patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

HydroCabron says

If only Obama would do something as stupid as Iraq War II,

Nah, He'll want his own war, like Iran War I or Syria War I.... He wants to be original.....

Kinda like his signature health care law.....

Yes, an unprecedented health-care law, unlike anything the Heritage Institute or Mitt Romney would ever propose.

House for which I paid $506K in early 2012 is now selling for 725K+ (Same house, same floor plan, same builder). Now that is some kind of bubble about to bust.

Signs of the bust are showing. The realtor next door has stopped building activity as many of the already built houses are unsold.

edvard2 says

Dan8267 says

Obama has done everything Bush has

Let me stop you right there.... who exactly started those two wars? yeah.... nuff' said.

It's reasoning like this that sent fire bombs to Dresden, nearly annihilating that city AFTER the Germans surrendered. Because, well, we have all these bombs still, and they DID start this war ....

Grats, edvard, you haven't fallen far from your imperial roots.

Dan8267 says

edvard2 says

Dan8267 says

Obama has done everything Bush has

Let me stop you right there.... who exactly started those two wars? yeah.... nuff' said.

No, the problem is exactly that you stop with who started the wars and the various other evils (torture, kidnapping, rape, etc.).

Honey, it doesn't matter that Bush started these evils. Obama continued and expanded on them. That makes Obama responsible for the evil he has continued and elevated.

The fact that Bush was evil in no way condones or justifies the wicked vileness of Obama. Each president stands on his own record, and Obama's record is god-awful.

I agree, but does anyone else think Dan is turning into an elderly black woman?

Of course home prices would rise if there was no inventory- just like unemployment can go down if there are people leaving the labor force-but you can't call that a housing or labor market recovery

Here is a report from Houston- claims that the "recovery" there has no legs left and was caused by QE
http://aaronlayman.com/2013/11/katy-houston-tx-housing-bubbles-no-longer-a-question-of-fact/

BB said: Retired people generally (hopefully!) have their house paid off and thus remove both themselves and their primary residence from the housing market until they pass on.
Here's a classic from the Pat. net archives. This one is from Carol Llyod who used to write the Surreal Estate column for the SF Chronicle. Livin' the California Dream:
A decade ago, I remember my mother telling me that after nearly 20 years of residing in their home, which my father had designed and built for about $75,000, my parents had a mortgage of over $500,000.
"What happened?" I asked my mother disapprovingly.
She waved my concerns aside. "This house is a bank," she said. "We'll never pay it off."

Quigley says

AFTER the Germans surrendered.

The firebombing of Dresden occurred in February 1945. The Germans surrendered in April and May. Kurt Vonnegut survived the bombing and aftermath as a prisoner of war, and described the experience in Slaugterhouse-Five.

Sorry to veer off topic - SIWOTI strikes again.

...and lets not forget input from our very own Smaugld which was very timely and on topic...

http://smaulgld.com/the-false-housing-recovery-of-2013-and-how-it-unraveled/?source=Patrick.net

The more one reads, the more one uncovers this not so elaborate ponzi scheme....we have seen this movie before (2006) and we know how it ends. The only thing different this time, the economy is much worse off than at that point in time. How much longer can we kid ourselves?

I think OGolfer is doing a great job on himself ... 37% approval rating, 9% drop IN A MONTH.

What a guy... owned by Banksters, Wall Street, and the military. Gutted the middle class to give his "contributors" free money (B of A, Goldman Saks, Chase Manhattan, etc etc .).

And then spied on his own citizens (not to mention his "allies".)

And gave his bagmen/fundraisers the IT job of setting up the healthcare system.

God ... even the Titantic made it out of port. George Bush in blackface, for sure!

kashif313 says

The only thing different this time, the economy is much worse off than at that point in time. How much longer can we kid ourselves?

Yes the economy is worse this time AND the participation of the riches of this bubble is just for the better off.

In the 2004-06 bubble the average Joe got in on the action.

Want to know why Obummer is plummeting ? Because he sold out the entire middle class of America to his rich contributor/owners. Here's what one the most intelligent men in America thinks of him: a black man with a PHD teaching constitutional law at Princeton.

".....we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface, with Barack Obama.... a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.”

Dr. Cornel West
Princeton University

WTF? I thought we were friends, AF.

Obama: Multiple Life terms for NSA, consorting with bankers, and getting our boys killed for no reason.

Hillary: Life for supporting the Iraq insanity.

Bush: Don't bother sentencing - just lock up.

bob2356 says

Give up on this one, you are just looking foolish at this point. I cherry picked a time frame you say. Why did you choose to compare the 9 years before aca was signed plus the year aca was signed to the year the aca was singed plus the 4 years after. That's pretty damn big cherry picking. Come on.

Um, I didn't. ACA became law in 2010, genius. What were you saying about "looking foolish"? LOL.

bob2356 says

A few years when rate hikes weren't QUITE double digits? Since when is 6%,5%,5%,5% a few years not QUITE double digits. Give me a break. BTW what about the 9% year in 2011 after aca was signed?

What is your POINT here? Again, are you arguing that Bush fixed healthcare once and for all, and that everything was going to be o.k. without any reforms? What ABOUT the 9%? The fact that the numbers fluctuates indicates to me that it isn't useful to look at any one year. The only meaningful way to look at the data is to AVERAGE the rate increases before ACA and compare them to the AVERAGE rate increases after ACA. And that is what I did. My conclusion: So far, ACA has not caused rates to skyrocket.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION? If yes, show me your reasoning for concluding that rates have skyrocketed.

bob2356 says

Hello, you stated aca "improved" rates 2010-2013. Period. Your own words. Then you backpedalled to say aca hasn't caused the to skyrocket "as many right-wingers have falsely claimed". Uh Oh, do I get to say the S word now?

You can use the word strawman, but you wouldn't be using it correctly. A strawman argument would be if I made up an argument and attributed it to YOU. I guess you've never taken a logic class. Backpedaling would be the correct term if someone changed their argument. I don't believe I did, but it's a moot point as I will now clearly state my point.

If I wasn't clear, I apologize. Let me be clear now. The rate of increase of health insurance premiums has gone down since ACA. Most analysts believe that this slowdown is not entirely due to the law - only partly so. The rest has been attributed to the slowing of the economy. Is that clear enough? Hope so.

So let's get to the point, shall we? The "skyrocketing" or "explosion" of rates that has been claimed by the right, is not supported by the data.

Is that clear to you?

bob2356 says

No, my major complaint isn't the subsidies. That's ONE of my major complaints. You really haven't thought through the bigger implications of aca. It's a seismic shift. It's a really dangerous piece of legislation. Stop right there. I don't hate it, I'm at best dispassionate. First of all, repeating once again, it won't solve the real problem of increasing costs which will still have to be addressed at some future point. The part that is dangerous is it's the first law that people are compelled to buy a private product, and the first law where people are given money to buy a specific product in an ongoing permement basis. The key word is first. It breaks new ground. Have you ever seen government do something new then not continue to do it? What will be next? That thought scares me.

Once again, you are denigrating the law based not on any DATA, but simply on theoretical grounds. In other words, you are arguing that it CANNOT work, by its very nature. You keep denying that you are making the argument, yet you keep doing it. Read your own paragraph above. Is there any data in it whatsoever? No, there is not. Are there any facts about healthcare costs? No, there are not. Only your theories and your vague aspersions that it is a "seismic shift" and "dangerous".

Also, when I said you hate the law, I think the point there flew way over your head. I was actually lampooning YOU. You keep saying that I have "unlimited enthusiasm" for the law. Therefore, I said that YOU have "unlimited hatred" for the law, as a counter to your exaggeration. Did you really not get that?

bob2356 says

With all due respect have you actually read what I've written time and time again or am I somehow writing in a version of English not familiar to you?

More insults, more ad hominem, no actual content.

bob2356 says

I've been saying throughout this entire post, and many others, the real problem is rising health care costs that are totally unsustainable. Where do you possibly get optimism the problem is solved out of that?

Then if you don't believe the problem was solved, why do you believe it's relevant that rate increases slowed in the mid 2000s? Why do you think it's valid to arbitrarily choose that point when citing pre-ACA rate increases?

bob2356 says

Then you come up with "You're saying Bush solved the problem once and for all". This is starting to be the twilight zone.

What is it you're not understanding? If you don't think the problem was solved in mid-2000s, then why is it relevant that rates increases were lower then?

The only thing that makes sense is to AVERAGE the rate increases before ACA and compare to the rate increases after ACA, so that we average out the outliers. Why do you disagree with this? Seems pretty clear to me; not sure why you're flipping out and babbling about curious george.

bob2356 says

BUT, rate increases are still above the rate of inflation which is all that matters. The problem continues.

True, but the question should be "Are we worse off than we were before, to the point that repealing ACA would benefit the country?" I say no. I also think we should at least wait through the first year of the program actually being in place, and examine the data, before concluding that it has failed.

Summers sucks, of that there is no doubt. But the notion of digital currency is intriguing. What, for example, are debit cards? Your account at the local bank does not consist of cash sitting in a bank vault. It is all accounting, nothing more already. Think about the transaction that occurs when you take out a mortgage to buy a house. Your bank produces a document which results in your account having X new digital credits in it. You create a document, a check, that you present to the seller, he deposits the document with his bank, and his account is credited with these digital credits. Your bank does not load up X dollars on a truck and deliver it to his bank. This system is already being abused through the issuance of fraudulent documents, for example, toxic securities, that result in the issuance and transfer of digital credits into the accounts of the perpetrators of fraud. We are supposed to believe that dealing with these improper transfers will destroy the system upon which we all depend, and so let's "move on" as Obama famously says. You and the 99% however cannot have digital credits transferred into your account through the issuance of fraudulent documents. You typically have to trade your time and efforts for some small amount of transferred digital credits. And the amount of digital credits that are transferred into your account for your time and effort becomes less and less.

bob2356 says

Pretty funny you have to resort to using "socialized medicine" as some kind of code word.

I wasn't aware that was a "code word". My understanding was that socialized medicine and universal healthcare were synonyms. If it bothers you that much, I'll stop using that term. No need to have a heart attack.

Greenspan to Clinton:
"We can't afford to spend money on job creation, we have a deficit"

Greenspan to Bush almost a decade later:
"Go ahead, spend all the money you need to prosecute the GWOT. We got the money."

Homeboy says

The only thing that makes sense is to AVERAGE the rate increases before ACA and compare to the rate increases after ACA. Why do you disagree with this?

Because trees don't grow to the sky. Saying a teenager had a 10% growth spurt one year doesn't mean he'll grow to be 100' tall by age 50. Some people who had never studied economics even projected, based on the increases you cite, that medical costs would soon exceed 100% of GDP - a mathematical impossibility.

There is no intrinsic reason why technological advances, which lead to lower costs in most sectors, should always drive higher costs in healthcare. There are mainly political reasons why costs have been increasing in that sector, higher than any other country on earth: the fee-for-service model, the lemon socialism, the lack of a free market, the artificial increases to demand (e.g. DTC advertising of drugs that require an Rx), the artificial restrictions on supply, etc. All of these factors reflect a political system designed to maximize revenue, and that system operates as designed. Costs should have fallen, but instead we got legislation to drive them higher than would have happened under prior law.

bgamall4 says

Lol, Florida is filled with something. I think the humidity and swamp does something. Those little creatures in the drinking water are eating at their brains.

It's the extra chlorine to treat the swamp water. It bleaches the brain cells.

anyone see the ten year note today- shot up JUST ON THE TALK that there might be a taper LOL

So the recovery is real now?? http://smaulgld.com/five-long-years-in-the-feds-potemkin-qe-village/

SoftShell says

This is damning evidence.

John Bailo says

Voting Form Shows George Zimmerman Is A Registered Democrat

http://www.ibtimes.com/voting-form-shows-george-zimmerman-registered-democrat-confounding-message-pushed-left-430738

You mean because you wouldn't have worked so hard to exculpate Zimmermonster if you'd known?

Truth is, there are lots of crappy Dems, especially in the electorate. It's just that it's not 100% like the GOP.

bgamall4 says

Maybe she believed he was innocent in the Martin shooting. He was found not guilty but his behavior is showing that he very well may not have been innocent.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. The state failed to prove this asshole murdered a child. They'll get him on tax evasion, or shooting a white chick.

2014 is a continuation of the bear market in housing-we have had a dead cat bounce in pricing but no recovery in sales or new home construction and 25% of homeowners are still underwater because they over paid during that last bubble

Tokyo real estate is still completely bonkers in affordability terms, even with the return to 1980s price levels. Sub-2% 35-year mortgage rates FTW!

Never underestimate the power of FIRE to control the market.

Well, they lost control here 2008-2009, but have pulled things back together pretty well since then.[1]

I look at what $500,000 can buy in Tokyo and just SMH.

http://www.athome.co.jp/ks_14/dtl_1062533405

Naked land alone is $1000/sqft for anything within shouting range of the city proper.

But with 2% interest rates, that $500,000 is just $800/mo in interest. No sweat, really.

[1] actually a lot of the events of 2008-2009 was just wealth transfer from stupid to smart money.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

debyne says

This bubble will never stop. We're all going to be priced out forever by the boogeyman who lays golden eggs.

Yes, yes, yes, and then the RENTFUCK will come for your asshole, turgid and righteous and rip out your fucking asshole with savage rents and unrelenting increases. You don't own, your fucking life it over, ASSHOLE! Suck a pistol or pay the fucking rent!

Hold on...let me get out my babbling retard decoder ring...

bgamall4 says

Disclaimer: This is not intended to make fun in any way of those who have died from bugs in the drinking water in humid climes.

Ah, political correctness.

CL says

They'll get him on tax evasion, or shooting a white chick.

What do Al Capone, OJ, and Zimmerman have in common?

If the state wants a conviction bad enough, say because of public image, they'll get one on some charge. That's why everything is a criminal offense, but such offenses are rarely enforced. They are there just so that the state can arrest anyone at any time for some reason. Selective enforcement couples with over-criminalization is essentially the power to imprison innocent people.

Granted, none of the above were innocent, but plenty of innocent people with inconvenient political views get the same treatment.

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

Homeboy says

bob2356 says

Give up on this one, you are just looking foolish at this point. I cherry picked a time frame you say. Why did you choose to compare the 9 years before aca was signed plus the year aca was signed to the year the aca was singed plus the 4 years after. That's pretty damn big cherry picking. Come on.

Um, I didn't. ACA became law in 2010, genius. What were you saying about "looking foolish"? LOL.

http://patrick.net/?p=1228425

I'm off year with a quick glance at the chart. You averaged 2000-2009 vs average 2010-2014. 10 years vs 5 years is still cherry picking big time, especially with the greatest economic downturn since the depression at year 5. As per your own words "it only makes sense to compare average rate increases". But it only makes sense for the same time frame.

Homeboy says

So let's get to the point, shall we? The "skyrocketing" or "explosion" of rates that has been claimed by the right, is not supported by the data.

Is that clear to you?

Thank you, you have finally clarified which position is your final one. That was like pulling teeth from a live tiger. I accept, and always have accepted that aca didn't cause rates to skyrocket (especially since I've argued long and hard aca didn't effect rates 2010-2012 at all). I reject and always will reject your now disavowed position that aca improved rates 2010-1014. Is that clear enough? Rate increases in the 5 years before aca were falling at about the same rate as the 5 years after. It's called a trend line. It's a shame you don't know the difference between passing a law and implementing a law. You would realize how utterly impossible it was for aca to actually effect rates so quickly after passage.

That doesn't mean anything was fixed. Despite your insane insistence (in spite of repeated vehement denials along with multiple examples of my postings refuting this) that I believe bush fixed health care I never said that. I've posted many,many times nothing is fixed. So if you keep attributing this crazy idea to me mean can I use the S word now? I really really want to use the S word.

Homeboy says

Once again, you are denigrating the law based not on any DATA, but simply on theoretical grounds. In other words, you are arguing that it CANNOT work, by its very nature.

Read the CBO and Medicare reports. They contain lots and lots of data. The bottom line in both reports is aca won't do anything to lower the cost of health care spending increases to below the inflation rate. Nothing theoretical there at all. Aca MAY work just fine getting uninsured insurance, that remains to be seen. Aca will work just great at shifting around who pays. It CANNOT work by it's very nature at lowering overall health care costs since it doesn't address the issue. What isn't clear to you on that?

Once again you can't seem to differentiate between health care insurance premiums and health care spending. You chart that you are so proud of is insurance premiums, not health care expenditures. Try this from forbes.

See any big effects of aca on total spending? I don't. Does this qualify as data? Here's an even more interesting one, although not on subject, but shows the pitfalls of fee for service pretty clearly.

elvis says

Congratulations to Barrack Barrackovitch Obama on his latest award!! Destroying America, one step at a time. Nice going Comrade.

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

Exactly!

But go hang out on with Freepers, bring up his name, and watch them defend him.

bgamall4 says

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

He is an NRA icon and they are wildly Republican.

Maybe they are republican because the democrats keep trying to make gun sale, use, and ownership illegal. What other choice do gun owners have?

What's so bad about Larry?

Sure he's a misogynist, and an elitist, and an arrogant jerk whose poop never stinks.

But apart from that.....

bgamall4 says

Blurtman says

You and the 99% however cannot have digital credits transferred into your account through the issuance of fraudulent documents. You typically have to trade your time and efforts for some small amount of transferred digital credits. And the amount of digital credits that are transferred into your account for your time and effort becomes less and less.

So you must be in the 1 percent? Ok, but not i the .01 percent who rule the world so they could take your money too.

Just remember, when you deposit money into a bank it is a loan. You are loaning. I should be able to loan or not loan my money. But in a cashless society I would not have that choice.

It would prevent bank runs, but runs happen when banks screw up. If they did, you would be a sitting duck like those guys in Cyprus. It is totalitarian to require cashless.

Well, these percentages are of little interest to me. Viva la revolucion! Death to the bankers!

GOP ICON Zimmerman

Zimmerman is a registered Democrat.

As for the "Canada has proven" thing above, it's important to note that the US housing bubble was a primary cause and not effect of our prosperity of the previous decade [Insert obligatory "nobody gets this!" here], while Canada's rise is more an effect (nation of 35M pulling wealth out of 1/3 of a continent, nominal military expenses let alone waste, efficient health care sector, etc) than a cause, AFAIK.

Canada spends ~half per-capita on health care, and if my thesis is right, that $300/mo per-capita cost savings will end up eventually in higher in rents and home values for them in the end, simply because real estate is the source and sink of all wealth.

(that's my thesis at least!)

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 Wednesday, November 20, 2013 __ Level is 101.8

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

egads101 says

That graph was in the Wall Street journal in what, 2005? Their buy versus rent calculator has been online for seven years.

What the fuck is hidden?? Nothing!

And, if you love that graph so much, update it to today dumbfuck. It is case shiller data, which is publicly available, do you not know how to use excel?

The first link in my thread is to
http://showrealhist.com/yTRIAL.html
There you can click on "updated". EZ!

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

Because they all like him. A lot ! (for some reason).