Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Jan 8th 2012 6:58PM I was in Georgia in August/September 2000 (Tiblisi,Gori(Birthplace of Stalin) and Kutusi as a financial volunteer and lived on the economy. At that time everything was falling apart as electricity was on and off during the day,water was only available several days a week.The roads were terrible and they drove crazy . Out side the main city the road was three lanes and it was a game to see who was going to blink first before hitting head on. There were many wrecks on the side of the road so accidents were frequent and neither blinked. In Gori I received a personal tour of Stalins Museum which was interesting but I was the only tourist. Unemployment was about 50% and the apartments I lived in were really run down. Having said all of this the people were nice and the surprising thing was their literacy rate was higher than ours in the USA. Their schools were falling apart yet they received a good education. My interperture was a young women from one of these run down schools who was chosen as an excahnge student and spent her senior year in the US and graduated number one in her class. They value education. They place more on teaching then facilities .
Dec 3rd 2010 11:48AM The true answer is that about 4% of all households are millionairs and this excludes their primary resident. There is a wealth report out every June by Cap Gemmin and Merril Lynch I bel;ieve which provides millionairs by country. We have about 4.7 million millionairs in the USA and there are about 125 million households so that comes out about 4%.
Oct 17th 2010 6:34PM Pardon the expression but your article is pure bull shit and I speak as an independent with no ax to grind. The banks are not lending as there is no demand and no requests. People with good credir have absolutely no problems obtaining reasonably priced loans. How about the conservative savers out there that provide the mo ney for all the banks to lend. THey are getting next to nothing on their savings. Why don't you talk about that . The hell with the borrows who got us into the trouble in the first place.Today you recive on a money market(Goldman Sachs,Wells Fargo,Fidelity) about .05% on you savings ot $50 on $100,000.
Nov 2nd 2009 1:11PM I do not understand how the taxpayers are going to lose money if they estimate the bond holders will receive about 70 cents on the dollar. When a company gets into trouble the banks will only lend them money when they are given priority in a bankruptcy. Usually this is called debtor in possession financing. Any government bailout money should have been provided only if the government got first priority claims. If this was not the situation then the Government people who provided this money are totrally incompetent.This is standard proceedure./
May 5th 2009 1:42PM Why the hell should you believe him now when just last September he said things were really not that bad and would soon improve. He tells Congress what they want to hear not the truth.
Apr 30th 2009 10:14AM Dear Sirs: What a complete joke when you say"
The UAW has made huge concessions on pay and the funding of its pension and health plans"Be specific on what actual concessions they have made. Their concessions are minor compared to what they are asking from the bond holders.People always assume that all the bond holders are rich people and can well afford to lose all of this money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many if not most of these bonds are owned directly or indirectly by average middle class people who were looking for average income to live. Their investments were made with hard earned money and their loss is an actual loss of money not like the union which is giving up a small part of their benefits they should never have had in the first place. If I owned these bonds ,and I own a lot of bonds,I would take exactly the same position as the bondholders as they are not being treated fairly.
Feb 1st 2009 11:39PM Look up Vallejo,California and you will see people (Police,Fire)making this kind of money. This is why they went bankrupt.Ubelievable
Nov 18th 2008 5:44PM There is a hell of a lot of difference between what Bair is doing versus what Paulson is doing. Paulson expects to get the money back plus interest. His money is going out as an investment or a loan His money should be considered as an asset on the balace sheet and shoul dnot increase the deficit. On the other hand the money Bair wants wil be a loss pure and simple and will add to the deficit. I have no ax to grind as I am not a Democrat or a Republican however aid to homeowners should be strickly provided to those that deserve it such as those sucked into predatory loans,those that have lost their job,those that have huge medical bills etc.As a taxpayer I woul dlik eto know who gave Bair the autority to do what she is presently doing with Indy/Mac.She is suppose to be maximizing the return to the taxpayers when the FDIC takes over which she is not doing. Someone shoul dinvestigate this situation
Mar 10th 2008 12:53PM As usual you have people making comments that show they have no understanding of finance. No one that understands finance uses return on sales/revenue as a measure of profitability. What educated finance people use is return on investment(ROI), Return on sales is a totally meaningless number. The oil companies like to publish this information to the uneducated public to indicate that they do not make unusual profits. As an example supermarkets have a very low return on sales,probably 1/3/% yet they are very profitable.I have yet to see the oil companies publish their return on investmant or even their return on assets which is another measure of profitability but is much lower than return on investment
Dec 14th 2007 2:11PM As usual Cramer believes the world revolves around Wall Street and the stock market. Wall street has become nothing more than a gambling casino with out the pretty girls. Nothing more.
House values are way out of line and overpriced and there is absolutely nothing the Fed can do to help. Why dosen't Cramer have any feelings for all the millions of people who overpaid for their houses and wil be paying this excess cost for the next 30 years. In the 1980/1990s the average accepted ratio of house price to earnings was 2.5. In many places in the USA this now stands at 5 or 6 which is impossible to continue. The average overall in the USA is about 3.4 which is not too bad compared to the past but 5 and 6 is assinine. Only time is going to solve the housing problem and that will happen when incomes catch up with house prices. Until then if you have to see your house you are out of luck and no one can do anything about it. IN the overpriced areas with ratios of 5/6 it is going to take about 10 years for salaries to catch up with home prices. THis happened before in the late 1980/early 1990 so don't say it can not happen