Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (73520)	5/16/2010 12:21:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

So you think that voters are more sensible when voting to spend a huge pile of opm than voters who own shares in a company which can only dispose of their own money. That's strange and not credible. < you would surely agree that it is a vastly larger mistake to assume that electorates will vote to protect their own interests.> So you think that shareholders in a financial institution such as Wells Fargo are more likely to vote to harm themselves than are a general electorate voting for politicians. Since managers of a financial institution have the very narrow brief of increasing profits, I'd fancy the chances of that more than I would of voters voting for opm and kleptocratic suffocatocracy in a sensible way which will achieve mutually conflicting goals. All shareholders in Wells Fargo want more profits. Not all voters want less tax, or more tax, or smaller government or more rules with less regulation. I think you simply saw Greenspan's name and ipso facto disagreed without understanding what I wrote. "If it's Greenspan, I disagree. Ergo, what follows is wrong, ultra vires, caveat emptor, inter alia". Regarding your list, it's obvious that the best choice is the closest approximation to Libertarian Utopia. Depending on definitions and how the system was actually applied in practise, a few of them could be the best choice. For example, capitalism in China seems more capitalist than capitalism in the USA, in many ways. A sultanate could be a pretty good place to live depending on the sultan, just as sultanas vary in quality from very good to good for the rubbish bin. Small government should be best, but if the small amount of government they do is collecting tariffs but not protecting private property and free enterprise, then it wouldn't be as good as the wimpy socialism of NZ which does at least in small part protect private property so that it can be confiscated by the state. So it depends on the quality of the state. I'd go with E = a few police and a hangman to execute the criminals. But in NZ, we already have a big government so there are many publicly owned assets which require management. First, we need tradable citizenship to define ownership of those assets. Then we need to maximize the profits from those assets. For example, road tolls, water, electricity, telephone, gas, sewage, reticulation charges. Mqurice

To: maceng2 who wrote (73520)	5/17/2010 12:30:44 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	1 Recommendation Respond to of 74559

EURO-DOLLAR VIEW: Goldman Sachs economists EURO-DOLLAR VIEW: Goldman Sachs economists "continue to think the market is underestimating the strength of the macro cycle and overestimating the transmission from the European sovereign crisis and growth (including in Europe itself). In terms of the euro, there are downside risks, with price action potentially choppy as events unfold. "Overall, however, EUR/$ downside risks seem more than fully priced at current levels, a view that is also consistent with evidence of extremely large speculative short EUR/$ positions," GS FX strategists say. After assessing growth and interest rate implications, "as well as positioning, fair value and external balances, we decided to keep our EUR/$ forecasts at 1.35 flat in 3, 6 and 12 months," Goldman says. Provided by: Market News International