Chopping around gotta like the volatility as far as acting like a bear ... Think it might be waiting to give the 50 dma a kiss (1349 and falling every day)
Tomorrow will probably be fairly quiet awaiting the greek vote coupled with the G20 promise of "corridnated action" that was floated at the end of the day today ... Well see what happens after that
When they are trying to front run potential events it's a good sign things are about to get bad ... That along with intervention failing like in the case of Spain ...
And regardless of the EU noise
FYI the last time china cut rates was 08
China the big issue that isn't getting much play the west is pretty hopeless to keep the reflation going without the help of booming china growth
Patsfan think china and emerging markets weakening the Nike issue they depending heavily on that many others in that category been getting hammered lately ... McDonald's, yum to name a few
Tomorrow will probably be fairly quiet awaiting the greek vote coupled with the G20 promise of "corridnated action" that was floated at the end of the day today ... Well see what happens after that
When they are trying to front run potential events it's a good sign things are about to get bad ... That along with intervention failing like in the case of Spain ...
And regardless of the EU noise
FYI the last time china cut rates was 08
China the big issue that isn't getting much play the west is pretty hopeless to keep the reflation going without the help of booming china growth
Patsfan think china and emerging markets weakening the Nike issue they depending heavily on that many others in that category been getting hammered lately ... McDonald's, yum to name a few
They'll likely hold it together in some form what form is anybody's guess
Germans like a weak euro helps their huge export market and only reason EU isnt officially in a recession yet
The whole thing is one huge convoluted mess ... That will take a long ass time to play out especially since our leaders are dead set in trying to save the current system as much as humanely possible
Germans like a weak euro helps their huge export market and only reason EU isnt officially in a recession yet
The whole thing is one huge convoluted mess ... That will take a long ass time to play out especially since our leaders are dead set in trying to save the current system as much as humanely possible
Why do u even bother with akphidelt in poly forum snoop
If debt/printing/government spending didn't matter the yellow barbaric relic wouldn't have gone from 300 to 1600 in the past 12 years end of story
Lol romo back
---------------
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/12/2012 11:47 -0400
ETC fixed Guest Post Home Equity Housing Bubble Japan Real estate Swag
Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds
By Incentivizing Debt, We've Guaranteed Debt-Serfdom and Stagnation
Incentivize debt and you create multiple overlapping death spirals.
The incentives to take on debt are so ubiquitous that we underestimate their pernicious power to trigger self-destructive behavior. Want to go to college? Just borrow the money now, with no payments until you graduate. Need some consumerist-retail therapy to lift your sagging spirits? Just use plastic, and pay for the splurge later. Want to buy a house? Hey, the interest on that 30-year mortgage is all tax deductible. It's crazy to pay taxes when there's a big fat deduction for mortgage interest.
This same set of incentives works on a national and global scale, too. Put yourself in the shoes of the typical spineless, campaign-donation-dependent politico whose primary obsession in life is clinging to power via winning the next election. Every heavy-weight constituency is protesting any tiny reduction in their share of the Federal swag, so drastic cuts are out of the question. What's the only painless option? Borrow $1.5 trillion every year to make sure the swag is fully funded and the restive constituencies are quieted for another election cycle.
But debt has a consequence called interest that feeds a destructive self-reinforcing cycle. At a certain threshold, there is no painless way to pay the interest except to borrow more money. That increases the interest payments due next year, and so the "solution" is to borrow yet more next year.
As I explain in Resistance, Revolution, Liberation: A Model for Positive Change, the Status Quo has relied on "growing our way out of debt" to overcome this cycle: if the new debt fuels a rise in productivity, the economy will grow so much faster than the debt that the relative burden of the debt actually declines.
In a simple example, if a $1 trillion economy borrows $1 trillion and invests it such that the economy rapidly expands to $5 trillion of goods and services, then the rise in national income means the interest on the $1 trillion can be paid out of the huge increase in income generated by the rising productivity.
The same is true for a company that borrows what appears to be a large sum in order to boost production. If revenues leap from $100 million to $1 billion as the result of a $100 million investment, the interest can be paid out of the higher cash flow.
The wheels fall off the "growing our way out of debt" strategy if the borrowed money was spent on consumption or invested in low-productivity purposes. After it's all said and done, the money's gone but the debt remains and the interest is still due.
This is where the housing bubble enters the picture. Given that mortgage interest (even the interest on home equity lines of credit, HELOCs) is deductible, then it was incredibly attractive for those with equity to borrow that equity for consumption, an addition/remodel or to fund another home purchase as an investment or vacation get-away.
Since the additional debt did not create any additional income, more of the household's income is now diverted to paying interest. Even if the additional debt was used to purchase a rental property, if that property's expenses (property taxes, maintenance, etc.) have outpaced rental income increases, or the equity in the rental was extracted in the bubble, then the actual rise in net income might be negligible or even negative.
I know a number of households with substantial real estate assets and upper-middle class incomes, but they are effectively low-income debt-serfs, as most of their income goes to the interest payments on their stupendous mortgages.
Now that they're heavily mortgaged, banks won't lend them more money, nor will they refinance exisiting mortgages: these heavily indebted households are now credit risks.
15% equity on $2 million in property looks like there's a net household worth of $300,000, but it's dead money, i.e. trapped capital: it cannot be tapped except by selling the property.
And since property values have fallen significantly from the top, most households are loathe to sell at depressed prices. Meanwhile, the majority of household income goes to mortgage payments, leaving little to save, invest or enjoy.
This is how high-income households enter debt-serfdom. On paper, they're still worth a lot, but it's trapped capital. On paper, they have a substantial income, but since $50,000 of it (or even $100,000 or more if the household owns multiple properties) goes to mortgage interest, their actual net income is modest or even negative.
This is why so many households have pulled money out of IRAs and 401K retirement funds: their debt service costs and essential expenses exceed their income.
It's also why income tax revenues are lower than they were "in the good old days" before the bubble popped. As median household incomes have declined 9.9% since December 2007, there is less income to tax, and large mortgage payments have reduced taxable income to mere trickles even in high-income households.
Whenever I discover a well-off friend is paying minimal Federal and State taxes, I ask, what's the trick? Answer: huge mortgage payments.
The trapped-capital equity in real estate is simply another form of phantom wealth. If too many people try to free that trapped capital by selling, the price of real estate will decline and the actual net equity left after commissions might well be near-zero. Recall there are at least 6 million homes in the shadow inventory and 12 million "underwater" households whose mortgage exceeds the market value of their house.
Since they can't sell, they are debt-serfs, indentured to their mortgages and the owners and servicers of those mortgages.
This same dynamic plays out in heavily indebted nations. Take Japan, for example. Its national tax revenues barely cover its interest payments and social security program, despite interest rates below 1%. The rest of its government expenditures must be borrowed, adding to next year's interest payment burden.
Once a critical mass of income is devoted to paying interest, there is not enough income left to invest in productive investments. Without increases in productivity, income declines, further squeezing budgets as income falls but debt service costs remain fixed.
As the relative share of income siphoned off by interest rises, there is less available for either investment or consumption, so "growth" also declines. Borrowing more to pay the interest only adds to next year's interest payments.
Incentivize debt, and you end up relying on debt as a sustitute for productivity and income. Increase debt, and there's not enough income left for productive investments that might boost income. Incentivize debt via making interest tax deductible, and you create a self-reinforcing feedback of a rising share of declining income being devoted to interest payments. With demand and borrowing both suppressed by debt-serfdom, demand for housing, goods and services declines. Borrowing more to consume simply speeds the cycle of rising interest and falling net incomes.
Incentivize debt and you create multiple overlapping death spirals. We are seeing the death-spirals play out in a fractal manner, from households to nations to entire regions. High debt levels lead to high interest payments which lead to low investment and savings rates which lead to lower productivity which leads to stagnation of income, consumption and investment: in other words, a death spiral.
------------
The World Before Central*Banking
June 7, 2012
Aziz Economic History, Economics, Federal Reserve, Finance, Fixed Income, Inflation, Musings, Politics, Wall Street, What is Money? bernanke, bernankenstein, black swans, debt, friedman, m2, schwartze, too big to fail, zombie banks, zombification 59 Comments
In today’s world, there are many who want government to regulate and control everything. The most bizarre instance, though — more bizarre even than banning the sale of large-sized sugary drinks — is surely central banking.
Why? Well, central banking was created to replace something that was already working well. Banking panics and bank runs happen, and they have always happened as long as there has been banking.
But the old system that the Fed displaced wasn’t really malfunctioning — unlike what the defenders of central banking today would have us believe. Following the Panic of 1907, a group of private bankers led by J.P. Morgan successfully bailed out the system by acting as lender of last resort. The amount of new liquidity disbursed into the system was set not by academics like Ben Bernanke, but by experienced market participants. And because the money was directed from private purses, rather than being created out of thin air, only assets and companies with value were bought up.
The rationale of the supporters of the Federal Reserve Act was that a central banking liquidity mechanism would act as a safeguard against such events, to act as a permanent lender-of-last-resort backed by government fiat. They wanted something bigger and better than a private response.
Yet the Banking Panic of 1907 — a comparable market drop to both 1929 or 2008 — didn’t result in a residual depression.
As the WSJ noted:
The largest economic crisis of the 20th century was the Great Depression, but the second most significant economic upheaval was the panic of 1907. It was from beginning to end a banking and financial crisis. With the failure of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, the stock market collapsed, loan supply vanished and a scramble for liquidity ensued. Banks defaulted on their obligations to redeem deposits in currency or gold.
Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, in their classic “A Monetary History of the United States,” found “much similarity in its early phases” between the Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression. So traumatic was the crisis that it gave rise to the National Monetary Commission and the recommendations that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve. The May panic triggered a massive recession that saw real gross national product shrink in the second half of 1907 and plummet by an extraordinary 8.2% in 1908. Yet the economy came roaring back and, in two short years, was 7% bigger than when the panic started.
Ben Bernanke, widely seen as the pre-eminent scholar of the Great Depression thought things would be much, much better under his watch. After all, he has claimed that he understood the lessons of Friedman and Schwartz who criticised the 1930s Federal Reserve for continuing to contract the money supply, worsening the Great Depression; M2 in 1933 was just 72% of its 1929 peak.
So a bigger crash and liquidation in 1907 allowed the economy to roar back, and continue growing. Meanwhile, in today’s controlled, planned and dependent world of central liquidity insurance, quantitative easing and TARP, growth remains anaemic four years after the crash. Have the last four years proven conclusively that central banking — even after the lessons of the 1930s — is inferior to the free market?
Certainly, Bernanke’s response to 2008 has been superior to the 1930s Fed — M2 has not dropped by anything like what it did from 1929:
Industrial production has not fallen by as significant an amount as 1929, nor has homebuilding. And there are many other wide-scale economic differences between 1907 and 2008 in terms of the shape of the economy, and the shape of employment, the capital structure, and the wider geopolitical reality. But the*bounce-back*is still vastly inferior to the free-market reality of 1907.*I think there are greater problems to central banking, ones of which Friedman, Schwartz and Bernanke were unaware (but of which Rothbard and von Mises were acutely aware).
Does central banking retard the economy by providing liquidity insurance and a backstop to bad companies that would not otherwise be saved under a free market “bailout” (like that of 1907)?*And is it this effect — that I call zombification — that is the force that has prevented Japan from fully recovering from its housing bubble, and that is keeping the West depressed from 2008? Will we only return to growth once the bad assets and bad companies have been liquidated? That conclusion, I think, is becoming inescapable.
If debt/printing/government spending didn't matter the yellow barbaric relic wouldn't have gone from 300 to 1600 in the past 12 years end of story
Lol romo back
---------------
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/12/2012 11:47 -0400
ETC fixed Guest Post Home Equity Housing Bubble Japan Real estate Swag
Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds
By Incentivizing Debt, We've Guaranteed Debt-Serfdom and Stagnation
Incentivize debt and you create multiple overlapping death spirals.
The incentives to take on debt are so ubiquitous that we underestimate their pernicious power to trigger self-destructive behavior. Want to go to college? Just borrow the money now, with no payments until you graduate. Need some consumerist-retail therapy to lift your sagging spirits? Just use plastic, and pay for the splurge later. Want to buy a house? Hey, the interest on that 30-year mortgage is all tax deductible. It's crazy to pay taxes when there's a big fat deduction for mortgage interest.
This same set of incentives works on a national and global scale, too. Put yourself in the shoes of the typical spineless, campaign-donation-dependent politico whose primary obsession in life is clinging to power via winning the next election. Every heavy-weight constituency is protesting any tiny reduction in their share of the Federal swag, so drastic cuts are out of the question. What's the only painless option? Borrow $1.5 trillion every year to make sure the swag is fully funded and the restive constituencies are quieted for another election cycle.
But debt has a consequence called interest that feeds a destructive self-reinforcing cycle. At a certain threshold, there is no painless way to pay the interest except to borrow more money. That increases the interest payments due next year, and so the "solution" is to borrow yet more next year.
As I explain in Resistance, Revolution, Liberation: A Model for Positive Change, the Status Quo has relied on "growing our way out of debt" to overcome this cycle: if the new debt fuels a rise in productivity, the economy will grow so much faster than the debt that the relative burden of the debt actually declines.
In a simple example, if a $1 trillion economy borrows $1 trillion and invests it such that the economy rapidly expands to $5 trillion of goods and services, then the rise in national income means the interest on the $1 trillion can be paid out of the huge increase in income generated by the rising productivity.
The same is true for a company that borrows what appears to be a large sum in order to boost production. If revenues leap from $100 million to $1 billion as the result of a $100 million investment, the interest can be paid out of the higher cash flow.
The wheels fall off the "growing our way out of debt" strategy if the borrowed money was spent on consumption or invested in low-productivity purposes. After it's all said and done, the money's gone but the debt remains and the interest is still due.
This is where the housing bubble enters the picture. Given that mortgage interest (even the interest on home equity lines of credit, HELOCs) is deductible, then it was incredibly attractive for those with equity to borrow that equity for consumption, an addition/remodel or to fund another home purchase as an investment or vacation get-away.
Since the additional debt did not create any additional income, more of the household's income is now diverted to paying interest. Even if the additional debt was used to purchase a rental property, if that property's expenses (property taxes, maintenance, etc.) have outpaced rental income increases, or the equity in the rental was extracted in the bubble, then the actual rise in net income might be negligible or even negative.
I know a number of households with substantial real estate assets and upper-middle class incomes, but they are effectively low-income debt-serfs, as most of their income goes to the interest payments on their stupendous mortgages.
Now that they're heavily mortgaged, banks won't lend them more money, nor will they refinance exisiting mortgages: these heavily indebted households are now credit risks.
15% equity on $2 million in property looks like there's a net household worth of $300,000, but it's dead money, i.e. trapped capital: it cannot be tapped except by selling the property.
And since property values have fallen significantly from the top, most households are loathe to sell at depressed prices. Meanwhile, the majority of household income goes to mortgage payments, leaving little to save, invest or enjoy.
This is how high-income households enter debt-serfdom. On paper, they're still worth a lot, but it's trapped capital. On paper, they have a substantial income, but since $50,000 of it (or even $100,000 or more if the household owns multiple properties) goes to mortgage interest, their actual net income is modest or even negative.
This is why so many households have pulled money out of IRAs and 401K retirement funds: their debt service costs and essential expenses exceed their income.
It's also why income tax revenues are lower than they were "in the good old days" before the bubble popped. As median household incomes have declined 9.9% since December 2007, there is less income to tax, and large mortgage payments have reduced taxable income to mere trickles even in high-income households.
Whenever I discover a well-off friend is paying minimal Federal and State taxes, I ask, what's the trick? Answer: huge mortgage payments.
The trapped-capital equity in real estate is simply another form of phantom wealth. If too many people try to free that trapped capital by selling, the price of real estate will decline and the actual net equity left after commissions might well be near-zero. Recall there are at least 6 million homes in the shadow inventory and 12 million "underwater" households whose mortgage exceeds the market value of their house.
Since they can't sell, they are debt-serfs, indentured to their mortgages and the owners and servicers of those mortgages.
This same dynamic plays out in heavily indebted nations. Take Japan, for example. Its national tax revenues barely cover its interest payments and social security program, despite interest rates below 1%. The rest of its government expenditures must be borrowed, adding to next year's interest payment burden.
Once a critical mass of income is devoted to paying interest, there is not enough income left to invest in productive investments. Without increases in productivity, income declines, further squeezing budgets as income falls but debt service costs remain fixed.
As the relative share of income siphoned off by interest rises, there is less available for either investment or consumption, so "growth" also declines. Borrowing more to pay the interest only adds to next year's interest payments.
Incentivize debt, and you end up relying on debt as a sustitute for productivity and income. Increase debt, and there's not enough income left for productive investments that might boost income. Incentivize debt via making interest tax deductible, and you create a self-reinforcing feedback of a rising share of declining income being devoted to interest payments. With demand and borrowing both suppressed by debt-serfdom, demand for housing, goods and services declines. Borrowing more to consume simply speeds the cycle of rising interest and falling net incomes.
Incentivize debt and you create multiple overlapping death spirals. We are seeing the death-spirals play out in a fractal manner, from households to nations to entire regions. High debt levels lead to high interest payments which lead to low investment and savings rates which lead to lower productivity which leads to stagnation of income, consumption and investment: in other words, a death spiral.
------------
The World Before Central*Banking
June 7, 2012
Aziz Economic History, Economics, Federal Reserve, Finance, Fixed Income, Inflation, Musings, Politics, Wall Street, What is Money? bernanke, bernankenstein, black swans, debt, friedman, m2, schwartze, too big to fail, zombie banks, zombification 59 Comments
In today’s world, there are many who want government to regulate and control everything. The most bizarre instance, though — more bizarre even than banning the sale of large-sized sugary drinks — is surely central banking.
Why? Well, central banking was created to replace something that was already working well. Banking panics and bank runs happen, and they have always happened as long as there has been banking.
But the old system that the Fed displaced wasn’t really malfunctioning — unlike what the defenders of central banking today would have us believe. Following the Panic of 1907, a group of private bankers led by J.P. Morgan successfully bailed out the system by acting as lender of last resort. The amount of new liquidity disbursed into the system was set not by academics like Ben Bernanke, but by experienced market participants. And because the money was directed from private purses, rather than being created out of thin air, only assets and companies with value were bought up.
The rationale of the supporters of the Federal Reserve Act was that a central banking liquidity mechanism would act as a safeguard against such events, to act as a permanent lender-of-last-resort backed by government fiat. They wanted something bigger and better than a private response.
Yet the Banking Panic of 1907 — a comparable market drop to both 1929 or 2008 — didn’t result in a residual depression.
As the WSJ noted:
The largest economic crisis of the 20th century was the Great Depression, but the second most significant economic upheaval was the panic of 1907. It was from beginning to end a banking and financial crisis. With the failure of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, the stock market collapsed, loan supply vanished and a scramble for liquidity ensued. Banks defaulted on their obligations to redeem deposits in currency or gold.
Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, in their classic “A Monetary History of the United States,” found “much similarity in its early phases” between the Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression. So traumatic was the crisis that it gave rise to the National Monetary Commission and the recommendations that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve. The May panic triggered a massive recession that saw real gross national product shrink in the second half of 1907 and plummet by an extraordinary 8.2% in 1908. Yet the economy came roaring back and, in two short years, was 7% bigger than when the panic started.
Ben Bernanke, widely seen as the pre-eminent scholar of the Great Depression thought things would be much, much better under his watch. After all, he has claimed that he understood the lessons of Friedman and Schwartz who criticised the 1930s Federal Reserve for continuing to contract the money supply, worsening the Great Depression; M2 in 1933 was just 72% of its 1929 peak.
So a bigger crash and liquidation in 1907 allowed the economy to roar back, and continue growing. Meanwhile, in today’s controlled, planned and dependent world of central liquidity insurance, quantitative easing and TARP, growth remains anaemic four years after the crash. Have the last four years proven conclusively that central banking — even after the lessons of the 1930s — is inferior to the free market?
Certainly, Bernanke’s response to 2008 has been superior to the 1930s Fed — M2 has not dropped by anything like what it did from 1929:
Industrial production has not fallen by as significant an amount as 1929, nor has homebuilding. And there are many other wide-scale economic differences between 1907 and 2008 in terms of the shape of the economy, and the shape of employment, the capital structure, and the wider geopolitical reality. But the*bounce-back*is still vastly inferior to the free-market reality of 1907.*I think there are greater problems to central banking, ones of which Friedman, Schwartz and Bernanke were unaware (but of which Rothbard and von Mises were acutely aware).
Does central banking retard the economy by providing liquidity insurance and a backstop to bad companies that would not otherwise be saved under a free market “bailout” (like that of 1907)?*And is it this effect — that I call zombification — that is the force that has prevented Japan from fully recovering from its housing bubble, and that is keeping the West depressed from 2008? Will we only return to growth once the bad assets and bad companies have been liquidated? That conclusion, I think, is becoming inescapable.
This thread actually started in that forum and there was a divorce at some point
Used to waste my time in there but eventually had enough (had them ban me from there so of I ever got the itch I wouldn't be able to post) as it was a complete waste of time with all the partisan hacks rooting for their "team" (left or right)
Used to waste my time in there but eventually had enough (had them ban me from there so of I ever got the itch I wouldn't be able to post) as it was a complete waste of time with all the partisan hacks rooting for their "team" (left or right)
snoop, im still trying to buy the BIG divy stocks....10+%
far as commodity related names go, i have 2 on my radar screen that i will buy before their ex divy date....VALE is yielding over 6% and GFI is yielding 4.5% (i think this stock is the highest yielding gold stock)
i think those are 2 names where you can buy and forget where they trade and get a great return.
im still buying physical gold/silver coins and bars with some consistency....thats my longterm play
far as commodity related names go, i have 2 on my radar screen that i will buy before their ex divy date....VALE is yielding over 6% and GFI is yielding 4.5% (i think this stock is the highest yielding gold stock)
i think those are 2 names where you can buy and forget where they trade and get a great return.
im still buying physical gold/silver coins and bars with some consistency....thats my longterm play
I also believe Wisconsin was a test.
They won.
Look for more coordinated attacks on the unions in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc......(I am not pro union either but I do side with the people as opposed to the Cock Bros.)
Once they overthrow them all nationally, Fascism will have firmly planted its roots in the good ole US!
Union issue a one party system charade issue ... To divide and conquer ... As the peons of the union class vs the non union class squabble amongst each other ....
Unions help the union bosses it doesn't help the little guy overall especially in today's global/more mobile economy where companies can move to cheaper locations much easier... And union run operations tend to be much less productive/profitable as far as helping the overall economy....
My uncle worked for a union shop and the union chased his company outta town doing stupid shit and was forced into early retirement
Unions help the union bosses it doesn't help the little guy overall especially in today's global/more mobile economy where companies can move to cheaper locations much easier... And union run operations tend to be much less productive/profitable as far as helping the overall economy....
My uncle worked for a union shop and the union chased his company outta town doing stupid shit and was forced into early retirement
Flip side to that coin is nobody is saving too much $ making $10-15 an hour to invest. While college comes with warts, still better than being uneducated and unskilled in todays labor force. Especially true in our neck of the woods Husker (assuming you are from MA, greater boston area)
College, trade school, electrician, plumber whatever....Main thing is to be skilled and an asset to society otherwise your basically gonna be at mercy at some point
im not gonna shit on an education...like i said above i have friends who have done VERY well (im def the low man on the totem pole as far as income goes)....but a lot is also luck, who you know, and really important and something ive stressed just during random conversations GET A DEGREE IN SOMETHING CONCRETE/THAT MATTERS!! my best friend moved to so cal about 7 years ago he went to WIT and got a degree in architectural engineering he can write his own ticket now.
totally agree about having a skilled asset, have a cousin who is an electrician, he does well. my brother has friends in SF 1 kid is a plumber, the other guy works for a gas company (talk about a story)....heavy into drugs in high school, moved to phoenix az just to get out of that scene...didnt know a person...got a couple random jobs (talking minimum wage shit, liq store) etc...then got into gas company as a meter reader making like $15 bucks an hour....basically kissed ass and did what they wanted (not to advance but b/c he had no social life, didnt know anyone so didnt mind working late etc) worked his way up to like 60k....relocated out of state same company....eventually got into foreman role then supervisor and having a crew under him now was making in the 75-85k range....wanted to move again ended up getting in with a new gas company in the sf area would have taken a pay cut to get closer to his kid but his dad knew a bigshot within that company and made a call just trying to get him in, they came back and said your resume speaks for itself, they offered him 117k...high school diploma, shit you not its my brothers best friend, im going to visit and stay at his place in 2 weeks out there....
bottom line is there's a lot of shit involved- effort you put in, luck, smarts etc...you could make 20bucks an hour but if your good with money,live within your means, smart and do your own investing etc you could still do fine down the road...i know people who barely pay their rent but they gotta have the new iphone 4s...where i use a POS phone that costs me peanuts with no internet etc....i dont want to pay $75 a month to have a phone like that
totally agree about having a skilled asset, have a cousin who is an electrician, he does well. my brother has friends in SF 1 kid is a plumber, the other guy works for a gas company (talk about a story)....heavy into drugs in high school, moved to phoenix az just to get out of that scene...didnt know a person...got a couple random jobs (talking minimum wage shit, liq store) etc...then got into gas company as a meter reader making like $15 bucks an hour....basically kissed ass and did what they wanted (not to advance but b/c he had no social life, didnt know anyone so didnt mind working late etc) worked his way up to like 60k....relocated out of state same company....eventually got into foreman role then supervisor and having a crew under him now was making in the 75-85k range....wanted to move again ended up getting in with a new gas company in the sf area would have taken a pay cut to get closer to his kid but his dad knew a bigshot within that company and made a call just trying to get him in, they came back and said your resume speaks for itself, they offered him 117k...high school diploma, shit you not its my brothers best friend, im going to visit and stay at his place in 2 weeks out there....
bottom line is there's a lot of shit involved- effort you put in, luck, smarts etc...you could make 20bucks an hour but if your good with money,live within your means, smart and do your own investing etc you could still do fine down the road...i know people who barely pay their rent but they gotta have the new iphone 4s...where i use a POS phone that costs me peanuts with no internet etc....i dont want to pay $75 a month to have a phone like that
Looks like the risk on/status quo whores got the best result they coulda hoped for outta Greek elections
the ND and pasok have a majority and are pro EU/current "bailout" (extend time till bankruptcy) terms
All this EU stuff a fade IMO I got a bit more of spare ammo laying around will fire it near open tomorrow ....
the ND and pasok have a majority and are pro EU/current "bailout" (extend time till bankruptcy) terms
All this EU stuff a fade IMO I got a bit more of spare ammo laying around will fire it near open tomorrow ....
Or maybe not
Pasok Throws A Monkey Wrench Into Coalition Discussions
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/17/2012 - 14:37
Greece
As reported in the previous post, the Greek PASOK party of former PM G-Pap may have thrown a grenade into coalition discussion, following an announcement by Katerina Diamantopoulou that Pasok will not join into a coalition government with ND unless Syriza also joins said coalition. Which Syriza stated moments ago it would not do. The question then comes whether ND can form a government (150+ seats) with any of the other remaining parties (up to and including neo-nazi New Dawn or the communists... why is there no Pirate party in Greece?). The answer is most likely not, but not before some serious horse trading shows that the second Greek elections has achieved nothing, and the world now has to look forward to a 3rd Greek election round, some time in August, and then another, and then another, until no more assets are left to be plundered from the state which will have no head for a long time. Incidentally, just as we predicted on May 3 in "Previewing The First Of Many Greek Elections"
Pasok Throws A Monkey Wrench Into Coalition Discussions
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/17/2012 - 14:37
Greece
As reported in the previous post, the Greek PASOK party of former PM G-Pap may have thrown a grenade into coalition discussion, following an announcement by Katerina Diamantopoulou that Pasok will not join into a coalition government with ND unless Syriza also joins said coalition. Which Syriza stated moments ago it would not do. The question then comes whether ND can form a government (150+ seats) with any of the other remaining parties (up to and including neo-nazi New Dawn or the communists... why is there no Pirate party in Greece?). The answer is most likely not, but not before some serious horse trading shows that the second Greek elections has achieved nothing, and the world now has to look forward to a 3rd Greek election round, some time in August, and then another, and then another, until no more assets are left to be plundered from the state which will have no head for a long time. Incidentally, just as we predicted on May 3 in "Previewing The First Of Many Greek Elections"
Especially if u plan on having kids .... Kids getting more and more expensive and u better hope they smart/play a sport or something with the college factor....
My grand parents generation it was the norm for man to work mom stays home raise a few kids college reasonable of u wanna go etc
Now it's a necessity for both parents to work if u wanna be able to afford a kid (well for most) And unless they both make an above average amount their kids are exiting college (if they choose that)with a good amount of debt
And stuff like women's lib movement is called progress
I have no issues with women working that's not the issue what I have an issue with is "they've" created a new norm for the average American and it's not for the better
