Zero Beta - Latest Comments

Re: The Most Overvalued Security You Own

Shannon Melton — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:59:18 -0000

Paco Ahlgren has it right.

Re: The Unseen Leverage on Corporate Balance Sheets

Dan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:59:50 -0000

Excellent points. And now we see the consumer not buying, ballooning AR metrics. We are going to see massive AR business write-offs in 2009. P/E's won't look so attractive then! and what of stockholder equity?

Re: Wall Street Should Have Listened to Biggie Smalls

Shit Bricks — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:24:19 -0000

Wow!!

thanks for the great post!

Re: Survivorship Bias In Financial Media

Christie Carson-Ginger — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:10:06 -0000

Hi Justin,

I am writing to you today as I have discovered your blog and think you may be interested in our online financial news program. My name is Christie Carson-Ginger and I have been working on DEX.tv since its inception, over a year ago. It is one of the few live video streams online, let alone a place we believe one can obtain a different kind of financial news information. We differ from CNN, CNBC and FOX News because we don’t broadcast simply what the stock markets are doing, but what is happening on a broader economic scale.

Please check us out at www.dex.tv

I would be happy to speak with you further on this. I have shared this with many of my former classmates and think it is a fantastic resource for economics students as well as a case study for those interested new media.

Kind regards,

Christie Carson-Ginger

Re: Wall Street Should Have Listened to Biggie Smalls

momo — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:29:28 -0000

frickin brilliant!

Re: Is TARP an attempt to unwind the trade that got us into this mess?

Kimmy K. — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:13:19 -0000

I wanna leave Reggie Bush for you. You're financial knowledge is astounding.

Re: Generational Warfare Part I: Boomsday

craig — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:54:40 -0000

Justin, did you ever write the other Parts??

Re: The Credibility Crunch

zerobeta — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:59:39 -0000

they did but I'm not that sure if they should. I think a Cubs-Whitesox WS will see both converge. Since there is so little supply of seats at Wrigley and so much demand, introducing the White Sox tickets adds a substitute good at a much lower price. As cubs fans go to thte southside to see a game the spread between the two will decrease. So while counterintuitive a Cubs Whitesox matchup may actually be the cheapest matchup for fans to see the cubs play in the WS at Wrigley (given the Cubs make it).

Re: The Credibility Crunch

christopherhuff — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:05:31 -0000

My guess is they spiked up big last night after the Sox made it into the playoffs. "L" series??

Some great posts yesterday -- thanks for sharing your thoughts. Trying to get through all this reading has been tough lately.

Re: Wall Street Should Have Listened to Biggie Smalls

Claudio Cabrera — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:58:35 -0000

Great post man.

Re: Is Congressional Approval of the Bailout a Prisoner’s Dilemma?

No one — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:11:28 -0000

Justin, your analysis is very prescient. If this isn't cross-posted at Seeking Alpha, it should be.

Re: Is Congressional Approval of the Bailout a Prisoner’s Dilemma?

Frank — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:39:06 -0000

Its a 535 member two-team game of f**k your buddy. I am afraid some members of house have based their understanding of power on Dune and the idea that the one with the power to destroy is the one with the power.

Re: The Credibility Crunch

zerobeta — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:59:12 -0000

Thanks man. I checked out your tumblr blog. Good stuff. Will have to add it to my list. I'm guessing you live in Chicago - what's the buzz on Cubs Tix out there?

Re: The Credibility Crunch

christopherhuff — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:07:04 -0000

Great post!

Re: Passing Premium Puzzle?

zerobeta — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:26:02 -0000

Thanks for the comments. I agree with everything you said and have been speaking on many of those themes for some time. I think the global asset bubble started even much earlier, with the Plaza Accord in 1985, and have reverberated around the globe ever since. I think next interesting event will be what happens when the ECB finally starts cutting interest rates.

Re: Passing Premium Puzzle?

Finance Professor — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:27:00 -0000

That's a little clearer. But I'm not so sure that it's a bizarro world if you look at the very long run (as in Siegel's Stocks for the Long Run). US equity markets have set the long term real return on equities at just under 7%. Egg-headed professors look back on the data -- with the benefit of perfect hindsight -- and say 7% was too large, AS IF EVERYONE KNEW STOCKS WOULD PAY 7% REAL. Duh! The equity premium has been that large exactly because people were extremely unsure of what would come next. Think of the uncertainty associated with two World Wars, the Great Depression and the Cold War. All of those things worked out for the best, but we didn't know they would when those events were playing out. Moreover, the US economy was closer in time to regularly-recurring bank panics than we are today (today we probably have a false sense of security that regulation and Fed monetary policy is better than it used to be -- I'd say that's highly debatable). As if in response to all this B.S. about the equity premium being too large historically, the equity premium is smaller today -- any way you measure it. Yet, as we've seen with the subprime banking crisis, the world is just as uncertain as it used to be. Russia and the Middle East have all the oil. The Chinese have a work ethic that would make the average American faint -- just THINKING about it. We're as up against it as we've always been. And we may very well prevail, just as we always have -- but we don't know that with the type of perfect certainty that warrants real expected returns on stocks of 4-5% (or lower). When you look at the P/Es (use 10-year smoothed earnings as suggested by Graham & Dodd, Shiller and others) and dividend yields on the major indexes, however, these metrics don't reflect the forward-looking expected returns necessary to fully compensate the real risks going forward -- at least as those risks appear to a rational person TODAY. (That's why the super rich are hoarding cash and cash equivalents and, as the Forbes crowd always loves to do, hoarding gold.) What's holding up equity values (and keeping relative valuation high compared to this point in a bear market historically) are all the morons that have migrated into professional money management that approach their profession with a sort of jock mentality -- "Stocks have always paid off and I'm really bullish on America," "Stocks look really cheap to me right now," etc. Where did these people study? The University of Phonies? (Whoops, I mean Phoenix.) Now, all this doesn't mean that stock values can't rise from here as soon as the news turns more positive than negative, but if they do, we'll just be perpetuating this rolling global asset bubble that's been hanging over markets since the latter 1990s (Google Jeremy Grantham's excellent article on this). I better stop now -- I'm writing your blog for you.

Re: Passing Premium Puzzle?

zerobeta — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:33:56 -0000

I agree that my writing is sometimes a bit convoluted as most of it comes at the end of the day as more of a stream of consciousness than anything else - especially lately as I have become busy.

I should have proofread and what I wrote, and in the paragraph you quoted I meant to say:

"Thus, the equity premium puzzle is more of a reflection of the Regulators' preferred risk/return profile of the market, rather than the markets preferred risk and returns. The regulators of the market attempt to create such a premium out there so that the risk-averse investor increasingly takes on more risks. "

What I meant is that the market a casino in bizarro world, where the house sets the odds good enough so people will come to play - even if the house always loses. The house believes the casino is a "vital" part of a larger economy - of which it has a beneficial stake. The equity risk premium is the "odds" they set - the amount they are willing to lose running the casino to ensure some greater good. The market for the most part is quite rational - but the regulators are not, or at least are maximizing something else but profit in the marketplace. Thus the premium is not a construct of the "market" (if you don't include the Fed and Government) but an average return of a gambler versus a non-gambler when the casino is not concerned with making money - which would explain why it is so "puzzling".

Thanks for the comments I always enjoy them - good, bad, or otherwise.

Re: Passing Premium Puzzle?

Finance Professor — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:34:11 -0000

I have a PhD in financial economics, and have published several papers on the equity premium. I hate to deliver bad news, but this posting has no intellectual content whatsoever. I have a hunch that you understand what you want to say -- but getting it out clearly so that other people can grasp your point clearly is obviously not your forte.

For example, consider this statement made by you: "Thus, the equity premium puzzle is more of a reflection of the preferred risk/return profile of the market, rather than the markets preferred risk and returns. The regulators of the market attempt to create such a premium out there so that the risk-averse investor is less risk averse."

That is convoluted drivel of the highest degree.

Here's what you mean to say: The historical magnitude of the equity premium is a puzzle only if one assumes that the marginal (price-setting) investor in the market is perfectly rational (as in "homo economicus"). If the marginal agent exhibits behavioral "quirks" (because to egg-headed academics, being human is "odd") that deviate from strict rationality, however, and has a utility function that values qualitative factors (apart from end-of-period wealth) -- foremost among these being GREATER CERTAINTY -- then holding lower-volatility assets such as bonds makes perfect sense.

Okay, we're done herej -- break it up, people. Everybody go home and have a beer. Or two.

Re: A Way for Abnormal Returns to Realize Abnormal Returns

D_Merkel — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:30:08 -0000

Abnormal Returns [AR] is one of my favorite blogs, and I want to see the fellow behind it prosper. I'm not sure that taking fees from other bloggers will aid ARs' credibility. It almost looks like a rating agency model. Users pay little for ratings, and issuers pay. If the best pay less, it will be difficult to get the worst to pay.

That said, I would be willing to lend my book reviews to them (~20 and growing) with which they could use to facilitate their own Amazon store, the way I have it on the left hand side of my blog. Beyond that, if AR is that popular, sponsorship/quality advertising possibilities should be possible -- I am looking into some at present and would be happy to share them if they work out.

The rest of your ideas I like. I don't write with AR in mind; some of my practical posts are good, but won't be of interest to AR. I won't be in the top 10. But it would motivate others to write better posts, and more of them.

Re: My New Job & Observations on the Job Market from My Own Search

zerobeta — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:23:38 -0000

Bond Investor,

Good to hear from you again. Hope all is well. My post was targeted more towards people in my age group who haven't really experienced what its like to not have a job come to you. There is a ton of supply in this market and a "illusion" of demand. Many people are just recycling old job openings, with no real rush to fill them waiting for the right candidate to come along. The ability to be that candidate or convince someone you are, is what will get a job.

This is a strategic job market rewarding people who are looking for value in something else over money. "Something else" could be a working environment, a new field, a new location, a better firm, whatever. Someone like you, who is "undervalued" as you imply (and your previous commentary gives me no reason to doubt) should have no problem finding something very strategic to your goals, but very rarely will be able to make a tactical move for more money.

I think this is net "good" for the job market. I have always been one to believe that a higher structural unemployment rate is not necessarily bad and could actually be good for the economy. Structural unemployment is a necessary part of growth. Many people at work will also begin to fear for their own structural unemployment and may become more even productive. While structural has some long-lasting effects that are not attractive, at the end of the day it is a realization that capital is being inefficiently utilized, and an adjustment. It gets a bad rap because of the "human element" and political implications, but economically it is much better than paying someone capital that is earning a negative or diminishing return that is much lower than the cost of capital. It is my belief that any type of shock to a system that does not render it useless, should make it stronger, or cause participants to avoid future shocks. Unnemployment in general is something that keeps an economy "honest" with itself

Much of this problem we are currently facing, is for structural reasons. We had way too many people working in Finance getting paid probably too much money to be somewhere in the assembly line of credit expansion. As more hiring goes on and credit expands beyond a point of economic benefit, it takes smart people away from careers that would be much more productive and puts them in competition with each other to essentially perform a task involved somewhere in the process of something that is detrimental to the economy. While there are some jobs that helped the economy and many of those individuals will be affected, by and large this structural "correction" is a rebalancing of the labor force over time. Some of these people will go back to school and be educated, others will reevaluate where they want to go and what they want to do and perhaps go into different direction completely. Then there will be some who will feel entitled to what they made, find other jobs inferior, and flounder for a while. Those people should probably stay out of the workforce until they realize their true worth.

Its funny you should mention the Baby Boomers and I will digress on another point altogether. I do think that this mess is a function of their mentality and down right selfishness, and collective power. There will not be too many of them experiencing this downturn as they are at the highest rungs of the ladder in most generations now. It strikes me somewhat odd that a generation that has been given so much more than any other in history could end up with so little. To try to tell them that they are the "worst generation" as I believe they will go down in history, is almost like spewing racial slander or another type of personal attack. That is the example of a collective psyche, an unhealthy swollen ego, and a population of people who identify with eachother and take credit only when things are good . One argument I get often is that "we helped civil rights" or "we worked for years so that you could have this". It irks me that they are so naive and narcissistic that they believe they freed an entire race of people (people who at this moment are still very much in poverty and started to get thrown in jail in the 1980's so that they could live their yuppie existence), and also believe that they have "given" us something except material things and a very dismal future that we have to pay for.

On top of that when you address all of the negatives that are starting to pop up, it is all about "them" - whoever they are - it is never us. Those corporations and politicians, those Democrats, those Republicans, those Immigrants, those terrorists. If 50% of your generation thinks that the other 50% of your generation is to blame, and vice versa, perhaps that is a sign that you all look in the mirror. Never has a generation been given so much and been left with so little.

So sorry for that little rant but you know how I feel about that generation. I wouldn't bank on getting that PM job from the Boomer, but rather put yourself in the position to benefit from his exit. Plus, the market should have known better than not to crash while he was invested in securities that financed its boom. It's not his fault, he "earned" that job benefiting from his "great management" of risks leading up to this moment. This current slip is just some crazy event, the rest was disciplined growth. It's not a measure of his actual skill, but rather a time to double down on his ability to take risk.

I can now take my tongue out of my cheek. Best of luck Bond Investor.

Re: My New Job & Observations on the Job Market from My Own Search

whooknew — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:15:02 -0000

Being a buyer in this "buyer's" market, I tend to agree with Justin. The most important part of the process is the cover letter. Your resume really just tells me who you are and where you are from. Even a resume with "Goldman Sachs, MBA, CFA, CPA, C++, SQL" is worthless w/o a cover letter. And if someone with those "credentials" sends a resume with no specific cover letter, what does that say about the candidate? (No, you're really not THAT good to get called for an interview because of your "pedigree").

Why should I (or any employer) take the time to review your candidacy if you haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the company and present a clear value proposition.

I'm not too sure what the job market looks like.......but I can say the market is flooded with supply. Having said that, more supply does not mean it's easier to buy. It may be cheaper, but finding value is never easy (or inexpensive).

Always Be Buying

Re: My New Job & Observations on the Job Market from My Own Search

Bond investor — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:17:02 -0000

Justin, I have felt underutilized and overqualified for my job for over a year now. I was considering a job search, reasoning that with all the dislocations, there were opportunities for a relatively young (35 yrs old) portfolio manager/analyst with a market-beating track record to grab a brass ring from some Baby Boomer who made too many risky bets during this credit crunch.

However, your comments about supply and demand are sobering. Unlike many financial markets, where there is a buyer for every seller, the market for finance human capital seems to be shrinking in the short term.

Re: Why Is Commodity Speculation so Bad?

zerobeta — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:47:16 -0000

1. Perhaps but I mean McDonalds faces the effects of rising food costs just as much as the next guy. They simply can use scale and market positioning to their advantage, but from a health concious consumer's perspective fast food and healthier higher quality food may not be considered substitutes at all. I'm not sure exactly would play out. In general I'm not really as concerned about the prospects of a return to "scarcity" that seem to be resonating around the marketplace. Eventually the rising prices would cause the incentive to grow more food and develop technologies that make food cheaper or more useful, etc.

2. I do stand somewhat corrected. You can do it for a small house, but I got my information from a website with "solar interests" it seems so it is a little more expensive, but then again you need to realize that at today's prices although it would take 20 years to be paid off (assuming energy inflates at the risk free rate - which is probabably a conservative assumption). If the cost grows more than the discount rate, it could be something like 15 years. Also if you look at it from a NPV perspective, depending on how long its useful life is, the NPV of the "cash flows" is something much less than the initial outlay, but will most likely be priced by a homeowner based on the initial outlay they would have to make to install a solar system in a comparable house (although this is the wrong way to price it). Since people naturally are somewhat apathetic and lethargic about these things, the preinstalled system will trade at the price to install a new system in another place - since they are relatively scarce and demand is high. At the end of the day its just a great sell for someone who has put down a ton of their savings on a down payment and now has to pay a mortgage each month. Even though at those prices someone who pays nearly full value would eventually pay those costs through the mortgage, but like I've said just because it may not make economic sense, it still may be profitable for the people who install it based on the composition and ignorance of the market as well as the unique selling point it brings.

Re: A Disturbing Trend for American Men

mayfieldga — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:41:54 -0000

rick lynn
5012 Seaboard Ave.
Jacksonville, FL 32210
904-771-0687
mayfieldga@bellsouth.net

The Rose and the Cactus
How does the Rose talk to the Cactus. How will the words of the Rose show real feeling for the Cactus? Will the subconscious give away in some trait in tone, inflection, or voice stress that may betray a lack of feeling or true respect from the Rose’s years of constant cultivation as opposed to the years of harsh desert conditions faced by the Cactus? Will the words in reply by the Cactus be appreciated or looked down upon as weakness typical of treatment toward the Cactus that receive too much care? Perhaps this is the reason why the Rose and Cactus do not grow together in the same environment, for they are raised so differently. How can one respect the other when the thorns of the Cactus are grown from harsh conditions, while the thorns from Rose are born from indulgence?
The Growing Gulf Between Men and Women
There is a growing gulf in communication between men and women. The nineteenth century belief man should be strong has allowed increased aggression upon Males from day one. Along with this aggression allowed upon Males is the idea of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps that denies much in terms of mental, emotional, social, and academic supports from day one. The help usually given involves something to help make Male children strong as in sports or other physical competitions. Care in other social, emotional, or even academic areas is still considered indulging the Male. While this type of treatment may have proved useful in the more physical nineteenth century, it is working opposite of need in the information age where it requires much more accumulated mental, emotional, social and academic skills acquired over time. In these areas, Males are being seriously shortchanged.
The increased aggression Males receive from day one, creates three bad things for Males academically, mentally, emotionally, and socially: 1. It creates higher average layers of mental frictions (redefined from higher average stress) which inhibit thinking, learning, and motivation in mental areas. 2. These higher layers of mental frictions also create improper pace and intensity in approaching mental work (apply too much effort when approaching new material) and higher tension that hurts motivation to learn. 3. It also creates the Male ego or defensive cushion that the Male develops from an early age to protect them from the aggressions they receive from society. This Male ego or defensive cushion has the negative consequences of further alienating the Male from “any” various mental, emotional, social, and academic supports they “might just” receive from society. When Males hear firm or hard words from others like teachers or others their minds are thinking defense and not thinking about learning and enjoying the learning process.
The combination of high layers of mental frictions and defensive cushion are working to create an impediment to learning that accumulates in harm over time for men. In society today, men are given love, honor, respect, and support or the essentials of their self-worth only on the “condition of sufficient” achievement, money, power, status or image. They must fight through the still present, nineteenth century confrontations allowed by society upon them from an early age to achieve those benefits and feelings of self-worth.
For women, due to the nineteenth century belief women should be protected and still in effect today, this has created much overprotection and even indulgence for many women. It is creating very low layers of mental frictions collectively for women. This makes thinking, learning, and motivation mental areas much easier. This protection and continuous attention from day one create a high speed expressway that allows for much mental, emotional, social and academic advancement in many areas over time. These two continual supports from society over time create nearly everything a person needs today to succeed in the information age. Since women are given through overprotection, even indulgence, the benefits of love, honor, respect, and continual support, all of the benefits of self-worth from an early age without qualification (simply because they are girls), they are working with much more continual support and interaction to accumulate more continual mental, emotional, social, and academic knowledge and skills that can be transformed easily into money, power, status, and image. Even after this, society’s protection, continued support and view toward beauty and charm continually helps them in the information age.
The combination of this differential treatment has now created a tremendous gulf between men and women today. Women are now surging ahead academically and economically due to this overprotection and men are still puzzled as to why they are falling behind in those areas. You see if you remove the old money from older men, the girls are making more. The current beliefs held by both men and women today is that Males learn differently and/or men are simply lazy and do not try hard enough. These beliefs only add to the gulf between men and women today. The men who believe this and who do not have information to the contrary may believe they are somehow mentally inferior or just not working hard enough. Somehow, humans, men included, tend to reflect the treatment they receive in their lives upon others and do not know or are not allowed by society to say how differential treatment is hurting them. This may lead Males to give up in developing various mental, emotional, social, and academic skills over time. They may limit their interest and desires to smaller windows of fulfillment within their social connections. They will continue to dress up for display, their Male defensive cushion to at least present a plausible image when dealing in areas where they are not as competent. Worse for these Males, they may advance their beliefs and feelings onto their sons from an early age, thus enabling the continuation of the harmful belief of inferiority in the information age.
As for women, they having been told the same teaching that persons are naturally better in some areas or simply work harder. They may truly feel they are simply more intelligent or have worked harder to achieve what they have achieved. In our world, again women like men often reflect their environment and treatment upon others and so do not appreciate difference in treatment. Also, in our world of insecurities, it is no wonder when women achieve, to boost their insecurity, as affects everyone, they will believe this achievement is due to more intelligence or greater effort on their part and not due to any environmental variables.
This differential treatment has now created a tremendous gulf in communication between men and women. You see, as Males develop from allowed aggressions over time, this treatment operates upon their body language, words, tone, inflection, and voice stress. Over the years, due to this kind of treatment, there is a type of richness added to their words, tones, and inflections that denotes perhaps a higher form of feeling and compassion for others, again reflecting their lives upon others or just valuing others more so. Of course there are also Males due to so much aggression over time by society, who have turned their values around so that nearly any means are okay to justify an end usually for self gain.
As for women, the overprotection given women from day one collectively operates upon their body language, words, tone, and inflection over time. As such over attention will affect anyone, this will usually create words and tones that are more light and less rich in tone, inflection, and voice stress. Here we are not talking about strength of voice but “true feeling or care for others”. To the Male, (including myself) this may appear much less substantive or less rich in feeling or compassion when trading such words of conversations with women. Such words can even unintentionally feel patronizing if given too lightly or with less feeling at various times.
I believe as a result of such differential treatment, men are now looking at women only within the window of areas in which they truly feel there is mutual interest and competency. I do not need to explain this part. I feel however, women due to not having knowledge of those differences in treatment, may too often reflect their values and desires upon men with the woman's much larger window of acceptance. Here is where women make their big mistakes. The men hide their shortcomings very well to achieve their small window of interest, while women hide their feelings of superiority to achieve their window or interest. Many women truly believe they are more intelligent and can control things to achieve a happy family with the man as a supporting member. However after the men have achieved their end, they will not be able to hold up their false defensive cushion on a continual basis and really do not care (as society has shown less care for them). The women due to feelings of intellectual superiority will usually then become more open in their natural advanced mental, emotional, social, and academic development. These two truths will collide eventually, leaving one or both sides either perplexed or angry.
Young girls tend to choose inappropriate marriage mates because boys who honestly portray their instability (due to society accepted mistreatment of Males) are more rejected by the girls. Since the boys know this, the boys who are usually selected come from three groups: (A) boys who have been sheltered and have not yet received their confrontations; (B) boys who put on the appearance of stability in order to sway the girl; and (C) boys who manage to acquire a somewhat stable life by emptying their life of a measure of circumstances, responsibilities, and weights or values. Young and older girls are usually the last ones to learn this information. Girls have not been told these differences exist.
The girl can protect herself by mapping out how her perspective mate deals with his angers, circumstances, responsibilities, along with weights and values he applies to elements in his life. These are natural human emotions and traits; they should flow naturally. A boy who does poorly in these areas or worse, appears to hide these traits, is unconsciously giving the girl a message of warning. This information is vital and necessary for preventing teen-age date and domestic-marriage violence.
Today, the gulf in communication between men and women is growing more deeply each day. For men, those who are trying to lead a more decent life, from the confrontations they have experienced, they are usually very compassionate and caring persons, whose words are rich in tone and inflection. For many men though, there is the value of the world, where society’s lack of values toward them have made them less caring or compassionate. Such ones may develop a very fluid personality designed to create whatever image is necessary to accomplish their immediate ends. Too often women make the sad mistake of seeing the more compassionate and caring men, those men who remain kind to women even when those women abuse them in various ways, as weak and the more brisk or bold men (more like those overprotected women) as strong. Those women do not realize that the mark of kindness and goodness in such men is usually tempered from years of confrontations that has created compassion and care for others, something many women have not experienced enough to value.
For women there are many who desire to have both a family and a career. They are filled with the language of social and academic education they have been supported with from day one. They reflect their lives from their close reflection of themselves upon others and then look for Male companions that match with their lives. However, their lack of true compassion and feeling for others that comes from such overprotection spills out continually through their body language, words, tone, and inflection. The freedom of expression allowed for women to give verbal, silent abuse, and hollow kindness with impunity (society allowing it) even toward a third party (such as a waiter), also presents a huge obstacle for women, especially when such comes out when dating. You see if men see it one time, they can expect it again toward them some day. Also, time and again many women make the mistake overestimating the values and underestimating the calculations of Males, especially those without true values of others, and also those Males who are more caring but have limits on how much they will take.
There is another growing phenomena, this involves the driving of Males from the work place. Part of the reason is there are fewer jobs left for Males in the industrial and other blue collar related areas and more job openings in more white collar areas. But even so, there are other reasons for this change in society. One reason is the nineteenth century belief Males should be strong has left many Males years behind in various mental, emotional, social, and academic areas of learning. This has created a large pool of Male employees who are not able to adapt to information age needs. Another reason is that as more Females enter positions of power and collective control, they are more apt to keep Female employees and lay off Male employees (there is not equal opportunity protection for Males). There is another more complex reason why Females are keeping their jobs and Males are losing their jobs. The nineteenth century belief Females should be protected works in the work place also. It places more constrictions on how jobs, intimidation, force for output, and general respect and care is given to Females. However, society’s allowed aggressions upon Male employees allows much more harsh treatment of Males in terms of verbal abuse, intimidation, job assignments, and lack of respect in general. This difference in treatment over time places the Male in a much more precarious position in deciding whether to continually put up with such mental/emotional abuse or quit or be fired for finally drawing a line at some point. Even when Females face similar treatment on the job, the over all treatment of respect and care usually support them so they are able to carry on and remain employed.
I suspect these reasons are now being played out in society as Business Week said that in the last six months, “From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not.”
Also a biggie for financially successful women: men have faced confrontations from day one. Men do not expect goodness and support from society. They have learned from continuous aggressions from society to expect more aggression from individuals where men are perceived as weak in some way. This is why men cannot allow themselves to present weakness in any manner for it invites only more aggression from society. Men are given love, honor, respect, and support only when they demonstrate to society sufficient achievement, money, power, status, or image. When they see a successful woman, usually more successful than themselves, they have learned time and again to expect more verbal, silent abuse, or hollow kindness/ patronization from many (lol; I have received this kind of treatment from women on the job, at the store, and at other places of business simply from just their perception of me as more humble and mild. Society allows them to be more abrasive and patronizing.
For those women who are less educated and attempt to lead a caring life, perhaps by experience of more hardships there is greater sincerity of words, tone, and inflection. These differences are clearly felt respected by others. These women are truly to be commended for they are bucking the model that is presented in the media today. They may still be susceptible to men who put forth an image seeking only a small window of interest.
For me, I see so many insecure persons, both men and women, who are trying to survive. I see the media hurting everyone by fostering the idea of power struggles without care or consideration for others. I see the rewarding of strength at all cost and domination as the key to maintaining viewer interest and support. Here I am seeing good women turned around through abuse and good men being turned around through abuse of them. Together, only those who have a hope outside this old rotting system will survive and maintain their mental/emotional health. Those who succumb to the hatred they are dealt with in society will probably take sides in the growing gulf that is becoming more warlike each day.
Due to the advancement of the information age and the continual increase in domination by Females in white collar positions, I see the media now much more dominated by women who have saturated the airways from very light, tinish, and seemingly patronizing words, tones, and inflections to very strong, hard biting words. Society’s protection for women allows these kinds of expressions with impunity. I do not value such words. Due to the confrontations I have experienced, I find such words in men and women much less valuable and even counterfeit. Perhaps this is why many other Males are tuning out and away from the media. I am a very caring person. I feel for everyone. However, I know there are many persons, who respect only strength and power and who see mildness, kindness, and goodness as weakness. I see bank tellers, postal clerks, grocery check out persons, and even civil servants, using their society protected freedoms of expression to give verbal, silent abuse, and hollow kindness, usually to those individuals who are the most sincere. Yes, this conduct, perhaps due to much modeling from the media, “does poison the well” for women in general. I am now more on guard all the time. I feel this gulf between men and women cannot continue for very long. I am intelligent and can deal with anyone on any level. I just will not allow my words to be exchanged for counterfeit words. LOL; Fortunately for me, I grew up with a speech impediment so rejection is something I have a great deal of experience. I have learned to value my solitude. My complete learning theory will go to all on request by e-mail mayfieldga@bellsouth.net
By showing students how our environments greatly affect thinking and learning, students will have much more respect for themselves and for others. By providing students with tools to approach their lives differently to continually improve their abilities, students will then have a continuous hope of developing in time, many if not all of the qualities they admire in others. Students will then have a continuous hope of changing and becoming better, newer persons with each passing day.

Re: Why Is Commodity Speculation so Bad?

Zirill — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:47:05 -0000

2 questions for the author and anyone else:

1. Wouldn't rising food costs simply result in the substitution towards cheaper food i.e. low quality/fast food?

2. Where did you find home solar panel installations for $20,000? A quick search based on an energy bill of $200/month yielded a price tag of ~$100.000