For five years, this blog has conducted a lonely crusade (along with others) to convince conservatives that big corporate mergers, and the resultant corporate empires, are about he worst thing there is for conservatism. See the archives of this blog, if you don't believe me (and can find the entries).
It took Henry Paulson to absolutely, conclusively prove me to be right. How can anyone even argue the point now?
This whole idea of "too big to fail" is only the tip of the iceberg. Big mergers, while always a part of capitalism, are not a part of free market theory. In fact, big mergers are a bad ting, in free market theory. Free market theory assumes a large number of private decision makers, where no one or two decision makers have too much influence to distort the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. Corporate empires are central planning empires, fully as much as government empires (with only slightly more check from free market forces, which the combined government/corporate empires of Paulson are now removign).
As I have previously said, true leftists like big corporate empires. It gives them the perfect excuse to argue that government needs to tell them what to do. Big Business is the perfect foil for leftists to argue that only Big Government can control/counterbalance the huge corporate empires. Now there is the additional argument that only government can save those corporate empires, which are "too big to fail".
Has ever a person been proved more right than I have been? Have not these huge corporate mergers been an absolute disaster for conservatism? Even the Big Three automakers were created by long ago mergers. Would it not be much better if there were multiple decision makers running 50 American auto companies, instead of 3 decision makers running 2 American automakers (who knows what Chrysler is). From drug companies to telecommunications to Big Oil to financial institutions, big mergers have resulted in the death of conservatism, and the rise of Big Government central planning (not to mention corporate empire central planning, which has been disastrous, as expected).
Socialism has been the result of conservatives ignoring my advice. Stopping big mergers does not involve any government interference in the free market. In fact, it preserves the conditions which free makret theory requires to be fully applicable. As with Wall Street trading, conservatives and Republicans have resisted any interference with big corporate mergers because of supposed government "interference". Can that "interfererence" have possibly been worse than the present bailouts and socialism. Again, in foresight, my prediction of disaster has been correct. I told you that big corporations, created by merger (not market efficiency) would destroy everything conservatives hold dear (economically). Tell me where I was wrong!!! I dare you.
Yes, some voices are now being raised on this ponit--late. And still there is no constituency for stopping big corporate mergers. They are even being accelerated as necessary because of current economic conditions.
My truck company owning brother is being peripherally affected by the merger of Allied Waste and Waste Management--no. 2 and no. 3 in the waste management business in this country. In a rational, free market slystem, this merger would not be allowed. It should not be allowed. It was mergers like this that created that monster, AIG. It can be said. therefore, that corporate mergers defeated John McCain and the Republican Party in the recent election. They have certainly doomed conservatism in present day America.
Yes, I told you conservatives so. I was right. You were wrong. As I have said before, I am not a big enough person to avoid pointing this out.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Leftists and Mainstream Media: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points at YOU
Yes, the coveted/dreaded Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate stopped spinning on Saturday pointing solidly at leftists (in the Age of Obama) and the mainstream media (redundancy). There is no way to single out inidviduals here, which include diverse mainstream media outlets such as Fox News (part of the mainstream media problem and not the solution) and the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always give complete, official name the first reference). Yes, the leftists on CNN and MSNBC, and all of the rest, surely got in the act.
I am referring to the disgraceful exhibition last week (see the entry on "Eight Year Old Killers) of the mainstream media, and leftist "experts", trying to make an "issue" out of police conduct in obtaining that confession of an eight year old boy who murdered his father (and another man).
What can you say about people who think Miranda warnings make sense for an eight year old boy? Well, we can say they belong on Wall Street, or Wall Street people belong in "journalism" (see immediately previous entry). They are that stupid.
But what about people so evil, and so driven by agenda, that they are willing to argue that an eight year old boy should be "defended" like an adult criminal defendant. That ignores the entrie function of the juvenile justice system. Yes, I am perfectly aware that system can harm children. However, the idea that our goal with regard to eight year old boys is to provide them an effective criminal "defense" is so bizarre that it exposes anyone asserting it as an evil, stupid person. There may be no way to help an eight year old murderer of this type, in which case he should be locked up in an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. But we have to try. Procedural protections of adult criminal defendants are almost irrelevant to this process--certainly in a case where there is no doubt about the child's "guilt". The idea is to try to change the child into a productive citizen, so that he does not eventually face the adult criminal system as an adult criminal defendant. . If you don't understand that, you are not an "expert" in any kind of criminal law--certainly not in juvenile law. If a 16 year old goes to trial as an adult, then he should get a full criminal defense. If a lawyer representing a juvenile in the juvenile system regards it as his or her job to "get the child off", then that is one evil, stupid lawyer. The lawyer should be trying to get the best help for the child the lawyer can get--not trying to avoid acknowledging "guilt".
Some may regard this as minor. I regard it as major. I regard it as one of the major illustrations of the evil and stupidity of the mainstream media, and many leftists, that I have seen. It is totally a matter of the Age of Obama putting symbols, agena, and words over substance. Anyone who wants to talk about Miranda warnings for an eight year old child (as the despicable AP/AOL story di) belongs in an institution themselves. They should not be around loose out there. Yet, I am afraid people like this are running things in the Age of Obama. Notice the real agenda: to criticize the police, and treat the police as the enemy to be fought. I guarantee you that was what was really going on here, along with the cable TV (evil) mentality of treating crime as a game to be adjudicated in the media (with "sides").
Was there not a legitimate criticism to be made of the police/authorities here? Sure there was, but the mainstream media did not want to emphasize it (some surely mentioned it) for reasons of self-interest (evil people that these people are).
Juvenile proceedings are supposed to be private. I don't think this confession by an eight year old boy (even if it was technically not yet part of a juvenile "proceeding") should have been released to the public. It defeats the purpose of the juvenile justice "system", and that is where the mistake was made here. That has nothing to do with "adjudicating" the case, or of how to handle the eight year old boy That has to do with compromising the effort to help the child, before the effort even starts. Remember, this is the media (evil cowards that they are) who (mainly) failed to reproduce those Danish cartoons of Muhammad, on the grounds of not wanting to "offend". Do these people deserve a pass for ruining the chances of an eight year old boy for a future life by putting his confession before the public? Nope. They should have printed the cartoons. They should not have publicized the details of the "confession". They got it exactly, 180 degrees, wrong--as usual. The "authorities got it wrong by releasing the details of the confession, and evidently the video iteself (no, I saw no reason to watch it). If you wanted to criticize the police/suthorities, it should have been for conducting this juvenile proceeding in the media (a criticism also fully appllicable to all of these "leaks" of material in a criminal proceeding/prosecution, including the evil leaks of grand jury material).
Award ceremony (as usual, a virtual ceremony entirely in the imgationation, without video or graphics. As usual, I suggest you use the old Dick Martin image presenting the statuette of the "Finger" on the old "Laugh In" as a visual aid, even though this award has no connection--other than getting the inspiration from--the old "Laugh IN" award. If you are not familiar with that old award, represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger, the award was for outstanding stupidity and/or evil that came to light in the previous week.):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the pointing Finger at the camera, and saying: Leftists (not all, but you know who you are and regularly reveal yourselves), and the mainstream media (not much qualification here), this is for you. You deserve it. Anyone who discusses the "issue" of Mrianda warnings for an eight year old child should receive an immediate sanity hearing. They are probably dangerous to themselves and others."
P.S. I have pretty much stopped posting entries on Saturday and Sunday, and that will probably apply to all Thanksgiving weekend. WAPPY THANKSGIVING (alghough I expect a blgo entry or two tomorrow). Note that Thanksgiving, despite all efforts to hide it, is really a religious holiday. Just thought I would mention it, for you "separation of church and state" advocates of the Age of Obmama. Christmas, of course, is so obviously a religious holiday that the ACLU keeps trying to destroy the enjoyment of it for our mainly Christian country--not to mention prohibit any and all explanations of what the holiday means. I say that as an agnostic, but it is true anyway. The ACLU would dearly like to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday. It would, if it could. Does it really do any good to try to trash our religious tradition (not the same as impsing a religion--to recognize such a tradition and the faith of the majority of the country)? I have given my answer over and over again, and that answer is that it is intolerant and rude to try to exclude all reference to religion from public discourse and recognition. But you can look at San Francisco, where the homosexual lifestyle is an intolerant religion, to see what the Age of Obama is likely to be like--symbol over substance, and agenda over everything.
I am referring to the disgraceful exhibition last week (see the entry on "Eight Year Old Killers) of the mainstream media, and leftist "experts", trying to make an "issue" out of police conduct in obtaining that confession of an eight year old boy who murdered his father (and another man).
What can you say about people who think Miranda warnings make sense for an eight year old boy? Well, we can say they belong on Wall Street, or Wall Street people belong in "journalism" (see immediately previous entry). They are that stupid.
But what about people so evil, and so driven by agenda, that they are willing to argue that an eight year old boy should be "defended" like an adult criminal defendant. That ignores the entrie function of the juvenile justice system. Yes, I am perfectly aware that system can harm children. However, the idea that our goal with regard to eight year old boys is to provide them an effective criminal "defense" is so bizarre that it exposes anyone asserting it as an evil, stupid person. There may be no way to help an eight year old murderer of this type, in which case he should be locked up in an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. But we have to try. Procedural protections of adult criminal defendants are almost irrelevant to this process--certainly in a case where there is no doubt about the child's "guilt". The idea is to try to change the child into a productive citizen, so that he does not eventually face the adult criminal system as an adult criminal defendant. . If you don't understand that, you are not an "expert" in any kind of criminal law--certainly not in juvenile law. If a 16 year old goes to trial as an adult, then he should get a full criminal defense. If a lawyer representing a juvenile in the juvenile system regards it as his or her job to "get the child off", then that is one evil, stupid lawyer. The lawyer should be trying to get the best help for the child the lawyer can get--not trying to avoid acknowledging "guilt".
Some may regard this as minor. I regard it as major. I regard it as one of the major illustrations of the evil and stupidity of the mainstream media, and many leftists, that I have seen. It is totally a matter of the Age of Obama putting symbols, agena, and words over substance. Anyone who wants to talk about Miranda warnings for an eight year old child (as the despicable AP/AOL story di) belongs in an institution themselves. They should not be around loose out there. Yet, I am afraid people like this are running things in the Age of Obama. Notice the real agenda: to criticize the police, and treat the police as the enemy to be fought. I guarantee you that was what was really going on here, along with the cable TV (evil) mentality of treating crime as a game to be adjudicated in the media (with "sides").
Was there not a legitimate criticism to be made of the police/authorities here? Sure there was, but the mainstream media did not want to emphasize it (some surely mentioned it) for reasons of self-interest (evil people that these people are).
Juvenile proceedings are supposed to be private. I don't think this confession by an eight year old boy (even if it was technically not yet part of a juvenile "proceeding") should have been released to the public. It defeats the purpose of the juvenile justice "system", and that is where the mistake was made here. That has nothing to do with "adjudicating" the case, or of how to handle the eight year old boy That has to do with compromising the effort to help the child, before the effort even starts. Remember, this is the media (evil cowards that they are) who (mainly) failed to reproduce those Danish cartoons of Muhammad, on the grounds of not wanting to "offend". Do these people deserve a pass for ruining the chances of an eight year old boy for a future life by putting his confession before the public? Nope. They should have printed the cartoons. They should not have publicized the details of the "confession". They got it exactly, 180 degrees, wrong--as usual. The "authorities got it wrong by releasing the details of the confession, and evidently the video iteself (no, I saw no reason to watch it). If you wanted to criticize the police/suthorities, it should have been for conducting this juvenile proceeding in the media (a criticism also fully appllicable to all of these "leaks" of material in a criminal proceeding/prosecution, including the evil leaks of grand jury material).
Award ceremony (as usual, a virtual ceremony entirely in the imgationation, without video or graphics. As usual, I suggest you use the old Dick Martin image presenting the statuette of the "Finger" on the old "Laugh In" as a visual aid, even though this award has no connection--other than getting the inspiration from--the old "Laugh IN" award. If you are not familiar with that old award, represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger, the award was for outstanding stupidity and/or evil that came to light in the previous week.):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the pointing Finger at the camera, and saying: Leftists (not all, but you know who you are and regularly reveal yourselves), and the mainstream media (not much qualification here), this is for you. You deserve it. Anyone who discusses the "issue" of Mrianda warnings for an eight year old child should receive an immediate sanity hearing. They are probably dangerous to themselves and others."
P.S. I have pretty much stopped posting entries on Saturday and Sunday, and that will probably apply to all Thanksgiving weekend. WAPPY THANKSGIVING (alghough I expect a blgo entry or two tomorrow). Note that Thanksgiving, despite all efforts to hide it, is really a religious holiday. Just thought I would mention it, for you "separation of church and state" advocates of the Age of Obmama. Christmas, of course, is so obviously a religious holiday that the ACLU keeps trying to destroy the enjoyment of it for our mainly Christian country--not to mention prohibit any and all explanations of what the holiday means. I say that as an agnostic, but it is true anyway. The ACLU would dearly like to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday. It would, if it could. Does it really do any good to try to trash our religious tradition (not the same as impsing a religion--to recognize such a tradition and the faith of the majority of the country)? I have given my answer over and over again, and that answer is that it is intolerant and rude to try to exclude all reference to religion from public discourse and recognition. But you can look at San Francisco, where the homosexual lifestyle is an intolerant religion, to see what the Age of Obama is likely to be like--symbol over substance, and agenda over everything.
Wall Street (homo Wall Streetiens): The Stupidest People On Earth (Continued)
What else can you say about the traders on Wall Street and their comuter games? Last week the market went down 900 points in two days. On Friday and Monday the Dow went up 900 points in two days. If you think that is rational, you belong either on Wall Street or in "journalism". The economic situation did not materially change. Just how stupid were people continuing to buy as the Dow up 800 points over two days, or who got themselves caught in a "short squeeze" (or other computer program strategy) that forced them to buy? As I have stated, no more stupid individuals have ever existed on this Earth as members of the species homo sapiens. I am doubtful whether many Neanderthals were this stupid--as stupid as homo Wall Streetiens.
What are the reasons given for this insanity--the false reasons (this blog having given you the real explanation of computer program, momentum trading out of control)? Most of those irrational moves occurred in the last hour of trading, which emphasizes that the "logical" explanations, based on economic fundamentals, are false.
The explanation given is words. I admit it. I think we are becoming an "Obama nation" (Gwen Ifill's book subtitle: "in the Age of Obma"). Did Oba a say anything different--much less anything to change the economic situation "on the ground"? Don't be silly. In fact, the people he has named to his economic team are people, including the Paulson clone--New York Fed chief--named Secretary of the Treasury, who got us into this revolting situation. They are mainly Clinton Administration retreads who have not distinguished themselves with great foresight, and ideas to keep us from reaching this poiint.
Nope. The "words" were not really the c"cause" of the market rally, just as Obama's election was not the "cause" of the worst post-election drop in the Dow ever. Computer program, irrational trading (irrational from the point of view of any rational trading system--even when the people doing the manipulative trading expect to rationally make money doing it) is the explanation for these wild stock market swings. No evonomic events, and no words, are a real explanation. To assert that they are a real explanation is to expose yourself as stupid.
Nevertheless, the "journalistic" idea that it is rational for the market to move 900 points on mere words of intention from Obama, and yet another (expected) bailout of Citigroup, puts us so squarely in the "age of Obama" that it is truly scary. The Age of Obama is obviously an age where fantasy reigns, and words and symbols are assumed to have more power than they could ever actually have.
The Age of Obama is an age where we will have ever wilder market swings, as fantasy manipulation and the siren song of discredited central planning rule. It is a fantasy world where the government can solve all problems, and where the government can print infinite amounts of money without consequences.
As I have said, there are two separate (if interrelated) problems in the Age of Obama. One is that Wall STreet is broken, with the stupid inmates running to asylum. Wall Street seems determined to sink our financial system with irrational trading alone. Then there is the "real world" economy, apart from the fantasy, computer gaming world that Wall Street has become. Obama is taking care of creating the fantasy world there which will destroy us. With so many people out to destroy us, we may have little chance.
P.S. Yes, Wall Street had an apparently rational day today, as the Dow was up 36 and the NASDAQ down 7. When the economic situation is not changing, those are the kind of days we should be having. This, of course, ignores (and they can't be ignored) the gyrations within the day. A stock market is broken that routinely goes up or down 500 Dow points in an hour (or less), with no "game changing" economic "news" to cause such wild swings. They very fact that the market keeps swinging back and forth (both ways) conclusively proves this point, as well as showing that the people how trade at the extremes of these swings (in the direction of the swing) are the stupidest people on Earth.
What are the reasons given for this insanity--the false reasons (this blog having given you the real explanation of computer program, momentum trading out of control)? Most of those irrational moves occurred in the last hour of trading, which emphasizes that the "logical" explanations, based on economic fundamentals, are false.
The explanation given is words. I admit it. I think we are becoming an "Obama nation" (Gwen Ifill's book subtitle: "in the Age of Obma"). Did Oba a say anything different--much less anything to change the economic situation "on the ground"? Don't be silly. In fact, the people he has named to his economic team are people, including the Paulson clone--New York Fed chief--named Secretary of the Treasury, who got us into this revolting situation. They are mainly Clinton Administration retreads who have not distinguished themselves with great foresight, and ideas to keep us from reaching this poiint.
Nope. The "words" were not really the c"cause" of the market rally, just as Obama's election was not the "cause" of the worst post-election drop in the Dow ever. Computer program, irrational trading (irrational from the point of view of any rational trading system--even when the people doing the manipulative trading expect to rationally make money doing it) is the explanation for these wild stock market swings. No evonomic events, and no words, are a real explanation. To assert that they are a real explanation is to expose yourself as stupid.
Nevertheless, the "journalistic" idea that it is rational for the market to move 900 points on mere words of intention from Obama, and yet another (expected) bailout of Citigroup, puts us so squarely in the "age of Obama" that it is truly scary. The Age of Obama is obviously an age where fantasy reigns, and words and symbols are assumed to have more power than they could ever actually have.
The Age of Obama is an age where we will have ever wilder market swings, as fantasy manipulation and the siren song of discredited central planning rule. It is a fantasy world where the government can solve all problems, and where the government can print infinite amounts of money without consequences.
As I have said, there are two separate (if interrelated) problems in the Age of Obama. One is that Wall STreet is broken, with the stupid inmates running to asylum. Wall Street seems determined to sink our financial system with irrational trading alone. Then there is the "real world" economy, apart from the fantasy, computer gaming world that Wall Street has become. Obama is taking care of creating the fantasy world there which will destroy us. With so many people out to destroy us, we may have little chance.
P.S. Yes, Wall Street had an apparently rational day today, as the Dow was up 36 and the NASDAQ down 7. When the economic situation is not changing, those are the kind of days we should be having. This, of course, ignores (and they can't be ignored) the gyrations within the day. A stock market is broken that routinely goes up or down 500 Dow points in an hour (or less), with no "game changing" economic "news" to cause such wild swings. They very fact that the market keeps swinging back and forth (both ways) conclusively proves this point, as well as showing that the people how trade at the extremes of these swings (in the direction of the swing) are the stupidest people on Earth.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Rush Limbaugh and the Stock Market: This Way Lies Madness
Yes, I actually heard Rush Limbaugh commenting this morning about how the stock market went down from up 320 on the Dow to up 200 on the Dow, as Obama talked about his economic "plan".
No. Limbuagh is not stupid. See my previous entries today. He is merely engaging in tactical "jabs" at Obama.
Doesn't matter. This obsession with the stock market "reaction" to events is not hlepful--counterproductive in the end, as well as obscuring the contribution that an irrational stock market is making to our economic troubles.
The stock market is broken, and Rush Limbaugh is not making any cotribution to public understanding on that.
As the title states, trying to figure out "reasons" for present stock market moves only leads to madness. This blog has given you the correct reasons for most recent, violent stock market swings (computer program trading), and it can only lead to madness to try to figure out other reasons for stock market daily moves. Those other reasons don't really exist.
P.S. The Dow quickly recovered much of its drop. All of these violent drops and rises are mainly fiction, and it is, indeed, madness to try to figure out economic/rational reasons for the moves.
No. Limbuagh is not stupid. See my previous entries today. He is merely engaging in tactical "jabs" at Obama.
Doesn't matter. This obsession with the stock market "reaction" to events is not hlepful--counterproductive in the end, as well as obscuring the contribution that an irrational stock market is making to our economic troubles.
The stock market is broken, and Rush Limbaugh is not making any cotribution to public understanding on that.
As the title states, trying to figure out "reasons" for present stock market moves only leads to madness. This blog has given you the correct reasons for most recent, violent stock market swings (computer program trading), and it can only lead to madness to try to figure out other reasons for stock market daily moves. Those other reasons don't really exist.
P.S. The Dow quickly recovered much of its drop. All of these violent drops and rises are mainly fiction, and it is, indeed, madness to try to figure out economic/rational reasons for the moves.
Stock Market Follies
Note that as the previous entry was being posted, the Dow is up almost 300 points today.
Nope. That does not mean that people who bought at the top of Friday's rally were smart. Rather, it means that anyone buying right now is confirming himself as one of those stupidest people on Earth. It is a game of musical chairs--a giant Ponzi scheme. The last ones who buy in this kind of fictional rally get hosed. As I have said, there will be a time when the stock market will finally go up, and stay up (for awhile). But buying at the tops of these irrational rallies (or selling at the bottom of these similar irrational drops), is a losing proposition.
For 401(k) plans, the only rational strategy is to buy on a regular monthly basis, on a long term basis, so that these irrational moves do not affect you in the end. You have to hope, of course, that the broken stock market does not become so broken that it destroys itself (and us with it).
Note: This entry, unlike Friday's is not a prediction that the Dow will continue straight up today. The difference is that we are not in the final hour. There could be substantial fluctuations during the day, and what matters is which way the computer prgrams break in the final hour. We may go up 1,000 points today (bad news, for those who want rationality to return to markets--although good news for those that sell before the music stops and we have the next big decline). We could end up a very long ways today, or down quite a ways The only constant is that the extreme computer moves have no "rational" reason, unless you regard making money in treating the stock market as a computer gaming casino is "rational. In one sense, of course, it is "rational" to engage in computer trading strategies to make money. It is just not "rational" from any fundamental, economic point of view.
Consider what happened when the Dow went up 28% just before Obama was elected. It promptly retraced that entire gain, and more. Anyone buying now should consider that, and realize the game of musical chairs you are playing.
Nope. That does not mean that people who bought at the top of Friday's rally were smart. Rather, it means that anyone buying right now is confirming himself as one of those stupidest people on Earth. It is a game of musical chairs--a giant Ponzi scheme. The last ones who buy in this kind of fictional rally get hosed. As I have said, there will be a time when the stock market will finally go up, and stay up (for awhile). But buying at the tops of these irrational rallies (or selling at the bottom of these similar irrational drops), is a losing proposition.
For 401(k) plans, the only rational strategy is to buy on a regular monthly basis, on a long term basis, so that these irrational moves do not affect you in the end. You have to hope, of course, that the broken stock market does not become so broken that it destroys itself (and us with it).
Note: This entry, unlike Friday's is not a prediction that the Dow will continue straight up today. The difference is that we are not in the final hour. There could be substantial fluctuations during the day, and what matters is which way the computer prgrams break in the final hour. We may go up 1,000 points today (bad news, for those who want rationality to return to markets--although good news for those that sell before the music stops and we have the next big decline). We could end up a very long ways today, or down quite a ways The only constant is that the extreme computer moves have no "rational" reason, unless you regard making money in treating the stock market as a computer gaming casino is "rational. In one sense, of course, it is "rational" to engage in computer trading strategies to make money. It is just not "rational" from any fundamental, economic point of view.
Consider what happened when the Dow went up 28% just before Obama was elected. It promptly retraced that entire gain, and more. Anyone buying now should consider that, and realize the game of musical chairs you are playing.
Obama Recession and Wall Street Follies: Limbaugh and Hannity Get It Wrong
Note the correct prediction (foresight instead of hindsight again) in this blog on Friday afternoon. Yes, as the Dow started straight up, I told you (for those of you who have read these blog entries on these computer driven late market moves) that the Dow was headed for another one of those 500 point moves, as the stupidest people on Earth again had a chance to reveal themselves. The stupidest people on Earth (or "market" computer gamers and evil manipulators--take your pick) are people how actually buy as the Dow is already up 200 on the way to one of those fictional 500 point moves.
Then the financial "journalists" (only competitors fro titel of "stupidest people on Earth", along with non-financial "journalists") weighed in with the false interpretation that the "market" was reacting to the announcement of Obama's proposed Secretary of The Treasury. I told you the real reason for the 500 point move on Friday. The financial "press" told you the false reason. They are dumb. I am smart(er). The real reason for the move was merely another one of those computer driven, "technical" moves--after similar declines in the last hour of the previous two days. In no real sense did the announcement of Obama's proposed Secretary of the Treasury have anything to do with the late, computer rally on Friday.
This brings us to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other conservatives, who are labeling the Wall Street meltdown, and economic woes, an "Obama recession, because the Dow went down further after Obama's election than after the election of ay other--certainly any other modern--President. The idea is that the stock market, and the economy, is reacting to the disastrous economic policies expected from Obama.
Hogwash. Balderdash. (Think up your own, less kind, words.). Just like the 500 point move on Friday had nothing to do with Obama (stupid "journalists" aside), it is absurd to attribute the drop after Obama's election to a rational reaction to that election.
You then have to explain why the Dow was up 18% prior to the election, in another one of those fictional moves. Was it in "anticipation" of Obama being elected? Don't be silly. It was irrational, and the decline after the election was simply a reversal of the previous irrational up move.
Now don't get me wrong here. Obama's election will be an eventual disaster for the economy, along with the election of all of those leftist Democrats to Congress. And I have no problem with Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest "spinning" "news" the way they want to spin it. The left has perfected the Big Lie ("global warming" being but one example). If Limbaugh and Hannity can plant the idea of an "Obama recession" in the mind of the public, I would ordinarily say "more power to them". The false "news" reports about the reason fro Friday's late market rise show that the idea of an "obama recession" is no more implausible than what the mainstream media--including the not worth watching Fox News--are reporting on the market.
However, Limbaugh and Hannity are doing a disservice to the country by attributing rationality to the stock market, and financial markets, at a time when such markets are irrational--and broken. Hannity and Limbaugh, by implication, are saying that the market trading is a rational reaction to Obama's election, when it is really nothing more than a continuation of the increasingly irrational, computer driven, momentum trading in our present financial markets.
This blog has given it to you straight. Something needs to be done about the irrationality--now embedded in the "system--of trading on Wall Street. For Limbaugh and Hannity to be using that trading to try to make a political point obscures than problem, and makes it more likely that no one is going to address the problem. If nothing else, if Rush Limbaugh were to call attention to the irrationality of prsent stock market trading, inclulding this blog's identification of the "stupidest people on Earth", it might actually help to mitigate the irrationality--besides calling attention to the problem.
As it is, Limbaugh and Hannity are just adding to the "journalistic" irrationality/fiction that the market acts rationally. That is a dangerous ting, and is hurting the country (the failure of anyone to identify the present problem with our financial markets having become computer gaming casinos rather than true investment vehicles).
Yes, I understand why Limbaugh and Hannity gave in to temptation on this one. Why let the left define the "Big Lies"? Why not at least spread competing "Big Lies", so that a Big Lie such as the Obama appointment of a Secretary of the Treasury being "approved" by the market is not left out there alone. In other words, why should the left be able to sell the Big Lie that Obama is having a good effect on the market, ehwn there is at least as much evidence he is having a bad effect on the market?
I understand the temptation, but I reject it. Someone has to stand for rationality here. I just wish this blog had enough influence to be more of a factor in spreading rationality. However, I can only do what I can do.
There is no reason, by the way, to celebrate Obama's choice for Secretary of the Treasury. As stated above, the stock market was not celebrating that choice, in any real sense, on Friday. To the stock market, it was irrelevant whether or not the choice was "good" or "bad" ("not good" being my vote).
Obama's choice was the chief of the New York branch of the Fed, who has supposedly worked "closely" with Paulson. If you have followed this blog, you know that working "closely" with Paulson is not a recommendation. The New York Fed was where that meeting on the AIG bailout was held--the should-be infamous meeting where Goldman Sachs (Paulson's former firm faced with a 20 billion dollar exposure to AIG) was the only private company allowed to participate.
Bottom line: The New York Fed chief was one of the people who failed to do anything to prevent us from ending up in the present situation. He has to be regarded as part of the problem, and there is no reason to believe he is part of the "solution". Presumably, if he had any great ideas, he would have put them forward long before we reached this point.
However, time will tell on his performance. Obama has made his choice, and it is unlikely to be rejected. The idea that the mere naming of such a person--already part of the system that failed--as Secretary of the Treasury gave the stock market a rational reason to go up 500 (actually more than 500 from where it was when the rally started) in the last hour is irrational in itself.--just as irrational as the idea that Obama's election is the reason the stock market went down.
Then the financial "journalists" (only competitors fro titel of "stupidest people on Earth", along with non-financial "journalists") weighed in with the false interpretation that the "market" was reacting to the announcement of Obama's proposed Secretary of The Treasury. I told you the real reason for the 500 point move on Friday. The financial "press" told you the false reason. They are dumb. I am smart(er). The real reason for the move was merely another one of those computer driven, "technical" moves--after similar declines in the last hour of the previous two days. In no real sense did the announcement of Obama's proposed Secretary of the Treasury have anything to do with the late, computer rally on Friday.
This brings us to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other conservatives, who are labeling the Wall Street meltdown, and economic woes, an "Obama recession, because the Dow went down further after Obama's election than after the election of ay other--certainly any other modern--President. The idea is that the stock market, and the economy, is reacting to the disastrous economic policies expected from Obama.
Hogwash. Balderdash. (Think up your own, less kind, words.). Just like the 500 point move on Friday had nothing to do with Obama (stupid "journalists" aside), it is absurd to attribute the drop after Obama's election to a rational reaction to that election.
You then have to explain why the Dow was up 18% prior to the election, in another one of those fictional moves. Was it in "anticipation" of Obama being elected? Don't be silly. It was irrational, and the decline after the election was simply a reversal of the previous irrational up move.
Now don't get me wrong here. Obama's election will be an eventual disaster for the economy, along with the election of all of those leftist Democrats to Congress. And I have no problem with Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest "spinning" "news" the way they want to spin it. The left has perfected the Big Lie ("global warming" being but one example). If Limbaugh and Hannity can plant the idea of an "Obama recession" in the mind of the public, I would ordinarily say "more power to them". The false "news" reports about the reason fro Friday's late market rise show that the idea of an "obama recession" is no more implausible than what the mainstream media--including the not worth watching Fox News--are reporting on the market.
However, Limbaugh and Hannity are doing a disservice to the country by attributing rationality to the stock market, and financial markets, at a time when such markets are irrational--and broken. Hannity and Limbaugh, by implication, are saying that the market trading is a rational reaction to Obama's election, when it is really nothing more than a continuation of the increasingly irrational, computer driven, momentum trading in our present financial markets.
This blog has given it to you straight. Something needs to be done about the irrationality--now embedded in the "system--of trading on Wall Street. For Limbaugh and Hannity to be using that trading to try to make a political point obscures than problem, and makes it more likely that no one is going to address the problem. If nothing else, if Rush Limbaugh were to call attention to the irrationality of prsent stock market trading, inclulding this blog's identification of the "stupidest people on Earth", it might actually help to mitigate the irrationality--besides calling attention to the problem.
As it is, Limbaugh and Hannity are just adding to the "journalistic" irrationality/fiction that the market acts rationally. That is a dangerous ting, and is hurting the country (the failure of anyone to identify the present problem with our financial markets having become computer gaming casinos rather than true investment vehicles).
Yes, I understand why Limbaugh and Hannity gave in to temptation on this one. Why let the left define the "Big Lies"? Why not at least spread competing "Big Lies", so that a Big Lie such as the Obama appointment of a Secretary of the Treasury being "approved" by the market is not left out there alone. In other words, why should the left be able to sell the Big Lie that Obama is having a good effect on the market, ehwn there is at least as much evidence he is having a bad effect on the market?
I understand the temptation, but I reject it. Someone has to stand for rationality here. I just wish this blog had enough influence to be more of a factor in spreading rationality. However, I can only do what I can do.
There is no reason, by the way, to celebrate Obama's choice for Secretary of the Treasury. As stated above, the stock market was not celebrating that choice, in any real sense, on Friday. To the stock market, it was irrelevant whether or not the choice was "good" or "bad" ("not good" being my vote).
Obama's choice was the chief of the New York branch of the Fed, who has supposedly worked "closely" with Paulson. If you have followed this blog, you know that working "closely" with Paulson is not a recommendation. The New York Fed was where that meeting on the AIG bailout was held--the should-be infamous meeting where Goldman Sachs (Paulson's former firm faced with a 20 billion dollar exposure to AIG) was the only private company allowed to participate.
Bottom line: The New York Fed chief was one of the people who failed to do anything to prevent us from ending up in the present situation. He has to be regarded as part of the problem, and there is no reason to believe he is part of the "solution". Presumably, if he had any great ideas, he would have put them forward long before we reached this point.
However, time will tell on his performance. Obama has made his choice, and it is unlikely to be rejected. The idea that the mere naming of such a person--already part of the system that failed--as Secretary of the Treasury gave the stock market a rational reason to go up 500 (actually more than 500 from where it was when the rally started) in the last hour is irrational in itself.--just as irrational as the idea that Obama's election is the reason the stock market went down.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wall Street Insanity (continued)
See previous two entries.
At 1:41, THE Dow was up 419. To call this insanity (not to mention terminal stupidity and/or evil, destructive manipulation) is an understatement.
I am not normally a doom and gloom person. But I see no way for our financial markets to survive as anything but computer gaming casinos with this kind of trading Yet, there is nobody even attempting to do anything about it.
Sad. Really sad. Why should anyone invest in the stock market when they know this kind of computer gaming is occurring?
At 1:41, THE Dow was up 419. To call this insanity (not to mention terminal stupidity and/or evil, destructive manipulation) is an understatement.
I am not normally a doom and gloom person. But I see no way for our financial markets to survive as anything but computer gaming casinos with this kind of trading Yet, there is nobody even attempting to do anything about it.
Sad. Really sad. Why should anyone invest in the stock market when they know this kind of computer gaming is occurring?
Wall Street (continued)
Do any of you doubt me when I say these last hour "market" moves in the stock market are total fiction--computer manipulation? Don't.
If you really believe, after you think about it, that it is possible for there to be any real developments in the last hour on Friday afternoon to justify these kind of market "swings", especially in the Dow, then you are as stupid as some of the people on Wall Street (where even if some of the "smart guys" are making money, they are doing so at the cost of ruining the entire "system", and maybe the country).
Nope. It is simply impossible for there to be the type of "news" on Friday afternoon to justify a 250 point move in the Dow in 15 minutes. That such moves are routine now merely confirms that the system is broken, and that something should be done about it.
If you really believe, after you think about it, that it is possible for there to be any real developments in the last hour on Friday afternoon to justify these kind of market "swings", especially in the Dow, then you are as stupid as some of the people on Wall Street (where even if some of the "smart guys" are making money, they are doing so at the cost of ruining the entire "system", and maybe the country).
Nope. It is simply impossible for there to be the type of "news" on Friday afternoon to justify a 250 point move in the Dow in 15 minutes. That such moves are routine now merely confirms that the system is broken, and that something should be done about it.
Wall Street: Stupidest People on Earth (continued), Or Most Evil
As this is being typed, it is easy too identify both the stupidest people now living on this Earth, and the villains responsible for a good part of our economic/financial mess. YOUI KNOW WHO YOU ARE, AFTER YOU READ THIS ENTRY.
This entry is being typed at 1:15. The Dow is now up 200 points. At around 1, the Dow was DOWN 25 points or more.
These kind of moves in the stock market are TOTAL FICTION. They are computer program driven They are merely proof that Wall Street is broken--badly, terribly broken.
Yes, anyone truly buying stocks once the Dow went up 200 is one of those stupidest people on Earth. To do that, after the evidence over the past year about these kind of fictional moves, is such stupidity that a person that stupid should not be allowed to continue living. It corrupts the gene pool.
"But," you say (fool that your are), "the computer strategy may work if the people are planning on selling before the market goes back down" (in a move down, perhaps equally fictional, on Monday or Tuesday). Ah. right. You are finally getting the point. Those are the VILLAINS--the people using computer, momentum trading to distort/amplify all moves in the market. Those people should be shot as evil villains.
So if you, or a computer program operated by you, is buying stocks today at 1;15, you should be shot either way. Either you are too stupid to live, or you are a total, manipulative villain who is ruining the country. Take your pick.
This entry is being typed at 1:15. The Dow is now up 200 points. At around 1, the Dow was DOWN 25 points or more.
These kind of moves in the stock market are TOTAL FICTION. They are computer program driven They are merely proof that Wall Street is broken--badly, terribly broken.
Yes, anyone truly buying stocks once the Dow went up 200 is one of those stupidest people on Earth. To do that, after the evidence over the past year about these kind of fictional moves, is such stupidity that a person that stupid should not be allowed to continue living. It corrupts the gene pool.
"But," you say (fool that your are), "the computer strategy may work if the people are planning on selling before the market goes back down" (in a move down, perhaps equally fictional, on Monday or Tuesday). Ah. right. You are finally getting the point. Those are the VILLAINS--the people using computer, momentum trading to distort/amplify all moves in the market. Those people should be shot as evil villains.
So if you, or a computer program operated by you, is buying stocks today at 1;15, you should be shot either way. Either you are too stupid to live, or you are a total, manipulative villain who is ruining the country. Take your pick.
Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press: R.I.P.?
The title is perhaps a shade optimistic, and just a shade premature wishing on my part. However, one of the news items today is that the "Anti-American, Despicable AP" (always use complete, official name in first reference) is cutting 10% of its work force.
Don't expect me to feel sorry for you if you work for the despicable AP. The five years of this blog has been the most extensive recording of which I am aware of the daily crimes of the despicable AP against "journalism" and this country. If you work for the despicable AP, you should not. You are working for an evil organization (whether you, yourself, are evil or not).
Nope. If you are working for the AP, and lose your job, I give you no sympathy. It will help you sleep better at night.
P.S. Yes, I realize that the last paragraph of this entry is less significant than it appears. I have often stated that I used up all sympathy I was born with by the age of 10. Even if I had any left, however, I would not waste it on anyone working for the despicable AP. No one should be working for that organization.
Don't expect me to feel sorry for you if you work for the despicable AP. The five years of this blog has been the most extensive recording of which I am aware of the daily crimes of the despicable AP against "journalism" and this country. If you work for the despicable AP, you should not. You are working for an evil organization (whether you, yourself, are evil or not).
Nope. If you are working for the AP, and lose your job, I give you no sympathy. It will help you sleep better at night.
P.S. Yes, I realize that the last paragraph of this entry is less significant than it appears. I have often stated that I used up all sympathy I was born with by the age of 10. Even if I had any left, however, I would not waste it on anyone working for the despicable AP. No one should be working for that organization.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Bill O'Reilly, Socialist and Barney Frank, Socialist: Brothers Under the Skin
Yes, Bill O'Reily can recognize the faults in others, but not in himself. He accurately calls Barney Frank a socialist wanting the government to control the economy Barney Frnak's way, but O'Reilly fails (apparently) to realize that he is exactly the same.
It is O'Reilly who has said that the American automakers should be required to produce a certain percentage of "flex-fuel" vehicles, a certain percentage of electric cars, etc. In other words, O'Reilly wants to act as a central planner imposing his views of what should be produced on the automakers. That is socialism. It is also stupid (a quality of which I have accused O'Reilly often, although it is probably not so much stupidity as the fact that O'Reilly--for all of the talk about the "folks"--is interested in O'Reillay). O'Reilly is, in fact, no different than Barney Frank.
O'Reilly has sounded this same central planning, socialist theme before. It is not just his support of the Paulson bailout O'Reilly has suggested controls on oil company prices and salaries, and controls on executive salaries generally . You can look at the archives of this blog for other examples. O'Reilly is a central planner at heart. He just wants the central planning to be his and not that of Braney Frank (despite some striking similarities in what they want to do).
As I have said before, Bill O'Reilly does not believe in free market theory. Of course, why should he be different from all of those communists now on Wall Street? Central planning, however, is still historically proven to be the wrong approach. Further, there is no theoretical way it can work. It is fatally flawed, even in theory. The problem is that central planners may be right in any individual case. The problem is that when they are wrong, and they always will be wrong sometimes--even in any reasonable theory--it is fatal. There is no self-correcting mechanism.
O'Reilly should go give Barney Frank a hug. Underneath, they think the same way.
It is O'Reilly who has said that the American automakers should be required to produce a certain percentage of "flex-fuel" vehicles, a certain percentage of electric cars, etc. In other words, O'Reilly wants to act as a central planner imposing his views of what should be produced on the automakers. That is socialism. It is also stupid (a quality of which I have accused O'Reilly often, although it is probably not so much stupidity as the fact that O'Reilly--for all of the talk about the "folks"--is interested in O'Reillay). O'Reilly is, in fact, no different than Barney Frank.
O'Reilly has sounded this same central planning, socialist theme before. It is not just his support of the Paulson bailout O'Reilly has suggested controls on oil company prices and salaries, and controls on executive salaries generally . You can look at the archives of this blog for other examples. O'Reilly is a central planner at heart. He just wants the central planning to be his and not that of Braney Frank (despite some striking similarities in what they want to do).
As I have said before, Bill O'Reilly does not believe in free market theory. Of course, why should he be different from all of those communists now on Wall Street? Central planning, however, is still historically proven to be the wrong approach. Further, there is no theoretical way it can work. It is fatally flawed, even in theory. The problem is that central planners may be right in any individual case. The problem is that when they are wrong, and they always will be wrong sometimes--even in any reasonable theory--it is fatal. There is no self-correcting mechanism.
O'Reilly should go give Barney Frank a hug. Underneath, they think the same way.
Wall Street Is Broken, Making Two Problems Instead of Just One
Yes, this blog continues to be proven right about Wall Street. Wall Street is badly broken. The "system" is broken as to almost all kinds of "trades". Momentum, computer trading rules. I summarize the guiding "principle" as follows: "There is no "top", and there is no "bottom". In other words, the way Wall Street momentum trading now works, zero is not a bottom and infinity is not a top.
I am the only one telling you that Wall Street is totally broken, and needs to be fixed. In other words, I am the only one telling you that we have two problems right now. One is that the economy is in considerable trouble--trouble initially created by the bursting of the housing bubble, and compounded by the way Wall Street had packaged financial instruments to make more money.
That economic problem was then really accelerated by the way Wall Street presently workds--the momentum, computer "trading" in all kinds of instruments where up moves and down moves are accelerated beyond belief by the system itself--rather than any fundamentals behind the trades. This was becoming a serious problem before the bursting of the housing bubble, and had been a major factor in the dot.com debacle, and the magnitude of the Enron/WorldCom stock market decline thereafter (in 2002). This lack of any checks on treating the stock market as a computer gaming casino is what has led to these constant 500, and even 1,000, point moves in the Dow in a single day--plus what used to be called "bull" and "bear" markets" in a matter of a few days or a week (a 20% move being previously considered a "bear" market, or a bull markte).
It is this breakdown of the Wall Street "markets" into computer casinos that pushed the economic slowdown from the bursting of the housing "bubble" into a financial "crisis". This was then further compounded by the panic reaction of Hank Paulson (worst failure in the history of world finance), which spread panic and fear throughout world markets, even as the computer trading games removed all confidence in the financial markets themselves.
We have addressed the problems being created in the economy, even if we have done it about as badly as it could be done. No one is even addressing trying to "fix" Wall Street, even though I think the systemic problems there are much the greater problems, and threaten to make real world economic progress impossible.
Yes, there is that old saying about the tail wagging the dog. Wall Street, and its computer games, momentum "trading", and "technical analysis", has become a tail wagging the dog. Wall Street should not be able to affect the real world economy drastically with computer games, but that is exactly what is happening. And those communists on Wall Street are perfectly willing to accept socialism, so long as their precious "free market" in compurter trading games is not affected. Talk about the "tail wagging the dog".
You should be scared to death that you are only hearing this from me. Yet, if you look at my blog entries since the financial "crisis" began, you cannot point out a single instance where I have been proven wrong (something you cannot say about Congress, Paulson, or CNBC--not to mention the truly stupid people on Wall Street killing the goose that laid the golden egg). Thus it was me that told you how stupid it was for the Dow to go UP 1,000 points in a single day, and how it was not a good thing. Rather, it proved that the market was sick unto death (my title for one of those entries). I asked, correctly, how stupid you have to be to buy stocks when they are moving up without apparent limit, or down without apparent limit. In other words, you are reveling yourself as one of the most stupid people on Earth if you buy stocks after the Dow has already moved up 200 points in a day (which is about do to happen after the recent close to 1,000 point decline in two days), or sell stocks in similar fictional declines.
Now there is an overall down bias, because the economy has deteriorated badly since Paulson panicked, but these big moves in very small amounts of time are fictional They are computer generated by program trading, and all of this solemn analysis of "investors" being "afraid" of this or that is truly stupid--really beyond stupid. It is the broken system that is creating these wild moves, and not the "news" each day (bad as that may be and it has never been that good lately to cause anything like the extreme one day up moves, or several day up moves, we have gotten).
Just remember this in the days and weeks to come: If you buy stocks, or put yourself in the computer gaming position of having to do it, on a day (which may happen tomorrow--some of the signs being there, such as the extreme declines the past few days). you are labeling yourself as one of the stupidest people ever to exist on this Earth--lumping yourself with the total idiots on Wall Street who were buying stocks even as the Dow was up 400 points. I was correct when I labeled those up moves fictioni (in foresight--not hindsight). I am correct when I label Wall Street as sick and broken. You should worry that few other people are talking about how badly Wall Street needs fixing--something that has little or nothing to do with "h9ousing" or "lending" or any of thes rest of those economic problems.
If someone besides me does not start worrying about the Wall Street system of trading being broken, then we are in desperate trouble. Again, look at my previous entries. I dare you so show where I have been wrong. Then cnsider how few people you can say that about in the past 6 weeks or so. But I have no influence. That is what should scare the Hell out of you.
I am the only one telling you that Wall Street is totally broken, and needs to be fixed. In other words, I am the only one telling you that we have two problems right now. One is that the economy is in considerable trouble--trouble initially created by the bursting of the housing bubble, and compounded by the way Wall Street had packaged financial instruments to make more money.
That economic problem was then really accelerated by the way Wall Street presently workds--the momentum, computer "trading" in all kinds of instruments where up moves and down moves are accelerated beyond belief by the system itself--rather than any fundamentals behind the trades. This was becoming a serious problem before the bursting of the housing bubble, and had been a major factor in the dot.com debacle, and the magnitude of the Enron/WorldCom stock market decline thereafter (in 2002). This lack of any checks on treating the stock market as a computer gaming casino is what has led to these constant 500, and even 1,000, point moves in the Dow in a single day--plus what used to be called "bull" and "bear" markets" in a matter of a few days or a week (a 20% move being previously considered a "bear" market, or a bull markte).
It is this breakdown of the Wall Street "markets" into computer casinos that pushed the economic slowdown from the bursting of the housing "bubble" into a financial "crisis". This was then further compounded by the panic reaction of Hank Paulson (worst failure in the history of world finance), which spread panic and fear throughout world markets, even as the computer trading games removed all confidence in the financial markets themselves.
We have addressed the problems being created in the economy, even if we have done it about as badly as it could be done. No one is even addressing trying to "fix" Wall Street, even though I think the systemic problems there are much the greater problems, and threaten to make real world economic progress impossible.
Yes, there is that old saying about the tail wagging the dog. Wall Street, and its computer games, momentum "trading", and "technical analysis", has become a tail wagging the dog. Wall Street should not be able to affect the real world economy drastically with computer games, but that is exactly what is happening. And those communists on Wall Street are perfectly willing to accept socialism, so long as their precious "free market" in compurter trading games is not affected. Talk about the "tail wagging the dog".
You should be scared to death that you are only hearing this from me. Yet, if you look at my blog entries since the financial "crisis" began, you cannot point out a single instance where I have been proven wrong (something you cannot say about Congress, Paulson, or CNBC--not to mention the truly stupid people on Wall Street killing the goose that laid the golden egg). Thus it was me that told you how stupid it was for the Dow to go UP 1,000 points in a single day, and how it was not a good thing. Rather, it proved that the market was sick unto death (my title for one of those entries). I asked, correctly, how stupid you have to be to buy stocks when they are moving up without apparent limit, or down without apparent limit. In other words, you are reveling yourself as one of the most stupid people on Earth if you buy stocks after the Dow has already moved up 200 points in a day (which is about do to happen after the recent close to 1,000 point decline in two days), or sell stocks in similar fictional declines.
Now there is an overall down bias, because the economy has deteriorated badly since Paulson panicked, but these big moves in very small amounts of time are fictional They are computer generated by program trading, and all of this solemn analysis of "investors" being "afraid" of this or that is truly stupid--really beyond stupid. It is the broken system that is creating these wild moves, and not the "news" each day (bad as that may be and it has never been that good lately to cause anything like the extreme one day up moves, or several day up moves, we have gotten).
Just remember this in the days and weeks to come: If you buy stocks, or put yourself in the computer gaming position of having to do it, on a day (which may happen tomorrow--some of the signs being there, such as the extreme declines the past few days). you are labeling yourself as one of the stupidest people ever to exist on this Earth--lumping yourself with the total idiots on Wall Street who were buying stocks even as the Dow was up 400 points. I was correct when I labeled those up moves fictioni (in foresight--not hindsight). I am correct when I label Wall Street as sick and broken. You should worry that few other people are talking about how badly Wall Street needs fixing--something that has little or nothing to do with "h9ousing" or "lending" or any of thes rest of those economic problems.
If someone besides me does not start worrying about the Wall Street system of trading being broken, then we are in desperate trouble. Again, look at my previous entries. I dare you so show where I have been wrong. Then cnsider how few people you can say that about in the past 6 weeks or so. But I have no influence. That is what should scare the Hell out of you.
Eight Year Old Killers and Insane Leftists (Including Media): Hard Cases Make Bad Law
You know the case involving the eight year old who has admitted cold blooded murder.
What you may not realize from the media hype is that the case is not important, unless we make the mistake of making it important. As usual, the insane (I mean that literallly) reaction of some in the media, and some leftists, is more important than the actual case.
How many deliberate eight year old murderers (especially of adults) are there each year? Right. Not many. One is a large number (for any year). It is such an aberration as to prove the adage: Hard cases make bad law (and worse "journalism"). There is no reason to worry about how the juvenile justice system handles this kind of case. There is no way to adequately handle this kind of case. It is impossible. All you can do is the best you can to try to fit the case in some reasonable way into a juvenile justice system not designed--and which should not make the mistake of trying to be designed--to handle this kind of rare, extreme case.
Where is the leftist and media insanity? If you don't know, I probably can't help you. But I will explain it anyway. The leftist/media insanity here is to treat this case as a criminal case, where leftists and the media want all criminal defendants to "get off" (unless the "crime" is a crime that fits the leftist agenda, such as a "hate crime"). I don't apologize for this statement. All you have to do is listen to most leftists, and look at how the media covers most crimes (except those where the police can be criticized for failing to "solve" the crime). Leftists do not believe individual responsibility. They believe society is responsible for all criminals (again, absent those crimes that fit the leftist agenda). I dare anyone to argue this with me.
This is a case in point--more revealing than most. The media reaction was to immediately start criticizing the police for failing to give Miranda warnings, and "pushing' this child into a "confession". I could never make this stuff up. This exposes, more than anything else I have ever seen, the inanity of the media and the left (redundancy), where the criminal justice system is viewed as a "game", with the police being the bad guys in the game.
This is not a criminal defendant, or a criminal accused. This is an eight year old child.
Does it make any sense to talk about "suppressing" the "confession" of an eight year old child? Can an eight year old child really understand Miranda warnings, or even have competency to "waive" Miranda rights? Miranda warnings have no relevance to an eight year old child. You reveal yourself as insane--stark raving, straight jacket requiring nuts--if you think otherwise.
Yes, there are due process requirements in juvenile justice. But the cases are still not full fledged criminal proceedings.
Message to you leftist and media nuts out there--insane, stupid people that you are--who think you are making a point by "questioning" the validity of the "confession" here: Do you think the best thing to help this child is to "get the child off" from the murder "charge"? In what universe. You leftist and media types really are evil human beings, aren't you, to encourage an eight year old child to believe that he can "beat the rap". That is insanity on a level that makes me believe that you should all be locked lup--more than the eight year old should be locked up.
The worst thing for this eight year old child would be to evade all responsibility for his actions--to be found "innocent" because he is treated like an adult criminal defendant and can't be proven guilty. This child desperately needs help. Anyone who tries to invoke "Miranda" to help this child disclaim responsibility for his actions is more evil than even I had considered leftists and the media. This child needs to understand what he did, and to understand why it is wrong. Okay, you can talk about how this is done. But "beating the rap" is the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to this child. I feel sorry for any leftist who does not undersand this. From the media coverage, that is a lot of you. You are stark raving, dangerous people who should not be allowed around loose. No, it is not useful "news" coverage to start talking about the validity of the confession (Fox News, as usual, this means YOU--part of the mainstream media problem and not part of the solution). The media is making too much of this case in the first place. To try to treat it as a regular criminal case tried (insanely, and unjustifiably as is being done these days) in the media is beyond insanity. It convicts you, the media, of being evil people who have no understanding of what is happening.
I repeat: This is an eight year old boy. This is not a criminal defendant. Yet the AOL/AP (evil organizations both) headline today was about "questions" on the confession. The story proceeded to quote experts (lock they away, NOW, for the good of them and us) about how the police questioning should have stopped once it started concentrating on the eight year old boy as a "perp". Read the above, and realize again that these "experts" are talking about giving an eight year old boy Mrianda warnings--seriouslyl. Forget locking them (the experts) up. They should just be shot (a figurative remedy that should be applied to all of the despicable AP and equally despicable AOL "News").
P.S. This case should bring to your mind one of the scariest movies of all time: "The Bad Seed". Can a child be just plain bad, without being caused to be that way? "The Bad Seed" answers that question in the affirmative, which is the right answer, and the truly horrific answer. Nevertheless, I give the movie "only" a rating of 81. That is because the characters are so limited. The horror (and it is greater horror than any slasher movie ever made, with the possible exception of "Psycho") come entirely from the concept of an evil child, born that way, even though the movie is well done. As stated in the beginning of this entry: This case is NOT important, because it is so rare. That applies to "The Bad Seed", as well. The movie should scare you to death, but the characters are not complex, "real" human beings. Except this real life case could indicate, and I believe it to be true, that there are some children whose nature is evil from basically the beginning. Thankfully, those cases are so rare we can pretty much ignore them, except to scare us to death as a horror movie. That is how the media is treating this case: as a horror movie, for scary entertainment purposes, while falling additionally into the trap of trying to fit the case into the truly evil template of media "analysis" these days of crimes and criminal cases--also treated as an entertainment game of gossip and speculation).
What you may not realize from the media hype is that the case is not important, unless we make the mistake of making it important. As usual, the insane (I mean that literallly) reaction of some in the media, and some leftists, is more important than the actual case.
How many deliberate eight year old murderers (especially of adults) are there each year? Right. Not many. One is a large number (for any year). It is such an aberration as to prove the adage: Hard cases make bad law (and worse "journalism"). There is no reason to worry about how the juvenile justice system handles this kind of case. There is no way to adequately handle this kind of case. It is impossible. All you can do is the best you can to try to fit the case in some reasonable way into a juvenile justice system not designed--and which should not make the mistake of trying to be designed--to handle this kind of rare, extreme case.
Where is the leftist and media insanity? If you don't know, I probably can't help you. But I will explain it anyway. The leftist/media insanity here is to treat this case as a criminal case, where leftists and the media want all criminal defendants to "get off" (unless the "crime" is a crime that fits the leftist agenda, such as a "hate crime"). I don't apologize for this statement. All you have to do is listen to most leftists, and look at how the media covers most crimes (except those where the police can be criticized for failing to "solve" the crime). Leftists do not believe individual responsibility. They believe society is responsible for all criminals (again, absent those crimes that fit the leftist agenda). I dare anyone to argue this with me.
This is a case in point--more revealing than most. The media reaction was to immediately start criticizing the police for failing to give Miranda warnings, and "pushing' this child into a "confession". I could never make this stuff up. This exposes, more than anything else I have ever seen, the inanity of the media and the left (redundancy), where the criminal justice system is viewed as a "game", with the police being the bad guys in the game.
This is not a criminal defendant, or a criminal accused. This is an eight year old child.
Does it make any sense to talk about "suppressing" the "confession" of an eight year old child? Can an eight year old child really understand Miranda warnings, or even have competency to "waive" Miranda rights? Miranda warnings have no relevance to an eight year old child. You reveal yourself as insane--stark raving, straight jacket requiring nuts--if you think otherwise.
Yes, there are due process requirements in juvenile justice. But the cases are still not full fledged criminal proceedings.
Message to you leftist and media nuts out there--insane, stupid people that you are--who think you are making a point by "questioning" the validity of the "confession" here: Do you think the best thing to help this child is to "get the child off" from the murder "charge"? In what universe. You leftist and media types really are evil human beings, aren't you, to encourage an eight year old child to believe that he can "beat the rap". That is insanity on a level that makes me believe that you should all be locked lup--more than the eight year old should be locked up.
The worst thing for this eight year old child would be to evade all responsibility for his actions--to be found "innocent" because he is treated like an adult criminal defendant and can't be proven guilty. This child desperately needs help. Anyone who tries to invoke "Miranda" to help this child disclaim responsibility for his actions is more evil than even I had considered leftists and the media. This child needs to understand what he did, and to understand why it is wrong. Okay, you can talk about how this is done. But "beating the rap" is the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to this child. I feel sorry for any leftist who does not undersand this. From the media coverage, that is a lot of you. You are stark raving, dangerous people who should not be allowed around loose. No, it is not useful "news" coverage to start talking about the validity of the confession (Fox News, as usual, this means YOU--part of the mainstream media problem and not part of the solution). The media is making too much of this case in the first place. To try to treat it as a regular criminal case tried (insanely, and unjustifiably as is being done these days) in the media is beyond insanity. It convicts you, the media, of being evil people who have no understanding of what is happening.
I repeat: This is an eight year old boy. This is not a criminal defendant. Yet the AOL/AP (evil organizations both) headline today was about "questions" on the confession. The story proceeded to quote experts (lock they away, NOW, for the good of them and us) about how the police questioning should have stopped once it started concentrating on the eight year old boy as a "perp". Read the above, and realize again that these "experts" are talking about giving an eight year old boy Mrianda warnings--seriouslyl. Forget locking them (the experts) up. They should just be shot (a figurative remedy that should be applied to all of the despicable AP and equally despicable AOL "News").
P.S. This case should bring to your mind one of the scariest movies of all time: "The Bad Seed". Can a child be just plain bad, without being caused to be that way? "The Bad Seed" answers that question in the affirmative, which is the right answer, and the truly horrific answer. Nevertheless, I give the movie "only" a rating of 81. That is because the characters are so limited. The horror (and it is greater horror than any slasher movie ever made, with the possible exception of "Psycho") come entirely from the concept of an evil child, born that way, even though the movie is well done. As stated in the beginning of this entry: This case is NOT important, because it is so rare. That applies to "The Bad Seed", as well. The movie should scare you to death, but the characters are not complex, "real" human beings. Except this real life case could indicate, and I believe it to be true, that there are some children whose nature is evil from basically the beginning. Thankfully, those cases are so rare we can pretty much ignore them, except to scare us to death as a horror movie. That is how the media is treating this case: as a horror movie, for scary entertainment purposes, while falling additionally into the trap of trying to fit the case into the truly evil template of media "analysis" these days of crimes and criminal cases--also treated as an entertainment game of gossip and speculation).
Green Liars and Other Truths (Asteroid Anyone?)
Read the previous entry about NBC (now officially the "Propaganda" network, as CNN is officially the "Liar" network), and about "green" propaganda week on NBC.
My entry had one significant omission, as I omitted the biggest "green" lie of all. What is that lie? Is not an asserted 200 foot rise in sea levels, when the estimates--scientific "consensus--from scientists who actually buy into the "global warming" fraud--are for a rise of 2 to 4 feet in sea levels by 2100. After all, there is little or no evidence of an actual, significant rise in sea levels over the past decade, or even over the past 100 years.
No. These outrageous exaggerations (lies), such as the 200 ft. rise in sea levels wiping out the people living on coasts everywhere, are merely the surface propaganda. The fundamental lie of the "greens" is the repsonse to complaints out their exaggerations and lies (the response of a religion, and not "science"): "Can we afford to take the chance that sea levels will actually rise 200 feet, even if that is unlikely? What harm does it do to be "green" ("moral and spiritual issue", according to high priest Gore), when "green" is the right moral thing to be (even if those "moral" people are addicted to exaggerations and lies)?
You can make the same (better, actually) argument about asteroids. If a big enough asteroid hits the Earth, it will probably kill all life on Earth. It would certainly destroy all civilization on Earth. Further, "science" agrees (more than on "global warming") that such asteroids have hit the Earh in the past, and that it is entirely possible that one will hit the Earth in the future.
Remember, with an asteroid we are talking about the possible end of all life on Earth. So it is unlikely to happen any time soon. It is still a definite possibility. Given the seriousness of this possibility, should we not be bankrupting the country (throwing money at NASA) in order to make sure it does not happen?
It is an absolute fact that "global warming" (short of a solar flare large enough to kill all life on Earth--another possibility) will not destroy all life on Earth. In fact, "global warming" made civilization possible, since otherwise we would still be in an Ice Age. The whole idea of "global warming" as a bad thing depends on your perspective, and what year you are looking at the situation. More life on Earth lives in tropical environments than in colder environments. Dinosaurs found warmth to be just fine.
You say that it does not make sense to bankrupt the country, and destroy our economy, to try to prevent the remote possibility of an asteroid hitting the Earth (a much bigger disaster than "global wrming")? You say that it is unclear that we can even prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth, even with great expenditures of money? Ah. But you have not been listening to the priests of "global warming". This matter of stopping killer asteroids is a "moral and spiritual matter"--necessary to protect all of those species on Earth that will be wiped out if a killer asteroid strikes the Earth.
Let me be as blunt as I can be: the chances of sea levels rising 200 feet in the next hundred years are probably less than the chances of a large asteroid hitting the Earth over that period. Nor is it clear that we can stop "global warming"--if it exists anymore, no matter what we do. Now there is an affirmative advantage to ignoring the possible mass destruction of a large asteroid hitting the Earth. While such an event would cause massive extinction, and loss of life, it would almost certainly "cure" "global warming". Such an asteroid is one of the "explanations" for the disappearance of the dinosaurs, and such an asteroid strike would put enough material in the atmosphere to dramatically cool the Earth. In fact, if we were really serious about the threat of "global warming' (instead of using it as a bogeyman to advance a leftist agenda), we would be working hard on the idea of throwing material into our atmosphere (or other, similarly expensive ideas), which is one method to directly "cure" "global warming".
Nope. This is a Big Lie. It is a Big Lie to suggest that the threat is so great, and the downside so small, that there is no downside to addressing the "problem" of "global warming". The downside is bankruptcy for us all, and the downfall of our industrial civilizationi.
Look at the auto industry. "Global warming" legislation has already contributed to the threatened extinction of American auto makers. My brother (that co-owner of a trucking company) says that, by 2010, recent environmental regulation will have increased the cost of trucks in this country by 20%--virtually, and maybe actually, requiring that truck engine exhaust be cleaner than the air used by the engine. My brother is doubtful that these vast increases in cots imposed by the government (including other increases in my brother's cost of operation) are really effective to either clean the air or prevent "global warming". However, they are very effective at threatening (further) our economy.
It is Barack "World" Obama who said, in San Francisco--where he seems to tell most of his truths, that "green" (cap and trade tax) policies will bankrupt the cola industry and utilities using coal power, while causing the cost of electricity to "skyrocket".
I repeat: The downside of an hysterical religion of "global warming" is the destruction of our industrial civilization. We would be better off worrying about asteroids (which we should be doing, in a rational way, if we can figure out cost effective ways to reduce the chances of a large asteroid destroying civilization on Earth).
My entry had one significant omission, as I omitted the biggest "green" lie of all. What is that lie? Is not an asserted 200 foot rise in sea levels, when the estimates--scientific "consensus--from scientists who actually buy into the "global warming" fraud--are for a rise of 2 to 4 feet in sea levels by 2100. After all, there is little or no evidence of an actual, significant rise in sea levels over the past decade, or even over the past 100 years.
No. These outrageous exaggerations (lies), such as the 200 ft. rise in sea levels wiping out the people living on coasts everywhere, are merely the surface propaganda. The fundamental lie of the "greens" is the repsonse to complaints out their exaggerations and lies (the response of a religion, and not "science"): "Can we afford to take the chance that sea levels will actually rise 200 feet, even if that is unlikely? What harm does it do to be "green" ("moral and spiritual issue", according to high priest Gore), when "green" is the right moral thing to be (even if those "moral" people are addicted to exaggerations and lies)?
You can make the same (better, actually) argument about asteroids. If a big enough asteroid hits the Earth, it will probably kill all life on Earth. It would certainly destroy all civilization on Earth. Further, "science" agrees (more than on "global warming") that such asteroids have hit the Earh in the past, and that it is entirely possible that one will hit the Earth in the future.
Remember, with an asteroid we are talking about the possible end of all life on Earth. So it is unlikely to happen any time soon. It is still a definite possibility. Given the seriousness of this possibility, should we not be bankrupting the country (throwing money at NASA) in order to make sure it does not happen?
It is an absolute fact that "global warming" (short of a solar flare large enough to kill all life on Earth--another possibility) will not destroy all life on Earth. In fact, "global warming" made civilization possible, since otherwise we would still be in an Ice Age. The whole idea of "global warming" as a bad thing depends on your perspective, and what year you are looking at the situation. More life on Earth lives in tropical environments than in colder environments. Dinosaurs found warmth to be just fine.
You say that it does not make sense to bankrupt the country, and destroy our economy, to try to prevent the remote possibility of an asteroid hitting the Earth (a much bigger disaster than "global wrming")? You say that it is unclear that we can even prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth, even with great expenditures of money? Ah. But you have not been listening to the priests of "global warming". This matter of stopping killer asteroids is a "moral and spiritual matter"--necessary to protect all of those species on Earth that will be wiped out if a killer asteroid strikes the Earth.
Let me be as blunt as I can be: the chances of sea levels rising 200 feet in the next hundred years are probably less than the chances of a large asteroid hitting the Earth over that period. Nor is it clear that we can stop "global warming"--if it exists anymore, no matter what we do. Now there is an affirmative advantage to ignoring the possible mass destruction of a large asteroid hitting the Earth. While such an event would cause massive extinction, and loss of life, it would almost certainly "cure" "global warming". Such an asteroid is one of the "explanations" for the disappearance of the dinosaurs, and such an asteroid strike would put enough material in the atmosphere to dramatically cool the Earth. In fact, if we were really serious about the threat of "global warming' (instead of using it as a bogeyman to advance a leftist agenda), we would be working hard on the idea of throwing material into our atmosphere (or other, similarly expensive ideas), which is one method to directly "cure" "global warming".
Nope. This is a Big Lie. It is a Big Lie to suggest that the threat is so great, and the downside so small, that there is no downside to addressing the "problem" of "global warming". The downside is bankruptcy for us all, and the downfall of our industrial civilizationi.
Look at the auto industry. "Global warming" legislation has already contributed to the threatened extinction of American auto makers. My brother (that co-owner of a trucking company) says that, by 2010, recent environmental regulation will have increased the cost of trucks in this country by 20%--virtually, and maybe actually, requiring that truck engine exhaust be cleaner than the air used by the engine. My brother is doubtful that these vast increases in cots imposed by the government (including other increases in my brother's cost of operation) are really effective to either clean the air or prevent "global warming". However, they are very effective at threatening (further) our economy.
It is Barack "World" Obama who said, in San Francisco--where he seems to tell most of his truths, that "green" (cap and trade tax) policies will bankrupt the cola industry and utilities using coal power, while causing the cost of electricity to "skyrocket".
I repeat: The downside of an hysterical religion of "global warming" is the destruction of our industrial civilization. We would be better off worrying about asteroids (which we should be doing, in a rational way, if we can figure out cost effective ways to reduce the chances of a large asteroid destroying civilization on Earth).
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
NBC: Green Liars
I have admitted bigotry against certain kinds of "moderate" Republicans in this blog (the kind that insist on personally trashing Sarah Palin). Now I have to admit that I am prejudiced against "green" people, like those of NBC.
You probably realize that I never watch NBC, or MSNBC. No one should. In fact, a boycott of GE (parent company) is probably in order.
However, the Dallas Cowboys football game was on Sunday night. My principles just are not as important as FOOTBALL. Some things are sacred. Now that Tony Romo was not distracted by ACARN (see archives), I had hopes (somewhat realized) that the Cowboys would return to being a dent football team.
I was punished for this allegiance to football, and the Dallas Cowboys. Before I could change the channel (ok, I was too lazy to go do it as I was doing something else), I had to sit through NBC propaganda on their "green" week--as NBC brought you "global warming" propaganda (certainly not science) from around the world.
This is especially ironic because that mythical temperature of the Earth (as environmentalists measure it) has apparently not been warming since 1998. In other words, evidence is lacking that the Earth is still warming, from any cause (much less man). NBC, of course, is just ignoring the data, while still going with the Al Gore proganda.
Thus, I was forced (by my allegiance to the Cowboys and laziness) to listen to NBC repeat, on Sunday night, that Al Gore lie about sea levels rising 200 feet. The present U.N. estimate (declining and still suspect) is that sea levels will rise 2 to 4 feet by 2100. Oh well. NBC was only off by two magnitudes (two powers of 10, or 10 squared). That is, NBC only missed it by a multiple of 100 times, and this is using the estimate of "global warming" friendly leftists at the U.N. There was also this stuff about warming oceans killing reefs, when recent NASA data, over the last 5 years from some 3,000 machines in the oceans of the world, has indicated that the oceans are no longer warming.
What about the U.S.? Well, the recently deceased Michael Crichton, in "State of Fear" (an eco-thriller with an appendix, footnotes (in effect), charts, and a bibiography) has already shown that the U.S. has experienced no consistent warming trend since 1880. This year was no exception, as the U.S. average temperature will again be substantially cooler than the warmest recent year (2006). For that matter, the U.S. has cooled since 1936. Yes, I picked that year artfully (as "green" people pick their figures artfully), because 1936 is the warmest year in the U.S. since records began, in a virtual tie with 2006. See what I, and Crichton, mean by no warming trend in U.S. temperatures. Since 1900, those temperatures have gone up and down, with no rhyme or reason as to whether they will be up or down any particular year. As stated, 1936 remains the warmest year, which we did not even match until 2006 (cooling since 2006).
You want see this data highlighted by the liars of NBC, or by Al Gore. NBC, and MSNBC, are fresh off of their propaganda campaign on behalf of Barack "World" Obama. I guess that, flushed with the success of their lies there, they believe they can get away with any propaganda.
The evidence for man-made "global warming" is shaky. There is little present evidence that the world is warming at all now, after a warming trend from 1970 to 2000 (matching a cooling trend from 1940-1970--see charts in "State of Fear"),
Yet, look at the auto industry. Democrats in Congress, and Obama, are saying we must "save" the American auto maters, after doing their best to destroy those very companies (and our whole economy) in the name of "global warming". My brother, the co-owner of a trucking company (see earlier entry this week), can tell you about the efforts of environmental regulation to destroy the trucking industry (raising the prices for food, and everything else). The auto industry would be a lot healthier, if not for these "green" peop;le.
Am I prejudiced against the "green" people out there trying to destroy us (our economy, anyway)? I am afraid I am. Sue me (don't think they won't, if they think it is necessary to impose their agenda).
Sorry Kermit. I have to conclude it is a terrible thing to be green.
You probably realize that I never watch NBC, or MSNBC. No one should. In fact, a boycott of GE (parent company) is probably in order.
However, the Dallas Cowboys football game was on Sunday night. My principles just are not as important as FOOTBALL. Some things are sacred. Now that Tony Romo was not distracted by ACARN (see archives), I had hopes (somewhat realized) that the Cowboys would return to being a dent football team.
I was punished for this allegiance to football, and the Dallas Cowboys. Before I could change the channel (ok, I was too lazy to go do it as I was doing something else), I had to sit through NBC propaganda on their "green" week--as NBC brought you "global warming" propaganda (certainly not science) from around the world.
This is especially ironic because that mythical temperature of the Earth (as environmentalists measure it) has apparently not been warming since 1998. In other words, evidence is lacking that the Earth is still warming, from any cause (much less man). NBC, of course, is just ignoring the data, while still going with the Al Gore proganda.
Thus, I was forced (by my allegiance to the Cowboys and laziness) to listen to NBC repeat, on Sunday night, that Al Gore lie about sea levels rising 200 feet. The present U.N. estimate (declining and still suspect) is that sea levels will rise 2 to 4 feet by 2100. Oh well. NBC was only off by two magnitudes (two powers of 10, or 10 squared). That is, NBC only missed it by a multiple of 100 times, and this is using the estimate of "global warming" friendly leftists at the U.N. There was also this stuff about warming oceans killing reefs, when recent NASA data, over the last 5 years from some 3,000 machines in the oceans of the world, has indicated that the oceans are no longer warming.
What about the U.S.? Well, the recently deceased Michael Crichton, in "State of Fear" (an eco-thriller with an appendix, footnotes (in effect), charts, and a bibiography) has already shown that the U.S. has experienced no consistent warming trend since 1880. This year was no exception, as the U.S. average temperature will again be substantially cooler than the warmest recent year (2006). For that matter, the U.S. has cooled since 1936. Yes, I picked that year artfully (as "green" people pick their figures artfully), because 1936 is the warmest year in the U.S. since records began, in a virtual tie with 2006. See what I, and Crichton, mean by no warming trend in U.S. temperatures. Since 1900, those temperatures have gone up and down, with no rhyme or reason as to whether they will be up or down any particular year. As stated, 1936 remains the warmest year, which we did not even match until 2006 (cooling since 2006).
You want see this data highlighted by the liars of NBC, or by Al Gore. NBC, and MSNBC, are fresh off of their propaganda campaign on behalf of Barack "World" Obama. I guess that, flushed with the success of their lies there, they believe they can get away with any propaganda.
The evidence for man-made "global warming" is shaky. There is little present evidence that the world is warming at all now, after a warming trend from 1970 to 2000 (matching a cooling trend from 1940-1970--see charts in "State of Fear"),
Yet, look at the auto industry. Democrats in Congress, and Obama, are saying we must "save" the American auto maters, after doing their best to destroy those very companies (and our whole economy) in the name of "global warming". My brother, the co-owner of a trucking company (see earlier entry this week), can tell you about the efforts of environmental regulation to destroy the trucking industry (raising the prices for food, and everything else). The auto industry would be a lot healthier, if not for these "green" peop;le.
Am I prejudiced against the "green" people out there trying to destroy us (our economy, anyway)? I am afraid I am. Sue me (don't think they won't, if they think it is necessary to impose their agenda).
Sorry Kermit. I have to conclude it is a terrible thing to be green.
Hunger: A Cure for Obesity
What is the main problem facing American children? Right. If you have listened to the "news" over the last year, and the attacks on the American fast food industry, it is obesity. Thus, is it not a good thing that some children were forced to go to bed hungry at least once in 2007, thereby helping them fight their main health problem? This is the (ridiculous) story today:
"Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year's sharp economic downturn, the Agriculture Department reported Monday."
Note how artfully the above non-story is worded. "Sometime in 2007". "Struggle to feed themselves adequately". Consider that last one. And then think about those "obesity" stories. Are rich kids in America feeding themselves "adequately"?
These are what I call "phantom statistics" (headline: "50% More Kids Hungry in 2007"). They mean nothing. The numbers are presented with a preciseness and alarm which the facts do not justify.
No, I don't believe hunger is a real problem for children in America. Oh, I am sure a few fall through the cracks because their parents do not know how to have access to resources to get food for them, or because their parents are drug addicts who ignore them. Neglectful parents are surely the main cause of real hunger for children in the U.S. By the world's standards, the poorest child in this country has access to more food than the "middle class" in most countries.
The implication in the story, of course, is that we should DO SOMETHING. Uh-huh. How long have we been working on food programs for poor children? George Soros alone could handle any remaining "hunger" in children in this country. For that matter, insider trader Mark Cuban could handle it, and maybe reverse his bad (deserved) recent publicity. Is the government really going to be able to make up for all deficiencies in parents? Not in this universe. I repeat (with confidence): There is no real "hunger" in America, that people could not avoid with use of the resources already available to them.
But what about "adequately"? Should the government take over mandatory nutrition for children? If you think this will work, you are beyond my help. We can provide "nutritional" meals at school. But this idea of the government forcing everyone to eat healthy is one of those central planning ideas with no future, and no past ("past" of actually working). The government is never going to be able to substitute for individual responsitility.
By the way, if you think that people cannot "afford" "nutritional" food, think again. Is it cheaper to eat at McDonald's or buy vegetables and fruit? Don't be silly. My daughters grew up on "Happy Meals", and they are expensive (relatively).
Nope. It is not lack of resources causing "inadequate" eating. It is lack of discipline and self-control (including the "control" to find out what you should be eating). Dirty little secret: I don't eat "healthy" either! I am addicted to Cokes--not to mention ice cream.
Now maybe if I were poor enough, and not able to afford Cokes and ice cream............ Nah! You are right. I would do what the "hungry" do now. I would give up the "healthy" stuff for the Cokes and ice cream!!!!
"Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year's sharp economic downturn, the Agriculture Department reported Monday."
Note how artfully the above non-story is worded. "Sometime in 2007". "Struggle to feed themselves adequately". Consider that last one. And then think about those "obesity" stories. Are rich kids in America feeding themselves "adequately"?
These are what I call "phantom statistics" (headline: "50% More Kids Hungry in 2007"). They mean nothing. The numbers are presented with a preciseness and alarm which the facts do not justify.
No, I don't believe hunger is a real problem for children in America. Oh, I am sure a few fall through the cracks because their parents do not know how to have access to resources to get food for them, or because their parents are drug addicts who ignore them. Neglectful parents are surely the main cause of real hunger for children in the U.S. By the world's standards, the poorest child in this country has access to more food than the "middle class" in most countries.
The implication in the story, of course, is that we should DO SOMETHING. Uh-huh. How long have we been working on food programs for poor children? George Soros alone could handle any remaining "hunger" in children in this country. For that matter, insider trader Mark Cuban could handle it, and maybe reverse his bad (deserved) recent publicity. Is the government really going to be able to make up for all deficiencies in parents? Not in this universe. I repeat (with confidence): There is no real "hunger" in America, that people could not avoid with use of the resources already available to them.
But what about "adequately"? Should the government take over mandatory nutrition for children? If you think this will work, you are beyond my help. We can provide "nutritional" meals at school. But this idea of the government forcing everyone to eat healthy is one of those central planning ideas with no future, and no past ("past" of actually working). The government is never going to be able to substitute for individual responsitility.
By the way, if you think that people cannot "afford" "nutritional" food, think again. Is it cheaper to eat at McDonald's or buy vegetables and fruit? Don't be silly. My daughters grew up on "Happy Meals", and they are expensive (relatively).
Nope. It is not lack of resources causing "inadequate" eating. It is lack of discipline and self-control (including the "control" to find out what you should be eating). Dirty little secret: I don't eat "healthy" either! I am addicted to Cokes--not to mention ice cream.
Now maybe if I were poor enough, and not able to afford Cokes and ice cream............ Nah! You are right. I would do what the "hungry" do now. I would give up the "healthy" stuff for the Cokes and ice cream!!!!
Hank Paulson: No Worse Failure in the History of the Universe
I have previously proven, in this blog, that there is no worse "news" organization in the universe "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference).
I can now officially say that there is no worse failure in the history of finance, in the entire universe, than Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury. You may wonder how I can say this, since the only example we have is this world. How do I know about the reset of the universe? Easy. You just have to look at the wording here. "No worse" means what it says. And it does not matter how bad a failure a financial person is on another planet, that being could not be worse than Hank Paulson. It is impossible, just as it is impossible for any "news" organization in the universe to be worse than the despicable AP.
Just before I was typing this, Hank Paulson was speaking to some Congressional panel or another. As he spoke (i was looking at CNBC at the time, and could track it), the stock market sank with each word. It is an embarrassment--an indictment of our democratic republic--that this man has not been fired. Worse, he is in "charge" of trying to "save" us from the mess that he had more responsibility in creating than any other one person (including in his years as CEO of Goldman Sachs--his primary goal at Treasury seemingly being to save Goldman Sachs).
How can the "markets" have any confidence in this man? This is the man who panicked, and sold this stupid "bailout" on the idea we were facing Armageddon. If you listen to him now, the situation is worse than he envisioned. The man should just be shot. How can it be worse than Armageddon, and if it is why should we have any hope?
The man is a total, complete failure, and every word out of his mouth makes it worse. Reading between the lines, he seems to be saving "TARP" money (even while we are in worse shape than Armageddon) to see where it can best be used to save Goldman Sachs--still his primary goal. The man has no clue, and he is a menace.
I ask whether it really gives you any confidence that this failure Paulson says that things are so bad that it will do no good to use the 700 billiion I (Paulson) said would save us from Armageddon. Rather, "we" (Paulson) need to figure out how to use that money in a much more effective manner--even though I (Paulson) really have no clue as to what will work, and despair of anything really working (things being so much worse than Armageddon).
Give me a break. Shooting is too good for this man. He needs to be tortured with Congressional investigations for the rest of his natural life, and maybe beyond.
P.S. Even though the stock market dropped as Paulson talked, I don't want to leave you with the idea that the stock market has really become rational. It is one of those conservative myths out there--being deliberately created for partisan purposes--that the stock market has dropped because of Obama--in anticipation of Obama. This blog does not let that kind of partisan non-thinking color what I say. Plus, unlike Rush, Sean, and the rest, I actually understand what is going on with the stock market, and have told you. Since Paulson panicked everyone, and insured a recession, with that "selling" of the Wall Street bailout--with pictures of Armageddon that the economy has evidently already exceeded--the stock market has actually not moved. Obama has had little or nothing to do with it (beyond failing to inspire irrational faith in the stock market). In the 8 days before Obama was elected, the Dow went up 18%, while the economy was deteriorating. That was irrational, and a fiction. All that has happened since that time is that the stock market has given back that fictional, computer trading generated rise--a rise for which there was no excuse in the first place. The problem with the stock market remains, as this blog has told you, that the trading "system" is broken. Fictional (not related to fundamental developments, except as they can be used to trigger the computer buying and selling) computer program trading is domination the market, and so we get 1,000 point moves in a single day (which no "news" development, short of a major war--and it did not happen in the past even with World War II--should generate). No, I tell you the truth. Rush, Sean, and the rest do not always do that. The truth is that the recent stock market gyrations are not related to Obama, but are related to a broken trading system on Wall Street, with way too much manipulation replacing real "investment". This is a separate problem for the economic downturn, although it is a problem which itself threatens our markets with eventual collpase.
P.S. 2: Just so you don't get me wrong, I fully anticipate that Obama will cause economic disaster, after he is President (although he may manage a brief, government driven, false "recovery"). However, I am clear eyed enough to realize that the present stock market has nothing to do with Wall Street anticipating that disaster, communists/socialists that the people on Wall Street now are.
I can now officially say that there is no worse failure in the history of finance, in the entire universe, than Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury. You may wonder how I can say this, since the only example we have is this world. How do I know about the reset of the universe? Easy. You just have to look at the wording here. "No worse" means what it says. And it does not matter how bad a failure a financial person is on another planet, that being could not be worse than Hank Paulson. It is impossible, just as it is impossible for any "news" organization in the universe to be worse than the despicable AP.
Just before I was typing this, Hank Paulson was speaking to some Congressional panel or another. As he spoke (i was looking at CNBC at the time, and could track it), the stock market sank with each word. It is an embarrassment--an indictment of our democratic republic--that this man has not been fired. Worse, he is in "charge" of trying to "save" us from the mess that he had more responsibility in creating than any other one person (including in his years as CEO of Goldman Sachs--his primary goal at Treasury seemingly being to save Goldman Sachs).
How can the "markets" have any confidence in this man? This is the man who panicked, and sold this stupid "bailout" on the idea we were facing Armageddon. If you listen to him now, the situation is worse than he envisioned. The man should just be shot. How can it be worse than Armageddon, and if it is why should we have any hope?
The man is a total, complete failure, and every word out of his mouth makes it worse. Reading between the lines, he seems to be saving "TARP" money (even while we are in worse shape than Armageddon) to see where it can best be used to save Goldman Sachs--still his primary goal. The man has no clue, and he is a menace.
I ask whether it really gives you any confidence that this failure Paulson says that things are so bad that it will do no good to use the 700 billiion I (Paulson) said would save us from Armageddon. Rather, "we" (Paulson) need to figure out how to use that money in a much more effective manner--even though I (Paulson) really have no clue as to what will work, and despair of anything really working (things being so much worse than Armageddon).
Give me a break. Shooting is too good for this man. He needs to be tortured with Congressional investigations for the rest of his natural life, and maybe beyond.
P.S. Even though the stock market dropped as Paulson talked, I don't want to leave you with the idea that the stock market has really become rational. It is one of those conservative myths out there--being deliberately created for partisan purposes--that the stock market has dropped because of Obama--in anticipation of Obama. This blog does not let that kind of partisan non-thinking color what I say. Plus, unlike Rush, Sean, and the rest, I actually understand what is going on with the stock market, and have told you. Since Paulson panicked everyone, and insured a recession, with that "selling" of the Wall Street bailout--with pictures of Armageddon that the economy has evidently already exceeded--the stock market has actually not moved. Obama has had little or nothing to do with it (beyond failing to inspire irrational faith in the stock market). In the 8 days before Obama was elected, the Dow went up 18%, while the economy was deteriorating. That was irrational, and a fiction. All that has happened since that time is that the stock market has given back that fictional, computer trading generated rise--a rise for which there was no excuse in the first place. The problem with the stock market remains, as this blog has told you, that the trading "system" is broken. Fictional (not related to fundamental developments, except as they can be used to trigger the computer buying and selling) computer program trading is domination the market, and so we get 1,000 point moves in a single day (which no "news" development, short of a major war--and it did not happen in the past even with World War II--should generate). No, I tell you the truth. Rush, Sean, and the rest do not always do that. The truth is that the recent stock market gyrations are not related to Obama, but are related to a broken trading system on Wall Street, with way too much manipulation replacing real "investment". This is a separate problem for the economic downturn, although it is a problem which itself threatens our markets with eventual collpase.
P.S. 2: Just so you don't get me wrong, I fully anticipate that Obama will cause economic disaster, after he is President (although he may manage a brief, government driven, false "recovery"). However, I am clear eyed enough to realize that the present stock market has nothing to do with Wall Street anticipating that disaster, communists/socialists that the people on Wall Street now are.
Monday, November 17, 2008
General Motors and My Brother: Who Deserves the Bailout?
One of my bothers, as I have stated before, is co-owner of a trucking company. The government, and politicians, have been consistently trying to put him out of business (from leftists/Democrats refusing to allow drilling to President Bush's brain dead continuation of purchases for the "Strategic Oil Reserve--even as oil prices skyrocketed--to Congressional and EPA "environmental" regulations vastly increasing his cost of doing business). My brother has received no "bailout", and no one seems to be proposing one for him. According to him, several thousand trucking compainies have gone out of business in the last year--all without talk of bailout while Democrats talked like "global warming" made higher fuel costs necessary and Republicans basically fiddled (as President Bush embraced "global warming", along with other brain dead things).
My brother is struggling to survive. Unlike General Motors, my brother has slashed costs. He has been working 80 hour weeks, but gets no real "tax cuts" (a $150,000 salary being peanuts to GM executives, and an hourly salary equivalent to $75,000 to $100,000 a year). My brother's salary could disappear at almost any time.
My brother's company employs 200 people. What does the company need to survive? Well, it may survive on its own--selling assets and trying to be a surviver as capacity drops in the trucking industry. However, a mere low interest loan of one million (not billion--million) dollars would pretty much guarantee my brother's company a strong shot at survival.
General Motors wants 25 billion dollars (probably as merely the beginning of the "blank check" Obama keeps mentioning, in his usual empty word fashion).
What makes General Motors worthy of survival, while my brother's company is not? In fact, 25,000 companies like my brother's could be potentially "saved" with that same 25 billion--maybe saving 500,000 jobs directly, and many more indirectly.
Is General Motors an especially "deserving" company? Don't be silly. General Motors is notorious for playing "hardball" with its own customers, with suppliers, with its own workers, and with government. It has beeen a mismanaged compny for decades. Its costs are too high (partially, but only partially, because of its union). People have made the case that GM is a pretty evil compnay.
I know. I was a plaintiff's attorney who sued FM myself for consumers, including injured consumers. GM had the (deserved) reputation for engaging in a "scorched earth" philosophy with regard to lawsuits (and other perceived "opponents"). As stated, GM pretty much regarded the whole world as its enemy, and believed in Russia's World War II type "scorched earth" policy with regard to all of its enemies (essentially everyone). Now you may think the perspective of a plaintiff's lawyer is biased, but remember that I am a conservative (albeit one with a jaundiced view of big business). I am giving it straight to you as to the reputation of GM as an unreasonable company to deal with--a company which rarely acted like it needed to be a responsible company with regard to its customers, suppliers, workers, and the public.
Further, GM's costs are so lout of line that only Chapter 11 bankruptcy may give it a chance to put itself on a reasonable cost basis. My brother, despite equipment costs that do him no present good (not enough business to use all of the equipment he is still forced to pay for), has put himself in a position where he can operate at a profit (provided he can get through his present cash crunch, and provided that Paulson does not further ruin the economy). In other words, my brother has been pro-active, while GM has been little more than a beggar for years--begging as its policies have continued to cause the compnay to deteriorate, even before the recent economic downturn. .Who deserves to survive more?
Yet, it is my brother who has not been asking for a bailout, although he has been asking for rational government/environmental policies (which have hurt GM, as well, and auto workers, but without causing any public campaign against such policies besides GM's continual guerilla, scorched earth war against specific government regulation). Unlike GM, Wall Street, and the rest, my brother is willing to fight for his own survival, without government bailouts (see AIG if you want an explanation for the plural).
However, you explain to my brother why he should not receive a bailout, while GM, banks, financial institutions, etc. get one? I can't explain it to him, and I don't think there is anyone out there that can. In fact, GM is one of those companies hat has previously made life miserable for my brother by using its economic power to oppress smaller businesses like those of my brother. My brother can tell you stories about GM. Why should my brother have to watch one of his previous oppressors receive a government bailout, while my brother is left to sink or swim on his own--worse, while my brother is subjected to a government attempt to sink him in endless costs and regulation?
Yes, my brother's company now has about the best safety record in the industry. His company was complimented in a recent DOT audit for having about the best "compliance" (with government regulations) procedures the auditor had ever seen. My brother has accomplished this, despite the economic troubles of his compnay that have caused others to cut corners.
You tell my borther that GM deserves a bailout, while he does not.
It is one of the absurd things about the recent rise of the communists on Wall Street, and in our financial community (Larry Kudlow, and CNBC people, this means YOU), that small business people like my brother (and wannabes like Joe the Plumber) are willing to play by capitalist rules, Meanwhile, our "elites", and big business types, are willing and anxious to abandon capitalism for their own self interest.
No wonder Republicans lost. They now come across as people of no principle at all, while many "small" peole out there actually have principles. It is sad. Obama could have been beaten. As it is, however, there is no reaons for people to resist bribes, when eberyone is offering handouts to their faovred groups.
Yes, this "baliout"/"handout" mentality will eventually destroy us all. My brother and Joe the Plumber realize that. Too many of our "leaders", and opinion making elites, do not.
No, the auto makers should not receive a bailout, because of pro-union Democrats and pro-big business Republicans. They certainly should receive no bailout until someone can expalin why GM deserves such a bailout, and my brother does not.
Good luck on explaining that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember, 25,000 smaller companies could be bailed out for that 25 billion.
My brother is struggling to survive. Unlike General Motors, my brother has slashed costs. He has been working 80 hour weeks, but gets no real "tax cuts" (a $150,000 salary being peanuts to GM executives, and an hourly salary equivalent to $75,000 to $100,000 a year). My brother's salary could disappear at almost any time.
My brother's company employs 200 people. What does the company need to survive? Well, it may survive on its own--selling assets and trying to be a surviver as capacity drops in the trucking industry. However, a mere low interest loan of one million (not billion--million) dollars would pretty much guarantee my brother's company a strong shot at survival.
General Motors wants 25 billion dollars (probably as merely the beginning of the "blank check" Obama keeps mentioning, in his usual empty word fashion).
What makes General Motors worthy of survival, while my brother's company is not? In fact, 25,000 companies like my brother's could be potentially "saved" with that same 25 billion--maybe saving 500,000 jobs directly, and many more indirectly.
Is General Motors an especially "deserving" company? Don't be silly. General Motors is notorious for playing "hardball" with its own customers, with suppliers, with its own workers, and with government. It has beeen a mismanaged compny for decades. Its costs are too high (partially, but only partially, because of its union). People have made the case that GM is a pretty evil compnay.
I know. I was a plaintiff's attorney who sued FM myself for consumers, including injured consumers. GM had the (deserved) reputation for engaging in a "scorched earth" philosophy with regard to lawsuits (and other perceived "opponents"). As stated, GM pretty much regarded the whole world as its enemy, and believed in Russia's World War II type "scorched earth" policy with regard to all of its enemies (essentially everyone). Now you may think the perspective of a plaintiff's lawyer is biased, but remember that I am a conservative (albeit one with a jaundiced view of big business). I am giving it straight to you as to the reputation of GM as an unreasonable company to deal with--a company which rarely acted like it needed to be a responsible company with regard to its customers, suppliers, workers, and the public.
Further, GM's costs are so lout of line that only Chapter 11 bankruptcy may give it a chance to put itself on a reasonable cost basis. My brother, despite equipment costs that do him no present good (not enough business to use all of the equipment he is still forced to pay for), has put himself in a position where he can operate at a profit (provided he can get through his present cash crunch, and provided that Paulson does not further ruin the economy). In other words, my brother has been pro-active, while GM has been little more than a beggar for years--begging as its policies have continued to cause the compnay to deteriorate, even before the recent economic downturn. .Who deserves to survive more?
Yet, it is my brother who has not been asking for a bailout, although he has been asking for rational government/environmental policies (which have hurt GM, as well, and auto workers, but without causing any public campaign against such policies besides GM's continual guerilla, scorched earth war against specific government regulation). Unlike GM, Wall Street, and the rest, my brother is willing to fight for his own survival, without government bailouts (see AIG if you want an explanation for the plural).
However, you explain to my brother why he should not receive a bailout, while GM, banks, financial institutions, etc. get one? I can't explain it to him, and I don't think there is anyone out there that can. In fact, GM is one of those companies hat has previously made life miserable for my brother by using its economic power to oppress smaller businesses like those of my brother. My brother can tell you stories about GM. Why should my brother have to watch one of his previous oppressors receive a government bailout, while my brother is left to sink or swim on his own--worse, while my brother is subjected to a government attempt to sink him in endless costs and regulation?
Yes, my brother's company now has about the best safety record in the industry. His company was complimented in a recent DOT audit for having about the best "compliance" (with government regulations) procedures the auditor had ever seen. My brother has accomplished this, despite the economic troubles of his compnay that have caused others to cut corners.
You tell my borther that GM deserves a bailout, while he does not.
It is one of the absurd things about the recent rise of the communists on Wall Street, and in our financial community (Larry Kudlow, and CNBC people, this means YOU), that small business people like my brother (and wannabes like Joe the Plumber) are willing to play by capitalist rules, Meanwhile, our "elites", and big business types, are willing and anxious to abandon capitalism for their own self interest.
No wonder Republicans lost. They now come across as people of no principle at all, while many "small" peole out there actually have principles. It is sad. Obama could have been beaten. As it is, however, there is no reaons for people to resist bribes, when eberyone is offering handouts to their faovred groups.
Yes, this "baliout"/"handout" mentality will eventually destroy us all. My brother and Joe the Plumber realize that. Too many of our "leaders", and opinion making elites, do not.
No, the auto makers should not receive a bailout, because of pro-union Democrats and pro-big business Republicans. They certainly should receive no bailout until someone can expalin why GM deserves such a bailout, and my brother does not.
Good luck on explaining that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember, 25,000 smaller companies could be bailed out for that 25 billion.
Wall Street Stupidity
See Friday's entry. Don't ever doubt me. Unlike others, I predict things (correctly) in foresight. I told you that the stock market rise on Thursday was total fiction, exposing a stock market that is broken--rightly destroying people's confidence in a rational financial system.
As of this morning, the stock market hd essentially lost all of what it "gained" on Thursday. The NASDAQ was lower this morning than where it ended on Thursday, and the other indexes were only slightly higher. Did you ever doubt me when I told you that nay stock market trader who bought near the top of Thursday's fictional late rally was brain dead stupid? I hope not. The Dow went 900 points from low to high on Thursday, and that was conclusive evidence of a market that is broken.
There are people out there (idiots all) bemoaning the lack of "confidence", as if obviously broken financial markets (with nothing at all being done about the broken computer casino that our stock market has become) deserve any confidence.
Nope. I don't know where the computer casino that the stock market has become is going today. They Dow dropped 337 points in the last half hour on Friday. It made a similar up move on Thursday. Who knows what it will do in the last hour today. What we do know is that the "experts" who then talk about "why" the market has made a specific move, as if there were actually rational, fundamental explanations, are total idiots (with apologies, again, to idiots).
I repeat: The stock market is broken and the people on Wall Street now are some of the stupidest people who ever lived--again including Neanderthal man in the definition of "people".
As of this morning, the stock market hd essentially lost all of what it "gained" on Thursday. The NASDAQ was lower this morning than where it ended on Thursday, and the other indexes were only slightly higher. Did you ever doubt me when I told you that nay stock market trader who bought near the top of Thursday's fictional late rally was brain dead stupid? I hope not. The Dow went 900 points from low to high on Thursday, and that was conclusive evidence of a market that is broken.
There are people out there (idiots all) bemoaning the lack of "confidence", as if obviously broken financial markets (with nothing at all being done about the broken computer casino that our stock market has become) deserve any confidence.
Nope. I don't know where the computer casino that the stock market has become is going today. They Dow dropped 337 points in the last half hour on Friday. It made a similar up move on Thursday. Who knows what it will do in the last hour today. What we do know is that the "experts" who then talk about "why" the market has made a specific move, as if there were actually rational, fundamental explanations, are total idiots (with apologies, again, to idiots).
I repeat: The stock market is broken and the people on Wall Street now are some of the stupidest people who ever lived--again including Neanderthal man in the definition of "people".
Hank Paulson: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points at YOU
Yes, there was never any doubt. The spinning "Finger (this blog's reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate award for outstanding stupidity/evil in the previous week, represented by a statuette of an INDEX finger pointing) stopped this weekend pointing squarely at Hank Paulson.
It is now conclusively established that Paulson is the worst failure in the history of world finance--a contender for the worst failure in the history of human kind. See the Wednesday/Thursday entries in this bog showing why Paulson gets the Finger this week. And he keeps getting worse (impossible as that is to believe).
Paulson appeared on CNBC on Friday and made a complete fool of himself--again. The man should have been fired Friday. The man should have been fired a week ago. The man should have been fired a month ago. The man should have been fired the moment he proposed a bailout of this own previous firm (Goldman Sachs--the AIG bailout being really a bailout of Goldman Sachs). The man should have been fired when he proposed the Wall Street bailout bill, and when he exposed himslelf as totally clueless by abandoning the entire original "plan" to purchase "toxi" assets--the plan "debated" for 3 weeks in that total farce in Congress (which alone should cause every person who voted for that farce to be defeated in every future election as tottaly incompetent for accepting a single word Paulson said). Paulson should have been fired six months ago, when it was aready obvious he had no clue, as he presided over the entire last two years--the two years when we deteriorated to this position on Paulson's wathc--in the end melting down because of Paulson's panic seemingly generated by the danger to his old firm, Goldman Sachs.
Yes, Friday Paulson went on CNBC and said he did not apologize for abandoning the original "bailout" plan, because the facts had changed--the situation had gotten worste.
Nothing Paulson could have said would have exposed him more clearly for the failure he is, and has been. Remember the panicked Paulson, who ruined this economy by panicking the entire country as he gave a blank check to AIG (a bank check supported by Obama, at the same time he was--and is--saying that we "must not give a blank check"). That blank check has now reached 150 billion dollars, which is more than the entire budget for all but a few countries in the world. That debacle is entirely Paulson's baby, to save Goldman Salchs, and he panicked a country because of it.
Remember that panicked Paulson? He is the person who said that we faced financial Armageddon if we did not adopt his plan of purchasing "toxic" financial assets (such as Goldman Sachs' AIG paper?). How could things possibly get worse than Armageddon, and how could we have survived them getting worse? How could Paulson more plainly admit that his panic was unjustified, and the very thing likely to make things worse. Indeed, as this blog said in foresight (not hindsight), that Paulson panic did make things much worse. But Paulson does not justify his incompetence by now saying that, when he panicked a country (and a world) by saying that only his (now abandoned) plan was going to stop the meltdown that would occur if things got worse. You can't predict Armageddon, as Paulson did, unless your specific "plan" to avoid it is adpopted, and then abandon the "plan". Paulson should simply resign and fall on his sword, if he had any honor, decency or intelligence. He has none. Dan, in a comment to a Paulson entry last week, put it in a nushell (while insulting idiots): "Paulson is an idiot." But are not the people who listened to him, and followed him like lemmings into the sea, idiots as well?
It is becoming obvious to even the idiots at CNBC that no one should listen to Paulson, and that one should ever have listened to that total failure. Now if we, the public, would start holding accountable those who did listen to Paulson, and thereby expose their own incompetence, we would start back the road to public intelligence. Instead, too many seem to accept the idea that failure of one central planning, communist/socialist proposal just means we need to adopt more central planning, communist/socialist proposals, with failures like Paulson in charge.
Award ceremony (Virtual ceremony, as usual, but without any graphics and totally in the imagination, where I suggest you use the mental image of Dick Martin presenting the statuette of the Finger as a visual aid, in your mind's eye, even though Martin and "Laugh In" obviously have no connection with this reincarnation of the award):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the pointing Finger at the camera and saying: "Hank Paulson, his is for you. You deserve it. Nero, Mussolini, Stalin, and Jimmy Carter (all previous recipients of the Finger): None of them deserved the Finger any more than you deserve it.
Return next week (generally by Monday, although my weekend posting are deliberately becoming more rare), to see where the Finger stops next weekend.
It is now conclusively established that Paulson is the worst failure in the history of world finance--a contender for the worst failure in the history of human kind. See the Wednesday/Thursday entries in this bog showing why Paulson gets the Finger this week. And he keeps getting worse (impossible as that is to believe).
Paulson appeared on CNBC on Friday and made a complete fool of himself--again. The man should have been fired Friday. The man should have been fired a week ago. The man should have been fired a month ago. The man should have been fired the moment he proposed a bailout of this own previous firm (Goldman Sachs--the AIG bailout being really a bailout of Goldman Sachs). The man should have been fired when he proposed the Wall Street bailout bill, and when he exposed himslelf as totally clueless by abandoning the entire original "plan" to purchase "toxi" assets--the plan "debated" for 3 weeks in that total farce in Congress (which alone should cause every person who voted for that farce to be defeated in every future election as tottaly incompetent for accepting a single word Paulson said). Paulson should have been fired six months ago, when it was aready obvious he had no clue, as he presided over the entire last two years--the two years when we deteriorated to this position on Paulson's wathc--in the end melting down because of Paulson's panic seemingly generated by the danger to his old firm, Goldman Sachs.
Yes, Friday Paulson went on CNBC and said he did not apologize for abandoning the original "bailout" plan, because the facts had changed--the situation had gotten worste.
Nothing Paulson could have said would have exposed him more clearly for the failure he is, and has been. Remember the panicked Paulson, who ruined this economy by panicking the entire country as he gave a blank check to AIG (a bank check supported by Obama, at the same time he was--and is--saying that we "must not give a blank check"). That blank check has now reached 150 billion dollars, which is more than the entire budget for all but a few countries in the world. That debacle is entirely Paulson's baby, to save Goldman Salchs, and he panicked a country because of it.
Remember that panicked Paulson? He is the person who said that we faced financial Armageddon if we did not adopt his plan of purchasing "toxic" financial assets (such as Goldman Sachs' AIG paper?). How could things possibly get worse than Armageddon, and how could we have survived them getting worse? How could Paulson more plainly admit that his panic was unjustified, and the very thing likely to make things worse. Indeed, as this blog said in foresight (not hindsight), that Paulson panic did make things much worse. But Paulson does not justify his incompetence by now saying that, when he panicked a country (and a world) by saying that only his (now abandoned) plan was going to stop the meltdown that would occur if things got worse. You can't predict Armageddon, as Paulson did, unless your specific "plan" to avoid it is adpopted, and then abandon the "plan". Paulson should simply resign and fall on his sword, if he had any honor, decency or intelligence. He has none. Dan, in a comment to a Paulson entry last week, put it in a nushell (while insulting idiots): "Paulson is an idiot." But are not the people who listened to him, and followed him like lemmings into the sea, idiots as well?
It is becoming obvious to even the idiots at CNBC that no one should listen to Paulson, and that one should ever have listened to that total failure. Now if we, the public, would start holding accountable those who did listen to Paulson, and thereby expose their own incompetence, we would start back the road to public intelligence. Instead, too many seem to accept the idea that failure of one central planning, communist/socialist proposal just means we need to adopt more central planning, communist/socialist proposals, with failures like Paulson in charge.
Award ceremony (Virtual ceremony, as usual, but without any graphics and totally in the imagination, where I suggest you use the mental image of Dick Martin presenting the statuette of the Finger as a visual aid, in your mind's eye, even though Martin and "Laugh In" obviously have no connection with this reincarnation of the award):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the pointing Finger at the camera and saying: "Hank Paulson, his is for you. You deserve it. Nero, Mussolini, Stalin, and Jimmy Carter (all previous recipients of the Finger): None of them deserved the Finger any more than you deserve it.
Return next week (generally by Monday, although my weekend posting are deliberately becoming more rare), to see where the Finger stops next weekend.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wall Street: The Stupidest People on Earth
What else can you call people who solemnly talked about the "necessity" of the Paulson "plan" for the government to purchase "toxic assets", only to have Paulson abandon that plan? What else can you call people who talk about Paulson--one of those stupid Wall Street people himself--as the "smartest person in the room", when he basically ruined Goldman Sachs (even if it was not obvious when he left), lruined the economy with his panic (and lack of previous leadership), and shows he has no clue at every turn? See Wednesday's entries.
But it is this blog, as usual, which has told you that the emperor has no clothes. This is aboutt he 5th entry about how stupid you have to be to be a stock trader who continues to purchase or sell stocks after the market indexes are already up 200 Dow points or down 200 Dow points. I have been proven right every time. Yes, I told you that the recent Dow rises of almost 1,000 points in single days were fiction. I have told you the same thing about short term major losses.
Yes, I am smarter than Rush Limbaugh, or let partisanship rule what I say less. Limbaugh, and some other conservatives, have been talking about how the stock market has been going down because of Obama, since his election. That is absurd (although stock traders don't delude themselves that Obama is a "savior").
The market went down for the reason this blog told you it would go down: the up move before the election was not real "investing", but computer, momentum trading as the "smart guys" treat the stock market like a video/computer game. These short term market moves have almost nothing to do with any fundamental events, and everything to do with these computer/gaming moves within the "range" that the market has traded ever since the false Congressional debate over the "bailout plan" that never happened.
Yes, it happened again yesterday. The Dow had one of those fictional 500 point moves (not just in a day, but in an hour or two, and a move that was considerably more from low to high).
I ask again: how stupid do you have to be to continue to buy stocks when you know that you are buying at a short term high, and that they are headed back down. Who was stupid enough to buy stocks yesterday when they were up 400 points. In a rational system--one that is not broken--would not the amplitude of these market moves keep getting smaller, as people realize what is going on? In other words, based on experience, why do sellers not come in when the Dow is up 200, and buyers come in when the Dow is down 200, knowing that Dow moves after that will likely be reversed? How insane (that definitions of "insanity" again) do you have to be to keep doing to same thing over and over again, expecting a different result? You evidently have to be as insane, and stupid, as a Wall STreet person. And then you come on CNBC, or the media, and talk as if these short term market moves are based on fundamental events. Let me be blunt: Anyone who fails to recognize what is going on here is either totally stupid, or has an agenda (as Rush does).
Have I not said that these fictional market moves are not so much evidence of stupidity, as much as they are evidence of markets that are broken--as Wall Street has turned into one vast computer gambling casino? It is both. Yes, "smart guys" gaming the system are making money with these games (and sometimes losing their shirts). But it is still stupid to be in a positon ere you are forced to make losing trades (after the market is already in the midst of one of these fictional computer moves)?
Worse, are stock traders "gaming the system" not destroying the system? Sure they are. Why should people stay in the stock market, when it is so obviously no longer an investment vehicle, but a computer gaming vehicle? You could argue I am the stupid one, along with the other sheep still in the stock market, because we continue to participate in a broken system. However, leaving the "system" to the computer gamers will destroy us, in the end. It may already have, as the recent "financial crisis" was precipitated as mujch by the gaming on Wall Street as by the stupidity in financial institutions (stupidity that was multiplied on Wall Street by people like Paulson, as head of Goldman Sachs, who failed to realize the risks they were running).
Nope. The title/headline of this entry is solid. Wall Street people (and their counterparts around the world) are the most stupid people on Earth. There is just no competition, except from "journalists"--meaning that financial "journalists" may be the sub-category of the truly stupidest people on Earth.
Yes, I am perfectly aware that there will be a time when the "market" actually moves one direction or another, outside of this "trading range". So what. It does not change a word I say above. In a healthy stock market, which is not broken, the Dow would rarely move up or down even a 100 points. Most daily moves would be 20 to 50 points. Weekly moves would not be 1,000 points, but usually a 100 points or less. I am right on this. The present system is broken, and no one appears to be trying to fix it. No, I am not sure how to fix it, but someone should be trying. I have suggested banning day trading (buying and selling the same stock, or any number of shares of that same stock, in a single day). I have suggested banning short selling (but not "puts"--which require purchasing an option) for at least six months, and maybe forever. There are surely other things that can be done to try to stop this ridiculous computer "program" trading. Why are you not hearing this elsewhere, aside from brief mentions from time to time? I told you. These people are stupid--as stupid as the people willing to pretend the emperor had clothes on in the famous story about the naked emperor who conned himseslf, as well as the public he ruled.
But it is this blog, as usual, which has told you that the emperor has no clothes. This is aboutt he 5th entry about how stupid you have to be to be a stock trader who continues to purchase or sell stocks after the market indexes are already up 200 Dow points or down 200 Dow points. I have been proven right every time. Yes, I told you that the recent Dow rises of almost 1,000 points in single days were fiction. I have told you the same thing about short term major losses.
Yes, I am smarter than Rush Limbaugh, or let partisanship rule what I say less. Limbaugh, and some other conservatives, have been talking about how the stock market has been going down because of Obama, since his election. That is absurd (although stock traders don't delude themselves that Obama is a "savior").
The market went down for the reason this blog told you it would go down: the up move before the election was not real "investing", but computer, momentum trading as the "smart guys" treat the stock market like a video/computer game. These short term market moves have almost nothing to do with any fundamental events, and everything to do with these computer/gaming moves within the "range" that the market has traded ever since the false Congressional debate over the "bailout plan" that never happened.
Yes, it happened again yesterday. The Dow had one of those fictional 500 point moves (not just in a day, but in an hour or two, and a move that was considerably more from low to high).
I ask again: how stupid do you have to be to continue to buy stocks when you know that you are buying at a short term high, and that they are headed back down. Who was stupid enough to buy stocks yesterday when they were up 400 points. In a rational system--one that is not broken--would not the amplitude of these market moves keep getting smaller, as people realize what is going on? In other words, based on experience, why do sellers not come in when the Dow is up 200, and buyers come in when the Dow is down 200, knowing that Dow moves after that will likely be reversed? How insane (that definitions of "insanity" again) do you have to be to keep doing to same thing over and over again, expecting a different result? You evidently have to be as insane, and stupid, as a Wall STreet person. And then you come on CNBC, or the media, and talk as if these short term market moves are based on fundamental events. Let me be blunt: Anyone who fails to recognize what is going on here is either totally stupid, or has an agenda (as Rush does).
Have I not said that these fictional market moves are not so much evidence of stupidity, as much as they are evidence of markets that are broken--as Wall Street has turned into one vast computer gambling casino? It is both. Yes, "smart guys" gaming the system are making money with these games (and sometimes losing their shirts). But it is still stupid to be in a positon ere you are forced to make losing trades (after the market is already in the midst of one of these fictional computer moves)?
Worse, are stock traders "gaming the system" not destroying the system? Sure they are. Why should people stay in the stock market, when it is so obviously no longer an investment vehicle, but a computer gaming vehicle? You could argue I am the stupid one, along with the other sheep still in the stock market, because we continue to participate in a broken system. However, leaving the "system" to the computer gamers will destroy us, in the end. It may already have, as the recent "financial crisis" was precipitated as mujch by the gaming on Wall Street as by the stupidity in financial institutions (stupidity that was multiplied on Wall Street by people like Paulson, as head of Goldman Sachs, who failed to realize the risks they were running).
Nope. The title/headline of this entry is solid. Wall Street people (and their counterparts around the world) are the most stupid people on Earth. There is just no competition, except from "journalists"--meaning that financial "journalists" may be the sub-category of the truly stupidest people on Earth.
Yes, I am perfectly aware that there will be a time when the "market" actually moves one direction or another, outside of this "trading range". So what. It does not change a word I say above. In a healthy stock market, which is not broken, the Dow would rarely move up or down even a 100 points. Most daily moves would be 20 to 50 points. Weekly moves would not be 1,000 points, but usually a 100 points or less. I am right on this. The present system is broken, and no one appears to be trying to fix it. No, I am not sure how to fix it, but someone should be trying. I have suggested banning day trading (buying and selling the same stock, or any number of shares of that same stock, in a single day). I have suggested banning short selling (but not "puts"--which require purchasing an option) for at least six months, and maybe forever. There are surely other things that can be done to try to stop this ridiculous computer "program" trading. Why are you not hearing this elsewhere, aside from brief mentions from time to time? I told you. These people are stupid--as stupid as the people willing to pretend the emperor had clothes on in the famous story about the naked emperor who conned himseslf, as well as the public he ruled.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
John McCain on Sarah Palin: Too Little, Too Late
Six days after his staff started aggressively trashing Sarah Palin (which they actually had started with CNN before the election was even over, although CNN had no credibility on the subject), John McCain went on Jay Leno and "defended" Sarah Palin.
Bill O'Reillly is right on this one. (I sometimes surf the beginning of his program, although I no longer regularly watch either Fox News or O'Reilly.) It was way too little, and way too late.
McCain did not aggressively condemn his staffers for what they have been saying about Sarah Palin, as he aggressively condemned his own supporters sometimes in the campaign (for being too "harsh" to Obama). There was that example early in the general election campaign, when McCain condemned a conservative radio host in Ohio for merely using Obama's middle name (still "Hussein").
McCain has shown no hesitancy in jumping down the throats of conservatives, over the years, for real or made up stupidity or intolerance/rudeness/unfairness. Yet, McCain has allowed this trashing of Sarah Palin to proceed, when he could have stopped it. See Sunday's "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" entry in this blog.
Nope., I stand by what I have said. As a politician (rather than a war hero), McCain's reputation is gone. He showed no class at the end of this campaign, and the most charitable thing that can be said of him is that he has acted cowardly, for fear of "offending" his new/old friends in the mainstream media, and on the left.
I have no respect left for McCain, as a politician. This is my own particular bigotry toward "moderate" Republicans so willing to trash Sarah Palin, and blame here for this election defeat. As I have stated, you may not really hate "moderate" Republicans of this indefensible type, but would you really want your daughter to marry one?
I am glad McCain has his (deserved) reputation as a war hero to fall back on. He has no other (good) reputation left.
Bill O'Reillly is right on this one. (I sometimes surf the beginning of his program, although I no longer regularly watch either Fox News or O'Reilly.) It was way too little, and way too late.
McCain did not aggressively condemn his staffers for what they have been saying about Sarah Palin, as he aggressively condemned his own supporters sometimes in the campaign (for being too "harsh" to Obama). There was that example early in the general election campaign, when McCain condemned a conservative radio host in Ohio for merely using Obama's middle name (still "Hussein").
McCain has shown no hesitancy in jumping down the throats of conservatives, over the years, for real or made up stupidity or intolerance/rudeness/unfairness. Yet, McCain has allowed this trashing of Sarah Palin to proceed, when he could have stopped it. See Sunday's "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" entry in this blog.
Nope., I stand by what I have said. As a politician (rather than a war hero), McCain's reputation is gone. He showed no class at the end of this campaign, and the most charitable thing that can be said of him is that he has acted cowardly, for fear of "offending" his new/old friends in the mainstream media, and on the left.
I have no respect left for McCain, as a politician. This is my own particular bigotry toward "moderate" Republicans so willing to trash Sarah Palin, and blame here for this election defeat. As I have stated, you may not really hate "moderate" Republicans of this indefensible type, but would you really want your daughter to marry one?
I am glad McCain has his (deserved) reputation as a war hero to fall back on. He has no other (good) reputation left.
Paulson: Central Planning and a "Blank Check"
Remember all of that talk about not wanting to give Hank Paulson a "blank check" in that farce of a debate (since the wrong issues were debated in an unnecessary panic--see two previous entries)?
Well, is it not clear that Paulson wanted a "blank check", and that Congress gave him one? I think it is. In fact, this is what usually happens in our present "system". The actual governing is left in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, or the President, with Congressional bills so complex and vague that no one even knows what they mean.
This is "central planning" in its most naked form. It is Paulson alone who is now running our economy, along with Bernanke. To all intents and purposes, we are in a dictatorship on the economy. And Wall Street is telling Paulson and Bernanke what to do, in large part. In other words, the people who failed have been made rulers of our economy, using fear to put themselves in that position.
Did Hitler do it very differently? I don't think so, which raises the issue of whether we are as far away from the possibility of an American Hitler or Stalin as we like to think. The more likely present danger is from the left--maybe even Obama. But a catastrophic failure on the left could give rise to a demagogue on the right (nope, not an ordinary conservative like Sarah Palin, who the left would wrongly regard as such a demagogue for merely asserting values that most of us once shared, but a real fear mongering demagogue of the right).
Yes, the assertion of power on the left could easily be used to justify countervailing power on the right, just as Hitler used the Communists (and Jews) as scapegoats. The left is already trying to justify their power grabs by overstatement of a similar idea as to Bush/Republican past power grabs.
The key evil here is central planning, and looking to a "savior" to solve all of our problems in "Big Brother" style. Obama has invoked way too much of this Messiah" mentality previously invoked by Hitler, and other demagogues.
I don't trust Paulson with complete control of this economy. I trust no person with that kind of control. Yet, we seem to be bent on turning over control of our lives to a central planner or planners in Washington. In the end, if unchecked, this will destroy us.
Talk about a "blank check"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Notice (see previous entries this week) that the primary present Democratic complaint is that Paulson will not use his "blank check" to bail out the auto industry. There is no apparent worry, anymore, about the idea of giving a single man, or a few men, a "blank check".
Well, is it not clear that Paulson wanted a "blank check", and that Congress gave him one? I think it is. In fact, this is what usually happens in our present "system". The actual governing is left in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, or the President, with Congressional bills so complex and vague that no one even knows what they mean.
This is "central planning" in its most naked form. It is Paulson alone who is now running our economy, along with Bernanke. To all intents and purposes, we are in a dictatorship on the economy. And Wall Street is telling Paulson and Bernanke what to do, in large part. In other words, the people who failed have been made rulers of our economy, using fear to put themselves in that position.
Did Hitler do it very differently? I don't think so, which raises the issue of whether we are as far away from the possibility of an American Hitler or Stalin as we like to think. The more likely present danger is from the left--maybe even Obama. But a catastrophic failure on the left could give rise to a demagogue on the right (nope, not an ordinary conservative like Sarah Palin, who the left would wrongly regard as such a demagogue for merely asserting values that most of us once shared, but a real fear mongering demagogue of the right).
Yes, the assertion of power on the left could easily be used to justify countervailing power on the right, just as Hitler used the Communists (and Jews) as scapegoats. The left is already trying to justify their power grabs by overstatement of a similar idea as to Bush/Republican past power grabs.
The key evil here is central planning, and looking to a "savior" to solve all of our problems in "Big Brother" style. Obama has invoked way too much of this Messiah" mentality previously invoked by Hitler, and other demagogues.
I don't trust Paulson with complete control of this economy. I trust no person with that kind of control. Yet, we seem to be bent on turning over control of our lives to a central planner or planners in Washington. In the end, if unchecked, this will destroy us.
Talk about a "blank check"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Notice (see previous entries this week) that the primary present Democratic complaint is that Paulson will not use his "blank check" to bail out the auto industry. There is no apparent worry, anymore, about the idea of giving a single man, or a few men, a "blank check".
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Hank Paulson and President Bush: Did They Doom the Republican Party--At Least for This Election?
What killed the Republican Party in this election? I can't claim the credit, much as I would like to (don't have enough influence). Rush Limbaugh's tepid endorsement of John McCain did not do it, as Limbaugh sucked it up and tried to help McCain as best he could (rejecting my position on the basis that McCain was best for the country--gad as he is, and on the basis that Limbaugh does not like to lose (justifying supporting a loser like McCain). More enthusiastic support from Limbaugh would have not been credible. It would not have helped McCain--only hurt Limbaugh. Limbaugh's mistake was fiddling while Rome burned--while McCain was building momentum for the nomination and Huckabee was taking conservative votes away from Romney. I said so in foresight--not hindsight--and I was right.
Sarah Palin? That is laugh out loud funny. Sarah Palin did not cost McCain the election. The worst you can say is that she did not do enough to save it for him.
Nope. You can take it to the bank. I am wrong on very few things, and this is not one of them. McCain lost the election mainly because of that perceived economic meltdown caused by the panic of Paulson, Bernanke, and President Bush--especially Paulson.
The three weeks that we had that farce of a "debate" on that Wall Street bailout bill, and the economic meltdown that occurred because of the fear used to sell the Wall Street bailout bill, doomed McCain and the Republicans in Congress alike. Today, Paulson admitted that the whole three weeks of panic talk was all a sham. See the previous entry.
The "solution" was obviously a sham, since Paulson has abandoned it. But that very abandonment of the original "plan" shows that there was not the kind of desperate "urgency" to pass this bailout that Paulson, and President Bush (at Paulson's advice), claimed was necessary. That whole three week farce in Congress, which exposed McCain as having no clue what to do on the economy, was not even about the right "issue". The "issue" should have been about direct socialism (Feds buying stock in financial institutions), and not about purchasing toxic assets (which seems to be a Wall Street bad idea that just was never going to fly, in the end). Wall Street, of course, once it perceived it could run the country, had lots of other ideas after that, as Wall Street (utter failures all, including the analysis of the original Paulson plan) asserted essentially the right to rule the country's economy.
The evidence is that it did not have to be. Certainly, the three week farce of a Wall Street "bailout bill" did not have to be.
What if Paulson and Bush had come out and said that "all we have to fear is fear itself", and had announced a series of measures (preferably back as far as Bear Stearns and Lehman Borthers? Remember, McCain and the Republicans were still in good shape after even the Lehman Brothers failure. The public was handling it. What the public could not handle was the panic by Paulson and Bush, and the fear campaign to pass the useless (at least in terms of the plan presented) bailout bill. Was Paulson a stealth operative for Obama and the Democrats, and why is it that President Bush has sabotaged the Republican Party over the last 4 years? I am not a "conspiracy theorist", but you could come up with a lulu of a conspiracy theory here.
You say "something had to be done". Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe we would have been better off saying that it was a Wall Street problem, and taking nothing more than Wall Street action (banning short selling, after Bear Stearns, or in the midst of the Bear Stearns short selling run that doomed Bear Stearns, banning day trading, etc.). We were not obviously in a recession then. It might have worked.
Say you did not have confidence that treating this as a Wall Street, computer trading problem would not fully have worked. There is, after all, a housing problem (burst bubble), but we were apparently handling it (before the Wall Street equivalent of "runs" on the bank, and the crisis of confidence created by Paulson and Bush).
Well, it turned out that the most effective measures were not part of the bailout. The Fed guaranteed commercial paper, and interbank loans, all without need of the "bailout bill".
What has Paulson proposed now? He (forgetting the bank stock purchases, where several of the banks supposedly tried to say they did not need the money) is proposing to set up an "entity" to guarantee consumer loans for autos, credit cards (say what? This seems stupid--typical of Paulson--to encourage people in excessive credit card debt), and other consumer debts. This, of course, attempts to do what I (correctly) said the original bailout plan did not do: Directly encourage loans.
I don't think you would have to have "scared" Congress into this, probably combined with some individual homeowner relief. Democrats would have been glad to do it, and Republicans would probably have gone along if PResident Bush had said that he and Paulson had worked out a plan to help people (especially if they had done it before the political conventions, at the time Democrats were proposing measures).
What if Bush and Paulson had come out and made the case that all we had to fear was fear, and that the economy was fundamentally sound, but that Wall Street and financial institutions were creating a "credit crunch"? What if they had said this was mainly a Wall Street problem, but that the way to keep it from being a "mains street" problem was to take certain measured, reasonable actions to help consumers get loans and limit Wall Street excesses--along with reasonable measures to help banks avoid a credit crunch (commercial paper and interbank loan guarantees, etc.)?
Would we even have had a recession? Maybe not. If we did have one, it would not have probably been obvious before the election (if confidence had stayed up, as it well might have with confidence from our leaders). What if Democrats had played politics with a proposed "measured" response? As stated, the things that have already been done did not need the "bailout" bill, except for the bank "stock purchases", which the banks themselves seem doubtful about. They could have waited, and there was no need for that panic socialistic proposal. Note that I am not really endorsing a massive consumer bailout/loan bill, but it would have been better than what actually happened. If politics killed it, before the election, it is not clear which party that would have hurt. Further, the other measures would avoid the idea that "nothing" was being done (including the bans on short selling and day trading, and for those that say those violate the "free market", while supporting the socialism that actually occurred, you should simply be shot).
Whether you agree with everything I have said is irrelevant. The key thing was an appearance of confidence, and a lack of panic. The actual panic of Paulson and Bush was what doomed Republicans this year. And Bush had power over Paulson. Indeed, he should have fired Paulson, or (if that seemed to be a panic inducing measure) pretty much demanded that Paulson yield to other opinions, and avoid panic.
Dan (see Slapinions comment to previous entry) suggests that "Paulson is an idiout." Indeed he is. But is not Bush at least as much of an idiot, if not more, to let this guy panic the country, and doom the Republican Party this election? I think so.
My brother (trucking company co-owner) is of the opinion that this idiocy of President Bush, in giving those speeches about how bad things are in support of Paulson, confirmed that he (president Bush) is the worst President in history. I continue to believe Bush is only the 4th worst in my lifetime (behind Carter, LBJ, and Nixon). But I am wavering. President Bush cannot leave to soon. It is past time for him to go.
No "panic" was necessary, and it was badly counterproductive (in support of a "plan" now abandoned). No "socialism was necessary. If you just had to go with Big Government, the plan Paulson is now proposing (wtihout the seemingly unnecessary bank stock purchases) would have directly encouraged credit, while appearing to be a standard Big Government program (something like the "stimulus" and homeowner relief already passed).
My brother (trucking company again) notes that the economy was doing pretty well, after the stimulus checks, so long as confidence held up. That is why my brother thinks the recession was needless, and totally panic inspired. He is probably right. Even if he, and I, are wrong, it would not have been obvious (likely, anyway) until after the election, and any economic meltdown would have been contained. As it is, the panic reaction of Paulson and Bush created a panic reaction in the world markets. It is a textbook way not to govern a country. How can the people be "confident" if their leaders are not? Yes, the mainstream media and Democrats have done their share to undermine confidence, but what if Bush and Paulson had said that. What if they had said that there were some difficult, short term issues, but that there was every indication we could get through them? Until Paulson panicked, people were acting like they believed that. There was every reason fro them to believe that. Their confidence was undermined by their "leaders", and by their media.
In short, Dan (and others) cannot say "Paulson is an idiot", without saying "President Bush is an idiot". Unfortunately, I think both are ture (even though Bush has the excuse of not being the "expert", which does not excuse failing to realize where these particular "experts" had brought us).
Sarah Palin? That is laugh out loud funny. Sarah Palin did not cost McCain the election. The worst you can say is that she did not do enough to save it for him.
Nope. You can take it to the bank. I am wrong on very few things, and this is not one of them. McCain lost the election mainly because of that perceived economic meltdown caused by the panic of Paulson, Bernanke, and President Bush--especially Paulson.
The three weeks that we had that farce of a "debate" on that Wall Street bailout bill, and the economic meltdown that occurred because of the fear used to sell the Wall Street bailout bill, doomed McCain and the Republicans in Congress alike. Today, Paulson admitted that the whole three weeks of panic talk was all a sham. See the previous entry.
The "solution" was obviously a sham, since Paulson has abandoned it. But that very abandonment of the original "plan" shows that there was not the kind of desperate "urgency" to pass this bailout that Paulson, and President Bush (at Paulson's advice), claimed was necessary. That whole three week farce in Congress, which exposed McCain as having no clue what to do on the economy, was not even about the right "issue". The "issue" should have been about direct socialism (Feds buying stock in financial institutions), and not about purchasing toxic assets (which seems to be a Wall Street bad idea that just was never going to fly, in the end). Wall Street, of course, once it perceived it could run the country, had lots of other ideas after that, as Wall Street (utter failures all, including the analysis of the original Paulson plan) asserted essentially the right to rule the country's economy.
The evidence is that it did not have to be. Certainly, the three week farce of a Wall Street "bailout bill" did not have to be.
What if Paulson and Bush had come out and said that "all we have to fear is fear itself", and had announced a series of measures (preferably back as far as Bear Stearns and Lehman Borthers? Remember, McCain and the Republicans were still in good shape after even the Lehman Brothers failure. The public was handling it. What the public could not handle was the panic by Paulson and Bush, and the fear campaign to pass the useless (at least in terms of the plan presented) bailout bill. Was Paulson a stealth operative for Obama and the Democrats, and why is it that President Bush has sabotaged the Republican Party over the last 4 years? I am not a "conspiracy theorist", but you could come up with a lulu of a conspiracy theory here.
You say "something had to be done". Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe we would have been better off saying that it was a Wall Street problem, and taking nothing more than Wall Street action (banning short selling, after Bear Stearns, or in the midst of the Bear Stearns short selling run that doomed Bear Stearns, banning day trading, etc.). We were not obviously in a recession then. It might have worked.
Say you did not have confidence that treating this as a Wall Street, computer trading problem would not fully have worked. There is, after all, a housing problem (burst bubble), but we were apparently handling it (before the Wall Street equivalent of "runs" on the bank, and the crisis of confidence created by Paulson and Bush).
Well, it turned out that the most effective measures were not part of the bailout. The Fed guaranteed commercial paper, and interbank loans, all without need of the "bailout bill".
What has Paulson proposed now? He (forgetting the bank stock purchases, where several of the banks supposedly tried to say they did not need the money) is proposing to set up an "entity" to guarantee consumer loans for autos, credit cards (say what? This seems stupid--typical of Paulson--to encourage people in excessive credit card debt), and other consumer debts. This, of course, attempts to do what I (correctly) said the original bailout plan did not do: Directly encourage loans.
I don't think you would have to have "scared" Congress into this, probably combined with some individual homeowner relief. Democrats would have been glad to do it, and Republicans would probably have gone along if PResident Bush had said that he and Paulson had worked out a plan to help people (especially if they had done it before the political conventions, at the time Democrats were proposing measures).
What if Bush and Paulson had come out and made the case that all we had to fear was fear, and that the economy was fundamentally sound, but that Wall Street and financial institutions were creating a "credit crunch"? What if they had said this was mainly a Wall Street problem, but that the way to keep it from being a "mains street" problem was to take certain measured, reasonable actions to help consumers get loans and limit Wall Street excesses--along with reasonable measures to help banks avoid a credit crunch (commercial paper and interbank loan guarantees, etc.)?
Would we even have had a recession? Maybe not. If we did have one, it would not have probably been obvious before the election (if confidence had stayed up, as it well might have with confidence from our leaders). What if Democrats had played politics with a proposed "measured" response? As stated, the things that have already been done did not need the "bailout" bill, except for the bank "stock purchases", which the banks themselves seem doubtful about. They could have waited, and there was no need for that panic socialistic proposal. Note that I am not really endorsing a massive consumer bailout/loan bill, but it would have been better than what actually happened. If politics killed it, before the election, it is not clear which party that would have hurt. Further, the other measures would avoid the idea that "nothing" was being done (including the bans on short selling and day trading, and for those that say those violate the "free market", while supporting the socialism that actually occurred, you should simply be shot).
Whether you agree with everything I have said is irrelevant. The key thing was an appearance of confidence, and a lack of panic. The actual panic of Paulson and Bush was what doomed Republicans this year. And Bush had power over Paulson. Indeed, he should have fired Paulson, or (if that seemed to be a panic inducing measure) pretty much demanded that Paulson yield to other opinions, and avoid panic.
Dan (see Slapinions comment to previous entry) suggests that "Paulson is an idiout." Indeed he is. But is not Bush at least as much of an idiot, if not more, to let this guy panic the country, and doom the Republican Party this election? I think so.
My brother (trucking company co-owner) is of the opinion that this idiocy of President Bush, in giving those speeches about how bad things are in support of Paulson, confirmed that he (president Bush) is the worst President in history. I continue to believe Bush is only the 4th worst in my lifetime (behind Carter, LBJ, and Nixon). But I am wavering. President Bush cannot leave to soon. It is past time for him to go.
No "panic" was necessary, and it was badly counterproductive (in support of a "plan" now abandoned). No "socialism was necessary. If you just had to go with Big Government, the plan Paulson is now proposing (wtihout the seemingly unnecessary bank stock purchases) would have directly encouraged credit, while appearing to be a standard Big Government program (something like the "stimulus" and homeowner relief already passed).
My brother (trucking company again) notes that the economy was doing pretty well, after the stimulus checks, so long as confidence held up. That is why my brother thinks the recession was needless, and totally panic inspired. He is probably right. Even if he, and I, are wrong, it would not have been obvious (likely, anyway) until after the election, and any economic meltdown would have been contained. As it is, the panic reaction of Paulson and Bush created a panic reaction in the world markets. It is a textbook way not to govern a country. How can the people be "confident" if their leaders are not? Yes, the mainstream media and Democrats have done their share to undermine confidence, but what if Bush and Paulson had said that. What if they had said that there were some difficult, short term issues, but that there was every indication we could get through them? Until Paulson panicked, people were acting like they believed that. There was every reason fro them to believe that. Their confidence was undermined by their "leaders", and by their media.
In short, Dan (and others) cannot say "Paulson is an idiot", without saying "President Bush is an idiot". Unfortunately, I think both are ture (even though Bush has the excuse of not being the "expert", which does not excuse failing to realize where these particular "experts" had brought us).
Hank Paulson: Worst Failure in the History of World Finance
Yes, you have seen the above title before in this blog. It has now been proven accurate, as if it had not been before.
Hank Paulson is Secretary of the Treasury (the worst one we have ever had). He led Goldman Sachs to the brink of ruin (although nobody knew it at the time Paulson left as CEO of Goldman Sachs to become Secretary of The Treasury--Paulson being the mina person with reason to know it, illustrating how clueless he is). As Secretary of the Treasury, he has led the country to the brink of ruin--giving it a huge push toward that ruin with Paulson's panic in September/October.
Remember that three week farce in Congress as Congress debated the Wall Street bailout bill? Remember those really stupid assertions at the time, by Paulson and others, about how urgent it was that the government purchase all of these "toxic" assets that were poisoning the system, and how there was no time to try to figure out any other solutions? Remember those idiotic discussions at the time about whether the taxpayers would make money (lol) on the distressed assets to be purchased by the Feds (Paulson, in his new position as dictator over the economy)?
Paulson today: "Just kidding." I could never make this up. Paulson said today that none (zilch, nada) of the bailout money will go to purchase "toxic" assets, despite the three week "debate" on that plan, and only that plan. That was the whole plan. It was selling that plan, now discarded, that prompted Paulson to panic a nation, thereby guaranteeing an economic meltdown and recession.
Never has this blog been proven more right in what I said so clearly. so quickly, and so conclusively--in contrast to the stupidity in both Congress and the media, including the financial media. Who was more "expert"? Was it Paulson and the financial "experts" on CNBC, or was it this blog (Congress, of course, is known to be so stupid that there was never a contest there)? Consult the record, where this blog told you (beyond the obvious argument that this was socialism and central planning, which Paulson has made even more clear with an entirely new plan):
1. A cumbersome, expensive government purchase of "toxic" assets (failing mortgages and the like) would not create one single new loan--would not directly ease the credit crunch at all.
2. Congressional attempts to "protect the taxpayer" made this whole idea of purchasing "distressed" assets untenable. If the Treasury had to attempt to arrange purchases at "market prices", that could not possibly help banks and financial institutions. There entire problem is that "market prices" have fallen apart for these assets, and they have had to "mark down" (under post-Enron accounting regulations) the assets to a ridiculously samll "market value". An "auction" to set the smallest price for the government to pay would not only guarantee that the government would get the very worst assets, but it would guarantee highlighting just how little the "market price" of these assets (especially the "worst" ones) really is. That could only hurt the financial system, and not help it. If you add in Congressional "oversight", and ideas lie that of Mark Cuban to post every transaction on the internet (sanely not in the final bill, but the attitude was there toward putting too much pressure and scrutiny to force the government to pay as little as possible), you got an idea that was unworkable. I said so, at the time, in contrast to the "experts". Paulson today said I was right, and that Paulson and the rest were wrong. Okay, Paulson did not actually say that very last part, but that is what he admitted by totally abandoning the original "plan" as unworkable, and not providing enough benefit soon enough.
3. Despite the debate, what Paulson wanted, and what he got, was a central planning "blank check", and the entire Congressional "debate" was a typical farce meaning absolutely nothing. What does "oversight" mean when the plan that was "dbated" was a totally different plan than what Paulson is now implementing?
It is absurd. Pauslon asked for "confidence", after destroying a nation's confidence, and now has shown he never deserved any "confidence". He never had any real idea what to do. He just wanted Congress to give him 700 billion dollars to play with--at the cost of destroying the economy by precipitating a panic--which is exactly what Congress did (while pretending otherwise.
Now, after the election, Paulson admits it was all a farce. Did you ever doubt that Paulson is really a Democrat?
I told you, correctly, that the main reason for panic here (Paulson's panic--which may have destroyed, in the end, with these precedents, the greatest country the world has ever known), as this blog told you, was really created by Paulson's need to save Goldman Sachs. To a degree, Paulson succeeded in that (the only thing in which he succeeded), although Goldman Sachs is down some 50% since the bailout bill, and may yet be in some trouble (albeit with the Feds virtually guaranteeing the firm will not be allowed to fail). This was an incredible conflict of interest on the part of Paulson--devising a panic to save the firm where he was once CEO. Even if not a legal conflict of interest, this has to be one of the worst cases of letting the wrong man (a man who was a major part of creating the problem in the first place as CEO of Goldman Sachs) make the decisions--a man who should have been immediately fired instead of given virtually unlimited power.
Read my numerous entries in the blog archives. I dare you to find even a single sentence that has been proven wrong. In contrast, there are many assertions of this blog that have been proven entirely right, and that Paulson has just admitted are entirely right. This blog told you that the bailout "plan" was unworkable, and it was.
Should I be Secretary of the Treasuy? Well, I could not possibly be worse than Paulson. Modesty forbids me from commenting further.
Modesty does not prevent me from saying that CNBC should replace all of their "experts" with me. There is no doubt that would be a vast improvement. CNBC has, somewhat gently, broached the idea that Paulson has hardly added to "confidence" by admitting his original "plan" had no merit--a plan endorsed by almost all of the "experts" on CNBC. CNBC has hardly touched the dorollary question: Why should anybody have any confidence in, or watch, CNBC "experts", who so underestimated the problems with the original "plan", as modified by Congress?
Hank Paulson is Secretary of the Treasury (the worst one we have ever had). He led Goldman Sachs to the brink of ruin (although nobody knew it at the time Paulson left as CEO of Goldman Sachs to become Secretary of The Treasury--Paulson being the mina person with reason to know it, illustrating how clueless he is). As Secretary of the Treasury, he has led the country to the brink of ruin--giving it a huge push toward that ruin with Paulson's panic in September/October.
Remember that three week farce in Congress as Congress debated the Wall Street bailout bill? Remember those really stupid assertions at the time, by Paulson and others, about how urgent it was that the government purchase all of these "toxic" assets that were poisoning the system, and how there was no time to try to figure out any other solutions? Remember those idiotic discussions at the time about whether the taxpayers would make money (lol) on the distressed assets to be purchased by the Feds (Paulson, in his new position as dictator over the economy)?
Paulson today: "Just kidding." I could never make this up. Paulson said today that none (zilch, nada) of the bailout money will go to purchase "toxic" assets, despite the three week "debate" on that plan, and only that plan. That was the whole plan. It was selling that plan, now discarded, that prompted Paulson to panic a nation, thereby guaranteeing an economic meltdown and recession.
Never has this blog been proven more right in what I said so clearly. so quickly, and so conclusively--in contrast to the stupidity in both Congress and the media, including the financial media. Who was more "expert"? Was it Paulson and the financial "experts" on CNBC, or was it this blog (Congress, of course, is known to be so stupid that there was never a contest there)? Consult the record, where this blog told you (beyond the obvious argument that this was socialism and central planning, which Paulson has made even more clear with an entirely new plan):
1. A cumbersome, expensive government purchase of "toxic" assets (failing mortgages and the like) would not create one single new loan--would not directly ease the credit crunch at all.
2. Congressional attempts to "protect the taxpayer" made this whole idea of purchasing "distressed" assets untenable. If the Treasury had to attempt to arrange purchases at "market prices", that could not possibly help banks and financial institutions. There entire problem is that "market prices" have fallen apart for these assets, and they have had to "mark down" (under post-Enron accounting regulations) the assets to a ridiculously samll "market value". An "auction" to set the smallest price for the government to pay would not only guarantee that the government would get the very worst assets, but it would guarantee highlighting just how little the "market price" of these assets (especially the "worst" ones) really is. That could only hurt the financial system, and not help it. If you add in Congressional "oversight", and ideas lie that of Mark Cuban to post every transaction on the internet (sanely not in the final bill, but the attitude was there toward putting too much pressure and scrutiny to force the government to pay as little as possible), you got an idea that was unworkable. I said so, at the time, in contrast to the "experts". Paulson today said I was right, and that Paulson and the rest were wrong. Okay, Paulson did not actually say that very last part, but that is what he admitted by totally abandoning the original "plan" as unworkable, and not providing enough benefit soon enough.
3. Despite the debate, what Paulson wanted, and what he got, was a central planning "blank check", and the entire Congressional "debate" was a typical farce meaning absolutely nothing. What does "oversight" mean when the plan that was "dbated" was a totally different plan than what Paulson is now implementing?
It is absurd. Pauslon asked for "confidence", after destroying a nation's confidence, and now has shown he never deserved any "confidence". He never had any real idea what to do. He just wanted Congress to give him 700 billion dollars to play with--at the cost of destroying the economy by precipitating a panic--which is exactly what Congress did (while pretending otherwise.
Now, after the election, Paulson admits it was all a farce. Did you ever doubt that Paulson is really a Democrat?
I told you, correctly, that the main reason for panic here (Paulson's panic--which may have destroyed, in the end, with these precedents, the greatest country the world has ever known), as this blog told you, was really created by Paulson's need to save Goldman Sachs. To a degree, Paulson succeeded in that (the only thing in which he succeeded), although Goldman Sachs is down some 50% since the bailout bill, and may yet be in some trouble (albeit with the Feds virtually guaranteeing the firm will not be allowed to fail). This was an incredible conflict of interest on the part of Paulson--devising a panic to save the firm where he was once CEO. Even if not a legal conflict of interest, this has to be one of the worst cases of letting the wrong man (a man who was a major part of creating the problem in the first place as CEO of Goldman Sachs) make the decisions--a man who should have been immediately fired instead of given virtually unlimited power.
Read my numerous entries in the blog archives. I dare you to find even a single sentence that has been proven wrong. In contrast, there are many assertions of this blog that have been proven entirely right, and that Paulson has just admitted are entirely right. This blog told you that the bailout "plan" was unworkable, and it was.
Should I be Secretary of the Treasuy? Well, I could not possibly be worse than Paulson. Modesty forbids me from commenting further.
Modesty does not prevent me from saying that CNBC should replace all of their "experts" with me. There is no doubt that would be a vast improvement. CNBC has, somewhat gently, broached the idea that Paulson has hardly added to "confidence" by admitting his original "plan" had no merit--a plan endorsed by almost all of the "experts" on CNBC. CNBC has hardly touched the dorollary question: Why should anybody have any confidence in, or watch, CNBC "experts", who so underestimated the problems with the original "plan", as modified by Congress?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)