Comments on: Highlights From the Part 1 of the Barron’s Roundtable http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/ A personal finance blog dedicated to discussing such topics as budgeting, asset allocation, 401K, IRA, cash flow, insurance, financial planning, portfolio management, and other areas in personal finance. Fri, 25 May 2012 18:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Esko http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-397964 Esko Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:48:55 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-397964 When the Glass-Stegall Act was repealed it was done under the belief that banks were now somehow smarter and more sophisticated and would operate responsibly with their new freedom in the financial markets. Well, the wreckage we are wallowing in today is largely the result of that repeal. Looks like we have to go back to the good old days. When the Glass-Stegall Act was repealed it was done under the belief that banks were now somehow smarter and more sophisticated and would operate responsibly with their new freedom in the financial markets. Well, the wreckage we are wallowing in today is largely the result of that repeal. Looks like we have to go back to the good old days.

]]> By: garrick http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396917 garrick Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:57:13 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396917 “Investing is deferring consumption and laying money out now to get more money back later. And there are really only two questions for investors... how much you’re going to get back, and the other is when." -- Warren Buffet The first law of Economics is 'scarcity' --- there is never enough stuff to satisfy the needs & wants of everybody. One can only get stuff {or more stuff} by human 'production' -- not by politicians spending paper money ("Stimulus") 'Production' cannot increase {...beyond the 'hunter/gatherer' human stage} without 'savings' (deferred-consumption). Politicians printing dollars does not create savings. What one chooses to produce or how it is used -- are always purely subjective human choices. Unsuccessful or misdirected production constitutes wasted resources -- and increases scarcity rather than reducing scarcity. Recessions are the cure for large scale mistakes in resource allocation, redirecting & liquidating non-productive activities. Government rescues of non-productive activities make things worse. “Investing is deferring consumption and laying money out now to get more money back later. And there are really only two questions for investors… how much you’re going to get back, and the other is when.”

— Warren Buffet

The first law of Economics is ‘scarcity’ — there is never enough stuff to satisfy the needs & wants of everybody.

One can only get stuff {or more stuff} by human ‘production’ — not by politicians spending paper money (“Stimulus”)

‘Production’ cannot increase {…beyond the ‘hunter/gatherer’ human stage} without ‘savings’ (deferred-consumption). Politicians printing dollars does not create savings.

What one chooses to produce or how it is used — are always purely subjective human choices.

Unsuccessful or misdirected production constitutes wasted resources — and increases scarcity rather than reducing scarcity.

Recessions are the cure for large scale mistakes in resource allocation, redirecting & liquidating non-productive activities. Government rescues of non-productive activities make things worse.

]]> By: JLP http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396856 JLP Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:49:25 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396856 Brian, I don't think people follow them without question. I think any time someone recommends a certain investment, we have to take it with a grain of salt. I think it also proves just how difficult (impossible) it is to see the future. I read it because there are some interesting tidbits in amongst the drivel. Brian,

I don’t think people follow them without question. I think any time someone recommends a certain investment, we have to take it with a grain of salt. I think it also proves just how difficult (impossible) it is to see the future.

I read it because there are some interesting tidbits in amongst the drivel.

]]> By: Brian http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396843 Brian Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:23:05 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396843 It's always interesting how people continue to follow these guys and not question them...Did you see their performance last year? I'm sure they must remain bullish but not one of them mentioned the severity last year June...just some food for thought... It’s always interesting how people continue to follow these guys and not question them…Did you see their performance last year? I’m sure they must remain bullish but not one of them mentioned the severity last year June…just some food for thought…

]]> By: Garrick http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396840 Garrick Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:46:25 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396840 The first law of Economics is 'scarcity' --- there is never enough stuff to satisfy the needs & wants of everybody. One can only get stuff {...or more stuff} by human 'production' -- not by politicians spending paper money ("Stimulus") 'Production' cannot increase {...beyond the 'gathering nuts & berries' stage} without 'savings' (deferred-consumption). Politicians printing more dollars does not create savings. What one chooses to produce or how it is used -- are always purely subjective human choices. Unsuccessful or misdirected production constitutes wasted resources -- and increases scarcity rather than reducing scarcity. :::: “Investing is deferring consumption and laying money out now to get more money back later. And there are really only two questions for investors... how much you’re going to get back, and the other is when." -- Warren Buffet The first law of Economics is ‘scarcity’ — there is never enough stuff to satisfy the needs & wants of everybody.

One can only get stuff {…or more stuff} by human ‘production’ — not by politicians spending paper money (“Stimulus”)

‘Production’ cannot increase {…beyond the ‘gathering nuts & berries’ stage} without ‘savings’ (deferred-consumption). Politicians printing more dollars does not create savings.

What one chooses to produce or how it is used — are always purely subjective human choices.

Unsuccessful or misdirected production constitutes wasted resources — and increases scarcity rather than reducing scarcity.

::::

“Investing is deferring consumption and laying money out now to get more money back later. And there are really only two questions for investors… how much you’re going to get back, and the other is when.”

— Warren Buffet

]]> By: Forex scalping http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396827 Forex scalping Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:10:34 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396827 > Giving a tax cut to people who spend the money at Wal-Mart on products made in China isn’t going to do it. Besides I always think that quality of chinese goods is not verty good often. > Giving a tax cut to people who spend the money at Wal-Mart on products made in China isn’t going to do it.

Besides I always think that quality of chinese goods is not verty good often.

]]> By: Foobarista http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396744 Foobarista Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:07:49 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396744 The problem with manufacturing is it simply can't produce large numbers of jobs, for the simple reason of automation and efficiency. Here's a trick question: what country has lost the most manufacturing jobs in the past 20 years? If you answered "The US", you'd be wrong. The answer is none other than the People's Republic of China, which lost over 22M manufacturing jobs during that time - while increasing the productivity of the jobs it has by several orders of magnitude. The problem with manufacturing is it simply can’t produce large numbers of jobs, for the simple reason of automation and efficiency.

Here’s a trick question: what country has lost the most manufacturing jobs in the past 20 years?

If you answered “The US”, you’d be wrong. The answer is none other than the People’s Republic of China, which lost over 22M manufacturing jobs during that time – while increasing the productivity of the jobs it has by several orders of magnitude.

]]> By: thomas http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396695 thomas Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:35:57 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396695 Agreed about the military spending to help boost the economy, however I don't think the incoming administration wants to do that. It's sad that the US isn't a manufacturer any more - we are a services industry led country. Agreed about the military spending to help boost the economy, however I don’t think the incoming administration wants to do that.

It’s sad that the US isn’t a manufacturer any more – we are a services industry led country.

]]> By: JLP http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396677 JLP Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:19:08 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396677 Mike and rbk, It's a Christian principle. Mike and rbk,

It’s a Christian principle.

]]> By: rbk http://allfinancialmatters.com/2009/01/12/highlights-from-the-part-1-of-the-barrons-roundtable/comment-page-1/#comment-396675 rbk Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:09:05 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/?p=3082#comment-396675 I agree Mike. That statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but neither would the reverse. We exist and so does the planet but neither was intended for the other (though I thank the Earth for having conditions conducive to life . . . I like life quite a bit). Ultimately one of us will probably kill the other. My money is on Earth winning. Not that this has anything to do with money. :-) I agree Mike. That statement doesn’t make a lot of sense to me either, but neither would the reverse. We exist and so does the planet but neither was intended for the other (though I thank the Earth for having conditions conducive to life . . . I like life quite a bit). Ultimately one of us will probably kill the other. My money is on Earth winning.

Not that this has anything to do with money. :-)

]]>