patrick.net

indigenous says

upisdown
says

The most recent 'great recession' that some may call legitimately or not a
depression followed a surplus that occurred in late 1999-2000.

or a bubble

LOL, your nickname ought to be 'bubbles'.

I guess that's better than reading one of your usual circle-jerk of an answers that would never make sense anyway.

sbh says

At least RFHTC has promised 500-800 dow points with this move.

I thought he said that was what we would see LAST week.

upisdown says

LOL, your nickname ought to be 'bubbles'.

I guess that's better than reading one of your usual circle-jerk of an answers that would never make sense anyway.

And yours ought to be I don't have anything else relevant to say

What are you saying not for profit people shouldn't have to pay their "Fair share"?

Would you feel the same way if some Teaparty "Activist" ceased that opportunity to spout off his agenda and nonsense?

indigenous says

The banks failing was something that people remember and to this day don't trust banks, putting money in the mattress etc. But it was resolved

Your version of history never ceases to amaze me. It was "resolved"??? What the hell does that even mean?

Call it Crazy says

The Obama administration has not made public the fact that the appeals system for the online marketplace is not working. But at the moment, “there is no indication that infrastructure . . . necessary for conducting informal reviews and fair hearings has even been created, let alone become operational,” attorneys at the National Health Law Program said in a late-December letter to leaders of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

It's all smoke and mirrors and "Do Nothing" buttons.

I know the types that designed this system with little regard to the actual requirements, and the developers who did the work, that pushed slick do nothing forms. I mean, when you have a system that is so convoluted. How can you possibly and accurately test it, and cover all of the variables?

"Hey that form that appeals enrollment decisions is finished."

Their boss probably just said...
"Well eh, O.K., alright then, carry on!"

I mean it's live sensitive data, how can you test it? Where's all of the plumbing back from the providers, to gather all of the sensitive information that they collected on that applicant, what's the standard. How can Obamazon, possibly parse those decisions, when each insurer has their own set of parameters on why or how they reject or approve an applicant.

But I bet it all sure sounded Slick in the requirement gathering meetings.

The Baby boomers didn't get as well off as you folks claim they are, by collecting Keynesian nickles.

The problem with Keynesian economics is, that fantasy is great for those who make the policy and the beneficiaries of it, but those who are not on the receiving end of all of that imaginary money. Unfortunately are bound by Austrian economics, and are forced to pay for that party.

Yeah but last time there was no taper on the table.

I love days when the Dow takes a 200 point shit.

Although tomorrow is a POMO day. You can thank your economic central planners for that.

sbh says

Martha Stewart was an Austrian. "Bank failure: it's a good thing

Is she? She is very admirable.

Entitlemented says

When the US signed off on NAFTA

Are you trying to say Ross Perot had it right all along? "What I hear now is a big sucking sound." The guy came off a little whacky, but compared to Obama he is and was solid gold.

sbh says

Bigsby says

sbh says

At least RFHTC has promised 500-800 dow points with this move.

I thought he said that was what we would see LAST week.

I'm trying to be generous with the boy.

I wouldn't be generous with any of your money now. You will need it all to keep the lights on after this train comes to a stop. Down we go! All fools aboard!!!

indigenous says

Very good Tat you are smarter than you look

Uh--how do you know what I look like?

I've been seeing a lot of falling hockey sticks on prices in the local market.

John Bailo says

I've been seeing a lot of falling hockey sticks on prices in the local market.

I see it here too. I guess, SFBA is the only special place.

hrhjuliet says

Buy up America. Great idea. Who needs a war to take us over? How clever. I have a group of friends and colleagues working on a legislation to create limitations on foreigners buying American real estate.

They are dumber than a bag of bricks. Real estates do not come with votes or any other political power. They only come with liability to pay real estate taxes. If you want to protest "the buying up of America," protest the selling of government bonds to foreigners (and Americans alike). Those bonds do come with promises to tax you, me and your friends in the future to pay the interests on the bonds.

Reality says

Boom-bust is the largely the result of, and exacerbated by, government monetary interventions disrupting the price signals of money and misleading the businessmen.

Huh--that's not what indigenous believes....

And contradicted by history as well.

Reality says

People starve when you forcibly keep un-deserving businesses in business. The fat cats live at the expenses of the rest of the people. In other words, ideologues like you are perpetrating the looting and famine.

lol--when did I ever state that I'm in favor of forciby keeping undeserving businesses in business? I most definitely am not. I hated the bailouts. Or more appropriately--I hated that the bailouts were necessary.

But I'm not naive enough to believe that's why people starve. I know you love free markets but they do not optimize societal well-being.

Reality says

The disease was the uneconomic behaviors and actions leading to the failures. The failure itself was the cure: so resources and labor could be redirected to different combinations.

What you don't seem to understand is that there are other ways to treat the sickness rather than letting the patient die.

John Bailo says

I've been seeing a lot of falling hockey sticks on prices in the local
market.

Here in Houston, prices have been falling a bit, but what I'm REALLY noticing is the lack of inventory. About 20% of what is hitting the market are foreclosures. Not sure if it's old foreclosures that the banks are finally releasing to the market; or new ones recently foreclosed on.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Boom-bust is the largely the result of, and exacerbated by, government monetary interventions disrupting the price signals of money and misleading the businessmen.

Huh--that's not what indigenous believes....

And contradicted by history as well.

by what history? You are living through a classic period during which government intervention has been exacerbating the boom-bust:

FED bailout of LTCM led to the NASDAQ bubble
FED bailout of the 2000-2003 stock market bust caused the housing bubble
FED bailout of the 2008-09 housing bust is causing the current echo bubble.

Reality says

Who was the President of the US when the Depository Institutions Deregulation
and Monetary Control Act was passed and signed into law on March 31, 1980?
.
. .
. . .
. . .
Jimmy Carter!

Nice try. What did that have to do with deregulation of S&Ls?

Or check out:

The Garn–St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982

tatupu70 says

Reality says

People starve when you forcibly keep un-deserving businesses in business. The fat cats live at the expenses of the rest of the people. In other words, ideologues like you are perpetrating the looting and famine.

lol--when did I ever state that I'm in favor of forciby keeping undeserving businesses in business? I most definitely am not. I hated the bailouts. Or more appropriately--I hated that the bailouts were necessary.

There you just exposed your lie. By insisting that bailouts were necessary, you favored baiouts, which is precisely forcibly keeping undeserving bussinesses in business.

But I'm not naive enough to believe that's why people starve. I know you love free markets but they do not optimize societal well-being.

Of course it is the reason why people are starving. Businesses are unable to hire because the overall debt burdens and tax burdens are too high. The government bailouts were what kept the bad debts alive, to be serviced by taxes.

People's liberty and freedom (that is what "free market" is) allow room for improvement by people continuing to live in and exercise liberty and freedom. The control freaks' advocated forcible "government solutions" would only make the situation worse.

control point says

Reality says

Who was the President of the US when the Depository Institutions Deregulation

and Monetary Control Act was passed and signed into law on March 31, 1980?
.

. .
. . .
. . .
Jimmy Carter!

Nice try. What did that have to do with deregualtion of S&Ls?

Or check out:

The Garn–St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982

The 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation Act was the center piece of banking deregulation and how banking deregulation got underway. The 1982 "An Act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans" was only a minor adjustment.

Reality says

by what history? You are living through a classic period during which government intervention has been exacerbating the boom-bust:

History includes more than your lifetime.

Reality says

There you just exposed your lie. By insisting that bailouts were necessary, you favored baiouts, which is precisely forcibly keeping undeserving bussinesses in business.

My lie? It's not a lie to say I hate bailouts but I hate a second Great Depression worse. To imply otherwise shows your poor logic skills.

Reality says

Businesses are unable to hire because the overall debt burdens and tax burdens are too high.

Hahahaha. So, businesses don't hire to meet their expected demand, they do so based on their tax burden? Mr. CEO says--hey, we don't owe as much taxes this year. Let's hire a few more people. Sure, we don't have anything for them to do, but we have all this money laying around! We have to hire them!

Reality says

People's liberty and freedom (that is what "free market" is) allow room for improvement by people continuing to live in and exercise liberty and freedom. The control freaks' advocated forcible "government solutions" would only make the situation worse.

blah, blah, blah. That has nothing to do with the point at hand.

Overall, a great day today.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

by what history? You are living through a classic period during which government intervention has been exacerbating the boom-bust:

History includes more than your lifetime.

Don't even get me started on history. I have forgot more history books than you have read in your life time. There is a however an important advantage that first-hand experience has over the typical 3rd-hand retelling in history books (for you, that would 4th- or 5th-hand retelling in high school history textbooks): cutting out the multiplicity of erroneous interpretations.

Reality says

I have forgot more history books than you have read in your life time.

lol--are we going to get into a dick waving contest??

Reality says

There is a however an important advantage that first-hand experience has over the typical 3rd-hand retelling in history books (for you, that would 4th- or 5th-hand retelling in high school history textbooks): cutting out the multiplicity of erroneous interpretations.

Are you going to ever get to a point or are you just going to continue hurling meaningless insults? Your posts are getting more and more trollish...

tatupu70 says

My lie? It's not a lie to say I hate bailouts but I hate a second Great Depression worse. To imply otherwise shows your poor logic skills.

You prefer bailouts over letting free market eliminate the incompetents. That's what makes you favor bailouts (over free market cleansing). As for "second Great Depression," idiotic government internvention and bailouts are what's causing the 2nd Great Depression, just like they caused the 1st Great Depression!

tatupu70 says

Hahahaha. So, businesses don't hire to meet their expected demand, they do so based on their tax burden? Mr. CEO says--hey, we don't owe as much taxes this year. Let's hire a few more people. Sure, we don't have anything for them to do, but we have all this money laying around! We have to hire them!

Reality says

Which part of after-tax profit entering into the business calculation don't you understand? Businesses are not only balking at hiring due to taxes and regulations, in case you didn't know, they are actively un-hiring existing employees due to taxes and regulations: e.g. the cut backs of hours and head counts due to Obamacare, which according to SCOTUS is a tax!

tatupu70 says

Reality says

People's liberty and freedom (that is what "free market" is) allow room for improvement by people continuing to live in and exercise liberty and freedom. The control freaks' advocated forcible "government solutions" would only make the situation worse.

blah, blah, blah. That has nothing to do with the point at hand.

That's the crucial point you wannabe control-freaks don't understand: "Free Market" is not some magic force, but simply the liberty and freedom that each individual gets to exercise.

If you are against "Free Market," you are simply an anti-liberty and anti-freedom wannabe fascist!

tatupu70 says

There is a however an important advantage that first-hand experience has over the typical 3rd-hand retelling in history books (for you, that would 4th- or 5th-hand retelling in high school history textbooks): cutting out the multiplicity of erroneous interpretations.

Are you going to ever get to a point or are you just going to continue hurling meaningless insults? Your posts are getting more and more trollish...

I already got to the point: your own experience in the last decade and half should tell you the deleterious effect of government intervention in the capital market place: the LTCM bomb (which was born of the earlier bailout of early 1990's), the NASDAQ bubble-bust, the housing bubble-bust . . . each successive bubble created by the FED to bailout the previous bubble-bust is bigger, and resulting in even bigger bust! That's why I gave you the earlier conclusion: Boom-busts are caused and exacerbated by government bailouts and interventions. If you want to blame someone for favoring booms-busts, look in the mirror!

Reality says

You prefer bailouts over letting free market eliminate the incompetents

No, I don't. I prefer that mismanaged companies go bankrupt. Not sure what is so difficult for you to understand.

Reality says

Which part of after-tax profit entering into the business calculation don't you understand?

I understand it fine. I understand that it's bullshit. No company is letting demand sit unmet becuase of taxes or regulation. Once again--companies hire to meet expected demand. Tax rates don't enter the picture.

Reality says

If you are against "Free Market," you are simply an anti-liberty and anti-freedom wannabe fascist!

Wow--is that your rallying cry? It is a nice strawman. Who's against the free market?

Reality says

I already got to the point: your own experience in the last decade and half should tell you the deleterious effect of government intervention in the capital market place: the LTCM bomb (which was born of the earlier bailout of early 1990's), the NASDAQ bubble-bust, the housing bubble-bust . . . each successive bubble created by the

I know in your cult that everything is caused by either the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve, but in reality, that's not the case. In the housing bubble, for instance, the main cause was abandonment of underwriting standards. Interest rates had very little influence on those standards.

A very good argument can and has been made that it was too little government intervention that caused the issues, not too much...

tatupu70 says

Reality says

You prefer bailouts over letting free market eliminate the incompetents

No, I don't. I prefer that mismanaged companies go bankrupt. Not sure what is so difficult for you to understand.

You are acting like a drug addict in denial. Preference is meaningless in isolation. When presented with a choice of between:

1. letting those mismanaged companies go bankrupt in an economic down turns;

2. letting government bail them out;

You consistently chose to bail them out. Big businesses mostly only go down in economic hard times. Your theorectical "preference" when they are not going out of business is utterly meaningless.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Which part of after-tax profit entering into the business calculation don't you understand?

I understand it fine. I understand that it's bullshit. No company is letting demand sit unmet becuase of taxes or regulation. Once again--companies hire to meet expected demand. Tax rates don't enter the picture.

Of course taxes do: many companies are delaying hiring or even un-hiring existing workers and cutting back their hours in order to cope with Obamacare, which is a form of tax according to SCOTUS. On top of that, corporate spending and consumer spending are also negatively affected by taxes, reducing demand.

Shit, time for a second bucket.

tatupu70 says

Wow--is that your rallying cry? It is a nice strawman. Who's against the free market?

You are! You are for forcible bailout of big corporations at taxpayer expense. You are for raising taxes. You are for banning low-productivity workers from working. You are against the freedom and liberty of individuals, especially those barely transitioning from non-working to working.

Reality says

The 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation Act was the center piece of
banking deregulation and how banking deregulation got underway. The 1982 "An Act
to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of
home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home
mortgage loans" was only a minor adjustment.

Gain St. Germain deregulated thrifts and allowed adjustable rate loans. It also allowed S&Ls to offer money market accounts and interest bearing checking/savings accounts. S&Ls were permitted to increase commerical and consumer loans, (higher risk, higher yield) vs. historically mortgage-only, fixed rate loans.

In short, it allowed S&Ls a vehicle to better comepte with commercial banks, who benefitted most from the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act.

Since it was targeted to S&Ls - and S&L's are what failed - I would say it was a fair bit more than "minor adjustment."

tatupu70 says

I know in your cult that everything is caused by either the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve, but in reality, that's not the case. In the housing bubble, for instance, the main cause was abandonment of underwriting standards. Interest rates had very little influence on those standards.

The government and the FED were very much behind the lowering of underwriting standards. Both encouraged the lowering underwriting standards, by:

1. setting precedence for bailouts when loans go bad on a massive scale;

2. all sorts of regulations and government entities to encourage loans to uncredit-worthy borrowers. This is actually on-going.

3. lawmakers suspending FASB accounting rules.

A very good argument can and has been made that it was too little government intervention that caused the issues, not too much...

You are such an idiot still wedded to the idea that "government" is like a God should/could have prevented everything. Did you not realize how vehemently the Congressional members reacted in 1996 when Greenspan merely mentioned "irrational exuberance"? Do you not wonder why crooks like Angelo Mozello still walk free outside of jails? That's how your beloved god government works.

control point says

Gain St. Germain deregulated thrifts and allowed adjustable rate loans. It also allowed S&Ls to offer money market accounts and interest bearing checking/savings accounts. S&Ls were permitted to increase commerical and consumer loans, (higher risk, higher yield) vs. historically mortgage-only, fixed rate loans.

In short, it allowed S&Ls a vehicle to better comepte with commercial banks, who benefitted most from the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act.

Since it was targeted to S&Ls - and S&L's are what failed - I would say it was a fair bit more than "minor adjustment."

No. The 1980's Act allowed banks into what had previously been S&L space. The 1982 Act was a corollary act balancing the previous act. It's the banks moving into S&L's previously protected space that eventually led to the S&L bust due to competitive pressure.

Obligatory: