More Great Economic News

[Read-Only]

Then PM me please. I have named another thread more than once here - I was banded at it as the chief hancho "just knows" there are no small black holes, at least not anywhere even vaguely near our solar system, so my wanting to discuss how they might be detected was "in appropriate." My continuing to try got me banded.

I'll be glad to, Billy, watch for it. Just go to the URL that I'll provide, roam around, and if interested please sign up. Free, no ads at all - just people sharing information.

Caution: It's NOTHING like this place so you may not find it "exciting" enough for you. Everyone is friendly and cordial - you'll see NO expletives, no trolling and no name-calling whatsoever. With the one exception of an autistic young man who has had little social contact with the world, everyone is an adult, several professionals, and all share an interest in general technology and in learning everything they can. No crackpots, no conspiracy nuts, no over-unity idiots - just good, honest, and highly intelligent and experienced people.

 

[madanthonywayne]

BTW, You said I should defend Sandy when she is right. (I did in the only time that, IMHO, that occured.) I asked you to specifically tell me some other times when she was clearly right, but you never did. I ask again:

What did she post that is clearly correct, not just her opinion. - which post?

My comment was more philosophical than concrete. Our allegence should be to the truth, not to who's speaking.

So if someone is right, we should support them, whether we generally agree with them or not. And in stating that investment is more than luck, Sandy was 100% correct.

So I was just giving you a hard time about saying "I hate to defend Sandy".

Almost all of my post, which your are commenting on is just fact and the POV of a former member of the FED, not that makes him clarivoient, but his opinion should count more than yours to the contrary.

I respect your opinion, and that of the former FED guy. But I can't ignore what I see with my own eyes. And regardless of whether we are presently in a recession or not, I am definitely concerned about the economic conditions in the US. I don't believe there's no problem (like Sandy), but I don't believe we're beyond hope of recovery (like you). Now whether or not our incompetent government can actually do what needs to be done to set things right, I don't know.

 

[Billy T]

...Our allegence should be to the truth, not to who's speaking. So if someone is right, we should support them, whether we generally agree with them or not. And in stating that investment is more than luck, Sandy was 100% correct. ...

I agree 100%. That is why on that occasion* I came to Sandy's defense (first to do so). I do not especially enjoy defending Sandy, who striks me as very shallow and who does not answer direct question and who directly attacks me on many occasions, despite my never making any derogatory STATEMENT about her, but as you state, our first obligation should be to the true, even if spoken by one we disagree strongly with on most occasions.
---------------
*Someone had told Sandy her success was just luck. I know investing succesfully, at least over several decades, is not just luck. Luck does play a strong role, especially if you happen to buy near a "bottom" and sell near a "top", but there is no way to know you are doing either of these when you do it. During my first decade of investing in stocks, I not infrequently tried to "buy low & sell high" but soon realized that is not reliably possible and adopted "THE EFFICIENT MARKET" theory as my own. Thus, I try only to anticipate long term trends that can not be in error** and have not been excessively priced in as other also hold those same views. That is why I invested in farm land, in the path of urban expansion (especially if the topograph would force the new sewer line thru its valley), even while still living in an apartment. I also liked and then it was legal to divide it up and record the lots all by myself. I kept bees on land to retain the very low "farm tax" rates, but never actually sold any honey. (Did once falsely report very small profit to IRS. I have always wondered if paying "taxes" you do not actually owe is illegal.) My first lot sold returned 400% of the price of the total acreage purchased about 7 years earlier.

Five years ago, I relaized that GWB was excessively favoring the rich at the expense of "Joe American" and likely to double the national debt during his 8 years so the dollar would fall, perhaps collapse. This lead me to move most of my dollar assets I could (can not do anything with Social Security nor much with retirements in TIAA/CREF and Vanguard as the Required Minium Withdrawals have me already way off the tax tables) into ADRs, mainly of Brazil and India. As this too was long before the crowd, they are, in dollars up between 600 and 1100% now that many are also trying to get out of dollars.

Certainly none of this was Luck - Just a gift of being able to see what is coming long before most.
------------------------
**Aging population distributions, with wealth ever more concentrated, now under GWB even in the USA, leads one to think of medical serivce and drugs, but everone knows that and thus it is already "priced in." Thus, I own no "big Pharma" or nursing homes, etc. Instead I investigated what they need to be buying. In big pharma's case it is clear - little drug companies developing drugs to replace big Pharma's "block-buster" drugs now going "off patent" (I do own both TEVA and Barr as they are, inho, best positioned as "Big Generics" to benefit from expiring pattents. TEVA is "doubly nice" as not based at all in the US.) As most early stage developers will fail, that too is "already priced in" and a very big risk - so big that even the "sinking dollar risk" is small by way of comparision. I do weight the non-US firms more in my holdings (of about 40) but because of their inherent risk of failure, the dollar risk is tolerable and about half will be hurt some when the dollar collapse. Other countries, especaily China are rapidly growing in domestic purchasing power and have populations growing older also. China just released the data on domestic spending for 2006 - Up 18.8% over 2005 !!! Amazing =- why as I have also been statoing for years. in less than a decade, China can tell the US to "Go to Hell" we do not need to sell Americans anything anymore. Your "green paper" is worthless here.

PS Nursing homes, etc. have a very unknown risks as the voters age. - Possibly strong government regulations, even price controls etc. Thus I avoided them. I always think long term - decades. (Only way to be "ahead of the crowd."

 

[sandy]

Even MORE good economic news! Mortgage applications hit highest level in 2 years!

Mortgage applications have risen to the highest level since July 2005 for new purchases and refi's.

Many markets including parts of the CA are going gangbusters! :bravo:

 

[Billy T]

Clearly the FED realizes* that the 0.25% cut yesterday was not eneough to reverse (if already here) or prevent recession in the US, so they have hope for a joint action of Central Banks as follows:

"... Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, and the Swiss National Bank are announcing measures designed to address elevated pressures in short-term funding markets.

Actions taken by the Federal Reserve include the establishment of a temporary Term Auction Facility (approved by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) and the establishment of foreign exchange swap lines with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank (approved by the Federal Open Market Committee).

Under the Term Auction Facility (TAF) program, the Federal Reserve will auction term funds to depository institutions against the wide variety of collateral that can be used to secure loans at the discount window. All depository institutions that are judged to be in generally sound financial condition by their local Reserve Bank and that are eligible to borrow under the primary credit discount window program will be eligible to participate in TAF auctions. All advances must be fully collateralized. By allowing the Federal Reserve to inject term funds through a broader range of counterparties and against a broader range of collateral than open market operations, this facility could help promote the efficient dissemination of liquidity when the unsecured interbank markets are under stress. ..."

FROM:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ft/20071212/bs_ft/fto121220070925008022;_ylt=A9j8eOMy_19H_WQA8wAAAAAA

(about an hour ago THE FULL TEXT became available there.)

Market dropped abruptly yesterday as did not know of this plan to pump even more money out. Can anyone doubt the Central banks are trading away recession for inflation? - As I have been predicting for several years: The US debt can only be paid by the printing presses now. The dollar will become nearly "a worthless piece of paper" - it is just a question of how many years.** GWB has irrevokably destroyed the US.
-------------
*Clearly this complex plan was not put together last night. The FED waited to see the markets reaction to yesterday's cut. When markets all over the world dropped sharply, the FED let this "plan B" become public.

**MY prediciton of several years ago, became very specific about a year ago: The run on the dollar to be in the 6 year window Oct2008 to Oct 1014, with now more weighting towards the start of the window.

 

[sandy]

Does an olympic swimmer focus on the finish line? On his competition? On losing if he is behind? On the freezing cold water? On a cramp? On ANY demonic attack?

No. A winner focuses on winning.

 

[pjdude1219]

Does an olympic swimmer focus on the finish line? On his competition? On losing if he is behind? On the freezing cold water? On a cramp? On ANY demonic attack?

No. A winner focuses on winning.

as someone who has met an olympic caliber swimmer i can personally say your wrong

 

[Billy T]

as someone who has met an olympic caliber swimmer i can personally say your wrong

I knew she was also, but could only speculate that they are very much more concerned with facts, such as how when and what to eat before the event to get their glucose levels optimal, trying to perceive any precurser the man firing the gun may unintentionally give etc. "winning" is much too vague to be a thought in their heads when standing at the edge of the pool (or on the platform.) They surely think about many details beginning at least a day or two before the event. For example, not normally discussed, how to get their bowels clean yet not disturbe their physology with laxatives, etc.

It is like successful investing - many details, well atended, make winner not "right thoughts" or concentrating on "winning."

PS even the Republicans dis agree with Sandy on what the administration of GWB has produced (not Clintons surplusses that Sandy said were made by cutting defense, "making US insecure" etc.) These republicans think it is GWB doubling the debt, doing the Saudi Royals bidding, and switching food crops into energy production (GWB's main three things) that has made the US insecure:

"...Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Arizona Senator John McCain and other Republican presidential candidates said rising debt and weakness in the U.S. economy pose a national security risk. The candidates, debating today in Iowa, called for cutting government spending ...
Huckabee said the U.S. has become too dependent on other countries to fulfill its basic needs. ``Who feeds us, who fuels us and who helps us to fight, that's to whom we are enslaved,'' Huckabee, 52, said. ``If we can't do those three things, our national security is very much at risk. ..."

From:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUL5IB15rEt0&refer=home

 

[madanthonywayne]

The US debt can only be paid by the printing presses now. The dollar will become nearly "a worthless piece of paper" - it is just a question of how many years.** GWB has irrevokably destroyed the US.

The federal government owns much of the land in the US west of the Mississippi. How much could be raised if it sold off these holdings? Is there any reason for the federal govenment to own 85% of Nevada? Or 70% or Alaska?

 

[spidergoat]

That's where the nature preserves and parks are. Public land is often used for logging and mining purposes. I would prefer we didn't sell most of our nation to private interests.

 

[spidergoat]

Even MORE good economic news! Mortgage applications hit highest level in 2 years!

Mortgage applications have risen to the highest level since July 2005 for new purchases and refi's.

Many markets including parts of the CA are going gangbusters! :bravo:

You are so delusional in many ways. This just proves it. All indications are we are heading towards a recession.

 

[madanthonywayne]

That's where the nature preserves and parks are. Public land is often used for logging and mining purposes. I would prefer we didn't sell most of our nation to private interests.

Then lease it out, or sell it. Something. Obviously we can't afford to just let it sit there anymore.

And I think it's unconstitutional for the federal government to own this much land. The constitution spell out specific reasons the federal government may own land (stuff like military facilities, government buildings,etc).

 

[Read-Only]

Then lease it out, or sell it. Something. Obviously we can't afford to just let it sit there anymore.

And I think it's unconstitutional for the federal government to own this much land. The constitution spell out specific reasons the federal government may own land (stuff like military facilities, government buildings,etc).

I think it might be wise for you to read this: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...on's+Property+Clause&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

And other references to the "Constitutional Property Clause" before making that statement again. It's clearly not as you seem to think. (Just a friendly word to the wise - absolutely no offense intended.)

 

[spidergoat]

We cannot afford to lose it.

 

[Billy T]

The federal government owns much of the land in the US west of the Mississippi. How much could be raised if it sold off these holdings? Is there any reason for the federal govenment to own 85% of Nevada? Or 70% or Alaska?

The Rusians are rich and growing rapidly. Perhaps we could sell Alaska back to them. I do not think, with his current debts, Joe American is in any position to buy significant amounts of government land.* Who did you have in mind as the buyers? Perhaps the Chinese?

It is the old "supply vs demand story" - yes there is a large POTENTIAL suppy of land, but fortunately for land values, it is only potential. If actually placed on the market, the land value would fall dramatically. Even people like you, who might like to buy some, would see that and wait for prices to drop.

A year or two latter there would be Congressional Investigations about the great "land give-away" to the rich, especially if the Democrates control all of government, which seems to be increasingly likely.
------------------
*He is worried qabout how to put gas in his car - not planning to drive it to the black area of your map. there is a reason few live there - in part the limited water resources.

 

[kmguru]

May be the Hedge fund people will buy them...

"In 1992 there were only a couple of hundred hedge funds in the US. Now there are more than 8,000 and together they manage approximately $1 trillion in assets. They do not register their transactions and offerings under the Securities Act of 1933 as, for example, mutual funds do, leading to questions regarding hedge funds’ trading practices and valuations.

Key people
Ken Griffin – The founder and CEO of one of the largest US hedge funds, Citadel Investment Group, is a self-made billionaire who started two funds and began making trades from his Harvard dormitory in the late 1980s. Today he is one of the 400 richest people in the word, according to Forbes magazine."

and others....

 

[USS Exeter]

Does an olympic swimmer focus on the finish line? On his competition? On losing if he is behind? On the freezing cold water? On a cramp? On ANY demonic attack?

No. A winner focuses on winning.

On beating the would-be loser.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The Rusians are rich and growing rapidly. Perhaps we could sell Alaska back to them. I do not think, with his current debts, Joe American is in any position to buy significant amounts of government land.* Who did you have in mind as the buyers? Perhaps the Chinese?

Funny. I'd prefer we maintain the land as part of the US, just move it into private hands. This idea is, apparently, not new. The Founding Fathers considered this very idea as a way to eliminate the debt following the Revolutionary war.

I found a site that calculated that if we could sell all Federal land at about $2800 per acre, we could completely pay off the debt: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...ebt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

It is the old "supply vs demand story" - yes there is a large POTENTIAL suppy of land, but fortunately for land values, it is only potential. If actually placed on the market, the land value would fall dramatically. Even people like you, who might like to buy some, would see that and wait for prices to drop.

Sure, sell it a little at a time. Open up lots in a certain area, set a minimum price and auction it off. Hell, we could do it on Ebay!

I'm just throwing out ideas here. Trying to show there was at least one way we could pay off the debt other than inducing hyperinflation. Anyway, I see no reason for the federal government to own the majority of several states. So it's a win-win.

A year or two latter there would be Congressional Investigations about the great "land give-away" to the rich, especially if the Democrates control all of government, which seems to be increasingly likely.

We should ban congressional investigations. Has any such investigation ever produced anything useful?

*He is worried qabout how to put gas in his car - not planning to drive it to the black area of your map. there is a reason few live there - in part the limited water resources.

Wouldn't a dollar whose value was solidified by the elimination of national debt help Joe six-pack afford gas?

 

[TruthSeeker]

May be the Hedge fund people will buy them...

"In 1992 there were only a couple of hundred hedge funds in the US. Now there are more than 8,000 and together they manage approximately $1 trillion in assets. They do not register their transactions and offerings under the Securities Act of 1933 as, for example, mutual funds do, leading to questions regarding hedge funds’ trading practices and valuations.

Key people
Ken Griffin – The founder and CEO of one of the largest US hedge funds, Citadel Investment Group, is a self-made billionaire who started two funds and began making trades from his Harvard dormitory in the late 1980s. Today he is one of the 400 richest people in the word, according to Forbes magazine."

and others....

I bet hedge funds will contribute to the huge bubble that is about to explode. Bad, BAD accounting practices....

 

[Billy T]

...if we could sell all Federal land at about $2800 per acre, we could completely pay off the debt...

That was back at start of 2003, but debt is considerably bigger now, about $4000 per acre would do it at end of GWB's term. Your link also states US owns 2,271,343,360 acres. If divided equally amoung 300e6 Americans, assuming ave of 4 to a family: means 7.5e7 faimilies.

Thus:
227.1e7 / 7.5e7 = 30.28 acres/ family which at $4K / acre is about $121,000 each family needs to come up with, on average. Who is going to loan that to Joe American? He certain does not have it. (He is already in debt up to his ears and now needing to pay even more taxes to compensated for the retiring "baby boomers" who WERE the biggest tax payers in their peak earning years before stopping to work and starting to collect their Social Security.)

Leting Joe pay for it slowly by some "lay-a-way" / mortgage* plan (or only selling a little each year, which is the same thing from Gov's revenue POV) will not cover the growing interest on the debt. Also Joe is already having trouble paying prior purchases, with no ability to start making more payments. Thus buying on a "lay-a-way" plan or selling slowly is not a realistic option either as it will not cover the interest on the debt, which would thus still be getting larger.

SUMMARY - A nice idea, until you look closely at it. There is only the "printing press" money option now. Yesterday's Central Banks to the rescue plan is already being recognized as this "printing press" money in disguise. I.e. these banks will pump out about $102 billion via purchase of bank held paper that has no market (and thus very little value). Where will this $102 billion come from? ANSWER : printing presses or be added to the debt, making the debt even worse. The futility of this plan was well put a few hours ago in England as follows (speaking of todays down market reaction):

"...today's broad-based selling pressure is growing doubt in the worlds trading centers that a central bank action designed to alleviate the global credit crunch will actually work. Vincent Cable, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, a British political party, effectively summed up the sentiment thusly: "The proposals involve just over 50 billion pounds ($102 billion) for the whole world, in comparison 30 billion pounds of taxpayers' money has already being loaned to Northern Rock which is just one small UK bank." ..."

--------------------
*Just what Joe needs - another mortgage he can default on!

PS Perhaps I should start going to Sandy's Church, praying to God, etc. or otherwise stick my brains containing head in the sand? Being realistic and dealling with the facts is depressing.