Recent comments by RE

bearly wrote:

Don't bother using Debt/GDP because deficit/debt is massively on both sides of the same scale.

Please...

sm_landlord wrote:

Now if they could just figure out how to fund it with off-balance-sheet debt, we're be golden!

I don't have a problem with the debt at this point but off-balance sheet troubles me a lot.

Wisdom Seeker wrote:

What's happening with the other $482,000,000,000 in net borrowing this past year? That's not exactly a small amount of money!

Tried and true off-balance sheet items like wars?

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

It's not about what you paid for the House, but how it makes you feel.

Good one.

lawyerliz wrote:

And yet, did they get any results for their money?

Isn't the House a very nice reward?

dilbert dogbert wrote:

The communist conspiracy marches on to create a Muslim dominated Murica!!!!

2012 election spending of Koch's vs. top ten unions.

http://www.republicreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kochspending.png

Page not found |

...For the last election, Koch PAC spent $4.9 million in disclosed contributions (figures that appear on the chart referenced by Strassel). But they also spent over $407 million on undisclosed campaign entities, which does not show up in the CRP chart.

Republic Report broke down the figures for the last election and found that Koch groups alone spent more than double the combined political spending (including to undisclosed group) for the top ten unions combined. The chart includes union spending on dark money Democratic groups and Koch spending on dark money groups like Americans for Prosperity...

Jackdawracy wrote:

I suppose the collected doomeratti here would be happier if all the free money wasn't doled out en masse to a selected few, and instead we had breadlines?

Breadlines are too costly and for lazy folks anyway...

Let's blame the Fed!

Firemane wrote:

To paraphrase: "The problem isn't that we can print an infinite number of breadsticks. Our problem is you are not distributing them correctly."

The Fed has only blunt short to medium term tools. Distribution can and should be handled via legislative action.

Taxes address distribution reasonably well but let's blame the Fed for holding up GDP. Orwellian.

Jackdawracy wrote:

On many hotels around the world, the first floor is actually the second floor, and what about that 13th floor?

That' the standard in many parts of Europe for all housing. The 1st floor is often designated "main floor" or parterre.

tg wrote:

climate change

letter to the editor...

skk wrote:

You mean the part about glaciers melting since the start of the Holocene finally getting down to a layer with shell casings after 11,000 years?

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I had to laugh at the straw man, too.

KarmaPolice wrote:

Black men’s excuses for Ray Rice sound a lot like the ones Darren Wilson’s supporters used - The Washington Post

Smile

Bigots just about always project an individual's or identifiable group's "bad" actions onto the larger hated group.

Very disappointing coming from somebody who is likely gay.

RE wrote:

The 1950s due to high taxes?

I should have brought up the 1930s under Roosevelt.

Income & poverty 2004

sdtfs wrote:

Remember the times when the rich didnt get richer and the poor profited? Good times, good times,........when exactly was that?

The 1950s due to high taxes?

Yoringe wrote:

Got standing Ovations from a Group of Germans today.

Congratulations.

merchants of fear wrote:

but it's wonkish

You seem proud to not get it. Over and over again.

lawyerliz wrote:

Just when is the vote?

Next Thursday.

Rob Dawg wrote:

The "don't knows" have been breaking decidedly in favor.

The Scots have the choice between the U.K. plus the EU or the EU only.

I expect them to prefer the package.

Rob Dawg wrote:

I'd not believe an 8 point lead from either side.

The U.K. right reports on the same poll.

Scottish independence: poll gives Unionists eight-point lead - Telegraph

Mary wrote:

Or does it make you look wonkish? Post-modern -- medium (crediting) is the message (credit) and all that.

FYI I developed commercial accounting systems for financials.

Mary wrote:

No. Now yer reckless eyeballin nomenclature of the BASIS OF ACCOUNTING (historical, cash, or accrual) and categorical assignment of cash and cash equivalents to BOOK VALUEs (e.g. "assets" of which P&E, goodwill, shareholders' equity). Daily debit and credit transactions signify recognition of payables' and receivables' totals in CASH, respectively.

Copying and pasting without a lick of comprehension.

Lobbyist Ben Dover wrote:

Credit is debt no matter how you wish to see it. Very useful tool when used properly to obtain wealth but the mess we are in is not from proper use.

I now get why macro isn't well understood.

Mary wrote:

One side of the "balance sheet" is CASH IN, and the other side is CASH OUT.

One constituent of "book value" is LIABILITY, and another is ASSET.

CREDIT is some amount of CASH or CASH EQUIVALENT that is not accounted in a "balance sheet" (because it does not exist) that a person is willing and able to lend to another person, for any reason, although HIGH YIELD is as popular an excuse as CREDITWORTHINESS.

You are confusing a balance sheet with an income statement.

A loan is reflected as a credit in an asset account on the lender's balance sheet.

Outsider wrote:

Maybe in your social strata, but not in mine.

Debt is not the debtor's wealth.

Outsider wrote:

I guess it's the New Math.

Debt has always been wealth. Nothing new at all.

Former Idealist wrote:

Speaking of growth, the US debt grew $130 billion last month. Winning!

Isn't there a denominator called GDP....?

poicv2.0 wrote:

This ties in with the recent discussion of micro homes.

Smile

Rob Dawg wrote:

Yes. Yes you do. One poll in the teeth of dozens of others.

Read again.... polls?

Rob Dawg wrote:

Princeton again.

I'll repeat.

Nerd wars

Is Nate Silver a little too excited about his model?

"I would like to place a large wager against that guy..." says @NateSilver538 of @SamWangPhD's projection, which heavily favors Dems.

I guess when you’re the King of the Nerds, you have to be willing to engage in a little trash talk. I think this is a good time to administer a lesson in probability – and also question who is doing the “heavy favoring” around here.

The PEC Election Day prediction indicates a 70% probability of Democratic+Independent control. That is based on polls alone, plus the assumption that September-October will act like June-August. FiveThirtyEight’s probability is 64% favoring the Republicans, based on a model with polls plus a substantial dose of special sauce (a.k.a. fundamentals).

Rob Dawg wrote:

… we know that from the polls that repeatedly projected Romney as the winner.

Funny how "538" was great in 2012 and is anathema in 2014.

I was critical of Silver in 2012.

Princeton and Votamatic were much more predictive and accurate.

Nerd wars

Is Nate Silver a little too excited about his model?

"I would like to place a large wager against that guy..." says @NateSilver538 of @SamWangPhD's projection, which heavily favors Dems.

I guess when you’re the King of the Nerds, you have to be willing to engage in a little trash talk. I think this is a good time to administer a lesson in probability – and also question who is doing the “heavy favoring” around here.

The PEC Election Day prediction indicates a 70% probability of Democratic+Independent control. That is based on polls alone, plus the assumption that September-October will act like June-August. FiveThirtyEight’s probability is 64% favoring the Republicans, based on a model with polls plus a substantial dose of special sauce (a.k.a. fundamentals).

Rob Dawg wrote:

You are asserting that lower debt burdens in households is a result of the GDP consequences of higher housing prices? Don't you want to put that about eighth on the ranked list of why household debt burdens have declined?

FOR and nominal per capita GDP, as a result of TARP and ARRA, have improved with a slight hick-up at the beginning of the recession keeping up nominal GDP.

Take that away and FOR/debt levels skyrocket like they did in GD1 (1930-1933) killing economic confidence.

Rob Dawg wrote:

Okay so it isn't the actual value of assets that aren't even counted in GDP that matters but the doubt those theoretical paper losses engender in general public responsible for 60-70% of GDP of which 55-65% is not optional consumption. So maybe 5% that is affected (not eliminated). We are still back down into low percentage impacts without adding back in the stimulative effects of lower prices.

That stimulation is priced in evidenced by FOR. Why isn't confidence higher?

Graph: Household Financial Obligations as a percent of Disposable Personal Income - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Rob Dawg wrote:

Of course but you are talking a few percent of a few percent. 5.07m resales, average price $170k. Call the direct adds to GDP 10%. $90b in a $17t economy. Half a percent.

Combine it with the general loss of confidence that J6P's biggest asset loses in nominal value and you've got an explosive mix.

Rob Dawg wrote:

Residential Construction - This part of overall investment tracks the actual construction of housing, not the sale of homes. A new home that is built during a given year is counted in that year's GDP, while the purchase of a previously owned house has already been counted in the GDP of the year it was constructed. In this way, only those residences that add to the overall housing stock count towards GDP.

As you know there is a lot more economic activity generated by a resale that counts towards GDP (commissions, etc.) where sale price affects activity.

Rob Dawg wrote:

So lower prices for consumers are bad for GDP?

Not necessarily. GDP is income.

If nominal GDP grows at population levels, it's all good otherwise per-capita deflation ensues.

Outsider wrote:

You know what makes houses more affordable? Lower prices.

Only if GDP doesn't take a hit. Otherwise you get lower wages and higher unemployment. Repeat, rinse.

Unfortunately, it isn't so simple.

Rob Dawg wrote:

Because it uncomfortably impinges upon your distorted worldview.

The spinmeister.

Rob Dawg wrote:

Government Itself Still Cited as Top U.S. Problem

Why do I NEVER trust your interpretation?

Dissatisfaction with govemment/Congress/politicians; poor leadership/corruption/abuse of powerDissatisfaction with govemment/Congress/politicians; poor leadership/corruption/abuse of power

Senate Report Confirms That Republicans Lied About The IRS Only Targeting Conservatives

A newly released report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations confirms that both liberal and conservatives groups received the same bad treatment and were targeted by the IRS. In short, Republicans lied about the IRS only targeting conservatives.

vtcodger wrote:

Please tell me that you are not under the misaprehension that rebooting Win95 or Win98 was necessary when applications died. Not that it never happened, but Unix and NT based OSes occasionally hang up albeit rarely. Actually in my esperience the major problem with Win9 was registry corruption -- which I think was probably due to the widespread use of non-parity memory. I'd imagine that NT on the same machines would have the pretty much same problems. (because the problems probably weren't in the OS).

Please....

Windows 9x - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although Windows 9x features memory protection, it does not protect the first megabyte of memory from userland applications. This area of memory contains code critical to the functioning of the operating system, and by writing into this area of memory an application can crash or freeze the operating system. This was a source of instability as faulty applications could accidentally write into this region and with that halt the operating system.[17]

vtcodger wrote:

Your clients were, as I suspect you very well know, delusional. But it would not be a good strategic move to shatter their illlusions unless you had a better solution to peddle.

They weren't delusional. They had a serious aversion to having to reboot a client simply because ONE application died..

vtcodger wrote:

NT? Sorry my freind. A perfectly OK server OS (ignoring the question of exactly why one would want a Windows based server). But it's far too complex and bulky. Not that big a problem in 2000 and the decade thereafter. But if you had looked forward further to a time when the industry would be focusing on small, limited, but very cheap, computers, you might have projected that your software and ecosystem would not scale down to the CPUs in that market -- which is pretty much what has happened.

I was in the commercial software business. Our big clients insisted, rightly, on NT on the client side because of preemptive multitasking and solid memory protection.

KarmaPolice wrote:

Once again...garbage is all relative.

NT/2000 wasn't garbage at all. What are you comparing it to? Apple before OS X? Please....