State of the Union Thread

[southsider2k5]

Enron was sad, and they are paying now.  But a lot of those people had their entire savings on ONE STOCK.  That's pretty darn stupid.

 

Maybe the better approach to this is education.  Part of high school economics classes should be about spending, saving and investing.  Actual, practical stuff.

 

I don't fault those people too much. Many middle and lower level employees only have enough money to choose either an ESIP program or a 401K. These guys were flat out lied to. They were being told by the company officials that this company was going to the moon, despite knowing the shell game they were playing with losses. The employees were also offered incentives for purchasing company stock, such as cheap option exercize prices and discounted stock purchases. They were used, I can hardly blame them for that.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don't fault those people too much.  Many middle and lower level employees only have enough money to choose either an ESIP program or a 401K.  These guys were flat out lied to.  They were being told by the company officials that this company was going to the moon, despite knowing the shell game they were playing with losses.  The employees were also offered incentives for purchasing company stock, such as cheap option exercize prices and discounted stock purchases.  They were used, I can hardly blame them for that.

 

 

I can. The only free lunch in investing is diversification and they refused it. Given a choice between purchasing only company stock and going into a 401K, I would go with the latter every time. The company can tell me whatever they want to about how great things are but that wouldnt cut any ice with me. Id have put a percentage ( Maybe a quarter but probably less than that ) in company stock and the rest would be spread out over large/mid/small cap mutuals.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't fault those people too much.  Many middle and lower level employees only have enough money to choose either an ESIP program or a 401K.  These guys were flat out lied to.  They were being told by the company officials that this company was going to the moon, despite knowing the shell game they were playing with losses.  The employees were also offered incentives for purchasing company stock, such as cheap option exercize prices and discounted stock purchases.  They were used, I can hardly blame them for that.

 

They were also actively pressured to go into the ESIP program.

[Rex Kickass]

Hey.... remember that part of the speech everyone loved about lowering our dependence on foreign oil 75% over the next 25 years?

 

Yeah, not so much...

 

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...shington_nation

 

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

[Balta1701]

Hey.... remember that part of the speech everyone loved about lowering our dependence on foreign oil 75% over the next 25 years?

 

Yeah, not so much...

 

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...shington_nation

You know quite literally what happened? Some of those folks @ Opec came forwards and said today, to paraphrase..."Well, if you're going to cut the amount of oil you need, then we're not going to invest as much in infrastructure to get that hard to pump, expensive oil out of the ground".

[kapkomet]

You know quite literally what happened?  Some of those folks @ Opec came forwards and said today, to paraphrase..."Well, if you're going to cut the amount of oil you need, then we're not going to invest as much in infrastructure to get that hard to pump, expensive oil out of the ground".

Money talks, bulls*** walks. If we fund to keep the oil flowing, those money hungry emirs will keep it coming.

[Texsox]

I can.  The only free lunch in investing is diversification and they refused it.  Given a choice between purchasing only company stock and going into a 401K, I would go with the latter every time.  The company can tell me whatever they want to about how great things are but that wouldnt cut any ice with me.  Id have put a percentage ( Maybe a quarter but probably less than that ) in company stock and the rest would be spread out  over large/mid/small cap mutuals.

 

Too many people look at all the millionaires that work at Microsoft and other high tech sector jobs who were paid low plus stock options. The problem with many of these programs is you have to hang on to the stock for a set amount of time. So if you had a choice of buying one company stock at a huge discount and holding, or buying another at street price, you would choose street price? I'm not certain many people have your willpower. Especially when analyists are fawning over the stock.

 

Example buy Enron at 25% below market and hold for 24 months, or buy something else at market?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Too many people look at all the millionaires that work at Microsoft and other high tech sector jobs who were paid low plus stock options. The problem with many of these programs is you have to hang on to the stock for a set amount of time. So if you had a choice of buying one company stock at a huge discount and holding, or buying another at street price, you would choose street price? I'm not certain many people have your willpower. Especially when analyists are fawning over the stock.

 

Example buy Enron at 25% below market and hold for 24 months,  or buy something else at market?

 

 

Im not saying people should stay away from stock purchase plans altogether but for someone to dump their life savings into 1 single stock is lunacy.

[BigSqwert]

Hey.... remember that part of the speech everyone loved about lowering our dependence on foreign oil 75% over the next 25 years?

 

Yeah, not so much...

 

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...shington_nation

What a joke. How can you believe anything this guy says?

[Texsox]

Im not saying people should stay away from stock purchase plans altogether but for someone to dump their life savings into 1 single stock is lunacy.

 

Exactly. Once the options have "vested" or whatever the term is, you should diversify if possible. The difference is they weren't dumping their life savings in, this was a part of their overall benefits package. IIRC, when I was with Marshall Electronics it was a payroll deduction we could sign up for. The hook was you had to hold the stock for 28 months or some silly number like that, but we bought at the lowest market price the previous quarter minus another 5%. It turned out to be a decent investment, but I now worry if I would have been able to buy my first home if those had tanked.

[Balta1701]

I heart rhetoric.

 

The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

 

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I heart rhetoric.

 

 

Its not about the government, private industry is taking the lead on this. They have venture capitalists lining up to throw money into this research because they, rightfully so, want to get in on what is going to be what I like to call "the next oil industry".

[Wong & Owens]

I heart rhetoric.

 

 

Fantastic. Politicians are awesome.

 

I'm starting to wonder if that 7th grader isn't on to something here.....

[Rex Kickass]

Its not about the government,  private industry is taking the lead on this.  They have venture capitalists lining up to throw money into this research because they, rightfully so, want to get in on what is going to be what I like to call "the next oil industry".

 

OK, that's fine, then how about reducing the incentives for our oil companies to do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

OK, that's fine, then how about reducing the incentives for our oil companies to do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

 

 

I will agree that oil firms don't need any help from the government these days.

 

 

However, you're misguided in your assertion about them doing nothing.

 

http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/3020051444.htm

 

 

http://www.newenergyreport.org/016506.html

Edited February 2, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[JUGGERNAUT]

Here I am on the fence again. The Libertarian in me trumps the Republican.

 

I'm against expanding such surveilance on American citizens without court approval. I simply do not see any evidence that suggests to me a need to compromise our freedoms which include privacy rights.

 

Now I do not extend the rights of American citizens to foreigners so by all means do what you must to them. I don't believe America has any obligation to uphold freedoms for foreigners & illegals. They aren't natural born, don't have social security numbers, & only in rare cases file taxes. They constitute a significant risk.

I can even accept extending the argument to people who hold dual citizenship. They constitute a risk higher than that of single citizenship Americans.

 

Now I understand they have narrowed the scope to overseas calls but politicians minds rarely work in a narrow scope. If they can prove their success with this aggregious defilement of privacy rights then they will be that much more likely to extend it to local calls making up some excuse like they have to protect against cells operating in the US.

 

I always fall back to the general premise, for all it's good government is essentially an entity that exists to do you harm. Never trust & never expect anything from it. It's a neccessary evil you have to put up with. Do your best to limit it's scope & it's desire to intrude on your personal life.

 

When you vote always think in terms of the people who will do you the least harm.

Edited February 2, 2006 by JUGGERNAUT

[Rex Hudler]

Some things of note based on reading the speech:

 

Ok, so the President wants to protect us from animal/human hybrids?  Something tells me we shouldnt' be letting this man watch Spiderman movies.

 

Whoever wrote this line is going to be fired:

(Insert loud applause by Democrats)

 

Actually I think it was planned. If you noticed he paused after he said it. Then he came right back with his comments about a bipartisan committee and working together. In my mind, it made the dems look pretty stupid. They cheer his failure and 5 seconds later he is calling for everyone to work together to solve the problem. The way it was played made him look much less political and the dems who cheered completely political. I believe that turns most Americans off.

[Balta1701]

Actually I think it was planned.  If you noticed he paused after he said it.  Then he came right back with his comments about a bipartisan committee and working together.  In my mind, it made the dems look pretty stupid.  They cheer his failure and 5 seconds later he is calling for everyone to work together to solve the problem.  The way it was played made him look much less political and the dems who cheered completely political.  I believe that turns most Americans off.

He paused after he said it as he gave the Democratic side of the aisle a really nasty glance, then he studdered a couple of times when he was trying to get back into the rhythm of the speech. It really threw him off for a few seconds.

[Rex Hudler]

He paused after he said it as he gave the Democratic side of the aisle a really nasty glance, then he studdered a couple of times when he was trying to get back into the rhythm of the speech.  It really threw him off for a few seconds.

 

Funny how two people can see/hear the same thing, yet see/hear it so differently.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The issue is real, it is serious, it is near future. It could have wide ramifications on the human race, & it has next to no relation to spidey.

 

That being said it's low on my list of priorities. What did he say about the pitifiul growth in GDP experienced for Jan? That's a lot higher on my list.

 

But since that's what you want to talk about it comes down to this:

Should mankind be investing in technology that increases our lifespan by using genetic manipulation to make it possible to create animals as a source of spare parts for humans? It's the idea that compatibility can be obtained by specifically designing the animal to be created for that sole purpose. Obviously donor DNA plays a major role in that creation.

 

In my opinion this is a non-issue for Americans because every president since Nixon has basically been trading America's buying power for peace in the world. Kind of ironic given all of our military action in that time but I guess you can argue things might be worse if we hadn't. Whatever the reasons the result is the same: if the world wants this technology it will flourish as an industry with or without the USA.

 

I prefer my President & those paid by my tax dollars to concentrate on the biggest problem facing America today: our rapid loss of buying power. What part of an even faster growing gap between rich & poor do they not understand? What part of a DJIA that has not been able to stay above 11000 for 10 yrs now do they not understand? What part of America's dismal savings rate do they not understand? Per capita it is the lowest rate since we grew to a pop of 200 mil. With illegals we are well over 300 mil now.

 

We still hold the biggest trump card: faith & confidence in our banking institutions

American's have the highest rate of what you might call floating money. Our money is tranformed into lending power which spurs investment, mortgages, & growth.

 

We are not only #1 but their is a vast separation between us & the rest of the nations in the world. When you travel around the world & establish friendships with peers and such you realize just how unique America is. I was surprised to find that both in Argentina & Japan it was common for people to take their savings & store them in safety deposit boxes at mail-stations & what not. That's dead money for an economy.

 

But we can't sustain the trump card forever. Forget the national debt. That's some boogeyman concept the Dems invented to scare everyone into accepting the need to raise taxes. The non-boogeyman debt is real. It's the yearly debt we a mass through our mortgages, loans, & what we buy on credit. When that yearly figure surpasses that which we earn, invest, & save it's game over. That represents the point of no return in our political system. We are not capable of fast change that requires severe cutbacks, protectionism or anything else that can quickly right that balance.

 

The world has seen this model time & again. Argentina was just the latest. Their solution? Raise import taxes & make other changes to bolster their local economy at the expense of the world. They basically gave the IMF the finger, said we'll pay you when we pay you, keep your money you're an idiot.

 

America will never collapse like that. It's two powerful & too large & too much of an economic inovator to produce a losing season. But it is in serious threat of dropping to #3 behind both China & the EU if change does not occur soon. I don't know about Bush, Clinton, Nader, or any of you but I rather like being #1 & I would prefer we fight tooth & nail to stay there.

[BigSqwert]

America will never collapse like that.  It's two powerful & too large & too much of an economic inovator to produce a losing season. 

Never say never.

[YASNY]

Never say never.

 

Exactly. Even Rome fell.

[Texsox]

We will fall not with a bang, but with an economic whimper, like the Soviet Union. Under mountains of debt, when the rest of the world can not or will not loan us any more money. Or perhaps from civil strife. Of course it's a long shot but a billion Chinese could have a say.