Search results

The US represents a larger % of global manufacturing output than in 1995. The percentage share gained by China has been lost by Japan, not the US.

The same snakeoil like all the other "COMEX SHORTS ARE ABOUT TO DEFAULT" stories over the last couple of years. Gotta love how the gold bugs have "impeccable sources" or are in constant communication with "informed circles" or "high ranking Chinese officials". If you didn't know better one...

It is true that many countries have a lower cost of living than the US, but I would also note that many countries have a far lower STANDARD of living. Availability of products, quality of products and services as well as general living conditions are often inferior to the US. And those...

#1 Product availability. I trade US equity, forex, 60 global futures markets all from 1 master account. #2 Rock solid commissions. Last month I paid an avg. of 0.19 cents per share. #3 IB algo orders for stocks. Why sit there all day managing orders when the bot can hammer through the orders...

Anybody remember the night when AUD crashed 7% one night last year? Leveraged forex trading housewifes were committing suicide in Tokyo. It will happen again, sooner or later.

That fund was down ~13% in 2008. This year's 20% would make it a total gain of 4.7% for 01/01/2008 until now. Using data going back to Jan 1990, I have total annualized returns for high yield corporate bonds @ 7% with a max DD of 29%. Correlation of monthly returns with the SP500 is 60%...

Low transaction costs (fees, taxes and spreads) and market depth (liquidity) are huge economic benefits.

It wouldn't bother anybody here if trading volume on the exchanges dropped by half and bid/ask spreads widened by 50%? Then nobody is trading around here.

1. GS gets the info. 2. 48 hours later: Everyone else.

Too much sugar can hurt. Ouch: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dG5Qk-jB0D4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed...

I don't mean to disrespect his persona, just wanted to mention he is becoming a bit tiring that's all He made tons of money, he can do what he loves and has a lot of passion for for the rest of his life (markets, economics), he drove around the world twice and has a wife that is a couple of...

And he pumped Sugar in 1995 when it went nowhere for 10 years. He trash talked US bonds in the 90s when they continued a bull run for another 10 years. He said he was short GE/JPM/IBM in April/May 2009 and called a "typical sucker's rally". Of course, we never hear the Bloomberg/CNBC...

And today is LOWER than the Friday's over the last couple of weeks in many of the stocks I follow. Of course Columbus day plays a role. Bond markets are closed, people are taking a long weekend.

Roger's has been a broken record for the last couple of years. Re-read his interviews from 2006, 2007, 2008 and he's still saying the exact same stuff. I don't blame him for not changing his opinion, I just wonder why he gets so much media coverage when he's always singing the same tune no...

Columbus day on Monday, I guess some peeps taking Mondy off and going home early on Fridays. Volume really low in some of my mid-caps, keeping my fingers crossed I get enough volume into the close to get these trades fully filled.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=a.x0aYGH0Mqw Some names in here.

If you're looking for action, why not trade the DAX future aka the "pickpocket". It will empty your pockets faster than a Romanian gypsy.

Still finding explanations and rationalization on WHY the market is up (or down)? If it's a bubble we can simply short, averaging into losing positions? Like people who blew up on short positions in 1997/1998/1999? The more people short this pig of a market the higher it will go.

Eventually all flying pigs come crashing down, not sure if the time is here yet for sugar. Let's see if it can break 22 cents @ MAR10 contract. It dipped slightly below today, then calmed down.

That belongs on a LOG CHART. Only a complete idiot would chart a 100 year times series of nominal data on a non-log axis. Edit: Oh wait, it's from Mises.org, that explains it :cool: