Anarchist’s Retirement. I have followed your advive through Daily Wealth and visited our s.s. office twice and walked away with out satifaction. I would gladly pay your full fee for your 1 year subscription if you can explain to me how I can receive an additional $1,033 per month. I brought with me the information posted on my e-mail,to s.s. no help. I would also subscribe to addition info through Daily Wealth or other programs you have. $39 dollars would no big deal if I received detail to info submit to s.s. Your help would be most welcome Alan Wagner

Why doesn’t the Treasury just create its own bank – and do exactly the same thing, but keep the 15-20% risk-free return for the taxpayers?

There’s more to it than that.

Look at the spending trends since WWII and ask “How much does the Federal Government spend per citizen each year?” From Truman through Bush Sr. federal spending rose about $115 per year per citizen (use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and adjust for inflation). The annual change in spending never deviated very far from this linear trend. The person, or party, in office made little difference in spending.

After more than 40 years of nearly linear increase the pattern changed at the start of the Clinton administration. During this time, spending per person actually decreased! Under Clinton, Federal spending decreased roughly $18 per year per citizen. Tax payers were saving $166 per citizen over the spending before he started.

Under GW Bush that pattern reversed, leading to the fastest increase in spending since the beginning of WWII. Under Bush, federal spending increased by over $250 per year per citizen. That means, under GW Bush, the average family’s taxes are increased by over $750 per year (before the bailout.) In the first four years of GW Bush’s administration, spending increased by roughly $1000 per citizen, or more than $3000 for a family of three. (The typical American family is 3 people – man, woman, and one child).

It has been claimed by GW Bush and Reagan that tax cuts improve the economy. It has been claimed by GW Bush and FDR that increased spending will improve the economy. (So Bush cut taxes AND increased spending.) But during the Clinton years spending fell and taxes rose slightly while most economic indicators improved consistently for eight years. During the first three years of the GW Bush administration, spending increased at the fastest pace since 1942 and taxes dropped, while most economic indicators languished.

Prior to GW Bush the largest spending increase ($222 per person in 1939) was during the Great Depression, America’s worst economic crisis. The average spending increase during the Great Depression was $85 per person. That’s much less than the $250 to $309 spending increase per citizen per year under GW Bush.

Now, about the Dems being the “tax and spend” party… shouldn’t we rename the GOP to the “spend, cut, spend, tax, spend, tax more and spend even more” party?

I followed Grain prices since immediately following the crash.

Guess what this article is totally misleading – check what happened to Bunge then check what happened to grain in the last few weeks when the weather turned against the predicted “bumper crop”

Considering the power over producers that Bunge has it is amazing that they still manage to loose money – they are closing operations bigtime in Brazil because their business model can´t deal with unfavorable exchange rates.

ADM – totally dependent on subsidies for Ethanol from corn which represents a net energy/money loss.

If you want to make money on the agriculture catastrophe it will not be through owning ag-stocks it will be from owning ag-commodity futures.

Now the expiration date comes, and the stock is trading @ above $9. The option holder exercises the call option and purchase the stock from you $9.00

You sell for $9 what effectively cost you $7.75: ( $9 – $7.75 ) / $7.75 = $12.5 / $7.75 = 16.129%.