Oracle of Omaha Warns of 'Onslaught of Inflation' [View article]
Every U.S. war since 1900 has been paid for with equity, not income (excl. Kuwait War paid by Japan Inc). Example, did WWII bonds retain their value 5 - 10 -15 years later? Post-Vietnam 1973 - look at inflation for the next 10 years as govt prints more money to monetize the debt. Iraq war: average cost per soldier per year $800,000 - give OPEC and China bad paper for their good oil and products.
Also, how do you get non-manuf workers and govt workers to take a pay cut in hard times? Answer, inflate away their fixed salaries: teachers, police officers, SS retirees - print 10% more money = pay cut of 10%.
The feds have a strong incentive to inflate as the world's largest debtor.
Is 'Buy and Hold' an Antiquated Theory? [View article]
Buy and hold works in only one case: businesses increase dividends, not cut them, to encourage investment in their company. Like buying a CD, that encourages families to save now because of increased consumption in the future, not just a hoped for promise of capital gains.
Of all the stakeholders in a business, e.g. govt taxes, employees, etc., the distant owners get the least and the last, meaning after everyone else gets their cut - the poster child is GM.
During this decade, I read financial commentators talking about a "mouth-watering" 3 % dividend - you have got to be kidding! Give the shareholders a real return on their investment since mgt does not need the cash for growth (and growth for its own sake - questionable benefit). How about a real return: spendable cash to me of 7% on my stock price!
Oracle of Omaha Warns of 'Onslaught of Inflation' [View article]
Also, how do you get non-manuf workers and govt workers to take a pay cut in hard times? Answer, inflate away their fixed salaries: teachers, police officers, SS retirees - print 10% more money = pay cut of 10%.
The feds have a strong incentive to inflate as the world's largest debtor.
Is 'Buy and Hold' an Antiquated Theory? [View article]
Of all the stakeholders in a business, e.g. govt taxes, employees, etc., the distant owners get the least and the last, meaning after everyone else gets their cut - the poster child is GM.
During this decade, I read financial commentators talking about a "mouth-watering" 3 % dividend - you have got to be kidding! Give the shareholders a real return on their investment since mgt does not need the cash for growth (and growth for its own sake - questionable benefit). How about a real return: spendable cash to me of 7% on my stock price!