bthomas

Friday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

Demark indicators are used to anticipate trend reversals.


On Apr 24 07:33 PM cma cma wrote:

> David, you sometimes post the Demark chart, which is great, since
> no one else does, but we need the interpretation, please!

Friday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

Nonsense,
Turn off the PlayStation and read a book. Learn a little more about charts before commenting. I am certain it is nonsense to the ignorant. David Fry is one of the best informed, most straight talking authors on the SA sight. Get a clue!


On Apr 24 05:47 AM Nonsense wrote:

> Use your keyboard more. Communicate better what it is you are trying
> to tell us.
>
> Any stiff can copy/paste a collage of charts in a blog.

Friday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

Congress wastes the taxpayers' time going after government employees (technically 80% gov. stake). If senate goes along, the courts will likely declare it unconstitutional. The lawmakers need to focus on the deregulation issue that allowed this abuse. So GS was hedged against an AIG bankruptcy. Who insured it? AIG? Are we certain bankruptcy would have been worse? Glass Steagall or something better, (unlikely, I know) must be (re) instated. This keeps the giddy bankers aware they are playing with other people's money. They smeared the line like a one year old with his birthday cake. Lax regulation, when everyone was flush with cash, home values only rising, money was free, -that's what got us here as greed ruled the day. We must go From '08, '09 back to depression era regulatory policy.The deja vu all over again thing (thanks Yogi). We must blame ourselves, not the least of which: Phil, Alan, Billy, Bobby and "under the big" top Sandy. I am certain none feel personally responsible, as the "Maestro" has already stated he is not. Hold on kids inflation is coming.

Tuesday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets

A major problem is that expediency seldom is profitable when liquidation is concerned. The easiest sold segment is rarely the most profitable. It will likely be pennies on the dollar for the taxpayer in this method. Since we're 'in to win', the long haul is going to prove better at serving the public good. The complex derivative nonsense can be unwound etc. Time will tell. BTW. Where is Paulson these days. AIG gives GS the payout and Buffet gets a guaranteed 10%. Can you say subpoena? That's right. Paulson has immunity?


On Mar 17 07:27 AM unfaire wrote:

> I opposed the TARP. I smelt something fishy from the very beginning.
> It turned out that I was right. Most of those who got the TARP money
> are double dipping, or even triple dipping. It goes this way:
> 1. I lost billions buying some crappy financial instrument like CDS
> from, say, AIG and other cohorts.
> 2. Give me billions, tax payers, so that I can stay in business.
> I am too big to fail.
> 3. So, I got billions of tax payers’ money.
> 4. AIG as well as all the cohorts also got billions of tax payers’
> money.
> 5. Since and AIG and all the cohorts are flush with tax payers’ money,
> take back from me those crappy financial instrument and pay me in
> full.
> 6. Now, AIG and all the cohorts including me got back those crappy
> financial instruments, I am in poor house again. Tax payers please
> make me full again by giving me billions.
> 7. And, the cycle goes on again.
> Under the guise of too big to fail, we tax payers are continue to
> be taken for suckers. It is still not too late to:
> 1. Stop bailing them out.
> 2. Sell off various parts of the failing financial institutions in
> piece meal under the government supervision.
> 3. Give back the tax payers first whatever that can be recovered
> from the sale.
> 4. If there is any left, let the other stakeholders have them.<br/>In
> a capitalist society, when the price is right, i.e., cheap enough
> so that some pieces of these failing institutions can be made profitable,
> there will be someone who would buy them and make money from them.
> In doing so, most of these pieces will be healthy again and making
> money by themselves without any more of tax payers’ money.
> Bernanke said very well. I believe this is what he meant: When the
> politicians do not have the will to go against the self interests
> of the financial biggies, neglecting the well being of the all the
> rest including us the tax payers and who put them in office, we will
> never solve the problem.