Yankee White

Members
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Salsman on “The quiddity on liquidity”

    A Yen ETF for current market conditions, small size, see what happens, I don't own any but I thought about it a few weeks ago, if I were an investor as opposed to an active trader and intensely scared that's what I'd do -- we're only starting to see articles regarding speculation about carry trades unwinding (which I don't think the actual carry trades will) so these ETFs should move up in theory. Recently I have been studying why house prices double, and particularly over the last cycle almost on queue house prices have moved up as soon as interest rate hikes begin, and level or decrease their rate of price growth at the plateau or interest rate pause (a plateau you'd notice gold has drawn a line around, moving between $600 to $700 for quite some time since the middle of 2006 whilst making some pretty cool technical continuation patterns whilst it crawls around under $700 [there were actually 3 government interventions selling gold as gold crept to $696 awhile back). Information is the greatest commodity in the financial markets, market prices efficiently respond to news over time, will you be one of the first to get in? For you traders out there don't just listen to Bernanke when he's on TV, find every one of his speeches and works in academia from the past and especially WHEN THEY COME OUT. LISTEN, learn, anticipate... Quotes like these from Alan Greenspan in September 2005 ought to be Postits hanging off your multimonitor trading systems. -- Alan GreenspanWhat's this guy implying in September 2005? That he as the Fed chairman is going to squeeze out the so called 'irrational' 'speculative' elements of the housing market.. (as prices rise all around him as of September 2005, hmm.. I wonder why? Maybe heaps of rate hikes very fast?).. yes that's what the Fed chairman was implying back in September 2005. Back in 2005 he was saying for people to take piggy back rates on their mortgages, as he was disturbed at speculators buying houses for a quick pop, interest only loans had SURGED. Investors who bought interest only loans (i.e. instead of paying over 30 years for the house + interest, or $600 a month you pay $250 a month on the interest for 5 to 10 years out of the 30 year loan, and after that period begin to pay for the actual house as opposed to just the X% interest on the debt, this is better for investment as you as a speculator become more liquid to go ahead and buy more houses.. with debt..). In an economy where speculators are buying IO loans whilst house prices bloom around them, aren't people going to follow in their footsteps? Isn't the demand only going to continue? Aren't such investors going to extract equity out of existing homes of which they only own 5% and buy more homes? Over 4/5ths of mortgage debt was equity extracted from homes. Construction follows as demand increases. Greenspan believed that the home owners in the housing economy had large equity cushions to absorb any price downfalls. I completely disagree with this and you've seen it in front of your eyes, this is why we're in this mess. The price downfalls don't have to take place on the home, all that's necessary is a drop in economic confidence for a sustained period because of subprime as well as repricing of debt instruments. Personally, I think we're going to see positive GDP growth with no recession as well as a normalized yield curve for a few years with massive pressure on the 3 month T-bill yields to the downside as the demand for cash increases for the long term (people don't buy long term bonds for the long term, they buy short term bonds for the long term so every 3 months they can buy another). Demand for the US dollar ought to increase as gradually as you've seen it recently, interest rates fall, less inflation, the stock market moves sideways for awhile while we see some turning points in the energy markets. I think bernanke is right about lower energy prices, his voice can even make it self-fulfilling prophecy.
  2. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/art..._thought_police This stuff is crazy! *Yasakuni is the memorial of the war dead that's gaining controversy over in Japan (visiting it as a politician gives a signal that you respect the men who died for Japanese militarism, and may imply you sanction the 'end').
  3. Is war with the Islamic Republic of Iran imminent?

    First of all, British culture didn't enter places like India, South Africa and the Mid-East through retaliatory force. France and Britain initiated force against provinces under administration of the Ottoman Empire. During the siege of Acre in 1799, Napoleon prepared a proclamation declaring a Jewish state in Palestine, he never got to issue it as the siege was lost to the British and the plan was never carried out. Since the 16th century the British military has been engaged in wars of imperial aggression in what is today Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran and even Pakistan. Great Britain initiated force first, and America was ignorant of the history here. From the trading routes of Northern Africa-India to the military occupation of Palestine from 1917 to 1920. As far as I know the French had a mandate on Syria and Lebanon, whilst Britain had a mandate on Palestine and Iraq. Although these were official mandates or plans handed down by the whim of the League of Nations and a bunch of signatories, Britain was also in other countries such as Iran, consistently drilling for oil with guns blazing. When it comes to Iran nationalizing British State oil interests, from the information I've perused I cannot find anything that suggests Iran was initiating physical force. Observe that as soon as the CIA coup toppled Iran's president in 1953, two years after the Iranian nationalization of the British State oil interests, the USA and Britain propped up a murderous tyrant, the Shah of Iran -- and the British kept pumping their state owned offshore oil monopoly. This sanction of the Shah, the financial aid, etc, alone is truly sickening. When it comes to individuals, none of us deserve unearnt guilt, but nations never forget, and so long as you live in the USA, you have to accept the history of the USA and that you may be a target. So long as civilians put up with the mismanagement of foreign affairs by their leaders, they deserve what their government deserves. What the US did with Iran in 1953 was like using radiotherapy on a cancer that will likely multiply. Now we have to destroy a tuma the size of a bowling ball, Radical Islam in order to rid us of this tuma.
  4. Is war with the Islamic Republic of Iran imminent?

    If you're confused about this concept, the Muslim brotherhood, founded in 1926, anyone got a world map from 1926? If anyone watched the GOP debates this is why Ron Pauls comment about 9.11 was correct, if you throw out the premise that "they attacked us because of the gulf war", and consider the real roots of the comment -- then you'll arrive at the truth -- meddling in the irrational politics of the middle east, be it during the Reagan years, or 1650, is suicide -- and if you try it you're asking for 9.11.
  5. Is war with the Islamic Republic of Iran imminent?

    My prediction is that Israel will fly a dangerous mission over Arab airspace and launch cruise missiles into the Natanz nuclear site. Dick Cheney staunchly disagrees with the President's choice to go the path of the State Dept realists, and has been tying the Presidents hands because he doesn't trust him to make the right decisions. I wouldn't be surprised, that if right now, Israel would set those planes flying on a queue from Cheney around the President. Cheney knows he has to do this before 2009, and even Bush knows something has to be done about Iran by the time he leaves office -- they just disagree on the means. It's very likely that the United States will make an announcement at the end of August, and withdraw immediately in September. Before then we might see a push into Sadr city, and a piling up of dead terrorists, this will provide the perception that "We will fight strong." Only to followed by sudden withdrawal. The withdrawal, with the intense terrorist activity at the end of the summer, will have the US leaving Iraq without the world thinking "finally" and rejoicing, but observing the violent militants in terror. It may sound strange after four years of people evading the reality of the middle east, I mean, how could after four years something can happen that makes even Rosie O'Donalds think hard? Be sure that the blame will go on the Iraqi government. The GOP and Dems will be all over the "2 month break from Parliament? Are the Iraqis living on planet earth?!" This will actually work in the favor of the United States, as things in Lebanon begin to stir up, as the UN stuffs around with some stupid international war trial over Hariri. Israel will be left for itself, but US presence in the gulf will remain, the minor troop count in green zones and troops embedded with police, as well as southern Iraq, is negligible politically. As far as everyone is concerned -- the US has hit the bricks. What will exist however is a hub of activity by US navy vessels in the gulf. The US would make clear that other countries in the region 'want' the US to be a player in middle eastern affairs, and that the US also has its own 'interests' (notice that the former is altruism, and will always be mentioned first, even if untrue). I wouldn't be surprised if Iran invades Iraq and launches a full scale war against Israel in September if the US leaves Iraq. I do however think that Cheney will be the man with the trigger, he will go around the President and make a phone call to Israel, and then have Israel shoot cruise missiles into Natanz, causing counterattacks by Iran against US forces, and Bush to forget about the State Dept. Hell, it could be possible over these next couple of months that there would be a coup in Israel, more likely from the inside. I don't mind if the state of Israel is destroyed in a coup, just so long as it's not literally wiped off the map. In other words the state of Israel was founded by UN decree and irrational whim, the State of Israel is to be opposed, Israel however, is not, the two are entirely different concepts. This means my position is to protect the skyscrapers in Tel Aviv against barbarism, not the actual State of Israel. What's interesting about the middle east is that the West initiated force first, with that 16th century busting up of Arab states and Palestine by Great Britain. Many centuries down the track, you're stuck on a Palestinian mandate, and Britain had an oil monopoly in Iran -- which when nationalized -- the United States gets involved. So you've got three things. 1. Britain initiates force. 2. The Iranians nationalize their oil because of that force. 3. The CIA then initiates force through a coup, takes out the Iranian regime in 53, and props up an evil tyrant and rewired that oil to Britain. Although on principle the 2nd is the wrong way to go about kicking Britain out, i.e.: the best thing would have been to leave your economy free, never forget, then once you're richer than the USA give an ultimatum to Britain with guns blazing, and if necessary use retaliatory force. But the 2nd's intention was retaliatory force, albeit, a spasm. So I respect it much more than 1 and 3. This issue is very important for Objectivists, as I've noticed some walk around blindly as if the history of the middle east began the day there was a hostage crisis in Tehran in 1979. The West initiated force, what happened to the old 'isolationist' USA?
  6. Is war with the Islamic Republic of Iran imminent?

    There's a few notes in this article how the rules of engagement in Iraq are very much dictated by the UN. Lets hope Cheney wants to go around the UN this time. http://americanfuture.net/?p=2429
  7. You know I predicted this would happen, I knew it, I KNEW IT! No, its not ESP, no its not mystical revelations, but I'm informed and I really did make this educated guess.. When the USS John C Stennis left the gulf as the Nimitz was arriving at the Suez Canal a few weeks ago, I must be some awesome predictor, because when this happened this is what I was thinking... "My strategy, and actually, I reckon Cheney will do this, would be to turn that around and have it enter the Gulf with the USS Nimitz at the same time. With the Boxer Strike group leaving, I bet that when the Nimitz moves into the Persian Gulf, it will come in with something better than the Boxer Strike Group. As for the USS Stennis, there's no way Bush is going to let that thing make its way to Guam, there's too much at stake." Anyway back to the facts. This news just out. Navy Assembles 9 Warships Off Iranian Coast in Surprise Show of Force in Gulf http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274955,00.html Nine US military ships enter Persian Gulf Wednesday, assembling off Iran’s coast in largest American naval move since 2003 http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4224 Lets hope this ends up better than a CIA coup that props up a dictator (which is like asking for the 1979 hostage crisis).
  8. G8 Summit in Germany next month

    Well apparently Global Warming is going to be one of the things which will top the agenda for the G8 summit next month in Germany... I don't really like G8 Summits, they bring unease because say for instance something happens at the summit one day and it dominates the news that night -- be sure terrorists may time their events around what dominates the headlines to underscore the message or the exact opposite. And in general I'm making a prediction: Some rallying consensus cry of Global Warming do-good-ers come out making Climate Change their agenda, pressing plans or just plain annoying sound bites and news domination of Climate Change.
  9. Republican debates

    I'm rooting for Guiliani.
  10. "Black Gold"

    http://www.blackgoldmovie.com/ I saw a different trailer from this movie of this African guy standing in front of a group of farmers and traders from ethiopia on Bloomberg. It had this guy telling them in their currency, did you know how much this sells? He gives lots of examples and all the formers are thinking 'wow' as well as 'wow I'm being royally screwed' and then he does abit of mathematics, and it adds up just how much money these guys seem to be royally screwed by world market prices. When I goto my coffee shop, I always get some Ethiopian, it is the best, and by the time I die I'd probably have done more for Africa than the guys on Live8, I think its unfortunate the sheer size of supply these farmers are up against without much machinery on their own compared to the world markets, the world market prices are 'correct' and although on human terms things seem unfair in reality metaphysically, regarding the nature of prices, things are 'fair' in that the price is the equilibrium of supply and demand, nothing much more can be said -- every player in the market only sees price relative to themselves -- so in some conditions things can seem unfair, but really aren't. I just wish this documentary could do something more constructive and put its head together about making Ethiopian coffee high quality and therefore off the world agricultural futures markets with its 'base' like commodities (i.e.: BROWN COFFEE, GRINDED, ORANGE JUICE, CRUDE OIL, BRENT OIL). Ethiopian coffee is special, and I'm going to see this movie to admire the business of these people and I hear the views are stunning, given its political bent it looks stunning. So I'm seeing it for the sake of interest, not so much what will probably be a consistent attack on 'just a few people control the prices' etc etc.
  11. "Wall Street" sequel "Money Never Sleeps"

    Go see the movie, I think the comic book guy who directed it or whatever had read some Ayn Rand and at least liked her Romantic Realism and epistemology.
  12. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/movies/0...amp;oref=slogin This time the famous Gekko will be running a Hedge Fund! For those who have not seen the 1987 film "Wall Street" you must do so ASAP! Here's a clip from "Wall Street" -- the famous "Greed is Good" speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_icgdMQ4MdQ Hopefully now some of you who have not seen Wall Street and have previewed the clip will go out and buy the DVD, it's one of my favorite movies of all time, right behind... 1. The Shawshank Redemption (Andy Dufresne, the banker, is probably the best demonstration of all world cinema of the application of Objectivist Ethics, so if you want to teach Ethics to a class, this is your movie). 2. 300 ("against mysticism and tyranny" "in the name of reason" the spartans cry [how awesome is that first scene and what happens to the messenger]). ...as a safe "third" on my list of favorite movies. The announcement of this sequel is a current event, an event worthy of praise and anticipation. Wall Street wasn't perfect, it was problematic with some muscle over mind, altruistic as well as a few other bad premises -- but it's one of those more enjoyable films compared to the vacuum of nonsense Hollywood spits out most the time. Watch it for "Gordon Gekko" who is one awesome fictional character.
  13. Nicolas Sarcozy wins French elections!

    How is voting this way in contradiction to Egoism? My government initiates physical force in order to get me to vote (i.e.: compulsory suffrage)!
  14. Nicolas Sarcozy wins French elections!

    I am hoping for the exact opposite. The way I vote is the exact opposite. So in the USA (even though I'm Australian, but for the sake of demonstration), if there's a Republican President then the best case scenario is a split congress, i.e.: a Republican House and Democratic Senate. It is only this way, given the structure of power and competing ideological forces, that the conditions for debate are imperative. As a result you see much political change and healthy public debate without there actually being any 'change' in legislative terms. This best case scenario means either nothing gets passed or very little, in other words -- less destruction. This is a simple way of voting, it saves those who practice and advocate Objectivism from wasting their time reading about the history and positions of candidates and competing party lines. An optimum way of voting if you can't even figure out the makeup of Congress relative to the administration in power is to vote for the candidate who is pro-choice. By this latter standard, then it is a moral imperative to vote Rudy Guilliani in 2008 The 2nd best scenario is complete Democratic control if there's a Republican President. Isolated in and of itself, a mandate is a mandate with a gun -- even if the candidate when elected looks like he or she will never go 'down hill' -- the potentiality of unfettered increases in anti-life legislation alone is enough to oppose any political mandate by principle.
  15. Nicolas Sarcozy wins French elections!

    I made two mistakes, I meant to say.. "I'd LOVE to visit a France under Sarkozy (hell, it's a quasi-tax haven now, especially with Angolla and Monaco just a border away)" and ".. because they're poor -- it's really reflecting on THEM (the rioters themselves)" I'd also add that over 70% of Frances electrical energy is generated at a nuclear power station, after winning the election, he called for the US to lead the world on climate change, he implied humanity maybe extinct if we do not act now, but on the flipside what matters is what exactly will he tell President Bush or the West -- if it's "GO NUCLEAR" then I'm all for it (he may have said this environmentalist stuff because he reached to centrists for the vote [so I'm not sure on his positions on climate]) I don't know about everyone here, but I have my bull horns on in regards to France, especially that tax free income over 35 hours, if that were here in Australia I would not sleep.