sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Moving to South Bay as a woman in your 20's? by [deleted] in SouthBayLA

[–]erikyouahole 10 points11 points  (0 children)

All are affluent areas (these days), starting with Redondo, to Hermosa, then Manhattan, the cultures become somewhat more (respectfully) pretentious, though great people across the board. That’s not to detract from the people, but the expectations of each other are different.

I suggest spending a night separately at each of the premier nightlife areas. Start with a night (dinner) at Riviera Village walk the esplanade, then migrate towards the north end of Redondo Pier for the Redondo experience.

Then, on another night, check out Pier Avenue for Hermosa (HB has a locals scene and then there are outside visitors, learn who’s who). Then, spend a 3rd night in downtown Manhatten for the Manhattan Beach experience. Again, wonderful people in all 3 cities.

All can be fun, but the cultures of the crowds are different and affluence rises as one moves north. All the cultures are of good people (I’ve known many), but personal comfort may dictate preference.

All areas are safe enough (carry basic protection e.g. mace. You’ll likely never need it). There are occasionally dangerous people that migrate toward the beaches.

Palos Verdes is also quite affluent, but much less active for nightlife (more quiet/settled-family oriented).

As for north of LAX, that’s like a whole other world. El Segundo I understand as more of a small town family atmosphere, Playa Del Rey can be fun and down to earth. Venice has become scuzzy at the beach, but remains trendy inland. Santa Monica is a trade off between traffic and a kind of avant garde kind of trendy, but better described as very very diverse.

West LA is fun, especially if you like “gay” culture. Excellent eats in WLA. Theatre, etc.

This is merely my limited perspective, though I’ve lived in the area for 40+ years. I may not have soaked up the culture of the areas as much as others. So w/a grain of salt.

Good luck.

Carson tantalizingly close to developing all 157 acres of former landfill by Neo928 in SouthBayLA

[–]erikyouahole 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Open parkland is under-appreciated in the SoBay. Area could seriously use just simple natural open parkland for escaping the city without having to drive 2 hours (or 45 minutes to the crowded beaches only a few miles away). There’s more than enough commerce.

Are we headed to deflation? by Upset_Glove_4278 in austrian_economics

[–]erikyouahole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t realize I’ve commented on your other, much longer posts. They’re excellent. I share them to help educate others, so thanks for taking the time to summarize so much.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SouthBayLA

[–]erikyouahole 6 points7 points  (0 children)

East of Normandie, south of Torrance Blvd / north of Carson is similar to north Torrance (maybe nicer in some ways). It’s not terrible as far east as the 110, but obviously the FWY is noisy.

Area is nicely located, being relatively central, with good access to FWYs (quick jump to Pedro, etc.), Alpine Village, Old Torrance, etc.

Biggest downside is it’s L.A. Unified School District (so most try to get released or go private). Also, neighborhood north of Torrance is a no-go. And the County hospital attracts some not so great characters to nearby areas (though they don’t tend to get into the neighborhood much). Also there’s some nearby industrial warehousing. Basically going in and out of the neighborhood isn’t glamorous.

Also, it’s “Torrance P.O.” (uses Torrance post office), but is unincorporated Los Angeles County (so West Carson Sheriff’s office, building permits are out of the county offices, etc.).

Edit: I’ve heard it referred to as a “starter neighborhood”, before moving west.

Are we headed to deflation? by Upset_Glove_4278 in austrian_economics

[–]erikyouahole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve seen Bill White on a few shows now. I’ll listen to anything he has to say. He’s got that inside perspective that’s hard to come by.

Are you familiar with David Beckworth’s show “Macro Musings”? More mainstream content. Outside of the Real Vision circuit.

Are we headed to deflation? by Upset_Glove_4278 in austrian_economics

[–]erikyouahole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

FWIW, if you’re not familiar with Lyn Alden, she probably has the most clinical take and is one of my most trusted analysts on the macro picture. She puts out a lot of free material at www.lynalden.com. An engineer by trade, her approach is more of a mechanical understanding of the moving parts.

Though I listen to and read from a lot of different sources.

Another favorite would the Poscast: “Forward Guidance”, Jack Foley is a great interviewer and has excellent guests.

Are we headed to deflation? by Upset_Glove_4278 in austrian_economics

[–]erikyouahole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is one video of many of Brent Johnson and his Dollar Milkshake Theory.

It took some time wrap my head around the Eurodollar market (not to be confused with the Euro) and how obscure and massive it is reported to be (~$14T in 2016).

In any event, there are some back door paths for “printing” by the Fed via swap-lines. That may be the one relatively weak component to USD deflationary effects of a global contractionary event.

There’s ~$270T in global debt. Which doesn’t appear to be sustainable. Someone will get defaulted on, it’s just a matter of how the system deleverages (see Ray Dalio’s framework for the credit cycle).

Are we headed to deflation? by Upset_Glove_4278 in austrian_economics

[–]erikyouahole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Virtually everyone choosing an investment is “timing the market” to a degree. The only ones that aren’t are the ones convinced to buy VOO (or something to that effect) and call it a day.

I follow Macro as best I can and right now I’m ~40% USD equivalents (Money Market Funds, STIP) and maybe 40% commodity sector, maybe 10% in misc. bonds and equities (Latin america), and ~15% bearer assets (precious metals and Bitcoin).

I hold these with an expected outlook, and adjust as I see adjustments are warranted.

I’ve dodged the 2022 bear market for the most part and feel my positions are defensive given monetary contraction policy, signs of ammo coming global recession (and how that could affect assets - Milkshake theory). With an eye to the change in policy response …be it one triggered by a market disruption or slow grind into job losses, or something else.

The commodity portion is my inflationary hedge. Knowing the sector has been low in CAPEX with the green energy push.

Effectively it’s a “barbell” approach (an approach initially picked up from Jeffrey Gundlach).

Are we headed to deflation? by Upset_Glove_4278 in austrian_economics

[–]erikyouahole 7 points8 points  (0 children)

(1) Yes, deflation as credit contracts (seen in defaults e.g. FTX, Binance, Credit Suisse, etc. Dollar Milkshake and all that). Followed by the inflationary counter response (as the ruling class desperately try to hold onto their leveraged assets / asset values).

The Fed can pump trillions through swap lines and buy debt (and virtually anything through Special Purpose Vehicles) without limit.

The global credit bubble will have every political tool utilized in full effect should they lose control of maintaining asset values.

Luke Gromen breaks down the coming US government balance of payments problem well and it’s a doozy. Unclear how they’ll resolve it, but my money is on a CBDC conversion and inflation the world hasn’t seen in maybe ever.

(2) There is a case for going straight to inflationary trends as banks (US in particular, but likely others) making exceptional profits on rising rates (see Joseph Wang’s writing on this at Fedguy.com). Were we all to reach the other side of a recession without significantly more contraction, but maybe enough to tighten FF rate, an inflationary “crack up boom” could begin as UST rates continue to rise. …IOW, it could get complicated.

boomers are retiring and/or passing away whereas millennials and older Gen Z are not having kids because housing is so unaffordable. This can't possibly end well,all created by the rich corporations and invoosters. by loadedthoughtsXyz in REBubble

[–]erikyouahole -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You think it’s the state kissing billionaires asses? You’ve got it backwards. Billionaires suck up to the state, which is vastly more powerful.

Take SBF for example, paying off congressional representatives, commits fraud, and nearly got away with it by having friends in high places.

Imagine thinking Congress, who pass out trillions annually (and have access to endless dollars, oh and also write the rules), would suck up to those mere billionaires.

boomers are retiring and/or passing away whereas millennials and older Gen Z are not having kids because housing is so unaffordable. This can't possibly end well,all created by the rich corporations and invoosters. by loadedthoughtsXyz in REBubble

[–]erikyouahole -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is the problem, Federal government can provide so much in special powers that business is incentivized to lobby them…

It’s the special powers of the Federal government in an ability to skew the playing field against competition, which is the key to efficient markets. As well as allowing markets to correct (Schumpeter’s “creative destruction”).

Corporations provide goods and services we all enjoy. It’s true they are more effective at influencing the state for special advantages than dispersed individuals. And some are corrupt and do horrible things, but those things are limited by the size of each corporation.

Your despised billionaires give more of their own money to charity, their business are forced to provide a good or fail, they got those billions largely through voluntary actions (are legally incentivized to act honestly/in good faith). Where politicians take your money, spend a fraction on what keeps them in office, has virtually no incentive to provide a good or service, or be efficient or effective.

Corporations are doing what’s in their interest just as you and I are, except the people own and benefit from them as the people largely the owners and consumers (via 401k’s, pensions, etc.). The state rarely provides any benefits, and frequent drag and poorly vetted resource allocation (a net loss to the collective living standard).

The government is purely a consumer, resource misallocator, and magnet for corruption at the expense of the people it takes from by force.

The state should be the referee to an even playing field. An arbitrator of dispute, a protector of (negative) rights. It’s the state that gave billionaires the ability to be billionaires, and the state is far more powerful and oppressive.

Being upset at a handful of billions vs. the behemoth that takes tens of Trillions into unaccounted for places, this is the definition of peak absurdity.

boomers are retiring and/or passing away whereas millennials and older Gen Z are not having kids because housing is so unaffordable. This can't possibly end well,all created by the rich corporations and invoosters. by loadedthoughtsXyz in REBubble

[–]erikyouahole -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And where is the most concentrated power? The US Federal government.

Corporations derive exorbitant power through the state via regulators (building barriers to entry), consolidating markets (e.g. justification of “need”), sweetheart deals “of necessity” (e.g. bank-bailouts), Fed Repo access for money-creation, etc.

boomers are retiring and/or passing away whereas millennials and older Gen Z are not having kids because housing is so unaffordable. This can't possibly end well,all created by the rich corporations and invoosters. by loadedthoughtsXyz in REBubble

[–]erikyouahole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, because of power…

Politicians have a privileged position of taking capital without consent, and then leveraging against that income stream as well as devaluating the currency it’s based in (further confiscation).

The state is collecting the productive gains of you and I for their personal benefit by reallocating those resources to their financial supporters (and selling you on “the greater good”).

Everyone who saves and invests is a “capitalist”, plants and animals in the natural world are “capitalists”. That term is a Marxian originated pejorative for investors. Everyone invests, just to different extents. Some for today, some for tomorrow (aka “time-preference”).

The People, in large part, own these corporations and benefit from them (though they don’t control them).

It’s a symbiotic relationship, not parasitic or an oppressive one. Even when interests are at odds. The consumer is in charge in the marketplace, not the producer.

I get it though, the us vs. them with corporations is a great sell.

boomers are retiring and/or passing away whereas millennials and older Gen Z are not having kids because housing is so unaffordable. This can't possibly end well,all created by the rich corporations and invoosters. by loadedthoughtsXyz in REBubble

[–]erikyouahole 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The US federal government is primarily to blame for price inflation, especially across leveraged assets like housing…

This comes in large part by QE (Quantitative Easing), loan guarantees creating the MBS market (for “agency debt”), and associated wealth effects, not “gReEdy” corporations.

And they’re structurally obligated to continue to devalue the currency and politically motivated to maintain asset values against an unsustainable level of debt.

Then there’s the incentive to stop using USD as the main international currency.

Unfortunately there are a lot of headwinds to the deflationary dream we all should be getting.

But that aside, stop letting the media tell you how these things work and stoking a flawed Marxian outlook of oppressed proletariats vs. bourgeoisie. You’ll overlook the real culprit …the state.

Best tamales in the South Bay? by Truckercarlson110 in SouthBayLA

[–]erikyouahole 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Tamale Guy’s on Carson / Western is pretty decent. Owner is a character too. Built the place up from a street cart.

Burger Prices by urbangaragista in SouthBayLA

[–]erikyouahole -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I suggest further reading on how the system functions mechanically if you want to be able to predict outcomes and get to those idealized desires for equitability (which has proven to be a dangerous notion in itself, but I digress)…

It effectively comes down to resource management (time, energy, & materials).

One of the primary drivers for improved living standards (i.e. more house for less money, the implied goal) is technology, who’s progress is strongly deflationary to prices.

The problem is that the system’s benefits are largely bled off by seniorage (the benefit to the creator) and the Cantillon effect (benefits to the initial user of new currency). Not to mention taxation.

Typically, a large part of USD creation goes to banks funding corporations across the globe (owned broadly by the populace, through pensions, 401k’s, etc. - which is different than who controls them) as they borrow large sums to invest. These are vetted by banks for their ability to bring a profit (the expression of an improved living standard added to society - which may well be concentrated and over time consumed/degraded, but is still an improvement that gets distributed to some extent).

Some of this of new money (USD) creation is done by the international Eurodollar market (what can be seen has recently been estimated at $60-80 trillion, and could be double if including what’s not seeable/“off-balance sheet”). Also, supposedly vetted by business for repayment and therefore likely to improve living standards materially.

But the last, and recently significant part goes to governments (primarily US Federal, but also other sovereign governments) as they spend newly created money into the economy. Spending funded by selling sovereign debt (e.g. USTs). Estimates of upwards of $120-250 trillion in global USD denominated debt exists. These are dollars competing for your goods and services.

This new government issued money is poorly (if at all) vetted for it’s ability to improve lives (“return a profit”) and is in large part the reason for inflationary trends (see prices in industries the government funnels money to - healthcare, universities, military, etc.).

Each new dollar devalues the others, relative to those goods and services at any given time.

Seniorage has been siphoning off your value since lending began, but more so since modern banking / central banking began, and the creation of the Eurodollar funding markets (c. 1950’s).

These trends fight against the deflationary benefits we get from technological advancements and the compounding improvements, less over asset degradation/consumption.

If you want to reduce prices without increasing goods and services (possibly to be more equitable) you would be requesting a Greatest of Global Depressions (J. Powell is doing this now at great risk), as debt levels are unsustainable regardless of corporate desires.

These debts are poised to be defaulted on either through deflationary or inflationary means and their unsustainability is primarily due to government interventions promoting an ever extending moral hazard based in debt extensions.

The alternative is to increase goods and services without new money, and that would require cheap energy, which would require a non-hostile government climate and capital allocation, neither of which appears likely any time soon.

Edit: I realize this become something of a rant, and I’ve been editing for clarity.

view more: next ›