| The SEC recently instituted some rules to protect several financial stocks against naked short selling.. anyone else think its interesting that they chose only a select group of banking stocks? (not to mention that naked short selling is illegal in the first place?)
Conspiracy theorists are going crazy.. some are saying that they are setting up the smaller banks (ie: giving hedge funds permission to short regional banks that have gotten decimated in the last few weeks.. like Washington Mutual and Wachovia) and others are saying that some well connected folks in the protected banks pulled some strings to prevent them from being targetted with short attacks. Man, this will make for some great reading one day once its all played out and more insight is available into why the SEC is doing what they are doing..
I personally think that some of the financials,especially regionals, are getting oversold.. the questions are which ones? Do I think WM will fail like IndyMac? probably not... but I don't have the guts to put my money where my mouth is.. lets see what they have to say during their earnings report next week.
|
| |
| Anyone else disappointed that Obama chose to back protection for telecom companies? What happened to the change that he was supposed to stand for? Same old capitulating to the pressure of the White House. Grow a spine.
|
| |
| Coming up next: Government bailout of commodity speculators!
|
| |
| Two recent articles I wrote on my other blog site (Armchaireconomist): (I'll link to them rather than post them in their entirety)
Accountability and the Mortgage bailout: Looking at the parties responsible for the housing debacle. The Fallacy of Carbon Offsets: Examining the other side of carbon offsets: enabling consumers to 'buy' their way out of guilt for their 'Carbon Footprint' only serves to divert their attention from where it really should lie: Conservation
|
| |
| Give up already, Hillary. I don't know why hillary is still in the race. She purports to stand up for democracy, but the only thing she has shown is that she is a selfish and sleazy politician who will stop at nothing to win the nomination. Rather than set an example of being a 'fighter', she is merely showing her weakeness in her inability to make an appropriate decision at a crucial juncture in time. In my opinion, this puts her right up there with Bush's decision to invade Iraq.. Although I disagreed with Bush in attacking Iraq, I never faulted him for making the decision (assuming he made the decision thinking there actually were WMDs..) but I fault him now in his inability to recognize what a mistake Iraq is and how it is killing our economy (again, I will say at the risk of sounding treasonous.. bin Laden was right from the very beginning.. he will bleed our country to death, is it me or is the bush administration retarded in their failure to recognize that our pumping trillions of dollars into fighting a war abroad that has no enemy (ie: if I was God, I'd like to do a count of how many innocent people we've captured vs. how many 'terrorists' we've captured, i'd give bush credit if the ratio was even 1:1) and an additional billions of dollars into a paranoid domestic war on the home front against our selves with our paranoid 'security measures' - ie: NYPD will start patrolling subways with RIFLES wtf!!!!).. anyway.. back to my original point.. I firmly believe there is atleast an element of pride in him not admitting to getting us into such a costly war in the first place. Hillary is demonstrating the EXACT same inability to see the big picture.. As every political pundit has stated, the longer she fights in her futile war against Obama, the more she is weakening the democratic party.
For one who purportedly stands up for Democracy, does she even understand what she is asking the superdelgates to do? Even though she will lose the popular count, the number of delegates, and the number of states, she is saying 'look at me, I can win the states that count'.. completely disregarding the smaller states (are they any lesser people than the ones in the big states? why hasn't the MSM brought up this obvious point??)
Her recent efforts of reducing the gas taxes over the summer is yet another example of her pandering to the 'blue collar' vote. (for one thing.. the people who bought SUVs that get 10mpg deserve a $20/gal price simply because they are one of the causes of this problem in the first place.. reducing gas taxes will only absolve them of their responsibility in causing this in the first place). I respect Obama for going against the popular (and short sighted) efforts to reduce gas taxes... its quite sad that he is the only one of the candidates that understands the basic principles of economics.
Am I elitist in thinking that people are stupid for voting for Hillary Clinton? (heck, if the decision came down to McCain Vs. Clinton, I think I would switch parties and go with McCain.. nah.. can't do it after his statement that he is ok with staying in Iraq for 100 years..or maybe ill just go with Nader for the least of all evils)
|
| |
