patrick.net

rooemoore says

Woods is a straight dope, alright.

Oh, Thomas Woods Jr. that's the crypto-Confederate: "It wuz all abouts da tariff!" - nevermind that the tariffs had been agreed-upon decade after decade, and it wasn't tariffs that Southern Leaders railed about. It was about the empire of slavery expanding Westward, so Plantation Owner's sons could own vast tracts at the expense of small farmers.

Amos is happy where he is, dammit!

thunderlips11 says

crypto-Confederate apologist

I guess you mean neo confederate. He is not at all, strictly a solid Austrian.

marcus says

I distinctly remember Bush (GWB) campaigning that he was opposed to "nation
building."

I distinctly remember a little event on 9/11 that changed our thinking on foreign policy.

We used to think we could just support dictators to keep a lid on the crazy and the crazy wouldn't spill on our shores. That didn't work out so well for us on 9/11 and required new thinking.

Now that we are bugging out of the world and letting the crazies take over, expect to see more stories like this where Jihadis trained in Syria are coming back to Europe and elsewhere to kill Jews.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-jewish-museum-attack-man-arrested-in-marseille-in-connection-with-shooting-of-four-people-9467318.html

PolishKnight says

In any case, as I said, since the left ultimately winds up in bed with the very same capitalists they claim to hate (Goldman Sachs, for example) and then engage in a race agenda to make up for their failures with the bread and circus populace,

If I understand you correctly, you think both sides are screwing you but you like the way the Republicans do it better.

Well, that's because they have small dicks. When your getting fucked in the ass, smaller is probably better.

Thank you very much! I appreciate all your helpful, educated and well-thought out answers to my questions. This gives me a lot to think about and research further.

socal2 says

I distinctly remember a little event on 9/11 that changed our thinking on foreign policy.

The neocons had plans for Iraq (which was unrelated to 9/11), way before 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

It is true that without 9/11, it would have been somewhere between difficult and impossible to get support for what we did in Iraq. But that's a far cry from saying that 9/11 truly justified the Iraq war.

The Crash of 2017, leading to further subjugation of the poor by global predatory capitalism and the rise of Totalitarian States engaged in continuous Resource Wars.

And I was promised a Jet Car if I made it to the 21st Century.

sbh says

The Teabaggers want this real, real bad. BRING IT!

Many teabaggers who think they're ready would look like morons when they stand in the bread lines with everyone else.

Unfortunately this wouldn't happen. I see no reason they can't do the same stimulus QE etc a few more rounds.

I think the fed played a big part and I think the republicans will again suck it up and bail out the system if it comes to that.

socal2 says

I distinctly remember a little event on 9/11 that changed our thinking on foreign policy.

Unfortunately, that is true. It caused us to make a series of really bad decisions, ones that have scarred our national psyche far out of proportion to the actual event. All that really needed to happen post-9/11 was a firm commitment by passengers and crews that no razor-wielding hijackers would ever be obeyed again. Just about everything else was a grotesque overreaction. Vengeance/justice on the hijackers and their apparatus could have been achieved without military mobilization.

rooemoore says

PolishKnight says

In any case, as I said, since the left ultimately winds up in bed with the very same capitalists they claim to hate (Goldman Sachs, for example) and then engage in a race agenda to make up for their failures with the bread and circus populace,

If I understand you correctly, you think both sides are screwing you but you like the way the Republicans do it better.

Well, that's because they have small dicks. When your getting fucked in the ass, smaller is probably better.

That's the lesser of two evils argument. Note, I don't like EITHER of them. In fact, this is why the Republicans are losing so many elections: Their white male base isn't showing up even as white males are fleeing the Democratic party.

I respect the Democratic party in that even if they can't deliver their magical Sweden as promised, they at least satisfy their electorate by throwing them fresh meat.

carrieon says

because the market is controlled by the Fed, not politics.

And the Fed is just a proxy for its gigantic private member banks and a tool of the grotesquely oversized financial industry in general.
Sometimes I think we should have another way to describe it when the "Fed" takes action. It leads to confusion as to who is in charge and what their goals are.

"I consider all of the following to be conservative: 2) investing in education (i.e the future - and indirectly boosting future tax revenues)"

This classical leftist argument reminds me of my wife asking to buy a designer handbag for a grand and claims: "I need a decent bag to carry my stuff in!" Her argument is that either she gets a grand, or a plastic sack from the grocery store.

By the same token... the left argues that education needs "invstment" which is code for big pensions for unionized teachers and administrators. Here's a fact: The USA spends more per capita than ANY other country. Where did I read that? Foxnews of course. Oh, wait, I got it from the Huffington Post!!!! tinyurl.com/lfhqy26

"The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year, with parents and private foundations picking up more of the costs than in the past, an international survey released Tuesday found."

Want to conserve the planet? Reduce population rather than encouraging third world countries to breed and importing them to grow the welfare state. "Entitlements", or in other words, welfare or failing ponzi schemes, make up the bulk of the budget so any hopes of "progressive" taxing out of that is hopeless.

socal2 says

We used to think we could just support dictators to keep a lid on the crazy and the crazy wouldn't spill on our shores. That didn't work out so well for us on 9/11 and required new thinking.

Now that's the most ass backward thinking in a while. The crazies came out because the US supported corrupt dictators who lived like kings while stealing everything that wasn't nailed down.

carrieon says

because the market is controlled by the Fed

Re-read many of his posts that state "IT'S NOT THE FED"..............

PolishKnight says

Ironically, the feminists that embraced marxism are now finding that in Europe and the USA, pockets of Sharia law are springing up.

In the US, the fundamentalist Christians basically want Sharia law imposed. Somehow it's only offensive if a radical non-mainstream Islamist wants it.

bob2356 says

The crazies came out because the US supported corrupt dictators who lived like kings while stealing everything that wasn't nailed down.

Did "we" really used to think that the populace in the countries where we supported dictatorial regimes enjoyed those dictatorial regimes? Really?

Or was it Realpolitik? The spooks and the Pentagon thought, "the enemy of my enemy if my friend" and "who gives a fuck what happens to the citizens of country X"?

And then we had 9/11 as a consequence of that same Machiavellian approach?

PolishKnight says

Reduce population rather than encouraging third world countries to breed and
importing them to grow the welfare state.

They are not being imported to grow the "welfare state." They are being imported because the powers that be know that they are likely to have off-springs in greater numbers than "traditional communities".... and hence are viewed as keys to the long term solvency of social security.

PolishKnight says

The (remaining) white male liberals I know are either hypocritical limosine
liberals or they live in their mother's basement or are childless hipsters
slumming it up.

You need to get out more. It would do you well to break some of the stereotypes you seem to have made up.

Vicente says

socal2 says

I distinctly remember a little event on 9/11 that changed our thinking on foreign policy.

Unfortunately, that is true. It caused us to make a series of really bad decisions, ones that have scarred our national psyche far out of proportion to the actual event. All that really needed to happen post-9/11 was a firm commitment by passengers and crews that no razor-wielding hijackers would ever be obeyed again. Just about everything else was a grotesque overreaction. Vengeance/justice on the hijackers and their apparatus could have been achieved without military mobilization.

But we didn't change our foreign policy as a result. We simply grew military build up out of it.

Like every nation historically, instead of doing the right thing, they used the situation to grow MIC and intrusion into our lives. Obama hasn't changed much of that course either. He did cut some military spending, but overall structure is still there, and the entire structure of big government take over hasn't given an inch.

dublin hillz says

PolishKnight says

Reduce population rather than encouraging third world countries to breed and

importing them to grow the welfare state.

They are not being imported to grow the "welfare state." They are being imported because the powers that be know that they are likely to have off-springs in greater numbers than "traditional communities".... and hence are viewed as keys to the long term solvency of social security.

Hahahaha! That was the plan in Europe, certainly. 20 years ago, they'd import welfare state recipients who would all get high paying jobs to pay into the social system.

Oh, wait, they went on welfare and became a public burden. Then they had more kids.

This is like taking the residents of Oakland and putting them into the zip codes of readers here and then hoping they'll all get high paying jobs and prop up real estate values. OH, wait, that was the plan behind the last real estate bubble.

corntrollio says

PolishKnight says

Ironically, the feminists that embraced marxism are now finding that in Europe and the USA, pockets of Sharia law are springing up.

In the US, the fundamentalist Christians basically want Sharia law imposed. Somehow it's only offensive if a radical non-mainstream Islamist wants it.

I know, you watched the film "Footloose" as a kid, didn't you? Those evil fundamentalist preachers want to ban dancing, TV, and hula hoops and make everything like a 1950's Leave it to Beaver show.

There's this retro TV program, MadMen, which is highly leftist but simultaneously, nostalgic for those days. A man could talk to a woman and call her pretty without losing his job. Women dressed pretty. Men danced back then (not just gyrating loosely in a disco, but knew dance moves with a partner.) Most men back then could compete on Dancing with the Stars today.

It's funny that the leftist puritans are as bad as the right was portrayed as being.

tatupu70 says

PolishKnight says

The (remaining) white male liberals I know are either hypocritical limosine

liberals or they live in their mother's basement or are childless hipsters

slumming it up.

You need to get out more. It would do you well to break some of the stereotypes you seem to have made up.

I knew and know people who fit all those stereotypes. Some live in their parents' basements and some in the attic. I am NOT making this up.

Oh, and I've been to and lived in Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Mexico and Canada. I've lived in 6 different US states on the East Coast, West Coast, and in-between.

PolishKnight says

I knew and know people who fit all those stereotypes. Some live in their
parents' basements and some in the attic. I am NOT making this up.

Llike I said, perhaps you need to get out more and make friends with folks that don't live in their parents attic and/or basement. In my experience, those people don't typically vote anyway.

Housing recovery? It is called recovery when middle class Americans are getting loans suitable to their income and can buy homes in their income range, not when the only buyers are the cash rich buyers who could care less whether the piece of RE is expensive or not.

Actually, look for 2X, 3X, or even 4Xing of values in the near future for the "hot" areas.

All owner-occupants will sell to investors and move somewhere cheaper, paying cash and retiring with their windfalls.

At the point of 100% investor-owned properties in hot markets, it will be a constant recycling of sales between investors. Rents won't spike too much, though, as incomes dictate those. But home prices themselves will be out of reach for salary drones.

This will continue for as long as the hot areas remain desirable to live in. Only natural catastrophes can change that. The areas will be immune to economic downturns since investors will simply stop selling in the worst case. They can afford to hold on forever.

So if you have a house, be prepared to get filthy rich. If you rent, well, continue to.

Robert Sproul I never read your threads mostly because I have a feeling they are full of ego and waste of time. I am not Chinese. Not even close.

PolishKnight says

20 years ago, they'd import welfare state recipients who would all get high paying jobs to pay into the social system.

Oh, wait, they went on welfare and became a public burden. Then they had more kids.

Except that that isn't true. The countries that embraced EU migrants saw booming economies, and those that didn't (excluding Germany) didn't. It was only the burst of the credit bubble that changed this, but likely only on a temporary basis. The reality is that migrants in Europe are far less likely to be on benefits than natives and are likely net contributors to pension systems.

PolishKnight says

This is like taking the residents of Oakland and putting them into the zip codes of readers here

Not sure that you know anything about Oakland. Oakland has some of the poorest and some of the richest people in the Bay Area.

Anyway, nice ideological nonsense you've posted here, but it doesn't really tell us anything about good policy or make a good argument. You're good at complaining, but short on actual answers.

PolishKnight says

I knew and know people who fit all those stereotypes. Some live in their parents' basements and some in the attic. I am NOT making this up.

http://kalenkimm.com/2012/11/2012-presidential-election-demographic-analysis/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

"Highly Educated" white went for Obama. Obama won the top 16 states by educational attainment, and 18 of the top 20.

Romney won the top 7 states with highest black population by percentage, and 8 of the top 10.

Presidents are elected by electoral votes - allocated to the states (and DC). Of the states with the highest percentage of highly educated population, Obama won 18 of 20 and 20 of the top 25. Romney won 18 of the bottom 26 (51 total includes DC) states by educational attainment.

Of the 28 states Obama won, 71% of them are in the top half by education attainment and 29% of them were in the bottom half of educational attainment. Of the 23 States Romney won, 78% were in the bottom half by education attainment and 22% were in the top half.

To dispel any argument of the "black" vote helping skew this, of the top half of states with highest percentage of black population, Romney won 14, Obama 11. Of the bottom half, Obama won 17, Romney 9.

Think about that above, how is that possible? In Mississippi, 37% of the population is black, of Which Obama got over 90% support. That means his percentage of the total vote from black alone in that state was close to .9*.37 = 33.3%. But Obama only got 43.8% of the vote in MS, so that means of the remaining non-black population in MS, he got .105/.63 = 16.7% support. So Romney carried 83.3% support among non-black voters in MS AND MS has some of the lowest educational attainment among whites in the nation. Yeah, the deep south isn't racist anymore....

Aggregate popular vote does not elect the President. Obama won the election by carrying the highly educated white voter in states where this voter was higher sample of population than the national average.

control point says

Romney won the top 7 states with highest black population by percentage, and 8 of the top 10.

Why should blacks not support Romney? They see the communo-fascist atheist Muslim dystopia the Kenyan has created - they're living in it, same as everybody else. Days spent scrambling for food and water, nights spent blowing oligarchs for antibiotics.

Ironworker says

I don't mind the trash talk. It's just waist of time for me to read it.

If that is the case then you are probably in the wrong forum, sorry. The real trick is separating the pertinent from the trash..............

Call it Crazy says

“an excellent long-term investment and one of the best ways for people to build wealth and assets,

That ship has sailed. Owners: congrats. Buyers: tough nuts.

Existing homes do not add economic value, so only when the government and banks manipulate interest rates and loan structures to the advantage of owners (ie, banks) do they gain resale value.

exfatguy says

All owner-occupants will sell to investors

ROI

Yes, I'm wondering myself what to do next. We own a home in the Bay Area and we are heavily invested in stocks. I wonder what the crash will do to the value of the dollar? I wonder how the money in granny's mattress will do? Gold is an option, but also raises a lot of questions. We also have sent a lot of our industry overseas. War was also a factor in the twenties....not that China and Russia and our oil dependancy don't seem to be a nice recipe for World War 3.

corntrollio says

Not sure that you know anything about Oakland. Oakland has some of the
poorest and some of the richest people in the Bay Area.

Yes, and it's probably due to hipster spillover factor from S.F. Those who get priced out view oaktown as option #2. They believe that oaktown has lots of original bars, restaurants, clubs etc and while there's some truth to that vs lets say a more suburbian setting in my opinion risk/reward does not justify living there since those places are commutable via bart/car.

JH says

exfatguy says

All owner-occupants will sell to investors

ROI

Ownership is its own reward, above and beyond mere rental income streams. You cannot tie real estate to sublunary concerns like "earnings" or "revenue" - that is much too crass for any understanding of the market.

Real estate is like a fine wine, which must be slowly savored and may not be to everyone's taste. Only the best people will understand what I'm saying.

Call it Crazy says

Over half of Americans (52%) have had to make at least one major sacrifice in order to cover their rent or mortgage over the last three years

That could mean anything. I'm currently working on a 30 day billing cycle, then it could take up to 30 days after that to get my money.
So I had to float my self for a couple months, over the last year. I had to do things I normally wouldn't have done to cover the mortgage. Like cash one of those Citi checks 0% interest for 12 months and sold my Hammond B3 :(.

My finances between those Mortgage due dates and now, is night and day.

bob2356 says

Now that's the most ass backward thinking in a while. The crazies came out
because the US supported corrupt dictators who lived like kings while stealing
everything that wasn't nailed down.

You are apparently missing my point.

The Jihadis hated that the US supported autocratic dictators (Saudis, Egpyt, Jordan, Pakistan....) to keep a lid on their crazies. One of Bin Laden's main stated reasons for attacking us on 9/11 was that we had troops in Saudi Arabia's "holy land" enforcing UN sanctions and the no-fly zone on Iraq.

After 9/11, the neocons thought we should kick over the old Cold War order (starting with Iraq) and let the people have more freedom to vote for their own destiny instead of propping up dictators for short term "stability". It has certainly been an ugly process, but you may have noticed that Jihadis have been too busy fighting for power in their own countries and have less time to plot against the US.

Now that the Jihadis are tied up killing their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan - the Jihad brand has taken a major hit in popularity as the average non-radical Muslim has seen their brutality up close. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt barely lasted a year before the people rose up again to overthrow them.

Islam desperately needs a reformation. Since 9/11, US Foreign Policy (for better or worse) has forced the focus back onto the "Muslim World" instead of the streets of New York, DC, London or Paris.

FortWayne says

But we didn't change our foreign policy as a result. We simply grew military
build up out of it.

I wish you guys would make up your minds.

Are the Neocons a bunch of crazy dudes who orchestrated 9/11 to change US foriegn policy for PNAC, Israel or Bilderbergers......? Or did we not change at all?

I think it is pretty clear we changed from a Cold War "Realist" position of supporting the least worst crazy of the bunch for "stability" to a much more aggressive (and utopian) policy of overthrowing dictators and allowing the people to participate in governing their countries.

To believe like Bush didn't drastically change US foreign policy after 9/11 is pretty crazy.

IMO stocks are going to crash as is real estate. But it could take some time because it is unlikely that Yellin will taper anytime soon.

Gold will do you no good in deflation, which we are going in and out of due to several factors.

So cash would be the best bet.

If there is war there will be inflation at which point gold makes sense. I could possibly see where China may want war but the US not so much.

The industry thing has to do with mercantilism, the jobs are actually coming back to the US to some degree, more so to other countries like Mexico. But make no mistake about it the US is the biggest manufacturing country in the world by far. It is counter intuitive because Walmart is filled with Chinese trinkets. The US builds airplanes that move hundreds of people, turbines, heavy construction equipment which you are not familiar with.

The US is projected to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia

War maybe but I don't see it because of trade.