The Housing Bubble

There is no way the rest of the country can prop up San Francisco indefinitely ??

Please explain….

Please explain….

Follow the cheap money. Cheap money will not last forever and it will take NYC, DC and SF down with it once the spigot is stopped.

I don’t argue any of your points.

Thing is, there are a great many really dumb IT graduates out there, making a great deal more money than they ought to.

Further, few of them are accountable.

Expect that to change as the general economic squeeze continues.

Crap like ObamaCare is going to siphon wealth out of ALL areas of the economy, not just medicine and insurance.

Further, few of them are accountable.

This has been the case for so long that there is a series of stories from all the way back in the early 1990s called “Bastard Operator from Hell”. I found it to be a pretty entertaining read back then, particularly as I knew some guys that fit the bill.

The fundamental issue is that IT people are expensive to replace—and thus can get away with a lot of poor behavior.

This is not really due to just the skill-set, but also due to the lack of standardization; by losing a long-term IT guy, you also lose a lot of tribal knowledge of how things are set up and why. There can a huge cost to having things break and the current staff not knowing how the heck it works to begin with.

Don’t forget that Microsoft was very powerful and their products not very good, but they own the industry.

No they don’t.

They may be the dominant player on the desktop, but Linux owns the data center by far.

IT manager here. Overtaxed is essentially correct, but I would take the blame a level further and put it on upper management that thinks they can get away with running IT on a shoestring in this day and age when so much of the business is dependent on it.

Before going into mgmt, I did a lot of consulting and rooted out a lot of “homesteaders.” These are the IT people who stake out their little territory and then sit happy on it, resting on the strength of their “unique” understanding of the operation. The bastard operators from hell, but without the coolness factor(c’mon, you gotta love the original BOFH).

All too often the really good IT people are treated like crap. They work tireless hours to keep things running, often sacrificing family and social life in the process, yet basically only get recognized/noticed when something breaks. Treat us badly enough and we move on to somewhere else, taking any tribal knowledge with us. Even if your operation is standards-based and well documented, there is still considerable ramp-up time for new personnel to replace them.

The secret to getting results from your IT people is public recognition for their efforts. If you go out of your way to *publicly* acknowledge their hard work and late nights when nobody else in the company does, I guarantee your next request will go straight to the top of the stack.

Also, sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the oil. My team of 3 including myself manage over 1000 systems. Three people. Plus I’m still cleaning up the mess from the last guys that ran things and moving us to that standards-based and well documented operation.

It’s possible your IT guys simply have a lot of other tasks that have been deemed higher priority. If you go talk to them in person and make the business case for why your as needs priority, they usually respond. They need that so that when they get reamed out for not taking care of whatever they dropped to take care of your issue they have a valid response in terms of the business case.

MacBeth: Poorly designed programs are usually not an IT problem - talk to the developer. If you’re company is still heavy on Microsoft in the data center, that’s probably a large part of your problem. Proprietary=bad. Open standards/source = good.

If you’re IT guys are homesteading, bring in a contractor to document/revamp your operation and flush them out. It will save your company a ton of money in the long run.

The above remark about Obamacare was directed to Macbeth….who said:

“… I’m still mighty pissed at the general incompetence of most IT folks. Much of my daily aggravation at work comes from poorly designed IT programs and servers that no one in IT has actually tested in real world situations….”

My feeble attempt at humor…..but not really so funny now that I read it after posting……

realtors are liars

No. I was simply trying to bank online, which I can no longer do, since my bank’s “new glorious, highly functional website’ isn’t compatible with Windows 8. (And isn’t Windows 8 itself a glorious, highly functional juggernaut? It’s brilliant, I tell you!)

So now I get to start over with a different bank. And this is after spending 4 hours on the phone with current bank’s IT department. Now I get to spend another few days total putting everything back together with a different vendor bank. Whose IT department will screw something up too.

I give them 6-8 months.

You know what all you IT folks out there? How about giving me something that actually WORKS after I spend my money and time on it?

I was simply trying to bank online, which I can no longer do, since my bank’s “new glorious, highly functional website’ isn’t compatible with Windows 8.

You mean it doesn’t work with FireFox, Safari or Chrome? I could see IE being a problem, but none of them work?

Correct.

website’ isn’t compatible with Windows 8.

Maybe you should be running Windows 7 instead?

A thought: If you have a previous version of Windows you can install, install vitual box and install that version of windows in virtual box.

Or install Linux in the VM. Some versions come with Firefox preinstalled.

BOA is compatible with windows 8. So is Chase.

Speaking of this Windows 8 piece of junk, has anyone upgraded to the 8.1 that keeps popping up?

Speaking of this Windows 8 piece of junk, has anyone upgraded to the 8.1 that keeps popping up?

Some people in the office have. The start button they added in 8.1 is fake, so until it’s real I’ll stick with Windows 7.

“Or install Linux in the VM. Some versions come with Firefox preinstalled.”

+1 The distro of cent-os 6.5 was just released. In fact you can download a fresh host-vm with cent-os pre-installed, and VMware Player is a free download for personal use!

Macbeth: It’s possible that your bank is using java on their site and Win8 borked the java browser plugin. Try installing the latest Oracle java plugin from Oracle’s site and see if that helps. That’s my best guess as to what’s going on if a 3-4 browsers are having the same issue.

What role does government play in fostering and furthering a Hunger Games corporate culture?

Just wondering.

ARE YOU SERIOUS???

Silly me, I thought that government actions fostered the OPPOSITE culture. Employees with benefits and retirement, welfare queens, weekends, health care paid for by “someone else..” you know, the 47% culture.

Hunger Games is what happens when there is unbridled capitalism, greed-is-good focus on profit, outsourcing/insourcing, and clear violations of Sherman Anti-Trust while the SEC rubber stamps M&A. What Carl is describing is a very typical situation: there aren’t enough jobs for the actual workers who are left.

Carl, good luck. IT is a fast-moving field so yes there is always learning, and congrats for making it past a round of layoffs. One of my friends reports the exact same culture in IT Northern Virginia.

I don’t see how this can go on much longer before the “dumb” 99+% have had enough of this system, just like the 99+% have nots.

It will be economic. Eventually the 99% won’t have enough money to buy any of what the 1% intellects produce. People in the San Francisco Dollar store are looking for tuna fish; they aren’t interested in IT integration or what-have-you.

My employer has an office in Prague, where we have a team of developers working on OS features. These guys are razor sharp, have advanced degrees and have past experience adding functionality to Linux. They could easily make 200K+ in Silly Valley. From what I have seen on glassdoor, Senior Software Engineers in Prague make about $2500 USD per month.”

Scary huh ? we have many engineers in Asia now .. to keep tax free status we had to hire engineers in Singapore but we didn’t stop there. high turn over though very high

I have no idea how this is all going to turn out? But have a bad feeling the USA will gap down - adjust to lower living standards and wages for many folks.

Heard this am on NPR that Chinese are buying up new homes in Irvine sight unseen, they start at 750K. We talked about this here but to hear it on NPR ? Cheesecake radio ?

I have no idea how this is all going to turn out? But have a bad feeling the USA will gap down - adjust to lower living standards and wages for many folks.

Will? This is an ongoing event.

Scary huh ? we have many engineers in Asia now ..

Which makes risible the call for more STEM majors in the USA. We barely have enough jobs for the ones we already have.

I suppose that perhaps the goal is to flood the market with domestic engineers who can’t just “go home” when the wage structure collapses and they will end up working for$15/hr.

Unions are their own worst enemy, but whatever cause it is private and people can make their own decisions.

Public unions are an abomination premised on the theory that you cannot trust your own government to bargain in good faith with its employees.

I agree. As far as private unions, it is virtually impossible to have a successful union in a situation where there is a huge surplus of labor. The old labor unions understood that and were staunch advocates of limiting immigration. When private unions got behind open borders, they signed their death warrants.

“Unions are their own worst enemy”

“Union Sundown”, Bob Dylan from way back in ‘83

Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore
My flashlight’s from Taiwan
My tablecloth’s from Malaysia
My belt buckle’s from the Amazon
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy makin’ thirty cents a day

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan
Well, the dog collar’s from India
And the flower pot’s from Pakistan
All the furniture, it says “Made in Brazil”
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin’ home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve
You know, that’s a lot of money to her

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

Well, you know, lots of people complainin’ that there is no work
I say, “Why you say that for
When nothin’ you got is U.S.–made?”
They don’t make nothin’ here no more
You know, capitalism is above the law
It say, “It don’t count ’less it sells”
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

Well, the job that you used to have
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador
The unions are big business, friend
And they’re goin’ out like a dinosaur
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

Democracy don’t rule the world
You’d better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that’s better left unsaid
From Broadway to the Milky Way
That’s a lot of territory indeed
And a man’s gonna do what he has to do
When he’s got a hungry mouth to feed

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

“…I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law…”

We’re almost there, as Monsanto is busy patenting every single seed possible.

I would join a union if they would disavow communism and only spend dues on necessary functions.

I guess I won’t be joining a union any time soon.

A pharmacist buddy is a member of a union, and they police their membership quickly culling anyone for unethical or unprofessional conduct. A thin line.

Dandelions can take root anywhere from the Arctic to the Tropics whereas the Orchid is high maintenance and fickle about temperature, needs lots of care.

You should be able to get a good programmer for 120K. I ask because I always hear people complaining that they can’t get anyone competent and then tell me the salary range is 50-60K. Of course you’re not going to get someone competent in that range, and, if you do, they aren’t going to stay very long because they are going to go work for you (selling real estate) or me making 100K+.

Do you live in Boulder?

“human hunting”, reducing the overpopulated herd.’

Forget about Hunger Games, watch The Purge.

It gets a pretty bad Rotten Tomatoes score, is it worth watching?

Another month of hard data instead of fatally flawed computer model projections:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

I first of all worry about the landfills and how water seeping through them is polluted.

In the 60s my parents bought a house near an industrial area in Fresno. I guess they did not realize that was not a good move. They had their own garden, we drank water out of the hose on hot summer days sometimes.

Years later they each died of different cancers. I found some article later that the grape orchards east of Fresno had long ago stopped using DDT and other pesticides deemed harmful. Who knows what other chemicals? Even so, the chemicals were underground in the water supplies and migrated westward.

That is a theory one of my sisters and I have for the illnesses my parents had. My mom died at only age 65.

But lifestyle was also part of this. Obesity, and being sedentary and eating lots of sugars probably aided the cancer risk.

I first of all worry about the landfills and how water seeping through them is polluted.

Wait. Would not accepting polluted water in absence of government “meddling” be a key part of being a “libertarian”?

But living in your head sure does.

“It’s interesting that we’ve got calls for a federal increase in minimum wages and a strike by fast food workers”…

Yes, and the calls will become deafening as ObamaCare costs annihilate already taxed pocketbooks. You could raise minimum wage to $20/hour and it wouldn’t help.

But will the masses finally realize that it’s their costs* that are way too high?

* security, monetary, fiscal, freedom, self-determination

It’s interesting that we’ve got calls for a federal increase in minimum wages and a strike by fast food workers. This after central banks have created trillions of dollars.

There is an obvious conclusion to be made from this, don’t you think?

Oxide, from China Mining, it shows China unable to keep up with oil demand and its year to year growth in production almost going to 0. For those that doubted that China was making a resource play, I think this is important evidence that you and I are right on what concerns China:

Updated: 2013-11-29 13:30
Counter:76

China, the world’s second largest oil consumer, saw its crude oil output rise 0.2% year on year to 17.86 million metric tons in Oct this year, according to recent figures released by the National Development and Reform Commission.

Last month, the country processed 37.88 million metric tons of crude oil, 6.8% more than in the same month of last year.

In the first ten months of this year, China’s crude oil output rose 2.1% year on year to 173.05 million metric tons.

The country processed 366.51 million metric tons of crude oil in the ten month period, 7.4% more than that in the same period of 2012, and saw its output of oil products climb 6.5% year on year to 225.59 million metric tons.

The country’s apparent consumption of oil products grew 4.7% year on year to 217.88 million metric tons in the first ten months.

Yes, oxide. That the NeoCon-Progressive Party needs to go.

That the Obama administration offers carte blanche to ex-Goldman Sachs thieves in the Cabinet speaks volumes.

I’m pleased you’re beginning to see reality for what it is.

+2

‘an obvious conclusion’

Let’s see. Wall Street is doing great. Used houses salesmen are doing great. This was supposed to save us. So why are we even having to talk about minimum wages?

I don’t think some posters realize what it’s like out here in the fields. Now we have to listen to highly paid economists tell us it’s a permanent slump? That’s the best we can expect?

What else are we told? That legalizing 20 million illegals will push up house prices. Rejoice! Never mind that these illegals will quickly take the fast food jobs.

It’s long forgotten that Bernanke pinned the entire recovery on house prices, with some stock market mojo thrown in. Well here we are. The media doesn’t mention it. Congress doesn’t mention it. After all, could this giant economy be lead by complete fools? Inconceivable!

“we’ve got calls for a federal increase in minimum wages ”

Whaaat……high unemployment but double the minimum wage?!?!?! Who is really behind this? Perhaps this is an attempt to jump start inflation.

high unemployment but double the minimum wage

I am surprise why nobody’s talking about passing a law to make it mandatory for business to hire certain #’s of people. Poof theree goes your high uneomployment.

Don’t think it won’t happen….that’s where we are headed.

I think they should pass a bill banning poverty and illness.

Ben, the illegals already have the fast food jobs — and the slow food jobs too. And their anchor kids are now 15-16 and old enough to take the fast food jobs because they’re bilingual.

Saturation, more than anything IMO is what’s stopping the migration. The low-skill jobs are already filled, and there aren’t enough new low-skill jobs being created to absorb new workers.

“It’s long forgotten that Bernanke pinned the entire recovery on house prices”

Considering the race to the bottom is on once again, I see that plan worked out well huh?

Now we have to listen to highly paid economists tell us it’s a permanent slump?

I think it is a permanent slump. 30 years of Supply-side/TrickleDown/Reaganomics has gutted our economy like a fish.

The wealth inequality is off the charts. No one has any money but a few. That’s SupplySide does. This is not theory any more. It’s proven now.

and housing is a depreciating asset, ALWAYS.

1988 was 25 years ago, 13 of which had democratic presidents and another four with Bush 1 who also raised taxes.

I start at 1988 because you’ve previously conceded a Reagan recovery.

Rio, once again you show that you cannot tell the difference between a conclusory statement and evidence or fact. It will help the Democrats based on what the fact? Just because he concludes that it will? News flash, anyone with a preexisting condition that thought they would benefit from Obamacare and thought that issue was the most important has already been voting for the Democrats. So any polls showing it is helping the democrats? Any evidence young people are signing up in droves? Any evidence that people are finding the costs reasonable? Any evidence that more people are obtaining insurance than are losing insurance?

Aren’t some people more genetically prone to get cancer and other diseases?

To say that people have health issues solely because of lifestyle choices is disingenuous.

Aren’t some people more genetically prone to get cancer and other diseases?

I think some scientiests studied the egyptian mummies and didn’t find cancers. They found heart diseases but not cancer. Some early indication that lifestyle choices may play some if not a bigger role than genetics.

“To say that people have health issues solely because of lifestyle choices is disingenuous.”

My intention wasn’t all inclusive. Sorry. However, I believe that many health issues are brought on one’s self through poor behavior.

Who gets the liver, a teenager infected at a hospital with tainted blood, or an alcoholic military veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder? A courageous decision when resources are limited.

What do we do with a 25-yr/old former needle addict with hepatitis? Their medical problems are VERY expensive, and they really can’t work anywhere with a communicable disease. Realistically we’re f**ked, and have to support him.

Your point #2 is the medical loss ratio, and it’s 80%.

Your scenario sounds reasonable, but I don’t know how it’s going to play in electoral politics. One story I hear is that the Dems only have to hang onto Obamacare for another year or so, until 10-15 million people are signed up. After that, repeal is no longer just a debate on the Sunday morning shows. It becomes much more real because you’re taking actual insurance away from the millions who did sign up, more millions with pre-existing conditions, and anyone else who lost real employer insurance. This is what Rio Lola has been saying. Now that the train has left the station, are you really going to say, Sorry folks, it was nice and all that you were covered for a while, but you’re too expensive now, we’re going back to the old system, no more pills for you, just die already? That’s a recipe for a public option.

That is a pretty sucky picture.

Oxide, you ignore that single payer option requires a large tax hike that people do not want. That is why Obama pushed for this Rube Goldberg type system because the biggest tax hike is hidden as subsidy by making the young pay for the old. In Europe the middle class pay much higher taxes than Americans are willing to pay. That is why Obama promised no tax hikes below $250,000.

Single payer would not result in our system spending much less like some European countries for reasons too numerous to mention. But the biggest ones are (1) virtually all our medical health professionals make much more money than in the socialized medicine countries and forcing them to accept much less quickly is politically impossible. (2) Because we are the country that innovates we have our consumers absorb the cost of R and D (especially on new drugs), and unless you want innovation to stop that will be very hard to change in the short term (3) we are one of the most obese countries on the face of the planet and that drives up medical costs. Compare the level of obesity in Germany with the United States and you will see a good part of their lower health costs along with paying just the cost of production of drugs instead of the R &D.

Single payer would not result in our system spending much less like some European countries for reasons too numerous for you to make up.

Sugar Mango!

Explain why I am wrong on the three listed reasons. Americans are not obese? Doctors/medical professionals do not make more in the US than virtually any other country? The U.S. does not innovate on drugs, have the US consumer pick up the R &D and sell to other countries on the basis of the cost of production, thereby subsidizing the world’s development of medicine?

German obesity rate is 12.9% and the American obesity rate is 30.6%, that one fact explains much of the difference in spending on medical costs and it is not the result of a single payer system.

Once again it is related to IQ. The higher the IQ the less likely someone is to be obese. What works in Germany will not work in Brazil due to the average IQ being 87 in Brazil. Brazil made a turn towards socialism and now its GDP is falling even though its average wage is below China and they have 1/3 the per capita income of Mississippi. Facts are stubborn things, Rio. But keep up with your conclusory statements masquerading as facts.

Doctors/medical professionals do not make more in the US than virtually any other country?

You are not consistent. If OCare causes the “crisis” you keep talking about and it’s bad enough to lead us to single payer then it won’t matter what “American doctors were paid before”. Why? Because it’s a frikkin CRISIS dude. The whole industry would get one serious attitude and pay adjustment.

The U.S. does not innovate on drugs

See above.

German obesity rate is 12.9% and the American obesity rate is 30.6%,

There is nothing there that would prohibit single-payer from lowering USA’s health-care costs from what they are now. Obese people die about 10 years earlier too. There might be some built in cost savings there too.

Brazil made a turn towards socialism

Do you even know what color American passports are? Do you know what Socialism even is?

“Brazil has become one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world” Forbes 8/22/2012

Brazil Opens Roads To Privatization
Forbes. 8/10/2012

Brazil Raises $9.1 Billion in Privatizing 2 Airports - NYTimes.com
Nov 22, 2013 -

Power Woman Dilma Rousseff: Brazil’s Entrepreneur-In-Chief Forbes 8/22/2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexisglick/2012/08/22/dilma-rousseff-brazil-entrepreneurs-power-women/

….(President Rousseff’s) wager–Brazil’s wager–is on entrepreneurship. The past two decades have been formidable for her country: curbing inflation (by creating the real and pegging it to the U.S. dollar), privatization (notably, the state-owned telecommunication and mining companies) and a commodities boom (soybean and iron ore). Twenty years ago Brazil’s GDP was at $358 billion and ranked 11th in the world; today, at $2.5 trillion, it’s between sixth and eighth, depending on who’s counting. No other BRIC balances democracy and widespread wealth nearly as well. Half of Brazil’s population now occupies the middle class–their output alone surpasses the entire economy of neighboring Argentina. “There has been a shift, a change in the way we are [perceived],” says Rousseff, 64, whose position atop this shift now makes her the third most powerful woman in the world, according to FORBES’ annual rankings.

Brazil has become one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world, with one in four adults self-employed in some manner. Small businesses create two out of three jobs in Rousseff’s private sector–Brazil’s unemployment rate is an envious 5.8%–and 49% of entrepreneurs with companies less than 42 months old are women; the global average is 37%. In bustling São Paulo alone, 1.8 million small-business owners ply their trades, wares and ideas.

Falling GDP, some success story.

Falling GDP, some success story.

This is another amazing example of Albuquerquedan’s ADHD type of “snapshot in time” fixation. It really is a thing to watch. It’s like a child’s attention span or something.

Here we have a country that:
“Twenty years ago Brazil’s GDP was at $358 billion and ranked 11th in the world; today, at $2.5 trillion” Forbes

But ADan is crowing about ONE Quarter GDP -0.5 growth? In a country who’s GDP has grown from 0.36 Trillion to 2.5 Trillion in just 20 years? Brazil went from the 11th to the 7th largest economy in the world in that time too. Is this not a long term success story? A 20 year success story? And ADans jumping with joy of a one quarter decline like it takes away from those outstanding 20 year numbers above?

What’s up with that dude??

Dude, when you are at the bottom the only way is up. Yes, they had a twenty year run but the initial fast growth was due to Reaganomics type policies i.e. they embraced the free market. As they grew richer they began to turn to more leftist politicians and poof there went the growth. That is true trend but you are too blindly an ideologue to see it. So stay at a per capital income one third of Mississippi.

Dude, when you are at the bottom the only way is up.

Dude, Your math and trend positioning is flawed as usual. Brazil had the 11th largest economy in the world and went to 7th in just 20 years.

I don’t know about your math but 11th is not “the bottom”, 11th means 11 and 7th is based on 7 the last time I checked.

But dude, I’m not Brazilian why do you think criticizing Brazil is a reflection on me? If you want to really bother me, associate me with the failure of MY country The USA where 30 years of ReaganOmics/Supply Side has gutted the middle-class, sent us into a permanent type Recession and sent income inequality to 3rd world levels.

Now that might just piss me off.

Here this is from Wikipedia and this the president just like Reagan that made Brazil’s rise possible which the left has now ended:and terminated inflation in a few months.

FHC government (1995–2003)[edit]

Main article: Fernando Henrique Cardoso

In 1994, Cardoso launched his Plano Real, a successful economic reform that managed to permanently rid the country of the excessive inflation that had plagued it for more than forty years. The plan consisted of replacing the discredited old currency (cruzeiro and cruzeiro real) and pegging its value temporarily to the United States dollar. Inflation – which had become a fact of Brazilian life – was cut dramatically, a change that the Brazilians took years to get used to. Because of the success of Plano Real, Cardoso was chosen by his party to run for president and, with the strong support of Franco, eventually won, beating Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who had emerged as the favorite only one year earlier.

Cardoso’s term was marked by other major changes in Brazilian politics and economy. Public services and state-owned companies were privatized (some for values supposedly too cheap according to his adversaries), the strong real made it easy to import goods, forcing Brazilian industry to modernize and compete (which had the side effect of causing many of them to be bought by foreign companies). During his first term, a constitutional amendment was passed to enable a sitting Executive chief to run for re-election, after which he again beat Lula in 1998.

Brazil’s Reagan from (Wikipediaeconomic) that made growth possible that the left has just killed, sorry if this is a double post, I got a message that the earlier one did not post:

FHC government (1995–2003)[edit]

Main article: Fernando Henrique Cardoso

In 1994, Cardoso launched his Plano Real, a successful economic reform that managed to permanently rid the country of the excessive inflation that had plagued it for more than forty years. The plan consisted of replacing the discredited old currency (cruzeiro and cruzeiro real) and pegging its value temporarily to the United States dollar. Inflation – which had become a fact of Brazilian life – was cut dramatically, a change that the Brazilians took years to get used to. Because of the success of Plano Real, Cardoso was chosen by his party to run for president and, with the strong support of Franco, eventually won, beating Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who had emerged as the favorite only one year earlier.

Cardoso’s term was marked by other major changes in Brazilian politics and economy. Public services and state-owned companies were privatized (some for values supposedly too cheap according to his adversaries), the strong real made it easy to import goods, forcing Brazilian industry to modernize and compete (which had the side effect of causing many of them to be bought by foreign companies). During his first term, a constitutional amendment was passed to enable a sitting Executive chief to run for re-election, after which he again beat Lula in 1998.

A post is coming at you that will show that you do not even know the history of Brazil never mind the history of the U.S. If you had been in Rio for the time you claimed you would have known what I am posting. Therefore, you are lying about what you know or where you are living.

It just came through free market capitalism. It took the left ten years to kill the growth but kill it they have.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso

The dude rocked. Brazil needed Cardoso’s reforms. What’s the problem? And half that 20 year growth run came from latter politicians too.

Cardoso did an interview recently and said Brazil needs more reforms but said that there’s no way Brazil is in the social and economic position to go as far as Chili. He said they are two different societies, people and nations.

Life, politics an economies are not all or nothing.

Brazil is in the social and economic position to go as far as Chili.

Chile

LOL, There’s no way Brazil can go as far as Chili. (Because they eat black beans here.

Dude, Your math and trend positioning is flawed as usual. Brazil had the 11th largest economy in the world and went to 7th in just 20 years.

Seriously Dude, do you not know the difference between the overall size of the economy and the per capita income? I was talking about per capita income. Read the sentence: “so stay at a per capita income 1/3 of Mississippi.” Brazil is a very poor country despite the growth. With its low wages and vast natural resources it should have been able to maintain solid growth. However, it has been slowing for a number of years just like I predicted when I called you in 2009 on your bragging about how socialism was pushing Brazil forward.

Cardoso did an interview recently and said Brazil needs more reforms but said that there’s no way Brazil is in the social and economic position to go as far as Chili

Rio just because your real job is working at a Chili’s restaurant, it does not give you the right to call Chile, Chili.

Brazil is a very poor country despite the growth.

It’s Brazil Dude. Get over it.

You keep citing Reaganomics as the cause for wage stagnation, when the reality is that median wages have been stagnating since well before Reagan (and actually IMPROVED on an inflation adjusted basis after the 70’s disaster).

From 1970-1980, the real median household income went up 2%.

From 1980-1990, the real median household income went up 8.5%.

From 1990-2000, the real median household income went up 9.8%.

From 2000-2010, the real median household income went DOWN 7.3%.

And the trend since 2007 has been down every year.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

And yes, the wealthy have been doing FAR better than the average folks (i.e. NOT stagnant wages for the 80th percentile of income earners and better, WAY up). How much of this is based on technology (where there are fewer lower skill workers needed, and other technology has enabled globalization), and how much is because of Reaganomics?

You keep citing Reaganomics as the cause for wage stagnation,

Of course. I do because it is the major factor. If it were not the major factor, USA would have taken political steps to mitigate even the disruptive effects of “technology”. However under SupplySide dogma, that would be “messin’ with the “free-market” now wouldn’t it?

40% Of US Workers Now Earn Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-earn-less-1968-minimum-wage

Are American workers paid enough? That is a topic that is endlessly debated all across this great land of ours. Unfortunately, what pretty much everyone can agree on is that American workers are not making as much as they used to after you account for inflation. Back in 1968, the minimum wage in the United States was $1.60 an hour. That sounds very small, but after you account for inflation a very different picture emerges. Using the inflation calculator that the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides, $1.60 in 1968 is equivalent to $10.74 today.

And of course the official government inflation numbers have been heavily manipulated to make inflation look much lower than it actually is, so the number for today should actually be substantially higher than $10.74, but for purposes of this article we will use $10.74. If you were to work a full-time job at $10.74 an hour for a full year (with two weeks off for vacation), you would make about $21,480 for the year.

That isn’t a lot of money, but according to the Social Security Administration, 40.28% of all workers make less than $20,000 a year in America today. So that means that more than 40 percent of all U.S. workers actually make less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968. That is how far we have fallen.

@Blue Skye,

It is a pretty sucky picture if it plays out as I suggest.

HOWEVER, it may turn out to simply be more expensive, but not as sucky as I fear.

The worst would be if we end up with similar numbers of uninsured folks as before, who stay uninsured because the cost of insurance is too high relative to the penalties they would incur.

The low income wages are not stagnant due to Reaganomics, it is due to illegal immigration. Reagan fixed his economy and Obama made his economy worse that is the difference that Rio cannot stand.

“average IQ being 87 in Brazil…”

!

I heard it was difficult to score high on a test written for white Anglo preppies if you are from somewhere else. Maybe they deserve some applause.

“That isn’t a lot of money, but according to the Social Security Administration, 40.28% of all workers make less than $20,000 a year in America today. So that means that more than 40 percent of all U.S. workers actually make less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968. That is how far we have fallen.”

“Tyler Durden” likes to twist stats…his posts, while sharing interesting sources of data, twist the data in his text.

The 40.28% is not limited to full time workers. In fact, 25% of the wage earners make less than $10k per year, meaning that they cannot possibly be full time. Comparing this 40% to full time workers is disingenuous at best, intentionally misleading at worst.

Stats like this are NOT uncommon.

In 1990, 38.5% made less than $10k per year (25% made less than $5k)

That $10k level today (inflation adjusted) would be $17,500.

From 1990 until 2012, the 40th percentile improved on an inflation adjusted basis from $17,500 to $20,000.

I’m not saying things are peachy (unemployment is too high, wage growth is too low, and income inequality is a problem), but the alarmist attitudes are simply too much.

A real hero died tonight….. Nelson Mandela…. RIP

This is funny. The other day we were told how the great weather in California is why house prices are so high. (Even though that only applies to 1% of the real estate). Now we see it’s the international lifestyle that explains the prices, even if it is bone cold right now.

For liars and fraudsters, any excuse will do. The truth?

This housing bubble is driven by pure unadulterated fraud.

Go ahead and roll the dice suckers. It’s your irrecoverable loss.

“intrusive government”

Yes, our gov’t is indeed intrusive, I won’t argue with that. But so’s your old man, Canada. Look what happens in Canada to anyone who so much as mutters anything the gov’t deems “politically incorrect” by their standards. That’s when Canada becomes a Kafkha-esque nightmare.

Take back Justin Bieber, please. And let us have more like Bryan Adams and Tom Cochrane.

Look what happens in Canada to anyone who so much as mutters anything the gov’t deems “politically incorrect” by their standards.

Do you have any examples or did you just make this up?

For example, if you are a minister and you quote the bible’s prohibition against homosexuality you get pulled before a star chamber concerning your “hate speech”.

If you’re a minister, you’re a Christian. If you’re a Christian, you’re in the new testament and there is nothing in the NT about homosexuality.

It is not a question of whether he is wrong or right, it is the question of whether someone is able to express their opinion. As Americans we use to believe people could say stupid even hateful things and the solution was for people to respond to that speech and point out how stupid the point he or she was making was. But now Canada lets the government define what is acceptable speech and what is not and that is not acceptable to me.

I did a little Googling and found that the fine that the ruling against the pastor was overturned by an appeals court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_v._Boissoin

But if you find Canadian laws to be unacceptable to you, you should definitely send a letter to Canada and let them know that.

Do you have any idea how disrupted to your life and expensive it is to appear before a tribunal? Talking about chilling free speech. I live in the U.S. and will fight any attempt to create a North American Union. They can have any type of government they want but that type of tribunal is nothing more than a star chamber that the founding fathers worked hard to prevent in our constitution.

Connie Wang paid about $960,000 last June for a new four-bedroom, four-bath house in a sprawling swath of Southern California that’s home to Disneyland and Pimco. Now she may buy a second as an investment.
“You know why Orange County is doing better?” said Wang, a native of Taiwan who splits her time between Shenzhen in southern China, where she oversees a toy-manufacturing business, and Irvine, California, where she raised her three children. “It’s because all my neighbors are from China and Taiwan, and they all bought their homes in cash.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-13/asian-buyers-buoy-new-homes-in-california-s-orange-county.html

It could be worse…. You could be on the hook for $960k($2 million with just interest) on a rapidly depreciating house worth what……$150k?

How’d you like those losses?

Health care is now 18% of USA GDP. What is the breaking point? When it is 25% of GDP? 30%?

When the vast majority can’t afford even the most basic insurance plans, the ones with deductibles big enough to pay for what a new car cost not too many decades ago.

Of course, rather than being proactive and trying to head this problem off at the pass, we’ll do it the American way and wait for it to explode into a crisis.

Health care is now 18% of USA GDP. What is the breaking point? When it is 25% of GDP? 30%?

Actually it’s much higher than that. Our GDP numbers are phony, the health care costs are not.

Canada, the UK, Scandinavia, Germany all deliver better results at half the costs. And they’re still capitalist economies, last I checked.

We are not them. Even if we get Single Payer…I am sure that’s what you are hinting at, we will find a fook that up as well. Failure is guaranteed.

“explode into a crisis”

I think that could happen sooner than you think, perhaps before the end of this decade. If 80 million get dropped from their existing employer-provided coverage next year as some studies project, and are dumped into the failure that is Obamacare, that could be the catalyst for single payer.

Yes because after being misled once, people will opt for the unknown and trust the same people that advocated for Obamacare, that a single payer will work. No, that is not how human nature usually works. The pendulum swings in the opposite direction after a failure. Bush moved the country to the left, Carter moved it to the right, and now Obama will move it toward the right.

Obama had a Congress that only comes around for a party every hundred years, he blew the chance for single payer.

Hey anyone up for a Rasmussen Poll. Yes he was off by about 2% on the election so feel free to take 2% off the numbers:

Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Voters overwhelmingly want to change or repeal the new national health care law. One-out-of-two want to scrap it completely and start over again.

Given the problems associated with the law, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Congress and the president should repeal it and start again from the beginning. That’s up from 43% support in late October. Another 31% think Congress and the president should go through the law piece by piece to improve it.

Just 16% want to leave the law the way it is, down slightly from 18% four weeks ago. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

a-dan, check your dyslexia.

50% want repeal and I have dyslexia. How is life living in denial?

Bush moved the country to the left, Carter moved it to the right,

OK wait, sorry, now I see what you’re saying. Bush moved the country to the right DURING his Presidency, but the people didn’t like it so the country moved left AFTER his Presidency.

But I disagree about what Obama is doing. Are you saying he’s moving it too far to the right NOW, with drones and Snowden? Then the country should go more left in 2016, no?

Actually that is close to what I am saying. Because people saw Carter run the country into the ditch, they turned to the right in the next election etc. It is not what the President attempted to do that matters, it is what the voting public did because of their presidencies. Reagan actually moved the voting public to the right because the public liked his presidency. He was more conservative than the country when he was elected but by the time he left the country was arguably more conservative than him. Obama wanted to be a similar president but move the country to the left but he is more like Carter than Reagan and the country is moving back to the right because of his failed policies.

(Reagan) was more conservative than the country when he was elected but by the time he left the country was arguably more conservative than him.

Yea, America had turned “more conservative” than Reagan when he left office. That’s why America elected a moderate President after Reagan and then an untested Democrat just 4 years later. I remember back then. 10s of millions of us Americans got whip-lash because our collective political opinion was changing so fast.

Albuquerquedan’s world is rigid snapshots in time, where there are no long term trends, momentum and nuance.

Albuquerquedan’s world is rigid snapshots in time, where there are no long term trends, momentum and nuance.

The Republicans won in 1998 so they had three terms which virtually never happens in American politics. Carter lost after one. Clinton won by promoting how he was different from the liberal democrats and announcing that the era of big government was over. When he tried to move to the left after the election the Republicans took over the House for the first time since the 1950’s and one of his major accomplishments in his first term was welfare reform with the help of the Republicans, infuriating the left. Facts are stubborn things Rio, that is why you seldom even try to use them.

1998=1988.

Facts are stubborn things

Right. I get it. “America was more conservative” than Reagan when voodoo economics Reagan left office.

Which is why we elected a moderate after Reagan and a Democrat just 4 years later and then again 4 years after that.

That all happened because “America was more conservative” than Reagan when he left office.

I get it now.

You spend three days blaming Reaganomics for Obama’s failures and then try to dispute that Reagan moved the country to the right. Dude the only way Reagan could be having any impact on the country is if he had changed the political dynamics of the country. He had been out of office for 20 years before the crash. Of course, you are not smart enough to reason that out. My point is that the globalists have claimed policies were conservative to sell them to the general public when they were not so there is some logical consistency. Your arguments have no logical consistency. First, Reagan change the politics and had the country adopt Reaganomics but now you are claiming that the country did not move to the right. So had did we have thirty years of Reaganomics?

Serious Rio get back on your meds whether Obamacare covers them or not.

then try to dispute that Reagan moved the country to the right.

I get it. You said America was more conservative than Reagan when voodoo Reagan left office.

That’s why America elected a moderate right after Reagan and a 2 term Democrat just 4 years later. It all makes perfect sense now.

(Rasmussen has Sarah Palin ahead in Alaska)

had=how.

now you are claiming that the country did not move to the right.

Wrong. This is a classic example of Albuquerquedan’s penchant to twist and lie when out debated.

I never claimed the country didn’t move to the Right under voodoo economics Reagan.

Rather, I scoffed at Albuquerquedan’s farcical notion that America had turned MORE conservative than Reagan when voodoo economics Reagan left office.

English: It’s what they speak up there.

How do you explain the 1994 election?

How do you explain the 1994 election?

Like this:

The United States is a federation, with elected officials at the federal (national), state and local levels. On a national level, the head of state, the President, is elected indirectly by the people, through an Electoral College. Today, the electors virtually always vote with the popular vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are directly elected. There are many elected offices at state level, each state having at least an elective governor and legislature. There are also elected offices at the local level, in counties and cities. It is estimated that across the whole country, over one million offices are filled in every electoral cycle. wiki

“That’s why America elected a moderate President after Reagan and then an untested Democrat just 4 years later. I remember back then. 10s of millions of us Americans got whip-lash because our collective political opinion was changing so fast.”

Sorry Rio, nice try there is nothing in that statement to suggest that you were only trying to dispute my statement that the country was “arguably”more conservative than Reagan. Which was a minor point in the general point. Your statement is arguing against the country becoming more conservative under Reagan. You are a lot like Clinton arguing about the meaning of “is”. You are clearly suggesting in English that the country was rejecting conservatism at the end of his term not arguing the minor point of whether the country was more or less conservative than Reagan.

You and Obama are twin liars and the board and the country as a whole have seen through both of you.

How do you explain the 1994 election?

We are not in Kansas anymore.

Sorry Rio, nice try there is nothing in that statement to suggest that you were only trying to dispute my statement that the country was “arguably”more conservative than Reagan.

You are either a liar and hope people don’t notice or you are dumb. Nothing? There is nothing in that statement to suggest that I was trying to dispute that the country was more conservative than Reagan? Nothing? How about the whole first sentence that you dishonestly left out. Speak English liar?

Here’s the whole paragraph with the first sentence included. Let the HBB judge your lying by omission.

Yea, America had turned “more conservative” than Reagan when he left office. That’s why America elected a moderate President after Reagan and then an untested Democrat just 4 years later. I remember back then. 10s of millions of us Americans got whip-lash because our collective political opinion was changing so fast.

Lola…. how many times have you whined how horrible this blog has become and here you are calling people a liar…

Hypocrite.

Seriously Rio in the context of that entire paragraph that first sentence was met to be sarcasm and everyone knew it when they read it. You need to stop digging your lying hole deeper.

Rio, you would not have started off with the phrase “That’s why” is it was not sarcasm. God I love to get people like you under cross examination. Your type always thinks that they are good at lying but they are not.

I have two post coming out that point out just is doing the lying. It was not lying by omission and sentence that clearly is meant as sarcasm.

I do not why the words are getting transposed on this computer. Should be “that sentence is clearly meant as sarcasm”.

In the post above that it should be “If it was not sarcasm”.

ADan, we did the main component of Reaganomics/SupplySide BS for 3 decades. When is it going to “trickle-down”? When? Ever? Hint: If it has not in 3 decades it won’t EVER.

The failure of supply-side tax cuts

Commentary: We’re still waiting for the benefits to trickle down

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Some 30 years after the Republican Party was smitten by supply-side economics, the Grand Old Party remains faithful to the creed, even if history hasn’t been kind to the idea that tax cuts and deregulation alone will lead to a wondrous new era of American prosperity.

Mitt Romney’s economic platform is little changed from George W. Bush’s or Ronald Reagan’s. It’s sparse on details, likely because it can be summed up in four powerful words: Government IS the problem. Like Reagan and Bush, Romney says he’s positive that the American economy would thrive if we’d only liberate businesses (that is, “job creators”) from pesky regulations and onerous taxes.

….In the past 31 years, we’ve had three major supply-side tax cuts, which had the effect of reducing the top marginal rate from 70% to as low as 28%. The top rate is currently 35%, and it could go up to 40.9% if President Barack Obama gets his way.

…If the supply-siders were right, then investment should have boomed when tax rates were low, and faltered when Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton raised the top marginal rate in the early 1990s.

But that didn’t happen: Investment increased in the mid-1980s as the economy improved, then faded even as tax rates were lowered further. Investment boomed after the Bush-Clinton tax hikes, and increased again after the tax cuts early in President George W. Bush’s first term.
Is it cyclical or structural?

It appears investment is driven largely by economic forces, not by marginal tax rates as claimed by the supply-siders. The tax rate isn’t totally irrelevant, but it’s not that important either.

What do we mean by “supply-side” economics? Supply-side economists put a primacy on the production of goods and services, rather than on demand for those goods and services. To them, economic imbalances, high unemployment and tepid growth are due to barriers that stop producers from hiring, investing and growing their businesses.

Supply-side economists put a primacy on the production of goods and services, rather than on demand for those goods and services.

One of the
DUMBEST,
(PROVEN
TO
HAVE
FAILED)
ECONOMIC
“THEORY”…….EVER

You would like to ignore what has happened in the rest of the world. Many countries have lowered tax rates particularly the corporate rate to far below the US. Reaganomics worked, it created 24 million jobs in a recovery. It worked so well it was copied all over the world including Brazil as I have posted already today.

It also far more sustainable than the demand side economics which is government spending and encouraging spending on homes through artificially low interest rates. Most everyone on this board understands that buying a home is an expenditure and not an investment. But this administration just like the last one, wants to use home buying and equity extraction instead of giving incentives to build factories here to stimulate the economy. We need to address the lower corporate tax rates overseas and the avoidance of double taxation to get the economy going not create asset bubbles.

BTW, once again it is a commentary, a conclusory statement and not a fact that you point to, I know facts are stubborn things so for you it is best to use conclusory statements.

Reaganomics worked,

I said it worked “for awhile” then failed. Failed Big -screwed America. Here’s Reagan’s right hand man on SupplySide who says the same thing as me on Reaganomics. Read it and weap.

Reaganomics architect: “Capitalism has failed”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/10/16/pcr-review/

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is unquestionably one of the world’s leading political economists. His many awards include induction into the French Legion of Honor for his historic contributions to economics.

Dr. Roberts is still widely viewed as an apostle of free markets. He is perhaps best known as the Reagan Administration Assistant Secretary of the Treasury who ushered in supply-side economics and helped downsize government. When such a towering figure of free-market thinking says that laissez-faire capitalism has failed, it signals a seismic shift in his own thinking, or in history’s trajectory. Or maybe both.

Paul Craig Roberts says it’s the world, not himself, that has changed. He argues that the shift to supply side thinking – and subsequent slashing of tax rates and freeing up of markets – was a good idea at the time: the late 1970s. The big problem of the 1970s, Roberts says, was “as a result of inflation pushing up nominal incomes and saddling taxpayers with higher tax rates.” In those circumstances, cutting taxes to free up money for the markets reversed the vicious circle of higher taxes – less investment – a smaller pie – even higher taxes that was then ravaging Western economies.

This guy is obviously not a socialist. So when he says that free market approaches have failed, and it’s time for governments to jump back into economies in a big way, he must have some compelling reasons.

Those reasons should not be mysterious to anyone who has witnessed the implosion of the American economy during the past two decades. Roberts’ key points include:

*Markets are not self-regulating – they can only function if a referee ensures fair play, which is why deregulation has ushered in an era of pervasive looting and criminality.

*By deeming the biggest private financial institutions “too big to fail,” the market’s punishment for bad decisions is removed, encouraging limitless irresponsible and criminal behavior by the biggest players in the no-longer-free market.

*The destruction of labor unions has removed the power balance between labor and capital necessary to a viable free market.

*Jobs offshoring, which “has destroyed the productivity advantage of first world labor,” hollows out the real economy and cuts the connection between markets and human welfare.

Roberts argues that Americans have been socially, educationally, politically, and economically dispossessed by the new robber barons. Orwellian legislation including the NDAA with its indefinite detention provision, he says, has repealed the Bill of Rights and led to “the degeneration of American democracy into a police state.” (Elsewhere Roberts has noted the role of the 9/11 inside job in the destruction of American democracy.)

Here are some facts and how the rest of the world is applying supply side economics against us:

http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/ask-for-the-corporate-rate-or-not

Which is why we elected a moderate after Reagan

He was the sitting Vice President you Mangoo.

I’m pretty sure Lola is not even a single person.

So true. It is so interesting that if Obama was not so much of an ideologue he would have taken the escape hatch offered to him by Cruz. He could have delayed Obamacare by a year fixed the website and avoided the disaster prior to the 2014 election. The Progressive Democrats could have actually have done what they do best lie about how great it would have been to have Obamacare but the evil conservatives like Ted Cruz forced him to delay it. I still do not think it would have worked but a flawless launch of the website might have at least delayed the death spiral.

“It is so interesting that if Obama was not so much of an ideologue he would have taken the escape hatch offered to him by Cruz.”

It IS fascinating, isn’t it? Not only could Obama have had cover for a delay, but he ALSO could have blamed all sorts of stuff on republicans.

Unless of course, NeoCons = Progressives. If NeoCons in fact do sleep with Progressives, Obama’s hands would be tied, would they not? I think so.

Obama’s main problem now is that it takes longer than 2-3 years to destroy one-sixth of the American economy. While he understood THAT idea, he forgot the four-year election cycle window.

It is that which has really screwed his efforts to dictate.

He not only has to destroy healthcare during the next 34 months, he also has to replace it with something that works in the same timeframe.

And it MUST satisfy the American public as consumers. As consumers.

Let me repeat that: As Consumers.

Americans are not Europeans, much to the chagrin of liberal elitists.

Not only is Obama corrupt. He’s also a dummy.

Fair enough, gentlemen, I’m on board with this. I’ve sort of been leaning in that direction.

As to oxide’s assertion that the young want something more socialist, no. The fact that they are disturbed about Snowden demonstrates to me where their hearts are. Snowden sort of symbolizes them in the collective.

‘Americans are not Europeans’

A point I’ve made several times. We’re not Canadians either, no offense to the Canadian posters. We’re also not Latin Americans or Chinese. We don’t like being pushed around, told how to spend our money or direct our lives.

We don’t like being pushed around, told how to spend our money or direct our lives.

Is there really a single kind of American? Do we really all march in lock step to the same ideologies?

Seems to me these days these that the kind of American you paint here is quickly becoming the minority. In places like Silly Valley it already seems that way.

‘Do we really all march in lock step’

No, that’s exactly the point.

By lock step, I meant that you were implying that we all have a “don’t tread on me” attitude.

You said that we aren’t Europeans, Canadians, Chinese or Latin Americans. I would say that many of us are, so much so that we hyphenate who we are, and thus are not the way you describe. Your description probably fits you and the people you hang out with. But take Mexican-Americans. Many think that it’s just fine and dandy for Mexico City to tell Washington how to handle its immigration policy.

He not only has to destroy healthcare during the next 34 months, he also has to replace it with something that works in the same timeframe.

You give him too much credit. The health care as we know has already been on unstopable destruction path. Yes Obama is acclerating the destruction, but it’s just that. Obama administration is run by a very close circle PR shysters. Managing expectation is their only governing principle, not solving or fixing problems.

Unfortunately Ben, Colorado is right. There are more of them than more of you. As long as republicrats are in charge, they will not stop until you are one of them.

Somebody was saying the other day the world doesn’t want self sufficient America. Neither do our masters.

Jose, you’re off the mark on the Snowden thing, at least in my understanding from reading liberal websites. Yes it’s true, the libs don’t like Obama’s handling of Snowden. But the overall lib goal is to gain civil rights and a free internet, not to directly protest Obama.

While not liking Obama on this, they see him as the lesser of two evils. Libs believe that that the conservatives will be even LESS likely to give them civil rights and a free internet. It was the Bush Admin which pushed the PATRIOT act and FISA in the first place. And the libs believe that the business-lobbied conservatives will simply hand the internet over to corporate control anyway. I remember some debate about that years ago, when some ISP’s made noises about allowing faster speeds for preferred sites and slowing speeds for rogue sites?

“While not liking Obama on this, they see him as the lesser of two evils”.

No, they saw him as the lesser of two evils. Now, after seeing him lie to them about giving them affordable health care, cyber-spying and not having a decent job market during his entire presidency, they are deserting him and the media outlets that continue to support him. Just look at the ratings for MSNBC.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2540162

This shows the ratings. Not that I support Fox since their version of conservative views is the Rove/Bush establishment version and they are hostile to the libertarian or Palin/Cruz conservatism. However, they have a few shows like Stossel that are worth watching.

while irritating, proves that even the most shrill liberals are feeling Big Government’s smothering effects.

Yea right. I’m really “feeling USA’s Big Government smothering effects”. Really feeling it…in Portuguese.

What I’m feeling down here is 93 degrees and 70% humidity.

Obama’s main problem now is that it takes longer than 2-3 years to destroy one-sixth of the American economy.

Republican fallacies on Obamacare: the greatest hits

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-republican-fallacies-on-obamacare/2013/12/04/49b2a71a-5ce7-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story_1.html

…..The “Obama is taking over one-sixth of the economy” ruse. In the Fox News cocoon, this truth is self-evident. But it makes as much sense as crying that Ben Bernanke is “remaking 6/6ths of the economy” every time the Fed touches interest rates. The fact that health-care spending is 18 percent of GDP doesn’t mean Obama is “remaking” or “taking over” anything. He’s tweaking a dysfunctional corner of the market where 5 percent of us get our health coverage. He’s also testing ideas that health gurus in both parties have long suggested might help reign in future costs.

….Worse than these GOP fallacies is the party’s smug sanctimony. It’s as if conservatives have decided to parody the moral preening they loathe in liberals, except that the right is serious. As one pundit lectured, “the administration didn’t care enough to make sure the people of their country were protected. In the middle of a second age of anxiety they decided to make America more anxious.”

Yes, the rollout was botched. But what is this person talking about? Finally assuring that illness in the United States can’t be the cause of financial ruin is the very essence of “protection.” How galling that conservatives can make such hollow charges while putting forward no plan of their own to “protect” anyone from anything!

a-dan, I don’t think that disliking Obama is going to make the libs gravitate more conservative. Aren’t they more likely to polarize even more left, like the Tea Party polarized right? It would make for amusing campaign ads: “No really, I AM a witch!”

–
Jose, the libs discussed the shutdown politics at length. Obama did not delay Obamacare for a reason. In a practical sense, he had to start getting young people, at least some of them, to pay for the pre-existers.

Politically, Republicans have been notorious for moving the goal posts. They shut down the government and demanded a delay in Obamacare. What if Obama had appeased them? The R’s would just shut down the government again in January and demand a longer delay, or a full repeal, or raise the Medicare age, or approve the Keystone pipeline, or some other hostage, in return for opening the government. And on top of that the R’s could score political points by whining that Obama “won’t negotiate.” In fact several R’s crowed about this. They suggested that they only pass continuing resolutions for 2-3 months at a time, so they would have many opportunities to extract lots of concessions.

Obama fell for this in 2011 with the fiscal cliff and got burned. This time, Obama followed Harry Reid’s plan and called their bluff. He told them to kill the hostages quickly, or let them go, but he wasn’t going to allow them to kill the hostage slowly, which is what they had been doing. The R’s had to back down in the face of another debt ceiling default. Heck, they didn’t even get the National Parks.

Oxide, if you think that the net result of the debt ceiling fight was positive, I have some more real estate to sell you, the Brooklyn bridge. Democrats gained from the initial confrontation but now that Cruz has been vindicated, the Republicans have been the clear winner. So Reid’s approach has been a loser or looser as we like to say on the board.

Look at this tracking poll see the great position the democrats were at on October 13, 2013 and where they are now. Compare where they were before the shutdown and they are now:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

“What I’m feeling down here is 93 degrees and 70% humidity.”

Well get your hands out of your pants and respond to my comment on obesity if you can.

Look at this tracking poll see the great position the democrats were at on October 13, 2013 and where they are now.

Typical ADan…..looking at snapshots in time 11 months before the election and getting all ADD excited like it will mean a lot in November 2014.

(Rasmussen has Ted Cruz leading in Utah)

Good grief.

… rather some other guys pants.

You have a point HA, he did not specify when he was feeling “down here” that he had his hands in his own pants.

Hoo boy, more fat bashing today on the HBB.

For the record, technically I am obese. My size doesn’t affect my activity level. And last time I took an IQ test I was well into the 2% occasionally even 1%. So am I the outlier in your fat=stupid meme? My mom’s dad and brother are/were fat and they were acclaimed in their fields. Mom’s pretty bright, too. Although it comes in spells now.

My medical costs are $7 month for Rx along with a couple of GP visits and the usual tests recommended for everyone of my age or gender. So please don’t accuse me of bankrupting the health care system. Plus consider I don’t suffer from the stress of dealing with the bosses or workplaces as described above. That is bound to help my health.

Sorry, if I offended you. There are exceptions to every rule. But in general obese people use more medical care and there is a strong correlation between IQ and people eating right and getting exercise. I am glad you are a success and perhaps you are even fit. One defect in the evaluation is that muscle mass and bone density is not properly considered.

Just one study:

http://newmedicaljournal.blogspot.com/2007/12/obesity-and-iq.html

I have to go but I think the rest of the blog can deal with Rio/Lola

I have to go but I think the rest of the blog can deal with Rio/Lola

Run. I showed you lie big.

There’s a faudster/liar here Lola and you’re it.

But take Mexican-Americans. Many think that it’s just fine and dandy for Mexico City to tell Washington how to handle its immigration policy

I wonder how American-Mexicans feel?

Massive schooling of Lola today. Flat out caught lying. His performance was even worse than a couple if days ago. I think it’s just a single account that a couple of people use pretending to be Lola. Spreading the memes they are paid to spread.

Lola has certainly degenerated into mindless yammering about truth, facts and math. Strangely, his/posts are devoid of all three.

more fat bashing today on the HBB

I cringe when I see that here, too. No one here has a kind, intelligent, talented overweight family member? I also learned here lately that smart people are less likely to be obese. I thought that compassion would be linked with high intelligence (such as the people who post here, but…no.)

I saw this a couple of months ago, interesting:
What if We’re Wrong About Diabetes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhLBPPtlrY

The food is bad. The nutrition advice is generally bad.

I think these really obese people are canaries in the coal mine. When did they start to appear? When the food became Frankenfood? I’m sure Henry the Eighth was just a little chubby in comparison to an average size person.

Remember….. A housing recovery is falling prices to dramatically lower and more affordable levels… by definition.

So you are correct…… this recovery is real!

Hey, did you notice that I didn’t agree with prices going up. I said that PITI would go up.

I still maintain that higher interest rates may make prices fall, but prices won’t fall enough to so that PITI remains the same. House prices will fall — some — to where cash buyers think they are worth buying.

For example, the PI for a $400K house at 10% down and 4% APR is $1718. If interest rates rise to 7%, the price of that same house would have to drop to $284K just to give the same PI of ~$1716 (same 10% down). Do you really think a $400K house will drop to $284K? Heck no. Some foreign buyer or investment firm will buy the house for $340K or so, cash. The PI for the $340K house would be $2035, but the investor doesn’t care because he paid cash.

Thus, rising interest rates will ultimately raise PITI to where J6P can’t afford to buy.

‘Some foreign buyer or investment firm will buy the house’

I realize this is the linch-pin of your theory. What is already in motion is these “investors” are getting slaughtered. I suggest you follow the Invitation Homes website and watch them choke on all the empty houses. The “investors” in Las Vegas are dumping their rent houses on the MLS, and the short sales are piling in right behind them.

And if the loan based segment of the market is so meaningless, why does the REIC freak out at any suggestion of getting rid of the GSE’s. Why do they storm DC if loan caps are discussed? In all the markets I’ve read about, I’ve can’t recall a majority of sales going to all cash. And even if they did, it would only last a month or 3.

Heck, did you not notice that most of the “institutional investors” have already cashed out, via securities or IPO’s? The bags have been distributed to the bag-holders.

Do you hear that sound? The quiet? That’s the media saying next to nothing. Boy, they were sure full of themselves a few months ago. And what you do hear is talking the market down. “Sellers are going to have to get more realistic”…”there’s more choice for buyers”. Yeah, like the buyers that are now underwater from purchases made 6 months ago!

Ben, I agree, that’s a linchpin of my theory. I agree that anyone who buys now is probably buying at another peak/shoulder, or at least on another plateau.

As an example of slaughter, do you mean that CALPERS has realized its gains from the 2012-2013 housing run-up and withdrawn its money from Blackstone? Leaving Blackstone with houses that they have to rent out? And Blackstone is about to go belly-up on their scheme? That’s news I haven’t seen yet. But here’s my question. What if that $400K house did drop back down to $340K, 4-5 years from now? Would CALPERS send money to a new Blackstone for another round of cash buys, arresting the price drop at $340K?

My theory may be proved wrong, but we’ll have to wait for a mild price drop to see what happens.

So when prices fall, the monthly nut goes up?

Why don’t you explain that one.

You’re better than this, HA. In this scenario thread, prices are falling because interest rates went up. You’re twisting my words and you know it.*

So, when prices fall and interest rates go up, then the fall in principle, i.e. price, has to be substantial enough to outpace the rise in interest, i.e. interest rate.

My example was the $400K house. If interest rate goes from 4% to 7%, then the price has to fall almost 30% to keep the SAME PITI.** If the price does NOT fall that far, than the PITI on the cheaper house with high interest rate will be higher than the PITI on the expensive house with low interest rate.

HBB has gone over this many times. The advantage to buying a cheap house with high interest rate is that you can refi to a lower interest rate and pay less, and/or your extra payments to principle go further toward paying off the house.

I agree with this. It IS better to buy a cheap house in a high-rate environment. BUT, when is the last time we saw a cheap house in a high rate environment? 15-18 years ago? A lot of boomers lucked into that situation. They bought when they were 32 and refied that interest rate — in fact they are a high percentage of the “mortgage applications” from the last year. The boomers who refi’d without extracting equity are sitting pretty even post-crash.

But Gen X and Gen Y will not have that luck. WHEN

as always… when when when

can we expect to see low prices and high interest again? I could be in my 50’s, and that’s assuming that cash buyers let house prices fall, which I argue will NOT happen. What’s a gen-x-er to do? Rent for another decade and then it will be too late?

————–
* and since I called you out on this, I expect your next post to be the usual “you’re a debt donkey” non-response.
**actually, my example used the PI portion of PITI. Taxes and insurance will fall a little with house value too, but not significantly enough to change the overall outcome.

Boomers “lucked into” paying normal prices? and the other 200 years worth of buyers just happened to “luck into” it too? LOLZ

I don’t think so my friend. The anomaly is the inflated price, not the long term typical price.

You’re level of denial is commensurate with your level of debt.

“explain that one…”

Let me help. If interest rates go up, landlords will charge more for rent, which the sheep will have to pay or buy a house, which will make house prices go up. This is just a theory.

I have another theory about how if the Fed stops printing, the dollar will collapse. Just a theory.

“If interest rates go up, landlords will charge more for rent, which the sheep will have to pay or buy a house, which will make house prices go up. This is just a theory.”

Yeah. The Magic Money Tree Theory.

Even in the absence of tens of millions of excess empty houses, this “theory” falls flat. If it were true, the ongoing housing collapse would have never happened.

When vacancy rates go up, home prices and rents go up too. Just like that when interest rates go up, home prices go up too.

There are formulas that prove it, I studied it in Economics class.

OK Hoax now, I am sure your whole reason to post is to take an absurd position favoring buying . You are what you claim to be a hoax.

I have 3,653 followers on Twitter, And I get new followers every day.

How many followers do you have?

I think Blue was being sarcastic.

Your historically “normal” prices are based on historically high interest rates. If you want those normal prices back, you’ll have to accept the high interest rates that caused the prices to be normal.

“What’s a gen-x-er to do?

Our government and the Federal Reserve have royally screwed a generation or three.

I think you are wrong though about speculators stabilizing the housing market if it crashes. A falling market will have speculators rushing for the exits, which will make the fall more violent and extensive. Speculators mostly avoid a falling asset like the plague.

It is likely that interest rates will go up when the job market is better. You need to factor this into your thinking.

The worst scenario for housing is stagflation, where we will end up with high rates and a weak job market.

They’re already going up.

Factor that.