Seeking Alpha

jhooper

jhooper
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View jhooper's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Answer Is No [View article]
    I guess the big hole in economics is that at the end of the day it comes down to how people feel. Could such a thing ever really be measured?
    Mar 13, 2015. 05:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Interesting Times For All Commodities And Investments!! Chapter 111....  [View instapost]
    If people want to see what the end results of protectionism really result in, aka walling yourself off from the world in order to keep jobs at home, here is a great example.

    "In 1958, Mao’s propaganda campaign launched “The Great Leap Forward” which finished with the worst famine in modern history. More than 20 million Chinese died."

    "In the late 1970’s, China adopted an open door policy because it was eager to take an active part in international affairs."

    That is, "Open Door", as opposed to "Closed Door".

    http://bit.ly/1xkW7UU

    The old saying is true, "many hands make like work". We also see this in GDP. When women go to work, GDP goes up. William Bradford saw the same in the early Plymouth Colony. They utilized a common store, and they discovered that lots of young men would "malinger". Then when private property was established, Bradford noted that even women and children were out in the field, and the result was more food and less starvation.
    Mar 13, 2015. 03:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Answer Is No [View article]
    "old economists still chant the litany as if there actually is evidence. "

    Why do they do that? Is it like a fanatical religion, or is it just that these people aren't the experts we've all been told that they are?
    Mar 13, 2015. 03:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Interesting Times For All Commodities And Investments!! Chapter 111....  [View instapost]
    "According to a 2006 report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, [NAFTA] led to the loss of an estimated one million American jobs in its first decade "

    Interesting opposed view of this here.

    http://bit.ly/1xkIFjT

    One problem with freer trade (aka people having more flexibility going across boders) is that people can get the chance to vote. If they use free trade with respect to their labor, but then vote for policies that restrict trade, they in essence vote against the environment that puts their labor in demand. Ironic, but it happens all the time.
    Mar 13, 2015. 02:27 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Answer Is No [View article]
    "Generally, wages follow inflation rather than leading it"

    "Citing the robust gains seen in the job market that will soon push the unemployment rate toward levels that could begin generating notable price pressures" - Fisher

    Isn't Fisher saying the exact opposite?

    http://on.wsj.com/1xkf6yL
    Mar 13, 2015. 11:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stability Of The European Union (23) January 1, 2015. [View instapost]
    Is this a sign of Greek desparation, or is it just show? Is all this just theater so both sides can pat themselves on the back when some sort of deal is reached? Or is this real conflict?

    http://bit.ly/1x18n2m

    One other thought. If the Greeks are going to be given money, so they can turn around and submit that money to the creditors, why not just have the ECB print up the money, and bypass the Greeks, and give the money straight to the creditors, and then tell the Greeks bye-bye. Granted, that's a clandestine tax on the general populace of Europe, but that is what is happening anyway. At least this way, the taxpayers have to take a smaller hit, than perpetually bailing out the Greeks over the next few decades.
    Mar 13, 2015. 09:26 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold And Silver Prices Have Further To Fall [View article]
    I can still see it moving in the 2.30 or 2.50 direction. The problem is the German/Greek fight. That leads to a bit of a fear trade. Note how after the NFP number, but Germany and Greece were quite that we got to 2.25 on the 10 yr. ECB is starting QE, and so far, they are off to a pretty big start.

    My theory is that the fight between Germany and Greece is mostly show boating. You know chest thumping, so that when they finally reach a bailout deal, they can both pat themselves on the back. Now that the ECB is buying, if the Germans and Greeks finally reach a deal, then yields and equities will leap forward.
    Mar 13, 2015. 08:58 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why TBT Doesn't Have A Prayer [View article]
    ECB QE is off to a pretty good start. QE is risk-on, thus, interest rates should go up. However, we have the row between the Greeks and the Germans. That's good for a fear trade. That will put pressure on interest rates, and keep them down. I can still see 2.50 on the 10yr, but it might not be till later this year. We will just have to see how long the Germans and the Greeks can keep up their fight.
    Mar 13, 2015. 08:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "that previously dumped water contaminated with high levels of mercury straight into the Mississippi River "

    This is known as the failure of communism. Since everyone owned the river, no one owned the river. As such, there were no property rights to violate. Gov is responsible for protecting property rights. Since property rights for the river were never established, the incentive provided is the same in communist countries, get it all before the next guy does, and the result is the total waste of the resource.

    What you and SU keep conflating is the proper role for gov and the improper role for gov. You support all the things the gov shouldn't do, and none of the things it should do.

    As I noted before this is real mouth foaming rhetoric, and if you want to have credibility on an investing website, you have to stop saying mouth foaming things.
    Feb 24, 2015. 09:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]


    Just repeating your accusations does not mean your proposed solution is logical.

    Your problem is the contrived notion you have of market failure. Noting that there is no perfect production method or that people have not achieved post scarcity does not indicate that the market has failed. First of all, the market never fails. It just is. Its just the reality we all live in. Its the some total of all the actions we engage in to survive. We do that to best of our ability to convert resources into assets.

    So there is no such thing as market failure. The real question is how free from force is the market or how polluted with force it is. The freer it is, the more prosperous it is. The more coerced it is, the more protectionist it is, and the poorer it is. Freedom from force means people must discover productivity via prices. That makes them more productive, which allows them to have more consumption which gives them a higher standard of living. Your approach of a protectionist approach that creates a rich ruling elite that gets richer and richer while everyone else gets poorer and poorer has been tried over and over (and is still being tried over and over) and it has proven to be a miserable failure.

    That's the point of gov. Its to protect you from force so you are free to produce and discover new ways of production. That's why we have laws against murder and intentionally killing customers. If products are killing customers, and people want that stopped, but yet they keep on buying products that kill them because they have not choice, then you could provide that choice.

    According to you, and people of your bent, there are just waiting in the wings with the knowledge to make the products people want. Well, then, to prove your point, just go make the products. You don't need any laws. You will gain 100% market share. So why don't you do this?
    Feb 24, 2015. 09:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "company as evidence that this is harmful to society"

    Just repeating your accusations does not mean your proposed solution is logical.

    Your problem is the contrived notion you have of market failure. Noting that there is no perfect production method or that people have not achieved post scarcity does not indicate that the market has failed. First of all, the market never fails. It just is. Its just the reality we all live in. Its the some total of all the actions we engage in to survive. We do that to best of our ability to convert resources into assets.

    So there is no such thing as market failure. The real question is how free from force is the market or how polluted with force it is. The freer it is, the more prosperous it is. The more coerced it is, the more protectionist it is, and the poorer it is. Freedom from force means people must discover productivity via prices. That makes them more productive, which allows them to have more consumption which gives them a higher standard of living. Your approach of a protectionist approach that creates a rich ruling elite that gets richer and richer while everyone else gets poorer and poorer has been tried over and over (and is still being tried over and over) and it has proven to be a miserable failure.

    That's the point of gov. Its to protect you from force so you are free to produce and discover new ways of production. That's why we have laws against murder and intentionally killing customers. If products are killing customers, and people want that stopped, but yet they keep on buying products that kill them because they have not choice, then you could provide that choice.

    According to you, and people of your bent, there are just waiting in the wings with the knowledge to make the products people want. Well, then, to prove your point, just go make the products. You don't need any laws. You will gain 100% market share. So why don't you do this?
    Feb 24, 2015. 09:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "We aren't looking for the best possible alternative in a utopian world"

    Isn't it interesting that gov can create a utopia by eliminating market failures and by implication all mistakes, suddenly, when it becomes apparent that it cannot do this, and it winds up causing more of a mess than what it was supposedly going to fix, all of a sudden, we hear we aren't looking for a utopia.

    I guess it all depends on what you mean my utopia. People flooding across the board from a socialist narco state may have a different definition than those not living in the socialist narco state.

    If you mean utopia to mean a world of post scarcity in which no human action is required for consumption, then yeah, I could see that as unlikely as well.

    However, if we define utopia to mean a place where productivity provides a standard of living far higher than what you find in highly taxed and regulated economies or where in a for profit city there is practically no crime to speak of, then that is certainly achievable and has been achieved.

    I guess there is no end to the doom and gloomers being proved wrong.
    Feb 24, 2015. 09:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "Ain't nothing perfect"

    Well, there is no post scarcity, at least not yet, but in the human mind is an infinite possibility of learning. As the learning curve goes up, the cost curve goes down. Overtime waste, abuse, and fraud become more expensive than production, and thus such things become more and more of a rarity.

    The trend is more towards a free economy. That is an economy free for force. Abuse and fraud rely on force, and as force becomes more expensive than production and voluntary cooperation, force fades and so too do abuse and fraud.

    There ain't nothing perfect, at least not yet, but every day we learn how to have more and work less.

    http://econ.st/17V2Lub
    Feb 24, 2015. 06:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "Repeat after me; fallacy of composition.."

    That's only true for you.

    OK, so if all of these companies are INTENTIONALLY killing their customers, and you know they are, and customers know they are, and you know ways to make products so that you are not INTENTIONALLY killing people, the logical course of action for you is to start a competing nonkilling company and you will gain 100% market share. Why don't you do this? Apparently you know what these so called market failures are, and supposedly your precious gov regulators know what they are, so you don't have to make a law to make your competitors better, all you guys have to do is start the companies that you know ill fix the so called market failure. Again, why don't you do this?

    "in your ideologue world these kind of market failures simply do not exist.. "

    Apparently you know about them, and you have clearly outlined above what is necessary to correct them, so why aren't you doing that?

    What you are talking about is not market failures, but no failures of any kind. What you are talking about is post scarcity, where people have all knowledge and never make mistakes.

    Again, if a company is INTENTIONALLY killing its customers, that is murder. Gov protects life and limb. We already have regulations for that. So, if you know these companies are committing murder, then the states, who have the criminal power, can arrest these people, you can submit your iron clad evidence, and they will be punished. Since you are not doing this, the obvious conclusion is you don't have such evidence. If its not intentional, then its because its your so called market failure. As such since you know how to correct that, then you will get rich doing so. Since you aren't doing that either, then the logical conclusion is you can't.

    So, if you and your regulators can't do either of these things, then its logical that your accusations are unfounded and that instant death is not a successful business model.

    Take a look at the FHLB's eligible collateral list.

    http://bit.ly/17V1KlL

    No where on here will find the FHLB willing to accept as collateral companies that poison people. You know why? Because intentionally killing people is not a successful business model. In fact, banks won't even lend on restaurants because making food that people love enough to make the establishment successful is really, really hard. Much less a restaurant that will kill you.

    "Do you always know which companies are poisoning you?"

    Of course you do. If you are standing in line, and everyone that buys the product drops dead in front of you, you know that what they are consuming is killing them. What you are describing is risk.

    Do you ever know that each time you get in car that it won't be your last trip? What you are arguing is perfection. No harm of any kind ever, and that there are actually people in the world that have perfect knowledge, its just that everyone else is too stupid to put them in charge.

    So, like I said, if they really did have this perfect knowledge, they would use it to make themselves gogillionaires, yet you want us to believe that they have to wait to be put in charge to do that.

    What you are expressing is crazy talk. This is an investing website. If you want to have credibility, you can't engage in crazy talk. Suggesting that there are omniscient people on the planet that can't prevent all harms, but yet somehow that haven't been put in charge yet, even though they are omniscient, is crazy talk. Suggesting that killing your customers is a successful business strategy, when making food that most everyone will like is so rare that you can't even get a loan, is also crazy talk. Also, suggesting that companies are intentionally murdering people, yet no evidence can be found to prove this, is also crazy talk. Suggesting that no one knows about these market failures, yet you can point out what no one knows, is also crazy talk.

    Here's the bottom line. The more a gov regulates things it can regulate, like making the perfect business, the less it regulates the things it can regulate, like sending people to jail for intentionally murdering them. The less it regulates for protecting property, the more price is polluted, the more price is polluted, the less people can calculate for investment, the less investment there is, the less productivity labor has, and as labor becomes less productive, the worse the economy does.

    Let me help you on the path to credibility. Note how the countries where gov tends to regulate what it can regulate, are higher in the index and also prove to be the more prosperous countries. The empirical evidence is clear. As such, QED.

    http://bit.ly/ysKYDN

    I caution people in making investment decisions based on crazy talk.
    Feb 24, 2015. 06:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "False analogy."

    Yeah, nice try.

    "For instance, it might be the company poisoning the people with lead."

    Again, if a company could be successful poisoning people, then no company would ever fail. Also, this also assumes that willfully poisoning people is not against the law. Do you actually think there are no laws against murder.

    This is just doom and gloom fear mongering to justify other price regulations that are nothing more than protectionist measures. This is all based on specious reasoning.

    Also, think what this says. It says people are too stupid not to buy from a company when its clear they will be poisoned. Well if they are too stupid to do that, then they are too stupid to ask their politicians to stop the company from poisoning them.

    Yet, somehow people who are too stupid not to know what companies will poison them will somehow be smart enough to elect the politician that will appoint the right regulators who will write the right rules to keep people from being poisoned.

    Of course, if they are smart enough to go through all that, then why not bypass all that and just elect the company that won't poison you. Again, though, if you are so certain that you know companies that will poison their customers, then don't vote for laws to subsidize your competition. Start a nonpoisoning company and you will become a gogillionaire. The implication is clear that you are claiming people don't want to be poisoned. So, all you have to do is provide what they want. You will gain 100% market share and people won't be poisoned. The fact that you don't do this, shows that the knowledge you claim regulators have is knowledge they don't have. After all, what you are claiming is something the laws of physics don't allow.

    If they did, then every regulator and every advocator for a regulator would leave the gov or their job and go start the business they say everyone wants yet no one will provide.

    This just shows you are running into a logic error.
    Feb 24, 2015. 05:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
6,166 Comments
6,152 Likes