info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
TGT
10 views
Skip to first unread message
momarch
Feb 28, 2012, 5:08:32 PM2/28/12
to
sold off whilst I was at the building department today. I placed a
day order to sell at a 50% gain (ok 48% after comissions) when I left
and see it filled. Coulda gone higher with that one, but 50% is
good. I was up about 25% when I left so sorta didnt think it would
fill.
C
day order to sell at a 50% gain (ok 48% after comissions) when I left
and see it filled. Coulda gone higher with that one, but 50% is
good. I was up about 25% when I left so sorta didnt think it would
fill.
C
ericb
Feb 28, 2012, 5:58:13 PM2/28/12
to
momarch
Feb 28, 2012, 11:04:51 PM2/28/12
to
> Are you thinking about going in on TGT in one way or another in anticipation of their sales report on Friday?
The Visitor
Mar 1, 2012, 10:21:08 AM3/1/12
to
Congrats! The store will be moving into Canada soon too.
"momarch" <moma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2138f9a1-cffb-4fe3...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
"momarch" <moma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2138f9a1-cffb-4fe3...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
momarch
Mar 1, 2012, 1:20:31 PM3/1/12
to
I did buy some more calls..57.50 and sold them for 44% gain, and have
rebought them again...57.50s again....I'll hold these til tomorrow and
see what happens.
I like target better than walmart by far as a store...well and as a
stock :)
rebought them again...57.50s again....I'll hold these til tomorrow and
see what happens.
I like target better than walmart by far as a store...well and as a
stock :)
The Visitor
Mar 1, 2012, 6:01:53 PM3/1/12
to
You are on a roll!!!
news:4fde8e6d-e658-4c06...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
news:4fde8e6d-e658-4c06...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
momarch
Mar 1, 2012, 8:16:35 PM3/1/12
to
I started last year on a roll too....and rolled all the way to
sept.....then unrolled big time...lol
sept.....then unrolled big time...lol
momarch
Mar 5, 2012, 10:36:38 AM3/5/12
to
Shoulda sold friday...all the shoulda woulda couldas......
My sale is set for 6c above where the bid is right now. I have a feeling it isnt going to happen today. This may be the turnaround point for a bit of a pullback. Still have the puts, but they have a ways to go to be green...made up for them more than 4x over now with the call side...if this one goes bad about 3 1/2 times....so not too bad.
C
My sale is set for 6c above where the bid is right now. I have a feeling it isnt going to happen today. This may be the turnaround point for a bit of a pullback. Still have the puts, but they have a ways to go to be green...made up for them more than 4x over now with the call side...if this one goes bad about 3 1/2 times....so not too bad.
C
momarch
Mar 5, 2012, 5:18:08 PM3/5/12
to
well sold that at 5% gain....with MOS, CSCO and VZ...had an excellent day :)
ala
Mar 5, 2012, 9:52:25 PM3/5/12
to
news:23702273.4100.1330985888489.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxv4...
When Zombies Win
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe,
is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have
been wrong about everything - yet they now dominate the political scene more
thoroughly than ever.
How did that happen? How, after runaway banks brought the economy to its
knees, did we end up with Ron Paul, who says "I don't think we need
regulators," about to take over a key House panel overseeing the Fed? How,
after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations - the first
raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes
and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis - did we end up with
bipartisan agreement on even more tax cuts?
The answer from the right is that the economic failures of the Obama
administration show that big-government policies don't work. But the
response should be, what big-government policies?
For the fact is that the Obama stimulus - which itself was almost 40 percent
tax cuts - was far too cautious to turn the economy around. And that's not
20-20 hindsight: many economists, myself included, warned from the beginning
that the plan was grossly inadequate. Put it this way: A policy under which
government employment actually fell, under which government spending on
goods and services grew more slowly than during the Bush years, hardly
constitutes a test of Keynesian economics.
Now, maybe it wasn't possible for President Obama to get more in the face of
Congressional skepticism about government. But even if that's true, it only
demonstrates the continuing hold of a failed doctrine over our politics.
It's also worth pointing out that everything the right said about why
Obamanomics would fail was wrong. For two years we've been warned that
government borrowing would send interest rates sky-high; in fact, rates have
fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about recovery, but stayed
consistently low by historical standards. For two years we've been warned
that inflation, even hyperinflation, was just around the corner; instead,
disinflation has continued, with core inflation - which excludes volatile
food and energy prices - now at a half-century low.
The free-market fundamentalists have been as wrong about events abroad as
they have about events in America - and suffered equally few consequences.
"Ireland," declared George Osborne in 2006, "stands as a shining example of
the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking." Whoops. But Mr.
Osborne is now Britain's top economic official.
And in his new position, he's setting out to emulate the austerity policies
Ireland implemented after its bubble burst. After all, conservatives on both
sides of the Atlantic spent much of the past year hailing Irish austerity as
a resounding success. "The Irish approach worked in 1987-89 - and it's
working now," declared Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute last June.
Whoops, again.
But such failures don't seem to matter. To borrow the title of a recent book
by the Australian economist John Quiggin on doctrines that the crisis should
have killed but didn't, we're still - perhaps more than ever - ruled by
"zombie economics." Why?
Part of the answer, surely, is that people who should have been trying to
slay zombie ideas have tried to compromise with them instead. And this is
especially, though not only, true of the president.
People tend to forget that Ronald Reagan often gave ground on policy
substance - most notably, he ended up enacting multiple tax increases. But
he never wavered on ideas, never backed down from the position that his
ideology was right and his opponents were wrong.
President Obama, by contrast, has consistently tried to reach across the
aisle by lending cover to right-wing myths. He has praised Reagan for
restoring American dynamism (when was the last time you heard a Republican
praising F.D.R.?), adopted G.O.P. rhetoric about the need for the government
to tighten its belt even in the face of recession, offered symbolic freezes
on spending and federal wages.
None of this stopped the right from denouncing him as a socialist. But it
helped empower bad ideas, in ways that can do quite immediate harm. Right
now Mr. Obama is hailing the tax-cut deal as a boost to the economy - but
Republicans are already talking about spending cuts that would offset any
positive effects from the deal. And how effectively can he oppose these
demands, when he himself has embraced the rhetoric of belt-tightening?
Yes, politics is the art of the possible. We all understand the need to deal
with one's political enemies. But it's one thing to make deals to advance
your goals; it's another to open the door to zombie ideas. When you do that,
the zombies end up eating your brain - and quite possibly your economy too.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 20, 2010, on page A29
of the New York edition.
> well sold that at 5% gain....with MOS, CSCO and VZ...had an excellent day
> :)
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1&hp
> :)
>
When Zombies Win
By PAUL KRUGMAN
When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe,
is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have
been wrong about everything - yet they now dominate the political scene more
thoroughly than ever.
How did that happen? How, after runaway banks brought the economy to its
knees, did we end up with Ron Paul, who says "I don't think we need
regulators," about to take over a key House panel overseeing the Fed? How,
after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations - the first
raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes
and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis - did we end up with
bipartisan agreement on even more tax cuts?
The answer from the right is that the economic failures of the Obama
administration show that big-government policies don't work. But the
response should be, what big-government policies?
For the fact is that the Obama stimulus - which itself was almost 40 percent
tax cuts - was far too cautious to turn the economy around. And that's not
20-20 hindsight: many economists, myself included, warned from the beginning
that the plan was grossly inadequate. Put it this way: A policy under which
government employment actually fell, under which government spending on
goods and services grew more slowly than during the Bush years, hardly
constitutes a test of Keynesian economics.
Now, maybe it wasn't possible for President Obama to get more in the face of
Congressional skepticism about government. But even if that's true, it only
demonstrates the continuing hold of a failed doctrine over our politics.
It's also worth pointing out that everything the right said about why
Obamanomics would fail was wrong. For two years we've been warned that
government borrowing would send interest rates sky-high; in fact, rates have
fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about recovery, but stayed
consistently low by historical standards. For two years we've been warned
that inflation, even hyperinflation, was just around the corner; instead,
disinflation has continued, with core inflation - which excludes volatile
food and energy prices - now at a half-century low.
The free-market fundamentalists have been as wrong about events abroad as
they have about events in America - and suffered equally few consequences.
"Ireland," declared George Osborne in 2006, "stands as a shining example of
the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking." Whoops. But Mr.
Osborne is now Britain's top economic official.
And in his new position, he's setting out to emulate the austerity policies
Ireland implemented after its bubble burst. After all, conservatives on both
sides of the Atlantic spent much of the past year hailing Irish austerity as
a resounding success. "The Irish approach worked in 1987-89 - and it's
working now," declared Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute last June.
Whoops, again.
But such failures don't seem to matter. To borrow the title of a recent book
by the Australian economist John Quiggin on doctrines that the crisis should
have killed but didn't, we're still - perhaps more than ever - ruled by
"zombie economics." Why?
Part of the answer, surely, is that people who should have been trying to
slay zombie ideas have tried to compromise with them instead. And this is
especially, though not only, true of the president.
People tend to forget that Ronald Reagan often gave ground on policy
substance - most notably, he ended up enacting multiple tax increases. But
he never wavered on ideas, never backed down from the position that his
ideology was right and his opponents were wrong.
President Obama, by contrast, has consistently tried to reach across the
aisle by lending cover to right-wing myths. He has praised Reagan for
restoring American dynamism (when was the last time you heard a Republican
praising F.D.R.?), adopted G.O.P. rhetoric about the need for the government
to tighten its belt even in the face of recession, offered symbolic freezes
on spending and federal wages.
None of this stopped the right from denouncing him as a socialist. But it
helped empower bad ideas, in ways that can do quite immediate harm. Right
now Mr. Obama is hailing the tax-cut deal as a boost to the economy - but
Republicans are already talking about spending cuts that would offset any
positive effects from the deal. And how effectively can he oppose these
demands, when he himself has embraced the rhetoric of belt-tightening?
Yes, politics is the art of the possible. We all understand the need to deal
with one's political enemies. But it's one thing to make deals to advance
your goals; it's another to open the door to zombie ideas. When you do that,
the zombies end up eating your brain - and quite possibly your economy too.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 20, 2010, on page A29
of the New York edition.
shortT
Mar 5, 2012, 10:23:36 PM3/5/12
to
On Mar 5, 9:52 pm, "ala" <alackr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "momarch" <momarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Free-market??
Is that like controlling the interest rates?
> "momarch" <momarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Is that like controlling the interest rates?
0 new messages