Obama and Bernanke are economic fools

[gwb72tii]

so rwh, how much central intervention and planning by ben is too much for you?
apparently a naked $28 billion short is ok, along with more than $7 trillion is stimulus.
is it ok for the fed to manipulate S&P futures as has been rumored?
ben has gotten very little right in his checkered career and yet you apparently have unlimited faith that all is going to be ok.
you do know (you must as you claim you're an economist that sells his opinions right or wrong) that there is no correlation between the stock market and consumer behavior right?

oh, and here's someone smarter than you and me that apparently agrees with me.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-16/virtually-every-market-trading-very-artificial-levels

but somehow i know your response. he's a rwnj.
aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahh

[rwh11385]

so rwh, how much central intervention and planning by ben is too much for you?
apparently a naked $28 billion short is ok, along with more than $7 trillion is stimulus.
is it ok for the fed to manipulate S&P futures as has been rumored?
ben has gotten very little right in his checkered career and yet you apparently have unlimited faith that all is going to be ok.
you do know (you must as you claim you're an economist that sells his opinions right or wrong) that there is no correlation between the stock market and consumer behavior right?

oh, and here's someone smarter than you and me that apparently agrees with me.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-16/virtually-every-market-trading-very-artificial-levels

but somehow i know your response. he's a rwnj.
aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahh

Again, you operate on the assumption that the conspiracy theory is fact without any possible way to validate it. Why is that? Because you would rather believe the stuff infowars and others post instead of consider your interpretation of reality is wrong?

You have gotten very little right in the past year, and yet you expect your unfortunate clients to have faith in you while you share ZeroHedge with them?

I actually don't claim to be an economist, you just assume so - and can't read.

Why would I manage money? [I actually considered being a FA once - briefly - but couldn't stand the notion for more than a passing moment] There's better things to do to make a difference in the world than simply attempting to transfer wealth from other people to your clients. (Or like you do, talk down to others and try to convince them that FAs are the only people who should be capable of understanding what you do) I like to discuss economics because it's interesting and fun, but find it funny that as a hobby I've made better calls than you and you supposedly do it for a living. [As much as you assume, I'm not an economist nor ever had been... although I did minor in economics] Clearly you have some need to attempt to prove your importance to the world and that you matter, or that people should listen to you... but all the threads have shown you aren't worth paying the attention you so desperately seek.

You know this all started when you attempted to swing into the thread about unemployment and show off how better you knew about the economy - and that no one else could possibly have a foundation to disagree with the Mighty George. Again, look in the mirror for all of what you are projecting on me and see that you are actually the angry and egotistical one. I hope that someday you will be able to act more mature and have a civil conversation based on facts and logic, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Again, instead of talking about data or facts, you choose to post the most recent post from ZH and take someone else's opinion of possibility ["if not based on fundamentals" not for sure that they aren't] as fact. But after responding to your tidbits with the actual numbers and context, you ignore it and try to move on. Typical. I even forgot to mention industrial production being at double expectation. Oh well.

Also, economics - "theory that is all opinion" is again only useful to you when people who study it "agree" with you. How do you cherry pick and choose to only acknowledge the views that align with yours? Such as that the emerging market bond market couldn't possibly be more popular than they deserved last year and hence this year's flat or sinking results do not match your expectations? The same is true of your expectations of last year - selection ignorance and your disconnect from reality challenges your ability to remain relevant.

[tjts1]

and they're taking us down with them
consider the latest great news from team Obama
Q4 GDP was negative, the economy contracted.
So, after 3 years of quantitative easing, 6 trillion in new debt, the fed buying nearly 2 trillion in US debt,we are left with an economy that is negative.
Bernanke (the guy who missed seeing a 1 in 1200 year bubble) promised back in 2010 that because of the fed buying US treasuries and mortgage back bonds we would have 4% GDP in 2012.
And now that we've borrowed as much as we have, future growth is going to be low because the debt has to be repaid, or the fed has to print greenbacks, pick your poison.
this is why elections matter.

[gwb72tii]

someone else rwh will tell you to ignore, but is one of the smartest investors around

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-06/apollos-leon-black-smart-money-selling-everything-not-nailed-down

[rwh11385]

someone else rwh will tell you to ignore, but is one of the smartest investors around

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ot-nailed-down

Again, instead of talking about data or facts, you choose to post the most recent post from ZH and take someone else's opinion

George, if anyone is crazy enough to want to read ZeroHedge, I'm sure they can locate the site themselves. I am still shocked that someone who is entrusted to manage other people's finances reads into the opinion of someone banned from securities for insider trading. I'm sure you should be able to find better a better source with more integrity than "Tyler Durden".

Maybe it is stuff like that, or promises made that don't come true, which encourage fewer people to engage financial advisors for help: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...242496832.html
A New Era for Do-It-Yourself Investing

The result is that there has been strong growth in customer assets at the mutual-fund and discount-brokerage companies that have traditionally served the do-it-yourself market, a group that includes Vanguard Group, Fidelity Investments and Charles Schwab Corp.

Anyway, since our last posts the Q1 first GDP estimate was released, initial jobless claims dropped, and the jobs report helped reassure people the world wasn't going to end: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...527880242.html An Economy on a Payroll

The Labor Department reported Friday that the economy added 165,000 jobs in April, better than the 148,000 that forecasters had expected and far better than investors had feared. The February and March figures were revised up by 114,000

An uptick in temporary jobs, which many economists see as a leading indicator of overall employment, augurs well for the months ahead. So does a decline seen this week in initial jobless claims; they came in at their lowest weekly level in more than five years.

None of which is to say that January's payroll-tax increase or the sequester-related government spending cuts that started in March aren't damping the economy. In addition to a continued decline in government employment, the jobs report showed that at manufacturing firms, many of which engage in defense-related work, employment levels were flat last month.

But the economy may have strengthened to the point that it will be better able to handle a more restrictive fiscal environment than many economists believe.

Thanks to Congress's lack of intelligence or good leadership with the sequester, the country has shot itself in the foot economically and could have been better in Q1 and will probably grow slower in Q2 - but hopefully it might be able to walk it off. ISM's reports are in line with that. With the stupidity of blind cuts to needed federal services like the FAA while ignoring entirely the most problematic issues of mandatory spending, it was going to choppy month in March. Especially for government suppliers. But perhaps we have righted ourselves and going to be okay. (Ironically, some conservatives like Rush are commenting on the economy not falling apart entirely because of the sequester like people warned because of underlying private strength - like +3.2% PCE, even though their past complaints like George was growth was too crappy. Which way is it?) Still, who knows where we would have been if we made targeted changes in government spending instead of an across-the-board hackjob.



The real tragedy would have been if the fiscal cliff and sequester stupidity did wreck the recovery. Because of two professors who didn't double-check their formulas. If you want to know who are the real economic fools, look to Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, and those who used their conclusions without double-checking if they had their math right.

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/researchers-finally-replicated-reinhart-rogoff-and-there-are-serious-problems

This has been one of the most cited stats in the public debate during the Great Recession. Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity budget states their study "found conclusive empirical evidence that [debt] exceeding 90 percent of the economy has a significant negative effect on economic growth."

If this error turns out to be an actual mistake Reinhart-Rogoff made, well, all I can hope is that future historians note that one of the core empirical points providing the intellectual foundation for the global move to austerity in the early 2010s was based on someone accidentally not updating a row formula in Excel.

Good analysis that points out that they had the causation backwards like others have suspected... too bad those objections were ignored before basing our fiscal policy on bad economics: http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb...owth-time-debt

[gwb72tii]

here's another smart man, Dave Rosenberg
anytime you can get this without paying you should read him
plus there is a link to 4 others from a recent Altegris/Mauldin conference that should be read also

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-06/david-rosenberg-potemkin-rally

[rwh11385]

George, do you read anything besides ZeroHedge?

Here's an ironic quote from your link.

However, It is important to challenge your thought process. Read material that challenges your views.

Do you? Ever? Or just stick to ZH, Drudge, etc.? More importantly can you even think for yourself, or just parrot someone else?

And no comments about Reinhart-Rogoff? Or any of the data from the last 3 weeks? Just more links to ZeroHedge? How worthless.

[gwb72tii]

so much for rwh's "great rotation" out of bonds and into stocks

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-03/jeff-gundlach-why-own-bonds-all

and rwh, try educating yourself for once before you post and learn who Gundlach is before you dis this post
and by that i mean something not related to his public divorce from TCW

and OMG, there is a comment about emerging market bonds too! i could not have written this better myself

and this man is definitely smarter than you, or me

[gwb72tii]

George, do you read anything besides ZeroHedge?

Here's an ironic quote from your link.


Do you? Ever? Or just stick to ZH, Drudge, etc.? More importantly can you even think for yourself, or just parrot someone else?

And no comments about Reinhart-Rogoff? Or any of the data from the last 3 weeks? Just more links to ZeroHedge? How worthless.

only to the ignorant LOL

[rwh11385]

so much for rwh's "great rotation" out of bonds and into stocks

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-03/jeff-gundlach-why-own-bonds-all

and rwh, try educating yourself for once before you post and learn who Gundlach is before you dis this post
and by that i mean something not related to his public divorce from TCW

and OMG, there is a comment about emerging market bonds too! i could not have written this better myself

and this man is definitely smarter than you, or me

Um, I see someone's opinion that great rotation won't happen... not any real data or evidence that it won't besides his assumptions. Like you have repeated before, simply considering a buyer and a seller for each transaction making it a zero sum game is overly simplistic as it ignores PRICE. Do you not critically consider what these people are saying? Or just eat up whatever they say and then vomit it back out into your clients mouths like a bird?

Strategic Investment Conference has "Premier Economists. Unique Viewpoints. Global Strategies." Why do you bash economists regularly, but then bow at their feet when you pay for their views? It's a huge hypocrisy that makes it seems like you can't make up your mind, or forget your past stance.

I don't think it is hard for someone to write something better than you, since you are simplistic and have the grammar ability of a middle schooler.

Seems the conference also discussed "emerging markets - a hard landing or the next bull market." At least they considered the possibility, unlike you. You seem to be pretty exposed to the risk of groupthink since you base all of your viewpoints on one source it appears and one that only posts information that aligns with his opinion. (Or includes data in a really molested fashion, but uneducated people don't catch why it is misleading)

I wonder if what they said told you that EMBI being down so far this year was okay after your constant praise of emerging market bonds and that all your investment peers would find it hilarious to consider if they were overvalued or not. And your TGEIX is nearly barely beating inflation even with total return.

Wouldn't it be better to not completely avoid stocks... because ??? Tyler Durden told you to?

S&P500 up 13.41%
VTI up 13.76%
VNQ up 15.29%

Even if you think the rest of the year is going to stall (because of stupidity of the sequester which was based on relying on the excel error), wouldn't you want to be up in the fifth month instead of flat? Or are you trying to make your 9% last year look good by doing 2% this year?

only to the ignorant LOL

Um... I ask if you are do anything besides post links to ZH... and then you post another link to ZH... so yes you are.

You also continue to be unable to respond to basic questions about who the real economic fools are in government. All you can do is repost the opinions of economists and other people you pay to hear at strategic investing conferences rather than be able to discuss the topics based on your own understanding. As I have always said, you are a mouth-piece and nothing more.

[gwb72tii]

one more to voice his opinion'
and again, this fellow is smarter than you or me

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-07/jeremy-grantham-we-have-been-conned

and if success is a measure of credibility, this fellow manages over $250 billion

but rwh will call you stupid if you happen to read this

ROFL

[rwh11385]

one more to voice his opinion'
and again, this fellow is smarter than you or me

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-07/jeremy-grantham-we-have-been-conned

and if success is a measure of credibility, this fellow manages over $250 billion

but rwh will call you stupid if you happen to read this

ROFL

So, do you even read the responses at this point - or just go to ZH and hyperlink a current post like a dumb robot? Because clearly you don't seem to consider you are reaffirming the idea that you are unable to actually process the information and are solely able to share someone else's opinion.

Actually, that's another one of your repeated logical fallacies - the appeal to authority. But you don't seem to understand that someone's success or wealth or position does not mean what they say is automatically correct. Statements, claims, conclusions should be judged based on data, logic, and reason. (Much like people do with science, but you wouldn't understand that...) If you go to SIC 2014 and Mauldin told you to drink the Kool-Aid like Jim Jones did his followers, you'd probably down it without a second thought. Because you don't think for yourself George, nor apparently can at all.

No one is stupid for reading opinion or seeking information, but it is dumb to only use one very questionable source for information and eat it up without challenging their motive or position, and checking if they make huge assumptions or are making promises that are impossible to be certain of. It is really dumb to not process data on your own instead of trusting and parroting the opinions of others because it is what you want to hear. But why let your mind be filled only by someone who wants to see the Dow crash to zero? Isn't that source likely to be a bit biased towards the extreme and crazy, instead of fair and informative? Everything that is posted by ZH is through a filter of lunacy and twists information, sometimes to the extreme of misleading or dishonest. And you fail to be capable of understanding when data is manipulated in such a fashion because you have never handled it on your own apparently. (5 year averaging of PCE so the recession pulls down "current" PCE even if the picture is skewed because of it. The 5 year avg including the +3.2% uptick in 2013 Q1 would be pulled down by the recession and miss the actual current trend) It'd be one thing if you always went to the actual source and questioned assumptions, looking at the actual data, and developed your own understanding... but instead you are simply a parrot who talks but doesn't really process anything.

That inability of you George to take in information, challenge it in your mind, or develop an opinion of your own instead of simply repeating someone else's is a great weakness - but also makes any discussion pretty worthless. Instead of being capable of handling an adult conversation about what things mean, you are only able to repeat someone else's opinion as fact and then insert some "ROFL"'s, some logical fallacies, and maybe a "you can't make this stuff up". Instead of explaining your position and backing it up with data and theory or reason, you state absolutes which end up not becoming true and then get upset and then switch to a new ZeroHedge article. And that's pretty worthless.

Another vehement believer in the importance of challenging your own investing ideas is Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge-fund manager, which oversees more than $150 billion.

“When two intelligent parties disagree, that’s when the potential for learning and moving ahead begins,” Mr. Dalio told me last week. “The most powerful thing that [an investor] can do to be effective is to find people you respect who have opposite, different points of view [from yours]—and have an open-minded exchange with them about what’s true and what to do about it.”

...

“When you think you’re right, you don’t go looking,” says Mr. Dalio. “When you think you’re right, your mind isn’t open to learning. The more you think you know, the more closed-minded you’ll be.”

You are simple, closed-minded, and affirm that there is no possibility other than your assumptions being correct. Whether it was your promise of 2012 Q1 recession that didn't come true, or your groupthink that there was no possibility that the emerging market debt market was overvalued and questioning it was worthy of a laughable, and maybe something about pants being down or stepping on dicks. You never challenge your assumptions, never read outside of your box, never consider why, and just keep hyperlinking "Tyler Durden". That's why you are exposed to the risk of reality being different than what you read on ZeroHedge, and why you were frustrated by only returning 9% last year. It's not some conspiracy to keep you down, but rather your inability to be open-minded, to learn, or to question your sources. Try thinking for yourself, avoiding logical fallacies, and being capable of talking about these topics without simply reposting someone else's opinion as your own.

[gwb72tii]

i'm getting really good at predicitng, and rwh, you're nothing if not predictable

the website doesn't matter, the source matters. its not the websites data/opinion, its the authors'.

[rwh11385]

i'm getting really good at predicitng, and rwh, you're nothing if not predictable

the website doesn't matter, the source matters. its not the websites data/opinion, its the authors'.

Riiiight... says the man who does nothing but post ZH links while ignoring everything else.

I disagree, you read ZH faithfully and his crazy opinion adds to your tinfoil hat ways.

Case in point:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...gasoline-sales

In keeping with the now constant trend of baffle with BS, since everyone was expecting a weaker advance retail sales print, just like with the BLS report, it was virtually assured that the data would prove everyone wrong.

When information does match "Tyler Durden"'s assumptions, then it is a government conspiracy. This is something you and "Tyler Durden" have in common - Confirmation Bias.

Brave has pointed this out about you before (as have I):

He's a walking billboard for Confirmation Bias

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=587
http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=129
http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=134
http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=161
http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=570


And does this help you understand reality? No, rather you are denying it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdoo...irmation-bias/

Warren Buffett is arguably the most successful investor in history, and a good part of his success is his ability to make investment decisions without being influenced by the combination of emotional factors and subconscious biases that govern most human behavior.

One of the most insidious bugs in the software that runs the human brain is what psychologists call “confirmation bias.” That’s the tendency that influences all of us to put more faith in information that agrees with what we already believe, and discount opinions and data that disagree with our beliefs.

[gwb72tii]

add bill gross (manages $1.7 trillion) to the long list of crackpots

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...s-churchillian

oh and BTW, if you think buffet plays on a level playing field you're far more ignorant than you prove daily