Thoughts From The Frontline - All Comments

re: How Not to Run a Pension

Navdeeep — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:32:06 GMT

I think I am at the right place at the right time

[url=www.morxplore.com/seo_services.html]SEO Services Ludhiana|Web Developers India[/url]

re: Dr. Frankenstein’s Europe

margore — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:30:52 GMT

_, Les hommes adultes demandent souvent au problème s'ils peuvent mélanger des médecines de thérapie d'impuissance ces sortes de comme Viagra, Cialis ou Levitra avec l'alcool. Gentiment, la réponse est sûre! Mais, sur le problème que l'on évite de l'alcool d'excès. En fait, si vous lisez la brochure d'instruction qui vient avec votre paquet de Viagra, vous reconnaîtrez qu'il vous conseille de ne pas boire de l'alcool même si vous êtes sur Viagra. Il y a des facteurs pourquoi les professionnels médicaux ne recommandent pas de mélanger de l'alcool avec Viagra, Cialis et Levitra c'est dans votre meilleur intérêt d'adhérer à ces conseils. Les causes pourquoi vous devez prendre non seulement de l'alcool en employant Viagra, Cialis <a href="http://www.achatcialisfr.com">Acheter">http://www.achatcialisfr.com">Acheter cialis en Ligne</a> ou Levitra - un. Viagra ne devrait pas être pris vraiment avec le sang thinners - Dans la conformité aux recommandations du fabricant - Viagra, Cialis ou Levitra ne devraient pas être combinés vraiment avec le sang thinners et l'alcool fait maigre le sang donc il a tendance à faire la sensation pour ne pas combiner de l'alcool avec Viagra ou avec ses médications 2 d'option. L'alcool interfère du processus d'érection - Il a été remarqué que certains mâles estiment qu'en utilisant de l'alcool devant les aides sexuelles eux pour améliorer l'expertise sexuelle mais c'est contraire à ce qui survient vraiment. Les hommes finissent par devenir fréquemment avec le battement de coeur courant et un mal de tête négatif. En plus, l'alcool est identifié pour diminuer la capacité de recevoir une érection, même cependant il peut avoir peut-être temporairement un bon impact, mais sur le total, l'alcool nie le but complet d'utiliser des médications de traitement de dysfonctionnement érectiles ces sortes de comme Viagra, Cialis et Levitra. Donc l'alcool est le meilleur a évité en utilisant ces médicaments pour atteindre des érections 3 soutenues. L'intensité de conséquences de côté Viagra peut peut-être être améliorée - certains des résultats de côté de Viagra, Cialis et Levitra sont le mal de tête, le vertige, le fait de rougir du visage, l'indigestion, la diarrhée et le mal de corps humain. Ceux-ci sont aussi les conséquences d'aspect d'ingérer de l'alcool extrême. Ainsi quand vous combinez Viagra, Cialis ou Levitra avec l'alcool vous doublez votre cote de rencontrer des effets secondaires désagréables de ces médicaments et diminuez vos chances d'apprécier l'action sexuelle normale. C'est d'habitude une bonne idée d'adhérer aux sauvegardes qui viennent avec la médication que vous pouvez utiliser. Il aide à vous éviter de souffrir des résultats d'aspect indus du médicament aussi gentiment comme reçoivent les résultats finaux les plus puissants.

http://www.achatcialisfr.com

re: Preparing for a Credit Crisis

Andrew Reynolds — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:51:28 GMT

CHECK OUT WHY THIS DIVERSE POOL OF SMALL AND MID CAP STOCKS SHOULD BE A PART OF YOUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.

NVE Energy Inc. (NVE)

Brocade Communications Inc. (BRCD)

Weyerhaeuser Co. (WY)

portfoliobuilderstockmarket2.blogspot.com

re: Kicking the Can to the End of the Road

Andrew Reynolds — Mon, 16 May 2011 03:10:40 GMT

CHECK OUT WHY THIS DIVERSE POOL OF SMALL AND MID CAP STOCKS SHOULD BE A PART OF YOUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.

portfoliobuilderstockmarket2.blogspot.com

re: The Cure for High Prices

inthemoneystocks — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:50:56 GMT

How low can the Federal Reserve allow the U.S. Dollar to decline? Every trader and investors understands the argument that a weak U.S. Dollar will usually boost exports and help to create inflation.

re: Thinking the Unthinkable

adrian meli — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:13:24 GMT

John, thanks for flagging Ronan Lyons' blog. I went through the site and he has some interesting data on there and I thought his point/your point was spot on. In general, it seems more auspicious to take your medicine now so you can see a brighter future than to muttle along forever. Ireland is obviously in for some short term pain but they can look forward to a brighter future. And, Lively is a very pretty baby. - Adrian Meli

re: O Deflation, Where is Thy Sting?

easystar — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:45:19 GMT

I am abit puzzle by the claim that lower home prices does not help anyone - it certainly helps those who want to buy a house.

High food price is very good for those who have a stockpile of food too - I don't think that is a good thing.

So, high house price only benefits those who currently have a house, at the expense of those who don't.

Adam Smith said a house is an expense. It is not a cash machine. The sort of MEW powered economy needs to be restructued. Going back down the old ways is crazy.

re: Be Careful What You Wish For

Hamp Skelton — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:52:10 GMT

This is a very sensible column. If the Republican congressmen and senators who stand to take over their respective sides of our legislative branch were statesmen, they would heed John Mauldin's warnings. Unfortunately for the country and the world, they are anything but statesmen. Mitch McConnell is on record as saying the number one priority for his party is to make sure Obama is a one-term president. So, he is telegraphing his (and his party's) willingness to deepen the country's economic woes, harming everyone, in order to have a better chance of capturing the white house in 2012. That amounts to treason in my book, irrespective of whether you think Obama is the devil or not. We need to find a way to send th message loud and clear to all legislators of both parties that the economic crisis this country faces demands a broad bi-partisan effort to reform not only medicare but the overall approach to funding governmental obligations. The tax system is badly broken and demands complete overhaul, as does entitlement spending. We cannot afford retirement at 62, a bloated and inefficient medical care "system" and open-ended military spending, much less a bizarre tax system that rewards those who manage to live in a cash economy while punishing job creation. No, it's not worth another recession to gain full control of all branches of government. Please don't forget that when Bush II entered office, the Republicans had such control. What did they do with it? On inauguration day, 2001, we operated in such a surplus that Greenspan openly worried about what it would mean of we paid off the national debt in its entirety. The Bush-Cheney administration promptly plunged the country into structural deficit BEFORE 9-11 (yes, check your facts; they fired their loyal Republican treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, who cried foul) with an ill-considered tax cut enacted without spending reform. Then the wars and the prescription drug give-away (to big pharma) made the deficit far worse. Now, we have Republicans poised to take over Congress, but vowing in effect to make the economy worse instead of better, for partisan electoral advantage in 2012. No doubt they can be successful in making the economy worse, but why would "we the people" allow that? It's time for the public to wake up to the extreme partisanship that prevails in both parties and demand that it be replaced with statesmanship. The kind of reform broadly proposed in this article can only be enacted with bi-partisan consensus, as welfare reform was. We should withhold our votes from partisans of both parties and only elect those who vow to cross the aisle and work together for reform. Voting for "Doctor No" Republicans is counter-productive.

re: Six Impossible Things

cpot — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:11:23 GMT

Just a quick comment about 'Should the US help partially the European banks'

Well, just a reminder, it is the US that created this world-wide financial and economical mess. And this mess weakened some European countries to a point that they need a global help.

It is the same for regulation, it must be global and the next Basel rules must be applied everywhere ... including the US

re: You Should Be Careful What You Wish For

JCHarper — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:23:10 GMT

I have always wondered why we only talk about increasing consumer consumption and government spending in the US. There are other options in the GDP equation that lead to sustained growth.

We could try to increase Investment (savings) by assuring a reasonable return on savings. That investement pool is the basis for capital formation, business consumption (mostly labor) and exports.

My point is that our choice to rely on "G" instead of "I" in the accounting equation is a political choice, not an economic choice.

Cordially,

John Harper

re: The Case for a Fed Rate Hike

JCHarper — Mon, 24 May 2010 18:12:49 GMT

We keep talking in terms of liquidity (money supply, velocity etc) when the problem appears to be solvency. The entire system from individual to sovereign is bankrupt.

The fantasy that bankrupt lenders can create economic growth by lending to bankrupt borrowers is ridiculous whether it is in the home mortgage market or the sovereign debt market.

We have a global balance sheet problem - Liabilities exceed Assets and the books are out of balance. The borrowed capital has been squandered on unprofitable enterprise. In reality it is gone, gone, gone, even if we apply fantasy asset evaluation to keep the books balanced.

Keynesian economic theory only applies within a narrow range of parameters and assumes solvency. We are outside that range. The financial powers that be are pushing buttons and pulling levers connected to nothing. They are like children jerking their joysticks around after the batteries are dead.

We don't need more money, we need more real assets, goods and service for money to represent.

No amount of capital infusion (stimulus) will work if that capital is mis-allocated toward unproductive activity. Maybe you can find some experts who have workable ideas about how to allocate capital to promote true economic growth because, in truth, that is the only thing that will prevent collapse.

Cordially,

John Harper

re: The Multiplication of Money

JCHarper — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:59:29 GMT

It seems to me that the price of money (interest rates) is being set at an artificially low rate by the FED. That seems like a mandated "price control" that leads to shortages and unavailability in other markets. Why not the credit market also?

Common sense says that if the price of credit does not reflect the risk of loss, then loans won't be made no matter how much the FED increases the monetary base or how much excess reserves the banks have. The only market where interest rates reflect risk is lending to the US Treasury. That is exactly what banks are doing.

Add in the risk of government interference with contract enforcement, and my opinion is that it will require much higher interest rates to stimulate lending to individuals and small business.

Again, by just plain common sense, it seems that higher interet rates might be stimulative when the multiplier is less than one.

Is there any academic research or case studies to show how credit "price controls" and a low multiplier affect economic growth? Or is this uncharted territory?

I ask these questions here because you have access to the best minds in the world and I only have my uneducated intuition on the matter.

Cordially,

John C. Harper

re: 2010 Forecast: The Year of Uncertainty

rdschmid — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:53:45 GMT

It occurs to me that from John's content...that if you are predisposed to believing in Trickle Down economics, no amount of contra-indicative data will dissuade.

That's just how it is.

re: 2010 Forecast: The Year of Uncertainty

keilinezx — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:59:24 GMT

Yes I read your Blog it realy Informative and Intrested information You Provide in your Blog.

re: Killing the Goose

Barnhill — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:05:22 GMT

A huge amount of capital is locked up in IRA/401K retirement funds.

I propose allowing at withdrawal with zero taxes due of up to $1 million dollars but only for the purpose of buying a house.

Retirees could help their kids get into a house that is otherwise unaffordable. Retirees might buy a condo and give their house to their kids.

$1 million sounds like a lot in small midwest towns, but in Newport Beach, CA it won't purchase much of a condo.