CMRivdogs Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 The thing that gets me about the "cost of goods" argument is that most of those complaining also champion free enterprise. That said competition among grocery chains is rapidly getting smaller. We're getting close to a monopoly stage with companies like Kroger in many areas of the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, 1776 said: By historical standards, today's mortgage rates are pretty on par with what homeowners have paid in the past. Since Freddie Mac began tracking rates in April 1971, the median 30-year mortgage rate is 7.41%. However, it's still true that rates are high by modern standards, since the typical rate observed over the past decade is under 4%. -US. News and World Report The last sentence above is why some folks have the impression that mortgage rates are astronomically high. In reality they’re not. In fact, at the 7.41% noted above, they’re a bit below historical norms. Considering when we bought our first house in 1988 average rates were about 10.3%. In 1997 rates were 7.6. Our current residence is about 3.1% from 2020. https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 9 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: The thing that gets me about the "cost of goods" argument is that most of those complaining also champion free enterprise. That said competition among grocery chains is rapidly getting smaller. We're getting close to a monopoly stage with companies like Kroger in many areas of the country. Bingo. Shrinkflation is real. The companies are taking the "inflation" issue and simply taking advantage of it. This whole idea of competition being a winner for the consumer is hogwash. For mortage rates... maybe it's because I'm related to a realtor who lives this stuff, but I blame social media in a way. I think everybody knows 6 people who do real estate. We are bombarded with ads to refinance, cash out, etc. I can't even pay my freaking mortage without first navigating things telling me how much equity I have, etc. Yes it sucks for people who bought on a low rate and now can't move because they are higher... but what are we supposed to do? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: .... They think that Trump is good at the economy because he is a businessman. They think Biden is bad for the economy because Democrats spend too much money. Expecting any more depth from most voters will end in disappointment. All elections are determined more from perception than reality. American Voters = Stupid. Trump's preferred measurement on economic performance (last 6 presidents using Dow): George HW Bush, R - 4 years, total appreciation = 45.66% increase Bill Clinton, D - 8 years, total appreciation = 226.6% Increase George W Bush, R - 4 years, total appreciation = (21.8%) Decrease Baraq Obama, D - 8 years, total appreciation = 148.23% Increase Donald Trump, R - 4 years, total appreciation = 56.0% increase Joe Biden, D - incomplete, total appreciation = 25.2% increase 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 minute ago, oblong said: For mortage rates... maybe it's because I'm related to a realtor who lives this stuff, but I blame social media in a way. I think everybody knows 6 people who do real estate. We are bombarded with ads to refinance, cash out, etc. I can't even pay my freaking mortage without first navigating things telling me how much equity I have, etc. Yes it sucks for people who bought on a low rate and now can't move because they are higher... but what are we supposed to do? We keep getting flyers and calls asking us to refinance. I keep asking the sales reps for good reasons I should do so. I'm 71, there are no plans to move. We don't need any extra cash my heir would have to repay, especially if/when the housing market downturns. The area we currently live is dependent on three things. 1) Tourism, which doesn't drive interest rates, but does affect some prices. 2) Military, which I believe drives some housing rates as well as the cost of living. 3) It's also a fairly large retirement area which once again affects housing prices. I'll throw in a fourth factor here. Prices for housing in DC, even though it's about three hours away you can see the market moving out of the DC suburbs toward Richmond which is about a 2 hour train commute and still less expensive. The Richmond suburbs are expanding in all directions. As are the Norfolk, Virginia , Newport News burbs. We're caught in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 8 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: Considering when we bought our first house in 1988 average rates were about 10.3%. In 1997 rates were 7.6. Our current residence is about 3.1% from 2020. https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/ Our first house in late 1997 was 7.5. It wasn't a large loan and obviously being young we always talked about moving into a bigger home, so we never refinanced as rates dropped into the 4s and 5s. The cost of a refi and the difference in monthly payment just wasn't worth it to me as I kept thinking we might move. Then the crash happened about 10 years later and we were underwater. 15 years later when we finally moved the new mortgage guy gave me crap because of my old rate and it bothered me. I still think I made the right decision. Why incur a few thousand in costs to save $75 a month if I think I'm going to be moving within a few years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, mtutiger said: ... like the scene in "Burn After Reading" with David Rasche and JK Simmons, leads me to sit here and ask, "what did we learn here?" That it's TOO EARLY to consider the reliability of any poll... Edited March 4 by 1984Echoes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 49 minutes ago, The Ronz said: Can someone explain the fixation with gas prices? 40 years ago it was approximately $1 a gallon. Now it is approximately $3 a gallon... I also don't get it. Gas has been roughly $3/ gallon since 2007/8. They dropped below $3/ gallon when: 1) The housing market crashed at the end of 2008. That lasted 2 years and then went back up to $3/ gallon 2) The Saudi's flooded the market trying to kill off our fracking drillers. That lasted 2015/16 but only slowly started to creep up towards $3/ gallon again when: 3) The Pandemic hit and gas crashed again in 2019/20 and half of 2021 before the economy kicked back in at full force after the pandemic and drove gas up to over %5/ gallon... before it settled back down to... $3/ gallon, again? So same or similar gas prices ($3 or so per gal) since 2007. That's 17 years of tight gas prices not varying much except under exceptional circumstances (as in 1/2/3 above...). I fricking hate Stupid Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 38 minutes ago, 1776 said: By historical standards, today's mortgage rates are pretty on par with what homeowners have paid in the past. Since Freddie Mac began tracking rates in April 1971, the median 30-year mortgage rate is 7.41%. However, it's still true that rates are high by modern standards, since the typical rate observed over the past decade is under 4%. -US. News and World Report The last sentence above is why some folks have the impression that mortgage rates are astronomically high. In reality they’re not. In fact, at the 7.41% noted above, they’re a bit below historical norms. AND... The past 14 years of super low-rates was a counter-response to Bush ****ing up the response to the 2008 housing crisis. Does no one remember? Yeesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 7 minutes ago, oblong said: Our first house in late 1997 was 7.5. It wasn't a large loan and obviously being young we always talked about moving into a bigger home, so we never refinanced as rates dropped into the 4s and 5s. The cost of a refi and the difference in monthly payment just wasn't worth it to me as I kept thinking we might move. Then the crash happened about 10 years later and we were underwater. 15 years later when we finally moved the new mortgage guy gave me crap because of my old rate and it bothered me. I still think I made the right decision. Why incur a few thousand in costs to save $75 a month if I think I'm going to be moving within a few years? It's a tough decision to make. A couple of our moves were job offers. The chance to move to a better situation. They didn't exactly jibe with the economy and we took a haircut. Our timing has been that we never made much money on buying and selling real estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said: American Voters = Stupid. Trump's preferred measurement on economic performance (last 6 presidents using Dow): George HW Bush, R - 4 years, total appreciation = 45.66% increase Bill Clinton, D - 8 years, total appreciation = 226.6% Increase George W Bush, R - 4 years, total appreciation = (21.8%) Decrease Baraq Obama, D - 8 years, total appreciation = 148.23% Increase Donald Trump, R - 4 years, total appreciation = 56.0% increase Joe Biden, D - incomplete, total appreciation = 25.2% increase The economy has been objectively better when Democrats have been Presidents. I don't think it's necessarily because of anything they did as I don't think the President has anywhere near the influence on the economy that voters assume. However, it does show that the perception that the economy does better under Republican Presidents is demonstrably false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, The Ronz said: Can someone explain the fixation with gas prices? 40 years ago it was approximately $1 a gallon. Now it is approximately $3 a gallon. Most things have gone up 10 times or more in the past 40 years. A pack of baseball card in 1984 was 30 cents. Now they are $3. A McDonald's Filet-O-Fish was 50 cents. Now they are $5. A daily newspaper was 20 cents. Now they are $2 if not more. It's probably because gas prices go up and down whereas other things only go up. We get used to inflation (which ALWAYS exists), but gas prices are all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 I like listening to people in the gas station bitch about the prices of gas while they are also buying a bunch of lottery scratch offs, red bulls, and smokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said: That it's TOO EARLY to consider the reliability of any poll... Mine is that averages and trends matter more than any one individual poll. And ultimately, when you look at the average, I don't know that the race has actually changed at all in the past few days despite all the handwringing A lot of this has to do with Times/Siena being treated like a media event whenever they release a poll.... they are highly respected, I get it, but even the best pollsters aren't going to nail every single poll they conduct. Which is why you average in the first place lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 7 minutes ago, oblong said: I like listening to people in the gas station bitch about the prices of gas while they are also buying a bunch of lottery scratch offs, red bulls, and smokes. I quit smoking in the 90's name brand smokes were 1.50-1.90, I was in a 7/11 in Chicago saturday and they were 14 dollars a pack! I know there are alot of taxes included but why people still pay those prices is mind boggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 18 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: I quit smoking in the 90's name brand smokes were 1.50-1.90, I was in a 7/11 in Chicago saturday and they were 14 dollars a pack! I know there are alot of taxes included but why people still pay those prices is mind boggling. At least $4 dollars of that has to be Illinois taxes lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 21 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: I quit smoking in the 90's name brand smokes were 1.50-1.90, I was in a 7/11 in Chicago saturday and they were 14 dollars a pack! I know there are alot of taxes included but why people still pay those prices is mind boggling. In the mid 90's you could find them here for $2 at a smoke shop, $2.50 to $3 elsewhere. I used to deliver pizzas and had a few customers that would ask me to get some for them, I'd tell them $4 as we had a shop in our strip mall. I made $2 from that plus any pizza tip. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 9 minutes ago, oblong said: In the mid 90's you could find them here for $2 at a smoke shop, $2.50 to $3 elsewhere. I used to deliver pizzas and had a few customers that would ask me to get some for them, I'd tell them $4 as we had a shop in our strip mall. I made $2 from that plus any pizza tip. 2 bucks a carton (10 packs!) circa 1963 and the drugstore on the corner had no issue selling them to a minor because they were for my dad (and they were). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 23 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: I've posted here before that the idea that SS is a pension plan you pay into and get your own money back is a fallacy, yet even given that I've said that, I'm not sure I like means testing for the benefit. It may be a fiction, but I think it's a socially useful fiction that if you put some money in, you get some money out - no matter who you are or how rich you get. High income people are still paying income tax so the Treasury does gets a big chunk or maybe all of the value of the SSI payments to the rich back - it just doesn't go to the SSA's ledger, but in the end that's just book keeping. I'd much rather see the contribution cap lifted. That never made that much sense to me in the 1st place. The way the SSI retirement annuities system is set up is almost the complete opposite of means testing: the higher your income, the more you pay into the program, and the more you get in your Social Security checks when you go to collect. You might say on one level that's fair—the more you pay in, the more you should get back—and that makes a lot of sense on its face. But what ends up happening, too, is that people who have senior management jobs where they get to build a healthy 401(k) max contribution plus with a sweet employer match and a pension and DCP and also make a high enough salary where they can sock away even more money for the future also end up getting the fattest Social Security checks of all. I'm pretty sure that's not what FDR had in mind when he oversaw the architecting of the program back in 1930-whatever it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 22 hours ago, Tiger337 said: It is not at all surprising as we seem to bend over backwards to protect the wealthy at every opportunity. Logically, it makes no sense and lifting the cap would end the fabricated social security crisis. It would be interesting to know what percentage of people even know that the cap exists. You know, this is really a sneaky good point here: fabricating a spending crisis using a supposedly inevitable social security bankruptcy gives congressional fiscal scolds on the far right a nice cudgel with which they can strong-arm spending cuts in social programs for the poor to help offset ginormous tax breaks for gajillionaires. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 5 hours ago, oblong said: people's perception of the "economy" will be based on gas prices, interest rates, and the stock market. 5 hours ago, Tiger337 said: The stock market is on fire, so that is a good thing. OK, well, gas prices and interest rates, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 4 hours ago, CMRivdogs said: I agree with the ruling that states can't just unilaterly remove a candidate from a national ballot. It doesn't look like they made a ruling here on the insurrection issue. The big question is how far will they kick the can down the road Here's a serious question, because I just don't know. I've been thinking about how the Court can help Trump the most to win the election. Delaying the DC trial without getting any blood on their hands would be the best way. Suspending the lower court's ruling by taking on the case is a good first step. Figuring out a ruling is now the tricky part. They are not going to find against Trump—we already know that. But if they rule for Trump, they get blood on their hands, plus they open up immunity for other presidents not named Trump. And if they somehow parse the ruling so that Trump gets immunity for these specific actions he undertook to steal Biden's election, but no other president gets immunity for something like it, then they dump themselves with a bucket of blood Carrie-style. That seems like a dilemma that even they recognize through which they have to navigate carefully. So, to me, it looks like the best way they can cook this whole thing is to wait until the last minute—like, literally the last minute, meaning 4:59pm Eastern on June 26 or whatever day it is before they go to recess—and announce at that time that they must delay making any decision on United States of America v. Donald J. Trump because the issue is just so nuanced, just so complex, they couldn't possibly have come to any decision in the oh-so-short period of time they were allowed to deliberate the case, and so, they will take it up again when they reconvene in 2025, and have a good rest of the year, everybody. The question, of course, is: are they allowed do this? Because if they can, this seems like the easiest, least bloody out of it. Or are they bound to make a decision in the same session they put it on the docket? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 19 minutes ago, chasfh said: Here's a serious question, because I just don't know. I've been thinking about how the Court can help Trump the most to win the election. Delaying the DC trial without getting any blood on their hands would be the best way. Suspending the lower court's ruling by taking on the case is a good first step. Figuring out a ruling is now the tricky part. They are not going to find against Trump—we already know that. But if they rule for Trump, they get blood on their hands, plus they open up immunity for other presidents not named Trump. And if they somehow parse the ruling so that Trump gets immunity for these specific actions he undertook to steal Biden's election, but no other president gets immunity for something like it, then they dump themselves with a bucket of blood Carrie-style. That seems like a dilemma that even they recognize through which they have to navigate carefully. So, to me, it looks like the best way they can cook this whole thing is to wait until the last minute—like, literally the last minute, meaning 4:59pm Eastern on June 26 or whatever day it is before they go to recess—and announce at that time that they must delay making any decision on United States of America v. Donald J. Trump because the issue is just so nuanced, just so complex, they couldn't possibly have come to any decision in the oh-so-short period of time they were allowed to deliberate the case, and so, they will take it up again when they reconvene in 2025, and have a good rest of the year, everybody. The question, of course, is: are they allowed do this? Because if they can, this seems like the easiest, least bloody out of it. Or are they bound to make a decision in the same session they put it on the docket? I don't know the laws, but I always figured they would find a way to delay this until after the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: 2 bucks a carton (10 packs!) circa 1963 and the drugstore on the corner had no issue selling them to a minor because they were for my dad (and they were). I started buying my own cigarettes when I was in seventh grade. (I stole them from my folks before that.) During the very liberal '70s, it was no big deal for a 12-, 13-year old kid to go to a Speedway or Total station, like we had kitty-corner from each other at 12 and Van Dyke, and ask for a pack of Newports from the apathetic person working the counter. I would go to whichever was cheaper. For a while it was 50¢ at Total and 52¢ at Speedway, so I went to Total. Then, Total raised their cigarettes to 55¢, so I started going to Speedway. One thing I totally remember was never buying cigarettes at the 7-11 at 13 and Hoover, because, as I remember saying, "I'll never pay 65¢ for a pack of cigarettes! What a ripoff!" By the time I had quit smoking by 1987, I was paying probably a buck fifty for a 25-pack of Century. (Remember those things?) But by that time, it was no longer cool for stores to sell cigarettes to kids at the counter. So, between college and my career, I was working at the Perry Drugs at 12 and Hoover, working the cash register. One day this kid walks in, looks about eleven, and says "pack of Marlboros", or whatever it was. I asked, you 18? He says no. I say, sorry kid, can't sell them to you. He says, they're for my brother, he's in the car. I said well, your brother's gonna have to come into the store and buy them himself. He shrugs and walks out. Less than a minute later, this guy, maybe 20 years old, comes barging through the door and starts yelling at me for not selling the cigarettes to his little brother for him! I said sorry, man, you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, it's the law, i can get fired for doing that. And so he orders his pack of Marlboros and is swearing up a blue streak during the entire transaction. It was quite entertaining. Later, i say to the store manager, when it comes to selling cigarettes to children, we've come a long way, baby. He laughed. He saw what I did there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 I used to get smokes for my elders in the 80s. Kool’s was the choice for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.