[t1fosI]

Equities any lower?

Any opinions?

Personally suspect not far off bottom as most factors appear to have been priced in.

Although as Keynes said "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."


.

[champagne612]

Originally Posted by t1fosI

Equities any lower?

Any opinions?

Personally suspect not far off bottom as most factors appear to have been priced in.

Although as Keynes said "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."


.

Prosperity with efficiencies

Energy creates energy

Waste creates more waste - the idea is to limit the waste and maximize the energy.

I am not a fan of limitation!

[Saint Bastage]

I'm thinking there's a lot more to go but then I see the balance sheets. I'm confused. (what a surprise). Sentiment has a lot more downside but not sure about equities.

[wetpet]

weak dollar keeps prices going up. but really, they are the same prices. The house of cards has to come down. when? i don't know. running out of stimulus options and the deficit and unemployment are going nowhere. the planned destruction is in slow motion. does not look good to me short or long term.

the price of gold says it all....

[champagne612]

the price of gold says it all....[/QUOTE]

Gold is a emotional player more than a demand player.

If you take emotions out of the game and wander to corporate income it's amazing.

The home market - a new home buyer on average spent 40k after a home purchase.

The residential crisis is the market failure - which I blame Wall Street!

You take a home with a value of 300k and the neighbors home goes to foreclosure and is sold for 200k.

The appraiser now sets all the homes in the are at 200k - all incentive to upgrade / remodel are gone.

The home owner can live there for a year making no payments and probably buy it back at the courthouse.

The problem is not going away anytime soon - but when it does look out!

Until then the inefficiencies of Gov't have to cease - the money coming in can't exceed money going out.

The loss of retail from home sales is too large - adjustment time.

[wetpet]

it's all emotional. That's how the banks are able to pump and pop, pump and pop. Rational investors would not fall for that after the third time. Governments and banks, the UK being the obvious example, manipulate the price of gold down as a way to hold up the value of their currency. The gold market is only now starting to realize its true value as governments can't dump enough to manipulate. There is a lot more to go and it's for very good reason.

[champagne612]

Originally Posted by wetpet

it's all emotional. That's how the banks are able to pump and pop, pump and pop. Rational investors would not fall for that after the third time. Governments and banks, the UK being the obvious example, manipulate the price of gold down as a way to hold up the value of their currency. The gold market is only now starting to realize its true value as governments can't dump enough to manipulate. There is a lot more to go and it's for very good reason.

The big holders of gold are central banks / international entities and government so we agree

I normally see things in a complete different perspective from people and have a uncomfortable approach to understand.

Anyway ... together the stated above are approximately 20 percent of the world's gold, holding about 30,160 tons.

Problem is the value of gold is not based on industrial demand but on nervous ticks of the world.

I am not a short term guy - could give a sheet less what what value something has on a daily weekly monthly value.

Long term if we concentrate on what does matter / daily activities of efficiencies our productivity will impact a positive long term agenda.

Then IMO - we can again start kicking some arse.

Til then - it's media hooplah selling advertising.

[wetpet]

It's not the productivity that is the problem. it's the control of resources (credit). That is causing the ups and downs. I believe it is all well planned out for the top dogs to take advantage both ways. The fed controls the monetary policy here and around the world in particular the IMF. The banks own the fed. What they do has much more effect on the world than jumps in efficiency and productivity. The fed has pretty much said it will keep interest rates near zero until deep into 2013. The banks refuse to lend. That and the soaring gold says one thing. No good news for years.

[t1fosI]

Agree with the sentiments Gentlemen.

I am by no means a seasoned investor in the markets, in fact if anything I'm a novice although I trained originally as an Economist. My forays into the markets are my way of learning how to take control of my retirement fund given that I have seen a lot of peoples pensions decimated by funds that take high fees/profits when the times are good and then come out with the BS when the markets take a dip that 'its the Economy Stupid'.

The signs are clear that the mature economies are going to be in for a tough ride over the next few years. However the interesting thing about equities/gold is that despite all the coverage given to macro/micro policy, to the balance sheets etc, net net it appears to come down to, as you guys say, emotions - aka the feel good factor. I also think the mechanism of the market has a lot to do with it, in so far as, to have Winners you must have Losers - therefore corrections are mandatory.

It is also interesting that with all the information available to us in our connected World, that nobody still knows what is really happening. Once again the Neo-Classical assumption of 'Perfect Knowledge' is rendered useless.

As Keynes said "Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again." In place of Economists one could today add a whole number of protagonists be they Brokers, Commentators, Experts, Politicians etc.

Net, net took a couple of long positions today, hopefully they will pay out before I am dead.

Incidentally, how long is considered 'long' by more experienced investors?

.

[wetpet]

As an economist i have to ask you the question i ask all economists. Who owns the fed? Is it a federal agency or a private corporation?

[KKRace]

Originally Posted by wetpet

. I believe it is all well planned out for the top dogs to take advantage both ways.

I don't agree its planned but I do believe the top dogs do take advantage both ways. Smart people, thats how they became the top dogs, not by letting emotion run their investments.

[KKRace]

A large part of my brain is telling me there is a long way to go but there is another part that tells me the market has already factored that in. I think we'd all agree that the US economy is going to stink for a while and you would think corporate sales and consumer confidence are going to drop.

Now the question is why hasn't the market dropped more than it has? Don't tell me the "Big Dogs" haven't figured it out. They must know something we don't. Everyone I know is scared of the stock equity market right now. Usually when I start buying but I keep thinking 6000 Dow and can't figure out why its not closer to that now?

[t1fosI]

Originally Posted by wetpet

As an economist i have to ask you the question i ask all economists. Who owns the fed? Is it a federal agency or a private corporation?

Okay, here goes...

'Technically' no one 'owns' the Fed, it is an independent body. However the very nature of the organisation and its employees means that it is highly susceptible to the overtures of the strongest interest groups within, most notably the banks and the Government as well as being hostage to the complex relationships between those groups. Some might argue that the balancing act required to mediate between these interests means that the Fed acts independently. However it could equally be argued that the 'independence' of the Fed is a facade. Nevertheless this facade serves a useful purpose insofar as the majority of people do not question the nature of the organisations independence and therefore the notion of independence is preserved. To quote Robert Redford 'Reality & the perception of reality'.

A federal agency with very powerful private stakeholders.

.

[Boxer]

Another way of looking at it, who appoints the Fed officials?

[wetpet]

didn't think you would get it. nope, the fed is essentially a privately owned corporation. It is not a federal agency. To be more precise "The fed" is usually considered the federal reserve board. But it really is the federal reserve system that includes the regional federal reserve banks and is administered by the federal reserve board which is like a board of directors. The main part of the fed, the regional federal reserve banks are owned (stock) by the member banks. The only bank that really counts is the New York Fed and it is owned (literally by stock) by it's member banks. It controls everything. Including the members of the Federal Reserve board. The committee that has the most impact on monetary policy is the Federal Open Markets committee (FOMC). There are twelve members. 5 are federal reserve bank heads. We have already learned that they are private corporations. The other 7 are from the Board of governers (BOG) which includes the chairman bernanke. To have a majority, the private bankers only need to turn 2 of the 7 BOG members. This is quite easy as all the the BOG members are ex-bankers or academics whose grant and chair money come from wall street. In addition, the president, who "selects" the members to be confirmed by congress gets most of his campaign funds from wall street. he also gets a list of "qualified" appointees from wall street. The president has never considered a chairman that was not forwarded by wall street. In fact, greenspan is the ultimate example of this having worked for Brown Brothers Harriman, J.P.Morgan and Mobil. He was also a director at the Council on foreign relations. He is a conspiracy theorists wet dream. Another previous director of Brown Brothers was one Prescott Bush. If you don't know that name, look it up. Don't get me started down that road....

So, you have 12 private corporations, owned by their member, privately held, banks. They are overseen by a board that consists of 5 of their current leaders and 7 "appointed" by the president (suggested by and deeply entrenched in wall street.) The world's monetary policy is 100% controlled by private organizations that are interested only in their own bottom line. There is NO involvement by the electorate. The best description i have seen of the "fed" is that it is a government backed (not run) banking cartel. It is NOT a part of the federal government. At best, the Federal Reserve Board, part of the federal reserve system, is quasi governmental in that it has some power to pick some members and of course, gave it it's power. It also can and should take away that power. The Federal Reserve System. Not Federal. No reserves. not a system-controlled by the same people as before. At least they got "THE" right.

the more interesting story is the creation of the federal reserve act that created the federal reserve system and how it was introduced and passed in 1913. An excellent talk on this is here:

Originally Posted by t1fosI

Okay, here goes...

'Technically' no one 'owns' the Fed, it is an independent body. However the very nature of the organisation and its employees means that it is highly susceptible to the overtures of the strongest interest groups within, most notably the banks and the Government as well as being hostage to the complex relationships between those groups. Some might argue that the balancing act required to mediate between these interests means that the Fed acts independently. However it could equally be argued that the 'independence' of the Fed is a facade. Nevertheless this facade serves a useful purpose insofar as the majority of people do not question the nature of the organisations independence and therefore the notion of independence is preserved. To quote Robert Redford 'Reality & the perception of reality'.

A federal agency with very powerful private stakeholders.

.

[redtrman]

In addition, any person want to take an educated on not educated guess as to why the Fed was created in 1913? It was not an accident, the Fed came first, then came?

[wetpet]

hmmm. 1913. let me think....could it have something to do with guaranteeing the funds to pay the interest on the money the government was to "borrow"?

[t1fosI]

Originally Posted by wetpet

didn't think you would get it.

Oh well...


.

[wetpet]

my neighbor that lived across the street was a pretty world renowned economist. he was recruited by university of md near here. he is now in Holland. he was pretty amazed to know that. And he TEACHES economics at graduate level! Why do you suppose economics teachers don't know the simple operations of the most important economic power in the world? Hmmmm...

[t1fosI]

Originally Posted by wetpet

my neighbor that lived across the street was a pretty world renowned economist. he was recruited by university of md near here. he is now in Holland. he was pretty amazed to know that. And he TEACHES economics at graduate level! Why do you suppose economics teachers don't know the simple operations of the most important economic power in the world? Hmmmm...

Academic dogma no doubt and probably a substantial degree of vested interest


.