| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/11/20-21 [Recreation/Activities] UID:52052 Activity:nil |
11/20 "J.P. Hayes is as honest as we like to think we are"
http://www.csua.org/u/mz2 (sports.yahoo.com)
I don't like golf, and the only golf star I can name is Tiger Woods.
But I have to say this guy is awesome.
\_ I honestly don't know the first thinge about golf. Birdies?
Handicaps? no idea.
\_ I don't understand golf either. But from what the article said,
I was able to understand what that guy did. -- OP |
| 2008/11/20-24 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:52053 Activity:nil |
11/20 Dear Mr. Awsome Day Trader Dude. GOOG is only $270. Should I
buy now? Useful advice needed here. Thank you.
\_ What is your goal? Long-term or quick buck?
\_ how about the answer for both -!op
\_ Much better plays for short-term, but long-term this is a
fair price for GOOG. It should perform as well as the
broad market, if not better. Not a good stock if you want
to make a quick buck, though. |
| 2008/11/20-27 [Finance/Banking, Finance/Investment] UID:52054 Activity:nil |
11/19 Remember the 100-age investment rule we learned in grade school?
For example, if you're 65, you should put at least 100-65=35% of
your savings in stocks. Let's say I'm retiring at 65 today, then
effectively I'd have 1/2 of that much than say, 2004-2005, or
35%/2. I've lost nearly 17.5% of my savings because I retired at
the wrong time. Buy and hold works well when the market is stable
(post 1940 and pre 2008). In the end, do you think the 100-age
rule is still applicable in the turbulent market of the 21st century?
\_ The average return you get is directly related to the amount of
risk you take on. Come back when you've groked that concept. -tom
\_ Hell. My 401(k) balance went from $200k a year ago to $120k today.
YetI still think stocks is the way to go.
Yet I still think stocks is the way to go if you don't need the
money in a short time. I've never heard of that investment rule
since I didn't attend grade school in this country, but I guess its
idea is that you don't need all your money today even if you retire
today.
\_ We are in basically the same boat here.
\_ I think you should be about 75% in equities (25% in bonds)
throughout. I don't plan to change that mix just because I'm
60, although I might cash out to buy some property once I can
do so without any penalties.
\_ No. Even at a relatively young age (under 35), you should be
invested >= 50% into safety (CDs and Treasuries). I think this is
particularly true for those earning the median or less where they
live. For those earning more, you can afford to risk more.
particularly true for those earning the median or less for where
they live. For those earning more, you can afford to risk more.
\_ You are on crack if you put >50% of your retirement into CDs at
age 35. You might not even beat inflation. |
| 2008/11/20-28 [Uncategorized] UID:52055 Activity:nil |
11/20 "Glass half full" poll--which stocks do you hold which are still
above your original cost basis?
For me: AAPL, PEP, BRKB, AMZN, LOGI, FDRY.
(FDRY only because they got a buy-out offer just before things
went to crap). -tom
\_ HMC, EWH, ELP, EWS and GLD all bought 2002ish. LQD is
\_ HMC, EWH, ELP, and EWS all bought 2002ish. GLD bought in 2005. LQD is
up a tiny bit, bought last month. -ausman
\_ HMC, EWH, ELP, and EWS all bought 2002ish. GLD bought in 2005. LQD
is up a tiny bit, bought last month. -ausman
\_ PLCM just broke back intot the black for me. -tom
\_ PLCM just broke back into the black for me. -tom
\_ Yeah, I got a few more back into the green this week, too. |
| 2008/11/20-21 [Science/Disaster] UID:52056 Activity:insanely high |
11/20 So oil finally hit $50 like I've been predicting for a long time
now on MOTD. So what am I doing about it? Thinking about buying
shares of SLB. Trying to figure out a good entry point. Right now
I read that the oil companies are pumping and storing oil. Yes,
sounds like PEAK OIL to me.
\_ Has the fed resumed stocking up the underground strategic reserve
again?
\_ Saying the same thing 50x and being right once is not exactly
divine insight.
\_ Sure it is. I've been saying "Oil -> $50" even when it was
$150. I don't need to give an exact date when it would
happen. A lot of people thought it would NEVER happen.
\_ Did anyone on the motd make this claim? I don't remember
seeing anyone.
\_ http://csua.com/2008/10/17/#51569
http://csua.com/2008/03/07/#49375
\_ no one in either of those discussions claims that
oil will never be $50/barrel again. -tom
\_ You are so obtuse. What's important there is
that I made the claim it would be $50 again and
there was a lot of argument that the oil prices
were really based on supply/demand, which we
know now is bullshit. I didn't mean to imply
anyone on MOTD said oil would never hit $50
again (although if I had to guess I'm sure you
thought so without saying) but that many people
across the nation thought so. So many articles
about the end of cheap oil, blah blah blah blah.
Like I said, many mutual funds were buying oil
stocks like it would last. I think a lot of
people are shocked oil went back to $50, but not
me. I've been saying it for months. Give me
credit, dude.
\_ Try yoga; if you get good at it, you'll be able
to suck your own dick. -tom
\_ I'll have to take your word for it.
\_ Demand is way way down in the US. Aren't you
aware of this?
\_ "I am suggesting that it only can do so by a demand
shock not a supply increase, hence a global
recession, at least until we can get our economy
less hooked on cheap oil."
I am the one who deserves the props here. -GS
\_ Don't you get that oil prices hinge on a
lot more than supply and demand? Demand
for oil in the US fell a whopping 5% January to
October according to API. In fact, oil prices
were rising the first half of this year
even as demand fell 3%.
\_ Prove it. Prove that worldwide demand was
falling the first half of the year. And
stop stomping on my changes asshole.
\_ Learn to use Google
http://tinyurl.com/5pdnzn
Sorry if I am stomping on your
changes if it is indeed me, which I
doubt. BTW, how did we go from "way
way down in the US" to "worldwide
demand"? My article addresses the
former fallacious claim. I don't
have time to track all of your crazy
claims down.
\_ Actually you verified my "crazy claim"
that demand was down in the US, thanks
for that.
\_ 5% down is "way way down"?
\_ Yes, especially for a product
with such a steeply inelestic
supply-demand curve. Actually,
it is huge for any product.
What else is usage down by 5%
For what else is usage down by 5%
in less than a year?
\_ "I am suggesting that it only can do so by a
demand shock not a supply increase, hence a
global recession, at least until we can get our
economy less hooked on cheap oil."
Someone deserves credit, but it isn't you...
\_ Uh huh. Peak oil!
\_ wait, I thought high oil price was due to high demand from China
and India. What happened again?
\_ global credit collapse?
\_ But the shots do find their mark and have gone into the exhaust port
and are heading for the main reactor.
\_ I am going to cash out my bonds and buy stocks. I was going to
wait until Jan 1, but this maximum pessimism makes me pretty
sure we are at or close to a bottom. I am still holding my CA
munis. |
| 2008/11/20-27 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Tax] UID:52057 Activity:nil |
11/20 "Far from vanishing, many of GM’s assets would be quickly purchased
by competent foreign automakers eager to expand their capacity in what
is the world’s largest auto market. Happily, the list of well-run car
companies, from Toyota to Nissan to Porsche, is long."
big FAT LOLZ there. When GM closes up, GM's factories are going to
go idle and rust and provide excellent opporunities for hipster
dumbasses who love breaking into buildings to photograph our
crumbling industrial past glory. Those jobs are not coming back, EVER.
\_ GM is a modestly profitable car company with a huge losing pension
fund attached. In bankruptcy, they will be able to dump the
pension liabilities onto the government and return profitable.
\_ which I would argue this is a sure sign of incompetitiveness of
USA as a whole. Then again, if Pension were funded properly,
shouldn't be a problem. My guess is that during the go-go days,
GM decided to use the pension contribution and count it as profit.
GM decided to use the pension contribution and count it as
profit.
\_ No, it is mostly an artifact of the fact that we push health
care costs onto private employers, while that cost is borne
by The State for GMs competitors. Even offloading all the
pensioners healthcare costs alone would make GM profitable.
The GM management (and unions) decided to forstall a bunch
of labor issues in the 70's by increasing benefits, which we
are paying the price of now, but no one could have reasonably
expected health care costs to increase at 7%/yr for 30 years.
\_ not just the 70s and not just GM. This happened with a lot
of city/county governmental orgs as well. The contra costa
county school district is going to be bankrupt due to
quickly increasing pension/medical benifits for retired
quickly increasing pension/medical benefits for retired
staff.
\_ Of course, those evil socialist countries fund health
care by TAXES on corporations. But we could never tax
corporations here, because that would make us
uncompetitive. Or so goes the corpratist line. -tom
\_ Right, because corporations here don't pay any taxes
ever. There's no way an evil corporation like
XOM would pay any tax.
\_ That statement is becoming more true every year.
In the 50s, 1/3 the federal tax revenue came from
corporations, today it's 7% and still dropping.
Assuming the corporists that run the government
continue their successfuly campaign to eliminate
taxes on corporations whenever possible, it's
conceivable that will go down to 0% in a decade
or two. -!tom |
| 2008/11/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:52058 Activity:low |
11/20 So I remember when WND and their motd.followers started calling
the genocide in Rwanda, the "Clinton genocide" because he did
nothing while it happened. Are you all calling the Congo
and Sudan massacres the "Bush genocide's" as well?
\_ This would require a level of introspection that has been
prominently lacking in WND and Bush apologists. |
| 2008/11/20-28 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Computer/Rants] UID:52059 Activity:nil |
11/20 "Panel: China has accelerated computer espionage"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_go_ot/us_china |
| 2008/11/20-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:52060 Activity:nil |
11/20 Another win for the Constitution, loss for the Bush Administration:
http://tinyurl.com/6ylqxl (Yahoo News on Guantanamo enemy combatants) |
| 2008/11/20-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:52061 Activity:nil |
11/20 U.S. asks Gulf states to provide $300B in aid to assist automakers,
banks, etc. Also asks Kuwait to forgive $16B in loans to Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/5g9d7p (AFP)
\_ Up next: Polite request that BIGOIL kick in some of those
lovely windfall profits. But don't call it socialism.
\_ btw, this sounds like complete and utter tinfoil to me, except the
part about forgiving the Iraq loan -op
\_ I wouldn't be surprised if we did actually. |