Moar Friday Hits

Back by popular demand (and because I need to shift a more substantive article to next week), here are a few quick hits to round up the week's stories in post-partum depression and liberal failures, but mainly liberal failures.

Just A Reminder: Universal Health Care Is Terrible And Will Probably Murder You In Your Sleep

Okay, maybe that's a bit strong. But in the ObamaCare debate, we were always reminded by liberals how awesome socialized medicine is overseas, so turnabout's fair play, I think. Anyway, the link is to an article from the Daily Telegraph, which found that under Britain's NHS, over 1,100 nursing home residents have died since 2003, not because of their illnesses or old age but because of severe dehydration--despite the homes having adequate numbers of staff and (of course) good ratings from the government review boards, the patients weren't getting enough water. As if that wasn't bad enough, nearly three times as many died over the same period from malnutrition or bed sores. Yikes.

It's been noted before that the Brits remain stubbornly positive about their health care system, partly because it does work under certain circumstances but partly because they just don't want to admit defeat. One wonders how many stories like this they have to hear for that to change. (Just to show Britain's not the one bad apple, here's a story from Canada about how the wait times to see a doctor have become so long, the Great White North's considering re-privatizing some of its health care. Good times, good times.)

Rule Of Thumb: Always Fact-Check A #HATECRIME!!!!!! Story

This seems to be a running theme lately--messages bashing an ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation get reported, community crackdown on anything slightly offensive ensues, everyone gets lectured by higher-ups on the need to be respectful and accepting of others....and then it turns out the victim and the perpetrator are one and the same. Of course. No sooner did New York's Vassar College start a witch hunt, I mean launch a task force to find out who was writing messages like "F--k N-----s" and "Hey Tranny, Know Your Place," then it turned out the transsexual student who filed the hate speech report was the one who wrote them in the first place...and was also a vice-president of student government, and a member of the investigating task force. Ohhhh.

I could go into detail on other stories, like the Boston-area high school which ended its football season early (but not the requisite candlelight vigils) when racist graffiti was scrawled on one of the players' houses, then found out his mom did it to get attention; but I'll let you read through that one on your own.

GOP Hypocrisy? Eh, Not So Much

Among the things liberals (especially those in the media) just LOVE doing, calling out the Republicans for hypocrisy, or at least betraying their constituents' own interests, stands near the top of the list. Take this Time article noting that congressional Republicans have voted to scale back the food stamp program (not that much, mind you), despite the fact that, on average, a GOP lawmaker is likely to have a higher proportion of his constituents on food stamps than is a Democrat. The implication is clear enough: Republicans care more about their ideology than they do about helping real people, and also Democratic voters are usually more successful and probably smarter, too. Except, not only is a sizable chunk of the data on which the article based this claim missing, that which is present shows the results are really all over the map, with red states such as Idaho, Nebraska and even West by God Virginia (!!!) relying on food stamps than, say, "progressive" Oregon. Oops.

Though, even if the evidence had borne out Time's claims, I'm not sure what that would prove. Given that the Left relies on some watered-down quasi-Marxist rhetoric about class conflict to make many of its claims, wouldn't such proof show that rich people are not mean jerks who want to screw over the poor?

Paging Descartes....

And finally, just to reassure you that you really may be smarter than a big chunk of the population, check out this article from the so-called Scientific American which basically says that, because scientists are a bit vague on the boundaries between life and non-life and because you can sorta think of organisms as just really complex machines, "life" doesn't actually exist at all. I briefly toyed with the idea of laying out an objection to this, but you know, on that rare occasion when you find an article so patently dumb you don't have to waste breath refuting it, it's best to take advantage of it. Just go into the weekend with the knowledge that you know more about the world than some "scientists" do.

If you've got other good stories, mention them in the comments, by all means. Otherwise, enjoy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Requiem For A Theory

"The science is was settled."
Global Warming, c. 1985-2013

This year will be remembered as the one in which the wheels finally came off AGW. Not scientifically--as you all know, that happened a long time ago--but in terms of the public propping-up it's been relying on. Even its allies are starting to abandon it. Feel free to celebrate.

Again, this collapse has been in the making for a couple of years now. It's been pretty much an open secret for a while that the global temperature rise, whatever consensus it might have had, has been stalled for a decade or more, and an increasing number of scientists have begun to publicly speculate on why reality got the models wrong. Solar activity, fluctuating weather patterns, imperfect predictions--confident as the proponents continued to sound officially, you could tell they were getting worried.

But more recently, the news has gotten even worse. Last week, a leaked report from those high priests of Saving The World (tm), the IPCC, flatly admitted that their forecasts of temperature increase were, to put it politely, flat busted. Not only that, they also conceded that much of the current evidence--such as an increase in Antarctic sea ice--would lead one in the opposite direction. They even acknowledged, for the first time, the so-called Medieval Warm Period, which had high global temperatures without the burning of fossil fuels. Now mind you, they wouldn't come right out and admit they were full of crap. In fact, they claimed they were more certain than ever that global warming was real, that it was man-made, and that it would continue to get worse.

Thing is, a lot of scientists are now coming flat out and saying they don't buy it. One high-ranking climatologist called the report's conclusions "incomprehensible" while another described it as a lesson in how not to use the scientific method. And these weren't even the long-term skeptics. The proponents, displaying their usual penchant for classy and above-board debate, replied to these comments by saying the critics should be murdered by their children to defend the future generation, or something.

Meanwhile, contrary evidence from other sources continues to pile up. Astronomers have noted, after observing sunspots and the like, that solar activity is at a 100-year low, provoking concerns from a few quarters that we might actually be heading into another "Little Ice Age." Incidentally, computer models couldn't even get this right--they had been predicting that 2013 would be a peak year for such activity.

Now, none of this is particularly new or surprising, at least here. But as with the scientists mentioned above, it's worth noting how many of AGW's defenders are now beginning to, if not bail outright, then at least dial back their support for it. Governments in particular are hopping off the bandwagon: the Czech Republic is cutting all stimulus funds for renewable energy from this year's budget, while Germany, despite its continuing to pay official lip service to green power and the like, is quietly closing down a number of its solar and wind plants. Australia, having welcomed a new Conservative government, has gone even further and abolished one of its climate agencies.

I think we're about at the point where we can declare victory in the climate-change battle. It'll be a few years before the IPCC and other green activists realize their defeat (and of course they'll never admit it), but there's really no way they can come back from this, in the sense that they won't be able to advocate further controls on the economy in the name of AGW. It's all but over. So give yourself a high-five.

Just remember, they'll probably come up with something else to push. But until then.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Weird Wyoming Wackos

I don't have time to do a full post this week, so today you get a quickie. Shut up.

A sad event happened recently at the University of Wyoming, where some people on our side had the bad taste to go after a liberal blogger and make hateful comments about her online. The left-wing student activist, Meg Lanker-Simons, had her Facebook page smeared, with conservatives saying things like "I want to hate f@#$ [her] so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn't care who knows it....One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican @#$%&."

Guys, this is uncool. It's okay to get down in the mud with liberal hacks sometimes, but making profane and personal attacks, especially involving their sexuality, is way out of bounds. Our opponents need to be treated with respect and......

Oh, all right. I can't keep this up anymore. She hacked her own account.

U. of W. police issued a citation to Lanker-Simons Monday for filing a false police report, after she created the fake post in question, pretending it came from a conservative, and then making a statement to the opposite effect. Nice.

Oh, and also, as usual, some people have automatically rallied to her defense, stating "Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent we believe what she did was justified." Anyone recognize the contradiction in that statement? Lanker-Simons is a member of something called The Nonviolent Communist, so I'm guessing she for one does not.

Personally, I blame this silliness on the beets. Wyoming grows lots of beets, and beets are awful, so they probably made her go crazy.

So, you can go from here. Any examples of really egregious liberal conduct you've seen or heard recently?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Proof That Liberals Are Insane

Liberalism truly is a mental condition. Time and again, liberal policies lead to disaster and yet liberals absolutely refuse to see that. If at first you don’t succeed, just keep doing the same thing over and over until you get a different result. . . and don’t you dare try to fix any problems that may arise. Consider these examples.



1. Food Stamps For Rich College Kids Liberals believe in food stamps as a way to help poor people who “don’t earn enough to survive.” So you would assume liberals would want to stop rich and middle class moochers from exploiting the food stamp program? Apparently not.



Unlike other states, Michigan allows college kids to get food stamps. Federal law forbids this, but Michigan liberals got around that by classifying college as an “employment training program.” They also check eligibility for food stamps on the basis of income only without regard to assets. Hence, someone with a ton of money but no actual income can qualify for food stamps. . . someone like Leroy Fick, who won the state lottery but remained on food stamps.



Michigan is now changing its rules. College kids can now only get food stamps if they are single mothers or if they work more than 20 hours per week and still fall within income restrictions (assets will be considered as well). This change will kick 30,000 college kids off the program and save the state $75 million per year in food stamps.



Liberals should be thrilled. These middle class to rich moochers living comfortably on parental support and federal student loans, most of whom have better job prospects upon graduation than 90% of taxpayers, were robbing taxpayers (including “the working poor”) and draining the system, which prevented the money from reaching people who really needed it. But liberals aren’t outraged at the moochers, they’re outraged at the conservative governor who has made the change. Their reasoning? A change in the law to prevent the rich from taking money meant for the poor “will be unfair to the poor.”



Stupidity or insanity?



2. Stimulus Failure (redux): The evidence is indisputable that government spending to boost an economy in the short term is a disaster. I do believe careful spending in certain types of infrastructure can lead to long term growth. For example, the creation of a highway or getting electricity to people can create a wealth of opportunities as consumers and businesses make use of those services to reach each other. But you can’t boost an economy just by hiring people to build something.



History has shown this over and over. In fact, the biggest ignored lesson of the Great Depression came from FDR’s own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, who wrote this in his diary about their efforts to stem the recession:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . [A]fter eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . and an enormous debt to boot!”

Sound familiar? Now the Democrats want to go for another stimulus bill. . . a fifth under Obama. The others all failed, yet they think this one will work. That’s Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: repeating the same action over and over, but expecting a different result. Hence, liberals are insane.



3. CAFE Standards Obama just introduced new fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) for trucks. Raising CAFE standards makes cars more expensive, driving down demand and keeping poor people in older, less-safe vehicles longer. What’s more, the one type of vehicle in which American car companies still dominate is the truck. This will hurt Detroit. I guess Obama’s slogan for 2012 will be, “The GM bailout was so successful, I want to repeat it in 2014!”



4. Obama Strong Warlord The last Democrat with any sense of how to win a war was Harry Truman, and he seemed to lose that by the time Korea came along. Since that time, the Democrats have become a party of pacifists, cowards and military incompetents. Obama looks to continue this ignoble tradition by tucking his tail in Afghanistan and Libya. But the Democrats want to portray him as a big tough killer. What to do? What to do?



Oh, I know. Let’s have Hollywood make a movie about Obama’s dithering over the killing of Osama bin Laden to prove his resolve of steal (hmm, is that spelled right?).



Here’s the catch. When Obama was thumping his chest after the military killed bin Laden, he got all of a three point bounce, which vanished again before the first shark took a bite out of bin Laden’s body. Obama got no bounce form running away in Iraq or cowering before Iran or Honduras. He got no bounce from the surge in Afghanistan. He got a negative bounce from bombing Libya. And Americans have stayed away in droves from every war film Hollywood has produced about the war on terror. Hmmm. So what makes liberals think this will help the man of steal? Insanity.



5. London Violence London police killed some gangbanger. According to liberals, it is outrageous that anyone should ever be killed and violence is unacceptable. So what do liberals do to protest? They start rioting in London, burning buses with people in them, beating people with baseball bats, etc. In other words, they have turned to massive, random violence to protest a single instance of probably justified violence. Nice.



As an "interesting" aside -- at least it will be interesting for most liberals (possibly even mind-boggling) -- the rioting stopped in London once the police threatened to use rubber bullets. The rioters moved on to other cities at that point. As a further aside, they don't riot in my neighborhood because we don't waste our time with rubber bullets.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Did GM Take Us For A Ride?

It appears that GM has taken us for a ride. At the end of 2008, GM was on its deathbed (more so than normal at least) and in stepped Uncle Obama with suitcases full of our money. But don’t worry, Obama assured us, he extracted all kinds of promises of change. So why has nothing changed?

GM died about thirty years ago, it just didn’t know it. As the 1980s began, people looked for smaller, more reliable cars. GM made neither and didn’t care to. Its management understood the 1950s and little else. As Japanese and German and then Korean cars got better and better, GM didn’t or couldn’t.

But “GM learned its lessons!” At least that’s what they told us year after year after year. In fact, I recall once seeing a CNBC video showing a series of GM CEOs, every year for the past three decades, mouthing the words (or a paraphrase) “we’ve made mistakes in the past, but we’ve learned our lessons, we’re now making a competitive product.” Yet, nothing ever changed.

GM seems indifferent to its customers. Its union workers are lazy and hostile and turn out low quality, sloppy work -- anyone who ever owned a 1985 GM can attest to this, if the car didn’t kill you. Their engineers lack vision and talent. Rather than creating better, more advanced cars, they spent decades repackaging older brands and slapping new labels on the same turds that nobody wanted the year before. Forget stylish, modern or innovative.

Moreover, GM has been incapable of reigning in costs. I recall sitting in an airplane for five hours in 1998 listening to a GM “engineer” explain with great enthusiasm what he does -- this was after supposedly “draconian cost cuts” by GM. He worked in a building with about 200 people, each of whom did one thing. Their job was to design the knobs on the radios in certain GM trucks. Not all trucks mind you. . . just some. And not radios or faceplates, just knobs. When I asked if it wouldn’t be cheaper to just buy entire radios directly from a stereo maker (like Pioneer), he got an angry look on his face and told me that “GM couldn’t be sure the feel would be right on the knobs.” Seriously.

In 2008, GM nearly died. For years, they had been offering interest-free loans to get people to buy their cars. But this only robbed future car sales, it did not get more people to buy their product. In 2008, this policy came home to roost. Demand in the United States fell from a peak of around 20 million cars a year (at the initial height of the incentive craze) to between 9-10 million. This was a disaster for everyone who sold cars in America.

Having lost over $80 billion in four years, with demand collapsing, and losing $2 billion a month, GM was doomed. But in rushed the United States government to prop up the moribund company. You and I, at the insistence of Team Obama, handed GM just over $50 billion to keep them afloat (not to mention the cash for clunkers program designed to keep customers going to GM). But there were promises. . . “we’ve learned our lesson!” everyone said.

In exchange for the $50 billion, GM was to do the following:

• Cut their costs, particularly their union labor costs.

• Eliminate Pontiac, sell Saturn, sell Saab, sell Hummer (6% of GM’s American sales)

• Sell Opel (18% of GM’s global sales).

• Close 20 factories and eliminate 21,000 jobs.

• Eliminate unprofitable dealerships (1300 by the end of 2010).

These ideas were meant to (1) reduce over capacity in the industry to account for the reality that the American market would only buy 10-12 million cars each year, rather than 15-20 million, and (2) reduce GM’s costs so that they would become a profitable, self-sustaining company. The US Government also received ownership of 67% of the new company -- the rest was shared by the Canadian government and the United Auto Workers.

CEO Rick Wagoner even promised to work for only $1 a year until this crisis passed. Though he was soon fired and replaced by the government’s man, Fritz Henderson.

GM then went to Germany and received another $3 billion to keep Opel (GM’s European presence) open long enough to sell it to Magna. They also went to the Swedish government and got a pledge of $412 million and debt guarantee so that they could sell Saab to Koenigsegg. Saturn was to go to Hertz and Hummer to the Chinese.

Sounds like a ton of change right? Guess what.

Well, this week GM decided that Fritz Henderson wasn’t right after all, so they dumped him. This was such a surprise that even the other corporate officers did not know it was coming. The new guy, GM’s Chairman of the Board Ed Whitacre, is already bringing in “new” people. . . like Stephen Girsky, a former advisor to Rick Wagoner.

Wagoner, by the way, despite being fired, remains with the company. And even though he promised to work for only $1 during the crisis, someone apparently forget to mention that he’s eligible for a $20 million pension should he ever leave the company. One wonders how long before he returns to the CEO position?

But that’s not all that GM has been up to. Thursday, GM announced that they would reconsider the closings of the dealerships. Nothing definite has been announced yet in this regard, except that GM has agreed to “establish a binding review process to evaluate closures and determine whether those were based on business decisions.” Look for this to save most of the 1300 “closed” dealerships.

And we’re not done there. GM decided to cancel the Opel sale. It did manage to sell or dump the rest (or supposedly will soon), but by keeping Opel, GM managed to reduce its capacity by only 6% rather than the 24% promised.

Those union concessions? If you believe the UAW, they made concessions that will save GM $1.2 billion per year, which isn’t all that much for a company that takes in approximately $150 billion in revenue each year. Not to mention that many of these savings may be pay freezes rather than actual cuts -- an old Democratic trick, calling a smaller increase than planned a “cut.”

One thing the union did agree to though was to forgive part of GM’s promise to pay $20 billion to cover health care costs of retirees -- how big of a part I don’t know. Still, it’s nice of the union right? Oh, forgot to mention, in exchange for this promise, GM gave the union a 17.5% ownership of the company and $6.5 billion in preferred stock (paying 9% interest) and a $2.5 billion note. By the way, now that the union is taking over the duties of providing health care, any retiree old enough to be on Medicare will lose their “Cadillac” plan and must instead rely on Medicare. Thanks tax payer.

But at least they shut down factories and trimmed their labor force right? Think again. GM reduced the number of plants to be closed to 14. AND, it will keep four of those on “standby” in case they are needed to meet rising demand. AND they’ve recently announced that another will be retooled to make subcompacts rather than being closed. That leaves nine currently closing rather than the twenty they promised.

GM likes to point out that they’re reducing their labor force from 91,000 to 64,000, but it doesn’t appear to have happened yet. Moreover, it’s not clear that these are anything other than Saturn, Hummer or Pontiac workers. Thus, it’s not clear that they’ve actually made their remaining production facilities any more efficient.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a company that got $51 billion of our money based on promises that the company doesn’t appear to be keeping. It leaves us with an industry that will continue to struggle with over capacity. It leaves us with a company that will continue to stagger along on the verge of death until the next bailout.

And people wonder the American public doesn’t trust bailouts.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

я люблю тебя

Love is in the air dear reader, and online. Just this very morning, I was contacted by a lovely young woman, who sounds (if I may say so) quite interested in me. Hubba hubba. Now admittedly, I haven’t had the chance to read the whole e-mail, as it’s been a busy morning. But I have time now, so join me as I learn more about the woman of my dreams!

Her name is Oksana. . . or it could be Svetlana (but I think that’s just a typo), and she lives in Georgia (possibly near Atlanta?). She got my e-mail from someplace called “Soul Mate Service -- Agency of the International Acquaintances.” That sounds pretty impressive, kind of Austin Powersy. I wonder how they got my name?

Anyhoo, she continues:

“At Soul Mate to me has told that you looking for serious women to relationship.” And indeed I am, I’m done with relationshiping clowns. . . and jugglers.

“I hope you still in search of serious relationships with women.” Um. . . I don’t quite know how to take that. Is she hoping that I’m not gay or is she hoping that I’m lonely? Hmmm.

“As I am microbiologist by profession, I am fond of nature.” Makes sense.

“I like travel in nature best of all.” A nudist! I guess that makes her French? As an aside, I’m down with nudism, though I’m not sure where you keep your car keys?

“Im kind, caring, calm, honest, cheerful, understanding, responsive and charming lady. I like dancing, traveling, nature, cooking, sport and people. I can be firm or tender depending on the situation, but I always stay woman.” Now that’s good to know. Although, it is a little troubling that she felt the need to assure me on this point. . . I wonder if there is something I should know?

“I want to make my live bright and saturated, I dont like being boring and doing nothing. So, you can be sure, you will never boring with me.” I don’t know, I’ve bored house plants.

“Im very sociable and cant imagine my life without communication with people.” Yes, that would be difficult, though hermits seem to pull it off.

“I enjoy watching moves with my friends.” Me to, nothing beats watching movers do their thing.

“In winter time I love scatting.” Whoa! Now this bothers me! This could be a deal breaker.

“On the whole, I am very romantic and tender, kind, jolly and well-bread person.” Well-breaded? Tender? I guess that’s better than gamey, but not by much, especially considering the whole scatting thing. And I wonder what “on the whole” means? Is this perhaps code for “experiences brief moments of homicidal rage, followed by intermittent scatting”?

“I am communicable and goal-oriented.” So is a virus.

“I think that all life of a woman is LOVE and at first a man should love a woman and then understand.” *scratches head*

“Now some words about mine search. I looking for serious relationships here.” More than one? Call me a jerk, but I’m starting to doubt this is going to work out.

“I want man to find for making strong and happy family in the future. I know that it is difficult to find future love by so way.” Sure is, but it’s easier than trying to find past love -- which requires a time machine.

“I am looking my second half, man who wants to create his own family.” Half of you is a man? Which half?

“I am looking man who is caring and cheerful.” Sure, whatever.

“He is optimistic.” Good luck finding that.

“He has big heart.” What?! You want someone with an enlarged heart? Well fine, if we’re going to play that game, then I want a woman with a big, floppy liver and a hump.

“He is self sure. He should trust me completely.” Strangely, I’m finding that rather difficult at the moment.

“He must become the most intimate and important man in my life, and respect and understand me. I want him to have his own opinion about everything!” Maybe this e-mail was meant for Lawhawk?

“I wish see your country.” Since when is Georgia in another country? Texas maybe, but not Georgia.

“We should communicate much and long time what to come to it. Not so?” Wait a minute, are we talking haggling or negotiations? This is sounding worse and worse by the minute.

“I hope that you will also be write about yourself and city where you live and sent photos.” You know what, I don’t think so.

Sorry dear reader for wasting your time. Please disregard this entire post.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Customer Satisfaction, Commentarama Style

We at Commentarama are all about satisfying the needs of our audience. And having just completed an extensive market survey of our e-mail inbox, today we are announcing a few changes that we think will serve you better.

Beginning on Monday, we will be adding a few sponsors to make your Commentarama experience more complete.

A surprisingly large number of you appear to have recently lost family members in plane crashes, most often uncles who served in important posts in government. And we know that government workers rarely have much money. So we have obtained a sponsorship agreement for flight insurance with Air Insure. You can’t beat fate, but your family can profit from your demise!

And what better way to say, “hey, you’re dead” than sending flowers to the deceased. Hence, our sponsorship deal with 1-900-FLOWERZ. A rose may be a rose by any other name, but you don't have to pay retail for it.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, many of you have recently come into large sums of money, and you seem to want our help in handling that money. To serve you better, we’re converting Commentarama from a mere, eminently-enjoyable blog into a most-trustworthy bank. Starting next week, we will be known as Commentarama Banco de’Commerce Internationăle.

Because of our new status, we have qualified to receive bailout funds. And we really like our audience. So we want to share those funds with you! Just send your bank account details to: commentaramabank@yahoo.con and we’ll handle the rest.

Finally, beginning Monday, we will start issuing articles in Nigerian. According to our survey, we are über popular in Nigeria. For the rest of you, we can only suggest that the faster you learn Nigerian, the quicker you can keep up with our witty and timely articles.

Sincerely,
The Management [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

I Am Outta Here Suckers. . .

It is with great pleasure that I announce today my retirement from everything. You heard me right, I’m done. Unlike the rest of you proles, I am now rich. . . monocle rich.

Yessiree, this very morning I received an e-mail informing me that I have won the English Lottery!! Heh heh heh. That’s right, £1.5 million . . . all mine.

So as I wait for the cash to start rolling in, let me say that it’s been fun, but as you saps roll out of bed on Monday for another long day at work, I plan to be sitting on my couch. . . living the high life.


UPDATE:

Please disregard the above post dear reader. Apparently, I have not won the English Lottery.

Who knew there was no such thing as a free lunch? *sighs*

You know, in hindsight, I should have guessed something was wrong because I never entered the English Lottery. I guess I just hoped they’d made a mistake. And the more I think about it, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that they would notify me of something like this by anonymous e-mail.

And while we’re at it, I probably shouldn’t have sent my social security number and bank account numbers to someone I didn’t know -- I would never do this if someone showed up on my door -- but this is different, right? This is the internet, and the old rules of common sense just don’t apply on the internet, right?

This isn’t fair. Nobody warned me that this could be a scam. I knew the Spanish Lottery e-mails were a scam, but this was the English Lottery.

Somebody should do a public service announcement to warn people about these things.

Oh well, live and learn. Fortunately, I have other things going on . . . I’m quite close to the Minister of Development in Nigeria, and he’s got a deal for me that sounds too good to be true. I’m very excited. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

“I’m A Buyer”. . . Always.

If any of you have ever watched CNBC, you will have noticed an interesting phenomenon. No matter what is going on in the market, the economy or even the world, their fund manager guests always tell you that it’s a good time to buy stocks.

If the market is down, they tell you that stocks have never been cheaper and you don’t want to miss the coming rally. After all, "all the bad news is already priced into the stocks." If the market is up, they tell you to act fast or you’ll miss this incredible rally. When the market becomes obviously, ridiculously over-priced, they tell you that we’ve entered a new kind of market, where old-style valuation methods simply no longer matter.

So when do you sell stocks? You don’t. There’s even a theory for that: buy and hold. If you hold stocks long enough, you’re guaranteed to make money. Forget the fact that anyone who bought stocks in the last ten years lost significant amounts of money. . . that’s “just a matter of time frames.” Indeed, if you bought at the lowest point fifteen years ago and you sold right at the high point last year, you made a killing! So don't worry about that little ten year issue, just keep buying.

Why is this? As they say on CNBC, let’s begin with a few “disclosures.” Most of the fund managers who come onto CNBC are what is called “long-only fund managers.” This means they are forbidden by regulation or their investment charter to hold short positions. Thus, the only way they can make money for their funds is if stocks rise. But how does deluding themselves make the values of their portfolios go up?

It doesn’t. But here’s the dirty little secret, they aren’t paid for performance. They are paid a fee based on a percentage of the assets they manage. In other words, the more money you put into the fund, the more they make, whether they make you any money or not. Thus, they are not deluding themselves, they are baiting you.

But long only managers are not alone in this game. Wall Street is crawling with traders, people who move assets in and out of stocks (e.g. hedge funds). If one of these traders buys a stock, they want it to go up as quickly as possible so that they can get right back out. But if all of these trades have the same knowledge and training, and thus reach similar conclusions about the value of the stock, who will buy the stock from them? Wouldn’t the other traders’ analysis also say it’s time to sell? The answer is simple. They want you to buy it.

Indeed, during the last run up, the professional traders started buying in March, near the bottom. As the rally continued, they put more and more money into the market. They also started appearing on television to tell you that you better start buying stocks or you were going to miss the greatest bull market of all time. As we approached 900 on the S&P, the pros started bailing out. But as they were selling, they went on tv to encourage the “retailers” (you and I) to keep buying. Why? So that they would have someone to sell their shares to without the price collapsing before they could get out. Indeed, several cynically noted that “once the retail investors start buying, it’s time to get out and wait for the crash.” These same cynics, by the way, also shared a few stock names (that they coincidentally happened to own) that they felt would continue to rise even through the coming crash. So you can feel safe about buying those no matter what happens.

Nice huh? Well, gotta go, need to buy some stocks. . . they're up thirty percent in the last month, but I'm told they still have room to run!
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...