Dems Dereliction.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301100787139910

We have a rough road ahead, foks.

I just had a disturbing sight in the Vet's office this evening.
I was sitting there with my little dog waiting to get him checked up and a guy came in, wearing a dark green shirt with a sew on badge on his right arm, khaki pants, leather brogans, a gold badge clipped to his right pants pocket, and packing a 45 auto.
I leaned over and saw that his sew on badge declared him to be an Environmental Investigator.
Who gets armed next, Mail Carriers? The city water meter readers? They are getting serious about saving those prolific Polar Bears.
GW

Subject: The Fed’s Cure for “Nature Deficit Disorder” in Our Kids for"Na By Professor Allen Quist
July 15, 2008

Claiming to have the remedy for "nature deficit disorder," Congressional Democrats (along with some Republicans) are in the process of passing a new federal education program for all 50 states. The bill is called "No Child Left Inside" and is a major expansion of the federal education train-wreck, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

The bill is H.R.3036 (S.1981); the chief author is Rep. John Sarbanes (D, MD), it recently passed the full House Education and Labor Committee and it now awaits action on the House floor. Essentially the bill allows Al Gore's followers to define much of what now passes for "education.".
——

There was more but that is enough to give you the essence of what your kids are scheduled for.

They may get through school ignorant of reading and writing but by God they are going to know about rain forests and polar bears.

God help us!

I had no idea congress had a blog!

Is the implication that he must be wrong about this too?! Simply because of that?

"For the record:

(1) I disagree, strongly, with Goldberg's position on torture.

(2) The fact that Goldberg's position on torture is vile does not mean that his analysis of the current hysteria over speculators is off-base or otherwise to be discounted."

Don is spot on!

A naked short has nothing to do with cash to buy back a stock. It has to do with locating shares to borrow. Traditionally, registered market makers (including the stock specialist) don't have to locate shares before they short them because they provide liquidity in the market. Now, they are being forced to locate first.

This means that there will be fewer sellers. Fewer sellers means an artificially higher stock price. This is the market manipulation that the SEC is engaging in with this "emergency" rule. The other names for this activity are 1.) stock manipulation and 2.) price controls.

So, Mark is correct. Since sellers are not allowed to sell as freely as before, they are effectively not allowed to "voice" their opinion as freely. That's akin to silencing people with negative opinions.

Incidentally, they're doing this not only for Freddie and Fannie but also for "substantial" financial institutions.

I agree with your second point, though. The argument typically used against allowing retirement funds and mutual funds to short (and not just commodities – financial assets too) is the risk profile of a short position. The risk of a long position is the difference between the price of the stock and zero. The risk of a short position is unlimited because there's no limit on how high a price can rise. As usual, the assumption is made that the people running the funds are self-interested inbred half-wits who can't be trusted to make decisions and so must be limited by the omniscient regulators who are, of course, possessed of unlimited wisdom and knowledge and completely devoid of self-interest.

Of course, the irony is that being able to short as a hedge for long positions will reduce volatility in the funds.

It hurts to be smacked by the brilliance of government, eh?

Secondly, while I generally agree that speculators have a negligible, if any effect on oil prices, it seems flawed to me that most retirement funds can't take short positions in commodities. It seems the pool of money that can be invested in oil increasing in value, is larger than those that can bet it decreases. It seems this artificially restricts the pool of participants on the short side.

(1) I disagree, strongly, with Goldberg's position on torture.

(2) The fact that Goldberg's position on torture is vile does not mean that his analysis of the current hysteria over speculators is off-base or otherwise to be discounted.

Two points in favor of Goldberg in one day!