December 28, 2013

Bits Bucket for December 28, 2013

Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.

RSS feed


Comment by CA renter
2013-12-28 04:33:24

Hello HBBers! Haven’t been around in awhile, so came to read a bit yesterday and found some O/T comments about women. I’m all for people doing what’s right for themselves, but only if you are totally honest, right up front, with all of the people you’re dealing with (well before sleeping with someone). Don’t waste somebody’s time, energy, and emotions if you have no intentions of getting married and they are looking for a more permanent relationship.

Copying from yesterday:

Comment by oxide
2013-12-27 19:07:46

Most of the divorced fathers I know share time week-on/week-off with their ex-es. That sounds like pretty equitable work-sharing to me!

The children do more of the “work” than either parent.


And I agree 100% with Big V regarding men having custody so that they don’t have to pay child support. The truth is, it’s not even the men who have been pushing for it, but the “Second Wives” (and girlfriends) who don’t want any of “his” money going to “that woman” (the ex-wife) in the form of child support or alimony. Many of these men don’t even want custody, but if they have new women in their lives, they leave the childcare to these women (who often cross lines WRT their role in the child’s life). It’s a very toxic situation for everyone involved.

Big V is also 100% correct about women’s contributions to marriage being front-loaded (youth, beauty, and fertility), while men’s contributions are usually back-loaded (money, power, security). Women make their contributions with the implicit and explicit understanding that their husbands will fulfill their end of the bargain — it’s stated often in personal conversations and also in the wedding vows.

Alimony exists to compensate women for the contributions they’ve made toward the marriage when their husbands refuse to fulfill their end of the bargain in the second half of the marriage. Not to mention the fact that women often sacrifice their careers (and friendships, their bodies, etc.) in order to raise the children that carry the man’s last name. Even if she is a SAHM, she is **working,** often working longer and more difficult hours than the “working” spouse.

Comment by Mr. Banker
2013-12-28 08:10:57

All this joining up and then breaking up - I like it. What I don’t like is stability because there is little money to be had in stability.

As stable family will most likely be a family of schmucks who will live within their means - which means they will most likely pay their bills on time and eventually my even pay off their mortgage if they happen to have one. This behavior acts to screw well-deserving people such as myself because these schmucks don’t allow me to enter at any great depth into their lives so as I can extract from them my well-deserved cut of every one of their transactions.

One term aptly describes a stable family and that word is deadbeats.

Comment by CA renter
2013-12-28 18:47:15

+1, Mr. Banker.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 08:12:31

Fascinating comments. Never thought about it that way. I will say this: children need both parents in their lives. The highest common factor for successful childhood education is the active participation of the father in that process. The dads need to stay involved. It cannot be delegated to anyone.

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 08:17:46

The highest common factor for successful childhood education is the active participation of the father in that process.

it’s also the biggest factor in keeping kids out of trouble. the father brings a discipline that the mother alone just can’t bring.

Comment by aNYCdj
2013-12-28 08:34:47

Thats why we need a war on ebonics, millions of fathers are deadbeats, and mostly because they cant speak English and get a decent job to pay for their kids.

You’re not going to make $20hr if you are functionally illiterate.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:16:53

Watch out tj, you may be convincing yourself that men need to take responsibility for the families they create.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by rms
2013-12-28 11:07:12

Children also benefit from stability during their formative years, not moving all the time. Successful “family” neighbors that also go to work, keep their property clean and maintained, etc., are daily subliminal lessons that establish a benchmark of civility and community. I couldn’t afford this standard of living for my family in California, so we moved to make it happen. Honestly I didn’t expect marriage and family would require this level of sacrifice.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-28 12:14:02

Honestly I didn’t expect marriage and family would require this level of sacrifice.

What do you feel like you have had to sacrifice, rms?

I’m very interested in your answer, as this is a bridge I am in the process of deciding whether to cross.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by rms
2013-12-28 14:49:58

“What do you feel like you have had to sacrifice, rms?”

FWIW, many things are lacking in flyover country: full length lap swimming pools, serious skydiving, national sporting events, variety of restaurants, choices in healthcare, variety of employment, lack of upper education, etc., which are “scale of economy” luxuries requiring population centers. I really miss the good weather too; heck, I’ve already added 13-lbs since fall/winter started.

I grew up in San Jose, CA, and eventually moved south to the San Luis Obispo area where I was comfortable. But getting married, having children, and the dot-com/housing bubbles, meant packing-up and leaving metro California behind (actually metro America) to make ends meet. If our economy was honestly market based, e.g., investment banks allowed to fail, I likely wouldn’t be isolated today. This economic crisis will pass, but not likely during my useful life. Our economy has to innovate out of this mess; no way dig out with off-shoring, a third of the working population in McJobs and the boomer’s retirement wave.

So I’m left with few options because my wife is not able to haul in $100k/yr, never will either. She has great and necessary skills, but the compensation has not kept pace with reality. For now, it boils down to the STEM jobs issue. Sure, STEM jobs can really suck, but everyone one I know in them does well, very well if dual income.

Unfortunately, men/women have to seriously discriminate their potential spouse when considering their anticipated standard of living. Simply being, “hard working” really isn’t enough today. That said, be careful Prime; there’s no turning back once you have children.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:19:40


I thought you were renting your wife. Are you not? What’s going on here? It couldn’t possibly be that you talk a big mean talk on the internet, while sheepishly kissing your beloved on the cheek before bed each night. No. A guy would never act like that. Guys aren’t big-talkers at all.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by rms
2013-12-28 18:26:57

You misunderstood the quip, V. End of discussion.

Comment by CA renter
2013-12-28 18:50:52

It is a fact, noted over and over again in every research study regarding family formation and child outcomes, that children do best when they grow up with BOTH of their biological parents in an intact family. Having to constantly move every other day (or week, etc.) between “mom’s house” and “dad’s house” (and all the drama with new girlfriends, boyfriends, steps, and exes) does not replicate this.

People need to think long and hard about whom they marry and/or have children with. If you’re not willing to make a lifelong commitment, both to the children and their mother, don’t do it. It’s not fair to all the people you will leave behind in your destructive wake.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-28 12:12:15

The truth is, it’s not even the men who have been pushing for it [...] Many of these men don’t even want custody [...]

It is interesting to me that this view seems to be common among women.

As if often the case with observer/observee relationships, perception/interpretation sometimes says as much about the observer as it does about the observee. Is money the lens through which you view relationships between the sexes?

Or perhaps this is my observer/observee bias—I tend to view these guys as caring and involved with their kids; they appear to be so to me. However, perhaps that is more a reflection of how I project/expect that I would feel about my kids, were I to have them.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 13:38:09

Jonesy already said STFU about it so why are you swatting the nest?

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:25:43

Oops, I didn’t see that until just now. I’m probably gonna be banned now.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-28 23:54:42

Didn’t see that until after posting the above; sorry, Ben…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 23:57:20

Glad to know we are going to move on past gender issues!

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:26:11

Were you able to enjoy Wall Street’s Santa Clause rally?

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:28:07

Stocks: The gifts keep coming
By Ben Rooney
December 26, 2013: 4:22 PM ET

Christmas may be over, but it seems Santa is still delivering good news for investors.

The Dow Jones industrial average closed at a record high for the 50th time this year. The S&P 500 also ended at a record high and the Nasdaq marked a new 13-year high.

U.S. markets were closed Wednesday for the Christmas holiday break. Trading volume has been below average, with many professional money managers taking the week off or working remotely.

Still, the week is turning out to be a good one for stocks, with not much bad news to stop investors from taking the market on an incredible year-end rally.

Over the past 100 years, the Dow has gained during the week of Christmas 68% of the time, according to Schaeffer’s Investment Research.

Related: Fear & Greed Index gets greedy again

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 05:36:23

Yes and no. Bought DDD at $50 (now $80), but sold VFIIX bond fund at $10.50 (down from $11.50 last year). Should have sold the bond fund for Christmas last year.

Comment by azdude02
2013-12-28 05:58:42

I watching sheep P@ss all over themselves over stocks like FB an TWTR and just laughing. Seems like they found a new group of suckers to unload their pieces of paper onto.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 07:50:46

Yeah….you must mean just like Google…..which opened at 80 about 15 years ago. Now over $1000. The idiots that bought Google must be so……HAPPY.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 07:55:07

Like housing at current asking prices, google is a guaranteed loss at current price.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 08:14:48

….not if you bought it at 80. HA. Ha. Ha…..ho. ho. HO. Burdbrain.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 08:22:57

It’s 2013. Happy New Year!

Like housing, google is a guaranteed loss at current asking prices. Your losses on housing exhibit those reality perfectly.

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 10:56:01

Goog opened at 100. It was never 80. I suppose 20% is nothing in your math. We should have known.

It only took months for it to drop from 700’s to 200’s. Expect the same again, including your housing.

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 11:00:05

And it hasn’t even been 10 years yet.

Comment by azdude02
2013-12-28 13:32:51

goog is a suckers bet now.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-28 13:37:54

goog is a suckers bet now.

Depends on their earnings growth, really. Current P/E is 32.13—certainly not a low valuation by any means, but they have a pretty solid history of earnings growth.

Comment by Avocado99
2013-12-28 15:36:00

Will you soothsayers short it then?

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 15:40:18

It’s junk like (crab)Apple.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 13:27:06

“Were you able to enjoy Wall Street’s Santa Claus rally?”

$4600 in dividends and capital gains in my tax deferred plans so far - have not received a report on $500,000 worth of stock funds yet in tax deferred. $4600 includes the $1100 from Rerex I noticed yesterday morning and $3,000 from Lscrx a few days ago.

Need to buy more movable and hidable assets to offset a 15% leftist confiscation haircut of my tax deferred funds.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:30:32

Were you able to unload your gold holdings before this year’s rout?

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:33:00

Gold on track for worst year in decades
By Ben Rooney
December 19, 2013: 1:26 PM ET
Gold has been one of the most unloved investments of 2013.

Gold prices fell below $1,200 an ounce Thursday and it hit their lowest levels since 2010.

Gold has tumbled nearly 30% in 2014. That’s the biggest drop since 1981, said Kevin DeMeritt, president of Lear Capital, a precious metals firm based in Los Angeles. It’s also the first year-over-year decline in gold prices since 2000, according to FactSet.

Investors have been selling gold futures and gold-backed ETFs this year as stocks have soared to record highs. Prices for physical gold, including bars and coins, have fared better thanks to demand from investors in China.

Related: China becomes world’s top gold buyer

The rout follows a long-running bull market in gold. Even after this year’s losses, gold is still up nearly 350% since 2001, when it traded below $300 an ounce.

Gold hit a nominal (i.e. not adjusted for inflation) all-time high near $1,900 an ounce in 2011.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 05:41:37

Considered buying gold at $450 and passed. It seemed overpriced at the time. I no you probably think that is funny, coming from a guy who bought lots of real estate in 08, 09, & 10, but it is true. My dad lost a lot of money chasing gold…..but real estate always served him well.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:51:14

Why would you expect to lose money buying gold but not buying real estate? I’m missing the logic (”because dad did” doesn’t cut it for me!).

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 07:54:59

Lots of reasons to choose real estate over gold. 1) I understand it, 2) I can manage it well and enhance the ROI, 3) cash flow, 4) I bought below reproduction cost………none of this exist w gold.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 07:57:23

Real estate, specifically housing has negative cashflow at current asking prices. As you’ve indicated before, you paid at least a 150% premium over reproduction costs.

Do you think that has something to do with the fact your cashflow is negative?

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 08:17:02

You’re an idiot. I have excellent cash flow… I have demonstrated many times here.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 08:20:19

Dishonesty is the only thing you’ve “demonstrated” here.

But lets play…. You said you bought below reproduction costs.

What are the reproduction costs?

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 09:04:35

And the reason we don’t believe you is because you haven’t “demonstrated” anything here.

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2013-12-28 05:53:37

You can dollar cost average into gold. Not real estate. The last opportunity in RE was 1997. prices will go below 1997 in a few years due to the decline of marriage

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 06:39:09

And lets be honest…. Buying RE to rent out retail space and buying a gauranteed loss like a single family house are obviously different.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2013-12-28 07:19:01

prices will go below 1997 in a few years due to the decline of marriage ??

Pretty broad statement…Marriage is not a primary driver…Jobs are..Resources are….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 07:25:55

“Marriage is not a primary driver…Jobs are”


PRICE is the driver. And right now, rents are half the monthly carrying costs of buying.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 07:58:50

HA, ha, ha……funny. Wrong. The rents cover all my costs and provide a 5-12% return on my invested capital.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 08:01:22

That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee around.

You got banged up pretty hard just like everyone else that got suckered into buying housing in the last 15 years.

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 08:05:02

funny. Wrong. The rents cover all my costs and provide a 5-12% return on my invested capital.

he’s right about price being the driver.

also, rent prices change with economic circumstances. if the economy tumbles, the rent you can charge may tumble with it.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 08:12:13

No! Marriage is a major, if not the primary driver. I learned it the hard way that as a single living in a 1500 square foot house I spent many weekends working around the house rather than having fun. One person per house is nuts. I thought I would have a smiley some day at the time I bought the house. Now many people don’t want spouses or families and know that they need to be mobile and have lower expenses and more free time.

Most 20-something’s today who are without spouses will be without spouses and houses when they are 30-something.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 08:19:00

Okay, lack of jobs and abundant student debt are also factors, yet many young people who are lucky to have jobs have such low pay they have to live at home and wear onesies and drink hot chocolate or rent rooms with others. A sister of mine rented rooms in expensive Santa Barbara, along with other young people.

Sharing houses: I don’t consider that delayed adulthood/responsibility when you are paying your own way. I call it adjusting to economic factors.

Comment by scdave
2013-12-28 08:21:40

Most 20-something’s today who are without spouses will be without spouses and houses when they are 30-something ??

But they have to live somewhere now don’t they….Where they live typically has a roof on it…

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 08:24:06

yet many young people who are lucky to have jobs have such low pay they have to live at home and wear onesies and drink hot chocolate or rent rooms with others.

all that is a function of house prices.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 08:24:21

They don’t already “live somewhere”?

Comment by scdave
2013-12-28 08:37:27

all that is a function of house prices ??

You have it reversed…The price is a function of the ability to earn a wage…Show me high wages and employment and you will likely see higher housing cost in relationship to area’s that lack high wages…

With that said, there are also locations that do not have high wages or employment but still have high housing cost…Carmel California comes to mind…

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 08:52:08

all that is a function of house prices ?

yes it is. do you suppose they like living like that?

The price is a function of the ability to earn a wage

in a normal free market economy, wages would have increasing value. but that’s not what we have.

we have the FED, and government tax incentives and things like franny and freddie involved in price fixing. that results in the misallocation of capital. all of this is bad for the economy, and people, eventually, will only be able to afford what they can pay for.

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 09:04:24

misallocation of capital

As long as I am making few bucks, what harm is done?

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 09:10:36

That’s why I always have a good laugh at those “increase the minimum wage” crowd. I mean these fooks support policies that have done nothing but artificially fixed prices and made almost anything unaffordable to the minimum wagers. Yeah the 10% of raise in minimum wage is going to fix the lifetime of bad policy decisions. What a genius these bunch are. And Don’t even get me started on the “income disparity.”

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 07:19:30

Marriage is part of it, but there is also the inability of new college grads to move out of mom’s and dad’s basement due to a dearth of employment opportunities. A lack of household formation pretty much captures it. The other part is that once households finally start to form, they won’t have the income streams needed to buy $600K+ McMansions.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2013-12-28 07:49:06

dad’s basement due to a dearth of employment opportunities. A lack of household formation pretty much captures it ??

Cause & Effect….Slack job opportunity along with low wages effects household formation…

Comment by Blue Skye
2013-12-28 07:20:57

I suspect you may not notice any decline in housing due to decline in marriage. It will be difficult to tease out from the collapse of the biggest housing bubble in history. Maybe the train will slow down at the 1997 station, but it won’t stop there.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:34:03

If people don’t shack up, they will form extra households. Too bad everything is a McMansion these days.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 14:47:58

There isn’t any more or less shacking up and we still ended up with 25 million excess empty houses.

Comment by oxide
2013-12-28 08:40:17

I simply can’t agree that house prices will fall to 1997, at least not in cities that have even a modest jobs base. There is still too much cash around to buy houses outright even at 2003 levels. Somebody will put down a floor long before 1997 levels.

And where there isn’t American money, there is foreign money. At the moment, the Chinese investments are limited to individuals buying only one or two high-price properties as safe houses and/or college housing for the family. Just wait until they figure out the cost of one house in CA, they can buy an entire row of houses in the Oil Cities, or entire homesteads in the very arable land outside of the Oil City limits, where they can establish colonies. They’ve already caught on to Detroit.

(Actually I’m surprised that US gov or other state govs haven’t bought those Detroit houses at $1 each, if only to keep them from private hands.)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 08:43:18

You might want this to be…. but it is not.

If you truly didn’t overpay, you wouldn’t be hiding it from everyone.

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 09:02:56

Somebody will put down a floor long before 1997 levels.

they might not be able to if the prices of other things continues to rise.

And where there isn’t American money, there is foreign money.

foreigners will learn that buying residential real estate is always a mistake.

(Actually I’m surprised that US gov or other state govs haven’t bought those Detroit houses at $1 each, if only to keep them from private hands.)

government have no business owning private property.

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 09:19:06

There’s no foreign money. There aren’t that many oligarchs in the world to buy all cities of the world.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-28 13:31:04

(Actually I’m surprised that US gov or other state govs haven’t bought those Detroit houses at $1 each, if only to keep them from private hands.)

Even at $1/ea, those properties still represent a huge liability: teardown expenses, initially, to reduce the blight associated with derelict houses—and even after that, there is still a long-term liability if someone hurts themselves while trespassing on the property, and sues.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 23:43:47

“Somebody will put down a floor long before 1997 levels.”

It’s funny that Detroit prices dropped back to 1960s levels or so during peak bust. Why didn’t ’somebody’ put a floor under their prices before they collapsed?

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-28 12:53:16

prices will go below 1997 in a few years due to the decline of marriage

Wouldn’t the decline of marriage result in MORE households rather than fewer, at least in the short-term—as fewer couples might result in more individuals living alone?

In the long-term, I agree that fewer marriages results in a reduced birth-rate, which leads to reduced household formation.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 13:37:43

Yes and no. Yes: 525 square feet is 25 by 25. That is A LOT of space for someone alone. And where can you buy a 525 square foot house? No: many people will rent rooms. In the 80s a sister of mine in her late 20s / early 30s rented a room in a house that had several bedrooms, each of them rented. They shared a kitchen and thankfully there were more than one bathroom. She did this in several places in Santa Barbara. This is common also in New Jersey, I found. Because of high property taxes.

In whatever form, there will be more people per square feet. This is going to severely depress house prices.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 13:39:41

Oops. 25 * 25 = 625. Still small, even by 1950s standards.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:36:54

But someone still has to own the building and the land. There is a landlord for every rented space.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 14:38:51

However there isn’t a tenant for every space in every building.

Comment by ibbots
2013-12-28 07:16:09

People will pay you to live in your RE, not so much with gold.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 07:28:03

Yet they don’t pay nearly enough to cover your costs.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 23:40:40

Page 1 headline story in Friday, Decelber 20, 2013 Wall Street Journal:

Gold Tumbles, Putting Brakes On Long Rally
Prices Sink to Lowest Close Since 2012; First Annual Decline in 13 Years Likely

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:35:30

How high would long-term Treasury yields have to get before you would buy some?

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:37:59

10-year Treasury closes at key 3% level
Adam Shell, USA TODAY 6:10 p.m. EST December 27, 2013
The 10-year Treasury note closed above the psychologically important 3% level Friday for the first time since July 2011 as investors price in a less-easy Federal Reserve and stronger economic growth.
(Photo: Karen Bleier, AFP/Getty Images)

Story Highlights
* First close for benchmark government bond above 3% since July 2011
* Treasury sell-off sparked by Fed’s decision to reduce stimulus, better economy
* Move to 3% likely to mark start of move back to more normal levels

NEW YORK — The 10-year U.S. government bond closed at the key 3.00% level on Friday for the first time since the summer of 2011 as investors continue to price in less bond purchases from the Federal Reserve and an improving U.S. economy.

Interest rates are starting their push higher to more normal levels after falling to historic lows in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

The benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which hit a 2013 low of 1.63% in early May, closed at 3.00% Friday after briefly ticking above that psychologically important threshold a day earlier for the first time since September. Friday’s closing yield was the highest since July 25, 2011, according to Yahoo Finance.

How markets react to rising bond yields depends on how fast they go up and why they are going up, says Scott Anderson, chief economist at Bank of the West.

“If long-term interest rates rise too rapidly, we could see stronger headwinds develop in housing, autos and business spending, (which) could temper our optimistic economic outlook,” says Anderson. “Gradual rate increases that are matched by an improving economy, stronger sales and improved investment opportunities are not as concerning as rates that are on the rise because the Fed is no longer a major buyer in the Treasury market.”

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 05:43:46


Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:48:52

You won’t be buying any over at least the next decade, I take it?

Comment by azdude02
2013-12-28 06:01:23

how long can the markets stay manipulated? they are giving investors the sense that they will prevent markets from going down.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2013-12-28 07:59:12

8% ??

If you raised interest rates to 8% starting Monday morning our national economy would collapse….We would have another depression likely followed by massive civil unrest…

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 08:02:54

You should make better use of your drama and write for Hollywood.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 08:24:25


What’s he gonna say next? Without the TARP we would have been forced to sell our children.

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 08:02:58

We already live in a depression if you care to see.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 08:24:12

I don’t propose raising rates to 8%. I just answered the question, “when would I buy long bonds again?. And if Ts went to 8%, home loans would go to 9-10%. It will likely happen the next 10 years.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-28 13:34:38

And if Ts went to 8%, home loans would go to 9-10%. It will likely happen the next 10 years.

If you actually believe that, it seems like a very strong argument against holding the properties that you own—your resale valuation will get absolutely crushed at 9-10% home loans.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 16:10:07

PIC, actually I do believe the rates will go high or gold toward $10,000 spot price within ten years. Take your pick.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 16:26:22

I own for the cash flow and that would handle the rates quite nicely, thank you!

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 17:55:10

And the bank appreciates the cashflow.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 08:26:29

If we had 5% unemployment, main street would not give a hoot about 8%. Moreover, I cannot see why a steady increase in rates over 5 years to 8% will cripple the economy. It was six years ago with higher employment that we had 5% yields.

Hell I had an 8.5% mortgage in 1990 and considered that no problem. On a $96,000 loan.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 08:30:05

Higher interest rate is only despised by the parasite class. They need the low interest rate to speculate and make a quick buck at the expense of everyone in the society.

Comment by scdave
2013-12-28 08:41:04

I cannot see why a steady increase in rates over 5 years to 8% will cripple the economy ??

I believe I said if you did it Monday morning now didn’t I…

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 09:33:39

Repeat after me Dave…

Falling housing prices to dramatically lower and more affordable levels is positively bullish for the economy and good for everyone.

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 10:09:51

Falling housing prices to dramatically lower and more affordable levels is positively bullish for the economy and good for everyone.

So simple yet so few understand it.

Unless of course they are the pimps.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 13:40:54

Falling renal prices also stimulate the economy.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 13:41:54


Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:39:22

Yeah, but you would probably buy the treasuries. I’m pretty sure they’ve been higher than 8% before, but there’s no way I’m gonna look it up right now.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by GetStucco
2013-12-28 15:25:01

14%+ on th 30-yr T-bond at some points between 1980-1982 followed by gradual spiral down to recent lows below 3%.

Comment by rms
2013-12-28 22:25:35

“We would have another depression likely followed by massive civil unrest…”

Rising interest rates will put a squeeze on government services; a race to the bottom for many hapless souls.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:40:00

Are you one of those fence sitters who feels tempted to buy a home before interest rates rise further?

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:41:45

11:39 am Dec 27, 2013
Economy & Business
Mortgage Rate Swings May Mean “Bumpy” 2014 Housing Market
By Sarah Portlock

Climbing mortgage rates in 2013 corresponded with declines in home buying, a trend that could to some extent continue in coming months as interest rates adjust to shifts in the Federal Reserve’s monetary stimulus effort.

The average of 30-year fixed-rate mortgage interest rates so far this year compared against new-home sales illustrates that inversely proportional relationship: When interest rates go up, demand from would-be homeowners drops.

When rates as measured by Freddie Mac started rising in May and averaged 3.54% for the month, the seasonally adjusted annual rate of new home sales dropped by 4% from the prior month, according to the most recent housing data from the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, in October, mortgage rates dropped by three-tenths of a percentage point just as new home sales surged 18%.

The trend could continue in 2014, experts said, especially if rates change significantly.

“Particularly if we see a pretty quick rise – maybe a half a percentage point to percentage point rise — it’ll make for some bumpy demand in 2014,” said Ellen Haberle, an economist at Redfin, an online real-estate firm.

Mortgage rates first spiked in May after the Fed signaled it was considering pulling back its bond-buying program meant to keep a lid on long-term interest rates. The housing market initially stumbled, but started to recover once the central bank decided against any changes to the stimulus effort throughout the summer and into the fall.

Mortgage rates are still at historical lows, but they are already starting to creep upward once again. Freddie Mac said Thursday the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage was at 4.48%, its highest level since mid-September.

The interest rate on U.S. Treasurys is also going up. On Thursday, the yield on 10-year notes hit 3%, its highest level since September and the second time this year it has reached that mark. That threshold could signal higher interest rates ahead because it is used as a reference point for the cost of borrowed money for U.S. consumers and businesses. A higher yield can push up mortgage rates.

While rising interest rates could continue to drag on the housing market, it could also encourage those people waiting on the fence to make a decision to buy.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 05:45:47

No. I bought one in 2010. I will help my son buy a house this year, if we can find the right deal.

Comment by NH Hick
2013-12-28 06:05:12

I hear there are some good deals in Detroit.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 08:05:00

“….good deals in Detroit.”

Sure…but then you have to live there. I we be searching for a deal on the SF peninsula, around Mountain View. Much more challenging!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 08:10:26

Aren’t you already underwater on a rapidly depreciating house in CA?

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 08:28:40

No. Everything I bought in 2008-2010 is now valued at 35%+ over my acquisition cost. Considering I put 25% down, my ROI would be over 100%. I am way above the water line and very happy.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 08:41:48

First you paid cash, now you put 25% down…

Whats the motive? Just how deep underwater are you?

Comment by scdave
2013-12-28 08:45:42

I we be searching for a deal on the SF peninsula, around Mountain View ??

Good luck with that…A deal ?? I guess if one thinks $700. + per square foot is a deal…Mt. View is “White Hot” right now…

Comment by GetStucco
2013-12-28 11:15:29

If I correctly read the Movoto chart for Mountain View that Ben posted, then price per sq ft has dropped from $670 in September to $530 most recently. It may have been white hot until someone dumped a bucket of ice water on the market.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 12:38:08

Per corrupt California Assoc of Realtliars own data, demand in mountainview, ca collapsed 20%+ in a single month, seasonally adjusted.

Comment by scdave
2013-12-28 12:52:07

Well Ben, I don’t know who this MOVOTO company is and I am not going to spend a bunch of time trying to qualify their numbers but I suspect there are a lot of condominium sales that may be dragging the price per foot down…

But for the sake of trying to justify my “White Hot” statement I did do a little research and I believe it confirms what I said and just so there is no misunderstanding I am specifically talking about single family homes…

75 single family homes have sold in Mountain View in the last 90 days…Here is the least expensive one;

800 WAKE FOREST DRIVE $635,000 31 3 1 (1/0) 850 7,200 Sqft Mountain View

850 sq foot = $747. per foot

Here is one near the middle of the pack;

550 SIERRA AVENUE $1,650,000 -2 4 2 (2/0) 1,615 4,900 Sqft Mountain View

1615 sq foot = $1022. per foot

Here is one more that I pulled because it had more house square footage thereby possibly pulling the price per square foot down;

1176 BONITA AVENUE $1,350,000 96 4 3 (3/0) 1,962 3,876 Sqft Mountain View

1962 sq feet = $688. per square foot..

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 13:00:41


Why would prices for these run down houses in questionable areas be 10x higher than it costs us to build brand new with profit?

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 06:41:31

Yes finding the right deal is important.

If you’re paying more than $50-$60/sq ft for new construction or more than $40/sq ft for a resale house, you’re getting ripped off.

Sit tight because prices resumed their fall in October and there’s a deep deep housing bottom to be reached over the next 1-5 years.

Comment by not being TOO Frank...
2013-12-28 08:09:02 son is an adult, and needs any help other than your accumulated knowledge, please don’t saddle society with yet another parental pampered non-qualifying on their own merit home debtor.

How ’bout, other than yourself moral support, he qualifies, both as a decision maker and a financially sound investor?

Please tell us case and you’re.not.loaning a down payment or cosigning….

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 08:28:31

Exactly. We need fewer helicoptering cases. How is the buoy going to learn how to become successful?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 08:36:22

The boy is a young man and very successful. He makes more money than I. The job for me will be to make sure he buys a good deal his needs. Stay in budget, get something w good “bones” and expandable. I will guide the process. He and his wife will make the decisions and supply all the funds. It will be a huge challenge and likely take 6 months to a year. Teaching him patience is important. After all, I wanted to buy a new home for my bride in 2005, and thanks to Ben, waited until 2008 (which was still a bit too soon).

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 09:10:46

7 years too soon.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:48:28

Dewd, are you speaking into your smart phone? It is producing some very unconventional spellings.

Comment by JingleMale
2013-12-28 21:28:36

Ha, ha, just typing on a very tiny keyboard….with big fingers!

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:43:17

I feel tempted to buy one with cash after interest rates go higher and prices go lower.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 05:47:50

Dec. 28, 2013, 6:31 a.m. EST
These 10 bubbles will pop in new ‘Lost Decade’
Opinion: It’s the pope and Hillary vs. ‘old guys’ and climate-change deniers
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Wall Street says the last “Lost Decade,” which actually started in 2000, just ended. Sorry, but a new Lost Decade is already on the clock, and the clock is ticking. It’ll run from 2014 through the 2024 presidential election and probably longer. Worse, it’ll be marked by 10 hot bubbles that never exploded in the last Lost Decade. They’re still growing. And guaranteed to explode in America’s face.

The last Lost Decade? We first spoke of Wall Street’s fake inflation-adjusted records back in a 2010 column, lamenting how Main Street’s 95 million investors had seen Wall Street, in losing trillions, squander “over 20% of your money,” adjusted for inflation, in the dot-com crash, a 33-month recession and the credit crash of 2008. Piling on trillions in new debt for future taxpayers, “Wall Street,” we said then, “will do it again.”

This year the Wall Street Journal’s E.S. Browning has also been warning that “economists were unimpressed” with the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s run to record highs — which really aren’t records at all. Yes, we’ve seen dozens of these so-called records this year. A month ago, Browning noted: “An inflation-adjusted record would mean blue-chip Dow stocks have regained the real value lost in two deadening financial crises.”

Yes, the DJIA finally “achieved something it hadn’t managed in nearly 14 years: It closed at a record after adjusting for inflation.” Now “investors finally could put behind them … the sometimes-terrifying events of the past 14 years … the Internet bubble, Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, accounting scandals such as Enron Corp., the housing bubble, collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and other costly stumbles.”

Get it? Finally, after 14 years in negative territory, Wall Street was breaking even on an inflation-adjusted basis, after suffering “two deadening crises” and “terrifying events” that wasted trillions for 95 million Main Street investors. Big deal? Stocks broke even after 14 years?

Zero-sum economics: Wall Street ‘treaded water’ for 14 long years

Then Browning’s gut punch: “It would mean that the ‘lost decade’ during which stocks never surpassed their values of the 1990s finally is over, at least for the Dow. Of course, a new inflation-adjusted high also would be a reminder that stocks have done no better than tread water since 2000.”

“Drowning” would be more accurate.

So we start 2014 asking why Wall Street’s stock market did “no better than tread water since 2000.” And why did Wall Street lose trillions in retirement savings for America’s Main Street investors?

Why? Because in today’s zero-sum real world, “aggressive” government stimulus policies, plus Bernanke’s “determination to keep interest rates low” were rewarding Wall Street with cheap money, while killing Main Street’s retirement stocks and downgrading the American economy. That’s how zero-sum works: Wall Street wins, Main Street loses.

In fact, since the conservative political revolution a generation ago, the rich became the Super-Rich. And the income of America’s other 99% flat lined for three decades.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 08:38:28

Well sure, if you put all your money in the stock market in 2000 you would have finally broken even at some point in 2013. But the last 13 years were optimum for dollar cost averaging into stock index funds. You bought more shares in the troughs of 2003 and 2009. But you also had great purchases in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, and 2010. Those were seven years of below-2000 peaks. Then at 2000, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012, and 2013 you bought fewer shares at higher prices.

Your average cost per share is lower than it would have been if you bought all the shares in 2000.

Comment by Overtaxed
2013-12-28 10:54:16


Including dividends it would have taken to 2013 to break even? I would have thought no (breakeven earlier), because the dividends would have been dollar averaged over time, but, honestly, I don’t know, which is why I’m asking the question. :)

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 16:06:40

“including dividends” - I’m not sure. Even Vanguard shows its VFINX breaking even sometime during 2013, graphically. You would think a fund company would want to boast superior performance by including reinvested dividends in their charts.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tj
2013-12-28 06:21:02

@ the precious psycho princess

i just wanted you to know that i answered you yesterday, but it didn’t go through.

if you don’t see my answers to your control freak rubbish, it won’t be because i haven’t tried.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 07:21:00

Ben occasionally screens ad hominem attacks. (I see he let this one slip through, though…)

Comment by Ben Jones
2013-12-28 07:33:16

I’m sick of this pointless gripe fest. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind. Pick something else to talk about or get banned; that goes for everybody involved.

Comment by overpaid government contractor
2013-12-28 07:47:05

Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics.

You can win, but you’re still retarded!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:24:02

The only thing better than being a psycho princess is to be a PRECIOUS one. Too bad teej will never obtain such a perfect status in life.

OK, OK, now I will stop talking about it. I don’t want to get banned.

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 06:33:10

Comment by Rental Watch
2013-12-28 01:01:41

I had a meeting with our tax advisor, and he commented on how he was converting all his personal pre-tax retirement accounts to Roth over time (paying his taxes now, and preparing to be able to pass the Roth accounts to his kids). We asked him point blank about government confiscation of retirement accounts, or changing the rules to take away the benefit for existing accounts, etc. He flat out said that there are constitutional issues with such things happening (ie. that it would be unconstitutional

it’s amazing that there are some people who think the constitution is still in effect. many things the government has done is unconstitutional, including obamacare. your accounts are not safe. none of your property is safe. they can take it by various means and when the time is right, they will.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 06:45:58

You gotta understand this about Rental Watch. He’s an EggHead.

Example….. Egghead will deliberately mislead the reading public and say (among other things) there are no foreclosure moratoriums even though there is legislation in effect that results in moratorium even though it isn’t called “moratorium”.

Folks….. you really gotta watch these dishonest people who want to get between you and your wallet.


Comment by Greenshirtwebcamtransient
2013-12-28 07:12:49

The most important decision ever by the Supreme Court was Korematsu, allowing Japanese internment. It means the government can do whatever it wants,whenever it wants, if people get scared or manipulated enough.

Get your pile then get out.

Comment by ibbots
2013-12-28 07:23:04

Korematsu affected a very small % of the population. A much higher % of the population has $ in an IRA / 401k, etc.

It is a property rights issues. The probability of the gov’t confiscating IRA $ is very very low. There is a higher probability of social security contributions going into self-directed style accounts.

Which one of those two things is more politically palatable?

If you chose gov’t confiscation, you need to loosen the tin foil cap, or titanium, or whatever mind control ray protection metal your using these days.

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 09:03:47


The wolves control all the governments of the developed nations. Constitutions are useless and only exist to give people false hope that the wolves won’t devour them eventually.

Movable and hidable tangibles are insurance against not only this confiscation, but the inevitable higher taxes the “progressives” will inflict on us in the future. And they will.

If you do not have such insurance, you are a dam fool. The only other alternative is to move a big chunk of your wealth overseas into places such as Singapore. Then from there invest as a Singaporean in international (ex-USA) stock funds.

Comment by In Colorado
2013-12-28 09:05:53

Which is why so much money flows back into the USA, because we are a “safe haven”. Start confiscating and foreign cash flow stops. The PTB know that.

Besides, why confiscate when you can print to your heart’s delight and the entire world accepts your fiats?

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 09:11:34

If you were right there would have not been any hearings on confiscation. congress wouldn’t have wasted their time.

Nice try though, Colorado!

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 09:16:57

Start confiscating and foreign cash flow stops. The PTB know that.

so far, they’ve always known that. that’s why foreign property rights are well protected here.

however, i wouldn’t put it past the present thugs in power to try something like that. they truly are idiots.

Comment by In Colorado
2013-12-28 10:20:07

however, i wouldn’t put it past the present thugs in power to try something like that. they truly are idiots.

But those who buy and own them know better.

I remember when the Clintons proposed something similar back in their day. It got shot down so fast that it’s all but forgotten now.

It’s not gonna happen. Obama is in Wall Street and the FedRes’s pockets. So are the House and Senate.

Again, why do something that will get people angry when you can just conjure $80B+ every month and everyone around the globe is happy to accept it as a form of payment?

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 10:33:34

Again, why do something that will get people angry when you can just conjure $80B+ every month and everyone around the globe is happy to accept it as a form of payment?

because 80B isn’t nearly enough ,and even if it was, they’d never be satisfied. on top of that it’s becoming clear that it doesn’t work.

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 10:15:53

Korematsu affected a very small % of the population.

only a small percentage were locked up, but the decision affected all of us.

Which one of those two things is more politically palatable?

the time is coming where the elite won’t have to worry about what’s politically palatable. at least they will think they don’t have to worry. idiots always underestimate the resistance.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Greenshirtwebcamtransient
2013-12-28 13:11:30

Korematsu affected everyone, not by having someone put in a prison camp, but by showing that it can and does happen as blessed by the Supreme Court. Learn it. The law is what those in power say it is, regardless of what some old parchment says.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:58:53

No, the law is on the parchment. I believe that the Supreme Court has misinterpreted that parchment more than once.

Comment by NH Hick
2013-12-28 18:43:35

I remember under Clinton, Alice Rivlin was floating the idea about taxing you on the value of your real estate that you owned based on the “rental” value. The progressives think they can do anything they want because it’s not your money, it’s theirs.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by NH Hick
2013-12-28 18:45:16

Elizabeth Warren;” You didn’t build that”.

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2013-12-28 19:24:37


Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 20:32:51

no no…. LIEerals.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 20:41:16

lolz…. let me try that again.


Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:54:29

“Get your pile then get out”.

And go where? To a place where governments, criminals, and termites can’t get your money no matter what? Like the moon maybe?

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 14:57:17

Realtors and bankers already got their piece of the action from you.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 08:50:02

Yeah I was thinking about what Rental Watch wrote, and I am not convinced. His financial advisor has a N.W. of $10 million but somehow I don’t consider that qualification to know that the millions of retires with average net worth nder $100,000 will not turn to wolves at the ballot box. Many of these are the same people who have not made a mortgage payment in years but are still sitting in their houses while the responsible idiots like me are paying their own way.

The constitution is worth nothing. So many violations by the government. The 16th amendment was not even properly ratified.

Finally, the democrats already had hearings on changing rules on tax deferred plandps and restricting how people can invest. Hillary tried to socialize health care in 1992. In both cep vents the failed. Now we have ObysmalCare. We will get the confiscation of tax deferred investments. The trial balloon socialism events of the past get implemented in the future. ALWAYS.

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 09:14:03

if we don’t stop the statists, price control, property confiscation (already here in certain forms) and re-education camps (called something else) are all in our future.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 10:13:31

Yes. All that is already here…. it will be democratized.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tj
2013-12-28 10:29:35

well, price fixing is here, but price fixing and price controls are different. price control locks at price at a certain level by government fiat, while price fixing is an attempt to ‘target’ a price at some level. so price controls aren’t here yet. but i believe they are coming.

regarding re-education camps.. i hope they haven’t really started those already. i know that schools are already indoctrinating, but as far as i know, authorities haven’t yet forcibly taken people from their homes and shipped them to containment areas yet. have they?

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 10:41:28

They don’t need to forcibly do so. Sign up for 30 years of debt slavery, pipe in the propaganda via cable tv, monitor your every last word and movement, job complete.

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 10:47:12

i get your point, but nobody has been moved to camps yet. and i think that’s another sinister thing that will come if we can’t defeat the leftists.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 10:50:59

To achieve their end, any means will be employed. But it will be marketed as a good thing.

How would you characterize round ups to make it appear inert?

Comment by tj
2013-12-28 11:01:58

How would you characterize round ups to make it appear inert?

the term ‘re-education’ has become toxic, so they might change it to ‘counseling centers’. but if it happens, it will become evident as to what it is. i hope we never again permit round ups to happen. but again, i fear we will. but there will be many who will resist this time.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 15:03:39

If you characterize it as “Republican”, then tj will go for it.

BTW, none of that stuff is going to happen. I think some people on this blog need to take a chill pill. House prices are going to go back down pretty soon, and some of us will scoop some up (yes, SCOOP), and the stock market may or may not continue to have bubbles forever, and people will probably vote for other stuff, which will change over time, and then people will die and new people will be born, and it will be fine.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 15:23:55

It’s already happening. And anyone is best advised not to do any “scooping”.

Comment by Muggy
2013-12-28 06:57:02

I’m looking forward to the review of 2013 predictions, as well as a fresh round for predictions for the upcoming year.

I don’t think I will be buying a house in 2014. That’s about all I can predict at this time.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 07:22:15

I can predict the same for us (i.e. no home purchase in 2014).

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 07:50:14

I predict polygamy will be legal and I will be forced to buy 4 homes; each wife gets a home for herself.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 09:07:05

Woah, woah, woah! It seems you are saying mandatory polygamy will happen and mandatory house buying!

I know you are joking.

Comment by GetStucco
2013-12-28 11:23:11

It’s mandatory in some circles.

D&C 132

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:13:19

It’s Bill’s worst nightmare. He would be forced to buy food for the kids too.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 16:02:38

Yes it has been seen in recent history: North Korea, former East Grrmany, former Soviet Union.

It’s called Marxism.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 16:41:45

I didn’t realize that polygamy was mandatory in North Korea, East Germany, and the former Soviet Union. I always thought it was illegal in those places.

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2013-12-28 19:27:51

No but forced poly - anything is Marxist. Too much initiated force from this government will cause revolution, hopefully nonviolent.

Comment by Muggy
2013-12-28 14:22:35

“each wife gets a home for herself.”

I guess I don’t totally understand the “poly” part.


Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 07:46:25

Comment by Muggy
2013-12-27 17:49:19
Scoping out a campsite for me and the kids, and came across this:

Posted late yesterday. This is typical realtor behavior.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 15:06:12

Yes, typical realtoR. I agree.

Comment by overpaid government contractor
2013-12-28 07:59:16

Hope and Change

“An old mattress in East Oakland. Paint cans in West Oakland. A couch on International Boulevard.

They tell a tale that’s been spun for years in Oakland - people leaving their garbage wherever they want, and the city waging a Sisyphean struggle to fix the issue.

Last year, public works employees picked up 1,624 tons of junk and received 11,500 calls for cleanup.

“The more we pick it up, the more it seems to come out,” said Kristine Shaff, a public works agency spokeswoman.”

Comment by ibbots
2013-12-28 08:23:47

Because there was no trash on the streets in Oakland prior to 2008. Good point.

Comment by overpaid government contractor
2013-12-28 08:34:44

More Hope and Change across the Bay

“When work crews pulled open a broken BART escalator at San Francisco’s Civic Center Station last month, they found so much human excrement in its works they had to call a hazardous-materials team.

While the sheer volume of human waste was surprising, its presence was not. Once the stations close, the bottom of BART station stairwells in downtown San Francisco are often a prime location for homeless people to camp for the night or find a private place to relieve themselves.”

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 08:59:53

Nobody ever took a dump in SF before. Great insight.


(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Colorado
2013-12-28 09:15:41

I see to recall reading this same story years ago.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Kidbuck
2013-12-29 14:11:20

If you like your dump site, you can keep your dump site.

Comment by jose canusi
2013-12-28 08:44:48

Facebook “dead and buried”. This story was picked up and spread all over the place yesterday, regarding the EU study. And I recall Colorado saying the kids he knew were using Snapchat, so hopefully this will be a US trend as well.

BTW, didn’t zuckerberg sell like a billion dollars in stock or something just a few days before this broke? I think the news story said it was to pay taxes.

Comment by tom cruz bustamante
2013-12-28 08:58:26

Snapchat will be bought by FB sooner or later.

Comment by jose canusi
2013-12-28 09:08:21

Actually FB already tried to buy it and their billion dollar offer was turned down.

Comment by In Colorado
2013-12-28 09:07:42

And I recall Colorado saying the kids he knew were using Snapchat, so hopefully this will be a US trend as well.

That wasn’t me.

Comment by jose canusi
2013-12-28 09:09:43

Oh, sorry, somebody mentioned their children’s friends were all using Snapchat, thought it was you.

Comment by overpaid government contractor
2013-12-28 09:17:18

The 22yo intern in our office is all about Snapchat, says he and his friends send more Snapchat messages than texts now. And Facebook is so 2009.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Colorado
2013-12-28 09:11:14

I just looked at the article and saw this:

“Teenagers are gravitating instead towards sites like Snapchat and Twitter, the former because interactions leave no permanent record”

No permanent record, huh? They’re so sure that their precious messages aren’t sitting in a database, somewhere on the cloud, with the NSA rifling through them?

Comment by In Colorado
2013-12-28 09:14:15

Lolz, just saw this on Wikipedia:

“On May 9, 2013, Forbes reported that Snapchat photos do not actually disappear, and that the images can still be retrieved with minimal technical knowledge after the time limit expires. The Electronic Privacy Information Center consequently filed a complaint against Snapchat with the Federal Trade Commission, stating that Snapchat deceived its customers by leading them to believe that pictures are destroyed within seconds of viewing”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 13:47:11

I am beginning to hate high tech after being in it for the last 34 years.

Comment by phony scandals
2013-12-28 09:14:37

It s#cks to be a long way from the newly created money.

Dylan Grice Explains How “Crackpot” Central Bankers Are Destroying Society

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/11/2013

To see the how, first understand how monetary policy works. Think about what happens in the very simple example of a central bank’s expanding the monetary base by printing money to buy government bonds.

That by this transaction the government has raised revenue for the government is obvious. The government now has a greater command over the nation’s resources. But it is equally obvious that no one can raise revenue without someone else bearing the cost. To deny it would imply revenues could be raised for free, which would imply that wealth could be created by printing more money. True, some economists, it seems, would have the world believe there to be some validity to such thinking. But for those of us more concerned with correct logical practice, it begs a serious question. Who pays? We know that this monetary policy has redistributed money into the government’s coffers. But from whom has the redistribution been?

The simple answer is that we don’t and can’t know, at least not on an amount per person basis. This is unfortunate and unsatisfactory, but it also happens to be true. Had the extra money come from taxation, everyone would at least know where the burden had fallen and who had decreed it to fall there. True, the upper-rate tax payers might not like having a portion of their wealth redirected towards poorer members of society and they might not agree with it. Some might even feel robbed. But at least they know who the robber is.

When the government raises revenue by selling bonds to the central bank, which has financed its purchases with printed money, no one knows who ultimately pays. In the abstract, we know that current holders of money pay since their cash holdings have been diluted. But the effects are more subtle. To see just how subtle, consider Cantillon’s 18th century analysis of the effects of a sudden increase in gold production:

If the increase of actual money comes from mines of gold or silver… the owner of these mines, the adventurers, the smelters, refiners, and all the other workers will increase their expenditures in proportion to their gains. … All this increase of expenditures in meat, wine, wool, etc. diminishes of necessity the share of the other inhabitants of the state who do not participate at first in the wealth of the mines in question. The altercations of the market, or the demand for meat, wine, wool, etc. being more intense than usual, will not fail to raise their prices. … Those then who will suffer from this dearness… will be first of all the landowners, during the term of their leases, then their domestic servants and all the workmen or fixed wage-earners … All these must diminish their expenditure in proportion to the new consumption.

In Cantillon’s example, the gold mine owners, mine employees, manufacturers of the stuff miners buy and the merchants who trade in it all benefit handsomely. They are closest to the new money and they get to see their real purchasing powers rise.

But as they go out and spend, they bid up the prices of the stuff they purchase to a level which is higher than it would otherwise have been, making that stuff more expensive. For anyone not connected to the mining business (and especially those on fixed incomes: “the landowners, during the term of their leases”), real incomes haven’t risen to keep up with the higher prices. So the increase in the gold supply redistributes money towards those closest to the new money, and away from those furthest away.

Another way to think about this might be to think about Milton Friedman’s idea of dropping new money from a helicopter. He used this example to demonstrate how easy it would theoretically be for a government to create inflation. What he didn’t say was that such a drop would redistribute income in the same way more gold from Cantillon’s mines did, towards those standing underneath the helicopter and away from everyone else.

So now we know we have a slightly better understanding of who pays: whoever is furthest away from the newly created money. And we have a better understanding of how they pay: through a reduction in their own spending power. The problem is that while they will be acutely aware of the reduction in their own spending power, they will be less aware of why their spending power has declined. So if they find groceries becoming more expensive they blame the retailers for raising prices; if they find petrol unaffordable, they blame the oil companies; if they find rents too expensive they blame landlords, and so on. So now we see the mechanism by which debasing money debases trust. The unaware victims of this accidental redistribution don’t know who the enemy is, so they create an enemy.

Keynes was well aware of this insidious dynamic and articulated it beautifully in a 1919 essay:

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. … Those to whom the system brings windfalls… become “profiteers” who are the object of the hatred…. the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

Deliberately impoverishing one group in society is a bad thing to do. But impoverishing a group in such an opaque, clandestine and underhanded way is worse. It is not only unjust but dangerous and potentially destructive. A clear and transparent fiscal policy which openly redistributes from the rich to the poor can at least be argued on some level to be consistent with ‘social justice.’

Governments can at least claim to be playing Robin Hood. There is no such defense for a monetary driven redistribution towards recipients of the new money and away from everyone else because if the well-off are closest to the money, well, it will have the perverse effect of benefitting them at the expense of the poor.

Take the past few decades. Prior to the 2008 crash, central banks set interest rates according to what their crystal ball told them the future would be like. They were supposed to raise them when they thought the economy was growing too fast and cut them when they thought it was growing too slow.

They were supposed to be clever enough to banish the boom-bust cycle, and this was a nice idea. The problem was that it didn’t work. One reason was because central bankers weren’t as clever as they thought. Another was because they had a bias to lower rates during the bad times but not raise them adequately during the good times. On average therefore, credit tended to be too cheap and so the demand for debt was artificially high. Since that new debt was used to buy assets, the prices of assets rose in a series of asset bubbles around the world. And this unprecedented, secular and largely global credit inflation created an illusion of prosperity which was fun for most people while it lasted.

But beneath the surface, the redistributive mechanism upon which monetary policy relies was at work. Like Cantillon’s gold miners, those closest to the new credit (financial institutions and anyone working in finance industry) were the prime beneficiaries. In 2012 the top 50 names on the Forbes list of richest Americans included the fortunes of eleven investors, financiers or hedge fund managers. In 1982 the list had none. - 182k

Comment by CA renter
2013-12-29 01:45:57

Yes, yes, yes! Excellent article; thanks for sharing it, PS.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-29 10:50:35

Spot on.

Comment by you'll know it's me
2013-12-28 11:01:06

Please re remember that the poorest are often the stupidest. They do have the right to vote, but certain and many things can be accomplished without voter approval.

IF the severely and chronically and generational non working poor were rounded up and put in cca or ccc work camps (as was the norm for hundreds of years) and paid a pittance until their skills matched 65% of the norm AND they had a sponsoring employer, except for your particular little basement dweller, you’d sing the praises of it all.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 11:21:00

The Truth posted on the HBB convicts you.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 14:04:12

It would be more efficient to burn them for energy.

Comment by Combotechie
2013-12-28 19:20:15

And profitable to extract and sell any transplantable body parts.

Comment by CA renter
2013-12-29 01:48:44

And if the learned the skills to put them in the ~65the percentile of most skilled workers, there would be a new bottom 10% to contend with.

Additionally, you’re assuming that these people can be “rehabbed” to the point where they are all productive, happy little worker-bots. I believe that is an overly-optimistic, and unrealistic, assumption.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-12-29 11:25:17

I didn’t see any mention of the 65th percentile:

until their skills matched 65% of the norm

I took “the norm” to mean 50th percentile—so 65% of the norm would be 33rd percentile.

Not that I’m defending the idea, mind you! Sounds pretty fascist to me.

Comment by CA renter
2013-12-29 17:32:22

Okay, you may be right about how they intend that. Still, there would be a new “bottom” in that distribution/curve.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2013-12-28 13:20:04

Jobless aid to 1.3 million people ends…today!

And another 1.9 million more will lose jobless benefits in a few months, totaling 3.2 million.

Less spending at Wal-Mart, Target, Ross. And no new Kia in 2014 either! Subscriptions to Cable TV might continue (or not), but not for Smartphones.

Burglaries will increase. Wo words: “Castle Doctrine.”

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 18:04:05

Bill, you’re crazy. The woman-hating stuff is just one part of your general insanity. BTW, did you know that rms is too cowardly to tell his wife to her face that he wishes he had rented her, rather than bought her? He blames her for the fact that he is too poor to live in California and do exciting things all the time. She is raising his kids and working, but he wants her to make $100k (since he doesn’t), so he is sacrificing by living off of her dime in the midwest. I guess you and rms both fit in perfectly here on the HBB. White, racist, misogynistic fools who can’t even afford to support a family, and go to the internet for validation because nobody likes you in real life.

The HBB is a cesspool of racist, sexist, poor white men.

Comment by rms
2013-12-28 23:41:17


Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 13:55:53

I challenge even one male on this blog to man up and write a sentence denouncing any type of human trade, whether those humans be bought or rented.

Secondly, I challenge all of you to actually love and respect your wives, daughters, sisters, and moms.

And on a third note, I challenge you to support your families and stop grousing about it. Society would be better off. If you guys would do that a little more often, then there wouldn’t be so many women these days deciding that it’s just too risky to have kids anymore.

Comment by Avocado99
2013-12-28 16:01:50

got blame?

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 16:43:36

OK, you failed the challenge.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 17:54:32

Well, I guess that’s it then. There are no males who read the HBB who think it’s F’ed up to rent or buy women. There are no males on this board who don’t hate their wives, daughters, sisters, and moms. AND there are no males on this board who support their families, probably because they’re not capable of it.

No wonder this blog degenerates so often into racist, illogical, and bunker-type chat. The dudes on here are disappointing.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-12-28 18:01:49

realtors are liars

Comment by NH Hick
2013-12-28 18:55:32

The only thing that you represent is the word that starts with a “c” and ends with a “t”.

Comment by cactus
2013-12-28 21:41:14

Uncle Fed, why won’t you love ME?

I think I know why

Comment by rms
2013-12-28 23:57:16

“The dudes on here are disappointing.”

Then why are you here, V?

Comment by Mr. Banker
2013-12-28 19:39:34

I am one who denounces any type of human trade, whether those humans be bought or traded. But I do this denoouncing for economic reasons rather than for humanatarian ones.

If one OWNS another human being then he assumes the cost of maintenence of this owned human being - such as care and feeding. But if the human being is allowed the right to own himself (or herself) then extraction of resources can still be accomplished by non-owners by the skillful use of persuasion.

Before the modern era resource extracton was accomplished by means of coercion, but since the modern era took hold resource extraction has progressed from methods of coercion to methods of persuasion. And this is all the better for the resource extractor because, if done properly, the resource extractee will be forever greatful to the extractor, will willingly work harder in order to gain more resources so they can be extracted by the extractor, AND at the same time the extractee will free the extractor from any obligations for his health and well being.

Comment by phony scandals
2013-12-28 17:10:24

DHS Insider: “Preparations Have Been Finalized to Respond to a Crisis of Unprecedented Magnitude Within the United States”

Douglas J. Hagmann
SHTF plan
December 28, 2013

Editor’s Note: One of the questions oft asked in alternative news circles is why, if elements within the U.S. government intend to collapse our economy and implement martial law, no one within these circles has spoken out.

The fact is that scores of people have made it their duty to alert the American people to what’s going on behind the scenes. They’ve told us of the corruption and backroom deals. They’ve given us the warning signs to look for, many of which have already come to pass. They’ve even made us aware of the government’s response should the worst come to pass. Detractors often dismiss the warnings and insider reports as bogus, often claiming that if the sources are anonymous they can’t be legitimate. But do we blame them for taking extreme steps to protect their identities? Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning showed their faces, and now they will spend their lives as targets. Given what happened to these whistle blowers, is it any surprise that others with insider knowledge refuse to speak out in an official capacity?

The following warning comes to us from an anonymous source embedded deep within the Department of Homeland Security who has taken it upon himself to share his knowledge with our audience through the generous contrtributions of the Hagmann and Hagmann Report via the Northeast Intelligence Network. The insider has taken extraordinary measures to remain anonymous, but given what we know the government is up to and the signs we see all around us, does his desire for anonymity make his claims any less legitimate than if he had included his name?

We’ve long argued that any manufactured event would be telegraphed to the general public by whistle blowers on the inside. Deny the possibility if you so choose, but this insider, along with others who have shared their information may well be the only warning you’ll ever receive. As the Insider notes, most people simply have no idea what’s coming, nor do they care to. One morning they’ll wake up and all hell will have broken loose.

Under the cover and amid the distraction of the Christmas bustle, I had my last “official” contact with a source inside the Department of Homeland Security known as “Rosebud” in my writings. My source is leaving his position, retiring along with numerous others choosing to leave this bureaucratic monstrosity. For this contact, my source took unprecedented measures to be certain that our contact was far off the radar of prying government eyes and ears. I was stunned at the lengths he employed, and even found myself somewhat annoyed by the inconvenience that his cloak-and-dagger approach caused. It was necessary, according to my source, because all department heads under FEMA and DHS are under orders to identify anyone disclosing any information for termination and potential criminal prosecution.

“DHS is like a prison environment, complete with prison snitches,” he said, referring to the search for leaks and leakers. And the warden is obsessed. Ask anyone in DHS. No one trusts anyone else and whatever sources might be left are shutting up. The threats that have been made far exceed anything I’ve ever seen. Good people are afraid for their lives and the lives of their families. We’ve all been threatened. They see the writing on the wall and are leaving. It’s not a joke and not hype.”

The following is a narrative from my source, prefaced with the instructions to “take it or leave it,” and “disregard it at your own peril.” He added that it’s now up to each American to act on the information themselves or suffer the consequences. “I’ve resigned myself to the fact that most [Americans] will never be convinced of the reality that is taking place right in front of them.”

The plan explained

“According to every internal document I’ve seen and read, and from the few people I’ve spoken with who understand what’s going on, preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama.” But why?

“‘It’s the economy, stupid,’” he began, paraphrasing a campaign slogan coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. ”Just as I disclosed in our first meeting, the crisis will be rooted in an economic collapse. I told you last year, at a time when gold and silver were setting record highs, one specific indicator that time is very short. It is the final ‘smack down’ of the metals, gold and silver, that will presage the orchestrated economic collapse that is being planned by the bankers of Wall Street. Everybody needs to understand that this is a deliberate collapse of the U.S. economy with the oversight of the White House and the full knowledge of the Justice Department. Everyone seems to be waiting for some big, history making event that will signal the start of the collapse. The fact is that the collapse has already started. It’s incremental, like a snowball rolling down a hill. It gets bigger and rolls faster. Well, this snowball is well on its way down the hill.”

“I don’t mean to sound repetitive, by I can’t stress this enough. Contrary to what you hear, we’re already in an economic collapse, except that most people haven’t a clue. The ‘big bang’ comes at the end, when people they wake up one morning and can’t log in to their bank accounts, can’t use their ATM cards, and find out that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated,” he stated.

“I’ve seen documentation of multiple scenarios created outside of DHS. Different plans and back-up plans. Also, please understand that I deliberately used the word ‘created,’ as this is a completely manufactured event. In the end it won’t be presented that way, which is extremely important for everyone to understand. What is coming will be blamed on some unforeseen event out of everyone’s control, that few saw coming or thought would actually happen. Then, another event will take place concurrent with this event, or immediately after it, to confuse and compound an already explosive situation.” I asked for specifics.

“As I said, there are several scenarios and I don’t know them all. I know one calls for a cyber-attack by an external threat, which will then be compounded by something far removed from everyone’s own radar. But it’s all a ruse, or a pretext. The threat is from within,” he stated. “Before people can regain their footing, a second event will be triggered.” Again, I asked for specifics.

“I’ve seen one operational plan that refers to the federal government’s response to a significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Information at these levels is compartmentalized. I don’t have specifics, just plans for the response. The response will be controls and restrictions on travel, business, and every aspect of our lives, especially gun ownership and speech that incites people against the government. I guess some people would call it Martial Law, and they would not be incorrect. But understand that this will be a process deployed in stages. How quickly of a process remains to be seen.”

The mechanics explained

As I said, people continue to look for something big to happen first, followed by a militaristic response by the federal government against U.S. citizens. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe it will happen this way, although there is one unthinkable exception. That exception would involve a ‘decapitation’ of our leadership, but I’ve seen nothing even remotely suggestive of that. But I’ve heard and even read articles where that is mentioned. Frankly, though, that’s always been a threat. I suppose that if the leadership is deemed useless, or becomes a liability to the larger agenda in some manner, it could happen. The precedent exists. Let’s pray that it’s not the case now.”

“I don’t think anyone except the initiated few know the precise series of events or the exact timing, just a general overview and an equally general time period. I think we’re in that period now, as DHS has their planned responses finalized. Also, the metals are important because it’s real money, not Ponzi fiat currency. The U.S. has no inventory of gold, so the prices are manipulated down to cause a sell-off of the physical assets. China is on a buying spree of gold, and other countries want their inventory back. The very people causing the prices to drop are the ones who are also buying the metals at fire sale prices. They will emerge extremely wealthy when the prices rise after the U.S. currency becomes wallpaper. A little research will identify who these people and organizations are.”

“I’d like to add a bit of perspective that might help explain the events as I described. Do you remember former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announcing that the Pentagon was unable to account for $2.3 trillion in the defense budget? That was on September 10, 2001, the day before the attacks of 9/11. Some suggest that 9/11 was orchestrated, in part to cover up the missing money, which is ludicrous. The result, however, was that suddenly the accounting issue took a back seat because of the attacks. The result will be the same. That’s a perfect example of the mechanics of what we are about to experience. It’s going to take years to sort out, and when it’s finally sorted out, the damage will have long been done.”

“Please note a few final things. The relationship that exists between DHS today and the executive branch is well beyond alarming. DHS and other organizations have become the private army of the Oval Office. The NSA, and I’ve got contacts there, is taking orders from the Oval Office. The IRS is under the virtual control of the Oval Office in a manner that would make Nixon cower. Even though all roads appear to lead to the Oval Office, they lead through the Oval Office. It’s not just Obama, but the men behind him, the people who put him there. The people who put him there are the ones who created him.” I asked who created him.

“First, ask yourself why there was such an all out effort to marginalize anyone talking about Obama’s eligibility in 2008. Even so-called conservatives pundits fell for the lie that such questions were nothing more than a diversion. They were following a specific drumbeat. That should tell every rational adult that he is a creation of the globalists who have no allegiance to any political party. He is the product of decades of planning, made for this very time in our history. He was selected to oversee the events I just disclosed. Who has that ability? He’s a product of our own intelligence agencies working with the globalists. He should be exhibit ‘A’ to illustrate the need to enforce the Logan Act. Need I say more?”

As often said by another of my sources, the U.S. is a captured operation. The lie is bigger than most people realize or are willing to confront. That is, until there is no other option. By then, it might be too late.

This article was posted: Saturday, December 28, 2013 at 6:38 am

Tags: domestic news, police state

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-12-28 17:58:08

That’s a phony scandal. And the topic of this blog is “The housing bubble”. Why are dudes so unintelligent?

Comment by NH Hick
2013-12-28 19:00:59

Why don’t you start your own blog called “The man haters club”?

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2013-12-29 02:46:07

Read the print at the top. Bits Bucket. Includes OFF TOPIC ideas.

Comment by Combotechie
2013-12-28 19:10:11

Economic collapse means killing the host and the efficient parasite never wants to kill the host.

Comment by phony scandals
2013-12-28 20:37:30

Be prepared: Wall Street advisor recommends guns, ammo for protection in collapse

By PAUL BEDARD | DECEMBER 26, 2013 AT 12:33 PM

A top financial advisor, worried that Obamacare, the NSA spying scandal and spiraling national debt is increasing the chances for a fiscal and social disaster, is recommending that Americans prepare a “bug-out bag” that includes food, a gun and ammo to help them stay alive.

David John Marotta, a Wall Street expert and financial advisor and Forbes contributor, said in a note to investors, “Firearms are the last item on the list, but they are on the list. There are some terrible people in this world. And you are safer when your trusted neighbors have firearms.”

His memo is part of a series addressing the potential for a “financial apocalypse.” His view, however, is that the problems plaguing the country won’t result in armageddon. “There is the possibility of a precipitous decline, although a long and drawn out malaise is much more likely,” said the Charlottesville, Va.-based president of Marotta Wealth Management.

Marotta said that many clients fear an end-of-the-world scenario. He doesn’t agree with that outcome, but does with much of what has people worried.

“I, along with many other economists, agree with many of the concerns expressed in these dire warnings. The growing debt and deficit spending is a tax on those holding dollars. The devaluation in the U.S. dollar risks the dollar’s status as the reserve currency of the world. Obamacare was the worst legislation in the past 75 years. Socialism is on the rise and the NSA really is abrogating vast portions of the Constitution. I don’t disagree with their concerns,” he wrote.

In his latest note, he said that Americans should have a survival kit to take in case of a financial or natural disaster. It should be filled with items that will help them stay alive for the first 72-hours of a crisis, including firearms.

“A bug-out bag is a good idea depending on where you live even if the emergency is just power outages, earthquakes and hurricanes. And with your preparedness you will be equipped to help others who might be in need,” he wrote. “Be prepared. Especially because it keeps you from being scared.”

He provided a list of items and even a link to bug-out bags on Amazon.

Paul Bedard, The Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at - 120k -

Comment by GetStucco
2013-12-28 19:47:11

Just heard an advert for H.A.R.P. refinancing which got me wondering: How much des this reduce the average beneficiary’s mortgage payment, what is the present value of a typical H.A.R.P. refinance, does the beneficiary pay taxes on the (unearned) income received, and who pays fo the benefits?

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 23:36:40

More MSM writers are coming to their senses over the folly of purchasing overpriced homes.

Kelly Phillips Erb, Contributor
I cover tax: paying tax is painful but reading about it shouldn’t be.

Taxes | 9/27/2013 @ 5:19PM |193,769 views
11 Reasons Why I Never Want To Own A House Again
144 comments, 50 called-out

When my phone vibrated, I didn’t even have to look. I knew what it meant: the house had finally sold.

I wasn’t sure how I was going to feel when it was finally over. I wondered if I would feel sad or anxious or regretful. What I actually felt was relief.

It was a great house. It was where my children took their first steps, where they learned to ride bikes and scooters. It was the location for dinner parties and cocktail parties and birthday parties and our annual Halloween potluck. But it was time to go. We happened upon a great new house that was nearly perfect. And even better: it was a rental.

I know what you’re thinking: didn’t you want to buy another house? It was a question we were asked over and over as we approached our closing. But I didn’t want to buy another house. After fifteen years, I was tired of being a homeowner. After a few months of renting, I was sold – on not buying again.

There’s a lot of hype about why you need to own a house. But buying a house isn’t the key to financial security for everyone – and those alleged tax advantages? Also not quite what they’re painted to be. I hope to never own a house again. Here’s a list of eleven reasons – many of them tax-related – why:

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-12-28 23:52:52

Fed-Watt Combo Deepens First MBS Loss Since ’94: Credit Markets
By Jody Shenn Dec 3, 2013 9:13 AM MT

The first annual losses in U.S. government-backed mortgage bonds since 1994 are deepening as the dual threats of a new regulator and a Federal Reserve pullback leave buyers navigating around what JPMorgan Chase & Co. calls a modern-day Scylla and Charybdis.

The $5.4 trillion of securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae lost an average 0.7 percent in November, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data. That’s the biggest drop since a 0.9 percent decline in June, when the debt was finishing its worst quarter in 19 years as concern grew the Fed would slow monthly bond purchases that include $40 billion of the notes.

A rule change paving the way for the White House to install U.S. Representative Mel Watt as overseer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is spurring speculation he’ll expand a refinancing program that may reduce returns. That’s combining with potential losses from rising interest rates as the Fed considers scaling back the debt purchases, leading JPMorgan analysts to reference the mythical sea monsters represented by a rock shoal and whirlpool around which Odysseus must steer his ship in Homer’s epic poem.

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post