SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Non-TechKirk's Market Thoughts


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Kirk © who wrote (4604)1/5/2017 4:05:28 AM
From: Robohogs
2 Recommendations   of 15265
 
Thanks Kirk. Sometimes I think I am going crazy. The US economy has been in decline (growth wise, not outright) since late Clinton. Real steepness of decline began under Bush and has continued with O. Yet all the EXPERTS tell us this is the new reality, the new normal, all we can get. They tell us redistribution is the key. More taxes. More government. And sure, DC economy IS great!! And they tell us GOP economic theories don't work pointing to GHB. They ignore fact O has not really improved things. And I am not sure the second depression is really Bush's fault.

The EXPERTS also skew their work to make things so. I was searching for something the other day and got a link to a guy on Forbes interviewing some dude talking about O's awesomeness and his being the best economic president. He even had stats showing Obama jobs recovery better than Reagan's, mentioning peak unemployment was lower under O and recovery in unemployment faster. This ignores several key factors:
  • Changes in calculation (most argue current system understates)
  • Higher base unemployment pre-Reagan recession
  • Later start relative to administration of Reagan recession
  • Different depths of the recessions
  • Different causes
  • Steps previous administration had already taken.

I am always amused how folks attribute things. Reality is never really clean honestly. Dems assign Obama starting deficit to Bush and GOP assign it to Obama. Reality is somewhere in between. Dems claim Obama saved the economy. The key steps, however, were taken by Bush/Bernanke/Paulson. Auto industry save started with Bush. If O had done nothing else (handing a prize to unions effectively), things would not be much different - just different owners.

Getting long, but key thought is that Dem policies have not worked. Reagan stuff did. But Dems say Reaganomics discredited. The claim for slow economy is bad recession. But bad recessions usually have FASTER rebounds. Each side makes up its own facts. This is why Trump won BTW. Smash up both sides. Try something new. Worth a shot!

Jon

PS I am a GHWB Repub/Clinton Dem so both extremes bother me. GHB and O were both very bad as was Carter. I think the experts are just too accepting of status quo. My main fear is autocracy possibility and trade war possibilities.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Robohogs who wrote (4606)1/5/2017 9:52:47 AM
From: Kirk ©
3 Recommendations   of 15265
 
Thanks Jon for the great post!

I can't fault any of it.

I'd add that the market melt-up under WJC started in 1996 after the GOP took the house and it became clear FLOTUS Clinton's health care and tax plan would not get implemented.

Both parties get the blame for the financial bubble and collapse. W or Bush 2 liked to be popular and have happy citizens so he went along with plans to give them all homes they could not afford using financial engineering where the big banks raked in huge fees but thought they could distance themselves from the eventual collapse by having workers inside their banks not work directly for them. WJC set it all up by removing the requirement that banks can't gamble with FDIC monies...

I remember well several recessions under Clinton (WJC) but I don't remember what happened to get us back on a growth track, but I think a lot of it was moving jobs out of the US to lower costs. I remember fighting it at HP/Avago/Broadcom as a product line I helped invent with a handful of others was basically "sold" to Singapore in exchange for a tax holiday greater than the expected revenue from this product line. I had to train engineers from Singapore rather than top US colleges to do R&D and didn't like it... hence work to a new career doing something rewarding and helpful to others, even if not for as much money.

Lets not forget that the tech bubble under Clinton probably came about for two reasons... We broke up AT&T in the 1980s and there was a ton of spending as the Baby Bells built out their networks. Also, Reagan won the Cold War with the former USSR by outspending them into bankruptcy and keeping peace in the Middle East to keep oil prices low. Many Cold War technologies such as wireless phones, GPS and high speed internet started the path to commercialization in the late 1980s.... heck, I was hired as a summer intern in 1978 to work on "Optocouplers" which were fiber optic links without fiber.... to allow communication between computers over distance of feet to hundreds of meters via wire. I started working on the new fiber optics technology in 1984 where our main competitor was AT&T.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Robohogs who wrote (4606)1/5/2017 10:06:28 AM
From: Kirk ©
1 Recommendation   of 15265
 
Also,
Thanks Kirk. Sometimes I think I am going crazy. The US economy has been in decline (growth wise, not outright) since late Clinton. Real steepness of decline began under Bush and has continued with O. Yet all the EXPERTS tell us this is the new reality, the new normal, all we can get. They tell us redistribution is the key. More taxes. More government. And sure, DC economy IS great!! And they tell us GOP economic theories don't work pointing to GHB. They ignore fact O has not really improved things. And I am not sure the second depression is really Bush's fault.
Make a mental or physical list of your most outspoken friends and family who have argued politics with your or said you were greedy or said they don't mind paying high taxes because they like their jobs. I did and pointed out to some they were talking their book and I was paying for it.
  • One was a "retired" NASA technician who was "working" part time for NASA while drawing a full pension. He lives in a modest Silicon Valley home but was able to raise three kids and send them all to college while his wife stayed at home... all on his government salary. I got him to stop shouting left wing rhetoric to us after windsurfing after I pointed out that high taxes from people like me who were still working allow him to get a lavish pension while still working for more money whereas we have to wait for Social Security when we reach age 70 and will get a smaller amount than he got retiring in his 50s.
  • Another is a retired, part time teacher whose husband was a fairly high level engineer at Lookheed.
  • Another is an early retired assistant DA making a huge pension
  • Another is a relative who goes to a lot of SF Giants games while wining and dining clients who do large, public buildings and need insurance for the bonds. Basically, without public works projects, she'd have to pay for the fancy meals and baseball games and there would be no large fees for insuring public bonds. Nothing wrong with a job you love but it tends to influence your politics.


Again..... follow the money.

A lot of those who voted for "The Orange One" lost jobs to outsourcing and new technology. They found health care without a subsidy was beyond what they could afford to pay and taking handouts rather than considering it a tax refund to get health care didn't sit well. Of course like all entitlements, they are incentives to not do extra work as they make a HUGE incremental tax hit to go from $25K a year to $45K a year....

I think O had a lot of good ideas.... if you work hard and show up, you should get a decent salary with health care, but he went about implementing it wrong due after lobbyists got their hands into the pickle jar.... just look at the Union exemptions and how large companies could save a TON by firing their older workers with high health care costs and replacing them with younger workers.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Kirk © who wrote (4608)1/5/2017 11:40:58 AM
From: Robohogs
2 Recommendations   of 15265
 
WP columnists today now making the case for how Trump is going to force Obama to be activist as ex-President, which is not current norm. All while they have pilloried Trump for interfering as Pres-Elect. Double standard.

Jon

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: rdkflorida21/11/2017 1:10:37 PM
2 Recommendations   of 15265
 
AIRI > Seems to go up on high volume days and down on low volume days. Somebody wanted shares today and paid up. FWIW, I expect better numbers to be discussed in the usual C.C. Should be 1st or second week of Feb. All IMHO and a FYI for anyone interested. RDK

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: more1001/12/2017 4:19:47 AM
   of 15265
 
Stable and healthy at the moment. Can't short knowing Oil had a strong bounce, and will bounce quick if they decide to dip Oil. Scary

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: rdkflorida21/13/2017 10:49:51 AM
   of 15265
 
AIRI >> If anyone has any TA/EW insight into what just happened with the two day action in the stock please post. Or any other thoughts please post. AIRI went from ADV of around 15K to a two day average of 300K. I am not sure if that is scary good or scary bad. TIA for any input. RDK

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: robert b furman who wrote (4599)1/13/2017 12:26:04 PM
From: Kirk ©
   of 15265
 
IF GDP jumps to 4 or 5% in Q1-2017 as this chart
seems to indicate could happen, then who will get credit for this predicted surge in economic growth?

Votes Cast : 16
If Q1 2017 GDP growth surges above 4%, who would get credit?
President Obama
 
4
President-elect Trump
 
10
Neither
 
2
 
This poll is now closed (poll closed on 19 Jan 2017).

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Kirk © who wrote (4613)1/13/2017 7:12:36 PM
From: dan6
3 Recommendations   of 15265
 
Trick question, Kirk. People who liked Obama will give him credit. People who like Trump will give him credit.

Does any President really deserve credit or blame when the economy goes up or down is another question. My answer: Rarely.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: rdkflorida2 who wrote (4612)1/17/2017 11:16:35 AM
From: Kirk ©
1 Recommendation   of 15265
 
So does anyone care about the meeting of the wealthy in Davos or is it a great example of how the super wealthy, mostly from the left wing and Hoolyweird, completely missed Brexit and the election of Donald Trump?

www3.weforum.org

From a SeekingAlpha email today:
The world's political and business leaders, plus the usual smattering of celebrities have gathered in Davos, the Swiss Alpine resort where the World Economic Forum's annual conference begins today. The official theme of the 2017 meeting is
"responsible and responsive leadership."
In WEF-speak, that means
"recognizing that frustration and discontent are increasing in the segments of society that are not experiencing economic development and social progress."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10