The Housing Bubble

Good point.

For that matter - why limit it to empty inventory? I’ve got a couple of broken tiles downstairs - there would be quite a few jobs created if I were to get a tear-down and rebuild of my house done. Just think of the millions of new jobs if we decided to tear down and rebuild everyone’s house! Office buildings too! The carpet at my work place is looking pretty dang dirty.

(taking the broken window fallacy to its absurd but still applicable extreme)

(P.S. I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek - just figured I’d pile on for more comedy.)

I have been touring the past couple of days in my continued search for a new place to live.

I thought you were looking for an honest man.

I thought you were looking for an honest man.

His lantern must have burned out.

I was looking for that, too, but to no avail. There seem to be very few honest men here in the Bay Area. I continue my search………………..

Those abandoned places give lie to the notion that the banks “have” to maintain them. They are going to hell in a handbasket and we have an arid climate around here.

You’ve just described the two abandoned houses in the next block. One’s boarded up and becoming quite the trash and tagging magnet. The other one needs to be boarded up, as it frequently becomes a flophouse for bums and druggies.

I would think an arid climate would actually help preserve a house, at least compared to a moister climate.

Hi,
long time lurker here, first post. I’ve seen this written here before: “what if we could report these vacant houses?” Today I came across this page that apparently encourages you to do just that.

www dot foreclosurehelpscc dot org/rnvh.htm

It also directs to the city of San Jose code enforcement webpage. I don’t know of any vacant houses in my area, or else I would give it a try. I only see empty commercial properties in poor conditions down the street. Has anyone tried calling and reporting? It’s probably futile, but nice to stick it to the banks.

’smart enough turn the water off’

The water utility will cut it off for non-payment, but failing to winterize in time is the biggest mistake I see. Good luck Fannie/Freddie purchasers, buyer beware (ie, don’t over-pay).

‘houses are allowed to become unlivable, then bulldozed’

The abandoned/foreclosed houses topic is one of my favorites, as that’s where I spend most of my time these days. Many are done for; waiting to become lots or fields again. For others the wear continues but most have too much value to be torn down.

“The abandoned/foreclosed houses topic is one of my favorites, as that’s where I spend most of my time these days”

Is there any effort underway to figure out how much collective U.S. wealth is going down the tubes in this effort to save banks by keeping vacant homes off the market to prop up their values? I can’t wait to read about this some day, assuming somebody will take the initiative to document it.

No - his offer is way below their asking price.

Chances are this deal won’t end up going through as a result.

I’ll go as far as to admit that an “accepted” low-ball sale creates a new comp, and drives prices down.
The unaccepted offer has no real effect.

but lets return to my point. Who is in control of prices?

If low-ball buying forces prices down, buyers are still controlling prices.
Prices are at the mercy of buyers no matter how you look at it.. banks have no control.

Problem is there still are too many buyers out there that are (unlike my friend) willing to come up to the bank’s asking price. This is in large part because there’s a much smaller supply of homes for sale than there otherwise would be if the banks put all these houses on the market.

I’m sure there are some “distressed” purchases. Someone feels they need to buy now for whatever reasons, and are probably aware they are paying a bit too much.

Then there’s overanxious investors and some quantity of stupid money.

Other than those, what’s the good excuse for a purchase… Fear of prices rising? Impatience got the best of someone? Resignation that banks/govt will never let prices fall?

If folks are squatting in their homes, not paying the mortgage, I doubt they are doing much maintenance and upkeep. Just the minimum to keep it inhabitable I’d reckon.

Buyers may set the price ultimately, but the banks set the time. Right now it looks like their clock has been stopped by the Fed. We’re on Charade Time.

I do find it astounding how long they can drag this thing out. Some areas are barely into price declines. They saw double digit appreciation YOY on the way up, but are not falling at the same rate.

I think the banks would rather take a larger loss dragged out over a decade than a smaller loss immediately. If housing prices crash 50% and you contend they lose the full 50% plus, oh, 10% more in carrying costs we get :

Say, 120k is what they loaned on the house, 100k is what the house would sell for now, and 45k is what the house will be worth if they don’t unload it, they can take a 20k loss now, or drag out a 75k loss over, say, 10 years, or 7.5k a year.

(This is assuming they let houses trickle out over the next 10-15 years.)

Now multiply that by about 10000 houses, and you have them taking a 75 million dollar loss every year, or a 200 million dollar loss immediately.

OBVIOUSLY it makes sense to dump now unless it makes you insolvent, but if you believe the loss will be less severe (housing market will stabilize and start growing).

But what if dumping them all right now causes the prices to rapidly decrease towards the ‘worst case’ scenario where they lose 75k per house? We’ll round it up to 50k to reflect selling some at current market value and see a loss of 500 million.

So, 75 million a year for a decade or so, or 200-500 million right now, right in the kisser.

At some point, it may be worth it to the bank to completely write off some of the debt later than try and recoup something from ALL their foreclosures all at once.

Maybe I’m cheerful because I feel pretty good today, healthwise, but when I hear financial people on CNBC and Fox mostly saying to “let things fall”, my prediction is that the banks will foreclose and release, because there’s less reason for them to hold out hoping for another federal program. You all must admit that there was nobody outside of this forum talking that way. Articles in the mainstream press vaunting renting in favor of buying, not to mention doing away with mortgage interest tax deduction were nonexistent last year and are common now.

I’m thinking that we’ll get a good-sized drop in prices this winter.

You all have permission to tease me mercilessly if Obama comes up with another housebuyer tax credit (Lindsey Graham apparently proposed that yesterday - yeesh.)

Nothing regarding more bailouts will happen before the election, the Political class are distancing themselves like crazy from what they have already done. After the election regardless of what party controls, look for the bailouts to start again as the political class begins to repay the NAR, NAHB, ABA ad naseum, for the poltical contributions for this election. Anyone who thinks the Tea Party will get enough candidates elected to make a difference is delusional.

High or low “thread count”?

I hope you’re wrong, but I fear you’re right.

One of his other comments was thus:

Starting in the Clinton era, the proportion of risky loans vs. less risky loans rose considerably. Now the bad loans are high relative to the good loans, and thus the GSEs are losing money hand over fist. Now, new loans are much safer than older loans. As the proportion of “good” loans rise relative to old, crappy loans, the GSEs will start earning a profit again. Once they are earning that profit again, the cries to reform them will die down, delaying/weakening any reform effort.

Not so much waiting for the GSE’s to stop backing all the lending, as waiting for the inflation of goods to start kicking in. The deflation as people lose their refinancing ability will be phenomenal for savers, then as inflation starts to kick in due to increased wages required to make up for it, those same savers will move back into assets to avoid the inflation.

The past few years haven’t been so much about finding gains as they have been about avoiding losses. And yes, that could continue to take a while.

Mathguy, do you think there is any reasonable possibility of inflation kicking in BEFORE we have lower unemployment and/or less shadow inventory?

I’m in the inflation camp, but I’m not in the near-term inflation camp. I generally expect inflation will rear it’s ugly head within 5 years, but potentially not for at least the next couple of years.

Before that, I expect the dominant headlines to be foreclosures decreasing amidst low interest rates, and burning through the inventory, slow and steady job creation, and the rising of home prices back to a level where the development of raw land makes sense again.

Your thoughts?

So now we are advocating supply and demand with the demand being distorted by socialist subsidy. How about having the government stop meddling with the supply too.

I’m not advocating anything. I’m pointing out the frustrating reality, namely that GSEs will be the dominant lending force until there is another source of finance to substantially replace them. This “socialist subsidy” has been around since 1938. Add on top of it the mortgage deduction, and the US government has been monkeying around with demand for housing for longer than many of us has been alive–all in the name of higher homeownership rates.

On the supply side, if all banks (and other holders of single family REO) were completely devoid of government control/influence (implicitly or explicitly), they would be doing exactly what the banks are doing today, metering out the sales…perhaps even more slowly. Forcing excess supply onto a market that has weak demand is not a natural occurrence in a capitalist system (doing so would be meddling).

Frustrating? Absolutely. Am I holding my breath that the government does something that either 1) dramatically decreases supply of finance, and thus decreases demand and prices; or 2) increases supply of homes on the market, and thus decreases prices further? Absolutely not.

Forcing excess supply onto a market that has weak demand is not a natural occurrence in a capitalist system (doing so would be meddling).

I thought it WAS a natural occurrence in a regulated capitalist system (where the accounting regulations didn’t allow banks to hoard inventory to avoid price discovery)?

Not when they change the regulations (mark to market) to keep the market from going stupid and crushing a fragile economy.

Exactly, packman.

I agree, their service is great…

What people likely resent is the constant stream of above-inflation postal-rate hikes. Each one is supposedly the last one for a “long time”, and then like two years later they are back at the trough again.

Had USPS damage a package or two. Their tracking is abysmal, it doesn’t update until a day after it arrives? You have to use premium service to get tracking # with USPS. I love FedEx Ground.

I do not believe the postal rate increases have been above inflation, only above the unbelievable government COL numbers.

Many eBay sellers actually make more money from the postage than the goods they are selling (small items), so I’ve heard.

On another note — the Royal Mail in the UK is possibly up for sale — going private.

Yes Montana/ potential…its hard to add money to cover ebay fees if you use the USPO.

They put the exact postage you paid sticker on the box.

So I use the USPO for media mail or overseas. everything else its UPS

I’ve been doing a lot of reading during chemotherapy, so I went on Amazon and ordered a bunch of used paperbacks yesterday. The paper backs total $31, shipping $40.

Yes Montana/ potential…its hard to add money to cover ebay fees if you use the USPO.

They put the exact postage you paid sticker on the box. ”

Ebay links to a online postage that allows one to block out the price paid for the stamp.
Kinda cool and its usaully cheaper than going to the counter and buying postage at the Post office

In addition to the postage, the eBay-ers (and other mail and online order folks) are charging for handling. As well they should. After all, that merchandise doesn’t get itself into boxes and mail itself out to the customers.

BTW, a friend owns what is called a fulfillment house here in Tucson. Now, before you get all evil-minded about what sort of business this is, let me explain:

Order fulfillment is the process of picking, packing and shipping merchandise. According to my friend, it’s a good business to be in. She’s been in it for many years.

She’s been in it for many years.

She must find it fulfilling.

Looks like the UPS airplane stops in Portland first.

Fedex look like they call each leg they fly a different “flight number”, like the airlines. Makes it harder to track a specific airplane. I’m betting that it probably makes a stop or two also.

Yes, after I posted I realized I probably should have put “dead weight” in quotes. It’s very subjective of course - and as you say with those doing the cutting seeming to never themselves be dead weight. However that being said - I’ve seen the cutters get cut myself a few times (including my boss, who I did pretty much consider dead weight).

Packman, you and I may slightly differ on this:

I would answer “Yes, but only in the worst hit markets.”

“Yes, but only in the worst hit markets.”

Maybe. However one could also state (and I will) that the worst-hit markets are worst-hit for a reason - there was a bigger bubble in those areas, with more overbuild than average. Therefore even though these markets have, so far, seen the worst declines - they also still have the farthest yet to fall. Many will massively overshoot on the downside, probably ending up with pricing that’s back to early 1990’s levels, or on some cases practically free housing.

Southeastern Florida and CA central valley come to mind as such areas.

Even though there are “great deals” to be had in those areas, they may not look so good when there’s still more depreciation, and no appreciation for 15 more years. The other day I mentioned my co-worker crowing about houses for $30k near Tampa - well there’s a good chance those houses will be selling for $20k ten years from now.

The problem with that chart is that the “average” includes the current bubble, which is bigger than the past bubbles by far.

If you exclude the current bubble, the average would move down to about 600 or so. With the line there you would see the small bubbles of the late 70’s and the late 80’s. Nevertheless they are indeed very small relative to the recent bubble, of course.

The only issue I see with you analysis is that the population in 1963 was about 190 million, versus 300+ million today. The trendline should not be a flat line, but generally trending upwards, as the growth of the US population has not been linear.

So, while the bubble was the largest in history, the number of new homes built and sold now on a “stabilized basis” should be greater than the number of new homes built and sold in the 60’s and 70’s.

For numbers, in the 70’s, we averaged 2.3 million new people per year in the 80’s, it was 2.2 million, in the 90’s, it was 3.25 million, through 2009, it was estimated to be about 2.8 million per year.

as the growth of the US population has not been linear

Actually it has been quite linear. In fact that’s what I see in your stats. This is especially true if you include the 1950’s (2.86M per year) and 1960’s (2.49M per year). So the population increase in the 2000’s is roughly the same nominal rate as over the past 60 years. This has been exacerbated the last 3 years by the economic downturn.

That being the case - since houses aren’t throw-away items (like cars), comparisons of nominal new-home building rates across decades are meaningful.

The boomer generation masks the non-linearity. The average over the roughly 60 year period we are talking about is 2.65MM people per year. Both the 90’s and 00’s are above the average. The 50’s and 60’s are about average, and the 70’s/80’s are below average.

That slope change starting at about 1990 doesn’t look very big, but…”Roughly the same”=7,500,000 more population growth over a 20 year period from 1990 until today as compared to the 1950s and 1960s (the 00’s and the booming 50’s are a wash, and the 90’s were at 3.25MM/year vs. 2.5MM/year for the 60’s).

But, since the graph in question only starts from 1963, the booming 50’s don’t count when considering whether the line should be drawn flat or at a slope based on building homes for greater population.

To be more explicit, since the graph of home sales goes from 1963 (and not 1950), for the first 20 years of the graph, the US population grew by about:

7*2.49+10*2.3+3*2.2=47.03MM, or 2.35MM people per year;

for the last 20 years of the home building graph:

1*2.2+10*3.25+9*2.8=59.9MM, or 3.0MM people per year

We had 650k more people per year to house in the last part of the chart as compared to the first part of the chart. That implies to me that a slope is far more appropriate than a flat line.

This wouldn’t be a slope that would match the reality of building of course, but a slope none-the-less.

My acting theory is this: they created this special-purpose entity Recontrust and are funneling all of their countrywide loans through it because they need separate accounting for those losses. In other words, they need a separate set of books.

And why might they need a good accounting of those losses? There is some sort of under-the-table loss-sharing arrangement with the Fed.

It would explain why they bought the countrywide sh*t sandwich when it was _abundantly_ clear that the market for its products was vanishing.

> but never actively support local elected officals or any party.

Just covertly.

My wife will tell you that I am one of those “glass half empty” types. However, I am not so sure that we can’t win the battle, eventually.

I don’t want it to sound like I am bashing the local religion. that’s not my intention. Many down the hill told me that they were in support of my views concerning the Town’s future and the election wouldn’t have been so close if not for LDS members voting for our side.

Some did tell me that they wanted to put up our signs on their property but couldn’t because of fear from “Church retribution”.

However, I truly believe that this was more a case of these individuals projecting this as a purely personal, unfounded, fear of standing out in their Community against a Church member for a non-member and not from any local Church policies.

We were successful in getting one of our people on the Council. We have also taken a core group of supporters and are using them to fight things like sewers and fee increases. We have an Email list where information is shared. We can also use this list to activate a crowd when needed.

We overtook the Town Hall a couple of meetings ago with over 100 people. The subject was sewers and the Council backed down from a sewer hookup amendment that they were planning to vote yes on (per “our Council member”) for future use.

The water board’s bylaws are clear in that we don’t forgive debt because of the inability to pay, so a denial of the “developers” request is not acting improperly.

I will make an attempt to act in a professional manner when I give him the “good” news at the next meeting.

Unlike the Muslims, the LDS don’t insist that others play by their rules. When the Marriott hotels were privately owned by Mormons, they had no qualms about serving booze in the attached bars and restaurants.

When the Marriott hotels were privately owned by Mormons, they had no qualms about serving booze in the attached bars and restaurants.

And didn’t they also offer naughty movies on the in-room teevees?

Not that I would watch such stuff, but, during a recent trip to the oh-so-staid Midwest, I stayed at a Hampton Inn. The in-room teevee offered numerous channels of, ahem, grownup-type content.

I guess I don’t travel very much, but ISTR that the in-room teevees used to offer one naughty channel, and that was it.

Yeah…we had a whole other saying for the FTA (US Army’s Fun, Travel and Adventure ads.)

It was usually repeated with our single digit Airborne salute.

“it’s $79 a week”

Uh… kind of dating myself here but when I first joined it like $79 every ‘other’ week.

Remember though, this was at a time when most ppl from Chicago described going to Lake Geneva as “travelling”. There were no backpackers and most middle/lower middle class Americans had never been to Cabo ( let alone Europe? )

So in that regard, it was true. It really was an adventure. Kind of like when Ben went to BELIZE!

You are showing your youth….I remember when it was called British Honduras….

You don’t lose your benefits for taking a part time job, your benefits are reduced by the amount of money you make, but you keep receiving the difference until the benefits either run out or you go full time. So taking a part time job on UI makes sense, especially if it leads to a full time job- and I believe McDs does pay bennies for full time.

And 15000 people showing up for 1000 mediocre jobs certainly calls into question the heated claims that extended unemployment benefits are destroying America’s work ethic, no? One might even say it makes such claims absurd.

And 15000 people showing up for 1000 mediocre jobs certainly calls into question the heated claims that extended unemployment benefits are destroying America’s work ethic, no? One might even say it makes such claims absurd.

Back in 1974-75, when I was a senior in high school, I had a part-time job at McDonalds. This was a time in which the economy stunk out loud, and the place had a steady stream of jobseekers.

Unlike the high school and college kids who worked with me at Mickey D’s, many of these jobseekers were well into adulthood. I was amazed that they’d even consider working at such a grease pit.

Slim, I remember that you and another HBBer got fired from your McDonalds jobs way back when! My high school boyfriend worked at McDonalds, and I never got even a free soda - they watched their employees pretty carefully, even back then!

I never had the pleasure of a McJob, but I did a lot of restaurant work as a kid/student: dishwashing, cashiering, waitressing. I hated it. I preferred clerical work.

part time jobs, 20 hours per week

Rockin’ Song: We Can’t Make It Here Anymore - by James Mcmurtry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM&feature=related

The graphics should lambast Democrats more too but the general economic/political message is accurate.

Should I hate a people for the shade of their skin
Or the shape of their eyes or the shape I’m in
Should I hate ‘em for having our jobs today
No I hate the men sent the jobs away
I can see them all now, they haunt my dreams
All lily white and squeaky clean
They’ve never known want, they’ll never know need
Their sh@# don’t stink and their kids won’t bleed
Their kids won’t bleed in the da$% little war
And we can’t make it here anymore

Will work for food
Will die for oil
Will kill for power and to us the spoils
The billionaires get to pay less tax
The working poor get to fall through the cracks
Let ‘em eat jellybeans let ‘em eat cake
Let ‘em eat sh$%, whatever it takes
They can join the Air Force, or join the Corps
If they can’t make it here anymore

Thanks for that one, Rio. Wish that it didn’t have so many friggin’ lyrics so that it’d be easier to learn. Adding that to Chuck Brodsky’s “Boys in the Back Room”, Foster’s “Hard Times” and “Pretty Boy Floyd”. Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.

Wish I could find a digital version of a Bruce Pratt tune (I think) that has the classic line, “That banker, he can’t repossess what he can’t find/ I’ve got a .300 Savage sez this truck is still mine/ That’s what hard times”ll do to a man.” He was a folkie living in Maine and I had a cassette of his in my old car for years but it finally broke.

MrBubble

Or a classic from the 70’s way ahead of it’s time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dh-WOlFkHg

Glad someone else saw that. Heard that song on the college radio here about 3 years ago. Great stuff. He’s Larry’s kid (Lonesome Dove, etc).

In the early 1990s, that socialeest/commie rag, The Readers Digest, published an article that stated that 60% of ALL Americans had or will experience poverty at least once in their life.

Thank you Lip

“the blood sucking politicians that would sell out their grandchildren for the opportunity to feather their bank account [and get re-elected].”

Lip, that was a bit harsh.

I dunno that they would actually sell out their grandchildren.

But they would _definitely_ sell out _yours_!

You repuke clowns may laugh and joke around with your idiot Bush, looking around under the desk in the oval office for WMD’s and think what you republicans have done to this nation …is “cute”.

You and your lunatic actions, both foreign and domestic, may well have destroyed this nation as the American people once knew it.

I see nothing funny in that… nothing.

I think we’re all kind of missing the point here? Suppose for an instant that voters deliver everything the biz community could possibly hope for and THEN they’re going tell us whether they’ll do any hiring or not?!

If we’re going to carry water for them, we should be getting a signed doc. saying they’ll just drop it w/ the hiring ’strike’ and get on w/ biz. At the rate we’re going, all we’ll get is more outsourcing and bailouts. ( Publicly funded btw )

Wow. Take some chill pills and wake up. The republicans did do alot of damage but your side is making the situation MUCH worse.

The whole “Obama can’t suck, because Bush sucked” approach isn’t going to work anymore. they can both suck. You may think the reps were so bad that the dems could not possibly be worse, but you are wrong.

I hate that the dems and the reps are still our only viable choices at the moment. Neither party has our best interests in mind. Hopefully the republicans can win enough seats to cause some gridlock….stop the bleeding…or hemorrhaging since the dems took over.

I agree.
Anyway, sad fact is, for our economy to recover, we need some extrememly drastic actions. For better or worse and like it or not, for the next few years we need to:

cut defense spending
stop interfering with the market
stop any stimulus unless it truly does mean more jobs
raise taxes
stem medicare fraud
eliminate some programs completely
slash program spending
…..and the list goes on

I do not avocate taking away welfare benefits in an economy where there are no jobs, because riots / starvation serve no purpose.

Most of these must be temporary actions. But they need to be done today! We won’t like it. But we’ll survive and then we can move on.

We went from don’t tax and spend to tax and spend.

Neither is good, and I find it hard to believe that Republican’s would have done much different on the economy (they wouldn’t have pushed through healthcare, that’s for sure). Remember, the start of the massive government intervention happened before the current tax and spend regime entered the picture.

Pray for gridlock.

“Wow. Take some chill pills and wake up.”

So “Cute”…non the less, my previous statement still stands.

you mean the statement about the demoncrats?

Gee, ad hom can be fun. Not very constructive. But fun.

LOL - yeah because Reagan was the first to use public spending for public programs, right?

May I have a toke please?

No, but Reagan realized the power of taxing less while -increasing- spending. That proved to be a much more successful form of bribing the public. He didn’t use our own money to bribe us, he used our credit card.

As I’ve pointed out before, Reagan was in many ways a classic Keynesian. He borrowed a bunch of money, spent it on tax breaks and defense spending, and thus kicked our economy into overdrive. The only thing un-Keynesian about him was that we weren’t in a depression when he chose to goose the economy, he focused his tax breaks on the wealthy, and once the economy got going, he didn’t start paying the borrowed money back.

And yes, Reagan was the first to do that.

No, but Reagan realized the power of taxing less while -increasing- spending. That proved to be a much more successful form of bribing the public. He didn’t use our own money to bribe us, he used our credit card.

As I’ve pointed out before, Reagan was in many ways a classic Keynesian. He borrowed a bunch of money, spent it on tax breaks and defense spending, and thus kicked our economy into overdrive.

Agree with that, except the “bribe” part. His tax cuts were a general stimulus - they weren’t targeted to specific special-interest groups like unions and such. Yes they did benefit “the rich” moreso than “the poor”, but this is actually the reverse of bribing, since “the poor” are larger in number.

Also keep in mind his “tax cuts for the rich” were merely reverting to previous levels of still-graduated income taxes, off of the extremely high levels (90% top bracket) that were needed to pay down (as such) WWII debt.

The only thing un-Keynesian about him was that we weren’t in a depression when he chose to goose the economy,

Yes we pretty much were. In the early 80’s were seeing the worst recession by far since the 1930’s. Unemployment was higher then than now (at least officially).

he focused his tax breaks on the wealthy, and once the economy got going, he didn’t start paying the borrowed money back.

And yes, Reagan was the first to do that.

You seem to be forgetting about FDR and Johnson, who did directly bribe the poor with public-spending support programs.

The only thing un-Keynesian about him was that we weren’t in a depression when he chose to goose the economy,

Yes we pretty much were. In the early 80’s were seeing the worst recession by far since the 1930’s. Unemployment was higher then than now (at least officially).

Agreed. I lived in Pittsburgh during the early 1980s. Unemployment was up around 20%.

Believe me, if you had any sort of job, you thanked the Lord above for it. You also kept the unemployed in your prayers. (Pittsburgh was that kind of place.)

So it was alright for Reagan to use Keynesian government stimulus, because we were in a serious recession. But now it’s wasteful, ineffective socialism. I’m sensing a double standard.

And Reagan was the first president to not begin paying back the stimulus when the economy turned upwards. That’s an important first. He wanted to separate the easy part of Keynes’s theory, increased government spending, from the hard part of paying it back.

In other words, he convinced us we could have our cake and eat it too, which I think is precisely what de Tocgueville was talking about.

Tocque it up!

Um… where did I say it was alright?

That being said - Reagan’s primary spending was military. We had a bit of a problem back then with a little country on the other side of the world, in case you don’t remember. A real problem (unlike Iraq). It was either fight by Mutually-Assured-Destruction, or by Mutually-Assured-Bankruptcy. We chose the latter, and won. IMO Reagan’s defense spending was justified.

Call it Keynesian if you wish. At least it was something that could be ramped down later, and was by Clinton. It’s a heck of a lot harder to ramp down social programs and high salaries and pensions.

That poor fellow could use a small load of Thorazine or something….quick!

Look, I don’t believe any of the original founders/employees from Heinz Food are around any more

I was talking about small businesses, not megacorps.

Lip
Thanks for “dishing”. I’ve never been to Phoenix, but I’ve heard some nice things about the area. We had CAT5 in our new oversized McMansion, too.

I’m now a single story brick and wood siding, with a picket fence gal. Oh, and I want a tree tunnel street. A pool is a must in So Ca, too.

I am very happy you bought your dream life home. May your family live in it in the best of health, and nothing but happy memories are made there.

Sounds nice Lip, congrats.

Agreed.

Prop 13 won’t be repealed because most people can’t afford the tax on a $400,000 house.

There would be so much jingle mail you’ll think it’s Christmas!

The mill rate in CA generally is 1%. The tax on $400k per year represents about $333 per month.

The reason it won’t be repealed is that people are scared to death of prices rising in CA (since that has been the general trend over a long period of time) and they want their tax liability increase limited to 2% per year, even when homes may be rising by more per year.

Thanks, wipeout. What are you, psychic? I’m taking a mostly on-line jazz piano course while I’m on sick leave. It’s wonderful - the instructor has pdf music, scales, chords, etc, as well as video closeups of his instruction at the keyboard. I can lay in bed and learn the music. When I feel up to it I go to the piano and practice. It’s been a lifelong wish to learn about jazz, and I’m starting to catch on. First time I ever took a community college course and I’m really happy with it.

I’m not so much into the breast cancer activist thing. I have other causes that I’m passionate about. Frankly, the diagnosis and treatment is pretty good compared to many other types of cancer. When I’m done with this miserable treatment I’ll be pretty much cured. Can’t ask for more than that! My doctors have been very informative, too. Since I’m an MD,PhD, I had lots of concerned friends from around the country in my specialty, who like me, don’t know squat about breast cancer, but solicited second opinions for me from their breast cancer specialist friends in places like Pittsburgh, New York, and Miami, who in turn said that what I’m getting is the right thing. The treatment is pretty standard, so I felt no need to further educate myself. A lot of women reject the treatment because it is hard and there are some risks and a lot of side effects, but that exposes them to recurrences and spread.

Thanks, wipeout for your kind words. I’m hoping that you find a nice, 2000 square foot house with a pool in (is it Thousand Oaks?), for less than $300,000. I should visit you then - my mom lives in Ventura and I visit her monthly (or at least I did until I started chemo.)

That was “screams”…I should/like maybe learn how to type and possibly spell before I make all these vain threats.

Well, Dude and Lip, it sounds like you are the good providers and your wives keep up the house. That’s fine and good. Since my husband and I both work full time there’s not a lot of time left over for cleaning, but I do most of the cleaning while he does the yard work. He loves to garden, me not so much.

dude,
I had no idea areas in Palmdale had a breeze.

“I married well”, now that’s sweet.

I almost typed “gale” but thought some might think it hyperbole and I instead opted for sarcasm.

You guys are talking about the same people! Those uniforms can be soo misleading.

No doubt. The GOP hypocrites haven’t figured that out yet.

—No doubt. The Demoncrat hypocrites haven’t figured that out yet.—-

Corrected the typo.

Ooh, this ad hom thing can be fun. Not constructive. But fun.

No doubt Alter kacker. You’re a heluva landlord. Cheap too.;)

I prefer to have someone peeking at my food producers than peeking in my bedroom.

Shmendrick,

You have a linky linky?

Shmendrik,

Living in your head….. rent free.

varelse,

In spite of his protestations to the contrary! My point was that, we’ve been conditioned over the years to “not throw your vote away!” and now ppl are throwing caution to the wind.

One of the things I learned young ( and yes I -hate- sports analogies too ) but when you’re just being totally embarrassed on the scoreboard, doing something ( anything! ) outrageous really can’t ‘hurt’ you?

And… I really don’t care what some guy did in a gay bath house 30 yrs ago? How did we get from “creepy crawly” to all of a sudden caring about ppl’s private sex lives? Hmm..? Who cares.

Nice try, no worky.

Sean Hannity has consistently railed against gays and gay marriage for years….. when he is in fact part of that demographic…. whether he admits it publicly or not.

exeter,

I wasn’t even trying… to make any statement or position ‘work’. I don’t care and that’s final.

I only mentioned what I saw transpire on his show before our very eyes, nothing more. Besides, I’ve also recently read that John Travolta, and yes, the Prez himself are raging closet queens. All equally unsubstantiated of course.

Shmendrick…

Linky Linky???

If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be running from. There’s nothing unsubstantiated about Sean Hannity hanging around in Philly bathouses. It’s old news.

Shmendrik,

Living in your head rent free.

“you wouldn’t be running from” ( from ‘what’? )

Just ridiculous. Stop.

That’s funny, because I feel the same way about sofas. Bought oversized, really comfy ones. But my living room then became tiny!

BTW - I have a 46″ Panasonic plasma and really, really like it.

nah.. this is a LCD TV.

From what i’ve read, the technical term is “viewing angle” and it applies to all sorts of displays. Any of several factors might be responsible for an obscured picture when viewed at an angle.

Lots of TV buyer’s guides on the net if anyone cares to learn about this stuff.

It’s a front-projector (FPTV). The projector is the size of a shoebox and weighs 12 lbs. It projects onto a 110″ screen I’ve painted on the opposite wall.

I bought my HD72 five years ago, the replacement is the HD73. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LLSZK0

These are now old-fashioned as they are 720P, not 1080P.

Oh, I gotcha. I didn’t bother to read/translate all the initials. Those projectors are cool. My buddy has a rear-projector type TV (there’s a good joke in there somewhere), the kind that are all-in-one projector and screen, and I think it has a better picture than the plasmas and the LCDs that I’ve seen. It doesn’t ‘cube-out’ like the LCDs, and it doesn’t have the bizarrely bright colors of the plasmas.

There are several technologies for TV: CRT (gone for good), DLP (digital light projector, the Texas Instruments micro-mirror chip), LCD (liquid crystal display), and plasma. All have strengths and weaknesses.

CRT still has the best picture for black levels and contrast, but come on who wants an 800 lb TV?

DLP has far superior black levels and motion-tracking (e.g. no “smearing” on sports events) but is only available in front or rear projection sets. Some portion of the population sees “rainbows” with DLP sets.

LCD can either be a front projector, rear projector, or intrinsic panel. Their problems are poor black levels and smearing with rapid motion. An improved reflective LCD technology called “LCOS” is only used in projection versions, but production yield problems limited the spread of LCOS.

I almost took the bait back mid-decade. Carter & Burgess offered me a position working in and around Austin. It just wasn’t lucrative enough nor did they want to get creative with per diem. I often wonder what it would have been like had I accepted. In hindsight I’m glad I didn’t as C&B got swallowed whole in 2007 by Jacobs Engineering.

I live DT and few bars have covers… someo of them tried, such as Qua, but people didn’t buy it, and they have no cover anymore unless there’s a band playing.

Food + Drinks can easily get over $50 a piece any night of the week… $15-20 per person in most DT places for dinner…. $6 - 10 drinks across most place… although, you can find great happy hours if you’re smart about it

However, Austin is an awesome plce to live… there so many activities… footballs games, lakes, bars, restaurants, festivals, outdoor activities, great looking people, and most are so laid back… it can hardly get any better

Hey Ben I emailed you .. want to to a phone in Monday night…I’m booking guests for a radio show on housing

what tents? Did you find that article?

And where is your proof of these homes with dirt floors?

I think you guys are pulling a Bush.. WMD. Where’s My Dirt?