patrick.net

The best part about Ayn Rand is that she was having an affair with a supporter named Nathaniel Branden who was 25 years younger, with the knowledge of both his wife and Ayn Rand's husband, who agreed to it "for the good of humanity" of course.

All kind of sick already, but then Nathaniel started "cheating" on Ayn if that's the right word, given that they were already cheating on their spouses. Ayn threw a huge hissy fit and ostracized Nathaniel from the Objectivist movement, but of course could not tell the public why.

Ayn Rand was so selfish and self-obsessed that of course that's the kind of follower she attracts. Heck, she even wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism".

More details here:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/brandens.html

You can find the actual Case-Shiller report here:

http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldocumentfile&blobtable=SPComSecureDocument&blobheadervalue2=inline;+filename%3Ddownload.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1245293878137&blobheadervalue3=abinary;+charset%3DUTF-8&blobnocache=true

Everyone knows MSNBC is left leaning. But much of their bias is reflected in commenting and criticizing the crazy things that Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh say. Well also Michelle Bachman, Palin and others pols. When they aren't taking very specific issue with right wing politicians and pundits, they are trying to inform what right wingers are doing with laws and policy. Yes, with a very left wing bias.

Whereas Limbaugh and Beck just lie and make stuff up, that the haters in their audience will eat up. I think the biggest differences can be traced to who pays them and the intelligence of their audiences. Remember, the republicans would never be able to win elections without the Christian right and you know, how should I put this, all of the others who just felt like GW Bush was the kind of guy they would like to have a beer with.

I can't really call Glen Beck a conservative. To me he is just a guy who found his weird niche by playing a pretentious personality on television. I honestly do not believe he cares as much about politics as his show leads people to believe.

I watched his show a few times, he is just like Limbaugh.... they start off with a point they try to prove. Make a few fallacies (usually a circular reference or adhominem) and continue their point till the end of the show.

Here are the fallacies I have seen by these guys: Appeal to False Authority, Circular Reference, Appeal To Ignorance, StrawMan, AdHominem, Argument by Poetic Language and Selective Observation. And that's not all, just a few I remembered.

Funniest one was when they (Beck, Limbaugh, etc... not sure which corporation they work for) overdid on fallacies and ended up calling Obama a Muslim Communist. It was pretty funny because the two categories are mutually exclusive and I think it ended up backfiring due to that.

Dqnews.com

A decline in sales between December and January is normal for the season, with that drop averaging 27.1 percent.

The median price paid for a home last month was $239,000, down 5.9 percent from $254,000 in December, and down 3.2 percent from $247,000 for January a year ago.

A decline in the median from December to January is not unusual, although last month’s 5.9 percent dip was a bit steeper than the average December-to-January drop of 3.3 percent.

shrekgrinch says

Where’s the hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy was Ayn's blaming Nathaniel in public for something she herself was doing with him in secret.

patb says

i would extend the offer to any military veteran, who is willing to live in the house for 2 years.

I'm not crazy about extending an offer to any group specifically. Either everyone, or no one. Government isn't allowed to pick winners and losers.

p.s.
shrekgrinch - i'm not faulting you. Just I've seen a lot of that stuff in the media lately, thats what I've been referring to. The media fetish over special treatment to certain groups, but not others. I really can't agree with firefighters being treated better than teachers, soldiers, bakers, engineers, small business owners, etc...

tatupu70 says

I would argue that you are completely incorrect. It appears from the latest data that the housing credit ending pulled ahead some demand, but did not cause a collapse. Housing is not falling to where it “should have gone without the credit”. The credit caused a rise directly before its end, and a fall directly after. Then you have the normal winter slump. Most recent data indicate spring will be good.

If housing prices fall to their fundamentally-supported values, then why would the tax credit prevent that from happening? If it doesn't, then why wouldn't prices fall to where they should have gone* without the credit?

*I am putting a small caveat on this for increasing GDP during this period, though minimally impacting the prices.

klarek says

If housing prices fall to their fundamentally-supported values, then why would the tax credit prevent that from happening? If it doesn’t, then why wouldn’t prices fall to where they should have gone* without the credit?
*I am putting a small caveat on this for increasing GDP during this period, though minimally impacting the prices.

I didn't phrase that very well. My point was that housing did fall to its fundamentally supported level. The housing credit doesn't appear to have had much impact other than shifting demand around a little bit.

Mr.Fantastic says

Would you buy a $1,000 house in the middle of Kabul, Afghanistan or Mosul, Iraq? These cities are probably more safe than Detroit.

Poppy Cock and a hardy load of Bullshit! There's not a piece of land in the US that is not contaminated that is absolutely worthless.

At $1000 I bet there's people smart enough to know, RE is all Trend, and Perception. Especially those to poor to care about the other hang ups "High crime" blah blah blah. It's thugs and druggies shooting each other, if they were randomly indiscriminately shooting Citizens, the National Guard would be there. Sure you could post a news story, you go first I'll all the crime stories in LA we can go toe to toe, until you realize how pointless that would be.

Judging by most of you guys fundamentals here, you'll be a renter for life. As long as you think there's houses in a large City in the US not worth $1,000.

I'll take them all for $1,000 each, that is along with being free of any previous liabilities.

Ayn Rand collected MediCare and Social Security checks.

Enough said.

The State of Michigan has ordered Detroit to close half its schools. Houses are selling for peanuts, schools are in chaos, crime is rampant. Detroit was once one of the world's greatest cities. What changed it? I personally think that the fact that Detroit has been controlled by Democrats for the last 60 years has absolutely nothing to do with it. Absolutely no way.

http://detnews.com/article/20110221/SCHOOLS/102210355/1409/Michigan-orders-DPS-to-make-huge-cuts

Home Prices Almost At 2009 Trough As Double Dip Materializes
According To Case-Shiller Index
Feb. 22 2011
By AGUSTINO FONTEVECCHIA

http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecchia/2011/02/22/home-prices-almost-at-2009-trough-as-double-dip-materializes-according-to-case-shiller-index-2/

Housing prices continue to tumble, making their way to their 2009 trough and reinforcing the idea that a double-dip in home prices is inevitable, according to the most recent data from the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices. The National Index is within a percentage point of the 2009 trough and 11 of the 20 cities surveyed hitting new index lows, as the statistics reveal an increasingly deteriorating housing market

A double-dip in home prices is over the horizon and on its way. Yale economist Robert Shiller, who created the index along with Karl Case, noted in an interview with CNBC that “price[s] may go down substantially,” and, according to Trade The News, estimated that the decline could be in the 15% to 25% range.

Read the book twice in my youth.

Thought maybe it would make more sense the second time. It didn't.

I did like the discussion of "what is money" where the character basically says the underlying value of money is the productive work it symbolizes. The rest of it was not really good, she needed an editor with a machete.

I liked better the film adaptation of Fountainhead, although it wasn't until some years later someone pointed out that the architect destroying "his" work was also selfishly destroying the work of his employers and the other artisans who built it. The ending is really garbage IMO.

I'm not sure 2009 was the trough.

>>>U.S. house prices were unchanged on a seasonally adjusted basis from October to November, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s monthly House Price Index. The previously reported 0.7 percent increase in October was revised downward to a 0.2 percent increase. For the 12 months ending in November, U.S. prices
fell 4.3 percent. The U.S. index is 14.9 percent below its April 2007 peak and roughly the same as the August 2004 index level.

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/19648/MonthlyHPINov12511.pdf

shrekgrinch says

1) Prove it
2) If she did, so what? She was coerced into paying for both so why not?

1) Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits.

2) Because it proves she didn't even live by her own credo? That the tongue which would famously flay the skin off those of her sycophants who demonstrated the tiniest impurity of libertarian thought, held behind it no REAL conviction of it's own?

She wrote in “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Another of her famous quotes was:

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

She accepted the money under the name Anne O'Connor to hide the fact.

Of the 3 famous women considered founders of Libertarianism, the other 2 were Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, who refused Social Security on principle. Paterson famously never even opened the envelope with the SS card.

Ayn was just a raging hypocrite and liar when it actually counted.

Also, this movie would have been more believable set in China.

Quote from the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 trailer:

A: They say you're intractable, you're ruthless, your only goal is to make money
B: My only goal IS to make money

This might be believable if he were running a hedge fund, or peddling dodgy securities to pensioners or something.

NOBODY is going to buy the premise that American businessmen of today would be puttering around with trains as the path to vast riches. Might have pulled it off as a low-budget 1930's period piece.

tatupu70 says

My point was that housing did fall to its fundamentally supported level.

I understand that's what you believe, but I'm not seeing anything to back that up.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/02/house-prices-price-to-rent-price-to.html

By all measures, we are still in bubble territory. To claim that prices fell to fundamentally-supported levels implies that a) this coincidentally happened at exactly the same time as the tax credit's inception, and b) new fundamentals now exist in contradiction to those of the past, logically as sound as believing in 2005 that home prices were fundamentally supported.

Bubble territory?

Looking at your 1st graph, home prices are 10-15% overpriced compared to rent. Maybe prices are too high, maybe rents are too low--probably a mixture of each. But either way, I woudn't call 10-15% a bubble.

Using price to income (2nd graph), prices are ~5% too high. It won't take much of a rise in household income to get that back to fair value. Again, not sure how that could ever be called a bubble.

It's unclear to me where fair value is on the real home price graph (3rd one). I guess you probably should draw a line with a slope of wage inflation - CPI through starting at Jan-76 and ~65. Without doing that work, I don't think you can draw a conclusion from that chart...

tatupu70 says

Looking at your 1st graph, home prices are 10-15% overpriced compared to rent. Maybe prices are too high, maybe rents are too low–probably a mixture of each.

The rental market is more "free" than the housing market and not subject to phenomenons related to price stickiness or leveraging. Rents being "too low" means that demand would be so high that people are homeless (think price controls and long lines for gas in the 70's). So no, I don't think that's the case. Housing prices are 10-15% too high.

tatupu70 says

Using price to income (2nd graph), prices are ~5% too high. It won’t take much of a rise in household income to get that back to fair value. Again, not sure how that could ever be called a bubble.

A reasonable argument/observation. I think though that the erosion of the middle class and the disparity of wealth might make a tiered ratio index more telling. Your point still stands (minus that this isn't part of a bubble), as does my assertion that housing prices are above fundamentally-supported levels.

tatupu70 says

It’s unclear to me where fair value is on the real home price graph (3rd one). I guess you probably should draw a line with a slope of wage inflation - CPI through starting at Jan-76 and ~65. Without doing that work, I don’t think you can draw a conclusion from that chart…

I think it can be interpreted the same way as the first one. What I find most telling about all three of these graphs and what I've been trying to emphasize so much here is the impact of the tax credit. Shifts in demand like that really can disrupt prices a lot. Look at how prices through the bubble rose without interruption, and fell without interruption until the credit's inception. When it disappeared, they resumed their downward trajectory. Each month of new data further validates this, as well as my assertion that prices were not at fundamentally-supported levels when they started rising. Since that is the established baseline, how far below that level is now the question/argument. I don't think 15% is far-fetched, but probably closer to 10%.

"Likewise gold and silver will peak long before inflation becomes a serious problem, then crash back down again."

Your analysis does not take into account that over the last five years the central banks worldwide have been stockpiling gold, especially the central banks of China, Russia and India. This really has only just begun, as their reserves are nowhere near where they need to be to properly cushion against a sudden crash in the US dollar.

You seem keen on demonstrating your belief that gold and silver will go up strongly but then you imply they will be in a "bubble" which means you also believe these gains will be volatile and short-lived. This is a fear-based analysis that's not really based in the practical.

When the US dollar experiences a sudden crash, that's surely when gold and silver will spike. Crashes do tend to resume after their initial spike and gold and silver will gradually continue to gain value in the aftermath of a sudden USD crash. If any remaining currencies are intact, you will want to then convert some of your gold and silver to those currencies. Then keep the remainder of your gold and silver to serve as your new local currency until a new fiat currency is in place. That's what gold and silver are ultimately for. We all know the USD is history and that its funeral is in the future.

Applying the media-hyped word "bubble" to your analysis seems to distract from the practical aspects. Trying to time a USD crash is impossible. It is better to use gold and silver as insurance hedges since no one knows the timing. Worrying about volatility along the way is nonsensical since this is a long-term insurance hedge that does not budge.

Did I say they looked alike? No. Just pointing out that your idiotic argument could be applied to either case, neither of which are flat.

______________________________

^--That is "flat". Feel free to use it for future reference.

"The only way to understand any market is a fear-based analysis."

There's no way to quantify "fear" which means it's useless for analysis and trading purposes. One may quantify sentiment which is done by looking at put vs. call ratios; the general method for this is to use the COT (Commitment of Traders) report. This falls under the category of "technical analysis" which is not fear-based. There is no such thing as "fear-based" analysis in the financial world. Fundamental and technical analysis and that's it.

"Why wouldn’t billionaires manipulate gold into a bubble so they can lock in profits and buy low again before the next run?"

Such manipulation and resulting profit may be obtained from any investment. This is not specific to gold and silver and there's no reason to believe another investment will be safer from such manipulation. This levels the playing field. I should add that organizations such as GATA are shining a spotlight on precious metals manipulation which will likely result in a less-manipulated precious metals market (vs. other markets which are not under such intense scrutiny).

"Fear and exuberance drives short term markets, not fundamentals."

I think you missed my point, but nevermind.

"You’re welcome to do this of course but you’ll miss out on a huge opportunity. Gold and silver will go parabolic at some point while the dollar is still stable and relatively strong. That is the time to sell."

One does not cash out of their life insurance policies, health insurance coverage or auto/home insurance policies to use that cash to play the stock market, in hopes of making gains, and then re-starting those policies later. Similarly, there's no reason to use a gold and silver long-term hedge to do the same.

Remove your hedge and you expose yourself to unnecessary risk. Better to use side money for gambling outside of your insurance hedge. Keep the hedge in place for when you need it.

shrekgrinch says

SoCal Renter says

Ayn Rand collected MediCare and Social Security checks.
Enough said.

1) prove it.
2) If she did, so what? She was coerced into paying for both so why not?

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/

Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

So she willingly enslaved herself despite her endless prognostications against the evils of government largess? SHE IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE and she invalidates the entire philosophy. Libertarian followers refuse to take Social Security or Medicare while she secretly sucked thirstily on the government teet. That is fucking rich!

I hope wing-nuts keep swimming in the libertarian tea party bullshit though. Makes them easier to identify when they approach.

End of debate.