patrick.net

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Monday, November 4, 2013 __ Level is 99.8

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

indigenous says

Reality says

The "equality" in socialist societies is an accounting fraud: the real power and wealth is simply not monetized and counted while withheld tightly by the tiny ruling elite and their families.

Can you explain that it is not monetized? I thought that the power came from investing ahead of inflation with cheap money. Or did I answer my own question?

That particular sentence of mine was describing the socialist societies, where power is not monetized. In a post-Englightenment western society with personal liberty, power is monetized so that everyone gets a chance to exercise power one small morsel at a time in the form of money.

Heraclitusstudent says

A 30 yrs old person buying a house will pay substantially more than the 60 yr old who bought the house 30 yrs ago, increasing the difference between those who got the assets ahead of the Fed inflation and those that have to buy them now

And the 30 yr old will have wages much higher than the 60 year old did when he/she bought the house 30 years ago. That's how inflation works. It a net wash.

The problem isn't inflation, it's the trend toward income/wealth inequality where the top 1% keep taking more and more. And leaving less and less for the other 99%.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dollar value is not an arbitrary wealth marker. You use dollars to get groceries and most other things you need.

A 30 yrs old person buying a house will pay substantially more than the 60 yr old who bought the house 30 yrs ago, increasing the difference between those who got the assets ahead of the Fed inflation and those that have to buy them now.

The feds call that "wealth effect".

I call that screwing young people.

Absolutely.

thunderlips11 says

The main reason for a long lifespan is public taxation providing for sanitation in the form of clean water, sewage management, and trash collection.

Not getting sick in the first place is the key.

So why do suburban elitist towns that do not have tax-subsidized trash collection and have no public sewer systems (private septic only) have healthier residents and longer life expectations? Perhaps being wealthy having more to do with life expectancy than taxation does?

tatupu70 says

OK--could you please list a few examples of free market capitalism leading to
improved wealth disparity? Specific time periods? Because I can list several
periods that show the exact opposite of what you state.

1920's competition in automobile market leading to Ford's 70% market share dwindling to being less than that of GM, which was an upstart. Likewise, free market competition has seen IBM's PC division disappearing along with the first clone maker Compaq, both being displaced by upstarts that came later. In both instances, the consumers reap the ultimate benefit. Free market competition means giving consumer freedom of choice . . . that obviously benefit the little guys, both the little consumers and the little upstart corporations. Bureaucratic spending of tax money OTOH almost always benefit the entrenched big existing players: no one gets fired for buying IBM, that's how the bureaucratic mind works.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Everything else government funds out of deficit spending is just an excuse to
give the banksters a cut on the future output of the rest of the society

Really? More than half the budget is military spending. Regardless, you
obviously don't like bankers. Neither do I.

That statistic has been false for many years now. Military spending in peace time does not begin to compare to war time military spending. Even war time military spending is little more than having excuses to fleece the peons . . . by financing wars on both sides.

tatupu70 says

We're not talking about bailouts. That's a once in a century event that will
almost certainly not be repeated. Like I said--new money goes to everything the
government funds.

Once a century? How many centuries were there between 1987's to 1998? to 2000? to 2008? Do you socialists have amnesia or were you born yesterday? The continued existence of the FED is due to the frequent need for bailouts.

Reality says

1920's competition in automobile market leading to Ford's 70% market share dwindling to being less than that of GM, which was an upstart. Likewise, free market competition has seen IBM's PC division disappearing along with the first clone maker Compaq, both being displaced by upstarts that came later. In both instances, the consumers reap the ultimate benefit.

We're talking about wealth disparity. Not monopoly power or market share. Try again.

Reality says

That statistic has been false for many years now. Military spending in peace time does not begin to compare to war time military spending. Even war time military spending is little more than having excuses to fleece the peons . . . by financing wars on both sides.

Nope--it's true. It's 50% even in peacetime. In war time, it's much higher.

Reality says

Once a century? How many centuries were there between 1987's to 1998? to 2000? to 2008? Do you socialists have amnesia or were you born yesterday? The continued existence of the FED is due to the frequent need for bailouts.

Centuries generally refer to 100 year periods. ie, the 1800s, the 1900s, the 2000s, etc. I'm aware of the S&L crisis in the late 1980s and the recent bailout. Are there others I'm missing?

I'm glad you were able to find a way to mention the Federal Reserve again, though. God forbid you post once without mentioning how it is the cause of every evil on Earth today.

tatupu70 says

And the 30 yr old will have wages much higher than the 60 year old did when he/she bought the house 30 years ago. That's how inflation works. It a net wash.

I mean will pay substantially more in real term. The whole discussion was that wages are not rising as fast as assets.

tatupu70 says

We're talking about wealth disparity. Not monopoly power or market share. Try
again.

Wealth disparity is the result of market power if you blame market for creating disparity. If you want to ascribe wealth and power disparity to political power, then you and I are in agreement.

tatupu70 says

Nope--it's true. It's 50% even in peacetime. In war time, it's much
higher.

Like I said, you are several years behind the curve. Social Security spending alone now is larger than military spending, so the latter can not possibly be 50% of government spending. You may be confusing budget vs. "discretinal" budget. In any case, the frequent bailouts are not even in the budget, but dawfs most items in the budget when it happens.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Once a century? How many centuries were there between 1987's to 1998? to
2000? to 2008? Do you socialists have amnesia or were you born yesterday? The
continued existence of the FED is due to the frequent need for bailouts.

Centuries generally refer to 100 year periods. ie, the 1800s, the 1900s, the
2000s, etc. I'm aware of the S&L crisis in the late 1980s and the recent
bailout. Are there others I'm missing?

Yes, you are having amnesia. Before the S&L crisis of the 1980's, there was the FannieMae bailout of the early 1970's along with Nixon default on the dollar in 1971 , perpetuation of the post-WWII military industrial complex in the 1950's in order to let the munition makers service debts taken on during the war, massive bank bailout in the 1930's with FDR default on the dollar, FED bailout of Florida land speculation bubble burst in the mid-1920's.

After the S&L crisis of the 1980's, the first massive bailout was the early 1990's Mexican debt default and Argetine default (FED and the US government using Mexico and Argentine as device for funneling taxpayer money to major US banks that have lent too much money to those countries); then Russian default of in 1997, same scam; then 1998 "Asian contagion," same scam; then NASDAQ bubble and burst of 2000, the bailout of which led to the housing boom and bust of 2003-present.

As you can see, those frequent crises started gathering pace about a decade after the founding of the FED, and the pace is accelearating. The once a century thing that you refer to is the bust of central banking cycle itself.

People who like to jabber about states rights and secession, don't get that the rest of us picture them as confederates wanting a return to outright slavery.

tatupu70 says

The problem isn't inflation, it's the trend toward income/wealth inequality where the top 1% keep taking more and more.

A good part of the rich are the fraction of boomers who in fact saved for retirements and benefited from the asset inflation since 1980 - and happened to make the right decisions.

A good part of the poor are the millennials that has to pay inflated prices to get the basics of life: education and housing, with desperately un-inflated, limp, wages.

Heraclitusstudent says

good part of the rich are the fraction of boomers who in fact saved for retirements and benefited from the asset inflation since 1980 - and happened to make the right decisions.

A good part of the poor are the millennials that has to pay inflated prices to get the basics of life: education and housing, with desperately un-inflated, limp, wages.

Like I said--the rich are now taking all of the income/wealth and leaving none for the other 99%. During the 50s, 60s, 70s it wasn't as bad as it is now so the boomers are in better shape.

Heraclitusstudent says

and happened to make the right decisions.

LOL...pat yourself on the back...because you'll be dead in 30 years or worse, you'll lose your mental capacities and Obamacare will drain those moneybags dry and hand it out as high wages to newly minted immigrant-citizens who push your wheelchair around the Alzheimer's Ranch.

egads101 says

boomers who just worked and saved are not in the 1%.

Yep. The way I look at it, yes, I would rather have that money in the bank than be broke in retirement, but at the same time, that money really isn't going to buy you that much of a different lifestyle.

You'll still be spending most of your time in your home or apartment. You will still have the same non-trophy spouse. You will not be travelling or partying all the time, if at all. You're basically on a high feed maintenance diet fueled by your savings until they give out.

Really, some days it seems to me that in the battle of the Ants and the Grasshoppers the Grasshoppers won! Take a person who burned the candle at both ends from age 20 to 50. Had lots of unprotected sex. Didn't save a dime. Partied, drank and did light drugs. Now they're alone and broke. But guess what...either they'll die with a smile on their face. Or Obama will fund them into a medical care center where they can detox and then get out and get subsidy until the die.

Meanwhile the Ant is busy trying to protect his castle from Government and voracious Millennials who keep inventing "new technology" that makes all his investments obsolete!!

"And be very afraid." says the guy named APOCALYPSEFUCK. :p

Every sex-offender database, every prison inmate registry, and every local police station arrest book should have a field for realtor license no.

It's just common sense.

I sense a lot of hate for Realtors on this website. It's subtle, like an undertone...but it's there. :p

I'm having a hard time understanding how a realtor was not in prison.

This is a black eye for local law enforcement.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Yes, think about that the next time you are in a room alone with a REALTOR.

Yes be careful.... they are everywhere ....it happened in my town as well.

Achilli case live blog: Los Gatos murder-for-hire trial (2011)

On the fifth floor of Santa Clara County's Hall of Justice in San Jose, one of the most sensational local murder cases in recent memory is under way. It has it all: love, jealousy and a broad daylight shooting of a popular restaurateur. Mark Achilli was shot eight times in front of his Los Gatos condo in March 2008 and Paul Garcia (realtor), who bought Mountain Charley's and the 180 Restaurant & Lounge from Achilli, is accused of ordering his death and paying for it. Stay with me as I provide live details from the courtroom.

http://www.mercurynews.com/achilli-murder-case/ci_16258499

Vicente says

People who like to jabber about states rights and secession, don't get that the rest of us picture them as confederates wanting a return to outright slavery.

right.. equally returning to the horse and buggy..

Only traitors and slavers would write something like this...

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - Declaration of Independence

thomaswong.1986 says

right.. equally returning to the horse and buggy..

Right. I grew up with plenty of people consider themselves well-schooled on the Founders, and the Revolutionary War, and the War of Northern Agression. They all kinda look like this guy though:

Vicente says

They all kinda look like this guy though:

ALL OF THEM ? wishful thinking...all propaganda to twist the facts...

thomaswong.1986 says

ALL OF THEM ? wishful thinking...all propaganda to twist the facts...

Sometimes they dress better, sometimes they dress the ideology up in Glibertopianism or Randism. But they're still redneck racists inside. I swam in that pool over 30 years of my life. Klan marched down my street one night in the 70's trying to scare away the black family that moved in. I asked my Dad about calling the police and he said "what's the point, some of the police are under those sheets." Racists are still there though they are far more subtle about it these days.

Vicente says

Racists in the South are still there though they are far more subtle about it these days.

so your going to label EVERYONE of THEM who disagrees as some kind of white racists.. list like the Tea Party who infact also have Blacks, Latinos, and Asians.. Right !!!

just paid them all with one brush stroke ... no not this time !

thomaswong.1986 says

like the Tea Party who infact also have Blacks

Where's Colored Waldo.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/find-the-minority-at-the-tea-party-protest

John Bailo says

Meanwhile the Ant is busy trying to protect his castle from Government and voracious Millennials who keep inventing "new technology" that makes all his investments obsolete!!

more like it was the Ant (Boomers) who has been creating the new technology for the past 40 years which has provided solid investments for their retirement.. the Millennial are more on inventing new "Toys" over hyped and useless. I certainly agree on the Grosshoppers outcome.

Reality says

power is monetized so that everyone gets a chance to exercise power one small morsel at a time in the form of money.

Why my $1 is every bit as good as the $1 that the Koch Brothers hold. Sure they hold billions of them, but we're equal right? Everyone my Aunty Fanny.

http://www.lcurve.org/

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

REALTOR Arrested and Charged for Stabbing Boyfriend to Death

Methinks Apocalypsefuck has a Google news alert for the terms "realtor, arrested, murder".

Vicente says

Reality says

power is monetized so that everyone gets a chance to exercise power one small morsel at a time in the form of money.

Why my $1 is every bit as good as the $1 that the Koch Brothers hold. Sure they hold billions of them, but we're equal right? Everyone my Aunty Fanny.

Not just Koch brothers, even Warren Buffet would have gone bankrupt in a free market correction (when the smaller guys deemed his judgement wrong, many smaller players) if not for the government bailout via fiat money.

The real choice in human life is not whether you get to sit at the same table at Koch brothers and Warren Buffet according to your own whim (which would obviously be against the wishes of Koch brothers and Warren Buffet, as they probably do not wish to sit with millions of people at every meal) . . . but whether you prefer to have the power to decide whether you do business with Koch brothers vs. Warren Buffet (by patronizing their businesses vs. other businesses)

vs.

the government telling you that you have no choice but to deal with Koch brothers for oil and Warren Buffet for hamburgers, sugary soda water and insurance for the medical consequences of consuming the junk food that he is selling.

You may think the graph you drew lopsided, but $1, $10,000, $1,000,000 (all goals that you can realistically achieve) would look even more lopsided when set up against Infinity! That's what government fiat command economy would be, Infinity! and the purchasing power of you $1, $10,000, $1,000,000 would be zero without government bureaucrats consent. Fiat money system is just an shady way of getting there.

ThreeBays says

If you had to say, slow innovation by 10% in order to make it's cost sustainable then we should. Actually, it's not we should... we will have to. The US simply can't afford the rate of healthcare cost increases.

In a competitive free market place, Innovation is what drives down prices. The rapid rise of healthcare cost in the US is not due to innovation but due to government sanctioned and subsidized monopolies. How much innovation is in a $35 Tylenol pill in an emergency room? It doesn't even have a 3-cent RFID sticker on it, like most items priced over $10 do at Walmart.

ThreeBays says

the US has lower life expectancy than a dozen countries that have national health care).

Life expectancy statistic is largely determined by infant mortality nowadays. Countries like Cuba don't count a newborn as a person until the most risky first 10 months have passed. Many western European countries like UK, France and Germany have higher elective abortion rates than the US; that means their parents tend to redo when faced with a child with congenital problems that would lead to high infant mortality instead of counting on NICU like parents tend to do here in the US.

ThreeBays says

There is no free lunch. There are a finite amount of resources on Earth. The more we sink into never ending healthcare "innovation", the more we have to take away from other "healthy" things, like not being broke and depressed, eating good food, or vacationing or retirement.

Depending on what kind of research. In a competitive free market, corporations maximize profit by offering better value to customers in order to attract more customers. In a monopolistic market with massive government subsidy, the monopolists maximize profit by restricting supply and maximize payment from government.

Reality says

Wealth disparity is the result of market power if you blame market for creating disparity. If you want to ascribe wealth and power disparity to political power, then you and I are in agreement.

Perhaps. But my question was how does the free market reduce inequality? When has that happened?

Reality says

Social Security spending alone now is larger than military spending, so the latter can not possibly be 50% of government spending.

I was looking at the budget--Social Security is a trust fund and off-budget.

Reality says

After the S&L crisis of the 1980's, the first massive bailout was the early 1990's Mexican debt default and Argetine default (FED and the US government using Mexico and Argentine as device for funneling taxpayer money to major US banks that have lent too much money to those countries); then Russian default of in 1997, same scam; then 1998 "Asian contagion," same scam; then NASDAQ bubble and burst of 2000, the bailout of which led to the housing boom and bust of 2003-present.

It astounds me that you can attribute every bad decision made by the free market to the Federal Reserve.

bgamall4 says

Screw the UK, all that is left for regular people are boxes!

Finally, the cat master plan is coming to fruition. First they take over the Internet, then they impose their culture upon the human population. Soon, all humans will live like cats, act like cats, and submit to the supremacy of the feline culture. Resistance is futile!

Reality says

the government telling you that you have no choice but to deal with Koch brothers for oil and Warren Buffet for hamburgers, sugary soda water and insurance for the medical consequences of consuming the junk food that he is selling.

Why do you always make it one extreme vs. the other extreme? Isn't it possible to have a capitalist society with a strongly progressive tax system and tightly regulated?

The answer, of course, is yes. The US did it before Reagan and things worked quite well.

tatupu70 says

Why do you always make it one extreme vs. the other extreme? Isn't it possible to have a capitalist society with a strongly progressive tax system and tightly regulated?

The answer, of course, is yes. The US did it before Reagan and things worked quite well.

That must be why Carter lost in a landslide, that the US was doing so well before Reagan! LOL. The socialist brain is a wasteland taken over by amnesia. That's why they always insist on repeating the same mistakes that's been done over and over again in human history.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Wealth disparity is the result of market power if you blame market for creating disparity. If you want to ascribe wealth and power disparity to political power, then you and I are in agreement.

Perhaps. But my question was how does the free market reduce inequality? When has that happened?

It happens every single time when someone buys goods and services from an upstart instead of from an "IBM." Private individuals do that far more frequently than government bureaucrats do! The risk/reward matrix is different for the two. The private individual reaps all the financial savings when the less substitute works out, the bureaucrat gets nothing when the substitute works out but would lose his job if it doesn't. That's why tax-and-spend is a quick way to market concentration! In 1982, all tax money spent on purchasing PC's would have gone to IBM, very little would have gone to the upstart called Compaq . . . whereas private business owners were the primary buyers of Compaq to save a thousand or so (when PC's cost $5k-10k). Tax-and-spend is how the medical system, the education system and the military industrial complex are working under. They are the most wasteful segments of our economy with some of the greatest market concentration in each market.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Social Security spending alone now is larger than military spending, so the latter can not possibly be 50% of government spending.

I was looking at the budget--Social Security is a trust fund and off-budget.

The "trust fund" is a fraud. Like I suspected, you are just talking nonsense by drawing artificial lines that don't exist. Government spending is government spending.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

After the S&L crisis of the 1980's, the first massive bailout was the early 1990's Mexican debt default and Argetine default (FED and the US government using Mexico and Argentine as device for funneling taxpayer money to major US banks that have lent too much money to those countries); then Russian default of in 1997, same scam; then 1998 "Asian contagion," same scam; then NASDAQ bubble and burst of 2000, the bailout of which led to the housing boom and bust of 2003-present.

It astounds me that you can attribute every bad decision made by the free market to the Federal Reserve.

The existence of the central bank standing at the ready to bailout bad bets made by the big boys is the reason why they felt free to make those bets. You may be naive, the banksters are not.

Reality says

That must be why Carter lost in a landslide, that the US was doing so well before Reagan! LOL. The socialist brain is a wasteland taken over by amnesia. That's why they always insist on repeating the same mistakes that's been done over and over again in human history.

lol--your logic is impeccible as usual. How about you look at the 3 decades after WWII objectively. One President certainly does not trump 30 years worth of data.

Unless you are being disingenuous, of course.

Reality says

It happens every single time when someone buys goods and services from an upstart instead of from an "IBM." Private individuals do that far more frequently than government bureaucrats do! The risk/reward matrix is different for the two. The private individual reaps all the financial savings when the less substitute works out, the bureaucrat gets nothing when the substitute works out but would lose his job if it doesn't. That's why tax-and-spend is a quick way to market concentration! In 1982, all tax money spent on purchasing PC's would have gone to IBM, very little would have gone to the upstart called Compaq . . . whereas private business owners were the primary buyers of Compaq to save a thousand or so (when PC's cost $5k-10k). Tax-and-spend is how the medical system, the education system and the military industrial complex are working under. They are the most wasteful segments of our economy with some of the greatest market concentration in each market.

See, here's the thing. We can measure inequality. If your hypothesis was true, then you could easily see it in the data. As you are unwilling or unable to post the actual inequality data, I'm concluding that your theories are incorrect.

Reality says

The "trust fund" is a fraud. Like I suspected, you are just talking nonsense by drawing artificial lines that don't exist. Government spending is government spending.

OK--whatever you say.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

Reality says

The existence of the central bank standing at the ready to bailout bad bets made by the big boys is the reason why they felt free to make those bets. You may be naive, the banksters are not.

Ah, the old moral hazard argument again. Banks don't care if they lose 99% of their assets as long as they don't go bankrupt, right? How naive of me.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

That must be why Carter lost in a landslide, that the US was doing so well before Reagan! LOL. The socialist brain is a wasteland taken over by amnesia. That's why they always insist on repeating the same mistakes that's been done over and over again in human history.

lol--your logic is impeccible as usual. How about you look at the 3 decades after WWII objectively. One President certainly does not trump 30 years worth of data.

Unless you are being disingenuous, of course.

How good was it under Johnson or Nixon or Ford?
The one and half decade after WWII was due to exceptional circumstances: the rest of the world had their industrial capacity largely destroyed! Even JFK in the early 1960's started to realize the need to reduce taxes and jump start our economic competitiveness as the rest of the world recovered from WWII. Of course, the banksters preferred the War-and-Butter LBJ instead in order to rack up government deficit, which is just another way of saying the banksters get a percentage cut on all societal production via government taxes collected to service government debt created out of thin air.

tatupu70 says

See, here's the thing. We can measure inequality. If your hypothesis was true, then you could easily see it in the data. As you are unwilling or unable to post the actual inequality data, I'm concluding that your theories are incorrect.

No, inequality is not measurable. Don't tell me for a moment you were equally valued on the dating market when you were 20 years old as a pretty girl of that age. What you can measure is nominal income and nominal asset, neither of which is true reflection of real power and wealth. If you don't believe me, try to go to a popular club, and see how much you have to pay to cut the line vs. a pretty girl of 20 years old just by showing up. The pretty 20yr old may have no nominal income or nominal asset, but she has enormous power over men.

Likewise, the Kims of North Korea and the soviet bosses may not have/had much nominal salary, but they have/had enormous power, including power over life vs. death of most of their countrymen. None of that show up in your obsession over inconsequential numbers. That's how the socialist paradise have nominally low inequality. In reality, the feudal privileges that the elites have in those societies are far greater than our elites have in a monetized economy: you can approach Koch brothers near their residence in NYC; whereas if you try the same to the Kims in Pyneong, you'd be shot in an instant on the spot.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

That must be why Carter lost in a landslide, that the US was doing so well before Reagan! LOL. The socialist brain is a wasteland taken over by amnesia. That's why they always insist on repeating the same mistakes that's been done over and over again in human history.

That's funnny. Typical right winger. Not sure itf this one is stupid as he portrays himselto be, or just a lying spreader of propaganda. MY guess is that even he knows that the inflation of the 70 was almost totally independent of the President's policies.

Who knows, its possible that he's even smart enough to understand that it was Carter who appointed Volker as Fed chair, who proceeded to tighten credit until inflation was stopped. When it was finally stopped, with interest rates at all time highs (prime rate over 20%) that set the stage for interest rates falling like a rock and the mother of all booms that Reagan was fortunate enough to preside over.

I'm guessing that even Reality (ironic name) can comprehend reality, he's simultaneously stupid enough to believe the lies he tells himself, like so many fox bot dimbulbs.

Carter was sort of the opposite of Bush. He would iniate long term policies to save the economy, even if in the short term they hurt him politically. COntrast that with GWBs giving the SS surplus to the rich in the form of tax cuts and spending precious capital and lives on a war that we didn't need to fight (but both policies made him look good or so he thought, in the short run).