patrick.net

shrekgrinch says

Not my problem if you can’t understand economics or (worse) do so but simply refuse to acknowledge said economic realities because they harm your ideological world view.

But it is your problem that I do. And at a much deeper level than you.

shrekgrinch says

Probably no more than 100 businesses in the entire country will be directly negatively impacted by a .25 cent raise in the minimum wage that they have to lay of workers. But they do exist or do you refute that?

Interesting. That's not at all the discussion that we were having however. My example was a minimum wage of $.25/day, not an increase over the current minimum wage by $.25/day. Hopefully you will read a little more carefully next time.

Have you given up the whole Obama campaigned that he'd fix everything BS now? Good.

shrekgrinch says

Ok. So what was your point by asking that question? Do enlighten us.

My point was to show you where you and the survey were wrong. A minimum wage doesn't necessarily affect employment. I'm sorry that you can't understand it. Again. This is becoming a broken record with you.

shrekgrinch says

And, why would other economies collapse?

Loss of their primary export market.

shrekgrinch says

What? By asking such an absurd question that is akin to asking: “If you were served a brownie that everyone says tastes really, really good…and that it has only a ‘little bit’ of dog shit in it, would you still eat it?”
Yeahhhhh….both questions are as worthy of consideration as Peggy Joseph’s views are.

Again my point is completely over your head. I'm sorry. I'll try to dumb them down for you from now on. The survey asked absurd, borderline trick questions so I figured it would be appropriate to show this with an absurd question of my own.

tatupu70 says

I think below a certain value, there is no correlation between minimum wage and employment. Once above that point, then there is a relationship.

Are we below or above that point in the US right now?

Tat, just curious what your position is on this....

Does Apple have a monopoly on iPods?

Does it have a monopoly on portable audio (MP3/AAC, etc.) players?

Paralithodes says

On these grounds, you dismiss ALL the questions in the survey, apparently including the one about the definition of a monopoly, a mistake I have seen many times in real life and even in this forum before (I believe you made the mistake in the past), among so-called “liberals” but not among conservatives.

Not at all. If I've implied or stated that I dismiss all of the questions, then I apologize. I dismiss the conclusions that were drawn from the survey.

Paralithodes says

Do you believe that so called “liberals” are equally or more knowledgeable of economics in general than conservatives? I’m not just talking ethereal ideas of “equal justice” and “fairness” but of how things actually work?

I don't think it has anything to do with conservative or liberal.

Paralithodes says

Tat, just curious what your position is on this….
Does Apple have a monopoly on iPods?
Does it have a monopoly on portable audio (MP3/AAC, etc.) players?

An iPod is an Apple product, and I'll assume that they've patented much of the technology. So yes, I'd say Apple has a monopoly on iPods because other companies are prevented from producing them.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on portable audio however. Alhtough they have 70%+ market share, there are lots of substitute good available and they don't really have pricing power in the market.

PS--If I missed that I'm going to be sad. 2 years of going to school at night for naught...

The reverse is also true on these stocks, look at CCME. This could be you.

Looking for shady deals is great, but if you're wrong, you could end up getting hurt pretty badly!

tatupu70 says

2 years of going to school at night for naught…

You got a B- on this one . . . Apple only has a monopoly on *new* iPod-brand music players, since monopolies deal with specific markets and not products per se.

Also, they are close to inferred monopoly market position in new music players, which has been taken to be 70-80%.

Troy says

You got a B- on this one .

That's a bit harsh I think.

Troy says

Apple only has a monopoly on *new* iPod-brand music players, since monopolies deal with specific markets and not products per se.

Definition of a market is pretty arbitrary to begin with. You can certainly argue that ipods aren't a market--I just took the question at face value.

Troy says

Also, they are close to inferred monopoly market position in new music players, which has been taken to be 70-80%.

We could debate this but I think I'd win. Market share alone does not constitute a monopoly. There must be other characteristics--usually very few substitutes, extreme pricing power, etc. In this case there are obvious substitues--a vast array of mp3 players. And Apple has had to reduce price--their pricing power is limited.

Hugh Hendry claims to have a play against China where the risk is about 2% but the reward is greater than 100%. He's basically playing the CDS swaps on Japanese companies that do business with China.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hugh-hendry-short-china-2010-10

Vicente says

KentM,
Your TRUTH EAGLE frightens me. He stares right into my soul.

The Truth Eagle sees all.

I understand the eagle was favorite symbol for the Romans as well. Thats partially why the Nazis adopted it.

Eagles are a favorite of eagles

robertoaribas says

Listing prices kept going up at the end of the bubble dimwit duck, while sales volume dropped. THEN sales prices dropped.
back your charts up to 2005…

Not even 2005. I want to know if there is any correlation in a normal market, like before the bubble. This micro, 2-year view is extremely selective and covers a time frame of tax credits, scheduled expirations, extensions, and an eventual expiration.

In over 300 documented historical cases, paper money has ended up being worth virtually nothing. In fact, it's happened twice in the USA; the Revolutionary War's "Continental Dollar" and Lincoln's Civil War "Greenbacks." Our current Federal Reserve Note, i.e. "dollar" will end up on the same trash heap, IMO. When Nixon closed the gold window in 1974, he in effect ended the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 that established the Dollar as the world's reserve currency. In that agreement, the world's major currencies were linked to the U.S. Dollar and in effect, were tied to gold because the U.S. Dollar was. There were also strict limits as to the ratios of paper currencies allowed to be printed in relation to the amount of U.S. Dollars in circulation. America’s printing & credit binge has led to an increase in like manner in all the major economies. With the removal of the link to gold, paper money can obviously be created out of thin air, allowing politicians to spend recklessly (“officially” $14 trillion & counting) while achieving and maintaining power over those that want handouts from the government, etc. Inflation becomes the politician’s best friend because it is, in effect, a secret, gradual tax on the, for the most part, unsuspecting people. Considering human nature, paper money can only lead to its ultimate failure at some point.

RayAmerica says

Considering human nature, paper money can only lead to its ultimate failure at some point.

I know this is not what you mean, but paper money is already gone. My job pays my digital money into my digital bank account that I use to buy things digitally with my credit card.

Who cares if paper money fails? We will just replace it wtih something else just as all the previous paper monies were replaced.

Gold is FAR too inefficient to be used as money in a modern world. Real estate in free countries? That is a bit different. If the dollar needs to be backed by something, backing it with real estate makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Nomograph says

theoakman says

Hugh Hendry claims to have a play against China where the risk is about 2% but the reward is greater than 100%

That’s a good reason to stay as far away from Hugh Hendry as possible.
Flashback to 2005: Wanna buy some mortgage-backed securities? There’s a great return and almost zero risk!

I suggest you read the article and find out who Hugh Hendry is. He returned 50% in 2008. He cleaned up shorting the crap out of Greece last year. And back in 2005, he bought that shiny metal you hate so much. He's well aware of risk which is why he didn't want to short Chinese stocks because of the potential losses involved in a miscalled market. He placed a bet that consists of 2% of his money. The maximum amount of money he can lose on this play is 2%.

The only thing that chart shows is that every time the asking price/sf increases the actual sale price/sf decreases. So, apparently the wishful thinkers are raising their prices and that historically means the properties that are priced lower/sf are the ones that sell. From this chart, the time to beware is when the ASKING price/sf goes down. That seems to trigger people purchasing properties for higher prices/sf than they had when the prices were lower/sf.

SoCal Renter said:
>>>My job pays my digital money into my digital bank account that I use to buy things digitally with my credit card

and THE Eagles, too.

"You can check out any time you like but you can never leave." Prescient or WHAT, huh?

shrekgrinch says

Sorry. I know you can’t deal with this so you try to change definitions and obfuscate. Most liberals on these forums do so when confronted with reality.

Oh, and: blah, blah, blah...

Average income in our area is 60 to 70,000 per household. Houses are floating around 399,000 or 499,000.

499,000 / 70,000 = 7.1
399,000 / 70,000 = 5.7

Still a bubble since its above 3.0

cvoronin91335 says

Average income in our area is 60 to 70,000 per household. Houses are floating around 399,000 or 499,000.
499,000 / 70,000 = 7.1

399,000 / 70,000 = 5.7
Still a bubble since its above 3.0

Seems okay, considering the low interest rates. If it had been 600K+ purchase with 70K household income I doubt any bank would give that kinda money.

cvoronin91335 says

Average income in our area is 60 to 70,000 per household. Houses are floating around 399,000 or 499,000.
499,000 / 70,000 = 7.1
399,000 / 70,000 = 5.7
Still a bubble since its above 3.0

I agree. One should look at prices from various prespectives, not just rent equivalent. But ratios as you point out. Once the ratios get out of hand, a sure sign a correction is sure to follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_bubble#Housing_affordability_measures

shrekgrinch says

Sorry. I know you can’t deal with this so you try to change definitions and obfuscate. Most liberals on these forums do so when confronted with reality.

Says the man with two cartoon characters in his name.

"obfuscate" ....... wow. I'm using that at the Thanksgiving meal table

You can not blame Madoff. After a while NOT taking advantage of anothers refusal to educate themselves would in turn BE stupid. We have all seen a time-line of mans existence on earth, and that time on a clock appears as about six seconds. If the same clock were used to represent RESIDENTIAL LAND, it would show about three seconds. Try this test. GOOGLE a satellite map of the United States, or any other country and Center over your choice of metropolitan areas (with out digital assistance). Zoom all the way in until you land atop a heavily populated area. It will take many attempts. ( new game idea) Point is, the people buying homes today are under the (marketed) impression that if they don't buy now, there will be NO land left to build on in the near future. O.M.Geeee !!!! My advise, as a " Land Agent. " GO FOR A PLANE RIDE !!!. ONE or TWO MINUTES off the tarmac and there is no civilization ! in MOST cases, for hundreds of miles. There are 2.3 BILLION acres of land in the USA. With 6 homes per acre we have built homes on about 18 million acres. Do the math and you will see 2.3 billion acres remain. Take another 20 million acres for ALL other building and OH OH !! we still have 2.3.........STOP ...... listening to sales people like Bernie and nem, or deserve to get berned.
As soon as we Bernanke depleets or treasury, Home values will return to their PHENOMENALLY set value which is 2.5 times that families annual income. Weather that income is based on the Dollar or bushels of corn ... Unless the next fantastic gadget is invented.

Nomograph says

theoakman says

He’s well aware of risk which is why he didn’t want to short Chinese stocks

Obviously HE is aware of the risks, but he tells YOU there is no risk.
That’s a good reason to stay as far away from Hugh Hendry as possible.

Umm, did you listen? The risk is that if you are 100% wrong, then 2% of your money is gone. He doesn't tell you there is no risk. He evaluated all the methods of shorting China. He concluded, even though he thinks there is high probability of a huge crash in the Chinese markets, he is not comfortable shorting Chinese stocks or Commodities because of the huge risks involved of the low probability of him being wrong. Unlimited downside on those types of plays. On the other hand, the CDS market in Japan has not priced in this scenario, so you can place an extremely cheap bet, and if China does crash, you will make money hand over fist. If it doesn't play out, you lose all the money that you put down. In Hendry's case, his bet amounts to a whole 2% of his portfolio. This isn't that hard to understand. If someone placed 100% of their money on this bet, you might have a point. Given the fact that Hendry hasn't, you have no point.

The worst possible scenario results in him losing 100% of his bet, which is 2% of his portfolio.
The best possible scenario (China crashing) has incredible upside.

The fact that you even compared this bet to someone trying to sell someone mortgage backed securities is laughable.

So he and his family decide to pay $132,000 per year... to protect themselves from prices going down!? What kind of apartment depreciates that quickly?

I think short excerpts for discussion are allowed under the "fair use" doctrine, but how short that has to be is up to a judge. The shorter the better, probably.

I think short excerpts for discussion are allowed under the “fair use” doctrine, but how short that has to be is up to a judge. The shorter the better, probably.

Look up the Righthaven lawsuits from the Las Vegas Review-Journal - it's claiming that any use is a violation of copyright laws. According to the Sun (competing newspaper), the headline and first 30 words is cool but after that it's a violation. But the RJ created this entity called Righthaven which searches the web and finds reposted stories - then if files a copyright and sues for over $50k and the domain name. It's won in several cases, but has settled with many others. It's driven mom & pop blogs out of business and cost thousands of dollars in legal fees.

robertoaribas says

posting large sections of an article without WRITTEN approval from the copyright holder is a violation of copyright law. NO POSTING THE LINK DOESN’T MAKE IT OK. Have some respect for Patrick’s blog, and don’t post illegal blocks to it. Simply provide a link, without the cut and paste.

Sure, RR can be a bit of a condescending ass sometimes (as are we all - gotta admit that), but he's right. We need to post a link, and we can paraphrase. But to repost stories is inviting trouble for Patrick. If push coames to shove, I wonder how many people would contribute to patrick's legal defense fund?

I think Mr. Lee should stick to his day job and stay out of the real estate forecastng business. I see 2 problems:

1. Isn't it a bit too late to sell your real estate to avoid price declines? Just to sell the apartment and re-buy it down the road will easily cost 12% in realtor fees, closing costs, etc. So just be BREAK EVEN, Manhattan RE must fall 12%.

2. How can Mr. Lee reasonably expect real estate to fall 12% + in value when he sold it for nearly the exact same price he paid in 2008? Should his apartment have fallen significantly in value during that time?

tatupu70 says

Definition of a market is pretty arbitrary to begin with. You can certainly argue that ipods aren’t a market–I just took the question at face value.

My question regarding Apple having a monopoly on Ipods was a trick question: the answer probably should have been that the question was invalid to start with. Regardless, you obviously understand the concept in general, so I'll give you a B+ average across both questions ... (As previously discussed in a thead... all in good fun... Hope you had a great TG!)

Michinaga says

So he and his family decide to pay $132,000 per year… to protect themselves from prices going down!? What kind of apartment depreciates that quickly?

Depreciation?

How about interest payments? Somebody that has bought on credit in the last few years is mostly throwing their money out the window to make money for their creditor. It's really not much different than rent, especially after you add in property taxes, etc.

Gotta wonder, what would your comment be about somebody in 1993 Tokyo, instead of Manhattan, who made a similar move?

(I seem to recall you're in Japan)

BTW, copyright laws, as they stand, are not only stupid, they are EVIL.

I will always rent from now on, been home owner since 1982 till 2008 in bay area ca. even and ends with bank taking it back... yea, for me... I tried, but failed and income fell off, sales.... job.

11000/mo apartment, the guy is spending $367/night.
I guess the market he is talking about is those over 2M places which succesful professionals would live, because 11000/mo = 2M loan @5% 30yrs. There're few such places in NY and NJ near Manhattan. There must be a reason. After all, this guy is a managing director at a major bank, and I assume a guy like that knew something we, ordinary joes, don't know about. So, what in that market made this rich worried? That's what I am curious about. Does that mean, it will be fun to watch what's gonna happen in high end market in Manhattan next year?

Renting is better for the next few years.