Gyroscopic Investing

Libertarian666 wrote: There's nothing great or honest about WB. He disowned his granddaughter for speaking out about their lives more frankly than he liked. He also gets plenty of sweetheart deals like special bonds that other people can't buy, e.g., http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/08/25/w ... f-america/

And he still can't beat an "inert lump of metal" over a 10- to 15-year holding period.

Good luck with your "inert lump of metal", you will need it. 

frommi wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: There's nothing great or honest about WB. He disowned his granddaughter for speaking out about their lives more frankly than he liked. He also gets plenty of sweetheart deals like special bonds that other people can't buy, e.g., http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/08/25/w ... f-america/

And he still can't beat an "inert lump of metal" over a 10- to 15-year holding period.

Good luck with your "inert lump of metal", you will need it. 

Thanks.

Libertarian666 wrote:

frommi wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: There's nothing great or honest about WB. He disowned his granddaughter for speaking out about their lives more frankly than he liked. He also gets plenty of sweetheart deals like special bonds that other people can't buy, e.g., http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/08/25/w ... f-america/

And he still can't beat an "inert lump of metal" over a 10- to 15-year holding period.

Good luck with your "inert lump of metal", you will need it. 

Thanks.

I've never been too interested in WB so I don't recall the specific details about any of this stuff. There are members who certainly know more and I would invite their opinion. From my casual observation WB has been a supporter of wealth destroying government regulation and manipulation as well as the fascistic Obama regime for years. As a reward for his service, his businesses have been the subject of taxpayer bailouts and the killing of pipelines that would cut into his railroad profits by resulting in cheaper oil transportation. This, on top of his calls for higher taxation and lies about these subjects make him quite a disgusting character to me.

As to his investing genius...I don't have specific details. Obviously he's been doing it for a long time which helps and he had a string of early successes. Nothing in the last 15 years has shown any particular skill. In fact didn't Buffet make a lot of calls about believing in America and buying stocks just prior to the financial crash? Seems like just a perma-bull.

Anyway, I could be way off here.

Tech....where do you get the patience and ability to remain calm in the face of nasty language from others? I find that extremely difficult.

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

frommi wrote: Good luck with your "inert lump of metal", you will need it. 

Thanks.

I've never been too interested in WB so I don't recall the specific details about any of this stuff. There are members who certainly know more and I would invite their opinion. From my casual observation WB has been a supporter of wealth destroying government regulation and manipulation as well as the fascistic Obama regime for years. As a reward for his service, his businesses have been the subject of taxpayer bailouts and the killing of pipelines that would cut into his railroad profits by resulting in cheaper oil transportation. This, on top of his calls for higher taxation and lies about these subjects make him quite a disgusting character to me.

As to his investing genius...I don't have specific details. Obviously he's been doing it for a long time which helps and he had a string of early successes. Nothing in the last 15 years has shown any particular skill. In fact didn't Buffet make a lot of calls about believing in America and buying stocks just prior to the financial crash? Seems like just a perma-bull.

Anyway, I could be way off here.

Tech....where do you get the patience and ability to remain calm in the face of nasty language from others? I find that extremely difficult.

The question I ask myself (and others, when appropriate) is "What difference does 'x' make?", where 'x' is anything annoying. Usually the answer is "no difference", to which I then reply, "Then why worry about it?"

Kshartle wrote: From my casual observation WB has been a supporter of wealth destroying government regulation and manipulation as well as the fascistic Obama regime for years.

Uhm...seriously?

WhiteDesert wrote:

Kshartle wrote: From my casual observation WB has been a supporter of wealth destroying government regulation and manipulation as well as the fascistic Obama regime for years.

Uhm...seriously?

I'm not Kshartle, but that is an accurate adjective.

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm not Kshartle, but that is an accurate adjective.

It strikes me as rather over the top, but if you say so.

WhiteDesert wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm not Kshartle, but that is an accurate adjective.

It strikes me as rather over the top, but if you say so.

Spying on everyone? Check.
Assassinations on the say-so of one person? Check.
Rule by decree? Check.
...

Libertarian666 wrote: Spying on everyone? Check.
Assassinations on the say-so of one person? Check.
Rule by decree? Check.

As long as we're not trying to assert that these things all started magically during the current administration.

And I suppose this is now getting really close to a political debate, so...

WhiteDesert wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Spying on everyone? Check.
Assassinations on the say-so of one person? Check.
Rule by decree? Check.

As long as we're not trying to assert that these things all started magically during the current administration.

And I suppose this is now getting really close to a political debate, so...

On this forum, you would likely get few (if any) objections to the assertion that Bush did this stuff as well. But just because it ain't new, doesn't mean you can't call a spade a spade.

Pointedstick wrote:

WhiteDesert wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Spying on everyone? Check.
Assassinations on the say-so of one person? Check.
Rule by decree? Check.

As long as we're not trying to assert that these things all started magically during the current administration.

And I suppose this is now getting really close to a political debate, so...

On this forum, you would likely get few (if any) objections to the assertion that Bush did this stuff as well. But just because it ain't new, doesn't mean you can't call a spade a spade.

Of course Bush did everything he thought he could get away with. They all have, in my lifetime at least.
The only difference is how much they think they can get away with.

Pointedstick wrote: On this forum, you would likely get few (if any) objections to the assertion that Bush did this stuff as well. But just because it ain't new, doesn't mean you can't call a spade a spade.

That's fair. I guess its a bit of a knee-jerk button for me because I recall far less of an outcry during the disaster that were the Bush years than I hear now. And having served as an instrument of American foreign policy under both of them, I sometimes have trouble telling them apart (as C-in-C only). And I tend to get a little pedantic because the outcry that I hear now tends to be of the flavor of calling the guy who governs like a moderate Republican a socialist. So yeah, a little knee-jerk I guess...

WhiteDesert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: On this forum, you would likely get few (if any) objections to the assertion that Bush did this stuff as well. But just because it ain't new, doesn't mean you can't call a spade a spade.

That's fair. I guess its a bit of a knee-jerk button for me because I recall far less of an outcry during the disaster that were the Bush years than I hear now. And having served as an instrument of American foreign policy under both of them, I sometimes have trouble telling them apart (as C-in-C only). And I tend to get a little pedantic because the outcry that I hear now tends to be of the flavor of calling the guy who governs like a moderate Republican a socialist. So yeah, a little knee-jerk I guess...

I hated Bush, but Obama is far worse.

Libertarian666 wrote: I hated Bush, but Obama is far worse.

It would be fun to sit down over a beer or coffee or something and compare notes. I have been seriously disappointed by President Obama, but he doesn't inspire the antipathy that I had for his predecessor.

Libertarian666 wrote:

WhiteDesert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: On this forum, you would likely get few (if any) objections to the assertion that Bush did this stuff as well. But just because it ain't new, doesn't mean you can't call a spade a spade.

That's fair. I guess its a bit of a knee-jerk button for me because I recall far less of an outcry during the disaster that were the Bush years than I hear now. And having served as an instrument of American foreign policy under both of them, I sometimes have trouble telling them apart (as C-in-C only). And I tend to get a little pedantic because the outcry that I hear now tends to be of the flavor of calling the guy who governs like a moderate Republican a socialist. So yeah, a little knee-jerk I guess...

I hated Bush, but Obama is far worse.

They just keep getting worse.

What Tech wrote about the bombings and spying and assassinations and all the rest coupled with the attempted takeover of health care and other industries, not to mention to the massive additions of debt are what I had in mind when I used the word "fascistic". I didn't really say it to stir up a debate about Obama as I don't care about him, I was talking about WB. I thought pretty much everyone with a brain could see he's a fascist just like Bush and Clinton and Bush etc. I didn't think this was even being debated anymore unless the Obama defender was a racist and giving him a pass because he's half-white half-black.

Heck, I'm an anarchist so sometimes even libertarians sound like NAZIs to me

Anyway the forum rules are no politics unless it's constructive. This probably won't be unless we have an intelligent thread determining what constitutes fascism first.

The point about getting away with what you can is an important one. Bush/Obama are no Hitler/Mussolini but the 21st century Americans are not the early 20th century Germans/Italians.

I think they are getting closer though sadly.

Kshartle wrote: This probably won't be unless we have an intelligent thread determining what constitutes fascism first.

It's this that really caused me to react. I'm not sure you and I use the same operational definition of the word. And I figure we both probably have at least half a brain.

And so yeah--this seems the logical place to begin.

One of the primary dictionary-definition-features of fascism is that the government cooperates with and controls private industry to further its own goals, such that the boundaries between the two can seem to blur.

This is distinct from communism (in which private industry is explicitly nationalized by the government) and socialism (in which industries are heavily regulated by the government, leading to antagonistic rather than cooperative relationship between the two).

I think it's pretty clear that big business and big government are increasingly in cahoots with one another nowadays. The banking industry is basically a zombie dependent on the government for its existence. The automobile industry has been as well. And the insurance industry recently made their deal with the devil through Obamacare which, let's not forget, forces every American to purchase a product available through the private sector. If that's not government-business collusion, I don't know what is.

WhiteDesert wrote:

Kshartle wrote: This probably won't be unless we have an intelligent thread determining what constitutes fascism first.

It's this that really caused me to react. I'm not sure you and I use the same operational definition of the word. And I figure we both probably have at least half a brain.

And so yeah--this seems the logical place to begin.

The most basic tenets to me are the usurpation of greater authority (no question here), squelching of political opponents through the use of state power (IRS, NSA etc.), increasing the state's tentacles into all areas of the economy while still technically leaving the means of production with the owners and transferring the wealth of the population into the hands of the heads of preferred industry/political supporters. ACA, QE, bailouts and the aforementioned drone strikes, spying, assassination programs along with a ton of other stuff nail Obamanation down as a fascist to me.

He's a fascist posing as a socialist but these are just two sides of the same statist coin to me.

Not saying Bush wasn't. He was and is. It's just this group of crooks is taking it to a new level. I shudder to think about what will come after him.

 

Pointedstick wrote: One of the primary dictionary-definition-features of fascism is that the government cooperates with and controls private industry to further its own goals, such that the boundaries between the two can seem to blur.

This is distinct from communism (in which private industry is explicitly nationalized by the government) and socialism (in which industries are heavily regulated by the government, leading to antagonistic rather than cooperative relationship between the two).

I think it's pretty clear that big business and big government are increasingly in cahoots with one another nowadays. The banking industry is basically a zombie dependent on the government for its existence. The automobile industry has been as well. And the insurance industry recently made their deal with the devil through Obamacare which, let's not forget, forces every American to purchase a product available through the private sector. If that's not government-business collusion, I don't know what is.

Yes Perfecto.....I didn't even bother to think of all these examples. The freaking government steals from the citizens and gives to the owners of big business who in turn provide campaign funds and political support. It just sucks. I can't believe anyone still falls for it. If he was a white republican he would already have been crucified.

I don't know what they'll have to sell to the public next to squelch dissent, a black-Latino lesbian republican?

It is disappointing that some commentators are adding their political views.  Then let me add mine.

My goal is to live at least one month. Longer than Barack Obama so that I can piss on his grave after he dies.

EdwardjK wrote: It is disappointing that some commentators are adding their political views.

Look, I'm sorry I made the comment. I wasn't defending the administration; the adjective merely seemed over-the-top to me. Given the venom that I've watched people spit at each other in this forum, particularly over the last few months, I didn't think that offering that opinion would stand out. Lesson learned.

Same post as oh her thread. I want to look back on my post whichever thread gets bumped.

Ultimately the call is on stocks since all others should be dependent on where they go in the new year. With companies buying back stock aggressively and with so much "new" money from QE, stocks should have an easy time moving up. If stocks go up marginally or steady - this will continue to eat away at gold and long bonds. If stocks move up huge, the only reason would be better economic activity which would result in inflation which will be the next driver for gold to move up from here, bonds will suffer in that case. If the economy continues to stagnate and there's no driver for stocks, slight drop in stocks will not put gold up much but move more into long bonds as more easing will be expected or some form of fed intervention. Finally the big drop in stocks will drive gold up huge at the expense of others.

Scenario 1
Stocks +
Bonds --
Gold -
Cash -

Scenario 2
Stocks ++
Bonds -
Gold +
Cash -

Scenario 3
Stocks -
Bonds ++
Gold +
Cash +

Scenario 4
Stocks --
Bonds +
Gold ++
Cash +

I predict scenario 1 at the start of the year and ending with 2.
Should be a good opportunity to buy gold in first half of 2014 and rising in the back half. No good entry point for stocks and bonds will continue to slide this year.

The PP has only had four losing years in the last 42, averaged about 9.6% return with a standard div of 8% according to my numbers.

Below are the worst ten years, and the following years performance:

      Return Next Year
1981 (4.2) 23.6
1994 (2.6) 19.7
2013 (2.1) ???
2008 (0.7) 10.5
2001 0.4 7.2
1990 1.6 13.0
2000 3.0 0.4
1984 3.1 20.2
1983 3.5 3.1
1988 4.3 13.0

Of course there are no gaurantees. History suggests 2014 should be better than 2013 as it was in 8/10 of these....and in a big way (averaged 11.4% better than previous year even counting the 2 down years).

Unfortunately interest rates are still so low......cash will return nothing again and any catalyst for a big bond rally sure looks remote. We'll see of course.

Now a stocks/gold only portfolio has had seven losing years in the last 42, averaged about 11.5% return with a standard div of 15% according to my numbers. More volitile yes...but a lot of that has been to the upside. Seven down years out of 42 is not bad considering stocks by themselves have had ten and gold a whopping sixteen.

They balance each other better than one might think and obviously this is the portofolio I think is safer in the long-run until rates are substantially higher.

Below are the worst eleven years for a stock/gold split, and the following years performance (I needed eleven to get 2013 in there):

      Return Next Year
1981 (18.4) 17.6
2008 (16.0) 26.4
2000 (8.2) (5.3)
1984 (7.6) 18.6
2001 (5.3) 2.0
1990 (4.1) 12.0
1994 (1.4) 18.2
1988 1.1 12.8
1992 1.8 13.8
2002 2.0 25.3
2013 2.1 ???

Ten out of ten were better in the following year! Average improvement over the previous year was a staggering 19.8%!

That would suggest stocks/gold turning in something like 21.9% next year. I can hardly wait for trading to start on the 2nd.

Here's looking forward to 2014, and hopefully a big year for stocks and gold. 

This calculation suggests lighten up on cash and bonds to overweighting gold and stocks. For me, I am over weighting stocks, gold stocks that is, at historic lows and being patient, very patient.

WhiteDesert wrote:

EdwardjK wrote: It is disappointing that some commentators are adding their political views.

Look, I'm sorry I made the comment. I wasn't defending the administration; the adjective merely seemed over-the-top to me. Given the venom that I've watched people spit at each other in this forum, particularly over the last few months, I didn't think that offering that opinion would stand out. Lesson learned.

Lol, welcome to the forum where calling anyone out for their ridiculous FUD results only in increasingly asinine commentary (eg pissing on people's graves)