Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 26 Oct 2014 in San Franciscos land-mine law for landlords, Bellingham Bill said:

    The intellectual confusion people suffer from is the fixed improvement of the housing good hides the commons that was expropriated when it was built. We see the former but not the latter.

    To trace a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it!

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in San Franciscos land-mine law for landlords, Bellingham Bill said:

    SF, home of Georgism!

    Rent control is a bandaid on a bigger problem, so good riddance.

    Hell, my rent in LA would be within 20% of the market rate ($1800+/mo now) had I stayed in the "rent-controlled" 1B I was renting in 1991-92.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in Permanent Damage to US Economy, Bellingham Bill said:

    The main damage is the amount of money being extracted from us in the health and housing sectors:

    Real per-capita (age 16+) health + housing expenditures. This doesn't count government spending in health care I believe, which is half of total spending at any rate.

    This chart implies it takes $30,000/yr for a couple to just cover the first two basics of life.

    Food, clothing, and fun are additional, as are the student loan repayments.

    Housing was CHEAP in the 1960s. Even the SAME houses from then are unaffordable for most people now, because it's the land valuations that have skyrocketed since then.

    Nobody gets this.

    This house sold for $35,000 or so back in 1975. The 2014 sales price is nearly 3X what $35,000 has inflated to since 1975 (~$150,000)

    Ironically the buyer in 1975 was an area doctor who picked this place up as an income property after the original owner passed.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in What Do Seven Billion People Do? Top 10 Mega-Cities by Population 2014 vs. 2030, Bellingham Bill said:

    Make a lot of babies!

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in Republicans, bad for America, Bellingham Bill said:

    This thread is a good example of how it takes an order of magnitude of effort and time to beat back a troll vs. the effort of trolling in the first place.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, Bellingham Bill said:

    Analyzer says

    Investors haven't a clue what the Fed is really up to because the Fed itself seems a bit clueless in its directions and commentary.

    there are various factions in the Fed. Yellen is the Chair but can't run the place autocratically AFAIK.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, Bellingham Bill said:

    jazz music says

    Expatrition is a popular subject, but where can you really go and be pretty sure that the same or worse won't happen there too?

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, Bellingham Bill said:

    Bubbabear says

    Then after TARP, congress deficit spent like crazy to facilitate his QEs.

    your writings here are 90% regurgitated rightwing crank crap but I'll just pick this one out of the pile to comment on.

    shows the trend of spending and taxation.

    The stimulus is visible if you squint, but otherwise the main cause of the deficit spending 2009-now has been the collapse of revenues, which in real terms only exceeded the pre-recession peak ($1.7T in 2009 dollars) last year.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, Bellingham Bill said:

    Bubbabear says

    Government interests needed a solution to break away from high inflation and stagflation in the 70s

    people say the 1970s was bad but the main reason it was bad was the baby boom was flooding into the workforce, especially women which boosted the number of two-income households immensely.

    The 1970s saw the addition of 20 million jobs, the same as the two following decades, so by that measure it was a BETTER decade than the 80s or 90s since that expansion came on a smaller base.

    Shows real total wages paid rose +25% in the 1970s.

    They rose +60% in the 1960s, +30% in the 1980s, +50% in the 1990s, and ~+15% 2000 to now.

    So the main story was the 1970s wasn't the 1960s or 1990s.

    (per-worker real GDP) shows the main reason; worker productivity hit a flat spot in the 1970s

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, Bellingham Bill said:

    ^sbh speaks truth, or my thesis at least

    blue is .gov debt leverage, red is consumer debt leverage (right axis)

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in Will Millenials ever buy a house?, Bellingham Bill said:

    casandra says

    they may not even inherit that boomer house. if the boomer is smart, he or she will max out the credit cards in late life and not pay them off, enjoying unlimited travel and the good life, so when they die the house is just a financial wash !!

    plus the reverse mortgage to wipe out the home equity. With ZIRP they're not too bad at least.

    is the 1 Mo Libor index rate -- actual interest rate on RMs is ~4% plus that

  • On 24 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, Bellingham Bill said:

    Let's look at the chart again:

    The 2001 tax cuts were front-loaded for the middle-quintiles, while the 2003 tax cuts accelerated the scheduled 2005-2009 phase-ins to that year.

    The full package was a trillion-dollar give-back to the wealthy.

    2. Fueled income inequality: This chart from the Congressional Research Service suggests that the Bush tax cuts, which significantly reduce top marginal tax rates and capital gains rates, helped widen income inequality in the 2000s. As the report says, “as the top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases — that is, income disparities increase.” This chart shows how the percentage of income flowing to the top 0.1 percent of earners increases as top tax rates decrease.

    I'm not going to get into mell's argument, only repeat mine that cutting taxes on the rich basically resulted in them buying treasuries instead of paying taxes.

    Not only will they get the interest -- the 30 year treasury was sold for 5% 2006-2007, but a tax payment hits their net worth while bond buys are neutral to their balance sheet.

    Romney had a 14.1% tax rate in 2011. Case closed.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in The news leak that almost changed world history, Bellingham Bill said:



    0101. Navy Basic War Plan (RAINBOW FIVE) is the directive which this U.S. PACIFIC FLEET Operating Plan (RAINBOW FIVE) is designed to implement in so far as the tasks assigned the U.S. PACIFIC FLEET are concerned.

    Germany lost its Pacific Ocean possessions 20 years earlier so I fail to see how they're relevant.

    The actual news leak of that time that almost changed history was an anti-FDR newspaper in Chicago mindlessly printing the news that we were reading the Japanese naval code before Midway.

    If that had leaked to Japan or Germany, it could have really made the next 3+ years of war a lot harder than they were already, but by some miracle this leak was squelched. The Navy hit the roof and wanted to prosecute, but that would have just publicized it more.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, Bellingham Bill said:

    tr6 says

    On the other hand the money that's taken in as taxes could be loaned to "students" to make 8% a year.

    it could, yes, but student loans are about 3% of .gov's current outgo

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, Bellingham Bill said:

    my only point re taxation vs. bond sales was that in the latter case the bonds are still on the buyer's balance sheet -- so as taxation decreased 1980s to now, the net worth of "savers" aka rich people necessarily increased more vs. the prior regime of higher tax exactions.

    I agree with iwog that deficit spending itself was and is highly redistributive. How could anyone disagree, LOL

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in Middle Class Wealth Gone!, Bellingham Bill said:

    iwog says

    Someone making the claim that the national debt or deficit spending CAUSES wealth disparity needs to step up and make a case or shut the hell up. It's a ridiculous claim.

    Pretty simple case to make here; deficit spending is essentially substituting borrowing for taxation.

    Instead of exacting taxes from someone, .gov is selling them a bond.

    The former reduces personal wealth, the latter accrues interest for the holder (or did in the past at least).
    tr6 says

    but instead he negotiated with Republicans and did not get anything in return

    Back in 2010 the GOP was holding hostage such things as the emergency unemployment benefits for people out of work longer than 26 weeks.

    The president doesn't really negotiate with Congress -- he doesn't have a vote, other than the power to veto bills completely.

    The president's main power here is to go the people and whine how Congress isn't passing his agenda. But the media doesn't want higher taxes on themselves, so that's an uphill battle in this case.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, Bellingham Bill said:

    iwog says

    Stupid people will be the downfall of this country.

    half the electorate has an IQ under 100.

    Throw in people programmed for stupidity -- mainly by fundamentalist religions -- and things are getting dicey.

    When the GOP can count on 30-40% of the country to pull the lever for them to stop babies from being killed and/or prevent gay marriage, things get weird.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, Bellingham Bill said:

    iwog says

    The worst recession wasn't Carter.

    employment went from 80M to 92M under Carter, not bad

    red line is Carter's Fed appointees trying to kill the economy so inflation would go down

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Survey: Pay raises rarer despite strong US hiring, Bellingham Bill said:

    the gap between the red and blue lines is how far we're away from "full employment"

    it's worse actually since half the baby boom is 60-68, and taking even more jobs away from the 20-39 segment, compared to previous decades.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, Bellingham Bill said:

    deepcgi says

    Saving money is bad.

    Putting money in a coffee can buried in the yard is bad.

    Taking 86% of the wealth of the planet -- that's what the top 10% owns -- impoverishes those with 14%, no matter if you call your excess income "savings".

    Voting for politicians who believe that government should also live within its means is bad.

    "Living within our means" is a thought-terminating cliche.

    These same politicians went off and spent THREE TRILLION on wars 2001-2005 and didn't attempt to pay for these at all -- just borrow the money from our trading partners.

    They are liars.

    As the most productive country on the planet -- $100k+ of GDP per worker -- If we were to really "live within our means" we'd have an economy as powerful as Norway's and a populace as happy.

    Encouraging economic policies where energy, homes, and other costs of living decrease is bad.

    No politician can run on a platform of reducing the cost of housing, since most voters own. Hell, Texas politicians -- your guys -- recently made it harder for renters to vote (renters move more and so their papers are less likely to be in order).

    Those nasty evil republicans want to spend the credit card money, too, but they are evil because they want to spend it overseas and on wars and on people that are even richer than you are.

    Yes, the GOP has thrown away TRILLIONS on waste, spending money and we're not any richer for it, POORER actually since we had to consume resources like copper, concrete, steel, and oil to make that malinvestment.

    How many GM cars did our occupation leave in Iraq? You don't even want to know!

    The bottom line is we need to figure out how to re-start the class war and give the lower 99% of this economy a break -- a New Deal or Fair Deal.

    This does not necessarily have to be a Democratic vs. Republican issue though -- it is REALLY a LEFT vs RIGHT issue, and it's only contingent accident that the parties are aligned this way now.

    Socialized medicine. Export economy. Housing & Energy policy. More public transit. Looks a bit Communist if you ask me, actually.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in The implications of being right about stocks, Bellingham Bill said:

    iwog says

    It's obvious that idle cash is what drives rates lower, not the federal reserve.

    and the Fed has been pumping out the cash!

    That's the mid-90s regime change.

    Also, too, I guess fractional-reserve lending is also pumping the money supply
    in parallel.

    total debt / GDP

    the mid-90s rise in M3 was offset by a stable debt-GDP ratio.

    Then the Greenspan Miracle fell apart in 2001 and everyone had to leverage up to maintain their consumption, first households 2002-2007 then .gov 2008-now.

    I agree that the Fed is pushing on a string now, but it's always been in their power to PULL on that string, and historically when they done so the economy has tanked rather hard -- each recession prior to 4Q07 was due to the Fed tapping the brakes.

    The Fed totally changed the game in 2008 to preserve the status quo. This was the right play, but if they handn't intervened, we'd still be in recession and all prices would be down, just like they fell in the 1930s.

    There's more intervention BS holding up our current system than what we had in the 1930s, that's for sure. Debt is an ugly master.

  • On 20 Oct 2014 in Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefi, Bellingham Bill said:

    marcus says

    I'm concerned about inflation happening now, because it seems unlikely that wages can keep up.

    price inflation is part of the price-discovery mechanism.

    if wages can't "keep up", price rises stop as suppliers run out of sales.

    granted, that's just half-assed theory and economics really, really needs to model the high-rent sectors -- real estate and healthcare, each ~$3T -- better.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in The implications of being right about stocks, Bellingham Bill said:

    iwog says

    Anyone who claims that my real estate investments were bailed out by the federal reserve is stunningly stupid and ignorant of some very easy to obtain financial numbers.

    I'd make that claim. In 2009 we were heading for the 1929-33 experience, but they cut it off early.

    By 2010 total jobs had fallen to 1999 levels, knocking us back to dotcom recession levels:

    FTE was even worse:

    By 2010 we were 15 MILLION people short of the full-employment trend (78% of age 25-64).

    In the teeth of the recession the treasury was borrowing $200B/month to keep the lights on --

    $700B of that was an increase in foreign holdings of UST over 2010.

    I don't know anything but I do know that Greenspan changed the dollar regime in the mid-1990s to facilitate the rapid expansion of trade in the USD bloc.

    Now, I don't know why M2 was flat for the early 1990s recession, but it was.

    Back in 2009-2010 I thought we'd repeat that, with a vengeance, as the $3T housing bubble debt overhang continued to collapse, taking the Potemkin Economy it had created along with it.

    But the crash was arrested in 2009-2010 and we've had something resembling a decent expansion every month since.

    Just to get us back to where we were in 2007, but that's a lot better than what "should" have happened, had the Fed not pulled out the stops in 2008 and allowed our economy to take our medicine like the 1990s.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in Losing the War on Coal, Bellingham Bill said:

    Because there's money to be made by someone paying people to dig it out of the ground, preferably as cheaply as possible, i.e. removing the overburden and moving on.

    being pro-coal is a right-wing shibboleth, along with pro-Israel, pro-Bible, etc.

    one more thing for Fox to wind up the masses with.

  • On 19 Oct 2014 in ALERT! Obama Signs Executive Order to Microchip All Credit Cards Read more at ht, Bellingham Bill said:

    We won't be using paper money in my lifetime, for sure.

    I go months without touching the stuff as it is.

    This is only a concern to you if you're a right-wing nutjob.

    pass the tinfoil, man

    paper currency is not money, it represents money you've taken out of your account at your friendly neighborhood financial institution

    Money is just a $ followed by some numbers.

    welcome to the 21st century, LOL

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 238 milliseconds to create.