I am teaching an online human resource management class this month. One of our first day's discussion boards was about globalization and human resource management. I sent the class the following e-mail to cap off the class discussion on globalization and human resource management:
>The class is more balanced with respect to globalization than my classes last semester. Globalization gets bad press but I am for it, although not in the way it is done. The theory of comparative advantage that David Ricardo first expressed in the early 19th century shows why trade works. Each country has relative strengths and weaknesses. If each country does what it is relatively good at (not necessarily better at than other countries, just what it is relatively productive at compared to its other opportunities) then the world will produce more and the greater productivity can be exchanged globally, making each country better off. Tariffs and other trade restrictions thus prevent possible gains from trade.
The worst examples of tariffs were during the 1840s in Britain and Ireland and in the 1930s in Russia. In both instances there were mass starvation, first of the Irish during the Potato Famine and second of the Ukrainian kulaks under Stalin's socialism. These two instances of trade restrictions amounted to mass murders, the first of one million deaths and the second of I believe about 10 million deaths. Thus is the promise of tariffs, trade restrictions, economic autarky (whereby everything is manufactured at home) and government intervention.
While such extremes are unlikely here, at least in the near future, there are other repercussions to trade restrictions. For instance, trade restrictions preceded the Second World War. The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs, the most extreme in American history, were passed in 1930 at the outset of the Great Depression. It is difficult to prove that World War II and the Great Depression were entirely caused by the Smoot Hawley tariffs. But it is astonishing the labor movement now advocates similar kinds of tariffs.
The Great Depression was far worse than any that preceded it and there was much less government intervention in the economy until within 20 years of the Great Depression. Hence, the Smoot Hawley tariffs and the increased regulations of the 1890-1920 Progressive era and the New Deal along with the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 all may be part of the reason for the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Astonishingly, Americans under George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama have opted for policies that are similar to the policies that were adopted preceding the Great Depression: expansion of the money supply, more regulation, higher tariffs. Have fun, guys. My career is drawing to a close. You are the ones who will be hurt by economic insanity.
One of the chief policies that the Federal Reserve Bank and the US government have emphasized is ever increasing foreign indebtedness. Numerous foreign countries have been holding large shares of treasury bonds. This has the effect of propping up the dollar.
The natural response to excessive outsourcing ought to be a weakening dollar. As firms move overseas demand for dollars declines. When the dollar declines demand for foreign goods also declines and firms move back. But the US government and the Federal Reserve Bank have orchestrated a pattern where foreign countries hold our debt, keeping import prices low. Thus, the two-party system, specifically including the Democrats under Obama and the Republicans under Bush, have pushed for policies that ensure that jobs leave the country.
Of course, given the huge indebtedness now to foreign countries, if those countries were to unilaterally sell off the US debt there would be a currency collapse here. The dollar would be worth pennies, much like the Papiermark in Weimar Germany in the early 1920s.
The effect of the twin policies of monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve Bank coupled with subsidization of the dollar by foreign central banks and governments has been a weakening of the manufacturing sector here and the comparable strengthening of the competitiveness in European and emerging market countries, for instance, the BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India and China. At the same time, consumers here are better off than they ought to be as merchandise is at low prices. However, the inflation due to the Fed's monetary expansion can be seen in the rising property taxes and cost of services such as construction, government, health care and education.
Thus, it is inaccurate to view globalization and its implications as separate from monetary and Federal Reserve Bank policy. These issues are linked as well to human resource management.
Many students note that culture clash, complexity and the need to increase skill levels are coupled with slow job growth, outsourcing and increasing competition. All of these factors coincide with monetary policies.
There will be no easy way out for the US. The dollar will become weaker and consumers will be worse off before manufacturing will return here.
There were several interesting responses to this discussion board, one of which was R's:
"Some employees who have lost their jobs have either relocated, changed their career, returned to school, negotiated with their former employer for a part-time position, pay-cut, or have accepted a lower level job. In turn, this has often led to a decline in living standards.
"2. Many employees who had maintained their jobs, felt insecure and were under constant pressure at work. This led to chaos, over-achievement, competition to outperform colleagues and an obvious decrease in desire to help co-workers leading to decreases in efficiency and lower product quality. This marked a withdrawal in loyalty toward the employer and the employer’s goals. The low morale and insecurity would also heighten the employee's interest in social insurances (health, social security, education…) as the fear of job loss intensified.
"3. On the other hand, the import of these goods manufactured offshore has created end-line positions at retail stores...This yields a boost to the nation’s economy and the acceptance of diversity and multiculturalism. It can also foster positive feelings towards others cultures and harvest communication and cross-cultur(al) exchange of ideas on an international, national and intra-company level. (Of course the reverse exists due to globalization as well, with Dunkin Donuts, Starbucks, Walmart, McDonald's etc… opening worldwide.)"
All of these behavioral and economic outcomes are linked not only to globalization but also monetary policy.
The error virtually everyone who discusses this makes is to blame globalization for phenomena that would not occur without the Federal Reserve and other central banks' monetary policies that have pegged other world currencies to the dollar. The dollar has been propped up, encouraging exodus of manufacturing jobs. If the propping stops, consumer prices of imports will rise and job losses (and foreign trade deficits) will come to a halt.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
These Guys Want to Run Health Care?
CNN reports that garbage pick up in the public sector-and-Wall Street dominated Big Apple has scarcely resumed. Even legacy media like CNN can't help but observe that:
"This weekend, a city with some of the most tight garbage disposal regulations in the country, looked like a dumpster, with piles of garbage on streets and sidewalks."
Whatever the cause, a publicly run New York Santiation Department (NYSD) once again demonstrates that the public sector cannot do the job. Pinni Bohm points out that The Daily News's Juan Gonzalez blames Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, who is a privatization advocate. But the NYSD is not privatized, so the Daily News once more illustrates the old proverb: take reason and sanity away from a blogger and you get the legacy media. In order to blame privatization for the problems, first the NYSD would have had to have been privatized. Gonzalez lacks the reason and sanity necessary to put the blame where it belongs: on the incompetently run public sector which has sucked New York dry for 15 decades (yes, Juan, government bloat and incompetence in New York go back that far).
New York must make up its mind. Either (1) continue to pay 40% wage premiums to under-worked, unproductive and incompetent public sector unions or (2) become competitive. Privatization is a workable method of accomplishing (2). But blaming privatization for the incompetence of a non-privatized public sector-run SD is, to put it plainly, BS.
Worse, there have been allegations that the NYSD's middle managers deliberately told workers to shirk their duties. These allegations have been made in The New York Post. But The News and Gonzalez choose to chant the excessively staffed NYSD's party line that all workers must be micro-managed or they cannot do their jobs. Maybe it is Juan Gonzalez who needs additional management.
"This weekend, a city with some of the most tight garbage disposal regulations in the country, looked like a dumpster, with piles of garbage on streets and sidewalks."
Whatever the cause, a publicly run New York Santiation Department (NYSD) once again demonstrates that the public sector cannot do the job. Pinni Bohm points out that The Daily News's Juan Gonzalez blames Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, who is a privatization advocate. But the NYSD is not privatized, so the Daily News once more illustrates the old proverb: take reason and sanity away from a blogger and you get the legacy media. In order to blame privatization for the problems, first the NYSD would have had to have been privatized. Gonzalez lacks the reason and sanity necessary to put the blame where it belongs: on the incompetently run public sector which has sucked New York dry for 15 decades (yes, Juan, government bloat and incompetence in New York go back that far).
New York must make up its mind. Either (1) continue to pay 40% wage premiums to under-worked, unproductive and incompetent public sector unions or (2) become competitive. Privatization is a workable method of accomplishing (2). But blaming privatization for the incompetence of a non-privatized public sector-run SD is, to put it plainly, BS.
Worse, there have been allegations that the NYSD's middle managers deliberately told workers to shirk their duties. These allegations have been made in The New York Post. But The News and Gonzalez choose to chant the excessively staffed NYSD's party line that all workers must be micro-managed or they cannot do their jobs. Maybe it is Juan Gonzalez who needs additional management.
Adam Smith on Third Parties
"It is needless to observe, I presume, that both rebels and hereticks are those unlucky persons who, when things have come to a certain degree of violence, have the misfortune to be of the weaker party. In a nation distracted by faction, there are, no doubt, always a few, though commonly but a very few, who preserve their judgment untainted by the general contagion. They seldom amount to more than, here and there, a solitary individual, without any influence, excluded by his own candour, from the confidence of either party, and who, though he may be one of the wisest, is necessarily upon that very account, one of the most insignificant men in the society. All such people are held in contempt and derision, frequently in detestation, by the furious zealots of both parties. A true party-man hates and despises candour; and in reality there is no vice which could so effectually disqualify him for the trade of a party-man as that single virtue. The real, revered and impartial spectator, therefore, is upon no occasion at a greater distance than amidst the violence and rage of contending parties. To them, it may be said, that such a spectator scarce exists any where in the universe...Of all the corrupters of moral sentiments, therefore, faction and fanaticism have always been by far the greatest."
--Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, pp. 205-6
--Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, pp. 205-6
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Slime Beneath the City's Fallen Snow
New York City Counicilman Dan Halloran is New York's only major elected official with a libertarian background. Last week, a major snow storm afflicted the Big Apple. Just as in 1969 during the mayoralty of the late John W. Linday, the Sanitation Department failed to perform. There was public snit about the lack of snow removal. My good friend Glenda McGee forwarded a December 30 New York Post article quoting Halloran as saying that managers from within the Sanitation Department had ordered a work slowdown. If it occurred, it lead to deaths and other serious harm. According to informants who brought the information to Halloran, the protest concerned promotions and budget cuts. Union officials Harry Nespoli and Joseph Mannion as well as Sanitation Department spokesperson Matthew Lipani deny a slowdown occurred. However, the Post asserts that multiple Sanitation Department sources have said that:
It is time to privatize the Department of Sanitation. Competition has drastically improved the dismal telephone service of the former New York Telephone (I remember when one had to restrict long distance calls because of high costs, for instance). New York's sanitation workers are paid much more than comparable private sector workers. Here in rural Olive, New York snow removal usually is complete within a day or at most two after a storm despite higher highway mileage per capita. The little city of Kingston, NY, 25 miles from here, also has a public sanitation department that is inefficient and in need of privatization.
Mayor Bloomberg's response to the accusations of shirking and inefficiency in his Santitation Department has been cowardly.
I wrote the following letter to Mayor Bloomberg:
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
New York, NY 10007
Dear Mayor Bloomberg:
As someone who relies on New York City to earn my livelihood, I urge you to privatize the New York City Sanitation Department. According to Councilman Dan Halloran and the New York Post, the recent John Lindsay-like problems that you have suffered result from an illegal, irresponsible and murderous work stoppage.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Saturday, January 1, 2011
David Stockman Rails at GOP Incompetence
Last month I gave a talk at the Kingston-Rhinebeck Tea Party. I pointed out that the GOP's commitment to the Fed has permitted the flourishing of a wide range of special interest groups. In turn, the Fed engenders income inequality, American economic decline, especially in manufacturing, and Wall Street's expansion. Howard S. Katz has been making these points since the 1970s and earlier, and they key off the Austrians Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Ron Paul and his son Rand make similar points as well, and they should be viewed as the leaders of the political movement that aims to undo the massive damage that the the parties of the elephant and the donkey have caused (the Democrats are worse than the GOP).
Marketwatch's Paul B. Farrell reports that the cornerstone of the legacy media, the New York Times, has published David Stockman's article making these points with the clarity and specificity of an insider with important historical knowledge. Stockman was President Reagan's budget director who lost a battle against Reagan' supply siders. Stockman argues that the GOP destroyed the American economy in four steps:
1. Richard Nixon's dropping of the gold standard at the behest of Milton Friedman and his defaulting on the American obligation to redeem dollars for gold internationally
2. President Reagan's neo-Keynesian doctrine of supply-side economics
3. The expansion of Wall Street and the recent expansion of the money supply
4. The financing of American credit through foreign debt, resulting in increasing income inequality and the exit of factory jobs.
I have made all these points since 2004. Stockman is specific as to much of the historical detail. The Marketwatch article is well worth reading. Stockman notes:
"the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."
That the GOP continues to support the stupid policies of the Rockefeller-Bush Republicans contributes as much to American decline as do Obama's policies. While the Democratic Party is lost, the GOP should serve as the rational alternative. Instead, it has followed the ideology of the Democrats into big government extremism and economic decline. When questioned about the Patriot Act, many Republicans simply spin and lay the blame on President Clinton. The large circulation legacy media contribute to the absence of mass level debate. Stockman's recent article conveniently appears in the Times a year after the massive bailouts and money printing escapades (chiefly under the Democrats, incidentally) that may have put the nation's collapse into third gear.
Those Democrats who wish to make partisan hay out of Stockman's Op Ed might consider that the only people making these arguments for the past 40 years have been Republicans. Which does not mitigate the ill effects of Milton Friedman and his colleagues in academia along with the Rockefeller-Bush Republicans.
Marketwatch's Paul B. Farrell reports that the cornerstone of the legacy media, the New York Times, has published David Stockman's article making these points with the clarity and specificity of an insider with important historical knowledge. Stockman was President Reagan's budget director who lost a battle against Reagan' supply siders. Stockman argues that the GOP destroyed the American economy in four steps:
1. Richard Nixon's dropping of the gold standard at the behest of Milton Friedman and his defaulting on the American obligation to redeem dollars for gold internationally
2. President Reagan's neo-Keynesian doctrine of supply-side economics
3. The expansion of Wall Street and the recent expansion of the money supply
4. The financing of American credit through foreign debt, resulting in increasing income inequality and the exit of factory jobs.
I have made all these points since 2004. Stockman is specific as to much of the historical detail. The Marketwatch article is well worth reading. Stockman notes:
"the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."
That the GOP continues to support the stupid policies of the Rockefeller-Bush Republicans contributes as much to American decline as do Obama's policies. While the Democratic Party is lost, the GOP should serve as the rational alternative. Instead, it has followed the ideology of the Democrats into big government extremism and economic decline. When questioned about the Patriot Act, many Republicans simply spin and lay the blame on President Clinton. The large circulation legacy media contribute to the absence of mass level debate. Stockman's recent article conveniently appears in the Times a year after the massive bailouts and money printing escapades (chiefly under the Democrats, incidentally) that may have put the nation's collapse into third gear.
Those Democrats who wish to make partisan hay out of Stockman's Op Ed might consider that the only people making these arguments for the past 40 years have been Republicans. Which does not mitigate the ill effects of Milton Friedman and his colleagues in academia along with the Rockefeller-Bush Republicans.
Jeff Khuhner: Everybody Knows Obama Doesn't Care for Christians and Jews
Mairi just sent me Steve Malzberg's radio interview with Jeff Kuhner. Apparently, legacy media marionettes like Chris Matthews are now calling for Obama to show the birth certificate. Kuhner and Malzberg say that the governor of Hawaii now is looking for a way to make the certificate public. Kuhner predicts a constitutional crisis if Obama was not born in the US. Malzberg asks the question I asked two years ago: Why is Obama spending so much money to prevent the vault copy's disclosure? In '08 I submitted 5,000 signatures to the FEC requesting that it vet presidential candidates.
My concern then was that the whole thing might be Obama's gambit. What if there is nothing wrong with the certificate and Obama is using this as a ruse to trick his opponent? If it's ok and he then reveals it a few months before the 2012 election it could work in his favor by discrediting his opponents. On the other hand, if it is settled now, it could be interesting. I don't think he should be removed from office if he is not a citizen, but he should be prevented from running again. He has already done maximum damage with the bailouts, the stimulus and the health care act. Kuhner claims that there could be a civil war over this, but I hope that if there is to be a civil war it will be for more important reasons.
How anyone can take a media seriously that does not question why Obama would spend $2 million to keep his vault copy birth certificate private continues to puzzle me.
My concern then was that the whole thing might be Obama's gambit. What if there is nothing wrong with the certificate and Obama is using this as a ruse to trick his opponent? If it's ok and he then reveals it a few months before the 2012 election it could work in his favor by discrediting his opponents. On the other hand, if it is settled now, it could be interesting. I don't think he should be removed from office if he is not a citizen, but he should be prevented from running again. He has already done maximum damage with the bailouts, the stimulus and the health care act. Kuhner claims that there could be a civil war over this, but I hope that if there is to be a civil war it will be for more important reasons.
How anyone can take a media seriously that does not question why Obama would spend $2 million to keep his vault copy birth certificate private continues to puzzle me.
James Rainey and LA Times Were Wrong about Gold and Glenn Beck
In early December 2009, LA Times reporter James Rainey penned a diatribe against Glenn Beck, a pro-gold TV announcer (perhaps the only major television personality to favor gold). At the time, I wrote a letter to the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy of the firm that owns the LA Times suggesting that Glenn Beck be appointed the LA Times's editor ad litem (i.e., for purposes of litigation) since their investment advice has been consistently wrong and Beck has been right.
Over the past year gold has gone up 29.7% while the S&P 500 has gone up 13%. Both are fueled by pro-Wall Street monetary policies.
I am sending Rainey the following e-mail:
Dear Mr. Rainey:
On December 9, 2009 you wrote an article claiming that Mr. Glenn Beck's advocacy of gold as an investment was due to his alleged breach of fiduciary duty, although you failed to outline any fiduciary relationship between Mr. Beck and the metal. Over the past year, from January 1 2010 to January 1 2011 gold has gone up 29.7% while the S&P 500 has gone up 13%. You seem to have been wrong.
The matter isn't just that you are a sorry excuse for an investment analyst. Nor is it just that you are a sorry excuse for a journalist. Virtually all of the legacy media has that in common with you. Rather, it is the peculiar stupidity that you demonstrated. You failed to consider that there might be reasons for a gold bubble that can carry it to $3,000 or more. The dumber students who believed fairy tale Keynesian economics advocated in America's universities seem to have become journalists. You are a case in point.
Why don't you educate yourself and read some Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Over the past year gold has gone up 29.7% while the S&P 500 has gone up 13%. Both are fueled by pro-Wall Street monetary policies.
I am sending Rainey the following e-mail:
Dear Mr. Rainey:
On December 9, 2009 you wrote an article claiming that Mr. Glenn Beck's advocacy of gold as an investment was due to his alleged breach of fiduciary duty, although you failed to outline any fiduciary relationship between Mr. Beck and the metal. Over the past year, from January 1 2010 to January 1 2011 gold has gone up 29.7% while the S&P 500 has gone up 13%. You seem to have been wrong.
The matter isn't just that you are a sorry excuse for an investment analyst. Nor is it just that you are a sorry excuse for a journalist. Virtually all of the legacy media has that in common with you. Rather, it is the peculiar stupidity that you demonstrated. You failed to consider that there might be reasons for a gold bubble that can carry it to $3,000 or more. The dumber students who believed fairy tale Keynesian economics advocated in America's universities seem to have become journalists. You are a case in point.
Why don't you educate yourself and read some Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's On The Markets: A Forecast from The Belly of the Beast
Back during the late 1990s' tech-and-Internet stock bubble my wife noticed that whenever television broadcasters or their Wall Street puppet masters predicted that a stock would go up, it would go down, and vice versa. Therefore, if an announcer said that a stock was going to go up, it might be a useful strategy to sell short. If she had followed that idea over the ensuring few years she would have made a bundle. But in investing timing is everything. (Incidentally, if you followed the advice of people who told you to invest for the long term rather than try to time the market, how have you been doing since 2001, a ten year period?)
That said, to quote a cliche, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. My stock broker recently forwarded Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's (MSSB) "On the Markets", its monthly market commentary. The pamphlet makes a few points. The headline on its cover is "Getting Ready for Higher Inflation" and, seven years after I first became interested in gold they are advocating a 5 percent position in commodities. That suggests that gold is into the supposed third leg of its bull market, the first being the period of limited awareness and the second being the period of smart money awareness. Now, the retail investor is being told to invest in commodities. The last leg is the bubble leg.
Smith Barney recommends emerging markets stocks and consumer staples stocks. They also recommend REITs and TIPS, inflation backed bonds. All of these recommendations key off the Federal Reserve monetary policy. The early November quantitative easing will inject $600 billion into the monetary base, which likely will over time have a bigger effect on the money supply. I have been receiving numerous credit offers in recent weeks, much like the early part of the last decade. That means to me that credit offerings are expanding. The stock market in general also looks good as the quantity of money drives interest rates hence the stock market. Because of the insane credit easing consumer stocks seem like a reasonable idea. I recently purchased the US Philip Morris (MO) and am thinking of the international Philip Morris (PM). Also, a few liquor stocks might be a good idea. As the Democrats and Republicans squeeze the public to subsidize the stock market, there will be plenty of drinking and smoking. MO pays a six percent dividend right now, and my stock broker recommended it as an alternative to cash or bonds.
I don't necessarily like the idea of REITs because of the real estate problems but emerging market stock markets like the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) seem like a good idea. I disagree with MSSB's recommendation for long term bonds. That is, unless you are planning to trade. Incidentally, the same caveat holds true for stocks and commodities. When inflation starts to counteract the economic value of the freshly printed money (the Fed has more than tripled the money supply since 2008 and the ultimate effects might be greater) the stock market will fall because real interest rates will start to rise. So markets are increasingly treacherous and you need to invest for the short or intermediate term, not for the long term. I don't believe in day trading or anything like that. Rather, invest when something is low or likely to increase and pull out when it is in bubble mode. I don't think we're seeing any bubbles now, although commodities are heating up and I think the stock market will too this year.
Happy New Year.
That said, to quote a cliche, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. My stock broker recently forwarded Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's (MSSB) "On the Markets", its monthly market commentary. The pamphlet makes a few points. The headline on its cover is "Getting Ready for Higher Inflation" and, seven years after I first became interested in gold they are advocating a 5 percent position in commodities. That suggests that gold is into the supposed third leg of its bull market, the first being the period of limited awareness and the second being the period of smart money awareness. Now, the retail investor is being told to invest in commodities. The last leg is the bubble leg.
Smith Barney recommends emerging markets stocks and consumer staples stocks. They also recommend REITs and TIPS, inflation backed bonds. All of these recommendations key off the Federal Reserve monetary policy. The early November quantitative easing will inject $600 billion into the monetary base, which likely will over time have a bigger effect on the money supply. I have been receiving numerous credit offers in recent weeks, much like the early part of the last decade. That means to me that credit offerings are expanding. The stock market in general also looks good as the quantity of money drives interest rates hence the stock market. Because of the insane credit easing consumer stocks seem like a reasonable idea. I recently purchased the US Philip Morris (MO) and am thinking of the international Philip Morris (PM). Also, a few liquor stocks might be a good idea. As the Democrats and Republicans squeeze the public to subsidize the stock market, there will be plenty of drinking and smoking. MO pays a six percent dividend right now, and my stock broker recommended it as an alternative to cash or bonds.
I don't necessarily like the idea of REITs because of the real estate problems but emerging market stock markets like the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) seem like a good idea. I disagree with MSSB's recommendation for long term bonds. That is, unless you are planning to trade. Incidentally, the same caveat holds true for stocks and commodities. When inflation starts to counteract the economic value of the freshly printed money (the Fed has more than tripled the money supply since 2008 and the ultimate effects might be greater) the stock market will fall because real interest rates will start to rise. So markets are increasingly treacherous and you need to invest for the short or intermediate term, not for the long term. I don't believe in day trading or anything like that. Rather, invest when something is low or likely to increase and pull out when it is in bubble mode. I don't think we're seeing any bubbles now, although commodities are heating up and I think the stock market will too this year.
Happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
