I'm waiting until the tech sell off is over. It is dragging everything down with it.
I normally don't invest in techs because they tend to get over valued and over valued stocks usually crash at some point which is something I don't want to be a part of. Biotech pharms have also been getting hit bad. It seems like everything that was on a run is now getting a crew cut. The shorts are out in force and slow to react longs are getting hammered. I would not be surprised if a lot of longs aren't even aware of what is happening right now. I suspect that these are the people who never would have made it to child bearing age 25,000 years ago because they were not paying attention. Unless they had others to keep them out of trouble.
The good news for AGNC investors is that it seems this is causing people to rotate into bonds for the time being. This will cause increased demand.
I know it works. But you need some low glycemic index carbs. Sprouted bread is OK. If your body does not turn carbs into fat almost immediately then you are diabetic and you have a major medical condition. And to convert fat back to sugar for use you need to be either hungry or exercise. So if you are eating a lot of carbs, exercizing very little, and snacking enough so that you never feel hungry they you are gaining weight.
Mans DNA was evolving back when he eat very few high glycemic index carbs because he didn't know how to make them. That is what we have evolved to eat. Our DNA is not adapted to eat a high carb diet. That is why there are so many unhealthy people today. The best way to get carbs is vegetables. Pasta and wheat bread are toxic. Wheat breat is almost as bad as eating straight sugar. It goes straight to fat.
One of the problems with mans rapid advancement is that our bodies have not been able to adapt to our changing diets. Many no longer eat to live but instead live to eat. Reminds me of the Romans. I like to cook bland meals to avoid turning a meal into a pleasure seeking experience which creates bad dietary habits.
When the cost of food was a larger percentage of our incomes people eat less so they had money to spend on other things. It would seem that we are headed in that direction again as the worlds population increases beyond our ability to grow food. Again food will be too expensive to over eat.
I work through lunch so I got used to not eating.
You must shop at Walmart from the pictures I seen of the people who shop there. What size waste are you, 50?
My dog had left over fish with steamed vegies. She is on the same paleolithic diet that we are on and she still looks like a puppy at age 9. I suggested to my wife a while back that maybe we could get an idea of the health benefits of our diet by feeding it to the dog because they age a lot quicker. If this is a valid assumption then I think we are on the right track. Her exercise routine is the same as ours since we are the ones that walk her except for the laps we swim at the pool. Our dog hates water and thus we could never convince her to swim laps with us. My wife sprayed her with a hose as a puppy and she never got over the trama. My wife says it was nothing but I have been suspect ever since because when ever my wife picks up a hose our dog leaves. I'm convenced that she has deep seated emotions over the event.
I didn't know they gave internet access in asylums. But why not? They are people too aren't they?
How is the hair styling business doing? My shoe business is doing great. Remember, you need to keep the old bags happy.
I would have to agree. The lower dividend is indicative to me that they are lowering their leverage ratio. But all that means is a bad situation will be mitigated from being very very bad to just being very bad. Obviously having a boat with one hole in it is better than a boat with two holes. But the fact is that they are both sinking. Until interest rates go up again and peak, mREITs are going to be risky investments. Right now you are in the eye of the hurricane because the fed extended the time that they plan to raise rates but when they finally do raise them what happens to AGNC will be the same as it was always going to be which is that the book value will nose dive and the stock price will nose dive along with it. What you are doing now if you own the stock is hoping that you can get out before this happens. They call that the greater fool game because you are hoping to find someone more foolish than yourself to sell to. I play this game at times. I did it with Tesla. But you really need to watch out. Because it is very hard to determine just how forward looking the market is and thus you could be in a situation where you thought you had more time when the sell off begins. And then you might imagine that it will bounce back and it goes lower. And then you see that you have lost a few years worth of dividend and you don't want to let go because you want to get it back. You don't want to be in that situation.
Bush loved letting in illegal’s so that his agribusiness buddies could exploit them. Bush and Pelosi are best friends in this regard with her grape growers wanting cheap labor for their wine. None of them care about how they caused overcrowding within the low skilled labor pool. Comparing Obama to Bush on this issue is pointless. We all know Bush was in bed with agribusinesses.
We do not owe the people of the world a destination to come and work at a cost to us. We really don't. And no other country does allow this. Only the US even considers it. Just try to go to Mexico illegally and see what happens. If we treated immigrants from there the same way they treat their illegal immigrants none of them would be here and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You guys are too easy to rip off. No one else in the world is so naive. Well, except France but now they are regretting it. Just look at the laws they are now trying to enact which directly target the Muslims. Too late. They are now screwed. Soon it will be illegal for women to be seen in public without the proper covering of her body. They should have thought about whether they wanted to be so open minded that it would have resulting in them losing their own culture and the liberties that were important to them all. Eventually, with population growth demographics, someone else who thinks completely differently than them is likely to be telling them what they can and cannot do and the result will be horrifying to them.
Better them than us. They deserve this.
If Obama wants respect then maybe he should try telling the truth for a change. Of course he could always threaten to give them 1 hour speech and they might just cave to avoid such a torturous event. I know I don't listen to his speeches anymore. What's the point? They are only words that will never be followed by actions. It's a complete waste od time. And that is what Russia has learned as well. Obviously. You have to be pretty low IQ to take Obama at his word. And the Russians are not known for being dumb.
I agree that in most cases that people attack other countries for their natural resources. At least that makes sense and be clearly understood why they would do it. The problem here in the US we often attack for ideological reasons, like to prevent the spread of communism, or to punish a tyrannical dictator, or for revenge against a terrorist attack. Rarely do we ever attack someone to get their resources. When the US attacks a country we end up spending a lot of money but get little to nothing in return. Even the WWII loans never got paid back. It has always been a money losing proposition for the US.
That said, after WWII we acquired global influence and our undamaged economy thrived because we were the only ones with a modern industrial complex in tact from which others could by modern products in large quantities. Many say we benefited from the economic stimulus of the war but the fact that everyone kept buying from us after the war didn't hurt and that went on for a long time. We did not understand that this would happen preceding the war. And I don't think it was well understood at the time what was happening. This awareness of what happened as a result is more from a historical perspective. So the reason we got into WWII was to help Europe fight Hitler and to push back the Japanese from acquiring territory in the Pacific. As much as I opposed FDRs simpleton economic policies, I seriously doubt he started WWII for economic reasons. I don't think this ever occurred to him.
The aerospace industry would be happy researching new advanced weapons and building them in small quantities, enough so we had the designs in place so we could produce them in larger quantities if we had to go to war and enough to handle small conflicts. Even in these Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts the aerospace industry was better off before the conflicts because so much money got diverted to men and low tech materials. This is not what they wanted.
Bush was wrong to attack Iraq. We should have left them under Sadam's rule. It gave me great solice to know that he was in charge of Iraq. It was kind of funny. Almost as funny as the religious leaders in charge of Iran. I loved it that way. Who says that there is no justice in the world? But unfortunately Bush attacked and all that changed. It was better they way it was in my opinion. Every time I saw them protest against the US it made me feel so good to think about the nature of their governments. Who needs wars when you can let them create their own nightmare. It was great.
Never mind that it was the policies of the Democrats that caused illegal’s to flock across the border freely which created excessive competition for low skilled jobs and drove down the value of labor at which full employment could be achieved. Democrats created the problem and then yell at the Republicans because of the consequences of their own actions because they assume it must have been the Republicans all along. But it wasn't the Republicans that fought legislation that would have rectified these conditions. Republicans have been trying to pass some version E-Verify for decades and Democrats have fought them and when they did get Democrats on board their Party leadership threatened their party members with loss of campaign funds if they voted so they could not even do the right thing when they wanted to. So the Republicans somehow take the blame for that? How so?
It seems to be a bit ridiculous to be the bull in the china shop and then complain about the mess on the floor when you’re all done with your rampage. We all know why labor markets are overcrowded. No one has any allusions about that. And no one blames the Republicans for allowing illegal aliens to work here in the US. But we created this situation? It seems to me that people have a reality filter. That may make people feel better about their party's failed policies but it doesn't say much for their ability to see things for what they really are.
So this is how a Democrat would solve this problem. Rather than correcting the root cause which is the excess supply of labor caused by illegal immigration they would raise wages to create unemployment and then they would tax Republicans so they could pay those unemployed to not work. Is it any wonder why we are beside ourselves over this mindset? What we really need is therapy for people who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions so they stop.
Also, the President that started to draft and sent people to Vietnam to fight against their will was Johnson. In WWII it was FDR. Both were Democrats. Woodrow Wilson, also a Democrat, started the draft for WWI. The draft ended under Richard Nixon, a Republican, and that ended the practice of sending people to war against their will. So you see, enslaving people to go to war has been mostly a policy of Democrats. But I am not surprised as forcing people to do things against their will is something the Democrats are very comfortable with. They are used to it.
Granted the Religious wackos in the Republican Party want to force women to not get abortions but that is an aberration as most sensible Republicans don’t agree but only give lip service to these nut cases so they can form a political alliance with them for the purpose of winning elections. This tendency to force people to do things against their will is fundamental to the Democratic Party and always has been. Personal freedom is more of a Libertarian or Republican principle.
I wasn't taking about what the people in the military have been asked to do by politicians. I was talking about a population of mostly Republicans who do not discriminate. You are trying to change the subject to something else. And what this means is that for lack of a relevant response you chose to express an irrelevant response. I don't know if that is because you want to be deceptive or if you mind is such that you veer off course by accident and don't notice.
Vietnam was a war escalated by the Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson. Granted Truman sent advisors and Eisenhower continued that policy, but the major escalation to a full fledge military action was by Johnson. He was the one who sent these people to war and he was a Democrat.
And when I am talking about the political leanings in the Military I am talking about volunteers, not people who were drafted. My father was in the Air Force and the Air Force does not draft. And I KNOW what the political leanings of these people are because I lived among them. You cannot tell me otherwise.
But you are right. Democrats tend not to join the military of their own free will unless they are poor and are looking for a way out of poverty. These poor people typically do not pass the Air Forces entrance exams and are not recruited so they move on to join the Army. So in all fairness I might clarify that the enlisted people in the army may not fit this trend as well. But I have no experience with army personnel so I won't say for sure. I can only talk about Air Force personnel with any degree of accuracy.
For a period of time during the Vietnam War a lot of people whose draft lottery number pretty much ensured they would get drafted joined the Air Force first because enlisted jobs in the Air Force are relatively far from conflict because the Officers do most of the fighting in airplanes. The air force is an example where the leaders do all the fighting. My father flew bombers, transport, and AWACs.