The #1 Threat to America February 8, 2008 4:00pm by Barry Ritholtz I love this t-shirt: As Paul pointed out, some idiot said it, so it must be true . . . Spread the wealth. twitter facebook linkedin What's been said: Discussions found on the web: rj commented on Feb 8 Could this possibly be a Stephen Colbert gag T-shirt? Justin commented on Feb 8 Come quickly, dear Bear Lord, come quickly! lol Ross commented on Feb 8 Something that’s very scary to moi is the rationing of farm credit. If the banks make me use my OWN money to buy baby beef critters, maybe I don’t buy as many. If MCD bawls about cheese prices, wait til they are paying $4 pound for hamburger… Pork bellies almost a buck. Wheat up the limit days on end. God forbid if people notice inflation and begin to hoard… I remember the 150 pounds of sugar in my moms larder as the price went from a nickle to 60 cents a pound back in the bad old 70’s. Inflation always begins with the monitization of some ‘event’ which quickly flows through commodities. Cost push then demand pull and back again. Gotta quite chewing the coffee beans. Ross commented on Feb 8 Something that’s very scary to moi is the rationing of farm credit. If the banks make me use my OWN money to buy baby beef critters, maybe I don’t buy as many. If MCD bawls about cheese prices, wait til they are paying $4 pound for hamburger… Pork bellies almost a buck. Wheat up the limit days on end. God forbid if people notice inflation and begin to hoard… I remember the 150 pounds of sugar in my moms larder as the price went from a nickle to 60 cents a pound back in the bad old 70’s. Inflation always begins with the monitization of some ‘event’ which quickly flows through commodities. Cost push then demand pull and back again. Gotta quite chewing the coffee beans. SINGER commented on Feb 8 The #1 threat to America is: America Itself Stuart commented on Feb 8 #1 threat to America, or at least a solid contender is…perhaps, maybe, possibly $60 TRILLION dollars in unfunded debt held by the Federal Government….Somebody better start asking where we are going to get the funds as they are now starting to come due… gunthestops commented on Feb 8 Where did you get that T shirt from? Kudlow, the king of crazy town!!!! Pat G. commented on Feb 8 Greed is America’s #1 threat, hands down!! That would go better with a bull mentality. RugbyD commented on Feb 8 as mentioned previously, this is direct product of The Colbert Report muckdog commented on Feb 8 Manbearpig. muckdog commented on Feb 8 (er, link!) Manbearpig. sysin3 commented on Feb 8 The number one threat to America is the idiots who inhabit it. Despite, or perhaps because of, the availability of a free and public education for all, since at least 1964. Sigh, I wuz there. Rockitz commented on Feb 8 In keeping with the theme… http://tinyurl.com/38n5r9 Top 9 Reasons A Grizzly Bear Would Make A Great Republican Presidential Candidate With Governor Mitt Romney now out of the presidential race, conservative Republicans are left with very limited (some would say “no”) options on who to vote for that best represents their belief system. With no traditional choices remaining, we have decided to think outside of the box, and so we present: Top 9 Reasons A Grizzly Bear Would Make A Great Republican Presidential Candidate 9. Although vehemently anti-gun by instinct, they still support the right of the American people to carry firearms. 8. Strong name recognition in California. 7. (tie) Extremely territorial by nature, would vigorously defend our borders against illegal aliens, drug runners, and elk. 7. (tie) With average weights reaching around 1,000 pounds, highly unlikely to enact freedom-limiting fast food ban. 6. Annual hibernation likely to induce fond memories in conservatives of the later Reagan years. 5. (tie) Would never utter such condescending and dishonest statements as “my distinguished opponent.” 5. (tie) Campaign slogan “Speak Softly And Carry Gigantic, Razor-Sharp Claws” should play well in the South and Midwest. 4. In the right lighting, just may mistake Nancy Pelosi for a frightened caribou. 3. Would have no qualms about defecating on Helen Thomas after being asked one of her inane, semi-lucid questions. 2. Really know how to handle those pain-in-the-ass hippy protesters who tie themselves to trees. 1. Fully prepared to use any technique necessary to gain vital information from captured terrorists including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and eating them alive. Ross commented on Feb 8 VERY FUNNY, Rockitz. May I add one??? Sleeps all winter and goes fishin the rest of the year. The Financial Philosopher commented on Feb 8 Images of Bears are everywhere. Think about that… KirkH commented on Feb 8 Kudlow should call it the tinkerbell economy because it runs on optimism and hope instead of fundamentals. If the people in charge started being honest the whole thing would collapse. donna commented on Feb 8 I wouldn’t be keeping too much sugar around. Apparently that stuff explodes. blam commented on Feb 9 Now let us not retreat into a cave but let us explore the fornication of bearhood. Is it so tragic that a multitude, dare I say preponderunce, of individuals should sell their overpriced equity vehicles. They will certainly be back once the formerly discussed vehichles become reasonably priced, some 20 or 40 % below the current pricipatice. I stand ready to buy the S$P at 83. Terra Andersen commented on Feb 9 Well said. *=) zackattack commented on Feb 9 Jonathan Livingston Seagull market analysis… if we all just *really, really believe* the S&P should reach new highs, then it will. It’s impossible to respond to Luskin because he never specifies which permabears he’s referring to. Assuming it’s someone like Roubini or Mish, well, they’ve been absolutely right about the progression of events. If anything, they’ve been conservative in their estimates of the problems. Metroplexual commented on Feb 9 It is obvious that it is from Colbert Report’s threatdown. Although when I went to see the show the # 1 threat was robot bears. DavidB commented on Feb 9 ross, Can you please explain to me how economics makes paying a bank 5% – 10% in interest makes food cheaper than paying cash(and having to not charge more to pay back the money borrowed PLUS the interest charge on top of that) for said same food? I’m kinda lost here I can see how it may make food cheaper by creating temporary abundance on the short term but what about the long term? DavidB commented on Feb 9 I wouldn’t be keeping too much sugar around. Apparently that stuff explodes. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet Donna. Wait until you see the explosion made by the commodity sugar bubble that Uncle Ben is creating for us right now right before our very eyes Ross commented on Feb 9 DavidB Farming is a business not unlike many others. Gone are the days when you had family farms on a cash and carry basis. If you cut off credit to a retailer for inventory finance, he won’t have anything to sell you. You may well be able to forgo a new winter coat but not bread and milk. Farmers have hard assets in the form of the land, machinery, infrastructure. Many use bank credit for inventory ie seed feed fertilizer. A good farmer keeps a straight set of books. Some are risk takers some not. My point was that when you restrict credit you must become smaller. When you become smaller you have less to offer and the price goes up. I didn’t create this financed based economy but I must deal with it. As banks become more risk averse and I think we all know they will, it will impact the least credit worthy among us. Those represent the marginal bushel or bail. Prices are set at the margin. I’m not trying to absolve stupid lending practices of banks, only pointing out that the Soverign Wealth Funds ain’t going to lend me money directly for my seed corn. OldVet commented on Feb 9 Threatening grizzlies? And all this time I thought it was greedy crooks dressed up in $2,000 suits selling scheisser in a box to rubes who were getting their money from the home ATM. techy commented on Feb 9 off topic: help me understand, how buying a stock/share with all the talks of recession is going to be profitable. let me take example of Apple, they have a p/e of around 25. which means for every 100 dollar invested they earn a $4 per year. now lets say USA goes into long recession (unemployment almost 7-8%) which means profit of most company will fall, which means stock price will shrink, unless people are still trying to outbid each other to own equities. so is that true the people who are buying stocks right now are assuming: 1. USA will not go into long recession, profits will not fall but rise, and they will reap a huge 15-40% early bird gain, for being contrarion? 2. Their companies are special, they will earn more profits no matter what? 3. They will always find a buyer who is willing to pay more, irrepective of earnings. 4. They will be able to sell before it starts going down? cinefoz, kk or any of the bulls please share your opinion, i am not trying to mock, just trying to fathom, what makes people risk capital for a small return in the current environment? Winston Munn commented on Feb 9 If I were younger, I’d hop on my chopper and me and Captain America would set off in search of America – but with age comes cynisism – because now I don’t think we would ever find it. Camelot was purchased in a leveraged buyout deal, the round table knights transormed into a board of directors, the castle razed, and on the bare ground was constructed the Homeland, to protect the citizenry against all manner of threats – except those threats already inside the walls. The best hedge is to short honesty and go long obfuscation. bt commented on Feb 9 Their companies are special, they will earn more profits no matter what? The problem with good tech earnings is that most tech companies, even those extremely profitable ones, don’t share their profits with their shareholders. And that was when the economy was strong and the companies were making huge profits. When there is weakness and credit tightens, companies will have smaller profits and will want to hoard their cash, so they are even less able and willing to share profits with shareholders. What good are company earnings if shareholders don’t benefit from that income? The only beneficiaries of strong profits at tech companies are company insiders (stock options, huge salaries, bonueses, great benefits) and capabale momentum players. I won’t “invest” in companies until they learn how to respect shareholders and share profits with shareholders. DavidB commented on Feb 9 Ross, What you farmers should have realized 100 years ago but apparently didn’t(funny, it only took me about 5 years of financial education to figure it out) is that if you willfully make yourselves dependent on bankers to finance a single link in the chain of your operations then it is not you that controls your production but the bankers. It is the same as any other industry. The borrower is servant to the lender and there is no reason why farmers should still be beholden to bankers for their operations except for the fact that it is the ‘easy’ way of doing business…that is until the banker decides to buy up a bunch of ag stocks(now I am beginning to understand why they have been pumping them) and then restrict your ability to get credit. That sounds like a neat and profitable little game. Maybe you guys will learn this time around peter h commented on Feb 9 Roubini was on Kudlow over a year ago screaming that the US was in a terrible recession. I don’t know he he can be considered right when his call is off by at least 12 months and I am sure that the severity of this recession (if we get one) won’t be as bad as he expected. Ross commented on Feb 9 DavidB, I don’t know where you got your 5 year financial education but if I were you, I’d ask for my money back. Thanks for the philosophy but I have made a lot of money using the Banks money. Bankers are essential stupid. How else could I borrow a million bucks @6.75% fixed for 30 years and pay it back with devalued currency? If you want a real education, get a copy of Oswald Spengler’s ‘The Decline Of The West’. It took me 4 years to get through it (multiple re-readings) but you will wind up as a quieter more informed individual. Gotta go move some hay Cheers hpov2000 commented on Feb 9 Modified Second Amendment : Right to arm the bears. Mongbat commented on Feb 9 We were due for a downturn. However, it’s interesting that the volatility, both upwards and downwards, started around the same time they repealed the uptick rule (July ’07). wunsacon commented on Feb 9 >> The best hedge is to short honesty and go long obfuscation. Munn, holy s***! I love this line. This might unseat my long-time favorite quote: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” >> Bankers are essential stupid. How else could I borrow a million bucks @6.75% fixed for 30 years and pay it back with devalued currency? >> “Gotta go move some hay” Ross, LOL! zero529 commented on Feb 9 Everyone’s been talking about it, now we’re seeing it: (via Yahoo) OPEC COULD DITCH DOLLARS FOR EUROS: CHIEF OPEC could switch the pricing of oil from dollars into euros within a decade, secretary general Abdullah al-Badri told a weekly magazine. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries could adopt the euro to combat the decline of the dollar, Badri told the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED), published in London. DavidB commented on Feb 10 Ross, If you have so much money then why are you crying that banks are curtailing your credit? Your argument isn’t consistent Bankers are essential stupid. How else could I borrow a million bucks @6.75% fixed for 30 years and pay it back with devalued currency? BWA! HA! HA! Who do you think is printing out of thin air and devaluing that currency? You may be borrowing it but they are only printing it up for you to trade your labor for Read this next.November 2, 2018 10 Friday AM ReadsNovember 15, 2008 Bretton Woods IIMarch 7, 2020 MiB: Jan van Eck, Van Eck Associates Posted Under Behavioral Finance/Psychology Previous Post Quote of the Day: Warren Buffett Next Post 5 Historical Economic Crises and the U.S.