Ignoramus4253 wrote:
On 2010-12-24, Karl Townsend wrote:
Richard pretty well sums up my view of our situation.

I'm near retirement and have a fairly good amount of savings. But I
feel paralyzed as to where to put it. I've lost all confidence in the
stock market. I'm told bonds are over bought and will collapse when
interest rates take off. I've got too much hid under the mattress and
more guns, gold, and machine tools than I should have. I'd rather not
spend my final decade or so on this planet in total poverty.

What should a prudent small guy do?


Karl, I have most of my money (besides the house, of course) in
stocks. I have no idea what they will do next, but their earnings
yield is much more favorable than bond yields.

...

I have no idea what gold will do, but definitely count me out of that
party.

i


I could be wrong, but I don't think that was the question Karl was asking.

He seems to be in good shape as far as pieces of green paper go.

I suspect the question he was asking, the question we should ALL be asking
is - how to keep from losing value.

Or what will be valuable when green isn't?



In 1988 my ex (C, a chemistry professor) and I visited Tallinn (Estonia)
(I've probably mentioned that before).

One of the things that stands out in my memory was something that happened
in Tallinn in a "coffee shop" where my friend, Ants, took us for coffee and
brandy after a tour of the "old city".

Beautiful place, by the way...

It was kind of an artsy place - a lot of beatnik looking people sitting around
smoking Slavic cigarettes and listening to old American Jazz.
Thelonious Monk - in Russia?!!? Far out!

While we were talking and sipping a very good cognac one of the more
artistically inclined denizens drew a portrait of yours truly! It was on
newsprint - about 3' x 4' and while in purple pastel, it was otherwise very good
likeness.

When he presented it to me, I told Ants that I guessed the gratuity should be
in proportion to my ego? Ants smiled and nodded, so I gave the kid a dollar.

I'll tell you truly, I was not prepared for the response!
Certainly not for a lousy dollar!

When all the bowing and scraping an the kissing of hands (!) was over, Ants
explained to me that that one dollar bill would feed the fellow's family for
several weeks. Hard currency verses Rubles...

At the time, the OFFICIAL exchange rate was tied to the English Pound -
$1.65 per Pound, so $1.65 per Rubel (now 0.0328 US dollars).

But common Rubles don't buy much in Russia. Nor anywhere else.

THAT'S where we are headed, my friends.
That's the great abyss.
Our valuable Greenbacks turning into Monopoly money!

So the real question is - what will the "hard currency" of the future be?

Yen? Yuan? Pesos??? Or toilet paper and Tampons????

Considering that ob Tampons are now out of production and going for nearly
$40 a box... well....

Like I said before, Karl, I have no clue.
(nor do I believe anyone else does either!)


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

On 2010-12-25, CaveLamb wrote:
Ignoramus4253 wrote:
On 2010-12-24, Karl Townsend wrote:
Richard pretty well sums up my view of our situation.

I'm near retirement and have a fairly good amount of savings. But I
feel paralyzed as to where to put it. I've lost all confidence in the
stock market. I'm told bonds are over bought and will collapse when
interest rates take off. I've got too much hid under the mattress and
more guns, gold, and machine tools than I should have. I'd rather not
spend my final decade or so on this planet in total poverty.

What should a prudent small guy do?


Karl, I have most of my money (besides the house, of course) in
stocks. I have no idea what they will do next, but their earnings
yield is much more favorable than bond yields.

...

I have no idea what gold will do, but definitely count me out of that
party.

i


I could be wrong, but I don't think that was the question Karl was asking.

He seems to be in good shape as far as pieces of green paper go.

I suspect the question he was asking, the question we should ALL be asking
is - how to keep from losing value.

That was the question that I was answering.

If I own a small chunk of the American industry, it will continue
getting paid dividends even if the currency devalues. As long as I am
not overpaying, I should do okay over time.

Also, keep in mind that the bond market does not expect anything as
dire as what Tom Gardner is prognosticating. Time will tell if the
bond market or Tom is right, but I expect the outcome to be somewhere
in the middle between them.

Or what will be valuable when green isn't?



In 1988 my ex (C, a chemistry professor) and I visited Tallinn (Estonia)
(I've probably mentioned that before).

One of the things that stands out in my memory was something that happened
in Tallinn in a "coffee shop" where my friend, Ants, took us for coffee and
brandy after a tour of the "old city".

Beautiful place, by the way...

It was kind of an artsy place - a lot of beatnik looking people sitting around
smoking Slavic cigarettes and listening to old American Jazz.
Thelonious Monk - in Russia?!!? Far out!

While we were talking and sipping a very good cognac one of the more
artistically inclined denizens drew a portrait of yours truly! It was on
newsprint - about 3' x 4' and while in purple pastel, it was otherwise very good
likeness.

When he presented it to me, I told Ants that I guessed the gratuity should be
in proportion to my ego? Ants smiled and nodded, so I gave the kid a dollar.

I'll tell you truly, I was not prepared for the response!
Certainly not for a lousy dollar!

When all the bowing and scraping an the kissing of hands (!) was over, Ants
explained to me that that one dollar bill would feed the fellow's family for
several weeks. Hard currency verses Rubles...

At the time, the OFFICIAL exchange rate was tied to the English Pound -
$1.65 per Pound, so $1.65 per Rubel (now 0.0328 US dollars).

But common Rubles don't buy much in Russia. Nor anywhere else.

THAT'S where we are headed, my friends.
That's the great abyss.
Our valuable Greenbacks turning into Monopoly money!

So the real question is - what will the "hard currency" of the future be?

Yen? Yuan? Pesos??? Or toilet paper and Tampons????

Considering that ob Tampons are now out of production and going for nearly
$40 a box... well....

Like I said before, Karl, I have no clue.
(nor do I believe anyone else does either!)



Interesting story.

i

THAT'S where we are headed, my friends.
That's the great abyss.
Our valuable Greenbacks turning into Monopoly money!

So the real question is - what will the "hard currency" of the future be?

Yen? Yuan? Pesos??? Or toilet paper and Tampons????

Considering that ob Tampons are now out of production and going for nearly
$40 a box... well....

Like I said before, Karl, I have no clue.
(nor do I believe anyone else does either!)



Interesting story.

i

Yep, Iggy is right, a prudent move for my investments at this time
would be from 60/40 bond/stock to maybe 20/80 bond/stock.

But, that's just for while things stay normal. Our economy is a house
of cards. I don't know when, but sooner than later seems likely, a
couple of cards holding the whole pile up are going to be kicked out.
Then my protfolio don't mean jack s#$%.

Karl

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 18:13:37 -0600, Ignoramus4253
wrote:

On 2010-12-24, wrote:
On Dec 24, 5:09?pm, Karl Townsend
wrote:

What should a prudent small guy do?

Karl

If you want specific advice , look at the following mutual funds. And
do not put all your money in just one fund.

VEIEX , VMGIX, VISGX, VFSVX, and VFINX.

Dan

My kids UTMA accounts are in VFINX. (part is in other stock funds).

Vanguard is one of the VERY few honest financial enterprises, that is,
not out to get me when I am not looking.

If I had enough savings to live on dividends from stocks, I would be
very comfortable having almost all my net worth in stocks, AT THE
CURRENT PRICES. If stocks rise in price and are again recommended as a
sure way to be wealthy, then I would, out of contrarian reasons, bail
out.

i

Agreed, all my retirement is in Vanguard. I hope you're right, you
have a far more optimistic view of the future.

Karl

"Karl Townsend" wrote in message
...

THAT'S where we are headed, my friends.
That's the great abyss.
Our valuable Greenbacks turning into Monopoly money!

So the real question is - what will the "hard currency" of the future
be?

Yen? Yuan? Pesos??? Or toilet paper and Tampons????

Considering that ob Tampons are now out of production and going for
nearly
$40 a box... well....

Like I said before, Karl, I have no clue.
(nor do I believe anyone else does either!)



Interesting story.

i

Yep, Iggy is right, a prudent move for my investments at this time
would be from 60/40 bond/stock to maybe 20/80 bond/stock.

But, that's just for while things stay normal. Our economy is a house
of cards. I don't know when, but sooner than later seems likely, a
couple of cards holding the whole pile up are going to be kicked out.
Then my protfolio don't mean jack s#$%.

Karl


Actually, I do believe that America won't just go quietly into the night.
We have the capacity that when we reach a certain point that people will
roll-up their sleeves, cast aside the people and the policies that are
destructive and get back to the core values that made America great. But,
in the mean time, a lot of wealth will disappear. Kind of like hitting the
"Reset" button on your computer and running an AV program, that last ten
minutes of the spreadsheet and Word document will be gone, a total waste of
time. All that has to happen is for America to come to the realization that
Socialism is a bad idea and doesn't work. Depending on how long that takes
is the key to how much suffering will happen.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:20:29 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


Yep, Iggy is right, a prudent move for my investments at this time
would be from 60/40 bond/stock to maybe 20/80 bond/stock.

But, that's just for while things stay normal. Our economy is a house
of cards. I don't know when, but sooner than later seems likely, a
couple of cards holding the whole pile up are going to be kicked out.
Then my protfolio don't mean jack s#$%.

Karl


Actually, I do believe that America won't just go quietly into the night.
We have the capacity that when we reach a certain point that people will
roll-up their sleeves, cast aside the people and the policies that are
destructive and get back to the core values that made America great. But,
in the mean time, a lot of wealth will disappear. Kind of like hitting the
"Reset" button on your computer and running an AV program, that last ten
minutes of the spreadsheet and Word document will be gone, a total waste of
time. All that has to happen is for America to come to the realization that
Socialism is a bad idea and doesn't work. Depending on how long that takes
is the key to how much suffering will happen.


And that brings us directly to the Great Cull......


Top 10 Democrat Party Slogans

10. Bitterly clinging to aborton and taxes
9. We didnt destroy your freedoms, you can
visit them at the Smithstonian
8. If you want us to listen to your opinion, move to Europ
7. Someday none of this will be yours
6. We can't tax terrorism, so who cares?
5. Please don't vote us out!! None of us can hold a real job!
4. Why the Founding Fathers limited Government:
Racism!
3. Reducing America's carbon footprint, one job at a time.
2. America: We just cant wait to see how it ends!!
1. Making everything in this country free, except you.

On 2010-12-25, Karl Townsend wrote:

THAT'S where we are headed, my friends.
That's the great abyss.
Our valuable Greenbacks turning into Monopoly money!

So the real question is - what will the "hard currency" of the future be?

Yen? Yuan? Pesos??? Or toilet paper and Tampons????

Considering that ob Tampons are now out of production and going for nearly
$40 a box... well....

Like I said before, Karl, I have no clue.
(nor do I believe anyone else does either!)



Interesting story.

i

Yep, Iggy is right, a prudent move for my investments at this time
would be from 60/40 bond/stock to maybe 20/80 bond/stock.

But, that's just for while things stay normal. Our economy is a house
of cards. I don't know when, but sooner than later seems likely, a
couple of cards holding the whole pile up are going to be kicked out.
Then my protfolio don't mean jack s#$%.

Besides having money in mutual funds and other stocks, I have a
relatively large part of assets in Berkshire Hathaway. I have long
been a big admirer of Warren Buffett specifically. He thinks that the
United States has a great way of "unlocking human potential" and that
our economic future is very bright. His company plunked down 35
billion dollars to buy a railroad, a year ago.

I think that the United States is by far the best country to immigrate
to, because of its respect of human life, tolerance, and rule of law.

I am also optimistic about our future, but not necessarily about the
dollar exchange rate.

When I buy stocks, I do not tink as much about what will happen to
their prices tomorrow, as I think about the stream of earnings that I
will earn pro-rata.

I have no crystal ball, myself, and always been extra wary of
inflation, but the bond market does not take that possibility too
seriously.

Nevertheless, I own some put options on TLT (long term treasury ETF),
that would rise in price if interest rates soar and bonds take a
plunge. On balance, I would not become much richer if that happened,
just less poorer.

To me, there is not much difference between questions "how to make
money" and "how not to lose money", to me it is the same. If I can
find something cheap, I buy it, otherwise I do not. As I said, prior
to 2008, I had most of my money and my retirement money in money market.

The risk, to me, is all about how much I pay. If I buy two 30 lb rolls
of Techallow 622 Inconel MIG wire for $40 each, there is not much
risk. If I buy a Bridgeport CNC mill in unknown condition for $500,
there is also not much risk. Similarly, if I buy stocks at 10-14 P/E,
the risk is also not huge and the money making potential is good.

I have never chased the latest market fashions and that has a nice
effect of keeping the risk down somewhat. Everything perceived to be
safe, or popular, has its price bid up to the extent that the risk is
just too much.

I know full well that in many financial circles, risk is understood as
volatility, I studies this in business school and I disagree with that
approach wholeheartedly. The risk in paying too much for something
that is not worth it.

i

On Dec 24, 6:43*pm, " wrote:

What should a prudent small guy do?

Karl

If you want specific advice , look at the following mutual funds. *And
do not put all your money in just one fund.

VEIEX Emerging Markets
VMGIX Mid Cap Growth
VISGX Small Cap Growth
VFSVX All World Small Cap
VFINX S & P index

I added the names of the mutual funds. You might note that two of
these funds are for stocks that are not US stocks. So might be okay
if only the US goes TU.

Dan

In article ,
Ignoramus4804 wrote:

[snip]
When I buy stocks, I do not tink as much about what will happen to
their prices tomorrow, as I think about the stream of earnings that I
will earn pro-rata.

I have no crystal ball, myself, and always been extra wary of
inflation, but the bond market does not take that possibility too
seriously.

Nevertheless, I own some put options on TLT (long term treasury ETF),
that would rise in price if interest rates soar and bonds take a
plunge. On balance, I would not become much richer if that happened,
just less poorer.

To me, there is not much difference between questions "how to make
money" and "how not to lose money", to me it is the same. If I can
find something cheap, I buy it, otherwise I do not. As I said, prior
to 2008, I had most of my money and my retirement money in money market.

The risk, to me, is all about how much I pay. If I buy two 30 lb rolls
of Techallow 622 Inconel MIG wire for $40 each, there is not much
risk. If I buy a Bridgeport CNC mill in unknown condition for $500,
there is also not much risk. Similarly, if I buy stocks at 10-14 P/E,
the risk is also not huge and the money making potential is good.

I have never chased the latest market fashions and that has a nice
effect of keeping the risk down somewhat. Everything perceived to be
safe, or popular, has its price bid up to the extent that the risk is
just too much.

I know full well that in many financial circles, risk is understood as
volatility, I studies this in business school and I disagree with that
approach wholeheartedly. The risk in paying too much for something
that is not worth it.

Actually, it's both.

The theory is that first one eliminates the dogs, so what remains is the
behavior of what remains. The more the stock (or industry) in question
varies, the more risk if one is somehow forced to sell at an awkward
moment, but the more money one can make if one can afford to be patient.

Part of this patience is exactly your approach of not overpaying.

This is old hat. The classic book is "The Intelligent Investor: A Book
of Practical Counsel" by Benjamin Graham. First published in 1934 and
still in print, the most recent edition having an endorsement from
Warren Buffet.

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-In...Counsel/dp/006
0155477

-- But, where are the investor's yachts?

Joe Gwinn

On 12/24/2010 4:25 AM, wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:08 am, wrote:

History has already shown that is a dumb idea. If you knew what happens
when the rich can do what they please with their estates you would know
better. But you clearly don't know what the danger of unlimited passing
of wealth from one generation to the next brings with it. Learn some
history. Your opinion won't be as ignorant if you do.

Hawke

That is the Democratic line. Have you ever been in a public library?

From Wiki

A Carnegie library is a library built with money donated by Scottish-
American businessman and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. More than
2,500 Carnegie libraries were built, including some belonging to
public and university library systems.

Of the 2,509 such libraries funded between 1883 and 1929, 1,689 were
built in the United States, 660 in Britain and Ireland, 125 in Canada,
and others in Australia, New Zealand, Serbia, the Caribbean, and Fiji.
[citation needed] Very few towns that requested a grant and agreed to
his terms were refused. When the last grant was made in 1919, there
were 3,500 libraries in the United States, nearly half of them built
with construction grants paid by Carnegie.[citation needed]

Dan


Of course I know about Carnegie, he was one of the world's greatest
philanthropists. But do you know about the history of the wealthy in
England? Do you know what primogeniture and entail are? Suffice it to
say that allowing the passing of great wealth from one generation to the
next creates dynasties. It also gives great power to the families of
great wealth. There are all kinds of negative effects that happen when
you allow the wealthy to pass on great estates to children who are
simply lucky by birth. We don't need those kinds of problems here. We
already have plenty. Try looking into the subject and you will find why
America never wanted dynasties or aristocracies that are created when
you pass on great estates. It's a bad thing. I'm just surprised that so
many people don't know the dangers associated with it.

Hawke

On 12/24/2010 7:30 PM, CaveLamb wrote:
Ignoramus4253 wrote:
On 2010-12-24, Karl Townsend wrote:
Richard pretty well sums up my view of our situation.

I'm near retirement and have a fairly good amount of savings. But I
feel paralyzed as to where to put it. I've lost all confidence in the
stock market. I'm told bonds are over bought and will collapse when
interest rates take off. I've got too much hid under the mattress and
more guns, gold, and machine tools than I should have. I'd rather not
spend my final decade or so on this planet in total poverty.

What should a prudent small guy do?


Karl, I have most of my money (besides the house, of course) in
stocks. I have no idea what they will do next, but their earnings
yield is much more favorable than bond yields.

...

I have no idea what gold will do, but definitely count me out of that
party.

i


I could be wrong, but I don't think that was the question Karl was asking.

He seems to be in good shape as far as pieces of green paper go.

I suspect the question he was asking, the question we should ALL be asking
is - how to keep from losing value.

Or what will be valuable when green isn't?



In 1988 my ex (C, a chemistry professor) and I visited Tallinn (Estonia)
(I've probably mentioned that before).

One of the things that stands out in my memory was something that happened
in Tallinn in a "coffee shop" where my friend, Ants, took us for coffee and
brandy after a tour of the "old city".

Beautiful place, by the way...

It was kind of an artsy place - a lot of beatnik looking people sitting
around
smoking Slavic cigarettes and listening to old American Jazz.
Thelonious Monk - in Russia?!!? Far out!

While we were talking and sipping a very good cognac one of the more
artistically inclined denizens drew a portrait of yours truly! It was on
newsprint - about 3' x 4' and while in purple pastel, it was otherwise
very good likeness.

When he presented it to me, I told Ants that I guessed the gratuity
should be
in proportion to my ego? Ants smiled and nodded, so I gave the kid a
dollar.

I'll tell you truly, I was not prepared for the response!
Certainly not for a lousy dollar!

When all the bowing and scraping an the kissing of hands (!) was over, Ants
explained to me that that one dollar bill would feed the fellow's family
for
several weeks. Hard currency verses Rubles...

At the time, the OFFICIAL exchange rate was tied to the English Pound -
$1.65 per Pound, so $1.65 per Rubel (now 0.0328 US dollars).

But common Rubles don't buy much in Russia. Nor anywhere else.

THAT'S where we are headed, my friends.
That's the great abyss.
Our valuable Greenbacks turning into Monopoly money!

So the real question is - what will the "hard currency" of the future be?

Yen? Yuan? Pesos??? Or toilet paper and Tampons????

Considering that ob Tampons are now out of production and going for nearly
$40 a box... well....

Like I said before, Karl, I have no clue.
(nor do I believe anyone else does either!)



Man! I don't believe in you people. You're like a bunch of scalded dogs.
Yap, yap, yap, is all I hear all the time about how great America is.
Greatest country in the world. Greatest country of all time. Best
people, most exceptional people in the world. Then I hear all this ****
and it amazes me.

The Chinese don't seem to be that worried about America. They're putting
billions to work here. Neither do all the investors all over the world
who are buying stock in American companies, which happen to be making
money hand over fist. The stock market is way up, business profits are
way up, the rich are spending like crazy, and even unemployment is
slowly declining. And you people sound like you have no confidence in
America at all. Oh, woe is me. What am I to do? I only live in America
and it's so bad here. If you want to know what to do look at what the
rich are doing. They are spending and investing here. The outlook for
next year is good. As they say in investing the experts are bullish.
They see a good 2011. Too bad all you folks think otherwise. Of course,
the masses are always missing the boat.

Hawke

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:20:03 -0600, Ignoramus29073
wrote:

On 2010-12-22, Tom Gardner wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple wealth
redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children.

WITHIN one family.


If both parents and children are productive persons, then
inheritance is distributing wealth from productive persons to
prductive. If the children are not productive, then inheritance means
distributing wealth from productive to unproductive.

If the children are productive, the gov't gets more tax money from the
money they make with the inheritance. If they kids are not, the gov't
gets sales tax from the things they buy while squandering the money.
Why the hell should they get any more than either of those two tax
situations?


Productive is a big word, too. I am productive when it comes to
computer programming. If, hypothetically, my parents owned a large
farm, then I would not be a productive owner of said farm. If I did
not sell it, the hypothetical farm would probably decline.

If you inherited a productive farm, think what you could do with the
money from it. Perhaps a start-up software company? Win/Win.

If they tax the **** out of the farm you just inherited, you'd have to
sell off the working parts to pay the taxes. The result is a loss to
society (dead farm), a loss of income to you, a loss of jobe and
income to the workers you just fired, and a tax income for the gov't.

Which of those two scenarios best benefits our country and its people?
(If you say "the second", we can write you off right now.)


On balance, based on my economics education, I think that auctioning
off a part of an estate to the highest bidder, leads to more
productive use of the property than passing wholly to children, who
are essentially random persons (winners of the ovarian lottery) when
it comes to managing property.

Did you inherit money, Ig? If so, did you pay death taxes on it?
I'd be willing to bet that Yes/no are the respective answers.


Since taking 100% of the wealth at death is a too big deterrent to
saving, the golden middle probably lies somewhere in between taxing
all and taxing nothing. Personally, I think that the fairest tax is
somewhere under 50%, but close, I would settle on 45%.

Regular people, like you and me (yes I have seen your factory on
google maps and go to such factory auctions often), are not impacted by
current thresholds of estate taxes. Those somewhat above the
threshold, can do a lot to reduce their estate tax bill.

I believe in much smaller gov't -instead- of taxing the **** out of
the productive members of society, thank you.

--
Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:17:19 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined with
poor planning. Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in
general, I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes
of the unproductive leaches on society. Why not make the tax voluntary?
All liberals can donate all their wealth and that would offset conservatives
helping their families.

Perfection!

--
Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.

On Dec 25, 11:38*pm, Hawke wrote:

Man! I don't believe in you people. You're like a bunch of scalded dogs.
Yap, yap, yap, is all I hear all the time about how great America is.
Greatest country in the world. Greatest country of all time. Best
people, most exceptional people in the world. Then I hear all this ****
and it amazes me.

The Chinese don't seem to be that worried about America. They're putting
billions to work here. Neither do all the investors all over the world
who are buying stock in American companies, which happen to be making
money hand over fist. The stock market is way up, business profits are
way up, the rich are spending like crazy, and even unemployment is
slowly declining. And you people sound like you have no confidence in
America at all. Oh, woe is me. What am I to do? I only live in America
and it's so bad here. If you want to know what to do look at what the
rich are doing. They are spending and investing here. The outlook for
next year is good. As they say in investing the experts are bullish.
They see a good 2011. Too bad all you folks think otherwise. Of course,
the masses are always missing the boat.

Hawke

So tell us where you are investing. DId you invest in California real
estate when everyone was so bullish? Or did you have a little
caution. I am bullish on stocks, but think it is worthwhile to try to
imagine what will be a good investment if there is a real depression.

Dan

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:17:19 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined with
poor planning. Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in
general, I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes
of the unproductive leaches on society. Why not make the tax voluntary?
All liberals can donate all their wealth and that would offset
conservatives
helping their families.

Perfection!

--
Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.

How come you never hear about liberals trying to help themselves in ways
other than giving themselves money that they confiscate from productive
people? They keep their lower echelons in a state of perpetual dependence.
Those people then have to vote Democrat in order to keep the hand-outs
coming, they have no choice because their options have been eliminated.

On 12/26/2010 11:11 AM, LibtardStupid wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:17:19 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined with
poor planning. Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in
general, I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes
of the unproductive leaches on society. Why not make the tax voluntary?
All liberals can donate all their wealth and that would offset
conservatives
helping their families.

Perfection!

--
Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.

How come you never hear about liberals trying to help themselves in ways
other than giving themselves money that they confiscate from productive
people? They keep their lower echelons in a state of perpetual dependence.
Those people then have to vote Democrat in order to keep the hand-outs
coming, they have no choice because their options have been eliminated.



I must be a liberal - at least I consider the hatred that passes as
"conservative" to be just that, stupid hate speech, so that must make me
liberal - I have worked all my live, never accepted public funds, paid
my own way through universities, paid cash for my cars, my house is paid
for, I donate to charities, I have multiple patents, a long list of
published articles, equipment that I designed operating world wide.
Now, tell us EXACTLY AND PRECISELY what I "confiscated from productive
people", and tell us why I am not productive. If you cannot do that,
you prove to the world that you are just a lying troll

On 12/26/2010 11:11 AM, LibtardStupid wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:17:19 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined with
poor planning. Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in
general, I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes
of the unproductive leaches on society. Why not make the tax voluntary?
All liberals can donate all their wealth and that would offset
conservatives
helping their families.

Perfection!

--
Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.

How come you never hear about liberals trying to help themselves in ways
other than giving themselves money that they confiscate from productive
people? They keep their lower echelons in a state of perpetual dependence.
Those people then have to vote Democrat in order to keep the hand-outs
coming, they have no choice because their options have been eliminated.


How come you don't know that the most productive people are the
liberals. They have the best educations, the best jobs, and make the
most money. So it seems pretty strange that the most productive people
are the most willing to share it with the downtrodden. Maybe it's
because they are the best people too. Not like conservatives who only
think of themselves and don't want to share with anyone who can't make
it on their own. Funny so many of those people think they are
Christians. Because they sure don't act like them. If Jesus actually
came back he'd punish the conservatives and reward the liberals for
following his teachings.

Hawke

On 12/26/2010 6:48 AM, wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:38 pm, wrote:

Man! I don't believe in you people. You're like a bunch of scalded dogs.
Yap, yap, yap, is all I hear all the time about how great America is.
Greatest country in the world. Greatest country of all time. Best
people, most exceptional people in the world. Then I hear all this ****
and it amazes me.

The Chinese don't seem to be that worried about America. They're putting
billions to work here. Neither do all the investors all over the world
who are buying stock in American companies, which happen to be making
money hand over fist. The stock market is way up, business profits are
way up, the rich are spending like crazy, and even unemployment is
slowly declining. And you people sound like you have no confidence in
America at all. Oh, woe is me. What am I to do? I only live in America
and it's so bad here. If you want to know what to do look at what the
rich are doing. They are spending and investing here. The outlook for
next year is good. As they say in investing the experts are bullish.
They see a good 2011. Too bad all you folks think otherwise. Of course,
the masses are always missing the boat.

Hawke

So tell us where you are investing. DId you invest in California real
estate when everyone was so bullish? Or did you have a little
caution. I am bullish on stocks, but think it is worthwhile to try to
imagine what will be a good investment if there is a real depression.

Dan

We just had a real close shave with a depression. Barely missed it,
really. But that is over now and almost all the economic indicators are
positive. Polls of American CEOs show they are almost universally
bullish and expect good things coming. The two areas that still suck are
housing and unemployment. Both of them are going to be real long in
fixing. But aside from them most everything is doing well. Look at the
base metals. Copper is at an all time high and is a good indicator of
economic activity. China has been buying all the copper. When copper is
up it means the economy is growing. Experts predict that growth will be
pretty good in the U.S. Pretty much everywhere I look I see positive
signs. It's not perfect by any means but things are much better and are
gradually moving in the right direction.

I do own a piece of real estate in California but it is an unusual
property and didn't see much of a decline in value. I was lucky there.
Not so lucky with my other investments. My other investments took a big
hit. They probably had a 30 percent decline in value, which hurt! But it
has come back a lot now with the market back in the mid 11 thousand
range. I also just saw the the professional fund managers are
reallocating their holdings from over weighted in bonds and are moving
back into stocks. They are going to a 65 percent stock to 35 percent
fixed and other investments. Today I heard that this Christmas was the
best for retailers since 1999. I think now is a very good time to
invest, even in real estate. Buy low sell high. Funny how so many folks
get that backwards. Don't do that if you want to get ahead. Also plan
for the future not just a year or two ahead. Invest in the long term,
buy stock in good solid companies with good earnings and ones that make
half of their money overseas. American companies are making great
profits. Buy them.

"another anonymous poster" wrote in message
...
On 12/26/2010 11:11 AM, LibtardStupid wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:17:19 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined
with
poor planning. Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But
in
general, I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the
votes
of the unproductive leaches on society. Why not make the tax
voluntary?
All liberals can donate all their wealth and that would offset
conservatives
helping their families.

Perfection!

--
Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.

How come you never hear about liberals trying to help themselves in ways
other than giving themselves money that they confiscate from productive
people? They keep their lower echelons in a state of perpetual
dependence.
Those people then have to vote Democrat in order to keep the hand-outs
coming, they have no choice because their options have been eliminated.



I must be a liberal - at least I consider the hatred that passes as
"conservative" to be just that, stupid hate speech, so that must make me
liberal - I have worked all my live, never accepted public funds, paid my
own way through universities, paid cash for my cars, my house is paid for,
I donate to charities, I have multiple patents, a long list of published
articles, equipment that I designed operating world wide. Now, tell us
EXACTLY AND PRECISELY what I "confiscated from productive people", and
tell us why I am not productive. If you cannot do that, you prove to the
world that you are just a lying troll

Did you vote for the people that perpetuate keeping the lower end of society
in their place in order to maintain their power base? The only "hate
speech" I have is for the manipulators of those less fortunate. Since YOU
voted those people into power, you share the responsibility of their
actions.

On Dec 27, 1:12*am, Hawke wrote:




How come you don't know that the most productive people are the
liberals. They have the best educations, the best jobs, and make the
most money. So it seems pretty strange that the most productive people
are the most willing to share it with the downtrodden. Maybe it's
because they are the best people too. Not like conservatives who only
think of themselves and don't want to share with anyone who can't make
it on their own. Funny so many of those people think they are
Christians. Because they sure don't act like them. If Jesus actually
came back he'd punish the conservatives and reward the liberals for
following his teachings.

Hawke

Actually studies have found that those that want the government to
help poor people do not contribute as much to charity as those that
think of themselves as conservatives. If Jesus came back, he would
castigate the liberals and praise the conservatives. Or at least that
is what I think Jesus would do. I think of him as a forgiving god.

Dan

wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:12*am, Hawke wrote:

How come you don't know that the most productive people are the
liberals. They have the best educations, the best jobs, and make the
most money. So it seems pretty strange that the most productive people
are the most willing to share it with the downtrodden. Maybe it's
because they are the best people too. Not like conservatives who only
think of themselves and don't want to share with anyone who can't make
it on their own. Funny so many of those people think they are
Christians. Because they sure don't act like them. If Jesus actually
came back he'd punish the conservatives and reward the liberals for
following his teachings.

Actually studies have found that those that want the government to
help poor people do not contribute as much to charity as those that
think of themselves as conservatives. If Jesus came back, he would
castigate the liberals and praise the conservatives. Or at least that
is what I think Jesus would do. I think of him as a forgiving god.

Howcome you keep feeding this troll?

Thanks,
Rich

On Dec 27, 8:01*am, Rich Grise wrote:

Howcome you keep feeding this troll?

Thanks,
Rich

I am not sure. He seems intelligent and yet he says things that are
known to be wrong. It could be the result of living in California.
His acquaintances probably believe everything he says is true.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 8:01 am, Rich Grise wrote:

Howcome you keep feeding this troll?

Thanks,
Rich

I am not sure. He seems intelligent and yet he says things that are
known to be wrong. It could be the result of living in California.
His acquaintances probably believe everything he says is true.

Dan

Libtard+internet=troll

On 2010-12-26, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus4804 wrote:

[snip]
When I buy stocks, I do not tink as much about what will happen to
their prices tomorrow, as I think about the stream of earnings that I
will earn pro-rata.

I have no crystal ball, myself, and always been extra wary of
inflation, but the bond market does not take that possibility too
seriously.

Nevertheless, I own some put options on TLT (long term treasury ETF),
that would rise in price if interest rates soar and bonds take a
plunge. On balance, I would not become much richer if that happened,
just less poorer.

To me, there is not much difference between questions "how to make
money" and "how not to lose money", to me it is the same. If I can
find something cheap, I buy it, otherwise I do not. As I said, prior
to 2008, I had most of my money and my retirement money in money market.

The risk, to me, is all about how much I pay. If I buy two 30 lb rolls
of Techallow 622 Inconel MIG wire for $40 each, there is not much
risk. If I buy a Bridgeport CNC mill in unknown condition for $500,
there is also not much risk. Similarly, if I buy stocks at 10-14 P/E,
the risk is also not huge and the money making potential is good.

I have never chased the latest market fashions and that has a nice
effect of keeping the risk down somewhat. Everything perceived to be
safe, or popular, has its price bid up to the extent that the risk is
just too much.

I know full well that in many financial circles, risk is understood as
volatility, I studies this in business school and I disagree with that
approach wholeheartedly. The risk in paying too much for something
that is not worth it.

Actually, it's both.

The theory is that first one eliminates the dogs, so what remains is the
behavior of what remains. The more the stock (or industry) in question
varies, the more risk if one is somehow forced to sell at an awkward
moment, but the more money one can make if one can afford to be patient.

Part of this patience is exactly your approach of not overpaying.

This is old hat. The classic book is "The Intelligent Investor: A Book
of Practical Counsel" by Benjamin Graham. First published in 1934 and
still in print, the most recent edition having an endorsement from
Warren Buffet.

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-In...Counsel/dp/006
0155477

-- But, where are the investor's yachts?

Joe Gwinn

I am a big fan of the ideas espoused in Intelligent Investor.

i

In article ,
Ignoramus24647 wrote:

On 2010-12-26, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus4804 wrote:

[snip]
When I buy stocks, I do not tink as much about what will happen to
their prices tomorrow, as I think about the stream of earnings that I
will earn pro-rata.

I have no crystal ball, myself, and always been extra wary of
inflation, but the bond market does not take that possibility too
seriously.

Nevertheless, I own some put options on TLT (long term treasury ETF),
that would rise in price if interest rates soar and bonds take a
plunge. On balance, I would not become much richer if that happened,
just less poorer.

To me, there is not much difference between questions "how to make
money" and "how not to lose money", to me it is the same. If I can
find something cheap, I buy it, otherwise I do not. As I said, prior
to 2008, I had most of my money and my retirement money in money market.

The risk, to me, is all about how much I pay. If I buy two 30 lb rolls
of Techallow 622 Inconel MIG wire for $40 each, there is not much
risk. If I buy a Bridgeport CNC mill in unknown condition for $500,
there is also not much risk. Similarly, if I buy stocks at 10-14 P/E,
the risk is also not huge and the money making potential is good.

I have never chased the latest market fashions and that has a nice
effect of keeping the risk down somewhat. Everything perceived to be
safe, or popular, has its price bid up to the extent that the risk is
just too much.

I know full well that in many financial circles, risk is understood as
volatility, I studies this in business school and I disagree with that
approach wholeheartedly. The risk in paying too much for something
that is not worth it.

Actually, it's both.

The theory is that first one eliminates the dogs, so what remains is the
behavior of what remains. The more the stock (or industry) in question
varies, the more risk if one is somehow forced to sell at an awkward
moment, but the more money one can make if one can afford to be patient.

Part of this patience is exactly your approach of not overpaying.

This is old hat. The classic book is "The Intelligent Investor: A Book
of Practical Counsel" by Benjamin Graham. First published in 1934 and
still in print, the most recent edition having an endorsement from
Warren Buffet.

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-In...Counsel/dp/006
0155477

-- But, where are the investor's yachts?

Joe Gwinn

I am a big fan of the ideas espoused in Intelligent Investor.

I suspected as much. You are now knighted a Contrarian.

May the House of Igor prosper.


Joe Gwinn

On 2010-12-29, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-In...Counsel/dp/006
0155477
Joe Gwinn

I am a big fan of the ideas espoused in Intelligent Investor.

I suspected as much. You are now knighted a Contrarian.

May the House of Igor prosper.

And same to you, too. Being a contrarian, lowers the risk, as the
riskiest thing to do is to do what everyone else is doing.

i

Ignoramus24647 wrote:
On 2010-12-29, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-In...Counsel/dp/006
0155477
Joe Gwinn
I am a big fan of the ideas espoused in Intelligent Investor.
I suspected as much. You are now knighted a Contrarian.

May the House of Igor prosper.

And same to you, too. Being a contrarian, lowers the risk, as the
riskiest thing to do is to do what everyone else is doing.

i


Worked (big time, I mean BIG BIG TIME) for Michael Lewis!

See "The Big Short"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short

All he did was what the Ratings people were supposed to be doing.
For about 3 years, IIRC.

All you have to do is figure out where people are playing follow-the-leader
in a bubble buildup.

And bet against them.



{From Wiki}

The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine is a 2010 non-fiction book by Michael
Lewis about the build-up of the housing and credit bubble during the 2000s. It
describes several of the key players in the creation of the credit default swap
market that sought to bet against the bubble and thus ended up profiting from
the financial crisis of 2007–2010. The book also highlights the eccentric nature
of the type of person who bets against the market or goes against the grain. The
work follows people who believed the bubble was going to burst, like Meredith
Whitney, who predicted the demise of Citigroup and Bear Stearns; Steve Eisman,
an anti-social hedge fund manager; Greg Lippmann, a Deutsche Bank trader that
created the first CDS market by matching buyers and sellers; the founders of
Cornwall Capital, who started a hedge fund in their garage with $100,000 and
built it into $120 million when the market crashed; and Dr. Michael Burry, an
ex-neurologist who created Scion Capital despite suffering from blindness in one
eye and Asperger syndrome[1]. The book also highlights some of the biggest
losses created by the market crash: like Merrill's $300 million mezzanine CDO
manager Wing Chau; Howie Hubler, infamously known as the person who lost $9
billion in one trade, the largest single loss in history; and Joseph Cassano's
AIG Financial Products, which suffered over $99 billion in losses .

It does not discuss much about John Paulson, a founder and president of Paulson
& Co., a New York-based hedge fund that made $15 billion dollars in one year.

It was shortlisted for the 2010 Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book
of the Year Award. It spent 28 weeks on the New York Times non-fiction
bestseller list.


And an interesting read as well (Richard)
--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

(I seem to be making a habit of following up my own posts?)
(I hate when that happens!)


Ms Barnett-Hart's thesis - itself...
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/st...DOmeltdown.pdf


From WSJ Blogs...
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/03/1...hesis-instead/


Michael Lewis’s ‘The Big Short’? Read the Harvard Thesis Instead!

Last October, Barnett-Hart, already pulling all-nighters at the bank (we agreed
to not name her employer), received a call from Lewis, who had heard about her
thesis from a Harvard doctoral student. Lewis was blown away.

“It was a classic example of the innocent going to Wall Street and asking the
right questions,” said Mr. Lewis, who in his 20s wrote “Liar’s Poker,”
considered a defining book on Wall Street culture. “Her thesis shows there were
ways to discover things that everyone should have wanted to know. That it took a
22-year-old Harvard student to find them out is just outrageous.”

On 2010-12-29, CaveLamb wrote:
Ignoramus24647 wrote:
On 2010-12-29, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-In...Counsel/dp/006
0155477
Joe Gwinn
I am a big fan of the ideas espoused in Intelligent Investor.
I suspected as much. You are now knighted a Contrarian.

May the House of Igor prosper.

And same to you, too. Being a contrarian, lowers the risk, as the
riskiest thing to do is to do what everyone else is doing.

i


Worked (big time, I mean BIG BIG TIME) for Michael Lewis!

See "The Big Short"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short

All he did was what the Ratings people were supposed to be doing.
For about 3 years, IIRC.

Michael Lewis wrote a great book about it. He did not speculate on
housing market. The book is most educational and well written.

All you have to do is figure out where people are playing follow-the-leader
in a bubble buildup.

And bet against them.

While this is true, I personally no longer, ever, sell anything short,
regardless of how smart it seems to be. I consider the risk, and
heartburn, form short selling, to make it not worth it.

i

Ignoramus24647 wrote:

Michael Lewis wrote a great book about it. He did not speculate on
housing market. The book is most educational and well written.

Sorry Ig, You are right on.
It was "about" Michael Burry...




All you have to do is figure out where people are playing follow-the-leader
in a bubble buildup.

And bet against them.

While this is true, I personally no longer, ever, sell anything short,
regardless of how smart it seems to be. I consider the risk, and
heartburn, form short selling, to make it not worth it.


But that's where the money is these days~!


i


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

John R. Carroll wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
Ignoramus24647 wrote:
Michael Lewis wrote a great book about it. He did not speculate on
housing market. The book is most educational and well written.
Sorry Ig, You are right on.
It was "about" Michael Burry...

Not really.
It's a collection of anecdotes.



True there were more involved.
But it didn't read like anecdotes...



--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

John R. Carroll wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
Ignoramus24647 wrote:
Michael Lewis wrote a great book about it. He did not speculate on
housing market. The book is most educational and well written.
Sorry Ig, You are right on.
It was "about" Michael Burry...
Not really.
It's a collection of anecdotes.


True there were more involved.
But it didn't read like anecdotes...

Add this to your reading list as well.
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson "Winner-Take-All Politics."



Thanks, John. Wilco

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb