patrick.net

Something tells me the young generation won't be paying the boomers the prices they demand for their shacks.

Either the boomers will rot in place, with special property-tax grandfathering giving them 1990 taxes on their 2025-priced houses, or they will sell at much lower prices, as in: prices the younger generations can actually afford.

Unless there is wage inflation - hahahahahaha! - I see no sale at current prices.

control point says

My guess is Koch industries would have been sitting pretty in a financial system collapse. It would explain why they are so pissed about the bailouts.

Oil hit $40/barrel. Koch would have been crushed. That is the whole point, if you do nothing when does it stop?

Lehman collapses
Ok we do nothing......
Reserve Primary fund breaks the buck due to Lehman collapse
Ok we do nothing......
Just pick your poison because if we continue to do nothing it gets way way worse.

Remember the fed backstopped EVERYTHING
Bank accounts 250k, money market funds, hell they even backstopped commercial paper so GE could stay in business.

We are in a credit based world if we get rid of credit, prices and wages drop to cash values. 1.2 Trillion in printed US dollars on the planet. You do the math.

Business idea: Bag-out service, cleaning out rotting bodies and stacks of 'Doors' and 'Rolling Stones' albums from boomer houses.

Between now and 2040, they'll be dropping at the rate of one each 30 seconds - that's 2880 per day.

Talkin' 'bout their generation!

Anyone who can't see dollar signs here has a heart of stone!

yup1 says

hell they even backstopped commercial paper so GE could stay in business.

Not true GE had to rollover 5 billion a week with commercial paper it had sales of 200 billion per year. They would have lost earnings but they were not going to go BK. This was part of the charade that Immelt conned Paulson with.

yup1 says

We are in a credit based world if we get rid of credit, prices and wages drop to cash values. 1.2 Trillion in printed US dollars on the planet. You do the math.

So what. The value of currency would be higher and prices would be lower.

indigenous says

Not true GE had to rollover 5 billion a week with commercial paper it had
sales of 200 billion per year. They would have lost earnings but they were not
going to go BK. This was part of the charade that Immelt conned Paulson
with.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Probably best to just direct me to where you read and regurgitated this from so I can review and it confirm or debunk it.

indigenous says

Not true GE had to rollover 5 billion a week with commercial paper it had sales of 200 billion per year.

lol--you've got to be kidding. What was their cash flow? If you can't tell me that, then you have no idea what their situation was.

indigenous says

So what. The value of currency would be higher and prices would be lower.

After you've been laid off and have run through your savings, I'm sure you'll take solace in the fact that the value of the dollar is higher.

control point says

indigenous says

Not true GE had to rollover 5 billion a week with commercial paper it had

sales of 200 billion per year. They would have lost earnings but they were not

going to go BK. This was part of the charade that Immelt conned Paulson

with.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Probably best to just direct me to where you read and regurgitated this from so I can review and it confirm or debunk it.

David Stockman's book on the bailout. It is 700 pages long.

tatupu70 says

You read about as well as Reality. My position is now, and always has been, that nobody can know whether the bailouts were necessary. Because it's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

Given that, and that the consequences of no bailouts was so dire, I think it's very naive of you guys to pretend that the bailouts were a horrible idea and that things would have been fine without them.

LOL... So it's "IMPOSSIBLE to know" whether they were necessary... but "..the consequences of no bailouts was so dire..."

In other words, you believe they were absolutely necessary but simply don't have the honesty or balls to state so directly.

Paralithodes says

LOL... So it's "IMPOSSIBLE to know" whether they were necessary... but "..the consequences of no bailouts was so dire..."

In other words, you believe they were absolutely necessary but simply don't have the honesty or balls to state so directly.

You're right---I should have said--the potential consequences....

But--I have stated it honestly and directly. You guys just seem to have a very difficult time understanding it.

indigenous says

David Stockman's book on the bailout. It is 700 pages long.

The Great Deformation? What page?

Without the criminal bailouts (rule of law anyone?) we would have had some of the worst cronies and leeches removed from the taxpayers teats, overall a huge win! Instead we slipped into a banana republic where some are above the law - way to juice the economy! It works so well that printing money is legal and encouraged - oh wait, it isn't if you aren't part of the chosen ones doing heavenly work on the sheeple ;)

control point says

The Great Deformation? What page?

I use a Kindle so there are page numbers. But it is covered in chapter 3

indigenous says

I use a Kindle so there are page numbers. But it is covered in chapter 3

Since you are being intentionally obtuse, I will assume that this is a direct quote from his book.

indigenous says

Not true GE had to rollover 5 billion a week with commercial paper it had
sales of 200 billion per year. They would have lost earnings but they were not
going to go BK. This was part of the charade that Immelt conned Paulson
with.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40545/000119312511047479/d10k.htm#tx37537_8

In 2008, GE had revenues of $181.5B. So the "sales of 200 Billion" was an exxageration on Stockman's part.

GE had $193B in short term borrowings at the end of 2008. If they cannot roll that debt into new financings - that is the amount due.

Here, we see short-term borrowings exceeds SALES. As if sales means one f-in thing. They had $8B, net, cash flow from operating and investing activities.

If they had not been bailed out and given the ability to roll their $193B of short term debt(refinance), they do not have the cash to cover it.

If a company cannot meet its short term payables, it is Bankrupt.

If this is a direct quote from Stockman's book, Stockman is an assclown. He is being dishonest and intentionally misleading when comparing annual sales to monthly payroll payable.

control point says

GE had to rollover 5 billion a week

Where do get that it had to roll 193b?

Stockman goes on to say that GE would have had to get more expensive money to roll the debt.

But the main reason this was objectable was Immelt would have lost bonus money. But again no way would GE have gone bankrupt.

He also said that the rollover debt would have been down ABCP conduit before GE would have been caught anyway.

control point says

If this is a direct quote from Stockman's book, Stockman is an assclown.

He did serve on Reagan cabinet. I would have to think you are flattering yourself?

Did you get the data on equality referred to on the other thread?

Beep beep beep. Loading up on shorts n gold. Next few weeks should be very interesting. Companies are getting to the limit of margin expansion to meet numbers with no top line growth. Mergers and huge layoff are a coming, which is the last resort to fooling investors. Hope everyone is risk hedged cause this can get real bad quick.

indigenous says

Stockman goes on to say that GE would have had to get more expensive money to roll the debt.

Stockman's an asshole then because he is being deliberately obtuse. There was NO money to be had. At any rate. The credit market was completely frozen.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

Stockman goes on to say that GE would have had to get more expensive money to roll the debt.

Stockman's an asshole then because he is being deliberately obtuse. There was NO money to be had. At any rate. The credit market was completely frozen.

Because someone uses logic they are an asshole? Stockman is right, there is always money to be had at the right conditions - completely frozen is utter BS. Now, if you define "completely frozen" as any interest rate above 1%, then yeah, they were fucking frozen. Didn't stop credit card companies to mail out "special offers at great rates" to anybody back then:

http://cafehayek.com/2008/10/on-frozen-credi.html

"I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard in the past few days that credit markets are now frozen in America. Such a ‘freeze’ allegedly is a main reason justifying Uncle Sam’s longed-for bailout of Wall Street.

Well, some tropical sun must be hitting at least a small part of the credit market, for yesterday’s mail brought to my son, Thomas, an offer of a credit card from American Express.

Thomas is eleven. And while his credit is pretty good with his mother and me, I’m very impressed that he’s managed to establish his credit creds so firmly with a company that, if there’s truth in today’s told tale, has scant amounts money to lend.

In looking over this offer of credit to my pre-pubescent son, I see that Thomas Macaulay Boudreaux’s qualifications for this generous offer seem to be the fact that he has a mailing address and a frequent-flyer number with a major airline.

Geez, I can only imagine what sorts of offers of credit will flood in to Thomas if and when Uncle Sam thoroughly thaws the credit markets with a bailout."

mell says

Because someone uses logic they are an asshole?

Nope, when someone deliberates lies and misleads people to sell his book--that makes him an asshole.

I don't even know where to begin wrt to your ridiculous story about Thomas getting junk mail. You seriously are using that as an example that credit markets weren't frozen?? I'm nominating that.

tatupu70 says

mell says

Because someone uses logic they are an asshole?

Nope, when someone deliberates lies and misleads people to sell his book--that makes him an asshole.

I don't even know where to begin wrt to your ridiculous story about Thomas getting junk mail. You seriously are using that as an example that credit markets weren't frozen?? I'm nominating that.

Sure, because no company and no person in the world can think for themselves and therefor must be dictated the bailout as commanded by the TBTFs. Before you nominate you should know that even Wells Fargo claimed they refused the bailout because they didn't need it but were forced to take the money anyways:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Ex-Wells-Fargo-CEO-still-mad-about-bailout-3264080.php

mell says

Sure, because no company and no person in the world can think for themselves and therefor must be dictated the bailout as commanded by the TBTFs. Before you nominate you should know that even Wells Fargo claimed they refused the bailout because they didn't need it but were forced to take the money anyways:

Who cares? wtf does that have to do with the credit markets being frozen?

tatupu70 says

errc says

What exactly do you fear would have happened had the govt not bailed out all the bad actors?

Another Great Depression. 25% official unemployment. You get the picture.

GE is on record saying they were days away from not being able to make payroll.

It would seem that to deny this would mean a repudiation of supply-side economics. I'm happy to argue against SSE, but I can't understand our rightwing friends' position?

If facilitating the top is good for the economy, why would allowing the top to collapse also be a good?

I'm still missing the point. Are you implying that prices are going to fall in the future? How will that happen if inventory isn't rising?

Call it Crazy says

Typical.... Read the original article instead of skimming to the end of the thread...

Or you could just answer my question.

Call it Crazy says

You mean 25% official unemployment (if they were calculating it the old way, right??)

Nope--I mean what I said. 25% official unemployment.

Call it Crazy says

I'd rather you read it yourself so you can figure it out...

So, you don't know then?

tatupu70 says

The free market is not always self correcting. Especially not in a few years.

Proof you have no idea what you're talking about.

Let me ask you, do you think our country's economy is still a free market economy??

indigenous says

Where do get that it had to roll 193b?

It was their short term borrowings on the balance sheet at the end of the year.

BTW, 5B * 52 weeks= 260B. Not far from it....indigenous says

Stockman goes on to say that GE would have had to get more expensive money to roll the debt.

$193B together with their long term borrowings of $330B at 3.2% higher interest rate wipes out all of their earnings. A company with no earnings becomes less credit worthy...indigenous says

But the main reason this was objectable was Immelt would have lost bonus money. But again no way would GE have gone bankrupt.

I hate saying this, but Immelt managed to negotiate a bailout and was able to borrow money at a rate that saved the shareholders billions, he deserved a bonus.

indigenous says

Did you get the data on equality referred to on the other thread?

You have a lot of questions to answer before we get there. First, if I show the data, would it change your mind? Second, why did you chose the last 6 years and the 1930s? Do you assume constant regulations over each of those periods, or do you want to see the trends for each period? If you want to see the trends, why do you focus on the early 1930s but stop. We have plenty of data after....

But if you won't agree that if proven wrong by me personally again you'll change your tune, then I'm not digging it up. Its a waste of time.

spydah_hh says

Let me ask you, do you think our country's economy is still a free market economy??

Are you trying to be clever? Our country was never a true free market, but such a thing doesn't exist in the real world. Is that the answer you're looking for?

control point says

193B together with their long term borrowings of $330B at 3.2% higher interest rate wipes out all of their earnings. A company with no earnings becomes less credit worthy..

And should cease to exist to make room for better companies instead of pulling a heist and steal from the taxpayer! You guys blather and complain about record profits but fail to realize that taking debt into account quite a few of those "grand" companies cannot and will not survive any recession for more than a couple of months. Debt and leverage driven by cheap credit (plus un-prosecuted clear cut financial fraud and corruption) is the main problem, everything else is bullshit.

Call it Crazy says

In this warped market only 40% of home sales are between individuals using a mortgage, 42% are all cash transactions, 16% are distressed sales, 5% are flipped, and only 27% are first time buyers.

I read the article. Doesn't it state that 42% of transactions were all cash in DECEMBER and then carries that over as the figure for ALL of 2013 towards the end of the article? Is that not distortion?

mell says

And should cease to exist to make room for better companies instead of pulling a heist and steal from the taxpayer! You guys blather and complain about record profits but fail to realize that taking debt into account quite a few of those "grand" companies cannot and will not survive any recession for more than a couple of months. Debt and leverage driven by cheap credit (plus un-prosecuted clear cut financial fraud and corruption) is the main problem, everything else is bullshit.

and that doesn't take into account what Jack Welch did

bgamall4 says

Call it Crazy says

Don't know if that paragraph just referenced December only, but if you look at the chart in post #64, you'll see the large ramp up to cash sales in the second half of 2013 versus 2011 & 2012...

That's NOT a normal market...

It is the tail end of a ponzi, unless they give liar loans to the homeless, like before.

Why? Many of those cash buyers (the ones who will rent out) saw an opportunity to make an investment with potentially better returns than they can get elsewhere. If you check the rental market and you buy a house that offers good returns on your initial investment, then that is simply a reasonable use of your money and clearly not a ponzi scheme.

Call it Crazy says

Don't know if that paragraph just referenced December only, but if you look at the chart in post #64, you'll see the large ramp up to cash sales in the second half of 2013 versus 2011 & 2012...

That's NOT a normal market...

If people/institutions were heavily investing around the country in real estate in 2013, then they did so because they saw an opportunity. What does that say to you about your hoped for crash in house prices, one that you've been saying was just around the corner for the last 2/3 years now, a time during which house prices have risen substantially?

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Why? Many of those cash buyers (the ones who will rent out) saw an opportunity to make an investment with potentially better returns than they can get elsewhere.

I guess you didn't read the OP either, just jumped into the end of the thread... Here, I'll help refresh your memory on what the thread was about:

Call it Crazy says

The report from RealtyTrac last week proves beyond the shadow of a doubt the supposed housing market recovery is a complete and utter fraud.

As you well know, I read the post - you replied to a comment I made about it earlier FFS.
The report doesn't say the recovery is a fraud. The blogger says that. And the report says (amongst other things) that there has been heavier cash investment than usual. What do you think that implies?

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, February 5, 2014 __ Level is 98.9

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

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

The report doesn't say the recovery is a fraud. The blogger says that.

What's your point... That the blogger can't write what he wants on his blog??

The point quite obviously is that someone saying it doesn't prove it. You are the one quoting him. Oh let me guess, you are just the messenger...

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

The report (amongst other things) says that there has been heavier cash investment than usual. What do you think that implies?

Read the title of the thread.....

Perhaps you would like to try and explain why it means that.
Are these investment funds paying premium for the properties or are they simply snapping them up cheaply because they can buy great swathes for cash? There's a world of difference between those two things in regard to the implications for individual home buyers.

spydah_hh says

Real wages (adjusting for inflation) rose steadily. Economic historian Clarence D. Long estimates that (in terms of constant 1914 dollars), the average annual incomes of all American nonfarm employees rose from $375 in 1870 to $395 in 1880, $519 in 1890 and $573 in 1900, a gain of 53% in 30 years

That's about a 1% growth rate, annually. Not anything to write home about.

Why? The 1870-1900 time period saw the adaptation of massive new technologies and efficiencies, with more *fundamental* changes than we've experienced over the past 30 years. We went from wood sail ship to steel powered ships many times larger and faster and independent of wind, a Transcontinental Railroad, Gas Tractor, the spread to the US of the Bessemer Process for Steel, Telephone, etc.

As for wages, let's compare 1913 to today... since we don't have reliable numbers that aren't at substantially ex-rectum prior to that.

Let us take at the period from 1913-2006, where we have complete data. So what do they mean, when they say the dollar lost 95.1% of its value in those 93 years? Essentially, an average good/service that cost $1 in 2006, used to be priced at 4.9 cents in 1913. In other words, the average price level of goods/services increased by 1930% since 1913. True, but guess what, average earned income increased by 6560% during the same time period. Average earned income rose from $740/yr in 1913 to $49,300/yr in 2006. Adjusting for inflation, $740/yr in 1913 is $15,000/yr in 2006 dollars. Average incomes, not only kept pace, but beat price inflation by 230%.

So does it make any sense all to say the dollar lost value? In reality, the REAL purchasing power of the average American, has increased by 230% in the past century. Sure, prices were cheap in 1913, but $740/yr doesn't buy you a whole lot, not anymore than 15,000/yr today. Even this statistic doesn't fully capture the quality of life gains of the last century. A household making $15,000/yr today is well below the poverty line, but yet, they are highly likely to have a refrigerator, indoor plumbing, electricity, tv, cell phone and maybe even heating and cooling. They are highly likely to have government help in making ends meet - food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid etc:. And yeah, thanks to advances in medicine, they don't have to worry about half their children dying before the age of 5. Their analogue in 1913, making $740/yr had none of these "luxuries". And that was the average income... Can you imagine what the poverty line looked like then?

Thanks New Deal! Thanks Great Society! The author goes on to say:

During the pre-depression years (1913-1929) average incomes barely kept up with inflation. During the market liberalization era (1979-2006), things were slightly better, but not by much. Average incomes beat inflation by just 22%. Most of the real income gains of the last century came during the high tax, "big" government New Deal era (1933-1973), when average REAL income increased from $9,980/yr to $40,500/yr. In other words, average incomes beat inflation by 300%. Had real average income grown at the same rate during 1979-2006, it would be $97,200/yr in 2006!! The contrast is even more stark, if you look at average real income of just the bottom 90%. For them, average incomes beat inflation by 400% during 1933-1973, as opposed to 1.6% during 1979-2006![1]

How come all these unskilled workers who increased their living standards 53% lived in unlit, dirty, dangerous tenements?
Look at these fine young peop--- er, children. Working hard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

Don't forget famous American novelist Horatio Alger, the pederast...
http://capecodconfidential.com/cccalger020515.shtml

thunderlips11 says

How come all these unskilled workers who increased their living standards 53% lived in unlit, dirty, dangerous tenements?

Look at these fine young peop--- er, children. Working hard

It was like this throughout the entire world, that's just how society was back then. I am not saying it would be like this today nor should it be. We have much more technological innovations today to prevent things like this occuring. However, my point was that back then the world's standard of living compared to today is low obviously because of lack of technology and it was the beginning of innovation but back then the US standard of living was better than most of the worlds.