Is this the way the dollar fails?

China is lending money; and when I say lending money, I mean tens of billions of dollars worth.  From Bloomberg:

China and Russia signed a three-year currency-swap line of 150 billion yuan ($24 billion) in October, a contract that allows Russia to borrow the yuan and lend the ruble. While the offer won’t relieve the main sources of pressure on the ruble -- which has lost 41 percent this year amid plunging oil prices and sanctions linked to Russia’s annexation of Crimea -- it could bolster investors confidence in the country and help stem capital outflows.  

Funding from China has helped raise Argentina’s foreign reserves to a 13-month high of $30.9 billion, a boost for a country that has been kept out of the international capital market since defaulting on foreign obligations in 2001.
Argentina received $1 billion worth of yuan earlier this month as part of the three-year currency-swap agreement with China, a central bank official in the South American country, who asked not to be identified because he isn’t authorized to speak publicly, said Dec. 11. That extended the funds transfered to Argentina to $2.3 billion since October. The swap is for a maximum of $11 billion over three years.

In Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro last month added $4 billion he borrowed from China to the country’s reserves after they fell to an 11-year low. The country now has about $21 billion in its coffers, equal to the amount of debt it has coming due in 2015 and 2016.

China is clearly positioning to take over as the lender of last resort. With the US mint printing presses running at full steam and with China the only real winner with crashing oil prices, perhaps they will soon be offering up their Yuan to replace the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world. The Captain is prescient, as always.

I would also store cigarettes and fuel in your bunker.

Seventeen trillion, eight hundred ninety-nine billion, three hundred sixteen million, eighty-four thousand five hundred fifty-three dollars and thirty-seven cents.

As of today, our national debt is $17,899,316,084,553.37.

Roughly $145,522 for every maker in the US. That's right. Not only do you lucky 123 million Americans have to support the other  124 million American adults that are not producing anything, (and the 70 million children), you also have to pay interest only payments on this very large loan you don't get to spend!

Yay for big government!

They want this woman to be President

In Hillary Clinton's own words, the family arrived at the White House without a cent to their name, and left it with $12 million in debt.  Factoring in Bill's $200,000/yr ($100k after taxes, approximately) salary, the Clintons spent nearly $13 million in just 8 years.  That's a hell of a lot of spending.  Even more so when your recall that their primary and secondary residences are paid for by us, as is all of their transportation, security, food, utilities, phone bills, etc.. I'd be willing to bet their vacations were all on the tax-payer's time as well.

Just how many mansions and Prada purses did Mrs. Clinton buy?

As I recall, we were something like $12 million in debt. 

... 

We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.

And they want her to be President?  When she outspends her household income by almost 1600%?   Will she propose a $40 trillion budget for FY 2017?

There is no logic, there is only magic

This is, without doubt, the most apt description of the taker mindset to have ever come from the mouth of a taker.  Read it all.

"I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore."

- Gretchen Gardner, an Austin artist who is unable to afford her property taxes.

And here's one of the things drives me crazy with these people:

A key problem, critics say, is that the current system has shifted a disproportionate share of the burden of paying for schools and local services on homeowners, in favor of commercial and corporate interests who can afford to appeal their values and win big reductions year after year. The share of property taxes from homeowners to support public schools grew from 45 percent to 54 percent over a 12-year period, while commercial and industrial owners’ share has declined to less than 20 percent. (Other sectors, from oil and gas to personal property, make up the rest.)

A "key problem"? It's a problem that homeowners are paying for more of the services they demand, such as the education of their children? No! If there's any problem it is that businesses are taxed at all for the public education system. In fact, I think only homeowners who have children should be taxed for public education, and they should bear 100% of that cost. If anyone else, individual or business, wants to contribute, it should be through voluntary donations.

I'd love it if businesses offered on the job training and mentoring, and I think it is in their best interest to do so. And even though I think that it is in their best interest to support the education of the public, I don't think it's right that a small group of legislators appease homeowners by making the businesses pay for more parks, libraries, and light rail.

I think public works should be paid for by donations. Put it out there - "We want to build a park, please donate online, or put in a little extra in your property taxes with a note for the purpose.  Construction will begin when the funds are available!" No need for bonds or higher taxes. Hell, businesses will win approval of the public by donating to such things. Voluntarism goes a long way.

Update:
09rubicon on Calguns had this to say:

Here's a novel idea. Tie tax votes (tax votes only) to SSN. If you voted for it you pay it, if you voted against it you don't.

I know it would never work, but it would be fun to see all the liberals bay 3-4 times more taxes than others.

In the same vein of thought, one could tie student enrollment to parents' social security numbers, and tax the parents directly for their children's education.  Make it a local tax withholding. That would work for me!  I am certain, absolutely certain, most single men and women would appreciate the burden of paying for other people's babysitters be borne by those who need them. Perhaps we can make a campaign issue out of this?

43% of homes sales this year have been cash purchases

Nearly half of all home sales this year have been paid for in cash.

All-cash deals hit a record 43% of home sales during the first three months of 2014, according to RealtyTrac. That's up from 19% a year earlier and the highest level reported since RealtyTrac began tracking the deals in early 2011.

...

Interestingly, the increase in cash sales is occurring despite a downturn in purchases by institutional investors -- firms that have been active in buying foreclosures and short sales with cash.  

"As institutional investors pull back, there is still strong demand from other cash buyers -- including individual investors, second-home buyers and even owner-occupant buyers -- to fill the vacuum," said Blomquist.  

Cash buyers paid an average of $207,668 for homes during the first quarter, a 13% discount to the properties' average estimated value, according to RealtyTrac.

So almost half of home sales have been cash, and on average, that was over $200,000 in cash?  Is this an amazing recovery, or what?!? 

Errr..  Or what.  In fact this very likely means that foreigners with money are buying up houses as investments.

Wealthy Chinese with a few million yuan to burn will spend billions on U.S. real estate in the years ahead, according to a report released Wednesday by CB Richard Ellis, a large global real estate firm. 

The United States is the country of choice for China buyers.  Canada and Australia come in next at No. 2 and No. 3 respectively. That rich Chinese individuals and savvy corporations are buying up real estate in world class cities is no surprise at this point. 

News of new Chinese real estate deals are popping up every quarter.  Similar moves happened with the Japanese back in the 1980s. Now it’s China’s turn. And by most estimates, they are snatching up high end real estate in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, in particular. In California, China is the third largest foreign buyer of real estate, following Mexico and people from the Philippines, according to Realtor.org.

USA today ran an article on the topic last month.

International homebuyers are attracted to the United States for a number of reasons. These include favorable housing prices, good weather, the country's relative economic stability and an attraction to America in general. As the housing market improved and home prices rebounded, the interest of foreign buyers in U.S. properties has soared. 

Interest in U.S. property increased dramatically in a number of countries between 2009 and 2013. In all, interest in home buying, according to housing market firm RealtyTrac, increased by 95% or more in 10 countries, and at least doubled in nine of these nations. Interest in U.S. property by residents of the United Arab Emirates rose 352%, the most out of any country. Based on subscription data provided by RealtyTrac, these are the 10 countries where interest in buying American homes is on the rise. 

Overseas buyers likely see value in the U.S. housing market. In an interview with 24/7 Wall St., Daren Blomquist, vice president of RealtyTrac, said, "The U.S. real estate market is coming off of a rough patch and entering recovery mode. And so international buyers see it as a great time to jump in and catch the U.S. market on the upswing."  

According to the Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Home Price Index, the U.S. housing market is just beginning to rebound from its lows set in March 2012.

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to Samuel Kercheval

RTWT:

we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

In other words, live within our means, not above our means, or soon we'll live beneath our means.  We've become slaves to debt, both private and public, and we cannot escape this if not a single one of our elected representatives or the majority of our voters decide to cut the unsustainable spending.  We need to cut $2 Trillion out of the annual budget, and maintain a $1 Trillion surplus to pay the national debt off in 30 years.  Well, it isn't going to happen.  Instead, we're going to experience an economic catastrophe unlike any thing this planet has ever experienced.

Trained economist whines about loan payments that "weren't explained to him"

DJ Cook, a college graduate holding a bachelor's degree in economics, is whining about his grad student loans.  He says that he "didn't realize what I was agreeing to when I was signing my student loan documents for graduate school because it had never been explained to me." 

Here we have a guy who earns a degree in Economics. He pays off his undergrad loans in 6 years while working various jobs, but then "discovers his passion is teaching," and goes back to school for a "teaching credential and a Master's degree in Education."  He's already college educated.  He's paid off his undergraduate student loans, so by any reasonable estimation should understand how the student loan process works.  So why is it that he's now claiming that he's been taken advantage of?

What happened to personal responsibility?  Why does anyone pay attention to these lying sacks of shit when they start whining and moaning about their student loans?  Borrowing means you have to return what you borrowed.  It's something you learn at the early age of, say, two.  Yet here he is, at the ripe old age of 36, still complaining that he, a trained economist didn't understand the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized loans.

I had no clue about the difference of borrowing from Sallie Mae or the federal government. I had no clue what the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized meant. I thought my loan repayments would be similar to my undergrad experience. One payment per month that could easily be paid off if I had a decent job. I knew a $36,000 education would take more time to pay off than my undergrad degree, but I didn't realize I was really signing up for four separate payments. This added up to about $400 in payments that I was not ready for.

And when things don't go his way in the employment market, he blames it on - I kid you not - "anti-teacher bigotry."

The erosion of respect for the teaching position in general allows potential employers (whether intentionally or not) to discriminate against former teachers using the logic that teachers in the U.S. are bad at their jobs and held up by their union, therefore former teachers are bad employees.

Then he claims that in six and a half years he's only paid down $2,000.  I think he still doesn't understand those loans, myself.  I just checked and if he's really signed up for $36k in loans at 6.8% interest, he would have paid off $20k by now. (FYI, with a $36,000 loan, 6.8% interest gives you a 'roughly $400 per month' payment ($414.xx) on a 10 year loan.  My guess is that he's missed a lot of payments, deferred the loans excessively, and is racking up late fees.  Honesty would clear it up, but this guy is chronically incapable of honesty.

He finishes off his editorial by expressing his jealousy over the wealth of others.  Spewing tired rhetoric of the communist class, he complains that capitalists are extracting wealth from the economy at the expense of everyone else; the 1% is hiding a depression by reporting record earnings!  Those evil capitalist dogs!

On progressive taxation

Just a simple scenario for you to think about.  Feel free to share it around.

If you took a second full time job doing the same work for the same wage, and thus worked twice as many hours in the week (80), you would earn twice as much money.  Are you "benefiting more from the economy" or "contributing more to the economy"?  Should you get hit with a higher tax rate because you put in twice as many hours?

Image via borepatch

Paying with plastic?

I'm sure the Captain and Peter Schiff will have a chuckle over this.  I know I did.  I'm certain Ben Bernanke is laughing his ass off, albeit for a different reason.