My definition of racism :obstruction to equal access to all the tools necessary to make one's life better.harassment free environment is one of them.
free money is not one of them.
I hear lot of this on TV but can people come up with a list of items that prevent people of different races to succeed in life ?
i don't care about other peoples opinions , bias ..etc .as long as it does not prevent me from succeeding and leading a worry free life if i am law abiding.who else shares that opinion ?
racism is alive but reasonably low enough for people to move on and focus on other bottlenecks that prevent them from succeeding.
No, just imagine Martin beat Zimmerman to death and then pleads stand ground/ self defense.
"He yelled at me from a car after watching me, so I ran. He then followed me on foot, I got scared, and tackled him. I wanted to run away but he started reaching for his fire arm so I repeatedly punched him until he didn't move anymore. I was scared for my life."
It basically makes the person left alive absolved because they are the only ones left to paint the self defense story.
essentially, the law says that either you suck it up to any bully who has a gun/run from the scene or face death.
actually i have a question for all the guys who support this law.
if some guy with a gun came and spit on you. what would do ?
if you fight back and it becomes dangerous ( like 99% fist fights), he will kill you. so do you just wipe you face and avoid any confrontation?
we know the guy will not be going to jail for murder just because he spit on you .
nobody will even know what happened.
only an idiot can come up with such a law.
just imagined a "story" that might happen in Florida:
A Guy named X went in to a bar with his girlfriend. Another guy Y made a dirty joke on X's girlfriend. fight started..during the exchange of punches, the guy Y was getting beaten severely when Y suddenly pulled a gun and shot X.
How many such cases do we want to see before we call the current stand your ground law B.S ? its high time to redefine it.
when only one guy has the gun, do we want all the fights to end up with the other guy getting killed ?
if one person has a gun and another does not, what would prevent the former from pushing the situation to such an extreme that he finally gets a chance to shoot and kill. if the other person does not respond , the bullying will continue from the former.
So its either getting bullied or getting killed !! - guaranteed by your very own stand your ground law
i can see only two solutions :
1) everybody carries a gun and can kill the other person in self defense.this will prevent bullying. people will be very polite to each other. if we go by that logic, actually if people can carry grenades, it will increase the politeness even further ;-)
2) redefine stand your ground law
Disagree, it is irrelevant. You subscribe to the meme that says this is an indicator of growth, NO it is not.
so you believe GDP is not indicator of growth.
I rest my case then. looks like we are wasting our time with you. looks like you already understand that you lost your argument and are just grasping for straws. bye and on ignore list.
A million dollar debt doesn't burden a $10 million GDP economy any less than a $2 million debt burdens a $20 million GDP
Tautology and irrelevant
indigenous : this is not irrelevant. This is very important and critical concept for this discussion.
a guy working in burger king taking a 2K loan is same as a millionaire taking a 100K loan. you cannot discuss the debt without looking at the income/revenue. same concept with GDP.
government investment doesn't produce shit
This is B.S !
you should restate this as : Govt investment does not produce anything as
"Efficiently" as private industry. thats why we only defer things to govt which only govt can do ( and private cannot) and are absolutely needed for the private industry to work efficiently
produce does not necessary have to be producing some widgets. govt is primarily a service industry.
but ceo/top executives salary scales.
Which is completely outside of reason since that single person can't be said to be more effective and worthy of more compensation simply because they sit on a bigger pyramid. Sure they have more responsibility represented in accountability to more people but they also have way more help.
I don't know if its fair or not but the reality is that a person responsible for 100B revenue will get more salary than a person responsible for 1 million dollars.
To answer some Phoenix analysis: the median Phoenix family income is in the mid $40K range; Median rent in this town is about $1300 a month on a single family home. Median price today is $180K. the numbers are very fair. When i started buying the median price was under $120K.
hey robertoaribas ,
what should be the median price based on the historic average trend line ( 30+ years) for your area ?
case shiller also works.
this re affirms my previous statement : you are not wired to handle money.
please don't post any graphs with debt only.
A graph with only debt is useless. debt as a % of GDP is what matters !
yes the personal debt of 30K i have is more than the entire debt that the my forefathers whole village had in year 1700 . does it mean anything ? none.
everything scales with time.
what matters is what is the ratio of my personal debt to my personal income.
That does not explain the debt's geometric growth from 1971 on
what is the explanation for geometric growth of debt from 1920 to 1950 ?
why do you take debt ? why do govt's take on debt ? look for answers elsewhere ..not some thing which happened at the same time but has no causal relationship.
have you ever checked out how much we spent on wars since 1971 ?
Ok lets see the graph of cow sales to Bangladesh.
looks like you didn't get the joke.
if i show a 100% correlation of cow sales to Bangladesh and our debt , will you believe the cause and effect to be true ?
i have an advice for you. never make investment decisions solely by yourself especially if you have a family. your are definitely not wired to handle money. keep it safe someplace and don't mess with it.
But you are saying that happened at exactly the same time we went off of Bretton Woods?
Highly unlikely, and I don't see any reason to consider anything else as neither you or Iwog has suggested anything
actually it happened exactly the same time Bangladesh started importing jersey cows for higher milk production. since both happened at the same time, i think the cows have something to do with our debt.
How do you explain this graph that indicates that is what happens?
you should try to find out instead of finding a scapegoat.do it this time more rationally.
what does the graph have anything to do with fractional reserve banking which existed for
maybe...just may be our govt/public debt has something to do with govt/public taking on more debt ?
Gold has value fiat money not so much. The connection to gold keeps the value in the fiat money.
what is the value of the fiat money if i create 1 trillion dollars money with 1 ounce gold versus 0 ounce of gold ? are you ok with your 1 trillion dollars if it came from 1 ounce of gold versus 0 ounces ?
i am using some exaggeration to prove my point.
how does gold control money supply in fractional reserve system ?
the simple answer : it cannot.
I do agree that a tool they use is adjusting the reserve requirements. They currently use what 10 to 1, with some aspects much higher? What if it was reduced to 3 to 1?
With QE it is increasing the money supply which at some point will come down to the consumer level. The most insidious/regressive tax of all.
The solution is to get rid of the FED.
who decides the reserve requirement and based on what signals ?
why should it be 3:1 why not 1:1 or 100:1 ?
the FACT is that banks had control of the money supply since ages.
Nothing magic happened in recent decades.
We were increasing/decreasing money supply for centuries.
We centralized that process in early part of the this century ( fed).
gold standard does zilch to control money supply in fractional reserve banking ( the only working banking system known)
all the arguments by gold bugs are about money supply as if its something that just started 40 years back. Every bubble starts with "this time is different" just like the gold bubble.
even though warren's intention might be good , there might be un intended consequences. US govt screwed US citizens by creating Fannie mae/Freddie mac and enriched the 1%. the govt should get out of financial markets and should only enforce laws for regulating recklessness and excessive risk taking by banks for the short term benefits of CEO's.
i am investing in USA.
note : not an investment advice for you.
Until we went off Bretton Wood
The gold standard is useless with fractional reserve system.
if i have 1 ounce of gold in bank instead of zero gold (bretton woods) and i print trillion dollars using one ounce of gold (fractional reserve system)...are you happy ?
i am exaggerating to prove a point.
who determines the multiplier in fractional reserve banking ? how is it any different than what fed is doing now ?
We had fractional reserve banking for a very very long time ( earlier than 1600's) ...before even bretton wood.
i just don't get it how the gold standard will fix all the problems in the world ? or maybe gold bugs are talking about no fractional reserve banking and going back to stone ages and just use gold as the only currency or with full reserve banking
I have to say , the gold salesmen who used scare tactics on gullible public to sell them gold have done pretty good job. confusing them with wrong economic theories worked pretty well. in-complete knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge esp in money matters.
most of the bullish ideas on gold originate from the same source...yes you guessed it right : gold salesmen or people who profit when more people buy gold/gold funds.
The main tactic was to go after the fed and current financial system of the world. it worked pretty well till now. but no bubble lasts for ever.
In 1980 CEO pay was approximately 42 times average. In 2011 CEO pay was 343 times higher than average.
Iwog: even though i agree with you that republican tax cuts accelerated the wealth disparity , they are not the only cause. The main reason is the capital/jobs flight to countries which were producing better returns. the tax cuts happened exactly at the wrong time. Tax cuts or increases would not have changed the outsourcing and capital flight anyways.When capital flight was happening, we should have raised the taxes and invested in US ( education, infrastructure, research..etc) to make it more competitive. we did the exact opposite and continue to do so.
the ceo pay should not be compared to the average pay. for example, The ceo pay ratio of a large company will be higher compared to a smaller company doing the same business and paying the same average salary.
example : starbucks selling coffee versus your local town coffee chain. CEO running the Starbucks will get paid more while the store clerk more or less gets the same as your local town coffee chain
A better measure should be ceo pay to company market cap ratio.
Most companies have become global companies in the past 2 decades.
when a company goes global, the pyramid goes taller but the base increases only sideways. basically, the average salary does not scale with company revenue but ceo/top executives salary scales.
most rates are approx 5% for jumbo loans with zero points and no fees.
This is big jump. The home prices will cool down by next summer in most of US. in bay area, there is a mini bubble going on so can't guess the top.
Case shriller index has already reached its historic trend so what do we expect anyways ?
congrats to all who bought with +ve cash flow and are getting more than 7% return on their investment ( initial down). i am guessing +ve cash flow
on most houses will be a thing of the past.
people who bought with mediocre/bad cashflow/returns but speculating on continued capital appreciation in mind will not be sleeping well as rates keep rising and home prices go down or stagnate.
you postulated a drop from 250K to 150K.
Dude , it was just an example ( not real numbers). looks like you are too sensitive to this topic :-)
i just used some numbers to show that a drop in high end price puts pressure on low end as well. there is a domino affect. all housing segments get affected by the overall trend. when that will happen is another discussion.
you are utterly dreaming. There is a shortage of inventory at all price points in phoenix, up to about 500,000. 500K to about 2 million is fairly balanced; If you want to pay more than 2 million, there is more supply than there is demand. (most of the multi million dollar home owner have the strength to be very patient waiting for a buyer)
TODAY, instantly, buyers who are limited by loan to income ratios will have to buy a little less expensive home. That doesn't change a thing about what homes are for sale.
i am not talking about current inventory levels. i was just disputing the assertion that increasing interest rates will only effect ( if at all) high end and now low end.
Actually, the reduced buying power of typical lower middle class buyers pushes them right back into that housing price: the couple who were approved for $220K just a couple weeks ago, now have to fight for a $200K home... Ditto at all price points, pushing buyers right into the most competitive part of the market.
I think rising rates will have zero effect on the lower end of the market;
something is wrong with this analysis. Rising rates will have -ve effect on every type of housing market even though the effect will be slightly different. the increased inventory ( due to reduced demand) on high end will put pressure on the low end as well.
if a 250K home ( high end) falls to 150K, it automatically puts pressure on the house which used to be 150K ( low end) . This happens at every price point.
I don't own GLD and SLV. I write naked options. I've done very well selling calls over the last year or so and haven't executed a stop yet.
extremely risky. i didn't know you are this adventurous.
why not buy some far OTM calls as well to limit your risk ?