patrick.net

El HydroCabron says

The Onion Proposed the Dodge Ream, a car you can fuck.

Why do smart phones lack the proper receptacles and protuberances to fulfill ALL of our needs?

I think AF has a flame thrower that goes 20 feet on his, but its a one-shot.

CrazyMan says

Do you know how many times you can shoot yourself with a nail gun before dying?

He was actually trying to commit suicide with duct tape. It didn't work until he used the nail gun to hold the duct tape in place.

Call it Crazy says

indigenous says

I am reading that gold is going to go down to at least $700.00 maybe $250.00

Then why has it been going UP for the last month and a half??

Got me, we are definetly in a deflationary period.

indigenous says

I am reading that gold is going to go down to at least $700.00 maybe $250.00

The main reason is that we are in deflation NOT inflation.

Commoditiy prices are going down which is affecting countries like Australia. Gold is not just money it is a commodity.

Japan, Germany, US, China are all going to or are going through a demographic decline.

I would LOVE some deflation.

Who doesn't want a new Porsche 911 for $20,000, or a mansion in New York or Beverly Hills for $100,000?

Homeboy says

tatupu70 says

I'm not sure what you are saying. What does going to zero have to do with it?

If you had to climb the stairs up 50% of a building, would you rather climb 50% of a one-story building, or 50% of a 100-story building?

In the 18 months leading up to the 1929 crash the DJIA jumped from 200 to 375 a change of +88%, then crashing back down to about 200. In the 18 months previous to now the DJIA has climbed from 12500 to 16000, a change of +28% following roughly the same pattern as the DJIA leading up to the 1929 crash. The trend was identified in November and has tracked - roughly - the 1929 pattern from then till now.

IF the DJIA were to follow the trend it would drop to 12500ish, not to zero.

Call it Crazy says

indigenous says

I am reading that gold is going to go down to at least $700.00 maybe $250.00

Then why has it been going UP for the last month and a half??

Because everyone hates cash.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

I can't live more than 2 minutes without committing a heinous satanically-inspired financial crime.

Fuck you peasants.

Right, because who'd fuck you, anyway, ASSHOLE!

This is who:

+

Call it Crazy says

Mark D says

foreclosures have to to rise 10 times for prices to go back to 2009-2010.

have fun waiting.

With the current low inventory situation, it won't take a high percentage of foreclosures to come on the market to drag down prices....

but foreclosures lead to higher level of inventory.

you are still incorrect regardless. prices cannot go down with this level of inventory.

Oh, and Karen, your computer wife, has nothing to do with it.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

stuff your cock into cell phone.

You can stuff your cock into a flesh light, view your partner on a virtual sex download and get it all the time....I call it safe sex!

New Renter says

In the 18 months leading up to the 1929 crash the DJIA jumped from 200 to 375 a change of +88%, then crashing back down to about 200. In the 18 months previous to now the DJIA has climbed from 12500 to 16000, a change of +28% following roughly the same pattern as the DJIA leading up to the 1929 crash. The trend was identified in November and has tracked - roughly - the 1929 pattern from then till now.

IF the DJIA were to follow the trend it would drop to 12500ish, not to zero.

Exactly. In the early 20th Century, a rise of only 175 represented 88% of the DOW's value, as you say. Since the DOW is currently above 16,000, a huge runup represents a smaller percentage of that total number, yet it is still a huge runup. And 200 was just the first bounce; the DOW crashed all the way to 41 in the 1930s, I believe.

I was musing yesterday on Joe Biden's comments about there not really being a Republican Party in the sense of his wanting to sit down and debate one representative.

That more than anything says it all. Republicans are a collection of individuals who cannot bind themselves together approaching anything like the size and rigidity of the Centralized State of the Democrats, hence, we're everyone who can't fit in the slots. At the same time, we would never try to sqeeze into something like that.

Call it Crazy says

Why waste your time... The hostage lived... You got your unlimited credit line for the next year....

Move on.....

Why move on when watching publicans shoot themselves is so much fun? And, if your intention is to appear well-informed, perhaps you should spend a little time studying what the debt-ceiling is before you describe it as an unlimited credit line.

Aw shit, who am I kidding? Being well-informed is perhaps the last thing you'd be interested in.

New Renter says

IF the DJIA were to follow the trend it would drop to 12500ish, not to zero.

Again--who is talking about dropping to zero?? I'm saying the scales on the graphs are completely misleading. The top of the left scale should be about 26000 rather than ~18000. If you used percentages, this would be obvious.

John Bailo says

hat more than anything says it all. Republicans are a collection of individuals who cannot bind themselves together approaching anything like the size and rigidity of the Centralized State of the Democrats, hence, we're everyone who can't fit in the slots. At the same time, we would never try to sqeeze into something like that.

Which means that in a democracy -- even one as frail as ours - your ideas will be marginalized and discarded.

Homeboy says

Since the DOW is currently above 16,000, a huge runup represents a smaller percentage of that total number, yet it is still a huge runup.

No it's really not. Percentage terms are a much better gauge than absolute numbers for obvious reasons.

tatupu70 says

No it's really not. Percentage terms are a much better gauge than absolute numbers for obvious reasons.

Is that what investors were thinking in October of 2007 too?

The DJIA had *only* climbed from 11100 from 2/17/2006 to 14016 on 10/11/2007

That's*only* a 27% gain of its value over the same time period as the period before the 1929 crash.

New Renter says

Is that what investors were thinking in October of 2007 too?

The DJIA had *only* climbed from 11100 from 2/17/2006 to 14016 on 10/11/2007

That's*only* a 27% gain of its value over the same time period as the period before the 1929 crash.

I'm not even sure what you are implying here? Investors (should) buy and sell based on future projections of profits/cash flows. Not based on the point gain in an index over some arbitrary time period.

tatupu70 says

mell says

When the debt ceiling is restricted you cannot spend because you know you cannot pay back

All evidence to the contrary. What the hell have we been doing over the last 10 years then???

Extending the debt ceiling usually more than once a year.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

ApocalyspeFuck can lick my hairy old butthole. I will never be in handcuffs.

FUCK YOU, SATANIC OLD FUCK!

You're going to the superman in Florence, CO in a wedding dress to be presented to cannibal neomazi serial killers as their new bride.

In your dreams nancy-boy.

I own the private prison CORPORATIONS.

I decide who get's thrown inside those cages full of savages.

Guess what?

Your on the list, peasant.

We will first give you a full sex change operation. Estrogen shots, full body and face laser hair removal, facial feminization surgery, Adam's apple removal, Vaginal construction...

And than we will give you a wedding dress and a 100 different husbands to test drive your new tight wet pink transsexual pussy.

All the medical expenses will be financed by me.

Enjoy the orgasms from your new pussy.

PS. If you catch any nasty STDS like clap, herpes and maybe perhaps HIV... The medical expenses will be on me for their treatment. I want to keep you alive as long as possible.

John Bailo says

Also, show me one really funny joke that SNL has done about Democrat politics in the last 5 years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/29/snl_mocks_obamacare_rollout.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/08/saturday-night-live-lampoons-al-sharptons-politics-nation/

https://screen.yahoo.com/weekend-eliot-spitzer-000000704.html

Ceffer says

It seems a lot of parents, after raising them, spend the rest of their lives bribing them to stick around, or following them from place to place.

Isn't this phenomena known as the Boomerbang kids? Young adults, who never seem to blossom into true adults, as a result of knowing that there's always a place to go back to, than to deal with the reality of sharing 3 bedrooms with ex-classmates, dealing with annoying entry level jobs, the commute, and so forth?

Already on my long list of reasons not to have kids.

They don't call it Florence for nothing.

You forgot extracting teeth, to get that extra special suction that 300 lb. tattooed inmate bubbas crave so much. Even the warden jumps in.

tatupu70 says

Percentage terms are a much better gauge than absolute numbers for obvious reasons.

But that's my point entirely. It doesn't seem "obvious" to me at all. What are these "obvious" reasons you speak of?

What seems obvious to me is that the indices move up over time as a general rule. So obviously, as the values get higher and higher, the movement up and down is going to always be ABOVE a certain threshold. I would consider it a virtual impossibility that the DOW would crash all the way down to 41, as it did in the 1930s. So why would we want to consider a movement up or down as a percentage of the ENTIRE value, when the range of movement is only above a certain level? As I said, that would imply that the movement could potentially be in the entire range of that value - that it could potentially move down close to zero - which isn't a practical possibility.

tatupu70 says

Investors (should) buy and sell based on future projections of profits/cash flows. Not based on the point gain in an index over some arbitrary time period.

So you don't think there is ANY value in analyzing markets as a whole, no matter how bloated they become? Does common sense never enter the picture, even when you are paying a million dollars for a tulip bulb? How well would this strategy have worked in 2008?

You don't recognize ANY pattern in this inflation-adjusted graph? Are there any times in history where the upward slope is this steep, that didn't result in a correction?

Homeboy says

But that's my point entirely. It doesn't seem "obvious" to me at all. What are these "obvious" reasons you speak of?

It's pretty simple. If your investment consists of $10K of the DJIA:

Case 1-- Bought index at 1000, then lose 200 points
Case 2-- Bought index at 10,000 then lose 200 points

In Case 1 the value of your investment is $8K
In Case 2 the value of your portfolio is $9.8K

Do you see why percentages are better now?

Homeboy says

You don't recognize ANY pattern in this graph? Are there any times in history where the upward slope is this steep, that didn't result in a correction?

Put the correct scaling on the Y-axis and get back to me.

Call it Crazy says

Here we go with percentages again....

OK, which sounds better??:

Company A reports 100% growth in sales from last month

Company B reports 1% growth in sales from last month

By "percentages", who has had better growth??

If you made investment decisions based on "percentages" only, like in the this example, which company would you put your money in??

Now, lets look at absolute numbers:

Company A sold 1 widget last month and sold 2 widgets this month

Company B sold 100 widgets last month and sold 101 widgets this month

Still think percentages are a better obvious gauge??

Not withstanding that this is a poor example, the answer is probably yes. The price of a company that sold 1 unit is probably pennies. So, if it increases sales, the price will rise much faster than the company that went from 100 to 101.

But, in any event, we're not talking about company sales--we're talking about the DJIA index.

Call it Crazy says

No, YOU were talking about percentages being a much better gauge than absolute numbers (which it isn't). Doesn't matter if it's sales or the DJIA, the math doesn't lie...

lol--I really can't believe you can't get this. I'm not sure I can explain it any more plainly. If you can't see the difference in a 100 point fall when the index is at 10,000 versus when the index is at 1,000--I don't think I can help you.

Call it Crazy says

the math doesn't lie...

By the way--you are correct about that. I just don't think you understand how the math works.

mell says

Extending the debt ceiling usually more than once a year.

depends on how often they want to pull our chain.

mell says

When the debt ceiling is restricted you cannot spend because you know you cannot pay back

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=s9e

the "debt limit" is just BS.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=s7P

blue is GDP, red is debt less Fed and SSTF.

"It's pretty simple. If your investment consists of $10K of the DJIA:
Case 1-- Bought index at 1000, then lose 200 points
Case 2-- Bought index at 10,000 then lose 200 points
In Case 1 the value of your investment is $8K
In Case 2 the value of your portfolio is $9.8K
Do you see why percentages are better now?"

No, I only see that using unadjusted dollars is wrong. That doesn't prove using percentages is right.

" Put the correct scaling on the Y-axis and get back to me"

Huh? What do you think is wrong with the scale? It's an inflation adjusted chart. That may be why it looks strange to you.

I am sick of both. Both parties spend excessively, both parties favor NSA, both parties are in favor of massive free trade agreements and shipping even more jobs offshore.

The United States will borrow money to pay its bills till it collapses from debt. Until then there is no other way of convincing a fiscally and morally degenerate electorate to stop borrowing money. 17 Trillion plus is the tip of the iceberg that would sink any ship. 100 Trillion plus in unfunded liabilities is a tsunami. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Give me Liberty says

morally degenerate

Returning to the OP, here we see the other side of the Republican civil war, and the reason why Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. If you insist on insulting other people's "morality" (a term that people define very differently) and especially if you insist on attacking their families, don't expect them to vote for you. Misguided "morality" crusades are red meat for Republicans, even more rotten than the rotten fish that Democrats impose on everyone. The difference between midterm and general elections is around 40 million voters; within the Republican party, a plurality of primary voters can lick the blood off their rotten red meat and nominate candidates who might win a midterm, but can't win a general election.

OK, let's start by clarifying "world" vs "1st world." I read a bit about the various definitions of 1st world countries, and the most neutral seemed to be countries with the biggest GDP. The top three are USA, China, and Japan.

Prior to Obamacare, the USA already had EMTALA, which "gives" emergency care to everyone, but then even "charity" hospitals attempt to collect ridiculous prices from anyone who can pay. Where they can't get blood from a stone, EMTALA hospitals are paid via Medicare, i.e. hospitals that choose to accept Medicare must comply with EMTALA. They can make so much $$$ off Medicare that they almost all opt into it. Now, with Obamacare, we are seeing the construction of new hospitals with no emergency departments so they can profit off Obamacare elective procedures without having to sully their hands providing emergency care to the 30 million Americans who will remain uninsured (without even counting the 10 million undocumented aliens).

#2 is China. They are in the process of reforming healthcare, but they do have emergency medical insurance paid partly via government, with copayments by individual citizens both for the insurance itself and to the providers.

#3 is Japan. They don't have single payer. The government regulates provider prices, and prohibits insurance companies from taking a profit on basic medical insurance. Everyone can buy insurance via either their employer or municipality. In theory, everyone is required to buy insurance, but there is no penalty for the 10% of individual persons who choose not to buy it.

Many books and articles have been written about the diversity of medical care around the world, and the diversity of payment mechanisms. The subject does not lend itself to blanket statements. Someone with Dan's perseverance could probably work through more of the 1st world countries, but an Internet forum comment doesn't usually merit the time; anyone actually interested can read elsewhere. By veering into medical insurance, you are veering off topic in your own thread; Republicans are not having a civil war over the merits of Obamacare or other systems around the world, but rather about what to do with tea party fanatics threatening to shut down the entire federal government here at home.