johngonole's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/98126/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/163697-how-much-sidelined-money-remains?source=feed#comment-694911 694911 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:34:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/163794-is-arthur-laffer-setting-up-another-debt-bomb?source=feed#comment-694875 694875
The problem we have is that the M1 base is what ultimately controls LONG TERM inflation/deflation. M1 is always increasing because Keynesians deficit spend at all times. I'd agree with Keynesian philosophy if I ever thought they would reduce spending during times of economic booms. When the budget was balanced for about two months in the late 90's we should have been cutting budgets and running surplusses. We should have had surpluses again in 2004-2006. This would have prevent the housing boom.

Stable long term prices prevent the booms and bust. Stable long term prices prevent misallocations of resources. Both parties share full responsibility for all the booms and bust since at least the 70's as we go from each boom and bust into ever higher deficits. Eventually all debts will be wiped and so will our dollar.

Beware those of you who are trying to save your way into prosperity. Borrow some money it is the only true protection.]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:53:59 -0400
The problem we have is that the M1 base is what ultimately controls LONG TERM inflation/deflation. M1 is always increasing because Keynesians deficit spend at all times. I'd agree with Keynesian philosophy if I ever thought they would reduce spending during times of economic booms. When the budget was balanced for about two months in the late 90's we should have been cutting budgets and running surplusses. We should have had surpluses again in 2004-2006. This would have prevent the housing boom.

Stable long term prices prevent the booms and bust. Stable long term prices prevent misallocations of resources. Both parties share full responsibility for all the booms and bust since at least the 70's as we go from each boom and bust into ever higher deficits. Eventually all debts will be wiped and so will our dollar.

Beware those of you who are trying to save your way into prosperity. Borrow some money it is the only true protection.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163081-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-meaningful-regulatory-reform?source=feed#comment-690302 690302 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:14:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/162826-good-news-bad-news-from-leading-indicators?source=feed#comment-687024 687024 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:17:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/162706-a-few-truths-about-oil?source=feed#comment-687023 687023
Spending without taxaction is the new "taxaction without representation". Our grandchildren (who have no representation) will have to pay for all of this.

Fascism for the rich, socialism for the poor, and capitolism for the dwindeling middle class. Soon there will be only the poor and the politically connected.

The reality is that the US is producing all kinds of crap that the free market would never support. This is a big reason why we've lost our competitve edge and are seeing real production moving over seas.

The calculus says we have no hope of unwinding this problem unless the masses can be persuaded to force the government to balance the budget. We must place shackles on our politicians before we leave our grandchildren in ruin. This is the time to push back it it probably our last chance. VOTE THEM ALL OUT....except Ron Paul and the campaign for liberty.


On Sep 22 02:32 PM Road Runner wrote:

> You conservatives miss a very big point about the economy and taxes
> today verses the economy and taxes when Reagan came into office.
> You believe that cutting taxes is always the solution to improve
> the economy, when in fact, it is only 1 tool to be used in the correct
> circumstances.
>
> When Reagan came into office, taxes were very high (80% plus for
> top earners) and the economy was stalling because of it (along with
> a sudden jump in oil prices that led to stagflation). Government
> was still taxing high but they had no "high multiplier" projects
> left. High multiplier projects are ones they pay back to the economy
> very much more than the cost of the project. Hydroelectric dams are
> a good example. They provide cheap electricity for many decades.
> Thus, Reagan did a very good thing economically by cutting taxes,
> thus pushing more money into the private sector, and away from bloated
> government that was adding little value to the economy.
>
> However, today we have the exact opposite problem. Taxes are too
> low on the wealthy at below 35%. Note that the Bush tax cuts will
> be rolled back at the end of 2010 leading to a top tax rate around
> 40%. This is too little tax on the wealthy. It leads the wealthy
> to build large houses and drive expensive cars that get poor gas
> mileage. Sure, this behavior puts people to work temporarily, but
> it has no long term benefit to the economy. In other words it has
> a 0 or negative multiplier effect. This behavior of the wealthy takes
> value away from the economy.
>
> Also, today we have a great need to make big chances in the world
> economy. This makes government more important than it was in the
> 80s and 90s. The move to alternative energy needs a strong government
> plan and support. For example, it is hard to build high voltage power
> lines now because of “not in my back yard”.
>
> Thus, a need today is to raise taxes in a smart, Moderate way. Raise
> taxes only where it makes economic sense. I don’t think the wealthy
> should be overly taxed. It destroys the incentive to work hard and
> start businesses, and creates incentives to move money overseas.
> Around 45% should be the maximum income tax.
>
> I think gasoline taxes should be raised. Let’s do $0.10 a year for
> 10 years. Doing it this way is a good balance. It creates incentive
> to conserve fuel, but it gives people time to smoothly adjust – they
> don’t have to hurry their next vehicle purchase.
>
> And please don’t think I am a Democrat. I am not. I am a long time
> Republican that feels betrayed by the ultra-right wing of the Republican
> party that hijacked the party. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan when he
> explained why he left the Democratic party and became a Republican,
> “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.” I am a right leaning
> Moderate that finds both the far left and far right out of touch
> with economics.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:15:37 -0400
Spending without taxaction is the new "taxaction without representation". Our grandchildren (who have no representation) will have to pay for all of this.

Fascism for the rich, socialism for the poor, and capitolism for the dwindeling middle class. Soon there will be only the poor and the politically connected.

The reality is that the US is producing all kinds of crap that the free market would never support. This is a big reason why we've lost our competitve edge and are seeing real production moving over seas.

The calculus says we have no hope of unwinding this problem unless the masses can be persuaded to force the government to balance the budget. We must place shackles on our politicians before we leave our grandchildren in ruin. This is the time to push back it it probably our last chance. VOTE THEM ALL OUT....except Ron Paul and the campaign for liberty.


On Sep 22 02:32 PM Road Runner wrote:

> You conservatives miss a very big point about the economy and taxes
> today verses the economy and taxes when Reagan came into office.
> You believe that cutting taxes is always the solution to improve
> the economy, when in fact, it is only 1 tool to be used in the correct
> circumstances.
>
> When Reagan came into office, taxes were very high (80% plus for
> top earners) and the economy was stalling because of it (along with
> a sudden jump in oil prices that led to stagflation). Government
> was still taxing high but they had no "high multiplier" projects
> left. High multiplier projects are ones they pay back to the economy
> very much more than the cost of the project. Hydroelectric dams are
> a good example. They provide cheap electricity for many decades.
> Thus, Reagan did a very good thing economically by cutting taxes,
> thus pushing more money into the private sector, and away from bloated
> government that was adding little value to the economy.
>
> However, today we have the exact opposite problem. Taxes are too
> low on the wealthy at below 35%. Note that the Bush tax cuts will
> be rolled back at the end of 2010 leading to a top tax rate around
> 40%. This is too little tax on the wealthy. It leads the wealthy
> to build large houses and drive expensive cars that get poor gas
> mileage. Sure, this behavior puts people to work temporarily, but
> it has no long term benefit to the economy. In other words it has
> a 0 or negative multiplier effect. This behavior of the wealthy takes
> value away from the economy.
>
> Also, today we have a great need to make big chances in the world
> economy. This makes government more important than it was in the
> 80s and 90s. The move to alternative energy needs a strong government
> plan and support. For example, it is hard to build high voltage power
> lines now because of “not in my back yard”.
>
> Thus, a need today is to raise taxes in a smart, Moderate way. Raise
> taxes only where it makes economic sense. I don’t think the wealthy
> should be overly taxed. It destroys the incentive to work hard and
> start businesses, and creates incentives to move money overseas.
> Around 45% should be the maximum income tax.
>
> I think gasoline taxes should be raised. Let’s do $0.10 a year for
> 10 years. Doing it this way is a good balance. It creates incentive
> to conserve fuel, but it gives people time to smoothly adjust – they
> don’t have to hurry their next vehicle purchase.
>
> And please don’t think I am a Democrat. I am not. I am a long time
> Republican that feels betrayed by the ultra-right wing of the Republican
> party that hijacked the party. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan when he
> explained why he left the Democratic party and became a Republican,
> “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.” I am a right leaning
> Moderate that finds both the far left and far right out of touch
> with economics.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162764-the-recession-is-far-from-over?source=feed#comment-687011 687011 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:52:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/162667-sucker-s-rally-or-sucker-s-shakeout?source=feed#comment-687002 687002
Of course we'll never know unless someone actually "AUDITS the FED". Go RON PAUL]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:39:44 -0400
Of course we'll never know unless someone actually "AUDITS the FED". Go RON PAUL]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162644-bill-gross-sell-equities-buy-treasuries?source=feed#comment-687000 687000 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:36:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/162725-hyper-prosperity-will-replace-hyper-inflation?source=feed#comment-686998 686998 Sorry about the spelling

On Sep 23 12:32 AM johngonole wrote:

> Facism for the rich, socialism for the poor, and capitolism for the
> shrinking middle class. Good buy freedom.......hello fuedalism.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:32:51 -0400 Sorry about the spelling

On Sep 23 12:32 AM johngonole wrote:

> Facism for the rich, socialism for the poor, and capitolism for the
> shrinking middle class. Good buy freedom.......hello fuedalism.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162725-hyper-prosperity-will-replace-hyper-inflation?source=feed#comment-686996 686996 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:32:31 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/162741-flow-of-funds-report-credit-market-shrinks-for-every-sector-except-government?source=feed#comment-686992 686992
Government spending is our leaders ways of saying, "We know better than you, therefore we are going to FORCE you to borrow". The author is correct when he says they can't do it forever. The bigger problem is that while our economy is trying to resize for REAL sustainable demand our government is messing the process up by forcefully spending. In the end we will arrive at the same place before the economy in REAL terms will begin to grow. All this is doing is weaking our country.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:19:11 -0400
Government spending is our leaders ways of saying, "We know better than you, therefore we are going to FORCE you to borrow". The author is correct when he says they can't do it forever. The bigger problem is that while our economy is trying to resize for REAL sustainable demand our government is messing the process up by forcefully spending. In the end we will arrive at the same place before the economy in REAL terms will begin to grow. All this is doing is weaking our country.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162830-stuffing-uncle-sam-is-more-trouble-coming-for-mortgage-market?source=feed#comment-686990 686990
Its got to be people buying simply on the belief that it will keep rising. Could this be another bubble? Is our government buying stocks to try to change attitudes.

I personally sold way to early in this market rise. Perhaps it will go up another 2000 points. Don't want to enter this market now. PE's reflect a healthy economy. Government is the only area of increased activity but that is on borrowed money. ]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:11:13 -0400
Its got to be people buying simply on the belief that it will keep rising. Could this be another bubble? Is our government buying stocks to try to change attitudes.

I personally sold way to early in this market rise. Perhaps it will go up another 2000 points. Don't want to enter this market now. PE's reflect a healthy economy. Government is the only area of increased activity but that is on borrowed money. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161970-dont-blame-free-markets-for-the-crisis-they-never-existed?source=feed#comment-682023 682023
Bruce E.W. rant only shows that he only has one singular thought without anything backing it up at all.


On Sep 17 11:34 AM BRUCE E. W. wrote:

> The ideology of "so-called" Free Market reactionary responses are
> always the same: it was never enough. The idea that somehow the corrections
> are cause is a twisted revisionary tactic that defies explanation.
> You sell an idea that can't possibly exist (brute nature is as close
> as you get to a free market) and then you blame the failure on not
> "trusting" it enough. Blame the victims, blame the "interference"
> and blame the messanger. When you are sending other people out to
> die, it is easy to pay the consequences. You present a "just trust
> me" attitude that has no substance. If you really think your so-called
> free market system would have worked out without accellerating the
> incindiary practices that started, flamed and fueled the fire...there
> are game models that could allow you to show the trajectories of
> the process.
> History, however, has demonstrated over the past decades that the
> social and political cost of saving the market for the priviledge
> of a few, has been the loss of democracy and massive misery for the
> people who are sacrificed by the process. Writing down debt is one
> thing; writing down people is an entirely different matter. All too
> often the mathematics of the free market magicians reduce everything
> to an equilibrium scale in a zero sum game. There is no justice in
> that arrangement. Ane there is no redemption for of the your wild
> card promise of a utopian market... final solution.]]> Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:36:48 -0400
Bruce E.W. rant only shows that he only has one singular thought without anything backing it up at all.


On Sep 17 11:34 AM BRUCE E. W. wrote:

> The ideology of "so-called" Free Market reactionary responses are
> always the same: it was never enough. The idea that somehow the corrections
> are cause is a twisted revisionary tactic that defies explanation.
> You sell an idea that can't possibly exist (brute nature is as close
> as you get to a free market) and then you blame the failure on not
> "trusting" it enough. Blame the victims, blame the "interference"
> and blame the messanger. When you are sending other people out to
> die, it is easy to pay the consequences. You present a "just trust
> me" attitude that has no substance. If you really think your so-called
> free market system would have worked out without accellerating the
> incindiary practices that started, flamed and fueled the fire...there
> are game models that could allow you to show the trajectories of
> the process.
> History, however, has demonstrated over the past decades that the
> social and political cost of saving the market for the priviledge
> of a few, has been the loss of democracy and massive misery for the
> people who are sacrificed by the process. Writing down debt is one
> thing; writing down people is an entirely different matter. All too
> often the mathematics of the free market magicians reduce everything
> to an equilibrium scale in a zero sum game. There is no justice in
> that arrangement. Ane there is no redemption for of the your wild
> card promise of a utopian market... final solution.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161904-bullish-stance-is-wearing-thin?source=feed#comment-680283 680283
I can only conclude that we must allow prices to fall. Expanding government debt only delays the process. We can't compete at current wages with other countries. Asset prices must likewise fall to stimulate demand. Stagflation will be the result of current policies. Deflation can be terrible. However if the deflation is caused by lower consumer debt (more savings), higher empolyment at lower wages, and balanced government budgets we should see more actual consumption due to lower prices, and thus higher employment and increased business spending. Companies are not going to spend money building their businesses without REAL demand. Demand from borrowed money is temporary and peoples memories are too fresh for those lessons to be forgotten so soon. Lower prices are necessary. We are doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Prices would be must lower if not for the government interference.

Banks could suffer from the falling prices I realize this but perhaps they should. Let people who have saved their money actually benefit for a change from the saved money. This will encourage REAL demand.]]> Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:27:24 -0400
I can only conclude that we must allow prices to fall. Expanding government debt only delays the process. We can't compete at current wages with other countries. Asset prices must likewise fall to stimulate demand. Stagflation will be the result of current policies. Deflation can be terrible. However if the deflation is caused by lower consumer debt (more savings), higher empolyment at lower wages, and balanced government budgets we should see more actual consumption due to lower prices, and thus higher employment and increased business spending. Companies are not going to spend money building their businesses without REAL demand. Demand from borrowed money is temporary and peoples memories are too fresh for those lessons to be forgotten so soon. Lower prices are necessary. We are doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Prices would be must lower if not for the government interference.

Banks could suffer from the falling prices I realize this but perhaps they should. Let people who have saved their money actually benefit for a change from the saved money. This will encourage REAL demand.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161878-how-to-prepare-for-the-inevitable-correction?source=feed#comment-680276 680276 Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:08:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/161758-interview-economist-michael-pento-finds-the-fed-completely-unnecessary?source=feed#comment-680266 680266
Ultimately whatever the monetary system is like we must have one that yields stable prices. Businesses now are more likely to live or die based on their speculation skills (when to borrow debt, when to scale back debt) and hedging abilities than skills in their craft. Just recently metal building companies were having to bid on projects that once awarded (several months down the road mind you) could become effective contracts with the price of steel 20% higher or lower. Easy credit also can cause certain markets to become quickly overcrowded. Those with the lowest debt cost basis WIN even though they may not operate the best.

This is, in part, what Mises meant that inflation would cause misallocations of assets and resources that later all leads to a bust. Think housing market.....]]> Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:36:32 -0400
Ultimately whatever the monetary system is like we must have one that yields stable prices. Businesses now are more likely to live or die based on their speculation skills (when to borrow debt, when to scale back debt) and hedging abilities than skills in their craft. Just recently metal building companies were having to bid on projects that once awarded (several months down the road mind you) could become effective contracts with the price of steel 20% higher or lower. Easy credit also can cause certain markets to become quickly overcrowded. Those with the lowest debt cost basis WIN even though they may not operate the best.

This is, in part, what Mises meant that inflation would cause misallocations of assets and resources that later all leads to a bust. Think housing market.....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160914-why-the-bulls-are-skating-on-thin-ice?source=feed#comment-671537 671537
I can't help but notice how when republicans are in power we have talk through out the media of just how awful things are (even when unemployment was below the natural rate of employment and people were crashing over the border for all the under the table jobs) yet here we are with the worst numbers I can remember and the media puts a positive spin on everything. All the sudden there is a silver lining in all dark clouds. Where as before any small spot of clouds in the sky on a bright sunny day was repeated over and over.

Of course media bias is one thing we've all known about for a long time. But the stock market rise can't just be from the media's positive spin. I'm just wondering if the govt and/or Fed having been spending their capital buying stocks.]]> Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:35:53 -0400
I can't help but notice how when republicans are in power we have talk through out the media of just how awful things are (even when unemployment was below the natural rate of employment and people were crashing over the border for all the under the table jobs) yet here we are with the worst numbers I can remember and the media puts a positive spin on everything. All the sudden there is a silver lining in all dark clouds. Where as before any small spot of clouds in the sky on a bright sunny day was repeated over and over.

Of course media bias is one thing we've all known about for a long time. But the stock market rise can't just be from the media's positive spin. I'm just wondering if the govt and/or Fed having been spending their capital buying stocks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159770-for-dawson-shareholders-now-is-when-to-hold-on?source=feed#comment-671507 671507
Perhaps living in Florida has clouded my judgement. Perhaps other areas are seeing a real pick up. Here in Florida things seems to still be worsening a bit and certainly there hasn't been a pick up.]]> Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:56:45 -0400
Perhaps living in Florida has clouded my judgement. Perhaps other areas are seeing a real pick up. Here in Florida things seems to still be worsening a bit and certainly there hasn't been a pick up.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158386-where-are-housing-prices-headed-now?source=feed#comment-648355 648355
I agree with the above premise for the long term. I also agree with the poster about lack of data. How do we know immigrants are still coming into this country. I've actually heard that because of unemployment (which would be much higher if we counted the illegals) illegals are leaving the US. This might be true but who has the data.

I think the easist measurem will be the supply of homes figure]]> Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:06:31 -0400
I agree with the above premise for the long term. I also agree with the poster about lack of data. How do we know immigrants are still coming into this country. I've actually heard that because of unemployment (which would be much higher if we counted the illegals) illegals are leaving the US. This might be true but who has the data.

I think the easist measurem will be the supply of homes figure]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158263-one-good-thing-about-estimated-current-housing-values-reality?source=feed#comment-646621 646621
I need a beer. This isn't rocket science.]]> Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:04:38 -0400
I need a beer. This isn't rocket science.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158270-four-important-housing-charts?source=feed#comment-646613 646613 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:56:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/158259-more-good-housing-news?source=feed#comment-646612 646612
I think once the 8000 tax credit expires (and even if renewed) we will see a drop in demand. Not to mention that the almost regular stock market retreat in the fall will give people pause.]]> Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:10 -0400
I think once the 8000 tax credit expires (and even if renewed) we will see a drop in demand. Not to mention that the almost regular stock market retreat in the fall will give people pause.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158265-two-for-one-for-bloomberg-against-the-secretive-fed?source=feed#comment-646610 646610
In all seriousness I would rather have this power private than in the hands of the government. On the otherhand the books should be open and transparent since manipulations of the money supply effect macro economics of our country in a big way.

Now jumping off the deep end what would be really nice would be to have a monetary systems without fractional reserve banking of any kind. Then we wouldn't have any more bank failures, no fed, no federal deficit spending, etc...]]> Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:43:22 -0400
In all seriousness I would rather have this power private than in the hands of the government. On the otherhand the books should be open and transparent since manipulations of the money supply effect macro economics of our country in a big way.

Now jumping off the deep end what would be really nice would be to have a monetary systems without fractional reserve banking of any kind. Then we wouldn't have any more bank failures, no fed, no federal deficit spending, etc...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157989-housing-strong-recovery-ahead?source=feed#comment-644630 644630
His thesis of a build up of demand is weak however. In Florida we've heard and seen that many of the illegals have left to go back home. In fact I think the recession has been longer than most people know. The unemployment rate lagged reality because it failed to reflect the fact that many of the first laid off employees were illegal. Especially the contraction that occured in the construction and hospitality industries.

Shadow inventory will suppress what demand there is. Prices can't be expected to rise too much. If home prices begin to rise that is when you will see the homebuilding explode. Why buy old when you can buy new. The only case against this thesis of mine is if commodity prices explode due to recovering economies elsewhere or another lending explosion.

The other thing I would argue is that home prices are still out of reach for a lot of people (and obviously in areas where unemployment is high) compared to their income. Rental rates are dropping in many places which also indicates spare capacity.

I think think housing, bankin, and the stock market in general will head lower till say November or December. The plunge protection team can't keep buying forever. Fundemetals will eventually rule ]]> Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:18:24 -0400
His thesis of a build up of demand is weak however. In Florida we've heard and seen that many of the illegals have left to go back home. In fact I think the recession has been longer than most people know. The unemployment rate lagged reality because it failed to reflect the fact that many of the first laid off employees were illegal. Especially the contraction that occured in the construction and hospitality industries.

Shadow inventory will suppress what demand there is. Prices can't be expected to rise too much. If home prices begin to rise that is when you will see the homebuilding explode. Why buy old when you can buy new. The only case against this thesis of mine is if commodity prices explode due to recovering economies elsewhere or another lending explosion.

The other thing I would argue is that home prices are still out of reach for a lot of people (and obviously in areas where unemployment is high) compared to their income. Rental rates are dropping in many places which also indicates spare capacity.

I think think housing, bankin, and the stock market in general will head lower till say November or December. The plunge protection team can't keep buying forever. Fundemetals will eventually rule ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157487-rethinking-the-baltic-dry-index?source=feed#comment-644607 644607 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:25:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/157418-why-do-equity-markets-disagree-with-the-data?source=feed#comment-639292 639292
Could it be the plunge protection team in action taking advantage of low liquidity. The Fed can buy whatever they want these days....why not some stock? Heck the Fed could buy the whole S&P 500 with paper money and it would be legal. The market cap of MSFT and GE are around 350B combined. Seems like chump change these days. ]]> Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:56:45 -0400
Could it be the plunge protection team in action taking advantage of low liquidity. The Fed can buy whatever they want these days....why not some stock? Heck the Fed could buy the whole S&P 500 with paper money and it would be legal. The market cap of MSFT and GE are around 350B combined. Seems like chump change these days. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157385-prime-mortgages-are-also-going-sour?source=feed#comment-639279 639279
I do believe that a second wave of foreclosures is in the works. I think the stock market quite frankly is being pumped. Ocassionaly we have a down day. On the days it drifts lower there is always a rally second half of day. Up days stay up but most of the days that start out down do not. I suspect the plunge protection team, govt, and Fed have figured out that this is the cheapest way to convince Americans that everything is going to be OK so please go back to your negative savings ways.

I read an article a few months ago here on seeking alpha positing that the unemployment rate would not be a lagging indicator this time. I think I agree. The housing crisis while not the whole economy is a huge part of the slow down. This part will not be fixed without stable employment.

My fear is that buy the time this is all over we will have even more people standing by their shovels for the government...I mean working for the govt.]]> Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:30:41 -0400
I do believe that a second wave of foreclosures is in the works. I think the stock market quite frankly is being pumped. Ocassionaly we have a down day. On the days it drifts lower there is always a rally second half of day. Up days stay up but most of the days that start out down do not. I suspect the plunge protection team, govt, and Fed have figured out that this is the cheapest way to convince Americans that everything is going to be OK so please go back to your negative savings ways.

I read an article a few months ago here on seeking alpha positing that the unemployment rate would not be a lagging indicator this time. I think I agree. The housing crisis while not the whole economy is a huge part of the slow down. This part will not be fixed without stable employment.

My fear is that buy the time this is all over we will have even more people standing by their shovels for the government...I mean working for the govt.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156354-cap-and-trade-the-only-alternative-to-epa-s-power-grab?source=feed#comment-632608 632608
www.ethicalatheist.com...]]> Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:28:12 -0400
www.ethicalatheist.com...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156354-cap-and-trade-the-only-alternative-to-epa-s-power-grab?source=feed#comment-632605 632605
Careful the ancients knew the world was round. The very premise of your argument that a vast majority of medival people were stupid and held on to the belief that the world is flat is actually a myth. I first came to know this by watching a show on the history channel. The below links except for one are apolgia sites for christian and atheist groups. Setting that aside the history channel (or maybe discovery) show had portraits of Jesus holding the earth in his hands.....IT WAS ROUND that far predated Columbus. Anyway anyone that has ever gone to the beach can see the arch of the world on the horizon. It wasn't hidden knowledge. So while I agree with your overall premise how can you ever know ALL that you don't know.

www.ethicalatheist.com...
nabataea.net/flatearth...
www.bede.org.uk/flatea...
www.lewrockwell.com/wo...





On Aug 16 02:03 PM socrateazz wrote:

> Religion is right! Fools start to believe something and they will
> not give up that belief for any reason. The world was still Flat
> for up to fifty years after it was proved to be a sphere. But those
> in charge believed they were being buffaloed by fools. If you believe
> somebody has an dumb belief, check out the reasons for that belief
> and the reasons for your beliefs. You might have been propagandized
> and do not even know it. I agree Carbon dioxide is an invented fear
> for control purposes. And people like to control!]]> Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:15:49 -0400
Careful the ancients knew the world was round. The very premise of your argument that a vast majority of medival people were stupid and held on to the belief that the world is flat is actually a myth. I first came to know this by watching a show on the history channel. The below links except for one are apolgia sites for christian and atheist groups. Setting that aside the history channel (or maybe discovery) show had portraits of Jesus holding the earth in his hands.....IT WAS ROUND that far predated Columbus. Anyway anyone that has ever gone to the beach can see the arch of the world on the horizon. It wasn't hidden knowledge. So while I agree with your overall premise how can you ever know ALL that you don't know.

www.ethicalatheist.com...
nabataea.net/flatearth...
www.bede.org.uk/flatea...
www.lewrockwell.com/wo...





On Aug 16 02:03 PM socrateazz wrote:

> Religion is right! Fools start to believe something and they will
> not give up that belief for any reason. The world was still Flat
> for up to fifty years after it was proved to be a sphere. But those
> in charge believed they were being buffaloed by fools. If you believe
> somebody has an dumb belief, check out the reasons for that belief
> and the reasons for your beliefs. You might have been propagandized
> and do not even know it. I agree Carbon dioxide is an invented fear
> for control purposes. And people like to control!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154661-monetizing-debt-disinformation-in-the-blogosphere?source=feed#comment-624372 624372
1) Printing money to make more money in interest is a power I'd like to have.
2) Making your banking friends a bit richer with the fiat currency is a nice jester to banker friends.

As many other have pointed out what really counts is that the FED was more than happy to buy treasuries with newly printed currancy and the bond investors were more than happy to dump the bonds for a quick profit.]]> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:18:27 -0400
1) Printing money to make more money in interest is a power I'd like to have.
2) Making your banking friends a bit richer with the fiat currency is a nice jester to banker friends.

As many other have pointed out what really counts is that the FED was more than happy to buy treasuries with newly printed currancy and the bond investors were more than happy to dump the bonds for a quick profit.]]>