Dominick

What an Obama Victory Might Mean for the Markets

It is convenient to blame the President of the most powerful country (i.e. U.S.) for all of our personal woes. I traveled to Mexico City in 1995. Many Mexicans there complained that Bill Clinton at the time gives so many promises, but that their lives had not improved one bit. I also remember and friend traveled to India in 1995 and took a picture of the graffiti on the wall next to them, it said, “Clinton Lies”.

I also happen to think Apple is a bad investment – they focus on trendy teens products - very fickle especially during a recession. Sorry Kris.

What an Obama Victory Might Mean for the Markets

Correction:
I may have to flee to Montana instead of Mexico.

What an Obama Victory Might Mean for the Markets

I did not know that winning WWII had nothing to do with subsequent prosperity that the U.S. experienced. I raise my hand to say I feel it had some effect.

Also again, I feel that as a result of losing the Viet Nam war and bailing out on the problems that the U.S. created in other countries, the U.S. image abroad suffered.

The images and stories coming from Viet Nam were too difficult for Americans to deal with. It was a time for spoiled American youth to experiment with drugs and a sexual revolution instead of making the sacrifices that are required for real improvement and the confrontation of real difficulties to help people who really need it. Instead, the U.S. has a reputation for backing out immorally and conveniently whenever we feel like it.

Concern about the United States image abroad is a much more serious issue now, then at the time of Viet Nam as the world continues to be much more smaller and interconnected. You are seriously right that there is a big domino effect here and a little bit of positive U.S. image can go a long way and a little bit of negative image and really damage.

You don’t see Iraq as strategic?
I see it as everything. What would happen if the U.S left Iraq? Again, Obama would simply call this action, “pulling out of Iraq”, the rest of the world overwhelming calls it losing the war in a big way. Why can’t Obama be honest?

Have you seen how empowered Hamas became after Israel unilaterally gave back land to the Palestinians under pressure? The Hamas cheered in the streets. They said that it proved how useless the peace talks between Palestinian Authority and Israel were and that the only way to get what they want is through violence and the inhumane treatment of others. This is the attitude the U.S. will be promoting in Iraq if they lose the war.

However, the Palestinian territory is nothing compares to Iraq. Saudia Arabia has the most oil. Iran is number 2. Iraq is Number 3.

By pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the current government of Iraq will falter and those who have supported the Iraq government and the U.S. will be targets. The enemies of the current government will fight each other for power in the violent new power vacuum. A new civil war. A new dark age for the region. Finally, those who post the most beheadings on the Internet will win the power grab and become billionaires. Iran will continue to make gains under the weakness and then take over Iraq just as they had tried during the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988. This time there will be no one to stop them.

This is a huge concern for Saudia Arabia, the world’s largest oil wealth and next in the domino line.

Obviously, the Iraqis and Saudis would have wished that the U.S. never showed up at Iraq on March 20th, 2003. However, now that they are there, there worst thing the U.S. could do is leave their mess behind and turn their back on ensuing civil war.

There is only one peace that a people can have – that is the result of a far superior military then those who try to take peace away. Somehow, Barack fails to mention this. Is this deception? Maybe deception light.

I don’t get it.

Does Barack have a conscience?

What an Obama Victory Might Mean for the Markets

If Obama becomes President, that means we would pull out of Iraq. At least that’s what Obama would call it. The rest of the world would simply call it losing the war. Obama’s words are deception and you have simply been deceived.

In WWII, the U.S. won the war. As a result, the U.S. flourished.
With Vietnam, the U.S. lost and suffered nasty stagflation.
If the U.S. loses the Iraq war, the U.S. would suffer severely at a time when the rest of the world is waking up and making great progress. It is disappointing to hear fellow U.S. citizens talk about leaving Iraq just as we are starting to make clear progress.

I believe that we should have never gone into Iraq. However, now that we are there the best we can do is be committed.

I will brush up on my Spanish, because I am prepared to flee to Mexico after we lose the Iraq war and our enemies, with their new strength and power start to arrive in the U.S. with their nukes to take pot shots.

Don’t build that border fence too high. It could work against us.

NFP Day!

Just print money at a Zimbabwe pace and hand it to your friends in high finance.

Hope Springs Eternal - But For How Long?

Bernanke– is the new Rumsfeld

I just wanted to point out how well Bernanke takes over Rumsfeld’s role in expressing U.S. overconfidence to a half awake public.

Rumsfeld comforted us with the idea that impressive new U.S. technology would “shock and awe” the opponents with little the need for difficult worry or effort.

Bernanke first states that we do not need to worry because the subprime problem is contained, he now comforts us fools with the idea that any financial difficulty can easily be contained with a few simple tweaks by the government.

In place of financial virtue and sacrifice, Ben with very little effort (because he is so talented and the government is so infinitely capable) will put on a surgeon’s cap and perform a financial lippo suction to rid us of any unwanted fat and excess (and we thought Rumsfeld had a patent on the words “new lean and mean”). In place of exercise, a few petty government bail outs will be prescribed to those who continue to be in trouble, and we do not need to worry and can all sleep soundly and grow fat and complacent once again.

Wala

5 Holes in the Government's Mortgage Bailout Plan

This plan looks ineffective – it just delays the housing correction so that some of its problems will be put off until after the elections.

Also, good regarding Social Security for baby boomers. This will be the next drag on the economy.

Follow-up on Expensive ARMs

I refinanced a property back in Spring before the latest wave of turmoil in the credit markets. At that time, we received a good discount by going adjustable and got a 7 year ARM. This month, we refinanced another property and got a 30 year Fixed surprised that there was no longer any real discount for taking on the extra risk of an ARM.

I think this article explains most of it. The ARMs seem to be tied to Libor over in London and they seem to be experiencing higher interest rates. The 30 year fixed is tied to the 10 year Treasury and this seems to be particularly low right now.

Also, maybe investors of ARMs in the old days performed more of a straight cash flow analysis pretty much assuming they would get what the reset called for. Now they probably are not so sure that they will get those resetted cash flows.

Why Last Week's Interest Rate Based Selloff Was Overblown

What I feel is that you are trying to refine the problem to a small circle of people, just like in the dot.com bust at first they tried to say that only a small circle of the most irresponsible companies where in trouble.

There was an effort to comfort investors by investment bankers. There were also investors who did not want to admit how difficult things had gotten for them. The result is we get a lot of people saying no biggy, when it really is a biggy.

Back in 2000, people with the old industry mentality felt like a dot.com downturn would have nothing to do with them.

It was a case of not understanding how big the circle of trouble really was and not acknowledging how much those irresponsible dot.coms could drag everything else down with them.

The answer is yes definitely, the difficulties of the most stretched buyers could drag everyone else down with them in a downward spiral.

I know that here in southern California real estate gets slammed, maybe other parts of the country won’t fair as bad.

I bought my first duplex in 1996 for $170,000. The previous owner purchased it in 1989 for $275,000. That’s a 38% drop in the value of that home. It would be enough to shake up even those who were not highly leveraged at the beginning.

Why Last Week's Interest Rate Based Selloff Was Overblown

I fail to be reassured by the comfort writing of this article.

To me, it is one more reminder of people’s behavior during the dot.com blow-out days. Even, as the dot.coms were getting slammed my investment banker friend acted like it was no big deal. The Dot.coms offered no real product and all you needed to do now was find a tech firm that offers real product like fiber optics.

No one bothered to question my investment banker friend’s salesmanship, no biggy, look on the bright side attitude. No one wanted to talk too negatively about the crumbling stock market, admit to all their friends how serious their losses were, or the acknowledgement that maybe they had been a bad investor.

Now, I see before me another example of, oh, you have additional expenses, you property value went down, no biggy. Maybe your understanding is distorted because most people do not care to discuss how cash strapped they really are.

PIMCO: We're in the Middle of Housing Downturn

When only the top 68% of households are occupied by homeowners, why do you bring up information about the bottom 20% of Americans?