akapital

When Unemployment Peaks, The Bottom Should Follow

i think we're looking at a very saggy bottom - aesthetically unattractive but from an investment standpoint it means plenty of time to get in....not a point in time but very long and drawn out me thinks...but what do I know I am just a kid from Brooklyn...

The Free Market Votes: Still No Change We Can Believe In

Wait, so we need more de-regulation so we can give Wall St. carte blanche and yet another chance to screw things up?

Wasn't it deregulation that screwed things up so badly in the first place? I'm sure you don't think so...

You don't offer a viable alternative solution...more of the same.

Was the Global Equities Crash Related to Obama's Election?

hey, yeah, you know what else I noticed, whenever it rains I see lots of umbrellas...I think umbrellas are causing the rain...

As for nationalizing/socialis... a clue...gov't has been bailing out companies long before Obama came along. Are you serious?

Wow, I am embarrassed for you...

America, The Nanny State

Well said.


On Nov 02 11:31 AM bob adamson wrote:

> Mr. Quinn focuses on the US medical health insurance debate as a
> metaphor for the larger debate over the role of the state in the
> economic life of a nation. The following tries to put some context
> into that larger debate.
>
> Since the current economic crisis came to a head last year there
> has been an important division between the centre left and centre
> right on how to respond to the deep downturn and where ideally to
> be headed coming out of it. The left wants to protect employment,
> incomes and employment benefits and rebuild public infrastructure
> and social and environmental programs to both maintain and rebuild
> better balance (economic, social and ecological) and social equality;
> these being the measures of a healthy and sustainable economy and
> society. The right wants controlled ‘creative destruction’ of wasteful
> public and private social and economic institutions and accelerated
> shifting of economic focus to the healthiest sectors of the private
> sector promoted by deregulation and a lowering tax and public debt
> burden coupled with a greater embrace of globalization; these being
> the way to greater growth and individual freedom. This division was
> temporarily masked in the third quarter of 2008 and the first of
> 2009 as almost all embraced the need for short term stabilization
> of the investment banking sector and shock stimulus of consumption.
> Now that (perhaps prematurely) it appears that the crisis phase has
> past, the right increasingly calls for a return to their core agenda
> while the left continues to see the need for both short term stimulus
> and a longer term drive to achieve the balance and equality described
> above. This debate is now front and centre.
>
> Mr. Quinn presents a more red blooded Libertarian version of the
> right agenda. Logically under that version there would have been
> no fiscal and monetary intervention last year to save the investment
> banking sector and the general economy from a deflationary collapse
> and something rather more than creative destruction would have been
> given free reign to reset the economy and society on the course to
> what purist Libertarians of a right political orientation would see
> as a freer and better state. It should be acknowledged, however,
> that such a choice is as much a policy of social engineering as anything
> proposed on the centre left or left.

Energy Impoverishment: Heading Back to Coal?

While both recent and historical counter-examples of proactive well planned transitions is compelling and while I share the author's historical determinism things might be different this time.

Individual choices in competitive alternative energy market may have the ability to counter the ineptitude, shortsightedness of oligarchy.

Some interesting side notes (at least I find them interesting):

1. Who stands to lose the most by higher energy costs? Those who use the most energy. And therefore, gov't and business, not individuals.

2. Although many find Global Warming a central issue here I do not. In other words, whether you believe it to be fact or fiction is in fact immaterial and as soon as we all agree to this the sooner we can concentrate on the real issue: Toxic Pollution. That is, I think we can all agree that industrial pollution is inherently bad, increases cancer rates, pollute air and water. It really does not matter whether it causes global warming. A more immediate concern is the alarming damage it is causing to all forms of life, human and otherwise.

To anyone who denies global warming, fine, but would you place your mouth on a tail pipe or condone dumping of chemicals in your drinking water or condone chemical or toxic exposure to the foods you eat?

I think we can all find common ground on minimizing environmental damage based on self-preservation at the very least!?

Nationalization, By Any Other Name

Right, and you think we ever had free market capitalism? Why not call it what is was, oligarchy. Look that one up, oligarchy. That's what we had and unfortunately that's what we will always have.

2010: Time to Arrest the Oil Extortionists?

The mechanisms which collude in this regard cannot be distinguished from the same mechanisms which control a great deal of many other aspects of our lives...do you think we can simply pick and choose which ones we are willing to live with?!

I concur with others that individual choices and actions (car pooling, using and investing in alt energy) and the collective effect of these are more likely to have any kind of impact. Don't get me wrong, the whole letter to congressman is cute though...like all those letters to Santa...

Is the Other Oil Shoe Dropping?

Yes, I agree, the other shoe dropping is oil not being priced in USD. Therefore oil and gold continue to be a wise hedge against the dollar.

If you own or earn dollars, oil and gold are a good investment.

If you burn gas, a position in oil stocks, producers, distributers, etc. is a nice hedge against your consumption of gasoline. You may have to pay more at the pump but your investment in oil goes up.

For anyone you has any significant use of gas/oil as a daily part of there lifestyle/energy consumption an investment in natural resources is a no brainer investment. If the price of oil goes down you benefit, if it goes up you benefit.

Is Oil Going the Wrong Way, Or Do We Need to Adjust Our Perceptions?

I am long alternatives and I am long Oil and other natual resources and I was buying at what in hindsigh turned out to be the bottom (at least as of now) because I believe the following:

1. Peak Oil
2. Supply Destruction when oil is sub-50
3. Foreign Demand will far eclipse any decline in US demand
4. Falling dollar

Of course I am not betting the farm (already lost it), but a could chunk of change.

Checking in on Oil's Fundamentals

...a discussion on oil prices without any mention of peak oil production...isn't that convenient. There is a whole other side of the story here that people don't want to consider, oil is finite, the easy oil is gone. Ergo, even if demand does wane, price still could continue to rise. Ergo, I am long oil and all alternatives....but I don't have the energy to explain..hint hint nudge nudge.

$200 Oil Is Coming While We Waste a Perfectly Good Crisis (Part 3)

Great article and comments.

I agree with peak oil and the some of the other related predictions except the idea that alternative solutions/infrastructure is a long way off. Biomass Ethanol can easily be transported, stored, and integrated into the existing gasoline infrastructure and further easily be integrated into existing automobiles. There are already E85 vehicles on the road and converting a traditional gasoline car to E85 is something like a $200 cost.

This explains why the major oil players have bought serious stakes in the biomass technologies (e.g. BP and VRNM).

Still this is probably not enough to prevent $200 oil but there will certainly be alternatives for those who wish to find them and there will be great economic incentive to do so. But when the alternative is also controlled by the traditional energy players one wonders exactly who will enjoy the cost savings? Will it be passed onto consumers? Doubtful. It might just allow them to keep fuel priced relatively the same over time as we slowly transition from gasoline to other sources.

The AIG Scandal

...geez you guys make a good lynch mob...not too bright huh

wow, that's how you accumulate all those thumbs up...thumbs up you're...

Obama Placing the Economic Cart Before the Horse

really pathetic how all these analysts are coming out of the woodwork to say 'I told you so' and 'I have the answer' and promote their books...

Santelli's Chicago Tea Party: The Quest for Our Nation's Soul

i concur with jq, curious investor, and Henry Blankett...some great comments and insight there.

Santelli's thing was the equivalent of yelling fire in the theatre... Of course we're all going to run out of the theatre with you. No one wants to get burned by the fire. Duh, no one wants to pay the way for anyone else..but I never heard Santelli yell fire about Corporate Welfare all these years...

People find it easier to rationalize lining the pockets of the haves than the have nots, mostly because they don't really see the big picture.

As far as the whole "Capitalism" thing, if anyone really thinks we have ever been living under Capitalism they are even more naive then any Socialist. But to explain further would be useless...I am not trying to change minds here.

The Economic Impact of the G20 Ending Oil Subsidies

This is one of the most interesting articles that I have read on SA for some time. Granted it is speculative in nature (e.g. that the G8 will be ending subsidies for fossil fuels) but that is precisely what makes it so interesting. And further more, aren't we all here speculating about something or other?

I also happen to agree with most of the premises and conclusions of the author. Subsidies for fossil fuels are no longer giving us a valuable return on our investment. We need to diversify. Some might argue that it is not even a choice; we have to diversify.

I think the diversification argument holds as true for the individual investor as well as our gov't energy policy. We will see that played out in the coming years.