The Housing Bubble

That’s the thing, DC has alot workers with good solid, incomes, but not many actual rich people. Don’t get me wrong, I make nearly 80k with good benefits, but that simply doesn’t support house prices north of 500k.

RE: Say what you want about that zoning. For me, watching the kool-ade drinking masses of Chicagoland drooling over any parcel larger than .2 acre makes me nostalgic for the 1+ acre garden/children/pet-friendly lots common in the Boston ‘burbs.

If you like a $295k+ assessment on a 1+_ acre building lot-all the more power to ya.

BTW-Boxford and Topsfield have a 4 acre lot minimum for new construction. I think these parcels go for around $695k if found.

Too a large extent many “snob” town’s have used zoning to keep families out in order to keep the Greatest Gen gray hairs from picking up potential six figure costs per pupil to educate Liam the special needs kid, or the ghetto single woman “affordable housing” candidate with 6 kids who just got moved into the local condo project.

To stay and prosper in this place ya need that sale of real estate inheritance dough from dead parents.

$295K is about the average asking price for those .2 acre lots for this area. Don’t know what the official assessments are. Its a lot of money for land, whether its .2 acre or 1 acre.

I agree, Chicagoland is still drinking the kool-ade and lots of it. Here is a parcel of land that backs to the train tracks and has an older nursing home on one side. Not the ideal spot to build your dream mcmansion.

http://www.realestate.com/Property/8789674-1305-Manchester-Rd-Wheaton-IL-60187.aspx

BUT–SHOULD THE WAR END–SO WILL HIGH PRICES IN MA RE

What makes you think we will end war? Sorry, but as we draw down in Iraq, we’re increasing the intensity in Afghanistan. If it isn’t Afghanistan, it will be Pakistan or Iran or Syria or North Korea or Mexico (failed state).

The intensity of the current wars have created a situation where we need billions to replace military equipment past it’s “useful life”. The defence industry will be pumping out replacements for years to come if we stopped fighting today.

In fact, if you were paying attention to Obama’s speech, he explicitly said he was increasing manpower for the military to “help offset the strain of deployments”. More personal means more hardware. For better or worse, we are on a semi-permament war footing.

Geez, chill with the caps.

I see France
I see someone’s underpants!

I see Sweden.
I see France.
Does that mean we get universal health care?

Without being partisan, my “butthead” of the night goes to Charles Schummer and the rest of the idiots that stood up and wildly applauded when Pres. Obama said “and the deficit we inherited.”

Almost EVERY SINGLE one who stood up and applauded voted for all that spending over the years. THEY HELPED CAUSE it, and did not inherited it. What a bunch of hypocrites, dems and repubs alike. Why they think they were not responsible for it is beyond my small little brain and points to the stupidity running amok in D.C.

Well said realestateskeptic. I could not believe my eyes when the idiots applaud BO wildly smiling, like they have nothing to do with the “the deficit we inherited”. It looked like they were glad that they “inherited” so huge a deficit. Maybe they are. It gives them cover to run even bigger deficit now. What an arrogance!

the last election was the greatest election in my voting history. it made me feel alive…reborn so the speak for it was the first election that i opened my eyes and mind and repudiated both political parties.

Inflation adjusted median income?
That number somehow matters to my portfolio .. how?

If you live in the Northeast, here are some ideas that might benefit you:
From a Sarajevo War Survivor - How you can survive the coming economic depression:

Know beforehand that you will be experiencing horrible things that usually happen in a war - death of parents and
friends, hunger and malnutrition, endless freezing cold, fear, sniper attacks.

1. Stockpiling helps. but you never no how long trouble will last, so locate
near renewable food sources.

2. Living near a well with a manual pump is like being in Eden.

3. After awhile, even gold can lose its luster. But there is no luxury in war
quite like toilet paper. Its surplus value is greater than gold’s.

4. If you had to go without one utility, lose electricity - it’s the easiest to
do without (unless you’re in a very nice climate with no need for heat.)

5. Canned foods are awesome, especially if their contents are tasty without heating.
One of the best things to stockpile is canned gravy - it makes a lot of the dry unappetizing things you find to eat in war somewhat edible. Only needs enough heat to “warm”, not to cook. It’s cheap too, especially if you buy it in bulk.

6. Bring some books - escapist ones like romance or mysteries become more valuable as the war continues. Sure, it’s great to have a lot of survival guides, but you’ll figure most of that out on your own anyway - trust me, you’ll have a lot of time on your hands.

7. The feeling that you’re human can fade pretty fast. I can’t tell you how many people I knew who would have traded a much needed meal for just a little bit of toothpaste, rouge, soap or cologne. Not much point in fighting if you have to lose your humanity. These things are morale-builders like nothing else.

8. Slow burning candles and matches, matches, matches.

So we just keep bailing them out? I fail to see a shred of repudiation going on anywhere yet, of the type you seem to mention.

Election day meant NOTHING as far as the opinion of thinking people in america. Anyone who voted for Obama voted for someone who played both sides of most issues at different points in time. No one *really* knows where Obama stands.

The only the the election did is prove who is better at making people think he is on their side.

I watched the speech last night on the FOX cable station and they had their group reaction to the speech plotted on the screen. The McCain voters were giving Obama positives and were almost inseparable from the Obama voters.

The only the the election did is prove who is better at making people think he is on their side.

Au contraire, it proved who is better at making people think they aren’t on their side.

“We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”

“Inflation adjusted median income?
That number somehow matters to my portfolio .. how?”

The indices that have become the proxy for the economic health of individuals is precisely the problem. The correct metric is inflation adjusted wages. And besides, it’s not all about you.

Exeter - just wondering, which specific chart are you referring to that shows incoming going down from 2000-2004?

Additional comment to coblt nonetheless:

“I don’t know about everyone else, but my income rose every year from 2001 to 2008.”

This is irrelevant. What matters is mean income, not any given person’s income. Even in a situation of decreasing mean income, each individual persons’ income may be rising - until retirement. There is huge drop in income for new-grads replacing retirees, for a give “slot” in the workforce.

Also as exeter mentions - what matters is income relative to inflation. Even if mean income continues to increase, people can become progressively worse off if their incomes do not keep pace with inflation.

. What matters is mean income, not any given person’s income.

You mean median, not mean. Mean is the arithmetic average. If Bill Gates moved to your town, the mean income would go up a lot, but it wouldn’t do you any good.

P-man, It’s on the inflation adusted median income column of the excel spreadsheet.

“2. Living near a well with a manual pump is like being in Eden.”

How do you get there from electric-powered? do you have to drill a new well?

(heads to survivalist blogs…)

Luckily for all of us, the new McMansions are built very close to each other providing plenty of cover from snipers.

“P-man, It’s on the inflation adusted median income column of the excel spreadsheet.”

Sorry - don’t see any spreadsheet - I think that link isn’t taking everyone else where it’s taking you. Here’s a cut-and-paste of the first part of the text on that page:

Historical Income Tables - Households

Table of Contents

Table H-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent
- All Races
- White
- White, not Hispanic
- Black
- Asian
- Hispanic

Table H-2. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households
- All Races
- White
- White, not Hispanic
- Black
- Asian
- Hispanic

etc.

Each link goes to a flat text table - none of which appear to be inflation-adjusted.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h12AR.html

See first table.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h12AR.html

First table.

OK doh - guess I misread - I thought the data came out for 2008 and when it said “current dollars” it meant 2008 dollars vs. 2007, but both being inflation-adjusted. I see now - thanks and sorry to be a lunkhead.

(thought that’s still not an Excel sheet)

Correct you are. Table, spreadsheet…. blech.

The loss of jobs here in Ohio is staggering , yet, for the most part off the national radar. Short of Obamajobs, there will be no expansion of the workforce to pay anything back to whomever is foolish enough to “lend” it to the governments here. The only option is massive inflation. No sign of that yet. Gas is $1.71 a gallon. Most is probably shipped west or south for those who can afford $2.50/gal. That price stopped what little of the economy that was here cold last year. It will again this summer.

A piece of paper drafted 200+ years ago cannot obligate anyone to pay any debt. I could draft a document, claiming that “all my debts are payable by you” and then get a host of legal experts to agree… it does not make the debt valid or moral.

Government, laws, majority vote, etc do not define what is right/wrong or legitimate. They only define what the lethal force of a temporary government can/will be used to enforce.

The constitution does not specify the value of the currency in which the debt will be repaid.

The constitution does specify that only gold and silver are money….so there.

Well no it doesn’t.

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

In other words, no state shall issue fiat money, but…

“Powers of congress: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

Regulate the value means the federal government may assign any value to its money as it wishes, i.e. create fiat money.

Something of significance was lost when referring to positive and negative powers.

First, the constitution listed what powers are delegated to the US. Then, in places where there may be conflict - and where concurrent powers are not desired - States are prohibited.

There is also a sharing of power between States and the US, and what wasn’t given or prohibited, is left to the people.

The States can only make gold or silver legal tender. They don’t have to make anything legal tender, but if they so choose, there is the limitation.

The Congress can only coin money (that being gold or silver if so chosen by the States) and regulate THAT prescribed value.

There is nothing to say that the people themselves can’t dabble in paper money. For if dishonest, a paper system couldn’t last but ephemeral periods. However, the constitution - unfortunately a vestige of a bygone era of liberty - strictly forbids the government, either State or US, from dabbling in it. The people can’t dabble in tinkering with US coin, as that would be counterfeit which the constitution enumerates powers to deal with that criminal activity.

Whether that monetary system is best suited to the principles of liberty and justice is open to discussion. The part that isn’t open to debate is the written text of the constitution. Obviously a precedent has been set which has subverted the textual clearness of the document, but it doesn’t change what is written or the principle underlying it - no matter how many times a falsehood is uttered.

Contract law won’t matter, we’ve found that out already

My wife and I actually discussed our National Debt last night. She was shocked about the size and holders or our debt. She asked what would happen if we defaulted and would the Chinese and others “own” us. I told her only if their military was stronger then ours…. She did not like my wisea** answer, but I’m not sure I was that far off base. Am I?

You explicitly agree unless you renounce your citizenship.

We elected these people sheeple.

“explicitly” I do not think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you meant implicitly?

I suggest you read No Treason by LYSANDER SPOONER for a better understanding of what it means to “consent” as well as understanding that the constitution has NO AUTHORITY beyond those who actually signed it. Voting confers no authority.

For example, I come onto your land and point a gun at your head. I say, “give me your money and pay my debts or I shoot”. I then claim you have implicitly agreed to this arrangement by not leaving your property. You know very well that you have no other property to go to that isn’t being held hostage in a similar manner. In no way do you “consent” to the debt and become liable for it! You pay it because of the gun, not because of some moral liability.

Taxation without representation people. No one represents the future generations!

My God, what has come over the bits bucket today?!

The “logic” of the claim that the government cannot obligate future taxpayers is just totally insane. I mean, virtually every law passed obligates those in the future who, if they don’t like the law, can change it. But they can’t just individually refuse to abide by it without risking imprisonment.

For example, the law that makes everyone drive on the right in the US obligates someone to drive on the right if they get a license. They can’t say “I want to drive on the left, those laws you passed before I was old enough to have a say don’t obligate ME.” They can say it, I guess — as their hauled into jail for causing a massive traffic accident. The idea that someone could just individually repudiate the debt incurred by the nation of which one is a citizen (or repudiate that nation’s treaty obligations, or other such long-running agreements) is abject lunacy.

As for nationally repudiating the debt (as opposed to individually as if one has some relevant moral authority), I am sure the PTB are trying their best to find ways to do it without being obvious and without destabilizing their perch at the top. The end result could be very destructive but I have to admit — watching them sweat is kinda fun.

IAT

“virtually every law passed obligates those in the future who, if they don’t like the law, can change it.”

So you admit that, by simply passing a law, we could repudiate the debt?

No one disputes that, individually, we have a legal obligation to pay our taxes– at least, under the current system.

The fact the laws obligate people who had no vote only proves my point that voting and all government-as-we-know it does not have “consent of the governed” and lacks all moral authority.

The fact that they arrest you and throw you in jail for not abiding by said laws does not make them moral or have any substance of authority other than the authority every man posses with great arms.

If I hide a nuke in every major city tied to a dead-man switch then I effectively make the laws and can drive on whatever side of the road I want. Authority by force! At least admit that force/violence is the source of the authority instead of hiding behind some kind of “legitimate obligation” BS.

It was my understanding that VTDan went off on how he wasn’t responsible because only 1/8th of the people voted for the current government (and, presumably, he is in the 7/8ths that did not). The last line of his comment just before mine is something to the effect of “Taxation without representation. No one represents the future.” Those claims are what I was seeking to address.

As folr your claim, LVG, I agree, governments (and voters) can pass whatever laws they want. Good ones, and bad ones. Repudiating the debt may be a good idea and, in any case, governments have done it before and will do it again. What it will end up costing the citizens of that government remains to be seen.

But note–the ability to repudiate debt is not based in some moral argument that states one does not even have debt from past generations, for if that were the argument, repudiation would not be necessary. Why repudiate a debt you do not have?

This is just one of the many arguments one can make to show that VTDan’s claims in this regard are . . . unsustainable. And, here’s another, brief one. VTDan lives in the USA. He is a citizen (I gather) of a country that gives citizenship to people if they are born inside the country. If he is not bound by the laws made before he was born, why should any other nation respect his US citizenship should he risk traveling outside US borders? Further, under VTDan’s logic, the very idea of an illegal immigrant to the US makes no sense, because anyone outside the US has no obligation to be bound by rules members of the US made before they were born. And so on and so forth.

The claim is utterly unsustainable.

IAT

“But note–the ability to repudiate debt is not based in some moral argument that states one does not even have debt from past generations, for if that were the argument, repudiation would not be necessary. Why repudiate a debt you do not have?”

No, that is exactly the moral argument. Clearly the gov’t IS currently making payments on its debt, so repudiation would simply consist of discontinuing the payments, and announcing that no further ones will be made.

One argument against repudiation is that future creditors will be reluctant to lend to the gov’t if this happens. But as Rothbard points out, that is actually a side *benefit*, since it will restrain excessive gov’t spending in the future.

As for the effect of other laws, again, the particular problem with gov’t debt is that it benefits one party at the expense of another, often without any consultation with the burdened party.

Huh? The moral argument for refusing to pay the debt you’ve been paying is it isn’t your debt?

LVG, your argument appears different from VTDan’s. VTDan is arguing that no government can make a law that binds anyone not party to making that law — he specifically identifies future generations, but this would necessarily extend to present generations not currently allowed to take part in decision-making in the nation in question. Is that your claim, too?

If, as I said, VTDan is a US citizen because he was born in the US, and the only reason that matters is that a law was passed before he was even conceived that conferred citizenship on anyone born in the US at birth, then, by his “logic” that governments always rule without legitimacy because they bind future generations by their present edicts, then there is no reason for him to be given any of the protection afforded by the US government because the very law that gives him that protection was constructed before he was born. You can’t pick and choose which wise laws of the past you will honor and which obligations you wll ignore. They come as a package.

Moreover, any person in some other country is, by VTDan’s logic, free to come to the US and morally squat because, hey, they certainly didn’t vote for laws denying them access to US residence.

VTDan’s statement goes way beyond what one need do to pursue a debt repudiation strategy, and the logic of his position would ultimately end up costing Americans far more than any gains he (or they) received by weaseling out of the debt on the specious claim that he is not obligated because he wasn’t born when (some of it) it was incurred.

So, my point is not about the repudiation of debt or no, my point is about the rationale upon which one bases the repudiation. Your rationale, relatively costless I think. VTDan’s rationale, incalculably destructive and ultimately unsustainable by any functioning community.

IAT

IAT,

I don’t think the argument is that you aren’t bound by any law that you didn’t specifically agree to. For example, you may not like having to drive on the right side of the road, and may not have been consulted in the drafting of the motor vehicle code, but at least traffic laws apply to everyone equally. By contrast, gov’t debt and spending is really little more than naked theft from one group to benefit another.

Certainly there are intermediate examples, and I take your point about the theoretical question of laws and society. I do think there should be “sunset” provisions in most laws to allow the current voting public to re-evaluate all laws periodically.

Regarding repudiation, it’s probably a mostly academic question at this point. If it ever happens, it will likely be in combination with a revolution or a complete overhaul of government. Even then, we’d probably have to throw some sort of bones to the creditors.

LVG,

I understand that in 2009 some consider tax and financial laws as different than others. But, the principle VTDan espouses means that we, today, cannot bind people in the future to maintain a separation between “financial” laws and other laws. So, even if every person now eligible to take part in decision-making in the country agrees that “Let’s drive on the right,” and “Driving on the right is a law that we can use to bind future drivers,” the principle VTDan espoused would mean that the next person to enter the relevant category (whatever it is — over 16? over 18? over 5? voter? whatever) would be morally justified in rejecting both the division between financial and non-financial laws we have agreed to as well as the law of driving on the right.

SO, my point? VTDan’s position is unsustainable.

I figured the immigration example would make the point, for VTDan implies also that illegal immigrants are morally justified in entering the US without documentation for they are bound by a law (that says they cannot enter the US without documentation) but played no role in making the law.

The VTD position is unsustainable.

IAT

Well I am glad that people are able to estimate my position on things like immigration. The only problem with immigration is that the immigrates get given money that is stolen from us.

I never claim any benefits of our government as my “right” so please do not accuse me of “picking and choosing”… almost everyone else has a habit of “picking and choosing” when to violate the moral principles of “don’t steal” and “don’t murder”, but not me.

The claim that my logic for debt repudiation would be disastrous is completely unfounded. It would be a HUGE CHANGE from today and would not be possible to achieve unless the majority of the population understood the moral principles that taxation == theft at gun point and that regulation == slavery.

The fact that the path from here to there is not clear, does not negate the legitimacy of my moral argument against 3rd parties forcing you into an agreement without your consent.

VTDan,

I didn’t say anything about your view of immigration. I said the logic of your position has implications for all laws, including immigration. I also said I thought that the example of immigration would make the point. When I said that I meant it would make the point for any rational analyst. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether you are inside or outside that category.

The logic of the absolute position you articulated, that no government can enforce on someone a law they did not agree to, is that anyone outside the jurisdiction (owing to age or residence) is morally justified in disregarding the law. You or anyone else holding that absolute position can erect whatever categories they want, but the problem is the absolute position means any categories they erect can be disregarded by others, and those others have moral justification for doing so, moral justification provided by the very absolute position you adopted. The only way to extricate oneself from the implications of the absolute position you articulated is to repudiate the absolute position.

I make no pretense of being able to know whether you have the willingness or capacity to repudiate the absolute position, so I am not imputing anything to you. I am just following the logic of the clams.

IAT

My logic is that no one may force a law on anyone else. There is no jurisdiction outside of private property ownership.

So people are free to disregard any “laws” I make so long as they do not steal from or harm me which would give me just cause for self defense.

Imagine that each individual were a country unto himself. There will still be disputes, violence, etc. But the international world still gets along for the most part even with corrupt leaders of every country. Imagine a world where the vast majority of nations (people) were not corrupt to the core.

You really lost me with all of your talk of categories. Either someone signed a contract or they didn’t.

..

GO HERD !!!:)

..

Never have I seen anyone talk so much and say so little as BO. I didn’t even bother.

“… you really have to LOOK, not listen. See what’s really being done as opposed to what’s being said.”

That’s true in most aspects of life, not just politics.

Exactly, notice how many states are refusing the stimulus money.

Notice how many Senators/Representatives are getting on TV and announcing that none of that stimulus money will be spent in their state.

Notice McCain announcing to the people of Arizona that instead of earmarks, he put in a clause that none of the stimulus money to be spent in Arizona.

hahahahahahahahaha…they are all on the take! Every darn one of them. You can pretend they are not, but sooner or later you hafta face reality.

“Notice McCain announcing to the people of Arizona that instead of earmarks, he put in a clause that none of the stimulus money to be spent in Arizona.”

I applaud the NO-bots in their refusal to accept $$$ benefiting constitutents in their states. The Mother Teresa of the NO-bot party Nancy Reagan was right when she said “just say no”.

Personally, I don’t think you guys are giving yourselves -near- enough credit! I heard several refrains during the speech that could well have been written by bubble bloggers themselves?

The theme of *not bailing out specuvestors for one? Acknowledging the anger over bailing out zombie after zombie bank. Recognizing that scores of people “bought’ homes they KNEW they couldn’t afford!

The necessity for a -complete- review of (basically) how the REIC interfaces w/ WS and the need for regulation. So I was very encouraged that the last 5 years of monitoring this embarrassment didn’t go down the drain entirely.

Obama will be just as successful as FDR in bringing a quick end to this decline. On top of this, the coming regulation of carbon emissions by uber-socialist Carol Browner will be so burdensome to the economy that it may completely collapse.

That opens the door to a Chavez-like takeover of the U.S.

That’s exactly what every good behaviorist does — observe. Words are cheap. Behaviors can be measured. The stress test was a ruse.

The system needs a zombie slayer not a zombie enabler. It needs someone who can get under the hood of these institutions and take them apart.

Exactly, notice how many states are refusing the stimulus money.

Notice how many Senators/Representatives are getting on TV and announcing that none of that stimulus money will be spent in their state.

Wrong.

That should read “notice how many states grandstanding Republicans are refusing the stimulus money a very small portion of the stimulus money” — a la Gov. Jindal of Louisiana, who refused approximately 2% of the stimulus money for his state. Gov. Barbour and Gov. Stanford have refused similar amounts. Oh, how bold!

No governor has refused all of the stimulus money. Gov. Barbour of Mississippi (you’ll remember that he’s also former chairman of the RNC, and very well connected in the GOP world) has admitted that no state would turn down all the money — it’s political suicide.

This brings up an interesting legal/procedural question, however.

First, it has been suggested that the governors must take all or nothing, because selective stimulus shopping would, in effect, give governors a line-item veto power that the president does not possess. I’m not sure if that’s a valid argument or not, but it seems logical.

Secondly, whether or not the line-item issue proves to be true, state legislatures can override the governor and force acceptance of the stimulus money. Both Barbour and Gov. Sanford of South Carolina have admitted that an override was possible in their own states.

Anyone want to bet on whether any of these governors actually try to turn down all of the stimulus money for their state?

IIUC if your state takes stimulus money it then is obligated to raise business taxes. Jindal want to lower business taxes to woo businesses to relocate to LA.

ET Chicago,

Gee, I don’t know. I’ve had a LOT of people “offer” me things over the years and I never felt it was -mistake- to at least pause and consider what was being propositioned?

Primarily hookers, dope peddlers and thieves offering hot merchandise. Since when is taking time to think “grandstanding”?

“good ol’ boys… from LSU, went in dumb, come out dumb, too.”

–Randy Newman

Since when is taking time to think “grandstanding”?

Are you claiming — with a straight face — that those governors aren’t grandstanding? The only thing they’re thinking about is saving face with the base.

Will these thoughtful, principled governors put their well-reasoned philosophy into practice and turn down all the stimulus money proffered to their states, instead of targeting 2-3% of the total (for unemployment benefits, specifically) as a political ploy? Fat chance.

We’ve already seen several congressional Republicans who voted against the measure publicly bragging about how much money they’ll be bringing home to their districts under the stimulus plan. The governors in question are merely employing a variant of the same shell game.

“On top of this, the coming regulation of carbon emissions by uber-socialist Carol Browner will be so burdensome to the economy that it may completely collapse.”

It already has collapsed, for all intents and purposes. And I love to hear things like “In this economy, we just can’t afford…” when preceding any sort of energy/smart grid/enviro resolution. Such bull-puckey.

“That opens the door to a Chavez-like takeover of the U.S.” Oh, lawd.

But I do agree with you on your opinion of mp3s. Utter shite.

MrBubble

ET Chicago,

If/when the StimPack fails and they get on a soapbox boasting they wanted no part of it initially, THEN you can say that’s GS. I have NO problem w/ people taking the time to point out this-is-a-local-issue. Why should anyone in LA/AK get bent out of shape over excess in FL, NV, AZ and CA?

How long did ANY of us get to read this bill?

Islamic law has banks that take partial ownership in a venture instead of lending.

Western banks do that too. It’s called “buying stocks”.

BTW, most “Islamic” banking does not involve taking an equity position as you describe (although some does), but actually making loans with interest and pretending it’s something else through elaborate financial contortions.

“Partial ownership”

What’s collateral? Isn’t that partial ownership, in the sense that if the loan owner stops making payment, the bank keeps the house?

Moreover, what is the difference between a lease and a loan? So far as I can tell, the only difference is in the residual — the loan owner keeps the gain or loss on the value of the property when he sells, whereas in the case of a lease, the residual accrues to the lender. In both cases, interest payments are paid (though implicit in the case of a lease), as who would offer a lease without compensation (in the form of interest payments)?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

– Shakespeare’s Juliet

I think there is a lot to be said for the way islamic banks operate.

We do agree about that, VTDan.

Yogurt… point taken, islamic banking theory and practice are two different things… just like western capitalism and practice are two different things.

What’s collateral? Isn’t that partial ownership, in the sense that if the loan owner stops making payment, the bank keeps the house?

It’s a lien, not partial ownership. That’s the crucial distinction. The owner of the property has an obligation to repay a loan, on penalty of forfeiture of the collateral. That is something entirely different from partial ownership, where all owners share in the rise and value of the value of the property.

Debt and equity are two different things.

“Rise and fall”, not “rise and value”.

agree with VTDan regarding islamic banking.

There has been quite some discussion about this in my country lately - partly because islam does not allow traditional mortgages, and as a result islamic citizens of Netherlands have a huge tax disadvantage. The few islamic banks that operate overe here made a (fair) proposal to offer their customers some kind of advantage comparable to current Dutch homeowners, but the government (mostly a bunch of islam haters) declined the proposal.

On another note, it seems that the islamic banks have escaped much of the recent financial turmoil. Even if theory and practice are difference, islamic banking is far less speculative than the current ‘judeo-christian’ alternative. However, they could get in serious trouble when many (smaller) companies start to go under.

No. Countries that did not lay miles of landlines just skipped over that technology when cell phones came out. Somalian cellphone service reflects that historic process (also reflected in much of the former Communist bloc nations), not the alleged magic of free markets.

But, put this another way. If the mobile phone situation is fundamentally about the value of the Somalian free market, demonstrating what free markets can do if unleashed, why isn’t every other problem (or, indeed, any other problem) in Somalia also solved by that magic free market? If free markets are the trick, how come it’s a one-trick pony that gives them phone service but precious little else?

IAT

The Federalist Papers were written to justify the draft U.S. Constitution and to persuade the states to adopt it. The *Anti*-Federalist Papers were written by those who thought that the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress were fine, and that there was no need for a new powerful Federal Government.

I have begun to read some of both sets of papers. Overall, I would recommend the Federalist Papers as a good cure for insomnia, and the Anti-Federalist Papers for the indignant, argumentative, and entertaining writing style that you find here on the HBB. It’s hilarious how they point out who was pushing for the new Constitution– the bankers, lawyers, and war-mongers, and the scare tactics being employed to push for instituting it. These guys were really the bloggers of the 1780’s.

Thomas Jefferson was one of the Anti-Federalists. Though they were not able to stop the adoption of the Constitution, they did succeed in having it amended by ten additional articles, which we know today as the Bill of Rights.

Actually, the BoR were disparaged by many in the Federalists and anti-Federalists, and we’d probably be better off if there never were any.

The argument against them was that the constitution was already a bill of rights. Anything not specifically enumerated to the US was not theirs to have - hence the attempt to ensure this with the 9th and 10th amendments. Their fears were that people would use the BoR to claim that the specific listing of speech, press, religion, etc would someday be used by enterprising individuals to claim that outside of those, there were no bounds on the US.

Let alone the fact that now the BoR has been “interpreted” to apply to the States.

For what it is worth, they well understood the power of salesmanship then. Those aligned with Jefferson were originally Federalists (as in a somewhat loosely knit group of states, yet more rigid that the Confederation). However, those aligned with Hamilton, Madison, and Jay took the “Federalist” name as theirs and labeled the other group with the derogatory prefix anti. Look at the examples today. Everyone wants to be labeled as “pro” and not “anti.” Makes us feel good I would imagine.

“The argument against them was that the constitution was already a bill of rights. Anything not specifically enumerated to the US was not theirs to have”

Yes, this was a theoretical argument that was made. But in practice, the Bill of Rights has been one of the few halfway effective protections against the ever-expanding reach of government.

He’s full of these half-baked libertarian ideas.

Ignore him. He doesn’t even understand deflation when it’s staring him in the face.

You are saying that enforcing an IP does not deny me the right to use my physical property how I like and to sell that physical property? Seems to me that if I burn a series of 1′0’s into a CD and sell the CD to my neighbor I have not stolen anything from you… you have not lost any physical property. If you deny me the right to use my physical property then IP violates my property rights.

I don’t get into p*ssing contests with short-bus types but I’ll point out that you are confusing the medium of storage with the content. The IP is in the content not in the storage.

Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig loves it.

- Charlie Munger

Sometimes I am surprised that corporations still allow libraries to buy one copy of a book and let multiple people read it for *free*. (Subscription Libraries, another Ben Franklin invention I believe)

I can see a few years down the road when all books are not sold but “licensed” to the buyer with no resale rights and libraries will be closed and replaced by Starbucks.

Do you know how many printed books there are in existence?

I’ll wager that they’ll last past my lifetime, and probably a few generations thence. Even the new ones.

And I foresee no such thing as your absurd prediction even when I put my tin-foiled colander on.

Man, what is wrong?!? It’s like the kooks are crawling out of the woodwork here.

“Man, what is wrong?!? It’s like the kooks are crawling out of the woodwork here.”

I attribute it to the speech last night. There weren’t enough lines to violently disagree with, so the anger is going at the system in general. It’ll wear out in a day or two.

I can see a few years down the road when all books are not sold but “licensed” to the buyer with no resale rights and libraries will be closed and replaced by Starbucks.

The death of the book has been predicted for 40+ years. I expect similar pronouncements 40 years from now, when we’re still publishing and enjoying books.

The death of the library is similarly brought up every few years, with advances such as microfiche, affordable/searchable/usable databases, the interwebs, and the ability to access the “deep web.” Libraries and librarians (while their roles are always changing) are still going strong. I expect they will continue to survive and even flourish.

Heck, I’m still waitin’ for that whole Paperless Office utopia I was promised when I was a boy. When do we get to that milemarker?

Weren’t there some court cases on the legality of lending libraries? I believe the library is protected by law.

The marketplace (ie, you and me) seem to have a track record of VIOLENTLY rejecting the “buy a license to play/read a few times” model that the greedheads in the RIAA and MPAA are trying to push. The publishing industry has had enough trouble trying to sell eBooks … if they try this, I expect they will get just as far as those “self destruct after one week” DVDs and Sony with its crappy “copy protection” CDs and players.

The RIAA has failed. VIOLENTLY FAILED.

The MPAA was smarter but not by much. They’ve pretty much failed too.

Triple-R - rent, rip, return = FAIL.

If this be success, I really want to see what failure looks like.

That we are even discussing this means the RIAA has succeeded in a way.

As long as Apple & Microsoft are implementing DRM in their operating systems it means that for the vast majority of people, it is a foregone conclusion.

sounds like vtd understand software and freeware very well and would love to apply the same principle in everyday existence. very logical.

All non-digital media is on its way out, not just books. Newspapers, CDs, LPs, DVDs, even TV are all being replaced. In fact I am not even bothering to buy a Blueray DVD player as I think it will be replaced by digital downloads soon enough to not make it a worthwhile investment.

“Rainbows End” by Vernor Vinge is a great book and what I think is a very amazing look at what society, technology, and IP rights will bring in 20 years.

I think things will only get faster - Slate has an article on what the web looked like in 1996 ( http://www.slate.com/id/2212108/pagenum/all/ ) and how unrecognizable it has already begun (no blogs back then!)

FPSS, I have long predicted deflation followed by hyperinflation (2 years ago I was saying that). What I do not predict is deflation followed by a long period of more valuable dollars. I invest for the end game because it takes too long to get setup for hyperinflation to play the short term deflation. Deflation or hyperinflation, the resulting economic chaos is about the same.

And attacking a person instead of his ideas without carefully reading the background literature he references shows that you value your opinion based upon limited research over the pursuit of knowledge and the idea that you could be wrong.

I seek knowledge and back it up with research and not just idle pontification based upon a small subset of misleading or apparent facts that most of society fails to question.

Is there anyone here who disagrees with Against Intellectual Monopoly after having read it? If so, I am interested in your opinion, otherwise you are holding to your opinion like a faith without even considering alternatives.

Patent/Copyright was one of the last “statist” concepts I let go of.

“I can hear a rip in 1/4 of a measure.”

Couldn’t that be as little as a note or two? Seems a little fast unless there are a heck of a lot of notes with those flag thingies on the top and a very distict tune. Or is it the fact that it is ripping a very recent popular song so you know ahead of time it is a likely target?

“Seems a little fast”

I’m that good.

Yes, this is illegal, but as in patent law, the thieves have the attitude of “sue me.”

The little guy gets screwed every time… just like in software–IBM can protect themselves. In fact, they have so many patents they could run the little guy off of their lawn if they want. But a smaller company can be held hostage by a patent-purchasing, sue-happy shell company like, say, SCO.

This is in fact illegal, and some artists have made some serious dollars suing the ad agencies/composers that create rips.

Just ask Tom Waits, who won a case handily against Frito Lay for using a rip-off artist for a jingle. The punitive damages alone were $500,000-ish, I believe.

Tom said this during the trial:

“You know, when a guy is singing to me about toilet paper — you may need the money but, I mean, rob a 7-11! Do something with dignity and save us all the trouble of peeing on your grave. I don’t want to rail at length here, but it’s like a fistula for me.”

It’s like a fistula for me — love it!

They haven’t stolen anything from you. You still have your ability to perform. You are no less wealthy and only presume they would have paid you. This is a prime example of where copyright would result in a company having to use a “less good” song and society as a whole is less well off. Sure it is an ad, but if the ad is less effective then the ramifications are far reaching.

Now you love music and you would come up with new songs whether or not you got paid. People write software for free for the pure joy. People invest all kinds of time and money inventing things that they never patent (though they could). You do not have the right to tell someone else what notes they may or may not play on their piano or what words they may or may not sing in public.

To prove that copyright/patents are bogus, simply try to justify a 1 year vs a 10 year vs 100 year copyright? How long is too long, how long is long enough? It is completely arbitrary and not supported by natural law or by economics!

VT Dan, do you exclusively write open-source code or work on open-source projects?

If not, why not?

If so, A.) are you compensated, and B.) do you think you’re fairly compensated? I’m assuming you make a living from programming based on some of your previous statements.

(I do agree that patent and copyright are somewhat arbitrary, but haven’t been convinced that they are useful in a complex capitalist society.)

“They haven’t stolen anything from you.”

I bet you suck at guitar. Lol..

… haven’t been convinced that they aren’t useful in a complex capitalist society.)

Sigh.

I write closed source software and have previously filed for patents (before I learned what I know now). Now, if given a patent I would share it with the world as I will not use government force against others.

My employment contract is contingent upon not revealing trade secrets. So while someone who had not signed a contract may be able to morally copy all the code they can see, I cannot not.

I think that DRM (as bad as it is) is the only way for software companies to prevent pirated software. They must find a way that does not involve using the government to tell people what they can do with their own property.

I promote open source at my company as a business plan and previously ran (CE0) a company that developed software. Software development is a service and developers are always creating something new/unique to a specific customers requirements. The market for software would only be improved by removing patents / copy right. Some players would lose current revenue streams, but they would be forced to compete differently and sell support, services, and other real goods around their ideas.

Agreed, but it’s the perfect example of the marketplace driving everything. 160 is what the masses prefer/are willing to tolerate.

I think more and more people don’t know the difference.

Lossless compression, baby; hard drives have gotten too cheap to listen to music that sounds like cr*p.

classical sounds like ass with mp3 compression … so I still have cd’s

popular music is now mixed to sound good on mp3 … crazy

But all dual cd players a DJ uses only handle mp3’s Sorry i refuse to use a computer and look at a screen while at a wedding.

I make mp3 cd’s with 100 songs 100 motown 100 disco 100 50’s 100 60’s 100 rap you get the idea….75 cd’s 7500 songs at 256-320kbps…and a second copy to play them back to back.

————————————-
pshaw… everyone pirates in FLAC now

One important distinction between “laid off” and “fired” is that under the former one can and should collect unemployment benefits, while if one is “fired” unemployment is typically contested and/or denied.

Severance, referrals, and job search assistance may differ under each classification as well.

wow, Ramit Sethi would have a field day with that guy.

people have a need to avoid cognitive dissonance. so rather own up to the fact that he’s a lazy ass who’s enjoying spending too much and doesn’t want to think or face his life, he has a zillion rationalizations for why saving for the future was just a stupid idea to begin with.

kind of like those of my coworkers who say “well, I might die tomorrow! I want to enjoy my money!” at the slightest suggestion that they might want to put something away… (they sure as heck ain’t enjoying “no overtime” — but I am — ha!)

MID is simply more Debt = Wealth thinking.

All debt is not created equal… at least within the current US tax code.

Last year I paid over $20K in interest on my multi’s mortgage. Because I can deduct the mortgage interest as well as other associated costs in addition to depreciation, on a taxable income basis my multi lowers my tax basis, ensuring I get more money back come April 15.

You want to talk financial independence? How about the government subsidizing my family’s purchase, ownership, and improvement of an asset that grosses $34K in rents annually. An asset that’s paid for by tenant money. Thinking of it another way, I would need to invest $500K earning 5% annually to match the income this property nets once the mortgage is paid off.

This whole thing is about buying right, which means identifying profitable opportunities or at least avoiding unprofitable ones.

Cr@p that candy out, babe
Cr@p that candy out
Candy crappin’ mama
Cr@p that candy out.

and a sis-boom-bah!

Scallawag!

What I was trying to say is I think inflation will take hold in the near future, though by inflation I’m really saying dollar devaluation.

My only friend was Theodore Kasinski, and they don’t let me talk to him anymore.

Hello, my baby!
Hello, my honey!
Hello, my ragtime gal!

Send me a kiss by wire.
Baby, my heart’s on fire!

If you refuse me,
Honey, you loose me.
Then you’ll be left alone.

Oh baby, telephone
And tell me I’m
Your own!

You really believe that he is going to screw over the wealthy in favor of the dispossessed?!? As opposed to just talking about it and giving them “hope now”? When was the last time in history that that happened?

Wow, whatever it is that you’re smoking, buddy, don’t bogart it!!!

Dude:

The Beard is powerless. Repeat after me. “They have lost all control. They have lost all control.”

You’ll be OK, you’ll see.

“You really believe that he is going to screw over the wealthy in favor of the dispossessed?!? As opposed to just talking about it and giving them “hope now”? When was the last time in history that that happened?”

Last April 15th, it’ll happen again this coming April 15th. You ever hear of the new deal, or the great society?

“You’ll be OK, you’ll see.”

Oh, I’m pretty sure I’ll be OK, and so will my immediate family. I’ve got the means to stay above almost any tricks they care to throw my way. It still bugs me that the general populace takes this crap from our beloved leaders.

If I ever get to run an empire bread and circuses will be tops on my agenda.

more about getting sent back right upon arrival at a US airport

I’ll tell you mine. It’s 126. Got you beat, don’t I?

No, but a gentleman never tells.