patrick.net

iwog's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 33541 - 33580 of 33,580     Last »

  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 12:32pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

You're absolutely right. The last time this index set a record was in 2007!!



Wait I forgot something. THANKS OBAMA!
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 12:47pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (5)     quote      

Traffic took a nosedive when I left. Dan also. Saying my clicks were personally responsible for 98% of the traffic, while actually pretty funny is not accurate. I also pointed out what the site did after we abandoned it but no one believed it. The internets do not want a fucking right-wing echo chamber.

I tried to explain my value to the site and I was ridiculed and mocked for it.

joshuatrio says
In other world news, Iwog needs to let it go.


Wow talk about a backwards conclusion.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 1:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I think the headline was: "Richard Haass asks Tillerson to resign"

Did you see someone saying Rex Tillerson had to resign in this thread? Was repeating what Richard Haass tweeted fake news or actual news?
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 1:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Oh God, that's all we need.

Nice to see you again Logan.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 1:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Logan Mohtashami says
2015, 2016,2017 economic prediction articles all had lower monthly job growth predictions .... Population growth matters, labor force growth matters,


Nope, it doesn't. Only net wages matter. Demographics are mostly irrelevant and will almost certainly drive down wages.

However I don't want to talk about that. The new tax bill is amazing piece of atrocity. The new tax rules on capital investment are astonishing. The barriers to offshore tax havens are now wide open. I've started to plan my own tax strategy and I'm shaking my head every day.

All deficit projections seem to be based on a business as usual model. Take 2017 revenues and costs and apply the new tax laws to them to spit out revenue for April 2019 assuming all things are equal.

However this is not going to happen and all things will not be equal. Businesses and corporations will make drastic changes to the way they do business, most especially write offs and expenses, and tax revenues are going to crash bigger than anyone could have possibly imagined. How does the ocean of new paper affect the economy and specifically your little mortgage shop?
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 1:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Logan Mohtashami says
total debt is going higher, my model shows 6.2 trillion after 10 years


You are way WAY low. Does that even include the standard prediction based on business as usual with the new tax bill?
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 1:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

620 billion per year is wildly optimistic and can't possibly be right. It's wrong even if you pretend the tax bill doesn't exist.

2017 was $666 billion for god sake. Even a mild recession will jack that up by 200 billion and the new tax bill is going to cost about 200 more, even if you believe the projections which can't possibly be accurate.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 1:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Logan Mohtashami says
That is the low point of the range yes, the high point is 13.7 trillion ...variables in that are how long the recession and at what period over the next 10 years since mandatory payouts grow out much larger each year


That's a lot closer to reality. I think we see $1 trillion as the new normal starting in 2019.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 1:55pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

Logan Mohtashami says
Who ever came up with the 3% GDP is going to pay for itself model... give that guy a drug test


Well we agree on that. Republicans are operating on a hidden agenda. They are economic terrorists so the only way they can win is to flood the country with an ocean of borrowed cash and pay for a boom. Just like Reagan did. Just like Bush tried to do but he didn't need it because the trillions came from fraudulent mortgage bonds.

Where you and I diverge is that the borrowed money is all going to be given to billionaires and supply side is a fraudulent theory. This ends up with a gutted consumer class, no jobs, and a depression. It's just going to be delayed while all the new cash gets squirreled away.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 2:00pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
lol at the OP and the downvote conversation. Someone likes the down arrow.


Obviously I can't name names but the up/down vote is kept at a near constant based on an agenda. Even ridiculously popular threads with 15 up-votes will be brigaded until there are 16 or 17 down votes. It's silly but that's the way the game is played now.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 3:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

anon_8cb6d says
Try $16-20 trillions over 8 yrs 2017-2024.


Probably a lot closer to the truth. The reason no one knows for sure is that there's a multiplicative effect in tax planning. I'll give one very basic example.

The AMT is gone now. The only reason why Romney and many other billionaires paid any taxes at all was a 26% to 28% tax rate on income that they figured out ways to avoid all other taxes on.

Now the AMT is gone so should we deduct AMT revenues from the total and call it a day? No way because now a bunch of secondary decisions get made because there is no longer this tax floor. All of a sudden businesses stop earning money because it's diverted into salary and stock and bonuses and then shielded in other ways. Highly taxed trust accounts magically start paying out more earnings and paying fewer taxes because the extra can be diverted to individuals. It's a cascade effect with tax savings (revenue cuts) all the way down.

The AMT is relatively simple but some of the business provisions of the new tax code are absolutely amazing. It will take a few years to figure out all the loopholes and strategies, but a lot of rich people will go from paying 15% to paying 0%. Watch and see.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 3:08pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

We got this exact same thread 6 months ago. Housing in California went ahead and made new highs.

It's winter. No one moves in the middle of a school year. No one moves during Christmas. Everyone will start looking for a house in March and things will accelerate from there.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 3:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joshuatrio says
Ummmm... You sure? :)


Yes I'm sure. I'm a numbers guy so lets see what we have.

I've been here 10 years. A little more actually. What you posted is 3373 per year or approximately 10 comments per day.

10 comments per day seems like a lot until you actually try it. You can hip hop to various threads and type 10 thoughtful comments in about 5 minutes. I'll go 10 minutes if you really want to push it but even this rant isn't taking a full minute. Go ahead and double it again if you really need to. 20 minutes!!!

How does 20 minutes of participation in a single day decimate website so completely when the remainder is 23 hours and 40 minutes?

More importantly, both Dan and I have been repeatedly accused of coming here anyway and posting anon, which is a little bit true although I thought it was hilarious how many anons were being accused of being me but had nothing to do with me. Dan I'm sure had the same laugh.

So yeah. It's cute to think that the majority of website visits were just Dan and I clicking in but it didn't happen. Even if it did happen, if we were the pillar holding this place up, doesn't that make the implications worse? Anyway I know people come here to read my stuff because I get emails, followers, and friends. I'm an asshole but that's what people want to watch sometimes. I also produce original content that no one else does. I'm not making a case to put my picture at the top of the site but there needs to be FREEDOM OF SPEECH here or it's dead. Want to moderate speech? Fine. No problem. Want to selectively moderate speech to force a given agenda? Sure do that but half will leave out of frustration and the other half will leave out of boredom. That's part of what happened here but not the main part.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 3:31pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Trump hasn't dropped the Debt to GDP ratio from over 100% back to 60% in a year?

What a failure.


Trump hasn't done anything yet. Obama's last fiscal year ended in October 2017. Democrats aren't the ones creating nonsense threads singing the praises of the Trump economy here. That's you guys.

However based on the budget that passed and the tax plan that passed, WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! Debt and feathers are going to fly! It's going to be a shit storm and you can't even blame Democrats because Republicans passed the budget first.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 3:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joshuatrio says
I'd suggest you and Patrick go out, have a beer, then decide if you want to contribute on the site anymore. Bury the hatchet. But whining about all the injustices isn't going to get you any sympathy - maybe a face to face RATIONAL constructive conversation about realistic improvements, might be better.

Half the time you comment now, I just ignore it because you're always ranting or throwing someone under the bus. You sound like a deranged old man. I think you have a lot of good things to say, but trying to filter through the junk lately is hard to do.


1. This violates the new rule but I don't really give a shit.
2. Something is seriously wrong here. I know Patrick better than most of you. I mean I'm not a Patrick expert or anything but I have talked to him several times in person about this website and the direction he wants to take it and how he would like to make it profitable. I've already said my peace on this thing and given specific arguments and it was deleted so I'll simply say again, something is seriously wrong here. I don't know what it is but I think it's deeply tied to politics.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 3:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Tenpoundbass says
If Mueller had anything, if Trump was guilty of anything, Mueller would be standing in Congress with Trump's severed Balls right now.


There's no reason on earth why this needs to be true.

It takes 6 years for a Monica Lewinsky indictment but you can't give Mueller 8 months for a Trump indictment? Really? Mueller wasn't even on the case until fricken MAY.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 4:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

mell says
Boosh's/Obummer's improvement was 80%+ built on QE/bailout. It is much harder to improve the economy if your rates can't go much lower anymore and are expected to go up instead. Trump has done remarkably so far (mostly by removing red tape). We will see if it holds up now that you can hardly drop rates anymore on every major crack.


Anyone who takes a college level economics course knows the fed will never let the economy grow by more than 3-4%. They will slow it down intentionally using interest rates.

Steady growth like we had from 2009 to 2017 is FAR superior to fast growth. The reason is booms and busts are generally reflections of each other and the bigger the boom, the larger the bust and the more chance of systemic failure.

What I see now is absolutely reckless stimulus in the form of trillions of borrowed dollars funneled directly into the pockets of the rich. As I wrote in November 2016 using an entire thread this stimulus is going to cause a large bubble in the stock market and the economy followed by a collapse and a depression. This is the worst case scenario and it's what we are facing. People need to learn that you cannot have tax cuts when there's a deficit. All you can do is borrow money and dump it into the economy. That's what Trump did.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 4:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
Trump became President when the unemployment rate was already running low


Thanks Obama!

Strategist says
Trump brought it down to a remarkable 4.1% in one year.


How? By promising to dump truckloads of raw borrowed cash into corporate pockets? Yeah that's going to temporarily pump up an economy like a hit of meth. What happens next is you lose your teeth and die in a ditch.

Strategist says
My fear is, having an unprecedented economic boom, which will cause very high rising wages and inflation, followed by high interest rates.


Have no fear, labor itself is being replaced by technology. 100% of all drivers. 100% of all retail employees. 100% of all telephone customer service. You aren't going to have to worry about inflation because job losses are built into the design.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 5:23pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
No different than 100% of typists losing their jobs because of word processors.


I'll detail the difference between making workers more efficient and replacing the workers themselves.

A word processor does take away typing jobs but it also increases productivity. There is more wealth for less work. Say you only need half the typists but you create double the wealth because each typist is creating twice as much. You have double the number of magazines or double the accounting output which enables double the production of wealth. You have a wash even when half of your workers are laid off.

A robot at a car factory replaces an auto worker but it also makes the production of vehicles more efficient for each worker. If you create twice as many cars with half the labor, there is still exactly the same amount of wealth in your economy as you had before even when you lay off half the labor force. There are many more cars to go around. Everyone shares in the increased number of goodies.

When you replace a taxi cab driver with a robot car, you are not increasing the amount of wealth available to the public. One cab ride is always going to be one cab ride. It might be cheaper but you cannot turn one cab ride into 100% more cab rides per rider. The demand is static. You are not creating more wealth to distribute. You are not doubling the pile of bread or the parking lot full of cars. You are simply replacing all the humans with robots and meeting X number of rides in the city. It's a service. It's not tangible.

When you replace a Sears clerk with an Amazon robot, you are not increasing the amount of wealth. You are not making a bigger pile of TVs or a larger pile of jeans. You are simply meeting the existing demand with robots instead of humans.The price might be lower but the amount of wealth divided between all humans stays the same. You are not increasing productivity of tangible wealth. All you're doing is removing a consumer.

This distinction, and once again folks you heard it here and only here because I don't know what the fuck real economists are doing with their lives, is going to be fundamental to the coming collapse.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 5:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

SubOink says
How will that impact bonds in your opinion? (NAC etc)


It's a race but I think NAC is fine for now. The race is between the revenue bomb sometime in 2018 and the mild recession we may run into before then. A recession will increase the price while the realization that revenue has gone to hell will obviously require trillions of new debt which will decrease the price.

I'm still holding my cash there but maybe not much longer. The risk is definitely up because of the tax bill. No one is going to squawk until the 1st quarter returns are in sometime in April.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 5:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

FP says
What you wrote is only partially true, Iwog, because wages have not been keeping up with productivity, at least since the 80's.


I agree and the reason is you get diminishing returns with productivity. The assembly line might have produced 100% more cars per worker. Robot stampers might have produced 50% more cars per worker. Robot assemblers might have produced 25% more cars per worker and so on. I think the pile of goodies stopped getting larger in the last 20 years or so and now we have infinite capacity to meet all demand regardless of buying power. This is what made me realize that Austrians with their "every product creates its own demand" theory was hogwash.

Now they are getting rid of the workers without increasing productivity, and I mean nominal productivity instead of per worker productivity. There isn't more to go around. There are just deleted consumers.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 5:41pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anotheraccount says
Does not make sense. If you have a cheap self driving car, the demand will go up. Older people will prefer this to paying for a car and insurance.


One ride is one ride. If you don't pay for car insurance and you don't make car payments and you don't need repairs and oil changes, you put those people out of work instead. You have to look at the entire picture.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 6:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
So let them go out of business. The money you save will be spent elsewhere, and jobs will be created there.


Where? You keep saying this to me and I keep asking where and the conversation keeps ending.

What are large corporations doing? Are they investing? Are they paying workers more? Are they creating more products and driving down the cost?

No. They are literally STOCKPILING hundreds of billions of dollars in raw cash!!!!! Trump and the Republicans just handed corporations hoarding billions of dollars in cash.................more fucking cash.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 6:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

anotheraccount says
The same can be true with software as service. More automated, no one has to install anything.


That's exactly right. One customer service call is always going to be one customer service call. You can't give each customer twice as many customer service calls and say you increased the amount of wealth.

All you get is the deletion of one worker-consumer.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 7:17pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist says
Better homes


Really!!! I was going to break down every one of your answers but this one is so dramatic that I'll just cover this one.

ON WHAT PLANET ARE HOMES BECOMING MORE AFFORDABLE (even indexed to wages) BASED ON INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY?? Every friggen conversation here and everywhere else is based on the exact opposite happening.

Which worker is upgrading to a better home based on increased productivity and when did it happen?
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 7:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist says
Fancy cars.


Everyone can drive one car. Nobody can drive two cars at once. You're going to say "well what about the person that buys several cars?" It doesn't matter because they aren't being driven. They aren't being consumed. Even the millionaire who buys 100 cars will eventually sell 99 cars that are in new condition. Everyone can consume one car.

That's why turning over car production to a bunch of robots will not increase the amount of distributed wealth available to humans. They can be cheaper cars or they can be better cars (which has almost no meaning in modern day factories since a Cadillac has essentially the exact same engine, transmission, carpet, sheet metal, and glass as a Chevrolet) but there can never be more than one car being consumed per human.

That's why increasing productivity to make a bigger pile of wealth can be a wash but replacing workers themselves only deletes a consumer.

Strategist says
Especially when he's wrong.


You probably should examine the possibility that I'm not wrong.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 7:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
Home prices do not have to be more affordable for people to spend more on housing. They will always buy the most they can in an area they want.
Just look at Planet Bay Area.


Yeah but it wrecks your point.

Money is an illusion and a tool to facilitate barter. You think a person is richer through automation if he's able to to pay more money for less house? He's still getting less house.

My assertion is when you have more widgets, everyone can have a widget and that's where it ends. Your assertion is that everyone can have a widget but we can still create widgets more effectively and make more wealth for everyone and everyone can drive two cars at the same time.

No, you cannot because everyone only needs one widget. This is a peak production economy. Wonder why there hasn't been any inflation for 30 years? It's because the market is so efficient that everyone can have everything they want. A mad rush to get the latest iPhone only lasts a few weeks and is artificially created anyway to drive sales. You will never see people bidding up the latest iPhone because Apple can make 100 billion of them if needed. There are no limits which is precisely why corporations are hoarding a mountain of cash and you just gave them more cash.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 7:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

Thanks Obama!
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 8:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Strategist says
It's not the need, it's the Want. There is no such thing as a peak production economy. Human nature always wants more.


So why don't you have a private jet complete with a pilot?

Because real wages aren't going up along with productivity. They are either falling or flat. Your premise can literally be disproved with a single chart. All of it. Everything you believe can be falsified by simply looking at what actually happened.

Now I'm not even talking about history here. I'm telling you what's going to happen. That bottom chart is going to fall and fall steep because what is counted as productivity in the real world with real consumption doesn't constitute actual tangible wealth and there's no room for a bigger pile of crap because everyone already has all the crap they need on a manufacturing hours basis. Can you buy a Lambo? Yeah. How many more people is that going to employ than building a Chevy Suburban?


  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 9:05pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

SubOink says
Why not capitalize on the last leg up here, the stock bubble seems inevitable - calls on SPY and QQQ's?


I am. I have the stock market top pegged near 30,000 which is where I called it last November. Fits the bubble model very well. It crashes from there and probably sends the economy into a spiral.

Fake cyber currency is also a ridiculously massive bubble which will explode soon and ruin a lot of young investors. The two may happen simultaneously and would make the situation a lot worse.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 9:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist says
Anyone who took this idiot's advise must be bankrupt by now.


This is true.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 9, 9:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Look, nothing can redeem Peter Schiff after his real estate and gold failures.

I don't care if he gets some things kinda right or he's just early or late a little bit. It's not his predictions that are the problem, it's the assumptions he will accept in order to make those predictions. His initial starting conditions are a fiction.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 10, 8:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Ahhh...I think I get it now. Y'all want Trump to have credit for the rally based on the wonderful changes he's made resulting in economic growth (Thanks Obama!) and not rich people slobbering at the thought of the tax cuts.

Sorry but that's not the way it goes. The market has rallied and will now turn into the last phase of a bubble because investors know damn well what's going to happen when you flood the economy with an extra 400 billion dollars of borrowed cash. Whatever else you believe, whatever else you think is going on, the fact that we will now flood our economy with hundreds of billions in borrowed cash is a fact. It's absolutely irrefutably a fact. You can't question it, you can't give a rebuttal, it's a fact as clear as the sunrise. This is what is going to happen and smart people know it and they bought stocks. Next year the cash will come pouring in and corporate profits, ALREADY at all time highs, will go much higher.

That's when the bubble bursts. Buy the rumor, sell the news. When corporate profits show up next year at new all time highs, there's going to be an outstanding shorting opportunity that will make some people rich but will break the 80% of dumb money like it always does.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 10, 8:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Quigley says
50,000,000 x 1,000= 50,000,000,000 =50 billion. Only need less than half that much at most generous estimates.


Link? Generous estimate? Be serious.

How are you going to build a wall down the center of the Rio Grande? Or is the plan to simply give up our half of the river to Mexico?

Not only is the wall going to cost far more than you're estimating but a huge section of the wall can't even be built.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 10, 9:35am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Quigley says
Or we could just annex Mexico and build a shorter wall on its southern border to keep out all the MS13 and watermelons.


Great plan. So what you're saying is the same thing everyone already knows: There isn't a real plan to build a wall. There's only hype and rhetoric but no one can actually do it.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 10, 9:46am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
November 2016: If Trump is elected, market will crash.


November 18th, 2016

iwog says
However Trump's new tax policy or some sick Congressional-Trump hybrid will cause great damage to our long term economic prospects. Congress is very likely to insert "reforms" to both Social Security and Medicare which will ultimately be nothing more than cutting benefits or putting retirement money at risk in the stock market. The deficit and national debt, OH SO IMPORTANT just a few years ago, will now disappear as an issue and add trillions to misguided citizens who will be told our economy will grow out of it. (worked like that in Kansas) When I say trillions, I mean trillions on top of the debt that continues to accumulate.

Should most or all of this occur, expect a boom economy over the next few years. You can't simply inject that much cash into the economy and not expect growth so the stock market should rally for now.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 10, 9:50am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
January 2018: Past year boom in stock market - nothing to do with Trump


Trump has everything to do with the stock market for the exact reasons I gave in November 2016. Huge tax cuts for the rich will result in borrowed money flooding the economy. Investors, like me because I'm a professional investor, knew this would happen so we drove the stock market up. It's called investing on expectations for future conditions.

Those future conditions are going to wreck the economy and send us into an economic crisis in a few years because it's a house of borrowed cards but for now, yeah stocks. Yay!
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 10, 9:59am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
2. You said this after Trump was elected and the market started moving upwards.


Ummm....yeah because Trump wasn't supposed to win. Obviously Trump winning was a surprise to me so I had to change my assumptions to make an accurate forecast. I did so immediately.

TwoScoopsPlissken says
and merely adding a trillion or so over a decade.


OMFG you actually believe this?? Wow.....I mean seriously wow. You will get schooled big time in 2018.
  iwog   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 10, 10:00am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

TwoScoopsPlissken says
What's really stunning is how much debt was run up and yet it did so little.


You mean like pull us out of the worst recession in 80 years?

You know about half of the world's banks were about to fail in 2008 right?