___________________________________
You guys know me by now, I hope.  Therefore, you are well aware that I am about as conservative a person as you are going to meet, this side of the ossified gentlemen mouldering away in the leather chairs of the University Club, NYC.  And with some quirkly exceptions, I’d say that conservatism marries both economic and social philosophies. I am pro-life for instance (both ways).

Despite all that, and despite my pro-life advocacy, I must join the growing multitudes calling for the resignation of this confused individual, Todd Akin. Truth be told, I was not really following this Missouri race until the bizarre controversy stemming from this man’s odd analysis of rape (“legitimate” or otherwise!) and pregnancy bubbled up this past Monday evening. You can read more about it in the attached article.

What I do know about Missouri is that Clair McCaskill was/is not well loved, as I’ve friends in various parts of Missouri, including St. Louis and some of the more rural areas. As far as the recent well contested primary (11 bidders!), however, I knew nothing.

I’ve since learned that Akin rose above the horde to win narrowly in the primaries, with the help of statist religous Huckster Mike Huckabee. There are few “Republicans” I loathe more than Huckster, who mingles self-righteous smarm with typical statist RINO “do gooding,” courtesy of the taxpayer’s dime. The fact that Akin is associated with Huckster immediately puts him in the negative column for me, no matter what his dopey views on pregnancy via rape. Moreover, his views, whether misstated or not, do nothing but cast a very serious position off the moral high ground. For that alone he should be interred in the “foot in mouth” Hall of Fame, and summarily dumped. Missouri deserves better than McCaskill for sure, but they do not deserve this dope.
________________________________
On the matter of Peter Thiel, the FaceBook Sour Grapes and the Cramer Clown Show… I will say merely this:

Peter Thiel took considerable risk by pledging a substantial amount of his (then) small VC fund to the then little-known idea of “the Facebook,” which was at the time being dwarfed by MySpace and other rivals. He waited some five years to get liquid on that investment, which for a VC is typical-to-lengthy. Almost 100% of VC’s have a business model that states “sell at the IPO” as a matter of fiduciuary duty (they are not in the stock asset managment business but the new venture business). That Thiel did what he told his investors he would do when he raised his funds, thereby fulfilling his duty to them is quotidian. That Facebook was valued at a very high multiple of current (and future!) earnings was a combination of cultural knowledge and market hype. There is no arguing these facts, this side of logic and sanguinity.

There has been some talk that perhaps Thiel should give up his board seat as he has released his investors from their Facebook venture investment (they are of course free to buy the company on the open market, but that’s not venture investing). I might agree with this, given Thiel’s only remaining investment is his own, at 5.6 million shares (oh, you missed that piece in all the invective, did you?). That said, he was an original investor in the company, so the board may value his perspective and advice at this point. Whatever the end, however, it is certainly a board decision as to whether Thiel remains or not. Thus far, he has conducted himself rationally and like a gentleman, all noxious statements by Daytrade Cramer aside.
___________________
This temporary pullback in the miners is a mere bag of shells. I am carrying on with my trades as described.

Good day, sirs.
______________

Comments »

At least this kid has an excuse… he’s a fuggin’ BABY!

________________________

OK, I’m going to need some help here.  After posting last night’s piece on the stellar Paul Ryan, I came to a rather astonishing conclusion.  Specifically, it appears there are still some iBankCoin correspondents who are leaning towards pulling the lever for  Barack Obama and Joe Biden this November.

Granted, some of our correspondents are Europeans and other like-minded (statist) foreigners, and therefore categorized in my taxonomy as “brothers from another planet.”  I believe, however, most of that coalition refrains from participating in the discussion outside of “thumbing down” pretty much every comment I make.  There are a contingent of regulars who have always leaned left, however, and it seems from last night’s badinage that many of them may take part in the mutual suicide pact which has tacitly agreed to give Obama four more years.

I take a second to “caveat” here that I may be wrong, and these fellows are merely pulling my beard and playing “Devil’s Advocate” with old Jake Sprat for a lark.

So I’d like to take this opportunity to inquire of the more traditionally “progressive” among us (and please, make your own judgment w. regard to status here), where do you all stand?

First question: do you plan on voting for Barack one more time this November, if you are able to vote at all?

Follow up query:  If your above answer is yes, then “Why?”  Do you believe you are merely “taking one for the team,” as a quasi-loyal Dem or do you believe that Obama still has work to do to cement the “change we’ve been hoping/waiting for?”

Serious questions for serious times.

My best to you.

_______________________

Comments »

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1yTY2MciOk 450 300]

The Deconstruction.  Note the “Poleaxed Look.”

_________________________________

Most of you who have followed this blog have also registered my laments with regard to the Presidential Politics of 2102.  Like many a conservative who can parse economics and math, I wrung my hands regarding the presidential roster that we were offered this year.  No Mitch Daniels, no Bobby Jindal, and no Paul Ryan.  All were conservatives, and moreover, all intellectual powerhouses that that would have systematically disassembled the Obama Mistake with devastating power and cool analysis.  Instead we got baggage laden prospects like Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain, or worse, one trick social conservative ponies like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann.   I ventured close to despair in realizing that the only legitimate prospect my party entertained was a Northeast Governor who had established a progenitor for Obamacare.

But I must say I took some heart in the vigor with with Romney, when finally bestowed with the nomination, took on the Obama record. While holding back on the big guns that might train on the President’s character and past, Romney has attempted to make this election about the President’s record as President, which has been singularly abysmal.

And then he shocked me again.  By choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate — a Kennedyesque Catholic out of Janesville, Wisconsin — instead of the safer Rubio (Hispanic Floridian), Portman (Swingstate Ohian middle roader), or Nikki Haley (female Indian Governor of South Carolina) , Romney has essentially thrown the gauntlet down.  With this pick , Romney has said to conservatives “No, really, this is about the fiscal future of this country.”   On the other hand, he has said to liberals and Obamanites, “Your way is not sustainable, and I’ve hired the one man who will tear your fantasy world to shreds.” (See above for further analysis).

I could not be more pleased.  Mr. Romney has drafted, essentially,  the anti-Obama.  The young man whom seniors trust, despite his very adult analysis of Medicare, because he knows what that program needs to do to remain solvent.  Romney has drafted man who will have a serious conversation that will send the demagogues sprinting for the exits.  Vice Presidential debates?  Are you familiar with the term “flensing?”  I can’t think of a more appropriate metaphor.

The smartest man in Congress is now in the hunt.  The Republic is in the balance.  Let the contest begin.

Gold looking good, stay the course with those ETF’s I mentioned last week.

________________________________

Comments »

———————————————————

Excuse me, El Presidente? What’djoo say?

 If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Absolutely. Fucking. Unbelievable.

Is anyone still out there in IBC-land still making excuses for this Wandering Harlequin Show?

Inquiring (sentient) minds want to know…

______________________________________

Comments »

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwoCrE_Txzc 450 300]

________________________________

Yep.

 

_________________________________

Today looked like the the long awaited respite we”ve been waiting for in the miners.  A faithful poster pointed out AEM yesterday as a possible buy.   I like it here in “accumulation size” especially with that fat 2.5% dividend (that’s phat for the miners).

 

I also hoped you joined me in indulging in your favorite quality stock purchase these past two days.  I chose SLW, but RGLD still looks great, as does EXK and AG.

Best to you all.

_______________________

 

Comments »

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlvTGXyRRuQ&feature=related 450 300]

There’s Still Hope When There’s Still Talent and Beauty, California

_________________________________

I read an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal this weekend, about a New York-born, Cal-Berkely trained demographer, a self-described “Truman Democrat” now teaching at admittedly center-right Chapman University in Orange, California.  The piece, Exodus” href=”http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577340531861056966.html” target=”_blank”> Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus, has Mr. Kotkin bewailing the current state of California’s economic environment, and the effect it’s having on the middle class in that state.

I think it’s instructive, especially given the rhetoric we see being wheeled out about classical economic models of “capital investment + smart ideas = employment growth.”  The left parties in the U.S. are again using the hoary phraseology “trickle down” to describe this time-tested capitalist model, while somehow trying to advance central planning as the “hot, new equitable” thing.   But what have central planning, high taxes, and a large and intrusive government actually brought California?

Good schools?  Not anymore.

Green jobs? Not enough to make up the ones lost in traditional energy, not mention other economic sectors.

A robust public sector economy? Well, yeah, for now at least…. (except for the pensions)…

Tax equity?  Well, yes, if you mean that people making over $48,000 a year are paying almost the same in state taxes as Larry Ellison (9.3% and 10.3%, respectively)

Affordable Housing?  Well, sure.   As long as you are either  indigent, or one of the Jobs kids, given that “free” and “it doesn’t matter” are the only options available to housing shoppers in the region.

Ironically, it seems California — once the 5th largest economy in the world on a stand-alone basis–  has become our very own version of Europe.   Unfortunately, today’s California resembles more a higher tech version of Medieval Europe than it does the more modern variety.   You see, California is swiftly transforming into a place where only the extremely rich nobility, the Sheriff of Nottingham (& his henchmen)  and some very contented peasants can bear to live in anymore.  As Kotkin puts it in his piece:

A worker in Wichita might not consider those earning $250,000 a year middle class, but “if you’re a guy working for a Silicon Valley company and you’re married and you’re thinking about having your first kid, and your family makes 250-k a year, you can’t buy a closet in the Bay Area,” Mr. Kotkin says. “But for 250-k a year, you can live pretty damn well in Salt Lake City. And you might be able to send your kids to public schools and own a three-bedroom, four-bath house.”

According to Mr. Kotkin, these upwardly mobile families are fleeing in droves. As a result, California is turning into a two-and-a-half-class society. On top are the “entrenched incumbents” who inherited their wealth or came to California early and made their money. Then there’s a shrunken middle class of public employees and, miles below, a permanent welfare class. As it stands today, about 40% of Californians don’t pay any income tax and a quarter are on Medicaid.

What’s worse is that such a system, if unamended, devolves into a vicious cycle of Exodus, especially given that this “European State” doesn’t border on neighbors requiring a passport for entry.   The result is not so much a brain drain (California still commands its share of brains thanks to Silicon Valley and the defense industry) as a family drain, and a “middle class” drains:

Mr. Kotkin also notes that demographic changes are playing a role. As progressive policies drive out moderate and conservative members of the middle class, California’s politics become even more left-wing. It’s a classic case of natural selection, and increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending. In a nutshell, “the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees.”

Again, I have to chuckle.  In one of our bluest states, not only is the left driving out “the middle class” that the President is so often claiming support for, but they are pushing them to traditionally more conservative states like Texas and Utah, who have now become low-tax hubs for the same cutting edge technology that made California the economic engine of the 20th century.

Circumstances such as these that afflict California and my own native New York do not occur over night, but are rather the result of a series of choices taken over many years of feasting on economic prosperity, once gladly and now grudgingly shared.   We must ask ourselves, are these once-great states merely the natural victims of their own success?  Is the U.S. doomed to fall into the same gray spiral we see now afflicting the increasingly infantalized — and seemingly helpless — states of Europe?

Serious questions which must be taken seriously and soon.  Are you game?

___________________________

I reached into my reserve stores today and bought 40% more SLW at$ 28.32, as reported in The PPT this afternoon.  I am prepared to buy more, as I think we may even see silver touch $30, or slightly below once more, like it did back in September/October of 2011.  Remember those painful times? That’s what has me salivating.

I am prepared to buy more.   My best to you.

 

_______________

Comments »