mattjh's Comments

Closing Update for Friday, Sept. 18: Bull Run Hangs On, Barely

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:56:22 -0400

In the words of Andy Dufresne- "You can get busy living, or get busy dying."

Sure It’s Legal … But Is It Right?

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:30:43 -0400

Ibator-

I couldn't agree with you more. Self-interest 101... fingers are ALWAYS pointed at the the other party, someone else! It's all their fault.... they are to blame... It's absolutely pathetic. A bunch of children. No one wants to admit that they have directly played a part in this mess. So as long as it remains someone else's fault- nothing will change.

On Sep 02 08:13 PM lbator wrote:

> Great dose of reality. Plenty of blame to go around. I've yet to
> see anyone at this site argue against a position, law, or regulation
> in which they are perosonally profiting from. Self-interest 101.
> If all the energy that has been utilized poitning the finger at others
> was spent making better personal, moral, and ethical choices (within
> the confines of these institutions) we all would be better off for
> for it

The Worst Case Scenario (Someone Has to Say It)

Sat, 09 May 2009 11:25:43 -0400

Total doomer CJ going on here... wow.

So, basically were dealing with a really, really bad recession (hell maybe even a depression) the worst perhaps in 75 years and because of that we are looking at the possibility of a total societal collapse within 10 years? As some of you would have it, we'd make Somalia look like quaint terrain in comparison! Well, perhaps if you try really, really hard you will succeed at bringing down the house- sounds like that's kinda what some of you want.

We can get so focused on the extremes of what can happen... Sure, things will continue to get really bad for some segments of society. Heck they already are really bad, but short of a Nuclear holocaust, we WILL muddle through.

Newspapers Can't Compete with 'Us'

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:55:23 -0400

Journalism is evolving. The NP model is definitely dying and will evolve. We are suffering a drop in the overall quality of the well researched and investigated story and this will continue to worsen. This kind of content will not come from the non-paid or underpaid "neo-journalist" blogger.

I'm continually amazed that so many fail to see the great potential loss of quality content if the NP model is not replace by a viable revenue online model. For now, free is not sustainable.

I like Seeking Alpha, but suspect the blogger burn rate will increasingly be an issue if there is little or no remuneration.

Marc Faber: 'It Will All End in Disaster'

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:49:45 -0400

Agreed! Americans today can't begin to comprehend true struggle. We are a hopelessly spoiled lot. We experience a year or so of fairly serious economic turbulence and presto- all is lost. History shows that there is amazing capacity and resiliency in economies but change they do.

What me must realize is that nothing stays the same, evolution is the only constant. The way Americans are living is not sustainable- perception adjustment is in order, expectation adjustment is in order.

On Mar 25 03:41 PM CJJ wrote:

> Exactly...
>
> Its complaining to complain. Wait until some of these people actually
> get out from in front of their computers and go rally somewhere.
> They'll talk about it like its the Revolutionary War or something.
> In the PAST PEOPLE ACTED. Today they write a few comments about how
> they are 100% correct, throw out a few economists or bloggers that
> promote their agenda, wipe their hands and go along with their lives.
>
>
> Problem is many of the people complaining live comfortably, don't
> really know what its like to be poor or really struggling. Maybe
> its their wish to know it.
>
> For the person who says Austrian Economists have been proven correct,
> care to add any proof of that? I can come out with a plan that to
> win baseball games a team should bunt every at bat of the game...does
> that mean then that if a team bunts one time and wins the game that
> that proves my theory correct? You yourself say it isn't practiced,
> so how then is it proven to work?
>
>
>
>

Hitting Bottom Is Inevitable, Subsequent Growth Is the Real Concern

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:18:51 -0400

I tend to think " a muddle through economy" is what we call a sustainable economy.

On Mar 27 07:46 AM CautiousInvestor wrote:

> A very informative article that places recent market activity in
> perspective.
>
> The November lows and recent March lows were speared by fear of financial
> Amrmageddon...........and the subsequent rallies resulted from relief
> that these scenarios had been averted.
>
> Looking forward, I am not so sure the market has focused upon or
> has a handle on longer term earnings in a structurally changed economy
> in which changes in regulatory oversight and reform of the tax code
> will impose additional weight upon corporate earnings. All of this,
> of course, is layered upon a retrenching consumer, falling home prices
> and new pockets of troubled assets.
>
> After we reach an economic bottom, I think we are looking forward
> to a muddle through economy characterized by low economic growth
> and marginal corporate earnings. Should interest rates begin to creep
> up, the market will assign lower earnings multipliers to the reduceds
> earning that begin to distinguish the new financial landscape.

>

Contrarian Indicator: It's Really Not Different This Time

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:22:35 -0500

Earnings are are heading up and to the right? On whose planet?

I believe the you would have to remove the horse blinders you currently have on in order to have perspective .

On Feb 24 08:44 AM pacman1947 wrote:

> Wait for the widows and orphans to throw in the towel, and then bet
> the other way?
>
> Earnings are are heading up and to the right? On whose planet?

>
> Contrarians usually have some data. I have plenty, but I'm frankly
> scared out of my ...
>
> Casinos have better odds today, and they favor the House by almost
> 2:1.

Can Anything Save Newspapers?

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:31:22 -0500

No need for "it" anymore? I'm sorry to tell you but Newspapers and "quality news content" are virtually synonymous. Are you saying you do not need quality news content anymore? Are you saying that society has no concern or need for the in-depth, investigative reporting of events and things that will impact our lives both locally and nationally? When newspapers organizations die the professionals that create the news content no longer have the ability to do so at a sustained level because their support and revenue is gone?

Where will you get your news and information then? From some Blogger News site where the content source is questionable and the people creating the content most likely are getting little or no remuneration- yeah that's a good model of sustainability.

On Dec 11 10:45 AM notsosmart wrote:

> its like the buggywhip-no need for it anymore.whats the big deal.when
> something no longer serves a purpose or is needed it goes away.anybody
> miss the coal fired steam engine?hard rubber tires?etc.i haent bothered
> with the ny times since they endorsed castro in the eisenhower years.
> i managed ok.