Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View 484996's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Oil Company Historical Performance In March [View article]
    Mar 27, 2012. 04:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • More Murky Financial Disclosures for Green Mountain Coffee Roasters [View article]
    Loved the disclosure as much as the article. It takes a lot of guts to open up the closet full of skeletons, and everyone has them.
    Feb 16, 2011. 11:31 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • It's About Time Halliburton Got Some Love [View article]
    Seriously? Why don't you just be more succinct in your point and state that you are stupid?

    1. It is only your personal opinion the war was illegal
    2. KBR is the company you refer to now they are a different entity than HAL
    3. I bet your investment portfolio is filled with companies who have profited in some form or fashion from the misfortunes of people, you just don't know it.
    4. The media continues to thrive from the unquestioned belief people like you have in their sensationalism.
    5. No one on this board cares who you invest in.
    Feb 11, 2011. 11:24 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Options Trader: Monday Market Movement [View article]
    Are you referring to the scientists at CRU who now have been exposed for distorting the raw data to indicate their predisposed conclusions, hiding and deleting data that may not support those predisposed conclusions, published methods to discredit their own data that doesn't support their predisposed conclusions, and blacklisting scientists with opposing views to their predisposed conclusions?
    Sounds like you have a predisposed conclusion also and willing to accept it without corroborating data.
    Since you refer to dictated policy to EPA scientists during Bush's administration are you in the least appalled that EPA scientists who are now questioning the validity of some of the climate studies are now being forced to be quiet or lose their jobs?
    What is a national disgrace are the comments by fools such as yourself that "receive" their enlightenment through a remote control on a couch, or maybe flag-burning rallies.
    500 million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent that today. I suppose that was from all those pre-Jurassic Hummers driving around? Do a little research moron and you'll see natural gas (yes it is a fossil fuel) is one of the cleanest burning energy sources. All of your "clean" energy sources, solar and wind I presume you refer to, require battery storage. Do a little research and see what environmental impact that will have on your landfills. Too much to ask for? Yes, I'm afraid. It is the liberal way.

    On Dec 07 11:07 AM fjd10595 wrote:

    > Hopefully we will let science dictate our policies on climate change,
    > as opposed to what we had in the disgraced former administration
    > where fundamentalists and other insiders with extreme views dictated
    > policy to scientists at the EPA (and FDA). I'm surprised that Bush's
    > education department didn't try to put creationism back into textbooks
    > (maybe they did). It is actually a national disgrace that the public
    > allowed this to happen. Enjoy cheap fossil fuels today, and pass
    > the bill for the damage to children? Yes, I'm afraid. It is the
    > conservative way. You can rationalize it by saying that the public
    > is too busy going to work and paying bills to get involved and the
    > lobby groups control. It is still a national disgrace.
    Dec 8, 2009. 02:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Believe Long-Term Oil Forecasts [View article]
    I suggest you read Jared Diamond's Collapse before you start suggesting the collapse of civilization isn't a likely event. He documents the collapse of several past civilizations and posits their collapse was due to running out of resources. Will our civilization collapse due to the oil supply extinguishing? I won't pretend to know and I don't think you should either. My wager would be we destroy each other, or some other natural catastrophe does it before oil runs out. Oil rules today only because it is the most cost effective option. Will it get more expensive? Eventually yes, until such time a cheaper energy alternative becomes available. And then transitioning to the newer energy will be a b**ch because we will have done nothing to prepare for it. So pull the head out of the sand and at least acknowledge we have a problem. And start that innovating right away, 'cause no one else is doing it right now.

    On Nov 09 03:17 PM kertch wrote:

    > Yes - we were certainly screwed when we ran out of wood for charcoal.
    > Wait! we switched to coal! And we were royally screwed when we hunted
    > the whales to near extinction and lost our supply of whale oil. Oh
    > I forgot! We switched to petrolium! I wonder if people back then
    > talked about "peak production" of whales or of "conserving our trees"
    > so that we would have a lasting supply of charcoal to power our industry.
    > Someone might have suggested that the industrial revolution would
    > have to be "scaled back" to safeguard our shrinking wood supply.
    > Did they consider giving up whale oil and going back to sustainable
    > sources of light like candles? Were land-locked nations like Switzerland
    > developing national alternatives like "sheep oil" to break thier
    > addiction to foreign whale oil? I'm still searching the history books.
    > Of course we will eventually stop using oil, just as we have stopped
    > using previous forms of inefficient energy. We have plenty of alternatives,
    > although not all of them are efficient. Rising oil prices just means
    > that the world will begin to move towards better forms of energy.
    > Oil won't go up in price forever. Seen the price of charcoal or
    > whale oil lately? This shift will happen sooner or later, but it
    > will come, and I'm reasonably certain that civilization won't crumble
    > when the oil stops flowing. We need more innovation and less doomsaying.
    Nov 25, 2009. 02:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Global Oil Scam: 50 Times Bigger than Madoff [View article]
    There is no oil shortage. What is at play is the rate at which the oil can be extracted to meet demand. Reserves are not what represents the supply part of that supply / demand curve, it's rate of extraction (production). And yes the demand curve will in the near future will exceed the production curve. This isn't speculation. It's statistical analysis and forecasting.
    Nov 13, 2009. 11:31 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • And Bernanke Didn't Think Unemployment Would Reach 10% [View article]
    And we wonder why our students enter the workforce unable to perform even the most menial of tasks, can't think for themselves, or solve problems...
    Perhaps living in the world of academia you shouldn't proclaim to know so much about the world of business, or the economics of business...

    On Nov 08 09:17 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

    > Funny long_on_oil, but I make a point of telling my students that
    > Reagan was the dumbest president in the history of the United States.
    > He also ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands - or maybe millions
    > of Afghans.
    > And author, read some economic history. There is no relation between
    > the 'great' depression and what we have now. And do you know something,
    > there never will be.
    Nov 9, 2009. 05:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • And Bernanke Didn't Think Unemployment Would Reach 10% [View article]
    Following your logic, it must be that Clinton inherited elder Bush's budget, younger Bush inherited Clinton's budget, and so on. But your Savior ran on the platform of "change" and "fixing all Bush's screw-ups" so you can't now cry that since it isn't working like you hoped it must've been Bush's fault. Either he fixes it or he doesn't. The reality is, despite how we got here (which started well before Bush BTW), the hole we are in just got a LOT deeper with the money printing and dollar devaluation. Get ready, skyrocket inflation is coming. How's that change working out for you?

    On Nov 09 02:19 PM User 142933 wrote:

    > another hit piece on President was Bush and the Republicans
    > that got us into this mess...and the spending this year is from Bush's
    > last budget....not Obama's....the question is not how bad it is,
    > but how bad it could be were it not for the actions taken todate.
    > As for using alternative measures of the unemployment rate to show
    > that it is a lot worse than the reported 10.2%...this has always
    > been understood as an underreporting of the unemployed. Why is it
    > being "headlined" right now? To further undermine Obama's administration.
    > There are forces in America that would rather see Obama fail than
    > see America succeed.
    Nov 9, 2009. 05:41 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • And Bernanke Didn't Think Unemployment Would Reach 10% [View article]
    Personally I want to live in a country where there are a bunch of rich bastards. I'm thinking living in a country without rich people would not be the ideal situation. Why? Rich people like to spend their money (read demand for products). Rich people want to make more money (read investment / jobs). Rich people don't want to live in a country with a low standard of living (read community and charity). The great thing about this country is if I work hard and play my cards right I have the opportunity to be one of those rich bastards. I'm a generous guy too, I'm willing to help people out, but I have one caveat that most potential recipients of my generosity can't live with... They must be willing to work at least half as hard as I did to earn it in the first place. Jobs may not be as plentiful as they were in recent history but a lot of people turn their nose up at some of the opportunities. The real problem with this country is not the rich bastards, it's the lazy a**holes who think the world owes them something and they shouldn't have to work to earn a living. As far as job creation? Most small business owners I know are freezing hiring or letting people go. Why? Because they worked too hard to become rich bastards to just give it up now because of people wanting to "tax the crap" out of them. How about NOT taxing the crap out of them and watch them hire more people so they can get richer?

    On Nov 08 08:47 AM Oldfoxbob wrote:

    > The Republican party stands for low or no tax's on the rich...Big
    > oil company's can make more and more money with no rebate to the
    > little insurance to the poor. No welfare for the poor, no
    > unemployment benefits to the unemployed. Higher tax's on the lower
    > income people. Hummmmm....that means no money to buy goods that the
    > rich are producing. No one who gets sick can get well enough to return
    > to work. Seems like a viscous circle to me. Yet the Democrats are
    > pushing for more socialism...What we need is a good dictator for
    > a 4 year stint and he has to be a good business man to get this country
    > back on track. Throw the illegal aliens out, or in jail. Make those
    > here legally speak English! Create jobs by creating government projects
    > like new Dams, New Roads, New Libraries, New Schools etc. Make Congress
    > ( both houses) have the same retirement plan as the rest of us have
    > ( social Security) Make them have the same health plan as the poor
    > have ( medicare and medicaid) and tax the hell out of the rich bast***s
    > that are ruining this country. THEN we will have a good country once
    > again. May be I should run for Congress to get this type of crap
    > passed into law. What do you think?
    Nov 9, 2009. 05:33 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment