Wall Street Roller Coaster, And No Harness In Sight

Another down day so far on Wall Street, with all major indexes down big digits so far. The buzzword being thrown around is “fear”. The market is down because people are afraid. They are afraid of recession, falling profits, job losses, and trolls.

Without being a market expert, or an economist, anything I say about this mess is just as an observer. But I do observe that there seems to be no “fundamentals” left in the market. All we get are a series of knee-jerk reactions to random news articles. A specific projection about a sector or specific company is given virtually no weight, only the broader market is of any concern.

I’m a giant fan of graphs, mostly because I love numbers, and graphs have a great way of expressing numbers in a simple visual way. Like this graph:

If you take a look at this fun graph, you can see we might just be at the very tip of the iceberg on how far the stock market can go down. Only time will tell, but a betting man might start to tke out some large shorts right about now.

Let's look a little deeper though. Electronic trading, average people in the market, hedge funds, mutual funds, international soverign funds, the Internet. The list of new entities in the market and new forces goes on and on. We could be in some new world financial market order. Of course the same forces that have always held sway might win the day and the market is in for one HELL of a correction.

When the market does this, I can't stress real investing enough. Don't invest in something that is just a piece of paper. Invest in something real, or something that will pay you, like a bond, prefered stock, or dividend paying common stock. You are still exposed to potential losses, but in the long-term you have very high chance of coming out ahead.

Greenspan Faces Congress

... Greenspan said, he and others are in "a state of shocked disbelief" that "counterparty surveillance" failed. He said he still doesn't fully understand what went wrong.

You won't hear many statements nearly as asinine as that one folks. The great Alan Greenspan doesn't know what went wrong on Wall Street. Give me a F'ing break. You and your moron friends decided to let an industry that makes money based off of commisions and fees taken from playing with other people's money run wild without anyone looking to see what they are up to.

"We have learned that voluntary regulation does not work," said Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission

Now we know, if you hand a bunch of greedy people the keys to the money bin and tell them your leaving and as long as they pinky-promise not to take any money they might end up taking the money and running with it, who knew?

The financial system exists to raise and direct the capital the economy needs to grow and "should not be an end in itself - a baroque cathedral of complexity dedicated to limitless compensation for itself in the short-term, paid for with long-term risk capable of threatening the entire nation's sustenance and growth," Cox said

When I first got into this industry I was shocked to find out how money was being freely invested. Investment companies investing in other investment companies, all in a big circle and liking the fat returns they were getting because the valuations were skyrocketing.

The problem was, and probably still is, that the investments were backed up by nothing. They all invested in each other, which caused the valuations to rise due to the supply/demand concept, but without the revenue to back up the valuations it's all just a house of cards.

Greenspan said he favored strengthening the regulatory structure. "As much as I would prefer it otherwise, in this financial environment I see no choice but to require that all securitizers retain a meaningful part of the securities they issue," Greenspan said.

Amazing! Even with the economy in the tank and Wall Street a mess he still wishes there was no regulation, but will grudgeningly accept it. Absolutly shameless.

If you choose to invest, make sure you're actually investing in something that has real value, not paper value. And buying into a company that makes all their money by buying into companies that buy into companies that buy into companies that buy into companies that buy into compies.... and on and on.... is a bad idea.

Check out CNBC for the full article.

NFL Holds Secret Meeting With Steelers

The NFL is a secretive organization. It often looks like an old boys club from the outside. They always keep problems in 'the family'.

From ESPN:

Tomlin, Ward and Polamalu all questioned the way the league handled fines after Ward was docked $15,000 for two infractions the team felt were unnecessary. Polamalu, who is rarely outspoken, went as far to say the NFL is becoming a "pansy" league.

The NFL has been pretty damn fine happy these past few years, along with increased penalty enforcement. The image of the NFL as the toughest most brutal sport may be having trouble when facing reality.

Anderson also mentioned that the NFL is looking into recent comments made by Baltimore Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs against Ward and Pittsburgh rookie tailback Rashard Mendenhall. Suggs mentioned on a recent radio interview that the team has a "bounty" on those two players.

"That 'bounty' notion is completely against the rules," Anderson said. "To the extent that someone is engaged in that activity, we will look into it and address it. Yes, we've seen the comments and we're trying to determine the completeness of the circumstances."

This is the crap that is killing the NFL. People WANT to have rivalries, a player declaring a bounty will only increase the ratings and interest. The league making a public show of not wanting this talk only serves to turn people off.

The NFL use to be fueled by controversy, rivalries, and large than life characters, now it's a highly structured game of chess. The gridiron game you remember may be dead.

Full article at ESPN.

Big Bucks Wardrobe

The amount of money spent on Palin's wardrobe has been making the rounds today. Something like 150k is the figure I believe. I really don't care how much is spent as long as it's not coming out of my taxes. If a bunch of damn fools want to donate to the republican party and have it wasted on a trip to the mall, that's their business.

I suppose it is being used to reinforce the fact that the McCain/Palin ticket is out of touch, but they really haven't been using that attack line on Obama anymore. It was one of the biggest blunders of the McCain campaign though, I mean seriously, the guy owns like a dozen houses and has a private jet.

Now we have Fox "News" trying to defend the dresses..... leave it to Fox to just be plane stupid. It's a non-issue, especially this close to the election. Kos has a diary about the fox morons.

On FOX News Channel, they are truly hilarious in their spin on the Palin wardrobe shopping spree, initially spinning that the shopping budget is the reason why she looks so good, and then quickly sputtering themselves into a strange rant on sexism and how TV personalities always get free clothes anyway.

Investing Vs Gambling In The Market With Today's Economy

As I right this the Dow is down somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-600 some odd points. It’s times like these I think people should know the difference between gambling with their money or choosing to invest it. The market will allow you to do either, but make no mistake, most people gamble, and not invest their money.

Let me say that I am no financial expert, and that although I work in the financial industry I am not a broker, and anything I mention here is purely for entertainment purposes. You should seek professional advice before making any financial decision.

When someone tells you that you are investing, take a closer look and see what you are buying into. It’s probably a stock of some sort. A stock is a representation of part ownership in a company. The question is what does that mean for you?

When you buy a stock at a certain price, you hope that it goes up in value so you can sell it and make a profit. Well I have news for you, that’s gambling. You just purchased an expensive lottery ticket in the hopes that it pays off someday.

That share of ownership gives you some perks, you can probably vote for members of the board, and propose items for the board to consider. In all honesty though, you will never own enough for your vote to mean anything.

How can you invest in a company than?
Dividend stocks. You pay a market price for a stock, and the company pays you every quarter. Now you actually own a piece of the company and have a stake in how it does. The best part about dividend stocks is they get slammed just like other stocks when the market panics, like today.

General Electric is a good example of a great dividend stock. The price of its shares have been pummeled lately, which makes its dividend all the more attractive. With the price of GE right now, just before market close, the dividend is yielding 6.54% I don’t see many savings accounts paying that right now.

There is still risk, GE could stop paying it’s dividend to save money, or even maybe go bankrupt; both are unlikely for such an established company though.

You are also still gambling in a way as well. The share price might go down, which means if you sold it right away it would mean a loss for you, or it might go up and you could make a gain. If you hold it for the long term, you will get a nice tidy sum paid every quarter, and the price will probably be higher than what you bought it for a long time back.

If you take the time to do some research and find the great companies that pay great dividends, days like today are perfect opportunities to maximize your yield. It’s one of the easiest ways to make sure you come out ahead no matter what the traders do.

A Bunch of Hot Air About Obama

Let me start by saying the name of the blog says it all, Hot Air. They have a new post up with a pointed analysis of Obama. In the hopes I suppose of having people see the "real" Obama before it is too late and he is elected president. I thought I might respond to their points of attack, as they seemed to be the same tired crap in a lengthier form. Without further ado:

FILE: ABORTION

Barack Obama is out of the political mainstream on abortion. Don’t take our word for it, just listen to Sen. Obama’s own statements. In his final debate with John McCain, Obama asserted that “nobody is pro-abortion.”

The political mainstream is a term thrown around by all politicians when they want to imagine their point of view as the one most Americans share. It's overused and is almost ALWAYS said without any figures to back up the statement, as in this case.

Second, he pledges to a Planned Parenthood gathering that the very first thing he’d do as president is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act, which—according to the bill’s own supporters — would abolish bans on partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws nationwide while implementing tax-payer funded abortions. All three positions are wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans, yet they are Obama’s top priorities

Let me say I am pro-choice, not because of any lack of religious conviction, but because I don't think the government should be telling people what to do with their bodies. In this case we have a bunch of conservatives forgetting they are conservatives when it serves their political interests. No one wants government in their lives, but someone else's life is fine. Also they claim Obama's views are unpopular, but don't back it up with any statistics about "our" views on the subject.

FILE: TAXES

As a skilled rhetorical magician, Obama presents himself as a tax-cutter. Even though he’s voted dozens of times to raise taxes, he assures Americans that 95% of us will have our taxes slashed under his plan. The Wall Street Journal isn’t buying it.

Most of the times Obama has voted to "increase" taxes can be attributed to him not voting to renew the ill-timed tax cuts of Bush. Every independent organization that covers taxes has agreed with most of the assertions on taxes the Obama campaign has made. Check out the Tax Policy Center for more.

Second, Obama is challenged by ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson at a primary debate in Pennsylvania. Gibson asks Obama why he insists on raising capital gains taxes (which affect millions of American investors) even after history has proven that raising said taxes actually decreases government revenues from the taxes, and cutting capital gains taxes actually brings more revenue into federal coffers. Obama has no answer, other than to blow off all the evidence, and say that raising taxes is the fair thing to do—practical consequences be damned.

I actually know something about this, being in the financial industry. The only people that an increase in the capital gains tax would effect are the very wealthy. MOST, let me repeat MOST capital gains by your average American go on their income tax, which would be cut anyway under Obama. The only people who really pay that tax are the wealthy, who don't pay any income tax because their income is derived from the money they make off of investing.
So far I'm still in the Obama camp guys, anything else?

FILE: RADICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Barack Obama does not want anyone talking about his radical associations. He’s even sought criminal prosecutions against those who have dared to speak out on issues that make him squirm. Average Americans are judged by the company they keep, and our leaders ought to be held to the same standard.

The same old trick and pony show they have been trying to make stick this entire election. Well how about McCains radical friends no one talks about? JOHN RAKOLTA, G. GORDON LIDDY, REVEREND JOHN HAGE, TERRY NELSON, RICHARD QUINN, GEORGE WALLACE, JR., and that's just for starters. No one in the media talks about those nut job friends of McCain. Oh, and lest we forget current President Bush, the most questionable association of them all.
The guys at Hot Air spend a LOT of time on the connections part, but I wont. Everything has been investigated in detail, and the only people who aren't satisfied by the results are the right-wing nuts.

FILE: FOREIGN POLICY JUDGMENT

Barack Obama gained much of his early traction by speaking out against the war in Iraq. He cites his initial opposition to the war as the crown-jewel example of his judgment on foreign affairs. Although many people credit him for being “right” on the war from the beginning, it’s indisputable that he did not have an actual vote on the war resolution. As a state senator from a liberal, antiwar district, one wonders how much political risk he assumed by speaking out against a Republican-led conflict. Regardless, after he was elected to the US Senate, Obama was faced with an actual vote on a controversial issue: The surge. John McCain and others said the strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from our missteps there. History has proven them correct. Obama not only opposed the surge, but actually predicted it would make matters worse. In other words, he was spectacularly wrong on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate. He stubbornly refuses to admit he was wrong. This may be the kind of judgment that’s expected from a partisan rookie Senator, but not a Commander-in-Chief

Let me just say this, the "surge" came long after the war was supposed to be over, so as far as I'm concerned this was a police action in a foreign country. I'm still confused about how so many people can claim the surge was proven to be the correct choice. Many studies have indicated that by the time we sent more troops in the violence was already on the decline because the opposing groups had isolated themselves into islands of ethnicities. And about "stubbornly refusing to admit he was wrong", I seem to remember a certain candidate for president who stubbornly refuses to admit going to war with Iraq was wrong. Hypocrisy, they name is the right-wing nut.

FILE: DISDAIN FOR THE HEARTLAND

Barack Obama was rated the most liberal United States Senator in 2007 by the non-partisan National Journal — farther left than Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. He rarely mentions this extreme voting record as he campaigns throughout the heartland, just as he refrains from telling middle America what he really thinks of those who live there. Obama waits until he’s in San Francisco to do that. At a chic fundraising dinner, Obama sniffed that average Americans get “bitter” and “cling” to their guns and religion—as if these were shameful crutches. He may look down his nose at you, but he still wants your vote

This is just asinine. An "extreme" voting record? hardly. There is NOTHING extreme to vote on in congress, other than say maybe the patriot act? I also recall the statement these Hot Air Heads are talking about with the clinging to guns and religion, and he said it to make a point about why a certain segment of people voted the way they did. In fact, Obama is far more religious then McCain, and approves of gun ownership. I have seen few phrases taken out of context and strung together more terribly then this one.

ILE: THE RACE CARD

Millions of Americans oppose Senator Obama’s candidacy for many different reasons. For a small number of bigots, one of them is almost certainly race. That being said, Obama’s surrogates and media supporters have shown very little reluctance to ascribe racism to virtually anyone who supports another candidate. This is shameful. Worse still, Obama has personally played the race card several times, accusing Republicans in general, and the McCain campaign specifically, of whipping up race-based ugliness. When McCain’s objects, Obama has disingenuously denied he was referring to race in his initial comments. Really? On one occasion, Obama accused Republicans of trying to “scare” voters by mentioning that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” At another rally he made a similar claim, adding “…did we mention he’s black?” to his interpretation of the GOP’s supposed scare tactics. As someone who presents himself as a unifying figure, what does it say that he shamelessly injects racial politics into the campaign, casting aspersions on his opponents’ motives?

McCain HAS whipped up race-based ugliness, you only need to watch some of his political rallies on youtube. Lets also not forget who the KKK has endorsed. But let's be honest here, Obama is half-white and half-black. There are a lot of people who will not vote for him because of his African half. The Obama campaign has done everything within reason to move beyond race, but the right-wing nuts insist on dragging him back into the mud and then scream bloody murder when he splashes some of it on them.

FILE: LACK OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

After an embarrassing exchange on a talk show, the Obama campaign scrambled to arm its surrogates with talking points about Obama’s grand legislative record. What did they come up with? Two bills—and Obama talks about them endlessly. One deals with securing loose nuclear weapons and was so uncontroversial that it passed on a voice vote in the Senate. The other created a “google for government” system, allowing citizens to track government spending. Both were laudable efforts for a wet-behind-the-ears legislator, but Obama wants to be President. Beyond those two meager accomplishments, what has he done? It’s a question that has baffled official campaign surrogates and regular Americans alike

Obama has sponsored and co-sponsored a HUGE number of meaningful bills in his short time in the U.S. Senate. He has a long history of public service, and I mean REAL public service by directly helping people, not the detached I'm riding in a limo everywhere and think I know how to connect with people kind of public service.

After reading this embarrassment I can say I've never been more supportive of Obama. This “closing argument” is nothing more than the same old, tired, discredited, republican talking points that they insist on puking up almost constantly.

Check out the entire embarrassment here at the Hot Air Blog.

Pollution is Your Fault

Do you live in a hut, mud dwelling, tent, or sleep under the stars regularly? No? Than most of the worlds pollution is because your sitting in your heated/air conditioned McMansion watching your plasma.

Rich countries are partly responsible for pollution from poor ones, including poisonous mining discharge, because they buy many of the raw materials and goods that produce the waste, environmental groups said.

The parts from your Plasma started somewhere, and someone in some country probably wrecked their land to get the raw materials for it.

"We have exported our industry overseas and yet there's no pollution controls in these places or the pollution controls are terribly inadequate."

This is ANOTHER dark side of free-trade bull. We love free trade because we can get cheap junk to buy, but we trade with countries with no workers rights, safety laws, environmental laws, fair wage laws, or any other government oversight. I don't mind trade, and I think competition is the way to go, but you need a level playing field first.

Blacksmith and Green Cross Switzerland, which works to clean up contamination from industrial and military disasters, released a report on Tuesday called "The World's Worst Polluted Places" -- available at www.worstpolluted.org.

It found that artisanal gold mining, contaminated surface water, radioactive waste processing and uranium mining and the recycling of used lead acid batteries, most of which occur in poor countries from Africa to Asia, are some of the world's top 10 sources of pollution dangerous to human health.

Millions of people are poisoned or killed each year by industrial pollution and emissions, it said.

Oh... so by the way, your a murderer too. I hope needing to watch The Amazing race is worth a few million lives..... killer.

This article demonstrates the massive difficulties in stopping pollution. Not only do the rich nation pump the most garbage into the air, third world countries are also destroying their environments to get the raw materials we crave to build our junk that pollutes.

Get the full story over at Reuters