wachtwoord

quote author=cwericb " data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="13672" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" 259067#msg259067 data-ipsquote-timestamp=1458173500] "The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century." Don't you mean "The US helped win 2 world wars?" No the US was clearly the main victor. The war wasn't on their shores at all. All the other participants lost, some more than others. Social security and medicare have directly helped millions of the most vulnerable citizens stay clothed, fed, under a roof, and in good health. There are plenty of countries in the world severely lacking government intervention. They also lack things like running water and indoor plumbing but I guess that's a completely different matter. No single country needs government intervention. The most volnerable need to get themselves clothed or seize to be as they are not adding anything to this world. That's only natural. The weekest of the species are not meant to survive and reproduce. And ccplz was that story meant as a bad future? The US desperately needs a coup (as does every country in Europe). The world has gone to shit with the rise of the socialistic facists that are in charge now.

Pretty intellectually easy argument to make. So the US has been "all downhill" since the 1900s? I'm not sure follow that. The 20th century was essentially defined by the US. In terms of "socialism" I think we are talking past each other. I'm arguing for progressive taxation to fund general social programs (social security and universal healthcare as the two largest and probably most important). You're arguing against economic bailouts and macroeconomic intervention. The two are fundamentally different. I also don't buy the argument that equality stifles incentive. Plenty of brilliant Russian scientists were born, educated, and accomplished brilliant things in Communist Russia. The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century. Unless they aim to repeat that feat the 21st will be much worse.. And we are not arguing past each other because bail outs and progressive taxation (theft) to afford universal health care are two sides of the same coin. An intervening, corrupt, inefficient government parasite.

Can't sell what I don't have. Even if I did the market can stay irrational longer (and more extreme!) than I can stay solvent ...

I personally really hope Sanders wins, I think he's the best candidate the US has had since I've been alive. What makes you think Sanders is moronic? He's a socialist. It's extremely evident any socialistic system is sub-optimal by definition but people keep trying it because it matches their definition of fair (where fair is condired equality). Striving for equality is stupid. The more equal they make the lower incentive for skilled individuals to do anything of value. Motivation to do good is not intrinsic. This is such a black and white picture you are painting...First, the US is not a purely capitalist country. Look at the major government programs to see that. Second, unfettered capitalism has been shown to be both productive and destructive. Sometimes, very destructive. Reasonable regulation seems like the best option. Sanders has 8 main proposals (https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/) Most of them seem reasonable to me. Frankly, the bigger issue is how much money is being siphoned away through tax-avoidance. I mean, some of them are even "anti-socialist". For example cutting government handouts to O&G companies: (http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2015-04-sanders-ellison-introduce-bill-to-end-135-b-in-fossil-fuel-handouts). I'm not exactly sure where you see the downfall of the American entrepreneurial spirit fitting into the above. What I see is stopping a lot of rich, powerful groups from avoiding reasonable taxes which are causing a lot of the income inequality and social strife in this country. The US is socialist. Has been socialistic for as long as I've been alive and far longer than that. About early 1900s the US started to interfere with the free market and it all went downhill from there (this is also when you got a central bank. Europe was fucked way before that). Then the great depression was blamed on the free market and Keynesian was the great rescuer. In real life it was the other way around. When there is a dip in the economy the government should not interfere (to make jobs or what not) but let the market do it's natural self correcting sweep. If you block that you'll postpone the bubble and get a bigger one later. That's what's been happening over and over again. You really think I believe the US has a free market? Just look at all the companies that should have gone bankrupt were 'saved' by the government in 2008. Just look at the financial system with a central bank. Of course Europe is much much worse ... Also all that equality crap. If you make the world equal it is no longer fair as doing something positive will be rewarded the same as inactivity or doing something negative. Who will do something positive? Subjectively I consider a pyramid division of the world the most fair way but objectively it's the most efficient wealth distribution too. I short: I don't like people stealing from me. Especially when they do it with an air of a moral high ground. That's how you make me your enemy.

Any idea how to profit from this?

What makes you think Sanders is moronic? He's a socialist. It's extremely evident any socialistic system is sub-optimal by definition but people keep trying it because it matches their definition of fair (where fair is condired equality). Striving for equality is stupid. The more equal they make the lower incentive for skilled individuals to do anything of value. Motivation to do good is not intrinsic.

While Saunders is moronic mrs. Clinton is simply evil. The only candidate of either camp I would give a passing grade is Rand Paul and he dropped out a while ago. I guess I would give Trump the highest of the failing grades of the people still in (still only a 4 out of 10 or something).

RSKIA

I agree with you. The hatred for Trump is palpable, which is what makes me want him to win. All the love Obama gets makes me want to puke and I certainly don't want to spend 4-8 years watching as everyone falls all over themselves to worship at Hillary's feet. I loved it when Bush was president, everyone hated him almost as much as I did and Trump will be even better. Obama? I never liked him but his comments regarding encryption has made him my enemy.

Is he the new leader of China. The USA is no longer the most powerful country.

Move to Canada. Canada has the worst government since inception.

Hard to say on an absolute basis but definitely better than Clinton or Saunders.

It's Chinese though so how reliable are the numbers?

Where are you? Are you comparing buying & renting an equivalent house? But you are right, there are definitely other considerations (pros and cons) to renting and buying that can pull things in one direction or the other. Netherlands.

CKI.TO

Both of these are true where I live as well. I hear both arguments a lot. Here houses are primarily overvalued due to taxation rules by the government (you can subtract mortgage payment from income taxes) but that will change eventually. No way I'll buy a house for these ridiculous prices. I'll start to slowly consider it after the prices drop by at least 50% from here (which I doubt they will). Another thing that most people don't realize: If you have a huge mortgage, you are renting, even if you don't realize it. Rather than renting a house or an apartment, you are renting a big pile of money from the bank, which you then turned around and bought house with. If the cost of paying interests on that pile of money plus maintenance and taxes (all the thing you don't pay as a renter) are higher than the rent on the equivalent property, why buy it? By saving the difference (and more) I can build equity faster, with less hassle, and if I wait for a less overheated market to buy, I can save on that side too (and all the saved interest over time). My monthly expenses will actually be lower if I buy instead of rent. However, you are: 1) Much much less flexible (if you want to move you need to find a seller) 2) Have well over 100% invested in real estate. I would never use that much leverage in any other type of investment and now I'm buying something which is unlikely to be undervalued and in a market (RE) outside of my circle of competence 3) If the government changes how it subsidizes houses this will increase your monthly expenses AND lower the value of the house considerably.

Lol, the menu name is is clickable as well. Great UI ;). Thanks!

Both of these are true where I live as well. I hear both arguments a lot. Here houses are primarily overvalued due to taxation rules by the government (you can subtract mortgage payment from income taxes) but that will change eventually. No way I'll buy a house for these ridiculous prices. I'll start to slowly consider it after the prices drop by at least 50% from here (which I doubt they will).

I went to their website (http://steelexcel.com/) and under investors and under the "investors section" there is only the 2013 (!) Annual Meeting. This also appears to be a company losing money (FY2015 and FY2014). Do you have more information?

Thanks a lot for the economist relative housing prices link. Very informative!

You consider last year a bull market?

I'm also planning to reduce my oversized (relative) position but waiting for a little higher prices (~15%) I tactically increased my position by 20-25% when prices absolutely cratered, but already had a full position. I promised myself I'd reduce the load if we got the relief rally I was expecting after such brutal selling. The price I sold at was just shy of a 35% gain from lowest prices. I'll sell the rest at a 30-35% gain from those prices if we get there, but I was cautious about keeping the exposure too long. The position was already my largest before the adds and became significantly so after them. I'm happy to take my gains and roll into positions that haven't experienced a similar rally. Bought PDER @ 149.50 Covered some SPY shorts and rolled them into IWM instead. I'm in exactly the same situation (ATUSF is almost a third of my portfolio) but planning to trim it a a slightly higher prices.

I agree with you, but don't dismiss WW3 as a possibility. I don't think we have ever been closer since the end of of the previous world war. (This doesn't affect my investment decisions at all though).

I'm also planning to reduce my oversized (relative) position but waiting for a little higher prices (~15%)

I'm 110% invested and I'm a person who doesn't like leverage. I can't really buy more.