Randy, a lot depends upon which companies you invested in before the crash.  I 
put a fair amount of faith that GM would not be allowed to fail since it has a 
powerful union that has a great deal of influence upon the democratic party.  
My logic was that there was no possibility that the democrats would allow the 
union to be busted which usually happens when a company goes bankrupt.  That 
was my mistake.


The unions came out relatively secure, the bond holders got hit, while the 
share holders got ruined.  I found out that the government has a lot of leeway 
as to  how they interfere with private industry.  If you can put money on the 
unions, you will be fine when democrats are in power.  Better to stay away from 
industry that might have problems under these conditions, even those with a 
fantastic track record such as the auto industry.


It is not entirely clear as to what would have been the outcome had the 
republicans kept control, but I bet the unions would have not been so fortunate.


Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Randy wuller <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Jan 29, 2013 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment


Ed:
 
An idiot would have taken their money out of the stock market in 2008 and 1929. 
 Now a really good prognosticator would have taken their money out in 2007 and 
1928 and put it right back into the market in 2009 and 1930, (but if you know 
any of those, you may want them to take a lie detector test) but truly 
pessimistic people rarely (the type who would have taken it out in 2007) find 
the courage to put it back in.  They just see the next disaster.
 
However, had you stayed the course, your assets would be worth more today than 
in 2007.  Also, keep in mind that secular bear markets (like the one we have 
been in since 2000) have a tendency to run their course in 15 years or so and 
we are at 13 now, so the market bear is getting really long in the tooth.  And 
what ends the age of pessimism is always interesting and rarely identified 
until years later.  I suspect it will have something to do with energy because 
that is one of the governors restricting world growth today.  Which by the way 
is the reason I have been watching LENR and chose to sign up to the Vortex. 
Nanotechnology may also be the stimulus.
  
----- Original Message ----- 
  
From:   Edmund   Storms 
  
To: [email protected] 
  
Cc: Edmund Storms 
  
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:23   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about   the impact of automation on employment
  



  
  
On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Randy wuller wrote:

  
    
    
Ed:
    
 
    
The housing bubble didn't almost bring down the     entire world economy. That 
is pure sensationalism. As with any bubble,     when it pops those holding the 
bag usually suffer.  In the case of     2008, the bag holders got the world 
governments to spread the      suffering. 

  


That conclusion is in conflict with what was claimed at the   time and provided 
justification for the Tarp funding.  As for pessimism,   this is the 
description someone applies when they do not believe what is being   described. 
 The description is acknowledged as being a true   representation of reality if 
a person believes what is said. The question at   this point is, who's view of 
reality is correct?  In 2008 and in 1929, a   "pessimist" would have taken 
their money out of the stock market. The optimist   did not.  Your choice.  We 
all make choices that have consequences   and these choices must be based on 
what is real. I'm trying to understand what   is real. Are you?
  


  


  
 By the way, what ends the age of pessimism?  Do people get   their jobs and 
homes back? How soon does this happen?
  


  
Ed
  
    
    
 
    
Your comments sound like many of the doomsday     predictors, "peak oil" etc so 
prevalent today.   Your concern     is understandable given this age of 
pessimism but instead of getting worked     up maybe you should stick to LENR, 
if that technology verifies this age     of pessimism will certainly end and 
all your concerns will evaporate.      By the way, my take is that this age of 
pessimism is going to end soon even     without LENR.
    
 
    
----- Original Message -----
    
      
From: Edmund Storms
      
To: [email protected]
      
Cc: Edmund Storms
      
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:30       PM
      
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about       the impact of automation on 
employment
      



      
      
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

      
Ed Storms wrote:        
 
        
        
        
Thanks           Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what    
       the
people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because           they
predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. . .         .
        


        
Krugman did predict it, and warned against it several times. Such         as 
here, in 2005:
        


        
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0
        


        
He repeatedly described the banks' investments in real estate as         junk.

      


Jed, I read this article and I see no concern except the       usual 
generalities. He observes that a bubble was being created in the       housing 
market. He even observed, apparently approvingly, that the       government 
would create another after this one bursts, although he did not       
anticipate the way this is presently being done.  He made no mention       that 
this bubble would almost bring down the entire world ecconomy.         I will 
give him some credit, He was not as calm about the problem as was       Sir 
Greenspan.  Meanwhile, other people were very exact about what       would 
happen and when - three years later from this article.
      
        
        
        


        
 
        
In           fact the
difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman           sees no
problem with the status quo while the people I read are in           a panic.
        


        
Wrong again. He is very much against the status quo. He is not in a         
panic for the same reason I am not, and my mother would not be. It is a         
personality thing.

      


      
I also do not like to be in a panic. As a result, I lost a lot of       money 
during the 2008 collapse by not taking the panic seriously. I do not       
intend to let this happen again.
      


      
Ed
      



      
        
        
        
We don't get into a tizzy, perhaps even when we should. Case in         point: 
my mother was riding a trolley car past the Blair House on         November 1, 
1950. President Truman was living there while the White         House was being 
rebuilt. There was a series of loud bangs. Someone said,         "they're 
trying to assassinate the president!!" My mother said, "don't         be silly; 
it is just a car backfiring" and went back to her newspaper.         It turned 
out someone was trying to assassinate the         president.
        


        
- Jed
        





      
No virus found in this       message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus       Database: 2639/5565 - Release Date:   
01/29/13



  
No virus found in this   message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus   Database: 2639/5565 - Release Date: 01/29/13

 

Reply via email to