What I've Been Up Tp

Hi,

You might be wondering what has happened since I've stopped posting.  It has been an exciting time for me, I've been up to many new adventures.  Here is a taste of what I've been up to:

I started a new youtube channel of me doing covers of pop songs.  Here is the link.

I've also written a book on financial investing.  It's gotten some pretty good reviews so far fortunately.  Here is the link.

I've also read this really funny book about a similar Asian kid being raised in a strict household.  This book is really funny and it's only 99 cents.  Here is the link.

Song of the Week

Song of the Week

Song of the Week

Song of the Week

Song of the Week

Song of the Week

Song of the Week

A Really Fun Anti-Bullying Song

Only 22% of Americans Believe in Evolution

Song of the Day

Energy Policy Redux

Watching all of the idiot pundits/politicians on TV talk about gas prices and energy has been so frustrating lately.  It really decreases my faith in the world.

Oil/gas prices
Facts: Oil prices have been going up a lot lately.  Also, gas prices have been going up a lot lately
What the pundits have to say:
Obama-"end tax breaks for oil and gas"...here's the deal-these tax breaks are most likely in the form of exploration what will likely happen in an efficient market is that there will just be less money for share repurchases.  I personally think share repurchases are a huge waste of money but I'm just some kid...
Gingrich-"2.50 gas"...this is impossible
Palin/other right-wing idiots-"drill, baby, drill"...the problem is not lack of drilling...we are drilling a shit ton.  The problem is that when we are drilling, its natural gas and not oil.  Let's face it, the U.S. is a natural gas rich country.  The U.S. was an oil rich country and then we used it all.  Surprise!!!

The main issue is not a drilling or a production problem...it's a use problem.  I know there are so many supply side economists who get really anal about production and making it easier to supply things...blah blah blah.  But the current energy issue is a demand problem.  There is not enough demand for natural gas.  Couple this with our drill baby drill philosophy and we get natural gas prices going from $14 to $2.50 in the past decade.  How many commercials are about producing natural gas in this country...well a lot cause I've been watching a lot of CNN?  Yet, Chesapeke Energy and ConocoPhillips have scaled back production on natural gas because of weak demand.

So as a natural gas rich country, you would think we would use a lot of it right?  The answer is no...natural gas is actually one of leading exports to Japan.  Instead, we use oil for our cars and most of our heating and cooling and we use coal for our power.  So efficient.....(sarcasm). 

So you might ask...why isn't the economy adjusting.  Well, the coal companies are very powerful and are from electorally valuable states (Ohio and Pennsylvania).  They can get their way to block the creative destruction an economy needs to grow.  It's simple Marxist theory, but this time coal is the factory worker and natural gas is the automation designed to make the worker lose his job and make things better for society.

I'm not a super genius in terms of markets, but as a below-average genius, I can tell you that with demand, supply will find a way.  In our relatively free economy, producers will find a way if they can make money doing it.  Let's get our concern onto demand and stop going anal over supply.

Here's an important/unimportant history lesson:  We used to get our electricity through oil and natural gas, not coal before the 1970s.  There were a lot of supply problems that made us convert to coal.

End of an Era

Hi,

I am going to be only sporadically post from here on out.  The external pressures on my life are taking up an increasingly large share of my time now.

Thank you for your support.

A Couple of Interesting Graphs on American Health Care

Why are healthcare costs so large in America...spending so much extra money would be explainable if the outcomes we were achieving were spectacular.  But a surprising amount of the time they are middling at best and shockingly bad at worst.

How is Mitt Romney so unrelatable?

Here is a full quote from Romney in a campaign stop in Wisconsin:

One of (the) most humorous stories, I think, relates to my father. You may remember my father, George Romney, was president of an automobile company called American Motors…

They had a factory in Michigan, and they had a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and another one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And as the president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now, later he decided to run for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign…

Now, I recall at one parade where he was going down the streets, he was led by a band, and they had a high school band that was leading each of the candidates, and his band did not know how to play the Michigan fight song,” he said. “They only knew how to play the Wisconsin fight song, so every time they would start playing ‘On, Wisconsin,’ ‘On, Wisconsin,’ my dad’s political people would jump up and down and try to get them to stop because they didn’t want people in Michigan to be reminded that my dad had moved production to Wisconsin.

Oh...my dad closed down a factory in Michigan. Hundreds of people lost their jobs...chuckles...  And I bet that they don't have a lot of stock to pay them dividends for enough passive income...chuckles...  Closing a factory is no big deal...chuckles...  We got to buy 15 new Cadillacs from my dad's bonus that year...chuckes...  Oh my...there's a band that can and can't play certain songs...chuckles... I have such ability to inflict pain into other people's lives...chuckles...

I really do think that the Republican Party has nothing to offer to people who make under $100k.  As a person in line to make over $100k, I can only say "chuckles." 

A Funny Post

A reply from CEO of J.P. Morgan to a pretty girl seeking a rich husband

A young and pretty lady posted this on a popular forum:

Title: What should I do to marry a rich guy?

... I'm going to be honest of what I'm going to say here.

I'm 25 this year. I'm very pretty, have style and good taste. I wish to marry a guy with $500k annual salary or above.

You might say that I'm greedy, but an annual salary of $1M is considered only as middle class in New York.

My requirement is not high. Is there anyone in this forum who has an income of $500k annual salary? Are you all married?

I wanted to ask: what should I do to marry rich persons like you?

Among those I've dated, the richest is $250k annual income, and it seems that this is my upper limit.

If someone is going to move into high cost residential area on the west of New York City Garden(?), $250k annual income is not enough.

I'm here humbly to ask a few questions:
1) Where do most rich bachelors hang out? (Please list down the names and addresses of bars, restaurant, gym)
2) Which age group should I target?
3) Why most wives of the riches are only average-looking? I've met a few girls who don't have looks and are not interesting, but they are able to marry rich guys.

4) How do you decide who can be your wife, and who can only be your girlfriend? (my target now is to get married)

Ms. Pretty

A philosophical reply from CEO of J.P. Morgan:

Dear Ms. Pretty,
I have read your post with great interest. Guess there are lots of girls out there who have similar questions like yours. Please allow me to analyse your situation as a professional investor.

My annual income is more than $500k, which meets your requirement, so I hope everyone believes that I'm not wasting time here.

From the standpoint of a business person, it is a bad decision to marry you. The answer is very simple, so let me explain.

Put the details aside, what you're trying to do is an exchange of "beauty" and "money" : Person A provides beauty, and Person B pays for it, fair and square.

However, there's a deadly problem here, your beauty will fade, but my money will not be gone without any good reason. The fact is, my income might increase from year to year, but you can't be prettier year after year.

Hence from the viewpoint of economics, I am an appreciation asset, and you are a depreciation asset. It's not just normal depreciation, but exponential depreciation. If that is your only asset, your value will be much worse 10 years later.

By the terms we use in Wall Street, every trading has a position, dating with you is also a "trading position".
If the trade value dropped we will sell it and it is not a good idea to keep it for long term - same goes with the marriage that you wanted. It might be cruel to say this, but in order to make a wiser decision any assets with great depreciation value will be sold or "leased".

Anyone with over $500k annual income is not a fool; we would only date you, but will not marry you. I would advice that you forget looking for any clues to marry a rich guy. And by the way, you could make yourself to become a rich person with $500k annual income.This has better chance than finding a rich fool.

Hope this reply helps.

signed,
J.P. Morgan CEO

Songs of the Day

Here are some nice covers to One Direction:

It's Official (not really) Romney is the nominee

Romney just swept Wisconsin, Maryland, and D.C.  He is going to get enough delegates to ward off a brokered convention in either May or June.  Keep in mind that there are still plenty of states remaining that Santorum could win.  However, Romney now has the road to victory all to himself.  It wasn't easy, but ole' Mittens did it!

Another Example of NCAA Brackets and Political Pandering

The following is Virginia Senate Candidate, George Allen's (R) bracket.

Mizzou advancing to the Sweet Sixteen . . . without surviving Norfolk State in the first round?

Louisville falling to Michigan for an Elite Eight spot, but first losing to Davidson?

This is pretty awesome pandering...to home state/regional teams.  Obama panders too, but not this blatantly and not in a impossible fashion.

You might be asking your self...how stupid is George Allen?

Well, he's smart enough to put this logically impossible bracket on his campaign website...to highlight his stupidity (otherwise know as non-elitist).

Song of the Day

A Couple More Stock Picks if the GOP wins

Check out these defense stocks:  They will do good since the GOP loves to spend lots of money on defense.

Lockheed Martin (LMT): see F-35

Northrup Grumman (NOC)

Shouldn't they be called "offense" stocks?

Song of the Day

Comparing Body Types to Plants

Apples: Brad Pitt in Troy

Pears: Newt Gingrich

Carrots: All fashion models in Paris, New York, and Milan

Oranges: NJ Gov. Chris Christie

Quote of the Day

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” - Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Song of the Day

Funny how American boy bands can dance and British boy bands can't.

How the Democrats will benefit if the health care mandate is struck down

In case people don't know, the Supreme Court is currently deciding on the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act.  Democrats are generally thought to support the mandate's constitutionality and Republicans...the opposite position.  Here's why striking down the health care mandate will actually help the Democrats:

In fact, I do think that the Dems will be a lot better off politically if  the mandate is shot down.  Smart conservatives like Erick Erickson (why would you name your kid this?) of Redstate.com know this.

1.  Democratic enthusiasm for 2012 will be up
Nothing galvanizes the party faithful more than a controversial victory by the other side.  Democrats will be as enthused as ever to support President Obama, Dem candidates up and down the ballot.  This enthusiasm will come in the form of monetary donations, volunteering for campaigns, and voter turnout.  Obama wants to capture his 2008 magic again, this is basically the main way that can happen.

2.  Republican enthusiasm for 2012 will be down
Given how the economy will be improving.  Republicans will have lost 2 of their top 3 issues (no economy, no health care, they will still have gas prices).  Without health care to go crazy over and the non-stimulating Mittens Romney at the top of the ticket, conservative activism will not have as much energy as it could have.

Reasons 1 and 2 will not matter IF the Supreme Court hands down its ruling post-election, which it has the right to do.

3.  Republicans will own the upcoming health care debacle
Believe me it is a clusterfuck now and it will be megaclusterfuck soon.  There is a real problem in this country, too many people don't have health insurance...more and more people are losing health insurance and the cost of healthcare is escalating.  10 years ago, about 70% of people got insurance from their employers...now it's about 60%...yikes...that is not a good trend considering how dependent most people are on employer provided health insurance.  Also, according to my medical student friend, most Americans have pretty crappy health insurance and don't realize just how fucked they are if they get really sick.  Still, costs are going up and there's no sign of this changing...which can only mean more and more people are going to lose their employer provided health insurance.

With the Democrats turning the ball over with a Supreme Court loss, the GOP will be in charge of this nonsense.  Like gas prices and the economy, there is little a government can do to stem this tide. The GOP, likes to entertain the notion of market-based solutions...well...the current situation is what the market came up with...  Now, I like to fancy myself as a connoisseur of markets and the current Affordable Care Act is the market-based solution.  In fact, this kind of mandate system was advocated by the Republicans of the 90s and by the very conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.  This might be the beginning of the path to the public, single-payer health care system of the U.S.  Just remember when this happens in 10-20 years...you saw it here first!

Of course this point will be moot if the Supremes vote for the mandate...but it's not looking like it...  The bottom line is people need health insurance at some point in their lives and not having it is not a good thing cause you don't when disaster strikes.

Texas has been under Republican stewardship for a while...about 1 in 4 Texans aren't insured...  How have the GOP been so successful at keeping people who can't afford health insurance off the rolls???

Here is a quote from David Frum, economic speech writer from W's presidency...the dude's brilliant IMO:  Though Republicans are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court declares President Obama's health care law unconstitutional, David Frum points out the GOP has no alternative and says they will be punished for it by voters.

"Republicans will need a Plan B. Unfortunately, they wasted the past three years that might have developed one. If the Supreme Court doesn't rescue them from themselves, they'll be heading into this election season arguing, in effect, Our plan is to take away the government-mandated insurance of millions of people under age 65, and replace it with nothing. And we're doing this so as to better protect the government-mandated insurance of people over 65 -- until we begin to phase out that insurance, too, for everybody now under 55."

The Dems will be off the hook when their plan fails to lower costs substantially.

The current situation reminds me a lot of the 2004 election.  George W. Bush won and took ownership over the upcoming clusterfuck that happened in Iraq and in the markets.  In case you forgot, the Dems won big time in 2006 and 2008, took ownership over the clusterfuck economy and lost big time in 2010.  Politics is about not taking ownership over clusterfucks.

The Supreme Court and the Health Care Mandate: The World is Decaying Around Us

It's the second day of oral argument in the Supreme Court for Obamacare's health care law.  Rumors are swirling that the individual mandate is probably going to be struck down by a partisan 5-4 vote, based on the questions being asked by the justices.  After a quick glance at the transcripts, its not looking pretty.  Here are some winners and losers.

Winners:
Market Volatility-Today alone, Aetna (one of the most important companies of Obamacare) was at one point, down at least 2%, and has since almost rallied back.  The rest of the market has barely moved that much as a whole.

Nut-Job-ery: The system works for nut-jobery!!!

Losers:
Sensibility-Partisanship will be as sharp as ever.  Fights over judicial nominees will go from Threat Level Orange to Threat Level Caliente Red.  No judges will ever be confirmed to the federal bench again (sarcasm...but hopefully you get the point).  Every judicial nominee will be labelled as too extreme.

Aetna-During today's market trading, Aetna went down by over 2%.  However, it rallied once speculators and people who don't think the mandate will be struck down got into the action.

The Concept of Insurance-So the mandate is to help insurances have healthy people paying in to the risk pool.  Without this, people can just get insurance when they get sick since health insurance cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions...which is really bad for insurance.  Bad things really will happen if the coverage stays and the mandate goes.

"In the rich state of Texas, 27.6% of the population are without health care.  Why isn't that number higher?"

Song of the Day

The lyrics are really dirty...

Moral Hazard and the Mortgage Crisis: A good sounding argument that is really dumb

There is a popular notion that we should do nothing to help out underwater mortgage holders.  The theory being that these people knew what they were doing and have to suffer the consequences of their choices.  This moral hazard argument suggests that if we do anything to help out underwater mortgage holders, then people will act badly in the future, thinking that they would just get bailed out too.

Here are some holes in that argument for the current mortgage crisis:
1.  With more foreclosures, there will be a massive decrease in home values, the whole neighborhood will go downhill.  You will have a lot of people moving back in with their parents or moving in with siblings or friends.  You will also have lots of empty homes.  This is bad since you'll be punishing people who did everything right.

2.  No one in their right minds will have a strategic default (meaning purposeful default).  After a default, a person is shut out of the credit market (no credit cards, no car loans, no mortgages) for 10 years.  After 10 years, they'll be high risk and have to pay far higher interest rates.  Can you imagine how crappy that would be?

3.  With little hope of keeping their homes, homeowners will not take care of repairs nor keep the home in good condition.  Banks know this and they know that they want to keep people in their homes.  The only people who don't give a crap are Mitt Romney, Rick Santelli (the Chicago Merchantile Exchange guy on CNBC), and self-interested speculators (me?).

Only one solution works effectively: principal reduction.  When the farm states were having their own mortgage crisis in the late 1990s, the banks reduced principal on the farmers' mortgages and a greater crisis was averted.  This idea is highly unpopular with powerful, financial interests because it reduces the potential money that they will be paid back.  However, principal reduction increases the chances that the homeowner would be able to afford the mortgage.

Banks should view the current crisis as viewing underwater mortgages as companies in distress.  In these situations, companies and banks would negotiate terms to best increase the odds of the company surviving and paying, at least a portion, of the loans owed.

GOP Primary: The Catholic Vote

Santorum is widely known as the Catholic candidate and if you listen to all the useless pundits on TV...they all say that Catholics will definitely vote for Santorum.  However, Romney has won the Catholic vote.  This would seem so counter-intuitive.  After all...all of the Catholic bishops and cardinals seem to hate contraception, gays, and abortions in any circumstances.  Plus, Santorum shares all of those views and Romney pretty much doesn't.  Catholics who vote in the GOP primary also tend to be more socially conservative than Catholics in general...  So...what gives?

That's because the "conservative" Catholics are just Catholic, not Catholic Catholic.  Not that many Catholic people share the same viewpoints as the bishops and cardinals.  Surprised?...don't be...  People who don't get laid (Catholic bishops and cardinals) tend to go crazy.