Are we in seriously deep doo doo?

[JSt0rm]

That was the most coherent nemesis post ever.

 

[shiner]

loose lips...Now everyone knows about it. OPSEC bro

No worries...with the GPS system out 99% of them couldn't find their asses with both hands tied behind their backs. The ones that actually know how to use a map and a compass will be screwed as well. You get down there and the compass points North no matter which direction you are actually going. Lots of iron ore in the ground down there.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Racist! I resent that comment.

BTW it's "you're a Norseman. "

Thanks I needed a good laugh after reading the previous post.

 

[Zebo]

Now you're just making shit up to suit your own purposes. What 30&#37; on capital gains? America's 400 largest incomes paid <18% federal taxes in 2009, on incomes averaging $260M+... "Giving people jobs"? You just hit on the problem, in a backhanded sort of way- that's precisely what they're *not* doing ATM

What double digit wage increases for unions? Cite examples, don't just talk trash.

Pensions take up too much of the corporate budget? Well, duh! That's what happens when everything gets outsourced and offshored- the workforce shrinks, fewer people contribute to the pension fund to keep it afloat.

Redistribution of income? That's a feature of all modern economies, at least ones that continue to function, and has been since the last great financial catastrophe. It's not that it's desirable, but rather necessary. Failure to do so effectively is what's put us in the same situation all over again.

Gotta have it. Oldest economics lesson in history and conservatives act like it's news. Amazing really.

But Libs act like you should not have to work for it. equally stupid.

 

[LegendKiller]

Just let me say something . I am 59 and my wife has put in 38 years at her job. Were small town . and Its a small company . My wife is allowed to take out half her money on loan . Her sister took out more than that on hardship. You don't know nothing about me .

Further more as far as being disgraceful. The way you adderess others on the internet. Were your not standing in a Mans face is disgraceful and cowardice. Your a norsman by virtue of your barbarism online . Which sugjest in real life your a mouthy coward.

If you disagree with what I say thats fine . But you adderess me and only me. You know how things work in your little world you do not know how it works in ever one elses world. If you think everthing works the same for everone and all things are equal . You have to get a grasp on reality. This world isn't fair . I am sorry you can only get a small percentage of your 401k on hardship only . Maybe you should be closer to the people who sign the checks and do the paper work.

As for the rest of what got your ass bound up try some prune juice, I am not far off on what I say and there good reason that it has to be generalized. As it is am just a nut case shouting off mouth . Harmless. If it was anything more than things change and everthing moves faster.

First off, we weren't talking a hardship disbursement. We were talking about a conventional loan which you were taking out to invest in gold. Obviously hardship loans defy conventional loans (as do home loans) from the 401k.

lol, so I'm supposed to believe you've got some magical 401k, whereby a company will grant somebody an exclusion, not given to ANY other 401k I can find online, and you took out 500K and magically created huge returns with it? Merely because your wife is close to the boss? LOL.

That is, of course, ignoring everything else I mentioned logically, such as repaying the loan and having to liquidate anyway. Ignoring that you can't have any more than 1 loan (except for your magical 401k). Ignoring that you can't even reason your way around the loan (lol, I "earn" 8%). Ignoring you can't even use correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, logic, or rationality.

Ignoring *ALL* of that, I'm supposed to believe in your fairy tale story? Please, get the fuck out of here.

BTW, I am this blunt in real life. You don't have to like me. You don't have to like, or even listen to, what I say. But I pretty much say what I mean and I do as I say. I don't suffer bullshit and I call it out. I'm not always right and I'll admit when I am wrong, as I have done here many times. However, I do not cower in a corner and I will call people out. I may be an asshole for it but my true friends appreciate my candor.

 

[LegendKiller]

Now you're just making shit up to suit your own purposes. What 30% on capital gains? America's 400 largest incomes paid <18% federal taxes in 2009, on incomes averaging $260M+... "Giving people jobs"? You just hit on the problem, in a backhanded sort of way- that's precisely what they're *not* doing ATM

What double digit wage increases for unions? Cite examples, don't just talk trash.

Pensions take up too much of the corporate budget? Well, duh! That's what happens when everything gets outsourced and offshored- the workforce shrinks, fewer people contribute to the pension fund to keep it afloat.

Redistribution of income? That's a feature of all modern economies, at least ones that continue to function, and has been since the last great financial catastrophe. It's not that it's desirable, but rather necessary. Failure to do so effectively is what's put us in the same situation all over again.

I never said that the cap gains didn't come at the cost of the loopholes, which I believe should be closed, or, as I already mentioned taxed more. However, asking the wealthy to suddenly hire people when there is no demand for them is silly. Furthermore, the providing of capital does create jobs. Capital is flowing into businesses but they don't want the additional capital until consumer demand comes back. It is a feedback loop that will eventually pick up steam, not a magical fix.

I'll have to go back and look, I know that several unions in NYC and NJ have had massive increases. Best I could find was this one (11% over 3 years, not annual).

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57A6E020090811

We aren't talking companies with that one. I was pinpointing municipals, the biggest weight on taxes at this point.

As I mentioned, I do believe the wealthy should pay more. However, as Zebo said, to ask them to do so without getting concessions, such as reduction in pensions or smaller increases, is reasonable. They should earn a competitive wage and should be subject to market vagaries, the same as private employees.

 

[Nemesis 1]

A read what you wrote . Banks and all this shit what banks. A bank doesn't hold anything . We borrowed our own money and pay ourselves the interest, Thats OK in my books . As for amounts you can take out . No where did I say she took it all out . Nowere . Your babbling like your drunk. My wife is a manager( warehouse) my wifes sister manages the Production planet. My son has my wifes old job in the bindery . My next door neighbor works in the bindery . My sons cousin works in the Bindry . 2 other women work in the offices that are married to mywifes side cousins, I could go on and on . You know nothing of how this company manages its business or its retirement plan.

 

[LegendKiller]

Gotta have it. Oldest economics lesson in history and conservatives act like it's news. Amazing really.

But Libs act like you should not have to work for it. equally stupid.

I don't act like it is news. I certainly think that there should be some allowances. For example, I think universal healthcare is a good idea, if done properly and given to those who need it. Why? Because it benefits society (productivity, long-term cost savings...etc), makes sure that the poor get equal care as the rich, and increases lower SES goodwill, which is key. I've always said that not allowing the lower SES to benefit from societies progress only leads to eventual destruction of the society.

Agreed on your last point.

 

[LegendKiller]

A read what you wrote . Banks and all this shit what banks. A bank doesn't hold anything . We borrowed our own money and pay ourselves the interest, Thats OK in my books . As for amounts you can take out . No where did I say she took it all out . Nowere . Your babbling like your drunk. My wife is a manager( warehouse) my wifes sister manages the Production planet. My son has my wifes old job in the bindery . My next door neighbor works in the bindery . My sons cousin works in the Bindry . 2 other women work in the offices that are married to mywifes side cousins, I could go on and on . You know nothing of how this company manages its business or its retirement plan.

You read what I wrote and then do it 3 more times to comprehend. I mention banks in a different context.

"all" was a overstatement for effect, not literal.

Sure there sparky. I'll look into the laws too, as there are specific ones about the amounts. There may be some codified limits, I'm not too sure myself.

 

[Jhhnn]

But Libs act like you should not have to work for it. equally stupid.

Now you're making shit up, too. I've never offered that. People should work, when there's work available to them. Which is the problem we have right now- work is not universally available, and we both know it.

One of the big problems in a serious recession (I'm being nice) is that people who have jobs hold on for dear life, for obvious reasons. This greatly reduces churn in the employment market, further reducing opportunities for people who are unemployed.

A nominal, normal rate of unemployment seems to be 5&#37;, a fair % of which is transient and voluntary in good times. There's churn, people end up taking turns being unemployed. That's not the way it is now- people unlucky enough to become unemployed stay that way a lot longer, on average. This, of course, serves to widen the gap between haves and have nots in no small way. Lots of people who got pounded in the tech bust just got pounded again, just as they were getting their heads above water...

 

[Zebo]

Now you're making shit up, too. I've never offered that. People should work, when there's work available to them. Which is the problem we have right now- work is not universally available, and we both know it.

One of the big problems in a serious recession (I'm being nice) is that people who have jobs hold on for dear life, for obvious reasons. This greatly reduces churn in the employment market, further reducing opportunities for people who are unemployed.

A nominal, normal rate of unemployment seems to be 5&#37;, a fair % of which is transient and voluntary in good times. There's churn, people end up taking turns being unemployed. That's not the way it is now- people unlucky enough to become unemployed stay that way a lot longer, on average. This, of course, serves to widen the gap between haves and have nots in no small way. Lots of people who got pounded in the tech bust just got pounded again, just as they were getting their heads above water...

I'm not making anything up. Liberals/Democrats believe in welfare not workfare. They believe in free money for doing absolutely nothing but voting democrat which has destroyed whole communities.

Welfare promotes fraud, sloth, and unaccountable unemployable individuals.


If we had workfare OTOH like sweep streets or baby sit, or make up anything else 8 hours a day for their checks, housing and HC it would do many things.

1) Removes fraud. Takes those off who have a unreported side business like selling drugs because if they had to spend 8 hours a day working for a small social welfare benefit and not really needed it they would spend that 8 hours selling drugs instead and GTFO.

2) Develops job skills, self esteem and feeling as part of community.

3) Which in turn, if they had those requisite skills, would enable them to attain professional employment and back in the fold of tax payers.

4) Healthier which reduces medicaid costs, can't party all night and sleep till noon if you have to be at work by 8am.


Something for nothing is a total fail. But liberals support it.

I mean all forms SSI disability which my POS brother is on for 'bipolar' and about half the Indians in OK, Unemployment, AFDC and whatever else besides old age benefit. All should have to work for check,

 

[Zebo]

You ever been to a section 8 apartment complex J? Sat down and smoked a bowl with some of the deadbeats there? Spend a day please, day starts at 1 pm-4am. Think of it as a field trip and you will WTFU. You will see a wrecked people. I don't even care about the $ (even though it will bankrupt us eventually but that's only money) it's my people and culture I'm worried about.

 

[Zebo]

Hard mathematical truth why we things will get worse and worse.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/...nsanity,-And-The-Hard-Mathematical-Truth.html
Except

I don't know how much larger one could have made the so-called "stimulus." But just as in 2003 it failed to produce lasting prosperity or turn around the economy because the Ponzi Economic "pull forward" on demand (via increased credit) had hit the wall.

That's the ultimate failure of all of these so-called "economists." They simply disregard debt - on purpose.

This is idiotic, and worse, it's intentionally misleading. Anyone with half a brain knows that debt has to be repaid, and that if you have an economic system with $100 in currency and yet permit someone to loan what part of it they have at interest it is inevitable that the interest will ultimately consume all of the $100!

The answer to that is usually "emit more currency!" Yet this leads to a second conundrum - one can only emit more credit or currency (both spend the same) at a rate that matches growth in output, lest you get inflation. Inflation means that you really didn't accomplish anything, as while there are more units of currency (and/or credit) available in the economy each one purchases fewer goods or services.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to accept periodic recessions in which both borrowers and lenders who take and make the weakest loans fail and go bankrupt.

That causes the credit and debt (remember, credit and debt are the counter-balancing entries on both sides of the balance sheet) to be removed - and balance restored.

Recessions are particularly hard on creditors that loaned capital unsecured, as they take actual uncompensated losses. Those who loaned capital in a secured fashion get the collateral, which may adjust in price downward to it's actual value, but it doesn't go to zero. The unsecured lender, on the other hand, is faced with a complete loss.

The feedback mechanism (losses suck!) cause lenders to increase the price of capital - that is, the interest they demand. This in turn causes people to be more adverse to taking out credit for anything other than productive purposes - that is, to speculate or consume.

Through this natural set of feedback mechanisms (known as economic pain by those who experience it) the market works to restore balance - and protect the monetary system as a whole.

Government interference with this process always introduces undesirable distortions. By picking winners and losers government causes misallocation of capital - that is, it subsidizes losing behavior. By preventing fools from suffering their economic fate, government suppresses rates of interest charged for capital, which inevitably leads to negative real rates and thus speculative asset bubbles (after all, if you're going to get paid to borrow, you will borrow as much as you possibly can!)

But far worse is the refusal to recognize that absolutely nothing the government does produces anything. That is, government can redistribute a unit of currency (or credit) from Joe to Jane, but government in doing so does not and will not cause more units of currency in terms of output to be produced on a sustainable basis.

 

[LegendKiller]

Hard mathematical truth why we things will get worse and worse.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/...nsanity,-And-The-Hard-Mathematical-Truth.html
Except

First off, I'm not a denninger fan. Personally I think he's one of the worst internet commentators around. He goes for massive hyperbole, Faux Newz worthy hyperbole, to make sensationalistic points, yet they lack analysis or logic outside of his drive for hysteria and web hits. This is perfectly evidenced by his posts last year, at the height of the crisis, claiming a "devalue" of the dollar being imminent, as well as social unrest and "bread lines" being something that would happen by Q4-2009.

Second, debt, contrary to his claims, is not bad. If anything, all the government does in accumulating debt during a downturn is take the place of the private sector in lending money. The private sector, in believing the government acts as a lender of last resort, gives the government money when no other projects are deemed to have a good risk-adjusted return.

For example, there are several studies that show that $1 of unemployment funds actually yields $1.6x of GDP. Would the private sector take this place?

Would they do so with other stimulus?

To further this point, would interest cost 60% in the next year, eating away at all of the GDP gains? No, it costs the government far less than 1% in the next year. Thus, the claim that you can borrow $100 and have any gain eaten up by interest is incorrect. Furthermore, while you may have to repay the $100, that does not mean that it has not created any positive benefit. Provided it is invested in a project/good yielding more than interest, economic benefit has been gained.

Denninger doesn't bother to analyze this. Instead, he's a froth generating talking head.

 

[bamacre]

I bought my car with cash. Its payed off and I bought it at 28k miles. I save big on insurance for it every month. At the time the stock market was fine. I think I made the right choice putting that money in a car vs the stock market.

I don't think that's his argument. First off, buying a car is not really comparable with investing because buying a car is not an investment, it's a consumable good. Secondly, where his argument exists, is you most likely could have invested the money and received a higher rate of return than the interest rate on your car loan, i.e., you could have gained 10% per year on your investment and paid maybe 5% interest on your loan.