isopatch--The reason I didn't post for a long time was that I was waiting to see how some of the "hot" stocks talked about here were doing. Well, I was quite amazed to see that CHK, despite its very large hedge position in natural gas, and despite favorable comments on this thread, went down. Now that is really counterintuitive and suggests that a lot of people are getting simply irrational in this market.
As for The Economist, I don't think much of their investment ideas either, but that says nothing about the quality of their analysis of economic conditions. Just because people may understand what is happening to the economy doesn't mean they know how to make a profitable investment. The two fields of expertise are separate. The Economist knows economics, not stocks!
As for gold as an investment, it retains its luster only when other forms of investment are near total collapse. I do not think the U.S. economic system is so far gone that the only safe investment is gold. To the contrary, with a growing supply greatly outpacing the demand for gold, there just isn't that much upward pricing pressure, and there won't be unless someone drops an atomic bomb. Then, maybe.
And as for former Secretary Rubin, one example of how he acted was in the Mexican bailout. The quick infusion of hard currency stemmed the illegal flow of Mexican pesos into dollars, preserved Mexico's export and import accounts, and did a lot to help U.S. companies, which were investing heavily and profitably in Mexico. The action was prompt and was absolutely the right thing to do. His training at Goldman Sachs gave him the perfect background for the job he did, and he really did it well. Years from now, I predict people will say the best thing about Bill Clinton was his ability to hire and retain top level people like Rubin.
Art |
