Turmoil

What a wild ride in the markets and economy. Sorry for not posting for a while; the market downturn to new lows plus some other events really put me into a bit of turmoil. I would not be honest if I pretended not to be shaken by the current economic climate and markets.

Nevertheless, all is not without hope. The Christians' faith is in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is our ultimate anchor in every storm. I have concerns, but I also have Christ. Better yet, Christ has me.

The markets continue to be a concern to those who have saved and invested for their future. It has definitely been a tough, disappointing ride in just a three month time span. Still, after its dip below the 8,000 level, the Dow Jones Industrial Average returned above that level where it is showing some stability. I remain concerned and spooked, but I am trying to regain my own stability and work on recovery from the downturn. I remain positive that applying my lessons learned will assist greatly in recovering from this turmoil.

All Not Lost Yet

Just when I was beginning to think I missed my market range predictions entirely, something strange happened. The market reversed direction yesterday. Expecting some new announcment from the government, fed, or someone, I found nothing to account for the turnaround other than buyers found stock prices attractive and came back into the market. Even in spite of announcements from Intel with lowered earnings expectations in the near quarters, which depressed the market early, the stock and broader markets provided a surge before the close.

This is a good sign, because it indicates that stocks are beginning to find their new price support levels from which to trade. This makes for good basing action and, hopefully, support for future recovery.

Stock market indeces tend to be leading indicators, meaning that prices tend to take into account future expectations. If price support levels hold up generally well even under current bad news, it means that investors & traders are already positioning for recovery. As always, time will tell.

A Little Lower

I expected today to be more positive for the markets. After a couple of days's declines, I was looking for some flattening out. But now the DJI is at 8283, a bit below my predicted 8300. Still a lot of unknowns, but I'm still hoping for some post-election quieting down. We'll see.

Time for Obama to Make Decisions

Two days of post election with the winner Obama has resulted in two days of market downturn to the tune of about 930 points on the Dow Jones Industrials (DJI) index.

This is still in keeping with my prediction that the stock market will begin settling out and forming a base ("Calming Down"). I'm pegging a DJI trading range between 8300 and 9500. Those aren't absolute precise figures, but I think they are close.

Obama needs to state make economic decisions known, though. As I previously wrote, I think that we will see a weaker market with an Obama win because no one really knows how his economic policies will shape up. I doubt that even he knows. He promised higher taxes - for the "wealthy" of course - but also backed down saying that he would postpone raising taxes if the economy is in recession.

I mentioned to my wife that a vast majority believe, probably, that the administration of President Bush is over and that Obama is now President. I think that Obama believes that, so it is now up to him to clarify and solidify his economic policy ideas. Waffling during the election is one thing; declaring uncertainty now is quite another. It's too late for that. Time to fish since cutting bait is no longer one of his options.

Yep

Still on target...

*****

Indications: U.S. stock futures trade lower after Obama victory
By Steve Goldstein MarketWatch11/5/2008 5:17:00 AM

U.S. stock futures dropped Wednesday as traders locked in profits and focused on the deteriorating economy that President-elect Barack Obama will inherit.

Right So Far

Looks like my post from yesterday was right. Even before election results are anywhere close to being known, investors and traders are just glad to get this election over with. The Dow jones Industrials opened with a gain this morning. Time will tell.

Calming Down?

I predict that after tomorrow (election day), the stock markets will begin to show calmer action and finally begin to form a reasonable base. My reason is simple: we won’t be as subject to the end-of-the-world, gloom-and-doom scenarios we have been enduring in these weeks, months, and years of political mayhem. A great deal of the panic-induced choppiness will begin to be eliminated, and both investors and traders will begin to make reasonable decisions again.

I think that the markets will respond more favorably to a McCain win than to an Obama win, but that’s just me. The markets will tend to better understand and digest McCain’s proposals. Obama’s policies remain largely unformed and, therefore, present a higher degree of uncertainty. On the other hand, the markets appear to be responding favorably now to government-imposed “solutions” to the economic “crisis.” Either way, I still think that we will begin to see and experience narrower price swings in the markets.

All of these views are predicated on the assumption that there is no new major catastrophe – natural or man-made – that afflicts us at home or abroad. Any such incident is going to naturally cause a disruption in the markets.

No Spontaneous Big Bang Yet

My imagination was sparked a few weeks ago as newspaper headlines announced the recreation of a “big bang.” Being scientifically inquisitive, I proceeded to read the articles in their entirety. And, being scientifically inquisitive, I found myself making a couple of observations about what I discovered.

First, in spite of the headline leads, there has not been a “big bang” yet. What has really happened is that the particle accelerator that they hope to use has been tested. Are professional journalists taught to constantly deceive their paying public with cleverly crafted but misleading headlines? Is that what constitutes responsible journalism?

Second, I observe that in order to attempt a recreation of the “big bang,” a machine had to be created. Then the created particular matter from which the process begins has to be provided. Finally, the correct environment has to be created in order for the process to get started. It requires the guiding hands of many scientific and technical creators to make a “big bang” recreation happen. Hmmm… appears to be some food for thought here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” - Genesis 1:1.

There are some who may read this and think, “What a fool to believe the preposterous idea that something created something out of nothing!” I admit that this is indeed a preposterous, fantastic belief . At the same time, I invite you to consider the skeptical atheist’s alternative belief concerning the origin of the universe: nothing created something out of nothing. I fail the atheist’s test. I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

Dangers of the Command System Economy

*****
"I think it's safe to say, ladies and gentlemen, that houses for people who cannot afford houses is a failed experiment."

"Central planning does not work. Central planning gave us the Soviet Union. Central planning gave us North Korea. Central planning gave us Cuba. Tell me if you want to replicate that." -- Rush Limbaugh, 9/15/08
*****

Not everyone cares for Rush, but not everything he says is off the wall, either. Most of the time, his comments about economics are very well measured and on solid ground. He makes some observations that provide a very good perspective on the current turmoil: "Capitalism is not the problem." The article by Robert Higgs that he references is "Ticking Time Bomb Explodes, Public Is Shocked." With regard to Higgs' article, I submit that what he calls "democracy in action" is more like "mob rule." America's Founders knew the danger of "mob rule," even under the guise of "democracy." This is why they jettisoned the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitutional Republic. Unfortunately, citizens have gotten away from the lessons provided by our Founders and by sound economics. Thus, we have this kind of a mess in which our votes will go toward the candidate we think most likely will save us from our problems instead of toward candidates that espouse economic freedom and responsibility.

Socialists/collectivists/central planners love economic crises such as this, even though it stems from their policies and not a free (ie, capitalist) market, because they can then turn around and use it to shore up their calls for more centralized control. I will be open to thinking that such a scheme is good only when someone can demonstrate with empirical data (proof) the nation or nations that have benefited politically and economically from a command system economy. (For those who are tempted to say "China," first consider this: China's economy has grown since it made very small moves toward a market economy. The more the central planning, the less favorable the economic results.)

Well, there's a lot here to digest, but this forms the crux of how much longer we will enjoy our American liberties. I have a feeling that we will see a lot more of them evaporate ere this all dies down.

Are They Nuts?

"Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases." -- FOX News, 9/15/08

Have they gone stark-raving mad in Britain? What kind of legal precedence is going to be set when a judicial ruling in one system clashes with a judicial ruling in the other system? What is British jurisprudence going to do when a sharia court orders a death penalty by stoning?

In 2006, Mark Steyn wrote the book entitled America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. It is looking more and more as if this is not idle speculation.

Remember

Seven years ago, Americans witnessed and experienced the most catastrophic attack ever inflicted upon our shores by any enemy. The assault came from a group of Islamic jihadists who had declared war on America several years before; a declaration that went largely unnoticed and was largely ignored by most Americans. The event on 9/11 was so cataclysmic that it even drove our congressmen and congresswomen to gather in unity on the steps of the capitol to sing “God Bless America” and to declare their solidarity against all enemies who dare attempt to inflict America with such unprovoked attacks.

Although building for decades, the plans to take purposeful aim at America solidified among many Islamic jihad organizations when the Saudis accepted the assistance of America to defend Saudi Arabia and oppose the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait instead of calling upon armed Muslim groups such as al-Qaeda (see The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, pages 156-161 for more detail). Thus began the progression of violence against American assets that culminated in the terror of 9/11/2001 and American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In these seven years, the only reason that America has not been subject to more atrocities is because of the disruption of the jihadi terror cells during the Global War against terror. Thanks to the vigilance of the Armed Forces and security personnel of America and her allies, other acts of planned terrorism have been thwarted. Sadly, at the same time, Americans fragment over how to handle these enemies who are still conducting their war against us. A lot has happened since that terrible day, and thankfully we have not experienced anything like it again, but if we need a reminder of why we are at war, I invite us to look again at the photos and videos of 9/11/01 and experience once more the stake of terrorism that was painfully thrust through the hearts of all Americans. Use this 9/11 anniversary to not only reflect upon the losses we sustained on that day and the subsequent heroism of all Americans fighting our enemies, but to also remember the unity we need to display in order to demonstrate to this world that Americans will not be defeated. “United we stand, and in God we trust.”

Political Donors - Still the Big Guys

The Sen. Barack H. Obama continues to convince his gullible minions that his campaign does not accept contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs) or Washington lobbyists. He declares that his campaign is fueled by individual, small donors, not big, deep pocket, corporate donors. Then the Sen. Barack H. Obama makes the audacious declaration to the even more gullible that the entire Democrat party will not accept PAC, lobbyist, and corporate big money.

The dirty little secret is that none of this squares with the actual filings and records that are maintained on political contributions. A list of top 10 political donors since 1989, compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (see the list at Human Events), reveals that most of the big money given by organizations and corporations goes to the Democrat party.

I've done the math for you... Of the $305,777,033 cited in the list, $243,532,628 have gone to the Democrat party. That's 80% of the total amount given by the top 10 donors!

Of the top 10 donors, six are union organizations. Instead of giving these hundreds of millions of dollars away to politicians, couldn't they use this money to actually serve their paying members? How many foreclosures and utility shutoffs could have been prevented if they had allowed their members to actually keep the money they earn instead of paying for benefits for politicians? Remarkable, isn't it?

Don't forget, think logically and vote responsibly.

National and International Security

Just applying my old school lessons of compare and contrast...

*****
...On NBC's "Meet the Press" last month, Sen. Joe Biden was asked whether he would support military action against Iran if the Iranians were to go "full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb."No, of course not. There is, Biden said, "no imminent threat at this point."

...On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Sen. Biden lightly dismissed the North Koreans, saying their "government's like an eighth-grader with a small bomb looking for attention" and that we "don't even have the intelligence community saying they're certain they have a nuclear weapon." -- Ann Coulter, "Liberals: Born to Run," Human Events, 7/19/06

*****

*****
...Still, it was Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican widely touted as a possible future president of the United States, who may have been the most blunt about the implications of the developing crisis in the Middle East. Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press in April of 2006, McCain warned that "there's only one thing worse than using the option of military action, and that is the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons.' If Iran gets the bomb, he says, "I think we could have Armageddon." -- Joel C. Rosenberg, Epicenter, Tyndale Press, 2006, p. xiv.
*****

America and the world has faced tons of "no imminent threats" before with all equal results: devastation. The bad news is that the first strike devastation from all those "no imminent threats" out there keeps increasing.

I want a warrior, not a lawyer, as my next president.

A Joe Biden Sound Bite

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent, I'm not joking." -- Sen. Joe Biden, while campaigning in 2006 (MCT, "Biden is seasoned politician," 8/24/2008)

The Democrat Dynamic Duo

As everyone probably knows by now, Sen. Barack H. Obama finally quit playing coy with his fans (I know who I have selected, but I'm not telling anyone yet) and named his running mate - Sen. Joe Biden.

Yep, the "gonna change Washington & America & the world" presidential candidate chose a typical long-time liberal Washington insider. Just one of the many ways, I suppose, that Sen. Barack H. Obama is going to bring about new hope and change.

Change...

I figure that's about all we'll have left after this dynamic duo gets done with us.

Russian Imperialism

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." -- President Bush

In response to American opposition to the Russian invasion of Georgia, Big Media immediately demonstrates their lack of support for anything that smacks of defending freedom. Ed henry, CNN, "What's the difference here between the Russians doing what the United States did after 9/11, moving into a sovereign country like Iraq?" (8/13/08)

Amazing. Leave it to liberalism and America's enemies to try to make Russia-Georgia and America-Iraq equivalent. America did not invade a sovereign nation; Russia did. Iraq surrendered its sovereignty when it invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait. At that moment, Iraq was no more sovereign than Nazi Germany. Accepting a cease fire after watching its crack Iraqi divisions disappear, Iraq submitted to treaties that were specified through U.N resolutions. Iraq then proceeded to violate these resolutions and treaties. When it did that, it also once again vacated its sovereignty.

I'm all for world peace, but I don't care to be anyone else's vassal to attain it.

(photo: Russia invades Georgia)

Global Warming - The Solution Revealed

"...So, those who believe disaster is around the corner face a dilemma: while they’re educating their fellow citizens and demanding governments regulate believers and non-believers alike, the problem continues, and the date of the world’s doom draws ever closer. But there is a solution. It’s relatively simple, can begin immediately, and will change the dynamics of global warming overnight. Instead of continuing to preach to the rest of us, the true believers need to step forward and set an example. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles; I’m talking about giving up cars and moving into smaller houses or apartments, or even forming communes where people can live simpler, more Earth-friendly lives. Yes, I’m talking about living the kinds of lives they want all of us to live.Such a movement could literally start tomorrow. It would need a leader, of course; someone who could inspire others to choose a more spartan lifestyle. The obvious choice would be Al Gore, who already has a loyal following. If he would eschew large homes, gas-guzzling cars, private jets and the consumption of meat, millions more would likely do the same. If enough people joined the cause, Mr. Gore and his followers would be able to demonstrate the results of this new way of living in very short order. They could lead by example. They could create a movement. They could have uniforms and badges and secret handshakes. The could have their own reality TV show. In short, they could become a major force for change. Carmakers would be driven out of business or forced to dramatically alter their products to meet the demands of this eco-friendly Gorian tsunami. Companies of all stripes would, similarly, have to adapt or perish.

Once the rest of us saw the presumed reversal (or at least slowing-down) of global warming, it would do more to convince us than any lecture or study signed by UN scientists, and it would likely add millions more to the cause. So what if you can’t get one-hundred percent co-operation initially? Wouldn’t half (or a third or a quarter) of the population make a huge difference if they made substantial sacrifices? You could argue it wouldn’t be fair to have some of us going on abusing the planet and leading our lives of consumption and gluttony while others are putting aside the trappings of modern life, but this isn’t about fairness; it’s about survival.The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. Just think of millions and millions of committed Americans making the personal sacrifices necessary to demonstrate their resolve to combat man-made global warming. And, most important, thanks to their efforts, theory would be replaced by fact. It’s much easier to argue about a study than it is to refute the demonstrable results when the temperature drops and the ocean levels stabilize. When future generations write of the sacrifices of these men and women, they’ll use words like “inspirational” and “heroic”.

And so, I urge the advocates for change to embark on this important mission. Do it for the children. Godspeed." -- Pat Sajak, "A Solution to Man-Made Global Warming"

Questions for Global Warming Alarmists

Here are some questions for global warming alarmists:

1. What is the perfect temperature?

2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?

3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?

4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?

5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?

6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?

7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?

8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?

9. How will we measure our successes?

10. How has this movement gained such momentum?

Thanks to Pat Sajak for asking.

Why Leave a Workers’ Paradise?

I’m watching some Olympics and enjoying the coverage on extra channels. Getting to see some of the contests not normally shown, like boxing. So, I really perked up during a bout that included a fighter from Cuba when the announcers commented that the Cuban team lacked the international experience of the other teams because they were not allowed to go to the world events for fear of defection.

Defection? From the workers’ paradise of Cuba? The land of health care and government benefits for everyone? Why would any Cuban want to defect from there? I don’t get it.


(Photo: Amateur standout Guillermo Rigondeaux, right, tried defecting from Cuba in hopes of pursuing a career as a professional boxer -- and was punished severely for it.)

The Obama PAC

The Sen. Barack H. Obama has enjoyed crowing about his campaign’s refusal to accept money from Political Action Committees (PACs). The Sen. Barack H. Obama declares that he and his entire party will not be beholden to anyone except the “American citizen.” No corporate or political fat cats will derail his drive for “hope and change.” (No PAC money? Really? Consider this pro-Obama PAC ad.)

It turns out, though, that the Senator has no qualms about using his own PAC to influence Washington politics. What? You never heard about the Sen. Barack H. Obama’s PAC? Funny how that seems to be overlooked by both the Senator and Big Media. Turns out that the Sen. Barack H. Obama established a PAC called the Hopefund.

*****
Hopefund is what is known as a “leadership PAC,” a frequent target of campaign watchdogs because it can raise money in much larger bundles than individual candidates. The Candidate of Hope from Illinois followed the example set by Senate and House members who establish such accounts to raise money and then spread it around to other politicians in the hopes of gaining new best friends. Legally, such PACs are supposed to operate independently and cannot coordinate with any campaigns of their owner.
Now that Obama is running for president, he's handing out the bulk of Hopefund money to politicians and groups who happen to be in early presidential voting states, as the Washington Post's John Solomon noted the other day. The pace of giving has increased in recent months and this has led to some remarkable coincidences. – Andrew Malcolm, “Turns out, some Obama PAC money comes from PACs.” (See also “Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations,” Washington Post, 11/30/07.)
*****

Because of the complicated, convoluted methods of political campaign funding, virtually none of the Sen. Barack H. Obama’s “American citizens” have a clue about how his and his Democrat party’s campaigns are funded. It’s too hard to figure out. How many of you aren’t already looking cross-eyed by now, if you have read this far? The sad result, though, is that the Sen. Barack H. Obama can make his public declarations without very much worry that his cheering minions, who are also forking over dollars they need to pay for mortgages, food, healthcare, and transportation, will ever have a clue who the Senator will be paying back.

Consider the Service Employees International Union, which “spent over $9 million during a crucial three month period to help the Big O secure the Democrats’ nomination.” (William Tate, “Obama, the PAC-Man,” The American Thinker, 7/10/08.) The article goes on to disclose that “…SEIU’s PACs have paid for such campaign essentials as door-to-door canvassing for Obama, voter identification and registration, and even bus rental and food for pro-Obama rallies.” Ironically, Federal Election rules require that “independent expenditures” by political committees be limited to communications.

Sadly, with Big Media rooting for the Sen. Barack H. Obama, these complex revelations will remain largely buried. But, I guess we can all take small solace in knowing that if the Sen. Barack H. Obama is elected as our next president, he really won’t be any different than anyone else who would be on the ticket. So much for “hope and change.”

(photo: Obama plays the crowd)