SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Technology Stocks | ahhaha's ahs


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: sixty2nds who wrote (20780)4/13/2012 4:17:37 PM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
I do.

Did you see how "they" painted the tape midday? Pumped up some of my favorite pies, for instance, pies that I don't own. Then "they" lowered the hammer. DOW and Trannies cut down through their 50MAs. TVIX shows there's almost no down side belief. Kominski didn't like how book squaring couldn't find a bid at 3:50PM. Me neither. Ominous.

After all, just LOOK at all those strong charts and just coming up out of their bases too. You don't sell the nifty fifty. True, but also you don't want to know how history has reliably ended this story.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: ahhaha who wrote (20752)4/14/2012 2:22:31 PM
From: frankw1900 of 23552
 
Was I right about advising people not to be involved?

Probably. But I don't like not being involved, so I compromised and bought three "preliminary" stocks. One is a bet on Canada and the other China. The most interesting is the one I mentioned a couple of months ago: LONR. It's solely concentrated on African exports and development. The fastest growing countries in the world are in Africa. I don't think the the problems you mention below are all that relevant if I take a two to five year view and are irrelevant on a longer view, (at least, with respect to Africa).

BTW, I posted here reference to a very interesting study which I think is persuasive in showing that a lot of developing countries have reached a sort of critical mass of local know how and will develop economically at a fast rate despite political risk, and educational and health deficits. Have you looked at it?

Message 27928660
Message 27936458

Despite my desire for confirmation, I think these guys have got it right.

ps. The stock market currently is putting in what is known as a "sucker's rally". Such rallies are driven by short covering coupled with supply above. How do you know that you have a sucker's rally? The market goes up easily. Does no work advancing.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20782)4/14/2012 5:47:35 PM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
One is a bet on Canada and the other China

This claim is false and misleading.

I don't get this Africa trip. It's absurd. If you want to invest in "Africa", buy GOLD, that is Randgold.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20782)4/14/2012 6:14:40 PM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
There are a lot of stocks that will go up and a lot that will go down. The averages tell you nothing. They will go sideways or meaninglessly up or down. You have to be right on individual stocks whatever else is going on to be successful.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: ahhaha4/14/2012 7:00:53 PM
of 23552
 
CHICAGO, IL (April 15, 2009) – Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-IL, released the following statement in response to “tea parties” being held on Tax Day.

“The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs. It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt. Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”

H.R. 1124: Fairness in Taxation Act of 2011

112th Congress, 2011–2012. Text as of Mar 16, 2011 (Introduced).

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose increased rates of tax with respect to taxpayers with more than $1,000,000 taxable income, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 16, 2011

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. FILNER, Mr. NADLER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. YARMUTH, and Mr. DEFAZIO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose increased rates of tax with respect to taxpayers with more than $1,000,000 taxable income, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Fairness in Taxation Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. INCREASED TAX RATES FOR TAXPAYERS WITH MORE THAN $1,000,000 TAXABLE INCOME.

(a) In General-

(1) MARRIED INDIVIDUALS FILING JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING SPOUSES- The table contained in subsection (a) of section 1 is amended to read as follows:

If taxable income is:

The tax is:

Not over $69,000

15% of taxable income.

Over $69,000 but not over $139,350

$10,350, plus 28% of the excess over $69,000.

Over $139,350 but not over $212,300

$30,048, plus 31% of the excess over $139,350.

Over $212,300 but not over $379,150

$52,662.50, plus 36% of the excess over $212,300.

Over $379,150 but not over $1,000,000

$112,728.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $379,150.

Over $1,000,000 but not over $10,000,000

$358,585.10, plus 45% of the excess over $1,000,000.

Over $10,000,000 but not over $20,000,000

$4,408,585.10, plus 46% of the excess over $10,000,000.

Over $20,000,000 but not over $100,000,000

$9,008,585.10, plus 47% of the excess over $20,000,000.

Over $100,000,000 but not over $1,000,000,000

$46,608,585.10, plus 48% of the excess over $100,000,000.

Over $1,000,000,000

$478,608,585.10, plus 49% over the excess over $1,000,000,000.

(2) HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD- The table contained in subsection (b) of section 1 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

If taxable income is:

The tax is:

Not over $46,250

15% of taxable income.

Over $46,250 but not over $119,400

$6,937.50, plus 28% of the excess over $46,250.

Over $119,400 but not over $193,350

$27,419.50, plus 31% of the excess over $119,400.

Over $193,350 but not over $379,150

$50,344, plus 36% of the excess over $193,350.

Over $379,150 but not over $1,000,000

$117,232, plus 39.6% of the excess over $379,150.

Over $1,000,000 but not over $10,000,000

$363,088.60, plus 45% of the excess over $1,000,000.

Over $10,000,000 but not over $20,000,000

$4,413,088.60, plus 46% of the excess over $10,000,000.

Over $20,000,000 but not over $100,000,000

$9,013,088.60, plus 47% of the excess over $20,000,000.

Over $100,000,000 but not over $1,000,000,000

$46,613,088.60, plus 48% of the excess over $100,000,000.

Over $1,000,000,000

$478,613,088.60, plus 49% of the excess over $1,000,000,000.

(3) UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS (OTHER THAN SURVIVING SPOUSES AND HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS)- The table contained in subsection (c) of section 1 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

If taxable income is:

The tax is:

Not over $34,500

15% of taxable income.

Over $34,500 but not over $83,600

$5,175, plus 28% of the excess over $34,500.

Over $83,600 but not over $174,400

$18,923, plus 31% of the excess over $83,600.

Over $174,400 but not over $379,150

$47,071, plus 36% of the excess over $174,400.

Over $379,150 but not over $1,000,000

$120,781, plus 39.6% of the excess over $379,150.

Over $1,000,000 but not over $10,000,000

$366,637.60, plus 45% of the excess over $1,000,000.

Over $10,000,000 but not over $20,000,000

$4,416,637.60, plus 46% of the excess over $10,000,000.

Over $20,000,000 but not over $100,000,000

$9,016,637.60, plus 47% of the excess over $20,000,000.

Over $100,000,000 but not over $1,000,000,000

$46,616,637.60, plus 48% of the excess over $100,000,000.

Over $1,000,000,000

$478,616,637.60, plus 49% of the excess over $1,000,000,000.

(4) MARRIED INDIVIDUALS FILING SEPARATE RETURNS- The table contained in subsection (d) of section 1 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

If taxable income is:

The tax is:

Not over $34,500

plus 15% of taxable income.

Over $34,500 but not over $69,675

$5,175, plus 28% of the excess over $34,500.

Over $69,675 but not over $106,150

$15,024, plus 31% of the excess over $69,675.

Over $106,150 but not over $189,575

$26,331.25, plus 35% of the excess over $106,150.

Over $189,575 but not over $500,000

$55,530, plus 39.6% of the excess over $189,575.

Over $500,000 but not over $5,000,000

$178,458.30, plus 45% of the excess over $500,000.

Over $5,000,000 but not over $10,000,000

$2,203,458.30, plus 46% of the excess over $5,000,000.

Over $10,000,000 but not over $50,000,000

$4,503,458.30, plus 47% of the excess over $10,000,000.

Over $50,000,000 but not over $500,000,000

$23,303,458.30, plus 48% of the excess over $50,000,000.

Over $500,000,000

$239,303,458.30, plus 49% of the excess over $500,000,000.

(b) Recapture of Lower Capital Gains Rates for Individuals Subject to Added Rate Brackets-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(j) Special Rule for Capital Gains in Case of Taxable Income Subject to at Least 45-Percent Rate Bracket- If for the taxable year a taxpayer has taxable income in excess of the minimum dollar amount for the 45-percent rate bracket and has a net capital gain, then--

‘(1) the tax imposed by this section for the taxable year with respect to such excess shall be determined without regard to subsection (h), and

‘(2) the amount of net capital gain of the taxpayer taken into account for the taxable year under subsection (h) shall be reduced by the lesser of--

‘(A) such excess, or

‘(B) the net capital gain for the taxable year.

Any reduction in net capital gain under the preceding sentence shall be allocated between adjusted net capital gain, unrecaptured 1250 gain, and section 1202 gain in amounts proportionate to the amounts of each such gain.’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (1) of section 1(h) of such Code is amended by striking ‘If a taxpayer has’ and inserting ‘Except to the extent provided in subsection (j), if a taxpayer has’.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: ahhaha who wrote (20783)4/14/2012 7:23:37 PM
From: Lhn5 of 23552
 
<<Lonrho Plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates in the agribusiness, hotels, infrastructure, support services, and transportation sectors in Africa. The company sources, packs, and delivers fresh fruits, vegetables, meat, and fish produce to a network of retail clients; distributes tractor and agricultural equipment in Angola and Mozambique; produces and exports seafood; and operates and manages hotels in Lubumbashi and Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Maputo in Mozambique, and Mutare in Zimbabwe. It also develops and manages oil service terminal in the Gulf of Guinea; and manufactures and supplies prefabricated buildings. In addition, the company offers information technology (IT) services, including turnkey network solutions, and maintenance and support services to businesses, banks, NGO?s, and government organizations in Mozambique; develops and delivers outsourcing services, including the design and implementation of IT infrastructure, and the day-to-day on-line monitoring and management of networks for small, medium, and large enterprise companies; and provides field support services, including logistics, camp and catering, procurement and transportation, consulting and managed manpower, project management and construction, VSAT/ communications, site security, safaris and travel, and tent manufacturing services to international development organizations, multi-nationals, exploration and de-mining companies, and film and television crews. Further, it engages in the aviation business. Lonrho Plc>>



This is a bet on a British company executing successfully in Africa.


Isn't a bet on Randgold more of a bet on gold than on Africa?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Lhn5 who wrote (20786)4/14/2012 10:34:12 PM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
This is a bet on a British company executing successfully in Africa.

No, it isn't. The company is a propped up fraud. In fact, it's worse than that, for, it's no company at all because of its dependence on government. You could call it an operation that exists to operate and to get more money from government under the table.

Isn't a bet on Randgold more of a bet on gold than on Africa?

It is neither. In contrast to the above deplorable con job the prospects for GOLD earnings depend upon execution. The POG is irrelevant. Nonetheless, GOLD isn't quite yet a buy because the market of stocks is headed DOWN and the growing sell sentiment will take GOLD down too. Recently, the stock has been hit because of political instability in Mali maybe agitated by Al Qaeda. Political issues seems to be a chronic problem for the stock, but not so much for the company. Even Commies want the gold: "I want that gold"!

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: ahhaha who wrote (20783)4/15/2012 12:20:49 AM
From: frankw1900 of 23552
 
One is a bet on Canada and the other China

This claim is false and misleading.


How so, false and misleading? - BCE.to and TCKb.to - One sells communications and entertainment to Canadians and the other sells metallurgical coal and copper to the Chinese.

I suppose it could be said to be misleading in that it's also a bet on my judgement.



I don't get this Africa trip. It's absurd. If you want to invest in "Africa", buy GOLD, that is Randgold.

I don't know what the price of GOLD or any other stock will be, say, five years from now, but it's very unlikely, I think, GOLD will make the gains in the next 5 years it made in the past 5. Anyway, whatever big gains it might make are predicated on one commodity which has limited use.

What interests me in Africa is growth rates. These are the annual growth rates Hausmann and Hidalgo are predicting for the next decade or so. Their argument is convincing to me. Citizens of these countries have now gathered and distributed enough know-how (real wealth) among themselves that they can finally grow themselves out of poverty that was normal everywhere until just a few hundred years ago:

1 Uganda 6.41

2 Kenya 6.1

3 Tanzania 6.07

4 Zimbabwe 5.93

5 Madagascar 5.85

6 Senegal 5.82

7 Malawi 5.6

8 India 5.51

9 Guatemala 5.5

10 Zambia 5.25



Taken as a group the first seven countries on that list are in a similar economic state as China when it started down the capitalist road, and they are clearly starting down a similar road. I expect great economic gains will be made in those countries the next few years. These countries even had decent growth rates during the financial convulsion.

So I want to invest in African food, mining, transportation, tourism and infrastructure and spread the political risk. That little conglomerate strikes me as a cute way to do it. (I could do it indirectly, and buy Standard Bank or a large international engineering firm but I doubt they could grow revenues as quickly). What's not to like? There's a vast amount of under developed agricultural land, huge energy and mineral resources, an extremely low wage environment, a population that's becoming entrepreneurial, about a billion folk in the local market and ready markets abroad for their products.




Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20788)4/15/2012 12:30:31 AM
From: sixty2nds of 23552
 
In a nutshell...you can't believe the numbers. That's what I was trying to tell you.
LONRO depends on gov't...and that is a bad bet in Africa.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: frankw1900 who wrote (20788)4/15/2012 1:18:17 AM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
How so, false and misleading?

"China", "Canada", aren't definable entities for investment purposes. You can have those countries coming apart at the seams while companies domiciled in them do well, and vice versa. It's like investing in an industry group rather than a company that happens to be in or can be classified in some group.

- BCE.to and TCKb.to - One sells communications and entertainment to Canadians and the other sells metallurgical coal and copper to the Chinese.

China sells more to Europe than any other place. Europe is devolving into an economic basket case while no one says anything. Guess they got tired of pointing out the obvious, and they discounted that over and over so that now according them, it is no longer true although it is.

I suppose it could be said to be misleading in that it's also a bet on my judgement.

No. Your judgment is ok, but you're making a modus ponens error. Also, you're imposing a requirement rather than discovering unrecognized value. You're making the error of chasing obscurity without specialized knowledge. Then there's a lack of sex appeal in your choices. To a certain extent you should chase the same girls everyone else does.

I don't know what the price of GOLD or any other stock will be, say, five years from now, but it's very unlikely, I think, GOLD will make the gains in the next 5 years it made in the past 5.

How do you know that? I think GOLD will way outperform most stocks assuming flat POG prices. Gold is a valuable commodity and GOLD is the best there is at getting it in scale.

Anyway, whatever big gains it might make are predicated on one commodity which has limited use.

Completely mistaken amateur's view. You're making the mistake of judging a book by its cover. You seem hip to copper mining based on a specious perception of the economic state of China. If you're willing to take risks dependent upon Commies, you might as well go for the gold. Copper is a sham. A bull market has a roof made of copper.

What interests me in Africa is growth rates.

? Africa is a total disaster on every level. How could you see it any other way? Just go there. anywhere there. You'll be cured fast. The mistake you're making here is one of imposing what you invent in your mind upon what there actually is. There's not one nation, if you can call them that, that isn't a total disaster. Not one. It is for this reason that GOLD trades at a discount.

These are the annual growth rates Hausmann and Hidalgo are predicting for the next decade or so.

The next decade? If DM is reelected, whites will go back to Africa. Then, you'll get the real red sea rather than the one called for by some NBP yapper. By the way, that guy wouldn't last a week in Oakland, and his entitlement wouldn't protect him. He knows that. The NBP doesn't show there.

Their argument is convincing to me.

Maybe I need to change the above into, "your judgment is no good".

Citizens of these countries have now gathered and distributed enough know-how (real wealth) among themselves that they can finally grow themselves out of poverty that was normal everywhere until just a few hundred years ago:

Gathered and distributed? Is this our old reliable frankw talking, whiskery, or an impostor?

1 Uganda 6.41

-10

2 Kenya 6.1

-6

3 Tanzania 6.07

0


4 Zimbabwe 5.93

-11

5 Madagascar 5.85

-12

6 Senegal 5.82

-2


7 Malawi 5.6

-1

8 India 5.51

5

9 Guatemala 5.5

-1

10 Zambia 5.25

0

Taken as a group the first seven countries on that list are in a similar economic state as China

Let me adjust that. China is headed down towards them and they may yet find a way to go to new lows..

when it started down the capitalist road,

Chinese capitalism has no basis in liberty and law. They've elected to copy western monetary policy theory, that is, no free market in money. They're doomed to ever rising interest rates until they undergo a big bust, just like the ones FED periodically produces. Without liberty, law, and sound monetary policy, and with rampant crony capitalism, they're doomed.and they are clearly starting down a similar road.

I expect great economic gains will be made in those countries the next few years.

You don't know Africa. The north continent is and always has been controlled by Egypt. The south is controlled by South Africa. Those two tend to keep everyone around them chronically poor. West Africa is exceedingly rich in crude oil. Because of that soon enough the west nations will be at war with each other. The center of Africa is one giant tribe of people dedicated to the Stone Age. DM wants to make the US into one giant tribe with him as Shaka.

So I want to invest in African food, mining, transportation, tourism and infrastructure and spread the political risk.

You're way out of your league.


Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.