patrick.net

yawn.

Nomograph says

You are so far out there that you actually consider Bap33 a leftist.

Of course I know he's not a leftist. We're having a discussion, is that a problem?

Nomo .... Just for fun: do you think it is "lefist" to want to torture someone for "weeks" before you finally execute them?

People that use "this" is the new "That" are only trying to create a New reality for them selves.

When we talk torture, we all must agree that each person is unique in their degree experienceing an activity before it is called torture. For example, for me it would be torture to have my hands cuffed behind my back. It would drive me nuts. And then, if I were placed in a squad car and strapped in with no way to protect myself or save myself in case of a crash ... that would be torture to me. Could I claim torture since that is my personal view? Those abu-grab murdering thugs were able to push their personal view .. (by the way, aint it odd that Gitmo just dont get any play time now that Lord Barry is in charge? .. same prison, same prisoners, same Halliburton .. go figure.)

Bap33 says

When we talk torture, we all must agree that each person is unique in their degree experienceing an activity before it is called torture.

Bap, You are correct in saying that torture is subjective. For some of us, torture would be having to spend time cornered at a party with rayray. Seriously, you're trying to have an intellectual conversation with a child who lacks the ability to comprehend abstract thoughts. I think the only thing that rayray has proven here is that he believes that a child being beaten and left to die for days is okay in his book. Seems like the rest of us tend to believe that it's not. I don't know if I could be the one to torture these people, and I hope that I never have to find out if I possess the ability to do so. rayray say:

Nomo …. Just for fun...

But unlike rayray, I'm repulsed by their behavior and don't find anything about this subject alluring or amusing.

the subject is horrible.

Yea. Simcha mentioned that he's a psychotherapist (I believe) and, in that vein, believes in treatment and prevention. I gotta hand it to him - I was in school when I realized that I couldn't work with offenders. I believe that it's important to have people who can treat offenders. My friend works with drug & alcohol abuse and has seen and heard some heavy shit. It seems that many offenders are vicitms themselves. The question is whether or not they have the desire to stop the cycle of violence. I can't imagine what this child felt, locked in a room in pain - dying - while his mother and the piece of shit that beat him got married. I can't imagine what was running through the mind of his mother, or his offender. Maybe nothing, maybe they lack human emotions. I don't know. Like I said, I don't understand people who can commit such heinous acts of violence. May God have mercy on their souls because no one else does.

Nomo .... why are you subscribing to me a quote I never made? You can do better than that. If you are going to debate, at least make a half hearted attempt at being honest.

elliemae says

I think the only thing that rayray has proven here is that he believes that a child being beaten and left to die for days is okay in his book.

Another complete lie from the the Slander Queen. It must be a very bitter experience waking up in the morning knowing that your whole life is based on a lie. That is not a baseless claim. If you are willing to blatantly lie on a meaningless site such as this, I'm sure you lie constantly in whatever you do.

elliemae says

I believe that these people deserve the death penalty, but the type where they take several days or weeks to die while they’re in pain and horrible distress.

Ellie believes not only in the death penalty, but in torturing human beings from "several days" to "weeks" before they are executed. Nazi SS Chief Heinrich Himmler enjoyed watching people die slowly while hanging on meat hooks. If we advocate this type of torture, regardless how hideous the crime, are we (uh, pardon me, I mean elliemae) any better than the Nazis? Civilized societies NEVER advocate inhumane torture, NEVER.

RayAmerica says

Nomo …. why are you subscribing to me a quote I never made? You can do better than that. If you are going to debate, at least make a half hearted attempt at being honest.

Actually, rayray, this quote - made by Bap - was thoughtful, meaningful, and worthy of discussion. Therefore no one would ever actually believe that you would be responsible for it. It is ironic that you would defend you would make such a comment. RayAmerica says

elliemae says

I think the only thing that rayray has proven here is that he believes that a child being beaten and left to die for days is okay in his book.

Another complete lie from the the Slander Queen. It must be a very bitter experience waking up in the morning knowing that your whole life is based on a lie. That is not a baseless claim. If you are willing to blatantly lie on a meaningless site such as this, I’m sure you lie constantly in whatever you do.

You're not very good at playing this game. Gonna give you a mulligan.

RayAmerica says

If you are willing to blatantly lie on a meaningless site such as this

Sure seems to mean something to you...

no need for bitterness. well, unless you are making a bitter dessert ... but how often is that - really.

elliemae says The mother is being held on $100k bail; the abusing step-father is being held without bail. Another interesting little observation: these people haven't even been convicted yet. I thought in the good old USA, you're "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY." Ellie is advocating torture and execution for people that haven't even been convicted by a "jury of their peers" yet? Interesting. Very interesting. elliemae says

I believe that these people deserve the death penalty, but the type where they take several days or weeks to die while they’re in pain and horrible distress.

Elliemae is prosecutor, jury, judge, torturer and executioner all rolled into one big happy face. And these people haven't even had their day in court yet! Amazing. Kind of reminds me of Hitler's infamous "People's Court" where the "citizen" was guilty and sentenced before they even entered the courtroom.

Ray, I am pretty sure you are swinging your hammer at every nail you see. When there is a target in front of you that presents itself as an adversary, your actions make perfect sense to me. I have done the same, many times, and been where you are too. But, when you are tageting an non-agressive (even if only on this thred) you take on the light of a bully. I had a similar situation with a few of the left-leaning posters, where they would follow me from thred to thred, continuing the attack, away from the "battle field" - for lack of a better term. They looked like bullies, because they would not focus on subject matter. I humbly suggest that you look at this subject matter, realize ellie's actual reason for posting this topic, and avoid unnecesary barbs that might lead someone to feel you are simply trying to bully someone. To counter ideas on merit and offer alternate ideas is something you are good at. To know when there is no oposite view to defend is not your best suit. I seen you get pounded on other stuff in a very rude and agressive manner. Do not think I have not been there myself. It sucks. The lefties on here group together very quickly and are rude and agressive - and pretty dang smart too. So, I get where you are coming from. But, to take an agressive stance in this topic removes some very important realestate from your position, and soon you will not have any ground to stand on. Do not fall for the victim role, take the high ground and stay on the right side of things - that is my free advice to you. It all boils down to simple right and simple wrong. Right minded people can see those two things and believe they are exclusive, where left minded folks do not belive in absoluts (a failed idea - but thats another chapter). So, on this subject, on this site, on this planet, would you please stand-down and give quarter? It is the RIGHT thing to do. Thank you.

Bap .... It's pretty tough to go soft on someone that has repeatedly, in numerous posts, accused me of being a "child molester" and states that, in "my book," it's "okay to beat a kid for days and leave him to die." This is way over the line. I honestly think the woman is crazy. I don't support, watch or listen to Glenn Beck, but take offense that she refers to him as a "child rapist and murderer." Anyways, you are right and I appreciate you taking the time to tell me how you feel on this. I should be above this and ignore it but it's not easy to let her get away with this slander.

well .. follow this logic for a quick minute .. we are on-line here .. you have no idea if she is a "she". She may be a "he" named Frank that lives in a trailer park in Texas and is just role playing. He is 15, and gets no porn time on the computer since his mom got a good block system up, so he is bored and comes on here to mess with you. See how it works? The persona of each poster is created in the mind of the reader. You are creating your adversary. So, re-create "ellie" into something you are not threatened or angered by. Make her hot, or old, or skinny, or pale white with bright red hair and freckles ... it's all in your head my friend. I may be a rapist, or a murderer. That does not change my points on a topic, it only changes how you view my position. Actually, I am a murderer, but that was a long time ago and I repented from that sin. I'm an adulterer too. A liar too. Heck, not long ago I was a young black single mom too. No worries Ray, no worries. Hakuna Matata.

RayAmerica says

I don’t support, watch or listen to Glenn Beck, but take offense that she refers to him as a “child rapist and murderer.”

I agree. Nothing has been proven in that matter to my satisfaction. But, why won't Glenn Beck just come clean and address the issue?

not an issue - just an accusation - like J. Flowers, M. Lewenski, and all them other gals that Clinton "knew". Oh, wait, there is no "blue dress" in Becks past. Darn the luck, huh libs? The difference? Beck is a radio personality, and Clinton lied under oath to Congress while serving as The President. See the difference yet?

Why is it that conservatives just can't resist bringing Bill Clinton up in just about any conversation about anything thinking he's the least bit relevant to any topic today? Give up the ghost already. He left the Presidency in 2000 and then we experienced the 8 years of the Bush Regime where the Bush and Cheney crime families perpetrated heinous crimes against humanity on a global scale. The difference is quite stark. Bill Clinton got head in the Oval Office and lied about it under oath. Bush, Cheney, and Company started at least two wars on false premises that have killed THOUSANDS while torturing others and intruding into the lives of common Americans with draconian measures such as written into the Patriot Act. None of these things are easy to dismantle in just over a year. Hmmm. Let's see, what would be worse?... Getting head in the Oval Office and lying about it or killing thousands of our own young people (to say nothing of innocent bystanders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) in two needless wars based on false premises while torturing others and eliminating certain elements of the Bill of Rights. For me it's not even a close call. But alas, none of this has anything to do with the OP. Get it Bap? Clinton has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. You were making sense a few posts above. Now get back to making sense and let's end this side show that elliemae, you, and Rayray have decided to allow yourselves to be side-tracked with. I'm still concerned about real justice in this case, whatever that means, and whatever it looks like. Is anyone else?

oh, sim, buddy, check tatupu's post and get back to me with an apology - thanks. My post was in response to that filth, and nothing more. We were attacked many times before 9/11 ... the arabs didn't figure on getting hit back since Clinton was too much of a coward to do anything but kill innocent Christians in Africa and Kosovo. If you would have rather not hit back, that is your choice and I am glad you were not the one to make the choice. My choice would have been to drop a nuke on each city that had people celebrating the attacks .. so, I guess it is good I was not making the choice either. As for the case of this child ... for some perspective, there have been five (5) mexican gang murders in my little town of 8,000 in the past 2 months. That would be national news if not for the fact that it would give more credit to what Arizona is trying to fix. And for some more perspective, there were ALOT of innocent folks murdered on 9/11 by some crazy arabs in a very brutal and scarry and long process ... burning alive, jumping to their death instead of burning to death, laying under a desk in the dark, in the smoke, hearing the screams, smelling the burning flesh, and then a long slow thunder comes to squish them to a grease spot. I agree sim, we need some justice. Lets go after the crazy arabs just as you would these two creeps that hurt this little boy. Deal?

Bap33 says

She may be a “he” named Frank that lives in a trailer park in Texas and is just role playing. He is 15, and gets no porn time on the computer since his mom got a good block system up, so he is bored and comes on here to mess with you.

1) I prefer "Frank" or "Frankie. 2) One can drive with a learner's permit at 15 yrs in Texas, so I'm more grown up than you might think. 3) The porn thing sucks... but I'm making it through okay... rayray lost his perspective, if he ever had it. From day one he has been confrontive, aggressive, condescending & rude. Had he ever presented an argument that didn't include a slam on the libs, he wouldn't be crying victim now. rayray can't take the shit he shovels. he has no problem hijacking threads and being a nasty little troll, but can't stay on subject. he can't see the difference between personal attacks and spirited discourse. If he continues to make asinine statements such as: RayAmerica says

Spell check? LOL! You keep proving yourself “so smart & stuff.” Too funny.

This changed the subject from the OP. RayAmerica says

I poke a little fun at ellie “I never, ever insult anyone” mae and this is how she responds: elliemae says

But then, I wonder, why does rayray refuse to discuss this specific issue? Why does he skate around the issue of Glen Beck and the girls he may or may not have raped & killed?

elliemae says

Is it possible that he, himself, is guilty of being a child molester?

Yep folks. I have a little fun with ellie over her use of the word “piece” instead of “peace” and she responds by calling me a child molestor! LOL !!!

I was merely pointing out that he hasn't responded to the subject, instead preferring to attack me personally. That he appears to lack any compassion: RayAmerica says

elliemae says

I believe that these people deserve the death penalty, but the type where they take several days or weeks to die while they’re in pain and horrible distress.

Heinrich Himmler had similar thoughts and desires. He enjoyed hanging people on meat hooks to suffer in misery until they died. Is that kind of what you meant by your torture reference “type where they take several days or weeks to die while they’re in pain and horrible distress?” By the way, do you favor torturing terrorists?

troll, as long as you hijack every thread to your agenda, you won't be taken seriously. You actually have made a few intelligent comments along the way, although I disagreed with them. But you attack personally rather than have a conversation most of the time. I can't help it if your panties are in a wad because you lack the ability to have a reasonable conversation. Don't expect compassion, troll. If you had anything to bring to the table beyond "I'm a victim of the liberal system," or "I attack people on anonymous interweb forums because I lack self esteem," we might stop fucking with you. But it's fun. You're clearly outwitted and we're laughing at you. You personally - whom I imagine to be a scrawny little whiny guy without friends who corners people at parties (on those few occasions you're invited) who swallows everything you read on Godfearingproductions. Francis.

tatupu70 says

I agree. Nothing has been proven in that matter to my satisfaction. But, why won’t Glenn Beck just come clean and address the issue?

That's his personal judgment on the matter. There is a rule of thought that says if you answer these ridiculous allegations, you give them a degree of credibility. For example, I think Obama has taken the high road against the "birthers" by not answering these people. It's a total non-issue and he knows it. What point would it serve to answer every crazy accusation? Maybe Beck is thinking along the same lines. Furthermore, in Beck’s case, if there is evidence to support these allegations I’m sure, being he is such a high profile person, there would be charges. Anyone in the law enforcement field would make a huge name for himself in such a case, including the prosecutor. So in that sense, these public personalities are bigger targets. My take is that there isn’t any substance to the charges and he’s simply chosen the high road and ignored them.

simchaland says

lying about it or killing thousands of our own young people (to say nothing of innocent bystanders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) in two needless wars based on false premises while torturing others and eliminating certain elements of the Bill of Rights.

Who are you referring to on this? Bush, Obama or both? Last I checked, Obama has expanded this "needless" war in Afghanistan, has extended the Patriot Act, and continues the policy of "rendition" whereby suspected terrorists are removed, by the CIA, to countries that have no problem with applying torture. Also, I used to hear an awful lot from the left about the evils of Halliburton and all of their conflicted war contracts. Funny thing: Obama has kept intact all of Halliburton’s contracts. Is this the "change" you voted for?

^ Well, having your own backyard is a form of wealth, too. We spend the bulk of our time on this planet at home so it only makes sense that we invest so much money into this sector -- the physical wealth of the structure, ground improvements, and furniture, plus the cost of the land itself.

I think people having private gardens and backyards is great, but if we taxed site value more and the improvements not at all I think we'd end up with a better infill development pattern.

maxweber says

Most places in the USA had NO RE BUBBLE

This is true, but only because most of the US is rather rural.

Since the inflationary elements 2002-2006 were available everywhere -- the Bush tax cuts, reduction in "red tape" and federal oversight of lenders, interest rates dropping 2001-2002 and being held there 2003-2004, the rising fever of flippers during the peak bubble years of 2005-2006 with the availability of any kind of loan to anyone.

Though it is fair to say that the bubble activity was concentrated on the coasts + NV/UT.

This post:

http://www.roubini.com/us-monitor/258023/factors_in_local_house_price_declines

echoes my thinking rather closely. All real estate is local, and builders and flippers were attracted to growing economies, not the backwater economies of flyover country RFD.

Housing purchases are consumption by the buyer unless it is rented out to someone else to consume.

Then it's consumption with a thin coating of rentierism applied ; )

Consumption of the housing good is a VERY slow process. My mom's house built in the early 80s is still holding together, as is my current apartment built in the late 80s. The actual greenery of both these properties has dramatically improved over this time, of course, resulting in a much nicer living environment than when first built.

So it's kinda hard identifying the "consumption" going on here, really. Actual physical depreciation on my apartment is probably $200/mo or so, yet I pay 8X that in rent.

So the wealth output -- the housing good -- of well-built housing is pretty damn favorable relative to the capital investment of the fixed improvement.

When land is only used for placing owner-occupied housing, well…its pretty much taken out of further productive use

Thing is, in a service-dominant economy there really isn't much of a land shortage, thanks to the mobility provided by the internal combustion engine.

SFHs in the aggregate result in sprawl, increasing the need for investment in transit infrastructure, lengthening travel times, but having lived in Tokyo and California I can say I prefer living in California's density, or lack thereof.

Untaxing capital improvements and taxing actual land usage more would encourage infill redevelopment and more efficient use of the land we have.

But with housing, we just have more statues in the park

Certainly the new neighborhoods in Los Banos are wasted investment activity, a dead loss economically. But wealth, primarily, is that which satisfies human needs and wants, and there's nothing quite like popping out on one's nice back patio to make a BBQ dinner on a hot summer evening. Wealth is where you find it.

shrekgrinch says

Troy. Are you familiar with Henry George

LOL, you must be new here : )

Henry George's definition of wealth in Progress & Poverty first really got me thinking about what it really is:

"Thus wealth, as alone the term can be used in political economy, consists of natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion, so as to fit them for the gratification of human desires. It is, in other words, labor impressed upon matter in such a way as to store up, as the beat of the sun is stored up in coal, the power of human labor to minister to human desires. Wealth is not the sole object of labor, for labor is also expended in ministering directly to desire; but it is the object and result of what we call productive labor -- that is, labor which gives value to material things. Nothing which nature supplies to man without his labor is wealth, nor yet does the expenditure of labor result in wealth unless there is a tangible product which has and retains the power of ministering to desire."

(I disagree though that stuff in the state of nature can't be "wealth". I think a clean, sandy beach is a form of capital wealth, as is the world-class anchorage of the SF Bay itself, ie. George is thinking too much about nonrenewable mineral wealth here)

To break this out, I like to think of goods as "service providers", the service being utility of satisfying human wants and needs.

So the housing good provides the services of shelter, privacy, secure storage space for our stuff, etc.

A car is a durable good that provides the service of transportation (and social status signalling).

This allows for the unspecified nature of the source of services -- goods can substitute for human labor, eg. using a car instead of a sedan chair, or an electric fan instead of paying a dude with a big feather fan like they did in Egypt, a washing machine instead of hiring a lady to beat our clothes clean down by the creek.

"Wealth" is simply the collection of services we have access to, the more we have, the wealthier we are. Poverty is the degree of unsatisfied want of utility in our lives.

At its most basic, wealth is simply the state of being well.

But [housing land] is still being used purely for consumption, not further production

yeah, well, so much land is of marginal utility and we're kinda water-bound anyway as far as ag goes. As a good capitalist I believe in capital formation and preservation, and I think the present system has actively evolved to be wasteful and capital-draining, ie a 20hr work-week would be enough wealth production to support a full life for all if we closed off the losses to parasitical rentierism that exist in many corners of the economy.

Really, after 150+ years of residence here, you'd think most of us would have our houses paid off by now . . .

I'm a big fan of following the "wealth creation" of an economy, for I do believe that any economy, local or national, lives or dies by its net wealth creation. Housing may be "consumption" of land, but wise investment in housing wealth represents little loss of net physical wealth in the economy.

(cut down trees to make lumber is a loss of wealth, but a new house wisely situated offers much more utility once constructed)

So, you still are of the opinion that gold bubbles in the next 12 months?

Are you going to place an options bet on that one? A 1K Options bet would get your money back from the last one!

Gold is going up, but mostly because the USD is going up (which you pointed out), but the euro can't keep dropping like that, at which point, the only way for gold to go up is if we see it go up in terms of USD.

From the european perspective, it's the USD that is going up, not gold. Gold is only tagging along. For a bubble, gold will need to go up on it's own, without being tied to the euro.

"We will meet our obligations both as a responsible company and also as a necessary step to rebuilding trust in BP as a long term member of the business communities in the US and around the world," said BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg. "This is in the interest of all our stakeholders."

They're going to pay a lot, but the company does earn $16B per year so it's got REALLY deep pockets and future cash coming out of its ass. Assuming they don't BK the current equity (highly unlikely unless the spill totally wipes out the region) they'll be back.

But make no mistake, $16 billion / 500,000 claimants is only $32,000 per case. Company could be earnings-impaired for a good long time.

They are talking about launching the biggest class action lawsuit ever against them. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole.

There was a good article (maybe on here?) about what they are limited to. They most likely won't be limited to the 75M. Class action lawsuits will likely end up like the exxon lawsuits, where they're still going on, 20 years later. They won't settle, they'll be in court forever.

So it comes down to what they owe now, what they're going to pay to clean things up, and how bad is it going to get? We know there is oil, but where is it going to end up? And will it dissipate/spread itself thinly around the world and/or certain areas in the ocean. If they're lucky it will end up hidden somewhere people aren't looking.

I'm sort of assuming they're going to be hurt earnings wise for awhile. There isn't going to be any good news coming out for a long time, it's going to be neutral to really really bad. If they stop the oil, that isn't "good" news, that's just neutral. They still have an enormous amount to clean up. I've been looking at the stock as well, but I think it's going to fall more before it goes up. There is still too much bad news that hasn't been released, while it shouldn't bankrupt them, it will make investors nervous.

More bad news for Obama: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

On the other hand: BP’s dividend payment accounted for about £1 of every £8 handed out by British companies last year, according to FairPensions, a London-based charity.

"Since liability is limited to 75MM and their income stream is completely intact,"

I think certain lawmakers are working hard to push that cap more than 100X to 10B.

There is so much out there about BP as an investment that people have done homework on that you should review them instead of asking here. Seeking Alpha always have great synopsis of pros and cons commentary.

Your main question is whether the market is mispricing BP and if so what is the margin of safety. Uncertainty creates problems and opportunity.

For me, it's too early to tell how much all this will cost BP. Estimates are anywhere from 5B to 40B. Future cash flow will be hit pretty bad too as their capital investment and downsteram business and will incur significant rise in expenses will be effected. Based on my experience, stock price will go way up the day the CEO is canned.

BP will pay dearly. Exxon got a pass because of three reasons:

1. They're "American"
2. It was mostly animals affected, not people's vacation spots and businesses
3. Friendlier administration.

Now, there's no chance in hell that they'll pay anything close to the actual damage that they've caused (they'd go bankrupt if they did).

If I were a betting man, I'd put the total amount that they're on the hook for in the $5-10 billion range, spread out over 5 years.

The thing about trying to time the market, or worse yet an individual stock, is that there are a lot of people who do this for a living, 24x7, and they have access to information a lot quicker than you. They also have trading programs that can react a lot quicker than you can.

It's like trying to win a swimming race against sharks. The best way to win is not to play.

Ok, here is a good article on their liabilities, and the "75 million" number.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/04/news/companies/bp_legal.fortune/index.htm

"there are several mammoth exceptions. To begin with, the limitation does not apply to any of BP's liability for state and federal cleanup costs, for which BP (BP) is 100% responsible."

They will be liable for a lot of cleanup and a lot of payouts, especially if that oil turns up on beaches and hurts tourism and/or makes anyone sick. The end result, is they make a huge amount of money. This will hurt them for 3-4 years maybe, but in then end they'll come out ok.

I read a paper written for the Canadian Government by a scientist on the Valdez spill (I requested a copy from him, I knew he did this work and knew him so it was easy) and after reading it, he basically said it was a spill, there are spills far larger around the world every year, this one got media attention and was close to cities so it was easy to drum up media hype. This BP spill is a massive disaster because of the sheer number of humans that will be impacted by it in the near future, but it will get cleaned up. Nothing will ever be the same though, it's like cleaning up a dirty park. You get everything you can, but there are always a few cigarette buts, small wrappers and pieces of plastic half buried in the ground.