[jficquette]

[quote=jimmyle] Hey, I am glad CA is running out of money. They will have to fix the prob now. Get ready to receive your IOUs.[/quote]

CA’s game plan is to get bailed out by DC. They have no other plans to solve the problem.

[jficquette]

[quote=jimmyle] Hey, I am glad CA is running out of money. They will have to fix the prob now. Get ready to receive your IOUs.[/quote]

CA’s game plan is to get bailed out by DC. They have no other plans to solve the problem.

[jficquette]

[quote=jimmyle] Hey, I am glad CA is running out of money. They will have to fix the prob now. Get ready to receive your IOUs.[/quote]

CA’s game plan is to get bailed out by DC. They have no other plans to solve the problem.

[jficquette]

[quote=jimmyle] Hey, I am glad CA is running out of money. They will have to fix the prob now. Get ready to receive your IOUs.[/quote]

CA’s game plan is to get bailed out by DC. They have no other plans to solve the problem.

[jficquette]

[quote=jimmyle] Hey, I am glad CA is running out of money. They will have to fix the prob now. Get ready to receive your IOUs.[/quote]

CA’s game plan is to get bailed out by DC. They have no other plans to solve the problem.

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=CA renter]Great stuff, SD Transplant. Thanks for sharing the links with us.

From the ZH link, I especially liked this part:

“All of these areas are totally non-productive and the only beneficiaries are the participants in the financial industry. And the rewards have been absolutely astronomical. In investment banking, hedge funds and private equity in particular, the most massive wealth has been created. Many players have become billionaires or created fortunes of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 10-15 years just by shuffling money around. In the past fortunes were created by building factories and industries. But today any normal employee working in Wall Street or the City in London will, by just showing up to work, make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. This is the proof of a world totally out of balance when people dealing in money become the richest segment of society. Since this activity contributes very little to the prosperity of a nation (but very much to its participants) it is not sustainable. The biggest reason why it exists is the massive amount of money that governments have created or printed and the fact that the financial industry has developed into a fractal wealth creation machine for the benefit of its participants.

For the last 40 years in particular the rich are getting richer and the average person has seen very little increase in real income. In the US, the real annual income of the bottom 90% of US families has increased by only 10% since 1970. And in the expansion between 2002 and 2007, median US household income dropped $2,000. The perceived increase in wealth for the majority of Americans derives from an increase in their debt level not from an increase in real earnings. So the improvement in living standards that the average American and many other Western countries have enjoyed in the last 40 odd years is primarily based on debt – debt that can never be and will never be repaid with normal money.”[/quote]

BTW, this is why I absolutely refute the notion that the wealthiest people are the most productive. Quite the opposite, from what I’ve seen.

The wealthiest are the ones who have the right connections and are able to insert themselves in the middle of every legitimate transaction so they can take a cut of every transaction around the world. Then, there are those who literally control the flow of money — either in an executive position or in finance. They make the most because they are the ones who decide where money goes. Middlemen, dealmakers, and “capitalists”…these are the people who have benefitted most in the past few decades. They are hardly productive.[/quote]

You have an example? Someone who “inserted themselves” in the middle of a transaction that didn’t have any skin in it?? Other than a politican? Rangel, Blago etc?

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=CA renter]Great stuff, SD Transplant. Thanks for sharing the links with us.

From the ZH link, I especially liked this part:

“All of these areas are totally non-productive and the only beneficiaries are the participants in the financial industry. And the rewards have been absolutely astronomical. In investment banking, hedge funds and private equity in particular, the most massive wealth has been created. Many players have become billionaires or created fortunes of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 10-15 years just by shuffling money around. In the past fortunes were created by building factories and industries. But today any normal employee working in Wall Street or the City in London will, by just showing up to work, make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. This is the proof of a world totally out of balance when people dealing in money become the richest segment of society. Since this activity contributes very little to the prosperity of a nation (but very much to its participants) it is not sustainable. The biggest reason why it exists is the massive amount of money that governments have created or printed and the fact that the financial industry has developed into a fractal wealth creation machine for the benefit of its participants.

For the last 40 years in particular the rich are getting richer and the average person has seen very little increase in real income. In the US, the real annual income of the bottom 90% of US families has increased by only 10% since 1970. And in the expansion between 2002 and 2007, median US household income dropped $2,000. The perceived increase in wealth for the majority of Americans derives from an increase in their debt level not from an increase in real earnings. So the improvement in living standards that the average American and many other Western countries have enjoyed in the last 40 odd years is primarily based on debt – debt that can never be and will never be repaid with normal money.”[/quote]

BTW, this is why I absolutely refute the notion that the wealthiest people are the most productive. Quite the opposite, from what I’ve seen.

The wealthiest are the ones who have the right connections and are able to insert themselves in the middle of every legitimate transaction so they can take a cut of every transaction around the world. Then, there are those who literally control the flow of money — either in an executive position or in finance. They make the most because they are the ones who decide where money goes. Middlemen, dealmakers, and “capitalists”…these are the people who have benefitted most in the past few decades. They are hardly productive.[/quote]

You have an example? Someone who “inserted themselves” in the middle of a transaction that didn’t have any skin in it?? Other than a politican? Rangel, Blago etc?

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=CA renter]Great stuff, SD Transplant. Thanks for sharing the links with us.

From the ZH link, I especially liked this part:

“All of these areas are totally non-productive and the only beneficiaries are the participants in the financial industry. And the rewards have been absolutely astronomical. In investment banking, hedge funds and private equity in particular, the most massive wealth has been created. Many players have become billionaires or created fortunes of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 10-15 years just by shuffling money around. In the past fortunes were created by building factories and industries. But today any normal employee working in Wall Street or the City in London will, by just showing up to work, make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. This is the proof of a world totally out of balance when people dealing in money become the richest segment of society. Since this activity contributes very little to the prosperity of a nation (but very much to its participants) it is not sustainable. The biggest reason why it exists is the massive amount of money that governments have created or printed and the fact that the financial industry has developed into a fractal wealth creation machine for the benefit of its participants.

For the last 40 years in particular the rich are getting richer and the average person has seen very little increase in real income. In the US, the real annual income of the bottom 90% of US families has increased by only 10% since 1970. And in the expansion between 2002 and 2007, median US household income dropped $2,000. The perceived increase in wealth for the majority of Americans derives from an increase in their debt level not from an increase in real earnings. So the improvement in living standards that the average American and many other Western countries have enjoyed in the last 40 odd years is primarily based on debt – debt that can never be and will never be repaid with normal money.”[/quote]

BTW, this is why I absolutely refute the notion that the wealthiest people are the most productive. Quite the opposite, from what I’ve seen.

The wealthiest are the ones who have the right connections and are able to insert themselves in the middle of every legitimate transaction so they can take a cut of every transaction around the world. Then, there are those who literally control the flow of money — either in an executive position or in finance. They make the most because they are the ones who decide where money goes. Middlemen, dealmakers, and “capitalists”…these are the people who have benefitted most in the past few decades. They are hardly productive.[/quote]

You have an example? Someone who “inserted themselves” in the middle of a transaction that didn’t have any skin in it?? Other than a politican? Rangel, Blago etc?

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=CA renter]Great stuff, SD Transplant. Thanks for sharing the links with us.

From the ZH link, I especially liked this part:

“All of these areas are totally non-productive and the only beneficiaries are the participants in the financial industry. And the rewards have been absolutely astronomical. In investment banking, hedge funds and private equity in particular, the most massive wealth has been created. Many players have become billionaires or created fortunes of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 10-15 years just by shuffling money around. In the past fortunes were created by building factories and industries. But today any normal employee working in Wall Street or the City in London will, by just showing up to work, make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. This is the proof of a world totally out of balance when people dealing in money become the richest segment of society. Since this activity contributes very little to the prosperity of a nation (but very much to its participants) it is not sustainable. The biggest reason why it exists is the massive amount of money that governments have created or printed and the fact that the financial industry has developed into a fractal wealth creation machine for the benefit of its participants.

For the last 40 years in particular the rich are getting richer and the average person has seen very little increase in real income. In the US, the real annual income of the bottom 90% of US families has increased by only 10% since 1970. And in the expansion between 2002 and 2007, median US household income dropped $2,000. The perceived increase in wealth for the majority of Americans derives from an increase in their debt level not from an increase in real earnings. So the improvement in living standards that the average American and many other Western countries have enjoyed in the last 40 odd years is primarily based on debt – debt that can never be and will never be repaid with normal money.”[/quote]

BTW, this is why I absolutely refute the notion that the wealthiest people are the most productive. Quite the opposite, from what I’ve seen.

The wealthiest are the ones who have the right connections and are able to insert themselves in the middle of every legitimate transaction so they can take a cut of every transaction around the world. Then, there are those who literally control the flow of money — either in an executive position or in finance. They make the most because they are the ones who decide where money goes. Middlemen, dealmakers, and “capitalists”…these are the people who have benefitted most in the past few decades. They are hardly productive.[/quote]

You have an example? Someone who “inserted themselves” in the middle of a transaction that didn’t have any skin in it?? Other than a politican? Rangel, Blago etc?

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=CA renter]Great stuff, SD Transplant. Thanks for sharing the links with us.

From the ZH link, I especially liked this part:

“All of these areas are totally non-productive and the only beneficiaries are the participants in the financial industry. And the rewards have been absolutely astronomical. In investment banking, hedge funds and private equity in particular, the most massive wealth has been created. Many players have become billionaires or created fortunes of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 10-15 years just by shuffling money around. In the past fortunes were created by building factories and industries. But today any normal employee working in Wall Street or the City in London will, by just showing up to work, make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. This is the proof of a world totally out of balance when people dealing in money become the richest segment of society. Since this activity contributes very little to the prosperity of a nation (but very much to its participants) it is not sustainable. The biggest reason why it exists is the massive amount of money that governments have created or printed and the fact that the financial industry has developed into a fractal wealth creation machine for the benefit of its participants.

For the last 40 years in particular the rich are getting richer and the average person has seen very little increase in real income. In the US, the real annual income of the bottom 90% of US families has increased by only 10% since 1970. And in the expansion between 2002 and 2007, median US household income dropped $2,000. The perceived increase in wealth for the majority of Americans derives from an increase in their debt level not from an increase in real earnings. So the improvement in living standards that the average American and many other Western countries have enjoyed in the last 40 odd years is primarily based on debt – debt that can never be and will never be repaid with normal money.”[/quote]

BTW, this is why I absolutely refute the notion that the wealthiest people are the most productive. Quite the opposite, from what I’ve seen.

The wealthiest are the ones who have the right connections and are able to insert themselves in the middle of every legitimate transaction so they can take a cut of every transaction around the world. Then, there are those who literally control the flow of money — either in an executive position or in finance. They make the most because they are the ones who decide where money goes. Middlemen, dealmakers, and “capitalists”…these are the people who have benefitted most in the past few decades. They are hardly productive.[/quote]

You have an example? Someone who “inserted themselves” in the middle of a transaction that didn’t have any skin in it?? Other than a politican? Rangel, Blago etc?

[jficquette]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…[/quote]

T’s who bought in probably have a F for a wife. lol.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…[/quote]

T’s who bought in probably have a F for a wife. lol.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…[/quote]

T’s who bought in probably have a F for a wife. lol.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…[/quote]

T’s who bought in probably have a F for a wife. lol.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=Eugene][quote]For housing (during the bubble), I would translate that to: do you give credence to the fact that home prices are going up (S), or do you try to understand what causalities are going on under the hood (N)?[/quote]

That is really F versus T. And no one doubts that you’re a T. 🙂 S versus N refers to concreteness vs. abstractness, and to practical applications (such as this site) vs. theoretical musings.

From Wikipedia:

“Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.”They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.”[/quote]

I don’t agree that it is just F vs T… I knew many T’s who were totally bought into the housing bubble. 🙂

I think you are being too literal about the existence of the word “data” in that description… I see as more nuanced, ie, do you tend to believe your own lying eyes, or do you prefer to fit things into a theoretical model. (If the latter, data is of course an important input, hence the site tagline, but it’s not really in the “believing your own senses above all” sense.)

Again, I’m no expert but that’s been my take from reading about this stuff. Whatever the reason or explanation, I definitely come up as an N…[/quote]

T’s who bought in probably have a F for a wife. lol.

John

[Author]

Posts