1.5 quadrillion

Live Discussion: The Dollar, Inflation and Protecting Your Portfolio

Amend and Hallelujah! They always "forget" because they now this isn't the land of the free, but of the land forgetting!

What did Bush say? "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Too LATE! Americans love being "fooled". Over and over again.


On Jun 18 03:35 PM long roh wrote:

> "In a liquidity trap monetary policy does not work because the markets
> expect the bank to revert as soon as possible to the normal practice
> of stabilizing prices; to make it effective, the central bank must
> credibly promise to be irresponsible, to maintain its expansion after
> the recession is past."
>
> Krugman wrote that in 1999, but seems to have forgotten it. I think
> this gives us a clue into why Bernanke has been so coy about how/when
> he will exit QE.

Live Discussion: The Dollar, Inflation and Protecting Your Portfolio

Mark is blowing sunshine...well...my last post got deleted by TPTB due to graphics!

Let it be said that Mark has no idea how debt markets work (or other markets for that matter). This from
www.briefing.com/Inves... :

"The supply problem is coming in an environment where corporate issuance is expected to ramp up while global government debt is seen at ever expanding levels, crowding the market across the board."

For corporations to borrow more they will have to raise rates and pay money they don't have with earnings they won't get. Given the default on bonds of late, they will also have to offer risk premium in the rates.

Greenshoots can't grow in BS...no matter how much sunshine is upon them!

Happy hangover to the bulls. For the rest of you, don't be fooled!

Live Discussion: The Dollar, Inflation and Protecting Your Portfolio

Get real - listen to the message for once in your life. Go back and see how Peter's been treated by the financial press over the last 2 years. He is right, they are wrong and they laughed in his face and he took it.

Wake up and stop drinking in the afternoon for christs sake!


On Jun 18 02:37 PM Victor84 wrote:

> On the contrary, I lost a lot of respect for Peter because he sounded
> like an immature child blindly bashing everything possible about
> the U.S. while offering little insight.
>
> He said that we HAD the best system in the world, and now the implication
> is that we HAVE the worst.
>
> So let me get this straight Peter. When we were muck deep in overleveraging,
> free market dealing, and raking in the big bucks, we had the best
> system. But now that we have the face the music and dig out of this
> hole by taking arguably appropriate measures to not dive into a full
> blown Depression we are now a terribly worse system because of the
> meddling.
>
> Other than Peter agreeing that a low fixed rate mortgage is a good
> hedge against inflation, I found little substance to anything he
> said.

Valuation Headwinds for Stocks

Fred, you and Eric smoke the same angel dust I gave up years ago!
Think, "the end is near!". It is you know. Fundamentals will no longer be ignored and the funny little green shoots are just halucinagenic fabrications!

Oh are you gonna wake up with a hang over.

Fred wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that this rally is all about closing
the gap left wide open by the crash in October and into March of this year. This could mean a rise of another 1,000 to as much as 2,000
Dow points.

Valuation Headwinds for Stocks

What is one to do with people who keep using non-gaap trailing earnings data to value the market!

If Eric believes the P/E of the SP is 16.3 that would put earnings at $58! WHAT is HE SMOKING!

ACTUAL GAAP EARNINGS ARE MORE LIKE $30! FOR THE SAKE OF BABY JESUS CHECK THE JUNE QUARTERLY DATA!

In reality this market is trading at about 31 times earnings!@!@!@!!@!

If I wanted to go to fantasy island I would have kept eating the LSD!

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Cyclops:
The debt/money "reality" is part of why we can't spend our way out of this mess. More money (cash) = more debt = more interest payments = liquidity crunch.

Remember, many of us are calling to end the money as debt insanity and start issuing Constitutional HARD MONEY.

DEBT RATIOS ARE IMPORTANT especially in terms of the money supply. We have reached the limit of productivity being able to finance continued credit money creation.

If the "cash on the sidelines" is needed to pay higher taxes and higher credit costs and inflationary prices on necessities, do you think it will find it's way back into stocks?

Again, this isn't rocket science.

And apparently some Baboons are monkeys.


On May 21 08:47 AM cyclops wrote:

> A baboon is not a monkey, dammit!
>
> and besides...all cash in existence represents a debt....if there
> were no debt then there would be no cash...problem solved.

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Wow - insanity really is eating bananas over and over again expecting them to taste like apples.

I hope you find some of that loose sideline cash soon!@

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Baboon - Again you change the subject -

You are getting it wrong on purpose so you don't have to see the point. People who live for drama love to change it up and shake and bake it.

I didn't bring up the FED, You did.

TOO MANY BANANAS!@ Potasium level too high. AH! Call the VET.


On May 20 03:10 PM Baboon wrote:

> Read the original article:
>
> A simply Google query on "cash on the sidelines" will unleash a torrent
> of mainstream media outlets and blogs who think they've found the
> holy grail of equity upside proclaiming that the stock market is
> bound to rise rapidly, because there is so much "cash on the sidelines"
> right now.
>
>
> No mentioning of the real value of the companies. Just their stock
> prices. Then the article goes into discussing the fact that buying
> and selling stocks on the secondary markets does not change the money
> on the sidelines.
>
> Post here the quotes from the article that specifically talk about
> the fact that the cash on the sidelines is not going to change the
> real value of the companies if used to buy stocks.
>
> Are you even a human?
>
>

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Baboon - Again you change the subject -

You are getting it wrong on purpose so you don't have to see the point. People who live for drama love to change it up and shake and bake it.

I didn't bring up the FED, You did.

TOO MANY BANANAS!@ Potasium level too high. AH! Call the VET.


On May 20 03:10 PM Baboon wrote:

> Read the original article:
>
> A simply Google query on "cash on the sidelines" will unleash a torrent
> of mainstream media outlets and blogs who think they've found the
> holy grail of equity upside proclaiming that the stock market is
> bound to rise rapidly, because there is so much "cash on the sidelines"
> right now.
>
>
> No mentioning of the real value of the companies. Just their stock
> prices. Then the article goes into discussing the fact that buying
> and selling stocks on the secondary markets does not change the money
> on the sidelines.
>
> Post here the quotes from the article that specifically talk about
> the fact that the cash on the sidelines is not going to change the
> real value of the companies if used to buy stocks.
>
> Are you even a human?
>
>

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Baboon - not all cash, not the newly created by the FED nor the stale rotting dollars in money market have to go into stocks at some point!!!

Even the new funny money could go to just buy Butterfinger candy bars and NEVER FIND THEIR WAY INTO STOCKS!

In fact, in a hyper-inflationary enviornment, nonminal stock prices might fall over time as more and more "cash" is needed by people just to buy the necessities of life.

God kill me now! IT's planet of the apes! Get your hands off me you damn filthy APE!

No means NO!

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

The issue has on this thread has always been NET CASH, not inflationary FED actions.

Like a mokey, you keep jumping around. Logic dictates, as Spock would say, that you can't mix apples and oranges.

Inflationary pressures on stock prices is NOT GOOD ENOUGH for the purpose of this discussion, as you say. If stock prices rise due to inflation so does every other DAMN PRICE and so, for the purposes of our discussion, ONLY NONIMAL ADDITIONAL CASH is created, not REAL CASH. THERE IS NO CHANGE in the amount of cash in terms of VALUATIONS.

You should get a job with Tiny Tim, Ben and Larry...their thinking is twisted as yours!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)

WAKE THE HELL UP MONKEY BOY.


On May 20 02:32 PM Baboon wrote:

> Who said that the real value of the company will go up?
> The stock price might go up because of the fed's printing money and
> that's good enough for the purpose of this discussion.
>
> By the way monkeys are way smarter than people. People have a lot
> to learn from them.
>

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Yes - I said that in an eariler post. The FED can create cash out of thin air...
Or can it.

Why do you think the TARP money is being repaid after being used by GS and others to spike the markets.

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CASH AVAILABLE FOR STOCK PURCHASES. IT WAS ALL SITTING SOMEWHERE ELSE WAITING TO BUY BUTTERFINGER canday bars!

Again, this isn't rocket science.

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (or as economists like me say, Cēterīs Paribus) THERE IS NO NEW CASH.

IF THE FED CREATES FUNNY MONEY it can push stock prices up but NOT THE REAL VALUE of the stock!!!!!!!

That is why the BUBBLES are all illusion and don't create real wealth. The bubbles create a zero sum game where SOME people get rich at the exspense of others.

REALLY SIMPLE STUFF - We need to get past this economic illiteracy if we are going to save the nation from the FED and Goldman Sachs!

Get those monkey fleas off of me! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

On May 20 02:09 PM Baboon wrote:

> >you

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Yah! The key word in all these STOCK transactions is "TRANSFER"!

Trading means TRANSFER - to buy stock you have to have cash -BUT YOU PAY THE OTHER GUY in...(wait for it) CASH!

NO CASH IS CREATED OR DESTROYED!

NOTHING is SIDELINNED!

THE proceeds from a stock TRANSACTION is (wait for it)... CASH!

That cash doesn't necessarily go BACK into the STOCK MARKET. It might. But it might go into real estate or into bonds.

Those having trouble with Kid’s and Hussman’s articles are ASSUMING that the SALE PROCEEDS from a STOCK transaction have to purchase stocks again or that other so-called liquid assets HAVE TO EVENTUALLY BUY stocks. THIS is a ridiculous assumption! Saying there is cash on the sidelines waiting to go into stocks is like saying that same cash is on the sidelines waiting to buy GM SUV’s! Maybe the cash is waiting on the sidelines to buy Butterfinger candy bars! Homer Simpson's cash is!

The fallacy here is that the cash isn’t on the sidelines waiting to buy ANYTHING. It is simply sitting where it is sitting and you can’t create or destroy the amount of “cash”. Unless someone barters a stock for stock or a house for stock, the NET cash is virtually always the same.

One of the reasons VOLUME is so low right now is people do not have “cash” to spend on stocks and stocks are not in demand as an asset class. When stocks become more attractive, people will sell their BONDS, Real estate, Money Market, or whatever and raise…(wait for it) CASH so they can then buy stocks.

Traders often say that “cash” is a position. THIS IS WHY!

THIS IS SIMPLE STUFF.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Yah! The key word in all these STOCK transactions is "TRANSFER"!

Trading means TRANSFER - to buy stock you have to have cash -BUT YOU PAY THE OTHER GUY in...(wait for it) CASH!

NO CASH IS CREATED OR DESTROYED!

NOTHING is SIDELINNED!

THE proceeds from a stock TRANSACTION is (wait for it)... CASH!

That cash doesn't necessarily go BACK into the STOCK MARKET. It might. But it might go into real estate or into bonds.

Those having trouble with Kid’s and Hussman’s articles are ASSUMING that the SALE PROCEEDS from a STOCK transaction have to purchase stocks again or that other so-called liquid assets HAVE TO EVENTUALLY BUY stocks. THIS is a ridiculous assumption! Saying there is cash on the sidelines waiting to go into stocks is like saying that same cash is on the sidelines waiting to buy GM SUV’s! Maybe the cash is waiting on the sidelines to buy Butterfinger candy bars! Homer Simpson's cash is!

The fallacy here is that the cash isn’t on the sidelines waiting to buy ANYTHING. It is simply sitting where it is sitting and you can’t create or destroy the amount of “cash”. Unless someone barters a stock for stock or a house for stock, the NET cash is virtually always the same.

One of the reasons VOLUME is so low right now is people do not have “cash” to spend on stocks and stocks are not in demand as an asset class. When stocks become more attractive, people will sell their BONDS, Real estate, Money Market, or whatever and raise…(wait for it) CASH so they can then buy stocks.

Traders often say that “cash” is a position. THIS IS WHY!

THIS IS SIMPLE STUFF.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...

The Fallacy of Cash on the Sidelines

Trading and speculating on stock is zero sum - OWNING stock (the company) may or may not be. Some one has to buy your $3 stock that you bought for $1. If there are no buyers the price falls back to 1 or below REGARDLESS of the fundamentals of the company you own buy owning the stock.

As far as stock creating cash - your own post proves this is rediculous. Companies TRADE stock for cash. There is never any more or less CASH in the system (UNLESS THE FED CREATES IT OUT OF THIN AIR) regardless of how much stock trades hands. The stock, as I said before, IS A TRANSFER VEHICLE, that moves cash from one person to another. Stock doesn't create ANYTHING.

Productive capacity of a profitable business creates wealth. NOT STOCK!

This is really basic stuff.

On May 19 05:45 PM Westcoaster wrote:
> Also the stock market is not zero sum. It is very possible to invest
> 1 dollar and watch a business grow it to 3 dollars. Also when companies
> issue stock they do create money. They trade paper for cash.