Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 12, 2016 at 6:35 AM in reply to: Prediction: San Diego market goes up 8%+ over the next year #799534
livinincali
ParticipantSeems like the last couple of years 3/4 of whatever upside comes in the spring. I suppose if the economy is still doing well Jan 2017 then you might get a 8% pop. From the economic cycles were sort of due for a recession soon, but even if that occurs in the next year maybe it won’t be felt in San Diego until later.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=poorgradstudent]
In the short run, there are a lot more reforms that can be done regarding policing than there are in ending poverty and the drug trade. One good proposal I’ve seen is consolidating police forces. Most European countries don’t cede control of the police to local authorities, and overall it seems like our model isn’t working well at all.[/quote]I read that too. There is a lot of police abuse at the local level. Lots of buddy buddy stuff going on at the local level[/quote]
I’m not sure that you need to consolidate all police operations at the state or federal level. We’re a much larger country and don’t have a good track record of federal oversight of local services. See the Department of Education for example. You probably need to create an independent agency that investigates police transgressions and shootings. The local DA or even a neighboring one is too tightly intertwined and buddy buddy. That can be at the state level.
ParticipantThe problem is the cops lost the respect of the community and it probably all boils down to the original war on drugs. Crack is a hell of a drug that you probably don’t want to make legal but the strong arm tactics the cops used back then started this whole mess. I don’t know that you can restore that respect and trust anymore without a lot of hard work that the cops aren’t really interested in doing.
The other factor is the blatant disregard for the rule of law. There’s just too many high profile instances of people that are above the law. It has to end or these problems just get worse and worse.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Livin’, you sound like you will vote for trump.
What do you make of his anti business stances? Are you willing to give up money and have the US retreat to isolation?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/upshot/donald-trumps-economic-nostalgia.htmlOn the hand, Obama has been called the anti business president who’s been really good for business.[/quote]
At this point I don’t think I’m going to vote for president. I don’t really like either candidate at this point. The hate on both sides means nothing will get accomplished. Maybe, I vote on some CA referendums and local elections.
I think both parties are going to be anti business for different reason. Democrats will want to focus of minimum wage increases and further protections for workers which will stall business creation and increase youth unemployment. Trump wants to become more protectionist which will likely result in tariffs and possible trade wars. Neither is going to be optimal for a productive economy. I don’t know which one is worse though. Macro economic theories are impossible to verify before they are implemented so they often result in unexpected consequences.
I do think the next recession is going to be fairly bad. I do think there’s nothing Congress or a president can do to prevent it from being fairly messy. Even with a 1 trillion dollar infrastructure investment it will take at least a couple of years for projects to be vetted, planned, approved, and under construction. It will be too slow of a response and the alternative of just sending out checks so the masses can go to Walmart and buy junk from China doesn’t really create any lasting impact either. Maybe a little boost to food and dinning for a month or 2 but then the money will be gone.
I’d like to vote for a candidate that will break the medical and pharmaceutical monopolies. Unfortunately even if someone was willing to do that it would create some significant short term economic damage.
Participant[quote]
2: New Scottish referendum on separation.
I give the odds of this resulting in separation like 85%.
The UK’s standing and relevance in the EU was a large component of the narrow failure of the last independence bid. That is now gone and Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eur…
[/quote]The EU has said Scotland cannot remain a member of the EU even if they vote to leave the UK.
[quote]
The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon’s new bid for independence – by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves.
The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking ‘immediate discussions’ with Brussels to ‘protect Scotland’s place in the EU’.
But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday’s shock Leave vote.
[/quote]The problem is that even if Scotland applies to be a member after it splits from UK the EU probably wouldn’t let them in because Scotland’s budget deficit looks something similar to Greece. Scotland is basically a welfare state that England has been supporting.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]Why does the prime minister have to resign. That part I don’t get,seems like he should stay when they need him the most.[/quote]
He doesn’t have to resign but he felt it was the thing to do. I suppose one could view it as a vote of no confidence since he campaigned hard for the remain vote. At a minimum he didn’t want to lead the UK though the exit process. In some respects it seems like British politicians respect the will of the people more so than the US politicians, but that’s just IMO.
June 28, 2016 at 9:41 AM in reply to: OT: Are you doing anything to hedge against the possibility of BrExit…. #799212Participant[quote=spdrun]The DOW did not surpass 2015 highs in 2016. Thankfully. UDOW may have built-in decay, but DOW didn’t set a record in 2016.[/quote]
You’re right. Stockcharts.com has bad data for the DIA chart. Interesting.
June 28, 2016 at 8:57 AM in reply to: OT: Are you doing anything to hedge against the possibility of BrExit…. #799209ParticipantUDOW isn’t really designed to be a longer term holding. It’s better for short term trend trades because there’s some built in decay. For example UDOW peaked in May 2015, but the DOW itself recently hit a higher high in Apr 2016. UDOW failed to reach it’s previous peak. You’re probably better off with DIA or an index fund if you’re planing to hold for longer than a month or two.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Obama’s popularity has been going up in the general electorate. So while a third Obama term might cause some seething among republicans, it’s a prospect that is generally quite popular.[/quote]Obama’s certainly more popular than Trump of Hilary and for a lot of people a third term would be the preferred option, but even then his approval rating is around 50% so that’s not saying much. Many incumbent presidents tend to be pretty popular. Bill Clinton might still be president if we didn’t have term limits.
June 27, 2016 at 8:42 AM in reply to: The Donald Trump, Illegal Alien, Foreigner, Immigrant Bitch and Moan Thread #799180Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Back to Brexit. So the conservative leadership offered a choice they didn’t support. Now that their pitchfork peasants have turned against them, what are they to do?
The conservative politics of division are resulting in economics of destruction. So much for good economic and wealth management.[/quote]
In Cameron’s case resign. Leave won by about 1 million votes. It seems difficult to ignore the will of the people when you already put it up for a vote. I don’t see why England can’t negotiate favorable trade deals similar to what Switzerland enjoys with the EU. If you’re an English taxpayer why do you want Brussels deciding that your tax dollars should be used to support Greece or whatever else EU problem arises. In California we don’t want Texas deciding our environmental policies.
Essentially the EU politicians in Brussels over played their power over sovereign nations in their migrant policies. It backfired on them. In the western world there’s a relatively low demand for unskilled laborers. There’s little reason to invite low skilled laborers into you country other than compassion. Economically it’s stupid because you have to divert resources from your own citizens to foreign immigrants.
June 24, 2016 at 8:57 AM in reply to: The Donald Trump, Illegal Alien, Foreigner, Immigrant Bitch and Moan Thread #799024Participant[quote=spdrun]Can California leave the US so they’re not stuck propping up Mississippi and Oklahoma?[/quote]
No. CA would rather force their social/progressive vision of the way things should be on Mississippi and Oklahoma. It’s all about power.
June 24, 2016 at 6:21 AM in reply to: The Donald Trump, Illegal Alien, Foreigner, Immigrant Bitch and Moan Thread #799015Participant[quote=ltsdd][quote=moneymaker]Is it time to buy back in? Or should I wait for the real exit?[/quote]
I did sell in May and I am 85% cash. So, yes, I will be moving some of that back into stocks tomorrow.[/quote]
I’d wait a few days. Going to be a bunch of margin calls coming in. People probably gambled too hard on stay.
Participant[quote=carli]
I’m not one to defend hospitals or insurance companies in general, but part of the reason that hospitals charge their uninsured/cash patients less than their negotiated rates w/insurers is not because they’re being kind or feel they can gouge consumers who have insurance, but because they can write this deficit off. In other words, we’re all paying for it. And to make matters worse, built in to the rates that hospitals and other providers negotiate with the insurers (which show up in our premiums) is this write-off. So it all comes around in several ways. But at least the Affordable Care Act caps insurers’ MCR (Medical Cost Ratio), which stipulates how much profit over medical and admin expenses they can take.[/quote]Technically it should be a crime for hospitals to charge different amount to different people for the same procedures. The Clayton Act from 1914 makes it illegal to practice price discrimination yet that’s what hospitals and medical providers do everyday.
The Sherman act should also be used against the pharmaceutical companies. They set different prices in different countries and then artificially prevent foreign trade where I could go buy the drugs in another country and then bring them here to use or to sell. Obviously the government enables this behavior and pharma’s lobbying gets the government to crave out exceptions to the Sherman act. All you’d have to do to fix a lot of the drug prices is to enforce the Sherman act on the pharma companies. Drugs would cost less here and they’d cost more in other countries until there was some sort of equilibrium.
Thirdly why aren’t there consumer protection laws that apply to medical services. If you go to the mechanic they have to give you a written estimate of the price. They can’t just demand that you pay them $2,000 to get your car back. Why aren’t medical providers held to this same regard when it comes to routine services. I understand emergency situations are somewhat different.
Participant[quote=La Jolla Renter]As a small business owner, I disagree that reforming the medical monopolies will reduce economic activity. If I can reduce health care and insurance costs, I can hire more people and put the savings into growing my business vs taking cost cutting action that may actually cut a job or 2.
Small business got fvcked by the Obama Administration.[/quote]
It will be a good thing in the longer term but talking about 1 or 2 years when it initially happens will result in a technical recession. Spending on medical care is included in GDP. It will take a bit of time for businesses to make changes due to the reduced cost and will take awhile to show up in GDP.
-
AuthorPosts
