patrick.net

tatupu70 says

There was no vicious cycle….

Higher wages gets translated to higher prices,
back to strikes for higher wages, which resulted
in higher prices ...repeat cycle (Cost Push)
during the same period of high unemployment
and lower growth. Here comes the Toyotas and Sonys
well below domestic mfg costs taking away market share...

We need Mr. Bernie to print another 5T of USD for Treasury. Then every income tax payer get refund on their 2010 income tax. Basically don't pay tax in 2010 and may be 2011. Probably this will give it an initial boost.

thomas.wong1986 says

Higher wages gets translated to higher prices,
back to strikes for higher wages, which resulted
in higher prices …repeat cycle (Cost Push)
during the same period of high unemployment
and lower growth. Here comes the Toyotas and Sonys
well below domestic mfg costs taking away market share…

That's a common perception, but it goes against the laws of supply and demand. Price is set by the market, not by cost.

Unlikely to see jobs grow everywhere... it will take a miracle!

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2010/02/17/vanishing-public-companies-lead-to-the-incredible-shrinking-silicon-valley/

Vanishing Public Companies Lead To The Incredible Shrinking Silicon Valley

One of the most significant trends I’ve been watching over the past decade is the dramatic drop in public companies in Silicon Valley. Naturally, that number was artificially inflated during the dot-com bubble when it reached 417 in 2000. For our purposes, Silicon Valley includes San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and the southern half of Alameda County.

But the number of public companies has dropped for nine straight years now. Even when IPOs briefly reappeared in 2006 and 2007, they weren’t enough to overcome the net loss of public companies through acquisitions or bankruptcy.

In 2008, the number had fallen to 261. We just updated our records and the latest figure is 241.

That’s not just less than the dot-com era, that’s well below the 315 public companies the valley had in 1994 when the Mercury News started keeping track.

> take 15 seconds of your time and watch your little messiah LIE:
> under our “Hope & CHANGE” el Presidente`?

> And by the way–who can say that he didn’t make it his first order of
> business? Were you in the White House? Troops are coming home.
> There is a timetable and a plan.

Nah, look, its useless. Obama/Democrats would wake up one day declare that the sun is shining and Giggles would attack it. And the replies are just going to get more hysteric and jumbled the more information is brought to bear. There's just nothing there.

As an aside, here's some interesting reading I've found lately that was very informative to me.

How facts backfire
Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full

"It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite.

..."

EDIT: It just occurs to me on re-reading that "and Giggles would attack it" should have been "and Giggles would find a way to refudiate it."

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

Um, where did he say all troops would be withdrawn by 2009?

How much more do you need when he PROMISED to make “bringing home the troops the FIRST item of business?” While our troops continue to die, along with Iraqi civilians, take 15 seconds of your time and watch your little messiah LIE:
marcus says

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvWilRn0L8&feature=related

What is with you wing nuts and "messiah"? I never said he was my messiah. Why do you make this crap up?

All I heard him promise was to bring the troops from Iraq home. They are. They've been drawing down for 2 years now. He even said MANY times that the withdraw would be "responsible" and take a lot of time.

He never made a firm commitment that you can hold him to. He's a politician. What do you expect?

Calling him a "liar" over that is really a stretch.

We need hyperinflation. Jobs will NOT be coming back anytime soon.

thomas.wong1986 says

Recall the union strikes in the Auto, Steel, Construction, and many other industries during the 70s. To end the strikes you had management concessions resulting in higher wages.

I agree w/ Thomas. Unions were a key component of inflation in the 70's. That is another factor that does not exist now. Over 1/2 of unionized workers are now government employees (state & local), and they are under fire right now big time, even from people who were recently political allies.

tatupu70 says

That’s a common perception, but it goes against the laws of supply and demand. Price is set by the market, not by cost.

Higher wages = more demand = higher prices.

If you've got more spending power you demand more. That's what drove housing costs up, though that spending power was from credit, rather than higher wages.

thunderlips11 says

Because the largest Generation in US History approached prime “Home buying/Young Parent” age - 25-35 in the 1970s and 80s.

No to mention women were entering the workforce like never before. 2 incomes, and what do you know? Housing costs go up.

Just like a lot of Boomers said “I’m from the city, a long way from the city, and that’s where I want to be right now”, their children are saying the opposite.

Yes that does seem to be a long term trend. Can't stand the burbs myself.

If you think housing prices will be coming back to 06' levels then you are living in a dream world. The housing boom which caused the high prices happened because of extremely loose loan underwriting standards and foolish borrowers who took loans out they couldn't pay. Borrowers are still foolish, but underwriting standards are now at the opposite extreme.

I have a coworker that bought in 2005 and is DEEPLY in debt and underwater by -60%. He's plans to hold onto it hoping we'll see a recover. He does not even look at the housing articles that I send to him because he thinks it's a waste of time to do any research. lol Idiots like him is what contributed to the housing boom.

MarkInSF says

Higher wages = more demand = higher prices.

That I'll agree with.

"when will housing return to 2005-06 levels?"

dude, PUT DOWN THE BONG.... :-)

2 things I see happening over the next 2-3 years.

recession ends and more high tech companies hiring
pent up housing demand coming off the sidelines

I dont think these are even debatable. They will happen
and will cause RE to go up.
So if you need to sell you might want to at least see how these
events play out and effect the housing market.

permanent_marker says

“when will housing return to 2005-06 levels?”
dude, PUT DOWN THE BONG….

Aww, but c'mon. They aren't making any more land. Prices only go up over time. The income tax breaks are totally worth it. Your home mortgage is like an automatic savings plan. You don't even need to put any other money toward retirement. All you need is a home, because prices go up forever.

MarkInSF says

He never made a firm commitment that you can hold him to. He’s a politician. What do you expect?

I guess he was just being a "politician" when he promised "Hope & Change" too. LOL !!

Where does he ever find the time to govern, with all of these lips firmly attached to his buttocks?
I bet he has a wet walk.

And I'd say to anyone throwing out his laundry list of Shove down/Pushed through legislation.
Historians are rarely kind to those administration.

> I guess he was just being a “politician” when he promised “Hope & Change” too. LOL !

Giggles, when you write it you have to change "LOL" to "GOL"

tatupu70 says

Well Ray, I did listen to your videos and not surprisingly I interpret them differently than you do.

Really? I'm absolutely stunned. Shocked. Who would have ever thought you would have an interpretation different from mine?

tatapu ..... I'll bet you stuggle with the definition of the word "is" too.

tatupu70 says

This made me laugh. First you say “he has little to say”. Then in the next sentence you say “Much talk…”

So which is it?

I was expecting Obama to tell us of his Naval coordinated efforts, with NOAH the Army Corp of engineers and the EPA. Instead of letting investors and wall street for corporations of foreign countries having carte blanche un impeaded or intevention for 3 months. Progress just started happening when BP was forced to take out side help, it happened in a week. That how long this should have taken from the get go.

Not that I'm defending Bush, but if Bush allowed some Saudi country the same liberties Obama gave BP through out this whole affair. Most people here in America, Republicans to, would have called Shenanigans. Shame on you Libbies you're all "Racist" more so than the Tea Party and this really proves it. Oh the Horsey faced Brits can run Roughshod over the American peoples heads, and it's O.K. but any one else you guys would be the first to parlay this whole mess into the "Foreign dependency" cry, and use it further politicize the Green con.

You guys are giving this administration, not just Obama but the Administration as whole way to much lead way and a free pass.

Much like the Republicans were blind to Bush's faults and fraud. I was a rare minority when Bush first started his shit, every one was all Red and ready to kill some Terrorist and bomb desert villages where ever they were. Just as long as it made good copy and television.

Sure the Dems snapped out of it, after Bush's first 4 years but you were all right there all the way to Felusia to the Tigress river in Iraq. The Republicans never gave up on Bush, no matter how rotten he lead. Well he lead by greed, he actually pretty damn good at leading the way he wanted to. That's more credit than I can give Obama. As bad as I hated Bush he was successful at fulfilling his mission. Nothing was crammed or pushed, it was a Democrat Washington that made his most disastrous policies possible.

So please this is me, cut the crap...

Obama delivers great Monolgues little else. He throws the crap on the wall and he hopes it sticks or Washington will make it so. That is hardly a good leader.

RayAmerica says

tatapu ….. I’ll bet you stuggle with the definition of the word “is” too.

Huh? What exactly are you trying to say there?

How about this. Post a quote from Obama that you think shows him as a liar. Not a link to a video. An actual quote.

tatupu70 says

How about this. Post a quote from Obama that you think shows him as a liar. Not a link to a video. An actual quote.

I'll get back to you as soon as I have a couple of hours to kill. Thanks.

Based on Patrick's most current blog it seems unlikely that home prices will go back to the same levels as you paid in 2005. It seems more likely that in about 10 to 15 years your home will regain its value. If you can afford to hold onto it for that long maybe you should. However, remember that the owner has to pay for repairs or plumbing problems and the renter will demand these things.

simchaland says

I've been thinking more this lately seeing that I'm about to willingly go into a Market that I know still has some skin to shed. At the Rate I'm paying and certainly about 60% less than peak.
Peak price was $450 for the house I'm buying now for $170. I expect it to go down some, and wouldn't be surprised if $120 becomes a reality that would be well into Early 90's value. For the house I'm buying.

For me at 4.50% rate, and a smaller Principal, and makes sense to pay off as much principal as quickly as possible, and pay even less in interest. Pay it off in 7 to 10 years. And end up paying 225K in total rather than

2200 a month
Dec-1-2019 Cumulative Totals: $210,653.54 $40,653.54 $170,000.00

Or just paying 1200 a month.
Dec-1-2040 Cumulative Totals: $319,248.17 $149,248.17 $170,000.00

That's a 100K savings, so it will be that much less I'll have in the place.

Even with out the extra 1K a month to build equity, my monthly nut would be no less than a homeowner buying at 120K with a healthy sustainable realistic interest rate.

here's a 120K mortgage at 7.75% a more realistic sustainable interest rate

Cumulative Totals: $309,490.09 $189,490.09 $120,000.00

Even paying 50K more right now, I'll be paying the same.

"There will not be abortion funded in this health bill"

Nomograph says

RayAmerica says

I’ll get back to you as soon as I have a couple of hours to kill.

Like every other AM talk radio junkie, all you seem to have is empty anger- and hatred-based arguments.
Book recommendation — “The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery” by Richard Paul. I highly recommend you turn off the AM talk radio and learn something about critical thinking.

He can only read it if he puts down his magazine... Not likely to happen...

DickCheney says

I have a coworker that bought in 2005 and is DEEPLY in debt and underwater by -60%. He’s plans to hold onto it hoping we’ll see a recover. He does not even look at the housing articles that I send to him because he thinks it’s a waste of time to do any research. lol Idiots like him is what contributed to the housing boom.

They think it's a sort of temporary malaise that will pass by. A few years ago, that was cute. Now, it's pathetic.

Looking back to 2007, I heard this a few times: "I'm going to take my house off the market and sell next year when this buyer's market is over and things get back to normal"

rentalinvestor says

So far we haven’t applied for any investor loans. I hear you need around 30%.

LOL thats why I can't play this game, I got no seed money, especially after I lose my a$$ on my house I am selling. I am thinking of buying a duplex next, then at least I can get some rental income to help pay the mortgage. rentalinvestor, what is the rent to price ratio you use to evaluate an income property purchase? Is it 10X rent?

Nomograph says

AM talk radio junkie, all you seem to have is empty anger- and hatred-based arguments.

I can't think of a more perfect definition of ellie "I never, ever insult anyone" mae. Apparently she listens to lots and lots of talk radio.

permanent_marker says

“when will housing return to 2005-06 levels?”

When someone invents a Time Machine to travel back to 2005.

moneypitt says

It’s in bad neighborhood around north San Jose. Bought for $800K

Why would anybody pay $800k for a house in a bad neighborhood?

RayAmerica says

permanent_marker says

“when will housing return to 2005-06 levels?”

When someone invents a Time Machine to travel back to 2005.

LOL aint that the truth.

Sorry to say for the bubble buyers, you'll probably retire before prices go that high again. Better off focusing on paying the thing off. At least that's a realistic goal.

klarek says

moneypitt says
It’s in bad neighborhood around north San Jose. Bought for $800K
Why would anybody pay $800k for a house in a bad neighborhood?

Why would anyone pay $800K in SJ at all, unless your talking about Silver Creek?
Thats about what prices in SC will come down to.

Property History for 5285 APENNINES Cir
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
May 22, 2010 Listed $1,088,000 -- MLSListings #81025498
Mar 17, 1998 Sold (Public Records) $545,000 14.2%/yr Public Records
Apr 30, 1997 Sold (Public Records) $485,000 12.5%/yr Public Records
Jul 10, 1996 Sold (Public Records) $441,000 13.7%/yr Public Records
Jul 26, 1995 Sold (Public Records) $390,000 -- Public Records

Property History for 5379 LIGURIAN Dr
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Feb 28, 2010 Listed $1,388,000 -- MLSListings #81009314
Aug 09, 2006 Sold (Public Records) $1,425,000 14.4%/yr Public Records
Jul 13, 2006 Delisted * -- Inactive MLSListings #1
Jul 08, 2006 Price Changed * -- Inactive MLSListings #1
Jun 26, 2006 Listed * -- Inactive MLSListings #1
Jul 15, 2004 Sold (Public Records) $1,080,000 11.1%/yr Public Records
Jun 18, 2004 Delisted -- -- Inactive MLSListings #80393463
Apr 28, 2004 Listed ** -- Inactive MLSListings #80393463
Apr 17, 1996 Sold (Public Records) 455,000 -- Public Records

the bad parts of San Jose will take a while to go back up.
Especially if the only people buying are investors prices will be strictly tied to rental income.
Eventually prices will go up along with rents.

Go back UP to what ?????

Rents/Job ?????

Vanishing Public Companies Lead To The Incredible Shrinking Silicon Valley

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2010/02/17/vanishing-public-companies-lead-to-the-incredible-shrinking-silicon-valley/

One of the most significant trends I’ve been watching over the past decade is the dramatic drop in public companies in Silicon Valley. Naturally, that number was artificially inflated during the dot-com bubble when it reached 417 in 2000. For our purposes, Silicon Valley includes San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and the southern half of Alameda County.

But the number of public companies has dropped for nine straight years now. Even when IPOs briefly reappeared in 2006 and 2007, they weren’t enough to overcome the net loss of public companies through acquisitions or bankruptcy.

In 2008, the number had fallen to 261. We just updated our records and the latest figure is 241.

That’s not just less than the dot-com era, that’s well below the 315 public companies the valley had in 1994 when the Mercury News started keeping track.

Companies go public to sell themselves off, or to bring in cash. Since this isn't a great time for IPO's, they're not setting themselves up to do this. Once a company goes public, it has a huge liability on it's hands. It's an accounting and legal nightmare to keep a public company going.

companies vs companies or
new private companies vs new private companies or
venture capital spending vs venture capital spending

Those might give you a better idea of what is happening. I'm not saying that public companies isn't a good indicator, but in an economy like we have now, it's better to buy a known brick and mortar company than an upcoming company that may or may not make it.

pkennedy says

Once a company goes public, it has a huge liability on it’s hands. It’s an accounting and legal nightmare to keep a public company going.

Rubish! I done three public offerings. What you have today are chicken shit retarded MBA types who rushed into the valley over the past 10 years and dont know squat how to run public or private companies. You have old times like Andy Grove from Intel saying the same. Liability is the same both private or public. Shareholder can be the public or private placement, its the same.

The crux is we are back to mid 90s type economy rather than peak at 2000.

tatupu70 says

How about this. Post a quote from Obama that you think shows him as a liar. Not a link to a video. An actual quote.

I sincerely feel the need to apologize. I originally thought it would take, as I said, “a couple of hours” to document a list (along with links) of Obama’s lies. It actually only took about 5 minutes. Please accept my apology. If you’d like more, I probably can provide it when I have more time to kill. Enjoy.

http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies