GeminiAtlas's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/265626/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/176831-jim-grant-on-the-faith-based-dollar?source=feed#comment-794227 794227
From The Prince:
COMMENCING then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal [generous]. Nevertheless, liberality [generousness] exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite. Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him odious to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by whatever may be the first danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of being miserly.
Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality in such a way that it is recognized, except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean [frugal], for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few.

On Dec 07 07:38 AM Leftfield wrote:

> The dollar, backed by the words of Congress, Nixon and the Fed/Wall
> St., doesn't buy a decent pack of gum now. It doesn't take enough
> of them to buy Congress, however.
>
> Government paper, in all it's forms, is now only meant to last long
> enough to establish (enthrone) the greediest, most Machiavellian
> insiders who can play the game of smoke and mirrors the best. While
> it is still worth something, they get their greedy hands on it first.
> Most Americans are settling for the crumbs that fall off the table
> last.
>
> Too many are now rent-seekers themselves, settling for the package
> of decline and deception that still offers the easiest short-term
> benefits for them. Only a sufficient number of Americans willing
> to wake up and act, if only to repeatedly vote out incumbents, may
> yet save us from the worst of one of history's greatest travesties.]]> Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:42:46 -0500
From The Prince:
COMMENCING then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal [generous]. Nevertheless, liberality [generousness] exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite. Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him odious to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by whatever may be the first danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of being miserly.
Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality in such a way that it is recognized, except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean [frugal], for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few.

On Dec 07 07:38 AM Leftfield wrote:

> The dollar, backed by the words of Congress, Nixon and the Fed/Wall
> St., doesn't buy a decent pack of gum now. It doesn't take enough
> of them to buy Congress, however.
>
> Government paper, in all it's forms, is now only meant to last long
> enough to establish (enthrone) the greediest, most Machiavellian
> insiders who can play the game of smoke and mirrors the best. While
> it is still worth something, they get their greedy hands on it first.
> Most Americans are settling for the crumbs that fall off the table
> last.
>
> Too many are now rent-seekers themselves, settling for the package
> of decline and deception that still offers the easiest short-term
> benefits for them. Only a sufficient number of Americans willing
> to wake up and act, if only to repeatedly vote out incumbents, may
> yet save us from the worst of one of history's greatest travesties.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174421-as-gross-says-the-fed-provides-return-free-risk?source=feed#comment-768614 768614 On another note, not that I'm into conspiracy theories, but it does seem to me there are those banks and institutions on the "inside" (ahem, GS) with everybody else left outside of the loop. Classic "pump and dump" exercise, except that if it is the mob that does it, they go to jail, but if it is the Fed helping out a few friends, it's "sound monetary policy."


On Nov 20 03:03 AM Ad Orientem wrote:

> Spot on. There is only one rational explanation for the concurrent
> rise in the bond market, equities, and commodities... and that is
> the ocean of liquidity that is desperately looking for a place to
> go. What we are witnessing is just the tip of the inflation iceberg.
>
>
> The next time someone says there is no inflation ask them what is
> driving up all of these different and often opposed asset classes
> at the same time.]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:13:22 -0500 On another note, not that I'm into conspiracy theories, but it does seem to me there are those banks and institutions on the "inside" (ahem, GS) with everybody else left outside of the loop. Classic "pump and dump" exercise, except that if it is the mob that does it, they go to jail, but if it is the Fed helping out a few friends, it's "sound monetary policy."


On Nov 20 03:03 AM Ad Orientem wrote:

> Spot on. There is only one rational explanation for the concurrent
> rise in the bond market, equities, and commodities... and that is
> the ocean of liquidity that is desperately looking for a place to
> go. What we are witnessing is just the tip of the inflation iceberg.
>
>
> The next time someone says there is no inflation ask them what is
> driving up all of these different and often opposed asset classes
> at the same time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174423-bill-gross-anything-but-0-01?source=feed#comment-768571 768571

On Nov 20 01:48 AM History Buff 24/7 wrote:

> So you heard about the coming Eggo shortage because of problems in
> two of the manufacturing plants for them?]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:44:39 -0500

On Nov 20 01:48 AM History Buff 24/7 wrote:

> So you heard about the coming Eggo shortage because of problems in
> two of the manufacturing plants for them?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174423-bill-gross-anything-but-0-01?source=feed#comment-768569 768569

On Nov 20 01:48 AM History Buff 24/7 wrote:

> So you heard about the coming Eggo shortage because of problems in
> two of the manufacturing plants for them?]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:43:25 -0500

On Nov 20 01:48 AM History Buff 24/7 wrote:

> So you heard about the coming Eggo shortage because of problems in
> two of the manufacturing plants for them?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172254-stock-market-returns-lost-in-translation?source=feed#comment-754339 754339 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:36:59 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/172185-why-won-t-obama-just-create-the-jobs?source=feed#comment-753045 753045 Big puzzle to me as well. Why would they be so focused on the short-term in any case (a la stimulus)? Just to create jobs that last a year and then go away thereafter. Why? That makes no sense. The exact solution is to let things work themselves out to create better jobs that stick around for a little bit. The stimulus just creates zombie jobs that add no value to the economy except as a vote to entrenched politicians. Ahh, now I understand...]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:27:33 -0500 Big puzzle to me as well. Why would they be so focused on the short-term in any case (a la stimulus)? Just to create jobs that last a year and then go away thereafter. Why? That makes no sense. The exact solution is to let things work themselves out to create better jobs that stick around for a little bit. The stimulus just creates zombie jobs that add no value to the economy except as a vote to entrenched politicians. Ahh, now I understand...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171078-the-demise-of-japan-as-an-economic-power?source=feed#comment-746978 746978 The role that the Japanese goverment has played in the business affairs has created more or less a state capitalist society ( i.e. Japan, Inc.) or neo-mercantalist policies to produce an export driven economy. Basically the investment decisions are driven by high level industrial policy of the government. So investments haven't gone to what the Japanese domestic population would want to buy. Also, would add to Jim's comment that the high level of government intervention also produced risk averse enterprises, or at least 'zombie' entities that produce less value than they are worth.


On Nov 05 04:35 PM Nagano Jim wrote:

> I disagree with the premise of the article. The problem is not that
> the Japanese don't spend enough. Nations do not become wealthy because
> simply because their people spend a lot. This is kind of like saying
> a child becomes tall because he eats a lot. If the child is not growing,
> eating a lot will just make him fat. What makes the child taller
> is growth. That Japan's citizens don't spend a lot is a symptom,
> not the disease.
> To generate growth, the private enterprise in a nation must create
> new and better products and services. What made Japan flourish in
> the 1970s and 1980s was primarily that its manufacturing might was
> constantly finding new ways to produce high quality products that
> people wanted faster, cheaper, and at better quality.
> What Japan needs now is a major injection of entrepreneurship. I
> read a statistic somewhere recently that as much as 80% of all the
> companies in Japan date from the Meiji period (starting in the 1860s).
> Japan needs to unleash its creative minds to generate the new items
> and services that will capture the world's imagination. It needs
> to remove the barriers in its legal and economic system that are
> strangling entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is risk taking, and
> the Japanese are highly risk averse. Therefore, there needs to be
> a concerted push to come from the top to get people to try to make
> their ideas into reality. Only then will Japan be able to create
> value and start to significantly grow again.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:18:25 -0500 The role that the Japanese goverment has played in the business affairs has created more or less a state capitalist society ( i.e. Japan, Inc.) or neo-mercantalist policies to produce an export driven economy. Basically the investment decisions are driven by high level industrial policy of the government. So investments haven't gone to what the Japanese domestic population would want to buy. Also, would add to Jim's comment that the high level of government intervention also produced risk averse enterprises, or at least 'zombie' entities that produce less value than they are worth.


On Nov 05 04:35 PM Nagano Jim wrote:

> I disagree with the premise of the article. The problem is not that
> the Japanese don't spend enough. Nations do not become wealthy because
> simply because their people spend a lot. This is kind of like saying
> a child becomes tall because he eats a lot. If the child is not growing,
> eating a lot will just make him fat. What makes the child taller
> is growth. That Japan's citizens don't spend a lot is a symptom,
> not the disease.
> To generate growth, the private enterprise in a nation must create
> new and better products and services. What made Japan flourish in
> the 1970s and 1980s was primarily that its manufacturing might was
> constantly finding new ways to produce high quality products that
> people wanted faster, cheaper, and at better quality.
> What Japan needs now is a major injection of entrepreneurship. I
> read a statistic somewhere recently that as much as 80% of all the
> companies in Japan date from the Meiji period (starting in the 1860s).
> Japan needs to unleash its creative minds to generate the new items
> and services that will capture the world's imagination. It needs
> to remove the barriers in its legal and economic system that are
> strangling entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is risk taking, and
> the Japanese are highly risk averse. Therefore, there needs to be
> a concerted push to come from the top to get people to try to make
> their ideas into reality. Only then will Japan be able to create
> value and start to significantly grow again.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169559-is-this-the-end-of-too-big-to-fail?source=feed#comment-735624 735624
In any case, if they are too big to fail, it means they are too big, period. Accordingly they would need to be charged a risk premium to be "too big to fail" as right now they are free-riding the risk to the taxpayers. Since the congress is so keen on "progressive" tax schemes, then maybe it can be progressive in leverage ratios (fat chance). in that regard, the risk premium to be paid would be in reigned-in lending ratios. Basically, the bigger you are as a bank, the more conservative the lending ratio you are allowed. So the huge mega-banks are required to be 10-to-1 or something like that, and the smaller regional banks can be allowed a higher ratio, since if they fail, it is not systemically risky as if Citi were to founder. Of course, one might suppose that the big banks might try to make riskier loans to make more money under such a regime. But that would happen anyways, much better bad loans at 10:1 then 30:1. On another note, under such a scheme, maybe the big banks would be "encouraged" to spin-off/sell-off disparate operations/portfolios into different smaller companies in order to shrink themselves and be able to lend at higher ratios again. ]]> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:03:24 -0400
In any case, if they are too big to fail, it means they are too big, period. Accordingly they would need to be charged a risk premium to be "too big to fail" as right now they are free-riding the risk to the taxpayers. Since the congress is so keen on "progressive" tax schemes, then maybe it can be progressive in leverage ratios (fat chance). in that regard, the risk premium to be paid would be in reigned-in lending ratios. Basically, the bigger you are as a bank, the more conservative the lending ratio you are allowed. So the huge mega-banks are required to be 10-to-1 or something like that, and the smaller regional banks can be allowed a higher ratio, since if they fail, it is not systemically risky as if Citi were to founder. Of course, one might suppose that the big banks might try to make riskier loans to make more money under such a regime. But that would happen anyways, much better bad loans at 10:1 then 30:1. On another note, under such a scheme, maybe the big banks would be "encouraged" to spin-off/sell-off disparate operations/portfolios into different smaller companies in order to shrink themselves and be able to lend at higher ratios again. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169710-why-too-big-to-fail-shouldn-t-be-codified?source=feed#comment-735555 735555 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:25:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/165420-the-great-shift-china-rising-u-s-falling?source=feed#comment-708823 708823 I would add that some other trends are emerging in manufacturing which might render the manufacturing investments China has made obsolete.
There is the myth of US "de-industrialization." The manufacturing jobs have declined but overall industrial output is as high as ever due to ever increasing automation. This will probably continue until it's much like the agricultural industry, 1%-2% of the population to run the robots that make everything and more of it each year.
The percentage of GDP relative to overall GDP attributed to Manufacturing will also shrink, but there will still be more "stuff" that is made. This trend is also starting to take hold in sectors of the service industries. Have you called up a travel agent lately to book airline flights? I thought not. Increasing levels of automation and innovation will continue these trends. Soon we might have robots making other robots that perform services, such as cleaning or fighting wars, etc. for us (roomba anyone?).
Even in engineering, I see these trends, increasing use of ever-more powerful software that automates certain low-level engineering design work are increasing the output of each engineer. The effect is better designed products that are developed with increasingly faster product-development cycle times.
Also, the diversity of products being designed are proliferating. The cost-effectiveness of these products will come from "flexible" manufacturing cabilities that can run low-number production numbers easiliy and with less and less set-up costs. Pretty soon, the cost/part of a one-off part will be almost the same as a million part-run. Companies will be able to make parts "on-demand" and thus try out ideas quickly, letting the market itself tell them to make more or not. Read about "the long tail" coined by Chris Anderson to get the idea. What effect will this have on jobs? Well, I'll tell you, those that are the most creative, the most agile, most networked, most innovative will be the winners, and those that cling to the way things are will be the losers. And the need for strong technical skills is a plus but increasingly, even those are becoming "commoditized" so that even those without technical skill but have creativity, can compete by having good ideas and "innovation networks" to get the idea out there. Incidently, the cost of failure is getting lower and lower (due to the agile manufacturing mentioned above) and the fact that one can "rent" the talent/resources on-demand, and thus there is no need to invest (take the added risk) in capital equipment/skills that you can just contract out to someone who specialized in that area. Of course, that also means you have competition from everyone else too, but that will make everyone better I hope. ]]> Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:24:07 -0400 I would add that some other trends are emerging in manufacturing which might render the manufacturing investments China has made obsolete.
There is the myth of US "de-industrialization." The manufacturing jobs have declined but overall industrial output is as high as ever due to ever increasing automation. This will probably continue until it's much like the agricultural industry, 1%-2% of the population to run the robots that make everything and more of it each year.
The percentage of GDP relative to overall GDP attributed to Manufacturing will also shrink, but there will still be more "stuff" that is made. This trend is also starting to take hold in sectors of the service industries. Have you called up a travel agent lately to book airline flights? I thought not. Increasing levels of automation and innovation will continue these trends. Soon we might have robots making other robots that perform services, such as cleaning or fighting wars, etc. for us (roomba anyone?).
Even in engineering, I see these trends, increasing use of ever-more powerful software that automates certain low-level engineering design work are increasing the output of each engineer. The effect is better designed products that are developed with increasingly faster product-development cycle times.
Also, the diversity of products being designed are proliferating. The cost-effectiveness of these products will come from "flexible" manufacturing cabilities that can run low-number production numbers easiliy and with less and less set-up costs. Pretty soon, the cost/part of a one-off part will be almost the same as a million part-run. Companies will be able to make parts "on-demand" and thus try out ideas quickly, letting the market itself tell them to make more or not. Read about "the long tail" coined by Chris Anderson to get the idea. What effect will this have on jobs? Well, I'll tell you, those that are the most creative, the most agile, most networked, most innovative will be the winners, and those that cling to the way things are will be the losers. And the need for strong technical skills is a plus but increasingly, even those are becoming "commoditized" so that even those without technical skill but have creativity, can compete by having good ideas and "innovation networks" to get the idea out there. Incidently, the cost of failure is getting lower and lower (due to the agile manufacturing mentioned above) and the fact that one can "rent" the talent/resources on-demand, and thus there is no need to invest (take the added risk) in capital equipment/skills that you can just contract out to someone who specialized in that area. Of course, that also means you have competition from everyone else too, but that will make everyone better I hope. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/165026-is-there-really-a-global-cabal-aiming-to-dump-the-dollar?source=feed#comment-705872 705872 The Chinese with its hand on the "dump the dollar button" and the US with its hand on the "Monetize the debt" button. Beads of sweat gather on Uncle Sam's brow, the Dragon's eye twitches slightly. Makes for a good movie. I'll have to make some popcorn and watch the show...]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:59:25 -0400 The Chinese with its hand on the "dump the dollar button" and the US with its hand on the "Monetize the debt" button. Beads of sweat gather on Uncle Sam's brow, the Dragon's eye twitches slightly. Makes for a good movie. I'll have to make some popcorn and watch the show...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161802-will-the-dollar-decline-forever?source=feed#comment-679210 679210 Except it lets them (congress) spend more than they receive in revenues so that eventually money supply is inflated to pay off its debts in depreciated money. I bet they laugh too "haha, suckers!"]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:18:44 -0400 Except it lets them (congress) spend more than they receive in revenues so that eventually money supply is inflated to pay off its debts in depreciated money. I bet they laugh too "haha, suckers!"]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160360-why-u-s-government-should-cut-federal-workers-lavish-compensation?source=feed#comment-673352 673352 I fully expect never to collect a dime from these programs (as I have probably 35 more years of work ahead of me), so I am planning accordingly. Many of my cohorts know this too. They wouldn't be too surprised to see these programs eliminated either. Of course to eliminate them, it should be phased out over 10 years or more. ]]> Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:00:03 -0400 I fully expect never to collect a dime from these programs (as I have probably 35 more years of work ahead of me), so I am planning accordingly. Many of my cohorts know this too. They wouldn't be too surprised to see these programs eliminated either. Of course to eliminate them, it should be phased out over 10 years or more. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160360-why-u-s-government-should-cut-federal-workers-lavish-compensation?source=feed#comment-667353 667353 I'm not sure we're comparing apples to apples here. I would like to know how the numbers came about. Are they comparing the same job-types? The federal gov't would tend to have a lot more white collar types (i.e. lawyers, engineers, scientists, accountants).
Also, I would want to know what the breakouts are. What is salary, health, especially what is the OH or Overhead which would be illuminating. This reminds me about the gender pay gap myth. Once every other variable is controlled for, that gap disappears.
Also, what would happen if they also counted the Military personnel as part of this Federal workforce number? I'm sure the aggregate would go down as the officers/enlisted don't get paid that much.


On Sep 08 10:28 AM JOHNCHAP2 wrote:

> Your simplistic presentation substantially distorts the real truth.
> Comparing federal employment which is very heavily weighted in professional
> and white collar jobs to the working population as a whole where
> blue collar and non skilled labor make up a large percentage is simply
> either a dishonest or incompetent comparison. It appears to be the
> same type of distortions that have entered into the anti health reform
> debate that we are currently seeing.
>
> Most of the compensation comparisons, which are required by law to
> be conducted on a job by job basis, show that the Feds lag behind
> the private sector. While it is admittedly an outlier example, look
> at the $175K income of a Cabinet Secretary (e.g., DOD) versus the
> tens of millions of dollars received by top executives in the private
> sector. Now I would call those megabuck compensation packages to
> the CEOs, many of failing companies, lavish.
>
> It is true that Federal employment looks really enticing in times
> of economic instability. But most of the time over the last 40 years
> or so most people looked down with distain on Federal emplyoyment
> and would never consider working for the Feds.]]> Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:26:23 -0400 I'm not sure we're comparing apples to apples here. I would like to know how the numbers came about. Are they comparing the same job-types? The federal gov't would tend to have a lot more white collar types (i.e. lawyers, engineers, scientists, accountants).
Also, I would want to know what the breakouts are. What is salary, health, especially what is the OH or Overhead which would be illuminating. This reminds me about the gender pay gap myth. Once every other variable is controlled for, that gap disappears.
Also, what would happen if they also counted the Military personnel as part of this Federal workforce number? I'm sure the aggregate would go down as the officers/enlisted don't get paid that much.


On Sep 08 10:28 AM JOHNCHAP2 wrote:

> Your simplistic presentation substantially distorts the real truth.
> Comparing federal employment which is very heavily weighted in professional
> and white collar jobs to the working population as a whole where
> blue collar and non skilled labor make up a large percentage is simply
> either a dishonest or incompetent comparison. It appears to be the
> same type of distortions that have entered into the anti health reform
> debate that we are currently seeing.
>
> Most of the compensation comparisons, which are required by law to
> be conducted on a job by job basis, show that the Feds lag behind
> the private sector. While it is admittedly an outlier example, look
> at the $175K income of a Cabinet Secretary (e.g., DOD) versus the
> tens of millions of dollars received by top executives in the private
> sector. Now I would call those megabuck compensation packages to
> the CEOs, many of failing companies, lavish.
>
> It is true that Federal employment looks really enticing in times
> of economic instability. But most of the time over the last 40 years
> or so most people looked down with distain on Federal emplyoyment
> and would never consider working for the Feds.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159728-four-problems-undermining-future-american-prosperity?source=feed#comment-663137 663137 But soon the devaluation way is the only way they will be able to go as the debt becomes unserviceable, unless other foreign governments start to demand that our public debts be denominated in their currencies. In one way (long term), that would be good if that happened as it would force some discipline on the Congress because they don't control the printing press of other countries. In the short term, it would have other more burdensome consequences.

On Sep 03 02:03 PM fjd10595 wrote:

> If it doesnt' is still impacts our kids, won't they pay the price
> of devaluation.]]> Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:45:36 -0400 But soon the devaluation way is the only way they will be able to go as the debt becomes unserviceable, unless other foreign governments start to demand that our public debts be denominated in their currencies. In one way (long term), that would be good if that happened as it would force some discipline on the Congress because they don't control the printing press of other countries. In the short term, it would have other more burdensome consequences.

On Sep 03 02:03 PM fjd10595 wrote:

> If it doesnt' is still impacts our kids, won't they pay the price
> of devaluation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159908-jobless-claims-stuck-at-570-000?source=feed#comment-661434 661434 And a few years from now , we'll be wondering about a sudden drop in new healthcare workers who are already desperately needed.

On Sep 03 10:10 PM Joe Shareholder wrote:

> Why would anyone be hiring right now with as much uncertainty as
> there is out there. Obama's cap and trade certainly isn't industry
> friendly, and neither are the tax increases Obama has hit businesses
> with. Add health care increases because someone has to pay for the
> public option. Simply put, zero incentive.]]> Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:30:53 -0400 And a few years from now , we'll be wondering about a sudden drop in new healthcare workers who are already desperately needed.

On Sep 03 10:10 PM Joe Shareholder wrote:

> Why would anyone be hiring right now with as much uncertainty as
> there is out there. Obama's cap and trade certainly isn't industry
> friendly, and neither are the tax increases Obama has hit businesses
> with. Add health care increases because someone has to pay for the
> public option. Simply put, zero incentive.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159728-four-problems-undermining-future-american-prosperity?source=feed#comment-660249 660249
On Sep 03 09:32 AM MPT failed wrote:

> Yes, who said Medicare is a "good program?" El Presidente says its
> costs are out of control. How could any Congress be dumb enough to
> pass and open ended program that says "We will pay for everything
> you, your family or your doctor wants--forever?" A 12 year old could
> have predicted that the costs would bankrupt the country. But nobody
> has the guts to say how we are going to limit the costs (you can
> call it rationing or death panels, but it is all about reducing costs).
> Instead they want to create a smokescreen of an all new healthcare
> system so they can sneak rationing in without ever having a public
> discussion. We need to turn out this entire Congress of Baby Kissers
> and put in smater, more honest people for limited terms.]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:34:28 -0400
On Sep 03 09:32 AM MPT failed wrote:

> Yes, who said Medicare is a "good program?" El Presidente says its
> costs are out of control. How could any Congress be dumb enough to
> pass and open ended program that says "We will pay for everything
> you, your family or your doctor wants--forever?" A 12 year old could
> have predicted that the costs would bankrupt the country. But nobody
> has the guts to say how we are going to limit the costs (you can
> call it rationing or death panels, but it is all about reducing costs).
> Instead they want to create a smokescreen of an all new healthcare
> system so they can sneak rationing in without ever having a public
> discussion. We need to turn out this entire Congress of Baby Kissers
> and put in smater, more honest people for limited terms.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159728-four-problems-undermining-future-american-prosperity?source=feed#comment-660209 660209 Basically, the problem is the the congress is not following the Constitution by guaranteeing "equal protection under the law" which of course would imply equal treatment under the law. Of course, special tax breaks, subsidies for some groups, surtaxes for others, different tax rates for different types of economic activity (saving vs. consuming vs. investing), heavy regulation for this industry, light regulation for that industry does not seem to be "equal treatment."


On Sep 03 09:38 AM acttang wrote:

> The hatred toward wealth, such as expressed here, was the root of
> the revolutions that swept half of the earth from the beginning to
> the middle of the last century. As long as the wealth is accumulated
> via legal ways, forced redistribution brings more problems than it
> solves, in a long run. It isn't a coincidence that almost all communist
> countries, formed as a result of forced wealth redistribution, typically
> headed by a passionate leader with misguided sense of social fairness,
> eventually disappeared. Because eventually, a sustainable and prosperous
> society is one that rewards the risk takers with wealth.
>
> On Sep 03 07:29 AM Michael Clark wrote:]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:22:55 -0400 Basically, the problem is the the congress is not following the Constitution by guaranteeing "equal protection under the law" which of course would imply equal treatment under the law. Of course, special tax breaks, subsidies for some groups, surtaxes for others, different tax rates for different types of economic activity (saving vs. consuming vs. investing), heavy regulation for this industry, light regulation for that industry does not seem to be "equal treatment."


On Sep 03 09:38 AM acttang wrote:

> The hatred toward wealth, such as expressed here, was the root of
> the revolutions that swept half of the earth from the beginning to
> the middle of the last century. As long as the wealth is accumulated
> via legal ways, forced redistribution brings more problems than it
> solves, in a long run. It isn't a coincidence that almost all communist
> countries, formed as a result of forced wealth redistribution, typically
> headed by a passionate leader with misguided sense of social fairness,
> eventually disappeared. Because eventually, a sustainable and prosperous
> society is one that rewards the risk takers with wealth.
>
> On Sep 03 07:29 AM Michael Clark wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159321-bloomberg-vs-the-fed-secrecy-and-moral-hazard?source=feed#comment-656634 656634

On Sep 01 07:41 AM nyse 30 wrote:

> big banks will win big from the collapse as they will prosper even
> when DJIA will be 5000, in the end only up to 30 banks will remain
> in US]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:33:56 -0400

On Sep 01 07:41 AM nyse 30 wrote:

> big banks will win big from the collapse as they will prosper even
> when DJIA will be 5000, in the end only up to 30 banks will remain
> in US]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158620-healthcare-education-two-reasons-to-worry-about-america-s-future?source=feed#comment-649109 649109 HFCS). The subsidies also make other "better-for-you" foods more expensive having less land to grow on because corn is grown on the land to make more Uncle Sugar money (pun intended). So the already-dumbed down populace can't afford better foods to eat, because their jobs suck because they don't have an education, so they buy the food they can afford which makes them fat, which then lowers job expectations because who really wants to hire fat people, etc.
The solution would be to stop giving subsidies for food and let the "free market" sort things out. Of course ADM...er, I mean, the senators from a lot of big flat states would not allow that to happen.
As far as public education problem, the teacher's unions need to be broken somehow (not sure how that could be done). Does anybody else get tenure and summer's off for their jobs? I know I don't. Teachers continually complain about not being paid enough. Well, that's because of the summer off and tenure. If the dead-wood could get fired easier like the rest of us and worked the whole year (because parents could pay more to the school instead of having to pay for day-care for the summer), then they would be better compensated for making a better product. In this case a better educated student.


On Aug 27 09:34 AM enigmaman wrote:

> on one hand you have a problem where the free market have caused
> a weight problem in America because they have the right to choose
> and they have chosen to be fat, on the other hand you have a dumbed
> down populace due to our poor Public School system because in America
> most dont have the ability to choose because the Gov has chosen for
> you. You imply to worry about our future because of these but then
> focus on how to profit from its failure, maybe thats exactly why
> we have the problems we have today and thats why we see the erosion
> of our free market system being orchestrated by the Administration,
> now nobody wins]]> Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:15:37 -0400 HFCS). The subsidies also make other "better-for-you" foods more expensive having less land to grow on because corn is grown on the land to make more Uncle Sugar money (pun intended). So the already-dumbed down populace can't afford better foods to eat, because their jobs suck because they don't have an education, so they buy the food they can afford which makes them fat, which then lowers job expectations because who really wants to hire fat people, etc.
The solution would be to stop giving subsidies for food and let the "free market" sort things out. Of course ADM...er, I mean, the senators from a lot of big flat states would not allow that to happen.
As far as public education problem, the teacher's unions need to be broken somehow (not sure how that could be done). Does anybody else get tenure and summer's off for their jobs? I know I don't. Teachers continually complain about not being paid enough. Well, that's because of the summer off and tenure. If the dead-wood could get fired easier like the rest of us and worked the whole year (because parents could pay more to the school instead of having to pay for day-care for the summer), then they would be better compensated for making a better product. In this case a better educated student.


On Aug 27 09:34 AM enigmaman wrote:

> on one hand you have a problem where the free market have caused
> a weight problem in America because they have the right to choose
> and they have chosen to be fat, on the other hand you have a dumbed
> down populace due to our poor Public School system because in America
> most dont have the ability to choose because the Gov has chosen for
> you. You imply to worry about our future because of these but then
> focus on how to profit from its failure, maybe thats exactly why
> we have the problems we have today and thats why we see the erosion
> of our free market system being orchestrated by the Administration,
> now nobody wins]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157079-cash-for-clunkers-wasteful-and-stupid?source=feed#comment-637141 637141 As they say, "don't hate the player, hate the game"
I also second the statement that our "leaders" (I use this term loosely) have only vague, often erroneous conception of even the rudiments of the dismal science.


On Aug 19 02:57 PM Donn Soderquist wrote:

> My 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee was not going to make it much longer,
> needing around $2000 in repairs to make it last another 2 years.
> My new KIA Sportage LX V-6 was made in Korea, so the UAW got no help
> from me. Price was $200 over invoice. $3000 KIA rebate. $4500 Cash
> for Clunkers. 100,000 mile warranty, not 30,000. I wrote a check
> for $16,500. Super deal thanks to the financial idiots in Congress
> and the White House.]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:34:22 -0400 As they say, "don't hate the player, hate the game"
I also second the statement that our "leaders" (I use this term loosely) have only vague, often erroneous conception of even the rudiments of the dismal science.


On Aug 19 02:57 PM Donn Soderquist wrote:

> My 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee was not going to make it much longer,
> needing around $2000 in repairs to make it last another 2 years.
> My new KIA Sportage LX V-6 was made in Korea, so the UAW got no help
> from me. Price was $200 over invoice. $3000 KIA rebate. $4500 Cash
> for Clunkers. 100,000 mile warranty, not 30,000. I wrote a check
> for $16,500. Super deal thanks to the financial idiots in Congress
> and the White House.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157079-cash-for-clunkers-wasteful-and-stupid?source=feed#comment-637129 637129 Because many of the cars and parts will then be crushed or otherwise disposed of, the amount of spare parts for older cars will dwindle. Supply and demand people! What will happen? The poor saps..er, I mean people, looking to fix their old jalopies will find that the parts will be harder to come by and therefore more expensive. And I thought Pres. Obama was trying help the po' common folk. I guess not. ]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:26:37 -0400 Because many of the cars and parts will then be crushed or otherwise disposed of, the amount of spare parts for older cars will dwindle. Supply and demand people! What will happen? The poor saps..er, I mean people, looking to fix their old jalopies will find that the parts will be harder to come by and therefore more expensive. And I thought Pres. Obama was trying help the po' common folk. I guess not. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157062-democrats-headed-for-a-train-wreck?source=feed#comment-636904 636904

On Aug 19 01:19 PM baldskits wrote:

> We have more guns than people in the United States. When the people
> get pissed off enough, we will have a revolution. Just 10% of the
> population would be an army of 30,000,000 armed people. The French
> Revolution occurred with the less percentage.
>
> The things to change: Corporations are not persons because they cannot
> vote! Therefore, they cannot donate to politicians. This would clean
> up politics. Supreme Court term limits.]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:20:28 -0400

On Aug 19 01:19 PM baldskits wrote:

> We have more guns than people in the United States. When the people
> get pissed off enough, we will have a revolution. Just 10% of the
> population would be an army of 30,000,000 armed people. The French
> Revolution occurred with the less percentage.
>
> The things to change: Corporations are not persons because they cannot
> vote! Therefore, they cannot donate to politicians. This would clean
> up politics. Supreme Court term limits.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156019-when-insolvent-banks-are-worth-billions?source=feed#comment-629893 629893

On Aug 13 06:32 PM Tom Armistead wrote:

> The bottom line is mark to manipulation has nearly brought down the
> financial system: there is no reason why a bank's assets should be
> valued based on the worst aspersions a group of negativists can palm
> off on a terrified public.]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:09:24 -0400

On Aug 13 06:32 PM Tom Armistead wrote:

> The bottom line is mark to manipulation has nearly brought down the
> financial system: there is no reason why a bank's assets should be
> valued based on the worst aspersions a group of negativists can palm
> off on a terrified public.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153692-personal-income-and-savings-the-double-whammy?source=feed#comment-617868 617868

On Aug 05 10:58 AM mineralt wrote:

> Globalism means, "wages in high income countries will drop, wages
> in low income countries who participate in the global economy will
> rise".
>
> This is as planned IMHO]]> Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:16:31 -0400

On Aug 05 10:58 AM mineralt wrote:

> Globalism means, "wages in high income countries will drop, wages
> in low income countries who participate in the global economy will
> rise".
>
> This is as planned IMHO]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154179-dave-s-top-10-reasons-this-recession-will-last-forever?source=feed#comment-617783 617783
On Aug 06 07:27 AM Andrew Butter wrote:

> How much of the innovation in the past was driven by easy money?
>
>
> I've done innovation, the key is getting money that doesn't ask hard
> questions.]]> Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:31:29 -0400
On Aug 06 07:27 AM Andrew Butter wrote:

> How much of the innovation in the past was driven by easy money?
>
>
> I've done innovation, the key is getting money that doesn't ask hard
> questions.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153811-runaway-healthcare-costs-which-industries-are-most-affected?source=feed#comment-616919 616919 Which is driving the costs? Is it increased demand from medicare/medicaid patients who don't bear the costs directly and thus have no incentive to spend wisely? Is it the over-regulation of the medical industry, especially the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies, which raises barriers to entry for competition, which in turn increases cost? Is it that these same over-regulations stifle any new innovative ways of doing things because new ways of doing things would be "risky" and therefore unacceptable? Yes to all the above.
Option A
If there was less regulation, and more competition, costs would go down. In addition, this healthcare "bubble" will burst, probably in the mid-2020s at the point when half the baby boomers would have passed away. In the meantime, the new supply (investment) of medical care and technologies would increase due to higher attractive prices until the bust comes. Just like the other bubbles (InfoTech, Housing, etc), the healthcare industry will be over-built and there would be a glut of supply which will crash the price of healthcare at that point. Which will be good for everyone else. The internet tech boom gave us thousands of miles of fiber optic cable on which to transfer hours of timesink video on youtube not to mention all kinds of other more productive uses.
Option B
As far as implementing a plan to combat rising healthcare costs, the only thing that this current plan in congress will do is discourage investment in healthcare industries by private entities, discourage the would-be future doctors and providers from pursuing a career in healthcare (because of the time and educational costs involved wouldn't be recompensed by future prospective pay). So in effect, the plan will do the exact opposite of what it intends to do. It will raise healthcare costs even more by decreasing the future supplier-base, decrease quality and keep those high costs/crappy care in place as far as the eye can see.
Which of these options seems to be the way to go to you?
]]> Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:28:42 -0400 Which is driving the costs? Is it increased demand from medicare/medicaid patients who don't bear the costs directly and thus have no incentive to spend wisely? Is it the over-regulation of the medical industry, especially the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies, which raises barriers to entry for competition, which in turn increases cost? Is it that these same over-regulations stifle any new innovative ways of doing things because new ways of doing things would be "risky" and therefore unacceptable? Yes to all the above.
Option A
If there was less regulation, and more competition, costs would go down. In addition, this healthcare "bubble" will burst, probably in the mid-2020s at the point when half the baby boomers would have passed away. In the meantime, the new supply (investment) of medical care and technologies would increase due to higher attractive prices until the bust comes. Just like the other bubbles (InfoTech, Housing, etc), the healthcare industry will be over-built and there would be a glut of supply which will crash the price of healthcare at that point. Which will be good for everyone else. The internet tech boom gave us thousands of miles of fiber optic cable on which to transfer hours of timesink video on youtube not to mention all kinds of other more productive uses.
Option B
As far as implementing a plan to combat rising healthcare costs, the only thing that this current plan in congress will do is discourage investment in healthcare industries by private entities, discourage the would-be future doctors and providers from pursuing a career in healthcare (because of the time and educational costs involved wouldn't be recompensed by future prospective pay). So in effect, the plan will do the exact opposite of what it intends to do. It will raise healthcare costs even more by decreasing the future supplier-base, decrease quality and keep those high costs/crappy care in place as far as the eye can see.
Which of these options seems to be the way to go to you?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153908-why-obama-s-big-spending-fallacy-could-ruin-u-s-economy?source=feed#comment-616742 616742 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:09:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/153902-the-next-decade-best-of-times-worst-of-times?source=feed#comment-616591 616591
On Aug 05 12:27 PM Anthony Alfidi wrote:

> The next decade will be remarkably bad for the United States as a
> result of our extreme Keynesian response to bank insolvency.]]> Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:22:16 -0400
On Aug 05 12:27 PM Anthony Alfidi wrote:

> The next decade will be remarkably bad for the United States as a
> result of our extreme Keynesian response to bank insolvency.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/151485-plan-black-how-to-really-end-the-financial-crisis?source=feed#comment-604046 604046
I would like to add to Plan Black the scrapping of the tax code and stripping out all loopholes, subsidies, surtaxes, and have a tax regime that doesn't punish or reward certain activities over others. Otherwise, how can a market truly be "free" as opposed to an illusion of choice.

On Jul 27 07:42 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:

> I think plan black is called the return to free market. Has the concept
> of that really become that unbelievable and unrealistic? How far
> we have fallen in 2 short years.]]> Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:40:57 -0400
I would like to add to Plan Black the scrapping of the tax code and stripping out all loopholes, subsidies, surtaxes, and have a tax regime that doesn't punish or reward certain activities over others. Otherwise, how can a market truly be "free" as opposed to an illusion of choice.

On Jul 27 07:42 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:

> I think plan black is called the return to free market. Has the concept
> of that really become that unbelievable and unrealistic? How far
> we have fallen in 2 short years.]]>