We're reliving the 1930s. There are currency wars, trade wars, etc. That's not to say that it's not a good thing, even though it's recessionary. Huh?
Flash back to 1990s discussion with comm-school room-mate. Me: This NAFTA and Free Trade thing is a bad idea. Him: We need this to make the economy grow. Me: Then we're doomed because you can only grow until you have Free Trade agreements with the entire world. Him: Comm school profs are telling us this. You're just an undergrad, what do you know?
Flash forward again. What I think this really means is that there's an optimal level of trade. Free Trade isn't free. Unrestrained FT means that certain industries will concentrate in a particular nation, and they will monopolize that industry. The fundamental aspects of monopoly that you are taught in ECON 101 are at odds with the more "advanced" ideas regarding trade that are taught. Comparative advantage at the local level also doesn't scale to the global level--it just creates monopoly nation-states. No, abolishing nation-states doesn't solve this problem either, my dear libertarian friend.
Long story short, we will regress to the optimal level of trade; but it will be messy. Think of the economic boost from Free Trade agreements as the "party money" you get from selling your industry. Now we have to work to get that money back. Ironicly, the work of regaining industry will actually put people out of work in the near term, because it's initially recessionary.
Yeah, what really gripes my cookies is that I'm in the 90th percentile; but nobody cares about that. They just care about how many digits are involved. Lousy 1%ers, just like in real life. Occupy Slashdot! Randomize UIDs! Anarchy Now. LOL.
It'd be pretty funny when the live HR person pulls up your resume and sees that it's just a word cloud... or scary when you get hired, have been sitting in the cube for a week, and get called into the office over it.
There's a stockpile of copper in China. Somebody has to use it. Trouble is, I don't think there's going to be anywhere near as much copper going into these connectors as went into all the empty skyscrapers they built.
If a site with links to violating material is in violation, then links to that site are in violation. The ruling is absurd on its face because if you follow it you could get "death by Bacon" on the Internet. OK, I really didn't have much to say here. I was just looking for an excuse to write "death by Bacon".
Oh, and everyone is a terrorist pirate. Please report to the nearest public school football stadium for um... west nile vaccine. Yeah... that's it. Vaccine...
Mommy... he's teasing me and he won't stop. Sheesh! All the world over, politicians are kindergarden babies. I'm in the USA and this story could have just as easily happened here, and I believe anywhere. Mommy, he's poking fun of our (Insert whatever here), Make him stop. MAKE HIM STOP. WAAAH, WAAAH.
Unfortunately, we can't just drag politicians out of the restaurant of public discourse and give them a bottle or something.
Yeah, but you have a bizarre and unsuual threat every week, occasional mysterious changes in the look and feel of everything, constant dire threats to sector 0-0-1, and dramaticly shortened lifespans for people wearing red attire.
To quote Leanord: "I see just one flaw with your plan. This is not Star Trek!".
Ahhh, OK. So they're speculating on rainbows and unicorns coming out of "the cloud".
I'd agree with you about using a collar on these stocks, although I'd prefer to write the covered call and go long a strangle. It's a moot point though for a couple reasons.
1. Small investors often freak out over options or don't want to deal with them. Even smart people are a bit phobic. I think if you're going to trade options you're drawn to it, just as people are drawn towards programming. AFAIK, there is a trend towards more small investors using options though.
2. These big cap tech companies don't split their shares. You need $66k just to swing one contract of AAPL. That lets out a lot of people; probably for their own good. I still wish these companies would split though. It's also one of my pet peeves with Warren Buffet. Yes. Splits do matter, especially if small investors want to insure their portfolios with options.
My car insurance company needs to be able to pull my DMV records, perhaps even periodicly. They could retain *none* of that information and ask me to visit a web site periodicly where the info gets enterred so they can do the query (and then forget the information required to perform the query). Most customers wouldn't mind them holding that information; but if I'm *that* security minded and they make it clear to me that I'll have to hit their site once a month to maintain my insurance... well... There are always trade-offs, arent' there?
Just ask yourself, "what do I need in order to serve my customers?". Yes. REAL customer service. People doing good things for other people, and getting paid for it as opposed to just herding people like cattle and exploiting them. Yeah, I know. Strange concept.
That can be a very successful business model though. Zappos is said to be very customer focused, and AFAIK they are very successful. I can't say I care much for their work environment; but I believe that's a separate issue from customer service. I mean, do you really need to have conga lines and party with your co-workers after hours to be spot-on with a customer? I don't think so; but I just can't think of a good counter-example off the top of my head.
That's why I said if there's room for growth. Amazon was probably not a bad deal when it had a PE of 100 and people were transitioning towards shopping online. You were paying a trailing PE of 100 because you expected today's price and tomorrow's earnings to equal a PE of 15, by which time the stock's price would probably continue to reflect a PE of 100... you get the idea.
Now yes, that's pure speculation. It's not my kind of trade because it's risky; but at least I can understand it and I don't think it's insane, especially in the later stages when the dot-com blowup weeded out the weaklings and companies like AMZN were the Darwinian survivors.
Where's AMZN PE today? 313. Now that. THAT IS INSANE. I don't see where the growth is coming from there. Anybody who wants to shop online is doing it now. The growth would only come from the general economy which is... well, you know.
Once again though, I'm not ready to short AMZN. The market can remain irrational...
If BofA and GS want to set prices arbitrarily, good! They almost certainly won't set them to fair market value. They almost certainly can't do so indefinitely, since the cost of maintaining disequilibrium across the broader market has to be astronomical. It's either a tremendous buying opportunity, or a tremendous shorting opportunity if you're patient.
This kind of talk is loudest in the precious metals community, and usually takes on a "glass half empty" kind of view wrt to "price suppression". For some reason, people ignore the fact that price suppression is good if you're accumulating. Based on their talk, you might conclude that the plaintiffs bought hoards of silver decades ago, and are upset that they can only unload their $4 silver at $30 when they think they should be getting $100. If the real value should be $100, accumulating is a fantastic deal; but that side of the argument seems to be silent.
I'm not saying that cartels don't exist. Heck, the Federal Reserve is a money cartel that operates right out in the open. It's bloody obvious that commodity prices are the collateral damage of openly operating money cartels, and yet Internet folks want to conjure up conspiracies. OK, I'm off on a tangent which isn't directed at you. End rant.
Your criticism of my off-the-cuff remarks based on speed-reading a summary has some merit. Cuban was speculating on a pop. Pop speculation isn't a totally ridiculous strategy, although it's been around so long that everybody is on to it and the market may finally be sorting it out. He is taking his medicine like a man. He does deserve some respect for that.
Slashdot Mirror
This font makes me wonder if some of the Sixties and Seventies poster designers were dyslexic.
We're reliving the 1930s. There are currency wars, trade wars, etc. That's not to say that it's not a good thing, even though it's recessionary. Huh?
Flash back to 1990s discussion with comm-school room-mate. Me: This NAFTA and Free Trade thing is a bad idea. Him: We need this to make the economy grow. Me: Then we're doomed because you can only grow until you have Free Trade agreements with the entire world. Him: Comm school profs are telling us this. You're just an undergrad, what do you know?
Flash forward again. What I think this really means is that there's an optimal level of trade. Free Trade isn't free. Unrestrained FT means that certain industries will concentrate in a particular nation, and they will monopolize that industry. The fundamental aspects of monopoly that you are taught in ECON 101 are at odds with the more "advanced" ideas regarding trade that are taught. Comparative advantage at the local level also doesn't scale to the global level--it just creates monopoly nation-states. No, abolishing nation-states doesn't solve this problem either, my dear libertarian friend.
Long story short, we will regress to the optimal level of trade; but it will be messy. Think of the economic boost from Free Trade agreements as the "party money" you get from selling your industry. Now we have to work to get that money back. Ironicly, the work of regaining industry will actually put people out of work in the near term, because it's initially recessionary.
Your parents are worried. Come on kids. Do it for them.
Oh crap! We're already past Peak Pork!
No man, you don't get it. It's a pork cycle. That means we should be buying stock in Harley Davidson.
If the Chinese aren't careful, they're going to have a communist revolution on their hands.
Sorry, I might have trotted that one out before; but it has fit so perfectly the past decade or so.
You could just quote the 9th Ammendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
You could be the real rocket car man.
Yeah, what really gripes my cookies is that I'm in the 90th percentile; but nobody cares about that. They just care about how many digits are involved. Lousy 1%ers, just like in real life. Occupy Slashdot! Randomize UIDs! Anarchy Now. LOL.
It'd be pretty funny when the live HR person pulls up your resume and sees that it's just a word cloud... or scary when you get hired, have been sitting in the cube for a week, and get called into the office over it.
Then again, maybe that's the plan. Without refrigeration, the first day with a ton of bacon is a hard sell. After that, they just pay you to go away.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Anyone can sing. Many are bad. Some are good. A handful blow you away and send your soul into the stratosphere.
The black market is the side that hasn't won and re-written history. Yet.
There's a stockpile of copper in China. Somebody has to use it. Trouble is, I don't think there's going to be anywhere near as much copper going into these connectors as went into all the empty skyscrapers they built.
If a site with links to violating material is in violation, then links to that site are in violation. The ruling is absurd on its face because if you follow it you could get "death by Bacon" on the Internet. OK, I really didn't have much to say here. I was just looking for an excuse to write "death by Bacon".
Oh, and everyone is a terrorist pirate. Please report to the nearest public school football stadium for um... west nile vaccine. Yeah... that's it. Vaccine...
Yes, and here on Slashdot they'll want to know if it's working on a new programming language. That beard has a lot of promise.
Mommy... he's teasing me and he won't stop. Sheesh! All the world over, politicians are kindergarden babies. I'm in the USA and this story could have just as easily happened here, and I believe anywhere. Mommy, he's poking fun of our (Insert whatever here), Make him stop. MAKE HIM STOP. WAAAH, WAAAH.
Unfortunately, we can't just drag politicians out of the restaurant of public discourse and give them a bottle or something.
Yeah, but you have a bizarre and unsuual threat every week, occasional mysterious changes in the look and feel of everything, constant dire threats to sector 0-0-1, and dramaticly shortened lifespans for people wearing red attire.
To quote Leanord: "I see just one flaw with your plan. This is not Star Trek!".
Ahhh, OK. So they're speculating on rainbows and unicorns coming out of "the cloud".
I'd agree with you about using a collar on these stocks, although I'd prefer to write the covered call and go long a strangle. It's a moot point though for a couple reasons.
1. Small investors often freak out over options or don't want to deal with them. Even smart people are a bit phobic. I think if you're going to trade options you're drawn to it, just as people are drawn towards programming. AFAIK, there is a trend towards more small investors using options though.
2. These big cap tech companies don't split their shares. You need $66k just to swing one contract of AAPL. That lets out a lot of people; probably for their own good. I still wish these companies would split though. It's also one of my pet peeves with Warren Buffet. Yes. Splits do matter, especially if small investors want to insure their portfolios with options.
3D RSS feed sounds like it'll be the greatest thing since six-speaker stereo surround sound for the morse code coming out ham radios.
$1.2 million / 635 million enplaned passengers
Is your peace of mind worth that much?
My car insurance company needs to be able to pull my DMV records, perhaps even periodicly. They could retain *none* of that information and ask me to visit a web site periodicly where the info gets enterred so they can do the query (and then forget the information required to perform the query). Most customers wouldn't mind them holding that information; but if I'm *that* security minded and they make it clear to me that I'll have to hit their site once a month to maintain my insurance... well... There are always trade-offs, arent' there?
Just ask yourself, "what do I need in order to serve my customers?". Yes. REAL customer service. People doing good things for other people, and getting paid for it as opposed to just herding people like cattle and exploiting them. Yeah, I know. Strange concept.
That can be a very successful business model though. Zappos is said to be very customer focused, and AFAIK they are very successful. I can't say I care much for their work environment; but I believe that's a separate issue from customer service. I mean, do you really need to have conga lines and party with your co-workers after hours to be spot-on with a customer? I don't think so; but I just can't think of a good counter-example off the top of my head.
That's why I said if there's room for growth. Amazon was probably not a bad deal when it had a PE of 100 and people were transitioning towards shopping online. You were paying a trailing PE of 100 because you expected today's price and tomorrow's earnings to equal a PE of 15, by which time the stock's price would probably continue to reflect a PE of 100... you get the idea.
Now yes, that's pure speculation. It's not my kind of trade because it's risky; but at least I can understand it and I don't think it's insane, especially in the later stages when the dot-com blowup weeded out the weaklings and companies like AMZN were the Darwinian survivors.
Where's AMZN PE today? 313. Now that. THAT IS INSANE. I don't see where the growth is coming from there. Anybody who wants to shop online is doing it now. The growth would only come from the general economy which is... well, you know.
Once again though, I'm not ready to short AMZN. The market can remain irrational...
If BofA and GS want to set prices arbitrarily, good! They almost certainly won't set them to fair market value. They almost certainly can't do so indefinitely, since the cost of maintaining disequilibrium across the broader market has to be astronomical. It's either a tremendous buying opportunity, or a tremendous shorting opportunity if you're patient.
This kind of talk is loudest in the precious metals community, and usually takes on a "glass half empty" kind of view wrt to "price suppression". For some reason, people ignore the fact that price suppression is good if you're accumulating. Based on their talk, you might conclude that the plaintiffs bought hoards of silver decades ago, and are upset that they can only unload their $4 silver at $30 when they think they should be getting $100. If the real value should be $100, accumulating is a fantastic deal; but that side of the argument seems to be silent.
I'm not saying that cartels don't exist. Heck, the Federal Reserve is a money cartel that operates right out in the open. It's bloody obvious that commodity prices are the collateral damage of openly operating money cartels, and yet Internet folks want to conjure up conspiracies. OK, I'm off on a tangent which isn't directed at you. End rant.
Your criticism of my off-the-cuff remarks based on speed-reading a summary has some merit. Cuban was speculating on a pop. Pop speculation isn't a totally ridiculous strategy, although it's been around so long that everybody is on to it and the market may finally be sorting it out. He is taking his medicine like a man. He does deserve some respect for that.