Monday, 12/2, Market WrapUp (Higher sales don't equal bigger profits)

Financial Sense Online ^ | 12/2/2002 | James J. Puplava

[fogarty]

And I should add, also buying some stable assets (like gold and silver) - if you don't already have some.

[steveegg]

TXN is trading over $20 in AH on news that its revenues won't DECLINE AS MUCH AS previously estimated. With media spin and hype, that is accepted as a positive.

Texas Instruments Raises Outlook

The headline is blatantly deceptive and misleading. I find this continuing scamming of the public disturbing.

Ah; the old "switch from 'We're all going to die!!!!' to 'We'll linger another quarter or two before we all die'" trick <VBG>.

[steveegg]

I followed you up until the "war for more power" line. What we've got in the Middle East is something that, if not dealt with now, will turn around and bite us in the privates so hard that Dow 3000 won't matter. The extent to which I disagree with the conduct of the war is that we haven't acknowledged and targeted the root of the conflict (namely, the resumption of the Islamist march across the globe), only some of the symptoms (Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and now Saddam Hussein).

[arete]

I followed you up until the "war for more power" line.

Well what I'm saying is that Saddam is an easy target and he makes it easy for the propaganda machine to villainize him. We are focusing our attention on Iraq because it will be easy to grab their oil under the cover of a terrorist threat. It is an economic war. If you want to talk terrorism, then I think we should be looking at the biggest sponsors of terrorism like Iran. You could go on with Egypt and the Saudis. Really, how many Iraqis were on the 9/11 planes? This raises more questions in my mind as to where our concerns are and I believe that it is more about oil than terrorism right now.

Richard W.

[steveegg]

Who has chemical and biological weapons, an active nuclear research program and the willingness to spend cold hard cash to help further the Islamist cause? While Saudi Arabia has the finances (and the House of Saud IS, IMHO, Al-Qaeda), it doesn't have the chemicals, the bios or the nukes to give the puppet terrorists.

If it were the oil, we would have arranged a coup in Venezuela by now because they have almost as much oil as Iraq, and it's MUCH easier to get the oil here from Caracas than Basra.

My prefered method of warfare west of Iran is to form up in Turkey and march south until we hit the Indian Ocean (thus taking care of Saudi Arabia and Yemen). At the same time, we secure Pakistan (the only current Islamic nuclear power), then form up and march west until we hit the Euphrates.

[rohry]

I guess that I'm somewhere in the middle of your positions on the coming war.
This is not a war (primarily) about oil. It is about rooting out radical Islam. We've picked the easiest nations first. We'll gradually challenge stronger nations as the easier ones are taken out.

Arete, don't you realize that Iraq probably had a hand in the first WTC bombing and the OKC bombings? Do you know that they have a 757 parked outside of Bagdad which was used for training hijackings? This is why we have to take them out soon if they don't dissarm. The Muslims only respect strength, and they are laughing their heads off at Hans "see no evil" Blix.

Hopefully Iran will fall on its own. Demonstrations against the mullas are attracting more people than the government sponsored demonstrations against the USA. Saudia Arabia and Yemen will be dealt with after we get rid of Sadams weapons of mass destruction, but probably not by war or the use of troops (CIA?). Pakistan is the one I'm concerned with and I don't know the plan there.

This comes from a formerly isolationist libertarian who was transformed into a interventionist by the inaction on the Cole bombing and the world-wide change in attitude since Bush announced that we "will track them down wherever they go."

I've read 1984 and am aware of the linkup between perpetual war and the growth of centralized government and I think that should be a concern. I see no other choice than what the President has chosen, however. This is a war for the preservation of Western civilization.

[rohry]

"In other words, sell these assets and put money in circulation here, or buy back bonds here, both public and private and put money in circulation."

Short answer, yes, but I believe that they have indicated that will guarantee the bond market by entering the market whenever rates start to rise "too much." This is an approach that NO ONE (to my knowledge) has ever brought up as an option is a "free market."

[rohry]

"So many dollars are in foreign hands that anytime they choose they can destroy the dollar."

You may be right but the Fed is indicating that they will pull out all the stops to re-purchase bonds when the foreigners cash out. The question is: do they have enough bullets?

[arete]

This comes from a formerly isolationist libertarian who was transformed into a interventionist by the inaction on the Cole bombing and the world-wide change in attitude since Bush announced that we "will track them down wherever they go."

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree. The only terrorists that we are interested in are the ones with oil. If they happen to have oil but can defend themselves then we'll take a pass. Iraq is economic pure and simple. Just as imperial Rome sent out her legions to loot other lands to support the city state, we are sending out out troops to support our fiat currency and consumer debt driven economy. I find it morally reprehensible.

Richard W.

[Orion]

Maybe we can pray for some Repubs with spines and voices to take the day, and push spending cuts.

FR gets sillier by the day. Pubbies like spending just as much as the 'RATS. Spending = Power.

[rohry]

"Sorry, I have to strongly disagree. The only terrorists that we are interested in are the ones with oil."

Yeah I know that we disagree on this and that's why I haven't called you on it before. I know I won't convince you.

Keep in mind that Afghanistan, the Phillipines have no oil however and we are involved there. I hope I don't see you down at Calhoon Square marching with the peaceniks though...

[steveegg]

Again, I ask why we didn't whack Chavez down in Venezuela if it's just about the oil? There's almost as much oil there as in Iraq, it's a LOT closer than Iraq, and we do have a long history of "intervention" south of the Rio Grande (just ask Manuel Noriega, who by the way DIDN'T have oil to plunder).

Why, also, haven't we overthrown the House of Saud? Don't give me the "they can defend themselves" line (if they could, we wouldn't have fought Desert Storm for them), or the "they're buddy-buddy with the Bushes" line (if you could ask Diem, I'd say you should because we went and deposed him for MUCH less than 9/11). Saudi Arabia has a lot more oil than Iraq, and it's easier to get out of the area.

[arete]

We are looking for a place where we can look like liberators and not imperialists. We wouldn't be able to grab and keep Venezuela or Arabia's oil complete with a military force to protect it, for very long. We'd have to give it back to the locals who own it. No way could we deal with the Muslims in Arabia without the ruling royal family there. Mecca and all that you know. Iraq is the easy target and fits the bill. We have a puppet government all set up and ready to go in. The sock puppets will gladly give us our due in the country's oil in exchange for keeping them in power -- just like the Saudi royals do.

Richard W.

[Orion]

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree. The only terrorists that we are interested in are the ones with oil. If they happen to have oil but can defend themselves then we'll take a pass. Iraq is economic pure and simple. Just as imperial Rome sent out her legions to loot other lands to support the city state, we are sending out out troops to support our fiat currency and consumer debt driven economy. I find it morally reprehensible.

BTTT! China is a bigger threat than Iraq ever dreams of being. China knocked a US Navy EP-3 out of international airspace, and the best GWB could do was "What kind of sorry would you like, Mr. Commisar?"

Saudi Arabia pays for terrorism around the world, and they are our "partner" in the everlasting War on Terrorism.

[steveegg]

I see it pretty much as you see it; I'm just not convinced that covert actions are going to be enough in Saudi Arabia. It always puzzled me why Osama bin Laden was merely exiled instead of executed if his challenge to King Fahd was serious.

As for Pakistan, that truly is the wild card because they already have nukes. Whatever Moslem fundamentalism exists there is there courtesy of (surprise, surprise) Saudi Arabia. Fortunately, they don't control the nukes yet, but that is only a matter of time.

I definitely hear you regarding the link between perpetual war and an expansive government (hell, look at the WWII/Cold War period - most of the extra-Constitutional and Big Government moves wouldn't have happened if there wasn't an external enemy capable of breaching the twin moats of the Atlantic and Pacific to worry about). Unfortunately, like you said, we have no choice. We now face an enemy that combines the fanaticism of historical Japan, the will to dominate the world that surpasses Great Britain in its prime, and a shocking ability to breach the moats that would put the Soviet Union to shame (though it is not yet in the traditional military sense).

[arete]

I'm glad to see someone else around here is looking beyond the hype and propaganda. We lose more American lives to the Mexican drug dealers than OBL could ever dream of killing. Wonder how much the Mexican drug cartel costs our economy. Oh, they aren't terrorists. Just some businessmen working hard to get ahead. Back to the real problem, Iraq.

Richard W.

[steveegg]

(Sorry for having to hijack the thread, rohry, but it's necessary.)

I humbly submit that we could pull the liberation bit off with Saudi Arabia (after all, the alleged goal of bin Laden is the removal of the House of Saud). We also could do it with Iran a sight easier than with Iraq (true, there's more rabid Iranians, but they're less organized militarily, and we'd also have the "vaunted Arab street" on our side - after all, it was with said "street's" blessing that Saddam embarked on the Iran-Iraq war). The trouble is, there's only a long-dormant nuke program in Iran, while there's the trifecta in Iraq.

The other general flaw in the "it's all about the oil" argument is that the US doesn't get a lot of its oil out of the Middle East to begin with. The prime beneficiaries of more Middle East oil are Japan and Europe, who for reasons that I won't go into here, are not all that interested in insuring a stable, low-priced flow of oil from the Middle East.

[arete]

The other general flaw in the "it's all about the oil" argument is that the US doesn't get a lot of its oil out of the Middle East to begin with.

I've heard that repeated so many times that I'm almost starting to believe it myself. You turn off the oil anywhere on the planet and it will affect us and everyone else. If Japan loses ME oil, they just go to the market and bid for someone else's oil.

Richard W.

[steveegg]

While that is true, there are untapped/undertapped resources elsewhere in areas that are more stable politically (yes, this includes Russia, if only by default). Indeed, the situation since August 1990 belies the "all oil" argument. Iraqi oil has been basically missing from the market since it invaded Kuwait; yet oil prices have been remarkably consistent (by that, I mean that temporary spikes in either direction quickly return to the mean; a great chart/explanation is provided by the Department of Energy here).

The biggest fear regarding oil is Saudi Arabia and its vassal states retaliate against our elimination of the Arab WMD developer (Iraq) by shutting down their production and employing suicide boats against tankers loaded with Iraqi/Iranian/Kuwaiti oil.