Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Being Right or Making Money



So, be sure to file this rumor under “just in case,” but IESB – who has been known to have connections at Lucasfilm in the past – is currently reporting that Lucas is “plotting to create” new Star Wars movies which would be released after the six three 3D re-releases and would take place far in the future, not relating to the Skywalkers. More after the jump? You bet we do.


“This is, of course, completely false,” Lucasfilm spokesman Josh Kushins wrote to Wired. “George Lucas has plenty of projects to keep him busy right now — including plenty of Star Wars projects — but there are no new Star Wars feature films planned.”


What are they going to say, though, right? “Damn it. You got us. George Lucas has a whole new pair of trilogies being planned for later this decade.” Let’s be serious. Whether or not this rumor is true or false, Lucasfilm has to deny it.


In the IESB piece, they back up their source by informing readers that they broke the news of Revenge of the Sith’s PG-13 rating, the live action TV show as well as The Clone Wars show. They believe that’s enough to substantiate the rumor.


Specifically, they report that while working on the 3D conversions of the new films, which will begin in 2012 with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Lucas “has gotten the itch.” He has “gotten motivated with the success the Clone Wars animated series, the video games and also with the success of Avatar.”


The sequels, not prequels, would not focus on the Skywalkers, but instead be set in the future. Same universe, but totally different story. By doing this, Lucas doesn’t have to fit pieces into a puzzle like he had to do with the prequels. And he has stated that that process was creatively constricting to him.


So, apparently, his plan is work on all the 3D movies, make several hundred million more dollars, then use that money to make new movies  – hopefully releasing the first one within a year or two of the Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi 3D release would would be in like 2017.


We know. This rumor is crazy. And we only report it as a rumor because it’s such a juicy one and it keeps coming up. But, one time, it’s bound to be true, right?


I can’t wait to read your comments on this one.


BR: Eloquent, insightful, lucid — why on earth would the filter catch this? Its the perfect comment !








  • markpmc Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    the title reminds me of the question greg maddux asked a rookie pitcher.

    “You trying to throw strikes or get people out?”








  • Liquidity Trader Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    ahab,


    The comment was from a traders perspective — it went right over your head.


    Not only do you impose your politics on a non-political post, you completely misunderstand it. And to magnify your foolishness, you are rude to our host in a way that reveals you to be a much bigger asshole than I previously imagined.


    This site is not for people like you — its for serious asset types. Try one of the Austrians sites,or ZH — they don’t care about making money.








  • mbelardes Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    After reading through the comments (I rarely see BR this active on the comments, by the way) I’ve come to the conlcusion that some of the commenters are here to learn about macro perspectives and data analysis as a part of money management and some are here to root against the money management sector altogether.


    This is why some of the posts where BR criticizes the market and market participants, such as firms and regulators, are so wildly popular and some of the sweet charts and data analysis get MAYBE a few dozen comments.








  • JasRas Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    I’m in the makin’ money business, and frankly this isn’t that hard!! Right or wrong, the Fed and other CB’s are doing some version of QE, monetary expansion, etc… My basic view is dollars are worth less and other things are worth more…other things mean stocks, commodities–including precious metals, etc. Things that promise to return your dollars at a latter date in exchange for a predictable cash flow (ie. fixed income) mean you are getting dollars back later at an unknown deflated value. The cash flow paid in no way is compensating you for that lost buying power. Now, you say, there is no inflation! Look at the CPI. Well….if you believe stats compiled by the government, good luck to you because assets that perform well in inflationary environments are doing well. What amount is inflation and what amount is debasement is not for me to figure out or care….


    Are we short term over bought? In all probability, yes. Is this market obliging people and “letting them in”? NO! My experience with rallies that “won’t let you in” is that they’ve got a ways to go. With so many institutional types underperforming, you are witnessing a rally most likely driven by career risk. But, again, the why is somewhat irrelevant. Are you going to watch, or are you going to participate? Are you long? Are you long enough?


    The interesting thing I see is the TNX is still hitting record low yields on the 10yr… Someone is going to be wrong, and in a big way because these rubberbands only stretch sooooo far. Is it stocks or is it fixed? One could argue that both are overbought right now. Gold too for that matter. Something somewhere is going to take a breather. Which do you want to be wrong on. You want to top-tick fixed income? Gold? Or a stock market that still isn’t up to the April highs? I can tell you which one is easiest to get forgiveness for…equities.


    Good luck to all.








  • davver Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    Barry,


    The essential problem is how one is supposed to own assets they know are overpriced. If you believe equities are overpriced then you are playing a greater fools game. How are you to know when you aren’t the greatest fool?


    “BTW, just because you are making money in other sectors, does not mean you CANNOT make money in equities.


    Making money in Gold or Bonds (ala my pal David Rosenberg) does not excuse missing a HUGE Equity rally.”


    Can’t you say the same thing about every bubble? Shouldn’t I have been flipping houses from 2003-2005. Shouldn’t you have been buying and then selling tech 1998-2000. The truth is you have no clue when a bubble is going to end. You could just as easily have seen the housing bubble or tech bubble end earlier or later then it did. There is no rationality to a bubble. Prices simply get more and more insane until they don’t anymore. They seem just as insane the whole way through. You can’t say you have some magic insight as to pinpoint when the insanity will stop.


    Look, I use technical investing and other indicators to try and pick my buy and sell points. But I buy things I think have good fundamentals and I sell them when I think they don’t anymore. The technical stuff just helps me pick specific entry/exit points on things I already feel good about. I don’t run out and buy assets I think are crap because some chart or sentiment indicator or gut feel makes me.


    When I was younger I put myself through college playing poker, which I feel is very similar to investing. I was a pretty conservative player. I read up on Sklansky, analyzed my hands logically, and played very mathematically. I was aggressive but didn’t naked bluff often just enough to keep people off balance and steal some pots. I was careful never to get too deep into a hand that was trouble. It was reliable profit.


    Some people are successful a very different way. They are extremely hyper aggressive and bluff constantly. They rely almost entirely on reading their opponent with little regard for their own cards. I’m sure that there are many people with a similar talent for trading financial instruments. They have a read on the tape. They can make money that way. However, like poker there are many people who think they can do that and can’t for every one that can. In fact I’d say its less likely in investing, as the sample size on investments is too small and the complexity too great.


    If you truly think you have the talent to pick the bottom and top of every single investment trend then congratulations. Me, I’ve got to be more humble. I’ve got to focus on things I understand and have a track record of success with. I’d rather stay away from things I consider dangerous that I don’t understand. So I don’t think its wrong to chase every single bubble. Like Rosenburg I’ve made decent profits in gold and bonds. And I didn’t lose any on the way down for equities, in fact I captured about half of the down leg as a short before covering. Maybe I didn’t quintuple my money, but I’ve done rather well, and with a very low amount of risk in my mind.








  • DiggidyDan Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    I’m just glad after liquidating a lot of my positions from the stock market due to not believing the economic recovery was sustainable, I kept my basic core holdings in stocks i still believed in that pay good dividends and have constant demand such as ADM, BDX, BHP, CVX, GSK, JNJ, MMM, SCCO(formerly PCU YEAH COPPER!) and UL. and halved the rest of the stuff between long term TIPS Bond funds (LTPZ and PRRRX) and an emergency fund in 3% yield MM account. Only problem is I had a couple unforseen blowups in BP and BAX due to non market catastrophes that stopped me out and cost me some big coin. I haven’t made much money over the last 3 years, but I haven’t lost any and I have beat the S&P 500.


    Only problem is, I lost 60 Large in the housing market and can’t refi at these low rates and took a pay cut.








  • call me ahab Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    “This site is not for people like you — its for serious asset types”


    laughable (and so full of self importance)- also you may want to consider a career in blog enforcement(as if BR can’t take care of himself)-


    also- where are my politics? Where were they mentioned in this thread?


    I guess you must have mind melded me from across your keyboard (and my guess is you still got it wrong)








  • Mark E Hoffer Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    “Regardless of how the rally concludes, the folks who missed an 85% generational run up in equities will pound their chests and say “See, we told you so!” And they will have made absolutely no money in the process.”–BR, above


    BR,


    ‘Equities’ are the ‘only investment’?


    why not run some DOW/Gold, or DOW/Silver, Charts to go with that?


    as Boockvar, rightly, was pointing out, recently, the SPX/CRBRIND, after the “strongest one-month Equity Rally since ’39″, is nearly 1 ..


    Hey, you’re better than that…








  • call me ahab Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    I ask:


    “what happens if the Fed doesn’t or is unable to oblige?”


    BR replies:


    “Then you sell.”


    I was looking for something more thorough (in a macro sense)- but I like this answer just on brevity alone








  • gman Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    Venn,

    I may use that rant in the near future…maybe at my firm…to the only person who is a “tea-party fellow traveler”…who also just happens to be the only trader of the 9 we have who is struggling!


    Well put!








  • Andy T Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    Boo-Yah Barry!








  • GYSC Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Barry,

    I appreciate you taking the time to post this and answer all the comments. I think I see better know how you look at things.








  • Andy T Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    It’s actually a good post BR. It does come across a little bit like “chest-thumping,” but sometimes the black and white pixels come across in a different way than the voice/tone in the head. We’ve all come across the wrong way in the written word.


    With that said, I think the S&P will trade below 900 before 12/31/2011. I’d take some friendly side-action on that proposition bet.








  • rootless Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Barry,


    We made money from March 09 til April 2010. Since then, we have mostly avoided losing money. Its been a good strategy.


    Well, good. I haven’t been doing so well for recent months. But it wasn’t my fault. My trading program did it.


    However, as of today, S&P500 is down only 4.7% from the peak in April. So my criticism stands. You say your approach is right, because you have made money since March 09, based on the performance mostly during the price run up. You say yourself the secular bear market has still to find its bottom. Right? And you think the market is overvalued based on metrics like CAPE? Then, I have to agree with some other commenter here, that you are playing the greater fool game. And, in addition to that, you ridicule the ones who are grumpy about it and don’t want to play along and have therefore “missed a 85% generational run up”. You basically say that everyone who participates in this game could have made huge profits. But this logic is flawed. A greater fool game can’t work and won’t have worked for everyone who has participated, after everything is said and done. It only works for some, the ones who are the first ones at the exits, you may belong to those, but it doesn’t work for many. It works for some because it doesn’t work for many. The gains for the ones are the losses for the other ones. The outcome this time won’t be different to the final outcome of the stock market and real estate bubble earlier this decade with misery for many. And the judgment over any investment approach will be spoken when the market cycle has come to its full closure, not based on the performance from the market lows in March 2009 to today.


    Your at least implicit advice that one should do it like you have done it, if one wants to make big gains in the stock market, is actually very bad advice, even if it has worked for you.



    Juan Williams: Fox <b>News</b> Lets &#39;Black Guy With A Hispanic Name&#39; Host <b>...</b>

    Juan Williams said Tuesday that he's still upset about his firing from NPR, and added that NPR does not understand the Fox News culture or audience. In an interview with Baltimore Sun columnist David Zurawik, Williams said he remains ...

    GM hiring nuggets: Alderson, Daniels, Ryan, Ricco etc.

    We don't yet know if new GM Sandy Alderson (the process is underway of making his hiring official with the commissioner's office and scheduling a news conference for either Friday or Tuesday) will turn the Mets into a championship team, ...

    World Series Game 1 Giants roster/lineup <b>news</b> | Extra Baggs

    The Giants haven't set their roster for Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, but I've been able to glean some information on which way Manager Bruce Bochy and.


    atlanta property management

    Juan Williams: Fox <b>News</b> Lets &#39;Black Guy With A Hispanic Name&#39; Host <b>...</b>

    Juan Williams said Tuesday that he's still upset about his firing from NPR, and added that NPR does not understand the Fox News culture or audience. In an interview with Baltimore Sun columnist David Zurawik, Williams said he remains ...

    GM hiring nuggets: Alderson, Daniels, Ryan, Ricco etc.

    We don't yet know if new GM Sandy Alderson (the process is underway of making his hiring official with the commissioner's office and scheduling a news conference for either Friday or Tuesday) will turn the Mets into a championship team, ...

    World Series Game 1 Giants roster/lineup <b>news</b> | Extra Baggs

    The Giants haven't set their roster for Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, but I've been able to glean some information on which way Manager Bruce Bochy and.




    So, be sure to file this rumor under “just in case,” but IESB – who has been known to have connections at Lucasfilm in the past – is currently reporting that Lucas is “plotting to create” new Star Wars movies which would be released after the six three 3D re-releases and would take place far in the future, not relating to the Skywalkers. More after the jump? You bet we do.


    “This is, of course, completely false,” Lucasfilm spokesman Josh Kushins wrote to Wired. “George Lucas has plenty of projects to keep him busy right now — including plenty of Star Wars projects — but there are no new Star Wars feature films planned.”


    What are they going to say, though, right? “Damn it. You got us. George Lucas has a whole new pair of trilogies being planned for later this decade.” Let’s be serious. Whether or not this rumor is true or false, Lucasfilm has to deny it.


    In the IESB piece, they back up their source by informing readers that they broke the news of Revenge of the Sith’s PG-13 rating, the live action TV show as well as The Clone Wars show. They believe that’s enough to substantiate the rumor.


    Specifically, they report that while working on the 3D conversions of the new films, which will begin in 2012 with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Lucas “has gotten the itch.” He has “gotten motivated with the success the Clone Wars animated series, the video games and also with the success of Avatar.”


    The sequels, not prequels, would not focus on the Skywalkers, but instead be set in the future. Same universe, but totally different story. By doing this, Lucas doesn’t have to fit pieces into a puzzle like he had to do with the prequels. And he has stated that that process was creatively constricting to him.


    So, apparently, his plan is work on all the 3D movies, make several hundred million more dollars, then use that money to make new movies  – hopefully releasing the first one within a year or two of the Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi 3D release would would be in like 2017.


    We know. This rumor is crazy. And we only report it as a rumor because it’s such a juicy one and it keeps coming up. But, one time, it’s bound to be true, right?


    I can’t wait to read your comments on this one.


    BR: Eloquent, insightful, lucid — why on earth would the filter catch this? Its the perfect comment !








  • markpmc Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    the title reminds me of the question greg maddux asked a rookie pitcher.

    “You trying to throw strikes or get people out?”








  • Liquidity Trader Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    ahab,


    The comment was from a traders perspective — it went right over your head.


    Not only do you impose your politics on a non-political post, you completely misunderstand it. And to magnify your foolishness, you are rude to our host in a way that reveals you to be a much bigger asshole than I previously imagined.


    This site is not for people like you — its for serious asset types. Try one of the Austrians sites,or ZH — they don’t care about making money.








  • mbelardes Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    After reading through the comments (I rarely see BR this active on the comments, by the way) I’ve come to the conlcusion that some of the commenters are here to learn about macro perspectives and data analysis as a part of money management and some are here to root against the money management sector altogether.


    This is why some of the posts where BR criticizes the market and market participants, such as firms and regulators, are so wildly popular and some of the sweet charts and data analysis get MAYBE a few dozen comments.








  • JasRas Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    I’m in the makin’ money business, and frankly this isn’t that hard!! Right or wrong, the Fed and other CB’s are doing some version of QE, monetary expansion, etc… My basic view is dollars are worth less and other things are worth more…other things mean stocks, commodities–including precious metals, etc. Things that promise to return your dollars at a latter date in exchange for a predictable cash flow (ie. fixed income) mean you are getting dollars back later at an unknown deflated value. The cash flow paid in no way is compensating you for that lost buying power. Now, you say, there is no inflation! Look at the CPI. Well….if you believe stats compiled by the government, good luck to you because assets that perform well in inflationary environments are doing well. What amount is inflation and what amount is debasement is not for me to figure out or care….


    Are we short term over bought? In all probability, yes. Is this market obliging people and “letting them in”? NO! My experience with rallies that “won’t let you in” is that they’ve got a ways to go. With so many institutional types underperforming, you are witnessing a rally most likely driven by career risk. But, again, the why is somewhat irrelevant. Are you going to watch, or are you going to participate? Are you long? Are you long enough?


    The interesting thing I see is the TNX is still hitting record low yields on the 10yr… Someone is going to be wrong, and in a big way because these rubberbands only stretch sooooo far. Is it stocks or is it fixed? One could argue that both are overbought right now. Gold too for that matter. Something somewhere is going to take a breather. Which do you want to be wrong on. You want to top-tick fixed income? Gold? Or a stock market that still isn’t up to the April highs? I can tell you which one is easiest to get forgiveness for…equities.


    Good luck to all.








  • davver Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    Barry,


    The essential problem is how one is supposed to own assets they know are overpriced. If you believe equities are overpriced then you are playing a greater fools game. How are you to know when you aren’t the greatest fool?


    “BTW, just because you are making money in other sectors, does not mean you CANNOT make money in equities.


    Making money in Gold or Bonds (ala my pal David Rosenberg) does not excuse missing a HUGE Equity rally.”


    Can’t you say the same thing about every bubble? Shouldn’t I have been flipping houses from 2003-2005. Shouldn’t you have been buying and then selling tech 1998-2000. The truth is you have no clue when a bubble is going to end. You could just as easily have seen the housing bubble or tech bubble end earlier or later then it did. There is no rationality to a bubble. Prices simply get more and more insane until they don’t anymore. They seem just as insane the whole way through. You can’t say you have some magic insight as to pinpoint when the insanity will stop.


    Look, I use technical investing and other indicators to try and pick my buy and sell points. But I buy things I think have good fundamentals and I sell them when I think they don’t anymore. The technical stuff just helps me pick specific entry/exit points on things I already feel good about. I don’t run out and buy assets I think are crap because some chart or sentiment indicator or gut feel makes me.


    When I was younger I put myself through college playing poker, which I feel is very similar to investing. I was a pretty conservative player. I read up on Sklansky, analyzed my hands logically, and played very mathematically. I was aggressive but didn’t naked bluff often just enough to keep people off balance and steal some pots. I was careful never to get too deep into a hand that was trouble. It was reliable profit.


    Some people are successful a very different way. They are extremely hyper aggressive and bluff constantly. They rely almost entirely on reading their opponent with little regard for their own cards. I’m sure that there are many people with a similar talent for trading financial instruments. They have a read on the tape. They can make money that way. However, like poker there are many people who think they can do that and can’t for every one that can. In fact I’d say its less likely in investing, as the sample size on investments is too small and the complexity too great.


    If you truly think you have the talent to pick the bottom and top of every single investment trend then congratulations. Me, I’ve got to be more humble. I’ve got to focus on things I understand and have a track record of success with. I’d rather stay away from things I consider dangerous that I don’t understand. So I don’t think its wrong to chase every single bubble. Like Rosenburg I’ve made decent profits in gold and bonds. And I didn’t lose any on the way down for equities, in fact I captured about half of the down leg as a short before covering. Maybe I didn’t quintuple my money, but I’ve done rather well, and with a very low amount of risk in my mind.








  • DiggidyDan Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    I’m just glad after liquidating a lot of my positions from the stock market due to not believing the economic recovery was sustainable, I kept my basic core holdings in stocks i still believed in that pay good dividends and have constant demand such as ADM, BDX, BHP, CVX, GSK, JNJ, MMM, SCCO(formerly PCU YEAH COPPER!) and UL. and halved the rest of the stuff between long term TIPS Bond funds (LTPZ and PRRRX) and an emergency fund in 3% yield MM account. Only problem is I had a couple unforseen blowups in BP and BAX due to non market catastrophes that stopped me out and cost me some big coin. I haven’t made much money over the last 3 years, but I haven’t lost any and I have beat the S&P 500.


    Only problem is, I lost 60 Large in the housing market and can’t refi at these low rates and took a pay cut.








  • call me ahab Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    “This site is not for people like you — its for serious asset types”


    laughable (and so full of self importance)- also you may want to consider a career in blog enforcement(as if BR can’t take care of himself)-


    also- where are my politics? Where were they mentioned in this thread?


    I guess you must have mind melded me from across your keyboard (and my guess is you still got it wrong)








  • Mark E Hoffer Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    “Regardless of how the rally concludes, the folks who missed an 85% generational run up in equities will pound their chests and say “See, we told you so!” And they will have made absolutely no money in the process.”–BR, above


    BR,


    ‘Equities’ are the ‘only investment’?


    why not run some DOW/Gold, or DOW/Silver, Charts to go with that?


    as Boockvar, rightly, was pointing out, recently, the SPX/CRBRIND, after the “strongest one-month Equity Rally since ’39″, is nearly 1 ..


    Hey, you’re better than that…








  • call me ahab Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    I ask:


    “what happens if the Fed doesn’t or is unable to oblige?”


    BR replies:


    “Then you sell.”


    I was looking for something more thorough (in a macro sense)- but I like this answer just on brevity alone








  • gman Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    Venn,

    I may use that rant in the near future…maybe at my firm…to the only person who is a “tea-party fellow traveler”…who also just happens to be the only trader of the 9 we have who is struggling!


    Well put!








  • Andy T Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    Boo-Yah Barry!








  • GYSC Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Barry,

    I appreciate you taking the time to post this and answer all the comments. I think I see better know how you look at things.








  • Andy T Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    It’s actually a good post BR. It does come across a little bit like “chest-thumping,” but sometimes the black and white pixels come across in a different way than the voice/tone in the head. We’ve all come across the wrong way in the written word.


    With that said, I think the S&P will trade below 900 before 12/31/2011. I’d take some friendly side-action on that proposition bet.








  • rootless Says:



    October 6th, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Barry,


    We made money from March 09 til April 2010. Since then, we have mostly avoided losing money. Its been a good strategy.


    Well, good. I haven’t been doing so well for recent months. But it wasn’t my fault. My trading program did it.


    However, as of today, S&P500 is down only 4.7% from the peak in April. So my criticism stands. You say your approach is right, because you have made money since March 09, based on the performance mostly during the price run up. You say yourself the secular bear market has still to find its bottom. Right? And you think the market is overvalued based on metrics like CAPE? Then, I have to agree with some other commenter here, that you are playing the greater fool game. And, in addition to that, you ridicule the ones who are grumpy about it and don’t want to play along and have therefore “missed a 85% generational run up”. You basically say that everyone who participates in this game could have made huge profits. But this logic is flawed. A greater fool game can’t work and won’t have worked for everyone who has participated, after everything is said and done. It only works for some, the ones who are the first ones at the exits, you may belong to those, but it doesn’t work for many. It works for some because it doesn’t work for many. The gains for the ones are the losses for the other ones. The outcome this time won’t be different to the final outcome of the stock market and real estate bubble earlier this decade with misery for many. And the judgment over any investment approach will be spoken when the market cycle has come to its full closure, not based on the performance from the market lows in March 2009 to today.


    Your at least implicit advice that one should do it like you have done it, if one wants to make big gains in the stock market, is actually very bad advice, even if it has worked for you.




    Making Money Ideas 2 by phsims


    Juan Williams: Fox <b>News</b> Lets &#39;Black Guy With A Hispanic Name&#39; Host <b>...</b>

    Juan Williams said Tuesday that he's still upset about his firing from NPR, and added that NPR does not understand the Fox News culture or audience. In an interview with Baltimore Sun columnist David Zurawik, Williams said he remains ...

    GM hiring nuggets: Alderson, Daniels, Ryan, Ricco etc.

    We don't yet know if new GM Sandy Alderson (the process is underway of making his hiring official with the commissioner's office and scheduling a news conference for either Friday or Tuesday) will turn the Mets into a championship team, ...

    World Series Game 1 Giants roster/lineup <b>news</b> | Extra Baggs

    The Giants haven't set their roster for Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, but I've been able to glean some information on which way Manager Bruce Bochy and.


    Juan Williams: Fox <b>News</b> Lets &#39;Black Guy With A Hispanic Name&#39; Host <b>...</b>

    Juan Williams said Tuesday that he's still upset about his firing from NPR, and added that NPR does not understand the Fox News culture or audience. In an interview with Baltimore Sun columnist David Zurawik, Williams said he remains ...

    GM hiring nuggets: Alderson, Daniels, Ryan, Ricco etc.

    We don't yet know if new GM Sandy Alderson (the process is underway of making his hiring official with the commissioner's office and scheduling a news conference for either Friday or Tuesday) will turn the Mets into a championship team, ...

    World Series Game 1 Giants roster/lineup <b>news</b> | Extra Baggs

    The Giants haven't set their roster for Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, but I've been able to glean some information on which way Manager Bruce Bochy and.

















  • Making Money





















    When profits are down business owners tend to dwell on formulating the next big idea, a new marketing strategy, and, of course, on what they are doing wrong. But there are other areas that many people don’t think of exploring - or avoid all together. These are the emotional blocks to money, success and happiness.

    Money, or the lack of, stimulates fear. Survival instincts are threatened and negative emotions that may have been stored deep inside will often surface, only to aggravate the situation and lessen the ability to succeed.

    Let’s take a look at three areas that you can explore to free yourself of the emotional barriers that will keep you from the success and profits that you deserve.

    Forgiveness – If you are an entrepreneur then you have most likely suffered your share of financial trauma. After all, entrepreneurs are risk takers and money is one of the first things we put at risk when we have an idea that we belief in. Money loss is a trauma that we tend to minimize because it’s “just money”.   But financial security is an important value to nearly everyone because it dictates our ability to survive in this world. For men, who our ancestors labeled as the providers, financial security is often a very important core value. Therefore, losing money can affect them to the core and the guilt, shame and worry may remain embedded within them for a very long time.

    It’s time to forgive yourself. Plain and simple; being an entrepreneur isn’t always a choice – it’s who you are. Taking risk is a part of the learning and the experience that takes you toward success. If that means that you “fail” from time to time, so be it. Releasing this emotion and pain is critical to your future success. Guilt and shame create a heavy burden, how can you let it go?

    Consider some less conventional techniques like hypnosis or the emotional freedom techniques. Sometimes talking about it and rationalizing it isn’t enough. Take another risk and find a new way to let go so that you can let success into your life.

    Feeling – If you can’t feel wealth, you won’t attract wealth. How much do you believe that you were born to achieve success? Can you close your eyes and feel, smell – truly experience wealth? This is something to practice on a daily basis. The more you believe it and experience it, the more your behavior and thinking will shift to allow for wealth. Begin with only 30-60 seconds of imagining your life of success. Create a snapshot of your successful future and practice stepping into the feeling of it. You might notice a swelling of the heart, the sensation of excitement and expectation, or a sense of overall peace. Hold this positive feeling in place and get used to it. Increase the time of your visualization as you become more adept at it. Before long you will begin to notice opportunities coming into your life or things may just begin falling into place for you. It’s a simple attitude adjustment that will make a difference.

    Fearlessness – Fear has a paralyzing effect on our creativity and ability to act. If you are living in fear you are less likely to have a clear picture of your next action steps. You may find that procrastination and overwhelm are your daily companions and at the end of the day it seems nothing notable has been achieved. Sound familiar? It’s time to let go of the fear and step into your fearless state. I’m not suggesting that you become reckless, but that you find creative ways to rectify your situation and act from a collected, rational, and confident place.

    If money is an issue you’ve probably run circles in your mind trying to think of solutions but haven’t acted on any of them. Is it time for a part time job? This doesn’t mean you are quitting your dream, just allowing it to become a bit more accessible. Do you have another skill that you can put to work while you build your business? Can you market to past customers to create a boost in sales? Think outside of the box and act on your solution.

    Do you have a fear of success or failure? If you perceive that there are any negative consequences to success it's time to explore this limiting belief. Again, try something that may be considered “unconventional” to explore if these fears exist so that you can let them go. Ask someone who you see as successful what they’ve done to combat their fears – believe me, they’ve had them too! And try stepping out of the box to experience a different type of risk and reignite your energy. Is there something adventurous that you’ve always wanted to try but never have? What will “shake it up” a bit to unearth your courage and commitment to moving forward? How can you break the pattern and step into your fearless state?

    These may sound like simple steps, but this type of change is a tall order. Surround yourself with support as you make create change; a coach, mentor and mastermind group are all a tremendous source of support and fresh ideas.

    Have you found your way to a “Million Dollar Mindset?” Share your experience and tips with us here!












    To summarize an hour of dialogue, you should at some point have a product that your readers will want. You should give a lot of free content away, but even when it comes to content, you can charge for some amount, and if your content is good enough, people will pay for the premium stuff. "You can tell them about ninety percent, and they'll pay money just to get the final ten percent," so they know they have the whole picture, Clark says.



    Making money blogging will not happen overnight. Sometimes it may seem like this is possible, but in reality, it takes a lot of work. "Build something that is real and something that matters to people," Rowse advises. He shared a story about how he launched a product one day and literally watched the sales roll in. It was as if he had hit a button, and the cash just started flowing, but then he realized he had been working hard up to that point for over two years, promoting the blog, writing two posts a day, doing SEO, press releases, etc. It wasn't overnight. 



    You're not scalable, meaning that as your audience grows and more people want to connect with you, there will be a point where it just becomes too much. You have to set boundaries, otherwise you will have no time for yourself and your family. 



    Eventually, you're going to have to "get real" about how many meaningful connections you can make in a day, Simone says, adding, "That's part of growing up in social media.”



    When they say "no one actually wants that much authenticity," they mean that nobody cares about what you did last night, who you were with, what you had for breakfast, etc. In other words, don't show everybody everything about yourself, because you're not writing for you. You're writing for them. Be who you want to be for your audience. 



    Ultimately, you're blogging and using social media to sell, but you can't just go around selling to people, because they won't have it. It just doesn't work. You have to make them want to buy. "You're selling yourself," says Clark. If you provide enough value to your audience, they will want to buy what you have to offer if it expands upon the value you're already giving them. "The content is the marketing," he says. 



    Just having a blog is not a business. If you want it to be a business you have to treat it like one, Rowse says. This is basically an extension of number 2. 



    The most important of the seven points is that no one is reading your blog. As Simone says, there are hundreds of millions of blogs, and that includes blogs on your topic. You have to write it in a way that is fresh, and either entertaining or informative. The good news is that you don't need "monster traffic". You just need a good, steady core audience for advertising to do well. 


    Fox <b>News</b> Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO)

    A Fox News camera crew showed up unannounced at a Democratic meeting in Wisconsin Monday, prompting a confrontation that eventually forced the show's producer into a rather startling admission: he understands why Democrats are wary of ...

    Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

    He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

    Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

    Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.


    bench craft company complaints
    bench craft company complaints

    Making money by alexey05


    Fox <b>News</b> Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO)

    A Fox News camera crew showed up unannounced at a Democratic meeting in Wisconsin Monday, prompting a confrontation that eventually forced the show's producer into a rather startling admission: he understands why Democrats are wary of ...

    Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

    He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

    Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

    Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.


    bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints




















    When profits are down business owners tend to dwell on formulating the next big idea, a new marketing strategy, and, of course, on what they are doing wrong. But there are other areas that many people don’t think of exploring - or avoid all together. These are the emotional blocks to money, success and happiness.

    Money, or the lack of, stimulates fear. Survival instincts are threatened and negative emotions that may have been stored deep inside will often surface, only to aggravate the situation and lessen the ability to succeed.

    Let’s take a look at three areas that you can explore to free yourself of the emotional barriers that will keep you from the success and profits that you deserve.

    Forgiveness – If you are an entrepreneur then you have most likely suffered your share of financial trauma. After all, entrepreneurs are risk takers and money is one of the first things we put at risk when we have an idea that we belief in. Money loss is a trauma that we tend to minimize because it’s “just money”.   But financial security is an important value to nearly everyone because it dictates our ability to survive in this world. For men, who our ancestors labeled as the providers, financial security is often a very important core value. Therefore, losing money can affect them to the core and the guilt, shame and worry may remain embedded within them for a very long time.

    It’s time to forgive yourself. Plain and simple; being an entrepreneur isn’t always a choice – it’s who you are. Taking risk is a part of the learning and the experience that takes you toward success. If that means that you “fail” from time to time, so be it. Releasing this emotion and pain is critical to your future success. Guilt and shame create a heavy burden, how can you let it go?

    Consider some less conventional techniques like hypnosis or the emotional freedom techniques. Sometimes talking about it and rationalizing it isn’t enough. Take another risk and find a new way to let go so that you can let success into your life.

    Feeling – If you can’t feel wealth, you won’t attract wealth. How much do you believe that you were born to achieve success? Can you close your eyes and feel, smell – truly experience wealth? This is something to practice on a daily basis. The more you believe it and experience it, the more your behavior and thinking will shift to allow for wealth. Begin with only 30-60 seconds of imagining your life of success. Create a snapshot of your successful future and practice stepping into the feeling of it. You might notice a swelling of the heart, the sensation of excitement and expectation, or a sense of overall peace. Hold this positive feeling in place and get used to it. Increase the time of your visualization as you become more adept at it. Before long you will begin to notice opportunities coming into your life or things may just begin falling into place for you. It’s a simple attitude adjustment that will make a difference.

    Fearlessness – Fear has a paralyzing effect on our creativity and ability to act. If you are living in fear you are less likely to have a clear picture of your next action steps. You may find that procrastination and overwhelm are your daily companions and at the end of the day it seems nothing notable has been achieved. Sound familiar? It’s time to let go of the fear and step into your fearless state. I’m not suggesting that you become reckless, but that you find creative ways to rectify your situation and act from a collected, rational, and confident place.

    If money is an issue you’ve probably run circles in your mind trying to think of solutions but haven’t acted on any of them. Is it time for a part time job? This doesn’t mean you are quitting your dream, just allowing it to become a bit more accessible. Do you have another skill that you can put to work while you build your business? Can you market to past customers to create a boost in sales? Think outside of the box and act on your solution.

    Do you have a fear of success or failure? If you perceive that there are any negative consequences to success it's time to explore this limiting belief. Again, try something that may be considered “unconventional” to explore if these fears exist so that you can let them go. Ask someone who you see as successful what they’ve done to combat their fears – believe me, they’ve had them too! And try stepping out of the box to experience a different type of risk and reignite your energy. Is there something adventurous that you’ve always wanted to try but never have? What will “shake it up” a bit to unearth your courage and commitment to moving forward? How can you break the pattern and step into your fearless state?

    These may sound like simple steps, but this type of change is a tall order. Surround yourself with support as you make create change; a coach, mentor and mastermind group are all a tremendous source of support and fresh ideas.

    Have you found your way to a “Million Dollar Mindset?” Share your experience and tips with us here!












    To summarize an hour of dialogue, you should at some point have a product that your readers will want. You should give a lot of free content away, but even when it comes to content, you can charge for some amount, and if your content is good enough, people will pay for the premium stuff. "You can tell them about ninety percent, and they'll pay money just to get the final ten percent," so they know they have the whole picture, Clark says.



    Making money blogging will not happen overnight. Sometimes it may seem like this is possible, but in reality, it takes a lot of work. "Build something that is real and something that matters to people," Rowse advises. He shared a story about how he launched a product one day and literally watched the sales roll in. It was as if he had hit a button, and the cash just started flowing, but then he realized he had been working hard up to that point for over two years, promoting the blog, writing two posts a day, doing SEO, press releases, etc. It wasn't overnight. 



    You're not scalable, meaning that as your audience grows and more people want to connect with you, there will be a point where it just becomes too much. You have to set boundaries, otherwise you will have no time for yourself and your family. 



    Eventually, you're going to have to "get real" about how many meaningful connections you can make in a day, Simone says, adding, "That's part of growing up in social media.”



    When they say "no one actually wants that much authenticity," they mean that nobody cares about what you did last night, who you were with, what you had for breakfast, etc. In other words, don't show everybody everything about yourself, because you're not writing for you. You're writing for them. Be who you want to be for your audience. 



    Ultimately, you're blogging and using social media to sell, but you can't just go around selling to people, because they won't have it. It just doesn't work. You have to make them want to buy. "You're selling yourself," says Clark. If you provide enough value to your audience, they will want to buy what you have to offer if it expands upon the value you're already giving them. "The content is the marketing," he says. 



    Just having a blog is not a business. If you want it to be a business you have to treat it like one, Rowse says. This is basically an extension of number 2. 



    The most important of the seven points is that no one is reading your blog. As Simone says, there are hundreds of millions of blogs, and that includes blogs on your topic. You have to write it in a way that is fresh, and either entertaining or informative. The good news is that you don't need "monster traffic". You just need a good, steady core audience for advertising to do well. 


    bench craft company complaints

    Fox <b>News</b> Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO)

    A Fox News camera crew showed up unannounced at a Democratic meeting in Wisconsin Monday, prompting a confrontation that eventually forced the show's producer into a rather startling admission: he understands why Democrats are wary of ...

    Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

    He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

    Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

    Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.


    bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

    Fox <b>News</b> Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO)

    A Fox News camera crew showed up unannounced at a Democratic meeting in Wisconsin Monday, prompting a confrontation that eventually forced the show's producer into a rather startling admission: he understands why Democrats are wary of ...

    Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

    He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

    Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

    Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.


    bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

    Fox <b>News</b> Crew Gets Scolded At Democratic Meeting (VIDEO)

    A Fox News camera crew showed up unannounced at a Democratic meeting in Wisconsin Monday, prompting a confrontation that eventually forced the show's producer into a rather startling admission: he understands why Democrats are wary of ...

    Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

    He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

    Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

    Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.


    bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010

    Making Money System


    One of the big problems during the financial crisis was a bank run in the shadow banking system when doubts emerged about the safety of deposits.


    In my last column at the Fiscal Times, I talked about an approach to solving the problem that involves having deposits in the shadow system backed (insured) by high quality collateral.


    But high quality collateral is not the only option. Another way to do this is through a type of insurance along the lines of what the FDIC does for the traditional banking system, along with restrictions on eligibility for the insurance. In reaction to my column, and in support of the insurance approach, Morgan Ricks of Harvard Law School emails:



    I enjoyed your Fiscal Times piece and am glad you're focused on this issue.


    I'm a big admirer of Gary and Andrew's work, but I would encourage you to give some more thought to whether collateral requirements for repo are likely to do the trick. Here are a few things to consider:



    • Many of the short-term liabilities of the shadow banking system were and are uncollateralized (think about Lehman's reliance on unsecured commercial paper -- the default of which caused the Reserve Fund to "break the buck," igniting the run on money market funds; and Citigroup's SIVs, which financed themselves in the unsecured markets).

    • Money market investors do not want to take possession of collateral and dispose of it. Even if the collateral is high quality, they don't want the interest rate risk. That's not their business. They don't want to deal with the consequences of a counterparty default. This is why, in the crisis, many money market investors stopped rolling even those repos that were fully secured by Treasuries and agencies:

      • See Chris Cox's testimony on Bear Stearns (here http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2008/ts040308cc.htm): "For the first time, a major investment bank that was well-capitalized and apparently fully liquid experienced a crisis of confidence that denied it not only unsecured financing, but short-term secured financing, even when the collateral consisted of agency securities with a market value in excess of the funds to be borrowed"

      • See also FRBNY's repo task force report (here http://www.newyorkfed.org/prc/report_100517.pdf): “Discussions in the Task Force emphasized repeatedly that many Cash Investors focus primarily if not almost exclusively on counterparty concerns and that they will withdraw secured funding on the same or very similar timeframes as they would withdraw unsecured funding.”



    • Even if collateral requirements reduce the likelihood of runs, how do we calibrate them -- what is the objective function? Presumably we think maturity transformation (fractional reserve banking) is a good thing -- it increases the supply of loanable funds by pooling otherwise idle cash reserves and deploying them toward productive investments. Risk constraints (such as collateral requirements) necessarily reduce this surplus -- there is a real social cost. How do we appraise the corresponding benefit? That is, how do we estimate the systemic instability associated with any given level of collateral requirements? My argument is that we can't. And by "we" I mean not just the government, but anybody.


    My paper argues that we avoid these problems with an insurance regime; that financial firms outside the insurance regime should be disallowed from conducting maturity transformation (i.e., they would have to rely on term funding, not money market funding); and that we should develop functional criteria of eligibility for the insurance regime. (By the way, this is not the same thing as "extending" insurance to shadow banks.)


    Anyway, these are things worth thinking about. I think the insurance approach needs more serious consideration than it has received -- it's a little lonely over here ...


    Best,


    Morgan Ricks



    See here for nice summary of this approach and link to the underlying academic paper.



    The aptly named Dick Armey is a real piece of work. As Think Progress noted, the former Speaker of the House turned Freedom Works astroturf teabagger leader came on Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker's new show on CNN and lied about the state of Texas benefiting from federal funding for higher education.


    Dick Armey Wants To Completely Eliminate Any Federal Funding For Higher Education:


    At one point, Spitzer asked Armey a series of questions about what he thinks the government should and should not be involved in funding to try to “add texture” to what the FreedomWorks chairman believes. During this question period, the CNN host asked Armey if he would “have the federal government pay for higher education?” Armey bluntly responded, “No, I would not.” He then went on to say that the university system of his home state of Texas has “not been made any better by federal money involvement.


    Armey’s claim that the “federal government’s involvement in education” hasn’t “benefited the students of America” is wildly false.


    Texas students are major benificiaries of this spending. Students in the state actually utilize federal student loans at a level above that of the average U.S. student. During the 2006-2007 school year, 83 percent of Texans utilized federal student loans, compared to 71 percent of Americans.


    Spitzer did a good job of getting Dick Armey to lay out just what programs he and his corporate funded "Tea Party" would like to eliminate or drastically cut from federal government funding. Naturally military spending wasn't on the list, but Social Security privatization among a lot of other cuts to social programs were. These people like Dick Armey and his ilk aren't going to be happy until they turn us into a third world country with nothing but rich and poor. It was nice to see him get forced to lay out some specifics instead of just platitudes for once as he was in this interview, not that he was short on his usual platitudes as well as he answered. Big 'gubmit is evil, unless of course you privatize everything so it's used to just funnel money to your corporate funders and we need the "freedom" to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps.


    That works our pretty well for folks like Dick Armey who aren't living on a shoestring and have a lot of large corporate interests making sure he's never going to be hurting or worrying about how he's going to feed his family or pay his bills. For the rest of us, not so much. I wonder if Dick Armey knows what the minimum wage is? My bet is he either doesn't know, or doesn't care just like the rest of these Republicans who are trying to con the working class into thinking care about anything but the interests of big business. The only "freedoms" a Dick Armey cares about are the "freedoms" for corporations to force Americans to compete with slave wages overseas while funneling our tax dollars to the wealthiest among us who pay his bills to help spread their propaganda.


    Transcript below the fold via CNN.


    SPITZER: No, no, no, not the big words like that, but the specific policies you talk about. I want to see if we can get a better understanding of it and sort of see if we agree or disagree on some basic stuff.


    You're talking about a radical redefinition of what government does and doesn't do. Fair to say?


    (CROSSTALK)


    PARKER: ... about what government...


    (CROSSTALK)


    PARKER: ... to be...


    ARMEY: Perhaps there was a radical redefinition of what government does and doesn't do a couple hundred years ago. They called it the Constitution of the United States


    SPITZER: Right. OK.


    ARMEY: And it was a Constitution that limited government out of deference to the rights of the individual to his liberty


    What we're trying to do is restore government back to the vision of our nation that made us the greatest blessing in history of the world


    SPITZER: I understand you see it that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. I just want to see if we can add texture to what this means


    ARMEY: OK.


    SPITZER: Because when I read -- and I have read a lot of the documents. Let me give you some specific programs and say, would you fund them, all right, things that people can relate to? Would you have had the federal government build the interstate highway system?


    ARMEY: Absolutely. And you can find that in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations."


    SPITZER: OK. All right. OK. Would you have had -- would you have the federal government pay for higher education? You're a university professor.


    ARMEY: No, I would not


    SPITZER: You would not have any funding, no government funding?


    ARMEY: No. I don't think the federal government's involvement in higher education has benefited the students of America


    (CROSSTALK)


    ARMEY: Would you...


    PARKER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let him finish that thought, if you don't mind...


    (CROSSTALK)


    ARMEY: Well, the federal government has the military academies, and it's an important thing. They should continue to do that


    But the education of our young people should be under the jurisdiction and under the auspices of the state governments. The state of Texas has a great university system that has not been made any better by federal government involvement


    SPITZER: So, you would rip out all money that goes to the universities and say let the states increase their taxes to pay for it?


    ARMEY: Let the states manage the education of their young people


    SPITZER: Let's continue.


    Centers for Disease Control to help make sure we...


    (CROSSTALK)


    ARMEY: Centers for Disease Control left in the hands of the scientists is probably a very important thing


    SPITZER: So you would eliminate it, the Centers for Disease Control?


    ARMEY: No, I did not. I would leave it in the hands of the scientists and I would tell the politicians to butt out. Let real who have real expertise make scientific decisions, medical decisions. Let's not have a bunch of political mandates issued by people who don't even understand..


    (CROSSTALK)


    SPITZER: I don't think that is what CDC does.


    OK, how about NIH, National Institutes for Health, does all the research?


    ARMEY: I think again that is probably acceptable opportunity to do some good with the federal government's taxpayer dollars, if they have the discipline to leave the agency to do its job on a professional basis, rather than corrupting it.


    SPITZER: How about NASA? You going to fund NASA?


    ARMEY: Oh, absolutely I would fund NASA. And I sure as heck would keep it focused on its initial mission


    (CROSSTALK)


    SPITZER: Now, in your book, and in all the Tea Party stuff, they say we're not cutting defense


    ARMEY: I think, again, you can rationalize every agency. There are efficiencies to be made in defense, as there...


    (CROSSTALK)


    SPITZER: But you're saying we're not -- so, I'm just trying to figure out where you're cutting.


    ARMEY: Defense is stipulated in the Constitution as a legitimate, necessary duty of the federal government


    SPITZER: So, where are you cutting?


    ARMEY: How about we cut out a lot of nonsense like National Endowment for the Humanities and Arts? And how about getting rid of AmeriCorps, which is just obnoxious?


    SPITZER: AmeriCorps, OK.


    ARMEY: Even intellectually, it's an insult to the American people


    SPITZER: OK.


    ARMEY: How about you get rid of the Corporation for National Broadcasting in that very nominal party of the budget which is called discretionary spending, which I would probably call indiscretionary spending?


    Lyndon Johnson's Great Society transformed the budget of the United States government from 85 percent discretionary, 15 percent mandatory, to just the reverse. Now your ability to cut spending and to make the trims that are necessary to restore the government to service in the lives of the people is made very difficult because of the dominance of...


    (CROSSTALK)


    PARKER: One thing we should point out is that the congressman is also an economist. This is not just a political stump speech here.


    ARMEY: This government cannot grow the private sector of the economy by itself, growing larger. It's like you have got a 200-pound jockey that thinks, if I just eat more and gain myself to 210, the horse will be able to win the race...


    (CROSSTALK)


    SPITZER: I like that metaphor...


    (CROSSTALK)


    PARKER: It seems pretty simple. I mean, we clearly can't afford everything we have got. We can't -- we have got to stop spending somewhere...


    (CROSSTALK)


    ARMEY: I will tell you what. I will give today's retirees and today's working youth a more hard, fast commitment for Social Security.


    I will say to every child in America, every working man and woman in this country, I will guarantee you, you will have Social Security just as you know it today, with the only change being a cost of living adjustment that is commensurate with the consumer price index for the rest of your life, if you choose to stay in it.


    SPITZER: OK.


    ARMEY: But I will also give you the right to choose to leave it.


    SPITZER: But you're saying something very important that I don't think most people are picking up on. What you're doing is changing the escalator in Social Security in a way that many people agree with.


    ARMEY: That's right. And I'll tell you what.


    SPITZER: I happen to agree with that.


    ARMEY: I'm going to just say to the American people, if you choose to...


    SPITZER: You already said you're going to do one of them.


    ARMEY: If you, as a free-born individual person, choose to say, I want to leave this mandatory government program, you're free to leave. You're free to say no to the government.




    Fox <b>News</b> Poll: GOPer Raese Leads By Two Points In WV-SEN | TPMDC

    The new Fox News poll of the West Virginia Senate race has Republican businessman John Raese holding on to a narrow lead against Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin.

    RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

    &quot;Xbox 2&quot; game WarDevil canned Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our Xbox 360 news of. ... "Xbox 2" game WarDevil canned Related content. Latest WarDevil: Unleash the Beast Within screenshots; News WarDevil trailer set for Tokyo ; News Digi-Guys shows off gorgeous Xbox 2 war game ...


    bench craft company complaints
    bench craft company complaints

    Global Energy Team by SueCarveth


    Fox <b>News</b> Poll: GOPer Raese Leads By Two Points In WV-SEN | TPMDC

    The new Fox News poll of the West Virginia Senate race has Republican businessman John Raese holding on to a narrow lead against Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin.

    RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

    &quot;Xbox 2&quot; game WarDevil canned Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our Xbox 360 news of. ... "Xbox 2" game WarDevil canned Related content. Latest WarDevil: Unleash the Beast Within screenshots; News WarDevil trailer set for Tokyo ; News Digi-Guys shows off gorgeous Xbox 2 war game ...


    bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

    One of the big problems during the financial crisis was a bank run in the shadow banking system when doubts emerged about the safety of deposits.


    In my last column at the Fiscal Times, I talked about an approach to solving the problem that involves having deposits in the shadow system backed (insured) by high quality collateral.


    But high quality collateral is not the only option. Another way to do this is through a type of insurance along the lines of what the FDIC does for the traditional banking system, along with restrictions on eligibility for the insurance. In reaction to my column, and in support of the insurance approach, Morgan Ricks of Harvard Law School emails:



    I enjoyed your Fiscal Times piece and am glad you're focused on this issue.


    I'm a big admirer of Gary and Andrew's work, but I would encourage you to give some more thought to whether collateral requirements for repo are likely to do the trick. Here are a few things to consider:



    • Many of the short-term liabilities of the shadow banking system were and are uncollateralized (think about Lehman's reliance on unsecured commercial paper -- the default of which caused the Reserve Fund to "break the buck," igniting the run on money market funds; and Citigroup's SIVs, which financed themselves in the unsecured markets).

    • Money market investors do not want to take possession of collateral and dispose of it. Even if the collateral is high quality, they don't want the interest rate risk. That's not their business. They don't want to deal with the consequences of a counterparty default. This is why, in the crisis, many money market investors stopped rolling even those repos that were fully secured by Treasuries and agencies:

      • See Chris Cox's testimony on Bear Stearns (here http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2008/ts040308cc.htm): "For the first time, a major investment bank that was well-capitalized and apparently fully liquid experienced a crisis of confidence that denied it not only unsecured financing, but short-term secured financing, even when the collateral consisted of agency securities with a market value in excess of the funds to be borrowed"

      • See also FRBNY's repo task force report (here http://www.newyorkfed.org/prc/report_100517.pdf): “Discussions in the Task Force emphasized repeatedly that many Cash Investors focus primarily if not almost exclusively on counterparty concerns and that they will withdraw secured funding on the same or very similar timeframes as they would withdraw unsecured funding.”



    • Even if collateral requirements reduce the likelihood of runs, how do we calibrate them -- what is the objective function? Presumably we think maturity transformation (fractional reserve banking) is a good thing -- it increases the supply of loanable funds by pooling otherwise idle cash reserves and deploying them toward productive investments. Risk constraints (such as collateral requirements) necessarily reduce this surplus -- there is a real social cost. How do we appraise the corresponding benefit? That is, how do we estimate the systemic instability associated with any given level of collateral requirements? My argument is that we can't. And by "we" I mean not just the government, but anybody.


    My paper argues that we avoid these problems with an insurance regime; that financial firms outside the insurance regime should be disallowed from conducting maturity transformation (i.e., they would have to rely on term funding, not money market funding); and that we should develop functional criteria of eligibility for the insurance regime. (By the way, this is not the same thing as "extending" insurance to shadow banks.)


    Anyway, these are things worth thinking about. I think the insurance approach needs more serious consideration than it has received -- it's a little lonely over here ...


    Best,


    Morgan Ricks



    See here for nice summary of this approach and link to the underlying academic paper.



    The aptly named Dick Armey is a real piece of work. As Think Progress noted, the former Speaker of the House turned Freedom Works astroturf teabagger leader came on Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker's new show on CNN and lied about the state of Texas benefiting from federal funding for higher education.


    Dick Armey Wants To Completely Eliminate Any Federal Funding For Higher Education:


    At one point, Spitzer asked Armey a series of questions about what he thinks the government should and should not be involved in funding to try to “add texture” to what the FreedomWorks chairman believes. During this question period, the CNN host asked Armey if he would “have the federal government pay for higher education?” Armey bluntly responded, “No, I would not.” He then went on to say that the university system of his home state of Texas has “not been made any better by federal money involvement.


    Armey’s claim that the “federal government’s involvement in education” hasn’t “benefited the students of America” is wildly false.


    Texas students are major benificiaries of this spending. Students in the state actually utilize federal student loans at a level above that of the average U.S. student. During the 2006-2007 school year, 83 percent of Texans utilized federal student loans, compared to 71 percent of Americans.


    Spitzer did a good job of getting Dick Armey to lay out just what programs he and his corporate funded "Tea Party" would like to eliminate or drastically cut from federal government funding. Naturally military spending wasn't on the list, but Social Security privatization among a lot of other cuts to social programs were. These people like Dick Armey and his ilk aren't going to be happy until they turn us into a third world country with nothing but rich and poor. It was nice to see him get forced to lay out some specifics instead of just platitudes for once as he was in this interview, not that he was short on his usual platitudes as well as he answered. Big 'gubmit is evil, unless of course you privatize everything so it's used to just funnel money to your corporate funders and we need the "freedom" to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps.


    That works our pretty well for folks like Dick Armey who aren't living on a shoestring and have a lot of large corporate interests making sure he's never going to be hurting or worrying about how he's going to feed his family or pay his bills. For the rest of us, not so much. I wonder if Dick Armey knows what the minimum wage is? My bet is he either doesn't know, or doesn't care just like the rest of these Republicans who are trying to con the working class into thinking care about anything but the interests of big business. The only "freedoms" a Dick Armey cares about are the "freedoms" for corporations to force Americans to compete with slave wages overseas while funneling our tax dollars to the wealthiest among us who pay his bills to help spread their propaganda.


    Transcript below the fold via CNN.


    SPITZER: No, no, no, not the big words like that, but the specific policies you talk about. I want to see if we can get a better understanding of it and sort of see if we agree or disagree on some basic stuff.


    You're talking about a radical redefinition of what government does and doesn't do. Fair to say?


    (CROSSTALK)


    PARKER: ... about what government...


    (CROSSTALK)


    PARKER: ... to be...


    ARMEY: Perhaps there was a radical redefinition of what government does and doesn't do a couple hundred years ago. They called it the Constitution of the United States


    SPITZER: Right. OK.


    ARMEY: And it was a Constitution that limited government out of deference to the rights of the individual to his liberty


    What we're trying to do is restore government back to the vision of our nation that made us the greatest blessing in history of the world


    SPITZER: I understand you see it that way. I'm not disagreeing with that. I just want to see if we can add texture to what this means


    ARMEY: OK.


    SPITZER: Because when I read -- and I have read a lot of the documents. Let me give you some specific programs and say, would you fund them, all right, things that people can relate to? Would you have had the federal government build the interstate highway system?


    ARMEY: Absolutely. And you can find that in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations."


    SPITZER: OK. All right. OK. Would you have had -- would you have the federal government pay for higher education? You're a university professor.


    ARMEY: No, I would not


    SPITZER: You would not have any funding, no government funding?


    ARMEY: No. I don't think the federal government's involvement in higher education has benefited the students of America


    (CROSSTALK)


    ARMEY: Would you...


    PARKER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let him finish that thought, if you don't mind...


    (CROSSTALK)


    ARMEY: Well, the federal government has the military academies, and it's an important thing. They should continue to do that


    But the education of our young people should be under the jurisdiction and under the auspices of the state governments. The state of Texas has a great university system that has not been made any better by federal government involvement


    SPITZER: So, you would rip out all money that goes to the universities and say let the states increase their taxes to pay for it?


    ARMEY: Let the states manage the education of their young people


    SPITZER: Let's continue.


    Centers for Disease Control to help make sure we...


    (CROSSTALK)


    ARMEY: Centers for Disease Control left in the hands of the scientists is probably a very important thing


    SPITZER: So you would eliminate it, the Centers for Disease Control?


    ARMEY: No, I did not. I would leave it in the hands of the scientists and I would tell the politicians to butt out. Let real who have real expertise make scientific decisions, medical decisions. Let's not have a bunch of political mandates issued by people who don't even understand..


    (CROSSTALK)


    SPITZER: I don't think that is what CDC does.


    OK, how about NIH, National Institutes for Health, does all the research?


    ARMEY: I think again that is probably acceptable opportunity to do some good with the federal government's taxpayer dollars, if they have the discipline to leave the agency to do its job on a professional basis, rather than corrupting it.


    SPITZER: How about NASA? You going to fund NASA?


    ARMEY: Oh, absolutely I would fund NASA. And I sure as heck would keep it focused on its initial mission


    (CROSSTALK)


    SPITZER: Now, in your book, and in all the Tea Party stuff, they say we're not cutting defense


    ARMEY: I think, again, you can rationalize every agency. There are efficiencies to be made in defense, as there...


    (CROSSTALK)


    SPITZER: But you're saying we're not -- so, I'm just trying to figure out where you're cutting.


    ARMEY: Defense is stipulated in the Constitution as a legitimate, necessary duty of the federal government


    SPITZER: So, where are you cutting?


    ARMEY: How about we cut out a lot of nonsense like National Endowment for the Humanities and Arts? And how about getting rid of AmeriCorps, which is just obnoxious?


    SPITZER: AmeriCorps, OK.


    ARMEY: Even intellectually, it's an insult to the American people


    SPITZER: OK.


    ARMEY: How about you get rid of the Corporation for National Broadcasting in that very nominal party of the budget which is called discretionary spending, which I would probably call indiscretionary spending?


    Lyndon Johnson's Great Society transformed the budget of the United States government from 85 percent discretionary, 15 percent mandatory, to just the reverse. Now your ability to cut spending and to make the trims that are necessary to restore the government to service in the lives of the people is made very difficult because of the dominance of...


    (CROSSTALK)


    PARKER: One thing we should point out is that the congressman is also an economist. This is not just a political stump speech here.


    ARMEY: This government cannot grow the private sector of the economy by itself, growing larger. It's like you have got a 200-pound jockey that thinks, if I just eat more and gain myself to 210, the horse will be able to win the race...


    (CROSSTALK)


    SPITZER: I like that metaphor...


    (CROSSTALK)


    PARKER: It seems pretty simple. I mean, we clearly can't afford everything we have got. We can't -- we have got to stop spending somewhere...


    (CROSSTALK)


    ARMEY: I will tell you what. I will give today's retirees and today's working youth a more hard, fast commitment for Social Security.


    I will say to every child in America, every working man and woman in this country, I will guarantee you, you will have Social Security just as you know it today, with the only change being a cost of living adjustment that is commensurate with the consumer price index for the rest of your life, if you choose to stay in it.


    SPITZER: OK.


    ARMEY: But I will also give you the right to choose to leave it.


    SPITZER: But you're saying something very important that I don't think most people are picking up on. What you're doing is changing the escalator in Social Security in a way that many people agree with.


    ARMEY: That's right. And I'll tell you what.


    SPITZER: I happen to agree with that.


    ARMEY: I'm going to just say to the American people, if you choose to...


    SPITZER: You already said you're going to do one of them.


    ARMEY: If you, as a free-born individual person, choose to say, I want to leave this mandatory government program, you're free to leave. You're free to say no to the government.




    bench craft company complaints

    Fox <b>News</b> Poll: GOPer Raese Leads By Two Points In WV-SEN | TPMDC

    The new Fox News poll of the West Virginia Senate race has Republican businessman John Raese holding on to a narrow lead against Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin.

    RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

    &quot;Xbox 2&quot; game WarDevil canned Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our Xbox 360 news of. ... "Xbox 2" game WarDevil canned Related content. Latest WarDevil: Unleash the Beast Within screenshots; News WarDevil trailer set for Tokyo ; News Digi-Guys shows off gorgeous Xbox 2 war game ...


    bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

    Fox <b>News</b> Poll: GOPer Raese Leads By Two Points In WV-SEN | TPMDC

    The new Fox News poll of the West Virginia Senate race has Republican businessman John Raese holding on to a narrow lead against Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin.

    RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

    &quot;Xbox 2&quot; game WarDevil canned Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our Xbox 360 news of. ... "Xbox 2" game WarDevil canned Related content. Latest WarDevil: Unleash the Beast Within screenshots; News WarDevil trailer set for Tokyo ; News Digi-Guys shows off gorgeous Xbox 2 war game ...


    bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

    Fox <b>News</b> Poll: GOPer Raese Leads By Two Points In WV-SEN | TPMDC

    The new Fox News poll of the West Virginia Senate race has Republican businessman John Raese holding on to a narrow lead against Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin.

    RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

    &quot;Xbox 2&quot; game WarDevil canned Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

    Read our Xbox 360 news of. ... "Xbox 2" game WarDevil canned Related content. Latest WarDevil: Unleash the Beast Within screenshots; News WarDevil trailer set for Tokyo ; News Digi-Guys shows off gorgeous Xbox 2 war game ...


    bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints