Bush came in second place. And I agree that he was a bad president as well.
The pole also indicated that in hind sight that it would have been better had Romney won in 2012.
These are random poles, not Fox news.
I'm glad they stopped at WWII so that FDR would hot have been chosen.
I think people are finally starting to getting it that he is basically a seat warmer. And when he does do something he makes things worse, not better.
I'm sure that his recent actions that have opened the flood gates of illegal immigrants into the US didn't gain him a whole lot of favor among those whose jobs these new comers will be displacing. It does not take a whole of intelligence to have predicted that this would have been the outcome. I mean, you basically say that you are not going to send people home anymore and what would you have expected them to do? It is a good thing he didn't include everyone or half of the population south of the border would have been at the border with pick axes to tear down the fences. What a moron. They need to figure out a legal way to put a stop to this guy for the remainder of his term before he causes any more damage.
They are low paid jobs. It seems that your expectations are pretty low. The rest of us want good jobs. Middle class jobs are in decline. That is why they are starting to call it the bar bell economy. You have high paid professionals, low paid service people, and fewer in the middle. But to you it seems that this is an achievement. Just what does it take for someone to do a bad job? Don't say it, first you need to know if they are a democrat or a republican before you can decide.
It was never his goal to help the middle class. His Acorn constituents were not in the middle class so why should he be interested in helping them? Obama got exactly what he wanted because he got everyone to drink his Koolaid. He could not have done it on his own. He needed the help of people willing to experience a decline in their standard of living for the sake of others. Now I don't think he put it to them like that so I don't think they were completely aware of what the end result would be. And the most interesting part about it is that they still buy into the line that Bush did it. 7 years latter and they can still get them to believe this.
I would not be surprised if he leaves office having created a bubble almost ready to pop and if a Republican gets elected it will be his fault for not having sustained the bubble longer. If a Democrat gets elected it will still be Bushes fault. And if all that fails they will talk about 30 year old deficits from the Reagan administration. Anything but to admit that the policies of a Democrat had anything to do with it.
If they do this unknowingly then one can say they are dumb. But if they do it knowingly then one can say they are corrupt. So it is either dumb or corrupt, take your pick.
The fact that they block attempts to keep people from freely coming across the border pretty much tells you that all they care about is the new votes they will get without regard for the jobs that these people will displace. The jobs that their current constituents are working at, which apparently they could care less about because they are assuming they have their votes in the bag. And in so doing they reduce the demand for lower skilled worker and thus their wages. But hey, it is easier to get elected so who cares. You can raise minimum wages but that won't create new jobs, in fact it will reduce their number as companies would then have more motivation to automate. Also, since the low skilled work force is flooded with excess workers these workers will attempt to move to higher skilled jobs they would have never considered in the past and this drives down the wages of the next tier of workers.
No one can convince me that Democrat politicians don't understand this. They do. They understand exactly what they are doing. The simple fact is that they don't care. All they care about is votes, not the suffering that they cause to their constituents. Why? Because if they blame it on the Republicans their constituents have shown a propensity to believe them. So they don't have to care. They get their votes anyway.
All the policies that have lead to this situation the Republicans have fought against. During the campaign the Republicans were running on reigning in the Chinese by forcing them to float the Yuan and thus bring back US jobs once this corrects the trade imbalance. The Democrats yawned.
Granted the Republicans are not the ones to go to for freebies but they do care about jobs and the long term health of the economy. I am not even sure if the Democrats have that as a priority.
It doesn't mean anything when you are not able to point out exactly what I said that was incorrect and why? If you want to sound convincing you need to get into specifics. Otherwise you are just a propagandist with an agenda that does not align well with the truth. Facts can be a powerful ally when they are on your side. But if they are not then you surely do not want to address them. So I fully understand your reluctance.
The truth is the enemy of the propagandist whose cause is to convince others to do something that is probably not in their best interest but is in the interest of the propagandist instead. Lenin understood this well. That is why he did not waste time with the facts and stuck to slogans instead and if that did not work intimidation tactics and if that did not work you simply disappeared. Unfortunately for the modern day liberal making people disappear is no longer an option available to them. You have to play nice kind of. As it is clear to most that intimidation is still a coveted and well used tool of the liberal. As can by your use of words usually used by the dregs of society. Your use of language would not be appropriate in mixed company but that is no surprise. I would expect no better. You are truly a liberal by association.
I'm going to speculate that AGNC has become a safe haven for those fleeing high market volatility and when volatility goes down again they feel confident to buy back in and sell AGNC to get some dry powder. This may not be exactly what is happening but what ever is happening it is having the same effect as if this was what was happening so it doesn't matter. The point is that whenever the over all market volatility increases you can go long AGNC and short it when volatility decreases and make some money in the process. I'm not sure if it is worth the trouble though. I suspect that one can find easier ways to make money given this same awareness of market conditions.
TVIX will never have a turn around. You are imaging that it is like a company that has intrinsic value. TVIX has no intrinsic value that last more than a few months because all its proceeds are invested in future options that have time decay and lose value daily. Futures lose value with time and before these futures become completely worthless they sell them and roll them over further out into the future. This is a losing proposition long term. They have lost everything from the money that was invested years ago. They keep needing more people to buy the stock to make up for the losses. The only reason they don't go to zero is because more people keep buying the stock so they have more money to invest in futures that will also eventually become worthless in the future. There is no bottom to this and there is no recovery. It just keeps going lower at a steady rate. That is why they have reverse splits. Otherwise it would be a penny stock already.
Eventually agnc and nly will both have similar amounts of low profit loans left over from lower interest days. Only new mREITs have this starting out advantage. When interest rates peak again there will new batch of mREITS who will have nothing but high interest rate loans and they will be the ones paying the high dividends. If agnc survives the cycle i suspect that they will look more like nly because they will no longer have a fresh portfolio of high interest rate loans. They will have a mix and thus a lower spread just like nly. That is if they survive. Nly has shown that they know how. They did it once already. This will be agncs first attempt at riding out the low to high interest rate cycle which causes so many over leveraged mREITs to go bankrupt. It should be interesting to observe.
AGNC acts like a hedge against everything else going down. Lately it does the opposite of the rest of the market.
That is very open minded of you.
You need to go back to a liberal reeducation camp because you must have missed the part where they told you that making derogatory remarks about someone's life style is unacceptable. Even conservatives believe this so you must be brought back into the fold. A few weeks of condescending treatment should do the trick and you will be back in line in no time with a more humble and pliable nature. I look forward to your transformation.
It will never go to zero. It will go to about $2 and the reverse split to $20. Then it will decline to $2 and reverse split again. This goes on forever.
I have never heard this claim made before. I would like to research this further if you can suggest search parameters. Also is this just CREE or does everyone's LEDs lose brightness this fast? One of the advantages of SiC is that it has a better thermal conductivity and thus the LEDs that CREE makes should run cooler as they are the only LED maker using SiC as a base substrate material. And if that is the case then one would expect this issue you bring up to be more of a problem with their competitors who use sapphire and thus their LEDs run at higher temperatures. High temperature = faster degradation. So I am surprised that CREE would be more problematic in this regard. It would seem that they would be less susceptible.
Of course CREE has no control over how people use their LEDs. If someone runs them at double the current so they can get more light with fewer LEDs, run hotter but sell it cheaper, it is impossible to blame that on CREE. I can imagine that many of those single LED flashlights that put out a 1000 lumens would fit that bill. However that is not CREEs fault. They would not recommend that the LED be used that way in the first place. I have replaced several of these flashlights and I just assumed that they were over driving the LED as that would be the most logical explanation.
Are you sure you have access to measured reliability data to support what you just said?
I agree but NLY has experience doing something that most other mREITs have not done so well. They survived the last interest rate up turn. I believe they are more conservative sacrificing some yields for lower risk. But that is just an assumption on my part. Many of the mREITs that focused mostly on yields when they should have been deleveraging instead seemed to have gone bankrupt on the last up turn. You cannot survive an interest rate up turn if you are highly leveraged.
Why would anyone buy this stock long given its track record? This stock is a gold mind if you open your eyes and stop being stubborn. You can make money on this stock consistently but obviously you have to be on the right side of the trade. If you have been losing money consistently then obviously you are on the wrong side of the trade. Just how long does it take catch on? This isn't rocket science. It's pretty simple to understand.
I hear that animal bones are pretty good at predicting reversals. You can throw a few feathers in to help improve the interpretation. Make sure you are pointing toward Mecca when you toss them on the ground.
You can also build a large bon fire and dance around it and throw flash power in it for effect. If it burns your hair then a reversal is definitely coming soon. If it doesn’t burn your hair then you got lucky. Make sure you build it next to a lake.
You can jump off of a 10 story building and if you survive then it is a clear sign of a reversal. I would recommend that you include me in your will and I will promise to have positive reversal thoughts. Add me to your life insurance policy and I will make positive reversal post for a few days. But only for a few days because there is no point if no one is around to read them.
You will believe anything. And the dumber it sounds the more easy you are to convince.
I just looked at a report done by CREE called "Lumen Maintenance"
There are parameters called L80 and L70 which are the time it takes for an LEDs to put out 80% and 70% of the LED light respectively. In the report they have plots as a function of junction temperature. This data does not seem to agree with what you just said. In fact they are putting out 95% of light after 5000 hours of use after which the degradation is much slower. This initial 5% decline is caused by the silicone encapsulate which seems to suffer some reduction in clarity in the first 5000 hours. If run cool enough the L70 point is not reached for 100,000 hours and if run much hotter it can be reached in 20,000 hours. An LED would have to be on 24 hours a day for 3.2 years to get 20,000 hours of use.
Samsung is selling an LED tube replacement and is advertising a 3% to 5% brightness degradation for every 1000 hours which is much more than CREE highest temperature case.
I found a plot for a Philips LED which had 20% decline after 2924 hours and the OSRAM led had 10% LED degradation over the same time period, both much higher than the CREE data which was 5% decline after 5000 hours.
So it would be interesting to know where you got your data because I cannot seem to confirm what you have said, in fact, what I have found says just the opposite.
Keep in mind that you can over drive an LED and if you drive it hard enough you can hit the L70 point in a few hundred hours. It is all a function of how well you get the heat out and that depends on your heat sink. I think that in most cases the heat sink impacts this issue more than the LED its self if it is driven within its recommend operating range. The LED bulb designer is responsible for making sure that he gets the heat out well enough that the junction temperature of the LED is low enough that the light degradation verses time is acceptable. The LED maker cannot control this unless they too are making the bulb.
I guess if staying on topic doesn't work for you then you can always change the subject. Regardless of when this trend started, nobody is fixing anything. It is getting worse. And to suggest that this is a measure of success is lame.
Good manufacturing jobs are shipped off shore because China depresses the valuation of its Yuan. Under normal conditions a trade imbalance would normally cause the Yuan to rise in value but currency manipulation by them has prevented it. Now that we understand it don't you think it is time to stand up to currency manipulation and put an end to it? Is Obama doing that?
We have a massive over supply of low skilled workers because of unchecked illegal immigration. Is Obama doing anything about that now? No, he wants to make them legal so that the damage it has caused to our economy and the devastating impact it has had on the lives of low skilled workers is permanent. He wants their votes and he is willing to sacrifice American citizen's livelihoods to get them. Nice guy? I don't think so.
But you don’t even think about any of this because you are too busying thinking of ways to defend him so it just goes in one ear and out the other and never gets digested. That is why you will never understand the root causes of these problems because you aren’t even trying to. You are too busy with slogans to counter what anyone says to take time to even think about it enough to understand what is really going on in the world.
The fact is that you cannot force companies to make stuff here in the US if it is cheaper to make it somewhere else. They can start their businesses anywhere they want. You have to make it so that the countries who entice them to build their factories other there no longer have this advantage. We need to start taking action against currency manipulators.
That has been the trend for a while now. If you want to make money on AGNC you should hope for the rest of the market to go down. But then if you own a lot of other stocks you might be conflicted. It cannot hurt to have some stocks that move in the opposite direction of the market. It tends to average out your portfolio. So long as the long term trend is up.