Strategies & Market TrendsThe Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-Moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: yard_man who wrote (32017)8/3/2011 3:27:20 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor
   of 109321
Very well done!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Smiling Bob8/3/2011 3:34:59 PM
   of 109321
PPT must have gotten a small payday loan
Debt ceiling hike clears way for Treasury sales By Deborah Levine, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The last-minute passage of U.S. debt legislation clears the way for the Treasury Department to announce Wednesday how much in notes and bonds it will auction next week.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: bentway8/3/2011 3:40:53 PM
   of 109321
GE's Immelt Blames at Home, Employs Abroad

Submitted by Paul Chesser on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 12:00

General Electric announced this week it will relocate its X-ray business to Beijing in order to capitalize on the burgeoning Chinese health care market.

Bravo for them. Kudos. I’m sure it’s a smart business move for the company – just like not paying taxes in the U.S., rent seeking for “Green” subsidies and mandates, and reducing American jobs are also bottom-line wise.

But let’s please stop listening to GE CEO Jeffery Immelt (if he ever was really taken seriously), who is the head of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, whenever he tries to lecture other American corporations on how to conduct their businesses. His hypocrisy is astounding, as illustrated in a Wall Street Journal report about his visit to one of his own gas turbine factories in South Carolina just two weeks ago:

Mr. Immelt said the wage differential between the U.S. and China and India had narrowed to a point that hiring domestically makes more economic sense. American companies, he said, have gotten "carried away" with outsourcing jobs overseas and are going to have to account for where they create jobs.

"Big companies like GE are accountable for where our jobs are," said Mr. Immelt. "If you want to be an admired company, you better know, you better have accountability, and you better think through where the jobs are…."

GE now has about 46 percent of its 287,000-person work force in the U.S. where it generates about 40 percent of its revenue. The company work force shrank by 17,000 last year, including by 1,000 in the U.S….

The jobs council has reached out to all Fortune 500 companies, pressing them to double their hiring of engineers next year. "If every one of the big companies in the U.S. doubled their recruiting of engineers, that would send a very powerful message," Mr. Immelt said.

Then there was Mr. Example-Setter on July 11 boldly telling members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at a jobs summit to do as he says, not as he does. "The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action underway," he said. "There's no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution."

Then, according to a CNN report, Immelt said it's important that businesses take action -- like taking some risks, and thinking about bringing back jobs that had been moved overseas. Apparently Mexico is close enough to be acceptable for Immelt and GE.

Seriously, defenders of GE’s X-Ray move to China note that no one at the 115-year-old unit will lose there jobs, and that only a few of the unit’s managers will relocate to Beijing. But the point is, most of the future growth, engineering and research tied to the unit will likely be in the Peoples’ Republic. That makes Immelt’s finger pointing at existing U.S. businesses quite hypocritical.

Of course, GE likes to employ lots of U.S. lobbyists – spending more on that effort than any other individual corporation, by far. So give them some credit – undoubtedly billions in tax credits and subsidies kept the company’s coffers healthy thanks to them.

Paul Chesser is associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center and is executive director of American Tradition Institute.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: The Reaper who wrote (32078)8/3/2011 3:43:03 PM
From: LTK007
   of 109321
My criteria is we close this week below 1258(or better yet 1249) is all that matters to me. The dive to 1234 has no TA signifigance to me because i need see the POWERFUL FORCES at work to hold this market from breaking down that have been successful now for a loooongtime have begun to REALLY lose their battle.
The dive to 1234 would be a signal for PPT to go into major action.
i personally MUST see what the close is on Friday to make a call.
At moment 3:40 we have rallied 27 points from 1234 to 1257.
If we sell off in last 20 minutes---that would be NICE to See.Max

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Les H who wrote (32057)8/3/2011 3:43:48 PM
From: bentway
   of 109321
"Rep. Paul introduces bill to cancel $1.6T in debt held by Federal Reserve"

Let's ALL follow Ron's example, and just CANCEL our debts back to prosperity!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: bentway who wrote (32087)8/3/2011 3:46:27 PM
From: Broken_Clock
1 Recommendation   of 109321
Isn't that Bennie's plan? print to infinity and beyond?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Secret_Agent_Man who wrote (32076)8/3/2011 3:52:30 PM
From: DebtBomb
   of 109321
LOL. ;-)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: bentway who wrote (32087)8/3/2011 3:53:45 PM
From: TH
   of 109321

This is so very strange. I would think that the Fed would LOVE to cancel this. Is it akin to printing more money.

Ron Paul is helping them with their objective, OR, I've got this entirely backwards (very possible).


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: bentway8/3/2011 3:59:01 PM
1 Recommendation   of 109321
Imperial Psychosis: We Pour Trillions into Empire While Gutting Programs Americans Depend OnBy Tom Engelhardt,
Posted on August 2, 2011, Printed on August 3, 2011

By now, it seems as if everybody and his brother has joined the debt-ceiling imbroglio in Washington, perhaps the strangest homespun drama of our time. It’s as if Washington’s leading political players, aided and abetted by the media’s love of the horserace, had eaten LSD-laced brownies, then gone on stage before an audience of millions to enact a psychotic spectacle of American decline.

And yet, among the dramatis personae we’ve been watching, there are clearly missing actors. They happen to be out of town, part of a traveling roadshow. When it comes to their production, however, there has, of late, been little publicity, few reviewers, and only the most modest media attention. Moreover, unlike the scenery-chewing divas in Washington, these actors have simply been going about their business as if nothing out of the ordinary were happening.

On July 25th, for instance, while John Boehner raced around the Capitol desperately pressing Republican House members for votes on a debt-ceiling bill that Harry Reid was calling dead-on-arrival in the Senate, America’s new ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, took his oath of office in distant Kabul. According to the New York Times, he then gave a short speech “warning” that “Western powers needed to ‘proceed carefully’” and emphasized that when it came to the war, there would “be no rush for the exits.”

If, in Washington, people were rushing for those exits, no chance of that in Kabul almost a decade into America’s second Afghan War. There, the air strikes, night raids, assassinations, roadside bombs, and soldier and civilian deaths, we are assured, will continue to 2014 and beyond. In a war in which every gallon of gas used by a fuel-guzzling U.S. military costs $400 to $800 to import, time is no object and -- despite the panic in Washington over debt payments -- neither evidently is cost.

In Iraq, meanwhile, in year eight of America’s armed involvement, U.S. officials are still wrangling to keep significant numbers of American troops stationed there beyond an agreed end-of-2011 withdrawal date. And the State Department is preparing to hire a small army of 5,000-odd armed mercenaries (with their own mini-air force) to keep the American “mission” in that country humming along to the tune of billions of dollars.

In Libya, the American/NATO war effort, once imagined as a brief spasm of shock-‘n’-awe firepower that would oust autocrat Muammar Gaddafi in a nanosecond, is now in its fifth month with neither an end nor a serious reassessment in sight, and no mention of costs there either. In Yemen and Somalia, the drones, CIA and military, are being sent in, and special operations forces built up, while in the region a new base is being constructed and older ones expanded in the never-ending war against al-Qaeda, its affiliates, wannabes, and any other nasties around. (At the same time, the Obama administration is leaking information that the original al-Qaeda teeters at the edge of defeat, even as it intensifies the CIA’s drone war in the Pakistani tribal borderlands.) And further expansion of the war on terror -- watch out, al-Qaeda in North Africa! -- seems to be a given.

Meanwhile back in Washington -- not, mind you, the Washington of the debt-ceiling crisis, but the war capital on the banks of the Potomac -- national security spending still seems to be on an upward trajectory. At $526 billion (without the costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars added in), the 2011 Pentagon budget is, as Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, has written, “in real or inflation adjusted dollars… higher than at any time since World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the height of the Reagan buildup.” The 2012 Pentagon budget is presently slated to go even higher.

Senator John McCain recently raised the question of Pentagon spending in tight times with General Martin Dempsey, the newly nominated chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He asked about a plan proposed by President Obama to cut $400 billion in Pentagon funds over twelve years, as well as proposals kicking around Congress for cutting up to $800 billion over the same period.

General Dempsey replied, “I haven’t been asked to look at that number. But I have looked and we are looking at $400 billion. Based on the difficulty of achieving the $400 billion cut, I believe achieving $800 billion would be extraordinarily difficult and very high risk.”

In little of the reporting on this was it apparent that Obama’s $400 billion in Pentagon “cuts” are not cuts at all -- not unless you consider an obese person, who continues eating at the same level but reduces his dreams of ever grander future repasts, to be on a diet. The “cuts” in the White House proposal, that is, will only be from projected future Pentagon growth rates. Nor were the “savings” of up to one trillion dollars over a decade being projected by Senator Harry Reid as part of his deficit-reduction plan cuts either, not in the usual sense anyway. They are expected savings based largely on the prospective winding down of America's wars and, like so much funny money, could evaporate with the morning dew. (In his last minute deal with John Boehner, President Obama's Pentagon "savings" have, in fact, been reduced to a provisional $350 billion over 10 years.)

So here’s a question at a moment when financial mania has Washington by the throat: How would you define the state of mind of our war-makers, who are carrying on as if trillion-dollar wars were an American birthright, as if the only sensible role for the United States was to eternally police the planet, and as if garrisoning U.S. troops, corporate mercenaries, and special operations forces in scores and scores of countries was the essence of life as it should be lived on this planet?

When I was kid, I used to be fascinated by a series of ads filled with visual absurdities, in which, for instance, five-legged cows floated through clouds. Each ad’s tagline went something like: What’s wrong with this picture?

So imagine two worlds, both centered in Washington. In one, they’re heading for the exits, America’s credit rating is in danger of being downgraded, jobs are disappearing, infrastructure is eroding, homeownership levels are falling rapidly, foreclosures are sky-high, times are bad, and even the president admits that the political system designated to make things better is “dysfunctional”; in the other, the exits are there, but there’s no rush to use them, not with those global ramparts to be guarded, those wars to be fought, and a massive national security complex -- larger than anything ever imagined when the U.S. still faced a nuclear-armed superpower enemy -- to feed and cultivate.

Now tell me: What’s wrong with this picture?

Two worlds, two productions, one over-the-top and raising fears of bankruptcy, the other steady as she goes -- and (so it seems) never the twain shall meet. And yet look again and those two worlds will fuse before your eyes, those two Washingtons will meld into a single capital city. Then it will be clearer that the actors at center stage and those traveling in the provinces are putting on linked parts of a single performance. The financial problems of one will turn out to be inextricably linked to the other; the lack of an effective stimulus package in the first connected to the endless series of stimulus packages -- all that failed “nation-building” in the imperium -- in the second.

Like some Roman god, it turns out that schizophrenic Washington has two faces, each reflecting a different aspect of American decline. In one, everybody can spot the madness. In the other, it’s less evident, even though untold American treasure -- literally trillions of dollars communities here desperately need -- has been poured into a series of wars, conflicts, and war preparations without a victory, or even a significant success on the horizon. (Greeted as if World War II had been won, the killing of Osama bin Laden should have been a reminder of the success of the Global War on Terror for a man with few “troops” and relatively modest amounts of money who somehow managed to land Washington in a financial and military quagmire.)

One American world, one Washington, is devouring the other. Think of this as the half-hidden psychodrama of this American moment.

Put another way, for months Americans have been focused on raising that debt ceiling, as onscreen countdown clocks ticked away to disaster. In the process, few have asked the obvious question: Isn’t it time to lower America’s war ceiling?

Tom Engelhardt, editor of, is co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's.
Sign up to receive the latest updates here.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: carranza28/3/2011 4:15:28 PM
2 Recommendations   of 109321
I know a lot of folks here follow NGD. We should get earnings very soon, matter of minutes, I should think.

From Schwab:

The consensus earnings are $0.11, with a high and low of $0.15 and $0.07, respectively. The mean has trended downward from the last estimate of $0.12.

We shall see.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.