Bill Cara’s Blog for Jan 16, 2012

CTA Trading Desk Morning Report

[7:00am ET] Good morning.

Here are the 7:00am ET snapshots of the latest equity market trading results for Europe, and futures prices plus 5-minute charts of the futures for S&P 500, 30-year US Treasury Bond, US Dollar index, Gold and Crude Oil.

Symbol Name Last Trade Change Related Info
^ATX ATX 1,901.00 3:12AM EST Down 30.80 (1.59%) Components, Chart, More
^BFX BEL-20 2,117.61 6:59AM EST Down 7.73 (0.36%) Components, Chart, More
^FCHI CAC 40 3,191.23 6:59AM EST Down 5.26 (0.16%) Components, Chart, More
^GDAXI DAX 6,169.91 6:44AM EST Up 26.83 (0.44%) Components, Chart, More
^AEX AEX General 310.70 6:44AM EST Up 1.42 (0.46%) Components, Chart, More
^OSEAX OSE All Share 445.42 6:44AM EST Down 4.37 (0.97%) Components, Chart, More
^OMXSPI Stockholm General 315.46 6:16AM EST Down 0.80 (0.25%) Components, Chart, More
^SSMI Swiss Market 6,019.18 6:45AM EST Up 22.84 (0.38%) Components, Chart, More
^FTSE FTSE 100 5,633.66 6:44AM EST Down 2.98 (0.05%) Components, Chart, More
FPXAA.PR PX Index 895.20 6:59AM EST Up 4.60 (0.52%) Chart, More
ESI500000000.MA IGBM 843.85 6:40AM EST Down 2.18 (0.26%) Components, Chart, More
MICEXINDEXCF.ME MICEX Index 1,463.56 7:45AM EST Up 4.15 (0.28%) Chart, More
GD.AT Athex Composite Share Price Index 634.54 6:45AM EST Down 10.40 (1.61%) Chart, More

http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

http://finviz.com/fut_chart.ashx?p=m5&t=ES

http://finviz.com/fut_chart.ashx?p=m5&t=ZB

http://finviz.com/fut_chart.ashx?p=m5&t=DX

http://finviz.com/fut_chart.ashx?p=m5&t=GC

http://finviz.com/fut_chart.ashx?p=m5&t=SI

http://finviz.com/fut_chart.ashx?p=m5&t=CL

The team will check in during the day, reporting in the Discourse when there is a new entry.

Enjoy your day.


Cara on Trends & Cycles


Vad’s Catch of the Day


Kaimu’s Sound Money


CTA Trading Desk Mid-Day Report


CTA Trading Desk Post-Close Report


  1. 1 in Distribution Zone 3 in Sell alert Accumulation... [#103614]
    By: davefairtex (5216 comments) Go to top ↑
    • 1 in Distribution Zone
    • 3 in Sell alert

    Accumulation Zone: Monthly 6, Weekly 1, Daily 6
    Distribution Zone: Monthly 7, Weekly 8, Daily 15

  2. Carnival Corporation was mentioned here yesterday. It... [#103616]
    By: kp84 (43 comments) Go to top ↑

    Carnival Corporation was mentioned here yesterday.
    It trades in London and is down about -16% now.
    Today’s press release says they expect an earning hit of $ 0.11 – 0.12 per share for the year. That’s just from loss of use.
    One year ago, the dividend was increased from $0.10 to $0.25.

    Will watch this one tomorrow a.m. on the NYSE open.
    It’s on CARA 100 for a reason and worth watching.

    Thanks Bill for your continued time and energy and knowledge you share.

    kp84

    • Will be keeping a close eye on an entrance for ccl. So far... [#103618]
      By: bigwad1 (768 comments) Go to top ↑

      Will be keeping a close eye on an entrance for ccl.
      So far the Captain appears to be taking the blame for the wreck, but watch the company distance themselves via news releases from their captain. He’ll be fired eventually, that should be the eye wink indicating the low for ccl.
      Unfortunately there are lives lost, and many injuries.

  3. ... [#103620]
    By: Grym (5469 comments) Go to top ↑
  4. ... is up. Yes, I discussed the Carnival Corp tragedy. I... [#103621]
    By: Bill Cara (4105 comments) Go to top ↑

    … is up.

    Yes, I discussed the Carnival Corp tragedy. I hold CCL in the portfolios and don’t like the loss, but the present pull-back in market cap is highly exaggerated relative to the uninsured losses that will result. Apparently the company claims this sunken ship will be back in use by year-end.

  5. I've no way to check this data easily but it's certainly... [#103622]
    By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

    I’ve no way to check this data easily but it’s certainly interesting to have in mind

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/25/3

    • Vad, While I believe the 24/7 info is overwhelming and... [#103624]
      By: Grym (5469 comments) Go to top ↑

      Vad,

      While I believe the 24/7 info is overwhelming and much is misleading, this “Misconception” and subsequent “Fact” comment brought a laugh.

      ——–

      “Misconception: Most of what Americans spend their money on is made in China.

      Fact: Just 2.7% of personal consumption expenditures go to Chinese-made goods and services. 88.5% of U.S. consumer spending is on American-made goods and services.

      I used that statistic in an article last week, and the response from readers was overwhelming: Hogwash. People just didn’t believe it.”

      Now the punch line…

      The figure comes from a Federal Reserve report. You can read it here.

      Grym ;-)

      In case you missed this Fed item:
      http://tiny.cc/5qldz

      • Grym, sorry, references to Fed unrelated fallings have... [#103626]
        By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

        Grym,

        sorry, references to Fed unrelated fallings have little bearing on this particular matter. This is not a first time I see similar numbers on two out of three misconceptions mentioned in the article, debt holdings and oil supply. It’s manufacturing numbers that are new to me, and if those two are correct despite widely held belief, who is to say the third is not of the same? Do you have a link to data indicating that the numbers in the article are incorrect?

        • Vad - Yeah, I have some links. The statistic on oil are... [#103627]
          By: davefairtex (5216 comments) Go to top ↑

          Vad -

          Yeah, I have some links. The statistic on oil are disingenuous. It is careful to talk about “petroleum products” rather than “crude oil”. When you look at straight crude oil production vs imports, the picture is dramatically worse. We produce only 37% of our crude domestically; we import 63% of our crude. Gasoline comes from crude, not from all the other random stuff that people who want numbers to look nicer now count as “petroleum products.”

          US 2011 Crude oil imports: 3,362,856 (k barrels per year)
          US 2011 Crude oil production: 1,998,837 (k barrels per year)

          http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl
          http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?…

          See, what the guy does in the article is talk about “all petroleum products” which includes lower BTU energy such as ethanol and natural gas liquids. For those who care about energy content, gasoline has 34.66 GJ/cubic meter, while NGLs have 18, 26, and 29 GJ/cubic meter depending on if its ethane/propane/butane. Ethanol has 23.6 GJ/cubic meter. How many of us in the US can drive something other than our lighters with NGLs? (Of course, many Europeans can – that’s another subject though.)

          http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrg

          Crude is still “the good stuff” and we only produce 37% of what we use.

          And suggesting that we don’t get most of our oil from the Middle East is really meaningless. Oil is a more or less fungible international commodity. We don’t own the oil in “North America.” If the Middle East vanished in a puff of smoke, all those nations currently importing from the ME would suddenly become very interested in Mexican and Canadian crude, and the price we would have to pay would jump accordingly – or else those pesky Canadians would sell their oil goodies to someone else willing to pay more. Its a global marketplace: Canadian oil works just fine in those Japanese refineries. To a first approximation, of course.

          • Quote from article: "Misconception: We get most of our oil... [#103628]
            By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

            Quote from article:

            “Misconception: We get most of our oil from the Middle East.
            Fact: Just 9.2% of oil consumed in the U.S. comes from the Middle East.”

            Is it true or not? That’s the misconception he addresses. Musings about whether it’s meaningless or not are beyond the scope; they may be meaningful in one discussion and meaningless in another depending on the matter discussed.

            Also, my question to Grym about numbers was addressing the different one of 3.

          • ... [#103633]
            By: Dr. Strangelove (2004 comments) Go to top ↑
          • According to EIA, 2010 11-month average import from Persian... [#103634]
            By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

            According to EIA, 2010 11-month average import from Persian Gulf is 9%, 2009′s is 9.2%:

            http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/se

          • Vad - Thanks for the chart. I see the difference is "As... [#103665]
            By: Dr. Strangelove (2004 comments) Go to top ↑

            Vad -

            Thanks for the chart. I see the difference is “As Share of Products Supplied” column versus “As Share of Total Imports” column. So storage is omitted in the lower percentages of 9.0% versus 14.6% for the 2010 11-month average.

            I ponder what would happen to the price of oil if 14.6% of it stopped flowing to the U.S.!

          • Vad - "my question to Grym about numbers was addressing the... [#103638]
            By: davefairtex (5216 comments) Go to top ↑

            Vad – “my question to Grym about numbers was addressing the different one of 3.”

            Ha. #3. Ok. You have me there. :)

            Yeah I remember reading something like that in other places. It is one of those things that if you add up the Chinese monthly trade deficit (which seems pretty small, actually) for a bunch of years, you end up with the sum total of China’s Treasury ownership.

            I did find it interesting that we’re manufacturing the same amount of stuff with far fewer people. Charles Hugh Smith calls this “the end of work” because the trend has 1 guy eventually pushing the “start” button to produce all the steel in America at some point in time. So one guy will have a job in manufacturing, and what will the rest of us do?

            About his oil stats. You are correct of course – it does depends on the discussion. If the discussion is about oil tanker cargo destinations, the fact is likely quite important and on point. In other discussions, such as how a disruption of oil supplies from the middle east will affect America, the fact is likely to mislead and distract. “Hey, we only get 10% of our oil from the ME, why should we care?”

            So – correct, and applicable in a limited set of technical contexts, but actually misleading if used in the more common set of discussion contexts.

            So what context did he provide for his fact?

            “The nation still relies on imports for about half of its oil. That’s bad. But should the Middle East get the attention it does when we talk about oil reliance? In terms of security and geopolitical stability, perhaps. In terms of volume, probably not.”

            Didn’t I just clearly show that we rely on imports for 63% of our oil? And he said “about half”. I’d say “almost two thirds.” That’s because he doesn’t know the difference between “petroleum products” and “oil”.

            And because of the fungibility of oil, our volume of overall imports will most definitely go down – and by MORE than 10% – if mideast oil was disrupted.

            Sorry Vad he’s just wrong.

          • Or: "finding a replacement for merely 10% of the supply... [#103639]
            By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

            Or: “finding a replacement for merely 10% of the supply would rid us of this dependency and grant us a lot more freedom in foreign policy choices.” Not so useless anymore.

          • Yes, it is useless, because its not true. Finding a... [#103640]
            By: davefairtex (5216 comments) Go to top ↑

            Yes, it is useless, because its not true. Finding a replacement for 10% would NOT grant us more freedom in foreign policy choices. Unless you’d care to go into detail as to the actual mechanics of how that would work out? Details are critical. For instance, if the mechanics of your “finding a replacement for 10%” involve invading other countries to secure oil production, I’d say that’s an important detail. You might also qualify what “more freedom” means too.

            I’m not being picky about wording here, I’m talking about core issues. We ARE dependent on mideast oil – in the current context – because we assume there is a global marketplace for oil.

            If you want to change that, if we start moving to a bilateral oil market where we arrange supply at some price from an oil provider, locking everyone else out, then that will create a whole other series of tensions since it is our current oil-dependent allies who will be locked out of the oil supply at that point: Japan and Europe, not to mention our less-than-allies such as India and China.

            Like I said, useless. And misleading too.

          • Wow... invading? You are taking what is said way beyond... [#103643]
            By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

            Wow… invading? You are taking what is said way beyond plausible. How about MEDDLING LESS instead??

            I’ll pass on digging deeper in what I merely considered interesting figures. If they are not of interest to you, ignore – but please refrain of putting so many words in my mouth that I never had in mind, not even close. You might want to reread your replies to see this pattern of expanding so far beyond what is said that you are obviously talking to someone else but not to the one you reply to. Which would be totally fine if you haven’t made it look like what you object to is what I said. You did – and argued with yourself then.

          • I appreciated the author's post as a case in point and not... [#103645]
            By: Les (7233 comments) Go to top ↑

            I appreciated the author’s post as a case in point and not an absolute that had to be denied or otherwise. Frankly I have no idea if those three points are valid or not, but it made me think.

          • You are right again. I'm objecting not to what YOU said... [#103646]
            By: davefairtex (5216 comments) Go to top ↑

            You are right again. I’m objecting not to what YOU said, but only to what HE said. I made a couple of revs to one of my posts, the last of which points out that what he said was factually incorrect in one very important (but subtle) way, and I pointed out that he specifically intended using these oil import numbers in the context of oil dependency discussions, where they would indeed be misleading.

            So my bone to pick isn’t with you at all, its with him and his factual (and inferential) inaccuracies. At least on the oil point anyway.

            Please don’t expect me to simply ignore posts about “interesting figures” if I find them to be inaccurate or misleading about what I consider to be an important topic. I wouldn’t expect you to simply let pass something inaccurate or misleading about issues such as Tobin Taxes or High Frequency Trading.

            But at the same time, I will try harder not to put words in your mouth in the future and instead focus on exactly what was said, and by whom.

        • ... [#103630]
          By: Grym (5469 comments) Go to top ↑
          • Let me leave aside all the general discussion of the jobs... [#103632]
            By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

            Let me leave aside all the general discussion of the jobs export, debt, dollar destruction – you’ll have to forgive me for not being interested in stating for 1897th time that it’s bad. Nor am I interested much in arguing about benefits and disadvantages of “computerization and robotics” – it’s not like those can be stopped any more than earthquakes or hurricanes.

            What I am asking for is: if you dispute the number cited in the quote “6.4% of nondurable goods — things like food, clothing and toys — purchased in the U.S. are made in China; 76.2% are made in America. For durable goods — things like cars and furniture — 12% are made in China; 66.6% are made in America” and in the tables at http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter…, please do so with something substantial. Anecdotes can be picked to prove anything; so can personal impressions (just a few hours ago I’ve seen couple idiots claiming the whole economic downturn is a myth – only because they personally don’t see it. See attached.)

            So, here is the data that contradicts your views (and you are obviously not alone in that) – does it peak your curiosity enough to dig in deeper and find out whether data is wrong or your views are, or do you dismiss it out of hand? Seeing every day how believing “obvious” things puts people on a losing side, I am not a fan of latter approach.

          • ... [#103650]
            By: Grym (5469 comments) Go to top ↑
          • I can't help but ask for the third time - do you have any... [#103656]
            By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

            I can’t help but ask for the third time – do you have any indications that numbers that you dismiss as incorrect are indeed incorrect? Showing that would be way more constructive than implying that I ” ignore what is actually happening to people” (where did that come from??) or complain that your opinion is unwelcome here (what in my reply indicated that??) Sorry but to say that the data in incorrect and answer that you don’t care much for data when asked for an evidence is, ummm… unconvincing.

          • ... [#103680]
            By: Grym (5469 comments) Go to top ↑
          • "Also, the off blog emails in which we came to an impasse... [#103707]
            By: Vadym Graifer (4341 comments) Go to top ↑

            “Also, the off blog emails in which we came to an impasse because you wanted me to alter my convictions.”

            It’s bad enough that you misinterpreted my words in e-mail exchange. It’s much worse that you misrepresent them now publicly. I did nothing of sorts. I tried to show you the meaning you’ve missed in the posts you commented on, which led to that “furor” as you label it. Now you are making me regret the attempt to help you sort out the mess.

            It’s obviously a pattern. To stop the chain of miscommunications, I strongly urge you to refrain from making this kind of claims. If you can’t help yourself, please refrain from communicating with me or commenting on my posts.

    • Wow Vad, what a real eye opener for me, thanks. Although I... [#103625]
      By: rgr (42 comments) Go to top ↑

      Wow Vad, what a real eye opener for me, thanks. Although I know some of the data is not quite valid, and, probably, the rest of the data may remain somewhat suspect, the overall deconstruction of these 3 misconceptions for me was absolute.

      Ron

  6. ... [#103629]
    By: c2ski (94 comments) Go to top ↑
    • I would suggest the obvious; call your brokerage and ask... [#103631]
      By: Athan (143 comments) Go to top ↑

      I would suggest the obvious; call your brokerage and ask them. They already know all your details.
      I would be interested in knowing their response.
      Cheers

    • c2ski I own (?) shares of PMI - bought on TSXV, held in 2... [#103637]
      By: pulse (324 comments) Go to top ↑

      c2ski

      I own (?) shares of PMI – bought on TSXV, held in 2 different accounts with Canadian discount brokerage.

      I have received no such request, but find the source you quoted to be very interesting…. perhaps disturbing in light of the several alarms regarding actual number of shares outstanding and those sold naked-short.

      hmmm….

  7. Many small Uranium stocks had significant gains today... [#103635]
    By: Spyder (43 comments) Go to top ↑

    Many small Uranium stocks had significant gains today. Mixed list below of some that I follow that are relevant. A few are not U stocks, but returned as part of my scan as it turn out.

    Symbol Name Close Change % Change Date
    BSK.V BSK.V – Default Style 0.09 +0.02 +30.77% 2012-1-16
    UNR.V UNR.V – Default Style 0.15 +0.04 +30.43% 2012-1-16
    MGA.TO MGA.TO – Default Style 0.34 +0.06 +24.07% 2012-1-16
    FDC.V FDC.V – Default Style 0.10 +0.02 +23.53% 2012-1-16
    FIU.TO FIU.TO – Default Style 0.25 +0.05 +21.95% 2012-1-16
    KRI.TO KRI.TO – Default Style 0.23 +0.04 +21.05% 2012-1-16
    PXP.V PXP.V – Default Style 0.12 +0.02 +20.00% 2012-1-16
    DML.TO DML.TO – Default Style 1.91 +0.30 +18.63% 2012-1-16
    IMT.V IMT.V – Default Style 0.06 +0.01 +18.18% 2012-1-16
    XE.V XE.V – Default Style 0.06 +0.01 +18.18% 2012-1-16
    JNN.V JNN.V – Default Style 0.10 +0.02 +17.65% 2012-1-16
    EFR.TO EFR.TO – Default Style 0.35 +0.05 +16.67% 2012-1-16
    UUU.TO UUU.TO – Default Style 2.73 +0.36 +15.19% 2012-1-16
    UEX.TO UEX.TO – Default Style 1.06 +0.13 +13.98% 2012-1-16
    UCU.V UCU.V – Default Style 0.45 +0.05 +13.92% 2012-1-16
    TUE.V TUE.V – Default Style 0.21 +0.02 +13.51% 2012-1-16
    PTU.V PTU.V – Default Style 0.13 +0.01 +13.04% 2012-1-16
    CVVUF CVVUF – can alaska min 0.46 +0.05 +12.98% 2012-1-13
    URE.TO URE.TO – Default Style 1.07 +0.12 +12.63% 2012-1-16
    TVC.V TVC.V – Default Style 0.09 +0.01 +11.76% 2012-1-16
    AHC.V AHC.V – Default Style 0.10 +0.01 +11.11% 2012-1-16
    URZ.TO +10.18% 2012-1-16
    UVN.V UVN.V – Default Style 0.11 +0.01 +10.00% 2012-1-16
    PDN.TO PDN.TO – Default Style 1.72 +0.15 +9.55% 2012-1-16
    LAM.TO LAM.TO – Default Style 0.90 +0.07 +8.43% 2012-1-16
    FSY.TO FSY.TO – Default Style 0.70 +0.05 +7.69% 2012-1-16
    KIV.V KIV.V – Default Style 0.43 +0.03 +7.50% 2012-1-16
    KIV.V KIV.V – Daily Candlesticks, 1024 0.43 +0.03 +7.50% 2012-1-16
    UWE.V UWE.V – Default Style 0.59 +0.04 +7.27% 2012-1-16
    RSC.TO RSC.TO – Default Style 0.47 +0.03 +5.56% 2012-1-16
    CCO.TO CCO.TO – Default Style 21.71 +1.06 +5.13% 2012-1-16
    +5.13% 2012-1-16
    NWT.V NWT.V – Default Style 0.10 +0.00 +5.00% 2012-1-16
    UEC UEC – Default Style 3.43 +0.16 +4.89% 2012-1-13
    U.TO U.TO – Daily Candlesticks, 900 6.15 +0.27 +4.59% 2012-1-16
    URZ URZ – Default Style 2.21 +0.05 +2.31% 2012-1-13
    CVV.TO CVV.V – Default Style 0.46 +0.01 +2.22% 2012-1-16
    IEC.V IEC.V – Default Style 0.50 +0.01 +2.04%

  8. Another urging from Sinclair's site to protect, via direct... [#103636]
    By: pulse (324 comments) Go to top ↑

    Another urging from Sinclair’s site to protect, via direct registration or preferably stock certificate in hand, the investments we think we are buying:

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/breaking

    Looking for the bright side – this seems to be a regulator regulating!

  9. http://www.cnbc.com/id/46011502 CNBC poll referenced by... [#103641]
    By: davefairtex (5216 comments) Go to top ↑

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/46011502

    CNBC poll referenced by Mish – 65% of italians thought the introduction of the euro had been harmful to Italy. But the remedy? Only 31% favor a return to the lira.

    No possible third alternative was mentioned. Reminds me of Winston Churchill’s comments about democracy:

    “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

  10. Well if you didn't like NATGAS at 2.70, you sure won't like... [#103642]
    By: davefairtex (5216 comments) Go to top ↑

    Well if you didn’t like NATGAS at 2.70, you sure won’t like it at 2.55. Daily/Weekly/Monthly RSI: 17/21/20. The 09 low was 2.41. The last time natgas had a 1-handle? Feb 2002, monthly candle low was 1.91.

    NOT a recommendation. No position – well, except my mom has a car which runs on CNG.

  11. Thanks Bill for your thoughts yesterday. That's an... [#103644]
    By: Les (7233 comments) Go to top ↑

    Thanks Bill for your thoughts yesterday. That’s an interesting angle you have heading into a hotel, tracking down the manager and COO of the company. I would never think to look beyond questioning the barmaid… :)

    I hear your thoughts on how 2012 is shaping up and agree that if corporate metrics are ok (so they appear), an inflationary bout of monetary easing can move the market and the worse appears to be over for the credit markets, then equities should bounce back. Such simple charts as GDX:$GOLD, XLY:XLP etc all combined make for a great ‘risk on/off’ indicator.

    Only potential fly in the ointment I see is the ratings arm of the US oligarchy as they continue their attempted diversion of problems in Washington with further downgrades of European credit bodies. The EFSF appears to be the latest casualty:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis

    Monti has also made it quite clear that he’d like to see borrowing assistance to improve Italy’s long-term borrowing costs. This call to aid appears clearly aimed at Merkel:

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/monti-calls-help-borrowin

    On your comments related to oil, Robert Sinn reproduced a Der Speigel chart showing break even prices for various oil producing nations. I think these countries would be very comfortable with oil prices in the $90+ range and even more as they must plan for a future of poor demographics and much needed economic diversification, not to mention maintenance of lavish lifestyles.

    http://www.robertsinn.com/2012/01/11/70-crude-oil-

    Ted Spread appears to be topping out, Libor-OIS as well, so there is some proof of potential stability returning to credit markets:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=.TEDSP:IND
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=.LOIS3:IND

    Eurodollar charts show an easing of dollar borrowing costs – see attached.

    Interesting futures chart this morning. Gap n trap or gap n go? As always we shall see.

  12. Doc, I'll get back to you on Bill Gross's piece. I enjoyed... [#103647]
    By: Les (7233 comments) Go to top ↑

    Doc, I’ll get back to you on Bill Gross’s piece. I enjoyed his thoughts and think this is worth pursuing in discourse here but it is proving difficult to tease out all the elements without giving much greater reflection on the matter.

    • Les - That was a good discussion and Bill Gross is wading... [#103667]
      By: Dr. Strangelove (2004 comments) Go to top ↑

      Les -

      That was a good discussion and Bill Gross is wading into the vagaries of money velocity in a zero sum game.