Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 23 Apr 2014 in A $58,000,000 severance, mell said:

    bob2356 says

    mell says

    What I was saying that you would not see this sort of compensation if it wasn't for the bailouts and cheap credit because any company who would attempt to do so would go bust

    Obviously you've never heard of the 80's or 90's or housing boom. Plenty of huge compensation packages happened pre bailouts. How exactly would they go bust?

    What? YHOO - which has great libraries but nonetheless - would have had a hard time making it through 2008 without the bailouts, credit was rightfully tight and banks were calling in loan facilities. You can be sure that $58.000.000 golden parachutes would NEVER have materialized. It's the same crap the TBTFs are now peddling claiming that they have to "retain talent" with "competitive pay" AKA million dollar bonuses. It's bullshit. In times of economic boom you obviously encounter escalating pay, but certainly not during a major recession.

  • On 21 Apr 2014 in The happiest profession is being independently wealthy, mell said:

    Rin says

    I think the idea is that no HF stays small forever but at the same time, without a legitimate transition into a bigger operation, it'll appear that everyone's bailing which then lowers the book value.

    Most hedge funds are not true hedge funds anymore in the traditional sense and are prone to blow up whenever the next crisis hits, esp. when they become big, because they become harder to manage and they start sticking with certain strategies. A true hedge fund should stay small and split if necessary and be able to always open long and short positions and trade any asset class (from futures, soybeans, currencies, to gold) at any given day with plenty of international exposure. They make less in times like the past 5 years where index funds and dumb hedge funds ramp up on a long only market, but when it turns volatile they shine and the risk is always hedged.

  • On 21 Apr 2014 in Actually Fixing Our Economy, mell said:

    Strategist says

    Restricting lending when an economy is in danger of a depression would have disastrous consequences.

    Nobody restricted lending, the market restricted itself from previously foolish (or calculated by the benefiting middle-men) lending practices. It would have put a lid on prices, rents etc. for quite a while and allowed the return of reasonable price discovery.

    Strategist says

    If they don't fully succeed in mopping it up at that time we could start seeing some serious inflation.

    Has already arrived. Just because there is no hyperinflation (which IMO is hard to encounter in a reserve currency without a brutal currency confidence crisis) doesn't mean there is no inflation. There is stagflation, wages cannot keep up with the significant inflation we have been having (which in the long term may look like deflationary pressure but in contrast to price correcting deflation stagflation is very bad), and a lot of items/services, incl. houses and rents, stocks are overpriced again. Financialization has made these good look cheaper than they are and retail is being screwed over again.

  • On 21 Apr 2014 in Actually Fixing Our Economy, mell said:

    Strategist says

    indigenous says

    Ok but would that handle the state's overspending?

    I think the problem started with the US going off of the gold standard and to a floating exchange rate. The solution seems to me to get rid of the floating exchange rate.

    Going on the gold standard is too restrictive for monetary policy.

    If they were on the gold standard they would not be able to pump the needed $4trillion into the economy to prevent a depression.

    We would be exchanging messages in a soup line.

    Absolutely not. There were plenty of people (throughout all classes) and responsible lenders who had formed capital which is necessary for a sound economy that could and would have benefited from the prices corrections. There is no need to pump anything into the economy, and there is no free lunch, those 4 trillion will have to be paid back by the future taxpayers, which makes this a criminal act of coercion. Sure its doesn't have to be the gold standard, though that would be much better than what we have now, the fiat faith standard, what you need is restricting lending to require that every dollar lent MUST be backed by one dollar of collateral. Once you abolish fractional reserve lending, there will be no runaway debt like there is now.

  • On 21 Apr 2014 in The happiest profession is being independently wealthy, mell said:

    Rin says

    Very simple, I'm here because my entire work day is about being on the phone with clients & attending meetings. My eye is always on the IM, waiting for someone to ask me a stupid question.

    As a former STEM person, that type of stuff drives one nuts, esp once you do 50 hours per week or more of it. I could deal with it, being 20% of the job but 100% is a lot of BS, even for a semi-patient person.

    And thus, this forum with its off the cuff remarks about housing, tech, politics, etc, is the perfect release value from a day of abject mindlessness.

    I love this guy.

  • On 20 Apr 2014 in The happiest profession is being independently wealthy, mell said:

    Good for him they were still underrated despite their success.

  • On 20 Apr 2014 in It's not the fed, mell said:

    marcus says

    The fed is like a catalyst for wealth creation,

    The Fed does not create wealth, it transfers wealth from the middle-class to the uber-wealthy by levitating stocks and other assets with exorbitant valuations and bringing inflation that the wages cannot match, while creating a massive balance sheet of debt that is nothing but a forward promise on future labor from future wage slaves, aka the children, who are getting fucked over without having any say in it.

  • On 20 Apr 2014 in Economics new Einstein, mell said:

    Increasing inequality has been the revived and accelerated policy since starting the 2008 bailouts. Have the well earning wage slaves pay for all the have-nots' entitlements, making it as hard as possible to achieve financial independence, bringing vertical upward mobility close to zero while letting the 1% (actually the 0.1 %) increase their asset wealth by levitating the housing and stock market and causing massive inflation in essential goods and services. Any economic theory contrary to this neo-keynesian crony capitalist bullshit will be vindicated and I predict more countries will move to simpler tax systems without "special" deductions and a sound money policy that includes a solid stockpile of gold or other precious metals.. and they will prosper.

  • On 20 Apr 2014 in Illinois House Committee Wants Taxpayers to Spend $100 Million on Obama Library, mell said:

    It will also greet people with a huge banner propagating: "You didn't build that, I did - with your money!"

  • On 20 Apr 2014 in Bay Area Obamacare mystery: Where are the patients?, mell said:

    curious2 says

    I would have preferred the nasal spray,

    I'd stick with the traditional shot. The nasal spray is very new and injecting a live-attenuated so close to the brain is not a good idea IMO, at least I'd wait until long-term studies are available. Plus you shed the vaccine for weeks and may pass it on to others who don't want it or cannot take it for health reasons.

  • On 20 Apr 2014 in Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office, mell said:

    bob2356 says

    mell says

    "vulture capitalist"

    Vulture capitalists are parasites also. They massively enrich themselves by destroying peoples lives with the loopholes in the rules they used their power to create.

    Why is it the right wingnuts believe that corporate manipulation of the government to further and further enrich themselves is a noble enterprise, while people collecting food stamps is parasitic?

    First this was not about food-stamps. While I may agree that quite a few businesses certainly would not qualify as "noble" there is a big difference in forcefully transferring money from the taxpayer for bailouts and 100 million dollar salaries/bonuses/parachutes vs picking up the remains of a failed or struggling company, transforming it and selling it for a profit. A huge, insurmountable difference.

  • On 19 Apr 2014 in Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office, mell said:

    clambo says

    Romney isn't a parasite, he pays taxes.

    Want a parasite? Robert Rubin was paid $120 million by Citibank AFTER the US taxpayer bailed it out for stupidity of people there like Rubin.

    True dat! It's logic you cannot resist when people are trying to justify the bailouts while pointing their finger at Romney the "vulture capitalist" boogeyman ;)

  • On 19 Apr 2014 in What if Bundy had been a deadbeat black man or native american?, mell said:

    lostand confused says

    If I buy 100 acres of agricultural land and lease it to a farmer for say 10-20 years -does it mean that at some point in time, he gets to own the land????

    That's not what he's arguing. He's arguing that the land was owned by the family well before the agency was established. It's an interesting claim. At best, there could be some constitutional merit to it, at worst he is simply trying to create his own prop 13. Not really that crazy. The Feds on the other side have a good argument as well, however bringing in the SWAT team is completely fucked up. People are sympathizing because TBTFs laundering blood money are getting bailed out left and right and at best get a slap on the wrist via a laughable fine while somebody not paying their couple hundred - or make it thousand - bucks is getting swatted. The rule of law has been abandoned and I expect to see more of this until this crony administration starts prosecuting bankstas, the Federal Reserve and the likes of Corzine, Mozillo etc.

  • On 19 Apr 2014 in Washington Times is batshit-GlennBeck-crazy, mell said:

    Those are just paid ads appearing almost everywhere - pecunia non olet! The same ads are being served by google on almost any website that participates in their kickback program. You're not supposed to read everything you believe anyways.

  • On 18 Apr 2014 in Five groups that lie about the housing market, mell said:

    iwog says

    Most people buy a house with 10-20% down meaning their leverage is 10:1 or 5:1. The best you can do with the stock market is 2:1.

    Therefore a 10% rise in the real estate market can make a person more money than a 30% rise in the stock market.

    Furthermore your losses aren't limited in the stock market while your losses are usually limited to your down payment in real estate.

    LOL. You just summed up everything that's wrong with the housing market (not that I disagree with some of the "strategic" advantages). You want to fix the economy? Lower capital gains taxes for long-term investments, remove all the crony legislature around housing and apply the same rules of leverage for money spent regardless of the sector/item. Still clambo's argument about liquidity holds.

  • On 18 Apr 2014 in Voters open to tweaking prop 13, mell said:

    Zakrajshek says

    13 has some good points, mainly that a house owner knows what his taxes will be in the future, and that they will be reasonable.

    People have no idea what their taxes will be in the future and if they will be reasonable. Why should the housing market be exempted? While I'm for lower taxes in general, this is a prime example of crony capitalism.

  • On 18 Apr 2014 in A $58,000,000 severance, mell said:

    JH says

    You pay taxes? This is your money. Even if you don't pay taxes, you are paying in the form of a deflated dollar.

    Way too much taxes, it's fucking robbery. What I was saying that you would not see this sort of compensation if it wasn't for the bailouts and cheap credit because any company who would attempt to do so would go bust against more economic competitors almost instantly. Yes, this is our money, but it's after the fact. You get what you voted for, more of the same. It's a one party system robbing the taxpayer.

  • On 18 Apr 2014 in It's not the fed, mell said:

    What? The Fed is still buying like there's no tomorrow, you call this a significant taper? LOL. The market has been flat to slightly down YTD and rates have risen by a full point. The market has been fairly resilient and a small part of the recovery was organic, but the impact of the Fed has been clearly proven looking at the last 6 years and the slow-down in the market and slow rise in interest rates pretty much correlates with the smallish taper the Fed has begun.

  • On 18 Apr 2014 in A $58,000,000 severance, mell said:

    Who cares? As opposed to the money the Fed has been printing this is yahoo's money. This information is public, as are mgmt compensations, if shareholders and employees want to take this crap then so be it. They have great technology, but business wise I wouldn't touch yhoo stock with a 10 ft pole. You got your bailouts and QE ad infinity, so don't complain that the excessive executive management salary party was resumed right away after a brief halt in 2008 - it's 1999 again! ;)

  • On 15 Apr 2014 in hep c drug that sells for 900 elsewhere, goes for 84,000 in america, mell said:

    Dan8267 says

    errc says

    hep c drug that sells for 900 elsewhere, goes for 84,000 in america

    But I thought the free market was the most efficient way to allocate resources!

    There is nothing free about a market where thugs arrest you if you buy stuff priced reasonably in one place and try to resell it in another place where its priced to extortion.

  • On 15 Apr 2014 in hep c drug that sells for 900 elsewhere, goes for 84,000 in america, mell said:

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3352311

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Middle Class was "Fed" to the Sharks, mell said:

    Reality says

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    The retirees would not have had to take the risk if they did not have to chase yield due to FED suppression of yield on much more secure instruments that the retirees had been familiar with

    Maybe, maybe not. Most retirees cannot afford to live off a savings account returns.

    Retirees lived off savings account returns for much of banking history. The central banks suppressing the savings account yield to such a low rate as to make it impossible is a relatively recent phenomenon.

    Agreed.

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Middle Class was "Fed" to the Sharks, mell said:

    Reality says

    AAA rating is an opinion expressed by the rating agency. Read the prospectus yourself, the risk is clearly stated in every damn single rating opinion/statement.

    Jut because you have a prospectus that says caveat emptor doesn't make everything legal. This is tricky and fraud was committed at multiple levels. While it may be hard to hold the rating agencies liable, it is very easy to hold GS et al liable when you have emails bragging about selling 'that crap' to gullible investors after getting it AAA rubberstamped. Madoffs accounts were also audited fine for years. IMO auditors have to be held liable as well as rating agencies, everybody has to have skin in the game. If this leads to less auditors and rating agencies, no problem ;)

  • On 11 Apr 2014 in Middle Class was "Fed" to the Sharks, mell said:

    tatupu70 says

    mell says

    It is the most significant reason. How anybody can think that giving billions of dollars to bankstas and billions of dollars to buy MBS every month does not erode the middle-class massively is beyond common sense.

    OK--please explain in detail how the Fed overpaying for MBS assets is adversely affecting the middle class.

    It increases rents and house prices artificially and benefits those who own housing. The middle-class will either overpay in rent or try to slave off a lifetime to pay for an overpriced shack only to be foreclosed upon the next crisis by which the rich can unload whereas the middle-class has to live in their shack. People point out that on the long term this can have deflationary effects, which may be true in absolute numbers, but what's important is the wages to cost of living ratio and that is worsening significantly under these Fed policies. Also buying MBS increases the likelyhood of bad loans to be made and money skimmed off immediately on forward promises of future labor.

  • On 10 Apr 2014 in Middle Class was "Fed" to the Sharks, mell said:

    tatupu70 says

    curious2 says

    In other words, you've confirmed the OP headline. It isn't BS, it's even confirmed by your own preferred source, the Fed itself.

    Nope--the OP implied that the Fed was the reason the middle class is being eroded. Which is incorrect.

    It is the most significant reason. How anybody can think that giving billions of dollars to bankstas and billions of dollars to buy MBS every month does not erode the middle-class massively is beyond common sense.

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

Page took 206 milliseconds to create.