|
|
发表于 5-1-2009 07:24 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-1-2009 10:36 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 tan81 于 5-1-2009 07:24 PM 发表 
本来想要在最后一天去抢货，无奈有意外。
不然，可能会看到过路客兄。
买这么多营养书的人，一定很好认。
最后一天 3、4搂封锁，书本全部整合在两楼里。书本已经不多了。却人山人海。要认人不容易。
不过，可能我先认出你也不定。高大帅气的那个，对不？ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-1-2009 11:02 PM
|
显示全部楼层
回复 1064# 过路客 的帖子
过兄应该有一段时间会比较少上来佳礼了。。。  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 6-1-2009 02:19 AM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 goodluck88 于 5-1-2009 11:02 PM 发表
过兄应该有一段时间会比较少上来佳礼了。。。
不会啦，偶尔来佳礼灌水，花不了多少时间。还是会常上来的。
况且，这里还有很多大大们会继续分享。 一齐努力吧。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 6-1-2009 03:58 AM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 6-1-2009 07:19 AM
|
显示全部楼层
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/153165/Krugman-Fed-Can't-Save-Us-from-Great-Depression-II?tickers=gm,tm,%5Edji,%5Egspc
Krugman: Fed Can't Save Us from Great Depression II
Posted Jan 05, 2009 04:50pm EST by Henry Blodget
The NYT's Paul Krugman draws three lessons from the current debacle:
70 years of conventional wisdom since the Great Depression has been wrong: The Fed can't head off depressions with easy money. Thus, GD1 may have been un-preventable. GD2 may be unpreventable.
The only way to avoid GD2 (now) is frantic government spending (fiscal stimulus).
The government is about to blow it. Republican posturing suggests Obama will be forced to cut back and/or delay his spending plans in the name of "prudence" and "conservatism."
We'd add another possible lesson: There is NO WAY to prevent depressions other than regulating the economy enough to limit booms like the one we've had over the past couple of decades. This is A LOT easier said than done, because, for obvious reasons, everyone loves booms.
Krugman: "If we don't act swiftly and boldly," declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case.
The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren't lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let's not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.
So will we "act swiftly and boldly" enough to stop that from happening? We'll soon find out.
We weren't supposed to find ourselves in this situation. For many years most economists believed that preventing another Great Depression would be easy. In 2003, Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, declared that the "central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades."
Milton Friedman, in particular, persuaded many economists that the Federal Reserve could have stopped the Depression in its tracks simply by providing banks with more liquidity, which would have prevented a sharp fall in the money supply. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, famously apologized to Friedman on his institution’s behalf: "You’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again."
It turns out, however, that preventing depressions isn't that easy after all...
Click here for the full NYT story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=2
Fighting Off Depression
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 4, 2009
“If we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case.
The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.
So will we “act swiftly and boldly” enough to stop that from happening? We’ll soon find out.
We weren’t supposed to find ourselves in this situation. For many years most economists believed that preventing another Great Depression would be easy. In 2003, Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, declared that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”
Milton Friedman, in particular, persuaded many economists that the Federal Reserve could have stopped the Depression in its tracks simply by providing banks with more liquidity, which would have prevented a sharp fall in the money supply. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, famously apologized to Friedman on his institution’s behalf: “You’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
It turns out, however, that preventing depressions isn’t that easy after all. Under Mr. Bernanke’s leadership, the Fed has been supplying liquidity like an engine crew trying to put out a five-alarm fire, and the money supply has been rising rapidly. Yet credit remains scarce, and the economy is still in free fall.
Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy.
But these plans may turn out to be a hard sell.
News reports say that Democrats hope to pass an economic plan with broad bipartisan support. Good luck with that.
In reality, the political posturing has already started, with Republican leaders setting up roadblocks to stimulus legislation while posing as the champions of careful Congressional deliberation — which is pretty rich considering their party’s behavior over the past eight years.
More broadly, after decades of declaring that government is the problem, not the solution, not to mention reviling both Keynesian economics and the New Deal, most Republicans aren’t going to accept the need for a big-spending, F.D.R.-type solution to the economic crisis.
The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts.
This is a problem with which Keynes was familiar: giving money away, he pointed out, tends to be met with fewer objections than plans for public investment “which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles.” What gets lost in such discussions is the key argument for economic stimulus — namely, that under current conditions, a surge in public spending would employ Americans who would otherwise be unemployed and money that would otherwise be sitting idle, and put both to work producing something useful.
All of this leaves me concerned about the prospects for the Obama plan. I’m sure that Congress will pass a stimulus plan, but I worry that the plan may be delayed and/or downsized. And Mr. Obama is right: We really do need swift, bold action.
Here’s my nightmare scenario: It takes Congress months to pass a stimulus plan, and the legislation that actually emerges is too cautious. As a result, the economy plunges for most of 2009, and when the plan finally starts to kick in, it’s only enough to slow the descent, not stop it. Meanwhile, deflation is setting in, while businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy — well, you can see where this is going.
So this is our moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 6-1-2009 08:50 AM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 6-1-2009 01:33 PM
|
显示全部楼层
虽然不是和股市有很直接的关系，但我想介绍一本书
《俞敏洪如是说》。。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 6-1-2009 01:38 PM
|
显示全部楼层
请问各位大大有关注加萨地带的战情？
Top News // Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Why Israel Fights, to deny Iran a victory
A defeat of Hamas would be a realsetback for Iran
William Kristol
The New York Times
THE Israeli assault on Hamas in Gaza is going to be a replay, we’re told, of the attempt to subdue Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006. And the outcome, it’s asserted, will be the same: Lots of death and destruction, no strategic victory for Israel and a setback for all who seek peace and progress in the Middle East.
.
Obviously, war is an unpredictable business, so I say this with some trepidation: I think the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong. Israel could well succeed in Gaza.
.
For one thing, southern Lebanon is a substantial and hilly area, bordered by northern Lebanon and Syria, through which Hezbollah could be re-supplied, both by Syria itself and by Iran. Gaza is a flat, narrow strip, bordered by Israel, as well as by the sea and by Egypt, no friend to Hamas.
.
By cutting off the northern part of Gaza from the southern, Israel has basically surrounded northern Gaza, creating a military situation very different from that in Lebanon in 2006.
.
What’s more, the Israeli leadership seems aware of the mistakes — political, strategic and military — it made in Lebanon. That doesn’t mean it won’t make them all over again.
.
The same Prime Minister,Mr Ehud Olmert, is in charge, after all. But, Israel’s current Defence Minister, Mr Ehud Barak, is very different from his predecessor, the weak and unqualified Amir Peretz. So far as one can tell, the Gaza operation seems to have been well-planned and is being methodically executed, in sharp contrast to the Lebanon incursion. Mr Barak has also warned that the operation could be long and difficult, lowering expectations by contrast with the Israeli rhetoric of July 2006.
.
In addition, in Lebanon,Israel proclaimed war goals that it couldn’t achieve — such as retrieving its two kidnapped soldiers and disarming Hezbollah. Now theIsraeli government says that it seeks to weaken Hamas, lessen its ability to fire rockets from Gaza and secure new arrangements along the Egyptian-Gaza border to prevent Hamas from re-arming. These may well be achievable goals.
.
And, of course, not all military efforts against terror fail. Recall Israel’s incursion into the West Bank in the spring of 2002, when, under the leadership of Mr Ariel Sharon, Israel succeeded in ripping up established terror networks and began the defeat of the second intifada. Israel also was able to avoid a long-term re-occupation, while retaining the ability to go back in on anti-terror missions. What’s more, the 2002 bloodshed didn’t seem to do lasting damage to hopes for progress or moderation on the West Bank. After all, it’s Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, not the West Bank, that became a Hamas stronghold.
.
An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror — and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East.
.
Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.
.
But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East — very much including Muslims — who aren’t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror. So there are sound reasons why the United States — whether led by Mr George W Bush or Mr Barack Obama — will stand with Israel as it fights.
.
But Israel — assuming it succeeds — is doing the United States a favour by taking on Hamas now.
.
The huge challenge for the Obama administration is going to be Iran. If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran. IfIsrael were now to withdraw under pressure without accomplishing the objectives of severely weakening Hamas and preventing the reconstitution of a terror-exporting state in Gaza, it would be a triumph for Iran. In either case, the Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear programme.
.
But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing.
.
With respect to Iran, Mr Obama may well face — as the Israeli government did with Hamas — a moment when the use of force seems to be the only responsible option.
.
But Israel’s willingness to fight makes it more possible that the United States may not have to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 6-1-2009 11:18 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 9-1-2009 05:12 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 flyingfish 于 6-1-2009 11:18 PM 发表
他的那一本书，好看吗？
wikipedia那里有他的网站和blog
他的部落格。
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
网站
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
原本以为他的书很简单（道理是很简单），但思想一点都不。要消化，需要时间。他用经济学来判断人类的合理行为。如果能完全消化他的思想，大概连为何李宗伟羽毛球打得比我好，也可以用经济道理来形容。
所以，一直换书看。（近来阅读速度很慢，几天也看不完一本...... 糟糕......）
还没看过他其他的书，但有少少阴影...... 哈哈。
另外有一本《黑天鹅效应》，虽然题材类似，但比较容易消化。
看来，新年被逼带着几本“书”拜访，不知道老人家有没有 pantang...... （把它放在肉干袋子里，瞒天过海）。哈哈。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 11-1-2009 08:29 AM
|
显示全部楼层
钢铁、棕油篇
还是老话一句，需求量不足，储备量有余。
钢铁全球化竞争，本地前景不妙。
分析员喜欢以价格来判断该不该买进钢铁公司。这个已经远离分析本意。
若钢铁因供应不足而导致价格上涨，是好事。却因为减产而导致价格上涨，不是好事。
如何知道需求不足？房产、汽车、基建、工厂器械等没有好转现象，需求就不会来。
利率篇
有分析员预测，国家银行在1月21日，会调降75个基点。
我觉得是 50个基点。
通膨不好控制，虽然 CPI 已经大幅度下降趋势，但没有国家愿意长期在低利率行走。
再说，政府还是需要稳定货币。
虽然贬值有好处，以国行保守的作风，不能一下子调太多。
若真的是调75个基点，证明国家经济真的有大问题。拭目以待。
油价篇
最近有大财团和油公司，买现货，赚油价期货的差价。甚至宁愿牺牲运输停放非，把装满油的船停放在欧洲港口。
这么做，会否带动油价上涨呢？不知道，还需要看全球需求量。但财力雄厚的财团，他们的行为比较大胆。没什么不敢做的。
坦白说，低油价对全球经济不是好事。
油价是经济带动者之一。油价长期低靡，全球恐陷入通俗。
美国政治篇
通缩论提倡者，Roubini，虽然仍坚持他的理论，但把全球衰退期缩短了，他觉得 2010年开始回温。
反而，Krugman 开似看淡了。但奥巴马并没有采用他的那套方法。奥巴马为了有极大野心，希望两党 bipartisan 合作，所以提出了尽可能符合两党要求的经济方案。
奥巴马提了一个不完全符合，也不完全反对任何一党的方案。他甚至要把 TARP 重修。
世上有无两全其美的事情？不知道。
奥巴马有无政治企图？嗯...... 不知道。（注意，这里多放了一个“嗯”。表示我的不肯定，倾向于“不想承认”。）
大马经济配套篇
最近，承接上一回看不见效果的 70亿配套，政府终于肯宣布新的经济配套。
内容是什么？还不知道。
欣慰的是，至少政府“终于”肯着手抄动经济。不是任由它死活。
第二财政说 70亿配套，在第一季度将看见效果，我不相信。
因为这 70亿当中许多项目，原本已经纳入之前未公布前的项目里面。只是重新包装，为了提高市场信心而已。
希望这次真的来个好的刺激方案。国家失业率会更严重，需要政府注资进入市场扶持。经济家说，每 2% GDP 能减少 1%的失业率。但政府的注资，能为 GDP 带来多少效用呢？用 okun's law 还是什么的来计算，每 RM1 可以带来 RM1.50的效用吧。总之，超过 RM8000亿的 GDP，2% 至少需要 160亿以上。
还未计算国家的出口额是 1.7-1.8倍 GDP。若净出口下滑几巴仙，国家 GDP 肯定有麻烦。
政府必须扩大消费。有人反对赤字扩大。但没办法了。危机当前，一定要这么做。最近财政说，国家从 2000年的 5.5%赤字减少到 3点多，应该是表示政府会扩大赤字。
无论是减税，或增加开销，危机当前，我会赞成政府的做法。
综指篇
分析员又来了。
他们说，“外资回来，有望突破低点。”
开玩笑！他们真的很爱开玩笑。
见到行情稍好，就说好。见到行情不好，就唱衰。
一点都不坚持。
上一回，多少分析员在 11月说钢铁业根本不受影响。12月尾，许多分析员开始不看好。
同样的，多少分析员原本看好种植业。现在开始有两种论点，一种说要小心，另一种持续看好。
从 10月尾开始，数据显示，全球需求下跌，储备量未消化。这么明显了，竟然还有人看好？
真的，分析员啊分析员，究竟你们分析的是未来，还是分析过去？如果多付出一点努力，认真看待各种数据，大概9月尾，已经可以看到2008年中需求已经达顶的趋势。
这次，爱和分析员唱反调。第一季度，综指会下探新低。
尤其在1月尾有第四季度业绩陆续出来，二月尾开始有各家公司全年业绩开始在市场传出。
在四大会计公司工作的朋友，一定会开始爆料的。这种东西，不能支持不了。
低风险篇
虽然面对经济危机，还是有一些公司的业绩不太受影响。
超过 20元的几家公司，除了一家，几乎都是必需品消费，不太受经济冲击影响。老外喜欢称这种为 Consumer Staples。刚刚 JP Morgan下调 nestle 的业绩预测，有点吃惊。这么严重吗？连固定开销用品也受影响，那么其他如 P&G 等，也受影响吗？虽然对象是美国公司，但本地公司会否受影响呢？
超过 20元的几家公司里，有一家电讯业，分析员说是低风险的，我反而觉得开始变向高风险了。
从 10月起，我已经不断和朋友唱反调，说这家黄色为主的公司，它的价格已经过高了。
几年前，它在 4.xx 多徘徊的时候，我说它有上升的潜在价值，没人理会我。所以，我把它介绍给亲人而已。
大家总是环绕在另外一件公司讨论。那家红色为主的大哥公司。我说这家公司做了很多傻事，不值得追捧。还记得，分析员一直看不起这家黄色为主的公司，叫它为小弟弟，看扁它，说它没突围的能力。（不知道谁还存着那些分析新闻。）
当大家讨论到那家红色 delisted 了，很气馁，还是赚不到。
现在黄色那家上涨到 2x 元，我说它风险太大，同样没人理会我。继续拿它来当定期存款收利息。
我可以用 3000字文章写出，为何它被高估了。但我懒惰，嘴巴讲可以，写很麻烦。
简单想一点就好，市场饱和，竞争造成的价格下探，利润一定下降。这个不用向相关业者套取资料也能知道。（当然，有内幕，会占优势一点）
还没包括，该公司已经失去市场优势，缺乏新的赚取收入计划。
有分析员喜欢观察流动资金。两年以前，GM 等的流动资金也是不错的。为何搞到今天的田地？因为，资金不会永恒不变，如果收入（利润）不增加，它会慢慢减少。业绩报表不能告诉我们，未来赚钱能力。所以，业绩报表不是完整的分析项目。反倒，观察整个公司的未来趋势，更重要，也比较容易。
分析原本就是这么简单。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 11-1-2009 11:14 AM
|
显示全部楼层
回复 1074# 过路客 的帖子
过兄最新的分析发表，等到颈都长了。。。
嘿嘿。。。
谢谢！
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 11-1-2009 11:43 AM
|
显示全部楼层
过路客不要用3000字，用300字就可以了。
我想听。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 11-1-2009 12:01 PM
|
显示全部楼层
回應客兄有關鋼鉄业,CXCsteel
自从9月到現在1月
月產能由5萬噸變到<1萬..
漫漫長路...........滛滛看不到尽头...
钢鉄沒裁員的原因: 員工薪水僅占了成本不到2%,裁了等于沒裁.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 11-1-2009 04:42 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 11-1-2009 05:43 PM
|
显示全部楼层
上两个月，我曾经有股冲动，想过将整副身家塞浪！
但到头来我都没动过我的小巢！是有原因的，
因为当时忙着别的事情！冲动一凉了，
心里就出现--是你的就是你的！不是你的！
放进嘴巴都要le出来，所以，到现在我手上 1 lot的股票都没有！
时不时只是去看看股市，看看现在的分析员有那几派在胡言！
好厉害！什么胡言都能讲得出来！
前几天我出外坡公干，顺便找友人吃饭吹水，回来的时候，
走过一条街，是当地出名的红灯区！
（不需要怀疑，我们不是刚巧走过，是特地绕去看的，
吃饱没事干，难得能休息，爽下几眼也好！有些很劲的！
她们挂在身上的布料面积，还少过我的领带，还真的够凉爽。）
就在一个架步的楼梯，算是上楼的入口，我看到一个满美的女孩，
在蹲着打电话！还欠十多步就到她面前的时候，
我就看到她的面孔，有65分罢！走多几步时，听到点声音了，
那女的哭了，一手拿着电话，一手把着头发，楚楚可怜，
很让男人起同情心的那种，我故意放慢脚步，
听到那女的哭着说了几句话！“啊！~~~啊 ~~~ 点算啊！
我真是中左啊！啊~~！有病啊！你快点来看我啊！”
一直重复着这句话！
来！我们来研究一下这句话的严重性能去到哪里？
首先是那（点算啊！）就是说，好像没办法了！
看医生也没什么用！以我当时看到的情况来看，应该是跑不了！
电话里的人是谁？先不理了，不过我猜应该是男友！
当我走过时，回头望了眼！那头很自然的摇了几摇！
喂！人家更加大条啦！我不懂这里有没有人买到深深被套的股！
但我知道在股票投资论坛这里有很多人的股票跌的很惨！
都无语了！当然还是有很多还是抱着乐观的态度！
我不是想找个更惨的人来比较！让跌的人好过点！
只是想说有问题出现了，还得面对！
哎呀！这么婆妈，算了，不说了，总之自己（拾生）就对了。
今天路过，将看到与想到的随便谈谈。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 11-1-2009 08:50 PM
|
显示全部楼层
回复 1073# 过路客 的帖子
过兄，你好。
有营养的书是要慢慢消化的。。思考后才能内化(internalize)..
black swan 我还没有，只有他的fooled by randomness.
请教过兄，会和fooled by randomness很多概念上的重叠吗？
Nassim Taleb有website (要感谢欧贝亚兄在我blog里comment告知)。。
蛮不错的资讯....有他ongoing book的notes和其他。。
假如你喜欢以经济来解释现象，可看看张五常，他也有blog..
可看看他的“经济解释”，网上有pdf版。
new institutional economics也许也适合你的口味。
哈哈，也许新年别带black swan那本(假如你买的是黑白封面那版本)。
谢谢过兄。。之前没听过Okun's law。。又学了一课
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okun's_Law |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 13-1-2009 03:33 AM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 13-1-2009 07:09 AM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 本周最热论坛帖子
|
1859 
69
