karl, I write as a neophyte. The knowledge I have has come over the last year from this sight or was encouraged by this sight. Thank you. With that having been said I have a question/scenerio I'd like to hear you address. Being that tht the CB and IB's are hiding losses w/ level 3 accounting practices , one has to assume they hope that by buying time they will be able to make revenue that offsets losses or that the market will regain lost value and spare them the loss altogether. I understand why this behaviour is fraudulent to investors and you have well demonstrated that it is hopelessly optimistic. However, with the Gov being compliant in every way to date (TAF,Discount,Rates etc) how can you not think that it is a very real possibility that the gov will try to reinflate the debt cycle by encouraging the use of retirement funds to buy more time for the banks? I know you will say that would be insanely stupid, but what in the recent past would indicate that the gov. wouldn't do it? Possible bond market reaction? I'd love to read your response and would inquire what you think that such a possibility is one that should be hedged against and how. Thanks again, I think the ticker is great. Best , Jim

Well that's the hope Pauper, but you have to be able to get away with it.

Where's the asset base going to come from to reinflate the debt bubble?

That's the stupid part - you have to have the asset base or you can't do it.

Quote:

She is worthless, so will probably get re-elected.

Remember, we shipped a HUGE portion of our worthless population (and her base) off to other states after Katrina, and they have not returned. And, as mentioned, we now have a hell of a governor. High oil prices mean that we're actually running massive SURPLUSES while everyone else is trying to figure out where their property taxes went. We didn't participate in the bubble (not uncommon - we didn't participate in the tech boom either ) so we're really not feeling the pain of the bursting too much either. Louisiana is on the rise, my friends. We just have to get rid of stupid officials like this.

I am not sure what is scarier, she can't multiply, or that if she really thought that number was that big, that the government should try to bail it out anyways.

Mandating disclosure is forcing speech.

Freedom of speech implies the right to remain silent.

Forcing speech violates that right.

I happen to think that everybody has the actual (moral) right to "start a rumor," just as I also happen to think that everybody also has a right to fully ignore that stupid garbage the very moment it is uttered.

The fact that an analyst at Goldman happens to like a stock while their Trading Department disagrees and is in fact trading out of their position, is, to my mind, nothing to be concerned about at all -- and is hardly reason enough to be calling for more government intervention in free markets.

Again, I say that we have NO shortage whatsoever of governmental red tape.

There is no shortage of rules & regulations.

*****

One thing I've come to a conclusion on since I've been reading here at the forum is that I will not ever support ANY further expansion of government at all. NONE. Not one single additional rule, regulation, tax, bureaucracy, subsidy, restriction, or piece of paperwork is needed. It's plenty damned big enough -- MORE THAN big enough -- as it stands right now.

The last thing we need is more of it.

Any expansion of government that you'd care to argue for, count me the hell out of it.

Aynrandfan, it sounded to me as if Gen agreed with you (in theory).

The rumor games would be okay as long as us common folk were allowed the same right.

That could actually work out nicely. There would be so many unfounded rumors flying around that people would actually start ignoring them and trade more on the fundamentals.

Not gonna happen, but its a nice thought.

This is a problem that us libertarians run into all the time, unfortunately. We push for removing restrictions in one area, but ignore the fact that if we don't simultaneously reduce restrictions in another area we are creating an unbalanced playing field and making the problem worse instead of better.

"Mandating disclosure is forcing speech.

Freedom of speech implies the right to remain silent.

Forcing speech violates that right."

Aynrandfan..

If it is a matter of private matter that right of no speech exist and is protected, but if it is a matter of public concern, then it is of a different set of rules.

How would you like to buy a 'new' car if in fact it was involved in a crash and multiple death had occurred within. It could happen if no disclosure is allowed.

Government exists to prevent force or fraud from being used by one citizen against another.

That's that as I see it.

Genesis says:

"Government exists to prevent force or fraud from being used by one citizen against another.

That's that as I see it."

I must admit I have agreed with him for years! I have trusted that our Govt. would STOP the fraud I THOUGHT I saw but others berated me for by calling me "paranoid". I lost a lot of money by being short the market since 2003 to hedge my meager retirement savings, which are (were) largely in securities (note the reverse funds use percent change instead of log-delta returns. What a rip!)

My banker thinks I am a fool.

Now, I have to humbly submit a suggested edit: "Government SHOULD exist to prevent force or fraud..... against another". The question is: DOES Ours, Really?

I have a relative who is an appraiser of homes. Nowadays he tries to make ends meet by using software like OmniTrader. People have to feed their family even when their clients tell them to be dishonest, and our justice system does not answer their pleas. I hope he is not finally branded by our Government as an "Evil Speculator" (short seller), when he tries to defend his hard earned life-savings from the "pigmen".

Fortunately at least PART of our government seems to believe in its "true" purpose. Watch the hearings posted elsewhere on this forum and see for yourself.
Made my day, when I finally hacked through Comcast's constantly terminating my attempts to download them, to see the Moderator of the Hearing ask participants if banks should include their doubtful securities on their balance sheets, and publicly report same.

But remember what Bill Clinton said, to paraphrase: Around here (in D.C.) the Truth is what We say it Is". Also, he said: "That depends on what 'is' means".

So what IS the Truth????? It is what WE THE PEOPLE say it is. I really hope.