patrick.net

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

Falling house prices will mean less construction of new homes, which means a shortage of homes, which means higher rents.

Are you sure you want that?

Well, eventually household formation will stop if rents rise. Then the banksters may as well slit their wrists. Here is the problem, housing has been pumped up by the wealthy, and is distorted compared to demand and wages. I don't know the answer, but high house prices can't exactly reduce rents, either.

The Walmart of home building can solve this whole problem rather quickly.

Unfortunately one of those doesn't exist at the moment.

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

Falling house prices will mean less construction of new homes, which means a shortage of homes, which means higher rents.

Are you sure you want that?

Well, eventually household formation will stop if rents rise. Then the banksters may as well slit their wrists. Here is the problem, housing has been pumped up by the wealthy, and is distorted compared to demand and wages. I don't know the answer, but high house prices can't exactly reduce rents, either.

I have no problems with bankers slitting their wrists, It ain't my blood that will flow.
There is no such thing as the wealthy pumping up prices. It's their money and if they want to pay more it's their business.
What will reduce rents is moving to a cheaper and smaller place.

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

A big house like that, in a wonderful area like that, with a rate that low.

I wish I had that problem.

Lol, isn't that the truth. And perhaps adjustables are for these people, however, if time comes to sell and he is under water, then what?

In that case he stops making payments, and you get to pay the bill.
That's even a better problem I wish I had.

whatever happened to that perma-bear theory that rents only go up with income (chart #1)?

wait until the dollar bubble bursts (within 10 years according to my estimate) then watch the rents skyrocket when my mortgage remains the same.

Mark D says

whatever happened to that perma-bear theory that rents only go up with income (chart #1)?

wait until the dollar bubble bursts (within 10 years) then watch the rents skyrocket when my mortgage remains the same.

That perma bear theory is crap. Rents are determined by demand and supply, and nothing else. No landlord in San Francisco cares if the McDonald burger flippers can afford rent or not.

Strategist says

That perma bear theory is crap

that pretty much sums it up.

sbh says

it poses the question: which do you think is yours, the professional or the practical?

Austrian economics has been an avocation for a couple of years now, I'm not a professional but I try to view anything I do as one. It is pretty obvious when someone like Reality or Mish, or only a couple of others I have run across on the internet, are professional. The way you can tell is that one they know every nuance of the subject and they actually apply the knowledge, usually in business.

Something that has served me well is the idea of being interesting or interested. If you try to achieve the prior you will be in endless useless pissing/posturing contests. On the other hand you can be interested this is the guy who actually can apply the knowledge he succeeds as it sounds like you were with your business.

We don't get a spiff for turning people on to this subject. It might be worth a look?

sbh says

by natural law "all about" this or that, being an exemplar of an unmeasurable quality recapitulating said natural law by virtue of the definition of a rooster. Austrians do two things: 1) define something; 2) say the thing. Then they're done.

Let's be Austrians. Here is natural law: porkfat is heavenly.

You obviously do not understand what natural law is. "Heavenly" is a personal subjective description, utterly irrelevant to any natural law. Natural law is not any particular person's subjective standard, but that which logical individual choices would lead to in the absence of man-made laws enforcing special privileges for certain individuals at the expense of others. For example, "thou shall not kill or steal" is a pretty simple natural law regardless what religion you believe or not believe; price control being an exercise in futility is another expression of natural law, because individuals faced with price control would act in self-interest or even cheat, leading to shortage at official price while moving transactions to black market, etc..

indigenous says

It is pretty obvious when someone like Reality or Mish, or only a couple of others I have run across on the internet, are professional. The way you can tell is that one they know every nuance of the subject and they actually apply the knowledge, usually in business.

Thank you for the compliment . . . although personally I do not profess to know every aspect of Austrianism, nor do I get paid for learning it or sharing it. Learning does help put my own ego in check, helping me to see the futility of empire building, and the joy in making other individuals happy/content, one at a time. I have been offered on numerous occasions to get paid for what I write, but I have chosen to maintain my privacy and independence. I guess large sums of money has never been a huge draw for me. I see money as tokens of appreciation; I'd rather earn them my own way from numerous people instead of becoming reliant upon any big patron.

Reality says

I do not profess to know every aspect of Austrianism

Professionals usually don't. I hear you it is about the quality of the exchange.

Meccos says

werent there a bunch of people on this blog claiming that we made money from the bailouts???

Yes. Same ones that claimed the entire financial system would collapse if the tbtf banks went into bankruptcy or got nationalized.

Call it Crazy says

Scheibe said in the affidavit that she "felt very intimidated" when she was being questioned by police and that police "misinterpreted" her. She also said she "may have misspoken about certain facts."

Women ! will drive you to an early grave....

ah the good old days....

http://www.youtube.com/embed/98qw86DsdZ0

bob2356 says

Meccos says

werent there a bunch of people on this blog claiming that we made money from the bailouts???

Yes. Same ones that claimed the entire financial system would collapse if the tbtf banks went into bankruptcy or got nationalized.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been on record saying the bailouts were basically cost neutral--excepting, of course, GM. The auto bailout was always a loser. But, you should be thinking about what would have been the cost if GM were allowed to fail--lost jobs (GM and suppliers), lost tax revenue, unemployment benefits, etc. Would it have been more than $10B?

And, it's very easy for folks like Bob to claim that the financial system didn't need any bailouts AFTER it was bailed out. We'll never know what would have happened absent the liquidity injection, but if there was a 5% chance that the system collapses--is that a risk worth taking??

Just saw the last part of your post--who claims that the system fails if the banks got nationalized? I've never seen that argument anyway--what I see is the dreaded socialism claims.

tatupu70 says

But, you should be thinking about what would have been the cost if GM were allowed to fail--lost jobs (GM and suppliers), lost tax revenue, unemployment benefits, etc. Would it have been more than $10B?

That would be the price of fixing the problems that led to the bankruptcy; i.e. the GM capital structure and labor relationships that led to the inefficiencies and bankruptcy would have been removed, and the resources and human labor made available to other carmakers. Instead, the taxpayers were forced to cough up $10B or more for essentially a kick of the can down the road.

tatupu70 says

it's very easy for folks like Bob to claim that the financial system didn't need any bailouts AFTER it was bailed out. We'll never know what would have happened absent the liquidity injection, but if there was a 5% chance that the system collapses--is that a risk worth taking??

What if there is a 5% chance the sun won't rise if we don't sacrifice your first-born? Asking such question is committing fraud of the hypothetical. Banking will not cease to exist, so long as it is a necessary service. Some of the big banks would indeed cease to exist . . . turns out even one as big as Lehman getting liquidated did not result in much impact on the financial system. Swaps and derivatives are by definition zero-sum games. For every loser on a trade, there is a winner as his counter-party.

He's hung like a moose. And there is the future royalty stream from the movie series, George Zimmerman, Manhunter.

Wonder how the numbers are collected. The charts may actually reflect the rising underground economy instead of anything else. Just like the mushrooming of Americans on disability (not actually disabled) due to government policies, the combination of high taxes, high minimum wages and government subsidies is driving many Americans to take on jobs that pay under the table (like day labor off the books) or even illegal (such as drug trafficking and prostitution) while using low legit income to qualify for government subsidy programs.

NO they have Socialized medicine.
If we had a "Single payer" it would be nothing more than a Monopoly that would be free to charge at will while they enjoy a protected market without any competition.

Besides that it was always called "Socialized Medicine". Fuck if you even try to read the Wiki article on "Single Payer" the definition is all over the place, only written to project what other countries have with out actually giving us a "Socialized Medicine".

So basically a Single payer is ...

The Government assuming the role of Bluecross and Blueshield, with private contractors making all of the administrative calls.
Our implementation would come loaded with premiums, copays an all of the other hidden cost scheme, that comes with Insurance.

Here's one shoe fits all legal definition that our policy makers are using to sell this bill of shit...

In some cases doctors may be employed, and hospitals run by, the government such as in the United Kingdom. Alternatively the government may purchase healthcare services from outside organizations. This is the approach taken in Canada.

Sure sounds like two different definitions than what we would end up with. So basically a "Single Payer" is what ever Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would call the damn thing. Tell a lie long enough, then "Obamacare" starts to sound like a Single Payer system.

What difference does it fucking make who I write a $1600 (or more)check a month too?

Reality says

What if there is a 5% chance the sun won't rise if we don't sacrifice your first-born? Asking such question is committing fraud of the hypothetical.

lol--but we know that sacrificing my first born has no bearing on the sun rising. Are you implying that it was known that the banking system wouldn't fail? You're committing the fraud of false analogy.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

What if there is a 5% chance the sun won't rise if we don't sacrifice your first-born? Asking such question is committing fraud of the hypothetical.

lol--but we know that sacrificing my first born has no bearing on the sun rising. Are you implying that it was known that the banking system wouldn't fail? You're committing the fraud of false analogy.

Yes we know that. "Banking system fail" is a (false) imagination of the mind, like unicorn and tooth fairy. When one or several restaurants or supermarkets close, we don't call that "food distribution system failure." So long as there is market demand, someone else will step in, and probably do a better job without the government putting the burden of rescuing existing banks on them.

There actually has never been in human history a sudden stoppage of all banking activity in a society except for when the government banned all banks from opening. It's always a government-made crisis.

Reality says

When one or several restaurants or supermarkets close, we don't call that "food distribution system failure." So long as there is market demand, someone else will step in, and probably do a better job without the government putting the burden of rescuing existing banks on them

So, when the CEO of GE was saying he was concerned that he wouldn't be able to make payroll, that's the tooth fairy? When Warren Buffet actually made trades on the open market with investors giving them a negative rate of return on their investments(They gave him $x now in return for $x-1 in the future)--that's a unicorn?

Comparing the entire banking system to a supermarket is the height of idiocy. Sure, new banks would form and take the old banks place. You might have a few years of cannibal anarchy in between, but I guess that doesn't bother you.

tatupu70 says

So, when the CEO of GE was saying he was concerned that he wouldn't be able to make payroll, that's the tooth fairy?

So you think taxpayers should subsidize big corporations that leverage on their payroll money? Companies that can not meet payroll should be bankrupted because they leverage too much and take too much risk with their worker's well being. The corporate officers engaged in such behavior should be arrested if any dereliction of duty is found.

To advocate that big corporations should be able to call in government to levy the taxpayers to help is little more than advocating the looting of the poor and the middle class to enrich the already wealthy.

When Warren Buffet actually made trades on the open market with investors giving them a negative rate of return on their investments(They gave him $x now in return for $x-1 in the future)--that's a unicorn?

It's called a storage fee . . . like that for any other types of goods, the collecting of which would serve as a deterrence against "hoarding" that you decry so much. Ironic you think that natural market deterrence against hoarding of money should be lifted by the government by ensuring interest is always positive (i.e. storage fee for money is always made to be negative).

Comparing the entire banking system to a supermarket is the height of idiocy.

No it is not. Food and water is far more immediately critical to human existence than even money. It takes more time and labor to set up a new supermarket with all the variety of foods than to open a new bank. In fact, if not for government restriction, there would be banks all over the town in every town. The stocking of money and taking a percentage is far simpler than the stocking of foods; unlike the vast varieties of food, money does not perish and is fungible.

Sure, new banks would form and take the old banks place. You might have a few years of cannibal anarchy in between, but I guess that doesn't bother you.

Banks do not leverage like crazy already exist, and would have been more if not for the FED subsidizing crazy levels of leverage through the bailouts that you advocate. Cannibal Anarchy did not take place in Iceland when all three of their big banks failed.

Call it Crazy says

So, who's going to write the check to pay us back and for putting our kids farther in debt??

Ahh... typical Republian-speak. "We're putting our kids in debt!" without looking at the bigger picture.

The better question to ask in this situation would be how much BIGGER would the costs have been to future generations if GM and Chrysler had not been bailed out? Exactly how much would it have cost not only the average taxpayer, but the overall economy to pay for long-term unemployment of millions of autoworkers, parts manufactures, car dealer salespeople, the businesses that supported all those mentioned above, not to mention the permanent loss of the majority of one of the largest sources of US manufacturing jobs?

The answer to all that is that the loss of GM and Chrysler would have resulted in a net loss and cost to the US economy, and the employees tied to them would have dwarfed the 10 billion dollar amount mentioned above. That and not to mention that if these two companies were gone, the long-term costs would have been untold billions and billions worth of future taxes collected in the form of employee income tax, interest from individual cars sales, property taxes from corporate facilities, taxes paid from dealerships, and the broader financial benefits of simply having millions of taxpaying workers and corporate executives contributing to the US economy as a whole versus simply no longer contributing anything.

What I find ironic about this whole debate is that the very conservatives who continually tout Reaganomics from a perspective where trickle-down economics are surely the way to a brighter economic future for some reason don't get that while this theory does not and never will work on a private level, the bailout was in fact a perfect example of a trickle-down economic fix that worked: The auto companies were responsible for the economic well-being of literally millions of workers and many 1000's of companies, from the assemblyline workers to the small deli across the street from a factory selling sandwiches: The bailout served to benefit all of those interlocking pieces up and down the line, so in effect did have a trickle-down effect.

Given the costs that would have occurred had these companies been allowed to go under would have been devastating and many times greater than the 10 billion mentioned above, the decision that was made due to simple mathematics: Its about money and anyone with even an elementary understanding of how math works would be able to see what an obvious decision this was and also recognize the result as an overwhelming success.

edvard2 says

The better question to ask in this situation would be how much BIGGER would the costs have been to future generations if GM and Chrysler had not been bailed out? Exactly how much would it have cost not only the average taxpayer, but the overall economy to pay for long-term unemployment of millions of autoworkers, parts manufactures, car dealer salespeople, the businesses that supported all those mentioned above, not to mention the permanent loss of the majority of one of the largest sources of US manufacturing jobs?

Suppose these companies had tied up hundreds of thousands of workers making horse saddles and whips, your argument would have run just the same, and equally invalid.

What you are not seeing is that: the workers, parts suppliers and dealers would have been absorbed by other carmakers that turn out cars more profitably (to the extent that consumers need cars; the rest will find more profitable employment in other fields in the absence of government disincentive to work).

Reality says

What you are not seeing is that: the workers, parts suppliers and dealers
would have been taken on by other carmakers that turn out cars more
profitably.

How would they do so more profitably? Lower margins (sales prices) for the suppliers and dealers, lower compensation for the workers perhaps?

control point says

Reality says

What you are not seeing is that: the workers, parts suppliers and dealers

would have been taken on by other carmakers that turn out cars more

profitably.

How would they do so more profitably? Lower margins (sales prices) for the suppliers and dealers, lower compensation for the workers perhaps?

Designing and making better cars that people want to buy without huge price discounts.

The net effect of keeping GM is essentially a Toyota/Ford/BMW plant plus a bunch of trench diggers and refillers on taxpayer funded payroll, and some monkey wrench being thrown into the good cars (that we would have gotten) to make them less reliable and/or less desirable.

Reality says

Designing and making better cars that people want to buy without huge price
discounts.

So the same workers (except the designers apparently), suppliers, and dealers are suddenly going to add more value to the end product simply because of new ownership?

control point says

Reality says

Designing and making better cars that people want to buy without huge price

discounts.

So the same workers (except the designers apparently), suppliers, and dealers are suddenly going to add more value to the end product simply because of new ownership?

That's what better run businesses do. If that's not the case, how would you allow any bad business go bankrupt?

BTW, Even the designers would come up with better designs when not ensnared in the GM bean counter culture and corporate-labor union trap in the rustbelt.
GM divisions overseas are quite successful at innovations and coming up with good products.

GM recorded a profit of $4.3 billion for the first nine months of this year.

The answer is to tax the profits and the executive compensations until the entire amount, in real dollars, is paid back. Tax the executive compensation at 100% no matter where the execs work until this is paid back in full.

Reality says

What if there is a 5% chance the sun won't rise if we don't sacrifice your first-born? Asking such question is committing fraud of the hypothetical. Banking will not cease to exist, so long as it is a necessary service. Some of the big banks would indeed cease to exist . . . turns out even one as big as Lehman getting liquidated did not result in much impact on the financial system. Swaps and derivatives are by definition zero-sum games. For every loser on a trade, there is a winner as his counter-party.

Exactly. It was clear cut fraud, and they sacrificed the taxpayers children's future.

control point says

Reality says

Designing and making better cars that people want to buy without huge price

discounts.

So the same workers (except the designers apparently), suppliers, and dealers are suddenly going to add more value to the end product simply because of new ownership?

Yes.

Reality says

So you think taxpayers should subsidize big corporations that leverage on their payroll money

No, I don't.

Reality says

Companies that can not meet payroll should be bankrupted because they leverage too much and take too much risk with their worker's well being. The corporate officers engaged in such behavior should be arrested if any dereliction of duty is found.

That's fine. Like I said--don't cry when you're in the unemployment line or eating at the soup kitchen when your benefits run out.

Reality says

It's called a storage fee

lol--are you familar with the concept of "time value of money?"

Reality says

No it is not. Food and water is far more immediately critical to human existence than even money. It takes more time and labor to set up a new supermarket with all the variety of foods than to open a new bank. In fact, if not for government restriction, there would be banks all over the town in every town. The stocking of money and taking a percentage is far simpler than the stocking of foods; unlike the vast varieties of food, money does not perish and is fungible.

I'm not talking about the back down the streeet folding. I'm talking about the entire financial system failing. There's a difference there. A better analogy would be if the entire transportation system failed. No trucking. No trains. No flights. Do you think that would have an effect on people?

It wasn't just GM at risk, it was all the part suppliers, dealerships, financial
Institutions, and their supporting companies that stood to also fall. The cost in jobs would have been catastrophic at a time when America was really hurting for jobs. I think saving American industry is worth doing, also bringing industry back. Let's say the job cost would have been a million, so think of the billions that went unspent on unemployment and welfare for the jobless, as well as the taxes reaped off the backs of the companies and the employed workers. It was a net gain for the government when all that is considered, and more importantly it was a benefit to America. Or we could have bought twenty new fighter jets to give the chickenhawk neocons big boners and scrambling for an excuse to use them. What is more worthy?

edvard2 says

The better question to ask in this situation would be how much BIGGER would the costs have been to future generations if GM and Chrysler had not been bailed out?

Just the proceedings of bankruptcy. The auto-industry had been moving out of the US for quite a while, and now suddenly GM is the one that has to be rescued? The costs would have been far lower for everybody, rewarding and supporting failure is always the highest cost and hurts more people for the benefit of a few.

The main purpose of the bailouts was to keep the aristocracy in power, protect them from any "losses", and to keep the whole 20th century american scam of "retirement" in tact.

Think of all the different layered insurances that exist in the "private markets". Private in so far that they pretend to minimize risk in the name of gauranteed profits,,,until all their risk minimzation ends up being so risky that the only way to prevent catastrophe is for the government to stick the gun in the back of the working man, and yell "hi ya! Giddy up" flog him with a whip so the privileged can maintain their privileges and the young and the powerless can be bound, gagged, and dry fucked until they can take no more

Reality says

What you are not seeing is that: the workers, parts suppliers and dealers would have been absorbed by other carmakers that turn out cars more profitably (to the extent that consumers need cars; the rest will find more profitable employment in other fields in the absence of government disincentive to work).

Because you say so. Right?

Reality says

Suppose these companies had tied up hundreds of thousands of workers making horse saddles and whips, your argument would have run just the same, and equally invalid.

What you are not seeing is that: the workers, parts suppliers and dealers would have been absorbed by other carmakers that turn out cars more profitably (to the extent that consumers need cars; the rest will find more profitable employment in other fields in the absence of government disincentive to work).

You are making a lot of really simple assumptions. First of all, if you are a supplier of car parts to a particular company, then that means you as a supplier have invested what likely amounts to many millions of dollars in research, tooling, stamping, equipment, CNC machinery, facilities, employees and training that were all geared specifically to making said parts for that particular company. The loss of the company that those companies were supplying would have easily bankrupted many, many of those suppliers.

The problem with your assertion is that your "solution" is tied to gross assumptions and guesses. When it comes down to investments, risk, and financial planning, basing said investment on assumption is an almost assured means to LOSE a lot of money. Investments are made on the basis of more predictable outcomes. Simply put, saving two companies with large intact chains of suppliers, trained workers, and the entire network of inter-related enterprises tied to them and leaving this system intact has way LESS risk then doing what you were suggesting, which was to let em' fail and "Assume" that somehow other auto manufactures would have picked up the slack. Had something like what were suggesting been done the net loss would have almost assuredly been many, many times greater in overall cost then what it wound up being.

errc says

The main purpose of the bailouts was to keep the aristocracy in power

How does keeping blue collar union workers employed help keep the aristocracy in power?

Quigley says

Or we could have bought twenty new fighter jets to give the chickenhawk neocons big boners and scrambling for an excuse to use them. What is more worthy?

First of all it would have been much fairer to send everybody a check from that money, probably also with better outcome since they would not have focused on failing businesses and distributed the risk evenly, instead of throwing good money after bad. Second if that would be working in any way with any positive outcome, the US would be allowing everybody to print their own money to get themselves out of "ruts" and jump-start their businesses. But it's not, and therefore it's illegal for most and only legal for a few, benefitting the first-in-line cronies.

mell says

Just the proceedings of bankruptcy. The auto-industry had been moving out of the US for quite a while, and now suddenly GM is the one that has to be rescued? The costs would have been far lower for everybody, rewarding and supporting failure is always the highest cost and hurts more people for the benefit of a few.

As we speak, many millions of US workers are employed either directly, or indirectly to the US auto industry. So even is some of that work had been moving overseas, that doesn't mean that nobody works for them in the US anymore. Quite the opposite actually. So you are wrong. The costs would have been far greater had they been allowed to fail if we only base this on the sheer costs of supporting millions of US workers on unemployment insurance.

Dan8267 says

GM recorded a profit of $4.3 billion for the first nine months of this year.

The answer is to tax the profits and the executive compensations until the entire amount, in real dollars, is paid back. Tax the executive compensation at 100% no matter where the execs work until this is paid back in full.

After the fact (since I could not prevent the bailouts), I agree with you on this.

mell says

Yes.

Reality says

That's what better run businesses do. If that's not the case, how would you
allow any bad business go bankrupt?

LOL. I want to go into M&A with these two. All it takes to add value to the end product is better ownership.