is...trading (occasionally), trying to improve our political system (persistently) and just hangin' out.
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.
Which other "direxion etfs", please?
Fred
I got a person-mark, years ago.
It wound up as a red welt.
Fred
Basserdan,
I don't believe I've ever thanked you for posting:
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News and Thursday morning federal headlines
I consider these two of the most important posts on iHub and I'm glad I have them to start the day.
Thank you, Very Much
Fred Gohlke\
I have that problem from time-to-time, often after a reboot.
On Windows 2000, I ...
Go to Control Panel
Click Display
Click Screen Saver
Click 'Power' on 'Energy Saving Features of Monitor'
Click a (different) time period (to turn on APPLY)
Click on my original time setting
Click 'APPLY'
Hope this helps.
Fred
For the past 30+ years, the most popular phrase among 'investors' has been "productivity gains". No attention was given to the real meaning of that euphemism: More Production From Fewer People.
It has always been obvious to those few who cared to think about it that parasitic corporations were growing at the expense of the people of the nations that nurtured them. Now we are reaping the fruits of those excesses.
I don't see anyone discussing the very real, very fundamental problem that gigantic corporations are sucking the blood out of our communities and leaving a barren husk.
Instead of addressing the real issues of our time, we have finger-pointers competing with each other to see who can write the nastiest barbs. Clearly, these folks don't have the intellect or the guts to address real problems.
Fred Gohlke
You say that that guy is a freak
But he changed his label real queek
So how can we know
Just what makes it so
Oh, speak Great Oracle, speak
Fred
"Your Taxes at Work"????
Yeah, but --- working for whom???
The Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2009, or H.R. 2428, (introduced by two Democratic Senators) requires that highway and rail projects funded by the government also lay conduits capable of carrying fiber optic cables. The cost of this work falls on the American taxpayers. There is no provision in the bill for the communications industry to bear any portion of the costs imposed by this act, or the continuing costs of maintenance that will follow. Instead, our debt-ridden governments - and our people - are saddled with huge costs that should be borne by industry.
All political parties - those of the left and those of the right - are conduits for corruption. It would be incredibly naive to imagine that the parties did not agree to pass this law in return for 'donations' - and we would be even dumber to imagine that the parties, which are beholden to the communications industry for large donations, did not require their members to support the bill. After all, that's how lobbying works.
Neither party is more wrong than the other - they're both disgusting. We might eventually improve our lot if some of the energy expended on this board were directed to finding ways to correct the deep flaws in our political system.
Fred Gohlke
Yes, it's distressing.
The really disheartening thing is to consider the intellectual power of the folks on this board, alone. They could accomplish something - if they put their minds to it.
Fred
re: "I just don't think the powers really running things will give it up without a fight."
You are absolutely right!!!
And as long as they can keep us squabbling, like children, among ourselves they'll have no problem staying in power. Divide and Conquer is a powerful strategy - all you have to do is look at our boards to see how wonderfully it works.
We know what we have is wrong, but we need focus to change it.
Fred Gohlke
We express ourselves differently, but we seem to have similar views.
re: "I am even losing faith in the ballot box to help restore the principles and ideology that made this country great at one time."
The ballot box (voting), in our country, is profoundly anti-democratic. The only choices available to our voters are those made by the vested interests that control our political parties. Choosing between professional obfuscators is no choice at all.
Solutions to our problems should be sought in reason not riot.
We have known for years that small businesses hire proportionally many more people than large corporations, but our legislators have (as Buffett said) coddled large corporations to the extent that small businesses have disappeared. How can we be surprised that we have an employment problem?
Fred Gohlke
re: "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst."
That is always sound advice. However ---
"Precious metals, tobacco, alcohol, medicines, food stocks, water, and plenty of ammunition" won't be enough to save the people from being slaves to the vested interests that control our government.
We don't need violence, we need to do the very hard work of thinking. We need to take the time to examine what has happened over the past two-hundred-plus years and use the knowledge we gain to devise a better method of selecting the people who represent us in our government.
The only alternative to the hard work of thinking is the violence you envision --- and all that will get us is a new Alexander or Caesar or Napoleon, or Stalin or Hitler or Mao. That's not a good idea.
Fred Gohlke
It won't change - can't change - as long as political parties control the selection of our candidates for public office.
Political parties are conduits for corruption, controlled by the financiers that underwrite their massive campaign expenses.
Teddy Roosevelt warned us, over 100 years ago, that we are contolled by an 'invisible government' formed by the 'unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt government'. Since then, we have let that unholy alliance destroy our country. It won't get better until we heed TR's warning and stop this farce.
Fred Gohlke
If you want to read one of Teddy Roosevelt's warnings, check:
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/118.html
Well, I may get hit in the 'nether'
But 'twill be no more than a feather
For I learned well from you
That old adage so true
To keep myself out of the weather
Fred
Aw, shucks
Late again!
Darn, did I learn to dislike that song!!! They used to play it, over and over and over.
Why not something k-o-o-o-o-l like Benny Goodman's Sing, Sing, Sing? --- 'Cause it don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing.
Fred
Yo!, Chu
Ain't it time for a revival of "Goodnight, Irene"?
'Course, she ain't agonna visit you, way up there in the hinterlands.
Even so, someone ought to make the connection and you've got more connections than anyone else around here.
Fred
Good!
That's two of us.
Now if we could just go viral.
Fred Gohlke
The Jefferson quote is right on point - and we are living with the accuracy of his vision.
Teddy Roosevelt, in 1906, told us that "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.". He warned that we must "... destroy this invisible government ... befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics ..."
Yet, one hundred years later, we are still plagued with the same monstrosity ... now incomparably worse.
Is it not time to face the fact that we are letting political parties - those conduits of corruption - select the most vile of our people as candidates for public office. Until be change that, we can not improve our government.
Fred Gohlke
That's a good suggestion (when you drop the nastiness).
If we brought that approach to this board, it would make YE2 as valuable as Your Economy (1).
Fred Gohlke
I wonder how many folks agreed with this message when it was written on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:26:56 AM
Whether or not you agree, it's worth reading ... and pondering ... #msg-456582
Fred Gohlke
Good Afternoon, nlightn
The reason the workforce bears the responsibility is that the common people have no representation in our government. Some posters lay the problem at the door of one political party or another, they blame a liberal or conservative philosophy, but that's just the misdirection you mentioned.
The individuals we are allowed to vote for are indebted to the people who finance their campaigns, not to the people they are elected to represent. As long as the people who control our representatives can keep us busy with this nonsense of blaming each other, they are in no danger of losing their power.
Fred Gohlke
re: "Blowing out someone's candle doesn't make the next person's brighter."
In my 82 years on this good earth, I don't recall having ever seen a more useful comment about the kind of silly breast-beating that is so common in political discussions. When you grasp the significance of nlightn's comment, the wisdom of keeping two candles lit is blaring. Suddenly, we can imagine the brilliance possible when many, many candles are glowing.
If we're going to have "collective cooperation", it may be a good idea to find things we agree on. Would these work as 'first principles':
* The preferred government is government by the people.
* Government by the people means that every individual in the society can participate in the political process to the full extent of the individual's desire and ability.
Those words aren't cast in concrete; they were strung together to get the ball rolling. Any improvement is welcome.
When we decide which 'first principles' we think important, we can 'collectively cooperate' on the difficult task of making them a reality.
Fred Gohlke
Yeah, but (as our kids used to say)
Isn't there always a chance reason will prevail???
I'm willing to give it a try, but I need someone to tell me how wrong I am.
Fred
Good Morning,
I've been invited to participate in this forum. A brief check of recent posts shows I'm late. Several of the people who have exchanged messages with me privately are already here. I hope I can join in productively.
George Washington. in his Farewell Address in 1796 (link below), warned us that political parties were likely to become "potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government". Now, after more than 200 years experience, the accuracy of his vision is compelling --- but have we learned anything from it?
Will we continue to let those "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled" people divide us? There are alternatives, but can we look beyond the fluff that dominates our political discussions to find them? Are we smart enough to harness that "potent engine" before it completely destroys our country? I believe we are.
Am I in the right place?
Fred Gohlke
Washington's Fareweel Address:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
There is nothing insignificant in what you are saying.
We - the people - need to conduct a reasoned examination of our electoral process. We can identify its flaws; we have over two hundred years experience with it.
Since the people I expected to fill this role - our academics - seem incapable of doing so, we must do it ourselves.
We need to start somewhere, but Your Economy is probably not the best place for that.
Fred Gohlke
Yes, when we can select the candidates from among ourselves.
It won't happen soon, though. The political parties have empowered themselves by using the electoral laws in our states. Hence, they control the electoral mechanism. Correcting that problem is non-trivial.
Fred Gohlke
re: "We protect "our side" to the point we re-elect tax cheats with an 80% margin, re-elect extortionists who keep their money in the freezer, turn a blind eye to what ever sick perversions they perpetrate as long as they are in our party."
That's a pretty good assessment.
Doesn't it suggest we should think about changing the way we choose the people we elect to represent us in our government? Wouldn't it make sense to seek our best people rather than continue to let parties select our worst? One way to do so is described at:
http://participedia.net/wiki/Practical_Democracy
I think the site is more academic than mainstream, but some folks must be reading it. Check out the 'Views' at the bottom of the page.
Fred Gohlke
Well said!!
The central problem is that "a society with no penalty for greed is flawed." Self-preservation may be the first law of nature, but, carried to extremes, it is destructive. Beneficial though Darwinism may be in a theoretical sense, if our society is the environment being destroyed, we must do what we can to prevent it.
Growth requires nutrients and a congenial environment. The nutrients for corporate growth in the United States are a wealth of raw materials and human assets, and our government provides a congenial legislative environment. We can use that knowledge to encourage excellence and success in companies that are beneficial for our people, while curbing parasitic rogues.
Societies restrain undesirable characteristics in a variety of ways. Initially, they deal with excesses by parental guidance, disapproval, peer pressure, appeal to conscience, excommunication and other non-physical methods. If these fail, it condemns the act by mandate and authorizes a force to control it. These mechanisms work until a rogue is able to influence the forces society creates to control it.
By far, a rogues' most effective means of evading control is by influencing those who make the rules. They render legislation ineffective or to divert its impact. Evidence of such abuses assault us daily. We constantly get fresh examples of the manipulation of our governing and regulatory bodies. We need to consider whether there is a way to make them less productive for their purveyors and less destructive for us.
Desirable businesses live in harmony with their community. They provide goods and services needed by the people and hire local men and women to produce those goods and services. These enterprises produce a state of economic equilibrium - the essence of a capitalist society.
Occasionally, a company comes to believe its best interests are attained at the expense of the community rather than in harmony with it. As they grow, these rogues target the wealth of the community and suck it out, leaving an empty husk. Such firms, sometimes called 'Too Big To Fail', destroy the economic equilibrium which is essential for a healthy society. We are in the midst of such a destructive phase, right now.
Corporate growth ...
1) exploits the community's resources.
2) enriches our lives. We seek, applaud and reward it.
3) is cancerous when unchecked, destroying the community that spawned it.
Corporations that pursue their own interest without regard for the welfare of the environment that nurtures them are an affront to a free market economy. Such companies extend themselves by dominating their environment - the antithesis of a free market.
The most direct way to restrain such rogues is to make their unwarranted size a burden. We can do that by levying a progressive charge, based on gross receipts, for the use of our resources. We can call this charge an "EE Tax", an "Economic Equilibrium Tax".
The EE Tax applies on a company's annual gross receipts, less amounts paid to full-time domestic employees, and less amounts paid to external vendors in which the entity has no managerial, directorial or financial interest of any amount or kind.
The EE Tax does not concern itself with the source of an enterprise's revenue. It applies whether the revenue results from the operation of the entity or the sale of its assets. If an entity has extensive assets in real estate, equipment, equity, or in any other form, the EE Tax does not concern itself with the value of those assets. However, when an asset is disposed of, the value received for the asset, in whatever manner or form, is part of the entity's revenue for the period.
The EE Tax is not concerned with the profitability of the enterprise. It is a fee we levy for giving companies the right to use our resources. The charge is for the extent of the exploitation, not for the degree of success an entity has in doing so. Whether or not the enterprise is profitable does not change the amount of resources it exploits in its operation.
The Economic Equilibrium Tax is progressive. As revenue increases, the tax rate increases. The tax is insignificant for small companies. As an enterprise grows, its tax load increases, but the load only becomes burdensome for rogues.
If, by the nature of its business, an enterprise must be large, it is not injured by The EE Tax because all competing businesses must attain a similar size. However, when a rogue grows beyond an economically justifiable size, the tax acts to protect the public interest without additional regulation.
If an entity grows to a size that exceeds its value to society, The EE Tax acts as an umbrella, increasing the rogue's cost of operation and giving its competitors a cost advantage which prevents their suffocation. The EE Tax enhances competition, immeasurably.
The wonderful thing about The EE Tax is that it is utterly and completely objective. It makes no judgment about the goodness or badness of the taxed entity. It simply charges all enterprises for their use of our resources.
The Economic Equilibrium Tax is levied on the absolute gross receipts of a company, from all sources and for all amounts received in its name by entities it controls (i.e., franchises and subsidiaries). The tax is progressive. Assuming a threshold of $1,000,000 and a base rate of 2%, 2% is added to the tax rate each time the receipts increase by one decimal position, thus:
Annual Gross Receipts Tax Rate
$1,000,000 2%
$10,000,000 4%
$100,000,000 6%
$1,000,000,000 8%
$10,000,000,000 10%
$100,000,000,000 12%
$1,000,000,000,000 14%
$10,000,000,000,000 16%
$100,000,000,000,000 18%
$1,000,000,000,000,000 20%
$10,000,000,000,000,000 22%
$100,000,000,000,000,000 24%
$1,000,000,000,000,000,000 26%
$10,000,000,000,000,000,000 28%
$100,000,000,000,000,000,000 30%
No! No! No!
We have what our party-based political system will allow. The political parties control the selection of the people you vote for on election day --- and when your only choices are between pigs and swine, advocates of the public interest are not going to win.
Unless and until we devise a way to select our best people to represent us in our government, we can expect no better than what we have.
Fred Gohlke
Holy Mackerel!!!!
And Shelly's the mild one ...
C'mon, let's have some fung.
Fred
Is that a rose I see before me?
Fred
When Doug has the time for research
And does it my name to besmirch
What comes to my mind
Is that I must be kind
Lest I knock him from his lofty perch
Of course, I don't want to do that
For he might fall down with a splat
And for a while
We couldn't smile
At the silliness that he has down pat
Fred
Any rules and regulations would be unenforceable ... How would Admin know?
You can, if you wish, call it a matter of ethics --- provided you recognize that some folks ain't got some o'dem.
Hence, those time-honored words of wisdom: "Buyer Beware" and "Due Diligence"
Taking what you read on iHub as gospel does not constitute "Due Diligence".
Fred
Yeah, but my interest in cars died with our '37 Buick.
Fred
Well you surely had the last word
And now raucous laughter is heard
You left the last bite
Which is one ugly sight
And to eat it would just be absurd
Fred
I wish I knew.
Yeah - I blew it
I hate change - and mostly I hate it when someone I like and admire 'goes away'.
Fred
Of course.
Don't you remember when his daughter made first chair with her beautiful horn?
Fred
As much wood as a woodchuck could if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Also, Rich's estimate was not quite right. Two chords would be more accurate.
Fred
Yeah, but ...
What happens when they quit playing 'chicken'?
Fred
To quote Woody, Sportswriter for the Denver Post:
The noblest dog is the hot dog
If feeds the hand that bites it.
Fred