bricki's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/287539/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/173523-gold-the-lousy-investment-that-outperforms?source=feed#comment-764115 764115 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:07:22 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/173607-why-the-stock-market-should-crash?source=feed#comment-762271 762271 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:11 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/171495-the-homebuyer-credit-as-economic-success-story?source=feed#comment-751003 751003
Really I think that the only scenario that makes sense is that it brings some home sales forward in time because it effectively allows buyers to accumulate lower amounts of savings before they can purchase a home.

I really don't think that helps anyone much. What is really needed is a way to bring job creation forward in time.

On Nov 06 11:40 AM a fat panda wrote:

> "3. The household buys a house when they weren’t even planning on
> buying a house, or they buy a bigger house than they were planning
> on buying. The tax credit actually gets them to increase their quantity
> of housing demanded, more fundamentally affecting their homebuying
> behavior."
>
> Here is a 4th possibility. The household leverages the tax credit
> and buys more house than they can afford. Once the tax credit is
> removed, and the house assumes its market valuation, the mortgage
> is underwater and the people who bought it are in bankrupcty and
> foreclosure.
>
> And this is the case that you say economists call a success. I would
> love to know on what planet they live.]]> Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:45:51 -0500
Really I think that the only scenario that makes sense is that it brings some home sales forward in time because it effectively allows buyers to accumulate lower amounts of savings before they can purchase a home.

I really don't think that helps anyone much. What is really needed is a way to bring job creation forward in time.

On Nov 06 11:40 AM a fat panda wrote:

> "3. The household buys a house when they weren’t even planning on
> buying a house, or they buy a bigger house than they were planning
> on buying. The tax credit actually gets them to increase their quantity
> of housing demanded, more fundamentally affecting their homebuying
> behavior."
>
> Here is a 4th possibility. The household leverages the tax credit
> and buys more house than they can afford. Once the tax credit is
> removed, and the house assumes its market valuation, the mortgage
> is underwater and the people who bought it are in bankrupcty and
> foreclosure.
>
> And this is the case that you say economists call a success. I would
> love to know on what planet they live.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171819-10-2?source=feed#comment-749329 749329
On Nov 06 03:32 PM Roger Knights wrote:

> There'd be less unemployment if DC hadn't raised the minimum wage.]]> Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:13:44 -0500
On Nov 06 03:32 PM Roger Knights wrote:

> There'd be less unemployment if DC hadn't raised the minimum wage.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/36063?source=feed#comment-748801 748801 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:03:01 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/170475-gold-is-not-in-a-bull-market?source=feed#comment-740885 740885
1. Inflation. While the dollar price of gold may have gone up, the primary driving force for that is inflation. The purchasing power of hasn't gone up with the price.

2. Comparison of stock market indexes over a period of time severely understate the value of investments because they do not include dividend payouts.

3. We are currently recovering from a black swan event in the stock market. A prudent investor would have sold a lot of his position well before we dropped to current levels.

On Nov 02 12:35 PM realitybiter wrote:

> I challenge everybody to do their own homework, including Nadler.
>
>
> I shouldn't let Nadler get under my skin, but alas, he does. Here
> is a homework problem: What if you had spent the last 20 years,
> accumulating two different asset classes, year in year out, averaging
> equal amounts every year. One was gold, one was growth stock, like
> those in the nasdaq. Okay, we'll use the nasdaq index as our metric
> for growth stock. (Think of how many times your friends would have
> rolled their eyes when you told them they were silly for buying Lucent,
> CMGI, of JDSU..."gold freak!") Result? Your average price for the
> nasdaq was 1,850. Your average price for your gold purchase was
> $440. Lets see...nasdaq is 2055 today AFTER the mother of all rallies
> the last 9 months...meaning you would have made more money in an
> interest bearing checking account!! Your gold, you do the math.
> (well over twice your average purchase prices).
>
> I own it and the miners, and of course I am biased. But I am trying
> to communicate facts here, not opinion. Will it go higher? Maybe.
>
>
> Does it make sense that the trend will continue? I would say, like
> all bull markets, this one will not end until it reaches the mania
> level and folks currently bashing gold, decide that selling their
> $15 Cisco stock for $4000 an ounce gold is a smart decision. Probably
> several years from now. Likely, they will be making the wrong decision
> at that moment, and it is gold's Spring of 2000...(when folks were
> selling $300 gold for $80 cisco stock).]]> Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:27 -0500
1. Inflation. While the dollar price of gold may have gone up, the primary driving force for that is inflation. The purchasing power of hasn't gone up with the price.

2. Comparison of stock market indexes over a period of time severely understate the value of investments because they do not include dividend payouts.

3. We are currently recovering from a black swan event in the stock market. A prudent investor would have sold a lot of his position well before we dropped to current levels.

On Nov 02 12:35 PM realitybiter wrote:

> I challenge everybody to do their own homework, including Nadler.
>
>
> I shouldn't let Nadler get under my skin, but alas, he does. Here
> is a homework problem: What if you had spent the last 20 years,
> accumulating two different asset classes, year in year out, averaging
> equal amounts every year. One was gold, one was growth stock, like
> those in the nasdaq. Okay, we'll use the nasdaq index as our metric
> for growth stock. (Think of how many times your friends would have
> rolled their eyes when you told them they were silly for buying Lucent,
> CMGI, of JDSU..."gold freak!") Result? Your average price for the
> nasdaq was 1,850. Your average price for your gold purchase was
> $440. Lets see...nasdaq is 2055 today AFTER the mother of all rallies
> the last 9 months...meaning you would have made more money in an
> interest bearing checking account!! Your gold, you do the math.
> (well over twice your average purchase prices).
>
> I own it and the miners, and of course I am biased. But I am trying
> to communicate facts here, not opinion. Will it go higher? Maybe.
>
>
> Does it make sense that the trend will continue? I would say, like
> all bull markets, this one will not end until it reaches the mania
> level and folks currently bashing gold, decide that selling their
> $15 Cisco stock for $4000 an ounce gold is a smart decision. Probably
> several years from now. Likely, they will be making the wrong decision
> at that moment, and it is gold's Spring of 2000...(when folks were
> selling $300 gold for $80 cisco stock).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170514-america-the-nanny-state?source=feed#comment-740576 740576 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:32:54 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/170235-market-spooked-today-but-panic-attack-is-likely-temporary?source=feed#comment-737702 737702
Yes reality bites but it is also a requirement for efficient capital allocation and healthy capitalism.]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:10:30 -0400
Yes reality bites but it is also a requirement for efficient capital allocation and healthy capitalism.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169280-transport-sector-confirms-economic-weakness?source=feed#comment-735377 735377
Economies might respond to monetary and fiscal stimulus. Or they might not. The big puzzle here is how much of the GDP growth number we are getting is the result of these stims. There is a lot of skepticism that these GDP numbers are mostly the result of stimulation. Not so sure myself what the real story is. I'm not willing to give the Keynesians that much credit. In my opinion it's more a bounce due to things dropping below minimum economic activity levels.

In any case there are so many underlying issues going forward that I don't believe 3.5% real growth is going to be repeated on a consistent basis.

As far as retail, discretionary retail is dead for a good long while. People are learning that saving some and living within your means is a good thing. 2011-2020 is the decade of Wal-Mart and getting personal spending under control. And paying down debt. Time to get back to real values - like judging people for the quality of their character rather than whether their Bimmer is a 1,3,5 or 7 series.

On Oct 28 02:25 PM Mark in San Diego wrote:

> My KSP (K-Sea Transportation) tanked today - donw 33% on lower earnings
> and dividend cut. Why? They are the "last mile" operator of barges
> that you see in NYC, Seattle, SF, etc. Taking oil, gas, etc. from
> tankers to power companies, refineries, etc. They see very little
> increase in business, and some deterioration. . .the economy is,
> in my opinion, going to have a second downturn as the Main Street
> economy is not really responding to the Wall Street runup. All those
> retail stores that were "hanging in" waiting for the recovery are
> now going belly-up, and many small restaurants here in San Diego
> have started to call it quits. I would say another full year to
> the bottom.]]> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:16:58 -0400
Economies might respond to monetary and fiscal stimulus. Or they might not. The big puzzle here is how much of the GDP growth number we are getting is the result of these stims. There is a lot of skepticism that these GDP numbers are mostly the result of stimulation. Not so sure myself what the real story is. I'm not willing to give the Keynesians that much credit. In my opinion it's more a bounce due to things dropping below minimum economic activity levels.

In any case there are so many underlying issues going forward that I don't believe 3.5% real growth is going to be repeated on a consistent basis.

As far as retail, discretionary retail is dead for a good long while. People are learning that saving some and living within your means is a good thing. 2011-2020 is the decade of Wal-Mart and getting personal spending under control. And paying down debt. Time to get back to real values - like judging people for the quality of their character rather than whether their Bimmer is a 1,3,5 or 7 series.

On Oct 28 02:25 PM Mark in San Diego wrote:

> My KSP (K-Sea Transportation) tanked today - donw 33% on lower earnings
> and dividend cut. Why? They are the "last mile" operator of barges
> that you see in NYC, Seattle, SF, etc. Taking oil, gas, etc. from
> tankers to power companies, refineries, etc. They see very little
> increase in business, and some deterioration. . .the economy is,
> in my opinion, going to have a second downturn as the Main Street
> economy is not really responding to the Wall Street runup. All those
> retail stores that were "hanging in" waiting for the recovery are
> now going belly-up, and many small restaurants here in San Diego
> have started to call it quits. I would say another full year to
> the bottom.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169494-homebuyer-tax-credit-update?source=feed#comment-734822 734822
So is drying up that inventory doing any good? Maybe it's helping the banks a bit - owning all these homes can't be good for a bank.

Is it a good program? Can't see why just helping the banks directly vs. indirectly makes any difference. Except maybe this is something politicians like because they can say to voters they gave them free money (yes many voters would believe that).

Do I like the program? Well for me personally it's a help because it's helping grease the wheels a bit because my family is selling an entry level home because of a life event.

Otherwise it makes little sense.]]> Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:44:05 -0400
So is drying up that inventory doing any good? Maybe it's helping the banks a bit - owning all these homes can't be good for a bank.

Is it a good program? Can't see why just helping the banks directly vs. indirectly makes any difference. Except maybe this is something politicians like because they can say to voters they gave them free money (yes many voters would believe that).

Do I like the program? Well for me personally it's a help because it's helping grease the wheels a bit because my family is selling an entry level home because of a life event.

Otherwise it makes little sense.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169100-green-investors-stop-hating-coal-carbon-capture-and-storage-here-to-stay?source=feed#comment-732281 732281
Well it looks like we may be heading to the same situation with the coal industry, only the long term storage of carbon is a much higher volume problem.]]> Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:38:42 -0400
Well it looks like we may be heading to the same situation with the coal industry, only the long term storage of carbon is a much higher volume problem.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34956?source=feed#comment-729200 729200
Stocks are inherently more volatile than bonds. If you do single point in time comparisons like this you will get answers that vary tremendously because of this volatility.

With the likelihood of inflation in the near future it is probable that we are in one of the worst periods in history to be concentrating investments into bonds.]]> Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:10:00 -0400
Stocks are inherently more volatile than bonds. If you do single point in time comparisons like this you will get answers that vary tremendously because of this volatility.

With the likelihood of inflation in the near future it is probable that we are in one of the worst periods in history to be concentrating investments into bonds.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168503-how-apple-s-market-share-will-propel-stock-to-500-part-1?source=feed#comment-729178 729178
Personally I think this is will be a very short lived phenomena. I own both Vista and Windows 7 machines, and as a software developer I understand both of them quite well.

Vista rightly got a bad reputation when it was released with clumsy security features and some performance issues. Pretty much all of these issues have been corrected and if you configure it right it is a pretty decent, stable OS.

Windows 7 from a user perspective is really no better than Vista SP3, with the right configuration options selected. And Windows 7 still has to go through the teething pains that any new MS OS does - it will really not be something you would give to a user population until at least the first service pack comes out a year from now.

In that year the blush will come off the rose and people will realize that as usual that Microsoft is really a marketing company at this point in its life cycle. If Microsoft was really an innovative company there would be just one version of Windows 7, and it would be the 64 bit platform.

At best this is a non-event for Apple, and it could easily turn into a catalyst for Apple growth when people once again realize that Windows 7 is nothing special.

On Oct 23 10:39 AM D_Virginia wrote:

> > believe new OS launches from Microsoft may have even acted as]]> Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:56:00 -0400
Personally I think this is will be a very short lived phenomena. I own both Vista and Windows 7 machines, and as a software developer I understand both of them quite well.

Vista rightly got a bad reputation when it was released with clumsy security features and some performance issues. Pretty much all of these issues have been corrected and if you configure it right it is a pretty decent, stable OS.

Windows 7 from a user perspective is really no better than Vista SP3, with the right configuration options selected. And Windows 7 still has to go through the teething pains that any new MS OS does - it will really not be something you would give to a user population until at least the first service pack comes out a year from now.

In that year the blush will come off the rose and people will realize that as usual that Microsoft is really a marketing company at this point in its life cycle. If Microsoft was really an innovative company there would be just one version of Windows 7, and it would be the 64 bit platform.

At best this is a non-event for Apple, and it could easily turn into a catalyst for Apple growth when people once again realize that Windows 7 is nothing special.

On Oct 23 10:39 AM D_Virginia wrote:

> > believe new OS launches from Microsoft may have even acted as]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34949?source=feed#comment-728694 728694
For example, consider the Sun as a source of energy. It converts four millions tons per second of matter into energy. Of that vast amount of energy some 0.000000032 percent reaches the Earth.

Humankind over the course of one year uses about as much energy as the sun delivers to the Earth in one hour, or 0.01% of the available solar energy. If we were able to capture a measly 5% of this we would increase our energy supply by a factor of 500.

Now consider the idea proposed by Freeman Dyson that advanced societies will build a hollow sphere encircling their Suns in order to capture their energy potential. If humanity were to do this and collect this solar energy it would result in an increase in the available energy by a factor of 30 125 000 000 000, or about 30 trillion.

So give me a call when our economy has grown by a factor of 30 trillion and then I'll tell you about more advanced forms ways of generating energy that make a Dyson sphere look piddly.]]> Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:51:21 -0400
For example, consider the Sun as a source of energy. It converts four millions tons per second of matter into energy. Of that vast amount of energy some 0.000000032 percent reaches the Earth.

Humankind over the course of one year uses about as much energy as the sun delivers to the Earth in one hour, or 0.01% of the available solar energy. If we were able to capture a measly 5% of this we would increase our energy supply by a factor of 500.

Now consider the idea proposed by Freeman Dyson that advanced societies will build a hollow sphere encircling their Suns in order to capture their energy potential. If humanity were to do this and collect this solar energy it would result in an increase in the available energy by a factor of 30 125 000 000 000, or about 30 trillion.

So give me a call when our economy has grown by a factor of 30 trillion and then I'll tell you about more advanced forms ways of generating energy that make a Dyson sphere look piddly.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34949?source=feed#comment-728686 728686
On Oct 24 04:00 PM Wildebeest wrote:

> On Oct 24 02:45 PM bottoms-up wrote:]]> Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:29:20 -0400
On Oct 24 04:00 PM Wildebeest wrote:

> On Oct 24 02:45 PM bottoms-up wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168444-not-a-drop-to-drink-three-etfs-for-future-global-water-shortages?source=feed#comment-727006 727006
Education is closer, but still it is about 6% vs 1-2% for water.

As far as internet I was unable to find anything really reliable so I took telecommunications as a proxy - most all communications moves over the internet these days - and got a number of 3%. So one could claim water is comparable in size in the US to the telecom industry.

Yes water is a basic necessity and there are large populations where this is becoming a critical issue; as you say the size of the water problem correlates directly with population. But some of the claims you make about the size of the water industry aren't real. As far as growth goes, yes it has a long term growth picture. But if it is really linked to population it might not be that robust - after all world-wide population growth rates are declining. ]]> Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:49:16 -0400
Education is closer, but still it is about 6% vs 1-2% for water.

As far as internet I was unable to find anything really reliable so I took telecommunications as a proxy - most all communications moves over the internet these days - and got a number of 3%. So one could claim water is comparable in size in the US to the telecom industry.

Yes water is a basic necessity and there are large populations where this is becoming a critical issue; as you say the size of the water problem correlates directly with population. But some of the claims you make about the size of the water industry aren't real. As far as growth goes, yes it has a long term growth picture. But if it is really linked to population it might not be that robust - after all world-wide population growth rates are declining. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34870?source=feed#comment-726206 726206
On Oct 22 08:30 PM Beach Bubba wrote:

> All I know is this, I shop the used book values on Amazon and then
> look to Ebay for the same item. It is 50-50, sometimes Ebay Has the
> bargain...the next day it is Amazon. The quality of each book I have
> bought (many) has been excellent to new in all cases, Ebay or Amazon.
> I will never ever buy a New Book again. And how do the Borders and
> other big book stores stay in business...with prices at least double
> the on line stores. Are people really that ignorant.
>
> The news story above makes absolutely no sense at all. When is a
> price war "preditory pricing" and how, in heavens name, is it harmful
> to the consumer. Get these idiots off the page. Or is this something
> from Orwell's 1984.]]> Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:07:45 -0400
On Oct 22 08:30 PM Beach Bubba wrote:

> All I know is this, I shop the used book values on Amazon and then
> look to Ebay for the same item. It is 50-50, sometimes Ebay Has the
> bargain...the next day it is Amazon. The quality of each book I have
> bought (many) has been excellent to new in all cases, Ebay or Amazon.
> I will never ever buy a New Book again. And how do the Borders and
> other big book stores stay in business...with prices at least double
> the on line stores. Are people really that ignorant.
>
> The news story above makes absolutely no sense at all. When is a
> price war "preditory pricing" and how, in heavens name, is it harmful
> to the consumer. Get these idiots off the page. Or is this something
> from Orwell's 1984.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34835?source=feed#comment-725793 725793
It is quite important for policy makers to realize that technology innovation is one of the key engines for real growth (rather than financial manipulation which is an engine of faux growth).]]> Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:36:30 -0400
It is quite important for policy makers to realize that technology innovation is one of the key engines for real growth (rather than financial manipulation which is an engine of faux growth).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/228383-mayascribe/32614-more-infringements-upon-our-freedom?source=feed#comment-725781 725781
On Oct 22 03:56 PM optionsgirl wrote:

> HTL- Absolutely right! We're at great danger from critical strategic
> infrastructure and national resources not properly protected. Instead,
> we go through airport lines in our stocking feet. A few months ago,
> my husband and I forgot that we had two unopened cans of soda on
> top, in my carry on.
> I had a very sympathetic inspector. "Do you want to drink the soda
> before you enter?" She was worrying about my soda. She didn't bother
> to dig beneath those cans to see if there was real contraband, but
> let me right through without putting the bag through a second time
> to see if there was-gasp-a gun or knive in there.
> Sure glad she's there to protect us.]]> Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:28:10 -0400
On Oct 22 03:56 PM optionsgirl wrote:

> HTL- Absolutely right! We're at great danger from critical strategic
> infrastructure and national resources not properly protected. Instead,
> we go through airport lines in our stocking feet. A few months ago,
> my husband and I forgot that we had two unopened cans of soda on
> top, in my carry on.
> I had a very sympathetic inspector. "Do you want to drink the soda
> before you enter?" She was worrying about my soda. She didn't bother
> to dig beneath those cans to see if there was real contraband, but
> let me right through without putting the bag through a second time
> to see if there was-gasp-a gun or knive in there.
> Sure glad she's there to protect us.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/228383-mayascribe/32614-more-infringements-upon-our-freedom?source=feed#comment-725715 725715
The thing that would really provide net neutrality would be to allow local competition among cable companies.

]]> Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:41:38 -0400
The thing that would really provide net neutrality would be to allow local competition among cable companies.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168074-the-hypocrisy-and-high-stakes-of-healthcare-reform?source=feed#comment-725493 725493
The base problem with health care in the US is runaway cost. I have a brother who has a small business. Aetna jacked his premiums 10% this year. He has no power to negotiate or control the costs. Every year they jump far more than inflation.

Reform is clearly needed. Unfortunately the Bush administration put it's collective head in the sand on the issue, and Obama is taking the socialistic approach which has definite downsides.

On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:

> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.]]> Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:27:34 -0400
The base problem with health care in the US is runaway cost. I have a brother who has a small business. Aetna jacked his premiums 10% this year. He has no power to negotiate or control the costs. Every year they jump far more than inflation.

Reform is clearly needed. Unfortunately the Bush administration put it's collective head in the sand on the issue, and Obama is taking the socialistic approach which has definite downsides.

On Oct 22 12:45 PM CLH wrote:

> This whole reform is unbelievable. America has the best health care
> in the world. Does anyone go to Europe or Canada for health care?.
> Of course not. They all come to America where the health care is
> the best. The only way to cut costs is to privatise Medicare which
> is a bankrupt disaster.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167619-niall-ferguson-dollar-is-doomed-u-s-empire-over?source=feed#comment-723548 723548
Yes it is quite the case that our fiscal house is not exactly in order. However that is not a unique occurrence in American history. It has indeed happened several times that the dollar has had to be devalued, taken off the gold standard and so forth. During the 19th century there were cases where we even ran completely out of gold and had to borrow some.

Other empires have also gone through crises of this nature and done fine.

The issue here is that we have poor capacity utilization. Unless that is reversed we will lose significant productive capacity. That will be hard to recover.]]> Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:12:52 -0400
Yes it is quite the case that our fiscal house is not exactly in order. However that is not a unique occurrence in American history. It has indeed happened several times that the dollar has had to be devalued, taken off the gold standard and so forth. During the 19th century there were cases where we even ran completely out of gold and had to borrow some.

Other empires have also gone through crises of this nature and done fine.

The issue here is that we have poor capacity utilization. Unless that is reversed we will lose significant productive capacity. That will be hard to recover.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167766-wednesday-outlook-commodities-global-markets?source=feed#comment-723371 723371
]]> Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:55:58 -0400
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/192595-optionsgirl/32332-poverty-up-obama-s-next-invitation-to-grab-wealth-and-property?source=feed#comment-723351 723351
But the real implication for a society with poor distribution of wealth is that this bad distribution indicates that opportunities and incentives within that society are not available to all of its citizens. Without incentives and opportunity people will not be motivated to make the best use of their talents. Countries with a few wealthy land owners and the rest living as sharecroppers are the classic example.

On the other hand, of course you don't want everyone making the same amount of money - that would also remove incentives.

What is needed is a large middle class that lives well. The problem we have in this country now is that the middle class has not participated in the economic growth of America for decades. Not so much that poverty is increasing but rather that the opportunities and rewards for ascending to the middle class have diminished in favor of concentration of wealth in the top 1%.

On Oct 21 09:32 AM Graham and Dodd Investor wrote:

> "Poor" is often defined in relative terms. One such definition is
> "one -half or less of the average income in society."
>
> As such, it is a measure of inequality, rather than absolute poverty.
> A poor person here might be a rich person in Africa.
>
> It's undeniable that inequality has been rising, hence "poverty."
> ]]> Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:50:04 -0400
But the real implication for a society with poor distribution of wealth is that this bad distribution indicates that opportunities and incentives within that society are not available to all of its citizens. Without incentives and opportunity people will not be motivated to make the best use of their talents. Countries with a few wealthy land owners and the rest living as sharecroppers are the classic example.

On the other hand, of course you don't want everyone making the same amount of money - that would also remove incentives.

What is needed is a large middle class that lives well. The problem we have in this country now is that the middle class has not participated in the economic growth of America for decades. Not so much that poverty is increasing but rather that the opportunities and rewards for ascending to the middle class have diminished in favor of concentration of wealth in the top 1%.

On Oct 21 09:32 AM Graham and Dodd Investor wrote:

> "Poor" is often defined in relative terms. One such definition is
> "one -half or less of the average income in society."
>
> As such, it is a measure of inequality, rather than absolute poverty.
> A poor person here might be a rich person in Africa.
>
> It's undeniable that inequality has been rising, hence "poverty."
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167433-tuesday-outlook-the-light-volume-rally-has-legs?source=feed#comment-721976 721976
I wonder if a contrarian view of the light volume is useful. Normally that is viewed as a sign that the market move is not real or sustainable, but in this case it might be a sign that sentiment to the upside is not overwhelming or overdone.

We keep hearing about bond purchases, money on the sidelines, etc. and that retail investors are not in yet. This is bearish sentiment that leads to light volume. That bearish sentiment also represents potential 'greater fool' buyers who might capitulate to the upside if this rally continues.

Of course these same people may be right if we have a significant from here.
]]> Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:59:09 -0400
I wonder if a contrarian view of the light volume is useful. Normally that is viewed as a sign that the market move is not real or sustainable, but in this case it might be a sign that sentiment to the upside is not overwhelming or overdone.

We keep hearing about bond purchases, money on the sidelines, etc. and that retail investors are not in yet. This is bearish sentiment that leads to light volume. That bearish sentiment also represents potential 'greater fool' buyers who might capitulate to the upside if this rally continues.

Of course these same people may be right if we have a significant from here.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34473?source=feed#comment-721082 721082 Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:08:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34473?source=feed#comment-721081 721081 Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:07:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34372?source=feed#comment-719415 719415
For example let's look at the infant mortality issue. Yes nations vary considerably in how they calculate infant mortality. One critic here mentioned that the US counts premature births where other nations do not. That is true.

But behind the numbers there are root causes. The number one indicator for infant mortality is low birth weight. The US has an appallingly high rate of low birth weight infants. Even though the US has the best survival rates for such infants in the world the rate of low birth weight infants is so high that we end up with very high infant mortality rates.

What is low birth weight an indicator of? Fundamental failure to deliver adequate health care to women of child bearing age.

People here complain that health care isn't a right but rather an individual responsibility. Well maybe. But exactly how is a fetus or child capable of taking on responsibility for its health care? Society does have a fundamental role in protecting those who cannot protect themselves before they are adults. It is utterly barbaric that a great nation like the US does such a poor job at this.

THINK ABOUT THIS. What do you think the cost to American society for this is? What is the likely impact to society of these infants? Are these the people that are going to be long term contributors or long term drags on the US economy?

And those who complain about rationing? What sort of fantasy health insurance do you have now? Health insurers already enforce rationing, restrict you to using certain doctors and control your treatment choices.

I am not particularly enthusiastic about a regulated solution. The examples available show that there are significant downsides to that approach. But are these downsides worse than what we have today? For some people they may be, especially those employed in some segments of the existing insurance industry. But for others probably not.

But the real question the critics can't answer is what else is on the table? Who has come forward with a solution that has the potential to address the issues we have with:

- Costs out of control and rising far faster than inflation
- Total lack of real competition to keep these costs low
- The most expensive system in the world that still doesn't cover pre existing conditions or 20% of the population.
- Results measurable by population wide metrics that fall short of nations that spend far less.
- Unfunded liabilities for medicare that threaten to crush us economically.
- Costs to employers that make them uncompetitive in the global economy.

As far as the Post Office vs Fed Ex, you have got to be kidding. What is the real history? Fed Ex exists today because they fill a niche that the Post Office doesn't address. And I expect that is what will happen with this proposal. The government option will be the Post Office of health plans. The private options will offer more elaborate menus and fancier services. Look at the rest of the world. This is exactly what has happened in England, France (often cited as the best system in the world) and elsewhere. And is happening today with the Medicare system in the US.

On Oct 18 06:05 AM a fat panda wrote:

> Everything you say may be true (and there are already posts questioning
> your figures). You have missed the point. Obama plans is going
> to take what we have that is broken, and make it bigger and more
> broken.
>
> Do you think that forcing people to buy insurance is going to hurt
> the insurance companies or make them more responsive? Do you think
> forcing the insurers to compete against a public option will make
> insurers more efficient? Do you think that the Post Office makes
> Fed Ex more efficient?
>
> I had a recent hospital stay that confirms in my mind that the system
> is insane, but nothing that Obama wants to do will change the problems.
> It will only make them bigger.]]> Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:54:23 -0400
For example let's look at the infant mortality issue. Yes nations vary considerably in how they calculate infant mortality. One critic here mentioned that the US counts premature births where other nations do not. That is true.

But behind the numbers there are root causes. The number one indicator for infant mortality is low birth weight. The US has an appallingly high rate of low birth weight infants. Even though the US has the best survival rates for such infants in the world the rate of low birth weight infants is so high that we end up with very high infant mortality rates.

What is low birth weight an indicator of? Fundamental failure to deliver adequate health care to women of child bearing age.

People here complain that health care isn't a right but rather an individual responsibility. Well maybe. But exactly how is a fetus or child capable of taking on responsibility for its health care? Society does have a fundamental role in protecting those who cannot protect themselves before they are adults. It is utterly barbaric that a great nation like the US does such a poor job at this.

THINK ABOUT THIS. What do you think the cost to American society for this is? What is the likely impact to society of these infants? Are these the people that are going to be long term contributors or long term drags on the US economy?

And those who complain about rationing? What sort of fantasy health insurance do you have now? Health insurers already enforce rationing, restrict you to using certain doctors and control your treatment choices.

I am not particularly enthusiastic about a regulated solution. The examples available show that there are significant downsides to that approach. But are these downsides worse than what we have today? For some people they may be, especially those employed in some segments of the existing insurance industry. But for others probably not.

But the real question the critics can't answer is what else is on the table? Who has come forward with a solution that has the potential to address the issues we have with:

- Costs out of control and rising far faster than inflation
- Total lack of real competition to keep these costs low
- The most expensive system in the world that still doesn't cover pre existing conditions or 20% of the population.
- Results measurable by population wide metrics that fall short of nations that spend far less.
- Unfunded liabilities for medicare that threaten to crush us economically.
- Costs to employers that make them uncompetitive in the global economy.

As far as the Post Office vs Fed Ex, you have got to be kidding. What is the real history? Fed Ex exists today because they fill a niche that the Post Office doesn't address. And I expect that is what will happen with this proposal. The government option will be the Post Office of health plans. The private options will offer more elaborate menus and fancier services. Look at the rest of the world. This is exactly what has happened in England, France (often cited as the best system in the world) and elsewhere. And is happening today with the Medicare system in the US.

On Oct 18 06:05 AM a fat panda wrote:

> Everything you say may be true (and there are already posts questioning
> your figures). You have missed the point. Obama plans is going
> to take what we have that is broken, and make it bigger and more
> broken.
>
> Do you think that forcing people to buy insurance is going to hurt
> the insurance companies or make them more responsive? Do you think
> forcing the insurers to compete against a public option will make
> insurers more efficient? Do you think that the Post Office makes
> Fed Ex more efficient?
>
> I had a recent hospital stay that confirms in my mind that the system
> is insane, but nothing that Obama wants to do will change the problems.
> It will only make them bigger.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34372?source=feed#comment-719075 719075
The US is 29th in the world in infant mortality. Whatever measurement variations you propose won't make it look good.

You might find an argument that the decrease in US height measurements is not significant. However is irrefutable that West Europeans are have surpassed Americans in average height.

Life expectancy in the US is declining. Not significantly in aggregate country wide numbers but definitely in certain regions and populations like poor women.

You can attempt to blame the states for the problems but in fact the states with the most aggressive regulations often have the best results.

The current system is broken. 20% of the population is inadequately protected. We have huge unfunded liabilities.

Entrenched private insurers have failed to offer any alternatives. All they are doing is fighting to retain their status quo. That is not going to fix the problem.]]> Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:05:01 -0400
The US is 29th in the world in infant mortality. Whatever measurement variations you propose won't make it look good.

You might find an argument that the decrease in US height measurements is not significant. However is irrefutable that West Europeans are have surpassed Americans in average height.

Life expectancy in the US is declining. Not significantly in aggregate country wide numbers but definitely in certain regions and populations like poor women.

You can attempt to blame the states for the problems but in fact the states with the most aggressive regulations often have the best results.

The current system is broken. 20% of the population is inadequately protected. We have huge unfunded liabilities.

Entrenched private insurers have failed to offer any alternatives. All they are doing is fighting to retain their status quo. That is not going to fix the problem.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/34372?source=feed#comment-718957 718957
It is right to mistrust regulation. However we cannot keep the system we have. It is not working for at least 20% of the population. Even more dire we are facing an unfunded entitlement on the order of 50 trillion for medicare. What we have now threatens to bankrupt the country or put retirees in dire circumstances.

Of course there will be push back from the entrenched interests. Nobody likes their source of income threatened. Criticizing this push back is correct. If the private sector wants to stave off socialization they need to come up with a workable solution. Status-quo isn't an answer. ]]> Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:55:38 -0400
It is right to mistrust regulation. However we cannot keep the system we have. It is not working for at least 20% of the population. Even more dire we are facing an unfunded entitlement on the order of 50 trillion for medicare. What we have now threatens to bankrupt the country or put retirees in dire circumstances.

Of course there will be push back from the entrenched interests. Nobody likes their source of income threatened. Criticizing this push back is correct. If the private sector wants to stave off socialization they need to come up with a workable solution. Status-quo isn't an answer. ]]>