The Housing Bubble

Conversely, prices in some of the Maritime provinces are at Oil City levels, even on the coast. Asking prices of around $70,000 for decent looking 2 br 1 ba bungalows in Sydney, for example.

I guess they don’t have any oil fields in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

A lot of names originally French were obliterated by the English speaking immigrants. Case in point; Buffalo. The city named for the river the French called the Beau Fleuve (beautiful river). Nobody knows what Canuk came from.

+1 Hahahahahaha.

I have found that about the only “slur” that bothers Canadians is if you ask them what part of America they are from.

Nyuck nyuck nyuck…

– Curly Joe Stooge

It was a mania.

The one-percenter’s lobbying cash goes further in other places than here at home. If it was simply a mania then Germany should have caught the wave too, no?

It was a mania.

I still don’t get it. If it was a mania (and I think it was, amongst other things), then it still asks the question why is it ‘worse’ in almost all other countries?

The one-percenter’s lobbying cash goes further in other places than here at home.

It props house prices up all over the world?

The Germans were busy with other manias.

Why haven’t taxpayers revolted in high tax states?

They have, at least at the local level. See my post in the bits bucket last week regarding the town of Westport voting down prop 2 1/2 overrides to plug budget deficits with the school system (among other things). Note, a prop 2 1/2 override has never passed in the town, and this is in solidly Democrat Massachusetts.

The school committee met a few days after the vote and decided they had no choice but to lay off 4 teachers. Many of the parents who voted “Yes” for the (failed) tax increases started asking why no administrators were being considered for layoff, only teachers? I have never seen a government/public organization that wasn’t top heavy…

Many of the parents who voted “Yes” for the (failed) tax increases started asking why no administrators were being considered for layoff, only teachers? I have never seen a government/public organization that wasn’t top heavy…

True….esp. in education

2 1/2 sounds like a baby TABOR. A first step in the right direction.

TABOR addresses spending, rather than TAXES. Spending increases are restricted to match population growth and inflation.

The Tax and Spend crowd hates TABOR with a passion.

Right. 2 1/2 limits the amount property taxes can be raised in any given year in a municipality as well as the total amount of property taxes raised. Bottom line, it limits spending as budgets can only depend on a 2 1/2 percent increase annually, which given inflation, often means “level spending” to the year prior.

It can be overridden by a ballot initiative, thus putting the issue of additional taxes directly to the voters/taxpayers. It would seem to me that, at least in this case, Democracy is a better alternative to Representative Republic, as the locals aren’t supplanted by special interests, at least not directly (doesn’t stop Unions from organizing around local issues).

Where are you located?

Where are you located?

Lexington, Kentucky.

Jacksonville, Florida is also the City and County, as is San Francisco.

You and my big sis. Now I have to wonder if we have ever crossed paths. I had a great conversation about the housing bubble back in the mid-2000s with a Lexingtonian who “got it.”

a great conversation about the housing bubble back in the mid-2000s with a Lexingtonian who “got it.”

Coulda been me, I’ve been preaching about bubbles to anyone who’d listen since the late 90s- never did believe in the Maestro.

Let me know if you’re ever back in town, we’ll pop a cold one.

BINGO.

Polly gets it.

Correct, in many cases you get a choice between a big rebate or 0% financing.

Because you could negotiate a lower price if you gave up the 0% financing.

Yes and no. Yes, you often have to choose between a “cash rebate” and low/no interest financing, one or the other. However, if you do the math, you see that often the cash rebate doesn’t make up for the low interest loan money saved, especially at higher loan amounts.

Additionally, a dealers lowest price is always negotiated based on dealer financing. Dealer financing is a profit center to a dealer. The dealer get’s a kickback on the financing, say 1/4 or 1/2 percent per deal, sometimes more. If you attempt to pay cash, you will not get the lowest possible price, period. Sales and F/I managers know their bottom lines (they’re paid bonuses against it), and that includes a profit on every deal from financing.

The best approach is to negotiate your best price, take the cash rebate and then take traditional financing with no early repayment penalty through the dealer. Then, pay off the loan a few months later…

I think your best deal is to negotiate the best price possible while letting the sales guy think you are going to take his high interest financing. Then plunk down your cash back credit card and pay it off before the grace period. That is what I would attempt if I weren’t going to buy my next car by writing out a check to my father.

I believe that being female and acting scared of “making such a big purchase on my own” can help with this strategy.

“Because you could negotiate a lower price if you gave up the 0% financing. Just ask.”

Those rebates are usually BS anyway. They’ll give a $1500 cash to consumer rebate take away a $500 dealer rebate. The end price paid for the consumer is the same. It’s a marketing ploy.

Dealers - as Northeastern - mentioned want you to finance since they get a kickback from the finance arm. Plus it’s financing where dealers add all the extra junk (or try to add) since instead of a $200 item it’s only an extra $4/month item. That extended warranty isn’t $700, it’s only $15/month. Telling a sales rep off the vat you’re paying cash is the equivalent of telling him “don’t give me a good price on the car because you have ZERO chance of any additional profit on the back end”.

Polly is correct. There are three steps in buying a car:

1. Negotiate the price.
2. Negotiate the financing.
3. Negotiate the trade-in.

Every public org from Consumer Reports to Edmunds advocates to hammer each of these out separately. Every car salesperson is trained to bundle all three into a convoluted howmuchamonth financing plan in the dealership’s favor.

Telling a sales rep off the vat you’re paying cash is the equivalent of telling him “don’t give me a good price on the car because you have ZERO chance of any additional profit on the back end”.

Exactly. It’s a game. They want a shot at selling you as much as possible. Have to know their motivation.

Couple of other points.
1. Always buy a new car on the last day of the month. If the dealer is close to making his numbers, he will be willing to give the car away (0 profit or a loss) because it often means a bonus for the sales manager greater than his share of the individual deal. Basically a flat commission for the sales rep, but it’s a unit out the door…

2. Always buy what’s on the lot for the best deal. If they have to do a locate or special order from the factory, than they won’t be as flexible on the price… it isn’t a unit out the door today and it costs money to swap the vehicle (driver).

3. If you’re buying pre-owned, it pays to do you homework concerning what’s been on the lot the longest. Cars depreciate just sitting on the lot. It costs dealers money (interest) to floorplan and the longer a car sits there, the more he pays in floorplan. A dealer will often move to wholesale anything that has been on the lot longer than 90-120 days.

These are often the pre-owned vehicles he will be willing to work the best deal on because he is probably already losing money on the car and if he has to go to auction, he may lose even more. Go to a dealer lot and take down inventory numbers for the cars you’re interested in. If they are still sitting after a few months, you know they are getting ready to wholesale them. Best chance to successfully lowball on a pre-owned car…

Last point: the average profit on a used vehicle sale before F/I is $2000. Listed prices are often marked up double that, if they own the car right. Food for thought when negotiating price for a pre-owned vehicle…

“….what’s been on the lot the longest”

Works for new cars too.

IIRC, dealers have 30 days to sell the car before they have to start paying floorplan interest. The longer it sits on the lot, the more dealer cash it’s burning thru.

“Selling at invoice” is a joke. Ask the dealer what the “holdback” is on a particular model.

Oldest daughter bought a new 2007 Mustang that stickered for $22K for a little less than $17K. Checking the Date of Manufacture on the door sticker, found out the car had been in inventory for almost six months.

And yeah, the end of month thing works. Best deal I ever made on a new car was showing up 90 minutes before close, weather pouring down rain, on the last day of the quarter.

they would not let me use any credit card at a toyota dealership in cali….

Telling a sales rep off the vat you’re paying cash is the equivalent of telling him “don’t give me a good price on the car because you have ZERO chance of any additional profit on the back end”.

Exactly what happened to me at a Subaru dealer recently. I’m not in a position to buy, just went to look (new Impreza wagon) but when the sales guy started asking questions I played along to see what he’d do.

I think the only places where cash will give you negotiating power is on the used car lots. And I’m not talking about the used car lots attached to dealers’ new car lots. I’m talking about the cheapie lots where they don’t do their own financing.

Wait, you’re quoting the NAR?!

Get real.

My point is your claim that only the eeeevil 1% can buy houses with cash is ridiculous.

Google is your friend Turkey. If you don’t trust NAR stats, fine. How about DataQuick? Or do you not trust any data related to housing that doesn’t conform to your bias?

Cash is king, when it comes to Orange County real estate. January marked the highest level of cash buyers for Orange County homes in DataQuick’s statistical archive that dates to 1988. According to DataQuick:

27.4% of January’s buyers did not use a mortgage – topping the previous high of 26.1% hit in February and November 2010.
Cash buyers had never exceeded 20% of purchases until 2009. (Well, never being since 1988!) Clearly the financial crisis and the ensuing damage done to the mortgage business are in play here.
From April 1997 through August 2007, cash buyers’ share of Orange County home purchases ran under 10% – averaging 7.3% in the decade-long period that was market by aggressive home lending.

My point is your claim that only the eeeevil 1% can buy houses with cash is ridiculous.

How did your post make that point?

Nothing in the data you provided contradicts the theory that it is the top 1% buying 30-50% of the houses.

NAR has no credibility here.

DataQuick? Good suggestion.

How ever, other easily googled facts show that half the workforce makes $500 week or less. They sure as hell aren’t paying cash for a house.

But my favorite fact is this: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Mother Jones? Yes. BUT… it’s Harvard’s facts.

It it walks like a duck…

I must be a 1%er then. I can cash out my Arizona municipal bonds and get a very good quality house in Arizona.

You don’t hear what Obama was originally selling much anymore.

Cover an additional 30-50Million more people in order to bring down the deficit. How can that work? Well it isn’t working the deficit is headed for the moon while we enjoy the introduction of the O-care taxes ( including hidden ) while we wait for the benefits that will likely never come.

It doesn’t matter what people support or not. The question is, can the govt make an individual buy health care. This is the media muddling the water.

Oh and BTW, all this hub-bub does nothing to lower costs, which was the point IIRC.

“…all this hub-bub does nothing to lower costs, which was the point IIRC.”

Matt Taibbi suggests the ‘lower costs’ claim was a smoke screen for hard-wiring the flow of funds to insurance companies’ coffers — pretty depressing stuff, if true…

Lowering health care costs is a canard.

There are two simple ways about it.

1. Pay a lot get good care.
2. Pay little get crappy care.

There is no option 3, pay little and get a lot which is what Obamacare was billed as.

Now you can argue as to who should be paying - individuals or the govt or employers. Doesn’t matter who pays. The issue is the same. You want good health care, it’s going to cost a lot of money.

Note

I don’t really support the plan and agree it’s a gift and likely designed by the insurance and medical industries, just like the medicare prescription drug plan was designed by the drug manufacturers so they could gorge at the gov trough and trick seniors into paying top dollar and not buying drugs over the border using the donut hole. I favor a medicare option for all that people pay into or a system like the one in Germany. NO more CEO’s making 10’s to 100 million a year. No more 26 cents on every dollar paid into insurance company being diverted to marketing and ceo pay. Insurance should be run like a utility with profits and ceo pay capped and a lot of oversite.

Our gov is by of and for the elite at the expense of everyone else. You can argue free market vs socialism, what we have now is worse it’s regulatory and gov capture by the elite.

Cover an additional 30-50Million more people in order to bring down the deficit. How can that work?

Insurance works better (and should be cheaper) if the pool is larger than just those likely to need it. Obamacare also has limits on the amount of money collected by insurance companies that can go towards administrative costs, so there should be some long-term savings for buyers.

But a nationalized single-payer plan is still the best bet. We’ll get there someday.

Measton,

Cancer survival rates in America, where we have eeeeevil CEOs and in Europe where there are no eeeevil CEOs running things. I think I’ll stick with the eeeevil CEOs myself.

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.

American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.

Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.

For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.

Alpha,

One provision that I would have liked to see is one whereby it was illegal for healthcare providers to charge different customers at different rates. This would have instantly leveled the playing field for insurance companies, making it easier for the little insurance company to compete, and the amount of $ going to care as a percentage of premiums would have risen simply due to the competition.

Combined with an individual mandate, these two things would have done a lot to allow the market to provide care.

Single payer is not the only theoretical solution to insuring the uninsured. However, without the ability to have an individual mandate, single payer may be the only viable solution.

IF the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, lots of Republicans will be celebrating a pyrrhic victory, as this just means that the next proposed solution will be even less tasteful to the R’s.

Most of the rest of the world outlives us, everyone is always covered, their satisfaction rates with their health care are equal to if not better than ours, and they achieve all this while spending much, much less.

And you will notice that NONE of them are contemplating a return to our style system.

Our style of health care coverage is dead, the stink just hasn’t reached enough nostrils. Give it a generation.

Our style of health care coverage is dead, the stink just hasn’t reached enough nostrils. Give it a generation.

With annual double digit price increases it’s only a matter of time until no one will be able to afford healthcare in the USA.

I’ve already noticed the trend at my GP’s practice. 10 years ago they had 6 doctors and if you called for an appointment the wait could be 1 week or longer. The waiting rooms were packed.

Fast forward to today. Three of the MD’s have retired. The waiting rooms are empty. I can get in the day I call. And the other day I received a letter stating that the practice is closing and my GP will be joining another practice.

I suspect that the advent of HD policies is behind this. Now, instead of paying a $10-20 copay, most patients have to cough up the full cost of the visit, $100+, as their deductibles have not been met. Consequently, they “tough it out” and skip receiving medical care altogether.

“Lowering health care costs is a canard.”

The irony is that any govt program with some form of ‘affordable’ in the description is certain to drive up the price above where market forces (sans subsidies) would otherwise have set it.

I suspect that the advent of HD policies is behind this. Now, instead of paying a $10-20 copay, most patients have to cough up the full cost of the visit, $100+, as their deductibles have not been met. Consequently, they “tough it out” and skip receiving medical care altogether.

I see a business opportunity for some entity. Sort of like the Southwest Airlines of medical care.

True, Southwest doesn’t always have the lowest fares, but they do have a very loyal customer base.

I see a business opportunity for some entity

I could see Mexican medical firms selling low cost health insurance for treatment received in Mexico. This of course would only work for people who live somewhat close to the border. It would work for say Tucson, but not so much for anyplace outside of the southwest.

“One provision that I would have liked to see is one whereby it was illegal for healthcare providers to charge different customers at different rates. ”

Do they do that now?

Do they do that now?

They certainly do. Insurance companies are able to negotiate lower prices with hospitals than uninsured individuals pay.

Mr. Smithers says - Cancer survival rates in America, where we have eeeeevil CEOs and in Europe where there are no eeeevil CEOs running things. I think I’ll stick with the eeeevil CEOs myself.

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.

American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.

Answer: Spoken by a man who does not understand cancer or statistics. Read up on lead time bias. We screen many more, biopsy more, and stage much more aggressively. This accounts for the bulk of the difference. Let’s just get down to the statistic that counts the most. Overall survival rates and cost. We spend 2-300% more and don’t do any better. Only an idiot would argue our system is better. Businesses and people are going broke with our system. How can you justify 26 cents on every insurance dollar being spent on things other than medicine. How can you justify CEO’s making 100,000,000 dollars.

Also note that most cancer care in America is provided by Medicare the VA etc ie socialized. Medicare spends 6 cents of every dollar on administration adn the VA is even less.

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.

American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men

The basic statistics that I’ve seen is that we pay about twice the amount of money per caipta for health care as the rest of the Western world for health care and our life expectancy is not any better. So if it is true that cancer survival is better here, there may be other diseases that are handled better in Europe.

Or we could take this approach. Let’s not bring in any of those weird big government health care systems from Europe or Canada. Let’s just extend Medicare to cover every American.

Yes, of course they do, Smithers. What do you think the allowed amount is on your insurance statements? It is the amount the insurance company and the provider have negotiated as the fee for that service. You pay your co-pay on that amount and the insurance company pays the rest. The total of those two is almost certainly much less than the “charges” the provider requested for their services. That is the provider’s first offer in negotiation with the insurance company. It is also what the provider actually charges uninsured patients.

The reason I said “almost certainly” is that I believe that everyone gets the same negotiated rate in Maryland. Not sure of the details. All the insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid have the same reimbursement rate. I think they have to use the same amount for unisured patients, though you will still see the higher “charges” rate on the bill.

But you knew that, of course. Just asking the question to try to put doubt in the minds of people who don’t know the details, right?

“One provision that I would have liked to see is one whereby it was illegal for healthcare providers to charge different customers at different rates. ”

Do they do that now?

Certainly. Big corporate entities can negotiate fees and co-pays for their employees with insurance companies; the bigger the customer, the better the rates. Individuals, meanwhile, pay full premium price for their insurance, or, if they have no insurance, woe unto them, for they get socked paying full price for medical care.

I love leftists, I really do.

The facts are there in black and white that European cancer survival rates are 50% lower than American survival rates. And yet you look at those numbers and say that Europe does a better job.

This is how you look at Obamacare that will cost $1T+ of tax money and claim - with a straight face - that it will save money.

Oh no!! Hospitals charge some customers a different rate than others? Wait what? Is this even legal?

Before you know car dealers will charge different people different amounts for the cars they sell.

And it might really get out of control to the point where airlines allow a newborn to fly free while charging his adult parent full price.

And if it gets totally out of hand we might have a situation where a senior citizen will get 10% discounts all over the place for being old.

And how about those eeeevil hotels that charge different rates to people with AAA memberships or with government rates?

THIS MADNESS HAS TO END NOW!! Equal pricing for everyone!!!

Check out our life expectancy rates. We’re behind Cuba, the United Arab Emirates, Costa Rica, Malta, Hong Kong, and of course pretty much every western nation. And we pay a lot more per capita. And unlike the other countries, we don’t cover everyone. All things considered, we have one of the worst health care insurance systems imaginable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country

Mr. Smithers, would you care to provide the source of the stats? When were the stats gathered? Do the European stats include Estonia, Bulgaria and Portugal? Are the percentages for everyone or just those who received treatment? Do the US stats identify survival rates of those with Medi-something vs those with private insurance vs those with no coverage?

Would you accept a few stats on one type of ailment as conclusive proof that a particular system is superior or inferior to another?

And why bring up Obamacare? No one in the thread is supporting it.

Mr. Smithers–

The differential pricing is generally dependent on volume. Medicare pays the least, large insurance companies pay a middle amount, small insurance companies pay more than large ones, and private individuals have the highest rates.

This has essentially driven the small insurance companies to be acquired by large ones, and has squeezed individuals most of all. With the ability to squeeze hospitals on one end (via lower reimbursement rates), and individuals on the other end (via higher premiums, since privately paying hospitals is impossible), the large insurance companies are able to drive higher profits–putting less $ toward healthcare.

Some say the insurance companies are evil. I don’t–they are simply trying to make the most money possible with the rules as they are.

I’m a pretty free market guy, but there are only so many dollars out there for healthcare, so if you want those dollars to go to caring for people, you need to reduce the flow of dollars elsewhere. This means reducing fraud, reducing unneeded procedures/tests, and reducing overhead/profits. The overhead reduction can come through efficiency.

Many argue that the single payer is the most efficient model. I’d like to try something else first–which would increase the options available to the consumer…see if the free market can be more efficient than government, but with the way reimbursements happen today, we have an oligopoly at the top of the insurance industry, which will reduce the ability for the free market to be the solution.

I love leftists, I really do.

It doesn’t matter what you love. The fact is that within 10 years no one will be able to afford private insurance. Our current system is doomed to collapse. We can try to prevent this or simply stick our collective heads in the sand and do nothing.

And as I mentioned above, the change is already happening. When I tell people that we still have a plan where we can see the doctor for just a $20 copay, I get oohs and aahs. From what I have seen, unless you work for Corporate America or the government, you probably have an HD plan (f you are even insured), which means you probably can’t afford to see the doctor.

Smithereens, YOU asked the question about medical pricing. You got several answers. So don’t go all snarky over those answers. Why did you ask the question in the first place? If rhetorical, next time warn us so we don’t even bother to answer, OK? And please drop the dripping sarcasm about “leftists”. These one-or-the-other, with-or-against-us labels are so boring. There are few rigid thinkers on the HBB.

Some say the insurance companies are evil. I don’t–they are simply trying to make the most money possible with the rules as they are.

Except that now they have grown large enough and rich enough to manipulate the system. They aren’t just playing by the rules, they are in many cases creating them.

—We’re behind Cuba, the United Arab Emirates, Costa Rica, Malta, Hong Kong, and of course pretty much every western nation.—-

Americans are fat.

Maybe its because we have the most drug addicts and criminals and that lowers the average age???

has anyone seen a 75 year old heroin addict? or meth?

Check out our life expectancy rates. We’re behind Cuba, the United Arab Emirates, Costa Rica, Malta, Hong Kong, and of course pretty much every western nation. And we pay a lot more per capita.

Maybe its because we have the most drug addicts and criminals

Link? Or is it your usual bull—t?

‘has anyone seen a 75 year old heroin addict?’

William S. Burroughs

“I work two jobs and haven’t seen a doctor in 25 years (i’m 47).”

My husband hadn’t seen a doctor in years when he had his cardiac arrest at 48. At least check your blood pressure occasionally at the drug store. And you can probably get a low cost glucose screening at the local Y or senior center.

Who are you talking about? Nobody who posts here, obviously.

I’m not sure who these “same people” are you are referring to - I’ve never met them. The “same people” I know are equally upset that BOTH are making outrageous amounts.

Mr. Smithers likes to move the goal posts. Regardless of what we think about civil servants’ compensation, it has nothing to do with our broken and doomed healthcare system.

But the fact remains, if heath insurance costs continue to climb at previous rates (and there is no reason to believe they won’t) in just 10 more years even HD policies will be utterly unaffordable. We’ve also run out of tricks: managed care, HMOs, PPOs and now the current trick: the High Deductible Plan, which for most people pays for nothing, except the annual checkup (will that get thrown out with “Obamacare” too?).

So for all practical purposes, the average American can’t afford to see the doctor anymore. The American Healthcare house of cards will soon collapse. It will be interesting to see what takes its place.

Southern California lifeguards get cushy retirement deals.

Mr. Smithers should change his name to Mr. Strawman.

I just don’t trust Ohboozoo.. Polly, there has to be a catch or some huge deduction co-pay…..Show me a $10hr worker who is given a $5K subsidy to get full insurance to pay for drugs because of past medical problems…

Bet they have to kick in another $5K on a $20K income.

On a $20K income they would qualify for Medicaid. The ACA expands eligibility for Medicaid.

You know, you might actually like the real world more than the fantasy world you live in if you tried living in it.

It never ceases to amuse me that a clown with such a tenuous grasp of both our language and our socio-political exigencies would refer without irony to a Professor of Constitutional Law and Head of State as “Ohboozoo”. At least spell it “Obozo”.

Like a gnat flinging feces at an elephant.

“Obozo” Sorry I leave the obozo to the Rush crowd….

I wanted something to signify displeasure from the rest of us.

On a $20K income they would qualify for Medicaid. The ACA expands eligibility for Medicaid.

Single person on medicaid earning $400 a week….if that’s so with no huge copays or deductibles….then i apologize….. I could live on that money with medicaid…and not have to file BK when i get sick…

I’ll bet lots of people will “find” those jobs real quickly…

http://missoulian.com/news/local/national-outcry-erupts-over-bankruptcy-of–year-old-plains/article_ad0fd116-bdba-11e1-b3b3-0019bb2963f4.html

Well, the 26 cents on the dollar thing was forbidden in the ACA anyway. 20 cents on the dollar is the max. But there is plenty of room for high salaries in that as they are also not allowed to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. They can still spend as much as they want trying to lure the healthier people to them.

Yep. Cry me a river.

I can see it being not permissible for a state law to contradict federal law.

But I don’t see what could possibly be wrong with a state law saying the SAME thing as a federal law. Doing so, it would not be in conflict.

Ultimately, the states are subservient to the Federal Government.

What a bunch of baloney. Federal gun laws are much less onerous than state law for MA, CT, NY, NJ, and CA. Those states still have the equivalent of the ‘94 Assault Weapons Ban in place.

As an aside, I’m always fascinated how the fall of this republic has similarities to that of the Roman Empire, yet in a much more compressed time line. Rome declined over centuries, but one of the phenomena of the decline was the treatment of its border provinces, which suffered invasions by Goths, Visigoths and Vandals (who were in turn reacting to their own conflicts with the Huns). These provinces sent substantial tribute (taxes) to Rome but their appeals for protection by the Roman Army were ignored.

I’m always fascinated how the fall of this republic has similarities to that of the Roman Empire,

History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. This is due to the nature of humans not changing throughout history. Our failings are written in our genetic code… and, it seems, match closely to the “seven deadly sins”, IMHO.

Not to say that Catholicism or Christianity has a lock on human behavior and our failings, rather, that those failings seem to be a common theme throughout history.

“The currently recognized version of the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.”

Interestingly, many actions that have been proscribed by various religions over the centuries often have more to do with survival than some sort of “control” or “moral authority” over the populace. Of course, in some cases, “moral” would be equated with that which promotes survival. At a time when there were no cures for veneral diseases, laws (religious or otherwise) against promiscuity and certain sex practices would make sense if someone wanted to live a life free of those diseases, in themselves and others. The Hebraic laws against certain foods and codifying proper food prep grew from observation that certain illnesses and life threatening conditions that arose from eating certain foods, or preparing foods in such a way that was harmful. Nothing wrong with that. Especially when there is no FDA.

Of course, today we have Mike Bloomberg. I’m no fan of his, but he may be on to something. My problem with veggies in general is how incredibly tasteless and wooden so many of them are in their “fresh” state. Sure, you can season and cook them within an inch of their lives, but often that defeats the nutritional purpose.

I do like fresh fruits of all kinds, though.

Palmy we could always segregate fruits and veggies on EBT cards…give everyone an extra $50 a month and its use it or lose it.

Interesting we cant get info on what people on FS actually buy???

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/24/top-secret-what-food-stamps-buy/

Interestingly, many actions that have been proscribed by various religions over the centuries often have more to do with survival than some sort of “control” or “moral authority” over the populace.

+ 1

“What a bunch of baloney. Federal gun laws are much less onerous than state law for MA, CT, NY, NJ, and CA. Those states still have the equivalent of the ‘94 Assault Weapons Ban in place.”

And those state’s law are all currently under contention as being unconstitutional and will be until they are overturned.

“veggies in general is how incredibly tasteless and wooden so many of them are in their “fresh” state.”

Of course, meat isn’t exactly all that appealing in its “fresh” state, either. Even steak tartare needs a raw egg and some chopped onions and capers to make it palatable.

Interesting we cant get info on what people on FS actually buy???

Based on that NY state law recently passed regarding EBT purchases, I would say cigarettes, alcohol, and strippers…

“My problem with veggies in general is how incredibly tasteless and wooden so many of them are in their “fresh” state.”

A store-bought “fresh” carrot simply cannot compare to one just pulled from the garden, a Tondo di Parigi for example, because the store-boughts are selected for their ability to be shipped. The differences are even more striking in more perishable items like strawberries and tomatoes. We have little blind taste tests every now and again and are routinely amazed at the difference in flavor.

On the other hand, we pulled 8 pounds of zucchini today and I don’t taste any difference between home-grown and store-bought.

My problem with veggies in general is how incredibly tasteless and wooden so many of them are in their “fresh” state.

Processed food that is high in fat, salt, and sugar messes with our cravings and taste buds. A pint of Ben and Jerry’s or a big plate of Costco ribs slathered with sauce will always taste better than an apple.

That said, I have noticed a huge difference between organic and non-organic fruit and veggies. Now that we shop the farmer’s market, I am starting to even notice the taste difference from one farm to another.

“That said, I have noticed a huge difference between organic and non-organic fruit and veggies. Now that we shop the farmer’s market, I am starting to even notice the taste difference from one farm to another.”

I think that’s very true. I was having a lunch outside of a building where I was working, the usual sandwich, and noticed a lady next to me slurping up some lima beans in a green sauce with great relish. I made a face, thinking of the lima beans my mom used to feed me when I wuz a pup, tasted like boiled felt. She urged me to try one, so I did and was surprised to find I enjoyed the crisp, nut-like flavor and texture. She told me they were from an organic farm up in Spring Hill, Florida, north of where I live.

“The differences are even more striking in more perishable items like strawberries and tomatoes.”

Exactly. There was nothing like the late summer/early autumn beefsteak tomatoes my parents used to take out of the garden back in the day. Heaven.

palmetto wrote: My problem with veggies in general is how incredibly tasteless and wooden so many of them are in their “fresh” state. Sure, you can season and cook them within an inch of their lives, but often that defeats the nutritional purpose.

I used to be a salad purist - very little or no dressing. I didn’t really like salad. But I’d choke them down from time to time. But I finally gave in, bought some healthy, tasty dressing and put on a decent amount on the salad. I get the fiber and nutrients from the salad, and it actually tastes pretty good. I eat a lot more nowadays.

I think some of us have a puritanical streak with vegetables, in that they must be eaten in close to their natural form. But that led me to shy away from them. Think of the massive preparation that goes into making meat available. From raising the beast, to slaughter, to cleaning, to aging, to cutting out the various cuts of meat, to processing and finally to the plate. If we do all that with meat, there’s nothing wrong with doing more prep for vegetables. And the upshot is, if it’s tasty, we’ll eat more, and it’s still good for you.

Gotta be careful with the cooking destroying nutrients, but sauces and seasoning make vegetables much more palatable.

“Federal gun laws are much less onerous than state law for MA, CT, NY, NJ, and CA.”

Federal gun laws prohibit certain weapons. State laws couldn’t be less restrictive because they would be disagreeing the federal law. State laws can be more prohibitive as they are adding on instead of being in conflict.

State laws couldn’t be less restrictive because they would be disagreeing the federal law.

You’re right, I was looking at it from the perspective of MA being more restrictive than Federal law. Similar to how Arizona has more restrictive immigration laws now than Fedgov…

Many vegetables (ie edible plant parts that are not fruits) have compounds that are toxic and/or render the other nutrients in the vegetable indigestible or difficult to absorb- generally because plants don’t like to be eaten. Cooking actually makes most vegetables both safer and more healthy to eat. Just don’t batter and fry them, at least not too often.

Fruits, of course, are a different story. They’re ‘designed’ to be eaten raw, and are generally healthier that way.

On the other hand, we pulled 8 pounds of zucchini today and I don’t taste any difference between home-grown and store-bought.

Zucchini has a taste? I’ve alwasy thought of it merely as a vehicle to deliver cheese, sauce, or dip.

Always. Not alwasy. Sigh.

“Zucchini has a taste? I’ve alwasy thought of it merely as a vehicle to deliver cheese, sauce, or dip.”

Yeah, it’s pretty bland. Last three meals have been zucchini-basil soup (no cream and it’s still good), sauteed zucchini with sole in beurre blanc and zucchini bread. It’s getting old!

I should clarify that the compounds that render many plant nutrients indigestible are usually found in the vegetable’s raw state, and are broken down by cooking. That’s why cooking is usually beneficial with regards to veggies.

Oxide’s Foolproof Method for Obtaining Copious Zucchini with Little to No Effort:

1. Find out who in the office likes to garden. Usually such parties exist in the administrative rather than technical cubicles.

2. Right about mid-June, walk by the gardeners and say “you know, I actually like zucchini.” Walk on by without further comment.

3. Clear a spot on your desk.

4. Wait about six weeks.

5. Collect zucchini from your desk.

Hah, Oxy.

Zukes need to be enjoyed as babies or even as flowers,(and best in the company of fresh tomatoes and eggplant,) but fresh from the garden veggies are beyond compare. Tonight we had grilled wild-caught salmon and stir-fried sugar snap peas, napa cabbage, rocket, chives and fennel flowers from the garden, and it was the most ambrosial thing I’ve eaten in weeks. (Burp.)

“Hearing cases and issuing opinions is what they do.”

Fair enough. But this used to mean something, and to this citizen, it looks pretty much like a meaningless and useless function anymore, especially when you have an exective branch than can decide which laws it chooses to enforce and which laws it chooses to ignore.

It is then that the “law” becomes a joke. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer this country were a nation of laws, or justice equally, fairly and swiftly applied for its citizens.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Fedgov nullification of Supreme Court ruling in 3, 2, 1 and…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/#ixzz1ypfW1CBx%20

AH-mazing. Well, that proves my point.

There goes the law…

I don’t think the article means what you think it means.

It means EXACTLY what I think it means.

No, it doesn’t. The ruling today means that SCOTUS considers federal law controlling for immigration. They just suspended a program that essentially allowed states to enforce federal law. I haven’t read the whole thing, but I think that is a pretty good reading of the opinion. Federal law is federal jurisdiction. They will take calls from the states and send out federal enforcement when the state people can provide a reason for deciding the person was “likely illegal” that is OK. If the state people call up and say they are illegal because they don’t speak English, well, that isn’t a good enough reason. Also a very good interpretation of the opinion which shows some scepticism that the states can enforce the part of they law they let stand in a manner that doesn’t conflict with Constitutional protections or other federal civil rights laws.

Why, how do you read it?

I was thinking Bizarro World…

Elaine discovers Bizarro World

I don’t think the numbers are being fudged. I’m aware of one guy who does Fannie REO work (sells for Fannie), and his volumes are way down.

Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of home loans that are non-conforming in CA…I’d be very surprised if those seriously delinquent rates were as low as the Fannie rates.

I’m saying the numbers don’t add up with the situation as we know it to be. I’ve been over their quarterly reports. I stopped when I had over a page of red flags and question marks. BTW, look at the LTV data (buried in the 90 plus pages and footnotes). Especially the LTV on loans they are purposefully making to FBs under one of the govt programs.

In their summary sheet (not quarterly report), they note the CA specific LTV as 81%, with NV, AZ and FL all over 100%.

BTW, I believe there is significant shadow inventory in CA that isn’t showing up in the non-current data. And that is underwater borrowers who are still current.

I know at least one family who is staying current on the loan on their underwater home while they look for their next house. The only thing keeping them from walking away currently is the lack of inventory–and they’ve been looking for a long time (and keep getting outbid). Once they find a place and buy it, they intend to walk.

What does this mean?

It means that even once homes start to get built at closer to historically “normal” numbers in California, these additional walk-aways will add supply, which will dampen any home price increases.

“Underwater borrowers who are still current” are NOT shadow inventory. They don’t want to sell the house, they don’t have to sell the house, and if they are paying then nobody else can make them sell the house. The house is NOT for sale.

Also, if one family finds a house they like, buys it, and then walks from their first house, that hasn’t changed the inventory number by a single house. Building new homes will change inventory whether an FB walks into it or not.

FWIW, it appears as though the Fannie loans represent ~50% of all mortgages in CA. I just saw a piece of data that the total number of mortgages in CA is about 4.7MM. By my math, Fannie guarantees are on about 2.35MM loans ($523 Billion with an average outstanding of $222,758=2.351 million loans).

Oxide–

I agree with you on the “only new construction adds new supply” point. The foreclosures in many of these markets has been a game of musical chairs…family loses house, moves into one down the street as a rental (or they buy before they walk).

I’ve been really focused on the negative feedback loop that foreclosures can cause on prices/values, and at least by one definition, “recovery” is a point in time where the number of foreclosures is at close to the historic norm, and not elevated as a byproduct of the housing bubble.

If your definition of “shadow” inventory doesn’t include homes that are going to be foreclosed (either voluntarily or involuntarily), but still fully of bodies, then the shadow inventory numbers are far less than frequently reported. Many of those in foreclosure limbo have been living payment free for 2+ years in the soon-to-be-bank’s home, and definitely counted as “shadow” inventory.

Whether you call them “shadow” inventory or not, there are foreclosures in the wings in form of people who can afford their current underwater mortgage, but would like to walk away if they could find another place to live…new construction would give them that choice. The new foreclosures won’t add supply, but it will make the overall percentage of distressed sales sticky on the way down (ie. a higher supply of distressed sales).

I frankly don’t think this will be a big effect, but it will be an effect, none-the-less.

The tick up on the Peninsula happened a bit earlier (second half of 2011 or so). The sky is not the limit however. The home across the street from me went on the market a couple of weeks ago for ~10% more than I paid in May 2011. It is the same vintage, but smaller square footage, and with steps all over the house (was built on a slope)–making many potential buyers think twice, and the usable square footage even less.

It doesn’t appear to be a multiple bid situation at this point, and I’ll be interested to see if they hold their price or need to drop their price to sell.

Looks like I was ahead of the curve. I was bidding and getting outbid last summer numerous times.

I finally outbid someone in the fall. Yeay!!

Whether it’ll hold or it’s a blip, who knows. It’s been going on for a year, so if it is a blip, it’s one hell of a blip. Either way, I’m paying less in PITI than I did in rent and have a nicer place.

Smithers, how do you feel about your purchase 9 months in?

Happy with the purchase.

I haven’t seen any other similar houses in the immediate area up for sale since we moved in. 1 other has sold. We looked at that as well, amazing views and a pool with about 4 acres fenced and a horse barn. But the house is from the late 70s and needed a lot of work to not make it look like from the late 70s. So we passed. It sold for almost full asking price in April.

Good lord, I made my offer when Eli Manning was still picking tickertape out of his hair. Could I have hit some sweet spot?

That said, I was driving around the countryside this weekend and there are plenty of For Sale signs. I think around DC, people will agree to a 2004 price but they refuse to reinflate above that.

Thanks Rent. After a second read of my input however, I should have mentioned that we did meet a uhs that impressed us in a possitive manner and we would do business with this individual.

Always an exception to the rule. I quess I should not be suprised though. Buyers with $0 to 5% down on a $350K 30 year debt, sellers with negative equity due to seconds for vacations and federal monetary policies that have set up everyone for a bowl ride are not factors that instill respect. Still, I get a strong feeling that normally accepted business practices were lost in persuit of $ from us, the chumps, on a lot of levels from near everyone in this industry.

Gates foundation… education issues (mostly US).

And they’ve screwed that up royally. It was the Gates foundation which pushed legislation tying school and teacher performance to standardized tests, i.e. No Child Left Behind. Turns out they were wrong.

Do we really want “well-meaning” money interests pushing their misguided agendas in the education of our children? A whole generation of children have gone through “No Child Left Behind”, and are woefully unprepared because of it.

Here is one of the Gate’s Foundation’s aims: “The foundation has set an ambitious goal in K-12 education: to graduate 80 percent of all high school students college-ready by 2025.”

What are the unintended consequences of this kind of agenda?
1. Higher college costs. Check.
2. Less demand for trade schools and learning trades. Check.
3. Lack of jobs to pay for the education loans taken out. Check.

I could go on. Just because Bill Gates is wealthy, doesn’t mean he should set the agenda for education in this country. His foundation was wrong before, and children suffered because of it. When are people going to wake up?

Well, that is what you get with great concentration of wealth. A few people who can push their issues with all the power of that money behind them. Sometimes they will be right. Sometimes they will be wong. The only way to stop it is to figure out ways to stop the great concentration of wealth. You suggesting something to address that issue?

The only way to stop it is to figure out ways to stop the great concentration of wealth. You suggesting something to address that issue?

InCo asked what Bill Gates is supposed to do with his money. I said hookers and blow. No impact on me and mine if Bill decided to spend all his money on that instead of trying to influence peddle our government.

I don’t care about the concentration of wealth. What I care about is what these 1% idiots are doing with it: manipulating our government and legal systems to support their agenda. Take the money out of lobbying and you remove their undue influence.

Then you have an issue to vote on. Presidents who will appoint and Senates that will approve nominees to the Supreme Court who would overturn current decisions about money being equal to speech. As long as money is the same as speech, you can’t get money out of politics.

Presidents who will appoint and Senates that will approve nominees to the Supreme Court who would overturn current decisions about money being equal to speech.

I thought Supreme Court appointments were life long appointments? Seems absurd that we have to wait until someone retires/dies to have a chance to change the structure of the Judicial branch and fix our corrupt system…

Yes, they are lifetime appointments. You have to wait for one to die or retire and they don’t retire at 55.

You can also get the changes you want through a Constitutional amendment. Have fun.

You can also get the changes you want through a Constitutional amendment. Have fun.

LOL. Requiring two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Where’s our Benevolent Billionaire? This is going to get expensive…

Why would even a benevolent billionare support a Constitutional amendment to make himself less powerful, much less powerful?

Slim,

You need to see a concert I saw this weekend. Google “Kennedy Center Millenium Stage” Poke around until you find this past Saturday’s show. Obviously not as cool as it was live, but I think you will like it.

Thank you! It’s bookmarked.

“I don’t think you realize you’ve just proved my point about who is doing the buying.”

You’re barely tried to make a point let alone prove it.

Foreclosure activity? Or REO sales?

Non-current rates in MA peaked at near 11%, and really haven’t done much over the past 2 years (only recently reduced to 9.6%). This certainly supports that banks are starting to push things through the foreclosure process more than the prior 2 years.

Is that resulting in more REO on the market? Sounds like the answer is no…in which case I agree…smacks of inventory manipulation.

The question really is how much REO do the banks hold in MA? And if they were to release it all on the market for sale, how much inventory does it really add?

I wish there was a “foreclosure radar” of the east…in CA they show REO by month going back the prior 12 months, so you can see whether REO inventory on the books of lenders is growing or shrinking…this data isn’t available for MA, only a few Western states.

Nothing wrong with those engineering fields, and nothing wrong with Australia. I suspect I wouldn’t want to live where those jobs are in Australia, though. The only reason I could do it and be happy in the USA is because I grew up in Wyoming…I wouldn’t expect most people to like that either.

I can’t imagine what could go wrong if 50%+1 got whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it.

I can’t imagine what could go wrong if 50%+1 got whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it.

See my post above regarding prop 2 1/2 taxes. It worked there, special interests (Teacher’s Union) be damned. The problem with representatives is that they can be bribed and influenced. Try bribing 50% of the voters…

And there are still checks and balances: I didn’t say get rid of the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch. Just the useless, corrupt, pandering, lying, stealing, cheating Legislative branch. Want to be a Senator? Fine. You get the privilege of drafting laws. But the people get to vote on them…

In the age of the internet, I suspect it would be somewhat easy for people to vote on laws, but who would implement and enforce them?

but who would implement and enforce them?

Bureaucrats. Always bureaucrats…

Bureaucrats. Always bureaucrats…

Yep. Who would have even more power in the absence of anybody elected to office.

Exactly. Even if they are 11 of the top 15, how many of the top 50 are they? The top 500? Then add up all the money for the top 15, 50, and 500. Then get back to me.

Even in the summertime it is the winter of our discontent.

“As far as housing, the government is all in.”

Since I am not a true believer in the long-term potential for government manipulation to offset market fundamentals, this is why I don’t think housing is a good investment choice at the moment.

‘The question is how far will Bernanke allow markets to drop.’

Yes, the infallible central bank argument. It persists no matter how many times they fail or how badly they fail. Take a trip down memory lane. The Maestro, Alan Greenspan. World markets would go quiet, straining to hear his every word. (Even though it was known he wouldn’t really say anything!)

Now widely regarded as an incompetent fool.

Remember when they refused to ‘control’ long term interest rates. Now they openly tell us they are not only manipulating all rates, but tell us how long they will do so, as the herd might get nervous ya know.

Then there is unemployment. Ah ha! Something they are actually supposed to be working on. Years ago, it was ‘common knowledge’ the US people would riot if unemployment went over 8%. The idea was, that was just how impossible it would be. Oops, let down again by those bumbling bankers.

Monetizing the US debt; ‘impossible, we’d never do that’, we were told. Oops again!

I recall many years ago, Wayne Angell was on a financial show. The big question: what would be the tipping point for the world economy. He confidently shot back, ‘if the Nikkei index ever got below 13,000.’ It was 18,000 at the time. Oops again!

At the end of the day, believing in the money printers is believing you can get something for nothing. It might work for a time, here and there, but in truth you can’t get something from nothing. (Plus, they’re kinda dumb).

At the end of the day, believing in the money printers is believing you can get something for nothing. It might work for a time, here and there, but in truth you can’t get something from nothing.

There is always a price to be paid. It’s like when you go out for drinks with friends after work. You start out saying 1 beer and maybe some nachos or buffalo wings. By midnight, you’ve bought 3 rounds or 4 rounds of Patron for everyone at your table and someone just ordered Jager Bombs. You’re drunk off your ass and it’s time to pay the bill… did we really order $400 worth of booze? You know you had a good time, but damn that bill stings… and yeah, you’ll be throwing up soon enough. Tomorrow, you’ll have one hell of a hangover…

We’re still drinking, running up the tab, but last call is coming. Anyone ever wonder why the Germans are so adamant about fiscal responsibility? They had a wicked hangover back in the 20’s. Must have been too much Jager…

The Maestro, Alan Greenspan. — snip — Now widely regarded as an incompetent fool.

+1 And a master con-artist and thief.