Seeking Alpha

MichaelZZ

MichaelZZ
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View MichaelZZ's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla Needs To Capture 14% U.S. Market Share To Justify Valuation [View article]
    This author (Fu) appears to be authoring a late April Fool's joke or has a massive axe to grind.

    His measurements are pathetic.

    He doesn't recognize margin per vehicle.

    If Tesla sold 100,000, it would more than justify its price.
    @ 2 million.........much more than $1,000 per share.

    mz
    Apr 3 11:42 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yellen Opens Six-Month Gate [View article]
    The tapering will slow down within 2 months (10b to 5b) and will be put on hold within 4 to 5 months.

    mz
    Mar 29 04:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Janet Yellen Didn't Gaffe [View article]
    Referring to my previous post..., the "tapering" is the result of the trillion dollar annual deficits being reduced, i.e., the "hole" is getting smaller, thus the need is being reduced.

    Although that hole is smaller, I anticipate, as I wrote, previously, the Fed will reduce the pace of the tapering, and within two or three months will eliminate it, i.e., stop around $40 billion per month.

    mz
    Mar 25 09:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Janet Yellen Didn't Gaffe [View article]
    Actually...., the Fed has been helping the banks and Wall Street aka 'da banks'.

    The Fed entered into QE correctly, but for the wrong reasons.
    The recession and Congress led to annual federal deficits of > trillion dollars.
    That hole had to be, substantially, mitigated.
    Enter the Fed.

    All roads lead to Congress.

    Whereas Mr. Ben noted that Congress had its responsibility to help matters, at one hearing, Mr. Shumer (NY-D) suggested that he (Bernanke) should not look for Congress to take action.

    Bottom-line...., due to Congress's malfeasance, Mr. Bernanke did what he had to do EXCEPT that the Fed Funds and Discount Rates should not have been 0, and the main purpose for that was to shift funds from customers to the banks.

    Thus, the "hole" had to be minimized, but that short-term rates should not have been crushed.

    mz
    Mar 25 07:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Janet Yellen Didn't Gaffe [View article]
    There will be a serious change of the taper philosophy within the next two months, i.e., it will be suspended for a period or the taper will taper, e.g., from $10 billion to $5 billion per change, and then after 2 or 3 @ $5 billion, then to be suspended.

    mz
    Mar 23 01:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]
    That is one of the points, but, believe it or not..., it is one of these least significant.

    mz
    Mar 13 01:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]
    Actually..., raising or even having a "minimum wage" is extremely damaging by unintended consequences.

    Think about Einstein's definition of insanity.

    mz
    Mar 13 01:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ModernGraham Annual Valuation Of Best Buy Company [View article]
    Are you a comic or an absolute fool?

    Pick ur poison!!!

    mz
    Mar 11 06:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]
    LMinAppleton:

    Sorry, but you are 100% wrong.

    Whereas the SS program is not fiscally sound, it can be fixed quite easily with a more rational (substantially higher) SS payout. Shocking comment, but true.

    A retirement is one of the cornerstones of any rational society.

    We are USA, Inc. and all other companies are subsidiaries thereof.

    mz
    Mar 10 07:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]
    Bill,

    I understand your "confusion", since we have been inundated by lies and misleading information, since 1935.

    Gore's (I supported him) "lockbox" was ignorance or a lie (politics).

    These past 3-4 years, we've been told that, due to our MASSIVE federal deficits, we must do something about SS. Another lie.
    If SS were cancelled tonight, the effect upon our federal annual deficits would be ZERO.

    Unfortunately, by law, the SS fund can only invest in federal bills, bonds, and notes.

    Please read my original posting, slowly and carefully.

    I will appreciate any critical comments accompanied by the rationale for disagreement.

    mz
    Mar 10 06:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]
    Bill,

    Your "conclusion" is incorrect.

    There is somewhere north of $2.5 trillion of federal paper and cash.

    The fund is unable to invest in anything but federal paper.

    Would you prefer all paper be paid off and have the funds sitting in cash?

    mz
    Mar 10 11:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]
    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about? (continued)


    HOW SHOULD THE SS PROGRAM BE MODIFIED?
    The program includes revenue and obligations.
    Presently, the revenue is generated by charging workers 6.2% of his or her wages, up to a maximum of $106,800 per year plus a matched amount by the employer. http://1.usa.gov/JaUu9H

    Had the maximum limits, per the hyperlink, been $106,800 since inception, there would be hundreds of billions of additional funds within the SS trust fund. Further, if there had been no maximum, the fund would have benefited by additional hundreds of billions. Lastly, had all income, including passive income, been subjected to this “tax on income”, there would be even more funds.

    There must be a substantial reason why only earned income has been subjected to this “tax upon income” and why there has been and remains a limit upon the amount subject to this “tax upon income”.

    Another “interesting” factor is that not all wage earners are subject to this “income tax”.

    If the above had been done, every retiree would have an account that was fully funded to the extent his or her choices could be: rollover into a self-directed IRA, an annuity, etc.. This "asset" would not disappear upon death, i.e., it would be included in one's estate.

    The bulk of the obligations are paid to retirees who have reached the applicable ages.

    In December 2009, 64% were retired workers, while 15% were disabled workers, 8% were children, 8% were widows, widowers, and parents, and 5% were spouses.

    There could be an excellent argument that only payments to retired workers should be paid from the fund, while these other payments should come from the general fund.

    NOTE: If it were appropriate for a company to fund retirement obligations for its employees, why would a nation not fund the retirement of its workers?

    The obligations would be no less valid than those for defense, education, et cetera.

    As a competitive benefit, if the funds were an obligation of the federal government, the cost of producing goods and services would be reduced, which would enable companies to be more competitive regarding Japan, Inc., China, Inc., Brazil, Inc., et cetera. This would, also, be valid regarding the delivery of health care, i.e., any costs, which can be shifted from above the line to below the line would enable companies to be more competitive.

    CONCLUSION: By far, the best modification would be for a change from charging workers and employers to single-payer government funding.
    Until the change can be effected, legislation should be passed, which would assess this taxation on all income, earned and unearned, without limitation.

    The answer to the above question regarding the reason why only earned income has been subjected to this “income tax” and why there has been and remains a limit upon the amount subject to this “income tax” should be apparent and intuitive, i.e., the upper income earners would pay more.

    This, in essence, is why politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, and “talking heads” have been “tenderizing” the People.

    I ask everyone to contact his or her Representative and both Senators to inquire as to how much of our massive current federal deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion is attributable to Social Security. The answers will astound most.

    HINT: The answer is ZERO!

    mz
    April 12, 2011
    Modified June 15, 2011

    Mar 9 01:28 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]

    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about?

    PREFACE: Before one is able to solve a problem, one must recognize, understand, and analyze the problem until one has the requisite information and facts to make the best conclusion to mitigate or resolve the problem.

    PROBLEM: Regarding Social Security (SS), it appears that, given the current structure of the program, funds necessary to support the program will be insufficient within a given number of years.

    WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM? The SS program was never actuarially sound due to its original structure (1% of first $3,000 wages) as a Ponzi scheme (FDR may have thought that over time, adjustments would be made to fix the program). Over the years, changes have been made, but only to enable a delay in the inevitable. The problem has been exacerbated by such phenomena as being entitled to receive SS after only being in the workforce for 40 quarters, not all workers paying into the program, et cetera.

    SHOULD THIS PROBLEM BE RESOLVED BY ENDING IT? The question is whether or not this program is appropriate. Does it seem rational that the workers who have participated in the workforce for 40-45 years should be entitled to retirement benefits?

    Congress, over many years, has issued its many stamps of approval of stimulating retirement funding, e.g., defined benefit and contribution programs, Individual Retirement Act, 401k program, et cetera.

    Obviously, Congress is not perfect (as evidenced by its shortsightedness regarding its “retirement” legislation and the unintended consequences) and may have been wrong in issuing these “stamps of approval”, but the probability is about 99.9% that our legislators were correct, thus a logical conclusion should be that the SS program should not be eliminated.

    SHOULD THE SS PROGRAM BE MODIFIED? Although less so now than 65 years ago, the SS program remains a quasi-Ponzi-like situation, thus it must be modified.

    (continued)
    Mar 9 01:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]
    SOCIAL SECURITY What’s it all about?
    Mar 9 01:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Democrats push forward with call for higher minimum wage [View news story]
    TRADE AND SERVICE UNIONS

    DEFINITION: A number of persons joining together for some common purpose.

    TYPES OF UNIONS: Private and public

    FACTS: Private and public unions negotiate with employers to obtain specific goals for those persons being represented.

    Subjects for negotiations include wages, benefits, and working conditions.
    If negotiations result in additional costs to an employer:
    a. A private employer will absorbed those costs or will pass some or all to the customers.

    b. A public employer will have its “rainy-day” funds reduced or will raise additional revenue from its taxpayers.

    ANALYSIS:
    a. If a private employer absorbs additional negotiated costs, margins will be affected, which will reduce taxable income, which will cause a reduction in the value of the employer’s business. If the employer passes on the additional costs to its customers, it would be inflationary and the customers would have less spendable funds for other expenditures, which may adversely affect the economics. In most instances of higher costs, those costs will be passed on to the customers.

    b. If a public employer raises additional revenue from its taxpayers, the taxpayers will have less spendable funds and that may adversely affect the economics.

    When a politician, economist, or anyone else calls for high-paying union jobs, they are implying that there be a shift of wealth from customers to the high-paying union jobs.

    mz
    mikiesmoky@aol.com
    February 26, 2011
    Mar 8 12:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
228 Comments
132 Likes