Linking ≠ endorsement.
⇧ Russia is looking to regulate bitcoin but still doesn’t see it as a currency
If they can’t tax it, they’ll ban it. Now they are finally starting to look at it correctly. Hiding criminality (gross criminality) was a huge motivation behind the takeoff of Bitcoin. Take that ability to hide completely away, and you have just another means to trade and be taxed on gains, which keeps the government solely in power over what is and isn’t a currency: to set the value thereof per the US Constitution for one.
⇧ From Urban Centers to Suburban Developments, Community Gardens Are on the Rise — Blueprint, presented by CBRE
“I’ve been contacted by a developer who rehabs old apartment complexes across the country and they want us to help them add community gardens to their apartment complexes because they believe that it’s a good clean amenity they can have at very little cost,” he says. “Once its built, it’s really just the cost of the water to maintain it for the most part.”
I like the idea but think about risk and liability. Who’s responsible for making sure the food is safe? I don’t think being paranoid is any solution, but there should be some real rules in place for how it’s all handled and so forth. Should tenants sign waivers if they are involved. I’d be willing. I’d want clear, thorough rules too and that are adequately enforced.
⇧ 10 of the worst landlords in Los Angeles – Curbed LA
This is the kind of list you don’t want to make. Don’t engage in anything remotely like the things reported about those deemed as bad landlords in this article. The report states allegations. We aren’t saying we know the landlords are guilty of all the things alleged. We aren’t saying Curbed LA hasn’t done a proper job of fact checking what’s offered as evidence. Of course, if Curbed LA isn’t sued by any of them for libel, take that into consideration.
⇧ What is Needed is a Progressive Vision of National Sovereignty
… why has the mainstream left not been able to develop an alternative, progressive view of national sovereignty in response to neoliberal globalisation? The answer largely lies in the fact that over the course of the past thirty years, most strands of left-wing or progressive thought have accepted the false narrative that national states have essentially been rendered obsolete by neoliberalism and/or globalisation and thus that meaningful change can only be achieved at the international/supranational level, as argued by Yanis Varoufakis and others, when in fact these trends have mostly been the result of state-driven processes. Furthermore, most leftists have bought into the macroeconomic myths that the establishment uses to discourage any alternative use of state fiscal capacities. For example, they have accepted without question the so-called household budget analogy, which suggests that currency-issuing governments, like households, are financially constrained, and that fiscal deficits impose crippling debt burdens on future generations. This is particularly evident in the European debate, where, despite the disastrous effects of the EU and monetary union, the mainstream left continues to cling on to these institutions and to the belief that they can be reformed in a progressive direction, despite all evidence to the contrary, and to dismiss any talk of restoring a progressive agenda on the foundation of retrieved national sovereignty as a “retreat into nationalist positions” inevitably bound to plunge the continent into 1930s-style fascism.
This, however, is tantamount to relinquishing the discursive and political battleground for a post-neoliberal hegemony — which, as we have seen, is inextricably linked to the question of national sovereignty — to the right and extreme right. It is not hard to see that if progressive change can only be implemented at the global or even European level — in other words, if the alternative to the status quo off ered to electorates is one between reactionary nationalism and progressive globalism — then the left has already lost the battle.
It needn’t be this way, however.
I disagree that reforming international bodies is impossible. However, if reform efforts fall on their faces, then reestablishing national sovereignty along truly progressive lines is exactly the right thing to do. In the case of Greece, I think Greece should have left the euro and EU. Should France leave? Doing that right now would be a bit premature in my view. The day may come when Germany proves too intransigent, but we aren’t quite there yet. Merkel and Trump need to play out first, at least for a while. Then we’ll know enough to turn to the People to show them the impossibilities due to Merkel’s party’s artificial and myopic barriers EU and worldwide, not just mainly toward Greece, as bad as Merkel has been to the Greeks (mostly wholly innocent and needing her assistance and that the Germans can certainly afford if they want to change the EU with France to do so and via emergency measures to save Greek lives).
⇧ Homes With Blue Bathrooms Sell for $5,440 More Than Expected – Zillow Porchlight
I have to admit, it looks nice.
⇧ Officials in Georgia County Offer 10K Reward For Info on Apartment Fires
⇧ Building Code Adoption, Enforcement Critical to Reducing Losses
If you’re in real estate, construction, insurance, or the like, you may hear people grousing about building codes in general. Try not to be swayed by them but perhaps rather gently educate them. Support code improvements. It will save in the long run, including lives (maybe even your own).
⇧ Theresa May to nurse who says she hasn’t had a pay rise in eight years: ‘There’s no magic money tree’ | The Independent
Theresa May either doesn’t know what she’s talking about or she’s trying to trick the People. There is a “money tree,” but nobody with any real knowledge should be calling it magical. Her government can create all the money it wants. It does not have to borrow a dime to do it. The one and only real issue is price inflation. The way to handle that is via democracy. The People should decide what they want and set up the plans to undertake development. Money, per se, is nothing more than a method of keeping track of effort in that regard (at least that’s all it should be). If planning is done correctly, then resource constraints will be mirrored in the quantity and velocity of money used to reduce or even eliminate the constraints and/or to lessen demand via a fully informed public concerning the degree of such constraints remaining and reflected in real-time data. The quantity of money and where it goes should be democratically decided. It should not be decided by bankers, especially not private ones.
⇧ Multifamily Pro-forma Podcast With Beau Beery
Add your comment. Including the article/link number will help.
⇧ Study points to another advantage of the 1%: They’re great at evading taxes – LA Times
The vast majority of people pay more taxes because those at the top typically get away with paying so much less than the law requires they should.
Ah, you see. I’m not the only one who knows about this. I still won’t call it magic, but you get the point. It’s about resources (planning and execution), not where the money will come from.
⇧ Slower U.S. job creation is usually a bad thing. This time, it might be a good sign – MarketWatch
The Fed clamping down early is a way to protect the super wealthy from having to share more. It’s really that simple. It won’t work though. Sharing is coming whether the bankers want to or not.
⇧ Florida Youth Activist Urges Industry to Step Up Fight Against Climate Change
“I have come to believe the insurance industry will play a significant role,” she said. “Yours is a vital industry to protecting people’s assets, as well as their dreams. … Please do not overlook the role each of you play in helping our country solve this problem.”
With future leaders like that, we definitely stand a chance.
⇧ Employment Situation Summary — MAY 2017
There’s not a great deal to say about this report. Noteworthy, as I see it, is that overtime hours went up and the wage levels have increased more than price inflation (but not by much). Prior months were revised downward combined by 66K workers.
I still don’t see a reason for the Fed to move, but they are dying to give the bankers more interest profit-margin while suggesting their motivation is not that but to create room for them to lower rates in the face of any recession. I’m sorry, but that’s a clear case of asking us not to notice it’s putting the cart before the horse. If they don’t raise the rate, the economy won’t be tightened, which means it won’t likely fall into a recession. They are saying they want to move in the direction of what increases the likelihood of causing a recession in order to have the room to fight what they want to move in the direction of causing. Honestly, how much are the American people paying for this “service”?
⇧ Job Growth Slows Sharply in May as Unemployment Hits New Low | Jobs Bytes | Data Bytes | Publications | The Center for Economic and Policy Research
Here’s a deeper dive.
⇧ United States Employed Persons | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar
The number of employed persons in The United States decreased to 152923 Thousand in May….
⇧ United States Full Time Employment | 1968-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar
Full Time Employment in the United States decreased to 125620 Thousand in May….
⇧ United States Labor Force Participation Rate | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart
Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States decreased to 62.70 percent in May…
But the economy is about to heat up so much that the Fed must react right now? Honestly, how do people hold that position with a straight face?
⇧ United States Nonfarm Labour Productivity | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart
Labor productivity is calculated by dividing an index of real output by an index of hours worked of all persons, including employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers.
Automation has everything to do with this. The more things are automated as a total percentage of productivity, the higher the labor-productivity figure will go. It’s obvious. Truly productive, sustainable automation in and of itself will never naturally create enough new jobs to change this dynamic. Eventually, it is a mathematical certainty that barring some permanent catastrophe, we will reach a zero-labor-required state. How will people pay for anything if they are not working and earning money in the capitalist system? Capitalism holds the seeds of its own destruction/replacement. There’s no alternative.
⇧ Experts Alarmed at Lack of Warning at California Dam
⇧ intertemporal budget constraint | Uneasy Money
Posts about intertemporal budget constraint written by David Glasner
By eschewing any claims about the rationality of the agents or their computational powers, one can simply talk about whether agents do or do not have identical expectations of future prices and what the implications of those assumptions are. When expectations do agree, there is at least a momentary equilibrium of plans, prices and price expectations. When they don’t agree, the question becomes whether even a temporary equilibrium exists and what kind of dynamic process is implied by the divergence of expectations. That it seems to me would be a fruitful way forward for macroeconomics to follow.
“When expectations do agree, there is at least a momentary equilibrium of plans, prices and price expectations.” Wrong assumption? That conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, unless I have misunderstood the definition he’s using. My point is that two people with the same expectations will definitely not necessarily create the same plans, which throws the whole price-equilibrium notion off. I’m positive that there is no equilibrium that is hit very often or that last for more than a moment and that those who ever thought there was were projecting (in the psychological sense) onto others. The closeness of people’s view ebbs and flows, and data show(s) that. There may be a pretty stable range, but outliers will exist so long as the capitalist system exists. Competition, and especially greed, drives wild risk-taking. Don’t take any of that as a put-down of David Glasner. He’s thinking out loud, and I actually like that. If we all hold one another to the utmost perfection before posing ideas, it will be counter-productive. That is not to say there aren’t people who ought to tighten up though. Besides, I still might be wrong about the definition used (but I really don’t think so).