|A compilation of this board's financial/economic posts From 43361 to 43424
Post 43361 by supreme-apg Reply
OVERRATED! What ever happened to the good ole days when you could rely upon your broker for advise. 'Buy' or 'Sell' were the only two recommendations needed. If you followed that advice, you were able to make a little money.
Today, it is 'Outperform', 'Underperform', 'Market perform', 'Buy', 'Sell', 'Hold', 'Hedge', and 'Avoid'. But wait, if you're a Bull, you would buy and hold then take profits on the up-cycle. If you're a Bear, you would sell and hold then take profits on the down-cycle.
As well, there are those that say 'Buy' when they mean 'Sell' and verse vice-a, not having the stones to commit one way or the other, but hoping that one of the two will work out... and putting on the spin when they are 'right' or 'wrong'. (I can't decide which either) There are those too that say 'Buy' because they have a lot to sell, and those that say 'Sell' because they need to buy.
Even the Bond raters are having identity crises. 'A' isn't good enough, so they have 'AA', 'AAA', and 'AAA+'! This atop the full gammut of B's, C's and junk.
Yes, I pine away for the good ole' days when Texas Gulf Sulphur, Superior Oil, IBM, GE and AT*T were solid investments of the future. Coulda had them for a dime and then today, they would be worth millions, so why would I complain about a little downturn in the market?
OT: oldCAD & Tin!
OT: Chicken à l'Iraq
Post 43364 by clo Reply
Corning Expects Third-Quarter Results to Meet Guidance
CORNING, N.Y., Oct 9, 2002 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Corning Incorporated (NYSE:GLW)
today said that for the third quarter ended September 30, 2002, it expects
results to be within the range of its previously announced guidance.
The company anticipates sales for the quarter will be between $830 million and
$840 million, and that it will record a net loss in the range of $0.07 to $0.08
per share, excluding one-time items. Corning's third-quarter results will also
include previously announced restructuring and impairment charges of
approximately $125 million pretax and a $0.12 reduction in earnings per share as
a result of the declaration of dividends on Corning's 7.00% Series C mandatory
convertible preferred stock offering completed in the third quarter. Including
these items, Corning expects to incur a net loss in the range of $0.27 to $0.28
per share for the quarter.
James B. Flaws, vice chairman and chief financial officer, said, "We are very
pleased that our results appear to be coming in within the range that we
provided investors in our July guidance. However, we are not satisfied with our
loss position. We warned investors in July that our telecommunications business
could see further weakness and that has occurred, evidenced by our third-quarter
sales being at the lower end of our guidance range.
"The telecommunications industry outlook remains difficult, driven by additional
carrier capital expenditure reductions, lack of industry consolidation and
bankruptcies. These events will require us to do more restructuring in the
fourth quarter," Flaws said. "While our restructuring actions to date have
helped our bottom line, we must further align our telecommunications business
cost structure to the new realities of the markets in which we compete. These
necessary steps in our telecommunications business, combined with the ongoing
strength that we see in our advanced materials and information display segments,
will help us achieve our goal of profitability in 2003."
Previously, Corning said that further restructuring initiatives could include
more headcount reductions, the potential sale or discontinuation of some
non-core assets, plant closures and consolidation of manufacturing capacity
within the telecommunications segment, and the centralization of administrative
Flaws said, "We remain very comfortable with our liquidity position." He noted
that the company ended the third quarter with cash and short-term investments in
excess of $1.5 billion. Corning will detail its third-quarter results, the next
phase of its restructuring actions and its liquidity position in a news release
and investor conference call on October 30, 2002.
October 30th Conference Call Information
The company will host a conference call at 8:30 a.m. EST on Wednesday, October
30, 2002. To access the call, dial (212) 547-0138. The password is Corning. The
leader is Sofio. A replay of the call will begin at approximately 10:30 a.m. EST
and will run through 5 p.m. EST on Wednesday, November 13, 2002. To access the
replay, dial (402) 220-9812; a password is not required. A live audio webcast
will be available at www.corning.com/investor_relations/ and will remain there
for 14 days following the call.
(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long)
OT: no Pace, Bush can be "Reaganesque" h
Post 43366 by tinljhtkh Reply
I was referring to the fact that you begin to exhibit conservative tendencies after a while as you drift toward the middle of the road! As long as OCU is here, you have another longtime liberal soulmate!
You are right, however! Table does tend to tip toward the extreme when the balance that OCU brings to it is gone! Maybe we will do better this time around, particularly now that we have a stock competition to keep us occupied!
This market just doesn't look like it feels very good about itself this morning! There just isn't any really good news at all! I suppose that after the continual shockwaves of extreme bad news in the last year, good news just isn't what it used to be! It needs to somehow be bigger to try and compete with all of this negativity! And then you have this sniper running around Washington DC shooting thirteen year old kids, destroying their childhoods!
OT: Table ON TOPIC SUMMARY Oct 08, 2002
OT: Inspector, GW is methodically going about his
Post 43370 by Inspector_32 Reply
decomposed...Iraq didn't do 9/11 either
so what's the difference? The market is down another 125 points today...we need to get this behind us quickly.
ot: Iraq, Inspector_32,
Post 43372 by pmcw Reply
Those who long for a world that measures value in Oz's might enjoy the following analysis of Oz's in the Land of Oz.
Please excuse me for not reformatting this - it was simply too long a job for a busy day.
The Rise and Fall of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a "Parable on Populism"
by David B. Parker
As published in the JOURNAL OF THE GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF HISTORIANS, vol. 15 (1994), pp. 49-63.
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is one of America's favorite pieces of
juvenile literature. Children like it because it is a good story, full
of fun characters and exciting adventures. Adults--especially those of
us in history and related fields--like it because we can read between L.
Frank Baum's lines and see various images of the United States at the
turn of the century. That has been true since 1964, when American
Quarterly published Henry M. Littlefield's "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on
Populism." Littlefield described all sorts of hidden meanings and
allusions to Gilded Age society in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz: the
wicked Witch of the East represented eastern industrialists and bankers
who controlled the people (the Munchkins); the Scarecrow was the wise
but naive western farmer; the Tin Woodman stood for the dehumanized
industrial worker; the Cowardly Lion was William Jennings Bryan,
Populist presidential candidate in 1896; the Yellow Brick Road, with all
its dangers, was the gold standard; Dorothy's silver slippers (Judy
Garland's were ruby red, but Baum originally made them silver)
represented the Populists' solution to the nation's economic woes ("the
free and unlimited coinage of silver"); Emerald City was Washington,
D.C.; the Wizard, "a little bumbling old man, hiding behind a facade of
paper mache and noise, . . . able to be everything to everybody," was
any of the Gilded Age presidents.(1)
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was no longer an innocent fairy tale.
According to Littlefield, Baum, a reform-minded Democrat who supported
William Jennings Bryan's pro-silver candidacy, wrote the book as a
parable of the Populists, an allegory of their failed efforts to reform
the nation in 1896. "Baum never allowed the consistency of the allegory
to take precedence over the theme of youthful entertainment,"
Littlefield hedged at one point; "the allegory always remains in a minor
key." Still, he concluded that "the relationships and analogies outlined
above . . . are far too consistent to be coincidental."(2)
It was an interesting notion, one scholars could not leave alone, and
they soon began to find additional correspondences between Populism and
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Richard Jensen, in a 1971 study of
Midwestern politics and culture, devoted two pages to Baum's story. He
implicitly qualified Littlefield by pointing out that not all pro-Bryan
silverites were Populists. But Jensen then proceeded to add two new
points to the standard Littlefield interpretation, finding analogies for
Toto and Oz itself: Dorothy's faithful dog represented the teetotaling
Prohibitionists, an important part of the silverite coalition, and
anyone familiar with the silverites' slogan "16 to 1"--that is, the
ratio of sixteen ounces of silver to one ounce of gold--would have
instantly recognized "Oz" as the abbreviation for "ounce."(3)
A few years later, literary scholar Brian Attebery wrote that "it is
too much to say . . . that The Wizard is a 'Parable on Populism,' but it
does share many of the Populist concerns and biases." Like Jensen,
Attebery cautioned against an uncritical acceptance of Littlefield; and
again like Jensen, he went on to suggest an analogy of his own:
"Dorothy, bold, resourceful, leading the men around her toward success,
is a juvenile Mary Lease, the Kansas firebrand who told her neighbors to
raise less corn and more hell."(4)
The most extensive treatment of the Littlefield thesis is an article by
Hugh Rockoff in the Journal of Political Economy. Rockoff, who saw in
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz "a sophisticated commentary on the political
and economic debates of the Populist Era," discovered a surprising
number of new analogies. The Deadly Poppy Field, where the Cowardly Lion
fell asleep and could not move forward, was the anti-imperialism that
threatened to make Bryan forget the main issue of silver (note the
Oriental connotation of poppies and opium). Once in the Emerald Palace,
Dorothy had to pass through seven halls and climb three flights of
stairs; seven and three make seventy-three, which stands for the Crime
of '73, the congressional act that eliminated the coinage of silver and
that proved to all Populists the collusion between congress and bankers.
The Wicked Witch of the East was Grover Cleveland; of the West, William
McKinley. The enslavement of the yellow Winkies was "a not very well
disguised reference to McKinley's decision to deny immediate
independence to the Philippines" after the Spanish-American War. The
Wizard himself was Mark Hanna, McKinley's campaign manager, although
Rockoff noted that "this is one of the few points at which the allegory
does not work straightforwardly." About half of Rockoff's article
consisted of an economic analysis that justified Bryan and Baum's silver
In a recent history of the Populist movement, Gene Clanton wrote that
while The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was "a classic parable on the silver
crusade," Littlefield had gotten some of it confused. Clanton explained
(as had Jensen) that not all pro-Bryan silverites were Populists. A
number of reform Democrats shared the Populists' distrust of railroads
and bankers,their support for inflation, and so forth, but the Democrats
disagreed with the Populists' call for a strong and active government to
solve those problems, and in fact they tended to see Populists as
dangerous socialist radicals. Clanton suggested that if the Wicked Witch
of the East was the forces of industrial capitalism, then Baum's Wicked
Witch of the West was Populism itself. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
"mirrored perfectly the middle-ground ideology that was fundamental
among those who favored reform yet opposed Populism," wrote Clanton.
"Baum's story was an apt metaphor or parable of Progressivism, not
Populism." This was hardly the death knell for Littlefield; he had
simply confused pro-Bryan, silverite Democrats for pro-Bryan, silverite
As scholars continued to extend and modify Littlefield's
interpretation, laymen discovered it as well. Perhaps the best example
was a widely-reprinted essay, first published in the Los Angeles Times
in 1988, in which Michael A. Genovese described The Wonderful Wizard of
Oz as "the story of the sad collapse of Populism and the issues upon
which the movement was based." Genovese's brief analysis was pure
Littlefield. But there was one notable (and somewhat disturbing) aspect
of Genovese's piece: Littlefield's name was never mentioned. The phrase
"according to one scholar" never appeared. Less than a quarter century
after his article appeared, Littlefield had entered the public
Several factors help explain Littlefield's popularity. First, he
produced an overwhelming number of correspondences, and others have
added to the list. One would be hard pressed to find any character,
setting, or event in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz that does not have a
"Populist parable" analogy.
Second, educators discovered Littlefield's usefulness in teaching
Populism and related topics. (This was the reason Littlefield, at the
time a high school teacher, developed his analysis in the first place;
the correspondences between Populism and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, he
wrote, "furnish a teaching mechanism which is guaranteed to reach any
level of student.")(8) The journal Social Education suggested using The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz to help secondary school students understand the
issues behind Populism, and I myself proposed the Littlefield thesis as
a possible lecture topic in an instructor's manual for a popular
college-level textbook.(9) Another textbook contained a two-page
"special feature" essay explaining The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a
Populist allegory (although once again Littlefield's name was not
Third, many people in post-Watergate, post-Vietnam America were
fascinated to learn that their favorite children's story was something
of a subversive document, an anti-establishment fairy tale. Hence in
1988 the Utne Reader praised a newspaper article for "expos[ing] Oz as a
parable on Populism," a movement that had been critical of "Eastern
banks and railroads, which [Populists] charged with oppressing farmers
and industrial workers."(11)
By the 1980s, Littlefield's interpretation had become the standard line
on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.(12) Recently, however, one of his basic
assertions--that the book was, like the Populist movement itself, a
critique of American industrial capitalism--has been challenged by
scholars who argue that the book actually celebrated the urban consumer
culture of the turn of the century.
The best statement of this revisionist view is William R. Leach's two
essays in a new edition of the book. Baum's masterpiece was popular,
Leach explained, "because it met--almost perfectly--the particular
ethical and emotional needs of people living in a new urban, industrial
society." Leach pointed out that the book exalted the opulence and magic
of the metropolis. The Emerald City, with its prosperous homes and
luxurious stores, resembled nothing as much as it did the "White City"
of Chicago's Columbian Exposition of 1893, which Baum had visited
several times. Furthermore, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz reflected Baum's
belief in theosophy, a spiritualist/occultist quasi-religious movement
that was popular in the late nineteenth century. Specifically, the book
emphasized an aspect of theosophy that Norman Vincent Peale would later
call "the power of positive thinking": theosophy led to "a new upbeat
and positive psychology" that "opposed all kinds of negative
thinking--especially fear, worry, and anxiety." It was through this
positive thinking, and not through any magic of the Wizard, that Dorothy
and her companions (as well as everyone else in Oz) got what they
wanted. "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was an optimistic secular theraputic
text," wrote Leach. "It helped make people feel at home in America's new
industrial economy, and it helped them appreciate and enjoy, without
guilt, the new consumer abundance and way of living produced by that
economy." Leach concluded that "the book both reflected and helped
create a new cultural consciousness--a new way of seeing and being in
harmony with the new industrial order."(13)
Leach's new look at Baum directly challenged much of what Littlefield
wrote.(14) Furthermore, it was consistent with Baum's background. Before
he became a professional writer, Baum worked as a traveling salesman and
owned a dry goods store. In 1897, he founded The Show Window, the first
journal ever devoted to decorating store windows, and in 1900 (the same
year as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), he published The Art of Decorating
Dry Goods Windows and Interiors, the first book on the subject.
Furthermore, Baum's involvement in the theater, as everything from actor
to producer and writer, taught him to appreciate the artistic lifestyle
that only the big cities could offer.
Leach's essays did not necessarily overturn Littlefield, however. Baum
might have been "a shopkeeper, a traveling salesman, an actor, a
playwright, a windowdresser,"(15) but he was also a reform-minded
Democrat who supported Bryan's pro-silver campaign in 1896. Given this,
Littlefield's thesis still seems plausible.
For years after Baum's death in 1919, the best biography of him was a
twenty-five-page sketch written by Martin Gardner for a new edition of
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in 1957. Gardner wrote just two sentences on
Baum's politics: "Aside from marching in a few torchlight parades for
William Jennings Bryan, Baum was as inactive in politics as in church
affairs [which is to say, pretty inactive]. He consistently voted as a
democrat [sic], however, and his sympathies always seem to have been on
the side of the laboring classes." Four years later, the first
book-length study of Baum appeared. Written by Frank Joslyn Baum (Baum's
son, who died during the project) and Russell P. MacFall, the biography
did not go beyond Gardner in discussing Baum's politics.(16)
Baum's political affiliation was a big part of Littlefield's argument
for seeing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a Populist allegory. Citing
Gardner, Littlefield mentioned Baum's support for Democratic candidates
and, of course, the torchlight parades for Bryan. "No one who marched in
even a few such parades could have been unaffected by Bryan's campaign,"
Littlefield asserted.(17) If one begins with the assumption that Baum
was a Bryan Democrat, it is easy to read a Populist (or at least a
pro-silver) message into the book.
But was Baum a Bryan Democrat? In the summer of 1888, Baum moved his
family to Aberdeen, South Dakota, where he opened a dry goods store. In
January 1890, after the business failed, he bought a local newspaper,
renaming it the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer. The Pioneer was obviously a
Republican paper. During the municipal elections that spring, Baum
editorialized in support of the Republican candidates; after they won,
he wrote that "Aberdeen has redeemed herself . . . [a]fter suffering for
nearly a year from the incompetence of a democratic administration."
Later that year, Baum urged unity against the growing Independent
movement: "We are all members of one great family, the family which
saved the Union, the family which stands together as the emblem of
prosperity among the nations--Republicanism!" Not only did Baum speak
for the Republican party; he spoke against the movement that would soon
evolve into the Populists.(18)
It must be admitted that the Pioneer had been a Republican paper before
Baum bought it, and perhaps he had to maintain its partisan
identification in order to maintain its circulation. Furthermore, Baum's
Pioneer, while clearly Republican, was quite progressive: he wrote in
support of women's suffrage, alternative religions, occultism,
toleration, and so on. So perhaps Baum was a closet Democrat in
Aberdeen, forced to hide his true political feelings.
But that appears not to be the case. In the summer of 1896, the year of
the election that would mark what has been called "The Climax of
Populism," Baum published a poem in a Chicago newspaper:
When McKinley gets the chair, boys,
There'll be a jollification
Throughout our happy nation
And contentment everywhere!
Great will be our satisfaction
When the "honest money" faction
Seats McKinley in the chair!
No more the ample crops of grain
That in our granaries have lain
Will seek a purchaser in vain
Or be at mercy of the "bull" or "bear";
Our merchants won't be trembling
At the silverites' dissembling
When McKinley gets the chair!
When McKinley gets the chair, boys,
The magic word "protection"
Will banish all dejection
And free the workingman from every care;
We will gain the world's respect
When it knows our coin's "correct"
And McKinley's in the chair!
Hardly the writings of a silverite! Michael Patrick Hearn, the leading
scholar on L. Frank Baum, quoted this poem in a recent letter to the New
York Times. Hearn wrote that he had found "no evidence that Baum's story
is in any way a Populist allegory"; Littlefield's argument, Hearn
concluded, "has no basis in fact." A month later, Henry M. Littlefield
responded to Hearn's letter, agreeing that "there is no basis in fact to
consider Baum a supporter of turn-of-the-century Populist
Thomas A. Bailey once suggested that we set up a computer network to
keep track of misinformation that has been corrected--sort of a national
clearinghouse for discredited myths. Is it time to move Littlefield to
the computer trashpile of misinformation? Given the mounting evidence
against it--given that Littlefield himself has admitted that it has "no
basis in fact"--should we forget the whole notion of The Wonderful
Wizard of Oz as a parable on Populism? That would be a big mistake.
Perhaps we can no longer say that Baum wrote The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
"as an allegory of the silver movement," but we can still read it as an
allegory of the silver movement--or, as Henry Littlefield noted just two
years ago, "we can bring our own symbolism to it." Recent scholarship
might have taken away Baum's intent, but the images are still there,
vivid as ever.(20)
And because the images are still there, the Littlefield interpretation
(especially as modified by Clanton, Rockoff, and others) remains a
useful pedagogical device. Baum gave us a delightful and unforgettable
way of illustrating a number of Gilded Age issues, from Populism and the
silver movement to the Gilded Age presidency, from the problems of labor
to the insurrection in the Philippines.
Thirty years ago, Henry M. Littlefield looked at The Wonderful Wizard
of Oz and saw things no one had seen there before. More recently,
William R. Leach has shown us another new way of looking at the book, a
way that emphasizes a different side of the Gilded Age--the fascination
with the city and urban abundance, the rise of a new industrial ethic,
and so on. Leach's argument is just as compelling as Littlefield's.
"Factual" or not, both are impressive achievements.
But even more impressive is the achievement of L. Frank Baum himself.
In the preface to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Baum stated that he wanted
to write a new sort of children's story: a modernized, American story,
shorn of all the Old World images and motifs. He was tremendously
successful in this, producing not only the first real American fairy
tale, but one that showed American society and culture in all its
wonderful diversity and contradictions, a story so rich it can be, like
the book's title character, anything we want it to be--including, if we
wish, a parable on Populism.(21)
1. Henry M. Littlefield, "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism,"
American Quarterly 16 (1964): 47-58 (quotation on 54); L. Frank Baum,
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Chicago, 1900).
2. Littlefield, "Parable on Populism," 50, 58.
3. Richard Jensen, The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political
Conflict, 1888-1896 (Chicago, 1971), 282-83.
4. Brian Attebery, The Fantasy Tradition in American Literature: From
Irving to Le Guin (Bloomington, 1980), 86-87.
5. Hugh Rockoff, "The 'Wizard of Oz' as a Monetary Allegory," Journal
of Political Economy 98 (1990): 739, 751.
6. Gene Clanton, Populism: The Humane Preference in America, 1890-1900
(Boston, 1991), 149-50. Fred Erisman, "L. Frank Baum and the Progressive
Dilemma," American Quarterly 20 (1968): 616-23, made a similar point,
but outside the context of Littlefield's analogies.
7. Los Angeles Times, 19 March 1988.
8. Littlefield, "Parable on Populism," 58. For a brief discussion of
how he came to write the essay, see Henry M. Littlefield, "The Wizard of
Allegory," Baum Bugle 36 (Spring 1992):24-25. The Baum Bugle is
published by the International Wizard of Oz Club.
9. David W. Van Cleaf and Charles W. Funkhouser, "Inquiry, 'Oz,' and
Populism," Social Education 51 (1987): 282-83; Thomas S. Morgan and
David B. Parker, Instructor's Manual and Test Bank to Accompany America:
A Narrative History, Second Edition, by George B. Tindall (New York,
10. Robert A. Divine et al., America: Past and Present (Glenview, Ill.,
1984), 594-95. The essay was retained in later editions of the textbook;
the third edition was published in 1991. For other examples of educators
and the Littlefield thesis, see Michael Gessel, "Tale of a Parable,"
Baum Bugle 36 (Spring 1992): 19-23.
11. Michael Dregni, "The Politics of Oz," Utne Reader 28 (July/August
1988): 32-33. The newspaper cited was In These Times, 18 Feb. 1987.
12. There have been other interpretations of the book--scholars have
read it from psychoanalytical, feminist, theological/philosophical,
mythological, and Marxist perspectives, among others----but
Littlefield's was easily the best known and most widely accepted of the
13. William R. Leach, "The Clown from Syracuse: The Life and Times of
L. Frank Baum," in L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Belmont,
Calif., 1991), 2; Leach, "A Trickster's Tale: L. Frank Baum's The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz," in ibid., 168, 174. Stuart Culver discussed
Baum's book as a reflection of the advertising that accompanied the
consumer culture. Culver, "What Manikins Want: The Wonderful Wizard of
Oz and The Art of Decorating Dry Goods Windows," Representations 21
14. One could try to reconcile the differences by suggesting that The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz was not so much about the Populists themselves as
it was about the culture that gave rise to the Populists. Midwestern
farmers were well aware of the consumer paradise Leach described
(through the Sears, Roebuck & Co. catalog, for example); perhaps their
inablity to partake more fully in that paradise was one of the reasons
for the agrarian discontent that led to the Populists. But this
oversimplifies Littlefield's argument, which was about silver and gold,
William Jennings Bryan and dehumanized factory workers, not just
"agrarian discontent." I appreciate Robert C. McMath, Jr.'s and James
Cassidy's helpful comments on this point.
15. Leach, "Clown from Syracuse," 3.
16. Martin Gardner, "The Royal Historian of Oz," in Gardner and Russel
B. Nye, The Wizard of Oz and Who He Was (East Lansing, Mich., 1957), 29;
Frank Joslyn Baum and Russell P. MacFall, To Please a Child: A Biography
of L. Frank Baum, Royal Historian of Oz (Chicago, 1961), 85, 124. ("The
Royal Historian of Oz" is a title L. Frank Baum himself had used.)
Michael Patrick Hearn is preparing a new biography of Baum; for now, the
most reliable source of information is Hearn, ed., The Annotated Wizard
of Oz (New York, 1973).
17. Littlefield, "Parable on Populism," 49.
18. Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer, 12 April 1890, 19 April 1890, 18 Oct.
1890. For more on Baum's editorship and political affiliation, see Nancy
Tystad Koupal, "The Wonderful Wizard of the West: L. Frank Baum in South
Dakota, 1888-91," Great Plains Quarterly 9 (1989): 207-8.
19. Robert F. Durden, The Climax of Populism: The Election of 1896
(Lexington, 1965); Chicago Times Herald, 12 July 1896, quoted in New
York Times, 20 Dec. 1991; New York Times, 7 Feb. 1992.
20. Thomas A. Bailey, "The Mythmakers of American History," Journal of
American History 55 (1968): 18; Divine et al., America, 594;
Littlefield, "The Wizard of Allegory," 25.
21. When describing characters and settings that readers have never
encountered before, writers (and especially writers of fantasy) might
naturally use familiar imagery to help the reader along. This could
explain why The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is richer and more vivid than
Baum's later books in the series (he wrote 13 others, from The Marvelous
Land of Oz to Glinda of Oz): after that original volume, the characters
and settings were no longer unknown--from the second book on, readers
had encountered them before--and so Baum had less reason to use American
images as the basis for his descriptions. And as good as some of those
later books are, an Ozian Oz(described on its own terms) was nowhere
near as fascinating as an American Oz.
OT: A question for you decomposed:
OT: PD & pmcw, "Art" is always in the ey
OT: clo, Tell me the truth.
OT: Inspector re: Iraq
OT: A Potential ME Crisis Averted.
OT: Moscow losing sympathy for Iraq as $10 billio
OT: pmcw, smiles, but no!
OT: Decomp! SOS, I realize what I did, I bought in
ot: VSE, clo
Post 43384 by uponroof Reply
"the mood on the floor is stunned"
Excuse me......how can anybody be stunned at this point?!
CNBC Becky Quick reporting that those on the floor are 'stunned'. Technical supports are being taken out today and by golly the traders are nothing less than 'stunned'.
Well, I am stunned that they are stunned.
OT: Oh Decomp! do you know what
ot: Sensitive hearts laugh...
OT: Clo, I thought you were going to stay on the s
OT: Decomp, got S on sale! 28.79...
Post 43389 by uponroof Reply
Senator Phil Gramm, former chairman of...
the Senate Banking Committee gets his 'reward' for presiding over the setup period we are now suffering through. Remember Wendy, his better half, and former CFTC chair, was on Enron’s Board of Directors overseeing the fleecing of the investment world. Now hubby Phil will also be moving into the private sector he legislated over...
and these are the advantages of electing conservative business types over unexperienced, bleeding heart, give away OPM liberals?
With this latest shameless ethics move can we be that far from a Rubin/Gramm tag team?.....But what's left to pillage? Nevermind....they'll find something.
UBS Says U.S. Senator Phil Gramm to Join Firm as Vice Chairman
New York, Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- UBS Warburg said Senator Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican, will join the firm as vice chairman when his term ends. Gramm will advise clients on corporate finance issues and strategy, the firm said. Gramm is retiring after serving 24 years in Congress, including the past 18 years in the Senate. UBS Warburg is the investment bank of UBS AG, Switzerland's biggest bank.
Meanwhile Daschle goes after underling Pitt, who takes the heat for the protection offered through this disgusting non stop network of upper echelon quid pro quo.
OT: kduff, in the spirit of competition, trading i
OT: pmcw &clo
OT: Presidential Performance Evaluation
Post 43393 by Decomposed Reply
HD, now below $24 (1998 prices). From the volume, it looks like it could keep going down, too.
Remember my suggestion that the Home Improvement market is likely to take a hit. Most homes get improved BEFORE they're sold. If the real estate market is now on the wane, HD's best days (for some time) do NOT lie ahead.
OT: Subject: IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?
OT: Better to
OT: oh wilful...
OT: The Far Left or Bleeding Brain Liberals
OT: OH TIN! are you competing with Decomp for the
ot: Thanks, danking_70. That was a good read.
OT: Dan - Rosenbaum's piece describes a number
Post 43402 by tinljhtkh Reply
In re Oz's!
"the Tin Woodman stood for the dehumanized
""Dorothy, bold, resourceful, leading the men around her toward success, is a juvenile Mary Lease, the Kansas firebrand who told her neighbors to raise less corn and more hell.""
Well, I don't know which is worse, a dehumanized Illinois hay filled industrial worker poster named Tin or a hell raising, corn hating Kansas RB board leader named Pmcw! I suppose that we will all follow either of your tails to success in this contest!
Lucy the cat
Maybe you got the meaning of another post wrong again Lucy! You weren't even around when I read the original article in the early 1970's! And no, you are not Toto in drag and I have no idea what the M stands for! No, the fact that I'm dehumanized doesn't mean that I'm now a tom cat! I've told you to quit reading these posts alone! You haven't been trying to post using my access again have you? I will not check you for fleas again until I check this out to see if there are any errors! You've never had fleas anyway! And I've told you before that you're to independent to be a Democrat! Now quit trying to pounce on the mous
OT: Decomp, fyi. Just on the record that question
Post 43405 by pacemakernj Reply
PMCW, could not resist. I bought some Intel today @ 13.50. Gosh can Intel go to single digit's? I think/hope 12 is the bottom. Any thought's? Thanks, Pace.
Post 43406 by Czechsinthemail Reply
Yes, Bush is "a devil" compared to those enlightened regimes that torture and murder dissidents (like "NYC TEACHER").
This was quite an eye opener for me. Though I can easily think of Bush as seriously limited or flawed, it hadn't occurred to me that he might be the devil. And is it really true that NYC teachers torture and murder dissidents???
OT decomposed, we may have to do something about I
OT: Czechsinthemail: "dissidents..."
OT: Clo, while you're complaining about GW not doi
Post 43411 by goboyone60 Reply
Wednesday, October 09, 2002
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
'' This guy is a money machine''haveagreatday.
THE STRIP: Taking interest
Le Reve, stock offering draws attention of money men
By JEFF SIMPSON
Steve Wynn on Tuesday spent his second day selling institutional investors on the pending initial public offering of shares in his Wynn Resorts, and a Wall Street insider said the money men have shown strong interest in the stock and in his planned Le Reve megaresort.
The Desert Inn owner was in New York as part of a road show intended to tout his company's business plan and to gauge institutional interest in the pending $450 million Wynn Resorts stock offering.
Wynn Resorts announced in a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing that construction of Le Reve is scheduled to begin later this month, and the sale of Wynn Resorts equity will generate the final piece of Le Reve funding.
"People reacted the way they always react to (Wynn) when they meet him the first time," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He's magnetic, and he gets a strong reaction. It's been very positive."
The stock is expected to begin trading in about two weeks under the symbol WYNN on the Nasdaq Stock Market, with about 20.5 million shares offered to institutional investors and the public.
Wynn Resorts most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing noted that its shares are expected to be priced at $21 to $23.
Wynn Resorts would use about $374 million of the $450 million raised by the public offering along with $1 billion loaned by an investment banking consortium, a $340 million second mortgage and $118.5 million from borrowing against Le Reve furniture, fixtures and equipment to build the $1.85 billion Le Reve.
Another $40 million from the IPO would be used to develop a casino resort in Macau, the company's filing noted.
Wynn did not return phone messages Tuesday; neither did casino industry analysts representing the IPO's lead investment banks: Bear, Stearns & Co.; Deutsche Bank Securities; Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and Banc of America Securities.
The Wall Street source said the Wynn Resorts road show would likely take Wynn and his executives and bankers to several other major cities.
"The road show is an opportunity for the company to present its story and its business plan," the source said.
OT: NY Times: All the News That's Fit to Spin
Post 43414 by srudek Reply
Waiting for 6+% real dividends...
I think this paper puts a bit of historical perspective on dividends and valuation.
Benjamin Graham was the strongest advocate of investors buying stocks at a price offering a substantial “margin of safety.” This way, if their forecasts of future earnings proved to be wrong, the price they paid would still represent a reasonable value. It is hard to imagine buying the S&P 500 at a dividend yield of less than 2% and a P/E ratio of 23x and calling that a substantial “margin of safety.”
I said in a previous post that I'm going to patiently wait until I can lock in 6%+ dividends from super-solid companies.
Jeffbas, thrashed around a bit over that post ;-) and challenged me with:
"SR, please tell me the times in the last 100 years when good quality stocks had a dividend yield of double the 10 year Treasury. If you have to go back 50 or 100 years, or can't even find history ever showing that, Then I suggest your bias has the better of your brains. ANY investment has to be a "buy-and-hold" more often that every 50 years." (bold added)
I don't care enough to do the kind of research which would be necessary to meet Jeff's actuarial standards, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable. As I said, if I can't get 6+% dividends then I HOPE to "miss the boat" he thinks I'm going to miss -- it's a lousy boat. Off the top of my head (so don't bother correcting me unless I'm grossly wrong), I believe Phillip Morris is currently paying about 6%. Also, as I recall, right after the 1987 crash PG&E was briefly valued at a rate that returned about 18%. I've read that by the end of the 70's, blue-chip PEs were averaging in the single digits and dividends were the only thing going -- I would expect to find some good dividends then, but I'm not going to bother "researching". I'll let Jeffbas research to prove my recollections wrong, if he wishes.
I don't care too much, because I stone cold KNOW I can get 15-25% returns on my money with probably 1/10 or less of the risk afforded by stocks, as I do it all the time. So can you.
Regarding Jeff's "ANY investment has to be a 'buy-and-hold' more often that every 50 years" comment, I'm not sure what to say; it strikes me as such a silly comment. 'Says who?', comes to mind. Or, 'Maybe, most stocks aren't investments?'
Jeff, would you regard buying corn futures on the Chicago pits as an 'investment' or can we agree that is speculating? By my definition (a definition I lifted from Graham/Buffett, by the way) investments produce an income stream. If companies could be relied upon to pay out excess earnings, I might accept them retaining earnings and still call them investments -- but I can't. Better to rely upon companies to fund stupid projects and raise CEO compensation 40X to absorb those pesky earnings; history shows us quite clearly that is what they will do.
Speculations require a risky prediction on your part that a "greater fool" can be found in the future so you can make your money (generally, you are selling because you think the buyer is more foolish than you and you think your speculation is overpriced). So, most stocks aren't investments -- they are speculations at best. In this market they are more like straight gambles -- and the odds aren't even good. The thinking which accompanies most speculations is more similar to the thinking you'll find at the gambling tables in Vegas than the thinking you'll find real investors practicing. Most of the time when I 'invest' I KNOW my purchase is worth substantially more than I paid and, in many cases, I KNOW I could sell it for more immediately. I don't need to "psych out" the market for momentum, at all. That's investing.
But you'll notice that the talking heads are very careful to always refer to stocks as 'investments' and make that statement as often and as innocuously as possible. Why would they do that? Call it brainwashing or selling . . . it's not accidental and its not done for your benefit. Most people talk about their (non dividend paying) 'stock investments, so I think we can say the mind-job has been successful.
You should wait patiently for at least 6+% dividends from super strong companies with a committment (hopefully evidenced in history) of on-going dividends, before you risk more money in the stock market. The above article link gives you reason to hope you will see that sooner than you think. When you buy such an income stream you won't have to worry about your stocks any more. The income stream will immeasurably enhance price stability and your security -- that's just common sense. If the market doesn't care to be reasonable, that's the market's problem. Don't confuse the market's problem as your problem. Be patient, or pick a different vehicle. Don't get confused about what you're doing nor why.
Have you ever wondered HOW people were supposed to make all this money they had made on paper when the market was at its peak? Think about that. EVERYONE was going to retire by selling to some "greater fool". Basically, NOBODY had actually purchased anything which had any intrisic value. Where were all these "greater fools" supposed to come from -- another planet? Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle -- these company CEOs had no intention -- have no intention -- of EVER giving out ANY of the company profits to shareholders. All the profits, from the start, were intended to be reserved for the CEO and pals. Stock options, coupled with the 90's market, gave these guys the vehicle to truly have their cake and eat it to. They could "sell" portions of their company, on paper, while in reality not relinquishing anything at all. That is what we have paid trillions of dollars for -- nothing. Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle -- these shares are intrinsically worth NOTHING.
Consider it srudek's law: "The person who controls the receipt of the net profit stream is the person who owns the enterprise."
P.S. I was just going to post the above link without much comment, but here I am. Jeff, I'm not going to spend a lot of time editing this for 'political correctness'; please don't take offense at my using your prior comments as the backdrop for my post.
ot: Fabrication, pace
OT: Latest from the Hamas/Fatah friendly
OT: Decomp, Excuse me, but I think you've bought i
OT: Dan, great post. BTW, NY Times "all the n
OT: Decomp, isn't that like the Dems though. When
Post 43422 by srudek Reply
tin/roof :-) et. al. - Your posts lead me to recommend, again, the novel Full Faith and Credit for its good job of bringing to life how deflation, inflation, and pretty much every other nightmare could unfold from here. At the time I wrote my recommendation -- only about a month ago, I think -- the book seemed much more "fiction" than it does today.
The things I used to get ridiculed for commenting upon six months to a year ago (because they were so unbelievable for most people, and sometimes even for me) are now in the mainstream press. "The Economist" magazine just did a special issue on deflation and how to save the world from economic disaster.
I'm really hesitant to say this, at risk of losing whatever credibility I've managed to build here, but it seems possible . . . or more . . . that we are already at the beginning of what will be called a "Depression" by future generations. I think we're way, way, way beyond a mere stock market Bubble.
I struggled with that last paragraph for probably 15 minutes, rewriting it to to soften it or clarify it or hedge my statement or straighten out my head. I asked myself, numerous times, how I would feel tomorrow about what I'm writing today. How embarrassed would I be? Was I just giving in to a passing irrationality?
I think the Depression has begun. There. I've said it.
Post 43423 by pmcw Reply
Here's what you said that drew me to the conclusion:
"" Republicans shouldn't try to use this for political gains in the elections" Of course they shouldn't. Of course, Democrats do the same thing when it's to their advantage, don't they? Remember all the military attacks Clinton launched right right before critical junctures in his career? As a matter of fact, did you know that Clinton found more occasions to call in the military than any President in history?
So I agree with you here. What I don't agree with you about, however, is whether the elections are the reason Iraq is such a hot topic RIGHT NOW. After all, Bush first named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as his targets in the war against terrorism a LONG time ago. Right? And it seems to me that he has been escalating that war pretty agressively and steadily ever since 9/11.
So, is the problem that Bush is doing something new? Nope. Not that I can see. The problem is that the Democrats want him to STOP the escalation long enough for them to work the public into a frenzy about something else."
I don't agree with your latter statement that the Republican talking points are aimed towards setting up the Republicans as the better managers of war. The only two Republican candidates advertising in my area are totally avoiding the issue in their TV ads. It is simply a fact that we must authorize the use of force if we are to have any hope of avoiding the use of massive force. The Democrats are trying to avoid providing this authorization. This forces the Republicans to stump for the authorization. This allows the Democrats to say the Republicans are trying to divert attention from the economy. As Hillary would say, if she was on the light side, "it's a left wing plot".
For the record, the issues in my area (MO Senatorial and KS Representative) are mostly economic. In other words, on topic as to how someone should run today. The fact we need to pass an authorization and get on down the road is clear and needs no further discussion.
Bottom Line: I don't see the Republicans "using" Iraq as much as I see the Democrats setting them up to where they appear to be using Iraq. In other words, I see the "set-up" (delaying an obviously clear decision) as a Democrat diversion. This is the point I feel most are missing.