Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:02:15 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

As I said, the market is 30% fundamentals, 70% emotion.

Emotion always catches up with fundimentals in time. I would not buy a
stock purely on emotional fundimentals. I still look towards the bottom
line, as if the bottom line is good and improving, time for emotions to
come around is in your favor. But a hype dog today could loose its
momentum pretty quick like musical chairs.

--
I am really talking about the emotion of the market, not mine. Some
say I have none.
I won't buy a stock based on emotion alone but if I think one I have
is about to be impacted by irrational emotions I will dump it.
I will also buy a good company that has been beaten down by an
emotional response.
MO and HAL are two examples. After the settlements in the tobacco
cases MO was clobbered but when it was apparent people were still
going to smoke it went nuts. HAL got beaten down in the 2000 election
but when Bush attacked Iraq I knew Haliburton was the only company
that could really do logistical support and it was a nice run up. This
was the second time HAL made me a lot of money.



I remember in 2002 when I bought MO. Someone here said that was a bad
investment, always going down, etc. Wish all my investments were that bad.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:10:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:46:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


americans are the hardest working people in the western world. we work
200 hours more than europeans and japanese.



Yet the Europeans save about 3 times as much as Americans
You said you were working 60 hour weeks. That is 175% of your base
salary and you didn't think you should be saving some of that?

i'm salaried. i dont overtime

and you have the density of a black hole. i've been saving in my 401K
since congress created it 30 years ago.

it's now worth what it was 10 years ago. i should have spent it on
whores and booze like john paulson did when he looted goldman sachs
for a billion

yet in your mind he's a hero because he's rich, and i'm an idiot
because i'm a hard working middle class guy

shows what moral values the right has


You were not saving in your 401K! You were buying the alternative to a
defined benefit pension. Saving is living below your means and taking part
of each weeks paycheck and putting it away for the future. Maybe the near
term future of paying for kids college, saving to buy a car without having
to finance it, or saving to have a better retirement than your 401k or
company pension will give you. Your wife being an attorney and you and
engineer and not saving at least $15-20k a year outside of your "pension" is
a sign that you are both clueless and living beyond your means. Blame
yourself, not Wall Street, or Republicans or Wingers for you being broke.
And you either need to get another job or work smarter if you work 60 hours
a week to get your job done. Or ask for a raise of the at least the amount
a 2nd engineer would make in straight salary for your company.

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:30:34 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:28:22 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


and you? you pimp for these thieves, spouting your hatred for those
who built this county, while telling us how wonderful the whores of
wall street are

You will die broke.

no ****. and you? your attitude is 'let them eat cake'.

i may die broke

but you'll commit suicide. because you already have.



You might as well commit suicide. You are mentally dead already.

really?

TEABAGGERS, HERE I COME!!!

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:15:22 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:10:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:46:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:



it's now worth what it was 10 years ago. i should have spent it on
whores and booze like john paulson did when he looted goldman sachs
for a billion

yet in your mind he's a hero because he's rich, and i'm an idiot
because i'm a hard working middle class guy

shows what moral values the right has


You were not saving in your 401K! You were buying the alternative to a
defined benefit pension

that's called 'saving'.

.. Saving is living below your means and taking part
of each weeks paycheck and putting it away for the future

which is what a 401K does. i can see it in my paycheck

.. Maybe the near
term future of paying for kids college, saving to buy a car without having
to finance it, or saving to have a better retirement than your 401k or
company pension will give you. Your wife being an attorney and you and
engineer and not saving at least $15-20k a year outside of your "pension" is
a sign that you are both clueless and living beyond your means. Blame
yourself, not Wall Street

let's see...

100,000,000 americans are in the same boat as i am

goldmans sacks gets indicted for fraud

and he says it's the fault of the american middle class

yep. typical right wingers

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:53:27 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:44:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

The choice was simple, if you wanted a low risk investment it was
available.

it wasn't a matter of 'low risk'. it was a matter of growth in an
unregulated, free market which milton friedman, alan greenspan and
other free market fundies said was a certainty.

... And you call me a moron?

Nothing is certain, not even T bills.

really? not according to miltron friedman. or greenspan. hell, the
world's most accomplished economisst didnt recognize greed and fraud
when he saw it.


If you want a certain investment buy gold, ammo and MREs.
The first two are triple what they were in 2002. If you are starving
that MRE is priceless.

except, of course, the rich took away our pensions and gave us 401k's

and bush tried to do the same to social security.

glad we stopped him

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:11:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:06:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Uh? Social security will be broke before too long,

medicare may be. social security is in decent shape.

Social security is broke right now, spending more than it takes in.

for the last month, yes.

you don't read the news

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:04:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:06:04 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Yes I understand you are not unique. There are plenty of "bitter"
people but they are the Obama fans, not the ones he talked about last
October.

yeah. there are 100,000,000 americans like me.

and you think wall street had zip to do with it

Have you never heard of wall street crashes? They happen every 8- 10
years.

ROFLMAO!! guess you havent read about how deregulation of wall street
gave them banking privileges..which they didnt have before

and THAT led to collapse of the banking system

BIG difference between that, and a wall street crash

I also seriously doubt there are 100,000,000 people as bitter as you
are or we would have blood in the street.

really?

IOW rush didn't tell you the facts

haven't seen the polls lately, have you?

typical intellectually incestuous right winger


Now when Social Security defaults,

social security is not in bad shape right now.

the dollar is worth pennies and
stocks are totally worthless

US dollar is up.

, then we will have the 100,000,000
million people destitute and we will have blood in the street.

which is what we would have had if we followed the right wing and let
unemployment go to 25%

2025
may be a guess but it could be sooner.
We won't be blaming wall street then, we will be blaming a government
that borrowed us into poverty.
That is when that ammo will come in handy.

gun nuts are crazy

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

fOn Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:08:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:58:31 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Middle class always pays, that is why they had better vote smarter this
fall or you can just call the Whitehouse, #1 Bankrupt Way.

we finally voted out the right wing free market fundies. guess you
didn't notice.

As long as Geithner, Summers and the rest of those weasels are working
for Obama you haven't really got rid of the free market fundies.

at least they've had the courage to admit they were wrong

the right wing, however, thinks wall street is the same as mt. sinai.





The herd of people did it to themselves by years of electing "low debt
and quick fix" promises from liberal hype turkeys and snake oil
representation. And now you want to cry about it?

ROFLMAO!! for 22 of the last 30 years we've had right wing free market
presdients who deregulated wall street with a vengeance.

how'd that work out?


You mean like Clinton?

He is the one that signed most of that deregulation

You did say "presidents" didn't you?

I don't remember president Gramm and he is the one you blame for
everything.

guess you didn't read about his stripping of the SEC of the capability
to regulate derivatives

guess what a major cause of the financial m eltdown was?

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

In article ,
says...


guess you didn't read about his stripping of the SEC of the capability
to regulate derivatives

guess what a major cause of the financial m eltdown was?

I was looking about a bit for information on the current financial
reform bill under consideration amidst the usual partisan bickering, and
came across a couple things that I found interesting.

1. Obama has said he will veto any bill that does not regulate
derivatives.
I'm not sure the current bill does, and some commentary suggest that it
doe not, and strongly criticize it for that reason.
Why is that?
Democrats control that legislation.
It seems that those who are serious about regulation that will prevent
the bilking of America, as recently happened, say that is a necessity.
Are some of the Democrats writing this bill still in the Wall Street
pocket? Will Obama get his way, veto, or cave in?
It will be interesting to see.

2. The $50 billion bank financed fund to handle bank failures is the
rallying point for Republican opposition to the bill.
Mitch McConnell harps on that incessantly.
And I happen to agree that fund is a bad idea.
Well, Obama and Dodd both say it can be dropped from the legislation.
But here's the kicker.
That fund was put in at Republican insistence during the bipartisan
negotiations as the the bill was first constructed!
This so reminds me of those customers who insist on wearing a too-small
shoe against my very strong advice, and then blame me for causing them
foot ailments!
It has never been more clear to me that I am in the right business to
understand human nature.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make at least 3 years of retail shoe
sales a prerequisite for becoming a member of Congress.
I really think things would run more smoothly then.

Peter

Looking out for the wealthiest 2%
 

On 19/04/2010 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:38:05 -0400, wrote:

US dollar is up.

Against the other western economies that are in worse shape than us.
How do you figure the dollar is doing against the yuan or the riyal?
Are you really saying imported oil or chinese goods are getting
cheaper?

From a 7 year perspective, USD has dropped at leat 30% against the CAD.
I know, I made off like a bandit converting most of the USDs to CAD in
early 2004.

bpuharic will never get it. US democrat debt mongering is slowly
flushing the USD into the toilet. Governemnt desperately wants hyper
inflation, and sooner or later they will get their wish.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?