December 9, 2014

Bits Bucket for December 9, 2014

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




RSS feed

269 Comments »

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 01:38:55

Got cratering oil?

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 01:40:41

Futures Movers
Oil Extends Losses, Hits Lowest Levels in Over Five Years
Published: Dec 9, 2014 2:16 a.m. ET
Analyst: OPEC will let the market ‘sweat it out’ a few more weeks

The bottom for oil prices? No one is expecting we’ll find it soon.

rude-oil futures sank in Asian trade Tuesday, extending their losses to levels not seen in more than five years with market participants showing little confidence that the market will find a bottom soon.

On the New York Mercantile Exchange, light, sweet crude futures for delivery in January (CLF5, -0.44%) traded at $62.71 a barrel, down $0.35 in the Globex electronic session, a level not seen since July 2009. January Brent crude (LCOF5, -0.94%) on London’s ICE Futures exchange fell $0.64 to $65.55 a barrel.

The selloff in oil markets accelerated sharply in late November when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, chose not to intervene to balance oil prices by cutting its production levels. Since then the cartel hasn’t provided any further indications of balancing supply.

“This has contributed to intensifying the hand-wringing in the market over the potential for massive oversupply in 2015,” Greg Priddy, head of energy and resources at Eurasia Group said in a report.

Comment by azdude
2014-12-09 06:33:50

If oil prices keep plunging wont people lose their jobs and then wont be able to take on a mortgage?

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 06:43:19

But AZ, think of all the money they’ll save on cheaper oil when they don’t have to buy it tovdrive to work? Wait…what?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 06:46:58

Whose gonna lose their job? Some frackers or speculators? Seems like cheaper inputs = cheaper prices = more sales.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by whirlyite
2014-12-09 16:58:50

Folks who work for oil and gas services providers, from engineering to expertise to equipment, that’s who. I should know, I’m one of them!

 
Comment by Guillotine Renovator
2014-12-09 20:56:47

Better freshen up that resume, whirlyite.

 
Comment by rms
2014-12-09 21:25:00

“I should know, I’m one of them!”

Are you up in the Williston, ND area?

If so, what the chit-chat on the ground?

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 06:53:49

Such a pessimist! In fact, plunging oil prices is resulting in plunging gasoline prices, which is putting more money in the pockets of American workers to spend on lattes at Starbucks and Big Macs and McDonalds. Sounds to me like hiring is going to go up, not down, unless you speak Russian and write with the Cyrillic alphabet.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 07:04:35

“hiring is going to go up…”

Not so fast there. I’d agree if the economy were mostly based on the honest work of making things people need, but it’s not. Lower prices for everything could have a pretty negative effect on the real economy; lending and speculating. Cascading defaults could throw some cold water on the hiring scenario.

 
Comment by azdude
2014-12-09 07:06:23

Doesn’t it feel like speculators are liquidating oil positions? Happening so fast and no one saw it coming of course.

It would be nice if it was feasible for the avg joe to stock pile some fuel. I bet farmers are filling up their tanks.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 07:12:04

Is this opposite day? Whac & Shillow arguing that fundamentals are improving? What’s next, HA telling everyone to buy a new home?

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 07:14:14

You’re backpedalling.

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 07:37:46

Fundamentals improving much like the plummeting Dow? Me here is the PPT?

I am glad you see plummeting input prices and massive deflation as a good thing.

 
Comment by oxide
2014-12-09 09:17:33

Whac is channeling the hbb Sarcasm Squad. Lattés and Big Macs are a tell. :mrgreen:

But Blue is right. In the same way that debt creation has outrun the average Joe’s ability to work off the debt in a lifelong time-frame, the raising of prices to what the market will bear has outrun any gain from a drop in the price of crude oil.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 10:23:04

Donk,

Demand is collapsing for all these items. There is nothing but falling prices in the face of collapsing demand.

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 11:53:27

It is interesting that a few years ago when Sarah Palin said we could have $2.50 gasoline with an active drilling program the MSM and most on this board said she was a nut that it just was not possible. Now, many of the same people are arguing that the fall in prices is due to fundamentals. Personally, I do not think that a one million barrel surplus is a fundamental problem for OPEC it is a political problem that will fixed within a year but Sarah Palin one more time has been vindicated.

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 12:00:27

“be fixed within one year”

 
Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 12:26:44

Adan is back. No.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2014-12-09 14:25:55

The way I look at this is quite simple.

1. Fracking is here to stay. Lower prices simply means that the companies that are drilling are simply more selective. Yes, drilling is reduced, but it doesn’t go away. Additionally, the depletion rates of the fracked wells is so rapid that naturally supply will decline with lower drilling rates and lower prices. In other words, with prices too low, production in the US will fall until prices rise again, thus increasing drilling and fracking activity once again. Seems like a functioning market. For the first time in my life.

2. With a functioning market, the excess profits that were previously going to OPEC because of their cartel will be dramatically reduced. This more efficient market is GOOD. Fewer dollars going into the pockets of the OPEC overlords means there are more dollars in the hands of everyone else. Remind me why this is bad. There will be fewer flecks of gold in every sheikh’s roll of toilet paper. Cry me a river.

3. Loans will go bad. Fine. The next round of loans will require more equity. This means that supply will react as oil goes up in price, but it will react more slowly than it would if there was rampant debt available.

4. I’m glad I don’t own the tar sands–where the cost of extracting oil is far above fracking.

 
Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 14:29:30

Corporations have record profits (2013), the gov cant force them to hire. Shareholders are happy.

“Last year was another record year for US corporations. New figures released today show they pulled in a record $1.68 trillion in after-tax profit.”

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 14:49:00

What most of this Board will not acknowledge is that both China and the U.S. are effectively controlled economies with some traces of capitalism. An important difference; China is actively trying to raise Chinese workers pay by about 10% a year. The U.S. is actively trying to suppress pay by policies such as open borders. Chinese corporations’ profits have suffered due to China’s pay policies while corporate profits have never been higher in this country. Actually, I laugh when people claim that Chinese rigs its numbers and think we do not rig our numbers. Still if the Chinese numbers have no relationship to reality, why isn’t China claiming it has 7.5% (its target) instead of 7.2% growth it will probably report at the end of the year? I never thought they were going to meet their target, that is why I argued for around 7% growth instead of 7.5%. Does that mean that they have really had 7% growth? Well their 7% growth is as real as our 2.5% growth.

 
Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 14:51:27

72 trillion gallons of water
and
360 billion gallons of chemicals
needed to run our current gas wells.

Only 30-50% of the fracturing fluid is recovered, the rest of the toxic fluid is left in the ground and is not biodegradable.

#gotgravity #canwelivewithoutwater

 
Comment by In Colorado
2014-12-09 15:03:31

Now, many of the same people are arguing that the fall in prices is due to fundamentals.

I thought it was because OPEC (Saudi Arabia) is flooding the market to put the frakkers out of business. It also helps that global demand is weak too.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2014-12-09 17:17:56

“I thought it was because OPEC (Saudi Arabia) is flooding the market to put the frakkers out of business. It also helps that global demand is weak too.”

I think my favorite part of this is that OPEC does not appear to be acting as a unified voice. The Saudis still have the heavy hand, but they also can play this game a lot longer than the other folks. Will we see the break-up of OPEC in the next 10 years?

 
Comment by Guillotine Renovator
2014-12-09 21:02:31

“Adan is back. No.”

Say it isn’t so. Noooooooo!!!!

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-10 00:12:14

“What most of this Board will not acknowledge is that both China and the U.S. are effectively controlled economies with some traces of capitalism.”

Typical strawman technique: Claim that a ‘truth’ which is discussed on this board incessantly is something that no HBB poster agrees with.

 
 
Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 12:06:47

Especially in Texas, the GOP dream state with all the illegals.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 12:44:47

From China Daily this is just an excerpt, the article has much more about investments the Chinese are about to make in Texas:

“The Chinese investors are coming. Are you ready?”

That was the question posed by Clarence Kwan, senior partner of Sino-Century China Overseas Investment Partners, at a recent business discussion hosted by Houston’s Asian Chamber of Commerce. Chinese investors have come and more are coming to the Lone Star State. The latest available data tell the story:

With $10.8 billion in exports, China was the state’s fourth-largest export destination in 2013. The major exports are industrial and electric machinery, chemicals, plastics and mineral fuel. Texas ranked third in exports to China after Washington and California, both of which exported more than $16 billion of goods to China in 2013.

In the same year, Texas imported $42.8 billion worth of Chinese goods, making China number two among the state’s trading partners. The top imports include electric and industrial machinery, furniture, toys and iron or steel products.

Chinese companies have spent $22.2 billion to acquire Texas companies in M&As in the last decade, making it perhaps the largest investment category by Chinese investors so far.

From 2000 to the first three quarters of 2014, 79 Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) projects with a total value of $5.3 billion have settled in Texas. The state has attracted more than 12 percent of the total of $43.1 billion in Chinese FDI projects in the United States. That makes Texas number two in the US behind California.

 
Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 13:58:38

Cheaper than invading us, the Chinese are smart. We blow up rocks in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria with our billion$, make that trillions. The Chinese buy us.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 15:17:21

“The Chinese buy us.”

It isn’t that simple. The Chinese borrowed $1.5 trillion from “us” this year. The grafters in China may be spiriting millions out of the country to buy our fine houses, but 100,000 of them are already executed or imprisoned. It’s a mess.

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 16:55:27

The Chinese borrowed $1.5 trillion from “us” this year.

Source?

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-12-09 17:03:02

Interesting that you sit in the bits bucket going on and on, and don’t say anything in the post today that is partly about China. Hmm, I wonder why that is?

 
 
 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 06:37:18

Are plummeting oil prices the Black Swan?

Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-12-09 07:26:13

It was reported a few days ago that OPEC has said that their price target is around $60. Is that enough to be the black swan?

I suppose it depends on how the big financial players have bet. What’s the degree of leverage, how many dollars in bets, and how far and wide the risk has spread through derivatives. The only thing for sure is that we won’t know until days (hours?) before it’s all blowed up, if it does.

I wonder how the FED feels about someone other than themselves being in the position of offering the only “forward guidance” that matters for a while…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 07:40:13

But can you believe those reports? We’ll know soon. I don’t follow oil so what is that, a 40 percent drop? Seems like enough for a Black Swan event.

 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-12-09 08:15:19

It makes a kind of sense to me that a cartel would want to drop prices enough to shake out a good percentage of the weak hands, but no further. That doesn’t mean that things can’t get away from them.

My guess is that OPEC will cut production swiftly and sharply at some point, after intense behind the scenes pressure from numerous powerful concerns, panicked about an immanent global financial meltdown.

That’s not what I want to see, but that’s what I think will happen. At least if the recent past, and the inevitable future course of events, are any indication.

 
Comment by SUGuy
2014-12-09 09:18:12

The sheikhs of oil kingdoms are nervous as competition is increasing and in the long run if more oil fields are discovered and the oil is brought to line they will be irrelevant. Me thinks oil will go below $45 per barrel and the shale boys will take in the shorts. This not over within a few weeks by a long shot.

Oil is the canary in the coalmine for deflation.

 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-12-09 10:05:18

“Me thinks oil will go below $45 per barrel and the shale boys will take in the shorts. This not over within a few weeks by a long shot.”

I hope you’re right, but I just have to assume that the usual suspects will intervene again. It’s what they do. Even though each intervention just makes the inevitable collapse that much worse.

 
Comment by SUGuy
2014-12-09 10:53:35

I hope you’re right, but I just have to assume that the usual suspects will intervene again.
The usual suspects are the ones causing this oil thingy by design. Please remember they also have controlling interest in a few too big to fail banks. I guess the Sheikhs will reap the benefits at both ends and feel all so important and smart.
The small players in the oil market will gain share eventually and the Middle East economy will be a basket case. The sheikhs have been living very high on the hog for a long time and their party will end at some time in the future. This is what they are afraid of in the long run. It is all about market share.

Here is an article that states in 2012 alone 1.2 trillion dollars were spent on oil exploration.

• Global spending on oil and gas exploration dwarfs what is spent on “clean” energy. In 2012 alone, drilling expenditures were about $1.2 trillion, nearly 4.5 times the amount spent on alternative energy projects.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_12.htm#.VIczbxstBlY

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 12:53:58

It makes a kind of sense to me that a cartel would want to drop prices enough to shake out a good percentage of the weak hands, but no further. That doesn’t mean that things can’t get away from them.

I know that the MSM is feeding us this line to cover for the Saudi’s purposely trying to damage Russia and Iran. However, this is why is does not make sense. Oil shale production in the U.S. was expected to go up less in 2015 than it did in 2014. Within three years it was expected to stop growing at all and soon after that begin a rapid decline. So why drop oil prices to address an issue which was going to correct itself? If the Saudi’s are playing the long game it is better for the U.S. to use up its shale oil now. Dropping prices so the drilling stops but then can rise as soon as you raise prices does not make sense.

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 13:02:16

BTW this for the EIA:
Notice gasoline prices are really only down 59 cents from last year. The most common number I hear is that each cent decline is worth one billion dollars to consumers, if it lasts one year. Does anyone really believe that 59 billion dollars is going to save this economy? I think that at the height of the housing bubble people were taking 400 billion dollars of equity out of their house through home equity loans and cashing out some equity when they sold their houses.

Retail gasoline price

12/8/2014: $2.679/gal

down$0.099 from week earlier
down$0.590 from year earlier

Retail diesel price

12/8/2014: $3.535/gal

down$0.070 from week earlier
down$0.344 from year earlier

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2014-12-09 14:35:40

For perspective, the world produced 86.8 million barrels per day in 2013, or approximately 32 billion barrels per year.

The drop from $100 to $60 per barrel means consumers of oil will spend $1.3 TRILLION less per year on oil.

The US produced about 4 billion barrels, and consumed about 6.75 billion barrels. So, while certain players in the US suffer, broadly speaking, people and businesses in the US will have in round numbers $110 Billion more in their pockets each year as compared to $100 oil.

And this money stays in the US…is that bad? It will be a bumpy ride, but overall a good one, I think.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2014-12-09 15:06:10

The drop from $100 to $60 per barrel means consumers of oil will spend $1.3 TRILLION less per year on oil.

Or they might consume more.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2014-12-09 17:22:24

“Or they might consume more.”

Perhaps on the margin. But I know that personally speaking, the price of gasoline doesn’t affect how much I drive one bit.

I’m sure there are folks who have looked at the propensity to consume oil as compared to the price…let’s see what Google has to say…

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2014-12-09 17:27:14

Here you go…try to find the correlation in this graph between higher consumption of oil and lower prices.

It looks like higher prices go with a stronger economy (where there is more consumption), and lower prices with a weaker economy (where there is less consumption).

I guess it all depends on how you describe the most recent economic times…weak? Or strengthening. The last several years have had high prices, and decreasing demand–supporting your view.

We’ll see if lower prices cause an increase in consumption.

http://www.eia.gov/finance/markets/demand-oecd.cfm

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 17:49:07

Falling prices of all items is a net positive for the economy and your wallets best friend.

 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-12-09 19:44:28

We’re being fed lots of lines, of all types. A lot of people seem certain they know what’s going on but not a single person I know or read, anywhere, predicted anything close the current situation that is unfolding.

If collapsing global demand is truly the big silent driver, though, then look out below. Nothing that any country or cartel or central bank or energy conglomerate does will make any difference. I guess we’ll see.

 
 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
 
 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 06:14:57

Are airlines discounting steeply now because oil is dropping like a stone?

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 06:48:01

They buy most their gas in long term contracts, so probably not much savings yet. I have noticed great ticket prices though. Perhaps there is no demand and extra supplies of seats. I read somewhere recently that lower demand and extra supply leads to cratering prices.

Once I remember where, I’ll p i st s link!

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 06:50:54

…oops. small keyboard & screen. “…..POST a link.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 06:53:03

…I remember now. Here is the link:

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=8742#comment-2399241

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 07:33:22

Your references are circular.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 11:12:13

Yes, it all leads back to the HBB. “This time is different.”

 
 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 07:44:21

Haven’t the prices for those long term contracts come down also? Seems like they would. Please post some great deals because i haven’t seen any, but ain’t really looking. Normally when such deals start they are blasted all over the media and you can’t help but notice.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-12-09 08:40:37

Not sure you’ve missed much, just Mr. Glib talking out of his you-know-what.

There probably will be deals on the competitive routes soon enough, especially (as always) if the seats aren’t filling at the rates they target.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 11:13:36

SF to Minneapolis: $348 round trip last week. Seemed like a deal to me. SWAir

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 19:27:57

Seemed like a deal to me.

So did those overpriced crap shacks around your neck “Mr. Glib.”

 
 
 
 
Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 11:46:00

So when should I buy some?

Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 13:23:47

Too personal.

 
 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 01:41:16

Tacoma, WA Sale Prices Turn Negative 2% YoY; Plunge 15% QoQ As Housing Demand Craters

http://www.zillow.com/tacoma-wa-98406/home-values/

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 08:47:55

Since HA wanted to revisit posts from 5 years ago, I went back to pull one forward.

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-03-17 08:44:19

Well, the ‘Greatest Bubble in History’ is the global RE mania. Sure, China is a big part, but what about the ongoing bubbles in Australia, most of Asia, Canada, etc? What I’ve noticed and posted about is how governments and the media will use the words “housing bubble”, without acknowledging exactly what it is/was.

The part that should concern us right now, today, is what will these additional collapsing bubbles do to the global finance markets? Notice how everyone freaks out about Dubai and Greece, and we still have people lining up to buy pre-construction condos in Toronto.
______________________________

A forecast that is almost 5-years old now. Waiting for the world wide housing bubble bust.

In the meantime, Ben is collecting a solid cash flow on all the rental houses he has purchased. That part seems to be working out O.K……but the bust part not so much……yet. It is tough to bet on the world collapsing. Not much upside in it and it so rarely happens.

Comment by Ben Jones
2014-12-09 09:31:40

I don’t bet on anything.

I became convinced Austin was in a bubble in 1998. Dotcom and real estate. Shiller said there was a housing bubble in 2002. When did the Texas bubble start? 1973, 1979? Who knows or cares? When I would read daily about something like a guy killing his wife and then himself, the dates didn’t seem to matter that much. I always wondered, how could such a terrible thing happen? This is why I could never bring myself to jump in and try to profit from what I see as bubbles. They are horrible economic events. And that this one has gone on so long makes me worry about how it will end. I posted today about people getting slaughtered in China. Ohh, how can you make some change! Me, I’m not going near this train wreck.

I think you and I see all this in completely different ways. I take it seriously. You seem to think it’s some game. I can assure you that if I’m right and this is a bubble, it will be heart wrenching.

Comment by scdave
2014-12-09 10:53:17

And that this one has gone on so long makes me worry about how it will end ??

If you are right Ben and it does all implode it could get ugly…Massive unemployment….Will make Ferguson look like a Sunday picnic…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 13:42:25

Dave,

You’re looking in the rearview mirror. We already have massive unemployment.

Labor Force Participation Rate At 37 Year Lows

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

 
Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 14:06:17

Why are people excited about Armageddon? Is this how they justify all the guns and ammo they bought? Dont any of these people have successful friends or family that will be hurt?

Most of us at age 40 have skin in the game we call life.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 14:15:55

What is this armageddon you’re yammering about Lola?

Explain yourself.

 
Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 14:31:05

“If you are right Ben and it does all implode it could get ugly…Massive unemployment….Will make Ferguson look like a Sunday picnic…”

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-12-09 14:35:56

When it happened to Texas, most people just found another line of work. However this turns out, it won’t be because of anything posters here said or didn’t say.

 
 
 
Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-12-09 09:58:03

Glib and smug is no way to go through life. Really.

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 15:59:57

Fat, drunk & stupid is far preferable.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 10:14:19

Jingle_Fraud,

This isn’t about some dude named Ben Jones. This is about you and your claims. Succinctly, you’ve been lying for a good long time here.

 
 
 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 02:53:53

Region VIII can’t breathe

Comment by nhtransplant
2014-12-09 06:15:24

I am not a Region! I am a free man!

Comment by Mr. Banker
2014-12-09 06:57:09

“I am a free man!”

As Janis used to sing: “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose”.

Come visit me and we’ll discuss the true meaning of freedom, of how we - you and I - can truly set you free.

Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 07:06:02

“Colorado and metro Denver need a larger selection of diverse housing options if residents want to avoid quickly and continuously rising housing prices in the coming years, according to a study released Monday.

Because of the fast growth of the city, housing prices are also rising quickly — too quickly for low and middle income earners”

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/real_deals/2014/12/study-colorado-denver-need-more-diverse-housing.html

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by In Colorado
2014-12-09 09:32:55

quickly and continuously rising housing prices in the coming years

How quickly we forget in the Centennial State.

 
 
 
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-12-09 13:17:41

“I am not a Region! I am a free man!”

Are you in one of the Bureau of Land Management’s ‘Free Speech Zones’ ?

If so, what Region are you in?

 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2014-12-09 09:34:53

Region VIII can’t breathe

Now we know why the Bills (barely) lost. It wasn’t the Donkeys who beat them, it was the high altitude and the brown cloud.

 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 05:03:33

2008 redux as China’s bubbleicious stock market crashed 5% on record volume while you slept. Cue liquidity crunch in 3-2-1….

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-09/china-crashes-shanghai-composite-plunges-54-amid-record-trading-biggest-tumble-2009

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 06:55:54

A five percent drop is no big deal — just slightly larger than normal interday volatility.

Wake me up when they have a 20% Black Monday (or Tuesday) type event.

Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 09:13:14

China’s stock market hit a four year high just yesterday. Leave it to some to point out the correction and miss the large move.

 
 
Comment by Bring Back the WPA
2014-12-09 10:30:50

As soon as I see “Zero Hedge” in the link I think “Zero Credibility.” Clicking on a zero hedge link is its own aversion therapy…

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 11:00:14

Much like reading your posts.

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 16:01:06

+1

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by oxide
2014-12-09 05:08:50

From yesterday:

—————-
Comment by Avocado
2014-12-08 13:53:00
What if you bought in 1984?
—————-

Then your house has depreciated and it’s worth nothing. Because housing depreciates always. Always. You better believe it. geeze get with the hbb program.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 06:28:20

Math Donk math. Try it some time.

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 06:33:36

Then you are getting old and your kids are salivating at the inheritance. Only you know that you’ve Heloc’d away all of that equity. But hey, it’s all good, YOLO.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 06:57:38

You can always do a short sale, get the debt forgiven that was heloc’d away on cars, vacations, boats, etc, and get tax relief on the forgiven debt (aka unearned income).

Life is good for homeowners!

Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 07:47:52

Is the Bank gonna allow that short sale? Do they have some say in it?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 07:00:05

So funny: that depreciating shack my mom purchased in 1966 for $18,500 just sold for $470,000.

I better not buy a house. That kind of depreciation is worse than a severe beating with a rubber hose!

It’s almost as bad as reading HA’s p i sts on the HBB……

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 07:03:25

Magical thinking: Assuming that California home price appreciation from 1966 to the present is soon to be repeated.

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 07:05:28

Whac, you mean its different this time? Now where have i heard THAT before?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 07:08:21

We know Jingle_Fraud. It’s different in CA.

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 07:49:46

Shill’s in a tizzy
Lola’s getting dizzy

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 07:52:26

His head ready to explode
Lets get busy!

 
 
 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 07:03:34

Oops..another typo on a small keyboard. ….well, actually not so much this time!

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 07:03:53

Of course it did Jingle Fraud.

Now that you math-challenged debtors bring it up, what was her losses to depreciation every year?

Go ahead. I dare you.

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 07:24:10

You are so funny. 50 years. $450,000. Pretty simple math HA. Over $8,000/year in appreciation. That has been so painful. The worst part is there are no taxes due on gains under $500,000 for married couples.

She must regret ever owning a home! HA.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 07:26:52

It’s simple math Jingle_Fraud. Go ahead. Tell us the losses to deprecation.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 07:41:09

“She must regret ever owning a home…”

It is ironic. You have witnessed the biggest credit expansion in history first hand and close up. She likely never expected it. You are going to see an epoch credit contraction. You don’t expect it.

Remember, relentless drops in the resale value of your house(s) will crush your cheery 1% return and after several decades you may wish you never owned a house(s) or every borrowed a penny. Or it could happen very quickly.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 11:21:04

Blue, in another decade, they will be free and clear assets. That is what happens when you buy right, manage well, and rapidly amortize the debt repayment. I think in several decades I will be thankful for all the properties I own.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 11:26:18

You have to “buy right” first Jingle_Fraud. You paid massively inflated prices. You stated so yourself in your old posts.

 
Comment by Neuromance
2014-12-09 19:05:58

Blue Skye: It is ironic. You have witnessed the biggest credit expansion in history first hand and close up. She likely never expected it. You are going to see an epoch credit contraction. You don’t expect it.

Peak debt. Real estate prices are directly tied to how much debt the purchaser can take on. Can buyers take on more debt?

The previous mortgage finance market, a public-private model, imploded. Now it’s a purely public-only (government-backed) market. Sustainable? It turns the entire mortgage market into liabilities of the taxpayer.

I don’t see a WWII type booming economy going forward. Conditions are different in significant ways than was the case after WWII.

All that’s left is inflation. But you have the ever-swelling ranks of seniors who don’t typically appreciate politicians who allow inflation.

Government and the central bank have encouraged speculation in a basic necessity like housing. This favors certain classes of existing asset holders to the detriment of non-asset holders (the typical owner only has higher taxes to show for it). Government intervention typically helps the poor to the detriment of the middle class, and little impact on the wealthy.

Fannie and Freddie are trying to bring back the bubble with the 3% down loans and ever expanding definition of QRM.

What does all this suggest about prices going forward? I just don’t see where another big run up would come from.

Granted, there’s always population growth, and powerful central banks pushing inflation. And many people like the lifestyle of owning a house. Young families like having houses in which to raise the kids.

While the sales pitch for houses is solid, I’m not sure the reality for those who bought during the past 10-12 years matches the pitch.

 
 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 16:02:32

So funny: that depreciating shack my mom purchased in 1966 for $18,500 just sold for $470,000.

Thank the Federal Reserve and its printing press for that, not honest appreciation.

 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 07:17:15

“your house has depreciated and it’s worth nothing…”

Rather a half understanding mocked. In practice it is likely that you have struggled for those 30 years to fight the decay and obsolesce of the property and that as a result “you” are worth nothing. Owning a house is a financial war and the house always wins.

A gigantic housing bubble seems to mask this reality, though temporarily.

Comment by scdave
2014-12-09 07:40:37

it is likely that you have struggled for those 30 years to fight the decay and obsolesce of the property ??

Huge pile of BS….What cavity did you pull that statement out of and with what facts ??

Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 07:47:04

Sorry Dave, I failed to consider your alternate reality. Maintaining and updating a house is a significant reality for everyone but Dave. Is that better?

What is it that has our house humpers so rude and short tempered lately?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 07:52:51

What is it that has our house humpers so rude and short tempered lately?

LEVERAGED LOSSES. Playing every seat at the Blackjack table is fun. Until it isn’t.

 
 
Comment by scdave
2014-12-09 07:59:41

Maintaining and updating a house is a significant reality for everyone ??

Oh, its reality alright…Its just not this;

“struggled for those 30 years to fight the decay and obsolesce of the property”

Thats why I call BS on you….You fall into the same category with HA….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 08:01:39

Houses depreciate Dave. They always have, they always will.

The question is, what is the extent and dollar volume of those losses?

 
 
 
Comment by oxide
2014-12-09 09:46:28

struggled for those 30 years to fight the decay and obsolesce of the property

And even if the house falls in, over those 30 years the land itself will have appreciated to where it is worth as much as the land and the fallen-in house. Meanwhile, a renter will have neither house nor land. And don’t tell me that rents will stay flat for 30 years.

Comment by Cactus
2014-12-09 10:23:18

the land itself will have appreciated to where it is worth as much as the land and the fallen-in house. ”

it sure does in Pacific Palisades CA.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by scdave
2014-12-09 10:55:11

it sure does in Pacific Palisades CA ??

And many other places also…

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 11:06:25

Not really. There is no demand at current prices.

Remember….. There is a globe full of land and roughly 95% of it goes undeveloped and is highly speculative resulting in massive price swings unfounded on fundamentals.

 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 10:26:03

A few thoughts, especially since the conversation here about maintenance and depreciation started around trying to help you analyze a house purchase.

Here the RE tax is 3%. After 30 years of owning, enough taxes will be paid to buy the piece of ground (or house) again. This varies by area. The renter will have the money in hand at that time if he wants to pay cash for some trophy land.

Few experienced homeowners here have any clue what their long term maintenance costs are. I guess it is always assumed to be negligible as was your original assumption. I believe you have backed off of this position slightly. Start with your catastrophic loss insurance. Add keeping things repaired and up to changing code/fashion/technology, yardscaping and such. That right there is a number between 1 and 3% in my 40 years of housekeeping. Pick your own number. In 30 years you will come close to replacing the house just to keep standing still.

As for renting, I do not live at the bloody tippy top of the fashionable ant hill, but I rented for some years for 1/2 the monthly P&I in the same neighborhood as I had previously owned a mortgaged house. I did not pay taxes, insurance, paint, do upgrades or repairs or mow the grass. Then I spent a few years only living on the boat and renting off season in cottage country. In less than a decade of deferred gratification, I paid cash for a decent house. You pay for yours in 30 by mortgaging, I paid for mine in 10 by renting/saving. So, it is not a truth that a renter will end up with nothing. A modest saver will end up with 2 or 3 times as much as a spendthrift borrower.

Aside from that, the perpetual rise in prices going forward is a pretty shaky assumption, given the scope of the housing bubble. Don’t forget the housing bubble.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 10:40:49

$2-$3/sqft per year is the typical losses to depreciation. It just is. You can’t change it, you can’t make it disappear, you can’t do anything but take those losses. They are what they are.

 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 10:28:24

Donk,

You’re shifting the goal posts all over the field again. Just a few months ago you said grossly inflated prices were a result of materials. Now it’s “the land!”?

Besides. Even if rents doubled over 30 years, you might break even if you bought a house in the last 15 years.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 14:09:38

Oh, I should tell my older sister that. She paid $185k in 1985, the neighbors just sold for $840k in Laguna Nigel, CA.

She thought she had over $450k in equity. Silly, rich people.

Who knew, it was all a dream.

#sarcastaball

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 14:16:59

And what were the losses to depreciation all those years Lolacado?

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 15:01:00

“it was all a dream”

It was a mania, the biggest in history, and you live in it.

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 19:34:20

If all you can do is relive the 80s you better talk to Bill Cosby.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 05:12:17

Oh, the humanity! Coming soon to a central bank-blown asset bubble near you.

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/SHCOMP:IND

 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 05:14:14

Greece unfixed as stock market crashes. Is this the beginning of the long-awaited implosion of the global Ponzi markets?

http://www.businessinsider.com/snap-election-fears-are-tanking-the-greek-stock-market-2014-12

 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 07:00:29

Were AB Dan posting here today, he would be ranting like a maniac on everything Obama ever did that he didn’t like, while avoiding any discussion whatever of China’s never-ending string of 7.5% GDP growth hits.

Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 08:34:17

No as a true contrarian he would be pointing out:

1. Insiders are buying energy shares like crazy.

2. Gold is soaring

3. China is still growing close to 7% per year and is running record trade surpluses which are easy to verify by third parties.

4. Obama’s war on Russia is punishing Europe and the U.S. more than it inflicting long term damage on the Russia.

Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 08:46:26

On the Russian economy. BTW, China thanks Obama for the cheap oil and gold it has been able to buy due to Obama spiking the dollar and working with Saudi Arabia.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 08:48:05

I stand corrected.

But ya couldn’t resist working in one small Obama dig could you?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 09:09:05

It is not just a dig, it is an important point. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia are clearly engaged in economic warfare on Russia and Iran. However, the winner of the warfare is China. They gain by cheaper oil and gold and by the new pipeline for NG from Russia to China. In a world with demand of around 93 million barrels of oil, there maybe is a one million barrel surplus in the second quarter of 2015. Saudi Arabia alone could cut one million from its nine million barrel production and oil would be back to $100 per barrel. It doesn’t because for a while it wants a price war. However, if tomorrow it strikes a backroom deal with Russia to remove Assad in return for a cutback, it will occur. $100 a barrel is not the bubble price, it is the economically reasonable price. Cutting production ten percent to cause a 50% rise in price would be a reasonable economic thing to do.

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 09:19:22

I think the real interesting thing today is the move by the dollar. Is it just a correction after a large move or is it caused by the realization that the strength in the dollar has made American goods uncompetitive overseas? Could this impact be a greater detrimental impact than the benefit of cheaper oil? They are tied together.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 10:27:12

It’s the exhaustion of the debt/growth model dan.

 
Comment by Cactus
2014-12-09 10:27:28

“However, if tomorrow it strikes a backroom deal with Russia to remove Assad in return for a cutback, it will occur. $100 a barrel is not the bubble price, it is the economically reasonable price. Cutting production ten percent to cause a 50% rise in price would be a reasonable economic thing to do.”

huh interesting. been waiting for a entry back into oil stocks.

Hedge funds and insiders have been buying and so far losing money but if there is a political deal and insiders know about it ..

 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 09:04:28

Here we thought you were one of the mysteriously disappeared.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by MightyMike
2014-12-09 10:18:36

Yeah, I was worried that Whac’s mentioning of his name would bring him back. My fears have been confirmed.

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 10:31:01

It is better to be feared than to be loved.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 10:48:05

E pluribus unum

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 19:38:31

You haven’t missed much besides people mentioning you every damnd day here, the beginning of the decline in housing YOY and popping of Bubble 2.0 (Ben’s posts excepted).

Also Lola is now called Avocado.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 19:50:23

Lolacado blacked out in an alley in the meatpacking district with his pants around his ankles.

Same old story with Lola.

 
 
Comment by scdave
2014-12-09 09:04:41

Welcome back Adan….Way to man-up….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by palmetto
2014-12-09 09:09:30

Yes, I’ve missed A-dan myself. I don’t agree with him on China, (or natgas) but I do appreciate his points of view.

And if anyone wants to take a few digs at the big O, doesn’t bother me.

 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 09:15:20

Thank you, I always enjoy your posts.

 
Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 14:20:09

How could anyone be GLAD that ad is back?

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 10:51:28

“Insiders are buying energy shares like crazy.”

Praise to the knifecatchers!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 11:00:12

Insiders, historically, are not knife catchers, that is the point.

 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 15:02:36

“Insiders are buying energy shares like crazy.”

So that’s what is making the price sink like a stone!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 15:10:08

No people who believe the MSM and are selling are causing them to drop like a stone. Insiders with information that the MSM either doesn’t have or refuses to divulge are buying.

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 16:48:16

Oh my! So it has nothing to do with dropping demand in Theater China? Only to do with what insiders know about what insiders will bet on which the media knows but will not disclose except to insiders? Wow. So, you have the inside track, right?

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-10 00:21:31

Is insider knowledge on energy share purchases as useful as Rasmussen poll numbers on future election results?

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 05:22:46

Meanwhile, Ebola hasn’t gone away despite its disappearance from the headlines.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/dec/09/-sp-ebola-reports-of-people-disappearing-forest-die

 
Comment by Ibbots
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 06:39:34

How is oil plummeting gonna effect those real estate Ewings?

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-09 07:01:40

Last bounce before the ball pops?

 
Comment by scdave
2014-12-09 07:46:44

Article suggests limited inventory from a historical perspective…Ben, you were just there and did some driving around…

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 08:23:46

It was written by a realtor association.

Comment by ibbots
2014-12-09 08:58:22

wrong as usual - ‘according to data from the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University’

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 09:01:09

And who paid them to write it? That’s right.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 09:04:22

And “Real Estate Center” at Texas A&M University and realtor association is a distinction without a difference.

 
Comment by scdave
2014-12-09 09:06:01

wrong as usual ??

Being right is irrelevant to him….

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 09:55:18

Recently one of our posters referred to you as “Supporter of every bad economic idea Dave”.

Do you know why?

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 06:53:43

“What is it about falling prices of everything to dramatically lower and more affordable levels that sends liars into such a tizzy?”

Remember… falling prices to dramatically lower and more affordable levels is positively bullish and good for the economy.

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-12-09 07:07:59

You are so amusing !

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 07:11:30

Well “general contractor”? Regale us with more of your tall tales.

Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 07:56:20

At least he can do all the contracting work for his real estate empire. I quite enjoy having such a celebrity in our midst. The only person not to get crushed when the bubble popped.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 08:07:33

Apparently performing repairs is general contracting, developing bids and estimating in Jingle_Frauds world.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by mathguy
2014-12-09 07:24:20
 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 07:28:44

Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

“Drafts of the so-called nationality bills would remove Arabic as an official language alongside Hebrew, increase the influence of Jewish law, reduce the power of the Supreme Court, and entrench the automatic citizenship of Jews worldwide and Jewish symbols of the state. The proposals, put off until the outcome of the parliamentary elections next year, do not mention the word “equality” or provide rights for non-Jews”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/middleeast/israels-nationality-bill-stirs-debate-over-religious-and-democratic-identity.html

And all you Christian Zionists, don’t forget to buy that Rapture insurance for your pets

Comment by SUGuy
2014-12-09 17:43:38

The Jews and the Arabs need physiatrist more than anything else. Extremism is the norm in the crazy Jewish land. They are all sick in my opinion. Israel does this sh*t as it knows that the US military industrial complex will support them.

US policy is a wink and a nod towards Israel

 
 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 07:32:13

Los Angeles Times - Journalists struck by police at Berkeley protests

“Journalists reported that they were struck with police batons, even though they were clearly displaying their credentials”

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-journalists-struck-by-police-during-protests-20141208-story.html

Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 07:58:47

And so the constant drumbeat that the police are your enemy beats on.

Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-12-09 09:55:53

As a law abiding citizen, I’ve always considered police to at least be my allies, if not my friends. Until the past few years that is. I’m not at all sure any longer. I have to now assume that one small false move and things might go very badly for me.

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 16:07:44

When police stopped becoming “peace officers” and became “law enforcement officers,” something changed. Especially when they started recruiting a lot of hoped-up ex-military who can’t say a single sentence without f*bombs. I steer clear of the police just like I steer clear of the criminals, for the same reason. I can’t tell them apart anymore.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Cactus
2014-12-09 18:04:35

I steer clear of the police just like I steer clear of the criminals, for the same reason. I can’t tell them apart anymore.’

sad but true just like in old Mexico were victims of car accidents will drag themselves away from the scene so they don’t get a shake down.

probably why illegals hit and run here

 
 
 
Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 12:05:52

Shillow - please read the post below that I put up, from the Yale law professor.

Yes, today’s PDs are our enemy. 35 years ago I certainly would not say so. I had respect for them.

This is why I keep advertising the Peace Keeper App, and if you are a long time resident in a neighborhood with few transient neighbors you would do well to community police your neighborhood. You can come to their assistance faster than a cop can - and before the crime has been done. As a bonus, you know your neighbors and they know you. Less chance of killing someone by mistake, as a cop would do. And you would not report victimless crimes either.

The fewer we utilize the police in our own neighborhoods the better.

Community policing by free people, not by the State, is the way to go.

It’s no substitute for cops but would greatly reduce these disgusting “accidental” murders by cops.

Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 19:44:27

I’ll get there in my downward scroll, but I don’t need to read it. If you maintain the police are you’re enemy you are certifiably crazy. Just that simple. Yes, there are problems, maybe more than ever (but probably much less). But if you truly beleive this you need to get to a doctor quick.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 14:27:23

Let us know when you have your first run-in with a cop, Shillow. They tend to be escalators and opportunistic abusers.

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 17:22:56

“They tend to be escalators and opportunistic abusers.”

Spot on. You got their number.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 20:07:31

I’ve known plenty of Dhead cops. I also hate public unions and especially cop or firefighter unions. But the criminals outnumber the cops 100 to 1 easy.

You know when I last got a ticket? Neither do I, it’s been at least 10 or 15 years. Why? Because I obey the frickin rules.

I’ll be happy to walk into the nearest police station any time of day or night and talk to the people there. Would you do the same where that cop killed Mike Brown in Ferguson. Or in any of the projects?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 20:21:21

I carry large sums of money with me sometimes - to buy gold. So if I have a brake light that has gone bad, they will use that as an excuse to stop me. They will then escalate it from there, then find my money and seize it.

Look up “asset forfeiture.” It’s not just about taking money from drug dealers. A big number of cases is that they take cash / valuables from innocent people.

Aside from murdering people, I HATE cops for the asset forfeiture. There are NO good cops. If there were, they would rat on the bad ones.

 
 
 
 
Comment by palmetto
2014-12-09 09:18:22

“Journalists reported that they were struck with police batons, even though they were clearly displaying their credentials”

I think clearly displaying their credentials is why they got the beat-down, lol. The protesters ought to join in on the fun.

 
 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 07:38:39

New York Times - Unrest Over Race Is Testing Obama’s Legacy

“Half the respondents in a Pew Research Center survey conducted Wednesday to Sunday disapproved of the president’s handling of race relations, compared with 40 percent who approved — a reversal from August, when 48 percent approved and 42 percent disapproved”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us/politics/unrest-over-race-is-testing-obamas-legacy-.html

Comment by palmetto
2014-12-09 09:14:52

Sure, and “real journalists” bear absolutely no responsibility for stirring the pot whenever they can.

Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 09:39:35

You got a problem with the Media/Academia Race Hustlers Industrial Complex™ buddy?

 
 
 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 07:45:08

A nation of broke *AND* fat@ss loosers

“Dining out is the No. 1 thing Americans say they blew their budget on in 2014. Eating out is followed closely by spending on food/groceries, with 18% of American workers saying they blew their budget on food/groceries.”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-why-americans-are-overweight-and-broke-2014-12-09

Comment by Tarara Boomdea
2014-12-09 09:10:47

real journalists said:
A nation of broke *AND* fat@ss loosers

IDK, you’ve got to eat something. And healthy food is expensive. Hum this song while shopping for groceries. Good for your weight and budget.

Fat As I Am

Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 14:41:46

Unprocessed meat and vegetables are not expensive.

Comment by Tarara Boomdea
2014-12-09 15:21:33

Auntie Fed said:
Unprocessed meat and vegetables are not expensive.

I buy them anyway. I think they are expensive.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2014-12-09 10:15:01

Given how most casual dining dishes are salty, calorie bombs this is not surprising.

 
Comment by Puggs
2014-12-09 14:16:50

Right now food and medical premium’s are neck and neck. Too close to call this year. Next year medical has it by a mile.

Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 14:45:11

And no one thinks this seems excessive.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2014-12-09 15:00:18

Next year medical has it by a mile.

We just had open enrollment at the office. Health Insurance Premiums stayed about the same. Of course, I’m not dependent on those Obamacare subsidies that are getting reduced.

Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 15:22:12

Premiums may have stayed the same but out of pocket expenses took off this year.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Mr. Smithers
2014-12-09 18:47:20

My insurance premium will increase just under 3% in 2015 vs. 2014. Super terrific, thanks Obama!!

Oh what’s that? What was the premium increase from 2013 to 2014? Oh not much just 45%. That was because my old plan was verboten under Obamacare. Why was it verboten? Because it didn’t cover maternity. The fact that my wife and I are done having kids was the reason we had that plan. No more kids = no need to pay for maternity. But Obama in his imperial wisdom decided that we (along with all single men and all post-menopausal women ) need to have maternity coverage.

But wait, that’s not all. Not only was I forced into a plan with a 45% increase in premium, the deductible for that plan also increased by $2500 a year.

But the good news is, should I decide to undo the vasectomy, I’m good to go with maternity coverage.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Can Bubble
2014-12-09 07:52:40

Years from now in Calgary, they’ll point to this as the tipping point of the mania.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/05/mahogany-island-calgary-homes_n_6278494.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Comment by scdave
2014-12-09 08:06:44

Nice post thanks….Nice but Hardly some super custom homes…

 
Comment by Oddfellow
2014-12-09 09:49:53

Houses named after cars?

“Model homes come with names like The Bentley and The Maserati II and most are in the mid-3,000-square-foot range.”

 
 
Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 08:28:40

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-04/law-puts-us-all-in-same-danger-as-eric-garner

Over 70% of all adults have committed a crime or crimes that could put them in jail.

and note the very last sentence below too.

On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law.

The obvious racial dynamics of the case — the police officer, Daniel Pantaleo, is white; Garner was black — have sparked understandable outrage. But, at least among libertarians, so has the law that was being enforced. Wrote Nick Gillespie in the Daily Beast, “Clearly something has gone horribly wrong when a man lies dead after being confronted for selling cigarettes to willing buyers.” Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, appearing on MSNBC, also blamed the statute: “Some politician put a tax of $5.85 on a pack of cigarettes, so they’ve driven cigarettes underground by making them so expensive.”

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.

The legal scholar Douglas Husak, in his excellent 2009 book “Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law,” points out that federal law alone includes more than 3,000 crimes, fewer than half of which found in the Federal Criminal Code. The rest are scattered through other statutes. A citizen who wants to abide by the law has no quick and easy way to find out what the law actually is — a violation of the traditional principle that the state cannot punish without fair notice.

In addition to these statutes, he writes, an astonishing 300,000 or more federal regulations may be enforceable through criminal punishment in the discretion of an administrative agency. Nobody knows the number for sure.

Husak cites estimates that more than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. He quotes the legal scholar William Stuntz to the effect that we are moving toward “a world in which the law on the books makes everyone a felon.” Does this seem too dramatic? Husak points to studies suggesting that more than half of young people download music illegally from the Internet. That’s been a federal crime for almost 20 years. These kids, in theory, could all go to prison.

Many criminal laws hardly pass the giggle test. Husak takes us on a tour through bizarre statutes, including the Alabama law making it a crime to maim oneself for the purpose of gaining sympathy, the Florida law prohibiting displays of deformed animals, the Illinois law against “damaging anhydrous ammonia equipment.” And then there’s the wondrous federal crime of disturbing mud in a cave on federal land. (Be careful where you run to get out of the rain.) Whether or not these laws are frequently enforced, Husak’s concern is that they exist — and potentially make felons of us all.

Part of the problem, Husak suggests, is the growing tendency of legislatures — including Congress — to toss in a criminal sanction at the end of countless bills on countless subjects. It’s as though making an offense criminal shows how much we care about it.

Well, maybe so. But making an offense criminal also means that the police will go armed to enforce it. Overcriminalization matters, Husak says, because the costs of facing criminal sanction are so high and because the criminal law can no longer sort out the law-abiding from the non-law-abiding. True enough. But it also matters because — as the Garner case reminds us — the police might kill you.

I don’t mean this as a criticism of cops, whose job after all is to carry out the legislative will. The criticism is of a political system that takes such bizarre delight in creating new crimes for the cops to enforce. It’s unlikely that the New York legislature, in creating the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, imagined that anyone would die for violating it. But a wise legislator would give the matter some thought before creating a crime. Officials who fail to take into account the obvious fact that the laws they’re so eager to pass will be enforced at the point of a gun cannot fairly be described as public servants.

Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.

He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit — on pain of criminal liability — the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down — not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.

Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.

That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.

Don’t laugh. When I was in high school, I visited a night court session in a small New Jersey town, and witnessed a defendant being fined for eating in public.

Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 08:37:52

+1

 
Comment by Karen
2014-12-09 09:32:19

+1,000,000

 
Comment by In Colorado
2014-12-09 09:42:26

Don’t laugh. When I was in high school, I visited a night court session in a small New Jersey town, and witnessed a defendant being fined for eating in public.

Was that a felony, a misdemeanor or something else?

But I fully agree with what the prof said: Don’t create a new law unless you are OK with the police killing to enforce it.

However, as far as the cops are only “doing their job”, they seem far too eager to kill and maim over trivialities. My BIL is a cop in the UK and he is horrified over what is happening in the US. He has told me that there is no excuse for the violence against unarmed civilians.

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 10:56:12

+1

The thing about “eating in public” I think was a line from the author of that Bloomberg article. It was a footnote at the very end. Note the professor or the author the of the 2009 book the professor talked about is saying at the rate we are going, everyone of us will commit felonies. And he was serious.

 
Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 14:49:16

There are laws against police brutality. Besides, anyone can commit brutality. Passing a law doesn’t necessarily increase the chance of a person committing brutality. For instance, cops are notorious wife beaters. Did their wives all break the law?

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 14:58:01

There are laws against police brutality.

What good are they since they are investigated internally and almost all grand juries (again internally) let them get away with it?

It’s systemic.

Peace keeper app, community self-policing, security guards, repeal of victimless crime laws, massive deregulation - no nanny state cigarette taxes that result in cops murdering smugglers. I’m not saying we can completely eliminate police, but I do think serious discussion to combine police protection with insurance companies is overdue. I like “The Market for Liberty” by Morris and Linda Tannehill that discusses it. Milton Friedman’s son, David Friedman, also has a book discussing how police protection can be done through voluntary / private means.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by MightyMike
2014-12-09 17:41:26

Milton Friedman’s son, David Friedman, also has a book discussing how police protection can be done through voluntary / private means.

Have you read this book?

 
Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 20:17:32

Mighty Mike, I read David Friedman’s book a long time ago. I don’t remember well enough if his discussed competing police, but “The Market For Liberty did.”

 
 
 
Comment by reedalberger
2014-12-09 17:05:25

“But I fully agree with what the prof said: Don’t create a new law unless you are OK with the police killing to enforce it.”

The tobacco fascists have to face those consequences also, Eric Garner was killed to protect punitive taxation on cigarettes. Anyone who votes in favor of state ballot propositions taxing or banning products and behavior should be OK with the Police killing to enforce it.

#ThinkAboutYourVote

Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 20:42:46

He died from a weak heart, asthma and physically resisting arrest. Why not just put out your hands and agree to go to jail? He knew the drill. He had been arrested like 30 times before right?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Mr. Smithers
2014-12-09 13:22:15

I blame the media in part for this. What does the MSM tell us Congress is supposed to do? Work together to find solutions of course. Which means, create more laws.

Bipartisanship is an evil word. Whenever I hear that a bipartisan bill has been passed I know that I will pay higher taxes or lose some freedoms or both. And yet the media celebrates bipartisanship as a great accomplishment.

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 14:20:23

No. Read the constitution. Congress does have roles, but one of them is to create laws. Hence they are called “lawmakers,” (er, legislative branch?). Very few laws get rescinded/repealed. The famous one of course, prohibition.

I can understand sometimes technological changes behoove the ability to apply common law to new situations and codify it into a law, but not at the rate Congress has done in over 200 years. I would expect a new law every year or two. Not hundreds of laws such as Obamacare that they vote on before even reading it.

It’s a systemic problem. That’s partly why I’m an anarchist, but it’s not the only reason. You cut their heads off by severely restricting lawmaking. And that’s what we need.

 
Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 15:01:04

Wait. You AND adan are back? What’s going on here?

Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 15:18:18

Wait. You AND adan are back? What’s going on here?

The average IQ of the board is going up.

BTW, I wanted to post this when my other comment posts but I think I will just post it know since it has been about ten minutes. This shows just how much China has raised its workers wages while Obama and the PTB suppress wages in this country through open orders.

http://www.clb.org.hk/en/content/wages-china

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 16:12:38

+1. It’s all about control, not citizen security.

 
 
Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 09:57:19

I think there is an important difference between the UK and the US, in the UK cops tend to be without firearms. In a physical struggle British cops do not have to worry about a person using their weapon against them. Many US police are killed by an unarmed person killing them with their own weapon. This is the reason why prison guards that interact with prisoners are unarmed or at least limited to mace, night stick etc. Armed guards are prepared to take out any prisoner with a shank but they are not near the prisoners. Thus, US police are taught to subdue with force, quickly, to avoid their weapons from being taken.

Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 20:50:21

When 6 foot 5 inch 300 pound guys are willing to charge you, even after they’ve been shot, it’s probably a good idea to have a gun and many bullets. Though I think the 10 round mag would have been enough even for Bill in that situation.

 
 
Comment by Cactus
2014-12-09 10:07:05

working poors, now make them wait an hour.

WASHINGTON, Dec 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to employers over worker compensation, ruling that companies do not have to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks at the end of their shifts in a case involving an Amazon.com Inc warehousing contractor.

On a 9-0 vote, the court decided that employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions facilities in Nevada, where merchandise is processed and shipped, cannot claim compensation for the time they spend going through security screening - up to half an hour a day - aimed at protecting against theft.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on behalf of the court in the important employment law case that the screening process is not a “principal activity” of the workers’ jobs under a law called the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore is not subject to compensation.

Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 10:34:40

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on behalf of the court in the important employment law case that the screening process is not a “principal activity” of the workers’ jobs under a law called the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore is not subject to compensation.

May he be subjected to an anal examine when passing through security to the Court.

Comment by Albuquerquedan
2014-12-09 11:07:52

Having said that, the decision was in conformity with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which in many ways is pro-employer. Thomas cannot be blamed for following the law, but is frustrating that the elites do not have to suffer from the labor surplus they have created which allow employers to steal from employees. The search is for the benefit of the employer not the employee. The only way that the employee can get a fair deal from an employer is an environment where labor is in shortage, for the lucky ducky’s that is just a dream and adding five million illegals to the pool is not helpful.

Comment by Cactus
2014-12-09 12:55:49

The only way that the employee can get a fair deal from an employer is an environment where labor is in shortage”

Eventually the internet will replace all US non government workers including Doctors and lawyers. Maybe even robotic cops controlled by Indian and Chinese tech operators ?

The bandwidth I design today will replace me tomorrow.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by ibbots
2014-12-09 11:15:46

Reminds me of the Triangle Short Factory fire…

 
 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 10:31:12

Breaking news:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

And remember, “they attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our freedoms”

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 11:13:17

Well since the Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, and cop killings by hundreds per year, the Arabs probably only mildly dislike us now, right?

Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 16:14:12

+1000

 
 
Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 15:10:15

It just disappoints me that almost all people are actually so dim as to not understand what is wrong with this type of behavior. The first problem is that only a sadist would do it. We should not have sadists enforcing the law. The second problem is that it is bound to produce inaccurate information. That’s why it’s (drumroll) ILLEGAL!

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-10 00:23:54

Problem three: Guess what will happen to future American POWs, now that we have set a precedent for previous forbidden forms of POW torture?

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-12-10 00:24:54

previously

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 10:45:52

And an article for all the badge lickers and uniform fetishists

http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-slams-stupid-militarization-of-police/

“F*** tha police” — N.W.A.

 
Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 20:53:39

I agree with the point that the police have been over militarized. The police unions push all this junk.

 
 
Comment by Bring Back the WPA
2014-12-09 10:53:43

I have decided:

If you think falling oil prices are bullish, you’re stuck in 1977.
If you think falling oil prices are bearish, congrats, you’re a forward-thinking 2014 person.

Back in ‘77, the US economy was far more dependent on oil and the US was an oil consumer, dependent on foreign oil. A cut in gas prices was a lot more important to you when you were driving that 12 mpg Pontiac V8. Today a cut in gas prices isn’t as important when you fill up your 35 mpg Toyota. And now that the US is the world’s #1 oil producer a cut in prices is bearish for the economy not only to the US, also for emerging nations that produce oil. Derivatives tied to oil will take a hit, which is not a good thing for the US-EU-Japan axis teetering near deflation.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 10:55:27

Strawman.

Falling prices of all items is positively bullish, good for the economy and your wallets best friend.

 
Comment by In Colorado
2014-12-09 11:17:41

Today a cut in gas prices isn’t as important when you fill up your 35 mpg Toyota.

True, but the best selling vehicles in the US are full sized pickup trucks with V8 engines.

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 13:11:32

Around me at my OC address I would guess it’s 50/50 economy cars versus large or luxury vehicles and trucks. When a big ol SUV cuts me off I pray to the flying spaghetti monster for $8 per gallon gas.

Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 14:13:59

How else do you bring all those bags home from South Coast Plaza?

It is all sooooo disgusting. The Real Posers of The OC.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 11:18:19

Inflation is the relentless theft of money from the wage earner and the saver to the enrichment of the rentier. Deflation is the reverse.

The cost of the necessities of life have doubled for us in the last few years thanks to this policy of inflation by the so-called “axis” powers, while our wages have gone down. Please do explain how a reversal of this is bad, and who it is bad for.

 
Comment by Rental Watch
2014-12-09 14:44:30

Doesn’t the US still consume more oil than it produces? If so, on a net basis, aren’t lower oil prices GOOD for the US?

It hurts the producers and OPEC, and helps everyone else (especially those whose gas bill is a larger part of their monthly expenses).

Comment by Avocado
2014-12-09 15:03:34

The US imports oil and exports oil. Why don’t we use all of our own oil and forget about the Saudis? Why do we have to be in bed with the Saudis? They own FOX news, isn’t that enough for the sheeple?

 
 
Comment by "Auntie Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-12-09 15:14:20

So the rich dudes who own the oil companies will make less money. BFD. Everyone else will do just fine.

Comment by Blue Skye
2014-12-09 15:44:34

I think the worry is that there is too much debt and it won’t get paid back. Will we stand by quietly while the banks are bailed out, being told that our way of life is on the table?

Comment by iftheshoefits
2014-12-09 19:57:42

Exactly.

Prices go up and down, some people, regions and countries benefit, others suffer, bankruptcies and other adjustments happen, things go on.

Until everything got leveraged to the teeth, and not a single, organic commodity or asset price adjustment of any significance can happen without causing global financial meltdowns. Therefore the adjustments must not be allowed to happen, there must be massive monetary intervention. By a group of self-appointed smart people, who caused the problem in the first place and never see any of the resulting consequences coming.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Mr. Banker
2014-12-09 21:41:21

“Will we stand by quietly while the banks are bailed out, being told that our way of life is on the table?”

Yes, this is EXACTLY what you will do.

And furthermore … you WILL LIKE IT!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-12-09 12:59:24

Attkisson: I’ve Been On Receiving End Of Obama Official’s Profanity-Laced Tirades

8:56 PM 12/08/2014
Al Weaver
Reporter

Appearing on “The Steve Malzberg Show” Monday afternoon, author Sharyl Attkisson responded to former ABC News correspondent Ann Compton’s claim that President Barack Obama and his officials routinely direct profanity-laced tirades at reporters.

Attkisson told Malzberg she has been on the receiving end of those conversations in the past, and others, specifically The Associated Press, have been subject to scorn at the hands of Obama officials.

“Maybe this is just me or a personal opinion that a profanity-laced conversation with professionals in the press by the president of the U.S. is probably inappropriate,” said Attkisson.

“That’s not surprising to me,” the former CBS investigative reporter told Malzberg. “There have been profanity-laced discussions on their part with members of the Obama administration that they’ve talked to me about similar things, thinking that a cover story…was not warranted or fair.”

“They haven’t just done this with me, but with reporters at The Associated Press and other colleagues,” said Attkisson. “This is a tactic and a strategy.”

“I don’t know if it’s heartfelt or sometimes it’s just to create the kind of pushback that leads to a self-censorship, because you’re so beaten down…by what they say, by the social media campaigns and the blog campaigns that they launch,” Attkisson added.

Attkisson recently authored “Stonewalled,” which recounts her troubles getting her stories on the air at CBS that were perceived to be critical of the Obama administration.

 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-12-09 13:40:47

More DC Lies on Debts and Spending

December 8, 2014
Mark Brandly

Tags Big GovernmentU.S. Economy

”Recently, the Treasury Department secretary asserted that “The President’s policies and a strengthening U.S. economy have resulted in a reduction of the U.S. budget deficit of approximately two-thirds — the fastest sustained deficit reduction since World War II.” And, “the deficit in FY 20141 fell to $483 billion.”

Many people fell for this claim, including Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman. “So you heard it here first: while you weren’t looking, and the deficit scolds were doing their scolding, the deficit problem (such as it was) was being mostly solved.”

Federal Borrowing Continues

Apparently Krugman failed to read the rest of the Treasury report. Page one of this same report clarifies the issue, saying “the increase in borrowing included $483 billion in borrowing to finance the deficit and $314 billion in borrowing related to other transactions.” “Total federal borrowing from the public increased by $798 billion.” The Treasury Department’s own numbers tell us that widely reported deficit number is a lie.

This $798 billion deficit is a more accurate deficit number for FY 2014. According to the Treasury Department’s report on Public Debt to the Penny, the fiscal year 2014 debt increased $1,085.9 billion. This, however, includes the increase in intragovernmental debt of $277.2 billion. So the annual debt to the public increased by $808.7 billion. While there is a minor difference in these numbers, we can agree that the annual deficit was about $800 billion, not $483 billion.

mises.org/library/more-dc-lies-debts-and-spending - 114k - Cached - Similar pages
10 hours ago ..

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 13:56:16

Cambridge, MA Sale Prices Dive 4% YoY; Plummet 12% MoM and 16% QoQ

http://www.zillow.com/cambridge-ma/home-values/

Comment by Mr. Smithers
2014-12-09 14:36:24

Do you eve read the links you post?

“The median home value in Cambridge is $569,400. Cambridge home values have gone up 6.3% over the past year”

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 18:04:46

Slithers slithers slithers….. Values don’t mean much when prices are falling.

Read, listen, *LEARN*

 
 
 
 
Comment by Cactus
2014-12-09 16:48:17

‘Nut Rage”

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30390724

A Korean Air executive who delayed a plane because she was angry with the way she had been served nuts by an air steward has resigned, the airline says.

Heather Cho, a vice-president of the airline and daughter of its chairman, had demanded the crew member be removed from a flight last Friday for failing to serve the nuts on a plate.

The Incheon-bound flight had to taxi back to the terminal in New York.

The airline has apologised, but said she had had the support of the pilot.

 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 16:57:11

Everyone Must Check In

Comment by phony scandals
2014-12-09 18:13:33

Region IV

 
Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 18:20:58

and just in case any of you missed this, the cleveland cops just wasted a 12yo black kid with an air pistol that they thought was a real gun

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2014/12/tamir_rice_shooting_and_justic.html#incart_m-rpt-1

happy tuesday, and how’s that nixonian revival of ‘get tough on crime’ working out for ya?

 
Comment by goon squad
2014-12-09 19:04:04

Ice Cube - What They Hittin Foe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaLacfdA-wI

 
Comment by goon squad
2014-12-09 19:15:04

Eazy E - Neighborhood Sniper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y749Hixl2aw

Comment by phony scandals
2014-12-09 19:59:03

Surgeon Inc.
2 years ago

hes smokin blunts the size of my arm, in Gangsta heaven

 
 
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-12-09 18:18:13

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever,”

Comment by real journalists
2014-12-09 18:28:09

What time is Dancing With The Kardashians on tonight?

 
 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 18:32:10

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2014/12/09/beijing-weve-got-a-problem/

The Chinese stock market hit a four year high today at 3,020. This is up 53% since the middle of 2013 low and up 48% in the last six months. I guess this must mean the Chinese economy is operating on all cylinders. If you think so, you’d be wrong. Barron’s interviewed a no-nonsense woman who has lived, worked and analyzed China from within since 1985. Anne Stevenson-Yang has spent the bulk of her professional life there working as a journalist, magazine publisher, and software executive, with stints in between heading up the U.S. Information Technology office and the China operations of the U.S.-China Business Council. She’s now research director of J Capital, an outfit that works for foreign investors in China doing fundamental research on local companies and tracking macroeconomic developments.

This lady is about as blunt as you can get about Chinese fraud, lies, mal-investment, and data manipulation. The entire Chinese economic miracle is a fraud. The reforms are false. The leaders are corrupt and as evil as ever. The entire edifice is built upon a Himalayan mountain of bad debt.
The slave labor manufacturer for the world’s mal-investments since 2008 make Japan look like pikers.

 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 18:42:14

Bank of America sees $50 for a bbl of oil - how cool would that be? Buh-bye, junk bond bubble. Hello, sanity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11283875/Bank-of-America-sees-50-oil-as-Opec-dies.html

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-12-09 18:46:08

Hey pimps, liars and shills…. Are you enjoying falling housing and fuel prices?

 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
 
Comment by phony scandals
2014-12-09 19:55:52

MIT professor apologizes for ‘glib’ Obamacare comments

Author: By Ashley Killough CNN

Calling the plan a “clever” and “basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber hailed how the measure passed “because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”

While Gruber has previously described himself as an “architect” of Obamacare, he sharply denied the label on Tuesday, arguing that his role in the legislation has been inflated in the past.

Still, he helped create the health care law in Massachusetts under then Gov. Mitt Romney, and went on to play a key role in crafting the idea behind the series of exchanges, subsidies and taxes that form the federal law’s centerpiece.

At one point, Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming referenced her recently deceased husband to issue a sharp warning to Gruber.

Her husband, she said, was having chest pains, but due to confusion over whether the couple was covered by Obamacare, he didn’t have all the tests the doctor recommended.

He died from a heart attack in his sleep Oct. 24.

“The so-called glibness that has been referenced today have direct consequences for real American people, so get over your damn glibness,” Lummis said.

While he regretted his initial comments, Gruber did not deny the substance of the arguments he was making about the legislation.

http://www.click2houston.com/…/Politics/gruber-i-am-embarrassed-and-i-am-sorry/30133138 - 112k -

Comment by phony scandals
2014-12-09 20:21:11

I think a fitting punishment for Jonathan Gruber would be to make sure his only health insurance was the Obamacare Bronze plan and then strap his @ss to one of these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlbQJHTTDJg - 400k -

 
Comment by Raymond K Hessel
2014-12-09 21:30:38

Call the guy glib if you want, but anybody who voted for Obama, McCain, or Romney is indisputably stupid.

 
 
Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 20:24:04

This article is another well-written one. It’s late on the east coast so I will try to remember to repost it tomorrow in BB:

http://tucker.liberty.me/2014/06/14/the-war-is-on-you/

After 25 years of war on Iraq, the U.S. has what to show for it? A handful of dust. And at what cost in lives and property? It boggles the mind to consider the breadth and depth of the suffering.

Iraq was the great experiment following the Cold War for how the U.S. military machine could be used to make the world more free from tyranny — or so we were told.

Today, watching the crumbling of the house of cards, we see that the stated intentions of the world’s largest and most pervasive military empire has been brought down. And how? Solely by the aspirations of a diverse people united only by their determination to throw off the foreign yoke.

Does this mean that the Iraq mission has failed? Judging by the stated aims of four successive presidents, countless military commanders, and legions of wartime pundits, the answer is absolutely yes. But what this answer doesn’t consider is the advantages that war gains for the domestic government.

In times of unrest, instability, and impending upheaval, the ostentatious display of war is designed to remind the people who is boss. Nothing is more important to the state.

This was the whole reason that this Iraq disaster began. Recall that in 1989, the Cold War had ended very inconveniently, almost without warning. For forty years, Americans were told about their dangerous and implacable foe, the country and system that threatened all we hold dear. One morning we woke up and it was gone, revealing not ominous threats but burned out governments and demoralized populations.

And there was more going on. The world was celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall, the liberation of the outer reaches of the Soviet empire, and the inspiring sight of Eastern Europe finally entering the modern world. The images of brave protesters in China lifted hearts and minds all over the world to the possible dawning of a new model of freedom, peace, and prosperity for the world. Technology was connecting the world as never before.

At home, meanwhile, things began to get testy. If they can have freedom, why can’t we? The left was demanding a “peace dividend,” a sharp diversion of public monies away from building bombs to building schools — not an entirely unreasonable view. The right was rethinking its long-held attachment to the war model too, revisiting its past to discover that it too had a pro-peace tradition buried way back in history.

The consensus for retaining the warfare state was melting.

It was in the midst of this that President George Bush the first saw his chance. There was a complicated dispute over some oil properties on the border of Iraq and Kuwait. After getting a green light from the U.S. ambassador in Iraq (“we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait”), Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to settle some contractual disputes on drilling rights.

In normal times, this event would have been notable but not a concern for the U.S.. But in this case, all the necessary factors for a real war lined up. There were oil interests at stake. The president in office was unsure of his legacy. A presidential election loomed in the not-distant future. The military-industrial-congressional complex was worried for its future, seeking some new ideological template to rule the world.

Of all the problems that the ruling elite faced at the end of the Cold War, the most pressing was that the American people were dreaming of peace and normalcy, and increasingly intolerant of the overweening cost of being the world’s last superpower.

That was when the bombing began. We watched as people far away were fire bombed and murdered, how a mighty government was brought to its knees, how all the weapons built at our expense for decades could be used to subjugate a whole nation.

The U.S. drove Iraq out of Kuwait. It was seen as a victory, an impressive display of what the U.S. can accomplish through war. As for the tens of thousands of dead, among them many hundreds of innocents that were slaughtered through aerial bombings, the U.S. government said nothing more than: mistakes happen.

That was an ominous display.

I recall so well sitting on the lawn of the mall in Washington, D.C., during some patriotic display with tanks rolling around, bands playing, and fireworks shooting into the sky. Political pilgrims from all over the country, cameras hanging around their necks, were enthralled and swelling with pride for the glory of the American nation.

For me personally, that was it. The scales completely fell from my eyes. The elites in power had actually done in real life what seemed only possible in fiction. With one war, it had repurposed history’s largest and most deadly military empire away from fighting communism to fighting whomever it wanted anywhere in the world and for whatever reason it wanted to invent at the time.

It was suddenly very obvious to me that the whole thing was a ruse.

There was still another message that came from the beginning of this war. It signaled to the American people that democracy only goes so far. It’s one thing to vote for the candidate of your choice, to write your congressmen, to enjoy the spectacle of wrangling in the House and Senate. But when it comes to the real business of government, and especially its most extreme form in its right to unleash mass death anytime it wants, you have no say. Your insurrectionist impulses have limits.

The Gulf War of 1991 was said to have sent a message to the world against aggression (it’s hard to type those words without being overwhelmed at the irony). Its real message was scripted to hit closer to home. It was designed for us. The message was that there will be no reform, no peace, no real change, no end to empire, and there is nothing you can do about it.

What followed was ten more years of bombing and cruel sanctions, leading to another trumped up frenzy over non-existent weapons of mass destruction, followed by another invasion and the killing of Saddam, followed by another ten years of an attempt to set up a puppet government and train its military to maintain power in absence of a large U.S. troop presence.

A quarter of a century has gone by since the U.S. government set out to remake a foreign land under the slogans of freedom and democracy. That land is now wrecked completely, and in the midst of what seems like a 6-way civil war. The U.S. does have one good option of doing nothing, walking away and letting Iraq become the many different countries it probably ought to be. But that’s not what will happen.

Is there any consolation here for those of us who love liberty? There is this. Not even the world’s largest and most dangerous empire can control a country, not finally. No more is there such a thing as victory. The events in Iraq now are proof of that, and surely there is no one who can really believe that dropping more bombs is going to be the final ticket to bringing peace and stability to Iraq.

What, then, would be the purpose of yet another war on Iraq? The same purpose that war always has. It sends us a signal of who is in charge. It’s a war on you.

Comment by Shillow
2014-12-09 21:10:18

Did we learn that fighting a war to give people their freedom doesn’t work? We might have learned that we can only control countries by supporting dictators like they did previously?

Please just repost the link and a paragraph or two.

Comment by Bill, just south of Irvine
2014-12-09 21:21:41

k

 
 
 
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