Recent comments by RE

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

If we push any more to the bow, though, this thing is sure to capsize.
or are you suggesting a different type of redistribution is going to take place?

I’m suggesting that the few are winning the war by controlling the message.

Isn’t it obvious that “simplest” form to address the 1%/0.01% problem is via taxes/redistribution? But most solutions I see, if they understand it or not, want to address it via cuts to GDP/wages/deflation in order to preserve nominal loan value for rentiers as much as possible or otherwise allow the raiding of the biggest asset of the lower 80%. Cut the deficit, let property values crash and on and on are manifestations of it.

All in the spirit of Ken Langone.

Billionaire Ken Langone, the founder of Home Depot issued a warning to Pope Francis during an interview with CNBC which was published this past Monday. In the interview he said that wealthy people such as himself are feeling ostracized by the Pope’s messages in support of the poor, and might stop giving to charity if the Pope continues to make statements criticizing capitalism and income inequality.

Why primarily blame the Fed when it’s the legislature that should and could act?

I think I know why.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Undoubtedly, now we'll see the trickle-down effect of all that money in the real economy create jobs and innovation as middle class wealth grows again.

But you don't sink your boat just because it is listing to starboard. We should worry about redistributing weight first.

justaskin wrote:

the Supreme HCN

Some of the factual assertions in recent amicus briefs would not pass muster in a high school research paper. But that has not stopped the Supreme Court from relying on them. Recent opinions have cited “facts” from amicus briefs that were backed up by blog posts, emails or nothing at all.

Yoringe wrote:

aber Maggy Merkel nicht.....

LOL

Yoringe wrote:

Merkel thinks she is Germanys Thatcher. And probable proud of it.....

Marmor, Stein Und Eisen Bricht

Yoringe wrote:

Lots of DraghiComics QE Money at local Banks here.... if you can afford 8%+ Interest,.there is endless of it.....

For Germany the bill for ignoring demand is gradually becoming deadly obvious.

Merkel will pay the price IMO. This time the CDU/CSU will be far less able to offload the blame on the SPD.

Rob Dawg wrote:

How long before "I met my deductible!" office parties?

The GOP health plan at its finest.

So Wilson did shoot at Brown while Brown was running away.

- NY Times

...Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.

But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed....

1 currency now -yogi wrote:

See?

Trust me, he just quoted.

1 currency now -yogi wrote:

Thank you. You can see above I responded to Tom Stone. I knew your "Israelies" was a typo. Tom Stone isn't so smart.

It was MY spelling mistake not Tom's.

1 currency now -yogi wrote:

That wasn't directed at you, but at Tom Stone,...

I apologize then.

1 currency now -yogi wrote:

"Israelites"? What the fuck is your problem you Jew-hating scumbag?

I corrected the spelling a while ago.

I didn't mention Jews but consider Israelis fully responsible for their state's actions,, i.e. ghettofication, etc.

The fact you cry racism in face of a state's actions is pitiful.

Tom Stone wrote:

So very human though.
A siege mentality on the part of Israel is not surprising.

I agree but the self-righteousness in the face of such policies stings.

Tom Stone wrote:

S'Okay. They aren't "Real" Semites and the US Taxpayer will end up footing the bill as part of our goodwill program in the Mid East.

The fact that Israelies with their heritage can support such policies in large numbers is beyond disappointing.

vtcodger wrote:

As with many folks with a hard science background (chemistry) I subscribe to the philosophy set forth by Richard Feynman in has Cargo Cult Science address at Cal Tech in 1974 "Cargo Cult Science" - by Richard Feynman

Schedule for Week of August 31st | Hoocoodanode?

Note: I spent much of my working career building/testing/fixing complex, computer controlled, electromechanical systems.

vtcodger wrote:

And Murphy hasn't actually looked at climate change I believe. I have. AFAICS, climate scientists don't have much idea what they are talking about -- which is a damn good thing let me add. Their models don't work. And their arguments consist mostly of repeated assertion with no significant foundation and ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with them. Until they get their act together -- which they will someday -- I can't think why anyone would pay much attention to them.

So it's back to you as the "expert". It''s called delusion of grandeur.

vtcodger wrote:

I agree. I did my own analysis before I encountered Murphy. I was actually trying to see if the US and Canada could survive peak oil. My conclusion -- we can. Easily and painlessly if we choose to. By switching first to natural gas, then eventually to some mix of natural gas, petroleum/heavy oil for a few applications that need it, renewables, and nuclear. OTOH, I can't see that US energy policy since Reagan has been anything other than a series of accidents and accidents waiting to happen. I'm not optimistic that will change.

But you do see that YOUR expert source disagrees with your original statement as well as climate change?

But most of what passes for engineering among the environmentally conscious appears to me to be fantasizing.

vtcodger wrote:

He's also looked in depth at many power sources and related issues. I can't find the exact post I'm looking for, but my memory tells me he thinks renewables are OK but not likely to be sufficient and the only feasible alternative is nuclear.

The Alternative Energy Matrix | Do the Math 

Quick Lessons

Looking at some of the main trends, very few options are both abundant and easy. Solar PV and solar thermal qualify. A similar exclusion principle often holds for abundant and demonstrated/available. There is a reason why folks (myself included) like solar.

Pigged Murphy making sense.

vtcodger wrote:

If you'd like someone to help you along with the hard parts, I recommend Tom Murphy's blog http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ 

Thank you for the Murphy link:

Plans to Put PV to Pasture?

Okay, so while I believe I can understand the mindset and motivations of the solar-disincentive effort—and acknowledge a certain legitimacy—I do not, alas, share this view. Yes, renewables bring new challenges, are more expensive, and are inferior in a multitude of ways. But that is our road. Nature does not care about our rule-set. As finite fossil resources give way (and contribute to climate change), nature forces us onto a different path if we are to remain somewhat in control of our destiny. As fisheries collapse, agricultural land is lost to salt and desertification, freshwater resources are consumed, forests are lost, and species disappear under the grinding heel of climate change, why should we respect the rules of the game that got us here? Why pursue business as usual?

At its core, we have nature vs. free-market capitalism. They were not designed to co-exist indefinitely. We can’t change the rules of nature, but we have control over the rules of humankind. The challenges of the 21st century are not easily addressed by short term concerns characteristic of market forces. Quarterly reports and earnings are paramount, followed by annual performance. Companies do think into the future, but with an ever-decreasing weighting factor for future decisions (manifested as a discount rate). By the time one reaches the decade timescale, market influence has waned. Governments, on the other hand, can and do exert influence on longer scales. If it is thought that renewable resources will be crucial to our future, but that short term interests will prevent the renewable industry from growing fast enough to matter, then governments can give these industries a fighting chance to establish full-scale adoption by the time it’s needed—hopefully averting a crisis in so doing. Climate change is another domain in which governments can exert control over markets, for the betterment of mankind. Just because the current rules do not include a stiff carbon tax, for instance, doesn’t mean that such a rule is an abomination and should not be considered. if we bind ourselves to the present rules just because some have succeeded at the game under the current set, then we cannot hope to adapt to nature’s curve balls.

vtcodger wrote:

If you'd like someone to help you along with the hard parts, I recommend Tom Murphy's blog http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ 

Thank you for the Murphy link:

Plans to Put PV to Pasture?

Okay, so while I believe I can understand the mindset and motivations of the solar-disincentive effort—and acknowledge a certain legitimacy—I do not, alas, share this view. Yes, renewables bring new challenges, are more expensive, and are inferior in a multitude of ways. But that is our road. Nature does not care about our rule-set. As finite fossil resources give way (and contribute to climate change), nature forces us onto a different path if we are to remain somewhat in control of our destiny. As fisheries collapse, agricultural land is lost to salt and desertification, freshwater resources are consumed, forests are lost, and species disappear under the grinding heel of climate change, why should we respect the rules of the game that got us here? Why pursue business as usual?

At its core, we have nature vs. free-market capitalism. They were not designed to co-exist indefinitely. We can’t change the rules of nature, but we have control over the rules of humankind. The challenges of the 21st century are not easily addressed by short term concerns characteristic of market forces. Quarterly reports and earnings are paramount, followed by annual performance. Companies do think into the future, but with an ever-decreasing weighting factor for future decisions (manifested as a discount rate). By the time one reaches the decade timescale, market influence has waned. Governments, on the other hand, can and do exert influence on longer scales. If it is thought that renewable resources will be crucial to our future, but that short term interests will prevent the renewable industry from growing fast enough to matter, then governments can give these industries a fighting chance to establish full-scale adoption by the time it’s needed—hopefully averting a crisis in so doing. Climate change is another domain in which governments can exert control over markets, for the betterment of mankind. Just because the current rules do not include a stiff carbon tax, for instance, doesn’t mean that such a rule is an abomination and should not be considered. if we bind ourselves to the present rules just because some have succeeded at the game under the current set, then we cannot hope to adapt to nature’s curve balls.

Polling has seen a slight shift lately.

http://election.princeton.edu/

Probability of Democratic control: today's snapshot 75%, Election Day prediction 65%

vtcodger wrote:

Nothing against renewables. With existing technology, they can be useful. In the future, their utility will expand thanks to improved technology. But most of what passes for engineering among the environmentally conscious appears to me to be fantasizing.

Good for you. I bow to your "expertise".

Tom Stone wrote:

Bet on insanely stupid when it comes to Government policy. Any government. Later...

The "free" market will fix it, no questions asked.

Just ask Tom Perkins.

Yoringe wrote:

Atheism is clearly a UnAmerican Activity.....

Freedom is limited to conformists...

robj wrote:

Should be the Stuffed Bear Fund. Or maybe the Raped Bear Fund.

Hussman is a similar clown and I still see people post his drivel.

Hussman Strategic Growth Fd Fund Chart - Yahoo! Finance

Bubblisimo Gerkinov wrote:

That explains a lot.

I thought so, too.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Wisdom Seeker wrote:

And again, aggregate data whitewashes the maldistribution problem.

Feature, not bug That's the purpose of macroeconomic focus.

Please. If you don't understand aggregate effect, how could you even begin to understand its distributed effects?

Wisdom Seeker wrote:

So no, I really don't see "the first debt reduction in 50 years" as the salient point. It was just a one-off data blip due to the recession.

So if it was just due to the recession, why didn't we see a similar "data blip" during any other recession since the 1950s?

Wisdom Seeker wrote:

It seems to me like you're taking credit for driving all the way back to credit normality, when we haven't even gone 10% of the trip, the tires have gone flat and engine has broken down.

So we had a 5+% reduction in debt levels for the FIRST time in over 60 years likely in significant part due to the stimulus/more debt and you just want to ignore it instead of attempting to learn from it.

To answer you then post nominal debt figures and because it has the word "level" in it you thought it was debt levels...
Amazing.

5+% is huge and was not at all expected by the debt mongers.

Ideology FTW!

Cinco-X wrote:

He is awfully pro-Russian, but he's told us he's German, his father or grandfather was a German paratrooper, and he lives in Spain with his GF.

You are right, he's from Zschopau.

He just never responded in German.

Cinco-X wrote:

I think Yoringe has put me on ignore...

Are you sure that Yoringe is German or just lives in Germany? I'm not.

Wisdom Seeker wrote:

RE wrote:

According to a few here, a lasting debt level reduction has no sustainable benefit.

But the national data do not show debt level reduction.

Also note that in my earlier comments about the "refi boom", I said nothing about "debt level" reduction, only "interest cost" reduction. Interest cost reduction is a one-time benefit which cannot be sustained further.

You aren't serious, are you?

Your graph shows DOLLARS not debt levels, i.e. debt/GDP. Levels have a denominator, like this:

Graph: All Sectors; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level / Gross Domestic Product - FRED - St. Louis Fed

edit: Refis at a lower rate result in debt level reductions.

Wisdom Seeker wrote:

RE wrote:

According to a few here, a lasting debt level reduction has no sustainable benefit.

But the national data do not show debt level reduction.

Also note that in my earlier comments about the "refi boom", I said nothing about "debt level" reduction, only "interest cost" reduction. Interest cost reduction is a one-time benefit which cannot be sustained further.

You aren't serious, are you?

Your graph shows DOLLARS not debt levels, i,e, debt/GDP. Levels have a denominator, like this:

Graph: All Sectors; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level / Gross Domestic Product - FRED - St. Louis Fed

edit: Refis at a lower rate result in debt level reductions.

resusitate wrote:

When we have to resort to our military to defend our interests across the globe, that is the definite sign of our decline.

You are aware that the U.S. share of world GDP was close to 50% in 1950?

According to a few here, a lasting debt level reduction has no sustainable benefit. So debt clearly can't be an issue...

Wisdom Seeker wrote:

It's just a pity that the one-time refi boom, which led to higher discretionary spending, and which Seb has counted as "growth", is not sustainable and has run out of gas.

Jackdawracy wrote:

How come i'm never offered a full set of Snap-On tools, gratis?

Did you attend public school and even complained about its quality? Gratis.

Jackdawracy wrote:

Free money is not without it's advocates.

If it works as a tool I'm an advocate. Is there a different morality when it comes to money vs. other tools?

Seems a bit ideological and elitist.

tg wrote:

War Propaganda: The Root of Evil – LewRockwell.com

Personally, I don't read racist's sites however enticing the headline.

BarleyReturns wrote:

Boy all this stuff should could ruin a good game of golf, huh

Do I really have to post the presidential vacation/golf stats again? They are so...one-sided.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Wisdom Seeker wrote:

It's just a pity that the one-time refi boom, which led to higher discretionary spending, and which Seb has counted as "growth", is not sustainable and has run out of gas.

That's not a pity. It's math.

So a lasting debt level reduction has no sustainable benefit? I wonder why people worry so much about debt...

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street, Costing New Jersey Taxpayers $3.8 Billion

Gov. Chris Christie's administration openly acknowledged that more New Jersey taxpayer dollars were going to land in the coffers of major financial institutions. It was 2010, and Christie had just installed a longtime private equity executive, Robert Grady, to manage the state's pension money. Grady promoted a plan to put more of those funds into riskier investments managed by Wall Street firms. Though this would entail higher fees, Grady said the strategy would "maximize returns while appropriately managing risk."

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

It may be modeling something more akin to what I described, rather than a boring 30-year mortgage on a house you buy and live in. It would stand to reason that would look far more like a 30-yr Treasury, but that's not the case.

Just in case the graph didn't make it::

FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Why would this have sent the CPI through the roof in 2004/2005?

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

I should think using the 10yr as an approximation of a mortgage would be a pretty poor idea unless you're trying to model something more akin to the 'move-up' buyer in the mythical ever-appreciating market that never experiences downdrafts and has 100% liquidity because everyone wants to live there at any price.

Well, it seems to correlate rather well.

FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed

JP wrote:

When you think about it: If there had been a sensible inclusion of housing in CPI, then the 2005 housing bubble would have sent inflation through the roof, which would have caused the Fed to raise interest rates a whole lot sooner, which in turn would have prevented the worst of the excess.

How do you square your point with the 10-year as a proxy for housing costs? The Fed only sets short term rates at best.

Graph: 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Yoringe wrote:

RE: did you read Yogis Comments?

I did but it doesn't justify the KZ reference in any way.