awgee - 18 November 2009 02:19 AM

It is a fallacy to think that the government can somehow make up for losses and debt incurred by subsidizing, bailing, tax crediting, monetizing, or any other ing.

Absolutely, but this is the price all taxpayers will pay for the failure of the 30 year experiment in handcuffing the regulators!  After all, that’s the first step while
moving to a smaller, less restricted, and more Libertarian government.

Maybe the Austrians are right.  Show me somewhere it works.

no_vaseline - 18 November 2009 03:33 AM

awgee - 18 November 2009 02:19 AM

It is a fallacy to think that the government can somehow make up for losses and debt incurred by subsidizing, bailing, tax crediting, monetizing, or any other ing.

Absolutely, but this is the price all taxpayers will pay for the failure of the 30 year experiment in handcuffing the regulators!  After all, that’s the first step while
moving to a smaller, less restricted, and more Libertarian government.

Maybe the Austrians are right.  Show me somewhere it works.

I’ll show you somewhere keynesianism doesn’t work - right here!

We successfully deregulated risky companies out of business but unfortunately they are still here because that was the “least worse option”

We have “least worse optioned” our way into this with successively larger booms to the point of being hopelessly dependent on “least worse options”

Booms and busts are shorter and lesser in magnitude when there is less manipulation, why? business people are smart, nimble, and don’t like to lose money.  Deregulation is the scapegoat when in reality, it is a cleansing tool.  Regulation is a false sense of security.  SEC checked madoff how many times?  “Well boys everything looks good!”

Company defrauds people? out of business.  Company loses on risky bets? out of business.  Investors lose.  It’s that simple.  The alternative is the “least worse option”, which in reality is a big cop out, where future generations and an entire country loses in the long run.

That’s a great example of the Austrian model - since it doesn’t exist.  Thank you for conceeding the point it’s Vaporware.

No_vas,

A true self-interested politician would NEVER yield to the Austrian model. The Austrian model strips the government’s ability to grow power.

They however, will masquerade under the guise of Austrian principles just to ensure the mob doesn’t catch on.

While we’re on it, somebody show me where Keynes showed where this was okay.

From Calculated Risk:

At bank after bank, the examiners are discovering that state and federal regulators knew lenders were engaging in hazardous business practices but failed to act until it was too late. At Haven Trust, for instance, regulators raised alarms about lax lending standards, poor risk controls and a buildup of potentially dangerous loans to the boom-and-bust building industry. Despite the warnings — made as far back as 2002 — neither the bank’s management nor the regulators took action. Similar stories played out at small and midsize lenders from Maryland to California.

This isn’t an Austrian vs Keynes problem!  Regulation is big government!  Big government is always the problem untill it’s the solution.

no_vaseline - 19 November 2009 05:21 AM

While we’re on it, somebody show me where Keynes showed where this was okay.

From Calculated Risk:

At bank after bank, the examiners are discovering that state and federal regulators knew lenders were engaging in hazardous business practices but failed to act until it was too late. At Haven Trust, for instance, regulators raised alarms about lax lending standards, poor risk controls and a buildup of potentially dangerous loans to the boom-and-bust building industry. Despite the warnings — made as far back as 2002 — neither the bank’s management nor the regulators took action. Similar stories played out at small and midsize lenders from Maryland to California.

This isn’t an Austrian vs Keynes problem!  Regulation is big government!  Big government is always the problem untill it’s the solution.

The solution is to let them fail, to hold the staff accountable, to sue them into the poor house and auction off every asset until the depositors are made whole… or as close as possible… and then let the FDIC make up the difference. No one is being held responsible for bad investments, bad loans, or bad policies so it’s hard to blame a specific school of economics or political philosophy when neither one are completely implemented or completely in control.

The problem regulation is the bill Congress passed in 1913 initiating the Federal Reserve.  The current mess is a failure of central planning and the socialists will not acknowledge this failure.  Instead they will blame capitalism and insist that more regulation is needed.  Socialists misidentify the cause of the problems they create.  Remember “Animal Farm”?

In summry, we are breaking record on every single foreclosure measure%

BondTrader - 19 November 2009 09:32 PM

In summry, we are breaking record on every single foreclosure measure%

Yes, but the bottom is in and the economy is recovering.

awgee - 19 November 2009 10:24 PM

BondTrader - 19 November 2009 09:32 PM

In summry, we are breaking record on every single foreclosure measure%

Yes, but the bottom is in and the economy is recovering.

LoL, good one. And Markets always climb a wall of worry.

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 01:53 AM

awgee - 19 November 2009 10:24 PM

BondTrader - 19 November 2009 09:32 PM

In summry, we are breaking record on every single foreclosure measure%

Yes, but the bottom is in and the economy is recovering.

LoL, good one. And Markets always climb a wall of worry.

You know what gets me about the whole wall of worry and contrarian thing?  Everybody thinks that they are a contrarian and their view is the contrarian view and no matter what they are invested in, it is climbing a wall of worry.

With a 97% bullish trader sentiment, there are gold investors who will tell you that being bullish on gold is the contrarian viewpoint.  Whatever.

awgee - 20 November 2009 02:10 AM

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 01:53 AM

awgee - 19 November 2009 10:24 PM

BondTrader - 19 November 2009 09:32 PM

In summry, we are breaking record on every single foreclosure measure%

Yes, but the bottom is in and the economy is recovering.

LoL, good one. And Markets always climb a wall of worry.

You know what gets me about the whole wall of worry and contrarian thing?  Everybody thinks that they are a contrarian and their view is the contrarian view and no matter what they are invested in, it is climbing a wall of worry.

With a 97% bullish trader sentiment, there are gold investors who will tell you that being bullish on gold is the contrarian viewpoint.  Whatever.

LOL, I’m totally with you on this.

This is a little off the topic, but very important so I’d like to share it here.

Attached is a daily chart on UUP (US dollar ETF), we are clearly still in a down trend, noticed the circled lower highs and lower lows? So while I’m playing a quick rebound of dollar and shorting the stock market, I know unless UUP can go above 23 and stay there for a good week or two, until I see that higher lows and higher highs (then I will short the heck of S&P), I will cover and go long. So assuming the downtrend on dollar will continue into year end 2009, S&P will continue edge up and so does gold.

Trend is your friend.

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 03:57 PM

This is a little off the topic, but very important so I’d like to share it here.

Attached is a daily chart on UUP (US dollar ETF), we are clearly still in a down trend, noticed the circled lower highs and lower lows? So while I’m playing a quick rebound of dollar and shorting the stock market, I know unless UUP can go above 23 and stay there for a good week or two, until I see that higher lows and higher highs (then I will short the heck of S&P), I will cover and go long. So assuming the downtrend on dollar will continue into year end 2009, S&P will continue edge up and so does gold.

Trend is your friend.

If I am going long I may, MAY, try and catch a bottom.  But, if I am shorting, which is what I mostly do when trading, which I am not doing right now except for the Panda Challenge, I do not try and catch a top.  I wait for the down trend to establish itself.  I have learned this works for me the hard way.

awgee - 20 November 2009 04:19 PM

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 03:57 PM

This is a little off the topic, but very important so I’d like to share it here.

Attached is a daily chart on UUP (US dollar ETF), we are clearly still in a down trend, noticed the circled lower highs and lower lows? So while I’m playing a quick rebound of dollar and shorting the stock market, I know unless UUP can go above 23 and stay there for a good week or two, until I see that higher lows and higher highs (then I will short the heck of S&P), I will cover and go long. So assuming the downtrend on dollar will continue into year end 2009, S&P will continue edge up and so does gold.

Trend is your friend.

If I am going long I may, MAY, try and catch a bottom.  But, if I am shorting, which is what I mostly do when trading, which I am not doing right now except for the Panda Challenge, I do not try and catch a top.  I wait for the down trend to establish itself.  I have learned this works for me the hard way.

To me, regardless short or long, I try to ride the trend and get in LATE and get out EARLY, just like you’ve described to wait patiently for the trend to establish and prove itself. Man, I almost forget about panada challenge…. too busy with real money lately, lol.

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 04:23 PM

awgee - 20 November 2009 04:19 PM

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 03:57 PM

This is a little off the topic, but very important so I’d like to share it here.

Attached is a daily chart on UUP (US dollar ETF), we are clearly still in a down trend, noticed the circled lower highs and lower lows? So while I’m playing a quick rebound of dollar and shorting the stock market, I know unless UUP can go above 23 and stay there for a good week or two, until I see that higher lows and higher highs (then I will short the heck of S&P), I will cover and go long. So assuming the downtrend on dollar will continue into year end 2009, S&P will continue edge up and so does gold.

Trend is your friend.

If I am going long I may, MAY, try and catch a bottom.  But, if I am shorting, which is what I mostly do when trading, which I am not doing right now except for the Panda Challenge, I do not try and catch a top.  I wait for the down trend to establish itself.  I have learned this works for me the hard way.

To me, regardless short or long, I try to ride the trend and get in LATE and get out EARLY, just like you’ve described to wait patient for the trend to establish and prove itself. Man, I almost forget about panada challenge…. too busy with real money lately, lol.

I always tell myself to be patient and wait.  But, most of the time I do not.  And it ends up costing me.

awgee - 20 November 2009 04:25 PM

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 04:23 PM

awgee - 20 November 2009 04:19 PM

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 03:57 PM

This is a little off the topic, but very important so I’d like to share it here.

Attached is a daily chart on UUP (US dollar ETF), we are clearly still in a down trend, noticed the circled lower highs and lower lows? So while I’m playing a quick rebound of dollar and shorting the stock market, I know unless UUP can go above 23 and stay there for a good week or two, until I see that higher lows and higher highs (then I will short the heck of S&P), I will cover and go long. So assuming the downtrend on dollar will continue into year end 2009, S&P will continue edge up and so does gold.

Trend is your friend.

If I am going long I may, MAY, try and catch a bottom.  But, if I am shorting, which is what I mostly do when trading, which I am not doing right now except for the Panda Challenge, I do not try and catch a top.  I wait for the down trend to establish itself.  I have learned this works for me the hard way.

To me, regardless short or long, I try to ride the trend and get in LATE and get out EARLY, just like you’ve described to wait patient for the trend to establish and prove itself. Man, I almost forget about panada challenge…. too busy with real money lately, lol.

I always tell myself to be patient and wait.  But, most of the time I do not.  And it ends up costing me.

I typically start a position with 25 shares and 4 points stop (not applying to anything less than $20 or options), so the most I will lose is $100. If it moves in my favor, then I will add to my positions when it pulls back establishing higher lows or breakout with new highs. Nothing goes straight up or down, you will always have chance to add at the right time. The key is to have some skin in the game early with tight stops. Once it start working for you, then you can add and move up the stops.

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 04:45 PM

awgee - 20 November 2009 04:25 PM

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 04:23 PM

awgee - 20 November 2009 04:19 PM

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 03:57 PM

This is a little off the topic, but very important so I’d like to share it here.

Attached is a daily chart on UUP (US dollar ETF), we are clearly still in a down trend, noticed the circled lower highs and lower lows? So while I’m playing a quick rebound of dollar and shorting the stock market, I know unless UUP can go above 23 and stay there for a good week or two, until I see that higher lows and higher highs (then I will short the heck of S&P), I will cover and go long. So assuming the downtrend on dollar will continue into year end 2009, S&P will continue edge up and so does gold.

Trend is your friend.

If I am going long I may, MAY, try and catch a bottom.  But, if I am shorting, which is what I mostly do when trading, which I am not doing right now except for the Panda Challenge, I do not try and catch a top.  I wait for the down trend to establish itself.  I have learned this works for me the hard way.

To me, regardless short or long, I try to ride the trend and get in LATE and get out EARLY, just like you’ve described to wait patient for the trend to establish and prove itself. Man, I almost forget about panada challenge…. too busy with real money lately, lol.

I always tell myself to be patient and wait.  But, most of the time I do not.  And it ends up costing me.

I typically start a position with 25 shares and 4 points stop (not applying to anything less than $20 or options), so the most I will lose is $100. If it moves in my favor, then I will add to my positions when it pulls back establishing higher lows or breakout with new highs. Nothing goes straight up or down, you will always have chance to add at the right time. The key is to have some skin in the game early with tight stops. Once it start working for you, then you can add and move up the stops.

Thanks.  Half of the time when I short, I am not really shorting, I am entering bear call spreads which limit my losses.  But, it would be interesting to put them on a bit at a time.

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 04:23 PM

awgee - 20 November 2009 04:19 PM

BondTrader - 20 November 2009 03:57 PM

This is a little off the topic, but very important so I’d like to share it here.

Attached is a daily chart on UUP (US dollar ETF), we are clearly still in a down trend, noticed the circled lower highs and lower lows? So while I’m playing a quick rebound of dollar and shorting the stock market, I know unless UUP can go above 23 and stay there for a good week or two, until I see that higher lows and higher highs (then I will short the heck of S&P), I will cover and go long. So assuming the downtrend on dollar will continue into year end 2009, S&P will continue edge up and so does gold.

Trend is your friend.

If I am going long I may, MAY, try and catch a bottom.  But, if I am shorting, which is what I mostly do when trading, which I am not doing right now except for the Panda Challenge, I do not try and catch a top.  I wait for the down trend to establish itself.  I have learned this works for me the hard way.

To me, regardless short or long, I try to ride the trend and get in LATE and get out EARLY, just like you’ve described to wait patiently for the trend to establish and prove itself. Man, I almost forget about panada challenge…. too busy with real money lately, lol.

LOL… in Panda’s Challenge BT you are in last place.. and Panda is in second to last place.

Under Obama, the number of food stamp recipients has climbed by about 10 million over the past two years, resulting in a program that now feeds 1 in 8 Americans and nearly 1 in 4 children.

Obama’s Legacy

hat tip to No-Vas

awgee - 03 December 2009 11:12 PM

Under Obama, the number of food stamp recipients has climbed by about 10 million over the past two years, resulting in a program that now feeds 1 in 8 Americans and nearly 1 in 4 children.

Obama’s Legacy

hat tip to No-Vas

Oh, Dude!  I totally missed the 2007 election.  I can’t believe it.

98% of eligible recipents in Missiouri take “nutritional aid” (renamed under 43) while only 4% in OC do so.

When did being hungry become shameful?

It’s moments like this I can’t wait to get out of this self absorbed shithole.  I can literally count the minutes.

I can’t provide any evidence that the people of Orange County are too prideful to take food stamps.

However, if the net income threshold for qualification is $1,984/month or less for a family of three and if the rent in OC for something with more than one bedroom is around $1400, it follows that folks who would be eligible for food stamps probably cannot afford to live in Orange County. It makes me wonder if that national “food stamp” map is not really a national “poverty line” map.

From A Quick Guide to Food Stamps:

Determining Eligibility

To be eligible for benefits, a household’s income and resources must meet three tests:

  * Its gross monthly income — that is, its income before any of the program’s deductions are applied — generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. For a family of three, the poverty line in federal fiscal year 2010 is $1,526 a month. Thus, 130 percent of the poverty line for a three-person family is $1,984 a month, or about $23,800 a year. The poverty level is higher for bigger families and lower for smaller families.
  * Its net income, or income after deductions are applied, must be at or below the poverty line.
  * Its assets must fall below certain limits: households without an elderly or disabled member must have assets of $2,000 or less, and households with an elderly or disabled member must have assets of $3,000 or less.

What counts as income? The Food Stamp Program counts cash income from all sources, including earned income (before payroll taxes are deducted) and unearned income, such as cash assistance, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and child support.

What counts as an asset? Generally, amounts that could be available to the household to purchase food, such as amounts in bank accounts, are counted as an asset. Items that are not accessible, such as the household’s home, personal property, and retirement savings, are not counted. Most automobiles are not counted.

Who is not eligible? Some categories of people are not eligible for food stamps regardless of their income or assets, such as individuals who are on strike, all undocumented immigrants, and certain legal immigrants. Unemployed childless adults are limited to three months of food stamps every three years in many areas of the country, though this time limit currently is temporarily suspended in most states because of the recession.

EvaLSeraphim - 03 December 2009 11:28 PM

awgee - 03 December 2009 11:12 PM

Under Obama, the number of food stamp recipients has climbed by about 10 million over the past two years, resulting in a program that now feeds 1 in 8 Americans and nearly 1 in 4 children.

Obama’s Legacy

hat tip to No-Vas

Oh, Dude!  I totally missed the 2007 election.  I can’t believe it.

Wasn’t the point that he was going to CHANGE the previous administration’s mistakes?  It seems he has exacerbated them.

no_vaseline - 04 December 2009 04:37 AM

98% of eligible recipents in Missiouri take “nutritional aid” (renamed under 43) while only 4% in OC do so.

When did being hungry become shameful?

It’s moments like this I can’t wait to get out of this self absorbed shithole.  I can literally count the minutes.

It looks like you are inferring that if someone is eligible for food stamps, then they are hungry.  And you are also saying that the only reason someone is not receiving food stamps when they are eligible is because they are ashamed.  Once again, you make huge, false, assumptions with no evidence to back up your thesis leading to illogical conclusions.