|
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 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:46 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. At best, it is as educated a guess as blackjack. |
And could be worse. The cumulative earnings of the airline industry for example has been negative. (According to Jason Zwieg and others)
For green energy there just needs to be one technology that hits it big, really big and all of the other promising stuff finds its market simply evaporating.
For an example: Polywell. A pretty much out of the public eye, navy funded project by Bussard (and now others) into making an electron bottle in order to fuse atomic nuclei. Theorectically it could work the Boron proton fuel cycle. If it succeeds, and it could easily prove unworkable or uneconomic for dozens of reasons, we can kiss wind power, clean coal and hydro goodbye. Solar would be the only one to hang on in terms of remote applications. ITER would be totally trashed and most current fission plants retired.
Trying to predict the future of projects like these is pretty much impossible even for PhDs in plasma physics. Opinions range from "not gonna work" to "could work" to "let's try it and see." Only way to find out is to build the thing.
So what chance do we have to pick the winners? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mises: CNBC is advertising/promoting Jim Cramer's upcoming 1,000th show. Would you like to attend?
Jim Cramer: alive and kicking... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think we're just starting along a long path of populist rage and that Cramer won't survive. Obama is seriously prolonging this recession so now all bets are off about recovery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:55 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. |
Way down:
http://www.slate.com/id/2224257
| Quote: |
| "Tyler Durden" at ZeroHedge has posted data showing that CNBC's audience fell 28 percent between July 2008 and July 2009. |
They've only become more ridiculous in recent months. I don't know a single person who actually watches it for any reason than to stare at Trish Regan (though I prefer Bloomberg's Betty Liu, who actually has a brain to match her looks).
I've never seen a segment where GE Capital (another firm slowing exploding) has been called out. I wonder why?
When the story of this depression is written I don't think the major media organizations are going to be remembered all that well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
They've only become more ridiculous in recent months. I don't know a single person who actually watches it for any reason than to stare at Trish Regan (though I prefer Bloomberg's Betty Liu, who actually has a brain to match her looks).
I've never seen a segment where GE Capital (another firm slowing exploding) has been called out. I wonder why? |
Well....
| Quote: |
CNBC once again breaks new journalistic ground by taking a long, hard look at the porn industry.
...
True to CNBC's high journalistic standards, Melissa Lee (who opens the show in the middle of Times Square wearing what seems like nothing but a trench coat) gives it appropriately in-depth coverage. (Ms. Lee took some time off from "preparing for the biggest business story of the century: the rise of China" to cover what CNBC apparently considers the second biggest business story of the century.)
|
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/porn-pleasure-financial-tv-news-business
CNBC is truely onto some groundbreaking stuff here. |
|
| 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
