World Finance Watch

Re: World Finance Watch

I was reading in the "From the wilderness" site an article that the Saudi's largest oilfield ,Ghawar, has reached peak and is now in decline. The Saudis are having to use water injection to keep the pressure up to keep the supply rolling. Even in their new fields, water is extensively used. This is also expensive, needing a 35$ barrel price to be profitable. This is from a report by a Bank of Montreal analyist. This is a main stream bank. Not just voices from the fringe elements on the net. Days of cheap oil are over. I think we should put some of this in perspective, have you checked the price of bottled water out? It hasn't been drilled from thousands and thousands feet down, and transported thousands of miles and it still costs more than gas. Mopeds, mmmm, not appealing, mightly cold in the middle of winter. They come in four wheel drive?
 
Re: World Finance Watch

I guess I am just an eternal optomist and hope that we will finally have the public sentiment to develop alternative fuel. I distinctly remembering my Dad complaining about 25 cents a gallon in Texas back in the mid 60s. He said he hoped that the price would go to $1.00 so we would be forced to develop alternative fuel. I am still waiting.

I want to comment on Rush, Hannity, and Fox news. I listened to Rush back in the 80's when he was in Sacramento before he went National. I loved him then. He was very insightful and was not just another Propaganda machine for GOP. I really feel since his drug problem he has sunk into the GOP can't do wrong mentality. It is sad to see him loose his credibility. It is getting pretty blantant now. He has been seduced by the Dark Side like many a talk show host. Hannity is and has always been a GOP talking head. I can't stand to have him on anymore. I listen to Hannity and Colmes and yell at both of them now. Fox was started as the anti-left voice. However, the problem is when the Right is left and is in power it doesn't work anymore. Media needs to be independent to be unbiased.

What is unnerving to me is Art Bell. I have always loved Art. However, his recent decision to not consider anything wrong with 9/11 makes him suspect.

Savage is interesting too because he is an angry old man, But he refused to talk about anything of substance. He just likes to complain and about light topics. He will point out there must be another hand controling issues, but then will never talk about it. But I think I like him best. I won't listen to Rush any more, I would have to break the radio if Hannity is on it. I only watch Fox if I feel like arguing and I will have Savage on if there is no good music on the radio in the Car. I still love Coast to Coast. Although there is a lot wacky stuff on there, usually you get bothsides of breaking news. Just don't take the UFO stuff to seriously or planet X.

Thanks for all of the info Cary. You amaze me with the depth of you research. Yes China is driving up demand and so are most of the 3rd world industrializing countries. I too feel that we are in the middle of resource grab. I guess it time to start growing the Corn to Drink, I mean to run in the car.

Bubbu.
_____
 
Re: World Finance Watch

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"vinny\")</div>
I was reading in the \"From the wilderness\" site an article that the Saudi's largest oilfield ,Ghawar, has reached peak and is now in decline. The Saudis are having to use water injection to keep the pressure up to keep the supply rolling. Even in their new fields, water is extensively used. This is also expensive, needing a 35$ barrel price to be profitable. This is from a report by a Bank of Montreal analyist. This is a main stream bank. Not just voices from the fringe elements on the net. Days of cheap oil are over. I think we should put some of this in perspective, have you checked the price of bottled water out? It hasn't been drilled from thousands and thousands feet down, and transported thousands of miles and it still costs more than gas. Mopeds, mmmm, not appealing, mightly cold in the middle of winter. They come in four wheel drive?[/b]
Click to expand...

Yup vinny, it's that bad and then some. You ain't lying or delusional kid. Check this out on Al Jazeera.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08B...ACB9B0F8894.htm

Now, for the first time, a major bank has joined that chorus. The arguments over the world\'s biggest oilfield are set to stay.</span>

 ?
Click to expand...
 
Re: World Finance Watch

So Cary when do you expect the Economy to blow?

This year or next?

I'll start taking bets, we'll have a pool.:flirt:
 
Re: World Finance Watch

Thanks for all of the info Cary. You amaze me with the depth of you research. Yes China is driving up demand and so are most of the 3rd world industrializing countries. I too feel that we are in the middle of resource grab. I guess it time to start growing the Corn to Drink, I mean to run in the car.
?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words pal. You should see the "stuff" I see on a daily basis. Not much of it is pretty, but most of it is technical, so I try and post the "less technical" stuff so everybody is not running for a financial/market translator. And you're right about the "resource grab" That's gonna be a source of some "hard feelings" down the road, but we'll see how that plays out. Love the corn to drink, uh, run the car comment. Better get the new "environmental" diesel. It runs on just about anything.

Cary
 
Re: World Finance Watch

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"PyRo99\")</div>
So Cary when do you expect the Economy to blow?

This year or next?

I'll start taking bets, we'll have a pool.:flirt:[/b]
Click to expand...

Pyro,

That's a great question. Problem is, the "if" is about a lock down 100%, the "when" is the hard part. The research I'm reading now says the next leg of the bear market "down" is just getting started (stocks, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. - not very popular with Wall St. types). That's what happens in a deflationary depression scenario. Everything "went up in unison" in 2003 and 2004. That doesn't happen except in stimulus induced "blow off" bubbles. We sure got some world record "stimulus" from the Fed and Bushco. All of a sudden oil, commodities, financial assets, and some parts of the real estated market are showing serious fatigue and "cracks" in the system. So the first big "Ah ha" could be this year. That's my guess so far. But the PTB want to keep the game going for as long as possible. It's getting harder and harder to do. But when you have an unlimited printing press at your disposal, and most of the rest of the world "accepting" your "paper" as legit, you can jack around for a while.

So I don't know when. The research and analysis says that the next "big" leg down should end sometime in early 2007. The ultimate downside should be around 2010 - 2012. Yeah, I know, that ties in with the Mayan calendar. These guys could give a rat's ass about some moldy old native calendar from So. America. Doesn't enter their thought process. My best guess is we could see some serious downside between now and 2007. We'll have some kind of "recovery" that will mostly be sideways (up and down) for a couple of years, only to be followed by another "swoosh" to the downside into the 2010 - 2012 time period.

Predictions to the downside show that the Dow should be around 700 at that time. It closed at 10,403.93 today. About 93% to the downside - just like the crash in the early 30's. That's a massive move to the downside, and would call for a deflationary depression of global and historic proportions. I know, it sounds incredible and "no one" believes it's possible because "the Fed or the Govt. has safeguards in place." LOL What a crock of BS. The markets are bigger than any govt. or central bank. When the flow decides to go where its going, it's best to get the hell out of the way. The Fed and the govt. have done about a perfect recipe of setting the next deflationary crash up with perfect precision. We'll see if Easy Al can hold this thing together until he retires in January. You couldn't pay me a billion dollars a year to take his place in 2006. I wouldn't want to wind up on the wrong end of a hangman's noose shortly after that. That money wouldn't be enjoyed.

Don't know if that answers your question. Calling "tops'" and "bottoms" is always a precarious situation. Markets have a way of making monkeys out of everyone, and the "bear" market wants everyone to lose money (bulls and bears alike). That's where we're at now. If you're not sure, be in cash/cash equivalents/Treasury money markets or a "safe" foreign currency. Good luck picking that one. A deflationary depression will have your "cash" appreciate in value against falling prices, which accompany a deflationary scenario.

Hope I'm not talking another language here. If you have questions, just ask. I'll try to explain in non-technical terms.

Cary
 
Re: World Finance Watch

Cary;

What about playing the downside (if you can find the shares to borrow!). Might be a smart move for the next couple of years? Or would it be better to remove thyself entirely ?

Thanks for all the info.

Z-
 
Re: World Finance Watch

My guess is that Bush understands even less of this "technical" material than I do. His (and Cheney's-- Cheney understands more than Bush but less than Cary about all of it) mode of operation is to find just the right "technical stuff" he needs, imbedded in the text like reporters in Iraq, and skew all of the rest to justify what he wants to do. He will make the material say what he wants it to, and what he wants it to say is that the economy exists for the use and enjoyment of the global corporate states.

If any of you remember the Carter administration, there was a lot of anti-Arab sentiment among those waiting in long lines at the Texaco. That popular opinion about how the Arabs were exploiting us, and about how the government was letting them do it somehow, was one of the things that forced Carter out, especially when it was capped off by the symbolic event of the hostages.

What really goes on in Washington is that such events are manipulated to gain a political result, which, beginning with Reagan, becomes a corporate political result. Reagan and Thatcher together are probably responsible for creating this new global sovereignty, and surrendering national identity and power to the international cartels. They allowed public opinion to form that identified all of the evil cartels as Arab, even while doing strong business with the likes of Saudi Arabia.

They still want us to believe that the price of oil is set strictly by foreignors. It is not. Nor is it set strictly by the forces of supply and demand. The globalists set supply, demand, and price, and these factors can be manipulated for local political purposes. They are able to write off entire countries, such as Iran and Iraq, knowing that the overwhelming economic forces they have set up in the world will eventually bring them back to the fold.

The war in Iraq is waged to bring Iraq back into the global system. The U.S., led by brutes, determined that no niceties were required to accomplish this. The Bush policy is to just march in and grab what you want: it ought to be compared to the "Indian policy" of the 1800s. Those people don't know what they've got, it's just lying there going to waste, their silly tinpot leaders are just in the way. When we took this policy to Latin America, it worked OK there, too, for the most part.

How much power is gained for the globalist internationalist sovereign corporations depends upon how well public opinion can be molded by manipulation of the price per gallon. You might notice that in the U.S. the price goes up in time to make it seem that the proper candidate has lowered it in time for the election; that it rises after the election again, and is due to come down when the government needs the support of the people.

You can correlate the "public approval" of the president to the price of gas, and the president will call the polls inconclusive and changeable when he doesn't need concrete approval with a pending election. Right now, the gas is through the roof and Bush's approval is through the floor. When the 2006 elections draw near, we will be paying $1.65 a gallon again.

Cary your stuff is fabulous, and I don't want to detract from it with a bunch of politics. I do want to bring up the idea of expoitation of public opinion at the gas pump. Also, if the "technical" stuff doesn't support what Bush wants to do, he will call it "bad science," or, I suppose, "bad economics."
 
Re: World Finance Watch

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Zoomerz\")</div>
Cary;

What about playing the downside (if you can find the shares to borrow!). Might be a smart move for the next couple of years? Or would it be better to remove thyself entirely ?

Thanks for all the info.

Z-[/b]
Click to expand...

Okay Zoomz,

I'll make a comment, but I want to be real clear for anyone reading this. THIS IS NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE. PLEASE CONSULT AN INVESTMENT ADVISOR BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION WITH REGARD TO BUYING, SELLING OR SHORTING STOCKS OR BONDS. Sorry, had to get that out the way. Don't want anyone going off half-cocked, screwing up and then wanting to blame me for their error.

Good idea IF (Big IF) you know what you're doing. I read an article that detailed how Sir John Templeton made something like $85 million shorting tech and dotcom stocks from early 2000 and covering sometime in the summer of 2002. Of course he started with about $150 million he accumulated when he sold his Templeton Fund family to Franklin Funds. (not recommending or offering either fund family!) Shorting stocks normally is more risky than buy and hold in a bear market. Why? Because your risk is theoretically unlimited. You short 1,000 shares of stock at $50 and it goes to $500, you got some major losses ($450,000). Hopefully someone would have the common sense to get the hell out of the trade way before it got to $75. And unless you had a ton of money in your account, your brokerage firm would stop you out (cover your short) before your account got negative. Right now short interest is pretty low. There should be plenty of shares available to borrow for shorting, depending on the size of the brokerage firm you trade at, and the particular stock you're looking to short.

My preference for shorting the market is "bear funds" which move inversely to their respective index. There are even bear funds that have a beta of 2, meaning they move at twice the pace of their respective index, only in the opposite direction. The risk of the market gaining 10% or more in a day is pretty slim. Individual stocks on the other hand, can go ballistic in either direction, based on short term emotions surrounding the issue. So where do you find bear funds. AGAIN, I'm not recommending this for purchase or sale for anyone. Just some information for you or whoever to do some research and make up your own mind. The three fund families that I know of that have bear funds available are Rydex Funds, ProFunds and Prudent Bear Fund. They're easy to find on the net with a google search, or ask your investment advisor about them. Don't be surprised if he/she doesn't know, as most have never been educated. The other thing I like about the mutual fund families listed is they are no load and you can set up an account directly with them. There are no sales costs associated with getting in and out of their funds, and they are geared (Rydex and ProFunds for sure) to get in and out on a daily basis if you want to. I'm not recommending that, just letting you know that can without cost or penalty. A lot of mutual fund families have instituted "trading charges" if you get into one of their funds and get out before a prescribed time period (60 days to 6 months depending on the fund - check the prospectus or ask your investment advisor). The downside to bear funds is that you only get end of the day pricing (with a few exceptions - some will give you twice a day pricing). So, if the market starts taking off intra-day, you can sell anytime you want, but you get end of the day prices. So if the market bounces off of serious support and gains like 3% in one day, (happened March 2003) you are stuck with end of the day prices and a 3% negative price move in your bear fund for the day.

And you're final comment is appropriate for most people who don't know anything about the financial markets or don't have an investment advisor who does. Stay in cash. No you won't make much with the low interest rates now, but you won't lose either. In a deflationary depression, cash grows in purchasing power as the credit crunch forces debtors to sell assets at any price to pay off their debt. An abundance of sellers with few if any buyers usually results in a significant drop in prices. Having cash will be the best thing. Even bear markets have rallies and some of them can be quite sharp to the upside and unexpected. Markets don't go straight up or straight down. Bear markets don't like to see anyone make money - bulls or bears. This is where the wealth of the many gets transferred to the hands of the few. If you're short, or in bear funds you can lose money. Again, none of this is investment advice. Please do your own research, or consult your investment advisor.

I know this isn't as comprehensive a response as I'd like to make it. But I am limited in what I can say, and have to put the disclaimers all over the place anyway. If you have questions or I was confusing, let me know.

Cary
 

Top