patrick.net

spydah_hh says

Ohhhhh and you do?!

Yes, it appears I know more than he does.

spydah_hh says

Are you saying that farm work was easier than factory work? If so then why
did most of the population shift from rural areas to city areas where the
factories were? Hell we see the same thing happening in China and in emerging
markets.

That is a loaded question--there are many reasons, but none of which were because factory work were easier than farm work.

tatupu70 says

Of course they changed the index. Should we still be measuring the price of polaroid cameras? Or 8 track tapes? It is NECESSARY to change the basket of goods to reflect changing times and changing tastes.

If they didn't change the index, it would be useless.

Okay, so answer this question. If inflation was a none issue and incomes have been on par with inflation. Then why does a household need two wage earners today where back in the 50s and before you could get by with one?

Please explain that to me Einstein.

Also the article that thunderlips provided is getting some major backlash from it's own comments. Needless to say it was biased and incorrect.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

Ohhhhh and you do?!

Yes, it appears I know more than he does.

spydah_hh says

Are you saying that farm work was easier than factory work? If so then why

did most of the population shift from rural areas to city areas where the

factories were? Hell we see the same thing happening in China and in emerging

markets.

That is a loaded question--there are many reasons, but none of which were because factory work were easier than farm work.

And yet you somehow know while the rest of us don't. Please get out of here with your bullshyt.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

LOL... So it's "IMPOSSIBLE to know" whether they were necessary... but "..the consequences of no bailouts was so dire..."

In other words, you believe they were absolutely necessary but simply don't have the honesty or balls to state so directly.

You're right---I should have said--the potential consequences....

But--I have stated it honestly and directly. You guys just seem to have a very difficult time understanding it.

Right, let's test your consistency and honesty ....

tatupu70 says

...My position is now, and always has been, that nobody can know whether the
bailouts were necessary. Because it's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

Given that, and that the [potential] consequences of no bailouts was so dire, I think
it's very naive of you guys to pretend that the bailouts were a horrible idea
and that things would have been fine without them.

So would you then also agree that it is very naive of those who pretend the bailouts were absolutely, unquestionably essential, and that the country's or world's economic system would have definitely collapsed without them ... Since of course it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to know?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

fought with a naked man outside their Delray Beach home

Of course he's naked. They always are.

Now you guys know what I have to put up with. All my neighbors are like this.

spydah_hh says

Okay, so answer this question. If inflation was a none issue and incomes have
been on par with inflation. Then why does a household need two wage earners
today where back in the 50s and before you could get by with one?

Please explain that to me Einstein.

Also the article that thunderlips provided is getting some major backlash
from it's own comments. Needless to say it was biased and incorrect.

There are several different questions there, actually, and several different answers. When you speak of incomes--you must specify--are you refering to overall wages/salaries, median, average? Inequality has hurt the median wages.

More importantly, however, is the standard of living is much better now. And I think you're wrong that it takes two incomes now in most of the US.

Paralithodes says

So would you then also agree that it is very naive of those who pretend the
bailouts were absolutely, unquestionably essential, and that the country's or
world's economic system would have definitely collapsed without them ... Since
of course it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to know?

OK--I'm not playing your word parsing games. Unless you are incredibly dense, you understand what I said. Either way--it's pointless to continue down this road with you.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Oh dear, you really seem to be losing it more and more the closer you get to becoming worm food.

Have your fun now, because you will pay later. Remember what I said Bigsby. Your words are recorded by a higher power. You don't think he will forget do you?

Is 'he' recording all your hoax drivel as well? Falsely accusing parents of faking their childrens' deaths can't exactly be a good thing. And hey, maybe God is a zionist...

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

I should say to you that as the real estate market has done the exact opposite of what all the perma-bears predicted on here for the last 3 years that you should finally admit that all your conspiracy/zionist nonsense is the utter bullshit it so clearly is. How about that?

People did predict a dead cat bounce. That is what this is unless the masses can get a down payment from the government.

They weren't predicting a 3 year dead cat bounce FFS. And it's quite possible that house prices will see a modest rise this year. What will you say then?

bgamall4 says

I just know what I am talking about.

That gave me a good laugh.

Bigsby says

They weren't predicting a 3 year dead cat bounce FFS. And it's quite possible
that house prices will see a modest rise next year. What will you say then?

LOL, that it didn't happen. C'mon, parrots are hard to retrain.

Oh, and the reason why is because of some diabolical zionist plot to make tomatoes rot faster.

Bigsby says

Call it
Crazy says

Bigsby
says

The report doesn't say the recovery is a fraud. The blogger says that.

What's your point... That the blogger can't write what he wants on his
blog??

The point quite obviously is that someone saying it doesn't prove it. You are
the one quoting him. Oh let me guess, you are just the messenger...

LOL, now you've gone and done it............because he'll endlessly annoy the shit out of you and everybody else demanding that you 'disprove' something that he has never proven, essentially something that you can't ever do.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby
says

The report doesn't say the recovery is a fraud. The blogger says that.

What's your point... That the blogger can't write what he wants on his
blog??

So you've finally admitted as such that the blogger writes what he wants, not what is true.

I know, buy gold or something, the sky is falling...........

Here was my request for some info that should be widely available from any legit source because of what you claim:

Call it Crazy says

upisdown
says

And, as I've asked plenty of times before this, if it's such a known fact
then you shouldn't have any trouble whatsoever finding a legitimate site, or
facts, and data to establish what you're trying to imply.

And WTF do you do? Ya double-down on your nonsensical bullshit and reference MORE f-n blogs in some bizarro world way of trying to validate your endless, moronic and ideological thoughts and rants based upon OTHER bullshit blog rants!!

F-n surreal.

tatupu70 says

ndigenous says

Factory work drew people to it because of it was easier.

lol--you obviously didn't work in a factory back then...

It was easier than farming

Call it Crazy says

So, for the Sixth or Seventh time,(I've lost count) feel free to disprove
this data with your own links, charts or data...

I'm waiting....... Again....

LOL, sorry if I can't relate to your circle-jerk and tail chasing routine, or that I ever will.

Again, you're asking me to disprove something that isn't true, which is impossible.

What's next in your routine of moronic BS, telling me to prove god doesn't exist?

control point says

indigenous says

No what they had to roll was 5 billion, this was impetus for Immelt crying

wolf.

They had to roll 5 billion at that particular point, but their total short term borrowings (as reflected on their balance sheet) was $193 billion. That is the amount of debt they have to roll in the short term, by definition.

If you have a $5 bill due today, and $193 due over the next year - and do not have enough cash to cover the $193 nor do you expect to generate $193 in operating profits over the next year, you are going broke.

The hysteria was about now.

Call it Crazy says

upisdown
says

LOL, I won't have to, remember that you supposedly live in New Jersey, and
this same snow storm front is hitting you apparently as I type this. Again,
SUPPOSEDLY.

..Another Winter Storm Batters the East Coast

By DAN GOOD and MAX
GOLEMBO | Good Morning America – 3 hours
ago

..http://gma.yahoo.com/another-snow-storm-batters-east-coast-091549330--abc-news-topstories.html?vp=1

Maybe you just want to tell us again Today how yesterday's snow fall affected
house sales last year...

That was rich....

For a dipshit, you sure are the luckiest one ever. Hurricane Sandy, and now some major snowstorm and yet you NEVER lose power.

We couldn't be that lucky. My cousin that moved there to help with the Sandy recovery(against my advice, of course he now regrets)doesn't have power though.

But not you, let me guess...........you have a generator..............................................that runs on propane.

Call it Crazy says

How's the snow in your area today??

Affecting house sales in 2013 yet?? Just checking....

Or, is there another fairy tale you want to tell us today??

Don't know, or care, and as I've previously said I don't follow the number of sales of homes on a daily, or even weekly basis because it's pointless.

Call it Crazy says

How's the snow in your area today??

Oh, piled up in huge piles, so much that the city is panicking about spreading out the huge piles so when the snow melts it won't flood streets and be dangerous when the water refreezes at night and cause further damage to the streets and curb/storm intakes.
So, now after I've been paid to remove that snow from large areas or lots and pile it into massive piles, I get to move it into a bunch of spread out small piles, and get paid for it.

bgamall4 says

indigenous says

It is pretty trippy how debt and leverage control this country.

As Larry Summers said, you have bubbles or you have depression. Of course there is a third way, regulate the bankers in their pushing up commodity prices and let the markets be free. But then, you have to make sure QE gets into the hands of the people.

I would not take what Larry Summers says to the bank

There is a third option...

Call it Crazy says

I have to give you credit... You can definitely spew keyboard diarrhea
without ever providing one piece of usable information!!

That's pretty rich coming from the internet real estate analyst/mogul. I was about to type that 'Donald Trump you're not', but thought about that and remembered how everything that he touches turns to shit.

Isn't your presence required over at The Burning Platform, or shouldn't you be tweeting the magic and wonders of buying gold?

Excellent information and most of here on Patrick have been in the know. Sadder is that we here are a minority, and that most of the citizens believe the news, in fairy tales, the tooth fairy and that their government and politicians are our friends...

Call it Crazy says

Wow, sounds horrible... I bet that will really have an affect on house sales
last year in 2013 in your area....

What are you, 12? Why is that you extremist morons are always so obnoxious and repetitive?
It's bad enough that you you burp out the same nonsense over and over and over............but you never learn anything in the process. Don't you ever tire of being so f-n stupid? My gosh, I actually truly feel sorry for you, I shouldn't considering the extent that you've gone to to annoy me, but I do. Have you been this way your whole life, or just since you've discovered the internet and think that it's an outlet to express yourself, or make some scratch antagonizing people? Here's one of the many examples:

BTW, I'm STILL waiting for YOUR charts, data points, links or graphs... (Hell will freeze over before we get them though...)

LOL, see what I mean? Again, I'm not implying ANYTHING, nor have I other than calling you outon your usual BS. FWIW, I think that it's a toss up between you being an idiot, or liar. You're actually pretty adept at both. If only there was a more productive way for you to utilize those traits.

Oh well, never mind, I don't really care, and I shouldn't have went along with your BS as much as I did, and any further responses to you is just continuing your antics and giving you a stage for it, which should be discouraged, not ENcouraged. I hope that you get rich doing what you're doing, I doubt it, but I guess that it's better than you robbing people with a gun.

Good luck.

Dan8267 says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

fought with a naked man outside their Delray Beach home

Of course he's naked. They always are.

Now you guys know what I have to put up with. All my neighbors are like this.

Sounds like a slow day in Berkeley. The naked cannibal anarchy is so commmonplace its not even newsworthy anymore.

indigenous says

I would not take what Larry Summers says to the bank

Yep. That would be dangerous ;)

indigenous says

No plan is necessary. Just quit increasing the money supply, which decidedly benefits the rich.

Agreed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/06/florida-house-aims-to-protect-school-kids-who-play-with-imaginary-guns/

Phew, at least our elementary student will be well armed with a finger gun to fend them off.

I mean, you can criticize SSE all you want and some criticism may be valid, but anybody who thinks they increase general wealth and improve the economy by turning $100 into $200 via a printing press should rethink before tackling more complex economic problems ;)

mell says

indigenous
says

I would not take what Larry Summers says to the bank

Yep. That would be dangerous ;)

indigenous
says

No plan is necessary. Just quit increasing the money supply, which decidedly
benefits the rich.

Agreed.

So, explain just how it works out for the masses and against the plutocrats if you starve the economy of money and unemployment goes up, bankruptcys increase, stocks are sold, or worse for losses to survive, etc., etc.,....................

Call it Crazy says

... You haven't provided NOTHING of substance through this whole thread

So he's provided something of substance then. What have you been complaining about all this time?

upisdown says

So, explain just how it works out for the masses and against the plutocrats if you starve the economy of money and unemployment goes up, bankruptcys increase, stocks are sold, or worse for losses to survive, etc., etc.,....................

There is no solution to this because recessions are a naturally occurring phenomenon. But they come and go, and they benefit people in the long term to save for worse times, take the Germans for example who don't blow bubbles although the wealth disparity is just a tad less than in the US. The US is next to go through that transformation and become a bigger nation of savers again.

indigenous says

It would be interesting if CP posts the times when inequality was at it's
greatest.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

Figure 3, its the best I could find. Rising from 1931 due to austerity measures until the recession of 1936-37 allowed Roosevelt to increase spending, enacted the WPA, SSA, and Wagner Act.

All fine and dandy until the deregulation boom started in the late 1970s, then trending upwards ever since. Trending upwards since 2009 due to the recovery...as it did in 2003, 1994, and 1982. You simply cannot look at a short time period and correlate the data to anything - there are other factors.

However, over the long term - there was a fundamental shift in the late 1930s through the late 1970s of a decline in inequality. This started with increasingly progressive tax rates, strengthened labor unions, and social programs.

This trend ended and was revered starting in the late 1970s - after a fundamental shift was undertaken regarding progressive income taxes, regulations, and weakening of labor unions. This trend has maintained an overall positive slope through 4 major recessions. The low level of inequality in the early 90s recession was much higher than the high level of inequality during the go-go mid 1980s. The low in inequality after the mid 90s recession was higher than any time during the 1980s and even the feel good Gulf War early 1990s. The low level of inequality after the "Great Recession" was barely lower than it was at the peak of the tech boom.

Look at the chart - it has two inflection points. What happened in the late 1930s and late 1970s that completely changed the slope of inequality? I have given my theories - what are yours?

Look, I am not advocating removing any safety nets here, neither am I putting myself into the Austrian corner (who started that anyways?), all I am saying I believe a nation must embrace capital formation and curb debt-driven spending and let interest rates adjust. And I am saying that logic defies the notion that printing money - even worse when injecting it at the top - increases the general state of any economy (same goes for permanent price controls). That's all. If that's Austrian, so be it.

mell says

There is no solution to this because recessions are a naturally occurring
phenomenon.

No, they're not like a tornado, it takes deliberate actions on behalf of various people to make a recession.

My questions were in response to this remark by you:

mell says

If increasing the money supply would benefit everyone instead of just the
first-in-line receivers (banks, wealthy, connected), why don't they allow every
poor and middle-class schmuck to print their own money (you can even limit the
max. amount if you want to be fancy)?

A $17 trillion dollar economy doesn't run on 50 bucks, and acting as if it does is disingenuous, just as much as claiming that there's some ultimate and grand benefit to spending money first, when the process of the monetary system functions.

upisdown says

A $17 trillion dollar economy doesn't run on 50 bucks, and acting as if it does is disingenuous, just as much as claiming that there's some ultimate and grand benefit to spending money first, when the process of the monetary system functions.

If you encourage people to take on more debt even for less interest by depressing rates, the economy will never be on sound footing. And as long as there is no fairness enforced, as long as bankers who committed clear cut fraud, can't recall where the 500 million in their untouchable (by law) customer accounts went, roam free or worse, continue to get million dollar bonuses and pay raises instead of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, your only hope is that they get wiped out in the next recession and there are no grand solutions, certainly not QE. The people who are smart enough to save will likely diversify outside of US territory on such a negative outlook (which will hurt the economy further).

mell says

The US is next to go through that transformation and become a bigger nation of savers again.

Do you see this because of international currency re-balancing?

mell says

If you encourage people to take on more debt even for less interest by
depressing rates, the economy will never be on sound footing. And as long as
there is no fairness enforced, as long as bankers who committed clear cut fraud,
can't recall where the 500 million in their untouchable (by law) customer
accounts went, roam free or worse, continue to get million dollar bonuses and
pay raises instead of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, your
only hope is that they get wiped out in the next recession and there are no
grand solutions,

All that to repeat what you've already said?

mell says

certainly not QE.

Is that not an asset swap? Yes, it artificially inflates bank reserves when they were never reserve restricted anyway.

control point says

Look at the chart - it has two inflection points. What happened in the late 1930s and late 1970s that completely changed the slope of inequality? I have given my theories - what are yours?

Mine is simple when the money supply increased it benefited the rich by being able to invest ahead of the inflation. This is indicated on your graph and mine in the late 20s and again in the 2000s.

indigenous says

Mine is simple when the money supply increased it benefited the rich by being
able to invest ahead of the inflation. This is indicated on your graph and mine
in the late 20s and again in the 2000s.

So money supply didn't increase from the late 1930s through the late 1970s?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=rLx

I don't think so....

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

And wow, I have 12 ignores all gained when I was arguing with Darrell 2 years ago. Shocking stuff.

Pretty much, since you never bring anything of substance to the discussion....

Then we share something in common apparently.