On Investing

HiTempguy wrote: Whenever I go up to the Syncrude plant in Fort McMurray (thats where all of that dirty oil you guys don't want is ) out of my 8 hour day (if there isn't any overtime), I spend 2 hours dealing with various safety regulations. Now, this is LUDICROUS. I work in instrumentation, I work on fine pieces of equipment. I can not work on said equipment wearing leather gloves. I either need bare hands, or very fine hyflex gloves. Nothing else will do. But if I want to do that, I have to fill it out in a FLRA every morning I get to the plant site. Which is just one of the many safety orientated things I do. And guess what? It affects my safety ZILCH. He actually already answered your question in a roundabout way, he wants less bureaucracy. That, in and of itself, would chop costs WAY down.

to be very honest Safety regulations today mostly come out of a fear of lawyers and health care insurance premium increases.

It's not the government that is driving that stuff up these days.

Margie:

Having read your link, it makes me curious what you were saying.

"Those arcane rules are absurd"

or, "It's not right that one minority party can be so obstructionist"

On the issue of the rules, of course I agree. But it is important to remember there is a reason the rules are like that... because Congress WANTS them like that. Congress can change those rules any time they like. The majority party in particular has enormous power to change the rules. They just don't. Silly rules are to their advantage. It's much easier to manipulate silly rules to suit your political interests then to actually lead or govern.

The obstructionist charge is downright offensive. The majority levies this charge whenever they want the other guys to look bad (essentially every time). Of course, they NEVER point out that THEY aren't compromising either. Tools like the filibuster, etc. exist to PROTECT the minority. Without these tools, the majority could ramrod anything they want.

So they say, "Oh, those obstructionist blankity blanks from the other side just won't cooperate". Bull. Only one party gets to propose anything. If they only propose extreme viewpoints, they know thye've got their party loyalists on board regardless of how extreme. If they chose to propose more moderate viewpoints and legislation, it would be easier to involve the opposite party.

But it is easier to propose extremes and then cry, "Obstructionists!". The truth is the ones obstructing forward momentum are usually the MAJORITY, because they are refusing to propose legislation their opponents can agree to. Heaven forbid they might look good.

I,m with SVreX on this one. The way congress is behaving now it is unfortunate that they can get anything passed. It would suit me if they would just stagnate until a less polarized group of people got in there. My vote is to replace them all, every last one of them on both sides of the isle. Lets see if we can find some adults rather than a bunch of petulant children.

Hess:

You have some excellent points, but Schiff's illustration is laughable.

He makes the Asians Capitalists WITH voting rights, the American a Dictator, and proposes Socialism as a solution to the problem.

You, of all people, should certainly now this.

Dr. Hess wrote: Here's an illustrative passage from Schiff's book, pp 14-16: Let's suppose six castaways are stranded on a desert island, five Asians and one American. Their problem is hunger. So they sit down and divide labor as follows: One Asian will do the hunting, another will fish, the third will scrounge for vegetables, the fourth will cook dinner and the fifth will gather firewood and tend the fire. The sixth, the American is given the job of eating. So five Asians work all day to feed one American, who spends his day sunning himself on the beach. The American is employed in the equivalent of the service sector, operating a tanning salon that has one customer: Himself. At the end of the day, the five Asians present a painstakingly prepared feast to the American, who sits at the head of a special table built by the Asians specifically for this purpose. Now the American is practical enough to know that if the Asians are going to continue providing banquets they must also be fed, so he allows them just enough scraps from his table to sustain them for the following day's labor. Modern-day economists would have you look at the situation just described and believe that the American is the lone engine of growth driving the island's economy; that without the American and his ravenous appetite, the Asians on the island would all be unemployed. The reality, of course, is that the American is not the engine of growth, but the caboose, and the best thing the Asians could do would be to vote the American off the island -- decoupling the caboose from the gravy grain. Without the American to consume most of their food, they'd have a lot more to eat themselves. Then the Asians could spend less time working on food-related tasks and devote more time to leisure or to satisfying other needs that now go unfulfilled because so many of their scarce resources are devoted to feeding the American.

The true reality is that the Asians are slave labor to a Communist (Fascist?) Dictator who sells their product to the highest bidder in the world for his own personal gain. The American is only one of several, and they all buy their stuff from a Manager who gets product from the Dictator.

The Asians can't vote the American off the island- he's not even on the island. They'll never see him, and can't negotiate with him. They are kept imprisoned to their poverty.

The only ones who will loose if there is a collapse are the Dictator and the Manager. Both the Asians AND the Americans would do better if they could work together to come up with a solution. But it would have to start with a Coup where they ousted the Dictator and the Manager (unlikely).

Rex, that was just a brief excerpt. There's more to his argument, including why China not being a democracy but basically a dictatorship will help them survive better. And, of course, any overly simplistic modeling like that will have faults, but is illustrative of the concept. Anyway, Schiff's book is interesting, especially in his calling our current problems spot on 2 years before hand. Chapters on consumer debt, mortgage debt, the housing bubble, etc. Pretty much everything that brought us down. His big predicted pop just isn't here yet, but he called it spot on to this point.

Margie's link shows how berkeleyed up Congress is. I did find it slanted to be anti-R a bit, but the D's were doing the same thing prior to 2K6 when minorities, and 2K6 to 2K9 more so when they had a majority. But then "The New Yorker" magazine is going to be slanted to D's anyway. Again, one has to read the big picture and wade through the BS.

ignorant wrote: It's not the government that is driving that stuff up these days.

Really? Are you sure?

Some here know that I'm a tech writer for a defense company, we build switchgear equipment for naval and commercial ships.

Now tell me this isn't an example of an overbearing nanny state.

I had to write a safety report on our equipment, literally half of the "items" on the safety list had to respond to things like (and I'm paraphrasing but not exagerating) "if you close the door on your hand, you could injure it" "if you run your arm into an exposed corner you may injure it"

It's berkeleying crazy.

I mean, ummm, common sense anyone?

z31maniac wrote:

ignorant wrote: It's not the government that is driving that stuff up these days.

Really? Are you sure? Some here know that I'm a tech writer for a defense company, we build switchgear equipment for naval and commercial ships. Now tell me this isn't an example of an overbearing nanny state. I had to write a safety report on our equipment, literally half of the "items" on the safety list had to respond to things like (and I'm paraphrasing but not exagerating) "if you close the door on your hand, you could injure it" "if you run your arm into an exposed corner you may injure it" It's berkeleying crazy. I mean, ummm, common sense anyone?

lawyers dude.. not governments. Trust me on this. I work for a large multinational that sells to some very socialized nanny state countries and quite frankly they don't have 1/4 of the warnings that we do. Nowhere in France would you see, "If you close this door on your hand it will hurt," because they don't have the stupid sue happy society we have..

It's the lawyers. I maintain it's not the government. Everyone in this country does just about everything from a standpoint of limiting your own personal/companies liability.

True, but why do lawsuits run rampant?

Because we can't get meaningful tort reform, because the politicos are in their back pockets.

ignorant wrote: It's the lawyers. I maintain it's not the government. Everyone in this country does just about everything from a standpoint of limiting your own personal/companies liability.

There is a lot of truth to that, but the government writes the laws that allow the suits to continue. As long as we continue to vote in the lawyers to write the laws that will never change.

Toyman01 wrote: but the government writes the laws that allow the suits to continue.

Which was exactly my point, and up here in canuckland we aren't even that sue happy. It still is the government (which as you pointed out writes the laws) that allows these things to happen, even if only through apathy to changing the laws.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Y'all do realize our gov't is BROKEN, right? Very few people in Washington are interested in governing, as folks here would interpret that term. Read THIS if you're really curious what's going on. (You probably won't, though, because actual research into what these clowns are doing in our name would be hard, and it's much easier to sit around and spout opinions or indulge in namecalling.) If you do actually bother to look into what's going on in Washington, THEN we can start talking about how to change it. (Here's a hint: We can't start debating big ideas until we cover some basics, like a. you jokers work for us; b. we expect you to represent our nation's interests, not your own; and c. participation is NOT optional. Duh.) Margie

I actually had already read this article. I found it fascinating, but of course not at all surprising. Anyway, thanks for making me feel smart for having read it :)

I'm not even going to try to comment on the posts in this thread. I simply don't know enough to say anything that hasn't already been said. But I've been following the thread with interest.

Head to head debate and discussion of ideas is originally what made this country great. It's unfortunate that our government seems to have lost its way in that regard. Maybe our senators and congressfolks need to read this thread as well.

ignorant wrote: lawyers dude.. not governments. Trust me on this.

What's the difference??

The point was that companies send business overseas for cost saving reasons. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or the legal system. The point is our system is broken and it makes sense for companies to send the business overseas.

SVreX wrote:

ignorant wrote: lawyers dude.. not governments. Trust me on this.

What's the difference?? The point was that companies send business overseas for cost saving reasons. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or the legal system. The point is our system is broken and it makes sense for companies to send the business overseas.

I think the rampant lawsuits have to do more with why we have relatively high murder rates. We are a culture that wants everything right now and instant vengeance is almost a right.

3Door4G wrote:

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Y'all do realize our gov't is BROKEN, right? Very few people in Washington are interested in governing, as folks here would interpret that term. Read THIS if you're really curious what's going on. (You probably won't, though, because actual research into what these clowns are doing in our name would be hard, and it's much easier to sit around and spout opinions or indulge in namecalling.) If you do actually bother to look into what's going on in Washington, THEN we can start talking about how to change it. (Here's a hint: We can't start debating big ideas until we cover some basics, like a. you jokers work for us; b. we expect you to represent our nation's interests, not your own; and c. participation is NOT optional. Duh.) Margie

I actually had already read this article. I found it fascinating, but of course not at all surprising. Anyway, thanks for making me feel smart for having read it :) I'm not even going to try to comment on the posts in this thread. I simply don't know enough to say anything that hasn't already been said. But I've been following the thread with interest. Head to head debate and discussion of ideas is originally what made this country great. It's unfortunate that our government seems to have lost its way in that regard. Maybe our senators and congressfolks need to read this thread as well.

Here's an interesting tidbit. In the 1800's it was quite common to see fist fights stabbings, and some shootings(outside) both the house and senate floors. Our congressmen used to pack heavy canes and pistols for self defense.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1161398/ready_to_rumble_greatest_fistfights.html?cat=9 <-- just one crappy article, there are more out there.

We most certainly look at the past through rose colored glasses. What is happening right now is really nothing new. Sorry folks. It's horrible, but common.

I spent a great deal of time thinking on what investment opportunities may remain stable if there were a 12 month period where most markets were hemorrhaging value. I sincerely believe the best place to put your cash is into inventory. If the turds hit the propeller, and we had some sort of breakdown like the Great Depression, I would be glad to know I have a few grand in actual hard goods like grain and canned foods, medical supplies and farm gear. Im not saying this should all be yours as in a stockpile out back in the shed, but somehow getting that cash put into the inventory (Im not sure how unless you formed some form of cooperative or something), but that is where I think the money would hold its value...I havent read anything to substantiate this, its just what was going thru my foggy mind last night and this morning.

Dr. Hess wrote: How about the one where a plant has to dump out waste water 100 times cleaner than it takes in? I read that one recently for a proposed new plant somewhere.

Is that a rumor or a real provision of the clean water act?

And in terms of the pollutant, which one has to be 100x cleaner?

If we are talking about basic sediment, I would agree that it's stupid.

If we are talking mercury, I think 100x less is pretty reasonable, considering the impact that mercury has on our food stock.

So 1) real or rumor, and 2) what does it apply to?

And I can relate to that, too- the new LEVIII rules basically will make car exhaust quite a bit cleaner than the air it's using. In a few areas of the country. For a few specific chemicals. And knowing what the impact of those chemicals are- I'm good with that.

For worker safety- I too, think it's more lawyers than regulations. We do prototype stuff here, and there are the basic requirements that are more company policy than OSHA requirements. Of course, there are a lot of OSHA requirements in our plants, but considering the relative dangers that are seen in large scale manufacturing plants, it does make a lot of sense.

Obligitorty investment suggestion- booze. Heard a report this morning that in spite of the horrible economy, many large scale Scotch makers are looking at record sales and profits for 2010. I've read before that alcohol sales actually tend to go up in bad times. Bacardi Limited is a US company that has distilling facilities all over the world. http://www.bacardilimited.com/index.html

So... does anyone actually have any thoughts on, uhmm, investing?

alfadriver wrote: Obligitorty investment suggestion- booze. Heard a report this morning that in spite of the horrible economy, many large scale Scotch makers are looking at record sales and profits for 2010. I've read before that alcohol sales actually tend to go up in bad times. Bacardi Limited is a US company that has distilling facilities all over the world. http://www.bacardilimited.com/index.html

I can attest to this - I have a very good friend who works for a brewery, and their production numbers have been steadily growing to meet market demand! Hes been working overtime a lot lately. Im also glad my wife works in the grocery industry - even in bad times, people still gotta eat! A third leg to the adage as to what people will always need even in bad times is tobacco, but Id say that is declining with the advent of anti-tobacco campaigning in the media.

tuna55 wrote: So... does anyone actually have any thoughts on, uhmm, investing?

4cylndrfury wrote: I spent a great deal of time thinking on what investment opportunities may remain stable if there were a 12 month period where most markets were hemorrhaging value. I sincerely believe the best place to put your cash is into inventory. If the turds hit the propeller, and we had some sort of breakdown like the Great Depression, I would be glad to know I have a few grand in actual hard goods like grain and canned foods, medical supplies and farm gear. Im not saying this should all be yours as in a stockpile out back in the shed, but somehow getting that cash put into the inventory (Im not sure how unless you formed some form of cooperative or something), but that is where I think the money would hold its value...I havent read anything to substantiate this, its just what was going thru my foggy mind last night and this morning.

alfadriver wrote: Obligitorty investment suggestion- booze. Heard a report this morning that in spite of the horrible economy, many large scale Scotch makers are looking at record sales and profits for 2010. I've read before that alcohol sales actually tend to go up in bad times. Bacardi Limited is a US company that has distilling facilities all over the world. http://www.bacardilimited.com/index.html

4cylndrfury wrote: I can attest to this - I have a very good friend who works for a brewery, and their production numbers have been steadily growing to meet market demand! Hes been working overtime a lot lately. Im also glad my wife works in the grocery industry - even in bad times, people still gotta eat! A third leg to the adage as to what people will always need even in bad times is tobacco, but Id say that is declining with the advent of anti-tobacco campaigning in the media.

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

Maybe we can make our own mutual fund of alcohol.

Imbibe Fund.

Dr. Hess wrote: There are many other examples of what is wrong, like not putting a new nuclear power plant in each state ($100 billion cost if you shoot the lawyers first, 2-3 years completion time - result: total energy independence for the US (don't want a nuke in your state? No problem, you can buy electricity from someone that does, at a huge markup)) but I'll leave that out.

This is the smartest and least insane thing (well apart from shooting lawyers...can't you just tie them up in a back room for a while? ) you've said in any of your political rants.

SVreX wrote: Margie: Having read your link, it makes me curious what you were saying. "Those arcane rules are absurd" or, "It's not right that one minority party can be so obstructionist"

My point was that NEITHER party is interested in good governance. They're interested in winning. And they're using rules designed to promote democracy and protect the minority in order to stymie all forward progress. Both parties are doing this, because both absolutely refuse to compromise. (Pardon me, but isn't compromise at the very heart of politics? They're doing it wrong.)

This is what happens when you have a 2-party system that offers no incentive for coalition-building or consensus-taking. They view their "job" as getting reelected, and getting their party members reelected; the governing, for them, is an annoying distraction from this.

Sorry for the thread jack, but all economic discussions should include a healthy awareness of the pertinent political situation. In this case, we can have no hope of a prudent, balanced economic policy from our government, whichever party's in power, because developing that would take time they can't spare from campaigning and reality-based compromises that no one is interested in pursuing because again, that would be counterproductive to their goal of getting reelected to represent their party.

Of course, economics are all about perception, anyway, so I suppose it's probably better to keep throwing about the propaganda-level distractions that have been fed to us like hush puppies, because right now that's what's most "real" to folks.

Margie

We have previously discussed collusion between the insurance industry and the lawyers. The government is in on it too. All three parties come out ahead with our current tort system. We, The People, are the losers. The parties winning have no incentive to change it.

4cylndrfury, I think you're back to "canned goods and ammo." As in: I asked my stock broker what stocks to invest in. He said "canned goods and ammo." The Mormons have a requirement for 1 year's food stores. I think it's 1 year, might be longer, but not less and I'm not a Mormon. Anyway, if you think about it, that will get you through a total crop failure and into the next harvest. Whole grains and honey will store indefinitely. As in they found wheat in the Pharaoh's tombs, planted it and it grew. Now, stock up on some barley, a little yeast, and plan on trading beer for whatever else you want.

I really don't see it getting that bad, however. Let's just call that the ZA (Zombie-Apocalypse) scenario. Nothing's impossible, but I'd only give it a 10% chance of happening in our lifetimes. Still not insignificant. If November goes to the D's, that percentage goes up. A lot. And it isn't just the D's, but the incumbent R's as well, just to a lesser extent. Jeff Knox recently wrote: "There's an old Capitol Hill joke that if the Democrats voted to shred the Constitution, the Republicans would vote for a compromise to phase the shredding in over six months."

Anyway, right now, 10% ZA scenario in our lifetimes. 10% Zimbabwe style out of control hyperinflation (probably more Wiemar style) but not ZA, 25% "moderate" inflation of 15-25% for a year or two, and the rest an overnight (over week) "banks are shut while we figure out what your new dollar is worth" rewriting of the contracts (bond default). The non-ZA scenarios are not "lifetime" guestimates, but more next 2 years guestimates.

So, back to the topic, putting your money into something that isn't a dollar or linked to a dollar for the shorter term is probably the wisest thing to do right now. That won't help with a ZA scenario, but it will for the others. The "canned goods and ammo" would hedge for a ZA scenario. We have to protect our assets so we can protect our families and rebuild the country after things settle down. Foreign EtOH manufacturers without US sales, or where the US sales are a smaller market segment might be promising, if there is such a thing. Brazil has some good beers, as does Argentina. Rio Segundo is some excellent stuff, or it was when I was last down there 25 years ago (things change), and it has about zero US market penetration. I wonder who makes that one.

ignorant wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

ignorant wrote: It's not the government that is driving that stuff up these days.

Really? Are you sure? Some here know that I'm a tech writer for a defense company, we build switchgear equipment for naval and commercial ships. Now tell me this isn't an example of an overbearing nanny state. I had to write a safety report on our equipment, literally half of the "items" on the safety list had to respond to things like (and I'm paraphrasing but not exagerating) "if you close the door on your hand, you could injure it" "if you run your arm into an exposed corner you may injure it" It's berkeleying crazy. I mean, ummm, common sense anyone?

lawyers dude.. not governments. Trust me on this. I work for a large multinational that sells to some very socialized nanny state countries and quite frankly they don't have 1/4 of the warnings that we do. Nowhere in France would you see, "If you close this door on your hand it will hurt," because they don't have the stupid sue happy society we have.. It's the lawyers. I maintain it's not the government. Everyone in this country does just about everything from a standpoint of limiting your own personal/companies liability.

Most of my day can be tied up with legal nonsense. After an accident I hae one page the Gov'e requires, and from six to 30 more pages that legal requires. Of course it's needed because often before I'm finished someone's lawyer has already started a lawsuit. Tort reform really needs to be taken care of before things can start to get better.

OK so investing advice.

I like Hess's idea of Utilities, especially those in growing countries. Also large civil engineering firms.. Don't know any off the top of my head. But India and China need proper infrastructure. Maybe continue looking at CEMEX.

Cemex is trying to get into india. If that happens.. Hold on. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/biz/india-business/Cemex-eyes-Penna-acquisition/articleshow/5865696.cms