Weekend Topic Suggestions
Please post topic ideas here!
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
May 2024 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
I’m seeing the makings of LegDown Part Deux.
A couple of my wife’s teacher friends are openly lamenting house purchases and are “dying” to get into a rental. A colleague of mine just left with her husband to go to Arkansas (yup, he’s going to work for Mao), but she did not resign her position because she is coming back for the school year “until they sell their house.”
The rental market here has finally turned the corner. If I had to move right now, no sweat; bigger house, good schools, same rent, no problem.
You seem to indicate these folks are having trouble selling a house. How hard can it be? Just drop the price until a qualified buyer appears.
Agree. With prices 50-75% off peak in Phoenix, anything under $100K sells in days now.
And those fast-selling homes are the new comps…
My parents wanted to buy a 100k rental. 4 offers later and they gave due to too much competition. Anything under 150k draws multiple offers unless it is a total trashed POS.
Freddie listed my friend’s 270k(bubble price)home after foreclosure for 140k. It went in a couple days for 162k(new bottom-end bubble price). But the new bubble seems restricted to starter homes that “pencil out”.
Our 400k(bubble price) home that my wife owned sold after 6 months for 177k(limited demand for step up homes, I assume). We paid 130k more than he did in 2005 but now the gap between them has 15k.
We also got 2 years free rent while he only got 1.
The bottom is a feeding frenzy and the units are saleable. Anectodally, the middle is sinking and fetching less than $100 per square foot, which is roughly the going rate for starters. People seem to be ignoring this, while talking about the recovering market.
“But the new bubble seems restricted to starter homes that “pencil out”.”
Good way of putting it…
I was actually startled by how (relatively) low my rent increase was this year. It was, in absolute terms, lower than the large increases in the prior two years, when the rents started taking off. This is central Maryland too, not too far from DC. I’m wondering what this is a result of.
Realtors Are Liars®
What exactly is your considered opinion on the 2012 federal elections and how they are being manipulated for housing, or how housing is being manipulated for the election? It’s probably a tautology at this point.
You can’t tell the players without a program….
How about a weekend thread where we map user IDs/handles?
Who’s who? Some posters change their handles as often as they change their socks, some change their handles back and forth in the same thread, but most of us are consistent with our nomme du blogge.
We could possibly take it a step further and recall the posters who have come and gone.
And here I am, Arizona Slim. As I’ve always been. Haven’t seen any need to change my moniker.
Am I missing out on something? Is the thrill of multiple monikers one I should add to my life?
I like you just the way you are.
Sincerely,
Get Stucco / Professor Bear / Hopeful / Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
What was Hopeful like?
I’ve stuck with my moniker.
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH™
I’m thinking of changing my to ‘Prunetucky’ as that what some of the locals call the area of Salinas where I live.
Who cares?
Here’s a few more:
Jeff Saturday = Unknown Tenant
Exeter = Realtors Are Liars = Truth = Realtors Snort Bath Salts, etc.
I’m pretty sure 2Banana is NYCityBoy. I haven’t met anyone as obsessed with union-hating, so I figure it’s the same dude.
“2Banana is NYCityBoy”
Please confirm.
And condolences if true, as it seems his condition is worsening…
“Please confirm.”
Only he can, but notice the frequency of the usage of the word “insane.”
I’m pretty sure 2Banana is NYCityBoy. Hmmm I don’t see it . NYCityboy had a really good sense of humor. Don’t see it with 2Banana. Unless that’s part of the disguise. But good humor is hard to keep in.
Agreed.
Plus, the withering comments related to Bleecker St. are hard to suppress.
(The love-hate that NYCers feel for the above is hard to explain. Either you get it or you don’t!)
I have only ever been Rental Watch (even though I’m not longer renting).
Cactus because I moved to Phoenix AZ after selling my Townhome in CA 2006 Moved to wait out the bubble and it’s bursting. too much hysteria to stay and rent had to get away whole family was telling me I was crazy don’t sell what are you going to do with the money anyway put it in the stock market!!
No they don’t say s#$t
So now I’m back same old job and bought a house for less than I sold the Townhome for. About 1 mile away from Townhome I like the area.
“cactus no more” but I’m too lazy to change name plus I hardly post much so I’m good with just “cactus”.
BTW, your movement is interesting…I saw data on the migration patterns of people in/out of California. What it showed was that migration numbers tracked home prices.
Before the bubble years, there was net in-migration to CA.
During the bubble years, there was net out-migration from CA.
After prices crashed, things reversed again and net in-migration resumed.
I wish I could find the link to the data…but your moves contributed to the net numbers…
And prices are falling.
goon squad formerly Left Ohio. Been 2-1/2 years since we left and now zero possibility of ever moving back, name changed in response to certain HBB posters’ love of the word “goon”
I’ve always been DennisN, my real name. Why pretend that you are anonymous on the web when the NSA/CIA can spot you in a minute?
Yeah, but blog nuts will stalk you in real life.
I heard this report on Weekend Edition last Saturday. CEOs talking about what they wanted/needed to hire someone. There is a link to the audio and a transcript.
CEO Spill The Beans On Hiring Hesitancy
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/07/156416958/ceo-spill-the-beans-on-hiring-hesitancy
Teases:
SIMON: Well, and that brings up this question, Mr. Gorman. Once companies learn over the past two or three years to do more with less, why should they hire more people?
GORMAN: Well, they won’t hire more people until they have a business need to do so. And behind your question is the fact that many companies in North America adjusted very quickly to the significant downturn. And what companies I think found is they could get by with fewer people if they used technology in a way that they could really become more and more efficient…
And this one:
SIMON: Lynn Ann Casey, do you have any advice?
CASEY: My advice would be to be passionate about whatever job you’re applying for, and to demonstrate how your experience, whatever it is, how it relates to that company’s mission, and what that company is trying to do. People looking for jobs need to be excited. They need to pursue what they’re interested in doing and they need to be persistent about it and clearly articulate the value they bring. And they will ultimately find what they’re looking for in a job.
SIMON: Can you understand someone who would say what do I want to do? I want a job to support my family. I’ve applied for 50 jobs over the past two years and I’d love to be passionate about your company, but my impression is companies aren’t passionate about their employees. They’re shedding them.
CASEY: I disagree with that, and we’ve had numerous people who we’ve brought onboard who weren’t exactly sure what they wanted to do. And in six months or a year, they find that it isn’t a good fit for them and they leave. We can’t hire people we can’t retain so we need to know that they’re going to be committed for the long term before we hire them.
” And what companies I think found is they could get by with fewer people if they used technology in a way that they could really become more and more efficient…”
What they’ve really found is that they could get everybody else to put in 15 hour days; never mind the technology.
“What they’ve really found is that they could get everybody else to put in 15 hour days; ”
The expectation in my new job is that you check email/voicemail around 9pm to see if there are any emergency meetings in the morning, and on weekends a few times…
It’s not “hard” work, but it still takes time.
“And what companies I think found is they could get by with fewer people if they used technology in a way that they could really become more and more efficient…”
If I hear one more time about businesses becoming efficient, I’m going to go postal.
Businesses don’t give a rat’s arse about efficiency when there’s money to be made. In boom times they staff up and buy materials and equipment like mad, betting wildly on increased market share.
What Gorman is really saying is that with the future being blah, therefore everything’s tight, since there’s nothing else to do today. Department managers have to show better performance or they’re fired. So “efficiency” becomes the latest fad. And they’ll muck it up as usual, since they will indulge in any hare-brained scheme to support the cutting fad. We may well see innovation in pissing the customers off all to heck, as people continue to get replaced or removed for no good reason.
Business runs on fads.
“If I hear one more time about businesses becoming efficient, I’m going to go postal.”
Just wait until President Romney’s inauguration speech…you ain’t heard nothin’ yet.
I would hope he makes economic growth a priority…somebody has to for crying out loud, we’re dying out here.
“Business runs on fads.”
+ 100.
Groupthink in action.
The latest fad where I work is the concept that a good manager can manage anything, that he/she doesn’t need to know anything at all about the job because the results of the job will be expressed in the numbers the job generates.
Understand the numbers and you understand all you need to understand.
Six Sigma rules!
(snort)
Stoopid iz as stoopid sez…
And once the numbers are all that is needed to be understood they take up a life all their own. Instead of reflecting the reality of the job the numbers become their own reality.
And those who cannot meet their numbers will be replaced with those who can meet their numbers. But the only to meet the numbers is to cheat so eventually the company ends up being run by a bunch of cheaters.
“And those who cannot meet their numbers will be replaced with those who can meet their numbers.”
And those whose actual numbers don’t meet expectations will be replaced with those whose made-up numbers do meet them.
After San Bernardino, a deluge of muni bankruptcies could hit California
Big incentive to avoid default, but many cities are backed into a corner
By Jeff Benjamin
July 12, 2012 6:03 pm ET
As the city of San Bernardino, Calif., teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, some are seeing the glass as being half empty while other are seeing the glass as three-quarters empty.
“In the state of California, you’re going to see a lot more municipalities file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy because they simply don’t have a choice,” said Brian Amidei, a managing director and partner with HighTower Advisors LLC.
Mr. Amidei, who advises on $700 million in client assets from his office in Palm Desert, Calif., compared the overall California economy to the year-end fiscal cliff facing the U.S. economy.
“In a lot of municipalities, the employee benefit costs are too high, entitlement costs are too high, pension costs are too high, and the state of California has cut funding for them,” he said. “It’s a very precarious situation, much like the fiscal cliff.”
San Bernardino, a city of 209,000 about 65 miles east of Los Angeles, has taken a step toward becoming the third California town in less than a month to file for bankruptcy protection.
Stockton filed for court protection June 28, followed by Mammoth Lakes July 3.
The San Bernardino city council voted Wednesday in favor of filing for Chapter 9 protection.
Despite the recent string of bankruptcies, preceded earlier this week by a decision by the mayor of Scranton, Pa., to cut all municipal employee salaries to minimum wage to try and balance the books, not everyone sees the same level of despair.
…
In addition to dissecting the minutiae of the latest muni bankruptcies, Mr. Burns pointed out that in the case of San Bernardino, fraud was a major culprit.
“It looks like 13 of the last 16 years of financial documents have been doctored because they were cooking the books,” he said. “For sure, people will lose their jobs, and I suspect some will go to jail.”
According to Bloomberg, San Bernardino is facing insolvency amidst a $45 million budget shortfall because of accounting errors, deficit spending, pension and debt costs, and a lack of revenue growth.
Over the past four years, government officials have declared fiscal emergencies, negotiated for concessions from employees and reduced the workforce by 20%.
“It’s starting to come out that there was some funny accounting going back several years,” said Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist with US Bancorp.
…
Six Sigma
Scenario: Say you impulse bought at the grocery store, and the total sale was more than you expected. So you look at the receipt and try to eliminate the high price items, because the higher the price items rack up the total the fastest.
Anyone here ever done that?
You have?
Congratulations! You’re a Black Belt!
The latest fad where I work is the concept that a good manager can manage anything, that he/she doesn’t need to know anything at all about the job because the results of the job will be expressed in the numbers the job generates
It’s prevalent all over. I suppose the MBA effect.
My old company used to rotate managers across areas every couple of years. It was such a failure because by the time the managers learn something about what they are managing, they are moving to next one. Similarly, In my current place, we have IT project managers who know nothing about IT.
Fads like six sigma (blame GE for this type of thrash), CIP, TFR etc. Have you noticed that whatever happened in housing is applicable to all corporate businesses? That top managers (these include the CEO up to engineering managers etc.) are basically crunching numbers refusing to see what the real issues are and do not have a clue on how to solve problems!
That top managers (these include the CEO up to engineering managers etc.) are basically crunching numbers refusing to see what the real issues are and do not have a clue on how to solve problems!
“Solving problems” is a job for low paid engineers. “Winners” make the crazy money by making deals.
Actually, if one demonstrates problem solving ability then someone in top management recognizes that. Merit is still recognized in US companies in this “problem solving” department, especially in engineering. However, I agree that most companies in the US are fast becoming “crony workplaces”.
Merit takes a back seat when you incompetent management, especially when MBAs are running the show. You do get some MBA that are good just like in any profession.
With MBAs dime a dozen, they are finding it extremely difficult to get good jobs.
Actually, if one demonstrates problem solving ability then someone in top management recognizes that.
In my experience that’s rare. What’s more common is someone gets credit, but probably not the person that actually solved the problem. Mostly upper management seems to not really care what’s going on in the trenches as long as the problem got solved…
(Companies) could get by with fewer people if they used technology (to become) more efficient…”
What they’ve really found is that they could get everybody else to put in 15 hour days…
“Business runs on fads.”
If technology replacing workers is a fad, it is a fad that is here to stay. A friend is working on technology that will reduce the workforce of one of America’s largest private utilities by 30%. He is working 13 hour days essentially to make his company’s owners richer by firing workers. (This is a form of capitalism not the only form) Multiply this by thousands in the USA.
The fundamental fact that no politician will admit is that technology, automation and outsourcing have reduced the number of needed workers in western economies. This is the STRUCTURAL change that few acknowledge. The few who do acknowledge and propose solutions for it (such as a max 35 hour workweek) are branded “socialists” for attempting to “share the wealth”.
So now you have millions of past and potentially productive workers unemployed and falling through a torn safety net while many Americans scoff at all the “lazy” unemployed people while watching programs like “The Entitlement Society” on FOX News.
IMO, the intense concentration of wealth and the divisive propaganda enabling it will continue until the structural problem is recognized and addressed in a realistic and a more apolitical manner.
“IMO, the intense concentration of wealth and the divisive propaganda enabling it will continue until the structural problem is recognized and addressed in a realistic and a more apolitical manner.”
IOW, never.
The fundamental fact that no politician will admit is that technology, automation and outsourcing have reduced the number of needed workers in western economies. This is the STRUCTURAL change that few acknowledge. The few who do acknowledge and propose solutions for it (such as a max 35 hour workweek) are branded “socialists” for attempting to “share the wealth”.
current solution is work productive workers 50+ hours per week plus Everyone else handouts from Government.
warning productive workers today could be going to Uncle Sugar tommorow
I’ll take it a step further - “Business runs in a herd”.
Especially the HR departments.
Businesses don’t give a rat’s arse about efficiency when there’s money to be made. In boom times they staff up and buy materials and equipment like mad, betting wildly on increased market share.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Businesses don’t give a rat’s arse about efficiency when there’s money to be made. In boom times they staff up and buy materials and equipment like mad, betting wildly on increased market share.
Is this supposed to be bad???? That’s how business works.
Same observations here.
Business runs on fads and short term gain. Short term meaning 3 months to 6 months. Previously at least the business leaders could see some stability for 2 or 3 yrs, now they can’t even see a month ahead. ZIRP here, QE there, Euro there, these fookers have no idea how to navigate in this $hitstorm.
Politicians also think short term. Kick the can down the road past my next term in office. Basically, the PTB (business and politics) do not have long term plans. Anyone see a problem here?
“We need to know that they’re going to be committed for the long term”
While we are prepared to drop them at any moment.
The bad employees get dropped quickly, I have nothing against that. In fact I support it for the simple reason that your work, assuming you are skilled and efficient and good at what you do, can do a better job because of:
1. don’t have to do part of their job
2. no baby sitting (even after they have 20 to 30 years experience)
3. less politics
4. make decisions quickly
5. less distractions
Will you stop harping on “bad” employees?
WT Economist is referring to the general lack of loyalty for even the good employees. An employee might be good, but if you can find one who’s 1/2 as good for 1/3 the price in India, employee is dropped. If the CEO demands more profit, then the health insurance plan for the good employees is dropped. Or the good employees get their vacation dropped. Or there are no pay raises of any kind for years on end, or demanding many many hours of work? Effectively dropping salaries. And that’s for the good employees, because you should be happy to have a job.
It’s hard to be passionate about a company which continuously threatens to cut you off.
“… and we’ve had numerous people who we’ve brought onboard who weren’t exactly sure what they wanted to do.”
That is what college is for; College is the place to go to find out what you want to do.
It’s a rather expensive place to use for this purpose but nevertheless that seems to be what it is being used for.
“It’s a rather expensive place to use for this purpose…”
Measuring the expense in terms of the opportunity cost of not going to college, I have to disagree…
College is a great place to develop a career but an very expensive place to discover one.
Again, I disagree if you measure by opportunity costs. Many college students have no jobs and no job prospects, and rely on their parent’s largess to support their early adult years. So the opportunity costs of frittering away time while trying to decide what to do for income is relatively low while in college compared to later in life when taking time to explore alternative careers may come at the expense of work time.
College is a great place to develop a career but an very expensive place to discover one.
…Again, I disagree if you measure by opportunity costs…the opportunity costs of frittering away time while trying to decide what to do for income is relatively low
IMO, nowadays is not the time to fritter away time in college deciding what to do with one’s life. Study Anthropology for 3 years and then decide you want to be a nurse? What a waste of time and money. College is what, about 3-4 times more expensive now than the 80’s even inflation adjusted? That was then and this is now.
(Students can) rely on their parent’s largess to support their early adult years.
This lowers the student’s opportunity cost for sure but depletes the parents assets which can result in lost opportunity for the family later.
After 2.5 months and over 150 jobs applied for, my son has two interviews lined up. 1 for working football games for 4-6 hours on Sundays at Cardinals stadium, and the other is about a month long, temp position at college book store for back to school rush.
That’s tough. Good luck to your son and all other children trying to start their careers amidst a jobs drought.
Good to know NFL is still hiring.
Maybe somebody has asked this already… is your son looking for part-time employment or full-time?
IF full-time I am wondering what specific skills does he have.
I wonder how long it will be until “skilled” workers will have to mimic the Lucky Duckies and juggle 3 P/T, no bennie jobs.
My favorite tactic, which seems to be gaining in popularity these days, is bringing a new hire in as a no bennies temp (contract to hire) for 6 months, paying them about the same hourly wage they would get as an employee, but without paid time off, health ins, etc.
That they can do this and get away with it indicates to me that there is no shortage of “smart people” to hire. I have always refused to consider these positions, and it definitely reduces the pool of potential jobs.
Really skilled workers will have demand. Despite the large pool of qualified engineers, accountants, lawyers from India the way the big businesses (with their clueless senior VPs, managers - see Peter Principle) are running the show, these professionals in Asian countries are not taught the right way. As a matter of fact, a majority of them cannot solve problems, through no fault of theirs. They will never replace a skilled worker in the USA.
This is a crucial time for American industry because most boomers will start their retirement. The gap in the skilled workers - those that can continue the work without affecting production business - needs to be filled somehow. Companies that compromise on this simple tenet will see a marked drop in quality of the product / services and as a consequence lose prominence.
My sincere advice: be good at whatever you do. If you are extremely good then you really do not have competition; you will command a good wage with benefits.
CASEY: I disagree with that, and we’ve had numerous people who we’ve brought onboard who weren’t exactly sure what they wanted to do. And in six months or a year, they find that it isn’t a good fit for them and they leave. We can’t hire people we can’t retain so we need to know that they’re going to be committed for the long term before we hire them.
My observation is:
Companies that treat their employees like garbage have high turnover rates, regardless of “employee passion”. Examples of garbage: Lots of unpaid overtime, no pay raises (or even pay cuts), not providing the tools to get the job done, giving bad annual reviews to everyone, telling employees that they suck, etc.
Companies that treat their employees well have low turnover rates.
But you have to understand that there are employees that suck. In any given organization if these employees that suck somehow, perhaps due to survival by conniving methods, get the supervisor/manger reins, then it is guaranteed hell for the competent ones. Does not matter whether it is private or public.
It is basically the Peter Principle in effect.
When it comes time to tell them that they suck, good managers do it one on one, rather than telling all the employees that some of them suck.
My point was that in a crappy environment everyone is told that they suck, no matter how well they perform.
I remember at one job I improved my performance dramatically by all metrics (via a lot of unpaid overtime). Did I even get an attaboy? Nope, I was simply told even more was expected for the next year.
Buh-bye!
How is that relevant to a CEO saying that she will only hire people who some how convince her that the job she is offering is the single one thing they want most to do with their life? Or to Colorado’s comment that the likely reason that the people she mentioned who left after a few months likely left because they were treated like dirt, not because they weren’t dedicated enough to the company’s “vision.”
The CEO hires people in his /her team and does not even know what the first or second level managers are doing with regard to hiring. Although it may be hard to digest, it is normal for a good CEO to expect that a top level manger that he or she is hiring shows passion.
The comment about leaving - I assumed (incorrectly?) that the CEO was talking about “people in the trenches” who were leaving.
My experience in hiring people for engineering, project mangers and HR positions is that intelligent people are hard to come by. Mind you I was not looking at experience and existing skills. I wanted to see if they had an aptitude for what the job needed. Unfortunately, most new graduates did not retain the basics they learned in school.
I just wanted to point out - some people indeed figure out that they are way over their heads and leave. More power to them as they would be unable to do the job and unhappy, which is really the fault of the hiring manager, who should have done a better job. If this hiring manager is incompetent then you get the misfits in the organization. IMHO.
My experience in hiring people for engineering, project mangers and HR positions is that intelligent people are hard to come by
Cheap, intelligent people are hard to come by.
At a former employer, we found two guys who were unhappy at their current job and were considering jumping ship to join us. So what did our management do? Offer them 20K LESS than their current salary. We only found this out via an accidentally leaked email.
Shendi, you are making a lot of assumptions about how large the company is, how removed the CEO is from the hiring process and a whole lot of other stuff. I take the woman at her word. She thinks that the only people worth hiring are people who can convice the company that that particular company and that particular job are the best thing they ever heard of in their lives. She doesn’t want someone who just wants a good job and is willing to work hard for a fair days pay. She wants someone who values the specific employer so much that they will never want to leave even if something much better comes along.
I think she needs to grow up. She is looking for employees, not a prom date.
Which presidential candidate has the most true conservative cred?
And which one is more likely to worsen the sellout of America to Wall Street interests?
And which candidate is more likely to capture the minority and female votes? I note that Romney made a personal appearance at the NAACP convention, while Obama sent Biden; how’d their respective strategies work out for the two candidates?
(My personal view: Actions speak louder than words.)
5/24/2012 @ 6:33PM
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It’s Barack Obama?
It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Who knew?
======================================
Vice President Joe Biden tells NAACP Obama stands by his convictions
By Associated Press
Thursday, July 12, 2012 - Added 20 hours ago
HOUSTON — Vice President Joe Biden rallied support for President Barack Obama before the nation’s largest civil rights organization on Thursday, telling the NAACP that Obama has the “character of his convictions.”
Biden drew cheers as he credited Obama for championing a landmark health care law, launching the mission that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and stepping in to rescue the financial system and U.S. automakers General Motors and Chrysler.
======================================
Romney advisers facing criticism
Key conservatives question decisions campaign is making
By Matt Viser
Globe Staff / July 6, 2012
WASHINGTON — Prominent conservative Republicans excoriated Mitt Romney’s campaign Thursday, publicly ridiculing his longtime core team of advisers — “the Boston boys,” as the Wall Street Journal labeled them — and suggesting they are bungling the presidential race.
“Is it too much to ask Mitt Romney to get off autopilot and actually think about the race he’s running?” asked Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard.
=====================================
25% of Romney bundlers hail from finance sector
By Fredreka Schouten and Gregory Korte, USA TODAY
Updated 1d 2h ago
WASHINGTON – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney depends on a wide network of venture capitalists, hedge-fund managers and other Wall Street bankers to raise the hundreds of millions he has amassed in his bid to oust President Obama, a USA TODAY analysis of his fundraising operation shows.
More than 300 people — or nearly a quarter of the roughly 1,200 individuals USA TODAY has identified as Romney fundraisers — come from the world of finance, more than any other sector. More than a dozen come from the ranks of a single company, investment powerhouse Goldman Sachs, which spent nearly $4.4 million to influence Washington policymakers last year.
By comparison, 77 of Obama’s 532 fundraisers work in the securities and investment industry, according to a tally by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Obama has slammed Romney’s record in private equity, while Romney has pledged to dismantle financial-industry regulations enacted during the Obama administration.
=====================================
Obama holds ’significant lead’ over Romney in new national poll
Mitt Romney addresses the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s annual convention in Houston. (Nicholas Kamm / AFP/Getty Images / July 11, 2012)
By Paul West
July 12, 2012, 1:48 p.m.
With the election still four months away, President Obama holds “a significant lead” over Republican challenger Mitt Romney, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released Thursday.
The national survey, completed July 9, showed Obama outpacing Romney by 50 percent to 43 percent. That’s a more substantial gap than most recent surveys have registered, but Obama has held at least a small lead in earlier polling by Pew. The independent polling operation said there had been “no clear trend in either candidate’s support” since Romney secured the GOP nomination in early spring.
When it comes to fixing the economy—the top issue of the campaign–“Romney has not seized the advantage,” Pew’s analysis concluded. “In fact, he has lost ground on this issue over the past month.”
Of potentially greater significance than the overall national figures, Obama continues to lead Romney in battleground states. In the 12 states considered most competitive at this point, the president holds a seven percentage-point edge, 51 to 44, the Pew survey found. A Wall Street Journal survey, released late last month, also showed Obama with an eight-point advantage in battleground states.
The national figures found no overall improvement in Romney’s standing with voters over the past two months, a period in which Obama has attempted to keep his rival on the defensive with negative ad attacks on his business record and personal wealth. Some Republicans outside the Romney camp have become increasingly jittery about what they regard as insufficient progress by their party’s unofficial nominee against a vulnerable incumbent.
As the campaign heads into mid-summer, a period in which public attention will be diverted, at least in part, by the Olympic games in London, Romney has failed thus far to capitalize on deep voter dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the country.
At the same time, Obama’s job-approval rating has ticked up slightly. In the latest poll, it stood at 50 percent, the first time Pew found that he had reached positive territory on that score since March.
Voters were asked which candidate was best suited to fix the U.S. economy, and by a six-point margin they favored Obama over Romney, 48 percent to 42 percent. That’s a sharp turnaround from June, when Romney held the advantage on that question by eight points, 49 percent to 41 percent.
A similar shift was reflected among independent voters, a prized target for both candidates, who are now almost evenly divided on who would best improve the economy. In June, Romney enjoyed a 13-point edge among independents on that question.
…
The Republicans flubbed the debates, or should I say, the televised clown show. Now that they are down to one viable candidate, they are still flubbing…
So the Gordon Gekko candidate doesn’t appeal to the masses?
Comment by ahansen
2012-07-12 18:44:26
BTW: The smug academic near the end of “Inside Job”, the creepy freak who gets all squirmy and huffy when questioned about collusion between Wall Street and Bush Treasury cronies, is Glenn Hubbard, Mitton Romney’s Senior Economic Advisor.
That and the bullying story are the best reasons to not vote for Mitt that I’ve heard so far.
Very creative accounting, deficits of $1 trillion every year tell the real story. Bush was assaigned the cost of TARP when it was paid back Obama receive the benefit. You can’t ignore fiscal 2009 since Obama and his Congress added to the spending. Since then the growth of spending has been subdued but from a high base. 24% of GDP is a very historically high level of spending and that is what we are doing now.
Finally, about the polls, I think Rasmussen is the most accurate. His daily polls have Romney ahead and since undecided usually break to the challenger. I am confident if the election was held today Romney would win. Of course, when you are talking maybe a 52-48 election, four months is a long time.
The only way to maintain trade imbalances, domestic and international, is with new money creation via debt expansion.
Now that the private sector is unable to provide the 10% of GDP quantity of new debt/money needed to fund the imbalances, we have two choices…1) Govt borrows the money. 2) Let it crash.
We have opted for #1 for now.
deficits of $1 trillion every year tell the real story.
The Great Recession had begun, spending was trending up to the current levels and tax receipts were trending down to the current levels about a year before Obama took office. Is not that the real story?
about the polls, I think Rasmussen is the most accurate
Because you like the numbers better?
No, because if you look at the history of calling elections, he is more accurate than any other pollster. Even democrats in the know look to him. He was within a point the last election.Nailed the McCain total exactly and missed the Obama total but only 1%.
He uses likely voters. Some polls use registered voters. Others use anyone over 18. His also seems to create better samples. If you oversample a group you distort the poll and I see plenty of that. For example, the truth is self professed liberals make up about 20% of the electorate but some polls have 40% of the people surveyed.
As far as Obama’s spending, it is 24% of GDP, I think when we had a balanced budget we were less than 19%. Sorry there is no way he is a fiscal conservative no matter how you try to manipulate the numbers.
Very creative accounting, deficits of $1 trillion every year tell the real story.
I seem to recall that Bush keep a lot of the war costs off the budget.
Colorado haven’t we move beyond that? I would never defend Bush and I don’t think it is a defense for Obama to say that Bush try to keep things out of the budget. Moreover, whether it was on or off the budget, it was reflected in the national debt.
I said this a day or two ago, Obama does not give a rat’s behind about the middle class and he has demonstrated a complete lack of interest in serious job growth. He is 100% political, he has stated he want’s to fundamentally change the country and has called the US constitution a “charter of negative liberties”. How about being president and doing something to help your fellow Americans who are going under at a rapid clip. No, instead Obama continues his Marxist march unabated.
I want something better…God help us…How did this man ever become president? We must have lost our collective minds.
My wife an I have been looking to buy a condo/townhouse/patio home (your yard is about as big as a patio…) in the $40K range. In the last month, about 10 have come on the market. Half have been HUD homes that we are not eligible to bid on since it is a 2nd home for us. The other half are under contract the day, or the day after they are listed, for over asking.
I think it no coincidence that the PHX market bottomed the exact month that India, Canada and China began to crash.
When do you think PHX bottomed, and how do you know it did?
Because… “The other half are under contract the day, or the day after they are listed, for over asking“???
One anecdotal data point isn’t a market bottom in my book…but to each her own.
Well, remember that this market will correct form the bottom up.
I have no data to support this claim, I just know it to be true. Mostly.
I agree. Anecdotes are generally useless. Data is useful.
And in that regard, Case-Shiller (which is a lagging price indicator), as measured by year-on-year values, is increasingly indicating that the Phoenix market price bottom is in the rearview mirror.
And we agree that you’re useless….. and a liar.
DBA Muggy:
Take a look at the Case Shiller Tiered price indices…
http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff–p-us—-
The data supports your notion.
From the non-seasonally adjusted data (April 2011-April 2012)
The low tier homes in Phoenix (under ~$111k) are up 22% year on year.
Mid-Tier (from $111k to $189k) are up 10% year on year.
And High end (above $189k) are up 5% year on year.
I only know this from observing my ‘hood. Big, expensive homes sit forever. Smaller, more affordable homes go quickly.
And a pimp.
I think it bottomed last summer/fall as India, China and Canada were first showing signs of topping.
That may not have been “the bottom”, but it as “a bottom”.
If/when we 2008 again, we could reach lower lows. We have not changed any of the fundamental economic flaws that triggered 2008…. so, you could say it is just a matter of time before we see another banking sector freeze, with the USA Govt. also tapped out so unable to TARP it.
So what happened in India that bottomed prices in Phoenix? I don’t see the connection at all.
For how many years to come will the Eurozone crisis play out, and what, if anything, are the implications for the U.S. economy and, particularly, the U.S. housing market?
July 13, 2012, 12:17 a.m. EDT
Moody’s downgrades Italy’s government bond rating
By Sarah Turner
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — Moody’s Investors Service said Friday that it has cut Italy’s government bond rating to Baa2 from A3 with a negative outlook. Italy’s Prime-2 short-term rating has not changed, Moody’s said. The ratings firm said that Italy is more likely to experience a further sharp increase in its funding costs, or the loss of market access, than five months ago “due to increasingly fragile market confidence.” Also, Italy’s near-term economic outlook has deteriorated, Moody’s said, as shown in both weaker growth and higher unemployment, which it said “creates risk of failure to meet fiscal consolidation targets.”
Oh look, another downgrade, a good 2 years too late for the people it affects, the investors.
The ratings agencies are totally corrupt. Why are they still in business? Answer: Because they are part of the financial propaganda system that’s still running full force. Bubbles are still the dominant economic meme.
Until Germany says “Enough!” which I think will be in the next couple of years.
Implications for US are not good, but they will be better than the EU’s, but that’s not saying much.
My only hope is that someone will realize that now is the time to start tapping our oil reserves. Check it out. Where there is oil there is economic expansion.
For the very first time since the tragifarce started, I’ve seen The Economist actually be pessimistic on the Euro. They’ve been a relentless cheerleader for the Euro, political and economic integration. This article was starkly different:
Europe on the rack
Why the euro is breaking the European dream
Jun 30th 2012
The Economist
THE longer the euro area’s debt crisis drags on, the more it resembles an instrument of economic torture. Like the medieval rack, every turn of the crisis tears Europe further apart. This week Cyprus announced it would seek a bail-out. Spain formally asked for money to recapitalise its banks. The Greek limb is close to being ripped off. How long can the Italian one hold?
Any fair reckoning of the euro must therefore judge it to have been a failure. For noble reasons, perhaps, the euro’s founding fathers created a federal currency before creating a federal state to back it. Like Victor Frankenstein, they defied nature and created a monster. Part of the horror story is that the cost of returning to national currencies is greater than keeping the euro. And there were only modest hopes that the European summit in Brussels this week, held as The Economist went to press, would find a way of fixing its many flaws.
Europe’s most senior officials presented a compromise before this week’s summit, whereby financial, economic and political union would move in parallel. Their paper breaks a taboo but is vague, with no timetable or sequence of steps. It proposes drawing up a clearer plan—perhaps the successor to Mr Delors’s 1989 report—in December. Can the euro zone survive the rack for that long? Perhaps the pain will be such that citizens and leaders will look to integration for relief. The danger is that, if the torture goes on, the European project will expire first.
http://www.economist.com/node/21557806
Who is culpable for the Libor scandal?
Geithner Urged BofE to Make Libor Changes
Published July 13, 2012
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pressed the Bank of England in June 2008 to make changes in the way that Libor, a key interest rate benchmark, was set, according to documents obtained by Reuters.
Geithner, who was the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank at the time, sent a private email to BoE Governor Mervyn King recommending six ways to enhance the credibility of the London interbank offered rate.
More than a dozen banks are under investigation by authorities in Europe, Japan and the United States over suspected rigging of the global borrowing cost benchmark, which is used in contracts worth trillions of dollars globally.
The June 1, 2008, email, first reported by the Washington Post, included a two-page memo dated May 27 of that year that suggested establishing best practices for calculating Libor, “including procedures designed to prevent accidental or deliberate misreporting.”
…
I think it’s been brought up before. If we are going to punish banksters for Libor manipulation, when are we going to punish central banksters for interest rate manipulation?
Why the rich are renting
By Judy Martel · Bankrate.com
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Posted: 7 pm ET
Sales of luxury homes are rebounding, but a growing number of the ultra-rich are still renting, even if they can afford to buy. Real estate brokers say it’s another indication that the housing market has changed in ways they’re still trying to grasp.
Some of the reasons for renting among the rich are typical to the broader market: Potential buyers who purchased a home during the boom have been rendered gun-shy by the housing bust. And with mortgage rates predicted to remain near historic lows for the next year, there’s no sense of urgency to buy immediately, giving buyers time to be choosy while home prices settle.
But there are additional reasons for renting that are specific to the luxury market. High-end rental properties have become more plentiful, as investors in luxury properties choose to rent them out while waiting for prices to rebound. In New York City, agents are reporting that the rich who own property elsewhere are opting for the low-maintenance lifestyle of renting in the city.
CNBC reports that mansions in tony areas like Miami, Beverly Hills and Manhattan are renting for more than $100,000 a month. Of course, for that price, you get square-footage, primo views of the city skyline or the yacht docks and plenty of amenities like tennis courts and even private discos.
Since the housing bust, have you become more committed to renting or do you still hope to buy a home?
Keep up with your wealth and mortgages and follow me on Twitter.
Get more news, money-saving tips and expert advice by signing up for a free Bankrate newsletter.
Related posts:
1.Buying is cheaper than renting
2.Mansions on the auction block
3.Generation rich
4.Custom built makes a comeback
5.Foreclosure, Beverly Hills style
Read more: Why the rich are renting | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/why-the-rich-are-renting/#ixzz20Vpb3OYk
“Why the rich are renting”
This is pretty old news at this point. It wasn’t back in 2006, the last time I set foot in Manhattan. The fellow who hosted my visit had a friend at McKenzie who was renting to wait out the incipient real estate crash. My host also reported knowing cab drivers and hair dressers around Manhattan who were investing in real estate.
SO who do the “rich” rent from? Other rich people?
People who have a nice place, but left the area on business for a year, two, or three…generally yes, other rich people. Before we bought, we though about renting a nicer place, and this was the common situation. Someone went to work in X for Y years, and had plans to move back after that Y years was up, so they are offering a lease for that length of time.
We could not find a nice place offering more than a 1 or 1.5 year lease, and with young kids we didn’t want to move that frequently…so buying became the only reasonable option for improving our living situation in a stable way.
NY renters are renting from those (amongst others) who bought prior to, say, 1997 (not so long ago), when housing in prime Manhattan cost 1/3 of what it did by 2007. Plenty of wiggle room for owners there. Too, many buildings are owned by monster real estate entities, a scale not seen seen in many places.
Why the rich are renting?
First, I suppose they don’t want to park a chunk of change in a depreciating asset. Keeping it parked in something that’s nominally providing interest is probably the best allocation of their resources.
Secondly… mobility. If they have to move from place to place, it’s probably cheaper to rent. Why pay for the whole hog (owning hassles) when you only want the bacon (place to live).
Third… standard of living. To the rest of us, the equation looks like either renting a noisy, dingy tenement or choosing to go into indentured servitude, eating ramen noodles and living in the semi-furnished McMansion of our dreams. The rich however, can easily rent a place which provides a very high standard of living. So their daily quality of life doesn’t change from rental to purchase.
My $0.02.
Is the China slowdown fear overblown?
Brandon Sun - PRINT EDITION
China not looking like the economic concern that many people feared
By: Uncredited
13/07/2012 1:00 AM
MONTREAL — As if Europe’s ability to blunder itself into a double-dip recession wasn’t enough to worry about, skittish investors have persuaded themselves that China will be the next big domino to come crashing down on the world’s prosperity.
Earlier this week, Chinese stocks hit a six-month low on the latest bit of bad news out of Beijing: trade statistics that, despite an unexpectedly strong export number, contained a weak figure for imports. This latter figure suggested to pessimists that Chinese demand is collapsing as the economy screeches to a near-halt.
…
I think some of what we are seeing with cities in California, the North East, and rust belt is similar to what happens with older companies.
When you are a new company, you can hire younger workers, pay them less, have lower healthcare costs, and you have decades before you have to worry about things like legacy costs of underfunded pensions.
As a company ages, their work force is older, is earning more, has higher health costs, and you have to start refunding the pension plan. You have to raise your prices to stay profitable. Suddenly, a new company comes in with lower costs, undercuts you, and you decline into bankruptcy.
Well, places that had high population 50 years ago, are like those old companies. They have to raise taxes. Businesses leave, taking jobs to younger cities, with lower taxes, pushing the older cities into bankruptcy.
Population of the USA is up 72% over the last 50 years. For Arizona it is up 400%. For California, the population is up 130%. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and many other states struggling with government pension costs are up less than 50%.
It is a lot easier to pay that pension when there are now 5x more people paying for each retiree, then when there are 1.5x more people.
That is why you are supposed to fund pensions and not with funny money “we’ll be able to make 10% + per year no matter what” assumptions.
+1 Polly.
My MIL is a teacher and she continues to harp on the fact that she should get her pension because she paid in. The problem is that the math doesn’t work, and it is hard to make people with good (but not great) math skills understand how much actually needs to be put away for their pension even if you can achieve a 5-6% return (which is great in today’s environment).
As a quasi-aside–ISTR hearing Bogle at Vanguard suggesting that people should think about their social security as part of their bond portfolio when thinking about their own personal investment portfolio. In other words…how much in US Treasuries would you need to own to get your social security payment. Clearly this is self-serving, as it tends to push people more into stocks, but the exercise should open people’s eyes to the actuarial problem…most people don’t realize how much needs to be saved in order to have a good “safe” return.
you are supposed to fund pensions and not with funny money
Private company’s pensions funded with funny money go bust, just as public pensions funded with funny money should be allowed to go bust. Will it happen? How and where?
Darrell, Darrell, Darrell: Companies like municipalities wind up loaded with inefficiencies. That’s a succinct word for “bloated, wasteful and packed with cronies”. If you run a minimum government (adhering only to law and your charter), then you will be so small that when an exterior economic crisis hits, you’ll be fine. But when economic expansion happens outside of government, the standard corruption occurs: Adding excessive departments. Adding excessive personnel. And adding excessive taxes in the first place.
Everybody does this. Governments. Companies. Organizations. Individuals. EVERYBODY goes on an expansion spree and bloats up, when times are good. And everybody squeals like pigs when the bad times hit and they have to downsize. Color me unsympathetic. Economic laws aren’t overturned by whining.
CBIT posted ““In a lot of municipalities, the employee benefit costs are too high, entitlement costs are too high, pension costs are too high, and the state of California has cut funding for them,” he said. “It’s a very precarious situation, much like the fiscal cliff.”
Here in CA it all goes back to the “Ventura decision” approval by the 9th circus court in SF. It said that for safety members no longer was retirement based on the long standing tradition of percent of base salary to one in which everything counted (overtime, uniform allowance, organization dues, etc) and this led to officers retiring taking all the overtime they could get the last year before retirement. I knew one deputy in SD who’s base salary was $50K but retired at over $100K because the last year he drew $135K in pay.
I knew one deputy in SD who’s base salary was $50K but retired at over $100K because the last year he drew $135K in pay.
(A legalized scam that taxpayers should not have to fund)
Exactly Rio…And the only way out for municipalities (Tax payer) is the bankruptcy court…
And Jerry Brown’s pension reform plan would allow existing employees to continue with the pension spiking.
However, even his WEAK reform plan didn’t get any traction in Sacramento.
Shall we cue 2banana to start in on the unions?
And I’ve heard of other stories where the unwritten rule in other state departments where for your last 3 years before retirement, you get to be the department head.
So, you might have an entire career where you made ~$50k (inflation adjusted), and then for the last 3 years you make $80k because you got the “promotion” as the prior guy retired. Your pension is based on the $80k, not partially on $80k and largely on $50k. When you retire, the next guy in line steps in…
“Audit the Federal Reserve” sign the Petition to the US Congress
Whereas:
The Federal Reserve refuses to give a full public accounting of the TRILLIONS in recent taxpayer-backed loans; and
Whereas:
Congress has the responsibility to force a public audit of the Federal Reserve, and the American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent; and
Whereas:
Allowing the Fed to remain out of control and shrouded in secrecy clearly allows for abuse and the continued stealing of our tax dollars through inflation and unaccounted electronic bank “loans”; and
Whereas:
The Federal Reserve’s abuses lead to constant economic crises like the current housing crisis, international banking crisis and the resulting chaos; and
Whereas:
The Federal Reserve System forces fuel, food, housing, medical care and education costs upward, meaning that everyone who is NOT on the government dole is forced to make do with less as the value of money slowly decreases; and
Whereas:
History shows us that riots, violence and full-scale police states can result when people finally realize fiat money isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on and REFUSE to accept it;
Therefore:
I urge you to cosponsor and make every effort to seek roll call votes on the Audit the Fed Bill, H.R. 459/S 202.
Google Campaign for Liberty, Audit the Fed
How about a discussion of goofy housing dynamics that are in place because of where we are in the housing cycle.
I’ll start with one:
I just had lunch with my parents. They live in an age-restricted community and have no mortgage. They would like to move to a smaller house, but are not in any hurry (a smaller house would save them a little on utilities and property taxes, but it’s not enough to get them anxious). They are buying and selling in the same community. In their community there are very few homes that come on the market…when they do, they sell quickly and people are only accepting offers where the buyer has cash (ie. doesn’t need to sell a home).
The goofy dynamic?
I asked them why they don’t simply sell/buy in today’s market (who cares what the actual sale prices are, trading big shelter for small shelter should be a net cash positive). The reason they are not putting their home on the market now is that they are concerned that if they sell right now at today’s price, they won’t be able to find another house right away (because of the lack of supply), and thus the buy/sell at the same time in the market doesn’t work. AND they are seeing evidence of prices starting to rise, so they are afraid that they will sell at today’s prices, they will have to pay a lot more than today’s prices when they do find a home that works for them–which is making them even more nervous about selling without finding the next place.
The goofiness is that lack of inventory is leading to further lack of inventory.
I suppose they could list for sale, and make the sale contingent upon them finding a place…but that is even more goofy–which buyer is going to go for that?
Give it up liar.
Actually, he’s showing you his hand. He’s so confident because there must be massive collusion at the moment, and they can barely contain their excitement.
Notice that phrase, “lack of inventory.”
Don’t read any more into the statement than the words on the page.
The market is made up of lots of individuals who make decisions based on their own interests.
I simply described one such decision that to me was counter-intuitive. One would think that an unleveraged owner that wanted to re-buy in the same market would take the fewer number of other sellers as an opportunity to sell (I essentially asked my parents how the market was in their community and why they weren’t selling since it seemed like a better time to sell).
In this case, fewer other sellers is causing them to NOT sell. It just struck me as a logical decision to make, but one that wasn’t apparent to me before lunch today.
http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2012/07/02/lack-inventory-causing-buying-frenzy
It’s been about 4 years now since the “recession” has officially been over. We’ve had Stimulus, Harp, HAMP, QE1, QE2, TWIST, ROLL AND STUMBLE……
Endless bailouts and games played by the financial crooks on Wallstreet and K street.
Housing has been a roller coaster along with the stock market, but in the end, no one is any better off, except Banksters and their cronies.
So, here’s my topic: How has the general public adapted to the shrinking income, with higher costs for food and fuel and NO HOPE of any gains in the near future.
I’ve cut back on everything and I know others have, too.
So, since life goes on, how are people adapting to the new realities?
I’ve noticed that the Beach has been packed, even during the weekdays here. In summer, most of the tourism tends to dry up since most of the northern visitors tend to come in the winter. It’s been busier at restaurants and shops for a July than I can remember in years. I was beginning to think we were have a new “boom”, but realized that just couldn’t be so, unless there is a new source of cash out refi’s for vacations.
I’ve concluded that the “stay-cations” are here to stay. There have been quite a few out of state license plates, but, by far, mostly locals. And since the out of staters came by car, they saved the airfare for 4 or 5 people, so it probably made more sense to drive. A week or 2 on the beach is probably a cheap vacation compared to a resort, even though it’s been pretty bloody hot. A lot more folks in the water this year. Forget the tanning.
Is this a sign of the times or is Florida just the new place to be in the middle of the summer?
“It’s been about 4 years now since the “recession” has officially been over.”
It’s more like about 4 years since the propaganda machine achieved total power in the American media. The producers needed to gain total control of us, and we were too scared and so let them take control.
Now everything they say is total bullshit, and it’s even obvious bullshit, but nobody dares to officially contradict them. Only blogs hold the line, but we’re a pathetically small portion of the U.S. population. We’re not even worth shutting down, since our words no longer have any power.
We lost. The rich declared war on us in the 1980s and we lost to them. Now we’re a subject people. SUBJECTS of an Empire, not citizens of a Republic. We do what our rulers tell us to do, and we often do that without being told, since we live in such abject fear. So nothing can get fixed, since the populace is so very far from courage, and in fact things will only get worse. Truly, this is the Greatest Depression. I hope I don’t end up dying violently as a result from all the necessary social changes (i.e. enslavement), but with each passing year my doubts about that grow.
About my only hopes and plans now, are to be better off than the mass of slaves around me. There will be a lot of “fruit” that is lower on the tree than myself. Sad, eh? The death of all hope. The termination of a sustainable culture.
How melodramatic!
When a system is run to destruction, it’s dramatic.
Okay, boys and girls, I’m up way too early on this fine Saturday morning. Will soon be heading down to that way-cool KXCI radio station for my two-hour Ambient Mode show. You can listen live right here, and I will be sending the HBB a shout-out.
Can you just say my moniker on the air once?
In an urgent fashion - you know with exclamation marks!
I wonder if there would be a “War of the Worlds” scenario attached to that.
If I get an early morning spot, I can definitely do that.
Hey, the guy who was on before me this morning mentioned a song title with a cussword in it. Except he couldn’t say that word. FCC rules. Not to mention the wrath of the station’s general manager. That’s not a fun thing to feel, and I know it from firsthand experience.
So, he said that if he did say the aforementioned bad word on the air, he’d be in so much trouble that he’d be dragged off to Turkey and tortured until he pissed blood. Yes, he really said that.
And, since he had the mike turned on, I couldn’t do what I wanted to do. What did I want to do? Laugh uproariously, that’s what.