Magox

Yeah I think it's gonna go through as well, I mean I hope it doesn't but it appears that there is no real core of support for this to happen. Sure you have the Neo cons that support anything that has to do with the military and there are some reasonable Democrats that realize that this isn't the best way to approach the cuts. But on the flip side, you will always have those Libs that are eager to cut anything related to the military and now you have a new breed of Conservatives that want to cut anything, even spending that R's typically support. So what will happen? Well, if it goes through, the economy will slow down, how much? We'll see. But also it will make us more vulnerable on the foreign front. That is something that isn't being discussed all that much.

What makes this even more sad is that if he were to run for re election, his constituents would still vote him in.

Yep, mismanagement of funds happen all the time, sometimes they bet the wrong way for too long, double down on bets when they shouldn't and then get caught with a liquidity shortage and as a result, positions get closed creating added volatility for a very short time period. When you get the time, look into SEMGROUP I referenced this occurrence the other day.

I remember when Munson said it was a good idea to short gold five years ago and then repeated it again 3 years ago. He knows what he's talking about.

Yes, really. There is a huge disconnect with the larger American corporations and small businesses. Corporations are doing great, they've been able to benefit off of globalization from cutting costs to enjoying the benefits of more global customers, whereas small businesses are hurt more from added regulations to a weak domestic economy. So yes, it is something that there needs to be more analysis to see if it would have adverse impacts. The question of "morality" should never be used in creating economic policy. It's not a variable that can be used to help determine effective policy. It discounts economic logic and in many cases what is done with good intention in the name of "fairness" or "morality" has the opposite intended outcome. Look at the health insurance law from the president, that is a perfect test case. It is going to be an unmitigated disaster. You know how many people are being dropped by their employers health insurance group plan because of it? A LOT Many businesses would rather pay the fine and add extra compensation to their employers to replace their health insurance because they know that the added compensation won't increase at the rate of the premiums. So if there are going to be less people in employer group risk pools, what do you think that will do to premiums? What I'm saying is that I'm not opposed to raising the minimum wage, what I'm saying is that there needs to be honest studies on small business and see what impacts t could have. If it shutters or causes less employment in these small businesses then obviously that's not the route to go.

Maybe. Certainly there are a number of corporations that can afford a $2 increase in minimum wages. On the flip side, I'm sure there are a number of small mom and pop businesses that are barely getting by with where wages are today. There would need to be extensive analysis from a truly non partisan study group on this issue. Not so much on the Fortune 500 companies but on small business

Let me begin by saying that your usage of "facetious" was not the best characterization that you could of made. There was nothing flippant or humorous that I said or suggested. Secondly, I'm not a guns rights advocates, in all honesty, I don't relate or even "get" the fascination that people have with guns. Having said that, I understand that it is their right to own a gun, and I will respect that. Thirdly, when you say Chicago lacks the ability to enforce their laws, well no ****. That's not the argument, the argument is that if you restrict law abiding peoples rights to bear arms, that somehow this will reduce gun violence. That simply doesn't make sense to me. When you say So tell me how the NRA has "gutted the ability to properly administer the laws and regulations" in a city like Chicago where it would make a difference? I'm curious. (Now that could be characterized as facetious or flippant) I agree, perfect example is the NRA quote from you up above. We are having a discussion, and there is plenty of data to support the argument that added regulations in many instances don't produce desired results. Just because you don't agree with the data or have an excuse to why these gun laws haven't worked doesn't mean that people are being "intellectually lazy". It just means that it doesn't fit your views so you reject them. That's all. The fact that you gloss over the points that LA brought up just shows that you are equally as partisan as the people you like to mock for being partisan. You are no different, just that you are on the other team.

You don't understand? I think it's fairly obvious, at least to me it is. Chicago has one of the strictest and restrictive gun laws in the U.S, yet the murder rate is one of the highest. In other words, restricting people's rights to bear arms don't usually produce the intended results. What is difficult to understand about that?

After all these years, people still getting schooled by Crayonz

What a disaster.

David Frum is a Colin Powell sort of Conservative

Apparently, it was the logical decision to make at the time.

You do realize that oil prices aren't determined by the oil companies don't you? So basically that nullifies your entire post.

These "bubbles" that occur are very transitory. They always get corrected, and they don't remain up or down there for long. The $147 Oil bubble was a headline. No one paid that price at the pump. The only reason why it got up there (which it was there for less than 3 minutes) was because one of the large investors got rolled shorting the markets and placed a huge bet against it. They went down, had to close out their positions, and there was a ton of short covering that went on and it snowballed to other short positions following suit. It would be one thing if the prices remained up there, but they didn't. Market sold off rapidly, and anyone buying oil north of $135 a barrel that didn't close out their positions rapidly got crushed. That's the nature of the markets.

Or it could be because of this: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-02-13/economy/37068497_1_retail-sales-retail-report-tax-hike I would expect consumers to adjust to the tax hikes, but without a doubt, there now is less disposable income for these consumers to spend. It will be interesting to see what sort of impact these tax increases, coupled with higher gas prices and the sequester will have on the economy. What's great about our economy is that we are extremely resilient.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/15/the-unsung-but-massive-obamacare-sales-tax-increase-that-is-on-the-way/

I'd be happy with either Nassib or Manuel with our second pick. Seems like they both have had success with their intermediate to long range passes.

Oh, so we're gonna play the "Since I can't back up my own hypothesis, I will find someone who does" game? Fine So the sources I brought up are more credible than yours, so there. It's simple, try thinking for yourself for a change. If you have two test cases, and they are both trading on the very same product. Test A has 100 market participants, and Test B has 10,000 participants, in which Test will the market be more apt for volatile conditions? It's not rocket science, the more market participants the less volatility. The only way that a market could have less volatility with less participants is if you agree with the premise that in the market with more participants are uniformely trading with one another on a consistent basis. That's simply illogical. Or that there is collusion going on between the largest Financial players, and that they are consistently manipulating the market. Well, until there is proof that states otherwise, I won't base any hypothesis on crackpot conspiracy related theories.

Of course QE has had an impact. Any one with at least half a brain realizes that the stock market has been boosted by QE and that more people have refinanced as a result of it. The real question is do these positive effects outweigh the tax that has been imposed on middle class to lower class families through significantly higher food and gas prices and the future risks of QE? I say no. And nope, I said it would fall temporarily because of a recession. Because the only policy prescription that central bankers know, is to prime the pumps even more,, which would erode the value of their currencies even more so, which would lead us to the very same predicament we have today, which is elevated inflation with slow growth. The only thing that will bring down oil and gas prices is when po,icy makers see even higher inflation, and they move to a more hawkish stance. It will be a protracted cycle of tightening. And as a result oil prices will significantly fall off. And to your statement "couldn't and wouldn't last" It's still here dipshit You have no credibility on this subject, I mean you weren't even aware of what spare capacity was. What's even worse is you don't understand the impact of what weak currencies have on commodities. You've already embarrassed yourself enough professor dingbat. Time for you to go back to the blackboard and spew your leftist ideologies on some naive kid.

The erosion of purchasing power is certainly not a new development. What I'm saying is that it has accelerated over the past 5-10 years. It's not so much an argument of QE, but of loose monetary policy. Of course, this has nothing to do with Obama, so I don't know why you made that point, it has to do with Central bankers more than anything else. And secondly, I'm not going to defend their actions, I believe the cost of QE and loose monetary policy has been more detrimental than good. It has hurt lower to middle income familes. It has eroded their purchasing power of their dollars, while their wages have stagnated. These are the people who get hurt the most as a result of QE. They don't have much in stocks. If they are already employed it doesn't affect their pay. All it did was raise the cost of some of the things they need.

I don't know. And I don't believe there is such a thing as a "correct price". It is what it is. All I'm saying is that if we didn't have QE throughout the world, the price would be lower. If I had to give my best guess, I would say without QE and the massive lowering of global interest rates we'd probably see at least $20 off the price of Crude Oil. Most likely more than that. Remember, it's not just the currency impact, we are also talking about all the collateral impacts that QE has had through out the world. You know, the "wealth effects" it has had to equities, the consumer confidence surges it has had as a result of that effect. Lower rates for refinancing and purchases of new homes, and the added disposable cash people have had because of it. Lower corporate borrowing rates. All the things I mentioned in the previous post in response to Lybob.

It's not just the dollar, it's a number of currencies. If you have three other major currencies such as Euro, Pound and Yen that are all devaluing their currency, and then the Yuan which is basically pegged to the dollar, you aren't going to see the dollar vs. these currencies make a pronounced drop because they are all basically engaging in the same monetary policy. Looking at Gold and oil are the best ways to witness the devaluation of currencies world wide. Gold is an alternate currency, when investors believe inflation or currency devaluation is going on, they flock to gold. In regards to your statement of "printing a trillion dollars and keeping it in my basement". This is not what is going on. Granted, the efficiency or velocity of that cash being circulated isn't happening at an enormous pace, but make no mistake, it is happening. And I already answered this point. In regards to your comment regarding stagnant wages. That is an entirely different point. Yes, globalization is a huge reason why wages have stagnated. However on the flip side, globalization has been broadly negative for the average manufacturing worker in developed nations such as the U.S, but has been an extremely positive development for Emerging nations such as China, India and south east Asia. Those guys are employing massive amounts of people because of it. Globalization was bound to happen, it's not a nefarious policy. It's just evolution, businesses are made not primarily to cater to their workers, but to turn a profit. If you opened up a Pizza shop or any business, why are opening up that business? And don't tell me so that you can pay your employees good money. You open up that business to make an honest buck. So part of the process in achieving that is reducing your costs as much as possible while increasing efficiency. So when CEO's close shop in the U.S to build the same product over seas in the name of creating more profits, that is completely legitimate. So when people B word about CEO's making huge bonuses, well, that is also another collateral impact of Globalization. Profits are higher and if profits are higher than so is CEO compensation. Where I have a problem with CEO compensation is if that particular corporation is losing money or profit growth is slowing down and they still get huge payouts. Or if they make terrible decisions that impact their company in the future and by the time they receive their golden parachute, and the company is crumbling, they still make out like bandits. There should be some sort of claw back clause in their compensation. The best way I can think of is tying their bonuses to company stock. Much of their bonuses should be paid out in stock bonuses. And that they shouldn't be able to cash out on those stocks for X amount of years. I'm not advocating for legislation to make this happen, but rather it should be done organically. It should be part of the culture of CEO payout. I didn't say, the IEA says that the gap between consumption and production has narrowed. And I brought up the Saudi's shrinking capacity to refute your point, which is that they don't have nearly as much control over prices as they use to, not without self-inflicting damage anyway. You seem to believe that everything is a one way street. I'm telling you that there is a lot of push and pull in the markets. There are many factors that are constantly working for and against oil prices. Supply and Demand over the past year have been an influence that have impacted oil prices to the downside. Monetary policy has been a large influence that has kept prices higher. That's it. And in regards to this: You are one thick-headed dude. You simply just don't get it. I just provided you proof that Supply/Demand picture is much worse in 2012 than it was in 2011, with the price of crude being 3.5% higher. it's as if you ignored that part Jeez More proof that you don't have a good grasp of what we are talking about.

Old stuff??? it shows the spare capacity of 2011 and 2012. That's relevant to the discussion

Of course, but that doesn't support your argument. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016140459750174.html The Saudis don't have as much spare capacity as they use to. 2011 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2011-04/18/c_13834359.htm 2012 http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/spare_capacity Here is a little something on what I was talking about earlier regarding Spare Capacity and it's impact on pricing. http://www.eia.gov/finance/markets/supply-opec.cfm

This statement could of been made from Jay Carney, official mouth piece of Obama http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/wh-rubio-response-could-have-been-delivered-by-gov-156911.html How coincidental