patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Looking at your 1st graph, home prices are 10-15% overpriced compared to rent. Maybe prices are too high, maybe rents are too low–probably a mixture of each.

The rental market is more "free" than the housing market and not subject to phenomenons related to price stickiness or leveraging. Rents being "too low" means that demand would be so high that people are homeless (think price controls and long lines for gas in the 70's). So no, I don't think that's the case. Housing prices are 10-15% too high.

tatupu70 says

Using price to income (2nd graph), prices are ~5% too high. It won’t take much of a rise in household income to get that back to fair value. Again, not sure how that could ever be called a bubble.

A reasonable argument/observation. I think though that the erosion of the middle class and the disparity of wealth might make a tiered ratio index more telling. Your point still stands (minus that this isn't part of a bubble), as does my assertion that housing prices are above fundamentally-supported levels.

tatupu70 says

It’s unclear to me where fair value is on the real home price graph (3rd one). I guess you probably should draw a line with a slope of wage inflation - CPI through starting at Jan-76 and ~65. Without doing that work, I don’t think you can draw a conclusion from that chart…

I think it can be interpreted the same way as the first one. What I find most telling about all three of these graphs and what I've been trying to emphasize so much here is the impact of the tax credit. Shifts in demand like that really can disrupt prices a lot. Look at how prices through the bubble rose without interruption, and fell without interruption until the credit's inception. When it disappeared, they resumed their downward trajectory. Each month of new data further validates this, as well as my assertion that prices were not at fundamentally-supported levels when they started rising. Since that is the established baseline, how far below that level is now the question/argument. I don't think 15% is far-fetched, but probably closer to 10%.

"Likewise gold and silver will peak long before inflation becomes a serious problem, then crash back down again."

Your analysis does not take into account that over the last five years the central banks worldwide have been stockpiling gold, especially the central banks of China, Russia and India. This really has only just begun, as their reserves are nowhere near where they need to be to properly cushion against a sudden crash in the US dollar.

You seem keen on demonstrating your belief that gold and silver will go up strongly but then you imply they will be in a "bubble" which means you also believe these gains will be volatile and short-lived. This is a fear-based analysis that's not really based in the practical.

When the US dollar experiences a sudden crash, that's surely when gold and silver will spike. Crashes do tend to resume after their initial spike and gold and silver will gradually continue to gain value in the aftermath of a sudden USD crash. If any remaining currencies are intact, you will want to then convert some of your gold and silver to those currencies. Then keep the remainder of your gold and silver to serve as your new local currency until a new fiat currency is in place. That's what gold and silver are ultimately for. We all know the USD is history and that its funeral is in the future.

Applying the media-hyped word "bubble" to your analysis seems to distract from the practical aspects. Trying to time a USD crash is impossible. It is better to use gold and silver as insurance hedges since no one knows the timing. Worrying about volatility along the way is nonsensical since this is a long-term insurance hedge that does not budge.

Did I say they looked alike? No. Just pointing out that your idiotic argument could be applied to either case, neither of which are flat.

______________________________

^--That is "flat". Feel free to use it for future reference.

"The only way to understand any market is a fear-based analysis."

There's no way to quantify "fear" which means it's useless for analysis and trading purposes. One may quantify sentiment which is done by looking at put vs. call ratios; the general method for this is to use the COT (Commitment of Traders) report. This falls under the category of "technical analysis" which is not fear-based. There is no such thing as "fear-based" analysis in the financial world. Fundamental and technical analysis and that's it.

"Why wouldn’t billionaires manipulate gold into a bubble so they can lock in profits and buy low again before the next run?"

Such manipulation and resulting profit may be obtained from any investment. This is not specific to gold and silver and there's no reason to believe another investment will be safer from such manipulation. This levels the playing field. I should add that organizations such as GATA are shining a spotlight on precious metals manipulation which will likely result in a less-manipulated precious metals market (vs. other markets which are not under such intense scrutiny).

"Fear and exuberance drives short term markets, not fundamentals."

I think you missed my point, but nevermind.

"You’re welcome to do this of course but you’ll miss out on a huge opportunity. Gold and silver will go parabolic at some point while the dollar is still stable and relatively strong. That is the time to sell."

One does not cash out of their life insurance policies, health insurance coverage or auto/home insurance policies to use that cash to play the stock market, in hopes of making gains, and then re-starting those policies later. Similarly, there's no reason to use a gold and silver long-term hedge to do the same.

Remove your hedge and you expose yourself to unnecessary risk. Better to use side money for gambling outside of your insurance hedge. Keep the hedge in place for when you need it.

shrekgrinch says

SoCal Renter says

Ayn Rand collected MediCare and Social Security checks.
Enough said.

1) prove it.
2) If she did, so what? She was coerced into paying for both so why not?

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/

Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

So she willingly enslaved herself despite her endless prognostications against the evils of government largess? SHE IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE and she invalidates the entire philosophy. Libertarian followers refuse to take Social Security or Medicare while she secretly sucked thirstily on the government teet. That is fucking rich!

I hope wing-nuts keep swimming in the libertarian tea party bullshit though. Makes them easier to identify when they approach.

End of debate.

Vicente says

1) Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits.

Vicente - We are dealing with Tea Party folks here. They won't believe it until someone produces the LONG FORM Federal record.

To all the anti-Libertarians here... please hand over your Bill of Rights since you obviously don't want those anymore, and you're ready and willing to fight for that.

Take a number, stand in line, and then please tilt your head forward for the bolt pistol to the back of the skull.

Mooooo.

Who can seriously debate the value of her contribution to economics? All you have to do is take care of yourself and everything will be fine. Too bad the people at the top of the pyramid can't plow a road or unclog a toilet, but I guess as long as you invent a plow you're entitled to every piece of bread. The bitch was an atheist AND had a God complex. How's that for a hypocrite? Now, as a philosopher she makes some very interesting points, and having read both of her major works I can say I enjoyed them both immensely, especially the rape scenes. But the most touching scene in The Fountainhead probably was when she burst into his hovel and declared war and love at the same time.

"I love you. I love you so I must try to destroy you."
"I know."

It started to break down for me when her favorite rapist grabbed an acetylene torch from an electrician, then started cutting holes in a steel girder for electrical conduits. Laughable, but then again she admits she doesn't write the book for idiots like me, but for the "special" people who "know" and "understand". If she didn't have such an aversion to groups, I think she would've made an excellent Scientologist.

When she was kicked out of university for being a Jew, a group of students assembled and lobbied for the re-admittance of her and others. I wonder what she thought of a group fighting for her rights. Her true gift was openly admitting there was nothing but bones in her body, and nothing but a desire for everything me. She railed against altruism as being evil, and twisted things in opposite directions in self-serving paradigms. People organizing in unions or political groups were the same type of monster that made Communism, the same monster that kicked her entitled ass out of Russia. Its a lot like Intelligent Design. An argument built from the top down that doesn't really go anywhere, or want to go anywhere. Its just something for people who've already made up their minds, or people who are "special" like her.

theoakman says

You cannot paint the man in charge of manipulating interest rates as someone who is against intervention.

Greenspan was certainly against "intervention". It's in all his writings.

Interest rate manipulation was a tactical necessity to put deregulationists like him in power.

Federal Funds Rate, 1985-2005

1986-1987 -- Bush's election's coming, better lower rates!

1990-1992 -- Bush's re-election's coming, better lower rates!

1994-1996 -- Clinton's re-election's coming, better raise rates!

1999-2000 -- Gore's election's coming, better raise rates!

2002-2004 -- Bush's reelection's coming, better lower rates!

The problem with Greenspan, is he doubtless viewed himself as a saboteur. The one who could achieve a sort of libertarian ideal, just by going limp on the regulatory side. He doubtless viewed himself as a secret Randist agent. He even had "Mom" standing next to him in 1974 when he was made chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Brooksley Born recounted this meeting with him:

“Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about fraud,” Born, in a recent interview, remembers Greenspan saying.

“What is there not to agree on?” Born says she replied.

“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.

To my mind an incredibly COWARDLY backdoor way to achieve Randism, because he kept the trappings of regulation while in fact doing nothing. And we see where his beliefs led us. He was hands off only when it came to regulation. Otherwise he was Wall Street's Boy and his operational theory was giving the financiers MORE wealth would naturally lead them to do good things with it. Another facet of the "trickle down" idea, that if you give billionaires another billion, they'll need a million shoes and they'll hire American workers to make them all these fine shoes.

Troy says

theoakman says

You cannot paint the man in charge of manipulating interest rates as someone who is against intervention.

Greenspan was certainly against “intervention”. It’s in all his writings.
Interest rate manipulation was a tactical necessity to put deregulationists like him in power.
Federal Funds Rate, 1985-2005
1986-1987 — Bush’s election’s coming, better lower rates!
1990-1992 — Bush’s re-election’s coming, better lower rates!
1994-1996 — Clinton’s re-election’s coming, better raise rates!
1999-2000 — Gore’s election’s coming, better raise rates!
2002-2004 — Bush’s reelection’s coming, better lower rates!

Actions speak louder than words. Greenspans actions totally contradict any hands off approach to the economy. In fact, he was the most hands on fed chairman we've had prior to Bernanke.

theoakman says

Actions speak louder than words.

here in the real world it takes active agency to effect change. Fucking up the System is a pretty good way to get rid of it.

The 3/2 in Campbell I live in is $1800 a month and I've lived here since 2005. It was purchased for 6 and change early the same year. Landlord? I've talked to him 3 or 4 times in 6 years.

I seriously doubt I found a needle either, though it's a pretty good deal. I'm completely surprised he hasn't walked away yet, as he'll be long dead before he sees break even on this house.

I had a fleeting desire to be John Galt around the same time I had a fleeting desire to be the Kwizach Haderach.

Nite.

Here's two articles from the late Hans Sennholz in 2001/2002., Mises's protege.

http://mises.org/daily/588/Bulls-and-Bears
http://mises.org/daily/1089

This is a man who was able to clearly see the inflation of a Real Estate Bubble, predict its fallout, and the subsequent policy response of the central bankers. He was far ahead of the curve. I've seen you paint, with a broad brush, Austrian economics as a fanatical set of ideas. I contend that people who understand Mises & Hayek clearly are able to use their ideas about free markets to identify bad public policy and easily predict the negative fallout from those policies. If you care to read their work clearly, the economists who argue most in favor of the free market (Mises & Hayek) fully recognize that there is a nice balance that can be achieved through social services & the market economy. Rand was went to the end of the spectrum arguing for some sort of purist system. If you read Sennholz, despite his clamor for the free market, he and other Austrian economists fully realize the need for regulatory measures in response to central government policy blunders. He called for the raising of margin requirements during the tech bubble. He, along with Congressman Paul called for Fannie/Freddie to be tightly regulated in as early as 2001. He identified the danger of dropping interest rates to 1% circa 2001/2002.

In short, any rational person who understands Mises/Hayek fully recognizes the world we live in requires a government and can function properly with a central bank. The free marketeers which you seem to target (and rightfully so) are the ones that support spiking the punchbowl with low interest rates, easy money, and large government spending while deregulating the industry and expecting the market to sort it out. The real free market economists fully recognize that if you do spike the punch bowl, you better be ready reign in the excess that will arise from the marketplace as a result of spiking the punchbowl. Most of Austrian Economics fully focuses upon the negative fallout from the policies of a central bank.

I'll give an example which I think is fairly straight forward. There's no question FDIC insurance prevents bank runs. However, is it really necessary to back 100% of a person's deposit? In doing so, that person cares not which bank they deposit their money in. They go for the highest interest rate, which in this environment, is a product of a banks willingness to heavily speculate in the market. Why not have FDIC insurance back 70% of that deposit to put the fear of losing money into the depositor? One of the best regulators in the marketplace is the fear of going bankrupt. We can have a government backstop to create safety and not impede the function of the marketplace. However, when you insure 100% of something, you remove that balance and no one cares if their money is deposited at a bad bank like Bank of America.

The Austrian economists were never quiet in their disdain for Reagan, Bush 1 &2, Art Laffer, Greenspan, and Bernanke. They fully recognized that their rhetoric was not backed by true principles and that you can't have deregulation on the market side of things corresponding with pump priming via the Fed's monetary policy & Federal Governments fiscal policy. I blame Milton Friedman. He took good ideas and hybridized them arguing that the best possible outcome would arise if you leaned towards free markets.

Friedman supported free trade and ignored currency pegging.
Friedman supported tax cuts and ignored the bond market and bad fiscal policy.
Friedman supported sound money while supporting central bankers and trusted them to remain independent.

In short, regulation is heavily needed when you pump prime the economy with monetary/fiscal policy.

I posted some highlights of Sennholz's two articles below.

Other optimists are convinced that the Federal Reserve, under the Chairmanship of Alan Greenspan, will avert any panic and avoid a recession. The Fed and nearly all other central banks, they assert, have become "Keynesians" who may not believe in Keynesian doctrines, but they do not know what else to do. As long as the consumer price index does not move up sharply, they will expand their credit. But it is unlikely that they will succeed in reflating the old tech bubble; instead, they may create new bubbles, which will be in weapons and raw materials, such as
oil, natural gas, platinum, palladium, and even copper.

The present situation is most precarious, they believe, because the Fed made the monumental mistake of raising interest rates several times in recent months. But as soon as the Fed cuts its rates, big rallies and visible improvements are bound to follow. On January 3, 200l when the Fed lowered its rates by one-half of one percent, they applauded. In the hope that the Fed will continue to lower its rates, the Monetarists are happily turning optimistic again.

Other "realists" point to a potential credit crisis that is casting its shadow over the economy. Throughout the financial boom the leading banks freely extended their credits to many new enterprises that now face difficulties....A real "credit crunch" is threatening on the horizon, which would gravely encumber the American economy.....Congressman Ron Paul, a keen observer of the Washington scene, points to glaring examples of the credit bubble waiting to be pricked. The government-sponsored financial institutions Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) show $33 billion of shareholder equities with $1.07 trillion worth of loans...... When the bubble bursts because of debt default, the economy is bound to flounder, no matter how the Fed may attempt to prevent it.

The few critics who hold him and his Fed colleagues responsible for the financial instability disagree with the Chairman on every issue. They are astounded by his inability to know with certainty that a bubble actually exists. Economic bubbles have plagued the American economy ever since the First United States Bank opened its doors in Philadelphia in 1791. They preceded and led to many financial crises and even depressions, which have been an important object of economic research and voluminous writing ever since....He who does not recognize a bubble obviously does not search for its causes....The Chairman wants us to believe that tighter margin requirements would have been ineffective in deflating the equity bubble. These are minimum amounts of cash which a buyer of stock must deposit in a margin account. ....The Board obviously did not see fit to raise the required margin because it did not perceive the bubble. But it is rather surprising to be told now that any boost in margin requirements would have had no effect anyway...Surely, a boost to seventy or even one hundred percent would have dampened the enthusiasm of most speculators immediately....Mr. Greenspan, at the helm of the Fed since 1987, has used them sparingly to restrain bank credit expansion but frequently to expand its scope and volume. As stock prices were soaring, his Board eased credit because currency crises were wracking Asia in 1997. And again in the fall of 1998 it chose to expand rapidly when Russia defaulted and Long-Term Credit ran into difficulties. Between June 1999 and May 2000, at the top of the boom, finally, it tightened six times by raising the discount rate. But as soon as the economy began to stagnate and readjust in the first quarter of 2001, the Fed reacted by lowering its rate no fewer than eleven times during the year.

Stock market cycles are the most spectacular offsprings of central banking and credit creation. There are several others, less sensational, such as the cycles in precious metals and objects of art and collection. They affect only small groups of affluent clientele who usually suffer in silence. The most ominous of all cycles, which touches millions of people, is the boom-and-bust sequence in real estate. Just as in equity markets, these bubbles are clearly visible in their price-earnings ratios or price-rental ratios that greatly exceed those of healthy markets....The real estate bubble is bound to burst as soon as the distortions become visible to ever greater numbers of participants.

I think silver is heading to $22 for a supreme shakeout before it heads higher.

theoakman says

I posted a few weeks ago that if Silver hit $26, I’m a buyer. Damn it, it only hit $26.50. I’m still of that opinion. As it stands, I don’t want to buy at this price. I have a good enough position and will only add to it below $30. In short, I have no friggin clue whats going to happen and I’m content to hold.

I was shooting for $25.... and look what happened. Figures - there were huge gains to be made almost overnight.

joshuatrio says

theoakman says

I posted a few weeks ago that if Silver hit $26, I’m a buyer. Damn it, it only hit $26.50. I’m still of that opinion. As it stands, I don’t want to buy at this price. I have a good enough position and will only add to it below $30. In short, I have no friggin clue whats going to happen and I’m content to hold.

I was shooting for $25…. and look what happened. Figures - there were huge gains to be made almost overnight.

If you bought call options on Silver Wheaton at that point, you would have hit it out of the park.

This is a hard market to read. At one end of the spectrum, we have investments that I swore by 6 months ago skyrocketing (Silver, Oil, Commodities, Potash). On the other hand, they've gone up so much, so fast, that I swear they have big pullbacks, especially in the face of economic stagnation. Unfortunately, we have a middle eastern uprising every 2 weeks and it creates even more chaos in the markets. QE, while in effect, is not on anyone's mind anymore.

In 2009, the S&P rallied 30% and the pundits claimed we were pricing in the recovery. Today, the S&P is up 100% from the lows and there has not been any recovery in the US. I gotta believe a mini fall-2008 crash is in store. $100 oil does not mix well with 10% unemployment (20% real unemployment).

1. Ha!

2. I grew up playing Bubble Bobble on original NES and haven't seen a reference to it in YEARS!

3. This is my first of 3 required 'comments,' so forgive the lack of substance in my remarks. I'm just checking a box here...

TQNT, AAPL, SSN, and SOLR. Currently long on TQNT, AAPL, and SSN. Waiting to build up the funds for an SOLR purchase.

shrekgrinch says

That’s because there is no such thing as ‘Laissez faire government policy’, really. The concept only exists in the minds of do-gooder busybodies who want to justify taking on even more power for the State.

Sure there is, look at Somalia.

shrekgrinch says

[Ayn Rand collected Social Security]

Where are copies of that data? So you SAY this and I have to buy it? Especially given all the other unfounded crap you guys post on here just to troll?
WHERE IS THE PROOF?

Source from here:

"Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute)

I don't happen to have Lincoln's death certificate to feed into my scanner and post, but I find it reasonable to believe he's dead.

Vicente says

shrekgrinch says

[Ayn Rand collected Social Security]
Where are copies of that data? So you SAY this and I have to buy it? Especially given all the other unfounded crap you guys post on here just to troll?
WHERE IS THE PROOF?

Source from here:
“Oral History of Ayn Rand” by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute)

Shrekgrinch is a Birther. Proof does not exist unless you have a magical LONG form.

Vicente says

I don’t happen to have Lincoln’s death certificate to feed into my scanner and post, but I find it reasonable to believe he’s dead.

But was Abraham Lincoln a natural born citizen? No one has a LONG form birth certificate for him. And he did, after all, free the black slaves. Clearly Lincoln was a Commie-terrorist-muslim-socialist who hated America.

GOOG, HNT, PBR, SBUX have done well over years for us.

AIG tanked.

Walmart and Microsoft have been pretty flat. They are struggling to come up with a great idea for the future.

Not to get picky, but does this include state and local taxes that are "unfunded mandates"? Does this include social security and medicare?

Would also be interesting to see a breakdown of people actually paying taxes and those that get EITC. This graph is interesting but when you shift a significant amount of people to being "on the take" the money has to come from somewhere and % of GDP is pretty much meaningless. In other words, if you keep shifting the tax burden up the food chain and suddenly a percentage of people are no longer PAYING but are on the RECEIVING end, what does graph really mean? Perhaps a more meaningful example of how this is flawed would be this.... The price of a gallon of milk was X. The gubmint decides that 50% of people get milk for free and everyone else has to pay 2X. When you divide the gallons/recipients, it doesn't look like the cost went up at all, does it?

EightBall says

In other words, if you keep shifting the tax burden up the food chain

We've actually been slowly shifting the tax burden DOWN the food chain... (as a % of income)

Yes yes but you see.... if Richy Rich gets a tax break he will hire more people and spread the wealth. Unemployment will go to nearly zero and wages and benefits will shoot up as all this wealth naturally trickles down. Wait until you see the results of our NEXT Five Year Plan citizen, this time it will surely work and it will blow your socks off.

EightBall says

Raising the top-end rate will accomplish nothing until the tax code is uprooted and replaced with something that doesn’t have 50 years worth of loopholes.

So then why don't we just do that, and then if the top-end actual payments do not improve we can start fixing the rest of the tax code.

In this case, do not demand that the fix should be done all at once.

EightBall says

Raising the top-end rate will accomplish nothing

Seemed to work fine 1994-2000.

EightBall says

It is equally ridiculous that a significant number of people pay zero income taxes. And you wonder why the people in the middle are pissed off!

The problem is this group doesn't make any money. I don't understand this argument--anyone is free to quit their current job and instead flip burgers. You probably won't pay any taxes. Do you think you'll be better off?

Until we figure out a way to create more well paying jobs, complaining that poor people don't pay taxes seems a little ridiculous.

Yeah, taxation has been fairly flat, but spending hasn't been:

For the same period (fed + state + local):

It's been fairly flat since the 80's but a huge spike due to stimulus & GDP breaking it's growth trend.

Nomograph says

SF ace says

Nomograph says

Mr.Fantastic says

Does someone earning $30,000 actually have to send a check?

No, I’m sure you are exempt.

30K in earned income with two childrens is $3,232 in Earned income tax credit and another $1,400+ in refundable additional child tax credit. So income tax is around negative $4,700. The IRS sends a check to you without paying $1.

Great. Now Mr. Fantastic gets government welfare.

I'm not sure. The equation differs when your parents can claim you as a dependent, doesn't it?

Like today's gem from Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips?

Tea Party Leader: Restricting Voting to Property Owners ‘Makes a Lot of Sense’

The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.