The Policy Is Paradoxical
Some weekend reading from The Whig by Geoffrey Johnston. “Knowledge of past financial crises does not necessarily give policy-makers the ability or wisdom to avoid every pitfall or systemic problem that could lead to a future financial meltdown. However, there is no denying that possessing a firm grasp of financial history could help politicians and central bankers to better understand the perils of lax monetary policy, asset bubbles and mania.”
“‘History shows that even modest financial crises cause horrific pain,’ writes Timothy Geithner in Stress Test, the definitive first-hand account of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. Geithner served as president of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the financial meltdown and went on to become President Barack Obama’s secretary of the treasury. ‘Financial rescue, fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus — along with the president’s efforts to prop up the beleaguered auto and housing sectors — would all have to work together, if they were to work at all,’ Geithner explains in Stress Test.”
“According to Geithner, ‘the long period of low interest rates in the United States and worldwide helped fuel the crises, because it helped fuel the mania that inflated the bubble, encouraging more borrowing, more homebuilding, more risk-taking.’ The stage was set for a catastrophic collapse of the financial system. ‘When the panic hit and the run gained momentum,’ writes Geithner, ‘we did not have the ability to protect the economy until conditions were scary enough to provoke action by Congress.’”
The Daily Progress. “Even though homeowners overall are gaining wealth, the home-ownership rate is at a 50-year low, according to National Association of REALTORS Chief Economis Lawrence Yun. ‘I think that in itself is leading to large anxiety, especially among the younger population, about what does it mean to acquire the American dream,’ Yun said. ‘People have always associated ownership with the American dream, but that is changing because people can no longer become homeowners because mortgage availability is difficult, and home prices are just not affordable anymore.’”
“In 1983, the median net worth of a household headed by someone under 35 was $15,260, and for a household headed by someone over 65, it was $120,500. In 2013, younger households had a median net worth of $10,500, while older households had a median net worth of $210,000.”
“‘You say that’s fine, and maybe that is fine, because it takes time to build wealth,’ Yun said. ‘Younger people are not building wealth at a young age. But look at 2013, for older people it has grown. They have their home, they have some stock. For younger people, it has actually declined, so [there’s] wider wealth inequality now than before.’”
From MarketWatch by Satyajit Das. “In the last few decades, a succession of property booms and busts have been at the heart of financial and economic crises in advanced economies. A central factor is that housing now is no longer considered ’shelter’ but a ‘financial asset’ promoted and encouraged by official policy. In the 1980s, the replacement of company or government-funded retirement plans with self-funded arrangements meant houses became a means for wealth creation. Homeowners began treating their properties as automated teller machines from which they extract cash.”
“Reliance on houses as a store of wealth creates exposure to volatile house prices. As the global financial crisis illustrated, prices can be affected by a confluence of adverse events — economic cycles, the availability of credit and demographics where large cohorts may retire at the same time. Price fluctuations are exacerbated by the illiquidity of the asset.”
“Many economies rely excessively on the housing market. In ‘The Age of Turbulence,’ Alan Greenspan approvingly quotes economics columnist Robert Samuelson’s assessment of his policies in the early 2000s: ‘The housing boom saved the economy…Americans went on a real estate orgy. [Americans] traded up, tore down and added on.’”
“The policy is paradoxical. If it succeeds, higher house prices ironically make housing unaffordable for large portions of the population. Where the policy fails, an unwinding housing bubble is difficult to manage. It leads to several simultaneous adverse outcomes, which feed each other in a difficult-to-control negative spiral.”
“Sadly, policy makers appear to have learned little from the past. Since 2009, government and central-bank policies, especially low interest rates, in countries as varied as the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and China have created conditions for rapid increases in property prices. Surveying the approach, Andrew Oswald, an economics professor at Warwick University in the U.K., observed: ‘We’re stoking up a huge bubble. It’s quite extraordinary. We virtually ruined the Western world by having high house price inflation and now we’re determined to do it again.’”
“Albert Einstein famously observed that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. The current housing market illustrates this vividly.”
‘the long period of low interest rates in the United States and worldwide helped fuel the crises, because it helped fuel the mania that inflated the bubble, encouraging more borrowing, more homebuilding, more risk-taking.’
It’s déjà vu all over again!
FOMC minutes: Some Fed members concerned with prolonged low interest rates
Low rates could discourage investments, depressing economic growth
October 12, 2016
Kelsey Ramírez
The Federal Open Market Committee released its minutes today, showing that in September’s meeting there was division between members who wanted a rate hike and those who took a more cautious approach.
At the end of the meeting, Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve System chair of the Board of Governors, explained why the Fed chose not to raise rates.
“Our decision does not reflect a lack of confidence in the economy,” Yellen said.
She explained the Fed preferred to take a more cautious approach to see if current growth would continue.
The minutes of the meeting show that some Fed members pushed for raising interest rates, and even raised concerns about the effect of interest rates remaining low.
From the minutes:
…
How many more years are we gonna talk about a 1/4 point rate hike?
This sh@t is beyond ridiculous.
Its all a game to keep you listening.
Savers and the prudent are being bilked out of hundred of billions of dollars in interest income every year because of the swindle known as ZIRP.
Keeping you money in a savings account isn’t prudent, it is foolish. Get some diversity.
“Keeping you money in a savings account isn’t prudent, it is foolish.”
Please report back to us during the next protracted period of housing price declines…
∆lol
Use your FRNs to buy stackables whose value can’t be debased to worthlessness by the Fed.
“Albert Einstein famously observed that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. The current housing market illustrates this vividly.”
Maybe the Fed needs to hire fewer economists and more physicists.
Maybe the Fed needs to get a real audit, then be abolished and razed to the ground while Yellen the Felon, Zimbabwe Ben, Greenspan, and every other senior Fed official serves out the rest of their natural lives in a federal penitentiary.
And from there on out, it will be those who own guns, gold and Bitcoin who get to call the shots.
Your posts are getting increasingly whacky by the day, just like Trump’s campaign statements.
Odd how the US managed just fine without a central bank before 1913, but has experienced continued depressions, recessions, crashes, and the lose of 98% of the dollar’s value since the Fed was created.
I’m no fan of the fed, but…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
I’m no fan of the fed
Only idiots believe this nonsense. Look at Government consumption/spending….that papers over many a recessions in modern era.
Well…..ahem.
Economics
The Next Recession Is Coming. Big Deal.
Oct 14, 2016 1:47 PM EDT
By Barry Ritholtz
You have to hand it to economists — they say the darndest things.
In a Wall Street Journal survey, a group of economists “put the odds of the next downturn happening within the next four years at nearly 60 percent.” Oh no.
Today, we will make another entry in the catalog of how worthless predictions tend to be, and more specifically why economists’ long-term forecasts are so uniquely useless.
…
October 2016
The next Big Short?
With the real estate market past its peak in the current cycle, cynical investing is on the rise
October 03, 2016
By Konrad Putzier
J. Kyle Bass is famous for predicting the U.S. housing crisis and making millions of dollars shorting subprime mortgage bonds in 2008. So when the hedge fund manager announced this February that he shorted the obscure residential real estate investment trust United Development Funding IV, its other investors apparently decided it was best to get out of the way.
Within a day of Bass publishing an open letter announcing his short, the Dallas-based REIT’s share price had dropped by 30 percent. Within a week, those shares had fallen by 69 percent and then stopped trading entirely after the FBI raided the headquarters of its parent company.
The hedge fund manager had won again.
Bass, who accused UDF of running a Ponzi scheme, wasn’t betting against any particular submarket, let alone the real estate industry as a whole. But his bet stands for something broader — that shorting real estate is increasingly back in vogue.
It’s been close to nine years since a handful of hedge fund managers made a fortune betting against the toxic residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market, which was immortalized in Michael Lewis’ book (and the subsequent film) “The Big Short.” Now, a growing number of observers are cautioning that the next real estate downturn is about to begin, if it hasn’t already. This decline creates potential opportunities for cynics to benefit from other people’s losses.
The question now is: Are we about to witness the next big short? If so, it could largely involve commercial properties and companies, as well as publicly traded residential firms similar to UDF, industry sources say.
“The debate has intensified over the last couple of months,” Richard Hill, head of U.S. REIT equity and commercial real estate debt research at Morgan Stanley, told The Real Deal. Hill added that his clients are increasingly asking about shorting options for commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS).
…
Rents are rising in Palm Beach County, where thousands of apartments are planned…..Rental demand in South Florida is being driven by the high cost of buying a home. That barrier to home buyers is even more unfavorable in Palm Beach County….
http://therealdeal.com/miami/2016/10/14/rents-are-rising-in-palm-beach-county-where-thousands-of-apartments-are-planned/
Yun people,young people are about to vote for more slow drip socialism
Free,er healthcare
Eat the rich
No man stink
No viagra
Market perky in dc as Hilary approaches
“The policy is paradoxical. If it succeeds, higher house prices ironically make housing unaffordable for large portions of the population. Where the policy fails, an unwinding housing bubble is difficult to manage.”
Just remember, higher prices benefit older sellers (and investors in mortgages), but hurt younger buyers.
Often buyers and sellers are the same people, so they break even if they trade houses in a bubble or bust.
The exceptions are those buying for the first time, or cashing in and moving to Florida (or, I guess for the Midwest, Arizona). Bubbles hose the first time buyers, later-born generations. And it is no different than a host of public policies and private trends.
Nobody “benefits” from a economy stricken by rigor mortis. And it’s housing that is the core of it.
‘The Federal Reserve may need to run a “high-pressure economy” to reverse damage from the 2008-2009 crisis that depressed output, sidelined workers, and risks becoming a permanent scar, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said on Friday in a broad review of where the recovery may still fall short.’
‘Though not addressing interest rates or immediate policy concerns directly, Yellen laid out the deepening concern at the Fed that U.S. economic potential is slipping and aggressive steps may be needed to rebuild it.’
‘Yellen, in a lunch address to a conference of policymakers and top academics in Boston, said the question was whether that damage can be undone “by temporarily running a ‘high-pressure economy,’ with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market.”
“One can certainly identify plausible ways in which this might occur,” she said.’
“If strong economic conditions can partially reverse supply-side damage after it has occurred, then policymakers may want to aim at being more accommodative during recoveries than would be called for under the traditional view that supply is largely independent of demand,” Yellen said. It would “make it even more important for policymakers to act quickly and aggressively in response to a recession, because doing so would help to reduce the depth and persistence of the downturn.”
‘With public expectations about inflation so hard to budge, Yellen said tools like forward guidance, “may be needed again in the future, given the likelihood that the global economy may continue to experience historically low interest rates, thereby making it unlikely that reductions in short-term interest rates alone would be an adequate response to a future recession.”
‘The Federal Reserve may need to run a “high-pressure economy” to reverse damage from the 2008-2009 crisis that depressed output, sidelined workers, and risks becoming a permanent scar, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said’
“Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRW7pITY5Cg
Janet, you don’t run anything. The problem here is central planning hubris. It’s a complete disaster and they think they can pull a rabbit outa their hat. Let’s take this from below:
‘The Federal Reserve doesn’t think the US has enough houses.’
We used to understand that even a small market can’t be centrally planned, much less something as large as housing. There are billions of decisions that go into a thing like this: what to build, how much, where, how much to pay for land, what can customers afford. The variables are endless when you think it has to happen in millions of places all over the country. I’ve said this for years: we have to consider that these people may just be idiots who don’t have a clue about how the real world works.
What is the Fed?
The Federal Reserve, “the Fed”, is the central bank of the United States of America that was created in 1913 by Congress. It is a banking cartel that has a government-granted monopoly on the creation of money and credit. The Fed literally loans “money” (Federal Reserve Notes) into existence. Federal Reserve Notes are paper promises backed by nothing of intrinsic value and they are only functioning as money because the government forces them on the public through legal tender laws. Federal Reserve Notes are referred to as dollars but are not. The definition of a dollar is a weight of silver (371 grains). To put it simply, the Fed is a group of banks running a national counterfeiting operation with the protection of the government.
The real problem is all this money and credit that is created out of thin air. Its like these folks control everyone now. When these bubbles pop they act like they have huge losses. How can u have a loss when you never earned the money or credit that was extended?
Then individuals rack up debt with credit out of thin air and eventually go bankrupt. Nothing gained nothing lost.
The bankers have taken control with the ability to extend credit up the wazoo.
I think that is why they use to have money tied to some sort of commodity to limit the amount that is created.
Notice how everything has got some pricey because of all the credit?
For most people, if u want a house or car u have to go beg for a loan.
The real problem is all this money and credit that is created out of thin air.
No, the real problem is that 95% of the brain-dead ‘Murican electorate keep bending over and grabbing their ankles every election for the Wall Street-Federal Reserve Looting Syndicate and their Republicrat duopoly political adjuncts.
“How can u have a loss when you never earned the money or credit that was extended?”
Tough question! I suppose the answer, which I am not going to offer at length, lies in the relationship between the Fed and the U.S. government’s security blanket.
I read the “high pressure” economy speech. It’s entitled, “Macroeconomic Research After the Crisis.”
And yet the word “debt” is never mentioned in the speech, and only twice in the footnotes. And the footnotes say:
14. … Higher interest rates also adversely affect consumer spending and especially residential investment, both by forcing households to devote a greater portion of their income to debt service and by making it more difficult to qualify for a loan because of maximum payment-to-income rules.
15. Work by Justiniano, Primiceri, and Tambalotti (2015) suggests that debt overhang alone cannot explain the slow recovery from the Great Recession.
These people are complete kool-aid drinkers for the debt-fueled model of growth - it is axiomatic that debt is good and more debt is better.
Why would they not challenge their basic assumptions? It’s very profitable for them personally, due to the revolving door between Wall Street and the government and central bank; and professionally, it allows the central banks to grow every more central in economic policy and planning.
“high pressure” = inflationary?
That was certainly my takeaway. From the speech:
by temporarily running a “high-pressure economy,” with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market. One can certainly identify plausible ways in which this might occur. Increased business sales would almost certainly raise the productive capacity of the economy by encouraging additional capital spending, especially if accompanied by reduced uncertainty about future prospects. In addition, a tight labor market might draw in potential workers who would otherwise sit on the sidelines and encourage job-to-job transitions that could also lead to more-efficient–and, hence, more-productive–job matches.7 Finally, albeit more speculatively, strong demand could potentially yield significant productivity gains by, among other things, prompting higher levels of research and development spending and increasing the incentives to start new, innovative businesses.
I think it’s interesting they think they can tighten the labor market, encourage business growth, and research and development.
It seems to me they can harm the economy. But the converse strikes me as being not true. It’s like thinking just because one can shoot and kill a person, conversely then, one can bring him back to life or make him lead a more healthy and satisfying life.
‘The Federal Reserve doesn’t think the US has enough houses.’
‘In the release of the Federal Reserve’s minutes from the September meeting, the members of the Federal Open Markets Committee spoke about the various aspects of the US economy and their progression since the July meeting. Among the items discussed were inflation, the labor market, and notably, the US housing market.’
‘The FOMC said that the housing market looks a bit weak, saying “real residential investment spending continued to be soft in the third quarter.” The reason? The Fed said that at least part of the issue is the so-called “new housing crisis.”
“However, the sluggishness in the housing sector appeared to have continued into the third quarter. A couple of participants pointed to limited availability of lots and a shortage of skilled labor as restraining residential construction activity in their Districts; in one District, constraints on the supply of new homes for sale were expected to boost spending on home improvements and offset some of the drag from the slowing in new construction.”
Here’s another central planner:
‘Edgar Olsen is a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Virginia.’
‘The current system of low-income housing assistance is fertile ground for reform. The majority of housing assistance recipients are served by project-based programs whose cost is enormously excessive for the housing provided. But one major change would allow us to serve many more poor households without increasing public spending.’
‘To serve the interests of taxpayers who want to help low-income families, Congress should shift the budget for low-income housing assistance away from supporting housing projects and toward helping tenants pay their rent. It should also eliminate subsidies for the construction of new housing projects. Phasing out housing projects to shore up the housing voucher program would ultimately free up the resources to provide housing assistance to millions of additional people.’
‘Many poor households are not offered low-income housing assistance in the form of a voucher or a spot in a housing project, and many of these households spend high portions of their modest incomes on housing because they value more desirable neighborhoods, convenient locations and higher-quality homes more than other goods that must be sacrificed to live where they choose.’
‘These households already have housing. We don’t need to build new housing for them. If we think that their housing is unaffordable, the cheapest solution is for the government to pay a part of the rent, and the housing voucher program — the system’s most cost-effective tool — does that. This program also ensures that its participants live in units that meet minimum standards.’
‘Building new units is a much more expensive solution to the affordability problem. The best study of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s largest program subsidizing the construction of privately owned housing projects indicated an excess taxpayer cost of at least 72 percent compared with housing vouchers that provide equally good housing at the same cost to tenants. Publicly owned housing projects have an even larger excess cost.’
‘Furthermore, it is not necessary or desirable to construct new units to house the homeless. In the entire country, there are only about 600,000 homeless people on a single night and more than 3 million vacant units available for rent. All homeless people could be easily accommodated in vacant existing units, which would be much less expensive than building new units for them. The reason that people are homeless is not a shortage of units but lack of money to pay the rent for existing units.’
He’s right about this obvious fact:
‘These households already have housing. We don’t need to build new housing for them.’
The rent’s too damn high.
“There is nothing that the political establishment wil not do; no lie they will not tell, to hold their prestige and power at your expense… and that’s what’s been happening. The Washington establishment - and the financial and media corporations that fund it - exists for one thing only… to protect and enrich itself.”
…
“For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests - they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind - our campaign represents a true existential threat… like they haven’t seen before. This is not simply another four-year election; this is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we, the people, reclaim control over our government.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/donald-trump-uncensored-americas-moment-reckoning
It’s worth watching the entire five minutes. He lays out the globalist plan. As I was watching the clip, all of a sudden it hit me. It’s not just Trump they’re going after. For people as individuals, who don’t toe the line, all you have to do is look at what they’re doing to Trump. As an individual, you’ll see this sort of thing on a much smaller scale.
You won’t be discussed on CNN, (unless of course you’re Ken Bone who dared to ask a question regarding energy at the debate, and when it was discovered that he wasn’t on board with Hillary, wow, did CNN go after him, digging up his online comments and such) and likely no one will falsely accuse you of sexual misconduct or some such thing. It will be proportionate to your station and profile in life.
You may not be able to get a job. If you’re older, you may not be able to get Social Security or other benefits. Note that Eric Schmidt is advising Hillary. You may not be allowed to operate a housing blog. You may be barred from doing anything on line at all. Note that Jeff Bezos is on board with Hillary and is smearing Trump through the Washington Post. Want to buy or sell on Amazon? No soup for you! For that matter, do you want to buy or sell anywhere on line? They’ll be consulting Eric Schmidt’s list to check your posting history.
You’ll never be allowed to purchase a weapon legally, that’s for sure. And you may very well not be allowed to purchase a vehicle. You may not even be allowed to keep your children, if you have any, should some fat, self righteous teacher decide you may be a bad parent.
If you think I’m kidding or being over the top, follow the situation in Venezuela. Anyone who doesn’t line up with Maduro gets none of the food that is distributed by the government, such as it is.
In fact, the process has already begun, with the violence against Trump supporters, the smearing of the “deplorables”, etc.
That was a remarkable speech. The battle lines are cleary being drawn between the awake and aware, aka the populists and nationalists, and the globalists and their captured political elites (and a great mass of brainwashed, docile sheeple). Even if Hillary wins, Les Deplorables are not about to go quietly into that Long Goodnight.
“There is nothing that the political establishment wil not do; no lie they will not tell, to hold their prestige and power at your expense… and that’s what’s been happening. The Washington establishment - and the financial and media corporations that fund it - exists for one thing only… to protect and enrich itself.”
Sounds like a President Trump would fit right in!
While Hillary is an exemplar of honest governance? Do you have any inkling of what a tool you’ve become, PB?
Look in the mirror, pal. I come here to discuss housing, and you and a few others hijack the threads to defend Trump’s outrageous behavior and lament his fading prospects. Read this graph and weep:
https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres16_WTA.cfm
I don’t defend Trump’s “outrageous behavior.” The guy is clearly lacking in class and character. But he’s running against an exemplar of the crony capitalist, neocon, corporate statist status quo. That makes supporting him, albeit with disgust at some of his antics and douchebaggery, a necessary evil.
It makes him a joke that threw the election to Hillary, and nothing more.
“It makes him a joke that threw the election to Hillary, and nothing more.”
The developing situation certainly is consistent with my conservative Republican MIL’s conjecture a couple of years ago that Trump’s purpose was to help elect Hillary.
How bout them falling housing prices!
Newcastle, WA Housing Prices Crater 8% YoY
http://www.zillow.com/newcastle-wa/home-values/
Hear, hear! Let’s get back on topic:
5 Cities Where House Prices Are Falling Fast
Sam Becker
September 30, 2016
A realtor sign in an area where house prices and real estate values are dropping | David McNew/Getty Images
House prices and real estate concern everyone, from those who own them, to the people who end up renting them. Affordability and cost of living are things that we all have to take into account when we’re trying to make long-term plans, find new jobs, or deciding where and when to make an investment. Price bubbles come and go, and jobs move from one area to another. And when or if you need to move, finding a house in an area in which you can afford can be difficult.
The intricacies of the housing market caught everyone’s attention after the real estate bubble and foreclosure crisis in 2007 and 2008. It’s what led to the Great Recession, in many ways, as banks were happy to shovel out money to unworthy buyers, and those same buyers were unable to help themselves (or were ignorant to their own situations). These days, people are warier.
For that reason, they’re looking for a deal. And though falling real estate prices may be of concern for some, for others, it’s an opportunity to get a great price on a house or some land. And you never know when the opportunity may come again.
While some cities are seeing skyrocketing prices for homes and real estate, other areas are seeing prices drop at unprecedented rates. Bankrate, a personal finance website, recently combed through data from the National Association of Realtors to see where, exactly, home prices are declining the fastest.
“Home values rose 4.9% nationally for the 2nd quarter of 2016, compared with the same period of 2015, according to data from the National Association of Realtors,” Bankrate says, “but in some areas, home values are on the decline.”
Here are the five cities where house prices are falling the fastest.
…
P.S. RE: Article soon to post…
I have an old friend who lives in Binghamton, NY. Saw him for the first time in a decade last year. He was a long-term holdout on buying a home, but recently he finally decided to throw in the towel and buy.
I figured that was a shoe-shine boy moment…
its the lessor of two evils at this point.
It’s been there since the party conventions.
It’s been there since the party conventions.
So obvious….some people always find home regardless of utter bs they tell you.
les·sor ˈlesˌôr/ noun: lessor; plural noun: lessors
a person who leases or lets a property to another; a landlord.
That was either a very sly joke, or a very funny typo. I’m goping with the joke angle.
Let’s not get back into the goping discussion again! Too incendiary…
Trump isn’t leased by anyone.
lessor of two evils - (1) Hilliary and Donald (2) Electorate
(1) wants control
(2) wants free benefits
which is the lesser
when the economy cannot afford either ?
You are truly a fool. Hilary speech to Goldman Sachs, your overlords:
I mean, they did hire, you know, they did hire that gunman to kill the Saudi ambassador, and people thought that was so outrageous. It was made up. We’re sitting around the situation room saying, let’s think of something really bad about the Iranians, like you had to think of something, and, okay, let’s make up a story that they sent agents to Mexico to hire a drug cartel enforcer and fortunately they were led to somebody who was a double agent working for the drug administration — the Drug Enforcement Administration in the United States, so we were able to capture the guy when he came to Texas to transfer the money, but they were going to kill the ambassador from Saudi Arabia in Washington, and the plan was to get him when he was at a public place, a big restaurant some of you may know, Cafe Milano. I mean, absurd.
And we had — the guy, once he was caught, gave names and dates and money transfers and all the rest, but people kind of shrugged it off like, oh, that’s so ridiculous. Who would do that? The Iranians, they do it all the time.
So yeah, trust but verify and then verify again, again and again. We have to figure out some modus vivendi with them but not at the risk of putting ourselves and others under their thumb.
Opinion: El-Erian: This is how toxic politics can lead to an economic crisis
By Mohamed A. El-Erian
Published: Oct 15, 2016 10:41 a.m. ET
Populist movements, like Donald Trump’s, are founded upon incoherent strategies
NEW YORK (Project Syndicate) — The relationship between politics and economics is changing.
Advanced-country politicians are locked in bizarre, often toxic, conflicts, instead of acting on a growing economic consensus about how to escape a protracted period of low and unequal growth. This trend must be reversed, before it structurally cripples the advanced world and sweeps up the emerging economies, too.
…
Populist movements, like Donald Trump’s, are founded upon incoherent strategies
Funny how any strategy that threatens to upset the .1%’s rigged game is invariably described by them and their media truth-makers as “incoherent” or “radical” or some such thing. As opposed to the massive, perpetual swindles being played out daily against the middle and working classes in this country by the oligopoly plutocrats.
Populist movements, like Donald Trump’s, are founded upon incoherent strategies
Gotta be f***** kidding me. What we have right now is based on the most coherent strategy, right?
The oligarchy’s financial warfare against the 99% does indeed have a coherent strategy and clear objectives, as well as a titular leader: Hillary Clinton.
As central bank currency debasement accelerates, inflation is going to rear its ugly head - and house-poor FBs will struggle to make their monthly mortgage payments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/14/as-inflation-rises-consumers-must-face-up-to-increasing-costs/
‘In 1983, the median net worth of a household headed by someone under 35 was $15,260…In 2013, younger households had a median net worth of $10,500′
I’ve read a bunch of people don’t have a thousand bucks. But let’s consider these numbers (inflation adjusted?) for a minute; if true millions of households have a third less wealth than similar households 30 plus years ago. What’s happened in those 30 years? Globalism. Offshoring. Now we are voting for minimum wage increases while super rich Chinese teenagers drive around in Maserati’s on TV throwing millions at shacks they don’t even live in.
Ray-gun and Greenspan
It’s really even more ridiculous than what these numbers show; the older households are only “worth” what someone can pay them for their shacks or stocks. They don’t have any money.
“…what someone can pay them for their shacks or stocks.”
Thanks to a plethora of federally-guaranteed lending programs with lofty lending limits, someone can pay them a lot. And apparently the Fed can buy the securities that back the federally-guaranteed loans. It’s a magic money machine!
that’s so true
overvalued sh@t
Everyone one wants to sell you overvalued stuff.
I look at the stock market valuations and just laugh.
The financial engineering going on is criminal imo.
The people at the top are getting richer by this scam.
“They don’t have any money.”
And that right there is the truth of the matter. And it’s for this reason we get the panicked responses when the actual value of these junk assets are called into question. And make no mistake about it these are junk assets. Rotting depreciating mispriced assets.
Given that the bank will pay you close to zero % interest on deposits, is it any wonder few have actual cash.
That, plus the lure of home-equity cashout financing to get more spending money and sink your home loan further underwater in the process…
Ah yes, less than $1000 in the savings accounts. Am I the only one who thought that survey was pretty stupid? Were the researchers stuck in 1981? That’s when The Company did your retirement and you put extra money in the savings account. Oh, and few people can credit cards, so they actually needed the savings account for big expenses.
They should have asked what was in the 401K, or the 529, or the money market, or other savings instruments.
‘Ray-gun’
If you look into it, the current globalist order was set up post WW2 via the CIA. Nixon went to China. Carter’s secretary of state is considered one of the most prominent globalists. He mentioned recently it isn’t working, BTW.
Agree it was established long before Ray-gun came in, but his military building and worst of all appointing Greenspam and overtly relying on Moneterism most likely escalated it all.
There are also a lot more people than there were 30 years ago… and they are competing for a lot fewer resources than there were 30 years ago.
Supply and demand explains a lot very cleanly.
‘a lot more people than there were 30 years ago’
There’s more people in the slums of Calcutta, but that doesn’t make their shanties worth a million bucks.
‘Supply and demand’
Says when a thing gets more expensive, consumers want less of it. Notice how UHS always go on about supply and demand yet never heard of this concept.
Gyrating used house pimps.
“Even though homeowners overall are gaining wealth, the home-ownership rate is at a 50-year low, according to National Association of REALTORS Chief Economis Lawrence Yun. ‘I think that in itself is leading to large anxiety, especially among the younger population, about what does it mean to acquire the American dream,’ Yun said. ‘People have always associated ownership with the American dream, but that is changing because people can no longer become homeowners because mortgage availability is difficult, and home prices are just not affordable anymore.’”
Putting together the return of bubblelicious valuations with record low home ownership rates, it appears that the cumulative result of decades of Affordable Housing policy has been to concentrate increasing amounts of home equity wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. It’s quite an ironic result! My kids have already mentioned that they don’t expect to ever be able to afford a home.
“My kids have already mentioned that they don’t expect to ever be able to afford a home.”
Were your kids referring to a home in Southern California specifically, or affording a home anywhere?
For as long as I can remember, coastal California housing has always been exorbitantly expensive. If owning a home is important to them, would they consider moving to a more affordable market?
‘For as long as I can remember’
That’s the problem. In the late 60’s/early 70’s a house in Palo Alto cost about the same as the one I grew up in in north Texas.
In the late 60’s and early 70’s I was delivering newspapers after school and playing Little League baseball.
But back on point, hasn’t Los Angeles always been an expensive place to live? Or maybe the California housing prices skyrocketed in the 1970’s with all of the in-migration and inflation of that decade.
Palo Alto’s economy back then was nothing like its current high tech economy.
Bubble economy. It will pop…back to square 1.
“hasn’t Los Angeles always been an expensive place to live?”
Always looking for an excuse for fraud.
That’s the problem. In the late 60’s/early 70’s a house in Palo Alto cost about the same as the one I grew up in in north Texas.
True, but back then 15M lived in the Golden State vs 39M today.
I grew up in the heart of Orange County in the 60’s. My neighborhood was surrounded by farms back then. Those farms are long gone. I remember when Disneyland was surrounded by orange groves and when the Irvine Ranch Company really was a ranch.
Now it’s surrounded by slums and 15 million illegals.
There is this sense of failure associated with having to leave the golden state. Its ingrained in the culture.
I was talking to some folks who said their friends had to leave ca for az cause they couldn’t find affordable housing. They made it out to seem they had failed and had to leave.
“For as long as I can remember, coastal California housing has always been exorbitantly expensive.”
That’s true, but it is a matter of degree. For instance, before the protracted period of low interest rates, a typical ratio of home prices to incomes in coastal California was in the neighborhood of 6:1. Now that Housing Bubble 2.0 has reached the breaking point, those ratios are north of 10:1 again. The Fed is damned if it does or doesn’t hike rates.
http://www.car.org/aboutus/onecoolthing/cahomeprices/
1970: just under 27k.
1968 $23,210 NA
1969 $24,230 4.4%
1970 $24,640 1.7%
1971 $26,880 9.1%
1972 $28,810 7.2%
1973 $31,460 9.2%
1974 $34,610 10.0%
1975 $41,600 20.2%
1976 $48,630 16.9%
1977 $62,290 28.1%
1978 $70,890 13.8%
1979 $84,150 18.7%
1980 $99,550 18.3%
1981 $107,710 8.2%
1982 $111,800 3.8%
1983 $114,370 2.3%
1984 $114,260 -0.1%
1985 $119,860 4.9%
1986 $133,640 11.5%
1987 $142,060 6.3%
1988 $168,200 18.4%
1989 $196,120 16.6%
1990 $193,770 -1.2%
1991 $200,660 3.6%
1992 $197,030 -1.8%
1993 $188,240 -4.5%
1994 $185,010 -1.7%
1995 $178,160 -3.7%
1996 $177,270 -0.5%
1997 $186,490 5.2%
1998 $200,100 7.3%
1999 $217,510 8.7%
2000 $241,350 11.0%
2001 $262,350 8.7%
2002 $316,130 20.5%
2003 $371,520 17.5%
2004 $450,990 21.4%
http://www.realestateabc.com/graphs/calmedian.htm
“Anything that cannot continue forever will stop.”
– Herbert Stein, Chief Economist on President Nixon’s Council of Economic Advisors
1969 $24,230 4.4%
then;
2004 $450,990 21.4%
Goes from zero to fraud in milliseconds.
Too bad the series you posted ends in 2004. It would be fun to see how much prices crashed from 2007-2011, before the Fed rode in to the rescue on a white paper horse.
The table above seems to put to bed the notion that houses “always depreciate”
‘The table above seems to put to bed the notion that houses “always depreciate”’
Wrong. You are ignoring ownership costs, including maintenance required to offset physical depreciation.
Also ignoring inflationary decline in the purchasing power of a nominal dollar, which further helps to mask the depreciating value of homes over time…
‘Financial rescue, fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus — along with the president’s efforts to prop up the beleaguered auto and housing sectors — would all have to work together, if they were to work at all,’ Geithner explains’
And the foam, don’t forget the foam:
‘TARP’s former inspector general claims that he warned Timothy Geithner’s Treasury Department repeatedly that the mortgage program, HAMP, was a disaster waiting to happen. Instead of listening, he says, Geithner plowed right ahead with it, to serve the banks.’
‘Neil Barofsky, the congressionally appointed watchdog for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which pumped $700 billion to banks, auto makers and homeowners after the crisis, argues in the book that the Home Affordable Modification Program introduced in early 2009 was poorly thought out and executed, opening the door for abuse.’
‘In a meeting with Geithner — this one involving fewer f-bombs than others — Barofsky says he finally realized the root of the Treasury Department’s apparent lack of interest in helping homeowners: They apparently had another goal in mind.’
‘At the meeting, Elizabeth Warren, then chair of a congressional oversight panel established in 2008 to oversee the bailouts, questioned Geithner about HAMP’s ability to help homeowners — not the last time she would grill him.’
“In defense of the program, Geithner finally blurted out, ‘We estimate that they can handle ten million foreclosures, over time,’ referring to the banks. ‘This program will help foam the runway for them.’”
‘To Barofsky it seemed that Geithner saw HAMP mainly as a way to stretch out the foreclosure process, giving banks time to recover from the crisis without having to be hit with a wave of foreclosures all at once.’
“Helping the banks, not home owners, did in fact seem to be Treasury’s biggest concern,” Barofsky writes. “HAMP was not separate from the bank bailouts; it was an essential part of them.”
Anyone who has seen “The Big Short” will recall the scene where a WSJ “real journalist” refused to print incontrovertable evidence of a housing bubble, because his livelihood depended on pushing The Narrative. However, to its credit, even the WSJ, flagship of the neocons and plutocrats, recognizes the massive, concerted bias by the oligarch-controlled MSM against Trump while burying Crooked Hillary’s endless scandals and sleaze.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/14/wsj-nation-now-proof-hillary-scandals-leftist-media-devote-front-pages-trump-story/
Kind of odd how you have to quote the completely fair and balanced Breitbart news to support your statement about the Wall Street Journal’s editorial stance…
Heads up, Wikileaks just dumped part 8 of the Podesta Files, including Hillary’s Goldman Sachs transcripts with attachments:
https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/11011
Awesome! Crooked Hillary and her DNC and media accessories and spin doctors must be squirming like insects on pins. That God for the Internet and the thousands of free thinkers who will pore over each e-mail and call out the sleaze and corruption.
Sadly, I’ve not seen anything to indicate any of the intelligent folks around me are paying attention to the leaks or caring about corruption and dishonesty. The only narrative I hear is “Trump bad!”
If this country elects Hillary, the sheeple will get exactly what they have coming to them.
“intelligent”, really?
This election is just a fork in the road. The thing I’m thinking about is where real estate prices are headed:
‘there is no denying that possessing a firm grasp of financial history could help politicians and central bankers to better understand the perils of lax monetary policy, asset bubbles and mania’
‘Reliance on houses as a store of wealth creates exposure to volatile house prices. As the global financial crisis illustrated, prices can be affected by a confluence of adverse events — economic cycles, the availability of credit and demographics where large cohorts may retire at the same time. Price fluctuations are exacerbated by the illiquidity of the asset.”
‘Many economies rely excessively on the housing market. In ‘The Age of Turbulence,’ Alan Greenspan approvingly quotes economics columnist Robert Samuelson’s assessment of his policies in the early 2000s: ‘The housing boom saved the economy…Americans went on a real estate orgy. [Americans] traded up, tore down and added on.’
It’s worth noting that China recently decided to create another housing bubble. It means they are out of ideas. Yellen is out of ideas too. We’ve talked about this before: what were we told about globalism? Mexico would grow a middle class and start buying our software, etc. Same with China. We’re 30 years into this thing and look around. Most people are discouraged about their future and their families future. Sure, some people are sitting on stocks or real estate that’s gone to the moon. But they have to sell it to someone to cash out. And then what about the next generation. This using bubbles to prop up the economy can’t work in the long run unless the economy grows sufficiently and it hasn’t.
“A bridge that relies on wealth effects, you better hope that you got enough growth to justify the asset price increase which created the wealth effect in the first place.” - Raghuram Rajan
Calling it a bridge is an interesting choice of words.
While some have expressed exasperation at the level of political content on the HBB, I would submit that politics is intrinsically intertwined with the fate of the housing bubble. If Hillary wins, the Bush/Obama policies of corporate statism, neocon adventurism, and concentrating all wealth and power in the hands of the .1% in the financial sector will continue or accelerate, depending on the size and orgin of the checks written to the Clinton Foundation and DNC. However, if Trump gets in, all of the above MIGHT get its first serious check - especially the Fed’s rigging the game in favor of the 1%. That has YUGE implications for the housing market and other asset bubbles going forward, as a Trump victory would signal a sea change in popular sentiment against the status quo.
‘Global economic growth will flounder this year and next at rates not seen since the financial crisis as the march of globalisation grinds to a halt, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warned.’
‘Long a motor for the global economy, trade growth is set to lag growth in the broader world economy this year, the OECD said in an update of its main economic forecasts. “This is well below past norms and implies that globalisation as measured by trade intensity may have stalled,” the Paris-based organisation said.’
‘As a result, the OECD estimated the global economy would muster growth of only 2.9 per cent this year, down from a forecast of 3 per cent in its last estimates in June and the lowest rate since the global financial crisis of 2008-2009.’
‘The OECD said many global supply chains that add economic value at each stage and are often rooted in China and other east Asian countries were unravelling as China sought to wean its economy off of exports for growth and some firms brought back production to their home countries.’
‘A growing backlash against trade liberalisation as well as recessions in some big commodity-producing countries were adding to the trade slowdown, which the OECD warned could erode already flagging productivity and thus ultimately living standards.’
“If we could get back on track with the kind of trade growth that we had in the 1990s and 2000s, we would be able to return to productivity growth rates prior to the financial crisis,” OECD chief economist Catherine Mann said in an interview.’
“Productivity has basically fallen by half since the financial crisis and that is a recipe for breaking promises to all of our citizens,” she said.’
’signal a sea change in popular sentiment’
I agree and it will go one way or the other. Here’s something that I’ve noted: I was talking with a person who voted for Obama twice about the ACA. (This person is voting for Trump because of his anti-globalism stance.) This person said about the ACA, “you know, I blame Obama for Trump. He wouldn’t even be considered if they hadn’t screwed everything up so much.”
I would rather step off this current path than be throw off it. But the conclusion I’ve reached is this thing is ending, one way or another. The global real estate bubble is popping right now and if you don’t think so ask a flipper in Vancouver. The underlying problem is, globalism is failing. Where the heck that takes us is anyone’s guess.
And blame Bush for Obama.
Trump already won. There will be more Trumps and Bernies in elections in the future. That’s the wind…the status-quo has peaked. Will it be a peaceful or violent….that’s the question.
if they hadn’t screwed everything up so much.
He kept us safe, no? LOL
The biggest wild card is whether the vegetable voters of 2008 and 2012 are becoming awake and aware. That is the nightmare spector for the globalist oligarchs: the 95% who they have relentless screwed over, but who like good little proles mindlessly voted for more of the same, suddenly deciding enough is enough and refusing to go along with their own financial destruction.
“the vegetable voters of 2008 and 2012″
“95% of the brain-dead ‘Murican electorate”
“the sheeple will get exactly what they have coming to them.”
You do realize that your superiority-complex is exactly the same as the leftist condescension.
“…the global real estate bubble is popping…”
Yep.
Housing slump bigger economic threat than China slowdown: Fitch
By business reporter Stephen Letts
Updated Thu at 7:20am
Photo: There are widespread concerns that Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney may have apartment gluts.
(774 ABC Melbourne: Simon Leo Brown)
Related Story: Apartment prices fell 20pc back in 2004, could history repeat?
A slump in the housing market is now the biggest threat to Australia’s economy and creditworthiness according to global credit rating agency Fitch.
In a survey of leading fixed interest and bond traders, Fitch found a domestic housing downturn had replaced the prospect of a hard economic landing in China as their biggest worry.
“Almost all investors surveyed – 97 per cent – believe a domestic housing market downturn poses a high or moderate risk to credit markets in the next 12 months,” Fitch said.
“Investors also identified property market exposure as the greatest risk to bank credit quality over the next 12 months, and financials as the asset class facing the greatest refinancing challenge.”
The report showed 43 per cent of investors saw the banks’ property exposure as a “critical” risk, ranking ahead of concerns about access to funding and the broader economic landscape.
Fitch said, while concerns about risk were mounting, only 4 per cent of those surveyed believe house prices will fall by more than 10 per cent by 2019.
“Confidence [was] underpinned by their stable views for unemployment and interest rates,” the ratings agency added.
…
Hehehe…this just keeps getting better and better. What’s even more instructive than the leaks themselves is the MSM’s attempt to ignore, bury, or explain away the incredibly damaging relevations. Abe Lincoln made Hillary commit all these misdeeds….
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/13/the-most-explosive-wikileaks-clinton-revelations-so-far/
You have to admit that stuff is pretty boring compared to charges of male sex offences against women. Why do you think Trump went to great lengths to bring women who hate Bill Clinton to the second debate, rather than focus on the contents of the Hillary Clinton email releases?
Think he did both. He’s showing a blueprint for future candidates on how to fight against the status-quo candidate. Had Bernie not allowed Hillary to grab him by his P****, it would have been a meaningful election.
“He’s showing a blueprint for future candidates on how to fight against the status-quo candidate.”
By losing an election?
By losing an election?
LOL you are such a short sighted person…..although I shouldn’t be surprised by it. If you salary depends on not understanding…….
How would Jeb/Cruz/Rubio/Carly/Ryan/Romney would have been any different than Hillary? See, the answer is no if you are telling the truth. Right or wrong for any change (good or bad) Trump was the only choice on the stupid party.
What new damning revelations are contained in this release?
Why - are you and Sweet William already trying to explain them away?
I wasn’t trying to explain anything. Just expressing doubt that there were any new damning revelations.
Now the media is trying to tell the proles that Crooked Hillary, the one-woman crime spree and serial fabricator and influence peddler whose staff has mocked people of faith in their e-mails, is really a pious, devout Methodist who prays for divine guidance. I just threw up a little in my mouth. Can the sheeple not see right through this MSM “perception management”?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FAITH?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-15-10-47-26
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…who can then run off to the Hillary camp and try to get revenge and a financial payout.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231560
As unsavory as Gilberthorpe is, and Denninger does have a point that in fact his unsavoriness actually works in his favor in this case, I don’t think you’ll see him being broadly attacked, because he can name some powerful names in British politics. And we can’t have THAT, now, can we?
Darwinism is stalking the craft beer industry.
http://wolfstreet.com/2016/10/14/layoffs-stone-brewing-big-beer-big-money-overcapacity-rattle-u-s-craft-brew-market/
I do some writing for a craft beer periodical and we’ve been covering this for a while. Lots of talk about lower prices:
‘And “in summary,” the company wanted to “emphasize” among other things: “A recent decline in domestic growth for the category and for Stone has forced us to restructure in order to preserve our independence in an increasingly competitive category.”
‘Harsh words for an industry that knew only unlimited possibilities.’
Like the article said, everybody is doing it.
stone as well as ballast point seem to think that creating more beer types will increase sales. Ballast point has gotten ridiculous with the number of different beers they have. grapefuit sculpin , pineapple etc. They just need to focus on what got them there.
I had some MIKE HESS ipa the other day, delicious. At 12.99 / 6 pack it is pricey. But if I go out for a pint its 5 bucks / beer. So I stay home and save!
Those who got in early, like New Belgium, grew a lot. The founder sold out in 2012.
Frankly the world has run out of hipsters.
Bailout needed.
Even the MSM can no longer ignore the egregious ethics violations of the Clinton Foundation.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/15/hacked-emails-raise-possibility-of-clinton-foundation-ethics-breach.html
Don’t fall for it…they are just throwing you a bone.
They will regroup and become more nastier as we get to the finish line.
drip drip drip
“Don’t fall for it…they are just throwing you a bone.”
Possibly, depends on the source. What I found interesting is that in one of the Podesta emails, they were taking slaps at Rupert Murdoch for raising his children in the Catholic religion. Really nasty, catty comments.
A couple days later, the Wall Street Journal (Murdoch publication) comes out with this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/wall-street-journal-blasts-press-consistently-buries-hillary-clintons-sins
Never think that some of TPTB aren’t avidly reading and absorbing the information in those emails and weighing what it means for them. They may all look like one big happy family, but the emails tell a different story. I predict Jennifer Palmieri will be thrown under the bus at some point.
Hillary supporters started a twitter hashtag #HillaryBecause, but it has been hijacked by anti-Hillary forces. It is the number 1 trend on twitter right now. And it’s a hoot. Twitter fans, post away..
https://twitter.com/hashtag/HillaryBecause?src=tren
does wikileaks still have some dirt on her?
Trump got schlonged last week.
This is hilarious.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/peta-grab-a-pussy-campaign-billboards-sexual-assualt-donald-trump-stray-cats-new-york-london-a7362901.html
The canaries in the coal mine are keeling over left and right.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/10/14/canaries-in-extremis/
Just pushed a new version of the JoshuaTree extension live. No major new functionality, but let me know if folks run into any problems.
JoshuaTree extension on Chrome web store
Installed. Thanks again!
BTW, I caught a bug right away and have a(nother) new version up. 3.0.4
Collapsing housing demand and homeownership rate at 50+ year low.
Heckuva job Janet.
“According to Geithner, ‘the long period of low interest rates in the United States and worldwide helped fuel the crises, because it helped fuel the mania that inflated the bubble, encouraging more borrowing, more homebuilding, more risk-taking.’
The amount of debt one can take on directly drives the house price the purchaser is able to pay.
The ability of lenders to shed repayment risk allowed them to generate vast amounts of debt, payable and non-repayable. Initially they sold the debt to both public and private sectors, but since 2008, nearly 100% of all new mortgages have been purchased by the government (and to this day, the Fed buys hundreds of billions a year in mortgages)
This basic, obvious fact - the ability to shed repayment risk - so studiously ignored by all the top policy makers, indicates it is the elephant in the room. It is very profitable for the FIRE sector and the revolving door between Wall Street and the government/central bank means it will continue not to be changed.
The reason Wall Street is so profitable is that significant portions of it are backed/insured by government - the TBTF model or the “Privatize the Profits / Socialize the Losses” model.
Why would they ignore it? Personal and professional reasons. Professionally, they are True Believers in the debt-fueled model of growth. Also, becoming a larger and more powerful entity gives them more power. Personally? They are of the world of finance. Helping it helps themselves by the sinecures they receive after leaving government (e.g. Bernanke going to Citadel, Geithner to Warburg Pincus, and the revolving door in general).
The revolving door between Wall Street and the government and central bank further entrenches the current policy regime and squelches any real debate at the policy-making levels about any polices which might reduce profitability or the possibility of cushy sinecures.
‘the ability to shed repayment risk’
I had a weekend topic a while back with a guy pointing out that the only thing that makes a loan “good” is if it’s repaid, by the borrower or in foreclosure.
What if the loans are bought and bundled into MBS, then the Fed buys the MBS and buries them forever on its balance sheet? Could that constitute repayment?
Hillary’s groveling speeches to her Goldman Sachs puppetmasters are now out in the public domain, despite Hillary’s best efforts to ensure they never saw the light of day.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/here-are-hillary-clintons-three-speeches-goldman-sachs-which-she-was-paid-675000
LIked the part about how she admits dodd-frank was just theater to appease the public, that wall street was always in charge and will continue to run things (into the ground) under her “leadership”
It is not necessary to read anything beyond the fact that she accepted millions of dollars to give a speech to the bank, or that they offered it. It’s the payoff, in plain view.
At the gym you see fewer people with their cardio machine television turned on. In this part of the world there are very few bumper stickers. Bernie Sanders stickers used to be more common but they are gone. Here people are tired of politics and tired at all the polarization and hatred especially prevalent this year.
Get rid of elections and democracy and we will be as nice to each other as in most places where you go, such as malls.
https://fee.org/articles/why-politics-is-depressing/
Um, yeah, Pollyanna. In Somalia where they have no government the various clans and factions treat each other with loving benevolence.
You don’t read, do you?
I love to read. Any recommendations?
Civil forfeiture = state sponsored plunder. As the Comrades of Proven Worth (D) solidify their permanent Democrat supermajority, this odious, un-Constitutional practice is only going to get more widespread.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/police-department-civil-forfeiture-investigation/Content?oid=23728922
On election day we have a simple choice: Trump or the globalist king-makers.
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidrusher/2016/10/15/donald-trumps-war-of-independence-n2232697
Les Deplorables come out from behind their masks to be interviewed at an Ohio Trump rally…
I’m sure this was a representative sample of Trump supporters…the presstitutes would NEVER seek out the lunatic fringe.
PB only comes here to post about housing. See above.
None of the above. No rulers.
It would be great to get back to the model of the U.S. presidency forged by George Washington. This was in opposition to the mad King George of Britain, who wanted to lord over and screw over the U.S. colonists.
We had the pleasure of visiting Washington’s Mount Vernon estate earlier this year. The man was a genius of household and government management, but also had a sense of humility and appreciation of the value of limited government which seems to be lacking in the current generation of presidential candidates.
When you own slaves, you can sure pontificate about your own liberty, freedom and sh*t like that.
It is kind of dumb to ignore historical context. Most of the founding fathers owned slaves.
True.
The point Sheldon Richman is trying to drive home in his introduction to “America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited.”
“We do no one, especially young libertarians, any favors by leaving historical misconceptions [e.g. thinking you are agreeing with the American revolutionaries by worshipping the constitution] intact. Nothing sets up budding libertarians for disillusionment more effectively than to send them into intellectual battle on campus armed with false history. It’s like sending sheep to slaughter, because sooner or later they will encounter professors and students who know better. The results won’t be pretty. I speak from experience.”
“It is kind of dumb to ignore historical context. Most of the founding fathers owned slaves.”
Yet you willfully and wantingly ignored that historical context by voting for Obama twice.
YOU voted for someone who has trampled individual rights,
for someone who has actively pursued making individuals servile to The State. You voted for a pro-slavery candidate.
You did that 219 years AFTER slave-owning George Washington became president.
And you have the gall to deride Washington?
Liberty for individuals as the foundation of governance was brand new to Washington and the others of his era. They had never lived it. Yet, they set upon creating freedom for individuals, which of course would take many decades to secure and institutionalize.
YOU, however, have opted to do the opposite. To enslave individuals through Big Government. The ultimate plantation.
The sickening thing is that you did know better. You willfully chose it AND afterwards, you promoted it.
“Yet you willfully and wantingly ignored that historical context by voting for Obama twice.”
Actually you don’t know who I vote for, and it is moronic of you to suggest otherwise.
The problem is e U.S. government was tyrannical right off the bat. Washington sent troops to stop the rebellion against the whiskey tax. Then in 1798 the first sedition act, which is the patriot act on steroids, was imposed.
Want to get back to this, Prof? Become a role model yourself. Start by:
(1) Stopping the duplicity. I am aware of your “Brother from Another Mother” chicanery, even though others here have yet to catch on to what you’re up to. Linguistic patterns that are much too similar and an increasing number of errors on your part recently (a juxtapositioning of philosophical ideas especially) are giveaways.
(2) Canning the b.s. about open borders as the route to freedom for individuals. You know full well that open borders is the route to socialism and Marxism, given today’s globalist/domestic imperialistic power grabs and massive wealth destruction via printed money and easy credit. But guess what? BitCoin, metals and guns aren’t going to save your sorry behind when the time comes. Your neighbors might be able to save you - but only when enough people around you identify with a common philosophy. Alas, open borders will obliterate opportunity for common philosophy (but you already know that, too, don’t you?).
(3) Believing in the concept of “social contract”. You don’t believe in “social contract”. That’s interesting, because George Washington believed very strongly in the notion of social contract. It’s a lynchpin of Constitutional thought and highly significant to the founding of the United States.
You know full well that open borders is the route to socialism and Marxism
I don’t.
Explain why.
Also “globalism” to you means one world government. I as an anarchist am not for government.
Globalism means an international man - I am not a citizen of any country. I am a resident of the world and I invest globally, I invest not only in precious metals and crypto currency, which is global, but I also invest in foreign currencies such as the Swiss Franc.
Odd.
That post was intended for Prof. Why did you answer it as if directed toward you?
That post was intended for Prof. Why did you answer it as if directed toward you?
Because Professor Bear is not favoring bitcoin nor gold. You wrote ” BitCoin, metals and guns aren’t going to save your sorry behind when the time comes,” implying he favors any of those. I am the one on record favoring ownership of bitcoin, metals and guns.
some people work, some people buy stocks and homes and watch the cash roll in.
Why would anyone vote for Hillary? She’s literally DYING, isn’t anyone watching?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-calls-for-drug-test-before-debate/ar-AAiZCrr
The crazed rumors and crackpot conspiracy theories are running wilder by the day…
This one, too?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/clinton-camp-escalates-attacks-against-wikileaks-and-russia-over-email-leaks
A megadrought would surely be bullish for housing.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/megadrought-looms-american-southwest-nasa-warns
What Hillary calls a “direct assault on our democracy” looks more like pulling back the curtain on the kind of corruption and back-room dirty deals that is subverting and undermining our democracy and governance.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/clinton-camp-escalates-attacks-against-wikileaks-and-russia-over-email-leaks
Totally pathetic. OTOH, depends on what she means by “our” democracy. In other words, her and who else?
Hillary is correct. It IS a direct assault on democracy - as neocons and progressives envision democracy. You know, the Mob Rule,
We Are Government vision of democracy.
It is NOT, however, an assault on the concept of “republic” and liberty for individuals. Rather, the assault is a blessing for such ideas.
Step #1: Choose Your Subscription
1 Year to Contra Corner for $400
1 Month to Contra Corner for $39
Billing Terms: When you pay for a subscription to David Stockman’s Contra Corner your credit card will be billed immediately. At the end of your term, your subscription will automatically renew based off of your choice today. You’ll be locked in to this special price for as long as you want.
400 / year seems a little high dont u guys think?
Yes it is high. I love his rants and he’s mostly right but not paying that kind of money.
He doesn’t really tell me anything I don’t already know. But for the average sheeple, he has a good way of breaking down crony capitalism and how it’s screwing over the masses.
1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?
How many fire extinguishers do you have in your apartment?
It is not a government job to extinguish fires.
How long have you lived in your own made-to-order alternate reality, Bill?
You are the one who is illusioned. You want masters. They are not needed. I don’t want them nor need them.
Your high-brow excuses for being AWOL in the fight against globalism and crony capitalism are duly noted, Sweet William.
Either you’re a voluntaryist who thinks that all interactions should be voluntary and consensual or you’re an aggressionist who wants to violate the consent of others (through taxation, conscription, imprisonment, rape, etc.)
Which does RKH choose?
What I “think” is immaterial. This isn’t a binary choice, Sweet William. In a perfect world all transactions would be voluntary and consensual, but that isn’t the world we live in. Nor am I an “aggressionist” who seeks to harm or damage others. But if the neocon globalists decide to draft my daughters to fight yet another open-ended conflict for Greater Israel, all of your claptrap “voluntaryist” babblings are irrelevant. If Yellen the Felon is debasing the currency into worthlessness while concentrating all wealth and power in the hands of her oligarch cronies, your Libertarian claptrap won’t do a thing to resist that racket. Your Libertarian candidate for president, Gary Johnson, is a drooling imbecile and his VP is a creepy corporate statist and “former” Bushie. I have to react to the world as it is, not the way I wish it was. So go on living in la-la land, Sweet William. I’ve got things to do.
I figured you would evade.
You cannot be either. If you do not initiate aggression then you are a voluntaryist.
Once you initiate force you are not a voluntaryist. You write like a communist (that there is no absolute in whether you are against initiation of force or for the initiation of force).
You are no less subjectivist as your perceived enemies “the liberals” - who are not even liberal, but that is another topic.
Bill, your comment is idiotic.
Any time you take action of any type (let’s say the purchase of a public good), that action can be seen as aggressive.
Same thing when you’re the seller. Deliberately misleading other people is an aggressive action.
Further, knowing that you will destroy lives via open borders policy is an aggressive act.
Worse, YOU personally know it’s an aggressive act; otherwise, you’d let any stranger into your personal abode any at time for any reason (even when you are not there). But you won’t do that, because it’s a threat to your well being.
If you’re going to talk in absolutes, Bill, then be one yourself. Otherwise, shut up.
The MSM, or mainstream media, is gone. It is now the “Clinton Media”. Perfect.
How many more days of ‘truthful hyperbole’ from Team Trump do we have left to endure before this is over?
I recall, over the years on the blog, from time to time, Ben would post something like “Where is the MSM?” I’ve seen the same lament on some of the websites that covered illegal immigration.
When the MSM did opine or notice these phenomena, it was all good, good, good! Everything is awesome! Cultural enrichment! The economy is hot! Housing only goes up!
Well, as a result of this election cycle, now we have confirmation of what’s been going on and why. And that is why the term “Clinton Media” is a much better term than MSM.
“Clinton Media”
The only thing in the world that matters from here through Election Day are the many ways the Clinton team is rigging the election against Trump (or so say his disciples)…
How many dead people and illegals will be voting multiple times for Hillary?
The Oligopoly media does not appreciate being called out by Trump or facing the wrath of his awakened and aware supporters who are fed up with the lies and agenda pushing of the captured media.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/trumps-dangerous-game-of-beat-the-press.html
We must restrict the ability of alternative media to speak truth to power and challenge The Narrative. It confuses the sheeple to be confronted with inconvenient truths they are ill-prepared to process. We must censor all news sources that fail to serve as Establishment and DNC propaganda organs and presstitutes or disseminate DNC talking points. We must shut down all independent media sites that fail to adhere to The Narrative or call out its lies, distortions, and omissions…for the children. So says the self-described Most Transparent Administration in History.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/14/obama-change-wild-west-media/
Podestas e-mails expose the institutional Left’s intent to “produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.” Mission 95% accomplished, but those pesky diehard 5% aren’t about to go quietly into the globalists’ Long Goodnight.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2016/10/13/we-conspire-to-produce-an-unaware-and-compliant-citizenry/
Government is for busy bodies and worse.
Spain has had no government for 300 days and its economy is booming.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/10/14/spain-no-government-economy-booming_n_12489226.html
Interesting how Republican Congressional election prospects instantly started rising as soon as Paul Ryan severed ties with Trump…