Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Sorry for the late reply - I don't get here very often. It is a Ford smallblock 331 stroker that I built myself. The rear is a Ford 8.8" (independent) with a Torsen diff.
Awesome car.
Tim
Just thought I'd post a pic of my latest toy for those old-timers who are still here:
It is, of course, a 427Cobra.
Details here:
http://www.timsroadster.com/index.html
Tim
Wow. This thing has been dead for 7 years and people are still talking about it.
Time for a new life gents...
Slight problem with your argument: The implied claim that you and Kroes have equivalent authority, responsibility, and credibility.
Best I can tell, authority and responsibility are irrelevant to Elmer's post. As for credibility, well, I think that was essentially what his post brought into question.
I don't see your response as being responsive at all. In fact, it seems purposefully obfuscative and unresponsive.
But regardless, to ignore the contributions of various deregulations to the recession is delusional.
While it is convenient to toe the party line on the issue and state that deregulation is the root of all evil, it is not exactly correct. The current economic mess is the direct result of not only deregulation, but also over-regulation and stupid legislation.
The deregulation of Credit Default Swaps by the Clinton administration allowed these instruments to be freely traded by virtually anyone. This by itself was not a big deal as long as the underlying assets for these instruments were sound, i.e. real estate. However, stupid legislation in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act and Amendments (the result of several administrations) not only permitted, but encouraged and even required banks to make sub-prime mortgages to people who could not afford them. Even this, by itself was not a big deal since rising property prices gave lenders some assurance that their investments were sound. Finally, the over-regulation of Sarbanes Oxley (ironically, by the Bush administration), in an odd case of unintended consequences, requires "mark-to-market" accounting for Credit Default Swaps and other derivative instruments as well as limits on leverage for banks and lending institutions.
None of these taken by themselves were responsible for the financial crisis. However, when ther housing bubble burst, the market for Credit Default Swaps dried up almost overnight. Since SarbOx requires mark-to-market accounting, regardless of the intrinsic value of the instruments, assets with intrinsic value went to essentially zero book value almost overnight. Because of leverage limits, the liquidity market dried up almost overnight as well. This caused worldwide panic, and here we are...
So, it is much more complicated that "deregulation is evil". Bad regulation and bad legislation is just as evil.
Shamefull way to run a bussiness...
Surely you know by now that they are not running a business. They have been out of business for well over a year, they just didn't bother to tell anyone. They took the money and ran, just as I and others said they would do. There will be no more info, there will be no more PRs, there will be no more anything. If you're looking for closure, you're not going to get it.
Time to move on folks.
Well, that didn't last long...
There's 16.
Now to see if it holds...
Unemployment numbers were better than expected, and earnings season is essentially over. If the bears were going to take over, I think it would have happened by now. We could have another nice rally for the next couple of weeks.
Not to get too deep into the weeds, but the Wikipedia link said exactly what I said - that lacquer is not (any longer) made from the lac beetle.
The term lacquer originates from the Portuguese word for lac, a type of resin excreted from certain insects.[1] Regardless, in modern usage, lac-based varnishes are referred to as shellac, while lacquer refers to other polymers dissolved in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as nitrocellulose, and later acrylic compounds dissolved in lacquer thinner, a mixture of several solvents typically containing butyl acetate and xylene or toluene.
I know all of the terms for finishes can be very confusing, and the different terms have meant different things over the years. In general, clear finishes are generically referred to as varnishes. Varnishes fall into two categories: those that cure, and those that don't. Polyurethane, nitrocellulose lacquer and acrylic lacquer are examples of varnishes that produce a film by not only evaporating a solvent, but polymerizing, or curing, the film over time. Curing essentually means that the finish becomes harder and becomes impervious to the solvent it was originally dissolved in. None of the curing finishes are made from beetles, including lacquer.
Shellac - the one that is made from beetles - is a varnish, but not a lacquer. It does not cure. A 100-year old shellac finish can easily be dissolved by alcohol, which is the solvent used to make shellac in the first place.
Newer acrylic lacquers, such as acrylic lacquers,(not to be confused with water-based lacquers) are not made from insects.
No modern lacquers are made from insects. Haven't been for 100 years.
Lacquer is not made from beetles. Shellac is. It is made from the Lac beetle.
...I am still appalled by the "i7" moniker....
I don't know if the timing is right, but just as the AMD "XP" monicker bore an uncanny resemblence to a Windows version, so does the "i7" designation...
How low do you think Intel will retrace? I'm guessing not below $13. I'd like to get the rest of my shares down there. My current cost basis is just below $13.9
Dunno. I think the market in general is due for a retracement, and I believe Intel will follow. I'm guessing that we'll see the high 13's again. Of course, we get earnings in 11 days, and depending on market sentiment at the time, a small miss could mean a big move down, and a small exceedence could mean a big move up.
Like I said - it's a roll of the dice.
Edit to add that I am very interested to see how the day closes. It has been trading modestly lower all day, but has shown signs of strength. Just my luck, Intel has been tracking higher than the rest of the market today, which is unusual of late. I think a lot of money is trying to decide if the rally is over or not. If the sentiment is the former, then we'll probably see a selloff at the end of the day. Otherwise, if the market closes close to even or positive, then it looks like it will have taken the bad news in stride and the rally may continue next week.
So I hope you will also post your reasoning or model, along with the trade.
My original reasoning was to go long in Intel, as I said. I believed that at 13 and change, it would represent an easy 3 year double. However, the rally since I took that position has been too, ummm, irrational. So, I am rolling the dice on a substantial retracement that will let me pocket some earnings before re-taking a long position.
...could you please explain why?
Not in hard economic terms. However, very little has changed in the economic outlook since the DOW was in the mid 6000s. The two rallies since the big drop have not had any solid fundamental basis as far as I can tell. Today's unemployment numbers are dismal. As earnings start to come in, there will be a lot of disappointments. The market will quickly, but temporarily, abandon any optimism.
I think we have seen the bottom, but I think the bottom will be retested.
I have traded in and out of INTC and AMD for years. I actually intended to establish a large long position in INTC, owing to its obvious undervaluation (IMO). I still intend to do that, but I see the current bull rally coming to a screeching halt and thought I would lock in some profits. I also closed positions in C and GE that I bought at the same time I bought INTC.
I generally don't post trades at all, but since others have been doing so, I thought I would join the party.
...I'm in at $13.24.
Closed this position at $15.59...
Sigh, taxes, give me a break.
I wasn't referring to general income taxes. I was referring to Congress trying to levy a 90% tax on selected individuals to effectively seize *all* of their income because they received bonuses.
You people...
Perhaps "you people" need to pay closer attention to the discussion...
Are you satisfied with a retort that extends the sins of a few to describe the behaviors of the many?
Sure, when that retort is in response to an accusation that extends the sins of a few to describe the behaviors of the many.
Pot, kettle, you know the drill.
It's the point at which you didn't earn what you got paid for.
By that argument, everyone who posts on this board while being paid to work is a morally-bankrupt republican. Are you posting from work?
I think the capitalistic system has done a fine enough job in coming up with competitive salaries, without the need to avert the system by using "tricks" like bonuses to pay people more than they are worth. Bonuses should be proportional to the level of profitability in a company - a way of saying, "Job well done," and when there are losses, the bonuses should be $0, leaving the totality of the salary as the employee's compensation.
Personally, I think bonuses should be a private matter, between employee and employer and not subject to the whim of government, public sentiment or internet message board posters.
Republicans want freedom from regulation and less government intervention, but history has shown that ambition run amok wrecks havoc on the society, and we're better off with regulated capitalism. At least that has a history of both allowing the American Dream, as well as national financial stability.
I have done my best not to cast aspersions against any particular political party. I think that general economic discussions are appropriate in any stock message baord, but political pissing contests are not.
Both parties share the blame for what is going on now, despite the popular sentiments to the contrary. For example, AIG's troubles are due almost entirely to credit default swaps, a derivative instrument that was deregulated by the Clinton administration. Much of the current crisis is due to strict mark-to-market and leverage caps, (over-regulation), that resulted from SarbOx in the Bush administration. Sub-prime mortgages are in large part a result of the Community Reinvestment Act that goes back to the Carter administration.
I will agree with you in that greed is a powerful motivator, and government has a role to play in regulating how greed impacts society. Personally, I would prefer to see the government effectively enforce existing regulations before adding new ones (a la Madoff, et. al.). However, for government to seize legally earned income for any reason is reprehensible.
I also observe that these senses of entitlements often coincide with a particular political ideology, which thankfully is no longer in power right now.
LOL
One could argue that the current political ideology in power has an even greater sense of entitlement since they not only want to keep all they earn, but they also don't want to pay taxes on it...
I'm curious what you think the income level threshold is at which one becomes morally bankrupt and republican.
Does that mean the public, e.g. shareholders, "should have no say whatsoever in contracts between employee and employer"?
Well, the public should only be shareholders in a company willingly. I don't recall ever being asked if I wanted to invest my tax dollars in AIG...but that is a different discussion.
In this case, the public had a say. Their duly elected representatives bought AIG on their behalf, and also promulgated public policy that explicitly permitted the bonuses.
For the life of me, I can't understand what everyone keeps whining about. If you feel the need to whine about how government spends your money and who they permit to receive bonuses with your money, then write your congressman. Stop blaming the people who legally got the bonuses.
OT-E and last one...
So do you think the public should have no say, especially when it comes to their tax money bailing out an institution "too big to fail"?
I think the public should have no say whatsoever in contracts between employee and employer.
On the other hand, the public can and does have a say in who they elect to represent them and spend their money. However, there is absolutely no constitutional means for the public to decide how the money is actually spent. In short, the public has no say whatsoever regarding who or how the government bails out. None.
The government had their chance to do DD. Congress decided to explicitly permit previously agreed upon contracts to prevail for companies accepting bailout money. The language saying just that is in the recovery act.
Now, the Treasury Department, Congress and the President got caught with their pants down and are trying to deflect blame by pillorying these people for accepting bonuses that Treasury, Congress and the President previously had explicitly endorsed. That's simply wrong.
... it's hard for me to feel sorry for richly rewarded members of a failed institution who already have theirs...
Fair enough. You are free to feel sorry, or not, for whomever you choose. However, keep in mind that "richly rewarded" and "already have theirs" is a matter of perspective. I have no doubt that there are people who could easily be convinced that you, or I, or anyone else on this board is overpaid and has too large a slice of the pie. Once a government has established that it is OK to seize wealth from people who have legally and rightfully earned it, simply because it is "too much", then nobody who has wealth in any degree is safe.
Contracts are legally binding...
Honestly, I don't see why this discussion didn't stop right there...
...I agree with Tec that the sense of entitlement is embarrassing.
As I said before, he is "entitled" to the money because he legally earned it and had a legally binding contract "entitling" him to it. The dollar amount is completely irrelevant. Clearly both parties agreed that the amount was fair and appropriate.
I wonder if you would be equally embarassed of your own "sense of entitlement" if Congress tried to seize all of your your duly-earned income, or if Attorneys General tried to convict you in a public court, or if you were unfairly held up to public ridicule for someone else's mistakes, or if you and your family were subject to death threats due to feint outrage by a clueless government...
When you read this guys 'letter' you get a full sense of what is wrong with Wall Street, this entitlement to huge sums of money... and a screwed sense of what this guy sees as moral.. although he at least admits everyone was overpaid.. but hey too bad... it's very pathetic.
Just so I understand. You think it is moral for the government to seize an employee's legally earned income simply because it exceeds some arbitrary and capricious threshold? I'm curious why that is.
The man is "entitled" to the money because he has a legally binding contract that says so. The fact that the government did absolutely no due dilligence before pumping billions of dollars into AIG changes that not one iota.
I am always astonished at the amount of envy and jealousy that people display. It is equally astonishing that this administration is so blatantly fomenting envy and jealousy in its war on the successful...
How can you logically sell something you never bought?
Anyone who sells a house with a mortgage does largely the same thing. You sell a house that you don't own, then take the proceeds of the sale to pay off the mortgage, and pocket the difference.
Shorts keep the market honest, as long as the shorts are honest...
It may be because it is not all that obivous to some. There have been a number of large selloffs despite driven by shorts despite the uptick rule. Personally, I am in favor of reinstating it, but it won't change much until the SEC cracks down on naked shorts. That's the real problem with the short market, IMO.
I can easily ignore the childish sniping. I just thought it brought down the character of the board. But, it's not my call. You and Elmer are the moderators, and I'm sure you will do what you think is best. I have nothing else to say on the matter.
You must have missed this part of my post:
"While posts regarding general economic conditions are relevant, those with this kind of petty partisan vitriol are not, and have substantially degraded what was once a great board."
There are plenty of boards where people can vent their political spleens or or play games at political insult one-upmanship, but I don't think this should be one of them.
I'd rather cut the INTC posts down to 5 so that I can read more opinions about what a poor job Obama is doing at upholding people's dreams of an unregulated wealthy-takes-all trickle-down national economic policy.
I don't post here a lot because I don't have the technology know-how that many here do, but I do read the board every day. While posts regarding general economic conditions are relevant, those with this kind of petty partisan vitriol are not, and have substantially degraded what was once a great board.
$0.02
...8 years of ruinous economic policy. This is not a political issue and trying to categorize it as such is weak thinking...
That was worth a chuckle...
Isn't it much more likely that the reason stocks are crashing is because employment is crashing ? Therefor incomes are crashing. Therefor company profits are crashing. Therefor company shares are crashing.
I think this is out of order. The "mortgage crisis" was spun into a pending disaster, the likes of which we have not seen "since the great depression" (how many times have you heard that?). This caused irrational panic, which led to an almost instantaneous freeze in personal spending, which led to corporate revenue crashing, which led to layoff, which led to a further decrease in personal spending...
Sadly, the media and the yahoos in Washington (both this administration and the previous one) have largely caused the recession due to their own irresponsible rhetoric and fear-mongering.
Gold, volume is high today and price is up - could some news be coming??
What am I missing? I see about $200 has changed hands, and the price is unchanged...
This is a pretty weird response...
I guess you missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of my response. I got a chuckle out of the idea that you were magnanimously willing to actually read the part I was referring to, before you "attacked my baseless strawman".
meh... I thought it was funny.
Though the actual name of the bill is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, some people have nicknamed it "The Stimulus Bill". But in fact, it's actually part stimulus and part relief.
LOL. Far more than "some people" have nicknamed it the "stimulus bill". Are you arguing that a $200M handout to Filipinos is "relief". I suppose to the Filipinos it is...
...but before I attack a baseless strawman...
Good to know you haven't already made up your mind... :rollseyes:
Feel free to attack away. I don't GARA. Seems to be your normal M.O.
...would you mind showing me which part of the bill you're referring to?
It is in the first section. Do a search on "Filipino". It is a straight handout to Filipino veterans (those still alive) apparently intended to right a wrong committed by our government 60 years ago. Apparently we reneged on a promise.
I'm not saying that it is necessarily a bad thing to do, but it dam sure ain't a "stimulus" and should have been done through normal channels, not tacked onto a bill of such purported importance.
I don't know about the marsh mice, but there is a provision for a payment of $198M to Filipino WWII veterans.
I wonder how many jobs that will create...
Are approvals expected as a routine matter, in the current context of regulations ? Or does it take a change of federal government policy.
Well, the previous administration made significant changes to the licensing process and provided several incentives to streamline the process and promote new reactors. Assuming that those policies remain in effect, the approvals should take place as a routine matter.
Since you work in the industry, do you have any idea whether plants are expected to be approved in the US this year, next year, or within a few years ?
Last I checked, there were 32 new license applications. The new streamlined licensing process is supposed to take no more than about 24 to 30 months for a construction permit, and an operating permit should be able to be completed before construction is complete. Though this process has not yet been tested.
If things go according to schedule, it should take about 7 years from application to on-line. That would mean that the first new reactor should go on-line around 2016.
I simply asked the question is it 100% reliable....which I never got an answer to.
Yes you did. You just didn't like the answer.
I prod the poster usually more for humor...:)
I assure you that I get the better end of the deal where humor is concerned.
Perhaps saving a salt marsh mouse might be more popular?
No doubt someone's pet project that is quid pro quo for a campaign contribution.
Sadly, such things take precedence over actual efforts to stimulate the economy...
Even hiring some people to bury dollars, and hiring others to dig them out would stimulate the economy.
The problem with such a purely Keynesian approach is that, when the holes are filled in, the digger is again out of work, and the country benefits not one bit from the hole.
A much better approach to stimulus (if one believes that it is necessary) is to fund projects that not only put people to work, but also provides a benefit once completed - the best case being that the benefit is economic in nature.
At the risk of being accused of having an agenda, I'll use building nuclear power plants as an example. If this effort were undertaken as a stimulus project, it would put people to work, build an infrastructure that continues to supply jobs even after the project is complete, lower energy costs, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
"Stimulus" projects that provide no lasting economic benefit once completed are rightly called "pork".