patrick.net

shrekgrinch says

Prove I am wrong instead of just saying I am wrong as if that is it.

That has been proven many, many times on pat.net. In this particular case, your lack of understanding pertains to how the GDP would have reacted without the stimulus.

shrekgrinch says

The first one: You don’t know jack shit what you are talking about with regards to Nobel Prizes, let alone economics in general.

hahaha. So, your point is that because it was not one of the original prizes devised by Albert Nobel in his will, it isn't a Nobel prize? By all means, let's get it right then--Krugman is the winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Does that make you feel better?

Has it, at long last, really come down to this?

Paul Krugman Is Awarded Nobel in Economics

Patrick recently asked how to increase readership. Asking the several people spamming his site with bullshit 24/7 to leave might be a good start.

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says
That has been proven many, many times on pat.net
Prove it. I have never seen the proof. Show us.

OK... Let's start with your statement about Hawaii not having any Republican officials. Oops. Any need to continue?

shrekgrinch says

Uh-huh. The issue is what actually was done (Keynesian Bullshit) and what the actual results were compared to what said Keynesian Bullshit PREDICTS IT WILL DELIVER, not what fantasies you cook up because you don’t want to admit to reality.

No, actually you still don't understand the point. You don't know what the GDP would have been without the stimulus. The economy is not static--without the stimulus we might have been -3% GDP but the multiplier kept it in positive territory. Do you get it now?

shrekgrinch says

So what? That’s just some bullshit prize that tries to cling to being a Nobel Prize when it isn’t. Facts are facts.

I'm still laughing. You can call it whatever the hell you want. I don't care. It's generally regarded as the top prize an economist can get and he won it. That's the point.

thunderlips11 says

Sharing with who? Apple doesn’t pay dividends.

Apple employees have been sharing via political contributions, overwhelmingly to Democrats. However, the amounts of most of these contribution aren't really alot.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/apple_computer.asp

Shrek's response:

http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/15/mp3/191547_SOUNDDOGS__su.mp3

"Clearly Jackson has no idea about the iPad economy or the Apple ecosystem that has created thousands of jobs and pumped billions in to the global economy."

Yes, it certainly is pumping into other global economies but not our domestic economy. Not a fan of JJ Jr or Sr. But lets face it we aint making it here. Congress missed the ball back some 20 years ago with tech industries/mfg in general.

If Apple is so rich with cash and their margins on their products are so fat they can afford to build it here once again in the US. At one time we actually built these Apple and many other products back in day in places like Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Fremont, which did fuel the local economies.

Were you talking to BUYER agent? If so, it sounds like he's just trying to work you up to bid high.

"- even though he sells a lot of REOs and short-sales, he says getting a deep-discount is very difficult these days. Discounts are usually 5-10% of other regular sales."

Ban for profit health insurance.

Plenty of time for more drama beyond the 16th. From your article:

The U.S. is expected to hit the debt limit on May 16, but Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said the government could stave off a default until early August. The Treasury wants the authority to borrow an additional $2 trillion, which the department believes would last through the 2012 elections.

And what a coincidence... Brown's revised 'all cuts' California budget is scheduled for release this week as well.

My friend has been telling me for years how lousy the USA stock market is, and how it is poised to crash. Sorry, I do not believe it. I saw the Caterpillar and Deere equipment, the Abercrombie, McDonald's, Apple and Walmart stores in places like Mexico, Canada and China. I just saw pictures of the near riots in China of people clamoring to buy iPads. Verizon paid $1.92/share dividend and the stock is about $38. So, are people going to abandon growth and dividends from companies like Apple, Cat, Exxon and Verizon because the guys in Washington are fooling around too much? The latest data show there was some job creation in the USA recently. I worry much more about unemployment than whether they cut spending or hit debt ceilings. McDonald's makes money even if they still have some people who exclusively order from the "dollar menu."

This sounds like typical N.A.R. "insider" talk. We can ALL avoid paying more than a house is worth if we only would stand together and refuse to bid until the price becomes REASONABLE. What is reasonable? A price that reflects early 1990's market price in 90's dollars!

In order to kill the Vampire squid, you have to kill it one tentacle at a time. I noticed that when I Google the keyword "Patrick.net" using a different browser (where it is not yet a favorite or bookmark) ...I get a link directly to the Vampire Squids blood funnel ....with a large marketing piece about how NOW IS THE BEST TIME TO BUY a house. We must remember the words of Lloyd Bankfein was being grilled by congress....that "....G-S is a MARKET MAKER and NOT a bank....we just stimulate people to buy and sell..." ( regardless of the effect that has on their risk). But rest assured we will profit from EVERY TRADE...including those based on false information.

Strangle the squid and JUST SAY NO! No!...to buying houses with cash or with a debt via a mortgage from the beast that caused this economic disaster. Every day we wait...is a LOWER asking price. And if the asking price remains constipated...we will wait until the holder of the mortgage starts to quiver and squirm....and make them wait some more.

I would buy only after I see some perp walks of the banksters, and guilty pleadings, AFTER the prices are dropped to 1990 levels. Squeeze them hard until they beg for mercy...and them cut them off until they start jumping from the highest windows on Wall street. This is called capitalism by the people.

WE WILL NOT SEE A COLLAPSE IN THE STOCK MARKET!!! WE WILL SEE A US DOLLAR COLLAPSE IN 2011!!!! MARK MY WORDS!!!!

EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER IS PREDICTING A STOCK MARKET COLLAPSE!!! WE WILL SEE THE US DOLLAR GET DEVALUED WHICH WILL PROP UP THE STOCK MARKET AND GOLD AND SILVER TO THE MOOOOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RATES WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO SKYROCKET TO AND WILL CRUSH HOME PRICES!!!!!

The reason I do not believe this will happen is that the companies that I noticed making a fortune in other countries will continue to do so. Dividends suck? Compared to what? Lots of people would rather own verizon and get a 5% dividend AND have equity than make zero in a bank account or be scared buying bonds. Dividend paying stocks and gold are the things that the government clowns cannot ruin. The economy in the USA may be hurt by a slowdown in government spending, but this won't bother Mexico which has faster growth and lower unemployment than the USA, or China, or Canada. People won't stop building, farming, talking, watching entertainment, using energy, taking medicine, no matter WHAT. I have lived in a third world country that had a true economic crisis, we are not in nearly as bad a situation here. Everyone worldwide will all be buying 1. Deere 2. Caterpillar 3. Apple 4. Yum brand fast food 5. Walmart 6. Pfizer. 7. Microsoft (more like a dividend stock). 8. Merck 9. Procter and Gamble 10. Nestle 11. Toyota 12. Honda. etc, etc. etc. The world's economy will slow down in reaction to ours slowing, but over all they will not stop living. I have seen amazing feats of consumerism all over the world and see no signs of it abating.

Typical Krugman, getting practically everything wrong -- all in the name of the 2 things he truly believes: 1) The federal govt should spend endless money for job-creation, 'safety net' escalation and the myriad other fancies under Obama it feels like spending on, and 2) If we just taxed 'the rich' more, our deficit would shrink, or at least Krugman and the class-warfare adherents would feel better.
He's wrong that Bush tax rate cuts were mainly for the 'rich'. Nothing could be further from the truth. In short, the tax rate reductions were vastly larger for lower-paids. That's a fact. And he's wrong that the rate cuts were the primary cause of the current $1.7T deficit. Bringing back the pre-Bush rates for the 'rich' would only increase fed rev $75B/year. That's just 1/20th of the current deficit.
And he's even more wrong that the credit bubble was caused by 'under-regulation' of the financial sector. He provides NO PROOF whatsoever of that canard. Blame falls many places, but #1 IMHO was Clinton/Cuomo/Frank's 7/1/95 bank regulations that required 20% of home loans to go to lowest 20% paid people in the area, next 20%, etc. This was OVER-regulation at its worst and most dangerous -- politburo-style command and control by the govt to screw up lending practices. Needless to say, it caused millions of dangerous loans and escalated the home-buying mania, and troubled-asset swapping.
Krugman is basically getting his way, Obama-style. Since FY'09 and now for the 3rd-year in a row, the fed govt's spending $3.7T and it's creating havoc, mismanagement, waste, and fiscal budgetary crisis. It will end badly, that's a fact. And there's been no great job-creation by the idiotic DC spending, certainly nothing that spurs the private sector. Our children will not be able to repay these loans. If Krugman had more than a 'left-side' brain, he'd know that fed, state and local spending have gone WAY PAST the danger zone. And the rolls-royce pensions beginning in middle age are not affordable by the private sector. Simply not. We're in big trouble folks, and for Krugman to say it's because bankers aren't regulated enough, taxes aren't high enough, and fed spending isn't large enough, is just a simple 'strike-out'. Krugman is 'oh' for three.

sbourg--

I don't even know where to begin. You packed so much BS in that post...

I love where you post something that is completely incorrect, but then follow it by saying "That's a fact". Sorry, that's not how it works.

And I have no idea where you get the idea that 20% of the loans had to go to the lowest 20% of the area. Seriously, did you just make that shit up?

Does anyone find it odd that Krugman doesn't remember the dotcom crash and the increase in revenue to the treasury while that "bubble" was in full swing? He has good points but loses credibility by ignoring the previous bubble.

shrekgrinch says

That’s rich coming from a union thug like you…especially one who should know what a luddite is (You ARE a teacher, right?) but doesn’t.

Either you really can't tell the difference or you are a bullshitter as I said, or both. The video link is above for anyone to check.

marcus says

Is Jackson observing that digital technology will drastically impact publishing?
or
Is he observing it and protesting it?

I don't think anyone here cares at this point, but the answer would be obvious to any average intelligence 11 year old.

permanent_marker says

Gone are the days when a listing comes on line at 9:00 am and gone by 9:01 am — probably scooped by a cousin of listing agent.

Now all the agents just take those other offers and throw them in the trash when they get them. Cousin still gets the house.

The only way to pull the economy out, is to limit commodity speculators to entities that actually has facilities to take delivery of said commodity. Beit energy or agriculture commodities.

The second thing that needs to happen the Bernanke needs to raise interest rates, and at least pretend there is "inflation" what ever perverse carnation "Inflation" may manifest its self as.

Basically the Federal policy needs to close the Gravy Train tracks, on easy cheap risk free money, commodities. It is damn foolish to allow highway robbery on commodities and cheap easy practically free money, then expect any thing that resembles growth.

Growth is the fruit of Risk.

klarek says

Now all the agents just take those other offers and throw them in the trash when they get them. Cousin still gets the house.

That's a dangerous thing for them to do really. Before they resort to that, they say there are multiple offers massively over the asking price. It discourages buyer agents from filling out the paperwork for their client. That way, they eliminate the possibility of a complaint.

Buyers are still a bit foolish in my area when it comes to foreclosures....tried to buy one..but the bank wanted 5% of the purchase price as an earnest money deposit with the financing contingency falling off after 30 days...

sorry, but that is just too much risk that the loan can get through underwriting...not to mention I heard the property needed about 40K in rehab (25k unobvious apparent water penetration and foundation issues) (The home inspector is a personal lifelong friend). If you add the 40K to what I was willing to offer before I found out about the 5% earnest money deposit, I think the house wasn't a good deal after all. I would estimate the total price of 220k to be pretty much what it would go for from a normal seller...maybe even a tad more.

They do it all the time. I know someone who recently wanted to make an offer on an active listing and was told "don't bother". On an ACTIVE listing. Agents ought not be saying that even if a house were under contract. They're shady as shit.

So yeah, they'll say whatever they can to save the ink toner on their fax machines, but if that fax comes through, they can pop it in the shredder and the bank will likely never know about it.

david1 says

Buyers are still a bit foolish in my area when it comes to foreclosures….tried to buy one..but the bank wanted 5% of the purchase price as an earnest money deposit with the financing contingency falling off after 30 days…
sorry, but that is just too much risk that the loan can get through underwriting…not to mention I heard the property needed about 40K in rehab (25k unobvious apparent water penetration and foundation issues) (The home inspector is a personal lifelong friend). If you add the 40K to what I was willing to offer before I found out about the 5% earnest money deposit, I think the house wasn’t a good deal after all. I would estimate the total price of 220k to be pretty much what it would go for from a normal seller…maybe even a tad more.

Foreclosures benefit many people that are skilled and can do the work themselves. If one has to hire a contractor to do the work, they really should look elsewhere. They're competing with people that are going to DIY. 30 days of financing contingency is more than enough.

klarek says

They do it all the time. I know someone who recently wanted to make an offer on an active listing and was told “don’t bother”. On an ACTIVE listing. Agents ought not be saying that even if a house were under contract. They’re shady as shit.
So yeah, they’ll say whatever they can to save the ink toner on their fax machines, but if that fax comes through, they can pop it in the shredder and the bank will likely never know about it.

There is a chance that the active listing had offers that the seller is reviewing already. My property was on Active for a whole week before the bank got us the signed documents.

They are trying to combat agents shredding these offers. The latest RE Purchase Agreement contracts has a part for the signature of the seller indicating that they are rejecting the offer. I suppose the listing agent can forge that too, but then there will be a paper trail for a larger wrong doing. Sadly, buyer agents aren't even following up with the listing agents for the rejection signature, and I've never seen it used.

Blo-Bama

Right. Carter had "the hostage crisis," whereas Obama...

Most buyers don't look for confirmation of a seller's rejection. Sure, if all buyers sent a hard-copy via express mail to the owners, agents wouldn't pull this crap. But that very rarely happens because of a lack of public awareness. There's no real oversight in the RE industry.

sbourg says

He’s wrong that Bush tax rate cuts were mainly for the ‘rich’. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In short, the tax rate reductions were vastly larger for lower-paids. That’s a fact.

You know, when you make a factual assertion it helps your argument to actually provide facts.

The top quintile of the country raked in about two-thirds of the Bush tax cut.

http://www.economiajusta.org/files/Distribution_and_Cost_Bush_TaxCuts.pdf

And what ideologues don't understand is that tax cuts on the poor and middle class just ended up in the pockets of the rich thanks to rent increases. I'll give you an iron law -- cut taxes, and you'll see higher land values and rents in response. The 2001-2005 period perfectly illustrates this.

"Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

And he’s wrong that the rate cuts were the primary cause of the current $1.7T deficit.

It also helps to not be a knee-jerking idiot and actually reading the piece for comprehension. Here's what Krugman actually said:

The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade.

Krugman did not make the assertion you say he did. Learn how to read plz.

sbourg, tell us the truth, did you get this "job" through an add like this?

sbourg says

IMHO was Clinton/Cuomo/Frank’s 7/1/95 bank regulations

? sbourg, who controlled Congress in 1995 on your planet?

Since FY’09 and now for the 3rd-year in a row, the fed govt’s spending $3.7T and it’s creating havoc, mismanagement, waste, and fiscal budgetary crisis.

Here's the deal. The Bush Economy was an orgy of private and corporate debt.

Here's home mortgage debt vs. home asset value:

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

See that run-up. It got rolling in the late 1990s but everyone doubled down on the bubble in 2003-2005.

then see how asset values (red line) have crashed? But the debt remains. We are in horrific over-extension now and it's all going to come crashing down eventually unless somebody somewhere "bails out" the system more.

That borrowed money wasn't just printed -- it was the banks and Wall Street packaging peoples' savings and pension money into home mortgages.

Since FY’09 and now for the 3rd-year in a row, the fed govt’s spending $3.7T and it’s creating havoc, mismanagement, waste, and fiscal budgetary crisis.

Your understanding of how the economic system works is very very suspect.

in 2008-2010 the Federal government tried to engineer a "soft landing" of the economy from the excesses of the bubble times that ran 2003-2007. Here's a chart of year-on-year PRIVATE debt growth (blue) vs YOY growth in Federal spending (red):

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

that little blip at the end of the red line was the "stimulus". Not much compared to the real stimulus of FIVE TRILLION dollars being injected into the economy 2005-2007 via the housing bubble, no?

The "havoc and crisis" is coming from the withdrawal of the credit bubble.

I don't know what you're referring to about "mismanagement and waste" and I suspect you don't either, you're just typing words that sound good to you.

shouldn't "incombent" be referring to Trump?

this is not a horrible article but:

"The SIBs really represent unfunded pension liabilities, not true third party debts. "

is kinda off. The SSTF is a debt to FICA payers, who are the "third party".

Keeping the SSTF as part of the debt limit illustrates that the SSTF is in fact a real obligation of Congress, and thus the US taxpaying base -- which is increasingly NOT FICA payers, given the increasing income disparity in this country.

So, the question is whether it is more disastrous for the USA to have huge debt so that interest payments on this debt are larger than the growth rate of the GDP, or whether some pain and suffering today will cause some financial disaster. Is also "economic collapse" defined by the stock market dropping, or some other convenient measure?
Gazillionaires have lost billions betting on stock market and interest rate predictions, so I won't know until the far future whether or not we'll have a tremendous stock market crash, but if the emerging markets continue to grow better than the USA, which they are, I will not be afraid of owning stocks. Also, every portion of my investments is made according to when I believe I will need the money, so in my case, the mutual funds of stocks started in 92 with the purpose of retirement and there are still many years left.
Since I have lived in, and since 82 still visited a third world country which has had various disasters, I still have seen a steady increase of the standard of living, and a steady increase in the rabid consumerism that the USA exports around the world with the export around the world of our media. This gave me a different perspective.
My own feeling is that there will be economic suffering in the USA no matter who does what. However, I want them to stop borrowing and spending this money on silly things like extending unemployment to 2 years, cash for clunkers, tax credits for buying over priced houses, "economic stimulus" checks in the mail, etc. Cut Fannie and Freddie loose. Get the government out of the windmill and car business. Stop burdening small businesses with Obamacare, and it's unfair that unions and McDonalds and others got exempted from it.
So we will argue about 1. what should be done in Washington 2. what they will do 3. what will happen 4. how markets will react.
Most of the above are unknowns, but my opinion is the sky is not yet falling.
Historically, whether tax rates are high or low, over time the govt gets 8% of GDP from us in taxes. If the total debt keeps growing, and the GDP doesn't grow fast enough to keep up, our taxes will mostly go to paying interest on the debt.
An unknown is politics, so whether people believe keeping his "boot on their neck" and illegally canceling oil drilling permits helps or hurts our economy will be seen. I think we saw the reaction in November.
But, regardless of what happens, some stocks will be fine. For anyone who says that a shitty economy that is in near collapse with a failing currency means stocks suck I have one word: TELMEX.

clambo says

My own feeling is that there will be economic suffering in the USA no matter who does what.

I don't agree with everything you have to say, but I do agree with this. It seems to be more a matter of whether the intensity of suffering is more acute now or later.

Don't you guys know? Tax cuts increase Government receipts? Take a look at Reagan and Bush....the deficit must've gone down during this period of slashing taxes! I don't have time to look at "facts" or "charts" or "reality", but I saw (seen? sic) it on a billboard...we're Taxed Enough Already!!!

Also, Obama was born in Kenya.

Thank you