xmichaelx's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/228990/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/179226-the-2010-tech-ipo-boom?source=feed#comment-817387 817387
There will always be fads around certain companies or products (MySpace), but to ignore a whole sector because of it is not good business. Hell, fads are one of the easiest ways to cash in (Apple)!

On Dec 21 08:56 PM Tempo dulu wrote:

> Deja vu. How many tech companies make profits? How many will still
> be around in 5 years time? The risks are so huge I steer well clear
> of these companies - most are just flash in the pan companies. Here
> today, gone tomorrow...]]> Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:29:55 -0500
There will always be fads around certain companies or products (MySpace), but to ignore a whole sector because of it is not good business. Hell, fads are one of the easiest ways to cash in (Apple)!

On Dec 21 08:56 PM Tempo dulu wrote:

> Deja vu. How many tech companies make profits? How many will still
> be around in 5 years time? The risks are so huge I steer well clear
> of these companies - most are just flash in the pan companies. Here
> today, gone tomorrow...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/179106-at-t-s-iphone-service-has-been-excellent?source=feed#comment-816108 816108 > when I see all these reports on the superiority of Verizon
> over AT&T when I've experienced EXACTLY
> THE OPPOSITE, then I'm compelled to speak up. I
> think these reports are skewed and painting an
> inaccurate picture of reality.

As a former AT&T customer who left in disgust and who has gotten much better service from Verizon, I think these reports are perfectly accurate. Guess what? We're both right!! But only one of us turned his opinion into a worthless blog posting that adds even less to the conversation than the Consumer Reports survey.

PS- I agree with you that Verizon's website is utter crap, but again, I didn't soil this FINANCE site with a blog posting about it.]]> Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:55:28 -0500 > when I see all these reports on the superiority of Verizon
> over AT&T when I've experienced EXACTLY
> THE OPPOSITE, then I'm compelled to speak up. I
> think these reports are skewed and painting an
> inaccurate picture of reality.

As a former AT&T customer who left in disgust and who has gotten much better service from Verizon, I think these reports are perfectly accurate. Guess what? We're both right!! But only one of us turned his opinion into a worthless blog posting that adds even less to the conversation than the Consumer Reports survey.

PS- I agree with you that Verizon's website is utter crap, but again, I didn't soil this FINANCE site with a blog posting about it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/178291-why-i-would-not-bet-on-iphone-over-android?source=feed#comment-808552 808552
The article has a point, but fails to support it. iPhone vs. Android has nothing to do with PC vs. Mac, and the arguments are not remotely similar. Android will become a superior phone OS because users will not be locked into whatever scraps Apple chooses to give them.

Apple has rejected many, many apps because they compete with Apple (apprejections.com/). Android will never have the same problem. Apple locks users into using only approved apps. Android will never have that problem, either. Even at the same price point, Android+robust app store (approx. 1 year away) is a superior product to the iPhone.

Finally, how many people would today own an iPhone if it weren't locked into AT&T? Android doesn't have that problem, either. Perhaps Apple will catch up soon on that score.

The truth is that both phone OSs can exist simultaneously, and a smart investor can make money on both, either, or neither. This IS an investing site, remember??]]> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:23:21 -0500
The article has a point, but fails to support it. iPhone vs. Android has nothing to do with PC vs. Mac, and the arguments are not remotely similar. Android will become a superior phone OS because users will not be locked into whatever scraps Apple chooses to give them.

Apple has rejected many, many apps because they compete with Apple (apprejections.com/). Android will never have the same problem. Apple locks users into using only approved apps. Android will never have that problem, either. Even at the same price point, Android+robust app store (approx. 1 year away) is a superior product to the iPhone.

Finally, how many people would today own an iPhone if it weren't locked into AT&T? Android doesn't have that problem, either. Perhaps Apple will catch up soon on that score.

The truth is that both phone OSs can exist simultaneously, and a smart investor can make money on both, either, or neither. This IS an investing site, remember??]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177107-has-gold-lost-its-luster?source=feed#comment-798440 798440
On Dec 09 12:31 PM NOCSM wrote:
> I am aware of gold, and other hard assets being stores of value,
> especially during times of economic uncertainty. However, with the
> increasing trend of investors and speculators potentially owning
> more receipts for gold than there is physical gold available, then
> you have to ask yourself, How would a potential run on physical gold
> affect the stability of the world economy? It seems like a paradox
> to me...
>
> I think it is a serious enough issue such that markets around the
> world should make it mandatory for hard assets, such as gold, to
> be held and redeemed only in its physical form, with the exceptions
> of owning company stocks involved in the mining and/or processing
> the metal in question. The recent increase in gold prices is eerily
> similar to that of the oil bubble. Perhaps we are between the enthusiasm
> and greed stage of a psychological asset bubble.]]> Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:35:08 -0500
On Dec 09 12:31 PM NOCSM wrote:
> I am aware of gold, and other hard assets being stores of value,
> especially during times of economic uncertainty. However, with the
> increasing trend of investors and speculators potentially owning
> more receipts for gold than there is physical gold available, then
> you have to ask yourself, How would a potential run on physical gold
> affect the stability of the world economy? It seems like a paradox
> to me...
>
> I think it is a serious enough issue such that markets around the
> world should make it mandatory for hard assets, such as gold, to
> be held and redeemed only in its physical form, with the exceptions
> of owning company stocks involved in the mining and/or processing
> the metal in question. The recent increase in gold prices is eerily
> similar to that of the oil bubble. Perhaps we are between the enthusiasm
> and greed stage of a psychological asset bubble.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176191-gold-bubble-represents-market-irrationality?source=feed#comment-788862 788862
I must be supremely "rational".

On Dec 02 07:03 PM FMOTL wrote:
> The writer of this article must be one of those "rational" people
> who believe that bits of colored paper with fancy designs on them
> are "valuable". So for his benefit i,ll quote someone a lot wiser
> than me.....Paper is poverty,it is only the ghost of money and not
> money itself. Thomas Jefferson. or how about this one ...Paper money
> ALWAYS returns to its intrinsic value....ZERO ! Voltaire]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:32:23 -0500
I must be supremely "rational".

On Dec 02 07:03 PM FMOTL wrote:
> The writer of this article must be one of those "rational" people
> who believe that bits of colored paper with fancy designs on them
> are "valuable". So for his benefit i,ll quote someone a lot wiser
> than me.....Paper is poverty,it is only the ghost of money and not
> money itself. Thomas Jefferson. or how about this one ...Paper money
> ALWAYS returns to its intrinsic value....ZERO ! Voltaire]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176210-the-recurring-gold-bubble?source=feed#comment-788840 788840
Even if you believe that gold won't be headed downhill anytime soon, logic should tell you that we'll soon see a leveling off in price as new money jumping into it slows.]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:19:51 -0500
Even if you believe that gold won't be headed downhill anytime soon, logic should tell you that we'll soon see a leveling off in price as new money jumping into it slows.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175986-the-ugly-decade?source=feed#comment-786811 786811
On Dec 01 07:13 PM Denis Gould wrote:
> But frankly who cares. The next ten years plus are going to be the
> most miserable ever faced. Government debt is completely out of control.
> To get it back on track we either need rapid economic growth, inflation,
> or primary budget surpluses for many years. None of them is remotely
> possible. That leaves default as the only option.]]> Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:28:25 -0500
On Dec 01 07:13 PM Denis Gould wrote:
> But frankly who cares. The next ten years plus are going to be the
> most miserable ever faced. Government debt is completely out of control.
> To get it back on track we either need rapid economic growth, inflation,
> or primary budget surpluses for many years. None of them is remotely
> possible. That leaves default as the only option.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175885-consumer-driven-deflation-not-even-close?source=feed#comment-786789 786789 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:06:34 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175885-consumer-driven-deflation-not-even-close?source=feed#comment-786783 786783
Lay off the sauce before posting, Paco.


On Dec 02 10:55 AM Aramis wrote:

> While some of the principles stated in the article are undoubtedly
> true, using pphases like "little elves", and describing those with
> differing viewpoints or policies as "imbecilic" and "moronic" really
> takes the edge of the value of the work.
>
> Of course, the complete obliteration of the true definition of Moore's
> law (your computer is worth half what you paid for it in 18 months
> - lol) is the real kicker.]]> Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:04:23 -0500
Lay off the sauce before posting, Paco.


On Dec 02 10:55 AM Aramis wrote:

> While some of the principles stated in the article are undoubtedly
> true, using pphases like "little elves", and describing those with
> differing viewpoints or policies as "imbecilic" and "moronic" really
> takes the edge of the value of the work.
>
> Of course, the complete obliteration of the true definition of Moore's
> law (your computer is worth half what you paid for it in 18 months
> - lol) is the real kicker.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175805-the-iphone-s-next-carrier-is-likely-t-mobile-not-verizon?source=feed#comment-784861 784861
> I don't know if users are happy with Android but apparently the app
> developers are not. finance.yahoo.com/news...;.v=1.

1) Most apps in the iPhone store go unsold, or have nearly zero sales. The tail is ridiculously long.
2) Because Android is open source, they already have massive development community interest. Yes, they'll have fewer people saying, "Hey, I think I can be a millionaire with this app." But they have LOTS more who say, "I want to make an Android app."
3) iPhone has a significant head start and Android has only been relevant for about a month, so any commentary on iPhone vs. Android app store (yours OR mine) is irrelevant.

> If this is true, it doesn't bode well for a robust app store for
> Android. Consequently, that would be a major disincentive to
> purchasing an Android.

Yes, that's why it's selling so poorly. Your own link points out that Apple had the same issues early on. (side note: Personally, I'll go with the vendor who lets ME decide which apps I can run, rather than the one who treats me like a 4-year-old.)]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:48:30 -0500
> I don't know if users are happy with Android but apparently the app
> developers are not. finance.yahoo.com/news...;.v=1.

1) Most apps in the iPhone store go unsold, or have nearly zero sales. The tail is ridiculously long.
2) Because Android is open source, they already have massive development community interest. Yes, they'll have fewer people saying, "Hey, I think I can be a millionaire with this app." But they have LOTS more who say, "I want to make an Android app."
3) iPhone has a significant head start and Android has only been relevant for about a month, so any commentary on iPhone vs. Android app store (yours OR mine) is irrelevant.

> If this is true, it doesn't bode well for a robust app store for
> Android. Consequently, that would be a major disincentive to
> purchasing an Android.

Yes, that's why it's selling so poorly. Your own link points out that Apple had the same issues early on. (side note: Personally, I'll go with the vendor who lets ME decide which apps I can run, rather than the one who treats me like a 4-year-old.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175060-another-crisis-looms-right-around-the-corner?source=feed#comment-777515 777515
Keep up the negative articles, so when all the losers who have missed the boat finally grow a pair in I can REALLY cash in.]]> Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:35:42 -0500
Keep up the negative articles, so when all the losers who have missed the boat finally grow a pair in I can REALLY cash in.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174831-will-microsoft-get-squeezed-by-chrome-os?source=feed#comment-775457 775457
False. Google is jumping on the Netbook bandwagon that's been going strong for a year, and hoping that putting their brand on it will create a breakthrough. They're striking at the right time, so it just may.

They're also solving the biggest problems with Netbooks (lack of storage & processing power) by leveraging -- and at the same time pushing -- their cloud computing model. This is really where Chrome is superior to the average Linux netbook, and where there is room for a revolution in computing.

There's little need for the cloud on the desktop, no matter what people getting paid to push that idea might say. But on low-powered Netbooks the cloud can be very advantageous, at least for the next 2-3 years.]]> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:13:10 -0500
False. Google is jumping on the Netbook bandwagon that's been going strong for a year, and hoping that putting their brand on it will create a breakthrough. They're striking at the right time, so it just may.

They're also solving the biggest problems with Netbooks (lack of storage & processing power) by leveraging -- and at the same time pushing -- their cloud computing model. This is really where Chrome is superior to the average Linux netbook, and where there is room for a revolution in computing.

There's little need for the cloud on the desktop, no matter what people getting paid to push that idea might say. But on low-powered Netbooks the cloud can be very advantageous, at least for the next 2-3 years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/173612-why-gm-is-repaying-bailout-money?source=feed#comment-764002 764002
On Nov 16 05:08 PM William Legrand wrote:
> Far too many U.S. consumers will no longer consider GM or Chrysler vehicles after the very-public taxpayer-funded bailouts, union givebacks/gifts, and astronomical executive payouts/bonuses. ]]> Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:29:42 -0500
On Nov 16 05:08 PM William Legrand wrote:
> Far too many U.S. consumers will no longer consider GM or Chrysler vehicles after the very-public taxpayer-funded bailouts, union givebacks/gifts, and astronomical executive payouts/bonuses. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/173607-why-the-stock-market-should-crash?source=feed#comment-763971 763971 If you haven't made a small fortune in the past 6 months, you are an utter fool.

On Nov 16 01:35 PM herbert hoover wrote:

> There's no way anyone can invest in these markets unless they are
> naive, delusional or have more money than brains. if this market
> goes up another ten percent, the DJ is at 12000! With these fundamentals,
> that's insane]]> Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:07:03 -0500 If you haven't made a small fortune in the past 6 months, you are an utter fool.

On Nov 16 01:35 PM herbert hoover wrote:

> There's no way anyone can invest in these markets unless they are
> naive, delusional or have more money than brains. if this market
> goes up another ten percent, the DJ is at 12000! With these fundamentals,
> that's insane]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172262-the-unsustainable-lie-of-inflation?source=feed#comment-754361 754361
> You've just advanced my point. Thank you.

A truly lame response that denigrates only you, and that solidifies my opinion of your intellect formed from reading the original 'article'.]]> Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:52:54 -0500
> You've just advanced my point. Thank you.

A truly lame response that denigrates only you, and that solidifies my opinion of your intellect formed from reading the original 'article'.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172262-the-unsustainable-lie-of-inflation?source=feed#comment-754355 754355
> oh brother... after 8 years of Bush & Cheney, THIS is the "lie"
> that upsets you?

Without making any particular political argument, emily x is exactly right. Pulling out the Goebbels quote -- which is constantly trotted out by everyone for everything -- for something so relatively trivial is fairly ridiculous.

There is no shortage of quotes relevant to your thesis -- why use this old workhorse?

This entire post is like smashing home a staple with a sledgehammer. Yes, it works. But it makes you look more than a little ridiculous. Make your argument without the histrionics and you might find an audience beyond the already-converted here.]]> Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:50:18 -0500
> oh brother... after 8 years of Bush & Cheney, THIS is the "lie"
> that upsets you?

Without making any particular political argument, emily x is exactly right. Pulling out the Goebbels quote -- which is constantly trotted out by everyone for everything -- for something so relatively trivial is fairly ridiculous.

There is no shortage of quotes relevant to your thesis -- why use this old workhorse?

This entire post is like smashing home a staple with a sledgehammer. Yes, it works. But it makes you look more than a little ridiculous. Make your argument without the histrionics and you might find an audience beyond the already-converted here.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150920-the-mac-vs-pc-debate-was-never-clearer?source=feed#comment-601080 601080 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:53:44 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/143674-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-550564 550564 > stuff is?.....pure junk.

And yet Americans -- including yourself, no doubt -- line up to buy it. ]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:16:09 -0400 > stuff is?.....pure junk.

And yet Americans -- including yourself, no doubt -- line up to buy it. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140189-remind-me-again-what-s-a-bubble?source=feed#comment-523092 523092 Fri, 29 May 2009 13:23:20 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/139165-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-514641 514641
Does the whining never end?]]> Fri, 22 May 2009 13:11:34 -0400
Does the whining never end?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/138418-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-510033 510033 > The article mentioned the increased cost of a car as $1300 by 2016.
> Will the savings in gas offset that $1300?

Surely your computer has a calculator built in.]]> Tue, 19 May 2009 14:02:24 -0400 > The article mentioned the increased cost of a car as $1300 by 2016.
> Will the savings in gas offset that $1300?

Surely your computer has a calculator built in.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137404-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-502400 502400 You accidentally made a comment that wasn't your typical inane spam -- congratulations. It's nice to send you kudos for a change, instead of hitting the "report" button.


On May 13 01:55 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Retail sales are not such a big deal. Even during the 2002-2007 bull
> market retail sales were occasionally negative. Don't celebrate yet,
> bears. We may have a 3% rally later this week.]]> Wed, 13 May 2009 14:13:40 -0400 You accidentally made a comment that wasn't your typical inane spam -- congratulations. It's nice to send you kudos for a change, instead of hitting the "report" button.


On May 13 01:55 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Retail sales are not such a big deal. Even during the 2002-2007 bull
> market retail sales were occasionally negative. Don't celebrate yet,
> bears. We may have a 3% rally later this week.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137152-why-stimulus-funds-need-to-be-spent-everywhere?source=feed#comment-500691 500691 www.taxfoundation.org/....]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 13:09:42 -0400 www.taxfoundation.org/....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136072-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-494096 494096
Volitility has made for easy pickings -- I'll be sad when the economy finally straightens out.


On May 07 10:47 AM jr007 wrote:

> Like it ..or not, things are getting better in the market. Those
> in denial..will be left stewing in their own lost opportunities.
> The Republican shorters will get their "Just Dues". Sorry.]]> Thu, 07 May 2009 13:13:03 -0400
Volitility has made for easy pickings -- I'll be sad when the economy finally straightens out.


On May 07 10:47 AM jr007 wrote:

> Like it ..or not, things are getting better in the market. Those
> in denial..will be left stewing in their own lost opportunities.
> The Republican shorters will get their "Just Dues". Sorry.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125864-ge-s-immelt-thinks-for-himself-u-s-not-shifting-to-a-service-economy?source=feed#comment-424786 424786
1) Americans will have the math and science background to continue leading innovation.
2) Americans will be educated enough to not vote for the morons who wind up in Washington year after year.
3) Americans will commit few violent crimes.
4) America will produce visionary leaders rather than followers.]]> Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:51:01 -0400
1) Americans will have the math and science background to continue leading innovation.
2) Americans will be educated enough to not vote for the morons who wind up in Washington year after year.
3) Americans will commit few violent crimes.
4) America will produce visionary leaders rather than followers.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124047-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-412940 412940 > the rich will do?

Bombs, bullets and bailouts aren't cheap. If you're only going to parrot talking points and not offer solutions, zip it.

>Raising taxes on corporations and upper income people will reduce the total >revenue the government actually receives and will reduce jobs. This has >ALWAYS proven to be true historically.

Actually, it hasn't. Reagan's initial tax increase did the opposite and helped stabilize a crap economy.
]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:16:36 -0500 > the rich will do?

Bombs, bullets and bailouts aren't cheap. If you're only going to parrot talking points and not offer solutions, zip it.

>Raising taxes on corporations and upper income people will reduce the total >revenue the government actually receives and will reduce jobs. This has >ALWAYS proven to be true historically.

Actually, it hasn't. Reagan's initial tax increase did the opposite and helped stabilize a crap economy.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/119892-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-384307 384307
Politicians are identical: People very good at fundraising and very little else.

On Feb 11 09:07 AM ChipSeal wrote:

> "Obama officials called the minimal details intentional"
>
> This is because they are in campaign mode. Be vague, make general
> statements about your goals but don't commit to specifics. This way,
> each member of your audience will impute his own favored solution
> into your remarks and support the idea! Once it is being implemented,
> it will be too late.]]> Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:06:36 -0500
Politicians are identical: People very good at fundraising and very little else.

On Feb 11 09:07 AM ChipSeal wrote:

> "Obama officials called the minimal details intentional"
>
> This is because they are in campaign mode. Be vague, make general
> statements about your goals but don't commit to specifics. This way,
> each member of your audience will impute his own favored solution
> into your remarks and support the idea! Once it is being implemented,
> it will be too late.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/118982-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-378641 378641
On Feb 06 12:48 PM Bob Davidson wrote:

> Mr Obama says if we don't do as he says we will lose another five
> million jobs, and Nancy Pelosi says we will lose more that that.
> How can that be if there are onlly a little over three million people
> living in the US?????]]> Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:25:33 -0500
On Feb 06 12:48 PM Bob Davidson wrote:

> Mr Obama says if we don't do as he says we will lose another five
> million jobs, and Nancy Pelosi says we will lose more that that.
> How can that be if there are onlly a little over three million people
> living in the US?????]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/118383-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-375737 375737
And with Dems on the trial lawyers' payroll, the chance for action in that area is long gone.]]> Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:32:53 -0500
And with Dems on the trial lawyers' payroll, the chance for action in that area is long gone.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/118115-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-374606 374606
It must be Tuesday.]]> Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:16:37 -0500
It must be Tuesday.]]>