The Housing Bubble

The only time it matters is when the tax assessor reduces my base even further. Didn’t build this place to sell it–zillow valuation is about what I paid for the windows.

You were offered twelve and half times your current valuation in 2008?

Wow.

Yep. Obviously, Zillow has its head up its algorithms.

One-of-a-kind materials, custom design and engineering, and stellar craftsmanship aren’t taken into account in their valuations, nor are the natural features of the property. The only “comps” in this area are basic 3/2 manufactured houses– most of which have significantly larger interior square footage and were “built” after mine was completed in 2000.

I think they go on asking and last-sold-at prices, and mine’s never been on the market.

…bought a pad from a liquidating builder…

That was in my plan to return to California, but alas Bernanke and his printing press put the kibosh to that idea.

oh ok yesterday you were talking about desirable areas in sacramento. I thought you meant sacramento county. I find it hard to find any desirable areas in that county anymore.Folsom seems to have stuff going on and is very nice. Placer county is the crown jewel of the area. Rocklin, roseville, loomis, lincoln, newcastle, auburn are all nice.

you hear about the shooting over at the mall saturday? I guess a drug deal gone bad.

I did hear about it. Four guys got into a van to rob a meth dealer. Gun battle ensued. One dead, two more shot. Not much room for gun play in a van…..

One small irony is that the family that purchased the house for $50k over asking in 2008, moved from Natomas (Sacramento County) to escape the crime.

I think those tweekers were from rio linda. That dealer must have been good with a gun to take out everyone. Apparently they were going to rob him and he turned the tables.

what do you think of the galleria mall?

“Folsom seems to have stuff going on and is very nice.”

I have a deep and centered revulsion for Folsom, and most of the “towns” you mentioned. They are in a great geographic location, and have much to offer if you venture a few miles from your home. And it’s a real quick shot to Lake Tahoe. But my God, I have never seen such an overbuilt mess as Folsom, not counting the old downtown area. Mega shopping plexes at every major intersection and super-sized mcmansions sprayed about. A vast wasteland of unplanned growth, testament to the decade that was 1995-2005.

Because nobody could have seen it coming?

Just heard people are writing letters and sending pictures to try and get the sellers to sell to them. familiy with Santa Claus in this case.

this is Encino CA

heard from my co-worker spouse is a flipper things are really heating up, selling in a few days

inflation is here will it last ?

This particular neighborhood was particularly hard it. The builder was a specialist at marketing to SF East Bay Flippers. He loaded all the houses with over $50,000 in Mello Roos bonds/house, with $300/mon bond payments. All the houses sold over $550,000, some at $800,000, most to Philipino Phlippers from Union City. Nothing selling over $360,000 today, most in the mid $200’s.

138 homes in the subdivion. Every house has foreclosed except 3. This one foreclosed twice (2007 & 2012), as have about 15 others. Many foreclosed once, and are now shortselling. It is ugly, but the pig is thru the python.

Inventory is at a 6 year low. Prices have pretty much stayed the same for the last 2 years. The rental market is tight as a drum and there rents are going up about 5% each year.

Azslim, I don’t know an
Bout the current batch of FBs in Tucson, but there are a lot of Phoenicians who say 2011 was the bottom and they will end up trying to rent to each other like a Chinese laundry! Amusing to watch my current “home town” of Phoenix. The smart money is still on the fenceposts. Years before the bottom.

That was my last experience in a corporate managed rental. Now I rent from a smaller property management LLC and have yet to experience that.

Rent control FTW!

We got realtor trolls here too.

Does anyone have an actual answer for me? Or is the one trick pony going to show us his one trick yet again?

speaking of…..

Does anyone have an actual answer for me?

I could see a rental manager overstating area increases, as a sales technique to make his own increases seem less out-of-line with the market…

I was looking between Dayton St and Wash Park. The building I liked with the 30% rise was near Speer. Yes, I think the rents were governed by a database. All the apartments I looked at that weren’t Mom and Pop shops were. All the buildings I looked at had recent rent rises and few vacancies. And no, I’m not a Realtor Troll.

What really struck me was that few of the apartment buildings in that Denver area seemed to have decent upkeep. Lots of uncleaned hallways, etc. The one near Speer looked like it was actually maintained decently. I’m used to looking for apartments in NYC boroughs and other places, had never seen so many apt buildings so badly kept.

how does that work? the attorney generals cannot possibly diminish the right of an individual homeowner to sue a bank for fraud, or can they?

Not sure why joe homeowner cannot file a complaint in superior court and have his case heard by a jury.

Think 9 - 11 and the airlines.

My understanding is that the AG settlement was all about criminal liability: nobody going to Jail, or being given fines. Nobody is particularly worried about FBs without a pot to piss in taking on big banks and all their law firms in civil cases.

Joe homeowner can sue. But he won’t. Because the only legal right he has is to get foreclosed on with the proper paperwork, and he only has that right if he raised the issue before his own foreclosure went through. There is no legal right to get a modification of any kind, not a refinance, not a reduction in principle. So what the state AG negotiated is much more than he could have gotten on his own. At least a few of the Joes will get something with the AG deal. Not many, but a few.

When you sue, you have to prove the other guy did something wrong. You also have to prove that you suffered damages. Doing a foreclosure without the right paperwork is wrong. But what damages did Joe suffer? This is in comparison with the terms of the original contract. Not much, right? There is no legal right to have your bank not process your paperwork.

What about bogus appraisals that these people relied on when purchasing homes? Couldn’t they argue that the appraisals were bogus and thus they paid too much for their home? the appraisals were based on inflated prices due to loose and careless lending?

But what damages did Joe suffer? This is in comparison with the terms of the original contract. Not much, right?

+1, polly. The real outcome to Joe was that he got to stay in his house LONGER than reasonably expected while not paying, and in the end lost the house. Losing the house was exactly what was expected under the terms of the original paperwork, if it had been processed correctly. Thus, Joe suffered zero damage due to it not having been processed correctly (e.g. robo-signed) vs having been processed correctly.

Of course, all of that is based on the assumption that the paperwork could eventually have been straightened out, and the correct legal steps taken. Some here dispute that is even possible, though I still believe that it is. Missing assignments can be done correctly.

What about bogus appraisals that these people relied on when purchasing homes?

The appraisal was never for the benefit of the purchaser. The purpose of the appraisal is to protect the LENDER against mortgage fraud. The purchaser should not have relied upon it for anything.

What about bogus appraisals that these people relied on when purchasing homes? Couldn’t they argue that the appraisals were bogus and thus they paid too much for their home?

William K. Black has been clanging this bell for several years. He calls them fraudulent appraisals.

What PiC said. The victims of the fraudulent appraisals are the people who later bought the mortgages from the banks relying on a LTV (Loan to Value) figure. And IMHO the real problem isn’t the degree to which the appraisals were fraudulent, it the degree to which they WEREN’T. People really WERE standing in line, waiting to overpay for those houses. Lets face it most people don’t say “Whew, I missed that bullet” when the appraisal come in lower than their bid. Mostly they say “Stupid bank isn’t willing to lend me the money.”

The states have processes in place to deal with lost paperwork. Even before securitizations, there were warehouse fires. Paperwork got lost and they figured out a way to deal with it. Long and annoying ways to deal with it, but ways.

Before the foreclosure took place, there was something to argue about (the missing/bad paperwork). Once it happens, you might have an argument if you can prove that you tried to pay off the whole thing, or at least 100% of the past due payments and any extra interest and penalties and the bank refused to accept your money. Maybe. But banks aren’t really required to be fair and how long after you miss a payment they are allowed to foreclose is usually spelled out in the docs and the law.

or at least 100% of the past due payments and any extra interest and penalties and the bank refused to accept your money.

Even that wouldn’t be sufficient under the terms of the mortgages that I have read. Once you are in default, and they have notified you of said default, they typically have the right to accelerate—e.g. make the whole note payable immediately. Once they notify you of that acceleration, bringing the note current is no longer an option. The note is due, so payments of arrears are still just a partial payment with no legal significance.

Hence the hedging and and the maybe. It really depends on the documents. Maybe there was something in there allowing the borrower to catch up within 45 days or 15 days after the bank notifies them of the missed payment or something. I don’t see why they would, but it could be there in states with agressive consumer protection. Not sure if we have any of those left.

Gotcha, polly. Yeah, I have seen clauses like that as well.

I think in WA state, there is a “Notification of Intent to Accelerate” sent, and you have a clearly-defined deadline by which all attempts to pay arrears have to be made.

So as you suggest, you would have an argument after that date if you tried to pay the arrears before that date, and the bank refused to accept.

But my guess would be that we just described zero FB’s nationwide.

Maybe not zero. There was bound to be someone out there who had a mix up with a check clearing or forgetting to put a stamp on the payment or putting the cable company check in the mortgage envelope, or something. Not sure if that would be a true FB, but that sort of thing happens. Which is why there is an opportunity to catch up - for when an accident happens.

Agreed. I almost said “handful”, but then thought zero was more fun.

In either case, it is a small set of FBs that could show actual harm.

I actually like Google+ better, except for the (1) that you mention. I have a bunch of friends who likewise created an account there to check it out, but only a couple who actually post anything of interest there.

Facebook works like this: You have a voice message machine on your phone. Periodically you record a new outgoing message about the latest happenings in your life, your likes and dislikes, etc. Then people call your number because they’re just dying to find out this info. And you don’t have to talk to any of them!

The real power of Facebook is that you don’t have to remember to check in with so-and-so. Whenever you check in on any of your friends, you typically see the updates from many of your friends.

A H.S. shop teacher from way back when told the class one time that a “friend” was someone who you could call at 2AM and ask for a ride to the airport 30 miles away, and by the way you needed to be there by 6:30 AM. And he’d do it. Without expecting anything in return.

Everyone else you know is just an “acquaintance.”

FB users how to do find like minded friends say within 25 miles of your home? Myspace used to be easy to do..

what good is 5000 friends if 4900 are all over the world and i need people to show up to a gig in nyc?

take a cab.

I’m not sure what a company would do if you didn’t have a FB account. Wouldn’t the company just think you were witholding your password? After all, you can’t prove that you don’t have an account.

I don’t have a FB and have never had one. Which makes me totally unemployable now. Oh, well. Freelancing biz is showing signs of life, so I’d best give it the TLC it needs.

Don’t you want people to refuse to give you a password? That is just basic computer security. Besides, people use the same password for so many things.

This is NOT what you think…..trust me…….

http://suicidemachine.org/

He said yesterday they can be between $2k-$8k. So $2k would be 4 years and $8k would be 13 years in your example, assuming your electric bill doesn’t increase resulting in greater savings.

oh thx for the info, missed that.

azdude,

Infiltration tends to be the biggest consumer of energy in our homes. Infiltration control are “mandatory measures” that so far don’t get enforced.

Around here where energy bills are high the payback can be extremely short.

Other benefits are pest and sound control.

The home that cost $6,000 is a multi million dollar cost home, very upscale and the seal in that case was quite unconventional.

If we throw that home out no others have exceeded $3,500.

p.s. Does OC give you an exclusive on their sealing product in your market?

I totally understand that you install a wide variety of manufacturers’ products, and that the other insulating specialists that you used to compete with had a wide variety of products that they could install as well…

I’m just curious about their business model on this product; the assertion that they would give an exclusive for a region surprised me. Thanks.

I would have to ask. There is no-one else in my market.

It took them a couple of years to develop this and through that time period it was sold to me more as an opportunity to get a good result, a convenience rather than a profit center. My primary product is building insulation and it is very rewarding to see it function as opposed to being by-passed by leakage.

Compliance with infiltration control requirements has always been a big pain in the butt because the available products were problematic for various reasons. Because these are mandatory measures I am sure that any OCF customer is welcome to add Energy Complete to their inventory.

OCF’s model like the other manufacturers has changed in that they now sell to distributors instead of selling direct to small contractors like me. I’m grandfathered in because I have been a customer for almost 30 years.

Thanks for the info, CharlieTango.

Thanks for the info, CharlieTango.

Seconded.

BTW, I was at an HVAC industry trade show last Thursday. From what I saw and heard, I gathered that increasing the energy efficiency of existing residential and commercial structures is becoming a big business.

If it were not for retrofits I would be out of business. It is less fun for the installers but it is more rewarding for me. I like the good results making people more comfortable while saving energy.

lmao. It’s got nothing to do with cha-ching right? lol

Why all the hostility, RAL? Ideally, good business is good for both parties to the transaction, which is why they choose to participate in the transaction.

Having a good, profitable business while also doing a good thing for the country and the environment (e.g. increasing home heating/cooling efficiency, reducing fossil fuel consumption, emissions, etc) strikes me as a business that one could feel really good about. It’s good in lots of ways.

I have no problem with making money. Don’t misrepresent the truth in order to profit is all. Maybe you should *read* the exchange regarding the technical aspects of heat transfer.

Maybe you should *read* the exchange regarding the technical aspects of heat transfer.

I read it, and found it interesting.

However, I avoided drawing any conclusion, since I have neither expertise in the area, nor any data on which to make a judgement.

I think I would need to see data on results from blower-door tests on the air inclusion/exclusion of buildings treated with both approaches before I would feel comfortable drawing any conclusion…

I fly a Flight Design CTSW, which is a Special Light Sport
125kts on 5 gal auto gas / hour

Photo

was

Why’d you stop flying, Rancher? (assuming that you did with the sale of your aircraft)

I fly a Flight Design CTSW, which is a Special Light Sport
125kts on 5 gal auto gas / hour

Cool plane! (I looked at the picture.)

There are old pilots,
there are bold pilots,
there aren’t any old, bold pilots

Getting up in age, reflexes not what they were, skyrocketing costs, and the challenge has gone.

True enough, Rancher—and I fully respect each pilot making that tough decision for him/herself.

But it is certainly possible to be both old and still active. Heck, my first loop (on the 100th anniversary of flight!) was with a flight instructor in his early seventies—still my favorite instructor ever. Think I will call him up for a spring refresher now that we’re on the subject. Sure hope he is still instructing!

Regarding the challenge being gone, I totally get that angle too—I’ve hardly been flying myself in recent years. Thinking maybe I need to get a new rating just to bring some challenge back.

Charlie tango, the drooling communists such as Alpha Slob, want to confiscate your plane for the good of the crack mothers and cRAP “musicians” so I would not discuss that I would own a plane.

communists such as Alpha Slob, want to confiscate

“communists” and “confiscate” Wow, good job Bill. You just used 2 unoriginal Limbaugh buzzwords in one sentence.

bilious, you’ve officially lost it….
Do you even know what “communist” means? And if so, why Rio? Hope you were being ironic here. Usually you’re a bit less rash and a little more thoughtful.

http://insulation.owenscorning.com/homeowners/find-a-professional/

Enter your zip code. Leave daddy alone.

I was Emailing Cathi McDade who administers the Energy Complete program. For Rancher’s zip Cathi said no-one even close but I just did the search and there is a list.

I suspect the search is bad, I’ll ask.

I see the issue that is a search for insulation professionals. Very few of which install Energy Complete infiltration control.

Charlie, what about 20850?

I already asked about Westminster MD and my question got forwarded to 2 people that handle that area. I haven’t seen a response yet. It looks like 40 miles so the answer should be the same for both locations. I’ll try and post tomorrow.

Nothing? They would have gotten at least something for the assets that would have been sold in BK. No, not factory buildings, but the foundries, robot welders, etc. in those buildings. Plus the stock of materials and the unsold cars.

P.S. Stockholders hold shares. Bondholders hold notes. Yes, the former were toast; the latter shouldn’t have been.

So you say; that doesn’t make it true.

Nothing? They would have gotten at least something for the assets that would have been sold in BK.

You are both acting as if the only other alternative was a liquidation. It was not—there were other better alternatives.

Shareholders should have been wiped out (the company was insolvent). Bondholders should have become shareholders. And the recapitalization, if done by the government, should have been done on equitable terms (e.g. a significant share of equity, plus bond-like repayment, probably as preferred shares) after both of those things occurred.

Anything other than that was a giveaway to both the shareholders and the bondholders.

Here’s ten orders they will NOT obey. Anyone see a problem with this?

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

I stand corrected and it was a bad example. I have no problem with their oath. I still think there will be a ongoing problem with some of the vets we have coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

So they support OWS’s right to protest and occupy public spaces ?

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

So they would have allowed the southern states to secede. And they would allow any state to secede now, for pretty much any reason.

What is their oath to? The division of the United States?

So they would have allowed the southern states to secede.

That does not follow at all. Not forcefully subjugating does not equate to agreeing with the legal revoking of their agreement to enter the Union, unless that legal right exists. My understanding is that legally, only Texas reserved the right to secede under the language in their compact to join the US.

hmmm…. isn’t it ironic that the board of directors of oathkeepers are all law and order types.

hmmm…. isn’t it ironic that the board of directors of oathkeepers are all law and order types.

Sorry to say it, but this doesn’t surprise me at all. The law and order types are the sort who would be attracted to such things.

RAL, that’s because it’s specifically for people who are in law enforcement, armed forces, etc. So that they remember who they are and what they’re supposed to be doing, as opposed to things like doing warrantless searches and seizures and imprisoning US citizens without due process. The whole idea is to prevent themselves and others from being used as tools of a suborned government. Having had a close encounter with a couple of law enforcement guys looking for the former occupant of an apartment I rented back in 2005, I think this sort of thing is a good idea. Nothing ironic about it. I hope their membership grows.

“The law and order types are the sort who would be attracted to such things.”

What things? I hope to see more law and order types attracted to “such things”.

Maybe you’re in favor of warrantless searches and seizures and imprisonment without due process. I’m not.

. Not forcefully subjugating does not equate to agreeing with the legal revoking of their agreement to enter the Union, unless that legal right exists.

I seem to recall that the southern states simply stated that they had to right to secede, and did so. The Oath Keepers have sworn an oath that they

“will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union”

That’s what the southern states did- they declared the national gov to be in violation of the constitution, and asserted their sovereignty, and left the union, counterarguments be damned.

The refusal to use force to stop their secession would have been the equivalent of allowing it, as there was no other option.

Here’s ten orders they will NOT obey. Anyone see a problem with this?

Those all looked like a d@mn good idea to me. In fact, anyone who reads the actual Bill of Rights would see that the founding fathers were trying to protect against exactly the same things as these folks.

My understanding is that legally, only Texas reserved the right to secede under the language in their compact to join the US.

——————
And I think even they lost that right when they rejoined the US.

“Those all looked like a d@mn good idea to me. In fact, anyone who reads the actual Bill of Rights would see that the founding fathers were trying to protect against exactly the same things as these folks.”

I agree. I was actually heartened to hear that an organization such as the Oathkeepers exists. I wish one of the sherrif’s officers who stopped by my apartment back in ‘05 had been a member.

“Sorry to say it, but this doesn’t surprise me at all.”

‘Fess up, Slimmie, you posted that without knowing what this was all about.

Ach, Slimmie, I’ve been guilty of more knee-jerk reactions in my lifetime than you’ll ever be, I’m sure, so I understand. Disregard my post. This just happens to be a subject I’m maybe a little too passionate about.

“sherrif’s officers”

Sheriff. Jeebus. Whassamattawime?

It was not the right to secede, but the right to split into 4 states.

Imagine how different the world would be if Abe had told the southern states, “OK, good-bye. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

My take: Slavery would ultimately have failed as the north instituted a trade embargo, and its industrialization rapidly outpaced the south’s purely agrarian economy. The “underground railroad” would have become an “underground superhighway.” Europe would be speaking German and most of Asia would be speaking Japanese. We’d be on a par with Brazil or Argentina, and just minding our own business.

Here’s ten orders they will NOT obey. Anyone see a problem with this?

I pointed out some problems, and posed a related question as to what their position was regarding OWS’s right to protest and freely assemble in a public space (I’m guessing they’re against or suspiciously silent on OWS’s rights).

I seem to have stumped you, since you have no response.

I think slavery could have survived on cotton exports to Europe.

They don’t mention OWS specifically, but they certainly support your constitutional right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembl7, and to petition for redress:

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Translation: I believe they would be supportive of OWS, and against the various police tactics that have been used against them.

You had a fair point on whether they would have supported allowing the states to secede from the Union. The constitution was always a bit mute on that, unfortunately. I may not agree with them after all on this one:

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

I may be showing my ignorance here, but did the southern states actually argue that the federal government was in violation of the compact by which they entered the Union?

Translation: I believe they would be supportive of OWS

Then how do you explain their silence on the subject? Is there any record of any law enforcement agents who refused to clear the OWS protesters because they were Oath Keepers? Any mention at all of any who did so on their web site?

I bet they cheered when the OWS protesters were cleared. These guys are a bunch of frauds. They swear to protect the Constitutional rights they like, for the people they like.

Are cannon an argument?

Split into x4 states???

4 x2 = 8
OK, the x8 senators from Georgia vote in favor of non-peoples as machines-of-profit$.

How doeth the x2 senators from Maine vote?

Foghorn: “Eye say boy, eyes think yers on to $omething!”

but did the southern states actually argue that the federal government was in violation of the compact by which they entered the Union?

Yes, they did make the argument. But why would that matter?

I think slavery could have survived on cotton exports to Europe.

How long? Slavery was going to die anyway as it did in every country. It didn’t even last much longer in Brazil. This is why the South was dumb as dirt.

Then how do you explain their silence on the subject? Is there any record of any law enforcement agents who refused to clear the OWS protesters because they were Oath Keepers? Any mention at all of any who did so on their web site?

They haven’t been silent on the subject; I found this pretty easily with google:

Therefore, Oath Keepers sees good reason to stand in the streets with these awakening souls and protect their right to free speech, to peacefully assemble, and to redress their grievances to their government, as the Constitution prescribes for all Americans.

So they do support OWS’ right to free speech, peaceful assembly, to seek redress for grievances. That’s good…

Unfortunately, other than that, they largely seem to express concern about the anti-capitalist tone of the gatherings. However, they seem to believe that the anger is justified, but should instead be directed at the Fed!

Oath Keepers notes that certain forces (socialists and Marxists) are attempting to co-opt their awakening by pointing a finger at Wall Street and using the very real and well documented corruption there, which is certainly obvious to all, to attack “capitalism”. They are using the sins of corporatism, a.ka. crony capitalism, to attach the ideal of a free market and economic freedom in general, in order to persuade our youth that socialism (a soft form of communism) is to be preferred over the madhouse tactics of berserk corporate America, or, “Wall Street”. They are presenting them a false choice between fascism (which is the proper name for a marriage between big government and big business) and Marxism, while totally ignoring the free market and sound money that our Constitutional Republic is supposed to have.

This is a lie being sold to our nation’s youth. Oath Keepers intends to redirect that lie back to the truth, which is the fact that the Federal Reserve is at the heart of the problem and without the Fed the bad boys of Wall Street could not do so much damage to our country.

Now how do you feel about them, alpha?

Now how do you feel about them, alpha?

I think a few at the top realized they couldn’t openly oppose the OWS right to protest without being shown to be total hypocrites, but as you point out, they offered no real support to the protesters and instead mostly saw it as an opportunity to redirect the OWS protesters to their own goals. Was there any outrage expressed from them when the peaceably assembled protesters were cleared by force? Were there any reports of law enforcement types who refused to help clear the OWS protesters because they themselves were Oath Keepers?

So I still feel they’re a bunch of frauds, sworn to protect the Constitutional rights they like, for the people they like. They just had a golden opportunity to show America how strongly they supported the right to protest peacefully, and we barely heard a peep from them. Frauds.

Were there any reports of law enforcement types who refused to help clear the OWS protesters because they themselves were Oath Keepers?

Maybe there just aren’t enough of them around yet to have any of them on the scene of the more aggressive clearing of protesters.

It’s a numbers game. If they weren’t there “on the job”, you can’t blame them for not refusing orders to clear protestors.

I do recall that one officer (from another city) that showed up in full dress uniform to support the protesters… Maybe he was an Oath Keeper.

With the exception of the kids who says those civilians are innocent?

I meant “innocent” in the sense of “presumed innocent”, rather than “provably innocent”. We don’t typically support going around killing the “presumed innocent”, even in a war-zone.

Personally, I would lean toward considering any intentional life-taking crime to be on a different moral level than pretty much any money-taking crime. Maybe that’s just me.

But money is at least somewhat replaceable, and life definitely isn’t.

Financial fraud should be prosecuted vigorously, and no country club prisons — same cell bock with the rest of ‘em.

p.s. I totally agree, rms. They should be prosecuted vigorously, and the penalty should fit the harm.

I’ve always rather favored a McJob-style punishment. Set up Jamie CEO in a one-bed slum apartment within walking or bus distance of McDonald’s or other McJob. Make Jamie work for minimum wage and no benefits or health care. Make Jamie wear an ankle bracelet locator so he can’t sneak off, and punish any friends who try to slip him extra cash or goodies. If Jamie screws up on the job, don’t fire him, just dock his pay and make him work extra hours. No cell phone, landline only. If Jamie does well and exhibits good behavior, let him retire from McD’s with a reasonable Social Security pension.

I think this would be a good deterrent to future crime.

I agree 100%.

No sympathy for him regardless. He should have been turned over to the village courts for acting outside of military jurisdiction.

Of course he was under military jurisdiction. He was in the US military acting in a foreign country. Disagreeing with the mission is a different subject.

. He was in the US military acting in a foreign country.

It was a rogue action. NOT the action of the US military.

Why should a soldier be protected from local jurisdiction when he is acting against his own orders? I get why they get protection from local jurisdiction when they are acting ON orders, btw.

So no Repubs are racist in your view?

I made no such claim. Certainly there are some who are racist.

But the statement she quoted said “The Republicans know”, and she responded with “they think”. Both of those references sound awfully general and appeared to address the whole party as a group.

I try to avoid the broad brush-strokes when it comes to large groups of people, as there is generally a lot of variation among them.

Got it, Polly. For the record, neither did I, or at least I don’t think I did…(you never can really be sure who you are working for, though…).

polly, I want to securitize and sell my personal future career income stream–e.g. income from working not investments or dividends—thus getting an approximation of NPV for all my future earnings now to invest.

How do I go about this?

The point of securitizing is to put together a lot of similar streams of payments, thus allowing you to say the people who get the first 10% are protected from individual risk, so you are going to have to find a thousand or more buddies to do it with you.

Then you need the stream of payments to be legally enforceable in some way (why debt was always a good one) though payments that are fairly predictable (like collections on a toll road) might work.

In order to get the future income stream of your working life to fit, I think you are going to have to sell yourself into slavery. Unconsitutional, of course. Afraid you are out of luck. An unsecured personal loan is about the best you can do.

Hey, I liked that question. I know you weren’t serious, but that was fun.

LOL… Thanks for playing along, polly! It’s a fun thought exercise…

I think you are going to have to sell yourself into slavery.

That’s where I was going with it, actually, but you beat me to the punch-line.

Yet more solid evidence that debt==slavery!

I’m also pretty sure that I would turn into a lazy slave–assuming beatings are not also allowed—if I had already received my entire life’s pay. That’s probably why debt-mongers prefer only pro-rated slavery today.

Rock stars can do it:

wikipedia
Bowie Bonds are asset-backed securities of current and future revenues of the 25 albums (287 songs) that David Bowie recorded before 1990.

Issued in 1997, the bonds were bought for US$55 million by the Prudential Insurance Company[1]. The bonds paid an interest rate of 7.9% and had an average life of ten years,[2] a higher rate of return than a 10-year Treasury note (at the time, 6.37%).[1] Royalties from the 25 albums generated the cash flow that secured the bonds’ interest payments.[3] Prudential also received guarantees from Bowie’s label, EMI Records, which had recently signed a $30m deal with Bowie.[1]

By forfeiting ten years worth of royalties, David Bowie was able to receive a payment of US$55 million up front. Bowie used this income to buy songs owned by his former manager.[2] Bowie’s combined catalog of albums covered by this agreement sold more than 1 million copies annually at the time of the agreement.[1]

The Bowie Bond issuance was perhaps the first instance of intellectual property rights securitization.

Royalties are the equivalent of the toll payments I mentioned. The work has already been done. You have some experience so you know that there will be a stream of payments coming, or pretty sure. You have no guarantee of the exact amount, but, you aren’t relying on him generating more songs to get paid.

It is important to keep them straight. Investment bankers are the ones that promise you they can sell a few million shares of your company (only 48% ownership transfer) for $52 a share and then when the shares end trading on the first day at $97 you are supposed to be grateful that they were so good at figuring out the price and took all that risk to guarantee all the shares selling. Despite the fact that you could have used that extra $45 a share as working capital.

For many years, the Scott Paper HQ stood empty next to the Philadelphia Airport. Why? Because Al Dunlap gutted the company.

A lot of good people lost their jobs in that debacle, including some friends of my family.

Small world AZ. Half of my extended family and many close friends were sent into bankruptcy after Dunlap destroyed Scott Paper.

Half of my extended family and many close friends were sent into bankruptcy after Dunlap destroyed Scott Paper

Dunlap liberated assets for those who preach liberated assets. Pay heed to who is doing that now.

That was my alternative hypothesis.

WARNING: This video contains actual video of honest Lynn Szymoniak.

CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley - Foreclosure fraud …
5 days ago… foreclosure, Lynn Szymoniak decided to fight back against her bank on … million for uncovering the massive foreclosure fraud that was used …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W1-EL9otu0 - 119k - Cached - Similar pages

“You are allowed to brag” The braggart, 2012

“People at the lower rungs of society quickly dominate given the opportunity.”

Sorry, but that character trait is by no means restricted to those on the lower rungs. Check out who occupies most of the desks among legislators, as well as the desks in all the various regulatory offices of the executive branch.

“so that I could get rid of a problematic co-housing person if it ever came to that.”

Then be careful where you build it. Tennants have rights in some places.

Then be careful where you build it. Tennants have rights in some places.

Already researched. Seattle rules are (at least at the moment) pretty owner-friendly on co-housing situations, presumably to avoid the nightmare of living with someone awful and not being able to get rid of them. It’s way easier to get rid of someone from shared housing than it is from separate independent space, where tenants get more protections.