Recent comments by Blackhalo

sporkfed wrote:

the Union wages should have spurred better production method through
automation.

I don't doubt that there was a lot of Luddite-like resistance to automation from the unions. Alas, what really put them on the ropes, in my view was, planned obsolescence.

sporkfed wrote:

I think it's a bit of a cop out to blame the Unions for the quality control failures .

Those wages and benefits need to come from somewhere, and not from shareholder profits...

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

I'm sure there's a better Realtorism they could have used.

Fox News like flooring?

energyecon wrote:

The losses are certain, but the fight over who will bear them continues.

Even future losses get fought over.

Wall Street Seeks to Tuck Dodd-Frank Changes in Budget Bill - NYTimes.com

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

It's not even a debt you can live in!

Can you re-fi it to today's new lower rates?

dwg0129 wrote:

How will these millennials afford homes...

From the leveraged appreciation of the asset, of course.

arthur_dent wrote:

found the Japanese the least threatened by foreign ideas...

Any luck applying for citizenship? Or a work visa?

josap wrote:

expected to move nearly 7%

if the stock rises above $118.83 or falls below $103.43.

That is a heck of a range needed, to get in the black on that straddle.

arthur_dent wrote:

Japan who have spent lavishly on infrastructure...

In an isolationist, xenophobic, negative population growth environment...

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

just an unforeseen side effect

You think OPEC members like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have had their fill of military strong-men and their sabre rattling over energy interests?

Oman wrote:

shale financing paper?

If the refiners demand is off, what good does it do to add even more supply? Now loading up on iPhone 6s, that would be the trick.

Oman wrote:

The prospective riders would have to provide selfies though......

So a Tinder Uber merger? Tuber?

Chicago Dude wrote:

Anecdotal evidence that they aren't struggling to meet demand.

Hmm. That IS interesting. The 3 iPhone folks in our group of six all got theirs in the first month after release. Have they reduced price yet from launch?

The rest of us are sane, and prefer Android. Wink

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Just as safe? RUN!

Was that in the Maddoff fund prospectus?

sum luk wrote:

… do corporations attend church ?

That tax exempt status thing...

Rob Dawg wrote:

blowout positive numbers.

My anecdotal view of all my iPhone acquaintances with a new 6, leads me to believe they will be fine. MSFT until X comes out, is a different story.

adornosghost wrote:

Pretty nasty day at he Dog Track.

Pretty mild compared to what happens if AAPL misses.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

housing IS the new economy.

It's the bets on things you DON'T own, that are the new economy. So MBS and especially their derivatives. Kind of nice of the Fed to put a floor on those MBS.

Mike in Long Island wrote:

avoid contact with the poors.

But isn't lording ones wealth and status over the help and the poors half the fun?

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

private security detail...

An AEGIS battery on every mansion might be a bit pricey.

arthur_dent wrote:

economists and CBs

Price controls? Remember when is was just Oil and wages, not exotic derivatives....

Yoringe wrote:

He would regulate himself? :HaHa:

Those aren't the drones he wants to regulate... The ones you can buy off the shelf are the ones the .001% are concerned about. Mixing that with a cell phone GPS app and some kind of payload, is the kind of thing that even the Kochs could get behind regulating.

energyecon wrote:

In the past bondholders have gotten haircuts...

On the Greek stuff? I think any value > 0, is quite a premium. And as I recall, for some reason it was only a select group that took a hit, and they were reimbursed via other incentives. I doubt any CDS were actually triggered.

adornosghost wrote:

The "unpriced" will be corrected to correctly priced.

Usually with a bit of an overshoot, barring central bank intervention.

adornosghost wrote:

risk might be good.

Unpriced risk, is rarely good.

JP wrote:

smooth Tuesday open

Looking a the futures... not so smooth.

sm_landlord wrote:

NY.

That's where all the important people live. Well there L.A. and D.C.

Tom Stone wrote:

Most super bowl parties are about eating too much, watching the commercials and getting drunk.

And a few friendly wagers on the outcome too, perhaps?

sm_landlord wrote:

Euro-QE

Why don't the Swiss do it?

RE wrote:

SNB had no choice but to unpeg.

No QE? Everyone else seems to be doing it.

josap wrote:

We don't need no education.

A bunch of blue hairs in sun city don't want to pay for the maids kids...

Jackdawracy wrote:

rarely would I come across a pizzeria offering good old pepperoni as we know it

Mexican food in Mexico...

Cinco-X wrote:

Fair point...but you'd think they'd have learned...

Russia's check must have bounced.

You know what might fix this? (R) threatening a government shutdown...

Antipodes wrote:

Yep. One of the worst I've seen is lamb (mutton, really) and potato pizza.

Can you grow tomatoes in the Shire? Or do you just use Kiwi sauce?

Doc Holiday wrote:

==> It's just simple third grade accounting

If the Dollar goes up in value, do houses go down? This Swiss thing, could be interesting.

sm_landlord wrote:

the Fed can't raise short rates without inverting the yield curve.

I take it that an inverted yield curve is a BAD thing?

Historically, inversions of the yield curve have preceded many of the U.S. recessions. Due to this historical correlation, the yield curve is often seen as an accurate forecast of the turning points of the business cycle. A recent example is when the U.S. Treasury yield curve inverted in 2000 just before the U.S. equity markets collapsed. An inverse yield curve predicts lower interest rates in the future as longer-term bonds are being demanded, sending the yields down.

Inverted Yield Curve Definition | Investopedia

Well I guess the Fed will just need to lower short term interest rates.

How much can the Dollar appreciate in value, without tanking the economy?

How does that impact the Fed's or other banks balance sheet, if they get paid on MBS in tomorrows more valuable Dollars? I'm kind of glad now that I have 25% of my portfolio in a T-bond fund.. Now I just need a pull-back in equities.

Cinco-X wrote:

Didn't work very well for him...

Where is a Volker, when you need one?

The Republican Strategy to Deregulate Wall Street (Again) | BillMoyers.com

The initial target is the Volcker Rule, which limits the ability of mega-banks to place very large proprietary bets – and their ability to incur massive losses, with big negative consequences for the rest of us. It was that type of Wall Street risk-taking that led to the 2008 financial crisis. But we should expect the House Republican strategy to be applied more broadly, including all kinds of measures that will reduce capital requirements (i.e., making it easier for the largest banks to fund themselves with relatively more debt and less equity, taking more risk while remaining Too Big To Fail and thus benefiting from larger implicit government subsidies.)

Jackdawracy wrote:

the only thing Tricky Dick couldn't put price stability on

Well, that's what happens when there are more notes outstanding than gold in the bank.

The Goldsmiths Tale - YouTube

Feckless Ness wrote:

Careful. That borders on an argument for price stability.

Where is a Nixon when you need one.

Antipodes wrote:

Super computers don't write their own code.

Self-modifying code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some neat stuff in this field. Something about a million automated monkeys at a keyboard.

Cinco-X wrote:

I wonder who thought this was a good idea?

Someone without any real regulatory oversight, I am sure. Wink

azurite wrote:

defense contracts?

Eisenhower had some thoughts on that. I doubt they are profitable without them.

Cinco-X wrote:

they were operating outside of regulatory oversight.

I see you found the flaw. Maddoff and Corzine were sloppy.

azurite wrote:

DoD itself hasn't managed a full audit in at least 15 years.

I bet there are more ex-Colonels working for Boeing, than ex-regulators, working for Goldman, and they ain't pilots...

Mike_PNW wrote:

Canada is a good model to start from..15% fed income tax and that only applies to business conducted within Canada.

The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commision, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent.

That's a hell of a tax break. How do you make up the lost revenue?

Does the U.S. have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world? | PunditFact

And why would an employer provide health-care if you get rid of the deduction?

Tax deductions -- on health insurance, pensions, and investment returns, for example -- allow corporations to reduce the pool of taxable profits.

Cinco-X wrote:

That worked too until the Russian currency collapse...

Not REALLY a black swan. It's not like no one had never seen a currency collapse before.

Feckless Ness wrote:

How many IRS employees for Goldman

You mean prospective Goldman VP's that know the finance world inside and out? Where IS Timmy Geitner working now?

Geithner would join the private equity firm Warburg Pincus as president and managing director in March 2014

sm_landlord wrote:

tricky part for most is creating the phat 401k

Yeah, even a 401K has contribution limits. Must have been a 20 sigma event.