patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Utter nonsense. Government transfers almost always work out to benefit the
0.01% at the expense of the 99.99%, once you figure out how the tax revenue is
spent. Even Section 8 housing program benefit the slumlords at the expense of
the taxpayers.

The free market always works out to benefit the 0.01% over the 99.99%.
Regardless of inflation/deflation, capitalism tends toward inequality. It has
nothing to do with any government actions.

That is utter nonsense. Free market capitalism is the effective social mechanism for equalizing ever known to men: through monetization of power, those with existing power can be chipped away by more efficient upstarts one tiny pieces at a time. The "equality" in socialist societies is an accounting fraud: the real power and wealth is simply not monetized and counted while withheld tightly by the tiny ruling elite and their families. Sound money is the ultimate antidote to feudal privileges . . . and all political privileges are effectively feudal privileges as political power and privileges are tied to specific geographic regions.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Inflation is the worst trickled down economics. New money reach the banksters
first.

No it doesn't--that's crap. New money goes to everything the government
funds

The biggest sinkhole for emergency government funding is the banking system; trillions at a time when the money is worth the most. Everything else government funds out of deficit spending is just an excuse to give the banksters a cut on the future output of the rest of the society: banksters conjure money out of nothing when lending to government, as government bonds are counted as reserve assets at the banks . . . so the banksters can literally create $1Trillion out of nothing to lend to the government, even at 1%, that's $10Billion a year free cash income for the bank with zero capital tied up! That's really how bank bailouts work: banks taking bailout money to lend to the government is a paper fraud covering up a government promise to deliver to the banksters the "interest payment" on zero pricinple! That's the crux of fiat money system robbing the middle class blind to enrich the top 0.01%.

Reality says

That is utter nonsense. Free market capitalism is the effective social mechanism for equalizing ever known to men: through monetization of power, those with existing power can be chipped away by more efficient upstarts one tiny pieces at a time

OK--could you please list a few examples of free market capitalism leading to improved wealth disparity? Specific time periods? Because I can list several periods that show the exact opposite of what you state.

Reality says

Everything else government funds out of deficit spending is just an excuse to give the banksters a cut on the future output of the rest of the society

Really? More than half the budget is military spending. Regardless, you obviously don't like bankers. Neither do I.

Reality says

That's really how bank bailouts work: banks taking bailout money to lend to the government is a paper fraud covering up a government promise to deliver to the banksters the "interest payment" on zero pricinple! That's the crux of fiat money system robbing the middle class blind to enrich the top 0.01%.

We're not talking about bailouts. That's a once in a century event that will almost certainly not be repeated. Like I said--new money goes to everything the government funds.

Jackie Mason the Jew of the Goy.

Give it up. You lost. Obama was re-elected, and the world did not end.

Call it Crazy says

There used to be a time when you would worship the president, even if you didn’t like him. You knew he told the truth because he’s the president of a country.

Exactly when was that?

Go through the list of presidents and enumerate the ones that didn't lie. If you list has more than zero elements, I reserve the right to challenge it.

tatupu70 says

We're not talking about bailouts. That's a once in a century event that will almost certainly not be repeated. Like I said--new money goes to everything the government funds.

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

mell says

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

Who receives money via ZIRP and is getting rich? Please elaborate.

tatupu70 says

mell says

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

Who receives money via ZIRP and is getting rich? Please elaborate.

Central banks around the world print money and give it to banks who can make close to riskless loans, making them rich at the expense of the taxpayers (debasement). This happens at a slow pace since it is is generally not particularly attractive for banks to make low-yield loans, but beats any of the options the little taxpayer guy has. Heck, I'll take it - can you hook me up with a crony ZIRP line asap? Much appreciated ;)

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

My policy has been cancelled and Michelle Obama nailed a DEATH PANEL Notice to my forehead when I got out of the car at the Safeway the other day and came up me with a pitchfork

Still one of the safest grocery trips in New York City.

Give it up. You lost. Obama was re-elected, and the world did not end.

Well-said. Post all the stupid videos you want. Obama is the President and will be for the next 3 years.

Never got a dinner.

mell says

Central banks around the world print money and give it to banks who can make close to riskless loans, making them rich at the expense of the taxpayers (debasement). This happens at a slow pace since it is is generally not particularly attractive for banks to make low-yield loans, but beats any of the options the little taxpayer guy has. Heck, I'll take it - can you hook me up with a crony ZIRP line asap? Much appreciated ;)

So, who exactly is getting rich again? I'm assuming the spread that banks are making are at all time highs then?

Again, however, the point isn't bailouts. The discussion is how does an expanding money supply cause wealth disparity?

edvard2 says

Well-said. Post all the stupid videos you want. Obama is the President and will be for the next 3 years.

And Hilary the next 8 after that.

Such is the price of Republicans stealing the 2000 election and putting a retarded despot who killed millions on innocents on the throne.

People are scared shitless of another Republican becoming president. A dog that can't stop sniffing it's crotch could be the Democratic nominee and he would still win.

The best strategy available for the Republicans in 2015 is to agree to not run at all in the presidential election if the Democrats just nominate Biden instead of Hilary. They should do that or face the wrath of the Clintons. Oh, don't worry, I'm sure they won't hold a grudge for all that impeachment shit.

Reality says

The "equality" in socialist societies is an accounting fraud: the real power and wealth is simply not monetized and counted while withheld tightly by the tiny ruling elite and their families.

Can you explain that it is not monetized? I thought that the power came from investing ahead of inflation with cheap money. Or did I answer my own question?

indigenous says

I thought that the power came from investing ahead of inflation with cheap money

There are a lot of things that you "think"... Unfortunately, they are almost all incorrect.

tatupu70 says

I'm assuming the spread that banks are making are at all time highs then?

No, they are not, and I already said that. But they have no risk in lending at low rates to borrowers after stuffing their reserves.

mell says

No, they are not, and I already said that. But they have no risk in lending at low rates to borrowers after stuffing their reserves.

Then how are they making record profits? All they make is the spread and assorted fees.

tatupu70 says

mell says

No, they are not, and I already said that. But they have no risk in lending at low rates to borrowers after stuffing their reserves.

Then how are they making record profits? All they make is the spread and assorted fees.

The TBTF/investment banks also play the markets for better yields (30 of 30 winning trading days anyone?) and as long as the Fed prints and combine that with front-running/HFT the sky is the limit. I would assume that "pure" banks in the traditional sense that do only customer accounts have far more subdued profits, albeit profits.

ThreeBays says

The claim that governments can't run healthcare funds as well as private insurance is easily debunked by looking at all the countries that operate national health insurance and have better and less costly healthcare expense than the US.

There are SOOO many variables as to why the US spends more healthcare dollars than other nations who have single payer. You can't make an equal comparison. For example, so much of how a system performs is based upon the health of its members and how it's structured. I just posted an article yesterday about how France's health and welfare system is massively in debt and is unsustainable, and they have a single payer system. Additionally, what we have today is NOT a free market approach to private insurance. AND, we haven't had an insurance mandate in the past, which has caused prices to rise substantially.

So, don't just run to another country's model thinking it's going to work for us. If anything, we should follow more of what Singapore is doing (high deductible model) but maintain subsidized private insurance for catastrophes. Oh wait, isn't that what ACA is trying to accomplish?

ThreeBays says

Big IT projects are notorious for running over schedule and budget both in government and in private enterprise.

healthcare.gov was developed by private contractors after all.

The argument about the website failure is a distraction from whether the policy is good or not.

But big IT projects in the private sector don't generally have the catastrophic results that this has had...I've done postmortems on several. Plus, private enterprise wouldn't have spent nearly the same amount of money and taken as long to produce an integrated website...sorry, but it's true. On top of all of this, what pisses me off the most, is the cronyism within this administration in selecting the vendors...it's the epitome of cronyism.

ThreeBays says

The relationship between the size of the pharma industry and the insurance system is highly debatable.

And you may say medical innovation in the US is the best, but at the same time medical outcomes and patient satisfaction in the US aren't the best.

When 40% of americans have inadequate access to health care, the top line innovation is hardly the biggest issue in US healthcare.

But why throw the baby out with the bath water? I agree that our outcomes-to-cost ratio needs a major overhaul, but don't "try" to solve one problem by creating a bigger one, which is losing innovation. You can poo-poo innovation all you want, but so much of why we're able to live longer now vs 200 years ago is as a result of innovation. And you want to hamper that? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. "Look, we have cheap healthcare, but it involves blood-letting and drilling holes in our heads."

The main reason for a long lifespan is public taxation providing for sanitation in the form of clean water, sewage management, and trash collection.

Not getting sick in the first place is the key.

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Monday, November 4, 2013 __ Level is 99.8

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

indigenous says

Reality says

The "equality" in socialist societies is an accounting fraud: the real power and wealth is simply not monetized and counted while withheld tightly by the tiny ruling elite and their families.

Can you explain that it is not monetized? I thought that the power came from investing ahead of inflation with cheap money. Or did I answer my own question?

That particular sentence of mine was describing the socialist societies, where power is not monetized. In a post-Englightenment western society with personal liberty, power is monetized so that everyone gets a chance to exercise power one small morsel at a time in the form of money.

Heraclitusstudent says

A 30 yrs old person buying a house will pay substantially more than the 60 yr old who bought the house 30 yrs ago, increasing the difference between those who got the assets ahead of the Fed inflation and those that have to buy them now

And the 30 yr old will have wages much higher than the 60 year old did when he/she bought the house 30 years ago. That's how inflation works. It a net wash.

The problem isn't inflation, it's the trend toward income/wealth inequality where the top 1% keep taking more and more. And leaving less and less for the other 99%.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dollar value is not an arbitrary wealth marker. You use dollars to get groceries and most other things you need.

A 30 yrs old person buying a house will pay substantially more than the 60 yr old who bought the house 30 yrs ago, increasing the difference between those who got the assets ahead of the Fed inflation and those that have to buy them now.

The feds call that "wealth effect".

I call that screwing young people.

Absolutely.

thunderlips11 says

The main reason for a long lifespan is public taxation providing for sanitation in the form of clean water, sewage management, and trash collection.

Not getting sick in the first place is the key.

So why do suburban elitist towns that do not have tax-subsidized trash collection and have no public sewer systems (private septic only) have healthier residents and longer life expectations? Perhaps being wealthy having more to do with life expectancy than taxation does?

tatupu70 says

OK--could you please list a few examples of free market capitalism leading to
improved wealth disparity? Specific time periods? Because I can list several
periods that show the exact opposite of what you state.

1920's competition in automobile market leading to Ford's 70% market share dwindling to being less than that of GM, which was an upstart. Likewise, free market competition has seen IBM's PC division disappearing along with the first clone maker Compaq, both being displaced by upstarts that came later. In both instances, the consumers reap the ultimate benefit. Free market competition means giving consumer freedom of choice . . . that obviously benefit the little guys, both the little consumers and the little upstart corporations. Bureaucratic spending of tax money OTOH almost always benefit the entrenched big existing players: no one gets fired for buying IBM, that's how the bureaucratic mind works.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Everything else government funds out of deficit spending is just an excuse to
give the banksters a cut on the future output of the rest of the society

Really? More than half the budget is military spending. Regardless, you
obviously don't like bankers. Neither do I.

That statistic has been false for many years now. Military spending in peace time does not begin to compare to war time military spending. Even war time military spending is little more than having excuses to fleece the peons . . . by financing wars on both sides.

tatupu70 says

We're not talking about bailouts. That's a once in a century event that will
almost certainly not be repeated. Like I said--new money goes to everything the
government funds.

Once a century? How many centuries were there between 1987's to 1998? to 2000? to 2008? Do you socialists have amnesia or were you born yesterday? The continued existence of the FED is due to the frequent need for bailouts.

Reality says

1920's competition in automobile market leading to Ford's 70% market share dwindling to being less than that of GM, which was an upstart. Likewise, free market competition has seen IBM's PC division disappearing along with the first clone maker Compaq, both being displaced by upstarts that came later. In both instances, the consumers reap the ultimate benefit.

We're talking about wealth disparity. Not monopoly power or market share. Try again.

Reality says

That statistic has been false for many years now. Military spending in peace time does not begin to compare to war time military spending. Even war time military spending is little more than having excuses to fleece the peons . . . by financing wars on both sides.

Nope--it's true. It's 50% even in peacetime. In war time, it's much higher.

Reality says

Once a century? How many centuries were there between 1987's to 1998? to 2000? to 2008? Do you socialists have amnesia or were you born yesterday? The continued existence of the FED is due to the frequent need for bailouts.

Centuries generally refer to 100 year periods. ie, the 1800s, the 1900s, the 2000s, etc. I'm aware of the S&L crisis in the late 1980s and the recent bailout. Are there others I'm missing?

I'm glad you were able to find a way to mention the Federal Reserve again, though. God forbid you post once without mentioning how it is the cause of every evil on Earth today.

tatupu70 says

And the 30 yr old will have wages much higher than the 60 year old did when he/she bought the house 30 years ago. That's how inflation works. It a net wash.

I mean will pay substantially more in real term. The whole discussion was that wages are not rising as fast as assets.

tatupu70 says

We're talking about wealth disparity. Not monopoly power or market share. Try
again.

Wealth disparity is the result of market power if you blame market for creating disparity. If you want to ascribe wealth and power disparity to political power, then you and I are in agreement.

tatupu70 says

Nope--it's true. It's 50% even in peacetime. In war time, it's much
higher.

Like I said, you are several years behind the curve. Social Security spending alone now is larger than military spending, so the latter can not possibly be 50% of government spending. You may be confusing budget vs. "discretinal" budget. In any case, the frequent bailouts are not even in the budget, but dawfs most items in the budget when it happens.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Once a century? How many centuries were there between 1987's to 1998? to
2000? to 2008? Do you socialists have amnesia or were you born yesterday? The
continued existence of the FED is due to the frequent need for bailouts.

Centuries generally refer to 100 year periods. ie, the 1800s, the 1900s, the
2000s, etc. I'm aware of the S&L crisis in the late 1980s and the recent
bailout. Are there others I'm missing?

Yes, you are having amnesia. Before the S&L crisis of the 1980's, there was the FannieMae bailout of the early 1970's along with Nixon default on the dollar in 1971 , perpetuation of the post-WWII military industrial complex in the 1950's in order to let the munition makers service debts taken on during the war, massive bank bailout in the 1930's with FDR default on the dollar, FED bailout of Florida land speculation bubble burst in the mid-1920's.

After the S&L crisis of the 1980's, the first massive bailout was the early 1990's Mexican debt default and Argetine default (FED and the US government using Mexico and Argentine as device for funneling taxpayer money to major US banks that have lent too much money to those countries); then Russian default of in 1997, same scam; then 1998 "Asian contagion," same scam; then NASDAQ bubble and burst of 2000, the bailout of which led to the housing boom and bust of 2003-present.

As you can see, those frequent crises started gathering pace about a decade after the founding of the FED, and the pace is accelearating. The once a century thing that you refer to is the bust of central banking cycle itself.

People who like to jabber about states rights and secession, don't get that the rest of us picture them as confederates wanting a return to outright slavery.

tatupu70 says

The problem isn't inflation, it's the trend toward income/wealth inequality where the top 1% keep taking more and more.

A good part of the rich are the fraction of boomers who in fact saved for retirements and benefited from the asset inflation since 1980 - and happened to make the right decisions.

A good part of the poor are the millennials that has to pay inflated prices to get the basics of life: education and housing, with desperately un-inflated, limp, wages.

Heraclitusstudent says

good part of the rich are the fraction of boomers who in fact saved for retirements and benefited from the asset inflation since 1980 - and happened to make the right decisions.

A good part of the poor are the millennials that has to pay inflated prices to get the basics of life: education and housing, with desperately un-inflated, limp, wages.

Like I said--the rich are now taking all of the income/wealth and leaving none for the other 99%. During the 50s, 60s, 70s it wasn't as bad as it is now so the boomers are in better shape.

Heraclitusstudent says

and happened to make the right decisions.

LOL...pat yourself on the back...because you'll be dead in 30 years or worse, you'll lose your mental capacities and Obamacare will drain those moneybags dry and hand it out as high wages to newly minted immigrant-citizens who push your wheelchair around the Alzheimer's Ranch.

egads101 says

boomers who just worked and saved are not in the 1%.

Yep. The way I look at it, yes, I would rather have that money in the bank than be broke in retirement, but at the same time, that money really isn't going to buy you that much of a different lifestyle.

You'll still be spending most of your time in your home or apartment. You will still have the same non-trophy spouse. You will not be travelling or partying all the time, if at all. You're basically on a high feed maintenance diet fueled by your savings until they give out.

Really, some days it seems to me that in the battle of the Ants and the Grasshoppers the Grasshoppers won! Take a person who burned the candle at both ends from age 20 to 50. Had lots of unprotected sex. Didn't save a dime. Partied, drank and did light drugs. Now they're alone and broke. But guess what...either they'll die with a smile on their face. Or Obama will fund them into a medical care center where they can detox and then get out and get subsidy until the die.

Meanwhile the Ant is busy trying to protect his castle from Government and voracious Millennials who keep inventing "new technology" that makes all his investments obsolete!!

"And be very afraid." says the guy named APOCALYPSEFUCK. :p

Every sex-offender database, every prison inmate registry, and every local police station arrest book should have a field for realtor license no.

It's just common sense.

I sense a lot of hate for Realtors on this website. It's subtle, like an undertone...but it's there. :p

I'm having a hard time understanding how a realtor was not in prison.

This is a black eye for local law enforcement.