enoch01

enoch01, I agree with you! And I am always in the stock market! It is just that I am not always 100% in it with my firm’s capital. As I have already written in this thread, Sir John Templeton’s “Yale Plan” still makes a lot of sense to me. And it is a very easy and actionable way to “follow the pendulum”, like Mr. Marks is used to saying. First, I want to know how much stock market exposure is reasonable and safe, then, with the capital I have decided to keep invested in the stock market, I look for bargains. Furthermore, I do not believe only in the extremes. Anyone who has studied Sir John Templeton knows he advocated a gradual shift from stocks to bonds + cash, when general stock prices were increasing, and a gradual shift from bonds + cash to stocks, when general stock prices were declining. Because he never believed a second neither in speculation nor in forecasting. giofranchi I respect your thought process, and think you have reasonable conclusions. Oh, and I'm an engineer too! 8)

And sometimes the obvious needs to be bolded :) If the market being high is followed by a general decline in prices, do you still believe the rebound in the housing and auto sectors will be unaffected? giofranchi The Marks quote sounds great (I try not to miss what he writes), but then after you think about it for a while, it's really hard to know what to do with it. For example: How high is the market? Too high? Which market? What is a general decline in prices? Which prices? Prices of everything? Stocks? Houses and autos? What does it mean to say "unaffected"? Now I agree that, probably, it is easier to make money when you find a really cheap stock when the overall market happens to be cheap too. So maybe you are recommending to wait for: (1) A certain really cheap stock (2) A cheap overall market Both (1) and (2) = great returns But what about: Either (1) or (2) = good returns There's nothing wrong with focusing on (1), and letting (2) be an extra kicker, especially when you haven't the foggiest idea when or if you will get (1) and (2) together.

I get a lot out of biographies. I find them helpful for developing those "mental models". For Thomas Jefferson I recommend American Sphinx, by Joseph Ellis. I haven't read anything on the others you mentioned.

And sometimes the obvious needs to be bolded :)

A cash-burning seller of commodities where there isn't a clear supply shortage? I haven't been able to crack the Fortress Paper nut. I read the thread, but in the end I couldn't figure what it was worth. Lots of people are running away from the stock these days, so I guess it's worth keeping an eye on.

WEM lost his marbles or just trolling? Neither - it was a wickedly funny takedown of (presumed) self-interested fear-mongering.

Here we go Yup. There goes several days / couple weeks of earnings.

Well, this is Larry Ellison you are talking about. Maybe he asked around and found out that the then-largest line of credit for an individual was $3 Billion or whatever, and then decided he needed to win at "largest credit lines". The Anschutz is interesting though...

Anyone who has done the exact opposite of what Dent has recommended the past 12 years probably has made boatloads of money. Look at this list: The Great Crash Ahead (2011) The Great Depression Ahead (2009) The Next Great Bubble Boom (2006) The Roaring 2000s Investor (1999) The Roaring 2000s (1998) The Great Jobs Ahead (1995) The Great Boom Ahead (1993) Our Power to Predict (1989) If his next book is giddy and bullish, sell. I really don’t care about Mr. Dent or his forecasting track record. All his article is pointing at are the 3D (debt, demographics, and deleveraging) that also Mr. Rosenberg always refer to (or Mr. Shilling). It is not who is talking, but what he is saying. Do you think that QE will effectively fight and solve the 3D? Like Packer rightly pointed out it did in Sweden during the 1930s? Fine! Then we will have inflation. But I don’t care who will be right and who will be proven wrong. I only care about ideas, and if I understand and agree with them, or vice versa. giofranchi Sorry, my point was only tangential: Harry Dent is a fantastic contrary indicator. Over the short run, I haven't the foggiest idea what QE will do. Over the long run, printing money is correlated with unpleasant things. Maybe 2 of those D's will be traded for other unpleasantness. I'm thinking a basket short of "accurate QE opinions" would do well in the future.

Anyone who has done the exact opposite of what Dent has recommended the past 12 years probably has made boatloads of money. Look at this list: The Great Crash Ahead (2011) The Great Depression Ahead (2009) The Next Great Bubble Boom (2006) The Roaring 2000s Investor (1999) The Roaring 2000s (1998) The Great Jobs Ahead (1995) The Great Boom Ahead (1993) Our Power to Predict (1989) If his next book is giddy and bullish, sell.

+17% YTD This thread makes me nervous...

+1 Maybe so! ;D Another big crash and maybe we'll snap out of it!

A moral violation in a no-God paradigm? I've been arguing this conditional: if God does not exist, there are no necessarily true moral propositions. Well, I still think that is true. As near as I can tell, you agree. My confusion is that you aren't arguing the conditional. Sorry, I didn't see you disagree with it anywhere, so I didn't know you expected me to argue for it. Do you disagree with it? Hm - unfortunately I don't see any difference between this question and the one I answered earlier ("Can you provide an example that would show the difference between a moral violation in a God paradigm versus a no-God paradigm?"), so I don't think there's any more progress to be made between us. So let's table it.

A moral violation in a no-God paradigm? I've been arguing this conditional: if God does not exist, there are no necessarily true moral propositions. Well, I still think that is true. As near as I can tell, you agree. At first look it seems that morality (meaning a general concept based on the assumption that all people have certain rights regardless of who they are, their race and their sex) is quite uncertain compared to religious regulation (also called [religious] morals for some strange reason). In practice, religious regulation is not that clear in itself and depends on specific people's interpretation. It's enough to just take Christianity as an example, there are plenty of variations out there with differences in regulation. Sometimes it depend on which Church you'd go to. Continue to add other religions and I'd say we'd be far better off relying on morality as defined in the first sentences. (P.S the USA if composed of about 80% white, and religious distribution of all population is Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%. I'll leave it at that). Thanks for your response. These are some good points, as far as I understand you. I agree: it does seem to me that morality can be more uncertain than religious regulation, and that equating morality to religious regulation is really strange. Many times it's hard to answer the question: "what is it that I ought to do, or ought not to do?" As you say, we are uncertain about it. It's possible to learn in lots of ways: meditating, parents, trusted friends, prayer, solitary reflection, church, reading books, observing others, the list goes on and on.

A moral violation in a no-God paradigm? I've been arguing this conditional: if God does not exist, there are no necessarily true moral propositions. Well, I still think that is true. As near as I can tell, you agree.

Since tautologies are true (necessarily so), I'm not sure it really matters, if all you were asking was how He could contribute to intrinsic morality. But one possibility is to follow Robert Adams: "Any action is ethically wrong if and only if it is contrary to the commands of a loving God". If true, this grounds morality in God's nature itself.

So I provided two conditions, which, when either of them are conjoined with the property of Necessary Being, contributes to intrinsic morality (ie, the concept that there are necessarily true moral propositions). Maybe there are other conditions as well, but I'll claim ignorance for now: "(i) if He is the individual paradigm of what is right" So if (i) is true, then pretty obviously God contributes, because He is the source, or the model, of what is right. I don't think you addressed (i). "(ii) if He is the knower of what is right" Now suppose He merely knows what is right. Then we are left with choosing between some Platonic forms for what is right, or considering what is right as concepts (and maybe there are other options, again I claim ignorance for now). I would argue against Platonic forms, and consider what is right as concepts, which cannot exist apart from a mind. Therefore, God contributes to their existence. So that's a model of how, if we suppose God exists, He could contribute to intrinsic morality. Maybe there are other models. I agree, but I think you are only addressing (ii) here. Well first, "experiences" are subjective by definition: you may be reflecting on a belief, I may be having a pain, etc. There are no experiences without subjects. I've also never disagreed that an acceptance or rejection of a proposition is a subjective experience. But that is consistent with a proposition being necessarily true or not. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Someone could be argued out of a particular belief, etc. Again, that is all consistent with there being necessarily true moral propositions.

Even with God, the same would hold. God would simply overlay an additional punishment/reward scheme. You would still rely on social instincts, personal preference, et. al. I'm not entirely sure what that second sentence means, but it doesn't seem like you disagreed with anything I said. Maybe you are just emphasizing the second half of the conditional? Not at all. The existence/non-existence of a god has little to do with your interaction with "morality". You currently have a body, which experiences the world in a certain way. Now God exists. So what? What, specifically, are the factors that now make morality intrinsically anything? I don't know all of the factors, but here's one: God is a Necessary Being. So (i) if He is the individual paradigm of what is right, or (ii) if He is the knower of what is right, those moral truths are invariable. Like I said, here's one property that contributes: the fact that He is a Necessary Being. You mean what clarifies for me whether morality is subjective or not? Lots of things: thinking about it for a while, discussing it with others, maybe my biology informs it (ie maybe we are hard-wired to think that), etc. Thanks again for all this, but you still aren't denying my original conditional. Now I'm wondering - did you not intend to do so?

Even with God, the same would hold. God would simply overlay an additional punishment/reward scheme. You would still rely on social instincts, personal preference, et. al. I'm not entirely sure what that second sentence means, but it doesn't seem like you disagreed with anything I said. Maybe you are just emphasizing the second half of the conditional?

This is a good thread, and I'm commenting on it now only because Parsad recommended it in another thread. It should be noted that there is no incompatibility with Christian theism and evolution. The conflict really arises only when metaphysical naturalism is conjoined with evolution. But neither application of the scientific method nor advances in scientific discovery advance us towards or away from metaphysical naturalism - you'll have to look elsewhere for that.

No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man. Yes I think this is the right way to think about it. If there is no God, morality amounts to nothing more than social instincts, personal preference, biological influence, and the like. There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong - it's all a matter of perspective.

Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence. You can't falsify the proposition that you are a brain in a vat, but I'm supposing you believe you are not a brain in a vat.

The moral argument has a rich history. I recommend Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason", J.L. Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism", and Swinburne's "The Existence of God". Now get thee away from this thread as quickly as possible :)

The shrinking business is their PC business -- so you must be talking about the PC business. These past few years since Michael Dell came back... have they been spending the money on: a) their PC business b) growing a new non-PC business model c) returning cash to shareholders d) b and c My answer is "d". Do you disagree with my answer? My worry is how quickly their [commodity] pc business (80% of revenue) is declining and how slowly the new non-PC business model is growing. Services have comprised ~1% more of their revenue for each of the last three years. So I think that they are headed in the right direction, but I have little confidence that the battleship will turn quickly enough, and in the meantime SG & A is increasing (something like $1.2B increase last year) to accommodate the new strategy. How do you get comfortable with the numbers? A close response to that particular concern: http://seekingalpha.com/article/756291-how-much-would-dell-be-worth-if-it-never-sold-another-desktop-pc

That's a lot of bang for your buck.