patrick.net

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.

thunderlips11 says

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

Incomes don't have anything to do with growth. I mean by that logic since incomes have stagnated for the last 40 years then you're saying we had no growth for the last 40 years. Good observation lol.

You also missed the point where it talks about growth. Don't be like the media where you wish to pick and choose or fabricate information of your own choice.

thunderlips11 says

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.

Lol.. from 1913 until today the dollar has lost almost 99% of it's purchasing power. So you're comparing the dollar today in nominal terms. If you do it that way then yes the income will be greater today than back then. However, if you do it in real terms or in purchasing power, people back in the 1860-1900 were better off income wise than today. That's like saying the movie Avatar was the highest gross selling movie and it is in nominal terms, but in real terms the highest gross selling movie is Gone with the Wind. So in reality the highest gross selling movie is Gone with the Wind and not Avatar.

For more information:

The table to the right shows the equivalent amount of goods that, in a particular year, could be purchased with $1. The table shows that from 1774 through 2012 the U.S. dollar has lost about 97.0% of its buying power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Value

Click the link to see the chart.

The newspaper report says the cannibal was shot by police and later died, but LinkedIn says he still owns his business planning nightlife and events, so he's obviously a zombie. Contact him for "career opportunities, consulting offers, new ventures, job inquiries, expertise requests, business deals, reference requests, and getting back in touch."

thunderlips11 says

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

Yes nice emotional pictures you have there except there are points of logic to consider.

Back then putting kids to work was typical. Not putting kids to work might well mean that they starve. Remember in agrarian world there were no guarantees, look at Chinese farming families. Not to mention safety on farms.

Want to post an emotional picture? post one of a kid dying of starvation, that will make Stalin weep.

The government did not pass any laws about child labor until 1938.

Not allowing the kid to work may very well have meant no food for the family.

Much of the concern was that government was telling families what they could do with their children.

One of the main instigators of child labor laws were the unions to get rid of competition. Much as fireman do today against volunteer fireman.

Nice charts “Call it Crazy”
Prices have tendency to stabilize as well as rent prices. Auction.com and other auction sites have very few properties to offer. It means much less opportunity for flippers and Wall Street investors. If we add some upcoming financial crisis for Asia, DEMAND can dry-up much, much faster than lakes in CA.

Looks like Florida is going to have to pass a "Stand Your Face" law.

bgamall4 says

Tell you what, if the real estate market crashes to hell, you admit I am right about Sandy Hook hoax, the 9/11 false flag, and the Zionist desire for world rule with a world court placed in Jerusalem as Ben-Gurion wanted. Oh, and he wasn't a prophet, but rather an atheist.

Yeah, because one is obviously determined by the other. Based on what you just posted, I should say to you that as the real estate market has done the exact opposite of what all the perma-bears predicted on here for the last 3 years that you should finally admit that all your conspiracy/zionist nonsense is the utter bullshit it so clearly is. How about that?

bgamall4 says

That has to be what this is all about. But don't worry, the kingdom of Zionism will be stuffed by the return of Christ. We are near the end.

Oh dear, you really seem to be losing it more and more the closer you get to becoming worm food.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

There's a world of difference between those two things in regard to the implications for individual home buyers.

Which is why the thread title says what it says.... what the fuck is wrong with you??

The article is about the AB-NORMAL housing market last year... Is that so tough for you to understand???

All I have been saying is that investment vehicles saw a buying opportunity. Individuals with cash saw an opportunity. What kind of properties were they buying up? In what parts of the country? Were they outbidding other individuals or were they taking massive blocks of property off the hands of banks in one go? Were they squeezing out everyday buyers funded with mortgages by offering more or were they simply buying distressed property that there was no real demand for? Would you sell to a lower all cash offer or a higher offer from someone using a mortgage but whose financing was in place?
What exactly were these cash purchases distorting? Prices fell hard and rose quickly. You didn't see that coming, so now you just want to spend your time screaming it's all warped and manipulated. Well maybe it is, or maybe people with cash did what people with cash do - they looked and found a solid investment. Funds look for returns, so prices need to reflect that. Have funds driven up prices in California? Or have prices rebounded because prices dropped substantially, demand then increased whilst inventory has remained constrained? Why is that manipulation?

Florida? Check! Naked? Check! Box cutter? Check!

Now this is what I call a news story!

spydah_hh says

So you're comparing the dollar today in nominal terms

thunderlips11 says

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

In case you don't know--REAL means inflation adjusted. So you are 100% incorrect. Again.

spydah_hh says

The table to the right shows the equivalent amount of goods that, in a particular year, could be purchased with $1. The table shows that from 1774 through 2012 the U.S. dollar has lost about 97.0% of its buying power

Who cares?? Purchasing power, real income growth are what matters. Why does it matter whether you make $1/year or $1MM/year if the purchasing power is the same??

indigenous says

Yes nice emotional pictures you have there except there are points of logic to consider.

Back then putting kids to work was typical. Not putting kids to work might well mean that they starve. Remember in agrarian world there were no guarantees, look at Chinese farming families. Not to mention safety on farms.

Want to post an emotional picture? post one of a kid dying of starvation, that will make Stalin weep.

That's the point. Wouldn't you say a society where you DON'T have to put kids to work is better than one where you DO? How could the late 1800's have been a better era when kids had to work just to avoid starvation?

tatupu70 says

That's the point. Wouldn't you say a society where you DON'T have to put kids to work is better than one where you DO? How could the late 1800's have been a better era when kids had to work just to avoid starvation?

The problem is that the pictures are taken out of context.

The technology today is what allows us to work shorter hours.

On a farm there is no such thing as a 40hr work week for anyone back then.

Factory work drew people to it because of it was easier.

Of course the alternative would be a picture of a kid starving to death, wouldn't that be more depressing?

indigenous says

Factory work drew people to it because of it was easier.

lol--you obviously didn't work in a factory back then...

indigenous says

No what they had to roll was 5 billion, this was impetus for Immelt crying
wolf.

They had to roll 5 billion at that particular point, but their total short term borrowings (as reflected on their balance sheet) was $193 billion. That is the amount of debt they have to roll in the short term, by definition.

If you have a $5 bill due today, and $193 due over the next year - and do not have enough cash to cover the $193 nor do you expect to generate $193 in operating profits over the next year, you are going broke.

tatupu70 says

Who cares?? Purchasing power, real income growth are what matters. Why does it matter whether you make $1/year or $1MM/year if the purchasing power is the same??

It's not the same purchasing power. But hey since you believe in the CPI then yeah you'll argue that case. But as I said the CPI isn't a good indicator of inflation since it has changed so many times.

Official CPI is just like the Official unemployment, they've been bogged down and revised it to prevent their true numbers to the public.

However most know that the official unemployment numbers are undermine by the government, sadly most don't seem to understand it's the same for CPI.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

Factory work drew people to it because of it was easier.

lol--you obviously didn't work in a factory back then...

Lol, you obviously have no idea what he's talking about do you?

He's making a comparison about farm work and factory living BACK THEN. Back when society was different than today.

spydah_hh says

It's not the same purchasing power. But hey since you believe in the CPI then
yeah you'll argue that case. But as I said the CPI isn't a good indicator of
inflation since it has changed so many times.

Of course they changed the index. Should we still be measuring the price of polaroid cameras? Or 8 track tapes? It is NECESSARY to change the basket of goods to reflect changing times and changing tastes.

If they didn't change the index, it would be useless.

spydah_hh says

He's making a comparison about farm work and factory living BACK THEN. Back
when society was different than today.

No kidding. And I'm making the observation that he has no clue about the difficulty of factory work BACK THEN.

By the way--thanks for confirming point 1 of the OP.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

He's making a comparison about farm work and factory living BACK THEN. Back

when society was different than today.

No kidding. And I'm making the observation that he has no clue about the difficulty of factory work BACK THEN.

Ohhhhh and you do?!

Are you saying that farm work was easier than factory work? If so then why did most of the population shift from rural areas to city areas where the factories were? Hell we see the same thing happening in China and in emerging markets.

Let's not forget farmers didn't have this big tractor to plow the fields.

spydah_hh says

Ohhhhh and you do?!

Yes, it appears I know more than he does.

spydah_hh says

Are you saying that farm work was easier than factory work? If so then why
did most of the population shift from rural areas to city areas where the
factories were? Hell we see the same thing happening in China and in emerging
markets.

That is a loaded question--there are many reasons, but none of which were because factory work were easier than farm work.

tatupu70 says

Of course they changed the index. Should we still be measuring the price of polaroid cameras? Or 8 track tapes? It is NECESSARY to change the basket of goods to reflect changing times and changing tastes.

If they didn't change the index, it would be useless.

Okay, so answer this question. If inflation was a none issue and incomes have been on par with inflation. Then why does a household need two wage earners today where back in the 50s and before you could get by with one?

Please explain that to me Einstein.

Also the article that thunderlips provided is getting some major backlash from it's own comments. Needless to say it was biased and incorrect.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

Ohhhhh and you do?!

Yes, it appears I know more than he does.

spydah_hh says

Are you saying that farm work was easier than factory work? If so then why

did most of the population shift from rural areas to city areas where the

factories were? Hell we see the same thing happening in China and in emerging

markets.

That is a loaded question--there are many reasons, but none of which were because factory work were easier than farm work.

And yet you somehow know while the rest of us don't. Please get out of here with your bullshyt.

tatupu70 says

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.

Right, let's test your consistency and honesty ....

tatupu70 says

...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 [potential] 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.

So would you then also agree that it is very naive of those who pretend the bailouts were absolutely, unquestionably essential, and that the country's or world's economic system would have definitely collapsed without them ... Since of course it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to know?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

fought with a naked man outside their Delray Beach home

Of course he's naked. They always are.

Now you guys know what I have to put up with. All my neighbors are like this.

spydah_hh says

Okay, so answer this question. If inflation was a none issue and incomes have
been on par with inflation. Then why does a household need two wage earners
today where back in the 50s and before you could get by with one?

Please explain that to me Einstein.

Also the article that thunderlips provided is getting some major backlash
from it's own comments. Needless to say it was biased and incorrect.

There are several different questions there, actually, and several different answers. When you speak of incomes--you must specify--are you refering to overall wages/salaries, median, average? Inequality has hurt the median wages.

More importantly, however, is the standard of living is much better now. And I think you're wrong that it takes two incomes now in most of the US.

Paralithodes says

So would you then also agree that it is very naive of those who pretend the
bailouts were absolutely, unquestionably essential, and that the country's or
world's economic system would have definitely collapsed without them ... Since
of course it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to know?

OK--I'm not playing your word parsing games. Unless you are incredibly dense, you understand what I said. Either way--it's pointless to continue down this road with you.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Oh dear, you really seem to be losing it more and more the closer you get to becoming worm food.

Have your fun now, because you will pay later. Remember what I said Bigsby. Your words are recorded by a higher power. You don't think he will forget do you?

Is 'he' recording all your hoax drivel as well? Falsely accusing parents of faking their childrens' deaths can't exactly be a good thing. And hey, maybe God is a zionist...

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

I should say to you that as the real estate market has done the exact opposite of what all the perma-bears predicted on here for the last 3 years that you should finally admit that all your conspiracy/zionist nonsense is the utter bullshit it so clearly is. How about that?

People did predict a dead cat bounce. That is what this is unless the masses can get a down payment from the government.

They weren't predicting a 3 year dead cat bounce FFS. And it's quite possible that house prices will see a modest rise this year. What will you say then?

bgamall4 says

I just know what I am talking about.

That gave me a good laugh.

Bigsby says

They weren't predicting a 3 year dead cat bounce FFS. And it's quite possible
that house prices will see a modest rise next year. What will you say then?

LOL, that it didn't happen. C'mon, parrots are hard to retrain.

Oh, and the reason why is because of some diabolical zionist plot to make tomatoes rot faster.