How Has The Wall St. Meltdown Affected You?

[SDW2001]

Anyone invested heavily? I myself have "lost" a few thousand dollars. My retirement is a pension that I believe is secure in the long term. My 403b and college fund (TAP 529) for my daughter are both down 20%. In fact, my 403b is down 10% TODAY. Wow.

I'm mostly long-term, so I'm OK. That said, I had considered liquidating my 403b at least partially to shore up some cash for the next 12 months. But now...I don't know. I purchased a home and I've known that the first year is going to be the toughest (long story, but true). I think with the way things are I'd be better working out another arrangement to cover for the year.

Your thoughts?

[BRussell]

All I know is that I've been getting shares for cheaper than usual.

[e1618978]

My stocks lost 25%, so I chickened out on buying a house (we were set to make an offer the day after the dow dropped 777 points, so I said forget it for a year or so).

I still seem to be employable, though - just landed a job starting next Monday.

[franksargent]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/286331~Man-wearing-barrel-Posters.jpg

[Frank777]

Don't sell that barrel.

[Bergermeister]

It made me realize even more strongly that McCain is not ready to be president, as he will do anything and everything to not talk about the issue. His lame attempt to deal with the problem didn't achieve anything, either, and, well... Part of me wants to laugh at his antics, another part is scared at the prospect that he is still as high as he is in the polls even after the crisis and thus still has a small chance of gaining the WH.

---

Personally, I don't own stock, never have, never will. I make plenty of money working a good job and don't need the risks involved with stocks.

[hardeeharhar]

My stocks are off >20% than when I bought them four years ago...

Not real happy about it, waiting until I think the market has bottomed out to push in more money -- I need to see that the fed has made a rate cut, banks that were lost have found buyers, assets that were frozen due to the illiquidity get moving again before I even think about buying. Probably one-two months...

[BRussell]

It made me realize even more strongly that McCain is not ready to be president, as he will do anything and everything to not talk about the issue. His lame attempt to deal with the problem didn't achieve anything, either, and, well... Part of me wants to laugh at his antics, another part is scared at the prospect that he is still as high as he is in the polls even after the crisis and thus still has a small chance of gaining the WH.

---

Personally, I don't own stock, never have, never will. I make plenty of money working a good job and don't need the risks involved with stocks.

Not even for retirement?

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

wow... "lost" over 100k in value from one month ago. Oh well.
I've no need to liquidate any of that stuff, and I'm pretty confident that it'll still be way ahead of the game 15 or 20 years down the road.
Stocks/funds are a long-term thing for me... I'd go nuts trying to "day-trade" my way to a fortune.

But from a political standpoint, I don't think EITHER Obama or McCain have any idea what to do about this imagined "crisis". I still know people who are going to Disney World, who are buying new cars (NOT economy cars either), who are moving up to larger houses.... So it seems from my viewpoint to be about 10% real economic downturn/correction and about 90% hype by media/politicians.
Our beloved politicians managed to increase our national deficit by an additional 700B overnight... that spending was entirely OUTside the "budget." Now they're scrambling to see how much of that 700B they can bring "home" as pork!!! (I can only imagine how much of it it will be in the form of high-interest loans to people who shouldn't be borrowing money to begin with :) )

[hardeeharhar]

wow... "lost" over 100k in value from one month ago. Oh well.
I've no need to liquidate any of that stuff, and I'm pretty confident that it'll still be way ahead of the game 15 or 20 years down the road.
Stocks/funds are a long-term thing for me... I'd go nuts trying to "day-trade" my way to a fortune.

But from a political standpoint, I don't think EITHER Obama or McCain have any idea what to do about this imagined "crisis". I still know people who are going to Disney World, who are buying new cars (NOT economy cars either), who are moving up to larger houses.... So it seems from my viewpoint to be about 10% real economic downturn/correction and about 90% hype by media/politicians.
Our beloved politicians managed to increase our national deficit by an additional 700B overnight... that spending was entirely OUTside the "budget." Now they're scrambling to see how much of that 700B they can bring "home" as pork!!! (I can only imagine how much of it it will be in the form of high-interest loans to people who shouldn't be borrowing money to begin with :) )
Sounds like you are one of the well-off that wouldn't be seeing the effects of this economic downturn directly...

Doesn't mean a damn thing though for the 750000 people who lost their jobs this year and the hundreds of thousands more who weren't able to find work...

[dutch pear]

Not even for retirement?

:???: Interesting remark, is that a common thing to do in the US?

[BRussell]

:???: Interesting remark, is that a common thing to do in the US? I don't know how common or uncommon, but it's certainly smart to invest in stocks for long-term investments like retirement.

[hardeeharhar]

:???: Interesting remark, is that a common thing to do in the US?
Common?

Yeah... investments be they in the stock market or otherwise are the only real way to save for retirement. Putting money away in a savings account doesn't generate enough growth to support any sort of lifestyle...

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

Doesn't mean a damn thing though for the 750000 people who lost their jobs this year and the hundreds of thousands more who weren't able to find work...

Has there EVER been a year in which people didn't loose jobs?

As for not finding work... well... God forbid they take something a little less glamorous than they had hoped for! Work is easy to come by.

[dutch pear]

I don't know how common or uncommon, but it's certainly smart to invest in stocks for long-term investments like retirement.

Ah, I see. Where I live most (average income) people just take part in one of the national pension funds that guarantee their income after retiring. Owning stocks as an individual is really uncommon. Although some people do invest through bank-run stock funds, most find the risk factor too scary.

[hardeeharhar]

Has there EVER been a year in which people didn't loose jobs?

As for not finding work... well... God forbid they take something a little less glamorous than they had hoped for! Work is easy to come by.
Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by lost jobs -- the economy has reduced the available jobs by 750000. That means that 750000 people cannot be employed that could be employed before this year not to mention the fact that each month more people enter the workforce and there are NOT jobs being created for them.

Now, I can understand why someone who doesn't blink at losing 100K wouldn't be concerned about the economy -- but this doesn't mean that it is easy to find jobs that pay enough to live...

[jamac]

This is the largest tax ever paid by US citizens.
The Bush TAX = 2500 point loss in the stock market = around $ 5 trillion
$ 5 trillion - 1 trillion for war - 1 trillion bailout - 10 trillion debt (before raise) = 17 trillion + 1.4 trillion surplus from Clinton =
$ 18.4 TRILLION The single largest tax increase in the history of mankind!! wowsers!!


I have not lost anything. My windmills are still turning, the sun is still shining.
250k FDIC insurance is a good thing.

[screener]

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by lost jobs -- the economy has reduced the available jobs by 750000. That means that 750000 people cannot be employed that could be employed before this year not to mention the fact that each month more people enter the workforce and there are NOT jobs being created for them.

Now, I can understand why someone who doesn't blink at losing 100K wouldn't be concerned about the economy -- but this doesn't mean that it is easy to find jobs that pay enough to live...
Could it be the old, "I'm alright Jack, why aren't you" mentality.

Or,
http://www.financialpost.com/news/story.html?id=866284
AIG spent US$440,000 on spa, resort after bailout, lawmakers say
Why can't they see this really doesn't look good.

For some people it's just all about them isn't it.

[groverat]

I had to start selling my body to attractive co-eds at the University of Houston campus....

:(

... sometimes.... more than one at a time...

:( :(

[SpamSandwich]

wow... "lost" over 100k in value from one month ago. Oh well.
I've no need to liquidate any of that stuff, and I'm pretty confident that it'll still be way ahead of the game 15 or 20 years down the road.
Stocks/funds are a long-term thing for me... I'd go nuts trying to "day-trade" my way to a fortune.

But from a political standpoint, I don't think EITHER Obama or McCain have any idea what to do about this imagined "crisis". I still know people who are going to Disney World, who are buying new cars (NOT economy cars either), who are moving up to larger houses.... So it seems from my viewpoint to be about 10% real economic downturn/correction and about 90% hype by media/politicians.
Our beloved politicians managed to increase our national deficit by an additional 700B overnight... that spending was entirely OUTside the "budget." Now they're scrambling to see how much of that 700B they can bring "home" as pork!!! (I can only imagine how much of it it will be in the form of high-interest loans to people who shouldn't be borrowing money to begin with :) )

I'm running about 1/2 of your paper losses, and agree 100% about this manufactured crisis. Ron Paul pretty much told it like it was going to happen and was ignored as usual. I'll be supporting any and every effort to replace every member of Congress (with the exception of Paul and a few others) and the House of Representatives.

[SpamSandwich]

I had to start selling my body to attractive co-eds at the University of Houston campus....

:(

... sometimes.... more than one at a time...

:( :(

Shouldn't you be smiling instead?

[e1618978]

I'm running about 1/2 of your paper losses, and agree 100% about this manufactured crisis. Ron Paul pretty much told it like it was going to happen and was ignored as usual. I'll be supporting any and every effort to replace every member of Congress (with the exception of Paul and a few others) and the House of Representatives.

How did they manufacture it? And why is it affecting multiple countries? (Illuminati?)

[SpamSandwich]

This is the largest tax ever paid by US citizens.
The Bush TAX = 2500 point loss in the stock market = around $ 5 trillion
$ 5 trillion - 1 trillion for war - 1 trillion bailout - 10 trillion debt (before raise) = 17 trillion + 1.4 trillion surplus from Clinton =
$ 18.4 TRILLION The single largest tax increase in the history of mankind!! wowsers!!


I have not lost anything. My windmills are still turning, the sun is still shining.
250k FDIC insurance is a good thing.

The $250K FDIC insurance is irrelevant, it's a psychological band-aid. The Fed is basically printing the money to pay for this trillion dollar bailout, so every dollar you own is devalued. Economically speaking, this is a Depression-level event that may affect the US for a decade or more. It's really the currency devaluation that is at the core of the market tumbling further and further.

[jimmac]

Well as you may know I work at a local college and for some of us our retirement annuity if based on TIAA CREF. So it rides the stock market. I know since the 90's it's decreased and I'm afraid to look now. I hear a lot of people rethinking retirement.

[SpamSandwich]

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by lost jobs -- the economy has reduced the available jobs by 750000. That means that 750000 people cannot be employed that could be employed before this year not to mention the fact that each month more people enter the workforce and there are NOT jobs being created for them.

Now, I can understand why someone who doesn't blink at losing 100K wouldn't be concerned about the economy -- but this doesn't mean that it is easy to find jobs that pay enough to live...

As long as it's possible to cut back on one's spending, including selling the house and moving to a cheaper state, it is possible to find a job to cover expenses. Spending is not a constant and there are usually alternatives.

On the other hand, if one is hit with catastrophic medical expenses, no job will help anyway.

[FormerLurker]

Shouldn't you be smiling instead?
Not if he's "doing" co-eds so "attractive" that they have to PAY for it.......

:wow:



:embarrass

[SpamSandwich]

How did they manufacture it? And why is it affecting multiple countries? (Illuminati?)

Sorry, I'm not into fringe conspiracy theories. The crises was manufactured thanks to the Fed creating "free money" for the financial markets, which in turn made questionable loans to people of questionable credit-worthiness, which helped to collapse the overheated housing sector which had been on a unsustainable growth curve, which became a bubble. Once the bubble burst, the loans came due and they could not be paid. It was a house of cards created by the Fed.

[shetline]

Apart from the same kind of 401(k) hit everyone is taking, no effect so far except some tension about our new house. We started the process of building a new house months ago, our old house has already been sold (we were sooooo lucky selling it quickly, to the first people who looked at our house, for only a few K under asking), but now we're living in a crappy apartment waiting for our new house to be finished.

It doesn't seem very likely anything can screw this up any more, with only about two weeks left until completion. Our mortgage has already been approved, the only conditional elements being the certificate of occupancy and an insurance binder for the property once the last details are completed. With the passage of the the bailout bill, the over-$100K amount sitting in the bank from the sale of the old house is now insured up to $250K.

I still find myself worrying, however, that a major crash between now and when we close could screw the whole deal -- the bank where we have the mortgage approved collapses, the builder goes bankrupt, I lose my job, etc.

All I ask is that the financial world hold steady for another 2-3 weeks, then it can go to hell if it really feels like it must. :)

[SpamSandwich]

Not if he's "doing" co-eds so "attractive" that they have to PAY for it.......

:wow:



:embarrass

As Ted Danson's character in the TV show "Cheers" once said, and I'm paraphrasing..."We're all seventeen in the dark". :lol:

[BRussell]

Well as you may know I work at a local college and for some of us our retirement annuity if based on TIAA CREF. So it rides the stock market. I know since the 90's it's decreased and I'm afraid to look now. I hear a lot of people rethinking retirement.

I'm also on TIAA-CREF, and I'm 100% stocks. But I've got a couple of decades left, and I figure I'm just buying cheap right now. (And have been for the past 7 years...)

But I have a regular poker game with a group of mostly economists (bad idea, by the way), and several of them are in their 50s and will retire in a few years. About a month ago, a couple of them were talking about how they were pulling out of all their stocks funds. One of them was 100% in stocks and took it all out and put it in 100% money market/cash. I thought it sounded stupid, because you're always told you're supposed to gradually change over. But it seems like pretty damn good idea now.

[jamac]

The $250K FDIC insurance is irrelevant, it's a psychological band-aid. The Fed is basically printing the money to pay for this trillion dollar bailout, so every dollar you own is devalued. Economically speaking, this is a Depression-level event that may affect the US for a decade or more. It's really the currency devaluation that is at the core of the market tumbling further and further.


I agree, inflation is rampant. I have a few 100,000,000 Reichsmark notes from Nazi Germany. They bought a liter of milk at the time (if you could find it). We might see some of $ notes like this soon.

250k insurance is very relevant! As for me, I had run out and pulled money from my accounts that were higher than 100k. This put more strain on the banks, many people did as I did. I would have not reacted this way if the FDIC was already insuring accounts larger than 100k.

[SDW2001]

It made me realize even more strongly that McCain is not ready to be president, as he will do anything and everything to not talk about the issue. His lame attempt to deal with the problem didn't achieve anything, either, and, well... Part of me wants to laugh at his antics, another part is scared at the prospect that he is still as high as he is in the polls even after the crisis and thus still has a small chance of gaining the WH.

---

Personally, I don't own stock, never have, never will. I make plenty of money working a good job and don't need the risks involved with stocks.

One might say McCain doesn't get it, but....does Obama get it any more? I don't see a credible argument that he does. In fact, he's proposing tax increases, which cannot possibly help the situation. In our current predicament one must ask: Why raise taxes? To deal withe deficit? Well guess what...it's not the time for that and the deficit is not the root of the problem. To fund new programs? We can't be doing that right now, either. We need not tax increases, but spending cuts. What other reason is there...class warfare?



Sounds like you are one of the well-off that wouldn't be seeing the effects of this economic downturn directly...

Doesn't mean a damn thing though for the 750000 people who lost their jobs this year and the hundreds of thousands more who weren't able to find work...

Unemployment is still really low. At least for now.

This is the largest tax ever paid by US citizens.
The Bush TAX = 2500 point loss in the stock market = around $ 5 trillion
$ 5 trillion - 1 trillion for war - 1 trillion bailout - 10 trillion debt (before raise) = 17 trillion + 1.4 trillion surplus from Clinton =
$ 18.4 TRILLION The single largest tax increase in the history of mankind!! wowsers!!


I have not lost anything. My windmills are still turning, the sun is still shining.
250k FDIC insurance is a good thing.

Glad to see we're not being hyper partisan! :)


Apart from the same kind of 401(k) hit everyone is taking, no effect so far except some tension about our new house. We started the process of building a new house months ago, our old house has already been sold (we were sooooo lucky selling it quickly, to the first people who looked at our house, for only a few K under asking), but now we're living in a crappy apartment waiting for our new house to be finished.

It doesn't seem very likely anything can screw this up any more, with only about two weeks left until completion. Our mortgage has already been approved, the only conditional elements being the certificate of occupancy and an insurance binder for the property once the last details are completed. With the passage of the the bailout bill, the over-$100K amount sitting in the bank from the sale of the old house is now insured up to $250K.

I still find myself worrying, however, that a major crash between now and when we close could screw the whole deal -- the bank where we have the mortgage approved collapses, the builder goes bankrupt, I lose my job, etc.

All I ask is that the financial world hold steady for another 2-3 weeks, then it can go to hell if it really feels like it must. :)

I think you'll be OK. Care to say who the lender is? As long as they don't fold or you don't have big credit changes, you should be good.

[e1618978]

Unemployment is still really low. At least for now.

6.1% seems pretty high to me, look at this graph for comparison

http://www.economagic.com/chartg/feddal/ru.gif

And also, the trend it the worrysome bit.

[pfflam]

it us not the stock=market as such, but I have been trying to sell music gear that I could ordinarly sell easily, I haven't had a buyer in a long time, except a Magnatone speaker that I just sold for way less than usual.

[e1618978]

It's amazing how someone can construct charts that make the point they want to make. What say we look at this data over a longer period of time:

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1948-01&EndYear=2008-08&submit1=Create+Report

6.1% seems pretty high with your data also - the only times it was higher were during extremely sucky periods of the 70s and 80s.

[hardeeharhar]

Unemployment is still really low. At least for now.

I don't have to point out that unemployment is a measure of the number of people seeking jobs which is highly dependent on how confident they feel they can get jobs...

[SactoMan01]

Since I live in a paid-off house and don't owe a dime to anyone, I'm still okay so far. :D

However, it's time that we need to "think way out of the box" to solve this problem permanently. A major factor in this problem is our current income tax system--it affects ALL your economic decisions, and some parts of the Federal tax code actually contributed mightly to the sub-prime mortgage meltdown in the first place. :grumble:

It's time we ditch our income tax system and start all over again with a consumption-based tax system such as the proposed FairTax. Since under FairTax there are no taxes on income, bank savings interest, dividends or even estate, it would 1) encourage Americans to actually save money and 2) return several trillion US dollars held by American citizens and financial companies outside the country just to avoid the IRS, which would provide a spectacular liquidity injection that would at once stop the collapse of our stock markets and provide the basis for creating new lines of credit and loans. And since there are no taxes on capital gains, interest income and dividend income, it would encourage foreigners to invest in the USA because it essentially creates the world's largest tax haven.

(getting off soapbox)

[hardeeharhar]

Oh, god, another one

[screener]

Oh, god, another one
Lives in a paid off house and doesn't owe anyone anything.

The old "I'm alright Jack, why aren't you" philosophy.

[SpamSandwich]

250k insurance is very relevant! As for me, I had run out and pulled money from my accounts that were higher than 100k. This put more strain on the banks, many people did as I did. I would have not reacted this way if the FDIC was already insuring accounts larger than 100k.

Yes, but the increased insurance is illusory. Should the bank go under, accounts are covered by a higher amount of dollars which don't exist. Print more money, money's worth less, repeat.

[SDW2001]

6.1% seems pretty high to me, look at this graph for comparison

http://www.economagic.com/chartg/feddal/ru.gif

And also, the trend it the worrysome bit.


Unemployment is going up because the economy is slowing. That's not shocking. I disagree that 6.1% is high. It's been much higher in the past.


I don't have to point out that unemployment is a measure of the number of people seeking jobs which is highly dependent on how confident they feel they can get jobs...

No, you don't, because it's a point that's purely academic. If unemployment being 6.1% means nothing, then unemployment being 3% means nothing.
It's a measure of the economy. One must take it for what it's worth.

Yes, but the increased insurance is illusory. Should the bank go under, accounts are covered by a higher amount of dollars which don't exist. Print more money, money's worth less, repeat.

I think that's overstated. The money exists because the government is potentially borrowing it. That in itself does tend to deflate the value of our currency, but not by 1-1 proportions by far. Additionally, the dollar has gone up in the midst of the financial meltdown. So it's a bit more complicated than saying the insurance is illusory. If your bank goes under, you get up to $250,000 to cover your account. It's not like you get it and it's worth $150,000 the next day, or the next year or the next 5 years. It does affect inflation, of course.

[hardeeharhar]

No, you don't, because it's a point that's purely academic. If unemployment being 6.1% means nothing, then unemployment being 3% means nothing.
It's a measure of the economy. One must take it for what it's worth.

Um, no, actually, if we took it at its "worth" it would be academic, as in discussing meaningless numbers in an unaffected bubble. Rather, the value of the unemployment number cannot be separated from the number of jobs created. Less jobs created, lower unemployment = people are giving up. More jobs created, higher unemployment = people are beginning to look for work again. etc. The unemployment number does not stand on its own.

[SactoMan01]

Lives in a paid off house and doesn't owe anyone anything.

The old "I'm alright Jack, why aren't you" philosophy.

Colin Cowherd of ESPN Radio said it best: it's a YOU problem.

Being Chinese myself, I've always been taught to "save up for the bad times." That's why I scour the 'Net for bargains all the time, buy products that won't cost me an arm and a leg, and as such I'm ready to ride out this crisis.

This is why I support a true consumption-based tax system like FairTax--it encourages Americans to save and invest because of no tax consequences to job income, interest income, dividend income, capital gains, etc.

[SDW2001]

Um, no, actually, if we took it at its "worth" it would be academic, as in discussing meaningless numbers in an unaffected bubble. Rather, the value of the unemployment number cannot be separated from the number of jobs created. Less jobs created, lower unemployment = people are giving up. More jobs created, higher unemployment = people are beginning to look for work again. etc. The unemployment number does not stand on its own.

So you're claiming that unemployment actually is an inverse indicator wrt job creation?
It's not a meaningless number. A lot goes into the number...and certainly we must take into account those who have "stopped looking." But in general, unemployment is a good economic indicator. In other words, more people are working at 3% than at 6%. The economy is better at 3% than at 6%. Agreed?

[jamac]

Yes, but the increased insurance is illusory. Should the bank go under, accounts are covered by a higher amount of dollars which don't exist. Print more money, money's worth less, repeat.

You can say that at any time not at this particular time. We have been printing more money since banks decided to do the 1 - 10 rule. (if you have $ 10 you can loan $ 100 and charge interest on it).

If it is only psychological or not, it made me feel better and I am letting my latest energy income sit in only one bank.

[trumptman]

Things for me have worked out pretty much like I thought they would have. My networth has been pretty seriously dinged because the stocks I own and the properties I own and manage are all currently stuck in a deflationary loop. Since I don't eat or sleep my networth it hasn't done my any harm. Everything I own is about cashflow month to month and they not only are doing that, but are doing it on an inflation adjusted basis. The smallest apartment in my complex rented for $485 a month in 2002. It now rents for $690. So my standard of living hasn't changed for now.

[hardeeharhar]

So you're claiming that unemployment actually is an inverse indicator wrt job creation?
It's not a meaningless number. A lot goes into the number...and certainly we must take into account those who have "stopped looking." But in general, unemployment is a good economic indicator. In other words, more people are working at 3% than at 6%. The economy is better at 3% than at 6%. Agreed?
It depends upon how the rest of the economy is doing.

If for instance, there have been no jobs created for the last twenty years, and 97% of people have just stopped looking for jobs, then a 3% unemployment is meaningless.

It isn't a number you can quickly look at and get a sense of how the economy is doing.

[groverat]

I rebalanced everything 6 months ago with the idea that this kind of thing was coming. I'm down, but not nearly as much as many others. I went heavy international and I'm thinking about jumping back into the America as we have some fantastically low stock prices.

I'm still scared, though, so my international focus remains.

I'm no genius, but the retirement funds are still looking decent considering (1) how much in the shitter things are and (2) I'm not retiring for 30 years at least.

[SpamSandwich]

I rebalanced everything 6 months ago with the idea that this kind of thing was coming. I'm down, but not nearly as much as many others. I went heavy international and I'm thinking about jumping back into the America as we have some fantastically low stock prices.

I'm still scared, though, so my international focus remains.

I'm no genius, but the retirement funds are still looking decent considering (1) how much in the shitter things are and (2) I'm not retiring for 30 years at least.

Besides Warren Buffet many high rollers look like they are getting ready to get back in on the ground floor of US stocks. I just bought another handful of AAPL at the recent dip. I think also HP and T are drastically undervalued. Good time to buy while everyone else is in a panic.

[BRussell]

So you're claiming that unemployment actually is an inverse indicator wrt job creation?
It's not a meaningless number. A lot goes into the number...and certainly we must take into account those who have "stopped looking." But in general, unemployment is a good economic indicator. In other words, more people are working at 3% than at 6%. The economy is better at 3% than at 6%. Agreed?

I don't really understand why the unemployment rate that's most commonly used is such a stupid measure, but economists often use other numbers, like this one, called "U6." It's much closer to a measure of the percent of the working-age population that is unemployed. I don't think it even goes back any further than 1994.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/u6sept08.png

[progmac]

My international stocks have lost over half their value really paling my domestic losses. I'm trying to buy buy right now just to bring down my average price paid per share.

[SDW2001]

I don't really understand why the unemployment rate that's most commonly used is such a stupid measure, but economists often use other numbers, like this one, called "U6." It's much closer to a measure of the percent of the working-age population that is unemployed. I don't think it even goes back any further than 1994.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/u6sept08.png

It looks like it parallels the standard measure, though.

It depends upon how the rest of the economy is doing.

If for instance, there have been no jobs created for the last twenty years, and 97% of people have just stopped looking for jobs, then a 3% unemployment is meaningless.

That example is completely unrealistic.

It isn't a number you can quickly look at and get a sense of how the economy is doing.

I disagree. What you'll find is that the number is directly proportional to other indicators, though it trails them. Show me 4% unemployment and I'll show you a good economy....show me 8% and I'll show you a bad one historically speaking. It might not be accurate as far as the number of people without jobs goes, but it's still a good indicator.

[SDW2001]

By the way, I'm now down 30%. Ouch. Fortunately both accounts I've mentioned are long term, but I was thinking of using some funds from one account. Guess not.

[hardeeharhar]

That example is completely unrealistic.

It doesn't have to be realistic to prove a mathematical point and prove it I did.


I disagree. What you'll find is that the number is directly proportional to other indicators, though it trails them. Show me 4% unemployment and I'll show you a good economy....show me 8% and I'll show you a bad one historically speaking. It might not be accurate as far as the number of people without jobs goes, but it's still a good indicator.

No economist worth his salt would ever say that unemployment is proportional to anything...

[SDW2001]

It doesn't have to be realistic to prove a mathematical point and prove it I did.

But it's a completely academic point. It has no application to reality.



No economist worth his salt would ever say that unemployment is proportional to anything...

History says differently. The economy has been good while the unemployment rate has been low. I'm not saying it's good because it's low, just that other data/indicators are positive when unemployment happens to be down.

[jamac]

By the way, I'm now down 30%. Ouch. Fortunately both accounts I've mentioned are long term, but I was thinking of using some funds from one account. Guess not.

Quite the tax hike.....
Believing costs a lot more money than knowing.

[Northgate]

All I can say is that I'm relieved that my current gig (a Cartoon Network show) is currently funded by King Abdullah of Jordan (via Rubicon). I never thought in a million years I'd be happy my payroll is secured by Middle Eastern cash. Some friends of ours down the street working on a different C/N show just got notice that their season is being slashed in half (they're funded with British Pounds and the Brits simply cannot afford the exchange rate anymore). Ouch. I feel bad for those folks because they're going to be in a world of hurt soon. Production funding is drying up quickly around here.

Unemployment here we come!!!! Woot!!!!

I'm currently shopping for cardboard boxes. You know, just in case.

[hardeeharhar]

But it's a completely academic point. It has no application to reality.



History says differently. The economy has been good while the unemployment rate has been low. I'm not saying it's good because it's low, just that other data/indicators are positive when unemployment happens to be down.
Why are you defending the use of a single statistic to evaluate the economy? It simply makes no sense why you are arguing this.

Unemployment is a horrible horrible number that isn't directly correlated with any useful means of measuring the health of the economy. It is a single measurement that cannot replace and is diminished by other measures (in this case, the number of jobs created/removed)...

[SDW2001]

Why are you defending the use of a single statistic to evaluate the economy? It simply makes no sense why you are arguing this.

Unemployment is a horrible horrible number that isn't directly correlated with any useful means of measuring the health of the economy. It is a single measurement that cannot replace and is diminished by other measures (in this case, the number of jobs created/removed)...

I am not using a single statistic to evaluate the health of the economy. I'm saying that it correlates to the health to the economy. You seem to be discounting it totally, saying it counts for nothing. But this is not true. While it might not measure the number of people "out of work," it does correlate to the relative strength of the economy, which itself is measured in other ways.

[jamac]

Georges Legacy in numbers (http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/voices/index.ssf/2008/10/and_the_debt_clock_says_time_t.html)

SDW2001 please defend this for me. Tell me how wonderful this is. Please.

[hardeeharhar]

The latest rumor is that Obama is single-handedly causing the fall of the stock market...

It couldn't be the fact that banks just don't trust each other? No. It's Obama's fault.

"In a fit of cruel irony, the last remaining thinking conservatives ate their brains in an attempt to slander the liberal presidential candidate."

[pfflam]

[to JAMAC's link]

That link has one decent 'monoblog' post then a whole slew of ultra-conservative nuts spewing idiocy . . . . can people ctually blame this collapse on taxes? utterly pathetic, utterly.

[e1618978]

[QUOTE=Northgate;1319860]All I can say is that I'm relieved that my current gig (a Cartoon Network show)[\QUOTE]

If it is "the Venture Brothers" then I am absolutely in awe of you.

[SpamSandwich]

All I can say is that I'm relieved that my current gig (a Cartoon Network show) is currently funded by King Abdullah of Jordan (via Rubicon). I never thought in a million years I'd be happy my payroll is secured by Middle Eastern cash. Some friends of ours down the street working on a different C/N show just got notice that their season is being slashed in half (they're funded with British Pounds and the Brits simply cannot afford the exchange rate anymore). Ouch. I feel bad for those folks because they're going to be in a world of hurt soon. Production funding is drying up quickly around here.

Unemployment here we come!!!! Woot!!!!

I'm currently shopping for cardboard boxes. You know, just in case.

You're an animator? Really? That's so cool.

[gastroboy]

[to JAMAC's link]

That link has one decent 'monoblog' post then a whole slew of ultra-conservative nuts spewing idiocy . . . . can people ctually blame this collapse on taxes? utterly pathetic, utterly.

Just like the quacks round the dying man's bed arguing that they have not applied enough leaches.

[shetline]

SDW2001 please defend this for me. Tell me how wonderful this is. Please.
I'm sure that there's some way that this mess is mostly Bill Clinton's fault for starting it, and Congressional Democrats fault for not fixing the mess Bill Clinton started during the last two years.

[Northgate]

[QUOTE=Northgate;1319860]All I can say is that I'm relieved that my current gig (a Cartoon Network show)[\QUOTE]

If it is "the Venture Brothers" then I am absolutely in awe of you.

Sorry, no. I'm actually working on the new Pink Panther show.

[Northgate]

You're an animator? Really? That's so cool.

I'm an editor, which is nowhere near as cool as being an animator. I'm the lead-editor and head of post production. I'm also doing all the sound-design on the show. This is C/N's first big HD production. So we're all struggling with a new HD workflow and 5.1 audio. But we're very proud of how it's turning out. Should air sometime next year.

[franksargent]

Georges Legacy in numbers (http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/voices/index.ssf/2008/10/and_the_debt_clock_says_time_t.html)

SDW2001 please defend this for me. Tell me how wonderful this is. Please.

The national debt (so far) under the Certified Worst President Ever (CWPE), aka George W. Bush, for fiscal years 2002 (10/1/2001) through 2009 (9/30/2009) per OMB definition.

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
10/08/2008 $10,245,247,740,307.50

Elapsed time so far 7.023 years, in other words we haven't seen the last full year of the CWPE financial fiasco.

Average annual increase of the national debt under the CWPE $632 billion/year :wow:

In the last year alone the national debt has increased by $1,191 trillion, with half that total occurring in the last 21 days alone. :wow:

Investors must be dumping their stocks and buying up T-Bills or something. :???:

CBO estimated the national debt (in early September of this year) at the end of fiscal year 2009 (09/30/2009) as $10.277 trillion, similarly the OMB estimated the national debt (in late July of this year) at the end of fiscal year 2009 as $10.413 trillion.

So we are almost at a national debt that wasn't expected to occur until almost a year from now. :no:

By the time the CWPE, et. al. are done with their disastrous fiscal policies they could leave the national debt at twice the value they started with. :no:

Of course, this isn't as bad percentage wise as the Reagan-Bush years, where the national debt increased by a factor of 4.37 :no:

One can only come to the conclusion that the Republican administrations are fully intent on driving the government into the ground faster than McCain can fly a jet into the ground. :lol:

[SactoMan01]

The latest rumor is that Obama is single-handedly causing the fall of the stock market...

It couldn't be the fact that banks just don't trust each other? No. It's Obama's fault.

"In a fit of cruel irony, the last remaining thinking conservatives ate their brains in an attempt to slander the liberal presidential candidate."

Actually, what scares investors is Senator Obama wanting to raise income taxes and capital gains taxes, the LAST we need to do to save our economy. We should do the EXACT opposite and ditch our current income tax system in favor a true consumption tax system, where there are NO taxes on income and capital gains. That would result in trillions of US dollars, Euros, etc. flowing into the USA in new liquidity, which would stop the market slide in almost a blink of an eye. 8-)

[Northgate]

Ok. Back to reality....

[BRussell]

I'm an editor, which is nowhere near as cool as being an animator. I'm the lead-editor and head of post production. I'm also doing all the sound-design on the show. This is C/N's first big HD production. So we're all struggling with a new HD workflow and 5.1 audio. But we're very proud of how it's turning out. Should air sometime next year. So you're the one in charge of putting in the subliminal dirty pictures?
http://www.planetperplex.com/img/rescuers.jpg

[Northgate]

So you're the one in charge of putting in the subliminal dirty pictures?


;) Shhhhh. You're not supposed to know these things. :lol:

[hardeeharhar]

Actually, what scares investors is Senator Obama wanting to raise income taxes and capital gains taxes, the LAST we need to do to save our economy. We should do the EXACT opposite and ditch our current income tax system in favor a true consumption tax system, where there are NO taxes on income and capital gains. That would result in trillions of US dollars, Euros, etc. flowing into the USA in new liquidity, which would stop the market slide in almost a blink of an eye. 8-)
Heheheh...

You've got to stop drinking the koolaid...

Obama has actually stated that if push came to shove he would forgo the tax increases (really, reversions) on the quarter-million plus set and push forward his tax decreases for the 95% of tax payers who actually drive the economy.

But never mind the details, after all you have a POINT to make. A falsehood, but a point nonetheless...

[e1618978]

Actually, what scares investors is Senator Obama wanting to raise income taxes and capital gains taxes, the LAST we need to do to save our economy.

Obama has already ditched his tax plan, and does not plan on letting the Bush tax cuts expire until we are out of recession.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D931VVBO0&show_article=1

Cutting capital gains rates to zero would cause a stock market crash, due to everybody trying to
realize long term capital gains while the getting is good.

[e1618978]

:lol:
So let me see if I have this right. We're going to hold off on raising those taxes on the rich because it might further hurt the economy. So we'll wait until the economy is better to (try to) soak the rich (and then hurt the economy at that time).

Priceless.

:rolleyes:

Kind of like Clinton raised taxes on the rich when coming out of a recession, and we had a seven year bull market afterwards? And there is no such thing as a permanent tax cut - the poor people will push for capital gains taxes eventually.

[franksargent]

:lol:

This guy must be a fucking genius:



So let me see if I have this right. We're going to hold off on raising those taxes on the rich because it might further hurt the economy. So we'll wait until the economy is better to (try to) soak the rich (and then hurt the economy at that time).

Priceless.

:rolleyes:




Not if the cut was permanent.

The economy did just fine during the Clinton years when the rates of taxation were higher.

[e1618978]

You really think that's how it worked? Wrong. It was the Fed's goosing the economy (loos money and credit policy) and creating the previous (Internet/DotCom) bubble. The bubble they created before the housing bubble.

Goodness! When will this idea that we can tax our way to prosperity ever die.

No, they were raising rates during that time. The housing bubble was caused by the drops in the interest rates after 9/11 (a decade later).

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/statistics/dlyrates/fedrate.html

[SpamSandwich]

I'm an editor, which is nowhere near as cool as being an animator. I'm the lead-editor and head of post production. I'm also doing all the sound-design on the show. This is C/N's first big HD production. So we're all struggling with a new HD workflow and 5.1 audio. But we're very proud of how it's turning out. Should air sometime next year.

It's ironic isn't it... when people think of animation, they don't think of editors. We're so used to game graphics that we tend not to think of the person crafting the story with cuts, transitions and timing.

I'm with Lucas on this one. The movie really comes together in the editing room.

[SpamSandwich]

You really think that's how it worked? Wrong. It was the Fed's goosing the economy (loos money and credit policy) and creating the previous (Internet/DotCom) bubble. The bubble they created before the housing bubble.

Goodness! When will this idea that we can tax our way to prosperity ever die.


Sadly you're probably right. Envy cannot be restrained for very long.


The temptation to steal the smaller class of "someone's" money to fix the problems of the bigger class of "someone" will be eternal. Just like Lucy swiping the football away from Charlie Brown as he tries to kick it.

[BRussell]

It's ironic isn't it... when people think of animation, they don't think of editors. We're so used to game graphics that we tend not to think of the person crafting the story with cuts, transitions and timing.

I'm with Lucas on this one. The movie really comes together in the editing room.

Oh yeah. Animation is like bowling; editing is like golf.

(That's an old movie-making joke.)

(That I just made up.)

[gastroboy]

Goodness! When will this idea that we can tax our way to prosperity ever die.

Goodness! When will the idea that the rich can live off the backs of the less well off ever die.

[hardeeharhar]

Kind of like Clinton raised taxes on the rich when coming out of a recession, and we had a seven year bull market afterwards? And there is no such thing as a permanent tax cut - the poor people will push for capital gains taxes eventually.
Exactly, its called a balanced tax plan -- and there exists reasons to believe that we have given the wealthy too much over the last eight years.

[e1618978]

Exactly, its called a balanced tax plan -- and there exists reasons to believe that we have given the wealthy too much over the last eight years.

I think that excess wealth disappeared over the last eight months or so.

[FloorJack]

Of course everyone should pay their "fair share". What fair?

Them's fighin' words!

[hardeeharhar]

I think that excess wealth disappeared over the last eight months or so.
Sure, but economic growth has been sluggish over the last eight years suggesting something is out of order with respect to economic controls. My take is that the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor (the disappearance in effect of the middle class) is a byproduct of the same forces that are causing economic growth to be slow -- one of which is the relatively larger burden (compared to what would make economic sense) of taxes on the poor (and I don't actually mean destitute here)...

[hardeeharhar]

Ummm...it's obvious, "fair" means (increasingly) more (higher rates*) for some and less for others.

It's funny the whole "fair" share argument is certainly the weakest argument that liberals have for the progressive income tax. And it exposes their true intentions and motives.

*The rich would still be paying more even if the income tax was flat. A fact conveniently ignored by progressive tax advocates.
It's not ignored, it isn't reasonable to have a flat tax as that would place an undue burden on poorer people due to fixed costs that scale to some extent with social class. This is why progressive taxes make sense.

Remember the progressive tax system is done by marginal rates meaning everyone pays the same amount of money on the first x, first y, first z amount of income. There is nothing unfair about that.

The fact that it scales up with each margin is necessary to ensure that taxation isn't at a rate so high it prevents people from saving etc...

[hardeeharhar]

The middle class is not disappearing.

:rolleyes:




:err:

Huh? The bottom 45-50% of income earners earn about 15-20% of the income and pay about 3% of the income taxes. How is this in any way, shape or form a "relatively larger burden" of taxes on the poor.
Fixed costs.

and, oh, the middle class is disappearing.

[hardeeharhar]

http://www.newwork.com/Pages/Opinion/Raynor/Middle%20Class.html

[SpamSandwich]

Goodness! When will the idea that the rich do live off the backs of the less well off ever die.

:rolleyes:

Aces! :D

[SpamSandwich]

Exactly, its called a balanced tax plan -- and there exists reasons to believe that we have given the wealthy too much over the last eight years.

An absurd notion. Politicians have become stock brokers with our money. When markets fall, they short and blame the rich. When market rise, they go long and raise taxes.

Either way, we lose.

[SpamSandwich]

http://www.newwork.com/Pages/Opinion/Raynor/Middle%20Class.html

Ugh. Is this the best you can do?

[gastroboy]

Goodness! When will the idea that the rich do live off the backs of the less well off ever die.

:rolleyes:

The day they don't?

America has never quite ended the golden days of slavery, when the hard working plantation owner delegated the whipping of the lazy indolent slaves to shiftless middle men.

Thankfully then the plantation owner was adequately rewarded for his efforts and the government of the day both supported him and made sure the slaves were not overly rewarded for their reluctance to work.

Thanks to present day government interference in this satisfactory management-employee relationship, employers have been forced to turn to paying underaged workers, illegal aliens and the descendants of the slaves.*

The only good thing is that they can keep the payment to a minimum with constant promises that they will get something better.

* If they get difficult, there is always outsourcing to China etc. They'll work for the smell of an oily peanut.

[hardeeharhar]

Ugh. Is this the best you can do?
No. It was the first google hit:

http://www.factcheck.org/update_on_kerrys_shrinking_middle_class_-.html

from 2004 election.

Recent Numbers:

lower income 25%
Middle Income 43.09%
Higher income Remainder


Let's see here, is that middle income number shrinking? yup.
(I didn't correct the values to the same base currency rate, so in effect, it gets worse)

I hadn't actually expected it to be so severe...

[BRussell]

The middle class is not disappearing.

:rolleyes:




:err:

Huh? The bottom 45-50% of income earners earn about 15-20% of the income and pay about 3% of the income taxes. How is this in any way, shape or form a "relatively larger burden" of taxes on the poor. The bottom 50% of income earners do not pay 3% of taxes. They pay about 15% of federal taxes. You may be able to get to 3% if you exclude everything but federal income taxes, but just about everyone in the bottom half pays more social security than income tax. And that's not including sales taxes and the like.

The wealthy pay about 10% more of their share of federal taxes compared to their share of all income, i.e., the top 1% gets about 20% of the income and pays about 30% of the taxes; the top 5% gets about 35% of the income and pays about 45% of the taxes, etc.

In any case, it's graphs like this one that indicate a sick economy:

http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-07inc-f1.jpg

[franksargent]

Ummm...it's obvious, "fair" means (increasingly) more (higher rates*) for some and less for others.

It's funny the whole "fair" share argument is certainly the weakest argument that liberals have for the progressive income tax. And it exposes their true intentions and motives.

*The rich would still be paying more even if the income tax was flat. A fact conveniently ignored by progressive tax advocates.

Flat by definition is flat, and all pay the same percentage of how ever much they make.

The terms progressive and regressive tax rates are also well defined relative to a flat tax.

The current temporary tax rates are very likely to be fazed out over a 2-4 year period when the current Bush tax cuts expire, where they would revert back to the rates closer to those that were in effect during the Clinton years. But it very much depends on the economic situation at that time.

Which is 2-4 years down the road, I believe.

[BRussell]

I was referring to income taxes: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 I know what you were talking about, because it's what you guys always do: Switch it to one aspect of taxes - the most progressive tax we have - and ignore all the others.

What's interesting to observe in those tables is that the top 1%'s share has actually gone up (33.89% to 39.38%) under Bush and the bottom 50%'s share has gone down (3.97% to 2.99%). The top 1%'s share of the income has risen from about 18% or 19% to about 19% or 20% over the same period.Their share of the income has risen more than that.

Look at share of after-tax income (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458). The bottom 60%'s share of after-tax income went from 52% in 2001 to 49% in 2005, while the top 10% went from 34% to 37%. That's after-tax income, so it takes into account all tax changes.


Graphs that show that everyone's income has risen? Maybe my standards and expectations are higher than yours, but not everyone's incomes grew as much as our economy was capable of growing. To see a growth of 6% is pathetic for the richest country in history. The wealthy were just fine to begin with. I'd like to see the people who had the lower incomes grow 176% and the upper incomes grow 6%, if it's going to be so uneven.

[Northgate]

I agree. I've done some amateur video editing with iMovie in the past and I gained a whole lot of respect for the editing craft for a couple reasons:

1. The sheer amount of work, patience and creativity required, and
2. How much control they have over something being good or bad, and
3. Their ability to tell completely different stories by the way they put things together.

What's interesting about editing animation versus narrative live-action is that they're two completely different disciplines. And I'm currently doing both. :lol: My day job is the animation gig. At night I'm finishing post on our first feature film. Two different disciplines.

Animation editing is most influential in the pre-production/animatics phase. This is where the director, storyboard artists, and the editor build the visual sequence as a collaborative team. Once all that is figured out it goes to production. Post-production for the editor is simple assembly.

Feature narrative work is the exact opposite. Compared to animation, the editor really makes his/her impact at the end of the production process. And it's really a process of reduction. You're really shaping a film from pre-existing material (which can often be compromised by the realities of physical production). In a lot of ways, the editor is the final writer on the project whereas an animation editor is a member of the original writing team.

[sorry about the off topic stuff][/mybad]

[pfflam]

OnTopicButSeeminglyNot [ie: OTBSN]:

You are not alone. Even if you get your billion dollars, like every Republican secretly believes they will, you will still not be alone, you are part of a civilization. Be a part of it. This why Warren Buffet deserves some respect: he actually finds it absurd that he pays less percentage in taxes than his secretary. It isn't about 'fairness' its about systems and balance.

[jamac]

Actually, what scares investors is Senator Obama wanting to raise income taxes and capital gains taxes, the LAST we need to do to save our economy. We should do the EXACT opposite and ditch our current income tax system in favor a true consumption tax system, where there are NO taxes on income and capital gains. That would result in trillions of US dollars, Euros, etc. flowing into the USA in new liquidity, which would stop the market slide in almost a blink of an eye. 8-)

VAT Germany 32% (Value added tax = sales tax) still not enough to pay for anything. people are still taxed up to 65% of their income. Social Security tax is also very high.
Business can write off VAT when purchasing for business use.

If people don't have $$ there is no consumption tax income.
How do you propose to payback the 11 Trill. debt with a consumption tax?
How high will this consumption tax be?
How will it be administered and what will this cost?
How will it be split between states?

If you put out a theses, please add a few numbers, math is truth.

[trumptman]

VAT Germany 32% (Value added tax = sales tax) still not enough to pay for anything. people are still taxed up to 65% of their income. Social Security tax is also very high.
Business can write off VAT when purchasing for business use.

If people don't have $$ there is no consumption tax income.
How do you propose to payback the 11 Trill. debt with a consumption tax?
How high will this consumption tax be?
How will it be administered and what will this cost?
How will it be split between states?

If you put out a theses, please add a few numbers, math is truth.

Would you agree that if the progressive income tax truly paid for itself there wouldn't be an 11 trillion dollar debt with an additional 40-50 trillion in unfunded liabilities called Medicare and Social Security?

How can the system that generated the debt be considered sound?

[hardeeharhar]

Would you agree that if the progressive income tax truly paid for itself there wouldn't be an 11 trillion dollar debt with an additional 40-50 trillion in unfunded liabilities called Medicare and Social Security?

How can the system that generated the debt be considered sound?
Nick you are ignoring the fact that that is only one side of the puzzle...

[trumptman]

Hardee. Accusations without explanations might be considered ad-homs. If you are going to accuse, please explain otherwise it is just a very convoluted way of declaring I don't get it.

[addabox]

Are accusations of ad homs ad homs?

[giant]

I'm in the minority.
Only because of the extremism and the belief in a one size fits all (extra small, in this case) model of government.

Different states have different social, political and economic issues they are dealing with. What is right for Switzerland is not necessary right for Norway and is not necessarily right for Taiwan is not necessarily right for Somalia and not necessarily right for the US.

Really, the dogmatic libertarian movement has more in common with dogmatic socialists and communists than they are able to recognize. In both cases the gross ignorance of the extremist dogmatic ideology is hidden behind layers of quasi-intellectualism that churns out single-perspective, one-sided arguments to bolster their agenda.

It's really unfortunate, too, since what could be a set of good arguments are hijacked and turned into simple-minded rhetoric.

Personally, I'm bearish on the US in the long run. It'll probably bounce back from this mess and the shock waves will likely dissipate, but the US is already trailing many other places in standard of living and there are serious ongoing social and political problems (inner city and rural/exurban anti-intellectualism, crime, widespread political support for abuse of power by police, increasing christianism, to just name few) that likely won't be resolved any time soon. Shifting power from the federal government to the states probably holds the most promise to help parts of the country, but the only people pushing it are extremists who gloss over all of the major issues that absolutely will (and, throughout history, have) come up, which indicates they won't be addressed and will, therefore, result in regional instability.

[BRussell]

Would you agree that if the progressive income tax truly paid for itself there wouldn't be an 11 trillion dollar debt with an additional 40-50 trillion in unfunded liabilities called Medicare and Social Security?

How can the system that generated the debt be considered sound? Somehow federal taxes used to pay for government, as short a time as 8 years ago. But one party believes that tax cuts pay for government, and that's the party that took power 8 years ago.

[hardeeharhar]

Hardee. Accusations without explanations might be considered ad-homs. If you are going to accuse, please explain otherwise it is just a very convoluted way of declaring I don't get it.
What?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

I was merely pointing out that you are ignoring the fact that there is a budgetary side of the tax-spend equation -- one you conveniently ignored.

And by saying someone ignored something is not an ad hom -- I am not putting a negative description onto you (like say, calling someone a liar would be)...

[trumptman]

Somehow federal taxes used to pay for government, as short a time as 8 years ago. But one party believes that tax cuts pay for government, and that's the party that took power 8 years ago.

We could go into an array of concerns and discussion on this. We could note how inflation is a secret tax increase, how confiscating gold at $20 an ounce and then declaring it to be worth $30 a ounce is wealth destruction, you name it. Even when the budget was supposedly balanced (due to Republicans for a few years) some would simplyl claim that was also just the fed making revenues go up with easy money that fed the stock bubble, thus driving up the tax revenues associated with that.

My point is simple. You cannot shoot down a new tax proposal, in this instance a consumption tax based off the fact that it somehow is not perfect when the previous system is far from perfect. The proposal was dismissed because it couldn't instantly be shown to address the $11 trillion dollar deficit created by the current system. That isn't a strike against a consumption tax. It is a strike against the progressive tax and that needs to be assigned appropriately.

What?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

I was merely pointing out that you are ignoring the fact that there is a budgetary side of the tax-spend equation -- one you conveniently ignored.

And by saying someone ignored something is not an ad hom -- I am not putting a negative description onto you (like say, calling someone a liar would be)...

Actually if that is what you prefer, yes I asked you to spell it out for me. I made the point it was declared that I was ignoring something in noting progressive taxation has still driven up the debt. I'm not ignoring spending. The contention was that the consumption tax wouldn't address the national debt while I guess the contention would have been that a progressive system will, only it hasn't. Revenues have gone up but so have expenses each year. The claim cannot be that problems with progressive taxation is the means of dismissing consumption taxes. That makes no sense regardless of expenses.

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

OnTopicButSeeminglyNot [ie: OTBSN]:... This why Warren Buffet deserves some respect: he actually finds it absurd that he pays less percentage in taxes than his secretary. It isn't about 'fairness' its about systems and balance.

That quote from WB (when taken in it's entire context) is not in favor of a progressive taxes... It was commenting on all the loopholes available to "wealthy investors" and how at the end of the day their "over-all" tax burden ends up being a lower rate (even though their supposed tax rate is higher than their secretaries.)

[SpamSandwich]

The day they don't?

America has never quite ended the golden days of slavery, when the hard working plantation owner delegated the whipping of the lazy indolent slaves to shiftless middle men.

Thankfully then the plantation owner was adequately rewarded for his efforts and the government of the day both supported him and made sure the slaves were not overly rewarded for their reluctance to work.

Thanks to present day government interference in this satisfactory management-employee relationship, employers have been forced to turn to paying underaged workers, illegal aliens and the descendants of the slaves.*

The only good thing is that they can keep the payment to a minimum with constant promises that they will get something better.

* If they get difficult, there is always outsourcing to China etc. They'll work for the smell of an oily peanut.

This is pure, unrefined exaggeration.

[SpamSandwich]

What's interesting about editing animation versus narrative live-action is that they're two completely different disciplines. And I'm currently doing both. :lol: My day job is the animation gig. At night I'm finishing post on our first feature film. Two different disciplines.

Animation editing is most influential in the pre-production/animatics phase. This is where the director, storyboard artists, and the editor build the visual sequence as a collaborative team. Once all that is figured out it goes to production. Post-production for the editor is simple assembly.

Feature narrative work is the exact opposite. Compared to animation, the editor really makes his/her impact at the end of the production process. And it's really a process of reduction. You're really shaping a film from pre-existing material (which can often be compromised by the realities of physical production). In a lot of ways, the editor is the final writer on the project whereas an animation editor is a member of the original writing team.

[sorry about the off topic stuff][/mybad]

What fascinates me is the kind of stuff Pixar and, say Brad Bird are doing. The editing continues till the very end of the process. They will still throw out whole sequences if the picture suffers from their inclusion, where the majority of animated movies are wholly driven by cost concerns. The right way to make a movie (actually any kind of movie) is "story first". Another example of fine, uncompromising animation is the work of Hayao Miyazaki. "Sprited Away" is just mind-blowing, unbelievable stuff. Looking forward to Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea (http://www.ghibli.jp/ponyo/).

[giant]

That quote from WB (when taken in it's entire context) is not in favor of a progressive taxes... It was commenting on all the loopholes available to "wealthy investors" and how at the end of the day their "over-all" tax burden ends up being a lower rate (even though their supposed tax rate is higher than their secretaries.)
Actually, he directly advocates progressive taxes (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/), specifically a progressive consumption tax.

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

Actually, he directly advocates progressive taxes (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/), specifically a progressive consumption tax.

A MUCH, MUCH different thing than our current progressive INCOME tax!

[giant]

A MUCH, MUCH different thing than our current progressive INCOME tax!
iT's DiFfErEnT tHaN lOtS oF tHiNgS!

Unfortunately, you said:
That quote from WB (when taken in it's entire context) is not in favor of a progressive taxes...
which is wrong

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

...which is wrong

Except that I/we were commenting with regard to our CURRENT system, which is a progressive income tax.

But, OK, If you say WB is in favor of our current tax structure, then it must be so.

[giant]

Except that I/we were commenting with regard to our CURRENT system, which is a progressive income tax.
Your post:
That quote from WB (when taken in it's entire context) is not in favor of a progressive taxes... It was commenting on all the loopholes available to "wealthy investors" and how at the end of the day their "over-all" tax burden ends up being a lower rate (even though their supposed tax rate is higher than their secretaries.)
As you can see, the post that you typed is about the "quote from WB" and claims that "when taken in it's [sic] entire context" it supposedly shows that he "is not in favor of a progressive taxes." Unfortunately, its context is him arguing in favor of progressive taxes.

Furthermore, he specifically states that he isn't talking about "loopholes," either. From the interview:
Warren: Mine came to-- 17.7 percent. That-- that was the-- that was line 61 I think-- or, no, line 43-- is the percent of taxable income, plus payroll taxes, 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn't anybody in the office from the receptionist on that paid as low a tax rate. And I have no tax planning. I don't have an-- I don't have a-- an accountant. I don't have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do.
In other words, your attempt to correct pfflam was just completely factually wrong on every count.

Finally,
But, OK, If you say WB is in favor of our current tax structure, then it must be so.
Maybe you can point out which part of my post you are referring to. Here the post is in full:
Actually, he directly advocates progressive taxes (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/), specifically a progressive consumption tax.

[gastroboy]

This is pure, unrefined exaggeration.

Well there you go.

[midwinter]

I thought my personal stock holdings are too depressing to discuss.

And then I got my 401(k) quarterly statement.

[FloorJack]

I was thinking of converting my paper losses into actual losses.

This down turn is why you average into the stock market over a long period of time. If your employer matches contributions then you're way ahead.

[midwinter]

I was thinking of converting my paper losses into actual losses.

This down turn is why you average into the stock market over a long period of time. If your employer matches contributions then you're way ahead.

Yup. It's a good thing my employer doesn't match. It just pays 14.2%!

[screener]

So you'all complain, rejoice how the meltdown affects You.

How about what your tax dollars are bailing out, and some that don't play the market.

AIG, posted before, no one cares about, $400,000 pedicures a ta resort, and now an $86, 000 hunting trip to Europe.

Are you guys fucking for real?

No wonder they play you, they know you don't care or are to (sic) stupid to care.

[screener]

On CNN today, foreclosed on a families home, worth $109,000, sold at auction for $20,000 by the bank, put on the market for $49,000 and the family is shit out of luck.

Asked why the bank couldn't renegotiate the loan, a realtor is dumbfounded.

Why? The bank doesn't own the mortgage, it's spread out all over the fucking place, the bank only does the paper work.

Creative fucking accounting the unregulated way.

God fucking bless America.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.artplusradio.org/imglib/june07/winston_MoneyTree400.jpg

[screener]

What the fuck does that mean?

[@_@ Artman]

What the fuck does that mean?

It's titled "The Money Tree" by Winston Smith (http://www.winstonsmith.com/shop/small/moneytree.html). Been used on many cases where the rich white asshats have sucked our coffers dry...1929...Keating....Enron....The Meltdown of 2008....

But they'll just print more...what could happen?

Jesus we're fucked.

But try to channel this rage, screener. It doesn't bode well. :smokey:

[jimmac]

It's titled "The Money Tree" by Winston Smith (http://www.winstonsmith.com/shop/small/moneytree.html). Been used on many cases where the rich white asshats have sucked our coffers dry...1929...Keating....Enron....The Meltdown of 2008....

But they'll just print more...what could happen?

Jesus we're fucked.

But try to channel this rage, screener. It doesn't bode well. :smokey:

Or from the old saying " Money doesn't grow on trees ".;)

[screener]

On first impression, it's the homeowners fault for believing the bank, loan rep, whatever.

These people where told the interest was what it was.

They had no idea their mortgage would be broken up, included with how many others and be repackaged into investments by some offshore company only interested in profit and damned the debtor.

This is where small town banks have come to, where the banker knows his depositors, clients.

Where the local Police Chief puts a halt to foreclosures because of the lack of compassion by the banks, foreclosing on New Years Eve Day, putting renters on the street because landlords are in default.

And in the example originally posted, selling the property to another when the new price could be afforded by the original owner.

The banks get bailed out by you, when renegotiating, if an option, could have been better for all.

And you're not pissed?

[Frank777]

Okay Screener, take a deep breath.

This thread was clearly created to explore the personal effects of the situation on AI members.

That doesn't mean that those replying have any less compassion about the plight of others than yourself.

[midwinter]

I suspect that several of my colleagues will not be able to retire when they'd planned, now. And believe me. I really, really want them to retire.

[FloorJack]

I suspect that several of my colleagues will not be able to retire when they'd planned, now. And believe me. I really, really want them to retire.

I feel sorry for people that get to the last years of working and by that time they are so sick of the bullshit they can barely function. But they can't quit and get a new job because they need X years of service to get Y benefit. It must be a miserable situation to be in.

[screener]

Okay Screener, take a deep breath.

This thread was clearly created to explore the personal effects of the situation on AI members.

That doesn't mean that those replying have any less compassion about the plight of others than yourself.
Noted. A good nights sleep was better.

Although this pissed me off,
Last edited by lundy; Today at 01:36 AM. Reason: Calling others stupid, yet can't spell "too"
Nice huh?

[BRussell]

I suspect that several of my colleagues will not be able to retire when they'd planned, now. And believe me. I really, really want them to retire. Ha. I know exactly how you feel. Although I think most of the old-timers around here are probably not in stocks, but have some type of defined-benefit pension.

[trumptman]

On CNN today, foreclosed on a families home, worth $109,000, sold at auction for $20,000 by the bank, put on the market for $49,000 and the family is shit out of luck.

Asked why the bank couldn't renegotiate the loan, a realtor is dumbfounded.

Why? The bank doesn't own the mortgage, it's spread out all over the fucking place, the bank only does the paper work.

Creative fucking accounting the unregulated way.

God fucking bless America.

First, they didn't foreclose on a home worth $109,000. They forclosured on a home worth $49,000 with a $109,000 loan on it.

It was sold by the bank for $20,000 because it likely was not left in new or sellable condition or else the bank would not have left $30k on the table. The bank is not going to rehab it because they are in the lending business, not the remodeling business. The bank does service the mortgage or else they wouldn't have been able to foreclose.

The family gets to walk away from an overpriced asset with no debtors prison or other nonsense hanging over their head. There is no judgement or garnishment of their future earnings. They get a little mark on their credit.

In two or three years after renting a house at a reasonable price rather than paying too much for an overpriced mortgage, they now buy a home with their repaired credit and with 20% down. They will probably pay a whole quarter to half percent more on their interest rate as "punishment" for their sins.

I don't know about you but I would much rather pay 6.5% on a $50k note than 6% on a $109k note.

God Bless America indeed.

[FloorJack]

It's true that people who put no money down on their house risked and lost almost nothing in a foreclosure. Many would have rented otherwise.

Contrast that with my father in law that would like to move into a retirement type development but his paid off house is so down in value, because he's surrounded by foreclosures, that he can't sell his house.

[trumptman]

He can sell it. He can list it for $1 and have it sold tomorrow. He can't sell it at the overinflated price he might now have set as an anchorpoint in his head, but that isn't why it won't sell.

I say this as an owner of four properties that have had their value drop a over a combined $600k. However I don't sweat it because I didn't count it at the peak. It wasn't real money. THe real money for housing is based off income ratios and rents so those are what I counted.

Everything is subject to supply and demand or at least it will be until the government controls it out either via direct control or through destruction of wealth via monetary policy.

[midwinter]

Ha. I know exactly how you feel. Although I think most of the old-timers around here are probably not in stocks, but have some type of defined-benefit pension.

I think that's probably true, BUT WHY WON'T THEY RETIRE?!?! Seriously. Last year, a 75 year-old member of our faculty retired. You know who's still here? THE GUY WHO WAS HIS PROFESSOR AS AN UNDERGRAD!!!

[Northgate]

First, they didn't foreclose on a home worth $109,000. They forclosured on a home worth $49,000 with a $109,000 loan on it.

It was sold by the bank for $20,000 because it likely was not left in new or sellable condition or else the bank would not have left $30k on the table. The bank is not going to rehab it because they are in the lending business, not the remodeling business. The bank does service the mortgage or else they wouldn't have been able to foreclose.

The family gets to walk away from an overpriced asset with no debtors prison or other nonsense hanging over their head. There is no judgement or garnishment of their future earnings. They get a little mark on their credit.

In two or three years after renting a house at a reasonable price rather than paying too much for an overpriced mortgage, they now buy a home with their repaired credit and with 20% down. They will probably pay a whole quarter to half percent more on their interest rate as "punishment" for their sins.

I don't know about you but I would much rather pay 6.5% on a $50k note than 6% on a $109k note.

God Bless America indeed.

Agreed.

[FloorJack]

He can sell it. He can list it for $1 and have it sold tomorrow. He can't sell it at the overinflated price he might now have set as an anchorpoint in his head, but that isn't why it won't sell.

I say this as an owner of four properties that have had their value drop a over a combined $600k. However I don't sweat it because I didn't count it at the peak. It wasn't real money. THe real money for housing is based off income ratios and rents so those are what I counted.

Everything is subject to supply and demand or at least it will be until the government controls it out either via direct control or through destruction of wealth via monetary policy.

Sure but when looking to retire in a hand full of years he's not looking to get into a sizable mortgage. Had the subprime fiasco not happened then the bubble would not have burst and he would not have several dozen foreclosed houses in two block radius of his house.

[midwinter]

Had the subprime fiasco not happened then the bubble would not have burst and he would not have several dozen foreclosed houses in two block radius of his house.

Nick, you know more about this than I do, but weren't the housing bubble and the subprime thing indelibly linked?

[trumptman]

I'm sure there are several foreclosures in the retirement community as well by those foolish enough to get into a mortgage in their retirement years.

As an investor we all wish we could have bought at the bottom and sold at the top. This is why I focus more on cashflow instead of price of the asset. I can feel better if something puts money in my pocket every month even if it is worth 50% of what I paid or 200% of what I paid.

Timing things is hard. Managing expectations is hard. My mother, who is a lifelong alcoholic had some "health issues" related to her drinking.(Mostly it hurts when you fall down) She had bought a condo down by the ocean at the market bottom for $90k. We convinced her to come back to where I live when her "health problem" occurred and also just due to her age and the rising costs. She managed to get out of her condo for $450k, and we dropped it into a very nice retirement home where she paid cash of $200k and put the rest in the bank.

She is now unhappy because she can't leave and go move to a condo in Lake Havasu City. Well she can but she might have a small mortgage. She might have to accept less than what she has now. She will have to sell her house for less than she bought for it even though she managed to time the market just about perfect with my help.

In otherwords, losses suck. Slowdowns and downturns suck. People don't respond well or even rationally to them.

This is why everything I own is an inflation hedge. People respond better when you inflate the money supply than when you allow reality to happen. They don't get freaked out when they have 2% growth with 6% inflation but do when they have -4% growth. Sure they are exactly the same but people don't act the same.

[trumptman]

Nick, you know more about this than I do, but weren't the housing bubble and the subprime thing indelibly linked?

Everything is linked and everyone is to blame. I've bemoaned the lack of true conservatism even among conservatives.

The bubble is pure incrementalism of dozens of decisions at dozens of levels. People became more creditworthy because of their homes. This distorts the data that the banks use. The banks wanted to believe that distorted data because home loans were bringing such great returns in fees and initiation charges, and the loan itself. Democrats wanted to trumpet democratized lending. Republicans wanted to use it to show economic strength. A bubble is what it is.

People even made ridiculous improvements to their homes. Improvements not based on usability but on the "return" they thought it would get them. They went with granite instead of formica and figured the returns over 30 years instead of just what they could afford and would use. They is pretty much everybody.

We could go Repubican/Democratic on this, but the real issue goes much deeper. It goes into the nature of currency because you can't create a financial bubble unless you have the fed which is supposed to be free of both of them. Volcker was appointed by Carter but probably got Reagan elected. Greenspan was appointed by Bush and Clinton and caused the stock/internet and housing bubble in my view. Bernarke was appointed by W. Bush and has won my grudging admiration as someone who has done pretty well with the cards he has been dealt. He can't go into past and fix it but he isn't making it worse and knows the way the game is being played. That is important in my view.

We could go even further back. Nixon clearly brought the inflation on that Carter appointed Volcker to fight, but then Nixon was trying to inflate away the costs of the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam war that he was elected to end. Then we could go further back and... ;)

Currency is a messy business. It ought to be above party and so should the fed. The reality is that people are people and the bubble is a very human mess from all sides.

[@_@ Artman]

From a friend doing research, he found this old gem...

709. BANKS, Fictitious Capital.— The banks themselves were doing business on capitals, three-fourths of which were fictitious; and to extend their profit they furnished fictitious capital to every man, who having nothing and disliking the labors of the plow, chose rather to call himself a merchant, to set up a house of $5,000 a year expense, to dash into every species of mercantile gambling, and if that ended as gambling generally does, a fraudulent bankruptcy was an ultimate resource of retirement and competence.

This fictitious capital, probably of one hundred millions of dollars, is now to be lost, and to fall on somebody: it must take on those who have property to meet it, and probably on the less cautious part, who, not aware of the impending catastrophe have suffered themselves to contract, or to be in debt, and must now sacrifice their property of a value many times the amount of their debt.

We have been truly sowing the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind. If the present crisis should end in the annihilation of these pcnnyless and ephemeral interlopers only, and reduce our commerce to the measure of our own wants and surplus productions, it will be a benefit in the end.

But how to effect this, and give time to real capital, and the holders of real property, to back out of their entanglements by degrees requires more knowledge of political economy than we possess. I believe it might be done, but I despair of its being done. The eyes of our citizens are not sufficiently open to the true cause of our distress. They ascribe them to everything but their true cause, the banking system; a system, which, if it could do good in any form, is yet so certain of leading to abuse, as to be utterly incompatible with the public safety and prosperity.

At present, all is confusion, uncertainty and panic.

— To RICHARD RUSH. FORD ED., x, 133. (M., June 1819.)

The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (http://books.google.com/books?id=icGh3NxREIIC&pg=RA3-PA76&lpg=RA3-PA76&dq=%22the+banks+themselves+were+doing+business%22&source=web&ots=xOzdkQ1QMD&sig=LvulaZXaGoKJyhoLK8tVTDTjq0I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) By Thomas Jefferson, John P. Foley

[midwinter]

Everything is linked and everyone is to blame. I've bemoaned the lack of true conservatism even among conservatives.

The bubble is pure incrementalism of dozens of decisions at dozens of levels. People became more creditworthy because of their homes. This distorts the data that the banks use. The banks wanted to believe that distorted data because home loans were bringing such great returns in fees and initiation charges, and the loan itself. Democrats wanted to trumpet democratized lending. Republicans wanted to use it to show economic strength. A bubble is what it is.

Thanks. That's what I thought. My point, in response to Floorjack, is that you can't just say "well, if the subprime thing hadn't exploded, the bubble would've continued" when, in fact, the subprime thing was a big chunk of what made the bubble bubble.

Toil and trouble.

[Northgate]

Everything is linked and everyone is to blame. I've bemoaned the lack of true conservatism even among conservatives.

The bubble is pure incrementalism of dozens of decisions at dozens of levels. People became more creditworthy because of their homes. This distorts the data that the banks use. The banks wanted to believe that distorted data because home loans were bringing such great returns in fees and initiation charges, and the loan itself. Democrats wanted to trumpet democratized lending. Republicans wanted to use it to show economic strength. A bubble is what it is.

People even made ridiculous improvements to their homes. Improvements not based on usability but on the "return" they thought it would get them. They went with granite instead of formica and figured the returns over 30 years instead of just what they could afford and would use. They is pretty much everybody.

We could go Repubican/Democratic on this, but the real issue goes much deeper. It goes into the nature of currency because you can't create a financial bubble unless you have the fed which is supposed to be free of both of them. Volcker was appointed by Carter but probably got Reagan elected. Greenspan was appointed by Bush and Clinton and caused the stock/internet and housing bubble in my view. Bernarke was appointed by W. Bush and has won my grudging admiration as someone who has done pretty well with the cards he has been dealt. He can't go into past and fix it but he isn't making it worse and knows the way the game is being played. That is important in my view.

We could go even further back. Nixon clearly brought the inflation on that Carter appointed Volcker to fight, but then Nixon was trying to inflate away the costs of the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam war that he was elected to end. Then we could go further back and... ;)

Currency is a messy business. It ought to be above party and so should the fed. The reality is that people are people and the bubble is a very human mess from all sides.

You should teach economics at a University. I'm always surprised how granular your understanding of all this is. I may not always agree with your conclusions, but I do find I learn a lot about the details from your posts.

Ok. Gotta put my partisan hat back on...:p

[midwinter]

You should teach economics at a University. I'm always surprised how granular your understanding of all this is. I may not always agree with your conclusions, but I do find I learn a lot about the details from your posts.

Ok. Gotta put my partisan hat back on...:p

I agree. I always enjoy listening to Nick's comments on economics.

uh. wait. Um.

That is, WHEN HE'S NOT HATING AMERICA!

[FloorJack]

Thanks. That's what I thought. My point, in response to Floorjack, is that you can't just say "well, if the subprime thing hadn't exploded, the bubble would've continued" when, in fact, the subprime thing was a big chunk of what made the bubble bubble.

Toil and trouble.

Well no. If the subprime mortgages had not been offered there would have been no bubble to pop.

[midwinter]

Well no. If the subprime mortgages had not been offered there would have been no bubble to pop.

WTF are you even talking about anymore?

[FloorJack]

WTF are you even talking about anymore?

I'll try to explain it so that even you can understand it. What I'm talking about is the idea that had there been no subprime mortgages to make the amount that one can borrow go higher and higher then house prices would not have sky rocketed like they did and thus there would not have been a housing bubble. There wouldn't have been a gold rush of new homes and thus no over supply that later lead to a crash.

[midwinter]

I'll try to explain it so that even you can understand it.

Just preserving this for posterity.

[lundy]

I'll try to explain it so that even you can understand it.

Explain it so even I, a worse dumbass than he is, can understand it.

[midwinter]

Here are two (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355) very good (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263) discussions of how all this happened. But then, despite lundy's humility, I suspect I'm a far bigger dumbass.

[FloorJack]

Here are two (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355) very good (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263) discussions of how all this happened. But then, despite lundy's humility, I suspect I'm a far bigger dumbass.

Two very good hours except that Ira left out the role of the government in the whole thing. No mention of Fan/Fred or CRA? I guess they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them?

[FloorJack]

Oh and only NPR could make us feel sorry for a homeowner that gets a $500K home equity loan to pay for something that ... he tell us about.

[addabox]

Two very good hours except that Ira left out the role of the government in the whole thing. No mention of Fan/Fred or CRA? I guess they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them?

It's true; failure to adhere to bullshit wingnut talking points equals propaganda. Which is why ya'll are well advised to finish your complete withdrawal from consensual reality and gather round the Fox 'n blogger hearth.

Fox just picked up Glenn Beck, so the distillation proceeds apace.

And here's the payoff: in the '12 election, you can run a campaign that appears to most Americans to be obscure performance art, complete with a secret, made-up language.

I mean, how fun will that be? We can watch, mystified, as angry mobs go berserk at rallies when the candidate says things about "home town jump shots" and "the revenge of Yellow Jim."

I am so there.

[midwinter]

And the great Ronald Reagan.

[screener]

First, they didn't foreclose on a home worth $109,000. They forclosured on a home worth $49,000 with a $109,000 loan on it.

It was sold by the bank for $20,000 because it likely was not left in new or sellable condition or else the bank would not have left $30k on the table. The bank is not going to rehab it because they are in the lending business, not the remodeling business. The bank does service the mortgage or else they wouldn't have been able to foreclose.

The family gets to walk away from an overpriced asset with no debtors prison or other nonsense hanging over their head. There is no judgement or garnishment of their future earnings. They get a little mark on their credit.

In two or three years after renting a house at a reasonable price rather than paying too much for an overpriced mortgage, they now buy a home with their repaired credit and with 20% down. They will probably pay a whole quarter to half percent more on their interest rate as "punishment" for their sins.

I don't know about you but I would much rather pay 6.5% on a $50k note than 6% on a $109k note.

God Bless America indeed.
They foreclosed on a home with a $109,000 mortgage on it that was affordable before the interest rates doubled, tripled.

But like so many foreclosures, there was no recourse to renegotiate because there was no single mortgage holder.

The house was sold at auction for $20,000 and listed by the new owners at $49,000.
Likely not in sellable condition is spin, you don't know this as fact.

Do they get to walk away?
Deficiency doesn't come into play because the bank lost money in the public auction?
http://www.foreclosures.com/pages/state_laws.asp

Defaulting on a mortgage in the States takes only two or three years to repair your credit?

You didn't reply to renters caught in all this.
There are renters that wanted to buy the property that landlords defaulted on but banks weren't interested.
They were told to vacate and bid when the property is auctioned off.
Why?
In whose interest would it be to gamble, in a sluggish market, that an auction would recover a significant portion of the loan?

Makes you wonder who's gobbling up these homes at fire sale prices.

[midwinter]

Makes you wonder who's gobbling up these homes at fire sale prices.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nick picked up a couple.

[tonton]

Actually I'm a bit concerned about Nick... maybe the reason he disappeared is because he really went off the deep end... I don't mean in his usual way, but in a seriously extreme way.

Maybe he lost his nest egg in this crisis and his head exploded like Robot Santa trying to logic his way out of the fact that Bush and the Republicans are fully to blame.

Maybe he finally figured out that he was wrong this whole time.

Maybe he simply couldn't handle anything at all anymore.

[Frank777]

I wouldn't be surprised if Nick picked up a couple.

I've heard a number of fellow Canadians have made the trek south to pick up some deals.

I don't have the cash for such endeavours though. ;)

[FloorJack]

I've heard a number of fellow Canadians have made the trek south to pick up some deals.

I don't have the cash for such endeavours though. ;)

Cash? Who needs that?



I think I would pick up a vacation place if I had some cash for a down payment. Maybe I can take out a CDS on my wife's credit cards? It seems the housing market may take years to recover fully so single family homes may not be a good investment right now.

[screener]

Could this be true?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/opinion/21stein.html?hp
Although there are many things to like about the government’s plan, the failure to suspend dividends is not one of them. These dividends, if they are paid at current levels, will redirect more than $25 billion of the $125 billion to shareholders in the next year alone. Taxpayers have been told that their money is required because of an urgent need to rebuild bank capital, yet a significant fraction of this money will wind up in shareholders’ pockets — and thus be unavailable to plug the large capital hole on the banks’ balance sheets.
So, as much as 1/5 of taxpayer funds will go to shareholders, with government approval.

Forget that investing is a gamble, apparently some are above this concept.

Like the AIG fiasco, it's business as usual.

God Bless the real America.

[Frank777]

Cash? Who needs that?