akapital

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.

Big Money Managers Should Hold Some Responsibility for Bank Failures

Great points overall. I agree that fiduciiary responsibility to shareholders have failed and moreover have been misunderstood.

The responsibility should not simply be in the best financial interest of its shareholders at all costs. That mentality is what results in excessive risk, fraud, as well as environmental and general health viloations. This is why we have so many companies lobbying for all sorts of legislation and asking for regulation to turn the other way.

Rather instead each company should be striving to make a superior product for its customer. Balancing risk and reward, health, safety, and functionality. This is how a company can best reward its shareholders and the greater society which encapsulates it.

But there are indeed shareholders out there who see this otherwise and as long as there are there will always be such opportunities for them. The market will sort out who will survive. Given recent events I think the demand for greater risk/reward at the expense of responsibility will wane. But what do I know...I'm just a kid from Brooklyn.

Glass-Steagall: If Not the Cause, Maybe the Cure?

You write:

"We can have risk taking, innovation and profit or we can have state controlled enterprises, we can’t have both at the same time. They are mutually exclusive."

This is not a factual statement but a matter of your personal philosophy and beliefs, and in my opinion it is a rather limited view point that the majority of people share; but that does not make it right. Moreover, I think this type of limited thinking is limited the type of solutions that are considered.

Of course you can have both.

What's Good for Citi - And What's Good for America

ok, I need to improve my ratio of pos to negative comments so I am going to tee ball this one for all you conversative analysts who have nothing to do but read SA all day (whilst my liberal counter parts are out there trying to save the world you destroyed):

1. Obama bad
2. Bailouts bad
3. Santelli's a hero
4. I work hard too pay for the all the poor's people mortgages

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.

Banks: Nationalize, Cleanse and Get It Over With

what do people think about letting people borrow against their Social Security?

What it effectively does is used future soc sec entitlement as default insurance and would get a serious injections of money into the economy. So when people are paying off their house they are also putting money back into their retirement?