The Housing Bubble

ok, but i’m just saying she’s really frightening.

even the bernank rejected the trillion dollar coin idea immediately.

the trillion dollars coin is straight out of robert mugabe’s handbook of fiscal responsibility. we’d have been zimbabwe in no time.

of course there is one bright spot. she eventually rejected the idea. so maybe she’s learned something. it’s just that she could EVER have embraced the idea is really scary.

Ideas are not a requisite for a spokesperson.

The trillion dollar coin threat was a bluff. Notice how the administration didn’t threaten to use it again during the last debt ceiling standoff. You can’t use a bluff more than once.

The trillion dollar coin threat was a bluff.

it revealed the bluffers as idiots.

I thought that this time the Obama Administration threatened to use the real thing this time.

The trillion dollar coin was not a bluff; it was a dare. Unofficial, not really mouth pieces of the democrats daring the republicans to make Congress irrelevant in all future discussions of the debt ceiling - essentially taking the debt ceiling off the table as a power of Congress entirely. The republicans blinked and raised the ceiling.

This most recent one, when the trillion dollar coin was not raised as a possibility at all was also a dare, but with the president taking the lead himself by saying that he demanded a clean debt ceiling raise/reopen the government bill and he wouldn’t negotiate on the budget details until it happened. But this time the dare was to actually hit the ceiling and cause Social Security checks to not go out on time to all the old people in your district. No member of Congress wants that. Not any of them. Especially not at a time when the polls indicated that the public considered that they “owned” the shut down issue.

Stop thinking poker. It is much too sophisticated a metaphor for DC. It is more like an elementary school playground.

And there would have been no economic effect if they had done the coin that hasn’t already happened. All the coin would have done is allow “borrowing” to do the spending that is already appropriated by Congress. Since the debt ceiling was raised both times, doing it with the coin instead of a debt ceiling increase would have made no difference. If we aren’t Zimbabwe now, we wouldn’t have been Zimbabwe with the coin.

If we aren’t Zimbabwe now, we wouldn’t have been Zimbabwe with the coin.

Polly, no disrespect to you, but all you’re proving is that you don’t know the difference between how the FED creates dollars and how zimbabwe created its currency.

No, tj. You are proving that you don’t understand the difference between authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling and actual spending.

creating the trillion dollar coin would have been just how zimbabwe created their dollars. the FED creates dollars in an entirely different way.

The trillion dollar coin was not a bluff; it was a dare.

I still don’t believe they would have done it.

Stop thinking poker. It is much too sophisticated a metaphor for DC. It is more like an elementary school playground.

Good point.

Of course they would’ve done the trillion dollar coin as opposed to defaulting. You’d have to be insane not to. If the US actually defaulted you could say good bye to reserve currency status and numerous other benefits that keep the US economy relatively safe and stable compared to actual banana republics. We may joke that the US is a banana republic, but c’mon, if you default and you’re harshly downgraded, do you really want to live with that uncertainty and volatility? In other words, do you want Oil City (or similar scenario) to be your actual life plan as opposed to some possible back up plan?

Of course they would’ve done the trillion dollar coin as opposed to defaulting.

making the trillion dollar coin WOULD be defaulting. it would be admitting there was no other way to pay. it would have been payment zimbabwe style. and that would have been the end of the dollar.

No,tj, it wouldn’t. Zimbabwe happens when you “create” way too much of your country’s currency and put it in circulation. In Zimbabwe, presumably, it was in the form of the country’s leaders stealing all or most and then putting it directly and immediately into the money supply as they exchanged it for another currency and put it into Swiss bank accounts. If the US minted the coin and then continued to use it as a reserve in the Fed (rather than Congress just authorizing more borrowing) for the same exact spending we are already doing, then there would be no destruction of the US dollar.

Polly, i remember when you gave me some legal advice years ago. i know you’re a nice gal and i hate to argue with you.

and it wasn’t a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. you had to come back another day with the answer. i want to thank you for that and have you know i’ll never be disrespectful with you.

that said, let me explain..

Zimbabwe happens when you “create” way too much of your country’s currency and put it in circulation.

that’s not what really happens. it wouldn’t matter how much money they create, because absolutely none of it is legitimate.

In Zimbabwe, presumably, it was in the form of the country’s leaders stealing all or most and then putting it directly and immediately into the money supply as they exchanged it for another currency and put it into Swiss bank accounts.

they didn’t even have to steal it. the government just printed it and spent it as it wished. no money they printed was legit.

If the US minted the coin and then continued to use it as a reserve in the Fed (rather than Congress just authorizing more borrowing) for the same exact spending we are already doing, then there would be no destruction of the US dollar.

that isn’t a legitimate way to bring money into circulation. it would have no value until someone wanted to borrow it. if no one borrows the reserves, the reserves have no value. the FED can’t just print reserves and then declare they have so much wealth.

Polly, i remember when you gave me some legal advice years ago….i want to thank you for that and have you know i’ll never be disrespectful with you.

Very telling tj, that you’ll be civil to people you disagree with only if they’ve helped you.

The “free-market” at work.

you’ll be civil to people you disagree with only if they’ve helped you.

wrong comrade. i’m civil with people, i just treat them the way they treat me. Polly helped me and i remember it, that’s all.

you on the other hand, have a long history of having been a smarmy jerk to everyone you disagree with on this board.

wrong comrade. i’m civil with people

lol Only with people who don’t call out your warped BS.

you …have a long history of having been a smarmy jerk to everyone you disagree with on this board.

liar. prove it. I only get real with those who start thinking they’re going to shut me up by calling me bs names and lying about me as you do. Hint: they won’t, you won’t. Is it not obvious?

Polly helped me and i remember it, that’s all.

She helped you so you’re not your usual fascist creepy self to her. Congats. The “Free Market” at work.

liar. prove it. I only get real with those who start thinking they’re going to shut me up

comrade, i don’t think anyone or anything will shut you up. btw, what does ‘i only get real’ mean?

lying about me as you do.

the truth hurts, doesn’t it comrade man-goo?

She helped you so you’re not your usual fascist creepy self to her.

give me chuckle comrade. tell me how i’m a fascist. you sure can be entertaining.

the FED can’t just print reserves and then declare they have so much wealth.

Ummm…. Sure they can: they’ve done that to the tune of $1 trillion dollars per year for the last several years—and no one has even blinked.

and then declare they have so much wealth.

p.s. Have you seen their balance sheet lately? And no one even questions it.

Apparently they do “have so much wealth.”

Apparently they do “have so much wealth.”

well, well.. lookie who shows up after the party’s over. it’s the ‘ummm master’.

do you think starting with ‘ummm’ makes you look smarter? or maybe you think it makes you look superior in some way. is that it?

i’m happy that you disagree with me. it makes me smile inside knowing you believe so many things that are in error. i’ll never correct you on anything important. i want you to continue believing as you do. and if someone asks a question that i think you might want to know, i won’t answer them either. it’s much better to let you go on your error strewn life believing you know so much.

so carry on ‘ummm master’. make me smile.

hmmmm…… just what I thought.

Thank you TJ

If you look at any image closely enough, one stops seeing the image. A clear case of “there too many trees so I can’t see the forest.”

Part of being an effective high level manager is the ability to select highly effective lieutenants who can also select highly effective lieutenants. All top level managers live in a bubble to some degree. So they must surround themselves with effective people who can accurately describe reality to them.

Contractors.

“Contractors.”

They are not government workers, but rather the private sector. In other words, they are better.

They are not government workers, but rather the private sector. In other words, they are better.

You must be a Republican to make argument like that.

Better paid.

What do you think will stop “the debt” from increasing to infinity?

a few things could stop it. the worst would be the destruction of the dollar.

Just sayin, but I think you have that inside out.

Higher interest rates will crush the stock and housing bubbles.

Special surtax taxes on capital gains - say 35%.

Higher interest rates in the other 75% of the world economy.

The government has to eliminate this greed factor which really doesn’t contribute in a real way to the economy.

What if Volcker actually had no control over interest rates ??

Oh he had control alright…He was quite arrogant about it with that cigar shoved in his mouth…

Need to take action on inflation, fine but you don’t do it in the radical way he did it with light speed…Nobody had time to prepare…He sent millions of responsible business people up in flames…

Maybe so, but I think he might have been largely a liar and did not have absolute control over the credit crisis.

over the credit crisis ??

There was no “credit crisis”…He created one though in the interest of crushing inflation…He crushes inflation alright along with many people…Rich got richer…Many middle class become much poorer…

There was no “credit crisis”…

OK, so you hate Volker so much on a personal level that you don’t want to look at what was a major credit expansion and subsequent contraction.

IMO, you/they lost the stuff the day you/they singed the loan contract.

“IMO, you/they lost the stuff the day you/they singed the loan contract.”

Isn’t that always the case with debt-junkyism?

He sent millions of responsible business people up in flames…

An alternate explanation: he educated them about interest-rate risk, something that they should have already understood, but didn’t…

I was in my teens in the late 70s, and although I became a radical libertarian, I had to focus on my college rather than understand the Volcker situation. However, having watched Milton Friedman’s “Free To Choose,” I was impressed with the Friedmans. I read some of what they were for, Monetarism is the exact policy that Paul Volcker employed to tame inflation. It was the exact policy that self-described Capitalist Milton Friedman was for. Raise the rates to tame inflation.

The difference between now and 1980 is that wages are stagnant, and have been stagnant for years. So that is my argument in favor of more QE. or at least Milton Friedman would favor it.

There are things I disagree with Friedman, such as his ” negative income tax.” in general, I favor the Austrian economics, and not monetarism. Monetarism requires government. And we have seen government become more incompetent through he decades. Too much lead in the water that voters and politicians drink.

if you’re in favor of manipulating the money supply higher, you’re asking for debasement of the currency. currency debasement or price inflation hurts everyone, but it hurt the least well off the most.

The Magic Money Tree! The Favorite Flora Of Fools And Empty Pockets!

i have read that volker didn’t want to raise rates, that he was forced into it

You read wrong. Volker said he’d raise rates before he got the job.

How Volcker Launched His Attack on Inflation

Volcker met with the president in the Oval Office on July 24, 1979, to talk about the vacancy at the Fed. The discussion lasted less than an hour, and Volcker thought it had not gone well. Returning to New York that night, he met his two best friends, Larry Ritter and Bob Kavesh, both professors at NYU’s Graduate School of Business, for dinner.

“Well, I blew it,” Volcker told them. “I said that I attached great importance to the independence of the Federal Reserve and that I also favored a more restrictive monetary policy.”

How Volcker Launched His Attack on Inflation

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/how-volcker-launched-his-attack-on-inflation.html

Deliver the smack down.

Hah, speaking of smack down, anyone check out the Di Blasio family “smack down dance”? I wanna see them do that when NYC starts imploding from a police force that stands back and ignores crime, now that Mr. Bill has dissed them good. But not to worry, the Di Blasios will get up on stage and invoke Batman or something with their smack down dance, and all will be well.

You just know it’s coming, too. The force won’t do anything as obvious as go on strike, nope. They’ll just be unavailable, or busy with something else when the bad stuff starts going down, and who can blame them? I give NYC maybe six months before it starts looking like the bad old days, and that’s optimistic.

jose canusi: I wanna see them do that when NYC starts imploding from a police force that stands back and ignores crime, now that Mr. Bill has dissed them good.

The bloodiest of bleeding hearts has assumed command. New York has its peculiar decay and revival cycles and hopefully this round won’t be as destructive as the last one.

The bloodiest of bleeding hearts has assumed command. New York has its peculiar decay and revival cycles and hopefully this round won’t be as destructive as the last one.

I think you are right. Freakonomics’ guy had the theory abosrtion was one of the main resons most cities have enjoyed the low crime rates.

OPEC may have had something to do with that.

The tax man liked it as well.

but a terrible time to be a borrower ??

Yes, but it was a terrible time also for many prudent business people…His actions, not only dramatic but very fast blind sided many productive business throughout the country..Millions lost their jobs…Millions went broke and never recovered…

“but a terrible time to be a borrower….”

I don’t agree. It was a great time to buy a house with a mortgage. Prices were low. Soon interest rates dropped and you could refinance. Meanwhile your salary doubled and then tripled. Borrowing into a massive credit expansion is a wonder!

That’s what I remember.

It was a great time to buy a house with a mortgage ??

Thats assuming you had a job that allowed you to qualify for a 13% mortgage…Besides, its a zero sum game….Your gain is someone else’s loss…That house you were buying was possibly from a owner who lost their job because Volcker crushed his employer…

No. The guy died from exposure to Agent Orange.

If you want the person on the other side of the trade to benefit most, buy a house today.

If you didn’t have a job, you weren’t buying a house. I guess it’s different these days.

Yes, but it was a terrible time also for many prudent business people

I remember that well. People were saying that he was strangling the economy. Very bitter medicine, quite the opposite of the ZIRP nonsense we have today.

If you didn’t have a job, you weren’t buying a house ??

Believe me…Not many people were buying houses with 13% + mortgages and the only people that were trying to sell into that market were acting out of desperation…I will take a excerpt out of a article that Carl posted here..I many ways it discribes the economic environment of the Volcker time period..And not just for real estate, but businesses as well..Sorry in advance for the long post;

I am a 46-year-old mother of three children. We have lost two farms since 1980, my mother in law’s farm as well as our own. We were forced to sell 160 acres of land that was very special to us. It was homesteaded by my husband’s great grandfather and for years had served as home to our cow and calf operation which we were forced to sell just a few months before we sold the land.

My husband became completely consumed by our circumstances caused by the farm crisis. He left me. Our family continued to deteriorate and our marriage ended in divorce. We had been through natural crises before—drought, flood, crop failure—these we accepted and went on.

But when the threat of losing everything comes to your doorstep because of the bad economy, low commodity prices and high interest on your base notes has left you hopelessly in debt, your faith is sometimes shaken. No one likes to consider that their life has been pointless.

Big difference from before.

Properties became well priced with almost 14% interest rates. When the rates rapidly fell to 9% profits dramatically increased.

This time around it will be losses that will increase - a result of higher interest rates.

“left you hopelessly in debt…”

There it is. Long term debt is a fragile way to live. Yet the debt is not seen as the fundamental reason for failure.

We are more fragile now.

Signing up for 30 years of indenture on a depreciating asset at a grossly inflated price is the best definition of “hopelessly in debt”.

Especially considering the same item can be rented for a small fraction of the cost.

“left you hopelessly in debt…” There it is. Long term debt is a fragile way to live ??

Famers go into debt all the time even if they own their farm outright…Volcker raises the prime rate to 18% borrowing costs for a farmer go beyond what the crop, cows whatever can absorb…Couple that with a bad economy and falling commodity prices and its bye-bye…

“losing everything comes to your doorstep because of the bad economy, low commodity prices and high interest on your base notes has left you hopelessly in debt”

“Famers go into debt all the time…”

I know, though I have know some who didn’t follow the debt planting model. It is an unstable model, living on the bloody edge praying for good weather where you are and crappy weather everywhere else, and just make it through this year, and let’s throw in a new combine with air conditioned cab. That “everyone” does it does not change that it is a fragile way to do business.

Some of my family farmed through the dust bowl years in central Kansas. Three years without a “harvest”. They were miserable, but they didn’t lose the farm, because they were not in debt. BTW, Grandma became a banker during this time, and until the age of 90. She always advised people to get out of debt and to stay out of debt.

If you lose nearly everything the day you can’t make a debt payment, it could be someone else’s fault, or it might be that you were on a risky path by being in debt in the first place.

I get what your saying about debt but its easier said than done…

Three years without a “harvest”. They were miserable, but they didn’t lose the farm, because they were not in debt ??

So they were in a position to weather the dust bowl…They had to do something to be able to accumulate some sort of reserves to be able to carry them through…How did they develop those reserves ?? Unless its handed down through generations you must earn it…Earning it likely comes with the risk of borrowing…Its probably how 95% of business in America function…And once in debt it will be the business cash flow that retires it…Business have ups and downs…Some self inflicted and some caused by the likes of Volcker…

Having no debt and being in business is nice to talk about but difficult to get from here to there without taking some risk…

or it might be that you were on a risky path by being in debt in the first place

BTW, Grandma became a banker during this time, and until the age of 90. She always advised people to get out of debt and to stay out of debt.

Doesn’t being a banker involve lending money to people?

+1 Mighty…I never gave that a thought…

“Doesn’t being a banker involve lending money to people?”

Of course. It involves other things too. As president of a small town bank she also did a lot of personal finance advising.

“How did they develop those reserves ?? Unless its handed down through generation…”

You have options when you are not in debt. They didn’t just sit there watching the wind blow. Grandma clerked at the bank and Grampa took up auto mechanics. So they could eat.

The farm was bought by her dad after they moved from Colorado in a horse drawn wagon. They might have had some reserves, I have no clue. Some of the kids moved away during that time too.

The concept of starting with little and building out of profits was clear to them. Today apparently it reads like fantasy.

Somebody ceryainly loves cheap money. I hope they don’t whine about wealth or income disparity or some $hit like that.

Read the Salon article…..the quote from the farmer’s wife was from 1980-81.

People have adapted. The “full time” farmers are farming thousands of acres. Anybody farming approx. 500 acres or less is doing it in conjunction with a full time job somewhere else.

Preferably with the wife working also, and somebody getting insurance thru their F/T employer.

Sorry ScDave. Farmers can be expected to be good producers of crops they cannot be expected to anticipate geopolitical events caused by terrible policies. Here is how the lost of the two farms can be directly attributed to the naïve policies of Carter. The fall of the Shah which I have explained numerous times on this blog was attributed to the naïve policies of Carter than a democracy was possible in Iran. The Shah let up on the pressure of the mullahs and he fell causing oil prices to rise. This put farmers in a bad position due to rising fertilizer and oil prices. Then, the Russians not having to worry about the Shah were able to invade Afghanistan. Carter reacted by placing an embargo on agricultural products to Russia. US prices fell and other countries increased their agricultural exports over the coming years with the Soviet Union refusing to deal with us. Due to the inflation caused by the higher oil prices and loose monetary policy interest rates rose and farmers trying to survive went into debt at double digit rates.

The impact of higher oil prices and reduced US demand for agricultural products due to the embargo did not end just because Carter left office. The 80’s were not a good time for farmers. Sure if farmers had avoided all debt, they may have survived but I think we need to name the cause which was government policies and not the victims of the policies.

than is that (auto correct)

PS. However, I do not think Volcker deserves the blame for doing what had to be done to prevent Weimer type inflation which would have destroyed the entire middle class in a matter of a year.

PS. However, I do not think Volcker deserves the blame for doing what had to be done to prevent Weimer type inflation which would have destroyed the entire middle class in a matter of a year.

I read that it was the supply siders like Jack Kemp who were vehemently against Volker’s policies at that time.

Anybody farming approx. 500 acres or less is doing it in conjunction with a full time job somewhere else.

AKA “the gentleman farmer”

Also noticed that Name should be Blame.

“I read that it was the supply siders like Jack Kemp who were vehemently against Volker’s policies at that time”

Some thought that it would be better to have lower interest rates since that would allow more investment which would defeat inflation by more production. However, I think that it was too late for that the inflationary spiral was already out of control. Whether inflation could have been defeated without the drastic action I guess is somewhat open to debate but there is not question that the tough medicine did work and a boom developed with 7 to 8% growth during many quarters.

do rising asset prices such as stocks and homes create jobs?

of course not.

But it sure creates massive distortions and misallocations.

Make no mistake in your mind….. those distortions and misallocations will reverse and will be extremely painful for the indebted.

“of course not.”

The argument can be made (and has been made) that as asset prices of stocks and homes rise those who own these things become richer and because they are richer their spending ramps up.

Jump up the price of a house and you will at the same time jump up the amount of equity that is in the house. Convince the homebuyer to cash out and spend this equity and - presto! - you have money once again flowing into the economy. Something similar happens when you pump up the prices of stocks.

Not saying this is a wonderful way to run things, just pointing out that this is the thinking.

At the other end of the argument: Destroy prices and you destroy money that was associated with the destroyed prices, and people who have their money destroyed are not going to be spending much money.

Well it gets down to this fundamental….

a) A country of solvent, prudent savers

b) A country of indebted, reckless, insolvent debt junkies

Spare us of the debt-junkie explanations and distractions.

But it sure creates massive distortions and misallocations.

yes, but the keynesians believe that price inflation helps an economy. it doesn’t. price inflation weakens an economy.

PS the ‘philips curve’ (or ‘curse’) has been debunked for over 20 years.

It’s worse than that TJ. Offshore proxies using digital dollars to create demand where it doesn’t exist isn’t price inflation. It’s price fixing.

The argument can be made (and has been made) that as asset prices of stocks and homes rise those who own these things become richer and because they are richer their spending ramps up.

it’s a dumb argument. the rise and fall of stock prices is money supply neutral. it makes no difference in the wealth of a nation. the same thing goes for homes. you have to look at both sides of the equation.

Jump up the price of a house and you will at the same time jump up the amount of equity that is in the house.

even if that were true, it doesn’t change overall wealth.

Convince the homebuyer to cash out and spend this equity and - presto! - you have money once again flowing into the economy. Something similar happens when you pump up the prices of stocks.

it doesn’t change the amount of dollars in the economy.

Destroy prices and you destroy money that was associated with the destroyed prices,

lower prices don’t ‘destroy’ dollars. far from it.

“it doesn’t change the amount of dollars in the eonomy.”

If dollars are borrowed into existence and this borrowing increases then the amount of dollars that are put into the economy also increases.

I am assuming, in this case, that the dollars will be spent.

If dollars are borrowed into existence and this borrowing increases then the amount of dollars that are put into the economy also increases.

you didn’t talk about dollars being borrowed into existence. you implied that when homeowners sell a house for a profit, that money is created. it isn’t, at least most of the time. only the FED through the treasury creates dollars. most of the loan money comes from depositors. to imply that new money is always created from home loans is wrong.

I am assuming, in this case, that the dollars will be spent.

spending doesn’t create dollars or wealth.

I never said anything about homeowners selling a house for a profit, I was talking about homeowners cashing out the equity gained by the home due to the home’s price rise.

Cashing out equity is another term for borrowing against equity, and borrowing against equity or borrowing against anything else puts money into the economy if the borrowed money ends up being spent.

Cashing out equity is another term for borrowing against equity, and borrowing against equity or borrowing against anything else puts money into the economy

if that were true, base money would be through the roof. you only need to look at base money compared to total loans over the same period to see that it can’t be true.

“The argument can be made (and has been made) that as asset prices of stocks and homes rise those who own these things become richer and because they are richer their spending ramps up.”

The super rich are dumping their wealth into things like old art (and not so old art) how does that help the economy. Meanwhile the printing of money is keeping the things that ordinary people buy from falling in price thereby keeping them from spending money on manufactured goods. I do not see how this really pumps up the economy. Gasoline at around 1.70 where it was when Obama took over would be much more helpful.

Dan, your conclusion is correct, but our dollars are not losing value for the reason you think.

I think we need to pay attention to what the super rich are doing. They are putting their investments into a “goods” that can easily be moved out of this country. They are not presently putting into gold since they are politically well connected and know it is being manipulated. Additionally, 100 million dollar paintings are much easier to get out of the country than 100 million dollars worth of gold. They are not, anymore, dumping money into real estate because they realize the obvious, your renter has to have a sufficient income stream to pay the rent and if you cannot raise the rent, it is very difficult to get the property to rise in value.

The message they are sending is very negative on the US. Warren Buffett attacks on gold and other similar assets is that they do not generate an income, neither do works of art. Thus, the rich are saying that it no longer makes sense to invest in plant and equipment in the US and put your money into items that can easily be moved outside the country.

Selling a house for profit and cashing out for a Refi amount to the same thing. Either way, a bank creates money to lend to someone, either the house owner/refi-er, or the house buyer.

Houses don’t “sell for a profit”.

This will become painfully evident to you.

Additionally, 100 million dollar paintings are much easier to get out of the country than 100 million dollars worth of gold.

yes, and they are going to get a nasty surprise when the economy tumbles. they aren’t as smart as they think they are. when things go bad their paintings will tumble in price.

The message they are sending is very negative on the US. Warren Buffett attacks on gold and other similar assets is that they do not generate an income, neither do works of art. Thus, the rich are saying that it no longer makes sense to invest in plant and equipment in the US and put your money into items that can easily be moved outside the country.

i’d be very wary of investing in plants and equipment now too. and art will prove to be a very risky investment when times get bad.

An excerpt from a Ron Paul commentary that can be found on Goldseek.com:

By manipulating the money supply and the interest rate, Federal Reserve polices create inflation and thereby erode the value of the currency. Since the Federal Reserve opened its doors one hundred years ago, the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power —that’s right, today you need $23.70 to buy what one dollar bought in 1913!

As pointed out by the economists of the Austrian School, the creation of new money does not impact everyone equally. The well-connected benefit from inflation, as they receive the newly-created money first, before general price increases have spread through the economy. It is obvious, then, that middle- and working-class Americans are hardest hit by the rising level of prices.

Oxymath:

“Selling a house for profit and cashing out for a Refi amount to the same thing.”

Selling something for cash and borrowing are not the same thing at all. Not in my world.

i’m not denying that the dollar has lost value.

but the distinction of how dollars get created has to be made. there’s a good way and a zimbabwe way.

also ron paul doesn’t cover all the dynamics of currency value. i don’t think he even knows them. plus, both he and schiff thinks our money gets created the zimbabwe way. it throws off their whole understanding of how price inflation happens.

I think creating the money the federal reserve way as opposed to the Zimbabwe is the not the difference between good and bad, it is the difference between immediate harm and delayed harm. I do think that Ron Paul understands it but I don’t think the difference of a few years means anything to him.

Instead of throwing gasoline on fire we are pouring gasoline around and just waiting for a spark to ignite it. It is kind of like in the book Red Storm Rising where the Islamic terrorists just severed the pipes in the refinery and just expected something to set off the fire.

I think creating the money the federal reserve way as opposed to the Zimbabwe is the not the difference between good and bad, it is the difference between immediate harm and delayed harm.

i’m saying that the official way the FED creates money is good, but i’m definitely not saying that the FED has been doing good things. i question if QE is really legal. if it is, it shouldn’t be. that said, if the FED stuck to creating money the correct way, there would be no harm to the dollar or the economy by the FED. the harm is coming in another way.

I do think that Ron Paul understands it but I don’t think the difference of a few years means anything to him.

i like ron paul. the only bad thing about him is he thinks we create dollars the zimbabwe way, same as schiff. they both need to think harder.

Instead of throwing gasoline on fire we are pouring gasoline around and just waiting for a spark to ignite it.

i think gasoline might be the wrong analogy. it’s more like we’re suffocating the dollar, rather than setting it on fire.

Blue, I was answering Combo and tj’s assertion that doing a cash-out refi creates money but selling a house for profit does not create money. I was pointing out that BOTH created money, simply for different sides of the transaction.

The gasoline analogy is about setting off inflation. I do not think the dollar will ignite, it will just drop in real value.

“it doesn’t change the amount of dollars in the eonomy.”

If dollars are borrowed into existence and this borrowing increases then the amount of dollars that are put into the economy also increases.”

Yes money is borrowed into existence. House price goes up and money supply goes up if houses are used for collateral and loans are taken out.

The price of stuff going down through Deflation will decrease the money supply. loans won’t get paid back wealth is destroyed.

The price of stuff going down through greater productivity will increase the money supply? Your dollar will go farther at least.

The gasoline analogy is about setting off inflation. I do not think the dollar will ignite, it will just drop in real value.

i know. and it will. all i’m saying is that it’s not because of ‘money printing’. do you know that gold can be printed and has been printed?

The price of stuff going down through Deflation will decrease the money supply.

there are several definitions of ‘money supply’. the dollars in existence won’t be decreased.

The price of stuff going down through greater productivity will increase the money supply?

no. prices have no effect on dollars in existence.

Your dollar will go farther at least.

that’s price deflation.

the dollars in existence won’t be decreased.

Yes they will

prices have no effect on dollars in existence.

Prices will affect dollars in existance

that’s price deflation

No because there will be less dollars.

i’d love to address your other sophomoric drivel. but i wouldn’t want to distract you from this. i’ll bet you don’t have the guts to debate me on it either..

tj: “the dollars in existence won’t be decreased.”

comrade closer: “Yes they will”

ok comrade, please explain how dollars in existence will be decreased.

notice that this is all i’m asking you to explain.

guess what closer. you won’t be able to do it. you’ll chicken out once again.

explain closer, how will dollars in existence be decreased??

explain closer, how will dollars in existence be decreased??

The beauty is that I don’t have to because…I’m “arguing” tj style. Can’t you see I was doing a tj parody?

I’ll explain:
Arguing tj style is just to rebut things with mindless, tit-for-tat stuff like.
“yes it is” “no it isn’t” “the free market would do it better” “uh huh”

Then ya just have to throw in a few names or gross stuff when you get frustrated.

The beauty is that I don’t have to because…

the real beauty is that you’ve proved you don’t know what you’re talking about. i knew you wouldn’t try to take me on.

basically you’ve just admitted i’m right by refusing to back up your flapping keyboard, comrade.

poor comrade man-goo. you just admitted dollars in existence aren’t decreased by price deflation. you just admitted you spout off without thinking. you comrade man-goo, are a joke.

you don’t know what you’re talking about.

yes I do

i knew you wouldn’t try to take me on.

newsflash: This is taking you on

basically you’ve just admitted i’m right

you are right (wingnut-nutball-faar right)

comrade man-goo.

you are gross or hungry

you just admitted you spout off without thinking.

no I didn’t

you comrade man-goo, are a joke.

i have brains to make funny jokes. arguing tj style is funny and you seem still hungry

The cross-dressing Lola of Brazil gets schooled again…..

cross-dressing Lola of Brazil

Where does this come from? Fear? Do you think your homophobic names will shut me up? Because “Commie” won’t?

It won’t work. Try dropping the N word on me bigot. It won’t work either.

A victim crossdressing Lola at that!

Try dropping the N word on me bigot.

why should he?

so you can stomp your feet? so you can whine like a baby? please, we don’t want to hear that.

why do you think so many other people are bigots when you are the one that’s race baiting, comrade man-goo?

A victim crossdressing Lola at that!

In your sick dreams I’m a victim, bigot.

I scare the cr@p out of you. Look at your now homophobic rhetoric. What’s next? Calling me the N word?

Toothless bigot.

why do you think so many other people are bigots when you are the one that’s race baiting, comrade man-goo?

man-goo? You are hungry no?

look up the word bigot and get back to me. Bigot.

You can’t shut me up with your bigotry.

Straw, HA, tj and Adan, have shown classic signs of being bigots. I gave them the rope to hang themselves. Is anyone surprised with them?

Pick yourself up off the floor Tranny. Cheer up. Man up.

I scare the cr@p out of you.

you don’t scare him comrade. you don’t scare anyone.

What’s next? Calling me the N word?

why do you seem so hung up on ‘the N word’, comrade man-goo? do you have some kind of fixation on it?

look up the word bigot and get back to me. Bigot.

so you’ve got nothing, right comrade? just more race baiting from the racist.

You can’t shut me up with your bigotry.

what bigotry, comrade?

Straw, HA, tj and Adan, have shown classic signs of being bigots.

nothing but false accusations from a whining, race baiting, baby.

Is anyone surprised with them?

back to pandering again, eh comrade?

but he was forced to raise rates ??

Forced or Choose and by how much & how fast ??

Under your theory I can then say Greenspan & Bernanke were “forced” to lower rates…

i know i wouldn’t be able to find the article again from years ago.

We know too. It’s OK. We know.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-13/rousseff-consumer-subsidy-fails-to-ignite-brazil-growth-economy

Get back to us when Brazil can

And what could you possibly have against Brazil? You don’t like the people? Or you root against 200,000 Brazilians because you don’t like me? That’s a little weird isn’t it?

I’m not even Brazilian. But I root for them.

To conclude, the secret to Germany’s manufacturing success lies in the country’s (governmental) commitment to the sector.

loose lips sink ships, and busy lips don’t build them. AKA, talk is cheap, comrade.

the only commitment germany needs to the sector is to leave it alone.

To conclude, the secret to Germany’s manufacturing success lies in the country’s (government) commitment to the sector.

Exactly. And there’s more.

What can the U.S. learn from a high-wage export powerhouse like Germany?

http://americanmanufacturing.org/blog/what-can-us-learn-high-wage-export-powerhouse-germany

Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) executive director Scott Paul recently suggested some similar policies during testimony before a Congressional Joint Economic Committee Hearing entitled “Manufacturing in the USA: Why We Need a National Manufacturing Strategy?” Specifically, Paul urged access to credit for manufacturing expansion and innovation. He also cited Germany’s integrated strategy for boosting manufacturing by focusing on skills, technology, investment, demand-side incentives, and labor-business-government collaboration.

These proposals help to form the basis of a national manufacturing strategy, something AAM has continually proposed.

Germany moved more to the free market under the Christian Democrats and reformed many of the areas cited by Rio as creating the wealth. That is why it has weathered the world wide recession so well. It was choking on too much socialism just prior to that move. But in the end, Germany’s success is primarily caused by the fact that it is a country filled with Germans. It can afford to be a very mixed economy because of the high IQ and high skill of its work force.

Lack of national policy hobbles U.S. manufacturing: study

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-usa-economy-manufacturing-idUSTRE81Q1EU20120227

(Reuters) - Lack of a public policy on manufacturing is the main obstacle to a vibrant factory sector in the United States, according to a study which also dismissed the notion that high wages are frustrating growth.

…these efforts could fall flat without a framework similar to that in countries like Germany and Canada where factory job losses have been minimal.

…(USA) let manufacturing shed jobs and we let offshoring happen to a much greater degree than almost any other advanced country.”

….”Germany’s manufacturing success is not accidental; public policy has played an important role,” said the study.

It noted that the federal government in Germany has facilitated rich networks for research and development, and workers and employers benefit from a system of continuous vocational training.

Firms also enjoy stable access to finance, the study said.

“Sturdy worker protections ensure that instead of solving problems through short-run cost-cutting, German employers and unions work together to adopt high-road solutions that strengthen firm competitiveness in the long term,” it said.

From Wikipedia:

Schröder, in March 2003, reversed his position and proposed a significant downsizing of the welfare state, known as Agenda 2010. He had enough support to overcome opposition from the trade unions and the SPD’s left wing. Agenda 2010 had five goals: tax cuts; labor market deregulation, especially relaxing rules protecting workers from dismissal and setting up Hartz concept job training; modernizing the welfare state by reducing entitlements; decreasing bureaucratic obstacles for small businesses; and providing new low-interest loans to local governments.

Sounds a lot like Reaganomics.

What can the U.S. learn from a high-wage export powerhouse like Germany?

Abolish minimum wage?

Germany moved more to the free market under the Christian Democrats and reformed many of the areas cited by Rio as creating the wealth.

No Your wiki article barely addressed hardly any of the numerous points in the tradegood article on German/Government manufacturing cooperation. Do the math.

You are trying to BS people.

Specifically, Paul urged access to credit for manufacturing expansion and innovation. He also cited Germany’s integrated strategy for boosting manufacturing by focusing on skills, technology, investment, demand-side incentives, and labor-business-government collaboration.

yes, more keynesian crap that cripples economies. what brilliant idiots they are, comrade.

Lack of a public policy on manufacturing is the main obstacle to a vibrant factory sector in the United States,

exactly what public policy are they talking about comrade?

It noted that the federal government in Germany has facilitated rich networks for research and development,

all of which could be done better in the private sector, comrade.

‘rich networks’ indeed. sounds like stalin’s programs or maybe mussolini.

Reaganomics.

Reagan had it much easier than now. Americans were younger and it was before “mass globalization” NAFTA/ GATT on steroids and offshoring.

We had more higher paying union jobs, less illegals and a jobs base on which America could rebound.

all of which could be done better in the private sector,

Right. Let’s deal in facts. Not twilight zone economic “theories”.

Fact: Germany has much greater government/manufacturing cooperation than the USA.

Fact: Germany kicks the cr@p out of the USA in export manufacturing/GDP.

Sounds a lot like Reaganomics.

Except for the socialized healthcare, pensions, near free college, generous paid time off, etc.

Reagan had it much easier than now.

yes, socialism was much less entrenched then comrade.

Germany has much greater government/manufacturing cooperation than the USA.

i see you’re for fascism, comrade. which are you.. fascist or socialist? only comrade man-goo knows for sure.

Germany kicks the cr@p out of the USA in export manufacturing/GDP.

haven’t you heard comrade? we’re becoming more socialistic than europe.

Fact: Germany has a higher percentage of Germans than the US and that is why they are kicking the crap out of us. And Colorado, it is the changes that sounded like Reaganomics not everything about Germany. A higher productivity people can be paid more and have more benefits. When California had more taxpayers and fewer people on the dole it had “near free college” and higher wages compared to the rest of the US without higher costs.

We are paying the price for immigration policies that increase diversity as opposed to increasing the number of highly intelligent and highly educated people. Import German scientists and you land on the moon, import gang bangers and you land on your azz as a country.

The only thing I want to clarify that it was both the right wing of the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats that made the transformation of Germany possible. I do not address the trade good article because it attempts to rewrite history and ignores that the key reforms were exactly what was done by Thatcher and Reagan, the last real conservatives to hold power in either Great Britain or the United States. They believed in nationalism and wanted to restore their respective countries to greatness. Since then the people have come to power only want to preserve their power and to move the world to one government. Since this is not in the interest of workers in high wage economies, we continue to see the erosion of wages, it should not surprise people.

i see you’re for fascism, comrade. which are you.. fascist or socialist?

This is another proof that you do not think consistently.

Proof?
You just asked me “which are you.. fascist or socialist? which proves that in your mind there is a big difference between a fascist and a socialist. (Which of course there is)

But every chance you get, you feebly try to promulgate the right-wing propaganda lie that Nazi fascism was “socialism”.

Which is it? I don’t think young tj even knows.

And what could you possibly have against Brazil? You don’t like the people? Or you root against 200,000 Brazilians because you don’t like me? That’s a little weird isn’t it?

I am not rooting against Brazil but you have bragged about how the socialistic policies adopted in say the last ten years have helped the economy, I said when the economy was booming that they would bring down the economy. So far I am right so before advocating socialistic policies for the United States show me how Brazil is booming with it socialistic policies. With its low wages it should be booming, even India has 5% growth and everyone is calling it a basket case.

Those Hartz reforms created a new class of German lucky duckies. It’s really not that clever. You reduce the pay and benefits of your workers and you can export more.

Low-Paid Workers Struggle Despite Germany’s Booming Economy

Study Finds Alarming Increase in Urban Poverty Across Germany

Report Cites Rise in Low Wage Workers Dependent on Welfare Benefits

have bragged about how the socialistic policies adopted in say the last ten years have helped the economy,

35 million have come out of poverty in those years but most of that was from policies that created higher paying jobs. I don’t know how “socialistic” that is.

“Socialistic policies would bring down the economy. So far I am right

You are not right at all. Brazil’s 2003-13 mean growth rate is a bit under 4% while USA’s is under 2%. That’s a decade. Brazil posted 3.3% growth last 2nd quarter.

so before advocating socialistic policies for the United States show me how Brazil is booming with it socialistic policies.

I just did. But you like many here don’t even know what “socialistic” means. You pray for Brazil to fail because I point out your statistical BS imo. Which is weird.

Sorry pathetic growth for a developing nation and wages are not even keeping up with inflation:

http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-the-matter-with-brazil-2013-7

Germany has a higher percentage of Germans than the US and that is why they are kicking the crap out of us

No way at all. That’s a veiled racially charged myth. USA was the world’s manufacturing powerhouse for decades and it was not because of the American Germans.

We are paying the price for immigration policies that increase diversity as opposed to increasing the number of highly intelligent and highly educated people.

I agree we are “importing” a lot of uneducated people. But your math does not add up in that statement in regard to German vs American manufacturing. America has a greater number of educated people than Germany however it it Germany’s government/manufacturing policies that gives them the real edge. We are competing with countries that have national manufacturing programs which enables them to compete as countries and not just individual companies.

But after growing 7.5% in 2010, Brazil’s economy grew just 0.9% in 2012. Q1 wasn’t much better, with GDP rising 0.6% from the previous quarter.

At 6.5%, inflation is high and hurting real wages. Which explains why consumption grew just 0.1% in Q1. Meanwhile, the Bovespa is down nearly 28% year-to-date.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-the-matter-with-brazil-2013-7#ixzz2l2fSo44W

With its low wages (Brazil) should be booming,

The wages are not that low in Brazil, but what really holds Brazil back (unlike much of USA) is too much government mindless regulation, wayyyy too much bureaucracy, corruption and a tax system that is totally messed up.

And yes I can see the vast difference in these subjects’ levels between the USA and Brazil.

“But every chance you get, you feebly try to promulgate the right-wing propaganda lie that Nazi fascism was “socialism”.”

It was national socialism and only varied from the Soviet Union in that the Soviet Union wanted international socialism. The government owned or controlled the means of production in both countries. They both rejected the invisible hand controlling economic decisions. The NYT actually was highly complementary of Italy which was fascist before Germany and what Obama is creating is the Fascist model of socialism where government controls everything even if it might not own it. Italy created a system where government, unions and businesses would all follow a common policy. The ACA model is very close to the Mussolini model of setting policy.

Sorry pathetic growth for a developing nation and wages are not even keeping up with inflation:

There you go again. You don’t get broad trends and math. You look to statistical noise and I look to decades long trends, patterns and flow.

Fact:
Since 1988, my first time to Brazil, Brazil has gotten a lot better and USA has gotten a lot worse, all of your shot term noise aside.

It was (Nazi) national socialism and only varied from the Soviet Union in that the Soviet Union wanted international socialism.

Good Lord. I don’t even have to respond. Please continue with your “history” “lesson”.

(I’ll make some popcorn.)

But every chance you get, you feebly try to promulgate the right-wing propaganda lie that Nazi fascism was “socialism”.

anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that fascism and socialism are both big government. they are kissin’ cousins.

are you going to explain how dollars in existence are decreased? na, you’re bluffing or lying again. you can’t explain it because it doesn’t happen. that means you’re an idiot or a liar comrade. which is it? i think it’s that you’re a liar. you’ll never expain it.

From wilipedia and it is you that would like to re-write history:

The party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.[7] Advocacy of a form of socialism by right-wing figures and movements in Germany became common during and after World War I, influencing Nazism.[8] Arthur Moeller van den Bruck of the Conservative Revolutionary movement coined the term “Third Reich”,[9] and advocated an ideology combining the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left.[10] Prominent Conservative Revolutionary member Oswald Spengler’s conception of a “Prussian Socialism” influenced the Nazis.[11] The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[12] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in 1930s the party’s focus shifted to antisemitic and anti-Marxist themes.[

you can’t explain it because it doesn’t happen

Yes it does.

they are kissin’ cousins.

No they’re not.

you’re bluffing or lying again.

I’m not but the free market can do it better.

means you’re an idiot or a liar comrade.

No I’m not Dr. GoTinkerbells .

you’ll never expain it.

You expain what “expain” is. I bet you can’t because you are lying or bluffing. Which is it Dr. GoTinkerbells?

anyone with two brain cells to rub together

How would you know? You fascist somethingOrAnother.

(I love arguing tj style. Takes no brains and it’s fun!)

The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[12] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in 1930s the party’s focus shifted to antisemitic and anti-Marxist themes.[

You just made my point.

“The wages are not low in Brazil”

Who is talking BS, per capita income around 5700 dollars a year and the wages are not low?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gdp-per-capita

Brazil has a per capita income less than a third of the state of Mississippi and Rio a.k.a. Lola claims it does not have a low income. Now, who is talking the bs?

Mississippi Per Capita Income

The ACS survey shows the median per capita income for Mississippi was $20,119 in 2012. Compared to the US per capita income, Mississippi per capita income is $7,200 lower. Per capita income numbers for 2013 will be released in September of 2014.

How would you know? You fascist somethingOrAnother.

you don’t know how to make an argument, do you comrade man-goo?

I love arguing tj style.

rise to the occasion comrade. prove you know what you’re talking about by explaining your position. show your superior knowledge.

debate me ‘rio style’ and win the debate with your skills and knowledge. do your worst comrade. i’m waiting.

Who is talking BS, per capita income around 5700 dollars a year and the wages are not low?

Not relative to China where they make everything. Get out much?

“You just made my point.”

No, you cannot take the quote out of context. It stated clearly that the party had policies combining socialism and nationalism as I stated. The fact that it later placed an emphasis on opposing soviet style Marxism does not change that fact. Its policies were very much government work policies after it came to power and it gained control over the entire economy. Nazism is exactly what is translates to National Socialism.

Brazil has a per capita income less than a third of the state of Mississippi and Rio a.k.a. Lola claims it does not have a low income.

Brazil is not a low cost producer compared to where they make everything. Why are you comparing it to Mississippi? What do they make in Mississippi? You are making my point for me.

Your math is consistently bad. Bad. Compare Brazil wages with China and the other far east countries.

you don’t know how to make an argument,

Yes I do.

rise to the occasion comrade.

I just did

The fact that it later placed an emphasis on opposing soviet style Marxism does not change the fact that it opposed Communism to the point of WAR.

You made my point.

Internationalist communism, you made my point that you do not know what you are talking about.

you do not know what you are talking about.

yes i do

Brazil is not a low cost producer compared to where they make everything.

now there’s the typical comrade closer logic.

Why are you comparing it to Mississippi?

think real hard comrade. you might see his point… na, of course not! you don’t have the wattage.

Compare Brazil wages with China and the other far east countries.

there you go making Dan’s point, comrade.

From the world bank:
Yet China remains a developing country and its market reforms are incomplete. In 2012, China’s gross national income per capita of $6,091 ranked 90th in the world; and about 128 million people still live below the national poverty line of RMB 2,300 per year (about $1.8 a day). With the second largest number of poor in the world after India, poverty reduction remains a fundamental challenge.

I know you are not good at math or facts of any kind but $6,091 is higher than $5700.

you don’t know how to make an argument,

Yes I do.

then by all means, give it a try.

now there’s the typical comrade closer logic.

Perfect logic.

na, of course not! you don’t have the wattage.

i only need to use half of it to drive you batty, the rest I save for others on this blog

there you go making Dan’s point

I “made Dan’s point” before he re-made my point while he was trying to rebut my point
(OK, I admit, that line just required 60% of my wattage)

I know you are not good at math or facts of any kind but $6,091 is higher than $5700.

FAIL. Give up dude. You’re not going to baffle me with your Bull S#it. You are citing gross national income per capita, I am taking wages. Heck, a lot of Chinese manufacturing is even slave and prison labor and you cite gross national income per capita?? Who do you think you are fooling? Are you really a propaganda tool? I’m taking wages.

Not counting slave labor: In US dollars:
China min wage: $2,472
Brazil min wage: $4,520 wiki

Cut that “min wage” China figure by the slave labor aspect and we’re talking that you’re telling a sick joke.

then by all means, give it a try.

I did

I did.

comrade, do you understand the most fundamental rules of debate?

if you make an assertion that something happens, you have to back it up. simple as that.

no one has to back up something that doesn’t happen.

i told you that price deflation doesn’t decrease dollars in existence. that’s something that doesn’t happen. you claim it does. that’s something that does happen. therefore, you have to back up your claim.

but we know you never will. you’re just a commie hack. a know nothing commie hack.

you made an assertion that something happens comrade. it’s your responsibility to back it up.

do you understand the most fundamental rules of debate?

I schooled u on them. u failed

if you make an assertion that something happens, you have to back it up

I did as u do

no one has to back up something that doesn’t happen.

yes they do

price deflation doesn’t decrease dollars in existence. that’s something that doesn’t happen.

prove it commie fascist Dr. GoTinkerBells

but we know you never will

I just did

you’re just a commie hack. a know nothing commie hack.

Impossible You are the commie, a huge commie. You are not only a commie but you are a nanny-fascist commie (very rare)
I am a Protestant and a Chiefs fan.

prove it commie fascist Dr. GoTinkerBells

being called out as a commie bothers you, doesn’t it comrade? that’s because it’s true.

i don’t mind you calling me a commie at all. all anyone has to do is read your or my posts for the truth. i actually think it’s kinda funny comrade. please do keep calling me a commie.

being called out as a commie bothers you, doesn’t it comrade?

It does not bother me, but…It is strange for a student of history like me because it defies reality but …. it is kind of good actually. Because you calling me a commie serves a purpose to reach those in the intelligent center to show how far outside of reality people like you are.

So “Commie” on bro!

It does not bother me

sure it does. it’s evident in your posts. why lie about such a little thing?

Because you calling me a commie serves a purpose to reach those in the intelligent center to show how far outside of reality people like you are.

the intelligent center, comrade? yes, you are reaching.

It does not bother me….sure it does.

If you think it bothers me then keep calling me a commie.

Then you’ll “win”

Here’s the deal. People call names to shut people up. But I’m the opposite. You call me names and I’m back at you more - if only to foil your juvenile plans. You won’t “win”.

You call me commie to “shut me up”. Good luck. You call me homophobic gross stuff like “man-goo” to shut me up? I’m not 12. It’s not going to work. Why don’t u drop the N word on me you obvious bigot? It won’t work either. Your names will not intimidate me.

why lie about such a little thing?

That’s what LIEberals do best.

Thanks to all for schooling Mango!

Thanks to all for schooling Mango!

Good try with nothing.

You can’t re-write history straw. Today is one of the classic days of me schooling your low IQ compadres.

Look at the vitriol at me, the names, the fluster, bluster and pathetic. That don’t happen unless you are totally schooling clowns.

You call me commie to “shut me up”

no comrade. you’re like a yapping chihuahua. i don’t think anything will shut you up.

i call you a commie because that’s what you are.

and man-goo is just a play on mango that you yourself instigated.

why would i call you the N word comrade? are you race baiting again? do you know that the most vile racists are the race baiters?

what have i said that makes me a ‘bigot’ my race baiting comrade? what post? where are the words? you’re just race baiting again i suppose.

as usual, when you have nothing you start making things up.. but keep going comrade. show what you really are.

what have i said that makes me a ‘bigot’ my race baiting comrade?

Don’t play dumb. You are bigot. “Man-goo”? Seriously? How is that kind of crap different than the same mentality of a racist?

ManGoo Tranny,

You seem to enjoy the slap down, smack around daily schooling….. but not as much as we enjoy delivering it to you.

ManGoo Tranny,

“ManGoo Tranny”? That’s gross but….

Fine…..From your writing HA, I thing you might be a fat, 60 year ole white dude bigot living in cold rural New England, working boring construction, semi educated but underpaid who is in the closet and angry about it.. and dreams about trannys and mad that he does? And mad that I live in Rio because of it?

I won’t judge.

I knew when I saw 300+ posts that the Mango had returned like a warm odorous wind from the south. Dan schooled you on Brazil’s subpar economy for a developing country. They both schooled you on history and logic! Nice comparison of Brazil to China. Really made your point.

First in Brazil in 88? I used to think you were 14, now I see it may be senescence and booze. Who are all these employees you claimed to have paid healthcare for?

Go back to defending your Savior In Chief who is at his record low approval rating.

Nice comparison of Brazil to China. Really made your point.

I know. Especially because we were talking about manufacturing wages. Thank you.

Her name is Lola, she was a Mango,
But that was 30 years ago, when they were more down low
Now it’s a webcam, but not for Lola,
Still in green shirt she used to wear,
Faded feathers in her hair
She sits there so refined,and drinks herself half-blind
She lost her youth and she lost her Money
Now she’s lost her mind

“Man-goo”? Seriously? How is that kind of crap different than the same mentality of a racist?

seriously comrade, how are they the same?

but do keep going comrade. show off what you really are.

Now it’s a webcam, but not for Lola,
Still in green shirt she used to wear,
Faded feathers in her hair

Wow

I really did win

Your victim howling is reprehensible ManGoo Tranny.

“Man-goo”? Seriously? How is that kind of crap different than the same mentality of a racist?

seriously comrade, how are they the same?

Don’t play dumb comrade:

1. bigot
One who is narrrowly or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices. This word is a general term that applies to everyone (racists, anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes and xenophobes).

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigot

but do keep going comrade. show off what you really are.

I just did. Smarter than you can deal with.

Your victim howling is reprehensible ManGoo Tranny.

Only because I pointed out that you are a bigot maybe?

Don’t play dumb comrade:

i DON’T play dumb comrade, YOU play dumb comrade.

This word is a general term that applies to everyone

everyone? including commies comrade? of what use is it if it applies to everyone?

I just did. Smarter than you can deal with.

more like you’re dumber than anyone can deal with.

i DON’T play dumb comrade, YOU play dumb comrade.

no, you do. i play smart

you’re dumber than anyone can deal with.

Than why can’t you, bigot?

i play smart

like you declare yourself the winner of debates, comrade man-goo?

Than why can’t you, bigot?

my bigot can. you my bigot.

fail

But the layoff songs didn’t appear until the late 70’s.

And we didn’t live on a farm, we lived in suburban Orange County and I never heard a country music song during that time (I did know who the Beach Boys were).

I do recall in the late 70’s some of my dad’s friends were furloughed and received an unemployment check for the first time in their lives. Of course, most were recalled to their old jobs after a few months.

That’s my point - that the pain of a contraction is not felt everywhere evenly. Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. It just seems more acute now because it’s happening to people you know.

My relatives also live in Orange County - they talk about how Huntington Beach was tincan beach when they moved in - obviously the ’60s-’90s (and beyond-depends on if you were an owner or buyer beyond) have been the good times in that area.

And not to be pedantic, but what is losing a farm if it is not getting layed off?

And not to be pedantic, but what is losing a farm if it is not getting layed off?

Emotionally, it’s more than losing a job, though. When land and the associated housing has been in your family for generations it’s much more than a job.

songs from the ’50s to the ’70s are about the family losing the farm.

Here’s a good one from the 90’s. (Even if his harmonica has a blown reed)

Steve Earle - The Rain Came Down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz0BrACfQyc

When land and the associated housing has been in your family for generations it’s much more than a job.

…Now my grandaddy died in the room he was born in
Twenty-three summers ago
But I could have sworn he was beside me this morning
When the sheriff showed up at my door
So don’t you come around here with your auctioneer man
’cause you can have the machines but you ain’t taking my land

The Rain Came Down - Steve Earle

Brazilian Tranny!

But I like Steve Earle. Although the last time I saw him was a few years ago at a Snowbird concert in Utah. Still think he should not have called Shania Twain the highest paid lap dancer in America but I do need to forgive.

Were there any aerospace jobs in Orange Country in those days, Colorado? I have vague recollections of big layoffs in that industry in the early ’70s as Vietnam war was winding down.

Shania did her part, but if you think you like Shania you actually like Mutt Lange. First time I heard the first few bars of one of her songs and was trying to figure out if it was Def Leppard or Bryan Adams or AC/DC. And then some chick started singing…

Plenty in B1 Bob’s district.

Honestly, her music was just mediocre but she was so hot.

Were there any aerospace jobs in Orange Country in those days, Colorado?

I lived there in the 60’s. So I’m sure there was some aerospace work. We moved away and came back to visit in the 70’s. I remember that my dad was pretty shocked to learn of his friends’ layoffs.

Shania’s videos will stand the test of time. If only Miley could learn the difference between sexy and slutty.

Well, the ’60s was a very a prosperoous decade. There was a pretty mild recession at the beginning of the decade and another mild one at the end of the decade. In between were nearly nine years of good economic growth and mostly low unemployment. Also, the economic growth in those days was pretty much evenly shared by all income groups, rich, poor and in-between.

Shania’s videos will stand the test of time. If only Miley could learn the difference between sexy and slutty.

OK. I don’t think about the videos, but I see what you’re saying. And it’s not like she doesn’t have flaws but she’s a master at drawing the eye where she wants it to be.

The efficient slaveowner doesn’t own the slave; He sets it up whereby somebody else owns the slave and he ends up with whatever wealth the slave produces.

In the case of the debt slave the slave owns himself.

As long as there are more registered voters who feel they are benefited by the current system than there are who feel screwed by it, the current system will continue.

The large underlying trend is that Wall Street and by extension the politicians they fund, are claiming larger and larger shares of consumer surplus, surplus that used to be left to the consumer. This is a large underlying social current. Once this reaches a tipping point, then there will be change.

The system is designed to corrupt politicians so that their interests are more aligned with their big contributors than with their constituents. This seems to have been going on for a long time as Mark Twain said that both babies’ diapers and politicians must be changed often and for the same reason.

efficient parasite doesn’t kill the host.

Obviously American Corporatism is not efficient.

Neuro - respectfully, the voters don’t matter. The legislative model has been changed forever. They are all crooks, out to enrich themselves - period. They ought to at least be honest about it and stop the sham.

I propose each C-man and Rep henceforth wear sponsor T-shirts over their suit jackets, with masters’ logos prominently displayed. At least then we’d know what we’re dealing with, instead of this sub-threshold bleeding, with respect to our hopes.

Every single time, for the past generation.

Prayers are nice but tithe to me while you are at it.

You only want 10%, clearly you are not like Obama.

It is interesting that God only wants 10%, but the US has asked for as much as 95%.

but the US has asked for as much as 95% when America’s growth and equally shared prosperity were the envy of the world….

“You only want 10% …”

I never said that. What I want is 10% at a time. That’s what a tithe amounts to, which is 10% at a time.

Remember, the efficient parasite doesn’t kill the host.

sorry… far as I know, it’s their own FHA brand. Which would explain why they need to hike the fees to insure themselves.

yes it would.

The union members in the private sector lost their jobs, or were forced to reduce what they charge to what their customers could afford.

The union members in the public and publicly funded sectors got their pensions increased, for the same reason the executives allegedly got their pay increased — rising stock prices. But in reality in each case the winners are those who can force other people to pay.

some fear ALkada- I fear gov worker unions

“….got their pensions increased……”

Not around here they didn’t. For the past 20 years. They did get a 1% “COLA”.

Of course, this is 100% more than anyone in the private sector got.

It’s funny. The private sector working stiff has endured 30 years of below the cost of living COLAs, pay freezes, benefit reductions, cost transfers, etc. Even when business was booming. All in order to remain “competitive”.

And after all of the givebacks, the job got outsourced/off-shored anyway.

Republicans/Corporations are just pizzed that they won’t have the opportunity to totally screw public sector workers.

The union members in the private sector lost their jobs, or were forced to reduce what they charge to what their customers could afford.

The union members in the public and publicly funded sectors got their pensions increased, for the same reason the executives allegedly got their pay increased — rising stock prices. But in reality in each case the winners are those who can force other people to pay.

IOW, the PTB had great success in the ’70s, and ’80s in weakening private sector unions. The result was that salary and benefits for many private sector workers failed to keep pace with inflation.

Workers in the public sector were able to hold on to their unions and decent pay and benefits. Private workers are envious. Many of them have been convinced that the solution to their problems would be the deunionization of the public workers, instead of forming their own unions. Thus the one percent get the ninety-nine percent to fight among themselves.

Workers in the public sector were able to hold on to their unions and decent pay and benefits. Private workers are envious.

You nailed it.

That’s ridiculous. The public sector unions, especially the public safety ones, haven’t held on to anything. Instead they shilled their way to huge increases in the late 90s and after through corrupt collusion with those supposed to be guarding the public fisc but willing to sell out the public for campaign support.

It was a huge windfall that was based on gamed projections going up to infinity. Public sector unions are an abomination very much unlike private unions.

That’s ridiculous. The public sector unions, especially the public safety ones, haven’t held on to anything… Instead they shilled their way to huge increases in the late 90s

Maybe so. But to prove it, you need to show that the public sector union’s pay has markedly risen above the rate of inflation the past 30 or so years…

“……what skills……”

Don’t care what “skill” it is. What percentage of 25 year olds have the “skills” that are genuinely worth $100K?

99.5% of the 25 year olds around here are “Lucky Ducks”.

Of course, I live in the parallel, suck-ass Universe that isn’t SoCal, the Bay area and the Boston-NYC-DC corridor.

Don’t care what “skill” it is. What percentage of 25 year olds have the “skills” that are genuinely worth $100K?

100k isn’t what it used to be. I think a lot of people have the skills to be “worth” it…but that doesn’t mean they have any leverage to actually get it. Only a few do.

You forget, you are dealing with Red-state “A man is the king of his home/ranch/property” types.

The goal is to make sure all of the property worth owning is in the hands of the “right” people. Then roll back the Constitution to circa 1830, so only “property owners” have a vote.

So he says……..probably wanted sympathy from the “bleeding hearts” on the jury.

I think among minorities nobody claims to be R. I have one Hispanic friend who grew up in New Mexico (one of those families that has lived there since they bailed from Spain during the crusades because they were Jewish). He registers and votes R and goes to the caucuses and everything because he feels they best represent him. His Mexican friends think he’s insane. Apparently he’s the only one they know.

Most “white Hispanics” are democrats, at least until non-Hispanic whites become a minority.

Stupid gloomsters.