Bits Bucket for February 3, 2012
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
April 2024 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
” Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
2012-02-02 18:55:21
‘…everyone slow their spending to save money.’
That’s about a plausible in the real world economy as all the gas molecules in a room suddenly racing to one side and causing the wall to break down.”
“Comment by Blue Skye
2012-02-02 21:23:03
Relax Darrell. This airplane is just running out of fuel. We’ll set her down as gently as possible in a field of beans.”
I am advocating a position that, on its face, seems insane.
I am advocating a policy of using tariffs to fight our international trade imbalances and a VERY steep tax code with 90+% marginal rates but lots of deductions.
These policies fly in the face of everything intuitive about our economy.
Well, there are lots of things that are not intuitive about our econmy.
Money in the modern economy is just other peoples’ debt. This is so non-intuitive that people fight it tuth and nail. It says right on the paper that this is nothing but a means of paying debt. Most people have a money creation tool they carry around, called a credit card, that creates money out of thin-air and a promise to repay. And yet, money is other peoples’ debt is SO non-intuitive that many people argue long and hard against it.
Another one is the paradox of thrift. It is SO non-intuitive, that people fight it tooth and nail. It is obvious if you think about it, but it just doesn’t feel right. I can spend less than I earn, paying down debt and/or accumulating money, so obviously, everyone can. Well, no. One person’s spending is another’s income. If everyone were to slow their spending, then it would slow everyone’s income. If you have accepted that in the modern economy runs on money that is just other peoples’ debt, then one person can’t be accumulating money unless someone else is first borrowing that money into existence.
It is like back in the 1900-1930s. All these experiments were proving there is no eather, not only do massless things like light move as a probanility wave, but so do particles like electrons and protons… but only when we are not looking. Light travels at the same relative speed, regardless if we are heading toward the source or away from it.
Totally non-intuitive stuff.
People like Ayn Rand created a whole philisophical movement against the concept of non-intuitive truth, even if that truth was supported by objective evidence.
People say I am on an endless rant.
Incorrect.
It is not a rant. It is an effort to get people to understand the non-intuitive economic realty that is supportable by evidence.
Why? Because once they grasp the foundation of arguments, then the arguments themselves begin to have merit.
It is non-intuitive, but once you accept that money is other peoples’ debt and that the paradox of thrift prevents everyone from saving, you are ready to understand that it is impossible for people with debt to repay the debt, unless the people with money end up with less money.
I can say, “I do not want to tax the money away and give it to deadbeats. I want to use the carrot (deductions) and the stick (tax) to convince people with money to spend it on goods and services, employing people gainfully to create those goods and services.”
However, someone that sees the world in balck and white, class warfare, Republican and Democrat, have to see my wild, crazy ideas, that the rich getting richer is bad as all the evil liberal policies that their party has demagoged for decades.
I’ve been a Republican. I’ve been a Libertarian.
I’ve grown my level of understanding beyond the party lines and intuitivly obvious, yet fundamentally wrong, understanding of econmoics. I’m attempting to bring others along on that journey.
Because once they grasp the foundation of arguments, then the arguments themselves begin to have merit.
That explains why they fight so hard against grasping the foundations of your argument.
Your argument is basically the same as Keynes’s. And I agree with it. It was above politics when the world had recent experience with economic, and then demagogic, catastrophe. Now we’re far enough away historically that we can entertain the same economic theories and demagogues again, thrilling to their demands for harsh austerity and attacks on the ‘deadbeats’. But their way is a dead end, literally. It’s not about morality, it simply doesn’t work.
“harsh austerity”
For whom? Unless austerity strikes the waste in government first, and then the optional government functions, and then starts cutting into necessary or obligated spending, it isn’t REAL austerity. Or a 40% across-the-board cut, in order to totally stop the debt train. Either of those options is the REAL austerity. But neither of those options are in the plan, are they? Therefore faux austerity is the only probable outcome. Our government and corporate rulers will dine lavishly while we starve.
The voter is to be blamed, of course. He refuses to vote for Real Fiscal Conservatives like Ron Paul.
He refuses to vote for Real Fiscal Conservatives like Ron Paul.
Those who preach ‘Real Fiscal Conservatism’ during a depression are wrong, and have been proved so in the last depression. Check out how Greece and Britain are doing with real austerity.
Or is it Different This Time?
So after decades of big taxes and big spending and big borrowing, now that we’ve roasted our economy alive, you claim that cutting back is not the way to work on fixing things? You may as well claim that staying drunk is the way to deal with chronic alcoholism.
Continuing economically destructive policies is not the way to fix the economy.
We should cut back on the growing income disparity, and stop staying drunk on super-low tax rates for financial robber barons and their economically destructive shenanigans, with which we’ve roasted our economy alive for the last few decades.
“…you claim that cutting back is not the way to work on fixing things? You may as well claim that staying drunk is the way to deal with chronic alcoholism.”
Staying drunk beats the prospect of dying in many situations.
Can You Die From Not Drinking?
Assessing the latest theory of Amy Winehouse’s demise.
By Jeremy Singer-Vine|Posted Thursday, July 28, 2011, at 6:24 PM ET
Amy Winehouse’s family believes that quitting alcohol cold turkey precipitated the singer’s recent death, according to the British tabloid the Sun. Toxicology reports won’t be ready for at least two weeks, but most observers have assumed that she suffered from a drug overdose of some kind. Can you really die from not drinking?
Yes. While alcohol withdrawal symptoms are often mild—pronounced sweating, hand tremors, and nausea, for example—more severe cases can critically damage the nervous system. That can lead to seizures, heart attack, and other life-threatening conditions. Symptoms of alcohol withdrawal generally stem from the fact that heavy drinking forces changes in the brain’s sensitivity to key neurotransmitters. When someone stops drinking all of a sudden, the rebound effect can be deadly.
Advertisement
The most severe effect of this rebound is known as delirium tremens, meaning “shaking frenzy” in Latin. This develops in about 5 percent of patients hospitalized for alcohol withdrawal and kills about 5 percent of those who develop it. (Timely diagnosis and treatment, however, can reduce the mortality risk to around 1 out of every 2,000 hospitalized patients.) Symptoms of delirium tremens, also known as “the DTs,” include floating in and out of consciousness, hallucinations, seizures, nausea, and diarrhea. The condition also impairs the autonomic nervous system, and a history of other drug use increases the risk for alcohol-related seizures.
Those newly on the wagon are also at risk of dying from Wernicke’s encephalopathy, a form of brain damage caused by caused by thiamine (a.k.a. vitamin B1) deficiency. Alcohol hampers the body’s ability to absorb thiamine from food, and over time can lead to the destruction of brain tissue. In the long run, quitting alcohol would reduce the risk of mortality, but the symptoms of encephalopathy—memory loss and impaired control over muscle and eye movement—may be mistaken for the general symptoms of withdrawal. If left untreated, Wernicke’s encephalopathy leads to death roughly 20 percent of the time.
…
“…super-low tax rates for financial robber barons and their economically destructive shenanigans…”
Gawd bless Ronald Raygun.
Alpha-sloth, I never denied that income disparities and tax evasion weren’t problems. They are. But YOU need to admit that the government has spent and borrowed itself into a deep hole that is the essence of a destroyed economy. You continue to avoid admitting that borrowing 40 cents on each budget dollar is a clear and present danger. The government isn’t a magic money machine. WE create the wealth of society, not the government. When the government runs up a direct $15 trillion debt, WE have to pay it. The interest on that direct debt alone is about as large as the entire federal government should be.
Don’t believe me? Look at budgeting. In 1940, the federal budget was about $9 billion. By 2007, it had swelled to $3700 billion (40% of which was borrowed). Wage inflation over that 67-yr period was about 2.5% yearly, and the population only grew x2.3. What do you get when you take $9 billion by 2.5% for 67 years, and then x2.3? You get a whole lot less than $3700 billion! You get about $300 billion. And THAT is the scope of the problem: The government grew at over 8% yearly, long term, while the economy which had to support it grew maybe 3% yearly. What do you call a budget growing at a 5% margin over the income supply? A DISASTER. And they (Democrats and Republicans) have used obscene borrowing to cover it all up, until the Day of Reckoning.
Sadly, the DoR won’t happen in November of 2012. But it is coming. It’s called AUSTERITY. When you live well beyond your means and borrow yourself into a corner, you must cut. MUST.
You continue to avoid admitting that borrowing 40 cents on each budget dollar is a clear and present danger.
Largely due to TheBushTaxCutsForTheRich and wars. Budgets have 2 sides, revenue and spending.
Revenue is a part of a budget? No way! That’s socialism!
The government isn’t a magic money machine.
Oh, but I think it is.
WE create the wealth of society, not the government.
Of course, but are we talking about wealth or are we talking about money?
You are right. Alpha is wrong, as usual. Socialist “logic” LOL
It looks like we’ll get to test out the austerity question here shortly. Let’s watch how it works in Britain.
Alpha-sloth, from my posting, obviously I conclude that real austerity measures are seldom if ever invoked, since real fiscal conservatives are as rare as real Libertarians. FALSE austerity measures continues the same, damaging fiscal policies. The wrong people keep getting paid. The right people keep getting hit with taxes. Should I use a larger font to explain this to you?
Of course, bankruptcy being as it is, when you run out of money to support spending, you have to cut. It’s mathematically true that there must be a cut. So I always support austerity measures in principle, as opposed to keeping guzzling the vodka and hoping to stay so blindingly drunk that the collapse of society doesn’t bother you.
obviously I conclude that real austerity measures are seldom if ever invoked,
Isn’t that the argument of every Communist,too? It’s never really been tried?
Communist
I was being serious. Why aren’t you? Real austerity is seldom tried. So Britain’s example probably won’t be a real example, again. The wrong people will continue to get unearned money. Productive people will starve while parasites keep getting free blood. And yet, all current feedings will kill the host all that much faster. So somebody has to stop eating. That’s the ultimate nature of a budget: Somebody gets money, while somebody else doesn’t.
Productive people will starve while parasites keep getting free blood.
Ayn Rand anyone?
That’s the ultimate nature of a budget: Somebody gets money, while somebody else doesn’t.
Guess who has all the money? The super-rich. Shall we be ‘realistic’, and raise their taxes? Or is that a non-starter?
I think it’s time for the rich to share in this austerity. Don’t you?
You’re assuming that everyone will try to save at the same time. That will never happen. While some people have a positive rate of savings, others will have a negative savings rate depending on the stage of life.
“If everyone were to slow their spending, then it would slow everyone’s income.”
That is why a stable savings rate is preferred. When the average savings rate drops significantly it creates a boom. When it climbs it creates a bust. Over the long run the average savings rate should be a bit above zero, since as the economy grows it can absorb more savings through both increased capital goods and increased money supply.
Keep in mind in a global economy, the small positive savings rate should be found by averaging everybody. Entire nations can have a negative rate. When there is a collapse in the money supply related to a deflationary spiral, the average savings rate will be very negative.
“You’re assuming that everyone will try to save at the same time. That will never happen. While some people have a positive rate of savings, others will have a negative savings rate depending on the stage of life.”
Thanks for trying again, Al. Obviously my gas molecule analogy went over like a lead balloon.
“You’re assuming that everyone will try to save at the same time. ”
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no
NO!!!!
Exactly, 100% the OPPOSITE of what I am doing.
Others have put forward as a solution that everyone just spend less than they earn, pay off their debts and save money. I am attempting to get people to accept that it is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to save at the same time.
We are running a $650B a year international trade deficit and we’re seeing record corporate profits. Since 80% of stocks are owned by the 10% richest Americans, this is allowing those with money to accumulate even more. How are we funding all this? Debt. If we just stop the debt without reversing the underlying issues that created the need for the debt in the first place, our economy collapses.
What I’m saying is, we can’t stop the debt until after we have reversed the trade imbalances that created the need for the debt in the first place.
Before people can “get it” that we need to attack and reverse the trade imbalances, they first need to accept that one person’s money is someone else’s debt, and that it is impossible for everyone to be spending less than they earn. A statement “if everyone spends less than they earn, saving money” is the set up of a thought expirement, it is not my assumption of what will happen in reality.
“Others have put forward as a solution that everyone just spend less than they earn, pay off their debts and save money.”
What do you think would happen to the trade deficit if the average savings rate in the US settled in a +1.5%? This includes individuals, corporations, and government.
“You’re assuming that everyone will try to save at the same time. ”
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no NO!!!! Exactly, 100% the OPPOSITE of what I am doing. I am attempting to get people to accept that it is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to save at the same time.
———————
I don’t see how that answers the question or is the opposite of anything. Geat, you’ve proven it’s impossible for everyone to save at the same time. Does that also prove that everyone can’t net spend at the same time? In any case, I’m not sure it was ever in debate, and certainly not by Al or CIBC.
I am attempting to get people to accept that it is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to save at the same time.
Darryl, I’m aboard with most of your explanation but here’s where I think the exception lies. When person x saves and so person y does not receive the monetary value that he used to before the x cutbacks, person y can still save as long as he cuts his own costs further. Of course there will be considerable resistance at a lot of stages but as pressure mounts costs can be reduced through the chain. I’m imaging it as just the oppositie of the upward spiral. It’s just much more painful going back. People say it can’t happen. Looking at history I don’t believe that.
Foooood fiiiiight!
Darrel,
You are still failing to think of production. You are making no distinction between money, wealth, and assets. The ultimate and simplest example of this is energy. Every day billions of BTU’s of thermal energy pour down on us from the sky from the sun. You can choose to store that energy. It doesn’t matter if everyone in the entire world stores some of that energy. That is savings. One person or one million people saving won’t affect the fact that tomorrow some more sunshine is going to pour down on us.
Think of another example: the woodcutter. Every day he goes out and cuts down some trees. He can sell some wood, he can burn some wood to keep warm, he can promise to give more wood than he has cut down, and/or he can save some of the wood for later use. The woodcutter stockpiling his wood does not mean that a nearby farmer has to stop farming because he is broke and has no money.
People survived, prospered, and became wealthy in barter economies where no money existed. They did this through savings. Stockpiling wealth is a mindset. Money is just one tool in an arsenal for the saver.
You are still failing to think of production. You are making no distinction between money, wealth, and assets.
My take is that he is specifically talking ONLY about fiat currency when he uses the word money. If money disappears as debt disappears as he says, whatever real wealth exists will not disappear. But it may all be in the hands of those who were previously in control of the money.
Even if you save FIAT currency, the point is, you have to produce to make the money. The money represents the labor and creativity of your production. Saving it is saving it. Like I said, Money(Fiat currency) is just one tool in the arsenal of the saver. Commodities, real estate, tools, equipment, energy, stocks, and debt(bonds and loans) are just a few of the others.
But you don’t have to produce to *make* the money. Somebody has to borrow to make the money. You can manage to accumulate some by providing goods and services to a chain of people that ends at someone who borrowed it, though.
I think Darrell’s point is what happens if that guy doesn’t produce to pay it back? This is where it gets fuzzy for me because other people in the chain were producing in order to get their hands on that money, so production did occur even though the original guy who borrowed it may fail to produce.
“I’m attempting to bring others along on that journey.”
Once upon time there were <100,000 consumer$
economics was an infant
The still apacing rotational Earth is still getting a constancy of $unlight
Now, there are 7+ Billions of consumer$
economics is going through puberty
Wild beasts are now feared mostly in amusement
The episode$ of playing with DNA?, sad things can happen with no tears from Mother
No turning back…
Life, the tendency is perseverance
Stay alert, be nimble, be ready to duck
(Hwy50 resting /star-gazing in the Mojave, next to a pay phone booth in the middle of nowhere, waiting for more messages)
“I am advocating a policy of using tariffs to fight our international trade imbalances and a VERY steep tax code with 90+% marginal rates but lots of deductions.
These policies fly in the face of everything intuitive about our economy.”
No thanks, either for your lengthy rant at the top of the Bits Bucket or for your tariff proposal, which was already tried in the buildup to WWII.
Protectionism
The battle of Smoot-Hawley
A cautionary tale about how a protectionist measure opposed by all right-thinking people was passed
Dec 18th 2008 | from the print edition
Hawley and Smoot, the bogeymen of tradeLibrary of Congress
EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”
…
“That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”
Eyes always suspected Wall $t. et. al. has a very, very, wide net.
“For MegaBanker$Inc., they sure do a lot of:
“Gone Fishin’!”
for your tariff proposal, which was already tried in the buildup to WWII.
Smoot-Hawley Fiction
http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/smoot.shtml
It doesn’t matter that there’s virtually no serious talk in the media or no tariff proposals in Congress, “free trade” proponents perpetrate pro-”free trade” propaganda by raising the Smoot-Hawley myth. Not to put too fine a point on it, they’re lying.
This article describes why that’s obvious.
Contents:
- Examples of propagating the myth:
Smoot-Hawley Fiction
1. Total Trade was minuscule relative to GDP.
2. The drop in Total Trade was minuscule relative to the drop in GDP.
3. Causality! Smoot-Hawley was passed 8 months after the October 1929 stock market crash.
4. Current U.S. policy already put the U.S. in a “trade war” … we’ve unilaterally surrendered.
5. The U.S. trade balance did not suffer during the 30s! Principles of economic development.
6. Perpetrators of the Smoot-Hawley myth can only make a purported case by looking at total trade (exports + imports), focusing on some features and ignoring others.
7. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff wasn’t a big increase from tariffs already in place.
Ironic that while we were a growing manufacturing concern, like leading up to the Cival War and WWI, there were plenty of tarrifs. On the way to consumerism they were relaxed. Short sighted on both ends.
I think you are missing the big picture, which is that free trade has the potential to collectively increase the wealth of nations. This is the big idea that Adam Smith and David Ricardo set forth centuries ago, which I never hear discussed in the fevered anti-trade rants that get posted here.
Why don’t you guys offer comments on whether the theory of comparative advantage still holds up in the 21st century, instead of proposing measures to return the U.S. economy to autarky?
Didn’t Jefferson want the Autarky to be our national bird?
I think you are missing the big picture…free trade has the potential to collectively increase the wealth of nations. This is the big idea that Adam Smith and David Ricardo set forth centuries ago, which I never hear discussed in the fevered anti-trade rants that get posted here.
Were not Adam Smith and David “Ricky” (to his friends) Ricardo theorizing about free-trade’s benefits in the context of “fair-trade”? Or do you think they thought it fair and good economics for a prosperous nation to sell its jobs down the river to 3rd world country’s wages only to enrich the rich? I think not.
Is not “fevered anti-trade rants” an overly exaggerated straw-man? I see plenty of fair-trade rants but not fevered anti-trade rants.
But in reality, when tested in harsh real world conditions, free trade breaks down because countries which can protect themselves against a free trading partner will then do better than if they merely engage in free trade. This is part of the basic econ 101 theory.
Free trade is a good theory, it highlights the benefits of comparative advantage, but it breaks down when applied between countries. It’s a bit like Communism in that sense - sounds good in theory, breaks down in reality. It’s like a physics model. In theory, a feather and a rock should fall at the same rate. But that only occurs in a literal vaccuum in a laboratory. In real world conditions, with an atmosphere, the feather and rock fall at vastly different rates.
So - comparative advantage does exist. What happens when countries with comparative advantage in creating a majority of good and services decide to protect their economy and engage a free trader with an unprotected economy? And the economic and political elites in the free trader economic and political elites then benefit disproportionately from that system?
That’s what we have in the US today.
The model that Darrell presents, if I have interpreted correctly, is that money circulates in an economy. It’s like oil in an engine.
A trade deficit is like installing a diverter pipe in the oil system, which removes oil from the system. In order to keep the oil level in the economy at the pre-diverter-pipe level, more oil must be poured in. That oil (money) is created through borrowing (debt).
If that model is accurate, why has it not been the forefront of the debate? The only high profile economist I’ve heard shout about this is Peter Morici. Not a peep from anyone else.
I think Smith and Ricardo scaled up comparative advantage to a size where it breaks down. It’s like how Newtonian mechanics, which works in the macro world, breaks down at atomic levels and at speeds near light speed. So quantum mechanics was invented to deal with the arenas in which Newtonian mechanics break down.
Comparative advantage seems to me to work within a country and between individuals and companies and states. The system works naturally between individuals and companies. I’m good at building a widget, you’re good at selling a widget, so you sell and I build and we’re both better off. Companies are the same. States are under the control of the government so they can’t enact any protectionist measures. Even though there would be every incentive to do so because they wish to advantage their populations.
However, the model breaks down at the country level for there is no ruling body which can enforce free trade, and no way to funnel money to a country with little or no comparative advantage. Every country in the system will try to advantage itself. It is a core perverse incentive which undermines the system.
In a competitive market, one would expect the price of a good to tend to come very close to the cost of the inputs. One company may come up with a good idea and enjoy pricing power and large profits for awhile, but eventually competitors will duplicate their product and force prices down. Profits attract competition. The best a company can do is constantly try to find new advantages to buy them more time. A Kodak moment if you will.
The same holds true for individuals. Good money in programming? You can bet there will be a flow of people into that trade coming to compete with you and drive down wages. If you’re in a profession that requires unique skills (I don’t believe my hands are quite steady enough to be a brain surgeon) you have less to worry about.
The idea behind free trade is that each nation/culture will have tendancies/resources/skills that will give them strategic advantages in a certain area. With each little chunck of the world specialising and creating maximum efficencies, there will be a net benefit to the world.
But, what if half the world has the strategic advantage that it’s willing to work for a much lower standard of living than the other half? Standard of living includes both wages with the goods and services they can buy, and environmental conditions.
The model that Darrell presents, if I have interpreted correctly, is that money circulates in an economy. It’s like oil in an engine.
I’ve been thinking of it lately like blood in the body. And how if the brain were capable of hoarding it, how shortsighted it would be for the brain to hoard it as protection against catastrophic blood loss.
“In theory, a feather and a rock should fall at the same rate. But that only occurs in a literal vaccuum in a laboratory.”
Or at the Science Museum in Boston. I loved that demo.
As for free trade, yeah, it has the potential to raise the standard of living on average all over the world. But if the world has two countries (approximately equal in size) and one country comes out of free trade +1 and other comes out +3, then the world is +2 on average and everyone is happy. What happens if one country is -3 and the other country is +7? The world is still +2 on average, but I don’t think everyone is happy.
Distribution matters.
It’s the famous flaw of averages: “If my one foot is in a bucket of scalding water and my other foot is in a bucket of freezing water, I should be comfortable since the average water temperature of both buckets is comfortable.”
That would be like hoarding empty Oxygen tanks as a insurance against loss of atmosphere.
(This is in response to Professor Bear’s comment of 2012-02-03 09:37:15)
Yes, REAL free trade, not our globalism crap, which is corporate socialism combined with outright crime. What passes for free trade today is corporations blatantly cheating and playing one nation’s laws off against another, judiciously cooking their books out of reach of jurisdictions.
I urge you to read “Capitalism’s Achilles Heel”. It outlines how the globalist system today is based almost solely on cheating, and by that I mean fraud. After all, didn’t you ever wonder why so many international economic activities take place that benefit terrorists, smugglers, drug lords and other sorts of organized crooks? It’s because they use the same methods and banks that the corporate cheats do. The PTB aren’t about to let that system shut down, so we end up with well-funded and -supplied terrorism, drug and gun-running activities; they are side effects of the supremacy of corporate fraud; they are the price we pay for believing implicitly that corporations are above the laws that are supposed to support sovereignty.
“It outlines how the globalist system today is based almost solely on cheating, and by that I mean fraud.”
I didn’t mean to suggest our system of free trade could not benefit from improvements; mainly concerned about not throwing out the baby with the bath water.
responding to P.B. of 2012-02-03 16:07:22
The baby is dead, ‘Bear. You have to throw it out. The globalist system of Corporate Trade (as opposed to real free trade) is designed to conduct corrupt trade, which I’ve already defined as fraudulent. Record-keeping is purely driven by the need to cheat nations of their rightful taxes, under the notion that sovereign nations set the laws within their borders. The books are all cooked. They are lies.
The baby that must be thrown out is the current system of corporate governance. Corporations have no sane oversight. They are based on lies. And what happens to that, is that it leads to a progressively wider contempt for the law. So I’m really complaining about all of us; WE tolerate this system. WE can stop it anytime we care to, but first we have to stop thinking the system in any way contains something as precious as a living baby, for crissakes!
“The baby is dead, ‘Bear. You have to throw it out.”
Two fine Japanese automobiles sitting out front of our home, one of them recently manufactured at an American plant, suggest otherwise.
The other factor is we were a net producer and now we are a net consumer. It boggles my mind that people can’t appreciate this difference.
A banker that is afraid of nationalism?
Very interesting….
Strange indeed.
One of the problems with money is human nature. Humans don’t tend to keep things in gentle balance over time, as a lot. They are subject to mood swings that affect their ability to process information consistently. At one end of this spectrum, they cannot process the consequences of overdoing things. At the other end of the spectrum they are paralized by the possible consequences of doing anything. Worse yet, they are herd animals and tend to get swept along mostly together in these phases. The mania of crowds is a very powerful thing, the chapters of which fill volumes of our history, much to our amazement and horror.
Money is a combination of organic base money and imaginary place holders. Gold and credit if you will. Gold (and all things of that type) can be produced with work (or in the case of Spaniards, theft). Credit is based on promises to do that production later (or promises to extract from others). In balance it works pretty well. In mania, credit expands unsustainably.
Here we are at the likely extremis of the biggest credit expansion in our history. The consequences of even an incremental moderation are frightening. “More gas!” scream some. “Brakes!” scream others. “Jesus take the wheel!” Reality is that we already went past what we could keep in control, so like George said “This sucker’s going down.”
Before I had my driver’s license, my best buddy and I found ourselves in his older sister’s car with her at the wheel in a darkened field. Her insight was impared by a few too many beers. A rock came suddenly into the range of the headlights. She reacted by jamming her left foot on the brake and her right on the gas with a simultaneous scream of MOTHER……!”. Needless to say that was not a controlled landing. Thankfully, it was all over very quickly and we were not subjected to her hysteria indefinitely.
So, your solution is to “hold on and enjoy the ride”.
As one who tends to not overdo, and is not easily swept up by the crowd, I’d prefer to point out the rock, and suggest alternatives to “stomping on the gas”.
I realize I am likely to fail to gain much success in my attempts at suggesting a course of action with a small chance of avoiding a crash.
However, at least I can wrap myself in smug arrogance and enjoy my false sense of superiority as a attempt to get the snow flakes to vote, long after the avalanche has already started.
After the crash, at least I’ll be able to gloat, “see, I told you so”.
You have your way of “holding on and enjoying the ride”, and I have mine.
There is a big difference between enjoying the ride and calming down to get a grip. Sometimes it is useful to consider the sincere advice of others that your thoughts are racing. In that state you are in no position to advise.
So, your solution is to “hold on and enjoy the ride”.
I’d prefer to point out the rock, and suggest alternatives….
The perfect solution lies in both.
Point out the rock, suggest always, all the while holding on and enjoying the ride.
Seat belts were not standard in those days.
…cause we didn’t know no better and we liked it that way!
(old SNL skit)
Blue Skye - That first paragraph was enlightening.
Blue Skye - That first paragraph was enlightening.
Indeed, provocative.
How would the virgin Mary act in our environment: heals and tight-a$$ jeans, size-c implants, tousled hair, iPhone, Starbucks, a VW Jetta, and all on credit? B.F. Skinner would chit his pants today.
Bernays, Pavlov and Skinner were the founders of modern pyscho-warfare marketing.
One of the problems with money is human nature. Humans don’t tend to keep things in gentle balance over time, as a lot. They are subject to mood swings that affect their ability to process information consistently. At one end of this spectrum, they cannot process the consequences of overdoing things. At the other end of the spectrum they are paralized by the possible consequences of doing anything. Worse yet, they are herd animals and tend to get swept along mostly together in these phases.
Spoken like a Keynesian. And the logical solution is monetary policy that acts as a counterweight to prevailing conditions- loosening in bad times, tightening in good times. Keynesian monetary policy.
Perhaps if we were ruled by wise and benevolent kings with Divine Rights. Perhaps not when “governed” by bat-sht crazy aquisators.
Perhaps not when “governed” by bat-sht crazy aquisators.
You may perhaps be right, but it’s ironic that anti-Keynesian Republicans essentially offer themselves, and the devastating results of their own economic policies (”Heck, we’ll just spend any surplus or give it back as long-term-unaffordable tax breaks”), as ‘proof’ that Keynes’s theories won’t work.
I have to admit that I have no effin clue what you just said.
I have to admit that I have no effin clue what you just said.
How about this:
It’s ironic when the guy pooping in your kitchen sink says “See? This is why you should never host a party. People like me will show up”.
Darrell, thanks for continuing to post. I don’t know for a fact whether you’re right or wrong, but I like where thinking about it takes me. My thoughts when I read people’s disagreements with you is that they seem to be using a different definition of money than you and when they think they are proving you wrong they are actually talking about something different than what you’re saying. At least that’s my impression so far.
It seems to me that some people are equating money with wealth where you are not.
“it is impossible for people with debt to repay the debt, unless the people with money end up with less money”
And the big, big problem is that the people with money have every intention– and have setup all socio-economic functions in our culture– to only increase their seizure of money. That’s why this Second Great Depression will only get longer and deeper. The engine of wealth creation was ruthlessly conquered and then occupied by the 1%. Irony; the 1% occupied us long before the OWS/99% people tried to occupy them.
It strikes me nearly daily that I’m really only holding on not because I’m innately prosperous. No, it’s because I’m in far less trouble than most other people. I’m simply in less of a Debt Trap.
If they play their cards just right it ends as a new form of slavery.
Oh, that dog already hunted and game back with a bloodied muzzle.
We went from chattel slavery, to wage slavery, to debt slavery, and now a new era dawns: Tax slavery. The government has undertaken to secure the profits of large businesses directly now, so they will be coming after you for the money required. As Darrel in Phoenix points out, this will become progressively more impossible to attain, since money is debt, but this is a matter of ideology and not logic.
Given that tax slavery will fail in a general collapse, I suppose that chattel slavery will need to be invoked again, as we return to the 19th Century or something.
The government has undertaken to secure the profits of large businesses directly now, so they will be coming after you for the money required.
Huh? How does ‘large business’ = ‘you’ ? The old ‘they’ll just pass higher taxes on to us’ canard? Then why do large businesses fight higher taxes so? Because they care about us?
“We went from chattel slavery, to wage slavery, to debt slavery, and now a new era dawns: Tax slavery.”
You are correct. I always laugh at this notion that slavery ended in 1865.
People are dumb.
The old ‘they’ll just pass higher taxes on to us’ canard?
If you can’t see that borrowing money now leads to even more taxes later, then I can’t help you understand anything… you being definably totally resistant to facts and logic.
The rich are going to be paying less and less taxes, since We The People are now slaves of many stripes and no longer control our government in any way. That’s already baked into the cake, and every time 95%+ of the voting nation select one or the other of Wall Street candidates, it becomes a firmer truth. Libertarians and other fiscal conservatives are utterly demonized. So spending and borrowing will NOT abate.
Since the rich won’t be paying those marginal tax costs, and the poor won’t (since they have nothing to tax), then it only stands to reason that the middle class (the majority of people posting here) will have to pick up the tab. It can’t be avoided, since by class definition, the middle class has enough wealth to tax while not having enough wealth to avoid it (like the rich do).
Would you honor me with a straight answer to a direct question, Alpha? Where do you believe the money will come from, to pay the $1.2 trillion that the federal government will borrow just in this year alone? Note also that when you BORROW money, you must pay MORE back than the money borrowed, called “interest”. Borrowed money is not only a stealth tax increase, it’s MORE of a tax increase than just laying on a tax right then, due to interest cost. (Thanks.)
We were in more relative debt after WW2 than we are now, and we paid it back- right up until Reagan. We can pay what we owe now, assuming we let Bush’s tax cuts expire, and we control heath care costs. Both quite doable- if we stop listening to the right-wing zanies who put us in the hole we’re in.
Here’s some reading for you, to soothe your apparent fears:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/04/the_donothing_plan.html
February 2, 2012, 3:31 PM.
On Foreclosures, Uncle Sam Courts Investors.
By Alan Zibel
Click for interactiveOn Wednesday, a U.S. housing regulator invited investors to submit initial applications to bid on pools of foreclosed properties owned by Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage finance company, as part of a new pilot program.
The goal is to help stabilize the troubled housing market by turning properties into rental units. Similar programs are expected to be launched by Fannie Mae’s sibling company, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration, the government-controlled mortgage insurer.
That pilot program would be limited to properties that Fannie has already leased through a program that allows tenants to rent homes when their landlords go into foreclosure. It involves real estate with an estimated value of at least $250 million in six areas: Southern California, Las Vegas, Chicago, Phoenix, Atlanta, and parts of Florida.
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/02/02/on-foreclosures-uncle-sam-courts-investors/ - -
The goal is to help stabilize the troubled housing market by turning properties into rental units.
Here in Tucson, we already have a 16% rental vacancy rate. So, how’s adding more SFR rentals to the pool going to help things? We don’t exactly have a shortage of apartments either.
Oh, I’ve also heard that there’s already quite the bumper crop of empty rentals in Phoenix. That’s just in SFR. Apartment complexes are also on the hunt for tenants.
And don’t get me started on commercial real estate, because the Phoenix area is full of see-through buildings.
Slim, can’t you see this coming? The government will step in and cover any losses through various tax credits and other subsidies. Section 8 placements will increase, for example, and by no mean coincidence the pool investors will be best positioned to apply for that.
The government will do everything it can to protect big investors. Period. That is part of the Bailout Economy. If direct government payments can’t be arranged for the elite, the government can just arrange to run their tax bills to zero. Either way, the elite win, while the rest of us lose. And shadow inventory will just slide on over from the banks into the hands of the pseudo-banks (i.e. the rich), totally avoiding the real market where we sad sacks might actually make wealth gains from having prudently saved in order to make such capital purchases.
If this was a war, we’ve already lost. It’s a war on the middle class, and a war on savers, and: We. Have. Lost.
What happens after this is the continuing of the process of collecting more of the wealth of the nation in the hands of the upper class. We started out in 2000 with about 80% of the nation’s wealth controlled by 20% of the population. By 2010, as I predicted, it increased, to 85%. They are going for the next 5% and they are almost certain to get it. Run those numbers, Slim: It means that the middle class will average capital losses of 50%. The middle class wealth base must fall by half.
Once the elite 20% control 90% of the nation, perhaps as early as 2017, getting more of the remaining 10% should become much easier. When that happens, we really only have two options:
1. Tolerate it.
2. Complain violently.
Unemployment in AU is 10.3% now. Thee bubble is definitely going to burst this year. And next would be Canada, China, SIngapore, India, Hong Kong…so many to go. The World Eco. can only print..print..print to get out of this mess.
“Unemployment has now reached a record high of 1,278,000 (10.3%). This is the highest ever recorded Roy Morgan unemployment estimate in Australia. ” - http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/02/more-on-the-roy-morgan-numbers/
What can I get a Calais package Holden with low mileage not more than 2 years old for?
Realtors Are Liars®
Santorum Warns Of Doomsday Under Obama
LAKEWOOD, Colo. (AP) — Rick Santorum’s campaign slogan could very well be one word: doomsday.
To hear him tell it, the United States will collapse under the weight of its health care system and basic freedoms will be history. Iran will annihilate Israel and then South Carolina if Iran isn’t blocked from building a nuclear weapon. And divorce will yield higher taxes for all Americans.
Unless, of course, Republicans pick Santorum as the party’s presidential nominee and he goes on to defeat President Barack Obama.
“Go back and read what the sirens did once you arrived on that island,” Santorum warned students at Colorado Christian University this week, invoking mythology. “They devour you. They destroy you. They consume you.”
Great way to demonize your political opponent: Warn that a catastrophe will result if he is elected.
And we also got, “We’re gonna take this country back.” Can’t the RNC think up any better talking points?
Sean Hannity Falsifies CBO Data To Make His Case That Obama Re-Election Would Be A “Disaster”
February 02, 2012 11:47 pm ET by Solange Uwimana
Sean Hannity sought to bolster Newt Gingrich’s assertion that “it will be a disaster” for the country if President Obama is re-elected, by misleading about the Congressional Budget Office’s recent budget analysis. Hannity argued that CBO, which released its 10-year economic outlook on January 31, reported that if Obama wins a second term, “[t]axes will go up 30 percent.”
ALL the neocon talk show barkers lie.
…and people believe it.
I wonder what he says about Free Trade and Smoot Hawley???
Great way to demonize your political opponent: Warn that a catastrophe will result if he is elected.
Which was done during the Jefferson-Adams campaign of 1800. The Adams side predicted such things as an outbreak of atheism if Jefferson were elected.
The HBO John Adams series was pretty good but they didn’t cover that aspect of things.
If The GOP ClownCar passengers aren’t threatening the lives of civilians in some country on the otherside of the planet, they’re obsessively talking about peoples sex lives.
This country deserves so much more and we should demand it.
But, its got electrolytes.
IT’S WHAT PLANTS CRAVE!
With all their talk about other peoples’ intimate relations, one wonders if they have any time to have their own.
Karen and Rick Santorum (assuming he’s the father) did at least seven times.
See also Entertainment Weekly - Two votes and counting: The Duggars are stumping for Rick Santorum
“It’s a(nother) reality show waiting to happen: Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of the TLC series 19 Kids and Counting are stumping for the GOP candidate Rick Santorum. According to USA Today, the reality show parents, who have been supporters of Santorum throughout his campaign, will stump for the former Pennsylvania senator at events today in Florida as Santorum is at a Philadelphia hospital with his 3-year-old daughter (who suffers from a rare and often fatal condition known as Trisomy 18).
The union of the Duggars (who are bringing five of their of-voting-age children along with them on the campaign trail) and Santorum is an unsurprising one, as both parties have similar conservative views (Michelle Duggar said at a South Carolina campaign stop that her family supports Santorum as, “He has proven that he always stands for life”) and have unfortunately dealt with their share of tragic medical issues with their children. (The Duggars’ 19th child, Josie, spent four months in neonatal intensive care, and the couple lost their expected 20th child, Jubilee Shalom, in a miscarriage.)”
20 kids? Sex fiends.
Gluttons for Punishment
Man-on-dog action!
Fortunately, if Gingrich is elected divorce will be less of a problem.
Oh my Buddha…Sanitarium. Divorce will yield higher taxes. What is that cave man suggesting, that two people who hate each other must be forced to live together? Bible thumpers. Grrrrrr!
Fa$ter!, … Fa$ter!! … WFO / metal to the pedal until, …
They’re all mo$tly irrelevant!
Next: < E$crow paper$ without so many initials.
I picked up a check at the office of a company we do work for and took the book-keeper out to lunch yesterday. His wife is going through Chemotherapy and they just had a shell contractor go belly up on them leaving them with $46k in unpaid subs so far. We went to the Brass Ring in NPB (anyone around here, they have the best burgers in SE Fl.)
Anyway, after we eat and he unloads a lot of cr@p the waitress brings my company credit card back and says… I ran it twice it won`t go through. Shocked and embarassed I give her my personal CC and tell the guy… I guess my book-keeper didn`t pay the bill.
Not good.
I drive directly to my office and say WTF! My book-keeper says it`s paid. We call the CC company give them the CC number and are sent automatically to the fraud dept.which must be in India from the sound of the dude. He says we have suspect activity on your card so we put a stop on it and asks if I was at a gas staion in Jupiter Fl. last week. I say yes. Were you at the Brass Ring in North Palm Beach today. I say yes and the card was declined. LSS Baboo says OK I will reinstate your card thanks for calling.
We then pull up the card actvity in my office and discover what Baboo forgot to ask me was if I was at a hotel in Ghana Africa last Friday and made 4 charges totalling over $4,000.00
It took 2 hours to straighten it out with someone who spoke english.
Kinda scary what “they” know ’bout yer movement$ across America ain’t it?
eyes carry a money clip w x1 FCU credit/debit on top of x1 $100.00 + no < x3 $20.00 BernankeInc. notes, 99% of the time that’s sufficient to handle < **** dining embarrassment$
(Of, course I don’t do “Bidne$$” lunches with my big brother, you know, the $mart one! OK, one time with our Dad in overalls on the 35th floor downtown with a view, eyes didn’t know nutin’ ’bout France and even less about Champagne, so while Big Bro was in the restroom, lookin’ at all those fancy names without number$ and all cornfused like, eyes told the waiter, “just bring the best ya got”, … oops!)
Another reason to move to a biology based ID system. Pretty hard to counterfeit your unique life form signature. Since digital money is the language of international commerce it makes sense. Could also be useful for things like the caps on pill bottles so kids don’t poison themselves or a gun that could only be fired by humans over a certain age.
A social security number gets translated into a string of 1’s and 0’s inside a computer. A biological stamp would be translated into that same type of sequence. And both strings of 1’s and 0’s are subject to being stolen once they’re digitized.
Bless those credit card security departments. You would hope they would call you about the charge in Ghana before they left you to wash dishes after a burger. A similar (but in reverse) incident nearly left me stranded in Japan once. Hwy’s backup plan strategy is a good one!
In somewhat related news, FBI and Scotland Yard hacked by Anonymous… while investigating Anonymous.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/96a09ee8-4e92-11e1-ada2-00144feabdc0.html
in Canada, Bell has outsourced its English call centre to Mumbai, India. So when you want to talk to someone who speaks English, press 2 pour français. You are transferred to Montréal where they speak French but they are happy to help you in English.
Usually the government numbers are bogus and the recovery just isn’t real. But this Souperbowl its different…
Here’s your recovery: WSJ - BLS Forecasts Fastest-Growing Jobs
“Assuming a full-employment economy with an unemployment rate of 5.2% by 2020, the BLS expects total U.S. employment to rise 14.3% over the current decade, resulting in 20.5 million new jobs. The projections are based on expected labor force participation, the assumed unemployment rate and estimated housing starts, among other factors.
Much of that growth – more than 2 million positions – will come from low-paid openings for home health aides (mean annual wages of $21,760) personal care aides — people who look after the elderly and infirm but do not administer medications (mean annual wages of $20,420) and retail salespeople (mean annual wages $25,000).
Registered nursing, the occupation expected to add the most jobs — 712,000 — offers a bright spot, with mean annual wages of $67,720 in 2010.
Among the fastest-growing occupations – those adding jobs quickly though not necessarily in large numbers overall – are biomedical engineers (mean annual wages: $84,780), veterinary technicians (mean annual wages: $31,030), event planners (mean annual wages: $48,780), and physical therapy assistants (mean annual wages: $49,810), and occupational therapy assistants (mean annual wages: $51,300).
Some construction jobs such as glazing, brickwork and carpentry — for which mean annual wages range between $27,000-$50,000 — will also grow fast over the coming decade, but the agency said employment in the industry will not return to pre-recession levels by 2020.”
I think there is a crack in their crystal ball. Presuming that most of us will have these lower paying jobs, while presuming that they will still pay as much as they did when we all had mostly higher paying jobs…..computer models.
Speaking of perplexed: I’m seeing more news articles that True Scientists are now saying that Global Warming is long gone and that we are headed into the next Ice Age. What is it like 1970 again? Who pays these people to keep us in a constant state of panic?
Who’s saying that global warming is over?
“True Scientists are now saying that Global Warming is long gone and that we are headed into the next Ice Age.”
That is just not what they are saying. Keep up the good work though! This kind of head-in-the-sand “thinking” has given to us the beautiful ruins of Ankor Wat and Machu Picchu, so future generations will have that to look forward to!
Seriously though, this uninformed comment has zero to do with housing or the economy. Just stop.
Actually I did read these crazy articles recently! Perhaps you didn’t see my sarcasm light on. Aside from that, for all the times you’ve pushed your opinions on the subject, saying it’s got nothing to do is kind of ironic.
Stonehenge…..The Pyramids……Machu Picchu…….”The Estates at Fairleigh Village, starting at $180K”……
One of these is not like the others…….
I believe new data released by East Anglia shows there has been no warming for 15 years.
Forget global warming - it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Tyvek may last longer than you think :-).
NASA says otherwise.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Eyes hope eyes live long enough to see what everyone does when the magnetic poles make a “new decision”
Eyes hope eyes live long enough to see what everyone does when the magnetic poles make a “new decision”
ƃuıʇsǝɹǝʇuı ǝq ןןıʍ ʇı
Actually I did read these crazy articles recently! Perhaps you didn’t see my sarcasm light on. Aside from that, for all the times you’ve pushed your opinions on the subject, saying it’s got nothing to do is kind of ironic.
Read them with an understanding? Didn’t see the light on. Rough. Wow. I don’t push my “opinions” on the subjects until called upon and it’s not an “opinion” when it’s informed by something other than talking points, i.e. primary sources. Stick to your mainsail.
Some construction jobs such as glazing, brickwork and carpentry — for which mean annual wages range between $27,000-$50,000 — will also grow fast over the coming decade, but the agency said employment in the industry will not return to pre-recession levels by 2020.”
I second the above.
I’ve had all the windows at the Arizona Slim Ranch replaced, and I can say that watching good glazers is a treat. It’s like watching a very well choreographed ballet.
They also did a darn good job on the installation.
“Registered nursing, the occupation expected to add the most jobs — 712,000 — offers a bright spot, with mean annual wages of $67,720 in 2010″
It’s take decades to make that kind of money in nursing. But first you have to live through the very long working hours and working conditions that skirt very close to breaking all labor laws.
Wait until they slash medicare spending. It’s coming and a lot of these jobs will go poof.
They won’t go poof, they will just not pay more than $15-20/hr.
Wage Deflation, baby. Coming soon to a paycheck near you.
Effective Corporate tax rates 12%. (”highest in the world?” NOT) Effective multimillionaire tax rates 15%. Grandma’s heathcare is too expensive.
With Tax Break, Corporate Rate Is Lowest in Decades
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html?mod=WSJ_article_forsub
WASHINGTON—U.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.
Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.
That… that can’t be right!
Hannity Limbuagh says so!
Cinder$ & Ashe$, Agonie$ & Pain$, … The $uffering $o’s, they’ve been tax-$lapped down and can’t get up! … Help ‘em, … Hurry!!!!!
Looking at new house rentals. Came across a nice house, but learned it has oil-based heat rather than natural gas. Can anyone comment on the relative costs to heat the house? Looks like oil will be more expensive, but how much?
I don’t imagine this house is too energy efficient - it’s mostly windows, which is part of the appeal. But I’m trying to make an assessment on the cost to heat. Of course I’ll be asking the owner for info in that regard as well.
Thanks folks.
Oil is not only very expensive, but varies all the time, so it can be hard to budget for.
But, like all other energy cost, it varies by region.
Oil is not only very expensive
care to quanitify that statement? gas and oil are measured in different units, and burn at different efficiencies. Obviously the efficiency of the boiler is an issue as well.
What I’m trying to get is a relative cost given the same efficiency furnace, same house, etc.
The price of home heating oil tends to be very volatile. A large number of my friends with oil furnaces are subsidizing their heating needs with pellet stoves.
A large number of my friends with oil furnaces are subsidizing their heating needs with pellet stoves.
The house has two fireplaces so, while not a pellet stove, I have alternate (and hopefully cheaper) means of heating while I’m home. Of course I don’t know how effective the fireplaces are at radiating heat, versus just adding to the ambiance.
Thanks for the input.
In our state you can ask the owner to be ready to present copies of the utility bills.
Can anyone comment on the relative costs to heat the house? Looks like oil will be more expensive, but how much?
You have to buy in large quantity when the price is lowest. Most peeps can’t plan any farther than next Friday, so they pay the highest rates and complain about it.
It takes a lot of details to consider such a question.
Exactly. Price is just one part the puzzle.
I knew a guy with oil heat. Every so often the truck rolls out to the house and he fills the tank up. So, to me the cost would be “how many times a year would I need to fill the tank?”
Tank is X gallons. Timeframe for refills is Y days. Your mileage indicator could be gallons per day.
My $0.02
Yeah, talked to guy today. 600 gallon tank. He said when he lived there (has tenants now) he went through maybe 500 gallons a year. At $3-$4/gallon that’s a bit pricier than what I pay to heat my place right now. About 2x. But I don’t know what temp they keep it at.
And again, the walls are almost all windows. Very cool house.
Do the calculation yourself.
1kw electric=3.4k BTU
1gal LP gas=92k BTU
1gal fuel oil=140k BTU
You know what the rates are in your area, adjust for efficiencies and voila….. and if anyone tells you they’re getting 85% out of oil, they’re lying or they don’t have a clue. Gas is gonna be somewhere in the very high 80’s or 90…. maybe 91 if it’s a newer boiler or 95% on a condensing boiler. Obviously electric is 100% efficient.
Unless the central heat is properly zoned, you can pitch efficiencies out the door.
I wonder what your realty specialist tells you regarding DOM (days on market) when you put a place like this up for sale? Seems like more and more go on every day. I’d really like to know if the sellers are someone w/very high income dumping one of their many homes, if these people are a little late to the “downsizing” concept, or if they’re leaving the state due to the taxation burden like many with their own businesses always tell the state their tempted to do.
http://cnyhomes.com/Listing/Search/info.cgi?mlnum=S266166
asking $2.795mil
8000 sq feet
28.5 acres
6 full baths and 1 powder room
Year Built: 2007 bwa ha haha haha haha!
I do know of one couple who grew up there that have been in China for the last few years. Reportedly the Skaneateles property is an estate but they kept it despite it being empty. It borders other family property. I have no idea where that property is on the lake but sometimes these things do sit while the people live elsewhere. There is another waterfront not far from me where the people have been in Manhatten the last few years. I hear you can take your dog for a walk along the water which is a shared situation and look in their windows. Her knitting is still on the seat like she’s coming back any minute from a day trip but they haven’t been seen in years.
I hear you can take your dog for a walk along the water which is a shared situation and look in their windows. Her knitting is still on the seat like she’s coming back any minute from a day trip but they haven’t been seen in years.
Sounds like something I do.
Yep, I peer in the windows of empty houses. And, in one case, I walked through the unlocked front door. That was kinda spooky, so I skee-daddled back outside. Didn’t want the ghosts to get me.
There are many things that are different today than Adam Smith’s day. If you follow his line of thinking back then and what his motivations were and superimpose them on today’s different world I think some of the means he would choose today to reach the ends would be different than the means he advocated back in his day. In his day was there a Communist manufacturing giant? Did communication enable the vast amount of off-shoring as it does now? Were shipping costs dirt cheap back then? Would his “division of labor” theory be the same in light of the vast changes? Had the industrial revolution even begun? Was there Communism back then? No.
And was not Adam Smith greatly concerned with the average person’s wages? Would Adam Smith be in favor of a Capitalist country off-shoring most of it’s manufacturing base to a Communist country? After he saw the results of the 30 year experiment which lowered our wages?
“It is but equity … that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerable well fed, clothed and lodged.” Adam Smith
“And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?”
William Blake
East India Company, or “why the American Revolution was really fought”.
I’ll take Issac Newton for 200.
Upon loosing a fortune in the collapse of the South Sea Bubble:
Oh dang: “losing” not “loosing”…
“Did communication enable the vast amount of off-shoring as it does now?”
Just how many container$ are on those Container $hips anywho?, How do they get inland so swiftly on $teel wheel$, and di$tributed just as quickly via an “evil” American National Highway $ystem? How How? Moreover, how does any MegaCorpInc.’$ make any meager profit$ utilizing all these taxpayer $ponsered $ystem$ and still able to give their peon workers pi$$-ant health-benefit$? How? How?
Lucy: “Hwy50, you’re such a BLOCKHEAD!!!!!!”
Biggest Holders of US Government Debt
CNBC
By Paul Toscano | CNBC – 4 hours ago
1. Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings
U.S. debt holdings: $6.328 trillion
2. China
U.S. debt holdings: $1.132 trillion
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-holders-of-us-gov-t-debt.html
Is Paul Toscano any relation to Rich from San Diego?
Didja hear that notable SD housing bear Rich just bought a house? Eeeeek! What’s this world coming to?
I did not!
I heard.
First CA Realist took the plunge, then CA renter turned traitor, and now Rich bought into the REIC. If PB and Ben buy I’m just gonna buy stock in Johnny Walker’s and spend the rest of my life a homeless drunk, the last stand against the corrupting influence of real estate.
(And this is in spite of moving to a small town in KS where housing, while affordable at the low end, is actually in a ridiculous bubble too! I don’t want a $50k shack, but I refuse to pay $300k for a $150k house.)
I did tell you guys years ago that if you would all pitch in and buy me a house the bubble would burst the day after I closed! Still not too late.
First CA Realist took the plunge, then CA renter turned traitor, and now Rich bought into the REIC.
And Roubini bought a multi-million-dollar condo in Manhattan(!).
I, for one, congratulate Rich on making a reasoned household financial decision that works for him. We used to occasionally meet up before he made a name for himself as a real estate bear, back when we both were sure a bubble was in progress, despite official cluelessness from the highest ranks of academia and government.
I would buy a home now, too, except it doesn’t pencil out for my household compared to the (relatively) cheap rental we occupy.
Rich Toscano, Noted Housing Bear, Buys a House: VOSD Radio
Posted: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:33 am | Updated: 6:37 pm, Mon Jan 30, 2012.
by Scott Lewis
In 2004, Rich Toscano launched Professor Piggington’s Econo-Almanac for the Landed Poor.
I asked him the other day to explain why he did it:
To his surprise, more than just his friends found it interesting.
Its central thesis was that the housing market had reached unsustainable heights. It would come down.
This, of course, was absurd to many: buying or keeping your house was a no-brainer at the time.
But Toscano stood apart.
He explained things with a comic flair and conversational writing style that was so attractive, the site started making him money. He even began charging for premium content and eventually decided to dump his career as a software engineer and become a money manager.
(Full disclosure: I discovered him while wrestling with the decision to sell or keep a condominium in 2005. We decided to sell it, in large part, because of his analysis.)
Toscano became San Diego’s most beloved housing bear. National reporters would call him for the token quote about how things might not be as peachy as everyone assumed.
He had haters too. Lots of them. Many shared the belief that housing prices would never collapse. Maybe, some would concede, a “soft landing” was on the way.
In 2005, Toscano also began writing for us. His insights helped us justify investing reporting talent in covering the housing market, which we were proud to provide independent perspective on in 2005 and 2006. For a while, we were best known for our political coverage but best read for our housing coverage.
Then, the housing market plummeted. And you know the story from there.
All the while, Toscano watched. Nope, still unsustainable. Still high. Over and over someone would say we’d hit bottom and Toscano would say, “Yeah, doesn’t look like it.”
But over the past several months, he changed his tune. Homes were now almost cheap, with mortgage payments finally competing with rents. His graphs were starting to look not so distorted.
And just last week, Toscano completed the purchase of a house.
Who knows if this really is the bottom of the housing market? But as he explains in this week’s VOSD Radio, it made sense to him to buy.
It’s a great conversation, I think. Give it a listen.
And congrats, Rich!
“If PB and Ben buy I’m just gonna buy stock in Johnny Walker’s and spend the rest of my life a homeless drunk,…”
On that note, if I ever do decide to buy, I plan to keep it to myself for a few years, lest my decision turns others to drink.
Does Professor Bear not equal Rich Toscano a.k.a. Get Stucco? I’m confused!
Where Google Earth exactly are their respective Head-quarter$?
Intergovernmental means Social Security.
“1. Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings
U.S. debt holdings: $6.328 trillion”
Isn’t the fed buying so much federal debt somewhat akin to spiders eating their young?
Just had lunch at one of my favorite hangouts, and heard the latest Red-State “Obama Conspiracy du Jour”
Seems that a couple of weeks ago, Obama signed an executive order giving amnesty to all of the illegals, including free welfare bennies and the right to vote in the upcoming election. The liberal media of course, hasn’t reported this because they are in on the conspiracy.
To be paid for by printing money, raising taxes, and cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
Purpose: to buy votes to win the next Presidential election.
Yep, that damned corporate librul media!
“The.Damn.Birth.Certificate.Now!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Let’s begin @ the beginning shall we …
“lil’ Opie Conspiracy du Jour”
A colleague and his wife, both Grinch conservatives, took me out to a going away dinner. His wife predicted Obama will rule this November election results void, and give himself a second term.
Right wing conspiracy theory, but there are plenty of conspiracy theories spun by the socialist crappers.
A colleague … His wife predicted Obama will rule this November election results void, and give himself a second term.
And her husband, of course, essentially works for the federal government like you, right? And I bet they’re anti-big-gov just like you, too? Pitiful.
We all wok for the federal government. And I do not pity you at all slop. My feelinfpgs toward you are worse than that.
We all wok for the federal government…My feelinfpgs toward you are worse than that.
Good to know you’re engineering our future.
his hands are probably shaking while typing.
his hands are probably shaking while typing.
LOL
Occupy Moscow protestors undeterred by -19F cold, as crony capitalism loses its appeal to Russians.
I wonder if the same might soon happen in the U.S.?
Russians brave big freeze to challenge Putin
By Anna Smolchenko (AFP) – 5 hours ago
MOSCOW — Tens of thousands of Russians were to march in Moscow Saturday, braving freezing temperatures to challenge Vladimir Putin’s grip on power a month before the premier stands in presidential elections.
Their third mass rally in less than two months is seen as a crucial test of the movement’s ability to keep up momentum despite Putin’s refusal to bow to its demands that include a re-run of December parliamentary polls.
Government supporters will stage a rival rally dubbed the “anti-Orange protest” — a reference to Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution that ousted its old order from power and infuriated the Kremlin.
Putin thanked his supporters on the eve of the protest and urged them to dress warmly.
“I am grateful to them and share their views,” he said late Friday.
…