[EconProf]

Hobie gave good advice above. You might want to have two copies of all materials–that way defendant can examine and have the opportunity to respond. This also shows you are experienced in court and willing to give the other side their chance. Also, don’t hand anything to the judge. Either give it to the uniformed officer, or ask if you can approach the bench. Shows respect.

[EconProf]

Glad to hear the good news.
Regarding your having to lower the window by an inch: This is really wasteful and shows how silly the government can be to make you spend all that money for no gain in safety. One way around it might be to build a “step” beneath the window. Of course you can remove it once the inspector has passed on it. I have heard of contractors doing this when they mismeasured ever so slightly in a window installation. Any Piggs have more info on this approach?

[EconProf]

In response to your basic question, the government has to inject seasonal adjustments into the report, otherwise the numbers would be meaningless. What’s important is not the absolute number of added workers or subtracted workers, but the change relative to an average of past years for that month. Only then can we discern an underlying improvement or decline.
It also happens for other data the government reports, such as retail sales. Say you are a store that typically does $120 million in sales per year. On average you do $8 million per month for eleven months, then $22 million in December, for the $120 total. If last December you did only $15 million, would you be happy because it is above your monthly average? Seasonally adjusted, that December would be considered an awful month, as it should be.
The tricky thing the government must do is adjust for many such seasonal influences that are often changing over the years, and it is often unfairly blamed unfairly for getting it wrong or making the change late. But they revise their methodology when warranted, and I’ve never seen conclusive proof they are tilting the numbers. Their assumptions and definitions are there for everyone to see and analyze, their footnotes and addendums explain everything, and attacks by the out-of-power political party, both Democrat and Republican, are routine.

[EconProf]

Teaboy, looks like you (and others) have made good money by refinancing and “capturing” the gain resulting from the falling interest rate environment.
If I understand correctly what you have done, (and I am only relying in this thread as I have not read any other analyses of this strategy), you are resetting your long-term contract to repay a loan with each drop in prevailing interest rates.
A loan is a promise to pay a flow of funds for a certain period of time, at a fixed (in this case) interest rate. Once the loan has closed, at the then-prevailing market rate, the lender and borrower are both committed. What if, one month later, prevailing interest rates jump? You are locked in at a comparably good interest rate so you are indifferent. But the lender will kick himself because he could have waited a month and gotten much higher monthly payments for as long as 29 years, 11 months. The borrower will contratulate himself for his foresight and accumen.
Of course, if rates drop, the feelings are reversed.
If they drop enough, however, the borrower can refi at a lower rate and pay off the previous lender. That lender will not get to keep the nice premium (over new prevailing rates) that he had hoped to keep. The borrower can capture the gain via “negative points”, which the new lender will pay to get the loan done. My guess is you could forego the negative points and instead get an even lower rate. The transaction costs for all sides are apparently exceeded by the gain from the lower rate for 30 more years. So a new loan is worthwhile for both the borrower and the new lender. The previous lender kind of gets shafted, but that’s the result of not correctly predicting future interest rates.
None of this would be possible in a stable or increasing interest rate environment, which I have been predicting, wrongly so far, for a long time.

This looks to be an interesting strategy, and I’m surprised we haven’t seen much about it in the national media.

[EconProf]

You’ve been able to do it only in a falling interest rate environment, and yes, it looks like a smart move so far. I am only suggesting that with rates now leveling off or going up, it will no longer be feasible.

[EconProf]

I believe you are taking advantage of the generally falling interest rate environment of late. It makes sense for the lender and the borrower only because prevailing rates have fallen of late. Today’s 10-year bond rate really popped up due to good unemployment numbers, so the game may already be over.

[EconProf]

We now know why the big banks have been so slow to do short sales, so uncooperative with borrowers wanting loan modifications, and so willing to see the shadow inventory grow. They were waiting for the taxpayer to subsidize the principal reduction. Their time has now arrived, and the current administration is accomodating them.

[EconProf]

Pri-dk:
Wow, did you ever get it wrong.
Yes, seniors who saved all their lives for retirement and now get a negative rate of return on their savings (.5% minus inflation) are victims, on that front. That’s all I claimed.

As to those now getting their social security checks, I agree they are getting far more compensation for their taxes paid in during their working years, which was a very low percentage in the 1950s and 60s. They got a good deal compared to today’s twenty-something and thirty-something workers. But that’s another subject.
For those seniors living in their paid off homes (which calls for congratulations, not condemnation), and “paying 1976 level property taxes” (Prop 13 actually passed in 1978), that may comprise 1 in 10 CA seniors, at most.
Hey, lighten up!

[EconProf]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=EconProf]CAR is right about the injustice to seniors […][/quote]

You are seriously claiming that the “victims” of the past 40 years of economic policy are seniors?

The ones collecting their full social security checks, living in paid-off homes and paying 1976 tax rates, and who will be dead before the massive bill for the national debt comes due?

Yeah, those “twenty somethings” got it good compared to grandma![/quote]

[EconProf]

CAR is right about the injustice to seniors who lived frugally and saved up for their retirement, expecting to live off their interest and nest egg. Now they are getting essentially zero rate of return and are rapidly eroding their principal. This is largely underreported by the media and ignored by the policymakers.
A similar story applies to renters. The effort by the government to prop up falling housing prices, largely supported by the media, has hurt those renters who want to buy, saved up their money, and resisted jumping in when the bubble was building. Even now the policymakers are searching for new ways to bail out the reckless instead of allowing the market to clear at a lower level. Politics dictate that the generally lower-income renters lose in this contest against the higher-income underwater homeowners.

[EconProf]

Billfan, you are doing all the right things, especially bringing in your Councilman, and we really sympathize with you.
City building inspectors vary in their reasonableness and flexibility, and it looks like you really had bad luck by getting a mean one, plus a mean supervisor.
I’ve had work done once where a permit seemed superflous and costly, so I told the (licensed) contractor to “Do it to code, but don’t pull a permit”. On one occasion the unpermitted work was discovered, but because the work was to code I just paid extra to have the permit pulled after the fact.
A lot of permits are really silly, and the Development Office is actually a profit center for city government. They charge a huge hourly rate to review plans, and inflate the hours involved as well. I believe you even need to pull a permit and have an inspection just to replace a water heater in your home.

[EconProf]

The noninterventionist policies of 1920 ended with over eight years of incredible growth, low unemployment, and increased standards of living for the average American.
Then came ten years of intervention.
Google: The forgotten depression of 1920.

[EconProf]

Agreed, the article really is a puff piece that asserts Bernanke saved us from Great Depression II.
Actually, we’ll never know what would have happened if the massive government spending had not happened in the last months of the Bush administration and the three years of Obama’s. Coupled with unprecedented money creation and zero interest rates, three years later we are barely into a fragile recovery. What we do know is that our kids are about 4 trillion more in debt.
While there are many differences, the nation faced a deep and equally sharp contraction in the early twenties–some would even call it a mini-depression. GNP plunged by 17%, unemployment rose from 4% to 12% in 1920-21.
Mean old President Harding cut government spending, cut taxes, and the Fed did almost nothing. The economy came roaring back, and the unemployment rate went under 3% in 1923.
Lots of differences between then and now–especially that wages and prices were more flexible. But you can’t help wondering where we would be now if Bush and Obama had not been so interventionist. We will never know.

[EconProf]

Good points Enron, but I would add to your list of priorities reforming San Diego’s looming pension disaster.
The proposed bayfront project faces another hurdle I haven’t seen anyone address: transportation getting to the new high density venues. Look at an overhead map of the area and you have to ask, how will people get there? In most cities, cars (or buses, or trains, etc.) can converge on a location from all directions–think Phoenix, Dallas, or Las Vegas. In San Diego, with our glorious waterfront closing off half of the entrypoints (ignoring the possibility of ferries), customers must travel through either downtown or along the already congested waterfront NE or SE of the destination. What impact will this have on the rest of the area and its residents? And shouldn’t any increased spending on transportation improvements be added to the cost side of the proposed projects?

[EconProf]

These megaprojects seldom make sense for the taxpayer, and are a way for politicians, unions, and developers to all line their pockets. They typically hire “experts” to justify the project by promising unrealistic jobs, tourist spending, and phoney “multiplier effect” prosperity.
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out that in the last decade or so, Americans’ attendance at conventions is down some 30 percent, while cities have engaged in a kind of arms race to build more and glitzier convention centers by a like percentage. Sounds erily like a bubble is forming.

[Author]

Posts