patrick.net

The stimulus was horribly targeted in terms of creating jobs. It's going to be regarded as an utter failure for quite some time. The money went mostly to: a) unneeded tax cuts and b) local and state govts who weren't even capable of balancing their budgets during the boom years, thereby subsidizing their overpaid employees' salaries and generous benefits (yes, this was done to help the unions).

Keynes wasn't a fraud, but people who talk about his theories are usually quite ignorant of what he was advocating. Were he alive today, he'd likely be very against the god-awful stimulus bill. Keynesian proponents like to ignore the major tenet of his theory which is to use the govt's expenditures as a seesaw. Unlike the free market, the govt has a lot of non time-critical projects. Literally years can pass while something that's funded sits on the shelf. When unemployment rises, it can use those paid-for projects to fill the gaps. That's a very unique sort of flexibility that the govt can use to actually improve the economy while providing the same level of services that it would be doing were it to not time the projects with economic cycles.

You might notice some similarities in what I just wrote and what Keynesian "proponents" believe, but there are some glaring differences:

-First off, notice that I'm talking about FUNDED projects. As in, you don't borrow a trillion dollars plus an eventual hundreds of billions in interest. The money ought to be appropriated responsibly, not put on the credit card. Fans of Keynes almost always ignore this key component, and instead stick to the "spending" part of his theory. No, you save and then spend. I don't care if George Bush racked up a massive debt and left no savings on the table to use, it doesn't make this perversion of Keynes' theory legitimate and it's an exercise in intellectual dishonesty to paint it otherwise.

-Second, those projects to be put into place during recession ought to be projects which are NEEDED, ones that we were already planning on doing. Not the bullshit "find ways to piss away a trillion dollars in as little time as possible" approach that congress took two years ago. Make-work programs do not improve our aggregate standard of living, and are an insult to anybody with a shred of economic intelligence. All that's accomplished in doing that is to make those who are given those stimulus jobs feel like they're better off than they really are.

You can either read Keynes to understand what he's talking about, or you can repeat the bullshit that assholes like Krugman sputter about how we just needed "more spending". I know, he's a Nobel-winning economist, so everything he says must be gospel. But he's first and foremost a political ideologue; he uses his economic clout as a means of promoting his ideology rather than deriving his ideology from his economic knowledge. Like Art Laffer, he has an army of economically-retarded drones believing his bullshit because he carries the title of "economist", even though there are tens of thousands of economists who know how full of shit he and Laffer are.

If you want to argue about the merits of Keynes' theories, know what the fuck he was talking about. That applies both to his critics as well as his proponents.

"Second, those projects to be put into place during recession ought to projects which are NEEDED, ones that we were already planning on doing."

Well then you must not have kept track of stimulus prokects very well because many of them were most certainly needed, such as the Second Avenue Subway in NYC. And the 7 line extension. And the East Side Access project, allowing LIRR trains to go to Grand Central.

I believe you can get the data from RealtyTrack.

HousingWatcher says

Well then you must not have kept track of stimulus prokects very well because many of them were most certainly needed, such as the Second Avenue Subway in NYC. And the 7 line extension. And the East Side Access project, allowing LIRR trains to go to Grand Central.

Federal taxpayers subsidizing New Yorkers' public transportation projects. Thank you for furthering my point.

A home in Marin, SFBA, put on the market for $1.6M, and received 23 offers. Sold price is $2.4M to an all cash buyer. It is what it is whether you like it or not. I didn’t make the rules

Yes but those are higher priced homes and aren't they the next to get cut out of the Govt Loop? So maybe we should wait and see how things are for you after that happens.

So I assume you are opposed to federal taxpayers subsidizing DC transportation projects as well?

Its your right to bid whatever you want, I have closed 100% of the short sales I have worked on. You have to negotiate with a low offer to get the bank to give you their bottom line, then you get that lowered. Why would anyone buy anything but a short sale. The order takers/realtors that can't get them done are just lazy or poor business people. Chase is just as easy as any other bank. Wachovia is a push over and bof A is the worst because of equator. I could get that place for 200k I bet. I do agree with Solver, market will tank for a long time.

klarek says

No, you save and then spend.

Odd assertion. Just where does the government keep this savings?

I think this savings is just a very low national debt, mostly held by social pension funds, like what the 1990s cycle was moving towards, until Justice Kennedy put the looters back in charge.

klarek says

those projects to be put into place during recession ought to be projects which are NEEDED, ones that we were already planning on doing

you mean "shovel ready"?

klarek says

Krugman sputter about how we just needed “more spending”

I agree that Krugs doesn't actually have a concrete plant to fix anything.

klarek says

Federal taxpayers subsidizing New Yorkers’ public transportation projects.

Thing is, infrastructure projects are generally local in nature. Gov't could do more R&D etc but having construction people collect EUC when there's stuff to build is not that optimal.

This nation had the debate about Federal investment in local infrastructure a long, long time ago. The Hamiltonians won, and the country would have been a lot better off if the nation had not allowed laissez-faire competition to capture so much of the public wealth of the untamed west via railroad speculation, too.

So how do you explain your contradiction klarek? Should the govt. build a massive subway line that goes through all 50 states so that no state has to pay for a subway that they will not use? Do you honestly think that states have the money to build large scale infastructure projects? HINT: Without the feds, there would be no subways, no highways, no bridges, or anything else. The only way to get anywhere would be through dirt road.

klarek says

Federal taxpayers subsidizing New Yorkers’ public transportation projects. Thank you for furthering my point.

I was going to say that New York only gets 80% of what it pays to DC, but, yeah, there's no reason the financial capital of the galaxy should be needing Fed stimulus funds.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

So tell me klarek, who is subsidizing who again?

Neither Democrats or GOP are followers of Keynes.

A key element of Keynes was the idea of regulation and taxing sufficiently during the boom times to smooth out inevitable busts. During the booms neither GOP nor Democrats raise a finger to force any acorns into storage for the winter.

The "Great Moderation" that Alan Greenspan liked to boast about was nothing of the sort.

The banks are operating quite differently on the East Coast than they are on the West. Not sure if it's because you have much more inventory on the open market, less jobs. Not sure what is going on but Chase is notorious in way that no one can get a short sale out from under them. Most short sales in my area are just a way for them to buy more time/make more money. They usually have no intention of approving any amount. I've seen them turn down offers only to sell them after they've purchased them back at auction (for the amount of the note) to new buyers at lower offers. Makes not sense if you didn't realize the banks are making their money and then some regardless of what they do.

The Realtors who are handling the Banks inventory of homes are not Bank employees, but are contractors. They can do what ever they want to sell the home including cooking up fake cash offers and what ever to get higher commissions. The REA are doing what they have always been doing "cooking up higher prices" with fake multiple offers and all cash buyers.

Same-O Same-O....

Just to complete the record on this house, 1111 Carey had 100% financing on the original loans with ResMAE ($504k first, $126k second).
As a side note, I was tracking two SFH 'coming soon' foreclosures in San Francisco. A quick check at the Recorders site showed that the owners had at least another property heading into (or already in) foreclosure. Folks are starting to throw in the towel...

E-man says

rubyrae says

Have you looked at the numbers (shadow inventory) they are staggering.

I don’t know where and how to obtain this number. Can you show me some real numbers or are you speculating?
Be formless, shapeless, like water - Bruce Lee

You send me a $500 check and I'll email you the numbers. :)

EBGuy says

100% financing on the original loans with ResMAE ($504k first, $126k second).

You forgot to mention, it was the best and highest bidder.

Anyone else wants to be the best and highest bidder ?

You send me a $500 check and I’ll email you the numbers.

You sound like a RE Broker. Checks in the mail.

Realtytrac has a figure of 1,963 foreclosures in my county, only 650 homes for sale. Now I'm assuming a good deal of the homes for sale aren't foreclosed on yet. So where is this inventory? I know where it is because I drive by these homes every day. They are sitting and haven't entered the open market. My county is not that big.

The chart "looks like google" means very little. Charts as you know show what has happened in the past, and the future is not known.
I saw the pictures of riots in China over the iPad2. I was in Mexico at the Walmart and people were buying Apple products on store credit. People were going to work to pay off their Apple products.
I know Chinese people who are extremely proud of their name-engraved iPods that cost them 1/4 month's wages.
I would look at how the Apple sales of all products and services is growing. It's probably increasing.
As far as I know, Android doesn't make a dime from the phones they put it onto.
The competitor's tablets are a joke compared to the iPad2. They have no market share.
But, gambling of course is always fun. If you win, you have bragging rights.

I see 16,416 foreclosures in the state of Mass. Remember they are not counting those who are not paying their mortgages right now. I know many folks who haven't made a mortgage payment in 6 mo or longer. It seems to be that there is usually less than 1/3 of those on the open market.

I think that they should just change their name to "Fox Comedy Channel." That would be a more honest name for what they do.

The android phones are made by : HTC, Samsung, LG, Motorola, etc. Buy their stocks if you think Android makes money for them.
You can compare the iPhone to EACH above company's share, not "android", since Android is not a product and it's free.
The fact that peanut butter is more popular does not necessarily hurt my sales of lobster either.
I have an Andriod phone myself, but the Apple ones are cooler, nicer and will be popular in my opinion.
Everything Apple makes and sells makes a fortune. When that stops, the price of their stock will stop climbing maybe.

A lot of stocks I've been following lately seem stuck in a rut.

Just unloaded my TSLA, which was my gamble of late. Good payoff.

You are more of a high-roller than me, good luck to you.

shrekgrinch says

As for destroying the economy, if you refuse to acknowledge that HISTORICAL FACT then I can’t have a logical conversation with you.

Gee, I seem to remember the economy being pretty rocky when Obama took office. Are you sure that the economy was humming along nicely when Obama took office. How about some charts of things like the unemployment rate, gdp, corporate profits, housing sales, mortgage defaults, etc, etc for the last decade and show us exactly the point after he took office where Obama destroyed the economy. Obama certainly hasn't improved things much, but he didn't wreck it in the first place either.

I guess your definition of history differs from everyone else.

I like the play....just not sure Apple is crashing anytime soon. May just kinda wade around for awhile and do nothing.

July puts gives you a little over 2 months though, and given the squawking we're seeing in commodities/China/Europe, etc., I can see a general market/Apple decline.

thunderlips11 says

Apple has nowhere to go but down, unless they pull another rabbit out of the bag, they are already running at maximum profit and flush with cash. If Jobs gets real sick or passes away it will drop 20% in a day.

You might be right, but their top and bottom lines improve every quarter. They're not done.

Jobs is a wildcard, in the short term for the market value and in the longer term for the business.

thunderlips11 says

If you want to go long Apple, you can buy Samsung or Corning. They make the chip that powers the iPhone and iPad, and the screen for the iPhone, respectively. Problem is, if there is a problem in the supply chain and Samsung has to decide who gets their chips first - their own Android Phones or Apple’s iPhone, guess which one they are going to pick?

For what it's worth, Samsung is just a fab for the CPUs. Apple can and will source the chips (which they designed themselves on an ARM core) elsewhere. It might be a supply chain blip, but that happens to everyone.

I sold my house in a short sale recently. The first and second mortgages were held by Chase. It took 6 months from time of offer to closing and much negotiating (according to my agent). During this period two other people wanted to make offers (and we could have got higher than the final closing price). I wanted to take these offers but the agent discouraged me from doing so. His reason was that it would complicate things too much to introduce other offers when one is already in the works. It turns out, it's because the person who put in the first offer - the only one the agent was willing to negotiate - is a buddy of his. I discovered this after closing.

You morons do realize you are Fox news sole viewers, right? Right?
Nobody watches Fox, that being said, people weren't particularly happy when Jimmy Carter invited the Charlie Daniels band, to the White house either. Democrats just have a history of getting elected and doing uncouth shit. What do you want from FOX, a channel that only angry Democrats watch.

Again, we see the same arguments on a different thread for the same reason. The conservatives just can't seem to understand the difference between "fact" and "belief." Whenever they use history they inject a giant amount of belief to dilute any facts that were cited. It's nice to read fantasy online. It's entertaining at least.

The revisionist history is especially entertaining when it comes to judging the presidency of Jimmy Carter. He didn't destroy the economy or make us look weak on the foreign stage. But then again, if you conservatives ever admit that, you have to acknowledge that the oil crisis in 1979 had its roots in Nixon's time. And you'd have to acknowledge that the oil crisis, having been caused by actions and policies started in Nixon's time, destroyed the economy, not Jimmy Carter.

Also, then if you don't blame Jimmy Carter for the mess that was created by Nixon you won't get to have your villian to prop up the worst president in history... Ronald Reagan.

By the way, Jimmy Carter arranged for the hostages in Iran to be set free. Ronald Reagan got to announce it and take credit for it. I was there. I remember.

Ronald Reagan did nothing but set the stage for his descendants to destroy the economy and steal all the money from the middle classes.

But, again, you'd have to know the difference between "fact" and "belief" to understand all of it.

Here are some other facts: Unemployment at 4.7% as of January 2001. Unemployment at 8.5% as of January 2009. Those dates are significant because the first date is when GWB took office and the second date was when GWB left office.

By the way, what's an "incombent?"

simchaland says

having been caused by actions and policies started in Nixon’s time, destroyed the economy, not Jimmy Carter.

The economy wasn't that bad during the late 1970s.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=sR

The blue line shows employment growing from 76M to 92M from 1975 to 1980.

All this new employment was inflationary as the baby boom started bumrushing the workforce and establishing households. Peak boom year was 1957 so in 1975 the demographic crest was just turning 18.

The red line is the fed funds rate, and you can see the Fed intentionally killing expansion by raising rates in 1970, 1974, and 1980.

The way I understand it is that there is room for everyone at the top! Smartphones are not saturated yet, so they are ALL essentially taking away business from traditional cell phones, which still make up a huge % of the market.

Essentially, each smart phone manufacturer, OS provider, chipmaker, etc, is trying to grow the fastest in that space. Nokia and other manufacturers may lose, but to whom?

In that respect, no other competitor has what Apple has. RIMM is petering out, which actually just gives more room for Apple to dominate. So, that leave GOOG, which really doesn't make money on it per se.

Apple may drop, but I suspect it'll be back up the closer we get to iPhone 5, iPad 3, Christmas, back-to-school, tax refund time, and Festivus.

And what if they go on a smart buying spree? Acquire Adobe? Sprint? Make a real TV?

common_sense says

I wanted to take these offers but the agent discouraged me from doing so. His reason was that it would complicate things too much to introduce other offers when one is already in the works. It turns out, it’s because the person who put in the first offer - the only one the agent was willing to negotiate - is a buddy of his. I discovered this after closing.

Wish you could take legal action against that, that's horrible.

I haven't had television service since 2008. And I don't go to the movies or do Netflix, either.

Television is for morons. So is the internet, but I don't have a land line so I need it for Skype.

Does it help or hurt or just distract when I say that you all are fantastic. Well-reasoned and insightful debate--I, for one, appreciate your time and effort on each of the forum categories.

Thanks! :)

ToT, geez, I must be totally mentally deficient. I don't even have cable. I don't watch MSNBC or Fox or CNN. I only catch glimpses of these channels when I visit friends and local family. I get most my news from reading BBC and NPR mainly. Occasionally I'll read the Drudge Report when I'm feeling like getting my blood boiling or I need a laugh. I do watch local news over the air for entertainment purposes only. Local news in the Bay Area is a joke.

My very conservative aunts, uncles, and cousins all watch Fox almost exclusively. So apparently it's only mentally deficient liberals with cable and my conservative family members who watch Fox. That's a very interesting demographic.

Banks should require the listing to publicly show the email address of the loss mitigator. That way backup offers can just bypass the listing agent.

"The entire 1970s was a write-off. It was a perfect example of how destructive keynesian policies are.."

So Nixon and Ford were Keynesians?

How much is your downside?