I’ve seen panic. I traded through panic in the late 90’s, as well as the late and early aughts. Panic isn’t a friend of mine but we sometimes see one another at the same parties. This sell-off is not panic. Not yet anyway, but we’re getting close.
Perhaps Obama should appoint Rick Perry as head of the SEC?
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 9846 access attempts in the last 7 days.
#100 Ron Paul may grow on me. I need to wait and see and unlike Alphie, I don’t support the newest shiny object.
If he gets a Christian Taliban cross stuck up his ass, it’s all over. That is criteria #1 for me.
The problem I see with him is he is still not credible. If Mitt Romney, Palin or that other bitch gets the nomination, then I’ll vote for the other guy. I don’t care if it’s Satan himself.
#103, I don’t support the newest shiny object.
He ran last time, too, but nobody took him serious. They are now, though.
# 99 Dallas said:
“Actually , and as I said before, Ron Paul looks good on paper but has unrealistic views.”
If you’re just going to quote others without thinking, get better sources.
Read Ron Paul’s latest book – it could be the cure for clue-deficiency you need so badly.
#104. LL
Ron Paul is very appealing on many levels but I don’t he’d win a general election in this day of hyper critical news coverage. I also think the Republican establishment will do everything they can to nominate Mitt Romney and crush everyone else.
How about whoever wins just promises to balance the budget. Who cares what Congress passes or doesn’t pass, since there is a debt ceiling vote coming up. That’s right, Obama will spend all of the two trillion debt ceiling increase just agreed to. The next president can promise to veto any debt ceiling increase that does not come attached with a balanced budget. Then since he has no authority to borrow money, he will pick and choose what to spend, what benefits are cut, etc. As John Kerry said, you pay as you go. But then again, that’s only a Democratic mantra at election time to fool some voters into thinking they are serious about the budget.
#107 mike, mike, mike. I would think u would have figured out by now the debt ceiling and new spending are unrelated. I thought you were amongst the brighter sheep in the herd. This is very discouraging.
What exactly do you mean that Obama will burn through the rest of the debt ceiling? Let’s go through this one more time…
THAT SHIT IS ALREADY BOUGHT!!
This is why only Denmark and the US has a debt ceiling in the world! The debt ceiling debates are nothing more than congress sucking their own dick.
#106, Ron Paul is very appealing on many levels but I don’t he’d win a general election in this day of hyper critical news coverage.
Is that a reason not to vote for him?
>the debt ceiling and new spending are unrelated.
No, they are very much related. The government can only spend money that it has or it borrows.
If there is no debt ceiling increase, it can’t borrow.
#110
Wrong! The government pays it’s bills with what it has or it has to borrow.
The term “spend money” implies new spending. Does this clarification solve the nationwide bickering? OMG, I think we did it!!
#111
Congress authorized the Treasury to issue debt to fund government operations as long as the total does not exceed the debt limit. There is no distinction between servicing debt, allocated monies, and “new spending”.
The debt limit should be based on a budget (except for the Obama administration) so in a sense the money is already spent but things come up (new spending such as Libya) that are not in the budget creating a need to increase the debt ceiling.
#109
#106, Ron Paul is very appealing on many levels but I don’t he’d win a general election in this day of hyper critical news coverage.
“Is that a reason not to vote for him?”
Ron Paul is interesting, but he is too pure. That is a good enough reason to not to vote for him.
He is too sure to be entirely believable, no matter if you can find parallels in his words and actual events.
The people that follow him closely are a pretty raggedy bunch. This guy is probably a sage. Hopefully he is investing his convictions. Does that make him a President?
Oh hell no.
Obama came to office on the idea that his impressive presence would immediately cause reconciliation of the parties. This was fucking foolishness of the first fucking order. Alliteration double score!
Ron Paul is EXACTLY the same sort of dude!!! Screw how the machinery of government works, I have an easily understood idea that will fix everything!
I would compare Obama along with Paul, to Mr. President Bill Clinton.
Obama and Paul are more similar to each other than to Clinton in style. Obama is the cult-of-me while Paul is cult-of-me with an equal part of deeply held convictions. I’m going to denote Ron Paul Sr. as Paul I and Ron Paul Jr. as Paul II. You will see this elsewhere eventually. Remember you heard it here first!!!
Paul I is way too pure to be an executive. Nothing more intrusive than the tight-ass CEO. As Prez he’d be even worse.
Think of the operations of government as an engine. The debt ceiling debate was essentially an argument of whether we are willing to meet our obligations. Not new stuff, but the things already agreed upon.
I agree with Paul I that our government has been pimped out for the gain of people who get very special deals. Dirty stuff.
I think his economic ideas are suspect.
Paul II is too aggressive WAY too early. Hillary was the model of how to play the famous family connection into organizational power. She worked for it. Not aggressive enough later, but the early part was golden.
#113
Interesting. What is it about Obama, Ron Paul and Ron Paul Jr. that is similar but different to Clinton? Obama and the two Pauls are Senators but Clinton was a governor. It is the same reason I think that we wouldn’t have been much better off had McCain been elected. The odds are heavily stacked against us that a Senator will make a good President especially if they have no prior executive experience.
The only hope with Hilarity was the some of her husband’s executive experience and talent would bleed off on her. IMO, that was and still is unlikely. One of the prerequisites for a good President (but certainly not a perfect indicator) is that they have experience running something (business, large branch of the military etc.) with lots of people. Obviously, someone with this type of experience can still be awful, but the odds are better that they’ll handle the politics of being an executive better.
#110 LL
You make an excellent point. I stand corrected.
Oh, and Alfie is gayer than a Dutch bassoon.
#113, Ron Paul is interesting, but he is too pure
Too Pure? You mean too honest.
Your analysis is flawed. If you expect the president to lead, he has to lead somewhere. Paul has a plan. Obama had nothing to offer but charisma to those foolish enough to believe.
It almost sounds like you are trying to convince yourself and not us.
Warren Harding gets labelled as the worst president, but when he was in charge, he responded to a recession by cutting spending, and letting the economy sort itself out. Prosperity returned in short order, lasted through Calvin Coolidge and then Herbert Hoover messed everything up with tax increases, higher spending, and tariffs.
# 113 chris said:
“I think his economic ideas are suspect.”
Still? What’s taking you so long to catch up?
Go here:
http://mises.org/
Start with “Economics in one Lesson” my Henry Hazlitt
Then anything you can get from Murray Rothbard.
New rule: Only cite Presidents who solved great economy issues if they were around during color TV.
Is that according to history, or according to Joe Biden?
So, the first color broadcast was 1954 and Eisenhower was President. What “great” economic issues has any President encountered since 1954 except for this one? As far as I can tell, your rule would produce an empty result.
Clearly referencing Andrew Jackson brings up hollow results so we’re even.
The point being the economy now is far different than cotton farming.
I agree with you that Obama inherited a destroyed economy as a result of borrowing money to make up for rax revenue losses, an unfunded pair of wars and letting the financial markets collapse with Lehman Brothers.
#124
No, Obama did not inherit a broken economy. He inherited a faltering economy and then sent it over the edge. Obama spent more in his first two years than both “unfunded” wars put together. In fact, the amount we spent on all wars since 2000 is still less than the deficit by far racked up by Obama. So before you continue to spout the “unfunded” wars nonsense, you need to look at your boy who decided to put a kegger on the credit card *and* continued both wars. Bitching about the wars as a primary cause of the deficit is like complaining about paying an extra buck per gallon at the pump and then buying a car or three.