Do nothing administration.....

Unless you pay this administration, congress included

Here is a poorly written puke of information

Is oil moving because of an expectation of QE3 or is it because of IRAN's threat Israel does anything?

Euro is in recession, U.S. not far behind with our do nothing (GOOD) government. And BTW Fuck Polosie (sp) telling Boeing to unionise their plant, fuck her. I wish Boeing had the balls to move overseas and takes out a full page add in all major papers giving her the peace sign with the back of their hand facing her.. using the UK definition of what that sign means....

Executive branch-- the do nothing administration (congress included)
1. Health care -- pass buck to congress to build plan -- do nothing
2. Bush tax cuts-- do nothing
3. Budget -Cut spending- save the AAA credit rating-- pass to congress --do nothing
4. Current super committee --- my bet do nothing -- it is all about getting re elected
5. Oil pipeline-- do nothing until after the election-- after the agreements expire--- my bet-- the oil goes to China -- we become more dependent on mid east oil, because Dems, our Energy Czar's plan doesn't work of 30 yrs, we have problems today, we need a bridge (you want to build them here is a golden opportunity)

In addition (20,000 shovel ready jobs lost... plus all of the ancillary jobs that would be created, if we use the same math the auto companies use to get there bail out, we are talking about a loss of 250,000- 300,000 (tongue and cheek) jobs overall. Obama shows his true colors about job creation again, his reelection is more important to him.

What else have they passed the buck on..Hmm ... appointing fed governors, Oil drilling/pumping in the gulf and Alaska, an energy policy, addressing the true problem of health care insurance, TBTF (wait they banks pay his bill)

Obama does do something-- hand money out to by votes-- can you say solar... and let all of the Congress inside trade but throw private citizens in jail for doing the same thing.

Remember it is mostly a spending problem if you even slightly believe there was a housing bubble... everything was inflated even the governments budgets but the only thing that has not corrected has been the spending of the government. (in D.C. a cut is a decease in future spending increases)

NO LEADERS ONLY POLITICIANS HERE

Ron Paul may be our only hope or We need a nut with a gun, a plan and the means to execute the plan --IMO

Be Honest CNBC-You Are Biased Against Ron Paul

This is from alt-market.com the link is at the bottom and it was posted at zerohedge.com


Be Honest CNBC-You Are Biased Against Ron Paul
Thursday, 10 November 2011 04:59 Brandon Smith


Those of us who have supported Ron Paul since his presidential run in 2008 (and some who supported him long before that) have come to expect an astonishing array of mainstream media tricks, lies, and censorship when it comes to the “journalistic” examination of the good doctor. This doesn’t mean, however, that we have ever or will ever come to ACCEPT this consistent trend of deception and disinformation as a forgone conclusion of our political lives. We will never throw up our hands and walk away from the mess the MSM has deliberately created, because that is exactly what they would like us to do; give up, shut up, go home, vote for Romney (an establishment crony with the creepy grin of a pedophile), and watch him lose to Obama (yet another establishment crony) in 2012.

With this stated up front, it was brought to my attention that CNBC was running a poll asking readers who they thought won the recent Republican Presidential Debates in Michigan. Now, as in many polls in 2008, the name “Ron Paul” has been rising to the top of the charts in 2011 despite all efforts by media lapdogs to dissuade the public from even considering such a candidate. CNBC did not fail to play its roll this time around either. Ron Paul won by a substantial margin, and of course, their response was to take the poll down! Here was the explanation given by CNBC Managing Editor and all around bottom feeder, Allen Wastler:

Gamed Poll...So We Took It Down

We had a poll up from our Republican Presidential Debate asking readers who they thought won. One candidate was leading by such a margin that it became obvious the polling wasn't so much a reading of our audience, but of the Internet prowess of this particular candidate's political organization. We have therefore taken the poll down.

Yes, we've gone through this exercise before.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45233756/

Wastler then provides a link to a rather patronizing statement he made back in 2007 to explain why CNBC dumped polling results then as well:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762/?An_Open_Letter_to_the_Ron_Paul_Faithful

First of all, let’s be serious, folks! Regardless of what you might feel personally about Ron Paul or his political position, it has become painfully obvious to even the most oblivious subsections of the American populace that the MSM, from supposed “right wing” outlets like FOX, to supposed “left wing” outlets like CNBC, have gone WAY out of their way to ridicule, suppress, or completely ignore him.

Now, you really need to ask yourself, why is that?

If Ron Paul is such a “fringe” candidate with “no chance” of winning, then why all the trickery and subversion? If his political methodologies are so ridiculous or out of sync with the American people, then why not plaster his face on every TV screen in the country and let him destroy his own career? Why hide him from public view?

The answer is simple; because he IS a threat. His position is one of government transparency, limited power, and financial independence. He predicted the credit crisis and the mortgage bubble implosion long before they ever occurred. The guy wants to shut down the Federal Reserve and the cartoonish brute squad otherwise known as the IRS. He wants to end the costly and fraudulent wars in the Middle East and bring the troops home (really bring them home, not make fake statements about bringing them home and then keep them on the ground for another few years). Of course the MSM, a corporately controlled monopolistic sham, is working overtime to keep Paul down!

Think about it. Sit back and consider. If Ron Paul was actually allowed to stand on the same stage as Barack Obama in a fair debate, there would be no half hearted girly-slap pansy sparring going on as there would be in a match between Obama and Romney. Ron Paul would destroy Obama! It would be a massacre of historic proportions! The establishment, which represents a minority of elitists in this country and not the citizenry in any capacity, will not let this happen.

Allen Wastler would call the above statement “conspiracy theory”. All I have to say to Wastler is; prove me wrong! Give Ron Paul fair coverage. Leave your own polls to represent the actual results regardless of whether you like the outcome. But first, answer me these questions, Allen:

1) If your poll was “gamed”, or in other words “hacked”, then I imagine that you and CNBC have some kind of proof of this. Please, do show it to us, so we can better understand your suppression of the poll results. I continuously hear from the MSM that Ron Paul supporters are all master hackers, and that there are only a dozen of us huddled around basement computers posing as millions (and I thought they didn’t believe in conspiracies…), but I have yet to see any concrete evidence to support this notion. Do you have any, Allen?

2) If CNBC’s poll is so easily tampered with, then why continue to run it at all?

3) If Mitt Romney had won the poll by a landslide, would CNBC have suppressed the results then? Or is it only farfetched when Ron Paul prevails in the final calculations? (This is a bit of a rhetorical question, because we all know Mr. Wastler would have danced a jig and sung the glory of Romney over Paul if the roles had been reversed).

4) Why is it that whenever Ron Paul wins a poll, MSM pundits claim the results are unscientific, or that they really don’t represent the true position of the general public? Why is it that a Romney or Cain win brings resounding words of vindication for the nature of the democratic process?

5) What margin of success does CNBC consider “realistic” for a presidential candidate? I mean, is it really necessary for you to punish Ron Paul for being a popular candidate, or to punish his supporters for being well organized and showing up for the vote? Do you not see the half-assed absurdity of your claim that Ron Paul won by “too much”?

6) Isn’t it conceivable that Ron Paul is doing well in the polls because his ideas and views are shared by many Americans? Who are you to claim this is not possible, Mr. Allen?

7) Do you really believe you and CNBC will not be held accountable for misinforming the American people and hiding information pertinent to their political knowledge? The last time I checked, CNBC’s viewership has been in pitiful decline since at least 2009.

8) When are you going to man up, Allen, and admit that you dumped the poll because you are biased against Ron Paul? It’s not as if it is a big secret. Hiding behind superficial excuses such as “hackers” and “poll gaming” is at bottom pretty cowardly. Why not embrace your blatant disapproval of Paul and the considerable movement of Americans surrounding him so that we can have a real discussion, instead of putting on a pretentiously counterfeit smile and talking down your nose at us? Wouldn’t that be more fun?

Let’s bring some honesty, and perhaps finally some true competition, back to the presidential race, and say what is actually on our minds for once. This goes for the staff of CNBC! If Allen Wastler or any other MSM lackey wants to bash Ron Paul, then he should do it openly as a private citizen, not use the CNBC media apparatus as a Hearst-like yellow journalism weapon for misinforming the public, or for indirectly slandering a candidate or his supporters. This should not be a problem for him at all, unless, of course, the corporate owners of CNBC over at G&E play a much greater role in the actions of their news subsidiary than is readily admitted. Then, Allen Wastler’s apprehension in laying out the truth plainly would make a little more sense…

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/321-be-honest-cnbc-you-are-biased-against-ron-paul

Thank you

Greece and Detroit

Have you ever notice the similarities between Greece and Detroit? Of course not why would you ever care about Detroit other than a place to catch a connection on a Delta flight. Here are 4 quick points to ponder

1. Government is the largest employer
2. Wrought with corruption both from the citizens and the government (surprise shady people make shady politicians)
3. Significant union presence leading to collusion between unions and the politicians the unions elect. (cronyism and nepotism)

Outcome

Economically, the high taxes and anti-business attitude has lead to similar outcomes in both locations, high unemployment, debt and a budget in shambles. Detroit also shows the flaws in the plan to raise taxes to raise revenue, if you tax people, they leave, both corporations and individuals (people go to where there are jobs) and if you doubt it come and visit Detroit. Detroit has practiced Obama's idea of increasing revenue to fix a spending problem for decades, it has made Detroit less and less competitive until all you are left with a shell of a city, where the only way forward only is slash and burn spending cuts. Higher taxes don't make for better schools again look at Detroit it has the highest property taxes in the state of Michigan and the worst schools. If you want to see outcome of a tax and spend experiment, the future, come to Detroit the land of guns, fires and casinos.

Daniel Plainview

Law of Large Numbers

Has apple run head long into the law of large numbers?

Should a company with NI less then the taxes paid by XOM over the Trailing twelve have a greater market cap?

XOM quarterly NI is almost equal to APPL's annual NI?

The lemming on the street are holding on to their hockey sticks for the holiday season so far.

Are we Japan in the 1980's?

Not to be a Debby Downer but has anyone noticed some of the similarities between the U.S. and Japan? Yes, the RE bubble was bigger in Japan, and Japan is smaller, yada, yada, yada, my concern is not the magnitude but the similarities of the attempted grand solutions. Japan tried Massive QE, Yen weaking, and huge amounts of the magical dust called “infrastructure spending” to stimulate growth, check out Hamada, Japan Marine Bridge. Nothing worked and all Japan got was Debt level in excess of 150% of GDP. Now the best solutions the U.S. can come up with are the same solutions attempted 15 years ago? We look to be heading down the same path, with Zombie banks and we are using the same excuses for resisting cutting, we can’t stop spending, “if we cut spending now it will push us into a recession” and you can repeat this same line for the next 5 years, we will have little growth and we will end up with Debt to GDP near 200% just like Japan. (I think this is why I feel the S&P is on the right path, we cannot grow out and if you don’t grow deficits matter) The time is upon us, it is time to man up a take some pain, rip the band aid off it will heal faster.

The greatest case of shooting the messenger in recent history

There are a few, including Joe Kernen (CNBC host) who are upset because the S&P gave an opinion and lowered the credit rating of the U.S.A... Joe’s reaction to the report is a personal boycott of speaking S&P’s name; he has vowed not to speak the name of the company who gave an opinion, as if it were Lord Voldemort. What a child, anyway, Joe is a solid example of how our society and our self-titled leaders live in an imaginary world free of consequences, you buy a house with a payment equal to your take home pay but it is not your fault you can’t make the payment every month, then you and your congress person blame the mortgage broker, the broker blames the bank, the bank blames the investment bank, the investment bank blames Fannie and Freddie, they blame the congress who created Fannie and Freddie and the cycle is complete. This lack of responsibility is personified by the belief of congress and the president that decades of spending in excess of this countries tax receipt should have no impact, on anything, “don’t worry my grandkids will pick up the slack” (Both parties buying votes IMO but that is a different rant). Total debt has increase with every congress and president since Truman. I am talking about total debt not the nebulous number the spinsters in congress talk about like the rate of increase of Debt to GDP. Government love to talk about the “rate of increase” because the rate of increase can go down if GDP grows at a faster rate than congress issues new debt. Plus this is how Congress makes cuts to the budget they cut the rate of growth of spending and that somehow is called a cut. .. Enough venting I have to get to work

Fight the good fight.

Hmm how it is spent

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFiQCEN18v1kIRQ8YcgsccMeSctx8rFshIUXRBbSJIKAz8WYBldxOy7JHRVXtSpKdZCEEXo_p19_2fpwbZCLIagQs8uTAv5Bnog_og6Ih8TfD8OEYXQsSeKJuioW_p-vYA7aHR1ZkTYl_L/s1600/fedspending1.jpg

Ron Paul is he right ?

Ron Paul Exposes The Deficit "Plan" Lies: "Cuts Are Illusory, Not From Current
Ron Paul slams it right out of the ballpark.

When a Cut is Not a Cut

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.
No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the "cuts" being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.
The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.
In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of "cuts" that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to "cut". It would only take us 5 years to "cut" $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.
A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year's spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.
We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.
In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow

Hat tip Zerohedge

Its Not My Money so Why Not Spend It

For one moment step away from the emotionally driven, headline grabbing reasons for our deficit and think about the problem pragmatically. In a time that has been called the “great recession” you would expect the government to add temporary stimulus to the economy, the key word being temporary. Our government under both parties has expanded government on a structural bias (not debatable with rational logical people). When almost every segment of the private sector is making the difficult decision to tighten their belts in order to survive, our government goes on with raises, hiring and spending like nothing is happening, (why should they care it is not their money) Pelosi keeps her private flights to California, McCain keeps adding staff as if nothing has happened, print more debt and squeeze the tax payer, keep the party going. If you look at our federal government in a period of expansion like 2005 (not great growth but growth none the less, debt fund) the federal government paid 850 people over $100,000 to do their jobs. How much higher would you expect this number to be in 2010 after the great recession? 1000, maybe 2000 NO, not in the land of the purchased vote, try 17,800 for size, 17,800 people making over $100,000 makes you wonder how I can get on that gravy train (1.7 billion dollars). Now, I failed to mention in 2005 most of those 850 well-paying jobs were Doctors. Now they are TSA
…..Wouldn’t it be great if Obama would forgo his salary as a symbolic gesture as many CEO’s do with struggling companies, and only take a paycheck if he balances the budget, maybe all of congress should. Don’t worry about them most are worth millions they don’t need it they are rich.

Fight the good fight

Daniel Plainview

We Don't Pay Enough in Taxes (MY ASS)

Check your math.. rough estimate ,
Take a rough number like $100,000 (I don't want to be consider RICH by the administration)
1. Average Federal tax is =$21,617
2. FICA =$ 7650
3. Michigan State Tax 4%= $4000
4. Sales tax assume they save 12% (I know most people don't, but I don't want to be charged with over inflating the tax estimate) if you dont save it you spend it MI Sales tax rate 6% =$3742
5. Gas tax Michigan has an average of 37.7 cents per gallon in tax. 15,000 miles at 25 miles a gallon equals 600 gallons of gas and another $226 in tax
6. Since in Michigan you have to have a car you can add about $122 to register and keep tabs and plates

For a grand tax total of

$37,357 or about 37.36% of you income goes to the ever so efficient government

Let them fail, and throw the CEO in jail

A company cannot be punished any more than you can tax them. They are nothing more than a pass through. If you want to fine or penalize a company you need to attack an individual(s). Fine them or take away their ability to earn a living, not only at the current company but also future companies in the same field. Companies don't pay taxes, people do, owners (shareholders), workers and customers pay the tax or fine, the company is just a shell, an unemotional, unfeeling, shell.

One for the big banks getting bigger

One more reason why your local credit union will soon be out of business, all part of the governments plan to concentrate power

Since April 1, the FDIC now costs a bank an additional between and ten and forty-five basis points as a fee on its assets. That is a payment the bank must make – any American bank – to the FDIC.

Few small bank or credit unions can afford this payment and mind you they were not the ones responsible for 2008, the rule should force only large banks who represent a systemic risk to pay the charge, since they are the one who caused the problems. Punish the law breakers not everyone.

But that is not the purpose of the rule, the purpose is what I wrote earlier, to concentrate power, more power in D.C. the easier it is to lobby, easier to control, easier to threaten, more likely to play ball, and more likely to be unionized, end game more power in D.C. Don't dismiss it as random noise from some government hater, just look around and see. You can't buy a Happy Meal in San Fransisco because the government does not feel parents are smart or strong enough to say NO to their kids, and they may have a point, the parents in San Francisco were probably the same people earlier in life who could not say NO to drugs during Nancy Regan's "just say NO to drugs" campaign either.There is precedence.

Venting

Fight the good fight
Dainel Plainview

Government jobs should not be free from Penalty

I agree with Barry from the Big Picture Blog, a government job should not be free from penalties when you fail to execute, even though the public sector unions feels differently

From the Big Picture

This is yet another crime we should be prosecuting people for. It is no different than safety regulators who failed to inspect carnival rides and 100s of children died. The bank regulators who refused to discharge their duties for ideological reasons should be prosecuted. That means investigating John Duggan and John M. Reich for nonfeasance. How are they any different from people who took payoffs from carnies and allowed children to die on unsafe rides?
Consider how bad it was under these to radical deregulators: We’ve mentioned this stat previously, but its worth repeating: Referrals for criminal prosecution plummeted under the Bush administration fell by 95%. While I have been frustrated by the poor policy and personnel choices Obama has made — and continues to make — the Bush administration was uniquely incompetent when it came to filling regulatory positions with anti-regulators. (Think Harvey “Shred-’em-before-the-subpoena-arrives” Pitt as SEC chair).

Its no surprise that these criminally negligent appointees did not do their jobs. These so-called regulators were far too cozy with the regulated. Friends, pals, drinking buddies. And so, they failed their charges, and left the taxpayer at the mercy of thieves.

Throw the bums in Jail, careful not to upset the unions Barry, big brother is listening and will take to Cuba for an extended stay "vacation". No trial and your "vaction" photos my include you in some questionable poses with other "vactioners" and German Shepards.


Daniel Plainview
Thank you for your support.

"The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains.."

Are Market Ahead of them selves

Earnings hmmm

AA - Miss
JPM- Miss
Fairchild semi- Miss

Not starting off on the strongest of footings for this quarter?
Are comps that high?
Is the market expecting the end of QE2 ?
What happens if there are no major private Treasury buyers?
What if the FED buy 90-100% of the auction volume?

or

Is this the big guys creating a buying opportunity for themselves?
Was Goldman's sell call on oil on really Buy call on oil at $105 ?

Daniel Plainview
Random winning

They Hate Everyone

This is great and from Marginal Revolution

Sentences to make you angry (or not)
by Tyler Cowen on April 11, 2011 at 7:00 am in Data Source, Political Science | Permalink

In a recent paper, James Lindgren of Northwestern reports: follow the hyper link at Marginal Revolution to the paper on SSRN

…compared to anti-redistributionists, strong redistributionists have about two to three times higher odds of reporting that in the prior seven days they were angry, mad at someone, outraged, sad, lonely, and had trouble shaking the blues. Similarly, anti-redistributionists had about two to four times higher odds of reporting being happy or at ease. Not only do redistributionists report more anger, but they report that their anger lasts longer. When asked about the last time they were angry, strong redistributionists were more than twice as likely as strong opponents of leveling to admit that they responded to their anger by plotting revenge. Last, both redistributionists and anti-capitalists expressed lower overall happiness, less happy marriages, and lower satisfaction with their financial situations and with their jobs or housework.

Further, in the 2002 and 2004 General Social Surveys anti-redistributionists were generally more likely to report altruistic behavior. In particular, those who opposed more government redistribution of income were much more likely to donate money to charities, religious organizations, and political candidates. The one sort of altruistic behavior that the redistributionists were more likely to engage in was giving money to a homeless person on the street.

This is much more to this paper. For instance, at the U.S. national level, racists tend to be pro-income redistribution on net. Anti-capitalist attitudes are associated with higher levels of intolerance. I thank an MR reader for the pointer, I am sorry that I have lost the identifying email.


The battle goes on

Daniel Plainview

It is a stupid act but...

It is a stupid act but it raises questions about the Religion of peace.

On the other hand what would pastor, Terry Jones, do if a follower of the Koran burned a bible in front of him?

My guess, about the same response death threats, except there would be no 4.2 million dollar bounty, they don't have any oil money.

’400 Death Threats’ Follow Koran-Burning Preacher To OC

April 6, 2011 10:08 AM

Print Share 398
Florida pastor Terry Jones (Getty Images)

SANTA ANA (CBS) — A Florida pastor blamed for inciting unrest in Afghanistan by burning a Koran was in town on Wednesday to appear on Truth TV, an Arabic language Christian network.

Rev. Terry Jones told reporters he had no plans to burn any more Korans upon his arrival at LAX on Tuesday night, but that he may hold another mock trial for the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

“We’ve had about 400 death threats,” he said, adding that Hezbolla, the Shia Muslim militant group, had put out a “reward out on my head for $2.4 million.”

Santa Ana police say they were warned that Jones was in town.

It was unclear if he has scheduled any public appearances.

Jones of Gainesville, Fla., said he planned to go to Dearborn, Mich., for a demonstration outside the nation’s largest mosque.

He has been widely criticized for burning a Koran following a mock trial March 20 at his church, saying he did it to draw attention to radical Islam.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the act. About 20 people, including seven United Nations workers, have been killed in rioting in Afghanistan.

(©2010 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Wire services contributed to this report


Daniel Plainview

Fight the good Fight.

I could not have said it better myself..but

I think Barry will win because the bulk of our media leans...left not forward and if you continue to lean in one direction you will go in a circle ending back where you strarted. It will also happen if you have a limp.


Straight from Zerohedge

There is nothing remotely ideological or personal in my prediction that President Obama will lose the 2012 election. Both parties are equally out of touch with reality in my view, and both suppport the same things: a global Empire, an increasingly intrusive Savior State, a shadow banking system which is no longer under the control of State institutions (rather, the banks control the institutions), and various crony-capitalist cartels which fund political campaigns and partner with the Central State's bloated, unaccountable fiefdoms. The only visible difference between the two parties is slight variations in the relative growth rates of the most-favored cartels and fiefdoms. President Obama seems like a nice guy. Many people said the same thing about George W. Bush. While a likeable personality is a plus in a media-obsessed society, American elections boil down to this: Americans vote their pocketbook, and their pocketbooks will be a lot lighter by November 2012

Daniel Plainview

Fight the good fight

Sell in May and Go AWAY!!!

You may have seen this on The Big Picture.com. Did you notice 18 of 24 ending dates are on or before the end of May. Does it support the sell in May and go away theory? Also everyone of the periods are in the 1930's so the data is a little weak but it is the weekend

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/102-week-rolling-returns/

Poop Floats
Daniel Plainview
--

Cell Phones Increase Brain Activity, Stir Fears

From ABC News ---Cell Phones Increase Brain Activity, Stir Fears

How am I to interpret this headline? Cell Phones make you think? Cell phones make you smarter? Who is afraid? Teachers? Politicians? If people think for themselves many incumbents may not get reelected. When is an active brain bad? I guess it would be bad if you were in charge of a group of compliant lemmings and all of a sudden one of them found a cell phone, leading to a outbreak of free thinking and an organized rebellion complete with doctor notes and news cameras. I could be bad for Glen Beck's ratings if some how people were forced to watch his show with an active brain.

Fighting the good fight
Daniel Plainveiw

Quote

"Calamity is the test of integrity"

-Samuel Richardson



Not here for a long time, but here for a good time
Daniel Plainview

Wind Sock 2

This wind sock remains long. Some stuff got called but still long, working back into names with more room to run. Maybe the budget battle will be catalyst for a pull back then I can lever up on the ride to 1400 on the S&P 500. Could be the drugs talking.

Charlie Sheen you later
Daniel Plainview

Dshort.com

You have to love how great our government is at projecting. Makes you think about other points of accuracy like global warming for example. You can't be this bad in one area and perfect in another unless it is all dumb luck or if it is all made up.

The chart came from a great website with tons of original graphs

dshort.com

Lookie here

blindly obedient
Daniel Plainview

Made-off

If you have not heard Bernie Madoff (BM) said and I am paraphrasing here, that the banks had to of known he was faking it, he is a trustworthy guy so it must be true. Then our media buys into the story, like a fat kid in a chocolate cake store, and it is running with the story like it is scientific fact, which makes me so proud to be an American. Why should you listen to a man who is a psychopath? He can and does lie to anyone and everyone? He lied to widows and retires to steal their money with no conscious? My problem is not BM but our educated media or should we call all media TMZ?
Wait; wait a second here, if you look at it from a different angle you can get a better picture of why this has made every news outlet. The story nicely fits the lefts agenda of all job providing companies are evil and it fits the rights agenda of no one should have received TARP. Nice to see nothing has changed.
Now can Fox use Bernie to attack the EPA

Rolling in the butter
Daniel Plainview

Yes I am a little late

Third Avenue Value

This Shareholder letter is an interesting read

TAM Shareholder Letter

A team and a man who don't buy into MPT.

Questions If you think mean reversion works can you believe in random walk? Because the random walk formula has an undefined mean? (0/0) Nothing to revert too.

Happy Hump day
Daniel Plainview

Quote of the day

"Speculators often prosper through ignorance; it is a cliché that in a roaring bull market knowledge is superfluous and experience is a handicap. But the typical experience of the speculator is one of temporary profit and ultimate loss."
Benjamin Graham


Fight the good fight
Daniel Plainview

WTF Friday... is this what no child left behind means

I am glad to see there is a place where Zionist haters can still get elected to public office outside of Iran. Right here in the good old U.S.A.,in the great state of Texas. What is even more amazing is they are both republicans, quality public Texas education. WTF? No child left behind.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/09/christian-conservative-replace-jewish-speaker-texan-pols-say/
--

Fight the Good fight
Daniel Plainview

Unintended Consequences of higher food prices

Food prices are rising across the global providing fodder for the media to attack QE2 and all of its flaws. But this event provides an opportunity for the United States to save the tax payer billion assuming someone has the intestinal and mental fortitude to act and stand up to a massive lobbing group. Eliminating the direct subsidies to Farmers in the United States would save the tax payers $20 billion dollars a year. Don’t give me the “But they protect the small farmer” they don’t, subsidies are often distributed on production, if they wanted to save the small farm they would base the subsidy on a per farm biases not on production volume. Anyway with higher prices farmers won’t need support, the market fixes the problem by making production profitable.

Higher food prices will lead to more global farmers being self-sufficient and self-sustaining leading to more farmers selling goods. Allowing them a higher standard of living, in turn allow them to upgrade technology, like irrigation, leading to higher yield more production and more profits. The vicious cycle works in good a good way.

Kill the subsidy
Daniel Plainview

Bearish ? Listen to these folks

Hammond associates -------http://www.hammondassociates.com/TC.html
stay away from windows and sharp objects

waiting for the snow.
Daniel Plainview

Wind Sock

In relating to this market, I now have the intestinal fortitude of a Wind Sock ?

More to follow.

drifting in the wind
Daniel Plainview

More macro: Is it Egypt?

My thoughts … yes these are my thoughts.
Anyway, Is Egypt the reason the market is down? I believe the answer is yes.

Here is why, the market has been climbing higher and higher without many or even a significant stumble since March of 2009 and it has been even more dramatic since November 2010. I believe we are witnessing a case of the “Fingers if Instability” (I took it from Mauldin). It is more a matter of timing in this case than an absolute cause. As explained in the Mauldin article; the scenario plays out as if you are building a hill of sand one grain at a time. With every grain you add the possibility of collapse and magnitude of the collapse increase. The challenge is when does the collapse happen? There is no constant point signaling a collapse, or the size of the collapse, the collapse just happens, it looks to be a random event. No matter how comfortable we are we as investors have to remember there will always be a collapse and the longer it has been since the last collapse the greater chance of the collapse being significant. Egypt just happened to be the last grain of sand.

Market Neutral
Daniel Plainview

CASE BY CASE

So case by case means what?

"Applications for waivers from annual limit requirements are reviewed on a case by case basis by Department officials who look at a series of factors including (but not limited to) whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver."

My comment is in bold.

My list of possible additional factors:

1. Have you harassed a TSA agent?
2. Have you expressed a negative opinion about the administration?
3. Do you own a gun?
4. Have you adopted a green lifestyle? (Unless your Al Gore than you don't need to actually live green just talk about doing it, that's enough)
5. Did you make a substantial contribution to a political campaign? (One way helps your chances, the other way not so much)

Daniel Plainview

Brave new world,
I listen to too many conference calls and there are 2 phrases nearing over use.

1. Muddle through- this tells me one thing, There are a large number of people reading John Mauldin, not much else

2. The New Normal- enough said—when you have a trillion dollars people will repeat your fodder.

Go long or go home
Daniel Plainview