Bits Bucket for April 4, 2013
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
December 2024 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
If you buy a house in 2013 based on “prices are going up again”, you will loose alot [sic x2].
A house is a pretty poor “asset” unless it’s sitting on prime real estate, which means the shore of Lake Como… Not on the outskirts of sacramento near some call centers.
The motive for paying current grossly inflated housing prices matters not. You’ll be underwater the day you buy it and you will lose alot of money. ALOT of money.
Speaking of outskirts, we have a new co-worker who is so strung out on the NAR koolaid it isn’t even funny.
Made the early 1990’s equity locust exodus from SoCal to AZ, then another locust migration to CO, specifically to Longmont.
Boulder has verrry strict development limits, because they are commie and think they are Portland, so if you want a house in Boulder you will pay ALOT of money. Longmont is 16 miles northeast of Boulder, and 45 miles from our government cheese worksite.
this dude can’t stop extolling the virtues of living in Longmont (we won’t tell him what our friends in Boulder) think about Longmont), how it’s so great you’d think it was the Sacramento foothills. pulled the walkability score of his nabe and it scores a 2 out of 100. Yayyyy sprawl (PUKE).
Assuming Boulder does something to ensure that it has a good mix of housing that doesn’t automatically price out the working class, I think they have the right idea. I love how some people bash limits on building… as if it’s really a bad thing. I’m thinking of Rental Watch in particular. “Boo hoo, the county doesn’t want to let us turn its open space into vast housing developments… and it’s making it hard for all these young couples to get into the market.”
There is such a thing as a reasonable limit on how much housing and what types you want to allow.
If you live in Boulder and don’t have to commute in and out of Boulder, it is awesome. There is a (commie) network of bike paths snaking throughout the city with tunnels under the major streets, unlike anything we have seen elsewhere in USA. World class rock climbing just down the road in Eldorado Canyon, and on the Flatirons when they arent closed to climbing because of environmentalist wacko protections for raptor nesting season. And considering it is one of the fittest cities (Aspen doesn’t count, they do via lipo, not exercise) in the fittest state, the women are really HOT, if you can overlook the unshaved armpits and scent of patchouli.
LOL…
Boulder sounds good, is there an adequate supply of good private sector jobs or is it mostly equity locusts and university employees?
The tech sector is really good in Boulder for the size of the town. That’s what has driven prices so high. It’s a good place to live and work if you can afford it.
“There is a (commie) network of bike paths snaking throughout the city with tunnels under the major streets, unlike anything we have seen elsewhere in USA.”
Sounds like Davis, Ca (also overpriced)
Austin has excellent bike paths, too.
Excellent bike paths = Expensive RE. It draws the techies. It’s also generally only possible, and done, in liberal communities (which also draw techies).
Regarding the libtard versus slack-jawed teabillie conundrum, we have noticed that it is usually in the redder locales that motorists feel compelled to yell out their windows at pedestrians walking in rural/sprawly non sidewalk-served locations.
There is a (commie) network of bike paths snaking throughout the city with tunnels under the major streets, unlike anything we have seen elsewhere in USA.
That description reminds me of some of the cities in the Netherlands—awesome bike-path networks, and ALOT [sic] of the locals bike. Seriously: ALOT.
“That description reminds me of some of the cities in the Netherlands—awesome bike-path networks, and ALOT [sic] of the locals bike.”
No doubt why that euro-caboose is tighter.
Assuming Boulder does something to ensure that it has a good mix of housing that doesn’t automatically price out the working class
They don’t…they can’t. They do have some housing that they’ve declared to be low/mid income that can’t be sold for more than 3% per year profit or something like that, but the real “working class” housing in Boulder is close to half a million+ unless you count 300+k townhomes. There are some good things about their building limits but in conjunction with being a jobs and lifestyle mecca there is no way to avoid housing prices being out of control in this environment.
There’s a reason I’m living in a doublewide. There is no “middle” and I’m not going to sign up for slavery. I was walking to work but since I had to change jobs I’m now commuting to Longmont (which is my kind of town actually…at least it was until they managed to successfully crush a really nice car cruising scene). It would make sense for me to move to Longmont and start walking to work again except that now my 12yo son is fully integrated in the Boulder school system and doesn’t want to leave it. So I live cheap there and commute for him for a few more years.
OK Carl a song for you…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iICDCj-qOEU
:-). Now imagine it with a Mercedes and BMW. The humor possibilities are endless…
I love it!
Good deal, Carl. But what I find amazing is that there are doublewides so close to the $300K townhomes. That situation just sounds too ripe for developers to buy out the mobiles and put up hip new condos.
I suppose it has something to do with how long ago a city was developed. The inner burbs of DC were built out by 1975-1980. All the trailer parks, if any, were taken out and built over long ago. But in areas that still have lots of land on the outskirts, it’s not unusual to see McMansions springing up across a road from a trailer park that used-to-be in the sticks. Saw that in parts of the Midwest.
My brother had to live across the tracks in Louisville to find affordable digs.
That situation just sounds too ripe for developers to buy out the mobiles and put up hip new condos.
That is the biggest risk to our current cheap living. However, Boulder has a lot of (commie?) rules about development that I suspect prevent the owner of the park from doing the obvious. Especially since it’s right on the shore of a man-made lake. Lots of rules to encourage affordable housing. Personally I can’t believe it’s not condos already. But something must be preventing it. It throws off probably 100k in income per month for the owner but that’s small potatoes compared to what he probably could get from it if he were free to develop.
I’ve only seen one trailer park get taken out since I’ve been around here, and they built low income condos on it. Probably the only way they could do the deal.
“Assuming Boulder does something to ensure that it has a good mix of housing that doesn’t automatically price out the working class, I think they have the right idea.”
If you were king of Boulder, how would you propose to do this? And should everyone, working class and up, be entitled to be able to own a home?
If you believe in supply and demand as a determining factor for prices, then you shouldn’t bitch and moan about price increases in your market if you are in support of significant supply restrictions.
More supply restrictions lead to higher prices.
The only way to counter this is to have government intervention in the pricing process–a popular way is to deed restrict some homes to only be available for people of certain income levels (Below Market Rate unit requirements for new development; BMRs, for which there are frequently waiting lists)…which artificially limits supply of homes for people above those income levels (driving the prices of THOSE homes higher). By adding a bunch of BMR requirements, so lower income folks can buy, you squeeze those in the middle.
This is in essence the effect that Carl Morris notes is happening in Boulder.
A pretty extreme example of government involvement is on Maui, where if you are building a subdivision where the market rate units are expected to sell for more than $600k, you need to make 50% of your units “affordable”.
Given the real land/water constraints and hellish entitlement processes, here’s the effect…builders have an incentive to push prices as far above $600k as they can–and with half as many new homes available above $600k (because of the BMR requirement takes half the units), they have the market power to do so. Absent the BMR requirement, there would be twice as many unrestricted homes, which would push the prices of the unrestricted homes down.
“…we have a new co-worker who is so strung out on the NAR koolaid it isn’t even funny.”
A program manager who moved up this way a couple of years ago got a telephone call at the office from his wife; some guy placed a foreclosure on the front door of their rental. After digging they discovered their landlord hasn’t made a payment in a few years. One of the other managers said, “Hey, rms was right.”
right about what?
right about what?
That RE scammers are everywhere, shadow inventory, etc., even up here in gawd’s country; hehe. There are homes sprinkled all around our small town that have been empty for months, some years, and people here think its because nobody wants to rent them, or the owner likes having it empty. If you mention the annual $2k/yr in property taxes, or the garbage fees that are due regardless if you use the can or not then you get the 1000-meter stare, shrugged shoulders, the usual you are negative comment, and they walk-off. Reality isn’t for everyone.
I’m going to find out who owned that home and collected rent while stiffing the creditor; out ‘em to the gossip circles. This is a hillside home with a view, so we are likely talking about one of the local big-belt-buckle types that run around with a swagger preaching gawd and family values.
out ‘em
Out ‘em, rms!!!
“Out ‘em, rms!!!”
I’ve got a hottie I keep close (never touched), and she’s the junk yard dog when it comes to gossip. She’s out of town with her kids on spring break, but next week I’m going to supply some bait; she’ll find out who…likely within hours.
ALL of my coworkers think that you can’t go wrong with real estate, that you’re shooting fish in a barrel. Many are busy selling and trading up to bigger houses. Their common complaint is that they can’t find anything to buy, and won’t put the current house on the market until they have an offer accepted. Then the house sells in days, with multiple offers (this is in the Broomfield/Westminster/Louisville area).
I’m wonder what tune will they be singing a year from now.
Blecchhhh.
We had a job interview with Vail Resorts in Broomfield three years ago. It’s halfway between Denver and Boulder but feels like it’s nowhere, just a big blob of a mall/office park on the prairie.
I kind of like Broomfield. Standard late-model suburbia that’s a quick drive to everything. But I enjoyed walking to work even more when I moved back into Boulder.
Broomfield
To each his own. We need to be integrated into the grid of the City, because we’re all about keeping it real.
It’s halfway between Denver and Boulder but feels like it’s nowhere, just a big blob of a mall/office park on the prairie.
LOL, don’t tell my coworkers that! They think the area is a “happening” place. And it does have an above average median income for the state.
What’s really going on in California
California imposed a new law on banks innocuously called “Homeowners Bill of Rights” which forces banks to switch over to a judicial foreclosure process, which they can opt to do on their own, but takes a year or more to renegotiate contracts and compensation structures for the foreclosure law firms who do all the leg work for the banks. And while those changes are being made… it makes it appear that foreclosures have slowed down dramatically in the state.
The reality?
Defaults (undeclared) are spiraling upward that yet have to pass through the foreclosure pipeline.
The truth?
California is still the highest foreclosure state in sheer volume and percentage.
The low-down?
Resale housing is still massively overpriced as a result of unprecedented interference by individual states and the federal government. The market distortions will be removed and the down draft will continue allowing the market to correct.
With millions of excess empty houses and housing demand at 17 year lows, housing prices have a long way to fall. A very long way to fall.
If you are the PTB and you have a problem with, say, saving the banks just how would you go about solving this problem?
One way - a stop gap - is to flood the banks with cheap money so as to boost up their underwater reserves. But that’s just a stop gap. If the diminished value of the collaterial that backs the loans is the real cause then a permanent solution is to boost the value of the collaterial.
In the world of Price equals Value you boost the value of the collaterial by boosting the price. And you boost the price by stimulating demand while at the same time restricting supply.
In the case of houses you dribble out supply and at the same time you make available lots of money TARGETED to houses and to houses only. Avaliable and cheap money floods into a restriced supply of houses and, natch, the price of houses go up. And when the price of houses go up the values of the underwater mortgages that are backed by these houses also go up.
When it comes to the value of houses the price is what determines its value, and the price is a matter of opinion. And opinion can be shaped by some very clever opinion makers.
When it comes to the value of mortgages that too is a matter of opinion - but indirectly. It is a matter of opinion in the sense that the value of the house that backs the mortgage is a matter of opinion because the value of the house is tied to the price of the house and the price of the house comes down to being a matter of opinion.
Raise the opinion as to what the price of houses should be and you will raise the value of houses. Raise the value of houses and you will raise the value of underwater mortgages backed by these houses. Raise the value of the underwater mortgages and you raise the value of the entities that hold these mortgages.
Enter the NAR - the opinion makers - and couple the NAR with the PTB that want to make houses “affordable” to the unwashed masses by offering the unwashed masses cheap and available money targeted to houses and to houses only and you will get to see rising prices of houses.
And if you are an underwater FB then you will become joyfull because as the prices of houses that are bought and sold all around you rises the price of the house that you are living in and paying for also rises.
You are saved, the lenders are saved, the world is saved. It’s all good.
What is really interesting in this world of Price equals Value is, in the case of houses (and in the case of stocks), the entire value of all the comparable houses rises as the price of the portion that represents the comps rises. And the portion that represents the comps are the relatively few houses that are actually bought and sold.
Strangers decide what the price should be for a house that is being bought/sold and this price is translated to the value of the house that I am living in. If these strangers can be convinced that the price of the house that is being bought/sold should be high then the value of my house becomes high. And vice-versa.
A bit strange if you stop to think about it, but nevertheless there it is.
What bothers me about these multibiders is their panic. Panic buyers are the ones setting value. This whole new wave of mufti bids could have been contrived along with holding inventory off the market just to spark the psychie to shift into panic buying. Everybody around the world wants a house or a better house but most for its utility and not as a way to riches.
“Everybody around the world wants a house”
Really? Is this written in your book of fables too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST86JM1RPl0
If you are the PTB and your goal is to save the lenders, then it really shouldn’t matter to you all that much what the reasons are for the buying are, panic buying or not, it should only matter to you that the prices are rising.
Rising prices solves a lot of problems. Get the prices rising by any means possible and you get to enjoy a win.
It helps your cause to have a lot of voters who are homeowners (or homebuyers or whatever) in that they share the desire for the prices of houses to rise. There are very few people who have an interest in having the prices of houses drop and a whole lot of people who have an interest in having the prices of houses rise, so betting on a rise is probably the best bet. And this is the bet that Big Money seems to be making.
If you want an operating market of buyers and sellers, you have a fairly strong incentive to want lower prices.
The NAR wants lots of buyers and sellers because lots of buyers and sellers means lots of commissions. But this isn’t about helping the NAR, this is about helping the lenders.
The NAR has one agenda, the lenders have another.
In a very real sense the NAR is being used as a tool by the PTB to get the prices of houses up. The NAR has an interest in having a lot of sales volume, the PTB have an interest in raising prices. If limiting sales volume raises prices then this is the course the PTB will take, is taking.
“There are very few people who have an interest in having the prices of houses drop and a whole lot of people who have an interest in having the prices of houses rise…”
This would not be sustainable if the price of entry is too high. Eventually it must reach an equilibrium.
We were in a multiple bid situation on our fixer. We won out over much higher bids because of condition. FHA would have made the net less than our fair cash offer. Once we were locked in the deal, our buyer’s broker went to work on the price reduction. We were in a sweet spot w/ a 35 yr broker/company owner. He had no fear. (We did.)
You “won” but not in the way you think.
Tears….. tears of joy. lmao
In any auction situation, the “win” is determined when you pay more than anyone else in the world is willing to pay. It was a clear win. The person who ends up with nothing but a big pile of money is a loser.
In an auction you “win” when you bid more than what anyone else attending the auction is willing to pay.
Indeed a very curious definition of “win.”
The only time you can win in a competitive bidding situation is if you have an angle that no one else has…the example that comes to mind is on a vacant commercial building, if you are the one bidder with a relationship with a tenant that wants to lease the whole thing–you often can afford to pay the most…and you can still do well.
Or, perhaps in the case of a land sale, you own the adjacent parcel, which when combined with a piece of land for sale solves some sort of entitlement problem, or practical problem (critical size).
Perhaps if you own the neighboring home, and tearing down the home for sale dramatically improves the value of your home, you might be willing to pay the most and “win”. However, it is pretty hard to envision a case where a bidding situation favors the winner for a single family home.
Everybody around the world wants a house or a better house but most for its utility and not as a way to riches.
It’s what I keep hearing at the lunch table at the campus cafeteria.
Am surrounded by kool-aid drinkers paying $20K lot premiums (that is ALOT for flyover) for Toll Brothers developments in Bumf*ck Prairie well east of Interstate 225. Put 2 or 3 of them together and it devolves into a nauseating circle-jerk of self-congratulatory NAR babble.
VOMIT
The lie here is that the comps determine the “value.” Price is determined by what someone will pay. One comp by a greater fool on a street with 5 other empty houses doesn’t mean there are now 5 others willing to buy at that price.
I know NAR is trying to convince everyone otherwise but there really isn’t the demand at the new comp price.
Exactly.
And that explains why demand is at 17 year lows and falling.
Demand is at a 60+ year low. The “comps” have fallen to two years before the peak.
This is the big question. Does it mean there are more greater fools or not. It might be that the NAR is right. Maybe the pumping will work. But I don’t see it. And I don’t think the evidence is there that there are those other 5 fools now lined up. I certainly could be wrong and this could drag on much much longer. But I think the numbers will tell us within the next few months whether those 5 mo fools are really there.
“One comp by a greater fool on a street with 5 other empty houses doesn’t mean there are now 5 others willing to buy at that price.”
Why not? Suppose, for instance, that you have time to wait, knowing the Fed is pumping $40 bn a month into MBS purchases that could eventually trickle money down into the hands of greater fools qualified to borrow up to $729K to make foolish purchases? And you also know that prices are going up at similar rates now to when the bubble was in full swing? As I recently posted, I have seen homes in my area recently selling at over $100K north of what Trulia sez they are “worth.”
Why wouldn’t waiting for a greater fool be a wise strategy in the current echo bubble market?
Because the traditional term for “echo bubble” is “sucker’s rally”. The casino may keep the party going by raising everyone’s credit limit, but that will only make waking up in the morning more painful.
knowing the Fed is pumping $40 bn a month ??
And now the Bank of Japan….Gotta have a spill over effect to the USA….
“And now the Bank of Japan….Gotta have a spill over effect to the USA….”
“You’re either with us, or against us.” –dubya
And the portion that represents the comps are the relatively few houses that are actually bought and sold.
[...]
A bit strange if you stop to think about it, but nevertheless there it is.
Not that strange, actually; the same is true in almost every market. Not much volume (in terms of the total inventory) has to change hands in order to set the presumed price of the inventory. Think stocks.
Per Zillow, on average from 1998 to today, approximately 5% of all homes trade hands each year. Market comps are based on this section of the market trading.
In the last 12 months, 3.6% of homes in the US sold.
Per Zillow, on average from 1998 to today, approximately 5% of all homes trade hands each year.
I would point out that that level of volume was not “normal”—e.g. most of that period was the bubble years.
Personally, I thought the 1996/1997 years were a better indicator of “normal” volumes—and we are about at those levels today.
…. and falling. And they’ll continue falling until prices fall to early 1990’s levels.
“…the entire value of all the comparable houses rises as the price of the portion that represents the comps rises.”
I’ve been pondering this odd factoid for many years, and I even know how to draw the Econ 01 supply-and-demand graph that ‘proves’ it, yet it still makes next to no sense to me whatever…
“…the entire value of all the comparable houses rises as the price of the portion that represents the comps rises.”
The appraisal industry really needs a make-over since there’s not much inflation protection in the “comparables” technique. A more realistic function should be weighted by local and regional GDP coefficients and maybe age distribution among other economic variables, which would dampen unrealistic spikes in asset values.
“…
In the case of houses you dribble out supply and at the same time you make available lots of money TARGETED to houses and to houses only. Avaliable and cheap money floods into a restriced supply of houses and, natch, the price of houses go up. And when the price of houses go up the values of the underwater mortgages that are backed by these houses also go up.
When it comes to the value of houses the price is what determines its value, and the price is a matter of opinion.
…”
First you said the price was driven by a flood of easy money into a limited supply of houses, then you said the price is a matter of opinion. These seem like fundamentally different explanations of why prices are going up.
I personally prefer the money flood explanation to the psychobabble economics straw man, as the money flood coupled with lax lending standards has the effect of relaxing purchase budget constraints, and budget constraints play a major role in price determination.
The other part of the story about saving banks from underwater collateral is that if you can convince hedge funds and all-cash foreign investors that they will be able to profit by investing when prices are rising and unload before the next crash, you may be able to move a lot of previously devalued collateral off bank balance sheets and into investors’ hands at relatively attractive prices before the next wave of post-bubble price collapse.
If the collapse lands on all-cash foreign investors, then all the better, right?
Imagine a rich Chinese person buying a $600K safe house in CA. The house price drops to $450K. I guess he takes a bit of a financial bath, but so what if he loses $150K? He’s already got more $ than he can spend on stuff, and he still has his safe house. The digits in the computer are just a little different. So the Chinese guy eats the $150K. Meanwhile, the $150K taken off the bank’s books is enough to save some worker bee’s job. Sounds fair.
You can catch a falling knife of any length without harm, if your cushion of cash is deep and poofy enough.
Imagine a poor wage slave borrowing 7x her income to pay a massively inflated peak price for a house which is always a depreciating asset in an area that has just started to decline.
You did catch a falling knife and you have no way out.
Good evening, my little (half-price) chocolate hunnie bunnie!
You’re trapped.
One way - a stop gap - is to flood the banks with cheap money so as to boost up their underwater reserves. But that’s just a stop gap.
I disagree slightly that the “stop gap” measure of the cheap-money flood is really just a “stop gap”.
In reality, I think it was a partial recapitalization—not full recap, mind you, but definitely a step in that direction.
Because the banks that were flooded with effectively zero-rate money were able to lend it out at well above zero-rate, even if they were just buying relatively short duration Treasuries.
The spread between 0% loans from the Fed and the 3% returns on Treasuries was truly FREE, risk-free money. And it did serve to cover some of their losses, and partially recapitalize the banks.
It was also a MASSIVE give-away to shareholders and bondholders of the banks.
I concur with the remainder of your thesis, combo…
“The spread between 0% loans from the Fed and the 3% returns on Treasuries was truly FREE, risk-free money. And it did serve to cover some of their losses, and partially recapitalize the banks.”
Too bad that only Megabank, Inc qualifies for guaranteed profits…
+1.
Oughta be highly illegal, in fact.
The banks own the Fed. You don’t. They control our currency. You don’t.
Those “guaranteed profits” are pretty damn risky. I don’t see the returns as “risk free”.
I know you can do NPV calculations…If you could borrow money at 0% (floating rate) to buy 30-year treasuries at 3% (fixed), would you? I wouldn’t. I think that’s _____ing crazy–truly picking up nickels in front of steamrollers.
A 1% increase in the yield curve in 1 year (not an outlandish increase) would decrease the value of your treasury by approximately 17%, and now your spread is down from 3% per year to 2% per year. Thats a pretty bad outcome for a pretty small move in rates.
2% increase? 30% decrease in the value of your treasury, now you have a 1% spread (borrowing at 2%, earning 3%).
‘…couple the NAR with the PTB that want to make houses “affordable” to the unwashed masses by offering the unwashed masses cheap and available money targeted to houses and to houses only and you will get to see rising prices of houses.’
Funny, isn’t it, how to everyone else besides the gubmint, ‘affordable’ means ‘less expensive’?
“A house at current massively inflated prices is financial death”
Death would be too kind.
The suffering that loanowners who buy housing today will be like being waterboarded with habenero juice while submerged in a bathtub full of fire ants.
Don’t give the lurkers any ideas.
The suffering that loanowners who buy housing today will be like being waterboarded with habenero juice while submerged in a bathtub full of fire ants while listening to Yanni…
Dear gods! Is there no depth to your depravity!?
Good squad, it appears you take an inordinate amount of pleasure in the projected suffering of others.
Care to tell us why that is?
You fawkin hypocrite. You’re out here make excuses everyday for the victimizers and you’re criticizing GoonSquad.
We spread LOVE like being splashed in the face with a bucket of warm santorum.
If anyone wants a good read, search for “ray dalio bridgewater principles pdf”, it’s the revealing manifesto of the head of the worlds largest hedge fund (bridgewater) and a good window into the thinking of a .01%er.
He could have hung out with Jimmy Rodgers another Boomer making big bets on commodities.
Do you mean Jim Rodgers of Adventure Capitalist and Investment Biker fame?
He could mean the father of country music?
I’ve read about Dalio and what he has to say, and like all the other big boys, talks his book. He completely ignores the role of debauched lending in real estate prices, at least in his public pronouncements. I’m sure he’s aware of it privately.
He didn’t get to be where he is by showing his cards to strangers. Neither did the other big players.
Continuing the discussion of inflation since 1991:
I figured some increases of rents from 1991 to 2012 - 214%, 188%, 197%; one building I didn’t buy until 1992 - increase between 1993 and 2012 was 227%.
How does that compare with the CPI?
CPI is the best double speak ever created.
Thanks Ronnie.
Hanging in a co-worker’s office:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008MQ7R64
CPI is the best double speak ever created.
Agreed—it radically understates real inflation.
And yet somehow RAL is convinced that it radically overstates it.
buy a house today and you to can gain some equity fast.
Buy a house today and your losses will be incalculable.
BEN is giving you the signal to stay invested.
When did the insiders get the signal?
Big deal? Tempest in a teapot? Governments, middle class and working class are all broke everywhere. What to do? http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/03/offshore-data-leak.html
Looks like the work of Anonymous.
It’s quite revealing how the 1% don’t really understand how the Internet works.
Over the years, I’ve had some wealthy clients. Very few of them have been computer and Internet savvy beyond the level of checking AOL e-mail.
Well why would anyone learn something that someone else can do for you?
Marie Antoinette didn’t get it either.
That’s what happens when you screw over low paid office workers.
Hope and Change
“Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette drew national criticism Wednesday for remarks she made at a public forum in which she said banning high-capacity ammunition magazines would be effective in reducing gun violence because ‘the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.’
But despite the congresswoman’s claim, ammunition magazines can be reloaded with more bullets and can be reused hundreds of times.”
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_22942476/degette-draws-criticism-pretty-stupid-ammo-magazine-comment
We are ruled by morons.
The HBB poster formerly known as turkey lurkey likes to claim that “we have the government we deserve”, but personally, we believe that America deserves even WORSE than what it presently has
We are indeed ruled by morons. CO, CT and MD are prime examples. Legislators are stampeding over each other to claim the title of “Toughest Gun Laws in the Nation”. What they have ignored are the recent events in TX and elsewhere. Seems Prosecutors, Judges, and Sheriffs are being shot and killed.
My guess is legislators and governors will be next. Seems no one bothers to learn from history, especially American history… or do those in government really think the Revolution and the Civil War were one-off events and can’t happen because “It’s different this time”?
Well down here in Texas a lot of these Prosecutors, Judges, and Sheriffs are elected offices so in this sense maybe it’s just a twisted interpretation of 2nd. amendment remedies? (hat tip to Sharron Angle NV.)
Seems Prosecutors, Judges, and Sheriffs are being shot and killed ??
And you see the guys that did it ?? Skin Heads…White supremacist…They have lost the political fight so the only thing left for them is to kill the people who took their country away from them…The Government
Your probably right about the revolution & civil war “not” being one-off events..I sense that we have some real problems with civil terrorism and mayhem coming…
The question is what can/will we do about it…
Your probably right about the revolution & civil war “not” being one-off events..I sense that we have some real problems with civil terrorism and mayhem coming…
The question is what can/will we do about it…
It will play out as events like this have always played out: Those in charge will attempt to curtail individual rights even more. More laws will be passed. More otherwise law-abiding people will be caught by the system or choose to not submit to the new laws. More people will die.
Legislators are stampeding over each other to claim the title of “Toughest Gun Laws in the Nation”
Damned States Rights BS
Seems Prosecutors, Judges, and Sheriffs are being shot and killed ??
I suppose that’s what happens when the lawyers’ hourly rate is more than your weekly income.
Your probably right about the revolution & civil war “not” being one-off events..I sense that we have some real problems with civil terrorism and mayhem coming…
Groups like Anonymous have the ability to create a whole lot more mayhem then skinheads with guns.
Anonymous cant do anything from thier mom’s basement.
“Groups like Anonymous have the ability to create a whole lot more mayhem then skinheads with guns.”
Anonymous can inflict real damage if they have staying power and can knock down Visa or a major stock exchange for more than a few hours. That’s their weakness. Now if they (anyone) hacks a live ICMB then all bets are off.
More likely DHS/CIA who are actually spending billions to develop cyber warfare weapons. Most people never give a thought to what their life would be like if their digital identity was suddenly ‘invalid’.
“We are ruled by morons.”
Ah, but who elected them?
That’s who I’m talking about.
Sqaud, you need to put up the entire quote. With this partial quote, it looks like DeGette could have been referring to during a shooting event, where the shooter could be stopped before he reloaded. In that case, she could have been correct. But no, you’re right, she’s a ditz:
“These are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
Surely there’s a gun-owner on her staff somewhere that she could run statements by before spouting off in public?
can’t copy and paste on the droid 4. every post of text via mobile is typed out. and recently having issues with the shift key and deleting.
“spouting off…”
Shooting her mouth off, as the saying goes. Just proving that politicians want to regulate what they do not understand, which is just about everything.
Uh…even the complete quote seems to imply that magazines are consumed at the time of use. I have no doubt that’s what she was trying to state, since I’ve never seen an anti-gun politician with even a passing knowledge of firearms.
This. She is speaking about and legislating on something she has no factual knowledge of nor experience with. She is voting purely on party lines because the Democratic party is against 2A.
Want to know who the Communists and Statists are? All you have to do is look at who is supporting these unconstitutional bans.
Want to know who the Communists and Statists are?
Your neighbors?
No, really, Americans support gun control
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/no_really_americans_support_gun_control/
Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health: A national survey of 2,703 respondents found 89 percent support universal background checks; 69 percent support banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons; 68 percent support banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.
…… Today’s poll comes from the University of Connecticut and the Hartford Courant, which found that majorities of American nationally favor requiring background checks on all firearm purchases, thus closing the so-called gun show loophole (84 percent); support reinstating the ban on assault weapons (57 percent); and back banning the sale of high-capacity magazines (53 percent). Salon
No, really, Americans support gun control Salon
And I’m not “supporting gun control.” I’m just posting what is.
(I wish I could buy a gun in Brazil.)
Wrong as usual, Rio. What Americans support is keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and the insane. What Americans support is reducing criminal behavior.
30% of the population own guns. In a pure Democracy, sure the majority might rule in favor of taking away guns. But we don’t live in a Democracy, Rio. We live in a Constitutional Republic, and the 2A is clear in support gun ownership… “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed”.
As to assault weapons, the majority of Americans have no idea what an assault weapons is, nor could they define it. And yes, that goes for politicians too, or do comments like “the shoulder thing that goes up” and “magazines bans work because once their used, it will cut down on the number of magazines”. As to magazines, how many of the polled could even define what a high-capacity magazine is?
Ignorance disguised as statistics is still nothing more than ignorance. But I wouldn’t expect anything less from a socialist. And as far as those “State rights” arguments, State rights aren’t trumped by an individual’s Constitutionally protected rights.
Salon? Seriously?
They were interesting to read like 15 years ago. Now they’re like a Drudge Report for the koolaid libtards, trying to out-bedwet the wettest bed bedwetter libtard media sources (NPR retains that crown).
While we’re on the subject, has the price of assault rifles started to decline now that the ban is off the table? Seriously, I’m curious…
Wrong as usual, Rio. What Americans support is keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and the insane.
How can I be “wrong”? I cited polls. Is it “wrong” to cite polls? You make no sense. Your clouded by you weird thinking.
89 percent support universal background checks; 69 percent support banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons; 68 percent support banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.
Salon? Seriously?
Are you serious? Salon did not do those polls. Salon simply reported the results of 4 polls independent of Salon.
So what are you talking about? Because a “liberal” mag reports it, that means those polls were not taken? I don’t understand what the heck you are talking about. (And neither do you here.)
But I wouldn’t expect anything less from a socialist.
I didn’t take those polls. You just don’t like the results. Too bad huh? You’re sounding like a moron again. It must be “go-time”.
While we’re on the subject, has the price of assault rifles started to decline now that the ban is off the table? Seriously, I’m curious…
I’m kind of curious, too. I haven’t been in the market in a few years so I haven’t paid close attention to day to day pricing. I did hear lots of people in Wyoming complaining about ammunition shortages, though.
I didn’t take those polls. You just don’t like the results.
Polls are always suspect, because they are highly-susceptible to manipulation by the author; small changes in wording produce dramatic shifts in results.
Polls are always suspect,
Everything is “always suspect”. But reality is not.
Polls are always suspect,
I am pro-gun. But show me 4 polls that contradict the polls I’ve noted saying the opposite. You can’t because there are none.
I don’t know what it means. I’m just reporting the facts.
AR prices have come down some, but parts are still spotty. Bolt carrier groups, barrels, and lower parts kits (to finish a stripped AR lower) have been difficult to find in stock anywhere. Some BCG’s were available for sale from Bravo Company for about 15 minutes today before they sold out.
Right now, the big issue is ammo availability and prices. It has come down some, but availability is very limited. 5.56 is running .60/round (when you can find it). 9mm and .22 is more rare than Unicorn turds. The only thing I’ve been able to find easily is .45ACP, but at $24/box of 50, it adds up…
Some BCG’s were available for sale from Bravo Company
I didn’t know they sold glasses.
The most blatant example is the lack of distinction between ‘automatic’ and ’semi-automatic’ gunz.
And more LOLZ anytime the bedwetter media inserts the phrase ‘high-powered’ into the description of some scary bad person’s gunz.
Are bitcoins legal in the U.S.? I thought only Federal Reserve Notes were legal tender.
Suppose some enterprising banker became involved, and decided to make the bitcoin redeemable in hard commodities (e.g. a basket of gold, platinum, oil, wheat, scrap metal, whatever). Would this make the bitcoin a serious contender with the almighty dollar?
Bitcoin ATMs coming soon
By Maureen Farrell @CNNMoneyInvest April 4, 2013: 7:57 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
42-year-old media entrepreneur Jeff Berwick hopes to bring Bitcoin ATMs to a city near you soon.
Berwick expects to put the first two ATMs in Los Angeles and Cyprus in the next two weeks and is choosing between several different retail locations in both areas. He added that orders are coming in by the hundreds from 30 different countries.
Bitcoin, a virtual currency that was created four years ago, has generated tons of media attention in the past few weeks. The value of Bitcoins has surged in the wake of the botched bailout and mini-bank run in Cyprus and concerns about the health of government-backed paper currencies like the euro and dollar.
So how does a Bitcoin ATM work? Somewhat like a traditional ATM, says Berwick. Instead of connecting to your bank account, the software he and his team has developed is installed on an ATM and converts cash to Bitcoins stored in a Bitcoin wallet or extracts cash based on what’s stored in your personal Bitcoin account.
…
Trouble in Bitville- or, the Central Banksters strike back!
Hack attacks hit Bitcoin exchange rates
BBCNews
Trading on the MTGox exchange, which handles most trades in Bitcoins, was sluggish yesterday as the site fought off an attack.
The attack helped to force a swift fall in the price of Bitcoins.
In addition, the Instawallet website - where people store Bitcoins - is offline indefinitely after an attack.
The attacks could be the work of malicious hackers who were trying to “game” the exchange and manipulate the value of Bitcoins so they could cash in, MTGox said in an interview with ComputerWorld. Attackers are thought to be working to a cycle in which they sell Bitcoins when values are high, then mount an attack that forces prices to crash, buy up the cheaper coins and then let the value climb again.
Gold just hammered through its 52-week low and seems poised to drop further. Could this be due to Bitcoin providing a substitute safe haven currency?
P.S. This has to be one of the STUPIDEST ideas I have ever seen in print:
Bitcoin, the ‘new gold’ - but what on earth is it?
Bitcoin, a form of electronic money, is grabbing attention in the financial world after the price went stratospheric in recent weeks - but most people have never heard of it.
Bitcoins are available on online marketplaces such as eBay, as well as via specialist platforms
By Emma Rowley
9:11AM BST 04 Apr 2013
So I’m starting to hear a lot about these Bitcoins. What are they?
A money supply, or a virtual currency (though purists will argue about the definition of currency). Basically, you can use Bitcoins to buy stuff online. Bitcoin is not the first such system, but it is by far the most successful.
Can I just conjure up some free Bitcoins online then?
Not exactly. Each Bitcoin is a piece of code generated through very slow computer processing, known as ‘mining’, requiring various hardware and software. So there is a cost, and the price has previously moved in relation to that. Most users buy them.
Still, it has been argued that the system offers a built-in bounty to those who would attempt to subvert it.
…
P.S. This has to be one of the STUPIDEST ideas I have ever seen in print:
Is it the idea, or the expression of the idea, that you think is stupid.
The idea that Bitcoin are hard to produce is at the very heart of the Bitcoin; that doesn’t seem dumb to me.
And it makes sense that the price of a Bitcoin would have some relationship to the cost of producing them—e.g. if they are MUCH more valuable in terms of exchange than the computing power required to “mine” one, then people would be incented to spent their computing power producing them. This increase in mining would increase the supply, keeping value in check somewhat—though only to a limited extent, because if the rate of mining production increases out of the defined range, they change the computing required by requiring more zero-bits to have a valid result, or new Bitcoin.
if they are MUCH more valuable in terms of exchange than the computing power required to “mine” one,
And correspondingly, if the value goes down to incredibly low values, then people would not bother to compute new ones, thus reducing the available supply.
It seems as though there should be some natural trading range based upon these two forces.
Are bitcoins legal in the U.S.? I thought only Federal Reserve Notes were legal tender.
Let me know when major retailers accept them as payment.
Why does it matter? Isn’t the issue whether someone will accept them as payment for something you regularly need, and that they will not lose value over time?
You asked if they were legal tender. If they aren’t, then it’s just a fancy form of barter.
I also can’t help but feel that the mysterious and anonymous people behind Bitcoin are going to take a lot of people to the cleaners.
Or end up dead or in jail? They’re playing with fire if they succeed.
“If they aren’t, then it’s just a fancy form of barter.”
Not so. Barter involves a ‘double-coincidence of wants’ which Bitcoin avoids.
But if by “fancy form of barter,” you meant a currency which is limited by design to a limited range of purchases (e.g. whatever you can buy with them online), then I get your drift. A problem with Bitcoins or other local currency (e.g. Ithaca Hours, BREAD Hours, etc) is that they are not directly redeemable outside a limited circle of participants, and may not exchange at favorable rates into more widely circulated currencies (dollars, euros, etc). Other problems include the possibility of huge swings in value (especially losses), due to unregulated money supply, and difficulty with taxing transactions, which is likely to raise concerns with tax authorities.
As long as everyone wants bitcoins.
Or end up dead or in jail? They’re playing with fire if they succeed.
Which is why I believe they will remain “mysterious and anonymous”. For all we know, the banking clan is behind it.
A problem with Bitcoins or other local currency (e.g. Ithaca Hours, BREAD Hours, etc) is that they are not directly redeemable outside a limited circle of participants
My understanding is that this form of “currency” is known as “scrip” and hence isn’t really money. Then again, one could make that claim for any fiat.
For all we know, the banking clan is behind it.
Good point.
‘My understanding is that this form of “currency” is known as “scrip” and hence isn’t really money.’
In the same sense that Islamic banking avoids collection or payment of interest.
For all we know, the banking clan is behind it.
I think it is much more likely that it is a group of crypto-anarchists behind it. Or spooks.
Look at the technology involved (cryptographic computation), certification of the entire transactional history by signing, and the intentions related to anonymity.
I also can’t help but feel that the mysterious and anonymous people behind Bitcoin are going to take a lot of people to the cleaners.
How would they do that?
The design is public, and any security expert can look for technical holes in it—and many have done so, even government funded experts.
The reality is that it is now a self-organizing community, and even the originators would be unable to change the structure.
There is a bubble in articles about Bitcoins!
ft dot com
April 3, 2013 7:13 pm
Bitcoin bubble grows and grows
By Stephen Foley in New York and Alice Ross in London
…
To the long list of asset bubbles – from tulips to the South Sea Company, from dotcom stocks to US housing – economic historians may soon be adding a virtual “currency” called Bitcoin. But while it is bankers who are most often blamed for blowing up bubbles, the rise and rise in the Bitcoin price has taken place without any such intervention.
…
A buying frenzy has sent the value of the total Bitcoin stock past $1.5bn and the price of a single Bitcoin has doubled in less than two weeks. Having passed $100 on April 1, it peaked at $147 in the small hours of Wednesday morning.
Untethered to any real asset, the Bitcoin’s price is determined only by speculation on exchanges around the world, the largest of which, Mt Gox, reported technical difficulties on Wednesday as interest rocketed.
“Trading tulips in real time,” declared the veteran UBS stockbroker Art Cashin in a note to clients. “It is rare that we get to see a bubble-like phenomenon trade tick for tick, but all that may be changing before our very eyes.”
The currency was created four years ago by an unknown computer scientist and the limited stock of “coins” grows according to a predetermined algorithm. A small number of online services accept Bitcoins as payment but the value appears correlated less to their use than to talk on Twitter, blogs and in the media.
…
The latest, biggest burst of interest coincided with the bail-in of depositors in Cyprus, after which Bitcoin’s advocates pitched it as an alternative to fiat currencies that can be devalued or confiscated. “It’s gold for computer nerds,” said Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at ConvergeX.
…
Jim Angel, professor at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, is sceptical of Bitcoin’s long-term viability. “Governments don’t like competition in the currency business and if it gets too big they will clamp down,” he said. “Also, you are trusting algorithms to protect the system, and we all know that technology breaks or gets hacked.
“We are just one scandal away from Bitcoin collapsing entirely.”
…
“We are just one scandal away from Bitcoin collapsing entirely.”
It’s always easier to see bubbles in assets you don’t own or depend on for your livelihood.
Let me know when major retailers accept them as payment.
Why does anyone need to accept them as payment? It’s just another financial vehicle, albeit an electronic one. As long as there is a market of buyers and sellers, one doesn’t need to be able to purchase anything with it… just convert it to cash.
“As long as there is a market of buyers and sellers, one doesn’t need to be able to purchase anything with it… just convert it to cash.”
Just like gold, Bitcoins are worth the number of dollars you can convert them into and what stuff those dollars will buy.
“…number of dollars you can convert them into…”
Or if making online purchases with Bitcoins, the number of dollars you don’t have to spend online if purchasing your stuff with Bitcoins…
B-b-b but us nanny stater school marm types want to be sure everything that you do is taxable.
and that they will not lose value over time?”
well according to this Blog EVERYTHING loses valuve over time.
Some things faster than others
There clearly are exceptions (whether or not often discussed here):
- Japanese yen did quite well from 1990-recently
- Masterpieces of art often times grow in value after the death of their creator
- Gold had a very good run from 2000 till quite recently
etc etc etc…
- Japanese yen did quite well from 1990-recently
Only because they devalued well ahead of us.
“well according to this Blog EVERYTHING loses valuve over time.”
Cactus - you have a winning line! Love it!
We HBBers are a bunch of prune eaters aren’t we?
You can buy all sorts of things with Bitcoins over at the Silk Road.
If gold is performing this poorly now, just wait until the Fed gets serious about taking away the QE punch bowl. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
Gold - Electronic (COMEX) Jun 2013
Market open $1,546.60
Change -6.90 -0.44%
Volume 131,042
Apr 4, 2013 10:45 a.m.
Previous close $ 1,553.50
Day low $1,539
Day high $1,559
Open: 1,557.70
52 week low $1,539
52 week high $1,803
I think gold prices just function as a measure of uncertainty…and for whatever reason people think the Fed is succeeding and their world is getting safer and more certain.
Fed is succeeding and their world is getting safer and more certain.”
Or a recession is brewing..
or Deflation is brewing…
PB, I’ll just count on the CBO’s prediction that social security, medicare, and the interest on the federal debt are more than 90 percent of the government payments within ten years.
Solution 1: Inflation of the currency. Result: 3:skyrockets.
Solution 2: Confiscate a fixed percentage of every 401k, IRA, brokerage account, bank account, piggy bank. Result: Gold skyrockets.
Solution 3: Renege on the promise that boomers could collect full social security at the ages they were told. Result: the gold that the others saved would be used for the extra span up to when those “others” collect full Social security. Gold skyrockets.
Right. And what use are these bitcoins going to be in a zombie apocolypse where the first thing to go down is the electrical grid? Do they intend to print them out somehow? I’ll stick with the canned peas an refillable ammo magazines, thanks.
I’ll stick with the canned peas an refillable ammo magazines, thanks.
I never took you for a prepper…
in a foxhole there are no atheists
In a central bank there are foxes.
In a central bank there are foxes.
…and we are the hens.
You must have missed my emergency storage posts then.
I wouldn’t call myself a “prepper” in the TV show sense. I once watched a snippet of Preppers. The snippet was of a family of country boyz prepperz on a spread out in the stix, conducting a bug-out drill. In case something happened to their spread out in the stix, they figured they had 1 hour to transfer their 10 years of stored goods from the shed onto a schoolbus and bug themselves out to a back-up spread even more out into the stix.
My questions were
1) you dummies why didn’t you just store the stuff in the schoolbus in the first place so you wouldn’t have to load it?
2) where did you get the money to buy 10 years of goods and a frickin’ schoolbus? Schoolbuses don’t come free, that dried food probably cost as much as the schoolbus, yo, and y’all ain’t tawkin’ like you have $100K jobs, out there in the stix.
3) who’s maintaining the backup spread out even more out into the stix? And how much did that cost?
So no, I’m not that type of prepper. But I do have a bug-out bag in the closet and another bug-out bag in the car + a car kit. And I have a stock of dehydrated camping food and #10 cans. All meant for temporary emergencies, not the zombie invasion.
Old school buses are pretty inexpensive.
You can buy a 10 year old regular school bus for around $8k.
2) where did you get the money to buy 10 years of goods and a frickin’ schoolbus? Schoolbuses don’t come free, that dried food probably cost as much as the schoolbus, yo, and y’all ain’t tawkin’ like you have $100K jobs, out there in the stix.
Well…for one, they probably didn’t have to spend much on housing!
Stay away from Bitcoin.
That is all.
I have downloaded the suggested apps to my phone. But have not started. I work slowly.
Hmm…Hackers caused a 20% drop in value of Bitcoin.
I can wait. My gold bullion in my hiding places give me a better night’s sleep.
Suppose some enterprising banker became involved, and decided to make the bitcoin redeemable in hard commodities (e.g. a basket of gold, platinum, oil, wheat, scrap metal, whatever).
This would be a remarkably bad idea, as the two must and will fluctuate w.r.t. each other. Tying Bitcoin to a fixed basket when you do NOT have the ability to produce Bitcoin at will is a recipe for losing money as the Bitcoin gains in value—e.g. it will tend not to behave in an inflationary manner, as they are produced at a well-controlled rate.
There you go. Already available.
http://www.coinabul.com/
Given that members of Congress in most cases are millionaires with plenty of accumulated savings to carry them through, wouldn’t a 20 percent pay cut through September 2013 be easier for them to weather than for a typical federal worker?
Posted: 9:37 a.m. Thursday, April 4, 2013
First furloughs hit Congress
By Jamie Dupree
As federal departments and agencies deal with automatic budget cuts and the possibility of furloughs for federal workers, those forced pay cuts have now arrived on Capitol Hill, as Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) became the first lawmaker to officially announce staff furloughs due to the $85 billion sequester.
“Begich’s staff began mandatory furloughs in mid-March and more than half of his staff will experience a cut in their salary this year,” said a press release issued by Begich’s office on Wednesday.
The same release also said that Begich would be returning some of his salary to the Treasury to match the highest number of furlough days experienced by his own staff, a move like that of President Obama and the Secretary of Defense.
While several lawmakers like Begich have previously said they would give up pay because of the sequester, the announcement of his staff furloughs seems to be the first official notice of forced days off without pay for those working directly for lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate.
“We need to be making responsible cuts wherever we can and there is no reason that members of Congress shouldn’t feel the pinch like everyone else,” Begich was quoted in his news release.
As this blog detailed in recent weeks, just like the varied impact of sequester cuts across the federal government, not every lawmaker will have to make cuts and/or furlough staff in order to deal with smaller office budgets - but it will likely be more than just this one Senator from Alaska.
As for whether more lawmakers will follow the lead of Begich, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and others in returning some of their pay, that answer is not as clear.
…
Obama to take pay cut to draw attention to plight of federal workers facing furloughs
President Obama plans to give up 5 percent of his salary this year to draw attention to the financial sacrifice of more than 1 million federal employees who will be furloughed by automatic spending cuts starting in less than three weeks, the White House said Wednesday.
The gesture comes as the president has struggled for weeks to convince Americans that the $85 billion sequester that kicked in across the government a month ago is having dire consequences for government services.
Taking a 5 percent pay cut is an act of pure political theater by President Obama. But that doesn’t mean it won’t work.
Obama said to pick mega-fundraiser for Canada ambassador
Obama said to pick mega-fundraiser for Canada ambassador
Obama, who earns $400,000, wrote a check to the U.S. Treasury this week, the first installment of his donation of $20,000, retroactive to March 1, the day sequestration started to slice 5 percent from non-Defense programs, a White House official said. The checks will continue through the end of the year.
From a ‘net worth’ perspective Obama ranks pretty low compared to the Bush and Clinton dynasties. But color me cynical, $40k would mean a lot more symbolically. Who is the next FED chairman? That’s the 100 trillion dollar question.
ISTR reading that, in current dollars, George Washington would be one of our wealthiest Presidents.
And, point of info: JFK was a millionaire by the time he was 21 years old.
The Roosevelts (Teddy and Franklin) were also quite wealthy.
And, point of info: JFK was a millionaire by the time he was 21 years old.
Money he made or money he was given? Seems like it would be tough to save that much in the Navy.
Ron Paul did similar for decades before it was fashionable by any of the other 534 congress critters. Yawn.
Obama was in Atherton today raising money for the Democratic party’s mid-term fight (landed his helicopters at the Circus Club–on your and my dime)…5 months after the last election, and more than a year and a half before the next.
He should take a 50% pay cut…he’s not doing his job.
the trouble with that idea of furloughs without pay is that your just don’t do your work and claim that you saved money by not having the work done.
No way to get around that little problem as if you can do the work without the employees you should just get rid of the employees and not furlough them.
no work means no production, no production means less income, but , perhaps, that is the way business wants to operate.
Cut everyone down to 30 hours a week and employ I new person for every 3 employees , Save your health payment, increase employment, and make more money!
The headline says it all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
What is the advantage of making loans to people with bad credit? Is this something a private bank would ever set as an objective? If it is not in a private bank’s interest, how is it in the public interest?
Are you seriously suggesting that a private bank’s interest coincides with the public interest?
No. I am expressing my doubt that loaning federally guaranteed money to people who are unlikely to repay it is in the public interest.
A private bank would do this because the private bank would keep almost none of the resulting mortgages on their books. Just like a corporated listed on NYSE or NASDAQ (etc) won’t hold much of its stock, which is why it’s a generally positive sign when they’re willing to buy their own stock.*
* In the messed-up Wall Street way of thinking these days, it is a sign of weakness if a company does a share buy-back because it shows the corporation can’t identify better opportunities than buying its own stock back. This reveals how much emphasis their is on throwing cash around in speculating activities (such as mergers or acquisitions that do not benefit shareholders).
“A private bank would do this because the private bank would keep almost none of the resulting mortgages on their books.”
Let’s pretend we live in a world devoid of GSEs and start the conversation over again!
The fact that he uses the strategy of an idiot is proof that he is a genius?
Its the “Ownership Society” round two…
More like the “self-pwnageship” society.
April 3, 2013, 7:48 p.m. EDT
Stockman fires back at Krugman, critics
By Steve Goldstein, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Fresh off an explosive essay in the New York Times, a debate with former Obama official Peter Orszag and a torrent of criticism, former Reagan budget director David Stockman says the gold standard gets a bad rap and that the Fed’s low interest rates spur Congress to spend.
Stockman, speaking to MarketWatch here as part of a tour to promote his new book “The Great Deformation.” perhaps to little surprise was critical of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate and Times columnist who dismissed the ex-congressman as “a cranky old man.” Perhaps more surprising, though, was Stockman’s disdain toward Eric Rosengren, the president of the Boston Fed.
…
Yesterday, I heard Terry Gross interview him on NPR’s “Fresh Air.” Interesting interview, to say the least.
From the article: “There is no reason to think zero interest rates, pounding and crushing savers, is going to make the main street economy better, unless as Bernanke and all the other Keynesians on there think, that debt is the magical elixir that causes economic life.”
You know, if I could get historically normal rates of return on my savings, I would be spending more.
But, because of the bank-centric economic policies of today, being driven primarily by central banks and the financial sector, the focus is on driving people to take on more debt, and invest in risky assets.
Heck of a central planning paradigm.
You know, if I could get historically normal rates of return on my savings, I would be spending more.
Me too.
Me too. I know of people who were spending some of their interest earnings and helping the economy.
I think I know you when you were the bitchchick.:)
What is this “interest rate” you speak of?
“…unless as Bernanke and all the other Keynesians on there think, that debt is the magical elixir that causes economic life.”
Got nothing to with Keynesians and everything to do with Bankstas.
Debt is the magical elixir of THEIR life.
Would you be spending more if your stock and retirement portfolio and house were all worth 50% less but your bank account earned 3-4% more in interest??
What’s been going on isn’t Keynsian. Total gov spending (state local and federal) as a percentage of GDP has not gone through the roof since early 2009.
What has gone through the roof is the FED balance sheet.
What they are doing is monetizing the debt not stimulating the economy with massive government spending programs.
Me, too!
Blame Abounds Over a Flawed Foreclosure Review
Private consultants and federal regulators are facing a fresh round of scrutiny in Washington after botching a broad review of foreclosures and failing to thwart financial misdeeds.
A new report by the Government Accountability Office will take aim at the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for creating a bureaucratic maze that delayed relief to homeowners in foreclosure, according to a draft of the 74-page document provided to The New York Times. The regulators, the report found, designed a flawed review of troubled loans that the consultants carried out and mishandled.
Adding to the scrutiny, the Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing next week to examine the foreclosure review and other recent missteps at consulting firms like Promontory Financial and Deloitte & Touche, according to several people with direct knowledge of the matter. Senator Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat leading the inquiry, is expected to broadly question the quality and independence of consulting firms that are paid billions of dollars by the same banks they are expected to police.
The most recent problems emerged when the consultants — under orders from regulators to assess whether homeowners had been wrongfully evicted — racked up more than $2 billion in fees despite reviewing only a small fraction of foreclosed loans. The consultants’ delays and inefficiencies caused homeowners to languish and prompted regulators to scuttle the review and settle with banks for $9.3 billion. Even now, millions of homeowners have yet to receive relief. Last week, banks learned that the government would miss its internal deadline to issue checks to borrowers, according to people briefed on the matter. While authorities initially planned to release the payments to 4.2 million homeowners at the end of March, technical problems forced a temporary delay.
Anybody else hear this NPR story?
Previous Owner Revisits Home Lost To Foreclosure
This one has it all. Divorced mom buying a reasonably priced house. Remodeling involving helpful friends. Remarriage and then another divorce. Multiple refis. The purchase of a rental house. Bad tenants requiring eviction. Foreclosure.
I can’t even follow the transcript.
That must have been painful to listen to. (I’m not fond of the meandering storytelling style)
Hmm…I think I see where it went wrong:
Rebecca’s second divorce before Richard seems to have paved the way to foreclosure. The house was actually almost paid off but had gone way up in value. So Rebecca had to take out a big loan to buy out her ex-husband. Richard had divorce debt too and they needed cash for a rental property business they’d gotten involved in.
That part bopped me over the head too.
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I regard the renting of SFRs as a business that’s best avoided. I think that listening to my former landlady telling me about all of her tenant troubles really rubbed off. I tried in every way possible to be a good tenant. And, it seemed, I was in the minority.
This story reinforces…
- Never refi your house. If you need to refi, you’d probably be better off selling.
- If you buy, buy far below what you can “afford”.
- Don’t buy more than you really “need” unless you have a burning desire to heat/cool/furnish several rooms that are rarely/never used.
- Take care of your relationships, a bad relationship will cost you just as much as an overpriced house, maybe more. One bad relationship can cost you your house, your health, your kids, your friends, and your sanity.
- Realtors are liars.
I couldn’t help thinking that all the real estate wheeling and dealing contributed to the downfall of the marriage. Especially the multiple refis and the problematic rental house.
Refi-ing is not a bad thing, IF you put ALL the equity back into the refi and take out a new mortgage for 30-X years. The only thing that changes is the PI on the PITI.
The problems arise when you take cash out of inflated equity and start the clock again at year 0.
As for don’t buy more than you need, the minimum for SFH is 3-bed. Smaller just doesn’t have the resale value.
Refi-ing is not a bad thing, says the blog debt-junkie.
“As for don’t buy more than you need, the minimum for SFH is 3-bed. Smaller just doesn’t have the resale value.”
I disagree with this. Past performance does not indicate future results… etc. Hoseholds are shrinking, single people households are on the rise. Part of it is economics but mostly it is just housing trends. Small houses are getting fashionable.
What would you have said if 20 years ago I’d told you upper middle class people would be living in warehouses and office buildings?
I know what you would have said: “What the heck — my typewriter is talking to me!” Anyway my point is that things change. Living patterns as well as technology.
“As for don’t buy more than you need, the minimum for SFH is 3-bed. Smaller just doesn’t have the resale value.”
Also - haven’t you asserted time and again that you didn’t buy your home for the resale value?
Don’t buy RE.
Don’t marry.
Vow poverty forever - be Jeebuz publicly, bury your gold privately.
…. realtors are liars.
Throw realtards from helicopters for public entertainment.
I nominate Teh Bernank for pilot.
Will be seeing facebook realtor at an event tonight.
Expecting the usual recital of NAR fluffing.
If the realTurd approaches you, throw your best left hook and call police to report a financial crime.
If any policy shift like ending the MID would inspire a RealTurd to stuff a gun in its face and fire, it is pleasing to the public and a crime against humanity not to make it so immediately.
CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH!
Did you hear that?
It the sound resulting from collapsing housing prices blowing through the floor in your neighborhood leaving a smoldering moon crater and an empty bank account with your name on it.
The rent is too damn high.
10 American Cities Where Rent Is Expected To Rise The Most,
It’s hard out there for a renter. With the economy still on the slow side, the competition for affordable apartments is fierce. Especially if you’re looking to move (or, for that matter, stay) in a metropolitan area. We hate to break the news this way but: your rent is most likely going to go up. Sigh.
MSN released their roundup of the 10 American cities where rent is expected to rise the most. You won’t be surprised that San Francisco is on there, but Dallas?
THE RENT… IS TOO DAMN HIGH!
Rents are going up not just in Dallas, but in all states with direct connections to the oil boom.
And you could have rented the same square footage for half your inflated monthly costs of buying. But you didn’t have the gravitas to say no.
Sucker.
Rents everywhere are going up.
Please do point out the mega trend in our economy that will allow the renters to pay higher rent.
Good afternoon snooglybums!
Happy pills today?
Jingle male in Ohio?
Ohio landlord again accused of spanking
CLEVELAND (Reuters) - An Ohio landlord and businessman charged with assault after police suspected him of spanking a tenant who owed him rent money is now being sued in civil court for a similar accusation by a mentally disabled man.
Ha!
An absolutely loony story from the S.F. Chronicle, people bidding on and buying houses unseen or w/ possibly a remote tour via iphone…
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/In-hot-market-bid-first-see-house-later-4408233.php
It’s great to see the U.S. housing market return to normal again after the 2007-2012 aberration.
Euro outlook cut again after botched Cyprus bailout: Reuters poll
A worker paints a wall above a branch of Bank of Cyprus in Bucharest April 1, 2013. REUTERS/Bogdan Cristel
By Andy Bruce
LONDON | Wed Apr 3, 2013 1:12pm EDT
(Reuters) - Evaporating hopes for an economic recovery and last month’s botched bailout of Cyprus persuaded analysts to chop their outlook again for the euro over the coming months, a Reuters poll showed.
Although the median expectation of more than 60 analysts surveyed over the last few days shows the euro trading around its current levels near $1.28 over the next few months, further out, the poll shows the currency weakening to around $1.25.
Overall, forecasts for the euro were about 2 cents weaker compared with last month’s poll, which also reflected its roughly 6 percent depreciation against the dollar since the start of February.
The poor state of the euro zone economy was the chief reason why the euro is expected to weaken further, with surveys on Tuesday showing a worsening manufacturing slump in the currency bloc.
The median outlook for the euro was the weakest since September last year, when European financial markets were in turmoil as speculation grew that Spain would soon need a banking sector bailout, which it eventually got in December.
“We expect euro zone fundamentals to deteriorate further. This, combined with outflow pressures, should keep the euro’s downward trend intact,” said Camilla Sutton, chief currency strategist at Scotiabank in Toronto.
Asked which currencies investors were most likely to buy at the expense of the euro following the Cyprus bailout, 22 out of the 26 who answered said the U.S. dollar, with seven responses each for sterling and the Australian dollar.
“If the euro comes under further stress, we expect the growth-linked currencies like the Australian and Canadian dollars to benefit instead,” said Emmanuel Ng, currency strategist at OCBC Bank in Singapore.
…
I read this and gold shines brighter.
And it looks like bay area rental rates have resumed their declines.
http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-San-Francisco-County-home-value/r_3227/#metric=mt%3D48%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D5%26rt%3D6%26r%3D3227%252C20330%26el%3D0
They’ll keep falling. Instead of rents being half the cost of buying at current massively inflated asking prices of resale housing, they’ll end up being 40% of the cost of buying. Suckers…..
And for the reading public;
The losses which you will incur if you buy a house now are massive. Prices have resumed their decline in the bay area and in fact have fallen a full 5% this past quarter. Sit tight…. and whatever you do, never trust a realtor. EVER.
Were you, perhaps, burned by a realtor, either as a lover or a home purchaser?
Sounds like it -
Are you, perhaps, a realtliar? Either current or former?
Sounds like it -
Prices have resumed their decline in the bay area and in fact have fallen a full 5% this past quarter.
Data source?
Case-Shiller does not show this.
Realtor. go LOOK.
How do grieving people cry without tears?
Crying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crying - 95k - Cached - Similar pages
Crying is the shedding of tears in response to an emotional state in humans. …
Yesterday’s bits-bucket had a URL regarding Roger Ebert, and I glanced at it think that someone photoshop’d his face. Today, I see it was for real. Unreal.
Earth to bovines: The Fed is going to end quantitative easing some day soon, and they are already providing advance warning to assume the crash position.
Be ready for it when it happens!
ft dot com
April 4, 2013 10:45 pm
Yellen latest to hint about slowing of QE3
By Robin Harding in Washington
The US Federal Reserve could adjust the pace of asset purchases to send a signal about its intentions, vice-chair Janet Yellen said on Thursday, as she became the latest senior official to hint at a slowing of QE3.
The comments by Ms Yellen – the number two at the Fed and a likely candidate to succeed chairman Ben Bernanke next year – suggest that the central bank will use a slowing of asset purchases to show its view on the labour market.
The rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee has struggled to agree on conditions to end its third round of quantitative easing, but Ms Yellen’s remarks suggest it could show the kind of improvement it is looking for by linking a small cut in the $85bn pace of purchases to a change in the economy.
“In my view, adjusting the pace of asset purchases in response to the evolution of the outlook for the labour market will provide the public with information regarding the Committee’s intentions,” she told the Society of American Business Editors and Writers at a conference in Washington.
Doing so “should reduce the risk of misunderstanding and market disruption as the conclusion of the programme draws closer,” she said.
…