NAT: Weak Bond Sale Jitters [Archive]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

March 25th 09, 10:10 PM

On Mar 25, 4:57*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:

> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665....
>
> > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt.
>
> > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > prices.
> > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand causes
> > > market swings.
>
> > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in freefall..
>
> > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
>
> * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> you can't see.

As usual, 2pid, you're the only one who sees things 'clearly'.

Oh, and Limbaugh. And Malkin. Oh, and the right-wing bloggers.

Here's the dealio, 2pid: your guys had over six years with almost
unrestrained power. They ****ed it up big time (with the Schiavo
exception, of course). Oh well, time to try something other than what
you 'think' is the best course. After all, that's what landed us here.
LoL.

MiNe 109

March 25th 09, 10:26 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665...
> >
> > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt.
> >
> > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > prices.
> > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand causes
> > > market swings.
> >
> > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in freefall.
> >
> > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
>
> You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> you can't see.

That hole is a four trillion dollar demand deficit. This will help fill
it.

Stephen

MiNe 109

March 25th 09, 10:26 PM

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Mar 25, 4:57*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665...
> >
> > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt.
> >
> > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > > prices.
> > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand causes
> > > > market swings.
> >
> > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in freefall.
> >
> > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
> >
> > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > you can't see.
>
> As usual, 2pid, you're the only one who sees things 'clearly'.
>
> Oh, and Limbaugh. And Malkin. Oh, and the right-wing bloggers.
>
> Here's the dealio, 2pid: your guys had over six years with almost
> unrestrained power. They ****ed it up big time (with the Schiavo
> exception, of course). Oh well, time to try something other than what
> you 'think' is the best course. After all, that's what landed us here.
> LoL.

I know: spending freeze and tax cuts.

Stephen

ScottW2

March 25th 09, 10:55 PM

On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665...
>
> > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt.
>
> > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > > prices.
> > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand causes
> > > > market swings.
>
> > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in freefall.
>
> > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
>
> > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > you can't see.
>
> That hole is a four trillion dollar demand deficit. This will help fill
> it.

Or dry up demand make the void unfillable. Explain how a bond buyer
can win with a low interest (high price) bond created by the Fed
buying short term notes?
His market value is at higher risk and his return at maturity
diminished.
Both factors are going to discourage bond investors from
participating.

ScottW

ScottW2

March 25th 09, 11:02 PM

On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 4:57*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665...
>
> > > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt..
>
> > > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > > > prices.
> > > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand causes
> > > > > market swings.
>
> > > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in freefall.
>
> > > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
>
> > > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > > you can't see.
>
> > As usual, 2pid, you're the only one who sees things 'clearly'.
>
> > Oh, and Limbaugh. And Malkin. Oh, and the right-wing bloggers.
>
> > Here's the dealio, 2pid: your guys had over six years with almost
> > unrestrained power. They ****ed it up big time (with the Schiavo
> > exception, of course). Oh well, time to try something other than what
> > you 'think' is the best course. After all, that's what landed us here.
> > LoL.
>
> I know: spending freeze and tax cuts.

Did we try that under Bush? I don't think so.

How about spending cuts and tax cuts?

BTW, Looks like Democrats are going to roll back Obama's budget plan
even before
republicans get a chance.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123799782851939685.html

ScottW

MiNe 109

March 25th 09, 11:07 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665..
> > > > >.
> >
> > > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt.
> >
> > > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > > > prices.
> > > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand causes
> > > > > market swings.
> >
> > > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in
> > > > > freefall.
> >
> > > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
> >
> > > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > > you can't see.
> >
> > That hole is a four trillion dollar demand deficit. This will help fill
> > it.
>
> Or dry up demand make the void unfillable.

More money doesn't dry up demand.

> Explain how a bond buyer
> can win with a low interest (high price) bond created by the Fed
> buying short term notes?

Safety.

> His market value is at higher risk and his return at maturity
> diminished.
> Both factors are going to discourage bond investors from
> participating.

Unless they're so risk adverse they're unwilling to invest in stocks,
etc.

Stephen

MiNe 109

March 25th 09, 11:10 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 25, 4:57*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665
> > > > > >...
> >
> > > > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt.
> >
> > > > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > > > > prices.
> > > > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand
> > > > > > causes
> > > > > > market swings.
> >
> > > > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in
> > > > > > freefall.
> >
> > > > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > > > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
> >
> > > > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > > > you can't see.
> >
> > > As usual, 2pid, you're the only one who sees things 'clearly'.
> >
> > > Oh, and Limbaugh. And Malkin. Oh, and the right-wing bloggers.
> >
> > > Here's the dealio, 2pid: your guys had over six years with almost
> > > unrestrained power. They ****ed it up big time (with the Schiavo
> > > exception, of course). Oh well, time to try something other than what
> > > you 'think' is the best course. After all, that's what landed us here.
> > > LoL.
> >
> > I know: spending freeze and tax cuts.
>
> Did we try that under Bush? I don't think so.

Bad idea all around. Republicans are calling for them.

> How about spending cuts and tax cuts?

Too slow. The stimulus is already too small and will have to be repeated
immediately.

<snip change of subject>

Stephen

ScottW2

March 25th 09, 11:34 PM

On Mar 25, 4:07*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
>
> > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665..
> > > > > >.
>
> > > > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt.
>
> > > > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > > > > prices.
> > > > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand causes
> > > > > > market swings.
>
> > > > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in
> > > > > > freefall.
>
> > > > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > > > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
>
> > > > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > > > you can't see.
>
> > > That hole is a four trillion dollar demand deficit. This will help fill
> > > it.
>
> > *Or dry up demand make the void unfillable.
>
> More money doesn't dry up demand.

Unsubstantiated claim.
>
> > Explain how a bond buyer
> > can win with a low interest (high price) bond created by the Fed
> > buying short term notes?
>
> Safety.

? Do you even understand the inverse ratio on interest rate and
value?
There is no safety in a bond bought at face value. Nothing good can
happen and much bad can.
>
> > His market value is at higher risk and his return at maturity
> > diminished.
> > Both factors are going to discourage bond investors from
> > participating.
>
> Unless they're so risk adverse they're unwilling to invest in stocks,
> etc.

They'd be better off stuffing the mattress. China is moving to
commodity investments as an alternative. Pop goes the price of oil.

ScottW

MiNe 109

March 25th 09, 11:55 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 25, 4:07*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-14746
> > > > > > >65..
> > > > > > >.
> >
> > > > > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in
> > > > > > > debt.
> >
> > > > > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > prices.
> > > > > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand
> > > > > > > causes
> > > > > > > market swings.
> >
> > > > > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in
> > > > > > > freefall.
> >
> > > > > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't
> > > > > > lending,
> > > > > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
> >
> > > > > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > > > > you can't see.
> >
> > > > That hole is a four trillion dollar demand deficit. This will help fill
> > > > it.
> >
> > > *Or dry up demand make the void unfillable.
> >
> > More money doesn't dry up demand.
>
> Unsubstantiated claim.

Let's start by substantiating your claim that it does. Hint: don't
forget the word 'aggregate'.

> > > Explain how a bond buyer
> > > can win with a low interest (high price) bond created by the Fed
> > > buying short term notes?
> >
> > Safety.
>
> ? Do you even understand the inverse ratio on interest rate and
> value?
> There is no safety in a bond bought at face value. Nothing good can
> happen and much bad can.

You get your money back.

> > > His market value is at higher risk and his return at maturity
> > > diminished.
> > > Both factors are going to discourage bond investors from
> > > participating.
> >
> > Unless they're so risk adverse they're unwilling to invest in stocks,
> > etc.
>
> They'd be better off stuffing the mattress. China is moving to
> commodity investments as an alternative. Pop goes the price of oil.

That sounds really risky.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

March 26th 09, 04:51 AM

On Mar 25, 6:02*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> > > Here's the dealio, 2pid: your guys had over six years with almost
> > > unrestrained power. They ****ed it up big time (with the Schiavo
> > > exception, of course). Oh well, time to try something other than what
> > > you 'think' is the best course. After all, that's what landed us here..
> > > LoL.
>
> > I know: spending freeze and tax cuts.
>
> * Did we try that under Bush? *I don't think so.

So since the parties are identical, why do you fall on the side that
restricts individual liberty, 2pid?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

March 26th 09, 07:08 PM

On Mar 26, 11:31*am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:10*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 25, 4:57*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1474665
> > > > > > > >...
>
> > > > > > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in debt.
>
> > > > > > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at these
> > > > > > > > prices.
> > > > > > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand
> > > > > > > > causes
> > > > > > > > market swings.
>
> > > > > > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in
> > > > > > > > freefall.
>
> > > > > > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't lending,
> > > > > > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
>
> > > > > > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > > > > > you can't see.
>
> > > > > As usual, 2pid, you're the only one who sees things 'clearly'.
>
> > > > > Oh, and Limbaugh. And Malkin. Oh, and the right-wing bloggers.
>
> > > > > Here's the dealio, 2pid: your guys had over six years with almost
> > > > > unrestrained power. They ****ed it up big time (with the Schiavo
> > > > > exception, of course). Oh well, time to try something other than what
> > > > > you 'think' is the best course. After all, that's what landed us here.
> > > > > LoL.
>
> > > > I know: spending freeze and tax cuts.
>
> > > * Did we try that under Bush? *I don't think so.
>
> > Bad idea all around. Republicans are calling for them.
>
> > > How about spending cuts and tax cuts?
>
> > Too slow. The stimulus is already too small and will have to be repeated
> > immediately.
>
> > <snip change of subject>
>
> *When democrats oppose the presidents deficits its a "change of
> subject". *LoL.

When it's a change of subject from the subject you're discussing it's
a "change of subject", ninny.

<snip change of subject>

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

March 26th 09, 07:19 PM

On Mar 26, 11:44*am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:55*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:

> > *ScottW2 > wrote:

> > > *They'd be better off stuffing the mattress. * China is moving to
> > > commodity investments as an alternative. *Pop goes the price of oil..
>
> > That sounds really risky.
>
> *Not if you're really putting oil into a reserve for use later.
> Oil has a far better chance of appreciating than US dollars.

LoL. So, 2pid, according to you we should drill in ANWR, except that
the oil extracted would be sold on the open market and bought by the
Chinese.

The Chinese think we're just starting the recession. If that's the
case and the economy keeps getting worse, the price of oil will drop.

There's one difference between you and the Chinese: the Chinese are
smart. LoL.

MiNe 109

March 27th 09, 02:20 AM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 25, 4:10*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Mar 25, 4:57*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-147
> > > > > > > >4665
> > > > > > > >...
> >
> > > > > > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in
> > > > > > > > debt.
> >
> > > > > > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > prices.
> > > > > > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand
> > > > > > > > causes
> > > > > > > > market swings.
> >
> > > > > > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in
> > > > > > > > freefall.
> >
> > > > > > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't
> > > > > > > lending,
> > > > > > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
> >
> > > > > > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a cliff
> > > > > > you can't see.
> >
> > > > > As usual, 2pid, you're the only one who sees things 'clearly'.
> >
> > > > > Oh, and Limbaugh. And Malkin. Oh, and the right-wing bloggers.
> >
> > > > > Here's the dealio, 2pid: your guys had over six years with almost
> > > > > unrestrained power. They ****ed it up big time (with the Schiavo
> > > > > exception, of course). Oh well, time to try something other than what
> > > > > you 'think' is the best course. After all, that's what landed us
> > > > > here.
> > > > > LoL.
> >
> > > > I know: spending freeze and tax cuts.
> >
> > > * Did we try that under Bush? *I don't think so.
> >
> > Bad idea all around. Republicans are calling for them.
> >
> > > How about spending cuts and tax cuts?
> >
> > Too slow. The stimulus is already too small and will have to be repeated
> > immediately.
> >
> > <snip change of subject>
>
> When democrats oppose the presidents deficits its a "change of
> subject". LoL.

Yes, it is if you're not talking about it to start with

> How about when the EU opposes the presidents economic plan?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR200903250207
> 4.html?

Same deal.

Stephen

MiNe 109

March 27th 09, 02:23 AM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 25, 4:55*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 4:07*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 3:26*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 2:39*pm, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-manage-moderate-gain-apf-1
> > > > > > > > >4746
> > > > > > > > >65..
> > > > > > > > >.
> >
> > > > > > > > > This even after the Fed disclosed plans to monetize 800B$ in
> > > > > > > > > debt.
> >
> > > > > > > > > In normal economic times the US could not be selling notes at
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > prices.
> > > > > > > > > Yet just a hint of spiraling interest rates due to low demand
> > > > > > > > > causes
> > > > > > > > > market swings.
> >
> > > > > > > > > This is the cliff you won't know you're over until you're in
> > > > > > > > > freefall.
> >
> > > > > > > > Since normal monetary policy isn't possible and banks aren't
> > > > > > > > lending,
> > > > > > > > buying debt to increase the money supply will have to do.
> >
> > > > > > > * You just insist on taking another step toward the edge of a
> > > > > > > cliff
> > > > > > > you can't see.
> >
> > > > > > That hole is a four trillion dollar demand deficit. This will help
> > > > > > fill
> > > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > *Or dry up demand make the void unfillable.
> >
> > > > More money doesn't dry up demand.
> >
> > > *Unsubstantiated claim.
> >
> > Let's start by substantiating your claim that it does. Hint: don't
> > forget the word 'aggregate'.
>
> The data is in forthcoming auctions. We're already showing signs of
> declining demand and rising interest rates offset the Feds purchase.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090325-715140.html
>
> "A weak Treasury auction on Wednesday cast a pallor and raised worries
> about the effectiveness of the Federal Reserve's actions to tame
> rising bond yields.
>
> It also offset the New York Federal Reserve's $7.5 billion purchase in
> its first round of Treasury buyback. "
>
> Britain already had a failed auction.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5048575/Failed-gilt
> -auction-stokes-fears-over-UK-economy.html
>
> and with Geithner failing to realize the responsibility of his role
> continues to disrupt markets with flippant comments
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/26/geithner-gaffe-on-dollar-roils
> -stock-bond-markets/

Short term thinking.

> > > > > Explain how a bond buyer
> > > > > can win with a low interest (high price) bond created by the Fed
> > > > > buying short term notes?
> >
> > > > Safety.
> >
> > > * *? *Do you even understand the inverse ratio on interest rate and
> > > value?
> > > *There is no safety in a bond bought at face value. Nothing good can
> > > happen and much bad can.
> >
> > You get your money back.
>
> LoL, You might be forced to hold the bond to maturity for years
> with no gain as the market for your security declines with rising
> interest rates. Meanwhile inflation eats away and you have no good
> out.

Beats stuffing it in a mattress, especially since they don't make
mattresses in billion-dollar sizes.

> > > > > His market value is at higher risk and his return at maturity
> > > > > diminished.
> > > > > Both factors are going to discourage bond investors from
> > > > > participating.
> >
> > > > Unless they're so risk adverse they're unwilling to invest in stocks,
> > > > etc.
> >
> > > *They'd be better off stuffing the mattress. * China is moving to
> > > commodity investments as an alternative. *Pop goes the price of oil.
> >
> > That sounds really risky.
>
> Not if you're really putting oil into a reserve for use later.
> Oil has a far better chance of appreciating than US dollars.

Sounds like a good argument for leaving it in the ground.

Stephen

MiNe 109

March 28th 09, 04:12 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> > > > <snip change of subject>
> >
> > > *When democrats oppose the presidents deficits its a "change of
> > > subject". *LoL.
>
> What part of taxing and spending doesn't involve deficits?

The part we were talking about.

> Try not to be so limited in your understanding.

Snork.

MiNe 109

March 28th 09, 04:14 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> > > Oil has a far better chance of appreciating than US dollars.
> >
> > Sounds like a good argument for leaving it in the ground.
>
> I agree. But leaving it untapped and inaccessible for another 20
> years as some fools keep claiming is a bad idea. I say drill it so
> you know your proven reserves.
> Tap it and cap it. Proven tapped reserves are a very good buffer to
> market fluctuations.

If it's such a good idea, why aren't the oil companies doing it for
themselves? Aren't they abandoning projects all over the world?

Stephen

MiNe 109

March 28th 09, 05:00 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 28, 9:14*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > Oil has a far better chance of appreciating than US dollars.
> >
> > > > Sounds like a good argument for leaving it in the ground.
> >
> > > *I agree. But leaving it untapped and inaccessible for another 20
> > > years as some fools keep claiming is a bad idea. *I say drill it so
> > > you know your proven reserves.
> > > Tap it and cap it. *Proven tapped reserves are a very good buffer to
> > > market fluctuations.
> >
> > If it's such a good idea, why aren't the oil companies doing it for
> > themselves?
>
> LOL. Oil companies have no interest in bufferring Oil markets against
> price spikes. They are profit driven enterprises.
> Sometimes you just express incridible ignorance.

Lovely, "incridible ignorance".

> > Aren't they abandoning projects all over the world?
>
> Not when working for the Chinese who continue to develop resources
> and contractually committ to service their markets.
> Of course unlike the US, China has a functioning energy policy.
> It's basically designed to acquire and produce more energy while
> our policy is designed to produce and consume less.

Hmm. Consuming less. That could work for petroleum.

MiNe 109

March 28th 09, 06:09 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 28, 10:00*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 28, 9:14*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > > Oil has a far better chance of appreciating than US dollars.
> >
> > > > > > Sounds like a good argument for leaving it in the ground.
> >
> > > > > *I agree. But leaving it untapped and inaccessible for another 20
> > > > > years as some fools keep claiming is a bad idea. *I say drill it so
> > > > > you know your proven reserves.
> > > > > Tap it and cap it. *Proven tapped reserves are a very good buffer to
> > > > > market fluctuations.
> >
> > > > If it's such a good idea, why aren't the oil companies doing it for
> > > > themselves?
> >
> > > LOL. *Oil companies have no interest in bufferring Oil markets against
> > > price spikes. *They are profit driven enterprises.
> > > Sometimes you just express incridible ignorance.
> >
> > Lovely, "incridible ignorance".
>
> Yeah, beyond incredible.

So you agree that profit driven enterprises can't be depended on to work
for the common welfare?

> > > > Aren't they abandoning projects all over the world?
> >
> > > *Not when working for the Chinese who continue to develop resources
> > > and contractually committ to service their markets.
> > > Of course unlike the US, China has a functioning energy policy.
> > > It's basically designed to acquire and produce more energy while
> > > our policy is designed to produce and consume less.
> >
> > Hmm. Consuming less. That could work for petroleum.
>
> I wonder what the future holds for the church piano player when
> worshipers are forced to telecommute to service?

We'll be fine. If telecommuting is good enough for Notre Dame organist,
it's good for me:

http://james.chauveau.free.fr/ND/paris_nd.htm

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

March 29th 09, 12:24 AM

On Mar 28, 3:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:09*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:

> > So you agree that profit driven enterprises can't be depended on to work
> > for the common welfare?
>
> * LoL. *WTF is "for the "common welfare"?

LoL. It's like what soldiers protect, 2pid. We protect the drug
addicts and the rich businessmen. We protect the smart and the stupid.

There's no delineating the "common good", 2pid. It's common to all,
even you.

> I've read capitalism is shared prosperity.
> Socialism is shared poverty.

Where did you read that, 2pid?

> > Aren't they abandoning projects all over the world?

The answer, as I posted several days ago, is "yes".

MiNe 109

March 29th 09, 12:56 AM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 28, 11:09*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 28, 10:00*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 28, 9:14*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Oil has a far better chance of appreciating than US dollars.
> >
> > > > > > > > Sounds like a good argument for leaving it in the ground.
> >
> > > > > > > *I agree. But leaving it untapped and inaccessible for another 20
> > > > > > > years as some fools keep claiming is a bad idea. *I say drill it
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > you know your proven reserves.
> > > > > > > Tap it and cap it. *Proven tapped reserves are a very good buffer
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > market fluctuations.
> >
> > > > > > If it's such a good idea, why aren't the oil companies doing it for
> > > > > > themselves?
> >
> > > > > LOL. *Oil companies have no interest in bufferring Oil markets
> > > > > against
> > > > > price spikes. *They are profit driven enterprises.
> > > > > Sometimes you just express incridible ignorance.
> >
> > > > Lovely, "incridible ignorance".
> >
> > > *Yeah, beyond incredible.
> >
> > So you agree that profit driven enterprises can't be depended on to work
> > for the common welfare?
>
> LoL. WTF is "for the "common welfare"?
> You can't define it.

Yes, it can be defined. There may be some discussion involved and a lot
of politics.

> It's like AFDC which sounded like it was
> for the common welfare but in hindsight was a disaster for the family.

Then it was modified.

> Capitalism..like democracy can be a harsh master.
> Over the broad scheme it works for the greater good of all, but
> in many short term and isolated cases, it leaves people hungry and
> homeless.
> I've read capitalism is shared prosperity.
> Socialism is shared poverty.
> Which one is better "for the common welfare"?

Wow, how make a choice like that. I've "read" capitalism is theft and
socialism is sharing. Which of those is better?

> > > > > > Aren't they abandoning projects all over the world?
> >
> > > > > *Not when working for the Chinese who continue to develop resources
> > > > > and contractually committ to service their markets.
> > > > > Of course unlike the US, China has a functioning energy policy.
> > > > > It's basically designed to acquire and produce more energy while
> > > > > our policy is designed to produce and consume less.
> >
> > > > Hmm. Consuming less. That could work for petroleum.
> >
> > > *I wonder what the future holds for the church piano player when
> > > worshipers are forced to telecommute to service?
> >
> > We'll be fine. If telecommuting is good enough for Notre Dame organist,
> > it's good for me:
> >
> > http://james.chauveau.free.fr/ND/paris_nd.htm
>
> LoL, you're going to be displaced by a MIDI music programmer
> in India.

Fortunately for me, your scenario is like asking how church musicians
will make a living on Waterworld.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

March 29th 09, 06:14 PM

On Mar 29, 12:06*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:56*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:

> > > I've read capitalism is shared prosperity.
> > > Socialism is shared poverty.
> > > Which one is better "for the common welfare"?
>
> > Wow, how make a choice like that. I've "read" capitalism is theft and
> > socialism is sharing. Which of those is better?
>
> *I don't want to share your poverty nor do I want you stealing my
> prosperity.

Here goes 2pid...again.

Um, 2pid, you addressed your 'point', not Stephen's point.

> > Fortunately for me, your scenario is like asking how church musicians
> > will make a living on Waterworld.
>
> *I always though church musicians should be volunteers working for
> God.

As it turns out, God doesn't give a **** what you 'think'. LoL.

MiNe 109

March 29th 09, 07:27 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 28, 5:56*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 28, 11:09*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 28, 10:00*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 28, 9:14*am, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Oil has a far better chance of appreciating than US
> > > > > > > > > > > dollars.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Sounds like a good argument for leaving it in the ground.
> >
> > > > > > > > > *I agree. But leaving it untapped and inaccessible for
> > > > > > > > > another 20
> > > > > > > > > years as some fools keep claiming is a bad idea. *I say drill
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > you know your proven reserves.
> > > > > > > > > Tap it and cap it. *Proven tapped reserves are a very good
> > > > > > > > > buffer
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > market fluctuations.
> >
> > > > > > > > If it's such a good idea, why aren't the oil companies doing it
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > themselves?
> >
> > > > > > > LOL. *Oil companies have no interest in bufferring Oil markets
> > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > price spikes. *They are profit driven enterprises.
> > > > > > > Sometimes you just express incridible ignorance.
> >
> > > > > > Lovely, "incridible ignorance".
> >
> > > > > *Yeah, beyond incredible.
> >
> > > > So you agree that profit driven enterprises can't be depended on to
> > > > work
> > > > for the common welfare?
> >
> > > * LoL. *WTF is "for the "common welfare"?
> > > You can't define it.
> >
> > Yes, it can be defined.
>
> Go for it. This should be good.

It's the intersection of "common" and "welfare".

> > There may be some discussion involved and a lot
> > of politics.
>
> Translation...nothing meaningful will come of it.

With a closed mind like yours, no.

> > > It's like AFDC which sounded like it was
> > > for the common welfare but in hindsight was a disaster for the family.
> >
> > Then it was modified.
>
> Proof it wasn't for the common good after all.

But the modification was.

> > > Capitalism..like democracy can be a harsh master.
> > > Over the broad scheme it works for the greater good of all, but
> > > in many short term and isolated cases, it leaves people hungry and
> > > homeless.
> > > I've read capitalism is shared prosperity.
> > > Socialism is shared poverty.
> > > Which one is better "for the common welfare"?
> >
> > Wow, how make a choice like that. I've "read" capitalism is theft and
> > socialism is sharing. Which of those is better?
>
> I don't want to share your poverty nor do I want you stealing my
> prosperity.

And I don't want to be governed by Bircherish bumper sticker slogans.

> > > > > > > > Aren't they abandoning projects all over the world?
> >
> > > > > > > *Not when working for the Chinese who continue to develop
> > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > and contractually committ to service their markets.
> > > > > > > Of course unlike the US, China has a functioning energy policy.
> > > > > > > It's basically designed to acquire and produce more energy while
> > > > > > > our policy is designed to produce and consume less.
> >
> > > > > > Hmm. Consuming less. That could work for petroleum.
> >
> > > > > *I wonder what the future holds for the church piano player when
> > > > > worshipers are forced to telecommute to service?
> >
> > > > We'll be fine. If telecommuting is good enough for Notre Dame organist,
> > > > it's good for me:
> >
> > > >http://james.chauveau.free.fr/ND/paris_nd.htm
> >
> > > LoL, you're going to be displaced by a MIDI music programmer
> > > in India.
> >
> > Fortunately for me, your scenario is like asking how church musicians
> > will make a living on Waterworld.
>
> I always though church musicians should be volunteers working for
> God.

My church believes church musicians should be paid well in appreciation.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

March 29th 09, 07:40 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > I always though church musicians should be volunteers working for God[sic].

> My church believes church musicians should be paid well in appreciation.

Arnii agrees with Witless.

[email protected]

March 29th 09, 10:36 PM

On 29 Mar, 14:40, George M. Middius > wrote:
> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > *I always though church musicians should be volunteers working for God[sic].
> > My church believes church musicians should be paid well in appreciation..
>
> Arnii agrees with Witless.

"If" those baptist musicians had any musicial qualities that can be
appreciated.

MiNe 109

March 30th 09, 07:00 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> > > *I always though church musicians should be volunteers working for
> > > God.
> >
> > My church believes church musicians should be paid well in appreciation.
>
> I think Congress should look into that. Excessive pay from tax-free
> institutions is not for the common good.

Weak: I'm not paid excessively, you don't believe in Congressional
meddling in churches and you don't believe in the common good.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

March 30th 09, 07:39 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > > My church believes church musicians should be paid well in appreciation.
> >
> > I think Congress should look into that. Excessive pay from tax-free
> > institutions is not for the common good.
>
> Weak: I'm not paid excessively, you don't believe in Congressional
> meddling in churches and you don't believe in the common good.

Attaboy, Stephen. Don't give Witless an inch of wiggle-room.

MiNe 109

March 31st 09, 08:51 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 30, 11:00*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > *I always though church musicians should be volunteers working for
> > > > > God.
> >
> > > > My church believes church musicians should be paid well in appreciation.
> >
> > > *I think Congress should look into that. *Excessive pay from tax-free
> > > institutions is not for the common good.
> >
> > Weak: I'm not paid excessively,
>
> They get what they pay for I suppose. An inexcessive piano man.

Whatever. Yes, they get what they pay for.

> > you don't believe in Congressional
> > meddling in churches and you don't believe in the common good.
>
> If congress is going to meddle in bank pay for recipients of federal
> dollars, then Congress should meddle in pay of tax-exempt Church
> employees.

You worship banks now?

> Personally I think churches should be taxed as much or more than
> alchohol and tobacco. Church piano players with their minddumbing
> renditions of hymns designed to sedate the flock into opening their
> wallet (like dept. store music) should have their own
> bracket....between 95 and 97%.
> What they get is really just a bonus anyway and taxes should
> discourage people from participating in scams rather than encourage
> it, don't you think?

Break it down into an answerable question and I'll get back to you.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

March 31st 09, 08:53 PM

"ScottW2" > wrote in message

> Personally I think churches should be taxed as much or
> more than alchohol and tobacco. Church piano players
> with their minddumbing renditions of hymns designed to
> sedate the flock into opening their wallet (like dept.
> store music) should have their own bracket....between 95
> and 97%.

That is a net-to-zero in most cases. They are volunteers and work for free.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

March 31st 09, 09:13 PM

On Mar 31, 2:51*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 11:00*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > > > > *I always though church musicians should be volunteers working for
> > > > > > God.
>
> > > > > My church believes church musicians should be paid well in appreciation.
>
> > > > *I think Congress should look into that. *Excessive pay from tax-free
> > > > institutions is not for the common good.
>
> > > Weak: I'm not paid excessively,
>
> > * They get what they pay for I suppose. An inexcessive piano man.
>
> Whatever. Yes, they get what they pay for.

When 2pid stoops to personal insults they tend to be equally as stupid
as his posts that don't.

> > > *you don't believe in Congressional
> > > meddling in churches and you don't believe in the common good.
>
> > *If congress is going to meddle in bank pay for recipients of federal
> > dollars, then Congress should meddle in pay of tax-exempt Church
> > employees.
>
> You worship banks now?

No, 2pid's just really REALLY ****ed that the "free market" failed so
miserably due to human greed. 2pid views excessive greed as a
desireable trait.

> > Personally I think churches should be taxed as much or more than
> > alchohol and tobacco. *Church piano players with their minddumbing
> > renditions of hymns designed to sedate the flock into opening their
> > wallet (like dept. store music) *should have their own
> > bracket....between 95 and 97%.
> > What they get is really just a bonus anyway and taxes should
> > discourage people from participating in scams rather than encourage
> > it, don't you think?
>
> Break it down into an answerable question and I'll get back to you.

Asking 2pid to make sense is a fool's errand. LoL.

George M. Middius[_4_]

March 31st 09, 10:13 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > They get what they pay for I suppose. An inexcessive piano man.
>
> Whatever. Yes, they get what they pay for.

Aren't you proud that Scottie recognizes you as being "inexcessive"?
Many people live their entire lives without once earning such praise.

--

"It is you who are completely unaware of what I perceive until
I choose to tell you. I rarely do."
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, Feb. 3 2009

George M. Middius[_4_]

March 31st 09, 10:14 PM

Shhhh! said:

> 2pid views excessive greed as a desireable trait.

OTOH, he praises Stephen for being an inexcessive piano player.

--
>> There all nuts.
> Were you trying to say "There go all the nuts"? Or "Where are all the nuts"?
For an old english teacher you suck at interpretation. How about "they're all nuts. "
Scottie Witlessmongrel, 28 October 2008

MiNe 109

March 31st 09, 11:49 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > They get what they pay for I suppose. An inexcessive piano man.
> >
> > Whatever. Yes, they get what they pay for.
>
> Aren't you proud that Scottie recognizes you as being "inexcessive"?
> Many people live their entire lives without once earning such praise.

It will a long time before I hear it again.

> --
>
> "It is you who are completely unaware of what I perceive until
> I choose to tell you. I rarely do."
> -- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, Feb. 3 2009

Dwight Schrute without the warmth.

Stephen

MiNe 109

March 31st 09, 11:50 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Shhhh! said:
>
> > 2pid views excessive greed as a desireable trait.
>
> OTOH, he praises Stephen for being an inexcessive piano player.

I've been holding back on excessive notes.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

April 1st 09, 10:07 PM

On Apr 1, 3:32*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 3:49*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > * They get what they pay for I suppose. An inexcessive piano man.

MiNe 109

April 1st 09, 10:10 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Mar 31, 3:49*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 said:
> >
> > > > > * They get what they pay for I suppose. An inexcessive piano man.
> >
> > > > Whatever. Yes, they get what they pay for.
> >
> > > Aren't you proud that Scottie recognizes you as being "inexcessive"?
> > > Many people live their entire lives without once earning such praise.
> >
> > It will a long time before I hear it again.
>
> I think you just heard it...twice...well 3 times.

This, after I explained the "echo chamber" to you?

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

April 2nd 09, 10:39 PM

On Apr 2, 12:45*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2:10*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 3:49*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > > > * They get what they pay for I suppose. An inexcessive piano man.
>
> > > > > > Whatever. Yes, they get what they pay for.
>
> > > > > Aren't you proud that Scottie recognizes you as being "inexcessive"?
> > > > > Many people live their entire lives without once earning such praise.
>
> > > > It will a long time before I hear it again.
>
> > > *I think you just heard it...twice...well 3 times.
>
> > This, after I explained the "echo chamber" to you? *
>
> *I know, you're intimately familiar with it, you're the wall.

Are you ready for a vote, 2pid? Are you ready to follow the "will of
the people"?

Remember, if you win the poll I have to apologize to you. Can you
imagine how painful that would be?

Let's do it, 2pid! We can have a few days of campaigning where you
tell everybody why your OT posts are 'important'. LoL.

MiNe 109

April 2nd 09, 11:41 PM

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Apr 1, 2:10*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 3:49*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > > > MiNe 109 said:
> >
> > > > > > > * They get what they pay for I suppose. An inexcessive piano man.
> >
> > > > > > Whatever. Yes, they get what they pay for.
> >
> > > > > Aren't you proud that Scottie recognizes you as being "inexcessive"?
> > > > > Many people live their entire lives without once earning such praise.
> >
> > > > It will a long time before I hear it again.
> >
> > > *I think you just heard it...twice...well 3 times.
> >
> > This, after I explained the "echo chamber" to you? *
>
> I know, you're intimately familiar with it, you're the wall.

No, that's not it.

Stephen