Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ybc
ParticipantThis will be my last post.
Bgates — thanks for providing relevant data. Although in some of your arguments you assumed that I said such and such — which I didn’t. But other than that, it’s fair exchange. In the end, we are pretty much where we started. Now I know why politics is to be avoided. This is so time consuming for me that I’ll just stop posting. (I changed my password to something random, so for sure I won’t remember it, and I changed to an old email account for which I no longer remember the password – I think that I’m pretty safe from posting again once I log out!)
Since it’s my last post, I might as well add why I think that draft is necessary — because we don’t have enough as it is! If there are lines outside of the army recruiting office, and if army doesn’t need to relax its standards so much that marginal people get to serve and commit crimes overseas, if… So Bgates — when you made your argument about me “suggesting” hiring random people for a business, you really just created an argument against what you intepretated as what I said. (I spot similar pseudo arguments in other such arguments, but am too tired to go through them all). So the real issue is – is there a viable way to enhance the military without draft? If our political leaders set examples by encouraging their kids/nephews/nieces to enlist, maybe enlistment will go up. So the argument here is not whether volunteer is better than draft, it is — now that we really need more manpower to execute the war better than in the past ’cause it was so screwed up, and we don’t have enough volunteers, and we force many of volunteers to serve over and over again (isn’t that a backdoor draft? It’s abuse by our political leaders in my mind), what do we do?
Also, your “random hiring” argument ignores the fact that if people drafted pass the normal checks that military has, they are no worse than the volunteers once they’re trained.
As part of my habit of scanning news on various national papers online, I found the following, which are quite relevant to what we just discussed.
Army warns Rumsfild that it’s billions short:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,1,1852611.story?coll=la-headlines-nationTwo-thirds of MD voters support Iraq withdrawal
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/elections/bal-te.md.senate25sep25,0,81881.story?coll=bal-local-headlines
(this is just a random post. but I believe that a majority of people nationally wants to see an exit plan)Iraq tour stretched for 4000 soldiers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060925/ts_alt_afp/usiraqmilitarytroops_060925232059;_ylt=AtKZ_bsZXAuw5Thxr4FQVMkb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw–Families bear catastrophic war wounds
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-24-families-war-wounds_x.htm?csp=N009
(I didn’t do a search, this just happens to be in today’s USAtoday. But I read almost every article regarding wounded soliders everytime I saw one, and I do a lot of reading. The cost doesn’t end once they’re in the hospital or exit the hospital. Infact, I don’t know if the extra medical costs are part of the war budget).Farewell.
Participant“Also, the war’s not costing that much relative to the federal government” — better be careful there. We don’t know the full cost yet. A responsible government should shoulder the cost of taking care of the tens of thousands of soldiers who are seriously maimed in the war. I don’t know how many there are, but the lifetime cost per person should easily be in the millions if you also consider that so many of them have severe psychological trauma on top of physical injuries.
In addition, if you consider that the military is stretched thin (you may not, but I do), then the responsible attitude is to spend extra to “catch up” — just like a business that has been seriously underinvesting needs to catch up in order to maintain sustainability.
If you add everything up, the cost will be much higher than the headline cost.
The rest of your arguments — the only thing that I can say is that we’re definitely follow very different logic here. But I do agree that the likes of Jenna Bush and Paris Hilton will make really bad soliders.
September 25, 2006 at 11:23 PM in reply to: Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat #36435Participantbgates, where exactly do you get your information about Iraq? You think that it’s bad only because it wasn’t “explained” well? I’m speechless.
There are many Iraqi veterans who spoke out against the war — what do you say about that? And there are quite a few retired generals who came out criticizing the execution of the war at very high level — stragetic level, what do you say about them? I consider those as people who know what’s going on on the ground. (I think that there are quite a few returning veterans running for offices, and a dominant majority of them are running on a platform against the war. But correct me if I’m wrong here).
Cognitive scientists say that we understand the world through our own internal mapping of the world. That’s what perception is. The more I read all the debates here, the more I believe this theory.
I sincerely hope that Iraq will have a better turn, and innocent Iraqi people won’t continue to suffer so much from all the violence there (sectarian violence and/or civil war may or may not involve terrorists). The sad reality in the world is — it’s always people at the bottom who suffer greatly for mistakes made by people at the top.
ParticipantHere is a related article (also more recent)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2270473&page=1To me, if the leadership truly believes that the war is worthy and just, and if they’re actually competent — they’d listen to the generals who warned about the need for more troops instead of fire them, and they’d seriously consider draft, and raise tax to pay for the war (instead of push it as debt to pass to the next generation).
I don’t think that I’m that knowledgeable about history and politics, but I generally very good at logic and can follow common sense very well, and I keep my mind open. I read an article very early on about Richard Clarke being pushed out by the current adminsitration (that was before his book, etc), and I had a very bad feeling about our decision makers’ competency level as well as how honest they’re with the public. Unfortunately, the events that unfold since confirmed that bad feeling over and over again. If a top leader only listens to people who agree with him/her, and start to push competent people out because they have a different opinion, watch out! When it happens in business, it’s almost always bad news (and I’m very familiar with that). It seems that in politics it’s not that different.
Anyway, don’t think that anyone’s mind will change after this. Although I consider myself slightly more educated about our national leaders’ personal involvement in the war.
ParticipantInteresting, that’s good to know. What’s the source and I’m interested in reading about these congressmen’s positions on the war — I assume that their kids are on the ground and tell them real life stories. I only saw that the first Senator’s son served in Iraq. So sources about your information is appreciated. Anyway, it’ll be interesting to know whether any of the current adminsitrator’s civilian leaders have encouraged their children to enlist to fight in Iraq ’cause they believe so strongly in the war, especially if those children enlisted after the US invaded Iraq. I’d like to read such a story. Please send a link if there is one.
September 25, 2006 at 5:02 PM in reply to: Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat #36372Participant“Why do I get the feeling you would have voted against Lincoln in 1864 or FDR in 1944?”
Are you implying that Lincoln and FDR are also as incompetent as the current administration in everything they do? Hmmm…
ParticipantThat’s why individuals need to select carefully how to serve the country. The soldiers are putting their lives at danger to serve the country, only find their bravery squandered by the repeated mistakes and incompetencies of their civilian leaders.
Note that the army relaxed recruiting standards repeatitively (that’s why the likes of Green got in) because the army is so stretched. But the policy makers (or Mr. Decider) do not have the courage to acknowledge that indeed it takes a lot more to win the war (not to mention hearts and minds) — if they do, they’d re-state draft much earlier. Instead, the soldiers who volunteered got “drafted” into the war through their 2nd and 3rd tour – it’s ironic that those who talk about “freedom”, “liberty”, etc,etc, in their heart really do not care much about the troops. Isn’t there a stat saying that only one congressman has a nephew that served in Iraq? I wonder whether all the high officials / congressmen (woman)/senators have encouraged their own daughter(s) and sons, nieces and nephews to serve… Chances are — they have not.
Exam their actions, not just their words.
Participantvrudny, good analysis. So are you still shorting oil related stocks? When do you think that you’d re-enter, and what type of stocks (integrated oil, services, refinery, sand-oil, etc)?
Participantvrudny, are you rehired? Good luck.
ParticipantI’d like to come since I missed the last one. But is it possible to move it to early November? I have relatives visiting on the 11/18 weekend.
ParticipantSome Commodities Funds Pull Back
As the Run-Up Begins to Lose Energy
By SHEFALI ANAND
September 15, 2006; Page C1Some of the hottest mutual funds of the past year — ones that invest in commodities like oil and natural gas — are starting to take it on the chin.
In the past month, natural-resources and energy funds as a group have lost 6.7% of their value, according to tracking company Morningstar Inc. That has erased a big chunk of their gains for the year: Overall, they’re up only 2.6% year to date. For comparison, the broad Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is up 5.6% year to date through Sept. 13.
In the short term, the steep declines in commodities funds is bad news for mutual-fund investors, given that so many people piled into these funds in the past few months, which means they missed much of the run-up. Indeed, many investors are still putting their money into these funds. For instance, the $12.18 billion Pimco CommodityRealReturn Strategy fund gained more than $100 million from the start of the year through Aug. 31. Portfolio manager John Brynjolfsson describes the fund’s growth in the past few years as “astronomical.”
Commodities prices are famously volatile — oil prices can soar on Mideast tensions; gold tumbles when inflation worries ease — so they easily could swing back again. And there are a few relatively bright spots. Funds focusing on gold and precious metals are still up 16% since the start of the year, even though they have fallen back a bit recently.
But other important assets are in sharp reversal. Just yesterday, natural-gas prices fell 10% to their lowest close in two years, on news the Energy Department has bigger-than-expected natural-gas inventories. Overall, prices are down 68% from a peak in December.
That is just one of several reasons why energy-heavy funds have been hit particularly hard. After touching a high of about $77 a barrel in July this year, oil closed at $63.22 yesterday, partly due to high inventories of oil in the U.S.
The price swings hammer home the fact that funds like these are best used as a way to diversify a portfolio, but not as a core holding. The advantage of commodities is that their prices generally don’t move in sync with stock or bond prices — and thus, a modest holding of commodities in a portfolio can stabilize the portfolio’s returns over the long term.
Investors already in these funds shouldn’t panic. However, investors who have held the funds for a few years might take this as an opportunity to trim back those positions if the funds have appreciated significantly since they were purchased.
For people who have sat out the commodities run-up, now might not be an auspicious time to jump in. The best strategy is to put only small amounts of money into funds like these, over an extended period of time, rather than try to guess whether or not the market has peaked or hit bottom.
With the sharp jump in oil prices over the past year or so, “I’d be hesitant to even start initiating that piece now,” says Scott Greenbaum, a fee-only financial adviser based in New York.
Commodities can move in long cycles. For instance, gold prices went into a 20-year bear market after peaking in the 1980s, and picked up only during the past few years. Fears about inflation, terrorism and the possibility of a weakening dollar have been driving its price.
The jury is still out about whether the rise in commodity prices is near its peak, though some economists think so. Earlier this month, Morgan Stanley’s chief economist, Stephen Roach, said that “the mega-run for commodities has run its course.”
Others think the price retreat of the past month or so is a temporary blip. Robert Shearer, portfolio manager for the Merrill Lynch Natural Resources Trust fund, says the current decline in price of oil is one of about five downdrafts since 2005. “We’ve not seen a fundamental change in the supply and demand,” says Mr. Shearer, who is bullish on the long-term prospects of oil. His fund has about 80% of its $418 million in stocks of companies that work in energy-related fields, such as exploring, drilling or refining natural gas or oil.
Natural-resources stock funds are distinctly different from some funds that include the word “commodity” or “real assets” in their name, as these commodity funds don’t buy stocks of companies. Instead, they buy complex financial instruments called “derivatives” to mimic a broad commodity index. For instance, the Pimco fund attempts to track the performance of the Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Total Return Index, which is made up of 19 commodities including oil, gold and some less-snazzy ones like soybeans and live cattle.
While funds like these are less dependent on one particular kind of commodity — making them more diversified — investors should note that some can trigger higher taxes. The Pimco fund, for instance, pays part of its yield to investors in the form of ordinary income, which is charged at an individual’s income-tax rate, which can be higher than other rates.
The fund’s manager, Mr. Brynjolfsson, believes the bull market in commodities is “alive and well,” but points out that a lot depends on the broad economy. “If we were to go into a recession or a slowdown, commodities would likely fall further,” he says.
On the other hand, if inflation were to accelerate, or even worse, the economy were to experience so-called stagflation — a situation with relatively high inflation but stagnant economic growth — commodities would be among the few sectors that would do well, he says. The Pimco fund is down 5.5% year to date and is negative 3.3% for the past 12 months, but it is up about 15% a year for the three years ended Sept. 13, according to Morningstar.
“Hopefully, all commodity investors are investing with a long-term view,” says Mr. Brynjolfsson.
ParticipantAlthough I hate to admit it, I think that Perry’s generalization about women being more emotional about houses is true. But a rational woman (like powayseller and others on the board) is no less rational than a rational man. I also think that women in general are more pragmatic and grounded — they know their priorities. It could be that making a killing by selling her house is simply not a priority. It’s more about making a home, raising kids, etc. A friend related such a story: once a realtor knocked on her door asking whether she’d like to sell her house (that’s back in 05 in CV when housing market was hot!), and her 5 year old overheard and yelled — mom, don’t sell our house! If her kids are emotionally attached to the house, so is she.
So all in all it’s good to have women’s more pragmatic thinking balancing out men’s desire to profit, etc. By this measure, housing, barring a really bad local economic recession, will more likely decline slowly, rather than return to equilibrium pricing quickly.
ParticipantI once researched nonlinear control theory, very abstract stuff! So glad that I left the field…
If you’re willing to consider different career path, try a) risk management in the insurance field. There is an article on the latest Fortune magazine talking about the hard science behind risk models, and that may interest you and some of your experience may apply. And b)a quant career on the wall street (financial services industry, asset management) could be possible.
These are two that come to mind. I’m not ware of academic/research positions.
ParticipantI think that Japan actually did a good job in protecting their high tech jobs — by making the Japanese market more closed, by giving R&D incentives (and loans via low interest rate), and by virtue of its culture of life-time employment. The result is mixed. It definitely helped to preserve the middle class (good for citizens), and a strong high tech industry such as the precision instrumentation and machinery sector. The cons include heavily inefficient industrial complexes engaged in many subscale “high tech” segments — look at NEC, Toshiba, etc. The Japanese economy also stagnated. In addition, because of the life-long employment promise made to the older workers, more younger workers are only hired as part-timers, so they are a lot more disallusioned.
US is the opposite — more open, survival of the fittest type of competitive environment. The plus is that a US company is very competitive globally, the minus is that it may come at the cost of displaced US workers. I think that the government did a terrible job in building the right incentive systems (education, tax, R&D credit, worker retraining, etc).
It is what it is. As individuals, do what Boston_and_OC did — find a niche where you have more competitive advantage over others; this is how everyone survives in the global market place.
-
AuthorPosts