patrick.net

patb says

i would extend the offer to any military veteran, who is willing to live in the house for 2 years.

I'm not crazy about extending an offer to any group specifically. Either everyone, or no one. Government isn't allowed to pick winners and losers.

p.s.
shrekgrinch - i'm not faulting you. Just I've seen a lot of that stuff in the media lately, thats what I've been referring to. The media fetish over special treatment to certain groups, but not others. I really can't agree with firefighters being treated better than teachers, soldiers, bakers, engineers, small business owners, etc...

tatupu70 says

I would argue that you are completely incorrect. It appears from the latest data that the housing credit ending pulled ahead some demand, but did not cause a collapse. Housing is not falling to where it “should have gone without the credit”. The credit caused a rise directly before its end, and a fall directly after. Then you have the normal winter slump. Most recent data indicate spring will be good.

If housing prices fall to their fundamentally-supported values, then why would the tax credit prevent that from happening? If it doesn't, then why wouldn't prices fall to where they should have gone* without the credit?

*I am putting a small caveat on this for increasing GDP during this period, though minimally impacting the prices.

klarek says

If housing prices fall to their fundamentally-supported values, then why would the tax credit prevent that from happening? If it doesn’t, then why wouldn’t prices fall to where they should have gone* without the credit?
*I am putting a small caveat on this for increasing GDP during this period, though minimally impacting the prices.

I didn't phrase that very well. My point was that housing did fall to its fundamentally supported level. The housing credit doesn't appear to have had much impact other than shifting demand around a little bit.

Mr.Fantastic says

Would you buy a $1,000 house in the middle of Kabul, Afghanistan or Mosul, Iraq? These cities are probably more safe than Detroit.

Poppy Cock and a hardy load of Bullshit! There's not a piece of land in the US that is not contaminated that is absolutely worthless.

At $1000 I bet there's people smart enough to know, RE is all Trend, and Perception. Especially those to poor to care about the other hang ups "High crime" blah blah blah. It's thugs and druggies shooting each other, if they were randomly indiscriminately shooting Citizens, the National Guard would be there. Sure you could post a news story, you go first I'll all the crime stories in LA we can go toe to toe, until you realize how pointless that would be.

Judging by most of you guys fundamentals here, you'll be a renter for life. As long as you think there's houses in a large City in the US not worth $1,000.

I'll take them all for $1,000 each, that is along with being free of any previous liabilities.

Ayn Rand collected MediCare and Social Security checks.

Enough said.

The State of Michigan has ordered Detroit to close half its schools. Houses are selling for peanuts, schools are in chaos, crime is rampant. Detroit was once one of the world's greatest cities. What changed it? I personally think that the fact that Detroit has been controlled by Democrats for the last 60 years has absolutely nothing to do with it. Absolutely no way.

http://detnews.com/article/20110221/SCHOOLS/102210355/1409/Michigan-orders-DPS-to-make-huge-cuts

Home Prices Almost At 2009 Trough As Double Dip Materializes
According To Case-Shiller Index
Feb. 22 2011
By AGUSTINO FONTEVECCHIA

http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecchia/2011/02/22/home-prices-almost-at-2009-trough-as-double-dip-materializes-according-to-case-shiller-index-2/

Housing prices continue to tumble, making their way to their 2009 trough and reinforcing the idea that a double-dip in home prices is inevitable, according to the most recent data from the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices. The National Index is within a percentage point of the 2009 trough and 11 of the 20 cities surveyed hitting new index lows, as the statistics reveal an increasingly deteriorating housing market

A double-dip in home prices is over the horizon and on its way. Yale economist Robert Shiller, who created the index along with Karl Case, noted in an interview with CNBC that “price[s] may go down substantially,” and, according to Trade The News, estimated that the decline could be in the 15% to 25% range.

Read the book twice in my youth.

Thought maybe it would make more sense the second time. It didn't.

I did like the discussion of "what is money" where the character basically says the underlying value of money is the productive work it symbolizes. The rest of it was not really good, she needed an editor with a machete.

I liked better the film adaptation of Fountainhead, although it wasn't until some years later someone pointed out that the architect destroying "his" work was also selfishly destroying the work of his employers and the other artisans who built it. The ending is really garbage IMO.

I'm not sure 2009 was the trough.

>>>U.S. house prices were unchanged on a seasonally adjusted basis from October to November, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s monthly House Price Index. The previously reported 0.7 percent increase in October was revised downward to a 0.2 percent increase. For the 12 months ending in November, U.S. prices
fell 4.3 percent. The U.S. index is 14.9 percent below its April 2007 peak and roughly the same as the August 2004 index level.

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/19648/MonthlyHPINov12511.pdf

shrekgrinch says

1) Prove it
2) If she did, so what? She was coerced into paying for both so why not?

1) Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits.

2) Because it proves she didn't even live by her own credo? That the tongue which would famously flay the skin off those of her sycophants who demonstrated the tiniest impurity of libertarian thought, held behind it no REAL conviction of it's own?

She wrote in “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Another of her famous quotes was:

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

She accepted the money under the name Anne O'Connor to hide the fact.

Of the 3 famous women considered founders of Libertarianism, the other 2 were Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, who refused Social Security on principle. Paterson famously never even opened the envelope with the SS card.

Ayn was just a raging hypocrite and liar when it actually counted.

Also, this movie would have been more believable set in China.

Quote from the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 trailer:

A: They say you're intractable, you're ruthless, your only goal is to make money
B: My only goal IS to make money

This might be believable if he were running a hedge fund, or peddling dodgy securities to pensioners or something.

NOBODY is going to buy the premise that American businessmen of today would be puttering around with trains as the path to vast riches. Might have pulled it off as a low-budget 1930's period piece.

tatupu70 says

My point was that housing did fall to its fundamentally supported level.

I understand that's what you believe, but I'm not seeing anything to back that up.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/02/house-prices-price-to-rent-price-to.html

By all measures, we are still in bubble territory. To claim that prices fell to fundamentally-supported levels implies that a) this coincidentally happened at exactly the same time as the tax credit's inception, and b) new fundamentals now exist in contradiction to those of the past, logically as sound as believing in 2005 that home prices were fundamentally supported.

Bubble territory?

Looking at your 1st graph, home prices are 10-15% overpriced compared to rent. Maybe prices are too high, maybe rents are too low--probably a mixture of each. But either way, I woudn't call 10-15% a bubble.

Using price to income (2nd graph), prices are ~5% too high. It won't take much of a rise in household income to get that back to fair value. Again, not sure how that could ever be called a bubble.

It's unclear to me where fair value is on the real home price graph (3rd one). I guess you probably should draw a line with a slope of wage inflation - CPI through starting at Jan-76 and ~65. Without doing that work, I don't think you can draw a conclusion from that chart...

tatupu70 says

Looking at your 1st graph, home prices are 10-15% overpriced compared to rent. Maybe prices are too high, maybe rents are too low–probably a mixture of each.

The rental market is more "free" than the housing market and not subject to phenomenons related to price stickiness or leveraging. Rents being "too low" means that demand would be so high that people are homeless (think price controls and long lines for gas in the 70's). So no, I don't think that's the case. Housing prices are 10-15% too high.

tatupu70 says

Using price to income (2nd graph), prices are ~5% too high. It won’t take much of a rise in household income to get that back to fair value. Again, not sure how that could ever be called a bubble.

A reasonable argument/observation. I think though that the erosion of the middle class and the disparity of wealth might make a tiered ratio index more telling. Your point still stands (minus that this isn't part of a bubble), as does my assertion that housing prices are above fundamentally-supported levels.

tatupu70 says

It’s unclear to me where fair value is on the real home price graph (3rd one). I guess you probably should draw a line with a slope of wage inflation - CPI through starting at Jan-76 and ~65. Without doing that work, I don’t think you can draw a conclusion from that chart…

I think it can be interpreted the same way as the first one. What I find most telling about all three of these graphs and what I've been trying to emphasize so much here is the impact of the tax credit. Shifts in demand like that really can disrupt prices a lot. Look at how prices through the bubble rose without interruption, and fell without interruption until the credit's inception. When it disappeared, they resumed their downward trajectory. Each month of new data further validates this, as well as my assertion that prices were not at fundamentally-supported levels when they started rising. Since that is the established baseline, how far below that level is now the question/argument. I don't think 15% is far-fetched, but probably closer to 10%.

"Likewise gold and silver will peak long before inflation becomes a serious problem, then crash back down again."

Your analysis does not take into account that over the last five years the central banks worldwide have been stockpiling gold, especially the central banks of China, Russia and India. This really has only just begun, as their reserves are nowhere near where they need to be to properly cushion against a sudden crash in the US dollar.

You seem keen on demonstrating your belief that gold and silver will go up strongly but then you imply they will be in a "bubble" which means you also believe these gains will be volatile and short-lived. This is a fear-based analysis that's not really based in the practical.

When the US dollar experiences a sudden crash, that's surely when gold and silver will spike. Crashes do tend to resume after their initial spike and gold and silver will gradually continue to gain value in the aftermath of a sudden USD crash. If any remaining currencies are intact, you will want to then convert some of your gold and silver to those currencies. Then keep the remainder of your gold and silver to serve as your new local currency until a new fiat currency is in place. That's what gold and silver are ultimately for. We all know the USD is history and that its funeral is in the future.

Applying the media-hyped word "bubble" to your analysis seems to distract from the practical aspects. Trying to time a USD crash is impossible. It is better to use gold and silver as insurance hedges since no one knows the timing. Worrying about volatility along the way is nonsensical since this is a long-term insurance hedge that does not budge.

Did I say they looked alike? No. Just pointing out that your idiotic argument could be applied to either case, neither of which are flat.

______________________________

^--That is "flat". Feel free to use it for future reference.

"The only way to understand any market is a fear-based analysis."

There's no way to quantify "fear" which means it's useless for analysis and trading purposes. One may quantify sentiment which is done by looking at put vs. call ratios; the general method for this is to use the COT (Commitment of Traders) report. This falls under the category of "technical analysis" which is not fear-based. There is no such thing as "fear-based" analysis in the financial world. Fundamental and technical analysis and that's it.

"Why wouldn’t billionaires manipulate gold into a bubble so they can lock in profits and buy low again before the next run?"

Such manipulation and resulting profit may be obtained from any investment. This is not specific to gold and silver and there's no reason to believe another investment will be safer from such manipulation. This levels the playing field. I should add that organizations such as GATA are shining a spotlight on precious metals manipulation which will likely result in a less-manipulated precious metals market (vs. other markets which are not under such intense scrutiny).

"Fear and exuberance drives short term markets, not fundamentals."

I think you missed my point, but nevermind.

"You’re welcome to do this of course but you’ll miss out on a huge opportunity. Gold and silver will go parabolic at some point while the dollar is still stable and relatively strong. That is the time to sell."

One does not cash out of their life insurance policies, health insurance coverage or auto/home insurance policies to use that cash to play the stock market, in hopes of making gains, and then re-starting those policies later. Similarly, there's no reason to use a gold and silver long-term hedge to do the same.

Remove your hedge and you expose yourself to unnecessary risk. Better to use side money for gambling outside of your insurance hedge. Keep the hedge in place for when you need it.

shrekgrinch says

SoCal Renter says

Ayn Rand collected MediCare and Social Security checks.
Enough said.

1) prove it.
2) If she did, so what? She was coerced into paying for both so why not?

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/

Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

So she willingly enslaved herself despite her endless prognostications against the evils of government largess? SHE IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE and she invalidates the entire philosophy. Libertarian followers refuse to take Social Security or Medicare while she secretly sucked thirstily on the government teet. That is fucking rich!

I hope wing-nuts keep swimming in the libertarian tea party bullshit though. Makes them easier to identify when they approach.

End of debate.

Vicente says

1) Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits.

Vicente - We are dealing with Tea Party folks here. They won't believe it until someone produces the LONG FORM Federal record.

To all the anti-Libertarians here... please hand over your Bill of Rights since you obviously don't want those anymore, and you're ready and willing to fight for that.

Take a number, stand in line, and then please tilt your head forward for the bolt pistol to the back of the skull.

Mooooo.

Who can seriously debate the value of her contribution to economics? All you have to do is take care of yourself and everything will be fine. Too bad the people at the top of the pyramid can't plow a road or unclog a toilet, but I guess as long as you invent a plow you're entitled to every piece of bread. The bitch was an atheist AND had a God complex. How's that for a hypocrite? Now, as a philosopher she makes some very interesting points, and having read both of her major works I can say I enjoyed them both immensely, especially the rape scenes. But the most touching scene in The Fountainhead probably was when she burst into his hovel and declared war and love at the same time.

"I love you. I love you so I must try to destroy you."
"I know."

It started to break down for me when her favorite rapist grabbed an acetylene torch from an electrician, then started cutting holes in a steel girder for electrical conduits. Laughable, but then again she admits she doesn't write the book for idiots like me, but for the "special" people who "know" and "understand". If she didn't have such an aversion to groups, I think she would've made an excellent Scientologist.

When she was kicked out of university for being a Jew, a group of students assembled and lobbied for the re-admittance of her and others. I wonder what she thought of a group fighting for her rights. Her true gift was openly admitting there was nothing but bones in her body, and nothing but a desire for everything me. She railed against altruism as being evil, and twisted things in opposite directions in self-serving paradigms. People organizing in unions or political groups were the same type of monster that made Communism, the same monster that kicked her entitled ass out of Russia. Its a lot like Intelligent Design. An argument built from the top down that doesn't really go anywhere, or want to go anywhere. Its just something for people who've already made up their minds, or people who are "special" like her.

theoakman says

You cannot paint the man in charge of manipulating interest rates as someone who is against intervention.

Greenspan was certainly against "intervention". It's in all his writings.

Interest rate manipulation was a tactical necessity to put deregulationists like him in power.

Federal Funds Rate, 1985-2005

1986-1987 -- Bush's election's coming, better lower rates!

1990-1992 -- Bush's re-election's coming, better lower rates!

1994-1996 -- Clinton's re-election's coming, better raise rates!

1999-2000 -- Gore's election's coming, better raise rates!

2002-2004 -- Bush's reelection's coming, better lower rates!

The problem with Greenspan, is he doubtless viewed himself as a saboteur. The one who could achieve a sort of libertarian ideal, just by going limp on the regulatory side. He doubtless viewed himself as a secret Randist agent. He even had "Mom" standing next to him in 1974 when he was made chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Brooksley Born recounted this meeting with him:

“Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about fraud,” Born, in a recent interview, remembers Greenspan saying.

“What is there not to agree on?” Born says she replied.

“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.

To my mind an incredibly COWARDLY backdoor way to achieve Randism, because he kept the trappings of regulation while in fact doing nothing. And we see where his beliefs led us. He was hands off only when it came to regulation. Otherwise he was Wall Street's Boy and his operational theory was giving the financiers MORE wealth would naturally lead them to do good things with it. Another facet of the "trickle down" idea, that if you give billionaires another billion, they'll need a million shoes and they'll hire American workers to make them all these fine shoes.

Troy says

theoakman says

You cannot paint the man in charge of manipulating interest rates as someone who is against intervention.

Greenspan was certainly against “intervention”. It’s in all his writings.
Interest rate manipulation was a tactical necessity to put deregulationists like him in power.
Federal Funds Rate, 1985-2005
1986-1987 — Bush’s election’s coming, better lower rates!
1990-1992 — Bush’s re-election’s coming, better lower rates!
1994-1996 — Clinton’s re-election’s coming, better raise rates!
1999-2000 — Gore’s election’s coming, better raise rates!
2002-2004 — Bush’s reelection’s coming, better lower rates!

Actions speak louder than words. Greenspans actions totally contradict any hands off approach to the economy. In fact, he was the most hands on fed chairman we've had prior to Bernanke.

theoakman says

Actions speak louder than words.

here in the real world it takes active agency to effect change. Fucking up the System is a pretty good way to get rid of it.

The 3/2 in Campbell I live in is $1800 a month and I've lived here since 2005. It was purchased for 6 and change early the same year. Landlord? I've talked to him 3 or 4 times in 6 years.

I seriously doubt I found a needle either, though it's a pretty good deal. I'm completely surprised he hasn't walked away yet, as he'll be long dead before he sees break even on this house.

I had a fleeting desire to be John Galt around the same time I had a fleeting desire to be the Kwizach Haderach.

Nite.

Here's two articles from the late Hans Sennholz in 2001/2002., Mises's protege.

http://mises.org/daily/588/Bulls-and-Bears
http://mises.org/daily/1089

This is a man who was able to clearly see the inflation of a Real Estate Bubble, predict its fallout, and the subsequent policy response of the central bankers. He was far ahead of the curve. I've seen you paint, with a broad brush, Austrian economics as a fanatical set of ideas. I contend that people who understand Mises & Hayek clearly are able to use their ideas about free markets to identify bad public policy and easily predict the negative fallout from those policies. If you care to read their work clearly, the economists who argue most in favor of the free market (Mises & Hayek) fully recognize that there is a nice balance that can be achieved through social services & the market economy. Rand was went to the end of the spectrum arguing for some sort of purist system. If you read Sennholz, despite his clamor for the free market, he and other Austrian economists fully realize the need for regulatory measures in response to central government policy blunders. He called for the raising of margin requirements during the tech bubble. He, along with Congressman Paul called for Fannie/Freddie to be tightly regulated in as early as 2001. He identified the danger of dropping interest rates to 1% circa 2001/2002.

In short, any rational person who understands Mises/Hayek fully recognizes the world we live in requires a government and can function properly with a central bank. The free marketeers which you seem to target (and rightfully so) are the ones that support spiking the punchbowl with low interest rates, easy money, and large government spending while deregulating the industry and expecting the market to sort it out. The real free market economists fully recognize that if you do spike the punch bowl, you better be ready reign in the excess that will arise from the marketplace as a result of spiking the punchbowl. Most of Austrian Economics fully focuses upon the negative fallout from the policies of a central bank.

I'll give an example which I think is fairly straight forward. There's no question FDIC insurance prevents bank runs. However, is it really necessary to back 100% of a person's deposit? In doing so, that person cares not which bank they deposit their money in. They go for the highest interest rate, which in this environment, is a product of a banks willingness to heavily speculate in the market. Why not have FDIC insurance back 70% of that deposit to put the fear of losing money into the depositor? One of the best regulators in the marketplace is the fear of going bankrupt. We can have a government backstop to create safety and not impede the function of the marketplace. However, when you insure 100% of something, you remove that balance and no one cares if their money is deposited at a bad bank like Bank of America.

The Austrian economists were never quiet in their disdain for Reagan, Bush 1 &2, Art Laffer, Greenspan, and Bernanke. They fully recognized that their rhetoric was not backed by true principles and that you can't have deregulation on the market side of things corresponding with pump priming via the Fed's monetary policy & Federal Governments fiscal policy. I blame Milton Friedman. He took good ideas and hybridized them arguing that the best possible outcome would arise if you leaned towards free markets.

Friedman supported free trade and ignored currency pegging.
Friedman supported tax cuts and ignored the bond market and bad fiscal policy.
Friedman supported sound money while supporting central bankers and trusted them to remain independent.

In short, regulation is heavily needed when you pump prime the economy with monetary/fiscal policy.

I posted some highlights of Sennholz's two articles below.

Other optimists are convinced that the Federal Reserve, under the Chairmanship of Alan Greenspan, will avert any panic and avoid a recession. The Fed and nearly all other central banks, they assert, have become "Keynesians" who may not believe in Keynesian doctrines, but they do not know what else to do. As long as the consumer price index does not move up sharply, they will expand their credit. But it is unlikely that they will succeed in reflating the old tech bubble; instead, they may create new bubbles, which will be in weapons and raw materials, such as
oil, natural gas, platinum, palladium, and even copper.

The present situation is most precarious, they believe, because the Fed made the monumental mistake of raising interest rates several times in recent months. But as soon as the Fed cuts its rates, big rallies and visible improvements are bound to follow. On January 3, 200l when the Fed lowered its rates by one-half of one percent, they applauded. In the hope that the Fed will continue to lower its rates, the Monetarists are happily turning optimistic again.

Other "realists" point to a potential credit crisis that is casting its shadow over the economy. Throughout the financial boom the leading banks freely extended their credits to many new enterprises that now face difficulties....A real "credit crunch" is threatening on the horizon, which would gravely encumber the American economy.....Congressman Ron Paul, a keen observer of the Washington scene, points to glaring examples of the credit bubble waiting to be pricked. The government-sponsored financial institutions Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) show $33 billion of shareholder equities with $1.07 trillion worth of loans...... When the bubble bursts because of debt default, the economy is bound to flounder, no matter how the Fed may attempt to prevent it.

The few critics who hold him and his Fed colleagues responsible for the financial instability disagree with the Chairman on every issue. They are astounded by his inability to know with certainty that a bubble actually exists. Economic bubbles have plagued the American economy ever since the First United States Bank opened its doors in Philadelphia in 1791. They preceded and led to many financial crises and even depressions, which have been an important object of economic research and voluminous writing ever since....He who does not recognize a bubble obviously does not search for its causes....The Chairman wants us to believe that tighter margin requirements would have been ineffective in deflating the equity bubble. These are minimum amounts of cash which a buyer of stock must deposit in a margin account. ....The Board obviously did not see fit to raise the required margin because it did not perceive the bubble. But it is rather surprising to be told now that any boost in margin requirements would have had no effect anyway...Surely, a boost to seventy or even one hundred percent would have dampened the enthusiasm of most speculators immediately....Mr. Greenspan, at the helm of the Fed since 1987, has used them sparingly to restrain bank credit expansion but frequently to expand its scope and volume. As stock prices were soaring, his Board eased credit because currency crises were wracking Asia in 1997. And again in the fall of 1998 it chose to expand rapidly when Russia defaulted and Long-Term Credit ran into difficulties. Between June 1999 and May 2000, at the top of the boom, finally, it tightened six times by raising the discount rate. But as soon as the economy began to stagnate and readjust in the first quarter of 2001, the Fed reacted by lowering its rate no fewer than eleven times during the year.

Stock market cycles are the most spectacular offsprings of central banking and credit creation. There are several others, less sensational, such as the cycles in precious metals and objects of art and collection. They affect only small groups of affluent clientele who usually suffer in silence. The most ominous of all cycles, which touches millions of people, is the boom-and-bust sequence in real estate. Just as in equity markets, these bubbles are clearly visible in their price-earnings ratios or price-rental ratios that greatly exceed those of healthy markets....The real estate bubble is bound to burst as soon as the distortions become visible to ever greater numbers of participants.

I think silver is heading to $22 for a supreme shakeout before it heads higher.

theoakman says

I posted a few weeks ago that if Silver hit $26, I’m a buyer. Damn it, it only hit $26.50. I’m still of that opinion. As it stands, I don’t want to buy at this price. I have a good enough position and will only add to it below $30. In short, I have no friggin clue whats going to happen and I’m content to hold.

I was shooting for $25.... and look what happened. Figures - there were huge gains to be made almost overnight.

joshuatrio says

theoakman says

I posted a few weeks ago that if Silver hit $26, I’m a buyer. Damn it, it only hit $26.50. I’m still of that opinion. As it stands, I don’t want to buy at this price. I have a good enough position and will only add to it below $30. In short, I have no friggin clue whats going to happen and I’m content to hold.

I was shooting for $25…. and look what happened. Figures - there were huge gains to be made almost overnight.

If you bought call options on Silver Wheaton at that point, you would have hit it out of the park.

This is a hard market to read. At one end of the spectrum, we have investments that I swore by 6 months ago skyrocketing (Silver, Oil, Commodities, Potash). On the other hand, they've gone up so much, so fast, that I swear they have big pullbacks, especially in the face of economic stagnation. Unfortunately, we have a middle eastern uprising every 2 weeks and it creates even more chaos in the markets. QE, while in effect, is not on anyone's mind anymore.

In 2009, the S&P rallied 30% and the pundits claimed we were pricing in the recovery. Today, the S&P is up 100% from the lows and there has not been any recovery in the US. I gotta believe a mini fall-2008 crash is in store. $100 oil does not mix well with 10% unemployment (20% real unemployment).

1. Ha!

2. I grew up playing Bubble Bobble on original NES and haven't seen a reference to it in YEARS!

3. This is my first of 3 required 'comments,' so forgive the lack of substance in my remarks. I'm just checking a box here...

TQNT, AAPL, SSN, and SOLR. Currently long on TQNT, AAPL, and SSN. Waiting to build up the funds for an SOLR purchase.