The Housing Bubble

“…your recommendation is Hillary Jeb.”

To reiterate my earlier point, don’t be a moron if you are able to avoid it…

Hillary Jeb! See Ben’s post below. I’m sorry I intruded on your early morning grump session showing everyone how smart you are (even though you don’t “make predictions.”)

Shooting from the hip is different than a grump session. Learn the difference.

Thanks for the pointer. I hope you follow your own great advice as well.

He’d nuke Russia if Putin insulted his hairdo ??

he’s not that stupid…He may Nuke Iran though…

“…he’s not that stupid…”

Stupid is not the word that pops into my head to describe The Donald. Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, brash, provincial, rude, condescending, manipulative, vain and unctuous all come to mind, but certainly not stupid. Perhaps he is the right man for the job?

Perhaps he is the right man for the job ??

No Thanks…

“No Thanks…”

Part of me thinks no way, no how is he electable. But the other part of me that recalls the words of Henry Louis Mencken has me somewhat concerned:

No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.

Most voters are not engaged yet…Not even Hilary’s troops…Some are with Bernie and others are with Trump…Personally I am tired of it already and we have 13 months to go…

I still think it will be Kasich on the right…Hilary on the left…You would think possibly Fiorina as VP but she is very polarizing and I believe her record will just not allow taking that chance remembering she would be 2nd in line to the Presidency (the Palin effect)…Rubio for VP maybe…Hilary ?? Maybe Jim Webb…A Military man in 2nd spot thats pragmatic…

I think Hilary will still win it with a strong fight from Kasich…It will be close but IMO Hilary will win because Bill will have her back and nobody can argue with the successful economy under Bill…In a way, we would have a third term President proxy..

“…nobody can argue with the successful economy under Bill…”

AKA the Greenspan tech stock bubble economy?

Right…nobody can argue with that…

AKA the Greenspan tech stock bubble economy ? Right…nobody can argue with that… ??

Please demonstrate how it was Greenspans stock bubble because his name is not mentioned once in the explanation below…

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjACahUKEwiKrN7i1b3IAhVMzWMKHYYvAV0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDot-com_bubble&usg=AFQjCNEakQF_4SS3u8_DTWybb5CP7hT2iw&sig2=WRz8r40GebZPqof0ikYzxA

If Barron’s has to reach back 25 years to find something unsavory, then Trump is in good shape.

And yes, truth tellers get canned for dissenting. Happened to me.

And I’m sure Barron’s didn’t get their panties in a twist about it.

A local fishwrap journalist wrote a story about out of control real estate development in our area, having to do with building on questionable property (prone to flooding). He was right, too. But oh, boy, the development company apparently threatened his dinky little newspaper and the poor guy had to abjectly apologize in the next issue of the paper. It happens. It’s horrible, too. But his boss didn’t defend him and he needed the job so he had to cave.

‘I can’t vote for Trump’

You’ll do anything for money Lola.

I have a stalker.

Trump will be a dagger in the heart of the Republicrat duopoly. That is reason enough to vote for him.

I got my Trump 2016 sign delivered today.

“I got my Trump 2016 sign delivered today.”

Did it wear a condom?

Actually I got a dozen delivered. Everyone wants one.

The sheeple flock together in delusional-town.

T: cut taxes and build a wall, got to war and deport 11k a day! !! vote Trump and give me a “i believe!!”! Just click your heels 3x dorothy.

Everyone

San Francisco, CA Housing Prices Dive 12% YoY

http://www.zillow.com/noe-valley-san-francisco-ca/home-values/

Legistlation has also quietly - stealthily? - been approved for wider use of “bail-ins” aka legalized official theft of depositer accounts, a la Cyprus. Did you know that when you desposit money at a bank, you are legally agreeing to be their “creditor”? That lays the legal groundwork for your deposits to be seized in the event the bank, through it’s own recklessness and greed, is faced with insolvency.

That lays the legal groundwork for your deposits to be seized in the event the bank, through it’s own recklessness and greed, is faced with insolvency.

In other words, you might get what you’re from a bank if they’re unable to pay people what they owe.

Ever hear of FDIC?

Yeah, that’s a good tip for Raymond. Look for the FDIC sign at the bank.

Ever hear of FDIC?

As long as it’s solvent, sure. I don’t know how many small bank failures it would take to wipe out the FDIC. We all know that the big boys will get bailed out.

And speaking of big vs small, it seems to me that there are far fewer small bank and CU branches than before. More than a few credit unions out here have been absorbed into other CU’s after which they close a few branches. I’m also seeing fewer small banks, while Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and BofA branches are popping up everywhere.

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

Yeah, that’s a good tip for Raymond. Look for the FDIC sign at the bank.

FDIC is only funded to cover a tiny fraction of US bank deposits. And trust me, if there’s a bail-in, FDIC won’t be covering your losses, because, after all, you voluntarily became the bank’s creditor by maintaining an account with them.

FDIC is only funded to cover a tiny fraction of US bank deposits.

That’s the nature of insurance. If every car insured by GEICO was stolen tomorrow morning they wouldn’t be able to pay all of the claims.

Not lying. Even the highly respected Bill Moyers says

“Stockman was the chief architect of Reagan’s supply-side, or “trickle-down” economic policies, and as Reagan’s budget director he quickly gained a reputation as a tough negotiator and a ruthless cutter of taxes and government spending. ”

Perhaps someone in the 1890’s was the true inventor of trickle down, I can concede that. But Stockman was indisputably the first to implement it on a grand scale, and for that he richly deserves the criticism that goes with it.

I’m interested in why what happened in the 80’s, thirty years ago, is deemed relevant? The debate today is more about corporate tax rates. But if were are considering that, isn’t it just as important that the dominant theory is that we must foam the runway for banks? In the weekend post, we looked at Bernanke the Courageous bragging that he saved all our biscuits by saving banks. And Too Big To Fail Holder, the defender of large corporations. While we’re at it, how does globalism fit in? You know, “free trade” that all the Serious People in DC seem to agree on?

And what about these bubbles that the system seems to rely on?

You had a little rant on oligarchs and bad people we shouldn’t vote for the other day. What I want to know is who we should vote for and why?

I’m interested in why what happened in the 80’s, thirty years ago, is deemed relevant?

It’s relevant because they (Reagan/GWBush/JebBush/Trump) keep going back to Trickle Down and upping the ante. Reagan ballooned the deficit by $110 bil. GWBush upped that by a factor of five at 521 bil. And now with Trump’s and Jeb’s tax cut proposals, you’re looking at trillions.

I do believe Bernanke did the right thing in 2009 and it saved us from a Depression. But I also believe he erred by letting QE go on far too long. And I’ll be the first to criticize Obama for giving the big bankers a “get out of jail free” card.

As I’ve pointed out here before, the number one factor holding back the US economy is lack of demand due to low wages and lack of good jobs. Doing more supply side, as Trump/Jeb propose, is just pushing on a string and won’t help. Sanders is the only candidate that seems to understand this.

“Not lying. Even the highly respected Bill Moyers says”

Highly respected where and by who?

By the open minded racist liberal white Betters in places like Madison Wisconsin and Dumbo?

LBJ and PBS = highly respected?

By Paul Farhi January 1 2015

This time, Bill Moyers really means it. After 43 years as public television’s most visible intellectual and its most unabashed liberal, he’s done. As of Friday, he’s officially retiring from TV.

‘Doing more supply side, as Trump/Jeb propose’

Wait a minute. I admit I’m not following too closely, but I could swear I heard Trump saying he would lower (or even eliminate?) taxes on lower incomes and raise taxes on the rich. We’re never going to get anywhere unless we are clear on things like this.

‘I do believe Bernanke did the right thing’

It’s easy to be courageous when the cow pattie is still in the air. Let’s see where it lands before we pat Mr Helicopter on the back.

Highly respected where and by who? By the open minded racist liberal white Betters in places like Madison Wisconsin and Dumbo?

That made you sound open-minded and to be respected.

Ben: Trump’s tax plan in a nutshell

- cut top income rate to 25%
- income tax cuts for all income brackets
- cut cap gains tax to 20%
- eliminate estate tax
- narrow tax increase for hedge fund managers only (carried interest deduction eliminated)
- reduce corporate tax rate to 15%

Trump says his plan will be revenue-neutral because economy will grow (trickle down, again)

WSJ estimates that under Trump’s plan, 50% of Americans will pay no tax due to lower rates in the bottom brackets plus EITC.

As a demand-sider, I agree with reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% from 40% but only IF there’s a string attached: if said company expands domestic operations and hires Americans.

It’s important to consider these things even if it is just to let other candidates know what people think should be done. No one has taken more jabs at Trump than me (for his RE shenanigans). But let’s include a few things; no NAFTA, lots more corporate spending in the US plus add some jobs. I suspect he would do something with the WTO too. Not policing the world; we would save quite a bit of money if we took that route.

Everybody has some tinkering tax proposals. But taking on globalism and the MIC, and he’s still ahead? It would have been inconceivable months ago. And Trump stood on a stage with a Bush and said the Iraq war was a mistake. And he leads in the polls. That is some progress no matter how this turns out.

Reducing everyone’s taxes doesn’t sound “trickle down” to me. However, it sounds “cart before the horse” if government spending is not cut.

‘If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.’

Dr. Bernanke Explains Quantitative Easing

I think WPA was merely recycling the Wikipedia entry on “trickle down”…not exactly lying.

They have to harken back to Reagan so they can skip right over Bubbas tenure. It’s a Hillary ploy.

Once again, Why lie?

“it’s important to consider these things even if it is just to let other candidates know what people think should be done. No one has taken more jabs at Trump than me (for his RE shenanigans). But let’s include a few things; no NAFTA, lots more corporate spending in the US plus add some jobs. I suspect he would do something with the WTO too. Not policing the world; we would save quite a bit of money if we took that route.

Everybody has some tinkering tax proposals. But taking on globalism and the MIC, and he’s still ahead? It would have been inconceivable months ago. And Trump stood on a stage with a Bush and said the Iraq war was a mistake. And he leads in the polls. That is some progress no matter how this turns out.”

Testify, Ben. I agree.

The effects of trickle down did not hit us pre-Reagan.

look at corp profits vs jobs. Watch the movie ” Inequality for all.” then we can talk.

Very well, so Stockman re-invented supply-side/trickle down instead of inventing it the first time. I’m sure it’s been invented many times since the days of Rome. So i don’t see how this qualifies as a “lie” by anyone.

The Depression-era episode of supply/side trickle down wasn’t FDR. It was actually Hoover. Will Rogers, who invented the phrase trickle down (if not the concept), specified Hoover. Rogers’ entire quote is worth repeating:

—–
“The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue.” — Tulsa Daily World, December 5, 1932. (Wikiquote.)
—–

Hoover was still President at the time of the quote. We tend to forget that the Depression raged for three years, unsuccessfully under supply side, before FDR was even elected.

To address your other point, that supply side is something that “happened” 30 years ago. It didn’t happen 30 years ago; it happened 7 years ago with the bailout. It’s still happening today with QE.

Reducing everyone’s taxes doesn’t sound “trickle down” to me.

If lots of people are getting pennies in tax cuts and others are getting millions, it’s really irrelevant that everyone is getting something. In 1982 I knew a guy who worked as a surveyor for my local township who said that his tax cut from Reagan was enough to buy an extra six pack of beer weekly.

that supply side is something that “happened” 30 years ago. It didn’t happen 30 years ago;

It’s been happening for 35 years. It didn’t work for most Americans.

supply-side economics
Economic policies based on the idea that a national economy will benefit through a government making more money available for investment, especially through reducing tax levels.

There’s no debate that Reagan dramatically reduced taxes in 1981, his first year in office. That $38-billion cut would equal $90 billion in today’s dollars. At the time, it represented 1.91 percent of the gross domestic product, which is the total value of goods and services produced in the United States during a given year.

But the following year, Reagan raised taxes dramatically and other increases followed.

The 1982 hike alone, which applied to corporations and individuals, increased taxes by about $17 billion, according to a 2006 U.S. Treasury report. The increase represented 0.8 percent of the GDP. That’s why it is sometimes billed as the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. That same year he also raised the gasoline tax.

In 1983, Reagan hiked taxes again. This time it was the passage of the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which increased payroll taxes to provide long-term funding for Medicare and Social Security. According to liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a June 8, 2004, commentary in The New York Times, “this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan’s income tax cuts” for many middle- and low-income families.

In fact, immediately after the 1981 cuts, the country went into a recession. The GDP dropped by nearly 2 percent. The unemployment rate jumped more than two full percentage points, spiking to 9.7 percent.

Then things got better. The GDP rose 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984. Those are substantial jumps. The increases returned to a fairly typical 3 percent and 4 percent during the rest of his tenure. Unemployment barely declined in 1983, but then began a steady fall to 5.3 percent in 1989, when Reagan left office.

lots more corporate spending in the US plus add some jobs ??

But that really promps the question why has it not happened already over the past 7 years ?? Where are the proposals from the House & Senate that would encourage economic growth and more “good” jobs ??…Well we know, for the first four there was this Agenda…”Our number 1 priority is to make him a 1 term President”…

Its my feeling that many in this so called republican party want nothing to do with helping this President succeed…Even to the detriment of the people of this country…Bottom line, they want the Presidency desperately and they will do what ever they can to win…

If they gain the presidency and control both houses there is no telling what could happen…Will they pass legislation to help the economy and jobs…Channeling palin…”you betcha”…Nothing they would like more then to see a successful Republican President…The real question is what else will they do and my suspicion is woman and minorities won’t like it much…

Our number 1 priority is to make him a 1 term President”…

Which makes me wonder how they would react if Bernie Sanders were to win.

“(carried interest deduction eliminated)”

It’s not a deduction.

It’s an allocation of partnership income without changing the tax treatment based on the source of that income (a capital gain event is taxed as capital gain for all partners, an ordinary income event is taxed as ordinary income for all partners–regardless of capital invested).

I agree that Trump’s plan would blow-up the deficit, but here is the reality of the carried interest debate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-29/trump-clinton-lines-on-hedge-fund-tax-payments-puzzle-experts

Mark my words, there will be two exceptions to the carried interest “fix”: 1) Venture Capital (can’t tax job creators); and 2) Real Estate (can’t tax developers that are often backers of local politicians who ultimately become Federal politicians).

“Well we know, for the first four there was this Agenda”

For the first 2, he had complete control of all legislative branches of government, which is why he steamrolled over the Republican’s on the ACA and Dodd Frank with an “F-’em we’ve got the votes attitude”–driven by Rahm Emmanuel.

Read “The Price of Politics” and then tell me that the opposition from the right existed on day one of Obama’s presidency (it didn’t–the animosity was born from Rahm’s attitude toward the then minority GOP).

I’ll post an article that outlines the timing of that McConnell quote, but it was after 2 years of Obama steamrolling over the right, just before the midterm election where Obama lost is majority in both houses.

In that same interview, McConnell also said:

“If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.”

And,

“It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.”

And from the article’s author:

“Perhaps, in Obama’s memory, McConnell was always uncooperative. But that does not give him and other Democrats the license to rearrange the chronology to suit the party’s talking points.”

Link to follow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

Rio, I put “happened” in quotes in order to disagree with the past tense of the word. The proper tense is “started happening 35 years ago and never stopped and is still happening.”

I agree with reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% from 40% but only IF there’s a string attached: if said company expands domestic operations and hires Americans.

I agree with the concept but the phrasing sounds really easy to get around. I think we had this problem with trying to re-patriate revenue from overseas. A more airtight attached string is to simply allow 1.5x tax credit for wages. Pay someone $50K; deduct $75K from taxable revenue. Make some provision that you get more tax break if you create more full-time jobs, to prevent hiring a few people at high pay.

GAO says effective corp tax rate is 17%. If you make it a no tricks must pay 15% I can live with that. But YOU BETTER cut spending to make up for the shortfall. No more $8 billion to Israel. No more blowing up rocks.

We all know, that people will weasel out of the 15% making it less than 10% AND THERE GOES THE DEFICIT!

Falling prices transcends all…. and remember..

<bNothing accelerates an economy like falling prices to dramatically lower levels…… Nothing.

The world bank puts the US effective tax rate at 27%…there is a big difference between that and the GAO….which is correct? What accounts for the 10 point difference?

12.6% GAO: http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/expert-debunks-claim-us-corporate-taxes-are-high/

more info: http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/matthew-kerkhoff/does-u-s-have-highest-corporate-tax-rates-in-world

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/

“The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commission, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent.”

Sounds like yet another reason Simpson Bowles should have been taken seriously by the administration. Among the things it addressed:

Equalized cap gains and ordinary tax rates for individuals…making both Buffett’s point and the argument over carried interest moot.

Reformed SS to strengthen the safety net for those most vulnerable and made it solvent for more time by taxing the wealthy a bit more.

Convered corporate tax law to territorial system.

And before you point fingers at Paul Ryan for not voting FOR the plan, his objection was that part of the law was to take away the corporate deduction for health insurance…the plan didn’t assume that lots of corporations would dump those employees onto Obamacare, thus raising the cost of the program–a clear oversight which made the overall numbers not work.

Yet rather than making the adjustments and using the plan as the basis for reform, it was pretty much ignored.

And their vacant 4-bedroom McMansions will be on the market soon…

facts are a bummer: 79 year is avg life expectancy. poor ones die first

“And their vacant 4-bedroom McMansions will be on the market soon…”

35 million of them. Stacked onto the existing 25 million excess empty houses.

Can’t we hurry the process along?

6000 ppl die per day (all reasons) USA

353,000 babies are born each day around the world.

10,958 births per day in USA

A birth rate the lowest in US history and falling and a death rate the fastest in US history and rising.

What will happen to 60 million excess empty and defaulted houses Lola?

And they’re going to keep falling…. and falling and falling.

Hopefully things can get a cheap as Cuba some day!! yipppeeee for the min wage worker!!

That’s right Lola. Falling prices is good for everybody. Everybody.

What blows my mind is No.2 yellow at $2.25. That’s right….2.25.

1,440 nearby properties found Kirkland, WA Price Reduced Homes for Sale

4,218 nearby properties found Kirkland, WA Real Estate and Homes for Sale

This is within 20 miles, excluding land, etc. Look this stuff up for yourself. We don’t have to sit around and wait for the bought off media to tell us what’s being marketed in this day and age.

With all the excess empty and defaulted houses and falling housing demand in WA, why would anyone build more?