Here's your optimistic outlook Charlie. Personally I think the market is getting ahead of itself but maybe my buddy at Nasdaq will be right with Dow 12K by year end.
Personally I think the market is getting ahead of itself but maybe my buddy at Nasdaq will be right with Dow 12K by year end.
I believe I already stated this a few weeks ago, but I think that your buddy will be correct. In fact, I will go one step further. I will predict a Dow of 13,000 by this time next year. How is that for a Tag-like prediction?
As long a we'll all crowing wasn't I the one that thought dow10K for the end of last year stated when it was back around 6700 or so - and you guys thought I needed a couch somewhere. I bought heavily when the Dow was in the mid-high sixes as I couldn't imagine it going much lower. I still fear a late year selloff on technicalities, locking in 2010 profits and setting up 2011 for a good year but we'll see. I think how well retail data shows up in early-mid December will play a big role in where we land at year end. D'ont buy the 13point so quickly. I think we need more jobs for that. Clearly the market has baked in a 1-2 year hiatus on the Bush tax cuts for all and the strength of the victory in the house by Reps and Bernankes telegraphed move (which if engineered right could be brilliant, otherwise it has some dangers ahead) all are part of this weeks big move.
Looking at my IRA and it is now 19% higher than when I retired in April 2006. It peaked at 13% the end of 2007. Then dropped over 50%. Thankfully it is higher now than ever. I sometimes think I should just transfer it all into something safe. What might that be? Not US dollars for sure. I have to start taking out in two more years. I really don't need it. I was hoping to preserve it for my wife and kids if I die first.
Looking back at the meltdown leaves me with nothing short of bewilderment and outrage... a disbelief that we all went through that nightmare. Yet, it forced some huge decisions and adjustments... some for the better, perhaps. But, I never want to go through that again,
Len, you made some very smart decisions back then, as you always have. You are a brilliant businessman, and you have a keen sense of fiscal matters, I admire, respect, and agree with most of your perspective. And it goes without saying that I am damned glad that you continue to post here.
I must add that Charlie will always get my praise for getting out of the market right before the meltdown. No matter what we do, or have done... it is hard to compare to that brilliant timing!
Charlie is a smart investor (you also, of course). And we know it's not really that easy.
It's damned cool the way we have all navigated through these economic times.
I do believe that we will all face some investment challenges ahead... and we will be forced to make some big investment decisions. Hopefully, we all come out of it more prosperous, or possibly unscathed, depending on what lies ahead.
I am glad to see the Democrats lost so much control, yet I would no longer want to see Republican domination either. There are serious problems that need to be addressed, and I hope they get the attention they deserve.
As you know, I believe we need a totally new tax policy for starters... one that rewards success and motivates business and employment... and investment in America.
Anyway, I appreciate ALL you guys. I think this is a very cool forum, with very cool members.
In fairness to those with mutual funds in their 401k, that may or may not have performed well. Most of the gain is from hitting Ford at just the right time. I am not usually that lucky. I bought in at $1.76 on a whim. The stars were all in the right alignment.
Good job! It just goes to show..... stay the course..
Ours are up 28% since 07. Partially because I moved funds into more conservative investments in 07 and partially because we boosted our contributions when the sky was falling.
I just kept telling my wife "don't worry we are buying cheap and we have a long time until retirement". It's paid off so far.
Being that my wife and I are in our late 30's, I've been more concerned with our two daughters' (8 & 12) 529 accounts. Those really took a beating and being that I used age based funds, the investment mix turned more conservative as the markets rebounded thus, we took a beating on the downside and now are missing out a bit on the upside. The accounts are up , but not enough match tuition increases. I'm considering some other alternatives for college savings. I do like the tax break our state provides, but the limited investment options are discouraging.
On a side note, in an attempt to introduce my daughter's to the idea of saving and investing, I opened them both up a DRIP account with Disney in early 2008. They both have saved a portion of their allowance/birthday money etc and have invested in Disney shares. Those have more than paid off since they began buying in the $15 range and Disney is now over $37. I'd say that's much better than letting their money rot in a savings account.
Gotta say, way to go Ford. I'm glad I picked up some shares a few weeks ago.
I bought in at $1.76 on a whim. The stars were all in the right alignment.
No kidding. My whims usually cost lots of money;) When F was that low, I kept telling myself even then, someday it'll be a $20 stock again. Why I didn't buy any then is beyond me.
Tag - every meltdown provides great buying opportunities. Citi spent a long time at $1, and now is back to 4.50. We will look back to that stock in the future as the buy of a lifetime along with Ford and others. I'm in at $1, 3.15 and $4.25. I stupidly sold 3,000 shares at $3 so actualy I have 7,000 shares of the original 10K I bought for a grand. Ovrerall I have 17,000 shares accumulated and 15,000 are LT now..
As long a we'll all crowing wasn't I the one that thought dow10K for the end of last year stated when it was back around 6700 or so - and you guys thought I needed a couch somewhere.
Greetings from MI! Len, you certainly did predict a 10K Dow before anyone else. I don't remember all the details of why I did so at the time, but I started buying stocks in late February or early March of 2009. I obviously felt that we were near a market low (as it turns out, it was the low). Your prediction may have influenced my decision to start buying at that time. Thank you for sharing your amazing insight and wisdom.
I have been doing a lot of traveling recently. Today, my wife and I flew to Detroit and we are spending some time with our daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter. She is growing up so fast. She will be 3 at the end of December but acts like 13. Late next week we are flying to MA to visit my brother and sister. We are returning home on November 18. But guess what? We are visiting the Detroit area again later in December. Our daughter is expecting her second child (another girl) on December 21. FUN, FUN, FUN! We are SO blessed.
One other note: Those darn Huskers were SO lucky to win that amazing game in Ames, IA today. The last play of the game (overtime) was a brilliant call. ISU faked the one point conversion to tie and instead went for the win. The second string punter was the holder but his pass (threw it like a shot put) to the wide open tight end was very weak into the stiff wind and a defensive back for the Huskers had time, stepped in front and intercepted. Game over! The Huskers were totally caught off guard by the call, but the pass to the wide open tight end stunk. Oh what could have been!!!
This article was in the NY Times after the election. Unfortunately, I don't have the link so I need to copy and paste the entire article here. It was emailed to me a couple days ago. I hope you all read it.
How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West. If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought. For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price. Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power. As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent. But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies? The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.
Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated. “An apology is due Barack Obama,” wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama’s signature economic successes. Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade. All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes. “We have done things that people don’t even know about,” Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority. But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don’t know that, either. Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. “It could have been much worse!” is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today. Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system — but no jobs. Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama’s initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must — or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year. Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation — which should please big business even more. President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank “holiday” in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign. Obama can recast himself as the consumer’s best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform. And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives – insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil. They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him. Excerpted from How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms - NYTimes.com
OK, for the sake of argument. Let's say it did help the bankers and Wall Street. What did it do for the middle class that always end up paying the bills. The ones that did not lose their jobs, yet lost several percentage points of buying power? The working stiff that has seen his HC premiums go up by 27% or more? The Seniors that have found their Doctors will no longer provide them HC due to the cuts in Medicare pay outs? I would say the writer is all wet on credit card holders being better off. The last letters I got raised the late fees and interest rates on my CCs. My utilities have steadily gone up and gas for the car has gone up over a buck a gallon since Obama entered the WH.
To keep things in better perspective. When the GOP lost the Congress in 2006 we were riding high in all areas of the economy. The voters decided they did not like being in a war and voted out the ones they considered the culprits. The Dow was at an all time high when the new Democrat Congress pushed through some repressive energy policies. Policies that took jobs from US manufacturers and handed them directly to Chinese factories. The downward spiral was a direct result of Liberal policies passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by a lame duck President that was tired of fighting. Yes he signed TARP before leaving office and gave the auto industry a cash infusion. If TARP had failed miserably, do you think this liberal NYT writer would have blamed Obama or GW Bush?
Obama lost the mid terms because he and his puppets in Congress forced a lot of unwanted legislation down the throats of the American public without open debate as he promised in the campaign. It has been the worst combo of Congress and President in the history of the USA. The stock market and banks are doing good on our future tax dollars and overseas investments. I don't expect the job situation to improve much unless we see some real positive moves by this GOP controlled House and a right moving Senate. If Obama wants to play the spoiler he will not see a second term. If he is as smart as Bill Clinton, he may get re-elected.
That will include BIG cut backs in welfare and a move to stop illegal immigration and booting out the illegals already here.
>Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history.
It starts with the premise that GWB and the Republicans were solely responsible for the decline in the stock market. Nothing was said about Fannie and Freddy and lack of control by Democrat congress. Nothing said about Clinton's era.
If TARP had failed miserably, do you think this liberal NYT writer would have blamed Obama or GW Bush?
It did not fail and therefore it is a moot point. I love the way you guys always point to the "liberal NY Times" whenever an article does not support your views (regardless of the facts). However, when someone like Len posts NY Times articles that support your views, then the article is the truth. The hypocrisy is glaring in my opinion.
It did not fail and therefore it is a moot point. I love the way you guys always point to the "liberal NY Times"
So TARP and the automaker bailouts did not fail. Why didn't the writer give GW Bush the credit for signing the TARP bill. Why does Obama get any of the credit? He was not elected when the bill was signed. If the NY Times and the LA Times are not ultra liberal papers I must not be reading the same parts as you are. Yes I will post articles from both papers from time to time. Some are informative when they do not go overboard pushing the liberal agenda.
I thought you wanted a counter point to the article, from the title of your post.
By the way, I am happy about the stock market. I am upset about my cash in the bank. It is worth a lot less since Obama took office. But my gold coins are worth a lot more. I tried to stay prepared for any thing that comes along.
Why didn't the writer give GW Bush the credit for signing the TARP bill. Why does Obama get any of the credit?
The writer did give Bush the credit. Here is your answer and more.
The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.
In many ways, Bush was an idiot. I posted that long ago. That's why the country voted Democratic... to cause a change of direction away from idiocy, and the country was hopeful, and practically desperate. But that doesn't mean that Obama hasn't proved himself to also be an idiot, because he is also an idiot. And as a result, the country predictably has again voted for a change in direction... in a major way.
Few folks want Bush back, but it's clear that the country feels overwhelmingly that Obama has taken us in a direction that the VAST majority don't want. People are fed up, and I feel the same way.
It doesn't matter what any article or editorial says, because WE THE PEOPLE of the United States want less intrusive government, less wasteful spending, fewer social programs, lower and fairer taxes for everyone, and policies that are more friendly to small businesses.
I'm not sure what the writers point is. The economy was at an abyss. But he acts like everything else on earth was rolling along fine and the US was the only issue. I give Obama very little credit and if it was reversed I'd give Bush very little credit. There is a natural elasticity baked into markets through checks and balances. All of the layoffs were always bound to give business low expense. high incremental margins and easy revenue figures to beat. Obama had nothing to do with any of that except that many interpretted his policies as anti job growth and thus knew incremental margins would be even higher. The NY Times has been terrible to read this week. Just before election day it pointed out how Obama should have communicated better about all his greatt actions over the last two years. It then went and pointed them out. The only thing they came up with was healthcare. There was nothing else in the story because there was nothing else done. Today the same writer that pointed healthcare out as such a major achievement before election day wonderred why Obama made healthcare such a priority when it was a secondary thing in his mandate before elections. He actually complained that Obama should have focussed on jobs first.The big moves on Wall street started to happen when it became obvious Obama would be checked by a Rep House yet the writer claims that as Obama money. Absurd.
I've read story after story in the Times. They are almost unreadable. The Times is besides itself on this loss, acting like a kid who was deprived of a toy at Christmas. Even in articles that criticize Obama in the headline, they write a paragraph or two that supports the headline and then they go into a diatribe against Republicans.
If you piece everthing from all articles together you read the real story that's in the Times hearts:
Obama really doesn't want to lead He waited way too long to schedule a meeting with Reps even though he said he would foster a relationship with them. It was actually the Reps that forced the meeting and OIbama agreed when he started to realize the Dems would lose the House and this Rep wanted to set up ways to work together. He's a terrible communicator and prefers to be a teacher He has no patience for details and thinks Government is the only answer. Hence he misses the point that people want a lot less government than they had before and a ton less than they have now thru his actions. He's out of touch with the people of the country and as a result lost a high percentage of the marginal crowd that voted for him in 2008 He has great charisma in the election process but wants quick fixes to problems and hates the execution part of the deal. He misread the 2008 elections as America wanting to go far left and allowed Pelosi to dictate policy as a result. Even with a minority position the Reps bullied Obama and he should not have let them (they of course d'ont say the reason is he's weak and really didn't know how to govern with power) And oh yeah today there was a column that said Obama should phone home and the writer, before going into the usual republican diatribe, wondered what the heck Obama was thinking when he scheduled a trip to India after a crucial election that was slipping away. He even got critical of the White House when it restated the mission as jobs creation when the real intent had nothing to do with that when it was planned. Thats about the harshest criticism I read before the writer dverted his attention away from the real issuse at hand. In fact it actually got comical as he criticized Reps for not having a plan and then stated that Obama and the Dems also had no plan in 2008.
There's plenty more but you can get the gist of it. In order to piece it together you need to stop reading the parts where the Times writers go into their diatribes about American voters and Republicans who got elected by them.
What you have to remember is short of a Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini running for President as a Dem, the NY Times would endorse any and every other Dem running for office.
In all the articles I read in the NY Times this one, which I posted earlier was the only one that made any sense and it was written by a Dem, who learned the real lesson of the past 2 years and realizes how they blew it.
The link you provided also is interesting. Even though in the NY Times and using a little democrat understatement, it has some value. The understatement: "It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate." is PC posturing because there was no mandate in 2008. It was a rejection of Bush and the the way he had been painted by the Democrat machine during 8 years.
Here's your typical NY Times writing today re politics. The link under politics must have said the same thing in 30 other columns I've read or started to read since the elections and I put it in my crybaby folder. The Times remain great at business, international, and national, very good in sports and nightmarishly whining in politics.
Thank you! That is indeed a very good article by Evan Bayh. He definitely makes some VERY GOOD points. I can tell that you are not totally one sided . I agree that a major problem with Obama is that he is not a very good leader, but I still think that his actions when he first took office saved us from a total disaster. Most here want to give him zero credit.
We are enjoying our time MI the past few days. Our granddaughter has grown up so much even through she is not yet 3 years old.
"What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom. "
So any of your here who feel that the Democrats have spent at multiples of the Bush administration overspending and that Obama and Dems have advanced socialism and are destroying freedom are obviously wrong--the Times says so.
An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left
Put me just to the right of moderate. I abhor both parties extremists. Obama went too far left, lacked leadership and as I've thought from day one was no match for Pelosi, who forced him to make healthcare and her issues a priority over the economy and other more important things. Obama is not a guy that likes confrontation and that's why in the end he failed to lead. Privately, as much as Obama may dislike a Rep house, I have a feeling he's glad to get rid of Pelosi.
BTW - saw the Michigan-Illinois game and it was something. On a side note the Powerball $123mln ticket came from Michigan and I guess you didn't have it.
Gold is at $1405 this morning and Silver has hit $27.50. That is close to double the price of gold in the run-up of the late 1970s with Carter in the WH. The real question is what is the value in 2010 dollars vs 1980 dollars. From what I see online we are not even close to the highs of the late 1970s. Has the value of the dollar gone in the toilet? Or do we have a ways to go?
That gold was priced sky high during very high inflation and a 23% prime rate. A bubble if there ever was one. Gold today is simply priced vs a weakening dollar and is loved by all the inflationsts that are trying to say inflation will soar for as long as I can remember and tried to push an end of the world financial crisis on us for 2010 that would push gold to $2500+ in the economic fears they were proposing and trying to spread. Some of these guys thought gold could reach 3-4K this year and are just nuts. They make used car sales guys look holier than the Pope. I d'ont even know how gold or anything would have any value at all in the economic environment they were posing. It'd be like the scene in War of the Worlds (the earlier one) where the guy says money isn't good anymore.
Well, as you may have guessed you can put me to the left of moderate. I am quite liberal on issues like gay rights, Health Care, etc. but conservative when it comes to drug policies (though I sometimes wonder if we would not be better off if there were no policies), defense, etc.
It really upset me that IA voted the judges out solely because they approved gay marriage. That seems ludicrous to me. Why should gays not have the right to marry each other? Who cares? They should have the right to marry whom they choose. But some religious fundamentalist put that on the ballot and it read, "Should the following judges be retained in office? ". The majority voted "NO". I wonder if there was confusion and that by voting "NO" some thought that they were voting to keep them in office. I can tell you that the organization that wanted to repeal the gay marriage rights spent a lot of money on this issue. I had several text messages and phone calls asking us to vote "NO". I replied back to the text message and called them bigots. I can't wait until we prove that there is indeed life in many other planets in our galaxy alone and see the reaction of these fundamentalists. I know we are very, very close to proving this.
Yes, the MI-IL game was amazing, but I was MUCH more in tune to the Iowa State-Nebraska game later in the afternoon. As I stated the other night, what a shame ISU could not properly execute the 2 point conversion for the win in overtime.
Crap, shouldn't have sold that $500 face in silver halves I had hanging around last winter...but I have a little left still. Probably could have got a couple grand more today.
Fed keeps screwing around, lots of pressure on the dollar...the internationalists love this.
And about the politics...I am left of the middle socially, right of the middle fiscally...no clue what that makes me...hopeless? :shades:
I read something today that stated the US government wants people to think that there will be high inflation to come. The main reason being they wanted people to start buying goods and services NOW while they're still cheap, and this would give the economy a kick start. So some people would take that as an excuse to push gold higher.
Has anyoone ever had a deep fried whole turkey. IMy wife is hell bent on trying one this year but I'll only buy one already made. Amazon sells them through Popeye's if a local Popeye place doesn't do it and you can also get them at Horchows and Williams Sonona. This is going to be an expensive turkey year for me as she also waants to buy one and roast it just in case! We've heard they are great and becxause of the fast cooking time are very juicy.
They are very tasty for sure. They also kill most of the positive aspects of eating turkey. Depending on the fat you cook them in. Worth a shot. Only once a year is not going to clog your arteries. My first choice would be Popeye's. I falter when out on the highway and see a Popeye's. I love their red beans and rice. And of course the spicy chicken.
I falter when out on the highway and see a Popeye's.
You and me both. I have 3 of them in a 25 mile radius and I'll drive to them over a 5 mile away KFC when I want fried chicken. Bojangles is also top notch, but I have none around.
Another mini flash crash on 9/27. This possibility is increasing more and more thanks to high frequency trades. You have to expect that at some point we'll have a large flash crash again. Make sure you put limits on buys and sells as a flash crash of a stock or bunch of stocks can happen at any time. In this case the stock briefly lost only 90% of its value. I think I'm going to put in some ridiculously low buys into some great stocks in case this happens again. The more the market becomes a betting zoo of HF traders the less and less of a real market we have.
No, nothing new on QLIK. It's suffering the 'correction' with the rest of the market as predicted by our friend TM. He needs to tell us when the market is about done correcting.
So when I take some out of the bank, it does not require a wheel barrow full to buy a loaf of bread?? I suppose it is all relative to the other currencies.
Can't buy goods if jobs are in short supply and people are concerned about the jobs they have going away.
Let the brainwashing begin but the reality is the debt is not washed out yet (read: the rubber band is still snapping back.)
Makes no difference if gold is the standard. or oil is the standard. No buy no price going high. BTW, notice how many people are not opening CD's? At the end of the day, the less interest the less to spend. Viscous Circle(W).
Good points Circle. The re-pricing of commodities in higher dollars to compensate for its weakening position will get very dangerous for bulls in commodities. The US is way too big of a consumer of them and if you price them too high and they cut back their usage you are in trouble. As it is they are running out of places to store oil, which is at record inventory levels and is scattered in vessels all over the ocean because they've run out of places to store it on land. Oil as a currency makes the irrational conclusion that US will consume oil at rates of the past or current and that producers will maintain oil production as well when we all know the moment oil gets too high they will prduce more and more and the excesses will get even larger. By increasing prices to compensate for the dollar all you are doing is putting off the recovery that you are presuming oil prices wil rise on in the first place. Gold as a currency is different but in the end if you weaken economies what good is gold anyway. No one trades gold for goods and services. It's a false currency and In the end if folks aren't spending everything loses value. That is ultimately why deflation is feared more than anything else. Gold's value is based on someone wanting it and trusting that others will seek to trade it. It's almost psychological than real.In the end it's no different than what backs currencies, and is actually a lot weaker because it's too limited in trading partners. Gold to me is the highly limited luxury car market while the dollar or whatever local currency you want is the car market of the multitudes.
We don't need a dollar that gains in strenth or that declines in strength. We need it to be steady.
One thing for sure... if the dollar falls too much in its value, then the cost of living goes up, as it takes more dollars to buy the everyday things we all consume and need.
Iinflation can be as bad or worse than a tax increase... people end up having to surrender more and more of what's left of our paychecks.
You all know by now that I have been talking about Ford for the longest time, and I own a lot of Ford stock. Right now, there's a nice little dip, and the stock is down around 2%, with a low of $16.20 on the session. I just bought more Ford stock myself.
And... I am now increasing my prediction for Ford from $18-$20/share to $22-$25/share... and maybe even higher. That's a terrific projected gain in a well-run company with terrific products and an increasing global market share.
I strongly recommend that you buy more Ford, as I just did... while the opportunity is here. Solid upside potential.
Tag, I agree 100%. I bought more shares on Tuesday. I'm really impressed with the job Ford has done. The Ford product pipeline is looking impressive top to bottom and how much they've improved quality is equally if not more impressive. If they can improve the appeal of Lincoln as they have Ford over the next few years, I think the stock can continue to go up long term.
Ford's debt level is a bit concerning, so I'll keep an eye on their cash flow etc.
Alan Mullally really impresses me. I watched the CNBC special on Ford last night. One thing he said (or should I say, didn't say) during his interview with Phil Lebeau grabbed my attention. He was talking about all of the issues Ford had/has. Not once did he mention inheriting a mess or problems. He always started each sentence with we had this problem or WE had made this poor decision. He took ownership of Ford's problems once he was hired. Not once did he blame the "previous administration". He's a true leader and the Ford turnaround is the result.
Obama could learn a thing or two about managing and handling a crisis from him.
Comments
Here's how Tag does it.
I knew there was a method to his madness
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mobius-Says-World-Bull-Market-bloomberg-60930077.h- - tml?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=
I believe I already stated this a few weeks ago, but I think that your buddy will be correct. In fact, I will go one step further. I will predict a Dow of 13,000 by this time next year. How is that for a Tag-like prediction?
Len, you made some very smart decisions back then, as you always have. You are a brilliant businessman, and you have a keen sense of fiscal matters, I admire, respect, and agree with most of your perspective. And it goes without saying that I am damned glad that you continue to post here.
I must add that Charlie will always get my praise for getting out of the market right before the meltdown. No matter what we do, or have done... it is hard to compare to that brilliant timing!
Charlie is a smart investor (you also, of course). And we know it's not really that easy.
It's damned cool the way we have all navigated through these economic times.
I do believe that we will all face some investment challenges ahead... and we will be forced to make some big investment decisions. Hopefully, we all come out of it more prosperous, or possibly unscathed, depending on what lies ahead.
I am glad to see the Democrats lost so much control, yet I would no longer want to see Republican domination either. There are serious problems that need to be addressed, and I hope they get the attention they deserve.
As you know, I believe we need a totally new tax policy for starters... one that rewards success and motivates business and employment... and investment in America.
Anyway, I appreciate ALL you guys. I think this is a very cool forum, with very cool members.
TM
My 401K is just about back to the peak of 2007...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Ours are up 28% since 07. Partially because I moved funds into more conservative investments in 07 and partially because we boosted our contributions when the sky was falling.
I just kept telling my wife "don't worry we are buying cheap and we have a long time until retirement". It's paid off so far.
Being that my wife and I are in our late 30's, I've been more concerned with our two daughters' (8 & 12) 529 accounts. Those really took a beating and being that I used age based funds, the investment mix turned more conservative as the markets rebounded thus, we took a beating on the downside and now are missing out a bit on the upside. The accounts are up , but not enough match tuition increases. I'm considering some other alternatives for college savings. I do like the tax break our state provides, but the limited investment options are discouraging.
On a side note, in an attempt to introduce my daughter's to the idea of saving and investing, I opened them both up a DRIP account with Disney in early 2008. They both have saved a portion of their allowance/birthday money etc and have invested in Disney shares. Those have more than paid off since they began buying in the $15 range and Disney is now over $37. I'd say that's much better than letting their money rot in a savings account.
Gotta say, way to go Ford. I'm glad I picked up some shares a few weeks ago.
No kidding. My whims usually cost lots of money;) When F was that low, I kept telling myself even then, someday it'll be a $20 stock again. Why I didn't buy any then is beyond me.
Greetings from MI! Len, you certainly did predict a 10K Dow before anyone else. I don't remember all the details of why I did so at the time, but I started buying stocks in late February or early March of 2009. I obviously felt that we were near a market low (as it turns out, it was the low). Your prediction may have influenced my decision to start buying at that time. Thank you for sharing your amazing insight and wisdom.
I have been doing a lot of traveling recently. Today, my wife and I flew to Detroit and we are spending some time with our daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter. She is growing up so fast. She will be 3 at the end of December but acts like 13. Late next week we are flying to MA to visit my brother and sister. We are returning home on November 18. But guess what? We are visiting the Detroit area again later in December. Our daughter is expecting her second child (another girl) on December 21. FUN, FUN, FUN! We are SO blessed.
One other note: Those darn Huskers were SO lucky to win that amazing game in Ames, IA today. The last play of the game (overtime) was a brilliant call. ISU faked the one point conversion to tie and instead went for the win. The second string punter was the holder but his pass (threw it like a shot put) to the wide open tight end was very weak into the stiff wind and a defensive back for the Huskers had time, stepped in front and intercepted. Game over! The Huskers were totally caught off guard by the call, but the pass to the wide open tight end stunk. Oh what could have been!!!
How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms
Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West.
If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.
For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.
Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.
As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.
But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies?
The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.
Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.
“An apology is due Barack Obama,” wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama’s signature economic successes.
Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.
All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.
“We have done things that people don’t even know about,” Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.
But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don’t know that, either.
Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. “It could have been much worse!” is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today.
Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system — but no jobs.
Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama’s initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must — or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year.
Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation — which should please big business even more.
President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank “holiday” in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign.
Obama can recast himself as the consumer’s best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform.
And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives – insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil.
They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.
Excerpted from How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms - NYTimes.com
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
To keep things in better perspective. When the GOP lost the Congress in 2006 we were riding high in all areas of the economy. The voters decided they did not like being in a war and voted out the ones they considered the culprits. The Dow was at an all time high when the new Democrat Congress pushed through some repressive energy policies. Policies that took jobs from US manufacturers and handed them directly to Chinese factories. The downward spiral was a direct result of Liberal policies passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by a lame duck President that was tired of fighting. Yes he signed TARP before leaving office and gave the auto industry a cash infusion. If TARP had failed miserably, do you think this liberal NYT writer would have blamed Obama or GW Bush?
Obama lost the mid terms because he and his puppets in Congress forced a lot of unwanted legislation down the throats of the American public without open debate as he promised in the campaign. It has been the worst combo of Congress and President in the history of the USA. The stock market and banks are doing good on our future tax dollars and overseas investments. I don't expect the job situation to improve much unless we see some real positive moves by this GOP controlled House and a right moving Senate. If Obama wants to play the spoiler he will not see a second term. If he is as smart as Bill Clinton, he may get re-elected.
That will include BIG cut backs in welfare and a move to stop illegal immigration and booting out the illegals already here.
It starts with the premise that GWB and the Republicans were solely responsible for the decline in the stock market. Nothing was said about Fannie and Freddy and lack of control by Democrat congress. Nothing said about Clinton's era.
Just another NY Times puff piece.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It did not fail and therefore it is a moot point. I love the way you guys always point to the "liberal NY Times" whenever an article does not support your views (regardless of the facts). However, when someone like Len posts NY Times articles that support your views, then the article is the truth. The hypocrisy is glaring in my opinion.
So TARP and the automaker bailouts did not fail. Why didn't the writer give GW Bush the credit for signing the TARP bill. Why does Obama get any of the credit? He was not elected when the bill was signed. If the NY Times and the LA Times are not ultra liberal papers I must not be reading the same parts as you are. Yes I will post articles from both papers from time to time. Some are informative when they do not go overboard pushing the liberal agenda.
I thought you wanted a counter point to the article, from the title of your post.
By the way, I am happy about the stock market. I am upset about my cash in the bank. It is worth a lot less since Obama took office. But my gold coins are worth a lot more. I tried to stay prepared for any thing that comes along.
The writer did give Bush the credit. Here is your answer and more.
The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.
In many ways, Bush was an idiot. I posted that long ago. That's why the country voted Democratic... to cause a change of direction away from idiocy, and the country was hopeful, and practically desperate. But that doesn't mean that Obama hasn't proved himself to also be an idiot, because he is also an idiot. And as a result, the country predictably has again voted for a change in direction... in a major way.
Few folks want Bush back, but it's clear that the country feels overwhelmingly that Obama has taken us in a direction that the VAST majority don't want. People are fed up, and I feel the same way.
It doesn't matter what any article or editorial says, because WE THE PEOPLE of the United States want less intrusive government, less wasteful spending, fewer social programs, lower and fairer taxes for everyone, and policies that are more friendly to small businesses.
TM
I'm not sure what the writers point is. The economy was at an abyss. But he acts like everything else on earth was rolling along fine and the US was the only issue. I give Obama very little credit and if it was reversed I'd give Bush very little credit. There is a natural elasticity baked into markets through checks and balances. All of the layoffs were always bound to give business low expense. high incremental margins and easy revenue figures to beat. Obama had nothing to do with any of that except that many interpretted his policies as anti job growth and thus knew incremental margins would be even higher. The NY Times has been terrible to read this week. Just before election day it pointed out how Obama should have communicated better about all his greatt actions over the last two years. It then went and pointed them out. The only thing they came up with was healthcare. There was nothing else in the story because there was nothing else done. Today the same writer that pointed healthcare out as such a major achievement before election day wonderred why Obama made healthcare such a priority when it was a secondary thing in his mandate before elections. He actually complained that Obama should have focussed on jobs first.The big moves on Wall street started to happen when it became obvious Obama would be checked by a Rep House yet the writer claims that as Obama money. Absurd.
I've read story after story in the Times. They are almost unreadable. The Times is besides itself on this loss, acting like a kid who was deprived of a toy at Christmas. Even in articles that criticize Obama in the headline, they write a paragraph or two that supports the headline and then they go into a diatribe against Republicans.
If you piece everthing from all articles together you read the real story that's in the Times hearts:
Obama really doesn't want to lead
He waited way too long to schedule a meeting with Reps even though he said he would foster a relationship with them. It was actually the Reps that forced the meeting and OIbama agreed when he started to realize the Dems would lose the House and this Rep wanted to set up ways to work together.
He's a terrible communicator and prefers to be a teacher
He has no patience for details and thinks Government is the only answer. Hence he misses the point that people want a lot less government than they had before and a ton less than they have now thru his actions.
He's out of touch with the people of the country and as a result lost a high percentage of the marginal crowd that voted for him in 2008
He has great charisma in the election process but wants quick fixes to problems and hates the execution part of the deal.
He misread the 2008 elections as America wanting to go far left and allowed Pelosi to dictate policy as a result.
Even with a minority position the Reps bullied Obama and he should not have let them (they of course d'ont say the reason is he's weak and really didn't know how to govern with power)
And oh yeah today there was a column that said Obama should phone home and the writer, before going into the usual republican diatribe, wondered what the heck Obama was thinking when he scheduled a trip to India after a crucial election that was slipping away. He even got critical of the White House when it restated the mission as jobs creation when the real intent had nothing to do with that when it was planned. Thats about the harshest criticism I read before the writer dverted his attention away from the real issuse at hand. In fact it actually got comical as he criticized Reps for not having a plan and then stated that Obama and the Dems also had no plan in 2008.
There's plenty more but you can get the gist of it. In order to piece it together you need to stop reading the parts where the Times writers go into their diatribes about American voters and Republicans who got elected by them.
What you have to remember is short of a Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini running for President as a Dem, the NY Times would endorse any and every other Dem running for office.
In all the articles I read in the NY Times this one, which I posted earlier was the only one that made any sense and it was written by a Dem, who learned the real lesson of the past 2 years and realizes how they blew it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opinion/03bayh.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=what
The link you provided also is interesting. Even though in the NY Times and using a little democrat understatement, it has some value. The understatement: "It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate." is PC posturing because there was no mandate in 2008. It was a rejection of Bush and the the way he had been painted by the Democrat machine during 8 years.
However, the article has some redeeming value.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Politics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/opinion/08douthat.html?scp=1&sq=the%20unready%- - - - 20republicans&st=cse
Business - well done column for the most part:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/opinion/08krugman.html?scp=1&sq=Doing%20it%20a- - - - gain&st=cse
Thank you! That is indeed a very good article by Evan Bayh. He definitely makes some VERY GOOD points. I can tell that you are not totally one sided
We are enjoying our time MI the past few days. Our granddaughter has grown up so much even through she is not yet 3 years old.
So any of your here who feel that the Democrats have spent at multiples of the Bush administration overspending and that Obama and Dems have advanced socialism and are destroying freedom are obviously wrong--the Times says so.
This is the problem with the NY times to those of us in flyover country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/opinion/08mon4.html
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
From the article:
An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left
Put me just to the right of moderate. I abhor both parties extremists. Obama went too far left, lacked leadership and as I've thought from day one was no match for Pelosi, who forced him to make healthcare and her issues a priority over the economy and other more important things. Obama is not a guy that likes confrontation and that's why in the end he failed to lead. Privately, as much as Obama may dislike a Rep house, I have a feeling he's glad to get rid of Pelosi.
BTW - saw the Michigan-Illinois game and it was something. On a side note the Powerball $123mln ticket came from Michigan and I guess you didn't have it.
Well, as you may have guessed you can put me to the left of moderate. I am quite liberal on issues like gay rights, Health Care, etc. but conservative when it comes to drug policies (though I sometimes wonder if we would not be better off if there were no policies), defense, etc.
It really upset me that IA voted the judges out solely because they approved gay marriage. That seems ludicrous to me. Why should gays not have the right to marry each other? Who cares? They should have the right to marry whom they choose. But some religious fundamentalist put that on the ballot and it read, "Should the following judges be retained in office? ". The majority voted "NO". I wonder if there was confusion and that by voting "NO" some thought that they were voting to keep them in office. I can tell you that the organization that wanted to repeal the gay marriage rights spent a lot of money on this issue. I had several text messages and phone calls asking us to vote "NO". I replied back to the text message and called them bigots. I can't wait until we prove that there is indeed life in many other planets in our galaxy alone and see the reaction of these fundamentalists. I know we are very, very close to proving this.
Yes, the MI-IL game was amazing, but I was MUCH more in tune to the Iowa State-Nebraska game later in the afternoon. As I stated the other night, what a shame ISU could not properly execute the 2 point conversion for the win in overtime.
Fed keeps screwing around, lots of pressure on the dollar...the internationalists love this.
And about the politics...I am left of the middle socially, right of the middle fiscally...no clue what that makes me...hopeless? :shades:
That would not at all surprise me. It really makes logical sense.
Anything new on QLIK?
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
And, believe it or not, deep-frying a turkey isn't as unhealthy as some might think.
Good to inject some seasoning just under the skin.
TM
You and me both. I have 3 of them in a 25 mile radius and I'll drive to them over a 5 mile away KFC when I want fried chicken. Bojangles is also top notch, but I have none around.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09flash.html?_r=1&ref=business
He needs to tell us when the market is about done correcting.
Let the brainwashing begin but the reality is the debt is not washed out yet (read: the rubber band is still snapping back.)
Makes no difference if gold is the standard. or oil is the standard. No buy no price going high. BTW, notice how many people are not opening CD's? At the end of the day, the less interest the less to spend. Viscous Circle(W).
Dow 11,000 on Dec. 31st.
KISS.
Regards,
OW
Len,
We don't need a dollar that gains in strenth or that declines in strength. We need it to be steady.
One thing for sure... if the dollar falls too much in its value, then the cost of living goes up, as it takes more dollars to buy the everyday things we all consume and need.
Iinflation can be as bad or worse than a tax increase... people end up having to surrender more and more of what's left of our paychecks.
TM
Crude oil speculation is sky high again, probably reaching levels seen in the $147 spike.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=.CLLRG:IND
And... I am now increasing my prediction for Ford from $18-$20/share to $22-$25/share... and maybe even higher. That's a terrific projected gain in a well-run company with terrific products and an increasing global market share.
I strongly recommend that you buy more Ford, as I just did... while the opportunity is here. Solid upside potential.
TM
Ford's debt level is a bit concerning, so I'll keep an eye on their cash flow etc.
Alan Mullally really impresses me. I watched the CNBC special on Ford last night. One thing he said (or should I say, didn't say) during his interview with Phil Lebeau grabbed my attention. He was talking about all of the issues Ford had/has. Not once did he mention inheriting a mess or problems. He always started each sentence with we had this problem or WE had made this poor decision. He took ownership of Ford's problems once he was hired. Not once did he blame the "previous administration". He's a true leader and the Ford turnaround is the result.
Obama could learn a thing or two about managing and handling a crisis from him.