« First « Previous Comments 16 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
how did this prediction of yours from june 2012 work out?
Just because the FED and the gov't decided to extend the party for a while longer doesn't make my predictions wrong. It only means that the eventual fall will be just as more painful.
Actually, I invite you all to take a look at my predictions vs. the predictions made by the head of our wonderful FED:
Well, just only in September, everybody on wall street and the mainstream media had predicted for Ben to taper the QE, while I, myself, predicted 11 months ago that they would not taper, but only accelerate. So, who turned out to be correct?
It's very interesting that many of the youtube videos of Ben's clairvoyant predictions were pulled off the internet. Here is one example:
Federal Reserve will exhaust all alternatives to avoid any and all losses for their controlling interests. As they should.
FTFY
Historically, as my grandfather, a small town bank president, and my father, a much bigger banker, knew, they are just fucking houses. Like, to house your family.
Once they got donkeys like you to borrow at interest for depreciating assets and think they were "investors" they completed the Great Grift.
a million of his quotes have been printed in newspapers
And, what's amazing is that the guy who is supposed to be the most influential person in the world can get away with not having a clue about the depression, nor the fact that he caused it to happen.
you are honestly going to claim Bernanke caused the depression. wow.
Yes, he wasn't the only one responsible, but he was one of the main perpetrators of it. The depression happened because the bubble he had blown burst. But, what's even worse, is that he didn't learn any lessons (just like you didn't either). He continues to "cure" the economy by using the same methods he used to fuck it up in the first place. This is exactly why this depression is going to go on for a long time, and the next dip is going to be much scarier than the first one.
I guess it doesn't take a PhD in economics to realize that throwing $1.6T a year at the economy which is only growing at a rate of $300B/year is a losing proposition.
he is a phd economist who studied the great depression extensively. I am highly educated in the field as well, and I tend to agree with his view.
Yes, both of you are great minds and I am a dumbass. Except this dumbass could predict the great depression and you denied it, just like you're both denying it now. The great PhD economist did absolutely nothing to prevent the bubble, to stop the banks from lending money to the people who could never pay them back. On the contrary, he threw more fuel into the fire and denied that the bubble ever existed. When the banks failed, he made the taxpayer pay for all the bank's mistakes. The next collapse is going to be much more serious than the last one, but the great minds are still denying it. Maybe because they know that the taxpayer will pay for that one too. I guess he knows that the taxpayer is the most generous taxpayer in the world, because, the taxpayer listens to cheerleaders like you, and not capable of understanding what's really going on.
he is a phd economist who studied the great depression extensively. I am highly educated in the field as well, and I tend to agree with his view.
Yes, I am from the government and I am here to help.
he is a phd economist who studied the great depression extensively. I am highly educated in the field as well, and I tend to agree with his view.
I see a great resemblance between you and the FED chairman. You are both lying through your teeth, even about something as fundamental as your identity. The Federal Reserve is neither Federal, nor do they have any Reserves. You are Roberto and trying to make us think that you're not.
haha. I sold 4 investment properties in 2004, 2005 and sat on the money. then I bought 13 in 2009-2011...
Show us the proof. You liar. Why should we even believe a guy who can't even say the truth about his own identity.
That is about as good as it gets dipstick.
Nope. Buying gold would have been much better. That's what I did.
I will stay anonymous, as a good oracle should.
Not only are you a liar, but also a coward with no cojones.
I heard what some asshole from this site did to that other guy, called his work and claimed he had a gun..
But we already know exactly where you work. This place:
http://www.scottsdalecc.edu/academics/faculty/roberto-ribas
That is, if you haven't been expelled from there as the worst professor in the history of that institution.
How about being on record for saying that silver is going to go to $10/oz. Do you want me to bring that up too?
If I was a serial liar, always wrong dipshit like you, I suppose maybe I'd find someone to harass online too.
Spoken like a true victim of online harassment!
he is a phd economist who studied the great depression extensively. I am highly educated in the field as well, and I tend to agree with his view.
I see a great resemblance between you and the FED chairman. You are both lying through your teeth, even about something as fundamental as your identity. The Federal Reserve is neither Federal, nor do they have any Reserves. You are Roberto and trying to make us think that you're not.
Yes, he's trying very, very hard to hide his real identity. That must presumably be why he just listed all his purchases in the post before.
I heard what some asshole from this site did to that other guy, called his work and claimed he had a gun..
But we already know exactly where you work. This place:
http://www.scottsdalecc.edu/academics/faculty/roberto-ribas
That is, if you haven't been expelled from there as the worst professor in the history of that institution.
Right, so from what he just posted that is what you focus on whilst ignoring the situation of some no-mark, apparently from this site, phoning his place of work and saying what they said. It's good that you have your priorities straight.
Yes, that's exactly what I am implying. In fact, that would be the best thing
that could ever happen to the country and all the future generations
Well, we'll have to disagree on that one. If house prices could magically drop and become more affordable without causing current owners to lose their current equity, then I'd agree.
FTFY
Historically, as my grandfather, a small town bank president, and my
father, a much bigger banker, knew, they are just fucking houses. Like, to house
your family.
Once they got donkeys like you to borrow at interest for
depreciating assets and think they were "investors" they completed the Great
Grift.
FFS. They are houses. Nice strawman though.
When it's cheaper to buy, you buy. When it's cheaper to rent, you rent. Why do you think I or anyone else is an "investor"?
If house prices could magically drop and become more affordable without causing current owners to lose their current equity, then I'd agree.
Why shouldn't they lose their equity? They bought into this ponzi scheme boat line and sinker. Somebody needs to take the loss one way or another. But, instead of having these losers and the banks take the loss, we hand the losses over to the taxpayers and the prudent savers. And, this is exactly why the economy cannot grow, and will not grow for many decades.
Why shouldn't they lose their equity? They bought into this ponzi scheme boat
line and sinker. Somebody needs to take the loss one way or another. But,
instead of having these losers and the banks take the loss, we hand the losses
over to the taxpayers and the prudent savers. And, this is exactly why the
economy cannot grow, and will not grow for many decades.
wtf are you talking about. If prices go to 1975 nominal levels, we'd be in a depression for certain. I don't think your employer would care if you were a homeowner or renter as they laid you off. Or as they went out of business.
And contrary to your belief that we'd have a nice, short, uneventful few years of recession--it would be long and it would be ugly and there is no reason to think it would clear the way for growth in the future.
wtf are you talking about. If prices go to 1975 nominal levels, we'd be in a depression for certain. I don't think your employer would care if you were a homeowner or renter as they laid you off. Or as they went out of business.
Yes, that's the official story from the FED fear mongers who try to justify their current policies of sending the country into the abyss. On the other hand, reality and history shows otherwise. We have an example of Japan, which has the same policies that we do, and are entering a 3rd decade of a depression vs Argentina, Iceland and Russia, all defaulting and enjoying high economic growth the very next year after the default.
I don't think your employer would care if you were a homeowner or renter as they laid you off.
Unlike a homeowner, however, I would be able to move and find another job somewhere else.
Yes, that's the official story from the FED fear mongers who try to justify
their current policies of sending the country into the abyss. On the other hand,
reality and history shows otherwise. We have an example of Japan, which has the
same policies that we do, and are entering a 3rd decade of a depression vs
Argentina, Iceland and Russia, all defaulting and enjoying high economic growth
the very next year after the default.
But we're not talking about the government defaulting. So what's your point?
Unlike a homeowner, however, I would be able to move and find another job
somewhere else.
Really? You think that a depression is local? There are no jobs ANYWHERE. Move all you want. It won't matter.
But we're not talking about the government defaulting. So what's your point?
It doesn't actually matter who is defaulting. The whole idea of a quick recession is to expunge all the debt. The FED and the gov't prevented this from going into completion in 2008, thus setting the stage for decades of stagnation. Not only that, but they have just blown another bubble in real estate, which will soon bust, but the consequences of this next bust would be much more serious than the previous one.
Really? You think that a depression is local? There are no jobs ANYWHERE. Move all you want. It won't matter.
There are still over a dozen countries which are enjoying GDP growth rates over 5%.
There are still over a dozen countries which are enjoying GDP growth rates
over 5%.
OK--fair enough. If you want to move overseas, then that's a different story.
It doesn't actually matter who is defaulting. The whole idea of a quick
recession is to expunge all the debt. The FED and the gov't prevented this from
going into completion in 2008, thus setting the stage for decades of stagnation.
Not only that, but they have just blown another bubble in real estate, which
will soon bust, but the consequences of this next bust would be much more
serious than the previous one.
The debt just doesn't magically go away with no consequences. One person's debt is another person's savings. So when you default you also take away the savings of all those renters that were squirreling away a little bit each month. I don't think you understand the effects of a default like you are advocating.
All the "new bubble" stuff is BS.
The debt just doesn't magically go away with no consequences. One person's debt is another person's savings. So when you default you also take away the savings of all those renters that were squirreling away a little bit each month. I don't think you understand the effects of a default like you are advocating.
No, the renters are going to benefit from defaults. The losers will be the banks, the home owners and the bond holders.
All the "new bubble" stuff is BS.
No it's not. The graph below shows the California affordability chart, when you take into account the loans which were available at the various periods. The CAR graph doesn't take that into account, which is the BS. This one is for real:
Really? You think that a depression is local? There are no jobs ANYWHERE. Move all you want. It won't matter.
There are still over a dozen countries which are enjoying GDP growth rates over 5%.
Those growth rates dropped 3% pretty quickly.
Those growth rates dropped 3% pretty quickly.
Yes, I checked the data. There are a few over 8%, but 5% is still much better than where we are right now. We are actually in a negative real growth period, spending $1.6T to grow $300B anually.
dumbross, you entirely missed the market turn in 2009, 2010. You spend those years screaming that prices would drop further.
Epic fail.
So, given your track record, why should anybody listen to you today?
If he keeps saying the same thing long enough, ...
So, given your track record, why should anybody listen to you today?
2010 was a fake rally due to tax incentives. 2011 decline wiped out all the gains of 2010. The prices didn't actually start going up until late 2012, and this will turn out to be short-lived as well. So, my track record is great. Since 2007, I was correct in 5 years out of 6, and if you had followed my predictions in gold, you'd be laughing all the way to the bank, now.
Those growth rates dropped 3% pretty quickly.
Yes, I checked the data. There are a few over 8%, but 5% is still much better than where we are right now. We are actually in a negative real growth period, spending $1.6T to grow $300B anually.
It's also a very small number of economies and presumably mainly those starting from a low base or being fueled by a resources boom.
No, the renters are going to benefit from defaults. The losers will be the
banks, the home owners and the bond holders.
OK. Because if you say so, it must be true.
So, let's follow the money then. When banks go bust, where is that money coming from? When bond holders go bust, who actually owned the bonds? Retirement acccounts, perhaps? And might renters be invested in those?
No it's not. The graph below shows the California affordability chart, when
you take into account the loans which were available at the various periods. The
CAR graph doesn't take that into account, which is the BS. This one is for
real:
First--are we only speaking of CA.?
Second--who says that the median income should be able to afford the median home? 40% of the folks rent. So, we're talking about the top 60% who are buyers. And some percentage of those folks bought 20 years ago and probably couldn't afford their home today.
So that whole graphic is nonsense
Meanwhile, how much are home prices up in California? Az is up 68%
But I showed you all that I was shorting gold during that time.
Didn't you just do the same. Just saying...
No. You might notice that I wasn't ignoring the comment by Roberto, I was responding to Dunnross. Just saying. But hey, paint me unsurprised you popped up to start trolling.
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
The mice are leaving the ship at the next available port:
http://ochousingnews.com/news/mounting-evidence-of-housing-markets-extreme-sensitivity-to-mortgage-interest-rates?source=Patrick.net
#housing