comments by tatupu70

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 5:50pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 1

Heraclitusstudent says

Trump 41%, Clinton 39% http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39

"Trump now has the support of 73% of Republicans, while 77% of Democrats back Clinton. But Trump picks up 15% of Democrats, while just eight percent (8%) of GOP voters prefer Clinton, given this matchup. "

I saw that one and it's definitely interesting. But Rasmussen has a very poor record--see last Presidential election--so I'd like to see a few more polls that agree before giving it too much weight.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 3:13pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

justme says

Documentation? Savings deposit balances as function of total wealth?

Savings is more than savings account balances.

Typically, any income not spent on consumption is considered "savings"

justme says

Facepalm. The plot proves nothing. Also, QE does not primarily buy 10 year treasuries. It buys some, but mostly it buys crummy bonds that others will not buy.

I've had it with you. I don't believe anything you say from now on. My goodwill is exhausted.,

The recent bad mortgage buying is an anomaly. QE is usually buying and selling government securities on the open market

"Quantitative easing is an unconventional monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity. Quantitative easing is considered when short-term interest rates are at or approaching zero, and does not involve the printing of new banknotes."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative-easing.asp

But, in any event, you are free to your beliefs however misguided they are.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 2:57pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

justme says

I think I see at least part of the cause of your misperception now: Your understanding of the terminology is completely wrong. What you are describing above is not a "savings glut", it is an ownership (wealth) INEQUALITY GLUT. Outright ownership of land, houses, buildings, factories, company shares, and intellectual property is not "savings", it is CAPITAL. Yes, there is a massive inequality glut as pertains the ownership of capital. But that is something entirely different than a "savings glut". Can you agree on that? That would really help.

I agree that some of the wealth of the super rich is in the form of capital, yes. But they also have immense amounts of savings. So, no, I don't think I agree.

justme says

Second, you say that there is "too much money". That "too much money" is coming directly from the Federal Reserve, courtesy of their QE program in combination with ZIRP.

I don't belong to the Fed cult so we will disagree on this one too. The Fed controls exactly 1 rate which is almost never used. It influences others through it's open market policies, but if you look at a chart of 10 year treasury over time overlaid with Fed QE programs you'll see that they have basically zero effect. Iwog has posted this in the past and I'll try to find it and include in this post.

It is absolutely the extra savings of the 1% that is driving down rates. You can tell very easily because this slow reduction in rates has been ongoing for 20+ years. Much, much longer than any QE policies from the Fed.

justme says

One more thing. If the rich does not want to "spend" their savings (I'm talking about actual savings on deposit now), as you are calling for, the bank will "spend" it for them, by lending it out OR speculating with it for their own account (they can, to some extent, thanks to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act).. Right now there is a massive bubble going on both in the stock market and the housing market and the bond market, all at the same time.

No offense, but anyone who thinks we have 3 simultaneous massive bubbles isn't thinking clearly.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 2:39pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 4

Tenpoundbass says

You keep trying to copy my style and you're going to get 11 more ignores.

Please accept my apologies. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 2:25pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

Tenpoundbass says

That's just boogeyman talk.

I know. Once you bring the donuts down the YMCA, their minds will change faster than you can say Killary Clingon.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 2:06pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

thunderlips11 says

I heard (CBA to look it up) that 1/5th of Feel The Berners say they won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances, regardless of nomination. A vote for Jill Stein is just as good as a Trump vote.

That sounds good until you realize that 40% of Republicans say they won't vote for Trump. And 20% say they will actually vote for Hillary.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/25/bombshell-poll-20-republicans-vote-hillary-clinton-trump-wins.html

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 2:00pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 7

NuttBoxer says

I see Tatupu has failed to list a single incident to back up his claim of constant depressions under sound financial currency, which BTW, is the whole point of the article I posted

Sorry--I forgot. Before I waste my time--what do you consider a period of sound financial currency? Let's not play No True Scotsman here.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 12:39pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

justme says

There was no substance in your post. Just a made up numerical example.

Do you agree that wealth inequality has increased significantly over the last 50 years?
Do you agree that obscenely rich people save at much, much, much higher rate than those in the middle or lower classes?

Assuming yes to both (those are facts), then it stands to reason that overall savings is higher.

Come on--it is entirely logical. And it explains why we're where we're at today very easily.

justme says

Suppose all the "savers" decided to "spend" all their savings on buying houses. What would happen to the proceeds of the purchases? Well, they would just end up in different bank accounts with a different name on it. Heck, maybe your name, even. But then money is back to being "savings" again. Nothing changed, except the buyers got more heavily into debt, unless they had enough savings to buy the whole house rather than just funding a down payment and taking up a loan.

Big picture--if debt increasing faster than savings, rates would be going up rather than down. Right now there is too much money looking for too few investment opportunities. That's why rates on all debt are low.

justme says

The problem, I think, is that your thinking is completely clouded by your self-interest as a real-estate investor and landlord. Home prices fell? Unwilling or unable buyers? Must be a savings glut! People unwilling to pay nosebleed rents? Well, those cheap bastard savers. Savings glut again!

I'm not a real estate investor nor a landlord so that theory is shot. What you describe above is a strawman. I'm saying that falling rates indicate a savings glut, not falling house prices or rents.

justme says

I'm not going to spend much time on discussing this with you. I advise all readers to read my analysis, and see if it makes sense, and whether what Tatapu says makes any sense,.. That is all I ask for,

I would do the same. I welcome anyone who doesn't think I make sense to please respond with why. Believe it or not, I've learned a great deal coming to pat.net and I had my mind changed several times. Maybe this another time.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 12:05pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

justme says

What is quite clear is that there is no "savings glut". "Savings glut" is just a propaganda myth

It's clear that there IS a savings glut to me. And I showed why earlier--I notice you conveniently ignored that post.

The reserve requirement hasn't changed significantly over the last 50 years. It cannot be the cause of lower interest rates today vs. earlier time periods.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Mon, 2 May 2016, 5:04am PDT   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 10

justme says

Given the very low net worth (NW=assets-debts) of most Americans, there is no way the theory of the "savings glut" can be true

Of course it's true and I'll show you in a couple ways.

#1---Despite what Austrian "it's always the Fed" folks tell you, interest rates ARE set by supply and demand. When rates are very low, like now, it means that there is much more demand for the bond, bill, etc. than there is supply. And that demand comes from savings.

#2--In order to understand what is going on, you have to understand that wealth is extremely unequal right now. Here's a simple example to illustrate:

If 1 trillion is equally distributed and everyone saves 10%--then there is 100 million in savings.
If 1 trillion is distributed where 90% split 100 million and save 0% (because they are barely scraping by) and 10% split 900 million and save 50% because they simply cannot spend that much--there is 450 million in savings.

And, thus, you can see how--even when 90% of the population saves nothing--there is 4.5 times as much total savings in the economy.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Sun, 1 May 2016, 7:18pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

Strategist says

Most of their wealth comes from the stock ownership of their company. Go ahead should down every major company, reduce everyone's 401K's to zero, get 10's of millions unemployed, and turn America into Venezuela.

You'd be much better off paying the workers according to their ability to create wealth in the company. That way billionaire parasites would get nothing and the lower level workers that create wealth are paid.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Sun, 1 May 2016, 7:36am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

KgK one says

If you tax corporate, aren't you taxing same money twice once at corporate and then from person who gets dividends?

Every dollar in existence has been taxed multiple times. Most dollars have been taxed thousands of times.

Should we not have sales tax because I already paid income tax? Should we not have property tax because I already paid income tax? Should we not have gas tax because I already paid income tax?

What makes corporate tax any different? Or capital gains?

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Sun, 1 May 2016, 7:33am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

KgK one says

By helping companies, aren't u creating jobs? Also if these companies stay in us, we get more jobs.

Not really. You have to remember that companies don't hire because they are making more profits. They hire only when they can't meet demand.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Sat, 30 Apr 2016, 3:35pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

thunderlips11 says

The real news is that there are hundreds of thousands fewer Hillary voters in the 2016 Dem Primaries than in 2008. Big Enthusiasm Gap.

Agreed--the problem for Trump is that he will bring as many Dems to the polls to vote against him as Hillary does to vote for her. Trump will generate the enthusiasm on both sides.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 5:18pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

indigenous says

iwog says

How the fuck do you think we won World War 2 against the Germans who had a currency that was ENTIRELY fiat with only fake promises of real estate backing the Dmarks? Debt and lending of course.

I thought WW2 was financed by bonds?

lol--what do you think a bond is?

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 1:01pm PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

bgamall4 says

No, without bogus AAA ratings, the securitization would not have happened.

I do not believe the S & P would have adopted the copula if the Fed (Basel 2) had not first approved it.

You seem to be implying that S&P actually believed their AAA ratings when they made them. If so, you're one of the few.

The ratings companies were in on the scam. They wanted the extra business and $$ and the only way to keep the gravy train running was to hand out AAA ratings.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 7:15am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

bgamall4 says

How do you think they were able to fund the loans? They were able to fund the loans through securitization. They could pawn the loans off to others. So, securitization worked so well because people wanted the AAA rated bonds that were the result of the securitization. Only they turned out to be bogus AAA. There weren't really AAA. Insurance companies and others would have never been able to buy them had they been rated correctly.

Of course, but all of this is possible without any Fed action on anybody's copula. Wall St., banks, and ratings companies all worked together.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 7:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

bgamall4 says

The Fed and Basel adopted Li's copula. Look it up.

So what? Banks don't ask the Fed if they can make a loan or not.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 6:56am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

bgamall4 says

By the way, China rejected Basel 2 completely. Our politicians sold the middle class down the river by allowing Basel 2 and the Fed to misprice risk.

The Fed doesn't price risk on mortgages, banks/S&Ls do.

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (12)   Fri, 29 Apr 2016, 6:51am PDT   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

bgamall4 says

Of course it does

Banks make their own decision about risk. Even if the Fed adopted Li's copula, banks were free to lend or not lend at their own discretion.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   free bumper sticker  

#housing   #investing   #politics   #economics   #humor  
please recommend patrick.net to your friends