patrick.net

bob2356 says

I'm not getting into most of your "points". Most of them seem to be you fighting with yourself.

Just as I thought. You can't hold your ground in a factual debate. You can only cast vague aspersions. The only reason it might seem like I'm fighting with myself is that I have to keep wasting bandwidth correcting all the strawman arguments you make up. I don't enjoy it either. So stop doing that.

bob2356 says

I never said aca won't "work", I just question what "work" means.

Silly semantic argument. Yawn.

bob2356 says

You just seem totally incapable of grasping that health insurance and health care aren't the same thing.

Completely unfounded charge. Of course I understand what those things are. Do you?

bob2356 says

I really can't explain it to you. Health insurance is part of the problem, not the solution. Look at your own list of problems, 1. insurance, 2.insurance, 3.insurance, 4. insurance. See pattern? aca heaps on even more insurance.

See? Again, you have ALREADY made up your mind that ACA is fatally flawed and cannot work, merely on theoretical grounds. This is before you have examined ANY evidence or data. You are arguing that it CAN'T work because it is "insurance insurance insurance".

IF ACA WERE REPEALED TODAY, WE WOULD STILL HAVE A SYSTEM OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Repealing ACA would not cause us to suddenly have socialized medicine like you want. It's like you owned a car that you didn't like because it was blue, then got a new car that was ALSO blue, and complained that you liked the old car better.

Again, I agree that there could be a better solution. Other countries have better solutions to healthcare than we do. But there is no other solution on the table, and the ONLY way we will ever get to socialized medicine is by taking small steps in that direction. As long as we're not WORSE off, why are you bothered by this?

By the way, ACA does not "heap on more insurance". We have the same players we had before; we are simply regulating some of the more cutthroat practices they were engaging in, and presenting the options in a convenient format so that consumers can shop and compare, something which was exceedingly difficult to do before.

bob2356 says

You are doing what you scream about everyone else doing. Saying aca has helped when it favors you and saying it isn't here yet when it doesn't

Do you have an example of me doing that, or did you just pull that out of your ass? I will remind you that I only mentioned the slowing of premium increases because people were falsely claiming that ACA had caused premiums to skyrocket. It's simply not true. Try to remember my position please. I have said over and over that I don't necessarily believe ACA is going to lower rates on overall average. I'm simply saying that if rates aren't getting WORSE, and we achieve OTHER important reforms, then we are better off, so we have taken a step in the right direction.

Am I not allowed to disprove people's incorrect claim that rates are skyrocketing, without being accused of being duplicitous?

bob2356 says

I said 3-4% (should have been 4-5%,mea culpa, mea culpa) from the early 2000's with a couple years 9%. So let's see from your chart. 10%,9%,6%,5%,5%,5%,3%,9%,4%,4%. Looks like what I "made up" is in perfect agreement with the chart you posted. Was someone talking about having it both ways?

You're doing a lot of waffling on that. You implied that my assertion of double-digit increases was a lie, i.e. "certainly NOT double digit". In fact, there were FIVE YEARS IN A ROW, STARTING IN 2000 of double digit increases. Now you're trying to cherry pick PART of my chart to try to make it look like there were never double digit increases. Shameful.

bob2356 says

You on the other hand can't even begin to claim aca lowered premiums in the 2010-2012 time frame. The law wasn't even signed until march 2010. The agencies didn't even start to write the regs until late 2010.

I agree. I only offer the evidence in order to disprove the assertion that ACA has made us WORSE off with regard to premiums. It has not.

bob2356 says

Millions of people who couldn't afford health insurance, not healthcare.

A rather facile argument. A middle class person who contracts a serious illness couldn't even begin to afford to pay cash for treatment. Again, I offer the fact that illness was the number one cause of bankruptcy as evidence.

But please, tell me you're one of those Libertarian types who believes that an all cash system would have a snowball's chance in hell of working in the U.S. (are there ANY industrialized countries where that works?) Like I said, I could use a laugh.

bob2356 says

Just because aca is the only choice made doesn't make it a good choice, again I'll reserve judgement (a concept you either choose to ignore or don't understand at all because it upsets your preconceived notion that anyone who doesn't praise aca as much as you do hates it)

HA HA HA HA!! YOU'RE "reserving judgment"? Since when? Didn't you just get through saying ACA can't possibly work because it "heaps on more insurance"?bob2356 says

a concept you either choose to ignore or don't understand at all because it upsets your preconceived notion that anyone who doesn't praise aca as much as you do hates it

Uh, no - YOU have a preconceived notion that anyone who doesn't HATE ACA as much as you do is giving unlimited praise to it. There, did I win, or do you want to go around a couple more times on that?

bob2356 says

There were "better options" that could have become law

I ask you to simply name the "better option", that would have had the political will to become law against republican obstructionism. You never know, I might agree with you.

bob2356 says

Why is it written in stone (at least to you) that just because aca is here that other options that actually do reduce health care costs can't be pursued?

Huh? I'M the one who said we have a foot in the door and can work towards IMPROVING the situation. YOU'RE the one who is closed to the entire idea of change.

bob2356 says

The end game is reducing the overall cost to society, not pumping up insurance companies bottom line or playing three card monte with who pays.

This is a ridiculous argument. ANY change to the system is going to change the dynamics of how much people pay for insurance. A fully socialized system would change it even MORE. I have a theory about you. You seem to bring up this "fairness" argument a lot, and the way ACA works is that wealthy people are not going to be reaping a lot of benefit from the system. Just a wild guess, but are you above the income requirements to get a subsidy, and is this perhaps a slight case of sour grapes on your part?

Quigley says

The monthly chart clearly shows gold speculation fueled by the threat of government default.

I bought a little bit of GLD in mid October for just that reason. 48hrs later they had the "crisis" resolved (by kicking the can down the road a little bit more).

So much for playing a hunch.

I will take you mutt's silence to indicate tacit agreement.

Homeboy says

They have ALREADY slowed. ACA has been law since 2010. So I guess you're one of these guys who blames any PROBLEM between 2010-2014 on ACA, but claims ACA has nothing to do with any IMPROVEMENT between 2010-2014. You can't have it both ways.

Homeboy says

I agree. I only offer the evidence in order to disprove the assertion that ACA has made us WORSE off with regard to premiums. It has not.

I'm sorry, but Improvement and not made worse are contradictory plain and simple. Which is your position? Even if aca was actually published in the federal register in time to affect rates for 2010-2013 (it wasnt') how could aca be an improvement if the data is following a 10 year trend line and the trend didn't change.

I cherry picked your data? Reread (or better read it for the first time) what I wrote. My statement almost exactly matches your data (off by 1% for 3 years, BFD). How is that "complete bullshit", your words. My statement was about 2004 to 2014 posted before you posted your chart. How could I cherry pick data you didn't even post yet? There were no double digit increases in the last 10 years, unlike most if not all of the 20 years prior to that. So how did aca address "skyrocketing double digit increases"? Are you really saying double digit increases that ended 10 years ago and were below 5% before aca was even signed were somehow affected by aca? Shameful, simply shameful, This from the man who's favorite word is strawman? I expected better.

The proper response here is I was wrong. Aca had nothing to do with insurance rates 2010-2013.

bob2356 says

This would be all a very good thing for me personally since I'm well into the the first group

Homeboy says

Just a wild guess, but are you above the income requirements to get a subsidy, and is this perhaps a slight case of sour grapes on your part?

I'm seriously wasting my time debating someone who either doesn't read what I post or pretends not to. "This would be all a very good thing for me personally" Look up, read. see it, got it now? I would benefit just fine, at the expense of the two generations that came after me. Yes I think that's unfair. The rates should reflect the risks. You are the classic baby boomer, everyone owes me. People in their 40's and 50's vote a lot more and contribute a lot more campaign money that people in their 20's and 30's. Do you think that calculation didn't occur to the people (people who need both votes and campaign contributions) who wrote aca? Of course it did.

Sour grapes? I don't need or desire a subsidy. I don't have to worry about paying the penalty if I didn't get insurance (I will) since I don't get tax refunds. I don't even need to participate in the insurance system at all. I have citizenship and permanent residence in 2 countries with universal health care. If I wanted to (I won't) I could just pay cash for doctor visits and leave if something serious came up health wise.

Homeboy says

This is a ridiculous argument. ANY change to the system is going to change the dynamics of how much people pay for insurance. A fully socialized system would change it even MORE

You really don't grasp how this all works do you? In a "fully socialized system" (are you trying to say universal health care perhaps?) people won't pay for insurance at all. There is no insurance (actually there is some limited private insurance for people who don't want to use the public system). There is no billing department in every doctors office and hospital, no premium collections, no insurance company profits, no executive salaries, no insurance company operating costs, no insurance company lobbying costs, no profitable referral business for doctors and hospitals, no incentive for billing fraud, no incentive to over treat, the list goes on and on. All of which is paid for by every person who has health insurance, or medicare, or pays taxes for medicaid. None of which contributes one bit to actual health care. It's billions of dollars wasted every year.

This is what should have and could have been tackled. All of which WILL have to be tackled some day aca or no aca. So yes I think aca will work fine at changing around who pays and getting people insurance who didn't have it.

LET ME REPEAT THAT SO YOU DON"T MISS IT. I think aca will work fine at changing around who pays and getting people insurance who didn't have it. Aca treats the symptoms just fine, but not the problem. Sure is hard to see this here forest with all these doggone trees in the way.

Aca won't lower overall costs, everyone (except perhaps you) agrees, on that point. These will continue to climb to even more unsustainable levels. At some point unsustainable will be truly unsustainable even when masked by tax subsidies. Which is why I say you simply don't understand the difference between health care and health insurance or the implications.

Ok you can scream strawman 10 times now.

You know, Bob - I tried to read your latest post, and I just can't get past your condescending attitude. Practically every sentence starts out with "You don't read" "You don't understand" "You don't get it" "You don't grasp" "You're being misleading" "You're giving unlimited praise and enthusiasm" "You don't understand the difference between x and y", "You're this and you're that" or similar.

I'm trying to explain some stuff to you, but you seem stuck in a mindset that anyone who doesn't buy into your "ACA can't possibly work" theory must be stupid, simply by virtue of the fact that they don't agree with your snively little nitpicky bullshit.

I'm sorry, but it's too much work to write a long thoughtful post when you just dismiss everything out of hand and pepper every sentence with false accusations.

If you ever want to actually DISCUSS this, let me know.

Entitlemented says

Clinton did not think NAFTA through nor the Community Reinivestment Act.

Oh god - I had a feeling we'd hear from the "blame Clinton for everything" crowd. CRA did not cause the housing bubble; that is a bit of right-wing fiction that has been debunked ad infinitum. And Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a republican bill. I mean, yeah he didn't veto it, but to say it was Clinton's doing is rather a stretch, don't you think?

Homeboy says

... If you ever want to actually DISCUSS this, let me know.

Translation: "I can't counter bob's response, so instead I'll focus on the delivery - his condescending attitude. But my condescending attitude is always just fine."

egads101 says

indigenous says

Renters require jobs of which your pope has created a gargantuan dearth of.

and yet, we've had several million new jobs over the past 3.5 years...

do you fucks always just make up whatever you want, because, say, doing research for five minutes is just too much for you to do?

3 million / (3.5*12)=71,429 per month

Since you are the mathematician I used you numbers?

egads101 says

AverageBear says

Does your definition of 'gold bug' include those that have less than 20% of their portfolio in gold? Do you lump in 'silver bugs' in as well? Just curious...

Not as much. But do you remember underwaterman? the dumbfuck who sold his home two years ago, and went all in on gold and silver??

I really miss him!!!

-----------------------------
Did underwaterman tell you his timeline on holding onto the gold? By no means am I defending him, (I dont know him at all), but if he has the means of holding this gold position for 5-10-15 years, then the dip in gold the last year would be moot, no?

I seriously question how Obama is now going to allow formerly ineligible health insurance policies, now eligible for one year. Insurance agencies have been preparing for Obamacare for the last 3 years, and have adjusted accordingly. They just can't flip a switch and start accepting new policies that are now 'allowed' for one year. It a logistical nightmare.

Then you also have the problem of Obama rewriting law (HIS law), so he and the Dems don't get skewered in the '14 elections. (not that this has ever stopped Obama before).....

What a mess. Like I said, I'm sitting back with a big bag of popcorn, watching this all play out. You now have some MSM media calling out and questioning Obama. And now Bill Clinton lobs this grenade at Obama. I think Bill's statement is gonna break the dam on this one, as far as popular opinion. . You think this fiasco is ugly now? It's only getting started.....

This is horrible news for Obama. Thankfully, Romney won the 2012 election, so he's taking care of it now... but it does not reflect well in the one-term President Obama's legacy.

Just as Clinton's modest tax increases destroyed America forever; just as Bush found mountains of WMDs all over Iraq; just as Reagan's tax cuts boosted the poor and middle classes; just as Bush's tax cuts brought us all so much prosperity and jobs - we were so lucky to have a constitutional lean-government man unalterably opposed to nation building in the White House during those years.

I think Romney should convene a committee including Ken Lay and Phil Gramm, whose ethos of deregulation brought so much happiness to the faces of America's children.

AverageBear says

I seriously question how Obama is now going to allow formerly ineligible health insurance policies, now eligible for one year. Insurance agencies have been preparing for Obamacare for the last 3 years, and have adjusted accordingly. They just can't flip a switch and start accepting new policies that are now 'allowed' for one year. It a logistical nightmare.

Yeah, he picked the wrong time to go back to his first-term habit of caving in to the republicans. I actually thought he had changed. The first Romney debate was a wake up call for Obama, and he seemed more confident after that. He even held his ground through the whole "shutdown" fiasco. Now it feels like he's slipping again. I think Bill Clinton really screwed him.

I still think the insurers are doing what they can to derail this disruption to their gravy train, and they have successfully screwed Americans over collectively in a new, gigantic way by cancelling policies en masse which they could keep in force as grandfathered, right when the exchanges open (with the Federal fill in for foot dragging governors site faceplant at that.)

In some manner of Stockholm Syndrome, Americans have responded by siding with their hostage takers, the insurance lobby and big pharma, and lashing out at the rescue plan.

This will probably be in the psychology texts for the next half century.

egads101 says

you use a chart that ends in 2011, to respond to my claim we added 1.8 million jobs in 2012?

I'm not versed in getting the current data off of the BLS or the FED etc. In any case 1.8 million jobs in a year is the breakeven of 150k per month. This still does not account for the 7.5 million jobs that should have been created in the past 5 years necessary for the new entrants into the job market. Have you ever seen such overqualified workers at the fast food places? This is sad, a lost decade.

O care and Frank Dodd are going to take money that would otherwise be spent in the market place are instead going to go to government agencies. This kills jobs, not only the ones taken out of the market place but also the ones that should have been created.

Coupled with the money that goes to the TBTF banks, agg, pharma, etc it further takes money out of the market that would have otherwise gone to genuinely needed and wanted services.

I don't think this recovery will parallel anything but 1930

egads101 says

you gold bugs always miss one simple point: GOLD doesn't earn you anything. A house earns you rent (or rent you don't pay if you live in it) a dividend paying stock earns you dividends, even if the price never increases

Egads, you need to cut down on the caffeine. I agree that gold/silver doesn't earn you anything while you hold it. (That's why i rotated out of SNDXF/SAND, into DGI Bluechip stocks last year). However, if you have enough, or other assets generating income, and you have enough time, to him, it may not matter as much. Will the gold market go parabolic in 2, 5, 10 years? Who knows. Some see their gold/silver holdings as a lottery ticket that they tuck away and hold on for a little while. The proceeds of the sale of his Sacramento home, may represent 8% of his portfolio (like SLW represents 8% of mine). His other 92% may be in Munis, dividend stocks or other income-generating property for all you know......

In the year 2013, yes, gold bugs are 'wrong'. They may not be in the future. That's all I'm saying. If one has the luxury of time, and his gold position is small, he's certainly not shitting himself. He may regret the opportunity cost of his 'dead $$' however....

For my unique idea, see last two sentences here.
http://occupywallst.org/higher-education-panders-to-intellectual-savagery/

Philistine! Such a meal requires a nice Chianti.

Pffhf--fpffhf--pfhfhfh!

AverageBear says

Did underwaterman tell you his timeline on holding onto the gold? By no means am I defending him, (I dont know him at all), but if he has the means of holding this gold position for 5-10-15 years, then the dip in gold the last year would be moot, no?

That's a rather strange argument, but you're very, very lucky that you know what is going to happen in the future.

Hmmm... Paralithodes seems to think I was too harsh in my criticism of Bob's posting style, as did the 3 people who "liked" his post.

O.K., then. I will counter Bob's post, ignoring the gratuitous insults and condescension, which doesn't leave a lot.

First, I will say that double digit increases WERE common before ACA, and I PROVED it in the thread linked earlier. If Bob wants to cherry pick his own time frame, he can do that (and yes, it is cherry-picking if you use some years and leave out others). I just want it straight for the record that there WERE double-digit increases in premiums. I refuse to allow proponents of the old broken insurance system the luxury of rewriting history.

bob2356 says

In a "fully socialized system" (are you trying to say universal health care perhaps?) people won't pay for insurance at all.

I'm not "trying" to say anything. I am saying it. This is perhaps the silliest thing I've ever read. People wouldn't pay for insurance, but they would certainly pay for care, one way or the other. Medical care is not free, unless you plan on selling all doctors and hospital workers into slavery. So yes, in a fully socialized system, where the money is coming from would change a hell of a lot more than ACA changes it. So if that is your major complaint, that ACA "changes who pays", it's a rather absurd criticism, don't you think? You simply CAN'T say (at least not with a straight face) that socializing medicine wouldn't change who pays.

I'm definitely not against the idea, but we need to be realistic - is there any way socialized medicine would have been a reality in this country, in the current political climate? Sometimes you have to take what you can get, or you get nothing.

bob2356 says

So yes I think aca will work fine at changing around who pays and getting people insurance who didn't have it.

Well I guess you're married to that "changing around who pays" criticism, so I'll just let you stew in your own juices on that.

I am glad that you seem to have finally come around and admitted that making insurance available to everyone is a positive reform. So I take it we are agreed on that now?

bob2356 says

Are you really saying double digit increases that ended 10 years ago and were below 5% before aca was even signed were somehow affected by aca?

Guess what I'm gonna say? Strawman. If you don't want me to say it, stop writing them.

I think the more modest increases in the late 2000s most likely were related to the housing bubble and the economy tanking. So are YOU really saying that the problem of out-of-control rate hikes was solved in 2006? How exactly did that occur? You're saying Bush solved the problem once and for all, and that's why there were a few years in there where the rate hikes weren't quite double-digit? I admire your optimism, but I don't think the problem was solved, because nothing was changed. I don't believe cherry-picking individual years does any good. That's why I averaged all the years BEFORE ACA, and all the years AFTER ACA, and they came out to 9% and 5% respectively. I think most people agree that doesn't prove ACA has lowered rates, but it DOES prove that ACA hasn't caused them to skyrocket, as so many right-wingers have falsely claimed.

Homeboy says

I'm trying to explain some stuff to you, but you seem stuck in a mindset that anyone who doesn't buy into your "ACA can't possibly work" theory must be stupid, simply by virtue of the fact that they don't agree with your snively little nitpicky bullshit.

I'll stand by you don't even bother to read what other people write. Show me where I say aca "can't possibly work". I said it doesn't address the problem. Show me where aca will reduce the continuing rising cost of health care. It doesn't. Medicare and CBO agree on this. You are so fixated on insurance, which aca will deliver and I have always agreed that it would do that, you just can't get your head around the real problem which is totally out of control costs of health care.

Aca is to health care is like morphine is to cancer. It fixes the symptoms just fine, but the patient will die. So the definition of "work" depends on the definition of what you are trying to accomplish.

So if saying aca will win the battle but lose the war is "hating" in your mind I can't do anything about it. Why in your view is cheerleading or hate the only two ways of viewing aca?

Homeboy says

If Bob wants to cherry pick his own time frame,

Homeboy says

think the more modest increases in the late 2000s most likely were related to the housing bubble and the economy tanking. So are YOU really saying that the problem of out-of-control rate hikes was solved in 2006? How exactly did that occur? You're saying Bush solved the problem once and for all, and that's why there were a few years in there where the rate hikes weren't quite double-digit? I admire your optimism, but I don't think the problem was solved, because nothing was changed. I don't believe cherry-picking individual years does any good.

Give up on this one, you are just looking foolish at this point. I cherry picked a time frame you say. Why did you choose to compare the 9 years before aca was signed plus the year aca was signed to the year the aca was singed plus the 4 years after. That's pretty damn big cherry picking. Come on.

A few years when rate hikes weren't QUITE double digits? Since when is 6%,5%,5%,5% a few years not QUITE double digits. Give me a break. BTW what about the 9% year in 2011 after aca was signed?

Homeboy says

but it DOES prove that ACA hasn't caused them to skyrocket, as so many right-wingers have falsely claimed.

Hello, you stated aca "improved" rates 2010-2013. Period. Your own words. Then you backpedalled to say aca hasn't caused the to skyrocket "as many right-wingers have falsely claimed". Uh Oh, do I get to say the S word now?

Homeboy says

You're saying Bush solved the problem once and for all, and that's why there were a few years in there where the rate hikes weren't quite double-digit? I admire your optimism, but I don't think the problem was solved, because nothing was changed.

With all due respect have you actually read what I've written time and time again or am I somehow writing in a version of English not familiar to you? I've been saying throughout this entire post, and many others, the real problem is rising health care costs that are totally unsustainable. Where do you possibly get optimism the problem is solved out of that? Then you come up with "You're saying Bush solved the problem once and for all". This is starting to be the twilight zone. Have you been taking posting lessons from curious george? He's gone now (i guess his parents caught him up late and changed their password), please don't feel the need to replace him.

Bush didn't solve dick in 8 years. Rate increases slowed for many reasons, only one of which has anything to do with bush, the recession. Certainly in 2006 the aca had nothing to do with it either. BUT, rate increases are still above the rate of inflation which is all that matters. The problem continues. So I'm not saying and have never said, implied, or even thought "the problem is solved". Are we totally clear on that point now?

Homeboy says

So if that is your major complaint, that ACA "changes who pays", it's a rather absurd criticism, don't you think? You simply CAN'T say (at least not with a straight face) that socializing medicine wouldn't change who pays.

Pretty funny you have to resort to using "socialized medicine" as some kind of code word.

No I dont't think it's absurd at all. Yes "socialized medicine" changes who pays. Everyone pays into the pot. Income taxes, vat, gst, capital gains, inheratance tax, wealth tax, whatever. Everyone takes out their health care. The wealthy do subsidize the poor, but that's how government social programs all work. I don't agree with aca's intergeneration subsidy. You think it's just fine.

No, my major complaint isn't the subsidies. That's ONE of my major complaints. You really haven't thought through the bigger implications of aca. It's a seismic shift. It's a really dangerous piece of legislation. Stop right there. I don't hate it, I'm at best dispassionate. First of all, repeating once again, it won't solve the real problem of increasing costs which will still have to be addressed at some future point. The part that is dangerous is it's the first law that people are compelled to buy a private product, and the first law where people are given money to buy a specific product in an ongoing permement basis. The key word is first. It breaks new ground. Have you ever seen government do something new then not continue to do it? What will be next? That thought scares me.

I'm not sure it's that big a deal. Governments have compelled you to pay taxes so that they can buy private industry products since you became a wage earner. I'm quite sure you aren't particularly happy with the way those different governments have used much of that money. ACA involves a more direct process, but at least a good number of people will benefit from it.
Still, you'd be a lot better off with say the French system.

AF,

You are awesome. So glad you are here :-)

Was he a realtor?

“It would seem he acted because of voices, messages that he was receiving and that were telling him to act in this way. Those are his first statements,” she said.

Same reason Bush invaded Iraq. Elect this guy president. Can't be worse than the last two.

He must be French, as he took the time to consider the best side dishes to pair with his human tripe.

Bravo. One can see why the bribed politicians fought so hard to keep the new consumer protection bureau from starting work.

BBQ sauce would have been my first choice.

Why would he be homeless? I thought in France they took care of everybody.

They plan on releasing him periodically in the shanty towns with a proper armamentarium and recommendations for snail garnish.

Let's blame the government for not doing enough to keep the prices artificially inflated.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

lostand confused says

Was he a realtor?

Is there any doubt?

He should not be charged of any crime.

The really sad thing about this story is that he still couldn't please Gordon Ramsay.

bgamall4 says

bubblesitter says

Let's blame the government for not doing enough to keep the prices artificially inflated.

You have to have a demand for housing. As the article says, the demand is only from investors and not from real homeowners. And many of these are Wall Street firms who will be in and maybe out. It will be interesting to see if the bundling of rents into bonds, like mbs in the past, will drive investors to hoard even more.

Correct-in then out. What happens to these real estate investments when their yield is capped out and the stock market is still soaring because of QE? They'll dump their real estate.

Should have just had the McRib sandwich instead.

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 18, 2013 __ Level is 101.9

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

What happens when fracking water pollution & problems affect many Rep/Con/Teas homes & land? It's OK. They vote against their own interest.

bgamall4 says

smaulgld says

Correct-in then out. What happens to these real estate investments when their yield is capped out and the stock market is still soaring because of QE? They'll dump their real estate.

That is certainly one scenario. But remember when the stocks tanked in the dot com bubble. Could we be looking at a shift to a real estate bubble from companies exiting the stock market?

When stocks tank the housing bubble crashes esp in SF.
BUT housing could tank and the stock market can keep going higher