Financial Crisis

[Gambles]

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>^ So you're saying its a "BUY" on sentiment Paul?  More objective measures of sentiment are getting darn close to saying the same thing, but they got late 2008 early 2009 wrong.<BR>

<BR><BR><BR>Sorry for being dim, Lanna, not sure which comment you're referring back to? Gold?......<BR>sentiment's always difficult to exploit safely - if it's flying in the face of fundamentals then picking up nickels in front of 'dozers is always risky; this is why <B>we</B> only dipped our toes in last year's rallies rather than diving in<BR>

<BR><BR>The royal "we"? Or you threw some client money to our hero Scott Campbell, and<B> he </B>dipped his toes in last years rallies?<BR><BR>Incidentally I disagree with your nickel/dozer/sentiment adage too, as those situations simply dont arise. Being as subjective as it is though, Im sure you can drum up some tenuous examples if bothered <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif"><BR>

<BR><BR>well I have quite a few heroes but chiefly Martin Gray and Scott and yes it was their portfolios that I was referring to - both called the bottom in March but neither felt sufficient conviction to wade in gung ho and that's one interesting feature of last year - that most of the fairly small number of investors who called the bottom took a limited exposure to it. There's been a couple of analyses that I've read of inflows and outflows that basically seem to show that bank prop desks awash with cash thanks to the bail out invested in H1 08 came back into the markets but otherwise equity inflows were very limited until the middle/later part of H2. Corporate bonds and property did rather better but equity inflows were very limited.<BR><BR>Badge, I know that you're a trader and you feel that technicals can generate buying and selling signals but then as a trader you must know that if the sentiment tide turns and you're caught swimming naked then flying in the face of fundamentals can be very painful - as a trader buying on sentiment then that's one of the risks that you take....I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm not saying that you can't make money doing it, I'm just saying that it is risky but a smart trader knows that and assumes that with every trade that he places and that's surely part of the risk/reward entry fee of trading?? Or am I missing something?

[Abrak]

Or am I missing something?

Well I do think it wrong to say that buying near the bottom was 'flying against the fundamentals.' Many stocks were trading at criminally low prices and at once in a lifetime buying opportunities.... but I didnt buy them unfortunately. I currently own two stocks that have gone up 10 fold since their 2009 lows (although they had already trebled by the time I bought them. I do really wish someone had punched me very hard in March 2009 and told me that if I couldnt find anything worth buying I must be a complete idiot.

[Naam]

"I do really wish someone had punched me very hard in March 2009 and told me that if I couldnt find anything worth buying I must be a complete idiot."

c'mon Abrak, you were not an idiot! who had the guts to bet the ranch in march, april, may or even june till august? 2009 was the best year in 3½ decades since i made my first "real" money and started investing. looking back i might think "why did i pussyfoot and applied only 20-25% add a time to make only 44% on my total portfolio? why did i not go in full blast and double or even triple my portfolio to add a digit to my total NAV?"

hindsight will not assist us in case we experience another crash like 2008/09 because again we won't dare to risk all.

[Naam]

"well I have quite a few heroes but chiefly Martin Gray and Scott and yes it was their portfolios that I was referring to..."

details please Gambles. we all like heroes.

[Abrak]

An interesting speech by Soros on why Germany should be the last country in the world taking part in the Austerity Challenge....

http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/george_soros_speech_at_humboldt_university/

[teletiger]

'Wassat noise? Sounds like 'things' being sharpened.

"1.3 million unemployed won't get benefits restored"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/13-million-unemployed-wont-apf-23988520.html?x=0

Add 200,000 people every week.

The House is off all next week for their July 4th beano.

Regards.

[teletiger]

An interesting speech by Soros on why Germany should be the last country in the world taking part in the Austerity Challenge....

http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/george_soros_speech_at_humboldt_university/

Interesting if you're George Soros. The fox discussing how to improve security in the hen house.

Regards.

[Gambles]

"details please Gambles. we all like heroes.

just economic? or generally?

Edited July 1, 2010 by Gambles

[Gambles]

"I do really wish someone had punched me very hard in March 2009 and told me that if I couldnt find anything worth buying I must be a complete idiot."

c'mon Abrak, you were not an idiot! who had the guts to bet the ranch in march, april, may or even june till august? 2009 was the best year in 3½ decades since i made my first "real" money and started investing. looking back i might think "why did i pussyfoot and applied only 20-25% add a time to make only 44% on my total portfolio? why did i not go in full blast and double or even triple my portfolio to add a digit to my total NAV?"

hindsight will not assist us in case we experience another crash like 2008/09 because again we won't dare to risk all.

agreed, Herr Naam

I know what you're syaing Abrak but I still maintain that they didn't go up because they were cheap - in terms of pricing the market it was definitely a case of catching falling knives (to refer to one of the 2 aforementioned heroes, MG said in Bkk in mid-March that certain stocks appeared to be cheap and he was ready to dip his toes into specific equities whose highly likely cash flows meant that he was prepared to hold onto if they and the markets continued to fall) - they went up because the force-fed stimulus paid off short term. The liquidity impact was apparent from analysis of which stocks rose the most/the quickest - fundamentals were out to lunch.......

Edwards of Socgen recently wrote that he spent all the time prior to le bounce spelling out all the conditions for getting back into the market and then when these were met, he just didn't act...he feels that whipping to within an inch of his miserable life but then again.......that might just be a peccadilo of the estimable Mr. Edwards.....

[Abrak]

I know what you're syaing Abrak but I still maintain that they didn't go up because they were cheap

Well I agree with you to a certain extent. If you took a purely top down approach, markets were trading just below their average PE based on a 10 year MVA of earnings.

However, the downturn and been so sharp that many price movements were fairly indiscriminate. Maybe a hedge fund had to sell stock etc.. The same happens in very sharp upswings. Prices of certain stocks literally disconnect with their fundamentals. So if a stock is trading at half net cash per share, it is say, very hard to say it isnt cheap (unless it is bleeding cash.)

So, from my perspective, it wasnt so much at matter of calling the bottom of the market but simply that there were loads of investments that were bound to come right with a bit of patience. It is a harrowing time though I bought a stock on a PE of 3x only to find it was trading on 2x a week later. Also, in terms of hindsight, it doesnt bother me if I sell something and it doubles but it does when I fail to spot value. I find the current markets incredibly difficult and actually very 'risky'.

[Naam]

agreed, Herr Naam

I know what you're syaing Abrak but I still maintain that they didn't go up because they were cheap - in terms of pricing the market it was definitely a case of catching falling knives (to refer to one of the 2 aforementioned heroes, MG said in Bkk in mid-March that certain stocks appeared to be cheap and he was ready to dip his toes into specific equities whose highly likely cash flows meant that he was prepared to hold onto if they and the markets continued to fall) - they went up because the force-fed stimulus paid off short term. The liquidity impact was apparent from analysis of which stocks rose the most/the quickest - fundamentals were out to lunch.......

that might apply to Abrak and a bunch of others but not to me Honourable Sir Gambles, Esq. as i am not talking about a stupid stock casino but about subordinated bonds which traded at or above par 12 months before spring 2009 but could be picked up at a fraction of their "fair" and former prices for several months (mar-aug 2009). a bond that traded at par when (as mentioned above) the sun was shining that could be picked up at 12 or 15 (or even below 10!) can hardly be called a "falling knife".

stocks? if i want to gamble i rather fly to Macau than buying stocks!

disclaimer: for the first time in more than two decades i bought shares in a gold mining company end of may, sold them yesterday with 18% profit. i know that 18% is not much but these 18% pay for a nearly a third of my 2010 basic expenditure. now i have to wait another 20 years till i am entitled to buy stocks/shares. but as my statistical life span is less, chances are that i will never buy any stocks/shares again.

[Naam]

"details please Gambles. we all like heroes.

just economic? or generally?

performance 2007, 2008 and 2009 > "it was their portfolios that I was referring to..."

[Abrak]

agreed, Herr Naam

I know what you're syaing Abrak but I still maintain that they didn't go up because they were cheap - in terms of pricing the market it was definitely a case of catching falling knives (to refer to one of the 2 aforementioned heroes, MG said in Bkk in mid-March that certain stocks appeared to be cheap and he was ready to dip his toes into specific equities whose highly likely cash flows meant that he was prepared to hold onto if they and the markets continued to fall) - they went up because the force-fed stimulus paid off short term. The liquidity impact was apparent from analysis of which stocks rose the most/the quickest - fundamentals were out to lunch.......

that might apply to Abrak and a bunch of others but not to me Honourable Sir Gambles, Esq. as i am not talking about a stupid stock casino but about subordinated bonds which traded at or above par 12 months before spring 2009 but could be picked up at a fraction of their "fair" and former prices for several months (mar-aug 2009). a bond that traded at par when (as mentioned above) the sun was shining that could be picked up at 12 or 15 (or even below 10!) can hardly be called a "falling knife".

stocks? if i want to gamble i rather fly to Macau than buying stocks!

disclaimer: for the first time in more than two decades i bought shares in a gold mining company end of may, sold them yesterday with 18% profit. i know that 18% is not much but these 18% pay for a nearly a third of my 2010 basic expenditure. now i have to wait another 20 years till i am entitled to buy stocks/shares. but as my statistical life span is less, chances are that i will never buy any stocks/shares again.

Ahaaa.... now I know why you dont like equities. It is not because of the volatility and uncertainty of the fundamentals but because of the volatility and uncertainty of the price relative to the fundamentals.

[badge]

Lots of people 'called the low' in 2008/09.<BR><BR>Lots of people advocated  'dip[ing] his toes into specific equities' , or 'accumulating select companies' in 2008/09 etc...<BR><BR>...the financial market equivalent of aquarium gravel.<BR><BR><BR>re: sentiment/technicals. I pity anyone who does not see the use of any form of price graphs in financial markets; theyre a silent, unemotional snapshot, of a very noisy and emotionally charged market place. Understanding this mindset sees myself surrounded by the good and the great in trading circles; peripheral commentators need not apply. The term 'technicals' applies to much more than simple price graphs or moving averages or oscillators etc in my vocab.<BR>Sentiment will always follow fundamentals, and vice versa. However, as mentioned just yesterday I think, the disconnect between being able to identify the 'lag-time' or even just forseeing these opportunities, and actually capitalising from them, is impossible for most.

[BlackJack]

agreed, Herr Naam

I know what you're syaing Abrak but I still maintain that they didn't go up because they were cheap - in terms of pricing the market it was definitely a case of catching falling knives (to refer to one of the 2 aforementioned heroes, MG said in Bkk in mid-March that certain stocks appeared to be cheap and he was ready to dip his toes into specific equities whose highly likely cash flows meant that he was prepared to hold onto if they and the markets continued to fall) - they went up because the force-fed stimulus paid off short term. The liquidity impact was apparent from analysis of which stocks rose the most/the quickest - fundamentals were out to lunch.......

that might apply to Abrak and a bunch of others but not to me Honourable Sir Gambles, Esq. as i am not talking about a stupid stock casino but about subordinated bonds which traded at or above par 12 months before spring 2009 but could be picked up at a fraction of their "fair" and former prices for several months (mar-aug 2009). a bond that traded at par when (as mentioned above) the sun was shining that could be picked up at 12 or 15 (or even below 10!) can hardly be called a "falling knife".

stocks? if i want to gamble i rather fly to Macau than buying stocks!

disclaimer: for the first time in more than two decades i bought shares in a gold mining company end of may, sold them yesterday with 18% profit. i know that 18% is not much but these 18% pay for a nearly a third of my 2010 basic expenditure. now i have to wait another 20 years till i am entitled to buy stocks/shares. but as my statistical life span is less, chances are that i will never buy any stocks/shares again.

was 18% a lucky number exit for you

we all have our stories

i lost 2 times - dot com and the FC

then made it all back on one share

plus lots up upside to come

now looking at how to keep it (shhhhhhh)

[Naam]

Ahaaa.... now I know why you dont like equities. It is not because of the volatility and uncertainty of the fundamentals but because of the volatility and uncertainty of the price relative to the fundamentals.

correct! i am a planner and have been a planner all my life. i don't build a desalination plant without knowing the exact output of the gasturbines which power the pumps. i don't build a home without without knowing the load factor of the roof on the bearing walls and the foundations. i don't install an aircon unit by guessing max ambient temperature and heat load on the area to be cooled.

stocks -as opposed to bonds- do not provide a consistent income stream. without the latter i can't budget any future expenses (or expenses at all) which might be a multiple of the usual ones. investing in bonds eliminates guessing assuming the debtor does not default.

disclaimer: presently i hold only a rather small percentage (<30%) in bonds. the majority of my assets consists of cash in 13 different currencies. these currencies are (not listed according to priority or amount) THB, USD, €UR, SGD, JP¥, TRY, BRL, INR, ZAR, CHF, NZD, NOK and... AU. needless to say that i also trade some of the afore-mentioned currencies to buy food for my dogs.

[midas]

My main point was that bitching and moaning doesn't help much - and I was asking if 12Drink had learned anything in the course of hundreds of pages of this thread, which he actually answered honestly and I admire that.

I do feel that at some point the cycle must be broken in order to move forward... but it seems a long way off - given the history of mankind - and in the meantime it doesn't hurt to understand that the sky is still there and it will always be (until the day it's not - but that's life).

I think " bitching and moaning " is very different to sounding the alarm

It seems there could be a serious weakness in US society when at the same time Asians have a voracious appetite for learning

and to improve themselves to the max.

More to the point how are these kinds of people ever going to be able to secure jobs that pay enough money

for a home worth several hundred thousand dollars ?

" Ben Venue Laboratories, a contract drug maker for pharmaceutical companies, have reviewed 3,600 job applications this year and found only 47 people to hire at $13 to $15 an hour, or about $31,000 a year.

All candidates at Ben Venue must pass a basic skills test showing they can read and understand math at a ninth-grade level. A significant portion of recent applicants failed, and the company has been disappointed by the quality of graduates from local training programs. It is now struggling to fill 100 positions."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/company-is-dying-to-hire-unemployed-americans-with-the-right-skills-cant-find-any-2010-7#ixzz0sZzV3GRI

Edited July 2, 2010 by midas

[Abrak]

Ahaaa.... now I know why you dont like equities. It is not because of the volatility and uncertainty of the fundamentals but because of the volatility and uncertainty of the price relative to the fundamentals.

correct! i am a planner and have been a planner all my life. i don't build a desalination plant without knowing the exact output of the gasturbines which power the pumps. i don't build a home without without knowing the load factor of the roof on the bearing walls and the foundations. i don't install an aircon unit by guessing max ambient temperature and heat load on the area to be cooled.Of course not. But if you did build a home you might finance with both equity and debt.

stocks -as opposed to bonds- do not provide a consistent income stream. without the latter i can't budget any future expenses (or expenses at all) which might be a multiple of the usual ones. investing in bonds eliminates guessing assuming the debtor does not default.But you do actually buy bonds quite often whereby due to a probability of default, your income stream is uncertain. You clearly do not guess the income stream but try to calculate to the best of your ability. Given the uncertainty of that stream you place a high discount rate on your estimation and then compare to the potential reward.

disclaimer:[/u] presently i hold only a rather small percentage (<30%) in bonds. the majority of my assets consists of cash in 13 different currencies. these currencies are (not listed according to priority or amount) THB, USD, €UR, SGD, JP¥, TRY, BRL, INR, ZAR, CHF, NZD, NOK and... AU. needless to say that i also trade some of the afore-mentioned currencies to buy food for my dogs.

My point noone invests on the basis of guesswork. A guaranteed stream of income offers very little investment potential because the returns are absolute. Currencies do require a lot of guesswork though. You do not make 20%+ returns per annum based on a guaranteed consistent income stream.

My point is that you are just as prepared to calculate an estimated return as anyone else. What I think you dislike about equities is the uncertainty of price relative to the actual fundamentals. In other words you like bonds on the basis that over say 3 months, their price will be highly correlated with their fundamentals. With equities there is very little short term correlation between price and fundamentals but a very close long term one. Say 2-3 years.

I say that because conceptually I would never buy a stock and then sell it a month later on a return of 18%. Now obviously that is a massive annual return. But you simply cant predict prices of stocks over such a short period relative to their fundamentals (unless it is a nudge, nudge, results next week are going to be great.) So fundamental investors tend to invest on 'I think this stock should double at some point over the next two years approach.' Now after a month whatever the fundamentals you might be up 50% or down 20%.

That is why Blackjack said to you why 18%? If you wanted to buy it at 100 and sell it at 118 because it was expensive, given the underlying uncertainty in the fundamentals and particularly the uncertainty in valuation, an equity investor wouldnt really have bought it in the first place.

[Abrak]

So what do people think about the dollar? Short term or long term decline?

I have absolutely no idea. I do think it is going down because they are not playing 'austerity'.

But I do believe the US also has a different agenda. Obviously a weak currency.

1)helps growth/C/A

2)Avoids deflation

3)Allows a large deficit to be financed by the pegged currencies surpluses

4)Adds additional political and inflationary pressure on China to revalue.

At one stage China's surplus added value because it imported deflation to the US and but now China looks to have an inflation problem. The US as far as I know is about the only country that doesnt have a fiscal policy on the basis that the CBO is forecasting 300% Government debt to GDP in the future. In fact according to the CBO, the Government doesnt even intend to generate the revenues to even service their debt.

So the way I see it is that the big winner of the austerity challenge is the US. The US$ is the direct opposite of the Euro. If that isnt obvious consider that the easiest way of solving Greece's problems is to put it in control of the ECB. The reason the Central Reserve Currency must be paper is that surplus countries understand it is only paper. Keynes felt you should tax surpluses.

So my guess is that there will be a compromise. Whereby there is a sustained appreciation of surplus dollar pegged currencies and the US commits to swap the growth it achieves through the current account by a more responsible fiscal policy.

[RakJungTorlae]

^^^ serious editing problem, sorry.

The rest of the edit was: "Double Edit: can't reply to any messages in my PM inbox, so here you go RJT if you're reading this... Halo, HK. And lanna, nice to see your dog back in your avatar "

LOL this new layout helps me find all the times poeple use my name. get a hair cut u hippy....

[midas]

So what do people think about the dollar? Short term or long term decline?

I have absolutely no idea. I do think it is going down because they are not playing 'austerity'.

But I do believe the US also has a different agenda. Obviously a weak currency.

" the US also has a different agenda "

That is the understatement of the Crisis

You are a Marxist you said way back in this thread and if you are I would find

it impossible to believe you are unaware of the links between Marixists andCloward and Piven strategy

- " the Cloward-Piven Strategy, the rules of Saul Alinsky, and their Cultural Marxist worldview

and you will understand what is occurring in America is not by mistake."

" Why is the Obama Administration chronically incapable?

Why?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit."

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-and-cloward-piven-strategy-of.html

Edited July 3, 2010 by midas

[Naam]

Naam: disclaimer:presently i hold only a rather small percentage (<30%) in bonds. the majority of my assets consists of cash in 13 different currencies. these currencies are (not listed according to priority or amount) THB, USD, €UR, SGD, JP¥, TRY, BRL, INR, ZAR, CHF, NZD, NOK and... AU. needless to say that i also trade some of the afore-mentioned currencies to buy food for my dogs.

Abrak: My point noone invests on the basis of guesswork. A guaranteed stream of income offers very little investment potential because the returns are absolute. Currencies do require a lot of guesswork though. You do not make 20%+ returns per annum based on a guaranteed consistent income stream.

i hold currencies for a variety of reasons, such as:

-being diversified and sitting on a fence watching rather unconcerned (most probably not true ) what stock and bond markets do in an uncharted economic environment which (i think) will last for years.

-easy and extremely fast trading with low spreads. worthwhile to mention is that i don't trade all but only a few currencies. trading is done based on gut feeling, not technical voodoo analysis. i guess that therefore the expression "guesswork" does apply.

-i don't aim for 20%+ returns but am satisfied if overall yield of my portfolio matches the inflation rate of my expenditure (which differs from the official rate). as my income/expenditure ratio is ~5:1 i consider that yield satisfactory.

side note: the rat race to make money has become for me quite boring in recent years. on the other hand i admit that life without that rat race would be rather boring too.

[Naam]

Naam: stocks -as opposed to bonds- do not provide a consistent income stream. without the latter i can't budget any future expenses (or expenses at all) which might be a multiple of the usual ones. investing in bonds eliminates guessing assuming the debtor does not default.

Abrak: But you do actually buy bonds quite often whereby due to a probability of default, your income stream is uncertain. You clearly do not guess the income stream but try to calculate to the best of your ability. Given the uncertainty of that stream you place a high discount rate on your estimation and then compare to the potential reward.

bullseye! the spanish speaking world would say "en el culo del mosquito!"

[Naam]

Naam: i am a planner and have been a planner all my life. i don't build a desalination plant without knowing the exact output of the gasturbines which power the pumps. i don't build a home without without knowing the load factor of the roof on the bearing walls and the foundations. i don't install an aircon unit by guessing max ambient temperature and heat load on the area to be cooled.Of course not.

Abrak: But if you did build a home you might finance with both equity and debt.

except for a condo 36 years ago, when i was a poor boy working in my first job, i never financed immobile property but always paid cash. side note: i am a real estate dummy². lost money on nearly all of my property deals and on some of them i lost big money. example: if i had to sell my home in Thailand under present circumstances i'd lose minimum 10 million Baht.

even my savvy wife who owns a fistful of condos in three different countries wasn't much more successful. we just accept our losses as whatchamacallit "fate, kismet, karma" and don't really worry about it.

[badge]

July 1, 2010<BR><BR><BR>Dear Friend in Liberty,<BR><BR>Yesterday, the House rejected Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed by a vote of 198-229. The Audit was included in a Republican motion to send the Dodd-Frank Fed Empowerment Act (H.R. 4173) back to committee.<BR><BR>If the measure had been approved, H.R. 4173 would have been changed to include the thorough Audit.<BR><BR>Even worse, the majority of those who voted against it were cosponsors of H.R. 1207.<BR><BR>Check out our “Hall of Shame” to see if your representative is on the list of those who abandoned their so-called “support” for Audit the Fed (while voting to further empower the secretive Fed) when real action was required.<BR><BR>Be sure to let them know you will make your fellow constituents aware of their failure to support full accountability from those responsible for this latest economic crisis.<BR><BR>If your representative stood with Ron Paul by supporting Audit the Fed, thank him for his support and urge him to fight any future efforts to expand the Fed’s powers.<BR><BR>See the complete roll call on the motion here.<BR><BR>There’s still time to stop this Fed powergrab in the Senate.<BR><BR>Find your senators here. After you contact your congressman, please call your senators and demand they stand up for the American people by defeating H.R. 4173 and taking a standalone vote on S. 604, Audit the Fed.<BR><BR>We’ve come too far to let the Fed off the hook for its actions. Call Congress today!<BR><BR><BR>In Liberty,<BR><BR><BR><BR>John Tate<BR><BR>President

[badge]

Seems all my posts have HTML errors thesedays.

Oh well

[badge]

The corp. Bond market is much slower than the equity market.

Trading costs are much higher.

Sure you get income from the coupons, but only if you hold, as one does with many equity issues. So if for example your buying Venezuelan corporates and selling them a month later its a null point, bar the larger transaction costs on FI. Naturally a longer term income seeker would likely prefer the slower capital volatility of Bonds.

A default/bankruptcy changes things, but I try not to get long those companies in any way.

[midas]

July 1, 2010<BR><BR><BR>Dear Friend in Liberty,<BR><BR>Yesterday, the House rejected Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed by a vote of 198-229. The Audit was included in a Republican motion to send the Dodd-Frank Fed Empowerment Act (H.R. 4173) back to committee.<BR><BR>If the measure had been approved, H.R. 4173 would have been changed to include the thorough Audit.<BR><BR>Even worse, the majority of those who voted against it were cosponsors of H.R. 1207.<BR><BR>Check out our “Hall of Shame” to see if your representative is on the list of those who abandoned their so-called “support” for Audit the Fed (while voting to further empower the secretive Fed) when real action was required.<BR><BR>Be sure to let them know you will make your fellow constituents aware of their failure to support full accountability from those responsible for this latest economic crisis.<BR><BR>If your representative stood with Ron Paul by supporting Audit the Fed, thank him for his support and urge him to fight any future efforts to expand the Fed’s powers.<BR><BR>See the complete roll call on the motion here.<BR><BR>There’s still time to stop this Fed powergrab in the Senate.<BR><BR>Find your senators here. After you contact your congressman, please call your senators and demand they stand up for the American people by defeating H.R. 4173 and taking a standalone vote on S. 604, Audit the Fed.<BR><BR>We’ve come too far to let the Fed off the hook for its actions. Call Congress today!<BR><BR><BR>In Liberty,<BR><BR><BR><BR>John Tate<BR><BR>President

' Even worse, the majority of those who voted against it were cosponsors of H.R. 1207 '

oh sorry I changed my mind it wasnt such a good idea after all

[jcon]

-i don't aim for 20%+ returns but am satisfied if overall yield of my portfolio matches the inflation rate of my expenditure (which differs from the official rate). as my income/expenditure ratio is ~5:1 i consider that yield satisfactory.

side note: the rat race to make money has become for me quite boring in recent years. on the other hand i admit that life without that rat race would be rather boring too.

I inferred this conclusion before - eventually, beyond a certain point - it does become boring (for most - megalomaniacs aside)...

With income/expenditure at ~5:1 I say head for the door with a fistful of dollars in one hand and a fistful of blue pills in the other ! (wife stays home with own fistful of dollars as appeasement..... ) Your currency portfolio already lays it out perfectly for you - BRL (nearby-->ARS), TRY (nearby---> LBP), NOK (nearby--->SEK)!!! You'll come back with a big smile and this thread will most likely not have changed much....

LOL this new layout helps me find all the times poeple use my name. get a hair cut u hippy....

I've already begun to refer to myself as a new-generation hippie, RJT. Peace and love, maaaannnnn....... **puff ** :jap:

[12DrinkMore]

We are now being held at gun point by the banks.

"Either you play along and pay up, or the credit markets will freeze and the financial systems will collapse".

What that all really means in the short/medium/long term I don't really know. But it is high time the governments got to grips with this issue. But they won't, because it is easier to do very little and just keep on hoping for the best.

But from a theoretical point of view, here are a couple of ideas.

http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/2010/06/prime-minister-sort-out-this-mess.html

http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/