Thursday, November 07, 2002

Jesus. #1 - let's all realize what we're talking about when we talk about risk. Yes, I realize that you cannot carry less risk than government bonds, and yes, I seem to recall through my business school education, as worthless as you seem to think it is, that we use the T-bill rate as the risk free rate. Social security does not need to be risk free. Spare me your "last pill" crap. Carrying the risk to invest SS in the market means that some years it will do better than the risk free rate, some years it will do worse. Even so, this does NOT mean that in the years it does better, those SS beneficiaries will get a few more "last pills", while the beneficiaries in the down years will get nothing. There are only two ways you can consistently return better than average returns in the market -- have a shitload of dough (in the millions) and be well diversified.  Two things easily accomplished with the Social Security fund. The up years will outweigh the downs -- in short, over time, you'll do better than the T-bill rate year to year on average, and a smart money manager can ensure that the payouts to the beneficiaries are the same year over year. Unless we have a serious -- I mean 10s of years -- recession. And your "market is a reflection of the economy" argument is true, but it ignores half the issue. The market is more a reflection of investor confidence in the economy, which doesn't always parallel the economy. Why do we have a stock market?  To keep track of how we're doing? Companies need capital, stock is how they get it. Remember that there's something that firms use their stock for -- things like growing the business. It's a vicious circle -- earnings drive the market, growth drives increased earnings, capital (from markets / earnings) drives growth. You can't raise any capital with stock at 0.15 a share - debt or equity. So, as usual, thanks for the correction, but don't ignore the other side of the argument. -- Sparxxx 2:40:19 PM    comment []

Man, that whole "I'm sick, but my medicine tastes bad" thing should read more like "I'm sick, and my medicine makes me sicker." Why would anyone invest in a shit market that is almost guaranteed to lose them money? "Let's see...Enron is at 42...I bet if I buy it now, it'll be at 15 in two weeks. Hey, sign me up!" No. The market is a casino without the mullets and free drinks. It's not, as Sweets will attest, an ATM. Investing in the market that "makes our economy great" when it's not going to do anything but impoverish you is just silly. It's like sitting on 13 when the dealer has an ace up. Stupid. Now THIS is a good time to get into the market, because shit is essentially at rock bottom. But two years ago? Shit...why get in when everyone is predicting recession? Might as well light your money on fire like Itchy at the Tycoon Convention... As for government services...this is where I wish our country were more like Canada. People are too selfish in a full-blown free market. No one wants their tax dollars to fund socialized medicine, or social security, or anything that doesn't affect them. The sad thing is, it wouldn't take much to fix a lot of this stuff. The money we've spent on defense in the last two years alone would help fund a good chunk of a nationalized health care, keep Social Security breathing and help save subpar urban schools. But since most rich people have benefits and don't have kids in public schools on the West Side of Chicago, they don't care. If it doesn't affect Whitey, Whitey doesn't care. Why do you think Reginald Denny was the number one video clip from the LA riots...you don't think blacks got beat down by themselves too? I'm not sure how business school made Bubba go all GOP on us, but my Bradley-Bulworth Democrat ass can't continue to stomach what your beloved full-blown free market does to our populace. The strata simply grow further and further apart. Blacks make as much compared to whites as they did 125 years ago. Can you imagine how wide the gap would be now WITHOUT the civil rights movement? A free market has created this "land of opportunity." Only problem is, if you didn't get here early and get your money back in the day, your window of opportunity has shrunk immeasurably. The only opportunity really left is to be born into wealth...which makes us not much more different than old-school Europe -- except the French didn't pretend not to have a stratified class system. We spin it differently here. Marcus Garvey wanted to go back to Africa why? It wasn't to re-enter the HIV/Ebola Death Lottery. It was because the options aren't much better here. If you're born poor, you are likely born to subpar parents (at the very least, in the sense that they're working two jobs and aren't around to raise you), probably stuck in subpar schools, and if you DO manage to get into a college, your choices will be financially limited. The poor in this country are victimized by a severe stagger-start...which is why we need social programs...at the very least, severe education and health-care reform. Otherwise, this is France, with King George and his upperclass cronies looking down upon the poor plebes in West Virginia and Bed-Stuy, just laughing. That's not the way it was intended to be. -- O 12:51:50 PM    comment []

1. "if you couldn't do better, we wouldn't have all of the investment options we have now." Are you kidding me?  (I have sat here stunned staring at the screen for 180 seconds trying to decide which elementary level you want to take this to, and whether or not you tested out of rate v. risk 101.) As for rate of return, gov. bonds set the lower bound...BY DEFINITION (excluding CD's which I still can't comprehend), because for reduced risk, they set the upper bound, BY DEFINITION.  So, for risk reduction, you can't do better...in fact not in the history of America has a government-backed bond defaulted.  So, if your very last meal, last pill, last heating bill was dependent upon the safety of an investment...and you had nothing other than the FUBU on your back, you're gonna choose an asset allocation that does not heavily, if not exclusively, favor government-backed investments? As for the rest of us, simply treat SS as the safest 5-10% of your overall picture, adequately fund it through the baby boomer shortage, and it will be there for you.  Keep in mind, it's less of a retirement plan, and more of a current worker handing money to current retirees plan. 2. ...and here's where you should examine your school loans for an out clause.  You have a serious problem with cause and effect.  Twice, and let me quote, "invest it in what has made America the world's greatest economy for the past 50 years" and "don't want to trust the only thing that made the economy so great during those years - the market." Actually, upon further consideration, I'm gonna change deb-hate tactics. Let's save some time and effort here.  Just return the following mea culpa and I'll let it go: ################################################## I, hater Sparxxx, realize that the market is a reflection of the economy. It would be foolish for me to state that the economy is great because the market goes up.  I realize that jobs, and earnings, and technology contribute to an economy and the market measures that.  I will not concede that the idea of a market contributes to a more frictionless capitalism and in that sense helps the economy, but nonetheless I realize that when a person has no job, no money, and no hope... that a margin loan is not the right answer because they are likely in this position because the economy and, by proxy, the market, is in the shitter. _______________ Bubba Sparxx ################################################## Only a hard-core republican would look at a recession and wonder why people of all economic strata don't see the buying opportunity. -- Sweets 12:31:56 PM    comment []

Holy rant. Look, G, I don't miss the point of Social Security, and I DON'T have a problem with paying it - unless I'm throwing it down a drain. I'm going to sum this up briefly... There's no reason, with competent people employed (and in this market, they're out there, believe me), that we can't earn better than the risk-free rate for Social Security. I know I'm not saving for my own retirement through SS, but my point is still the same -- if you couldn't do better, we wouldn't have all of the investment options we have now.  Everyone would have been satisfied with bonds. But we can, and it benefits everyone -- and by everyone, I mean everyone who will need SS, your handicapped, your 80 year old ladies, and probably NOT me -- to invest it in what has made America the world's greatest economy for the past 50 years. It's just weak to make blanket statements about how risky a long-term investment the stock market is, based on the last two years. Democrats love to talk about how much better the economy was under Clinton, but now don't want to trust the only thing that made the economy so great during those years -- the market.  And I'm not just talking about the internet bubble in 98-99, I'm talking the entire 90's, when the market grew at a superb rate even before most of us knew they had the internet on computers now. Saying the economy sucks but getting out of the stock market is like saying, "I hate being sick, but my medicine tastes bad." -- Sparxxx 12:07:52 PM    comment []

It's not the simple majority that passes things, it's the ability to set the agenda.   Blaming voter turnout on weather (which I use as a metaphor) is NOT wack, the fact that it's undeniably true means the democratic voting base IS wack.  I don't blame republicans for this nearly as much as I blame them for not using statistics to determine census.  And you can't deny that voter suppression is a republican election tactic.   You are the only 'academic' that thinks private SS is a good idea because you've only been an 'academic' for about 18 months.  You completely miss the purpose of SS if you think you're getting your own money back.  From day one it was designed for working people to pay for elderly people's retirement.  The fact that we have a population anomoly which will require additional near-term funding does not mean you'll never see a dime.  2 years ago, when we were running surplusses (and no I don't entirely credit Clinton for that, but he didn't fuck it up) SS was safe, cash was earmarked, solvent through 2025.  But we got a check in the mail with Bush's retarded head all over it, so now it's not solvent anymore.   Keep in mind that SS is not only a retirement plan, but a long-term disability insurance policy.  Not only that, but in the unlikely event that your ass outlives the life expectantcy chart, you still eat and pay utilities.  Find me an investment vehicle with a built-in insurance policy for disability and unexpected longevity that returns better than rolling t-bills with the same zero risk.  YOU CAN'T.  Oh, and add your stay-at-home wife's SS benefits to the equation too.   I can't opt out of the defense tax, you can't opt out of the social security tax.  Shut up, pay it, and hope-to-hell you never need to rely on it.  It's not all about the accumulation of wealth, it's about letting 80 yr. single women live 3 more years with dignity.  If they didn't itemize it on your paycheck, you wouldn't even notice.   You selfish little republican pricks plug $50 (that's post-tax unless you want that tax break too?) a week into your Quicken Savings Calculator and figure that the US Government is robbing you of 1.5MM in 34 years at 14% (you guys love this number too) compounded anually.  In the process, you completely miss the point.  You  miss the point that a full-tilt economy supports 3% unemployemnt, otherwise it's not lean enough.  Federal support.  You miss the point that populating an area that gets hit by earthquakes and tropical storms is not my idea of sound real-estate investing, but none-the-less federal support is in order.  Not everyone can afford an SUV, or an airplane ticket...federal Amtrak bailouts are in order.  Could you get better returns on your $50/week?  Probably, but only because you'd fit it into a comprehensive retirement strategy that includes real-estate, savings plans, 401k, with a fall-back position of college educated children to crash with.  If it was all you had, and it HAD to be there...you wouldn't even try to beat the rolling t-bill.   On election strategy, obviously we have a problem with Democratic leadership.  Obviously we have a problem with a unified message, and the Roe v. Wade decision might be too far back in the rearview mirror for people to NOT take it for granted.  But here's my point.  The Dems had economy, environment, crime -- all the big domestic issues on our side.  The republicans had War, which the Dems had ALREADY passed for Shrub.  For a standing president during a war to mug for support in a self-labeled scary time, and parlay that into support for "pro-family", drilling in Alaska, overhauling (meaning cutting) SS, Health, Welfare...and everything else that I've been hearing since the landslide.  That's wrong.  That's NOT what voters were supporting.  I guess we'll see in 2 years whether or not voters react, but irreparable damage could be done by then...girls carrying their uncle's child to term, Alaska becoming New Jersey, and anti-rights judges in court FOR LIFE.   Get your little mind out of your puckered ass, and realize that this is only a great place to live because we protect rights and protect the downtrodden, at costs.  Without democratic empathy, strict capitalism would have eaten this country alive by now.   -- Sweets 12:04:27 PM    comment []

"Republicans are not all stupid, myopic, selfish, racist, uncompassionate, isolationist polluters.  But I defy you to show me one who isn't 2 or 3 of these things."   Actually, Sweets...I'm gonna go out on a limb here. You've got seven things listed above. I'm going to wager that 90 percent of Republicans are at least 5 of the 7.   The sad thing is that not all of them are rich, and rich folks are the only people Republicans give a shit about helping. Check that -- rich WHITE MALES are the only people Republicans give a shit about helping.   Case in point: I got in an email exchange the other day with one such Republican who was gloating after an Election Day victory (thankfully, he lives in Massachusetts, where his vote can do no damage). The bile from his mouth went something like this:   Upon asking why someone who's not rich would back the Gay Old People, he replied, "I don't want my tax dollars going to fund useless programs."   Oh...yeah. I guess we NEED those extra fighter jets and "nuculer" warheads. There are so many other superpowers threatening us. Anyway, myopic, stupid and selfish are covered.   When I harped on military overspending, he added that I should like guns, because without them I'd "have nothing to rapp about, yo."   Yes, he wrote "rapp." This covers stupid and racist.   That's four out of the seven in two one-paragraph emails. Someone like Cheney is clearly batting 1.000.   I know maybe 2 Republicans that COULD qualify as only being one of the seven. But they're ALL myopic...otherwise they wouldn't be backing a guy who jailed a pot-smoker for 99 years but has himself done cocaine; refuses to sign anything resembling environmental legislation; and falsely accuses Saddam Hussein of funding terrorists and harboring terrorists while actually doing these things himself. All while starting WWIII in the interest of a gas pipeline.   That is myopic.   I also love the fact that most Republicans are what I like to call "stealth racists." Sure, they won't come out and tell a black man what they really think, but it comes out in subtle ways. And they all have their token defenses ready -- "I have lots of black friends," or "I gave money to Colin Powell," or "I love Michael Jordan." It's really scary, too, that Republicans will go back 200 years and say that their party was the anti-slavery party and that the Dems were the racists. Dumbya will parade Rice and Powell around and champion himself as the lover of all people. He was even nice enough to ask the Brazilian president about that nation's black folk.   There's a reason that Charles Barkley and J.C. Watts are the only black Republicans in America...blacks are well aware that Republicans hate them (not that the Dems help much, but at least they PRETEND to care).    Anyway...here's my view of the stereotypical Republican:   White (with hood to match), male, six-figure-plus income, Christian, anti-abortion (unless Jenna gets knocked up at a frat party), anti-masturbation, pro-gun, pro-war, pro-letting-your-CEO-friends-off-the-hook, anti-gay, anti-female, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-education (except for their own kids), anti-sex (maybe because no one will have it with them), anti-drugs (except when they're the ones using), anti-health care, anti-sharing-the-wealth, anti-violence-on-TV, pro-violence-in-real-life, anti-Marilyn Manson, anti-Eminem, and afraid of anyone who isn't one of them.   Overall, I'd say that's right on the money. They care about the richest 5 percent, and that's it. Unfortunately, many of the other 95 percent are too blind to see this, and most of the 95 percent doesn't do anything to stop the 5 percent from running shit.   Bush is a silver-spooned Ralph Wiggum with a longer criminal record than Allen Iverson (look it up) that has nothing in mind except a) getting paid; b) making sure his friends and contributors stay paid; c) fighting the battles that Daddy couldn't finish; d) using 9/11 to fuel his own agendae; e) telling you who's to blame for our problems (mostly, they wear turbans these days); and f) making everyone in America afraid to question him.   Oh...and g) forcing every nation we do business with to run things the way he sees fit.   Sounds like a plan, huh?   Wake me up when Bradley opts to run again...if our country isn't beyond Thunderdome by then.   -- O 5:20:55 AM    comment []

Aight...since everyone's been waiting for me to weigh in on election shit, I'll offer this: - Sweets ain't the only one checking out the land of Terrance and Philip. - No, I'm not registered in Illinois...and I didn't fill out an absentee either. But since IL and MA are two of the few states that fully rep the Dems, I don't really need to worry. Illinois state politics mean nothing to me...this ain't home. - What does concern me is states not named Illinois or Massachusetts that just fucked the entire nation for the next two years (minimum, depending on Court appointees). We can blame Florida for setting this mess off (stolen election what), but almost every state has some culpability now that the entire Congress has gone Chez Whitey. If the checks and balances are all in the same party as the guy who needs to be checked and balanced, then what fucking chance do we have? - If everyone who could vote did, the only Republicans in the entire Congress would be from Utah. (Kind of hypocritical for me to say, but like I said, my votes can't carry over to a state I've never lived in, and both my current and real homes go Dems always.) Anyway...enough of that bullshit...it makes me nauseous to think about. Leftwich will win the Heisman, because a) Miami will lose; and b) McGahee will take too many votes from Dorsey. Torretta didn't have a strong competitor on his own team to sway shit. If a Miami guy wins, it'll be McGahee. Bubba, last warning: get off Kwame's nuts. He has had a nice week. So did Robert Pack. Willie Burton scored 50 once, and I'll be covering him in Gary this year...so let's not toss the "bust" sticker just yet. Pervis had good weeks before, too. And no, he's not better than Yao. Better body, yes. Better fundamentally? No way. Once Yao adjusts to the pounding (and he will), he'll be solid. The learning curve is different for international guys, especially Asians. Remember, it took Rik Smits a few years to get it, but when he did, he became a top-5 center. Big guys with skill are hard to come by. 6-11 athletes like Kwame with no polish are a dime a dozen. Ask Cliff Rozier next time you stop by a Krispy Kreme in Louisville. Come to think of it, I'll ask Leon Smith (who's also better than Kwame, by the way, but needs a shrink) sometime this week. Do the Giants hate Bonds, or what? First, his teammates tank the Series. Now they won't re-up with Dusty. They WANT the man to go ringless...but still want to make money off him in the meantime. Sad... Does anyone know why Fox pulled the quick plug on "Girls Club?" Two shows is hardly a fair shot. I wonder if the controversy (middle fingers, "dyke," "bitches and dicks") was too much for the advertisers to handle. Call me a bitch, but I liked that show...and the chicks were hotter than you'll find on any other program right now. Also sad... Congress, however, is the saddest thing of all...unless, of course, you count that guy who's now going to run around unchecked doing his Hitler thang because of them. Anyone notice we have a national day of prayer now? I just saw a billboard for this shit. Whatever happened to separation? I guess an Atheist's rights go right out the window... Save me a room in Ontario, Sweets...I'm on my way. -- O 12:59:58 AM    comment []

I'm sure I'm the only one who saw the premier episode of "Around the Horn" with Max Kellerman on Monday, since its 5:00 time slot means Rizz, Pimpi and Sweets were either at or on the way home from work, O'Leary has no cable, and DDDMan is, well, in Malaysia.   But this is a good show.   He gets four sportswriters from around the country, throws out shit, and gives them points if they make some sort of logical, thought-out, non-shit-out-of-their-mouth points.  He's also got this ill mute button that he uses to hate on cats that talk out of turn.   What you missed, mainly, was Bob Ryan being a jackass.   First (while discussing whether or not the Mailman should hang it up based on his goose egg over the weekend), he disses Jordan for still playing now and having "no respect for his own legacy" which I HATE, because A) it says to all athletes "fuck your team, you're playing for yourself, so if you can hang it up while you're still good instead of helping your team win in a lesser role, do it, especially if you're a superstar, B) Jordan fans aren't going to think of Jordan forever as the sixth man who played 25 minutes on an average Wizards team, we're (yes, WE, meaning including ME) going to remember the six championships, the 50 pointers against the Knicks, the battles against Barkley in '92 (Vodka what), the shot to ice Cleveland, finally beating the Pistons Jordan Rules D, breaking Bryon Russell's ankles to ice the Finals, all that, and C) Jordan ISN'T Ewing, on good nights (which are most of them), he can still score against anyone in the league, still plays relevant D, and is the ultimate leader & motivator - just as long as its for 20-25 a night and not 40-45.   Then he (Ryan) goes and cements his place as World's Biggest Sports Jackass by saying that jumping on Yao Ming's dick now would be the journalistic equivalent of buying Microsoft in 1985.  You must be shitting me. Yao Ming sucks, and I hate all the attention he's getting. "Will Yao suck all year?  When will he break through?  How many years away?" All because he's 7'5" and Chinese.   Kwame Brown is and was a much better player than Yao, and when he started last year this way, everyone immediately said, "Bust.  Too early." But now, only a year later, he's representing, and no one's eating their wingtips like they should be.    Ditto for Tyson Chandler in Chicago. No one said at the beginning of the season, "Will Kwame and Tyson and Eddy Curry break out this year?", but even though Yao will average less than 6 points a game this year (in way more minutes), that's what EVERYONE will be saying before next season. And it won't happen.  Manute Bol with range.   PTI is the hatinest show on TV.  I love these fucking guys.  Post (ouch, this hurts to say) sports what.   And now, to really set shit off...   Who gets the Bronze Stiffarm Trophy? No one deserves it, which means the exact same thing that happened the last time no one deserved it will happen -- and I mean EXACTLY.   Ken Dorsey is not great - he's on a great team, he does what it takes to win, he's probably not even the best player on his team - in short, he's Gino Torretta.   And Torretta won a Heisman when everyone else sucked, which is why Dorsey will, too.   -- Sparxxx 12:41:27 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2002 Ryan O'Leary. Last update: 12/1/2002; 1:26:51 AM.