southsider2k5

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:20 AM) There's no good reason to expect any sort of long-term "rebound" in real estate prices though. Pre-this bubble, real estate prices had in most places quite tightly tracked the inflation rate; that's sort of the long-term real estate market. If real estate prices tried to rise above it, you'd get more building and that would push prices back down, on average. Real estate shouldn't be the kind of market that can "rebound", real estate should be a steady, long-term, fairly safe investment. Exactly. And for better or for worse, the banks are married to the rebound.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:20 AM) As I said, they are healthy, and the numbers the last few quarters bear that out. Smaller banks are going under and being gobbled up by bigger ones, and the bigger ones have been making very good money. And real estate prices are being helped along by REO's that are often divisions of those banks anyway. Prices seem to be bouncing around a line that, according to people in the industry, now reflects something close to true value, or maybe slightly under. The market is by no means strong, but its gotten pretty stable, and growth should be next up. They aren't "healthy". Profits are irrelevant to the health of a bank. They are making money because they are able to get deposits are articicially low rates, while lending at much higher rates. The problem is that doesn't change the debt loads they are carrying from the real estate collapse, or the negative values which are tying up more capital that can't be lent.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:18 AM) Wait, when did we want them to do this? Stopping foreclosures as much as possible.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:15 AM) It may not be sustainable, but its not a bubble, not in my view. Bubble means not only that its hyper-inflated (which neither the markets or the greater economy are at this point), but that its propped up by fakery or non-real values of some kind. That's not the case here. Banks have been getting healthier for some time now, so I'm not overly concerned about them or their role at this point in the greater scope of economic growth. Yes, there is the mortgage underwriting problem, which will bite some people, but I think we're already seeing its not going to be the epic disaster that some feared. Yes, the need for regulation is still there, as some holes still are exploited. But overall, the sector is much healthier than it was a year ago, or 2 years ago. Banks are vital to economic growth. They have to be healthy to sustain growth. Until the real estate prices rebound enough to free up lending again, it isn't going to happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 08:13 AM) (Which, you'll note, some of us were saying was the inevitable result of keeping the banks alive in early 2009 rather than seizing them and just eating the losses). (which of course is exactly what the left is trying to do by forcing banks to keep bad debts on their books)

Do not ever do that again.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 07:17 AM) They used some of the same reasons I have been stating in here. So let's have a theoretical discussion here... let's say the economy does indeed pick up steam during the next 6 months or so. What are the political ramifications? It helps Obama, but what about Congressional GOp'ers and/or Dems? Quite honestly, unless the housing market recovers significantly, it is a classic bubble. This problem was caused by the housing/banking crisis. By and large that hasn't been fixed yet. Banks still have tons of bad loans on their books, and aren't able to lend at rates anywhere near sustaining a recovery. Without banks healthy, growth isn't going to be sustainable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 07:44 AM) If I replace the word "Washington" with the phrase "Wall Street"...doesn't that argument work equally well? What rate of return does Washington create nationally?

QUOTE (GREEDY @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 09:31 PM) I am going to have to respectfully disagree. The starting pitching market is pretty thin and guys like Westbrook/Garland/Pavano are going to get big money for MULTIPLE years. Plenty of teams (including the Cards)would take Buehrle for only one year at 14,000,000. Now he doesn't have much value, but I wouldn't say it is negative. Come to think of it, isn't there an automatic escalator if MB is traded? That might damper things... The cardinals don't have the payroll to add that kind of salary.

The Cardinals are not going to be picking up $14 million in salary this winter.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:35 PM) No way. Jacks can throw 8 Innings of shut-out ball any given start. I love having Sale in the pen for 2011. I don't see it as wasting the draft pick since our first rounders usually suck anyway. Jackson is under our control for one more year, Sale is for 6. To me, that is the difference here.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:56 PM) I agree 100% with this. He is such a huge addition to our bullpen and having a strong bullpen is absolutely essential to having a winning team. We have some decent starting depth at the moment, especially if Peavy returns OK. That being said 2012 and beyond i have no problem with the sox seeing if he can become a young solid starter such as Danks or Flloyd. If Peavy does come back at 100%, I would rather see Edwin Jackson get a shot at closing with Sale in the rotation. I think with Jacksons stuff, he could be one hell of a closer because he wouldn't have to pace himself out at all.

So I wonder what Thibs was saying to Billups before the half when he was standing next to the Bulls bench? "Don't f*** with me, or I will have them trade for Melo!"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:22 PM) Regardless of the level of government it gets spent at, does the economic theory work well for all goods? Hypothetically, let's remove all state and federal government. Only counties and cities/townships/municipalities/etc. Would all public spending on items typically viewed as public services, such as roads and education, be less efficient than public spending--by definition? By simple economic activity, that is a 100% yes. Anytime you involve extra layers to take money away, that results in less economic activity in total. The state and nationalization has been a disaster in funding compared to local property tax spending for districts that aren't seeing increases in student population. I can tell you that after having studied 8 years worth of school budgets in detail in my hometown.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:09 PM) But how well does that work for "goods" like roads and education? You don't think sending money to Washington to send it back to its place of origin to be spent is going to result in waste?

Honestly, a decent survey of this stuff is something that comes in an intermediate level college macro-economics class that involves lots of fun calculus. Its not really easy to explain, and Krugman is being ingeniousness as an economics professor by pretending otherwise. At the end of the day, sending money to the government means that instead of a $10 meal, you are paying $11 for the same meal you could have just bought yourself, but instead had to hire someone to buy for you. That is the very simple definition of waste, or inefficiency.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 06:41 PM) Public spending doesn't just disappear. Yes I get that it's not an efficient way to distribute income but it doesn't just get eaten up by the tax demons forever and ever. The end result is eventually the same. No it isn't. It takes more money to generate the same amount of income for the government. That either means smaller government (yeah, that'll happen), higher taxes, or more borrowing from China.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 06:33 PM) i'm going to be out of my league here quite soon, so let me just put this one up in reply, and note that whatever you say, I'm not going to respond unless it's something I know better. You aren't talking about stimulus spending though. You are talking about usage taxes. Usage taxes which affect the poor disproportionally more than the rich by their very nature. It is also money that is never able to be spent again by groups that by their very nature spend all of their incomes, usually out of necessity to survive. Again that means less money gets spent in the general economy to get taxed again and again, to create more income for the federal government to spend. This is money being taken out of circulation by local and state entities, which by their very definition are the least effective spenders of money for income creation purposes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 06:25 PM) Now not necessarily 2k5...for example, if the liquor taxes were dropped, wouldnt' that lead to: consumption of more liquor, and therefore potentially negative externalities associated with that? Furthermore, would you disagree with the idea that things like the defense department, infrastructure, education, etc., have made positive contributions to the economy on their own? That direct economic impact is less than what the multiplier would have been without the waste factored in.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 06:21 PM) All those things are for city, county, state governments etc. I mean, I pay property taxes to Anne Arundel County, not the feds. Further, let's say that all of it did have something to do with federal revenue, add it all up and sit that number next to the Bush tax cuts, how does it look? I'm guessing pretty tiny. All of them are money that is taken out of circulation in the general economy, and is subject to the governmental waste factor before getting redistrubted, probably to replace already lost funds. Those moneys that would be getting spent and subject to the multiplier effect and generating more income and income taxes instead are disappearing. Its all interrelated.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 05:26 PM) But how many of these actually have any kind of effect at all on the federal budget? Like 2? All of them?

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) Mitchell 0-3 today. Can they just send him home, please? The guy hasn't played baseball for like eight months. Quit obsessing about the box scores and realize that this is a kid who needed some work anyway, let alone after being away from the game for a very long time. He could literally hit .000 and it would be a positive thing for Mitchell to be in Arizona right now.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 05:48 PM) Derek Jeter to get paid like he's prime A-Rod? http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5781611 I've always defended Jeter. But this is ridiculous if accurate. That would be another spectacular reason to hate the Yankees.

I hate the idea of Sale in our pen unless the plan is to make him the long term closer.

Congrats to Mark!