Originally posted by Lews
Considering my portfolio is at +75% for the year, I'll probably get into this soon.
You might be interested in municipal bonds. Guaranteed principle with an above average interest rate. Plus TAX FREE. If you'r looking for a slightly risky, but still safe, higher yielding, safe haven. Not saying don't buy silver, just don't go all into silver, because silver and gold can lose value.
Shakka
This is fantastic. I bet it drives Krypto-commu-stalin-marx nuts.
quote:
Emerson’s Farr Says U.S. Is Destroying Manufacturing
By Will Daley
Nov. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Emerson Electric Co. Chief Executive Officer David Farr said the U.S. government is hurting manufacturers with regulation and taxes and his company will continue to focus on growth overseas. “Washington is doing everything in their manpower, capability, to destroy U.S. manufacturing,” Farr said today in Chicago at a Baird Industrial Outlook conference. “Cap and trade, medical reform, labor rules.”
Emerson, the maker of electrical equipment and InSinkErator garbage disposals with $20.9 billion in sales for the year ended September, will keep expanding in emerging markets, which represented 32 percent of revenue in 2009. About 36 percent of manufacturing is now in “best-cost countries” up from 21 percent in 2003, according to slides accompanying his speech.
Companies will create jobs in India and China, “places where people want the products and where the governments welcome you to actually do something,” Farr said.
The unemployment rate in the U.S. jumped to 10.2 percent in October, the highest level since 1983. Emerson, which Farr said employs about 125,000 people worldwide, has eliminated more than 20,000 jobs since the end of 2008 to lower expenses. “What do you think I am going to do?” Farr asked. “I’m not going to hire anybody in the United States. I’m moving. They are doing everything possible to destroy jobs.”
Emerson, based in St. Louis, fell 7 cents to $41.35 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have risen 13 percent this year.
Unsupported ‘Attack’
“This attack isn’t supported by the facts,” Kevin Griffis, a spokesman for U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, said today in an e-mail from Singapore, where they are attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings.
“This administration has made a significant commitment to U.S. manufacturing, including reforming the country’s health insurance system to bring down costs and make American companies more competitive globally,” Griffis said.
Mature markets such as the U.S., Western Europe and Japan continue to decline in importance and the company will keep investing in emerging markets, Farr said during the presentation.
“We as a company today are putting our best people, our best technology and our best investment in these marketplaces to grow,” he said. “My job is to grow that top line, grow my earnings, grow my cash flow and grow my returns to the shareholders. My job is not to shrink and roll over for the U.S. government.”
Growth Strategy
Emerson’s growth strategy includes some acquisitions and continued investment in technology. The company has identified “megatrends” such as resource scarcity, the environment and the demand for more wireless connectivity that are shaping its growth initiative.
The company had $1.7 billion in sales last fiscal year connected to energy efficiency through demand for products such as variable-speed controls and digital compressors, and it plans to increase that amount to about $5 billion in five years, Farr said.
In renewable and alternative-energy markets, Emerson had
2009 sales of $50 million and plans to increase that to more than $800 million in five years.
“But you are not going to see Emerson going out there with fancy commercials or sitting at the right hand of some president, talking about this,” Farr said. “We do it.”
Krypton
It has everything to do with a cost-benefit analysis. Regulations are only so good until the costs outweigh the benefits. It's subjective. Comrade Stalin is nothing more than an alter-ego..:p
Krypton
I have written a new report on Questcor (QCOR). Check it out...
STRONG BUY - 11/12/2009 - Questor Pharmaceuticals (QCOR) has experienced phenomenal growth over the last five years. Revenues have increased 418%. Profits have increased 448%. Total assets have increased 216%. The Company has no long-term debt and has kept total liabilities far lower than both total and current assets. The Company could pay off all its creditors with cash today and still have plenty left over.
Originally posted by Subey
Welcome to the world of Free Money... how can we all be successful?
I wouldn't call it free. The stock market is the same basic idea as gaining volatile interest. It's like giving a friend $1000 and having him pay you based on what he makes each week at work on a non fixed scale yet telling him because you invested in his job he has to pay you forever on account, but based on how much he makes that week depends on if your account will be credited or debited: until you say give me mah money.
The stock markets all about finding that friend in that market that's real good at his job.
Krypton
QCOR is up 18% since I published my report last Friday. My new report is on CBST.
Originally posted by Shakka
This is fantastic. I bet it drives Krypto-commu-stalin-marx nuts.
Right, so let's abolish the EPA, abolish the provision of market distorting subsidies for employer provided health care, and labor laws because they're all detrimental to the manufacturing and production base in some form or fashion ... phew, making false dichotomies is hard work.
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Right, so let's abolish the EPA, abolish the provision of market distorting subsidies for employer provided health care, and labor laws because they're all detrimental to the manufacturing and production base in some form or fashion ... phew, making false dichotomies is hard work.
huh? Is that really what he said, Strawman?
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
huh? Is that really what he said, Strawman?
No but he might as well have said that because it amounts to the same thing. It's a no brainer that cap & trade, universal health coverage, and labor rules are going to hurt businesses. But highlighting costs without highlighting benefits is a one sided analysis. By the same reasoning we should abolish the EPA, all labor laws, financial regulation, etc. How is that a straw man argument? I'm sorry if the article you quoted presented a false dichotomy. But hey ... perhaps we can make up for it all by adopting a SUPER weak dollar policy which will really help manufacturing .... sooo break even?
Btw, I'm curious as to why you bolded the following passage:
“What do you think I am going to do?” Farr asked. “I’m not going to hire anybody in the United States. I’m moving. They are doing everything possible to destroy jobs.”
Does that imply you're against free trade and other globalization measures that transfer jobs overseas?
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
It's a no brainer that cap & trade, universal health coverage, and labor rules are going to hurt businesses. But highlighting costs without highlighting benefits is a one sided analysis.
Funny, that seems to be what you just did by pointing out negatives without suggesting any positives yourself. If universal healthcare, cap & trade, etc., were such obvious positives, why are they so controversial?
quote:
By the same reasoning we should abolish the EPA, all labor laws, financial regulation, etc. How is that a straw man argument? I'm sorry if the article you quoted presented a false dichotomy. But hey ... perhaps we can make up for it all by adopting a SUPER weak dollar policy which will really help manufacturing .... sooo break even?
Oh come on already, you're just trying to be provocative without actually saying anything meaningful. I believe you are guilty of exactly what you are trying to criticize Farr (and me)of doing. Quite funny really.
quote:
A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's arguments can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one other statement—being presumably easier to refute than the original position—must be true.
quote:
Btw, I'm curious as to why you bolded the following passage:
“What do you think I am going to do?” Farr asked. “I’m not going to hire anybody in the United States. I’m moving. They are doing everything possible to destroy jobs.”
Does that imply you're against free trade and other globalization measures that transfer jobs overseas?
I highlighted it for Krypton because he's been such an ardent supporter of this massive "Keynesian" experiment that our government has engaged in. Obviously not everyone out there thinks it is necessarily the best policy to help our economy, particularly given Farr's reputation for not being a terribly outspoken guy.
Our government has its back against the wall, but they are pursuing measures that punish success and reward failure and while trillions in stimulus may make the stock market go up and make people feel a little better, we're not seeing that much in the way of tangible results and job creation--maybe because the "stimulus" money is being mostly spent on expanding entitlements and benefits as opposed to real stimulus that encourages growth and recovery.
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Funny, that seems to be what you just did by pointing out negatives without suggesting any positives yourself. If universal healthcare, cap & trade, etc., were such obvious positives, why are they so controversial?
Oh come on already, you're just trying to be provocative without actually saying anything meaningful. I believe you are guilty of exactly what you are trying to criticize Farr (and me)of doing. Quite funny really.
Actually ... you're capturing the sentiments of my argument in its entirety. I'm being facetious. I'm not arguing for or against universal health care, cap & trade, the epa, labor laws, or whatever on the sole basis of one factor alone ... namely their impact on business. I mean come on, is Carr NOT, and then implicitly you I suppose, being provocative without saying anything meaningful?? What are you actually saying? Businesses will suffer? Businesses will suffer with globalization ... so should we become protectionist? Fine I will equivocate my arguments with similar "meaningful" arguments: without universal health care MANY people will die. Without cap & trade we will bequeath a destroyed environment for our children. Without labor laws we'll return to an Upton Sinclair industrial society of the 18th and 19th century.
Farr is not engaging in an intellectual discussion of the pros and cons of legislation and balancing it all out, Farr is engaging in simple fearmongering. Is it ANY different from anti-globalization fearmongering? Please articulate how it isn't ...
quote:
I highlighted it for Krypton because he's been such an ardent supporter of this massive "Keynesian" experiment that our government has engaged in. Obviously not everyone out there thinks it is necessarily the best policy to help our economy, particularly given Farr's reputation for not being a terribly outspoken guy.
Our government has its back against the wall, but they are pursuing measures that punish success and reward failure and while trillions in stimulus may make the stock market go up and make people feel a little better, we're not seeing that much in the way of tangible results and job creation--maybe because the "stimulus" money is being mostly spent on expanding entitlements and benefits as opposed to real stimulus that encourages growth and recovery.
I'm an ardent supporter of the current Keynesian economic policies as well. I don't know if it's an "experiment" quite as much as you've said based on economic data but to each their own. I don't quite understand what you mean by punish success and reward failure ... are you referring to tarp?
And referring to stimulus that have a tangible impact on the unemployment rate, are you suggesting we follow Europe's example? Because they ARE showing far more substantive employment results with their fiscal stimulus policies that emphasize the expansion of benefits and entitlements:
quote:
Europe’s policymakers, in contrast, appear to have a more coherent strategy: one which uses government money to subsidise a shortened work week, cuts labour costs and, in a few cases, offers tax subsidies to support new jobs. The OECD says 22 out of 29 of its member countries have extended support for workers on furlough, and 16 have cut payroll taxes and other social contributions. The countries doing these sorts of things are disproportionately in continental Europe (see article).
Europe’s combination of policies is undoubtedly a vast improvement on its reaction to joblessness in other deep recessions. In the 1980s, for instance, idleness became entrenched with misguided early-retirement schemes. This time around Europe’s governments have, rightly, focused on keeping people in work, thus avoiding the longstanding economic toll of high joblessness, as workers lose skills and become ever harder to re-employ. http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...ory_id=14803179
Yet many of these policies are those that republicans do not support ... so what are you suggesting really?
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Actually ... you're capturing the sentiments of my argument in its entirety. I'm being facetious. I'm not arguing for or against universal health care, cap & trade, the epa, labor laws, or whatever on the sole basis of one factor alone ... namely their impact on business. I mean come on, is Carr NOT, and then implicitly you I suppose, being provocative without saying anything meaningful?? What are you actually saying? Businesses will suffer? Businesses will suffer with globalization ... so should we become protectionist? Fine I will equivocate my arguments with similar "meaningful" arguments: without universal health care MANY people will die. Without cap & trade we will bequeath a destroyed environment for our children. Without labor laws we'll return to an Upton Sinclair industrial society of the 18th and 19th century.
The EPA existed long before Farr's rant and he had no problem hiring Americans then. I don't think he ever advocated going back to a 19th century type work environment. Frankly, that is a ludicrous stance to take. You say you were being facetious but then you go and use the same tactics again. Perhaps it's not the goals that this new administration is pursuing--perhaps it's the mentality that those ends they hope to achieve will somehow justify the means being used to accomplish them that is such a game changer? It's pretty clear he's not advocating what you're insinuating, rather his comments are a direct response to the policies that have been being introduced just in the last year. Consolidation of government power, higher taxes on industry in order to push radical new policies and agendas, trying to legislate private business compensation policies, etc. He's merely saying how business-unfriendly new policies are and that in response he is likely to minimize his exposure to regions that are less friendly and increase exposure where it is more friendly. Does that mean he is going to only employ sweat shops in Singapore? I highly doubt it. Does that mean he will strip all employees of benefits? Seeing as how that was never the case before, I highly doubt that will be the case now, but we'll see what our government has to say about that. Being snarky and suggesting that there are only two roads to take here (Cap & Tax or kill the environment, radical healthcare reform or kill millions of people) is a silly counterpoint that reeks of laziness and a desire to trust that the fools in charge are coming up with the best ideas to solve our problems and that they should not be challenged, when surely you would even admit that only a few of them at best have the basic understanding of economics.
quote:
Farr is not engaging in an intellectual discussion of the pros and cons of legislation and balancing it all out, Farr is engaging in simple fearmongering. Is it ANY different from anti-globalization fearmongering? Please articulate how it isn't ...
No he's not. He's telling it like it is from his point of view. He's saying that current policies and proposals are not business friendly and are counter-productive. In response he will seek better ways to run his business. Just because he had the gall to say what many are afraid to say does not mean he's fear mongering. If he walks the walk in addition to talking the talk, I don't know how you will be able to say it's just fear mongering. Maybe you think he's overreacting, but that's a different argument altogether.
quote:
I'm an ardent supporter of the current Keynesian economic policies as well. I don't know if it's an "experiment" quite as much as you've said based on economic data but to each their own. I don't quite understand what you mean by punish success and reward failure ... are you referring to tarp?
Yes, TARP is certainly part of it, but it's a much broader argument than just TARP. We have a government that seems to want (and think it is well within its rights) to micromanage every aspect of private enterprise. And current fiscal/monetary policy is an experiment--possibly the biggest one ever conducted. The scope and degree of the deficit spending, monetary base explosion, alphabet soup of unconventional credit programs are unheard of. There is no precedent for this kind of thing layered on top of an already unprecedented amount of total leverage (look at government, corporate and private debt levels relative to our GDP). As smart as you may or may not think Bernanke, Geithner, Bair, etc., may be, they do not know the ultimate results of what they are engaging in, let alone the collateral damage or potential rolling asset bubbles they may inflate with their quantitative easing, nor do they really know how and when any "exit strategy" may work. It is an experiment in unconventional policy plain and simple. We had the good fortune of speaking with Dino Kos the other day who confirmed as much (i.e. have you ever tried to thread a needle...in the dark?) Meanwhile the value of our currency is eroding right in front of us. I have no problem borrowing a couple of quotes from the venerable Ned Davis on this topic:
quote:
When policies were not working in the late days of the Bush Administration, the call by nearly all Republicans, across the board, was to cut supply-side taxes further. Now we see a similar call from the Obama Administration. Despite the biggest Keynesian/monetary experiment in history, liberals, like Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi, are arguing the problem is Obama did not spend enough, and we need more stimulus. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I frankly don't have an answer, but I remain skeptical one can solve the problem of too much debt by creating a lot more debt.
Now, I'm sure all clients know I am big on debt and balance sheet analysis, but in the long run, I'm really more concerned about our currency. My mentor in this business, Edson Gould, used to say war was the biggest risk to an investor because if you lose a war you could lose your freedom or your life. But he said the second biggest risk was your currency. If your currency goes, you could lose all your money. I think it's scandalous how the leaders of this country, since Reagan and Volcker, have ignored the U.S. dollar. If it were not for the self-interest of creditor nations, like Japan and CHina, to keep the dollar from falling too quickly, I am very worried it would be under severe attack. This would be an outcome similar to a war attack that we could not ignore. We would have to defend our currency.
I get amused when I read all the Monday morning quarterbacks who look at the U.S. record after 1929, and Japan after 1990, and determine how "stupid" the leaders were. "Isn't it obvious," these so-called historians ask, "that one does not raise rates or cut money supply in a severe recession? What were they thinking?" My worry is exactly the opposite. I don't think they were stupid. I think they were forced to do what they did by a lot of circumstances, including the need to defend their currencies.
This is all tied together, in my opinion. I did not like the Bush deficits, and I do not like the bigger Obama deficits, because I believe they have the potential to severely undercut our currency. If they continue to do so, we will "repeat the suptid mistakes" of the U.S> post 1929, and Japan post 1990, by being forced to defend our currency by raising rates and cutting money growth in a secular bear period.
By the way, I don't want to see a strong dollar, either. That would be deflationary. I think the Fed's main job should be a stable dollar. I think if a stable dollar had been their policy, much of the reckless bubbles and irrational exuberance from late 1996-2008 would not have happened.
Additionally, from Bill Gross in the NY Times this AM. This was a good article, I'm sure you saw it: NY Times
quote:
"What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter. The United States is not only not saving nuts, it's eating the ones leftover from last winter."
quote:
And referring to stimulus that have a tangible impact on the unemployment rate, are you suggesting we follow Europe's example? Because they ARE showing far more substantive employment results with their fiscal stimulus policies that emphasize the expansion of benefits and entitlements:
No, I am not advocating that.
Perhaps a major problem I have with you and those that are "ardent supporters" of this "Keynesian" policy is that the assumptions are so rosy and optimistic. If we just pursue more massive deficit spending and unconventional credit easing, everything will be fine and dandy on the upswing. We'll come out on the other side unscathed. There will certainly be no adverse collateral damage. I believe that this is not a situation where you have 2 possible outcomes--a good one and a bad one. I believe we are likely to have major problems that endure down the road. All we are currently doing is kicking the can down the road, postponing the day of reckoning in hopes that we can somehow come up with a better plan or some wait for some massive round of economic growth that propels us out of the problems we have created for ourselves. While I may concede that it was necessary to engage in a lot of the policy moves in order to not see complete economic failure, I do not believe that we are ensuring a positive outcome 5-10 years from now. There are and continue to be major structural flaws in our economy which unfortunately are not being addressed. The hard decisions are usually the right ones, and unfortunately they are not the decisions our elected and non-elected leaders are willing to make because it requires pain and sacrifice--two things that will not get you reelected or reappointed.
And again, back to the original discussion, as it pertains to Farr and Emerson...whether politically motivated or not based on his and his senior management's philosophy, I think they are reacting to the playing field that is being laid before them. You may think it is some jawboning based on some "false dichotomy" and that they are advocating going back to a pre-FDA world with no employment standards, but I think that's just being silly when you know that is not the case and he has never suggested as much.
Edit: P.S. As you have said on more than one occasion that you don't plan on having any children, it's a bit disingenuous of you to talk about "our" children, no? Or have you decided to help join the fight against our demographic decline? ;)
