The Housing Bubble

I had a pretty big cd collection (still have it’s now in boxes), but going to all digital is 100 times better in my opinion. You can listen to your own music anywhere (radio in every city in the US is the same and awful), you can get the lyrics right there with the track, you can search and find anything, and you can group them into playlists without moving, which is extra nice for short albums, singles, and EPs.

I’m not sold on a kindle for books, but digital music is awesome.

yeah, i’ve been getting rid of unused cd’s over the past year i used to have 2 of these racks …now down to 1 …but that’s not counting all the cd’s in my dj case or case logic books…

What i have left is an extensive collection of zydeco blues soul New Orleans mardi gras type music…which i would only sell to another dj because it would be for business say 500 cd’s for $5000

And probably 300+ of the greatest hits cd’s from abba to zappa
plus my favorites

http://www.boltz.com/cd-floor-rack-shelving-cd-1200.html

I collect CDs and LPs so I can own certain recordings, along with the artwork and notes, but it would make no sense for pop music. I got a record player for my birthday a few yrs ago that can record from records or CDs into mp3 format, but there is some quality loss. mp3’s aren’t that great when you listen to them on a good speaker system, but FLAC is awesome. You have to look pretty hard to find FLAC recordings (unless someone knows a trick to share with us). FLAC files are also considerably larger than mp3.

Digital music is clearly the future. I currently use Slacker on my commute but that doesn’t work through my ps3/home entertainment set up so I may switch to MusicUnlimited, which is a Sony service. The sound through my 5.1 set up is flawless and MusicUnlimited costs like $8/month. They have essentially every song you could want, via licensing agreements with basically everyone.

Pandora works via Google Chromecast, which works with any TV with a USB port. I use that in the living room sometimes.

Liberace!

Downlow Joe has entered the building.

Joey all Flac is the digital music without all the error correcting bits need to keep a cd player on speed and to replace broken streams when there is a scratch

Thats why you only save about 20% when converting.

Not much different then the old SAE 5000 pop and click filter it delays the signal a few milliseconds then extrapolates the sound to cover over the pop or clicks.

I still have all my cds, even though I have ripped them to the hard drive and rarely use an actual cd player. Hard drives crash, guaranteed. I like having a physical backup.

Also, not everything is available digitally. Only people who have very limited taste in music think things like Pandora, Spotify, or Musicunlimited have “essentially every song you could want.” If I am at work and want to hear a certain album that is a favorite of mine, 9 times out of 10 it isn’t on any of these services. I’ll keep my out of print cds and never-got-reissued lps, thanks.

I still have a near mint copy of Mad cliff totally OOP…

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Madcliff-self-titled-LP-Guinness-Records-Funk-Soul-Disco-Mad-Cliff-/131000251715

renters are good till they stop paying rent.

Why would they stop paying rent when the option is to commit financial suicide and pay a massively inflated price for a depreciating house?

Live with a squadette? NEVER! And who says there’s just one? We have one out in Telluride that is just far enough away to not cross paths with the local squadette du jour.

And regarding rent, without getting too specific, it is pretty cheap, I would expect to pay 50% more for a comparable rental in the Highlands or Capitol Hill. I pay 11.5% of gross income to rent in the 80210.

Thanks for clarifying. And now we know where you spend all the money you save by renting

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigt. I paid $1270 per. Month in a neighborhood of $600,000 1959s mold haven boxes.

1950s

And you have to pay enormous chunks of fiat to be a drone. But Homey Claus Bill don’t do that.

Got it HoaxterAmy?

“it makes them immobile”

There are people in my office who spend over three hours a day in the car commuting, because of the debt shack they are stuck in. And to them I say, you are a capital L LOOSER!

There are people in my office who spend over three hours a day in the car commuting, because of the debt shack they are stuck in. And to them I say, you are a capital L LOOSER!

Where do they commute from? Vail? Pueblo?

Boulder to near Buckley AFB in Aurora.

I’ve done the reverse of this drive in the afternoon to go rock climbing in Eldorado Canyon, and it’s never taken less than an hour.

Boulder to near Buckley AFB in Aurora.

Don’t they take the E-470? I know it’s pricey, but IIRC you can get from Interlocken to DIA in about 30 minutes or less.

This clown-car driver is an admin, not an analyst, don’t think she can afford the 470 tolls.

So why not sell the Boulder residence? They do sell McMansions in Aurora … and they’re much cheaper too.

And be priced out forever?

I am the king of mobility. Yup Unca Fed, the only exception would be multimillionaire 1099 contractors working out of their Jackson Hole estates. They would be better off owning. Anyone with a net worth under $3 mill are better off renting. And squirreling away the leftover savings into stock index funds.

You got a problem with CAPITALISM?

Sorry, I meant STRUCTURE only.

OK that should put a good lid on McMansions…

LOLZ!

Very pretty. Ah, the green, and the blue sky, look like heaven right now from the frozen Northland.

Congrats to your wife on her achievement! Sounds like your family is doing well. Thanks for the update!

Sure it does! Lolz

Thanks. I hope all is well with you.

Yuppers, and she’s the first in her family to go to college…

Is demand collapsing for everything but dollars?

That’s a BS argument. Nobody wants to kill you….they just seek revenge.

Interested in your opinion on this dj;

Excerpt; But can city government save Dasani? As Elliott never hesitates to remind readers, Dasani is not unique. There are 22,000 homeless children in New York City. It is, she writes, “the highest number since the Great Depression

http://www.city-journal.org/2013/eon1211bm.html

the highest number since the Great Depression

Someone said that without QE, there will soup lines in the street. Soup lines are already here and this story is a perfect example of how QE is slowly destroying lives.

scdave…..so what?

We have a new incoming weepy eyed mayor who will tax people to death to provide shelters for these people…

and of course there is no personal responsibility attached to the money….which has always been my complaint.

plus you dont want to hear this but black people refuse to adopt their own …a dirty secret… plus the court bend over backward to keep this child homeless. It takes a lot to terminate parental rights when it should be easy to do so.

——520-square-foot room with her parents and seven siblings….ummmm who’s fault is that???

the metal detector and the tall, iron fence that envelops what she calls “the jail.”……….they should be in ALL public housing projects

Families like Dasani’s had been leaving the state……maybe that’s a good thing….maybe a trailer in North Carolina will be better the what she has now.

Why isn’t sharpton calling for adoptable black families or churches to come forward?

The question is how can we stop the breeding like rats forgive the expression…What chance do those 8 kids have to development into productive adults…Think about the Gauntlet they must go through growing up to ultimately become reasoning adults…China had a 1 child policy for a reason…

“breeding like rats”

Racist

dave:

make the parents sit in English classes 20 hours a week for their EBT card. then when they get the ged and can speak English, maybe some job training or work requirements.

But NYC cut most job training money except for minority type employment home health aides security guards ramp agents at airports….

I stated many times before the biggest failure of clintons welfare reform and unemployment, was it forced people to be slaves, meaningless work “job” nothing to put on a resume that would make it easier to find a real job and get off welfare. It was punitive instead of helpful.

Plus rules stated you could not accept a intern no pay “job” even if it was in your field to make your resume look up to date because all work had to be paid to be counted so working in a car wash was acceptable with a college degree and working for free at say Conde Nash was not.

my failure to respect is unacceptable:That’s a BS argument. Nobody wants to kill you….they just seek revenge.

Actually, for the Qaeda-like jihadists (QLJs), it is convert (and submit to my will, which is conveniently also God’s will) or die.

In Muslim countries, the activities of the Qaeda-like jihadists are tacitly approved as long as the activity is taking place against non-Islamic targets.

But the QLJs are such true believers, they wind up shredding their Islamic neighbors who might not meet the QLJ standards.

So, while there is a component of vengeance, for past wrongs, real and perceived, their is also a very strong religious fervor and a lust for power. That is evidenced by the killings of fellow Muslims who don’t meet the QLJ standards of behavior.

Dave this is what i mean its all over:

Marchella, 4, was beaten and starved in front of her elder brother Tymel by their mother

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155853/Marchella-Brett-Pierces-brother-brought-food-funeral-eat-heaven.html

I’m just proposing the argument it seems there is a lot of controversy surrounding fracking.

The brown cloud is a job creator.

Plus the Broncos win when there is a brown cloud. Between the smog and the high altitude, most opponents just keel over.

Payton’s neck disagrees with you. It says broncos will win this year in the pristine air.

You can also frac shale to allow oil to flow which is happening in ND and Texas.

The lone fatality out of eight people…

Oh, and by the way, Clinton did NOT have sex with that woman.

And people who think he did are loony sexers. They need to knock off the “sexerism”.

Looks that way……what other jobs are created?

We had naked women before we had oil/gas wells.

but with all that oil gas $$$ they must all be doing really well today.

Baaahhhhh! The sheep can’t tell the meadow from the meadow muffin.

We got you nailed too.

The United States can produce like no other country.

but increasing taxation and regulation is hamstringing our ability to produce.

Of course the United States government is apparently becoming a totalitarian regime, so things may change, but I’m just sayin’.

yes, and things are already changing.

Yes but boxes on the boat are verifiable…

Fake like the signer at Mendala funeral

It’s already been discussed here…you want to buy at low prices and the “wrong” rate. The win comes later…or right away if you have cash.

Nonsense.

Given the current price fixing, $60k is lower working class.

<iGiven the current price fixing, $60k is lower working class.

I would agree. I know everyone, except the rich of course likes to be called middleclass, but I think you have to have at least an income of 100k (+/- 30%) to be called a middleclass in this world of price fixing.

50k or 60k is a working class.

Not in most of America. I know people who make 60k who live quite well compared to 1965 middle class.

And why?

Because housing is massively overpriced in “most of america”.

I think that there are a couple of different meanings of middle class. Since biblical times people have spoken about the rich and the poor. I think that some people think that anyone who is neither rich nor poor is in the middle, or middle class.

The funny thing about this is that is seems to me that this way of thinking may have become prevalent in the 1970s, just at the time when middle class was starting to decline and the ability of people with working class jobs to have middle class standards of living was also starting to become a thing of the past.

tj:

What evidence do you have that our tariffs used to cause US companies to close down?

Our economy was better when we had tariffs. Much better. Do you remember what things were like in the 90s, 80s, or 70s? If you look at historical unemployment rates and incomes compared to inflation, you will see that our sad financial state coincides quite perfectly with the decimation of our tariffs.

you were talking about jobs being driven offshore.

why not address the points i made before going to tariffs?

Do you remember what things were like in the 90s, 80s, or 70s?

We all know that. China hadn’t opened up its doors. Regulations and laws were somewhat tolerable. Fed was somewhat responsible.

It’s not one thing….It’s a combination of bad decisions on all front.

tj:

My original comment was tariff-based.

The thing that used to prevent offshoring was tariffs. You had to pay a tariff to import manufactured goods from countries that did not respect basic human rights. When a country does not respect basic human rights, the people of that country end up working for slave wages. The point of a tariff is to prevent people in productive (rich) countries from competing with slaves for wages. Without tariffs, large companies are incentivized to manufacture their goods in Asia or Africa, and then try to sell those goods to high-paid Americans. This is unsustainable because, as American wages decline, they cease to be useful as customers, and the race to the bottom accelerates.

The point of a tariff is to prevent people in productive (rich) countries from competing with slaves for wages.

the true objective of tariffs is to protect economies or certain industries from competition. in any case, tariffs are always destructive.

let’s reduce your sentence to see what’s being said at the core.. ‘to prevent people in productive (rich) countries from competing with slaves for wages.

you want to prevent productive people from competing. that’s a formula for disaster.

tariffs are the most destructive form of tax because they affect a county’s entire economy. not only are they counter productive, they invite retaliation. we should remember the lessons of smoot-hawley. they are as valid now as they were then.

Without tariffs, large companies are incentivized to manufacture their goods in Asia or Africa

large or small companies are always incentivized to find cost effective labor. that certainly doesn’t mean the cheapest labor. with higher skills, labor is more productive and many companies have found that they can’t make stuff cheaper anywhere else, even with cheaper labor.

on top of everything else, it is immoral to tell anyone whom they may or may not hire. no entity should have that power, because that power is in itself akin to slavery.

standard morality should be adhered to regardless of the perceived drawbacks because we are not omniscient, and don’t see all the drawbacks even when we think we do.

This is unsustainable because, as American wages decline, they cease to be useful as customers

we don’t need useful consumers, we need useful producers. without production there would be nothing to consume. and with enhanced production consumption becomes easy and cheap.

tj:

It is not valid to simply remove half of the words from my sentence, take the remaining words out of context, and then claim that you have reduced my argument to its core. That is called “ignoring the point”.

Competition within a system of fair and meaningful laws, which apply to everyone equally, is good. Competition with slaves is bad. Slavery is not compatible with capitalism. That’s why we outlawed it in the United States. Competition between people living under two different sets of rules is bad. It’s not an even playing field.

tj - You and the other Free-Traders never seem to have an answer to my question. If tariffs are so bad, then how come our economy has always been good when we used tariffs, and has always been bad when we didn’t use tariffs. (Hint: There have only been two times in US history when we tried to abandon tarrifs. One time is now.)

Competition within a system of fair and meaningful laws, which apply to everyone equally, is good. Competition with slaves is bad.

people who get wages of any kind aren’t ’slaves’.

another point is that slavery is uneconomical. you get much more production from wages than slavery.

Slavery is not compatible with capitalism.

trivially true.

Competition between people living under two different sets of rules is bad. It’s not an even playing field.

you don’t get to decide what rules people in other countries ‘play under’. and the ‘playing field’ is always in a state of flux. production isn’t a game. at its core, it’s life and death. if you want to succeed, you better be the most efficient producer.

You and the other Free-Traders never seem to have an answer to my question.

i’ve answered many times and you just don’t like the answer.

If tariffs are so bad, then how come our economy has always been good when we used tariffs

it hasn’t. but even if it had, it wouldn’t be because of tariffs. don’t believe me? try explaining how tariffs increase production. i’ll negate one argument from the start. making a certain county’s production more expensive in your country, won’t increase production in your country. instead, it will lessen overall demand in your country. tariffs always hurt the imposer the most.

(Hint: There have only been two times in US history when we tried to abandon tarrifs. One time is now.)

hint: economies are more complex than you seem to think.

“and the ‘playing field’ is always should always be in a state of flux.”

But it’s not due to interference and distortions imposed by govt’s and central banks.

But it’s not due to interference and distortions imposed by govt’s and central banks.

they make things worse by trying to make them better.

They are the price fixers. They are the core of the problem.

tj:

Offshoring is much less productive than local manufacturing. It’s absurd how much waste is involved. The shipping, poor quality, circular communication cycles, and wasted parts/time all add up to one terribly inefficient system. It is more profitable to CEOs because of distortions in our economic system, but it is not more efficient or more productive. I also think the CEO-profit-factor is temporary, and has been on the decline for a few years now.

Offshoring is much less productive than local manufacturing.

it should be. but taxation and over regulation tend to made offshoring more and more attractive.

It is more profitable to CEOs because of distortions in our economic system, but it is not more efficient or more productive.

high taxes and regs is what causes the misallocation of capital or the ‘distortions’ as you put it.

I also think the CEO-profit-factor is temporary, and has been on the decline for a few years now.

CEO compensation should only be the concern of company shareholders. no one else. after all, it’s their profit that the CEO is dipping into. if he’s a good competent CEO, they’ll be happy to pay him well. but no matter how good he is, they must also guard against overpaying him.

“they’ll be happy to pay him well. but no matter how good he is, they must also guard against overpaying him.”

TJ… you are a pollyanna on so many levels… you think managed fund board of directors don’t get 51% control, then vote in their cronies to run companies? You think companies with offshore operations don’t offer to make campaign contributions to continue passing laws that benefit their indentured servant offshore labor? You think workers at a company shouldn’t care how it is operated and run since their blood, sweat, and tears go in and their livelihood comes out?

Unions for private workers have been one of the godsends of the american middle class. Unfortunately they were too successful for their own good, and the money and power they consolidated attracted greed and corruption. This morphed into the public worker union,which is just a shit institution all around.

“high taxes and regs is what causes the misallocation of capital or the ‘distortions’ as you put it.” - it is stupid to tax and regulate your own producers, then to allow foreign goods into your market with no requirement for production regulation compliance or tariff tax equalization… you CAN quote me on that.

You think workers at a company shouldn’t care how it is operated and run since their blood, sweat, and tears go in and their livelihood comes out?

it is stupid to tax and regulate your own producers, then to allow foreign goods into your market with no requirement for production regulation compliance or tariff tax equalization

Yes, exactly! That’s exactly what I mean.

TJ… you are a pollyanna on so many levels…

and you’re a bleeding heart at so many levels.

You think workers at a company shouldn’t care how it is operated and run since their blood, sweat, and tears go in and their livelihood comes out?

oh waa, waa. whine away. they didn’t start the company, did they? if they don’t like how it’s run or how they’re paid, get another job. you’re just another closet socialist.

Unions for private workers have been one of the godsends of the american middle class.

what a moron.

Unfortunately they were too successful for their own good, and the money and power they consolidated attracted greed and corruption.

yes, their extortion was ‘too successful’.

This morphed into the public worker union,which is just a shit institution all around.

every union is a shit institution.

it is stupid to tax and regulate your own producers

it is especially stupid to tax and regulation them into oblivion.

then to allow foreign goods into your market with no requirement for production regulation compliance or tariff tax equalization…

more meaningless terms as an excuse for more protectionism. let mathguy decide what gets in and what everyone gets paid. no one will work for you mathguy.

you CAN quote me on that.

i just did.

you CAN quote me on that.

Hey tj:

- Shareholders didn’t start the company. If they don’t like it, then they can find another stock market. I can’t understand why people insist on creating laws that give shareholders a right to vote.

- Executives didn’t start the company. If they don’t like it, then they can find another job.

- The people who started the company already sold it, so they no longer have a dog in the fight.

You are just another closet Mitt-Romney-lover. You may consider yourself to be one of the people who might be allowed onto “the team”, but you’re not. You are an employee. Your ability to move up the socioeconomic ladder has been greatly reduced, in comparison to your dad’s chances. If you know what’s good for you, then you will advocate for own well-being.

- Shareholders didn’t start the company. If they don’t like it, then they can find another stock market.

it’s nearly ALWAYS how a small company gets big. shareholders don’t need another stock market to find a different stock.

- Executives didn’t start the company. If they don’t like it, then they can find another job.

and if they do like it, they’ll take the offer. none of them accept an offer if they don’t like it. what’s your point?

- The people who started the company already sold it, so they no longer have a dog in the fight.

wrong. most of the time they’ve only sold part of it. then they would still have a big stake in the company. and in the rare instance they did sell all of it, so what? what difference would it make in running the company properly?

You are just another closet Mitt-Romney-lover.

i sure wish he’d have won.

You may consider yourself to be one of the people who might be allowed onto “the team”, but you’re not.

what does this mean?

You are an employee. Your ability to move up the socioeconomic ladder has been greatly reduced, in comparison to your dad’s chances. If you know what’s good for you, then you will advocate for own well-being.

sounds like you’re babbling now.

So…we complain of high stupid pensions for people deserving or undeserving, yet do not realize how many of those people make up the middle class. We bitch about unemployment extensions but do not realize that those payments keep many in the middle class. We do not understand that erasing $200,000 in legitimate debt through bankruptcy or forgiven house debt allows them to stay in the middle class. We don’t like what we are. That’s ok. Just expand enough to see your station in life.as.seen from those.above.us and below us.

It looks like the system is entirely weighted.to the middle.class.

Which is it? We like those things sowe do not.see them as assistance to the middle class more than anyone else, or.We are horribly wrong.about who is actually inhabiting the middle class.

Capital doesn’t create technology. People do.

but people can’t build most technology, like automation and robots, without large amount of dollars. and they can’t get those dollars unless they borrow them from people who have saved them. and people who saved them won’t lend them without a good return. wealth makes the ‘good’ world go ’round.

i could comment on the rest of what you wrote, but i’ll be polite and let Hi-Z answer. forgive the interruption.

tj:

If the people with the capital want to create their own technology, then fine. But they mostly don’t, so there is no point in even thinking about it.

If the people with the capital want to create their own technology, then fine. But they mostly don’t, so there is no point in even thinking about it.

then the factories and things that make your life easier never get built. you wouldn’t like it if things worked the way you think they should.

tj:

You are just arguing for the sake of argument. It takes financial AND human resources to start a company. After that, one hopes that profits alone can do the trick.

It takes financial AND human resources to start a company.

look back at this thread. that’s EXACTLY what i’ve been saying. it’s YOU that seems to think only human resources are necessary.

you can’t build and do great things without the big bucks.

In that case, we probably shouldn’t have trade policy that ships the big bucks directly out of this country, and into the hands of our communist parisite (i.e., China).

we shouldn’t buy from china?

we don’t ’ship big bucks directly out of the country’. we buy things. we get products for our dollars.

too bad we don’t sell more. we’re not competitive enough. we don’t produce enough here anymore.

Yes, tj, you’re right. We should be come just like China, in order to “compete” with the Chinese subjects who are thrilled to earn enough money to afford a T-shirt. Then our political and corporate elite can be just like the same in China, with billions of corrupt dollars to control everything.

Whatever.

Mitt Romney had a problem with China when he was running for President.

Yes, tj, you’re right. We should be come just like China

sarcasm noted. but there’s one little problem. as we become more like china (towards communism), china is striving to become more like we used to be (towards capitalism).

as long as they remain on the capitalism trail, they’ll be gaining on us..

You’re missing Uncle Fed’s point. To compete with China by becoming more like China would involve paying our manufacturing workers so little that they would barely be able to feed themselves. On top of that we would have to reduce our environmental laws and have the kind of air pollution that they have, along with the attendant helath problems.

You’re missing Uncle Fed’s point.

i didn’t miss it, i just disagree with it.

did you ever google for the CRAs that i told you existed before 1913? i suspect you did and found out i was right and that’s why you never answered.

To compete with China by becoming more like China would involve paying our manufacturing workers so little that they would barely be able to feed themselves.

it would involve nothing of the sort. we could easily out compete them if we rolled back our creeping socialism.

they are still communistic in many aspects. they’re just making improvements.

On top of that we would have to reduce our environmental laws and have the kind of air pollution that they have, along with the attendant helath problems.

no, all we’d need to do is let entrepreneurs make a profit controlling pollution. big government doesn’t allow that now. now we’ve got the ineffectual, corrupt, bought off EPA.

Mentioned earlier is the high cost of automation. Not at all.

Automated factories are controlled at each function by a pre programmed controller costing generally under $30,000 and almost all controllers are the same looking type of box.

You can actually have a fully automated plant with one cheap self loading robotic arm being controlled by a cheap controller making hockey sticks ! Cost well under $25,000.

Think of Walt Disney and his animated characters of 20 years ago. Those stunted images look almost real now.

Same direction “robots” are going in.

Only when more CanAms develop robotic applications in their garages will we once again get long lasting quality products.

TJ:

What’s a CRA again? That must have been a couple of months ago. I seem to recall someone else telling you that you should supply the facts for your argument instead of telling me to go Google them.

Also, if Chinese manufacturing workers get paid 1/10 of what their American counterparts get paid, that is going to be the most important reason that jobs have moved from here to there. (I have no idea what the pay ratio is, but 10:1 is probably a good guess.)

There was a relevant piece of news this week from Australia. GM has a division there called Holden, which has been manufacturing cars in Australia since 1948. They announced the other day they would end production there in 2017. One of the reasons that they cited was the high value of the Australian dollar, which made it difficult for Holden to compete with Asian imports. In other words, the strong Australian dollar made Australian workers too expensive compared to other workers in the region. What’s interesting about that their strong economy (no recession in over 20 years) is what has given them a strong dollar. So the the rise of their mining industry has led to a decline in other industries.

GM will continue to manufacture Holdens in other countries and import them into Australia. That should be interesting, because Holden has long been seen as an iconic Australian brand, even thought it is foreign-owned.

What’s a CRA again?

credit reporting agency.

That must have been a couple of months ago.

i think a little less, but i don’t remember for sure.

I seem to recall someone else telling you that you should supply the facts for your argument instead of telling me to go Google them.

you asked me and i told you the info, and then you wanted me to prove it. i’m done finding things that someone else can find just as easily. i’ll tell you again that CRAs existed before 1913. as a matter of fact, i know the year of the first one, but if you want to know you’ll have to look it up.

tell me Mike, if i’m taking the time to answer your questions, why do think i should have to prove something that you can find out for yourself?

Also, if Chinese manufacturing workers get paid 1/10 of what their American counterparts get paid, that is going to be the most important reason that jobs have moved from here to there.

no, that’s a myth. the most important consideration is the high taxation and the burdensome regs that make labor noncompetitive.

One of the reasons that they cited was the high value of the Australian dollar, which made it difficult for Holden to compete with Asian imports.

just because they run a business doesn’t mean that they understand economics. tell me, if the dollar has more value, that is, it will purchase more, then why can’t they lower their prices? and why can’t they lower their materials cost with a higher valued dollar? the answer is that they can. their reasoning doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. maybe australians aren’t buying more cars because their keynesian economics is making them poorer?

In other words, the strong Australian dollar made Australian workers too expensive compared to other workers in the region.

the cars can probably be made more efficiently elsewhere.

What’s interesting about that their strong economy (no recession in over 20 years) is what has given them a strong dollar.

that’s a natural function of a strengthening economy. but i don’t think their economy is strengthening, i think it’s just getting weaker slower than ours and others. that would make their currency look like it’s getting stronger because others are falling faster in relation to it.

So the the rise of their mining industry has led to a decline in other industries.

a rise in one industry doesn’t lead to a general decline in others.

GM will continue to manufacture Holdens in other countries and import them into Australia.

they will make them where ever it’s most efficient.

That should be interesting, because Holden has long been seen as an iconic Australian brand, even thought it is foreign-owned.

things are in a constant state of change. sounds like manufacturers are facing up to it.

I didn’t try to Google anything about credit reporting agencies. I think that we were discussing bank failures and bank runs before the institution of desposit insurance. There were a lot of runs of banks in those days. So if credit reporting agencies existed, they didn’t a good job of steering depositors to safe banks.

You ask why I think that you should provide evidence for your arguments. Well, that’s just the way that things are done on this blog. Someone makes an assertion and they back it with some facts. The statements that you make sound like statements of religious belief.

Your statements about the GM and the Australian economy. You could use Google yourself and learn about what’s been going on in Australia. Around 30 years ago they implemented a lot of changes that you would probably approve of, such as reducing tariffs and allowing their dollar to be freely traded.

But you didn’t bother. You just applied your religious beliefs to an economy that you probably know nothing about. I could imagine someone saying that he doesn’t care about Australia and doesn’t want to waste his time learning about it, but to just make assumptions about an economy based on no knowledge is absurd.

tj:

This whole “tax” thing means nothing in the context of the WTO, especially with China. Communist countries don’t charge taxes, since all corporations and property are owned by the government. You can consider a Chinese corporation to be 100% taxed. And who needs regulations when you can bribe your way out of them? Sure, bribes are cheaper, but regulations actually prevent people from being exposed to unsafe conditions, or receiving ineffective medical care, etc.

you asked me if CRAs existed before 1913. i told you they did. if you didn’t believe me then you should have tried to find out yourself. you were trying make me do your leg work and it didn’t work.

once again. CRAs DID exist before 1913. i don’t care if you don’t believe me. if you don’t want to look it up, fine.

australia has moved to keynesianism just like everyone else. they’re going to pay a price for it. tariffs alone certainly don’t determine an economy. but they do add to its woes.

but regulations actually prevent people from being exposed to unsafe conditions, or receiving ineffective medical care, etc.

i’ve never said there should be an end to all regs. only that there are way to many in the USA for the economy to function efficiently. we are way way over regulated. to the point it’s criminal. look what the EPA did to gibson guitar. or when they locked up a man in oregon for collecting rainwater on his property. there are literally thousands of other examples, but once again i’m not about to try listing them all.

too many taxes and regs are killing this economy.

Not the experts that I read:

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc131125.htm

Not when viewed from a baseline.

“These things don’t seem to happen twice in a person’s lifetime.”

You’re right.

The “peak” of 2005/2006, on an inflation-adjusted basis likely won’t be matched in our lifetimes.

There will be smaller peaks though, as there always are through business cycles. It is a smaller peak to which I am referring.

I was referring to it’s going to be a bumpy ride all the way down. It’s a long way down. You won’t get much comfort on the bumps.

“….The “peak” of 2005/2006, on an inflation-adjusted basis likely won’t be matched in our lifetimes…..”

I remember everyone said the same thing in 1990.

In 2006 the peak was much higher and frothier.

BTW, Rental Watch, that is a 16-year cycle from peak to peak.

One man’s peak is another man’s blip.

Jingle,

Per Shiller’s data, on an inflation-adjusted basis, the peak in the late 1980s (summer of 1989 was peak) was approximately equal to the peak in the late 1970’s (1979 was peak). The peak in 2005 was 50% higher on an inflation adjusted basis than either the 1979 or 1989 peaks.

In other words, people who were saying we wouldn’t see levels reached immediately prior to the 1990’s correction in our lifetimes, were clearly ignorant of the fact that we had seen such housing price levels as recently as a decade prior.

AND, for what it’s worth…the most recent data points to us reaching that inflation-adjusted peak again (today’s Shiller data shows that we are at approximately 1979 and 1989 numbers again).

The pace of increase needs to moderate quickly, or else we are in for another bubble/crash. I doubt we reach 2005 levels again before a correction. Capital markets are not ready to be that free with money again so soon after the last capital market-driven bubble.

My biggest concern is that we are facing a large last-concert ticket problem:

The last ticket to a concert will sell for the most…scarcity drives the price much higher than an equilibrium price would be if there were more supply. There is a temptation, if you have the power of adding supply, to print 100 more tickets, and try to get the same price. However, you won’t get the same price for another 100 tickets. Adding that 100 tickets will crash the market.

The reality is that the cost of paper and ink is low, so the risk by adding 100 tickets is quite low.

However, the cost of adding housing is quite high.

If home prices get too high because of very little supply of new homes, then the addition of relatively few new homes to the market could cause a correction that will shock the crap out of people. It might not cause a crash if it happens soon enough (like within the next year), but with the development cycle in many places taking years to go from land to finished lots, we could see the “last concert ticket” problem pushing us way out of whack in terms of pricing before we come back to earth.

Read this blog entry for some interesting data on new housing development in So. Cal.:

http://www.realestateconsulting.com/blog/pete-reeb/short-supply-southern-californias-housing-deficit

in southern ca peak prices are already back.

Considering there are 4.4 MILLION excess empty and defaulted houses in CA, there is no need to worry about “supply”.

Curious….. why is it that you use the housing fraud years of 1998-current when discussing the current housing debacle?

You must not have looked at the data I presented. I share peak values from the late 1970s and late 1980s as well as the bubble peak.

Let’s see if this helps:

1979 = A cycle peak
1989 = A cycle peak
2006 = A cycle peak
2013 = ????

1979=1989=2013

2006 peak=150%*1989 peak

Based on momentum alone, I expect that the ultimate peak this time around will be greater than 1979 or 1989, but not as high as 2006. In some places, without additional supply (like in So. Cal.), the next peak will be higher than it would be otherwise.

@azdude: So Cal peak prices are back along the coasts, but not yet inland. Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are still way down from peak.

Not true. Prices in SoCal are $100k plus under peak…. and infact they resumed falling this summer.

See for yourself.

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-Los-Angeles-home-value/r_12447/#metric=mt%3D19%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D6%26rt%3D8%26r%3D12447%26el%3D0

“Prices in SoCal are $100k plus under peak…”

That median price of $ 484,500 is probably for a worn-out 50’s, 3/1 stucco box with bars in the windows and screen door, and a graffiti laden Korean grocery store at the corner. Lemme guess, $2500 per month for 30-yrs?

Anything decent in SoCal is at least $750k these days.

The greater LA Metro includes lots of less great places. There are plenty of locales along the coast in So Cal that have reached peak once again (or very close to it). This is primarily the very high end/nicer locations…in the Cities in the LA Metro, among those those that are 90% or greater of the prior peak according to Zillow are:

Beverly Hills, Culver City, Diamond Bar, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Irvine, Manhattan Beach, Monrovia, Newport Beach, Pasadena, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, Westlake Village

Cities in the San Diego Metro that have reached the same point:

Carlsbad, Coronado, Encinitas, Poway, Rancho Santa Fe

If you go inland (clearly to less attractive markets), you see markets that are still less than 60% (in some cases less than 50%) of peak values.

+1 California is largely about the coastal region.

Switching gears, did you check out James (Jim) Rickards on Youtube?

Fell asleep to watching him a bit last night. Will try to find more videos…he certainly seems reasonable.

You’re in denial of the fact that you paid a 250% premium and likely couldn’t find a buyer for what it’s actually worth.

I get a check every month from my tenants.

Does it cover all your losses?

HA:

I bought the house with cash. If I had a mortgage, then the rent would be twice the mortgage payment. So yeah, it covers all my losses and then some.

“If I had a mortgage, then the rent would be twice the mortgage payment.”

If that were the case, you’d have yourself an empty house.

Remember…

The cyclic highs and lows didn’t exist throughout the housing fraud years of 1997-current.

1982 maybe. It’s a wholesale credit fraud.

demand is booming.you have had your head in the sand the past 4 years.

How can that be when housing sales are at 16 year lows?

amen.

Hence my question, can we expect some sort of market adjustments in the near future? or will this drag on for a few years and then burst.

what difference does it make considering the risk?