Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 21 Sep 2014 in Goldman's Former Head Of Housing Research Predicts Housing Crash, Recession Wit, tatupu70 said:

    So, judging by Goldman's past--that means he is probably extremely bullish on real estate and just wants suckers to take the other side of his trades...

  • On 19 Sep 2014 in Who are the best investors? Those who forget they have an account., tatupu70 said:

    justme says

    Sheeple seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between the
    concepts "there exists an X" and "for all X", as known from mathematical logic.
    They mentally take the former as evidence of the latter, and nothing could be
    further from the truth.

    I think you missed the entire point of the article. It's not promoting stock market as an investment vehicle--it's showing that most people earn smaller returns because they try to time the market and, in doing so, reduce their return. Most people think they are smarter than everyone else and can time the market. Actual results show market timers fare poorly, however.

  • On 18 Sep 2014 in Another $Trillion in debt in just 12 months as Jefferson says, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    tatupu70 says



    I found the FRED graphs and they don't resemble the corporate bonds chart.


    Show me the 1920s charts. The link you provided is post 1970. There have been no deflationary collapses since 1932.

    Sorry--misread the x axis. Try this one:

    Not sure why the title didn't copy, but it's:

    Yields on short term US securities, 3-6 month treasury notes and certificates, 3 month treasury bills for United States.

    Yield very clearly fell throughout the Great Depression.

  • On 18 Sep 2014 in Another $Trillion in debt in just 12 months as Jefferson says, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    All bonds, treasuries included, acted the same. I just didn't have charts of
    those. The data is available from several sources. I will leave the exercise to
    you if you are still in doubt.

    Consider me still in doubt. I found the FRED graphs and they don't resemble the corporate bonds chart. Which isn't surprising. The treasury yields rose through the 20s until the depression hit, at which point they began falling.

    http://learnbonds.com/historical-treasury-yields-2-year-bill-10-year-note-30-year-bond/

    And if you look at any delflationary time period, the same is true. Treasury yields fall during recessions.

  • On 18 Sep 2014 in Another $Trillion in debt in just 12 months as Jefferson says, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    There is only one important deflationary period that I ever talk about... the
    Great Depression, but Heraclitusstudent has already dismissed that one :-)


    Still, here are two charts I can put my hands on quickly. Notice bond PRICES
    fell like a rock (along with stocks and every other asset class) during the
    deflationary period ending in 1932. But YIELDS skyrocketed as prices collapsed
    (this chart is inverted).


    But, of course, we are in a fiat world now. That could never happen again -
    haha!

    Are we talking about corporate bonds?? I thought the discussion was treasury yields??

  • On 18 Sep 2014 in Another $Trillion in debt in just 12 months as Jefferson says, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    You are missing the deflationary part

    Nope. In a deflationary period, bond yields go down.darlag says

    The price of bonds will fall so yields will rise to compensate for the risk of
    loss

    Show me a time period where yields rose during a deflationary period. I'll show you 10 times where yields came down during periods of deflation.

  • On 18 Sep 2014 in Another $Trillion in debt in just 12 months as Jefferson says, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    There are different levels of default. You can default without actually
    saying it. It is not out of the question that in a crisis the Treasury could
    extend the maturity of a 30 year bond to 50 years, a 2YR to 5Yrs, etc. Is that
    default? Perhaps not in its purest meaning. But if you thought that might happen
    to you, would you want more yield?

    In my mind, it's pretty far out of the question. And that risk is much lower than the risk of investing it anywhere else. The safe haven always causes Treasury yields to fall in such a situation, not rise.

  • On 18 Sep 2014 in Another $Trillion in debt in just 12 months as Jefferson says, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    The Fed has no control over yields. The market controls them. Yields are
    obviously a function of risk. The more perceived risk, the higher the yield.
    Just because Treasuries are backed by the "good faith and credit" of the U.S.
    government doesn't mean people actually will have faith in them. The more Fed
    operations are perceived as ineffective, or worse yet, as a failure, the less
    faith buyers will have in their purchases of government debt and the more return
    they will want for their risk.


    While the Fed can control discount rates, yields are an entirely different
    matter.

    Historically, that's not how it's worked. Treasury bonds are always seen as a safe haven. What basis do you have for your feeling that ineffective Fed operations would lead to lack of faith in the US government meeting its obligations?

  • On 18 Sep 2014 in Another $Trillion in debt in just 12 months as Jefferson says, tatupu70 said:

    PCGyver says

    don't think darlag said intrest rates would go up

    He did earlier--I'm trying to understand exactly how he sees this scenario unfolding...

  • On 18 Sep 2014 in Another $Trillion in debt in just 12 months as Jefferson says, tatupu70 said:

    darlag says

    So again I ask, what happens when nobody wants anymore credit? That really is
    the question you know. We've seen it all over Europe lately. It will come to the
    U.S., I assure you - it's just a matter of time.

    And why would that make interest rates go up?

  • On 17 Sep 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, tatupu70 said:

    Reality says

    Those closer to the money printing (the cronies) get the newly printed money
    first, and therefore achieve greater purchasing power at the expense of those
    who get the money later.

    Bullshit. Please explain in detail exactly how cronies and "those closer to the money printing get the money first. I want the exact mechanism.

  • On 17 Sep 2014 in Stop predicting the dollar will collapse, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    It's not a problem, it's the most logical explanation according to occam's razor

    That's not how occam's razor works. Why isn't it more logical that tax code changes and job losses caused it?

    mell says

    The Fed counterfeits and the dollar is debased -> Inflation. If
    counterfeiting is good or non-consequential to the economy, why not cure poverty
    by letting everybody counterfeit the money they need?

    The Federal Reserve isn't counterfeiting.

  • On 17 Sep 2014 in Stop predicting the dollar will collapse, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    but clearly there were long enough periods were families could live well on one income, so the dollar simply consistently kept losing more purchasing power bc of the Fed's counterfeiting than the workers wages could keep up with

    You're problem is that you think that the failure of median wages to outpace inflation is due to the Federal Reserve. You've been shown this many, many times. But you refuse to change your views.

    Why is that?? Iwog is correct, that it's almost a cult....

  • On 15 Sep 2014 in Stop predicting the dollar will collapse, tatupu70 said:

    Bellingham Bill says


    is a FRED graph showing the recessionary periods of the 19th century

    Thank you to Bill--I was trying to find a FRED graph that goes back to the 1800s but couldn't.

    So, all those of you that maintain that the Federal Reserve has made the boom/busts worse, please look at this graph and comment. (the shaded areas are recessions)

  • On 14 Sep 2014 in But Not Until Now, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    Yes we have been having stagflation for a while, i.e wages not keeping up with the high inflation in essentials, way over 2%.

    Wages not keeping up with inflation is not stagflation.

    Care to document the high inflation in essentials?

  • On 14 Sep 2014 in But Not Until Now, tatupu70 said:

    mell says

    Continued Stagflation until the Fed runs out of ink/bullets. Then I don't know

    Continued implies that we are currently undergoing stagflation. With inflation under 2%, I'm not sure what the heck you are thinking...

    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

  • On 14 Sep 2014 in But Not Until Now, tatupu70 said:

    Bubbabear says

    Deflation is a good thing because efficiencies in technology and methods get passed onto common people.

    No, that is actually not at all what deflation means.

  • On 14 Sep 2014 in Stop predicting the dollar will collapse, tatupu70 said:

    FortWayne says

    Only the paranoid survive.

    Uh--the exact opposite is true. The paranoid have missed out on every bull stock market, instead keeping their money in their mattress, or in gold.

  • On 14 Sep 2014 in Stop predicting the dollar will collapse, tatupu70 said:

    spydah_hh says

    Yes, because MELL said that boom and bust cycles are short lived given the opportunity that the market self corrects itself, meaning the government doesn't step in and try to fix things. Your response to MELL was BS.

    Well sorry to say the 1920 depression is a prime example of the market correcting itself in relative short time. Sadly, Hoover and Roosevelt didn't take the same actions in the great depression. And what do you know we had a 12 year depression vs a 2 year depression a decade before.

    The problem is that you can't cherry pick one example and ignore the rest of history. When you look at the history of GDP over time before and after the Fed, it is abundantly clear that the economy has experienced drastically fewer boom/busts cycles since the Fed was created.

    Here are a couple sites for you to look at:

    http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/09/the-13-worst-recessions-depressions-and-panics-in-american-history/

    http://history1800s.about.com/od/thegildedage/a/financialpanics.htm

    Panic of 1837 lasted 6 years. Panic of 1873 lasted 5 years. Panic of 1893 lasted 4 years.

    So, please don't believe the nonsense that Mells spews on here. Deflation doesn't cure itself naturally in short order. It's ugly, painful, and VERY unproductive.

  • On 14 Sep 2014 in Stop predicting the dollar will collapse, tatupu70 said:

    spydah_hh says

    Boom.

    ?? Do you think his quote refuted anything I said?

  • On 14 Sep 2014 in Nevada gives $1.3 billion to Tesla but can't afford a medical school, tatupu70 said:

    spydah_hh says

    Tesla won't be huge they make a majority of their money from subsidies. Once the governments pull back on their subsidies, Tesla will pretty much go broke or at the very least downsize to a much smaller company.

    Obviously the hope is that at that point, the technology will have advanced far enough to be competitive with no subsidies.

  • On 14 Sep 2014 in Nevada gives $1.3 billion to Tesla but can't afford a medical school, tatupu70 said:

    spydah_hh says

    I am not sure why you keep posting FRED statistics, anyone in their right mind will know that they're basis and don't show the whole picture.

    Bill clearly forgot the 1st rule of Austrians--statistics that question an Austrian's belief structure are junk.

    Oh wait--that's the 2nd rule. The first rule is--government (and the Federal Reserve) are BAD, BAD, BAD.

  • On 12 Sep 2014 in Most people not doing well in todays economy, tatupu70 said:

    Zak says

    That's great if you work in the train station. Nobody works in the train station. So yes, 1hr 4 mins by public transit. And thank you for agreeing that what I posted matched what I said.

    lol--So, downtown SF is only one specific location then? My guess is more people work in the train station then at the "San Francisco" dot that you are using.

    You are 100% incorrect. Give it up. When people speak of "downtown" SF, they aren't talking about one location that google selects...

  • On 12 Sep 2014 in Most people not doing well in todays economy, tatupu70 said:

    Zak says

    Nope.. Select the public transit option in the link I provided. By car it was 43 minutes with current traffic (36 mins NO traffic), by Bart it was 1hr 4 minutes.

    Actually, Yes. When you used google, it picked a random place that it considers "San Francisco". The 1hr 4 minutes is how long it takes to get to that point--including walking and a transfer.

    Most people consider you to be in SF when you arrive at the station in 43 minutes.

  • On 12 Sep 2014 in Most people not doing well in todays economy, tatupu70 said:

    Zak says

    You might have the wrong target there Iwog. That's a google link. I'm not
    saying shit, I'm telling you what google is saying. So are you saying google is
    full of shit now? Sounds like this battle is getting you in a bit over your
    head, as I'm pretty sure people won't need to burn too many brain cells deciding
    if a google link I post is lying or if you are. But you know, feel free to yell
    at google about how their mapping and path finding are crap and wrong,
    etc...

    Actually, I think you need to scroll down a bit until you get to rail service which it shows at 43 minutes.

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

Page took 303 milliseconds to create.