Tag Archives: stock-market

Learn How to Invest in Oil Real Estate through Self-Directed IRA Webinar Series

http://www.youtube.com/v/4REcsse-xfg

Read more here:

 Learn How to Invest in Oil Real Estate through Self Directed IRA Webinar Series

DALLAS, Texas (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) — The financial crisis continues to loom and stock market uncertainty lurks at every turn. Traditional investors are watching their money disappear. That’s why Domestic Development Company is conducting a weekly investment webinar series designed to show investors how to invest in oil with a self-directed real estate IRA. Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Send2Press Newswire Discovery Date : 11/08/2011 11:57 Number of articles : 2

Learn How to Invest in Oil Real Estate through Self-Directed IRA Webinar Series

New York Post Uses Streetwalker To Represent Stocks

View original post here:

c232868c0c50x150.jpg New York Post Uses Streetwalker To Represent Stocks

“The Fed also yesterday sharply downgraded its own view of the US economy.” The New York Post illustrated this degradation with a racy photo of an ethnic woman on the cover of their issue. In an effort to represent the wildly fluctuating stock market, The New York Post chose to use a photo of a prostitute. Rather than using a crazy roller coaster ride or the mood of a teenager going through life changes to explain the changing stock values, the Post chose a hooker and her panties. The Post used the headline: Crazy stox like a hooker’s drawers.. up, down, up. What do you think of this cover? Do hookers even wear panties?! Click here to read the article that this photo was supposed to represent. What A Downgrade Of U.S. Rating Means In Plain English Beyonce, Rihanna, Mariah Carey & More Come Together To Help Feed East Africa

New York Post Uses Streetwalker To Represent Stocks

The Average Person’s Guide to Investing in 2011 [Money]

The stock market is positively sizzling today, as Wall Street ‘s optimism pushed the Dow to a two-year high . Sounds tempting, eh? Before you wade in with your wallet, consider this short list of “Do’s” and “Don’ts.” Consider it now! More

Time’s Joe Klein Profiles Liberal Vineyard Owner Practically Pining for Days of Higher Taxes

With its dwindling readership, Time magazine is fast becoming a museum piece.  What better way is there to celebrate than for the publication to bring to its few readers’ attention other strange curiosities? Three weeks into his cross-country Election Road Trip , Joe Klein filed a Swampland blog post  shortly after noon Eastern time today from Sebastopol, California, where he found a true rarity, a businessman practically pining for the days of heavier federal taxation (emphasis mine): Barry [Sterling, founding partner of Iron Horse Vineyards] said he was deeply worried about the country. “I was born on the day of the 1929 stock market crash, so I’ve lived from the Great Depression to the Great Recession,” he said, “and I must say I’m amazed by how little progress we’ve made. We stopped regulating. We dropped taxes to unsustainable levels. I spent a good part of my life in the 70% tax bracket. It didn’t discourage me from working,” he said, referring to the supply-side argument that lower tax rates spur enterprise. “It made me work harder. My father lived with 90% rates during World War II. I’m actually mystified by the greed now. I don’t understand families like Koch brothers,” he said referring to the Republican Tea Party bankrollers. “They have so much money. Why do they need more?” No wonder Joe Klein found Barry to be delightful dinner company.

See the original post:
Time’s Joe Klein Profiles Liberal Vineyard Owner Practically Pining for Days of Higher Taxes

Scooped: British Publication Tells Us Uncle Sam Having Problems Unload Citi Shares

You would think someone in the U.S. establishment press would be following Uncle Sam’s progress or lack thereof in getting out from under its investment in Citigroup, especially since the government promised that it would be fully divested from the bank holding company by the end of this year. From all appearances, you would be wrong. It looks like the government may not be able to keep that year-end divestiture promise. For a fair number of news followers to learn that, the UK’s Financial Times had to take an interest (link may require registration), and Drudge had to link to it: US Treasury stumbles selling Citi shares The US government is in danger of missing its deadline of divesting all of its Citigroup shares by the year-end after a fall in stock market trading volumes prompted authorities to slow down sales in July and August. The lull could prompt the US Treasury, which has a stake of about 17 per cent in Citi, to consider a share offering instead of selling the stock in small quantities in the market, according to bankers and analysts. “The sales of Citigroup stock have slowed way down in July and August … The US Treasury will not finish its share sale by … the end of the year,” said Linus Wilson, a professor of finance at the University of Louisiana. “The only option for the Treasury if it wants to exit Citigroup before the year-end seems to be to conduct a large secondary offering of the stake.” The government only seeks to sell shares equivalent to a small percentage of the overall trading volume in Citi to avoid depressing the price. By the end of August, less than half of the government’s 7.7bn shares in Citi had been sold, with the average number of shares sold per day falling sharply, the latest official data show. The Treasury has until Thursday to complete the sale of 1.5bn shares before entering a “blackout period” ahead of Citi’s third-quarter results. … The government’s continued involvement complicates Citi’s efforts to convince investors its troubled past is behind it. The lack of stateside establishment media interest is, as far as I can tell, complete. None of the stories returned in a search on the company’s name at the Associated Press’s main site contained any information citing the government’s stock-selling difficulty. One item in a group of “Business Highlights” at least acknowledges that Citigroup “is still partly owned by taxpayers.” A search on the company’s name at the New York Times also returned nothing relevant. The Washington Post also has nothing relevant , though it does have an item also carried at the AP’s main site on bonuses that are being paid to Citi execs in (of all things) company stock. But there’s no mention of the problems the government is having in unloading its stake. If Uncle Sam is having trouble unloading Citi, imagine the difficulties it might encounter pulling off its planned initial public offering of stock in Government/General Motors, an attempt which has conveniently been put off until after Election Day. It would appear that the establishment press might be interested in keeping a lid on stories indicating that once the state gets in the business ownership door, it’s very hard for it to get out — assuming it even really wants to. Ultimately, that explains why one has to hope that the British and foreign press stay on top of developments such as these — and that Drudge keeps on reviewing their work. Meanwhile, Tim Geithner says that TARP has worked out just fine , almost as if we’re in past-tense mode. Uh-huh. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

333ce09427340x.jpg 241x360 Scooped: British Publication Tells Us Uncle Sam Having Problems Unload Citi Shares

View original post here:
Scooped: British Publication Tells Us Uncle Sam Having Problems Unload Citi Shares

Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

For the past several years, we’ve heard the doom-and-gloom prognostications coming from perma-bear Peter Schiff: The Federal Reserve is the root of all evil. Inflation will be the United States’ undoing. Invest in gold and overseas because the American stock market is toast. Perhaps that’s a legitimate view, but Schiff argues a more libertarian approach to prevent these supposed calamities. He argues for a different way of handling monetary policy , less spending by the federal government and a rethinking of how regulation is handled . Yet, when a political campaign is waged in the halls of Congress by a partisan member against one of his competitors , he turns a blind-eye to the abuses of government power. “You know, I have my own gold company and it bothers me what they’re going to do,” Schiff said to CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report” fill-in host Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on the Sept. 24 broadcast. “I think that companies like, you know, like Goldline, you know that are basically marking up their gold coins 67 percent or whatever – it’s outrageous. I mean, most companies mark-up 2 or 3 percent, which is what I do. These type of companies give the whole industry a bad name. What I’m afraid of is we’re going to have a lot of regulation.” Caruso-Cabrera asked Schiff in these circumstances if it was a case of buyer beware. However, Schiff suggested it was fraudulent for coin companies to charge these prices for what by any measure of the law would be a legal transaction if a consumer chose to purchase coins from such a company. “If there’s fraud, it’s not buyer beware,” he continued. “But what I’m afraid of is I don’t want government regulating the coin industry so that people like me have to raise our prices to cover all the extra cost of regulation.” But assuming Schiff’s assumption were correct, wouldn’t he has a competitor be able to move in on the market and offer the same product for a lower price? Isn’t that how the free market operates? Schiff conceded that point, but complained he was getting beat because he couldn’t afford the advertising. “I mean, I think the free market should ferret out these companies that are grossly overcharging people who don’t know any better. You know, that’s the problem. People haven’t bought gold in so long and see how well it’s doing and get conned by these commercials that are all over television. But most gold companies like mine, we can’t afford to run commercials because we’re not charging that much.” Schiff makes regular appearances on all the cable news networks, with his firm’s logo Euro Pacific Capital on the backdrop and raised more than $3 million for his failed effort to win the Connecticut Republican U.S. Senate nomination. So is it fair to complain about his firm’s inability to market its products, if indeed they’re at lower prices than the competition’s products.

See the original post here:
Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

Question for Paul Krugman: Are Things Better Today Than In January 2007?

A recurring theme from liberal media members as we approach the midterm elections is that Americans have to vote for Democrats in November so the nation doesn’t go back to the way things were when Republicans ran everything. A perfect example is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who on Friday penned a piece called “Downhill With the G.O.P.”: Never mind the war on terror, the party’s main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November. Banana republic, here we come. In the midst of all this ” Do you really want to go back to those days ” talk is a staggering ignorance concerning how ” those days ” compare to now: In January 2007 before the Democrats took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6 percent; now it’s 9.6 percent. In January 2007 there were 7.1 million unemployed people in America; now there are 14.9 million. In January 2007 the median home price was $210,600; today it’s $179,300. In January 2007 the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 12,500; today it’s at 10,840. In January 2007 the gross federal debt was $9 trillion; today it’s $13.5 trillion. The poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent; now it’s 14.3 percent In the final budget created by a GOP-controlled Congress, the deficit was $160 billion; now it’s $1.6 trillion. Add it all up and: there were half as many people out of work then; houses were worth 17 percent more; stocks were 16 percent higher; the federal debt was 33 percent lower; poverty was 14 percent lower, and; the deficit was 90 percent lower!  As such, I ask Mr. Krugman and all liberal media members stumping for Democrats: is America really better off today than it was in January 2007? If so, how ?

ad9708423f202007.jpg Question for Paul Krugman: Are Things Better Today Than In January 2007?

Excerpt from:
Question for Paul Krugman: Are Things Better Today Than In January 2007?

Savannah Guthrie’s Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits

Isn’t it odd after the passage of TARP, the stimulus and ObamaCare that left-wing politicians and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media are suddenly worried about budget deficits? As opposed to reining in deficit spending, the new public policy stance for the Democratic Party going into the 2010 midterm election is to call for a tax hike on the top-income earners by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those folks. In an interview on MSNBC’s Sept. 17 “The Daily Rundown” with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, co-host Savannah Guthrie pressed the Texas senator on the need to raise taxes in order to lower budget deficits. Guthrie asked: “Sir, as you know, a lot of the energy in the Republican Party, some of the animating issues have to do with deficit and spending, and I ask you given the concern among Republican voters about deficit spending, how is it that Republicans can get behind allowing the Bush tax cuts to go forward for the wealthiest Americans, something that will cost $700 billion borrowed money deficit spending. How do you square that up?” This is becoming a pattern for Guthrie. The previous week, Guthrie pressed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with the same line of questioning . But according to Cornyn, Guthrie was offering false choices, which was the exact same way McConnell responded when she pushed the same premise. “Well Savannah, it doesn’t make any sense to raise taxes in order to keep current tax policy in place,” Cornyn said. “I think frankly that’s a false choice. My preference would have been to make these tax rates permanent, but we didn’t have the votes to do it so they’re temporary. They’re going to expire.” Cornyn’s response didn’t satisfy “The Daily Rundown” co-host. Apparently in Guthrie’s mind, if you earn money – what the government allows you to keep is a federal expenditure, suggesting all earned income is the government’s and they’re just allowing you to keep some of it. “But, that will be deficit spending, right? I mean, it is deficit spending?” an unrelenting Guthrie interrupted and fired back at Cornyn. Cornyn called Guthrie’s “deficit spending” description a false construction and said raising taxes on anyone would be an “anti-stimulus.” “I think that’s a false construct, with all due respect, because these are current tax rates,” Cornyn replied. “We’re talking about the largest tax increase in American history. And particularly Democrats, I think, and Republicans are looking now to say, ‘You know what, even if we’re for raising the marginal tax rates to what they were in the ’90s, the worst time to be doing this is during a time of fragile, economic recovery so I hope we can come together and to stave that off, because I can’t think of a worse anti-stimulus at this time than this huge tax increase.” During the 2008 election, political opponents of the Republican Party and the party’s presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would often describe the GOP’s economic policies as “Hoover-esque.” Liberal economist Jared Bernstein was one of the people who used it to describe Republican policies in 2008 . Bernstein now holds a prominent position in the Obama White House as the chief economist for the vice president. But you don’t have to appear more “Hoover-esque” than raising taxes in the middle of an economic downturn – as former President Herbert Hoover did immediately following the stock market crash of 1929 with The Revenue Act of 1932.

View original post here:
Savannah Guthrie’s Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits

Cramer: ‘Mass Panic’ in Markets Tomorrow After ‘Shocker’ GDP Released

It is a curious phenomenon – the way the media have handled the economy since President Barack Obama has taken office. Generally the coverage has been on the optimistic side over the last 18 months. But could this blind optimism come back to haunt people that trade on economic metrics? According to CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer, it will and in a big way on Aug. 27, when the new gross domestic product numbers are released. On CNBC’s Aug. 26 broadcast of “Street Signs,” Cramer predicted dismal numbers during his “Stop Trading” segment, which has been contrary to the way the market reacted. “Look, I’m going to give you my forecast right now – I think we’re going to get 0.5 percent GDP, OK?” Cramer said. “But, let’s say we get 0.5 percent GDP. Everyone’s going to say it’s horrible. We’re going to go track down economists, Nobel winners who think it’s a double dip. And it’ll be like shocker – 0.5 percent. And I’m telling you it’s going to be 0.5 percent. It’s like the housing number. On my show I said it’s going to be declined 50 percent. We get 30 percent. It was like shocker. Whoever is making these estimates is just so wrong because you know, you piece these pieces together on a daily basis like I do and come up with something between zero and 1 percent growth.” “So when it comes out as 0.5 percent – other people are – I don’t know who those people are,” he continued. “I don’t know who they’re listening to or talking to. But it’s very clear that we’re going to have no growth. Why is that shocking?” “Street Signs” fill-in host Amanda Drury asked Cramer if this was already baked into the market, to which Cramer said it wasn’t and predicted a panicked reaction in the market. “No, it’s not. Tomorrow I’m predicting mass panic tomorrow morning,” Cramer said. “[M]ass panic, market looking down 15 ticks. It will be that way because it will be like, ‘Oh, my.’ And how can it be ‘Oh, my?’ We’re on a national TV show right now, OK? We’re watched by everybody. I’m telling you it’s going to be 0.5. How when it comes out and 0.5 [percent] is that shocking to people? Are you not watching? What are you watching? ESPN? Are they talking about 0.8 percent on ESPN? Maybe that’s it. Maybe on the YES Channel they’re using 2 percent. I don’t know what they’re watching.” On Aug. 26, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed below the 10,000-point mark. And while there have calls by prominent economists that say a double-dip recession is more likely, Cramer still showed his astonishment over the rosy attitudes of some. “I don’t know what network they’re – you know, if you listen to everybody here, everyone’s looking for 0.5 percent. So when it comes out at 0.5, I want to know who is still surprised. What planet are they on?” Later in the segment, the “Mad Money” host revised call even lower – to 0.3 percent, then to 0.2 percent. But stuck with the call it would come in between zero growth and 0.5 percent growth.

See original here:
Cramer: ‘Mass Panic’ in Markets Tomorrow After ‘Shocker’ GDP Released

George Will Schools Robert Reich On Deficit Spending, FDR and Herbert Hoover

George Will on Sunday gave Robert Reich a much-needed history lesson about deficit spending and liberal myths concerning Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. As the Roundtable segment on ABC’s “This Week” moved to the current state of the economy, Reich predictably called for another stimulus package.  “You can’t even talk about stimulus because people say, ‘Oh, that would create a deficit and that would generate inflation,’” declared one of the Left’s favorite economists. Fortunately for those actually interested in facts, Will was there to offer viewers the truth (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):   ROBERT REICH: It’s not the summer of recovery. It’s the summer of our discontent. We are, by many measures, heading into a double-dip. But the fact is many Americans have not even gotten out of the first dip. And the interesting paradox here is that in this town, in Washington, you can’t talk about a second stimulus. You can’t even talk about stimulus because people say, “Oh, that would create a deficit and that would generate inflation.” But, in fact, the bond markets are not predicting inflation. The bond markets are worried more about deflation. The Treasury bill is now, the yield is what, something like 2.6 percent on a ten-year Treasury bill. Before we get to Will’s response, it must be noted that this so-called economic genius doesn’t know that T-bills only come in maturities of 3 months, six months, and one year. The Treasury auctions “notes” with maturities of two, five, and ten years, as well as “bonds” with a duration of 30. That Reich doesn’t know this is somewhat staggering, but I digress:  GEORGE WILL: Let’s talk about how bad it is, first of all. If, in the last five months, about 1.1 million people had not become so discouraged that is to have essentially dropped out of the job market, the real unemployment rate today, if they were still counted, would be 10.4 percent. So, too much use of the word Nazi, too much use of the world Herbert Hoover, my friend. You’re the one who’s consistently saying that the town today is full of people like Herbert Hoover who don’t want to spend money. REICH: Herbert Hoover is being exhumed, George. WILL: Let me tell you, Bob, per capita federal expenditures between 1929 when the stock market crashed and ’32 when Hoover had his last full year in office doubled. He was, he responded to the coming recession with a gusher of federal spending. It didn’t do a lick of good. In fairness, Will was exaggerating just a tad. Here are the real numbers according to a marvelous report on this subject from the Cato Institute: From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover’s administration, real per capita federal expenditures (graphed in Figure 1), increased by 88 percent.   So, Will was a little aggressive. However, his point was still spectacular:   REICH: He didn’t, by the way, by the way, we can debate history, but by 1932, 1933, the major issue and major proposal on the table coming from Andrew Millen, his Secretary of the Treasury, was balancing the budget. And all we heard… WILL: In Forbes Field in Pittsburgh in a famous speech, FDR pledged to balance the budget. REICH: Yes, FDR was, was, he was also a deficit hawk. Well, he was a deficit hawk during his first presidential campaign, Bob. Democrats love to promise fiscal discipline while on the stump only to go back on such promises after they’re elected.  As Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter noted in his book “The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope” (page 131): At Pittsburgh’s Forbes Field in October [1932], FDR bid to neutralize the old guard fiscal conservatives. He blasted Hoover for “reckless and extravagant spending” in increasing government outlays by 50 percent, and for waiting too long before raising taxes to help balance the budget.  As such, quite contrary to the modern liberal myth that Hoover was a deficit hawk that was too tight on spending after the Depression began, he was actually blasted by candidate Roosevelt for being too loose with federal coffers. This is supported by the previously mentioned Cato report: Under President Roosevelt’s administration from 1933 to 1940, just before World War II, [real per capita federal spending] increased by only 74 percent [compared to Hoover's 88 percent]. Although Hoover started from a lower base, in percentage terms expenditures under Hoover increased more in four years than during the next seven New Deal years.  As such, contrary to what liberals like Reich suggest, Hoover was actually a more profligate spender than Roosevelt. Of course, more importantly as Will noted, none of this spending did a lick to solve the Great Depression, for the economy only fully recovered as our nation geared up for World War II. With this in mind, Reich really ought to be more careful when he makes historical statements with George Will sitting next to him. On the other hand, it’s far more entertaining to see him get schooled this way on national television. 

0fc654c33bHoover.jpg George Will Schools Robert Reich On Deficit Spending, FDR and Herbert Hoover

Here is the original post:
George Will Schools Robert Reich On Deficit Spending, FDR and Herbert Hoover