patrick.net

tatupu70 says

mell says

Note that this ill always benefit the wealthiest (most leveraged) the most.

Not really--as we've discussed before. A rich person losing 50% of his wealth is much, much less harmful than a working stiff losing his job.

We discussed this before indeed. The working stiff losing his old job would find a new job that can pay more because the new employer has a chance to buy the previous employer's assets at fire-sale prices. Both Google and Amazon in their early years were well known for picking up equipment and office furniture from failed dot-com's. Less money spent on hardware, rent and servicing debt, the more money to pay employees and devote to customers.

Your paymaster the banksters don't like that, but prefer the old debt stay, and have the cost transferred to other people, leading to market place clog-up and long term unemployment for the working stiff.

Reality says

Both Google and Amazon in their early years were well known for picking up equipment and office furniture from failed dot-com's. Less money spent on hardware, rent and servicing debt, the more money to pay employees and devote to customers.

LOL that profit margins and economic value captured by workers is determined by anything more than the market. A new employer also gets to buy employees at fire sale prices.

tatupu70 says

Not really--as we've discussed before. A rich person losing 50% of his wealth is much, much less harmful than a working stiff losing his job.

Not really...

Assuming a)So called rich person, loses 50% of his wealth, which could be 100% of his growth, if he started with that 50% originally. Not only that, that other 50% may have been what he depends on to maintain his bills. His income has just been cut in half. Anyone with a Mortgage and Bills knows they don't want half. The guy who lost half his income probably hasn't been working and is considered Dopped out of the workforce, and will have a hell of time getting a job to build back up nest egg. And his bills will be draining the remainder of his nest egg, faster every month as he pays bills. The interest he earns will be less.

b)The guy who lost a good job, if he was at least smart enough to save a years worth of salary, has a year buffer. And he is fresh in the job market. He'll probably bounce back quickly and not have to use more than a month or two of his savings.

Just because people have a million if they are trying to live off it, they are on a set fixed income. There is no room for error. I realize up to a point you have enough money to live indefinitely regardless how you manage your resources. But I'm not talking about extremely wealthy people or people who have wealth because they were finance and investing savvy. Many people come into money, save up enough money(not likely anymore), win a lotto pool, or some other windfall means. They don't automatically become magnates and moguls. And for this argument, I'm talking about people with only 1mil to 2mil, that is just enough to manage a meager income through.

Those people who don't consider their money how ever they have it tied up earning them income, don't consider any of it "Mad Money" or in any way disposable.

It's why when you ask a relative or Friend who you think is rich, for a decent chunk of change, you ever notice they say...

"I don't have THAT kind of Money."

They have some Money, but it's not That kind of money.

edvard2 says

I'm breaking my own rules again by responding here, but the answer to this concern is easy. Simply put, and as I've mentioned a zillion times like a broken record, the overall stock market has delivered an average, long-term return of between 7-10% a year for well over 100+ years. People think I'm stupid for saying so, but look it up.

You are looking at stock indices themselves with dividend reinvested without taking into consideration transaction costs. Index funds are not the same as indices with dividends reinvested. Funds have transaction cost and tax cost when trying to track indices, which have very different stocks over a long period of time. Managed funds have even higher transaction costs.

That's a better return than real estate, and its a more consistent return than just about any other investment one could make.

You are forgetting the dividend payment on real estate (rent income or owner equivalent rent), and the leverage allowed.

control point says

Reality says

Both Google and Amazon in their early years were well known for picking up equipment and office furniture from failed dot-com's. Less money spent on hardware, rent and servicing debt, the more money to pay employees and devote to customers.

LOL that profit margins and economic value captured by workers is determined by anything more than the market. A new employer also gets to buy employees at fire sale prices.

Did average hourly wage drop by more than 50% during the market crash of 2008-09? Market crash is when the wage earners win big viz the capital owners.

Reality says

Market crash is when the wage earners win big viz the capital owners.

Only if they keep their jobs...

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Market crash is when the wage earners win big viz the capital owners.

Only if they keep their jobs...

No. They get a deal from the new employer who doesn't have to service the old debt, and they get a better deal from the liquidation sales themselves.

Reality says

Did average hourly wage drop by more than 50% during the market crash of 2008-09? Market crash is when the wage earners win big viz the capital owners.

Wages didn't drop?

Why is 50% chosen?

You think this, showing non-supervisory wages as a percentage of GDP falling from 32.7% to 30.8% over the past 5 years is not related to Corporate profits after tax as a percentage of GDP increasing from 7.2% to 11.1% of GDP?

It is important to note we are talking about what happens after the crash, not during it. Capitalists get fire sale prices after the liquidation event. So lets examine 2009 onward.

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

It's called karma and it's a bitch.

With a $10 million windfall, you could easily and I mean really easily purchase a multisector bond fund and make over $330,000 per year at todays rates. Yes, you would need to pay your fed taxes no matter what at regular rates and depending on the state that you reside in you may need to pay taxes there as well, but you would automatically be in the top 3% of all households financially off of this passive income! I wouldn't even care about NAV fluctuations at that point since the worst that this fund has done over the last 10 years is a little over 11% loss and this was in 2008.

Reality says

No. They get a deal from the new employer who doesn't have to service the old debt, and they get a better deal from the liquidation sales themselves.

lol-yes, that's certainly what we're seeing right now. The unemployed are getting great deals, aren't they?

Seriously--why in the hell would you think that employees would get BETTER deals when the supply of unemployed labor is higher.

Reality says

Bull run stock markets produce the inequality that you guys decry so much.

You've got it backwards. Companies cut wages so that more cash went to the owners. That increased the value of the stock.

Inequality creates bull runs of stocks.

tatupu70 says

supply of unemployed labor is higher

Slight correction. Demand for labor is lower. Supply of labor is unaffected.

control point says

Did average hourly wage drop by more than 50% during the market crash of 2008-09? Market crash is when the wage earners win big viz the capital owners.

Wages didn't drop?

Why is 50% chosen?

Are you so ignorant as not to realize that the stock market dropped more than 50% during the crash? SPX was in the 1500's near its peak in 2007, dropping to 666 at the bottom in early 2009.

You think this, showing non-supervisory wages as a percentage of GDP falling from 32.7% to 30.8% over the past 5 years is not related to Corporate profits after tax as a percentage of GDP increasing from 7.2% to 11.1% of GDP?

It is important to note we are talking about what happens after the crash, not during it. Capitalists get fire sale prices after the liquidation event. So lets examine 2009 onward.

You are criticizing the result of the FED rescue. The crash took place before 2009.

control point says

Slight correction. Demand for labor is lower. Supply of labor is unaffected.

Supply of unemployed labor is higher. But, you're correct that I should have stated it as you say.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

No. They get a deal from the new employer who doesn't have to service the old debt, and they get a better deal from the liquidation sales themselves.

lol-yes, that's certainly what we're seeing right now. The unemployed are getting great deals, aren't they?

Seriously--why in the hell would you think that employees would get BETTER deals when the supply of unemployed labor is higher.

What we are seeing now is the result of half a decade of FED QE. In case you don't remember, and it certainly doesn't feel like it, the crash took place more than half a decade ago. We are allegedly in recovery for half a decade now. LOL. How is that FED pumped recovery that you advocated so much half a decade ago feeling to you now?

I was thinking the same thing last Sunday when this was a big deal on the Sunday morning news/talk shows. Nobody even dared to make that comment (which is what I was thinking), that is...

It was a private conversation. So the guy is provably a douchebag. But you're using a conversation his girlfriend taped to prove it ? Wtf ?

I had the same feeling when there was all the talk about Clinton getting a sexual favors from an intern. So ? It's his private business. I'm not supposed to know that!

Same thing here. All I can think is that it's because of the irony that he owns an NBA team and made those remarks.

Is it a slow news time? Or is it that there's other news are they trying to move out of the headlines.

Is this meant to distract us from what's happening in the Ukraine ? Which happens to also be somewhat less our business than we want to make it.

Reality says

Are you so ignorant as not to realize that the stock market dropped more than 50% during the crash? SPX was in the 1500's near its peak in 2007, dropping to 666 at the bottom in early 2009.

Are you so ignorant to try to compare the percentage drop of value (and an index of value at that, not absolute value. Does the weight of AAPL in the S&P 500 equal the weight of value of AAPL in the overall corporate marketplace?) with the percentage drop of wages?

tatupu70 says

Supply of unemployed labor is higher. But, you're correct that I should have stated it as you say.

I only say it my way because employers are not limited to hiring only unemployed workers.

tatupu70 says

Seriously--why in the hell would you think that employees would get BETTER deals when the supply of unemployed labor is higher.

It wasn't just I thought they would. They actually did! Because market prices for everything else dropped even faster than wage decline: gasoline went from $4/gallon in 2007 and early 2008 to nearly $2/gallon at bottom in 2009. Median house prices went from near $300k to below $200k.

New employers with reduced debt load would be able to bid up wages more, not necessarily in nominal terms but certainly in purchasing power parity terms.

control point says

Reality says

Are you so ignorant as not to realize that the stock market dropped more than 50% during the crash? SPX was in the 1500's near its peak in 2007, dropping to 666 at the bottom in early 2009.

Are you so ignorant to try to compare the percentage drop of value (and an index of value at that, not absolute value. Does the weight of AAPL in the S&P 500 equal the weight of value of AAPL in the overall corporate marketplace?) with the percentage drop of wages?

What do you mean by "weight of value of AAPL in the overall corporate market place"? Do you just invent stuff on the fly? Market capitalization is what it is.

I don't believe it was taped illegally. According to:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/jfz395/donald-sterling-s-racist-comments

(6 minutes, worth the watch) ... Sterling not only knew he was being recorded, but told her to record him because he couldn't always remember what he said. I assume that this is the source for that:

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-racist-audio-v-stiviano-recorded-clippers/

A fuller version of the audio is here, fwiw:

http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249

control point says

FortWayne says

That's not even remotely true

You don't understand tips then.

I understand tips just fine. I think it's you who is missing the point.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Sterling paid for the team.

So slavery is back?

Reality says

It wasn't just I thought they would. They actually did! Because market prices for everything else dropped even faster than wage decline: gasoline went from $4/gallon in 2007 and early 2008 to nearly $2/gallon at bottom in 2009. Median house prices went from near $300k to below $200k.

New employers with reduced debt load would be able to bid up wages more, not necessarily in nominal terms but certainly in purchasing power parity terms.

No, they didn't! When you are umemployed, it really doesn't matter if gas prices went down by $0.50/gallon now, does it?

New employers pay the market rate for labor. That rate is set by supply and demand. And when demand is down, as control point rightly stated, price will go down as well.

Why does pro-sports have "owners"?

Why isn't it run like a corporation where everyone is an employee of the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB or a subcontractor or vendor?

Strategist says

The law may guarantee FREEDOM from punishment based on beliefs, but society does not. Frankly, I'm willing to look the other way and let the mob have it's way. Let Karma Justice prevail.

By the way, would you vote for a President if something like this came out?

Most people on the left claim Lincoln as the "greatest President," yet he believed that blacks were intellectually inferior, the two races should not mix, and blacks should be shipped back to Africa. Compared to him, Sterling, born 80+ years ago, or half way back to the Civil War era, is practically a saint! Sterling not only was dating a black girl, but was recorded on tape saying he wouldn't mind even sharing his girl with black athletes!. He just preferred not to have that fact come out as a public spectacle via her Instagram pictures.

Reality says

What do you mean by "weight of value of AAPL in the overall corporate market place"? Do you just invent stuff on the fly? Market capitalization is what it is.

Is the weight of AAPL in the S&P 500 equal to the weight of AAPL's market cap in the overall market cap of the country? Even just talking about the stock market - the S&P 500 is not the entire stock market, after all.

The current market cap of the S&P 500 is about 16.8 trillion. Current outstanding US treasuries held by the public is 12.4 Trillion. The S&P fell 50%+. The market value of treasuries didn't fall anywhere near 50%. Someone owns those debt instruments, and they add to that entities net worth.

All of this is to say that comparing the percentage drop in value of a partial segment of the country to income is useless. Especially in the middle of an enormous deleveraging event. Incomes are not leveraged, market caps are.

Reality says

Strategist says

The law may guarantee FREEDOM from punishment based on beliefs, but society does not. Frankly, I'm willing to look the other way and let the mob have it's way. Let Karma Justice prevail.

By the way, would you vote for a President if something like this came out?

Most people on the left claim Lincoln as the "greatest President," yet he believed that blacks were intellectually inferior, the two races should not be mixed, and blacks should be shipped back to Africa. Compared to him, Sterling, born 80 years ago, or dating half way back to the Civil War, is practically a saint! Sterling not only was dating a black girl, but was recorded on tape saying he wouldn't mind even sharing his girl with black athlete!. He just preferred not to have that fact come out as a public spectacle.

If Lincoln, with those views was to run for President today, he would lose in a landslide.
Ironically, Sterling, if he was to run for President 200 years ago could win as it was OK to sleep with black women as long as you did not like Blacks.

Strategist says

If Lincoln, with those views was to run for President today, he would lose in a landslide.

Ironically, Sterling, if he was to run for President 200 years ago could win as it was OK to sleep with black women as long as you did not like Blacks.

He likes blacks, and said so clearly in her recording. He was dating a black women, not just using her like a slave. He was accommodating her free will to such a wide extent that he was recorded on tape by her as saying she could sleep around all she wanted (just don't cause a public spectacle and embarrass him). That's not how slave masters treated slaves, black or white. Heck, most husbands today would not even allow their wives to do that.

tatupu70 says

When you are umemployed, it really doesn't matter if gas prices went down by $0.50/gallon now, does it?

Gas prices went down a lot more than $0.50 gallon and yes it does make a difference.

make a difference. tatupu70 says

That rate is set by supply and demand. And when demand is down, as control point rightly stated, price will go down as well.

And collusion, lets not forget that:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124405584326082111

Isn't what you are describing more natural than "eternal wealth" (without effort).

In nature, everything you take possession of must be fought for, on a daily basis.

A Homesteader, living life on the Plains had to defend his acreage.

A tribe must defend its grazing and planting rights.

Just as earning requires labor -- by brain or muscle -- so too, the holding of wealth requires additional labor.

Does it make sense that someone who developed a 1980s technology is still rewarded even though he has not participated in any innovation since then and may have tried to suppress new technologies?

Sterling was a Democrat but otherwise the point is well taken.

I don't know the NBA franchise rules, but since we have property rights, I wonder if they can take his property and fine him.

The odd thing was I can't find the tape where he said something racist.
A list of possible racist comments would be: "blacks are lazy" "blacks are dirty and smelly" "blacks have low credit scores" "blacks can't swim" "blacks are bad drivers" "blacks are ugly" "blacks are inferior" "blacks are dumb" etc.

Sterling bought the team for $12 million or so, if he sells it he'll make almost $1 billion.

The other absurd thing I heard was he cannot attend any games as a fan? What the hell is this? If he pays the admission they have to let him in.

I think one of the oddest was Lew Alcindor (Kareem Jabbar) commenting about Sterling's racism. Really, a black muslim convert wants to make a statement about hate?

Or that lying sack of shit Sharpton getting into the act?

I suspect that the bimbo/girlfriend/hooker chick had some other motive, maybe it was all deliberate so that Magic could get a team.

If I were a billionaire I TOO would object to my "girlfriend" posing with Magic Johnson, he's admitted to fucking about 10,000 girls and catching AIDS from it. I think it's reasonable to ask your "girlfriend" to not pose with sex addicts.

It's all Obama's fault!!!

Call it Crazy says

2) What happened to the 1st amendment and Freedom of Speech?? When someone gets "hammered" for voicing his personal beliefs, this country has gone WAYYYYYY too far...

Nothing--Sterling is not being arrested. He is being punished by his employer for making comments that hurt the business. Companies fire people all the time for similar actions by their officers.

We can quibble about whether the NBA is really his employer, but that's basically what this boils down to. The NBA is losing sponsorship and that can't happen.

I was strolling west cliff drive yesterday afternoon, saw some whales, checked out this little house for sale. My friend grabbed the flyer.

950 West Cliff Drive, Santa Cruz CA $3.2 million
3 bd, 3.5 baths, etc.
It was sold in 2002 for $1.6 million.

Some Netflix or similar employee with stock options will probably buy it, but it was interesting to see.

1 bd condos just a few hundred feet away were $500K but who knows what the monthy fees are?

Lotta whales out.

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

2) What happened to the 1st amendment and Freedom of Speech?? When someone gets "hammered" for voicing his personal beliefs, this country has gone WAYYYYYY too far...

Nothing--Sterling is not being arrested. He is being punished by his employer for making comments that hurt the business. Companies fire people all the time for similar actions by their officers.

We can quibble about whether the NBA is really his employer, but that's basically what this boils down to. The NBA is losing sponsorship and that can't happen.

NBA is not his employer. He has a franchise. NBA has no right to force him into selling or taking away his team.

The guy was upset at his girlfriend making a spectacle of his accommodating policies regarding who she could fuck with behind his back. More importantly, he was probably set up by Milken and Johnson, who want to buy LA sports teams and raise cable TV rate on sports events (like they did after buying LA Dodgers). What kind of girlfriend would have 100+ hours of illegal taping of their boyfriends conversation while calling him honey-this honey-that?

Reality says

Bull run stock markets produce the inequality that you guys decry so much.

Yep.

Reality says

NBA is not his employer. He has a franchise. NBA has no right to force him
into selling or taking away his team.

Sure they do. No owner is bigger than the league. The NBA decided that he was a detriment to the league and they have every right to protect it from the damage that would be caused not just by bad PR, but by likely loss of fans who attend and watch games as well as sponsor loss.