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.