About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

81 comments:

  1. 1
    Scotsman says:

    Unbelievable. As I head off to bed Dow futures are up almost 350 points because the Europeans, who are already having trouble servicing the debt they have are putting together an arrangement to borrow ANOTHER $950B. . . to buy up bad debt. Who the h#ll thinks this will work long term? It’s as if I pulled myself back from the edge of bankruptcy by getting a huge cash advance on a high interest credit card and using the cash to make the minimum payments to bring the worst stuff current. Then I can pretend everything is OK. Heck, I might even take the family out to dinner and maybe catch a movie.

    Are people/markets really so dumb that they are fooled by this sort of shuffling- that they can believe sustainability has been reached? Market zooming ever higher. All they have done is make today’s crisis next month’s crisis- “with a bullet.”

    I can hardly wait for Pfft to chime in and tell us the Greece problem is solved.

  2. 2
    EconE says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 1

    Subprime…I mean…Greece has been contained.

    Enjoy this video named…”banks suck”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylm0Y7IiYrs

  3. 3
    Hegel would be proud says:

    Scotsman — The entire financial system is controlled. Not much is left to chance. When the Bank of International Settlements works to coordinate the efforts of all the central banks worldwide, realize that the world economy is already centralized. What we are witnessing is a manufactured event with the intended goal of restructuring several areas of society, including the creation of a World Treasury Department under the International Monetary Fund. In order for the public to “buy in” to change of this magnitude, they must first believe a “crisis” is occurring. This is the Hegelian dialectic at work — a communist method for manufacturing public consensus.

    “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”
    ~ Henry Kissinger, Evians, France, 1991

    “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”
    ~ Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization

  4. 4
    Trigger says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 1 – See – my argument works. You get into debt, you party and then you get a bailout and the party moves on. As long as they can print the bailouts – nothing will seem to have ever happened. This is really key.

    So this talk about thinking long term etc. It is all cool, it is good and I agree in principle. But you do not win by getting an A+. You may win by getting an A- or B+. The A+ students get burned out and get lost in all the turmoil. You have to be smart in this world…..

  5. 5

    “Are people/markets really so dumb that they are fooled by this sort of shuffling- that they can believe sustainability has been reached?”

    Yes, people and markets are that dumb.
    You ever see the movie ” Idiocracy”?
    We seem to be headed there.

  6. 6
    Trigger says:

    I have a question for all the people on this portal.

    My situation is as follows: I already have a paid off house. So I have no loan. I know the value can go down but I will still keep it. My wife would not allow me to sell it anyways:)

    But long term when I become 50 years old I would like to spend say Jan/Feb/Mar in a nice place like Hawaii. But I do not have cash to buy such a place. So what I am thinking is to buy a place with a mortgage and then rent it out for 15 years so that people who rent can pay off my mortgage. Is this risky? Has anyone tried this? I like the NorthWest and everything – but winters here are kind of harsh.

  7. 7
    David Losh says:

    It must be time to talk about the Rothchilds. It’s the IMF, World Bank that’s got everything sucked into the vortex of Agenda 21.

    The market’s up today because there are a lot of buy signals that were set over the week end. It’s not a game or gamble. Your money, if you have any money left, is going into the stock market based on what the data says. The data says buy.

    Where the Rothchilds come in is with the volatility of the stock market the position of Gold has gotten much better. I’ll bet Gold is doing very well, and that will continue for many years to come. The safe and smart money will be in Gold while a few billion, or trillion, make the stock trading more erratic. Anyway that’s the theory.

    Long story short is that for a trillion dollars the IMF owns Greece, and they, you them, are on the way to buying up the world. Anyway that’s the second part of the conspiracy theory.

    World Government with One World Banking, has successfully taken over just as planned. It has happened, we are there, ask any nut job on the street, The End is Near. pfft is right, that from that perspective all is well, we are in good hands, pun intended, and well on the road to global recovery.

    Now while all of that is true, while banking has taken over, and owns huge swaths of America, and the World, what are they, you know them, going to do? What can they possibly do next? What’s the next move?

    There are a billion and a half people in China who need to be fed. A hunger soldier, with starving children, has nothing to lose. That’s the conclusion of World War II. Viet Nam proved it, our wars in Iraq, and Afganistan prove it. The most powerful military industrial complex in the world is getting thier asses kicked by a bunch of insurgents.

    Most militaries in the world have already come to that conclusion, it’s only the United States and the profit motive that keeps the dream of occupation economies alive.

    The true meaning of Agenda 21 is how to feed all of these people. How will we be able to house, cloth, and feed billions of people? You can have all the money, and gold, in the world, but you just can’t eat it.

    If you are a true conspiracy theory buff you already know this and have your money in guns.

  8. 8
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Hegel would be proud @ 3RE: Scotsman @ 1

    “Are people/markets really so dumb that they are fooled by this sort of shuffling”

    What’s the matter Scotsman? Sounds like you’re losing faith in the wisdom of the market place. Don’t you trust the decisions of the people who vote with their dollars? Just because they elected the pet rock and the $450K median priced home doesn’t make the market stupid. Well, OK, maybe it does.

    In any event, it probably does make them more interested in personal short term gains and gratification than the long term economic security of their society.

  9. 9
    Trigger says:

    RE: One Eyed Man @ 8 – I think most people do not look at the long term horizon. What really counts is what is happening now and in the next 1-2 years. So if the kids will have to deal with some issues – so be it.

  10. 10

    RE: Trigger @ 6 – First, I think you’ll probably have a hard time finding a place that you can rent and have the rents pay the place off in 15 years. Second, of course it’s risky. Owning anything is risky, even cash. But real estate rentals can be particularly risky. Beyond market direction, there can also be liability for acts on the property. Third, one thing you might want to consider is using a reverse mortgage when the time comes to buy the place in HI. The risk there is that your house might go down in value, but if that happens your rental idea might not have been the best either. The other risk is that reverse mortgages might not exist at that point in time. Finally, don’t take this response as being either in favor or against your doing this. I’m just pointing out some issues.

  11. 11
    Orbit says:

    I got into work today and saw that The Bravern in Bellevue has reduce the price of their condos. The flyer says “Prices Reduced up to 30%”. I wonder if they will get any takers with this price reduction and the glut of available condos here in Bellevue.

  12. 12
    Trigger says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 10

    there can also be liability for acts on the property.

    What is the liabaility for acts on the property? So if say sb has a loud party – then I am liable for this or the tenants?

    The problem is that I want to keep my existing home. I also do not want to live in Hawaii 12 months out of the year – it is too hot there. So ideally just 3 months out of the year and no more.

    Kary – do you think there is a high risk for values of properties going down in a place like Hawaii? or CA? Which place would you think is more solid – CA or Hawaii. Maybe CA is a safer bet because people think that you can earn a salary while living there. In Hawaii there are no jobs and even if there are jobs they pay half of what they pay in the NW.

    Also houses in Hawaii are very expensive. If you don’t want an ugly shack – I think you need 800K.

    If the economy goes bananas – CA should be better off I think. The flight to Hawaii might be expensive in itself. You can just drive to CA if you need to.

  13. 13

    RE: Trigger @ 6
    I don’t know the real estate market well enough in Hawaii to comment intelligently, but if it were similar to Seattle, and you bought a home to rent out for 15 years, you’d be subsidizing, out of pocketing it every month ( the rent wouldn’t cover the mortgage). My guess is that parts of the big island ( The Hilo-Pahoa side) might be the only place you could pull it off.
    There are also problems being an absentee landlord. You’d have to find someone you trust to handle the management and repairs of the rental. And there are lots of people out there who will see that as an opportunity to take advantage of you.
    I was an absentee landlord for a while, owning some cottages in Central WA, and it was a pain in the butt. Your mileage may vary.

  14. 14

    RE: Trigger @ 11 – I was thinking more of an injury on the property. Owners can be liable for trip and falls on their property. Also if there’s a fire and some defect with the property there could be liability. Insurance is an option, but I’d want lots of it (probably at least 5M).

    I don’t predict the local market years out, so I’m not going to predict CA or HI.

  15. 15
    Scotsman says:

    Now Fannie wants $8B- didn’t they just get a chunk last week? Sorry, that was Freddie- it’s all so confusing:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/10/fannie-asks-for-another-8-4-billion/?fbid=lBJ9CPGJ-3q

  16. 16
    Dirty_Renter says:

    RE: Trigger @ 4

    Trigger – This winter was fairly brutal, in that the sun was an absentee landlord over the PNW.
    If I were you, I’d take into consideration renting a cottage for 3 months every winter. once you retire. That way, you can change venues from the Greek Islands, Hawaii, Seychelles, Riviera, Costa Rico….et al. Why tie yourself down to 1 location?
    And, as mentioned earlier, the happiest day in the life of a boat owner or landlord…the day they SELL.
    As a side note, thanks to the boat repairman on Pawn Stars, you know what boat stands for? Bust Out Another Thousand.
    That is all.
    At your service,
    Dirty Renter

  17. 17
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 1:

    Unbelievable. As I head off to bed Dow futures are up almost 350 points because the Europeans, who are already having trouble servicing the debt they have are putting together an arrangement to borrow ANOTHER $950B. . . to buy up bad debt. Who the h#ll thinks this will work long term? It’s as if I pulled myself back from the edge of bankruptcy by getting a huge cash advance on a high interest credit card and using the cash to make the minimum payments to bring the worst stuff current. Then I can pretend everything is OK. Heck, I might even take the family out to dinner and maybe catch a movie.

    Are people/markets really so dumb that they are fooled by this sort of shuffling- that they can believe sustainability has been reached? Market zooming ever higher. All they have done is make today’s crisis next month’s crisis- “with a bullet.”

    I can hardly wait for Pfft to chime in and tell us the Greece problem is solved.

    I can’t wait for you to complain about cash for clunkers, the census, the birth./death model, dubai or how you’ve been right even though you’ve been wrong for the last year plus

    the long run could be a very long time. the europeans are not having trouble funding debts, certain countries are. some are in good shape.

  18. 18
    Sniglet says:

    I have been seeing a lot of stories about the Freddie Mac earnings report and was wondering if anyone know where to find data showing the performance of loans by year of issuance? All the reports I’ve read talk about the percentage of mortgages that are in delinquency by type (e.g. standard mortgage, option-ARM, etc), but they don’t seem to break them down by year.

    For example, It would be very interesting to see how mortgages issued in 2009 or 2010 are performing compared to mortgages made in 2007 or 2008. Is the percentage of 0 day defaults (i.e. where the first mortgage payment is never made) decreasing? What about at 30, 60 or 90 days from issuance? Are loans issued in January of 2009 defaulting at a lower rate than a year after loans made in January 2008?

    Basically, what I am very keen on discovering is whether the quality of NEW mortgages is improving.

  19. 19
    Dirty_Renter says:

    RE: pfft @ 17

    The ECB $1T line is to buy existing euro debt(from the bad boys) not the issuance of new debt. So, in essence, it is putting new peeps on the hook( say Germans) for the old debt.
    You know what they call a co-signer…a fool with an ink pen.
    Dirty Renter

  20. 20
    pfft says:

    By Dirty_Renter @ 19:

    RE: pfft @ 17

    The ECB $1T line is to buy existing euro debt(from the bad boys) not the issuance of new debt. So, in essence, it is putting new peeps on the hook( say Germans) for the old debt.
    You know what they call a co-signer…a fool with an ink pen.
    Dirty Renter

    they aren’t co-signing, they are buying up bonds which will reduce yields and make debt service easier.

    ” the interest rate on two-year Greek bonds fell immediately, from 18.1% to 4.9%.

    The EU agreement also paved the way for the European Central Bank to start buying government debt, which helped to reduce bond yields.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10104140.stm

    quite a drop.

  21. 21
    Scotsman says:

    RE: One Eyed Man @ 8

    I know you’re right- in part it’s just people playing for the short term gains, all part of how the greater picture comes together. My problem is that we really don’t have honest or reflective markets because we don’t have readily available access to honest data. Hence too many decisions are actually the result of manipulations, not market driven process . But again, in the end the cash flow wins- when the payments don’t come in the reality is finally revealed.

  22. 22

    RE: Scotsman @ 21 – Maybe it’s like democracy, where we assume a good outcome even though many people are misinformed, don’t bother to do any research and/or are just plain stupid.

  23. 23
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Dirty_Renter @ 19

    It’s worse than that- the Fed is getting ready to back all of this sh*t through swaps. So yes, in the end it has a good chance of being the U.S. taxpayer, albeit indirectly, that gets to take the hit. Plus we will be contributing directly through the IMF along with several other Euro countries that are already having trouble paying their debt. It’s all some great big “mortgage modification/debt consolidation loan ” gone bad. I give the whole mess no more than six months before it unravels.

  24. 24
    Pegasus says:

    pfft…. “they aren’t co-signing, they are buying up bonds which will reduce yields and make debt service easier.”

    Nope. The debt service remains the same on whatever rate the bonds were issued at. Whether they go up or down belongs to the holder not the issuer(Greece). It will affect future offering yields on crap bonds though.

  25. 25
    Gruel says:

    By David Losh @ 7:

    If you are a true conspiracy theory buff you already know this and have your money in guns.

    Surprised you didn’t reach for more illogical fallacies than than what you already did in your last post. You seem to really rely heavily on guilt by association. Noticed you forgot to mention Bigfoot and UFOs.

    Why not try checking the mainstream media for articles that essentially state the same things I have been posting? You know — the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times? You seem to think that we are still in the realm of theory and wild-eyed fiction. May I invite you to move beyond the status quo and actually do some research that is worthy of being called “research”?

    Or have you simply chosen to play off cliche, emotion, consensus view, uneducated gut-reaction opinion and so forth — and call it a day?

    In any case, you seem to be quite comfortable with simply allowing international central bankers — people with a horrible track record of performing humanitarian deeds despite all their power and wealth — to simply do whatever they want. You also seem to strongly advocate not even discussing it.

    Are you really so gullible and ignorant to believe that all of sudden people who have, for so many decades, willfully chosen to sit next to Satan are going to perform acts of Jesus upon us? Why would you believe that, I wonder?

  26. 26
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 22

    Good grief- must be Monday, and a gray one at that. Thanks, Kary! ;-) I’m sure that as a lawyer you’ve run into your share of similar disparities between intent and application. It would be nice if we saw more of the ideal realized, and less of the short comings.

    I was once told most people find themselves in life exactly where they want to be- if there was any real discomfort there would be more effort to change things. So I guess as a nation we’re exactly where we want to be. Oh boy.

  27. 27
    Daniel says:

    By Dirty_Renter @ 19:

    The ECB $1T line is to buy existing euro debt(from the bad boys) not the issuance of new debt. So, in essence, it is putting new peeps on the hook( say Germans) for the old debt.

    Much worse than that: It is just another hidden bank bailout. The biggest creditor of Greece are German banks. Let Greece go bankrupt and some big banks will. At that point goto start.

    Scotsman is right: The whole issue is unsustainable, in fact unsustainable also for the creditors (they have imaginary value in their portfolio and if it is insured they will still not see it as the chain reaction will bankrupt the insurer as well). Unlike Scotsman I am not so optimistic to think it will collapse in 6 months: I am afraid it may take another 50 or 100 years of keeping up appearances and some people making a fortune on sustaining it to the bitter end. At one point pitchforks or a modern version of the French Revolution guillotine will end that.

  28. 28

    RE: Scotsman @ 26 – Part of it is my thinking about the primary selection process in Utah. To the extent the incumbent is not a part of the primary now I don’t really mind that to the extent it’s due to something like his vote on health care, earmarking, etc. I don’t personally like those things either. To the extent it’s due to his vote on TARP, to me that’s just crazy, especially since TARP has been largely paid off.

    But IMHO ignoring individual issues would be better. What it really should be about is whether he was a Senator prior to 2008 (which he was obviously), and whether he did anything to try to avoid the financial situation the country was in, or at least warned about it. I just don’t see that any sitting politician should be re-elected if they helped lead us into this mess without at least sounding the alarm.

  29. 29

    By Daniel @ 27:

    By Dirty_Renter @ 19:

    The ECB $1T line is to buy existing euro debt(from the bad boys) not the issuance of new debt. So, in essence, it is putting new peeps on the hook( say Germans) for the old debt.

    Much worse than that: It is just another hidden bank bailout. The biggest creditor of Greece are German banks. Let Greece go bankrupt and some big banks will. At that point goto start..

    I know bank bailouts are not popular on this site, but without at least a semi-healthy banking system you don’t have an economy any better than Afghanistan.

  30. 30
    Daniel says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 29:

    I know bank bailouts are not popular on this site, but without at least a semi-healthy banking system you don’t have an economy any better than Afghanistan.

    Proof by statement? I would have let the whole faulty system collapse, but you already know that. This statement reminds me of all the horror scenarios of anarchy when there is a big power outage or of the y2k hysteria. The last few large scale power outages in the US saw a decline in criminality instead and the sun still shines even after the year 2000. People are afraid of change, no matter how healthy. When they actually have to adapt they do quite well.

    People would probably notice how surprisingly small the influence on their daily life is, and how many of the things they think are needed are in fact quite dispensable for a short while. In the longer run replacement structures would quickly develop and any new system would probably be a lot healthier as one has learned from past mistakes.

  31. 31
    Daniel says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 28:

    I just don’t see that any sitting politician should be re-elected if they helped lead us into this mess without at least sounding the alarm.

    So we instead should vote for the ones who took the clapper out of the warning bell to tell everyone that the old way was just fine and that we recovered from this short flu episode, when all we have started to build is the next bubble?

  32. 32

    By Daniel @ 30:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 29:

    I know bank bailouts are not popular on this site, but without at least a semi-healthy banking system you don’t have an economy any better than Afghanistan.

    Proof by statement? .

    You need to look no further than the unemployment figures (which many here claim are understated) as proof. Banks were not healthy and were not loaning money to smaller businesses, and that affected employment.

    Also, I’m not a historian, but I’m sure there have been countries in the past where the bank system collapsed.

  33. 33

    By Daniel @ 31:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 28:

    I just don’t see that any sitting politician should be re-elected if they helped lead us into this mess without at least sounding the alarm.

    So we instead should vote for the ones who took the clapper out of the warning bell to tell everyone that the old way was just fine and that we recovered from this short flu episode, when all we have started to build is the next bubble?

    I’m not sure where you’re coming from on that, but it doesn’t sound anything like what I said. Under my test very few politicians should be reelected.

  34. 34
    patient says:

    RE: Daniel @ 31 – I agree with you Daniel. I see no proof that letting banks fail and start new ones, federal or private will be any costlier or damaging to the economy than bailing out the proven incompetent gamblers that runs banks into the ground. I also agree that the EU package is a pure bank bailout. The european banks holds large sum of sovreign bonds. As the value of these bonds drop so does the banks bond “assets”. Their balance sheets start to stink and by threatening to freeze lending to the public they ask that the governments bail them out from their bad holdings with tax payer money. It’s a massive transfer of funds from the tax payer to the banks just like the US rescue and bailout packages. Countries has become like drug addicts who refuse to got to rehab and are chasing the next fix desperately and the dealers ( banks and the Chinese ) are happy to provide to get the addicts deeper and deeper into a life long dependency.

  35. 35
    Sniglet says:

    I see no proof that letting banks fail and start new ones, federal or private will be any costlier or damaging to the economy than bailing out the proven incompetent gamblers that runs banks into the ground.

    Really? Just look at what happened in Japan after their financial system faced a crisis in 1989. Policy makers there decided to do bail-outs, and “ignore” outrageous accounting gimics to avoid having mass bankruptcies, and a collapse of the financial system. The result has been 20 years of recession!

    Compare that to the financial panic of 1920, when numerous banks collapsed and US GDP shrank by 24%. In that case the policy makers decided that the best policy was to REDUCE spending, and let the chips fall where they may. Within a year the economy was growing again.

    http://surkanstance.blogspot.com/2009/04/depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920.html

    These are clear examples which illustrate how short, and sharp, economic downturns are far preferable to the long, lingering, sort.

    That said, social mood in the world today would never tolerate policy actions similar to 1920, so we are just going to have to suffer through a lengthy deflationary depression. I suspect we won’t see a bottom until maybe 2016, with a very SLOW recovery lasting 15 or 20 years before we start to see any kind of significant appreciation in asset prices.

    I am still on record for predicting a greater than 80% drop from peak in average real-estate prices and the stock indexes. I am even more pessimistic now than I was a year ago. Now I am thinking the Dow will drop below 1000 before we hit bottom. I used to think 2000 was a good target level.

  36. 36
    patient says:

    RE: Sniglet @ 35 – Thanks sniglet, that’s an example that letting banks fail can be better than bailouts. What I said was that I see no proof the bailouts are better than letting banks fail so you kind of made my point with an inverse example.

  37. 37

    By Sniglet @ 35:

    Really? Just look at what happened in Japan after their financial system faced a crisis in 1989. Policy makers there decided to do bail-outs, and “ignore” outrageous accounting gimics to avoid having mass bankruptcies, and a collapse of the financial system. The result has been 20 years of recession!

    Compare that to the financial panic of 1920, when numerous banks collapsed and US GDP shrank by 24%. In that case the policy makers decided that the best policy was to REDUCE spending, and let the chips fall where they may. Within a year the economy was growing again.

    And as we all know from our history lessons, the US had 20 very prosperous care-free years after that! ;-)

  38. 38

    Hey My Stocks Went Up Today :-)

    I’m in a good mood today, I think I’ll throw stuff away, so I can buy more new stuff…

    A friend of mine calls the stock market my dancing girls, when it goes up they’re dancing the bailout cha cha…

  39. 39
    patient says:

    The Tim’s Estately powered inventory tracker for King Co. SFH just surpassed last years number.

    05.10.2009 15:00 9918
    05.10.2010 15:00 9975

  40. 40
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 32

    Banks were not healthy and were not loaning money to smaller businesses, and that affected employment.

    How?

    I know it sounds right, but seriously, even if every employer, or a few went further in debt, where is the consumer base today? Will they continue to borrow to buy? Or is there enough fear in the market place to make people, the majority of people, to think about it twuce, today? How about a year from now when government loans begin defaulting?

  41. 41
    David Losh says:

    RE: Gruel @ 25

    Obviously you misunderstand, but I do know that the conspiracy exists, and a lot of really smart people have made a lot of money. I believe that the stock market, and commodities, are totally contrived, and manipulated by institutional investing. It is all legal, and out in the open. It’s the times we live in.

    It is however the end of the line. The Agenda 21 has long past any viable ability to implement it. We are awash in oil, gold, and commodity trading. The bottom line is, you can’t eat oil. You can’t control food. You can interfer with distribution. That’s it.

    So in the worst of times, just like with the Rothchilds, fortunes are made. You can do it for good, or evil, but those are the choices. You’ll either feed the people, or yourself.

  42. 42

    RE: Scotsman @ 1

    Good News for Pfft?

    Americans are receiving more good economic news financial aid, 260,000 more Americans got bonuses to buy more food?

    Article in part:

    “…The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday….”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6465E220100507

  43. 43
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Sniglet @ 35RE: patient @ 34RE: Daniel @ 30

    I’ve got problems with your stats Sniglet. And I think that the facts and some simple math shows that there were real risks to GDP that probably far exceeded the costs of the bail out. I’m not saying the risks would definitely have happened, but that’s not the same as concluding that you shouldn’t buy the insurance.

    First, what source gives you a 24% drop in GDP in 1920? The following link gives a significantly smaller drop in real and nominal GDP and also says it took longer than one year for GDP to come back to 1920 levels. Is the 24% the total lost GDP until about 1925 when the economy reached 1920 levels again.

    http://www.measuringworth.org/datasets/usgdp/result.php

    Second, even if the drop was 24% for just one year, if we were to suffer the same drop today, that would be a total economic cost of over 3 trillion in today’s GDP. That’s probably equal to the highest cost estimates to bail out the banks, even if you throw in about a 50% loss on the entire portfolios of Fannie and Freddie. At the 15 billion a quarter they requeste this quarter, it would take 50 years for them to draw down 3 trillion.

    Third, how about using 1929 as an example rather than 1920. From 1929 to 1933 the GDP decreased about 50% (probably about 30% in “real GDP” after adjustment for deflation). That’s 4 years of do nothing policy with the worst economic down turn in American history. If that happened today, the total GDP cost in real GDP over the 4 years alone would likely exceed 10 trillion and would be closer to 20 trillion by the time the GDP reached the pre-depression levels.

    I’m not saying that it’s a sure thing that we would have had a second GD if we hadn’t bailed out the banks. But as long as we’re playing “what if,” let’s also consider what might have happened if we didn’t bail out the commercial and investment banks. If you think back to the fall of 2008, WAMU had about a 15 billion run on deposits in just a two week period before being taken over. It’s more than a small possibility that many of the banks and brokerage houses would have had major runs as people tried to protect themselves. Businesses would have needed to move money to protect their accounts in excess of 250K. Payroll checks would have been at risk of bouncing if a business left its payroll account in the wrong institution, which probably included at least City, B of A, and WF.

    If there were runs (like the one on WAMU) the FDIC would potentially have had to take over and ran most of the major banks and the SIPC would have ended up with many of the brokerages because there wouldn’t have been enough healthy large institutions to buy them and run them. The liquidation costs of those institutions would have been huge. For you guys to dismiss that potential mess as a small issue with less expense to the US taxpayer is not as reasonable as you make it sound . The cost to bail out the commercial and investment banks to insure against that risk was arguably a very reasonable insurance premium if you compare it against the risk of a potential 10+ trillion loss in GDP.

  44. 44

    RE: One Eyed Man @ 43 – This link shows historic GDP numbers that show the recovery as fast as Sniglet mentioned, but not as deep of a fall.

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

  45. 45
    pfft says:

    By Pegasus @ 24:

    pfft…. “they arenâ��t co-signing, they are buying up bonds which will reduce yields and make debt service easier.”

    Nope. The debt service remains the same on whatever rate the bonds were issued at. Whether they go up or down belongs to the holder not the issuer(Greece). It will affect future offering yields on crap bonds though.

    exactly.

  46. 46
    pfft says:

    By Sniglet @ 35:

    I see no proof that letting banks fail and start new ones, federal or private will be any costlier or damaging to the economy than bailing out the proven incompetent gamblers that runs banks into the ground.

    Really? Just look at what happened in Japan after their financial system faced a crisis in 1989. Policy makers there decided to do bail-outs, and “ignore” outrageous accounting gimics to avoid having mass bankruptcies, and a collapse of the financial system. The result has been 20 years of recession!

    Compare that to the financial panic of 1920, when numerous banks collapsed and US GDP shrank by 24%. In that case the policy makers decided that the best policy was to REDUCE spending, and let the chips fall where they may. Within a year the economy was growing again.

    http://surkanstance.blogspot.com/2009/04/depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920.html

    These are clear examples which illustrate how short, and sharp, economic downturns are far preferable to the long, lingering, sort.

    That said, social mood in the world today would never tolerate policy actions similar to 1920, so we are just going to have to suffer through a lengthy deflationary depression. I suspect we won’t see a bottom until maybe 2016, with a very SLOW recovery lasting 15 or 20 years before we start to see any kind of significant appreciation in asset prices.

    I am still on record for predicting a greater than 80% drop from peak in average real-estate prices and the stock indexes. I am even more pessimistic now than I was a year ago. Now I am thinking the Dow will drop below 1000 before we hit bottom. I used to think 2000 was a good target level.

    how was 1929?

  47. 47
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44

    That’s about what the other chart shows for nominal GDP change but the real GDP change (adjusted for deflation in 1921 and inflation in 1922 was more like 6% or 7% according to the link I posted.

  48. 48
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: One Eyed Man @ 47

    I checked the link again and the change in real GDP was only about 3% up and down from 1920 to 1923. The change in nominal GDP was about 17% up and down which was about what the link you cited showed also. If the inflation calculation on the Measuring Worth site is correct, about 80% of the 17% change in GDP was caused by a short term swing in deflation and inflation.

  49. 49
    pfft says:

    By softwarengineer @ 42:

    RE: Scotsman @ 1

    Good News for Pfft?

    Americans are receiving more good economic news financial aid, 260,000 more Americans got bonuses to buy more food?

    Article in part:

    “…The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday….”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6465E220100507

    typical bear, ignore all other data and just focusing on the lagging data.

    what did you think of the 200,000+ who were hired?

  50. 50
    Daniel says:

    By One Eyed Man @ 43:

    Second, even if the drop was 24% for just one year, if we were to suffer the same drop today, that would be a total economic cost of over 3 trillion in today’s GDP. That’s probably equal to the highest cost estimates to bail out the banks, even if you throw in about a 50% loss on the entire portfolios of Fannie and Freddie. At the 15 billion a quarter they requested this quarter, it would take 50 years for them to draw down 3 trillion.

    You may not like the answer but from my point of view it is simple: That is “value” that simply does not exist and exactly what I meant with imaginary value. All people will loose is what they never had to start with. Facing that reality is the real challenge. Once you realized that loosing it is not scary anymore at all.

    Your figure of fifty years does not surprise me either. That is how long it took to build up the problems in the first place.

    I said it before but just to not waste your time: GDP numbers will not convince me one way or the other. GDP is a lousy metric to measure economic prosperity and the example you give actually illustrates that.

    Last, as a foreigner maybe one thing: Is it the meaningless numbers that shaped what is known as America or its people overcoming all kind of struggle, for their independence, for their rights and through two world wars? Yet today people seem just as shackled as their ancestors fleeing oppression and poverty. Maybe prayer to the god of commerce is the last that is left and taking it away will actually end in utter chaos.

  51. 51
    Scotsman says:

    Well, that was fast- there may be hope yet. Futures for the euro exchanges are off sharply and off about 100 points for the Dow as I write this. The euro has also reversed and is continuing to fall against the dollar. It seems (some) people have figured out that this great rescue isn’t anything more than a glorified game of Three Card Monty. 2 plus 2 still equals 4, or so it seems.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atdPo_SV2N5w&pos=4

  52. 52
    deejayoh says:

    By pfft @ 49:

    By softwarengineer @ 42:

    RE: Scotsman @ 1

    Good News for Pfft?

    Americans are receiving more good economic news financial aid, 260,000 more Americans got bonuses to buy more food?

    Article in part:

    “…The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday….”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6465E220100507

    typical bear, ignore all other data and just focusing on the lagging data.

    what did you think of the 200,000+ who were hired?

    With only 188,000 of them from the “birth/death” model we should all be happy. Those “birth/death” jobs pay great!

  53. 53
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Daniel @ 50

    I’m in the “take the hit and get it over with” camp, a minority position to be sure. Your argument that the value isn’t there is spot-on, but folks don’t want to believe it. What they fail to grasp is that if the value isn’t there now, it certainly won’t be there in the future either- we don’t have the ability to create something from nothing- not in the past, not now, and not in the future. And all the games that politicians and banks play in an effort to try and create value where there is none are doomed to fail.

    We could have gotten all of this behind us back in 2008-2009 and be on the road to a solid recovery but instead we’ve just increased the ultimate cost and pain by some as yet unknown factor by kicking the can further down the road. I don’t believe for a minute that the government or economy would have fallen into permanent chaos. A few big, stupid banks would have died, but so what? There would have been a thousand smaller regional banks ready to step up yo the plate and take over. Paulson scared the government into saving his buddies and making himself rich, then left the scene. BFD.

  54. 54
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 53RE: Daniel @ 50

    I don’t think either of you realize how much of a straw man I am to be arguing these issues. My personal idea of a healthy economy is a sustainable subsistance farm with enough nearby fish and game for a well balanced diet. But never the less, the issue I was trying to convey isn’t whether there is “value” in the dollar denominated portfolio of Fannie and Freddie or in the dollar denominated “GDP.” I agree with you that the physical amount of goods produced and the physical amount of collateral for loans is what it is. If there had been no bail out, there would be a shift in the dollar denominated balance sheets of individuals and entities, but the physical goods already created wouldn’t have changed.

    Our dissagreement and the problem I was trying to convey is with the affect on levels of future economic production. I believe that without the bailout a substantial number of businesses would have failed and jobs would have been losts unnecessarily. And IMO small businesses that fail and jobs that are lost don’t come back as easily as the 24% one year snap back that Sniglet suggests happened in 1920. If checks stop clearing and credit lines that small businesses depend on to make payroll disappear, the production and exchange of actual goods and services would slow and jobs would be lost.

    The point of saving the financial system wasn’t to save the banks, and it wasn’t to save the inflated levels of GDP, collateral values or over valued debt. IMO the value of the financial system bailout is to insure against the destruction of jobs and businesses due solely to a short to mid term loss of cash flow, credit and liquidity. The bail out also probably helped dampen the current valley in the business cycle by slowing the pace of the economic contraction so that it wouldn’t substantially overshoot in a rapid contraction.

    It’s one thing to lose all the finance jobs and construction jobs that were producing vacant buildings and to let the holders of under collateralized paper eat the loses. It’s another to potentially lose thousands of otherwise sustainable small businesses and jobs because their credit lines dried up, their checks didn’t clear, and they couldn’t pay suppliers and payroll.

    Could the powers that be have solved the problem with less public expense by taking over and operating failing financial entities? Maybe. There’s no way to tell for sure, but there is an argument to be made that if the FDIC and the SIPC had ended up as the owner operators of the financial system, they would have failed. The FDIC commonly sells off or liquidates institutions.

    The bail out hedged the risk of unnecessary damage to the otherwise sustainable portions of the economy. Was the cost of a trillion in increased public debt worth the benefit of the policy? That may be debatable, but it wasn’t an easy risk to quantify in the fall of 2008. Perhaps the system is strong enough now to cancel the policy and stop paying the premiums to support the housing industry, freddie, fannie and the car companies. At that point, if the politicians so decide, the shareholders and bond holders of entities like freddie and fannie can be left to take their losses without as high a risk that they will unnecessarily take down a substantial part of the rest of the economy. And the rest of us can return to the problem of cutting public spending and decreasing public debt.

  55. 55
    David Losh says:

    I’m further convinced daily that the bail outs were needed. A trillion here, a trillion in Europe, and probably we will all need to contribute to China before it’s all over, there again buying Chinese goods is kind of a bail out already.

    The big banks and the ties they have to government is where we have the problems. To big to fail should be banners we see on the over passes, and on placards at demonstrations. The people on this blog, or the right wing conservative movement, complain about government being to big, but never attack the root cause of government actions.

    I know that when I comment about Agenda 21 or the Rothchilds, or the conspiracy theories, a lot of people skip over the comment, but business, and government lines are blurred. Big companies take over where big government leaves off, it goes hand in hand.

    Twice in two days I have heard comments from economists that the best thing we can all do is continue to live as usual. I agree that I don’t think any of us can “save” our way out of this. I don’t think we can position ourselves, as individuals, or a country by fiscal responsibility.

    In my personal opinion the only thing that can happen is to consider these bail outs as gifts and go on from there. I don’t see any repayment plan that will work. The financial markets will also have to take losses and go on. Globally we would just have to call it good.

    The alternative is to wait for government loan defaults. After all, governments get their money from us, and how’s that going?

  56. 56
    David Losh says:

    RE: pfft @ 46

    This is the most complete comment about the 1920s which were sandwiched between two world wars, but still it makes no difference.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png

    The world population relates to GDP. Consumerism is by the bodies in the stores buying stuff. It all adds to GDP which would make China the greatest economy in the world, next to India.

  57. 57
    pfft says:

    By deejayoh @ 52:

    By pfft @ 49:

    By softwarengineer @ 42:

    RE: Scotsman @ 1

    Good News for Pfft?

    Americans are receiving more good economic news financial aid, 260,000 more Americans got bonuses to buy more food?

    Article in part:

    “…The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday….”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6465E220100507

    typical bear, ignore all other data and just focusing on the lagging data.

    what did you think of the 200,000+ who were hired?

    With only 188,000 of them from the “birth/death” model we should all be happy. Those “birth/death” jobs pay great!

    what is wrong with the birth/death model. it’s not like it’s hidden, it’s right on the site. they even tell you the number.

    sad news though, the birth/death model usually undercounts jobs on an upswing. during downturns it overestimates job gains.

  58. 58
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 53:

    RE: Daniel @ 50

    I’m in the “take the hit and get it over with” camp, a minority position to be sure. Your argument that the value isn’t there is spot-on, but folks don’t want to believe it. What they fail to grasp is that if the value isn’t there now, it certainly won’t be there in the future either- we don’t have the ability to create something from nothing- not in the past, not now, and not in the future. And all the games that politicians and banks play in an effort to try and create value where there is none are doomed to fail.

    We could have gotten all of this behind us back in 2008-2009 and be on the road to a solid recovery but instead we’ve just increased the ultimate cost and pain by some as yet unknown factor by kicking the can further down the road. I don’t believe for a minute that the government or economy would have fallen into permanent chaos. A few big, stupid banks would have died, but so what? There would have been a thousand smaller regional banks ready to step up yo the plate and take over. Paulson scared the government into saving his buddies and making himself rich, then left the scene. BFD.

    all those regional banks are even more exposed to real estate(in the CRE sector) than the big banks were.

    what happens inbetween the time when the big banks fail and the little one’s “step-in” as you say? I’ll tell you what, economic chaos.

    it’s like when those people wanted the big car companies were going to take over and people said so what new companies and new buyers wil scoop up the assets. yeah, someone is going to start a new car company in the middle of a mini-depression in part caused by the car companies going under. it’s so easy!

  59. 59
    Scotsman says:

    All of you are somehow under the illusion that the bailouts have saved the system. They haven’t. There is a huge difference between solvency/sustainability and liquidity. The bailouts have bought some time through liquidity, but have done nothing on the solvency side except further damage the long term picture by adding interest expense to the equation. Now those who have been “bailed” have some time, but need to earn not only their regular profits but additional profit to at least cover their new interest expense. We won’t even discuss the idea of principle repayments. Oh, and they need to do this in a depressed economy. It won’t work.

    I won’t even start on how it leads to a continued mis-allocation of resources in the economy, burdens the currency value with low productivity, etc. We should have just taken the hit, put in some short term measures to help business, not the government, and moved on.

  60. 60
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 58

    “what new companies and new buyers wil scoop up the assets. yeah, someone is going to start a new car company in the middle of a mini-depression in part caused by the car companies going under. it’s so easy!”

    Are you the same guy who told us just the other day that Warren B. had something like $40B in cash just sitting around? How much cash does MSFT have? How about those Europeans, Chinese, and now Indians? Do you know that at one time there were over a hundred American car companies competing in the U.S.?

  61. 61
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 60:

    RE: pfft @ 58

    “what new companies and new buyers wil scoop up the assets. yeah, someone is going to start a new car company in the middle of a mini-depression in part caused by the car companies going under. itâ��s so easy!”

    Are you the same guy who told us just the other day that Warren B. had something like $40B in cash just sitting around? How much cash does MSFT have? How about those Europeans, Chinese, and now Indians? Do you know that at one time there were over a hundred American car companies competing in the U.S.?

    and you know why there are only a few car companies left? because you needs tons of capital and expertise to build a car company and even then you still might fail as we’ve seen. during a depression(which we would have had w/o tarp, the stimulus and etc) nobody would start a car company because nobody would buy cars.

  62. 62
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 59:

    All of you are somehow under the illusion that the bailouts have saved the system. They haven’t. There is a huge difference between solvency/sustainability and liquidity. The bailouts have bought some time through liquidity, but have done nothing on the solvency side except further damage the long term picture by adding interest expense to the equation. Now those who have been “bailed” have some time, but need to earn not only their regular profits but additional profit to at least cover their new interest expense. We won’t even discuss the idea of principle repayments. Oh, and they need to do this in a depressed economy. It won’t work.

    I won’t even start on how it leads to a continued mis-allocation of resources in the economy, burdens the currency value with low productivity, etc. We should have just taken the hit, put in some short term measures to help business, not the government, and moved on.

    there is no single process by which we the economy goes back to stability. there is always a bubble and undervaluation bubbling up somewhere. even when we did take the hit it didn’t stop new bubbles. even after 1929 we still had 1938. there is always uncertainty. there is always some imbalance.

    we might grow slower out of this recession but the economic system can absorb that.

  63. 63
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 51:

    Well, that was fast- there may be hope yet. Futures for the euro exchanges are off sharply and off about 100 points for the Dow as I write this. The euro has also reversed and is continuing to fall against the dollar. It seems (some) people have figured out that this great rescue isn’t anything more than a glorified game of Three Card Monty. 2 plus 2 still equals 4, or so it seems.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atdPo_SV2N5w&pos=4

    wait. you and SWE totally ignore the last year’s rise in the stock market but you’re so quick to point out the movement of a day or two? how does that work? if the market have been falling sharply for a year I could never get away with saying the stock market and economy looked good. however, you guys can dismiss a stock market rise of a full year and get away with it.

    double standard.

  64. 64

    RE: pfft @ 63 – You’ve just noticed that the direction a stat is headed affects its perceived validity here? ;-)

  65. 65
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 64RE: pfft @ 63

    No, I still don’t think the direction of the market correlates well with the long term health of the economy. But it does track sentiment, and it’s partial correction does signal that a number of folks figured out the $1T euro-save probably won’t be a viable long term solution. That’s all. Don’t put words in my mouth- I’m right here- you can just ask.

  66. 66
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 65:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 64RE: pfft @ 63

    No, I still don’t think the direction of the market correlates well with the long term health of the economy.

    But I bet you did in 2008. I bet you had a big case of schadenfreude during the crash and now that your little party is over you don’t know how to spin it and the beer cans don’t have a deposit on them. I’ve been there. just go with the market and admit you’re wrong. it’s very liberating. there will be time to be bearish again but right now that isn’t the time. you could wrong for the next four years.

  67. 67
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 64:

    RE: pfft @ 63 – You’ve just noticed that the direction a stat is headed affects its perceived validity here? ;-)

    yeah. I bet there are many here who will never be bullish on housing even if it starts to rise. there will always be some excuse to be bearish. many people here who were or are bearish on housing probably think they are smart. if you never become bullish on housing that means you weren’t or aren’t smart you were just a combination of lucky and stubborn.

  68. 68
    wreckingbull says:

    RE: pfft @ 67

    I bet there are many here who will never be bullish on housing even if it starts to rise.

    I’m glad you posted this, because I think it outlines the flaw in your thinking quite well. You look at prices to determine if we have ‘recovered’ while the rest of us look at fundamentals. I have been ‘bullish’ on housing in the past, having owned homes, because the P/E made sense. In late 2006, I realized the P/E was out of whack and found a greater fool. I will become ‘bullish’ on housing again (read: buy a home to live in) when the P/E pencils out again. No need to try to time the market.

  69. 69
    Trigger says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 65 – But the Dow is rising. Tomorrow the DAX etc will likely rise. People are cheering the new bailout and are looking for the short term liquidity and are looking up to printing presses!

  70. 70
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 66

    No, I became aware of the housing bubble while traveling in CA during the spring of 2006 and listening to ads on the radio. A little research and it became apparent housing, and then the banks, and then probably the economy as a whole would crash. I had been concerned long before that about U.S. entitlements and deficits- the whole housing issue just convinced me the inevitable would happen sooner.

    The economy may wander alone for several more years with a whole new series of ups and downs, but the math and cash flow will rule in the end. I’m not geared to play the ups and downs in the market, and think pretty much only long term for investment strategies unless there’s a painfully obvious move like the banks in the fall of 2008. Sorry, but I don’t feel I’ve missed anything because the best is yet to come.

  71. 71
    Sniglet says:

    Just a reminder about my weekly internet economics radio show taking place tonight (Tuesday, May 11th) at 9:00pm Pacific.

    My guests and I will discuss whether this weeks market rally was caused by the pan-European bail-out announced over the week-end and whether the markets have turned the corner.

    http://surkanstance.blogspot.com/2009/11/introducing-optimistic-bear-weekly.html

  72. 72
    The Tim says:

    RE: Sniglet @ 71 – Moved this comment to the open thread since it doesn’t relate to the ethics of walking away.

  73. 73
    Sniglet says:

    RE: The Tim @ 72 – Sorry about that Tim. I had both sessions open and messed up.

  74. 74
    The Tim says:

    RE: Sniglet @ 73 – No problem. That’s why I have a plugin that lets me move comments :^)

  75. 75
    pfft says:

    By wreckingbull @ 68:

    RE: pfft @ 67

    I bet there are many here who will never be bullish on housing even if it starts to rise.

    I’m glad you posted this, because I think it outlines the flaw in your thinking quite well. You look at prices to determine if we have ‘recovered’ while the rest of us look at fundamentals. I have been ‘bullish’ on housing in the past, having owned homes, because the P/E made sense. In late 2006, I realized the P/E was out of whack and found a greater fool. I will become ‘bullish’ on housing again (read: buy a home to live in) when the P/E pencils out again. No need to try to time the market.

    that’s a good way to look at it, but some people will not be that analytical.

  76. 76
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 70:

    RE: pfft @ 66 I’m not geared to play the ups and downs in the market, and think pretty much only long term for investment strategies unless there’s a painfully obvious move like the banks in the fall of 2008. Sorry, but I don’t feel I’ve missed anything because the best is yet to come.

    well you can wait an awfully long time. remember in 1981 ron paul said there was little hope for dollar assets.

    the odds of another huge crash in a few years after we had two 50% dives isn’t very good. there is not bubble left. inflation won’t produce a crash, it will just slowly eat away at things. stocks and houses aren’t likely to factor into the next crash.

  77. 77
    David Losh says:

    RE: pfft @ 76

    Housing will continue to drop, not just here, but worse globally. The price of housing has been extremely manipulated with no hope of sustaining at current prices. Values are far below pricing and it will either gradually drop or drop quickly.

  78. 78
    Gruel says:

    RE: David Losh @ 41 – You wrote: “The Agenda 21 has long past any viable ability to implement it.”

    I beg to differ. When was the last time you saw the words “green” or “sustainable living” or “sustainable development”? One hour ago maybe? Guess who is backing all the LOCAL organizations WORLDWIDE that are backing local sustainable development and green programs? Ever look into the funding for this stuff?

    The mother ship for the funding is the United Nations. The owners of the ship are private, for-profit central bankers. The main visionary is Maurice Strong. Here, read this sometime — http://freedom21.org/

    Not sure why you would think this is not funded. Agenda 21 is HEAVILY FUNDED and there’s no way in the world this is dead. When’s the last time you researched this? You seem to be making stuff up as you go along. Do I really have to post links proving my point?

  79. 79
    Gruel says:

    DAVID LOSH —

    Some more links for you about how big Agenda 21 really is —

    http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-programs
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/cap-and-trade-scam-to-be-enforced-at-state-level.html

    From http://soldierforliberty.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/the-crown-jewel-of-understanding-agenda-21-and-the-club-of-rome/

    I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.

    The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these ‘Clubs’ share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the ‘main Club’ is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

  80. 80
    pfft says:

    now we know why tax collections are so low- the economy and the lowest tax rates in 60 years!

    “Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

  81. 81
    David Losh says:

    RE: Gruel @ 79RE: Gruel @ 78

    I’ve posted the world population chart enough. It has to do with bodies on the planet and population continues to grow. Let’s forget the Rain Forest of the Amazon, Global Warming, and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and talk about fishing, and forestry here in the Pacific Northwest. Even though we know if we over fish, there will be fewer fish, the price goes up, we still fish without regard. Whaling is still a viable industry. Don’t worry we have farm fish and they are color enhanced.

    Trees! Do we really need to talk about trees? Because as soon as they are big enough we will cut that hillside bare once again, but wait! We have all that unused National Forest. We’ll get to that with future legislation.

    People can have all the meetings they want, but you can’t control the population with meetings.

    You seem to be changing your focus from the conspiracy of the Illuminati to sustainable resources for the planet. There are billions of people to feed. The idea that there will, at this point, be any orderly containment, feeding, welfare, of those billions of people would be wishful thinking.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.