Don't read this post.
Printable View
Don't read this post.
Crap, I lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
You fell for my clever plot!
Well, with the rules the 1922 committee have laid out it's starting to look like Boris probably will be back in (assuming he runs but I don't think there's much doubt about that. He needs to get a little under a third of the MPs to back him, which shouldn't be difficult - he's probably got it already, and them he'll go forward to the membership, most likely against Rishi Sunak. The membership adore Boris and hate Sunak so...
Oh well, only two years until a general election.
I'd put odds on he'd win the nomination. The election, I'm less sure. I think the Dems have some strong candidates but they tend to be from the more radical wing and I'm not sure the US electorate is ready for that. The Dems need to find a strong centrist.Quote:
If there was an election today, my guess is he would win
The Dem's need to find some unity. The Rep's seem much better at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Not that I find sticking together whether right or wrong a good thing but it does help win elections.
As for Trump winning, I think any republican would win right now. You would think the whole election fraud lies, Jan. 6th, business fraud, stolen documents would sour people on Trump but his core is still strong and willing to ignore these things. Then the economy problems are probably enough to make large numbers vote against then Dem's.
Personally, I don't think the economy has anything to do with Rep or Dem. Plus I still remember the wreck that Bush left the economy in. I keep say economy but the issue is inflation. The jobs market is actually very good.
But I'm really just guessing and not well informed guessing at that. But I'm sure of one thing, Biden out lasted Truss so USA, USA!!!! lol
Actually employment levels are deemed "too good" right now.
Seems like an impossible thing, but the suggestion is that so many marginal workers are employed that productivity is severely eroded and managing them has high costs. This slows production and delivery of goods and services.
We're also under policies that discourage petroleum production and refining and encourages shipping domestic supplies overseas. For good or for ill, it plays into scarcities and increased prices.
Trying to pretend this is merely the hand of Fate seems pretty naïve.
LSU is playing ole miss.
If there was a lever that a politician could pull that would make the economy great, they'd pull it as soon as they got their hands on it, and keep pulling it till it broke off.
Don't think about that too much.
It'll make you go blind.
We someone to run this country who knows how to tie up their shoelaces.
Bonker 4 PM.
It may not be Fate. But I see nothing from history that indicates either the Rep's or Dem's no how to control the economy. I'd say it's more of the shotgun approach. Just keep firing until something good happens.Quote:
Trying to pretend this is merely the hand of Fate seems pretty naïve.
LSU beat Ole Miss
Good for LSU. I was wondering how good the 7-0 Ole Mis was.Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
It's not just random, but it IS chaotic. We poured a huge amount of money into the economy as a result of COVID. For some people, that makes no difference. I bought bonds with the stimulus checks because it was ironic. That didn't do anything one way or another. However, there are lots of people who have a need for the money, and buy stuff with it. With the supply chain fouled up, an increase in purchasing just meant that the economy was overheating.
Of course, economists have been predicting inflation rising for the last decade, or more, and it kept on not happening. The assumption was that at full employment, which we were at, employers would increase wages to compete for employees, and that would cause inflation. It didn't happen then. Was this a lagging economic effect, a result of an overheating economy, a result of supply chain disruption, all of the above...mixed with the largest oil exporter starting a war? Yeah, probably all of those...plus, I ate a cheeseburger back in 1986. It was good.
I hadn't heard about the lettuce. That was awesome.
So the economy is where the term "butterfly effect" comes from. lol
The people that predict things like inflation or the market rise/fall just have to be persistent, eventual you'll be right.
I predict the market will go back up and inflation will comeback down. I like my odds.
That's not where the term came from, but it certainly applies quite well. Even people who know about chaotic systems tend to overlook the significance of that. Inflation might not be happening, or might be more, or might be less, had I not eaten that cheeseburger. The long term impacts of VERY trivial changes is equal in magnitude to every other change, so long as the strange attractor doesn't move, and it probably hasn't. That just means that the economy is still oscillating around the same general point.
The difference between a trivial change and a non-trivial change appears to be in how long it takes for the effect to manifest, not in the magnitude of the effect.
BoJo has dropped out. I did not see that coming.
So it'll be interesting to see what happens now. I don't think Penny Mordaunt will get the 100 nominations she needs to go forward to the membership but it's close. If she does she'll likely win because alot of the membership hate Sunak. Should be interesting to see.
Don't feel sorry for her, feel sorry for everyone else who's Mortgage rates which rocketed up after Liz's god awful economic decisions. My Mortgage was up for renewal and thanks to Liz I am now paying an extra £200 a month and I am one of the lucky ones. People who fixed later then me by a couple of weeks are facing much bigger increases.Quote:
I wasn't trying to defend or make excuses for her in any way. She failed spectacularly. I did feel a little sorry for her.
My interest was in how fast she was gone. Not a long drawn out process of denial and excuses.
Fun fact Liz is the shortest ever PM in UK history at 44 days, the previous shortest was George Canning at 119 days in 1827 and he had to die of Tuberculosis for his reign to end.
She didn't leave voluntarily she was forced out by her own party, in the UK if you lose the confidence of your own MPs they can force a no confidence vote which if you lose removes you from office. It didn't get that far because she was told if she didn't leave office a confidence vote would be held which she knew she would lose. This shows just how incompetent she was that she was forced out so quickly because her own party thought they faced political oblivion if she stayedQuote:
I'd have to say I like her willingness to walk away so quickly and let someone else have a shot
LSU is now ranked 18th
First, a bye week.
Then, Bama plays us in Deaf Valley.
After 15 years of robbing savers the wheel has turned and net-negative interest rates are finally over. The wasters who bet against prudence and diligence are whining about their casino mortgages from their gaming chairs now? While avarice was king in lending why didn't they obtain fixed rate mortgages?
Sorry, but for my first house I assumed an 11.5% VA loan because it was far better than what was otherwise available, and I'm not alone. Cry me a river, I wasn't the fool who took out liar's loans during the worst period of personal economic destruction in modern history.
People are now retiring en masse and while it is now too late for many of them they are shedding the engorged economic ticks from their backs. The real question is how deep the damage due to waste and losses in the free money era have been and what the social costs will ultimately total up to.
I think that's inaccurate. At least, it is in the UK, not sure about the US.Quote:
robbing savers
Savers would only be getting robbed if interest rates were low while inflation was high. The reason we've had low interest rates in the UK for the last few decades is because inflation rates were low. Back in the 80s we had high interest rates because we had high inflation rates.
Interest typically has an inverse relationship with inflation, but in the US inflation and interest have been artificially low at the behest of the Federal Reserve because not only do they influence at what rate banks can lend money (interest) but they are also in charge of the printing of money (inflation). The main issue is that instead of allowing interest rates to rise during recessions the FED pushed interest rates artificially low (see dot-com bubble, housing bubble, COVID lockdowns) which did not allow a "healthy" recession to happen.
The money people I listen to are predicting a true depression or hyperinflation which are practically the same thing, just different sides of the same coin.
I would personally prefer a depression because that typically weeds out malinvestment whereas hyperinflation typically affects non business owners. It's much more likely to get extremely violent if hyperinflation happens.
Neither is good, but pretending that neither will happen is foolish.
On the other hand, Jayden Daniels threw 21 for 28 against Ole Miss.
He also set a school record for rushing touchdowns by a QB.
Not sure what you mean by "renew" a mortgage. I've always had fixed rate, there is no renewal. Is that how how variable rate mortgages work, every year you renew to the current rate?Quote:
Don't feel sorry for her, feel sorry for everyone else who's Mortgage rates which rocketed up after Liz's god awful economic decisions. My Mortgage was up for renewal and thanks to Liz I am now paying an extra £200 a month and I am one of the lucky ones. People who fixed later then me by a couple of weeks are facing much bigger increases.
It was incredible how much your economy reacted from that one decision. I'm glad to see it seems to be moving back the other direction.
I can't remember when inflation rose significantly and the interest rates went down. I also don't remember a big rise in the inflation rate after the dot com bubble or the housing bubble. The last major inflation problem was in the 80's and interest rate and mortgage rate went high. I remember getting 8% on a one year CD and mortgage rates were above 10%.Quote:
Interest typically has an inverse relationship with inflation, but in the US inflation and interest have been artificially low at the behest of the Federal Reserve because not only do they influence at what rate banks can lend money (interest) but they are also in charge of the printing of money (inflation). The main issue is that instead of allowing interest rates to rise during recessions the FED pushed interest rates artificially low (see dot-com bubble, housing bubble, COVID lockdowns) which did not allow a "healthy" recession to happen.
That's about as far back as my memory goes. lol
I have heard that the 30-year fixed rate mortgage is a US anomaly. I imagine we'll hear whether or not that's the case.
I don't see the fed as having pushed interests rates 'artificially' low. What's the 'normal' interest rate? Without that, it isn't artificial. They certainly influence interest rates, but they were trying for a 2% inflation rate and weren't getting it. In fact, there was a risk of deflation, which sounds good until you look at a place like Japan, which has frantically been trying to get some inflation for the last couple decades.
Our economy is primarily driven by us buying stuff. That stuff could be material goods or it could be services, but us buying stuff is the bulk of the economy. With deflation, people put off buying (cause it will be cheaper if you wait), and a nasty cycle sets in.
I'm not particularly concerned about either hyperinflation or depression. The former is easy to define, the latter is not so easy. Both are quite bad, and both have been predicted for decades. They're kind of the extremes when it comes to meltdowns. Could happen...probably won't, but like any other disaster plot, people like to think about them.
By the FED pushing artificially low interest rates it incentivizes spending which encourages malinvestment.
Deflation does cause people to put off buying stuff because it could be (important distinction in the word could) cheaper in the future, but there is the concept of time preference. Take for example purchasing a business critical need, you could purchase it today knowing that it could be 1/2 as cheap next year, but then you risk losing out on the gains that could have been made by making the purchase. There is a risk/reward equation that goes into it, but that is the job of the entrepreneur and the person who does it well is rewarded in the form of profit.
The basic theory of the Austrian business cycle proposed by Mises and furthered by Rothbard is that when it is easy to borrow money (i.e. money is cheap) then that risk/reward calculus gets skewed and the entrepreneur cannot make an informed decision. What winds up happening is that companies can borrow money very cheap, make purchases that they might not necessarily need, there is this artificial boom, a credit crunch occurs, and then the company starts making layoffs and selling assets which cause the bust.
But if you look outside of offence, LSU held Ole Miss to just 166 rushing yards. A staple of the Ole Miss offence.
It got to the point to where Ole Miss absolutely had to rely on the pass to make up loss ground and so they abandoned the run which all but eliminated the play action and RPO.
Lane Kiffin needs a strong run game to take the pressure off his young QB.
Don't get me wrong, Jaxson Dart is a phenomenal quarterback, but he is still young and prone to poor decisions. Then again, ask any QB and they will tell you that a strong running game will usually translate to an easier passing game.
Except for the Steelers this year. Najee Harris was running well against the Dolphins, but it is tough to win games when you QB throws 3 interceptions.
I don't trust QB's they're always making passes. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by dday9
I think about every coach wants a good running game. It opens up play action passes and slows down the pass rush. If you can't run the ball even when the defense is committed to pass defense, your in for a long day. Once in a while you'll have a team that passes to open up the run but it's usually the other way around.
Ohh, that’s nice. We have a dad joke opener to our morning meetings and I’m going to lead with that.
In the UK, our fixed rate mortgages will be for the full term, usually 25 years, but will have a shorter "fixed period" in which the rate is fixed and there are penalties for paying early, usually 3 to 5 years. after that they typically fall back to a variable rate. What most people do is "renew" at the end of the fixed period - basically get a new fixed period at a new rate. So if you're in a fixed period when the interest rates jump you're OK... until the end of your fixed period when you can suddenly find yourself in dire straits, particularly if house prices have dropped in which case you can find yourself in negative equity, saddled with a house you can't sell and a mortgage you can't afford.Quote:
Not sure what you mean by "renew" a mortgage
I'm looking at being pretty badly screwed because I have two fixed rate buy to let mortgages that are due for renewal in Feb 2024 which is likely to be about when interest rates peak (though hopefully not now Rishi and Hunt are in charge - I'm not a big fan but at least they're far more responsible than Truss and Kwarteng). Thankfully I've been pretty responsible. My equity level in each is well above 50% and even an interest rate of 6 or 7% won't take the mortgage payments higher than the rental incomes. I won't take a loss as such but I will see a significant cut in profits, probably about 7 or 8 hundred a month. Thanks Liz:rolleyes:
On the interest/inflation thing I can think you can look at it either way. DD is right that raising interest rates curbs inflation so you would argue there's an inverse corelation. Personally I look at it the other way, high inflation causes central banks to raise interest rates, leading to a direct corelation. I would argue that looking at historical data indicates that a direct corelation is a more accurate way of looking at it:-
Attachment 186053
I think that's because interest rates are within our control while inflation typically isn't. So inflation tends to be the driver which interest rates respond to.
But DD is also right in that interest rates aren't the only way of affecting inflation, you can raise tax rates or reduce quantitative easing. So a government does have the option to go for high tax rates and low easing to keep inflation down while having high interest rates. This would make bubbles less likely to form as people would be disincentivised to borrow to invest. It's a low interest approach that caused the great crash in the 20s and I think you could argue it's led to a bubble in the UK housing market today.
That Post...
...was way too long...
...for post race
Quote:
The wasters who bet against prudence and diligence are whining about their casino mortgages from their gaming chairs now? While avarice was king in lending why didn't they obtain fixed rate mortgages?
In the UK our Fixed rates last for 2 or 5 years, that how long you can fix for, thats the system. My Fixed rate ended so I had to remortgage where you obtain a new fixed rate otherwise you automatically go to a higher variable rate.Quote:
Not sure what you mean by "renew" a mortgage.
Maybe you could have looked that up before spouting nonsense about casino mortgages!!
I like the casino.
I go sit at the digital blackjack game at the bar.
They serve me free alcohol while I play and $20 can last me hours when I bet only $0.10 a hand.
No, for that to happen, you have to have a functional government. That won't be happening in the US. If one party were to try raising taxes, that's ALL the other party would be talking about at the next election, which is never more than two years away.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
From a political perspective, this behavior is entirely correct. Politics is a zero sum game. You only win with somebody else losing, so anything that gives you advantage is worth doing. From a good governance perspective, however, that means that rational behavior will only happen when one party has been utterly flattened, which happens only during major war or depression in the US.
In the US, we typically have fixed rate mortgages of 10, 15, or 30 years. Alternatively, we have what is called an ARM, which is generally fixed for some number of years, then floats. It sounds like the UK has something like the ARM, but nothing like our 30 year fixed rate mortgages.
What if a political party gets majorly depressed about a war? What happens then :confused:
Bankers in the UK have it a bit better. A borrower with a 30 year fixed rate can calculate whether or not to refinance as interest rates drop, but the banks have no means to real means to force them into refinancing at a higher rate as interest rates rise. The banks kept trying to get my parents to get a second mortgage, or refinance, throughout the 80s, because they had a 6.25% interest rate. Now, there are people with 30 year mortgages paying less than 3%, and likely loving it. Not much incentive to pay off a mortgage early when you get more in interest on a bond fund than you are paying on your mortgage.
Historically, that means we get the Gettysburg Address.Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
Lincoln was not the main speaker at that event, and pretty much mailed it in. He scribbled down some notes and kept it brief. Less is often more.
This has been a bit serious for the Post Race.
It's almost as if we had something to say.
Almost....
Don't read this post.
Nonsense? How is it my fault if you live in the casino? It doesn't change the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
I'm not sure how a system made up exclusively of ARMs could have arisen. Was there never competition from local banks, savings and loans, or credit unions? No wonder films like "It's a Wonderful Life" are such a mystery to you. I suppose that's also why so many rent in Potter's Slums.
Seriously, you have my sympathies. Is the interest paid on fixed term bank deposits (CDs here) always variable as well?