Jump to content

GLOBAL DISASTER BOARD


wolverine

Recommended Posts

My thanks for the link. Now for part two. I will pass this link on to many others.

Strange is it not, that the financial meltdown starts when the baby boomers kick in.

I am learning a lot in this website.

Thanks to all involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 892
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've watched both Jon Stewart's show and Cramer's show before, and I think Stewart is completely off the mark. He doesn't seem to get the fact that Mad Money is there first and foremost to entertain, like his own show. It's a bit rich hearing him slag off at Cramer for making light out of a serious topic when he does that all the time. Mad Money is not meant to be 60 minutes.

 

As for his other beef that CNBC as a whole failed to do what it was supposed to do, well, I don't think there are any investors who are really that upset at CNBC -- they'd be more angry with the regulators, the FED, the wall street investment bankers, the crooks, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interfax: Russia may base bombers in Cuba

  • March 15, 2009
The Interfax news agency has reported that a Russian Air Force chief says Russian strategic bombers may be based in Cuba.

 

The agency says the chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Major General Anatoly Zhikharyev said Cuba has air bases with four or five suitable runways.

 

The agency reported Saturday that he said Cuba could be used to base Russian bombers if the two countries "display a political will, we are ready to fly there".

 

Cuba has never permanently hosted Russian or Soviet strategic aircraft. But Soviet short range bombers often made stopovers there during the Cold War.

 

Russia resumed long-range bomber patrols in 2007 after a 15-year hiatus.

 

Will this become another cuban missile crisis and why would Russia want to antogonise USA again? Don't think the Cuban people will be up for this but then again, do they have a choice?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched both Jon Stewart's show and Cramer's show before, and I think Stewart is completely off the mark. He doesn't seem to get the fact that Mad Money is there first and foremost to entertain, like his own show. It's a bit rich hearing him slag off at Cramer for making light out of a serious topic when he does that all the time. Mad Money is not meant to be 60 minutes.

 

As for his other beef that CNBC as a whole failed to do what it was supposed to do, well, I don't think there are any investors who are really that upset at CNBC -- they'd be more angry with the regulators, the FED, the wall street investment bankers, the crooks, etc.

 

I disagree with you completely. Who cares if Mad Money is an entertainment show, it is dealing with people's finance and he gives out advice to "buy buy buy"that people listen to. Many uneducated people have lost a lot of money because they listen to people on television who tell them to buy this and that. Surely they have a responsibility to their viewership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think the Cuban people will be up for this but then again, do they have a choice?
Were the Georgian people asked??

Looking at the situation in context, methinks Russia merely tries to show Barrack O another way how to save some tax $$'s. Would it really be such a silly idea for the US to stop acting the global policeman? Maybe a teensy bit of subtle diplomacy would achieve more than continued ambition of Star Wars. At least when countries display some degree of intelligent leadership and civilised self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many uneducated people have lost a lot of money because they listen to people on television who tell them to buy this and that. Surely they have a responsibility to their viewership.

 

That would account for most of the working population of Australia who trust super funds and investment funds to take good care of their money. The whizz kids of Macquarie Street who read the worlds markets on a day to day basis included.

 

What it all comes down to is, YOU are responsible for your own money and if you choose to listen to the so-called experts (of whom there are a vast array all over our news channels every day) then you have got to take the good with the bad.

 

Nobody will look after your interest better than you and I am finding this is standing me in good stead after many many past mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's easy for YOU to say, Ken;

The problem is: For every person with an IQ above 100 there is also one with an IQ below 100. That's an awful lot of people who are not as capable with money, and the farther away you get from 100, the more people you'll find who have to take their shoes and socks off when the numbers get above 10.

 

I truly believe that whoever is allowed to spread their opinion via any open information channel must be held accountable for the veracity of what they're conveying. Whether it's a TV "Show", radio, newspaper, or magazine. The journalists are usually quick off the mark defending "free speech" and "the public's right to know". I say, taken on its own, that's bollocks. If you claim a right, you must at the same time accept responsibility - and that baby, dear reader, has been poured out with the rhetoric bathwather.

 

Once we accepted that anybody could voice their "free speech" without being accountable for the consequences, the demographics of those "talking heads" and "advisors" matched the wider public - all in the name of "democracy". That means now that about half of the talking heads and show presenters have also problems counting above 10 without having bare feet to help them. So, all it takes is one Mad Dog with the scruples and (lack of) morals to match, introducing a Ponzi scheme, and "it's on".

 

The only alternative that I can see for personal Super is a choice between two systems:

  1. DIY, if you believe you can do it; but with no fee-charging advisor: YOU take responsibility and that's it.
  2. Leave it to a single, Government-supervised, conservatively managed Fund like the one Bernie Fraser drones about.
In option 2, the Government can set a guaranteed minimum result, say twice the standard age pension; details to be worked out.

The only problem: It would make lawyers and financial advisors redundant - and that's why we won't see it in our lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...