Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 30 Oct 2014 in One More Crisis and the Fuckers Will Have it All., mell said:

    sbh says

    Whoa, whoa, wait a minute there bubba, we're supposed to be in a tailspin the MOMENT the end of QE was announced. The permabears, Libertarians, hyperinflationists, deflationary depressionists, and arch-christian Teabag apocalypse leghumpers all guaranfuckingteed it. Bob is on another thread demanding the wingnuts account for no ebola pandemic in Dallas, but I set my cap for an economic collapse. You guys promised me. You said we were gonna get it and you owe me.

    I didn't promise anything, I am merely observing continued stagflation eroding the middle-class. And this is worse because it is not as obvious as a cathartic correction that actually reduces wealth disparity and takes the economy off of the Fed fiat and low interest rate spigot, but instead the wealth inequality keeps widening and makes the debt-serfs even more debt-drunk so they will claim again when the next crisis hits that they need to be bailed out, then rinse and repeat until there's mainly 1%ers and 47%ers left.

  • On 30 Oct 2014 in LETTERMANS (a known liberal) TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT, mell said:

    Great points - although they don't apply to liberals in the classical, real sense - they are aimed at the so-called "progressives" or "progressive democrats". I also agree with Iwog on the Clinton impeachment, but that's just political theater. Both parties are done for and these side-shows are really a distraction from terrible fiscal policies indebting future generations and eroding the middle-class. Time to go Libertarian.

  • On 30 Oct 2014 in One More Crisis and the Fuckers Will Have it All., mell said:

    sbh says

    mell says

    Direct consequence of QE and bailouts. When you bail out the rich, the rich become richer.

    But now asset prices and prices of everything will collapse and the libertarian organic repair will begin. This is the rise in living standards you've been begging for. An Escalade will cost a buck and you'll fill the tank for a penny. Iwog will be out on the streets cause rent will collapse. You can buy your BA mansion for 5 grand. Why aren't you rejoicing?

    I don't think that will happen though I would certainly rejoice if I could buy a home in the bay area for roughly half of today's price. Prices will come down, but the Fed doesn't have to unwind all its assets at once and as long as global QE is on the dollar will be somewhat of a safe haven and interest rates will stay low fro a while.

  • On 30 Oct 2014 in One More Crisis and the Fuckers Will Have it All., mell said:

    Direct consequence of QE and bailouts. When you bail out the rich, the rich become richer.

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in I'm liquidating all my stocks and going to cash, mell said:

    zzyzzx says

    iwog says

    They are approximately 3 months apa

    OK, so now you are predicting a 20% correction by the end of January 2015, right?

    It's a moving target, the prerogative of very few ;)

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in Most Expensive Housing Markets in US are Liberal: Correlation or Cause?, mell said:

    myob says

    I've argued for a long time that wealth precedes liberalism, not vice versa. It takes a lot of wealth to have the disposable income to even consider left wing politics, such as redistribution, welfare, subsidies, etc. The wealthiest with most disposable income support the notion of "helping" via taxing wealth away, since it doesn't impact them in any meaningful way. They trust the government, so they don't see the harm done by these policies, and only think of the feel-good part of "helping", don't consider the harm this does to people at the margin.

    That's correct. It is a win-win for the wealthiest to have the Fed and the government float their asset bubbles while the wage-slaves are being taxed to the hilt for their hard work. They support and finance both parties which really is one. People feel better if they support "progressive" democratic politics seemingly aimed at the rich when in reality the wage-slaves bear the full brunt of the cost. Let's face it, without doctors, nurses, programmers, small biz owners etc. the 47% would be totally fucked, so they continue to vote for the politics to ass-rape those immediately above them which are also a much easier target to mooch off of. The result is a diminishing middle and upper middle-class.

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in California Leads Housing Slowdown, Case-Shiller House Prices Decline For 4 Month, mell said:

    landtof says

    CDon says

    Putting aside all the intervening rent paid in the last 5 years, is anyone here willing to go on record and say that the SF Case Shiller will indeed smash below the 3/09 level of 117.71 so as to justify the last 5 years of waiting on the sidelines?

    this is a fair question.

    In nominal terms it's pretty unlikely as the Fed and the government keep debasing the currency. Doesn't mean it's a good investment though and certainly not one that you can turn your back on and sell within an instant, so you better be liquid.

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in Permanent Damage to US Economy, mell said:

    jazz music says

    APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

    A tax cut would fix everything.

    We've proven that time and time again.

    Wow, you might actually be Sarah Palin.

    That would be a trip.

    A tax cut on the wage-slaves would indeed be a good start.

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in 5.5 million eye giving up US citizenship-due to Obozo's FATCA, mell said:

    bob2356 says

    And if you are a retiree in Languedoc-Roussillon or Calabria (something I am very seriously considering in the near future)

    Calabria, Apuglia, Sicily - all beautiful! Slow pace, great wine, good food and low cost of living.

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in Atlas Shrugging?, mell said:

    FortWayne says

    Tax dodging corporations are unpatriotic.

    Sure it is, but so is taking money for yourself that isn't there while indebting future generations, so is mortgage deduction, "strategically" defaulting, FHA, advocating the bailouts, QE. This division between the corporation and the people is artificial, they learn from each other.

  • On 28 Oct 2014 in Atlas Shrugging?, mell said:

    Vicente says

    mell says

    you hate her because she is holding up a mirror in front of you when freely talking about and admitting to human selfishness.

    What kind of mirror was she holding up? Apparently one that showed her men like William Hickman:

    http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html

    I was thinking more like Iwog whose stance on the Mayans is quite similar to her stance on the native Indians. Add some government boondoggles such as mortgage deduction, prop 13 while bashing others for their quest for lower taxes, and you may have a love affair.

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Atlas Shrugging?, mell said:

    You guys have a strange fascination for her, which sort of proves her points. You like her because although often cited by nowadays Republicans she had many views very much to the contrary of mainstream conservatives (e.g. abortion, religion).
    And you hate her because she is holding up a mirror in front of you when freely talking about and admitting to human selfishness.

  • On 27 Oct 2014 in Homeowner in rich neighborhood tired of passing out candy to poor kids, mell said:

    marcus says

    Yeah right. Those liberals are practically fascists these days. I long for the olden days 40 to 50 years ago, before the liberals ruined this country, with all their fascist welfare for the takers, and their holier than though talk about the environment, and climate change, and "toerance." Fricking bleeding heart idiots act as if mankind and the planet are supposed to exist for more than another few generations.

    (this message was approved by the Koch brothers)

    The original liberals have nothing to do with the modern day progressives/democrats.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in Homeowner in rich neighborhood tired of passing out candy to poor kids, mell said:

    Let's not forget that just because some wage-slave lives in an expensive neighborhood, it doesn't mean they are flush with cash. It is common in SF that your friend is suddenly "unable" to split the cab ride because they are tapped out on their crap-shack mortgage.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in Homeowner in rich neighborhood tired of passing out candy to poor kids, mell said:

    \landtof says

    100% correct. leave the oligarchs alone, assail the middle class (while taxing the shit out of them), and propagate generosity to the lower class as a mandatory responsibility.

    this playbook is getting old. the new american secular church of progressive thought is oppressive, intolerant, and downright fascist.

    one can only hope that the lower class realizes how this system perpetuates their condition further - and that when the middle class pariah is finally tapped dry and banished to other areas of the country, it's game over.

    Agreed.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in Some of us have had enough of Democrats & Republicans., mell said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    Independent and NPA registered voters are more than 1/3 of the registered voters. That "Stealing votes" rap is getting old. We're now the majority and should start demanding changes to our rigged and fixed voting system.

    CaptainShuddup says

    My guess America has grown so fucking stupid over the years, that eventually we will be a nation of 75% or more of Independent registered voters, and the Idiot Left and Right will still come up with a zillion excuses as to why they should be so privileged to chose the primary winners that the remaining 75% of the voters are EXPECTED to vote for... Less they be stealing votes from a true Liberal or Republican scumbag.

    Agreed.

  • On 26 Oct 2014 in Cronyism from the left going to Hollywood, mell said:

    bob2356 says

    Interesting BRK has gotten out of these this year. Buffet must see a shitload of municipal bankruptcies coming down the pike.

    He got out of those because he realized that these are weapons of financial destruction. You would have seen more municipal bankruptcies, of course looking at a past-tarp/QE lense it doesn't look that bad. But they will show up again if spending isn't curbed and there is no indication of it. I also wonder why you did not address the last article from the street and keep riding that exposure thing. Last time they DID have direct CDS exposure, the numbers vary a little as CDS are hard to track:

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11858752/1/buffett-barely-survived-berkshires-omaha-whale.html

    "In 2008, Berkshire also wrote $4 billion in individual swaps guaranteeing the bonds of 42 corporations, trades the firm indicated didn't require initial collateral. Berkshire wrote a further credit protection of $18 billion in notional value tied to the bonds of states and municipalities, the 2009 filing shows, putting the firm's CDS exposure at about $30 billion, at its crisis-time peak."

    Sure you can keep saying they are all wrong (Gara used to work at Lehman), we don't know for sure. The reality is much simpler, that there are no oracle traders.

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, mell said:

    tatupu70 says

    mell says

    Japan's real wages keep falling, unemployment rising and demand stagnant => stagflation

    That's not stagflation. Japan's inflation rate hovered around 1% in 2013 and after starting the year at under 2%, it's now up to a whopping 3.5%. Nobody in their right mind would consider that stagflation.

    It's not the Fed folks.

    Rising unemployment = check, stagnating demand = check, rising inflation = check => stagflation. Oh, and Japan has rising income/wealth disparity, esp. since turning on the fiat spigot. It's the Fed.

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in Cronyism from the left going to Hollywood, mell said:

    indigenous says

    mell says

    Their estimated total exposure was close to 500 billion.

    AIG did not get that big by being stupid, how did that happen? I'm assuming big leverage, but still?

    No idea, they also weren't hedged (which doesn't fully guarantee that you aren't on the hook one or more significant counterparties go down), i.e. they only sold but didn't buy CDS, which was mostly unheard of, and they dabbled in foreign nations' debts. Probably best not to do business with anybody who does business with CDS.

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in Cronyism from the left going to Hollywood, mell said:

    indigenous says

    A little off topic but you said that AIG's exposure was about 50 billion. AIG has assets of what a trillion dollars? Was this a liquidity problem?

    That was what that dude in the discussion gleaned from looking at the dtcc website back then, which doesn't cover a lot of obligations AIG took on worldwide. Their estimated total exposure was close to 500 billion. That's another problem with these instruments, they are sliced and diced and difficult to track. It's prudent to assume that no company with debt on its books back then and significant exposure to the CDS and derivatives market was safe from going BK, especially since mark-to-market became worthless during the crisis as the markets underneath them literally disappeared (no liquidity), rendering them worthless when they needed to be sold. Asset numbers don't mean much unless you are forced to sell them or you actually sell them, even secured debt is only secured as long as the debtor is solvent. That;'s why nobody wanted to buy even an until-then reputable company such as BRK back then. So yes, liquidity had a lot to do with it. Companies real valuations differed vastly depending on when you measured, before or after the Fed stepped in. Way into 2009 most of the (liquidity) risk was assumed/absorbed by the Fed and its infinite zero percent discount windows, so valuations started climbing rapidly again. Doesn't mean you can bank on them though ;)

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in Cronyism from the left going to Hollywood, mell said:

    The Professor says

    Argue the facts, don't make personal attacks.

    Agreed.

    bob2356 says

    What does that have anything to do with cds owned by BRK.

    indigenous says

    If not than where was the danger of them going belly up?

    They were quite leveraged, the numbers vary a bit because with CDS exact math is impossible, but the exposure was significant enough to potentially go belly up.

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11858752/1/buffett-barely-survived-berkshires-omaha-whale.html

    "In 2008, Berkshire also wrote $4 billion in individual swaps guaranteeing the bonds of 42 corporations, trades the firm indicated didn't require initial collateral. Berkshire wrote a further credit protection of $18 billion in notional value tied to the bonds of states and municipalities, the 2009 filing shows, putting the firm's CDS exposure at about $30 billion, at its crisis-time peak."

    30 billion is nothing to sneeze at and around Berkshires net valuation at that time.

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in Republicans, bad for America, mell said:

    Dan8267 says

    I disagree with you that the difference is significant. Libertarians may state in principle that they are for social freedoms, but in practice libertarians are typically Republicans that just don't give a damn about social issues one way or another.

    In any case, the libertarian philosophy that there should be no laws against pollution and that the oceans should be privately owned are bad policies. Furthermore, libertarian economic policies are essentially the same as Republican policies, which do harm the economy.

    Dan, I agree that some of these are important issues that needs to be addressed and fought out should a Libertarian rise to significant power, but I claim that the outcome will still be favorable for this country overall. Nobody and no party is perfect. The problem I have with the so-called progressives which have taken a strong foothold in the Dems is that they don't even get to important topics such as the debt, deficit-spending, the environment, the wars anymore, because they are completely consumed with and enraged by sideshow social non-topics that have absolutely nothing to do with civil rights or civil liberties.

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in Republicans, bad for America, mell said:

    indigenous says

    Peter Schiff indicated that he did 4 hr of video that was cut down to a few soundbytes and completely out of context. It should be no trouble to find the clip. I'm not going to waste my time but this does appear to be his MO.

    Yeah, that was a pretty despicable, but well done hack-job. For example Schiff highlighted the inclusion of somewhat mentally challenged people into the workforce for simplistic jobs at a low salary and they spun it to make him look like he attacked that group, knowing very well that the alternative for those people is to live and work parallel to the "normal" society in special homes and artificial workplaces.

  • On 25 Oct 2014 in It's not the fed, mell said:

    Japan's real wages keep falling, unemployment rising and demand stagnant => stagflation, the result of excessive money printing. Discussing whether hyperinflation arrived or will arrive or not is a sideshow used to distract from the fact that pretty much everybody has woken up to the fact that QE fucks up the economy and that the Keynesian wet dream was just that. Btw. to insinuate that Japan is cheap is laughable as well, it's cost of living is quite high (considering the local purchasing power). It's the Fed folks.. ;)

  • On 24 Oct 2014 in QE 101 tatupu: How Quantitative Easing Contributed to the Nations Inequality, mell said:

    tatupu70 says

    mell says

    Ah but they didn't. Why acquire even more assets at considerable tail risk? Once the Fed removed all the tail risk it was a no-brainer. A house is just one example of such an asset, but one of the important ones since the housing market is where a considerable amount of the fiat money that removed the tail risk went.

    Of course they did. It's easy to account for tail risk in a present value calculation and the wealthy certainly can and do. When the price is low enough, they buy.

    No they didn't - except for our resident clairvoyants. That was the whole premise of the "stimulus". Maybe they would have if the prices dropped more, but by then plenty of my lower-middle class to middle-class friends may have pulled the trigger and bought in. Several were on the fence of buying a house. Now you can say that the Fed signal came to everybody at roughly the same time, but you simply have much less of a window once big money drives up the price because the tail risk was removed.

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

Page took 228 milliseconds to create.