Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 21 Aug 2014 in Obamacare Manufacturing Facts: 85% of Firms Raise Premiums, 91% Raise Deductible, tatupu70 said:

    What a crappy post. He couldn't compare those stats for previous years??

    100% of companies raise premiums every year. So this is probably better than the typical year.

  • On 21 Aug 2014 in Why your house is a terrible investment, tatupu70 said:

    errc says

    Well "something had to be done" to help save us from lower housing prices. And the gop reaction was to do nothing and let it sort itself out.

    I think it had more to do with the economy tanking than it did with lower housing prices. The problem is that when people are foreclosed, they tend to cut spending. Reduced spending = less demand = layoffs = higher unemployment = more spending cuts = more layoffs, etc.

    I think you can see why that's a bad thing for the overall economic health of the US.

    But, regardless, please post a link to anyone from the GOP saying do nothing and let the thing sort itself out. The bailout was passed by a Replublican President, don't forget.

    errc says

    I know, I know. You're smart and I'm stupid, cuz that would have brought about the end of the world as we know it. And wee all better of with The State infusing itself into the big banks well being. Cuz shits mad expensive now, and that's good! Cuz, look at my 401k!!

    Again with the strawman arguments. I'd certainly argue that low unemployment beats high unemployment. Even if that means higher prices.

  • On 21 Aug 2014 in Why your house is a terrible investment, tatupu70 said:

    errc says

    All these pro ownership folk base the entire "solid investment" argument on the premise that appreciation continues for eternity. So yea, if those shit boxes double again while they decay further over the next ten years, maybe paying all that interest to the bank will sound like a good business plan.

    That's a nice strawman argument, but it's obviously not why most people choose to purchase over renting.

    errc says

    However, if we get a repeat of 2007, they will all cry foul. "Stupid republicans! They fucked us all again by allowing housing to become more affordable"

    " if poor working shlebs were smart enuff to vote all dem, then our ponzi scheme could hold up while the dems continue down the only path they know, racing civilization into poverty by inflating real estate values"

    lol--you think Republican's "allowed" housing prices to become more affordable? And that's what people were mad about?? You're seriously deluded.

  • On 21 Aug 2014 in Why your house is a terrible investment, tatupu70 said:

    FunTime says

    Overpriced can also mean, "I know my income and I'm not buying no matter how much you'll loan me."

    I wouldn't call that overpriced. It means you can't afford it, but it doesn't mean it's overpriced.

  • On 21 Aug 2014 in Government continues to meddle in housing, tatupu70 said:

    Strategist says

    That $17 billion will only come from the money we gave them in the first place. It's like the government gives the bank $50 billion, takes back $17 billion, while claiming to be heroes at each step.

    .

    That money has been paid back with interest.

    http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

    The penalties to B of A come out of owners pockets (lower profits).

    thunderlips11 says

    If it does get paid back, it gets paid back in bank fees via the customer...

    True--all penalties come out of profits which ultimately come from consumers. But, B of A can only charge what the market will bear so there is a limit to how much they can raise fees. Theoretically, they already have those fees at the level that maximizes profit so any futher raises will not help.

  • On 19 Aug 2014 in It's Different This Time: Humans Need Not Apply; Two Possible Solutions, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    If BRK can go from bankrupt to all-time highs within a couple of year on bail-outs and backdoor deals

    link? When was BRK bankrupt?

  • On 19 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    explained earlier, it is an assumption

    It's just very odd that you would make that assumption having, yourself, previously explained why that assumption is invalid.

  • On 19 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    Something's value is whatever _you_ believe it to be.

    So why in the world would you think gold's "value" is constant then?

  • On 18 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    If enough people decide to unload their widgets for $2 then, certainly, the relative value will change over time. But you can not draw an inference of value from the price of an object.

    Well, I disagree. How do you determine value then?

  • On 18 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    Value is a relative term, you must compare it to something.

    So is price. My question relates to your implication that gold's price may vary, but it's value compared to other assets holds constant. Why do you think the value of gold remains constant while everything else changes?

  • On 18 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    Gold's "price" is the subject of speculation... it's "value" must be measured
    against something else's price.. the Dow maybe? Your argument holds no water on
    this subject.

    So how do you differentiate something's "value" from its "price"?

  • On 18 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    Well that's good to know. We are on the verge of running out of capital again
    here in the U.S. which I suppose means we are on the verge of a second
    industrial revolution

    This is another example of arguing facts. How is it possible to think that the US is on the verge of running out of capital???

  • On 18 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    It is no mystery to me why Congress is unable to legislate in the current
    economic environment and why deficit spending is necessary to keep paying the
    illicit salaries of the crony-capitalists in and around government.

    Please explain who these crony capitalists are and how the deficit spending ends up in their hands.

  • On 18 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    The argument we are having is "which is better?" at limiting the damage done by
    extreme swings of the pendulum-- an economy with a sound money system regulated
    by Congress and the Treasury as designed by our forefathers, -- or a fiat money
    system manipulated at will by a quasi-governmental central monetary authority
    over which the Congress and Treasury have very limited control.

    And history is pretty clear on that question. See control point's post above.

  • On 18 Aug 2014 in The gold standard was ditched in 1933, not 1971, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    Cash in the mattress is the safest haven

    Great idea. Let's get back to a society where cash is hoarded--that is definitely a step in the right direction.

  • On 17 Aug 2014 in Ferguson police mistakenly arrested an innocent man before viciously beating him, tatupu70 said:

    Peter P says

    The majority of Forbes 400 are self-made.

    Maybe--I don't have time to look up all 400--but how many were born into poverty? A few, probably, but many fewer than were born into middle class (Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett, etc.)

    The point isn't that it is impossible to rise out of poverty--the point is that it's much harder than being successful out of the middle class.

  • On 17 Aug 2014 in Ferguson police mistakenly arrested an innocent man before viciously beating him, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    That's pretty much empirically disproven. In the former DDR (eastern Germany) there was no wealth disparity at all for the most part (excluding the members of the Politbuero) - success was nowhere to be found!

    Sorry--I wasn't specific enough--obviously zero wealth disparity is a problem too. Low to moderate disparity is probably ideal.

    Reduced disparity from where we are today encourages success. That has been empirically proven.

  • On 17 Aug 2014 in Ferguson police mistakenly arrested an innocent man before viciously beating him, tatupu70 said:

    Peter P says

    They have different types of opportunities. Those born rich are not necessarily motivated.

    It is easier for the kids to attain mediocrity if the parents are middle class.

    Middle class should not be a goal.

    The real danger in life is not failing. The worst thing that can happen to a person is aiming too low and then achieving the goal.

    Does "different" opportunities = fewer opportunities?

    Motivation is not an opportunity and is irrelevant.

    So, let's try again--do you agree that being born into poverty provides less opportunity than being born into upper middle class, for example?

  • On 17 Aug 2014 in Ferguson police mistakenly arrested an innocent man before viciously beating him, tatupu70 said:

    Strategist says

    I just can't figure out why it is so difficult for them to get out of the inner cities.

    Is that sarcasm?

  • On 17 Aug 2014 in Myths about buying a house, tatupu70 said:

    bob2356 says

    Bill's house example was in WA. No state income tax, 2k in property tax, 11k in interest the first year. It would just barely pay for a single person to itemize on that. Single people aren't buying 3 bdrm houses. A 360k house would be high end in the midwest, south, most of the west except CA, and a good chunk of the NE.

    The vast majority? There are only 3 states in the country with average or median sale price above 300k, HI,MA,NY. There are 30 below 200k and 15 below 150k. How the heck are people going to itemize on those numbers. You do remember the interest paid drops every year don't you?

    I should have also added that you can deduct sales tax. In any event, $11K + $2K still makes sense to itemize.

    I said the vast majority of states with a $300K house. I understand that some low tax states may make the calculation close.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 1077 milliseconds to create.