patrick.net

Bubbabear says

bmwman91 says

It went all-cash to Chinese nationals

It went all cash to Chinese bagholders! "Got it"...

The Chinese bag holder probably got rich in the real estate Ponzi scheme going on out there - but may be on the way to unravelling.

marcus says

When I hear this song on the radio it always makes me laugh, not because I've been there exactly. But close enough.

Maybe relevant to the thread.

We covered that song with "the band" back in the days - lots of groupies.. ;)

oh i see some tough guy come in here and show us how "manly" he is because he's not a wimpy fuck. can't wait until this moron gets to divorce court. some nice surprises waiting. but again some guy has nothing so they have nothing to worry about.

No rebuttal from the bulls? Market is changing from bullish to bearish? From sellers to a buyers' market?

mbSFBay says

Bubbabear says

bmwman91 says

It went all-cash to Chinese nationals

It went all cash to Chinese bagholders! "Got it"...

The Chinese bag holder probably got rich in the real estate Ponzi scheme going on out there - but may be on the way to unravelling.

It's more like their escape plan / plan B. When shit hits the fan there, they can flee with their ill-gotten riches to here and out of Beijing's grasp when the proletariat grows restless and demands that the crooked slave (factory) owners' heads roll. Then again, Beijing may just roll tank battalions into the poor districts and silence the rabble-rousers to protect the wealthy and connected. It'll be interesting for sure.

hanera says

No rebuttal from the bulls? Market is changing from bullish to bearish? From sellers to a buyers' market?

Not sure what there is to rebut. Foreign purchases have fallen 30%, so now they make up 20-25% of all RE sales in the SFBA instead of 30-40%. Friends of mine that are looking to buy are still getting out-bid by tech DINK couples and foreigners across the valley. So, it still sort of sucks to be a buyer here without heaps of cash. HOPEFULLY this is the start of a cooling RE market and price escalation will taper off because it has been insane in the last 18 months, particularly given the merciless increases in rent. I had a hell of a time finding a new apartment last year, and the market is even tougher now.

deepcgi says

With baseless currency and over-leveraged paper allowing the "Robber Barons"
to rule, it's impossible to blame Austrian Economics for your latest
headache.

Please explain exactly how a baseless currency and over-leveraged paper allow the Robber Barons to rule. Be specific.

And please avoid any references to "cronies" unless you explain in detail who they are and how they are benefitting.

So the term "dodge" is foreign to you??

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

It doesn't have to be revolution. They can also choose not to follow the corrupt law, and dodge enforcement authorities.

OK, start by growing weed. See how well you do. Enforce your land rights with your Second Amendment rights.

If such a situation would arise, I would lose nothing.
It's not my fault you did not have the foresight / mental capacity to put your assets into an irrevocable trust prior to getting married.

In life, you get what you deserve. Now stop whining like some (fill in the blank), grow a pair and learn from your fuckup.

Mark D says

oh i see some tough guy come in here and show us how "manly" he is because he's not a wimpy fuck. can't wait until this moron gets to divorce court. some nice surprises waiting. but again some guy has nothing so they have nothing to worry about.

Western men are very much to blame for the way that many of them are treated.

You act like a punk bitch, people will treat you like one.

Handle your biz like a real man, and you are treated like one in return.

Annual world gold production is around 80 million ounces. Tying currencies to gold would limit monetary base expansion to this number per year.

At even $2000 per ounce, global economic expansion in excess $160 Billion dollars annually would increase the value of the currency - that is, if output exceeds currency growth, then the following year, output (work) relative to currency would fall. The current world GDP is about $85 Trillion USD. This would limit growth to .1%, otherwise holding of currency (and hoarding) would be encouraged.

After one year at 3% global economic growth vs. .1% currency growth, currency would increase in value 2.9%. Every 24 years of compounding would see currency double in value relative to output (work).

So over one's working career, currency would increase in value about 4 times. One year of work today, saved, would be "worth" 4 years of work at retirement. It would therefore benefit first movers (or first born) vs. future generations.

Therefore, tying currency to gold would discourage investment, encourage hoarding, and exacerbate wealth disparity.

Like many posters on here, I'm not sure you understand what Keynesian economics really means. Walking away from mortgages, poor incentive systems by banks, fraud on mortgage applications--none of those are Keynesian.

All this focus on Keynes is a distraction from the real problems--wealth inequality, US trade imbalance, et. al.

tatupu70 says

All this focus on Keynes is a distraction from the real problems--wealth inequality, US trade imbalance, et. al.

Both wealth inequality and trade imbalance are consequences of the monetary policy, which is part of the modern Keynesianism apparatus.

Heraclitusstudent says

Both wealth inequality and trade imbalance are consequences of the monetary
policy, which is part of the modern Keynesianism apparatus

I'll ask again then. Please explain why you believe this to be the case. Be specific. And avoid generic explanations like "cronies get the money first".

tatupu70 says

Both wealth inequality and trade imbalance are consequences of the monetary

policy, which is part of the modern Keynesianism apparatus

I'll ask again then. Please explain why you believe this to be the case. Be specific. And avoid generic explanations like "cronies get the money first".

- Wealth inequality: because rich people see their assets inflated, and their rents/interests perpetuated/guarantied and increased, whereas the poor people take more debts and so pay more in interests, which makes it harder for them to accumulate wealth.
- trade imbalances: because discouraging savings in the US creates an account deficit, which expresses itself mainly through the trade deficit. Or said an other way: the policy is to lead people (in aggregate) to consume more, even more than they actually produce, through the use of debt, and this means a trade deficit.

Alexander Kinyua on Monday pleaded guilty to charges that he killed a family friend and ate his heart and part of his brain

This brings up a dilemma. Heart is obviously served with red wine, but brain is customarily served with white. Which do you serve with the surf-n-turf of cannibalism? A rose wine?

And Alex, didn't your mother teach you to finish your plate. There are children starving in the world that would love some of that brain and you just eat part of it after I slaved over a stove for two hours.

You are right in that I am referring to what Keynesianism has become rather than what it was meant to be. By its nature, however, it is inevitably corrupted. "Fiscal Policy", as a phrase at all, is a flawed concept that leads to the abuse we see. A free market cannot coexist with governments manipulating the money supply for political advantage.

It's the difference between theory and reality; the difference between mathematics and science. They are not equivalent. Once governments begin manipulating a fiat money supply, the abuse is assured. According to Keynesianism, fixed prices will cause production output to increase from additional spending. Government expenditures are the primary tool for increasing production output. The problem is that governments do not have endless funds for paying expenses. The only true way to increase government income is through higher taxes, which decreases individual wealth.

In the event of a downturn, the consumer cannot increase spending so that becomes the job of the government. Politicians use the Keynesian toolset to create false demand for goods and services which are very likely not truly in demand. These politicians of both parties use their monetary and fiscal policies for pet projects and promises.

Are you fishing for Austrian Economics versus Trust-Busting as the trump-card moral dilemma? That is apples and oranges.

Heraclitusstudent says

Wealth inequality: because rich people see their assets inflated, and their
rents/interests perpetuated/guarantied and increased, whereas the poor people
take more debts and so pay more in interests, which makes it harder for them to
accumulate wealth.

I think you've got it backwards there. The assets increase in value because the rich have more money. It's a symptom, not a cause.

Heraclitusstudent says

trade imbalances: because discouraging savings in the US creates an account
deficit, which expresses itself mainly through the trade deficit. Or said an
other way: the policy is to lead people (in aggregate) to consume more, even
more than they actually produce, through the use of debt, and this means a trade
deficit.

That might make sense except that the countries that have a postive trade imbalance are also on a fiat currency. Why aren't their citizens discouraged from saving?

Did it taste like chicken?

deepcgi says

A free market cannot coexist with governments manipulating the money supply for
political advantage.

If you want to get down to the nuts and bolts, a free market cannot ever exist. There will never be perfect information flow for one. So, given that, we need to make some rules that will help make up for the deficiencies in actual conditions vs. what a theoretical free market requires.

deepcgi says

Once governments begin manipulating a fiat money supply, the abuse is assured.

I'm not quite as cynical as you, but regardless, that's why laws/regulations are developed to curb the abuses.

deepcgi says

Government expenditures are the primary tool for increasing production output.

Not sure I agree with that either.

deepcgi says

The only true way to increase government income is through higher taxes, which
decreases individual wealth.

Or increased output. Achieved through higher productivity.

deepcgi says

In the event of a downturn, the consumer cannot increase spending so that
becomes the job of the government. Politicians use the Keynesian toolset to
create false demand for goods and services which are very likely not truly in
demand.

They use government spending to keep demand from falling below it's true point. When people are starving and homeless because they don't have any money, I don't think giving them money to buy food and shelter is creating false demand.

deepcgi says

These politicians of both parties use their monetary and fiscal policies for pet
projects and promises.

Perhaps, but that's a different issue. That could be done under any system.

Dan8267 says

Alexander Kinyua on Monday pleaded guilty to charges that he killed a family friend and ate his heart and part of his brain

This brings up a dilemma. Heart is obviously served with red wine, but brain is customarily served with white. Which do you serve with the surf-n-turf of cannibalism? A rose wine?

Beer! It goes with everything.

Indiana Jones says

I don't know about you, but other websites I visit do not have this kind of childish, inane ranting and name calling. There is intelligent; adult conversations happening

Are you sayin that name calling is incompatible with intelligent conversation?
Perhaps the mismatch is your sense of asetheics

He left the face. That's inexcusable.

marcus says

Let's face it, a lot of Americans, men and woman alike, are selfish, spoiled, and lacking in ethics and integrity. It's just that in the typical finances of most marriages, it's far easier for men to get totally screwed over than visa versa.

Are you 'common-sense' talking? Or you backed by any study?

From a major magazine:

A growing body of social science has begun to compare straight and same-sex couples in an attempt to get at the question of what is female, what is male. Some of the findings are surprising. For instance: we know that heterosexual wives are more likely than husbands to initiate divorce. Social scientists have struggled to explain the discrepancy, variously attributing it to the sexual revolution; to women’s financial independence; to men’s failure to keep modern wives happy. Intriguingly, in Norway and Sweden, where registered partnerships for same-sex couples have been in place for about two decades (full-fledged marriage was introduced several years ago), research has found that lesbians are twice as likely as gay men to split up. If women become dissatisfied even when married to other women, maybe the problem with marriage isn’t men. Maybe women are too particular. Maybe even women don’t know what women want.

Most realtors are female. Custody should default to the father if there is any reasonable suspicion that the mother has, or might in future, engage in the marketing of real property for a percentage.

Why does Alexander Kinyua remind me of Reavers?

tatupu70 says

I think you've got it backwards there. The assets increase in value because the rich have more money. It's a symptom, not a cause.

More debts means more transfers from the borrowers to the lenders.
And that's only 1 mechanism. Lenders also get protection from taxpayers. There are investors renting houses - to the poor who don't have savings, etc... All this amounts to transfers from the poor to the rich.

tatupu70 says

That might make sense except that the countries that have a postive trade imbalance are also on a fiat currency. Why aren't their citizens discouraged from saving?

Japan had a trade surplus because the Keynesians failed to do what they wanted. Deflation discourages spending.

Germany had a trade surplus in part because they believe in a strong currency.

Countries like the US and UK that centered on finance and a flood of cheap money all had a big trade deficit.

Heraclitusstudent says

More debts means more transfers from the borrowers to the lenders.

Huh? Debt is a transfer from lender to borrower. Only if and when it gets repaid does any transfer go back to the lender.

Heraclitusstudent says

There are investors renting houses - to the poor who don't have savings, etc...
All this amounts to transfers from the poor to the rich.

Not sure what you mean here. What does that have to do with monetary policy. Landlords exist under any system.

Heraclitusstudent says

Japan had a trade surplus because the Keynesians failed to do what they
wanted. Deflation discourages spending.

Germany had a trade surplus in part because they believe in a strong
currency.

Countries like the US and UK that centered on finance and a flood of cheap
money all had a big trade deficit.

So, it's not a function of fiat curreny then, right? Or Keynesianism. Japan has a deficit much larger than the US. And a fiat currency that they have been trying to devalue. Japan basically disproves your theory.

tatupu70 says

So, it's not a function of fiat curreny then, right? Or Keynesianism. Japan has a deficit much larger than the US. And a fiat currency that they have been trying to devalue. Japan basically disproves your theory.

It's not a function only of what authorities do. But ceteris paribus, a monetary stimulus tends to increase the trade deficit for the reasons I mentioned.

tatupu70 says

Heraclitusstudent says

More debts means more transfers from the borrowers to the lenders.

Huh? Debt is a transfer from lender to borrower. Only if and when it gets repaid does any transfer go back to the lender.

Yes it goes back to the lender when paid back (sometime guarantied by the taxpayers), with interests, and once those are compounded, they grow exponentially over time. Growing debts means the rich (or generally everyone with savings) are extracting more and more interests from people borrowing.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's not a function only of what authorities do. But ceteris paribus, a
monetary stimulus tends to increase the trade deficit for the reasons I
mentioned.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/10/news/economy/japan-stimulus/index.html

The problem is that the policy doesn't lead consumers to spend more than they produce or take on debt. I disagree with that theory. And other countries prove this. There is obviously another reason for the problems in the US.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes it goes back to the lender when paid back (sometime guarantied by the
taxpayers), with interests, and once those are compounded, they grow
exponentially over time. Growing debts means the rich (or generally everyone
with savings) are extracting more and more interests from people
borrowing.

But you're not factoring in what the borrower is able to use that money to purchase. For example--all the folks who have a mortgage on their house and hold it for 30 years are WAY ahead of where they'd be if they had rented for 30 years. There is no transfer of wealth in that case.

In any event, in a free market, debt is not a wealth transfer mechanism. The borrower is paying the time value of money back to the lender.

tatupu70 says

In any event, in a free market, debt is not a wealth transfer mechanism. The borrower is paying the time value of money back to the lender.

Call it the time value, or whatever you want, it's a transfer of wealth. Calling it "time value" just refer to the fact that interests or dividends or rents, one way or an other, the money is used to extract more money. The guy who bought the house gets the house (still the same house as 30 yrs ago, though depreciated by being 30yrs older - which is maybe half the life span of a house), and paid maybe an extra few hundreds of thousands in interests - no pocket change.

If you lend $100 at 5%, the next year you have $105. Lend that again n years in a row and you have $100 x (1.05)^n, meaning it's an exponential, meaning it grows explosively given enough time. The people who have savings and are "growing their snowballs" are extracting more and more money from the other side, the poor. Given enough time they will always suck the poor dry.

Until of course the poor can't pay, in which case the whole scheme collapses. (and it's utterly predictable). But then the state keynesians come and say "now is not the time to give morality lessons" and proceed to bailout the rich with taxpayer money. They inject a bit more money and the whole process continues.

And in order to grow debts exponentially, you need a housing bubble, because that's where most people have their debts. You need a student debts bubble, because you want people to be loaded up early on. And if that's not enough, get the government to borrow in their names. It's all tailored to maximize debts, and in the process make the rich much richer.

tatupu70 says

The problem is that the policy doesn't lead consumers to spend more than they produce or take on debt.

If it doesn't it's not thanks to the actions of keynesians authorities. Because that's exactly what they are trying to achieve.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Nothing? It's based on solid lies of normal people who've been taught to make shit up on their mortgage applications since the average laborer has been priced out the market, around 1975 or so. Higher prices just require bigger lies and size is no problem.

I was just discussing this with my wife, Maria Sharapova, as we crossed the Gulf of Mexico in our jet. It seems a lot of people fudge their income and accomplishments upward. I have even seen this among my colleagues at Johns Hopkins, since I won the Nobel Prize.

Heraclitusstudent says

The guy who bought the house gets the house (still the same house as 30 yrs ago, though depreciated by being 30yrs older - which is maybe half the life span of a house), and paid maybe an extra few hundreds of thousands in interests - no pocket change.

Actually, the guy who got the house will pay MUCH less over the course of the 30 year loan than the guy who rents for the same 30 years. So, in that respect, it's not a transfer of wealth at all.

Heraclitusstudent says

But then the state keynesians come and say "now is not the time to give morality lessons" and proceed to bailout the rich with taxpayer money. They inject a bit more money and the whole process continues.

That's not Keynesian at all. I think in your mind you just associate anything you think is wrong to Keynes....

Heraclitusstudent says

Until of course the poor can't pay, in which case the whole scheme collapses. (and it's utterly predictable).

Loaning irresponsibly is not Keynesian.

Heraclitusstudent says

And in order to grow debts exponentially, you need a housing bubble, because that's where most people have their debts. You need a student debts bubble, because you want people to be loaded up early on. And if that's not enough, get the government to borrow in their names. It's all tailored to maximize debts, and in the process make the rich much richer.

I know I'm like a broken record, but Keynesians don't want to grow debt. They treat debt as a tool to be used when necessary, not irrationally feared. Some problems require more spending, some problems require less spending. And Keynesians know the difference and pursue the correct course.

Heraclitusstudent says

If it doesn't it's not thanks to the actions of keynesians authorities. Because that's exactly what they are trying to achieve.

100% incorrect.

Windows 2000! ;)

Yeah that makes sense Roberta, housing goes up while the job market still sucks :-/

People are seeking them, but soon realize that it's a cash-only game.

There's no point, anymore. If you need a mortgage, you already lost the bid.