Pricepoint is gone :-(

On 2016-08-29 18:07, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 4:38:06 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

[...]



We still go out as much as before but it's just the two of us.
Prices at many pubs and restaurants have gone up at a rate of about
10% per year. What used to be a $6.95 lunch is now a $10.95 lunch,
and more empty seats. One of my favorite road bike stops (good
brews but no growlers) just jacked up the price for a pint, from $5
to $7. So unless they have a very special brew we now prefer a
brewpub a mile west of there where a pint is $6. On MTB rides I get
to places off the beaten path and there it is arond $5. Later this
week it's this place:

http://placervillebrewingco.com/?page_id=81
http://placervillebrewingco.com/?page_id=83


You should get a better job -- maybe picking lettuce. If $10.95
represents an expensive lunch at a sit down restaurant that isn't
McDonalds or some other ****-hole, you are truly struggling. Cart
food runs $6 around here, but that's not a sit-down restaurant,
unless you count the curb our nearby picnic table or the Keller
Fountain.


It's easy for you and I to say because we both make a decent income. But
tell that to a guy who makes $11/hour cleaning a building, minus health
care, minus taxes, minus this, that and the other thing.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/30/2016 10:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-29 19:15, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:29:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-26 17:20, John B. wrote:

Strange that. The first figures I looked at 2010 - 2014 shows that the
average economic growth rate was 2.2% annually while the inflation
rate was 1.7% annually.


Those are the numbers the administration publishes. The real numbers
look very differently, especially the inflation rate. Real inflation is
well north of 5%, driven by utility increases and most of all health
care premiums spiraling up. Such numbers are "conveniently" left out of
the mix because that wouldn't look good.

Well if the "real" numbers are very different please post a reference
to a site where one can see the real numbers.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209

Do you have any data that's not five years old? Just curious.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2016-08-30 07:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/30/2016 10:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-29 19:15, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:29:24 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-26 17:20, John B. wrote:

Strange that. The first figures I looked at 2010 - 2014 shows that the
average economic growth rate was 2.2% annually while the inflation
rate was 1.7% annually.


Those are the numbers the administration publishes. The real numbers
look very differently, especially the inflation rate. Real inflation is
well north of 5%, driven by utility increases and most of all health
care premiums spiraling up. Such numbers are "conveniently" left out of
the mix because that wouldn't look good.

Well if the "real" numbers are very different please post a reference
to a site where one can see the real numbers.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209

Do you have any data that's not five years old? Just curious.


I could dig it out but have to guide a circuit layout right now. The
fundamental issues have not changed though so it won't be much different.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/30/2016 10:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 7:19:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Perhaps more significantly, the rule isn't "Joerg dug the internet and
found an exception, so all other data has to be thrown out."

Joerg's modus operandi all along has been to either find or claim some
exception to dominant data, and pretend that's all that matters. But
that's just not how things are decided.

He makes some valid points, but its amazing how he is the only one who understands complex issues of public health, taxation, global markets, etc., etc. -- all from the comfort of his gnarly trails in suburban Cameron Park. The trope that everyone else is an idiot and "doesn't get it" has become a central plank in the uber-conservative, Post-Tea Party Republican platform. It's very tiring, particularly when it comes from people who struggle to complete a 1040EZ and whose response to complex issues is "fu** that! We're building a wall!"

Indeed. Regarding the economic ideas Joerg spouts: I just finished
reading _Foolproof_ by Greg Ip. It went into exhaustive detail about
the unintended effects of monetary policies over the ages.

The major point I gleaned was that monetary policies and tactics are
blindingly complex. Teams of people with advanced degrees and decades
of research experience work at it as their full time jobs, yet get
things wrong. This is proven by thins by things like bank failures,
national level defaults and the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, others whose only instruction comes from Rush Limbaugh (or
Bernie Sanders) claim to have all the answers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 7:41:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/30/2016 10:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 7:19:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Perhaps more significantly, the rule isn't "Joerg dug the internet and
found an exception, so all other data has to be thrown out."

Joerg's modus operandi all along has been to either find or claim some
exception to dominant data, and pretend that's all that matters. But
that's just not how things are decided.

He makes some valid points, but its amazing how he is the only one who understands complex issues of public health, taxation, global markets, etc., etc. -- all from the comfort of his gnarly trails in suburban Cameron Park. The trope that everyone else is an idiot and "doesn't get it" has become a central plank in the uber-conservative, Post-Tea Party Republican platform. It's very tiring, particularly when it comes from people who struggle to complete a 1040EZ and whose response to complex issues is "fu** that! We're building a wall!"

Indeed. Regarding the economic ideas Joerg spouts: I just finished
reading _Foolproof_ by Greg Ip. It went into exhaustive detail about
the unintended effects of monetary policies over the ages.

The major point I gleaned was that monetary policies and tactics are
blindingly complex. Teams of people with advanced degrees and decades
of research experience work at it as their full time jobs, yet get
things wrong. This is proven by thins by things like bank failures,
national level defaults and the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, others whose only instruction comes from Rush Limbaugh (or
Bernie Sanders) claim to have all the answers.

And note for Joerg, your latest link (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209) doesn't prove the "real numbers." It just proves that if you use a different CPI, you can come up with more or less dire inflation numbers. Monetary policy makers know what weight to give to the inflation numbers under the current CPI and whether they justify an increase in the fed rate. The disparity between the CPI and "personal CPIs" is more important to COLAs, IMO.

Are things more expensive today that when I was a kid? Sure, some things. Money is cheaper, computers are cheaper -- I'd rather have a $1,000 bike of today than a $1,000 bike of 1979. It would work better, although it would not have the same panache. Existing house prices and rent are ridiculous.. Those two things, however, are not affected much by all the policies Joerg vilifies. They represent individuals trying to maximize returns . . . what we call Capitalism. In inelastic markets, it's all about greed -- the $600 Epipen. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/bu...pen..html?_r=0 Maybe Joerg can get everyone to not be greedy. Other expenses, like high educational costs (part of my personal CPI), represent a break-down in government on both sides -- a lack of funding by the conservatives and over-spending by the liberals (combined with poor market returns on public retirement accounts). There is plenty of blame to go around.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 1:23:18 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped

And note for Joerg, your latest link (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209) doesn't prove the "real numbers." It just proves that if you use a different CPI, you can come up with more or less dire inflation numbers. Monetary policy makers know what weight to give to the inflation numbers under the current CPI and whether they justify an increase in the fed rate. The disparity between the CPI and "personal CPIs" is more important to COLAs, IMO.

Are things more expensive today that when I was a kid? Sure, some things.. Money is cheaper, computers are cheaper -- I'd rather have a $1,000 bike of today than a $1,000 bike of 1979. It would work better, although it would not have the same panache. Existing house prices and rent are ridiculous. Those two things, however, are not affected much by all the policies Joerg vilifies. They represent individuals trying to maximize returns . . . what we call Capitalism. In inelastic markets, it's all about greed -- the $600 Epipen. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/bu...ipen.html?_r=0 Maybe Joerg can get everyone to not be greedy. Other expenses, like high educational costs (part of my personal CPI), represent a break-down in government on both sides -- a lack of funding by the conservatives and over-spending by the liberals (combined with poor market returns on public retirement accounts). There is plenty of blame to go around.

-- Jay Beattie.

Wasn't is Samuel Clemens who said: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"?

It seems as though a person can use statistics to prove either side of something.

Cheers

On 2016-08-30 07:41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/30/2016 10:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 7:19:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Perhaps more significantly, the rule isn't "Joerg dug the internet and
found an exception, so all other data has to be thrown out."

Joerg's modus operandi all along has been to either find or claim some
exception to dominant data, and pretend that's all that matters. But
that's just not how things are decided.

He makes some valid points, but its amazing how he is the only one who
understands complex issues of public health, taxation, global markets,
etc., etc. -- all from the comfort of his gnarly trails in suburban
Cameron Park. The trope that everyone else is an idiot and "doesn't
get it" has become a central plank in the uber-conservative, Post-Tea
Party Republican platform. It's very tiring, particularly when it
comes from people who struggle to complete a 1040EZ and whose response
to complex issues is "fu** that! We're building a wall!"

Indeed. Regarding the economic ideas Joerg spouts: I just finished
reading _Foolproof_ by Greg Ip. It went into exhaustive detail about
the unintended effects of monetary policies over the ages.

The major point I gleaned was that monetary policies and tactics are
blindingly complex. Teams of people with advanced degrees and decades
of research experience work at it as their full time jobs, yet get
things wrong. This is proven by thins by things like bank failures,
national level defaults and the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, others whose only instruction comes from Rush Limbaugh (or
Bernie Sanders) claim to have all the answers.


No, in my case from experience. I am in no way an economics expert but
the fact is:

About two years before the ral estate bubble burst I warned loudly about
the danger in all those high-Dollar adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) and
the way they are traded. Even on Usenet I voiced that. The typical
response was that I should stick to engineering because "obviously"
financial stuff isn't my turf and blah-blah. A classical example was a
realtor. Not just any realtor but a top achiever. I told her this will
all blow, people will lose their homes and then much of their retirement
savings when it hits stocks. She told me jokingly I have the typical
paranoia of someone born in Germany. A couple of years later ... _they_
lost their own home to the bank! Then the stock market came crashing
down. People we knew had to move out and downsize. Not because they
wanted to like we will some day but because their personal financial
situation had become precarious.

I had a lot of respect for Alan Greenspan. That and my respect for Ben
Bernanke has all but evaporated because those guys didn't see it coming.
It was their job to see it coming and if I as a non-financial guy saw it
coming it could not have been that hard.

Yes, monetary policy making is complex. However, first the top brass
tasked with that job needs to understand that when they see a financial
funnel cloud in the distance they ought to do something. And if they
can't see it pick another job or at least hire people who can see it.

For a taxpayer that is not asking too much.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:55:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-29 18:07, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 4:38:06 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

[...]



We still go out as much as before but it's just the two of us.
Prices at many pubs and restaurants have gone up at a rate of about
10% per year. What used to be a $6.95 lunch is now a $10.95 lunch,
and more empty seats. One of my favorite road bike stops (good
brews but no growlers) just jacked up the price for a pint, from $5
to $7. So unless they have a very special brew we now prefer a
brewpub a mile west of there where a pint is $6. On MTB rides I get
to places off the beaten path and there it is arond $5. Later this
week it's this place:

http://placervillebrewingco.com/?page_id=81
http://placervillebrewingco.com/?page_id=83


You should get a better job -- maybe picking lettuce. If $10.95
represents an expensive lunch at a sit down restaurant that isn't
McDonalds or some other ****-hole, you are truly struggling. Cart
food runs $6 around here, but that's not a sit-down restaurant,
unless you count the curb our nearby picnic table or the Keller
Fountain.


It's easy for you and I to say because we both make a decent income. But
tell that to a guy who makes $11/hour cleaning a building, minus health
care, minus taxes, minus this, that and the other thing.

Since $11/hour apparently isn't enough, what is a fair price to pay a
guy to sweep the floor?

(and you wonder why your industry moves to foreign countries)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-30 07:41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/30/2016 10:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 7:19:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Perhaps more significantly, the rule isn't "Joerg dug the internet and
found an exception, so all other data has to be thrown out."

Joerg's modus operandi all along has been to either find or claim some
exception to dominant data, and pretend that's all that matters. But
that's just not how things are decided.

He makes some valid points, but its amazing how he is the only one who
understands complex issues of public health, taxation, global markets,
etc., etc. -- all from the comfort of his gnarly trails in suburban
Cameron Park. The trope that everyone else is an idiot and "doesn't
get it" has become a central plank in the uber-conservative, Post-Tea
Party Republican platform. It's very tiring, particularly when it
comes from people who struggle to complete a 1040EZ and whose response
to complex issues is "fu** that! We're building a wall!"

Indeed. Regarding the economic ideas Joerg spouts: I just finished
reading _Foolproof_ by Greg Ip. It went into exhaustive detail about
the unintended effects of monetary policies over the ages.

The major point I gleaned was that monetary policies and tactics are
blindingly complex. Teams of people with advanced degrees and decades
of research experience work at it as their full time jobs, yet get
things wrong. This is proven by thins by things like bank failures,
national level defaults and the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, others whose only instruction comes from Rush Limbaugh (or
Bernie Sanders) claim to have all the answers.


No, in my case from experience. I am in no way an economics expert but
the fact is:

About two years before the ral estate bubble burst I warned loudly about
the danger in all those high-Dollar adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) and
the way they are traded. Even on Usenet I voiced that. The typical
response was that I should stick to engineering because "obviously"
financial stuff isn't my turf and blah-blah. A classical example was a
realtor. Not just any realtor but a top achiever. I told her this will
all blow, people will lose their homes and then much of their retirement
savings when it hits stocks. She told me jokingly I have the typical
paranoia of someone born in Germany. A couple of years later ... _they_
lost their own home to the bank! Then the stock market came crashing
down. People we knew had to move out and downsize. Not because they
wanted to like we will some day but because their personal financial
situation had become precarious.

I had a lot of respect for Alan Greenspan. That and my respect for Ben
Bernanke has all but evaporated because those guys didn't see it coming.
It was their job to see it coming and if I as a non-financial guy saw it
coming it could not have been that hard.

Yes, monetary policy making is complex. However, first the top brass
tasked with that job needs to understand that when they see a financial
funnel cloud in the distance they ought to do something. And if they
can't see it pick another job or at least hire people who can see it.


So, are you or are you not for the free market? Are you a krypto-socialist? Why should the Fed tighten the money supply to control one segment of the market? Why should bank regulators prevent people from getting whatever POS neg-am ARM they want to buy their dream house. Why should we tell Lehman Brothers that they can't trade in super-arcane derivatives?

Notwithstanding all the hype surrounding the big short, many people saw the collapse coming. My sister was building CMOs years before the crash, and her job was, among other things, evaluating giant portfolios of mortgages. Her company would bundle them up and sell them off in tranches like a giant **** parfait. She got all the brains in the family and could give you a graduate class in banking and finance, and when she told me how credit default swaps worked way before the crash, I couldn't believe it. Everyone was just gambling, and everyone knew that everyone was just gambling. And we ended up covering their bets by bailing out AIG, among others.

Anyway, your friends probably walked away from their house rather than paying their mortgage. They probably got underwater when the bubble popped, and like so may other people, the didn't want to pay a $500K mortgage on a $250K house -- and because they had a neg-am loan or some no-down loan, they had no skin in the game. Meh. We'll get an apartment. I don't feel sorry for those people. They made a choice, and the bank paid the price. They're luck that residential mortgage loans are non-recourse.

By the way, sounds to me like you need to vote Clinton because The Donald wants to do away with Dodd-Frank. http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/trump-...k-wall-street/ Now that you're into market regulation, you need to get on board the blue train.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:17:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-30 07:41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/30/2016 10:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 7:19:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Perhaps more significantly, the rule isn't "Joerg dug the internet and
found an exception, so all other data has to be thrown out."

Joerg's modus operandi all along has been to either find or claim some
exception to dominant data, and pretend that's all that matters. But
that's just not how things are decided.

He makes some valid points, but its amazing how he is the only one who
understands complex issues of public health, taxation, global markets,
etc., etc. -- all from the comfort of his gnarly trails in suburban
Cameron Park. The trope that everyone else is an idiot and "doesn't
get it" has become a central plank in the uber-conservative, Post-Tea
Party Republican platform. It's very tiring, particularly when it
comes from people who struggle to complete a 1040EZ and whose response
to complex issues is "fu** that! We're building a wall!"

Indeed. Regarding the economic ideas Joerg spouts: I just finished
reading _Foolproof_ by Greg Ip. It went into exhaustive detail about
the unintended effects of monetary policies over the ages.

The major point I gleaned was that monetary policies and tactics are
blindingly complex. Teams of people with advanced degrees and decades
of research experience work at it as their full time jobs, yet get
things wrong. This is proven by thins by things like bank failures,
national level defaults and the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, others whose only instruction comes from Rush Limbaugh (or
Bernie Sanders) claim to have all the answers.


No, in my case from experience. I am in no way an economics expert but
the fact is:

About two years before the ral estate bubble burst I warned loudly about
the danger in all those high-Dollar adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) and
the way they are traded. Even on Usenet I voiced that. The typical
response was that I should stick to engineering because "obviously"
financial stuff isn't my turf and blah-blah. A classical example was a
realtor. Not just any realtor but a top achiever. I told her this will
all blow, people will lose their homes and then much of their retirement
savings when it hits stocks. She told me jokingly I have the typical
paranoia of someone born in Germany. A couple of years later ... _they_
lost their own home to the bank! Then the stock market came crashing
down. People we knew had to move out and downsize. Not because they
wanted to like we will some day but because their personal financial
situation had become precarious.


But that wasn't what happened at all. If you had bought a, say 5 room
- 3 bedrooms, living room, kitchen/dining room - house at rates that
you could afford than you had no problems whatsoever.
It was the people that fell for the line about "don't worry about the
mortgage as the house will appreciate to cover it" that got burned.

But more to the point, I read an article at least one year and
probably a year and a half, before the crash, about a woman in San
Francisco (I think) who had abandoned her house as the market had
fallen to the point that the equity she had was less than the market
value and the mortgage payments were higher than she could rent for.

But people kept buying....

It is said that "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it
drink" and it is also said, and equally true, that "a fool and his
money are soon parted".

I had a lot of respect for Alan Greenspan. That and my respect for Ben
Bernanke has all but evaporated because those guys didn't see it coming.
It was their job to see it coming and if I as a non-financial guy saw it
coming it could not have been that hard.

But they did see it coming and, if I remember, protested about the
government drive on housing for poor folk and the resulting government
guaranteed loans that only an fool would have made. Had it not been
for Fanny Mae there would have been no problem.

Yes, monetary policy making is complex. However, first the top brass
tasked with that job needs to understand that when they see a financial
funnel cloud in the distance they ought to do something. And if they
can't see it pick another job or at least hire people who can see it.

For a taxpayer that is not asking too much.
--
cheers,

John B.