Comments by Josh43

"You ought come work on Wall Street with ideas like that!" ------ Is that an invitation to come work in your group as a subordinate? Seems like I would have little chance of getting past your rigorous hiring standards. Plus the daily humiliation: "Go get my coffee now, Joshy, you circle-jerking cock-sucker." I would probably be the indispensable idea man in your group, though.

LOL! Thanks for the kind words, Dougster. You are always a charmer! I do post reviews under an alias and I have a good understanding of the personality of all clubs in my area (probably out to clubs about 100 times in my area). I think my reviews would be useful to those coming out of town. However, I never post explicit information about whether there are extras or OTC action at the clubs. I also have a fair amount of experience with the clubs in the Los Angeles and SF Bay area. My interest in clubs waxes and wanes . In truth, I find strip clubs occasionally exciting, but many times depressing. As an example, my last OTC experience was with a young single mom. We ended up at her place where she was living in squalor -- toys and clothes strewn everywhere, filthy dishes in the sink, overwhelming stench in the house. That's how it often goes for me. My experience with dancers is usually either awkward or depressing or both. I'm still teaching a class after work, and I have a long history of meeting the opposite sex that way: "The System According to Josh42." It's not exactly sex-for-grades, but I would probably get fired if someone found out. Far more exciting when you're not paying for sex and it takes the place of strip-clubs to some extent. I have terrible problems with insomnia and I discovered TUSCL late at night, looking for something trashy to put me to sleep. Your posts, Dougster, more than anyone else, helped with the insomnia. I enjoy the discussions about current-events and politics more than the discussions about strip clubs. What makes TUSCL interesting is that there are folks from all different generations, different ethnicities, different political stripes, all in an UNMODERATED forum. The moderation by peer pressure works remarkable well --and if my posts are too political, I'll simply bow out. Your post mostly makes sense Dougster and this is not really the place for politics.

My top three: (3) Letterman (2) Jon Stewart (it's Stewart, not Steward, you dumbass, Dougster). and my favorite, (1) John Oliver

Che wrote: " Those “millions” of people who moved to California in the 1960s and 70s and bought their modest houses for $30-60K and have spent their lives in those same homes have been spared from being taxed on the current market value of $1-2 million" {snip} "Most of them would be forced out of their houses" So suppose Prop13 is repealed and replaced with a 1.25% property tax on the assessed value. Doesn't an elderly person sitting on $1-2M in equity have the option of taking out a reverse mortgage instead of being forced out? Seems to me, the real objection is that grandma wants all of that home equity to pass on to her heirs. Or perhaps grandpa wants to keep and squander all that home equity on strippers. Che wrote: "until a few weeks ago I had skin in the game for years with multiple properties." We sold our SV home in 2006, rented for a few years, then picked up a much nicer foreclosed house in 2009. So we've also had some skin the game --but our decision to sell had absolutely nothing to do with property taxes. My folks bought a home in Southern CA in the late 1960s and they've lived there ever since. I'm completely in favor of trashing Prop13 even though it goes against my self-interest. When you talk about "thieving politicians" and the "tyranny" of taxation, I start to lose interest in the discussion. Sure there's wasteful government spending and welfare cheats. In CA, there's also UC Berkeley that has top-five programs in math, physics, chem, economics, computer science etc.. Taxation buys civilization.

Che wrote: "As do a couple of million fixed-income elderly homeowners who without the protection of Prop 13 would have been long ago forced out of their homes and down the economic ladder by California’s onerously high property taxes." ----- So if Prop13 did in fact protect "millions" of grannies, wouldn't you expect to see a downturn in foreclosures in the years after Prop13 was passed? Can you post anything to support your argument? Also, to protect granny, do we need to let someone sitting on a property presently valued at $20M to pay property taxes capped at 1% of the price paid 25yrs ago? If Prop13 is supposed to rescue seniors, wouldn't it be easier to simply exempt older people on a fixed income from paying property taxes? I personally think it's fair for granny to pay a fixed percentage of her property taxes if she's lucky enough to see her property value go up. She may need to extract her home equity in some way -- maybe with a reverse mortgage or home equity loan.

Enjoyed your posts, SJG, which brought back (mostly) good memories of Silicon Valley(SV). You're right that SV is to the right of San Francisco and especially Berkeley. I remember the tech workers as being mostly apathetic and there to get rich. Does that sound familiar? Some of the kids were into Rand Paul's daddy / Ayn Rand and had nutty ideas about Fed policy. Still SV is a lot more level-headed than our current suburban locale, which is heavily white and conservative. My wife is Chinese and she misses SV where about 20% of the population is Asian. Good points about prop13. I lived in CA my whole life up until 2006 so I'm well aware of how it has shaped the CA economy. It's a regressive tax, and the old farts sitting on expensive properties in Bell Air and Beverly Hills just love porp13. They can sit on the property forever without getting reassessed on the true value of the property. No politician in CA dares to mess with Prop13 -- and since property taxes are so low, the state makes up for it by high sales tax, corp taxes, and state income tax. As you say, that leads to huge boom-and-bust cycles.

Regarding Dougster's "experience" at work, I'm thinking it's a case where (1) he had to pay her for sex, or (2) he chained her to a desk or (3) she was semi-comatose after listening to him recite financial data. However, if some hot babe really was attracted to Dougster, I'd love to hear about it. C'mon Dougster, don't be coy.

God made TUSCL for the direct purpose of trolling Dugan and the Westboro Baptist Church.

@SJG: The hot housing is in the news this morning (front page WSJ) and hitting some areas that you don't normally identify with a hot housing market: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trade-group-says-u-s-home-price-appreciation-accelerating-1431358948 (not sure if the link is working). We lived in Silicon Valley until 2006 and the area has always had a hot housing market because of good jobs and great schools. Getting into the housing market there at the right time can be a great investment. My kids are happier in our new area, but I miss the Asian influence and the general "genius level" over in S.V.

With a slight tweak, the story becomes Keynsian: if the salesman can't sell any cars then he can't buy any ass. If the stripper can't sell any ass, then she can't buy a car. The only way to fix the situation is to provide stimulus to the salesman or the stripper. Right JS?

"@Josh43. It almost sounds as if you think the NHS is a good thing." --------------------- That's what I hear, Pikey. The NHS is probably the best healthcare system in the world, covering the most people, with the best results, at the highest efficiency. @LondonGuy: Rereading your post, I see you are comparing to other G7 economies and not other Eurozone economies. So my comment about "borrowing in your own currency" doesn't apply.

"I'd take Truman, who didn't finish college, over both." ----------- @Rech: you have another chance, since Scott Walker also dropped out.

^^^How much of that growth is due to the fact that you borrow in your own currency? I'm wondered how closely the Tories would match up to American conservatives? For example, would the Tories want to dismantle the NHS the way the GOP wants to get rid of Obamacare? Are the Tories in love with guns the way the GOP loves the NRA? Clearly, form the British election, government spending is blamed for nearly everything (just like the GOP). Maybe the British election foreshadows what will happen here in 2016. Scott Walker, anyone?

So the Labour Party got slammed despite five years of austerity (under Cameron) that most likely slowed down the British recovery. But voters don't really give a shit about cause and effect, only what they hear on the media (right Dougster?) and whether things seem to be getting better near election time.

4." Contact SJG for the very finest in high end hookers, available from coast to coast." -------------------- That's quite a surprise SJG, and I never pictured you as a pimp. From what I understand you should do quite well in that profession, and I doubt you'll ever be eating dog food.

Dougster- I don't see anything even remotely controversial about James' statement that market valuations typical return to historical norms over the long run. Right now we're way more than 10- or 20% above average historical valuations -- more like 60- or 70-% (using 10yr trailing earnings). Also your claim the "product cycle" trumps everything just doesn't hit home with me. It completely leaves out the near-random fluctuations created by irrational human behavior. Not trying to pick a fight with you: As an outsider to finance, try to convince me that we're in a secular bull market, rather than another bubble driven by low interest rates and irrational investors.

"What if you bought a fixed % of your monthly income every month since then?" ------------------- Good idea, but with caveats: (1) Don't cash out at the bottom of the big U-curve. Duh! (2) Don't squander your dividends on strippers, weed, and cocaine. (3) If the GOP/SCOTUS repeals Obamacare, don't retire early or lose your job. Or just don't get sick.

Mikeya, you know that Harry Reid is retiring, right? Reid will most likely be replaced by Chuck Schumer.

I do feel nervous about the market since I'm not an investment god, like Dougster. I was just looking at the CAPE index which gives an approximate feel for the overall price-earnings ratio of the S&P500 (not the NASDAQ). It shows the market valuation just a hair below 1929 levels and well below year 2000. So not nearly as overvalued as the dot-com period, but still scary high. Bond yields also suck, with (for example) 10yr investment-grade corporates paying about 3.0% (if you're lucky). So finding a place for new money seems tricky. As SJG mentioned, I also worry about a correction before the election. If there's anything that could wipe out Hillary, it would be a stock market crash or a severe downturn in the economy.

@Ski: "Two no longer send me requests to contribute after 20+ years of writing "get cancer" on the request and mailing it back certified mail." --------------------------- Sounds like a nutty form of protest from someone trying to use shock-value to get some attention -- just like flag-desecration. Hope you used the USPS for the certified mail, though.

...we can just make shit up in the complaint (just like Dougster).

Hey James: Here's the SEC website for filing claims about fraud or wrongdoing: https://www.sec.gov/complaint/tipscomplaint.shtml Might be amusing to file a complaint against Dougster for manipulating security prices. Maybe accuse him of manipulating the price of RICK or TWTR to naive investors on TUSCL.

My take is that the income inequality debate centers on explaining why income and wealth gains in the top slices have increased so dramatically in the last 30 years. Looking at the gains in the top 1% or 0.1% is a relatively new way of looking at things, and clever guys (like the author Piketty) deserve a lot of credit for painstaking, objective, work, of looking over tax records for several hundred years and over several countries. The issue is grounded in hardcore facts, not "fashionable" memes. How does one explain why about 60% of the income gains went to about 1% of the earners over the past 30 yrs? Why is this such a recent phenomenon? A lot of people suspect that the gains going to the CEOs & supermanagers are simply correlated with lower marginal tax rates, and CEOs who have the ability to set their own pay. At least in the U.S. I think you could probably jack up the marginal tax rate significantly on salaries over about $1M without any serious effect on GDP growth. Maybe when I get my next massively-parallel supercomputer, I can write a few lines of simulation code and convince that oligarch Dougster once and for all. The discussion is moot since nothing major will happen to the tax code, even under Hillary. Hopefully we'll have the common sense to regulate the financial services industry (think Glass-Steagall?) so we don't get another disastrous meltdown. Also, if we insist on allowing a few families to take on unimaginable wealth, then we should at least have campaign finance reform and get rid of Citizens United. Both should be no-brainers.

" I routinely give "no" hiring decision to PhDs from Ivy League schools - sometime after only 30 minutes of talking to them." --------------------------------- Ha! Good for you! Those damn elitist Ivy PhDs who don't know their head from their asshole. Only the best and brightest for the financial services industries, I say. Their loss, too, because after 5 yrs of slave labor producing a thesis, most of em want to work for TUSCL's leading troll.

I like GACA's comment that lineage is the strongest factor in determining your individual success. The heart and soul of the income inequality debate is this sensational book by Piketty called "Capital in the 21st Century." There are summaries of the book all over the web. The basic idea is that when return on capital exceeds the growth rate, there's nothing to stop runaway wealth inequality. If that wealth is passed on to heirs, you end up with society that resembles 18-th century Europe with a few families controlling most of the wealth (think of the Waltons and the Kochs). Does anyone know where Hillary stands on income inequality? It would be nice if she would come out with some sort of white paper, but winning elections depends more on producing vapid sound bites and commercials. At least the GOP has the Paul Ryan budget. their manifesto for totally trashing Obamacare, gutting Medicaid, turning Medicare into a voucher system, cutting taxes on the wealthy, while raising the Pentagon budget. You can bet there will be major differences between Hillary and the GOP agenda. Dougster called Hillary a "dipshit" in an earlier thread and she does tend to make stupid, unforced, mistakes. Part of the problem is that she was raised in a very wealthy GOP family and didn't become a Dem until her college years(Liz didn't become a Dem until age 50). Maybe that's why she sounds "synthetic" and insincere. My gut feeling is that she does care about working class mobility, but who knows. Still Hillary has a great resume (first lady, sec of state, senator, terrific lawyer) and she's no dipshit. She has 20 yrs of experience putting up with GOP horseshit, which will make her better than Obama at handling a GOP-controlled Congress. Is this something people really care about? The average working stiff struggles to get by paycheck to paycheck. Most people don't have the luxury and the time to think about political issues; it's a miracle just to get them to vote, and Hillary will win if she can simply fight the apathy. What can be done inequality? As @Rockstar has been saying, pumping up the marginal tax rate to Reagan or even Eisenhower levels would most likely eliminate grotesque pay for CEOs and supermanagers (most blind sheep don't understand what the word "marginal" means in marginal tax rate). Putting some sort of tax on wealth is probably necessary, too. We could do that and still produce the next Gates or Zuckerberg. That's all utopian shit and will never happen with Hillary or anyone else. Good post, Dougster. It must be interesting living in the financial center of the universe, but you should get off your high horse now and then.