November 29, 2014

Bits Bucket for November 29, 2014

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




RSS feed

191 Comments »

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 01:28:56

Vancouver, WA Rental Rates Crater 20% YoY As Housing Demand Plummets

http://www.zillow.com/vancouver-wa-98662/home-values/

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 08:37:09

From the page you reference:

Rent list price per sq-ft:

Oct 2013: $0.79/mo
Oct 2014: $0.96/mo

Rents look like they are UP 21.5% YoY on a per-sq-ft basis.

Crater?

It looks like you may have been examining the “Rent list price” to come up with your “Crater 20%” headline; you remember what we always called “list price” here? Wishing price. It’s very misleading in terms of direction, because it is influenced significantly by mix-shift. Given the difference in the “list price” data vs the “list price per sq-ft” data, there may be something interesting going on in terms of the mix—perhaps increased vacancies at the high-end of the market?

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 08:43:59

Nice call Prime.

HA has made the same mistake 100’s of times in similar posts. He seems incapable of analyzing the data he posts.

HA thinks if a big house sells for $300,000, and next month a small house sells for $270,000, the market value of all real estate has dropped 10%!

HA is a laughing stock of the HBB. HA! Ha, ha, hahahahaha!

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 08:48:28

About once a month for the past year, I have called him out on this type of misleading headline/ignoring the actual data; the rest of the time, I have taken to just ignoring him.

He obviously has more time to post than I do, so there is no point in engaging in a more frequent correcting of the record.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:55:57

That data is the data. Take it up with MRIS.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:05:57

The data that I posted is the data as well.

So you agree that Vancouver, WA rental rates are actually up ~20% YoY?

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 09:07:35

It’s not a matter of what I believe. The data shows rental rates are down 20% YoY in Vancouver, WA.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:36:41

The data shows rental rates are downUP 20% YoY in Vancouver, WA.

Fixed that for you.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 10:01:04

Here’s a good one.

Gig Harbor, WA Sale Prices Plunge 6% YoY; Fall MoM and QoQ as Rental Rates Sink

http://www.zillow.com/gig-harbor-wa/home-values/

 
Comment by scdave
2014-11-29 10:33:50

I have taken to just ignoring him ??

There ya go….You ever see the little Chihuahua dog on a front porch barking at anything & everything that walks by particularly other dogs ?? They are seeking attention…

So is it with HA…He seeks attention…He will post the most ridicules data to encourage response…Ignore him…

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 10:42:25

If just one of you develop the fortitude to ignore the data, go ahead. For the rest of you(basically everyone), there’s the JT extension.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/joshua-tree-extension/

Please install and proceed because the data will continue to be posted.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-30 10:42:27

I _LIKE_ the data being posted.

I only dislike the misleading headlines; the data never seems to say what you state that it does, when I click through and look at it.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-30 12:05:36

Either you can’t read the data or you’re dishonest about it.

Which is it?

 
 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:45:46

And down 20%.

Your point?

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 08:55:09

And down 20%.

Down 20% on a less meaningful metric—glad we’re in agreement. Thanks.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:59:12

A lump sum metric is no less meaningful than a unit price metric…. unless it gets in the way of your wallet.

Go ahead and expound that. Solidify your motive for everyone.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:10:02

A lump sum metric is no less meaningful than a unit price metric….

What the heck does that even mean?!?

They are both “lump sum” metrics—in that they aggregate the data across many many transactions.

The unit price metric is much more meaningful, in that in a small market (like you tend to select), it removes much of the noise w.r.t. whether larger units or small units contribute more data-points to the metric.

Nice try, calling that less meaningful. You think they are equally meaningful when one is obviously far more affected by mix-shift? That’s statement is ridiculous on its face.

Regarding my motives? I’ve been a renter since selling in early 2003, thinking I would buy again when the bubble subsided. My motives are aligned with falling rental rates. I only argue with you because I am against misleading use of data on general principle. When the data really shows falling rental rates and falling sales prices, I’ll be overjoyed.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 09:14:18

lol. A unit price item isn’t a lump sum price and a lum sum price isn’t a unit price. Rental rates are falling on a national basis and falling at a local level.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:38:13

Rental rates are falling on a national basis and falling at a local level.

Not yet demonstrated by data, other than cherry-picked and misinterpreted.

When that statement above is demonstrated by the data, I will celebrate it; until then, I will refrain.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 09:51:45

The data shows falling price and rental rates mom, qoq and yoy. Your beef is with the data.

Here’s another.

Redmond, WA Rental Rates Plunge 20% YoY

http://www.zillow.com/redmond-wa-98053/home-values/

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-30 10:45:10

Rent list price per sq-ft went from $1.22 to $1.35 from Oct 2013 to Oct 2014.

In other words, rental rates are up ~11% YoY.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-30 12:15:57

Let me help you.

Redmond, WA

Nov2013 Rental Rate- $2200
Nov 2014 Rental Rate- $1800

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-30 15:47:25

Rent list price per sq-ft went from $1.22 to $1.35 from Oct 2013 to Oct 2014.

The per-sq-ft data is exactly what I posted—an 11% increase.

Crater!!

Are you really foolish enough to believe that very different properties should be compared as if they were identical? That is what ignoring the per-unit trend is like.

Ignoring mix-shift demonstrates ignorance.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-30 16:31:58

Rent list price went from $220 to $1800 from Oct 2013 to Oct 2014.

The rental is exactly what I posted—an 20% dencrease.

Crater!!

Are you really foolish enough to believe that the same properties should be compared as if they were different? That is what ignoring falling prices is like.

Ignoring falling prices demonstrates denial.

 
Comment by Wittbelle
2014-11-30 21:27:19

$220 to $1800? That’s an increase of nearly 900%! Wow!

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-01 19:01:15

Hello donkey.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 01:30:01

Spokane, WA Sale Prices Plummet 19% YoY; Foreclosures Rise

http://www.zillow.com/wa/home-values/

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 01:31:40

“An ongoing criminal enterprise”: Why America’s housing disaster is back and wreaking terror

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/18/an_ongoing_criminal_enterprise_why_americas_housing_disaster_is_back_and_wreaking_terror/

They never left. At least it’s getting coverage.

Now if you bought a house in the last 15 years, you’re screwed, glued and tattooed.

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 12:01:29

I don’t like that this article bringing up robosigning and what achieves the same now does end up excusing FBs from having their houses foreclosed on when they don’t pay. Ongoing crookedness yes, but deadbeats staying in homes no.

 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 01:33:57

Ferndale, WA
(Bellingham area) Sale Prices Plunge 11% YoY; Rental Rates Crater 23% YoY

http://www.zillow.com/ferndale-wa-98248/home-values/

 
Comment by goon squad
2014-11-29 03:09:02

Realtors are liars.

Comment by palmetto
2014-11-29 04:14:13

And who publishes their lies? The MSM.

The MSM lays traps, creates misery and conflict.

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 07:48:25

A pimp is 1000 times worse than a whore?

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 08:37:30

And a john is a 1000 times worse than a pimp since he - the demand - keeps the whole business going. Just like the Obama Zombies, McCain Mutants, and Romney Retards keep crony capitalism going by voting for its Republicrat enablers.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-29 09:08:48

Johns get a lot more.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:11:24

Johns get a lot more.

Hopefully not the gifts that keep on giving!

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 12:05:35

Johns have responsibility the same as whores. But just like with MJ, shouldn’t the whole thing be legal between consenting adults? That isn’t my personal view, but there are many who trumpet how MJ should be legalized and I think the same logic would apply to prostitution.

But Johns as morally culpable as pimps? Not even close.

 
Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-29 15:58:25

just like with MJ, shouldn’t the whole thing be legal between consenting adults?

I can easily say yes. I’m a voluntaryist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

“Voluntaryism (or sometimes voluntarism), is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary.[2][better source needed] The principle most frequently used to support voluntaryism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is closely associated with, and sometimes used synonymously with, the anarcho-capitalist philosophy.”

 
 
 
 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 06:21:28

…..Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-27 09:13:12

With rental rates falling as rapidly as housing prices, what will a phony fraudster do?

Median Rental Rate Falls 7% YoY Nationally

http://files.zillowstatic.com/research/public/Metro/Metro_MedianRentalPrice_AllHomes.csv

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 07:38:05

Here is what the data actually shows: Rental rates have increased 10% over last year and 17% over the last 4 years:

National rental rates:

2010 rent = $1,360/month
2011 rent = $1,375/month
2012 rent = $1,361/month
2013 rent = $1,463/month
2014 rent = $1,591/month

So if you are counting on saving money from lower rents, don’t count on HA’s data. He is no Housing Analyst.

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 07:51:53

Even assuming your figures aren’t junk, That is 5 years. So rent increased bout 3 percent a year since 2010, a period that included an unprecedented PROP UP of housing prices?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 08:15:09

Shillow,

The HA post is about rental rates not sales values. One of the risks of renting is that rents are likely to increase over time. The point of the post is that HA says rents are going down.

I see you understand that is not true. Rents are going up about 3% a year. Using your extrapolation, if your rent is $1,500/month today, in 10-years your rent will be $2,000/month.

Clearly you are a smart person and can see the folly in HA’s assertions. Don’t use them to plan your finances.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:21:58

No Jingle_Fraud. Rental rates fell over the last year. “Values” have nothing to do with it.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 08:37:52

Shillow says “…Even assuming your figures aren’t junk…”. They are not my figures, they are HA’s figures. He posted them. I just read them back to you.

HA says, “Rental rates fell of the last year….”. No HA, not according to the date YOU posted. Quit lying. Read, analyze. Think. Try to live up to the name you call yourself. HA, Ha, ha, hahahahahaha, oh wait, you are living up to it…a laugh a minute.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:44:24

Even in CA, rental rates are falling at a good clip. Here’s a popular university town in the Sacramento area where rental rates are falling.

Davis, CA Rental Rates Dive 10% YoY

http://www.zillow.com/davis-ca-95616/home-values/

This is a bullish trend. It’s something to be optimistic about.

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 12:08:03

The charts he posts show rental rates falling.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-30 10:48:51

Davis, CA rent list price per sq-ft:

Oct 2010: $1.28/mo
Oct 2014: $1.27/mo

Some crater.

If you zoom out and look, you’ll see that there is effectively no change for years, but there is some seasonality and noise.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-30 12:12:39

That’s good. Falling rental rates. And the declines are accelerating. Now back to the headline.

Davis, CA Rental Rates Dive 10% YoY

http://www.zillow.com/davis-ca-95616/home-values/

Davis, CA rent list price:

Oct 2013: $1550/month
Oct 2014: $1400/month

Stick with the data.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-30 15:50:30

Stick with the data.

Ok, let’s stick with the YoY data, per-sq-ft, which is more comparable (less subject to mix-shift):

Oct 2013: $1.19/mo
Oct 2014: $1.27/mo

Per-sq-ft, rents increased 6.7% YoY.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-30 16:28:50

Ok, let’s stick with the YoY data, which is more comparable (less subject to mix-shift):

Oct 2013: $1550/month
Oct 2014: $1400/month

Rents decreased 10% YoY.

 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:13:46

US Median Rent October 2013- $1600
US Median Rent October 2014- $1495

What’s the problem Jingle_Fraud?

http://files.zillowstatic.com/research/public/Metro/Metro_MedianRentalPrice_AllHomes.csv

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 08:23:03

HA, you just pick a month and call it good. It is a stupid exercise and a miscarriage of the data. No analysis.

It is a complete mischaracterization of the long term market. I just want the readers to know the truth about you and your posts. You must be a Realtor by Goon’s definition.

Here is the annual data for the years from which you picked one month:

2013 rent = $1,463/month
2014 rent = $1,591/month

HA should change is name. No analysis about housing on his behalf. Ignore him and his posts.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:39:38

Sorry Jingle_Fraud. It’s a YoY measurement of rental rates and they fell 7%. And housing prices are falling at a faster clip.

US Median Rent October 2013- $1600
US Median Rent October 2014- $1495

What’s not to like about falling prices? It’s something to be optimistic about.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 08:41:32

HA should change is name. No analysis about housing on his behalf.

I’m going to propose “Housing Statistician”. It sounds nice and analytical—but everyone knows there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:46:58

Falling rental rates YoY. Doesn’t much matter what you call it.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 08:56:39

I think I’d call it noise in the data-set. Have heard of the concept of noise vs information in a signal? Perhaps you should read some up on some very basic information-theory. You seem to always trumpet the noise and ignore the signal.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 09:06:36

MoM was noise. Then QoQ was noise. Now YoY declines in rental rates and sale prices is noise.

Thanks for demonstrating that for us.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 09:17:37

Falling prices MoM, QoQ and YoY is the signal. Like this.

San Diego, CA Sale Prices Plunge 16% YoY; Dive 14% QoQ and 8% YoY

http://www.zillow.com/san-diego-ca-92130/home-values/

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:41:52

Ok, San Diego does look like a fairly convincing drop in Oct. It’s not showing up in list price, but it is in sale price. It’s down to roughly in the neighborhood of where it was in Apr 2013.

I would note that San Diego was the first to crest the rise and start trending down back in late 2005 as well…

Hmmm.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 09:54:19

Oct? Sale prices have been falling in San Diego for months and is now negative YoY.

List price? Flat YoY but wasn’t it just a bit ago you were howling how list prices don’t matter?

Hmmmm.

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 12:09:40

So leading edge cities like SD and PHX are showing the drop has begun? Ignore that at your peril.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-30 10:50:07

but wasn’t it just a bit ago you were howling how list prices don’t matter?

I said list price was wishing price. It doesn’t tell you about transactions, but it does tell you something about seller psychology.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-30 12:06:55

And this does. Sale prices are falling in San Diego just like everywhere else on the west coast.

 
 
 
Comment by drumminj
2014-11-29 09:49:55

With rental rates falling as rapidly as housing prices, what will a phony fraudster do?

And yet my landlord wants to raise my rent 5%. Perhaps you’re misinformed about rental rates, or maybe the generalizations you’d like to make aren’t valid?

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 09:55:31

Perhaps you just don’t like the data.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by drumminj
2014-11-29 12:34:00

Perhaps you just don’t like the data.

Why wouldn’t I like the data, as a renter? Falling rental rates would work in my favor.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 12:37:58

Good.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 07:18:47

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-27 09:13:12

With rental rates falling as rapidly as housing prices, what will a phony fraudster do?

Median Rental Rate Falls 7% YoY Nationally
________________________

HA is no Housing Analyst. If Realtors are liars, he must be a Realtor. He keeps posting all these lies.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:10:00

Falling housing prices, falling rental rates. What’s not to like Jingle_Fraud?

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 08:24:47

Only your lies HA….HA, Ha, ha, hahahahahaha.

Seek the truth HA, you will feel much better!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:26:25

US Median Rent October 2013- $1600
US Median Rent October 2014- $1495

^
Stick with the data Jingle_Fraud. And remember…. Falling prices of all items is positively bullish and good for the economy.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:30:54

Rental rates are falling in CA too.

San Rafael, CA Rental Rates Sink 6% YoY; Housing Prices Sink Statewide

http://www.zillow.com/san-rafael-ca/home-values/

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-11-29 09:58:59

I don’t know where zillow get their information. When I see their zestimates on rent or purchase price on the properties I manage, I almost always think to myself “Sold! To Mr Zestimator.”

A better way to gauge rents is Craigslist:

http://sacramento.craigslist.org/search/apa

1 - 100 of 6404

If you follow individual properties you’ll see if the rents are being reduced. Also, as you can see in this search, lot’s of “free rent”, “don’t pay until January 1st”, or the age of the ad, give you an idea of where things stand.

Stuff like this is interesting:

http://invitationhomes.com/market/atlanta-ga/

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 10:05:56

Lol. Six thousand empty houses and apartments in Sacramento. Can’t rent the or sell them.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 10:33:30

Ben, I just posted a house on CL last Friday. Had 8 calls by Sat at noon. Application on Sunday, accepted Monday, lease signed on Wednesday. Market rent up $60/mon to $1620/month.

I was very surprised. Usually the market is slow during the holiday season. Good locations, good size home (1600 SF) w good schools always help demand.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 10:35:21

Of course you did! More phony nonsense just like your claim to be a general contractor, your $90k water meters and $40k building permits.

How about substantiated just one claim before making another?

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-11-29 10:42:19

‘I just posted a house on CL last Friday’

So you had a vacancy? I wonder why. But I’m not interested in one house. Why are there free rent ads at all? Have you ever seen a hawk killed on the highway? It’s because they zoom in on something and don’t see the truck.

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 12:11:43

The tizzy the speculators and shills are in warms my otherwise cold heart.

 
Comment by oxide
2014-11-29 13:08:29

Ben, could Zillow rents be biased higher due to self-selection?

A rental property on Zillow is probably being presented by a realtor. In that case, it’s likely a better property owned by somebody with the money to engage a realtor and can hold out longer for a better price. And the realtor logged it into MLS so of course it will show up on Zillow. Hence, Zillow skews toward higher-listed property.

A rental on Craiglist is more likely to be an individual landlord with a marginal property who needs the money quicker and doesn’t have the time/money for a realtor or MLS. Hence, Craigslist shows price drops, but Zillow never sees them.

I’m not saying it’s a 1-1 match that Zillow is always high end and Craigslist is always loser LL’s, but it’s skewed enough to skew the zillow rents high.

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-11-29 13:29:24

‘who needs the money quicker and doesn’t have the time/money for a realtor or MLS’

I’d like to meet the landlord that doesn’t want a quick turnaround and is eager to pay someone he doesn’t have to. All I’m saying is Zillow is a joke. These are properties I know very well and the rents and “values” Zillow shows are fantasy. Do you think I wouldn’t pay Zillow if they could magically produce rents 20-30% (or more) above the market?

I don’t know about your area, but property managers have a variety of ways to connect with tenants. Craigslist (if a town has one) is the market. And you can track a property to see if it rents or is reduced. If it disappears, it probably rented at what they were asking. Zillow; I don’t know what it is and I don’t waste time with nonsense.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 13:36:50

Zillows rental price/Zesstimates exist simply to convince some dumb sucker on the fence that buying is better than renting. When you get right down to it, compare the sale prices to rentals and you’ll see rentals are far less costly than buying.

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-11-29 13:42:04

I can only speak for the properties I know. It makes me doubt the methodology. Sure, I wish there was some big online database that could tell us what the purchase price and rent are on every house in the nation, 24/7. But I’ve found I have to actually work to figure these things out.

 
Comment by Guillotine Renovator
2014-11-29 15:55:37

“Ben, I just posted a house on CL last Friday.”

For somebody who has constantly crowed about his long-term tenants, you sure are having a lot of vacancies lately. LMFAO.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 19:22:10

The existing resident lived there for almost 5 years. He is leaving because he just purchased a new house. He will vacate on Dec. 8th and the new resident will move in Dec. 15th.

Over the last 7 years, the house has been vacant for less than 20 days.

Renting a house in 48 hours after advertising it is a pretty good sign of a strong market with demand for 3/2 homes with 1600 SF.

We did increase the rent $125/mon since the house was last rented in 2009. That is about 8.3%. One property manager we talked to said it was probably worth more, but we are happy.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 19:26:15

More BS from Jingle_Fraud.

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-11-29 20:45:06

‘He is leaving because he just purchased a new house.’

Uh, I think you’ve cited that before.

‘We did increase the rent $125/mon but we are happy.’

Well isn’t that special. I’ve never raised rents a penny. I hammer the banks, not the tenants. I guess that’s the difference between you and me.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-30 15:33:16

I’ve never raised rents a penny.

Increasing asking-rent in between tenants seems pretty reasonable; I think that’s all that he did, rather than raising the rent on an existing tenant. Don’t you try to charge a market rent for your properties when you lease them, Ben?

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-30 15:39:19

What a charade.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-30 16:35:36

That is correct. I don’t raise rents on tenants in place. I like to keep my properties full. When they turn over, I go to market. My expenses go up over time and dollars are worth less, so I just gobto market rent!

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-30 16:55:22

If I were as deep in debt on depreciating assets as you, I’d take what I can get.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-29 05:43:52

Got affordable gasoline?

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2014-11-29 05:53:53

The lowest price I ever remember paying for gasoline was in Louisiana in 1986. If I recall correctly, it was about $0.869 for a gallon of unleaded regular.

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 06:24:20

$.02499 in the late 60’s early 70’s. Quarter a gallon. I remember because a bunch of neighbors all took their cars down to fill up when they heard about the deal.

Comment by Ol'Bubba
2014-11-29 07:36:41

That reminded me that I paid $0.289 in the early 70’s.

I rode my bike to the gas station to get some gas for the lawn mower. I was in junior high at the time.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 08:46:21

How many folks here remember being _shocked_, shocked, I tell you, when it went above $1.00 for the first time? All of the gas-station signs and pumps were lacking sufficient digits.

(raises hand…)

 
 
Comment by Ol'Bubba
2014-11-29 09:08:58

Jingle - did you mean 25 cents a gallon or 2.5 cents per gallon?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 10:25:29

25 cents. $0.25! I got the decimal wrong by accident. Sorry, Big fingers, little touchpad.

 
 
 
Comment by rms
2014-11-29 09:26:08

In 1967 I had a mini bike with a 1-gal fuel tank, and the filler cap doubled as an oil measuring cup; 2-cycle fuel/oil mixture. Anyway, I warmly remember paying $0.29 for a gallon of fuel.

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-29 06:06:55

OPEC has ushered in QE4, and how investors should play oil now
By Barbara Kollmeyer
Published: Nov 28, 2014 7:34 a.m.
Have yourself an oily little Christmas.

Welcome to the new era of QE4.

As if on cue, OPEC stepped in just as monetary policy (at least the Fed’s) has dried up. Central bankers have nothing on the oil cartel that did just what everyone expected, but has still managed to crush oil prices.

Protest away about the 1% getting richer and how prior QE hasn’t trickled down to those who really need it, but an oil cartel is coming to the rescue of America and others in the world right now.

It’s hard to imagine a “more wide-reaching and effective stimulus measure than to lower the cost of gas at the pump for everyone globally,” says Alpari U.K.’s Joshua Mahoney. “For this reason, we are effectively entering the era of QE4, with motorists able to allocate more of their money towards luxury items, while firms are now able to lower costs of production thus impacting the bottom line and raising profits.”

The impact of that could be “bigger than anything that has come before,” says Mahoney, who expects that theory to be tested and proved, via sales on Black Friday and the holiday season overall. In short, a consumer-spending explosion as we race to the malls on a full tank of cheap gas.

Tossing in his own two cents in the wake of that OPEC decision, legendary investor Jim Rogers says it’s a “fundamental positive for anybody who uses oil, who uses energy.” Just not great if you’re from Canada, Russia or Australia, he says. Or if you’re the ECB, fretting about price deflation. Or until it starts crushing shale producers.

Comment by azdude
2014-11-29 06:31:09

I thought the economy was booming and GDP growth was growing?

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 10:30:13

In this jobless “recovery” millions of idled workers are no longer driving to work; hence, demand for gas (and oil) keeps dropping.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 06:59:11

Maybe the sheiks will start buying up all the property now again like they did back in the 70s and also continue with painting hair on the statues at the Beverly Hills mansions.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-29 08:11:10

Over capacity in everything, financed with debt. Lower prices leads to default on the debts, which leads to collapse of businesses and loss of bubble jobs, which leads to less spending…

Comment by Combotechie
2014-11-29 08:45:49

“Over capacity in everything, financed with debt. Lower prices leads to default on the debts …”

… and these debt defaults destroys money - money which used to belong to somebody but now (poof) it suddenly doesn’t - it suddenly doesn’t because it was borrowed into existence in the first place and whomever was the last holder of the wrong end of the debt gets to eat the loss …

“… which leads to collapse of businesses and loss of bubble jobs, which leads to less spending…”

… which leads to further debt defaults and further money destruction and all of this money destruction and lack of spending tends make money scarce - harder and harder to get and harder and harder to hang onto.

In such an environment debt sucks big time and cash rules big time.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Combotechie
2014-11-29 09:52:28

Luckily for us all the people who have money are circulating the money they have just as fast as they can as illustrated in this chart:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V/

Oh, wait …

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-29 10:38:20

That’s what deflation looks like in a nutshell, and it has been so for over six years.

 
 
 
Comment by oxide
2014-11-29 13:12:50

QE4? Luxury items?

You know what these gas prices are? One extra pack of smokes a week, at best.

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-29 06:14:46

The Washington Post
Wonkblog
A simple guide to the sudden collapse in oil prices
By Chris Mooney November 28 at 3:09 PM
An oil well near Tioga, North Dakota. (AFP PHOTO/ Karen BLEIER/Getty Images)

The news in the markets is dramatic: Prices for West Texas Intermediate crude oil — often used as a benchmark of U.S. prices — dropped below $70 per barrel for the first time since 2010. This continues a dramatic price slump for oil, which cost over $100 per barrel as recently as June.

The shift has markedly reduced average U.S. gasoline prices (which are now well below $3 per gallon) and may bolster the U.S. economy heading into the Christmas spending season — by putting considerably more money in consumers’ wallets.

But what’s driving this slump — which is quickly becoming the single most important economic story of 2014 (and maybe 2015)? There’s one short-term reason and three longer-term reasons.

The most immediate reason is that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries — a group of 12 nations including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela that holds enormous power over global energy markets, producing 40 percent of global oil supply — decided on Thursday not to cut production at their meeting in Vienna.

The meeting was the most important in years, because it came amid a pre-existing slump in prices. Everybody wanted to know if OPEC would take any action to halt the decline. It didn’t — presumably because its members decided it was wiser to weather the current storm — and crude oil prices immediately tanked.

The long term reasons include booming U.S. and world oil production, little demand in Europe and Japan, and improving automobile fuel efficiency standards.

1) Booming U.S. and world oil production. Even as OPEC kept production steady, it has been growing elsewhere. The United States, most of all, has seen a major growth in oil production, thanks to the shale oil revolution, in which new technologies like horizontal drilling have allowed access to hydrocarbons deep beneath the Earth’s surface.

The figures from the Energy Information Administration are truly dramatic: Almost twice as many barrels a day of crude oil are being produced now in the U.S., versus the mid-2000s:
[FIGURE]

Source: Energy Information Administration.

Production of oil has also been up in many other countries. Canada increased its crude oil production from just over 2.5 million barrels per day in 2009 to over 3.3 million in 2013, and Russia increased from about 9.5 million barrels per day in 2009 to over 10 million barrels per day over the same time period. Libya, meanwhile, is bouncing back after production tanked in 2011 due to the country’s civil war.

In sum, there’s just more oil out there for people to buy, which is having a predictable effect on prices, pushing them downward.

2. Little demand in many regions including Japan and Europe. There’s also the fact that while the U.S. has recovered steadily from the Great Recession, many other countries have not. They’re struggling, and that is dampening oil demand.

In Europe, for instance, while total petroleum consumption averaged over 15.3 million barrels per day in 2009, it was under 14.3 million in 2013, and has dropped further since.

There’s a similar story to be told about Japan:
[FIGURE]
Source: Energy Information Administration.

3. Strides in vehicle fuel efficiency. In the U.S., we’re also using less fuel in our cars because those cars are more efficient. The sales-weighted fuel economy of vehicles in the U.S. increased from 20.8 miles per gallon in 2008 to 25.3 miles per gallon in 2014.

Here’s a figure from the Energy Information Administration that captures the trend:
[FIGURE]
Source: Energy Information Administration.

So in sum, it would seem that the trend in oil prices is due to that most basic of economic factors: Supply and demand.

Comment by SUGuy
2014-11-29 08:16:53

This will be a losing game for OPEC. They have raised the price high enough that it is becoming painful for consumers to buy their product. In this case people will always find alternatives and new suppliers. It just human nature and OPEC can’t fight it. Once the oil monopoly is gone the Oil producing countries will have an economy of a third world African country. To calculate this all you have to do is take out the oil revenues from their GDP and what they are left with is near zilch.

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 08:40:32

I don’t think so. Our “shale oil miracle” depends on enormously expensive infrastructure financed through junk bonds. It would be to OPEC’s ultimate benefit to collapse that house of cards, then like any good monopoly take their market share.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2014-11-29 10:42:49

then like any good monopoly take their market share ??

Yes but take their market share at a much lower price…If they attempt to raise the price then fracking comes back into play…

 
Comment by SUGuy
2014-11-29 13:07:48

My guess is that they will have to sell a barrel of oil below $50 for a long time to make this happen. However OPEC countries are addicted to spending dollars on foolish things and will need higher prices of oil to satisfy their addiction.

Time will tell.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-29 21:35:50

Something you might be missing; the biggest credit expansion in history and the frenzy to build, build, build. Houses, condos, steel mills, roads, mines, ships. Everything always goes up as the credit expansion flows. Industries that make no profit explode by taking on debt with promises that cannot be kept. Now everything is going down. What could possibly be the reason?

 
 
Comment by scdave
2014-11-29 10:41:30

To calculate this all you have to do is take out the oil revenues from their GDP and what they are left with is near zilch ??

Yep…And all the amassed wealth is concentrated in few hands and it will flee…Probably already has…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-29 06:20:27

Some reasonsfor the oil crash the real journalists at WaPo missed:

1) Saudis wanna crush the frackers and the junk bonds that back them
2) China slowdown
3) US-China handshake agreement on global warming

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-29 06:31:37

“agreement on global warming”

It’s gonna be 70 here today

Warmists gonna warm

And 15 tomorrow night

Warmists gonna warm

There you go

 
Comment by Oddfellow
2014-11-29 07:32:05

4) Saudis wanna crush Iran, their mortal enemy.
5) Saudis wanna crush Russia, which supports Assad, who opposes the proposed oil pipeline from Saudi and the gulf states to Europe, through Syria.

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 08:41:52

6. Saudi’s wanna crush US shale production, lest we forgot their strategic importance to the petro-dollar.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Oddfellow
2014-11-29 09:09:52

That was 1.

They all work together, though. The Saudis want their oil going to Europe, not Russia’s, and not ours. But they need a pipeline through Syria to do it. And Assad opposes it, favoring a pipeline from Iran (their enemy) through Syria. And Russia backs Assad.

And low oil prices help the Saudis with every problem listed.

 
 
 
Comment by scdave
2014-11-29 07:57:16

#1 is the main reason….

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 08:53:58

1) Saudis wanna crush the frackers and the junk bonds that back them

Anyone have thoughts on how to short oil-industry-specific junk bonds? Other than shorting individual companies’ offerings, of course…

Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-11-29 09:16:54

No ideas here, but I have to admit I’m really interested as to when this price crash starts causing the financial industry’s large leveraged bets to begin exploding. Been pretty quiet so far, at least on the surface.

Can’t happen soon enough IMO.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 10:31:46

+1. Got popcorn?

 
 
Comment by Oddfellow
2014-11-29 09:46:31

I would say SJB, but it’s not industry specific.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-29 10:40:40

“how to short oil-industry-specific junk bonds”

cash.

It’s the tip of the iceberg.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-29 20:24:59

Already HES is below $73. Dropped nearly 10% on Friday. I have a limit buy at $58. 52 week high was $104.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:24:54

“Got affordable gasoline?”

Indeed we do!

Remember in 2009 when retail gasoline fell from $4/gal to $1.80/gal? It’s happening again.

Remember…. Falling prices of all items is positively bullish and good for the economy.

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-29 05:51:45

From yesterday’s delicious thread:

“Orr said, though, that what happens is the buyer demands the seller pay all of the closing costs, including those normally paid by the buyer. ‘That can be the equivalent of $6,000 or $7,000 that the seller eats,’ he continued.”

Does the seller also have to eat a crow dinner plus come back regularly to feed the squirrels?

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-11-29 06:33:16

Yes, finally, some Buyer Power. The new contract addendum:

“I will buy your house, but you need to come back every week for two years to eat the crows and feed the squirrels!”

A little post close of escrow requirement never hurt anyone!

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 07:29:37

The seller will crow to the neighbors that they sold it at full price as will the realtor. The neighbors will eat it up because they want houses to sell for as much as possible. Six months later, once the new family moves in and gets acclimated, it will come out that it was not a full price deal, but by then the comps will already be in. Crooked turtles all the way down.

Comment by Mr. Banker
2014-11-29 09:06:26

Yes! And all these people who crow about the good deals they have gotten and others should also be getting or else be left behind will be acting IN MY INTEREST!

Bahahahaha … these pukes cannot afford to buy what they want to buy because the prices are so outrageously high so they flock to me so I can fill the gap that exists between the two extremes of what they WANT and what they NEED.

They NEED place to live - as does everybody - but what they need isn’t good enough, no they will not settle for what they need, they will only settle for what they WANT.

But they cannot afford (without my help) to get what they want so they flock to me so as to voluntarily commit themselves to becoming debt slaves - debt slaves for years, maybe debt slaves forever.

Bahahahahaha … and the best part of this type of slavery, this debt slavery, is the owner of the debt slave is the slave himself!
Care and feeding of the debt slave, as opposed to the old-fashioned type of slave, is not done by anyone else but the debt slave.

Bahahahahaha … really, folks, it really doesn’t get much better than this.

Comment by Mr. Banker
2014-11-29 09:30:54

Bahahahahaha … go to anyone that has something to sell and ask him how much the item costs and he will be able to give you a definitive answer. You may not like the answer he gives you but nevertheless he can give you one.

Go to a banker and ask him how much an adjustable rate loan will cost and he will NOT BE ABLE to give you an HONEST answer. He may give you an answer and you may even like the answer but it cannot be an honest answer because when it comes to the cost of an adjustable rate loan NOBODY KNOWS what the ultimate cost of it will be.

But nevertheless thousands - millions - of people will willingly - WILLINGLY - sign some dotted lines to commit themselves to buying something expensive - something VERY expensive - and at the exact same time they are doing this they will not have a clue as to how expensive this expensive item really and truly will end up becoming.

Bahahahahaha … There are two steps to prosperity:

Step one: Tell people that they are smart.

Step two: Prosper.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha …

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-11-29 10:43:52

Q. What will a lifetime of debt slavery cost me?

A. Everything.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Ella58
2014-11-29 11:52:05

I’m all for lowered prices in whatever form, and seller concessions seems like a great beginning, but in the grand scheme of things $6k in closing costs is a drop in the bucket. Any seller “eating” $6k in exchange for offloading their $500k starter home is clearly the winner of that deal, while the buyer is picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 11:57:43

I think we can establish that there is little to no demand for any housing and zero demand for a $500k house. Give it time. This thing is just getting legs under it.

 
 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-29 06:48:54

Dumb question of the day: Is the Fed’s effort to prop up U.S. housing prices a de facto pension bailout for old folks who never bothered to save?

Comment by azdude
2014-11-29 06:57:10

or is another way to keep your host borrowing?

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:02:02

Whoa, I never thought about it that way! Interesting thought.

I would consider that explanation quite unlikely, as it would further implyother unlikely things:

- the Fed cares about individual outcomes (other than the profitability of banks), rather than the overall health of the economy (thievery)

- the Fed takes part in social engineering (gasp!) and wealth redistribution

- ?

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:14:31

de facto

Oh wait, I missed the word “de facto”, and took you to mean that it was the _intended_ outcome. My bad.

In a word, yes.

 
 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-11-29 09:44:05

Not much of a bailout if the propped up prices move them from being 50% underwater to only 20%. Hard to cash in on that one, at least not yet…

 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 10:33:59

The Fed doesn’t give a damn about “old folks” - it’s QE to Infinity has robbed savers and those on pensions and fixed incomes. The Fed’s sole concern is propping up its bankster accomplices and keeping Wall Street’s Ponzi markets from imploding for a bit longer.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 11:16:20

And the more the delay is extended, the greater the implosion.

A wise man recently told me; “Sell what you can to get out of debt and save every dollar you can get your hands on. You’ll thank me later.”

He’s right.

 
 
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 07:11:53

Ponzi: Treasury Issues $1T in New Debt in 8 Weeks—To Pay Old Debt

November 28, 2014 - 2:37 PM
By Terence P. Jeffrey

The Daily Treasury Statement that was released Wednesday afternoon as Americans were preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving revealed that the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue $1,040,965,000,000 in new debt since fiscal 2015 started just eight weeks ago in order to raise the money to pay off Treasury securities that were maturing and to cover new deficit spending by the government.

During those eight weeks, Treasury took in $341,591,000,000 in revenues. That was a record for the period between Oct. 1 and Nov. 25. But that record $341,591,000,000 in revenues was not enough to finance ongoing government spending let alone pay off old debt that matured.

The only way the Treasury could handle the $942,103,000,000 in old debt that matured during the period plus finance the new deficit spending the government engaged in was to roll over the old debt into new debt and issue enough additional new debt to cover the new deficit spending.

This mode of financing the federal government resembles what the Securities and Exchange Commission calls a Ponzi scheme. “A Ponzi scheme,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission, “is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission.

cnsnews.com/…/ponzi-treasury-issues-1t-new-debt-8-weeks-pay-old-debt - 61k -

Comment by scdave
2014-11-29 08:01:50

Treasury Issues $1T in New Debt in 8 Weeks—To Pay Old Debt ??

And, borrowed at what rate ?? 1.5% on a two year ?? What happens if the two year moves to 3% which would still be historically low…The service on that debt “doubles”….

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 08:15:16

“Number 8 Only in America…could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.”

“Number 2 Only in America… could you collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.”

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 08:32:49

What happens if the two year yield doubled? You’d see the economy begin to return to normal. A recovery would begin.

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-29 13:58:20

Regardless of the interest rate, the maturing debt has to be repaid. Maybe this is no big deal so long as the Fed owns the bonds, since they own a printing press technology whivh can be used to make payment.

 
 
Comment by Tarara Boomdea
2014-11-29 09:38:43

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 07:11:53

Ponzi: Treasury Issues $1T in New Debt in 8 Weeks—To Pay Old Debt

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/terence-p-jeffrey/ponzi-treasury-issues-1t-new-debt-8-weeks-pay-old-debt

 
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 07:18:13

Hottest trend in real estate: tiny add-on homes for in-laws or …
homes.yahoo.com/blogs/spaces/in-law-cottages-124550246.html - 203k - Cached - Similar pages
4 days ago … Hottest trend in real estate: tiny add-on homes for in-laws or millennials .

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 07:44:32

This is a really fascinating topic, the parents/mother in law outbuilding. Why not just add on to the house or have a bedroom in the main house? Think what is trying to be accommodated here. Is it the MIL who needs the freedom or the kids or both? What a spoiled society we are.

Comment by tresho
2014-11-29 07:51:57

What a spoiled society we are.
I wouldn’t call it ’spoiled’, but rather brainless / extravagant.

Comment by Shillow
2014-11-29 08:02:54

No, it is spoiled. Like a kid who wants to eat candy all the time without any consequences and is given that candy without limit by irresponsible parents. If you earn your own money, heck, spend it in whatever you want. If you borrow from a system designed to feed you more and more candy that is something else.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Tarara Boomdea
2014-11-29 09:45:41

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 07:18:13

Hottest trend in real estate: tiny add-on homes for in-laws or millennials
By Ilyce R. Glink November 25, 2014 1:25 PM

homes.yahoo.com/blogs/spaces/in-law-cottages-124550246.html

Comment by dwkunkel
2014-11-29 12:30:57

These are really difficult to get approved by our local planning commission (Santa Clara, CA).

It requires a large lot, off street parking for an additional car, and probably a variance of some kind. It’s also very difficult to get a kitchen included because it’s viewed as a potential rental unit.

Comment by butters
2014-11-29 13:14:23

And you would think in this land of free, you can do whatever the F you want to do with the home and land you supposedly “own.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by oxide
2014-11-29 13:29:34

ISTM that the stove is a really stupid defining element for a rental unit. You can easily approximate a stove with two portable burners and a large toaster oven. It’s not like you need to cook a turkey.

IMO a better defining element is a tub or shower stall. Kinda hard to have an independent unit if you have to shower in the main house.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 07:37:30

For Official Use Only

Site Activation Call-down Drill Exercise Plan

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-11-29 09:19:33

Region X, awaiting drill instructions.

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 11:47:07

Everyone Must Check In

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-29 19:02:00

Region VIII

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 07:41:49

Project Longevity

 
Comment by reedalberger
2014-11-29 09:28:25

I ran across a terrific idea for dispersing the communist rent-a-mobs hindering our free market economy: Have a helicopter drop job applications on the crowd.

Thank you…I’ll be here all week, please tip your bartender.

#NotOneMoreCommunistRentAMob
#BlackOutClowardAndPiven

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 11:58:23

Better yet, drop work boots. They’ll scatter like cockroaches.

 
 
Comment by Mr. Banker
2014-11-29 09:41:25

Bahahahaha … People are smart. And college students are the smartest people of them all:

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/video-texas-tech-students-dont-know-who

Bahahahaha … time to sign up these geniuses for some student loans!

A student loan = A gift that keeps on giving. And giving. And giving …

Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-29 10:00:06

That’s okay. Joe Biden does not know who the VP is.

Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-11-29 13:41:58

Sometimes I wish that I didn’t know who the VP is.

Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-29 20:28:37

I did not even know who was running for congress in my district this year. That is something to be proud of. My true test is if I can ignore the presidential campaigns in 2016.

Rand Paul vs. E. warren. I will hope to be eating popcorn from the sidelines.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-29 20:31:10

And Yes there is a huge difference between those two. I just don’t want a president or a Vice President. Or senator. Or congressman. Just want government to dissolve into self government.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2014-11-29 13:05:52

Value is real thing. It’s poorly understood but I think it can best be demonstrated by a pre-currency/barter economy exchange:

Person A has a potato. Person B has a cow. Person C has a wheel barrow. Person A wants to trade his potato for either a cow or a wheelbarrow. Neither of the others accept this trade because the value of the potato is less than that of the cow and wheelbarrow.

Enter currency: currency provides a very granular way of assigning value. So a potato is 1 unit, a cow is 200 units, a wheelbarrow is 50 units. The currency is identifying a real property.

Enter debt in a currency-based system: There are few more effective ways to obscure value than with debt. Debt allows the person with a potato to obtain the cow, but wind up paying multiples of the value of the cow (or whatever other item it may be), without the debtor immediately realizing it. The debtor’s standard of living suffers, but in a very subtle, “boil the frog” kind of way.

And today, much of the developed world is thought to have “sclerotic economies”. Common term. Explanations range from millenials, to cultural behavior to insufficient borrow/print from central banks.

The possible cause I never hear is “too much debt” both public and private. Recently, the NY Fed declared with some apparent glee that the “Household deleveraging was over.”

A central agency of the government which in reality serves two masters (one of which is mammon), and works for one sector’s benefit (”The Godworkers”). Leaders always try to accrue power, it’s just the nature of the beast. It’s like a gravity well that must be constantly fought. With a government-backed and legally shielded financial sector, a completely public mortgage finance system, with vast sums of money being directed to this private enterprise or that, and no creative destruction allowed for those who f–k up epically, in economy-destroying ways, is it really any wonder why modern economies are sclerotic?

Why is there a declining standard of living in a world of increasing real wealth?

With a system that is under full regulatory capture, I’d say Wall Street executives are the real unelected bureaucrats. And government guarantees of debt, and the system of government-enforced “privatize profits, socialize losses”, in a world of increasing wealth, there should be little wonder why modern economies are sclerotic.

Comment by goon squad
2014-11-29 19:35:34

+1

 
 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 10:38:19

The moves in the gold market are starting to get interesting. On Sunday Swiss voters - who are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their US counterparts - will vote on a referendum that would require their central bank to ensure gold backing for the Swiss Franc, effectively reining in their central bankers abilit to engage in the kind of financial chicanery the Fed and ECB have been engaged in. Janet can’t print BTUs and she can’t print physical precious metals, which represent the ultimate antidote to reckless Fed and central bank money-printing.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-29/federal-reserve-confirms-biggest-foreign-gold-withdrawal-over-ten-years

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 18:26:17

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2014/11/china-takes-out-another-525-tonnes-of.html

Meanwhile, China is loading up on physical gold at these firesale prices. I wonder why?

Comment by azdude
2014-11-29 18:39:19

hedge against inflation?

 
Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-29 20:32:28

+1 Sunday morning or noon will be interesting.

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 20:39:09

If the Swiss vote “yes” on their gold referendum (I expect “no” to prevail), things are going to get interesting indeed.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Selfish Hoarder
2014-11-29 22:18:39

I think they will vote “no.”

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-11-29 10:40:20

Meanwhile, in that bastion of stability that is China….

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/xinjiang-attack-15-dead

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-11-29 10:58:53

Washington, DC Sale Price per Square Foot Sinks 6% YoY

http://www.zillow.com/washington-dc-20007/home-values/

 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 11:16:48

Number 5 Only in America….could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as EXTREMIST’S.

Possible ‘ammunition’ against Obama’s amnesty riles some Republicans

by Drew Belsky | The new American | November 29, 2014

Republicans eager to see the “power of the purse” strategy go away on Obama’s executive amnesty got a shock from the Congressional Research Service this week.

Eric Pianin at the Fiscal Times lays out the background: according to House Appropriations committee chair Hal Rogers (R-KY, pictured), the House can’t defund Obama’s executive orders because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services operates on “user fees” and thus “doesn’t depend on appropriate funds approved by Congress.”

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), however, contends that as a matter of fact, the House most definitely does “formally authorize” even fee-based agencies. Per the CRS, “[a]mounts received as fees by federal agencies must still be appropriated by Congress to that agency in order to be available for obligation or expenditure by that agency[.]”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who requested the CRS report, hit the nail on the head in his commentary: “On its face, the suggestion that the White House can implement any unlawful and unconstitutional act so long as it pays for it with assessed fees is just plain wrong.”

 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 11:29:33

Hot take from Time magazine columnist: In defense of rioting

posted at 2:01 pm on November 26, 2014
by Allahpundit

Some holiday cheer for you courtesy of a magazine that was sort of respected when I was growing up. In an age when newsweeklies are a week late in meeting people’s demand for news, I guess this is one way to keep your site “vital.”

Conn Carroll reminds me that Darlena Cunha was also responsible for that WaPo piece back in July about driving a Mercedes to pick up food stamps. So rest assured, she’s down with the struggle.

Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets. As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on. We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved. To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem…

Blacks in this country are more apt to riot because they are one of the populations here who still need to. In the case of the 1992 riots, 30 years of black people trying to talk about their struggles of racial profiling and muted, but still vastly unfair, treatment, came to a boil. Sometimes, enough is simply too much. And after that catalyst event, the landscape of southern California changed, and nationally, police forces took note.

And the racism they are fighting, the racism we are all fighting, is still alive and well throughout our nation. The modern racism may not culminate in separate water fountains and separate seating in the backs of buses, but its insidious nature is perhaps even more dangerous to the individuals who have to live under the shroud of stereotypical lies society foists upon them.

hotair.com/…/comment-page-1/ - 213k -

Comment by Neuromance
2014-11-29 13:11:29

I look at the working classes blaming each other for their ills and am amused. Racism is really effective bogeyman to set the attentions of the teeming masses on each other instead of looking up.

“That’ll keep ‘em occupied for a while” - what the real masters think when they see these sideshows. The FSA on the one hand with their pittances, and the other members of the productive working classes on the other blaming each other while the true enormous handouts and bailouts occur in the top economic strata.

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 17:45:56

“the real masters”

We should all be grateful they have let us use their land and natural resources this long.

Region IV

 
 
Comment by Tarara Boomdea
2014-11-29 13:32:26

Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-29 11:29:33

Hot take from Time magazine columnist: In defense of rioting
posted at 2:01 pm on November 26, 2014 by Allahpundit
hotair.com/archives/2014/11/26/hot-take-from-time-magazine-columnist-in-defense-of-rioting

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-29 23:41:03

No wait at Applebee’s last night. Rather there were vacant tables.

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-30 00:31:38

Commodities Slump to Five-Year Low as Crude Oil Drops on OPEC
By Chanyaporn Chanjaroen, Alessandro Vitelli and Mario Parker
November 28, 2014 4:29 PM EST
Bloomberg

Commodities retreated to a five-year low as crude oil tumbled after OPEC refrained from cutting output to ease a global glut. Gold and copper also declined.

The Bloomberg Commodity Index (BCOM) of 22 raw materials dropped 3.9 percent to 112.9451, the lowest since April 2009. The index resumed trading today after the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday yesterday, when Brent crude plunged 6.7 percent after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries took no action on production at a meeting in Vienna.

Commodities are poised for a fourth straight year of losses as West Texas Intermediate oil futures are set for the biggest slump since the 2008 financial crisis. China is heading for the slowest yearly expansion pace since 1990. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index, which tracks the U.S. currency against 10 major peers, closed at the highest since March 2009.

“It has been a broad-based selloff,” Virendra Chauhan, an analyst at Energy Aspects Ltd. in London, said today in a telephone interview. “It’s likely to have weighed on other risk assets.”

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-30 00:56:10

What’s a cramdown?

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-11-30 00:58:28

Economy
Fannie, Freddie Give Some Relief to Foreclosed Homeowners
Agencies Will Allow Homeowners in Foreclosure to Buy Back Properties at Market Value
By Joe Light
Updated Nov. 25, 2014 6:14 p.m. ET

Mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will allow homeowners who have been foreclosed upon to repurchase their homes at market value even if they owe more, reversing a policy that prohibited such transactions.

The change comes as Melvin Watt, the director of Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, has come under increasing pressure from some groups to use the companies to provide more relief to struggling homeowners.

“This is a targeted, but important policy change that should help reduce property vacancies and stabilize home values and neighborhoods,” said Mr. Watt, the chief of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Previously, someone who lost a home through foreclosure and wanted to buy it back from Fannie or Freddie needed to pay the full amount owed on the mortgage, even if the market value of the home was less. That was intended to take away the motivation for homeowners to intentionally default in order to get the balance of their mortgages reduced.

In effect, that meant Fannie and Freddie had two standards where they would be willing to sell properties they owned to a new buyer at market prices when they wouldn’t do so for the former homeowner.

“There’s no reason why you shouldn’t be willing to sell a home to these borrowers on the same terms that you’re willing to sell it to someone else,” said Laurie Goodman, center director of the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute.

Comment by rms
2014-11-30 09:00:07

Selling the property at auction would solve the problem. WTF?

 
Comment by rms
2014-11-30 09:05:00

From a commenter: “Soooo…Amnesty for homeowners? Who doubts that this will eventually apply to all homeowners and will be the seeds of an even larger housing bubble than the one which burst in 2007-8? If you cannot lose your home in a foreclosure, why not bid-up the price to insane levels, stop paying the mortgage, get foreclosed, then buy back in at a much cheaper price? This is insanity. Did Cloward and Piven dream this up?”

 
 
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-11-30 09:01:14

phony scandals

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
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