You might have heard that JPMorgan recently announced a $2 Billion loss in one of it's Hedge Funds. This is being talked about quite a bit since some people fear it's a sign of another oncoming 2008 financial collapse and suggesting more regulation is needed while others are saying this is not 2008. I've heard people say that this is the reason we need a beefy "Volcker Rule" despite the fact that the full Volcker Rule would not have prevented this type of loss. Also being over looked is that the Dodd-Frank regulation didn't seem to have any effect on this at all which tells me that the Financial Regulation that the Obama Administration told us was much needed, doesn't really work. Of course I and many others already knew this but I wanted to point it out.
JPMorgan Chase is engaging in investment banking. Investment involves risks. On the radio this morning I heard someone say that "something needs to be done about all these risky investments". This makes me really worry about what people like this think investments are all about. There is no such thing as "risk free" investment. If you invest your money, you are supposed to understand this means you may loose your money. Sure there are varying degrees or risk, but nothing is completely safe, not even burying your money in the back 40 or keeping it in a bank account. (FDIC insurance is only as good as the government guarantee backing it. So if you bank goes bust because your government goes bust, who do you think is going to give you back your $200K???) Gold/Silver, solid gold "actually in your hand", gold and silver may be one of the safest investments, but there is no guarantee of it's value. There is no, NO, NONE, Not a single investment that is 100% safe. If you get involved in a hedge fund and don't understand what is going on, you have no one to blame but yourself.
That all being said, I think it's also important to note that JPMorgan is still going to make Billions this year, so a $2 Billion loss doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I'm not prepared to say that it's not a sign of what's to come. I personally believe we have yet to see the real crash, and when we do, 2008 will look like peaches and cream.
(Ahhh, the good old days when the FED could just print more money and make everything well again)
:-(
Cheers,
Mike
Despite the fact that Ron Paul is actually much better than President Obama in so many categories, I keep hearing people say Mitt Romney is better then President Obama, so we all need to support the GOP candidate. Besides the fact that the GOP Candidate isn't decided yet, I want to take a look at Mitt Romney compared to President Obama to see if he really is better. After much investigation I've been able to list many of these.
President Obama and Mitt Romney have the following in common.
The state of Illinois is so broke, it's advertising for "business" Sounds like a joke right? You know how Illinois is so broke we can't pay our bills? Well I have a good one for you. I received in the mail today a nicely designed full color advertisement from the IDNR (Illinois Department of Natural Resources) urging me to get a fishing license. Now I'm an Outdoorsmen, or at least I like to pretend I have time to get away from a computer, so I kinda like the idea. Also, I'm one of the people who thinks government should be run more like a business so at first glance this was kinda cool, until I thought about it for a moment and realized they were advertising "statism". Licenses for fishing isn't very libertarian after all, even if it's not the worst statist offense in the world. Here's the icing on the cake, the advertisement wasn't even for me, it was for the person who used to live in this house over 6 years ago, which is really sad because I've purchased hunting and fishing licenses since I've lived here. This means the IDNR is spending money sending mailers to people who have not done any business with them in almost a decade. This got me thinking, should the State be advertising? The IDNR like most State's rely heavily on fees, so does it make sense to spend money, that we really don't have, in order to raise more money? I guess this tactic might be a Hail Mary for an actual business, but is it the right move for a State? Cheers, Mike
I think the first thing you need to do is define wisdom. If you think of wisdom as book smarts, memorizing facts and data that can recited back on demand, then I think age is obviously a obstacle since many older people have trouble remembering your name. If wisdom is more about knowing and understanding the minutia of life, perhaps age does help play a role. Mature people have after all lived longer and so have experienced more, so they could very well have insight that younger people could not have.
This being said I should mention that some old people live both figuratively and literally, in bubbles. Some people can achieve age while never bothering to stop and consider an alternate point of view. Some people grow up, live and die in the same small town having never traveled outside their state. Others have traveled the world, fought in wars and survived great hardships.
This of course, doesn't mean that folks who have traveled the world necessarily have open minds, or that small town yocals have closed minds. The overall knowledge or wisdom one has probably is more connected to the sharing of ideas, than anything else. This means that sharing ideas is paramount to obtaining knowledge. Knowledge after all is nothing more than ideas that have been proven and dis-proven over time. Any scientist will tell you that a negative result is just as valuable as a positive one, even if the result is met with a less than enthusiastic reception.
In my opinion there is no doubt that the younger generations can learn a great deal from those who have lived. The only problem I see is that many times, it's like pulling teeth trying to get some of the older folks to share. I've touched on this before, somewhere along the line it became a "rule" not to discuss politics and religion and in some families and circles, this morphed into a "rule" where no one shares any opinions or anything that might cause someone to be uncomfortable. How is the younger generation to learn anything if ideas, opinions and world views are not shared?
Of course this isn't the case with everyone, sometimes you can't hardly get a word in edgewise with some folks. They want to capitalize all your time with stories about the old world, the war or back when they had to walk to school up hill both ways. They might not know who won the world series last year but they can tell you in great detail each and every single mistake and misstep John F. Kennedy ever made. Or they might be to tell you each and every team ever to have any success at all while competing in our national past time but not have a clue who their Senator or Congressman is, or even if they voted for or against the latest piece of landmark legislation.
Sometimes skills and abilities are handed down from generation to generation. The Fathers and Grandfathers, The Mothers and Grandmothers, teach the younger generation about the skills needed in life. Sometimes these skills are lost because they want more for their children, because after all women shouldn't be stuck in a kitchen and young men shouldn't be forced to work with their hands, that's grunt work... All to often prejudices are inherited from the older generations. But acceptance is also learned. There was a time in the history of our great nation when blacks couldn't see a doctor because many simply wouldn't trouble themselves to help a colored person, while some treated these minorities with the same respect as anyone else.
A very telling piece from our American history is that back in the very early days of our country even before the republican form of government that we now hold dear is that both young and old, rich and poor alike were very knowledgeable and literate. Education was a key ingredient in the American Experiment, at a time when the percentage of literate people in Europe was very low, early Americans took great pride in making sure everyone could not only read and write, but understood what freedom meant. Having read from the same books and sharing ideas across the board led to people being able to compromise and grow. Even people who didn't agree were able to come together.
The only way for us to grow as a society, is if we continue to share opinions and ideas. It's important to note that several of our founders did not like each other very much, but they respected one another, so much so as to risk their lives for one another. None of this would have been possible if we simply refused to share ideas and opinions. This means that the younger folks need to listen and learn what they can from the older generations but it also means the older generations need to keep their mind open to new ideas that the younger folks bring to the table.
Where does this leave us, are old people really more wise or not? I think the answer is simple, it depends:-) An idea isn't necessarily correct just because it comes from someone who has achieved an advanced age just as an idea from a young person is not wrong simply because they have not lived or experienced any hardships in their life.
Cheers,
Mike
This is the question many neo-cons and Republican party hacks have been asking lately.
The simple answer is no. The only person I and many if not all of my fellow Ron Paul supporters will vote for, is Ron Paul. I highly Doubt Paul would support Romney, he's not a party hack and he knows how much credibility he would loose if he did such a thing. Paul stands by his principles, he's done this for 3 decades so I don't think he would start towing the party line now. Republican is not better than Democrat, Freedom is better than tyranny, so supporting Romney in any way would be akin to giving your jailer a rope and asking him to tie you up and hang you. Romney is not for small government, he is not for fiscal responsibility and he is not for free markets, he's a crony capitalist and a statist, pure and simple. He's proven this with his past legislative actions. Paul on the other hand has proven that he will stand, alone if necessary, for what is right.
Some Christians like to say that it's not important what a person does when people are watching, but what they do when no one is looking. Flip that in reverse. Paul has stood alone so many times when everybody was looking. He did the right thing when so many where doing the wrong thing. He's stood for our rights, our freedoms and the U.S. Constitution, when others were poking fingers at him, and making jokes about the Constitution being "outdated" and "obsolete". He’s the only one who understands non-interventionism and proper use of the U.S. Military. He doesn’t believe in any foreign aid, while others pander for votes by giving money away like we can just print more. (Oh wait, they can)… Ron Paul should be the natural choice for TEA Party minded people, but instead, their judgment has been clouded by so many other issues that have nothing do with anything and in some cases, fly’s right in the face of what they claim to believe. Ron Paul would be Obama's worst nightmare in a general election, because anti-war and civil liberties, liberals would take a good hard look at Paul and realize he might be the real deal. But go ahead and choose Romney because the, (“R”) after all is more important…
How could I vote for anyone else? I can't.
Cheers,
Mike
Posts
All Comments
