patrick.net

Bigsby says

Who? And what has that got to do with anything? Lots of people lost relatives on 9/11. Does that suddenly make all of them experts?

You are such an ass.

Care to address any of the points or is that beyond you?

43737

Bigsby 2014 Mar 7, 8:25pm

HEY YOU says

RT is the fish wrapper of journalism. They missed the the biggest news story in history but at least FOX can be known for it's in-depth news investigations.

Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction!

Lol, that is funny. Interesting that RT changed their minds about 9/11 after Snowden defected. I am sure they know a lot.

You rant against so-called propaganda mouthpieces and then make mileage out of one of the most glaring examples of a corrupt 'news' organization, one that seems to have a liking for peddling fact-free conspiracy theories. That video is a perfect example of an utterly moronic one-sided piece of non-journalism. The fact that the 'journalist' uttered the words 'Jon made a mockery of mainstream science' simply because his guest spouted a bunch of unchallenged nonsense about 9/11 says all that needs to be said about that report.

43738 Reality 2014 Mar 7, 9:05pm

Bellingham Bill says

This is why houses sold for $40,000 in the 1970s sell for $1M today. Same house, it's the land that rose in value, mostly.

$40k in 1970 would be a very large and fancy house. $20k was more like it for a typical top-20 percentile upper middle class 2000sqft single family house in a suburban neighborhood that is good today and can hope to fetch $500k to $1mil today. Even then you probably need some renovation and expansion to get to the number. In any case, most of the geometric price gain is due to replacement cost. Building such a house today would cost about $200-300k (i.e. 10x to 15x the house price in 1970); the remaining 2x to 3x gain is largely due to market shift: the school busing starting in the 70's caused the middle class flight from the urban cities to the suburbs; the relative desirability of suburban single family in those "good" towns vs. the inner city housing stock turned upside down. There are plenty houses and buildings in the cities that can be bought for less than replacement cost today.

43739

tatupu70 2014 Mar 7, 9:29pm

The most decisive factor is actually the overall level of production, and often times may not be reflected in pricing per se as when a good approach abundance its price collapse

That's BS. If the overall level of production is high, but the owners share little with the workers, you end up with what we have today. Huge disparity and poor general health

Austrians and other free-market believers advocate that the government should get out of the way, so even the poor and mostly the middle class can fully exercise what market power they do have

Yes. And because the poor and middle class have no market power, the Austrian's would get exactly what they want.

43740 Reality 2014 Mar 7, 9:51pm

That's BS. If the overall level of production is high, but the owners share little with the workers, you end up with what we have today. Huge disparity and poor general health

Owners do not share with workers per se any more than you share your wallet with the minimum-wage checkout girl. In a relatively free market economy, owners of capital bid for the labor of workers.

"Production" is not a uniform goo. A cattle is not a walking bag of ground beef. It consists of numerous different "cuts" after slaughtering/butchering, some cost $20/lb, some $2/lb, but all have relatively similar protein content. A rich person may spend $300k on a Ferrari, 10x the average new car today. It may be worth it to the buyer, but is it really worth 10x the average new $30k car to the middle class family? Is $20/lb fillet mignon really worth 10x to the family that get by just fine on ground chuck? For the fairer sex, we can also talk about the $2000 handbag vs. the $20 handbag. That's how the free market place provide for the poor and middle class through relative abundance while letting the rich "waste" their spending power essentially providing jobs making luxury goods.

This is a heck lot better system than the socialist dream of everyone having the same ground goo, some leaders are more equal and therefore have more of the goo! If the entire cattle has to be ground up and sold as ground beef, the price of ground beef actually has to go up in the absence of higher priced cuts subsidizing the lower priced cuts. Likewise, in the absence of luxury cars subsidizing the manufacturer, the price of the plebian cars would actually go up for the middle class buyer of cars! Hand bags with 100x price differential instead of 10x would of course be even more so.

Price differential among end products do not necessarily reflect the natural resources going into making them. Therefore the rich picking up high end products at over-inflated prices are actually taking up less natural resources than if they had been forced to confine themselves to the same goo/production. The free market quality differentiation among goods serve to minimize the overall resource consumption to maximize consumer satisfaction (aka "profit").

"Huge disparity" is grossly over-stated in monetary terms.

"General poor health" is the result of the socialistic healthcare system (one of the most "regulated" industry) providing perverse incentives.

Reality says

Austrians and other free-market believers advocate that the government should get out of the way, so even the poor and mostly the middle class can fully exercise what market power they do have

Yes. And because the poor and middle class have no market power, the Austrian's would get exactly what they want.

Utter nonsense. The difference between the poor vs. the middle class is how much market power they have. It is statists like you that want to remove the difference by ostensibly subsidizing the poor but in reality taking market power from the middle class. When the poor is given housing vouchers, free healthcare, etc. etc. making their welfare income equivalent to someone making $50k, the result is that someone actually making $50k on his/her own would now have his/her market power reduced due to the government-subsidzed competition on the consumer market.

43741

tatupu70 2014 Mar 7, 10:02pm

In a relatively free market economy, owners of capital bid for the labor of workers.

Yep, and in a world where there is over abundant labor, owners control the transaction. I know that's how you like it, but it's not good for society.

This is a heck lot better system than the socialist dream of everyone having the same ground goo, some leaders are more equal and therefore have more of the goo! If the entire cattle has to be ground up and sold as ground beef, the price of ground beef actually has to go up in the absence of higher priced cuts subsidizing the lower priced cuts. Likewise, in the absence of luxury cars subsidizing the manufacturer, the price of the plebian cars would actually go up for the middle class buyer of cars! Hand bags with 100x price differential instead of 10x would of course be even worse.

Wow--it takes you a lot of words to come up with your strawman arguments, doesn't it? I don't know of anyone who is arguing for socialism.

Utter nonsense. The difference between the poor vs. the middle class is how much market power they have. It is statists like you that want to remove the difference by ostensibly subsidizing the poor but in reality taking market power from the middle class. When the poor is given housing vouchers, free healthcare, etc. etc. making their welfare income equivalent to someone making $50k, the result is that someone actually making $50k on his/her own would now have his/her market power reduced due to the government-subsidzed competition on the consumer market.

Once again--you can't stop from telling me what I think or what I want. All you have is strawman arguments because you know you're theories are complete BS.

43742 bob2356 2014 Mar 7, 10:07pm

the school busing starting in the 70's caused the middle class flight from the urban cities to the suburbs; the relative desirability of suburban single family in those "good" towns vs. the inner city housing stock turned upside down

I always get a kick out of your version of history. White flight was mostly done by the 70's and most big cities were well into urban decay. It was a product of much improved infrastructure including the interstate system letting people live out of the cities in the new levittown suburbs which were much cheaper, owned and not rented, and had a lot less crime than even the best urban hood.

43743 bob2356 2014 Mar 7, 10:10pm

That's simply wrong. The most decisive factor is actually the overall level of production, and often times may not be reflected in pricing per se as when a good approach abundance its price collapse.

Utter nonsense. The difference between the poor vs. the middle class is how much market power they have. It is statists like you that want to remove the difference by ostensibly subsidizing the poor but in reality taking market power from the middle class. When the poor is given housing vouchers, free healthcare, etc. etc. making their welfare income equivalent to someone making $50k, the result is that someone actually making $50k on his/her own would now have his/her market power reduced due to the government-subsidzed competition on the consumer market.

That's a direct contradiciton. raising the demand for products by government subsiidized competition should collapse the price if both paragraphs are to be believed.

43744 Reality 2014 Mar 7, 10:34pm

Yep, and in a world where there is over abundant labor, owners control the transaction. I know that's how you like it, but it's not good for society.

Why would there be an "over abundant labor" without government forcing people into slavery? Would you willingly sell your labor for nothing? Do you even understand what "over abundant" means in economics? In a government-run economy (or economic sector) such as the soviet socialist system or Nazi concentration camps or the prison system in many countries today, labor was/is "over abundant" as they are forced labor. Not in a free market place where every worker can choose to work for some other employer or even work for themselves.

Wow--it takes you a lot of words to come up with your strawman arguments, doesn't it? I don't know of anyone who is arguing for socialism.

Some of us apparently don't understand what socialism is even as they re-invent the wheel. Failure to grasp the enormous complexity and "texture" of goods and services in a real economy, stubbing it with uniform goo-like "production" is the intellectual starting point for socialistic central planning.

Utter nonsense. The difference between the poor vs. the middle class is how much market power they have. It is statists like you that want to remove the difference by ostensibly subsidizing the poor but in reality taking market power from the middle class. When the poor is given housing vouchers, free healthcare, etc. etc. making their welfare income equivalent to someone making $50k, the result is that someone actually making $50k on his/her own would now have his/her market power reduced due to the government-subsidzed competition on the consumer market.

Once again--you can't stop from telling me what I think or what I want. All you have is strawman arguments because you know you're theories are complete BS.

I was not telling you what you want. I was simply rebutting the first half of your earlier statement:

"because the poor and middle class have no market power, the Austrian's would get exactly what they want."

You should stop projecting what I want.

43745 bob2356 2014 Mar 7, 10:36pm

Yes, they did. Saab made seat belts standard equipment on their cars in 1958, long before government mandates. Comes to think of it, practically any and all safety measures were introduced by the private sector before the government busy bodies "mandated" it. After all, the government types are not exactly known for being inventive or creative, besides their lies.

More reality history. Saab was something like .2% market share with a 2 stroke, 2 cylinder "car". Of course products were "introduced" by industry, they have the engineers. Government sets standards, which is a very legitimate and neccesary government function.

Without the clean air act we would very likely be still driving cars with carbs, using leaded gas, and sending them to the junkyard at 100k. Without the NHTSA it's unlikely there would be seat belts, padded dash, crumple zones, side impact barriers, laminate windshields, collapsible steering columns, passenger compartment safety cell, etc., in every or even many cars None of which (other than seat belts in saab and ford in 1956) were "introduced" until safety standards existed. The engineers knew it all could be done, it's not rocket science. But no major car company budgeted for development of safety features before the mandates.

43746 Reality 2014 Mar 7, 10:40pm

bob2356 says

Reality says

the school busing starting in the 70's caused the middle class flight from the urban cities to the suburbs; the relative desirability of suburban single family in those "good" towns vs. the inner city housing stock turned upside down

I always get a kick out of your version of history. White flight was mostly done by the 70's and most big cities were well into urban decay. It was a product of much improved infrastructure including the interstate system letting people live out of the cities in the new levittown suburbs which were much cheaper, owned and not rented, and had a lot less crime than even the best urban hood.

Since you brought the term here, you should read up on the subject of "White Flight." It was not "mostly done" in the year 1970. Some cities like Detroit and Cleveland already saw "white flight" earlier, but the those are not the cities around which the bulk of $1M single families are located. The vast majority of $1M single families are located in the suburbs of coastal metropolis like NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seatle, etc. etc.. "White Flight" was mostly a 1970's phenomenon in those cities, after school busing started in the late 1960's.

43747 Reality 2014 Mar 7, 10:51pm

bob2356 says

More reality history. Saab was something like .2% market share with a 2 stroke, 2 cylinder "car". Of course products were "introduced" by industry, they have the engineers.

You are better than some other idiots who attribute invention to governments, like those fools worshipping NASA.

Government sets standards, which is a very legitimate and neccesary government function. Without the clean air act we would very likely be still driving cars with carbs, using leaded gas, and sending them to the junkyard at 100k.

So which government standard mandated cars having to last more than 100k miles? The lack of proves that government setting standards is nothing more than an make-belief kabuki show. As the industry matured, manufacturers have to make cars last longer simply because consumers finance cars and trade in used cars: longer lasting cars reduce ownership cost in the long run. As for the phasing out of tetra-ethyl lead in gasoline and introduction of new chemicals to control knocking in engines, the "government standards" have more to do with DuPont patents expiring than anything else, just refrigerant standards change every couple decades as existing DuPont patents expire and laws have to be bought to ban copycats, so you the consumer have to pay up for the patent medicine/chemical.

bob2356 says

Without the NHTSA it's unlikely there would be seat belts, padded dash, crumple zones, side impact barriers, laminate windshields, collapsible steering columns, passenger compartment safety cell, etc., in every or even many cars None of which (other than seat belts in saab and ford in 1956) were "introduced" until safety standards existed. The engineers knew it all could be done, it's not rocket science. But no major car company budgeted for development of safety features before the mandates.

That must be why Mercedes researched for airbags before there was any standards for airbags. Comes to think of it, wasn't every single one of the items listed above researched and developed by some car company before it was mandated by the government? Did they hire you as the crystal ball reader telling them government mandates on non-existing features were coming in a few years, so they had to research for that not yet existing item?

43748

Bigsby 2014 Mar 7, 10:51pm

I have showed you that the 9/11 report is nonsense. WTC7 side by side with demolished buildings makes the 9/11 report nonsense. John Kerry stating that WTC7 was demolished makes the 9/11 report nonsense. Explosions heard and people injured in the bottom of the twin towers makes the 9/11 report nonsense. The falling of WTC7 at near the rate of gravity, with no pancaking, makes the 9/11 report nonsense. The complete destruction of the buildings falling into their own footprint makes the 9/11 report nonsense. Squibs that show explosive charges being observed in the towers make the 9/11 report nonsense. The call by the neocons' PNAC for a new Pearl Harbor in 2000 makes the 9/11 report nonsense.

You've shown a bunch of idiotic Youtube videos. The only thing that is nonsense is what you take to be proof.

43749

tatupu70 2014 Mar 7, 11:01pm

Do you even understand what "over abundant" means in economics?

Yes I do.

Some of us apparently don't understand what socialism is even as they re-invent the wheel. Failure to grasp the enormous complexity and "texture" of goods and services in a real economy, stubbing it with uniform goo-like "production" is the intellectual starting point for socialistic central planning.

lol--and in your mind, the starting point = the ending point? There is no in between??

I was not telling you what you want. I was simply rebutting the first half of your earlier statement:

No--you were telling me what I want. Incorrectly, of course.

43750

Bigsby 2014 Mar 7, 11:20pm

A video that shows the truth is worth more than 100k words of your drivel. That is what you don't understand. Actually, Bigsby, I believe you know I am right but you have an agenda to bury the truth by placing doubt in peoples' minds.

No, I believe you are a clueless idiot who puts his faith in equally clueless amateur Youtube makers instead of those who have done the painstaking research into the events that you clearly have no actual understanding of. You already made up your mind before even considering the facts, and anything you see that supports your bull, no matter how utterly ridiculous (bottled water with Sandy Hook being an obvious example), you leap upon uncritically. Actual evidence plays no part in your beliefs anymore (if it ever did). You disregard everything that counters what you say. To you, a Youtube video knocked together by a 16 year-old has more worth than the research papers of scientists who have spent years examining the evidence. That's what makes you an unthinking conspiracy nut.

43751

FortWayne 2014 Mar 7, 11:26pm

HEY YOU says

RT is the fish wrapper of journalism. They missed the the biggest news story in history but at least FOX can be known for it's in-depth news investigations.

Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction!

Lol, that is funny. Interesting that RT changed their minds about 9/11 after Snowden defected. I am sure they know a lot.

Our government has been trying very hard to avoid talking about Snowden. Last thing they want is average American thinking about how their rights are simply taken away and are not even protected.

43752 mmmarvel 2014 Mar 7, 11:30pm

ch_tah2 says

Any thoughts on where to invest - either other parts of CA or other states?

You might laugh, but TX would be a great place to buy homes. Prices are still relatively low and the opportunity to flip is still pretty good. Buying a home for less than $100K, drop $10 - $20K into it and flip it for $135 - $150K. If I had the money, time and was into flipping. Keeping in mind the economy down here is strong, there are plenty of jobs and lots of people moving here for the first two reasons.

43753

FortWayne 2014 Mar 8, 12:40am

FortWayne says

Our government has been trying very hard to avoid talking about Snowden. Last thing they want is average American thinking about how their rights are simply taken away and are not even protected.

Yeah, and I bet Snowden knows lots. I hope it all comes out.

They were able to shut Julian Assange up, so who knows what will come out from Snowden. They've been threatening him a lot too.

43754

Bigsby 2014 Mar 8, 12:48am