The Housing Bubble

Yes, though the cost of owning a home has gone up I think faster than inflation as well - e.g. property taxes, as well as a bevy of other new taxes and fees on home purchases. So believe it or not I think a valid case could be made that housing prices should actually increase slower than true inflation (e.g. possibly inline with published inflation).

That being said - there is at least some truth to the “they’re not making any more land” factor. While obviously there are vast tracts of developable land still existing in the U.S. - there are some areas where there is very little developable land, particularly within commuting (or walking) distance of desirable areas. However this has always been true - even going back before the 1900’s (e.g. the SF peninsula was mostly built out by 1900, and completely built out by the mid 1900’s.)

I don’t believe the “they ain’t building any more land” rhetoric either. They make new land every time a condo is created with airspace, etc. Additionally, there is plenty of raw land as you fly over various states, it’s simply not all that conveniently located near services, etc.

What I fervently believe however is that in some jurisdictions, the apparent availability of land is completely irrelevant. What is more relevant is the ability to get it approved for building, which can be quite difficult, expensive, and time consuming.

Land costing more in cities as opposed to the middle of nowhere is not a creation of the current RE bubble, but rather a phenomenon that has been around since at least ancient Greece and Rome, and probably from the beginning of civilization. (You always wanted a home -inside- the city walls, if you could afford it.)

What is more relevant is the ability to get it approved for building, which can be quite difficult, expensive, and time consuming.

Yes - saw this firsthand in northern CA when I lived there. There was a lot of open space, however the vast majority was undevelopable, and for the rest of the areas developers had to jump through hoops to develop.

(I don’t disagree with that though - that’s beautiful country up there, and I think it’s appropriate to limit development in the scenic areas.)

They are always busily making more land: Check out how the local landfill grows toward the sky with each load dumped and sculpted into giant truncated pyramid by caterpillars. Want something truly green: Build yourself a house atop the landfill using realtor skulls for the walls and methane-power for self-sufficiency. Now that’s green.

I’m starting to sound like Hwy…

There are some areas that are not-so-scenic, but still very hard to obtain entitlements to build new housing. NIMBYism for the sake of NIMBYism is alive and well.

Alpha sloth–but of course the popularization of the automobile and the creation of the interstates in the 50s vastly expanded the distance that one could reasonably commute, as the streetcar had before it. This meant that a much greater area of land around the city could be used to house those who worked in it.

Packman,

I think we are on the same page. In many parts of the country, the hard costs to build a home (infrastructure plus vertical) are greater than price at which that house can be sold. This is changing in some places…slowly.

In the meantime though, this means that the only homes that can be reasonably built today are homes that will be built on existing finished lots, where they can be acquired at a discount to hard costs. The availability of these finished lots is dwindling. IMHO, this is one of the reasons we will continue to see poor new home construction numbers until there is some additional move upward in home prices.

Inflation in materials costs is putting a floor on the price for new homes (energy, copper, oil based goods, concrete, with the exceptions being labor and lumber). For the low end in many parts of the country, I have a very hard time seeing how the floor for new homes is lower than today’s prices.

Jim A.- I agree. The auto (and reasonable security from the Hun) have greatly increased the area around a city where one may choose to live. But there are still reasons (convenience, entertainment, employment, diversity) that will make cities, in general, have higher prices than outlying areas. It’s not an artificial construct, mindless custom, or RE conspiracy. It’s as old as cities themselves.

They don’t feed cows meat because cows are vegeterians.

They give the industrial food-chain animals just about anything, including feces. Where do you think mad cow disease came from? Cows eating other cows’ brains and spines.

they call obese kids cows,

They also call them ‘corn-feds’.

The Atkins diet guy was right, and numerous studies have borne it out. Grains, cereals, and most starches are simply not natural foods for humans. The ability of such foods to fatten us up and provide the ’staff of life’ was great back when food was scarce, but not so great now that we have plenty.

Actually they do feed cows meat, sometimes. That’s how mad cow is spread.

They don’t feed cows meat because cows are vegeterians.

And they can’t handle steak knives.

Of course we will never know will we? However:

1) Our entire banking system failing

Who said it would have? Oh yea, the Banks we bailed out.

2) The FDIC then failing (or requiring an ‘evil’ bailout)

Who cares if we had to bail out the FDIC’s 100K-250 commitment? That’s cheaper than our current 23 trillion dollar bailout commitments.

3) The world dropping us as a reserve currency

Now we don’t know that would have happened. Why would it? The entire world would have been knocked down in close relative proportion to our “knock-down”.

4) Monster unemployment that makes the current unemployment look like nothing

I’d say 25% of Americans are under or unemployed now, with no future of an economic re-set or increased opportunity. I don’t think any future unemployment would make our current situation look like “nothing”.

5) Worldwide credit freeze/panic that would dwarf the one we just went through

Yes. This argues my point that we wouldn’t have automatically lost our world reserve currency status.

I live in the one country the past 25 years who’s economy and currency collapsed 3 times, who’s 7th constitution was ratified in only in 1988, prior to that was a military dictatorship and who now is economically growing at 7% per year, has had 35 million join the middle-class in 7 years and that has a trade surplus and is energy independent.

Brazil survived economic hell, rose up and thrived.

America would have survived just fine in the long term I think.

We just had a crash that would be minor compared to what many call for, and that alone has caused a third of our population to think the president is a muslim bent on destroying the American way, and to talk openly about revolt and secession.

Similar rhetoric was heard during the 1930s. Remember Fr. Coughlin? He had quite a following. And didn’t someone here just mention the group of wealthy businessmen who tried to stage a coup against Roosevelt?

Rio- I think you’re trying to have it both ways. First, you say we need to let it crash and reset. Then you’re saying that it wouldn’t be much worse than it already is. Then how is it a crash and reset?

And there’s a difference between what we’re possibly on the hook for with our guarantees (many of which would come due only if we did crash and burn), and what we’d definitely be on the hook for if banks failed en masse, and the FDIC had to make everyone whole. In the event of a crash, we’d be on the hook for -both- amounts, remember. If we can avoid an all-out crash, we’ll be on the hook for a lot less.

And if all the RE were forced onto the market at once, then obviously there would be a major price deflation that would put still more people even further underwater, or underwater for the first time, which would make still more people walk away, which would continue the deflationary spiral. How could it not?

Forcing the banks to then mark to market would make even more insolvent. How could it not?

How could this not result in much higher unemployment? We talk here all the time about how many businesses are on the edge right now. The businesses that aren’t on the edge are rightly fearful about hiring and investing, because the economy is still weak right now. Surely a large-scale crash would greatly increase their hesitance, and ability, to hire. In fact, many more would go out of business, which would make more people broke, which would put more houses on the market, which would make their value drop even more, which would put still more people underwater, who would then walk away etc etc…..Again, how could it not?

And would Brazil have had the ability to bounce back from its problems if it didn’t have a huge country to its north that effectively polices the entire hemisphere, and provides a huge market for their goods, thus allowing lesser (no offense) countries the luxury to be able to screw up and recover? Like it or not, we police the world, and if we were down and out for a few/ten years (dusting off and rebuilding our economy), who do you think would rise to take our place? Or would anyone?

And, say we let it crash, then what? We suddenly rebuild our manufacturing base and somehow aren’t undercut by Chindian wages? Or do we match their wages? What exactly do we build or rebuild? Where are we competitive right now?

I’m not saying we’d never recover, unexpected things happen (like the advent of the internet) that could well save our bacon, but there’s something to be said for chugging along until that something arises, rather than letting your country crash and burn under the optimistic feeling that ’something’ will turn up, and ’somehow’ we’ll be just fine. That strikes me as dangerously wishful thinking.

And didn’t someone here just mention the group of wealthy businessmen who tried to stage a coup against Roosevelt?

Me. FDR had a LOT on his plate. The Communist Party was also about to become the majority political party.

There’s a lot of folks who hate FDR. They have NO idea how bad it really was and could have been if it wasn’t for FDR.

As for letting the FIRE sector suffer their own medicine of “market correction,” the problem was, and still is, international in scope. And Wall St. propaganda aside, a lot of countries would not have been very happy about that as their fortunes were also tied into Wall/Fleet St. Russia and China being prime examples. You know, the guys with nukes and ICBMs.

The general rule is that if you cause someone enough grief, they WILL come looking for you. In other words, WW3.

I would really like to see Wall/Fleet St. “corrected” but try it all at once and you have to answer to the entire world.

First, you say we need to let it crash and reset. Then you’re saying that it wouldn’t be much worse than it already is. Then how is it a crash and reset?

I think it would have been much worse at first and then much better going forward because bad bets would have gone bad, capitalists would have learned what capitalism is, structures, duties, policies and laws would have changed to initially support the dispossessed, and later to promote American jobs, education, manufacturing and the middle class. We have the “money”. Is it not obvious now how much “money” we have? The question was how to use it.

That money should have been spent to do the above, not bail out failure, parasites and losers such as Banks and Wall Street.

On Brazil’s protection: First of all a crash would not have rendered our military impotent. We have lots of “money” as we have seen. And:

Brazil doesn’t really need the US protection. Who would invade Brazil? China? Peru? Argentina? Most South Americans despise American’s history of “protection”. I hate it when they start talking about it in front of me.

On Brazil losing American markets if America crashed:

It’s hard to believe for most Americans but the USA is a distant third trading partner with Brazil after the EU and China. And the USA would have bounced back anyway.

but there’s something to be said for chugging along until that something arises,

A key thing is, we should all forget about “something (new) arising”. It might or might not happen. The key going forward in this age of overcapacity is for America to re-structure its economy so that the majority of workers can thrive in an economy merely “chugging along”.

This will require redistribution of profits, jobs, priorities and wealth back in line with American historical norms. We just wasted an opportunity to start this process and we will pay for it.

Who would invade Brazil? China? Peru? Argentina?

Why not? Or how about China or Russia funding rebels within Brazil? I wouldn’t get carried away with Brazil’s military strength.

And I realize you’ve got fancy new beaus now, but back when Brazil was a banana republic and making all those mistakes, who was nearby making sure the USSR wasn’t ‘liberating’ them. Don’t mistake now for then- the world wasn’t always so unipolar.

And citizens of countries that rely on and thrive under US protection, while berating us for it behind our backs, is a story as old as the Cold War.

bad bets would have gone bad, capitalists would have learned what capitalism is, structures, duties, policies and laws would have changed to initially support the dispossessed, and later to promote American jobs, education, manufacturing and the middle class

I agree with the sentiment, but we just went through a smallish crash (compared to what you’re calling for) and Glen Beck and Sarah Palin have become two of the most popular political ‘thinkers’ in the country, with a rabid following of people who openly threaten rebellion if they don’t get their way. One could only assume they’d grow in popularity if things got even worse. And this is the populace that is supposed to achieve the lofty goals you’ve listed above?

The key going forward in this age of overcapacity is for America to re-structure its economy so that the majority of workers can thrive in an economy merely “chugging along”

One could argue that that very thing is occurring right now. Perhaps not at the pace we might like, but where is the guarantee that it would be faster in a state of more serious collapse? One could well imagine a lot of very serious, and very counterproductive, ‘unknown unknowns’ that might pop up in a situation of widespread collapse.

Let’s not burn the house down to kill a few rats.

Don’t mistake now for then- the world wasn’t always so unipolar.

I explain that to the Brazilians sometimes. Some get it.

Why not? Or how about China or Russia funding rebels within Brazil?

A waste of money. Maybe in the Spanish countries yes but not Brazil. They just aren’t a revolutionary type culture on the macro level and their history bears this out. War? Revolution? Why? That would take too much time away from the beach, beer, women, their children, hammock time and futbol.

but we just went through a smallish crash…and Glen Beck and Sarah Palin have become two of the most popular political ‘thinkers’ in the country, with a rabid following

Maybe BECAUSE it was a smallish crash. I think the bailouts and papering over the problem took the right’s eye of the ball as to who the real enemy is - the corporate oligarchy. This was the plan. If we all fell together and harder, we’d have come together more as Americans first. I mean if Wall Street and Banks fell, how could you blame the poor and middle class for that? Sure the usual suspect nutjobs might believe it but most wouldn’t. That is what they were afraid of. Now, instead we have a muddling along situation that enables Palin an Beck to spread their misinformation.

Let’s not burn the house down to kill a few rats.

The house with rats was ruined, it was burning and we had the money to rebuild.

Instead we took that money and saved the rats and now we have to live with those rats in the same house that is half-way burnt down.

O meu amigo, Brazil’s not revolutionary? Almost their entire twentieth century history is one right wing dictatorship after another, interspersed with communist uprisings, particularly in the 30s. Perhaps they’re reactionary, but either way, they aren’t that mellow, at least not historically. And have they gained control, or even access, to all the favelas yet? That could be a good source of insurrection.

The ‘what ifs’ about how we might have responded to the crash, if we had it to do over again, are irrelevant- we don’t have it to do over again. Here we are.

FDR saved the system rather than letting it crash all the way, as many encouraged him to. Do you think he made a mistake? Many do. I don’t.

(Do I wish Obama had more of a fighting spirit like FDR had? Yes. But it’s easier to take on Wall Street when everyone knows you’re a well-born plutocrat yourself, rather than when the morons have been told, and believe, you’re a socialist Kenyan Muslim America-hater.)

O meu amigo, Brazil’s not revolutionary? Almost their entire twentieth century history is one right wing dictatorship after another, interspersed with communist uprisings, particularly in the 30s. Perhaps they’re reactionary, but either way, they aren’t that mellow, at least not historically. And have they gained control, or even access, to all the favelas yet? That could be a good source of insurrection.

Fine, you read it. I read it and I live and have lived it.

I’m with Rio, 100%.

Falling asset prices would have primarily hurt the “rich” as the middle and lower classes rely more on wages, not asset price appreciation.

I was all for spending money on jobs programs (infrastructure, energy R&D, healthcare technologies, etc.), and I even advocated nationalizing the banking system while we move through the much-needed deflationary period. There is NO NEED for a “private” banking/credit system if the taxpayers are taking all the risks anyway (while the bankers make all the profits during the “good” times).

Bottom line: “letting it fall” would have been the best course of action. What we have done so far is to merely make the problem bigger (more debt — and most of that now being borne by taxpayers), and extended the duration of the downturn. Printing money to cover up the huge misallocation of capital and over-leveraging in our economy does NOT fix the problem.

Yellowstone were to erupt… zowie! ??

Doesn’t the wind blow East from there ??

The wind direction would be irrelevant….

Previous eruptions blanketed the US from Pacific to Atlantic.

I worried about this moving from San Jose to Boise….until I realized that San Jose would be equally hosed if the Yellowstone caldera blew up.

If it is a big one on the Andreas or Hayward the loss would dwarf Katrina…

10s of thousands in N.O.

I think they just folded the mortgages losses into the general damage assessment. I’m not sure, though.

If an earthquake hits CA, the US Government will not ignore it…1/7th of the US GDP–too much money for politicians to ignore.

Lots of people will go back to work rebuilding, and government debt would go up that much more.

Oh, and insurance companies who wrote EQ policies would be paying lots of money out.

It wouldn’t be a walk in the park, but if Europe can be rebuilt after WWII, so can CA after an earthquake.

Just saying…I’ve been in CA my whole life, lived within about 45 minutes of SF during the ‘89 quake (only about a 7). An earthquake properly (or improperly located) would be bad, but not the end of the world. Perhaps I’ve just grown complacent since I live here…

http://www.arsenalinc.com/sgl21.htm - 14k

gun porn…mmmmm.

Nah, click 7.62 cal and then go to SGL21-PR (SAIGA) that`s “gun porn”

You forgot to mention that cash is king… (just sayin’).

I predict that when gold hits $2000 AMERICANS WILL PANIC INTO BUYING PHYSICAL.

That would be expected in the third and final stage of a secular bull market.

Currently, in gold, we could be in the second stage.

Those who bought most of their gold in 2001 are kings!

And I’m just the court jester.

I keep wanting to buy more precious metals, but Jon Nadler keeps posting reasonable articles on kitco to level off at 10%. So government securities are nice purchases.

(The “Two Buck Chuck” Cabernet Sauvignon bottle I selected is good tonight. But only about 9 ounces total - honest. I’m supposed to swim 4,000 yards tomorrow very early)

4. Lemmings stop voting for more of the same. You know who you are.

” Lemmings stop voting for more of the same. You know who you are.”

It will be hard to get the lemmings to stop voting for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum, and even harder to get them to understand that there is no significant difference between the two. Obama’s “Healthcare Reform” was no more radical than Bush’s Medicare prescription program.

Somebody takes the job-lock out of health care, allowing budding entrepreneurs and near-retirees to leave the workforce and free up jobs for the next gen.

Here’s a long-distance high five for ya, oxice!

It’s nice to say “elect new people,” but how do you go about electing ALL new people, especially 60 like-minded — regardless of which mind — Senators? Don’t forget that Dems were 3-4 votes shy of a public option.

The only way I’ve seen it happen is slowly, over generations.

I may be changing my opinion of “Ol’ Stinky.” He knows that TV and the media are full of it so he isolates his daughters from the snakeheads.

http://apnews.myway.com/
article/20100831/D9HUAJ480.html

[From the article]
“Both girls play the piano; Malia also plays the flute.
_Sasha likes to dance hip-hop. The girls also are working on their tennis game.
_They are not allowed to watch TV during the week, and weekend viewing is limited.
_The girls can only use the computer during the week if they need to for school assignments.”

umm…..naaaaah!

Part of the problem is that when people vote for a given party - a large part of the reason is because they’re voting against the other party. A lot of people will vote for a major party for this reason even if their ideals more closely match a third party.

I blame Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.

My apologies to oxide. (I misspelled your name.)

Comment by oxide
2010-08-31 06:37:44
When oh when is responsible adult leadership going to appear to cut up the national credit card?

1. Somebody puts a stop to the globalized race-to-the-bottom business model that capitalism has turned into.
2. Somebody takes the job-lock out of health care, allowing budding entrepreneurs and near-retirees to leave the workforce and free up jobs for the next gen.
3. Somebody crashes house prices so that money goes towards goods and services rather than to the useless black hole of interest payments.
—————–

You nailed it, oxide!

“Please note that I know the Repubs are barely better than the Dems, but they will be in charge when the cut backs are forced on them.”

I’m sure they will find a way to continue kicking the can down the road.

Republicans take over the House ?

And the Senate I hope…

I’m not sure they will. It seems our corporate-government complex has become expert at feathering their own nests by exporting “real” jobs and covering the job losses with bubble jobs. (Clinton is not blameless here, but he had the luxury of a booming Internet). The bubble jobs pop with the bubble, just in time to blame it on new Dems.

I’m almost hoping that the Republicans take the House and Senate for a couple years. If they can find a way to bring back REAL jobs and cut spending at the same time, I’m all for it. But unless conservatives find another bubble to inflate,* they too will “own” their very own Depression. Then watch out in 2012. Not only will you get Obama again, you’ll get an even larger army of liberals in Congress.

———–
*The only bubble I can think of to top the debt/housing bubble is another war. And Repubs in Congress can’t inflate a new war bubble without a President to declare a new war.

they too will “own” their very own Depression?

I agree and my hope is that the moderates will drop all the forced dogma and try to find the middle ground for the benefit of the “whole” country….

watch out in 2012. Not only will you get Obama again, you’ll get an even larger army of liberals ??

I don’t think so…I think Obama is a one term President…He (and the country) have achieved their biggest objective…The ability of, and the willingness to elect a Black President…The oppressed black man (Sharpton/Jackson) just does not hunt anymore…

I am hoping that we will see a run right up the middle…I like Bloomberg and he will do it if he is convinced he can win……

Republicans take over the House ?

And the Senate I hope…

They recently had control for 8 years and you think they did a good job?

Seriously?

No…They did a horrible job…

Sounds like a typical white family from hedge fund heaven……Greenwich CT.

Both girls play the piano; Malia also plays the flute.

Sounds like a typical white family from hedge fund heaven……Greenwich CT.

So, in my capacity as a music auditioner for our community radio station, I want to know…

When do they cut their first CD?

And, be forewarned, kids. I’m a tough judge. Matter of fact, I just panned a Sonic Youth CD.

Slim:

I pan most of the crap that comes out today…Ive never seen so many wussie white “rock” bands…or maybe its geek rock, those whiny screechy guys and little girlies with their PIEannohz

I mean at least Eminem has passion, I like the way you lie…is a very rough great song I also like Avril Lavinge, and Pink

Passion is what is lacking in most of the “music” today it’s just prepackaged assembly line McMusic.

Totally agree with you, aNYCdj.

Thanks that’s why i like Zydeco Music…people play with passion, they sweat and have a good time…click on my handle

Rush Limbaugh encouraged republicans in at least one state to vote for Hilary ??

But there-in lies the possible solution because it works the same going back the other way…The left would cross over and nominate Palin or Beck or the Loony bird senator in Minn…I think that was Rio’s point…It forces both parties to nominate candidates that appeal to a broader group particularly the middle…

That can also backfire.

I know, but sometimes a perceived backfire can backfire.

The left would cross over and nominate Palin or Beck or the Loony bird senator in Minn…

Wait a minute, both loony bird senators from Minn ARE lefties. No crossover required.

Default risk on a cc might go -down- when the holder sheds his/her real estate white elephant.

I never did any BK work, but IIRC you are permitted to keep some spare change and a cheap car, etc. Of course a new Mercedes and $100K may raise the judge’s eyebrows.

Rand and her followers didn’t believe in the morality of the rich, just in the ability of the free market to limit the power of their immorality.

Both beliefs FAILED.

And yes, both beliefs had their chance to succeed as much as any rigid, overly simplistic philosophy has a chance to succeed in societies composed of actual human beings, their nature and behavior.

Therein lies those belief’s flaws.

Cripes, have you read her books? (rhetorical question- I know you have) The -only- moral people in them are the big boyz who ‘get things done’, and the women who dig them. The big boyz do what’s right because it’s in their nature, they don’t know any other way to be. Everyone else is, quite literally, a parasite. And that is not even remotely an exaggeration.

And Greenie himself said that believing the big boyz would never risk the destruction of their mighty businesses just for a quick billion or two was the flaw in his theory. He never thought they’d be so…immoral.

It’s not hard to connect the dots.

The -only- moral people in them are the big boyz who ‘get things done’, and the women who dig them. The big boyz do what’s right because it’s in their nature, they don’t know any other way to be. Everyone else is, quite literally, a parasite. And that is not even remotely an exaggeration.

You mean like Orren Boyle? James Taggart? Horace Mowen? Peter Keating? (and others)

Apparently you haven’t read her books. You’re apparently presuming on hearsay, and have no clue what’ you’re talking about.

Ha! Unfortunately for both of us, I have read her horrible books. And I know those characters. Taggert, Mowen, and Keating are all world class schmucks- and parasites. And I can’t remember Boyle, because I don’t think he had much of a role.

Seriously, that’s the best you can come up with? I rest my case.

Keating? As in the Keating 5?!

Seriously, that’s the best you can come up with? I rest my case.

???

Your case is “guilty as charged”?

OK - accepted.

Very good post, ACH.

Fact: Opinion: Nearly all of Hitler’s beliefs placed him on the far right.

If one defines “right” as “state control”, then yes, Hitler’s beliefs did place him on the far right, and you can place me for one firmly in the left camp.

And I hold him personally responsible for the death of one of my cousins. (She was killed during the London Blitz.)

Socialism is about capital being held by the people.

No it’s not. Socialism is capital being held by “the public”, or “common ownership” (as per definition). Don’t confuse that with “the people”.

The only way to achieve public or common ownership is through the government.

The key difference is whether you view “the people” as being a single unit - a collection, vs. being a term for just humans.

The problem with viewing them as a single unit is - there’s a premise of common interests. That’s a bad premise. My interests and your interests may not be the same. Thus I may not want my capital to be allocated in the same way you want your capital to be allocated. Thus it’s not appropriate for a single entity - the government - to decide collectively how our capital is allocated.

What we have is Animal Farm

In Communism everyone works for the collective 100%. Those who manage the collective have immense power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts abolutely.
What starts out as we are all brothers becomes some animals are superior to others. See China and Russia as examples.

Many view socialism as the same as communism,and conflate the issues of governance and economic systems. I suspect some of this is by design. See Fox News for examples.

Currently Europe is considered socialist yet retains a significant degree of capitalism in their economic systems and retains democracy in their governance.

Like I said if you go far enough to the right or the left you end up with dictators that are hard to distinguish.

The right path to dictatorship starts with progressive poverty leading to tighter control by government. The gov uses the gov, military and MSM to preserve the weath of the elite.

The left path to dictatorship starts with poverty leading to the gov seizing assetts in the name of wealth distribution. Usually this distribution is to another group of self proclaimed elite. The poor are kept in check with trinkets, and propaganda and eventually the military as well.

packman,

It’s not so much about everybody agreeing or common interest, but about who has control. With an elected government the public has some level of control of elected officials (not so great right now), and thus control of the capital. While not everybody will agree with decisions made, they at least have the ability voice their opinion. In a dictatorship the public has no power, the government is not representative, and thus ownership is not vested.

BTW, If I’m not mistaken you equate socialism with centrally controlled economy 100%. A centrally controlled economy is both necessary and sufficient to identify a nation as socialist. I do agree that, for the most part, Nazi Germany had a centrally controlled economy.

But I believe that for a system to be socialist, the public has to have a measure of control. Without public control the system is totalitarian or fascist, either of which is a better description of Nazi Germany.

It looks like we’re just disagreeing on the definition of socialism.

Fair enough Al - to a great extent you’re right in that distinction of elected vs. non-elected. However let’s not forget that Hitler actually was elected into power (though he effectively nullified further elections). So the people did choose him.

Also I would state that what we have today isn’t really free elections either, when we are essentially given a Hobson’s Choice of two candidates both mostly controlled by the same powers.

That being the case - back to Beck - if the key distinction of Nazism is non-elected dictatorship - It’d be good if someone to please provide a sound byte where Beck has proposed such a thing.

from the Holocaust Encyclopedia:

“Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany were political opponents — primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders.”

I guess the Nazis were persecuting themselves? Seriously, read some history books. The nazis despised the socialists, despite having a similar name.

But I believe that for a system to be socialist, the public has to have a measure of control.

What if the control is technically there, but illusory? (i.e. elections but with no real choice - e.g. as we see blatantly in places like Venezuela, but also more subtly in many other countries - arguably including the U.S.)

I wasn’t arguing Beck’s point; I didn’t get a chance to look at yesterday’s B&B. Just my own opinions on the nature of Nazi Germany. Personally I think socialism has gotten a bad wrap due to dictators claiming they are socialists. It has adequate flaws of it’s own.

I do agree with you on illusory vs real control being material. USSR had elections, but there were no choices and the public had no voice on how government was managed. The voice is key. So by my definition USSR was neither socialist nor communist.

The passage of the TARP is scary for the US. It was so clear that people didn’t want that piece of crap passed and was even shot down the first time. That was a clear indication that the government is shifting away from it’s representative role.

I’ll have to have a look at Beck’s work. Could be the same conclusion for different reasons.

The passage of the TARP is scary for the US. It was so clear that people didn’t want that piece of crap passed and was even shot down the first time. That was a clear indication that the government is shifting away from it’s representative role.

BINGO which is why my vote and dollars will only support candidates that voted not on TARP 1 and TARP2
Russ Feingold being among them.

I like your arguments, Al.

So… friggin… what.

Your premise is that some entity can’t conflict with another entity with shared characteristics. By that logic - if someone kills a person then that means they’re not a person. Or if someone kills a gang-banger then they must not be in a gang themselves. Etc. etc.

Bad logic.

And Stalin liquidated the Trotskyites and Old Bolsheviks. What’s your point?

I’ll answer when you tell us why you’re hiding.

When us New Yorkers need your help and opinions, we’ll call on you all… mmmmmkay?

Born and raised in Greenwich, family still there. I knew people in those towers. Since when are people from Vermont, New Yorkers anyway?

Since when is Greenwich in NY? Good grief.

You are right it`s not NY, but it borders NY and many of its residents and my friends and neighbors take that 37 minute train ride into Manhattan. The same train I took countless times for Ranger games, concerts etc. Always drove to Mets games, Laguardia etc. easier and quicker. But if you want me to keep my opinions to myself, I will. I will just tell all of the people I know back home who are of the same opinion, I have to keep mine to myself. But when they need my help, whether they live in Greenwich, Westchester or Norwalk, they are still going to get it.

Greenwich is a town in Fairfield County, Connecticut, United States. As of the 2000 census, the town had a total population of 61,101. Greenwich is the southernmost and westernmost municipality in Connecticut and is 37+ minutes by train from Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan. The town is bordered to the west and north by Westchester County, New York, to the east by the city of Stamford, and to the south by Long Island Sound.

I’m certain Greenwich, CT residents don’t need anyone in FL to speak for them…. they’re quite capable. Not that they have much say in it anyways.

He used religion like a tool.
He used it to take control of capital and industry by destroying the Jews.
He used it to solidify the population. He did this by removing the parts that he thought jewish and trying to merge it with Nazi ism. Like I said every religion denagrates non believers he just took it too the extreme, because at heart he was a dictator and used any lever he could to maximize his power and destroyed any powerbase that might be used against him.

It’s a moot point though as socialism does not mandate the destruction of religion. I believe if you travel through Europe you will find plenty of Christians practicing freely.

I wonder if the Jews think Hitler was a Socialist. I know they don’t like the right’s attempt to re-write history.

Jewish Groups Assail Nazi Comparisons Made by Conservatives in Health Care Debate

http://www.truth-out.org/080809H

The American Jewish Congress issued a statement, “The Limbaugh comments comparing Obama (and Pelosi) to Hitler and the Nazis are grossly offensive and intolerable. They reflect a nasty and hyperbolic tendency on our political culture, one which makes reasoned discourse impossible, confuses disagreement with evil, and which makes it impossible to distinguish evil from ordinary politics. … It behooves all participants in the political process to unequivocally disavow the comparison and to make it plain that peddlers of such noxious comparison have no place in our politics, no matter how large their audiences. And all Americans should make plain their disgust at the comparisons by talk show hosts by a prompt use of the off button.”

So the Nazi’s demonized all religions equally and replaced with an angry theology.

That certainly meets the definition of conservative, even by the narrowest measure.

Nazi=Authoritarian, Autocratic
Conservative=Authoritarian, Autocratic

Socialist=decentralized structure, democratic, autonomous

Again - it all depends on your definition of “right”. Apparently Fritzsche and Griffin define it as ultimate state control. If so, then most conservatives are lefties.

If so, then most conservatives are lefties.

Conservatives are only against state control when they don’t control the state.

You’re trying to introduce a different spectrum of political beliefs, mises institute- er, I mean, packman. With state control at one end, and personal freedom and democracy at the other. If so, then yes, nazism and communism have a lot in common, and would lie at the same end of the spectrum.

But the traditional spectrum has fascism (absolute rule of a dictator) at one end (the right) and communism (collectivism) at the other (the left). If your point is that most communist leaders are really fascists, then again, I agree with you.

But that puts them both to the far right.

Exactly Bulwark.

Packman…. there is no need to start these threads completely unrelated to housing.

I wish they would apply it to foreclosures and 1st time buyers, if they pass another credit (hoping yes & no). We need a home NOW (5 rents out of pocket (apt,3 storage units,office) and since we’re paying cash, it will eliminate a huge monthly out go. Husband has Glaucoma. Our financial future is a cautionary tale.

There is nothing that works on the market for us, so maybe the pace of the shadow inventory being released would speed up with a foreclosure tax credit. Where’s all the inventory in So Ca?

The infestors on the inside of the REIC get to any homes available and flip.

infestors on the inside of the REIC get to any homes available and flip ??

Simple cure if you truly want owner occupants and in particular first time buyers to benefit from the lower prices…

Index the amount FHA, Fanny & Freddie will finance to a maximum of 90% of the last sale “if” that sale occurred within the last 12 months maybe even 24 months…Bye, Bye flippers and hello good deals for the renters…

“I wish they would apply it to foreclosures and 1st time buyers”

Applying any tax credit to foreclosures-only would make J6P’s house less desirable - in fact, during the time the tax credit is in place, it would force J6P (presumably already priced higher than foreclosures) to lower the price of his house by the amount of the tax credit in order to be deemed worthy of a showing. Thus a credit set up in that way would be seen by J6P as “another bailout for the banks”; politically dangerous ahead of November’s election. Since so many first time buyers took the first credit, I think they’d have to open it up to (at least) anyone buying a primary residence in order for it to have much effect.

Kim
I miscommunicated my thought (stressed out this morning). I think a tax credit for buying a foreclosure for 1st time buyers, and I know it’s wishful thinking, but require a 10% down to discourage short term ownership (i.e. walking away). Any deal, past,present, or future, will be a sugar daddy deal for the banks anyway.

In reality, I just wish the ptb would get a freak’in clue and just let housing fall to equlibrium, and let’s get it over with. Too much to ask for, I know. We’re going to be Japan, only at a faster pace, imo.

Housing prices in So Ca are still too high.

“In reality, I just wish the ptb would get a freak’in clue and just let housing fall to equlibrium, and let’s get it over with.”

Amen to that!

What is the difference between realty and reality?

Kim-
You and I know, Hell will freeze over first.
(Not that I believe in Hell, but others do.)

Yup. Unfortunately (as I posted below your Diana Oleck column link), I think legislators hands will soon be tied. With all this talk of a tax credit now “out there”, buyers are likely to wait to see if will happen or not before submitting offers.

Never mind that the first tax credit didn’t help as much as was hoped, and was costly and fraud-ridden.

What is the difference between realty and reality?

Lately? Everything.

Realty falls out of favor as reality comes into favor.

Fristly, pressboardbox…God, I loved that post. Perfect! I’m licensed, btw. I did shopping center mgmt and marketing for a REIT.

Kim- All that tax credit did was:
1.Inflate already inflated housing prices.
2. Pull demand forward.
3. Get people who shouldn’t have been sucked in, in. Future homemoaners.
4. Gave the FIRE sector a mini burst.
5. Wasted taxpayer’s $

I got some numbers hot off the REIC press (newsletter) for you guys/gals. It is estimated that:
1.There are estimated to be 7M distressed properties.
2. 900,000 in Realty Trac Database of which 30% are available for sale today.
3. 12M are somewhere in the foreclosure process, with only 20% in the MLS…
4. 5.5M seriously deliquent homes haven’t entered the Floreclosure process.

We’ve only just begun…

We’ve only just begun to live
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we’re on our way
We’ve only begun

Sharin’ horizons that are new to us
Watchin’ the signs along the way
Talkin’ it over just the two of us
Workin’ together day to day, together

- The Carpenters

Simple cure if you truly want owner occupants and in particular first time buyers to benefit from the lower prices…

Index the amount FHA, Fanny & Freddie will finance to a maximum of 90% of the last sale “if” that sale occurred within the last 12 months maybe even 24 months…Bye, Bye flippers and hello good deals for the renters…

Excellent idea, scdave! Of course, it would never happen, because the govt has been relying on flippers to keep housing prices up.

Yeah - but after 50 or so years that can get old…

Great advice, but that’s exactly what the bankers, pols, and friends don’t want us to do. Beach bums don’t make bankers rich, interest paying wage slaves do.

…’cause if you ain’t a workaholic consumer, yer just a lazy socialeest/commie!

What would or could make it crack? This is where my textbook knowledge of finance leaves me scratching my head…

I am sorry if I offended you. Truly, that wasn’t my intent. I find there is a balance between reality and faith, and many go too far in both directions. I believe that God doesn’t micro-manage our lives, and we do have free will (no, the “devil” didn’t make you do that.) Balance is the key imho. Yes, I agree, cultures can learn from each other. Can’t wait to see Brazil. It’s Argentina or Brazil for my facelift. Both are incredible cultures. I want to Samba and Tango!

In your example, my feeling and most Brazilian’s would be that God, prayer AND the fire fighters saved my house.

Well, you’d be 1/3 right. In baseball, that’s not bad.

I am sorry if I offended you. Truly, that wasn’t my intent.

No, I was not offended at all but thanks. I thought I’d given Brazilians a bad rap by not being clear is all.

Right now Argentina is cheaper but Brazil is cooler. But not the temperature. You should see them both.

Rio-
Thanks for the tip. I loved seeing the YouTube of Diana Krall in Rio singing “The Boy from Ipanema”. The crowd look so responsive and they were having a ball. In an interview Krall said the country was beautiful and so were the people (in spirit too).

McAfee as a choice is a headscratcher to me.

That’s why I was asking for enlightenment. McAfee as a choice is making my head need a scratch.