|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| If for no reason other than the democratization of equities has been a devastating failure. |
I'm more interested in this statement than any other on the thread, so I risk derailing it. Oh, well.
I wouldn't be so certain of this. Certainly not everyone belongs in the day-trader crowd, but I don't think the tide will roll all the way back to the mid-80s when only those who could afford land-phoneline connection to a flesh-and-blood broker would actively trade.
Just one reason I think this: mutual funds, which you mentioned, often end up getting less favorable tax treatment than a portfolio. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re: Mad Money will not survive. Testable prediction, Mises. Estimate its collapse more specifically as far as the when goes.
I on the other hand would estimate that by 1 June this year, this story will have faded from almost everyone's memory. Flash in the pan, no more no less.
Something tells me, however, being on the roller coaster that we are all on at the moment, it might just be a coin toss for both of us. If the market continues plunging, the religion will surely falter and the priests will eventually collapse, all at once or one by one no doubt. Jon Stewart, in any case, is not on the cutting-edge here. If he were on the cutting-edge, he should have made these points 18 to 24 months ago when they might have made a difference for some. Post facto critique remains like going after fish in a barrel. To see him do so so sanctimoniously, however, that simply looks disingenuous, opportunistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gopher: and here i was thinking myself to be an intellectually curious, free-thinking moderate. i guess one does not truly know oneself until one has been diagnosed by someone who can lump you in with an author (admittedly dated and partisan in many respects) whose work you've used to make a point.
anyhow, that point still stands. i'm not accusing you of clinical paranoia, that would be too strong. however you do tend to exaggerate, albeit eloquently. i agree completely that the left was wrong in calling bush "fascist", but isn't it equally silly to say that the left has "borderline totalitarian impulses'? you say you don't want to comply with and respond to the game as people like jon stewart would have you do it, but it seems you've already fallen into that trap. you should put to use that pointed wit and breadth of knowledge for writing more thoughtful commentary. otherwise you're just as bad as the clowns you criticize, just more fun to read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Jon Stewart, like most people in his position is an attention w**** "Look at me!" "Look at me, I'm taking on Big Business! I'm taking on the 'media'!" "I'm taking on Bush!" "Look at meeee!"
It is rather amusing to see the leftists slobbering over him, yet all the while they claim to be unbiased and impartial..."above it all". |
If you're finished attacking Jon Stewart himself, what do you think of the points he raised in the interview? |
They could have been raised with a less "holier-than-thou, I'm smarter than you" air. And to quote Mr. Gopher "...he should have made these points 18-24 months ago when they might have made a difference for some. Post facto critique remains like going after fish in a barrel. To see him do so so sanctimoniously, however, that simply looks disingenuous, opportunistic."
And like I pointed out above, Stewart is not the only one who does this, nor is he above reproach.
I'll get my financial advice from someone other than a comedian thank you very much. Anyone can Monday morning quarterback. And that is ALL Johnny-boy was doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| ...isn't it equally silly to say that the left has "borderline totalitarian impulses?" |
I think you may be out of touch with the people I am referring to. So far your most recent cite dates back thirty years ago -- that is, to a previous generation. It represents a period piece, superseded by subsequent scholarship, old and obsolete.
But to answer your question, when the leftists who I know expend the better part of an hour in seminar railing against words such as "hybrid" and "miscegenation" and end by concluding/demanding that no one should speak them or employ them in their writing because they have deemed them "offensive," yes, Ubermenzch, I call that a borderline totalitarian impulse, like the Thought Police and their NewSpeak dictionaries.
As far as the other examples I cited, above, more germane to this thread and specifically the conservative or pro-business media, I note that you ignored the pattern I presented. In any case, again, when one side systematically moves against the other side's media assets, I call that a borderline totalitarian impulse, absolutely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Re: Mad Money will not survive. Testable prediction, Mises. Estimate its collapse more specifically as far as the when goes.
|
Oh, I don't know. Inside of a year I guess. We're only about half way through the decline portion of this crises. Lots of room. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I wouldn't be so certain of this. Certainly not everyone belongs in the day-trader crowd, but I don't think the tide will roll all the way back to the mid-80s when only those who could afford land-phoneline connection to a flesh-and-blood broker would actively trade. |
I think day trading doesn't really exist much anymore. Those shops are now called "prop shops" and they function as a small scam on wanna be Wall Street players. And at some point I expect the Tobin Tax to be implemented, which would wipe them out.
But about the future of equities.. I'm looking at forced selling on pension funds and baby boomers to keep the markets very low for a long long long time. The returns on risk won't be worth it, compared to bonds and commodities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| If for no reason other than the democratization of equities has been a devastating failure. |
I'm more interested in this statement than any other on the thread, so I risk derailing it. Oh, well.
I wouldn't be so certain of this. |
I am quite sure:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/680b46b0-18a7-11de-bec8-0000779fd2ac.html
| Quote: |
| Anyone who started saving 40 years ago, when the postwar �baby boom� generation was just joining the workforce, has found that stocks have performed no better than 20-year government bonds since then, a forthcoming article by Robert Arnott for the Journal of Indexes shows. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| If for no reason other than the democratization of equities has been a devastating failure. |
I'm more interested in this statement than any other on the thread, so I risk derailing it. Oh, well.
I wouldn't be so certain of this. |
I am quite sure:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/680b46b0-18a7-11de-bec8-0000779fd2ac.html
| Quote: |
| Anyone who started saving 40 years ago, when the postwar �baby boom� generation was just joining the workforce, has found that stocks have performed no better than 20-year government bonds since then, a forthcoming article by Robert Arnott for the Journal of Indexes shows. |
|
Measuring with today as the end point is misleading. The stock market is almost certainly undervalued. You don't look for long-term returns based on the trough in a once-a-generation level recession. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Given that it is played on every trading floor big and small in the United States and even to some extent in Canada and Singapore (among others) it is unlikely to lose too many sponsors, though who knows. If I were Bloomberg, I'd be licking my chops.. Anways, when I speak of taking it down, I'm referring to respectability. I've been critical of their garbage "YOU'RE A BULL" YOU'RE A BEAR" "DR. DOOM" etc for a while, and suddenly, nobody seems to disagree with me. Their childish antics have been exposed. This reminds me of my long standing arguments with real estate types and how they suddenly, one day, sounded just like me. It is a paradigm shift. But again, I'm sure they will be able to rebuild. They need to get rid of most of their hosts. Fox Business News, for example, has responded to this crises by regularly airing Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell -an anarcho-capitalist-, who their politics aside, got the crises right. FBN also got rid of some of their perma-bulls (their word) like Mike Norman.
Anyways, ratings are down. |
I couldn't agree more.
During the bubble, CNBC still had credibility, but now that the bubble has long since popped, their "I have sunshine on a cloudy day" bullshit is stale. A lot of people are concerned about conflicts of interest in their reporting and see them as shills for GE and corporations in general. They need to get their hosts pompoms if all they're going to do is cheerlead. And if they're going to put their hosts on TV to cheerlead, they need some that look the part. Bloomberg puts their good-looking ladies up front and center. CNBC features their dog pound. The CNBC Business Russia chick is one that isn't a dog, but I have no interest in hearing about Russian business. As for Cramer, people listened to him a lot more before this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUkbdjetlY8 happened. It was his Mission Accomplished moment.
Mises is also right about Fox Business News. I initially didn't give them a chance because Fox's news channel is so crappy, but their business channel is actually quite good.
Bloomberg is my favorite of the three. For example, I watched Bernie Lo interiew Marc Faber for 30 minutes to an hour the other night. It was a great host, a great guest, and a great interview. You never see that type of material on CNBC. I like how organized Bloomberg's ticker is. I read that they cancelled Night Talk with Mike Schneider, which is a great decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Measuring with today as the end point is misleading. The stock market is almost certainly undervalued. |
Oh wow, do I ever disagree.
The stock markets are still over valued.
There is been, according to Niall Ferguson, around 1%/gdp growth/yr over the past 10 years or so. Andy Xie puts the superboom back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, suggesting we return to early 90's, not 99'. What we've had since the end of the tech boom, is a monetary bubble.
Using the DOW as an example, (and it is probably a bad example of anything)
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI
Click max.
You think we're still overvalued, even looking at that?
In my opinion, an honest and sober look at the future earnings of equities doesn't lend itself to a 7,500DOW. 5500, maybe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Measuring with today as the end point is misleading. The stock market is almost certainly undervalued. |
Oh wow, do I ever disagree.
The stock markets are still over valued.
There is been, according to Niall Ferguson, around 1%/gdp growth/yr over the past 10 years or so. Andy Xie puts the superboom back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, suggesting we return to early 90's, not 99'. What we've had since the end of the tech boom, is a monetary bubble.
Using the DOW as an example, (and it is probably a bad example of anything)
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI
Click max.
You think we're still overvalued, even looking at that?
In my opinion, an honest and sober look at the future earnings of equities doesn't lend itself to a 7,500DOW. 5500, maybe. |
Hard to say. What I do know is that any single point-to-point evaluation of the entire market is gonna be skewed.
Here's NASDAQ:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXNASDAQ:.IXIC
Here's the S&P 500:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXSP%3A.INX
About the same general picture.
It'd be better to isolate trends industry by industry. Like I'd agree Big Pharma is not undervalued. Other industries are just about to heat up. With the coming Green boom, I'd be preparing to get into that sector w/in the next few years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those sectors that produce things for export will do well. No doubt. Those sectors that rely on 1) consumer spending (especially durables and discretionary) (73% of the US economy) and 2) financial services are toast. And those 2 industries are extremely important to the overall performance of equity markets.
But with green tech. You might be right that a boom will come. I'm following a company from AZ that has made huge advances in solar power, yet is not seeing what I think are appropriate appreciation (and I'd like to know why, before any of my money is placed). NNTaleb has discussed this at length. In the situation of green tech, you're in the same position as the internet boom. It is going to be impossible to know which firms will do well, and which will fail. At best, it is as educated a guess as blackjack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Those sectors that produce things for export will do well. No doubt. Those sectors that rely on 1) consumer spending (especially durables and discretionary) (73% of the US economy) and 2) financial services are toast. And those 2 industries are extremely important to the overall performance of equity markets.
But with green tech. You might be right that a boom will come. I'm following a company from AZ that has made huge advances in solar power, yet is not seeing what I think are appropriate appreciation (and I'd like to know why, before any of my money is placed). NNTaleb has discussed this at length. In the situation of green tech, you're in the same position as the internet boom. It is going to be impossible to know which firms will do well, and which will fail. |
Green tech is going to receive gov't subsidies, the most significant of which are tax incentives (these tend to last longer, think of the continued resilience of tax breaks given to US oil companies in the 70s). And my dad's bets on oil stocks from 2004-2006 are helping fund law school.
| Quote: |
| At best, it is as educated a guess as blackjack. |
The best game at the casino if you can count cards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
