@pm charts -- trotsky, 16:41:23 08/22/06 Tue
i just went through the entire group that i'm watching, eyeballing the charts...many look explosive imo. there could be quite a move in the works here.
the only caveat is that many charts, while basically bullish looking, are right at the point of maximum indecision, where things could yet go wrong. however, the bullish resolution is made more likely by the fact that SOME stocks have already broken upward from their respective patterns.
mozel, HK1 @hedges -- trotsky, 15:57:41 08/22/06 Tue
mozel said: "A lot of those hedges presuppose production demand and luxury demand."
absolutely correct, there is no perfect hedge. at best one can state which type of hedge might work under what set of future circumstances, but there is no hedge that will work under all of them. some of the things that ALWAYS have utility come for free (sunlight, air) or are difficult to store/and or defend (water, food, land).
anyway, i don't think it makes sense to use palladium or platinum when one can just as well use gold. after all, the stock of above ground gold is far bigger than that of the PGM's , so it seems more useful as a money commodity in any event. also, i don't see the necessity for the absence of a futures market. what mileage is to be had from THAT?
@the DROOY consensus -- trotsky, 15:06:34 08/22/06 Tue
per the latest update on analyst consensus opinion, DROOY is now the fifth lowest rated stock on the entire stock market, up one notch from last month (not because the ratings improved however - they worsened in fact. it's only that the 4 stocks rated below DROOY suffered an even bigger worsening in their ratings).
DROOY hasn't gone anywhere for quite some time, but contrarians should still take note of this ringing endorsement by Wall Street. there are many examples of extremely low rated stocks exploding in price...recently e.g. GM, this year's best performer in the Dow - while sporting the by far lowest rating of all Dow stocks. last year, the 4th worst rated stock on the market was PAL - it then embarked on a rally that took it up by over 200%.
obviously, a catalyst is needed. anything even remotely looking like good news leads to a big surge in such low rated shares, while the downside is very limited, since the worst case scenario has already been priced in.
mozel@Corrigan -- trotsky, 14:42:57 08/22/06 Tue
i'm not sure why you're now starting to split hairs. you DID say:
"Well, the "real pool of wealth" remains unauditable under his (Corrigan's) arguments, so I can see the attraction for you, the bankers, and the pols."
well, that is not even what the dispute is about. the dispute between Corrigan and Fekete is about whether we should prefer a true, strict gold standard (Corrigan) or if a 'little bit' of credit inflation with fractional reserve banking is actually a good thing (Fekete).
the pool of real funding is of course indirectly connected to these arguments, but again, neither Corrigan nor Fekete have had any input on this basic concept of Austrian theory, and i suspect that both of them accept it as is.
[Edit]
Pete@depression -- trotsky, 14:28:11 08/22/06 Tue
it has apparently escaped you that i made no comment whatsoever with regards to the intentions of the actors involved. iow, i have not said what i believe with regards to that. i'm only pointing out that the generally accepted theories regarding the causes of the depression are wrong. history has been rewritten by the Keynesians and the Keynesians-in-drag (a.k.a. monetarists), in furtherance of their statist agenda. the only reason why i'm talking about it is because few people are aware of this.
regarding intentions, i'm not a mind reader, and neither are you. the Rothbardian view of the depression if you will is merely deduced from the KNOWN facts, not from suppositions.
mozel@Corrigan -- trotsky, 14:17:05 08/22/06 Tue
what you said there makes exactly zero sense. first of all, the fact that the pool of real funding can not be measured is hardly Corrigan's fault. it is simply a fact of life.
secondly, neither the bankers nor the pols can possibly be big fans of Corrigan's arguments in favor of a strict gold standard. Corrigan attacks Fekete because Fekete's system is akin to introducing fractional reserve banking throught he back door. Corrigan is far more rigorous and logical imo - in fact HE is the advocate for honest money in this debate.
anyway, i suspect you have not read one word of what Corrigan wrote on the issue, otherwise you wouldn't have made that frankly silly comment.
smythe@depression -- trotsky, 13:52:20 08/22/06 Tue
the main points i wanted to draw attention to are the following:
1. the primary CAUSE of the depression as such was the credit expansion during the boom of the 1920's.
2. the reason why it lasted so long (i.e., length and depth of the depression) were the government's interventions from 1932 onward, i.e. the misguided economic policies of the old commie FDR.
in short, the major mistakes made by the Fed were made BEFORE the depression, while the administration administered the coup de grace after it had begun.
funny enough, this view is almost the exact opposite of the one generally accepted one in mainstream circles, where it is held that the Fed was 'too tight' during the depression (utter nonsense) and that FDR's 'new deal' crapola somehow 'rescued the economy', or failing that idea, that the war did so (both utter nonsense as well).
smythe@Corrigan and Fekete -- trotsky, 13:46:03 08/22/06 Tue
Corrigan has imo the better arguments.
#
# @the trade of the century -- trotsky, 13:24:47 08/22/06 Tue
the best trade of the past century was buying Soviet era debt in the depths of the 1998 crisis. i heard that it went between 1-10 cents per 100 dollar face amount at the time, as the market was convinced it would NEVER be paid back. well, you can work out those returns for yourself.
mozel@bede -- trotsky, 12:11:41 08/22/06 Tue
i note this is an 'apologetic' site - it should perhaps be mentioned what Christian apolologetics IS, before implying that you are relating unassailable facts from such a source.
apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with the defense of Christian doctrines. it came originally into being to defend Christianity against pagan belief systems (the 'our imaginary friend is better than yours' version of the thing, basically), but has naturally evolved into its modern version, in which science is the new enemy. obviously a lot of modern day scientific knowledge contradicts the good book's 'explanations' of nature and natural laws at many turns. this poses interesting problems for the defenders of the faith, since it has become more difficult to denounce scientists as heretics or subject them to witch trials.
the most reasonable position is probably that one shouldn't take everything in that's in the bible literally, but as we know, there is a bunch of people who have real problems with that. thus, we have creationism and its slightly more sophisticated 'intelligent design' offspring, which is nothing but creationism in disguise. these two concern themselves with countering scientific knowledge with pseudo-scientific claims, easily refutable by science itself, but good enough to allay any doubts the flock at large may harbor.
creationism is in an especially difficult position...it has never gained any traction outside of the US bible belt as it were. there are more reasonable attempts at apologetics, that try to approach the problem by concentrating on stuff that either looks supportive and is provable, or where the available data or information are sufficiently murky to make it difficult to DISprove the assertions made.
in any event, apologetics have an agenda - they are NOT an unbiased source by any stretch of the imagination. |
