My god this guy is such a commie
Absolutely ridiculous rant, small business owners work their asses off and have to deal with an ever increasing amount of red tape bullshit along with working against a stacked deck as the big corporations use their financial muscle to push policy
Reason jobs aren't coming back you idiot is because the downturn cleaned small businesses clocks "who didn't build that" while the big globalist government whore guys survived and went into extreme cost cutting measures to increase productivity to keep earnings afloat ...
-------------
Obama: 'If You've Got a Business, You Didn't Build That. Somebody Else Made That Happen'
By Susan Jones
July 16, 2012
Subscribe to Susan Jones's posts
****
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama, borrowing a line of thought from liberal Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren, says "wealthy, successful Americans" owe their success to others.
"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen," Obama said Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia.
His comments echo those made last year by Warren, who is challenging Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) for his U.S. Senate seat.
Warren told supporters last September, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
"You built a factory out there -- good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. Your hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.* You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.
"You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
Here's what Obama said Friday in Roanoke:
"Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own," he repeated.
"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.* There are a lot of smart people out there.* It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.* Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.* There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.* Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.* Somebody invested in roads and bridges.* If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.* Somebody else made that happen.* The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.* Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.* There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.* I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.* That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.* That’s how we funded the GI Bill.* That’s how we created the middle class.* That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.* That’s how we invented the Internet.* That’s how we sent a man to the moon.* We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea.* You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
Absolutely ridiculous rant, small business owners work their asses off and have to deal with an ever increasing amount of red tape bullshit along with working against a stacked deck as the big corporations use their financial muscle to push policy
Reason jobs aren't coming back you idiot is because the downturn cleaned small businesses clocks "who didn't build that" while the big globalist government whore guys survived and went into extreme cost cutting measures to increase productivity to keep earnings afloat ...
-------------
Obama: 'If You've Got a Business, You Didn't Build That. Somebody Else Made That Happen'
By Susan Jones
July 16, 2012
Subscribe to Susan Jones's posts
****
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama, borrowing a line of thought from liberal Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren, says "wealthy, successful Americans" owe their success to others.
"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen," Obama said Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia.
His comments echo those made last year by Warren, who is challenging Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) for his U.S. Senate seat.
Warren told supporters last September, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
"You built a factory out there -- good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. Your hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.* You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.
"You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
Here's what Obama said Friday in Roanoke:
"Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own," he repeated.
"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.* There are a lot of smart people out there.* It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.* Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.* There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.* Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.* Somebody invested in roads and bridges.* If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.* Somebody else made that happen.* The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.* Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.* There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.* I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.* That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.* That’s how we funded the GI Bill.* That’s how we created the middle class.* That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.* That’s how we invented the Internet.* That’s how we sent a man to the moon.* We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea.* You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
The "market" was all about fleecing the little guy, lets call him Elvis
Elvis has now left the building
So now they're all left twiddling their thumbs because there's no point in robbing your team mates
And unless the little guy continues to buy stuff there is no growth either
Intel issued a profits warning today, not good
Elvis has now left the building
So now they're all left twiddling their thumbs because there's no point in robbing your team mates
And unless the little guy continues to buy stuff there is no growth either
Intel issued a profits warning today, not good
http://azizonomics.com/2012/07/18/why-i-still-fear-inflation/
Why I Still Fear*Inflation
July 18, 2012
Aziz Economic History, Federal Reserve, Finance, Politics, Wall Street, War ASEAN, china, currency war, hillary clinton, joe biden, joe wiesenthal, mmt, obama, paul krugman, reality, romney, russia, steve keen, trade war, wen jiabao 20 Comments
Paul Krugman wonders why others worry about inflation when he sees no evidence of inflationary trends:
Joe Wiesenthal makes the well-known point that aside from certain euro area countries, yields on sovereign debt have plunged since 2007; investors are rushing to buy sovereign debt, not fleeing it. I was a bit surprised by his description of this insight as being non-”mainstream”; I guess it depends on your definition of mainstream. But surely the notion that what we have is largely a process of private-sector deleveraging, with government deficits the consequence of this process, and interest rates low because we have an excess of desired saving, is pretty widespread (and backed by a lot of*empirical evidence).
And there’s also a lot of discussion, which I’m ambivalent about, concerning the supposed shortage of safe assets; this is coming from bank research departments as well as academics, it’s a frequent topic on FT Alphaville, and so on. So Joe didn’t seem to me to be saying anything radical.
But those comments! It’s not just that the commenters disagree; they seem to regard Joe as some kind of space alien (or, for those who had the misfortune to see me on Squawk Box, a unicorn); they consider it just crazy and laughable to suggest that we aren’t facing an immense crisis of public deficits with Zimbabwe-style inflation just around the corner.
Krugman, of course, thinks it crazy and laughable that in the face of years of decreasing interest rates that anyone would believe that inflation could still be a menace. In fact, Krugman has made the point multiple times that more inflation would be a good thing, by decreasing the value of debt and thus allowing the private sector to deleverage a little quicker.
I remain convinced — even having watched Peter Schiff and Gonzalo Lira make incorrect inflationary projections — that there is exists the potential of significant inflationary problems in the medium and long term. Indeed, I believe elevated inflation is one of three roads out of where we are right now — the deleveraging trap.
In my worldview, this depression — although a multi-dimensional thing — has one cause above all others: too much total debt. Debt-as-a-percentage of GDP has grown significantly faster than productivity:
The deleveraging trap begins with the boom years: credit is created above and beyond the economy’s productive capacity. Incomes rise and prices rise above the rate of underlying productivity. And as the total debt level increases, more and more income that was once used for investment and consumption goes toward paying down debt and interest. This means that inflated asset prices become less and less sustainable, making the economy more and more susceptible to a downturn — wherein asset prices deflate, and the value of debt (relative to income) increases further. Under a non-interventionist regime, once the downturn occurs, this would result in credit freeze, mass default and liquidation, as occurred in 1907.
However, under an interventionist regime — like the modern Federal Reserve, or the Bank of Japan — the central bank steps in to lower rates and print money to support asset prices and bail out failed companies. This prevents the credit freeze, mass default, drastic deflation and liquidation. Unfortunately, it also sustains the debt load — following 2008, total debt remains over 350% of GDP. The easy money leads to a short cycle of expansion and growth, but the continued existence of the debt load means that consumers and businesses will still have to set aside a large part of their incomes to pay down debt. This means that any expansion will be short lived, and once the easy money begins to dry up, asset prices will again begin to deflate. The downward pressure on prices, spending and*investment*from the excessive debt load is huge, and requires sustained and significant central bank intervention to support asset prices and credit availability. The economy is put on life-support. Debt-as-a percentage of GDP may gradually fall (although in the Japanese example, this has not been the case) but progress is slow, and the debt load remains unsustainable.
A fundamental mistake is identifying the problem as one of aggregate demand, and not debt. Lowered aggregate demand is a*symptom of the deleveraging trap caused by excessive debt and unsustainable asset prices. The Fed — and advocates of greater Fed interventionism to support aggregate demand, like Krugman — are mostly advocating the treatment of*symptoms, not*causes.*And the treatment in this case my make the underlying causes worse —*quantitative*easing and low-interest rates are debt-additive policies; while supporting assets prices and GDP, they encourage the*addition*of debt.*
There are three routes out of the deleveraging trap; liquidation (destroying the debt via mass default), debt forgiveness (destroying the debt via systematically cancelling it), and inflating the debt away. Liquidation in a managed economy with a central bank is politically impossible. Debt forgiveness is politically difficult, although perhaps the most realistic effective bet. And inflating the debt away at a moderate rate of inflation would seem to be a slow and laborious process — the widely-advocated suggestion of a 4% inflation target would only eat slowly (if at all) into the 350%+ total debt-as-a-percentage-of-GDP load.
All three exit routes seem blocked. So the reality that we are staring at — and have been staring at for the last four years — has been remaining in the deleveraging trap.
So why in a deflationary environment like the deleveraging trap would I fear high inflation? Surely this is an absurd and unfounded fear?
Well, *Japan shows that nations can remain stuck in a deleveraging trap for a long, long time — although Japan has had to take to increasingly authoritarian measures such as mandating the purchase of treasury debt to keep rates low and so to keep the debt rolling. But eventually nations stuck in a deleveraging trap will have to take one of the routes out. While central banks refuse to consider the possibility of a debt jubilee, and refuse to consider the possibility of allowing markets to liquidate, the only route out remains inflation.*
Yet the big inflation that would be required to eject the United States from the deleveraging trap makes creditors — the sovereign states from which the US imports huge quantities of resources, energy, components, and finished goods — increasingly jittery.
According to Xinhua:
The U.S. has long been facing the same problem: living beyond its means.*At present, the country has debts as high as 55 trillion U.S. dollars, including more than 14 trillion U.S. dollars of treasury bonds.
And last October:
Economists agree that as the United States’ largest foreign creditor,*China should contemplate ways to pull itself out of the “dollar trap,” as the U.S. economy is faltering with its debt piling up and its currency on the brink to depreciate.
China must make fuller use of the non-financial assets in its foreign reserves, as well as speed up the diversification of investing channels to resist a possible long-term weakening of the dollar, said Xia Bing, director of the Finance Research Institutes of the Development Research Center under the State Council.
Zheng Xinli, permanent vice chairman of China Center for International Economic Exchanges, has suggested that Chinese companies boost overseas investment as a way to absorb trade surpluses and fend off the dollar risk.
And it’s not like America’s Eurasian creditors are doing nothing about this. As I wrote earlier this month:
If the exporter nations feel as if they are getting screwed,*they are only more likely to escalate via the only real means they have — trade war.*And having a monopoly on various resources including rare earth minerals (as well as various components and types of finished goods) gives them considerable leverage.
More and more Asian nations — led by China and Russia — have ditched the dollar for bilateral trade (out of fear of dollar instability). Tension rises between the United States and Asia over Syria and Iran. The Asian nations throw more and more abrasive rhetoric around —*including war rhetoric.
And on the other hand, both*Obama*and*Romney*—*as well as Hillary Clinton*— seem dead-set on ramping up the tense rhetoric. Romney seems extremely keen to*brand China a currency manipulator.
The Fed is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they inflate, they risk the danger of initiating*a damaging and deleterious trade war with creditors who do not want to take an inflationary haircut. If they don’t inflate, they remain stuck in a deleveraging trap resulting in weak fundamentals, and large increases in government debt, also rattling creditors.*
The likeliest route from here remains that the Fed will continue to baffle the Krugmanites by pursuing relatively restrained inflationism (i.e. Operation Twist, restrained QE,*no NGDP targeting, no debt jubilee, etc) to keep the economy ticking along while minimising creditor irritation. The problem with this is that the economy remains caught in the deleveraging trap. And while the economy is depressed tax revenues remain depressed, meaning that deficits will grow, further irritating creditors (who unlike bond-flipping hedge funds must eat the very low yields instead of passing off treasuries to a greater fool for a profit), who may pursue trade war and currency war strategies and gradually (or suddenly) desert US treasuries and dollars.
Geopolitical tension would spike commodity prices. And as more dollars end up back in the United States (there are currently $5+ trillion floating around Asia), there will be more inflation still. The reduced global demand for dollar-denominated assets would put pressure on the Fed to print to buy more treasuries.
Amusingly, this kind of scenario was predicted in 2003 by Krugman himself!:
The crisis won’t come immediately. For a few years, America will still be able to borrow freely, simply because lenders assume that things will somehow work out.
But at a certain point we’ll have a Wile E. Coyote moment. For those not familiar with the Road Runner cartoons, Mr. Coyote had a habit of running off cliffs and taking several steps on thin air before noticing that there was nothing underneath his feet. Only then would he plunge.
What will that plunge look like? It will certainly involve a sharp fall in the dollar and a sharp rise in interest rates. In the worst-case scenario, the government’s access to borrowing will be cut off, creating a cash crisis that throws the nation into chaos.
This is not a Zimbabwe-style scenario, but it is a potentially unpleasant one involving a sharp depreciation of the dollar, and a significant change in the shape of the American economy (and geopolitical reality). It includes the risk of costly geopolitical escalation, including proxy war or war.
However, American primary and secondary industries would look significantly more competitive, and significant inflation — while penalising savers — would cut down the debt. Such a crisis would be painful and scary, but — so long as there is no escalation — largely beneficial.
Why I Still Fear*Inflation
July 18, 2012
Aziz Economic History, Federal Reserve, Finance, Politics, Wall Street, War ASEAN, china, currency war, hillary clinton, joe biden, joe wiesenthal, mmt, obama, paul krugman, reality, romney, russia, steve keen, trade war, wen jiabao 20 Comments
Paul Krugman wonders why others worry about inflation when he sees no evidence of inflationary trends:
Joe Wiesenthal makes the well-known point that aside from certain euro area countries, yields on sovereign debt have plunged since 2007; investors are rushing to buy sovereign debt, not fleeing it. I was a bit surprised by his description of this insight as being non-”mainstream”; I guess it depends on your definition of mainstream. But surely the notion that what we have is largely a process of private-sector deleveraging, with government deficits the consequence of this process, and interest rates low because we have an excess of desired saving, is pretty widespread (and backed by a lot of*empirical evidence).
And there’s also a lot of discussion, which I’m ambivalent about, concerning the supposed shortage of safe assets; this is coming from bank research departments as well as academics, it’s a frequent topic on FT Alphaville, and so on. So Joe didn’t seem to me to be saying anything radical.
But those comments! It’s not just that the commenters disagree; they seem to regard Joe as some kind of space alien (or, for those who had the misfortune to see me on Squawk Box, a unicorn); they consider it just crazy and laughable to suggest that we aren’t facing an immense crisis of public deficits with Zimbabwe-style inflation just around the corner.
Krugman, of course, thinks it crazy and laughable that in the face of years of decreasing interest rates that anyone would believe that inflation could still be a menace. In fact, Krugman has made the point multiple times that more inflation would be a good thing, by decreasing the value of debt and thus allowing the private sector to deleverage a little quicker.
I remain convinced — even having watched Peter Schiff and Gonzalo Lira make incorrect inflationary projections — that there is exists the potential of significant inflationary problems in the medium and long term. Indeed, I believe elevated inflation is one of three roads out of where we are right now — the deleveraging trap.
In my worldview, this depression — although a multi-dimensional thing — has one cause above all others: too much total debt. Debt-as-a-percentage of GDP has grown significantly faster than productivity:
The deleveraging trap begins with the boom years: credit is created above and beyond the economy’s productive capacity. Incomes rise and prices rise above the rate of underlying productivity. And as the total debt level increases, more and more income that was once used for investment and consumption goes toward paying down debt and interest. This means that inflated asset prices become less and less sustainable, making the economy more and more susceptible to a downturn — wherein asset prices deflate, and the value of debt (relative to income) increases further. Under a non-interventionist regime, once the downturn occurs, this would result in credit freeze, mass default and liquidation, as occurred in 1907.
However, under an interventionist regime — like the modern Federal Reserve, or the Bank of Japan — the central bank steps in to lower rates and print money to support asset prices and bail out failed companies. This prevents the credit freeze, mass default, drastic deflation and liquidation. Unfortunately, it also sustains the debt load — following 2008, total debt remains over 350% of GDP. The easy money leads to a short cycle of expansion and growth, but the continued existence of the debt load means that consumers and businesses will still have to set aside a large part of their incomes to pay down debt. This means that any expansion will be short lived, and once the easy money begins to dry up, asset prices will again begin to deflate. The downward pressure on prices, spending and*investment*from the excessive debt load is huge, and requires sustained and significant central bank intervention to support asset prices and credit availability. The economy is put on life-support. Debt-as-a percentage of GDP may gradually fall (although in the Japanese example, this has not been the case) but progress is slow, and the debt load remains unsustainable.
A fundamental mistake is identifying the problem as one of aggregate demand, and not debt. Lowered aggregate demand is a*symptom of the deleveraging trap caused by excessive debt and unsustainable asset prices. The Fed — and advocates of greater Fed interventionism to support aggregate demand, like Krugman — are mostly advocating the treatment of*symptoms, not*causes.*And the treatment in this case my make the underlying causes worse —*quantitative*easing and low-interest rates are debt-additive policies; while supporting assets prices and GDP, they encourage the*addition*of debt.*
There are three routes out of the deleveraging trap; liquidation (destroying the debt via mass default), debt forgiveness (destroying the debt via systematically cancelling it), and inflating the debt away. Liquidation in a managed economy with a central bank is politically impossible. Debt forgiveness is politically difficult, although perhaps the most realistic effective bet. And inflating the debt away at a moderate rate of inflation would seem to be a slow and laborious process — the widely-advocated suggestion of a 4% inflation target would only eat slowly (if at all) into the 350%+ total debt-as-a-percentage-of-GDP load.
All three exit routes seem blocked. So the reality that we are staring at — and have been staring at for the last four years — has been remaining in the deleveraging trap.
So why in a deflationary environment like the deleveraging trap would I fear high inflation? Surely this is an absurd and unfounded fear?
Well, *Japan shows that nations can remain stuck in a deleveraging trap for a long, long time — although Japan has had to take to increasingly authoritarian measures such as mandating the purchase of treasury debt to keep rates low and so to keep the debt rolling. But eventually nations stuck in a deleveraging trap will have to take one of the routes out. While central banks refuse to consider the possibility of a debt jubilee, and refuse to consider the possibility of allowing markets to liquidate, the only route out remains inflation.*
Yet the big inflation that would be required to eject the United States from the deleveraging trap makes creditors — the sovereign states from which the US imports huge quantities of resources, energy, components, and finished goods — increasingly jittery.
According to Xinhua:
The U.S. has long been facing the same problem: living beyond its means.*At present, the country has debts as high as 55 trillion U.S. dollars, including more than 14 trillion U.S. dollars of treasury bonds.
And last October:
Economists agree that as the United States’ largest foreign creditor,*China should contemplate ways to pull itself out of the “dollar trap,” as the U.S. economy is faltering with its debt piling up and its currency on the brink to depreciate.
China must make fuller use of the non-financial assets in its foreign reserves, as well as speed up the diversification of investing channels to resist a possible long-term weakening of the dollar, said Xia Bing, director of the Finance Research Institutes of the Development Research Center under the State Council.
Zheng Xinli, permanent vice chairman of China Center for International Economic Exchanges, has suggested that Chinese companies boost overseas investment as a way to absorb trade surpluses and fend off the dollar risk.
And it’s not like America’s Eurasian creditors are doing nothing about this. As I wrote earlier this month:
If the exporter nations feel as if they are getting screwed,*they are only more likely to escalate via the only real means they have — trade war.*And having a monopoly on various resources including rare earth minerals (as well as various components and types of finished goods) gives them considerable leverage.
More and more Asian nations — led by China and Russia — have ditched the dollar for bilateral trade (out of fear of dollar instability). Tension rises between the United States and Asia over Syria and Iran. The Asian nations throw more and more abrasive rhetoric around —*including war rhetoric.
And on the other hand, both*Obama*and*Romney*—*as well as Hillary Clinton*— seem dead-set on ramping up the tense rhetoric. Romney seems extremely keen to*brand China a currency manipulator.
The Fed is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they inflate, they risk the danger of initiating*a damaging and deleterious trade war with creditors who do not want to take an inflationary haircut. If they don’t inflate, they remain stuck in a deleveraging trap resulting in weak fundamentals, and large increases in government debt, also rattling creditors.*
The likeliest route from here remains that the Fed will continue to baffle the Krugmanites by pursuing relatively restrained inflationism (i.e. Operation Twist, restrained QE,*no NGDP targeting, no debt jubilee, etc) to keep the economy ticking along while minimising creditor irritation. The problem with this is that the economy remains caught in the deleveraging trap. And while the economy is depressed tax revenues remain depressed, meaning that deficits will grow, further irritating creditors (who unlike bond-flipping hedge funds must eat the very low yields instead of passing off treasuries to a greater fool for a profit), who may pursue trade war and currency war strategies and gradually (or suddenly) desert US treasuries and dollars.
Geopolitical tension would spike commodity prices. And as more dollars end up back in the United States (there are currently $5+ trillion floating around Asia), there will be more inflation still. The reduced global demand for dollar-denominated assets would put pressure on the Fed to print to buy more treasuries.
Amusingly, this kind of scenario was predicted in 2003 by Krugman himself!:
The crisis won’t come immediately. For a few years, America will still be able to borrow freely, simply because lenders assume that things will somehow work out.
But at a certain point we’ll have a Wile E. Coyote moment. For those not familiar with the Road Runner cartoons, Mr. Coyote had a habit of running off cliffs and taking several steps on thin air before noticing that there was nothing underneath his feet. Only then would he plunge.
What will that plunge look like? It will certainly involve a sharp fall in the dollar and a sharp rise in interest rates. In the worst-case scenario, the government’s access to borrowing will be cut off, creating a cash crisis that throws the nation into chaos.
This is not a Zimbabwe-style scenario, but it is a potentially unpleasant one involving a sharp depreciation of the dollar, and a significant change in the shape of the American economy (and geopolitical reality). It includes the risk of costly geopolitical escalation, including proxy war or war.
However, American primary and secondary industries would look significantly more competitive, and significant inflation — while penalising savers — would cut down the debt. Such a crisis would be painful and scary, but — so long as there is no escalation — largely beneficial.
Bottom line IMO there is no way this market has much of any upside potential from these levels without monetary easing ..... And I highly doubt Ben would pull a QE3 at these levels... They might be able to nurse it back to the 1400s and keep the markets flat in a range long term ....
But only way QE help is coming is if we get a dip first ... Ben's hopes are he don't have to go to QE well again and we can meander around long term, low growth, flat markets from here, as the debt liquidation continues... And who know how effective QE would be at this point due to rate compression, china slowing etc ...
But only way QE help is coming is if we get a dip first ... Ben's hopes are he don't have to go to QE well again and we can meander around long term, low growth, flat markets from here, as the debt liquidation continues... And who know how effective QE would be at this point due to rate compression, china slowing etc ...
I think you nailed it.
Vix approaching the 15 line yet again
That has been the floor since the craziness began in late 2007 and market tops occurred around that time (of us hitting the 15 floor)
Last time we hit 14?? S&P... It dropped a tad below 15 for a bit
15.65 at close today ...
That has been the floor since the craziness began in late 2007 and market tops occurred around that time (of us hitting the 15 floor)
Last time we hit 14?? S&P... It dropped a tad below 15 for a bit
15.65 at close today ...
we are at the same 1375 we were at when I jumped out over a month ago.
I guess it may be a good idea to jump into some high dividend blue chips.
Dont think there is going to be much money to be made long or short for a while.
I guess it may be a good idea to jump into some high dividend blue chips.
Dont think there is going to be much money to be made long or short for a while.
Check out sbr
I've been accumulating it around 50 or lower
Monthly royalties on oil and natty gas producing land
I went back and looked at reserve estimates and it has not changed much at all since 1992 ...and production has stayed very steady .... That's not to say it will continue but... With improved means to find oil/extract it ... As the cheap stuff runs out its a good bet it will continue for a while ... It might take another dip to 30s if another 2008 hammer comes but I'm rooting for it so I can gobble up a bunch cheap as long term high prices here to stay although their might be stumbles along the wy
Also cost of production is no factor you get a certain amount of the oil pumped however the royalty is setup ... All the big names drill on the land
Err bt I forgot your already pretty dependent on oil prices as is chop so probably don't wanna expand your exposure lol
I've been accumulating it around 50 or lower
Monthly royalties on oil and natty gas producing land
I went back and looked at reserve estimates and it has not changed much at all since 1992 ...and production has stayed very steady .... That's not to say it will continue but... With improved means to find oil/extract it ... As the cheap stuff runs out its a good bet it will continue for a while ... It might take another dip to 30s if another 2008 hammer comes but I'm rooting for it so I can gobble up a bunch cheap as long term high prices here to stay although their might be stumbles along the wy
Also cost of production is no factor you get a certain amount of the oil pumped however the royalty is setup ... All the big names drill on the land
Err bt I forgot your already pretty dependent on oil prices as is chop so probably don't wanna expand your exposure lol
