Skeptical Ben

Krugman's Magnum Opus on Macroeconomics

I read the entire Krugman piece (on my iphone even) and found it thoughtful and well written, however I think Krugman, being an academic only, gives too much credence to philosophy alone. In my opinion, Greenspan, the greatest villain in this whole debacle was way out of touch with reality. All he ever saw was Manhattan and Washington D.C. He gave his ill-informed comments on "little pockets of froth" in the housing market, but he never did any leg work. If he'd visited Miami, Southern California and actually talked to people; or even visited bubble blogs instead of reading statistics in the tub, he'd have had a clue. I doubt Krugman has ever had a non-academic job in his life, he only sees Princeton, Manhattan and D.C. He needs a road trip. His suggestions months ago of a much larger stimulus and deficit don't look so bright now. The American people are fed up with the deficits, Obama didn't start it, he inherited it, but that's reality.

Is a Crash Impending?

Think "Sh__" stocks


On Aug 31 01:01 PM Tony Petroski wrote:

> I've heard of "Dead-Cat Bounces." "Used Dogfood Stocks?" What is
> the origin of that phrase?

AT&T: The iPhone's Achilles' Heel

Exactly. AT&T iphone proponents, please state your geography. In Los Angeles, AT&T is horrible coverage, lots of dropped calls and dead zones. When I visited Spain, the iphone worked everywhere, all the time, including calling home to SoCal. Verizon is a much better network in Southern California, and apparently NYC area as well. Let's see, that's only about 30 million people, why build out those networks properly?


On Jul 19 10:56 PM David Bressler wrote:

> I agree with many of the comments about Verizon being expensive with
> poor customer service, but needed to put my vote in for the author.
>
>
> After breaking a t-mo contract to get an iphone last October, I had
> to go back because AT&T hardly functioned as a phone, and I felt
> like an a** for spending money on a 3G plan and always connecting
> at Edge, or worse speeds.
>
> For disclosure, I'm in NYC, and when I left NY, in particular in
> Florida, it worked brilliantly. But, it astounds me... I'm in New
> York Freakin' City, and I can't get inbound phone calls, or calls
> that don't drop? Crazy. And, no reason for voicemails to be delayed
> 12 or more hours before delivery. That has nothing to do with network
> robustness or speed. That's simply a failure.
>
> And, for those people who tell me I'm too picky, if I can get a T-mo
> phone connection, I can get an AT&T one... I can't get a T-mo
> signal where I live in NYC (Tribeca) either, but I have a phone that
> supports UMA, so from home, make all my calls over wifi with unlimited
> minutes for just $10/month. Without UMA, I'd have gone to Verizon.
>
>
> If Verizon get the iPhone, say hi to me. I'll be the guy camping
> out overnight at the front of the line.
>
> David

Washington's Dilemma: This Isn't a Recession, It's a Collapse

As a current and native Californian, I have to agree. It is going to be painful, but governance in this state has to improve. We tried term limits, it actually made things worse. The newest pols are hard core no-new-tax republicans and hard core ever more convoluted benefits and spending democrats. Every good year a dozen ballot initiatives pass, every bad year, nothing, however badly needed, passes. For instance, 3 years ago we passed school construction to be financed with bonds. Now the school buildings are nearly finished, but there is no money to operate them. We need operations management specialists to overhaul everything, make taxation fairer (too complicated to cover here), pare down administration, and get the damn feds out of our schools and health care, they jam everything up with their requirements.
Bailing us out is throwing non-existent money after bad.


On Jul 14 11:37 AM receipt wrote:

> Subsidizing California's irresponsible economic decisions will produce
> more of them and lead to the collapse of the will to be responsible
> in the states that still are. The longer term result of not holding
> California accountable for its' stupidity will be to take down the
> rest of the nation with it.

Crap Marketing Campaign of the Day, Merrill Lynch Edition

All of B of A's decisions are so questionable. Buying Countrywide. Then spending a fortune to settle lawsuits for CW. Then dropping the CW name and spending plenty to re-brand everything. Buying Merrill Lynch. Almost disintegrating because of buying Merrill Lynch. But the stupidest thing they can do is to obscure ML's identity. Bring back Glass-Steagall.

Strange Inconsistencies in the $134.5 Billion Bearer Bond Mystery

Idiot. Everything is Bush's fault except those that are Rumsfeld's, Cheney's or Greenspan's fault.


On Jun 17 09:32 AM richmondeagle wrote:

> Unfortunately, with our current inept administration we find our
> currency under attack and we are laying down our arms. Perhaps our
> treasury people are on top of this, but more likely they are at home
> working on TurboTax. Until our "fearless leader" gets it though
> his skull that there are people who don't just misunderstand us,
> but mean to do us harm, we will continue to see blips like this on
> the radar, but only if we are really looking... until something really
> bad happens. By then, the harsh reality will be that it was not
> George Bush's fault.

Apple: Three Battles Won, Nicely Positioned for the Fourth

Very nice summary of the appealing qualities of Apple's businesses, the iphone applications are going to be HUGE. Just like itunes and ipods drove the computer sales, the app store is off and rocking, and as people read about the overnight success stories of app programmers (see Newsweek, NYT) more and more talented programmers and companies will be writing dynamite apps. The horrible economy doesn't help a company with premium priced products, but it may very well make it difficult for competitors to impact their strongholds.

Refi Rates Are Low, But Banks Don't Seem to Be Lending

Congratulations you spelled "lending" wrong twice. You are qualified to head any of the too big to fail institutions.


On Apr 22 03:34 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> To say banks aren't leading is a very general statement. Banks are
> still ending to small businesses and those with collateral/documented
> income.

Refi Rates Are Low, But Banks Don't Seem to Be Lending

For people with 20% or more down, particularly first time buyers, banks are falling over themselves to make loans, because they can resell to the govt. agencies. For people refinancing those attractive rates you hear quoted are not available. For instance: Look at BofA and Wells Fargo's 30 year fixed loans for a jumbo, presuming you have enough equity to qualify -- the rates are way higher. Or check out Amerisave's or Bankrate.com's sites, type in your calculations -- they want ridiculous amounts of cash up front discount points to match the rates you see quoted in the news. I'm one year in a 10 year interest only jumbo at 6.125 percent, and nothing I've seen quoted seems worthwhile to me to refinance except for the 5 year fixed to variable conversions, and with the present monetary policies, I'll keep my fixed interest only, where the bank bears the risk of falling values or rising rates, not me.

Obama Summarizes Economic Policies, Misses Several Key Points

And what did that make George W. "bullish" Bush? A lousy delivery by a mediocre mind? The growth and debt bulls that ran the government, the fed and the markets for a decade have done tremendous damage, there is no single person up to the task of fixing painlessly.


On Apr 19 10:17 AM FDNY RET wrote:

> Obama gives a wonderful delivery, of words written by gifted writers.
>
> What's missing from the equation is a gifted economic-"Thinker".
>
> Thanks Peter for, pointing out that fact.

What to Short When the Rally Dies

This rally has shrugged off expected bad news. However, now that people have made some money back, one scary event will start downward momentum, a rush to the exits.


On Apr 17 11:09 PM bricki wrote:

> Yes there is an opportunity to make money here on the down side;
> stocks go up and down, not just up. And they have been going up a
> lot recently. Way more than can be justified by any fundamentals.
> S&P 500 P/E of 30 is kind of scary especially when you think
> of the overburden on economic growth that we are looking at for the
> next years.
>
> I might wait a bit though - it seems to me this rally has shrugged
> off a lot of bad news. It doesn't quite look tired enough for me
> to make significant downside bets yet.
>
> Sideways with volatility is going to be the order of battle for the
> remainder of this year - so girls and boys gear your strategy to
> make money in this sort of environment.
>

The Worst Isn't Over Yet

Is Youngolf actually Alan Greenspan?


On Apr 04 10:05 AM youngolf wrote:

> Well, I would, or might, unless I decide to do something else based
> on whether or not the choice or destiny, depending on which is first,
> may present itself, unless I don't have a choice....
>
> The rest of this page intentionally left blank.

Into Corporate Bonds, Out of Government Bonds - Scotia Capital

Okay, what corporate bonds? What categories? Insurance company ratings and manufacturer/exporters are trending down in ratings, so bond values can fall quickly. The article is akin to saying "I like stocks" or "I don't like treasurys".

Will the Fed's Overkill Succeed?

I remember the 70s. People bought land, gold and silver. Inflation was eating up buying powers, as were high taxes. If you don't have 25% of your liquid assets in gold and inflation protected govt. bonds you risk being blindsided by volatility in a year or three.


On Mar 24 12:20 PM SmBlkBob wrote:

> Simple really.
>
> You can't print endless money without it being worth less at some
> point. Worth less means items cost you more to buy.
>
> Gold might be the play but will still not match the amount of inflation
> coming. Will just make it easier to bear. Stocks won't come close
> to breaking even long term.
>
> Bob

Bank Stocks Will Return to Prior Norms

I wouldn't believe this, except why would we expect different behavior from the banks since they have no negative recourse if they're wrong AGAIN. Too big to fail, too stupid to succeed.


On Mar 25 07:20 PM Misha wrote:

> Some of you may have noticed that Citi and BAC are buying MORE toxic
> assets:
>
> www.marketwatch.com/ne...={79b2b74f-6175-47b3-9...247wallst.com/2009/03/.../
>
>
> BAC: "Our purchases in [mortgage-backed securities] increase liquidity
> in the mortgage market allowing people to buy a home." Give me a
> break! The only reason anyone would buy those assets is if they believed
> that they are undervalued in the marketplace. And on their balance
> sheets…
>