The Housing Bubble

will interest rates go to zero after this bubble implodes ??

It won’t matter what interest rates are if we see Scene #2 of Stock & House imploding….No-body will lend money….

I am no cheer-leader for any class of asset and I wish we were not seeing this latest run up in many asset classes but my biggest fear is that a soft landing or even a hard landing without a crash cannot be accomplished because IMO, if not, none on this board will be happy campers including Bill….

When people are hungry & angry they usually take what they need and some…

What’s wrong with that?

Careful Housing Angel, the IRS and Polly are monitoring this site for dissenters.

“What’s wrong with that?”

If the goal is to collect tax revenue then plenty is wrong with that.

But when one doesn’t have to consume all that he earns then he can stash the difference. And once the difference is stashed it becomes free of taxes.

If the luxury goods market is doing fine it is because those with the bucks to spare choose to spend their surplus. If the incentive to spend is restricted - if the taxes on sales are too high - then the spending will fall off and hence so will the taxes.

But when one doesn’t have to consume all that he earns then he can stash the difference. And once the difference is stashed it becomes free of taxes.

and what does that hurt? the stashed/saved money can be lent out or used to start another business, both of which are good for the economy.

If the luxury goods market is doing fine it is because those with the bucks to spare choose to spend their surplus.

same with everything else. what’s the difference between ’surplus’ and ’savings’?

If the incentive to spend is restricted - if the taxes on sales are too high - then the spending will fall off and hence so will the taxes.

that’s true of any type of tax.. if taxes are to high, people will stop working and they won’t have ANY money to spend.

but i think a national sales tax is only good if it replaces ALL other taxes.

“but I think a national sales tax is only good if it replaces ALL other taxes.”

But then there will be a disincentive to spend - not a good thing in a consumer-based economy.

But then there will be a disincentive to spend - not a good thing in a consumer-based economy.

combo, that’s a keynesian myth. ALL economies are based on production, not consumption. it’s this myth that’s responsible for wrong headed policies. the sooner the majority of americans come to understand this, the better off we’ll be.

Right on, tj. It’s so difficult to get this across to most people, the indoctrination runs so deep. It really is the matrix. Of course, I’m fond of our Combo, who is at least intelligent enough to have a go at the issue. We’ll make a believer out of them yet.

Keep going TJ.

Thank you.

jose and HA,

one thing to ask the keynesians is “what is there to consume if there is no production?”

as proof of what i’m saying, imagine one’s own economy. (national economies are the sum of their citizens economies).

is one’s own economy more dependent on what one spends, or what one produces? it should be obvious that one’s standard of living depends on what one can produce unless one is working for the government or getting handouts..

But if one is to make bucks from what he produces then there must be buyers. If there is a penality for buying (such as a large sales tax) then the buying will drop off -and/or the buying will be driven underground.

Either way tax will revenues dry up.

But if one is to make bucks from what he produces then there must be buyers.

first, in the fundamental sense, to make your life better, you can consume what you make yourself. you don’t need any buyers to improve your own economy (in the most fundamental sense).

second, as i’ve tried to explain here before, you need to have something to sell before you can buy. if you say “i already have money to buy”, i’ll tell you that you had to sell something (even if it’s just your labor) to get the money.

If there is a penality for buying (such as a large sales tax) then the buying will drop off -and/or the buying will be driven underground.

i’m not denying that it’s possible to make the sales tax too high. someone crunched the numbers a long time ago and said that in a free market economy, max revenue is obtained with a sales tax of 7 to 9 percent. the increase in economic activity from such a low rate greatly increases the revenue brought in.

and we all ready have an underground economy because we are over taxed. the underground economy would shrink with a low national sales tax that replaced all other taxes.

Either way tax will revenues dry up.

tax revenues always begin to dry up when they rise above the optimal tax rate.

ALL economies are based on production, not consumption.

Here’s a chart of the US economy “based on production” where the increased production does not mean squat to the average American. So who cares about our great “production” when the fruits of that production only flow into the hands of the very few?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/compensation_productivity.jpg

Here’s a chart of the US economy “based on production” where the increased production does not mean squat to the average American.

if it doesn’t mean squat it’s because the keynesians have stolen it. wealth is destroyed by socialist policies. and their answer is always more theft.

So who cares about our great “production” when the fruits of that production only flow into the hands of the very few?

another dumb keynesian myth that’s only believed for lack of understanding how an economy works.

wealth is destroyed by socialist policies.

Destroyed? Did you see the chart? Wealth was not “destroyed”. American productivity is through the roof. Where was the wealth “destroyed”? Was Romney’s wealth destroyed by socialist policies?

No. Wealth was not “destroyed”. Wealth was created but just not distributed as equally as it had been in America’s past. Now that’s a fact and not just some “keynesian myth”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/compensation_productivity.jpg

“first, in the fundamental sense, to make your life better, you can consume what you make yourself. you don’t need any buyers to improve your own economy (in the most fundamental sense).

But most of what I consume I can’t make myself, I depend on others to make most of what I consume. They make it, I consume it.

I can’t grow bananas or coffee or make gasoline or electricity, so I have to depend on others to do make these things. Luckily for me they can make enough to sell to me, but if consumption taxes were too high then I couldn’t afford to buy. And then not only would I have to do without, so would they - they would not have to do without for what they make but they would have to do without for what they don’t make.

And some of what they would have to do without is some of the stuff that I make.

Destroyed? Did you see the chart? Wealth was not “destroyed”.

wealth destruction can be hidden by advancing technology and skills. any wealth increase is in spite of socialism, not because of it.

Wealth was created but just not distributed as equally as it had been in America’s past. Now that’s a fact and not just some “keynesian myth”.

you mean not stolen as much by government. i’d agree that there was less government theft back then. but government theft always hurts an economy. those put out of business by high tax rates usually see little benefit in trying again when the thief is still right in front of them. plus, they don’t get to spend or save what was taken from them. taxes taken beyond what’s needed for national defense and what’s needed to protect our rights and property IS theft.

have to leave. i’ll read your response when i get back, which might be several hours..

one more reply..

But most of what I consume I can’t make myself,

yes, that’s because of other people working. but if you were alone, your economy would depend on what you could produce. if you could make a shelter and make tools to help you hunt for food, your living standard would increase. you would be consuming what you make. your production wouldn’t need to be sold in order for your economy to improve. you would consume it yourself.

A high consumption tax rate works both ways: If makes the price of what I buy high and it also makes the price of what I sell high.

As a buyer I get hosed and as a seller I get hosed. The greater the intensity of the hosing the greater the stiffling of the economy - the greater the stiffling of the number of transactions. The greater the stiffling of the number of transactions the LESS tax revenue gets extracted.

Wealth was created but just not distributed as equally as it had been in America’s past.

you mean not stolen as much by government.

Wrong. Again, look at the chart. From 1950 to 1980 taxes were higher but the productivity gains were shared more equally with everyone. From 1980 to today taxes are lower but productivity gains went only to the rich.

wealth destruction can be hidden by advancing technology and skills.

Again look at the chart. USA has had great wealth/productivity gains but those productivity gains have been enjoyed by only the rich.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/compensation_productivity.jpg

“… but if you were alone, your economy would depend on what you could produce. if you could make a shelter and make tools to help you hunt for food, your living standards would increase.”

It would be interesting to imagine myself and 300 million of my fellow countrymen going out everyday and hunting for food. And I don’t imagine our living standards would increase.

A high consumption tax rate works both ways: If makes the price of what I buy high and it also makes the price of what I sell high.

it doesn’t work that way.

please explain how a sales tax raises prices..

It would be interesting to imagine myself and 300 million of my fellow countrymen going out everyday and hunting for food. And I don’t imagine our living standards would increase.

i said “if you were alone”. i was trying to point out that production doesn’t even need to be sold at the fundamental level, for you to benefit from it. production is the foundation of every economy. keynesians want you to believe that spending is the foundation, and it just isn’t so. is spending the foundation for your standard of living, or is it what you earn?

obviously trade increases our standard of living (as i’ve said many times here). but as good as trade is, it isn’t the foundation of an economy.

Thank you for your demonstration of the absurdity of Austrian Economics, tj.

really? why don’t you explain how austrian economics is absurd?

“Please explain how a sales tax raises prices.”

If the purchaser not only has to pay the asking price of a product but also has to pay a tax in addition to the asking price then this tax adds to the cost for the buyer but does not add to the profit of the seller.

why don’t you explain how austrian economics is absurd?

You just did yourself, quite well. Seriously, you’re a fellow Keynesian aren’t you? Doing a little black propaganda?

If the purchaser not only has to pay the asking price of a product but also has to pay a tax in addition to the asking price then this tax adds to the cost for the buyer but does not add to the profit of the seller.

the asking price of products is already inflated by numerous taxes. so if all other taxes are eliminated, and a reasonable sales tax is put in place, the product will probably be cheaper that what you can buy it for now without the sales tax.

You just did yourself, quite well.

just like i thought. you’re full of hot air. you can’t explain how austrian economics is absurd because it isn’t absurd. all you can do is run around sniping while believing you’re smart.

A blast from the past:

http://watchingamerica.com/News/94396/w-s-luxury-tax-%E2%80%94-a-total-failure/

Well, that didn’t work out.

Google-up “luxury tax yachts 1993″ and that’ll get you there.

The gist: Target the rich regarding taxes and they will end up changing their buying plans. If you are on the wrong of this change then you are hosed.

A blast from the past:

i clicked on your link but couldn’t find the actual article. but it doesn’t matter. of course the luxury tax was going to fail. first, it was focused on one product and second, that product was already being taxed in various ways. in any event, a 20% sales tax is much to high not to do a lot of damage.

remember, the only way the national sales tax will work is to eliminate all the other taxes. then you can fine tune the rate for maximum revenue, which will fall somewhere between 7 and 9 percent. it would bring the government much more revenue than they’re taking now, and it would be relatively painless because so much more wealth would be generated.

you can’t explain how austrian economics is absurd

You’re doing it for me. I couldn’t do it better myself.

If you eliminate all the taxes and put a large tax at the point of sale then those who can afford to buy elsewhere will do so.

Google-up “luxury tax yachts 1993″ for some examples.

You’re doing it for me. I couldn’t do it better myself.

more hot air from the socialist blowhard. you can’t do it at ALL yourself.

you can’t do it at ALL yourself.

Think of me as a one-man economy.

If you eliminate all the taxes and put a large tax at the point of sale then those who can afford to buy elsewhere will do so.

of course they will! if you raise taxes high enough no one will be working. are you intentionally ignoring that i’m talking about a reasonable sales tax rate?

Think of me as a one-man economy.

i already do. on the same order as n. korea.

“as proof of what i’m saying, imagine “

Another thought experiment.

Another thought experiment.

yes, of course thought experiments which have produced most of the breakthroughs in science should be abandoned.

“are you intentionally ignoring that I’m talking about a reasonable sales tax rate?”

If all taxes are to be dropped except the sales tax and the tax revenue is to remain the same then the sales tax could not even come close to being at a reasonable rate.

If all taxes are to be dropped except the sales tax and the tax revenue is to remain the same then the sales tax could not even come close to being at a reasonable rate.

you’re wrong, but i knew you thought that way.

You got it, scdave. And you’re right, they’ll scream bloody murder but they WILL still buy it. Especially the nouveau riches.

BTW, the “income” tax is a war tax, first instituted by one of the biggest PR scammers in history, old “Honest” Abe, who had the chance to “free” the slaves peacefully, without war, and without the threat of secession and without the expense of the Civil War, but decided that wasn’t good enough. It went away, but was later brought back during WW1 or thereabouts, and has been in force ever since.

Its present form is based on a misunderstanding of the term “income”, as it was defined back in the 1800s. The original term “income” came from England of the 1800s, when an “income” was something derived from investments, commerce, trusts, rents, family money, inheritance etc. The book and movie “Great Expections” provides an accurate explanation of the term “income”. “Income” was considered more or less a passive thing, as opposed to “wages”, or the direct fruits of one’s labor. “Income” as it was understood then was what was supposed to be taxed, not “wages”.

You see, the wealthy all had “incomes”. So is it any wonder that the whole thing was cocked around to tax “wages” rather than the “incomes” of the wealthy? That’s where it sits today. Had the original intent of the tax been incorporated, “wages” would not be taxed, but folks like Mitt Romney, war profiteers, investors, etc. would be footing the bill. And maybe we wouldn’t have so much war.

“Its present form is based on a misunderstanding of the term “income”

I meant to say, DELIBERATE misunderstanding. Or “re-definition”, if you will.

Oh, and before all the screaming me-meees descend on my comments about stinkin’ Lincoln, remember first of all that history is written by the victors. Lincoln was essentially a racist SOB who cynically used “the slaves” as a political gambit to continue the war, and a little research on the net and at the library bears this out.

For even more info on this, google the PBS documentary “The Abolitionists”, in which it is basically posited that the slaves freed themselves, with help from the Abolitionists. That’s more true than the fairy tale we’re told. Essentially, Lincoln didn’t free squat. But he was awesome at giving speeches, spilling blood and instituting a tax system that haunts us to this very day.

When Obama drills out one of the prezes from Rushmore, to replace with his own image, it would be poetic justice if it was Lincoln.

Lincoln was essentially a racist SOB who cynically used “the slaves” as a political gambit to continue the war,

Used slaves to “continue the war”? Continue?

The Civil war was about slavery. The South left the union because of slavery.

All this “lost cause,” “states rights” whitewash of history is bunk.

Yes, well, that’s not what I’m talking about here. Because there didn’t have to be a war to end slavery, that’s my point. Plans were in place to handle the issue peacefully, although it would have cost some money. But cost analyses have been done and it would have cost far less than what the war ended up costing, not just in money, but in lives. Stinkin’ LInkin’ wanted blood, guts and war, War, WAR! And an income tax. Did I mention an income tax?

Jeebus, read before you respond, willya?

‘The Civil war was about slavery.’

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2658/2658-h/2658-h.htm

‘TO HORACE GREELEY.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 22, 1862.

HON. HORACE GREELEY.

DEAR SIR:—I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing,” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be, “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free.

Yours,

A. LINCOLN.’

Well, I guess that settles it. Thank you, Ben.

You know, for some reason, there’s this echo in my head of GWB talking about “freeing” the Iraqi people. I seem to recall this was around the time that support for the Iraqi war began to flag. Hmmm…

Well, the Iraqi people are “free” now. How’d that work out for them?

I wonder why he felt so strongly that we were a single state with subdivisions referred to as “states” rather than multiple states in a voluntary union as had been clear only decades before?

Had the original intent of the tax been incorporated, “wages” would not be taxed, but folks like Mitt Romney, war profiteers, investors, etc. would be footing the bill

Sounds good to me.

Carl,

a very good question that gets to the heart of the matter.

we’d have been better off today if we’d have been the ASA (Associated States of America) than the USA. it would have been much harder for tyranny to take hold in this country, if we’d have had that ‘associated’ mindset.

rather than multiple states in a voluntary union as had been clear only decades before?

That point was essentially settled when we gave up the Articles of Confederation(!) and replaced them with the Constitution. The whole point of that endeavor was that a loose association of states simply didn’t work in practice (as we are seeing today in Europe).

Since that point there had been a strengthening evolution towards a single union that I think Lincoln saw as the natural and right course of history. The fact that it agreed with his views on slavery was surely a factor in his opinion, but I think his opinion was essentially correct. The individual states did not and do not have a good record of protecting peoples’ civil rights, starting with slavery and continuing through the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras- during which time the national gov was the protector of individuals’ rights, and the states were the oppressors.

‘Lincoln saw as the natural and right course of history’

What he did was unconstitutional. No one made him king, he just invaded and killed more citizens than any other war in US history. He didn’t have the authority to decide what the ‘course of history’ should be. Don’t forget we’re talking about a guy who wanted to load ALL the blacks on ships and send them off to a god-forsaken place where they almost certainly would have died. And he was a tool of the biggest bankers of the day, kinda like your hero Obama.

If you hadn’t showed up after I schooled rio, I’m sure you would have chimed in with the ‘civil war was about slavery’ crap too. Well here something else about this war; it set in motion unconstitutional actions we live with to this day:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/17/endless-war-on-terror-obama

‘On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether the statutory basis for this “war” - the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) - should be revised (meaning: expanded). This is how Wired’s Spencer Ackerman (soon to be the Guardian US’s national security editor) described the most significant exchange:

“Asked at a Senate hearing today how long the war on terrorism will last, Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, answered, ‘At least 10 to 20 years.’ . . . A spokeswoman, Army Col. Anne Edgecomb, clarified that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today - atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted. Welcome to America’s Thirty Years War.”

‘That the Obama administration is now repeatedly declaring that the “war on terror” will last at least another decade (or two) is vastly more significant than all three of this week’s big media controversies (Benghazi, IRS, and AP/DOJ) combined.’

‘Conveying the dark irony of America’s war machine, seemingly lifted right out of the Cold War era film Dr. Strangelove, Goldsmith added: ‘Amazingly, there is a very large question even in the Armed Services Committee about who the United States is at war against and where, and how those determinations are made.’

‘Newly elected independent Sen. Angus King of Maine said after listening to how the Obama administration interprets its war powers under the AUMF: ‘This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today.’

See, now we have to endure, as do murdered brown people all over the world, just what this president sees as ‘the natural and right course of history’. Ain’t killing whoever you want in the name of the US grand?

One last thing; so why is this civil war was about slavery myth so widely taught and thrown out by the establishment? Because it is what covers up Lincoln’s war crimes and perpetuates the idea that the president can do/kill whatever the hell he wants, for which Lincoln set the precedent .

The individual states did not and do not have a good record of protecting peoples’ civil rights

at least with individual states you can vote with your feet. with the federal government you can’t.

any state that didn’t protect citizens civil rights or property would have been relatively vacant in short order.

Where in the Constitution did it say states could secede?

any state that didn’t protect citizens civil rights or property would have been relatively vacant in short order.

Oh, all the slaves had to do was pack up and leave! Too bad no one told them that. Such a simple solution.

Oh, that’s right- slaves were property, without civil rights. I guess that was the catch-22.

‘Where in the Constitution did it say states could secede?’

Where did it say that they couldn’t? The US Constitution set out the limits on the federal government, not the states. If you know history outside of what PBS tells you, you’d know it was widely discussed in the founding discussions that any state was free to leave. And they still are.

Widely discussed doesn’t count if it doesn’t make the final copy. There was no method set out in the Constitution by which a state could secede. I find it hard it believe that was an oversight.

Where in the Constitution did it say states could secede?

many were wary of joining the union. they were reassured that they could voluntarily leave at any time.

Oh, all the slaves had to do was pack up and leave! Too bad no one told them that. Such a simple solution.

slavery was already being fought and on the way out. it would have probably ended before the date the war ended, if the war wouldn’t have started in the first place. lincoln was responsible for all the death and destruction that happened. he was a racist that hated slavery. but he even hated THAT for the wrong reasons.

There was no method set out in the Constitution by which a state could secede. I find it hard it believe that was an oversight.

so you think unions should be like gangs and the mob. once you join, death is the only way out. sounds like one of obama’s minions. you make thugs sound like good people.

slavery was already being fought and on the way out.

Precisely why the South wanted out of the union.

they were reassured that they could voluntarily leave at any time.

Seems like that assurance should have been put in the Constitution.

‘Widely discussed doesn’t count if it doesn’t make the final copy.’

More schoolin’

‘Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, ‘If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.’ Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, ‘If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’

‘At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, ‘The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.’ In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what ‘the people’ meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, ‘not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.’

‘On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, ‘Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.’ The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.’

‘Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.’

‘In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: ‘The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.’

‘Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, “It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.’

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

Written by an African American, BTW.

Then there’s this:

‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.’

‘Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.’

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Turn off PBS and pay attention here:

‘it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government’

‘when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security’

Sorry to blow you and rio out of the water twice in one day, but you should probably get used to it if your knowledge of history is so shallow.

Q: Were individual counties, cities, towns, and villages- or individual people- allowed by the Confederacy to secede from their states and stay with the union? (Austin claims it will do this if Texas ever secedes.)

A: No.

‘Were individual counties, cities, towns, and villages- or individual people- allowed by the Confederacy to secede’

A: No, they were too preoccupied with being butchered and watching their cities burned by Lincoln. Oh yeah, we’re supposed to forget about all that in your high-minded crap.

Three times! Had enough?

The Declaration of Independence isn’t the Constitution. The latter is the law of the land.

‘The latter is the law of the land’

The law serves us, not the other way around. Again:

‘to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it’

Read it slowly, I know it’s difficult:

‘deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’

Take a deep breath, just a few words at a time:

‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it’

So are the people supposed to get permission from the “Form of Government”, or should they assert their rights? I think it’s pretty clear. Now that’s four smack downs in just a few hours. Get some ice cream and watch a little Ken Burns on PBS.

Three times! Had enough?

you’re kickin’ his butt really hard, but he doesn’t seem to notice. he must have callouses back there.

This is some of the most effortless thrashing of a troll I’ve ever seen. Period.

‘deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’

Who are ‘the governed’ when a state secedes? Can the cities, counties, and individuals within the state choose not to secede? What makes the state the legitimate ruling body that can make such a decision for everyone within it?

Precisely why the South wanted out of the union.

let them leave. slavery would have still been abolished there. i think it would have happened sooner than the 4 years the war was fought.

Seems like that assurance should have been put in the Constitution.

would have been nice but it doesn’t have to be there since it wasn’t forbidden to leave. at least with gangs and the mob you know you won’t be allowed to leave. governments just lie to you and assure you that you can leave..

‘Who are ‘the governed’ when a state secedes?’

The voters.

‘Can the cities, counties, and individuals within the state choose not to secede?’

I don’t see why not. But none of them did, so I guess it’s hypothetical to date.

‘What makes the state the legitimate ruling body that can make such a decision for everyone within it?’

Who made Lincoln the ruling body? Or New York ‘the legitimate ruling body’ for Alabama? I can see it’s the self determination part you have trouble with. But back to the legacy of Lincoln, which you’ve noticeably sidestepped:

‘Newly elected independent Sen. Angus King of Maine said after listening to how the Obama administration interprets its war powers under the AUMF: ‘This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today.’

Where’s the concern for the constitution you hold so dear?

“Sorry to blow you and rio out of the water twice in one day, but you should probably get used to it if your knowledge of history is so shallow.”

That’s gonna leave a mark.

http://current.com/shows/the-rotten-tomatoes-show/92633468_screenplay-clich-thats-gonna-leave-a-mark.htm - 126k -

Who made Lincoln the ruling body?

The Constitution, and the voters.

The sates had previously agreed voluntarily to join the union and accept the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, in an inviolable contract, which offered no way out, other than through rewriting (amending) the Constitution itself, through its own (democratic) rules, which did not include seceding.

‘an inviolable contract’

But Obama violates it all the time.

‘which offered no way out’

Nothing in the constitution says this. Do you suppose any state would have signed up if it did?

I think this country is a good place to live. But I’m worried that OUR government is going to ruin it. Let’s abide by the constitution, I’m fine with that. It’s the federal government that seems to be unable to comply. And willfully so.

I don’t see why not. But none of them did, so I guess it’s hypothetical to date.

West Virginia left Virginia.

So any body, individual or larger, can unilaterally declare itself seceded from the union? And can create its own laws?

Do you suppose any state would have signed up if it did?

They should have gotten it in writing.

‘West Virginia left Virginia.’

Well there you go!

‘So any body, individual or larger, can unilaterally declare itself seceded from the union? And can create its own laws?’

My favorite form of government would be the city state. But I can’t force that on my fellow citizens.

‘They should have gotten it in writing’

Besides all the links I’ve provided, like the Federalist papers and assurances from founding presidents, there’s this:

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’

I don’t need anything in writing; it’s self evident. And if you disagree with that, arm yourself, because a free people, determined to stay free, will fight for their rights.

will fight for their rights.

Why don’t they just vote to amend the Constitution?

‘Why don’t they just vote to amend the Constitution?’

Oh Jeebus, I’ve already asked you why you don’t ask the same thing of your politicians and you ignore it. I’ve established you are a hypocrite when it comes to the constitution, so you have no grounds to ask such a thing. I am the one advocating the rule of law, not you.

You vote for and support an unlawful government. The people have patiently requested this government to respect of our rights and to return to the rule of law, as spelled out in the constitution. If you go too far, you’ll get disobedience. And if you go further, you’ll get what’s coming to you. We don’t need any ones approval or a law granting us the privilege of our rights. They are our rights, get it? And if you don’t think so, come and take it.

Just so you know what I think of you (and I’ve told you before); you are a racist, fascist thug who can take leave of this blog any time and I’ll be glad of it.

. The people have patiently requested this government to respect of our rights and to return to the rule of law, as spelled out in the constitution.

Has the majority requested this, or a vocal minority?

‘respect of our rights and to return to the rule of law, as spelled out in the constitution’

‘Has the majority requested this, or a vocal minority’

So you’re saying a majority have to demand rights and the rule of law, or it’s not valid? Our system guarantees these rights to individuals, supposedly. Even just one person has these rights. That’s the ultimate minority.

Isn’t there some racist blog you can troll on? I’m tired of making a fool of you.

The minority have certain inalienable rights- as spelled out in the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights.

They can also leave the geographical country if they like, or, if their numbers are enough, they can change the Constitution by amending it.

But they can’t just claim to be a majority, and do whatever they want.

Has the majority requested this, or a vocal minority?

The entire point of the bill of rights was to protect (at least some) minorities. They are not needed to protect the majority in a functioning democracy. It doesn’t matter whether it was a majority who requested it. Either it’s constitutional or it isn’t.

RW, a VAT isn’t the same thing as a sales tax. a sales tax only taxes at the point of consumption. VAT taxes are pernicious and destructive. they are hidden and tax the stages of production which is highly destructive.

EXACTLY, tj. Lots of misunderstanding what these taxes are and how they’re meant to work. That’s the danger.

Do you expect a national sales tax to actually pass? It is akin to a flat tax, and the appetite for a non-progressive tax system is non-existent.

Not for you heroic defenders of freedom. They’ll hear of your proficiency with small arms and leave you alone.

Some people get off dreaming about using agents (thugernment) in confiscating hard earned assets of others.

You have to get your paycheck don’t you?

You have to get your paycheck don’t you?

Doesn’t count! He’s a ‘free man in an unfree world’ or some such crock of shinola. He has to work arming the thugerment. Society has forced it on him.

The tentacles of the progressive leviathan are long and life sucking, but still it’s defenders are resolute and will not go down without a fight.

- Nickpapageorgio

You’re incorrect.

Zillow transaction price and sales volume data comes directly from individual state, county and city assessor departments.

it is way dated dude. How many months are they behind the market? Everyone knows there good for a rough estimate.

I really think your the zillow pimp now. how much are they paying you?

The data is current to second quarter 2013.

Don’t fight the data.

you know the data is garbage. garbage in = garbage out

Don’t fight the data.

dont fight the tape

“I just saw a house come on the market around the corner for 349,000.00 that was bought in 2010 for around 230,000.00.

Zillow says the house is currently worth 260k. The data is total rubbish and way behind the market.”

A hallmark of a housing mania is that people have no idea what homes are worth, due to rapid price movements (both down as well as up, it turns out!). This, plus lots of speculators snapping up properties with a plan to sell later at a premium, explains why you see many homes listed at outlandish asking prices compared to any reasonable measure of market value. Some of these will never sell; others will sell only after substantial reductions. I have posted on a case in point this spring once or twice here already: A home in our area was listed at $550K; a month and several price reductions later, the listing was down to $515K. This was a couple of months ago. As of now, the home is off the market. Zillow sez the home’s value is currently worth $485K. Maybe if the seller holds off for just a few short months, they can squeeze another $30K in bubble appreciation out of the sale!

The upshot is that a seller can ask whatever they want, which may or may not be a reasonable estimate of market value.

Don’t fight the tape.

we will see what happens but from what I’m seeing here homes are selling way above zillow zestimates.

How come your not out playing golf at the RB country club today?

Why wait to “see what happens” when we already know?

Demand is collapsing. Why? Because prices are grossly inflated.

Don’t Fight The Tape.

you obviously dont get out much.

You really need to change your thinking dude.

just because your on the wrong side of the trade again doesnt give you reason to be making blatant false statements all day.

The data is what it is.

Don’t fight it.

Although we were in an inventory crunch,
we looked at 2002 sales data, knowing salaries
were in the late 90’s. We knew our target
neighborhoods (So Ca) should have been in
the high $200’s, and we paid in the high
$300’s. Still, all things considered, we did OK.
We’re happy. Sunday Brunch for the squirrels
this morning. Rats w/ tails, but I enjoy their
roasted peanut eat’n.

In spite of knowing all that, you still got fleeced..

Didn’t get fleeced. Had to buy. Rents are expensive and we had cash to buy, and finally found “home”. Now we’re sitting w/ very little housing expense for life. Age is a factor, and sitting around waiting for a price miracle was a non-starter. We are here for life. This home is much cheaper for us long term than renting, and the quality of our lives are great again. This is our 3rd home. We’re aren’t emotionally driven buyers.

You must be a young person. Get over yourself.

Of course….. you “had” to buy. LMAO

You bought a house in 2012 which means you paid an inflated price.

What did you pay per square foot for the house?

Easy question.

HA
Incomes took a dive, health issue came up…had to control our costs. Future unkown, dude. Our decision to buy made more sense than renting. Nuff said. Go feed some squirrels and chill out.

Income and health have nothing to do with the question.

You bought a house in 2012. What did you pay per square foot?

Speaking of getting fleeced.

“Rental Watch”. You bought a house in 2012, thus you have a stake in the direction of prices.

How much did you pay for the house you bought in 2012?

It was 2011.

And I find it hilarious that you think that one person on a blog might think that they can change the direction of a market.

A stake is not the same as an influence.

I wish I had bought a politician back when they were cheap
but the price of a well connected federal politician has been wildly inflated by the guys who already have most of the money. Just look with awe at the ROI of the major industries like Pharma, Agriculture and Defense when you compare the millions they funnel into lobbying compared to the trillions they extract by favorable government relationships. The stock market is just a reflection of how well the current system works.

Right. Destroy a few companies by loading them up with debt, then run for president on the proceeds.

I think your right there bro. Seems like the people who make the real money with stocks are the underwriters and insiders of the company.

When will GM go bankrupt again?

Not too different than community organizers shaking down the government and then running for president.

Oreck’s Realtor’s main problem was overpriced crappy products.

fixt

Were the products overpriced and crappy before the private equity locusts gutted the company and larded up the balance sheet with debt?

I think the main point is to keep interest rates low to stimulate housing. If all the excess reserves entered the economy I guess they figure it would be inflationary.

one part of this puzzle that I’m missing is the primary dealers cash to acquire all these treasuries.

If the primary dealers are selling all these treasuries they have to be getting cash from somewhere to buy them. seems like a lot of the cash is sitting as excess reserves.

Where do you think all the money is coming from to buy the treasuries?

yeah I hear you. i’m not agreeing with this strategy but just stating the plan he appears to have.

it really appears that the main purpose of QE was to get interest rates low, stock prices high, finance the deficit (via treasury purchases) and buy bad mbs from agencies. I imagine that if home prices come back up that mbs will become more valuable.

I guess the idea of high stock prices and home prices will get people working again.

“unemployment rate has to significantly come down and wages have to increase at an annual clip above 3% ”

Who’s wages really count here? Remember all those manufacturing jobs we shipped off to China where labor costs were pennies on the dollar compared to our over paid, over fed and under educated (but very patriotic) Americans? And don’t forget that our amazing productivity cancels out the high unemployment rate so 6.5% is now defined as full employment and just becomes a meaningless statistic to plug into economic models.

From a Wall St. Journal story last week:
“The 14% wage rise for private-sector workers in 2012, reported by China’s National Bureau of Statistics on Friday, represented an acceleration from 12.3% in 2011.”