vs. gold as a store of value. Thus if you saved USD "XYZ" years ago and never invested them (and hadn't been earning money) you would feel the full uncompensated effect of the devaluation when you went to buy your candy bar.
    Jun 24, 2013. 04:37 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Happens When Liquidity Disappears?  [View article]

    No offense intended, but I wasn't really talking to you. I used Astron. Gains post to try and give some readers thought to concerns with supporting centralize control (of anything but specifically with the FED). Your posts just happen to help me highlight that danger even more.

    I understand the temptation to think in terms of degrees rather than black or white but I think that is the very danger that I speak of. You can speak moderation but when crisis appear as they always do it boils down to a black and white choice, do you support empowering others to save you or do you accept that responsibility yourself.

    That's my opinion, yours may be different and I respect that.
    Apr 27, 2013. 12:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Happens When Liquidity Disappears?  [View article]

    Thanks for the comment. The "demand" issue hadn't crossed my mind so thanks for bringing it up.

    I didn't really intend to argue economic theory and I'm probably not educated enough in that area to offer a good counter argument. Your view on demand may very well have some merit.

    My comment was intended to point out the big picture view or paradigm if you will. I believe no system is able to avoid ups and downs (risk), whether it be a free market or centrally controlled one. But I think you have to pick your poison and I think it is a black or white choice.

    I'd like to believe that most people on SA support the fundamentals that the USA was built on including the concept of free markets. However, I believe people are easily misled to believe a slew of popularly accepted propaganda much of which taken at face value seems to be reasonable.

    Are recessions/depressions risky and painful? Yes. Do we expect our leaders to act to lower risk? Yes. Is it preferable to lower risk whenever possible? Yes.

    These are the simple foundations upon which the propaganda is built. They are difficult to argue directly because as humans we all want to avoid pain.

    But you have to understand the inherent nature of human beings to be fallible and thus there is no human built system which is capable of operating at 100% efficiency, which is incorruptible, and which can reduce risk to zero. The choice then becomes which system is more efficient, is less corruptible, and eventually less risky? Some might argue to the contrary but I believe there is no real hybrid in between. Does government create the economy or does private industry, I believe private industry creates the economy and I think this can be supported by epic failures of various tyrannical regimes throughout the entire human history and contrasted with unprecedented wealth creation developed under the USA's free market system.

    Thus my point. You are making a choice whether you know it or not. If avoiding pain is inevitable then you have to get beyond the obvious answer of yes we want to avoid it and ask what is the cost of avoiding it?

    The cost in my opinion is freedom. And if you agree that pain (risk) is inevitable then you are trading a brief reprise from risk for your freedom. Free markets and centrally controlled ones are polar opposites. You can't have you cake and eat it too. You cannot be a supporter of free markets and not accept risk. If you are not willing to accept risk then you do this at the expense of opportunity and growth as well as your freedom.

    That's probably more than enough talk but I just can't emphasize it enough. You are making a black and white choice whether you realize it or not. Empowering those promising to be able to reduce risk to zero is choosing a centrally control market over a free market. Before doing that I am only pointing out that you need to decide which system you believe is the better mouse trap because the cost of reducing risk is freedom and the price is high in my opinion.
    Apr 26, 2013. 12:28 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment