Archive for the ‘Delayed Reaction’ Category.

Delayed Thoughts On the Election

So far the pivot from jerk to adult has still not happened. Cheeto Jesus, the Siberian Candidate, is president. It’s late, but here are some thoughts on the election and its aftermath.

Although a lot of the GOP tried to distance themselves from Trump (until he won the election), I have a feeling that some big shots in the GOP are taking some notes about this election. The last time they won outright was 2004, with another guy who was proud to be stupid. So why not stick with what works for them?

To be frank, I was surprised that he won. I kept refreshing several news sites throughout the night.

To be fair, HRC did not run as good of a campaign as she could have. They spent way too much time on Nebraska trying to get that one electoral vote, and spent little time or energy on or in Wisconsin and Michigan. I am not saying that they should not have spent any time on Nebraska; it is a bad idea to write off entire states. But don’t ignore your strengths.

But there were many external factors that worked against HRC.

One is all the laws restricting voting rights (see this page and this page). Pretty much all of them were instituted by Republicans, and were structured to restrict the voting rights of demographic groups that are more likely to vote for Democrats.

One is the obsession with emails. To be honest, I have no idea what she could have done differently about this. A lot of people in the GOP had the “creationist mindset”: They have their conclusion, and they just needed some facts to back it up. Representative Jason Chaffetz plans to keep investigating HRC’s emails, because “we have to get to the truth”.  She has been investigated for years by people who wanted to find something to use to nail her to the wall, and they still found nothing. Here’s an idea: Maybe she didn’t do anything wrong. Maybe it’s time to admit your assumptions were incorrect. Maybe you have gotten to the truth, but you just refuse to accept it.

I do think the media bears some blame. For all the talk of a “liberal media”, they give Republicans a lot of leeway. They let Trump define himself and HRC. They went with what Trump said, and ignored what HRC said, ignored reality. Trump said she has no plans to increase jobs, but she did. Part of it was increased spending on infrastructure, which is something he talked about in his inaugural address. Trump said that HRC is a lapdog for Wall Street because she gave a speech to Goldman Sachs, but his campaign and now his administration have more Wall Street people on it than she did. He said she is shady and corrupt because she won’t release information about the Clinton Foundation. The fact is, she said she and Bill would shut down the foundation if she won the election. And we are still waiting to see his tax returns (link at White House site still good as of 2014-01-30 ).

I think the FBI director deserves some of the blame. He has been out to get the Clintons for years, and he got his chance. Note to future Democratic presidents: Do not put Republicans in important posts; it could bite you in the back later, and the rest of the GOP will still hate you. As I stated, it should surprise nobody that nothing came of the re-opening of the investigation. And if anybody tells you the FBI was not trying to influence the election, they are either lying or stupid. But apparently, the FBI only talks about investigations of Hillary Clinton, and nobody else. Plus, it’s odd that when they found out the DNC was hacked, they only made one call to a help desk, instead of calling then-DNC chief and incumbent Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The investigation into HRC’s emails, however, went on full-speed ahead.

I think the real reason that the GOP is all worked up about HRC’s email server: It’s the only one the Russians could not get into.

And then there is Russia. I do think Russia “hacked the election” (which does not mean they actually hacked the voting machines themselves). Many of the people working on Trump’s campaign (and now administration) have been to Russia and/or have business ties to Russia (like Paul Mantafort, Carter Page and Michael Flynn; see this graphic of Trump/Mantafort ties to Russia). One of Trump’s sons said that Russians have invested in many Trump properties. Trump has given contradictory statements as to whether or not he has met with Putin.

I don’t know if Trump himself has any direct ties to Putin. But even during the campaign, he seemed to have this odd need/desire for some sort of approval from Putin. Until we see his taxes, we might not get the full story. I don’t know if there is a “pee-pee tape”, but I do suspect the Russians have some sort of financial leverage over Trump. Perhaps he owes them a lot of money. Perhaps he is helping oligarchs launder money (see this page and this page).

The question is not really whether Trump has any financial stake in Russia. The question is how much of a financial stake does Russia have in Trump.

One reason I think it is financial leverage is that I don’t think Trump cares if people think he is a pervert, or an amazingly small-minded and thin-skinned individual. But I do think he wants to be seen as a business and financial genius.

The “pee-pee tape” is a reference to a dossier by a former MI6 agent about Trump’s relationship with Russia which  mentioned golden showers. After it came out, Trump tweeted about it a few times:

  • Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans – FAKE NEWS! Russia says nothing exists. Probably… (tweet here)
  • Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING! (tweet here)
  • Russia just said the unverified report paid for by political opponents is “A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE.” Very unfair! (tweet here)

Notice that in two of them, he said that the Russian government says there is no tape. First off, Putin is a former KGB agent, and has a lot of former KGB agents (and possibly current GRU and FSB agents as well). I am not going to take their word on anything. I wouldn’t ask those guys if water is wet. Secondly, if you are accused of being too close to the Russian government or of being in a position to be blackmailed by them, using their denial as your argument makes it look like the accusations are true.

After Trump announced he was nominating Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, he said Tillerson’s relationship with Russia is a selling point.  Believe it or not, I am not against having a good relationship with Russia. But it seems like Trump wants to please the Russian government, and kind of hates everybody else. Even most of his own constituents.

Someone on twitter pointed out that Trump has been consistent about only two things: How great he is, and how great Russia and Putin are. He seems to hate every other country on the planet. Even the one he will be running.

Trump says Russia will respect the USA more with him in charge. I doubt that. People generally do not respect lapdogs.

According to not-failing Bloomberg, Trump tweeted: “Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing Only ‘stupid’ people, or fools, would think it is bad! We have enough problems around the world without yet another one.” Nobody is saying a good relationship with Russia is a bad thing. It’s just that their leadership is full of liars and thieves who cannot be trusted. Another point: What does Trump mean by a “good relationship with Russia”? If by that he means Russians controlling our government, then, no, I do not want a good relationship with them. Also, if a good relationship with Russia comes at the cost of alienating the USA from every other country, then it is not worth it.

To me, a good relationship with Russia is necessary because you should keep your friends close, and authoritarian, interventionists closer. The US intelligence community has thought for a while that Russia has been meddling in the EU for some time, supporting parties that want to break up the EU. There is a movement to make California an independent country. It opened “California Culture Center” in Moscow (see this page and this page).
“It was opened by the President of Yes California Independence Campaign, Louis Marinelli, and the President of the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, Alexander Ionov.” That is according to the website of the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia. News flash, dipstick: If you are encouraging part of a nation to declare independence, you are not “anti-globalist”. Don’t complain about corporations pushing you around if you want to break up other countries.

If the EU is broken up, and the US starts breaking up, who wins? That’s right, Russia. They become more powerful relative to everybody else. If you don’t like Brussels or Washington telling you what to do, but you have no problem with Moscow telling you what to do, you are an idiot.

Russia was behind the DNC hack, the Podesta hack, and a lot of the fake news (or more accurately: lies and propaganda). I also think that they are in cahoots with Wikileaks (see this page and this page).

It took a Google search, but there is a page that lists leaks by country. (I get a feeling of plausible deniability here.) There are a LOT of leaks about the US (over 9,500 at the time of this writing), and about 57 on Russia, 5 more for the “Russian Federation“. I am not one of those foam-finger, #1, USA-is-never-wrong guys, but don’t tell me that Russia has a better human rights record than we do.

Julian Assange had a show on RT. I don’t take Assange at his word that he has no ties to Russia. He has said that if he had dirt on the GOP he would release it, yet amazingly he seems to have a lot of documents tied to Democrats. He has insisted that nobody has sent him anything about the GOP. But that’s the paradox with Wikileaks, isn’t it? You just have to take his word for it.

Wikileaks has made a few weird moves, like getting personal info about ALL verified twitter users and putting it online. They also threatened legal action against MSNBC for talking about possible links between Russia and Wikileaks (see this page and this page). They could solve this by being more transparent.

Granted, sometimes people put themselves at risk by sending documents to Wikileaks. So maybe Wikileaks really has no idea who sends them stuff. Which means they really cannot say with any certainty whether or not the Russian government is the group that got/stole the info they are releasing. Yet somehow Assange is 1000% certain. Okay.

Assange saw the Panama Papers as an attack on Putin (many of Putin’s associates were implicated), yet ignored the grief it caused David Cameron and Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson (the then-Prime Minisiter of Iceland who resigned because of revelations in the Panama Papers).

When Wikileaks started, Assange wrote: “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia.” So what changed?

Wikileaks does seem to like some people more than others. They have also released info about private citizens (see this page and this page). Not a group to be trusted.

I think Assange’s paranoia has turned Wikileaks from a force for good to a Russian mouthpiece. I am not clear why he was so afraid that Sweden would extradite him to the US. The US has an extradition treaty with the UK. I think if the US wanted the UK to send Assange over, they would have. And even if Sweden decides to drop the charges, he is still a fugitve from British justice. That is one problem he caused himself.

Let’s not forget, Trump advisor Roger Stone has stated he has a “back channel” to Julian Assange through a mutual friend (see this page, this page and this page). This is a guy who worked for Nixon during the dirty campaign of 1972, and has a tatoo of Nixon’s face on his back. Need I say more?

Also, some have said that this election was decided by the “white working class”. I don’t know if that is true, since a lot of people who should know better voted for Trump.

There has been some hand-wringing amongst Democrats about how to connect with the white working class. I think this is kind of funny. The Democratic Party has always been the party that stands with unions. Has the Democratic Party abandoned the white working class, or did the WWC abandon the DP? Yes, there is a lot more corporate influence in the DP than there was 30 or 40 years ago, but there is WAY more in the Republican Party. And the exodus of the WWC to the GOP started with Reagan. If the WWC votes for the party that is out to destroy unions, then there is not much you can do for them.

Some, like Bill Black and Thomas Frank, thinks liberals have driven the WWC out of the DP because a lot of liberals are “too smug”. Generally I like what those two have to say, but they are off their rocker on this point. The migration started with Reagan, who was elected when I was 9. Before many of today’s hipsters were born. Nobody is forcing these people to vote for the GOP. Nobody is forcing them to watch Fox News, or listen to the liars on talk radio. If someone keeps voting against their own economic self-interest for 30 years, it’s their own fault.

I have also seen articles telling us city folk that we need to understand rural communities and the WWC. Screw you. No I don’t. A lot of them are bigoted. I can tell you based on the questions and comments I get from these people and that I read and hear about, they (Trump voters) have no desire to understand me at all. They are intent on misunderstanding everyone but them. Why are they still asking, “If evolution is happening, why don’t cats give birth to dogs?” Tell me if you have heard this one: “You’re not really an atheist. You really believe in god, you’re just mad at him.” They might hear, but they refuse to understand.

Also: The popular vote. Which Trump lost. I have read that this point does not matter. I think it does. If it did not, why did he make his claim that there were millions of illegal votes? (I have heard of three people being arrested for voter fraud, all for Trump.) Trump seems to think that life is all about ratings and approval. He uses that as justification for his policies. The fact is that most people did not want him in office. Most people do not support his policies. He does not have any sort of mandate.

We on the left need to be more vocal, more forceful. When a GOP president or governor squeeks by, they act like God made them king. What a Democrat barely makes it in, the GOP uses that slim margin as a reason to obstruct. Perhaps we should obstruct. Be jerks if need be. Just don’t believe in nonsense, and don’t refuse to change your mind when the facts change.

First image from Wikimedia, assumed allowed under Fair Use. Painting “La femme et le pantin” (The Woman and the Puppet) by Angel Zárraga (1886–1946).  Second image  from Wikiart, assumed allowed under Fair Use. Painting “Hourglass” by Romul Nutiu.

Share

Thoughts On Dividend Income

This is a post about dividend income

There has been some drama in the dividend growth investing (DGI) blogosphere. The guy who ran Dividend Mantra sold it to an outside company, and for months there was little original content. The sellers said the original author (henceforth DM) would still provide content, but there was nothing.

There were a lot of comments expressing discontent, and those posts were later deleted.

This led to some discussion on other sites. One was Mr Money Mustache.

Most people there are indexers and said DGI is not as good. Obviously, I disagree.

One person said DM was stupid for only using taxable accounts and putting no money into tax-advantaged accounts. That I agree with.

A few disputed the notion in DGI that selling shares is like sawiing off a tree branch while you are sitting on it. I agree with that metaphor. You can only sell shares once. But many companies pay dividends for years. It’s sort of like a cow or a chicken. You can get milk or eggs from them multiple times, but you can only eat them one time. You can only sell a share once. My goal is to never sell and to live off the dividend income.

Some on the forum that the DGI investors might not reach the goal of living off dividends. That is true, but that is not a valid objection to DGI. ANY plan could fail. If that invalidates DGI, it invalidates everything.

One person pointed out that while index investing can be judged by total return, DGI should be judged by the growth of the dividend income. Many on the forum disagreed, and insisted total return is the ONLY way to judge a portfolio. I disagree. While it is bad if a stock goes to 0, the point of DGI is to not rely on price alone. We saw a lot of people get hosed relying only on price in the dot com bust with stocks, and for just about every asset class in the Great Recession. Meanwhile, many DGI stocks kept paying. The funny thing about relying on price is that when you really need money, usually the price goes down. Dividends are not guaranteed, but neither are capital gains. And you might not get them when you REALLY need them.

Maybe things will change in the future, but if the same thing happens for two cycles in living memory, you should pay attention.

Plus, I invest in some pretty big companies. If my stocks go to 0, then whatever you are investing in is probably hosed too.

I don’t think a lot of indexers understand DGI. Some of them accused DGI investors of chasing yield. As I have mentioned in the past, for many DGI investors, a high yield is actually interpreted as a sign to get out. Most prudent DGI investors also look at P/E ratio, payout ratio, and dividend history.

To me, “chasing yield” is holding a stock that pays 10% for a year and then selling. Most of the stocks that DGI investors are interested in have yields from 2% to 4%, and we intend to hold for a long time. Ideally, for life.

I am considering going more towards DGI ETFs. That is sort of like indexing. It’s like “indexing without the bad stuff”. But I really have no desire to buy the whole domestic market if I can avoid it. My 401K through work offers regular index funds, but no DGI funds; in this blog I mostly talk about accounts that I have full control over. As I said, I do not want to rely on capital gains. I want cash flow. Not potential cash flow. Not theoretical cash flow. Not cash flow dependent on getting a higher price. But actual cash flow. As Josh Peters wrote in The Ultimate Dividend Playbook, when a private equity firm want to take a company private, their offer price will be based on the company’s cash flow. Why not get that money now? Why wait until I sell? If the only time you benefit from owning a stock is when you sell (in other words, when you stop owning it), then it is pretty dumb to own that stock in the first place. Why should my money go into firms that are not paying dividends? As far as I am concerned, US stocks that do not pay dividends are dead weight.

Granted, with foreign firms, it is a different story. There are not as many DGI ETFs for foreign stocks. Directly buying a stock listed on a foreign exchange would cause more tax headaches than it is worth. But for stocks on domestic exchanges, and as for my house, we stick with DGI.

One person said indexing is better, and asked if us DGI investors thought we were smarter than the market, and advised us to listen to what the market is telling us. Well, it has shown that companies that have grown their dividends do better than the total market. S & P has a page on the Dividend Aristocrats, and it has a chart applet that you can use to compare the Dividend Aristocrats against the S & P 500. Guess what? The Dividend Aristocrats do better than the overall market. So, no, I don’t think I am smarter than the market. Unlike you, pompous indexer, I am listening to what the market is telling me.

The High Yield Dividend Aristocrats also did better than the S & P 500, but not quite as much.

Also, if you look at the fact sheets for those indexes, the “High Yield” Dividend Aristocrats index yields about 3%, while the regular Dividend Aristocrats index yields about 2.52%. The High Yield Dividend Aristocrats index has stocks that have increased dividends for 20 years, while the Dividend Aristocrats index has stocks that have increased dividends for 25 years. So I guess “High Yield” is relative.

There was a lot of discussion about the returns of DM. Some said the only reason his portfolio gained was because he added capital to his accounts. Below is a very large table with information about some of my dividend holdings. This shows stocks for periods in which I did not buy any additional shares. I did re-invest the dividends.

For each stock, there are two rows. The first is the first dividend payment I got. The second is a more recent. This chart was made earlier in the year, so it does not have the latest. For some, it might have a transaction from a couple of years ago. For each stock, I looked at the earliest and latest for a time period in which I only got new shares through dividend reinvesting. For the second row of each stock, the “Income Increase” is calculated by dividing the second income amount by the first. The “Div Percent Increase” is calculated by dividing the second dividend payout amount by the first. Some stocks split, so that may affect the amounts. I think the “Income Increase” is more consistently useful.

So for ABM, the income from the dividends increased 34%, while the payout amount per share increased 19%. I would say that is a pretty good return.

Constituent Name Symbol Bought Shares Price Num Shares Div Income Div/Share Total Shares IncomeIncrease Div Percent Increase Yearly Div
ABM Industries Inc ABM 2010-05-03 21.91 0.3080 6.75 0.1350 50.3080 0.00 0.00 0.54
ABM Industries Inc ABM 2015-11-02 29.01 0.3110 9.03 0.1600 56.7490 1.34 1.19 0.64
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co ADM 2010-09-09 31.95 0.2850 9.03 0.1500 60.4960 0.00 0.00 0.60
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co ADM 2015-03-10 47.00 0.3860 18.16 0.2800 65.2310 2.01 1.87 1.12
Automatic Data Processing ADP 2010-10-01 42.03 0.4290 18.08 0.3400 53.6200 0.00 0.00 1.36
Automatic Data Processing ADP 2016-01-04 86.98 0.3620 31.49 0.5300 59.7790 1.74 1.56 2.12
AFLAC Inc AFL 2010-12-01 51.50 0.2880 15.07 0.3000 50.5370 0.00 0.00 1.20
AFLAC Inc AFL 2014-03-03 63.86 0.3110 19.52 0.3700 53.0720 1.30 1.23 1.48
Air Products & Chemicals Inc APD 2010-05-10 74.57 0.0920 6.86 0.4900 14.0920 0.00 0.00 1.96
Air Products & Chemicals Inc APD 2015-11-09 138.81 0.0930 12.91 0.8100 16.0290 1.88 1.65 3.24
American States Water Co AWR 2010-09-01 33.33 0.3890 13.00 0.2600 50.3890 0.00 0.00 1.04
American States Water Co AWR 2015-12-01 40.64 0.6200 25.20 0.2240 113.1150 1.94 0.86 0.90
Black Hills Corp BKH 2010-06-01 28.69 0.3810 10.80 0.3600 30.3810 0.00 0.00 1.44
Black Hills Corp BKH 2015-12-01 42.63 0.3450 14.71 0.4050 36.6550 1.36 1.13 1.62
Constituent Name Symbol Bought Shares Price Num Shares Div Income Div/Share Total Shares IncomeIncrease Div Percent Increase Yearly Div
Chubb Corp CB 2010-04-06 51.90 0.1430 7.40 0.3700 20.1430 0.00 0.00 1.48
Chubb Corp CB 2014-07-15 94.03 0.1170 10.91 0.5000 21.9390 1.47 1.35 2.00
Colgate-Palmolive CL 2010-11-15 78.58 0.3460 26.57 0.5300 50.4830 0.00 0.00 2.12
Colgate-Palmolive CL 2015-11-16 66.86 0.6250 41.79 0.3800 110.6070 1.57 0.72 1.52
Clorox Co CLX 2011-02-14 71.26 0.4210 27.78 0.5500 50.9250 0.00 0.00 2.20
Clorox Co CLX 2015-11-13 122.20 0.3580 43.75 0.7700 57.1720 1.57 1.40 3.08
Chevron CVX 2010-06-10 70.79 0.2000 14.40 0.7200 20.2000 0.00 0.00 2.88
Chevron CVX 2015-12-10 86.87 0.2940 25.54 1.0700 24.1670 1.77 1.49 4.28
Dover Corp DOV 2010-06-15 45.41 0.1240 5.46 0.2600 21.1240 0.00 0.00 1.04
Dover Corp DOV 2015-12-20 63.78 0.1530 9.76 0.4200 23.3960 1.79 1.62 1.68
Consolidated Edison Inc ED 2010-06-15 43.35 0.3480 14.88 0.5950 25.3480 0.00 0.00 2.38
Consolidated Edison Inc ED 2015-12-15 61.85 0.3280 20.29 0.6500 31.5390 1.36 1.09 2.60
Emerson Electric Co EMR 2012-03-09 49.67 0.0000 20.27 0.4000 50.6650 0.00 0.00 1.60
Emerson Electric Co EMR 2015-12-10 48.64 0.5450 26.51 0.4750 56.3560 1.31 1.19 1.90
Eaton Corporation ETN 2011-05-27 50.67 0.3410 17.00 0.3400 50.3410 0.00 0.00 1.36
Eaton Corporation ETN 2015-08-25 55.06 0.5470 30.12 0.5500 55.3170 1.77 1.62 2.20
Constituent Name Symbol Bought Shares Price Num Shares Div Income Div/Share Total Shares IncomeIncrease Div Percent Increase Yearly Div
Hormel Foods Corp HRL 2010-05-15 41.25 0.1120 4.62 0.2100 22.1120 0.00 0.00 0.84
Hormel Foods Corp HRL 2015-11-16 67.64 0.1780 12.04 0.2500 48.3550 2.61 1.19 1.00
Illinois Tool Works ITW 2011-01-11 54.37 0.3140 17.00 0.3400 50.3140 0.00 0.00 1.36
Illinois Tool Works ITW 2016-01-07 87.52 0.3350 30.31 0.5500 55.4520 1.78 1.62 2.20
Johnson & Johnson JNJ 2010-06-15 58.42 0.2750 16.20 0.5400 30.2750 0.00 0.00 2.16
Johnson & Johnson JNJ 2014-12-09 108.05 0.2220 23.94 0.7000 34.4250 1.48 1.30 2.80
Kellogg Company K 2014-06-16 67.21 0.6800 46.00 0.4600 100.6800 0.00 0.00 1.84
Kellogg Company K 2015-12-15 70.96 0.7370 52.30 0.5000 105.3460 1.14 1.09 2.00
Kimberly-Clark KMB 2011-04-04 65.38 0.5380 35.44 0.7000 51.1730 0.00 0.00 2.80
Kimberly-Clark KMB 2016-01-05 126.48 0.3930 50.99 0.8800 58.3340 1.44 1.26 3.52
Lowe's Cos Inc LOW 2010-11-03 21.92 0.2580 5.50 0.1100 50.2580 0.00 0.00 0.44
Lowe's Cos Inc LOW 2015-11-04 74.21 0.2040 15.14 0.2800 54.2890 2.75 2.55 1.12
MDU Resources Group Inc. MDU 2010-07-01 18.03 0.4200 7.88 0.1580 50.4200 0.00 0.00 0.63
MDU Resources Group Inc. MDU 2016-01-04 18.56 0.5860 10.88 0.1900 58.5910 1.38 1.20 0.76
3M Co MMM 2010-06-12 78.30 0.0840 6.30 0.5250 12.0840 0.00 0.00 2.10
3M Co MMM 2015-12-14 156.51 0.0890 13.92 1.0250 13.6650 2.21 1.95 4.10
Constituent Name Symbol Bought Shares Price Num Shares Div Income Div/Share Total Shares IncomeIncrease Div Percent Increase Yearly Div
Northwest Natural Gas Co NWN 2010-08-13 45.93 0.4400 20.85 0.4150 50.6990 0.00 0.00 1.66
Northwest Natural Gas Co NWN 2015-11-13 46.77 0.5950 27.83 0.4675 60.1230 1.33 1.13 1.87
Procter & Gamble PG 2010-11-15 64.33 0.3830 24.69 0.4820 51.6340 0.00 0.00 1.93
Procter & Gamble PG 2015-11-16 76.09 0.5100 38.81 0.6629 59.0910 1.57 1.38 2.65
Piedmont Natural Gas Inc PNY 2010-10-15 28.10 0.4980 14.74 0.2800 50.4980 0.00 0.00 1.12
Piedmont Natural Gas Inc PNY 2015-10-27 39.33 0.4940 20.47 0.3300 59.4300 1.39 1.18 1.32
RLI Corp RLI 2011-03-18 54.72 0.2560 13.93 0.2900 48.2830 0.00 0.00 1.16
RLI Corp RLI 2015-12-22 59.71 0.3890 23.26 0.1900 122.8370 1.67 0.66 0.76
RPM International Inc. RPM 2010-07-30 18.56 0.5340 10.25 0.2050 50.5340 0.00 0.00 0.82
RPM International Inc. RPM 2015-10-30 45.65 0.3510 15.68 0.2750 57.3680 1.53 1.34 1.10
Questar Corp STR 2011-06-13 17.60 0.4420 7.63 0.1530 50.4420 0.00 0.00 0.61
Questar Corp STR 2015-12-14 18.71 0.6420 12.01 0.2100 57.8280 1.57 1.37 0.84
Sysco Corp SYY 2010-10-22 29.48 0.4320 12.50 0.2500 50.4320 0.00 0.00 1.00
Sysco Corp SYY 2016-01-22 39.55 0.4510 17.98 0.3000 58.4600 1.44 1.20 1.20
Texas Instruments TXN 2010-08-16 24.28 0.2400 6.00 0.1200 50.2400 0.00 0.00 0.48
Texas Instruments TXN 2015-11-16 57.86 0.3660 21.18 0.3800 56.1120 3.53 3.17 1.52
Valspar Corp VAL 2011-01-14 35.30 0.2890 9.96 0.1800 55.6470 0.00 0.00 0.72
Valspar Corp VAL 2015-12-16 82.83 0.2350 19.49 0.3300 59.3040 1.96 1.83 1.32
Vectren Corp VVC 2010-12-01 25.90 0.6540 17.25 0.3450 50.6540 0.00 0.00 1.38
Vectren Corp VVC 2015-12-01 42.13 0.5610 23.64 0.4000 59.6720 1.37 1.16 1.60
Constituent Name Symbol Bought Shares Price Num Shares Div Income Div/Share Total Shares IncomeIncrease Div Percent Increase Yearly Div
Walgreen Co WAG 2010-12-11 36.43 0.2570 9.33 0.1750 53.5580 0.00 0.00 0.70
Walgreen Co WBA 2015-12-11 83.96 0.2490 20.87 0.3600 58.2140 2.24 2.06 1.44
WGL Holdings Inc WGL 2010-05-01 35.83 0.2950 10.57 0.3775 28.2950 0.00 0.00 1.51
WGL Holdings Inc WGL 2015-11-02 61.36 0.2560 15.71 0.4625 34.2320 1.49 1.23 1.85
Exxon Mobil Corp XOM 2011-03-10 84.38 0.2860 24.39 0.4400 55.7210 0.00 0.00 1.76
Exxon Mobil Corp XOM 2013-12-10 95.84 0.3870 36.51 0.6300 58.3360 1.50 1.43 2.52
Intel INTC 2010-06-01 21.42 0.3330 7.09 0.1580 45.3330 0.00 0.00 0.63
Intel INTC 2013-12-02 23.63 0.4730 11.17 0.2250 50.1180 1.58 1.42 0.90
AT&T T 2010-08-02 25.94 0.8030 21.00 0.4200 50.8030 0.00 0.00 1.68
AT&T T 2014-11-03 34.84 0.8050 27.75 0.4600 61.1270 1.32 1.10 1.84
Coca-Cola Co KO 2011-04-01 66.34 0.3620 23.70 0.4700 50.7780 0.00 0.00 1.88
Coca-Cola Co KO 2015-10-01 39.51 0.9380 37.08 0.3300 113.3050 1.56 0.70 1.32
Sonoco Products Co SON 2010-12-10 33.04 0.5150 16.95 0.2800 61.0530 0.00 0.00 1.12
Sonoco Products Co SON 2015-09-10 38.68 0.6200 23.98 0.3500 69.1240 1.41 1.25 1.40
Constituent Name Symbol Bought Shares Price Num Shares Div Income Div/Share Total Shares IncomeIncrease Div Percent Increase Yearly Div

Image generated from an applet on S & P site, assumed allowed under Fair Use. This shows that the Dividend Aristocrats (the blue line) outperformed the S & P 500 (the green line) over the past ten years.

This site has a disclaimer.

Share

Thoughts On Oregon Terrorists

The “occupiers” do not seem like the sharpest knives in the drawer.

They show up with guns out of nowhere, and complain that there are checkpoints.

“We don’t like the feds telling us what to do. So let’s go to some sparsely populated corner of Oregon and push whoever lives there around!!” Why is it the people who complain about “tyranny” always want everybody to do things their way? And why is it that people who go on and on about what strict Constitutionalists they are, it’s usually right before they start going on and on about god. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about how we have to do what your god says? Or, more accurately, what you think he says?

My understanding is these ranchers are getting very good rates from the feds. Lower than they would get from the states. And MUCH lower than they would get if the land were in private hands. Yet still they complain. And Cliven Bundy has gotten loans from SBA. It is amazing how many of the people who complain about government overreach get money or some sort of assistance from the government.

The standoff started because a few locals were convicted of starting fires on federal land. Fires that almost killed a few people. Yes, federal land belongs to everyone. But you can’t ruin it for everybody else (either by setting fire to it or by overgrazing.)

And if you are going to use federal land to make money, then, yes, you should be forced to pay money. It is only fair, since they ARE being subsidized. State taxes are lower than federal taxes. Do they really think that a state would charge a lower rate?

They were essentially stealing from the federal government. From the other 300 million of us. If you are a rancher and you want federal policy changed, then you tell the other 300 million of us what the issue is, and ASK US POLITELY to contact our senators, representatives and/or the relevant federal agency.

If the first time I hear about your grievance is when you are pointing guns at federal agents, then I am not inclined to listen to you.

Image from Wikipedia, assumed allowed under Fair Use.

Share

Unused Comment and a Quote

Aert_de_Gelder_-_Esther_and_MordecaiGoing through some files, I found a small piece that I think I intended to post as a comment on The Immoral Minority. I did some searching, and I don’t think I ever posted it.

I think I wrote it during the 2012 campaign for president, since I quote something that Rick Santorum said.


To 7:47:
“And overthrow these folks who think they know how to orchestrate every aspect of your lives.”

Did Santorum really say that? The guy who probably has wet dreams about forcing people to church at gunpoint said that?

In all seriousness, how do some of these conservatives function? They go on about “freedom”, yet they seem to have very definite ideas about how other people are supposed to live their lives. Given that many of them are religious nutcases, they also seem to want to control the thoughts inside your head. If I have fewer rights because of my beliefs (or lack of belief), then what sort of “freedom” is that? Conformity is not freedom. Obedience is not freedom. I don’t know if I could define freedom, but I do not want the “freedom for some” that these people are pushing.

Plus if you took what Santorum was saying, and told his supporters that a Muslim cleric was saying it, then they would be horrified. Why is Christian Sharia Law any better than Muslim Sharia Law?

To 8:24
I thought “GOP” meant “God’s Oil Pedophiles”.


Also, here is a quote from a comment that someone else left on The Immoral Minority in 2015 that I liked:

You righties mock the Islamists, yet you do the same things: glorify weapons of death, glorify those who use them, teach the usage of weapons of death to children, and by your ideology teach your people to hate the ‘other’ – thus ensuring that eventually, the ‘other’ is obliterated by your weapons of death. All because you, just like the Islamists, are totally lacking in any positive, socially transformative, ideas that are uplifting to your fellow man, including those with whom you disagree. ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ is anathema to you, just as it is anathema to the Islamists. Your ideology is ‘obliterate your neighbor’, the same ideology that they have.

 

Image from Wikipedia page on Aert de Gelder, assumed allowed under Fair Use.

Share

“Both Sides” Fallacy Crumbles Again

One thing that has been in the news over the past few weeks is the Bundy standoff: A rancher in Nevada is freeloading off of federal land. He has not paid grazing fees. His armed militia thinks the feds are acting like tyrants. I always thought a tyrant would haul people off in secret in the middle of the night, not fight them in court for a couple of decades.

At first, a lot of Republicans and Libertarians flocked to his side, saying Bundy was a “true patriot”, and a “real American”.

Then he decided to tell what he knows about the Negro.

First off: What is it with conservatives telling us what they know about other people? I have heard a lot of christians make statements about atheists and why people are atheists and what atheists think, and I have heard a lot of Republicans and conservatives make statements about what liberals think and why we think it. And they are almost always wrong. Yet these same people get very upset when anyone talks about them or their motivations. So much for consistency.

Anyway, he said that maybe blacks were better off as slaves. Then a lot of the people who supported him said they didn’t support him. Some of them said they thought he was still correct in his land dispute. He is not. But it’s hard to distance yourself from someone when you say they are the best thing since slice bread.

Then there is Donald Sterling. A guy who is has a half-black, half-Mexican mistress, owns a basketball team, yet hates black people. He got in trouble because he told his mistress he did not want her bringing any black people to an NBA game.

First off, if you do not like black people, perhaps you should find another sport to be involved in.

A lot of conservatives tried to say that Sterling was a Democrat since he donated to a few Democrats in the past 20 years. Then it turned out he is a registered Republican.

Why do people keep trying this “both sides” nonsense? Maybe this is not quite the same as the usual “both sides” stories I have commented on.

As I started writing this piece, it occurred to me there is another interesting parallel: The Sterling case is another example of conservatives trying to define liberals, and failing badly again in the process. Democrats were not lining up in support of this guy. And nobody was forcing anyone to speak out in support of Cliven Bundy.

Image from Wikimedia, assumed allowed under Fair Use

 

Share

Yet More Austerity

Here are a few more links to articles about austerity.

This is an academic page on VoxEU.

Here is one from the New York Times by some professor at Cornell. At one point, he asks the question: If we are not going to spend money to repair infrastructure now, then when will we?

Here is one from Politicus that links to a Krugman article in which he points out that the pro-austerity crowd is not being honest. They really do not care whether it will help the economy. They just want to dismantle the welfare state and rip the safety net. If that is what they want, why not just argue for those things on their own merits?

He also makes an interesting point about motives: The pro-austerity crowd never seems to consider that the pro-stimulus crowd is pushing stimulus because the pro-stimulus crowd states and thinks that stimulus might be good for the economy. No, the austerity people insist the stimulus people have an agenda. After all, the austerity crowd has an ulterior motive. So they think that everybody else does as well.

We also see this in the climate change “debate”. I used quotes because from a scientific perspective there is no debate about climate change.

Image from Wikipedia, assumed allowed under Fair Use

Share

More ‘Both Sides Do It’ Nonsense

One of the results of the government shutdown is some people on the web are pointing out that it is not the case that “both sides are to blame”, that it is in fact the case that one side is more to blame than the other.

I retweeted a few articles that I think at least mentioned the “both sides” fallacy:

Here is an article from the Washington Post pointing out that while there are fringe theories on the left, they were never spouted by any Senators or House committee chairs or any high-ranking Democrats, and there were not unending investigations into non-existent “scandals”.

Politicus has an article pointing out that the media is not as liberal as people think. It only got critical of GW Bush towards the end of his presidency. I guess spending billions on a war based on lies is okay with some people at least some of the time.

Dante Atkins at Daily Kos looked at the “both sides” BS when Olympia Snowe decided not to run for re-election in the Senate.

Business Insider had an article in April pointing out that some Repubs not only think the GOP is not waging a war on women, but think that Obama is waging a war on religion. Granted, a lot of conservatives seem to think they are being oppressed when they are not kicking someone around.

Maybe I should get a sticker that says I am a Proud Oppressor Of Conservatives.

Image from Wikipedia, assumed allowed under Fair Use

Share

Thoughts On Crazy Conservatives

I have stated on this site that I think a lot of conservatives are pathological. Nothing is ever conservative enough, and each thinks that THEY are the only TRUE conservative.

Now we are seeing that the Tea Bagger voters are upset that the guys they sent to Congress are “waffling”, or “not conservative enough”, or, as some might put it: realizing that not everybody in the country agrees with you. One article about this was published in The Guardian.

Another was published in The American Prospect. I think the last paragraph is a nice summary:

As many a Republican politician will tell you (ask Marco Rubio, for one), convincing the Tea Party that you’re sufficiently conservative and that you hate Barack Obama enough isn’t just a full-time job, it’s a game that almost everyone will eventually lose. At some point you’ll take some position or express some opinion that is interpreted as less than maximal anti-Obamaism, and all it takes is one slip to be declared a traitor forevermore.

But I have an issue with the last sentence: So as crazy as Republican politicians sometimes seem, don’t forget that they’re under constant pressure from a base that is even crazier.

I wonder what was going through the author’s head when he wrote that. Are we supposed to have sympathy for these Tea Bagger congressmen? They chose to suck up to the crazies. Some of them bad-mouthed people who did not vote for them, or Democrats/liberals in general. And now they are choosing to not stand up to the Tea Baggers.

————-

A while back I mentioned the Texas Tribune Tribcast. I got through the first half of 2013 about a week ago. They also make the Tea Baggers sound pretty crazy. The TB’s don’t want to spend any money or raise any taxes. Two of the big issues in the past regular session and the special sessions were transportation and water. As I have stated on this site, lower taxes are nice, but they are not the answer to all the world’s problems. Neither is cutting spending. Cutting taxes won’t repair roads, and cutting spending won’t make it rain more.

Usually when you want to deride someone for magical thinking, you say, “XYZ does not just fall from the sky.” In the case of rain, it does fall from the sky. However, you have no way of making it fall when and where you need it to.

Image from Wikimedia, assumed allowed under Fair Use. Because Tea Parties are for little children with imaginary friends.

Ideology does not trump reality.

Share

Thoughts On Menus, Startups and Social Media

(My job has kept me pretty busy, so here are some more random thoughts on the “technology is useless” theme that have been kicking around in my head.)

So I found a post by a VC who wants to change menus in restaurants (see this article and the original post). His name is Dave McClure; I have never heard of him. I could not find what VC firm he is with. He says that it is a huge opportunity. Okay.

But then he says that menus have “problems”. He goes on and on about “problems”. I guess this is a “first world problem”.

Doesn’t agriculture have a lot of problems? What about the distribution of water? What about crop yields? I would call those problems.

I know that ultimately VCs are out to make money and not save the world. Fine. But don’t say you are solving “problems” when you ignore things that are real problems.

My main beef is that the VCs/entreprenuers/startup crowd all like to think that they are smarter than everybody else. That they are “makers” and “doers”. And they think that we are all to take them so seriously. And not point out that they are spinning their wheels while natural resources are getting more expensive. Some of them wind up creating jobs. But some of those jobs are doing really dumb things. Like social media.

I honestly think that we might reach a point where we cannot assume that when we flip the switch that the lights will come on. In many countries, that is already the case. I do not see a whole lot of companies at these incubators solving these problems. I don’t expect two guys with nothing more that a table, two chairs and a couple of laptops to find a new way to drill for oil or desalinate water. I just don’t understand why so many people think just because they are in a startup they worth paying attention to.

There are a lot of smart people in these companies. But there are different types of intelligence. I sometimes wonder whether they really think about what the technology is doing. A lot of it is just marketing. The funny thing is that a lot of people go into technology and software because they don’t want to be some damn salesman.

I (kinda-sorta) know a guy who runs a firm that does analytics on social media to help companies with marketing. We were acquaintences in college about 15 years ago. I was at a hack night at his company, and he introduced himself to me. We did not recognize each other at the time, but later I realized we had met long long ago. I admit, I do not know what he did during the intervening years. Maybe he did something scientific and what I would consider useful.

He has a CS degree from one of the best engineering schools in the world. This guy probably could help design a desalination plant or a nuclear reactor. Instead he is figuring out how to get people to buy more junk. Granted, they deal with a lot of data. Very high throughput.  But is that really the best contribution he could make to society? I have not been in Texas long, but I have heard that in the summer there are serious water issues. This state does catch fire. I think there might be brownouts in the summer time. Is the usual social/local/mobile app business really the best use of all that brainpower?

VCs will say they are out to make money. Energy and climate change are not their responsibility. If that is your response, then fine. I say you have better make a LOT of money. Because if the real problems are not addressed, you will need a lot more than you think.

Share

All Russians Can Go To Hell

Ever since the Cold War ended, I have tried to keep an open mind about Russia and Russian people.

Heck, even during the Cold War, I tried to keep an open mind about the Russians. I was taught that “Russian” does not equal “Soviet”. But it was a messed up country before Communism, and it is a messed up country afterwards.

A lot of the Russians I have met here in the USA struck me as snakes. They are thieves who do not trust each other. There are a lot of countries that are dragged down a rathole by another country. The Russians have dragged themselves down a rathole again and again, and brought other countries with them to boot.

And then the Boston Marathon Bombing happened. Yes, those guys are Chechen, not Russian.

But there has been a lot written and said about Russia in the past week. Russian intelligence. Russian counter-terrorism. Russian this. Russian that.

And now Vladimir Putin is trying to say “We told you so.”

I generally avoid vulgarity, both on this blog and in general. This will be an exception.

Vlad: You and every Russian on this planet can go fuck yourselves.

You people are the cause of Chechen terrorism.

The Chechens were not radicalized until after they fought a war against Russia. They were radicalized even more after the second.

I am not clear why the second war happened. Some say that it may have been partially instigated by some Russian politicians to win elections. (Think of when the USA invaded Iraq: not too long after an election.)

The first war was a war for Chechen independence. Perhaps Russia should have just let Chechnya go. Russia did not fight a war to stop Ukraine from becoming independent.

Or Georgia. (They were already independent by the time the 2008 conflict happened.)

Or Estonia.

Or Lithuania.

Or Latvia.

Or Belarus.

Or Armenia.

Or Azerbaijan.

Or Moldova.

Or Khazakstan.

Or Kyrghizstan.

Or Tajikistan.

Or Turkmenistan.

Or Uzbekistan.

That’s 14, in case you weren’t counting.

I did some Googling. Some have speculated that Russia doesn’t want to let Chechnya go since they don’t want Russia to break up any further, or they want a buffer against Turkey.

Why should either of those be Chechnya’s problems?

First off, Russia is a large country, and Chechnya is a small country. Sometimes small countries next to large countries are not completely independent. The small country is usually influenced (if not controlled) by the larger country.

On the other hand, Russia might be wrong if they think that the Chechens would make allies with the Turks. It seems to me Chechens want to be independent of everyone. Plus, Turkey is part of NATO. I don’t think they would unnecessarily drag the rest of NATO into a conflict.

So it looks like Russia traded a bad problem for a worse problem. Not too smart.

And if they are sticking with Chechnya because of pride or to look strong, I say perhaps the world would be a better place if people tried to act intelligently instead of trying to look tough. Why should other people have to die so Vlad can think he’s a tough guy?

On top of that, one of the events of the past few decades that has done more to radicalize Islamists is the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. If that had not happened, perhaps 9/11 would not have happened. Perhaps the 2003 invasion of Iraq would not have happened. But the Russian invasion did give the world al-Queda.

Some people are now saying Putin has gone from being a “menacing autocrat” to a “far-sighted ally.” I think he is a “menacing autocrat” who is not only short-sighted, but is now gloating over the fact that other countries are dealing with his bad decisions.

I can see why GW Bush liked him.

Image from Wikipedia

 

Share