Report says home prices dropped 0.1% month over month.
It doesn't seem like a big leap to go from a handicap ramp and wheel chair accessible john to a gluten free or nut free option without a surcharge. This falls into the 'whatever' category.
Weight * mileage is closely approximated by the current gas tax.
No worries. If someone wants to tax battery powered cars based on mileage, that would be fine. I'm sure that the current mileage laws and reporting when people get their cars worked on could be tied in. It could be an annual self-reported thing as well. If you lie, it will catch up with you when you sell your car.
In a related story. Smarter people who have more money prefer more expensive cars than dumber people with less money.
medicaid increase might be due do increased drug coverage, but that's a guess.
This is clear evidence that either
1) the opportunities for lower class folks - say bottom 30% are much worse than they used to be.
2) the 'means' test has gotten easier to pass.
3) people have gotten lazy.
The biggest increases are in food stamps, wic, disability (SSI) and medicaid. So, food and medicine for the bottom tier and disabled of society.
I've checked the test for food stamps for a member of my extended family who is not doing well. You have to be pretty darn poor to qualify, basically, someone working 40 hrs a week at minimum wage and living on their own would get some help. That pretty much rules out #2.
I don't think people have fundamentally changed so much and gotten lazier, but that's debatable.
I'm thinking it's b/c the job creators are buy creating jobs in other countries. The opportunities are just not good for the bottom 30%.
The disabilities issue has something to do with the Bush wars, as 3.6 million vets are on disability. I don't know how the others on SSI break down.
What do you whiners think is the reason for the increase?
Do you believe that 18% is optimum or a maximum, or both? Does the optimum tax depend on the current wealth and income distribution, or is it fixed? Is there some reason for this, or are you just going on a hunch, or what?
I believe that there is an optimum, and it is generally a higher percentage than we see right now. However, the optimum income tax depends on the current income distribution and state of the economy. A progressive tax makes the most sense for income tax, because the benefits of the government favor the rich.
I really don't know. The above is a parody.
Parody is usually used to make a point. You have parodied a weak argument (straw man) and laughed at it. Now, you shy away from any discussion regarding what would be best. Well, you said you don't know and offered no opinion on the topic that you brought up.
What do you think the optimal tax rate is indigenous? Do you think that there is an optimum, or that lower is better or what?
Facts?!? That was more confusing the Matthew McConaughey aimlessly driving around mumbling to himself in an ugly Lincoln
WTF - the Captain actually made me laugh. I hate that Lincoln commercial. Back to the Krugman article - that was pretty damn simple and to the point, really.
You can believe in anything. In the end, the whole point of statistics is to justify any position.
This statement is silly crap spewed by people who don't understand statistics. Do you really believe it? Statistics can only be used to justify two opposing positions when one person is misusing it.
How do you know it is statistically significant. Out of the thousands of fund managers that start, do you not expect a few to do much better than average due to random chance?
The success of actively managed funds is highly dependent upon the prop trading teams. On the average, few will ever beat the long term indexes, over time, however, some will.
My point is that they do not beat the long term indexes on average. Furthermore, randomness can explain any success or string of successes of well respected fund managers.
Bill Millers fund beat the S&P 500 for 15 consecutive years after fees. Even he said that it's luck, because if the calendar year ended on a different month the streak would not have been there. Also, when you ask the question of how likely is it that one fund manager out of the lot beat the S&P for 15 straight years at some point during the time that the S&P has existed, the odds are 75%. So, it would be unlikely not to have such a trader. However, people attribute this to skill or brilliance, when it is really just luck.
My understanding is that passive funds perform just as well as actively managed funds over the long term, and that they significantly outperform managed funds after accounting for fees.
On average, do actively managed funds do any better than passively managed funds?
Asset managment is not particularly useful or honest. The difference between successful and unsuccessful financial managers is luck. People's poor grasp of statistics lets them get bamboozled by random chance, a hot hand, and some marketing.
There's Huckabee, Santorum, Perry, and Palin for a start, how's that work for you?
I say sperm - you say Santorum.
I'm hoping for Ben Carson to be the new Palin. He's like a unicorn. It would be nice to see how many republicans would come out and vote for a black guy. A white woman is one thing. They eat across the table from them occasionally. A black guy is another matter.
Carson thinks that the ACA is the worst thing that has happened since slavery, because it originated from Vladimir Lenin. On the other hand, he thinks that for profit insurance companies make absolutely no sense, and the government should pay for catastrophic care. But it should be paid for out of a fund supported by the profits of insurance companies. There is so much inconsistency there, he just might compete with Palin. Carson also thinks we should have a flat tax. I wonder if the flat taxers only want to make income tax flat, or if they want to have a flat tax when you add in property tax, income tax, sales tax, Medicare, and Social Security taxes.
On the Republican side, there ought to be a yearning for someone other than Jeb Bush. Lest our country be held up by the whim's of Senior Bush's sperm.
Jesus Herbert BushChrist. To quote Jesse Jackson, "Stay out of the Bushes.'
I'm pretty liberal, but don't think this has anything to do with democracy being broken.
Did you know that Democrats won the popular vote in the House in 2012 and didn't even come close to control?
Basically we've had a majority vote for Democrats for years now and Republicans have power for some reason.
That's exactly my point. The problem is that the Democrats win the popular vote in the House, but the House is run by a bunch of Looney Toone right wingers. The House is supposed to be representative of the popular vote, because it was designed to be weighted by population. It is not representative of the popular vote, because the Republicans have Gerrymandered the fuck out of it. That is a legitimate gripe.
Complaining that the Senate is working exactly like it was designed to, representing each of the states equally, is a losing battle.
I'm pretty liberal, but don't think this has anything to do with democracy being broken.
The House represents the people, and the Senate represents the States. Each is a perfect democracy, giving equal weight per person in one case, and per State in another case. Giving States equal power does tend to help Republicans, but that's life.
The real problematic issue is Gerrymandering. It is a corrupt way of disenfranchising whole groups of people while helping those in power keep power. There is no good reason for it that I can see outside of corruption.
This would make an excellent first topic for your youtube channel. Make us proud.
Here are some vehicle crash statistics:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
There is a column with vehicle miles travelled in the US (in billions).
1973: 1313 billion miles traveled in the US
2006: 3014 billion miles traveled in the US
2012: 2969 billion miles traveled in the US
So, from 2006 to 2012, we have had about a 10% decrease in gasoline consumption (see my earlier post) with a 1.5% decrease in miles travelled. This is consistent with my earlier statement that much of the decrease in fuel consumption is due to efficiency improvements (Thank you Obama). It has nothing to do with your imaginary plummeting number of vehicles on the road.
How do you even begin to approach the topic of traffic in your imaginary world where 2/3 of the traffic disappeared since 2006?
Marcus gave links to finished petroleum products supplied in the US. This peaked at 20 million barrels per day and dropped a bit lately.
Here is the link for finished gasoline.
This peaked at around 9700 barrels per day, and is also down about 10% since the peak. The difference (between the 9700 barrels gasoline /day used and 17200 barrels total petroleum product / day) is the fuel used in aviation, industrial and residential heating, petro-chemical feedstocks, etc.
If the our blind captain took the time to click on the definitions page: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_cons_refmg_tbldef2.asp,
he would find out that Marcus is right. Many retail gas stations are not defined as refiners by the EIA.
There is no deception by the EIA. You can find the statistics on consumption by going to the aptly named page: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.cfm#consumption,
and clicking the topic of interest.
One reason for the decrease in gasoline consumption is the higher prices. Another reason is conservation. This is something that the dems have been pushing for over the last 20 years. Consumers are taking to it partly due to their pocketbooks, and partly due to the rising ecological conscience in our society. This increased awareness of ecological issues is another liberal accomplishment. One that Teddy Roosevelt would have liked.
I misunderestimated my estimated taxes, and it was OK under Bush. Under G-Dub, it was OK to just not pay the difference. Under Obama, I have to pay it. Fucking nazi communist muslim-pants Obama requires real math and doesn't accept creative maths like the republicans. Stupid Obama.
If you have infinite patience, by all means
Most people who buy stocks are investing in their retirement portfolio using a buy and hold philosophy, whether through individual stocks or funds. Hence, the P/E ratio is important and the expression 'stocks are expensive,' is used to refer to P/E ratios. These people might look for alternative investments when the P/E ratio is high. When the P/E ratio is low, people (should) look to move long term investments into stocks.
Only short term traders don't care about the P/E ratio, and most people don't (shouldn't) short term trade.
P/E ratios aren't important because people talk about them. They are important, because stocks have oscillated about a P/E ratio of 15 for 140 years.
They are important for the same reason that price to rent ratios are important for housing.