Well said John Pilger.
One point that I believe requires more attention is the line in the essay that ties Jihad with the Palestinian occupation. This point - absolutely correct in my view - could also include the point that the occupation of Palestine is itself driven by fundamentalist religious groups in Britian and elsewhere (including Australia) but (despite the powerful American Jewish lobby) predominately by the evangelical American right which of course see the Jewish takeover of Palestine as the precurser to the return of the Dark Invader himself - ie Christ. Then of course, all our self created problems will be solved, the guilty (whoever they may be) will be punished, the dead will rise, and we will all live happily ever after under the direct stewardship of the self-styled 'son of god' until of course we are all hauled up before the 'big fella' himself.
The misery and suffering of the Palestinian people, like that of the Vietnamese people (and many others) before, has no influence or standing when the world-wide religious lobby is in full stride in it's promotion of the latest 'imminent return' of the 'prince of peace' in all his glory.

When, as seems to be the case, some sixty percent of the citizens of the world's largest military power - a country with better access to teriary education per head than (I am told) any other country in the world - believe in the Genesis creation myth and the convoluted nonsensical prophecies allegedly contained in the 'book of all books' then there seems little hope that any one person regardless of the strength and basis of his mandate can do anything about our seemingly headlong rush to economic breakdown and collective self-immolation.

Pilger has built a long and successful career out of complaining about all the things he doesn't like. Never, as far as I know, has he attempted to explain how the kind of state he thinks is desirable could conceivably be achieved by any likely or possible changes to the current status quo. In terms of positive contributions to human progress I put Pilger slightly below John O'Brien's Hanrahan:

http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/obrienj/poetry/hanrahan.html

"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."

Why all the hype about Obama's ethnicity/race/minority status as indicative of major change in internal and external policies for the US? Pakistan had a female Prime Minister for a time, what difference did that make to the status of women in that country? Israel will still receive uncritical support no matter what outrages it commits and American policies will not change in regard to the ME. However, American power is in decline,in 20 years time the World won't care about US presidential elections. For those of us who don't give a rat's, that will be a welcome development

When youre in the mire then anything will do tp get you out. You can only hope.

Before we start building up hopes about what the black knight in shining armour will do consider this. Ask what the black knighht will be allowed to do.

The Democratic lobby has always been strongly fascist and pro-Zionist. They are king-maker. They make the rules.They pull the strings. When you try going your own way like JFK then youll end up like him.

NOTHING will change.
The lobby is still there pulling the strings.They have hit pay gold.They have a mouthpiece who sounds great,looks great -the right colour - and is an icon the serfs and villeins want to trust to get them out of the mire that America has become.

Al I unduly pessimistic?
No. I study history.

socratease

Pilger's right. He hasn't caught 'Obama fever' like the rest of the elite media.

Of course Obama painted himselt as all things to all people. The realisation about his true position on Israel is just the start of things to come.

How many of those US christians knew he intended to use their money to pay for abortions in the developing world?

How many knew he intended to allow killing to further scientific experiments in health care?

I await the ructions among his blinded supporters when he doesn't close Gitmo and expands the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

And after he raises taxes and ensures a deeper and more prolonged depression I wonder at the media headlines as his supporters in the media lose their jobs

Now we have Obama, at least we can say the change was needed after Bush and Co.

Furthermore, the anger expressed by Pilger and Co might help to steer a learning Obama on the straight and narrow, as more expressed by scientific reasoning, rather than so poorly expressed by Bush with his imaginary Heavenly Father always by his side

Personally I think those us on the left should at least wait and see how things develop and leave the sour grapes pooh-bahing to those on the right.

At the very least Obama offers the possibility of something new emerging. A new inclusive vision beyond the divisive posturing, hype and deadly lies of the neo-psychotics which were leading us down the path of universal cultural dis-integration.

After all the, The USA in particular (as a result of the Bushites), and the world in general is in such a mess that a new President and administration would find it difficult to know where to start.

Plus all of the seemingly insurmountable problems are very much inter-related too.

Meanwhile I quite liked the posting on Truthout by Henry Giroux titled Obama & The Promise of education. Which points out that a lot of work needs to be done by those of good will to turn things around.

keith, you make two claims here:

"How many of those US christians knew he intended to use their money to pay for abortions in the developing world?"

"How many knew he intended to allow killing to further scientific experiments in health care?"

I already laid these claims of yours to waste here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8167#127470

Everybody damn well knew his stance on abortions. It'd been reported about ad-nauseum. He even set up a website at the start of his campaign, where he emphasised his pro-choice leanings, but also mentioned he'd like to see more effective use and education regarding the prevention of pregnancy.

It's a similar story for his attitude toward research and embryonic stem cells.
Keith, you must be able to realise, that if he was backflipping or lying or even changing his stance, every conservative outlet in the world would be shrieking about his backflip.

They're not. Where's the examples huh? Can you find even one? Where's it say he changed his stance?

It would be an idiotic claim, as the media is littered with reporting of his stances on these issues.

It's codswallop. You're just saying that because you didn't know it, but if you'd taken the time to look, you'd see that on these two issues, his position was very very clear.

Agreed, Ho Hum. It'll be several weeks before he assumes authority yet he's being fingered for worsening the unholy mess created by the goofball he's replacing.

More references to the 'elite media'. Can anyone tell me who belongs to it? It's a line propagated by disaffected rightwing rubes.

Keith, John Howard did an interview on Fox recently during which he was addressed as "Mr Prime Minister". It amazes me how those living in the bizarro neocon world get to live in their own little universe apparently oblivious to the reality-based one. Come back Keith before it's too late!

Great call Pilge! A relief that brave voices can still be heard against the corrupt tide, especially at this time that the liberalist cult of free-trade savagery and individualism finally brings about the societal and civilizational disintegration it always promised.

All the leftie dopes need to realise the answer is the Austrian school of economic theory. To hell with Marx and his basic belief that booms and busts are inherent in the capitalist system. (He believed that because they only came into existance after the industrial revolution) and the Keynesian extension that consumerism causes the booms and busts in our economic cycle. And worse still that the tinkering by central banks and governments actually can fix things.

They created the mess ... sigh ... in the first place, but I doubt any of you fools could even begin to understand the ideas or histories involved. None of you would have even read them.

Yet you dare to discuss things you have only beliefs, like church going christians, with no logical arguments supporting them. You spout them only because you've been brainwashed and are brain dead.

History will recognise Bush as one of the most successful presidents ever and John Howard as one of Australias best and most influencial prime ministers ever. Just look at how he's still influncing Australia today.

Suck it up lads.

As I said, a parallel universe.

My miniscule intellect simply isn't up to your level of comprehension on global economic matters Keith. From your last post it occurred to me you're wasting your time with us mental pygmies. You ought to be advising the G20.

Here's something about the elite media written by a member of the elite media. A republican one at that.

Enjoy.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/107326/former_news_radio_staffer_spills_the_beans_on_how_shock_jocks_inspire_hatred_and_anger/

keith, you're digging your hole deeper. When your errors are clearly pointed out, and you just respond by calling your opponents fools while pretending to be some intellectual paragon of wisdom - albeit one that can't seem to address when he's been clearly shown to be in error... it looks, well, foolish.

So, for the third time, can you give any backing to your claims that Obama was hiding his stance on abortions and stem cell research? I haven't seen a single thing indicating this. However, I actually took the time to look prior to the election, and found his stances quite clear. I was glad to see his pro-choice credentials and dedication to research.

As for your commentary regarding economic theory, I find it most amusing that you simultaneously blast the Austrian school of economic theory, while lauding Bush, who has driven the American economy into a train wreck.
At the same time, you simultaneously foam at the mouth when anyone declares any support for Israel over Palestinians and won't countenance real kind of compromise that isn't utterly in the Palestinians favour.
And yet, you still laud Bush, who has been among the most partisan Presidents in recent times and has driven the Palestinians further from their goals.

Frankly, you're all over the place. I suppose I can see why you need to blame the 'elite media' which is really, the most childish way of wriggling out of an argument. Everywhere I see those who blame the 'elite media' or the 'conservative media' or the 'liberal media' or the 'capitalist media' or the 'government media' I think, 'what idiocy.' Whilst the media is certainly flawed, it's flawed in all directions, just like people, not some monolithic front where editorial directions are handed down minute-by-minute by some omniscient grand poobah.

TRTL

That is amazing. Seeing you turn a little to the right! Wow next thing we will have the ABC running the Billy Graham hour. You are spot on with your response to Keith. I think his head must be getting a little messed knowing that he won't be able to blame the whites for every world evil anymore.

'...but I doubt any of you fools could even begin to understand the ideas or histories involved.'

You just proved my point.

Go read Hume, Mises, Von Hayek, and Keynes and then you will understand as you watch Obama and his democrat lefties really continue to stuff things up.

The world has survived bad US presidents before and we'll endure Obama.

Oh and in case you think Bush was a poor US president you are dead wrong, and history will see his success... unlike you poor blinded idealogues.

Drop your history books and read some contemporary stuff Keith. Bush is widely considered by most presidential experts – quite a serious vocation in the US – as the worst president ever. Perhaps you can explain why after 8 years of republican rule things aren’t so dandy. They can.

Suck it up!

*History will recognise Bush as one of the most successful presidents ever *

Hehe Keith, you really should stop smoking that stuff :)

When you write that sort of nonsense, you won't have any credibility
left. We know that you are worried about your money, but guess under
whose leaderships we have a major financial crisis? Your hero
of course.

Pilger has to write something, so its the usual claptrap, its how
he makes his money. Whinging is his speciality.

Perhaps he is sorry that Sarah did not win, for whew, that would
have given him some great stories to write!

I certainly hope that Obama restores family planning expenditure
for the third world. Americans insist on it, why not the third
world? Keith's hero George of course thought that abstinence
would work, so this was to be preached. His daughters seemingly
could not abstain from the booze and were caught drinking. Sarah's
daughter clearly took no notice of the abstinence preaching of her prez. In fact America has some of the developed world's highest
teen pregnancy rates. All that praying and abstaining is clearly
not working!

In 8 years George has basically wrecked America and Keith thinks
that makes him a great prez. Keith, you really have a career in
comedy if you want it, even if you are unaware of it :)

Dear Yabby

In a previous post it was simply, very simply, explained to you that I do not worry about money but that I look after it to the benefit of my future. Like most everybody else.

It was also simply, very simply, again explained to you that since it was you that attached the word worry to money, then that indicated more about you than me.
Btw how's those BHP Bulliton shares? I reckoned there was about 10% further bottoming yet but I might have been wrong. There are some frightful signs in the Dow this morning.

It appears sellers are now selling in fear, not of the future, but because it appears many companies are having frightful difficulty in raising cash to meet their monthly bills... now that's real scary ... if you own shares.

Oh and many dealers and commentators are selling off their retirement accounts... sheeesh I hope you realise what that means?

The rest of your post followed the style of your inital comments so as usual I've ignored it because I don't want to delve into your very simplist world.

Have a nice day and a comfortable future.

Bennie,

Unlike you I do my own thinking and am quite original and usually pretty accurate. Did you ever read my reasons for thinking how history might view Bush's Presidency.

Here they are for you:

'The first role of a US president is to keep the population secure. He's had spectular success at that.

He oversaw the greatest and longest period of wealth creation and distribution in the history of mankind. ...

He's done more to eliminate AIDs in the world's poorest countries than all the word spouting lefties put together.

He's appointed more Afro American officials in senior Government positions than any previous US president and has thereby assisted with the wider acceptance of Afro Americans in American society. I think Obama might just be a tad thankful to him.

I predict, if Obama doesn't cause it's failure, democracy may take root in Iraq and spread throughout the mid-east. Peace and curtailment of Israel's expansion will result if that occurs. Peace in the Mid East might be his greatest legacy.

And finally he's the only US president in 60 years, since Roosevelt/Truman, to have actually led the US to a winning position in a hot war. (Let's not forget accolades to my hero Ronnie for winning the Cold War.)'

Simply generalising about George's Presidency by uninformed references to unnamed 'experts' is lazy.

If you want to refute my assertion, fine but do some research and supply evidence that backs your claim.

I don't think you can.

But to look at the present crisis you might read my analysis of the current fiasco.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8053

Where's you analysis that points to only Bush for responsibility?

I don't really expect you to be up to the job of giving a reasoned, detailed and sensible response ... but then again I like to be surprised ... and live with hope.

Dear Keith,

What a cute way of trying to divert from your claim of the
"greatness" of George W!

Clearly you do worry about money, despite your denials, or you
would not focus on it so much. You would think about other things in
life too, like the rights of third world women to family planning,
that they should be the same as first world women and that simply
preaching "abstinence" to them, is the sign of an idiot, out
of touch with the real world. Frankly Keith, your hero is a proven
dockhead.

My GHP shares are doing just fine thank you. Since I bought them,
they have gone up 20%, down again, up 20% again, I could have
bought and sold each time, but I chose not to.

I did that for very good reasons, I am a long term investor, not
a short term speculator. I don't worry about money enough to be
too concerned about some quick profits here and there. My shares
can go up and they can go down, whatever, it does not change my
day at all. For I figure that in 10 years time, in 20 years time,
BHP will still be there, paying a twice yearly dividend, along with
many other companies. If others choose to panic right now and
dump their shares, wow, there might be some more good buying
opportunities just around the corner!

The difference between us Keith is that I see the big picture,
you focus on the little picture. Have fun.

Oh Keith you’re funny! The only president in 60 years to lead the US to a winning war? Which one was that? The one against trr (losing), or against drugs (losing), or against the environment (partial win), or against the constitution (partial win), or against executive oversight (largely successful), or was it the one against the democrats (unmitigated loss)?

He’s the first president in 60 years to lead the US into voluntary war. The US is one large munitions factory and they still can’t work out how to win a shooting war.

And Ronnie. The dear old Gipper who through deft diplomacy single-handedly brought the USSR to its knees. “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes. “ Come to think of it, “Facts are stupid things” also played a role. Republican presidents have a special way with words, have you noticed?

And now the fun stuff. A funny thing happened while using yahoo search. Upon typing “worst president ever” my predictive text inserted “George Bush” ... all by itself!

“A galaxy poll conducted in August 2007 has found that the majority (52%) of Australians agree that George Bush is the worst US president in history.” http://www.nswccl.org.au/news/show_pr.php?relNum=8&relYear=2007\

“History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents.” http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804

“Bush reached an unwelcome record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.” http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/11/worst_president_ever.html

I didn’t find the particular one I was after but it’s rather difficult when you get “1 - 10 of 17,900,000 for george bush worst president ever” results.

Gotta love this comment from the CIS - a fairly conservative think tank, by and large:

Mr Obama “is much more considerate and engaging globally than Bush. This takes away the 'bete noire' that the United States represented for al-Qa’ida,” counter-terrorism expert Thomas Sanderson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said.
“On one side, it makes America look better, and on the other side it makes al-Qa’ida look a little less relevant,” he said. “They would have been happier having someone closer to president Bush's policies.”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24680438-2703,00.html

In regard to economics, you mention how the American economy has grown under Bush, but fail utterly to mention how the 'trickle down' theory has failed to increase the net earnings of the American middle and lower classes.

To update your economic knowledge, I strongly suggest you actually take a look at Obama's economic policies before lauding Bush so loudly. But then again, the rest of us "uneducated fools!' (best said while clenching a fist and hammering the table like a crazed, arrogant megalomaniac) probably couldn't possibly have the temerity to argue with you, o wise one.

Here's a mighty fine place to start. Few articles on Obama have really had weighty economic analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

The money quote is thus: "The fact that the economy grows — that it produces more goods and services one year than it did in the previous one — no longer ensures that most families will benefit from its growth. For the first time on record, an economic expansion seems to have ended without family income having risen substantially. Most families are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000."

Cont'd.

(The article also has some excellent information regarding other aspects of Obama's economic attitude, so I heartily recommend it. Rarely has a politicians economic background been so well researched and presented prior to their ascent to the oval office).

So yes, there has been growth, but the trickle down theory has failed. Actually, I agree with the trickle down effect, but only where there is proper oversight, and a taxation system with only minor tweaks to ensure there is a sustainable middle class, as inevitably more powerful tiers of the economy will make predatory moves toward expanding their income.

For the record, I agree with most free market principles, but believe they have their limitations, particularly in regard to the supply of some universally required services such as health care. I also think sufficient regulation is required, and it is here that the Bush administration has failed so comprehensively, by following their ideology over pragmatics.

(Also FTR keith, frankly, I think displaying such contempt and arrogance is an interesting display of idiocy, as inevitably, one who does so loses the argument quite badly.
And I'm rather well acquainted with a fair number of economic texts, though I'm not so foolish as to merely state that and believe it has any power to persuade. When people do so, it's called 'playing the man, not the ball.' It's a core element in basic critical reasoning classes. You should look it up sometime. You can find it in books. You know, like the ones you tell us you make you so much smarter than everyone else.)

I'll avoid the two-button stress test over Bush/Obama. However...

TRTL: Your "money quote" is really a funny-money quote. It betrays how distorted and actually fictitious the definitions of "economic growth" are during this monetarists' long Globalization regime. Notice how your NYT quote seems to offer a sane and moral person's definition of "economic growth" ("produces more goods and services"), but then insinuates, however indirectly, criteria that should only matter to that type of "economic growth" appreciated by lunatics, fraudsters and other criminals.

Recall that the actual and necessary physical production in the US economy - like that in Australia and the EU - has been SMASHED by these free-trade, neolib, globalizing bastards. On closer examination, the monetarists' prevailing measures of "growth" depend on properly irrelevant factors like increases in debt servicing in a bloated and quite useless finance sector (right now perhaps the most prominent among Globalization's many notorious employment abbatoirs). Other sleaze factors are the tech-miniaturization effect on counts for inflation AND production. Try eating a 2GB memory stick, for example: mmm, "production", and so much cheaper than 6 months ago!

It's the same with family incomes not rising during or by the end of the period of "economic growth". Of course they haven't risen! For one thing, normal families have no direct contact with the vast mountains of debt that have kept the neolib shysters fixated on their fictitious "growth" scam, like some dazzling holographic Eldorado. Try eating a derivatives portfolio, for another reality-check example: mmm, toxic sludge, endorsed by neolib speculator and Obama sponsor George Soros! The derivatives now clock over into the QUADRILLION mark - now there is indeed a form of "growth", but it's hardly economic. More like cancer.

It's all over guys, the system's broken. The derivatives bubble is completely unpayable: that's the problem, not commoners' household debt as stated in TRTL's NYT link. We either reorganize it from true state intervention and protection, or watch these same cowardly scumbags suck up even further to their financier bosses by trying their hand at full-blown fascism.

I hope this reality stuff trickles down to you.

Dear Bennie

You've confused popularity with successful action and results.

You're arguing because George Bush is unpopular he isn't successful.

Do you apply the same test to your own circumstances?

And I was right in my estimation that you couldn't rise to my challenges.

Dear Yabby

Let's see I'll focus on the nuts and bolts. You look at your investment from the long term. The big picture eh?

You make a few assumptions.

The stock market will rise over time. Probable but it's only good if your investment survives the ups and downs.

You assume BHP will always pay a dividend. I think that highly unlikely. As income falls so does profit and if BHP loses money over several years you would hope it has sufficient reserves to stave off insolvency. It won't pay dividends.

What's the object of investing?yIt seems you are in it to ensure your investment retains it's value or grows greater than inflation.

Oh or doesn't fall too much in times of deflation.

Now assess those two effects on ownership of BHP shares over 10 or twenty years. I think you might wake up in twenty years time with an investment that has shrunk...dramatically.

In light of the fact it is likely, even with the downturn, that state and federal governments intend to run deficits (inflationary) and Res Bank is intent on reducing interest rates(Inflationary) the only possible counter to those is rising unemployment and if that gets out of control then deflation becomes a very serious risk.

In either case having cash or precious metals would allow flexibility to trade in currencies and/or recieve interest payments.
Having shares is risky, as they may fall in value or become worthless. Size in business doesn't guarantee survival. Flexibility and innovation does. I always worry when major apparently stable businesses lose vast amounts of equity for no real apparent reason ... as is the case with most traded equities today.

The economic situation today means many of the assumptions of yesterday are useless.
Stick your big picture, I prefer the nuts and bolts.

Turn right

You really don't believe reading and expanding one's knowledge hasn't any value and that is is wrong to attempt to share one's knowledge?
Do you?

I don't think I'm necessarily smarter than anyone. I think I am definately better read ... and that shows... given the paucity of supported arguments and flood of generalised criticisms and personal attacks I suffer.
All those inadequacies are spouted response in to my well thoughtout and supported assertions and opinions.

For example can you detail exactly how and where in not providing sufficient regulation

'...the Bush administration has failed so comprehensively, by following their ideology over pragmatics.'

Now given your calling my opinions and their expression foolish, contemptous, arrogant and displays of idiocy ... well doesn't that mean you are playing the man?

You really do make me laugh ... often. Keep it up.

*I always worry when major apparently stable businesses lose vast amounts of equity for no real apparent reason ... as is the case with most traded equities today.*

Keith, if you worry, then don't invest in shares, not a problem.
For those of us who don't worry and understand why equities drop
and rise in value, well it is up to us. Warren Buffett did not
do well in life, because he put his money on fixed deposit.

Sure values have dropped, things were massively overvalued in the
first place. I did not buy anything, when they were massively
overvalued. Its all about value investing, I am comfortable with
it and so are other smart investors. Many are not, its all about
greed and fear to them. At the moment fear dominates these people.
Fair enough, that will throw up some great bargains for value
investors.

But its not for nervous nellies like yourself, fair enough.
So stick to your gold bars etc. Whatever floats your boat.

Rise to your challenges Keith? Maaate everyone here gets a rise out of you. It’s hardly a challenge

keith, you're missing the subtle albeit crucial distinctions here:

1) You state: "You really don't believe reading and expanding one's knowledge hasn't any value and that is is wrong to attempt to share one's knowledge? Do you?"

This is misleading. I've never said this.
I said it's foolish to simply crow about having such knowledge as if that were some kind of valid debating point - I believe in the value of such knowledge, but I think it's better to display that information in a relevant manner, instead of crowing that you're smarter than others.

For example, I've raised two quotes and stated your claims of Obama's backflipping were false.
You've not deigned to respond to these points, which I put to you, are far more relevant than whether some individual named keith believes he is a font of economic knowledge.

Instead you've pointed to one claim I've made where I didn't providing backing information.
Changing the onus to make others do the legwork perhaps? I'll bite.

I'd argue it's clear to any bystander that the Bush administration has been incredibly lax on financial regulation - one need only witness the recent collapse of such financial giants such as freddie mac, which has been fuelled by a banking sector which has - you guessed it! - insufficient regulation. It's also evident this administration has been more aggressive on extreme free market policy (note the extreme) than its predecessors. Hence my comment regarding ideology.

I do see validity in the argument that the Democrats share culpability here, particularly the Clinton administration's changes to banking regulation to improve home ownership among lower classes and minorities, but Bush certainly fanned the flames. I suspect the reason why McCain didn't raise this in his campaign was that it would have been a difficult proposition to argue that Clinton should not have helped the poor buy homes. But more crucially, it would have been pointing out that the Republicans have been keen to let the banks continue making unrealistic loans, as this has been a core contributor to recent US economic growth.

Cont'd

At this juncture, allow me to provide another quote from the NYT article I referenced in my previous post.

It mentions the advantages of extreme capitalism, then states:
"Yet laissez-faire capitalism hasn’t delivered nearly what its proponents promised. It has created big budget deficits, the most pronounced income inequality since the 1920s and the current financial crisis"

"The bulk of Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy... would simply take away Bush’s tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn’t nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, their inflation-adjusted pretax income has roughly doubled."

"the wealthy have done so well over the past few decades, with their incomes soaring and tax rates plummeting, that Obama’s plan would not come close to erasing their gains... they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it was 15 or 30 years ago. It just wouldn’t be quite as wide as it is now."

Now isn't providing backing information better than "I have more knowledge than you, so I win"?

In relation to me allegedly slurring you, note I've always directed such remarks at your comments - not you, specifically.
On the other hand, you've made comments stating directly that others here are 'fools' without any awareness of what they've read.
A subtle distinction, albeit a crucial one.

Ready to address the points I made? Or just going to try and get me to jump through more hoops?

For the fourth time, I'm still waiting on backing for your insinuation that Obama hid his pro-choice leanings and I think the quotes I've provided in this post, and the previous one, not only indicate Obama's position, but are a damning indictment of the previous administration.

Yabby,

The cause for my worry is this. While you are investing on the basis of principles of the history of stock market operation of the last 60 years I am looking at the stock market in light of the more relevant historical crisis of the 1920's and 1930's.
Did you realise the Dow index in that period dropped from 380 odd to 40. That's a ninety percent drop.
Now in terms of today it would not be unrealistic to see a drop from 14,000 odd to 1,400. Today the dow was at 7,500.
During the start of the crash there were wild fluctuations many upto and downto 20% before the real crunch set in and stocks became so worthless it was uneconomic to keep the stockmarket(Which is a privately owned business) open. It closed.
Are you nervous now ... and am I prudent to have cashed up in March of this year and am not prepared to buy on the basis of historical data and fact?
My worry is not for myself but for retirees whose funds are tied up in stock market equities. How they hell are they going to survive? And please note a ten to twenty year expectation of recovery is a tad optimistic for again historically it took the US stockmarket 25 years and a world war before it recovered to 1920 levels.

I think buying into or holding onto shares now a little unwise.

The stock market usually suspends stocks that fluctutate without good reason. Are they nervous nellies too?
Describing me as a nervous nellie is akin and as inaccurate as labelling Taras Bulba a great humanitarian. :-)

Warren Buffet recently bought 5 billion worth of Goldman Sacs shares and they have since lost a further 30%. It's cost him nearly 1.5 billion ... and likely to cost him a hell'va lot more.
Nobody, especially people like Buffet, like those outcomes.

Enough gold bars would sink my abode ... which is currently a yacht.

Dear Bennie,

Yeah ... whatever bennie. Yep I'm totally dismissive of you and your abilities.

Turn right,

I'm not going to go over ground we've already crossed, especially where you still refuse to accept detailled evidence and support for my positions. Refer to my article and refute it ... too difficult? Of course because you cannot refute fact.

To assume we've had 'laissez-faire capitalism' for the last 60 odd years is fundamentally a misconception. The Keynesian economics of this period has it's roots in consumerism and Marxism. It is also conspicious for it's regulation and unfettered Government and Central Bank manipulation and interference. I'd love to see the capitalism of Hume, Mises and von Hayek. (And of course you've familiar with them because you've read them haven't you?)

It works.

Obama's pro-choice is not the problem ... it's his and your expectation that Western Christians want to and should fund abortions. Would you as a taxpayer think it ok to use your money to fund support for BHP's degradation of the environment or of Gunn's expansion in Tasmania

Keith,

Yes I know that the Dow dropped 90% in the 30s and yes I still call
you a nervous nellie :)

What we also know is that smart investors bought assets for a song
in the 30s and did extremely well after that.

It is people like you, all stampeding in one direction or another,
which cause fluctuations in the first place! The herd mentality.

I don't think that Buffett would lose too much sleep over the
Goldman Sachs shareprice, for once again, he focuses on the big
picture. It is those who borrowed money to buy shares who are
in trouble, not Buffett with his huge amounts of liquid cash.

Unlike the 30s, today there are huge amounts of cash around the
globe, sitting waiting to pick up bargains. At some point they
will benefit from those who have to sell at any price, due to
being overleveraged.

The thing is, to spread ones risk and spread it over time. Nobody
can predict the bottom and nobody can forecast that there will be
another 30s depression. Maybe there will, maybe there won't.

I have kept my shares, for at the price I paid for them, I would
have certainly landed up with a huge tax bill, taking a large slice.
Dividends are still being paid, I've still got heaps of cash to
buy more as things keep getting cheaper. I spread my risks.

In 5 years time there will still be an economy and people will still
drive cars, eat food and go shopping. There will still be companies
making profits and others losing their shirts, through too much
debt.

Marc Faber likes his gold bars, so do the Saudis at the moment.
Its seems, so does Keith.

I'd rather have my assets in the productive economy. Every time
that Keith buys food, or drink, or goes banking, or buys a boat,
or has it fixed, somewhere I will make a tiny profit :)

Yabby,

'It is people like you, all stampeding in one direction or another,
which cause fluctuations in the first place! The herd mentality.'

To this I just have to respond ... just could not help myself.

There is an extremely interesting interview reported in Saturday's Weekend Australian. Errr actually in The Australian Business Magazine, an insert.

I'll quote you the relevant lines, and please note the significance of the present tense.

Rupert Murdoch:

'He says News Corp is cashed up and ready to exploit any opportunities thrown up by the great deleveraging now under way.'

' ... remains concerned about a possible outbreak of protectionism ... in a slowing world economy.'

'... expects the tough economic conditions to prevail for sometime.'

'... So now we don't owe the banks a penny.'

Read his comments on borrowing and interest rates particularly. They will really stun you.

On mining and the Chinese

'One thing is certain: in the next round of price negotiations (with Australian mining companies) they are going to say it's their turn.'

Now couple that with the other magnate who, like his father, sold the family business at the top of the market, and who recently vacated all his available board positions ... well I guess you've have picked his motives.

Now really Yabby since these two have done precisely as I've done in the past year and that neither they nor I are buying right now I guess they, according to your labelling are

'people like you, all stampeding in one direction or another, which cause fluctuations in the first place! The herd mentality.'

I think you'd classify me as a flea on a rump in their herd ... eh? I'd think that very very complimentary ... and they'd think me at the very least prudent.

Yep I'm really chuckling away to myself here tonight. I'm hoping to put to sea for a while and unless I hook up in port somewhere I probably won't be around to respond. But please imagine the belly laughs I'll be having.

As for Warren Buffet I guess 5 billion to own your own NY Bank would seem cheap as it would guarantee a few seats on the NY Regional Federal Reserve. That would ensure influence and inside knowledge of their manipulation of the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Obama. ie The US economy
Oh and Guess where Obama's new Treasury Secretary has come from? That's right he was the Chairman of the NY Regional Federal Reserve (As I predicted recently).

You understand of course Warren's bank also benefited handsomely from the recent Federal Government gift of $250 billion to the New York Banks.

At the very least I reckon it would be great fun to own a bank. After all the Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockafellas and now the Buffets seem to have great fun theirs. Ownership of NY Banks does seem to have a propensity to create family dynastys...too.

I must ask where you gained your experience in business, trading and economics?

I'll give you a clue about mine: I have no formal qualifications. The initial impetus for learning much in these realms was discussions with my grandfather and father while playing billiards at home...

Yep Granddad and dad smoked cigars. I didn't but I did enjoy the cognac ..

Keith, I have the Weekend Australian, but no business insert in my
copy. But I'm reasonably aware of Rupert's opinions. He nearly lost
his company some years ago through too much debt, so perhaps has
learnt the hard way.

As for James, I don't blame him for getting out. Methinks his old
company is in hock up to the roof, not a good position to be in.

Yes, mineral prices have and will come down. It will give the largest
and best miners a chance to buy up some smaller operators for a
bargain. Long term, you still have another 3 billion people
craving a middle class lifestyle, so I have no concerns about
efficient miners in the longer term. Short term I really don't care.

I've been fortunate or perhaps wise :) so the crunch has not really
affected me. For instance I own some BWP, a boring share but
lightly geared, so they have stood up very well whilst other
REITs have crashed. Returns on my investment still run at around
13%, so I am happy with that. It makes your bank interest look
silly.

Buffett is better known for his investment in Wells Fargo, again
a long term holding and a bank that has stood up well to the US
crash. I understand he got a special deal on his Goldman Sachs
investment- for being their pinup boy.

Hey, if you are more comfortable with your present situation and
want to go sailing, that is your choice. It would not be my
choice, I'm not into sailing. But don't forget, rocks and pirates
can be far more dangerous then any stock exchange :)

I remind you that it is George's incompetence that has led to
the Fed dishing out billions to banks, all under his rule.

Sorry, but your hero is a proven dud, as all can see.

Hopefully your judgement at sailing is better then your political
judgement, or it will be glug glug glug for Keith !

Yabby,

There you go againm.

I wish your comprehension skills were not as poor as you investment stratagies. tehehe

Ah but Keith, my investment strategies are doing just fine!

I remind you that once again, for the third time in about 4 weeks,
I could again sell my BHP shares for a good profit and run.
If just money and wealth was my aim, I should be a day trader!

You love your sailing, but take a look around you, what some of
the nation's top businessmen, politicians and movie stars do,
once they have made it.

Many are sick of the rat race and suburbia. They go out and buy
themselves a farm, some animals, some machinery (big toys for
older boys really :) ) and get their hands dirty and have fun.

Why on earth should I not enjoy doing exactly those things?
You only need so much money to be happy, unless you have a self
esteem problem and are trying to prove yourself of course. That
is not the case for me.

Ah Keith, just to remind you that BHP hit 31$ today. So much for
your understanding of the share market :)

Careful how you sail now. Your judgement of Obama and racehorses
was clearly flawed, lets hope that you have more success at
sailing.

Yabby,

Then sell. I always invest with an eye on three things: profit, the future and history.

Are you making 330%? for that was my profit margin on my bet in the Melbourne Cup.

Do you know the contract agreements between BHP and their customers for the next year?
Likewise have you researched the projections for world consumption of BHP products over the next two years.

And once again, you are aware of course, there were spikes during the year long saga in 1929 and even a false recovery before a final implosion.

I hope the price stays up for you... but it is a remote possibility. I have very good reason for that statement. You should really do some research and apply some of your experience.

In response to your last two posts ... both about money ... again, mind you, I can only repeat

There you go again.

'I wish your comprehension skills were not as poor as you investment stratagies.'

I had a wonderful sail in the toy yacht, was tested and prevailed, didn't get my hands dirty, spend no money on pets, or pretending to be something I'm not, suffer from low self-esteem, care one iota about neighbours, the rat race, money, shares or investments.

I did have great fun out on the Ocean being completely in control of all those things I was able in the challenging and changeable environment I passed through.

Now tell me ... did you do the same? I don't expect an answer as you have a history of not answering those sorts of questions ... and that tells me most about you.

*Are you making 330%? for that was my profit margin on my bet in the Melbourne Cup.*

Hehe Keith, the day I would rely on the horses to make a quid,
would be a very sad day indeed :) Your nag only needs to have
a headache or a bad hair day and you have done the lot.
Wise investing indeed !

What my litle BHP thinggy has shown is that fear and greed dominate
the market as never before, so with these kinds of massive fluctuations
in very sound shares, it would still be quite easy
to make a good quid. I could have bought and sold many times by
now, but frankly I can't be bothered. Long term BHP looks
like a healthy investment, for all sorts of reasons, too long
to explain here.

Given half a chance, the Chinese would snap up BHP at these values,
as they are desperate to own resources and have all the money
they want to do it. I guess first they'll now snap up more of Rio,
depending on how much the Govt allows them to buy.

With resources you have to think long term and not short term.
Finding and developing new mines in politically stable countries
is incredibly expensive these days, its far cheaper to buy established
miners.

*Now tell me ... did you do the same?*

I did not go sailing. That does not mean that I did not have
fun in a challenging environment, doing what I enjoy immensely.

If I wanted to go sailing, then I would. It's as easy peasy as that.

Yabby,

Provincialism screams from the computer screen. It's astonishing, what with internet, mobile phones, information avalibility and manouvaribility of capital.

It's different from yesteryear. Today we're mobile and global.

You've mismanaged your money.
Take two people. The wise Person B retains a portfolio of wealth in real property, cash and investments such as Managed Trusts and Superanuation. He attempts to pick the bottom of a crashing share market and invests some capital (Hopefully not borrowed)in Blue Chip 'rolled gold' mining/manufacturing shares in Australia.

The unwise, Person A, sells everything possible upto March/April 2008. Person A spies one AUS$ can buy NZ$1.29, when traditionally they trade between $1.08 and $1.12, so she transfers all the capital to NZ$. Soon as Rudd and Swan continue to show they are determined to drive down interest rates and NZ rates are under pressure to rise, the Aus$ falls and are worth NZ$1.12. Person A transfers all Capital to Aus$, returning 16%.

The Aus$ and US $ come close to parity. Person A changes the capital into US $ by buying gold and silver bullion.

The stock market crashes ... as foreseen.

As Australian interest rates fall. The Aus$ only buys US$0.60.

Gold and silver also fluctuates. Gold rebounds above the level of the time of purchase. Silver is down about 10%.All of Person A's wealth in Aus$ increases by nearly 40%. Over the whole period by nearly 60%. Importantly Person A recognises the global economy places it's trust in US $ she's increased her wealth globally by over 16% in 7 months.

Only some of person B's wealth in Aus$ hasincreased by about 40% after a fluctuation, upward, in the value shares. But sadly in global terms and specifically the US/AUS exchanges, Person B's investment has diminished by nearly 40%.

But wait there's more ... assuming Person B has other assets like a hobby farm and a rental property. Property values are also falling in Australia soooo ... eventually by how much is anybody's guess... Person B, if he has loans would realise how precarious his position would be if interest rates started to rise, along with inflation while his asset values plunged or even remained stagnant for a long period ... say 10 to 25 years. He might have to sell, if he can, some of his investments to live.

I'd prefer to be the unwise gambling Person A than the safety-first land-locked provincial Person B and I'd still be able to have the Aussie tradional bet on a Melbourne Cup.
I'd have a very very careful look at what is happening in China today, especially since it's bubble burst soon after the Bejing Games. If they need to dump US$ to support their economy and especially their rising unemployed that would cause the US$ and Aus$ to fall... Hummmmm what to do?

Geee it seems unwise person B even has options.

I'd bet Person B would wager anything the Chinese would buy gold and silver ahead of shares in such a climate.

The bottomline in a devastating few months:

Person A 'who can't be bothered' trading has undertaken 1 trade and seen the value of their life's savings diminish.
Person B with three trades has increased their life-savings by more than 16% ... and because of many factors the increase is likely to be more of the full 12 months.

You know I've met among many others, Danes, Norsemen, English, Spaniards, Portuguese, French, Italians, Germans, Americans, Canadians, Pacific Islanders and New Zedders. Whenever I've related my experience of Ocean and Coastal passages I've been met with praise of my skills and seamanship, my courage, boldness and daring. In contrast, and you seem typical, many Australians with their fear dominated and spite filled comments, like yours, show they are most at home when in a field of poppies brandishing a pair of sissors.

Have a nice life Yabby.

*You've mismanaged your money.*

Thank you oh wise one :)

Let me see now;-

My original BHP shares owe me 7$, SGB $5.12, WBC 9$,
BWP 93c, Origin 3$, WPL 13$, the list goes on.
That is cost, all dividends are separate of course.

They all keep sending me cheques twice a year, usually
more then the year before. Now why should I be concerned?

Yes, I recently bought some more BHP and WBC. My prediction
is that they will do exactly the same and with the hindsight
of time, will equally prove to be wise investments.

But fool around with your currencies and gold bars, fool around
with your horses, if that gets your through the night :)

*Whenever I've related my experience of Ocean and Coastal passages I've been met with praise of my skills and seamanship, my courage, boldness and daring.*

Ah Keith, so you have a self esteem problem and need some praise!

You are so bold :)

Hehe

Why don't either of you do this properly and write your own article?

keith, you state: "I'm not going to go over ground we've already crossed, especially where you still refuse to accept detailled evidence and support for my positions. Refer to my article and refute it ... too difficult? Of course because you cannot refute fact."

Wait a minute... no. This is what I say to you. You don't get to say that to me, because I'm the one who has actually been providing articles complete with links and questions for you, and you're the one who consistently dodges the questions.

For example, can you point to where you responded to my five queries on where Obama has been backflipping or hiding his stance on abortions, as you insinuated?

Five times, keith. Point me to where you addressed this and I'll acknowledge it.
Yet, you still say this is ground we've gone over.

Except, in order for it to be ground we've gone over, it would need to be something you've addressed, just like you didn't actually address my points. Same deal for my quote that Obama's election victory is making it harder for Al-Qaeda to secure funding, and the same in relation to the failures of trickle down effect.

In fact, all you've done is drop names of various economic theorists, without acknowledging that they are merely the authors of competing theories. I'm well aware that you're advocating a purist form of capitalism, though again, I'd say such a definition is disputed.

But you're not actually discussing these issues. You're just dropping names in an effort to sound distinguished.

And, were you to pay more attention, you'd note that it wasn't actually me that mentioned "'laissez-faire capitalism" it was actually within a quote I put forward, from the lead economics writer at the New York post.

Of course, the contempt you display in your response evidently indicates that you feel that the top economics writer at one of the world's leading newspapers isn't worthy of discussing such competing theories (and crucially interpretations) with a random Australian blogger. Begging your forgiveness, o great and wise one.

Bennie,

I already have.

Turn Right

I forgive you.

Yabby

There you go again.
'Ah Keith, so you have a self esteem problem and need some praise!'

Errrr ... no. You don't understand motivation. I share my life experiences with others and they theirs with me. It's the way we've grown and learned over the centuries. It's called communication. It's healthy.

Why doesn't it surprise me you could misunderstand such simplicty.

You know throughout this conversation you've recklessly thrown about abuse, created strawman arguments and denigrated personalities.

On each occassion it has been preceded by challenges to your opinions and stratagies.

Eventually it's led to you spilling your guts about what you own. Your shares and your profits. You've shared with us nothing about what activities you undertake or your life's experiences...even when encouraged.

Those behaviours says more about you than you'll ever imagine.

Oh just to prevent you from suggesting I mirror you, please show me once where I've said I own anything.

Very well. I'll take that as an admission that you admit your claims that Obama attempted to hide his pro choice leanings, were erroneous.

Same goes in relation to the fact that Al-Qaeda's most displeased with Obama's election. I guess we can also add the fact that the middle class of America haven't seen the benefits of the recent American growth.

It's not your fault you can't address these keith, it's the fault of reality. Don't feel too bad about it.

P.S. Thanks for the forgiveness, though seeing as I'm rather unrepentant I don't think it's necessary.

Though, I'll give a little free advice - as an additional attempt to evade scrutiny however, it's really rather transparent as a cop out. Next time, I'd stick with your earlier efforts at changing the topic.

Actually Keith, I was trying to get you to think for once in your
life, perhaps think a little differently to what you usually do.

But some of your comments, like that Bush would be remembered in
history as one of the great presidents, also amused me.

The amusing part is that you take your own convictions so seriously!

One thing that wisdom brings is realising that we know that we
don't know alot of things and that predicting the future is full
of dangers.

There are lots of ways to lead a happy and fullfilling life, lots
of ways at looking at investing, etc.

Its one of the things that I respect about Obama, ie his ability
to stay open minded and see the big picture. Its one of the things
being commented on right now, as he makes appointments. Most
are pleasantly surprised at his good judgement, even conservatives.

The fact that you refuse to be open minded as he is, the fact that
you have not shown good judgement as you claim, should give you
something to ponder about.

Snip snip whoosh, snip snip whoosh

Oh Hi yabby, that is you snipping Poppies and spilling your guts, isn't it?

Poppies Keith?

Not a poppy in sight anywhere lol, just the odd prickely pear
cactus. Perhaps the odd one is confused and would like to be
a poppy :)

That's what happens where you cut all the tall poppies you crazy b......!

hahahaha

Prickely Pears and ... pricks.

Ok Keith, however you describe yourself, its your problem not
mine. Call yourself a prick if you want. As I always say,
"whatever gets you through the night" :)