Bits Bucket for December 4, 2012
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here. And check out Chomp, Chomp, Chomp by a regular poster!
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here. And check out Chomp, Chomp, Chomp by a regular poster!
So… yesterday we wake up and the front yard, driveway, and road are flooded.
If you haven’t read this yet, here it is again: apparently the abandoned house next to me (House A) is owned by a lady that just moved in across the street (House B). The house (House B) she moved into was abandoned, too — word is she swindled the deed from a dying old lady.
So yesterday, at 5:20 a.m., there’s that lady standing in the street, next to the house (House A), where the reclaimed water line is busted and spraying water everywhere. The only action against the House A was… drumroll, a water lien.
She should just burn it down. Nobody will care at this point, but next time I see her near an “accident” at House A I’m calling the sheriff.
A lot of “coincidences” these days…
And no, I will not approach her as nice neighborhood guy, since I think she is crazy enough to shoot me (for real).
I don’t get it. What does breaking the water line on her old house accomplish?
Alpha…From yesterday;
Did they vote Romney ??
Well sure they did but who was Romney ?? IMO, a clear indication where Romney stood ideology wise look no farther than his VP pick…
Romney was a Mormon, which makes voting for him a big leap for evangelicals. They’ll vote Catholic too, as we saw with Santorum. It appears they’ll vote for most anyone that believes in Jesus and is sufficiently judgmental and self-righteous.
If Romney was only a Moron instead of Mormon, the evangelists would not have had any problems.
A friend said that the Dems should have spread a rumor just a few days before the election: That Romney was going to swear by the Book Of Mormon on his inauguration.
That would have got some fundies’ knickers in a knot.
america just wasn’t ready for a mormon president.
I think America is ready for a Mormon president, and if Romney doesn’t run again, he did a great service to the next LDS candidate by coming so close to winning.
I agree. I think for the next Mormon candidate, religion won’t be the primary factor in whether they get elected or not. It’ll just be a small fringe thing that only a few will use to make their decision. By the end of the 2012 election I think Romney had already gotten to that point. He failed to be elected for reasons other than his religion.
“I don’t get it. What does breaking the water line on her old house accomplish?”
Revenge? Ruining the house so the bank has to pay to fix it? “Getting back” at the water peeps?
I *never* see her in the morning. And yet, there she was… and her words: “you guys have a problem over there.”
Remember: people are nuts.
And no, I will not approach her as nice neighborhood guy, since I think she is crazy enough to shoot me (for real).
If I see any of my neighbors doing anything that appears amiss, I do NOT approach them and try to talk things over. Uh-uh. Too dangerous.
Instead, I make reports to various authorities. Or to the landlord, if it’s a rental property.
If it’s a job bigger than what I can handle on my own, there’s the neighborhood association board. They don’t take shhhh! off-a nobody. And they have my back. Oh, do they ever.
AAPL: Analyst: Sell Apple Before Doomsday
I am guessing the Mayan’s Doomsday.
Lot’s of Doomsdays of late… could be the “Fiscal Cliff” Doomsday, could be the “Dissapointing Holiday Sales” Doomsday, could be the “Mayan Long-Date Calendar” Doomsday.
Recent article on Zerohedge highlighted a fact that very few have picked up on, to whit: With it’s next round of “stimulus”, the Federal Reserve will be purchasing 90% of the US debt issuance. I call this the “End of the Dollar as Global Reserve Currency” Doomsday.
“End of the Dollar as Global Reserve Currency” Doomsday.
That’s just crazy talk.
The Wall Street Banking Cartel will buy all outstanding shares of the USA.
Not if the PPT gets there first. Or is that the same thing?
The PPT has to first lend the TBTF banks the money at zero percent interest before they can snap up all the U.S. assets the want and resell them to greater fools at manipulated, inflated prices.
Apple peaked. The Samsung Galaxy is a better phone- and cheaper, Apple’s laptops are too expensive, and the iPad has much competition going forward. The halcyon days are over.
I agree. I’m looking for a computer to replace my desktop. Just checked out the price of Apple laptops and darn near keeled over.
Sorry, Apple, but it is about price. You’re not THAT cool.
Check out the price of Microsoft’s offering before you judge Apple too harshly.
Lenovo (Foxconn) is the way to go…
For good measure, be sure to buy it at BigBoxMart (CostCo)…
If you want to pick a winner, I’d recommend going with da bears.
Dec. 4, 2012, 7:01 a.m. EST
Sell the fiscal cliff news
About Kirk Spano
Kirk Spano, the winner of the first MarketWatch competition to find the world’s next great investing columnist, is a registered investment advisor and founder of Bluemound Asset Management, LLC which seeks to provide investors with greater safety, growth, income and freedom. Kirk’s biography and various business endeavors can be found at KirkSpano.com. Follow Kirk on Twitter @KirkSpano or at the Bluemound Facebook page for his columns, company analysis, letters, trade notes and what he is reading.
By Kirk Spano
“If you had asked people in 1929, ‘Here is what is about to happen. How much would you pay to avoid the Great Depression from occurring?’ The answer is they would have paid a lot. They would have borrowed money if it could be used to prevent the Great Depression.”
—Austen Goolsbee
A year ago, I began writing for MarketWatch.com and have developed what appears from the statistics I see and emails I receive (most of which I answer) to be a fairly regular readership. I just want to take a short paragraph to thank those who decided I had something important to say, said it somewhat well and to tell the thousands who read me each week that I really am overwhelmed. Thank you.
Ironically, two weeks ago I wrote a very lightly read article which I think was fairly important in understanding the current economic situation. I’ll blame the low readership of “Depression, Fed Policy Find Uneasy Equilibrium” on Thanksgiving week and the mention of “depression” in the title. I recommend you read it either before or after reading this column.
Today, I’ll touch on the impact of the fiscal cliff on the stock market. In short, the cliff doesn’t matter too much to the stock market. Whether we go over the cliff or not, or extend current policies for a year, the broad stock market is in for some trouble soon, the only questions are magnitude of the coming decline and exact timing.
…
“If you had asked people in 1929, ‘Here is what is about to happen. How much would you pay to avoid the Great Depression from occurring?’ The answer is they would have paid a lot. They would have borrowed money if it could be used to prevent the Great Depression.”
And what if it turns out that there really is no escape from the consequences of a credit bubble, and no amount of borrowing would have improved the situation in the long run? Then what would they have been best off doing?
No, the Sea Bird is the way to go.
Why do moronic journalists keep referring to the MID as a “middle-class tax break,” given that it has almost no impact on middle-class tax filers’ deductible income?
On Twitter, Obama Says Mortgage Deduction at Risk
Tuesday, 04 Dec 2012 12:11 AM
Taking to Twitter to press his case in “fiscal cliff” talks with Congress, President Barack Obama said on Monday that tax breaks benefiting middle class families such as the mortgage interest deduction could be at risk if rates for top earners do not rise.
Obama is locked in negotiations with Congress to prevent a year-end fiscal crunch. If the administration and lawmakers fail to agree, across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts would go into effect that analysts say would tip the economy back into recession.
The president answered questions on Twitter for about an hour on Monday as part of his campaign to pressure Republicans in Congress to accept an increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans as part of a deficit-cutting package.
One questioner, who identified herself as Emma Robertson, expressed concern that popular tax breaks for homeownership could be threatened in an eventual deal.
“As a home owner, I worry deductions for home owners are at risk. Is that the case?” she asked in a tweet.
Obama responded that such tax breaks were important for middle class families and could be at risk if taxes for the wealthiest Americans are not increased.
“Breaks for middle class impt for families & econ. if top rates don’t go up, danger that middle class deductions get hit - bo,” the president said via Twitter.
Obama signs his initials - BO - to tweets that he writes himself. In this tweet, “impt” stands for important and “econ” stands for economy.
…
To be honest, they shouldn’t force people to answer via Twitter, with its 140 character limit. What’s wrong with email? I have found that it’s easier for me to type out whole words and complete sentences. Shortening to Twitterspeak is actually more difficult.
p-bear, yesterday when I said that limiting MID was financially moot, I wasn’t clear. I was referring to a limited MID being sort of a loss leader for the majority of voters. Let’s say the MID is limited to, say, $500K mortgage. As you say, the middle class under $500K doesn’t actually use the deduction much, therefore the gov wouldn’t lose much revenue by keeping it. But, the middle class will still think they have the deduction, so it’s good optics for Obama. Meanwhile, the gov gains tax from interest above the limit, which is where most of the revenue is weighted anyway.
An MID limit “saves” the middle class, sticks it to the rich, and captures wealthy end. It’s a trifecta for the Dems.
“What’s wrong with email?”
@tweeting is sexier…
Tweeting seems to attract a lot of dimwits who couldn’t put together a coherent sentence.
Agreed.
It may be heresy to say so here, but I find the level of discourse on Facebook to be a lot higher than Twitter. Of course, neither of those two places live up to the HBB.
Of course, neither of those two places live up to the HBB.
Not even close, although I do at times post things I’ve seen here on FB for the benefit of anyone curious who doesn’t watch blogs and forums like this.
But the only use I’ve found for Twitter is breaking news. Everything else seems to be celebrity following.
twitter forces word economy, not a bad idea for those unable to focus.
BS. I would rather read an Obama paragraph than a Palin tweet.
And this may be kind of a new concept, but maybe we could just ask the Pres to condense his answer into one paragraph, or give him a time limit. Plenty of opportunity to focus without having to abbreviate half the answer.
BS. I would rather read an Obama paragraph than a Palin tweet.
What would you rather read? a Obama Tweet or Palin paragraph? Be honest.
Would you rather read a Palin paragraph than an Obama tweet?
I didn’t think so.
I’d rather read Palin. Obama’s gonna be something boring. You never know what numbskull Palin’s going to come up with. (But I want the boring guy in charge.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/201205/IMG_444a1.JPG?uuid=egHwpuDTEeGPxafc8fwWHQ
Obama’s tribute to Led Zep made me feel old. It was amusing, but you can tell that he didn’t write the speech and that he was never a fan.
Obama’s tribute to Led Zep made me feel old. It was amusing, but you can tell that he didn’t write the speech and that he was never a fan.
I agree. He’s going through the motions on this one.
Got a link to his tribute to Buddy Guy? Obama did a pretty good version of “Sweet Home Chicago” in an earlier White House performance.
Wifey and I played backup at a Page and Plant concert two decades ago. There was an Egyptian orchestra on one side of them and a Western classical string ensemble on the other side. They already seemed physically old to me, but amazingly young and vital, musically speaking.
Let me guess. You two were playing rebabs…?
Very cool PB. Very cool, indeed.
“…rebabs…”
You sprung a musical term on me that I had to look up — good job! (If I had studied my ethnomusicology textbook more diligently, I would have known that one.)
But no, my wife and I sat in the classical string section; the Egyptian musicians sitting 30 yards to the east of us may have been playing rebabs, though. You are rekindling my interest in studying the evolutionary tree of bowed instruments.
What’s wrong with email?
You’re showing your age… nobody under 30 emails. It’s Twitter, Facebook, and text messaging.
Email is outdated… it’s lost its effectiveness as a communications tool: between spam, delays or problems in processing delivery, overexposure (too many emails in Inbox to process effectively), many people either don’t respond in a timely manner or don’t respond at all. Also, what other people said about brevity of content with twitter posts…
The under-30 crowd doesn’t use voice mail at all, either. Text or facebook if you want to get in touch.
Voice mail is a stoopid waste of time. If we don’t answer, hang up and text us what you were going to say. It’s that easy
I leave a voicemail which says “check your email.”
Email is still used extensively for paperless billing and communication with your favorite vendors and utilities.
I don’t get Facebook. It seems that all of my friends post the most inane things, which to be honest, I don’t give a flip about.
I’ve never twittered. I can imagine that it must be a productivity killer, getting an incessant stream of inane tweets.
If more companies ban Facebook, it will slowly die.
My last company even banned twitter.
It seems that all of my friends post the most inane things
Try finding some more interesting friends…
I use facebook as a sort of news aggregate. My “friends” post some pretty interesting things that I may not have come across on my own.
There are always a few who insist on posting pictures of everything they eat. Just hide their posts.
I read more than tweet. Twitter is great for following breaking news, if you have subscribed to enough tuned-in people. Currently I check #fiscal to see how the back-and-forth in Congress is going.
It’s as entertaining as anything else on the net.
So bottom line, Obama is against any repeal of the MID. Since he is the President and has the Senate there will be not be either a repeal or any reduction for those under $250,000.
Posted: 5:54 a.m. Monday, Dec. 3, 2012
Homeowner tax cut to expire, forgiven mortgage debt would become taxable income
By Kimberly Miller
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
The race is on to finalize short sales and seal the deal on mortgage reductions as the Dec. 31 expiration of a massive tax break for struggling Florida homeowners looms.
Since 2007, homeowners whose banks have forgiven unpaid mortgage debt after a short sale, principal reduction or foreclosure have not been required to count that money as income on their tax returns.
But the sunset of the federal Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act means borrowers, who have been spared tens of thousands of dollars depending on the amount forgiven and their tax bracket, may be faced with whopping IRS bills after losing their home.
Comments
Posted by Katfish6697 at 11:11 a.m. Dec. 3, 2012
I don’t understand how my neighbor (who paid twice as much for his house in 2006 than it sold for in 2005) gets to short sale his house. He sold his business for a big chunk of money, paid cash for a new home and is now short selling the one he overpaid for. He had the money to pay it off. Outside of being a buddy to some county comishs, how does he get away with this?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/homeowner-tax-cut-to-expire-forgiven-mortgage-debt/nTLcP/ -
Once a measure like this one, to hand hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax-free (debt forgiveness) income apiece to underwater homeowners, is put in place, it becomes very hard to remove. Any attempt to remove it will be met with NAR fear mongering over risks to the nascent housing recovery.
It goes without saying that lots of the debt that gets forgiven represents “home equity gain” income that was blown during the bubble years on fancy vacations and toys. Turns out the income was also tax-free — who’d've thunk?
Newton’s first law.
A significant hurdle to removing any measure is overcoming the inertia of doing nothing. Inertia is usually on the side of keeping the measure. But in this case, that hurdle was already overcome when the expiration date was baked in. The inertia is now on the side of removing the measure. NAR fear-mongering may be enough to convince Congress to do nothing, but will it be enough convince Congress to overcome the inertia and actively do something?
Are we headed into another one of those “nobody could have seen it coming” recessions, or is it merely the onset of hibernation season?
December 04, 2012 — Updated December 04, 2012 02:37 HKT
November ISM, Recession ahead of the Fiscal Cliff
Monday’s data from the Institute for Supply Management is showing that the November Manufacturing Report on Business was an utter disappointment. The ISM figure came in at 49.5%, which is under the 50.0% growth-contraction break even barometer.
This is the lowest number for all of Y 2012 and the worst since July 2009. This was down more than 2 pts than the 51.7% expected by analysts. It is also down more than 2 pts from the reading in October.
As far as the breakdown goes, new orders and production were said to be growing while the readings on employment and inventories were shown to be contracting. The report also showed that supplier deliveries are slowing.
All in all, this represents contraction in manufacturing for the 4th time in the past 6 months. In short, the ISM is running on a mild recessionary level and that does not include the impact of the coming F-Cliff.
…
I sense another massive “stimulus” bailout with Armageddon being the only other option advertised.
Government Bubble on the rise, ever more quickly. ‘Til it stops.
Throw another stimulus bailout aboard the D.C. Titantic. Or face Armageddon. Are they not interchangeable now?
Hear that nautical clanging Washington?
This time, the bell tolls for thee.
Three years ago was when we supposedly snapped out of the Great Recession.
ECONOMY
Updated December 3, 2012, 6:12 p.m. ET
U.S. Manufacturing Contracts
By NEIL SHAH
American manufacturing contracted in November for the first time in three months as factories throttled back hiring and investment amid uncertainty about the U.S. economy and budget policies.
Various reports on manufacturing around the globe suggested the world’s factories are moving at slightly different speeds: Europe continues to wobble, while China’s factories look to be on the mend. Manufacturing in China expanded in November, hitting its highest level in 13 months by one measure. Factories in the euro zone contracted for the ninth consecutive month, but at a slower pace.
In the U.S., the Institute for Supply Management’s index of manufacturing activity fell to 49.5, the lowest level in more than three years. Readings under 50 indicate activity is shrinking instead of growing. Details of the report suggested that worries about whether Washington will keep the economy from tumbling off the so-called fiscal cliff—tax increases and spending cuts set to arrive in 2013—have many manufacturers in a defensive crouch.
…
Any thoughts on why both gold and oil are plunging?
I have to say I’m lovin’ the affordable prices at the pump these days.
Because inflation is rampant thus people trade their plentiful dollars and buy up gold and oil?
Short selling in Asia gets blame as gold sells off
Gold drops below the $1,700-an-ounce level, triggered, one anslyst says, by shorting in Asia hours.
No idea on gold, but I swear I recently read that the US is now a net exporter of petroleum. True?
No idea on gold, but I swear I recently read that the US is now a net exporter of petroleum. True?
Maybe soon. But maybe the oil industry’s top economists don’t know what the word “demand” means.
Oil in the U.S.: Rising Supply and Declining Demand
http://wallstreetpit.com/98004-shale-oil-production-growing/
After seven long decades of importing oil, the U.S. seems only a few years away from reversing the flow, largely from shale technology not only in Texas but several areas around the country.
No idea on gold, but I swear I recently read that the US is now a net exporter of petroleum. True?
False.
We’re now a net exporter of _refined_ gasoline, not petroleum in general. We’re still a huge importer of crude.
Things always get quiet near the end of a sucker’s rally.
“…always get quiet.”
They call that the ‘calm before the storm’ in the Midwest. The world becomes deathly still as the black clouds pile high in the Western sky, blocking out the sun’s rays entirely, just before the twister strikes.
It seems odd to time this article for a day when gold is plunging in value.
Dec. 4, 2012, 8:17 a.m. EST
Lethal topping pattern for the dollar?
By Mike Paulenoff
The chart of the U.S. dollar index (DXY -0.28%) is getting increasingly ominous, which should benefit gold prices.
…
It seems odd to time this article for a day when gold is plunging in value.
Gold is down 1% on the day. A 1% move in Gold or any metal is not “plunging” and especially in light of a 12 year bull market.
Also the article you posted is saying the dollar chart is GETTING ominous for the value of the dollar which means the break in the dollar has not occurred yet.
But if you read deep into the article you will see that the US dollar is forming 2 patterns at the same time, one bullish and one bearish. Which will prevail? I think the dollar will go up in 2013, but right now I’m positioned to make a little more money if the dollar goes down.
1% is pretty much the biggest move you ever see in any asset price in this era of heavy regulatory intervention in markets.
“1% is pretty much the biggest move you ever see in any asset price in this era of heavy regulatory intervention in markets.”
Not for gold or oil. The pattern is always the PTB manipulate it lower just before they engage in another Fed easing. They do it so they can claim that further easing is not an inflationary threat.
This from CNBC, there have also been numerous stories about demand for gold coins shooting through the roof, only in a very manipulated world does the price of something drop when it is most in demand:
“The market does seem to lack conviction and confidence. These moves are testing the market and so far they seem to be right,” he said.
Analysts at Commerzbank said current gold price weakness isn’t sustainable because there are positive factors, such the euro debt crisis is calming down.
“Incidentally, the dip in the price of gold was not accompanied by weaker ETF demand; on the contrary, gold ETFs tracked by Bloomberg recorded inflows yesterday for the twelfth consecutive day of trading, so the lower prices are clearly being regarded as an attractive opportunity to buy,” the analysts wrote in a note.
Wow, I just looked at some gold stocks I own and they are all up. Yesterday, when gold was up they were down. Tell me that the big boys were not aware of this attempt to bring gold down. Since it has not worked as well as they hoped they seem to be either covering short positions or just adding more gold shares. It is a fixed game but I play since it is the only game in town. Besides have a lot of covered call options expiring in January and I am looking forward to rewriting with fat premiums and higher strike prices. Can’t change the world but can see what is happening and profit for it. I make money and sleep well at night since I am not causing it, best of both worlds.
“The pattern is always the PTB manipulate it lower just before they engage in another Fed easing. They do it so they can claim that further easing is not an inflationary threat.”
This suggests an investment strategy: Buy the dips on gold a week or so before each FOMC meeting, on the assumption that the meeting announcment may include a new round of QE that buoys the gold price going forward.
“…only in a very manipulated world does the price of something drop when it is most in demand…”
Or rise when it is least in demand (e.g. houses in the middle of a labor market recession…)…
“Wow, I just looked at some gold stocks I own and they are all up. Yesterday, when gold was up they were down.”
“Gold is down 1% on the day”
The day is young:
Gold 1,696 -25 -1.46%
Oil 87.73 -1.38 -1.55%
There sure are a lot of goldbugs counting on forever-loose international monetary policy to buoy the price. Once central banks start tightening again, watch out below.
PRECIOUS-Gold dips 1 pct on stop-loss sales; may flush out buying
Tue Dec 4, 2012 2:19am EST
* US, spot gold hit lowest levels in nearly a month below
$1,700/oz
* Spot gold may drop towards $1,692/oz - technicals
* Coming Up: Euro zone producer prices, Oct; 1000 GMT
By Rujun Shen
SINGAPORE, Dec 4 (Reuters) - Gold fell about 1 percent to
its lowest in nearly a month on Tuesday on technical selling
after prices broke below key support levels, but the dip may
lure bargain hunters who expect the gloomy global economy to
keep gold buoyant.
Gold broke below $1,710 an ounce and subsequently $1,705,
key technical levels it had held since early November, which
triggered stop-loss selling, traders said.
“The break probably will not last long,” said a Sydney-based
trader. “Funds are happy to buy on dips, and so will the central
banks and the Chinese.”
The prospect of continuously loose monetary policy around
the world will provide support to gold, perceived as a hedge
against inflation as a result of rampant cash printing by
central banks.
In the latest easing move by central banks, Australia’s
central bank cut interest rates a quarter point to match a
record low on Tuesday, stepping up efforts to safeguard the rich
world’s most resilient economy from the risk of recession as a
mining boom peaks.
Spot gold fell nearly 1 percent to $1,698.3 an ounce,
its lowest since Nov. 6, before recovering to $1,702.24 by 0649
GMT.
The most-active U.S. futures contract dropped as
much as 1.3 percent to a near one-month low of $1,698.5, and
stood at $1,703.
Technical analysis suggested that spot gold is poised to
fall to $1,692 after breaking support at $1,707, said Reuters
market analyst Wang Tao.
…
The current environment reminds me of golds precipitous plunge (COLLAPSE) back in 1980/1981.
“Gold is plunging today…….There sure are a lot of goldbugs counting on forever-loose international monetary policy to buoy the price.” PBear 2007
“Once central banks start tightening again…”
Central banks can’t tighten monetary policy. Loose money is the only thing keeping the US federal government functioning.
Exactly and now that we have a 16 trillion+ debt the government could not even afford paying higher interest rates. BTW, expect the Fed to announce soon that operation twist is being converted to a straight purchase of bonds without an offset by selling T-bills.
The current environment reminds me of golds precipitous plunge (COLLAPSE) back in 1980/1981.
Although gold might have a big pullback, the current environment is nothing like 1980/81.
In 80/81 gold had risen parabolic for 1.5 years. Today, gold has risen steadily for 12 years.
In 80/81 China and India weren’t “rich” as they are today and today they are both buying gold by the 100’s of tons.
In 80/81 we did not have massive Quantitative Easing and money printing.
In 80/81 we did not have so many major country’s economies on the verge of collapse.
In 80/81 gold was much cheaper to mine than its spot price. Not so today.
In 80/81 we had Paul Volker massively raising interest rates. Today? Well not so much.
Here’s a 10 year chart of gold, a decade. Where is the mania on this chart? Where is the bubble pattern of a parabolic rise? 2011? It’s possible, but it in no way shape or form resembles the massive parabolic rise of gold from late 1979 to 80/81.
http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au3650nyb.html
In 1980 we…..
LOL.
Is the largest expansion of credit in history over?
Is the largest expansion of credit in history over?
No. It has shifted more from the public to governments and central banks. It is not even close to being over.
It’s 1980 all over again.
It’s 1980 all over again.
Really? Look in the mirror.
Great Reagan is coming back next year, we are saved.
Great Reagan is coming back next year, we are saved.
So you favor Reagan-style deficit spending as stimulus? Why do you complain if the Dems do it?
Reagan’s deficits were never near the size of Obama’s and he achieve economic growth in one year almost as great as Obama in four. If Obama was running 7% growth, I would not have a problem with the size of the deficit. Reagan exceeded 7 % in 1984. The debt to GDP ratio would not be going up it would in fact be going down if we had 7% growth.
What do we have to show for the increase in the deficit under Obama? Nothing. What did the Reagan deficits achieve, the winning of the cold war and a reduced threat of nuclear war. Additionally, the deficits were the result of compromise. Reagan never controlled the House during his entire time in office and only controlled the Senate part of the time. To get the defense spending he wanted he had to allow the democrats to get the social spending they wanted. Combined, it does mean a deficit. However, the deficits were not paid for by the printing of money and therefore were not inflationary. Oil prices under Reagan were much cheaper than other Carter and in real terms were much cheaper than other Obama. Of course, when Obama took office they were under 1.70 a gallon so that should not suprise people. Finally, when we did had a strong recovery under Reagan they did not shoot up like they have under Obama’s weak recovery so Obama’s debate answer does not impress me.
It’s 1980 all over again.
It’s double plus good!
Reagan didn’t inherit an economy in free-fall, like Obama did. Reagan also had Carter-appointed Volcker in charge of the Fed. At least he did until he fired him and replaced him with Greenspan.
Reagan’s deficits were never near the size of Obama’s and he achieve economic growth in one year almost as great as Obama in four.
Reality and history check:
Reagan’s recession was mostly cyclical, Obama’s recession is structural — America’s first structural downturn since The Great Depression 82 years ago.
Reagan was before NAFTA and GAT and the wholesale giveaway of our jobs base. Reagan had an economic base to quickly build back on. Obama does not.
In Reagan’s day did not see the crippling cost of health-care as we do now.
Reagan did not inherit 2 major wars and a gutted tax base.
Reagan began his terms at the beginning of the consumer credit boom. Obama began his terms at the end of the consumer credit boom. This is huge.
Reagan did not inherit the largest housing bust the world had ever seen. Obama did.
In Reagan’s day, the social contract between businesses and their employees was more of a two-way street and wages and benefits 30 years ago enabled much more of a middle-class lifestyle than today’s busted social contract.
In Reagan’s day, education was cheap.
In Reagan’s day we did not have an illegal immigrant invasion lowering wages.
In Reagan’s day we had politicians of both sides of the isle who worked with each other for the good of the nation. Today, the Repubs care more about themselves than America. John Boehner is no Tip O’Neill.
In Reagan’s day lobbying was not nearly as influential as it is today and thus not as corrosive to the ability of small business to compete with crony-capitalistic behemoths.
In Reagan’s day, wealth and income inequality were nowhere near to what they are today. It is hard to have a meaningful recovery when half of Americans don’t have a pot to piss in and most of the money is pooled in the .4% who are richer than kings of the past.
Reagan was before NAFTA and GATT
“Gold is plunging today…….There sure are a lot of goldbugs counting on forever-loose international monetary policy to buoy the price.” PBear 2007
Also Rio, Reagan’s workforce was MUCH younger, healthier, and more energetic. Boomers were in their early 30’s, with 5-8 years experience (didn’t need more than a BA back then) with many women entering the professional labor force. HUGE input to Medicare and Social Security. Innovation and productivity were up just from word processing.
“Comment by Albuquerquedan
2012-12-04 08:15:26
Great Reagan is coming back next year, we are saved.”
I hate to break it to you, but despite what the Rasmussen poll suggested, the ‘reincarnate Reagan’ candidate lost the election.
“Reagan’s deficits were never near the size of Obama’s and he achieve economic growth in one year almost as great as Obama in four.”
He started the economy down the deficit spending path rabbit hole which led to the fiscal shit storm today’s politicians are facing. Clinton delayed it, but GWB kicked it into overdrive, with two wars and a massive tax cut on the wealthy.
So here we are.
I hate to break it to you, but despite what the Rasmussen poll suggested, the ‘reincarnate Reagan’ candidate lost the election.
I think they wanted to sell him as the new Reagan, but that part of the strategy was doomed. If it were possible, I think he’d have been elected. He just didn’t have that feel-good, perfect one-liner vibe that made Reagan so popular even with his opponents.
He just didn’t have that feel-good, perfect one-liner vibe that made Reagan so popular even with his opponents.
During his acting career, Reagan was so good at rehearsing that he was known as “One-Take Reagan.”
Now, THAT is being prepared.
With Chairman Obama in charge we may actually be closer to April 5, 1933 when it comes to gold. No private wealth we be left standing.
With Chairman Obama….No private wealth we be left standing.
Good Lord….I guess you just don’t realize how dumb that sounds.
“Gold is down 1% on the day. A 1% move in Gold or any metal is not “plunging” and especially in light of a 12 year bull market.”
+1
From yesterday. (When we were younger)
Then you should refute them if you disagree.
Sometimes over-the-top, propaganda influenced hyperbole does not need to be refuted, but OK.
Let’s see, you are for:
I) increasing taxes on the rich
Yes.
2) unlimited spending, without congressional overight
As in 2 off-the-books wars along with tax cuts for the rich? No.
3) an unaccountable police-state TSA-style government
No, because I am not a Republican.
4) Killing babies
Would never do it.
5) eliminating voter id requirements
Too broad of a statement. They are not uniform state to state.
6) open borders
Not even.
7) destroying any constitutional protections to unreasonable search and seizure
No, because I am not a Republican or a Republican nominated SCOTUS justice.
Some small minds can’t comprehend how we could support policies of both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, such as:
End illegal wars and shrink the military industrial complex (both)
National single payer health care (Kucinich)
End the Federal Reserve (Paul)
End the PATRIOT Act (both)
Restore civil liberties (both)
But some people prefer to let the Drudge Report do their thinking for them…
Dec. 4, 2012, 7:02 a.m. EST
China’s stock market is a value trap
Commentary: Inefficient, state-owned entities block promising potential
By Junheng Li
Reuters
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — However ineffective in reviving the U.S. economy, low interest rates have reinflated U.S. equity markets, driving the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index to nearly double its value since February 2009.
Compare U.S. GDP growth with China’s. In October 2008, China’s leaders leapt to action, foiling the impact of the global financial crisis with a 4 trillion RMB fiscal stimulus package. Official GDP resumed its high-growth trajectory, hitting 9.2%, 10.4%, and 9.2% in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.
But compare the S&P 500’s (SPX -0.47%) performance to China’s stock indices — especially the onshore ones (Shanghai A, Shenzhen A) — and the picture changes dramatically.
China’s A-share indices bottomed in November 2008, plunging 70% from their October 2007 peak. After a modest rebound by July 2009, they tumbled again. Today this market trades around 65% of its 2007 peak.
So America’s economy founders but its stock markets take off, while China’s economy booms but its markets fizzle.
…
flounders?
Ho ho ho…what happens to U.S. investors in Chinese stocks if Chinese listings “flee” the U.S.?
Dec. 4, 2012, 11:30 p.m. EST
China listings may soon flee U.S., expert says
By Chris Oliver, MarketWatch
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — A mass exodus of Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges looks increasingly possible as an accounting rift between the two countries reaches a dangerous stage, a Chinese accounting expert says.
Paul Gillis, a financial author and professor of accounting at Peking University, believes the window to prevent a worst-case scenario of wholescale delistings of Chinese firms in the U.S. is rapidly narrowing.
He puts the odds of China companies having to pull up stakes from U.S. exchanges at 80%. In June he assigned a 20% probability of such an outcome, while seeing 70% odds that the “can is kicked down the road,” and U.S. and Chinese regulators find some way to defer the issue.
“We are in a very difficult position right now because there is an indication that diplomacy has failed,” Gillis said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday charged the Chinese affiliates of the big four U.S. accounting firms, plus another firm known as BDO, with violating U.S. securities laws by refusing to produce audit work papers.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, investigating alleged accounting fraud in China, has charged the Chinese affiliates of major accounting firms for refusing to produce audit work papers.
Specifically, the SEC charged that the audit firms violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires overseas companies listed on a U.S. exchange use an auditor registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB.
The body exercises its oversight of the registered auditors by inspecting their audit papers. Since 2009, however, China has prohibited the locally based auditors — which audit the U.S.-listed Chinese firms, and are registered with the PCAOB — from sharing accounting papers with foreign regulators.
Chinese officials have argued that sharing such information would be in violation of their own laws involving state secrets.
Part of the reluctance, according to Macquarie analysts, may also be tied to national-sovereignty concerns and the view that “foreign governments should not be able to come onto Chinese soil and regulate Chinese citizens.”
A meeting between U.S. and China regulators last week “was the last chance to avoid a regulatory confrontation,” Gillis said, with the parties now at a crossroads that makes any future deal less likely.
…
Apparently inventory shortages work to drive up not only housing prices, but also Treasury bond prices.
Suppose the Fed keeps trying this for a few more years, only to finally have to admit the policy was an utter failure.
What then?
Treasury Scarcity to Grow as Fed Buys 90% of New Bonds
By Liz Capo McCormick & Daniel Kruger - Dec 3, 2012 9:39 AM PT
Even as U.S. government debt swells to more than $16 trillion, Treasuries and other dollar fixed- income securities will be in short supply next year as the Federal Reserve soaks up almost all the net new bonds.
The government will reduce net sales by $250 billion from the $1.2 trillion of bills, notes and bonds issued in fiscal 2012 ended Sept. 30, a survey of 18 primary dealers found. At the same time, the Fed, in its efforts to boost growth, will add about $45 billion of Treasuries a month to the $40 billion in mortgage debt it’s purchasing, effectively absorbing about 90 percent of net new dollar-denominated fixed-income assets, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Even after U.S. public borrowings outstanding grew from less than $9 trillion in 2007 as the U.S. raised cash to pay for spending programs designed to pull the economy out of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, rising demand coupled with a drop in net supply means bonds will be scarce.
“The shrinking amount of bonds in the market is lowering rates and not just benefiting the Treasury, but providing lower rates for private-sector decision-makers as well,” Zach Pandl, a senior interest-rate strategist in Minneapolis at Columbia Management Investment Advisers LLC, which oversees $340 billion, said in a Nov. 30 telephone interview. “The Fed is not creating this scarcity to help out the Treasury, it’s primarily to get the economy going.”
…
90 percent of new Treasury bonds issued is mighty close to 100 percent.
Is there a chance the Fed will eventually buy 100 percent of all new Treasurys issued? What are the implications when a central bank purchases such a high share of newly issued government debt; for instance, can’t the government pretty much spend as much as it wants?
And why are all those politicians endlessly menacing the public with the fiscal cliff hobgoblin, if the printing press can be used to fund any and all expenditures?
Because it leads to inflation as the over 6% increase in housing prices article I posted below shows. (when it posts).
I had to read that article a couple of times to try to get the takeaway.
If the Fed is buying 90% of the net new issues, that is the same as 90% of the deficit, which is around $1.5T. So that means there’s about $1.35T of new money supply. This should have some measure of inflationary pressure, although a drop in velocity could offset it. I found one source showing M2 at $10.2T.
At the same time, bond supply isn’t increasing lowering the nominal return. Lowering nominal yields in an environment of increasing inflationary pressure makes bond investors look like chumps, and yet they seem to be doing well still. Screams bubble to my ears.
As long as our “trading partners” accept our fiats for payment it’s all good.
One would think that by this point they would no longer be accepting our money and demand to be paid in something else. But that hasn’t happened.
I wonder why?
If they collectively refuse new dollars, there current dollars might become worthless, or at least worth less. Let’s have a moment of compassion for the forgotten victims: US creditors.
I you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you have a problem. If you owe the bank ten million dollars, the bank has a problem…
“…something else.”
Military protection? Armaments?
Japan’s Policy a Warning Signal for the West?
CNBC By Catherine Boyle
‘As Japan gears up for an election which could provide it with its seventh change of prime minister in six years, governments and economists from elsewhere in the developed world are looking East for a clue to the long-term consequences of loose monetary policy.’
‘After decades of stagnant economic growth, or shrinkage, a quarter of tax revenues in Japan goes towards just servicing its debt. A gross government debt to gross domestic product ratio of 220 percent last year made it much the worst indebted of the G7 nations which dominate the global economy.’
Ultimately, to believe in what these central banks are doing is to believe you can get something from nothing.
I vividly recall what my professor said the first day of my first college economics course, and it was not “…you can get something from nothing.”
Rather, it was, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
‘no such thing as a free lunch’
Back in the 80’s, there was a church in Mineral Wells TX with one of those changeable letter signs that read, ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch.’ A couple blocks away, a bar had another put up that advertised ‘free lunch.’ I’m pretty sure the bar owner was mocking the church.
Yes, there were bars near churches in Mineral Wells.
Yeah, weak zoning laws in Texas.
I used to say “theres no such thing as a free lunch unless you steal it”
But even the act of theft qualifies as a type of work.
‘weak zoning laws in Texas’
I know, who puts a church in a place that could house another bar?
“But even the act of theft qualifies as a type of work.”
Not to mention the risk of getting caught and facing a prison sentence…
Seems to me next to a bar is the perfect place to locate a church…and vice versa.
That’s a good one, but I’m guessing the bar proprietor was lying, not the church elders, as I doubt the alcoholic beverages people bought to drink with their lunches came for free.
Some bars in Texas only sell setups.
One of the keys to success in life is figuring out who is going to pay for the lunch.
Obama will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36×8rTb3jI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfGLB8LO1aM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
“governments and economists from elsewhere in the developed world are looking East for a clue to the long-term consequences of loose monetary policy.’
Uh-huh. What took them so long?
Ultimately, to believe in what these central banks are doing is to believe you can get something from nothing.
I believe that printing money can get something from nothing for a small group of individuals–the rich and the powerful. We’ve seen this during this Recession where the rich have gotten even richer and even in actual terms. Who have suffered even more is the rest of America.
In this light, those who scoff at the 50% of Americans who make less than $500 a weak are pointing their fingers at the wrong people.
Without the support of the 50% of Americans who make less than $500 a week, the elite would fail. Point and vote.
In this light, those who scoff at the 50% of Americans who make less than $500 a weak are pointing their fingers at the wrong people.
Why did the 50% vote to keep the status-quo?
Why did the 50% vote to keep the status-quo?
Because this is America and we have the American Constitution.
The American political system was DESIGNED to keep the “status-quo”. It’s what the founding fathers wanted. They made change very hard to accomplish - checks and balances.
If you want a system that promotes bucking the status-quo every other election or so, you want a system that bucks the Constitution.
The problem is not a system where it is hard to rock the boat of the status-quo. The problem is a system where the status-quo has become so lousy.
There is nothing wrong with a two party system unless the two parties have been overly corrupted by greed and money.
But besides, the 50% DID buck the status quo on some important issues. Two of them being higher taxes on the rich and the type of SCOTUS Justices they prefer.
Two of them being higher taxes on the rich
They also relected republican congresss? Last I knew Congress does the tax thingy….
Last I knew Congress does the tax thingy….
Last I knew, the public does the blame thingy….
Poll: GOP to get more blame than Obama if fiscal cliff talks fail
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/04/poll-gop-to-get-more-blame-than-obama-if-fiscal-cliff-talks-fail/comment-page-3/
…..If there’s no deal, according to the (Washington Post/Pew Research) poll, by a 53%-27% margin people say Congressional Republicans will be more at blame than Obama, with 12% saying both sides should be equally blamed. Among independent voters, 52% would blame Republicans and 21% would point fingers at the president.
Oh, so now it is OK for the half that are Republicans to continue to live in the US and breathe the air? What a relief.
for the half that are Republicans…What a relief.
I think it’s going to be awhile before many Republicans will feel any “relief”.
“If you want a system that promotes bucking the status-quo every other election or so, you want a system that bucks the Constitution.”
Plenty of countries with no constitution to choose from. I know the progressives love chaos, I say take that jive somewhere else.
the Constitution……I say take that jive somewhere else.
I just described, defended and explained our Constitution. If you don’t like that, take your mindless jive elsewhere.
i have not spent much time reading about Japan…but one thing i keep hearing doesn’t make sense.
1. japan has been experienceing a lost decade or two due to a sluggish economy.
2. japan’s soverign debt is excessive.
3. but it’s not athat bad because most of its soverign debt is owned by its own citizens.
ok…so if their economy is in the toilet…where are its citizens getting all this money to keep loaning to the government?
Up until the nuclear disaster Japan was running a substantial trade surplus. Now, they are running a trade deficit but could turn that around quickly by starting the nukes and avoiding the importation of fossil fuels. The deflation Japan is experiencing is not the problem that many make it to be unless you think that inflation is critical to an economy. Japanese are still employed, it is easier for them to buy houses etc and they own their national debt, it is an asset on one side of the ledger.
It is when you have both a large current account deficit and a budget budget where you have the huge problem. Deflation is a bigger problem for the banks than the people. This country became an economic power during its period of deflation.
Credit expansion in the US enabled the Japanese for decades. Wouldn’t the reverse also be true in a US contraction?
If the only people the Japanese had to sell to was the U.S., yes. But since the U.S. is less and less of the world’s economy, they can continue to export high value goods. They are also making progress on robots and as soon as they have a Jetson type robot to do the housework and take care the children, Japanese women may start having babies. Remember how far an average IQ could get you in idiocracy, just imagine how far you can go with a Japanese IQ, where the world has bred itself stupid.
I have worked in Japan. I found no evidence of general stupidity. Wherever did you get such an idea?
If the only people the Japanese had to sell to was the U.S., yes. But since the U.S. is less and less of the world’s economy, they can continue to export high value goods.
And just who will purchase these “high value goods”? 3rd World college grads who make $1000 USD per month? If anything, the Japanese will be competing with them for the world’s export market.
I have worked in Japan. I found no evidence of general stupidity. Wherever did you get such an idea?
If this is directed at me, where did you get the idea that I was suggesting that there is general stupidity in Japan? Just the opposite is true, I think that they are very intelligent and made the right choice by not bringing in people that lower their nation’s I.Q.
Yes, Colorado we are all competing and there is a growing pool of people that have the income to buy their goods even if that pool is not growing in the U.S.
was watching “wormhole” awhile back and they were talking about IQ. they had some scientist that did a study on IQ and its relation to ethnicity.
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic
Jewish
I’ll let you guess how they all shook out.
3rd World college grads who make $1000 USD per month?
Yes. I was recently in Qatar and UAE. You would be surpised to know how many of the South Asian and East Asian migrant workers had iphones or other smart phones.
And many of them don’t have college degrees.
Sorry Dan, I misread what you said about the Japanese IQ.
how many of the South Asian and East Asian migrant workers had iphones or other smart phones.
iphones and smart phones are the internet connection/communication device for the underclass, especially including migrant workers, who need mobility.
People should quit being surprised when they see a poor person with a smart phone. Be surprised if they have a computer and internet connection at their abode.
“iPhones or other smart phones.”
And how many of them had cars, or owned a house, or even lived in a house with fewer than 2 other people? iPhones are a very small expense. And they probably use it to set up their next job.
Comment by michael
2012-12-04 09:26:39
was watching “wormhole” awhile back and they were talking about IQ. they had some scientist that did a study on IQ and its relation to ethnicity.
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic
Jewish
I’ll let you guess how they all shook out.
—————-
So what is your point?
Do the age of consent laws and laws against selling tang… mean that every female is a potential prostitute?
What would happen if everybody had their IQ on their drivers licence?
Would you trust a person more? or less? if they had a high IQ?
The congress, supreme court and the current administration are composed almost entirely of lawyers, college graduates… smart people,
yet the economy is going down the sh—ter?
How smart do people have to be in order to operate a nation correctly?
“How smart do people have to be in order to operate a nation correctly?”
“I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
William F. Buckley, Jr.
i share mr. buckley’s sentiment.
But that was before Snooki and Honey Boo Boo.
No problem Blue Skye, honest mistakes never bother me, we all read things too fast.
People should quit being surprised when they see a poor person with a smart phone. Be surprised if they have a computer and internet connection at their abode.
Those folks also won’t be buying Toyotas, Hondas or Nissans. And those cheapo android smartphones are made in China, not Japan. They won’t be buying $100 Kyocera ceramic knives. Or high end Japanese cameras. Or color laser printers. Or any of the other expensive things the Japanese make. They’ll buy cheap junk from China.
We can try to spin it all we want, but a third world worker will spend a lot more of his income on bare necessities (like food and clothing) and less on toys.
How smart do people have to be in order to operate a nation correctly?
You assume that these people are even trying to do the right thing, as opposed to looting the system for their own benefit.
We can try to spin it all we want, but a third world worker will spend a lot more of his income on bare necessities (like food and clothing) and less on toys.
For now, yes. 10 yrs or 20 yrs from now, they will give us run for our money. US Americans have to realize that consuming on credit is nothing special. They can do the same and they will sooner or later.
For now, yes. 10 yrs or 20 yrs from now, they will give us run for our money.
I doubt that they will ever consume like we did. I also doubt their wages will ever rise. Individual contributors in Mexico have been getting by on sub $1000 USD salaries for a long time.
“Up until the Japan nuclear disaster”. #1 The disaster was predicted and yet the owners of the plants chose not to spend the money to prevent it. Instead they chose to keep their electric rates low to boost their economy. #2 Much of the area of long term contamination will be unusable for 20-80 years not to mention the side effects on their fishing and agriculture industries. By definition Japan is an island so any land lost to productive use will be a generational loss they can not afford. #3 They have little or none in the way of native supplies of nuclear fuel so they will be hostage to foreign suppliers.
In short, the true cost of nuclear power is much higher that the metered price. I might add one could say the same thing for deep sea ocean drilling as demonstrated by the accumulated ecological damage of oil spills.
As to the national debt. Look at the Japan postal ministry. Japan Post Bank is a unit of Japan Post Holdings Co., which is owned entirely by the state. That’s where the Japanese have been stashing their money for decades and it’s that ‘Bank’ that holds all those Yen bonds. If you are not following the issue you might have missed the recent efforts to privatize it. See “Postal Privatization Law”.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/03/5028194/acli-strongly-criticizes-provisional.html
and
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20121123a2.html
n short, the true cost of nuclear power is much higher that the metered price.
The true cost of most things is hidden. If the cost of pollution and disposal was embedded into products we wouldn’t have so much cheap crap that breaks down and has to be thrown away.
Most of you have probably already seen The Story of Stuff, but if you haven’t, it’s worth your time.
This country became an economic power during its period of deflation.
yes, because a strong economy brings prices down. (the keynesians want us to believe that a strong economy raises prices).
“because a strong economy brings prices down.”
BINGO!
yes, because a strong economy brings prices down. tj
This blanket statement shows a misunderstanding of economics. Prices are based on supply and demand. Strong economies affect the supply and demand of different things differently, therefore strong economies have different effects on different items.
Example: If you have a strong economy in SF, why in the world would prices on houses come down? The demand would grow but the supply would remain finite. If interest rates stayed the same, please explain to me how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy?
(the keynesians want us to believe that a strong economy raises prices)
OK, to support your premise, again, please explain how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy?
This blanket statement shows a misunderstanding of economics.
you’re illiterate in economics.
Prices are based on supply and demand.
this is coming from someone who doesn’t even know what demand is.
Strong economies affect the supply and demand of different things differently, therefore strong economies have different effects on different items.
garbled tautological nonsense.
Example: If you have a strong economy in SF, why in the world would prices on houses come down?
you don’t understand what the dollar is and the many forces that affect its value.
The demand would grow but the supply would remain finite.
another demonstration that you don’t know what ‘demand’ is.
If interest rates stayed the same, please explain to me how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy?
the value of the dollar is independent of home price in SF.
OK, to support your premise, again, please explain how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy?
again, the dollar would strengthen which brings down GPL.
LOL….You can’t do it tj. You’re busted. One more time?
OK, to support your premise, again, please explain how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy?
LOL….You can’t do it tj. You’re busted. One more time
i just did. i can’t help it if you don’t have the brain cells to comprehend.
tell us Rio, fundamentally, what is ‘demand’.
tell us what the dollar is, and some of the forces that affect it.
you can’t get far in economics if you don’t understand those things.
tj, You said these two sentences consecutively. They contradict each other.
you: the value of the dollar is independent of home price in SF.
Me: explain how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy
you: again, the dollar would strengthen which brings down GPL.
That is a contradiction. And here’s a chart of a rising dollar from 1994 till 2002. During that period of a rising dollar, SF Houses and US houses in general were rising in price, not falling.
http://sovereignsociety.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/20/usd_index_30_yr_low_2.jpg
Someone help tj. Please explain how the prices of houses in SF would come down in his version of a strong, rising dollar SF economy? He can’t do it, can anybody? I bet not.
tj, My definition of “supply and demand” and “demand” are the actual definitions below. And unless you have different definitions, you CAN’T explain to me how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a rising dollar, strong SF economy. You CAN’T. If you could, you would.
Supply and demand:
In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market. It concludes that in a competitive market, the unit price for a particular good will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded by consumers (at current price) will equal the quantity supplied by producers (at current price), resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity.
The four basic laws of supply and demand are:[1]
If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
wiki
Definition of ‘Demand’
An economic principle that describes a consumer’s desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service. Holding all other factors constant, the price of a good or service increases as its demand increases and vice versa. investopedia
i can’t help it if you don’t have the brain cells to comprehend
tj,
One line vague and contradicting inanities are not an explanation. Let’s see if you have the brain cells to explain. Writing effectively and persuasively takes the brain cells you mentioned. So please, in a paragraph or two, using your definitions, explain to us how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy as the dollar was rising
You know, the supply and demand stuff.
That is a contradiction. And here’s a chart of a rising dollar from 1994 till 2002. During that period of a rising dollar, SF Houses and US houses in general were rising in price, not falling.
there’s no contradiction. everything is measured in terms of the dollar. the dollar’s value rises and falls independently of any commodity. the dollar can fall in value and still have SF home prices fall, and visa-versa. in other words, SF home prices can rise faster than than the dollar. what’s so hard to understand about that?
When you have to ivoke “investopedia” to defend yourself, you’ve already demonstrated your depth of knowledge is shallow.
‘explain to us how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy as the dollar was rising’
If house prices in SF are above the equilibrium price, the will eventually fall no matter how strong the dollar or economy are. How would prices reach higher than equilibrium? A housing bubble for one.
Rio,
first i’m not going to debate a dictionary. you can use it if you want, but put it in your own words. then i’ll debate you on it. i already know what you think demand is. i just want you to say it.
explain to us how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy as the dollar was rising
the dollar has little to do the the SF economy. it has everything to do with the national economy. you don’t seem to be able to make that distinction.
and my previous answer was concise and correct. you just don’t understand it.
Rio,
i’ll give you a better definition of ‘demand’ than ‘investopedia’, if you try to define it in your own words first. otherwise, you’ll never know (and i know you’re curious). tell us, in your own words…
When you have to ivoke “investopedia” to defend yourself,….
You’re full of it RAL. It is a definition. Do you know what “definition” means? Do you disagree with the definition? Can you please explain how the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy?
i’m not going to debate a dictionary.
Good move tj. You always lose when you debate reality.
If house prices in SF are above the equilibrium price, the will eventually fall no matter how strong the dollar or economy are. How would prices reach higher than equilibrium? A housing bubble for one.
Thank you. There is the FIRST logical explanation of what could happen. However I think tj’s version of a “strong” Austrian economic utopia somehow precludes bubbles because in his world of “free-market” utopia, bubbles do not form.
And even if this is not totally tj’s premise, (which is hard to determine with tj’s one liner vagarities) he said that in strong economies prices come down. I gave an example of supply and demand of SF houses in a strong SF economy (where even absent a bubble) SF prices would go up.
So tj’s premise that in strong economies, prices go down is not correct as strong economies affect supply and demand of different items differently and in strong economies some things go up in price as per my SF example.
tell us, in your own words…
You first tj: (So far, Ben and I are the only one’s who have addressed economic reality.)
Again, and modified after Ben’s input.
Absent a bubble, please explain to us why the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy as the dollar was rising.
Or since you can’t do that one, please explain how the price of cars will come down in a global strong economy. You know in the real world of finite resources where tens of millions more people each year would want cars. Where supply and demand push the prices up for finite resources. You’re mind is wrapped around la la land economic theories of what never was an will never be. I’m talking about the real globalized world if increasing population and the laws of supply and demand.
You know, practical economics and the planet earth.
So tj’s premise that in strong economies, prices go down is not correct as strong economies affect supply and demand
you’re afraid to try to define ‘demand’, aren’t you? you want to put the responsibility on ‘investopedia’. definitions are changed and improved upon all the time. eventually investopedia will be using my definition, because it’s more accurate.
“You’re full of it RAL.”
I’m not “ral” and I think it is you that doesn’t understand the definition, hence your invocation of someone elses.
eventually investopedia will be using my definition, because it’s more accurate.
I’m sure they will tj. I’m sure they will…….
(But first they’ll ask you to explain (absent a bubble) why the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy as the dollar was rising.)
You first tj:
i asked you after your first post to me, and you still haven’t answered. now that i’m pressing you, you say “you first”.. you’re gutless. you don’t want to risk being taken down. you don’t want risk looking like the fool you are.
(But first they’ll ask you to explain (absent a bubble) why the prices of houses in SF would come down in a strong SF economy as the dollar was rising.)
you just got done congratulating and agreeing with Ben on his explanation of how this can occur. how is it that you’re still demanding to know how this can occur?
you’re gutless.
I would say I’m one of the least gutless people on here. You tj do not understand economics. You are adrift in a sea of self-confusing, vague Randian nonsense. Theories that never were and never will be - a fog of dogma in conflict with economic reality and politics you don’t like.
You say “prices in a strong economy go down” I’ve shown where prices in a strong economy can go up and many times do go up. You have done nothing to disprove it. There is not much “there” there tj.
you don’t want to risk being taken down.
There is not that risk when dealing with you.
Alright rio and tj, enough with the name calling.
I would say I’m one of the least gutless people on here.
of course you would! but you’re still afraid to try to define demand in your own words.
You tj do not understand economics. You are adrift in a sea of self-confusing, vague Randian nonsense.
all you can do is claim i’m wrong with no logic to back it up. you want to put the responsibility of being right on some dictionary, because you don’t understand it well enough to defend your own word on your own. you spout “i have a dictionary”. big deal. i’m beginning to think you don’t even understand the dictionary.
You say “prices in a strong economy go down” I’ve shown where prices in a strong economy can go up and many times do go up.
GPL does go down in a strong economy. that doesn’t mean that you can’t find rising prices somewhere.
There is not that risk when dealing with you.
then man up and at least give us your definition. i promise i’ll give mine after you do.
Alright rio and tj, enough with the name calling.
i said he was gutless, and he is. that’s not name calling. i really wanted to call him a brownnoser, but i didn’t. that would have been name calling.
TJ…. you really should post more often. I enjoy your posts and you really have a strong understanding of finance in general.
Thanks again.
but you’re still afraid to try to define demand in your own words.
No. You are afraid to defend your “economics” so you are trying to deflect from your flawed premise but I’m not playing your game and you don’t like that. Sorry. I already gave you a definition of “demand” that I agree with. But my definition of demand is irrelevant to the conversation.
I say your premise is meaningless at worst and incomplete at best. Your premise: “In strong economies, prices go down”. It’s like saying “when it rains, it’s cold.” It’s an almost meaningless statement.
Besides, my definition of “demand” has nothing to do with your premise being incomplete and/or flawed. If my definition of demand was “a blue speakerphone”,, this would not affect your premise nor my rightly pointing out that your premise was almost meaningless or flawed. How would it? It wouldn’t
So far tj, you’ve done little to support your flawed and/or incomplete premise. Mostly what you’ve done is ask me for another definition of “demand”. But my definition has nothing to do with your premise being incomplete and/or wrong so I’m not going to bark like a seal (at your “demand”) and let you distract from the point that your economics is flawed, dogmatic and overly influenced by politics.
GPL does go down in a strong economy. that doesn’t mean that you can’t find rising prices somewhere.
Note: What you wrote there has nothing to do with, and is not affected by my definition of “demand”.
” you really have a strong understanding of finance in general. Thanks again” Greenspan’s office intern, 1999
“In strong economies, prices go down”
If you disagree with it, refute it. Thus far you’ve told TJ he’s wrong.
.waiting.
Sorry. I already gave you a definition of “demand” that I agree with.
yes, you gave me ‘a’ definition. not yours.
But my definition of demand is irrelevant to the conversation.
no, it became relevant when you used ’supply and demand’ in nonsensical ways. everybody knows what ’supply’ means. few know what demand is. you’re one of the many that don’t understand it.
you’re so messed up you don’t even know what you’re arguing. how can you argue about SF housing ’supply and demand’ if you don’t even understand what demand is?
But my definition has nothing to do with your premise
YOU NEVER GAVE ME YOUR DEFINITION!
so I’m not going to bark like a seal
you seem to be doing a good job so far.
Note: What you wrote there has nothing to do with, and is not affected by my definition of “demand”.
nothing is affected by what you ‘think’ demand is.
Rio,
There are many examples of prices falling in a strong economy. Take electronic components for example. As technology progresses and efficiencies are earned, the cost to manufacture goods decreases. Houses and housing are just another form of good. Also, the basic supply demand curve is pretty clear that supply increases to meet additional demand when there is a profit to be made.
There is no reason housing units can’t be stacked higher and higher in San Francisco. There is still plenty of vertical space to grow (as opposed to horizontal that everyone seems to be implying is the magical limit).
Also, as Ben says, we are at an instant in time. This instant happens to have prices far above the historic “equilibrium state”. History would indicate a reversion to mean regardless of economic conditions.
If you disagree with it, refute it. Thus far you’ve told TJ he’s wrong.
You are wrong. Did you read? I refuted its absoluteness with classic definitions of “supply and demand”. I refuted it with real world examples of finite housing supply locations in strong economies. (with a rising dollar) And I refuted it alluding to the rising costs of finite resources in a globalized world where 10’s of millions each year are coming into the buying power of those finite resources. This is 10th grade “Supply and Demand”, Economics 101 stuff, whether you or he like the definitions or not.
And to refute? His premise “In strong economies, prices go down” is almost meaningless.
He spent dozens of posts insulting, trying to deflect by parsing definitions, and weakly defending something as meaningless as “When it snows, it’s Christmas time“.
Rio,
i can define demand with two words that are necessary to each other.
my guess is that you will define it with one of two commonly used words that aren’t necessary to each other. why don’t you take a stab at it? what are you afraid of?
There are many examples of prices falling in a strong economy.
Yes there are. And there are many examples of prices rising in strong economies. “Supply and demand”.
You have to go to tj’s history to understand my greater point. tj’s flawed premise is that in some kind of “utopian” “free-market” Ayn Randian type of economic system (that never was or never will be), “strong” economies lower most if not all prices.
tj, has written things like that if everything was automated and unregulated, people could work 1 week for a year’s pay. This is the where tj is coming from - la la land imo. An economic world not like ours.
In this context of his past views and posts I have shown that his premise: “In strong economies, prices go down”. Is about as important as saying “when it rains, it’s cold.”
It’s an almost meaningless statement.
i can define demand….what are you afraid of?
lol….I’m “afraid” of falling into your sophomoric plan to deflect from the meaningless of your premise that “in strong economies, prices go down”.
It’s a 10th grade debate team trick. You can’t defend your position well, so there your are. Keep digging.
Jill: “When it snows, it’s Christmas time”
Jack: No it’s not.
Jill: Ok…….ummm….uhhh..uhhh …..so what’s your definition of “Christmas”?
You are wrong.
So now you told two people they’re wrong. You still haven’t refuted TJ.
Proceed.
Rising prices and wages/Supply and Demand in a strengthening economy……Economics 101. (Maybe the Chinese don’t know what the definition of “demand” is.)
China Economic Watch: Strong Recovery to Buoy Gold Demand; China Girds for Wage Boosts
http://www.thechinaperspective.com/articles/chinaeconomicwa-9860/
Strong Recovery to Buoy Gold Demand
China’s demand for gold will grow 10% next year from this year’s estimated 800 tons fueled by the nation’s recovering growth, World Gold Council director Marcus Grubb predicted during an interview with Reuters. Grubb also said China’s strong demand would help maintain the world’s bullish gold industry for a 13th consecutive year.
I’m “afraid” of falling into your sophomoric plan to deflect from the meaningless of your premise that “in strong economies, prices go down”.
no, what you’re afraid of, is owning what you say.
You still haven’t refuted TJ.
Of course I have, and well. I’ve won the argument. tj’s already admitted (kicking and screaming) that prices also rise in strong economies. “Supply and Demand.” You’ve heard of it?
tj said:
“In strong economies, prices rise.” (that’s deep?)
That is about as important as saying:
“When tj makes a meaningless statement, he gets a one-line writing dusty defender.”
Proceed?
More accurately:
tj said:
“In strong economies, prices
rise.fall…. (but some also rise)”In this, we agree.
tj’s already admitted (kicking and screaming) that prices also rise in strong economies.
now you’re misrepresenting what i said. in other words, you’re lying and it was no mistake.
i said ’some’ prices do rise in a strengthening economy. telling people that i said prices rise in a strengthening economy is just a flat out lie.
really, you are the lowest of the low.
“In strong economies, prices rise. fall…. (but some also rise)”
you quickly took back what you claimed i said. therefore, i take back my prior post.
Of course I have, and well. I’ve won the argument.
the two participants in a debate don’t get to choose who won. the listeners do.
“In strong economies, prices fall…. (but some also rise)”
In this, we agree.
good. then it’s no longer a mystery to you how home prices in SF can rise in a strengthening economy, or fall in a weakening one. or any other combination. there are always small exceptions to what’s happening in general.
I’ve won the argument.
Win? Meaning you only care about being “right” irrespective of truth.
Thanks for clarify. Yes you won yet you have no interest in seeking the truth.
tj, has written things like that if everything was automated and unregulated, people could work 1 week for a year’s pay.
i didn’t say you could work 1 week for a years pay. i said that if the production of energy, housing, food and transportation could be automated, that it would lower the cost of living to ridiculous levels. may working a week would pay enough for all your living expenses for a year. you’d just be able to buy other things you like with your money, instead of living expenses. a week’s pay would still be a week’s pay, even if you could live off it for a year.
automation lowers prices. if frees up labor to do other things. it increases the value of the dollar. all good things. but some socialist like to focus on the jobs it replaces. they never think that replacing those jobs is a good thing. obama wants to get rid of ATMs and go back to tellers. next, he’ll want to get rid of cars and go to rickshaws. after all, there’d be more jobs that way.
Arguing with those that want to destroy our economy and spread global communism is fruitless, you are a better person than I am TJ. Expose and ridicule them, but don’t waste your finger muscles or vocal cords arguing what used to be common sense.
Radical grass roots organization and a vigorous movement towards liberty is the only way to defeat the global communists/progressives/socialists…and they must be defeated.
They twist, spin, lie, confuse and change history. They have no interest other than ending the western way of life and controlling every aspect of human life from cradle to the carousel.
Does anyone else see how trolls like tj, who enters the discussion with a kick to the proverbial head or maybe the nuts, inspire pointless, endless tit-for-tat squabbles?
I’ve won the argument.
Win?
Yea. Won. Again. It’s called logic, history, English, facts and pointing out BS.
Does anyone else see how trolls like tj,
if anyone is a troll, creep, it’s you.
i didn’t say you could work 1 week for a years pay…..may working a week would pay enough for all your living expenses for a year. tj
Whatever Dude. A years “pay” is equal to a year’s “living expenses for about 70% of Americans. Maybe you are a troll:
Quote: tj 11/20/12
“automate or die. just think how improved our lives would be if we could automate our food, transportation, shelter and energy production. we’d be free to do many other things, and the cost of living would be so cheap it would be ridiculous. we’d probably only have to work a week to pay living expenses for a year.”
tj 11/20/12
You don’t much understand economics or definitions. The only way your above fantasy-land could happen is if the public owned the means of production, and it wouldn’t work even then. Do you know what the public owning the means of production is called? It’s called Socialism. You just came up with a fake, fantasy-land scenario touting the definition of Socialism (that I am against) and you don’t even realize it. Geeez.
“…creep,…”
Troll alert.
Troll alert.
trolls show up and try to antagonize people without adding a thing to the discussion. just like you did, troll.
I thought the competition to waste bandwidth on mindless attacks ended on November 7, 2012. Sorry to see tj trying his hardest to rekindle them.
I thought the competition to waste bandwidth on mindless attacks ended on November 7, 2012. Sorry to see tj trying his hardest to rekindle them.
who’s trying rekindle them troll? you’re the one that showed up with nothing to say except that i’m a troll, troll.
If tj were any more viciously obnoxious, I’d suspect my kids were posting here.
If tj were any more viciously obnoxious
pot meet kettle.
Hallmark of a troll:
Sling vicious insults and names, then accuse others of behaving similarly or worse when they call you out…
Whatever Dude. A years “pay” is equal to a year’s “living expenses for about 70% of Americans.
and i’m saying automation in the areas i mentioned, would lower living expenses drastically. and the ‘whatever’ was you putting words in my mouth that i didn’t say.
You don’t much understand economics or definitions.
you still won’t give me your definition of demand so we can have a debate.
The only way your above fantasy-land could happen is if the public owned the means of production
wrong, production would have to stay in private hands AND the government would have to stay out of the markets. fat chance.
Do you know what the public owning the means of production is called? It’s called Socialism.
you don’t act like you know it.
You just came up with a fake, fantasy-land scenario touting the definition of Socialism (that I am against) and you don’t even realize it
unbelievable. you don’t really think you’re against socialism, do you? nearly every post of yours is laden with it.
They have no interest other than ending the western way of life and controlling every aspect of human life from cradle to the carousel.
but they don’t know that it will eventually destroy them too. they believe that there’s too many people on the planet. but there’s only too many if a large portion of them don’t work. if everyone worked and got to keep most of, what they earned, the standard of living for everyone would go way up. the problems of pollution, energy and food would be solved with technology.
i know you’re right that many people are preparing to fight. but really, most of my family are liberals and i would defend them against anyone that tried to hurt them. i’m sure i’m not alone. you might be in the same situation.
i think the only way out is with education. and the more difficult things get, the easier the education will become.
The nastiest trolls are the angry ones. Get over the anger phase of the post-election stages of grief, tj. The world will be a happier place once you let go of your anger.
LOL Can’t think two quotes in the above exchange that better sum up team tj’s inherent weakness than these:
“…When you have to ivoke (sic) …your depth of knowledge is shallow….”
Followed shortly after by
“…i’m (sic) not going to debate a dictionary….” (Or even consult one, apparently.)
In an actual NFL debate, team tj would have been disqualified at the first ad hominem, and scored <26 mainly on the weakness of the amateurish CrossX. But he’s “debating” a master, so we have to give him a ribbon for showing up and flailing around on stage for fifteen minutes with all that testosterone hanging out. (Possibly good) Information was lost to this judge due to the inexcusably rude/antagonistic presentation.
This one’s for you, tj:
He’s Barack Obama
Big theme here in December at work is everyone maxing out 401k using their yearly bonus and pushing as many expenses as possible into December. I have avoided pushing much into 401k because, like many others, I see it as a pool of money Congress may tap in the future. Thus I’m about 10k under the max for the yr (I do contribute, but only up to the matching limit). I’m considering maxing it out with part of my bonus, but still can’t get over the idea that Congress might tax it at some point.
The elected liars won’t touch (tax) 410k’s directly. They’ll use your 401k balance to offset(means test) SS.
Yep. That or something similar to that.
Real tax rates on the 20%ers might never be lower than right now. If the herd is pushing tax liability into the future, it is probably a bad bet.
Assuming you think that the investments available in your 401(k) plan will do well, there is a significant advantage to being able to invest all of your contribution rather than your contribution less your highest marginal tax rate.
I understand the math. I was questioning pulling 401K contribution into a lower tax rate period only.
Since the contribution periods are measured by calendar years, there is no “pulling” it into a lower tax period. If they don’t do it before the end of they year, they are simply losing the 2012 contribution. 401(k)s aren’t like IRAs.
What is being manipulated is the timing of the contributions. For example, if your company will match 4% of your salary but also restricts it to 4% per pay period, then the matching portion has to be taken out throughout the year. The rest of it can be taken out throughout the year if you like, but if you prefer to have a larger paycheck over the 12 months, then you can take the rest of it out of your bonus (assuming you are confident that the bonus will actually be paid and in the correct calendar year). It is less efficient if you think the market will be going up during the year - in that case you are better off getting more of the money invested earlier in the year - but if you don’t care about that much or don’t have an opinion, it is no bother to take it out of the lump sum.
If you stuff money into the 401K that you ordinarily would spend in 2012 because of anticipation of tax changes, yes it is pulling contributions from one period to another. It is implied that the 401K contribution level will be lower in 2013 to replenish the spending funds. We don’t get to manage our taxes much, but we at least understand what is going on with that.
“If you stuff money into the 401K that you ordinarily would spend in 2012 because of anticipation of tax changes”
Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense to me. There is nothing to indicate that this money is being put into a 401k instead of spending it in 2012. 2012 is almost over. These are law firm associates with 6 figure salaries allocating 5 figure bonuses to their 401(k)s instead of letting a smaller amount of money get deposited in their bank accounts.
Each year they get to put some amount (I think it is $16K this year) into a 401(k) for tax deferred growth. Next year they get to do it again and they will likely do the same thing. They are mostly young and this is money they won’t be touching for 30 to 40 years. They didn’t put it in during the year for their own reasons which could range from wondering if there was going to be a lay off to preferring to have the liquidity from their regular salaries to make their regular student loan payments. They are now deciding to take the tax deferral for money that will be invested for a very long time. And again, they will do the same thing in 2013.
Joe has basically said that he only puts in enough to get the matching because he expects to be able to “hide” the money later on in life so it will never be taxed. Sounds like fraud to me.
They’ll use your 401k balance to offset(means test) SS.”
yes thats an easy one
401(k) money is taxed as ordinary income when you take it out. Unless you are rolling it over into an IRA. So what is your issue with the Roth again?
Polly, what I’m saying is that people who normally only do 401k up to the firm’s match will be maxing it this yr, bc it’s perceived that income taxes will be higher in 2013. (The tax reason is the same reason that the firm is trying to push compensation into 2012.)
My issue with any of these retirement accounts is that I’m hesitant to put my own money in because of possible future tax changes and possible means-testing. I’d rather put the money into the family business or pursue a Romney Plan (TM). And, FWIW, last week you responded that I could never do what Romney did–I know I won’t be able to do it as well or with as much money as he was born into. But yes, I will qualify — probably the income and asset reqs) to invest in hedge funds and yes I can figure out enough to use tax loopholes. Even though I oppose the existance of these tax loopholes, if Congress (and particularly Republicans) can’t seem to care enough to fix them, why is it “unethical” to use them? Republicans went around calling Romney a “job creator”, “business genius”, and “bootstrapper” for his Bain activities, what’s wrong with a small-timer like me throwing a couple hundred thousand into a small hedge fund in a few yrs?
Joe, that makes no sense. People should be pushing income into this year but pushing deductions in the year with the higher rates unless you think the deduction is going to be taken away. 401Ks are a deduction.
Most people do what makes least sense.
In other words, use the 2012 bonus for 2013 living expenses so you can max out the 401K from the 2013 paycheck.
Joe, the hedge funds will be delighted to have your OPM.
They will max out the 2013 401k contribution as well. It isn’t an either/or situation.
Sure, you are probably exactly correct about what they will do.
Joe,
You have indicated many times that you don’t have the sophistication to do much of any of the things you mentioned. You may acquire that knowledge and sophistication some day. I would never bet that a person who is moderately clever can get there eventually. But you have also indicated that you are rather lazy when it comes to research, so you are well behind on getting there.
You CAN’T do anything close to what Romney did. It isn’t his family money that did it. It was his access to Bain Capital and all the ways that he could set things up by being a partner/executive at Bain. Are you going to become a partner at an absurdly well funded private equity fund? No, I thought not. Joe with a million bucks to invest doesn’t get access to the big boy games. And if you have to start spending big bucks to appease your wife on not having a larger, house, you have even bigger problems coming down the road.
And putting money into a business won’t get your hypothetical offspring a scholarship to Princeton.
Never bet that a person who is moderately clever *can’t* get there eventually.
Joe is right in the sense that anyone with any savings is a future sitting duck. Makes me think I should spend as fast as I earn. In the long run… But it’s my nature to be frugal and safe.
What he is wrong about is his ability to hide the money. Those avenues are not available to him.
Without going into details, both my family and my wife’s family hide a lot of money. I don’t mean hundreds of thousands, I mean millions. To do this, they own businesses (carry out pizza restaurants, laundrymats, small rental houses (rowhomes), a bar/pub, % shares of golf clubs, etc). I have a good idea how they do it, I know the people they use, and I have good reason to believe it’s essentially all legal, i.e. only a small part of it might be money laundering and that’s only with the bar/pub. It’s not polite to ask a lot of questions but when I’m 40 and planning long term, I’ll sure what to talk to their “people”.
As far as research or lack thereof, I am very aware that right now I don’t have to worry about these decisions and that things may be changing. Perhaps things will even change during Obama term #2 (in some ways I hope this is the case).
The last thing you’re missing is that the Romney Plan (TM) thing is and always has been hyperbole. Shockingly, I don’t think I’ll be a hedgie or PE partner, nor am I planning on hundreds of MMs. We save aggressively now and live well below our means. At most we could save ~75k/yr if we cut back on vacations or eating out. When, God forbid, my parents and in laws pass along, my wife and my shares should be comfortably over 5MM. Of course, this depends on how my parents divy it up (I have siblings, my wife is an only child–lucky her ) and on estate taxes. Of course the Estate Tax is a good idea, but I won’t complain if Congress buys the “small business” BS that the GOP is always pushing.
I think you’re a little quick to judge and also a little naive. You’re assuming I’d ever trust any fund enough to put more than a few hundred thousand or a million in one place. In reality, I’d much rather spread it around in local cash-flowing assets. At any rate, I’ll do the research when it’s time, for right now I’m trying to stay away from making any decisions. Best plan is to stack cash and keep the options open.
Also, as far as getting need based aid from top Ivies, I’ve said this before here but my parents paid less for Princeton than what Penn State was charging for in state at the time. This was largely bc almost everything was in my maternal grandparents’ names or in trusts. I plan to do something similar in 5-10 yrs when my wife and I need to acquire assets. It’s naive to think that someone literally needs Romney type money to use loopholes–in reality, 5 or 10 MM will do quite nicely.
“…my family and my wife’s family hide a lot of money. I don’t mean hundreds of thousands, I mean millions. To do this, they own businesses…laundrymats,…”
A laundromat to launder money?
Now that’s clever.
Toot your own horn much?
How is owning a business in the United States “hiding” millions of dollars?
I think he means not reporting cash sales.
I’m hesitant to put my own money in because of possible future tax changes and possible means-testing.
What a load of crap Joe… you were just bragging the other day about how you’re in the 2%. That puts you at an income of $350k annually [married, filing jointly]. You’re living the dream as a 2%er and you’re worried about means testing? Of course, the rest of us working towards the dream, well, we should just give up because you said so…
Here’s a piece of advice for you Joe: If you’re actually in the top 2% of income, SS should be spare change for you.
I think 1% is 350k?
I’m well below that, but you’re right, it could be 3%. And my point was to say that if this is what qualifies as “dead end” to you, I am OK with it. I’m not about to go writing 3rd rate apps to make some pitiable amount of extra money.
go writing 3rd rate apps to make some pitiable amount of extra money.
Given you know nothing of my technical background, I’ve never said what I was building or what business sector the app was in or what the monetization model was, you’re making some pretty large assumptions.
Let me educate you: The size of the market we’re going after is $130 Billion annually, just in the US. From a value perspective, our service is significantly cheaper than any of our competitors. There isn’t a company out there doing exactly what we’re doing, which gives us first-mover advantage and an easy competitive differentiation in sales, and yet, our service could easily be acquired and integrated by companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. and add value immediately.
As far as the comment regarding “pitiable” amount of extra money, you’re the one griping about SS means testing while earning more than 97% of the US population. Meanwhile, I’m shopping Series A VC rounds of $1-2,000,000 and driving towards a conservative exit valuation well north of $50,000,000. And yeah, I’ll be paying myself a couple hundred grand in salary as CEO when we close a series A, which is nice bump from my current position as a software lead.
You should stick to what you know, hoss… pushing paper.
LOLZ! Listen to the PRODUCERS fight about who’s a bigger Producer
Reminder: arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, you can win but you’re still retarded!
Didn’t Northeastener tell us once that his business was modified form of the Groupon model?
Didn’t Northeastener tell us once that his business was modified form of the Groupon model?
Similar competitive market space, but very different biz model… Groupon is a glorified deal-of-the-day email list. Low barrier to entry technically and low to no ROI for the businesses who advertises.
I won’t go into the specifics of our model as we’ve only just released the beta in the Greater Boston area, but suffice it to say we have more in common with Yelp or Google then we do Groupon…
throwing a couple hundred thousand into a small hedge fund in a few yrs
I am in the process of doing that right now. The big boy hedge funds only take millions. With small hedge funds, it’s hit and miss. You might just get the next Madoff.
Don’t forget, they’ll get their taxes from the 401k, just when you pull the money out.
My fear is that they change the Roth rules…
If Democrats want to go back to the Clinton era tax levels, are they also ready to go back to the Clinton era “spending levels”???
“Keep the Lie Alive”
Hey bLip…… this is your work here. Keep the lie alive.
Carry on.
What in your opinion is the lie?
Interesting that a valid question can be termed a lie. However, many on the left want any speech they disagree with to be labeled hate speech and banned. There is some consistency in their approach.
However, many on the left want any speech they disagree with to be labeled hate speech and banned.
Hate speech should NOT be banned. I’m glad hate speech was not banned.
If hate speech had been banned, Romney might have won the election. I think all the lies and hate speech (blatant and coded) coming out of Romney’s campaign helped Romney lose the election.
I wonder if the Repubs have figured that out.
“Interesting that a valid question can be termed a lie. However, many on the left want any speech they disagree with to be labeled hate speech and banned.”
It wasn`t so much a lie as it was obviously racist.
In case anyone was wondering this is all part of my re-education camp avoidance program.
What’s interesting is this petty game you two liars are engaged in. Mildy amusing.
Dust Grinder,
So anything you disagree with is a lie? Even if its a question?
Where did you get your training? MSNBC?
Someday soon the “Truth” is going to hit us all in the face, but those that are prepared won’t be surprised. If you see it coming you can prepare, if you don’t you won’t be ready.
Regards,
Lip
Carry on with your charade. Both of you.
What if we go back to Clinton-era JOB levels?
Ministry of Truth says the unemployment rate in 2000 was 4%.
Then vote for a Clinton.
Chelsea Clinton is waiting to jump in I think.
The key to winning in a Ponzi is knowing when not to jump in.
“If Democrats want to go back to the Clinton era tax levels, are they also ready to go back to the Clinton era “spending levels”???”
I’d suggest spending would have to be reduced lower. A lot of debt has piled up since Clinton (both by Rs and Ds) that has to be serviced.
No you can’t cut spending. The sky will fall. Widows and orphans will starve, etc… Well here’s a good place to start. From the San Fran Chronicle the other day.
“…The San Francisco Housing Authority operates 6,476 units of low-income housing at 45 public housing projects around the city. It also runs the Section 8 voucher program, which currently gives 9,577 vouchers to low-income people to subsidize their rents in private apartments.
The agency is funded by the federal government,…”
IF it is a function of government rather than charity to house the poor - very debatable - why house in people in one of the most expensive cities in the country? Lot’s of the people paying the taxes for this “entitlement” can’t afford to live in San Fran and commute. Of course the authority’s head makes north of $200K plus benefits. And there must dozens and dozens of administrators.
Scrap this program save the taxes and housing becomes more affordable in San Fran. If want to scrap it by attrition to be kind fine, but scrap it.
Also tax and spend liberals often give false / misleading choices. In California it’s always we need to spend more on schools and college aide. It cost $50K or whatever the exact figure is to house a prisoner per year. The problem is the prison guards union. You have prison guards making over $100K plus benefits. Insane, especially since a lot of the prisons are in CA’s version of flyover country.
No you can’t cut spending. The sky will fall.
Not to mention lost biz for Corporate America.
why house in people in one of the most expensive cities in the country?
Send all the poor people to Detroit, yeah, that’s a great idea.
Isn’t that the problem with public housing in the first place: putting a lot of poor people all in one place?
The housing projects in San Francisco are all on the far outskirts of the city, and they are run-down, dangerous places.
Sending all the poor people to another city makes perfect sense (snark on) - if a neighborhood of poverty is a good thing, then a whole city must be better. Even better, send them to a city with no jobs, too. Mass relocation of humans to places they don’t want to go, that’s the ticket.
But they don’t want to go back to the Clinton era tax levels. That’s the point. It’s a nice talking point, but they want to go back to Clinton era for some…the effect is that they want to keep 80% of the Bush tax cuts (by lost tax revenue).
Bloomberg - Student-Loan Collection Targeted for Overhaul in Congress:
“Congress will consider overhauling debt collection in the $100 billion a year U.S. student loan program, replacing it with automatic withdrawals from borrowers’ paychecks tied to their income — a system used in the U.K.
Legislation that Wisconsin Representative Tom Petri plans to introduce as soon as this week would require employers to withhold payments from wages in the same way they do taxes. Payments would be capped at 15 percent of borrowers’ income after basic living expenses.
The bill follows growing concern about the burden of $1 trillion in outstanding student loans, which now exceed credit card debt. Under the new system, the government would no longer need to hire private debt collection companies and charge fees that add as much as 25 percent to borrowers’ loan balances, leaving defaulted former students even deeper in the hole.
Last year, 5 million borrowers were in default — generally meaning they had failed to make payments for at least 270 days — on $67 billion in loans, more than twice the amount in 2003.
The Education Department already has the power, without a court order, to seize a part of wages, tax refunds and Social Security payments to collect on student loans. There is no statute of limitation.
“automatic withdrawals from borrowers’ paychecks tied to their income”
This is how it always should have been done. It would give the government the proper incentive to assess repayment risk, university performance, the value of the degree/education, etc.
It would eliminate a lot of the fraud/waste in the collections industry. The government should be handling this directly– not outsourcing it, not taking huge write-downs, and not allowing idiotic/unscrupulous third parties to screw up the process.
This article was a bit of a surprise. The collection agencies are bootstrapping, invisible hand of free market, Horatio Alger, John Galt, job creators. Transferring their responsibilities back to Uncle Sugar should make for some interesting debate among the Congressweasels…
And Petri is a Republican. Must be quite the inner conflict:
Do we give a chance to the bootstrap free marketers, or do we eliminate the middle man?
The big suckling pig in this isn’t the debt collectors as much as it is the university system that is fattened with public monies charged to the accounts of our children.
The big suckling pig
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/bureaucrats-paid-250-000-feed-outcry-over-college-costs.html
“Congress will consider overhauling debt collection in the $100 billion a year U.S. student loan program, replacing it with automatic withdrawals from borrowers’ paychecks tied to their income — a system used in the U.K.”
Outsource the code needed to mange this task to Chindia and they can also get their identities stolen
From USA Today ( the impact of printing money):
8:30AM EST December 4. 2012 - Home prices rose 6.3% in October from a year earlier, marking the biggest increase since June 2006, CoreLogic reports.
The gain is the eighth consecutive year-over-year jump in home prices nationally, the company says.
Prices dipped 0.2% from September. But such decreases are expected as the home buying market enters the off-season, CoreLogic says.
The housing recovery “continues to gain momentum,” says Mark Fleming, CoreLogic chief economist. The recovery is “broad-based” with almost all markets experiencing some appreciation, he says.
The biggest gainers were states that were hit hardest during the downturn or those with strong energy sectors.
Arizona saw prices increase 21% year-over-year; Hawaii, 13%; Idaho and Nevada, 12%; and North Dakota, 10%.
Five states continued to see prices fall.
Illinois and Delaware posted declines of 2.7% in October from a year ago, the data show. Rhode Island and New Jersey were down 0.6% and Alabama was off 0.3%, CoreLogic says.
Other research firms have also reported strengthening prices. September prices were up 3% year-over-year in 20 leading cities, Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller index reported last week.
Fewer homes for sale are helping prices. In October, the supply of homes for sale was down 22% from year earlier levels, the National Association of Realtors says. In October, the nation had just a 5.4-month supply of existing homes for sale.
Realtors generally consider a six-month supply to be a balanced market, favoring neither buyers nor sellers. In some parts of the country, especially in parts of California and Arizona, for-sale inventories are much tighter. That’s spurring price increases.
Buyer demand is also improving, helped with low interest rates. The average 30-year, fixed rate stood at 3.32% for the week ended Nov. 29, Freddie Mac says.
What gets me is the MSM always says “housing recovery gaining momentum” or some such.
Why don’t they honestly report, “Fed housing price support efforts paying off” instead?
I want the bas*ards have won to be reported in a headline.
The bubble is back in SF. It’s like 2009-2011 never happened.
An economy based on tweets and facebook “likes” is the path to Recovery®.
WSJ - U.S. Sues Big Firms Over China Audits:
“Securities regulators took aim at the Chinese affiliates of big global accounting firms Monday, after a wave of accounting debacles at publicly traded Chinese firms that led to billions of dollars of shareholder losses.
Dozens of Chinese companies have raised billions of dollars in the past decade listing their shares on U.S. and Canadian exchanges, before their share prices plummeted amid questions about their bookkeeping and disclosures.
The SEC action, if an administrative law judge rules in its favor, could lead to the Big Four’s Chinese affiliates being barred from auditing U.S. traded companies — something that could complicate the audits of multinational companies doing business in China. The regulatory moves also stand to heighten a U.S.-China confrontation over how much U.S. officials can do to ensure that Chinese audit firms adhere to U.S. regulatory standards.”
New York Times - High-Speed Trades Hurt Investors, a Study Says:
“A top government economist has concluded that the high-speed trading firms that have come to dominate the nation’s financial markets are taking significant profits from traditional investors.
The chief economist at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Andrei Kirilenko, reports in a coming study that high-frequency traders make an average profit of as much as $5.05 each time they go up against small traders buying and selling one of the most widely used financial contracts.
The study comes as a council of the nation’s top financial regulators is showing increasing concern that the accelerating automation and speed of the financial markets may represent a threat both to investors and to the stability of the financial system.”
Yet again, my rent went up! The owner gave me a quote for $1900 a month, which is $200 more I want to pay right now.
Rents in Austin have gone up every year for the last five years.
I used to pay $1350 a month in rent to live downtown.
I have been looking up properties for sale, but the inventory is very low.
Due to low interest rates and because of the lack of new construction over the last few years, prices of old properties have gone up anywhere between 20 to 30%.
For example, a friend bought a condo preconstruction during the bubble years for $285,000, the unit is currently for sale at $330,000.
I am unsure about what to do.
Brett, rents have not gone up, the value of the dollar has dropped due to massive printing. Cold comfort since most of us are paid in those depreciating dollars but important to remember everytime the government announces that it is going to print more money.
That still doesn’t change that those who own at least have a fixed payment. Renters like me see their housing expenses go up every year…
That’s just crazy talk Brett.
We’ve become accustomrd to it. Enjoy the lunacy.
You really need to look to micro reasons (a lot of people with money wanting to live in a particular part of Austin with a limited supply of rental units) before you blame everything on a macro reason. If the macro reason was correct, rents would be soaring everywhere. Are they?
Soaring no, but going up yes. I agree that micro reasons are very important but in the end when the inflation really starts they will overwealm the micro reasons just like we had a world wide housing bubble and micro reasons such as jobs in the area did not matter.
“Soaring no, but going up yes.”
Wrong again.
Rents are down in;
Denver
LA
Chicago
DC
Rent like house prices, remain artficially high here.
You really need to look to micro reasons (a lot of people with money wanting to live in a particular part of Austin with a limited supply of rental units)
Micro reasons do exist. There are some places that will always be more expensive than others. Many people here predicted Manhattan real estate crashing. Hasn’t happened, and may not. Same *could* be true for places like DC, SF, Boston, and maybe Austin. I say *could* because unlike the Pimp I do not have a crystal ball
“I say *could* because unlike the Pimp I do not have a crystal ball”
Neither do I but I don’t have a stake in the direction of prices clouding my words, thoughts and good judgement either. You on the other hand….
What I have is the understanding of the value of a dollar. And this is something you’ll go to your grave without understanding.
Good luck. You’re going to need alot of it.
Brett, rents have not gone up
His landlord gives him a $200 rent increase and you r response is “rents have not gone up”? What did I miss?
the value of the dollar has dropped due to massive printing.
the value of the dollar has dropped because the economy is weaker. the weaker the economy, the weaker the dollar.
Buy a giant condo you can’t afford with FHA loan and enjoy your life.
I can afford it an i have the ability to put 20% down; the issue is whether I should wait a little longer and hope prices will come down
Saw a shirt last weekend -
“Austin Sucks
Go back to California and tell your friends”
My guess
We are headed to another recesion so the FED will lower rates and push more money out there
Deep pockets will use this cheap money to buy everything
the 99% will buy from the company store or rent
According to some on this blog, rents never go up.
In fact, renting is practically free! (pimpster I know your fingers are itching as you read this).
At 13% of monthly income, renting is practically free
And with heat included in the rent, “throwing money away” is such a warm, happy feeling.
Wrong again.
Rents are falling. Worse yet for you, rental rates are half the cost of buying at current inflated asking prices.
There is no need to lie so what is your motive for lying about it?
That must be true in Missoula, MT or some other sh*t town where nobody wants to live. In my particular area, buying vs renting in a desirable area is pretty much even at this point
Is that so?
You’ll have to explain why prices are falling in the Bay area.
Because their intransigence, hypocrisy, intolerance and hostility cost Romney the election? Hint: Americans like compromise. It’s what our Republic is based on.
“House leaders stripped plum committee assignments from three deeply conservative freshman lawmakers”
Big losers in ‘fiscal cliff’ talks? Tea party, perhaps.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/1204/Big-losers-in-fiscal-cliff-talks-Tea-party-perhaps
House Republicans say Election 2012 validated their tea party-backed revolution two years earlier. But two moves Monday suggest that House leaders are turning away from the movement.
The conservative wing of the GOP, which propelled the party to historic success in 2010, is being marginalized – leading to open calls for rebellion in some quarters.
…First, there’s a Republican moderation on taxes – accepting new revenues that are anathema to the tea party credo that gave Republicans control of the House two years ago. But more quietly, House leaders stripped plum committee assignments from three deeply conservative freshman lawmakers – assignments doled out with much fanfare in 2010 to show that party leadership would listen to its vocal and conservative bloc of freshman members.
Together, the two moves are evidence of the stresses within a Republican Party trying to reorient itself after an electoral drubbing in November
Phoenix / Tucson RE report out yesterday.
Easy read and lots of charts.
http://wpcarey.asu.edu/finance/real-estate/upload/Full-Report-201211.pdf
Carey is a noted REIC shill. You’re better off with Prof. Marshall Vest’s reports from the University of Arizona. Linkey-do below:
Economic and Business Research Center
Watching Rome burn while the Masters of the Universe kiss the feet of Mammon.
It may have been mentioned before but the amount of money being extracted from the equity markets (via special dividends) is mind blowing. Some plutocrats(I’m looking at you Larry Ellison) are sucking close to a billion out of their publicly held companies so they can avoid a marginal tax increase in 2013. These people are nothing short of traitors to the country they live in. Some companies go as far as to borrow the money they pay out in special dividends and use tax code loop holes to deduct the interest! For years we have been told that there were trillions of dollars sitting on the books of our corporations just waiting for the green light of lower taxes and regulation. Did they forget the first part about increased demand? Seems clear to me they never planned to invest that money and now they will ‘punish’ the little people for not electing Mr. free market, Mitt Romney. Now that they have extracted their billions what noble use will all that wealth be put to? If past behavior is any clue I fully expect political influence will be a favorite indulgence.
Commie talk!
Now that they have extracted their billions what noble use will all that wealth be put to?
Purchasing a private Hawaiian island perhaps?
It’s all a game to the big boys. And they hate to lose, even when they can well afford to.
sucking close to a billion out of their publicly held companies so they can avoid a marginal tax increase in 2013. These people are nothing short of traitors to the country they live in.
This is the big change. The right-wing’s and to a lesser extent, the left’s evolution from economic nationalism to supporting “greed-is-great”, me first crony capitalism.
But I have to give props to the red-state poor and lower middle-class. They were the largest group that held out the longest buying whatever was left to buy American. You can still see it today with all of their American cars and trucks vs. imports. It’s too bad their “leaders” sold them up the river.
Alpha-sloth. As a follow up to the post yesterday about footwear, you should also look at Danner. Both Matterhorn and Danner have a gortex/thinsulate boot that is warm, comfortable, and waterproof. If you can’t find a retailer, try US Cavalry online. They’ll set you back $300, but they last.
The Matterhorn Ranger boots were my preferred footwear in the field… and I was light infantry, so I walked everywhere. Danner’s are just as good.
They’ll set you back $300,
Well, they’re a gift, and I’m not ready to spend that much on them. I’m ready to pay $160 for the Blundstones (which is what I think they want), but I want to make sure they are really good work boots, not fashion shoes like I find Doc Martin’s to be. Otherwise I’ll get them something else.
I’m ready to pay $160 for the Blundstones
Red Wing makes some nice boots too. (And in the USA)
But not all of them.
I’ve got a pair of Red Wings I bought back in the mid-late 80s I’m still wearing.
Some companies go as far as to borrow the money they pay out in special dividends and use tax code loop holes to deduct the interest
Costco…
The CEO of Costco was an Obama supporter…
Let’s not even talk about the clever corporate structuring that allows Google, Apple and the like to pay very low tax rates (but have their capital trapped overseas–bringing it back would require them to pay lots in taxes).
When are we going to deal with corporate tax loopholes? Seems like there is a fair bit of revenue to get there…
Costco: the anti-Walmart
You won’t find Costco employees having to rely on food stamps and other taxpayer-subsidized programs like health care and housing, subsidies which Walmart employees must use. Costco is a net positive for any community, with employees who can afford to actually add to their local economies and support growth — Costco is the antithesis of Walmart and the greedy plutocrats who own it.
“But not everyone is happy with Costco’s business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco’s customers but to its workers as well.
Costco’s average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam’s Club. And Costco’s health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco “it’s better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder.”
Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco “it’s better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder
Bill Dreher is a greedy moron. WalMart shares have done no better than Costco the past 5 years.
Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco’s customers but to its workers as well.
“Overly generous” to customers and workers = Bad??
Overly generous to shareholders and CEO’s = Good???
Bill Dreher is a greedy moron.
Greed is good.
I love Costco and there treatment of employees is part of that. I am not a shareholder in Costco but I think that treating your employees correctly does lead to better service and is probably a better business model in the long run. To me, it is like Henry Ford doubling his employees wages.
I am not a shareholder in Costco but I think that treating your employees correctly does lead to better service and is probably a better business model in the long run.
I think you are correct. I just checked WalMart stock vs Costco stock going back to 1993.
Total return since 1993:
WalMart—–a bit over 400% (with low employee pay)
Costco —— a bit over 1,000% (with high employee pay)
Shareholder value is a RESULT of a good business model not the goal of business model.
They may be a good employer, but they are definitely sticking it to the government tax man in that they are borrowing money to pay out increased dividends before tax rates go up in 2013. The fact that they can then get a break on the interest on the borrowed money is a double plus bonus…
What am I missing here? I thought Costco was a privately owned business? Who cares how generous the owner is with his employees?
I thought Costco was a privately owned business?
Costco is a public company listed on the NASDAQ and a member of the NASDAQ 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco
Indeed! We little people spill our blood to protect their vital trade routes and they skim off hundreds of millions to do exactly what? It’s not capital since it’s not ‘at risk’ or being invested in their employees or their business. Yes the owners claim to be democrats but in name only not by deed. They worship at the alter of Mammon.
Elizabeth Warren likely to get Senate Banking Committee assignment
Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren, one of the fiercest critics of big banks, is likely to be named to the Senate Banking Committee when she joins Congress next month, according to two Senate aides.
The appointment has not been formally announced by Senate leaders and will not be final until an official vote on assignments in the Senate. The pending appointment was described to the Globe by aides who requested anonymity because Senate Majority Leader Reid has not made a formal announcement.
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/12/04/elizabeth-warren-likely-get-senate-banking-committee-assignment/exjYm7HSGmKsrEBAg1dy5I/story.html
Methinks that the banksters aren’t going to like this. Not one little bit.
Methinks AZ slim is correct…. again.
I can hear them howling already.
Good. Unfortunately it’s about 90% likely they’ll find a way to block this or neuter her ability to impact them.
Who is “they”? The other party has no ability to prevent a particular senator from being assigned to a committee. The only issue would be with a democrat who was in line for that committee and really wanted it and has seniority over her. Should that hypothetical person exist, they will be bought off with some other plum assignment and/or better office or whatever.
If you are talking about the bankers? Forget it. She just won an election with all the banker money going against her. They lost the chance to keep her out of that committee in November.
ron paul was on the house committee on financial services…no one is more outspoken than him…and what do we get?
bailouts as far as the eye can see.
now if EW or RP were appointed as fed chairman…then we would be talking.
otherwise…fughet about it.
Who is “they”? The other party has no ability to prevent a particular senator from being assigned to a committee.
Doesn’t require the other party when you own both parties.
If you are talking about the bankers?
The top ones and their owners, yes. If they can’t keep her out of the position I expect they’ll find a way to make sure that nothing she does causes them any problems. So far nothing that should have stopped them has…why should she be any different?
One Senator can’t ever do anything other than embarrass them. But she can do that if there are any hearings. And it will be beautiful to watch. They have all the money they need and more. But they really believe they are more admirable for having gotten it (remember “God’s work”?) and want others to admire them for it. She can remind them that they can’t buy the admiration. It isn’t a lot, but it is enough.
And those of us who are excited about her being on that committee? That is what we expect. Don’t confuse excitement with naivete.
“It isn’t a lot, but it is enough.”
“Don’t confuse excitement with naivete.”
i am not confused.
you guys are kidding right?
Let them dream…don’t wake them up.
Ralph Nader piece on the Nobel Peace Prize president’s illegal drone wars:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/30/reining-in-obama-and-his-drones/
Check out this cartoon (Obama in the upper right panel).
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/the-strip.html#1
Check out this cartoon
Nice. That reminds me. Here is the Broken American Social Contract in a graph. The contract was broken about 1971 and has since been shredded.
Productivity and real median family income growth, 1947-2011:
(Hint: The benefits of increased productivity over the last 35 years have not gone to the middle class.)
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/productivity-and-real-median-family-income-growth-1947-2009/
“U.S. home prices edge lower in October: CoreLogic”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-home-prices-edge-lower-in-october-corelogic-2012-12-04
Like I’ve said all along, prices resumed their long downward trajectory in October.
You’re not listening. You hear only what you want to hear. But you’re not listening.
Home prices post biggest jump in over six years: CoreLogic
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/12/04/home-prices-post-biggest-jump-in-over-six-years-corelogic/
Again. Prices resumed their decline in October.
You’re not listening. You hear only what you want to hear. But you’re not listening.
Reuters
“CoreLogic said prices slipped 0.2% in October, which it says was expected as the housing market enters the offseason. On a year-on-year basis, however, prices stormed 6.3% higher.”
You’re not listening.
Prices resumed falling in october.
Gasoline prices are typically cheaper in October than they are in May, some things have a seasonal price to them. Obviously, if the market continues to increase year over year than we had a bigger decrease at this time last year.
It’s Bush’s fault.
From the Sacramento Bee today:
Sacramento area home sellers again walking away with cash
Those glory days when selling a home left you with money in your pocket are making a long-overdue return to Sacramento, new figures suggest.
In recent months, traditional equity sales – in which sellers clear their loan balances and walk away with cash – reached their highest numbers across the Sacramento region since the last housing boom peaked in 2005, according to DataQuick, a San Diego-based real estate information service.
For the first time in five years, traditional home sales added up to more than half the homes sold on the open market, the data firm said.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/04/5028710/area-home-sellers-again-walking.html
Just had a chance to see what has been going on the past few days……too busy working in one city, then driving 2.5 hours and working on the other airplane.
(And getting paid less in either 2002 or 2012 dollars for managing two airplanes than I got in 2002 for managing one, but I digress…….)
Thanks for the expressions of concern, Re: my Sunday post. The truth of the matter is, I thought both of the incidents I described were kinda funny. as the “loser” discussion, I had with my daughter, she was just playing/screwing with the old man. It’s her job. Ditto with my inquiry to my neighbors in the hangar.
As far as the “Gay Man card” goes, I thought it was funny too, …….because I thought it inconceivable for someone to believe I was gay, much as I thought it would be impossible to confuse me with being a TeaParty-Evangelical-Republican.
But then I started looking at it from his perspective; Obama supporter in a state that is about 99.5% Tea Party Republican, sympathetic to the rights of gay people and women’s reproductive rights, and other than my kids, no female friends/acquaintances/significant others/wives/roommates. I can see where he might make that assumption. I fit the basic profile, for the most part.
If, unknown to myself, I was perceived to be a gay man by the general public, it would answer a great many questions.
As far as Springsteen being “over rated”, I’ve found that you either “get it” or you don’t. Joe Posnanski does.
http://tinyurl.com/2wkqokh
This is what he was doing, when the rest of the world was Disco, 24/7/365
http://tinyurl.com/2f8aynn
A gay man with no female friends would be an oddity.
And I would very much like to consider you my friend, fixer, if you will have me.
But not to up your gay man street cred. Just because I like you.
I am sorta likeable. In a giant, overstuffed, Teddy Bear sort of way.
I’d go out with X-GS if he could fly to the other side of flyover country. It seems around here most of the smart guys are taken.
Don’t lie to yourself. Come out of closet already!
We will still luv u.
As for being gay myself, sorry, I just don’t “get it”
As Andrew Dice Clay summed it up once: “I can’t see myself going to the beach, staring at some guy’s hairy azz, and thinking to myself, “Oh yeah……..I gotta have that……”
All people are effed up. We are just all effed up in different ways.
And just so you know, gay men do not go to Springsteen shows.
Just us losers
“And just so you know, gay men do not go to Springsteen shows.”
Well then, besides Chick-fil-A where do they go?
If my brother and his present and past “Significant Others” are a guide………casinos, to play the penny slots.
Or as he referred to these trips: “Native American Reinbursement Tours”
“If my brother and his present and past “Significant Others” are a guide………casinos, to play the penny slots.”
Can`t argue with that. My mom likes the casinos and the slots. I have never been with her but my brother says she is like an Octopus whith 2 machines going at once. He jokes about it and says I took mom up to Foxwoods so she could work on gambling away our inheritance.
“Well then, besides Chick-fil-A where do they go?”
Anywhere but a Springsteen concert.
Forward!
US bank earnings up 6.6 pct., most in 6 years
Posted: 11:38 a.m. Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012
By MARCY GORDON
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON —
U.S. banks earned more from July through September than in any other quarter over the past six years. The increase is further evidence that the industry is strengthening four years after the 2008 financial crisis.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Tuesday that the banking industry earned $37.6 billion in the third quarter, up 6.6 percent from $35.3 billion in the third quarter of 2011.
About 57 percent of the banks reported improved earnings, which allowed them to set aside less for losses on loans. And the number of troubled banks fell to the lowest level in three years.
sweet!
now the federal reserve can start rasing rates!
Didn’t see this one posted yet. Here taxpayers, you can have the risk and I will take the profits.
Banks book record profits off Fannie and Freddie
“FORTUNE — Bank executives ought to be picking out nice holiday gifts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Financial firms have made a mint this year offloading home loans on the giant government-backed mortgage insurers. In the third quarter, bank profits from that business hit an all-time high.”
“Much of the improvement, though, appears to be coming from loans sales, and much of those profits appear to be coming from the mortgage business. Wells Fargo (WFC), for instance, made $248 million selling residential home loans predominantly to Fannie and Freddie in the third quarter. That compares to a loss of $75 million for all other loan sales.”
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/04/bank-profits-fannie-freddie/?source=yahoo_quote
Is anyone else sick of the catheter commercials??? WTF????
“Is anyone else sick of the catheter commercials??? WTF????”
To name one of the commercials I am sick of, yes. You can add those erectile dysfunction commercials to that list too. Which reminds me, has anyone actually been in a doctors waiting room with an old man who’s erection has lasted more than four hours and was seeking immediate medical attention? Could be a problem for other patients couldn`t it?
Mommy what`s wrong with that man?
So you are assuming that there are lots of mothers and young children in urologist offices? Isn’t that the doctor you would go to?
“Isn’t that the doctor you would go to?”
Honestly I don`t know. But even if that is the case, the old Dude would still have to walk through the parking lot with his five hour woody wouldn`t he.
I am sorry I offended you, I didn`t know you enjoyed erectile dysfunction commercials.
test.
Are you a realtor or does your username merely reference realtors?
Want to know what really frustrates me?
I live in the heart of TeaParty/Evangelical/Bootstrapper Republican land. All the locals are convinced the world is going to end. Obama is going to tax all the rich people out of existence, and they are going to lose their jobs; he’s going to bring the UN Army (whatever that is) into the country and disarm everyone, and that the 2008 implosion was because the poor innocent banks were forced by Democrats into loaning money to black and Mexican people.
But when you start explaining to them that the Faux News version of things may not necessarily be sworn-on-a-stack-of Bibles Gospel, you find out they have NO CLUE……
They are what I would normally regard as smart people. But they’ve never heard of securitization of debt. They don’t know what derivatives/MBS/CDS are. They don’t know what 40-1 leverage means, if SHTF. They’ve never heard of MERS, or MB Global. They don’t know that the banksters lobbied for all the changes in the law (repeal of Glass-Stegal, ending the taxation of Capital Gains taxes on primary residences, turning Uncle Sugar into the ultimate bagholder) that made the implosion possible/probable, and how they really didn’t care, because they got THEIR money “up front”, and sluffed risk onto other people. And even after doing all of that, they still imploded, because crap went bad faster than they could get rid of it, so Uncle Sugar became a bagholder twice over.
Actually, a few people get it. My cousin who works for one of the credit rating agencies. And my brother’s significant other worked as a foreclosure specialist at a bank in Texas for a few years.
Want to know what really frustrates me?
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ - 213k -
I would not know any of that stuff if not for this here bloggie-blog.
Deciding Between Buying And Renting | Bankrate.com
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/video/mortgage/deciding-between-buying-and-renting.aspx - 71k -
Rents are inflated.
The rent is too damn high.
Supply and demand 101. Does Portuguese have a word for “demand”.?? I’ll find out and let you know.
Coffee Futures Fall as Brazil Supplies Rise
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-04/commodities-daybook-coffee-futures-fall-as-brazil-supplies-rise.html
Coffee futures fell for the second time in three sessions on signs of rising supplies from Brazil, the world’s top grower and exporter……
How does visiting Disneyland qualify as “tending wounds in seclusion”?
A detached Romney tends wounds in seclusion after failed White House bid
View Photo Gallery — Mitt Romney’s post-election life: The Republican candidate dedicated nearly six years to his pursuit of the White House, and for the first time since Jan. 3, 2007, the man who planned to be president now wakes up each morning without any plans.
By Philip Rucker, Published: December 1
SAN DIEGO — The man who planned to be president wakes up each morning now without a plan.
Mitt Romney looks out the windows of his beach house here in La Jolla, a moneyed and pristine enclave of San Diego, at noisy construction workers fixing up his next-door neighbor’s home, sending out regular updates on the renovation. He devours news from 2,600 miles away in Washington about the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, shaking his head and wondering what if.
Gone are the minute-by-minute schedules and the swarm of Secret Service agents. There’s no aide to make his peanut-butter-and-honey sandwiches. Romney hangs around the house, sometimes alone, pecking away at his iPad and e-mailing his CEO buddies who have been swooping in and out of La Jolla to visit. He wrote to one who’s having a liver transplant soon: “I’ll change your bedpan, take you back and forth to treatment.”
It’s not what Romney imagined he would be doing as the new year approaches.
Four weeks after losing a presidential election he was convinced he would win, Romney’s rapid retreat into seclusion has been marked by repressed emotions, second-guessing and, perhaps for the first time in the overachiever’s adult life, sustained boredom, according to interviews with more than a dozen of Romney’s closest friends and advisers.
“Is he disappointed? Of course he’s disappointed. He’s like 41,” adviser Ron Kaufman said, referring to former president George H.W. Bush. “Forty-one would hate to lose a game of horseshoes to the gardener in the White House, and Mitt hates to lose. He’s a born competitor.”
…
Sniff. Poor rebuffed Mitt. Maybe he can get a guest gig on Sarah Palin’s exercise show before he hits the SoCal RNC rubber chicken circuit. Or maybe he’ll encounter the ghost of Richard M. Nixon while he’s out there trudging the sands of the low tide line in his hard soled black leather shoes….
My heart is bleeding for the man. Bleeding. Poor soul, stuck with only his utter public humiliation and his immense fortune to keep him warm for the rest of his days there on the cruel sands of La Jolla. And Telluride. And Salt Lake. And….
“Poor soul, stuck with only his utter public humiliation and his immense fortune…”
He’s gonna be just fine, thanks to all those beautiful grandkids who will now see lots more of their grandpa.
Maybe one of those grandkids will grow up to be a future president. Don’t count the Romney clan out.
Who’d've thunk that relocating to a country where an informal bribery tax is required to appease officials could have backfired so badly for a wealthy American expatriate?
The story I heard on the news tonight was that McAfee claims the Belize authorities framed him for a murder after he refused to pay them extortion fees.
McAfee founder surfaces in Guatemala after giving Belize the slip
December 4, 2012, 9:10 p.m.
Where’s John McAfee?
After a whirlwind of confusion about his whereabouts in recent days, the quasi-fugitive surfaced Tuesday in Guatemala for a news conference, dapper in a trim pinstripe suit and flanked by a newly attained lawyer and the 20-year-old girlfriend he says he intends to wed.
For nearly a month, McAfee has evaded officials in Belize, after he was named a “person of interest” in the death of his neighbor, Gregory Faull, who was found face-up in a pool of blood on Ambergris Caye, a tiny island where McAfee had moved to retire.
Belize officials maintain that the antivirus software mogul is merely wanted for questioning and is not a suspect. McAfee insists that if captured, the Belizean government would kill him.
The stranger-than-fiction events that have unfolded over the weeks following Faull’s murder have provided plenty of fodder for drama-starved tech journalists — guns, drugs, poisoned dogs, plenty of young women, a body double and a North Korean passport all play into the saga.
A blog, penned by McAfee, has documented his life on the run and the many disguises along the way: tamale vendor, Guatemalan crafts hawker and even a Speedo-clad German tourist.
But in the last 24 hours, things have gotten much, much weirder. First, McAfee’s secret location was seemingly revealed by two Vice journalists and travel companions, who posted a photo with location data suggesting he was in Guatemala.
Then a post on McAfee’s blog claimed that he’d doctored the metadata to throw police off his trail, apologizing to Vice for “manipulating their recently published photo.” And finally, this morning, an admission: McAfee had indeed snuck out of Belize and was shacking up at a posh resort in Guatemala City.
“I apologize for all of the misdirections over the past few days,” he wrote in his Tuesday morning missive. “It was not easy to exit Belize and required many supporters in many countries.”
McAfee said he will now seek asylum in Guatemala, though it’s not clear why he would need it, since his travel has not been restricted. “I will answer any questions that you may have over the phone,” said McAfee in his latest dispatch. “If I am indeed merely wanted for questioning, this should suffice.”
…
Obama firm on “fiscal cliff” amid Republican disarray
By David Lawder and Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON | Tue Dec 4, 2012 9:20pm EST
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama held his ground on the “fiscal cliff” on Tuesday, insisting on higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, while Republicans showed increasing disarray over how far they should go to compromise with Obama’s demands.
With less than a month left to confront the budget cuts and tax increases that will begin taking effect in January unless Congress acts, Obama dangled the possibility of lowering tax rates as part of a broad U.S. tax code revamp in 2013.
But he again insisted, in an interview with Bloomberg Television, that tax rates for the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers must rise in any deal by the end of the year to avert the assorted measures known as the fiscal cliff.
Obama, a Democrat, may face resistance from his own party if and when he’s forced to be specific about how he would cut the cost of entitlements, such as the Medicare health insurance program for seniors.
For the moment, however, the overall political picture Tuesday reflected a relatively solid front of Democrats versus an increasingly shaky group of Republicans.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, even avoided endorsing the negotiating position of his House of Representatives ally, Speaker John Boehner.
“I think it is important that the House Republican leadership has tried to move the process forward,” McConnell told reporters trying to get his views on a proposal Boehner and the House Republican leadership sent to Obama on Monday.
Outside the capital, concern mounted about how and when - not to mention if - the politicians might put their disagreements behind them and deal conclusively with an issue that economists say could trigger another recession.
…
tj = tiresomely juvenile