Petr Message Board

just for the record.

<<1. Dollar is WAAAAY undervalued.
<<Real are WAAAAY overvalued.>>

3. Commodities, particularly oil, are way overvalued.

4. Emerging markets are way overvalued.>>

<<5. World expansion is still due for a pullback.>>

So you're calling for global recession and shrinking of global GDP?

and it is hard to see shades of gray.

<Non sequiter time again for docjoe (your specialty...one of them anyway). Contradicting yourself is another.>

Like Crash Davis in Bull Durham I have to explain what I believe, "I believe there oughta be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

1. Dollar is WAAAAY undervalued.
2. Euro and Real are WAAAAY overvalued.
3. Commodities, particularly oil, are way overvalued.
4. Emerging markets are way overvalued.

Add up one through four, and you can see why PBR is a long term sell.

5. World expansion is still due for a pullback. Consumer demand should drive supply not cheap money, i.e. expanding money supply.

6. Because of reason 5, China, Canada, and Australia have housing bubbles, and the popping of these bubbles is going to be devastating.

7. With the exception of small emerging markets small caps, putting money into growth companies for the most part is a sucker's bet.

8. Dollar will remain the reserve currency for at least 20 years.

9. In 20 years or less, the Euro in its current form will be no more.

10. Dow will remain at 10,000 and NASDAQ at 2,000 for the next ten years.

11. Just like in the last decade, bonds will outperform stocks in this one.

12. The only money to be made in this market then will be with trading.

Because of #12, there may be times I go short the dollar or long oil for a brief period. Because of their black and white type brain rigidity, there is no doubt that Ilap and his ilk will call me a hypocrite if I do so.

Should have said, tax, spending and regulatory policies.

But since you brought it up - How exactly does data on money supply not allow for not allow for disagreement with Obama's tax and regulatory policies?

Non sequiter time again for docjoe (your specialty...one of them anyway). Contradicting yourself is another.

In any case, I've never said anything that would imply I blame Obama for "all" our economic ills.

"I think you want so hard to blame the fed and Obama for all our economic ills, but you can't. The data on money supply does not allow it."

I didn't say anything at all about Obama. Seems like you're changing the subject.

I also don't get why I'm "trying hard" to disagree. Another of your odd statements. Are you trying hard to agree with the fed or whatever the heck you agree with?

Try again:


I didn't say anything about Obama. Seems like you're changing the subject.

But since you brought it up:

How exactly does data on money supply not allow for businesses, especially small business, being reluctant to hire people because of Obama's tax increases or the big increases now occurring in health care premiums as a result of his "reform"? Or the thousands of jobs he's destroyed in the gulf with his (probably illegal) virtual ban on new oil wells? Not to mention new environmental regs his EPA is rolling out?

The banking "reform" bill may be having a negative impact on the economy as well in the opinion of many.

And so on.

One theme I get out of your posts is that economic policy consists of the fed, period. Everything else is kind of meaningless. That was apparently why you made the bizarre assertion awhile back that Bush and Obama have the same economic policy.

Weird I can't post a reply more than a sentence.

rwar.....

You haven't explained what you mean by "the fed going it alone". Your posts often have cryptic statements like that.

My guess is it's a way for you to say QE2 is a good idea, but when it fails, say that's exactly what you predicted.

"I assume you mean by anything, you mean create inflation."

You also denied that it would cause a decline in the dollar, which it has, although you also made some other statements that contradict that in typical schizophrenic fashion. You also said a decline in the dollar necessarily causes inflation.


"Over the last 12 months, the index for all items less food and energy has risen 0.6 percent, the smallest 12-month increase in the history of the index, which dates to 1957."

"Food is up 1.4% year over year, and energy is up 5.9%."

Since when does food and energy going up not inflation? And what's the cause of energy going up? Primarily the declining dollar. And why is the dollar declining Watson?

"This is despite the fact that we have more spare capacity in oil than in ten years, and we have had record or near record crops in not just the U.S. but around the world."

That fits with a monetary based phenomenon, although you have to look at the rising demand as well. But that obviously is what you would expect (rising prices even when supply is going up) if inflation is money based.

On the low measured inflation, this article points out that a change made in 1983 in how CPI is calculated makes that 1957 comparison invalid. He also discusses core inflation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mauldin-o-deflation-where-is-thy-sting-2010-11


"I think you want so hard to blame the fed and Obama for all our economic ills, but you can't. The data on money supply does not allow it."

I didn't say anything at all about Obama. Nor have I ever blamed him or the fed for "all our economic ills". Seems like you're changing the subject.

But since you brought it up - How exactly does data on money supply not allow for businesses, especially small business, being reluctant to hire people because of Obama's tax increases or the big increases now occurring in health care premiums as a result of his "reform"? Or the thousands of jobs he's destroyed in the gulf with his (probably illegal) virtual ban on new oil wells? Not to mention new environmental regs his EPA is rolling out? Or the declining dollar resulting from the enormous deficits - which is the main reason energy is going up? How does money supply not allow for attributing those things to Obama (that is by no means exhaustive)?

The banking "reform" bill may be having a negative impact on the economy as well in the opinion of many.

Non-sequiter time again for docjoe - your specialty - one of them anyway. Contradicting yourself is another.

One theme I get out of your posts is that economic policy consists of the fed, period. Everything else is kind of meaningless. That was apparently why you made the bizarre assertion awhile back that Bush and Obama have the same economic policy.

As for what caused "all our economic problems" or at least the recent debacle, I blame trillions in bad mortgages that should never have been made. The reasons for those were largely government policy driven as they sought to induce banks for decades to make higher risk mortgages, a policy primarily but not exclusively associated with the Democrats. The attacks by Barney Frank and other Democrats back in 2005 on several Bush proposals to rein in Fannie and Freddy are emblematic of that.

Also emblematic of that was a lawsuit by Acorn in the 90's that succeeded in using the Community Reinvestment Act to block a bank merger in Illinois on the grounds that essentially, they hadn't made enough high risk mortgages. Their attorney was your guy BO.

Worse yet, can you imagine Obama being re-elected????!!!!