patrick.net

Hey c'mon Tat. They're trying to feed the hate, and you're killing it with those damn pesky facts again.

clambo says

marcus like lots of lefty liberals can't resist getting nasty and name calling. Why?

Because I thought maybe you were capable of a little refection or introspection, and that even for a moment you might get insight into what criticizing Michelle's trips says about you.

Since you'll never see it, I'll say it again. You're a moronic asshole.

And btw, I never suggested her trips were or are about diplomacy.

Call it Crazy says

Tat... Do you REALLY think her flying to China with the kids and mom was done for diplomacy??? Really??

Do you think the Chinese really give a crap about her (or the US) for that matter??

Read the link I provided--it answers your questions pretty well.

Funny you calling Republicans racist when it's the Democrats who support racist legislation like Affirmative Action.

Call it Crazy says

Snopes..... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha..

Maybe you should provide links from Mother Jones too....

lol--like I've said before. Truth has a liberal bias.

I have not seen any concrete evidence as to how many jobs ZIPR/QE created or saved. All we know is conflicting data that while unemployment rate went down, the labor force participation rate went down which indicates that 1 - population is getting older and 2 - people dropped out of labor force due to "discouragement." So to claim that without ZIRP/QE there would be massive unemployment and depression is at best a guess.

clambo says

I actually have some respect for her. She did what other females with no real talent, brains or looks do, she leveraged what she had into some fame and dough.

I prefer her to Michelle Obama, Michelle's champagne wishes and caviar dreams are paid for by you and me.

She is a gold digger, a slut, a whore, and a back stabber. It's hard to have any respect for a woman like that.
No billionaire is ever gonna trust her.

Call it Crazy says

BTW, Snopes has been proven over and over to be a partisan site, just like Mother Jones...

OK--how about you post one example then. Since it has been proven "over and over", it should be easy.

Call it Crazy says

Hmmm... Who was wrong here???

That was 2013 and now we are in 2014. LOL.

tatupu70 says

We both know he won't respond to your question. His last resort when proven wrong is to try to discredit the source rather than refute the facts. Because the facts are NEVER on his side....

Agreed, the facts are rarely on his side on anything that is unrelated to real estate stats.

Anyone who feels the need to use "liberal" or "conservative" (without knowing what they mean, typically, of course, because they use the moronic Nixonian definitions) as part of their argument usually doesn't have a great argument, which is why they use labeling in the first place. It's fucking lazy and a sign of someone who can't think particularly critically and doesn't really have facts or a logical argument on their side.

yeah, the only people I know on it signed up because they won't have to pay a dime for it.

If you 1. buy your own insurance (e.g. file sched. C) 2. make over $47K
you will have to start underreporting income or pay through the nose for Obamacare.

Sched. C people pay the fine for not having health insurance already today, you're supposed to prepay your estimated taxes every quarter.

Liberals usually either 1. don't file (losers) 2. pay someone to prepare their taxes (limousine liberals) or 3. lazy so they don't know much about tax codes.

Funny if you do your own taxes doing HRBlock you have to be asleep to not learn the tax code a bit just from doing your return a few times.

My father for example has paid a guy his entire life to do his taxes, I am certain he doesn't know the meaning of "1099".

Reality says

According to Morning Star, the year to date SP500 gain is 2.56%, whereas the Vanguard500 YTD gain is only 1.76%. That is significant under-performance.

Not sure where you're getting that:

http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?region=USA&ss=gf&t=VFINX

Morningstar says tracking is off by 0.06% even though its fee is 0.17%. That's the normal investor class.

For Admiral, it's 0.02% with a 0.05% fee:

http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?region=USA&ss=gf&t=VFIAX

Vanguard specifically operates in a way that minimizes fees. I don't know how you'd expect to eliminate transaction costs entirely or what you propose as an alternative. Seems like you're just trying to spread FUD without a real basis.

The suggestion of counterparty risk suggests you don't understand how mutual funds work. I doubt you know anyone who has lost money due to fraud or some sort of accounting shenanigans at a mutual fund. Mutual funds are very regulated ('40 Act). For example, the mutual fund is separate from the company employing the fund's management. In addition, the assets held by the fund are segregated and are generally held by a third party custodian. Mutual funds are also subject to a lot of regulatory oversight and must do a lot of reporting. I believe in some cases, the custodian may also guarantee the assets, or there may be insurance involved. I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative that has lower risk from this standpoint.

zzyzzx says

She had the most sour scowl during Obama's address, when he said he believed in people getting ahead by their own hard work and effort, and being reward for their effort.

bob2356 says

As long as the revenue continues to service the debt then the price of the asset is irrelevant.

It doesn't - that's the point of a recession.

bob2356 says

People in the median get laid off a lot earlier than the top executives

Depends, usually the upper most management survives (CEO/CFO), but in tech most of the middle-layer managers are fired before the producing workers below them. and it's much easier to find a new job with good coding skills than "management" skills, hence the ridiculously high golden parachutes.

control point says

Taking an equity position in a corporation does not mean you take on its leverage. You could buy $1k worth of Citigroup, and if they are leveraged 1000 to 1, it does not mean you have personally taken on $1M in debt.

No, but you invested in a ponzi scheme and are part of the problem.

control point says

The FED clearly has sufficient market size to affect interest rates, but to say that they set interest rates, even in the short term, while they own around 1/6th of the market for treasuries is a bit of a stretch. 5/6th of the price of treasuries is set by the market, after all.

I bet they have more exposure in the guise of indirect bidders, and while they are. better than municipal bonds for sure, they are only safe until they aren't ;) I'd say they have substantial influence in the short term market, lesser in the long-term market.

marcus says

FortWayne says

Speaking of gas prices, what the hell is with the 4.67 / gallon lately? And Obama, got no balls to stand up to oil companies to get this addressed.

Hahahahaha,...ohhhh. You crack me up. Like the President can control the price of oil.

Ohh man. If only you had the slightest clue.

They've done it in the past, I don't see why Obama all of a sudden the first one who can't do it.

You liberals sure make a lot of excuses for your holy one.

marcus says

Hahahahaha,...ohhhh. You crack me up. Like the President can control the price of oil.

Yeah, a lot of people make this illogical ideological claim because they don't understand world oil markets. Not much to do about ignorance.

Reality says

That's why hiring managers always prefer poaching workers who have current jobs over people with long unemployment

Which is why big companies have agreements to NOT do exactly that:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/25/apple_google_intel_and_adobe_settle_employeefiddling_class_action/

RentingForHalfTheCost says

They can not even get 1 bid, let alone multiple bids.

Actually, all of them has 10+ offers. They are just waiting for another 50+ offers. More buyers competing against each other, the better off they are. :)

FortWayne says

They've done it in the past, I don't see why Obama all of a sudden the first one who can't do it.

Typical empty assertion. Are you talking about Ford's "W.I.N." campaign ?
(whip inflation now ?)

Or perhaps the so called Nixons shock ?

Examples ?

(although I get it that you always make shit up to back your opinions. 0

Still waiting....

In 2012/early 2013, the 30 year rate was what 3.375% and the 15 years 2.75%, why would anyone refi in 2014? of course it is dead, boo hoo mortgage lenders. How are you going to sell a refi when the majority already enjoy materially lower rates?

If you need money, just open a HELOC, I am 100% sure HELOC is up and we will hear record HELOC in 2014.

marcus says

FortWayne says

They've done it in the past, I don't see why Obama all of a sudden the first one who can't do it.

Typical empty assertion. Are you talking about Ford's "W.I.N." campaign ?

(whip inflation now ?)

Or perhaps the so called Nixons shock ?

Examples ?

(although I get it that you always make shit up to back your opinions. 0

Did or did not Bush open up the oil reserves when oil prices went up, "coincidentally" close to election?

FortWayne says

Did or did not Bush open up the oil reserves when oil prices went up, "coincidentally" close to election?

You mean the bill passed by Congress that Bush was against, but signed anyway because it would have been overridden?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/19/bush-will-sign-bill-halting-strategic-oil-stockpile/

In any case, the SPR has limited effect on global oil prices and very limited effect long-term. It use has generally been limited to deal with short-term price shocks, and it's unclear how quickly this can affect prices overall anyway -- you want $2 gas for 5 minutes at some unspecifiable time a few weeks from now? The SPR can probably do that.

The Energy Secretary agreed (you know, the one that certain people want to eliminate by eliminating the DoE):
Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and others counter that the SPR has no tangible effect on global oil prices and that filling the SPR doesn’t affect the deficit.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Prices are stalling at best in most places. Falling in many.

Sorry but no. Remember just last year you went on record telling people to wait & keep renting til Case Shiller (SF) smashes below the March 09 lows of 117.71

http://patrick.net/?p=1221690&c=934394#comment-934394

At the time, I gave you a chance to cry uncle and call it quits when SF Case Shiller was @ 146.23. You didn't do that and now it is at 181.91

http://www.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-ca-san-francisco-home-price-index

So in any event, your true moment of "vindication" comes if (and only if) this chart smashes through the Mar 09 levels of 119 & change - and don't you forget it as the people who listened to you wont.

CDon says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Prices are stalling at best in most places. Falling in many.

Sorry but no. Remember just last year you went on record telling people to wait & keep renting til Case Shiller (SF) smashes below the March 09 lows of 117.71

God God man, why are you wasting bandwidth on this habitual liar?

bob2356 says

$70k median household debt is only 140% of median household income. Most rich households certainly have total debt (not debt service interest payment) more than 140% of their annual income. Income/wage is what's more sticky during a recession than asset prices.

Thtat's just silly. Rich households have exponentially more income producing assets bought with their debt. As long as the revenue continues to service the debt then the price of the asset is irrelevant.

Have you never heard of debt roll-over? Many commercial loans are structured in such a way that it is interest-only, and need roll-over to pay off principal. During a crunch time, not only is revenue suspect, but also the cost of rolling over debt skyrocket. Prices of assets don't just drop on a whim. They drop because the ownership becomes less desirable/profitable at that moment. Did you ever think through why market crashes happen? What force people to sell?

How is income more sticky in a recession? People in the median get laid off a lot earlier than the top executives. There's nothing sticky about zero income.

Go read your saint Keynes' General Theory. The entire theory is based the observation that wages are more sticky than assets and commodities in a recession. It is this stickiness that eventually lead to lay-offs. The fundamental motivation for Keynesian inflation is to gradually erode the real purchasing power of wages, so that wages are reduced when it is not raised . . . hence as a way of avoiding labor conflict.

CDon says

Remember just last year you went on record telling people to wait & keep renting

Yes, I did exactly that and am another 250k richer for it. A house would have tied up all my loot. Instead it grew way more than a house ever could. Didn't you hear today that the DOW hit an all time high.

control point says

Taking an equity position in a corporation does not mean you take on its leverage. You could buy $1k worth of Citigroup, and if they are leveraged 1000 to 1, it does not mean you have personally taken on $1M in debt.

What's your point? That rich are good at leveraging themselves and doing it while hiding themselves behind corporate veil?

control point says

As of the most current FED balance sheet, Lending to depository institutions, liquidity swaps, lending through TALF, & TALF itself all are less than $500 million. Maiden Lain I, II, III have balances of $2B. Lets conservatively say that, at most, lending to depository institutions in any form is currently less than $4B.

This is a snap shot taken after half a decade of alleged recovery. All those devices have had many years of unwinding. If you really believe FED window lending to favored banksters is miniscule, how about let's just close the FED window and never allow it to open ever again?

control point says

The FED clearly has sufficient market size to affect interest rates, but to say that they set interest rates, even in the short term, while they own around 1/6th of the market for treasuries is a bit of a stretch. 5/6th of the price of treasuries is set by the market, after all.

1/6 is enormous market concentration. Nobody else owns 1/6 of the treasury market. This is not even counting potential additional FED ownership via off-shore entities. FED also controls interbank overnight lending rate, which sets a cap on how much banks would pay on short-term deposits.

sbh says

Reality says

The purpose of Keynesian inflation is to reduce real wages via inflation

The purpose Of Austrian deflation is to reduce wages via destruction of jobs through deflationary depression. Since capital ownership is more sticky during this event it exacerbates wealth and income disparity by hardening money and giving firesale buying power to the wealthy who own all the surviving debt instruments and hence all the newly thrown off cash. It's a thing of beauty.

Are you out of your mind? or are you born stupid? There is no "Austrian deflation" any more than "Austrian sunrise" or "Austrian sunset." Deflation happens after a bubble bursts.

Job destruction is not due to "deflationary depression" but due to prices being held artificially high and the market being prevented from clearing. Otherwise, old jobs would just be replaced by new jobs. Sears jobs being replaced by Walmart jobs, and Walmart jobs being replaced by Amazon/UPS jobs, these are not job destructions but normal progress in the economy, just like horse cab drivers being replaced by automobile taxi drivers. Job destruction is when the city regulators ban air-taxi at much lower cost when people can not afford to pay the high medallion taxi rates.

What do you mean by "capital ownership is more sticky"? Keynes used the word "sticky" in reference to price. Labor price was/is clearly more sticky than asset prices and commodity prices. During the 2008 crash, capital asset prices crashed 30-70%, most commodities dropped more than 50%. Most people did not lose their jobs; the overall labor price in the economy did not change more than a tiny per centage; government jobs actually went up in labor price.

Since the rich own most of the debts, debts being liquidated is fundamentally bad for the rich. Government intervention to rescue bad debts at the expense of future tax revenue and monetary devaluation essentially transfers wealth from the middle class to the rich, exacerbating the wealth disparity.

You have everything backwards. No wonder you are very confused and self-contradictory.

corntrollio says

I don't know how you'd expect to eliminate transaction costs entirely or what you propose as an alternative.

That's the point I was getting at. There is no way of replicating the Index return for a small time individual investor. People often make the mistake of expecting stock portfolio return matching Index over many many decades. That's just not unrealistic.

Reality says

Are you out of your mind? or are you born stupid?

...any mini miney Moe!

Somewhat OT: What happened to Roberto?

RentingForHalfTheCost says

CDon says

Remember just last year you went on record telling people to wait & keep renting

Yes, I did exactly that and am another 250k richer for it. A house would have tied up all my loot. Instead it grew way more than a house ever could. Didn't you hear today that the DOW hit an all time high.

That's not the point and you know it. Look, you can fabricate tales of earning a cool mil for all I care - there certainly must be some Ballerz & Shot Callerz blog where you investment only types can make up after the fact stories of how your packages have gotten all swole...

The point is, for the patnet crowd whose only decision was should I:

(A) buy now,
OR
(B) wait for prices to smash below the 09 nominal bottom

You came here telling us with a stunning, cocksure certainty - B - B is the answer. DO NOT BUY NOW, WAIT FOR PRICES TO CRASH.

Problem is, that didn't happen now did it? So what now? What then is your advice for the A or B crowd. Do you double down on your (thusfar) terrible prediction and tell them to wait further - or do you finally call out uncle, capitulate, and recognize the nominal bottom is long gone...

Ball is in your court...

CDon says

That's not the point and you know it.

Actually, it is exactly the point. Housing as an investment needs to stand up to the other options. Housing is a disaster and has been for a while now. I know many people who regret buying because they could have just bought with cash by now if they actually invested the down payment 5 years ago. Housing is basically a place to live at best.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Actually, it is exactly the point.

Nope - sorry. You could have made that the point back then - and hell, if that is the point, if the point is "what is the best investment" the answer is almost never housing. The ole bear mantra "a house is a place to live - not an investment" resonates with many here. Now, had you said "rent forever, invest the difference, and live all phat & swole on your big pimpin profitz" then that is fine. I truly wouldnt have cared.

Instead, back then, I asked you point blank for case shiller nominal terms, and you answered in case shiller nominal terms. On those terms, your answer then was WAIT... WAIT FOR THE CRASH AS WE SMASH TRHOUGH 2009 LEVELS - THERE IS NO BOTTOM!!!

http://patrick.net/?p=1221690&c=934394#comment-934394

As we now know, that didnt work out to well now did it?

Look - I am very sorry you made that big ole shit sandwich for yourself last year. You thus now have two options as you did then - do you continue to (A) tell people to wait for the crash, or (B) accept the consequences of your statements, capitulate and recognize the bottom is long gone.

Again, ball is in your court...

jazz music says

CaptainShuddup says

don't invest in anything you don't fully understand.

That sums up the take-away from Warren Buffett's book.

The Warren Buffett Way: Investment Strategies of the World's Greatest Investor

No his take-away would be don't invest in anything that you aren't on the inside and have government backstop guarantees.

Assuming an impending crash, do you think renters or loanowners will fare better?

sbh says

bob2356 says

That's just silly. Rich households have exponentially more income producing assets

Reality says

Have you never heard of debt roll-over? Many commercial loans

This is your stock in trade, you delirious baboon: diversion, disinformation, strawmen and lying. You can't deal with bob's point authentically so you shift it to something else and resume prattling on as if you were paying attention in the first place, which you never are. You're just waiting for someone to inhale after talking so you can resume running the tape.

You are only proving your own intellectual dishonesty. Here's how the real exchange went:

Reality says

bob2356 says

Thtat's just silly. Rich households have exponentially more income producing assets bought with their debt. As long as the revenue continues to service the debt then the price of the asset is irrelevant.

Have you never heard of debt roll-over? Many commercial loans are structured in such a way that it is interest-only, and need roll-over to pay off principal. During a crunch time, not only is revenue suspect, but also the cost of rolling over debt skyrocket.

You deliberately chopped out the most crucial point that Bob was making and I was addressing, then launched into content-free personal attacks that only made a big fool of yourself.

CaptainShuddup says

I'm saying without banks paying savers a safe and dependable return on their

But that's not how these coasters stay aloft.

We're really talking about the guaranteed Fed inflation of the money supply which has been the principal driver of the DOW and relatively low risk stocks which have done nearly zero to earn their continually increasing valuation.

That has been the essential underpinning of the Money-Gets-Money. The more of these warhorse stocks you can buy -- at least from 1987 to 2007 -- the more money you made, no work required. That is the Status-Quotization that we are describing.

Anyone who actually "did work" (insanely low salaries compared to asset growth) or had an idea and started a business (1:10000000 odds of getting a return, more likely a total loss), having the wherewithal to be part of one of the big IPOs and be one of the 10 inside-insiders (did you have the right roommate at Harvard? No? Sorry...). Or yes, maybe you got on a gravy train like real estate, but you still did a lot of work house by house and many ended up losing it all at the end.

The one safe bet was to be part of the inner circle of guaranteed returns based on somehow having a big stake to begin with.

And if you really want to know the cause of these End Game collapses, it's not really anything that Michael Lewis or Matt Tiabbi are describing. It's not some shady traders. It's the entire propped up system of 1980s companies that have been bubbled along for decades with no real increase in their basic technologies, or value, or product innovations.

sbh says

There is no "Austrian deflation"

Are you out of your mind? Are you born stupid?

What is an "Austrian deflation"? How is it different from a "Keynesian deflation" or just "deflation"?

Reality says

Job destruction is not due to "deflationary depression"

Of course it is.

Nope. Job destruction is due to market not clearing. Widespread job destruction without replacement jobs is what leads to "deflationary depression." You have the cause and effect backwards.