Thursday, December 1, 2011

3 Reasons Apple (AAPL) Shares Are So Cheap

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Economic plans compared

7 Ways to Play Stocks Right Now

Monday, October 24, 2011

Why Companies Can't Find the Employees They Need -

Stocks reach highest level since August -,0,4878242.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fbusiness+%28L.A.+Times+-+Business%29

Netflix Lost 800,000 Members With Price Rise and Split Plan

Netflix Customer Loss Worse Than Forecast

VP speaks in my home county

From: "Larry Trout" 

'Biden:'We think the federal government in Washington, D.C., should say to the cities and states, look, we're going to give you some money so that you can hire back all those people. And the way we're going to do it, we're going to ask people who have a lot of money to pay just a little bit more in taxes....

No problem, says the vice president. We're going to "ask" people who have "a lot of money" to "pay just a little bit more" in taxes.

Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pa. But they're out there somewhere. Who has "a lot of money"? According to President Obama, if your combined household income is over $250,000 a year you have "a lot of money." Back in March, my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson pointed out that, in order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning more than $250,000 a year by $500,000 a year.

Okay, okay, maybe that 250K definition of "bloated plutocrat" is a bit off. After all, the quarter-mil-a-year category includes not only bankers and other mustache-twirling robber barons, but also at least 50 school superintendents in the State of New York and many other mustache-twirling selfless public servants.

So how about people earning a million dollars a year? That's "a lot of money" by anybody's definition. As Kevin Williamson also pointed out, to balance the budget of the United States on the backs of millionaires you would have to increase the taxes of those earning more than 1 million a year by 6 million a year.'

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Full Report: The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States of America

This makes a real interesting read. It is closely related to the economic protests happening right now.  It is worded with the same tone as The Communist Manifesto.  There are a few valid points...  I also have concerns about the Federal Reserve System, as did J.F. Kennedy. 

I think that the article plays very loose with the facts.   It blames the top 1% of income earners, who by the way make 24% of the national income and pay 40% of all federal income taxes.  The article claims that if we tax these people more, the other 99% of the population can triple their income and can get free houses and free medical care.   There is no way mathematically that this could be true, by a factor of 10 to 1, assuming you took most of the income of the top 1%.   These lies make the article seem like snake oil.   Many of its other claims seem exaggerated as well. 

The main problem with the logic is that there are indeed people who do extraordinarily well, but they are few and far in-between.  I have often heard that if you tax everyone who makes a million dollars per year at 100% of their income, you wouldn't make much of a dent in the federal budget deficit.  

Not all the top 1% are CEO's as the article implies.  Many are small business owners and farmers.  In terms of accumulated wealth, and not income, the majority are retirees or near retirees who spent a lifetime saving for their retirement. 

Individual income and standard of living have improved dramatically in my lifetime.  Obviously the long term economic trends have been very favorable for most Americans.   One bad recession does not justify demolishing the entire economic system.  

The article does not go into the real cause of the economic collapse, which was major government intervention in the housing credit market. 

"Redistribution of Wealth: Due to the rigging of our economic and political system, vast sums of wealth have been hoarded by the Economic Elite over the past 40 years. This money must be redistributed to the 99% of Americans who have been robbed and exploited. There will be much heated debate over how this money should be distributed, but we all need to agree that we must first hold the Economic Elite accountable and *our* wealth must be seized from them."

High-Upside Industrials To Buy On Dips

Tuesday, September 27, 2011





Thursday, September 1, 2011

What Would Paul Krugman Do?

Except that banks don't really loan currency that way. That is to say, banks don't really loan out their deposits of Federal Reserve Notes, but instead issue loans by expanding the money supply. Say that same $10,000 in hard currency is deposited into bank A, but this time, the bank doesn't just loan out $9,000, keeping $1,000 in reserve. Rather, the $10,000 in deposits is the reserve from which the bank can then loan out an additional $90,000. It is still meeting its requirement to keep 10% in reserve. So if the deposits don't account for the loans, where does that loaned "money" come from? Why, it is simply created out of thin air! The bank punches some keys on a computer and—POOF!—extra digits show up on a borrower's account statement. Neat trick, huh? That's the magic of fractional-reserve banking.

The bank hasn't turned on some printing press and created more Federal Reserve Notes to place in its vault to represent the amount of the loan, the $90,000. The "credit" was just signed into existence when the borrower put his John Hancock on the loan agreement. So the "money" that was "borrowed" never existed in the first place. But the borrower can still gobuy a car or a house or whatever, because the seller will accept those digital numbers being transferred to his or her own account as value for the item sold. Works great, doesn't it? Well, sure, except that the borrower now owes the principal plus interest on the "money" the bank "loaned" him by creating it out of thin air, and, of course, if he doesn't repay it, the bank will take the house he bought with the "money" he borrowed—which is to say, in either case, that the borrower must repay something of real value representing the fruit of his labor in return for having borrowed something of no real value representing no labor or production.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Citibank "Rewards" Card.

As part of my "rewards" for opening the Citibank card and spending $300 (which I did by paying my car insurance) , I got 6000 "points" which I used to get a $50 JC Penny gift card and a Harry Potter book.  

Normally this card will only give you a single point for every dollar you spend.  Since my "Chase Freedom" card actually pays cash, I no longer intend to use the Citibank card.

While I am on this subject, Chase bank offered $100 for opening a credit card, a checking account, and a savings account.  I did all three.  I intend to close the savings account after 90 days because I had to put $10,000 in there, and they pay practically nothing in interest.  I like their credit card and I am O.K. with their checking account.  

One to two years ago I got a free GPS (after my first one was stolen) by opening a Key Bank account.  Now maybe I am thinking that I have too many bank accounts and need to close at least one.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Finding calm amid the August turbulence

The softer dollar saved the euro's bacon

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

David Sokol, long seen as a contender to take over as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway when Warren Buffett retires, resigned unexpectedly

Fwd: The Price of Taxing the Rich

From: larry.r.trout

'Nearly half of California's income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomes—their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population's during the recession. When they crashed, they took California's finances down with them..'

Friday, March 11, 2011

4 Stocks to Buy Right Now

One to Buy, One to Watch, One to Sell

Share Buybacks: Buffett Backs Me Up

Buffett's Bullish Prediction on Coca-Cola

When Rich People Do Stupid Things

The Most Profitable Company in the World

Buffett's Biggest Oil Play Ever

Does This Make L-3 Communications Holdings a Sell?

The Best Stocks to Hold For a Lifetime

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Exchange Traded Funds (ETF)

Benefits of Investing in ETFs

Exchange Traded Funds | Invest in ETFs

ETF, Exchange Traded Funds Research, ETF Investing | Morningstar

Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) Definition

Exchange-traded fund

Motley Fool Independence Fund (FOOLX)

The Motley Fool Now Offering Mutual Funds

Motley Fool Launches A Mutual Fund, Forgets Being Hypocritical / Manipulative Aren’t Selling Points

Minyanville -- Stock Market, Investment, Finance, Money, Hoofy & Boo

LOL, So This Is What Mutual Funds Really Are…

FOOLX Motley Fool Independence Fund, mutual funds price quote

Must-Read Mutual Fund News

ha ha ha the Motley Fool Mutual Fund ha ha ha 135 basis point fee cap ha ha ha ha ha

Finding the Right Mutual Funds

Monday, January 17, 2011

Is L-3's Stock Cheap by the Numbers? (HON, LLL, LMT, RTN)

Is It Time to Avoid Equities? (LLL, PHYS)

How Much Privacy Does Steve Jobs Deserve?

NEWSMAKSteve Jobs on medical leave again

Analyst weighs impact of Jobs' latest medical leave from Apple

Everything You Need To Know About Tim Cook

Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Goldman Sachs admits it misled investors, pays $550M fine

I heard a financial talk show host on the radio say that Goldman Sachs
got off easy ... that they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Likewise, I heard a socialist claim that Obama is in bed with Goldman