I'm wearing black because I'm in mourning for WALL STREET
thard...@gmail.com
I was sitting around watching MSNBC at about 3:45PM, and all of a
sudden the numbers started dropping, dropping, dropping. It was a
genuine Last Second Stampede trying to beat the closing bell.
Hey, for years I've been telling people that our family philosophy is
"if you can't pay cash for it, you probably don't need it".
That means we have no debt other than the annual property tax snatched
by the local governments.
From the looks on the faces of the yuppies driving past the house,
they're all imagining their 401-K retirement funds evaporating the way
that mine did during the Dot Bomb. Their imaginations might be pretty
accurate.
So, where ya gonna refinance yer mortgage now, pookums? For that
matter, who's insuring your brokers? Still got a brokerage firm?
Oopsie. So, how many new albatrosses got hung around your taxpayer
neck just in the last five days? And does China want your war bonds
debt repaid yet? By close-of-business tomorrow? And how's that career
in new-home construction looking?
Sometimes I feel like being an asshole... but for now, I think that
just dressing in black will do just fine. I'm used to being dirt poor.
I'm also used to hearing people complain about how bored they are in
their well-financed lives where all things go according to schedule
and their fine credit rating. Bored, bored, bored.
I was going to mope, but have decided that I personally have no reason
to mope... and I do in fact have reasons to be cheerful, and not for
myself, but for others. All of those people complaining about their
boredom have got a bit of novelty in their lives.
To me, it's just my little world going on for me exactly as it always
has, the slow disintegration that comes of a genteel, but utter,
poverty.
For all of those people who were so bored by their endless success,
it's kind of like the world crashing around them with a sort of
endless thud.
It looks to me that by the end of the week, Wall Street will be
looking for a job.
Peter H. Coffin
> I was going to mope, but have decided that I personally have no reason
> to mope... and I do in fact have reasons to be cheerful, and not for
> myself, but for others. All of those people complaining about their
> boredom have got a bit of novelty in their lives.
>
> To me, it's just my little world going on for me exactly as it always
> has, the slow disintegration that comes of a genteel, but utter,
> poverty.
I get to sit back and laugh. A year ago people were telling me that
the housing thing was nothing to worry about, that real estate would
appreciate forever, and there wouldn't be any need for government
action to save banks, mortgage lenders, and various other financial
institutions. As it sits, I'm considering myself correct in my gloom and
doom predictions, and sent Bruce's dollar to the NRA because it didn't
happen quite as fast as I thought.
For what it's worth, folks, I don't think we're at the bottom of the
swing yet. It'll be a lean holiday for a lot of folks. My guess is that
we're gonna see market return starting in 1st quarter, and real economic
recovery slowly starting next fall.
--
I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There's a
knob called "brightness", but it doesn't work.
-- Gallagher
klaatu...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:41:38 -0700 (PDT), thardma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I was going to mope, but have decided that I personally have no reason
> > to mope... and I do in fact have reasons to be cheerful, and not for
> > myself, but for others. All of those people complaining about their
> > boredom have got a bit of novelty in their lives.
>
> > To me, it's just my little world going on for me exactly as it always
> > has, the slow disintegration that comes of a genteel, but utter,
> > poverty.
>
> I get to sit back and laugh. A year ago people were telling me that
> the housing thing was nothing to worry about, that real estate would
> appreciate forever, and there wouldn't be any need for government
> action to save banks, mortgage lenders, and various other financial
> institutions. As it sits, I'm considering myself correct in my gloom and
> doom predictions, and sent Bruce's dollar to the NRA because it didn't
> happen quite as fast as I thought.
>
> For what it's worth, folks, I don't think we're at the bottom of the
> swing yet. It'll be a lean holiday for a lot of folks. My guess is that
> we're gonna see market return starting in 1st quarter, and real economic
> recovery slowly starting next fall.
Ah, don't count on it.
This has all of the hallmarks of being analogous to a really large
pond being hit by a lot of rocks of varying, but large, size.
In most places, a lot of ripples go past, you're out in the water and
it doesn't matter much if wavelets wash the shores. But there's always
the possibility that in some place there will be a confluence of the
waves, and that might be just enough to do the last bit of work
undercutting a riverbank. All of that falls into the water, and
whoosh! -one big wave sweeps to the other riverbank, and down that
comes as well. And again, in most places it can be ridden out with
little more than some bobbing in the flood. But woe to them as are too
near the collapse occurred.
What I mean is that for the average joe doing average things, it might
get hard and stay hard, but nothing much worse than they're accustomed
to handling. But for the big fish, they may continue to rise to the
surface belly up. Lots of rot on which the smaller fish can feed, lots
of protein returning to the system, but for a long long time,
everything smells of rotten fish. And with no big fish left to breed
more big fish, pretty soon you wind up with a pond full of nothing but
minnows, mostly engaged in eating each other.
Ripples will keep crossing the pond. And just about the time you think
they've stopped, another riverbank collapses.
I'll go ahead and take one of those one-dollar bets, I suppose. I'll
be Mister Pessimist.
This is just the beginning. Right about when the new President is
getting inaugurated, it won't be just the weather that's deadly cold.
Siobhan
>I was going to mope, but have decided that I personally have no reason
>to mope... and I do in fact have reasons to be cheerful, and not for
>myself, but for others. All of those people complaining about their
>boredom have got a bit of novelty in their lives.
I overheard Axel responding to a telephone survey the other day.
"No, I have no concerns about my job security. I work in collections."
Siobhan
repo man
Endymion
> From the looks on the faces of the yuppies driving past the house,
> they're all imagining their 401-K retirement funds evaporating the way
> that mine did during the Dot Bomb. Their imaginations might be pretty
> accurate.
Do you imagine that asshole yuppies and Wall Street Masters of the
Universe are the only people with 401ks or pensions that will be
affected by all this? Do you imagine lots of ordinary folks with
ordinary jobs won't be laid off, or that layoffs only hurt people who
haven't been living within their means? Do you think the admins and
janitors at Lehman or Merril Lynch are responsible for this mess? Or
the guy with the hot dog stand who depended on them for his living?
Gloat over those big fish, gloat over being vindicated, but don't
gloat over the very real misery that's going to hit a lot of very real
people. Unless you have that much contempt for everyone who wakes up
and goes to work in the morning, anyway, and if you do, well, I think
you can imagine what I have to say about that.
- Endymion
Endymion
> I get to sit back and laugh. A year ago people were telling me that
> the housing thing was nothing to worry about, that real estate would
> appreciate forever, and there wouldn't be any need for government
> action to save banks, mortgage lenders, and various other financial
> institutions. As it sits, I'm considering myself correct in my gloom and
> doom predictions, and sent Bruce's dollar to the NRA because it didn't
> happen quite as fast as I thought.
What were the terms of the bet again? I'm thinking it was something
along the lines of unemployment plus inflation at 40% or more, the Dow
under 6,000, and $3 to the euro. If that's correct, I think my dollar
is still pretty safe. In fact, I'd be happy to double down - with the
election polls looking like they are, the NRA needs every dollar it
can get.
Other people may have said everything would be rosy, but I'm pretty
sure I never did. I think we were discussing comparisons to the Great
Depression and the Fall of Western Civilization, and I said things
might get nasty but they wouldn't get *that* nasty - and they haven't.
Nor do I think there's any good reason at this point to believe they
will.
Didn't you also take the bet about the election? My memory's getting
terrible these days. Interestingly, I think the best chance of that
not being settled by New Year's is an electoral tie, which is a real
possibility - if Obama wins everything Kerry did plus Iowa, New
Mexico, and Nevada, we're tied at 269, and that's when the *real* fun
starts.
(What happens when a state legislature controlled by one party passes
a resolution requiring its House delegation, which has more members of
the other party, to vote for the first party's candidate? Lawsuits
that will make Bush v. Gore look like a contested parking ticket,
that's what! There's nothing in the Constitution, or as far as I'm
aware, in existing case law, about how each state's House delegation
should decide who to vote for! Big fun!)
- Endymion
Endymion
> What I mean is that for the average joe doing average things, it might
> get hard and stay hard, but nothing much worse than they're accustomed
> to handling. But for the big fish, they may continue to rise to the
> surface belly up. Lots of rot on which the smaller fish can feed, lots
> of protein returning to the system, but for a long long time,
> everything smells of rotten fish. And with no big fish left to breed
> more big fish, pretty soon you wind up with a pond full of nothing but
> minnows, mostly engaged in eating each other.
Here's another "do you really?" - do you really think the big fish
will lose more as a class than the small fish?
That only happens in two types of events: full-scale radical
revolutions (note that it didn't happen after ours, or any of
Bolivar's, despite what Hugo Chavez likes to claim) and complete
collapses of civilizations. And even then it's not certain. A lot of
slaves starved as the Western Roman Empire slowly went belly up, and a
lot of bishops, big landowners, and mid-level political bosses managed
to make themselves sufficiently useful to the Ostrogoths and Franks to
retain a lifestyle much better than that of the slaves (which is to
say servi, serfs) who did manage to survive.
- Endymion
Peter H. Coffin
> On Sep 17, 8:18 pm, "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>
>> I get to sit back and laugh. A year ago people were telling me that
>> the housing thing was nothing to worry about, that real estate would
>> appreciate forever, and there wouldn't be any need for government
>> action to save banks, mortgage lenders, and various other financial
>> institutions. As it sits, I'm considering myself correct in my gloom and
>> doom predictions, and sent Bruce's dollar to the NRA because it didn't
>> happen quite as fast as I thought.
>
> What were the terms of the bet again? I'm thinking it was something
> along the lines of unemployment plus inflation at 40% or more, the Dow
> under 6,000, and $3 to the euro. If that's correct, I think my dollar
> is still pretty safe. In fact, I'd be happy to double down - with the
> election polls looking like they are, the NRA needs every dollar it
> can get.
>
> Other people may have said everything would be rosy, but I'm pretty
> sure I never did. I think we were discussing comparisons to the Great
> Depression and the Fall of Western Civilization, and I said things
> might get nasty but they wouldn't get *that* nasty - and they haven't.
> Nor do I think there's any good reason at this point to believe they
> will.
Nothing so complicated: government intervention in financial sector
beyond usual means of fussing with interest rates, before last
Thanksgiving. It took until February, I think, before the first
gov't-backed bank buy-out happened..
> Didn't you also take the bet about the election? My memory's getting
> terrible these days. Interestingly, I think the best chance of that
> not being settled by New Year's is an electoral tie, which is a real
> possibility - if Obama wins everything Kerry did plus Iowa, New
> Mexico, and Nevada, we're tied at 269, and that's when the *real* fun
> starts.
I can't remember about that one, but I remember that there was
discussion.
> (What happens when a state legislature controlled by one party passes
> a resolution requiring its House delegation, which has more members of
> the other party, to vote for the first party's candidate? Lawsuits
> that will make Bush v. Gore look like a contested parking ticket,
> that's what! There's nothing in the Constitution, or as far as I'm
> aware, in existing case law, about how each state's House delegation
> should decide who to vote for! Big fun!)
It'll be an interesting couple of months....
--
For every subject you can think of there are at least 3 web sites.
The owners of these web sites know each other and at least one of
them hates at least one of the others.
-- mnlooney's view of Skif's Internet Theorem
Satori
"Endymion" <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dc8160a-574f-4eca...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>Didn't you also take the bet about the election? My memory's getting
>terrible these days. Interestingly, I think the best chance of that
>not being settled by New Year's is an electoral tie, which is a real
>possibility - if Obama wins everything Kerry did plus Iowa, New
>Mexico, and Nevada, we're tied at 269, and that's when the *real* fun
>starts.
A possibility, but an outside one. If Obama wins Nevada, he likely wins
Colorado, too. But stranger things have happened.
>(What happens when a state legislature controlled by one party passes
>a resolution requiring its House delegation, which has more members of
>the other party, to vote for the first party's candidate? Lawsuits
>that will make Bush v. Gore look like a contested parking ticket,
>that's what! There's nothing in the Constitution, or as far as I'm
>aware, in existing case law, about how each state's House delegation
>should decide who to vote for! Big fun!)
And with the downticket momentum the Dems seem to have this year, some of
those resolutions could come from lame duck Republican majorities in states
where the Dems will retake the majority after inuaguration - just to add an
extra bit of spice ;)
Right now, fivethirtyeight.com is giving that scenario only a 1.65% chance
of happening, as opposed to an 8.39% chance of a decisive state being close
enough for a recount.
firefey
amen.
there does seem to be a whole lot of people acting as though this is
only going to effect the wealthy, the fiscally irresponsable, or the
oft villified yuppie. but here's the thing... the wealthy have enough
to ride out this shit storm. the likelyhood of them ending up in the
bread lines is pretty slim. i'd like to think that the people who
have been living beyond their means will reap some kind of karmic
reward but the reality is they'll likely be the ones getting
government assistance to stabalize them and claiming they were given
fradulent council by the mortgage broker. or they'll file for
bankruptcy. and the yuppies? that's the closest most people will
ever get to living the american dream of starting poor and becoming
wealthy. not the life i want for me, in terms of steriotypical
suburban living, but certainly not a hateful goal if that's what you
want.
the people that are gonna get slammed by this the worst are the ones
who have been living within their means as best they can. the ones
that have chosen to pay a bit more for their residence so they can be
near good schools, or at least out of bad neighborhoods. the ones
that have already cut dinners out, movie night, and the occational
road trip out to keep up with the coast of gas and food. the ones who
despite doing their best are never more than a month away from losing
everything.
by the way... having money doesn't make you evil. having no soul
does. and the two do not always go hand in hand.
Peter H. Coffin
> there does seem to be a whole lot of people acting as though this is
> only going to effect the wealthy, the fiscally irresponsable, or the
> oft villified yuppie. but here's the thing... the wealthy have enough
> to ride out this shit storm. the likelyhood of them ending up in the
> bread lines is pretty slim.
If a market crash wipes out 75% of portfolios, who's worse off? The
person that lost $3,500,00 of $5,000,000 or the person that has $75,000
left instead of $250,000?
--
"This system operates under martial law. The constitution is suspended. You
have no rights except as declared by the area commander. Violators will be
shot. Repeat violators will be repeatedly shot...." -from "A_W_O_L"
firefey
since they both look to have lost around 70%... i'm gonna go with
pretty equally screwed. at least in terms of percentages. but the
first hypothetical person likely has more resources to recover from
the loss, likely will have an easier time liquidating assets and
probably has more assets to liquidate. but who gets the fuzzier
lollipop wasn't the point i was making. what i'm saying is the
wealthy will get pinched by this, but are not liekly to end up at wic
to get free food. sadly, many of the middle class and lower are if it
does get as bad as it could.
Blackheart
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:41:38 -0700 (PDT), thardma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >I was going to mope, but have decided that I personally have no reason
> >to mope... and I do in fact have reasons to be cheerful, and not for
> >myself, but for others. All of those people complaining about their
> >boredom have got a bit of novelty in their lives.
>
> I overheard Axel responding to a telephone survey the other day.
>
> "No, I have no concerns about my job security. I work in collections."
they won't need the repo man when no one has anything left to collect.
which is just fine with me, I only consider collections guys to be
about 1 inch above common thieves as it is.
klaatu...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:31:41 -0700 (PDT), firefey wrote:
> > there does seem to be a whole lot of people acting as though this is
> > only going to effect the wealthy, the fiscally irresponsable, or the
> > oft villified yuppie. but here's the thing... the wealthy have enough
> > to ride out this shit storm. the likelyhood of them ending up in the
> > bread lines is pretty slim.
>
> If a market crash wipes out 75% of portfolios, who's worse off? The
> person that lost $3,500,00 of $5,000,000 or the person that has $75,000
> left instead of $250,000?
Wow, that's an astonishing case of beside-the-point.
Of course, I can only say that because I waited two days to
respond. ;)
Who's worse off if there's no market crash, but the person with $5-
millions declares that everyone will suffer, because if they lose
_anything_ they will lose everything and so will everyone else... or
is the person worse off who supposedly would have actually lost all
but $75,000 winds up getting taxed at 50-percent to bail out the
person who not only gets to keep their five-millions, but gets to
write off all of their taxes?
Did anyone besides me notice that we seem to be seeing the
privatization of profit and the socialization of risk?
Even the CNBC folks are freaking out over their own inability to
decide whether this is fascism or another kind of socialism.
Peter H. Coffin
Trumped by hours at
http://etcet.livejournal.com/609838.html?thread=3838766#t3838766
--
57. Before employing any captured artifacts or machinery, I will carefully
read the owner's manual.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
oonh
I would just like to say that I was sufficiently well informed
to know that Lehman was going bankrupt before it hit the papers.
I view this as a shortcoming: namely, I should not be aware of
news of this magnitude until the supposedly acid free papers
are yellowing, and begging-for-LASIK grad students have to
look up primary source materials.
oonh
Endymion
> Who's worse off if there's no market crash, but the person with $5-
> millions declares that everyone will suffer, because if they lose
> _anything_ they will lose everything and so will everyone else... or
> is the person worse off who supposedly would have actually lost all
> but $75,000 winds up getting taxed at 50-percent to bail out the
> person who not only gets to keep their five-millions, but gets to
> write off all of their taxes?
I think you're missing the point. The problem isn't that rich
investors will get their money back, and that isn't why the bailouts
happen or why we need to make sure there isn't a market crash, and
letting the market crash to punish the millionaires would be as
idiotic as burning down your own house in order to drive your
neighbor's insurance rate up.
The lapse in judgment isn't the bailout. It's all the time we spent
*before* the collapse letting people pretend they were gambling with
their own money (and thus letting them keep all their winnings). That
obviously can't be undone now. And the people we need to go after
aren't the investors - how much social good will come of bankrupting
the California public school teachers' pension fund? It's these
asshats: http://www.newsweek.com/id/159439
Unfortunately, those asshats have hedged their bets a bit for the last
few years by giving gobs and gobs of money to both parties and all the
viable candidates for the presidency (yes, including his
Worshipfulness, he's taken more from Wall Street than anyone else).
> Did anyone besides me notice that we seem to be seeing the
> privatization of profit and the socialization of risk?
Apparently not; given that I've seen that same nine-word sound byte
about 8,000 times already today, somebody at Moonbat Central obviously
noticed far enough in advance to print up cue cards and send them out
to all the nattering party faithful. Funny, I didn't know you were on
the list.
- Endymion
Troia
Who is it among the "ordinary" people who imagines it will "only going
to effect the wealthy"? I see far more of ordinary people who believe
that it will somehow be engineered to -not- affect the wealthy but
instead land on the backs of the ordinary lower- and middle-class
workers, as most of the financial disasters seem to do.
You think people are gloating & pointing? I think it's more along the
lines of being tired of having working folks taken to the cleaners to
save the wealthy in the misguidedly-persistent faith in the old "trickle
down" fantasy.
Satori
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethiscom> wrote in message
news:48d4e9c8$0$67969$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> You think people are gloating & pointing? I think it's more along the
> lines of being tired of having working folks taken to the cleaners to save
> the wealthy in the misguidedly-persistent faith in the old "trickle down"
> fantasy.
I believe he was refering specifically to His Ferretness, who said this
upthread:
<thard...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80f9bd6c-2aea-436d...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Troia
See what happens when I don't keep up???
-- Troia
abit abashed
klaatu...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:25:58 -0700 (PDT), klaatu.re...@gmail.com wrote:
<snips />
> > Did anyone besides me notice that we seem to be seeing the
> > privatization of profit and the socialization of risk?
>
> Trumped by hours athttp://etcet.livejournal.com/609838.html?thread=3838766#t3838766
Ah, trumped by months/years somewhere in news:alt.politics.immigration
for obvious reasons. <evil grin />
That whole "line your own pockets while foisting social costs onto the
taxpayer at large" has been my favorite drum to beat in that newsgroup
for some time.
klaatu...@gmail.com
> On Sep 19, 12:25 pm, klaatu.re...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip />
> > Did anyone besides me notice that we seem to be seeing the
> > privatization of profit and the socialization of risk?
>
> Apparently not; given that I've seen that same nine-word sound byte
> about 8,000 times already today, somebody at Moonbat Central obviously
> noticed far enough in advance to print up cue cards and send them out
> to all the nattering party faithful. Funny, I didn't know you were on
> the list.
/me titters inanely
Ah, as best I can tell, I'm the guy who flipped the switch on that
particular printing press.
After all, assuming that the profit that is privatized is to the party
faithful and industrial supporters of the party in power, and the
socialization of risk is to everyone else, that's one of the
definitive bases of Fascism, isn't it?
Axel
We're talking about the internal collections department of a bank
here.
We deal with existing bank customers who have missed payments on their
loans, lines, credit cards and primarily endeavour to find ways to get
them through the temporary bad patch and back on track so that they'll
remain happy customers of the bank forever.
We're so good at it that customers we've worked with are happier &
more loyal customers than ones who haven't.
Also in Canada where the lending environment is radically different
[1]
[1] For one thing it's well regulated & managed and our retail banking
operations aren't in melt down
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
"Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
"How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
<ax...@eol.ca>
Nyx
4ax.com:
> [1] For one thing it's well regulated & managed and our retail banking
> operations aren't in melt down
They will be when the US, England and French banks go down.
Nyx
--
http://www.sxxxy.org -- celebrity sex news
http://www.whippi.com --bdsm blog
Endymion
> [1] For one thing it's well regulated & managed and our retail banking
> operations aren't in melt down
Our retail banking operations aren't in meltdown either, or at least,
as Nyx points out, not until the investment banks and other Wall
Street cowboys have pulled the whole house down. Even then, they're
backed by the government, so unless the whole continent goes bankrupt
they're probably the safest place for money aside from bullion in a
well-concealed hole in the back yard.
Given the extent to which Canada and the US trade with each other and
the relative sizes of the economies, I can't imagine any financial
problems here not impacting you folks just as much.
- Endymion
Endymion
> After all, assuming that the profit that is privatized is to the party
> faithful and industrial supporters of the party in power, and the
> socialization of risk is to everyone else, that's one of the
> definitive bases of Fascism, isn't it?
Not really. You missed the Mother of All Debates over this over in
Fianna's LiveJournal, so I'll be brief, but that's just crony
capitalism, or just plain old fashioned corruption. Allocation of
losses isn't really the defining factor in fascist economics, it's
state control of production coupled with private profits, which isn't
what we're seeing here (in fact, the *lack* of state control is
alleged by most on the left to be the chief source of the problem),
and economics are only one part of the fascist package and not the
most important one by far.
- Endymion
Axel
<disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>Given the extent to which Canada and the US trade with each other and
>the relative sizes of the economies, I can't imagine any financial
>problems here not impacting you folks just as much.
Imagine harder.
We sell you more oil than anybody else, and if your not buying, China
& India do.
Our reliance on the US economy has been declining over the last 20
years.
The Canadian dollar has appreciated 60% over the last 5 years.
We run both a trade and government budget surpluses.
We didn't massively over extend personal credit.
Axel
<disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 23, 10:09 pm, Axel <a...@eol.ca> wrote:
>
>> [1] For one thing it's well regulated & managed and our retail banking
>> operations aren't in melt down
>
>Our retail banking operations aren't in meltdown either,
Ummm ...
1) Mortgages are part of retail banking operations.
2) 12 FDIC insured banks have gone down worth allegedly $42 billion.
Here's a list for those keeping track at home:
Ameribank Inc. Northfork, W.Va., closed Sept. 19. $115-million (U.S.)
assets, $102-million deposits.
Silver State Bank Henderson, Nev. closed Sept. 5. $2-billion assets,
$1.7-billion deposits.
Integrity Bank Alpharetta, Ga., closed Aug. 29. $1.1-billion assets,
$974-million deposits.
Columbian Bank and Trust Topeka, Kan., closed Aug. 22. $752-million
assets, $622-million in deposits.
First Priority Bank Bradenton, Fla., closed Aug. 1. $259-million
assets, $227-million deposits $72-million cost to fund, $13-million
uninsured deposits.
First Nat. Bank of Nevada Reno, closed July 25. $3.4-billion assets,
$3-billion deposits.
First Heritage Bank Newport Beach, Calif., closed July 25.
$254-million assets, $233-million deposits.
IndyMac Bank Pasadena, Calif., closed July 11. $32-billion assets,
$19-billion deposits.
First Integrity National Staples, Minn., closed May 30. $54.7-million
assets, $50.3-million deposits.
ANB Financial National Bentonville, Ark., closed May 9. $2.1-billion
assets, $1.8-billion deposits.
Hume Bank Hume, Mo., closed March 7. $18.7-million assets,
$13.6-million deposits.
Douglass National Bank Kansas City, closed Jan. 25. $58.5-million
assets, $53.8-million deposits.
3) Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are retail banking operations.
4) Bank of America's [1] Q2 results say "Holy fuck, everythings
turning to shit". Not literally but "Credit quality continued to
weaken... The slowing economy resulted in credit deterioration
concentrated in the domestic consumer, small business and homebuilder
portfolios. Both net charge-offs and nonperforming assets continued to
increase." is about as close as you're going to get.
Going into the details, it's all fucking awful. For examples:
A 1% charge-off rate in a retail banking environment is large. They
hit 1.67%.
Non-performing assets have quadrupled in the last year.
Provision for loan losses is up from $9 billion to $17 billion.
http://investor.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71595&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1176944&highlight=
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
"Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
"How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
<ax...@eol.ca>
[1] First one that came to mind. I'm sure the rest are in the same
boar.
Axel
>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:d38jd4p12rk0bb2c0ias7aetlcnn4ec2dd@
>4ax.com:
>
>> [1] For one thing it's well regulated & managed and our retail banking
>> operations aren't in melt down
>
>They will be when the US, England and French banks go down.
No - see it's called 'retail' banking 'cos we sell products to people
in our country.
The reasons we're not going to experience the credit meltdown that's
hammering the US are:
1) Our economy hasn't grown solely on a consumer credit.
2) Because of the appreciating Canadian dollar (which started when the
boom was going on) and the dickish way your government has behaved in
NAFTA disputes, our manufacturing has had to de-emphasize the US
market in favour of the Far East.
3) Your govt's driving up the price of oil by invading Iraq caused a
boom in our oil industry, which has a lot of infrastructure costs to
get going. Now that production is underway the price can decline and
it'll still be worth mining, and you need our oil.
4) We haven't been selling mortgages at 125% of appraised value to
people working minimum wage & all of that other ridiculousness.
Nyx
4ax.com:
> No - see it's called 'retail' banking 'cos we sell products to people
> in our country.
And who buys those mortgages from the banks?
~Fianna
"Axel" <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in message
news:klsld497d6qdpi38p...@4ax.com...
> 3) Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are retail banking operations.
Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac are retail banks. They only deals with
institutional and business investors and back the securities of mortgage
lenders. Neither offer account services directly to consumers.
Other than that, you're spot-on.
Of course, the McCain campaign has to go and make the whole thing a joke.
~Fi, this country is one giant WTF
~Fianna
>>They will be when the US, England and French banks go down.
>
> No - see it's called 'retail' banking 'cos we sell products to people
> in our country.
You get the money from other banks, though.
And how much of that shit paper is floating around Canada. We weren't only
selling it here.
I think the rest of the world gets to put off the pain for a while, because
their appreciating currencies can hide some of the slag. Sooner or later,
though, people are going to come looking for the money that was supposed to
be backed by the CDOs - most likely pension funds and municipalities.
> The reasons we're not going to experience the credit meltdown that's
> hammering the US are:
> 1) Our economy hasn't grown solely on a consumer credit.
> 2) Because of the appreciating Canadian dollar (which started when the
> boom was going on) and the dickish way your government has behaved in
> NAFTA disputes, our manufacturing has had to de-emphasize the US
> market in favour of the Far East.
> 3) Your govt's driving up the price of oil by invading Iraq caused a
> boom in our oil industry, which has a lot of infrastructure costs to
> get going. Now that production is underway the price can decline and
> it'll still be worth mining, and you need our oil.
> 4) We haven't been selling mortgages at 125% of appraised value to
> people working minimum wage & all of that other ridiculousness.
We're still a huge consumer, though. It's probably not going to kill
Canada's economy, but it's certainly not good for it.
Random question: on goods that are imported that bear pricing in both USD
and Canadian currency, are you all still paying more? I notice that often
on things like books, that have a suggested retail price that looks
something like: $9.99 US/ $11.99 CAN.
~Fi
Axel
>
>"Axel" <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in message
>news:klsld497d6qdpi38p...@4ax.com...
>
>> 3) Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are retail banking operations.
>
>Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac are retail banks. They only deals with
>institutional and business investors and back the securities of mortgage
>lenders. Neither offer account services directly to consumers.
Sorry, I should have used better language - what I was trying to get
across is that they are part of the infrastructure that underpins the
retail banks (hence 'banking operations' rather than 'banks'.
If they didn't exist then retail banks would be falling like flies,
but instead, they are absorbing a lot of the pain.
>Other than that, you're spot-on.
Danke.
>Of course, the McCain campaign has to go and make the whole thing a joke.
Laugh or cry, I guess.
And if people start crying they are going to blame the Republicans.
>~Fi, this country is one giant WTF
Yep.
Axel
>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:oiuld4h36nab9pd5tmlrq13cprd85a2ksk@
>4ax.com:
>
>> No - see it's called 'retail' banking 'cos we sell products to people
>> in our country.
>
>And who buys those mortgages from the banks?
We don't do that.
Banks use their own money.
The secondary markets don't exist in the same way they do in the US.
Siobhan
> On Sep 18, 12:18 am, Siobhan <n...@virulent.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:41:38 -0700 (PDT), thardma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >I was going to mope, but have decided that I personally have no reason
> > >to mope... and I do in fact have reasons to be cheerful, and not for
> > >myself, but for others. All of those people complaining about their
> > >boredom have got a bit of novelty in their lives.
>
>
> > "No, I have no concerns about my job security. I work in collections."
>
> they won't need the repo man when no one has anything left to collect.
>
> which is just fine with me, I only consider collections guys to be
> about 1 inch above common thieves as it is.
People who borrow money with no intention of paying it back aren't
theives?
Altho to be fair, most people do intend to pay it back, and usually we
can sort them out. It's the ones with the over-inflated sense of
entitlement who get their toys and then don't want to pay for them
that I have no sympathy for.
Siobhan
Endymion
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:22:30 -0700 (PDT), Endymion
> <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Given the extent to which Canada and the US trade with each other and
> >the relative sizes of the economies, I can't imagine any financial
> >problems here not impacting you folks just as much.
>
> Imagine harder.
>
> We sell you more oil than anybody else, and if your not buying, China
> & India do.
>
> Our reliance on the US economy has been declining over the last 20
> years.
Sure. From "total" to "overwhelming". A fourth of your economy is
exports to the U.S. Even if you could find markets for all that
elsewhere in the next six months the transition alone will be a
calamity.
You may be in better shape than us but if you think Canada's economy
is sufficiently independent from the U.S. not to be badly affected by
major problems here you're dreaming, and in for quite a rude
awakening.
- Endymion
~Fianna
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:06:22 -0500, Nyx <secr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:oiuld4h36nab9pd5tmlrq13cprd85a2ksk@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> No - see it's called 'retail' banking 'cos we sell products to people
>>> in our country.
>>
>>And who buys those mortgages from the banks?
>
> We don't do that.
> Banks use their own money.
> The secondary markets don't exist in the same way they do in the US.
I can't believe that banks and municipalities in Canada aren't holding any
of that paper.
Don't forget, they weren't pacakged as mortgages, they were packaged as
interest-bearing notes or bonds. Generally really highly rated and bonded
instruments. I know that a lot of it was sent to the emerging world
countries (China and India were gigantic buyers) but threre's a lot of it in
pension plans, too.
~Fi, made no sense to me at the time. Saying I told you so is cold comfort,
now, though
~Fianna
> People who borrow money with no intention of paying it back aren't
> theives?
> Altho to be fair, most people do intend to pay it back, and usually we
> can sort them out. It's the ones with the over-inflated sense of
> entitlement who get their toys and then don't want to pay for them
> that I have no sympathy for.
Same here, which is why I'm closer to Klaatu's let the fuckers fry mentality
than I am to the let's bail our buddies out big-business mentality.
~Fi, why do I have to pay for my bad decisions all on _my_ own?
Axel
>"Axel" <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in message
>news:4p4nd4tuqbful5qc5...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:06:22 -0500, Nyx <secr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:oiuld4h36nab9pd5tmlrq13cprd85a2ksk@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> No - see it's called 'retail' banking 'cos we sell products to people
>>>> in our country.
>>>
>>>And who buys those mortgages from the banks?
>>
>> We don't do that.
>> Banks use their own money.
>> The secondary markets don't exist in the same way they do in the US.
>I can't believe that banks and municipalities in Canada aren't holding any
Oh, absolutely they do.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that we don't.
My point to Nyx here is that our way of managing mortgages is
substantially different from the US in that our FI's don't use
repackage & sell on their mortgages to 3rd parties in the way that the
US mortgage market does.
To your question, we just don't have very much exposure to that.
For instance, our tax exempt retirement vehicles are limited to a
maximum 25% non-Canadian investments, and most are not going to put
100% of their investments into CDO's.
My point is not that we aren't exposed to your economies metaphorical
diarrhea, but that we have much better managed financial system, so
our poo is still of a good consistency, and we just have to wipe off
the spray from yours that hits us... to carry a metaphor way too far.
Nyx
4ax.com:
> My point to Nyx here is that our way of managing mortgages is
> substantially different from the US in that our FI's don't use
> repackage & sell on their mortgages to 3rd parties in the way that the
> US mortgage market does.
But you buy the bad ones, so what difference does it make?
kest
> On Sep 23, 7:10 pm, klaatu.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> After all, assuming that the profit that is privatized is to the party
>> faithful and industrial supporters of the party in power, and the
>> socialization of risk is to everyone else, that's one of the
>> definitive bases of Fascism, isn't it?
>
> Not really. You missed the Mother of All Debates over this over in
> Fianna's LiveJournal,
If you consider that the 'mother of all debates', you haven't been hanging
out here enough lately.
k
Axel
>I think the rest of the world gets to put off the pain for a while, because
>their appreciating currencies can hide some of the slag. Sooner or later,
>though, people are going to come looking for the money that was supposed to
>be backed by the CDOs - most likely pension funds and municipalities.
Yep. Our ABCP market froze late last year becasue of fears that it was
tied up in dodgy US deriviatives.
Since then a rescue package was put together that cleaned up that
exposure and spread the pain reasonably equally.
Some minor players ($1 billion out of $32 billion) went to court to
stop it & were told to fuck off.
>We're still a huge consumer, though. It's probably not going to kill
>Canada's economy, but it's certainly not good for it.
Absolutely.
Something got fucked up in the progress of this thread, in a way that
seems typical of usenet dialogues for some reason.
Possibly because by replying to specific paragraphs, it makes it very
easy to get fixated on minor details & quibbling over them rather than
focussing on the overall intent.
This started 'cos I answered a telephone survey and I was asked if I
was worried about my job security, and I said I wasn't because I work
for a Canadian banks collections division.
I said that because:
1) The bank is not in danger for collapsing.
2) Canada's economy is softening due to the massive problems hitting
the US market and when that happens, our department gets busier.
The follow up euggested that 1) was not in fact the case because US
banks are falling apart like crazy.
What I'm saying is that the Canadian economy is in way better shape
than the US economy and is unlikely to suffer severe negatives during
a US or global recession. In fact the last major downturn in the US
didn't impede Canada's economic growth at all.
>Random question: on goods that are imported that bear pricing in both USD
>and Canadian currency, are you all still paying more? I notice that often
>on things like books, that have a suggested retail price that looks
>something like: $9.99 US/ $11.99 CAN.
Yes we do.
Largely that's because companies have to set up a Canadian
distribution division, dealing with both our many & varied Provincial
legislation as well as cross border complexities (increased
substantially as a result of your DHS insanity), and having a much
smaller customer base to spread that fixed overhead among.
Similarly, a lot of companies sell a more limited selection of
products up here & others don't even bother.
Consequently, the regions around Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle are
experiencing a bit of a boom as Canadians cross the border on weekends
to go shopping.
Axel
>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:b8vod4t3oodlmcbh73su75t74iupd7tu3g@
>4ax.com:
>
>> My point to Nyx here is that our way of managing mortgages is
>> substantially different from the US in that our FI's don't use
>> repackage & sell on their mortgages to 3rd parties in the way that the
>> US mortgage market does.
>
>But you buy the bad ones, so what difference does it make?
I don't understand your question.
Could you expand?
Nyx
4ax.com:
>
> I don't understand your question.
> Could you expand?
Your banks buy bonds that are backed by bad mortgage loans. That's what
this is really all about. Banks made loand to people who couldn't afford
them. They then sold those loans as bonds to other banks, investors, etc.
Those loans are now coming due and people can't pay them. Your bank makes
loans to people based on the money they have invested in these loans.
When they fail your bank will also fail.
And even if your bank didn't they your bank will fail if all the other
banks that did fail.
Siobhan
>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:sf0rd4hqbkpk2tav2fj9nogkvsujusomjh@
>4ax.com:
>
>>
>> I don't understand your question.
>> Could you expand?
>
>Your banks buy bonds that are backed by bad mortgage loans. That's what
>this is really all about. Banks made loand to people who couldn't afford
>them. They then sold those loans as bonds to other banks, investors, etc.
>Those loans are now coming due and people can't pay them. Your bank makes
>loans to people based on the money they have invested in these loans.
>When they fail your bank will also fail.
Kinda sorta. The bank we work for did buy some of those investments
and lost money on them. But those losses just arn't enough to take the
bank out because the vast majority of their income is from domestic
retail banking, and that market is still doing fine.
Banks in Canada don't give mortgages to people who can't afford them.
Period. The sub-prime lending market here is strictly to people who
have the income but have a shitty credit history. They also don't
offer mortgages for more than the value of the property.
>And even if your bank didn't they your bank will fail if all the other
>banks that did fail.
Our employer had the most exposure of any of the Canadian banks. And
while they're all in a tizzy that their profits only have six or seven
zeros in them in this year, they aren't in any danger of failing. None
of the other banks are even close to being in trouble either.
Siobhan
Nyx
news:ta1ud49ttav0riq5j...@4ax.com:
> Our employer had the most exposure of any of the Canadian banks. And
> while they're all in a tizzy that their profits only have six or seven
> zeros in them in this year, they aren't in any danger of failing. None
> of the other banks are even close to being in trouble either.
It's not over yet.
Canadians live in a dream world.
Siobhan
>Siobhan <ne...@virulent.org> wrote in
>news:ta1ud49ttav0riq5j...@4ax.com:
>
>> Our employer had the most exposure of any of the Canadian banks. And
>> while they're all in a tizzy that their profits only have six or seven
>> zeros in them in this year, they aren't in any danger of failing. None
>> of the other banks are even close to being in trouble either.
>
>It's not over yet.
>
>Canadians live in a dream world.
No, we live in a *different* *country*.
Siobhan
Axel
>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:sf0rd4hqbkpk2tav2fj9nogkvsujusomjh@
>4ax.com:
>
>>
>> I don't understand your question.
>> Could you expand?
>
>Your banks buy bonds that are backed by bad mortgage loans.
Not quite - the Canadian bankingindustry as a whole has about $10
billion in exposures to your entire mortgage market.
RBC, the largest Canadian bank, alone has $600 billion in assets and
made $5.5 billion in profits.
So, even if the entire thing collapses with no return, bail out etc.,
one bank could swallow the entire thing at a cost of 2 years profits.
>When they fail your bank will also fail.
Only if the loans are a big enough chunk of their revenue stream.
Nyx
4ax.com:
> Only if the loans are a big enough chunk of their revenue stream.
They are.
Siobhan
>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:8sjvd49llq3gfe9uo2k4li4kkgi5g5nte3@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Only if the loans are a big enough chunk of their revenue stream.
>
>They are.
OK, shoot. What do you base this assertion on?
Siobhan
enigma
news:Xns9B23EB0A...@216.196.97.136:
> Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in
> news:oiuld4h36nab9pd5tmlrq13cprd85a2ksk@ 4ax.com:
>
>> No - see it's called 'retail' banking 'cos we sell
>> products to people in our country.
>
> And who buys those mortgages from the banks?
not all American banks sell their mortgages. one of my
mortgage purchasing criteria was that the loan *stay* at the
bank of origin.
at one point in my younger & not so savvy life, i had a
mortgage that bounced around so often i couldn't keep track of
who i was supposed to be paying this month. it sucked. i'd
send off payments & then get charged late fees because they
went to the wrong place, despite the right place hadn't sent
me an address yet...
so, now i make sure i knew my mortgage was staying put. one
huge advantage with it staying at the bank of origin is that
if you *do* have a temporary problem, they tend to be very
helpful in getting you over it, by taking interest only for a
couple months, by waiving payment altogether & putting it at
the end of the mortgage, by accepting weekly payments instead
of lump sum, etc.
also, they're screening a lot harder to start with, so you
aren't likely to be in over your head unless something
unforeseen happens.
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.
Siobhan
Axel
>Axel <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in news:8sjvd49llq3gfe9uo2k4li4kkgi5g5nte3@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Only if the loans are a big enough chunk of their revenue stream.
>
>They are.
How do you figure?
'Cos by my reckoning not making a profit for 1 years isn't enough to
cause a company to collapse.
~Fianna
> 'Cos by my reckoning not making a profit for 1 years isn't enough to
> cause a company to collapse.
It's enough to make other businesses not want to loan them money, though.
Siobhan
> Random question: on goods that are imported that bear pricing in both USD
> and Canadian currency, are you all still paying more? I notice that often
> on things like books, that have a suggested retail price that looks
> something like: $9.99 US/ $11.99 CAN.
You know what? I honestly have no idea.
I buy almost everything second hand. The few things I don't - the odd
CD or article of clothing - I'm buying straight from the person who
makes them.
I know there was some fuss when the Canadian dollar first hit parity
that Canadian booksellers were still charging more. That may have
changed thoughm since it's so easy to just buy books directly from the
US now.
Siobhan
Dag
Isn't that the same thing?
Dag
Dag
Depends on why they failed to make the profit. If their long term
revenue stream isn't significantly effected and there is a good and
transparent reason for them failing to turn a profit that one year, then
I fail to see lenders caring too much.
Dag
Dag
> ~Fi, why do I have to pay for my bad decisions all on _my_ own?
Because you don't have cool and important friends and you don't fuck up
on a big enough. Next time try to fuck up in way so huge and
spectacular that no one thought it possible.
Dag
Dag
>> Did anyone besides me notice that we seem to be seeing the
>> privatization of profit and the socialization of risk?
>
> Apparently not; given that I've seen that same nine-word sound byte
> about 8,000 times already today,
Does anybody have a source for that sound byte? It seems to be popping
up everywhere the past couple of days. I've even seen it used by the
media over here. I have to admit it is quite clever and catchy.
Dag
quisquilia
> Really! I am!
$1,200,000,000,000 vanish within 6.5 hours yesterday and the
US congress goes on holiday for Rosh Hashanah?
This is so surreal it seems as if the (defunct) LHC has already
effected the mechanisms of this world.
Well, the European stock markets have responded to yesterday's
crash & the failed bail-out plan not too bad today. *hope*
R. who would like to recuperate his losses in recent weeks
& is np: Seyh Bedreddin Destani / "Günümüz Icin Bir Ayin"
(think Dead Can Dance meets Muslimgauze meets Monumentum)
--
"Suavia musae... me delectant, me deiciunt, me consolantur."
Da Gud sa: Bliv lys! blev det Kjærlighet. - Knut Hamsun
Dag
> Well, the European stock markets have responded to yesterday's
> crash & the failed bail-out plan not too bad today. *hope*
Stockholm was down 5.6% yesterday (up 0.4% today). Most of the major
banks fell on average 10% (ranging from 6-19% fall, most are up a couple
of % today). So not a super happy reaction either.
Dag
Peter H. Coffin
Interestingly the US$ has been stronger against nearly every major
currency since about 1700GMT yesterday. Not by a whole lot, but
noticably.
--
Lisa: There's going to be sex, drugs, rock'n'roll. Chips, dips, chains, whips.
-- "Weird Science"
~Fianna
>> Random question: on goods that are imported that bear pricing in both USD
>> and Canadian currency, are you all still paying more? I notice that often
>> on things like books, that have a suggested retail price that looks
>> something like: $9.99 US/ $11.99 CAN.
> You know what? I honestly have no idea.
> I buy almost everything second hand. The few things I don't - the odd
> CD or article of clothing - I'm buying straight from the person who
> makes them.
That's really admirable. So much stuff gets briefly used and tossed out
while it's still perfectly good.
> I know there was some fuss when the Canadian dollar first hit parity
> that Canadian booksellers were still charging more. That may have
> changed thoughm since it's so easy to just buy books directly from the
> US now.
Don't you have to pay taxes before the post office will give you packages
shipped from anywhere out of your province, though?
~Fi, don't know much aboot Canada, eh
~Fianna
"Dag" <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote in message
news:gbt0a...@news5.newsguy.com...
So hanging out here isn't going to eventually get me 700 billion dollars?
~Fi, although at the rate we're going, it's gonna cost 700 billion dollars
to buy next week's groceries.
~Fianna
> Interestingly the US$ has been stronger against nearly every major
> currency since about 1700GMT yesterday. Not by a whole lot, but
> noticably.
This makes me happy. Of all the things that are ugly about our economic
numbers, the dollar ratios are the ones that bug me most.
Peter H. Coffin
> ~Fi, although at the rate we're going, it's gonna cost 700 billion dollars
> to buy next week's groceries.
Funnily, after all the dire predictions about skyrocking food prices,
I've yet to see it kick in substantially.
Paper goods got more expensive. Household cleaners got more expensive.
Frozen pizza got more expensive. Boboli and Velveeta got more expensive.
Organic veg and chicken got more expensive.
Flour's the same price it was at the beginning of the year. So is the
house-badged chicken parts. (The Purdue-branded went up a little.)
Ground beef is about the same, top-end beef (NY strips, Porterhouse,
tenderloins) is regularly on sale. I've gotten whole beef tenderloins
for less than $15. Veal's cheap. Pork's very cheap. bakery from the
grocer's own shop is the same price it was last year; name-branded bread
went up. "Healthy" breakfast cereals are more expensive. House-brand
"choco-puffs" are cheaper than before. Fresh produce is cheaper than a
year ago. So is imported cheeses. Deli meats are up, but Oscar Meyer
lunch meat packages are down.
It's insanely random.
--
74. When I create a multimedia presentation of my plan designed so that my
five-year-old advisor can easily understand the details, I will not label
the disk "Project Overlord" and leave it lying on top of my desk.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
~Fianna
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnge5d4h....@abyss.ninehells.com...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:05:57 -0700, ~Fianna wrote:
>> ~Fi, although at the rate we're going, it's gonna cost 700 billion
>> dollars
>> to buy next week's groceries.
>
> Funnily, after all the dire predictions about skyrocking food prices,
> I've yet to see it kick in substantially.
It has here. Although I would bet that that's more a function of the fact
that since nothing grows around here, it's costing more to truck it in from
places that nature thought humans should live.
> Paper goods got more expensive. Household cleaners got more expensive.
> Frozen pizza got more expensive. Boboli and Velveeta got more expensive.
> Organic veg and chicken got more expensive.
Why do you know the price of Velveeta?
> It's insanely random.
Prepared foods here seem to have gotten more expensive.
~Fi, still frightened about the Velveeta.
Axel
After announcing about $3 billion in write downs this year, my Evil
Corporate Overlords issued $300 million in preference shares to
generate some liqudity in September. The offering was oversubscribed.
NightMist
>
>"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnge5d4h....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:05:57 -0700, ~Fianna wrote:
>
>>> ~Fi, although at the rate we're going, it's gonna cost 700 billion
>>> dollars
>>> to buy next week's groceries.
>>
>> Funnily, after all the dire predictions about skyrocking food prices,
>> I've yet to see it kick in substantially.
>
>It has here. Although I would bet that that's more a function of the fact
>that since nothing grows around here, it's costing more to truck it in from
>places that nature thought humans should live.
Exactly.
Fresh fruits and other locally grown produce has been insanely cheap
this year. Talking to local growers I found that this is exactly
because it costs to much to ship. They wanted the growers to eat part
of the shipping and they balked. So it got sold locally, at prices
that were much better for everybody who lives here. Sucks to be you
though.
>
>> Paper goods got more expensive. Household cleaners got more expensive.
>> Frozen pizza got more expensive. Boboli and Velveeta got more expensive.
>> Organic veg and chicken got more expensive.
>
>Why do you know the price of Velveeta?
Or Boboli for that matter....
>
NightMist
--
Nothing has been the same since that house fell on my sister.
Siobhan
Yes. Some stuff is duty free due to NAFTA, but I honestly can't
remember what.
I know shoes aren't on the list, I always have to pay duty on my
nosweats.
Siobhan
ags...@yahoo.com
> Really! I am!
>
> I was sitting around watching MSNBC at about 3:45PM, and all of a
> sudden the numbers started dropping, dropping, dropping. It was a
> genuine Last Second Stampede trying to beat the closing bell.
>
>
> Hey, for years I've been telling people that our family philosophy is
> "if you can't pay cash for it, you probably don't need it".
That saying went out in the 60's.
> That means we have no debt other than the annual property tax snatched
> by the local governments.
>
> From the looks on the faces of the yuppies driving past the house,
> they're all imagining their 401-K retirement funds evaporating the way
> that mine did during the Dot Bomb. Their imaginations might be pretty
> accurate.
>
> So, where ya gonna refinance yer mortgage now, pookums? For that
> matter, who's insuring your brokers? Still got a brokerage firm?
> Oopsie. So, how many new albatrosses got hung around your taxpayer
> neck just in the last five days? And does China want your war bonds
> debt repaid yet? By close-of-business tomorrow? And how's that career
> in new-home construction looking?
You know, the news is always doom and gloom and very negative. Before
you sell your country out, you should consider that the beauty of
America is that people who work hard can achieve a great number of
things regardless of the market they are in. If I started a real
estate company in 2006 as the housing market was crashing and was able
to make it succeed, then anyone can do it.
>
> Sometimes I feel like being an asshole... but for now, I think that
> just dressing in black will do just fine. I'm used to being dirt poor.
> I'm also used to hearing people complain about how bored they are in
> their well-financed lives where all things go according to schedule
> and their fine credit rating. Bored, bored, bored.
>
> I was going to mope, but have decided that I personally have no reason
> to mope... and I do in fact have reasons to be cheerful, and not for
> myself, but for others. All of those people complaining about their
> boredom have got a bit of novelty in their lives.
>
> To me, it's just my little world going on for me exactly as it always
> has, the slow disintegration that comes of a genteel, but utter,
> poverty.
>
> For all of those people who were so bored by their endless success,
> it's kind of like the world crashing around them with a sort of
> endless thud.
>
> It looks to me that by the end of the week, Wall Street will be
> looking for a job.
You should read a book called "None dare call it a conspiracy". It
will open your eyes about this whole financial chaos.
Regards...
Peter H. Coffin
>
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnge5d4h....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>> Frozen pizza got more expensive. Boboli and Velveeta got more expensive.
>> Organic veg and chicken got more expensive.
>
> Why do you know the price of Velveeta?
It's a benchmark, so I paid attention. Don't worry; I'm not actually
buying it, much less eating it. I also know how much Kraft dinner costs,
though I don't buy that either. (The one boxed orange pasta I'll eat
can't be gotten here anymore. I miss Golden Grain.)
--
Liberty, equality, diversity. Pick any two.
Peter H. Coffin
> Or Boboli for that matter....
I like pizza. Sometimes I've not the foresight to have started the dough
three hours ago. (kneading and resting takes an hour, two hours of
tempering under refrigeration. You can hold it under there for up to a
day, but that's even longer)
--
32. I will not fly into a rage and kill a messenger who brings me bad news
just to illustrate how evil I really am. Good messengers are hard to come by.
NightMist
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:55:47 GMT, NightMist wrote:
>> Or Boboli for that matter....
>
>I like pizza. Sometimes I've not the foresight to have started the dough
>three hours ago. (kneading and resting takes an hour, two hours of
>tempering under refrigeration. You can hold it under there for up to a
>day, but that's even longer)
>
I tried a Boboli but once, once was more than enough.
So far as premade, we used to have a wonderful Italian bakery here in
town that distributed to the local grocerey stores. Alas, they were
taxed and regulated out of buisness.
Nowdays I make crust that is akin to quick calazones when we want
pizza in a hurry. In other words, a yeast dough that gets no rise at
all. It goes straight from kneading to shaping to oven. I do toss in
a couple of tablespoons of gluten flour though, and allow it to rest
for around half an hour before shaping. If anyone is so hungry that
half an hour extra is a trauma they can chew on a carrot.
For me tempering under refrigeration tends to yield a beery taste. Not
what I am after in breadstuffs.
Peter H. Coffin
> For me tempering under refrigeration tends to yield a beery taste. Not
> what I am after in breadstuffs.
See, that's the flavor I'm aiming for. It's not right for bread, but for
pizza crust, it's fantastic. It also leaves the dough usable for both
pressing out and immdiately topping for a nice small-bubble stiff crust,
or press into a baking dish and stuff it into a warm oven for a fast
proofing and a nice soft deep crust.
--
26. No matter how attractive certain members of the rebellion are, there is
probably someone just as attractive who is not desperate to kill me.
Therefore, I will think twice before ordering a prisoner sent to my
bedchamber. --Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Endymion
Google serves up Arnold Kling from the Cato Institute. No idea whether
that's correct.
It is clever and catchy, and a fairly accurate way to describe it, I
just hate seeing human repeater stations passing on the buzzwords they
saw on Free Republic or Daily Kos or wherever else they go to be told
what to think.
- Endymion
Endymion
wrote:
> thardma...@gmail.com scripsit:
>
> > Really! I am!
>
> $1,200,000,000,000 vanish within 6.5 hours yesterday and the
> US congress goes on holiday for Rosh Hashanah?
Don't worry, only fat cats and rich yuppie assholes will be affected.
I read it in the Post so it must be so.
On a more serious note, I have a question for those with more formal
knowledge of economics than I have. I'm a bit embarassed to ask,
because I feel this should be obvious, but I've seen massive errors in
reasoning repeated throughout the news media before so it sometimes
does pay to question the obvious.
My question is this: I've seen a lot of statements to the effect that
$* gazillion dollars of wealth have been destroyed because the stock
markets fell by that amount. But is that actually wealth being
destroyed, or is it just devalued or possibly transferred to hidden
beneficiaries? I assume there is a difference.
I mean, if Exxon's stock loses half its value, Exxon still has the
same number of wells and rigs and supertankers and port facilities and
so on. Assuming it doesn't go belly-up, it still has its contracts and
markets and relationships and all its other intangible assets that
make it worth more as a going concern. It will produce just as much
oil tomorrow as yesterday, and it will be able to sell that oil for
more or less the same price. It seems to me that under the classical
definition of wealth, all of Exxon's wealth - its productive capacity
- still exists. All that's changed is the price the market puts on the
company as a collective whole. All that's changed is the price the
market puts on the company as a collective whole.
Now *someone* - the shareholders - has certainly lost a lot of
wealth, but does it just vanish, or is it invisibly transferred to
everyone else holding dollars, or some other hidden beneficiary?
Likewise with bubble collapses like the housing market. If my house
was worth $200k in 2003 and $300k in 2006 and now it's worth $200k
again, it seems to me that no actual wealth has been created or
destroyed - it's still the same house, it serves its function every
bit as well as it did before. What's changed is its perceived value
relative to other forms of wealth. So if its price drops, the value of
everything else measured in dollars should go up by a corresponding
amount, right? I'm out $100k, but the rest of the dollar-spending
world is richer by a few billionths of a cent on the dollar because
their cash or bullion or T-bonds or whatever wealth they're holding
can now be swapped for more house. Or is there something I'm missing?
- Endymion
NightMist
<disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 7:00=A0am, Dag <dwastberg@g_REMOVE_mail.com> wrote:
>> Endymion wrote:
>> >> Did anyone besides me notice that we seem to be seeing the
>> >> privatization of profit and the socialization of risk?
>>
>> > Apparently not; given that I've seen that same nine-word sound byte
>> > about 8,000 times already today,
>>
>> Does anybody have a source for that sound byte? =A0It seems to be popping
>> up everywhere the past couple of days. I've even seen it used by the
>> media over here. =A0I have to admit it is quite clever and catchy.
>
>Google serves up Arnold Kling from the Cato Institute. No idea whether
>that's correct.
>
>It is clever and catchy, and a fairly accurate way to describe it, I
>just hate seeing human repeater stations passing on the buzzwords they
>saw on Free Republic or Daily Kos or wherever else they go to be told
>what to think.
>
This is the earliest I heard it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27yitK32ds
It is in there, in the first half.
Satori
"Endymion" <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:11887f99-8395-46a9...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>My question is this: I've seen a lot of statements to the effect that
>$* gazillion dollars of wealth have been destroyed because the stock
>markets fell by that amount. But is that actually wealth being
>destroyed, or is it just devalued or possibly transferred to hidden
>beneficiaries? I assume there is a difference.
I don't have an answer to your larger question, but this doesn't make sense
to me, either. Everybody was going around shouting that "1.2 trillion
dollars" or what have you had vanished. The next day, the market rebounded
more than 50% of what it had lost. So the corollary would be that over 600
billion dollars of wealth had just as magically reappeared out of thin air.
I'm not buying it.
~Fianna
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:59:31 -0700, "~Fianna" <ka...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Axel" <ax...@eol.ca> wrote in message
>>news:l2r2e458edl2to7me...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> 'Cos by my reckoning not making a profit for 1 years isn't enough to
>>> cause a company to collapse.
>>
>>It's enough to make other businesses not want to loan them money, though.
>
> After announcing about $3 billion in write downs this year, my Evil
> Corporate Overlords issued $300 million in preference shares to
> generate some liqudity in September. The offering was oversubscribed.
Likely because they announced the write-downs. They told everyone how much
they had and declaired that we're taking the loss and this is it for us.
The problem is that most banks haven't let on how much of this they have, so
other banks don't trust them.
~Fi, honesty, it seems, really is the best policy.
~Fianna
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:55:47 GMT, NightMist wrote:
>> Or Boboli for that matter....
>
> I like pizza. Sometimes I've not the foresight to have started the dough
> three hours ago. (kneading and resting takes an hour, two hours of
> tempering under refrigeration. You can hold it under there for up to a
> day, but that's even longer)
Now explain the velveeta.
~Fianna
Okay. I was worried that you might have had a fall or something and hit
your head.
~Fi, or pod Peters.
~Fianna
> I mean, if Exxon's stock loses half its value, Exxon still has the
> same number of wells and rigs and supertankers and port facilities and
> so on. Assuming it doesn't go belly-up, it still has its contracts and
> markets and relationships and all its other intangible assets that
> make it worth more as a going concern. It will produce just as much
> oil tomorrow as yesterday, and it will be able to sell that oil for
> more or less the same price. It seems to me that under the classical
> definition of wealth, all of Exxon's wealth - its productive capacity
> - still exists. All that's changed is the price the market puts on the
> company as a collective whole. All that's changed is the price the
> market puts on the company as a collective whole.
Companies sell stock to raise capital. The price of the shares on the
market are equity that can be leveraged. When the price drops, that equity
goes away.
There are also intangibles: why's the stock so low? That affects consumer,
lender and employee confidence.
> Now *someone* - the shareholders - has certainly lost a lot of
> wealth, but does it just vanish, or is it invisibly transferred to
> everyone else holding dollars, or some other hidden beneficiary?
In my opinion, you're asking the wrong question. The question should be,
was that wealth ever really there to vanish?
> Likewise with bubble collapses like the housing market. If my house
> was worth $200k in 2003 and $300k in 2006 and now it's worth $200k
> again, it seems to me that no actual wealth has been created or
> destroyed - it's still the same house, it serves its function every
> bit as well as it did before. What's changed is its perceived value
> relative to other forms of wealth. So if its price drops, the value of
> everything else measured in dollars should go up by a corresponding
> amount, right? I'm out $100k, but the rest of the dollar-spending
> world is richer by a few billionths of a cent on the dollar because
> their cash or bullion or T-bonds or whatever wealth they're holding
> can now be swapped for more house. Or is there something I'm missing?
How much debt do you have on that house? Traditionally, real estate has
been an illiquid investment. It's only value, aside from either sheltering
you or earning income in some other way (leases, agriculture, etc) was
determined at sale. Once we invented the house-as-ATM concept, that changed
things. My house was 'worth' over 300k at one point. They wanted to loan
me up to 385k based on 'future equity' at one point. I told them to shove
it, but a lot of people didn't. So now, to extend your hypothetical, those
people have a house that's 'worth' 200k, but is mortgaged for 300k. Thus
fake wealth became lost wealth.
Jennie Kermode
> Depends on why they failed to make the profit. If their long term
> revenue stream isn't significantly effected and there is a good and
> transparent reason for them failing to turn a profit that one year, then
> I fail to see lenders caring too much.
If it's their first year of business, the convention is not to
make a profit - to avoid it by any means, in order to avoid tax. At that
stage - and even in the second year of trading - everything tends to be
reinvested. Sure, there are exceptions to this, and some types of
business use different strategies, but it's common enough that it won't
put off lenders, who are generally keen to get involved with smart younf
businesses so that they can hook them into more lucrative arrangements
later.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
Peter H. Coffin
It's a commodity that tends to cost about the same at similar grocery
stores, pretty much anywhere in the lower 48. Kraft makes it in a lot
of plants, so there's not a HUGE amount of transport radius. It's got
a large shelf-life, but not measured in years. So it's a good datum
in scoping out the cost of food in a particular place, and what real
inflationary impact is being had.
--
83. If I'm eating dinner with the hero, put poison in his goblet, then have to
leave the table for any reason, I will order new drinks for both of us
instead of trying to decide whether or not to switch with him.
Dag
> My question is this: I've seen a lot of statements to the effect that
> $* gazillion dollars of wealth have been destroyed because the stock
> markets fell by that amount. But is that actually wealth being
> destroyed, or is it just devalued or possibly transferred to hidden
> beneficiaries? I assume there is a difference.
The really obvious thing most people seem to forget is that a stock is
only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it, and that that
isn't necessarily the number quoted as the stock price. If too many
people start to sell the price drops, not because wealth is being
destroyed, but because the given the price was only valid for given
level of supply. Increase supply and price drops, just like with any
other commodity.
The actual liquidation value of the stock market is not the current
quoted stock price multiplied by number of stocks. Most people seem to
ignore this little fact. If anything what we are seeing is the stock
market moving closer to its actual value is more people start to sell.
Dag
Axel
<disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On a more serious note, I have a question for those with more formal
>knowledge of economics than I have. I'm a bit embarassed to ask,
>because I feel this should be obvious, but I've seen massive errors in
>reasoning repeated throughout the news media before so it sometimes
>does pay to question the obvious.
>
>My question is this: I've seen a lot of statements to the effect that
>$* gazillion dollars of wealth have been destroyed because the stock
>markets fell by that amount. But is that actually wealth being
>destroyed, or is it just devalued or possibly transferred to hidden
>beneficiaries? I assume there is a difference.
Money is a shared hallucination, used because barter doesn't work in
an industrialized economy.
As such it can be invented or disappear very easily.
The price of anything is set by what a buyer and a seller agree is
reasonable at a given moment in time.
Wealth is essentially the sum of all the sellable stuff you have
multiplied by the price you can reasonably expect to sell it for.
Due to law of supply & demand, if there is a lot more demand for the
stuff you have than the supply of it, then the stuff is worth lots
whereas if there is little demand then the stuff isn't.
With things like stocks and houses, the price is based on what they
can be sold for at any given time, but only a small proportion are
bought and sold at any given time.
For instance, there are 1 000 000 shares in Endymion Inc., held by
1000 different people.
When you held your IPO, you convinced us that you were worth $1 000
000 so each share is worth $1.
A year later, Ashbet is following your lead & I want a piece of her
too, so I try to sell my half my shares to the first suck^h^h^h^hfar
sighted investor I can find.
If you've had a good year causing Jennie & Panurge & Peter to get into
a bidding war for your stock leading Peter to pay $1000 for my 500
shares. that means you are worth $2 000 000, and $1 000 000 of wealth
has been created by my trade.
If I get unlucky and I have to beg, cajole & whine at Eilis to pay me
$250 for the 500 shares then you are worth $500 000 so $500 000 in
wealth has been destroyed by my trade.
Because trading has become faster & easier over the years, there are
more & more opportunities to buy and sell largely driven by emotion
causing lots of volatility in the market, which is why investors are
advised to choose a company with good fundamentals and not look at the
day to day swings
Edward Scissorhands
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:05:57 -0700, ~Fianna wrote:
>> ~Fi, although at the rate we're going, it's gonna cost 700 billion dollars
>> to buy next week's groceries.
>
> Funnily, after all the dire predictions about skyrocking food prices,
> I've yet to see it kick in substantially.
In the UK, the supermarkets are price competing like mad. AND giving
incentives on fuel (most of them sell gas too); spend £50 on groceries,
get 5p off each litre; my car needs a hell of a lot of those litres (but
as yet, I've never been in the right supermarkets to get the money off;
unlike Hawick, there's not quite enough room to store £50 worth of
groceries here unless they the liquid-make-walk-wobbly kind). The
sandwiches I sometimes buy for lunch contain meat, and bread components,
and they're the same price.
I think the profit margins on pre-packaged, processed foods are so high
that the actually very low (relative) cost of the components is masked
somewhat.
Still, I am somewhat amazed to see so much determined price cutting for
food. Luxury items already in stock would make sense. Apparently car
sales have dropped hugely in the UK (I wonder if people will actually
think if they NEED to replace their car after three years... maybe
they'll keep it that fourth year and realise it didn't suddenly explode).
EdwardS, definitely noticed far fewer 58-registration cars than 08s.
--
Edward Scissorhands |\ _,,,---,,_
Eclectic Geek, Goth, Citroenist - EdwardS /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
E-Mail: EdwardS<at>dmc12.demon.co.uk |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
Homepage: http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ '----''(_/--' `-'\_) Morticia
Peter H. Coffin
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:43:20 -0700 (PDT), Endymion
><disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On a more serious note, I have a question for those with more formal
>>knowledge of economics than I have. I'm a bit embarassed to ask,
>>because I feel this should be obvious, but I've seen massive errors in
>>reasoning repeated throughout the news media before so it sometimes
>>does pay to question the obvious.
>>
>>My question is this: I've seen a lot of statements to the effect that
>>$* gazillion dollars of wealth have been destroyed because the stock
>>markets fell by that amount. But is that actually wealth being
>>destroyed, or is it just devalued or possibly transferred to hidden
>>beneficiaries? I assume there is a difference.
>
> Money is a shared hallucination, used because barter doesn't work in
> an industrialized economy.
It isn't the industrialized that makes barter fail, it's the size of ot
the economy. As the economy grows, the chain of exchanges to go from
what someone offers for your services to what you want for yourself
tends to get very, very long. Once you've got money, that chain never
gets more than two exchanged: your effort for money, money for what you
want.
The rest of the post is nicely done, though.
--
57. Before employing any captured artifacts or machinery, I will carefully
read the owner's manual.
Dark Phoenix
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:05:57 -0700, ~Fianna wrote:
>>> ~Fi, although at the rate we're going, it's gonna cost 700 billion
>>> dollars to buy next week's groceries.
>>
>> Funnily, after all the dire predictions about skyrocking food prices,
>> I've yet to see it kick in substantially.
????? In the last few months, a 25 lb sack of rice has almost tripled in
price up here; dry beans have doubled. Fruit and vegetables have gone up,
but not as much. We rarely buy meat, so I don't know about that, but given
how much animal feed has gone up I'm sure it's having an effect there and on
eggs.
--
Laurie Brown, Dark Phoenix
dark_p...@netw.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/103910/laurie_brown.html
"To destroy the Western tradition of independent thought, it is not
necessary to burn books. All we have to do is leave them unread for a couple
of generations."
--Robert Maynard Hutchens.
Peter H. Coffin
>
>> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:05:57 -0700, ~Fianna wrote:
>>>> ~Fi, although at the rate we're going, it's gonna cost 700 billion
>>>> dollars to buy next week's groceries.
>>>
>>> Funnily, after all the dire predictions about skyrocking food prices,
>>> I've yet to see it kick in substantially.
>
> ????? In the last few months, a 25 lb sack of rice has almost tripled in
> price up here; dry beans have doubled.
That ain't been my experience, though I'm not denying yours. There
was a run-up in rice price on some varieties price way back in April,
attributed to monsoon droughts or something. The last three 20 lb bags
of rice I've purchased were about $30, which is where they've been all
year. For beans it's hard to tell because I've not bought them recently,
but I can still get two pounds of navy beans for less than two bucks.
--
11. I will be secure in my superiority. Therefore, I will feel no need to prove
it by leaving clues in the form of riddles or leaving my weaker enemies
alive to show they pose no threat.
Jennie Kermode
> Interestingly the US$ has been stronger against nearly every major
> currency since about 1700GMT yesterday. Not by a whole lot, but
> noticably.
It's excellent. My wages have gone up considerably with no
effort on my part, just because I'm getting more pounds for my dollars. :)
Jennie Kermode
> In the UK, the supermarkets are price competing like mad. AND giving
> incentives on fuel (most of them sell gas too)
Having always bought food from cheap supermarkets like Lidl, I
am now hugely amused to see the people who previously looked down on me
for that (as if there were any difference in the food...) having to do
the same thing. This situation is teaching quite a few people
well-deserved lessons.
NightMist
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:55:49 -0700, Dark Phoenix wrote:
>>
>>> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:05:57 -0700, ~Fianna wrote:
>>>>> ~Fi, although at the rate we're going, it's gonna cost 700 billion
>>>>> dollars to buy next week's groceries.
>>>>
>>>> Funnily, after all the dire predictions about skyrocking food prices,
>>>> I've yet to see it kick in substantially.
>>
>> ????? In the last few months, a 25 lb sack of rice has almost tripled in
>> price up here; dry beans have doubled.
>
>That ain't been my experience, though I'm not denying yours. There
>was a run-up in rice price on some varieties price way back in April,
>attributed to monsoon droughts or something. The last three 20 lb bags
>of rice I've purchased were about $30, which is where they've been all
>year. For beans it's hard to tell because I've not bought them recently,
>but I can still get two pounds of navy beans for less than two bucks.
>
It's been really inconsistant here.
Jasmine rice was about $15 for 20 pounds and has jumped to about $40.
Brown has jumped about the same proportion.
However Rose and Camilla have not seen the same sort of increase and
are selling at $12 and $15 respectively for a 20 pound sack, up from
$8 and $11.
Beans have not changed appreciatively. Green lentils, and split peas
are still 79 cents for a one pound bag, black beans and black eyed
peas are still $1.20. Swedish brown beans, and canellini beans have
jumped about a dollar a pound though. Most of the red beans have
increased slightly, and red lentils have also increased, except for
Laxmi brand.
Seeing the prices on fresh produce, I am very happy to have grown most
of my own. We bought some oranges for the peel, but it looks like a
sumac tea winter beyond that. Thankfully I filled a tub with east
indian lemon grass last spring, and it is thriving. I am probably
going to try to salvage some tomatos and peppers to grow indoors.
I've started some new just in case that doesn't work out. I'm also
going to be tending the flat of greens and scallions I grow indoors
during the winter a bit more carefully.
Joseph Brenner
"~Fianna" <ka...@cox.net> writes:
> Now explain the velveeta.
Some things are beyond mortal ken.
I used to really like the thermal properties of velveeta, back when I
was a young piece of lower-middle class white trash dumped on Long
Island.
One of my early culinary experiments: take one slice of bread, once
slice of baloney, and one slice of velveta, and stack them up in that
order, then broil in a toaster oven. The baloney cooks around the
exposed edges and curls up around the velveeta as it liquifies. The
bread gets a little too drenched in baloney grease, but I went through a
phase where I thought this was edible.
(It's a cheese! It's a floor wax!)