Waiting for Roubini will cost you!

The difference is Roubini doesn't have the money to influence the markets like Buffet. Roubini can only speculate, Buffet can actually make things happen.

Buffet can influence and move the market simply by investing some of his vast fortune. Is that really natural economics or just manipulation? I don't think Buffet is a genious who can read the market. He is just a man with nearly unlimited funds who can control what he sets out to control. When thousands of people follow your every move it is very easy to seem like an oracle when the things you say will happen do happen after the people follow you.

It was right to listen to the people who warned the economy was falling off a cliff, it still is. What happenned earlier this year is exactly what happenned right before the great depression. Pure market manipulation in order to create a huge cash grab so the richest of the richest can make it through a prolonged down period without changing thier lifestyle.

If we do get a hyperinflation scenario what was a $10 billion fortune may only be worth the equivenlent of a $1 billion fortune. I still think $1 billion is enough to last any single person thier entire life, but for this crowd there is never enough fortune to hold. People who say, "How can I ever live on under $100 million per year?"

The disconnect between the market and the true economy has perhaps never been greater. It could have been this way before the true collapse that led to the depression, anyone alive now was probably too young to remember or understand the economics of the day.

The collapse of the labor market, finance market, and housing market has affected millions of people who do not even care about the stock market. It has affected millions more who don't have any ability to profit from a recovery in stocks that only rewards those who broke the system in the first place.

If you lost your job and your house I do not think you care that the DOW went on a 44% spike nobody can explain and that Warren Buffet pocketed another $4 billion. So the traders can laugh with glee and point at all the little people who didn't get in on the ride. They can roll in that cash, but it doesn't make them right. Only lucky to be able to profit off of a profession that has left the rest of the world behind and taken greed and the lack of any moral compass to the greatest heights. I'd say shame on you but I doubt anyone working on Wall Street would care. For those without ethics will never care about hurting anyone other then themselves.

Iridium,

As always, I appreciate your thoughts. Thankyou for taking the time.

1) Buffett can influence investors and short term stock pricing to a degree, at times. BUT... he cannot move trillion dollar markets with his few billions here and there. Examples:

* He invested in Goldman Sachs and he has done well. He may end up its largest shareholder. However, he invested in GE at the same time, in the same way, under the same terms and the stock plummeted 60%!!! ...and it is still down even with the overall market bouncing back.

* He invested in financial stocks and nothing he could do no matter how much he poured in prevented their demise and hurt him personally...in cash and reputation.

* He bought ConocoPhillips (COP) at the height of oil prices and watched the price of oil fall 80% along with his investment.

There are many more examples I do not believe your comment regarding his influence is supportable by the facts.

2) Millions of people are not in the stock market, but millions of people are very much invested in their 401K's, IRA's, Roth IRA's, AND pension funds -- like almost every teacher, fireman, policeman, professor, and more through the country.

3) The system was not broken by Wall Street but by Congress. They forced banks to lend to people that could not afford it. They allowed Fannie and Freddie to be exposed to the largest risks of all. The resulting derivatives, swaps, CDO's etc. were created to spread the risk around that Congress forced on the marketplace and the investment community figured out a way to survive with stupid loans in the market place.

I agree in general that the ratings agencies, investment houses and banks were complicit for not taking a stronger stand and for exposing their own investors and the nation to undue risk.

4) Many people that lost their homes took on more risk than they could afford...encouraged by the Government and the thrifts.

5) The lack of a moral compass is a subject that has permeated all industries and professions. From the president down to the guy swiping bottles and cans from recycling containers to resubmit them again.

I would agree that the thievery and lack of ethics on Wall Street is at a grander scale but not more than anywhere else.

Shame on you Sheldon - Buffett CAN AND DOES, influence markets. Perhaps, not to a great degree, but he does have influence. YOU happen to be a great example! Influence is NOT money. Tell me that old Lou R. did not influence anything? He did not have a hell of a lot of money, but he sure did have influence - influence born from respect.
It does not take an economics professor, nor a highly respected investor to predict conditions in this economy. It was bad. It did get better. It is still not particularly good.
While all of the above are true, this does not mean that all investments will go bad. As always, there will be good and bad. These prevail under the best of conditions and also the worst. If there was no money to be made we would resort back to barter. Trade is essential and has been around since the very beginning.
Now let's get back to Warren and Roubini (his first name is a bear) and figure out who is correct. Perhaps both are. In the short term Buffett said buy. If you bought the right stocks you made out. If you bought the wrong ones - you lost. Warren was not exactly explicit as he job is taking care of himself/Berkshire. From what you have posted regarding your own picks you did well. Roubini is not concerned with investing. He just does the basic swings of the economy in general and he would have been absolutely correct had the government/fed not intervened. Bernanke just stated he did not feel that the next great depression should have started on his watch. As he said, "hold my nose" and go for it was the only viable alternative.
Regardless of what you may think there will always be a contrary opinion and that is what makes this world go around. One could be either an optimist or pessimist, and still make money. I do believe that the current market is riding a high and will soon slip back into the mid 8,000 range. I do believe that there will be another major dip in the near future and would not be surprised to see the 6,000 level. I do think that inflation will be prevalent comes about March 2010. While I plan for this, I do continue to hope that I am wrong. However, I am too damn old to be taking chances. Better safe than sorry is an appropriate adage.
The inflationary factor is coming and it is in agriculture products. Humans HAVE to eat, no getting away from that one.

WL,

NO SHAME HERE... The first thing I said in my response was:

"Buffett can influence investors and short term stock pricing to a degree"

Very similar in sentiment to your first sentence so I am confused and must assume you did not read my response.

The rest of your comments have merit. I did say in the original story about Buffett and Roubini that Roubini only had to be right within a broad period of time, perhaps 6 months to be credible.

The point here is that Roubini and others have a lot of influence too and scared a lot of people out of the market and they lost money!!!

Following Buffett (as I did, for my own reasons) would have made you money.

Figured you would respond.

I don't have much time these days but today it is wet and I have to put many things on hold - therefore --

Influence you cannot measure and I really doubt that Roubini, Schiff, et.al. scared many. The ones that they did probably have little to do with market investment anyway. Warren on the other hand was considered by our government for running the Treasury, or at least that was the rumor. As I said, influence is a tough nut. I hate to use this an an example but one only has to look at Hitler to see what this word can do. Frequently, it is bad and it is all based on belief, and of course, followers. Jim Jones, Mao, take your pick. With this said, can you safely tell me that influence could be ten or twenty times of what is assumed. If it were the higher figure, than billions would become quite a pile.
I read the blog, but it was #1 reply that I was responding to. Iridium has a point too. None of us really know the answer but I think current conditions in South Africa are worth a look. It's winter there.