Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Ben Bernanke Named Time Magazine Person of The Year

Ben Bernanke has been named as the Time Magazine person of the year.  And I have to agree wholeheartedly with this nomination!  After reading the article, I found once again that I am much in line with the way he thinks about economic policy and disaster mitigation in the wake of the biggest economic crisis in 75 years.  He was the man for the moment.

 

Here is the article: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946375_1947251_1947520-1,00.html

 

While I take issue with much of Keynesian economic policy, which is where my persuasions differ from those of Bernanke’s, I have long considered the actions of the Fed over the past year as absolutely necessary, though troubling and unprecedented.  I had always been taught that the biggest factor in the Great Depression was inaction and massive blunders by the Federal Reserve. 

 

Recently, there has been a lot of Fed bashing, and craziness, even from pundits like Glenn Beck, all slandering the Fed as some kind of money-printing-inflation-happy-mind-trust.  But let’s remember how absolutely reluctant Bernanke’s Fed was to take action in the first place.  It doesn’t seem like the about-face actions of the recent Fed could all be part of some planned conspiracy to doom the economy or be some sort of power-grab for the greedy like Ron Paul would have us all believe.  Wall Street enthusiasts like Jim Cramer were crying foul and screaming at the top of their lungs that Bernanke’s inflation worries and tentative, hands-off policies were causing massive problems before the bog meltdown in 2008.  Bernanke stood by, almost to his own undoing and disaster, because he obviously believes more in hands-off policy than that of Keynesian ways.  But when it was inevitable that action be taken, he took it and dramatically changed the landscape of the financial world.

 

Since the disaster started in 2008, I have thought of the collapse and ensuing ‘bailouts’ as being similar to a fire.  Why do cities and communities pay for a fire brigade using tax revenue?  Why isn’t it corporations, such as insurance firms, that use their revenues to fund the fire brigade as part of your insurance policy?  I’ve come to a plain conclusion that city governments know what their assets are: property.  That is a large source of their revenues.  They can tax the properties, they can tax the businesses that operate on those properties, they can tax things that are stored on those properties, and they can tax the individuals that live in those properties. Indeed, it is property that is the most important asset to a city’s revenue stream. 

 

Recall the great fire disaster of the Chicago Fire of 1871.  34 city blocks, or more than 2,000 acres encompassing some 17,500 buildings and $222 million in property – one third of the city’s valuation, were destroyed by a fire that started in a small wood shed on a small alley in the city.  The city made fatal errors in not responding soon enough, and lost a substantial amount of its assets, and the ensuing revenue streams.

 

Where are most of our assets as Americans?  Housed in financial institutions.  Securities, bonds, cash reserve, mortgages and titles, insurance policies, loans, etc., are all housed in these firms.  Why, when one of them catches fire financially, would we not use taxpayer funds to send the fire brigade and put out the financial fire just like we do with real fires?  Would we really want to cling to a wait-and-see policy and allow ’34 blocks’ of financial institutions that hold our hard earned assets to burn to the ground?  Interestingly, that number above, the one third of Chicago’s value, is similar to the number of banks that were allowed to fail in the Great Depression – one third.

 

While it is still early, and hard to tell where the crisis will end, everyone on this email list still has a job, and has not had to endure bread lines and bank runs to the extent that they were endured in the 30s.  As 2009 comes to a close, a year who’s beginning was laden with fear, I for one am very grateful for that fact.  And I can’t help but think that Bernanke’s academic preparation and professional action had a lot to do with it.

 

http://3-form.com/images/signature/signature_logo.jpg

TIJS LIMBURG

tijs.limburg@3-form.com

Associate Software Developer

3-FORM.COM

2300 South 2300 West

Salt Lake City, Utah 84119

T

 801.994.8045

F

 801.649.2699

C

 801.680.6369

3form Technical Support 877.649.2670


http://3-form.com/images/signature/signature_imageb.jpg

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Health Care Rights

In response to this Forbes article, I sent the following to Senator Hatch and will also send a similar letter to each of my other representatives, and hope you will do the same.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107408/5-freedoms-you-would-lose-in-health-care-reform.html?mod=insurance-health

 

 

To The Honorable Senator Orrin Hatch,

 

Firstly, thank you for taking time to read this letter.  I believe it to be one of the most important aspects of the American life to be able to be represented and give our trust to those we elect to make the proper decisions in our behalf.  However, at times I believe it is also important that the representatives ensure that when their constituents cry out loudly for or against something, even if they believe differently, that they vote in a way to represent the majority of their constituents.

 

Senator, you have served our great State respectively, and I am proud of the freedoms we enjoy in Utah.  As a 25 year old working class citizen who is also attending schooling at the University of Utah and working a full time job as a software developer, I am very concerned about the health care issue.

I strongly believe and advocate that health care issues such as those being debated in Washington should really be left up to the individual States to be decided, and should not be mandated federally.  If a State decides that they want a Universal Health Care program, such as Massachusetts did, they should be able to decide within their State whether that is right for their population.  But other States should have the option of electing to keep things as they are if they like.  No one population is the same, and trying to govern in such ways when it comes to health care I believe is highly inefficient, and will prove to be dysfunctional.  As always, the larger populations will win out against the smaller ones, and we will be forced to follow policies which for example may be necessary for larger, highly urbanized populations, but are not necessary for us.

 

And as you know, the Senate was instituted for that reason.  To protect the interests of the smaller States and give them an equal voice to the larger States in a governing entity. 

 

Utahns are self-reliant.  We understand the need for employment, good health care, participating in the system of government, and being good citizens.  We have different healthcare needs than Californians, New Yorkers, and others.  We should be able to set our own policies within our State on how we want Health Care to operate.  For instance, we have a higher rate of birth here, and a younger population.  Therefore our Health Care policies should be reflective of that and our Insurers should be able to work their policies around those facts.  I fear that a nationalized, or Universal and federally mandated system like the one being proposed at the least would be either too general or too specific in how it goes about making laws regarding even just those two aspects of the Health Care system for Utah.

 

Please vote against  the health care plans being proposed in Congress, and tell them, as well as the President, that this is a State issue and that this debate should be sent to the 50 State legislatures to decide upon for their own populations.

 

Respectfully,

 

Tijs G. Limburg

 

 

 

http://3-form.com/images/signature/signature_logo.jpg

TIJS LIMBURG

tijs.limburg@3-form.com

Associate Software Developer

3-FORM.COM

2300 South 2300 West

Salt Lake City, Utah 84119

T

 801.994.8045

F

 801.649.2699

C

 801.680.6369

3form Technical Support 877.649.2670


http://3-form.com/images/signature/signature_imageb.jpg

Thursday, July 16, 2009

I Just Scared Myself

 

You are now my nominee for Federal Reserve Board Chairman!  And you know a hell of a lot more than Barney Frank who proclaimed one year ago that Freddie and Fannie were in good shape.

 

I was just googleing myself to see if there are links to my Facebook artist page and found this review I had written a year ago on my Updown stock account.

Stock Pick by Tijs Limburg

FNM: Analyst Consensus: Sell (Short) Stock

Posted 366 days ago on 7/14/08

Market call:FNM will go DOWN
Target: $6.00 on 8/14/08
Current: $0.61 (-93.87% from time of market call)

 

Goldman Sachs analyst Daniel Zimmerman just announced this morning he expects the stock of Fannie Mae to drop about another 35%, and I highly disagree with all of those who are saying that a Fed "Financial Stimulus" will fix the stock. The only way the stock can benefit short term from the Fed in my mind is if the Fed were to buy out the company's shares. We have at least a few weeks before the Fed would take such action if necessary. Right now, the only thing that they can do is flood the company with cheap money at the discount window and help them raise capital through bonds. But we must remember that while that may help the company balance sheet, stocks are somewhat disconnected from the companies they represent. Right now, sentiment is very much against this stock -especially in the powerful and large investment firms- meaning that, short term, no one is going to start heavily buying this stock, meaning the short sellers are going to prevail. There is so much more money going into shorts right now that it would take large sums of money to get the stock to move against the pressure. Take for example Jim Rogers, who says he is keeping his short position open on this stock, and will sell more stock short with any run up in price. As the chairman of Rogers Holdings, I will take his word for it that he will put a lot of money behind that short position, especially with analysts saying the stock could see another 35% taken off. Any aid given to this company will take a while to get the money flowing again. An over-the-weekend bypass to the insolvent company will not immediately solve the problems. But don't get too greedy here, once you have a large gain, take it, especially if you start seeing declining short interest.

 

 

And after I had gotten bombarded with messages about how negative my analysis was, I posted this response on 7/14/2008.  Looking at this statement a year later with everything in perspective is kinda scary:

 

We're in a bear market, so get over it. It's only negative to the buyers because they're on the other side, buying the stocks everyone else is selling short. These financial companies, especially Fannie and Freddie, have been mismanaged for years and are finally getting what they deserve. The confidence in the financial sector has turned to the sellers. We are confident that the market will get worse for financial stocks. It's only July. Just wait till September and October roll around. People are already shifting their money to stronger banks, and dispursing money across multiple FDIC ensured accounts. That means there is actual fear (not media generated), and fear is what drives bear markets. We've already seen one bank fail...

 

I made a 93% gain to date on that call, but I wonder what Jim Rogers made…

 

Tijs Limburg

 

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Re: Utah Tea Party CALL TO ACTION!

Joe, are you ready to join the State's rights movement? ;) 

I'll be there for sure.  The Patrick Henry Caucus is one of the most important developments since Roe v. Wade.  Many activist judges and progressive politicians will be put in their place as states supporting the caucus pass legislation to take back authority over non-interstate items.  To me, State power is one of the most important Constitutional rights and I believe it is the only way to keep the nation from further division and chaos.  Let's take this opportunity to remember what our nation stands for and what the name of our nation is: Not merely the USA, not merely the US, not just America, but the United States of America.

Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.


On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Eric Limburg wrote:
See below...Looks like we know where we are having lunch on the 20th.  Those who can let's get together.  Hopefully I don't have to fly that day.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Utah Tea Party <saltlaketeaparty@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Subject: Utah Tea Party CALL TO ACTION!
To: dmx311@gmail.com


CALL TO ACTION!

TEA PARTY RALLY WEDNESDAY 20 MAY 2009--12:00 NOON--UTAH STATE CAPITOL--WEST STAIRS (INSIDE, 2nd FLOOR)

Many of us in the Tea Party Movement (and MANY other groups) have spent countless hours speaking to our local representatives about States' Rights and now they are listening!

Utah legislators are forming "The Patrick Henry Caucus"  (Founding Members: Keith Grover, Chris Herrod, Stephen Sandstrom, Ken Sumsion, and Carl Wimmer) and are holding a press conference on Wednesday at 12:00 noon on the 20th of May 2009 at the State Capitol.  The Patrick Henry Caucus will focus on introducing legislation to take our States' Rights back.  Laws are being drafted now!  We will be celebrating this historic event with a TEA PARTY RALLY in support of this cause.

This may be the most important Tea Party Rally we will attend to date.  This is what we are fighting for; this is what we rallied for.  This is the first effort in what will be a long struggle to reign in the federal government.  Please come and stand with our Utah Legislators who are willing to take a stand for all of America.  This is how we take our country back to the principles it was founded on.

Bring your favorite (family friendly) States' Rights signs.  This is so important I secured the permit today!

Please see yesterday's Glenn Beck Video so you can see how important this rally is!

Part 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV_Mlmamy70&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flogisticsmonster.com%2F2009%2F05%2F03%2Fthe-montana-gun-law-you-will-never-hear-about%2F&feature=player_embedded

Part 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHwPHvkrGrg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flogisticsmonster.com%2F2009%2F05%2F03%2Fthe-montana-gun-law-you-will-never-hear-about%2F&feature=player_embedded

THE TEA PARTIES ARE WORKING!

Please forward this to all your friends.  Have them sign up at saltlaketeaparty@gmail.com for further updates.

Thank you all so much!

David

David Kirkham
Utah Tea Party Organizer

www.onefeatheratatime.com
Twitter @davidkirkham
Post on our Forum!
Read about my business here:
www.kirkhammotorsports.com
801.377.8224 office



You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by
visiting the following URL:

<http://www.kirkhammotorsports.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/u/teaparty/>

Mailing List Powered by Dada Mail
http://www.kirkhammotorsports.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/what_is_dada_mail/



--
Eric Limburg

-President and THX Certified Technician
DMX, Digital Media eXceleron Inc.
-Home Entertainment- -Business IT- -Networks-
www.dmxed.com

next*mobile broadband, a DMX Inc. company
-Free Wi-Fi Internet Hotspots-
-Digital Signage and Online Advertising-
www.dmxed.com/next

-Sound/Recording Engineer
eXceleron Records and DJ Service
www.eXedmusic.com

(801) 938-5DMX office
(801) 633-2239 cell

Saturday, May 02, 2009

The Fed's Money Printing and Quantitative Easing

I've heard a lot of complaints over the spending bills, bailouts, etc. from the recent Tea Parties and most of it I agree with.  However, I disagree with the popular idea of Tea Party participants

that the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing policy is the problem - hardly so.  Quantitative Easing, or "Printing Money" in simplistic terms, is doing two things for the economy that investors and businessmen LOVE.  Just like a tax cut, QE reduces the interest rate, and thereby distributes wealth from the powerful banks and investment institutions to the businessmen and entrepreneurs.  Or should I put it differently as diverting wealth from the powerful banks and investment institutions and into the businesses they own. Lower interest thereby reduces the expenses on businesses and consumers.  It also reduces inflation - in the short term - by keeping prices moderated (businesses don't feel the need to increase prices when their expenses have been reduced), but at the same time stems deflation - which is absolutely the end all of economic disasters. 

You may wonder how QE policy can put the spending power in the hands of businesses rather than banks.  Steve will know the answer to this one.  Businesses and businessmen look at the interest rate as an opportunity cost standard for whether a business should simply earn interest on a bond investment, or whether they should make a capital investment and wait for a future return.  By reducing the interest rate (called "Printing Money"), the opportunity cost of capital investment is reduced, and the incentive to invest in a bond for future interest payments is reduced.  Therefore businesses would rather spend money upgrading.  It also has to do with present value of money.  By reducing the interest rate to zero as the Fed has done, the future value of money in nominal terms will be the same as the present value.  This is based on the equation Pv=S(1+r)N Where Pv is present value, S is the principle amount invested, n is the time in years, and r is the current interest rate.

Here's an example.  The value of 10,000 dollars in three years at a 5% interest rate is:

=10000((1+.05)^3)
=11600

So in 3 years at a 5% interest rate, the value of 10,000 is 11600.  So if your expected ROI on a 3 year investment is less than 11600, you should just put it in a bond at 5% and forget investing in capital.  Also, this means that if 10,000 is worth 11600 in 3 years, it will theoretically take 11,600 to buy something that was worth 10,000 in today's current money value.  But if the interest rate is closer to zero as it is now, 10,000 today is still 10,000 tomorrow, both in quantity and money value.  This theoretically gives enormous incentive for investment in capital goods.  And capital goods are the core drivers of our economy.

So this easing policy is much like a tax cut, but from the Fed rather than the government.  However, the government should also be reducing taxes and expenditures while the Fed does this over the long term.  Short term it may make sense for the government to spend more, since they can get cheaper bonds.  The problem is the government already had enormous debt BEFORE the crisis.  So spending any money they don't have is dangerous.

The only caveat to Quantitative Easing is that you have to be very good at judging when inflation is back to normal from zero, or when GDP is positive from negative.  If you don't time it right, inflation will be more than normal.  This is based on the Fed's money calculation MV=PQ.  Increases in GDP raise the PQ side, and therefore to remain proportional, the Fed needs to increase the money site proportionally.  V is a constant velocity of money, and P for prices in the economy normally should stay the same to avoid inflation.  However, if GDP (prices or quantity) are decreasing, the fed can theoretically increase MV to force an increase in PQ.  It is leaving the large amount of money on the table for too long that increases P too much, causing inflation.

Also, one has to take into account Gregory Mankiw's new theorem (Mankiw is a conservative economist at Harvard) that inflation is only a problem if it outpaces average raises in wages.  Think of this:  Businesses normally don't give raises based on performance.  They have bonuses and promotions for that.  Most raises are usually "in line" with or a bit above the interest rate.  This means from year to year, the average worker maintains the same buying power, while GDP increases the quantity of selection as more and better products and services enter the market.  This means that you have more to purchase tomorrow or next year with the same purchasing power (because the quantity of dollars available to you increased through a raise). 

Currently, raises (if your company hasn't suspended them yet) are still outpacing inflation, which is somewhere near zero, or even slightly negative.  Even if you got no raise, it is still in line with inflation since it is at zero. Once the economy recovers, most companies will give raises that are larger than normal to "make up" for the previous suspension, while hopefully the inflation rate stays below or around 4%, which will maintain a slight increase in purchasing power that we have been used to since Reagan. 

Maintaining a 4% or lower inflation is the trick the Fed has to ensure.


Now I want your dissertations and dissentions!

Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Wow, There Really Is Totalitarianism Brewing

If I were able and not working full time today, I would definitely be participating in the tax protests, or Tea Parties, that are occurring today.  But since I am not, I am simply reading about it.  I came across this article, which goes into some background on the planning that the Obama Administration is doing to deal with the protests around the nation, and especially in DC.  Interestingly, the story has the following information from a document issued by the Administration to the Department of Homeland Security.  Nevermind the threats of terrorism and Illegal Immigration, as it seems Homeland Security now has better things to focus on:

"The Obama administration clearly wishes the TEA protests weren't really happening, but it is certainly taking the threat of right-wing extremism seriously. (They call a protest like the Tea Parties 'extremism'? What?  Its part of our history and a tool that Americans have the right to.) The Department of Homeland Security has produced a nine-page document warning of "right-wing extremist activity."

Radio host Roger Hedgecock and United Press International's sister publication The Washington Times were the first to report on the secret April 7 internal DHS report, which was tagged "advisory."

The report said issues such as illegal immigration and gun control are central points. However, it also claimed that the extreme right's anger was further fanned by the election of the United States' first African-American president.

"The economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers of right-wing radicalization and recruitment," the report said.

It is easy for someone like me to think, "well, I'm not an extremist", or "I don't consider myself 'right-wing'", or whatever.  But it seems the Obama administration considers you all of the above if you "reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority" - Seriously, that's what the document says.  Uhmm, have they ever read the Bill of Rights?  What happened to the 10th Ammendment?


Don't Mess With Texas.


Of course, the one state that absolutely believes, and prides themselves in that belief, is already taking action.  Here's what the article says the Texas Legislature is doing:


"The Washington Times reported that Homeland Security is now defining "right-wing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Does that include the government of the state of Texas? For the Lone Star State's Republican Gov. Rick Perry has thrown his support behind a state House of Representatives resolution reminding the federal government of the 10th Amendment regarding states' rights.

"Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, D.C., trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas," Perry said.

House Concurrent Resolution 50 asserts some federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government's constitutionally designated powers and impede the states' right to govern themselves. It also calls for all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

In normal times, this kind of talk would provoke national derision and a landslide rejection at the next election. Americans at least since the post-Civil War period have repeatedly confounded foreign observers by talking extremes in their politics and then voting in overwhelming numbers with remarkable moderation."

Go Texas!!!  Is it any wonder the State of Texas has produced so many leaders on the national scale?

To me, such a federal policy to somehow make those who fight for state powers - or even the talks of such a policy - show that totalitarianism is brewing.  It flies in the face of constitutionality.  It creates centralized control.  It creates unrestricted power.  It does not tolerate parties of differing views.  It seeks subordination of the states and citizens.  It creates a governing elite, rather than a local power that can balance with the Union government.

I did a quick search on the Google Definitions tool to see what differing definitions would pull up, check them out: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:totalitarianism&ei=h_3lSc6wNqGctgPFotmhBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

To see the rest of the article, go here:

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/04/15/Obama-faces-tax-protest-anger/UPI-45571239804861/


Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Our Infrastructure is Prone to Threats

This event in Silicon Valley, where someone wishing to wreak havoc on the communications systems there can simply sever AT&T fiber lines and knockout service, proves my theory that our infrastructure is very prone to threats of vandalism and terrorism.  I've thought that traffic signaling, electrical infrastructure, and communications lines are way too exposed to the public.  Imagine how easy it would be to gridlock an entire city simply by knocking out strategic traffic signals, or shutting down power infrastructure. 

Natural disasters do this all the time.  I've wondered why Federal recovery grants don't include provisions that force electric and communications companies to underground a certain percentage of their transmission systems over time in order to receive recovery money.  How many times have we as taxpayers funded repairs on the South's electric grid from Florida to Texas due to Hurricanes?  Whereas the infrastructure that is underground in these areas is usually less affected.

Think about our own surroundings.  How each winter, there is at least one big power outage here in Salt Lake, mainly affecting areas served by overhead lines. 

Some problems don't require huge complex fixes like a GE proposed "smart grid" or billion dollar battles.  But unfortunately the people who are supposed to govern continue to spend money on nothing making it seem to evaporate, and constantly "overhauling" laws - like the tax law - than fixing real problems.  I sometimes wonder what would happen if we told congress we don't want any new laws and we'd rather that they go home and not "fix" anything for a while, and how much the country would be able to get done during that time of true certainty - that congress won't 'fix' or 'change' anything for a while.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30139776

Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Google Launches Venture Capital Firm

Google has launched a new Venture Capital firm called Google Ventures.  Google says that this new venture firm will fund startups in many different industries, and will do many different types of funding from seeding to full partnerships.  They also say that they will fund and partner with companies that already have other partners.  This seems like an interesting way for them to have exposure to new growth and ideas, while not necessarily acquiring new companies.  It also means that some very lucky businesses will get backing from Google's empire.  I imagine that claiming that Google is a main supporter of your company will go pretty far in helping you make business deals just about anywhere.

Check it out.  The site is pretty simple for now, but I wouldn't put it past them to add more features in the future: http://www.google.com/ventures/index.html

Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Once Again, Democrats are Failing as Regulators

So they go out and stir up a frenzy about AIG, which I am sure every American and Non-American alike has now heard.  But the dirty secret always follows, and unfortunately never gets heard by the general public who continue to vote in these people who are asleep at the switch or so happy-go-liberal they just can't help themselves to the spending banquet table enough to realize they continue to sign away everything - or they just don't care.

The dirty secret: The 'Spendulus Bill' was signed after being written behind closed doors with no opposition input.  A clause was inserted that protected businesses recieving government TARP funds from being held liable for paying bonuses to executives and employees that had already been contracted.  And yet now all these Dems come out, including Obama - who was so gung-ho happy to sign the bill he must have forgotten to read it, and villanize the replacement CEO for AIG for paying the bonuses (guaranteed there would have been lawsuits if they didn't pay them, they were contracted).  All while putting a cover of 'rage' and other rhetoric over the fact that they - the Dems - allowed it!  If AIG had more say - which they don't because they now have a major position owned by the government - they should sue the government and keep those bonuses in the pockets of those who recieved them.  I for one would much rather have that $150 million dollars spent by even the most pompous of executives before allowing it to be spent by Frank & Co. 

And the really bad part of it for AIG stems from this statement by  Barney "the-man-who-always-has-something-to-say" Frank: "I think the time has come to exercise our ownership rights."

May the Capitalism we knew and enjoyed Rest In Peace.  All I can hope for is an advancement to Pure Capitalism.  Come on Ben Bernanke, you're our only hope.

See the article for more details:

Democrats' Tacit Bonuses Approval May Undercut Rage (Update1)

By Ryan J. Donmoyer

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- The outrage expressed by President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress over $165 million in bonuses paid to American International Group Inc. may be undercut by their tacit approval of the payouts only a month ago.

The $787 billion economic stimulus bill approved by Congress Feb. 13 and signed into law by Obama three days later contains language that effectively authorizes bonus arrangements at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts as long as they were in place before Feb. 11.

The provision, on page 404 of the 407-page law, carves out those arrangements from new restrictions on pay at bailed-out companies that took effect with Obama's signature. Now Obama and many of the same lawmakers who voted for the law, such as New York Senator Charles Schumer and Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, are demanding AIG employees surrender their bonuses.

Dodd told CNN today he put the provision in the final version of the stimulus measure at the insistence of the administration, which was worried about lawsuits if existing compensation contracts were revoked.

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd told CNN. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."

The provision has proven awkward for Democrats who have led expressions of outrage in Congress this week, because most of them voted for the stimulus last month. No House Republicans and only three Senate Republicans voted for the stimulus measure.

Closed Doors

"The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate," Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley said in a statement today.

"There was no transparency, so the only way the public will ever know who added the language to protect bailout company bonuses is if someone from the small group of Democrats in the room says so," Grassley said.

Schumer yesterday sent a letter to AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy warning him to return bonuses or face confiscatory taxes on them. The letter was signed by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and seven other senators.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Schumer, said the senator "supported a provision on the Senate floor that would have prevented these types of bonuses, but he was not on the conference committee that negotiated the final language."

Final Negotiations

Dodd spokeswoman Kate Szostak said yesterday the exception to Dodd's executive-compensation restrictions was added during lawmakers' final negotiations with the Treasury Department over the stimulus.

She rejected Republicans' suggestions the date was included to exempt the AIG bonuses. "Senator Dodd was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until he learned of them in the past few days," said Szostak. "To suggest that the bonuses affecting AIG had any effect on Senator Dodd's action is categorically false."

Other Democrats who voted for the stimulus bill have ramped up criticism this week of AIG's bonuses, including Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who told reporters, "I think the time has come to exercise our ownership rights."

House leaders including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader also criticized AIG.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 18, 2009 19:25 EDT

Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Frank Seeking Redemption?

Is Barney Frank seeking redemption?  Did anyone notice how quiet it has gotten around the SEC since Christopher Cox was removed and Schapiro was instated in his place.  Looks like both congress and the Fed want to restore some order to trading and reverse one of the worst decisions of the decade.

 

To me the uptick rule is more important in today’s style of market trading than it was for the first 50 years of its existence.  That’s because before April of 2001, stocks used to trade in ‘spreads’ or fractions.  Depending on the market and period of time, those fractions were either 1/8ths or 1/16ths (12.5 or 6.25 cents respectively).  So a stock could not price at, say, $10.30, or $20.22 like they can now.  The closest you could come to those prices would be 10.25 or 10.375 and 20.25 or 20.125 on an 1/8ths market.  So you already had some spread control over prices of short sales.  Because of the price spreads, getting your short pressure in on a trade was much harder and took much more patient trading than it does now.  Add in the fact that you had to wait for an uptick to place an order, and you are talking about a large difficulty, as the only way a uptick could occur would be for the price to increase 12.5 or 6.25 cents so that a uptick trade could execute.

 

Today, our markets trade on a point basis of 100, so we can trade in cents.  Now, an uptick occurs at any cent value above the current trading price.  So shorting is much easier.  Take away the uptick rule, and now shorters can add hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pressure at ANY price tick, up or down!  Meaning that if a short position trader thinks that the price has hit a peak, they can buy in at any price even if the prices are continuing downward.  And then once the stock does fall sharply, as long as it falls past the price of their last buy in price they have made money on all of their positions.  That is something a short trader couldn’t do over a year ago.  So it’s no wonder shorters are adding massive amounts of downward pressure to stocks as they fall.  They can make hoards of money that weren’t possible to make a year ago, and even especially 9 years ago.

 

To me it is no surprise the markets are way off their highs.  The SEC let it happen.  Take a look at a chart from the day that the SEC undid the uptick rule, and the markets have had a hard time trading above the closing value of that day, July 6th 2007.  And volatility has been enormous.

 

I’m glad they are finally revisiting the idea of reinstating the rule.  I think the only reason we did not have a “crash” last year was because in September, shorting bank stocks was completely banned for a few weeks, allowing banks to refinance some much needed cash positions through increased stock sales.  If you consider it, many companies fund expansion through stock sales.  If the stock price continues to be compressed downward due to shorts, companies will find it hard to fund expansion, and will begin to cut back.  Which is what has happened.  Maybe Bear Stearns would have been able to refinance with the help of stock sales to shareholders.  But when the stock declined basically to $0 in a week’s time, that would be impossible, as was proven.  And no wonder it could decline so fast – uptick rules had been removed, so you could continue borrowing stock (shorting) and selling it lower the whole way down.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6pBZZrZtxm4&refer=home

 

Tijs Limburg

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Jim Cramer not a Conservative - But Rethinking Support for Obama

All,

 

There has been an interesting development on Wall Street lately, and it is interesting to me because I remember watching an episode of Jim Cramer’s “Mad Money” last summer where Jim told us he was supporting Obama, even though he agreed with McCain on Nuclear Energy policy.

 

It seems from his recent statements he is completely reversing that support:

 

This from Monday’s edition of RealMoney:

 

“I don't know about you, but I felt it this weekend. I felt it with friends at dinner on Friday. I felt it during my walk on Saturday and my dinner with friends at Blue Smoke on Saturday night.

I felt it when someone whispered in my ear before the Van Morrison concert that I was right and we elected a Leninist. I felt it at brunch on Sunday, and I felt it as I watched Slumdog Millionaire Sunday afternoon. I felt it when I tried to go to sleep on Sunday night.

I felt the prices, the screen, the action, the sense of a vortex down that can't be stopped, of stocks going worthless, of savings being tattered, of equities without bottom, but this time in slow motion, not like 1987…”

Wow.  A Leninist?  That is a freakish notion.

It doesn’t stop there.  Take a listen to what he said recently on Today (He sounds as sane and reasonable as I have ever heard him sound):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29478113#29478113

And I like how he doesn’t let Erin Burnett get away with her ‘happy talk’.

And then this from his show a few days ago:

http://www.wowowow.com/post/jim-cramer-barack-obama-mad-money-amateur-hour-our-darkest-moment-video-226443

I love the fact that he actually has a quote from Lenin that sounds so close to what Obama said last week to back up his comparison.

I’ll let this speak for itself, from the Wikipedia article on Leninism:

 

In his pamphlet What is to be Done? (1902), Lenin argued that the proletariat can only achieve a successful revolutionary consciousness through the efforts of a vanguard party composed of full-time professional revolutionaries. Lenin further believed that such a party could only achieve its aims through a form of disciplined organization known as democratic centralism, wherein tactical and ideological decisions are made with internal democracy, but once a decision has been made, all party members must externally support and actively promote that decision.

 

This may go down as one of Jim’s better judgments.  Last September I felt that the capitalist system we had known since the 1940’s had gone, and that we would need to come together and create a new one, because luckily, capitalism has a way of destroying itself and creating itself anew.  Now I wonder if that will be possible to do in the time-span we would all like it to occur.  The question I have is: Are we in for a 1982 deep recession and relatively quick recovery, or an 1870’s depression with a recovery period after 5 years, or a 1930’s Great Depression which took well over a decade to correct.  My one hope left is that Ben Bernanke can master a recovery on his own – as the sole student of the Depression – as it looks like the new administration and new congress will not be able to help.  Will Uncle Ben be the Morgan or the Eccles of 2009?

 

Tijs Limburg

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

RE: WALL ST. PANS BAM

Thanks Steve,

 

This chart is very troubling.  Look at all of those years since 1929 of running deficits!  Imagine if that were a business.  They would have gone out of business a long time ago.  I did a little research over the weekend on Novus Ordo Seclorum, which is printed on the back of the dollar bill.  And while the mythical translation that is proposed in the book Angels and Demons is not fact, I guess FDR got his wish of his Novus Ordo Seclorum, which is now an order that continues to leech of the backs of its own.  Unfortunately, the original Novus Ordo Seclorum as declared by our lesser known Founding Father Charles Thompson is being taken away from us, and in a day in age when both parties will effectively elect an Obama with little experience, that has become more apparent to me than ever. 

 

Clearly defined in the context of the mantle which rested upon the founders of this nation, George Washington proposed: “The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period."

 

And in a seemingly prophetic exclamation, Thomas Paine riveted the Colonial unions with his statement of vision in his writings in Common Sense: “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind... 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now.” 

 

Well, maybe we can judge how near we are to the “end of time” by reading those words and judging whether or not our “posterity are virtually involved in the contest”.  It seems to me the day, which appears to be looming ever closer, when the effects of the proceedings of founding our nation can no more be realized by future generations (whether it be because of defeat from enemies, secularism, disintegration of the pursuit of happiness, or a profound weight of debt by the government to its people and other nations) will spell the end of the “New Order of the Generations”.

 

In the old days of the British Empire, they used to hail and sing “God Save the King”. 

 

God Save America.

 

TIJS LIMBURG

 

 

 

Garth,

 

I took the liberty of re-formatting this article as a pdf for further dissemination.

 

Powerful to note that even “intelligent” demon-crats are starting to figure it out.  Obama had an opportunity to show true leadership and stop the pork-barreling in this spendulus bill.  He instead chose to pay off his political cronies and put our nation at even greater risk.  Another 10% loss in the market in a week’s time?  Who do they think they’re fooling?

 

Regardless of his “campaign-style” rhetoric, blaming our current woes on the past eight years of Bush – only part of which time Congress was controlled by Republicans – Obama could have and should have shouldered the responsibility that is his.  HE is the President and can use his position to do what’s right or what is politically expedient.  His weakness, cowardess, and shallowness is now made plain.  Forget giving him 100 days.  In 100 days, it may be too late to ever return to the freedom and independence the country was founded on.  Have you heard the talk about the fairness doctrine?  Have you heard the proposal to take the last six months of 401k contributions from 2008?  The enemy is not at the gates, he is inside the keep and the treasure of the nation is being pillage before our eyes.

 

And who is really to blame for the better part of a century of government expansion and deficit spending?  I think the following chart gives a pretty clear picture.  What’s even more revealing but not easily displayed is that the margin of deficit spending increases dramatically when demon-crats control both houses and the presidency.  Surplus occur when the demon-cratic margins are small or Republicans have control, up until the last few years when supposed Republicans threw in with demon-cratic philosophy and tactics.

 

 

 

Year

Congress

President

Senate (100)

House (435)

Deficit

2009

111th

D

D - 55***

D - 256

Y

2007

110th

R

D - 51**

D - 233

Y

2005

109th

R

R - 55

R - 232

Y

2003

108th

R

R - 51

R - 229

Y

2001

107th

R

D*

R - 221

Y

1999

106th

D

R - 55

R - 223

N

1997

105th

D

R - 55

R - 228

N

1995

104th

D

R - 52

R - 230

Y

1993

103rd

D

D - 57

D - 258

Y

1991

102nd

R

D - 56

D - 267

Y

1989

101st

R

D - 55

D - 260

Y

1987

100th

R

D - 55

D - 258

Y

1985

99th

R

R - 53

D - 253

Y

1983

98th

R

R - 54

D - 269

Y

1981

97th

R

R - 53

D - 242

Y

1979

96th

D

D - 58

D - 277

Y

1977

95th

D

D - 61

D - 292

Y

1975

94th

R

D - 60

D -291

Y

1973

93rd

R

D - 56

D - 242

Y

1971

92nd

R

D - 54

D - 255

Y

1969

91st

R

D - 57

D - 243

Y

1967

90th

D

D - 64

D - 247

Y

1965

89th

D

D - 68

D - 295

Y

1963

88th

D

D - 66

D - 259

Y

1961

87th

D

D - 64

D - 263

Y

1959

86th

R

D - 65

D -283

Y

1957

85th

R

D - 49

D - 232

Y

1955

84th

R

D - 48

D - 232

N

1953

83rd

R

R - 48

D - 221

Y

1951

82nd

D

D - 49

D - 235

Y

1949

81st

D

D - 54

D - 263

N

1947

80th

D

R - 51

R - 246

N

1945

79th

D

D - 57

D - 242

Y

1943

78th

D

D – 57

D - 222

Y

1941

77th

D

D – 66

D - 267

Y

1939

76th

D

D – 69

D - 262

Y

1937

75th

D

D - 75

D - 333

Y

1935

74th

D

D – 69

D - 322

Y

1933

73rd

D

D – 59

D - 313

Y

1931

72nd

R

R – 48

R - 218

Y

1929

71st

R

R – 56

R - 267

N

1927

70th

R

R – 48

R - 237

N

1925

69th

R

R – 54

R - 247

N

Yellow years mark Presidential inauguration.