<Unlike W, Obama didn't have legacy connections to get him in.>
Doc, I don't think the "Obama might not be as intelligent as you think" argument is as crazy as you think it is...
Obama might not have had any legacy connections to get him into college, but he AHEM did check the box when he applied.
1) He started out in community college. How many other Ivy league students do you know that started out in community college
2) His old high school in Hawaii is the #1 richest high school in America per capita. It looks like Beverley Hills and is more like a complex. His grandparents raised him, and he was hardly disadvantaged.
3) He certainly didn't apply like the other regular ( white) students.
4) Students in his class didn't even know who he was... He often skipped class, hung out with less popular students ( he wasn't the class president type), and did drugs.
5) He never released his grades.
Remember when Bush and Kerry released their grades and it was a non event in 2004? Bush had something like a 1350 SAT, Kerry had lower. Bush was a B student, Kerry was a C student. It didn't go along with the theory that Bush was an idiot and Kerry wasn't smarter, so the media dropped the issue. You know for darn sure if it were the other way around you'd never hear the end of it. Obama wouldn't even release his grades, but his crazy racist wife did, read that paper before it dissapeared online?
People who have worked with Bush said that he is very intelligent, takes control of meetings etc, but he's not a very good speaker. With Obama you get the exact opposite impression.
Further, Bush was crucified by the media for being an easy target. They'd say things like "he's illiterate"... The guy married a Librarian and is an avid reader... reads over 100 books per year, had a contest with Karl Rove and lost. If anything you could argue he spent TOO much time reading, while Obama is spending too much time playing basketball, golf, vacations, ESPN, and chasing after Michael Vick.
C'mon wins, give the prez some credit, he does read off a teleprompter better than most.
Seriously, I hardly believe that intelligence is a requirement of a good president. The founding fathers of the US and the authors of the constitution only required a president be a native born US citizen, have lived in the US for the previous 14 years, and have 35 years of age. If they thought intelligence an important requirement they might have added that as a requirement. Is a high IQ required anywhere in the world to hold and office ?... I don't know.
In my view, the characteristics of a good leader are these: (and probably in this order)
1-Keep the interest of the people first
2-Choose a worthy cabinet to surround himself
3-Able to make sound decisions
4-He/She has a trustworthy/reliable character
It's just that simple.
The very fact that BO was elected to the Presidency of the USA is prima facia evidence of his capability. Empty shells do not get to this level - unless they have help from daddy and his political machine, and then win election thanks to a few hanging chads...
But even if you doubt O*s credentials, just listen to him talk... Exceptionally smart and clear, easily on par with Bill Clinton in the brains department.
- Save the economy
- Tax the rich
- Extend unemployment benefits to the needy
- Extend healthcare benefits to the excluded
- Be inclusive in the military and elsewhere
- Limit nuclear weapons
- Implement protective regulatory frameworks in areas such as finance and the environment where industry has shown itself to be incapable, at best, selfish, venal and dangerous to society, at worst...
Doc, exactly which major policy initiative is so stupid? I agree that implementation of some initiatives has been clumsy (the opposition has not exactly helped - until recently), but the policy goals themselves seem pretty sound. Maybe I am just stupid.
Obama airheaded? Seriously, Ilap, I did not read your post b/c you have been on ignore for over a year. You have just re-confirmed why.
I haven't heard of any professors or fellow students that have come out and vouched for him and as far as I know, there's nothing in his body of work that allows us to idependently verify his true academic performance.
If claims are to be made, they should be backed up.
We have nothing.
Simple attendance at an institution doesn't mean anything.
Plus there's a strong suspicion that his books were ghost written so if true, it calls into question everything else.
Personally, I think he's an empty shell.
A product of affirmative action.
wins, I don't doubt that will occur in emerging markets ... as India and Brazil. However, I am leery of a bubble in China. But that is in the future. The growth in China and and India should have been offset by the decline in the need for copper in the US and Europe for autos, home building and other economic sensitive manufacturing.
Again, look at Freeports sales number for the last three years... no major increases or decreases to justify the run up to $4 in copper, back down to $1.25 ... and back up to $4 + .
It just does not add up to me. But I do expect India to have an increase in copper demand... I'm an ower of Tata Motors.
RG, as I understand it, if you look out into the future, copper supply will get extremely tight.
As I recall, India are expected to about double electricity generating capacity(something like half the population has no access to power now)over the next decade and it follows that copper demand will increase because of this.
And they are not alone.
LT trends are your friend.
Lack of demand?
Not if you look out 10 years.
I urge you to listen to any number of TCK presentations WRT projected demand looking out 10 yrs vs available capacity projected to come onstream.
As I recall,they project a need for 40 new mine projects over the next 10 years and given the long lead times for start up they just don't see it and they're in the industry.
So huge looming shortages.
As to current processing capacity, that can be in temporary excess because they can't get enough raw material to stay busy and that makes sense because procesing margins have been quite weak even though copper prices are strong.
WRT mine capacity I'm not sure you are reading this correctly. I recall reading something about head grades changing (less rich ores) but also, I'm thinking mine capacity refers to equipment and mine capabilities, not necessarily output capacity that can be easily delivered to market.
IOW, paper copper.
As an exercise WRT current mine capacity utilization,(assuming that that IS an accurate barometer of current capacity to actually deliver physical metal??), you might want to recalculate those numbers should demand increase according to projections this coming year.
You might be surprised at how fast any excess capacity gets utilized.
Keep in mind, 100% capacity utilization in this industry is not very realistic and it would be my guess that that is even more the case nowadays than say 5 years ago.
That said, my interest in copper and other commodities is not based on ST market expectations.
I did my own research a couple months back by going over the FCX quarter CC's. I saw no major changes in sales numbers all the way from mid 2007-2010.
I simply don't get it. I just don't see how a monster like Freeport can go through a major world recession, and now a supposed emergence from recession and see no real swings in production or demand... so I'm a doubter.
Look at the mine % utilization. Look at the refinery capacity % utilization. We are nowhere near running out of copper.
The stocks on hand have gone from 1.4 million tons to 1.3 million tons, and the 1.4 million tons was a record total.
World output is barely growing not because of a lack of capacity but because of a lack of demand. Why do you think copper stocks were at an all time high earlier this year?
Developed world use of copper is still down versus 2008, and China's demand has increased a modest 4.5%.
So demand for copper is up like everything else in the last six months, but the numbers here just like with oil, sugar, soy ETC don't justify a doubling of the price.
So, yeah, Wins, world copper demand is up from 14.5 million tons in 2004 to 16 million tons in 2010, but capacity has increased from 16 million tons in 2004 to 19.5 million tons in 2010.
The numbers are what they are, Wins. The reason for the rise in price has nothing to do with supply and demand, and everything to do with the federal reserve handing money to banks and gutless regulators in the UK and US.
That said, I don't see the copper/oil/commodity rally slowing down anytime soon. My guess is, and it is just a guess, and that all these items continue higher. If you own these commodities, get your stops in place so you don't get burned but don't kid yourself, Wins, this is a bubble. The rise in demand and the fall in copper stocks were ridiculously modest.