[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]
The government collects about 2.5+ trillion dollars in revenue each year from various sources. The interest on the debt is only about 500 billion. We aren’t going to default on the debt. We have plenty of money to make the interest payments on debt already incurred. We might default on some other obligation like sending out medicare checks on a timely basis or cutting social security checks by some percentage but the last thing the treasury is going to do is default on an interest payment for a bond.[/quote]

How is not sending out medicare checks or cutting social security checks or failing to pay a defense contractor not defaulting on government debt? It is. Those are still government debts.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=6packscaredy]What’s the worst case if they cannot compromise?[/quote]

Well, either Wall Street and the world investment community reacts the way they did to the shutdown and ignore it or the don’t.

Either we mint a trillion dollar coin or we default on our debt (or do we?) I don’t think we do, all they have to do is appropriate a modest sum to paying the interest.

So 50% investment collapse, or nothing.

Who knows. I tend to lean towards more chaos rather than less.[/quote]

We don’t need a trillion dollar coin to solve this problem. We need a continuing resolution to appropriate funds so the government can spend money. We’re still two weeks away from the trillion dollar coin issue, though there are some republicans that have suggested that doubling down on the hostage taking and include the debt limit as an additional hostage along with the continuing resolution.

At least part of the market took notice yesterday afternoon that this thing may not end soon. Oddly the bond market hasn’t bought into it yet. When it does, look for yields to spike and bonds to fall. And if nothing is resolved by the next FOMC meeting, Bernanke will delay tapering again, but the Fed won’t be able to buy fast enough to keep bonds from falling.

[SK in CV]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives the president the power to bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling by executive order.[/quote]

That issue is a few weeks away. (I think 10/17 is the projected date where the cash runs out.) With some exceptions, costs for running the federal government can’t be paid without an appropriation passed by congress and signed by the president. Currently there is none.

[SK in CV]

[quote=The-Shoveler]From what I understand we are just giving some Fed workers a paid holiday, as when it does end (most likely in a few weeks time) most will be paid for the time off.
Other than that really if it comes down to it, the Prez can just tell the Treasury to issue more money and congress cannot stop him.

Waste of time.. nothing to see IMO.[/quote]

Treasury can issue more money. But without appropriations, he can’t spend it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=raty4R]It’s named Steadfast Income REIT or the Steadfast Companies. It’s a non-traded REIT.[/quote]

Decent operators. Operating fees to affiliates are way too high to ever make good money without huge appreciation of assets. It’s set up to make a lot of money for sponsors, not investors. I’d stay away.

[SK in CV]

Does the REIT have a name?

[SK in CV]

[quote=ocrenter]What do all septic tank pumpers have in common among themselves and also with all prior septic tank pumpers over +20 years and also in common with the all of the septic tank makers?

Tip: They are all part of a group representing about 2% of the U.S. population.[/quote]

Very nicely done 🙂

[SK in CV]

[quote=ocrenter]

I do agree geopolitically there is a benefit. Although the key here is still the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. As America is a Christian state, within the intra-Abrahamic struggle for dominance, who controls the holy land does matter greatly. I think this religious alliance is far stronger a tie than even the cold war/capitalist vs communist alliances.[/quote]

America is a Christian state? Who knew?

[SK in CV]

[quote=backintown]I couldn’t agree more, minorities should rise on their own, but it is very difficult if a small clique has a strong hold on the most powerful positions using collective resources to give strong preference in training, grooming and investing to their own. While this fairly small minority might actually have been hurt in the past from this exact issue and has successfully conquered a well deserving a seat on the table, today it seems it wants all the seats on it. It ends up dictating policy on behalf of the whole country and a mirroring clique on the private side (many switch sides at some point) has benefited tremendously from the policies this group has put in place. To be clear, it is not as if this group has absolute control over everything, but for a meager two percent of the population it seems to be amazingly influential.
[/quote]

This really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It simply does not pass the smell test. In what way have Jews used their tiny “clique” to give “strong preference in training and grooming”. Have “they” kept non-Jews out of top universities or banking positions across the country? If so, how so?

It’s hard to fault any individual who has risen through the ranks of their industry to want to the top position in their field. How did they get there? By being hired by non-Jews. Not a single one of those Fed bankers or Treasury Secretaries was hired for that position by another Jew. Not a single one. Any evidence whatsoever that those choices were inappropriately influenced?

Do you understand that this claim dates back to medieval anti-Semitism? It is textbook following of the anti-Semitic hoax “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” promoted by Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford, probably the most virulent anti-Semite this country has ever seen. That’s the hateful company you’re hanging with.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ocrenter]
The only place on earth with a lower rate is Australia at 15%.

we know transmission is food borne. And in the US food sanitation still beats other areas on earth.

you go from an area with 1/3 prevalence rate to an area where 90% of the population has the bacteria and we are debating whether the bacteria is picked up here within the US or overseas?[/quote]

I don’t think there is a reason to debate it. The actual transmission locale is not knowable at this point.

Unless there’s some really recent stuff, I don’t know that it’s food borne. There’s been some studies showing an association with yeast, and probably not drinking water, but the most recent stuff I’ve seen indicate that the method of transmission remains a mystery. And if someone has spent most of their life in an area with a 1/3 prevalence rate, acquiring the bacteria is hardly unlikely. It is not a 3rd world issue.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ocrenter]
That peaked my interest so I looked up prevalence rate per the world GI organization (WGO). Yes US and Western Europe are at 30-40%, Asia is at 60-70%, Latin America and Africa are more like 80-90%. So while it is possible to simply just get Hpylori in the US, if a native born US citizen was in Latin America or Africa for a few years, came back and got diagnosed, I’ll put my money on him getting the bacteria from the travel instead of from the US.[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so sure of that, nor is it of much significance. It’s very common in the US. A 30 to 40% colonization rate is extraordinarily high. The most common human bacterial colonization known. It was only discovered about 30 years ago and its precise method of transmission is still unknown.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]
The S&P was around 350 in 1992. It was around 1650 in 1997. Guess what that’s compound interest rate of 11%. Surprise, Surprise, CalPers managed to match the S&P over the same time period. Although one that was pretty incredible run for stocks and will likely never be repeated again.[/quote]

Right. Which means they weren’t investing solely in low risk stuff during that period. They probably did have a pretty significant chunk of their assets in low risk investments like treasuries and mortgages. Which means they must have earned substantially more than 11% on the rest of the portfolio. Which also means they weren’t suddenly “forced” to seek higher yields when the Fed lowered the discount rate after the dot-com crash. They were seeking those higher yields well before that.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, I’m referring to the stock market bubble in the late 90s. As you know, that bubble made the pension funds look over-funded, which is why they were able to pass the pension benefit enhancements “without any additional costs to taxpayers.”

The pension funds have NOT been doing well over the past 15 years. They were UNDER-funded after the stock market bubble burst, so the funds started investing more and more of their money in real estate, mortgages (and related derivatives), and other “alternative” investments, like hedge funds. It was this confluence of events (all of which can be blamed directly or indirectly on the Fed) that caused the pension “crisis.”[/quote]

Pension funds have been investing in RE and mortgages for decades, maybe longer. You might remember the San Diego connection to the organized crime syndicate in Las Vegas in the mid 70’s when the Teamsters pension fund lent San Diegan Alan Glick millions to become the 2nd largest hotelier in Vegas behind Howard Hughes. That’s where they put their money. That was the conservative investment.

During the 15 years through 2007 (prior to the crash), CalPers average rate of return was almost 11%. Average. That included the dot com bubble burst. It was fully funded through 2007. They had two years in the ’90’s where their return was over 20%. They couldn’t have made that kind of return in low risk investments. The assertion that they only started making higher risk investments after interest rates fell is unsupportable by the evidence.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]Let’s not forget that the pension benefit enhancements during the stock market bubble has also contributed to the current underfunding in the pension plans. If not for the stock market bubble, I believe these enhancements would never have happened.

[/quote]

It’s like saying that if it weren’t for the stock market, I would have saved more for retirement. I didn’t; so it’s the financial industry’s fault.[/quote]

No, that’s not it at all. SK knows what I’m talking about.[/quote]

I’m not sure exactly which stock market bubble you’re referring to. I don’t think there was a stock market bubble before the crash in ’08. I think a bubble would imply an over-valuation. There were some segments, and clearly some companies that were over-valued, but for the most part, the market was fairly valued based on earnings. Earnings went down (way down in some cases), valuation went down. I don’t think that’s a bubble. The dot-com bubble in the late ’90’s was a real bubble. Companies valued based solely on future earnings. Kinda like Amazon, Facebook and Tesla now. But it was then much of the market.

But to your other point, it’s probably true with regard to public pensions, particularly in California. The RE bubble unreasonably inflated tax revenues. Good investment returns over more than a 15 year period ending in 2008 made it seem the funding for DB plans was sufficient. Why? Because public employee pension funds had been investing in higher risk investments. Even when the Fed funds rate was NOT kept artificially low. But then when those higher risk investments failed, it became time to blame the Fed for “forcing” them into higher risk investments.

[SK in CV]

Shit, nice catch dude. I was thinking they were all financially well off and well educated and couldn’t figure out why that would be a bad thing.

[Author]

Posts