threadbare Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 The only way Iraq might be taken is to commit massive levels of human civilian atrocities and even then, it's a complete crap shoot. The American public won't stand for it and the Arabs --well, that goes without saying. That's where the Russians come in. Buschco, can sit back and go tsk tsk while Putin does a Chechnya on Najaaf. Think this might be the game plan. Russia is increasing its troop levels and defence spending at the present time. How on earth does the administration plan to "subdue" Iran and Saudi Arabia, when they can't get a grip on Iraq? They may have mushroom clouds in mind. You never know. They're very keen on these new Bunker busting noooklear bombs, which is pretty ominous. Foreign policy formulated by Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, OH and Moe Larry and Curly! Hi Hat, Good to hear you're okay. The cat thing had an Auntie Em, Auntie Em feel to it, with you cast as (You and your little cat ToTo too!") Margaret Hamilton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Limit Down Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 For future reference...Wrap kitty in towel (Kitty Burrito), shove all into cat carrier, lock door. You make Kitty Scared Plunger I couldn't agree with you more. From my first post ever... I fully believe a big part of the reason we have entered bubble 2 is because of the pension liability 10 sigma event that was staring corporate America in the face last year. The pension issue had to be repaired. It seems this manipulated runup in the markets is having the desired effect. However,with non pro forma valuations at hysterical extremes I am convinced "they" will fail. The question is, Its not knowing what will happen but WHEN? Fast forward 10 months... As an example Air Canada went into bankruptcy last year because of pension liabilities. We have reorganized and SHOULD reemerge September 30. Did AC learn anything from exposure to the bubble? NO of course not. The employees defined benefit pension plans are still over 70% exposed to the stock market. No restructuring there. I am 100% convinced that we will be bankrupt once again when the market tanks. Pensions will be a disaster. My warnings are laughed at by the people that could bring about change. Until our defined benefit pension plans are changed to defined contribution, Air Canada will be held hostage to a very overvalued equities market. Sadly it is not to be. Thanks for the heads up on Maudlin. More artillery for my endless plight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrStool Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Still Stalled Total Bank Credit Flat, The Hidden Money Supply Collapse Fed Releases update is now posted! Once a week Doc fills you in on the all important Fed weekly releases. Doc gives you his briefs on the charts of the Fed's most important money and credit measures. Take a subscribatory and download your Fed Releases RIGHT NOW! 30 Day Intro Subscribatory. Just $16.99! Get In RIGHT NOW! 30 Day Intro Subscribatory. Just $16.99! Get In RIGHT NOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 And the BRAINLESS ONE wants to put part of the social security $$$$, on an individual basis, into the market with ZERO GUARANTEES...pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Hungarian Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 John Mauldin talks about the pension Debtberg: But what if the Dow drops to 6,000 as it might during the next recession and the NASDAQ goes to 600? What if your returns are negative for the next few years? How much are you underfunded then, as your portfolio drops another 20 percent? The number becomes mind-boggling. If each of the S&P 500 companies lowered its expected rate of return from the current average of 9.2 percent to 6.5 percent, the total cost to earnings would be $30 billion, according to a report by CSFB. But if the Dow drops to 6,000 the number goes off the chart. Remember, the average drop in the markets is 43% during recessions. Pension Peril Mauldin fails to mention that Congress passed a 'law' earlier this year, allowing companies to assume a rate of return on pension assets based on the yield on corporate debt, which is of course higher than the Treasury yield used in the past. There's a couple of things wrong with that. One is that the use of the Treasury yield had been conservative -- if future payments can be accurately projected, they can be funded with zero-coupon Treasury bonds with certainty. Corporate bonds are subject to default risk, and part of the default risk involves heavy pension obligations -- a potential self-feeding vicious spiral. What's worse, though, is that most pension plans are heavily allocated into equities. In raising its rate of return assumptions, Corporate America has made a gigantic bet that not only is the stock market going to "bounce back," it's going to embark on another record-setting secular bull run, like 1982-2000. That's a stupid, hopeless, sucker bet. It sets up a feedback loop in which lower stock prices force higher pension contributions, which lowers earnings, which lowers stock prices again and ... etc. machinehead, I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the provision allowing use of corporate yields as a discount rate is only in effect for 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drano Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Oh good, I feel ever so much safer now. ?New Drugs Thwart Dirty Bomb Effects -- Scott Roberts http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/fee...cout520660.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWD Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Still Stalled Total Bank Credit Flat, The Hidden Money Supply Collapse Doug Noland seems to be leaning toward the HyperTiger denouement: "s there a meaningful risk of hyper-inflation developing? I don't think so....I would ... expect the risk of a major pricing cataclysym is more on the downside (systemic debt collapse) than upside (hyper-inflation)." Credit Bubble Bulletin: "The Fragile Stability Of Monetary Disorder," 13 August 2004 http://www.prudentbear.com/creditbubblebulletin.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depends Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 This could go very, very bad. Only one solution - truce to withdraw. My opine. Of course the assholes running this invasion are more likely to use nukes. I wouldn't put it past them. They don't give a shit for human life. Just look at the results so far - what have we gotten from this fiasco? Nothing but dead people, massive deficit and latent shame. You know who should be ashamed of themselves, but their not and they will never repent. So expect the worst. It's a 'religious war' now and is out of control. But the generals and congress are saying 'We must prevail.' Butts. End result is escalation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWD Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Oh good, I feel ever so much safer now. ?New Drugs Thwart Dirty Bomb Effects -- Scott Roberts http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/fee...cout520660.html Potassium iodate is widely available without any prescription. It will prevent thyroid uptake of radio-iodine, a dangerous by-product of atomic fission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 The IEA said it has underestimated oil use for years and is recognizing that demand now in an annual review. The change comes from higher-than-estimated use in nations outside the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). "This probably helps explain why prices are as high as they are," said Adam Sieminski, Deutsche Bank AG's oil strategist in London. "OPEC is struggling to meet demand for its crude oil." The 11-nation Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is pumping near its limits to keep up with demand and build inventories. Crude oil topped US$45 on Tuesday for the first time in the 21-year history of futures trading in New York. World demand will jump by 1.8 million barrels a day in 2005, after a record gain of 2.5 million this year, the IEA said, confirming previous forecasts. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2...tent_364964.htm The price of oil went through $46 (U.S.) a barrel yesterday, setting another record high. Many energy experts say $50 -- a figure unthinkable only a couple of years ago -- is likely. At least one oil anal cyst says $100 is possible. In 1998, the price was about $14. In 2002, it was about $27. How did glut turn into shortage so quickly? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ness/TopStories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxfox Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Beleive me, the west wont fail because of some shitty bearded nutcases somewhere in the middle east. FxFox - Ah the eloquance of those words. I never knew Hidelberg could produce such diplomatic phrases. :grin: :wink2: yeah, i thought, why talking around the hot pie? Just focus and then make your point crystal clear. Butr i have to say, im a bit shocked by myself. I have to admit sounds a bit too limbaughatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machinehead Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 machinehead,I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the provision allowing use of corporate yields as a discount rate is only in effect for 2 years. You're right: Pension Funding Equity Act The excuse was that the Treasury's 2001 "Halloween Day massacre" of the 30-year T-bond forced the change. But they've substituted a higher corporate yield. Two years from now, if the Dow is at 6000, I guess they'll have to use junk yields ... a composite of Brazilian, Argentine, Russian and Turkish debt would be just dandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stained jeans Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 The arbas should be carefull: They can play their game to a certain extend, if th3ey overextend it, they have to face consequences, of which they better dont think about yet. One shoildnt be naive: This aint Vietnam. Much mcuh mucccchhhhhhh more is at cost here. Beleive me, the west wont fail because of some shitty bearded nutcases somewhere in the middle east. If they go too far, they will get their Hiroshima, only 10 times worse. Yeah, those arabs have some serious explaining to do...like how did OUR oil end up under their sand in the first place? Answer me that you "shitty bearded nutcases". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxfox Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 of course you are right. But I see it relaistic: Without a sufficient oil supply we are doomed. Plain and simple. Sure every country should have the right to explore the ressources which are under their surface. But thats theory, reality looks different. You can also take the DeBeers mafiosi as an example. They own large parts of Namibia, the namibian state gets no single cent of those diamonds which DeBeers exploits under the namibian surface. We beat them in Portiers, we beat them in Vienna, if necessary we bomb them to Havanna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 US plans to cut forces overseas by 70,000 The US is expected to announce on Monday that it is pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe and Asia in the largest restructuring of its global military presence since the second world war. People briefed on the plan say two-thirds of the reductions will come in Europe, most of them military personnel stationed in Germany who will be sent back to US bases. An additional 100,000 support staff and military families worldwide will be part of the realignment. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/117d14c8-ed63-11d...000e2511c8.html While the article indicates that these troops will return to the US, I suspect they will be re-deployed to the Middle East. If so, the plus side is they will not be accompanied by families, an expensive element at best. Wherever families are located, the military services try to employ family members vs others who might be even more highly qualified. This makes happier soldiers and gives a higher household income, but the practice of co-located families also expands the size of govt due to required family services (support services) for medical, housing, schools, legal, and all the other goodies you would get if you lived in the USA. No value judgement offered as I have worked Community Service issues as part of my assignment at SANG some years ago. Shit for housing, dysfunctional family relations, cover-ups for drug use by Officer's kids.... yadda yadda! And God forbid we should discuss the alcoholism amongst the Officers themselves... "it didnt exist" Official Denial was the game. (I originally joined Federal Service to establish an "Alcoholism program" for civilian and military/family members at our installation. What a nightmare!) SANG was the place that all MI military members with problems were returned to. While it may be more exciting to follow the progress of military might and its successes, the real human tragedies of the individual soldier and his family go unrecognized. It is far different from the performance pressures in the corporate world because the rewards are not dollars but just a bunch of medals, honor and glory. How much can you buy with that? Many military families are on welfare. Officers have a far better deal than the grunts. Most of our soldiers are grunts. Its a poverty class that we as a Nation should be ashamed of! How in the name of God and all sorts of value systems can we send these guys/gals off to fight in combat (so we don't have to go) and fail to give them the dignity of sufficient pay and support benefits beyond the survival level? I haven't even touched on a war's byproduct of injured and disabled. The Bush Admin cut the funding needed to take care of them. (rant off) Yes, its all about oil. About the time the war started in Iraq, the US Military began building a huge military base north of Bahgdad that is intended to be the supreme center of satellite/surveylance of the entire Middle East. We will be able to "see" what is going on in every surrounding country and then some. The imperative need to build this base has caused most other projects in Iraq to fall FAR behind schedule. Iraqi's do not have clean water, reliable electricity, or basic human safety, but that base is being built. So for all the good words, for all the ontheground battles, etc., the primary objective is the building of that base to provide the type of stronghold that our bases in Germany provided against the Soviets. Issue: the German people willingly accepted our bases in their country. The Iraqi and ME peoples do not. What will be the outcome? Rambling thoughts by Sherlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.