[SK in CV]

[quote=Happs]I mentioned this video in another post a few months ago on here about the topic of retiring/moving to Costa Rica. Moving/Retiring to a foreign country is not necessarily a panacea or paradise. Food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMKT5pGDvSo%5B/quote%5D

I’m reasonbly sure that in that video he wasn’t talking about Costa Rica. He mentioned it was the poorest country in central america. That would be nicaragua, not Costa Rica. Some of the things mentioned in the video would apply to both, but not all. They’re two very different countries. (Just to disclose my bias, Costa Rica is the only other country I’ve ever visited that I’d consider for retirement. The food pretty much sucks, but otherwise I didn’t find too many negatives.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Actually you are right, SK, tax cuts are Keynsian in the sense that they aim to spur aggregate demand by consumers. Conservatives would argue that if you must have demand stimulus, do it with tax cuts rather than new permanent government programs and handouts.
Tax cuts aimed at businesses are more aimed at stimulating investment in new plant and equipment.[/quote]

And you’re really a professor? Go back and read what Keynes said about when tax cuts were appropriate and when they weren’t. The early Bush tax cuts? Maybe, at least the argument could be made. And it was made back in 2001 and 2002, mostly by the left, pointing and laughing at Bush.(Since most of the cuts didn’t go to where the money would be spent, the argument could also be made that they weren’t Keynesian at all.) The elimination of those tax cuts in 2004 to 2007 that never happened? Not Keynesian. The infrastructure spending that didn’t happen in 2000-2002? Not Keynesian. Wars that weren’t paid for during in a stable economic environment? Not Keynesian.

Keynes argued for tax cuts during a recession, in order to get more money into the hands of consumers, and to spur investment. The problem is that the tax cuts have been mostly misdirected. And that there is no shortage of capital for investment, so tax cuts on those that may invest, won’t help. They already have capital to invest and they’re not doing it. And it has zero to do with government policies and regulations. Big companies bitch and moan and deal with regulations. It doesn’t stop expansion. It has everything to do with uncertain demand.

It hasn’t been Keynesian policy for the last 10 years. It’s been failed supply side, the biggest fraud of the last 40 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf] In contrast, the Keynesian demand-side policies of the past ten years pump out monetary stimulus and government spending in hopes that the economy recovers. [/quote]

Right, because low taxes in a stable and growing economy is just so Keynesian. Bush was a Keynesian. Who knew?

[SK in CV]

I haven’t commented on this thread mostly because my disappointment in the administration in dealing with the criminal element that lead to the financial crisis is beyond words. Which makes yesterdays news of the FHFA, acting as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filing 17 suits against major banks and dozens of their subsidiaries, partners and related entities perplexing.

Theoretically, the FHFA is an independent arm of the federal government, under the jurisdiction (I think, maybe someone knows better) of the Treasury Department. Either the FHFA is truly acting indepently of the administration, or the administration acquiesced or even supports the action. I’m not sure which seems more likely, given the apparent opposition of Obama, (the corrupt and incomptetent) Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and AG Eric Holder to pursue legal (both civil and criminal) remedies against the big banks. The administration most surely could have stopped it had they wanted.

Anyway, the 17 suits, (I’ve only read one, I suspect they’re almost identical), charge the banks with a variety of securities law violations, as well as fraud, negligence, and conspiracy covering hundreds of specific offerings. They seek damages totalling 100% of the GSE’s losses on these securities. (At least one article puts these losses at $61 billion. I’m not sure of the source of that amount. Possibly the plaintiffs announced this amount, but it seems very low to me.)

Conspicuously absent from the causes of action, are RICO charges, which most certainly could apply. (If the case is proven, then the RICO violations have been proven.) Pure speculation on my part, but this could be the administration’s influence on the suits.

This could spell the end of the state AG’s plan. Or not. It certainly doesn’t have to, since these are all federal charges, with very specific damages, exclusive to the GSE’s. In any case, this is a very positive series of events.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/banks-sued-subprime-mortgage-deals_n_947349.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Awesome post Allan. I do still believe we are the shining city on the hill and I believe in our exceptionalism even though Stalin may have coined that term. Huge congrats to you SK in CV for raising a brilliant daughter with great character. Kids do not raise themselves.[/quote]

Thank you, but it’s not deserved. I wish I could take credit. I can’t. This one did it herself. I stood back and watched. And marveled. I was there, that’s all. The credit is hers. I just paid the bills. And continue to pay some of them. The world must have been in need of angels when she was born. I just got lucky.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]
Brian,

What in the world is a “new worldly foreign student”? How much wine did you drink while reading this thread? You always act like you know what a real American says, thinks or wants, so why don’t you go ahead and define real American for us, so we do not have to guess. I am kind of tired of your pseudo cosmopolitan persona.

As an American, unknown if I am real or unreal, I welcome skilled immigrants and if they take the best jobs, I have to believe they were the most qualified for the job. It they live here and make money here and spend it here, it only enriches this country. This is a country of immigrants and even the natives had to arrive here from somewhere else long ago. I do not think that real Americans are as full of class envy and xenophobia as you think. Perhaps you are projecting your own feelings on them, then attributing them to real
Americans.

End of rant.[/quote]

Touche on that. I was going to respond to the same thing. But you said what I was going to say.

I will add an overlay of recent personal experience. A couple weeks ago I attended my daughter’s white coat ceremony. (First day of medical school.) There were about 120 students. Rough estimate would be about 75 to 85 Asians both by name and appearance. I recognized a few names as Japanese, a few as Viet Namese, the rest I’d only be guessing. I asked my daughter (who is not Asian) how she felt about that. She didn’t understand the question. She said it was like asking how she feels about Thursday following Wednesday. I have no idea how “American” these kids are. I suspect just as “American” as my daughter. I know her two roommates grew up in upstate NY and LA. One is of Japanese descent, and the other from Sri Lanka. Whether their parents were born or have ever lived in the US, I have no idea. I know that like my daughter, they are among the best and the brightest, otherwise they wouldn’t be there. I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdrealtor]BY saying it could have been worse you have proven my point. By definition, a collapse is when things are allowed to freefall to the lowest point possible. That didnt happen. They intervened and kept things artificially higher than they would reached.[/quote]

Yeah, I think that is what I said. I started out disagreeing, but apparently changed my mind while I was typing. The only disagreement I have is with your definition of collapse.

col·lapse
1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.

It wasn’t a complete collapse, I think that’s what you described (to the lowest point possible). But it did collapse. The difference is minutia. We’re pretty much in agreement.

I don’t think I was among those that claimed the government wouldn’t step in and fix it. (I really don’t remember.) I remember thinking that there was no way to fix it. And in that regards, we were both right. They tried, but success was limited. It could have been just as effective, or probably even a little bit more effective, with a whole lot less money.

In a larger sense (and this is really addressing issues points made in a handful of current topics being discussed), what government intervention didn’t and can’t really control are the more important problems underlying the weak economy. It partially affected the crisis in housing prices. It can’t fix the problem with housing construction. That’s a much bigger problem going forward in rejuvinating the economy. Higher house prices won’t help (much). If we don’t need more houses, then we don’t need more houses, regardless of the price. Shifting demographics predict that we don’t, or at least probably won’t.

I don’t know that I agree with Roubini that it’s worse now than in 2008. (Actually, that BS, as much as I respect NR, in 2008 the economy had a heart attack. Now we’re 3 years post heart attack and only at risk for another heart attack. Which one is worse?)

But the key predictors aren’t any better. The difference is that the current economy is stable but bad instead of in crisis and bad. I think we have lower (but very real) risk of additional crisis. The over/under is pretty damn close.

[SK in CV]

[quote=profhoff]They also didn’t call me to tell me they no longer represent Allied. I checked to see who they represent now and I have never heard of any of the companies. Solvency is a concern.

[/quote]

In reading their letter to you, it seems that’s exactly what they did.

Sleazy Insurance Agency no longer represents Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company.

Solvency of the carrier should be a concern. If you don’t like the options this agent provides, go elsewhere.

And are any of your policies actually being cancelled before the end of the current policy? If it’s at the end of the current policy, that is NOT a cancellation. That’s a non-renewal. Despite what someone from Allied told you, if they (Allied) are still writing the kinds of policies you have/need, you should have no problem getting a new policy with them with an agent who is still writing for them. Non-renewal, solely as a result of your agent being dropped, should not have an adverse affect on your insurability.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]CAR, not sure what you mean by the trickle-down policies of the 1980s, but assume it is the supply-side, incentive-based policies of the Reagan years: cutting marginal tax rates drastically, closing tax loopholes, and deregulation. The result, once the policies fully took hold in about 1984, was a rapidly expanding economy (7 & 8% YOY in some quarters, compared to 1% so far this year), a rapidly falling unemployment rate, and a steadily falling rate of inflation. [/quote]

Really? That was the result of supply side economics? Irrespective of any other influences. You have some empirical evidence to back that up? Nevermind, I know the answer. It is merely wishful thinking, blinded by ideology. Scientists don’t succumb to that.

[SK in CV]

It’s not a cancellation. It’s a non-renewal. A notice, I believe, required by law. And the agent is just trying to retain your business. The agent’s letter is awkwardly worded. They aren’t actually re-writing your policy, they’re seeking to change carriers at the end of the policy period. And they’re not doing anything without your consent, they’re notifying you of their intentions, you have the option to accept or decline. I don’t see anything sleezy. I see an agent acting ahead of the curve.

[SK in CV]

I have to apologize for that last comment. I got interrupted twice while writing, first by my daughter. Explaining that after 2 days of cutting up her fat old man human anatomy cadaver, she turned him over only to find, to her surprise, it’s a girl. And second, by trying to perfect my craigslist casual encounters ad (using BG’s implied recommendations). We’ll see if i got it right. Anyway, after finishing it, I’m not sure WTF i was trying to say. But have at it, maybe there’s a discussion point.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdrealtor]The answer is Uncle Sam. The gov’t wants to keep people in their homes and keep the economy growing. The folks waiting for values to drop so they can get what they think they deserve are in the minority. A couple years back you all said there was no way the gov’t couldnt stop a complete collapse of housing. I said watch them. Its pretty clear they have and there is no signs they will stop.[/quote]

I keep rereading that sentence about the government, and I’m not sure I know what you’re saying. (the double negative has my head going in circles.) But for now, i’m going to assume that I was right on my first go thru, and that you thought the government would stop a complete collapse. And that they were successful.

I think you’re wrong. They weren’t successful. There was a complete collapse of housing prices. There was a complete collapse the housing industry. Most of the country is back to pre-bubble prices. That’s a collapse. Of course it could have been worse. And however feeble, ill intentioned, badly designed and poorly executed the various government policies have been, it wasn’t worse. They helped, but did not prevent a collapse. Particularly maintaining the low interest rates. Because those that said there is nothing the government could do (to prevent a collapse) were right. (I guess you could argue it wasn’t a complete collapse. Housing values didn’t drop to zero.)

Some economists might argue that government intervention had nothing to do with it, it was simply economic ergodicity at work. But not subscribing to that whole market equilibrium theory (mostly because it just can’t be measured, because in the macro world, there is no such thing as a market absent outside influence), it’s difficult to argue that intervention had no effect. Impossible to accurately measure, but government action did provide some brake, but didn’t prevent a collapse.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]The guy who’s back in school is changing careers, his age was a huge factor in why he couldn’t find a job. No one wants to hire a 55ish high tech employee who’s spent 20 years at the same company. Another friend has strung together a series of contract/consulting gigs. But there are gaps between them. She’s cut her living expenses to the bone because her savings are gone after 2 years of this. The third friend is working half time at a much lower hourly rate… and glad to be working.

They have in common that they are all over 45. Younger friends were able to find new gigs easier. Ageism is a killer in this recession. Since I’m not young it terrifies me.[/quote]

This sure hits home. I’m almost that guy. 55ish. 12 years at the same company. Spent 10 months out of work. A few consulting gigs along the way. People kept telling me that I was being too picky. I was fortunate, that I could have afforded to be picky, but I wasn’t. Probably 750 resumes sent out. Less than 6 interviews. One job offer, where the prospective employer loved me but suggested I not take the job. (It paid $30K. I didn’t know that going in.) I didn’t take it. Besides that, 2 live positions that I wanted. Both hired people 20 years younger.

I was lucky, really lucky. Sent my resume at exactly the right minute. I ended up with a job that’s better than any job that I ever dreamed of getting. In tech too (though that’s only a coincidence, it wasn’t a requirement I had.) But I had to leave town to get it. Job market for those over 50 in san diego sucks beyond belief.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]I heard that’s the kind of rework they’ve been quietly doing in commercial real estate. That’s why we haven’t been the dramatic drops (relatively speaking) we saw back during the S&L crisis.[/quote]

Exactly right. Commercial lender asset managers know what they’re doing. (That’s not to imply that residential asset managers don’t. However, they don’t.) As do commercial real estate investors. Both sides do evaluations without emotions and come to an agreement. Foreclosure happens, but it’s almost invariably by agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bake]That should not be a problem if it is the same line of work and you had a good reason to take the time off. [/quote]

What’s a good reason? Is losing your job good enough? And what if the break is more than a few months, say maybe 9 months? Is there a standard minimum length of verifiable new employment before lenders will even consider making a loan?

[Author]

Posts