User 689427

Global Warming: Investment Implications

Dave Shafer wrote, "Quoting Crichton or even Sagan who have no expertise in the area does not make an argument. "

Almost all of the science behind Sagan's statements came from Richard Turco who is most certainly an expert in this "area." Sagan was being used as a spokesperson because
of his fame.

Three Investment Trends That Benefit From Cap and Trade

2 Things,

This bill if the Senate passes it, would not take effect until 2012.

There was no mention in the article about Applied Materials which was a leading lobbyist for the climate bill due to their move toward facilitating solar energy.

Warren Buffett Getting No Respect

"Face it, he's better than all of you else you would be as famous as he is for your financial expertise."

Buffett started out with more money than 99% of the population. He has a brilliant financial mind but If he had started out with the same amount of money as the average American possessed in the 1950's, you probably would never have heard of him. If his relatives had been of average affluence, would he have even been able to leave Nebraska and go to Columbia where Benjamin Graham was teaching? Being given $10,000 to invest by an uncle may not sound like much compared to what Howard Hughes or Donald Trump had at their starting line but how many 20 year old men in 1951 had such an opportunity?

Considering the number and tone of your posts, why are you so emotional concerning this man?


On Jun 23 07:33 PM U338129 wrote:

> I wonder how many Buffett doubters/bashers will say the same thing
> when the bets he made over the last year pay off. Face it, he's
> better than all of you else you would be as famous as he is for your
> "financial expertise."
>
> Biggest difference between him and Gartman (and many others) is that
> he's far richer than they could ever dream of being because of his
> investing nerve and willingness to hold true to his principles.
> His principles have survived the test of time; others have not.
> Once those on this forum and the likes of Gartman reach Buffett's
> level of wealth then maybe I'll listen. Until then, I'm sticking
> with the best.

Why 'Cash for Clunkers' Is a Bad Idea

I would fall into the category that Davewmart mentions with a 1990 Chevrolet truck with 58,000 miles but I have no intentions to use this plan. Using the $3,500 vs. what I would get on a trade-in, I would guess I would be coming out ahead $1,000 to $2,000 with the clunker plan.


On Jun 28 06:47 AM Davewmart wrote:

> I can see a group of people it will help.
> Well-off people who keep and older second or third car as they do
> very little mileage in it.
> A nice example of regressive benefits.

UAW: It Should Be Giving Up More

Thadeus III writes, "It was the greed of oil producers first ( high prices) ... that drew the last straw for US brand auto companies."

In the last 20 years, 30 years take your pick.... U.S. built cars have risen in price 100% more than the price of oil. So from your mindset, the auto companies and its auto workers must be more than twice as greedy as the "oil producers."


On May 13 12:40 PM Thadeus III wrote:

> Finding a decent job is a nice thought, but easier said then done.
> Also, for those of us who put 30 or more hard working years into
> working at an auto company; it's not very comforting to think that
> the pensions that are part of our compensation package may be ripped
> away from us by the excessive lawyers fees and liquidation of a full
> bankruptcy. To me, I accepted employment at a company with the
> full compensation that was offered at the time I started and when
> I retired. To take that away after the fact, is stealing , even if
> it is deemed legal.
> And to set matters straight, I was in the military for 4 years during
> Vietnam (1969 through 1973). Before that, I put myself through
> a technical college earning an Associate degree in industrial electronics.
>
> After the military I worked for two computer service companies working
> on everything from small business systems to industrial numerical
> controls, automated inspection systems, industrial X-ray systems
> operating at 145,000 KVA, and more. It took me into companies in
> the medical field such as GE X-ray and CAT scan, Evinrude Motors,
> several small medical equipment manufacturers, and Delco Electronics
> where I made my General Motors connection. The pay scale was already
> dwindling in the field service business and I had a family and young
> kids. So am I too be blamed for taking a better paying job with
> heath insurance and a retirement package? I am not and have never
> been a "lazy auto worker" as most of the people I've worked with
> have neither been. Every line of work has it's fair share of "skaters"
> looking to do as little as possible. I resent those who want to label
> any line of workers as lazy and doing poor quality work. At General
> Motors quality was pushed and pushed every day. "Quality Creates
> Customer Enthusiasm" was pounded into us daily and we lived up to
> as best we could with the design, engineering and tools were were
> given to work with. If you screwed up on the job, you were taken
> off the line and made to look at what needed to be done to rectify
> the issue. . . repeatedly, until it was corrected. If you screwed
> up more than once you were given written reprimand and after 3 times
> you could be given 2 -3 days off with no pay. It happened and I saw
> it happen regularly at the plants I worked at.
> There were even employees I saw thrown out for a week or month for
> "loitering" or not performing their job. It was occasional , but
> it was authorized by both the UAW and company. So they were an example
> to show others what would happen if you screwed up. There was never
> any free lunch where I worked at several GM plants.
> And just so you don't go thinking I got everything on a silver platter;
> in order for me to hang onto my income and retirement package I had
> to move 3 times while working for GM. One of the moves cost me a
> reduction in wages for 3 years because of going from skilled trade
> to line work and because of the transfer agreement for plant transfers
> at that time. That was a 38% pay cut and I had a family and my wife
> had to quit her job because of the move and find another paying much
> less. There is much more , but the point is my situation was NOT
> unique.
>
> As GM downsized and worked at plant and employee reductions while
> improving both quality and efficiency; this was the result for
> many people as downsizing and automation, as well as trying to adjust
> to the unfair competition of transplant and foreign auto makers.took
> place.
> As I said before, GM, Ford, and Chrysler made their mistakes in product
> choice at times and marketing. So did Toyota, Honda, and the others.
> They all got on the big SUV and truck wagon too and look where those
> sales are for them as well as the Big 3. It was the greed of oil
> producers first ( high prices) and then the unscrupulous and undisciplined
> financial gurus that drew the last straw for US brand auto companies.
>
>
> So if I am defensive of what people say about GM, Ford or any US
> brand automaker you need to walk a bit in the shoes of those like
> me as I have illustrated in this post. Give people some respect or
> you'll get the same crap that you dish out to them. We need to get
> behind each other in America. Not deride, mock, or bash those that
> work or have worked in the auto business. This is a disgrace to us
> as Americans and makes us a laughing stock in the countries that
> are pushing this global economy upon us.

Notes on a Scandal: High Dividend Investor's Survival Guide to This Unsustainable Rally

Cliff Wachtel's comment that, "Obama inherited an economy than can be compared to a patient with potentially terminal cancer who has just been shot in the heart. .." is indicative of a strong bias for Obama.

Semis' Downturn - Which Companies Will Survive, Part 2

ACTL & LSCC aren't going out of business. They both have too much cash, no debt, niche markets and are bleeding little if any cash each quarter despite reported net income losses.

When semi's recover, your picks will badly lag the other semis'
in terms of gains because you've chosen the "safest" and the ones with the highest valuations. BRCM and LLTC PE's even with CY2010 earnings are more than twice as high as the overall market.

Eight Reasons Bank of America Is Going to $20

SimpleAnswer,

You sound just as pro-Obama as Nitram is anti-Obama.

Based on your misuse of the term cognitive dissonance, I hope you're not employed in the mental health field as a therapist.

In an oversimplification, cognitive dissonance means having contradictory thoughts. You accused Nitram of blind prejudice and that is a monolithic belief. Cognitive dissonance would be if Nitram thought Obama was the greatest man in the world while simultaneously believing his economic policies would destroy America. I don't see anything indicating Nitram thinks Obama is a great man.



On Feb 20 07:05 PM SimpleAnswer wrote:

> NITRAM - You are a typical political extremist. I say it because
> you are clearly willing to put your politics ahead of the cognitive
> dissonance that occurs as a result. To my point, you are complaining
> about Obama wanting to drag down the economy by using the word 'crisis'
> too many times. Say what? Et tu Brute! Remember when Dubya took
> over from Clinton? Both during his campaign *and* after he took
> office, Dubya was none too shy about bashing the economy and telling
> us how things were going downhill. Using your logic that a President
> who is talking down the economy is a socialist, then Dubya was a
> socialist. Your logic, not mine. However, I'll bet you were *not*
> singing that same song for Dubya as you are now for President Obama.
> That's called cognitive dissonance. You can't process reality -
> you can only process emotion.
>
> That smell is your brain cells frying on the cognitive dissonance.
> You can't rationally view Dubya's bashing of the US economy as OK
> but Obama's as socialist. They both did it. It's called building
> your political cover, nothing more sinister. Politicians frequently
> do it to socialize the masses towards lower expectations so that
> if things don't come out all rosy, the politician can say, "I told
> you things were bad already." If things come out well, the politician
> takes credit for it and gets to be told he did a "Great job[, Brownie.]"
>
>
> Socialist Obama? Right. *EVERY* POTUS is subservient to the elites,
> and the inviolable history of that statement negates your theory
> that ANY POTUS has been or is a socialist. 99% of the people understand
> this through their simple common-sense observation of politics.
> You can't seem to see it through the smoke of your smoldering brain
> cells, trying to rationalize Obama as 'socialist' when his approach
> so closely mirrors that of Dubya eight years ago.
>
> On Feb 20 08:11 AM NITRAM wrote:

Buffett Metric Doesn't Say It's Time to Buy

Buffett got his position in Gillette from buying $600 million in convertible preferred stock around 1989 which later became stock.

This article incorrectly states he acquired the position in the mid-70's.

How CNBC Squandered Roubini and Taleb

What ? No mention of Bill Griffeth and his intro which had hyperbole such as

"Bill Gates and Michael Dell waited in line for hours" to hear Roubini and Taleb speak. Does anyone believe this?

Also, Griffeth interrupted the guests and interfered with the normal flow of conversation much more than the other jounalists.

Ominous Drop in Sales Bodes Ill for More than Just Apple - Barron's

Mark Veverka is the worst columnist at Barron's and has been for years.

The Short Case for JPMorgan

Eric L. Prentis suggests the U.S. adopt "the tried-and-true Swedish model" for our banks. Given Sweden has a population of just 9 million, a third of its citizens employed by their government with over 50% of the GDP in spending on their public sector, I would assert that the Swedish banking model is not relevant.

I would add their overall economic record since 1970 has been appallingly bad.