What Makes Sense Vs. What Reeks of Nonsense
The Internet reeks of nonsense. Financial websites maybe don't take the cake, but there are certainly plenty of choices in the great bakery of nonsense.
A quick example: CNBC. I now other professionals who spend more than a few minutes soaking up the shower of information they spew each day. Beats me why. I check them each morning for a few minutes to see if anything dramatic might be in the wings for the day (usually nothing). The scroll at the bottom of the screen rarely tells me anything, but I do notice the plethora of senseless commentary: "Stock futures up on pandemic recovery hopes"; "Gold falls due to strong dollar." The next day you'll likely see "Stock futures fall with hopes for quick recovery"; "Gold rises despite strong dollar."
See why I said "Beats me why"?
But if you look hard enough you can find some folks who make some sense - even in the financial world. Two such folks: John Hussman and Karl Denninger.
Hussman runs funds named after him. He's got some pretty pointed comments about the bubble in the stock market. Of course, he's thought prices were high for a long time. But I found his latest pieces, which come out regularly) to be pretty informative. If you read them carefully, it's hard to argue with what he presents. He writes his thoughts out in great detail, so you typically won't pick up little catch phrases to latch on to. You actually have to read and think.
As for the stock bubble he espouses, that doesn't mean you run for the hills. Even Hussman says he looks at what he calls the "internals" of the market to help him gauge how much he will hedge his stock funds. (He has always used hedging in his funds.) So he's invested - but hyper-cautious.
As for Denninger, he's an interesting chap. His writing is typically edgy. He's right up in your face. He opines on financial matters, but also politics, social policy, and other related topics. I haven't seen him write about what's popping up in his garden in spring, so there's a limit to his opining. But he has had a lot to say about this pandemic and the Mess it's created. He weighed in early, and has continued to put forth his views on this often.
I don't read him all the time, but was linked to a recent post. It begins with a tweet from an M.D that caught my attention: "I reviewed the Moderna vaccine card given to a patient of mine today. Second dose was given 3/14/2021 and Vaccine card expires 8/14/2021. Let that sink in."
Hmmm....
Denninger picks it up from there:
Do you really think these "vaccines" are about a disease?
They are not.
Do you really think getting jabbed will "let you return to normal life"? It will not.
Do you think there is no risk to going back every five or six months to do it again? You're wrong.
What is this really about?
Money.
It's not just about how Big Pharma is making billions with these jabs. He rolls the tape back to post-2008 and the "Obama Recovery" "and "Obamacare." The purported recovery never existed: Economic activity ramped up because of all the debt created by the Fed and the government. As for Obamacare, it was a windfall for Big Pharma. (Yes, I realize it was sold as as way for Americans to access healthcare who previously couldn't for various reason. But...)
As a special bonus, he goes even further back and connects various dots with the money printing the Fed has indulged in for decades, going all the back to WW II. The article's not that long. He makes his point tersely. In fact, his summary of the effect on the family and our society caused by Fed money printing and government policy managed to bring together and sum up various threads of thought I've had for a while now. If nothing else, check out how the U.S. middle class survived the 1970s inflation, and why that won't work this time around, if we do get serious inflation. You may want to brace yourself.
So these two get my vote for making a lot of sense most of the time. As for the rest, I'd rather watch Youtube videos of the Netherlands Bach Society - maybe the best music videos you can find, assuming you like Bach.
And who doesn't like Bach?
Comments