comMITTed to Romney!

Carly Fiorina is talking common sense and, goodness gracious, that has been in short supply over the last twenty years and especially the last 11 months, if you get my drift.

Listen to Ms. Fiorina talk about the massive unemployment in California’s Central Valley, the role that small businesses play in revitalizing the economy, the need to cut taxes and to kill the cap & trade (tax) bill.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Below is some material that I excerpted from Paul LePage’s website. Mr. LePage is a Republican candidate for Governor of Maine. He is one of a large number of candidates from several parties running for that office.

I know very little about Mr. LePage and his positions at this point, but from little I know, he seems to be a businessman/politician with decidedly pro-business, pro-tax cut instincts.

Based on the candidates we have been forced to choose from, starting at the Presidential level and working our way down to dog catcher, anytime I see or hear a candidate talking “conservative” my first thought is to help publicize their political programs, because as we have said many times, the anti-Republican, anti-conservative Dinosaur Media aren’t interested in giving them a fair shake. So, it falls to the New Media to act as a counter balance and to help bring these ladies and gentlemen to the voter’s attention.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.lepage2010.com/index.php

Bio

Paul LePage, mayor of Waterville, and general manager of Marden’s, will offer Maine’s voters an unusual opportunity next year - the opportunity to elect a chief executive with an actual lifetime of executive experience. This may sound strange, but it is true that most governors come to office after a lifetime almost entirely devoted to chasing votes. This is one reason that forty-five out of fifty American states face a financial crisis this year.

Paul is no business bureaucrat who worked his way up the corporate ladder by following the rules, working the angles or playing office politics. He has spent most of his life tackling one challenge after another, the kinds of challenges that defeat most people.

The oldest son of eighteen children in an impoverished, dysfunctional family, Paul left home at the age of eleven and lived on the streets of Lewiston for two years, making a meager living shining shoes.

At age thirteen, two families jointly “adopted” Paul. Eddy and Pauline Collins kept him busy washing dishes at the Theriault’s Cafe. Bruce and Joan Myrick kept him busy hauling boxes. Bruce was a Pepsi-Cola truck driver. Later Paul worked at the Antoine Rubber Company and at a meat packing company.While attending Husson, he supported himself as a short order cook and bartender, while making time to be the editor of the college newspaper.

Getting into Husson presented a challenge in itself. Paul was brought up speaking French. Although his S.A.T. scores in math were excellent, his verbal performance was so poor that no college would accept him. It was only because Sen. Olympia Snowe’s first husband Peter persuaded Husson to administer the exam in French that Paul was admitted at all. After that, his mastery of the English language and his academic achievements soared and he graduated with a BS in Business Administration in Finance/Accounting. He subsequently earned an MBA from the University Of Maine.

Vision

“People, communities, businesses…”

I am running for Governor because, as most of us born or raised in the state, I love Maine. It’s people, communities, businesses and natural beauty are like no other place on earth. We face many challenges in coming years, and I want to be your voice, to represent you in our state government, and to protect your finances and individual rights from the encroachment of state and federal government.

• Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal responsibility starts and ends with the understanding that taxpayers have a right to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible-not that government has the right to collect as much money as it needs. I promise that my first priority as Governor will be to ensure that state government spends every tax dollar wisely. I will not allow wasteful spending. Government tax and spend practices will come to an end, and I will fight to keep every dollar possible where it rightfully belongs, in your pocket.

• Tax Reform: Our vision for Maine must include tax reform, repeal and excise tax reduction. As Mayor of Waterville I set a goal to ensure property tax reduction each year from the year after I took office. By seeking efficiency, applying sound business principals, and always looking out for the taxpayer, I have proven my ability to reach these goals. In my tenure as Mayor of Waterville, we have cut property taxes without sacrificing any city services. The city’s fund balance has increased from $1 million to $10 million and our credit rating has been upgraded from A-Minus to A-Plus.Government needs to practice the same discipline and fiscal responsibility with the taxpayer’s money that any responsible individual would practice with their own. I strongly support repeal of all new sales taxes.

• Taxpayer Bill Of Rights: I am in favor of the Taxpayer Bill Of Rights. It merely limits the power of state government to increase taxes above the rate of inflation and population growth-without a vote of the people. As Mayor of Waterville, I have cut taxes several times while maintaining services, with no ill effects. As Governor I can show you how to do it for all of Maine.

• Job Creation: Too often politicians and bureaucrats in state government make the promise that they “will create new jobs”. At best this sort of statement shows a complete misunderstanding of the Maine economy. At worst it shows an eagerness to increase the size of government. The jobs that our state needs are not the kind that can be created by our governor, state legislature or any other government entity. The jobs that Maine needs are the kind created by intelligent, visionary entrepreneurs who will choose Maine as the place to start or grow their business. They will create new, higher paying jobs in industries where growth is possible. These jobs will stimulate our economy, bringing revenue into state coffers while reducing the burden on individual taxpayers. As Governor, I promise to work tirelessly not to “create new jobs” but to create an environment and public policy that promotes the growth of business, envision a landscape bounding with economic activity.

• Limited Government: Never before in the history of our state or our nation have the individual rights of citizens been so openly under attack. Each and every Maine citizen has the right to live their life without the shackles of government. From over-taxation that is forcing some into economic slavery to excessive government regulation by bureaucrats who do not understand the industries they attempt to regulate, it is time to halt the growth of government. It is time to push back against this steadily growing interference into our personal lives, our finances, and our businesses.

• Traditional Values: Family is the foundation on which civilization is built. I will oppose any effort to undermine traditional values in our great state. The traditional values that we hold dear are part of what has made Maine the exceptional place to live that it is today.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hat Tip to my son Pat for the heads up on this video from the new site FOXNATION.COM.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

A president of the United States orders the chief executive officer of General Motors to resign. The same president is further ordering Chrysler to merge with Fiat, the Italian firm specializing in flimsy cardboard boxes on wheels.

This new reality should send a chill down the spines of all Americans. The federal government has begun to run U.S. companies.

President Obama said Monday, “my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.”

To that confident assertion he added these stern sentiments:

“They must ask themselves: Have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can’t make future investments? Above all, have they created a credible model for how not only to survive, but to succeed in this competitive global market?”

Who is in a better position to know the answers to these questions? Rick Wagoner, the GM CEO for nine years and former GM chief financial officer who has been with the automaker since the late 1970s, even running one of its foreign affiliates in Brazil, and who holds a Harvard Business School MBA?

Or President Obama, a former community activist from the south side of Chicago with a great rhetorical gift?

The president answered that question this week by ordering Wagoner’s firing.

Imagine if it were not GM, but your own small business employing a handful of people.

How would you like the country’s highest-ranking elected officeholder telling you that he and “my team” know better than you about cleaning up your balance sheets and competing against your rivals? How would you like being ordered by the government to fire the person you hired as manager of your company?

Does an entity that is itself $11 trillion (and climbing) in debt have any right to criticize a private business for owing tens of billions, let alone to claim it can do better running that business?

The same arrogance was heard regarding Chrysler. The president announced that, “we’ve determined, after careful review, that Chrysler needs a partner to remain viable.” Why was Fiat picked? Because the Italian firm “after working closely with my team, has committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines right here in the United States.”

In other words, its politics are right.

The merger will operate under a deadline with Washington holding a gun to Chrysler’s head: “We’ll give Chrysler and Fiat 30 days to . . . reach a final agreement,” the president said. “But if they and their stakeholders are unable to reach such an agreement, and in the absence of any other viable partnership, we will not be able to justify investing additional tax dollars to keep Chrysler in business.”

It should now be clear: Federal bailout funds are a corporate narcotic. Once a company starts taking them, a chemicallike dependence develops. The addict does whatever will bring in more of the drug. Ultimately, like heroin, the short-term euphoria gives way to decreased function for the recipient, even destruction.

More importantly for the American people, letting Uncle Sam become a corporate drug dealer — with taxpayer money the addictive poison being peddled — also places Washington in a position of dictatorial control over the private sector.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/World-stocks-tumble-amid-G20-apf-14779397.html

LONDON (AP) – World stock markets slid Monday amid renewed fears about the fate of the U.S. auto industry and the global banking sector as well as mounting pessimism surrounding this week’s G-20 meeting of leaders.

The FTSE 100 of leading British shares was down 79.39 points, or 2 percent, at 3,819.46, while Germany’s DAX slumped 129.32 points, or 3.1 percent, to 4,074.23. The CAC-40 in France fell 60.63 points, or 2.1 percent, to 2,779.99.

Earlier in Asia, Japan’s Nikkei 225 stock average sank 390.89 points, or 4.5 percent, to 8,236.08, and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng slid 663.17, or 4.7 percent, to 13,456.33.

The retreat in Europe and Asia followed a sell-off Friday on Wall Street, where investors booked profits on the Dow Jones industrial average’s 21 percent gain over 13 trading days.

U.S. stock futures pointed to more losses Monday on Wall Street. Dow futures fell 161, or 2.1 percent, to 7,601 while Standard & Poor’s 500 futures fell 17.6 points, or 2.2 percent, to 798.50.
Stock market sentiment was hit by a combination of factors on Monday, with automakers under particular pressure after the White House rejected the turnaround plans from General Motors Corp. and Chrysler. The Obama administration also replaced GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner with the company’s chief operating officer, Fritz Henderson.

Share on Facebook

Share This

From liberal CNN

(CNN) — These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.

We’re on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we’ve borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.

We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

It’s still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt the correct course and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party.

It’s his job to set priorities. I hope for America’s sake that he knows that a chief executive can’t vote “present.” He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.

As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I’d like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it’s stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That’s why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they’ve got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.

Businesses aren’t stupid. They’re not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What’s needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.

Fourth, if we’re going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.

There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing — from the budget deficit and from the stimulus — world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won’t be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

And finally, let’s exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: “Romney’s plan is way too big.” So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector — entrepreneurs and businesses large and small — can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mitt Romney.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I am posting this excerpt, not to give specific investment advice, but as a FYI only. If you are not thoroughly versed in bond market investing and interest rate behaviors, please don’t get involved in this market. This information is meant to alert you to the fact that many respected market participants believe that the next bubble to burst will be the Treasury bond market.

~~John Cronin~~

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123094029415750267.html?mod=b_hpp_barrons_most_viewed_day

The bubble in Treasuries looks ready to pop, sending prices on government debt sharply lower. But just about every other corner of the bond market beckons — and could provide competitive returns with stocks, even if the equity markets have a strong 2009.

THE BIGGEST INVESTMENT BUBBLE TODAY may involve one of the safest asset classes: U.S. Treasuries. Yields have plunged to some of the lowest levels since the 1940s as investors, fearful of a sustained global economic downturn and potential deflation, have rushed to purchase government-issued debt. The market also has been supported by comments from the Federal Reserve that it, too, may buy long-term Treasuries. - As a result, the benchmark 10-year Treasury note yields just 2.40%, down from 3.85% as recently as mid-November. The 30-year T-bond stands at 2.82%, and three-month Treasury bills were sold last week for a yield of just 0.05%. - Many investors argue it’s dangerous to buy Treasuries with such low yields. While a holder can expect to get repaid in full at maturity, the price of longer-term Treasuries could fall sharply in the interim if yields rise. The 30-year T-bond, for instance, would drop 25% in price if its yield rose to 4.35%, where it stood as recently as Nov. 13. The bear market may have begun Wednesday, when prices of 30-year Treasuries fell 3%. They lost another 3% Friday. - ”

Get out of Treasuries. They are very, very expensive,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., warned recently. Pimco runs the country’s largest bond fund, Pimco Total Return (ticker: PTTPX). - Treasuries offer little or no margin of safety if the economy unexpectedly strengthens in 2009, or the dollar weakens significantly, or inflation shows signs of reaccelerating. Yields on 30-year Treasuries easily could top 4% by year end.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.rncdebate.org/index.php
Here is the question that I submitted for consideration for the RNC’s debate. This question falls mainly within the economic sphere, but, I believe it’s political ramifications are huge and they need to be addressed successfully going forward, or the effects on the middle class will be devastating and the effects on the poor will be catastrophic.

The historic precedent I am using to base my opinion on is the post WW I inflation in Germany.

~~John Cronin~~

Welcome to ATR’s RNCDebate.org website.

What political response has the RNC made to address the potentially inflationary effects of the massive growth in the money supply we have seen as a result of the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve’s efforts to stimulate the economy in the wake of the bursting of the credit bubble?
John Cronin | PERMALINK | January 03, 2009 • 7:32PM | Q#: 436 | Vote TOTAL: 0

Share on Facebook

Share This

Nero fiddles while Rome burns. Our esteemed politicians continue to kick the can down the road so that they can all get political cover in case the stimulus plan fails.

Gov. Romney offers some of the advice that caused him to be labeled by Jim Kramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, “the best businessman in North America.”

~~John Cronin~~

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTdlNDlmMGYzYWJlMzFkMDhiOTE4YWMyYmUyNDA4ZTQ=

What is Washington waiting for? The inauguration is less than five weeks away: At the rate we’ve been going, another 500,000 jobs will be lost by then. The downward spiral is deepening and accelerating: Congress and the president must act now.

American families have lost about $11 trillion in net worth as securities and home values have plummeted. This translates into about $400 billion less annual consumer spending, net of government safety-net funding. Exports won’t grow to make this up, as the dollar has strengthened with investors worldwide clamoring for its relative security. Investments won’t make up the gap either, as bank loans and secondary-market financing have shrunk and as fresh equity is virtually non-existent.

So this is surely the time for economic stimulus. But — and this is the crucial point — the government can’t just make itself bigger and more oppressive in the guise of stimulating the economy. That would make matters worse. Nor should we forget that fiscal stimulus is but one part of the solution. As Christina Romer, Barack Obama’s designee as chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors concluded from her study of the Great Depression, bad monetary policy was its greatest cause and good monetary policy was its most effective cure. The Fed should continue to expand the money supply. And, it should confirm that it will not tolerate deflation — the pain of inflation pales in comparison.

That being said, a stimulus plan is needed without further delay, and there are some things that Republicans should insist on.

The first is that tax cuts are part of the solution. Harvard professor and economist Greg Mankiw points out that recent research confirms that tax cuts have a greater multiplier effect than new spending — more economic bang for the federal buck. We should lower tax rates for middle-income families and eliminate their tax on savings altogether — no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. Let’s also align our corporate tax rate with those of competing nations. These actions will rapidly expand consumption and investment, and right now, time is of the essence.

On the spending front, infrastructure projects should be a high priority. But because infrastructure projects involve engineering, environmental studies, permitting and contracting, they can take a long time to actually boost the economy. Spending to refurbish and modernize our military equipment is urgently needed, and it has a more immediate impact on the economy. A great deal of our armament was damaged or lost in the Middle East, and the rest is long overdue for maintenance.

We should also invest to free us from our dependence on foreign oil, not by playing venture capitalist, but by funding basic research in renewables, material science, combustion, nuclear reprocessing, and the like. During the 2008 campaign, virtually every candidate agreed on the need for an “Apollo-like mission” to achieve energy independence. Now is the time to start.

Cities and states will clamor for government dollars. Like the Big Three automakers, states should first take advantage of the downturn to do some needed cost cutting and restructuring. State employee numbers, pensions, and health-insurance premium sharing — as well as duplicate and ineffective agencies and programs — should be high on the hit list. State budgets should be brought in line with those of the most efficient of their comparables. And the federal government should look to ease the burden of mandates on states, like Medicaid.

Republicans should also lay down a gauntlet: All new spending projects should be selected by the responsible federal agency according to published criteria, not by congresspersons and senators based upon favors and politics. Republicans should commit to vote no on any stimulus bill with earmarks that have not been voted upon by their entire body.

There is a danger that new spending and deficits will lead to runaway inflation, flight from the dollar, and another economic crisis. It is essential, therefore, that Congress and the president commit to reform entitlement spending as soon as the economy recovers. With the footing of our long term economy at risk, with entitlements already reaching 60 percent of federal spending and with baby boomers nearing retirement, this can be delayed no longer.

We must also be careful to avoid burdening the economy with excessive regulation in response to the need to reform regulatory oversight of the financial sector. Going too far could cripple the entire industry, further tightening the credit markets. And we should make it clear that Washington will not act to virtually impose unions on small business by eliminating the right of workers to vote by secret ballot in the workplace. This “card check” payback for the AFL-CIO’s support of the Democrats would devastate business formation and employment.

The Democrats may want to wait for Obama, but the country needs action now. Republicans can — and must — play an important role in shaping a stimulus bill that makes sense for America and lays a foundation for future prosperity and growth.

— Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Excellent article by Arthur Laffer on why Obama’s stated intention to try to reconfigure the country’s massively complicated and inter-related energy structures will only succeed in seeing taxes sky rocket and energy production plummet. If that’s not a prescription for a new Depression in America, I don’t know what is.

~~John Cronin~~

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122956305965116735.html

The only way to get there is job-killing taxes.

By ARTHUR B. LAFFER
This week in Chicago, President-elect Barack Obama introduced key members of his new energy and environmental team and gave a statement expressing his administration’s ambitious goal to make America energy independent. While his desire to do so is sincere, such a strategy would be disastrous for our economy.

The platitude of “energy independence” makes zero economic sense. Yes, it’s true that many nations that supply us with oil are run by anti-American governments. But unfortunately embargoes don’t overturn despotic regimes. More often than not they harden them, as in Zimbabwe, North Korea and Cuba. Since the U.S. is so reliant on oil, embargoes will hurt the U.S. as much, if not more, than the countries of OPEC. The issue of how to handle the anti-American nature of oil-exporting nations is not for the Commerce Department, but for the White House, the State Department and perhaps the Department of Defense.

The U.S. currently imports some 60% of the oil we use. To imagine an energy-independent U.S. today is to envision gas at $20 or more per gallon and a true depression. President Dwight D. Eisenhower tried oil import tariffs in the 1950s, as has every president since. Yet never before has America’s reliance on foreign oil been greater than it is now.

While energy independence for the U.S. would enormously increase the price of oil at home, it would have the exact opposite effect in the rest of the world. Cheap oil for countries like China would surely not benefit the U.S. or the world’s environment. Businesses that use oil would move offshore, costing American jobs while still polluting the world’s environment. Artificial energy independence is neither a good foreign policy nor a good domestic economic policy

Mr. Obama’s team is also prejudiced against offshore drilling and nuclear power. Goodness knows no one wants oil splattered all over our beaches, but if we don’t drill offshore, Indonesia will. Surely our safeguards are better than Indonesia’s. Any trade-off of Indonesian offshore drilling with U.S. offshore drilling is a no-brainer. Offshore drilling would also further the goal of decreasing U.S. reliance on oil from hostile nations without losing the beneficial gains from trade.

Pursuing nuclear power is another important option if we aim to reduce our carbon footprint and reliance on oil from hostile nations. Currently the U.S. is way behind the curve. Given the vast proliferation of nuclear power world-wide, its cleanliness, its efficiency, and its low cost, surely nuclear should not be “off-the-table” as the Obama team contends.

The Obama team’s chatter about creating jobs in alternative renewable energies is hollow to say the least. Here’s why: Any serious attempt to reduce carbon emissions must ultimately rely on a very large tax on the use of fossil fuels. And a very large tax on fossil fuels as an add-on to the taxes we already pay would drive the economy deeper into the ground — with or without alternative renewable energy jobs.

The only real solution is Al Gore’s proposal to offset a carbon tax dollar-for-dollar with either an income or payroll tax reduction. If a carbon tax increase were offset dollar-for-dollar with an income tax rate cut, I for one would strongly support the policy. The economy would benefit because the progressive income tax does far more damage than a carbon tax would, and we’d use less oil. It’s a win-win situation. Yet this perspective appears to be totally outside the Obama team’s ken.

It’s telling that Mr. Obama and his appointees kept pointing to the successes achieved by California as examples of what should be done on a national level. Whenever California’s current policies — full of taxes and regulations that are crippling its economy — are held up as a model, you know the speaker has a lot to learn.

Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of “The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy — If We Let It Happen” (Threshold, 2008).

Share on Facebook

Share This

For 100 years, Harvard Business School has produced a veritable who’s who of American corporate leaders and innovators. Now, on the occasion of the school’s centennial, CNBC takes you inside the hallowed halls for a student’s eye view of the mystique and the pressure-filled realities of higher education at it’s highest level. Featuring interviews with HBS graduates Jeff Immelt, Meg Whitman, Steve Schwarzman and others.

Reported By: Carl Quintanilla

Wednesday, Dec., 17—10P ET/PT

CNBC First In Business Worldwide

Also being interviewed is Harvard Business School Graduate and Baker Scholar, Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished in the top five of his class in HBS’s joint MBA/JD program. Call your friends and family and let them now this is the man we think is best qualified to be President in 2012 and the credentials I just mentioned are a big part of why he is our pick to lead the country.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

NEW YORK — U.S. stock futures pointed to an opening slump on the first day of December, as gloomy world-wide economic data took the wind out of last week’s rally.

S&P 500 futures dropped 21.7 points to 873.60 and Nasdaq 100 futures fell 27 points to 1,159. Dow industrial futures dropped 178 points. Last week, the S&P 500 climbed 12%, the Dow industrials rose 9.2% and the Nasdaq Composite rose 11%. The direction of futures doesn’t always accurately predict the direction of stocks at the opening bell.

Share on Facebook

Share This

DJIA up 304 points. Whoo Hoo! Good to have something to cheer about. Don’t throw caution to the winds, this could just be a bear market rally. That being said, the Dow Industrials’ P/E has declined form 45.77 ( year ago), to 16.85 as of 11/21/08 and the 12 mo. forward estimate is 8.95 with a dividend yield of 4.03%.**

These have historically been levels at which bear markets tend to stabilize and where the conditions that set up the next bull market materialize.

~~John Cronin~~

**Sources: Birinyi Associates, WSJ Market Data Group

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={223B0E95-C272-47B7-BCFA-2ECF65583015}&siteid=rss

U.S. stock futures pointed to opening gains on Monday after the last session’s blast higher, with Citigroup set to rise after the government injected $20 billion as part of a rescue package.

A late-hour rally pushed U.S. stocks to huge gains on Friday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumping 494 points, the Nasdaq Composite rising 68 points and the S&P 500 rising 47 points. The gains came after news leaked that Timothy Geithner will be President-elect Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary, though not all observers were convinced the gains were on the new selection alone.

“Anyone watching the markets Friday will be seriously suspicious of the validity of the huge rally. It was option expiration, and the rally seemed to feed on it itself and in a few select stocks,” said Tom Hougaard, market strategist at City Index in London.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I Googled Gov. Romney’s NYT article on his advise to let Detroit’s auto industry go bankrupt and I found that there were 39,500 entries for “Romney Detroit Bankruptcy.” Since a conservative Republican like Mitt Romney could never in his wildest dreams count on the political support of the UAW, I guess he is completely free to speak his mind.

Although no American of goodwill takes any satisfaction in the plight of the auto industry and it’s workers, the sooner the bloated cost structure is jettisoned, the sooner a leaner, meaner American auto industry can re-emerge. I sincerely hope the industry is allowed to restructure itself and can come back with great cars and trucks that can compete with anything on the market and that the “Made in America” stamp on our products can once again become the envy of the world.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

By: Mitt Romney

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences,

I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

Share on Facebook

Share This