[jeeman]

I am making the prediction of biflation. Basically a reversal on what has happened in the last 15-20 years.

The percentage of income devoted to housing went from 25% to 40%, while the percentage of income devoted to food and energy went down.

The last few years, the housing value has gone down while food and energy has gone up. Other goods have stayed flat, or have gone down a little bit.

What this means is that we are in stagflation (as Rich has predicted), while our standard of living decreases. Cheap energy has increased our standard of living, allowing for more money to flow into other assets, but this gravy train has come to an end with the rise of China, Obama’s drilling moratorium and his war on oil, and the fact that solar energy production isn’t cheap *YET*.

Once solar technology reaches its renaissance, our standard of living will rise again, but this isn’t going to be for a while. We could have done this a while ago with nuclear, but there are enough nutjobs in this country that stymied the path that France took.

Jeeman

[jeeman]

I am making the prediction of biflation. Basically a reversal on what has happened in the last 15-20 years.

The percentage of income devoted to housing went from 25% to 40%, while the percentage of income devoted to food and energy went down.

The last few years, the housing value has gone down while food and energy has gone up. Other goods have stayed flat, or have gone down a little bit.

What this means is that we are in stagflation (as Rich has predicted), while our standard of living decreases. Cheap energy has increased our standard of living, allowing for more money to flow into other assets, but this gravy train has come to an end with the rise of China, Obama’s drilling moratorium and his war on oil, and the fact that solar energy production isn’t cheap *YET*.

Once solar technology reaches its renaissance, our standard of living will rise again, but this isn’t going to be for a while. We could have done this a while ago with nuclear, but there are enough nutjobs in this country that stymied the path that France took.

Jeeman

[jeeman]

I am making the prediction of biflation. Basically a reversal on what has happened in the last 15-20 years.

The percentage of income devoted to housing went from 25% to 40%, while the percentage of income devoted to food and energy went down.

The last few years, the housing value has gone down while food and energy has gone up. Other goods have stayed flat, or have gone down a little bit.

What this means is that we are in stagflation (as Rich has predicted), while our standard of living decreases. Cheap energy has increased our standard of living, allowing for more money to flow into other assets, but this gravy train has come to an end with the rise of China, Obama’s drilling moratorium and his war on oil, and the fact that solar energy production isn’t cheap *YET*.

Once solar technology reaches its renaissance, our standard of living will rise again, but this isn’t going to be for a while. We could have done this a while ago with nuclear, but there are enough nutjobs in this country that stymied the path that France took.

Jeeman

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

Arraya,

I don’t know anyone who has debt, who didn’t intentionally borrow it.

I have friends who borrowed $40k in debt, and then declared bankruptcy. Who is out this money? Not the deadbeat friend who now has $40k worth of “stuff”, but rather the average person whose 401k owns Master Card, Wells Fargo, and Citibank stocks.

I am all for no more bailouts for any company. Unfortunately, the union bosses turned out their sheeple to vote for Obama, and they wanted to keep their jobs at GM and Chrysler, so he bailed them out.

He bailed out the banks, because contrary to everyone’s common belief, Wall Street and the banks contributed more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s. But he’s a man of the PEOPLE, right? LOL

I am for corporate responsibility as much as I am for personal responsibility.

Those who advocate socialism for the masses have to understand that it also means socialism for big business. The socialistic politicians choose to rescue the big companies with lots of jobs and let the mom and pop piddly companies die for lack of air. This is for the good of their employees.

State capitalism and national socialism are pretty much the same thing. Government will choose which companies and people will get money and who will pay the taxes for this. We were on a slow march there with Bush, and then we hopped on the Amtrak with Obama.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but they said they didn’t see their teacher friends living lavishly. Lavish doesn’t mean that they buy a Mercedes Benz and move into a mansion. But getting $50k/year at age 50 for sitting around on your butt is lavish to me. I know that my retirement accounts won’t be anywhere near that at age 50. I’ll have to work for a while.

And CAR, you said that private benefits need to be brought up to public benefit levels…there is a problem with that. I do alot of investing, and frequently look at balance sheets of companies. Many companies would have to raise the prices of their goods in order to pay pensions like that, hurting the lower and middle classes. Look at Ford…we did an investment presentation on that company. Most of their income goes to funding their pensions. We called it a pension company that makes cars. Nonetheless, we did not invest in it.

There are record profits, not because the sales numbers are going up, but because there was expense cuts…layoffs. People are spending much less than before, but the fewer employees leads to better margins.

My counter proposal to your proposal is:

1) Get rid of all pensions for anyone under 40.
2) Pay all public employees the same as private employees (which means to bring up their current wages, which they can do because money is no longer being diverted to pensions).
3) Everyone is responsible for their own savings and retirement…and investing, if they dare.
4) Cut taxes equally for everyone so that we all keep more of what we earn. Yes, in a equitible society, this also means for the rich, who are in the (in CA) 44.5% tax bracket.

Then you can do an apples to apples comparison, because nobody is relying on a company to fund their living from age 50 onwards.

[jeeman]

“BTW, our states are not going broke because of the unions. They are going broke because of the boom/bust policies of the Federal Reserve.”

CAR,

Actually, it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that helped us to realize what kind of untenable commitment we made as states. As Warren Buffett says, “you don’t know who is swimming naked until the tide goes back out”.

As income tax revenues declined, and people lost their jobs, and thus sales tax revenues declined, we have in place these hard budget promises of lavish pensions of over $1M/employee (not just teachers).

I see that as far as tax revenue, the natural business cycle went into a bust period, so you are correct there. But states are unable to be nimble because of the spending that the public unions are unwilling to cut.

And then they go on strike against their boss…which is you and me. They want blood from a stone.

[jeeman]

“BTW, our states are not going broke because of the unions. They are going broke because of the boom/bust policies of the Federal Reserve.”

CAR,

Actually, it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that helped us to realize what kind of untenable commitment we made as states. As Warren Buffett says, “you don’t know who is swimming naked until the tide goes back out”.

As income tax revenues declined, and people lost their jobs, and thus sales tax revenues declined, we have in place these hard budget promises of lavish pensions of over $1M/employee (not just teachers).

I see that as far as tax revenue, the natural business cycle went into a bust period, so you are correct there. But states are unable to be nimble because of the spending that the public unions are unwilling to cut.

And then they go on strike against their boss…which is you and me. They want blood from a stone.

[Author]

Posts