Free Republic

"What a dreadful failure communism was. "

So much talent was wasted during Soviet times.

This joke was floating around in Soviet Union after creation of the quotas on basic food supply as well as soap, laundry detergant and other basic necessities:

The host asks a guest: "Will you have tea with sugar?", The guest replies: "Yes,", to which the host responds, "Ok, then wash the hands without the soap."

Good one! Long queues was a striking characteristic of Soviet Union. There was a time in Soviet Union when the government was running low on basic food supply and wanted to eliminate lines so they instituted quotas on sugar, flower, etc. A family would go to a governmental agency and receive a document stating that this family is allowed to purchase 1 pound of sugar a month. The lines were partially eliminated with hungry people staying at home rather than in a line for a chance to purchase food products.

Brezhnev and Nixon took a trip by helicopter to inspect workers in the suburbs of Moscow. Nixon noticed workers' barracks with television aerials and exclaimed, 'You have surpassed us! We still don't have TVs in our pigsties!'

A lawyer, a surgeon, a builder and a communist were having an argument about whose trade was older.

'When God condemned Adam and Eve and exiled them from paradise,' said the lawyer, 'that was a legal act! So my profession is the oldest.'

'But please,' the surgeon said, 'before that God created Eve from Adam's rib. And that was a surgical operation! So my profession is older.'

'Forgive me,' said the builder, 'but a little bit earlier than that God created the world, he constructed it. So my profession is the oldest. Because as is known, there was only chaos before that.'

'And who created chaos?' the communist exclaimed triumphantly. 'Certainly, we communists!'

'Is communism a science?'

'No. If it were a science, it would have been tested on dogs first.'

A socialist, a capitalist and a communist agreed to meet. The socialist was late. 'Excuse me for being late, I was standing in a queue for sausages.'

'And what is a queue?' the capitalist asked.

'And what is a sausage?' the communist asked.

'How will we know that communism has arrived?'

'It will be declared by radio and in the newspapers. If people have TVs, they'll be informed by TV.'

I have tried it, of course, but I must be doing something wrong.

LOL

Actually, there's one time you have more say so than when you own stock in a company: when you are the customer. If the PG&E board wishes to sell the company to the Chinese, that is their choice. If customers choose not to do business with them because of it, that is the customer's choice.

The competitiveness of the power market and the available choices to the customers are driven primarily by the region in the electricity market and existing over- or under capacity for electricity generation. A similar recent transaction was announced few days ago. Australia's Babcock and Brown Infrastructure proposed a $2.2 billion buyout of NorthWestern Energy, based in South Dakota. The Public Utilities Commission of South Dakota is decelerating the transaction requesting more information on the international company in order to ensure that ratepayers' interests are protected under the new international company.

Miscellaneous Assets ain't cash equivalents, Inventories, Deferred income taxes, Other current assets, Land, building equipment and improvements, Construction and equipment installations in progress either.

The 10K states that "The Company's investments in life insurance products are recorded at fair market value and are included in "Miscellaneous Assets" in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets, and amounted to $129.3 million as of December 2005 and $121.9 million as of December 2004". It explains about 40% of miscellaneous assets.

It could not really be acquired, because the Schulzbergers own the shares that have the majority of the votes. If they don't sell, nothing can happen.

While it is true that acquisitions are subject to shareholder approval, it would be difficult to comprehend a preservation of wealth destruction by any shareholder, including Schulzbergers.

Over the past several years, the New York Times Co. has consistently underperformed its peers.

Underperformance benchmarked to peers is a more convincing argument for dismissal of the management team than the increase in compensation albeit the decrease in market value of the company, which is not infrequent. If the management continues to destroy the value of the company, eventually, it will be a target of acquisition and existing shareholders will recoup the losses with new management, hopefully.

A seller can't obtain top dollar in the case of a fire sale. The difference has been taken by the US Government.

Most certainly a seller would not get top dollars under the fire sale, however, the details of the sale have not been released and no buyer identified. Potential buyers are private equity firms such as Carlyle and Blackstone but they are apprehensive because of the level of scrutiny this transaction will bring. Where are you obtaining the evidence that the US Government covered difference between the marker versus "fire" sale price?

Personally, I think this means that the US is a good investment.

The deficits are making the United States a less attractive place for investment. That is why the dollar is dropping and one of the reasons that the stock market is under pressure. The largest foreign holder of US Treasuries, Japan, has reduced its exposure to US treasuries as the Table 3 in the following link indicates.

http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/s/article/id=784

As recent as last quarter or last year, foreign investors were net sellers of US equities. It was the intervention by foreign central banks that prevented a run on the dollar.

Sure, unless it involves private ownership of gold, or valid contracts to operate ports, or...

Let's keep in mind that the port issue was a transfer of assets between two foreign companies that happen to have operations in US. There were only two bidders for the British company assets in US. The company with the highest bid secured the assets and then the government interfered.

Our nation, and its economy were built by domestic entrepreneurs, not multi-national CEO's whose only concern is raising stock-prices for the benefit of speculators (who somehow fancy themselves as capitalists) while having no personal investment in building real value in the company, its employees, or society.

As domestic markets get saturated with a product or service, domestic companies look into foreign markets for further growth potential and subsequently become multinational companies. The growth of US stock market and wealth of US investors would have been severely limited if companies did not pursue multinational strategy.

The job of any CEO is to maximize the wealth of the stakeholders in the company. If a CEO pursues any other activities, such as siphoning money to non-company related causes, that CEO should be fired.

In fact, if it means anything, the US economy is booming.

It would depend on what economic indicator/(s) you would select to define a state of economy and whether the indicators you selected seem to have predictive power. Robert McTeer, the head of Dallas Federal Reserve, in October of last year defined two ways to address the current account deficit 1) either US incomes would have to shrink so that consumers will buy less foreign imports or 2) the dollar would have to weaken. At the same time Warren Buffett has taken large short positions against the US dollar.

It's called globalization. I always make a point of having at least a third of my portfolio invested overseas.

Precisely because of globalization, the diversification benefits of international investments have been significantly reduced over the past decade. While it is true that a decade or so ago financial professionals would advocate investments in international equities and fixed income securities as a tool for diversification, recent empirical studies show that correlations of returns between domestic and foreign assets have been consistently increasing and hence, reducing diversification benefits. Foreign investments have additional risks such as foreign currency exchange and country credit risk which ought to be weighted against decreased diversification benefits and expected return.

Sex always gets in the way. ;o)

I agree, unless there is absolutely no physical attraction.