patrick.net

YesYNot says

No one is denying that you can find time periods where there are positive and negative correlations. The price changes in these periods were not driven by the interest rates.

I didn't say they were. What's that saying about correlation and causation ? IF anything (and quite obviously), the positive correlation occurring in the seventies with inflation actually driving interest rates, is something I'm pretty sure even idiots don't deny.

YesYNot says

So, I ask again, why do you think that we will have high interest rates in the absence of inflationary pressure?

I didn't say I think we will. And in fact I'm not predicting that.

YesYNot says

You keep acting like we need to understand a net present value calculation, but you ignore the relevant questions about how it works.

Because only a total fool would deny this. It affects valuations of income streams and it also affects the monthly payment a family can afford to make.

During a protracted period when inflation was bound to a range of 2 to 4% and yet LT interest rates were dropping further and further, especially the part of the drop that was from say 9% to 5%, in the absence of deflation with steady low inflation, this was extremely highly correlated with rising RE prices, for this period, for incredibly obvious reasons I have described more than once.

The other long period when interest rates were rising (pre 1980), I think you'll find many who say that this correlates with increasing inflation, and since most even define interest rates as having an inflation premium this in no surprise. Need I argue why inflation and rising house prices are correlated over significant periods of time ?

This argument is so stupid.

Some might argue that there is no single trend in interest rates during last 60 years. They wouldn't be wrong. Some will argue it's a random walk.

Another person might say, that the way they look at it, there was 30 year period or so of an up trend, and a clear 30 year period of down trend.

Housing prices were trending up most of the entire time.

SO anyone that wants to argue that there isn't a positive correlation between interest rates and RE prices during the first period, and a negative correlation during the second period, is either a total idiot, or they don't understand what correlation means.

(again - I'm not saying the people who claim no correlation are wrong. They are no more wrong than the people who say there is no single trend in interest rates the past 60 years)

Yes, I've drifted off in to talking about both 30 year periods being understandable, (especially key parts of each period) but that was not my primary argument.

I'm done with this.

marcus says

Housing prices were trending up most of the entire time.

Housing prices have been trending up for all times. Clearly it's NOT correlated with interest rates. I really don't think you know what correlation means.

marcus says

This argument is so stupid.

Hey - we agree :).

Who was the winning tail pinner?

Call it Crazy says

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

Still waiting for the proof.

Call it Crazy says

Chris Matthews

He is the quintessential horses ass, somebody had to pin the tail on him?

The Professor says

Don't they write their name on all of our currency?

The Federal Reserve tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

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

Still waiting for the proof.

It's easy: Snopes sometimes makes statements which are at odds with received conservative orthodoxy. Therefore they are biased, since only conservatism is true.

For example:

1) Nobody ever trimmed his hedge with a lawn mower, then sued the manufacturer when he injured himself.

2) NASA did not spend millions developing a space pen, while the Russians just used a pencil.

These statements contradict foundational truths upon which the e-mail forwards of elderly conservative loudmouths are based. They are therefore biased.

bob2356 says

Originate is originate

The Senate took an airport funding bill (Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010) and turned it into the 2010 fiscal bargain (Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010) that extended unemployment benefits and extended the Bush tax cuts for most people.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4853:

So the "Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010" was in fact originated in the Senate even though the bill has an HR numbering.

"In only 5 years of presidency, Obama has already run up more national debt than all previous presidents combined"

While it's true deficit spending increased in 2010-2014,

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=zB6

this was largely the result of the collapse of the flimflam Bush Economy in 2008-2009.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=zB8

shows how households were borrowing $100B+ a month during the peak of the Bush Bubble.

Only recently has this flow been positive again.

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

shows personal income tax receipts fell $400B/yr when the economy blew up.

I guess conservatives would want the government, sorry, Obama, to reduce spending $400B/yr when that happened. They're not known for perspicacity, the ability to see the consequences of possible actions.

Corporate income taxes are red in the above chart, showing they declined by 50% to $200B.

Funny how little corporations pay in income taxes, compared to their incomes:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

It's almost like they've written the tax code or something, but you'll never see a conservative rail about that.

What a fraudulent ideology, top to bottom.

Call it Crazy says

At least 100 of the 603 freed Guantanamo Bay prisoners have returned to terrorism, U.S. intelligence report reveals.

Who could ever imagine that some Afghan shepherd boy whisked away by rival clans and sold to the CIA for $$$, shipped all the way around the world, and then tortured for years would become an enemy of the government who did it to him?

That's simply against all human nature.

bgamall4 says

Sarah Palin was bankrolled by Lady Lynn Rothschild.

Great, lesbo videos really turn me on. Was that a vibrating bankroll?

I was always taught (years of study in economics and federal reserve policy) that generally we haven't had a depression since the Great Depression because lessons were learned, and government policy wouldn't make the same mistakes again. Currently we have the illusion of safety in banking in particular (the government guarantee on deposits, etc), zirp, monetary stimulus, etc. It seems like buying stocks on "margin" during the Great Depression was replaced with buying houses on "margin" (i.e. mortgages) during the latest crash. Another thing to remember is that it was really WWII that ended the Great Depression, and behold I see things heating up with Russia and Ukraine. Let's hope it doesn't take a war to really get the economy back on it's feet again.

Bullshit says

Let's hope it doesn't take a war to really get the economy back on it's feet again.

We spent more on war 2001-2010 than we did on WW2, in constant dollars.

~$1T/yr, 1941-45 (2008 dollars)

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/costs_of_major_us_wars.htm

Expansion of DOD spending since 2000:

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

$2T in additional spending, 2000-2010 on top of a $4T base expense.

What a fucking waste. Thanks, Nader.

Bellingham Bill says

We spent more on war 2001-2010 than we did on WW2, in constant dollars.

~$1T/yr, 1941-45 (2008 dollars)

"Spreading freedom" has its price!

It is the FED.

In your research also look into the effects of mercantilism an international trade on the 1920s.

Reality says

Is it effective at either? of course not. In fact, Austrians contend that the FED actions over the long run exacerbate the swings.

And that is another reason why nobody can take Austrians seriously. Do you really contend that the time since the Fed is worse for boom/busts than the time before the Fed?

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Is it effective at either? of course not. In fact, Austrians contend that the FED actions over the long run exacerbate the swings.

And that is another reason why nobody can take Austrians seriously. Do you really contend that the time since the Fed is worse for boom/busts than the time before the Fed?

Of course more severe boom/busts compared to times without central bank influence (there were two previous instances of central banking in US history, plus the British central banking manipulation that eventually led to the American Revolution). The Great Depression was the first major achievement of the 3rd US central bank, the FED.

bgamall4 says

Just FYI, prize money for Kentucky Derby win was 1.4 million, and the trainer was 77 years old, oldest trainer for Derby winner ever.

Impressive.

The unfortunate dangers of the FED today is they give all of the Corruption in the banking industry a central point in which they can legally collude.

Take the FED out of the picture, and replay the actions of the bank industry for the last 14 years, only with Bank CEOs taking place of the FED meetings, and it's the same shit brought the Sherman act ahead. It's fucking fraud in plain sight.

I can't believe I was stupid enough to not agree with Ron Paul 100% in 2008. I still believed in the FED.

But I tell ya this, we still need regulators, oversight and laws. It probably would be easier to enforce those rules, if we didn't have the FED, acting like a derelict parent enabling bad behavior, making excuses, cover and defense of all of the corruption and fraud.

CaptainShuddup says

Take the FED out of the picture, and replay the actions of the bank industry for the last 14 years, only with Bank CEOs taking place of the FED meetings, and it's the same shit brought the Sherman act ahead. It's fucking fraud in plain sight.

Bullshit, if you rip the power away from these charlatans there is no Sherman charade. Fuck Teddy Roosevelt, he was batshit crazy.

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

Impressive.

Glad you are still talking to me. :))

You know, I disagree with my wife on everything, but I still sleep with her.
Not saying I want to sleep with you, just that disagreements don't bother me.
You are cool. :)

Thanks.

Facebooksux says

She-Man cannot claim to have 5.5 million in assets. That's horseshit

Look, You don't have to believe whatever is said on this forum, or simply you can counter punch by saying you have 5.5 mil in liquid assets.

The Professor says

I think he likes to argue.

Really I hadn't noticed (8^(l)

I've never heard it referred to as a "rule." You're referring to sentiment indicators, which aren't always right (that is wrong). But yes, sentiment is very bearish at the bottom and bullish at the top.

But that's trivially obvious, because a lot of people have to be selling to get it to a market price (down) bottom, and after the bottom is in, you can look back at all the short covering and the decreasing bearishness of sentiment and say see ?

Considering the Catholic churches record with Galileo best practices should be implemented sometime around 2315. Don't want to rush into these things.

The NY post had a front page article once about "Beauty and the Priest". Some Long Island priest got filmed coming out of a motel room with his secretary. He claimed they got too tired to drive, on the 2 hour trip from NYC to LI, and stopped to rest. The post interviewed people in the priests town about it. One guy said "I'm just happy he was with with a women over 18".

clambo says

What contributed most to the depression after the 1929 stock bubble popping was bank failures led to a very low level of banking activities which really depressed economic activities in the USA.

That is the conventional Milton Friedman take on it. But it really is not true, the damage was caused long before that.

This is pretty good description of what really happened starting at page 175:

http://mises.org/books/dollarcrisis.pdf

Call it Crazy says

So true....

Look who's talking CIC. Shall I repost all the comments you deleted of mine?

There's probably going to be a movie about stiviano and sterling and they will call it "A slut and a racist!"

1) being racist isn't against the law, or we'd have to lock up the grand majority of everyone, white, black, brown, yellow, or red.

2) setting up a checkpoint isn't illegal, I think. However, assaulting someone at such a checkpoint is illegal. Stopping at such a check point or complying with the demands of those manning it would therefore be entirely optional. If they shoot someone or assault someone, then that's a matter for the law. Otherwise it's a simple obstructing traffic traffic ticket.

I think it would fall under impeding traffic or something in the violation category. Maybe enough for a fine, but not much more. It's a matter for the local police or sheriff. If the local authorities haven't objected, then they're giving tacit consent for this sort of thing.
Also I highly doubt there's a check point on a highway. That would be impossible and also would involve the Feds or state police if a interstate or state route was checkpointed. This is likely some back road where only locals have any reason to be, and only locals care about.
But go on believing the main stream elite-owned media! I'm sure they're giving you an accurate spin on everything.

You contradict yourself repeatedly. You say that a bear is not someone who is already short, but if that's your view, then a bear can be someone who is long and needs to sell.

The only other possibility is someone who is not buying because of their bearishness or they already sold. You also said you don'y include nonparticipants.

You say all you look at is transactions which would mean that indeed a bear is someone who is already short, either in reality or in the sense that they need to buy.

dublin hillz says

There's probably going to be a movie about stiviano and sterling and they will call it "A slut and a racist!"

I would call it A gold-digger and a racist!

Doesn't seem as if his penis is racist at all.

The guy just needs to tell everyone he is a liberal democrat and send a few bucks to Hillary. Nobody will bother him anymore.

Why is the 92 million not in the labor force part of "The Not So Good News"?

Now there you go, pulling facts from the shit pile.

Those figures were supposed to be burned in congress' weekly latrine pyre.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

Why is the 92 million not in the labor force part of "The Not So Good News"?

Do you really want an answer to that??

Yes.

Strategist says

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

Why is the 92 million not in the labor force part of "The Not So Good News"?

Do you really want an answer to that??

Yes.

We need about 10 million to move from the not in labor for to full time jobs to be statistically healthy. Also, there is a concern (even from it's supporters) that the ACA will encourage those nearing retirement to stop working early.

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Monday, May 5, 2014 __ Level is 104.5

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And "ThePublic Be Suckered"
http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

rooemoore says

Strategist says

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

Why is the 92 million not in the labor force part of "The Not So Good News"?

Do you really want an answer to that??

Yes.

We need about 10 million to move from the not in labor for to full time jobs to be statistically healthy. Also, there is a concern (even from it's supporters) that the ACA will encourage those nearing retirement to stop working early.

That's not really answering the question.
Zerohedge is just a propaganda web site, designed for the sole purpose of misinforming the public. If Hitler was alive, he would have been proud of Zerohedge.