John Maudlins Latest

[Lock Limit Down]

From [email protected]

 

Dancing and Weaving

Daddy's Home

 

By John Mauldin

March 19, 2004

 

This week's letter is going to be a little shorter than normal, for which

some of you are probably grateful. We are moving our offices back into the

Ballpark in Arlington overlooking right center field (see more below). With

the normal list of things to do, plus packing plus moving decisions, time

is just short.

 

We almost have to start with the events in Spain. There are economic

implications that are less than subtle. When coupled with other stories

from the US they reveal a deep-seated rift, indeed a level of mistrust

which may be the harbinger of problems to come.

 

But to set the table for the analysis, let's first look at what the Spanish

election reveals about the mindset in Europe. It underscores the recent Pew

polls which show a sharp division between Europe and at least the 50% of

the US which supports the Bush administration.

 

I read the political speeches of the Spanish left blaming the government's

involvement in Iraq as the cause for the bombing and then saw the voting

results. My first thought was the same as many other commentators I read

was, "Peace in our time." That was the infamous line from Neville

Chamberlain, uttered after signing a peace accord with Hitler. Churchill's

quote also comes to mind: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping

it will eat him last."

 

The Spanish people have every right to elect whoever they want, and to

throw whatever rascals out of office for whatever reason. However, I find

the political speeches by the left after the bombings very instructive.

Rather than assert my own views, let me take those of one writer in the

Spanish Press. It was very clear the leftist opposition was blaming Aznar

and his government, rather than the terrorists, for the bombing. Ramon

Peerez-Maura, an assistant editor of the Spanish Daily ABC, wrote on

Wednesday:

 

"The Socialist Party took a free ride on that atrocity and placed blame for

the deaths on the governing Popular Party for having aligned itself with

the US and British governments on Iraq. Mr. Zapatero's message to Spain's

electorate on the eve of then election was as simple and powerful as it was

invidious: We have been attacked for siding with the US in Iraq. More ire

was directed at America than at those who slaughtered innocent Spaniards.

 

"If the Socialist Party were to win, voters were told, Spanish troops would

be withdrawn from Iraq and any further Islamist terrorists attacks avoided.

The ethical implications of such a stand didn't make much of an impact on

voters. The fact that al Qaeda may have killed 200 people in Madrid and a

contender for power reacted by promising retreat and not retaliation was

seen - in the terrible shadow of the event - as a good option by a majority

of the electorate. But the message to al Qaeda from our Spanish "Neville

Chamberlain" was: If you manage to strike at us, we will run away."

 

Zapatero was not the only politician to make such a connection between Bush

and the al Qaeda bombing. "Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard

Dean said Tuesday that President Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq

appears to have contributed to the bombing deaths of 201 in Spain."(The New

Hampshire Union Leader)

 

Stratfor, my favorite source for geo-political intelligence, had these very

powerful thoughts on the election (www.stratfor.com): "The majority of

Spaniards opposed the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Spain's participation

in the war. Nevertheless, the Popular Party government that chose to

support the war was, according to polls a week before the March 14

election, going to win. The peculiarity of a government following an

unpopular foreign policy yet remaining likely to win is easy to explain:

There were many other issues on the table, and the voters were not being

driven to their decisions by Iraq. Issues such as Franco-German domination

of the European Union were more important than the Iraq war.

 

"The attack on the Madrid train stations changed that. Perfectly timed to

be absorbed into the Spanish electorate's psyche, it was designed to

demonstrate the price that Spain would be forced to pay for its Iraq

policy. What was a less-than-decisive issue for voters March 10 became the

defining issue by March 12. The electorate, unhappy with the war in Iraq

anyway, now saw themselves paying a price for the war that was simply too

high. They voted the Popular Party out and the Socialists in. The

Socialists pledged to withdraw Spain's troops from Iraq by June 30.

 

"From a strategic perspective, this is a massive al Qaeda victory. With one

blow, it knocked a major U.S. ally out of the Iraq campaign and raised

serious questions as to how far Spain will go to support the United States

elsewhere. There can be no question but that al Qaeda understood what it

was doing. It struck on the eve of the election in a manner that was

clearly intended to cause maximum casualties. When viewed from the

standpoint of total casualties (as opposed to total dead), the Madrid

attack was almost half as devastating as Sept. 11. But in this case, rather

than increasing Spain's aggressiveness as Sept. 11 did with the United

States, it caused Spain to draw back.

 

"The attack has enormous political implications. There are a number of

countries that supported the United States in Iraq in the face of majority

popular opposition to the war. These countries have political dynamics

similar to Spain's. They include Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Poland,

Hungary, Australia and Japan. Their governments managed the politics of the

war in ways similar to Spain. Each of these governments is highly

vulnerable to the kind of attack carried out in Madrid."

 

There can be no doubting the fact that the message al Qaeda received was

very clear. The polls throughout much of Europe show the Spanish feelings

are not in isolation. Al Qaeda now knows that if it pulls off some

spectacular bit of terrorism prior to an election, it is possible to topple

a government which actively opposes it.

 

But it goes even deeper than that. Extremists will now wonder if they can

create movement on the part of electorates on any number of issues, from

head scarves to support for repressive Islamic regimes and opposition to

any cooperation, including trade, with the US. Europe is a fertile ground

for recruiting terrorists. Let me hasten to say I am quite aware that

terrorism is not just a problem of Islamic extremists. Think Ireland or

Chechnya, Peru and Columbia, Serbians or any number of Asian and/or African

groups. The first suspects in the Madrid bombing were Basque terrorists

(please do not refer to murderers of children as mere separatists). The

Islamic extremists are simply the subject of this discussion, and are also

far more global in their scope.

 

My friend Gary Halbert writes this week: "A recent report by the French

counter-intelligence underscores this fact. It says that al Qaeda is in

the process of recruiting tens of thousands of European Muslims and

organizing them into military-type units. They reportedly meet regularly

under the auspices of innocent social organizations to train for terrorism

and the use of weapons and explosives."

 

"According to European sources, between 35,000 and 45,000 individuals have

been recruited in France alone. In Germany, al Qaeda is estimated to have

added another 25,000 to 30,000 men, and another 10,000 have joined in

Britain. Numbers of enlistees in Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, Sweden and

Norway are unknown, but are thought to be significant.

 

"One alleged twist on this new recruiting push is that up to 25% of the new

recruits are so-called 'white' Muslims, meaning native Europeans who have

just recently converted to Islam. Al Qaeda already knows that their

typical recruiting grounds in mosques, Islamic culture centers and Muslim

neighborhoods are being closely watched, so they have reportedly shifted

their focus to a new demographic group (recent converts to Islam) who will

be very hard for anti-terrorism intelligence to identify. These recruits

not only don't fit the typical terrorist "racial profile," but also do not

have their names on known terrorist lists."

 

I have written on the coming demographic changes facing the world on

several occasions. There are several European nations which face the real

prospect of having Muslim majorities by the middle of the century. Now,

there is nothing wrong with Muslim majority countries. But there are real

problems with distinct and extreme minorities within Islam who believe they

can achieve their goals or address their anguish by random acts of

terrorism.

 

Think Spain is now safe from terrorism? Al Qaida literature has paid

tribute to the Basque group ETA's "heroic struggle" for Basque

independence. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the Al Qaida second-in-command who may

have been caught today, has spoken of his dream of "liberating Andalusia,"

the part of Spain once ruled by Muslims, presumably letting ETA rule its

own neck of the woods in the Basque country. Islamist extremists moan the

loss of Spain many centuries ago, and openly call for a return of an

Islamic control. Whether or not such a thing is even reasonable or would be

tolerated by the vast majority of Muslims in Spain, it only takes a few

dedicated extremists to create havoc in their "cause." The clear majority

of Basques oppose the terrorists there, but it does not keep them from

causing death at every opportunity. Majorities and reason are not things

with which to fight terrorism.

 

Al Qaeda and its allies are the enemies of democracy and tolerance. The

freedom they want is the freedom to control the world to suit their views

of what God personally reveals to them.

 

They have seared their souls of all reason, having been weaned on hatred

and envy. They randomly kill their own people, encourage their daughters to

commit mass murders and suicide. They hope for chaos and capitulation, in

which vacuum they can assume power. They enslave their own people. They see

all who disagree with them as the enemy, whether Christian or Muslim or Jew

or Hindu. They believe only they know the will of Allah and thus they have

the right, even the religious duty, to kill all who oppose them. There is

no compromise with such as these. They are evil.

 

Growing up in west Texas, when a copperhead snake appeared, you took out

the hoe and chopped its head off. You did not ignore it and let it wander

into your neighbor's yard in the hope it would leave you alone.

 

I would highly recommend to you a small and compelling book written by

Robert Kagan called "Of Paradise and Power." (You can find it at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/140...ontlinethou-20) He

compares the real difference between the general attitudes of Europe and

the US with respect to power and its use. There are fundamental differences

and reasons for those differences. Both make sense in the context of their

respective experiences.

 

Finally, I give you this last bit of analysis from Stratfor

(www.stratfor.com):

 

"Clearly Madrid means the war is not going to end as neatly as the United

States had hoped. Indeed, the political success of the attack in Spain will

encourage al Qaeda. In a sense, this increases the pressure to find bin

Laden, in the hope of disorganizing any impending campaign. We suspect that

that campaign does not need further organizing -- it is good to go with or

without bin Laden. What we are going to see now is an intense effort in

Pakistan to get bin Laden, plus -- and this is our guess -- an intensifying

effort by al Qaeda to counter by destabilizing the U.S. alliance.

 

"The attack has enormous political implications. There are a number of

countries that supported the United States in Iraq in the face of majority

popular opposition to the war. These countries have political dynamics

similar to Spain's. They include Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Poland,

Hungary, Australia and Japan. Their governments managed the politics of the

war in ways similar to Spain. Each of these governments is highly

vulnerable to the kind of attack carried out in Madrid.

 

"If al Qaeda could generate a process in which non-Islamic U.S. allies were

to peel away from the United States, two things would happen. First, the

position of the United States in the Islamic world might start to

deteriorate. One of the strengths in the U.S. position has been deep

divisions in Europe, which left Islamic states isolated from alternative

centers of support. If Europe shifted en masse to the Franco-German

position, the Islamic sense of isolation and lack of alternatives also

would shift. It could -- emphasize could -- undermine the U.S. position in

the region.

 

"Second, a massive defection from the United States by allied governments

would hurt the Bush administration. One of the charges critics have made

against President George W. Bush is that he has followed a unilateralist

policy that has isolated him from allies. That criticism has never been

true -- most of Europe's governments supported the U.S. policy in Iraq --

but if it becomes true, if reality catches up with perception, then Bush's

domestic position would weaken enormously.

 

"Al Qaeda would love to see Bush defeated, particularly if his defeat could

be perceived -- particularly in the Islamic world -- as a consequence of

the network's actions. That means U.S. allies are not the only possible

targets. Al Qaeda has shown itself to be politically sophisticated. If it

has operatives in the United States, then those operatives have friends who

can advise the group on U.S. politics. Any attack will give Bush an

immediate boost. It is a given in U.S. policy that the president's support

increases during a crisis. It is also true that over time that support

bleeds off, particularly if the president is not seen as moving toward

solving the problem effectively. It follows that al Qaeda will not attack

on the eve of the U.S. election, but months before, giving the American

public time to come to the conclusion that Bush is unable to cope with the

threat."

 

The Economic Implications of the Spanish Vote

 

To see the implications of the Spanish vote, let's start with something

closer to home. This week, the Senate passed a bill which would prohibit

the federal government from awarding contracts to companies that outsource

part of the work overseas or from the states doing business with the same

companies if they are using federal dollars. There is other legislation

introduced by Daschle and Kennedy which would require US companies to jump

through all sorts of expensive hoops before they can lay off workers if

there is outsourcing involved. The Wall Street Journal points out this

would make the US even more restrictive than either France or Germany.

 

US labor unions are seeking sanctions against China, charging that Chinese

repression of worker's rights has produced an unfair competitive advantage

that has resulted in as many as 700,000 US workers losing their jobs. By

filing this complaint, it forces the US administration to deal with the

issue. "Under US trade laws, the administration now has 45 days to accept

the petition and launch what could be a diplomatically awkward

investigation of Chinese labor practice, or to reject it entirely and give

Mr. By filing this complaint, it forces the US administration to deal with

the issue. Under US trade laws, the administration now has 45 days to

accept the petition and launch what could be a diplomatically awkward

investigation of Chinese labor practice, or to reject it entirely and give

Senator Kerry new ammunition to argue that President George W. Bush is

indifferent to US job losses." (Financial Times)

 

As they noted elsewhere, the motivation for this rather unusual filing is

clearly political. This intent is underscored by the fact the petition was

sent to the Kerry campaign offices prior to being filed with the US trade

office, to give the campaign time to craft their response.

 

Senators and Congressmen from both parties are calling for sanctions

against China. Europe is applying selective tariffs against the US because

our tax laws are too favorable to corporations and that is "unfair." (Yes,

I know it is more complicated than that, but that is the essential base of

it.) Several of the prominent Democratic presidential candidates were

essentially calling for one form of protectionism or another. Pat Buchanan

on the right would have us retreat into a new isolationism.

 

There are any number of stories out this week, even on National Public

Radio, that demonstrate that outsourcing is a net producer of jobs for the

US. Foreign companies create and employ more US workers in both the

manufacturing sector and the service sector than we outsource overseas by a

wide margin. Open and free trade has been good for the US. There are

6,000,000 jobs that are a result of foreign investment. One-third of our

workers depends upon foreign trade.

 

But if we start passing bills to protect our workers, will not other

governments feel free to move against us? Especially other governments who

feel their constituencies will approve? Our politicians (including 25

Republican senators) voted for the bill mentioned above so that they could

appear to be doing something to "protect" American jobs because they are

pandering to voters. They know that such a policy would be to our great

detriment if enacted by the rest of the world. Would European politicians

be reluctant to reciprocate the favor? Given the socialist climate in

Europe, I see little reason to think they would show restraint on the side

of free trade with the US.

 

I am disturbed by the seeming rise of protectionism. It is the one force

which moves me from being rather optimistic to overtly pessimistic about

the economy. Like real wars, trade wars often start with little things and

escalate.

 

Is there anything which is on the horizon which I can point my finger to

and say "That's the straw that will break the back of the trade camel?" No,

there is not. But a year or three ago, the case for free trade seemed so

clear. Now there is a climate which discourages advance in trade. The

current World Trade Organization conference rounds are dead meat. Does

anyone really think Europe will give in to anything now when they believe

Kerry will win and will ask them for fewer concessions?

 

What if there is a real problem in the future such as a US recession? Or a

worldwide global slowdown? It is not unreasonable to suggest the US will

sooner or later have a recession which will affect the world at large. In

today's global political climate, it is not clear, to me at least, what the

response of the world would be.

 

Parabolic Trading

 

What could trigger a problem? The breaking of many unsustainable trends

that are in place today, of which I have written about many times. Let look

at just one. Dennis Gartman wrote the following, which I pass along to you,

as it illustrates the complexity of the US and our global trade situation.

It also sets us up for a lesson in trading and markets, as Dennis writes

one of the premier trading letters anywhere, and clearly illustrates for us

the mindset of traders and the hedge fund world.

 

"THE PARABOLA CONTINUES... FOR NOW: The one economic constant of the past

decade has been this: the amount of Treasury securities held by the Fed on

behalf of its 'clients' (primarily foreign governments) has been high and

has been rising. In 1995 let's consider that the sum of these securities

held in the Fed's custody was on the order of $800-900 billion. From a

swift visual perusal of the data, we can reasonably say that the average

for that year was $850 billion, and we'll not be far off. By '98 that had

risen to $1.1 trillion (and it actually had leveled off there in mid-'97

and remained there through early '99.... the last time it was stable for

any concerted period). By '01, it began to rise a bit more aggressively,

making the beginning of what we shall consider the 'parabolic' move higher,

averaging something on the order of $1.25 trillion. By '02 it was $1.35

trillion; by '03 $1.6 trillion and now it stands at a stunning, almost

mind-numbing $1.8 trillion. The trend is up, and it is up at a steadily

increasing rate.

 

"We can recall reading of those back in '97 who said that the custody

account then at $1.1 trillion) was 'unsustainable,' and that the foreign

government's that had purchased such large sums of US government debt would

have no choice but to disgorge themselves of it, and when they did that

disgorging would send US interest rates skyrocketing higher.

 

We had our suspicions then of that analysis, and we have our suspicions

now. Eventually and inevitably this buying will end and a period shall come

when the foreign governments will allow their securities to mature and not

renew them. There may even come a time when they move to aggressively sell

their securities before maturity. All we know for certain is that those who

guessed nearly a decade ago that this process cannot continue and that the

US government bond market would collapse were wrong - decidedly and very

clearly wrong. If a trend in place shall tend to remain in place (usually

for far longer than even the most confirmed adherent to that trend shall

believe it possible), then $1.8 trillion will become $2.0-2.1 trillion by

this time next year and perhaps $2.5-2.7 trillion the year after that. We

know only that the trend will end when it ends and not a moment before. To

speculate upon that ending is a waste of trading time and intellect. It is

reasonable only to forecast that the trend shall continue a while longer;

that those who've bet against it are wrong and shall continue to be

wrong... but that we must be prepared to turn on a moment's notice when the

trend has clearly been broken. As we are want to say, 'A problem is not a

problem until it is a problem....then it's a problem.' For now, the

parabolic rise in the Fed's custody account continues. That is all we know

for certain."

 

Think about this for a moment. If you hold a private conversation with

Gartman, he will allow that this is a worrisome trend from a macro-economic

perspective. He has his eye on it, because he knows that it cannot

continue. He knows that when it stops it will have huge ramifications on

the bond and stock markets, currency and commodity markets that he trades.

He just doesn't know when it will stop. Therefore, you trade the trend in

place today, and be ready to change your mind and trade at a moment's

notice. He is accepting of the fact that when the trend stops he is going

to lose money (some of the profits he is making now). It matters not one

whit to him. I do not know his personal record, but I will bet you a side

dollar that he will be a very happy man if even 50% of his trend-following

trades in a year are successful, as are most trend-followers. They cut

their losing trades very quickly and let their winners ride. It is a risk

management discipline that few ever learn, but those that do can do quite

well for themselves and their clients.

 

And that is the way it is in the real world of traders. Just like Dennis,

they pay attention to the macro issues, but they trade the trend. The fact

that rising interest rates or falling dollars might hurt consumers and

employment does not enter into the equation. They are trading a trend, and

when big trends change, they can change rapidly. The dollar has fallen

against the euro. Oil, gold, copper have all risen. They will continue to

rise until the fundamentals force the traders to change. Then they will

fall. Gold was in a down-trend for 20 years. It may rise another two years

or ten or twenty. But it will eventually reach a fevered peak and fall. The

question traders ask is how high will it rise before that time. They will

rise the trend until it stops.

 

But what this means is that this global imbalance that I write and worry

about, and tell you will be a big problem, will only become manifest when

the trend ends, and then as Dennis notes, it will be a real problem. It

will probably be a real problem much faster than we will be comfortable

with.

 

If the rest of the world stopped buying our debt, interest rates might rise

precipitously. That, of course, would not be good for the economy. The Fed,

in speeches, has made it clear they would step in and try to smooth over

any real breaks in the finance system, as watching a recession develop and

doing nothing is against the central banking rules. But that means finding

the key to the printing press room. Or, the US could become a nation of

savers. Of course, that would mean the consumer based economy might suffer.

That might mean a number of proposed solutions which would be worse than

the disease. There is a reality to the old line that for every problem

government solves, it creates two more problems. It becomes very complex.

 

But given the current increasingly difficult global political climate, as

demonstrated by Spain, would there be the will for a strong coordinated

response to limit the economic damage, or would the seeming antipathy by a

majority of the populations of various developed nations inhibit

cooperation? This is not just a European issue. A large number of Americans

are willing to listen to politicians who tell them our problem is outside

of our borders.

 

The Spanish election revealed a major fault line. We will now see if al

Qaeda can exploit it to the further destabilization of the Arab world.

 

Dancing and Weaving

 

Bill Bonner, the author of the New York Times #1 best-seller, Financial

Reckoning Day, has these very kind words to say about my new book, Bull's

Eye Investing.

 

"Mauldin dances and weaves through a mountain of fascinating research,

taking us on a well-argued tour of the past and giving us a spellbinding

preview of the future. He then lays out in clearly documented detail where

the investment opportunities and pitfalls of the next decade will be. In a

world where the right investment information is the key to success, Bull's

Eye Investing is one book that should be close to every investor's desk."

 

The book should be in the stores in the latter part of April. Many of you

will want to buy the book online. I will let you know when you can order. I

got a lot of response from readers last week who want to help me arrange

for interviews with press and media. We will get to you, I promise. This

week has been hectic, and my "inbox" is backed up.

 

Daddy's Home

 

One of my favorite movie scenes is from My Fellow Americans where James

Garner, playing a former president, walks back into his private room on Air

Force One, pats the walls and says, "Hello baby. Daddy's home."

 

I feel somewhat the same, as I am moving back into my old offices in right

center field in the Ballpark in Arlington, where the Texas Rangers play.

Yes, they built offices with balconies over-looking the field when they

constructed the park 10 years ago, and I was lucky enough to get one of

them. Circumstances required me to move over 3 years ago, but as luck would

have it, I have been able to get back in.

 

While it is fun watching the games with friends and family, I find the real

value of the office to me is the creative atmosphere. There is something

about looking at a baseball field that I find peaceful and stimulating.

Late at night, when no one is in the park, going out and looking at the

twinkling security lights in the stadium, is truly a field of dreams for

me. I have written some of my best material in that stadium, and look

forward to seeing if the old juices will return. I look forward to hearing

that crack of a wooden bat during early afternoon batting practice, when

the stadium is quiet and empty. It simply brings a certain thrill and sense

of contentment that is hard to explain.

 

I will be in New York on Wednesday and will visit with Ron Insana on Crapvision

on his show which starts at 2 pm EST. I do not know the exact time or the

topic, but it is always interesting to be with Ron, as he asks very

challenging questions.

 

The controversy surrounding the market timing of mutual funds has created

an uncertain environment for managers who have relied on these vehicles for

their active investment strategies. I'm speaking in March 29-30 at MAR's

First Annual Conference on Dynamic Asset Allocation in San Diego, which

will address a variety of issues confronting the dynamic asset allocation

investment community...featured speakers include Oscar Olmedo, California

attorney general Bill Lockyer, stats guru Dick Oberuc, and commentator Mark

Hulbert. Should be a good show, and the price is VERY reasonable for an MAR

event! More information, including the registration form, at:

http://www.marhedge.com/conferences/dynamic/dynamic.htm

 

Finally, I will be in Las Vegas speaking at The Money Show from May 11-13.

This is a massive event. They expect over 10,000 attendees, and you can

register for free at

http://www.moneyshow.com/main/main.asp?sit...lt&sCode=002868

 

They are literally coming to take my computer away, which I guess means it

is time to hit the send button.

 

Your really looking forward to spring anal cyst,

 

John Mauldin

[email protected]

 

Copyright 2004 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved

 

If you would like to reproduce any of John Mauldin's E-Letters you

must include the source of your quote and an email address

([email protected])

 

Please write to [email protected] and inform us of any reproductions.

Please include where and when the copy will be reproduced.

 

To subscribe to John Mauldin's E-Letter please click here:

http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/subscribe.asp

 

To change your email address please click here:

http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/change.asp

 

If you would ALSO like changes applied to the Accredited Investor E-

Letter, please include your old and new email address along with a

note requesting the change for both e-letters and send your request

to [email protected]

 

To unsubscribe please refer to the bottom of the email.

 

John Mauldin is president of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC, a

registered investment advisor. All material presented herein is

believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy.

Investment recommendations may change and readers are urged to check

with their investment counselors before making any investment

decisions. Opinions expressed in these reports may change without

prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staff at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC

may or may not have investments in any funds cited above.

Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273.

 

When considering alternative investments, including hedge funds, you

should consider various risks including the fact that some products:

often engage in leveraging and other speculative investment practices

that may increase the risk of investment loss, can be illiquid, are

not required to provide periodic pricing or valuation information to

investors, may involve complex tax structures and delays in

distributing important tax information, are not subject to the same

regulatory requirements as mutual funds, often charge high fees, and

in many cases the underlying investments are not transparent and are

known only to the investment manager

[Captain's Log]

I love the way the board software automatically changes "Crapvision" to "crapvision". Somehow, I cannot see Mauldin typin this.

[Guest]

When Maudin spends so much time and effort parroting RNC talking points and neoconazi propaganda, it is extremely difficult taking anything he says seriously. Spain much have set off quite a few alarms in the NWO fascist crowd.

[machinehead]

What a steaming heap of neocon horseshit.

 

I just 'unsubscribed' to Mauldin's weekly e-mail letter.

 

He's a direct marketer and a "fund of funds" allocator, not a trader or investor. So I can gladly do without his tendentious input.

[threadbare]

I usually dismiss anything coming out of Arlington Virginia. Too many conflicted think tanks, home of the CIA, etc.... etc....

[machinehead]

I usually dismiss anything coming out of Arlington Virginia. Too many conflicted think tanks, home of the CIA, etc.... etc....

He's in Arlington, Texas, Tbare.

 

In the shadow of the stadium where our President made his millions as a passive minority equity partner.

 

Muslims pray toward Mecca; Mauldin lines up his prayer rug with Bush's monument.

[Howl]

For yet another fine Europe-bashing article click here:

 

Europe's speed trap by Stephen Roach

[Metamucil]

Maudlin is one painful writer......ouch!

[The brown one]

Yep,horseshit alright! He seems to be suggesting that if you don't vote for W then you're voting for Sammy B-Liner.Funny how the neoconazis

are so good at mindtwisting--takes one to know one,I s'pose.

 

Love the recruitment numbers he's quoting--the Mongol hordes are coming,nay already amongst you.Bring back Macarthy and Binnies under the Bed.We have to spend even more trillions of your money to ensure your safety and our wealth.Bring 'em on--there's wealth in that there Alloha!

[stained jeans]

What a steaming heap of neocon horseshit.

Excellent summary, machine. And succinct, too.

[ShitEatingGrinner]

There's plenty more Bushmongers in Dallas besides Mauldin. Have to listen to their crap every time I go home. Arlington Stadium, built on government-confiscated private property. Those former owners had to sue to get any recompense for their lost homes. Done so Bush and his cronies could make money. There's a pattern here... Seize what's not his in order to enrich himself and his buddies...whether it be the houses of peons, the presidency of a republic, or the oil of a foreign country. He's behaving in the finest Christian manner, alright. I have never been to that ballpark, and I will never go there. I don't support imminent domain like some financial newsletter writers .

[nobody]

Churchill's quote also comes to mind: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last."

 

Does anybody have a list of countries that al Quaeda has invaded? I would like to compare that list, to the list of countries that the U.S. has invaded. I think Mauldin may have his crocodiles confused.

[Butterfield 8]

Why is it nobody remembers that Bush one robbed the US treasury of billions to finance the scams of his cronies in Texas and his son, of all people, s&L's - anybody? we all WERE alive then - are our memories so short? So now junior robs the treasury of billions to make sure his daddy's Carlisle group gets billions of US Treasury dough via war - which will now ALL be passed on to junior since there is no longer an estate tax. That is what the Bush family does - steal the people's money to enrich themselves and their donors. Are Americans totally asleep on this?> Is there one reporter alive who will maybe point this out?

[The brown one]

Why is it nobody remembers that Bush one robbed the US treasury of billions to finance the scams of his cronies in Texas and his son, of all people, s&L's - anybody? we all WERE alive then - are our memories so short? So now junior robs the treasury of billions to make sure his daddy's Carlisle group gets billions of US Treasury dough via war - which will now ALL be passed on to junior since there is no longer an estate tax. That is what the Bush family does - steal the people's money to enrich themselves and their donors. Are Americans totally asleep on this?> Is there one reporter alive who will maybe point this out?

It is all on the web,Butterfield,as you know.But the majority of "society" today prefers their information to come from the major media which were bought up a long time ago.Bread and circuses is the name of the game.

[Pee Brain]

I usually dismiss anything coming out of Arlington Virginia. Too many conflicted think tanks, home of the CIA, etc.... etc....

He's in Arlington, Texas, Tbare.

 

In the shadow of the stadium where our President made his millions as a passive minority equity partner.

 

Muslims pray toward Mecca; Mauldin lines up his prayer rug with Bush's monument.

 

AHH, THATS BELOW THE BELT , BUT GREAT NONE THE LESS