The Housing Bubble

That’s right. If NAR says so, it’ must be true. Isn’t that right Polished Turd?

Isn’t that right Polished Turd?

Please call me more of your crappy names. Lol (that was funny) It undermines your increasingly diminished “credibility”.

(btw: Exetor has gone nuts)

You wear it well.

Both of you make a good point.

Bush initiated the Iraq war, Obama wound it down.

That seems like a big difference to me, and perhaps to many in the anti-war movement.

These is a set of people who are protesting any action in Sryia, despite what Obama says. That set of people are not being hypocrites; they are being consistently anti-war.

There is a set of people who are critical thinkers and look at the actual situation, not just who is President at the time. They are the people who looked at the data on Afghanistan and reluctantly supported action there, then looked at the data on Iraq and vehemently opposed action there. The jury is still out on Syria. That set of people are not being hypocrites either; they are consistently looking at the data, no matter who is President.

“Critical thinking”. Wow.

Try it sometime. It’s fun!

Some critical thinking points:

(”only anti-Bush”?)

1. Almost 60% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution as did 40% of the House Democrats fitting the definition of bi-partisan support.

2. Iraq’s possession of WMD’s was alleged. Syria’s is not.

3. The plans for Iraq were for a massive number of “boots on the ground”. The plans for Syria are not.

4. Under Bush’s leadership, at one point, 76% of Americans supported the Iraq war. 76% of Americans includes a lot of Democrats. 90 percent supported U.S. action in Afghanistan in 2001, which means most Democrats did.

From the article:
“the most incredibly depressing thing was that most of the groups that existed before don’t exist anymore,” …the antiwar movement is a shadow of its former self under the Bush years.”

Is this a big wonder? Is it hard to figure out? It’s “just politics”?

1. The anti-war movement has shrunk today because the Afgan/Iraq wars have been wound down.

2. The Iraq war protesters (rightfully?) did not believe Bush on Iraq. Who does not believe chemical weapon were not used by Assad?

You guys can’t see your politics and see some critical thinking differences?

It’s math, objectivity, history, context and critical thinking.

“Try it sometime. It’s fun!”

And how would you know?

(critical thinking) And how would you know?

How would I know? Because I just wrote, read and understand the differences pointed out in my above post.

If you re-read it objectively instead of simply spouting mind-numbing, political opinion talking-points…..you might know too.

2. The Iraq war protesters (rightfully?) did not believe Bush on Iraq. Who does not believe chemical weapon were not used by Assad?

Um… Many thinking people?

There is more than a small probability that the chemical weapons were employed by the rebel side, or as a false flag measure.

2. Iraq’s possession of WMD’s was alleged. Syria’s is not.

You know that Chemical Ali gassed thousands in Kurds in late 80’s.

Critical thinking? #FAIL!

‘I just wrote, read and understand the differences pointed out in my above post’

‘read it objectively instead of simply spouting mind-numbing, political opinion talking-points’

So you just won an argument with your self and any one who disagrees with your conclusion is just not being objective. Got it.

Who does not believe chemical weapon were not used by Assad?
A great many who’s. Assad is winning & there was no reason for him to use chemicals. Plus many other reasons. Furthermore, to quote Hillary Rodham Hussein, “What difference does it make?” By your defective and selective reasoning the USA delayed far too long in its invasion of Iraq and deposition of Saddam Hussein, and should have invaded in 1988!

an argument with your self and any one who disagrees with your conclusion is just not being objective.
Rio, in a nutshell.

*Iraq was a lone actor with no allies in the region. Syria is supported by Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia. The Geopolitics are very messy and could very easily conflate into World War.

*Iraq had a large, but largely low-tech military. Syria has a well-equipped, modern military with some of the best anti-air defenses and anti-ship missiles the Russians have produced.

*Iraq had been isolated and under sanction since the end of the first Gulf War, which meant that much of the military-industrial complex was stagnating. Syria has been actively at war for over two years, meaning it’s troops are now battle-hardened veterans and it’s equipment and tactics have been proven.

*UN investigators have not nor can they determine who used WMD’s, only that they were used. There is no evidence linking the actual use of WMD’s to Assad and history is rife with staged “False Flag” attacks, not the least of which was Iraq and the presence of WMD’s. Anyone recall the mobile WMD factories Powell presented to the UN?

*Al Qaeda and other terrorist insurgent groups are fighting the Assad regime in Syria. Can anyone say with a straight face that they support putting US military lives at risk in support of Al Qaeda and it’s goals? I understand Al Qaeda’s roots in the CIA support of the Mujaheddin against the Soviets, but that was before 9/11 and before 3000 American civilians lost their lives on US soil. Al Qaeda is the enemy and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, which means we should be supporting Assad, or at the least not supporting the rebels.

* Saudi Arabia is pushing hard behind the scenes to push the US into action. We should tread very lightly whenever Saudi Arabia wants us to do something this strongly.

* Britain and NATO have decided to not get involved in any direct action. We should not take lightly their reluctance to follow through with us on any direct course of action against Syria.

There is more than a small probability that the chemical weapons were employed by the rebel side, or as a false flag measure.

True. We’ll see more evidence in the days ahead and Obama’s going to Congress has given more time to do so. Evidence of who is responsible should be easier to come by than it was to prove the negative that “Iraq had no WMD’s”.

But the main point was “why no protesters now?”

The reason we have a lack of protesters now is not due to the fact that there might be a “false flag”.

Chemical Ali gassed thousands in Kurds in late 80’s.

Critical thinking? #FAIL!

You failed again:
The 80s are not the 2000’s in the context of Iraq’s ongoing sanctions and history of UN weapons inspectors leading up to the 2nd Iraq war.

Did you not know that?

you just won an argument with your self and any one who disagrees with your conclusion is just not being objective. Got it.

You miss point.

I made about 10 points involving critical thinking on the differences between protesters, then and now, whether or not my every point is agreed upon or not.

He asked me how would I know about critical thinking. I told him because I made about 10 points involving critical thinking on the differences between protesters, then and now.

Now some have not agreed to every aspect of every point I made, however the validity of those points of differences in total, DO point out the differences between protesters, then and now. One of my points being questioned does not negate the presence of critical thinking in my post of about 10 points.

My post illustrated critical thinking whether every fine point is agreed upon or not.

Bush initiated the Iraq war, Obama wound it down.

Sure, Obama wound it down—precisely on the schedule for withdrawal that had been proposed by Bush. Hope and change.

The 80s are not the 2000’s in the context of Iraq’s ongoing sanctions and history of UN weapons inspectors leading up to the 2nd Iraq war.

Did you not know that?

I know you’re full of BS.

Many “anti-war” supporters are reluctant to do any protesting now that a Democrat is in office.

Meanwhile, that Democrat in the White House is trying his best to engage us in another conflict where the US is not in danger of being attacked. Same as Libya, same as Yemen, same as Somalia (again) and Mali.

Tell me again why Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize? Tell me again how he has been any different than Bush in foreign policy? That’s right, Bush asked for and received authorization from Congress to wage war in Afghanistan. It’s only after threats of impeachment and a reluctance of his allies in Britain and NATO to engage Syria directly that Obama has moved to ask Congress. I guess Libya wasn’t “hostile” enough for that.

an argument with your self and any one who disagrees with your conclusion is just not being objective.
Rio, in a nutshell.

A typical “argument” against Rio in a nutshell.

You have nothing there tresho. Don’t worry tresho, most don’t either.

I know you’re full of BS.

Fail. What is full of BS about the statement?

The 80s are not the 2000’s in the context of Iraq’s ongoing sanctions and history of UN weapons inspectors leading up to the 2nd Iraq war.

Come on tresho. Come up with something at least high-school level.

“What difference does it make?”

Exactly. The main point of my post was why there are not as many anti-war protesters now.

The “false-flag” possibility is NOT a main reason why there are less protesters now.

Try to keep up Tresho.

What is full of BS about the statement?
I’m not taking an issue with that statement. Your entire approach is selective and defective. But I’ve stated that before with reference to you.

Sure, Obama wound it down—precisely on the schedule for withdrawal that had been proposed by Bush.

How does Obama winding down the wars on Bush’s schedule negate the fact that winding down wars lead to less anti-war protests? (In spite of which party is in office)

The main point of the thread was the differences between anti-war protesters, then and now and why.

Sure, Obama wound it down—precisely on the schedule for withdrawal that had been proposed by Bush

And that schedule for withdrawal was being harshly criticized at that time by many in the GOP as ‘turning and running’. So people saw that Obama wanted to get us out, while many in the GOP were calling for the opposite. Also, early on in his presidency, many may have thought he would get us out of the wars a lot faster.

I’m sure partisanship played a role too, but I don’t think it explains it all.

Same as Libya, same as Yemen, same as Somalia (again) and Mali.

That illustrates another critical thinking point on the differences between protesters then and now.

How many American troops died in those countries compared to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many “anti-war” supporters are reluctant to do any protesting now that a Democrat is in office.

Maybe because the “wars” that Democrat starts kills almost no American troops?

‘Obama winding down the wars’

Obama fought (and bribed) to stay in Iraq. He had to leave because he couldn’t get immunity for the troops. Last I heard the US military is still in Afghanistan.

‘the “wars” that Democrat starts kills almost no American troops’

And the Boston bombers didn’t suffer a scratch at the marathon.

Your entire approach is selective and defective

No. My post illustrated some reasons why there are less anti-war protester now. It was so effective that you can’t counter, with facts, the content and conclusion.

….didn’t suffer a scratch at the marathon.

You left out my question mark.

Obama fought (and bribed) to stay in Iraq. He had to leave because he couldn’t get immunity for the troops

Fought and bribed to keep a small contingent of troops there. He still wanted a general withdrawal of the vast majority of the troops.

But I agree, for many, clearly, Obama didn’t go far enough fast enough. But for many he apparently did. He got re-elected.

Adding to NE’s observations above:

There are lots of pretexts for “intervention” in Syria but they obfuscate the reality. Please ask yourself why we would be pushing so hard to get rid of a Westernized secularist (Assad got his MD from London School of Medicine) More to the point, WHO WILL REPLACE HIM? Hint: Russia

The truth is, Syria is allied with Iran as the US is allied with Canada, and the US has a decades-long vendetta against Iran (see below). We’ve tried everything else, (OH NO, Ahmadinajad! OH NO! Nuclear weapons! OH NO! Oil bourse! Oh NO! Holocaust deniers!) might as well play the CW card and see if that sticks. The obvious reason is that Assad is thwarting the intentions of Big Oil, and we all know where THAT leads.

And if that isn’t enough on the face, here are a few things to consider:

-The common perception among the Oiligarchy that In order to re-secure the Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline through Iraq and Syria, there must be regime change in both countries. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED04Ak01.html

- Assad’s annoying insistence upon making alliances with Latin American countries to goose the oil flow to his country’s refineries.

(The Center for Strategic and International Studies reported in 2010 “In his recent visit to [Venezuela], Al-Assad signed an agreement for a $100 million trade and development fund with Chávez, established an $11 million fund to finance joint projects, and made plans to jointly invest in a $4.7 billion oil refinery in Syria. In Cuba, the Syrian president signed an understanding memorandum on agriculture to foster cooperation and establish “a common framework for the mutual development of beneficial agricultural actions,” In subsequent months, Assad visited Argentina and Brazil seeking similar trade agreements, resulting in billion dollar concessions.)

Key takeaway: All of the resulting shipments will be traded on the Iranian bourse in un-petrodollars.

And of course:
-Syria has allowed Russian missile defenses into the country as a counter to the planned US missile presence in Poland and is a major buyer of Russian armaments
-China has become Syria’s number one supplier with project contracts in the billions

Which leads to takeover of a thriving new market in war toys and personnel contracts for the Military Industrial Complex when Assad is deposed.

And finally, this little tidbit:

Genie Energy (NYSE: GNE, GNEPRA), said today that the government of Israel has awarded its subsidiary, Genie Israel Oil and Gas, Ltd., an exclusive petroleum exploration license covering 396.5 square kilometers in the (ahansen note: illegally occupied) Southern portion of the Golan Heights, (ahansen note: in Syria)

ON THE BOARD ARE: Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch, and Lord Jacob Rothschild. See: ‘Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights‘ by Craig Murray, Global Research, 21 February 2013

Perhaps there are fewer protesters because there won’t be “boots on the ground”. Different kind of war. Only guessing here, but if we were going into Syria with a “Shock and Awe” type thing, you’d probably be seeing alot more protesters.

Whichever sides people are taking on this issue… I would like to thank Ben, Rio, Northeasterner, Alena, and everyone else in this thread for bringing up issues and history that bear upon the situation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much critical thinking in one thread. Sounds so much better than “libtards are hypocrites,” as if all libtards think alike, which they most assuredly they do not. Thanks, all.

Alena, do you think that the oil interests have Obama’s ear? I’m skeptical.

I suspect that most of this is going to come down to exactly which military intervention Obama is planning. Hopefully it’s not just arming-the-rebels.

and the prize goes to….Ahansen!!! come on down!!!!

the petrodollar hegemony will go down kicking and screaming!

Pax Americana is imploding…it’s spehre of influence is dwindling and falling apart…much like the old USSR.

actually pelosi just old me we are risking WW3 for the children…my bad.

i really do need to do more critical thinking.

Do I think that the oil interests have Obama’s ear?

Um, yeah? He’s not the poodle Bush was by any means, but the US economy– hence its foreign policy– is intrinsically tied to its energy needs. The infrastructure is built around it. Millions of jobs depend upon it. Generations of politicians reward the benevolence of its entrenched aristocracy. More to the point, 90% of voters are beholden to its exigencies (Try raising the price of gasoline by three dollars a gallon to compensate for the cost of our wars and see what happens.)

It’s like asking if Obama could come out as an atheist and not get lynched. Change comes slowly, but technology has a way of accelerating its march. I retain Hope.

i will see your Hope and raise you one critically thoughtless snide remark.

Please note that this comment is not at all about the wisdom of bombing Syria or not. I don’t have enough of my own information to know exactly where I come down on that one.

But, asking Congress to vote on it? It is the most genius political move the president has ever made. By far. Rumor is that this is directly from him - that the option was not even on the radar of his advisors.

Why? Well, once Congress comes back to DC the next few weeks were going to be 100% about the budget and the debt ceiling. 100%. None of that talk is good for the president. His base wants the social spending that was cut in the sequester restored and tax increases on the wealthy. Some of the republicans want more tax cuts and restoring military spending that was cut by the sequester and defunding Obamacare. Tea party flavor republicans want lots more tax cuts and defunding Obamacare and defunding a lot of other things too. There is little common ground. Nothing for “leadership” to do since you can only lead people who are willing. Talking about it for weeks gets you nowhere - this stuff is always settled at the last second if it gets settled at all. There are similar arguments when we hit the debt limit about two weeks after the end of the fiscal year.

So, what is this vote? It is distracting a toddler with his favorite toy. Toddler is Congress. Toy is top secret security briefings and foreign policy stuff- Congress LOVES top secret security briefings and foreign policy stuff. It makes them feel very important. And they are being distracted from screaming about getting what they want for dinner - they want ice cream (exactly the budget result they want) and they are getting chicken with broccoli (some sort of compromise).

Anyway, pure genius as a political move. At least we won’t have to listen to as many days of posturing on the budget. It will all be concentrated in the last week or so when all the actual decisions get made anyway.

pure genius as a political move.

It also lumps everyone who votes for it in with him. Makes it a lot harder for them to criticize the results.

It is the most genius political move the president has ever made.

And.
Makes it a lot harder for them to criticize the results.

Double bingo

Jessus you freaking useful idiot!

All you came up with is right wing media. That’s not the point is it?

Every word from Rio, Alpo, etc. prove the point Micheal made earlier.

ueful idiots whose minds have been corrupted to make them think they are critical thinkers.

Every word from Rio, Alpo, etc. prove the point Micheal made earlier.

I’ve yet to hear anything of worth from you. Maybe you’re working up to it?

I’ve yet to hear anything of worth from you. Maybe you’re working up to it?

Of course not sicne I don’t obfuscate.

All you came up with is right wing media. That’s not the point is it?

Are you 12? Try to follow along what just hapened.

You:
“where’s the unflattering news about Obmana in old news media.”

Me:
I pointed where in the old media Obama is bashed:
FOX tv, MSNBC, AM radio, newspapers and “Christan” sources. This is a huge swath of old media with “unflattering news about (Obama). Is it not?

All you came up with is right wing media.

How does your assertion that “all I came up with is right wing media” negate the fact that what I came up with represents a HUGE swath of old media that, in fact, bashes Obama. How? It does not. I simply disproved your point that Obama was not bashed in “old media”.

I also wrote Obama is frequently bashed by the “liberal” media such as MSNBC when he is not liberal enough.

…sicne I don’t obfuscate

One of the funniest things I’ve seen in awhile! Bravo!

Oh, I see. Except for all that anti-Obama media, show me all the REAL anti-Obama media.

I guess you still want to the see the REAL birth certificate too.

Remember, they hate us for our freedom!

When the phone of the president of the republic is monitored, it’s hard to imagine what else might be happening,” Ferraco told reporters in Brasilia.

That’s funny—I would tend to assume that every head of state knows that their phones are likely being tapped. There is too much useful information to be learned for that not to be the case; the only question is “tapped by whom?”

It’s the every-day man that should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their personal communications, not heads of state.

I would tend to assume that every head of state knows that their phones are likely being tapped

You just stole my line I’m gonna use down here.

a UN-backed international police action to apprehend the perpetrator(s)

How could we do this short of an invasion? It’s not like Assad and his top generals are living in a little one-man bunker in the ‘burbs like Osama was.

Plus, Russia and China will veto any action against Syria by the UN.

That part about revamped and amped is relevant here. All nations will have to sign on in good faith and adhere to its precepts under an international charter with some serious teeth in it for the non-compliant. The political ramifications, however, can be countered by making the body a truly democratic assembly –not one controlled solely by its money and military interests.

As a practical matter, no one can hide out forever, especially not in an era of instant communication and micro-drone surveillance. International justice and extraction squads could be the next big career opportunity….

. All nations will have to sign on in good faith and adhere to its precepts under an international charter with some serious teeth in it for the non-compliant.

That sounds like a tough one to accomplish.

countered by making the body a truly democratic assembly –not one controlled solely by its money and military interests.

I’ve thought about that, but how would it work? Would each country be given an amount of votes equal to its population?

micro-drone surveillance. International justice and extraction squads

I’m sure they’ve thought of all those things too. They’re probably living on large military bases. It would be very hard to swoop in and grab them there.

When Californians who now purchase the lowest basic-level policy for $300 a month can buy the same coverage from a North Dakota entity for $95 via the exchange, the CA. company will have to lower its rates if it want to stay in business.

When ATT controlled the switching, it used to cost Californians $10 a minute to call New York by telephone….

I’m sorry, Alena, could you repeat what you just said? Someone in CA can buy insurance on the ND exchange? Someone in TX can buy insurance in the FL exchange if they feel like it? So is the ND company going to broadcast TV ads and send out mass mailings in CA advertising the same insurance for less $$ to lure customers away? Where is this in the PPACA bill?

I don’t disbelieve you, but this is HUGE. I’ve heard a lot of politicians say that all our problems would be solved if only they could “sell insurance across state lines.” (along with tort reform) And now, the law says exactly that?

Currently most people can only purchase health insurance from a company chartered in one’s own state. The exchanges (set to go into effect in October) will make it possible for more to buy an approved health insurance policy from any company chartered in the USA. For obvious reasons, they’re not being widely publicized as yet.

Here’s more info:

“…The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has several provisions that give small businesses more options to pool risks and buy coverage across state lines, with the goal of increasing competition. The PPACA mandated creation of “Affordable Insurance Exchanges.” These exchanges must be ready to enroll consumers by October 1, 2013 and fully operational by January 1, 2014….

Section 1334 of the PPACA requires health benefit exchanges to offer two multi-state plans, one a nonprofit. These plans would be established under federal charter through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and licensed in all states.

Section 1333 will allow health insurers to sell across state lines via “health care choice compacts” starting in January 2016. “Two or more states would agree to allow health plans to be sold in each state, but subject to regulation only by the state in which the plan was written or issued. Plans sold outside their state of domicile would still be subject to licensure and rules in the state in which the purchaser resides…” The PPACA requires HHS to issue regulations governing health care choice compacts by July 1, 2013.

“Finally, the PPACA allows the exchanges themselves to operate across state lines. Section 1311(f) provides for ‘Regional or Other Interstate Exchanges’ operating in more than one state if the involved states and the federal HHS approve.” (Source: “Health Insurance Crisis” blog, Frederick L. Pilot, author and consultant. Reprinted with permission. http://healthinsurancecrisis.net)….”

http://www.roemer-insurance.com/news-events/january13.html

requires health benefit exchanges to offer two multi-state plans, one a nonprofit.

Wow. Thanks. It could be an opening.

DAYUM. Thank you! Can’t wait to see how this one plays out.

Maybe Pelosi was right… they had to pass it to see what was in it. [which I always thought was a stupid attack on Pelosi. Opponents said that they weren't allowed to see what was in it, while at the same time waving around those 1200-page HARD COPIES of the bill. ]

Have you tried to get a new-patient appointment with an internist lately? Those “open slots” are few and far between….

In fact, about the only MD’s actively soliciting new patients these days are the ones performing procedures insurers don’t routinely cover; plastic surgeons, bariatric weight loss, lasix, psychiatric inpatient/addiction centers, etc.

You can’t lay it all on the Republican side of the aisle.

You can only lay it all on the Republican, perverted economic ideology and dogma. (And their pushing it down our throats and polluting our minds with it for 30 years)

Republicans and Democrats share blame, for sure, but I’d not call it 50-50. Maybe 75% Republican ideology leading the charge and 25% Democrats being bribed to go along.

I can agree about 85% with those numbers.

It’s a problem on partial ideology being followed. Like partially deregulating a market.

What good are free financial markets (Republican push) if people are being so protected, either explicitly or implicitly, that they cease to be vigilant (Democratic “protectionism”)?

What good are free financial markets (Republican push)

No.

Republicans never pushed for free-markets in finance. Republicans pushed for crony-capitalistic monopolization of he financial markets. (Tearing down the “Chinese wall” between commercial and investment banking for example) This is why the TBTF banks are even bigger than before the Repub deregulation.

protected, either explicitly or implicitly, that they cease to be vigilant (Democratic “protectionism”)

No again. When we had the “Democratic protectionism” of higher import duties and protectionism, Americans were much more vigilant because they had jobs which enabled their vigilance.

Clinton’s mistake was being lulled by the economic boom caused by rise in productivity from computers and the jobs that Internet created (not to be confused with the dot-com stocks).

The best time to suggest removing the safety net is when no one has needed it for a while.

Let us not forget who appointed Geithner and Summers to head his administration’s economic advisory upon election….

“who appointed Geithner and Summers”

Wuzzit Bush?

What they actually want to do is accumulate more money, NOT spending it to create jobs for the useless, unwashed masses.

Yup, that is the game plan.

Darrell

With that much leakage, and cumulatively, I just do not understand how they can print 10% of the GDP yearly and not seemingly affect the value of the dollar.

Even with foreign currencies seeking USD safety.

With that much leakage, and cumulatively, I just do not understand how they can print 10% of the GDP yearly and not seemingly affect the value of the dollar.

Because we are the consumer of last resort. The day we stop buying stuff from the world’s sweatshops is the day the wheels fall off the the global bus.

The day we stop buying stuff from the world’s sweatshops is the day the wheels fall off the the global bus.

I suspect that that day will never come, unless the currency first weakens sufficiently that the “stuff from the world’s sweatshops” has too high a price on it.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Never underestimate the tendency of Americans to buy a bunch of pointless junk.

“The day we stop buying stuff…”

It won’t take a complete stop. It only takes a slowdown to make the wheels fall off the permagrowth miracle bus.

The simple is rarely obvious, but it is easier (for me) to grasp. My point is that by some measures the economy stopped freefalling, but that is not a recovery, and that the huge sums borrowed to paper over the hole make the “recovery” even more of a hoax.

LOLZ.

Brazil GDP is an anemic 1.9% and 3.3% the last two quarters.

Brazil GDP is an anemic 1.9% and 3.3% the last two quarters.

And your momma wears combat boots!

(which has as much pertinence to your comment as your comment had to do with mine on the USA GDP)

Me:
The USA GDP……

You:
Yea but the Brazilian GDP….

BTW. I’m not Brazilian and what you “think” about Brazil because I squash your non-points on housing is amusing.

And if you were around everyday, I’d school you everyday.

Want more?

Want more?

I always want more from you. Even if it’s the same bs crap. You make me and others shine.

I polish turds like you all day long. Shine on.

I polish turds like you all day long

I don’t doubt it lately. But enough about your private life.

Many are already worried enough about your public/blog mental health disintegration.

You used to shine.

Exter? Was that once you?

And you’re one of my shining examples here. My how you glow.

He who polishes turds all day gets stinky finger.

The Japanese make really good storage equipment. The kind of well engineered stuff everyone would like to own if they could buy it for a reasonable price before it’s obsolete. But from what I’ve seen the market moves too fast to make stuff “right” at a competitive cost. And the Japanese don’t seem to be able to get over that hump and half-ass stuff fast the way we can :-).

And the Japanese don’t seem to be able to get over that hump and half-ass stuff fast the way we can :-).

Perhaps the Chinese will master that art.

“And the Japanese don’t seem to be able to get over that hump and half-ass stuff fast the way we can :-).”

Agile software development baby!!!

In the old days, we’d do requirements, design and then code. But that takes too much time, and odds are, someone else had already rushed a product to market and sold to all your potential customers.

So, we switched to “rapid prototyping”. Code up something, pretend it was just a demo to help you figure out the requirements, then fix it.

Now we don’t even pretend that we throw the prototype away. Come up with some loose idea of what it should do. Code it. Show it off. Make a few tweaks and ship it. We call it Agile.

* Agile was originally sold as something else. Instead of doing EVERY requirement before we did any design, then ALL design before we coded anything, we would do “just in time” requirements, then “just in time” design.

Break the job into pieces. Do requirements for one piece, then design for that piece, then code that piece. Repeat for each piece.

JIT requirements and design QUICKLY became, “slap it together and ship it”. The product managers, that are supposed to be doing requirements and design can no focus on things like market analysis and schmoozing the current customer base to try to pimp more sales.

I heard about AGILE from Indian companies way back in 2009!

When I told him how Americans see Asian techies as being ten feet tall, he burst out laughing.
Last week I switched options on my dirt-cheap Wouxun ham radio transceiver, which now gives its voice prompts in Mandarin Chinese. Even my mainline Chinese instructor was astounded.

they don’t teach “creativity” over there, that the focus is on rote memorization.

Exactly. Can anyone tell us why tech innovation is still a mostly US phenomenon? Why aren’t there tech incubators all over China and India? Because there is no creativity over there, only parodies of what is developed in the US. Memorization has it’s uses, but so does creativity, and so far, the Far East has been lagging in that regard.

I was at a tech conference in San Jose a couple of weeks ago. We sat in on sessions discussing Cassandra, MongoDB, Hadoop and Map/Reduce, Twitter Storm, etc. All leading-edge NoSQL tech developed, for the most part, here in the US. These are the systems that allow Facebook, Twitter, and Google, generating terabytes of data a day, to function.

Even my mainline Chinese instructor was astounded.

Was he astounded that you could do it without consulting a manual? I would think that changing a setting like that should be pretty simple.

“Can anyone tell us why tech innovation is still a mostly US phenomenon?”

Willingness and ability for very bright and driven people to take risk with time, effort, and capital. These are luxuries of a rich country with substantial economic freedom, and a system that STILL rewards winners in an extraordinarily outsized way (creating billionaires).

People love to point to Bill Gates, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. as what is wrong with the US (huge wealth inequality). However, that is what’s RIGHT with the US. There are countless other tech entrepreneurs who have tried to create the next big thing and have failed. In fact, there are MANY times more failures than successes. There are long stretches of time where the entire Venture Capital industry LOSES capital, yet investments continue to be made with the hope of creating the next big thing, becoming a billionaire, etc.

Without the outsized returns for the few successes, fewer bright people try to start a company, fewer investors allocate money to venture capital, and less tech innovation occurs.

And it’s not a first world vs. third world thing either. ISTR reading that in Germany (I think), if you are at the helm of a company that fails, you are barred from being in a similar position for something like 18 months–that is a strong disincentive to take big risks with start-ups. In the US, such an event is considered valuable experience.

People love to point to Bill Gates, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. as what is wrong with the US (huge wealth inequality). However, that is what’s RIGHT with the US.

None of them would have done anything different if they had thought their current net-worth would be half of what it is today. No……Bill Gate’s “risks” would have been the same whether he ended up being worth 35 billion instead of 70 billion today.

a system that STILL rewards winners in an extraordinarily outsized way

“Still rewards” Where do you get “still”? As if it’s waning? Our “outsized way” of rewarding has exploded. American wealth and income inequality is off the charts in the USA -the greatest difference in wealth inequality in almost 100 years. But has it helped most people? No.

Our wealth and income inequality has led to a shrunken middle-class and widespread poverty. Doubling Bill Gates’ and billionaires’ net worth is not going to help at all.

Without the outsized returns for the few successes, fewer bright people try to start a company,

You get a lot more start ups when there is much less wealth inequality because more people have wealth to invest in start ups.

However, that is what’s RIGHT with the US.

It certainly is right for Bill Gates and company. For the non genius crowd it hasn’t worked so well.

ISTR reading that in Germany (I think), if you are at the helm of a company that fails, you are barred from being in a similar position for something like 18 months–that is a strong disincentive to take big risks with start-ups. In the US, such an event is considered valuable experience.

I believe that rule applies to established companies, and not startups.

“It certainly is right for Bill Gates and company. For the non genius crowd it hasn’t worked so well.”

Really? If the new technology that was developed didn’t create value for a large segment of the population, wouldn’t it have flopped/never been adopted?

Thanks for the clarification on the German law.

I love how Americans convince themselves that the US is the most technologically innovative, creative, intellectually-advanced country in the world — all while America controls the distribution system.

-How many of you singing the praises of US STEM have been to Singapore or Guangzhou lately, hmmmm? Their internet infrastructures left ours in the dust fifteen years ago.

-Where is CERN located? (Hint: Not in Nebraska)

-Japan is a decade ahead of the US in bio-engineering technologies (Thanks GW)

-Russia’s space and missile technologies so far exceed that of the US that we use their old Soyuz rocketry for US launches.

-How is PRC able to hack so many US-created OS and encryptions?

To name a few conundrums.

If the new technology that was developed didn’t create value for a large segment of the population, wouldn’t it have flopped/never been adopted?

Some things that don’t “create value” don’t flop.

Cocaine and Molly never flopped.

And even in technology, sometimes it’s a wash. How does a PC create much value for a company compared to other companies when the other companies have a PC too?

Where is the value created to a worker when his job is eliminated by technology?

Where is the value created for a St. Louis call worker when her job is sent to India via technology?

Really?

Just because there are more iToys doesn’t mean we are better off. When J6P is in his middle age and can’t find a job, it really won’t matter how many apps his smart phone has.

You can’t focus on how one individual isn’t helped by a new technology, or else you miss the bigger picture of tech’s impact on the whole of the economy/society.

Windows is not a toy.
MS Excel is not a toy.
Internet search, while often used for silly things, is not a toy.
MS Word is not a toy.
Drugs developed by Genentech are not toys.
LinkedIn, used right, is not a toy (and can help folks find employment).
Facebook is a toy (just like the TV).
New solar tech is not a toy.
More efficient use of energy is not a toy.
More efficient engine designs are not toys (I know of a startup working to dramatically increase combustion engine efficiencies).
New drug development processes are not toys, etc.

If I can come up with an invention that saves everyone in the US $10 per month in electricity costs, don’t you think that has an enormous amount of value? It doesn’t help overnight, and $10 doesn’t help the marginal utility company employee who lost his job because of the dramatically lower usage of electricity, but all those $10’s add up to a ton of different economic activity. The challenge is keeping those dollars here in the US (thus creating jobs here in the US) and not shipping them overseas.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519016/stop-saying-robots-are-destroying-jobs-they-arent/

A timely article, and a key quote:

“Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s mistake comes from considering only first order effects of automation where the machine replaces the worker. But when a machine replaces a worker, there is a second order effect: the organization using the machine saves money and that money it flows back into to the economy either through lower prices, higher wages for the remaining workers, or higher profits. In all three cases that money gets spent which stimulates demand that other companies respond to by hiring more workers.”

“Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s mistake comes from considering only first order effects of automation where the machine replaces the worker. But when a machine replaces a worker, there is a second order effect: the organization using the machine saves money and that money it flows back into to the economy either through lower prices, higher wages for the remaining workers, or higher profits. In all three cases that money gets spent which stimulates demand that other companies respond to by hiring more workers.”

But what if those higher profits just sit in overseas accounts waiting for a tax event that will allow them to be re-patriated tax-free?

the organization using the machine saves money and that money it flows back into to the economy either through lower prices, higher wages for the remaining workers, or higher profits. In all three cases that money gets spent

Wrong. Here’s the deal that’s killing us. The above is FALSE. All that money does not “get spent“. If taxes were much higher on the rich, that money WOULD get spent but it’s not. Let’s face the facts staring us in the face. Let’s look around.

All that “value added” profit has been pooling into very few hands. The rich’s taxes are so low that the money is not spent. The profit can just pool untaxed. Thus no investment or spending. Thus massive wealth inequality. That someone could write or believe all the money is “spent” in the face of a declining middle-class while wealth inequality is sky-rocketing is hard to believe.

If you look over a longer time periods, that money absolutely gets spent or invested.

Wealthy individuals do not just leave their wealth in cash–it’s a sure fire way to lose wealth to inflation over time. Nor do the vast majority of businesses over long periods of time. However, I’m not going to completely ignore your comments. There is some truth there, especially today…that money is sitting disproportionately in cash…doing nothing. In the case of corporate profits, much is sitting overseas–waiting for the next tax holiday.

However, a lot of the wealth is sitting in US bank accounts…owned by individuals. The owners of that wealth are nervous about a number of things…Dodd Frank (not yet fully implemented), Fed tapering and the effect of higher rates on the economy, Obamacare implementation, etc.

Make do doubt about it though, the money is there. And when it comes out to play, it will do exactly as they say, begin to cycle around the economy.

Corporate tax reform is needed (too bad the Simpson/Bowles plan has been ignored), and we need less uncertainty in the economy. We should not be passing laws that are too long for people to read before voting, and take 5-8 years to implement…especially following a massive credit crunch and recession. Yet, we got Dodd Frank and Obamacare shoved down our throats and now we are paying the price in terms of increased uncertainty.

In “normal times” with much less uncertainty, and not coming off of the biggest liquidity crunch in 80 years, cash holdings are MUCH lower.

Another item to consider. What has had a bigger impact on the US middle class…wealth inequality? Or the rising prospects of lower classes in developing economies around the world (at the expense of the US middle class)? It seems pretty clear to me that globalization is the bigger culprit. Take a look at wage inflation in places like China and India–China has been at over 10% for YEARS (with low single-digit inflation overall). This is a direct effect of labor demand from companies seeking cheaper labor. Over time, the draw to go to these other countries will diminish.

If you look over a longer time periods, that money absolutely gets spent or invested.

It’s invested in America if it’s taxed in America or incentivised to be invested in America . As it is now, it’s mostly invested in foreign countries and offshore bank accounts.

The owners of that wealth are nervous about a number of things…

Like will their 5ths mansion be in The Hamptons or Palm Beach.

So sorry I was late to this thread.

For those who think that outsourcing IT to a “high IQ” country is the wave of the future, you need to spend some time dealing with TCS (Tata). Their model is “throw people” at the job. They throw so many people that eventually, somehow, the work gets done. Late, sloppy code, and not anywhere near the standards that are typically done by the domestic shops.

It’s cheap for a reason; they aren’t as good. If you are a star consultant for TCS, you’re going to get a visa and come to the US and start to work for US wages, not India wages. If you’re a “call taker” (which TCS seems to have millions of) and can only enter a ticket, then you’re going to stay in India and keep an India wage.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen outsourcing IT go badly. It looks great on paper (as many things do); but, in practice, for most moderate size companies, it really doesn’t pan out. Service levels drop, innovation drops and eventually the company finds itself paying as much as they did before because they have 10 people to do the job that one guy sitting in the office did before.

Now, for very large multi-nationals, it’s a bit of different story. They are so big they have their own support structure inside of the oursource shops; some of them staffed by very competent (often US/Europe based) engineers.

Exactly, one of those.

Thus far I’ve only seen it ‘reported’ on Fox news secondary sites, and whatever the heck the Morning Ledger is (probably a Fox news secondary site). So we really don’t know what the facts are yet.

“Thus far I’ve only seen it ‘reported’ on Fox news secondary sites, and whatever the heck the Morning Ledger is (probably a Fox news secondary site). So we really don’t know what the facts are yet.”

So unless it is reported on one of your chosen sources, you do not consider it true.

From FederalRegister.gov
Publication date July 19, 2013
Action Proposed Rule.
Summary
Through this rule, HUD proposes to provide HUD program participants with more effective means to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act, which is Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits discrimination but, in conjunction with other statutes, directs HUD’s program participants to take steps proactively to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities for all. As acknowledged by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and many stakeholders, advocates, and program participants, the current practice of affirmatively furthering fair housing carried out by HUD grantees, which involves an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice and a certification that the grantee will affirmatively further fair housing, has not been as effective as had been envisioned. This rule accordingly proposes to refine existing requirements with a fair housing assessment and planning process that will better aid HUD program participants fulfill this statutory obligation and address specific comments the GAO raised. To facilitate this new approach, HUD will provide states, local governments, insular areas, and public housing agencies (PHAs), as well as the communities they serve, with data on patterns of integration and segregation; racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; access to education, employment, low-poverty, transportation, and environmental health, among other critical assets; disproportionate housing needs based on the classes protected under the Fair Housing Act; data on individuals with disabilities and families with children; and discrimination. From these data, program participants will evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues, identify the primary determinants that account for those issues, and set forth fair housing priorities and goals. The benefit of this approach is that these priorities and goals will then better inform program participant’s strategies and actions by improving the integration of the assessment of fair housing through enhanced coordination with current planning exercises. This proposed rule further commits HUD to greater engagement and better guidance for program participants in fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. With this new clarity through guidance, a template for the assessment, and a HUD-review process, program participants should achieve more meaningful outcomes that affirmatively further fair housing.

So unless it is reported on one of your chosen sources, you do not consider it true.

Sometimes, other times I just don’t trust the details or how it’s presented.

Like here. Now we see the actual proposed rule, not Fox’s version of it. Where does it say that there must be x number of every minority in every neighborhood?

High 5 to Hi-Z!

“Where does it say that there must be x number of every minority in every neighborhood?”

I’m pretty sure that with the right legal interpretation, the following passage would say just that:

This rule accordingly proposes to refine existing requirements with a fair housing assessment and planning process that will better aid HUD program participants fulfill this statutory obligation and address specific comments the GAO raised. To facilitate this new approach, HUD will provide states, local governments, insular areas, and public housing agencies (PHAs), as well as the communities they serve, with data on patterns of integration and segregation; racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; access to education, employment, low-poverty, transportation, and environmental health, among other critical assets; disproportionate housing needs based on the classes protected under the Fair Housing Act; data on individuals with disabilities and families with children; and discrimination. From these data, program participants will evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues, identify the primary determinants that account for those issues, and set forth fair housing priorities and goals. The benefit of this approach is that these priorities and goals will then better inform program participant’s strategies and actions by improving the integration of the assessment of fair housing through enhanced coordination with current planning exercises. This proposed rule further commits HUD to greater engagement and better guidance for program participants in fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. With this new clarity through guidance, a template for the assessment, and a HUD-review process, program participants should achieve more meaningful outcomes that affirmatively further fair housing.

I’m pretty sure you’re wrong.

excepting the kooky stuff

And those are the only places we’ve seen it reported thus far.

Well. I suppose it is based on what one defines as “kooky.”

I’d define “kooky” as typically not reporting verifiable facts and prone to making unfalsifiable claims. Regardless of political leanings. You’ve implicitly defined it as being affiliated with Fox News.

Is the “Obama housing diversity” claim true? I suppose time will tell. But, I don’t require it to be reported on, for example, MSNBC or NYT, to make that judgement. In fact, I would be surprised if it were presented by either of those two organizations.

But I do need to know something about the track record of the reporting website in order to weigh the likelihood of accuracy.

I’d define “kooky” as typically not reporting verifiable facts and prone to making unfalsifiable claims….You’ve implicitly defined it as being affiliated with Fox News.

Are Fox fans kooky because Fox is kooky or is Fox kooky because Fox’s fans are kooky?

Survey: NPR’s listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category….

…The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.

Who won the New Hampshire primary? The Iowa Caucus?

Those are the big questions they asked? Really?

No wonder the average scores were like 1 out of 4.

“Survey: NPR’s listeners best-informed, …”

They get the NAR’s propaganda blurb 24/7!

And for others it creates an increase in quality. Imagine that!

we can agree to disagree on that…my public school experiecne in the MS delta is that it turned to equal shit for everybody.

“And for others it creates an increase in quality. Imagine that!”

I’m having a hard time envisioning who was made better off by my HS losing its accreditation. But I’m sure that can be rationalized away as having nothing to do with programs intended to make everyone better off through the magic of racial diversity.

Losing its accreditation took decades, prof, and was a reflection of shifting economic factors, not the racial makeup of your hs. Kids got bussed into Beverly Hills High School, too, and by golly, it’s still accredited forty years later!

In the short term, I’m willing to bet that the kids who got bussed into an AP/college track facility from a cruddy inner-city dump saw an enormous bump in the quality of the instruction available to them. I’m also willing to bet that a certain percentage of them performed better and started out in life with a better chance than they would have had if they’d stayed in their old school.

But surely you know this?

“Losing its accreditation took decades, prof, and was a reflection of shifting economic factors, not the racial makeup of your hs.”

As I recall the situation, the first kids bussed in joined while I was a student, in the late 1970s. At the time the racial demographic was 98%+ lily white.

A couple of years after I graduated, I visited one of my former English teachers. She couldn’t keep the kids in their seats during my visit…they would get up and leave the classroom over her request to stay put. Discipline, which was fully enforced and maintained while I was a student, had gone completely out the window.

Soon I heard through the grapevine that my former calculus teacher had up and quit; seems he preferred running a lumberyard to teaching in a school on a steep downhill slide.

A few more years down the road, one of my former HS classmates, who owned a home nearby our old HS, sold his home at maybe a $30,000 loss (lotsa money back in that day!), due in part to a substantial increase in ‘neighborhood diversity’ which drove away the former lily white residents.

Current racial demographics (most recent available for 2010-11 school year): white 1.4%, black 98.3%, Hispanic 0.2%, Asian 0.1%.

I don’t know how one separates the effect of “shifting economic factors” from “racial composition,” as the two are highly interconnected in the Midwest. I suggest that both played a role in the tragic decline of my former HS.

And since you apparently lived in California for most of your life, I’m guessing you haven’t witnessed this kind of “economic shift” first hand the way I have.

“In the short term, I’m willing to bet that the kids who got bussed into an AP/college track facility from a cruddy inner-city dump saw an enormous bump in the quality of the instruction available to them.”

That may be.

Too bad a decent high school with around 1500 kids grades 10-12 had to go down the tubes to offer a few kids this bump.

I don’t mean to seem racist here. I grew up in a household where racism was deemed the source of all problems facing inner-city black families, with my white neighbors given the blame (of course my very inclusive white father was above racism).

Now that I am older, I tend to suspect what all of our white neighbors who moved further and further west into newly built more upscale suburbs really wanted to avoid was not so much racial diversity as it was high crime rates, falling property values, a pervasive communal sense of distrust, and schools with intractable discipline problems which destroyed learning opportunities for everyone. I don’t think racism per se had much to do with it. Blacks who could afford to move away from the encroaching wave of inner city blight did so right along with the whites. Needless to say, the flight of affluence is also a causal factor of a demographic death spiral to ghettohood.

“But surely you know this?”

I’m starting to suspect you know less about shifting neighborhood demographics in the Midwest than I do. If you want an academic perspective, look up some of the articles John Quigley wrote on the subject.

I’m sure there are more than a few underwater McMansion dwellers who would be happy to have the government take their house off their hands.

As long as they get a check somewhere in the process. You know…to cover moving expenses…as well as pain and suffering.

I used to drive through Poway when I covered San Bernardino County. Town made Fontana look upscale, inhabited mostly by peons for the mafia-owned “spa” nearby. When did it become upscale? More to the point, when did it get a school district?

“When did it become upscale? More to the point, when did it get a school district?”

Dunno for sure. Based on the few mansion-sized Poway McMansions I have visited, I would guess the upscaleness peaked out between 1980-1990. Perhaps narcotic sales had something to do with it? (Search this reference on Poway for a hint.)

And these days the school district is a great source of financial fascination!

Pomerado Newspaper Group-Aug 27, 2013
PUSD granted extension to respond to critical bond report
By Steve Dreyer

The date by which the Poway Unified School District must respond to a San Diego Grand Jury investigation on the use of controversial bonds to finance school construction has been extended to Sept. 17.

A spokeswoman for the jury said the extension, from the original due date of Aug. 20, was granted by the presiding judge of the San Diego Superior Court. A similar request from the Julian Unified School District was also approved. The remaining 45 school districts in the county all submitted their responses on time, she said.

The grand jury’s report, released in late May, called for “countywide school bond reform.” Those reforms should include “greater citizen oversight of bond requirements and increased transparency of total bond costs and future outlays,” the report said.
…

Thanks for keeping us updated on this. Should be fascinating to see how long they can postpone the day of reckoning.

RAL moved on? I’m still enjoying that vast empty space.

RAL (you) fled when the sheriff posted the writ ahead of the actual eviction.

You got your characters mixed up liberace.

It’s pretty dark at Paddles, understandable you two might not have recognized each other last weekend.

Exactly. That’s why you rent the room.

Pat Frank’s 1950’s piece “Alas, Babylon” is an alternative future about a nuclear strike on the USA. A Soviet attack on the USA is triggered by this (fictional) event: Events in the Eastern Mediterranean go from bad to worse. A US Navy fighter pilot defies standing orders and chases a Soviet fighter jet into Syrian airspace. He launches an air-to-air missile to bring it down, but the missile goes astray and strikes Soviet naval facilities in the port city of Latakia. The missile sets off a chain reaction of explosions and destroys much of the port. One thing leads to another and soon millions die.
A made for TV version of “Alas, Babylon” was broadcast in 1960, a couple of years before the Cuban Missile Crisis.

repost of short fiction piece about teotwawki scenario in usa:

I’m not so concerned about the lights going out. I really doubt that will happen.

I’m more concerned that once we no longer have our “big stick” that we might experience the joy of having foreign drones and missiles launched against our cities.

Carl, if you take into account the “new normal” of two incomes and low(er) interest rates, then house prices HAD come down to meet wages. At interest rates of 4-5%, two $50K teachers can afford a decent 3/2 in my area, which is an expensive area. In other parts of the country, it’s even more favorable.

At interest rates of 4-5%, two $50K teachers can afford a decent 3/2 in my area, which is an expensive area.

I suspect either someone gave them (or they already saved somehow) a big chunk of cash…or we have a different definition of “afford”.

If the Fed can print dollars (based on nothing) from a laptop at Starbucks, why does it matter if we borrow too many of them?

“If the Fed can print dollars (based on nothing) from a laptop at Starbucks, why does it matter if we borrow too many of them?”

That’s fine, as long as they all end up in the hands of people that don’t actually try to spend them. In fact, as long as all the dollars are ending up in the hands of people that don’t spend them, we’re FORCED to just keep borrowing more of them into existence.

500 milligrams of what?

And always running from the reality there are tens of millions of excess empty houses….. and growing by the day.

Don’t forget to sell your long-term bonds before you start drinking…

The credit expansion bubble is going to be rather cruel to Brazilians. 3x in six years and you haven’t had a clue.

The credit expansion bubble is going to be rather cruel to Brazilians. 3x in six years and you haven’t had a clue.

My clue:

Total outstanding mortgages as a percentage of their countries GDP:

USA: 70%
Brazil 6% (Can you read that? Do you understand the difference between the numbers? Does it compute?)

USA: Over-housed and middle class shrinking.
Brazil: Massive under-supply in housing, very little building because of lack of mortgages until now, while 30% of the entire country has moved up in class the past 17 years.

Do the math and get back to me. This is not the USA. This is not Canada. Get a passport and I’ll buy you a Brazilian drink. I think prices will go down here. And then they will go up. Yawn…..But when?

Oh goodie, you’re moving up to the middle class by the droves, on the wake of a massive credit expansion. The point is, that’s going to crash and all the debt donkeys recently liberated to bid up real estate are going to get crushed. You are not at the center of it all, but at the whip end. Prosperity depends on expanding global credit. Good luck.

you’re moving up to the middle class by the droves, on the wake of a massive credit expansion

3 points there are wrong:

1. I’m not “moving to the middle class”. I’ve been there all my life.

2. There is no “you’re”. I’m not Brazilian.

3. Massive credit expansion in housing?

Again:

Total outstanding mortgages as a percentage of their countries’ GDP:

USA: 70%
Brazil 6% (Can you read that? Do you understand the difference between the numbers? Does it compute?)

that’s going to crash and all the debt donkeys recently liberated to bid up real estate are going to get crushed

Most transactions involve a lot of cash. Yea Housing debt is so far below USA’s it makes you seem desperate to pronounce otherwise.

Good luck

Thanks but I don’t need “luck” in my housing. It’s paid for. I’ve been “smart”…….. and lucky for once. It’s done. I’m not leaving soon because of a “bubble” I don’t care for now. It’s all jive in the long run. I can die worrying about what might have been.
Cheers.

And your losses are growing.

And it isn’t really that much trouble to skip over posts you don’t want to take the time to read, is it?

For instance, I regularly do so when you turn the discussion over to the topic of trade deficits.

Trade deficits don’t matter. Most of what we export is priceless.

“Most of what we export is priceless.”

That’d be military hardware?

How does that work? Is there a version of train travel where you don’t pay extra and you do get rapey scanned?

“Turnaround time and a full load makes for a lower fare than a slow train.”

I suppose crew costs are much higher for a three-day train ride than for a six-hour plane flight. Not sure about fuel costs…trains certainly weigh more than airplanes, but once they are moving, I can’t imagine they burn energy at the rate a plane’s jet engines do.

“…a full load makes for a lower fare than a slow train…”

I commented on the full load issue to one of my lunchmates at work today. He mentioned he has ridden trains along the Eastern Seaboard (NYC area, perhaps?) which can spontaneously adjust the number of cars at any given stop to the number of riders.

I suspect Amtrak trains don’t do this, and instead run with underutilized capacity. This is just my hunch; if correct, I’m curious why dynamic capacity adjustment is not practiced in case it is a viable option. I’m pretty sure the airlines dynamically adjust their schedules to keep their planes running full, based on this frequent flyer’s personal experience.

You’re looking in the wrong part of the economy… it isn’t because of fuel cost and consumption, rates of pay for flight crew, etc…

It is a function of a lack of competition in the rail passenger space vs market competition in the airline space. Train fair will cost what it costs because you are subsidizing a number of lines that aren’t profitable and Amtrak is essentially a GSC or government sponsored corporation with no competition. Of course, there is no competition because the airplane and automobile made passenger trains obsolete, but that is another issue.