patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
756,819 comments in 77,896 posts by 11,081 registered users, 4 online now: drBu, errc, Onvacation, Tim Aurora

new post

Federal Reserve finally admits QE/ZIRP doesn't do anything

By iwog   2015 Aug 18, 4:33pm   5 links   16,222 views   87 comments   watch (0)   quote      

Just remember folks, you heard it from me first oh.............3-4 years ago.

St. Louis Fed official: No evidence QE boosted economy
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/st-louis-fed-official-no-evidence-qe-boosted-economy.html

The Federal Reserve is putting some of its post-crisis actions under a magnifying glass and not liking everything it sees.

In a white paper dissecting the U.S. central bank's actions to stem the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, Stephen D. Williamson, vice president of the St. Louis Fed, finds fault with three key policy tenets.

Specifically, he believes the zero interest rates in place since 2008 that were designed to spark good inflation actually have resulted in just the opposite. And he believes the "forward guidance" the Fed has used to communicate its intentions has instead been a muddle of broken vows that has served only to confuse investors. Finally, he asserts that quantitative easing, or the monthly debt purchases that swelled the central bank's balance sheet past the $4.5 trillion mark, have at best a tenuous link to actual economic improvements.

Williamson is quick to acknowledge that then-Chairman Ben Bernanke's Fed, through liquidity programs like the Term Auction Facility that injected cash into banks, "helped to assure that the Fed's Great Depression errors were not repeated."

#investing

« First     « Previous     Comments 48-87 of 87     Last »

48   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 10:59am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (4)   quote    

Here's a brilliant comment, again based on fed policy. If someone did exactly the opposite of what you said to do they would have made a lot of money.

mell says

It's a little crazy to still see the usual "nitwit!" comments about the economy from our resident cheerleaders to anybody doubting or scrutinizing employment/economic numbers while markets are taking a shit, US treasuries are being dumped by foreigners and the dollar has lost all its strength against Euroland which has its own set of big problems. I remember calling a short on REITs via SRS at $20 (at $17 it would have been supersweet, but nobody can time the market exactly and it's good to get a little confirmation first) a couple of weeks ago. It's now at $23 and rising though it may be prudent to take some profits here as the Fed may not taper at all if the market is going to crap out like this going forward. This may just be a needed correction, but I don't see much upside from here with the misses and revised guidance coming from those bellwethers.

So asshole, do you still want to claim I misrepresented your position or do you want to grow up, start being honest, and take ownership for the FACT that you've been predicting FED Armageddon for years now?? BTW how's that weak dollar doing? Treasuries being dumped?

Let me also point out the nitwits were right and you were DEAD wrong.

49   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 11:07am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

The fed themselves admit that QE lowered rates and inflated assets prices.
http://www.ny.frb.org/newsevents/speeches/2010/sac101004.html

[My own perspective is aligned with the view expressed by Chairman Bernanke in Jackson Hole—that the effects arise primarily through a portfolio balance channel.2 Under that view, our asset holdings keep longer-term interest rates lower than otherwise by reducing the aggregate amount of risk that the private markets have to bear. In particular, by purchasing longer-term securities, the Federal Reserve removes duration risk from the market, which should help to reduce the term premium that investors demand for holding longer-term securities. That effect should in turn boost other asset prices , as those investors displaced by the Fed’s purchases would likely seek to hold alternative types of securities.

Some research studies have estimated that the effects of the earlier expansion of our securities holdings by just over $1.5 trillion lowered longer-term Treasury yields by about 50 basis points through this portfolio balance channel.3 These effects on Treasury yields appear to have been transmitted into lower rates on private credit instruments and higher asset prices more broadly.]

50   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 11:11am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

The fed themselves admit that QE lowered rates and inflated assets prices.

The fed said this in 2010. The Fed has since changed their mind. (see the article above)

The fed didn't do anything. Fed policy is indistinguishable from the 30-year trendline.

51   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 11:20am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

The fed didn't do anything. Fed policy is indistinguishable from the 30-year trendline.

Unless you can prove that this trajectory wouldn't change WITHOUT QE, it is a worthless assertion.

52   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 11:21am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

The fed said this in 2010. The Fed has since changed their mind. (see the article above)

Your article says it didn't boost the economy. This is not the same as saying: "it did nothing" or "it didn't boost asset prices".

53   mell   2015 Aug 19, 11:22am     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

So asshole, do you still want to claim I misrepresented your position or do you want to grow up, start being honest, and take ownership for the FACT that you've been predicting FED Armageddon for years now?? BTW how's that weak dollar doing? Treasuries being dumped?

Let me also point out the nitwits were right and you were DEAD wrong.

You are being dishonest again just because you want to be right about everything. I maintain my stance that the Fed is destroying the economy, that is its solid foundation, the middle-class. WRT to short ETFs, I have always said that they are short-term - if not daytrading - vehicles mostly pretty much in every thread I commented on them due to decay (unless you can time a collapse very accurately or are too lazy to find a good short hedge). I never talked about armageddon (even 2008 was not armageddon but a necessary correction), instead about stagflation, that is wages not keeping up with asset inflation. In fact I thought Dow 20k may be possible though this looks now less likely. The dollar was weaker against the Euro before the ECB announced their QE with potentially negative rates and against the yen before the BOJ opened the flood gates again. All fiat currencies are being devalued and if you think a dollar can buy you more today in the US than in 2008 I have that bridge to sell you.. WRT gold, half-wrong is still wrong. Then there is the bear trap of yours.. Actually I argued your case when it comes to shorting treasuries right now as being risky, but you could never do that ;)

54   mell   2015 Aug 19, 11:30am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

iwog says

The fed didn't do anything. Fed policy is indistinguishable from the 30-year trendline.

Unless you can prove that this trajectory wouldn't change WITHOUT QE, it is a worthless assertion.

Yep, rates were heading up in 2008 into 2009, then started dropping consequently. Now they didn't go higher than they were in the years before the crisis of 2008 because the Fed preempted the freeze, so we cannot say they would have skyrocketed without the Fed, but there is certainly a strong correlation which makes it hard to argue Iwog's side, the discussion remains how much of a causation comes with that correlation.

55   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 11:31am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Long term rates are set by an AUCTION. These AUCTIONS take place all the time. If the fed isn't bidding at these AUCTIONS, there is no fed influence on long term fucking rates.

Yes they bought from people who bought at auctions. These people then turn around to buy more at auctions then turned around and sold more to the fed (for a profit).
i.e. for all practical purpose the fed was (indirectly) bidding at auctions.
You are being spectacularly disingenuous.

56   tatupu70   2015 Aug 19, 11:37am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes they bought from people who bought at auctions. These people then turn around to buy more at auctions then turned around and sold more to the fed (for a profit).

(maybe). Looking at the chart of yield vs. time with Fed actions added, there's certainly no guarantee that you'd make a profit using the scenario you detail.

57   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 11:39am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Nobel prize winning economist: "QE doesn't do anything"

Iwog: "QE doesn't do anything"

Federal reserve: "QE doesn't do anything" (finally)

- The nobel price you quoted absolutely DIDN'T SAY QE doesn't do anything. What he said - and you misunderstood - is a large chunk (not all of it) of the money stays in banks accounts at the fed and is not LENT into the real economy. Big difference.
In particular banks CAN and DO still use that money to bid up asset prices.
- Iwog says a lot of things
- The fed as quoted above admitted QE boosted assets prices.

58   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 11:42am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (4)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes they bought from people who bought at auctions. These people then turn around to buy more at auctions then turned around and sold more to the fed (for a profit).

i.e. for all practical purpose the fed was (indirectly) bidding at auctions.

You are being spectacularly disingenuous.

No, I'm being extremely accurate and I obviously know the fed was bidding at the auctions. WAS bidding at the auctions. That's the whole point. QE is over. Twist is over. It's all over with and nothing changed. Rates didn't change. Demand for bonds didn't change. NOTHING CHANGED!

Who's being disingenuous? Show me what the fed did to rates on this graph. You so desperately want to remain a member of the fed cult that you can't admit that nearly everything you've believed in since 2008 has NOT OCCURED. The interest rate trend-line is STUNNINGLY straight. The slope is STUNNINGLY constant.

I don't know what's wrong with you people. I don't know if it's some psychological need to have secret knowledge that no one else has or simply American arrogance. I've already covered why rates have gone lower. I have applied the mechanism and the explanation. I have all my ducks in a row.

Meanwhile the fed cult just keeps pretending the know what's going on even when they have been wrong year after year after year after year..........

59   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 11:44am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

- The fed as quoted above admitted QE boosted assets prices.

Not correct and I think it's insane that you're making this assertion. The stock market went up concurrent with fed policy. The stock market also went up in 2007, 1999, 1993, 1988, 1985, and 1983. They used the word "appears". This kind of loose dipshit analysis with no explanation for cause and effect is EXACTLY why you people wont let go of this fantasy even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

60   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 11:52am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

I obviously know the fed was bidding at the auctions.

So you claim that bidding at the auction doesn't lower rate, i.e. increase the price of 1 asset and that arbitrage across assets will therefore increase the prices of all assets.
Again this borders denying the obvious.

iwog says

This kind of loose dipshit analysis with no explanation for cause and effect is EXACTLY why

You're talking of the analysis of Ben Bernanke (cited from Jackson Hole meetings), with careful description of the channels, causes and effects.
This has far more credibility than your prose on this board. Obviously.

61   hanera   2015 Aug 19, 11:53am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Theoretically, long term interest rate of a fiat money is zero since you can print as much as you like.

62   tatupu70   2015 Aug 19, 12:07pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

So you claim that bidding at the auction doesn't lower rate, i.e. increase the price of 1 asset and that arbitrage across assets will therefore increase the prices of all assets.

Again this borders denying the obvious.

I think the argument is that the market is so large that even the Fed's policy didn't have a noticeable effect. You'd agree that if I bought $100 worth of Fed debt, it wouldn't have an effect on asset prices or interest rates, right? Looking at the interest rate history vs. time with Fed actions on it does seem to show very little causation.

63   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 12:09pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

That's the whole point. QE is over. Twist is over. It's all over with and nothing changed. Rates didn't change. Demand for bonds didn't change. NOTHING CHANGED!

1) QE is over BUT the massive $2.5Trillions excess reserves are still there last I checked. You can say as much as you want that $2.5T on banks balance sheet does nothing. We don't have to believe you.

2) You show a line without even acknowledging that this line can go up or down for very different reasons.
- it can go down, while stocks go down, because the economy is slowing and people are moving toward the security of gov bonds while getting out of stocks.
- or it can go down WHILE STOCKS GO UP, because there is a ton of extra money, created by the fed, out there.

3) you show a line without explaining that the fed also flooded the economy with cash after 2001 (and in previous recessions and recoveries) though it happened through entirely channels. Clearly QE is the continuation of that. Except the environment changed and banks wouldn't lend, and the fed themselves had to lend. It was indeed a continuous and increasingly forceful/desperate effort for the past decades. SO WHAT?

4) you make claims without even having a baseline to compare since we absolutely don't know what would have happened in alternate realities where QE didn't happen.

I.e. your entire explanation is meaningless.

64   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 12:16pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

tatupu70 says

I think the argument is that the market is so large that even the Fed's policy didn't have a noticeable effect. You'd agree that if I bought $100 worth of Fed debt, it wouldn't have an effect on asset prices or interest rates, right? Looking at the interest rate history vs. time with Fed actions on it does seem to show very little causation.

No one claims it's a huge effect. Obviously there was a recovery in trade, corporate profits, rents that by itself explains a large part of the extra stock and assets prices.
Still when rates go from 2.5% to 2% that's a 20% boost to the value of the bond.

65   tatupu70   2015 Aug 19, 12:20pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

No one claims it's a huge effect.

Actually, I think a lot of people do--including many here (Mell, et. al).

Heraclitusstudent says

Still when rates go from 2.5% to 2% that's a 20% boost to the value of the bond

Sure--but I fail to see a causation between any Fed policy and the reduction in interest rates. Like you said--we don't know what would have happened absent any Fed actions. Some think rates would have been higher, but looking solely at the data, I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion.

66   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 12:46pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

tatupu70 says

Like you said--we don't know what would have happened absent any Fed actions. Some think rates would have been higher, but looking solely at the data, I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion.

Indeed there is no way of knowing that, for the reason I mentioned above:
- rates can go down, while stocks go down, because the economy is slowing
- OR rates can go down WHILE STOCKS GO UP, because there is a ton of extra money out there.
For this reason rates are NOT a good measure. Stocks would be a better gauge, and it looks likely that stocks would be lower without QE.

67   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 12:53pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

For this reason rates are NOT a good measure. Stocks would be a better gauge, and it looks likely that stocks would be lower without QE.

Oh for god sake, is there possibly a more useless measure of anything than the price of the stock market?

Again.......I simply don't comprehend the fed cult. You have no business claiming imperceptible effects in the interest rate market are caused by the fed. You have no business claiming that the MODERATE increase in stock prices, during a time of accelerating profits and a general recovery with lower unemployment by the way, is caused by the fed.

It's not the fed. You have no explanation of why it's the fed. You simply believe it like religious dogma.

68   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 12:54pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (4)   quote    

How does this not make you re-evaluate everything you believe in? We aren't talking a 2% change in the discount rate. We're talking about historically unprecedented acts by the federal reserve following decades of stability and NOTHING CHANGING.

69   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 12:55pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

You have no explanation of why it's the fed. You simply believe it like religious dogma.

Except the explanation provided above and believed by Bernanke himself, vs Iwog repeated dogma "it's not the fed".

70   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 12:57pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

Except the explanation provided above and believed by Bernanke himself, vs Iwog repeated dogma "it's not the fed".

Yeah.......in 2010.

Bernanke was wrong. Not only was he wrong, what you posted is entirely lacking in any explanation beyond "easing of risk assessment". And in case you want to talk about how great of an economist the fed chair is, I submit Greenspan.

71   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 12:58pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

How does this not make you re-evaluate everything you believe in? We aren't talking a 2% change in the discount rate. We're talking about historically unprecedented acts by the federal reserve following decades of stability and NOTHING CHANGING.

That it took unprecedented actions just so "nothing changed" doesn't prove QE did nothing.
Why do you keep repeating this after we refuted it.

72   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 12:58pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

Unless you can prove that this trajectory wouldn't change WITHOUT QE, it is a worthless assertion.

Is this a joke??????

You think it's my responsibility to disprove your blind assertion? Are you kidding me?

73   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 1:00pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

That it took unprecedented actions just so "nothing changed" doesn't prove QE did nothing.

Why do you keep repeating this after we refuted it.

You didn't refute anything. You haven't presented anything. You haven't shown any correlation whatsoever between fed policy changes:

and ANYTHING happening in the credit market concurrent with these policy changes OTHER than speculation which in almost every case turned out to be ill advised.

The fed tapers and rates GO DOWN. I win.

QE2 ends and rates GO DOWN. I win.

ZIRP ends and rates GO DOWN. I win.

74   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 1:01pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

Bernanke was wrong.

Iwog says Bernanke is wrong. Hummm who am I going to believe?

iwog says

what you posted is entirely lacking in any explanation

What you posted is even more entirely baseless: rates can go up or down for opposite reasons; you have no baseline for comparison; QE is a continuation of previous actions so that showing a continuous line proves absolutely NOTHING except increasing desperation (from the fed and you).

75   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 1:02pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

Iwog says Bernanke is wrong. Hummm who am I going to believe?

Believe whatever you want. Bernanke took no risk whatsoever in estimating a puny 50 basis point effect in the markets. It can't be measured because it's on the scale of background speculation.

76   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 19, 1:03pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

The fed tapers and rates GO DOWN. I win.

QE2 ends and rates GO DOWN. I win.

It just shows as I said they can go down for opposite reasons. I don't even know how you can claim ANYTHING from this chart.

77   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 1:04pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

What you posted is even more entirely baseless: rates can go up or down for opposite reasons; you have no baseline for comparison; QE is a continuation of previous actions so that showing a continuous line proves absolutely NOTHING except increasing desperation (from the fed and you).

Wrong. Dead wrong. I'm asserting the fed does nothing. I am under no obligation to prove jack shit although I've proven my position EXTENSIVELY.

YOU however are subject to EXTRAORDINARY proof because you're making a claim that doesn't show up on a chart, can't be demonstrated, and can't even be logically explained. YOU are making an assertion here. YOU are challenging me to prove a negative which is a well known logical fallacy.

78   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 1:04pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

It just shows as I said they can go down for opposite reasons. I don't even know how you can claim ANYTHING from this chart.

Oh right......"Well rates didn't do what I said they would do but I'm sure there's some unknown explanation that accounts for the fact I was wrong."

Unfuckingbelievable.

79   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 1:07pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

This isn't just theoretical. See this thread?

http://www.patrick.net/investing/I'm+liquidating+all+my+stocks+and+going+to+cash

I took a large sum of money and invested it in the bond market GOING INTO THE END OF TAPERING AND THE END OF ZIRP.

Well guess what? Again........I WIN. Rates went down, not up, and my bond funds are worth more than when I bought them.

How many times does this get tested and I win until you start to question your assumptions?

80   tatupu70   2015 Aug 19, 1:35pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Heraclitusstudent says

What you posted is even more entirely baseless: rates can go up or down for opposite reasons; you have no baseline for comparison

That's not really true. Iwog posted a graph showing that rates had been trending downward at a very predictable rate for the last 20+ years. That's the baseline.

Then he showed that Fed policy did nothing to change that trend.

81   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 5:54pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

bgamall4 says

Sorry, my chart shows you didn't quite get it right, Iwog:

What your chart shows is extreme intervention by the fed from 2006 through 2009 and long term interest rates doing absolutely nothing.

IN FACT your chart shows a LOWER long term interest rate in 2009 than it was in 2006 which is exactly the opposite of what you're trying to prove here.

82   iwog   2015 Aug 19, 6:21pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

bgamall4 says

And Larry Summers knows bond rates must go down, to below ZERO. And that is why he wants a cashless society, in which people must either put their money in the bank and lose money on negative interest, or spend it. The Fed is a scam. The entire system is a scam.

Honestly I'm not in the mood for your tinfoil hat stuff today. The world is not nearly as interesting as you want it to be.

83   Strategist   2015 Aug 19, 6:36pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

bgamall4 says

And Larry Summers knows bond rates must go down, to below ZERO. And that is why he wants a cashless society, in which people must either put their money in the bank and lose money on negative interest, or spend it. The Fed is a scam. The entire system is a scam.

I thought it's the rich people with money who can deposit their savings into the banks. You should be pleased if they are getting scammed.
The poor people are the ones borrowing money from the banks. They benefit with the lower rates.

84   bob2356   2015 Aug 20, 6:55am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

bgamall4 says

And Larry Summers knows bond rates must go down, to below ZERO. And that is why he wants a cashless society, in which people must either put their money in the bank and lose money on negative interest, or spend it. The Fed is a scam. The entire system is a scam.

Honestly I'm not in the mood for your tinfoil hat stuff today. The world is not nearly as interesting as you want it to be.

Even a blind squirrel (or an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic like bg who is working on cornering the market in tin foil hats) finds a nut once in a while. Governments (the bankrupt ones) all over the world would love a cashless society and the US is one of them. It's happening, there are ever lowering maximums for cash purchases already out there. The US will eventually set a maximum cash amount also, for our protection against drugs dealers and money laundering of course. Civil forfeiture pretty much sets a de facto 2k limit now anyway. Get caught with more than that you will probably lose it.

85   John Bailo   2015 Aug 21, 2:41pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

"...zero interest rates in place since 2008 that were designed to spark good inflation actually have resulted in just the opposite..."

So no matter what happens, all they want to do is raise interest rates.

1) Print a lot of money
2) Give it to the status quo
3) Crash the market and raise prices
4) Stagnate salaries
5) Effectively all ladders are down, all doors are shut
6) Finally, raise interest rates so that moneybags can get work-free income

86   Heraclitusstudent   2015 Aug 21, 4:02pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

bgamall4 says

And Larry Summers knows bond rates must go down, to below ZERO. And that is why he wants a cashless society, in which people must either put their money in the bank and lose money on negative interest, or spend it. The Fed is a scam. The entire system is a scam.

That's not why they want a cashless society: they want it because then there is no anonymous transaction: every transaction will be recorded by the NSA.

If it was just for negative interest rates, then printing money is good enough.

87   streetpizza   2015 Aug 22, 10:32am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Upfront, I'm no financial wizard; but I find that in the underlying blue line of the above graph, in particular from 2010 to present: the FBR implemented the beginning of the cashless society through CFR by exceeding its authority by providing off book loans to every bank and/or financial institution upon whom FBR depend. Such off book loans based upon the difference between computer time and human time through EFT. Many will claim that the EFT transition is a zero net effect - deception. However, there are billions of dollars involved, i.e. payroll, social security, va benefits, governmental funds(fed and state), etc.
People still function in hours and days; computers function at gigahertz, 1/1,000,000,000 per sec. at minimum, 24 hr/day. The loans are created by the time factor, when the debited institution transfers funds to the credited institution and that institution is given the validation period for accessibility - instant investment capital on book of the credited institution. Was this the means by which the FBR dampened the effects of the derivative bust, or the coercion of the financial institutions themselves. The S & L scandal dip of the blue line are where but the derivative bust does not really stand out by magnitude. Those electrons dancing around institutional computer circuits belong to some else, hell those electrons are not legal tender and the above graphs seem somewhat skewed.

« First     « Previous     Comments 48-87 of 87     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home