Actually, what you see in the entire post has nothing to do with the Feminist Movement at all. It is merely a post about whatever I saw on Youtube about posters writing their stance on feminism and throwing mud at each other.
It all started when I was watching this dude called "The Amazing Atheist", which shall be referred as TAA for simplicity, slamming Pat Robertson, who I fully agree should be in jail if not worse. Actually, I have a line which I shall now use upon Robertson. "Wait, did Robertson come from the Dark Ages when everyone opposite his belief is called a heretic?" OK, that was from the line I heard in "The Librarian". Remember the line "A thousand years ago, a girl named Pandora opened this box, and that led to very bad things...An era we called The Dark Ages".
Anyway, TAA next hit out at a badly made video belittling him. Well, the funny part is, I do not think TAA attacked any other feminist, which I think is important. His anger has nothing to do with feminism. Like all movements or ideological beliefs, rotten apples are lumped together with the good ones when it gets too big, and I think he understands that from what I see of his video.
Biological roles has nothing to do with knowing to treat a human properly. In fact, from what I read, TAA was personally abused by supporters (male/female/whatever) of the woman in question. TAA might sound kind of angry, un-civil, but that's his thing, nothing to do with truth. If one argues in a video about something and you need to reply to tell him he is wrong, one should do so with grace. OK, maybe not so graceful, but at least with good points to counteract. Not like "He is a ******* *****, Waste of time, Blah Blah Blah". What gives a human the right to denounce another's right to life? Freedom of speech is TAA's life from what I can see, so saying that he should have no such freedom, isn't it trying to kill him? So, his detractors did not give any real good points as defense either.
If he's not civil, and one promotes the right thing using whatever ruler of faith and spirituality he/she/whatever uses, especially one who hold's the freedom to life as a truth, should it be correct to either (1) ignore his uncivility and counter with valid points or (2) state your points and leave in peace. It sounds ironically funny that TAA always peace out and not his detractors. Anyway, I'm the middle of the road, a road I feel is the peaceful way to life happily. Get angry, get over your anger, get your relationships and friendships where they need to and be happy spending the next x minutes/hours/days/whatever time being who you are.
I love women. I love smart women. I agree they should protect their rights. What I expect of my future partner follows that line of thought where she must be smart, capable and stand up for herself. Compromises to live together is important, but we would have to agree that our lives are as much shared with each other as they are independent. Till death do us part. That is the only promise I can make to any woman who loves me. I do, however, detest cowards who hide behind others' back and backstabbing friends and foes alike. There are many who does that and it has nothing to do with whatever movement, philosophy they follow.
Anyway, that's it for TAA's endevoours. It's his story. This blog is about my story.
One thing I do realize over the past weeks is the strength of my words. Not that they will blow people apart, but how people view my stance. I'm usually accepting, a bit stubborn at first because I want to think through everything, But the way I portray myself lead people to think I'm ultra stubborn who wants things done only my way. Well, I point out correctly that people judge me too quickly, not the other way round. I'm lazy, but I know better than a decade or two ago to jump into conclusions. Even if I do assume wrongly, I am often willing to back out from my previous stance.
Like one fellow said to me twelve years ago, I'm too soft actually, so I've been trying to learn the spiritual way of TaiJi/TaiChi, hopefully to find the truly round way of doing things, keeping the things important to me in my center while not hurting others. My teams are still hurt, losing to a ten men team from Merseyside and another scrapping the bottom of the Eastern Conference of NBA. Quite ridiculous I would say but well, what goes around comes around. If you do a good job and continue to improve, you can only get good results one day.
Well, back to cleaning up my work to finally, finally go on holiday.
btw, on an artsy side, I think this Youtube video is pretty good. I will only favorite and share things I rate 5 stars and this is the only one so far. My previous rating philosophy is too haphazard to standardize.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Friday, June 05, 2009
Economists gone mad
For the second time (and perhaps there was more than twice already), some inept, insane, inane, irresponsible, incorrigible, incorrect and immoral (I wanted to use the word inhumane, considering that he is obviously desperate trying to protect his wealth, but still, yeah, he is inhumane to not consider for other human lives) economist suggested that interest rates should be negative.
First, that will be uberinflation, since everyone needs to dump currency. Second, he pointedly said that people should put money into other instruments, which is...? (This creates an uber asset bubble which is the precursor of uberinflation. Third, he actually recommends to have an expiring legal tender exchangeable at the central bank. (I like having only 3 points of attack, not that I can't find more...But this g?y actually suggested such an )
The first two points are directly self defeating. Uberinflation kills all sorts of productivity and renders trade to only barter trade. Now, since he offers no useful skill other than talk, he has not value in the society he proposes.
The third is tricky. Banks can exchange the tender for you, but what about people who use cash? What about people who counterfeit money? There is a lot of administrative issues, but technically, there is a finite supply of money, and it will then be held by "elites". Yes, he is suggesting protectionism and elitism (indirectly of course). By forcing people to spend, ahem...the correct word is "invest" in useful assets, the point shoots back straight to the idea of creating an asset bubble. Basically, he is targeting savers, which defies logic to begin with.
This former central banker fail to understand economies in general. It's like a human being, it grows, it matures in whatever teachings it had from past experiences. It falls sick and gets well throughout the business cycles. And last but not least, it is indirectly dependent on its population. He should take geography 101 to know that we only have so much land space, so much useful land, resources. Oh, moral education 101 is probably needed just for him and Mankiw too.
That is why developed nations should view their socio-economic policies carefully and regularly so that the economy does not overheat badly while staying in the front end of science. It is tough, but it does not take a PhD to realise the problems. Rather than "fix" the problem to his (and many bankers') favor, why not just let the problem fix itself, like the news-less now? Is he so afraid that he will become poorer because he is wrong?
I'm not a rocket scientist, but my heart goes to people who suffer through this while myself and many of my friends are not badly affected. Printing more money is NOT a solution. It is THE destruction.
If I can survive the cold in Antarctica, I would raise my own farm there and show him what the right way of life is. Money, at the end of the day, is just paper. It has no value pre and after life. Money is the means to an end, not the end itself, and substituting it with land, gold, silver or any asset as an item for hoarding is not the correct way to live life.
First, that will be uberinflation, since everyone needs to dump currency. Second, he pointedly said that people should put money into other instruments, which is...? (This creates an uber asset bubble which is the precursor of uberinflation. Third, he actually recommends to have an expiring legal tender exchangeable at the central bank. (I like having only 3 points of attack, not that I can't find more...But this g?y actually suggested such an )
The first two points are directly self defeating. Uberinflation kills all sorts of productivity and renders trade to only barter trade. Now, since he offers no useful skill other than talk, he has not value in the society he proposes.
The third is tricky. Banks can exchange the tender for you, but what about people who use cash? What about people who counterfeit money? There is a lot of administrative issues, but technically, there is a finite supply of money, and it will then be held by "elites". Yes, he is suggesting protectionism and elitism (indirectly of course). By forcing people to spend, ahem...the correct word is "invest" in useful assets, the point shoots back straight to the idea of creating an asset bubble. Basically, he is targeting savers, which defies logic to begin with.
This former central banker fail to understand economies in general. It's like a human being, it grows, it matures in whatever teachings it had from past experiences. It falls sick and gets well throughout the business cycles. And last but not least, it is indirectly dependent on its population. He should take geography 101 to know that we only have so much land space, so much useful land, resources. Oh, moral education 101 is probably needed just for him and Mankiw too.
That is why developed nations should view their socio-economic policies carefully and regularly so that the economy does not overheat badly while staying in the front end of science. It is tough, but it does not take a PhD to realise the problems. Rather than "fix" the problem to his (and many bankers') favor, why not just let the problem fix itself, like the news-less now? Is he so afraid that he will become poorer because he is wrong?
I'm not a rocket scientist, but my heart goes to people who suffer through this while myself and many of my friends are not badly affected. Printing more money is NOT a solution. It is THE destruction.
If I can survive the cold in Antarctica, I would raise my own farm there and show him what the right way of life is. Money, at the end of the day, is just paper. It has no value pre and after life. Money is the means to an end, not the end itself, and substituting it with land, gold, silver or any asset as an item for hoarding is not the correct way to live life.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
One way train
Well, the bears are getting run over, and from a small profit to a huge loss, that is my story for the rally. Interestingly, wise men like Roubini and Schiff have continued their rant on the worsening economy, like myself. I did find something useful.
Shiff mentioned that inflation is rendering the USD useless, and hence a more risky asset compared to stocks and other risky instruments. This is a sad state of affairs if you look at it. Bad numbers, rally. Good numbers, rally more. Here, stagflation rules, and soon will give way to uberinflation. I like coining new terms. How will Obama save USA? Or won't he, since he has all the money and power now? Or maybe he will just rob me?
Frankly, like my other posts, why do we need to continue bailing out these banks and have no control on them. Obviously, they don't want to be "backed" either. My solution at the beginning is simple. Nationalize the banks. Well, that will provide chaos right? No, since you only need to nationalize some big banks that proved to be the weakest link to the many counterpartied banks. Then, wind it down completely. Either way, we are backstopping the losers.
Now, we backstop the banks, the banks still don't lend as much, one, the demand is not as high anymore, two, they learn not to lend to deadbeats. Three, outside the banking operations, they need to wind down, thereby reducing their productivity, if they had any to begin with. So why the optimism? Green shots?
Well, in short, when I compare what is happening today to anything else, especially when USA is worried about losing their AAA rating like how UK is rumored to be, I will say, don't worry. You lost it already. When Geithner gave PPIP. When Bernanke print money to buy money. When FASB changed Mark to Market into Mark to Myth/Max. When Obama sided with exorbitantly paid UAW to give Chrysler to workers who build cars that no one wants and giving lenders nothing but death threats. When everyone allowed the banks to argue how to present the state of their financial health.
The biggest loser is not the ones who lost weight on TV. Its the Americans from age 65 and below, because retirement will disappear from the dictionary. In fact, the whole world, except for a few countries, will suffer for the cruelest of hits.
Well, like they say, "nice guys never win". Bankers and Politicians are the complete anti-thesis of nice guys. Can I be a nice guy and attain success? In fact, early in my career, I was told that I can't succeed just by being a nice guy and that is again proven by an official outing yesterday and some chitchat I heard today. Well, so much for humanity.
I do need to say, it is interesting to know that Tolkein wrote his books because he wanted to reinspire humanity. Its really great to know someone with similar aspirations being successful, but he has advantages. I don't. But like him, I know it is not easy.
Shiff mentioned that inflation is rendering the USD useless, and hence a more risky asset compared to stocks and other risky instruments. This is a sad state of affairs if you look at it. Bad numbers, rally. Good numbers, rally more. Here, stagflation rules, and soon will give way to uberinflation. I like coining new terms. How will Obama save USA? Or won't he, since he has all the money and power now? Or maybe he will just rob me?
Frankly, like my other posts, why do we need to continue bailing out these banks and have no control on them. Obviously, they don't want to be "backed" either. My solution at the beginning is simple. Nationalize the banks. Well, that will provide chaos right? No, since you only need to nationalize some big banks that proved to be the weakest link to the many counterpartied banks. Then, wind it down completely. Either way, we are backstopping the losers.
Now, we backstop the banks, the banks still don't lend as much, one, the demand is not as high anymore, two, they learn not to lend to deadbeats. Three, outside the banking operations, they need to wind down, thereby reducing their productivity, if they had any to begin with. So why the optimism? Green shots?
Well, in short, when I compare what is happening today to anything else, especially when USA is worried about losing their AAA rating like how UK is rumored to be, I will say, don't worry. You lost it already. When Geithner gave PPIP. When Bernanke print money to buy money. When FASB changed Mark to Market into Mark to Myth/Max. When Obama sided with exorbitantly paid UAW to give Chrysler to workers who build cars that no one wants and giving lenders nothing but death threats. When everyone allowed the banks to argue how to present the state of their financial health.
The biggest loser is not the ones who lost weight on TV. Its the Americans from age 65 and below, because retirement will disappear from the dictionary. In fact, the whole world, except for a few countries, will suffer for the cruelest of hits.
Well, like they say, "nice guys never win". Bankers and Politicians are the complete anti-thesis of nice guys. Can I be a nice guy and attain success? In fact, early in my career, I was told that I can't succeed just by being a nice guy and that is again proven by an official outing yesterday and some chitchat I heard today. Well, so much for humanity.
I do need to say, it is interesting to know that Tolkein wrote his books because he wanted to reinspire humanity. Its really great to know someone with similar aspirations being successful, but he has advantages. I don't. But like him, I know it is not easy.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Bulldozer in action
Yes, the recovery is here. The bulldozer is here, fueled by the infinite dollar printing machine that is built just to bail out the banks. And what's more important, the banks don't need a bail out and now, our money is just used to destroy shorts like myself so that I will get destroyed by the same crooks twice. Now, that does not sound like the American Dream.
The pristine vision that USA gave everyone around the world is shown clearly here, corrupt and despicable. From arm twisting Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch to allowing AIG to write down losses 60 billion dollars without failing, most of which goes to other banks like Goldman Sachs.
The wonderful thing is that Obama is still regarded highly and considered the savior by everyone outside USA. What is funny is that the market is buying it, just like the rest of the world. Here is a few points I want to note. I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm illogical. Maybe ranting a bit, but not illogical.
The pristine vision that USA gave everyone around the world is shown clearly here, corrupt and despicable. From arm twisting Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch to allowing AIG to write down losses 60 billion dollars without failing, most of which goes to other banks like Goldman Sachs.
The wonderful thing is that Obama is still regarded highly and considered the savior by everyone outside USA. What is funny is that the market is buying it, just like the rest of the world. Here is a few points I want to note. I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm illogical. Maybe ranting a bit, but not illogical.
- Unemployment is high
- US GDP is consumer driven so far
- US productivity goes down and hence GDP
- Banks are not lending as much as before, hence, hurting businesses
- Banks have a lot of bad loans which might be highly leveraged, which might render them insolvent
- Small banks are failing every Friday, politically so to reduce the impact on the stock market
- Small businesses lose their access to a local banking system and facilitate
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Alpha to Omega 1
I remember the Alpha to Omega that I once heard, the start to the end. I have been wondering for a while whether a truly stable society can exist. What system should it be? What structure will it take up? The fact that humans have lived through so many dark ages probably mean that life in itself is perfect, since the ones that will struggle to live will continue to create opportunities for evolution to continue. Then again, when all the animals and fish die out due to consumption from overpopulation, perhaps humans will then have a survival issue, to which the solution is cannibalism. Not a good train of though there. But anyway, I'm thinking of our worst enemy of this time of the year, bankers.
Based off what I read, though lightly, human societies started from hunter-gathering while some settled onto agriculture. Logically, if humans started from scratch, hunter-gathering plausible, with crops coming in as knowledge of survival improves. Now then, we will start to have villages, towns and cities, but lets not head too fast into the 21st century.
So based on each person's skill, people will need to band together like other mammals do to gather a variety of "nutrients", from construction materials to plain simple food. People will have to trade, bar the ruthless head pounding and rock throwing fights to decide who gets more or less. So they traded, presumably using the science of their time. This science improved over time and now we almost forget the beginning of time where our ancestors are running around bare chested, waving them off as cavemen. Hey, these guys created we guys and gals.
Anyway, back to the building blocks. People settle down, grow crops, create machinery, provided services and started trading, through barter or money as a proxy for value. And since money is needed in substantial amounts to substantiate a frictionless trade, we need someone to do accounting, and hence the banking industry. As population grew, the need to create more money for lubricating trade increases. After all, if we started with ten men and ten dollars, now, what happens if we have a hundred men? And as the facilitator of the accounting of money, banks grow, seemingly more powerful.
Over time, people forget that the real meaning of money is to lubricate the frictional transactions of trade and view them as the source of power, hence making bankers the most powerful people of all, giving them huge says over everything from politics to mere living. Living as in the economy, not just staying alive. I believe that the worst of the recession might be more cruel than any mass murdering that we have seen, since the recession is destroying livelihoods.
Let me use an arbitrary example, totally out of whack on purpose. The recession have brought a rise to pregnancy prevention awareness. I can't remember where I read this, but I know it for a fact, being one of those careful planners myself. Now, I have cruelly decided that I should not bring my baby to Earth (at least not now) because I am not confident he/she will have a good life. Since I'm sure many people made the same decision, that means many lives are "lost". Can I blame the loss of my baby's life (time) on the government? Since I am no political authority, I'm pretty sure my letters goes straight to the politician's shredder anyway.
It's a bit radical, but imagine this...With population growth dwindling, what will the future generation decide on if they think they cannot survive under the current system? Is it that the system is wrong? Did we have the wrong people with the wrong visions that led us down this path? Are we in a vicious cycle that will end humanity? Of course, not in my mind totally, since humans will seek a radical change to find a system that works for them. Haven't our ancestors survived the dark ages?
Well, its a bit of my thoughts, but I feel that given the massive technology advantage that we have over our forefathers, we should use it in important things like food and energy production and conservation. Not through laws, but through government backed research and directions. We don't need the whole world to be filled with solar panels and end up like Spain, nor be restricted like Europe in carbon taxes, but we still need a careful and calculated push into renewable energy.
Most common man do not want to fiddle with politics, but they do not want to go hungry or cold or every other inconvenience brought by the lack of food and energy either. Just like how our cavemen fathers and mothers. They progressed into what we are today driven by the need to survive. With today's crisis at hand, is that drive enough?
Hence, to conclude the essay I wrote. The Economy CREATED the banking system, not the other way round. Banking is NOT the economy. The banks should have failed with mark to market. Not all, but some at least, to create a good political foundation to redefine how they should work, and everyone HAVE VERY RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that that happens.
Also, as a bonus, the government is the same as the banks, a creation of the evolution of man and its economy, NOT the entirety of man itself. If the government are pillaging what's left of the constitution, they should be removed. Every game can be gamed, even politics and the constitution. I may not be smart enough to do it, but no one should be allowed to abuse other human beings, even with the constitution behind them.
By the way, at the time of this post, I read that the government is hiring hackers to solidify their IT defense. Pretty neat if you ask me, but what happens if a corrupt system uses such a powerful tool?
Based off what I read, though lightly, human societies started from hunter-gathering while some settled onto agriculture. Logically, if humans started from scratch, hunter-gathering plausible, with crops coming in as knowledge of survival improves. Now then, we will start to have villages, towns and cities, but lets not head too fast into the 21st century.
So based on each person's skill, people will need to band together like other mammals do to gather a variety of "nutrients", from construction materials to plain simple food. People will have to trade, bar the ruthless head pounding and rock throwing fights to decide who gets more or less. So they traded, presumably using the science of their time. This science improved over time and now we almost forget the beginning of time where our ancestors are running around bare chested, waving them off as cavemen. Hey, these guys created we guys and gals.
Anyway, back to the building blocks. People settle down, grow crops, create machinery, provided services and started trading, through barter or money as a proxy for value. And since money is needed in substantial amounts to substantiate a frictionless trade, we need someone to do accounting, and hence the banking industry. As population grew, the need to create more money for lubricating trade increases. After all, if we started with ten men and ten dollars, now, what happens if we have a hundred men? And as the facilitator of the accounting of money, banks grow, seemingly more powerful.
Over time, people forget that the real meaning of money is to lubricate the frictional transactions of trade and view them as the source of power, hence making bankers the most powerful people of all, giving them huge says over everything from politics to mere living. Living as in the economy, not just staying alive. I believe that the worst of the recession might be more cruel than any mass murdering that we have seen, since the recession is destroying livelihoods.
Let me use an arbitrary example, totally out of whack on purpose. The recession have brought a rise to pregnancy prevention awareness. I can't remember where I read this, but I know it for a fact, being one of those careful planners myself. Now, I have cruelly decided that I should not bring my baby to Earth (at least not now) because I am not confident he/she will have a good life. Since I'm sure many people made the same decision, that means many lives are "lost". Can I blame the loss of my baby's life (time) on the government? Since I am no political authority, I'm pretty sure my letters goes straight to the politician's shredder anyway.
It's a bit radical, but imagine this...With population growth dwindling, what will the future generation decide on if they think they cannot survive under the current system? Is it that the system is wrong? Did we have the wrong people with the wrong visions that led us down this path? Are we in a vicious cycle that will end humanity? Of course, not in my mind totally, since humans will seek a radical change to find a system that works for them. Haven't our ancestors survived the dark ages?
Well, its a bit of my thoughts, but I feel that given the massive technology advantage that we have over our forefathers, we should use it in important things like food and energy production and conservation. Not through laws, but through government backed research and directions. We don't need the whole world to be filled with solar panels and end up like Spain, nor be restricted like Europe in carbon taxes, but we still need a careful and calculated push into renewable energy.
Most common man do not want to fiddle with politics, but they do not want to go hungry or cold or every other inconvenience brought by the lack of food and energy either. Just like how our cavemen fathers and mothers. They progressed into what we are today driven by the need to survive. With today's crisis at hand, is that drive enough?
Hence, to conclude the essay I wrote. The Economy CREATED the banking system, not the other way round. Banking is NOT the economy. The banks should have failed with mark to market. Not all, but some at least, to create a good political foundation to redefine how they should work, and everyone HAVE VERY RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that that happens.
Also, as a bonus, the government is the same as the banks, a creation of the evolution of man and its economy, NOT the entirety of man itself. If the government are pillaging what's left of the constitution, they should be removed. Every game can be gamed, even politics and the constitution. I may not be smart enough to do it, but no one should be allowed to abuse other human beings, even with the constitution behind them.
By the way, at the time of this post, I read that the government is hiring hackers to solidify their IT defense. Pretty neat if you ask me, but what happens if a corrupt system uses such a powerful tool?
Bleached...
I'm not sure how many people knows the manga Bleach. It's pretty popular, as like many manga that I read, Naruto, Slam Dunk and the like. But I think Bleach is starting to suffer from the all-too-common power race to oblivion. What do I mean?
Let's use a famous example. Dragon Ball Z (DBZ). It's popularity was unreal, to the point I would compare it to the Michael Jackson of manga, comparing peak to peak. Basically, when you have movies using snippets of the manga, you know if crazy popular. It's like a crisis-of-the-month type of comic, and the difficulty grows more and more unreal.
I vividly remember that the author repeated a few tricks to gave the protagonist victory. But, however strong a character is in DBZ, there is a rule to the manga. Every unique character can only be revived thrice. So the protagonist died twice through his many battles. Then, like always, he stepped up against his latest challenge, another godlike being.
And he died. And almost everyone else died. And no one had a way to win. Then the "gods", knowing nothing else will work, changed the "3 revival" rule and that allowed the hero to win. Then the manga instantly fell into oblivion. Well, manga enthusiasts still know the manga, just that the buzz was flatlined.
Well, back to Bleach. I read the latest part where the protagonist just won again, obviously after being killed. Note, this manga does not have a revive rule at all. Meaning death equals to death and nothing else. Zilch. No other possibility. The manga did give the hero some special powers, which has something to do with death, but not after death. Hence, when the hero stood up to continue fighting, win and then revived. Now, that sounds like nearing the end already, but here's the extra kick in the teeth. The one the hero beat was not the strongest, and the minors are starting to lose. Protracting the knowledge that the good guys never lose...Huh?! What sort of story is that?
Now...you are not expecting me to read a ridiculous way a person will win, right? I think I have enough of the almighty "invisible hand of the market"...So reading nonsense from the US politics, economy and bank "truths" is enough nonsense for me already. Oh, and for those nonsense, I would really appreciate the knowledge that a lot of the nationalization nonsense is again untrue based on what Geithner has said. With so many who just want to do the right thing, why isn't the government using these valuable data? Or is it that the government is the one that messed up?
Let's use a famous example. Dragon Ball Z (DBZ). It's popularity was unreal, to the point I would compare it to the Michael Jackson of manga, comparing peak to peak. Basically, when you have movies using snippets of the manga, you know if crazy popular. It's like a crisis-of-the-month type of comic, and the difficulty grows more and more unreal.
I vividly remember that the author repeated a few tricks to gave the protagonist victory. But, however strong a character is in DBZ, there is a rule to the manga. Every unique character can only be revived thrice. So the protagonist died twice through his many battles. Then, like always, he stepped up against his latest challenge, another godlike being.
And he died. And almost everyone else died. And no one had a way to win. Then the "gods", knowing nothing else will work, changed the "3 revival" rule and that allowed the hero to win. Then the manga instantly fell into oblivion. Well, manga enthusiasts still know the manga, just that the buzz was flatlined.
Well, back to Bleach. I read the latest part where the protagonist just won again, obviously after being killed. Note, this manga does not have a revive rule at all. Meaning death equals to death and nothing else. Zilch. No other possibility. The manga did give the hero some special powers, which has something to do with death, but not after death. Hence, when the hero stood up to continue fighting, win and then revived. Now, that sounds like nearing the end already, but here's the extra kick in the teeth. The one the hero beat was not the strongest, and the minors are starting to lose. Protracting the knowledge that the good guys never lose...Huh?! What sort of story is that?
Now...you are not expecting me to read a ridiculous way a person will win, right? I think I have enough of the almighty "invisible hand of the market"...So reading nonsense from the US politics, economy and bank "truths" is enough nonsense for me already. Oh, and for those nonsense, I would really appreciate the knowledge that a lot of the nationalization nonsense is again untrue based on what Geithner has said. With so many who just want to do the right thing, why isn't the government using these valuable data? Or is it that the government is the one that messed up?
To Quintuple Or Not
Well, its about seeing a quintuple. That's from Man Utd. Because, Everton is playing them in the FA Cup semi final. Everton last won it in 1995 and even if we beat Man Utd, we still have to beat Chelsea. I think we have a chance of doing it, since Chelsea will play Arsenal again, Barcelona twice and us before the FA Cup final, while we only have Chelsea, Man Utd in this tie and nothing else to play for. So if we win, we technically can sleep for the rest of the season until we play Chelsea in the final. Still, chances are in need.
Then, if we lose, the chances of seeing a quintuple is also in need. Man Utd have to meet Arsenal THREE times before the FA Cup final, and need to beat them in aggregate in two of them, before meeting either one of Chelsea or Barcelona. In essence, they have four important games, including the game tomorrow before they can set history. In reality, I want them to do that so that Liverpool definitely have no chance to be the first to do that. Sigh, if only their UCL opponent is someone like the current Sporting Lisbon team. Or maybe Liverpool can just roll over. One thing Man Utd can be happy about is that if Chelsea is the winner of the UCL semis, they have an easier schedule running into the finals, provided they beat Arsenal.
Oh, on a side note, the UCL has a very interesting sidebar. We could see a rematch of the 2008 or the 2006 final. Of course, people have been rambling about what will happen if Chelsea wins, or that Hiddink is the hero despite performing only as well as Grant, but what IF, Arsenal beats Barcelona? Henry left Arsenal to win titles, most particularly, the UCL. After he got to Barcelona, they lost La Liga, maybe they will win this year, but what IF Arsenal nicked it from them?
The only other pairing that is interesting is Man Utd-Barcelona, though I think Man Utd would prefer Chelsea to win. We know the problems with Arsenal and how Chelsea could exploit their youthful inexperience. Like Wenger said, "When you are so close and you are 20 years of age I don't know why you would be desperate." Winning the UCL will be a HUGE bonus for his twenty year selling club, noting that they are already happy to be in UCL through a top four finish. Of course, you always want to win, and if they win, they will need to juggle between playing the top three and not letting fourth place slip. Barcelona, of course, will also have a difficult schedule. But with the two horse race as it is, its only making sure that they crank the pressure on Real and hope they slip up. I mean, so that they could break away, since they are top already. That match will be mouth watering too. Imagine, the top three young prospects playing against each other...at the biggest stage.
Ah, what should I do? If the opponent is Chelsea or Arsenal, maybe it would have been an easier decision! Not to mention that Pistons are not really a real chance for any celebrations this year. Well, there is always next year.
Then, if we lose, the chances of seeing a quintuple is also in need. Man Utd have to meet Arsenal THREE times before the FA Cup final, and need to beat them in aggregate in two of them, before meeting either one of Chelsea or Barcelona. In essence, they have four important games, including the game tomorrow before they can set history. In reality, I want them to do that so that Liverpool definitely have no chance to be the first to do that. Sigh, if only their UCL opponent is someone like the current Sporting Lisbon team. Or maybe Liverpool can just roll over. One thing Man Utd can be happy about is that if Chelsea is the winner of the UCL semis, they have an easier schedule running into the finals, provided they beat Arsenal.
Oh, on a side note, the UCL has a very interesting sidebar. We could see a rematch of the 2008 or the 2006 final. Of course, people have been rambling about what will happen if Chelsea wins, or that Hiddink is the hero despite performing only as well as Grant, but what IF, Arsenal beats Barcelona? Henry left Arsenal to win titles, most particularly, the UCL. After he got to Barcelona, they lost La Liga, maybe they will win this year, but what IF Arsenal nicked it from them?
The only other pairing that is interesting is Man Utd-Barcelona, though I think Man Utd would prefer Chelsea to win. We know the problems with Arsenal and how Chelsea could exploit their youthful inexperience. Like Wenger said, "When you are so close and you are 20 years of age I don't know why you would be desperate." Winning the UCL will be a HUGE bonus for his twenty year selling club, noting that they are already happy to be in UCL through a top four finish. Of course, you always want to win, and if they win, they will need to juggle between playing the top three and not letting fourth place slip. Barcelona, of course, will also have a difficult schedule. But with the two horse race as it is, its only making sure that they crank the pressure on Real and hope they slip up. I mean, so that they could break away, since they are top already. That match will be mouth watering too. Imagine, the top three young prospects playing against each other...at the biggest stage.
Ah, what should I do? If the opponent is Chelsea or Arsenal, maybe it would have been an easier decision! Not to mention that Pistons are not really a real chance for any celebrations this year. Well, there is always next year.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
End Of Bear?
I stumbled upon a website called dshort and came across a few posts. One was the famous bear charts. Another was the bottoming process for bear markets. According to it, we are in our sixth month, with a range of six weeks to eight months since 1950. I think it is not correct to say that we are near the end.
From what I remember favorably about USA since 1950, the people here have been very vocal and active to point out their disfavor of any form of bad policy making. I think that negated any bad interventionist approach that came its way since 1950. My impression of the 1930s is the big government effect, which is what we are experiencing now. The Fe(e)d and Treas(on)ury can pump as much liquidity as they like, all for the sake of recapitalizing badly managed banks. Furthermore, people nowadays are withdrawn from politics. Additionally, a depression is a worldwide phenomena, so unlike recessions since 1950, there is no other place to load up developed debt and write them off with the blink of the eye. That is why, I like the bottoming to be near, say another two months, but I see no fundamental truth to that.
Anyway, I want to reiterate my disgust for Goldman. Of all the tricks that a bank can use, like squeezing losses to a certain time period and raise reserves, piling losses on a "orphan" month (December 2008) is quite blatantly the cheapest trick ever to be shown in public. Sadly, the world market bought into that and rallied. Fortunately, I was enlightened by Jason that Goldman can only change reporting standards once. But then, rules are made by humans, so if they are less than responsible...
Well, my shorts probably might be killed, but at least show me productive wealth creation, not creative wealth production (think BAD movie remakes). My stand is pretty much set and will remain as such.
A stock market is an exchange for people to invest in productive companies, most often judged by the profitability of the company, thereby increasing the capability of the company to be more productive through capital infusion by selling shares. Banks already have a supply of capital and should not be reliant on third party cash infusion, hence the lack of need to be in the market. Also, being the better of balancing capital compared to industrial companies, the industrial is like a boy pitted against an adult in number crunching. Therefore, I don't see the need for (deposit) banks to be listed. Hm, I'm starting to like credit unions more...
From what I remember favorably about USA since 1950, the people here have been very vocal and active to point out their disfavor of any form of bad policy making. I think that negated any bad interventionist approach that came its way since 1950. My impression of the 1930s is the big government effect, which is what we are experiencing now. The Fe(e)d and Treas(on)ury can pump as much liquidity as they like, all for the sake of recapitalizing badly managed banks. Furthermore, people nowadays are withdrawn from politics. Additionally, a depression is a worldwide phenomena, so unlike recessions since 1950, there is no other place to load up developed debt and write them off with the blink of the eye. That is why, I like the bottoming to be near, say another two months, but I see no fundamental truth to that.
Anyway, I want to reiterate my disgust for Goldman. Of all the tricks that a bank can use, like squeezing losses to a certain time period and raise reserves, piling losses on a "orphan" month (December 2008) is quite blatantly the cheapest trick ever to be shown in public. Sadly, the world market bought into that and rallied. Fortunately, I was enlightened by Jason that Goldman can only change reporting standards once. But then, rules are made by humans, so if they are less than responsible...
Well, my shorts probably might be killed, but at least show me productive wealth creation, not creative wealth production (think BAD movie remakes). My stand is pretty much set and will remain as such.
A stock market is an exchange for people to invest in productive companies, most often judged by the profitability of the company, thereby increasing the capability of the company to be more productive through capital infusion by selling shares. Banks already have a supply of capital and should not be reliant on third party cash infusion, hence the lack of need to be in the market. Also, being the better of balancing capital compared to industrial companies, the industrial is like a boy pitted against an adult in number crunching. Therefore, I don't see the need for (deposit) banks to be listed. Hm, I'm starting to like credit unions more...
Monday, April 13, 2009
Gold Standard
I got a pretty good lesson today. I have always overestimated Gold production, even though I understood the lack of liquidity. Mike and Matt reminded me that the Gold standard is very different from Fiat money. Well, of course, what am I thinking? Too much manga. They can have quite a lot of Gold in them. Wait, that's fantasy, not real life. But it does remind me that alchemy was once thought to be science, for the same reason of increasing money supply...
Then again, my shorts got killed again, and Goldman reported FABULOUS earnings. Guess what, from what I read, they missed, on a 4 month basis rather than just Q1. So happens that their rollover from an investment bank to a regular bank will phase out December 2008, which they wrote a huge loss down, so Q1 plus December is $1.24 ($3.39-$2.15), which is way below $1.60. Even if we compare Q1 to Q1, using the same months as comparison, it points to a sharp decline over last year's Q1 and at best a Quarter-(2)-To-Date flat YOY performance.
WOW! From cook the books to cook the calendar. I wonder whether they will do the same to skip some other months? If only the real cooks are THAT creative. I haven't got the whole story yet, but I hope the tide will start turning for me. And someone...please dump these frauds in jail!
On a side note, AIG is saying that the outcry will hurt their business and damage the chances they pay back to the people. On the sympathetic note, I agree and I must say that witchhunts typically crucify the ones that are less guilty. On the other, perhaps they should open up all their books and DOJ can start hunting the REAL culprits, like former boards, CEOs, CFOs and other coo COOs. You can't blame others if you are unwilling to blow the whistle on the wolves, right?
Then again, my shorts got killed again, and Goldman reported FABULOUS earnings. Guess what, from what I read, they missed, on a 4 month basis rather than just Q1. So happens that their rollover from an investment bank to a regular bank will phase out December 2008, which they wrote a huge loss down, so Q1 plus December is $1.24 ($3.39-$2.15), which is way below $1.60. Even if we compare Q1 to Q1, using the same months as comparison, it points to a sharp decline over last year's Q1 and at best a Quarter-(2)-To-Date flat YOY performance.
WOW! From cook the books to cook the calendar. I wonder whether they will do the same to skip some other months? If only the real cooks are THAT creative. I haven't got the whole story yet, but I hope the tide will start turning for me. And someone...please dump these frauds in jail!
On a side note, AIG is saying that the outcry will hurt their business and damage the chances they pay back to the people. On the sympathetic note, I agree and I must say that witchhunts typically crucify the ones that are less guilty. On the other, perhaps they should open up all their books and DOJ can start hunting the REAL culprits, like former boards, CEOs, CFOs and other coo COOs. You can't blame others if you are unwilling to blow the whistle on the wolves, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
