Sliding Back into the Great Recession [View article]
The last time I read something from the Mad Hatter, mmm, excuse me, Hedgefundtrader, he was having lunch with John Podesta, the Director of the CIA . . . the conversation was scintillating and the information was fascinating.
Government Action: Mission Not Accomplished [View article]
A strong argument for term limits . . . .
On Dec 15 09:28 AM MarketGuy wrote:
> A large part of the problem is the political culture of "time". Every > solution is conceived, planned and executed all with the "next election" > in mind, whether it's for the sitting candidate or his party. > > These 2 and 4 year timelines are a recipes for failure when considering > the realistic long term planning and solution requirements regarding > our economy. > > It equates to painting the walls when the foundation is crumbling.
They may think it's vodka, but it is really "Victory Gin" . . .
On Nov 11 12:33 AM John Bowman wrote:
> Sounds like a "planned" economy to me.....just like the one halfway > 'round the world which is so successful and most of it's citizens > are in a drunken stupor sipping vodka all day long trying to forget > their misery. > > Next on the agenda: five year plans.
Graco is a pretty good company and your metrics appear to be accurate . . . however, one of the clouds I see on Graco's long term horizon is that China has been producing nearly exact copies of Graco's best selling products.
> Early in the ‘great depression’ the theory of Business Cycles was > discredited by the economic suffering imposed on everyone. Our government > was slow to “help” its citizens and the Business Cycle Theory took > the hit. I think that is unfortunate because the Business Cycle > theory goes a long way to explain the grave economic situation we > find ourselves in today. > > During the last 25 years the Federal Reserve has administered economic > adrenalin three times in order to avoid economic discomfort from > a normal business down cycles: They reduced the Fed Funds Rate and > flooded the market with cheap money, i.e. a bailout. With each successive > bailout the Fed has had to administer ever lower interest rates and > provide ever larger sums of borrowed money to achieve the same effect. > > > The Business Cycle theory contends that business down cycles are > essential to a healthy economy; that down cycles should be accepted > for their healing properties rather than avoided for their economic > pain. > > The Business Cycle theory holds that the benefit of down cycles is > they force excess debt to be paid down, and unprofitable risky business > models to be modified or abandoned. Avoiding down cycles causes > borrowers to become addicted to cheap credit and dependent upon excessively > leveraged business models. Borrowers, at every level, come to regard > debt as wealth, a classic and tragic error of culture and an unsustainable > economic model. Without down cycles, debt accumulates and unprofitable > excessively risky business models prevail. > > When overleveraged banks are bailed out sound banks are punished > for their prudence. With each bailout, the failed models, i.e. “bad’ > banks gain greater share over prudent profitable banks. After 25 > years of handicapping sound financial institutions, essentially every > large financial institution in the western world operates on a business > model based on extreme leverage of financially engineered products > with no “real value”. The world is now burdened with $55-100 trillion > of worthless or seriously impaired debt on the balance sheets of > virtually every western government, business and citizen. While > the value of the assets are impaired the debt remains. And our job > situation is structurally weaker from outsourcing, which renders > us less capable of servicing that debt. We are over indebted and > no longer have the economic means to financially redeem ourselves. > > > Those 25 years of Fiscal and Monetary Policy have rendered any options > left effectively moot: We no longer have sufficient financial, commodity > or productive resources of our own to restore prosperity and the > cost is greater than the rest of the world is willing to lend us. > The Federal Reserve has already begun filling the void by buying > Treasuries directly; otherwise known as “printing money”. Printing > money has always led to hyperinflation! > > Hyperinflation and high unemployment is a tragic combination. An > inescapable economic tsunami is on the horizon. The truly unfortunate > aspect of the coming tsunami is the magnitude of human suffering > that will be left in its wake. I expect that very large portions > of the American population will be left homeless, helpless and hungry. > > > If we continue trying to prop up failed institutions with more borrowed > and printed money we will use up the few precious resources we have > and go deeper in debt without fixing the problem. By doing more > of the same, we risk a depression that we may never recover from. > If we have the moral and political courage to accept the economic > healing process we will still have a recession but hopefully emerge > stronger, growing and vibrant. > > 1929 clearly showed us that our government can not stand by and do > nothing when its citizens are hungry and homeless. However we are > at the point in our economic evolution where more bailouts can’t > improve our economy; they will only increase the magnitude of economic > pain when the adrenalin wears off. Instead of rewarding the culprits, > Congress should allow the economic healing process to occur and instead > spend the bailout money to lessen the economic burden to its citizens > as they suffer through a difficult and painful economic adjustment. > Congress can help people weather the recession by providing economic > and cultural assistance such as unlimited unemployment insurance, > free retraining programs, universal health care, free public transportation, > food banks, etc. Consider this, the 3 trillion spent or earmarked > to bail out culpable banks is equal to $10,000 for every single person > in America. That could go a long way toward getting the economy > going again!
Yeah . . . all of this would be fine if you could trust political institutions to act in the best interests of the people. Currently, it is not about helping people but more about accumulating power and maintaining it.
On Sep 13 05:25 PM bob adamson wrote:
> Boone and Jonson make a vital point well. The US and EU (particularly > UK) investment banking sector is having severe difficulty identifying > the dividing line between appropriate and dangerous risk taking in > an economy marked by the twin information technology and globalization > revolutions. Arguably, the challenge extends beyond the investment > banking sector to include the consumer, manufacturing and other producer > sectors of each national and the global economies. The challenge > therefore is find ways to transform models for investment and consumer > banks and banking, the private sector industrial corporation and > the public sector institutions to both preserve the benefits of liberal > democracy and the free market, on the one hand, and protect these > from undue levels of inappropriate risk. > > Undoubtedly others will advance arguments derived from a Libertarian > or Austrian School perspective to the effect that the crisis we face > built up because of government attempts, particularly since WW II, > to limit risk in the economy. That argument is similar to that of > professional foresters who now make an excellent case that 60 years > of fire suppression in the west of the US and Canada (and undoubtedly > elsewhere as well) simply made the forests more vulnerable to more > severe fires (i.e. more frequent small fires periodically are natural > and forests are healthier and safer for them). I acknowledge that > a case can be made for extending this perspective to the current > economic situation but I believe that the suggested cure would be > even worse than the current problems. In short, it isn’t simply > a matter of allowing creative destruction of inefficiencies to take > their course (acknowledging that this would be especially harsh in > the short term at present because of the accumulated problems from > the past 70 or so years of risk suppression). Rather, the problem > with this radical free market approach is that sufficient credit > necessary to finance and manage a modern economy can not be mobilized > and managed safely and efficiently if we revert to an idealized version > of 19th century financial and industrial institutions. Clearly, > however, the versions of Keynesian and Friedman monetary and fiscal > policies employed heretofore since WW II are also inadequate and > classic Marxism (even in a liberal democratic mode) is equally flawed. > What therefore is to be done? > > This is not the place for a lengthy proposal and analysis (nor do > I claim to have some clear and detailed final answers). Here, however, > is a brief bundle of suggestions that seem worthy of further development: > > - The observation that the banking sector is comprised at its top > by institutions (‘near banks’ as well as those formally recognized > as banks) ‘too big to fail’ is not an excuse for simply accepting > the need for periodic massive public bail-outs coupled with emergency > but minimal tweaks to regulatory and capitalization rules. Such institutions > are, because of their importance to society generally, more analogous > to public utilities than a corporation of, say, $30, 000, 000 capitalization > operating some restaurants. The comments of Boone and Jonson reflect > this needed clarity of thinking but I would go somewhat further. > > - The role of the business cycle has been undervalued for many years > while the predominant view was that monetary or fiscal fine-tuning > could do the job (take your pick of short term tools from the ‘bastardized > Keynesian’ or the purported Friedman tool kit). Renewed interest > in the driving function of uncertainty in the economy as seen by > Minsky, Akeroff and others helps refocus our perspective. > - Private employers have been forced to take on too great a responsibility > for provision for the health, development and retirement needs of > their workforce. The public sector must therefore (in intelligent, > effective and efficient ways) take back from employers a greater > part of this load leaving corporations freer to focus on their primary > business functions. In other words, the public sector needs to organize > and finance health, pension, education and training and ancillary > benefits to assist citizens generally to manage their personal needs > and leave the private employers better able to finance and manage > their production and sale of products more efficiently and effectively. > > - The aggressive efforts of the past to move functions from the public > sector to the private sector must be rethought. As suggested above, > there are areas where the public sector can develop to the benefit > of both the citizen and the private sector itself if only the question > is looked at afresh without ideological blinkers. One important > benefit of a larger but fine-tuned and well managed public sector > would be that it will also serve as a counterweight in the national > and regional economy to buffer the local economic disruption of recessions. > In short, risk and an appropriate level of private sector ‘creative > destruction’ is beneficial, but not general disruption and chaos > attendant on a deflationary depression vortex, and a public sector > functioning on a different growth and pause cycle than that applying > to the private sector can moderate the boom/bust effect on the general > society without unduly shielding private sector industries and companies > from the need to be efficient and effective.
I am using a MacBook and have had the same problem . . . when it happens, the only way to bail out is a hard power down. The mouse still works, but nothing responds to selection. I downloaded a freeware virus scanner from Apple and ran a complete system scan with nothing detected. My internet provider is Verizon 3G, if that's of any consequence. I am relatively new to SA, i.e, ~ 4 months, but this has started happening to me within the last week.
You all have a great website and I hope that you're able to get this resolved quickly.
On Aug 22 08:57 AM basehitz wrote:
> My feedback to SA inquiry above as follows: > > Q: Last 5 pages visited B4 malware occurred: > A: I have a daily routine with market following. Given repeated (>10) > attempts of malware trying to get in, I expect a typical rendering > would serve your purpose. The following are what is in my current > browser history: > 1. yahoo finance.com > 2. bigcharts.com > 3. stockcharts.com > 4. futuresource.com > 5. Clearstation.com > 6. SA > > Q: Do you know what page you were reading immediately before seeing > the malware? > A: I read many of the authors. I have not detected a pattern of any > author(s) in particular. Often I access articles off your website > while logged in from the right hand column listing. Sometimes I access > a highlighted article in the center column. (It may be coincidence, > but it appears more frequent attacks from highlighted articles.) > Other times I access stories thru emails you send. It has happened > on all 3. > > Q: Do you know what page you were reading immediately before seeing > the malware? > A: It’s happened many times. I don’t recall a particular sequence > involving other websites. What may be a clue in diagnostics is that > the sequence goes like this: > • My browser is configured with multiple tabs open as described above > > • I’m on the SA page and access an article > • Within a few seconds (at most) a pop-up alerts me of a virus attack. > Another pop-up appears that shows various areas of the computer system, > such as drive areas. It purportedly then shows rapidly accumulating > viruses PRESENT in these different system areas. Now, that they’ve > yelled fire in the theater, they give another pop-up offering to > scan the system for the threats they just fabricated. They offer > some scan SW that I never heard of. Note that my pop-up blocker is > very effective. Somehow they get around that. What they can’t get > around is Windows Vista (actually did something right) does not allow > SW programs to launch without user OK. That’s it’s Achilles heel. > I was familiar of this ruse hackers use so I kill everything without > letting it launch. > > I then go thru system scans using Norton and Windows defender. Nothing > harmful has ever been detected by either, even with a full system > scan. So the above shutdown sequence appears to be effective. > > Q: Can you send us a screenshot of the malware? > A: When an attack happens, I immediately dump all internet functions > and pull the connection. Whether or not it’s safe to try this I don’t > know, and I’m not going to find out the hard way. Sorry I can’t help > you on this one. > > I think it’s important to note that it hasn’t happened even once > if the SA page or an SA article is not open. My usual format is to > use MS tabs feature, where one browser program is open but a string > of tabs. What I can’t recall with absolute certainty but think is > true is that if the SA website is one of those tabs but I’m working > on another site, I haven’t had any attacks. > > I am impressed with your quick response to these concerns. Given > SA writers often cover material Tout TV and other conflicted outlets > won’t touch, I am already suspicious as to why you were attacked. > > > If I can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact > me.
Some Thoughts On Obama And Job Creation [View article]
Obama's Plan to Reform the Banking Business: Not Good [View article]
Sliding Back into the Great Recession [View article]
Less Obvious Consequences of the Massachusetts Election [View article]
Government Action: Mission Not Accomplished [View article]
On Dec 15 09:28 AM MarketGuy wrote:
> A large part of the problem is the political culture of "time". Every
> solution is conceived, planned and executed all with the "next election"
> in mind, whether it's for the sitting candidate or his party.
>
> These 2 and 4 year timelines are a recipes for failure when considering
> the realistic long term planning and solution requirements regarding
> our economy.
>
> It equates to painting the walls when the foundation is crumbling.
The Dodd Bill: Generally Very Good [View article]
On Nov 11 12:33 AM John Bowman wrote:
> Sounds like a "planned" economy to me.....just like the one halfway
> 'round the world which is so successful and most of it's citizens
> are in a drunken stupor sipping vodka all day long trying to forget
> their misery.
>
> Next on the agenda: five year plans.
Why I'm Bullish on Graco [View article]
Economics and Its Discontents [View article]
On Sep 14 10:28 AM Bjarne Jensen wrote:
> Early in the ‘great depression’ the theory of Business Cycles was
> discredited by the economic suffering imposed on everyone. Our government
> was slow to “help” its citizens and the Business Cycle Theory took
> the hit. I think that is unfortunate because the Business Cycle
> theory goes a long way to explain the grave economic situation we
> find ourselves in today.
>
> During the last 25 years the Federal Reserve has administered economic
> adrenalin three times in order to avoid economic discomfort from
> a normal business down cycles: They reduced the Fed Funds Rate and
> flooded the market with cheap money, i.e. a bailout. With each successive
> bailout the Fed has had to administer ever lower interest rates and
> provide ever larger sums of borrowed money to achieve the same effect.
>
>
> The Business Cycle theory contends that business down cycles are
> essential to a healthy economy; that down cycles should be accepted
> for their healing properties rather than avoided for their economic
> pain.
>
> The Business Cycle theory holds that the benefit of down cycles is
> they force excess debt to be paid down, and unprofitable risky business
> models to be modified or abandoned. Avoiding down cycles causes
> borrowers to become addicted to cheap credit and dependent upon excessively
> leveraged business models. Borrowers, at every level, come to regard
> debt as wealth, a classic and tragic error of culture and an unsustainable
> economic model. Without down cycles, debt accumulates and unprofitable
> excessively risky business models prevail.
>
> When overleveraged banks are bailed out sound banks are punished
> for their prudence. With each bailout, the failed models, i.e. “bad’
> banks gain greater share over prudent profitable banks. After 25
> years of handicapping sound financial institutions, essentially every
> large financial institution in the western world operates on a business
> model based on extreme leverage of financially engineered products
> with no “real value”. The world is now burdened with $55-100 trillion
> of worthless or seriously impaired debt on the balance sheets of
> virtually every western government, business and citizen. While
> the value of the assets are impaired the debt remains. And our job
> situation is structurally weaker from outsourcing, which renders
> us less capable of servicing that debt. We are over indebted and
> no longer have the economic means to financially redeem ourselves.
>
>
> Those 25 years of Fiscal and Monetary Policy have rendered any options
> left effectively moot: We no longer have sufficient financial, commodity
> or productive resources of our own to restore prosperity and the
> cost is greater than the rest of the world is willing to lend us.
> The Federal Reserve has already begun filling the void by buying
> Treasuries directly; otherwise known as “printing money”. Printing
> money has always led to hyperinflation!
>
> Hyperinflation and high unemployment is a tragic combination. An
> inescapable economic tsunami is on the horizon. The truly unfortunate
> aspect of the coming tsunami is the magnitude of human suffering
> that will be left in its wake. I expect that very large portions
> of the American population will be left homeless, helpless and hungry.
>
>
> If we continue trying to prop up failed institutions with more borrowed
> and printed money we will use up the few precious resources we have
> and go deeper in debt without fixing the problem. By doing more
> of the same, we risk a depression that we may never recover from.
> If we have the moral and political courage to accept the economic
> healing process we will still have a recession but hopefully emerge
> stronger, growing and vibrant.
>
> 1929 clearly showed us that our government can not stand by and do
> nothing when its citizens are hungry and homeless. However we are
> at the point in our economic evolution where more bailouts can’t
> improve our economy; they will only increase the magnitude of economic
> pain when the adrenalin wears off. Instead of rewarding the culprits,
> Congress should allow the economic healing process to occur and instead
> spend the bailout money to lessen the economic burden to its citizens
> as they suffer through a difficult and painful economic adjustment.
> Congress can help people weather the recession by providing economic
> and cultural assistance such as unlimited unemployment insurance,
> free retraining programs, universal health care, free public transportation,
> food banks, etc. Consider this, the 3 trillion spent or earmarked
> to bail out culpable banks is equal to $10,000 for every single person
> in America. That could go a long way toward getting the economy
> going again!
Economic Donkeys [View article]
On Sep 13 05:25 PM bob adamson wrote:
> Boone and Jonson make a vital point well. The US and EU (particularly
> UK) investment banking sector is having severe difficulty identifying
> the dividing line between appropriate and dangerous risk taking in
> an economy marked by the twin information technology and globalization
> revolutions. Arguably, the challenge extends beyond the investment
> banking sector to include the consumer, manufacturing and other producer
> sectors of each national and the global economies. The challenge
> therefore is find ways to transform models for investment and consumer
> banks and banking, the private sector industrial corporation and
> the public sector institutions to both preserve the benefits of liberal
> democracy and the free market, on the one hand, and protect these
> from undue levels of inappropriate risk.
>
> Undoubtedly others will advance arguments derived from a Libertarian
> or Austrian School perspective to the effect that the crisis we face
> built up because of government attempts, particularly since WW II,
> to limit risk in the economy. That argument is similar to that of
> professional foresters who now make an excellent case that 60 years
> of fire suppression in the west of the US and Canada (and undoubtedly
> elsewhere as well) simply made the forests more vulnerable to more
> severe fires (i.e. more frequent small fires periodically are natural
> and forests are healthier and safer for them). I acknowledge that
> a case can be made for extending this perspective to the current
> economic situation but I believe that the suggested cure would be
> even worse than the current problems. In short, it isn’t simply
> a matter of allowing creative destruction of inefficiencies to take
> their course (acknowledging that this would be especially harsh in
> the short term at present because of the accumulated problems from
> the past 70 or so years of risk suppression). Rather, the problem
> with this radical free market approach is that sufficient credit
> necessary to finance and manage a modern economy can not be mobilized
> and managed safely and efficiently if we revert to an idealized version
> of 19th century financial and industrial institutions. Clearly,
> however, the versions of Keynesian and Friedman monetary and fiscal
> policies employed heretofore since WW II are also inadequate and
> classic Marxism (even in a liberal democratic mode) is equally flawed.
> What therefore is to be done?
>
> This is not the place for a lengthy proposal and analysis (nor do
> I claim to have some clear and detailed final answers). Here, however,
> is a brief bundle of suggestions that seem worthy of further development:
>
> - The observation that the banking sector is comprised at its top
> by institutions (‘near banks’ as well as those formally recognized
> as banks) ‘too big to fail’ is not an excuse for simply accepting
> the need for periodic massive public bail-outs coupled with emergency
> but minimal tweaks to regulatory and capitalization rules. Such institutions
> are, because of their importance to society generally, more analogous
> to public utilities than a corporation of, say, $30, 000, 000 capitalization
> operating some restaurants. The comments of Boone and Jonson reflect
> this needed clarity of thinking but I would go somewhat further.
>
> - The role of the business cycle has been undervalued for many years
> while the predominant view was that monetary or fiscal fine-tuning
> could do the job (take your pick of short term tools from the ‘bastardized
> Keynesian’ or the purported Friedman tool kit). Renewed interest
> in the driving function of uncertainty in the economy as seen by
> Minsky, Akeroff and others helps refocus our perspective.
> - Private employers have been forced to take on too great a responsibility
> for provision for the health, development and retirement needs of
> their workforce. The public sector must therefore (in intelligent,
> effective and efficient ways) take back from employers a greater
> part of this load leaving corporations freer to focus on their primary
> business functions. In other words, the public sector needs to organize
> and finance health, pension, education and training and ancillary
> benefits to assist citizens generally to manage their personal needs
> and leave the private employers better able to finance and manage
> their production and sale of products more efficiently and effectively.
>
> - The aggressive efforts of the past to move functions from the public
> sector to the private sector must be rethought. As suggested above,
> there are areas where the public sector can develop to the benefit
> of both the citizen and the private sector itself if only the question
> is looked at afresh without ideological blinkers. One important
> benefit of a larger but fine-tuned and well managed public sector
> would be that it will also serve as a counterweight in the national
> and regional economy to buffer the local economic disruption of recessions.
> In short, risk and an appropriate level of private sector ‘creative
> destruction’ is beneficial, but not general disruption and chaos
> attendant on a deflationary depression vortex, and a public sector
> functioning on a different growth and pause cycle than that applying
> to the private sector can moderate the boom/bust effect on the general
> society without unduly shielding private sector industries and companies
> from the need to be efficient and effective.
Friday Roundup: Commodities, Emerging Markets [View article]
You all have a great website and I hope that you're able to get this resolved quickly.
On Aug 22 08:57 AM basehitz wrote:
> My feedback to SA inquiry above as follows:
>
> Q: Last 5 pages visited B4 malware occurred:
> A: I have a daily routine with market following. Given repeated (>10)
> attempts of malware trying to get in, I expect a typical rendering
> would serve your purpose. The following are what is in my current
> browser history:
> 1. yahoo finance.com
> 2. bigcharts.com
> 3. stockcharts.com
> 4. futuresource.com
> 5. Clearstation.com
> 6. SA
>
> Q: Do you know what page you were reading immediately before seeing
> the malware?
> A: I read many of the authors. I have not detected a pattern of any
> author(s) in particular. Often I access articles off your website
> while logged in from the right hand column listing. Sometimes I access
> a highlighted article in the center column. (It may be coincidence,
> but it appears more frequent attacks from highlighted articles.)
> Other times I access stories thru emails you send. It has happened
> on all 3.
>
> Q: Do you know what page you were reading immediately before seeing
> the malware?
> A: It’s happened many times. I don’t recall a particular sequence
> involving other websites. What may be a clue in diagnostics is that
> the sequence goes like this:
> • My browser is configured with multiple tabs open as described above
>
> • I’m on the SA page and access an article
> • Within a few seconds (at most) a pop-up alerts me of a virus attack.
> Another pop-up appears that shows various areas of the computer system,
> such as drive areas. It purportedly then shows rapidly accumulating
> viruses PRESENT in these different system areas. Now, that they’ve
> yelled fire in the theater, they give another pop-up offering to
> scan the system for the threats they just fabricated. They offer
> some scan SW that I never heard of. Note that my pop-up blocker is
> very effective. Somehow they get around that. What they can’t get
> around is Windows Vista (actually did something right) does not allow
> SW programs to launch without user OK. That’s it’s Achilles heel.
> I was familiar of this ruse hackers use so I kill everything without
> letting it launch.
>
> I then go thru system scans using Norton and Windows defender. Nothing
> harmful has ever been detected by either, even with a full system
> scan. So the above shutdown sequence appears to be effective.
>
> Q: Can you send us a screenshot of the malware?
> A: When an attack happens, I immediately dump all internet functions
> and pull the connection. Whether or not it’s safe to try this I don’t
> know, and I’m not going to find out the hard way. Sorry I can’t help
> you on this one.
>
> I think it’s important to note that it hasn’t happened even once
> if the SA page or an SA article is not open. My usual format is to
> use MS tabs feature, where one browser program is open but a string
> of tabs. What I can’t recall with absolute certainty but think is
> true is that if the SA website is one of those tabs but I’m working
> on another site, I haven’t had any attacks.
>
> I am impressed with your quick response to these concerns. Given
> SA writers often cover material Tout TV and other conflicted outlets
> won’t touch, I am already suspicious as to why you were attacked.
>
>
> If I can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact
> me.