I say 400-500 on the S&P.

The common wisdom (including that of Dr. Roubini) is that the sooner economic remedies are invoked, the more effective they will be. What seems more logical to me is that on the way down these remedies do not raise the lower level to which the economy will fall, but only serve to delay the eventual arrivial to that level. Once the lower level is reached (i.e. once the Agian stables are cleaned out), the more stimulus that is applied, the faster will be te raise to “normality”.

Am I The First, like The One?

Can anyone recommend a book on the social security ponzi scheme? I want to see how Madoff learned from that. Seriously.

None of this had to happen.It could have been prevented by proper regulation and by not engaging in reckless tax cuts.It could have been halted at a moderate cost in its early stages by intervening at the level of mortgages.At its midstages, damage could have been minimized by sensible use of the TARP funds to buy equity and force changes to lending practices.Only through profound stupidity have we managed to get to this point, where the real economy is suffering deep damage.I can see why Nouriel is discouraged. The stupid are in charge, they are much more stupid than past generations of stupid people, and they will not get out of the way.

You have hit the root of the problem! Banking should be nationalized as a utility for the facilitation of commerce and all our mba’s should be converted to science, engineering,and ameliorating the human condition. The lowest common denominator of all our present problems is the temptation of excess leverage and the temptation to gamble instead of working for the betterment of society. We have a societal epidemic of financial parasitism facilitated by leverageand fractional reserve.

after reviewing long term charts this weekend I agree with that (sad to say).

it starts with the penny. the next thing you know the academics will be telling us to get rid of the dollar for similar, and perhaps more significant and pragmatic, reasons.then again, what can you expect from a man who studies cooperation in yeast, sheesh..?.http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/physicists-tt0305.html..Penny wiseAnother MIT physicist, Pappalardo Fellow Jeff Gore, has been sought after as a commentator on an area that has no relation to his research interests: the fate of the penny.Gore, a biophysicist who studies the evolution of cooperative behavior in yeast, has become a de facto spokesperson for the movement to abolish the penny, ever since he calculated the amount of time and money wasted each year because of pennies.On Feb. 10, Gore appeared on “60 Minutes” to offer, as correspondent Morley Safer put it, the “nerd’s-eye view” of the problem.A few years ago, Gore read a study that estimated that pennies add an extra 2 to 2.5 seconds to every cash transaction. “That doesn’t sound like that much time, but if you multiply it out, it adds up,” he says.Assuming that each transaction involves an average of three people (cashier, customer, and a customer waiting in line), Gore figured out that pennies cost the U.S. economy about $10 billion per year.ABC’s World News Tonight interviewed him for a story on the penny in 2002, and since then, he has regularly fielded interview requests. “I sort of became the ‘expert’ on why we should get rid of the penny,” he says.

Comments from the previous thread ~@Guest: “For the past 10 or so articles I have been posting how ‘free markets/capitalism’ are ideologies that can very easily be used in support of an extremely unhealthy economy/slavery as much as it can be used to support a healthy economy and balanced prosperity…@statsdoc: “What is the answer? It is not raw unregulated capitalism. You only have to consider the “tragedy of the commons” to understand that government is necessary. Is it socialism/communism? No. That kills the individual spirit…@Guest: “The question is, how many other Madoffs are currently functioning in the U.S. but have not been exposed? … You would think that Capitalists would know best how to run an economy, but apparently it is not a given…”Since the election of Barak Obama, brought on in large part by the spectacular failures of the Bush Administration, a lot of dangerous government policy concepts are being bandied about by the victors. In their enthusiasm, they are going to pull us out of the storm and push us right into the river if they don’t stop misrepresenting concepts such as “capitalism, socialism, free enterprise” and” free markets.”America’s phenomenal economic success originated with capitalistic principles: private ownership of the means of production and distribution. Free enterprise built America and filled the nation’s decades with prosperity. Government played a critical role: prohibiting monopolies, protecting private property and patents, guaranteeing the sanctity of contracts, maintaining standards in commerce, punishing theft and fraud, etc.As government grew, however, it began to change the rules for free enterprise, and aspects of socialism came to the fore. Today, the government controls many of the decisions on the land you own, and if you’re in business, the government decides how you’ll operate your fleet of trucks, what you can pay your employees, what the package looks like for your product, and even where your rest rooms are located. That’s hardly private ownership of the means of production and in some cases is as much socialism as it is capitalism.The economic system of America’s first hundred plus years was turned on its head with the advent of fiat currency. A private banking monopoly now prints its own currency, overrides all phases of government and public economic life. It creates its own revenue through bailouts, low interest loans and taxation through inflation. The monopoly is so powerful it can exercise veto power over competitors and business in America through credit favoritism and its leverage in various branches of government. Congress and the administration of recent presidents, including the one just elected, all operate under the banking monopoly. It’s a serious error to refer to this economic system as capitalism.Obama boosters say big changes are coming in regulations for financial institutions. There will be some, of course; some needed, some not, but none to reduce the dominance of the major investment banks and none will help provide for a “free market.” Geithner at Treasury is just a younger and quieter Paulson, and the Fed machine will be rolling on as usual.Socialism defined means that private citizens do not own and operate the means of production. The American dream is finished if the trend in this direction is not stopped. Neoconservatives in the Bush Administration pushed for and produced budget-busting big government. But anyone who believes that Democrat congressional dominance and an aggressive Democrat president will result in smaller government or more “free enterprise” for individuals and business is living on a different planet. And anyone who believes the Obama team will remove the investment banker thumb from the equity market scale just hasn’t read the bio’s of the economic appointments. There won’t be “free markets” until there’s real change in Washington, D.C. and a few high-rise offices in New York City.

j,.i would say ponzi law. in the u.s. there is a supposed difference between “law” and “scheme”. i don’t mean to split hairs, but it is good to strive for accuracy in the terms employed. just a thought.

Abolishing the penny is another sign of coming USD weakness.

v, i ask, when you say ” their ability to make much of a difference in the face of the massive corrections underway was always sadly limited anyway, IMHO.”what “difference” can they make or “should”be made by them at this point.

“Another lesson I learned early is that there is nothing new in Wall Street. There can’t bebecause speculation is as old as the hills. Whatever happens in the stock market to-dayhas happened before and will happen again. I’ve never forgotten that. I suppose I reallymanage to remember when and how it happened. The fact that I remember that way ismy way of capitalizing experience.”REMINISCENCES OF A STOCK OPERATOR by Edwin LeFevreI posted a free link to the book a few threads back. I am now reading it. I don’t agree with everything he says but still it is a joy to read…)

Probably a combination of mutual funds who do their buying and selling in the last hour and program trades that then are triggered if there is much movement. Cymbiotic but can be deadly. Could also be a few of the hedge funds left opperating that are forcing triggers here too.Manipulation, maybe but you can also join in. Set you parameters and let your system trade it.

blindmanMy take on this is always rather pedantic, I’m afraid. What I advocate are measures to realize the adjustment that is upon us and to proceed as quickly as possible to hopefulness and rebuilding.- First and foremost, there must be transparency. Authorities needs to rapidly make it possible for losses to be fully realized, all of the bad bets, the poor risk taking, the under-the-table deals to be fully known. There must be a way to restore trust in financial organizations. Sadly, we are going backwards here (witness Mad-off)- Second, they should go ahead and nationalize a lender of last resort, comprised of one or more failing banks. This lender should prevent otherwise good business from being destroyed by contagion. It could also focus on matters of societal integrity, such as food production, trade finance, last-resort social welfare means, health care, water, power, etc.- Third, they need to start vigorous oversight of all bailout monies to prevent any further looting of the taxpayer going into bonuses and other questionable destinations.- Fourth, triage of zombie banks and other corporations. The more rapidly we eliminate the dead weight, the more rapidly we can rebuild on a better foundation. Break up those too big fail. Let creative destruction play out, and incentivize through stimulus new enterprises that are forward looking.- Fifth, stimulus geared toward rapid global needs that are upon us, pursued in a global way. Green energy with our know how and China’s manufacturing capacity. Technological pursuit of far reaching solutions to environmental collapse. Etc.Maybe a bit idealistic, I know, but I want to be looking ahead, not dragging out the collapse trying to prevent it.ex VRWC

It might have been prevented with regulators and Congressional oversight but not in the early stages of collapse. That needed to be done 25 years ago when this actually started. It might have been mitigated at the end of the Clinton administration but once Bush decided to go forward with Empire building, it took resources and the only resources available were in housing. So the housing boom was allowed and fueled so that tax receipts would stay high and everyone would feel good about the false economy that few understood.And now for the consequences.

Don’t forget abundant resources, lots of undeveloped and underutilized land and cheap energy fueled our phenomenal sucess along with the other things you mentioned. Our Constitution was a great benefit to our forefathers. It is sad it is being left on the present side of the road for expedience. Our elected officials swear to uphold it and then that is the last time they consider it valuable. Wire tapping and the Patriot Act? And the bail outs behind everyone’s back not to mention the hidden SIVs and Level 3 assets. The selling of the Senate seat doesn’t suprise me. Did it anyone else?

true OR but the following is just a misapplication of mathematics on Gores side:

A few years ago, Gore read a study that estimated that pennies add an extra 2 to 2.5 seconds to every cash transaction….Assuming that each transaction involves an average of three people (cashier, customer, and a customer waiting in line), Gore figured out that pennies cost the U.S. economy about $10 billion per year.

If that is how he thinks he could be wrong with the greenhouse effect thing as well.Interesting quotes in this article:More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claimshttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever….Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist….“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

eV..i think you have got it, or the outline of a chunk of it. in time and after much muddling, influence pedalling, litigation and back stabbing, we may see something like this?we are all idealistic to different degrees and this can be for the best but also can be detrimental to our understanding and survival. the root cause is this, imo.we see and hear people speak and assume they are speaking as objective, free thinking, honest and informed individuals. non of this is accurate today or perhaps ever, with rare public exceptions. it may be that the word authority and transparency should never be in the same room never mind sentence? all of the people mentioned above are partisan, conceptually rooted in a failed ideology, many at least publicly dishonest for the sake of their institutional responsibility and ignorant with regard to the necessity of ideas, such as your own.what they have in their favor is the ignorance of the many and the illusion that they deserve more and have the resources at their command to enforce that arrangement.ironicly the ignorance of the many might be the lead strawthat breaks their, our back,s.so it’s about knowledge and confidence again. not money, that is broken.either way, i have this crazy feeling that everything is really all right. ? ultimately, i am irrational i guess?i spent an hour looking for an n.p.r. interview that aired a few months ago, could have been a repeat. anyway… here is where i go to pjb’s post for physics and the music of his prose… come along…?

http://www.sipc.org/pdf/SIPA.pdf

I had prepared a summary a few hours ago of the comments in the following interview but when I clicked submit the RGE site misbehaved. Having said that, this is worth viewing: Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University professor of economics & fmr. IMF chief

From CR AIG sells RMBS to FED and the article

Ouch! If we don’t have a terrible day in the market tomorrow, we should ALL go long:-)Check the main page of bloomberg:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/index.html?Intro=intro_newsA nice gift from Mauldin. A condensed version of Shilling’s December letter. This is the only newsletter I subscribe to.Semi-Annual U.S. Economic Outlook: Collapsing On Schedulehttp://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2008/12/15/semi-annual-u-s-economic-outlook-collapsing-on-schedule.aspx

SPIC coverage won’t do much for individual entities with more than $500,0000 invested with Mad-Off. What is not clear to me is, let’s say an individual investor had $300,000 invested in a hedge fund which in turn had several billion with Mad-Off, will this investor get coverage? It does not seem they would unless they change the law. And they might, those fellas with money at Mad-off have a direct line to Washington ears.

AIG going under would have pulled GS under. Lehman, I have heard Paulson hated Fuld and that is why Lehman was not saved (see below). Iit used to be whatever is good for GM is good for the country. Now it seems the GM initials have been replaced by GS.http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/soros-rebuild-d.htmlIf Lehman was not “saved” it could be entirely because Paulson hates Fuld … and if that is the case, then this in one Treasury Secretary who should be sent presto to pasture. This is no moment for Wall Street honchos to be puerilely settling scores.)

“There is a time for all things, but I didn’t know it. And that is precisely what beatsso many men in Wall Street who are very far from being in the main sucker class. Thereis the plain fool, who does the wrong thing at all times everywhere, but there is the WallStreet fool, who thinks he must trade all the time. No man can always have adequatereasons for buying or selling stocks daily or sufficient knowledge to make his play anintelligent play.”REMINISCENCES OF A STOCK OPERATOR by Edwin LeFevre

PJB – I think it is entirely possible that this a power grab. However, I think that people tend to overestimate their ability to control things. Meaning that either the grabbers failed to realize that they could collapse the whole house by grabbing a card or two, or TPTB overestimated their capability to do damage control in the face of sabotage.It’s most likely just the consequence of poor risk management regarding credit, rather than a scheme.

“The desire for constant action irrespective of underlying conditions is responsible for manylosses in Wall Street even among the professionals, who feel that they must take homesome money every day, as though they were working for regular wages.”

SEC OUTRAGE !!!No other way to describe it. Special thanks to EPJ.com for publishing this background article (see below) on the Madoff fund failure. Apparently, the SEC was notified in detail as far back as the late 1990′s that the whole Madoff investment scheme was clearly a Ponzi operation. There was no justification for the returns they were generating, based on their operating investment strategy.Investors who have lost their life savings in the Madoff collapse appear to have every right to seize pitchforks and torches and head to the SEC Offices. This is incompetency and irresponsibility at the highest level.Here’s the link:http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/12/how-bad-did-sec-blow-madoff-ponzi.htmlPeteCA

Arguing over what is causing global warming is like arguing over the Titanic’s menu. It is happening, is accelerating, and arguing over the cause is irrelevant at this point. Think of a group of people facing an angry lion, and then arguing about which individual made the lion angry while the lion then kills of wounds everyone in the group. Any one of them, all of them, or even none of them could have set the lion on a rampage – the point is that the lion IS on a rampage and actions of some kind need to be taken to avoid pain and suffering.

Solvency is time dependent.If I pay a mortgage of 500k over 25 years, there is no way I can pay it off now but I can afford to pay it over the 25 years. To say the US is insolvent means the US cannot pay it debts off now but still should be able to pay them off in the future.Last resort: Print

HELLO EVICTIONS. GOODBYE USD.

Roubini says the worst is yet to come for the global economy?Recession even deeper than the ridiculous current situation?And Fed funds rate already effectively near zero.But yet this is not as bad as the Great Depression? I would say that is VERY hard to believe.

Yes but with out the stimulus of the housing bubble, the tax receipts would have fallen even more and we would have had to deal with all the mal-investment back in 2002 or soon after. This mess has been coming for years and didn’t just happen. Unfunded mandates and obligations, the out of touch US auto industry, lack of a coherent energy policy, poor education and poor facilities, decaying infrastructure, lack of savings, leverage, leverage and rising debts to pay for today’s expenses with tomorrow’s income. All sold by the best psychologists in the world to an trusting and unsuspecting public.They did engineered finance and a housing bubble and then commodity bubble to keep things going and tax receipts coming in. It was to push all of the problems off into the future, which have obviously become even bigger and it arrived before they even knew it.I believe they actually thought that the oil from Iraq would pay off. Not especially for us but for them. They gambled and we lost. Seems to be the fate of Empires.

It’s hard to believe when unemployment isn’t at 30% and you don’t have massive bank failures and complete economic collapse. The bank failures have mostly been limited to the bigger banks, because they were the ones that took on the risk. However, if they were allowed to go under than all hell would have been unleashed. We have passed that dangerous moment in september/october when our banking system was on the verge of collapse.

g,.. yes, we are illiquid and can print. trust that money to the people and they will be liquid till the money runs out and then we can print more until reflation is complete? or we could print more and lend it through the fed system, creating more debt if any one will light that fire with a match? the liquidity fire we are waiting for. but still we don’t know how many fictitious dollars have been created in the shadow casinoso we could perhaps have everyone in the country start a printing press in their garages?.”Insolvency means the inability to pay one’s debts.This is defined in two different ways:Cash flow insolvencyunable to pay debts as they fall due;Balance sheet insolvencyhaving negative net assets: liabilities exceed assets.”but the fed can create money out of nothing so i guess insolvency doesn’t apply to a central bank. but the treasury of a people is different..can’t finance the debt now , illiquid. assets not equal todebt, insolvent. what is the u.s. going to sell to cover15 trillion dollars, and more coming, of debt at interest?our sons and daughters? the white house? what is not forsale? a senate seat? a charities savings? a people cannot become a garage sale, i think that is the point of insolvent…but the asymptotic freedom of sub atomic particles idea is somehow fascinating. there is no other force in nature, but one that i know of, that exhibits this completely contradictory nature. any guess? or do you know of more?and somehow i feel this could become a feature of economicintercourse,( clue ). for all i know it already exists and just needs to be polished up.??.. printing dollars out of thin air is like mass appearing out of mass less subatomic particles. they then go into the system thru the fed and banks to make virtual particles with negative mass.??? help me here..if it’s possible? i couldn’t find it on wik.

-we have passed that “dangerous” moment-Bullshit..things are just warming up, more foreclosures coming..passed?? what??these problems are just accumulating,snowballing into 1 big avalanche

good stuff PeteCA

payam: I’ll concede that the Fed has saved the US banking system. Or at least enough of it that we don’t have a massive US banking collapse. But some things are not clear … 1) It’s not obvious that the whole global economy is stable right now, 2) Almost certainly we’re going to see significantly higher unemployment in the US, UK, Spain and other countries before this is done, 3) Oil is moving upwards again (if OPEC cuts seriously), 4) The Fed’s reactions to this crisis seem like such a massive over-reaction that they’re almost worse than the original disease, and 5) War can’t be ruled out. Hard to say where all this winds up. As Yoda would say “the future … unclear it is”.PeteCA

I called the head-and-shoulders top on the US dollar recently. Watch now if it drops below 82. That’s a sign that the dollar has broken the current uptrend (i.e. the current drop in the dollar is not just a temp reduction within a trading channel that’s moving upwards).Likewise, a break in gold above $840-850/oz is a breakout from the general downwards trading channel (that it was in).PeteCA

anecdote, drove today on the north shore of long island, port washington area, train 20 minutes to Manhattan. middle to upper “class” community. saw from the windshield at least 5 boarded up houses. the mall on shore road, by the water, is losing businesses and already has, maybe?, 30% vacancy and the rents are going up.point, this community never looked like this in my life. anectdotally.? i heard someone say “ghost town”. we’ll see.good night mr. kenobi.

Don’t forget slavery, displacement & systemic genocide of indiginous populations please. Yup, a great system built on something we can all be proud of. Where has it all led? How could it not end badly? The idea of land being “undeveloped” & “underutilized” demonstrates starkly one of the things that is wrong with our way of thinking. Why is it that things only have value when there can be economic gain made of it? Why is a place considered “wasteland” until you can squeeze some money out of it? Think about it.

yupdo or die moment..im favouring the latterfed stimulus=morphinewhy morphine??stage 1-using it at a proper dosage = medicinestage 2-using it above the recommended dosage =hallucination/addictionsstage 3-using it in extremely large dosage = cardiac arrestwe are in stage 3…

unemployment is not at 30% because it is calculated very differently now versus back then during the Great Depression.We have had massive bank failures. Many old financial insitutions no longer exists.This is just as bad as GD, with one difference: US government printing money like there is no tomorrow.In fact if US government fed 1 Trillion into the economy each month, that would amount to 12 trillion in a year. Repeat after me: 12 trillion $ is spare change, 12 trillion $ is spare change, 12 trillion $ is spare change (say this enough time and you will get used to the thought)…

I’ve said since late07 FED funds would go to 1% in 08. But never imagine they may go even lower! At least not in 08!

Human nature never changes! From Jesse’s Livermore book:Of course most concerns ofthat kind eventually go broke. There are times when there are regular epidemics ofbucketeering bankruptcies, like the old-fashioned runs on several banks after one ofthem goes up. The customers of the others get frightened and they run to take theirmoney out. But there are plenty of retired bucket-shop keepers in this country.Well, I heard nothing alarming about the tout’s firm except that they were on the make,first, last and all the time, and that they were not always truthful. Their specialty wastrimming suckers who wanted to get rich quick. But they always asked their customers’permission, in writing, to take their rolls away from them.One chap I met did tell me a story about seeing six hundred telegrams go out one dayadvising customers to get aboard a certain stock and six “hundred telegrams to othercustomers strongly urging them to sell that same stock, at once.”Yes, I know the trick,” I said to the chap who was telling me.”Yes,” he said. “But the next day they sent telegrams to the same people advising themto close out their interest in everything and buy or sell another stock. I asked the seniorpartner, who was in the office, ‘Why do you do that? The first part I understand. Some ofyour customers are bound to make money on paper for a while, even if they and theothers eventually lose. But by sending out telegrams like this you simply kill them all.What’s the big idea?”“Well, he said, the customers are bound to lose their money anyhow, no matter whatthey buy, or how or where or when. When they lose their money I lose the customers.Well, I might as well get as much of their money as I can and then look for a new crop.”

Chinese have a worse economic outlook than the US- Export markets are gone- unemployment skyrocketing- No social security will cause social unrest- A substantial portion of their national savings are in USdollars and treasuries, a depreciating asset and for which their is no buyer.- Lack of export markets will hold back consumer demand- Middle class pissed at the collapse of property and stock markets.I can’t see how the Communist Chinese government can see this through for more than a couple of years before they get tossed out. But their economy is finished. Ditto the Japanese, with a mercantilist economy and an appreciating currency, the are no longer competitive in their export markets. Soon, the Japanese worker will have to work 48 hours per day just to get their wage costs down to a level equal to Americans 8 hour day.Don’t worry Americans, it will turn around after many years of hard work

I disagree. The Chinese long term term future is much rosier than the US/UK.http://fora.tv/2008/03/12/Eamonn_Fingleton_Discusses_In_the_Jaws_of_the_DragonThis is a speech by Eamonn Fingleton an irish economist / author who has been in east Asia for 22 years+It’s 90 minutes long, but I found it fascinating, It gives a good idea of the East Asian perspective. He discusses=>what it might be like to live in a world ruled by a Chinese political/economic hegemony.=>how they don’t give a sh1t about what we give a sh1t about (legal/values etc)=>the waris on for economic/political control=>how their global strategies on consumption and saving are way better than ours.I don’t necessarily follow his views, but it certainly makes your statements (esp. “Don’t worry Americans, it will turn around after many years of hard work”) look very optimistic.minor point => I would not call the present Chinese government communist or socialist (even though they themselves might). I dont think those terms are really useful in these times of hybrid systems and ideologies.

I’m no expert on US politics, but isn’t it reasonable to expect that such an appointment would be extensively discussed, including with the previous office holder.What was Blagojevich supposed to do?Consider the matter solely in his own mind, undertaking no consultation, seeking no advice?I thought the problem was that he is alleged to have sought some financial or personal (a job) gain from the process.In a system that relies on financial patronage and one that is renowned for pork barreling and back scratching, this affair seems more a matter of not following accepted procedure rather than an out and out departure from “acceptable behaviour”.It seems like a red herring to me.Does it have anything to do with his recent criticism of BoA over the withdrawal of financial support from Republic Windows?

What do we have ahead, deflation or inflation? If first deflation, how long could it take?

Goldman loss not as bad as the worst fears – up $4 in pre markets

US consumer price index headline CPI -1.7core zeroyear over year headline 1.1Housing 625,000 startsPermits 616,000dollar yen under 90dollar index under 82

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcIReal-science-based Bob Carter abides by principles of scientific enquiry, gives the facts others don’t, is beholden to no special interests. Watch at least part 1 (abt 9 minutes) before you swallow the human-caused CO2 global warming koolaid.Can you say global cooling?

and a couple of links I posted yesterday U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 Arctic ice The second link compares Arctic Ice extent to prior year and the 1979/2000 average. Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of November was 4,100,000 square miles up from 3,880,000 square miles in November 2007 vs. the 4,360,000 square mile November average between 1979 and 2000.Meanwhile much of the US will continue in a deep freeze this week and next week as well.

Remarkable video of Bernie Madoff from 2007, including him mentioning why fraud like his is nigh impossible. The ironies are non-stop, especially around the 5-minute mark.http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/12/15/madoff_on_fraud.html

Cause of what? Read again. You are going to far on the conclusions that can reasonably be inferred from the four words I wrote. On the other hand, saying that human nature has not changed much from 1908 to 2008 seems as a very reasonable null hypothesis to me:-)

NR, LB, OR, and others see deflation as the road ahead; I believe, and I assume other posters, see it more like severe weather front.First are the high winds of recession and pockets of deflation, then this eerie calm, followed by a hailstorm of inflation/hyperinflation, followed again by a tornado of deflationary depression.We can see the dark, rolling low clouds, but no one is predicting exactly when the hail or tornado will happen, but everyone is in agreement that it will take a long time to clean up the mess left by the tornado.But hey, no worries; after all, in the end it’s just water, air, and money

But will printing money do any good when it needs to be spread through out the system? The banks can’t do that if you won’t go out an borrow some of it. The fractional reserve system only spreads the money thru new debt creation, not by gift.To get all this printed money into the system there are few ways to do it. Spend it on projects by the government (takes time), lending it out (isn’t happening) or tax rebates or major tax reductions (maybe next year). None of these are being done and the longer they wait, the worse things become. To bad we have a rather dumb stubborn ideologue for a President.

Big news in my burg is that a local golf course development defaulted on ~$50 million, the bank foreclosed, and the property will be auction on December 30th. The only expected bidder is the original land developer who is rumored to have another loan lined up. If the property auctions for 10 cents on the dollar, it will be a sweet deal for the developer who was quoted in a local newspaper as saying: “At least we are not asking for a government bailout.”Harrumph, I bet dollars-to-donuts that the bank’s $40 million dollar loss will be cover by TARP dollars or the deal would not have gone through.

er.. make that an inconvenient truth for Gore et al.

I will link my blog on China here one last time. I think China has its work cut out for it. A Dragon on Winter’s Eve

Don’t be so disingenuous. Your first four words were meant to suggest that human nature is to blame for bad human behaviour. Either own up to that, or stop presenting your opinion as fact. Intellectual honesty counts – at least it does in my book.

Just took a small postion (about 2% of assets each) in USO and XLE. Just on feeling, I have no strong conviction. Just follwing my instings since I’ve had the Golden touch since the November low:-)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/hgh/steal.htmThou shalt not stealby HENRY GEORGEAddress delivered on 8 May 1887 to the Anti-Poverty Society, New YorkDr McGlynn, in Chickering Hall last Sunday night, said it was a historic occasion. He was right. That a priest of Christ, standing on Sunday night on a public platform and addressing a great audience – an audience embracing men and women of all creeds and beliefs – should proclaim a crusade for the abolition of poverty, and call on men and women to join together and work together, to bring the kingdom of God on earth, did mark a most important event.Great social transformations, said Mazzini, never have been and never will be other than the application of great religious movements. The day on which democracy shall elevate itself to the position of a religious party, that day will its victory begin. And the deep significance of the meeting last Sunday night, the meaning of this Anti-Poverty Society that we have joined together to inaugurate, is the bringing into the struggle of democracy the religious sentiment – the sentiment alone of all sentiments powerful enough to regenerate the world.The comments made on that meeting and on the institution of this Society are suggestive. We are told, in the first place, by the newspapers, that you cannot abolish poverty because there is not wealth enough to go around. We are told that if all the wealth of the United States were divided up there would only be some eight hundred dollars apiece. Well, if that is the case, all the more monstrous is the injustice which today gives some people millions and tens of millions, and even hundreds of millions. If there really is so little, then the more injustice in these great fortunes.But we do not propose to abolish poverty by dividing up wealth. We propose to abolish poverty by setting at work that vast army of men – estimated last year to amount in this country alone to one million – that vast army of men only anxious to create wealth, but who are now, by a system which permits dogs-in-the-manger to monopolise God’s bounty, deprived of the opportunity to toil.Then, again, they tell us you cannot abolish poverty, because poverty always has existed. Well, if poverty always has existed, all the more need for our moving for its abolition. It has existed long enough. We ought to be tired of it; let us get rid of it. But I deny that poverty, such poverty as we see on earth today, always has existed.Never before in the history of the world was there such an abundance of wealth, such power of producing wealth. So marked is this that the very people who tell us that we cannot abolish poverty attribute it in almost the next breath to overproduction. They virtually tell us it is because humankind produces so much wealth that so many are poor; that it is because there is so much of the things that satisfy human desires already produced, that men cannot find work, and that women must stint and strain.Poverty attributed to overproduction; poverty in the midst of wealth; poverty in the midst of enlightenment; poverty, when steam and electricity and a thousand labour-saving inventions that never existed in the world before have been called to the aid of humanity. There is manifestly no good reason for its existence, and it is time that we should do something to abolish it.There are not charitable institutions enough to supply the demand for charity; that demand seems incapable of being supplied. But there are enough, at least, to show every thinking woman and every thinking man that it is utterly impossible to eradicate poverty by charity; to show everyone who will trace to its root the cause of the disease that what is needed is not charity, but justice – the conforming of human institutions to the eternal laws of right.But when we propose this, when we say that poverty exists because of the violation of God’s laws, we are taunted with pretending to know more than humans ought to know about the designs of Omnipotence. They have set up for themselves a god who rather likes poverty, since it affords the rich a chance to show their goodness and benevolence; and they point to the existence of poverty as a proof that God wills it. Our reply is that poverty exists not because of God’s will, but because of humanity’s disobedience. We say that we do know that it is God’s will that there should be no poverty on earth, and that we know it as we may know any other natural fact.The laws of this universe are the laws of God, the social laws as well as the physical laws, and He, the Creator of all, has given us room for all, work for all, plenty for all. If today people are in places so crowded that it seems as though there were too many people in the world; if today thousands of men who would gladly be at work do not find the opportunity to go to work; if today the competition for employment crowds wages down to starvation rates; if today, amidst abounding wealth, there are in the centres of our civilisation human beings who are worse off than savages in any normal times, it is not because the Creator has been niggardly; it is simply because of our own injustice – simply because we have not carried the idea of doing to others as we would have them do unto us into the making of our statutes.The Anti-Poverty Society has no patent remedy for poverty. We propose no new thing. What we propose is simply to do justice. The principle that we propose to carry into our laws is neither more nor less than the golden rule. We propose to abolish poverty by the sovereign remedy of doing to others as we would have others do to us, by giving to all their just rights. And we propose to begin by assuring to every child of God who, in our country, comes into this world, its full and equal share of the common heritage.Crowded! Is it any wonder that people are crowded together as they are in this city, when we see other people taking up far more land than they can by any possibility use, and holding it for enormous prices? Why, what would have happened if, when these doors were opened, the first people who came in had claimed all the seats around them, and demanded a price of others who afterwards came in by the same equal right? Yet that is precisely the way we are treating this continent.That is the reason why people are huddled together in tenement houses; that is the reason why work is difficult to get; the reason that there seems, even in good times, a surplus of labour, and that in those times that we call bad, the times of industrial depression, there are all over the country thousands and hundreds of thousands of men tramping from place to place, unable to find employment.Not work enough! Why, what is work? Productive work is simply the application of human labour to land, it is simply the transforming, into shapes adapted to gratify human desires, of the raw material that the Creator has placed here. Is there not opportunity enough for work in this country? Supposing that, when thousands of men are unemployed and there are hard times everywhere, we could send a committee up to the high court of heaven to represent the misery and the poverty of the people here, consequent on their not being able to find employment.What answer would we get? “Are your lands all in use? Are your mines all worked out? Are there no natural opportunities for the employment of labour?” What could we ask the Creator to furnish us with that is not already here in abundance? He has given us the globe amply stocked with raw materials for our needs. He has given us the power of working up this raw material.If there seems scarcity, if there is want, if there are people starving in the midst of plenty, is it not simply because what the Creator intended for all has been made the property of the few? And in moving against this giant wrong, which denies to labour access to the natural opportunities for the employment of labour, we move against the cause of poverty.We propose to abolish poverty, to tear it up by the roots, to open free and abundant employment for every person. We propose to disturb no just right of property. We are defenders and upholders of the sacred right of property – that right of property which justly attaches to everything that is produced by labour; that right which gives to all people a just right of property in what they have produced – that makes it theirs to give, to sell, to bequeath, to do whatever they please with, as long as in using it they do not injure any one else. That right of property we insist upon; that, we would uphold against all the world.To a house, a coat, a book – anything produced by labour – there is a clear individual title, which goes back to the person who made it. That is the foundation of the just, the sacred right of property. It rests on the right of people to the use of their own powers, on their right to profit by the exertion of their own labour; but who can carry the right of property in land that far?Who can claim a title of absolute ownership in land? Until one who claims the exclusive ownership of a piece of this planet can show a title originating with the Maker of this planet; until that one can produce a decree from the Creator declaring that this city lot, or that great tract of agricultural or coal land, or that gas well, was made for that one person alone – until then we have a right to hold that the land was intended for all of us.Natural religion and revealed religion alike tell us that God is no respecter of persons; that He did not make this planet for a few individuals; that He did not give it to one generation in preference to other generations, but that He made it for the use during their lives of all the people that His providence brings into the world. If this be true, the child that is born tonight in the humblest tenement in the most squalid quarter of New York, comes into life seized with as good a title to the land of this city as any Astor or Rhinelander.How do we know that the Almighty is against poverty? That it is not in accordance with His decree that poverty exists? We know it because we know this, that the Almighty has declared: “Thou shalt not steal.” And we know for a truth that the poverty that exists today in the midst of abounding wealth is the result of a system that legalises theft.The women who by the thousands are bending over their needles or sewing machines, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen hours a day; these widows straining and striving to bring up the little ones deprived of their natural breadwinner; the children that are growing up in squalor and wretchedness, underclothed, underfed, undereducated, even in this city, without any place to play – growing up under conditions in which only a miracle can keep them pure – under conditions which condemn them in advance to the penitentiary or the brothel – they suffer, they die, because we permit them to be robbed, robbed of their birthright, robbed by a system which disinherits the vast majority of the children that come into the world.There is enough and to spare for them. Had they the equal rights in the estate which their Creator has given them, there would be no young girls forced to unwomanly toil to eke out a mere existence; no widows finding it such a bitter, bitter struggle to put bread into the mouths of their little children; no such misery and squalor as we may see here in the greatest of American cities; misery and squalor that are deepest in the largest and richest centres of our civilisation today.These things are the results of legalised theft, the fruit of a denial of that commandment that says: “Thou shalt not steal.” How is this great commandment interpreted today, even by men who preach the Gospel? “Thou shalt not steal.” Well, according to some of them, it means: “Thou shalt not get into the penitentiary.” Not much more than that with some. You may steal, provided you steal enough, and you do not get caught. Do not steal a few dollars – that may be dangerous, but if you steal millions and get away with it, you become one of our first citizens.”Thou shalt not steal”; that is the law of God. What does it mean? Well, it does not merely mean that you shall not pick pockets! It does not merely mean that you shall not commit burglary or highway robbery! There are other forms of stealing which it prohibits as well. It certainly means (if it has any meaning) that we shall not take that to which we are not entitled, to the detriment of others.Now, here is a desert. Here is a caravan going along over the desert. Here is a gang of robbers. They say: “Look! There is a rich caravan; let us go and rob it, kill the men if necessary, take their goods from them, their camels and horses, and walk off.” But one of the robbers says:”Oh, no; that is dangerous; besides, that would be stealing! Let us, instead of doing that, go ahead to where there is a spring, the only spring at which this caravan can get water in this desert. Let us put a wall around it and call it ours, and when they come up we won’t let them have any water until they have given us all the goods they have.” That would be more gentlemanly, more polite, and more respectable; but would it not be theft all the same? And is it not theft of the same kind when people go ahead in advance of population and get land they have no use whatever for, and then, as people come into the world and population increases, will not let this increasing population use the land until they pay an exorbitant price?That is the sort of theft on which our first families are founded. Do that under the false code of morality which exists here today and people will praise your forethought and your enterprise, and will say you have made money because you are a very superior person, and that all can make money if they will only work and be industrious! But is it not as clearly a violation of the command: “Thou shalt not steal,” as taking the money out of a person’s pocket?”Thou shalt not steal.” That means, of course, that we ourselves must not steal. But does it not also mean that we must not suffer anybody else to steal if we can help it?”Thou shalt not steal.” Does it not also mean: “Thou shalt not suffer thyself or anybody else to be stolen from?” If it does, then we, all of us, rich and poor alike, are responsible for this social crime that produces poverty. Not merely the people who monopolise the land – they are not to blame above anyone else, but we who permit them to monopolise land are also parties to the theft.Please go read the rest at the link?It’s economics in its finest wisdom!

I’m sooo busy I haven’t read it yet, but I look forward to doing so soon as I can. Thanks for repeating the link, ex VRWC.

PJB, i will study this, but, i’m still not laughing again.ps. “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”?

You’re going to look pretty silly sitting on all cash if this sucker rockets upward. You won’t be able to get in. Remember, stocks get cheap for one reason. People are scared sh**less!

Another coincidental match to the depression?”Consumer prices register their sharpest one month decline since the depths of the Great Depression”

Right on! A living (not minimum) wage, equal costs for all businesses (small and large) and employee ownership of large companies will all go a long way to creating more higher paying jobs and opportunity for everyone! “In a democracy, the needs of the many should outweigh the excesses of the few!” And I’ll throw in one more: “The Creator knew what was best for all men, not just a select few!”

new thread

Bad human behavior is indeed a manifestation of human nature. A tiger, for example, will behave in ways that are not very different from other tigers. The term bad tiger behavior can probably be considered an oxymoron, even though you will probably go ahead and say that the trained tiger that almost killed Roy in Vegas was showing bad tiger behaviour that was unrelated to his tiger naturehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YVf91f1o2UHuman beings need policing in order to behave in uniform fashion. Take for instance people’s behavior towards a red light in a US city and Caracas Venezuela. The overwhelming majority of Venezuelans and “gringos” will stop for red in Boston, MA, because if you get caught you get a hefty fine, points in your license that increase your car insurance premium for a long time, etc. However, the behavior for both groups is quite different in Caracas; not all drive by red, but the proportion that do drive by red is much higher because the likelihood of being caught is much lower, and if you do get caught the penalty much lower. The only reason the term bad human behavior is not an oxymoron is preciesely because of the nature of human nature:-)

but some of us are still adding replies to posts in this one, and I, for one, will keep checking back here for a couple days longer.

I think your definition of human nature is not the most commonly accepted one. This is the one I am using:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human+natureMain Entry: human natureFunction: nounDate: 1594: the nature of humans ; especially : the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans

I did, thank you: insightful into a vacant space imo; the punching bag was most curious.

in my post, ‘as leaning toward baseness unless unpoliced’ should have read ‘unless policed’ – sorry for the damn confusing error.of course i’m using the same definition you are. you’re sniping all over this board (along with some others) that equality isn’t possible because of human nature, meaning the unchanging nature of mankind, meaning equality shouldn’t even be reached for because it just ain’t natural…and i’m holding your feet to the fire to defend your position…which you can’t do because there isn’t any evidence that human nature is causal, that what your camp proclaims is true, actually is…but you just continue with your sub-rational fabrication presented as if it were factwhich i would ignoreif i didn’t know how desperately these sub-rational vile memes HURT REAL PEOPLE.i’m not calling you the enemy. i’m saying the enemy has outposts in your head, sir.your remark that people need policing in order to behave in uniform fashion deserves pages of refutation – it’s more pure bunk – and condemnation, too. it’s as revolting and as fascist a statement as i ever hope to hear on this blog. it’s the very creed of the authoritarian, murderous, oppressive patriarchy and the remark in itself reveals a lack of rationality and innaccurate and selective observation on your part, and it presumes for some reason that people acting freely in every way that doesn’t take that same right off others is less preferable to people “behaving in a uniform fashion”.honestly, are you for real with that??????????????