patrick.net

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.

exfatguy says

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.

Unless you get FHA approved, then the taxpayer will foot your bill if you bail.

I'm holding out until the taxpayer foots the bill even if I don't bail.

Anecdotes are not statistics, but I have heard several moderately technically-savvy people say they'll be going to the Apple store for their next machine, thanks to Windows 8. Just fucking tired of the bullshit.

tatupu70 says

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.

Absolutely not true if the renter invests his or her downpayment and maintenance costs over 30 years. Mortgage loans are a huge transfer of wealth from rich to less rich. And rents are generally "set" (by the market) at a rate that is comparable to a mortgage. Therefore, my conclusion would be that the transfer of wealth from rich to less rich via mortgage loans actually has a very significant impact on all housing (whether one is renting from a landlord or "renting" a depreciating asset from the bank for 30 years).

JH says

Absolutely not true if the renter invests his or her downpayment and maintenance costs over 30 years.

No, it is absolutely true. Please show me one example where it wouldn't be true historically. It's actually not even close.

JH says

Therefore, my conclusion would be that the transfer of wealth from rich to less rich via mortgage loans actually has a very significant impact on all housing (whether one is renting from a landlord or "renting" a depreciating asset from the bank for 30 years).

Your conclusion is very wrong.

tatupu70 says

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

But this bailout came as a consequence of their keynesian/monetary stimulus in the previous cycle. And they had no choice. The complete financial system might have collapsed.

These are the actions of people practicing keynesianism today. This doesn't mean Keynes recommended this. The only way you can judge keynesianism empirically is by looking at what they are doing and also at what they are forced to do as a result of their own actions.

tatupu70 says

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.

The rent itself is a transfer of wealth. It's part of how people with assets (houses) extract wealth from the poor who are renting.

tatupu70 says

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.

You don't even have an argument.
Of course keynesians authorities want consumers to spend as much as possible, regardless of what they produce (their revenues). In the US consumption was stimulated on a regular basis regardless a huge persistent trade/account deficit.

They tried to do the same in Japan. That they failed doesn't mean they didn't try. They are still trying now and will continue until Japan's credit is utterly spent and it collapses under its debt weight.

Heraclitusstudent says

But this bailout came as a consequence of their keynesian/monetary stimulus in the previous cycle. And they had no choice. The complete financial system might have collapsed.

Except that the cause was poor underwriting standards, not monetary stimulus. Monetary stimulus doesn't cause people to default en masse.

Heraclitusstudent says

These are the actions of people practicing keynesianism today

How do you figure? If someone does something that is the opposite of what Keynes prescribed, how do you consider that to be "practicing Keynesianism"?

Heraclitusstudent says

The rent itself is a transfer of wealth. It's part of how people with assets (houses) extract wealth from the poor who are renting.

That much I can agree with---a free market will tend to concentrate wealth. It's up to the government to institute laws that try to reverse this natural trend.

tatupu70 says

Except that the cause was poor underwriting standards, not monetary stimulus. Monetary stimulus doesn't cause people to default en masse.

Monetary stimulus = bailouts + cheap interest rates + government backed debt = poor lending/underwriting standards + higher prices. No bailouts + tightened money supply = self-correcting lending/underwriting standards due to "skin in the game" (hint, hint: N. Taleb).

tatupu70 says

That much I can agree with---a free market will tend to concentrate wealth. It's up to the government to institute laws that try to reverse this natural trend.

And give up the wealth concentration again (2008) if government wouldn't backstop the cronies.

I'll give you that poor underwriting standards could be considered a form of monetary stimulus. But after that your equation goes off the tracks.

And it was the free market at work, not the government....

tatupu70 says

Except that the cause was poor underwriting standards, not monetary stimulus. Monetary stimulus doesn't cause people to default en masse.

BS. Bad standards is a symptom of too much debt, that was encouraged through monetary actions in particular. (And pretty all other actions authorities took, including total lack of enforcement of existing fraud laws, including fiscal policy, housing policies etc.... )

What is Keynesianism?: in theory counter-cyclical government spending. In practice whether it's government spending, tax breaks, monetary policy, or housing policies, all these policies have one thing in common: their goal is to grow debts - in all their forms. Because debt money is spent now and so stimulates the economy (and will be paid back slowly later so no worries). Debt money is what creates the mythical "missing" end-demand.

This is what keynesian stimulus means today: debt creation is all its forms: debt incentives, debt subsidies, debt guaranties, government debts, household debts, corporate debts, etc, etc... Anything goes. Keynesianism today is pretty synonymous with debt creation policies.

And we have lots of those, in most countries worldwide.

And when after that we have a debt crisis, I'm sorry, you can't say this has nothing to do with Keynesianism.

Heraclitusstudent says

Bad standards is a symptom of too much debt, that was encouraged through monetary actions in particular

Huh? Are you saying that the low rates made investors chase riskier opportunities? I would agree with that. But it certainly doesn't cause banks make loans that even the loan officers know will go bad like we had during the bubble. The causes are well documented.

Heraclitusstudent says

In practice whether it's government spending, tax breaks, monetary policy, or housing policies, all these policies have one thing in common: their goal is to grow debts - in all their forms. Because debt money is spent now and so stimulates the economy (and will be paid back slowly later so no worries)

And again, I'll ask. If you know and understand that the practice is clearly not according to Keynes, why would you consider it Keynesian?

Heraclitusstudent says

This is what keynesian stimulus means today: debt creation is all its forms: debt incentives, debt subsidies, debt guaranties, government debts, household debts, corporate debts, etc, etc... Anything goes. Keynesianism today is pretty synonymous with debt creation policies.

Only because people like yourself have bastardized the term into meaninglessness. That's propaganda at work.

Heraclitusstudent says

And when after that we have a debt crisis, I'm sorry, you can't say this has nothing to do with Keynesianism.

I can and will. Keynesianism is what Clinton did in the late 90s that balanced the budget.

tatupu70 says

I can and will. Keynesianism is what Clinton did in the late 90s that balanced the budget.

He balanced the government budget, at the price of a ramp up of debt in other areas of the economy. The real question is whether he closed the account deficit of the US. (the complete US economy, not just the government).

Further the deficit was not constant in the past 33 years. It always jumped up after every crisis and never recovered after each recovery. It's specious to measure it between a crisis and a peak. What counts is the average progression, and on average the government debt increased about 9% per year since 1980. That includes all presidents, who all followed the keynesian doctrine.

tatupu70 says

Only because people like yourself have bastardized the term into meaninglessness. That's propaganda at work.

Ok so what do you want to call it?
Authorities themselves would call themselves keynesians. This is the dominant economic theory and they would all say they follow it - in contrast with libertarians like Paul who call themselves Austrians.

What I call it doesn't matter. What matters is what these current policies are doing.

This is a set of policies that works as I described by creating debt, that is largely reproduced in other countries, that has caused recent debt crisis, that is obviously not working well, but that authorities of all political colors continue to enact.

tatupu70 says

Are you saying that the low rates made investors chase riskier opportunities? I would agree with that. But it certainly doesn't cause banks make loans that even the loan officers know will go bad like we had during the bubble.

This didn't happen in a regulatory void. Authorities deliberately let banks do that, maybe out of naivety, but certainly because they enjoyed the economic results. No one protested on the way up. Even when the FBI reported epidemics of fraud. And they largely protected banks in the aftermath.

The exact channel varies in every crisis. You see in Greece a completely different situation where the government itself committed the fraud. But it amounts to the same: too much debt was created, and everyone let this happen. No one wants to clamp down on a good party.

But, importantly, this is not the subprimes itself that caused so much damage. It is the resulting slowdown in lending that occurred. A slowdown in the debt creation process, where aggregate debts actually contract, is like a reverse keynesian stimulus. It is a self reinforced process. Given enough debts, it can always destroy the financial system, even now, absent some intervention to stop it. Once you have created enough debts, the financial edifice is just less stable. This is why keynesianism (or whatever you call these debt creation policies) is responsible.

Gold bugs said Uncle Ben would cause hyperinflation, so they bought gold.

Oops.

Microsoft follows the Star Trek Even-Odd Rule for its operating systems.

Fade-in: a humble industrial laundry in Albuquerque, NM. Cut to a basement with shiny red floors, where several masked and hooded figures mill around an array of plastic barrels, emptying bottles of hydrofluoric acid into them.

A clerk, also in full protective gear, plasters labels like "VP, HSBC" on the barrels.

One of the figures peels off her mask and addresses the camera: "Imagine no bankers!" and flashes a beatific smile.

I'd post a funny YouTube video demonstrating said campaign, but YouTube has banned me for watching too many cat videos. Die YouTube Die!

Dan8267 says

Microsoft follows the Star Trek Even-Odd Rule for its operating systems.

Seems to fit pretty well.

I can't believe how bad Windows 8 is, it looked promising during the beta.

Just out of curiosity, what is it that people hate about Win8 so much? After about 5 minutes of getting used to the new type of start menu and finding the shut down option, it's the same thing as Win7 but more stable and it uses a lot less ram (on my machine anyway). I thought that it was terrible until I actually used it. Most people seem to rage mainly about the lack of start menu since it requires them to unlearn a decade of habit. Hardware compatibility and whatnot is phenomenal. I stuck it on my 6.5 year old Thinkpad and it has had zero issues while also using 400MB less RAM than Win7.

I DO dislike the full-screen metro apps, so I just right clicked them and uninstalled/unpinned them from the metro menu thing. Most of that stuff is superfluous poop, but I guess they bundle it in since it is used more on the tablets with Win8.