TruthSayer's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/322670/comments http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/38391?source=feed#comment-808917 808917
A must watch: www.c-span.org/Watch/M...

See time 1:14 - great speech from Bunning.]]> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:32:26 -0500
A must watch: www.c-span.org/Watch/M...

See time 1:14 - great speech from Bunning.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/38090?source=feed#comment-801553 801553
A theory that the downward momentum of the market is not a function of the reality/fundamentals but of a function of confidence. If you believe it will be. Lack of confidence is what causes a run on money so the opposite must be true? - just create confidence and all will be well. In the near term I agree it probably will work at least delay some of the panic but you better hope your doing something to resolve the underylying fundamentals.

“I fancy that over-confidence seldom does any great harm except when, as, and if, it beguiles its victims into debt.” (Irving Fisher, 1933)]]> Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:37:43 -0500
A theory that the downward momentum of the market is not a function of the reality/fundamentals but of a function of confidence. If you believe it will be. Lack of confidence is what causes a run on money so the opposite must be true? - just create confidence and all will be well. In the near term I agree it probably will work at least delay some of the panic but you better hope your doing something to resolve the underylying fundamentals.

“I fancy that over-confidence seldom does any great harm except when, as, and if, it beguiles its victims into debt.” (Irving Fisher, 1933)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/37580?source=feed#comment-788227 788227
"A Labor Department analyst says the closing of state unemployment offices for last week's Thanksgiving holiday was responsible for some of the decline."

Now thats funny....why dont the unemployment offices take extended leave and this whole thing will be back to normal in no time....]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:55:59 -0500
"A Labor Department analyst says the closing of state unemployment offices for last week's Thanksgiving holiday was responsible for some of the decline."

Now thats funny....why dont the unemployment offices take extended leave and this whole thing will be back to normal in no time....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/35374?source=feed#comment-735475 735475 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:54:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/169731/comments?source=feed#comment-735234 735234
The huge solar push they have is DOA. Natural gas prices climbed due to it was the only nearterm demand choice for states like CA. So without letting the market settle and develop towards the demand they used it as an excuse to venture into the renewable space by extrapolating cost figures of nat. gas not wanting to understand market dynamics and behavior for renewables also apply to fossil fuel in that mankind in the states would develop and nuture the advancement of technology when given a demand and/or price signal. Now we have a plethora of new supply - shale gas with a proven technology and know how.

So CA resident go ahead and develop and procure your $200/MWh power....ignore the $4-$10/mmbtu gas supply which produce $28-$70/MWh power.....even worse residents can buy a microturbine and run gas power for $60-$150/MWh and disconnect completely from the electric grid - solar wont be able to say that.....

Now to the externalities which a significant portion of society is pushing on to the public for which the public has little internalization of the issues at hand. We will save the planet from change......change for the better or worse irrelavant (net it maybe for the worse but not necessarily for you)....oh and you wont tangibly know this until 2100 and beyond....its for your kids and grandkids....I can buy this I just dont see the general public buying....Goodluck selling this when you have double digit unemployment and your concern about living the next day beyond your means.....

CA is a debacle please let us learn not follow like lemmings.....]]> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:45:32 -0400
The huge solar push they have is DOA. Natural gas prices climbed due to it was the only nearterm demand choice for states like CA. So without letting the market settle and develop towards the demand they used it as an excuse to venture into the renewable space by extrapolating cost figures of nat. gas not wanting to understand market dynamics and behavior for renewables also apply to fossil fuel in that mankind in the states would develop and nuture the advancement of technology when given a demand and/or price signal. Now we have a plethora of new supply - shale gas with a proven technology and know how.

So CA resident go ahead and develop and procure your $200/MWh power....ignore the $4-$10/mmbtu gas supply which produce $28-$70/MWh power.....even worse residents can buy a microturbine and run gas power for $60-$150/MWh and disconnect completely from the electric grid - solar wont be able to say that.....

Now to the externalities which a significant portion of society is pushing on to the public for which the public has little internalization of the issues at hand. We will save the planet from change......change for the better or worse irrelavant (net it maybe for the worse but not necessarily for you)....oh and you wont tangibly know this until 2100 and beyond....its for your kids and grandkids....I can buy this I just dont see the general public buying....Goodluck selling this when you have double digit unemployment and your concern about living the next day beyond your means.....

CA is a debacle please let us learn not follow like lemmings.....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162394/comments?source=feed#comment-690806 690806
By the time lehman came around - since they were bigger they did not prepare for bankruptcy - why should they Bear got bailed out.

The bankruptcy of Lehman could of been better managed but it was a result of not preparing due to the anticipation of a bailout per Bear.

So if Bear did not get bailed out - can you let lehman collapse to - and my answer would be yes. You would do something similiar to S&L it would be orderly and backed by US govt. temporarily - it would not be a bailout but would be an orderly bankruptcy. All players would of prepared well in-advance. All said that was another dimension.

Another hindsight would be Lehman was GS biggest competitor - GS rules our govt. how convenient Paulson didnt save Lehman. Funny I was watching Star Wars Episode 2 with my kids how interesting the Chancellor reminded me of Paulson - played both sides in the end to ultimately put him on top.]]> Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:59:17 -0400
By the time lehman came around - since they were bigger they did not prepare for bankruptcy - why should they Bear got bailed out.

The bankruptcy of Lehman could of been better managed but it was a result of not preparing due to the anticipation of a bailout per Bear.

So if Bear did not get bailed out - can you let lehman collapse to - and my answer would be yes. You would do something similiar to S&L it would be orderly and backed by US govt. temporarily - it would not be a bailout but would be an orderly bankruptcy. All players would of prepared well in-advance. All said that was another dimension.

Another hindsight would be Lehman was GS biggest competitor - GS rules our govt. how convenient Paulson didnt save Lehman. Funny I was watching Star Wars Episode 2 with my kids how interesting the Chancellor reminded me of Paulson - played both sides in the end to ultimately put him on top.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/333428-adam-hayes/25412-revisions-revisions?source=feed#comment-688761 688761 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:40:42 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/33013?source=feed#comment-688060 688060
They say its all good we are on the way to recovery. I ask then why buy $1.25 Trillion of MBS? I didnt know it was the govt. fudiciary responsibility to buy MBS. It must be a policy of no loser left behind...no large bank to fail....

Commodities probably the only logical fundamental play. You could by the most expensive/high risk stock - those currently are the winners but thats got to blow up eventually. Then you look at the treasury yields still low - as China and Japan play chicken with the US thinking they can keep the yield low in order not to increase the value of their currency meanwhile we stick it to them by writing more debt....Another contradicition if we are recovering why settle for 4.2% yield in the 30 yr treasury when the market will get you 12%+ and Shanghai index probably 20%+

I would title this time as "A confluence of paradoxical ambiguity" subtitled the new consumer -- the US govt.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:38:15 -0400
They say its all good we are on the way to recovery. I ask then why buy $1.25 Trillion of MBS? I didnt know it was the govt. fudiciary responsibility to buy MBS. It must be a policy of no loser left behind...no large bank to fail....

Commodities probably the only logical fundamental play. You could by the most expensive/high risk stock - those currently are the winners but thats got to blow up eventually. Then you look at the treasury yields still low - as China and Japan play chicken with the US thinking they can keep the yield low in order not to increase the value of their currency meanwhile we stick it to them by writing more debt....Another contradicition if we are recovering why settle for 4.2% yield in the 30 yr treasury when the market will get you 12%+ and Shanghai index probably 20%+

I would title this time as "A confluence of paradoxical ambiguity" subtitled the new consumer -- the US govt.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161001/comments?source=feed#comment-672448 672448
What is even sadder than you commentary of oil prices is the fact you focused on last year price and just the price of crude oil....Lets look a little farther back for crude oil 2003=31 2004 =42 2005=56 2006=66 2007=72 2008=99 Now lets look at wholesale gasoline prices in cents per gallon 2003=87 2004=117 2005=160 2006=183 2007=204 2008=247 2009 YTD= 151

Now you got to ask yourself whether the consumer really did adjust to the 2005-2008 runnup - particurlarly since the consumer was running on credit and home equity. Employment levels (people in workforce) are now at 2005 levels - in essence we have lost all the job growth that we had. This maybe a shock but the current price we are paying is VERY high given the supply/demand balance and the economic well-being of the country. How is this occuring - our alternatives are limited and the weakness of the dollar allows the commodity prices to rise as the rest of the world is growing - yes the rest of the world is growing faster than the US.

The current price is taxing on the US consumer. Just wait by next year you will see prices being compared to 2009 which will be 50+% higher - Jan 10 vs. Jan 09 - on a nominal basis.

Okay so what does that mean with energy policy....well the administration has the big push for reduction of CO2 via renewables. I wont argue the issue of global warming here, but go on with the logic. Oh and lets not forget other issues healthcare, 2 wars, and other knick nack items (bailouts etc...) Renewables is not and cannot be cheaper than the current fossil fuel choices outside the externality cost of CO2. So what are they doing well govt. subsidies. Okay so adding to all the other "minor" cost we have this push for alternative technology. The alternative technology option will look VERY poor if we continue to promote or develop fossil fuel - so they probably wont do this. This then binds us back to ignoring our own resources so prices can rise.

Follow the logic...the ultimate energy policy direction is a convergence of alternative technology economics with current fossil fuel markets. So lets think about this in terms of power - existing coal disptach cost around $30/MWh - Wind with govt subsidies $100/MWh - carbon cost or whatever you may want to call it will need to be close to $100/ton - translated to gasoline an additional $1/gallon. But fret not the results of this will be saving the planet for the future generations - you will suffer a bit but think about the kids in the future.]]> Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:04:42 -0400
What is even sadder than you commentary of oil prices is the fact you focused on last year price and just the price of crude oil....Lets look a little farther back for crude oil 2003=31 2004 =42 2005=56 2006=66 2007=72 2008=99 Now lets look at wholesale gasoline prices in cents per gallon 2003=87 2004=117 2005=160 2006=183 2007=204 2008=247 2009 YTD= 151

Now you got to ask yourself whether the consumer really did adjust to the 2005-2008 runnup - particurlarly since the consumer was running on credit and home equity. Employment levels (people in workforce) are now at 2005 levels - in essence we have lost all the job growth that we had. This maybe a shock but the current price we are paying is VERY high given the supply/demand balance and the economic well-being of the country. How is this occuring - our alternatives are limited and the weakness of the dollar allows the commodity prices to rise as the rest of the world is growing - yes the rest of the world is growing faster than the US.

The current price is taxing on the US consumer. Just wait by next year you will see prices being compared to 2009 which will be 50+% higher - Jan 10 vs. Jan 09 - on a nominal basis.

Okay so what does that mean with energy policy....well the administration has the big push for reduction of CO2 via renewables. I wont argue the issue of global warming here, but go on with the logic. Oh and lets not forget other issues healthcare, 2 wars, and other knick nack items (bailouts etc...) Renewables is not and cannot be cheaper than the current fossil fuel choices outside the externality cost of CO2. So what are they doing well govt. subsidies. Okay so adding to all the other "minor" cost we have this push for alternative technology. The alternative technology option will look VERY poor if we continue to promote or develop fossil fuel - so they probably wont do this. This then binds us back to ignoring our own resources so prices can rise.

Follow the logic...the ultimate energy policy direction is a convergence of alternative technology economics with current fossil fuel markets. So lets think about this in terms of power - existing coal disptach cost around $30/MWh - Wind with govt subsidies $100/MWh - carbon cost or whatever you may want to call it will need to be close to $100/ton - translated to gasoline an additional $1/gallon. But fret not the results of this will be saving the planet for the future generations - you will suffer a bit but think about the kids in the future.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144272/comments?source=feed#comment-599223 599223 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:12:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/28562?source=feed#comment-598273 598273 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:41:26 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/143928/comments?source=feed#comment-560315 560315
SPG is showing P/E of 26. Forward P/E of 8 - using $6 earnings est. - which is good assuming the underlying included the issues above....how ever I doubt that. If you read their guidance and outlook in the Q's they continue to tout growth...where there is no growth. The competition of vacant retail space and the lower consumer spending will lower rents for everyone including SPG. ]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:38:17 -0400
SPG is showing P/E of 26. Forward P/E of 8 - using $6 earnings est. - which is good assuming the underlying included the issues above....how ever I doubt that. If you read their guidance and outlook in the Q's they continue to tout growth...where there is no growth. The competition of vacant retail space and the lower consumer spending will lower rents for everyone including SPG. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129188/comments?source=feed#comment-450979 450979
I was short SPG got out in low 30's now I am rebuilding my short position in SPG. I am long SRS - selling calls on the rise owning calls on the fall. Short VNO - okay that covers disclosure of the subject -CRE. I wont go into the rest of my port. ]]> Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:47:41 -0400
I was short SPG got out in low 30's now I am rebuilding my short position in SPG. I am long SRS - selling calls on the rise owning calls on the fall. Short VNO - okay that covers disclosure of the subject -CRE. I wont go into the rest of my port. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129188/comments?source=feed#comment-450197 450197
I will have to agree with the commentors - SPG is in for trouble. It maybe that SPG is the prettiest horse in the glue factory - nonetheless it will feel pain. I would even venture to say if we do continue on this fake/delayed rebound, people will likely jump on things that are exploding - financials/technology/... - versus the obviously painful commericial real estate play. Real estate in general is clearly understood to be overbuilt.]]> Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:54:42 -0400
I will have to agree with the commentors - SPG is in for trouble. It maybe that SPG is the prettiest horse in the glue factory - nonetheless it will feel pain. I would even venture to say if we do continue on this fake/delayed rebound, people will likely jump on things that are exploding - financials/technology/... - versus the obviously painful commericial real estate play. Real estate in general is clearly understood to be overbuilt.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129051/comments?source=feed#comment-449027 449027
The top 10 monthly gains in the market resided in the 1930's. The bottom of the market was not until midyear 1932. Now I am not saying we are in a great depression or even have a strong probability I am just moving from one fact to another. Did you know - the March gains dont even show up in the top 10. Another perspective - 1Q1930 saw a 15% gain vs 4Q1929 - only to see by the end of the year it was down 40% from 1Q1930. Okay so lets say we are not in a great depression maybe only 50% as painful as the great depression - this would suggest a retrenchment of 20% by year end.

My main point is be careful comparing this to another period without comparing the scale of the issue to the other period.]]> Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:57:46 -0400
The top 10 monthly gains in the market resided in the 1930's. The bottom of the market was not until midyear 1932. Now I am not saying we are in a great depression or even have a strong probability I am just moving from one fact to another. Did you know - the March gains dont even show up in the top 10. Another perspective - 1Q1930 saw a 15% gain vs 4Q1929 - only to see by the end of the year it was down 40% from 1Q1930. Okay so lets say we are not in a great depression maybe only 50% as painful as the great depression - this would suggest a retrenchment of 20% by year end.

My main point is be careful comparing this to another period without comparing the scale of the issue to the other period.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/18410?source=feed#comment-401181 401181 Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:54:56 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/117602/comments?source=feed#comment-370821 370821
Lossing money does not mean your wrong in the longterm - just bad timing and not enough money in my case. If you read my articles I have publish - I do hope Peter and I are wrong but the facts are clear if your read the writing on the wall without any preconcieved notions. I estimate there will be need to be at least $15 trillion dollar of deleveraging in the US market. I will end on a good note - one of my article leaves hope of a silver bullet Peter and I could be missing - some sort of PC like revolution to propel productivity. Let me know if you do see one - I am on the watch.]]> Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:17:15 -0500
Lossing money does not mean your wrong in the longterm - just bad timing and not enough money in my case. If you read my articles I have publish - I do hope Peter and I are wrong but the facts are clear if your read the writing on the wall without any preconcieved notions. I estimate there will be need to be at least $15 trillion dollar of deleveraging in the US market. I will end on a good note - one of my article leaves hope of a silver bullet Peter and I could be missing - some sort of PC like revolution to propel productivity. Let me know if you do see one - I am on the watch.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112766/comments?source=feed#comment-343845 343845
I do not think a collapse of our auto manufacturing would occur. This is just like any other manufactured item. If you have too much supply you will have some pain as you transition back to equilibrium. Orderly bankruptcy with government backing is one gray alternative. This is used by almost any other manufacturer when they hit tough times. The US government could of backed all loans to suppliers to prevent the cascade of collapses. They could even promise to back all warranties as the transition was being made.

A truth - this goes for not just GM but the banks - Avoiding bankruptcy helps mainly current shareholders and the executive team.

GMAC plan is trying to prop up demand. You cant believe the solution is to prop up people buying cars when they dont need one and/or cant afford it? WHY is it the solution for many is to go back to living beyond our means? Its not sustainable.

On Dec 31 09:29 PM sr9web wrote:

> Ok, so what would you recommend? Let GMAC fail?
>
> Get real, you have no f'n idea how bad things will be if GM fails
> and GM needs GMAC.]]> Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:33:16 -0500
I do not think a collapse of our auto manufacturing would occur. This is just like any other manufactured item. If you have too much supply you will have some pain as you transition back to equilibrium. Orderly bankruptcy with government backing is one gray alternative. This is used by almost any other manufacturer when they hit tough times. The US government could of backed all loans to suppliers to prevent the cascade of collapses. They could even promise to back all warranties as the transition was being made.

A truth - this goes for not just GM but the banks - Avoiding bankruptcy helps mainly current shareholders and the executive team.

GMAC plan is trying to prop up demand. You cant believe the solution is to prop up people buying cars when they dont need one and/or cant afford it? WHY is it the solution for many is to go back to living beyond our means? Its not sustainable.

On Dec 31 09:29 PM sr9web wrote:

> Ok, so what would you recommend? Let GMAC fail?
>
> Get real, you have no f'n idea how bad things will be if GM fails
> and GM needs GMAC.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112520/comments?source=feed#comment-342107 342107
This is true: Our debt is made out 30% domestic holders 30% foreign holders and the rest IOU to social security and medicare ($4 Trillion for those who dont know).

A great analogy is GM and the US government. Make promises knowing you cant deliver but only worried about the moment - too much benefits in the longterm. Does it ALL go away? - probably not but certainly not what was promise - which will be the same with GM employees. The will get a double dose now from GM and eventually also the US government. Society mirroring government or vice versa....

I am planning on not getting a penny from my social security and all of you who are less than 50 would be prudent to plan the same way...Oh know I am going against the government plan - they want me not to save and spend my money....]]> Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:55:44 -0500
This is true: Our debt is made out 30% domestic holders 30% foreign holders and the rest IOU to social security and medicare ($4 Trillion for those who dont know).

A great analogy is GM and the US government. Make promises knowing you cant deliver but only worried about the moment - too much benefits in the longterm. Does it ALL go away? - probably not but certainly not what was promise - which will be the same with GM employees. The will get a double dose now from GM and eventually also the US government. Society mirroring government or vice versa....

I am planning on not getting a penny from my social security and all of you who are less than 50 would be prudent to plan the same way...Oh know I am going against the government plan - they want me not to save and spend my money....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112374/comments?source=feed#comment-340038 340038
Boomer demand was being spent - they participated in taking home equity loans buying multiple homes and purchasing numerous goods. The sad story boomers started to believe home equity would be part of their savings so they spent more of the cash in hand - sort of like holding a stock thats quadruple they started spending before they cashed out. As all traders know you cant book a profit till you sell it. In addition the greed was even stronger, many people with 401Ks with nearly a million dollars kept their money in stocks even though they were approaching retirement. They wanted the 12% gain not the 3% from money markets. However they all suffered for this greed. Unfortunately I personally know many and they all could of easily lived a nice retirement before this year but got greedy and kept it in stocks - now 40-70% lower. Businessweek had a very sad article on gentleman who did exactly what I said above.

So yes Fundamentals - Supply & Demand will dictate what happens. We are in agreement here what we may differ is the supply/demand outlook. Oil will rise eventually but I think it may take a little longer than many people think. $30-$40/bbl was considered a high base forecast just 5 years ago. In my own forecast models I do have much higher oil outlook, but how I reckon it will get there is due to inflation from printing 8.5 trillion dollars.

DavyJ - your right on a personal level but when discussing macro economics you really need to remove yourself from that. The pain is the transformation needed to have a balance economy not just based on our consumer spending.

Summary points:
BOOMER DEMAND less than what was forecasted a year ago but will still be there - MAIN DRIVER: Boomers money reduced
OIL SUPPLY will be needed but not as much as forcasted a year ago - MAIN DRIVER: Demand reduced and large supply coming online as investments in the oil market are very chunky - e.g. check out crazy horse development out in the gulf.


On Dec 28 08:00 PM perceptions_now wrote:

> The basics of economics have been and are, being ignored!!!
>
> Supply & Demand have and will, dictate what happens in the economy.
>
>
> The basic economic assumption of Growth has been slowing and will
> now go into reverse.
>
> Baby Boomers earning & spending capacity and the Oil production
> have now Peaked.
>
> You tell me, WHAT IS GOING TO REPLACE THE BOOMER DEMAND & THE
> OIL SUPPLY that is sustainable, over time ???]]> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:30:18 -0500
Boomer demand was being spent - they participated in taking home equity loans buying multiple homes and purchasing numerous goods. The sad story boomers started to believe home equity would be part of their savings so they spent more of the cash in hand - sort of like holding a stock thats quadruple they started spending before they cashed out. As all traders know you cant book a profit till you sell it. In addition the greed was even stronger, many people with 401Ks with nearly a million dollars kept their money in stocks even though they were approaching retirement. They wanted the 12% gain not the 3% from money markets. However they all suffered for this greed. Unfortunately I personally know many and they all could of easily lived a nice retirement before this year but got greedy and kept it in stocks - now 40-70% lower. Businessweek had a very sad article on gentleman who did exactly what I said above.

So yes Fundamentals - Supply & Demand will dictate what happens. We are in agreement here what we may differ is the supply/demand outlook. Oil will rise eventually but I think it may take a little longer than many people think. $30-$40/bbl was considered a high base forecast just 5 years ago. In my own forecast models I do have much higher oil outlook, but how I reckon it will get there is due to inflation from printing 8.5 trillion dollars.

DavyJ - your right on a personal level but when discussing macro economics you really need to remove yourself from that. The pain is the transformation needed to have a balance economy not just based on our consumer spending.

Summary points:
BOOMER DEMAND less than what was forecasted a year ago but will still be there - MAIN DRIVER: Boomers money reduced
OIL SUPPLY will be needed but not as much as forcasted a year ago - MAIN DRIVER: Demand reduced and large supply coming online as investments in the oil market are very chunky - e.g. check out crazy horse development out in the gulf.


On Dec 28 08:00 PM perceptions_now wrote:

> The basics of economics have been and are, being ignored!!!
>
> Supply & Demand have and will, dictate what happens in the economy.
>
>
> The basic economic assumption of Growth has been slowing and will
> now go into reverse.
>
> Baby Boomers earning & spending capacity and the Oil production
> have now Peaked.
>
> You tell me, WHAT IS GOING TO REPLACE THE BOOMER DEMAND & THE
> OIL SUPPLY that is sustainable, over time ???]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112367/comments?source=feed#comment-339869 339869
Let me point out an issue I had with several economist on your savings discussion. In some circles people consider the reduction of credit card debt as savings. I would be careful with this concept since many credit card companies are reducing limits and some our actually canceling your credit card. This amount should be removed from the calculation and not be considered returnable within the cash balance - therefore this is not savings.

Another possible mispreception is the reduction of consumer debt - its not as rosy as it seems - they arent all paying it off - most of this reduction is shifting the balance to banks per consumers foreclosing. Someone still needs to pay - this is the essence of my article - we can shift the money around but at some point someone needs to pay.]]> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:43:03 -0500
Let me point out an issue I had with several economist on your savings discussion. In some circles people consider the reduction of credit card debt as savings. I would be careful with this concept since many credit card companies are reducing limits and some our actually canceling your credit card. This amount should be removed from the calculation and not be considered returnable within the cash balance - therefore this is not savings.

Another possible mispreception is the reduction of consumer debt - its not as rosy as it seems - they arent all paying it off - most of this reduction is shifting the balance to banks per consumers foreclosing. Someone still needs to pay - this is the essence of my article - we can shift the money around but at some point someone needs to pay.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112374/comments?source=feed#comment-339765 339765
I was just trying to keep things real and true. I am very upset with the adminstration but getting to the point of contriving things to be upset about will lead to missunderstanding & worse yet rewriting of history therefore leaving one to repeat history.

“If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.” George Bernard Shaw - I think this occurs because we attempt to re-write history to please our emotions.

The housing bubble began with relaxing credit standards for Freddie and Fannie under the premise of allowing more people to buy houses - particularly minorities. People who objected were deemed un-american for not wanting people to own homes. Once the bubble started no one wanted to or brave enough to close it before it got this big - including the Bush adminstration.

Hopefully I cleared this up - I believe the worse sin is being a hypocrite so I take your statement seriously.


On Dec 28 11:24 AM satguru wrote:

> Perhaps the writer needs to live by the truth first. It is always
> in a Republican administration that all hell breaks lose. He says
> why blame Bush. Hell! it was on the Bush watch that we had 9-11,
> it was on the Nixon watch we had the oil crisis in the 70s, it was
> on Reagan's watch we had the huge budget deficits, it was on Bush
> Sr's watch we had the Savings and Loan debacle and now this on Bush
> Jr's watch. SO cut your BS!!! We are in a heap of trouble and it
> will take years to unwind. WE DON"T NEED ADVICE FROM YOU WINDBAGS!!
> JUst a bunch of money grabbing hypocrites and a hypocrit is worse
> than a liar!]]> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:37:02 -0500
I was just trying to keep things real and true. I am very upset with the adminstration but getting to the point of contriving things to be upset about will lead to missunderstanding & worse yet rewriting of history therefore leaving one to repeat history.

“If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.” George Bernard Shaw - I think this occurs because we attempt to re-write history to please our emotions.

The housing bubble began with relaxing credit standards for Freddie and Fannie under the premise of allowing more people to buy houses - particularly minorities. People who objected were deemed un-american for not wanting people to own homes. Once the bubble started no one wanted to or brave enough to close it before it got this big - including the Bush adminstration.

Hopefully I cleared this up - I believe the worse sin is being a hypocrite so I take your statement seriously.


On Dec 28 11:24 AM satguru wrote:

> Perhaps the writer needs to live by the truth first. It is always
> in a Republican administration that all hell breaks lose. He says
> why blame Bush. Hell! it was on the Bush watch that we had 9-11,
> it was on the Nixon watch we had the oil crisis in the 70s, it was
> on Reagan's watch we had the huge budget deficits, it was on Bush
> Sr's watch we had the Savings and Loan debacle and now this on Bush
> Jr's watch. SO cut your BS!!! We are in a heap of trouble and it
> will take years to unwind. WE DON"T NEED ADVICE FROM YOU WINDBAGS!!
> JUst a bunch of money grabbing hypocrites and a hypocrit is worse
> than a liar!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112374/comments?source=feed#comment-339748 339748
The article you sent me I will be honest I couldn’t read all of it - yes I believe in hearing and supporting the right of other peoples opinion its just too early in the morning to read it completely. I will try it again some other time. However the gist of it is no where close to my belief. UK is and will be in a worse off situation than the US. The EU socialist structure will keep it limited. The US is likely to approach the EU structure - higher taxes but hopefully we never get to them. The US still has mobility in classes though not guaranteed. I would argue/debate/support the US still holds the greatest promises for rags to riches. This will keep the US dominant. Hopefully the politicians will realize that this is what is keeping this country great. Complete socialism = everybody poor/sad/mediocre except for the very few. The truth is Capitalism will always have poor but there is at least hope (at times can be small nonetheless exist) one can be at the right place at the right time and apply oneself to become successful.

This country needs to maintain that hope of potential. You can see this in the general public not wanting to tax to infinity the well off. If we get to that point then the public is agreeing there is no hope for them and their children to one day succeed.]]> Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:25:03 -0500
The article you sent me I will be honest I couldn’t read all of it - yes I believe in hearing and supporting the right of other peoples opinion its just too early in the morning to read it completely. I will try it again some other time. However the gist of it is no where close to my belief. UK is and will be in a worse off situation than the US. The EU socialist structure will keep it limited. The US is likely to approach the EU structure - higher taxes but hopefully we never get to them. The US still has mobility in classes though not guaranteed. I would argue/debate/support the US still holds the greatest promises for rags to riches. This will keep the US dominant. Hopefully the politicians will realize that this is what is keeping this country great. Complete socialism = everybody poor/sad/mediocre except for the very few. The truth is Capitalism will always have poor but there is at least hope (at times can be small nonetheless exist) one can be at the right place at the right time and apply oneself to become successful.

This country needs to maintain that hope of potential. You can see this in the general public not wanting to tax to infinity the well off. If we get to that point then the public is agreeing there is no hope for them and their children to one day succeed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112350/comments?source=feed#comment-339255 339255
I would not be investing in China - but this is just due to balancing risk and reward. Certainly I can envision investments in China returning huge returns, but in most scenarios I play out I see a huge trade war globally with significant turmoil in China.]]> Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:31:14 -0500
I would not be investing in China - but this is just due to balancing risk and reward. Certainly I can envision investments in China returning huge returns, but in most scenarios I play out I see a huge trade war globally with significant turmoil in China.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112295/comments?source=feed#comment-339035 339035
I do want to mention on the subject of ethanol and biofuels- there has been a bunch of bashing on ethanol. I for one over the past couple years have been an opponent of ethanol. However I have changed my mind over the past year. The reason is we (US) are the number 1 agriculture producer in the world. Before the 2007-2008 runup in oil clearly one could argue gasoline was underpriced relative to the good it brought to people versus lets say bottle water ($8/gallon). I believe in that sense people have undervalued food. Subsidy for oil contributed to the increase oil prices. Increase in oil prices hurt us because we net import. If food prices rise I believe the US would be the benefactor of this trend so if biofuels caused food prices to rise I really dont think it would be bad for the US. Clearly we will pay more for food but food does have a very good utility which deserves greater value than its seen the past few years. In the long run just like wind generation we will get better at the technology. Biofuels is better than the other alternatives in terms of balancing economics, energy security, environment, and technical implementation.]]> Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:43:01 -0500
I do want to mention on the subject of ethanol and biofuels- there has been a bunch of bashing on ethanol. I for one over the past couple years have been an opponent of ethanol. However I have changed my mind over the past year. The reason is we (US) are the number 1 agriculture producer in the world. Before the 2007-2008 runup in oil clearly one could argue gasoline was underpriced relative to the good it brought to people versus lets say bottle water ($8/gallon). I believe in that sense people have undervalued food. Subsidy for oil contributed to the increase oil prices. Increase in oil prices hurt us because we net import. If food prices rise I believe the US would be the benefactor of this trend so if biofuels caused food prices to rise I really dont think it would be bad for the US. Clearly we will pay more for food but food does have a very good utility which deserves greater value than its seen the past few years. In the long run just like wind generation we will get better at the technology. Biofuels is better than the other alternatives in terms of balancing economics, energy security, environment, and technical implementation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112295/comments?source=feed#comment-338889 338889
On the CNG front two issues that are real which will require a societal change or massive technological improvements - 1. CNG vehicle cost an additional $3-5K 2. The distance you can travel will be cut in half as compared to conventional vehicle before the next fillup - assuming you can find a station. 3. You will have a reduction of 40% of your trunk space.

WIth the credit issues the way it is as long as you give choice (which by the way is the American thing to do) it will be hard for consumers to pony up the additional capital whether CNG or other hybrid technology. Compared to the other technology CNG right now has much more sacrifice in how you behave with your car - driving distance and trunk space.]]> Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:11:02 -0500
On the CNG front two issues that are real which will require a societal change or massive technological improvements - 1. CNG vehicle cost an additional $3-5K 2. The distance you can travel will be cut in half as compared to conventional vehicle before the next fillup - assuming you can find a station. 3. You will have a reduction of 40% of your trunk space.

WIth the credit issues the way it is as long as you give choice (which by the way is the American thing to do) it will be hard for consumers to pony up the additional capital whether CNG or other hybrid technology. Compared to the other technology CNG right now has much more sacrifice in how you behave with your car - driving distance and trunk space.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112295/comments?source=feed#comment-338648 338648
Okay lets do the math - World Carbon Emission now 26GT - US 6 GT China already surpassed us. India not far behind. The report says 2 GT goal. Remember the chinese built a coal plant a week these have asset lifes of greater than 60 years. Do you really think we can get to 2GT by 2100 plus a significant reduction by 2020? I am not being a naysayer - but a truthsayer. Either the report overstated the goals or we should prepare for adaptation not a goal that is unachievable - e.g. most of us attempting to be professional atheletes - we can spend the rest of our lives working out but we will not advance to that level no matter what so no point in trying.

Battery storage is very expensive when you incorporate the life cycle. Power plants can last 60 years batteries life cycle 15. I did own CBAK but its not to save the world but the fact we all have cell phones that need batteries.]]> Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:20:14 -0500
Okay lets do the math - World Carbon Emission now 26GT - US 6 GT China already surpassed us. India not far behind. The report says 2 GT goal. Remember the chinese built a coal plant a week these have asset lifes of greater than 60 years. Do you really think we can get to 2GT by 2100 plus a significant reduction by 2020? I am not being a naysayer - but a truthsayer. Either the report overstated the goals or we should prepare for adaptation not a goal that is unachievable - e.g. most of us attempting to be professional atheletes - we can spend the rest of our lives working out but we will not advance to that level no matter what so no point in trying.

Battery storage is very expensive when you incorporate the life cycle. Power plants can last 60 years batteries life cycle 15. I did own CBAK but its not to save the world but the fact we all have cell phones that need batteries.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/109582/comments?source=feed#comment-333837 333837 Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:37:56 -0500