January 2, 2009

Lost In A Sea Of Stark, Empty Houses And Vacant Lots

It’s Friday desk clearing time for this blogger. “Record numbers of Sonoma County homeowners are seeing property taxes fall, softening the blow from plummeting values. Steven James and Judy O’Brien bought their Windsor home in February 2005 for $670,000. While the couple recognized the county’s housing boom would eventually end, they didn’t think the subsequent decline would be so steep — the county’s median home price is down nearly 50 percent from the market’s high. ‘I thought there’s no way that would happen. We’re staring at that in the face right now,’ James said.”

“Easing the pain was the $2,600 property tax reduction. ‘It was wonderful,’ James said. ‘Spending $8,000 in taxes on a devaluing asset would have been a little hard to swallow.’”

“Bob DeKeulenaere says junk cars in his neighbor’s yard prevented him from selling his house last year. DeKeulenaere is among hundreds of North Port residents who call on city code enforcement to clean up their neighborhoods. The real estate market has only grown worse since then, leaving him with little choice but to stay put and wait for a turnaround.”

“‘This problem cost me a couple hundred thousand dollars,’ said DeKeulenaere. ‘Do I have any recourse? No.’”

“Pasquotank County has accepted $6.7 million for Outer Banks land worth nearly $10 million during the real estate boom. Pasquotank County accepted a bid of $7.25 million in March, but the group could not borrow that amount. Last week, the county accepted its lower bid of $6.7 million for the property.”

“‘He was the only bidder at the time,’ said Pasquotank County Commissioner Marshall Stevenson. ‘We felt we needed to take it.’”

“Marshall & Ilsley Corp. is foreclosing on a suburban Chicago condominium development and is seeking to collect nearly $19 million of unpaid loans connected to the project. The building was used for many years by Mallinckrodt College, and then Loyola University, before being sold and converted into condos.”

“Most of the units had listed selling prices ranging from the upper $300,000s to $1.4 million, according to the Chicago-based Metropolitan Planning Council. But those condos became available around the same time that the housing market began its rapid decline.”

“Denver businessman Jerrold Hauptman turned his father’s title insurance agency into a behemoth by betting big in the nation’s hottest real estate market. But when California’s housing boom turned bust and the Mercury Cos.’ bank called its loan last summer, Hauptman’s $1 billion empire collapsed.”

“‘I don’t know where it all went. A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money,’ said Calvin Schmidt, 61, of Parker, who is owed $38,500 in back pay and retirement savings kept by the company in the form of deferred compensation. ‘It totally amazes me. It was a good, strong business up until sometime last year.’”

“The dream is quintessential Arizona: Buying that new house in a new community, surrounded by people making a new start in life. The nightmare is becoming quintessential, too: In dozens of developments caught half-built in the real-estate downturn, homeowners are finding themselves trapped in a financial and legal mess. In one case, owners of homes in the half-built San Tan Heights development in Pinal County are staring at a special assessment of $750 per home in addition to the monthly assessment of $125.”

“Arizona has long encouraged construction of big developments. This is the ‘planned community’ state. Now some of those communities are turning on residents. Effectively, they are lost in a sea of stark, empty houses and vacant lots.”

“Mortgage and interest rates are down once again — way down. And, ask any lender, they will tell you there is plenty of money to be lent. So what’s up? ‘There is a huge misconception that it is difficult to get loans. It’s not true,’ says Mark Miskiel of Lighthouse Mortgage in Cottonwood. ‘What’s different is that in the recent past all you needed to do to qualify for a loan was to be able to stand on two feet.’”

“‘For the most part, the market is back to the core basics. It is still easy money, just not as easy as before. It’s cheap money. It’s just not funny money,’ Miskiel says.”

“Miskiel warns there are likely more foreclosures on the horizon, in part because the loan market is too segmented to settle its own problems. ‘Since most mortgages are now owned by more than one investor, it has been difficult for investors to agree to any restructuring of many bad loans,’ Miskiel says, ‘It is unlikely that will change in time to save many marginal mortgages.’”

“Stephanie Hanna, a loan officer with Platinum First Mortgage of Reno, said refinancing loans and regular mortgages not only have picked up, but for those in the right circumstances she can even undercut the national rate cited in the latest weekly report. Yet some other Nevadans still can’t catch a break on mortgage matters.”

“What gives? According to Hanna, refinancing can’t be done with dicey credit or on homes in which the owner owes more than the market indicates the house is worth. ‘A lot of people coming to us want to refinance right now,’ she said, ‘but they don’t have the equity – they’re under water.’”

“One of the long-held beliefs about subprime mortgages is that they had a positive side, extending credit to non-traditional buyers and increasing minority homeownership rates. But in a new research paper, the Boston Federal Reserve takes a closer look at foreclosures in Massachusetts. In a remarkable finding, researchers say that widely-held assumption simply isn’t true. In fact, subprime lending led instead to a churning of properties that only left minority homeowners and neighborhoods worse off.”

“From the Boston Fed: ‘We show that much of the subprime lending in the state was concentrated in urban neighborhoods and that minority homeownerships created with subprime mortgages have proven exceptionally unstable in the face of rapid price declines. The evidence from Massachusetts suggests that subprime lending did not, as is commonly believed, lead to a substantial increase in homeownership by minorities, but instead generated turnover in properties owned by minority residents.’”

“Here’s more: ‘Altogether, the data seem to paint a somewhat bleak picture of the role of subprime lending in Massachusetts urban neighborhoods. Rather than increasing the share of homes owned by members of the community, it appears that subprime lending allowed one set of minority homeowners to replace another…these new homeowners, with greater debt burdens and less equity (and likely poorer credit to begin with), were poorly suited to handle the collapse in house prices that followed.’”

“In another surprising conclusion, researchers found it may do little good for lenders to reduce the loan principal on multi-family properties in particular to avoid foreclosures. Those properties are especially vulnerable to foreclosure, but reducing the loan amount only leaves a marginal homeowner still in place - and one who still may not be able to handle the mortgage.”

“What began as a bad year for real estate turned into one of the worst on record, driven by an unprecedented drop in home prices, a tide of foreclosures and a credit crisis whose magnitude few anticipated. Regions that had been booming were hit especially hard by the bursting of the real-estate bubble. In the Southwest and Florida, homes lie vacant along the winding streets and cul-de-sacs of brand-new subdivisions. In Phoenix, home values have fallen 41% from their peak in June 2006.”

“‘Boomers who we counted on coming down here when they retire can’t sell their homes in Chicago or Michigan or other places, so they’re not coming,’ said Betsy Kurasch, a local real-estate agent.”

“‘For economists now to make forecasts is a pretty difficult thing,’ said Ray Torto, chief global economist at real-estate firm CB Richard Ellis. ‘All of our models are outside the territory in which they’ve been built.’”

“‘I thought it would be a bad year,’ said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. ‘I didn’t think it was going to be a complete washout.’”

“So begins a new year in the Sacramento real estate market, remarkably making its case as the fourth straight year of a downturn. From the files, here are memories of what the pros said as the market started – slowly at first, then faster and faster – to fall back to earth. October 2005. As housing values had already started to roll back down the hill, a National Association of Realtors report pronounced Sacramento’s real estate market in ‘excellent shape with a potential for significant equity gains.’”

“What happened: In a year, median sales prices fell 8 percent in Sacramento County.”

“July 2006: ‘The evidence of a cool-down is everywhere, but I don’t think there’s evidence of a collapse. I think barring any major macroeconomic shock, like a real spike in interest rates or unemployment, things are going to remain pretty flat.’ – Sean Snaith, then director of the Business Forecasting Center at Stockton’s University of the Pacific.”

“What happened: The next year in Sacramento County, home sales fell 23 percent and prices fell 10 percent.”

“October 2006: ‘I think by next spring the residential market will reach a plateau. … If my scenario holds up, you may be under water 10 percent for a while. I don’t know if you’d call it a soft landing, maybe slightly hard, or hard light or something, but you’ll still be fine.’ – Richard Kovacevich, then chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo & Co., in a Bee interview.”

“What happened: Sacramento County median sales prices fell another $24,500 by June. In July, year-over-year depreciation went into double-digit percentages and has accelerated ever since.”

“November 2006: ‘It’s not like we’re seeing a huge erosion in home prices, and really do not expect to see that going forward.’ – Robert Kleinhenz, deputy chief economist, California Association of Realtors, giving a 2007 real estate forecast to Sacramento Realtors.”

“What happened: In 2007, Sacramento County sales prices fell 20 percent. In 2008, they’ve fallen again by a third.”

“January 2007: ‘We don’t expect any significant decline unless there’s some major economic shock, and we don’t anticipate that.’ – Alan Nevin, chief economist, California Building Industry Association, unveiling his 2007 forecast.”

‘What happened: In 2007, California’s new-home sales fell 31 percent. This year, they fell almost twice that much.”

“June 2007: ‘I think right now, we’re probably bouncing around the bottom.’ – Sid Dunmore, then chief executive officer of Granite Bay-based Dunmore Homes. What happened: Five months later, Dunmore Homes filed for bankruptcy protection.”

“March 2008: ‘I think California has maybe two more quarters of tough sledding and things are going to get better. … It’s just a 36-year gut feeling kind of thing.’ – John Robbins, a San Diego mortgage banker, and 2007 chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association. What happened: That was three quarters ago.”

“San Diego was one of six metropolitan areas measured with an annual decline of more than 25 percent — coming behind Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Miami and Los Angeles. Three new markets broke the double-digit barrier for the first time in October — Seattle, Atlanta and Portland, each with year-over-year drops of more than 10 percent for the first time.”

“Alan Gin, economics professor at the University of San Diego, searched for a suitable saying for the coming year and came up with ‘Things will be not-so-fine in ‘09,’ a slogan he delivered during his outlook on the local economy at USD’s recent annual real estate market gathering.’

“At the end of 2007, Gin started to expect the trouble in housing would seep into the rest of the economy. But its extent this year still surprised him, he said. ‘Last year’s problems were like termites,’ he said. ‘This year, the house collapsed.’”

“Unlike Sweden, in France sellers take the appliances with them when they move. An 86-year-old woman, however, was so eager to unload her Riviera apartment and return to Paris that she offered to throw her kitchen appliances into the deal. Speaking of popping bubbles, as housing woes deepen, approaches to selling are changing. In Stockholm there were only two people at a recent showing and the price had dropped by twenty percent.”

“Florida is holding a buy-one-get-one-free sale: two houses for the price of one. Hesitate and they’ll throw in a Lexus as an incentive. And in the most alarming sign of the meltdown yet, the French are considering Home-Staging.”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

142 Comments »

Comment by Ben Jones
2009-01-02 11:00:22

Another great week and year! My thanks to those who support this blog. Please check back this weekend.

Comment by Chip
2009-01-02 11:11:54

Thanks so much for providing your blog for us for yet another year, Ben. Every time I wavered about buying back in, I came here and renewed my resolve to wait until the price is right. It’s sort of like AA meetings for fence-sitters, with an entertaining group of posters to make it fun.

Comment by Dr. Strangelove
2009-01-02 16:27:18

“It’s sort of like AA meetings for fence-sitters, with an entertaining group of posters to make it fun.”

LOL!! So true!!

DOC

 
Comment by exeter
2009-01-02 17:06:44

A friend of Ben’s.

 
Comment by CA renter
2009-01-03 03:56:20

Second that, Chip!

Thank you, Ben!! :)

Amazing how long some of us have been here, waiting, waiting, waiting… (soon to go on 5th year of the HBB).

Thank goodness we’ve had such a fun and intelligent group of people to keep us entertained and enlightened. Can’t get enough! ;)

 
 
Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 14:30:34

Oh yeah, sorry I didn’t post yesterday, buy happy new year everyone! May you live long and prosper. Woot, woot!

 
Comment by lavi d
2009-01-02 15:39:32

“Lost in a sea of sharks and empty houses”

At least, that’s what I keep seeing when I read that.

 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2009-01-02 11:01:24

‘I thought it would be a bad year,’ said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. ‘I didn’t think it was going to be a complete washout.’

Oh, and Zandi, you’re an idiot.

Comment by palmetto
2009-01-02 12:04:41

I had to have a barf bag in front of me the day he was interviewed on C-Span with the host kissing up to him. I swear, I thought she was gonna suffocate. What an arrogant, cold, asinine, supercilious prick. He’s got one helluva nerve to sit there as the chief econartist for Moody’s Enconomy after his performance at Wachovia.

Comment by palmetto
2009-01-02 13:16:51

And let’s not forget his testimony to CONgress. One big sock of stuff. There he was, opining about how the auto industry shouldn’t have a dime because it’s not enuf money to dig them out of their hole. God help us all if Zandi decides who should and who shouldn’t have money.

Ben, is there an archive anywhere of his bubble statements? Should I just google search? I want to send some “literature” to my representative and Senator (I only have one senator, the other is non compos mentis.)

 
 
Comment by measton
2009-01-02 12:55:03

Oh and Zandi

You and your company are a criminal

 
Comment by measton
2009-01-02 12:58:15

Oh and Zandi you and your company are criminal.

I’d need to see your investment portfolio to determine if you are an idiot as well.

 
Comment by Backstage
2009-01-02 14:04:32

I thought Zandi was an idiot, but I didn’t think he was a complete mental washout.

 
Comment by barbarus
2009-01-02 15:55:35

“Oh, and Zandi, you’re an idiot.”

Maybe, but in this particular case he’s a liar.

 
 
Comment by Chip
2009-01-02 11:20:32

““Bob DeKeulenaere says junk cars in his neighbor’s yard prevented him from selling his house last year.”

I remember a program in Orlando many years ago, to rid the area of junk cars. All that most owners did was to buy covers for them - and let the covers get nasty-looking. There was a house on S. Osceola Ave., right on Lake Pinelock, with several moldy old Mercedes cars in the front yard for I think about 20 years - never moved an inch, from what I could tell.

This can be the flip-side of an HOA-free neighborhood, too. No free lunch no matter how you do it.

Comment by palmetto
2009-01-02 12:08:46

True, Chip, but for this guy to say that junk cars cost him a couple hundred thousand dollars is a joke, if he’s in North Port. Nothing was worth even a couple hundred thousand dollars in North Port to begin with, not even at the height of the bubble.

It wasn’t the junk cars that cost him. It was the area in general. Maybe one of the most speculative areas in the state.

Comment by Chip
2009-01-02 14:54:03

Palmetto - yes, I was thinking that too, about North Port values. How can you lose a couple hundred grand. Anything worth enough for that to happen would have to be on a big enough piece of land that the cars wouldn’t matter that much. Too bad the article didn’t include a photo of the house.

 
 
Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 14:35:57

Junk cars in peoples’ yards do NOT prevent houses from being sold. That’s just an excuse people use to worm out of the obvious — They are asking TOO MUCH for their house. If you live in a neighborhood where people feel they need to hold on to junk cars, then it’s probably not a very expensive hood, and your asking price should reflect that.

Comment by hd74man
2009-01-02 15:26:38

RE: Junk cars in peoples’ yards do NOT prevent houses from being sold.

LMAO…Spoken like someone who’s never had a former farmer’s field across the road from their home transitioned into a small scale junkyard with all the attendant pollution; shady characters skulking around; and legions of protection dogs barking all thru the night.

Junk auto’s are the biggest reason to embrace zoning.

Comment by P. Pearsey von Peepwig
2009-01-02 15:51:55

I wasn’t talking about a farm being converted into a junkyard. I was talking about a neighbor with a few old junkers in the driveway.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Dr. Strangelove
2009-01-02 16:35:02

“I wasn’t talking about a farm being converted into a junkyard. I was talking about a neighbor with a few old junkers in the driveway.”

Don’t forget the engine hoist with one hanging from it, mosquito filled stack of tires, five dogs living under the porch and of course, the smelly baby pool catfish farm in the back yard! :-)

DOC

 
Comment by MrBubble
2009-01-02 22:04:38

“NOW OUR PLACE WAS A GRAVE YARD FOR AUTOMOBILES
AT THE END OF THE PORCH WAS FOUR STACKS OF WHEELS
AND TIRES FOR SALE FOR A DOLLAR OR TWO - CASH”

Sorry for the copied CAPS. Don’t quote David Allan Coe much, but this seems appropriate.

MrBubble

 
 
Comment by LehighValleyGuy
2009-01-02 21:40:00

“Junk auto’s are the biggest reason to embrace zoning.”

Try embracing restrictive covenants instead. Anyone with enough money and/or political connections can usually get the zoning laws changed, but if you make a direct bargain with your neighbor, they have to comply.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-01-02 19:45:18

In the rural parts of Fresno and Madera counties in California., junkers are very common. Ironically, the properties are sometimes owned by wealthy people. Maybe long time laborers on ranches who lived there for decades put their junker cars out. Yep, looks trashy! As John Cougar Mellenkamp would say “Ain’t that America!”

 
 
Comment by Jim A.
2009-01-02 11:33:27

“It’s cheap money. It’s just not funny money,” Miskiel says.

That’s the money quote IMHO.

 
Comment by WT Economist
2009-01-02 12:07:11

“Arizona has long encouraged construction of big developments. This is the ‘planned community’ state. Now some of those communities are turning on residents. Effectively, they are lost in a sea of stark, empty houses and vacant lots.”

My wife and I were talking about comparable recessions. She said she didn’t see how the early 1980s could be the model when the financial panic is so much greater (though 18% interest rates are no picnic either). I suggested the 1970s.

In that decade, large parts of urban America collapsed. Public services were gutted. Property in many neighborhoods became worthless as they became depopulated. Crime soared. Buildings were abandoned, some of them fairly recent. In New York, not the worst off, one could live in some parts of Manhattan for almost nothing.

No part of the U.S. has faced a comparable collapse since then, and some (though by no means all) of the places that fell apart in the 1970s have at least partially recovered.

I don’t expect the 1970s economy to return to NY, Boston, etc. — although a fiscal crisis that bad might. But it is going to be the 1970s somewhere, possibly in places that didn’t get it last time, and aren’t ready.

Comment by palmetto
2009-01-02 13:24:39

“But it is going to be the 1970s somewhere,”

Nothing would be finer than to be in Florida in the 1970s. I PRAY for the return of the 1970s. Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonite! Gimme them disco balls and Huk-A-Poo shirt.

Comment by GSfixer
2009-01-02 13:46:32

Don’t forget the Trans-ams, and the vans with the wall-to wall shag carpeting and CB radios…..

Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-01-02 19:47:55

As a teenager in the 70s I wanted a Porsche 914 to wow the girls and then a Chevy Van with a custom luxury interior where I would (ahem) have fun with the girls. And yes there was a rock song “we made love in my Chevy Van…”

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by CA renter
2009-01-03 04:06:52

Youth is wasted on the young! Enjoy! (had a custom van of my own)
;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnhBzoUZCUU

 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-01-03 10:34:40

I didn’t know that was Terry Jacks. I think he also had “Seasons in the Sun,” which I kind of liked. There were a lot of good mellow songs back in those days, including “Have you never been mellow,” by Olivia Newton John.

 
 
 
Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 14:38:34

I thought you were already dressed like that, Palmie. That’s how you dress in my image of you.

Comment by skroodle
2009-01-02 19:05:45

hahahahahahahahahaha and I thought I was the only one!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by palmetto
2009-01-03 06:19:46

skroodle, are ya from CA, by any chance?

 
 
 
 
Comment by scdave
2009-01-02 13:34:44

I think is similar to 1981 but more like 1974-75 so I agree with you W T…

 
Comment by Mike G
2009-01-02 15:02:58

Property in many neighborhoods became worthless as they became depopulated. Crime soared. Buildings were abandoned, some of them fairly recent. In New York, not the worst off, one could live in some parts of Manhattan for almost nothing.

Marginal urban areas that recently benefitted from ‘gentrification’ may be among the first to slip back to their former status.

Comment by Toast on the Coast, 90803
2009-01-02 15:10:49

I believe downtown Long Beach, CA would be close to the top for greater fools buying there. Prices are at least 50% off and falling hard.

 
Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 15:13:17

Yup.

 
 
Comment by lavi d
2009-01-02 15:37:40

But it is going to be the 1970s somewhere

I hope so. I’d gladly trade wanna-be gangsta thugs for disco.

Comment by CA renter
2009-01-03 04:09:19

Me too!!! :)

 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-01-03 11:22:53

If I cannot take the Led Zepellin, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, BTO, Boston, Edgar Winter Group, ELP, I’ll take mellow 70s such as Seals & Crofts, Air Supply, Gary Wright, Linda Rondstadt, Olivia Newton John.

But disco always sucked.

Comment by CA renter
2009-01-03 18:30:44

I love all the bands you mentioned, but you can’t dance to that stuff. Disco rules! :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Big V
2009-01-04 01:00:08

I love disco.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 12:12:05

“Record numbers of Sonoma County homeowners are seeing property taxes fall, softening the blow from plummeting values.”

I am sure that looks great to homeowners, but maybe not so good to tax authorities…

Comment by ron
2009-01-02 21:16:37

Many are foregoing paying anyway. Noticed a large number of in the rears for Sonoma (city) over 300 and stopped counting. Lot of pain below the surface.

 
Comment by jane
2009-01-03 02:36:31

Same song, different day.

A FB is underwater by $200K. This is OK, since property taxes were reduced.

On $200K, monthly P+I is $1000 if you buy 5% interest on a 30 year.

So, we are happy paying an incremental $1K/mo when we get thrown a $200 crumb of property tax mitigation.

Jeez Louise.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 12:14:55

“‘For economists now to make forecasts is a pretty difficult thing,’ said Ray Torto, chief global economist at real-estate firm CB Richard Ellis. ‘All of our models are outside the territory in which they’ve been built.’”

I guess that explains why almost all their forecasts err towards Pollyanna’s side of economic reality these days.

Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 12:16:18

Most economists are trained in classical (frequentists) statistics. If it never happened before, they have absolutely no data on which to base future predictions.

Bayesians do it with less frequency :-(

Comment by Itsabouttime
2009-01-02 12:59:48

Yeah. ;-)

But, seriously, even bayesians have to have some assumptions. A value of bayesian approaches is that the assumptions are explicitly stated and folded directly into the model in a visible way, making it possible for others to make other assumptions.

But, given that there are assumptions, ideally they come from somewhere. I can’t fault the current economists for saying “we are in territory where our models are useless.” That’s actually a major capitulation, as assumptions based on the post-war US probably will produce grossly inaccurate predictions. I think they should search more widely for assumptions as to what is possible– try post-civil war period (US), the early 20’s, Weimar Germany, Ireland during the potato famine, or other such scenarios. Just something to get some plausible assumptions which can be evaluated.

IAT

Comment by Eudemon
2009-01-02 13:42:58

“That’s actually a major capitulation, as assumptions based on the post-war US probably will produce grossly inaccurate predictions.”

YES! It’s good to see this kind of thinking because it signals that some people are finally starting to Get It. This is a key development.

The post-war, demographically-driven Gravy Train Economy that ran from 1946 to 2000 is over. It’s OVER, dammit!

The economic ways of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are not coming back for at least 3-4 generations (23 years constitute a generation). Any possibility of returning to that anytime soon was destroyed long ago by the very people who long to go back to those days.

Fleece people for 70 years to the point of insolvency yet insist upon 50-year-old idealisms that could only take place during a demographic golden age. Unbelievable. The arrogance.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Shizo
2009-01-02 15:17:13

Never underestimate the power of stupidity, uh, I mean government. We are going to have a poopy few years, up to 20 - but to say we’ll have 69+ years of that is stretching it. We’ll see a full blown revolution before that. I think we may see one within 5-7 years.

Then again I think the US will default on its financial obligations by the end of 2010. That or hyper-inflation… We can’t have it both ways. Dollars are becoming extinct at a rapid rate unless you are a bank or GM or some other turd we call corporation. How can you pay the bills with less money? Fire up the press and warm up the helicopter… Time to infuse my paycheck with the Obama answer… $16 extra every 2 weeks. WTF?

 
Comment by ET-Chicago
2009-01-02 15:50:13

Dollars are becoming extinct at a rapid rate unless you are a bank or GM or some other turd we call corporation. How can you pay the bills with less money?

How does this lead one to a hyper-inflation scenario, if A.) dollars are becoming extinct; and B.) only corporations and banks can get dollars, and they’re hording their dollars?

 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2009-01-02 16:13:36

Well said Eudemon.

The postwar paradigm is indeed over. The most troubling thing about our pols’ actions is that they cannot seem to grasp that new solutions are needed.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 14:12:22

With the right priors, Bayesians can do it with greater frequency.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 14:16:44

“I think they should search more widely for assumptions as to what is possible– try post-civil war period (US), the early 20’s, Weimar Germany, Ireland during the potato famine, or other such scenarios. Just something to get some plausible assumptions which can be evaluated.”

If it only happened once, twice or even thrice ever before in recorded history, a classical statistician will throw up his hands, as the sample size is not going to be sufficiently large to produce statistically significant results, and besides, there is no reason to assume the two or three data points arose under sufficiently similar underlying conditions in the state space to justify the conventional ‘random sampling’ assumption used to justify classical statistical procedures. Bayesians can do it with whatever prior they want, and will get good or bad results depending on the reasonableness of the prior and probability model they choose. But at least they aren’t stuck throwing their hands up and later lamenting that ‘noone could have seen it coming.’

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 14:43:41

But this isn’t a matter of statistics. We have a mechanism. We have causality. The train is coming down the tracks at an accelarating rate of acceleration. So what do you do? Start calculating statistics, or get off the tracks?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 15:06:48

“We have causality.”

Bayesians can do it with causality ;-)

 
Comment by Itsabouttime
2009-01-02 15:51:32

PB,

Depends on what the definition of “happened” one happens to mean. If you mean bubble-mania, there are lots and lots of examples. If you mean the decline of a nuclear power from superpower status, that’s happened once, maybe twice (the Soviet Union for sure, the UK maybe). If you mean total collapse of an economy, well, that’s happened many many times. If you mean the end of the cycle when a country borrows beyond its ability to pay, again, dozens of examples exist. Surely, permutations of these may be more rare, but still, one may draw some information from the incomplete case to obtain some assumptions to input to a model.

Still, I am not sure why this is some kind of bayesian versus frequentist discussion. I agree with bayesians usually, but you are suggesting the big issue is the size of the confidence interval one will obtain, which will be depend on the amount of information (e.g., sample size) one can use. Rare events means less information, true. But, the more fundamental point is that predicting what will happen next or at some time in the future still requires one to pull assumptions from someplace (else the confidence interval is infinite). Even frequentists, to make a prediction, have to input expected values, and there is no rule that says where they get those values from.

So, I agree with you about the general point. I just don’t see how it makes much difference here. Bayesian or frequentist, the challenge remains searching for plausible parameters, functional forms, and slopes to use in the model (not to mention figuring out what is an input, what is an output, and what is both in such an unwinding economy). One’s statistical taste drops out of the equation very quickly.

IAT

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 17:07:50

“One’s statistical taste drops out of the equation very quickly.”

Any reasonable person who ever passed or taught an undergraduate micro course understands that household choices are constrained by a budget constraint. Putting that notion into the simplest model of household consumption of housing services and other consumption items shows that central valley strawberry pickers making $20K in hh income would not make it on a $700K mortgage, no matter how high your assumed inflation rate.

One had to pay attention to the news over the past several years to realize that this story was neither fictitious nor an isolated example, but rather a scenario that frequently played out in many corners of the lending market. The laziest armchair econometrician of Bayesian persuasion could take a look at those stylized facts and ask himself, “What is my subjective probability that a market so far out of whack will not crash hard and soon” and quickly come up with a probability estimate near zero. A classical econometrician, on the other hand, would soon overwhelm himself puzzling over the proper historic data set, plausible parameters, functional forms, and slopes necessary to construct a publication-worthy model.

 
Comment by Itsabouttime
2009-01-02 18:04:25

C’mon PB. I know frequentists who said the same thing — this is a disaster in the making. The problem of the economists was not their statistical training but, instead, their economics training.

However, I thought the issue was what one would predict now. If the claim is frequentists frequently predict by using the past, sure. So do bayesians. That’s one reason we call their subjective belief a prior — it summarizes all prior information they cared to consider.

A good frequentist analysis based on a good selection of appropriate data (no easy task) will probably produce an enlightening answer. The problem hasn’t been one of getting frequentists to analyze it correctly, it has been one of getting economists to analyze the issue beyond spouting slogans.

Turning “good economic analyst vs. bad economic analyst” into “bayesian vs. frequentist” is really a reach. But, speaking empirically, is Schiller a Bayesian? I don’t know, but going out and collecting repeated data on the same houses seems pretty frequentist to me. What about Thornburg (sp?)? Again, I don’t know. But, his forecasts have used the same data everyone else has, he just seems more grounded in reality — and bayesians don’t have a monopoly on that.

Anyway, not sure why this is an issue. I just tossed in what I thought was an illuminating point based on your clever initial line, and not even arguing against anything you said, PB. Now, somehow, it seems a very different dialogue.

Oh well.

IAT

 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2009-01-02 19:43:09

This all sounds like to me common sense analysis went out the door.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-03 00:08:20

“I know frequentists who said the same thing…”

Then they were breaking the rules of classical econometrics, as they did not have a (pretend) simple random sample of sufficiently large size to obtain statistically significant regression results.

 
Comment by BackToTheBank
2009-01-03 03:03:11

Mon Dieu, what a bunch of pseudo-intellectual dribble, dressed up in fancy words!

 
 
Comment by Leighsong
2009-01-02 17:46:22

This seems appropriate here :)

Economic decline sees return of 1950s housewife

GET out the knitting needles and fire up the oven - the housewife is back.

In a move that will send shockwaves through career women everywhere, new figures have revealed younger women are embracing traditional domestic crafts in droves, with cooking, knitting and gardening top of the list.

(Cont’d)

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24865247-953,00.html

Leigh ;)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by rms
2009-01-02 19:56:54

“Economic decline sees return of 1950s housewife”

We’re doing that model right now, without help from family either. What does it really mean? No new car in the garage; not now, and probably not in my lifetime unless the auto industry re-invents itself with affordable products. We can live without them better than they can live without us.

 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-01-03 11:27:59

A one income family is hardly affordable in area of the country except flyover country. One young guy with a homemaker wife and 3 or 4 young kids (Mormon) moved out of LA to the Phoenix office precisely because they were tired of renting a house in LA. But I imagine they are barely making ends meet.

If you gotta start a family, wait until you are in your 30s and consider limiting the number of rug rats to two.

 
 
 
 
Comment by waiting in_la
2009-01-02 14:22:58

‘Our models have nothing to describe falling values … we’re not quite sure what to do, here’

 
 
Comment by DinOR
2009-01-02 12:18:11

“the county’s median home price is down nearly 50% from the market’s high”

Egad. Is that true? Can that be true? And here I thought Sonoma County was one of those “special” places that would be impervious to a downturn in process. It’s ‘different’ there!

Thanks for a really great year everyone and continuing my higher education!

 
Comment by Jack Jones
2009-01-02 12:23:54

“If you must make predictions, make them often”

Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 12:27:10

It is also advisable to trumpet your predictions which turn out to be correct, and never again mention those which do not.

Further, as I have often pointed out here, the most accurate predictions are those which have already come to pass, but which have not yet been widely publicized.

Comment by martin gale
2009-01-02 12:47:25

I predict that next year no one will remember how bad my predictions were this year.

Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 14:10:37

Let me guess: Your prediction model is driven by a memoryless data generating process?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2009-01-02 17:05:24

Given enough time, every prediction eventually comes true.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 17:20:16

“Given enough time, every prediction eventually comes true.”

I predict that your prediction will never come true.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Insurance Guy
2009-01-02 12:40:14

When I bought a house in 2000, my neigbor had an old car in his back yard. I started fixing things in my yard and cut down some trees and such. My yard began to look better and better. One day my neigbor takes out the car along with a pile of assorted junk. He even told me that he liked my yard so he was cleaning his up also.

Comment by Curt
2009-01-02 13:31:27

Your last name isn’t Jones, is it?

Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2009-01-02 15:42:21

LOL

 
 
Comment by Paul in Florida
2009-01-02 13:33:46

One of the first pieces of advice I got about homeownership was a simple one from an old codger and is still the best I ever got: If you ain’t got good neighbors you ain’t got $h*t.

Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 15:10:27

I agree wholeheartedly.
That’s why all my nearest neighbors are frogs.

Comment by lavi d
2009-01-02 15:43:13

That’s why all my nearest neighbors are frogs.

Is that a result of them hitting your windshield?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 18:26:32

‘Is that a result of them hitting your windshield?’

Disrespectful! I’m gonna fun right out there and tell them all about you, right this minute!

 
Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 18:29:38

Ooops, I meant ‘run’ right out there, not ‘fun’ right out there.
Look; whatever, Freudian slip or not, you’re doomed, Mr. Lavi! It’s Frog time for you.*

*Oh, don’t worry. You’ll like it, eventually. I know I did, and do.

 
 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2009-01-02 15:43:46

Ribbet, ribbet, ribbet :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Blano
2009-01-02 16:33:45

Who here is old enough to remember the movie “Frogs”???

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2009-01-02 17:06:38

Never heard of it. But I do remember the video game, “Frogger.”

 
Comment by jimbo
2009-01-02 18:35:38

“Frogs”? Wasn’t that one of Ray Milland’s last flicks? He enjoyed a late career resurgence after “Love Story”; followed up “Frogs” with another great one: “The Incredible Two-Headed Transplant.” Good stuff. For $10,000, with what other actor’s head did he share the body?

 
Comment by jimbo
2009-01-02 18:56:07

Whoops! Ray Milland was in “The Thing With Two Heads,” not “Transplant.” How could I have confused them???

 
Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2009-01-02 19:38:39

Anybody in the SF Bay Area remember Bob Wilkes hosting Creature Features on KTVU (channel 2)? The movie FROGS would be one that would be on his show.

 
Comment by ann gogh
2009-01-02 20:15:15

we had creature features in LA. I think it was on channel 11 kttv.

 
Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 21:05:08

‘How could I have confused them???’

I can’t know how you could have! I disrespect you! Super-much. I cannot even imagine this dreadful place in the Universe.
But you get one more chance, if you know about ‘Piranhas:I’.

Serious, that flick made me love secret laboratories, big time.

 
Comment by SaladSD
2009-01-02 23:28:25

In the late 60s the local TV station had a cool B-movie host, I think she went by “Mona Lisa” and she’d talk about movies in what looked like an undergroud grotto with lots of fog. we had a B/W television, which added to the effect.

 
 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2009-01-02 16:17:51

Solid advice, to be sure. And, given the odds of actually buying near good neighbors in such a mobile society - it really argues for a measured approach to house buying, doesn’t it?

If ever there was a time to put 5x-10x of income into a house would have been 1955, not 2005.

Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-01-02 19:56:13

Yep! I’m a transient myself. Possibly we will become extremely transient for a few years and this will be bad news for house prices. When you buy your house you invest in your neighbors. if they are just renters, you can easily get neighbors who will bring down your house’s value tremendously.

The price increases from 2001 to 2005 could have been the last hurrah of home ownership in suburbs - except in the best locations such as vacation areas.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-01-02 19:52:45

Good point! In the 1960s my parents had neighborhood gettogethers on warm summer nights in a town in the Sierra Nevada mountains. We had the same values, same church, etc. In other words, there was no multiculturalism.

Comment by Itsabouttime
2009-01-02 21:52:41

The food was probably bland, too. (It not in your little paradise, then in most such monocultural ones).

LOL

IAT

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2009-01-03 11:30:59

Parents from midwest. Yes bland food, but when you are 6 or 7 years old you don’t know what you’re missing.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 13:55:34

“Steven James and Judy O’Brien”

I guess I’m a prude, but it seems like a bad idea to buy a house with someone to whom you are not married.

Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 14:53:55

What if they ARE married but have kept their disparate last names? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You can actually do such a thing nowadays and not be arrested.*
**

*Unless you’re in Utarr. I know, because I just got back from there.

**Maybe you’re a prude anyhow, for a different reason.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Comment by P. Pearsey von Peepwig
2009-01-02 15:48:27

Yeah, I know, but why give an FB the benefit of the doubt? It’s more fun to poke holes in their little stories.

Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 18:31:35

When did you get the first ‘P’ in your name? I recall when you was jist plain old ‘Pearsey WonPeepwig’.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by In Montana
2009-01-02 15:12:46

Not a prude, just smart. I call them Dumb and Desperate.

 
Comment by Captain Credit Crunch
2009-01-02 15:34:45

You assume that all married women change their name.

 
Comment by Blano
2009-01-02 16:36:10

Every couple I’ve ever known that bought a house before they got married never made it to the altar.

Comment by slb
2009-01-02 17:00:15

I only know one couple in that catagory and they did make it to the alter. But for them the tax hit from marrage was a couple tho’ a year. They’ve been together 26 yrs, legally married 11 or so.

Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 18:36:33

‘…in that catagory and they did make it to the alter.’

‘The ‘alter’…’? They made it to that place, the ‘alter’?
Was that supposed to be funny? Because it was.

And if it was not supposed to be funny, well, you know what; it still was, anyhow.
Hahahahahahaaa!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by slb
2009-01-02 23:18:31

Can’t take credit - dang, I’m usually so careful about my spelling - enough vacation for me, back to work.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 14:01:40

So, I’m talking to my mom, and she tells me she thinks she should sell her house (that she bought around 1997, I think) because she’s worried she might not have any equity left if she waits too long. When she bought the house, she put down a large down payment from the sale of her previous house (bought in 1978).

I told her that the time to sell would have been when she had $400k worth of phantom equity, and that she wouldn’t get anything out of it if she sold it now. Then she said she can’t afford to keep paying her mortgage. I said, “Mom, I used my calculator to figure out that you still have $2500/month to live off of after paying taxes, putting $$ into your 401k, and paying your mortgage. That’s plenty of money for a single person to live off of.” Then she said, “blah blah blah equity”. At some point, I told her she can’t add, and she hung up on me.

My mom is not actually an FB, yet she is acting like one. I think we may see more and more of this herd behavior over the next 2 years.

Comment by not a gator
2009-01-02 16:00:15

power of suggestion.

my condolences on your mom.

 
Comment by Bill in Carolina
2009-01-02 17:08:47

Are you sure Mom didn’t refi or HELOC the house and not tell you?

 
Comment by Molly
2009-01-02 19:07:51

“At some point, I told her she can’t add, and she hung up on me.”

Yeah, my mom always hangs up on me when I insult her intelligence, too. So sensitive, those motherly types. :)

Seriously, every person I know over the age of sixty will NOT listen to any point of view that doesn’t match his/her own. I’m sure there must be open-minded exceptions out there, but I’ve never met even one.

 
Comment by Don't Know Nothin About Buyin No House
2009-01-02 22:33:38

Hey V, maybe we should start a hang up club :). Person with the most hang-ups wins. If it is a family member, you get extra points per hang up.

My homeowner sister hung up on me a few days ago because I disagreed with her that housing would bottom in 2009. Like your Mom, Sis has no reason to sell, still has some equity in her home bought in 2004 and with re-financing and low rates has a very affordable mortgage payment. People are cult-like when it comes to their equity, and are going loco even if a drop poses no financial difficulties. Seems there are lots of angry people out there and we can talk candidly here at HHB, but best to button our lips elsewhere. The housing equity dip coupled with losses on stock investments is pushing people over the edge.

 
 
Comment by waiting in_la
2009-01-02 14:18:31

Ben - you are the man! Thanks for another awesome year. One of my new year’s resolutions is to be more active in this forum. When I first came on this blog, in the face of so many well informed, I felt that I didn’t have much to contribute, other than giving local updates of 90048.

I have become mostly a lurker in the past few years, but have still been around. I vow to be a more active participant in ‘09.

Happy New Year hbb!

Comment by bink
2009-01-02 16:08:06

I’ve noticed some of the more prolific posters appear to have been hit on the head with a large rock. So you could try that.

* Except for Professor Bear, who is likely the most prolific and at the same time the most lucid. Maybe he’s the one doing the hitting?

 
Comment by ann gogh
2009-01-02 20:20:41

Waiting, not all of us are professors.
I think all points of view are welcome.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 20:49:36

Professors don’t know everything. What’s worse, many of them suffer from excessive hubris, which inhibits them from tapping in to the Wisdom of Crowds. Incestuous closed loop discussions can lead to severe cases of Groupthink. I am sure I have learned at least as much from posters here as I have contributed.

 
 
Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 14:46:25

It’s not true,’ says Mark Miskiel of Lighthouse Mortgage in Cottonwood. ‘What’s different is that in the recent past all you needed to do to qualify for a loan was to be able to stand on two feet.’”

I think this could potentially be discriminatory and offensive to people with peg-legs. This sort of talk makes pirates cry.
I been working on my ‘2009 New Years Resolutions’ list all afternoon, in between unpacking all the stuff I brought back from my old room in my mom’s house in Utarr where I had a zillion books stored, and also calling up on the phone to catch up on gossip and to spread more gossip–you just cannot believe how much gossip a person can miss in only 11 days– and one of my New years Resolutions is to not be so sarcastic and brutal, and to instead be sensitive and caring and respectful of people.
So far it’s not going too good, but I say ‘Baby steps’.

Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 14:49:20

It doesn’t apply to FB, though, right? Just people.

Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 15:02:41

Oh, yes; thanks, Big V. I better write in a sub-clause about that: ‘a. ii. Just people, not FB’s’, must receive the kinder, gentler Olympiagal’s observations.’

I am writing my resolutions by hand and really being elegant and writing slowly and carefully. The problem with my ‘2008 New Years Resolutions’ is that once I sobered up and went to study them, so’s I could get busy bettering myself, I just couldn’t read what I’d written. I turned the paper around and around and it did no good. May as well been Sanskrit.*

*Maybe it was, in fact, Sanskrit. I can’t recall my college days too good.

Comment by Big V
2009-01-02 15:10:59

OK. When you’re done writing them down in your best Sunday hand-writing, you can fold them into a paper plane and send them off into the wind, kind of like a message in a bottle, only for the air instead of the water. That way, someone else might find it and read it and get some ideas for how they can become a better person too. I think that will also increase your chances of going to heaven, even though you can’t be nice to FBs, who might also be in heaven when you get there, so you’d better bring a gun with you when you go. Some of them are MAD.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 15:17:01

You are wise. You have wise ideas about heaven. That’s what I like about you. That, and your duck.
Say, how’s your duck? *

*Don’t tell me it has gone to heaven. Lie, if you have to.

 
Comment by P. Pearsey von Peepwig
2009-01-02 15:46:43

I’m well, thanks for asking. I got to eat salmon on Christmas, and I’m having loads of fun because it’s raining almost every day now. My mom (known as Mr. Big V on this blog), and my little sister (known as Big V) are on vacation, so they’re playing with me a lot. Big V even helped me fly across the yard.

I’m also using this vacation as a time to chase my cats, since I get to come inside more often.

So, that’s my life in a nutshell.

-Peepers

 
Comment by Olympiagal
2009-01-02 21:28:08

‘My mom (known as Mr. Big V on this blog), and my little sister (known as Big V) are on vacation, so they’re playing with me a lot. Big V even helped me fly across the yard.’

That’s creepy as blazes, my good sir. And, sadly, I like it. Let’s be friends, okay?
Okay.

 
 
 
 
Comment by ann gogh
2009-01-02 20:22:02

Crabby is cool.

 
 
Comment by not a gator
2009-01-02 15:43:16

Great roundup, Ben. The San Diego summary was awesome.

Bob Herbert: Stop Being Stupid

I’ve got a new year’s resolution and a new slogan for the country.

The resolution may be difficult, but it’s essential. Americans must resolve to be smarter going forward than we have been for the past several years.

Look around you. We have behaved in ways that were incredibly, astonishingly and embarrassingly stupid for much too long. We’ve wrecked the economy and mortgaged the future of generations yet unborn. We don’t even know if we’ll have an automobile industry in the coming years. It’s time to stop the self-destruction.

The slogan? “Invest in the U.S.” By that I mean we should stop squandering the nation’s wealth on unnecessary warfare overseas and mindless consumption here at home and start making sensible investments in the well-being of the American people and the long-term health of the economy.

The mind-boggling stupidity that we’ve indulged in was hammered home by a comment almost casually delivered by, of all people, Bernie Madoff, the mild-mannered creator of what appears to have been a nuclear-powered Ponzi scheme. Mr. Madoff summed his activities up with devastating simplicity. He is said to have told the FBI that he “paid investors with money that wasn’t there.”

Somehow, over the past few decades, that has become the American way: to pay for things — from wars to Wall Street bonuses to flat-screen TVs to video games — with money that wasn’t there.

Something for nothing became the order of the day. You want to invade Iraq? Convince yourself that oil revenues out of Baghdad will pay for it. (Meanwhile, carve out another deficit channel in the federal budget.) You want to pump up profits in the financial sector? End the oversight and let the lunatics in the asylum run wild.

 
Comment by Muggy
2009-01-02 16:33:20

“Easing the pain was the $2,600 property tax reduction. ‘It was wonderful,’ James said. ‘Spending $8,000 in taxes on a devaluing asset would have been a little hard to swallow.’”

But heck, when values were rising, 8G’s was nuttin’.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 16:49:43

“From the Boston Fed: ‘We show that much of the subprime lending in the state was concentrated in urban neighborhoods and that minority homeownerships created with subprime mortgages have proven exceptionally unstable in the face of rapid price declines. The evidence from Massachusetts suggests that subprime lending did not, as is commonly believed, lead to a substantial increase in homeownership by minorities, but instead generated turnover in properties owned by minority residents.’”

Ironically, the push to turn everyone into becoming a homeowner may have been inspired at least in part by an early-1990s Boston Fed study that supposedly demonstrated racist lending practices, at least around Boston at that time. Now I am not going to argue that racism is nonexistent, but I have always been troubled by the idea that racism could persist in free lending markets. If lender A practiced discrimination against otherwise qualified minority applicants, then non-discriminating lender B could profitably cherry pick the pool of potential borrowers.

 
Comment by SDGreg
2009-01-02 16:59:15

“At the end of 2007, Gin started to expect the trouble in housing would seep into the rest of the economy. But its extent this year still surprised him, he said. ‘Last year’s problems were like termites,’ he said. ‘This year, the house collapsed.’”

With any luck, that house collapsed on all the economists that couldn’t see it coming.

Comment by Professor Bear
2009-01-02 17:25:20

‘Things will be not-so-fine in ‘09,’

He should stick to economic forecasting, as poetry is not his natural gift.

Comment by SanFranciscoBayAreaGal
2009-01-02 20:25:32

‘Things will be not-so-fine in ‘09,’

For some reason the line above reminds me of a song. Sorry Ben about the length.

“Nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina”

Wishing is good time wasted,
Still it’s a habit they say;
Wishing for sweet’s I’ve tasted,
That’s all I do all day.
Maybe there’s nothing in wishing,
But, speaking of wishing I’ll say:

Nothing could be finer
Than to be in Carolina
in the morning.

No one could be sweeter
Than my sweetie when I meet her
In the morning.

When the morning glories
Twine around the door
Whispering pretty stories
I long to hear once more
Strolling with my girlie
Where the dew is pearly early
In the morning.

Butterflies all flutter up
And kiss each little buttercup
At dawning.
If I had Alladin’s lamp
For only a day
I’d make a wish
And here’s what I’d say

Nothing could be finer
Than to be in Carolina
In the morning.

Dreaming was meant for night time
I live in dreams all the day;
I know it’s not the right time,
But still I dream away
What could be sweeter than dreaming,
Just dreazming and drift away.

Nothing could be finer
Than to be in Carolina
in the morning.

No one could be sweeter
Than my sweetie when I meet her
In the morning.

When the morning glories
Twine around the door
Whispering pretty stories
I long to hear once more
Strolling with my girlie
Where the dew is pearly early
In the morning.

Butterflies all flutter up
And kiss each little buttercup
At dawning.
If I had Alladin’s lamp
For only a day
I’d make a wish
And here’s what I’d say

Nothing could be finer
Than to be in Carolina
In the morning.

 
 
Comment by pismoclam
2009-01-02 21:45:15

Where is LIAR Lereah these days ?

 
 
Comment by exeter
2009-01-02 18:50:36

You’d never know we’re in the midst of a recession and increasing unemployment if the number of spendthrifts out there today. Litchfield County main arteries were mobbed today. Couldn’t gain entry into Costco on located on commercial strip in New Milford. Route 7 backed up into Danbury… no accidents, all shoppers.

 
Comment by ann gogh
2009-01-02 20:31:14

2008 was just a dress rehearsal for 2009, with the final acts somewhere way past 2010.
Taking a bow.

 
Comment by Lisa
2009-01-02 21:01:15

“Easing the pain was the $2,600 property tax reduction. ‘It was wonderful,’ James said. ‘Spending $8,000 in taxes on a devaluing asset would have been a little hard to swallow.’”

LOL. Like spending $5,400 for property taxes on a declining asset isn’t hard to swallow?

Comment by Anon In DC
2009-01-02 22:14:58

Lisa, that was my fault exactly. The guy has lost or will lose tens if not hundreds of $ but at least he has lower tax bill !

Comment by Anon In DC
2009-01-03 09:44:17

fault = thought :)

 
 
Comment by The_Overdog
2009-01-02 22:51:05

How the heck does he only have $8k in taxes on a $670k house? I thought CA was a high tax state.

Comment by slb
2009-01-02 23:42:27

Prop 13 (or whatever no. it was) limited annual property taxes to no more than 1% of what you paid for it. Makes for odd neighbors - 3 identical houses - neighbor A paid $100k in ‘98 pays $1k in taxes. Neighbor B paid $300k in 2000 and pays $3k in taxes. Neighbor C paid $700k in 2007 and pays $7k in taxes.

Comment by CA renter
2009-01-03 04:36:41

Partly true. Prop 13 limits property taxes to 1% of the purchase price, and caps annual increases at 2%.

While the taxes may be disparate, every buyer got to choose how much he/she would pay in taxes, as they made the choice as to the price they were willing to pay for a particular house.

Prop 13 protects long-time homeowners from the wildly fluctuating price cycles that happen largely due to bubbles — and California has always been prone to housing bubbles. Technically, if buyers had any brains, the higher taxes would prevent them from overpaying, but alas…everyone wants to be a RE “investor” in California. :(

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Doghouse Riley
2009-01-03 10:17:14

Prop 13 is in effect another wealth transfer from the young to the old, and reinforces the desire of the latter for more and more government services for which they pay an increasingly smaller share of the costs.

I’d be fine with a situation where John and Mary, who bought their home in 1985, pay 2K in taxes, while Betty and Bob, who bought theirs in 2000, pay 12K. As long as Betty and Bob get six times the number of votes for state and local government offices, that is.

 
Comment by CA renter
2009-01-03 18:34:47

The majority of California’s revenue goes to education…the oldsters are NOT demanding more schools, classrooms, teachers, supplies, free breakfast/lunch programs, etc.

You need to look at the state’s finances to understand what’s going on. Don’t believe the hype about Prop 13.

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by crustycodger
2009-01-03 12:22:48

I’m a newbe here. The references to North Port, Fl (via
Google) caught my attention. I was hoping for wisdom, not petty attacks.

Now I’ve wasted a perfectly good Saturday afternoon reading the comments on this forum when I could be out shopping with my wife, still trying to be a loyal follower of the G.W. Bush claque, since the timed-out president still wants us to spend our country out of trouble.

My house on three wooded acres, with a pool, has, as suggested earlier, dropped at least $200,000 in value so far. Where it will stop only God knows. Under water but still making my monthly payments. Lousy way to live in one’s “golden” years. At least I’m in Florida< not in Michigan, Ohio, or New Jersey.

Comment by Big V
2009-01-04 01:20:55

Hey, crustycodger.

Just thought I’d reply since you wasted a Saturday afternoon on us. We often attack pettily on this blog, but it’s fun. Come on back any time if you are in the mood for a good old-fashioned insult.

Sincerely,
Big V
HBB Blogger and Argument Starter

 
 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post