Bits Bucket for July 16, 2012
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds 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
90% of Foreclosed Properties Held Off the Market
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11616596/1/shadow-reo-as-many-as-90-of-foreclosed-properties-held-off-the-market.html
An estimated 20 MILLION excess empty houses grinding prices ever lower.
“But Realtors who want more bargain-priced homes to sell may not get their way anytime soon. Foreclosed properties are an extreme liability to lenders, holding the potential not just to dent their profits but to actually bankrupt them altogether.
That’s because when a lender carries an REO on its books, it is allowed to value the home at the price that the foreclosed-on borrower originally paid for it. Once the lender sells the home, it must book a loss: the difference between the original purchase price and the current value. And since home values have fallen by nearly a third since the housing bust, that translates into huge losses for the bank.”
The banks should be forced to value their assets at current market value. How are main street investors to rank an investment if quarterly statements don’t reflect reality?
The overwhelming majority of the mortgages are NOT owned by the banks that did the original lending. Overwhelming. Capital for home loans came from the bond market, not from banks.
Okay, you win.
Rephrase: The “lenders” should be forced to value their assets at current market value, quarterly.
Polly, then who makes the decision to foreclose, or to retain the house on the balance sheet?
The servicer which is likely to be a bank. But, the bank as a servicer has a totally different set of incentives than the bank as the owner of the loan would have. Their incentives are the ones that they get from their servicing agreement, not from needing to maintain the health of their balance sheets. I’d guess (I haven’t read one of these agreements in my recollection, though I might have back when I was doing securitization transactions on car loans and credit card debt - very different beasts), that their incentives are to keep the loan alive as long as possible (keep their income accruing even if they aren’t getting any actual cash out of it) and to not do anything so different than the other servicers are doing that it could be the basis of a law suit. Also, if they signed on to any of the voluntary programs, they need to at least look like they are doing what is required under the program - but not enough to get sued.
I’d guess (I haven’t read one of these agreements in my recollection, though I might have back when I was doing securitization transactions on car loans and credit card debt - very different beasts), that their incentives are to keep the loan alive as long as possible (keep their income accruing even if they aren’t getting any actual cash out of it) and to not do anything so different than the other servicers are doing that it could be the basis of a law suit.
I’ve highlighted what I think is the key point from polly’s post.
keep the loan alive as long as possible (keep their income accruing even if they aren’t getting any actual cash out of it)
I’ve highlighted what I think is the key point from polly’s post.
+1.
And note that the accrued income DOES eventually turn into cash for them. They get paid according to the terms of their servicing agreement. And the GSEs are guaranteed to pay.
The servicer which is likely to be a bank. But, the bank as a servicer has a totally different set of incentives than the bank as the owner of the loan would have.
How can you tell who is the servicer and who is the loan owner? If the address at the assessor’s office leads to a particular bank, is it the loan servicer or loan owner? (I am guessing the latter, but it’s only a guess)
The overwhelming majority is held by MBS, but there is still a lot held by banks. Banks hold $2.1 T in home loans and MBS $7.1 T. But even for the MBS, the big four banks are the servicers of those loans.
I’m guessing the $2.1T represents a much, much smaller number of properties. For example, jumbo mortgages would have been harder to securitize. Impact in a very limited number of places that would have mortgages that large. Also might represent loans by some community banks that didn’t sell their mortgages. I have a local account at a small bank that doesn’t sell its mortgages.
I think a lot of this may represent second mortgages, which if I’m not mistaken are not only still on the banks’ books but which are more likely to be wiped out completely in a FC.
Excellent links guys (and gals).
This is more evidence that we should avoid buying “for now”.
RMS, great point. We are cheating the investors of these financial institutions as we allow them to fake what their balance sheet should actually say.
Ben, this thread alone with worth a donation.
‘This is more evidence that we should avoid buying “for now”.”
BINGO.
Why? Because if you buy today, you’ll be underwater tomorrow.
“Because if you buy today, you’ll be underwater tomorrow.”
This is also true of most car purchases, appliance purchases, power tool purchases, and most of everything you buy. If the utility of the item outweighs the cost, then it is worth purchasing even if its resale value falls.
That’s right happy. Houses depreciate. Just like all those items you mentioned.
Not to mention food — that crap is underwater in 10 minutes and depreciates within a week. Not to mention all the frozen veggies being held off the market.
The utility of houses as shelter seems to get lost in so many RE discussions.
I’m sticking with the “mom’s basement” theory.
You’ve finally run out of rationalizations.
Enjoy the losses.
“You’ve finally run out of rationalizations.”
I am not rationalizing. Nor am I likely to buy. I am a long term renter content in my situation.
Recognizing that there is utility in owning a house that may decline in value is not rationalizing. The best time to buy is an individual decision that takes into account more than just financial factors.
“Not to mention food — that crap is underwater in 10 minutes and depreciates within a week. Not to mention all the frozen veggies being held off the market.”
Food is consumption; not to be confused with housing, which is long-term investment (unless you are smart enough to rent).
Happy… I was talking to oxy. I understand you entirely.
Meanwhile:
http://www.statesman.com/business/real-estate/austin-apartment-market-on-record-setting-hot-streak-2416691.html
“The Austin-area apartment market is continuing on its hot streak, with rents and occupancies hitting the highest levels in the 21 years that a local expert has been tracking the numbers.
The area’s midyear apartment occupancy rate stood at 97.8 percent, said real estate consultant Charles Heimsath, president of Capitol Market Research. He said that’s the highest rate since 1991, when he started surveying the market.
The high occupancy is pushing rents up too. They hit a record $953 a month, Heimsath said, with that figure representing an average across all unit sizes. That’s a jump from a $900 average in June 2011.”
Yet renting is still a fraction of the cost of buying the same property.
We are cheating the investors of these financial institutions as we allow them to fake what their balance sheet should actually say.
On the other hand, would not investors accept being “cheated” in exchange for less of a loss on an investment?
And here I thought it was just MY neighborhood. Well, hmmmph!
I realize that there is a lot of funny financial games at play here, and I agree that the Banksters working with the FED have come up with “marked to fantasy” accounting rules, but there is another factor at play, too: Law suits from “robo-signing”.
As some may recall, I “purchased” a Freddie Mac foreclosure in October of 2010. I was due to “close” in November of 2010, around the Thanksgiving day holiday. A week or 2 prior, I got a call from the broker…the sale is Cancelled. (a clause in the purchase agreement prevented my suing for breach of contract).
the prior “owner” had collected a lawyer to see if she could get the house back for free, after 2 years of non-payments.
I got a call from the broker about a month back: the house was Back on the Market and was I still interested? That’s 18 months or more, off the market while we played legal games with a house that had ALREADY BEEN FORECLOSED. (Florida has court-appointed foreclosures. A judge had to finalize the paperwork and certify that the mortgage was indeed foreclosed and the house would go to the lender, i.e. the house was deeded over to Freddie Mac).
So, there have been some financial games, but the Courts and lawyers suing have caused a lot of properties to be held off the market, too. They are beginning to reappear now that there has been a “settlement” with the various State Attorney Generals.
So what did you tell the broker? Remember colourful verbage and nounage could get held up in moderation.
I bought another house from the same broker about a year after the first house was “pulled from the market”. I got tired of waiting for a resolution.
I am still working on that house, which I estimated would take a year to fix, at a moderate pace. I am living here about half the time and work some days on the house. Today is probably going to be a beach day. Maybe put up some siding on a shed, but probably not.
I don’t want another project, so i passed. There will be more houses, but I had spent about a year shopping before I got a contract on that one. Then another year for this one.
As I tried to convey to others during that time, many “foreclosure” houses, especially Fannie and Freddie are difficult to buy on bids. Professionals will outbid you by upping the sales price, effectively taking the house off the market.
They have 20 days after the “contract” acceptance to “inspect”.
IF they decide the deal they wrote wasn’t so great, they back out and the house goes back on the market.
It’s a similar hassle with short sales.
My brother recently got one. It was the 2nd attempt at a prior “failed” sale.
The little house I bought was gutted. Everything was missing, including the kitchen sink, and cabinets. They even cut the electrical wiring in the roof attic space, just for spite.
I have everything back to working condition and have completed interior work on 70%.
The remaining foundation and structural repair to a room addition awaits my patience. I stabilized it, but it needs more work. I closed that part off and live in the main portion.
I’ve got plenty to do. Meanwhile, I still have my homestead property to maintain. I won’t be looking for any “needs repair” properties for at least another year.
and, I don’t see any reason to hurry. do you??
Last paragraph on page 2 of the article:
“If they let the dam essentially break. It could be a catastrophic disaster for the U.S. economy,” he said, predicting that some major banks would fail and home prices would nosedive by 20 percent.”
How do they figure this to be a catastrophic disaster? Prices have fallen by more than 20% already without the world ending. As for major banks failing; well that’s what they’re supposed to do when they screw up royaly. If they can’t fail then they shouldn’t exist. More fear-mongering. And here we have an article openly admitting that the banks are bankrupt and how bad accounting rules are a good tool to prevent it. Bah.
How do they figure this to be a catastrophic disaster?
Because newspaper story writers like to use hyperbole whenever possible. If they said it would possibly slow down housing sales, or reduced prices to more affordable levels, or created another 2% reduction in GDP, or “inventory increases”, that would not be an
“END OF THE WORLD” type of story.
You need “disaster” to get your adrenaline to rise when your read the story. that helps create interest in the ‘news’.
When they say disaster, substitute, ’slowdown’ or small change.
And I love this money quote:
Online foreclosure marketplace RealtyTrac recently found that just 15% of REOs in the Washington, D.C., area were for sale, a statistic that is representative of nationwide numbers, the company said.
Whoa. How did that make it to print?
uh huh…. that’s right. All the fun and games are in front of us.
How would they be grinding prices lower if they’re kept under the TARP?
Nobody can see under the TARP. Not like the gov’t would use a clear TARP.
Freaking terrified to buy a place right now.
Prices have dropped, yes. It’s the interest rate that’s freaking me out.
That goes up….the prices go down further.
So, how long can they keep the interest rates at 3.5%?
My parents paid 18% for their house. It was 16,000 dollars.
Do an honest assessment of the costs of renting vs. the cost of ownership at various interest rates (ie. push rates by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5%) to give you a sense of how susceptible home prices are to reduction by an increase in interest rates.
Trust me man, I’ve been doing that. I could buy a place for half what I’m paying in rent right now.
The payment would stay the same. Chicken feed for the house I’m looking for. Payment amount isn’t what’s worrying me right now.
Been paying too much attention to how this actually works.
It’s not the price. It’s the price and the interest rate combined….along with the potential to ever be able to get a job in the area.
Seems a lot more complicated than it was a few years ago. Suppose I have you guys to thank for that. (There was absolutely no sarcasm in the last statement).
Do an honest assessment of the costs of renting vs. the cost of ownership at various interest rates (ie. push rates by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5%) to give you a sense of how susceptible home prices are to reduction by an increase in interest rates.
Makes me glad we didn’t buy in January, when we started looking, and were factoring in a 4% interest rate. Now, 3.6%. The difference for us would be about 37K over the life of the loan.
“Freaking terrified to buy a place right now.”
And you should be. Prices are falling.
Only a blind and dumb man could fail to foresee how badly this bond bubble will end for all who fall under its scope.
The bond market
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield
The remarkable demand for low-yielding government bonds
Jun 30th 2012 | from the print edition
AMERICA can now borrow from the bond markets at a cheaper rate than at any time in the history of the republic. Germany has raised two-year money for a fraction of a percentage point. Even Britain, a weaker economy than either of those two, is enjoying yields on its ten-year bonds that are at an all-time low.
The deteriorating state of government finances and their rising debt-to-GDP ratios mean there are lots of these bonds to buy. Nevertheless, thanks to the global economic slowdown and the European debt crisis, the demand from savers for safe assets has overwhelmed the supply. Investors have poured $190 billion into global bond funds this year, according to EPFR Global, a data company, while other funds have seen a net outflow of $1.34 trillion. Almost $1 trillion has gone into bond funds since the start of 2009.
Even negative interest rates do not deter investors. The yield on short-term Treasury bills has occasionally been negative in recent years without affecting demand. Safety is all: this is one of those times when, as they say, it is the return of capital not the return on capital that matters.
But it is more than just one of those times. There have been crises before, but not even the Great Depression pushed bond yields down this far or this widely. The records being set in the markets are due to a combination of peculiar circumstances, cyclical swings and historical shifts. Together they have produced a bond market which is behaving in a way never seen before.
…
“20 MILLION excess empty houses”
Now we’re talking. Given time, truth will out.
Cities demolish homes, but problems linger
St. Louis, Detroit, and many other Rust Belt cities are trying to entice new development by tearing down abandoned homes, like this one in north St. Louis.
by Adam Allington
Marketplace for Monday, July 16, 2012
Last month, the Mayor of Detroit made news when he laid out ambitious plans to demolish as many as 10,000 vacant buildings by the end of his term. With costs for maintenance and upkeep running in the tens of millions, many rustbelt cities often find it expedient to simply demolish empty buildings in favor of vacant lots and the hope of future development. But taking down problem properties creates a whole new set of issues which are often overlooked.
In St. Louis, the man who is perhaps most intimately familiar with the after-effects of the city’s housing crisis is Roland Comfort; he’s the building demolition supervisor for the Land Reutilization Authority of St. Louis. LRA is the final destination for abandoned and tax-foreclosed properties.
On a simmering 100 degree morning, Comfort makes the rounds of North St. Louis inspecting homes that have received complaints, either from residents or the city building inspector.
At one two-story brick house on Labadie Avenue, the front porch has fallen off, the brick parapet is crumbling and a side wall has started to lean. Comfort says this home isn’t actually that bad.
“Look around, you could almost close your eyes and you could take down almost any building you see on some streets,” says Comfort.
St. Louis currently holds some 10,000 abandoned properties. And when factoring those that are still technically under private ownership, Comfort estimates that as many as one-third of the homes in north St. Louis are empty. Comfort questions whether the idea that developers might take a stab at rehabbing these houses is realistic.
“In a day where the actual cost of rehabbing is anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000, it doesn’t make a lot of sense on a street where the average sales price of occupied buildings are probably less than $40,000,” he says.
…
[Photographer Kevin Bauman captured photos of 100 abandoned houses in Detroit. Check out some of his photos and our interview with him here.]
Forty Million Houses in the US That No One Needs”
https://www.thedailybell.com/4023/Forty-Million-Houses-in-the-US-That-No-One-Needs
Is there anyplace to see the shadow inventory broken down on a city-by-city basis? I don’t care how many vacant houses there are in Fresno, as I have no intention of ever living there…
So, I think you have a couple of concepts wrapped into one, vacancy information and shadow inventory. Just because a home isn’t vacant doesn’t mean it’s not shadow inventory, likewise, just because a home is vacant doesn’t mean it’s about to be foreclosed. Plenty of foreclosed homes are occupied and plenty of homes are vacant and held off the market without a mortgage. In any event, I’ll point you in a couple of directions:
Vacancy Data
The vacancy data comes out quarterly by Metro Area from the Census, but it is only I believe the largest 75 Metro’s in the US.
City by City data was available from the 2010 Census, which is harder to navigate, but you can get vacancy data at a pretty granular level (by zip code, school district, etc.).
Some on this board have said that the 2010 data is flawed, and as such, it may be most useful as a relative measure of vacancy as opposed to an absolute measure. That said, since little has changed in the prior couple of years with respect to new housing inventory being built, or massive job losses, 2010 might be the best place to get data by city.
Granular Shadow Inventory Data
Foreclosure Radar - You can search by City and it will tell you how much REO inventory there is by City (and even by Zip Code).
Zillow - One of the metrics they show is what percentage of homes sold have been foreclosed within the prior 12 months…this should give you a sense of how much distress is dominating a market (not necessarily how much more distress is coming, but a current measure). Likewise, this data can be found by City.
And we know you’re here to misrepresent the truth about housing. And we’ll call you out on it… here and everywhere else. Every. Single. Time.
Thanks!
Your welcome.
you’re….sigh…spelling fail.
More like they can’t afford them. It wasn’t that long ago that all these alleged urban hipsters were buying suburban properties with NINJA loans.
There’s never been a better time to buy a house. If prices go up, you’ve made a great investment. If prices go down, just walk away. And whilst you wait interest rates are so low that its cheaper than renting.
That would be great if it were true.
The reality is rental rates are a fraction of buying at current inflated asking prices….. but have peace…. housing prices are falling and inventory is massive.
The reality is rental rates are a fraction of buying at current inflated asking prices…..
In many areas yes. In much of flyover country, no.
Even in semi pricey Loveland you can buy a new house (200K) for about the same monthly payment to rent a decent apartment. And from what I have heard, less than renting a comparable house.
I’m seeing activity at the lower end of the food chain (200K and under) in our little burg. Above that, sales activity is next to non existent.
Not enough higher paying jobs to create demand for the 200-400K houses, I guess. The old Hewlett Packard campus is still a ghost town these days. 3000 people used to work there, and they were all jobs that paid a living wage. I know a few non professional people who once worked there who have been reduced to Lucky Ducky-hood since loosing that job, some even collect foodstamps now.
3000 people used to work there, and they were all jobs that paid a living wage. I know a few non professional people who once worked there who have been reduced to Lucky Ducky-hood
3,000 formally well paid people (a form of socialism) now reduced to Lucky Ducky-hood is good for capitalism as it represents a redistribution of middle-class wealth to the rich who are the producers of the Lucky-Ducky jobs.
The rich (the risk takers) need concentrated wealth in order to take the risk to create the new $10 an hour jobs but if the producers were still paying 3,000 people high/collectivist wages, they would be afraid to create the $10 an hour lucky-ducky jobs. It’s just simple capitalism at work creating more wealth.
“3,000 formally well paid people (a form of socialism)”
OK, formerly not formally. lol
(unless they all had to wear suits)
The rich (the risk takers) need concentrated wealth in order to take the risk to create the new $10 an hour jobs but if the producers were still paying 3,000 people high/collectivist wages, they would be afraid to create the $10 an hour lucky-ducky jobs. It’s just simple capitalism at work creating more wealth.
The funny thing about HP is that it was never Union. Bill and Dave had no problem paying people a living wage. IIRC, Dave Packard, in his memoir (The HP Way, which was named after his philosophy on how to run a company) took great pride in create good paying and stable jobs. In his own words, HP was not a “hire and fire” company that would lay off workers just because they missed their quarterly numbers.
May Bill Hewlett, Dave Packard and The HP Way rest in peace. They are sorely missed.
Correct. Flyover guy here. You can get a house for up to $60K around here, but renting one will still set you back $650-800/mo. Our rents are still too damned high; 50% too high, I’d say. In retrospect I was pretty lucky to have acted so soon after the 2008 economic crash. I got in at the ground floor of the housing crash. I speculate that the “deep pockets” guys (who are now keeping housing from crashing down to the middle-class cash price) were still playing stock and bond games at the time, so they stayed out of the market for a time period that was my opportunity window. I was still facing cash bidders at each auction, but they were largely guys like myself. Not so, today. Companies have STOMPED into my municipality and have bought up nearly everything that was for sale, to rehab to rent out. Only true crap places remain, or the usual need-a-mortgage overpriced stuff ($100K+). Accordingly, rents have stayed high.
But not for me. I own my place 100%. I don’t pay a landlord. I’m a lucky, lucky ducky. How sad that my life has been so dependent on luck, since I’d be homeless by now otherwise. Want to know what I’m seeing around here? People without utilities, at least one or the other. People without water service. People without electricity. Slowly, this New Normal is growing. It must grow, after all. There’s a global labor market now, and you can’t afford to pay First World overhead costs on the global-averaged wage. No legislator can stop it, since it’s fueled by natural liberty and Cheap Oil. Sure, it will end eventually, since Cheap Oil must come to a permanent end, but the middle class in the USA will be obliterated by then.
That would be great if it were true.
The reality is rental rates are a fraction of buying at current inflated asking prices
True in some places, not true in others. Where we’re at, the deposit on a rental for a 3 bedroom will run upwards of 6K (first, last, and security deposit on a $2500 month rental). For a few thousand more and the right 0% down payment assistance -for those of us who make below a certain amount - you can own PITI for 2K a month.
Flame me all you want, I’ll be happy to run the numbers for you.
Now if housing prices AND rents BOTH collapse, then that’s a whole ‘nother story.
“For a few thousand more and the right 0% down payment assistance”
And for a few thousand less and 20% down, rent is less.
Go ahead. Post a rental and let’s see what the asking price is on the sale.
Southern Monthgomery County area:
RENT 3 bedroom townhome (built 1960-1970) for rent: About $2200/month.* You get no front yard, and a 10×10 patio.
RENT 3-bedroom flat in 1970’s garden building: $1840.*
RENT 3 bedroom tony glass apartment in a highrise built 2010, about 2 metro stops closer in: $2400.
BUY 1950’s mini 2-bed cape plus attic on 1/6 acre: $170K or $1050/month.
BUY 1950’s 3/1.5 on 0.17 acre: $275K or $1500/month.
No they aren’t exactly comparable but you’re lucky I’m spending this much time on you as it is.
—————-
*Some of the prices will be lower. However, the low price is in lieu of one-free-month move-in. For the first renewal you get hit with the regular rent AND increase. For the townhomes, the first year may be $1850 but the second year will be $2350 a month.
Can’t you read? POST a link.
You didn’t say post a link. You said post a rental. And I don’t see why she has to post a link.
I would like to know a little more about actual locations with respect to tranporation and amenities.
Polly, most of this is within 5-6 miles of White Flint, but I wasn’t terribly specific. You probably know about the tony glass tower at White Flint (with the Whole Paycheck under it). The townhomes aren’t on Metro but they are on multiple bus lines. All the houses are on bus lines and reasonable walking distance to shopping. All are commercial rentals, because individual LL homes are too likely to be yanked out from under you.
Rule of thumb: 1-bed rentals increase about $100/month for every metro station closer to downtown, unless you luck into a deal.
Rentals in 93021 are in short supply and often get bidding wars on rentals !! Except apartments there are apartments for rent same price as a home and you don’t need 7K to move in. Probably be able to buy snap cards on the cheap!!
Homes under 400K are also in short supply or non exsistant
I wonder will this deflation will disrupt supply chains enough where we now will experience shortgaes in a deflationary economy ??
A economic paradox these modern supply chains are not trivial. I wonder how fragile they are?
“And I don’t see why she has to post a link.”
Are you sure you’re an attorney?
I’m on the beach with my phone, but will gladly post a few links later.
Speaking of the beach, I’m here in the land of the 5%ers (Fire Island, NY) and the Great Recession has finally hit this upper middle class enclave. I come here every summer, but this is the first summer I’ve heard people talking about not being able to go find renters for their houses.
A week here costs about 4-5k for a so-so house. The hotels are hurting, the restaurants slow, and way less people on the beach.
“And I don’t see why she has to post a link.”
Post a link and prove it.
A week here costs about 4-5k for a so-so house. The hotels are hurting, the restaurants slow, and way less people on the beach.
I noticed the same thing when I visited Vermont last fall. My aunt lives a few miles from Stowe. To me, the tourist traffic seemed well below what it should have been for fall color season.
Yes, I am an attorney.
And I would definitely recommend someone who wants to retain a semblance of privacy NOT post detailed information on the locations she scoped out in making a decision. If I’m not very much mistaken the 3/1/5 is the one she bought, so I definitely would not recommend posting that one.
We are having a discussion, Watch. We aren’t in court.
“And I don’t see why she has to post a link.”
Post a link and prove it.
I have no reason to believe that oxide is lying. Plus I’m seeing the same thing in my community.
Nobody said she’s lying.
Still nobody has posted a link to a house demonstrating that rental rates are higher than monthly carrying costs of buying.
And I know why. It’s BS.
OK here’s a rental: 2 BR SFH for $2600 month (tenant pays all utilities) http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/3143066754.html
This is fairly typical, that’s why I chose it.
Here’s a house for sale a few blocks away for $468,000:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/315-Naples-St-94112/home/1720489. Also, fairly typical (just look at recent sales in that nabe).
With $120K down (90K of which is 0% deferred payment for 40 years - mind you we are both approaching our 50’s), 6K in property taxes and 1K per year in property insurance, we’re looking at $2200 month.
Wouldn’t make sense for anyone who was thinking of moving within the next 10 years, which we are not.
Like anyone else who needs a place to live, of course we are hoping that prices will come down more. We are not rushing into anything, but not getting any younger, either.
If we had a great, rent-controlled house or flat, we’d continue to wait this thing out. I have noticed that most of the people who are screaming “don’t buy!” are folks who already have a stable, affordable place to live. Our rent has gone from $1900 month in 2000 to $2900 month in 2012.
Now, if rents are gonna collapse here in San Francisco, that would be great, too. Little or medium sized earthquake, anyone?
You guys really are flailing desperados.
What is the realistic sale price of the house? What is the realistic rental rate of the house
Good grief.
Unfortunately the house I just posted (468K in SF) may very well go for more. Which is why we haven’t bought yet. Last fall it would have gone for list.
The rental price I posted is pretty much right on target. I know plenty of people who rent in that neighborhood.
…. holy sufferin’ chit….. WHAT is the rental price of the house?
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/315-Naples-St-San-Francisco-CA-94112/15169735_zpid/
Rent Zestimate from Zillow = $2,486
“The reality is rental rates are a fraction of buying at current inflated asking prices”
As sfrenter said, not everywhere. Our little boy is 18 months old now, and our second (and last) is on the way. We needed (or badly desired) a 3-bedroom place. The place we bought in Woodland, Ca would rent for 1400/mo. We pay 1010 PITI. I suppose a real crapshack of a 3/2 could be found for that, but it wouldn’t be pleasant. As for that 300/mo that we “save”, alot of it goes for maintenance. All good. I now know that I can install a safety screen on a front door and laminate flooring by myself.
“housing prices are falling and inventory is massive.”
Can’t argue with that. Rents should fall some more, as should prices, especially in the mid to high end in areas that HBBers report as overinflated. But I must say you sweep with a broad brush.
You *say* it would rent for $1400 a month. Do you really know that? And you failed to include maintenance costs in your monthly tab.
“You *say* it would rent for $1400 a month. Do you really know that? And you failed to include maintenance costs in your monthly tab.”
It’s what our neighbors are paying for an almost identical house.
It’s a 4/3, 1600 sf, built in ‘95. The maintenance costs are indeed a factor, but not to the tune of $400 a month. The only unintended expense so far is the $2700 we spent having one side of the house re-sided. The other big expenses were by choice (my wife’s, not mine). New carpet, laminate flooring and other ’stuff’. We’re not rich (~55,000 combined yearly income), but we are extreme savers. You’re probably thinking “slaves to the house”. Perhaps a little. But the alternative would suck long-term. I realize that my example is one from an area alot like Fresno. Big bubble, hard crash. Much of the country still has some correcting to do in both the rent and buy dept.
“There’s never been a better time to buy a house. If prices go up, you’ve made a great investment. If prices go down, just walk away. And whilst you wait interest rates are so low that its cheaper than renting.”
Actually, its about a tie right now in some of the hardest hit areas, and that is just the lower end of the market, higher end not so much. In other parts of the country, renting is still substantially less expensive.
What about the over inflated principal noose around your neck if you buy now? Oh yeah, that’s right it’s OPM, you just walk away like you said. I forgot you can get an FHA howmuchamonth loan 2 years after a foreclosure and with a 520 FICO…my bad.
That’s right, and cut the wires in the attic when you leave and tell everyone you were a victim.
Trust in Government and Other Institutions Hits New Lows
June 20, 2012
After winning the Revolutionary War, George Washington issued some strong guidance to the liberated citizens of the nascent United States. “In his holy protection,” the revered general wrote in 1783, “[God] would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government.”
That advice was tough to swallow for people who had just escaped the heavy hand of the British monarchy, and feared repressive government. Similar sentiments exist today, as if George III were sitting on a throne in Washington, D.C.
The annual Gallup poll gauging trust in institutions shows alarmingly weak support for many of the pillars of American society. That doesn’t mean a revolution is brewing, but it suggests a profound shift in the way elected officials will be able to govern, along with possible trouble for President Obama in this year’s presidential election.
The latest numbers reflect an ongoing degradation in Americans’ opinion of big institutions following the 2008 financial meltdown, the Great Recession, and a decade of declining living standards. The proportion of Americans who say they trust Congress is at 13 percent. Those who trust the presidency and the Supreme Court: 37 percent. Only 21 percent of Americans trust big business or banks. Even educators breed suspicion these days, with just 29 percent of Americans saying they trust public schools.
…
Generation Greed pillaged all these institutions. There is no reason for anyone born after 1958 or so to trust them.
The private sector advantage is supposed to be creative destruction. Where are the replacement businesses? Where are the new banks? Where are the new political parties? Do they always get co-opted by pigs or nuts (OWS, Tea Party)?
The annual Gallup poll gauging trust in institutions shows alarmingly weak support for many of the pillars of American society. That doesn’t mean a revolution is brewing
In other words, the inhabitants of the “Land of the free and home of the brave”, while aware that that they are being shafted, lack the liberty and the gumption to do anything about it. And the few who try are told to occupy a shower by the same displeased electorate.
“the few who try are told to occupy a shower”
Yea but when the Tea Party had 1000s rally on national mall they didnt leave garbage or have anybody get raped or overdose*
* official rebuttal blanket statement to disqualify any discussion of Occupy movement
“keep the government out of my Medicare”
Have any of you watched the new series on HBO called “The Newsroom”?
Watched a bunch of previous episodes last night and am completely hooked. Aside from being smart and funny, it tackles politics head on. The news anchor’s tirades against the take-over of the Tea Party by ultra-right-wing conservative crazies was spot on.
Here was a movement that was spawned by middle-class angst, and then come the Koch Brothers and ultra-right wingers to co-opt the movement.
Anyway, great show. I highly recommend it (especially since the next season of The Walking Dead isn’t until October)…
I love about 50% of the show. The fantasy of properly covering the news part is great. The stuff about the personal lives of the characters is so overblown and pathetically stereotyped as to be gag inducing.
I loved last night’s line (approximately), “People like doctors declare people dead. Not news agencies.” The context was the Gabby Giffords shooting.
Agree wholeheartedly, NE. The Newsroom is a first rate collaboration of screencraft in which Sorkin gives a much-needed voice to the stifled Republican wing of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Party.
It uncanny how the plot points and verbiage echo the discussions we were having here on HBB around the time this was being written and produced 18 months ago….
The stuff about the personal lives of the characters is so overblown and pathetically stereotyped as to be gag inducing.
You have to admit that watching the anchor’s love life unfold is like watching a train wreck… can’t look away but you know it’s going to be messy.
It’s uncanny how the plot points and verbiage echo the discussions we were having here on HBB around the time this was being written and produced 18 months ago….
Was wondering if the writer was a frequent reader here…
I don’t think Aaron Sorkin frequents our little corner of the world. No way to know. Just a guess.
“spawned by middle-class angst”
I love it…psychologizing the tea party by writers who were never sympathetic to begin with.
Sounds great; too bad we don’t have HBO.
Aaron Sorkin: The Writer Behind ‘The Newsroom’
Jul 16, 2012 (Fresh Air from WHYY) — HBO’s new behind-the-anchor-desk drama follows in the footsteps of Sorkin’s hit series The West Wing. “I like writing about heroes that don’t wear capes or disguises,” he says.
Aaron Sorkin’s new HBO drama The Newsroom follows the inner workings of a fictional cable network trying to challenge America’s hyperpartisan 24/7 news culture. It’s a typical Sorkin drama, complete with fast-paced dialogue, witty scenes and a strong ensemble cast.
So why a newsroom?
“It suits my style,” he tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross. “I like writing about heroes [who] don’t wear capes or disguises. You feel like, ‘Gee, this looks like the real world and feels like the real world — why can’t that be the real world?’ ”
In Sorkin’s latest fictional world, Jeff Daniels stars as anchorman Will McAvoy, who tackles hard-hitting news stories and calls out those who don’t tell the truth. The show follows McAvoy but also pays close attention to the bookers, producers and editors who work behind the scenes to get their nightly broadcast ready for air.
Before writing the show, Sorkin spent two days on the set of Countdown with Keith Olbermann to get a sense of how a newsroom works. While there, he observed producers getting ready to cover the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and got an idea for his own show.
“I realized I could set the show in the recent past,” he says. “My big worry was making up the news — writing fictional news — because it was just going to take us too far away from reality. … But [setting the show in the recent past] became the gift that kept on giving. Because you have the fun of the audience knowing more than the characters. … I know that this device has bothered some people who think that I’m leveraging hindsight into a way to make my characters stronger. That wasn’t the idea.”
…
“…never sympathetic to begin with….”
That’s why the stated goal of the protagonist is to bring some balance back into the American political process and address the polarizing influences that delegitimatize the Republican Party. So our country will have a viable right wing voice again.
This comment is precisely why they put the series on the air. And during the election season.
Tax financial transactions?
go back to mom’s basement loosers
Reinstate Glass-Steagal?
that dude sh*t on a police car
Overturn Citizens United?
take a shower and occupy a job!
See how the game works here folks…
After winning the Revolutionary War, George Washington issued some strong guidance to the liberated citizens of the nascent United States. “In his holy protection,” the revered general wrote in 1783, “[God] would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government.”
I’m reading yet another book about American Presidential history. One of my favorite topics within the larger topic of American history.
Any-hoo, we now know him as the Father of Our Country, but trust me, Washington did come under some heavy criticism. Oh, did he ever.
One of his biggest headaches was none other that Mr. Monticello His Own Self, Thomas Jefferson. Guy was a bit of a schemer, if you get my drift.
Guy was a bit of a schemer, if you get my drift.
The more things change, the more they stay the same…
Jefferson also had the unfortunate habit of spending more than he earned. Another example of nothing new under the sun.
True story from the Arizona Slim bicycle travel file: One fine day, while I was riding through rural Virginia, a thunderstorm found me. Eek! Time to take cover!
What should I flee to but Scotchtown, the home of Patrick Henry. Where I was treated to a lengthy one-on-one history lesson by a descendant of Mr. Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.
Among other things, my guide gloated over the fact that Patrick Henry died a wealthy man. Thomas Jefferson? Well, let’s just say that the guy was deeply in debt on July 4, 1826, the day of his death. Coincidentally, Jefferson died only a few hours before John Adams.
I can’t help but wonder if the “founding fathers” were more concerned about getting rich than they were about “liberty”.
Hard to know for sure. But they did a pretty good job on the liberty part.
“But they did a pretty good job on the liberty part.”
+1
Liberty - The boldest four letter word in the Marxist/Communist dictionary.
But they did a pretty good job on the liberty part.
As long as you were a white male landowner. And if you were black, you could be someone’s property.
When you think about it, they just traded one aristocracy for another one, where they were the aristocrats.
Well…to a certain extent I think that’s true of all revolutions.
But despite shortcoming in what they accomplished it would seem the accomplished a huge amount. The constitution is an amazing document…copied all over the world.
“But (the founding fathers) did a pretty good job on the liberty part.”
Yes the founding fathers did a good job on the liberty part because they espoused the liberal humanist philosophies of the Enlightenment and were far to the left of the Crown of England when it came to liberty and social justice. (No taxation without representation)
One could call the founding fathers the left-wing radicals of their day.
“The constitution is an amazing document…copied all over the world.”
Not really. Most places adopting democracy seem to go with a parliamentary system. Not close to our system at all.
“Not really. Most places adopting democracy seem to go with a parliamentary system. Not close to our system at all.”
That is why people from those “Democracies” beat down the door to immigrate to this country. They come here to make money, get educated and to seek medical care. Parliamentary systems are a circus side show.
Its it good thing presidential/seperated republics are so great…
Afghanistan
Angola
Argentina
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Burundi
Chile
Colombia
Comoros
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Gambia
Ghana
Guatemala
Honduras
Indonesia
Iran[1] (to some degree)
Kiribati
Liberia
Malawi
Maldives
Mexico
Myanmar
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Palau
Panama
Paraguay
Philippines
Rwanda
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
South Sudan
Sudan
Suriname
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Zambia
Uruguay
Venezuela
Zambia
“Its it good thing presidential/seperated republics are so great…”
Your grammar and spelling took a hit, but I think you were trying to trash the US system by comparing it to your long list of countries.
Why don’t you pack your stuff and move to the parliamentary country of your choice? Go enjoy your mob rule democracy. There are reasons our country has been so successful; our constitution, our freedom and our people.
By the way, how are your European parliamentary systems doing these days?
Ah yes. The hellholes that are Scandinavia. The mob rule of Europe. Do you even hold a passport, nicky?
“Do you even hold a passport, nicky?”
Yes, but what an elitist question, however considering the source I am not surprised.
There are beautiful countries and great people all over the world , not my problem that they choose inferior parliamentary systems…but I respect their decision.
“The constitution is an amazing document…copied all over the world.”
Not really. Most places adopting democracy seem to go with a parliamentary system. Not close to our system at all.
If I recall my history correctly, copying us was quite popular in the late 1700s and early 1800s. I don’t mean every bit of what the founding fathers did, but significant chunks of it.
Seems to me that you’re the one being “elitist” here. And naive.
You put it kindly. He was a deadbeat. Died deeply in debt.
Huh? pitch fork prevention or is he a board member of a “non-profit” public education conglomerate.
Tax Cuts Should End: Lawrence Summers
The United States should not extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans even as the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ looms because it will perpetuate income inequality, says Larry Summers, former U.S. Treasury Secretary.
Instead, these revenues should go towards strengthening public education and ensuring that low-income students are presented with equal opportunities as their wealthy counterparts so that they can participate in the economy.
Who drug this schmuck back into the news? Remember he was part of the Obama Team who ran for the hills when things weren’t going to well with all the “stimulus”. Christina Rhomher? remember her?
Yeah. all these morons coming back to give us advice.
Please send Summers to some corner of hell and keep him there.
Who drug this schmuck back into the news?
He probably drug himself there.
Summers strikes me as the type who just has to be the center of attention. So, if he’s out of the limelight for more than a few minutes, he’ll find a way back to it.
I was reminded again about Summers when watching Inside Job last week…apparently there was a woman in government that was trying to reign in the use of derivatives during the Clinton administration. She got a call from Larry Summers, who had multiple bankers in her office…needless to say, her efforts to bring a government hand into the derivative markets was thwarted from within.
That unnamed woman was Brooksley Born. A true American heroine. Who was run out of her position by Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers.
That’s the one…I knew she was a Stanford Alum, but couldn’t remember the name.
there was a woman in government that was trying to reign in the use of derivatives during the Clinton administration
(great legs in that 1964 pic too)
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2009/marapr/features/born.html
Brooksley Born:
…”she was named to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 1996, Brooksley E. Born was invited to lunch by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan…an ardent proponent of unfettered markets. …. Greenspan probed their differences.
“Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about fraud,” Born, in a recent interview, remembers Greenspan saying.
“What is there not to agree on?” Born says she replied.
“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.
For the incoming regulator, the meeting was a wake-up call. “That underscored to me how absolutist Alan was in his opposition to any regulation,” she said in the interview.
Over the next three years, Born, ’61, JD ’64, would learn first-hand the potency of those absolutist views, confronting Greenspan and other powerful figures in the capital over how to regulate Wall Street.
….Ultimately, Greenspan and the other regulators foiled Born’s efforts, (at regulating financial markets) and Congress took the extraordinary step of enacting legislation that prohibited her agency from taking any action. Born left government and returned to her private law practice in Washington.
‘History already has shown that Greenspan was wrong about virtually everything, and Brooksley was right. If there is one person we should have listened to, it was Brooksley.’…..
‘History already has shown that Greenspan was wrong about virtually everything, and Brooksley was right. If there is one person we should have listened to, it was Brooksley.’…..
Yeah, but she was a woman. And who listens to them anyway?
Yeah, but she was a woman. And who listens to them anyway?
Ooooh, how I resemble that remark! At work, at least.
At home, not so much. 
Rio,
Right on about the legs.
“Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.”
Who knew? Greenspan was a libertarian.
National Foreclosure Inventory Remains Near All-Time High
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lps-may-mortgage-monitor-national-foreclosure-inventory-remains-near-all-time-high-delinquency-rate-stabilizes-after-seasonal-drop-2012-07-09
Oops! Looks like the truth reared its ugly head once more, and our coterie of property pumpers fled again. Where do these people go when they run? They always seem ready to flood back in here once the propaganda system works us over like a good scrubbin’ for 6 months or so.
Once again: There is no shortage of housing, on average, and it’s a very, VERY wide average. So prices of housing should not be rising, and if they are, then people are getting fooled once again.
To a certain extent, we will never be done with this property bubble. People will always be greedy and desperate for easy money. All it takes is a few percentage points of rise somewhere, and they will flood there like cockroaches, screaming about how it’s a sure thing and how they are so smart and how they are nature’s rewarded risk takers.
Check it out: Romney advisers are already conducting foreign policy three months before the election!
June 10, 2012, 4:52 PM
Obama Campaign Bristles at Romney Aide’s Criticism
By Eric Morath
An economic adviser to Mitt Romney has taken criticism of Barack Obama’s policies overseas, a move the president’s campaign complains is out of bounds.
Glenn Hubbard, an adviser to the Republican presidential candidate, wrote an opinion piece in the German-language business newspaper Handelsblatt that takes aim at the White House’s advice on the unfolding European debt crisis.
According to the guest commentary (published in German), Mr. Hubbard urged Europeans to not follow U.S. counsel on the crisis, arguing the Obama administration is trying to force Germany to backstop financially strapped governments and banks in the euro zone.
“The advice is not just unwise. It also reveals ignorance of what caused the crisis and of a path to future growth,” Mr. Hubbard wrote. The newspaper identified Mr. Hubbard as an adviser to Mr. Romney.
…
Cantankerous
Thank you for the Glenn Hubbard Bio Link. This guy is an insider of WS. Bush 43’s Deregulation Tsar. I’m shocked!
Hubbard was interviewed in Charles Ferguson’s Oscar-winning documentary film, Inside Job (2010), discussing his advocacy, as chief economic advisor to the Bush Administration, of deregulation, which Ferguson argues led to the 2008 international banking crisis sparked by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the sale of Merrill Lynch. In the interview, Ferguson asks Hubbard to enumerate the firms from whom he receives outside income as an advisory board member in the context of possible conflict of interest. Hubbard, hither to cooperative, declines to answer and threatens to end the interview.
Yeah…I’m open to hearing criticism of the Obama administration policies…but not from him. Not after the way he acted in that interview.
Interviewing tip from one who conducts them and has also been the interviewee: Always be gracious. Always.
I’m open to hearing criticism of the Obama administration policies…but not from him. Not after the way he acted in that interview.
Anyone undecided should watch that interview and realize slimy Glenn Hubbard’s role in Romney’s campaign and his potential role in Romney’s potential administration.
A clip from that interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaXNqGgIc-g
Hubbard. Well if anyone would know the REAL reasons for the world wide financial scandals, it WOULD be him. And that’s not a compliment.
Is it still “turtles all the way down” anymore these days?
OPINION
Printing more money no panacea for Europe
GWYN MORGAN
Special to The Globe & Mail
Published Sunday, Jul. 15 2012, 4:12 PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Jul. 15 2012, 4:20 PM EDT
We all know that individuals and corporations can spend more than they earn only as long as others continue to lend them money. And when debts exceed ability to pay, bankruptcy follows.
The same financial reality applies to countries, where bankruptcy is known as defaulting. The largest defaults in recent memory were €64-billion ($79.5-billion) by Russia in 1998 and €66-billion by Argentina in 2001. (Amounts converted from national currencies.) While these defaults roiled global financial markets, they pale in comparison to the euro zone debt crisis.
Tiny, teetering Greece has a national debt of more than €360-billion. Portugal and Spain owe €170-billion and €740-billion, respectively. Then comes Italy at a staggering €2.3-trillion. Given the huge struggle to prevent a Greek default, it’s clear that the so-called European Financial Stability Facility is ill-equipped to stop a Spanish default and would be virtually helpless in the face of an Italian default.
Even at the height of the pre-2008 economic boom, euro zone countries were borrowing to pay for extravagant social entitlements. Rather than pulling back on spending as the recession diminished revenues, trillions more were borrowed to finance “stimulus spending.” A sovereign credit crisis loomed. Then, rather than cutting Greece loose after it was revealed that the country had gained membership by fraudulently hiding its true financial position, the euro zone poured €250-billion into bailouts.
Now, after what some label as draconian austerity measures, almost all euro zone countries continue to run deficits. Financing those deficits, along with renewal of expiring debt, requires a continuous stream of new bond issues. Interest rates on Spain’s bonds have jumped to record levels and Italy’s borrowing costs are rising dangerously.
Survival of the euro zone requires investors to gain confidence in its ability to protect its beleaguered members from default. But how? As euro zone leaders passed their 20th “crisis summit,” it’s clear that Germany is not going agree to the “euro bond” proposal wherein all members assume liability for the massive bond issues that may be needed. The IMF is trying to raise more funds to shore up the euro zone, but the United States and Canada are understandably reluctant to send taxpayer cash to profligate Europe.
…
China stocks slump to six-month low on growth concern
English.news.cn 2012-07-16 15:19:14
An investor looks through stock information at a securities trading hall in Qingdao, east China’s Shandong Province, July 16, 2012. China’s stocks slumped Monday to the lowest in more than six months, in wake of growing market concerns over future economic prospect. The benchmark Shanghai Composite Index plunged 1.74 percent, or 37.94 points, to close at 2147.96. The Shenzhen Component Index tumbled 2.57 percent, or 251.6 points, to close at 9,540.89. (Xinhua/Huang Jiexian)
…
POP!
New private home sales fall 19.4% in June
Updated 02:29 PM Jul 16, 2012
SINGAPORE - The number of new private homes sold last month continued to fall for the second consecutive month, according to the latest data released by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).
Developers sold 1,371 private homes (excluding executive condominiums) last month, down 19.4 per cent from May when 1,702 units were sold.
May’s private home sales figures had dropped 32 per cent compared to April and, for the first time, bucked the strong sales growth momentum recorded in the first four months of the year.
Last month, 1,111 new private homes in the suburban areas, or Outside Central Region, were sold, 8 per cent lower than in May.
The biggest dip in the number of sales came from the city fringes, or Rest of Central Region. 119 new private homes in the city fringes were sold - a 67.2 per cent decline compared to May.
…
Starting to look like a trend.
(Global house price declines) Starting to look like a trend.
Except Brazil and a few other places that are unique and subject to different market forces of course.
“Global house price indices released by both London-based property group Knight Frank and The Economist magazine show that house prices in a number of countries are falling again…
…There are now only four countries still recording double-digit growth in house prices: Brazil (23,5%), Estonia (13,9%), India (12%) and Austria (11%). At the other end of the scale, 27 countries’ house prices fell in the first quarter.”
Knight Frank’s index, which tracks quarterly house price movements in 53 countries, recorded overall growth of only 0,9% in the year to end-March 2012. It was the first time that annual price growth had slipped below 1% since the depth of the global recession in late 2009, when the index dropped to a negative 8% (see graph).
Latest growth figures are in stark contrast to the 14% reached by Knight Frank’s index in 2006, when markets across the globe were fuelled by a mountain of cheap mortgage debt.
“Doubts over the eurozone’s future and concern that the global economic recovery is struggling have taken their toll,”
Italy Home Sales May Fall as Much as 12% This Year, Report Shows
By Lorenzo Totaro and Giovanni Salzano - Jul 13, 2012 7:15 AM MT
Italy’s home sales may fall as much as 12 percent this year amid an economic recession and as prices fall for a fourth year, research institute Nomisma said.
Transactions may decrease this year to as low as 529,306, the lowest in at least 12 years, after dropping 20 percent in the first quarter, the Bologna-based institute said in a report today. Prices of new homes fell 1.8 percent in the first half and they are 11 percent lower than a 2008 peak, according to the study based on a survey of the 13 biggest cities in Italy.
“The deteriorating economic context, coupled with more selective borrowing conditions and the widespread expectations of a wider depreciation than already recorded are the main reasons for the new halt to the real estate market,” Nomisma said.
…
People sure do use a lot of words to say that a lot of folks can longer afford a house.
That’s because YOUR way of saying it, implies a condemnation of lending or a condemnation of the housing value system. They can NEVER allow the public to consider that either borrowing or the value system is a bad thing.
Housing market stimulus in China is working great!
China June Home Sales Rise 41% After Interest Rates Cut
By Bloomberg News on July 13, 2012
China’s home sales transaction value rose 41 percent in June from the previous month as buying sentiment improved after the government eased monetary policy.
The value of homes sold climbed to 531.3 billion yuan ($83 billion) from 375.7 billion yuan in May, the most this year, based on the difference between the National Statistics Bureau’s data for the first half of the year and the first five months. Housing sales in the first half fell 6.5 percent to 1.9 trillion yuan from a year earlier, according to the data.
China’s economy slowed for a sixth quarter by expanding 7.6 percent in the second quarter from a year ago, raising expectations of further policy easing. The central bank cut interest rates last week for the second time in a month.
“The market is rebounding,” said Alan Jin, a Hong Kong- based property analyst at Mizuho Securities Asia Ltd. Still, “developers in general are still pretty cautious on investment and land acquisition,” he said.
…
What did Stanley say? SOMEBODY HELP ME!
Here Comes the Catch in Home Equity Loans
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: July 14, 2012
Ten days ago, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published some frightening figures about the looming payments. In its spring 2012 “Semiannual Risk Perspective,” it said that almost 60 percent of all home equity line balances would start requiring payments of both principal and interest between 2014 and 2017.
The amounts owed in these lines of credit climb significantly in coming years. While $11 billion in home equity lines are starting to require principal and interest payments this year, the amount jumps to $29 billion by 2014, the office said. That is followed by a surge to $53 billion in 2015 and $73 billion in 2017. For 2018 and beyond, it’s $111 billion.
“Home equity borrowers face three potential issues,” the report concluded. They include risk from rising interest rates — most of these loans have adjustable rates — and payment shock as borrowers realize they have to pay down principal. Refinancing difficulties are also a problem, it said, “because collateral values have declined significantly since these loans were originated.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/business/for-many-home-equity-loans-payment-shock-is-near.html - -
Many of these second liens will be discharged in bankruptcy court, in California anyway, if it can be demonstrated that the borrowed money went toward improvements like a new roof or a new room addition.
“if it can be demonstrated that the borrowed money went toward improvements like a new roof or a new room addition.”
In my last hood there was a now divvorced serial refinancing young couple who demonstrated that some of their borrowed money went to a boob job. Although I gotta admit the boob job was better looking than any new roof or room addition I have ever seen.
Now the money they spent on the boat and cars they got would have been better off going to a new roof because when they were finally shoe-horned out after several years fo payment free living that old cedar shake roof needed to be replaced among other items like the need for a new kitchen and baths.
Pictures pls.
How can any man complain about HELOC boob-jobs? I mean, if ever there was a reason to go into debt, it’s for boobs…
Can someone explain this to me? I thought the lending nonsense ended about August 2007. Why is there an explosion of HELOC payments coming due after 2017? Even if there were a bunch of 10-year interest-only seconds, aren’t these all worthless now?
Bank of America Faces Bad Home-Equity Loans: Mortgages
By Kathleen M. Howley and Dakin Campbell - Apr 18, 2012 4:21 PM ET
Bank of America Corp., whose home- equity mortgage portfolio exceeds its stock market value, probably will say about $2 billion of junior loans are bad assets tomorrow even as some borrowers are still paying on time.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-18/bank-of-america-faces-bad-home-equity-loans-mortgages.html - 155k -
Here Comes the Catch in Home Equity Loans
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: July 14, 2012
Using data from the Federal Reserve, Amherst said Bank of America held $101.4 billion; Wells Fargo, $93.3 billion; JPMorgan Chase, $84.4 billion; and Citigroup, $15.9 billion. As a result, the risks to borrowers cited in the comptroller’s office report will also be faced by their lenders
‘I thought the lending nonsense ended about August 2007′
Today, the GSE’s are refinancing loans with a 125% or greater LTV, with no appraisal and no documentation. Loan mods in general are failing 30-40% in the first year. FHA is turning out many thousands of new low down payment loans that are basically subprime.
Over 90% of loans made in the US today are made or backed by insolvent entities.
Any rebound in housing must be the result of the FHA leniency.
It’s amazing how the MSM has already accepted the “recovery” as fact.
my question? when do the housing stocks get taken to the woodshed?
Do the GSEs do HELOCs? I know they do regular mortgages and refinances, but I have never heard of a GSE line of credit.
“Over 90% of loans made in the US today are made or backed by insolvent entities.”
In other words, Ben, the housing bubble is still going. On, and on, and on. Shifting the bubble’s inflators to the government directly, didn’t stop the inflators. They are still pumpin’ away, vigorously trying to puff up anything they can, even while larger and larger holes appear elsewhere (in the vast social balloon) that progressively makes the pumping action pointless.
And don’t the payments start right away? the story implies that there is some time delay until payment begins. I don’t know because I never got a heloc.
“would start requiring payments of both principal and interest”
My understanding is that cash-out HELOC’s were like regular mortgages, with ARM’s, I/O’s, neg-ams, and grace periods. So they were already paying interest, now they need to start paying principle (maybe with a balloon).
The HELOC terms when I was slinging them for TARP bank in 2004-2005 were promo rate for 3-6 months then variable rate tied to prime. Term of 10 years, at which time you could just renew it or refinance, because RE only goes up, right?
HELOCs are supposed to be IO as long as you chose, but you can pay it down or run it up within limits. My guess is dropping values are pushing LTVs outside the allowable limits and forcing the loans to become amortizing. A recipe for high default rates.
Given the steadily ongoing retreat from U.S. stock funds, what props up the market these days?
Investors retreat from stock mutual funds in June
BY MARK JEWELL • Associated Press | Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2012 12:00 am
BOSTON • A rising market didn’t instill confidence last month, as investors continued to withdraw more from stock mutual funds than they deposited into them.
Investors withdrew a net $7.7 billion from U.S. stock funds in June, according to industry consultant Strategic Insight. It was the fourth consecutive month that money was pulled out of stock funds, and the biggest monthly total this year. Through June, net withdrawals total $15 billion.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index rose about 4 percent in June, but the previous month’s 6 percent decline apparently was fresh in investors’ minds.
“Gains in the stock market have not emboldened investors, who worry about the ever-present risk of future losses,” said Avi Nachmany, research director with New York-based Strategic Insight.
…
Hedge Fund Investors Are Running For The Exits
Ben Duronio | Jul. 10, 2012, 5:49 PM
Laurence Fletcher of Reuters is reporting that hedge fund withdrawals have reached their highest level since 2009, during the midst of the housing crisis.
Net outflows from hedge funds, as measured by the GlobeOp GO.L Capital Movement Index, which tracks monthly net subscriptions to and redemptions from funds managing around $187 billion (120.49 billion pounds) in assets, were 1.17 percent of that total during the month to July 1.
The withdrawals compare with net inflows in each of the previous five months and were the highest level of net outflows since October 2009, when clients pulled out 3.76 percent.
This is more bad news for hedge funds, who have been outperformed by bond funds this year. CNBC’s John Melloy reported earlier today that Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s global diversified hedge fund composite index returned just 1.3 percent in the first half, which was significantly below the S&P 500’s 8.3 percent gain. Melloy noted that David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital was one such underperformer.
…
I can’t say that I’m in a position to plunk money into hedge funds. Far from it. But if I had the moolah, a hedge fund would be the last place I’d put it.
Considering that hedge funds are run by people with a heightened sense of self worth and believe themselves the masters of the universe, I wouldn’t want them handling my money in a shaky economy.
Standard hedge fund fees - 2% of money in the fund AND 20% of any gains earned during the year. Many also include terms that allow the fund to suspend redemptions (you can’t sell your shares) and/or require additional contributions from the investors at their discretion.
I predict ‘doomsday’ will arrive earlier than four years out for bond fund investors, as rational expectations suggest the race to the exits will start before the scheduled slaughtering of the lambs.
Treasuries Doomsday Is Four Years Away for Vanguard
By Susanne Walker and Daniel Kruger - Jul 16, 2012 3:18 AM MT
Vanguard Group Inc., whose $148.2 billion of Treasuries makes it the largest private owner of U.S. debt, says the nation has until 2016 to contain its borrowings before bond investors revolt and drive up interest rates.
“In the absence of a long-term credible plan, we are somewhere around four years away on where the markets are going to say ‘enough is enough,’” said Robert Auwaerter, head of the Valley Forge, Pennsylvania-based Vanguard’s fixed-income group since 2003 and who this year was inducted into the Fixed Income Analysts Society Inc.’s Hall of Fame.
The U.S. has avoided the turmoil rocking Europe, where five nations have sought bailouts as their borrowing costs soared because investors boycotted their bonds. Instead, they have sought U.S. assets as a haven due to the dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency, pushing note yields to record lows even though the amount of public debt outstanding has grown to $15.9 trillion from less than $9 trillion in 2007.
Demand for U.S. bonds and the dollar has bolstered President Barack Obama’s ability to fund a budget deficit forecast to exceed $1 trillion for a fourth straight year, and helped Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s efforts to keep borrowing cost low. The greenback makes up 62.2 percent of all currency reserves, compared with 24.9 percent for the euro, according to the International Monetary Fund in Washington.
…
As long as China keeps buying bonds at stated near-zero interest set by the Fed, no need to worry. China is in this for the long haul because (i) it has strategic reasons to contain the US (while it cares two hoots about containing Europe and (ii) it needs somewhere to park its huge surpluses.
The question is how long is this going to go on? Also, when it stops it would mean that China has run out of steam in which case presumably it will mean the American economy is in better (or at least more competitive) shape.
I think you’re right. The alternative pundits are already trumpeting the fragile state of the bond markets.
I have an idea as to how to save the situation: Borrow lots of money and use this borrowed money to buy up the bonds.
See? Nothing to it.
Be sure to put into writing (use ink so as to demonstrate that you are serious) a sincere promise that you will pay back all the money that is borrowed.
Some years ago California “balanced” its budget by floating what was called “Recovery Bonds”. Since a bond is a method of borrowing money I didn’t quite understand (and I still don’t understand) how a budget can be balanced by borrowing money.
Obviously it can’t. But reality never stopped anybody… until it did.
“All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.”
- George Orwell
How is your take on this doom? I have most of our savings, including retirement savings, in short term U.S. Treasuries — 13 week bills. Real rate of return — minus 2 percent per year. Combo would be proud, except I’m not sure I agree with Combo.
When doomsday happens, interest rates rise and stocks fall, there will be fairer asset prices to invest in.
What are the chances that the federal government will institute forced rollovers of Treasury Bills, except for institutions and hardship withdrawls, to finance itself? We are ruled by a generation that is about as responsible as Argentina’s right wing and left wing Peronists, after all.
“… except I am not sure I agree with Combo.”
Lol. Combo isn’t all that sure either.
We have entered some very unknown territory. Or, if not unknown at least forgotten.
History doesn’t repeat, but it certainly rhymes…
Plenty of examples throughout history of what will happen, as long you believe that it was a one-way trip from 21% to 0%, soon to be -.25%.
The debt cannot be serviced at higher rates, thus the Fed will monetize the debt itself to attempt to contain rates. The tax base cannot sustain the increased taxes (or decreased spending) to reign in this beast, thus the only certain outcome is eventual default…
How can interest rates on US treasuries go up unless there is someplace else to put the money (lower demand)? Seriously. You can say the bond market won’t lend at these rates, but the money has to go somewhere. Either there is a dramatic run of money destruction events (thousands of muni defaults might do it) that the Fed does not offset (I don’t think so), or the money has to go somewhere. Where does it go? China? They aren’t borrowing for now. They have a trade surplus. EU? Does that look like a safer play than the US right now? Switzerland? Volume doesn’t cut it. Your bank’s money market savings account? Who backs that? Oh, the US government.
Interest rates look like they should be based on absolute risk, but there is a huge element of relative risk involved.
“How can interest rates on US treasuries go up unless there is someplace else to put the money (lower demand)?”
1. I have a large opening in my mattress to any large investors that are interested.
2. By houses, they’re a sure thing type of investement.
3. Gold, Gold, GOLD!
4. Silver, Silver, SILVER!
5. Green infrastructure.
6. Did I mention my mattress.
Seriously though, don’t discount the possibility of a little bit here and a little bit there adding up to enough to push interest rates up. And I’ve read stories how the CB is buying an increasing percent of treasuries, suggesting investors are already finding alternatives.
If faced with a collapse of the US currency, any other investment becomes attractive. People just don’t yet believe a collapse is possible.
Since the European Central Bank stopped paying interest on their banks excess reserves, there has been a big move into soversign short term credit markets.
France’s 2 year yield is now negative
Interest rates are low for 15-20 years.
See Japan for example.
We will print to keep them low.
China will print to keep them low.
The collapse of the economy will keep them low.
Argentina’s right wing and left wing Peronists? No
No we are in something new, a banking cartel facist state, and actually we are just one state that they are seizing control of.
In dictatorships the dictators are billionaires see Putin, Hussein, Mubarek as examples. Our gov officials are millionaires they are well paid puppets.
Is Marketwatch running the same story over and over again? It seems like I have read this one at least eighty times so far this year. It started getting old after about the seventieth time.
July 16, 2012, 8:00 a.m. EDT
U.S. stock futures edge lower on growth worries
By William L. Watts, MarketWatch
FRANKFURT (MarketWatch) — U.S. stock-index futures traded lower Monday, with investors appearing reluctant to extend the rally seen at the end of last week due to continued worries over the outlook for global growth and ahead of a flood of corporate results as second-quarter earnings season gets into full swing.
Futures on the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJU2 -0.35%) fell 31 points to 12,681, while S&P 500 futures (SPU2 -0.30%) lost 3.6 points to 1,348.10 and while Nasdaq-100 futures (NDU2 -0.26%) declined 5.5 points to 2,571.50
“In Asia, doubts remain over the strength of the Chinese recovery. … In Europe, bond yields remain elevated as politicians wrestle to implement the $100 billion Spanish banking rescue package. … In the U.S., economic data continue to point to a slowdown, with Friday’s fall in [the University of Michigan consumer confidence index] the latest indicator of weaker growth ahead,” said Rebecca O’Keefe, head of investment at Interactive Investor in London, in emailed comments.
…
March 2009 - DOW = 6600
July 2012 - DOW = 12,600
Purpose of article? Create fear. Reason? Churn, baby churn.
July 15, 2012, 3:59 p.m. EDT
U.S. criminal probe in Libor scandal: report
By Matt Andrejczak and Greg Robb, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The U.S. Justice Department is building a criminal case against big banks and individuals who manipulated a key global interest rate, according to a media report.
The investigation focuses on how banks set the London interbank offered rate, known as Libor, the New York Times reported over the weekend Potential wrongdoing might ensnare traders at Barclays PLC, which already has been fined $450 million for fixing Libor, the report said.
Libor is based on rate submissions from a relatively small and select panel of major banks, including Barclays (BCS +1.09%).
On Friday, Federal Reserve Bank documents released showed an unidentified employee of the U.K. bank told the New York Federal Reserve Bank in 2008 that the bank was filing false reports on a key interest rate.
The documents show that a summary of the admission was quickly circulated throughout the U.S. government, including the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, in 2008.
…
Told you they knew.
These banks need to face the same penalties and jail time that Jon Corzine is facing.
Oh, wait.
Is the Justice Dept going to fly to Lindon and arrest Brits now?
Or will it be a small fine and a promise not to do it again?
If ever there was a time for rendition!
Buffett Says Muni Bankruptcies Set to Climb as Stigma Lifts
By Margaret Collins - Jul 13, 2012 12:52 PM ET
Warren Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said municipal bankruptcies are set to rise as there’s less stigma attached after three California cities opted to seek protection just weeks apart.
“The stigma has probably been reduced when you get very sizeable cities like Stockton or San Bernardino to do it,” Buffett, 81, said in an interview today on “In the Loop with Betty Liu” on Bloomberg Television. “The very fact they do it makes it more likely.”
Cities and towns across the U.S. have been strained by rising costs for labor, including pensions and retiree health benefits, while the longest recession since the 1930s crimped sales- and property-tax revenue.
“Once people find that the city works the next day, it makes it easier for the city council next time they have a problem with pensions — or whatever it is — just to say, ‘well, we’ll declare bankruptcy,’” said Buffett, whose company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.
“I don’t think we’re at the precipice,” Buffett said. “People will use the threat of bankruptcy to try and negotiate, particularly pension contracts, with their employees.”
The billionaire predicted a “terrible problem” for municipal bonds in coming years in testimony to the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in June 2010.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-13/buffett-says-muni-bankruptcies-poised-to-climb-as-stigma-lifts.html -
“I don’t think we’re at the precipice,” Buffett said. “People will use the threat of bankruptcy to try and negotiate, particularly pension contracts, with their employees.”
He’s got that right. But you get what you pay for, and especially in the case of government, civil rights violations by not-very-bright-civil-servants are very costly and then you end up with the feds in your business.
What’s the old saying? “It’s good save money in business but you can save yourself right out of business.”
“I don’t think we’re at the precipice,” Buffett said.”
Awww, put a sock in it, old man.
The Orifice of Omaha.
Wish I could take credit for it, but I think it was Jim Goad or one of the writers at Takimag who came up with that one.
I don’t think a lot of people are making the proper connections on why muni defaults are going to soar. (1) the stock market not going up is causing pension funds to be more and more underfunded. Built into these public pensions was a 7%+ return of the investments. When the market is flat, never mind falling, no way that is going to occur meaning the pensions have to funded with more tax money (2) the present low bond yields are aggravating that problem. (3) finally if the federal reserve ever lets the interest rates rise, the in debt states and cities will not be able to finance their debts.
I see an increased wave of bankruptcies since we have such a flat market and the federal reserve trying to intervene with another QE to make the stock market increase to offset this pressure.
Awww, put a sock in it, old man.
buffett had to have gotten lucky to have made his billions. it’s telling that berkshire has lost value the last few years. he claims he wants taxes to go up, but fights paying them in court. he’s a hypocrite of the worst kind.
buffett had to have gotten lucky to have made his billions.
But I think many just bash the Buff because the Buff believes the super-rich don’t pay squat in taxes as a percentage of their income and wealth. While at the same time, middle-class wealth has been redistributed to the super-rich the past 40 years. And here’s the super-rich Buffett pointing this stuff out and we can’t even call him a “socialist” to discredit him.
So now, those who are wrongly on the right on this issue, dismiss the world’s greatest investor as just “lucky”.
Well, IMO, that dog don’t hunt.
But I think many just bash the Buff because the Buff believes the super-rich don’t pay squat in taxes as a percentage of their income and wealth.
then why does he go to court to fight paying taxes? he’s a hypocrite.
While at the same time, middle-class wealth has been redistributed to the super-rich the past 40 years.
please tell us how this is done.
why does (Buffett) go to court to fight paying taxes? he’s a hypocrite.
No. You are comparing Apples and Oranges:
Arguing for the rich to pay more in personal income taxes or even corporations paying higher future taxes and living up to his responsibility defending his shareholder’s legal tax rights on the existing books are 2 different subjects. Of course, the complexity might be lost on one with bias.
please tell us how this is done.
Middle-class wealth has been redistributed to the super-rich the past 40 years through the implementation of right wing economic policies. The Republican pushed economic dogma the past 30 years has redistributed middle-class wealth to the super-rich. (They stole it) It was done through the trickle-down BS. The supply-side tripe. The cutting taxes for the rich that would “create-jobs” lie. The “corporations are people” insanity. The deregulation of the financial industry leading to the housing bust. The “outsourcing will free up Americans to do more productive jobs” dung. Union Busting. etc. etc.
That’s how it was done. Did you miss it?
No. You are comparing Apples and Oranges:
Arguing for the rich to pay more in personal income taxes or even corporations paying higher future taxes and living up to his responsibility defending his shareholder’s legal tax rights on the existing books are 2 different subjects. Of course, the complexity might be lost on one with bias.
oh, i see. all that money isn’t really his, it’s his shareholder’s. right. but if that’s true, why doesn’t he explain to his shareholder’s that it’s only fair that they pay for higher taxes?
everyone but his shareholder’s should pay higher taxes? hypocrite.
Middle-class wealth has been redistributed to the super-rich the past 40 years through the implementation of right wing economic policies.
which policies are you talking about?
The Republican pushed economic dogma the past 30 years has redistributed middle-class wealth to the super-rich. (They stole it) It was done through the trickle-down BS.
they stole it? how did they do that? it can’t be supple side economics, because that focuses on production.
The cutting taxes for the rich that would “create-jobs” lie.
jobs come from the rich.
The “corporations are people” insanity.
what does that have to do with redistributing wealth?
The deregulation of the financial industry leading to the housing bust.
the financial industry shouldn’t have been insured by the taxpayer in the first place. if the taxpayer is on the hook, then yes, it needs to be regulated.
The “outsourcing will free up Americans to do more productive jobs” dung.
companies have to do it to survive in many cases.
Union Busting.
about the best thing that can be done for the economy and workers.
That’s how it was done. Did you miss it?
you haven’t explained a thing. just a bunch of false and baseless claims.
everyone but (Buffett’s) shareholder’s should pay higher taxes? hypocrite.
Dang…..Are you intentionally ignoring facts or do you really not understand the current reality and the potential timelines of changed tax laws? Buffet is arguing for tax laws that SHOULD be while living in the world of the EXISTING tax laws.
His position is that everyone INCLUDING his shareholders SHOULD pay higher taxes when and if the law would require it. He supports a law that would require it. Right now the law DOES NOT require it therefore it is his duty to his shareholders that they pay no more taxes than is required at this time. When you understand this (which you don’t want to) you realize that there is nothing hypocritical about his stand.
you haven’t explained a thing. just a bunch of false and baseless claims.
I’ve explained it all, but you are apparently too biased to recognize the reality of the political and economic world you live in. A good example of this is your ignoring the basic facts of the Buffett point above.
His position is that everyone INCLUDING his shareholders SHOULD pay higher taxes when and if the law would require it. He supports a law that would require it.
he should lead by example and stop fighting paying higher taxes. he’s a hypocrite. he should just relent and pay the higher taxes and explain his philosophy to his share holders. it’s only fair. they need to pay the fair share too. besides, if the IRS says he owes it, he must really owe it, no matter what he or you thinks the law says.
I’ve explained it all,
you’ve explained nothing. how did the wealth get redistributed to the wealthy over the last 40 years? you made the claim, but you just can’t get past your liberal talking points. nothing you’ve said explains how the wealth got redistributed to the wealthy. it all BS, and that’s why you can’t explain how it supposedly works.
but you are apparently too biased to recognize the reality of the political and economic world you live in.
you don’t understand how an economy works. you blame the very thing that makes your life better. free market capitalism.. and then when high taxes and regulations start to destroy the economy, you blame it on capitalism. comical.
A good example of this is your ignoring the basic facts of the Buffett point above.
buffett’s point is a good example of his hypocrisy. he should stop complaining and start doing the right thing. i’m sure his shareholders will understand his desire to be fair. it’s the fair thing to do. he said so himself.
he should lead by example and stop fighting paying higher taxes.
What planet do you live on? You are either delusional or your politics render your point on this issue moronic.
you don’t understand how an economy works. you blame the very thing that makes your life better. free market capitalism..
You sound like a trite AM radio talking point. But you forgot to tell me that I think profits are “evil”. LOL
you don’t understand how an economy works. you blame the very thing that makes your life better. free market capitalism..
Apparently Reagan’s budget director and I understand way better than you how an economy works and what policies have destroy it.
Reagan insider: GOP destroyed U.S. economy,
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-05-24/commentary/30740255_1_american-economy-crony-capitalism-tax-cuts
(MarketWatch) — “My G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy.” Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece. Not “is destroying,” the GOP has “destroyed” the U.S. economy, setting up an “American Apocalypse.”
…Last fall, Stockman’s hard-hitting op-ed was loaded with jabs like: “If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.
Warning: GOP’s self-destructive capitalism wrecking U.S. economy
In this new “Triumph of Politics Over Economics” we see America at a crossroads, struggling to redefine itself. Politicians have become the new economists. Politicians and their big money backers and lobbyists now rule the American economy like banana-republic dictators. Stockman calls this corrupt system the new “crony capitalism.” The old capitalist economics that made America the world’s greatest superpower no longer exist.
Today, professional economists are no more than hired guns for politicians with myopic ideologies and huge bankrolls that make it easy to justify lying, cheating and stealing from investors, workers, consumers, savers and taxpayers. Capitalism has morphed into a monopoly ruled by politicians who are serving a wealthy elite. Competition is a joke. Democracy is a farce. “We the People” no longer exists.
how did the wealth get redistributed to the wealthy over the last 40 years?
I told you in my posts above. You just refuse to face facts. You know nothing about “free-markets” if you defend right wing trickle-down, supply side tripe. And you could learn more here if you did not have an agenda.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31563
In Part 1 of this three part series I addressed where and how the net worth of the middle class was stolen. In Part 2, I will tackle who stole your net worth and in Part 3, why they stole your net worth. Now let’s zero in on the culprits of this crime.
Dude, Who Stole My Net Worth?
“Thus far, both political parties have been remarkably clever and effective in concealing this new reality. In fact, the two parties have formed an innovative kind of cartel—an arrangement I have termed America’s political duopoly. Both parties lie about the fact that they have each sold out to the financial sector and the wealthy. So far both have largely gotten away with the lie, helped in part by the enormous amount of money now spent on deceptive, manipulative political advertising.” – Charles Ferguson – Predator Nation
…The destruction of the middle class has been methodical and systematic. The top 10% of earners had a median net worth of $1.19 million, or 192 times as much as the median wealth of $6,200 of those in the bottom 20% in 2010. In 2007, the top 10% had 138 times as much wealth as the bottom 20%. In 2001, it was 106 times as much. With the continued rise in the stock market, declining real wages for the middle class, and further home price declines, the gap between the top 10% and the bottom 20% has continued to widen. The level of pain being experienced by the middle class has reached an unprecedented extreme. A few data points from David Rosenberg make that clear:
Forty-six million Americans (one in seven) are on food stamps.
One in seven is unemployed or underemployed.
The percentage of those out of work defined as long-term unemployed is the highest (42%) since the Great Depression.
54% of college graduates younger than 25 are unemployed or underemployed.
47% of Americans receive some form of government assistance.
Employment-to-population ratio for 25- to 54-year-olds is now 75.7%, lower than when the recession “ended” in June 2009.
There are 7.7 million fewer full-time workers now than before the recession, and 3.3 million more part-time workers.
Eight million people have left the labor force since the recession “ended” — adding those back in would put the unemployment rate at 12% instead of 8.2%.
The number of unemployed looking for work for at least 27 weeks jumped 310,000 in May, the sharpest increase in a year.
What planet do you live on? You are either delusional or your politics render your point on this issue moronic.
it’s more moronic to think buffett has a principled stance.
You sound like a trite AM radio talking point. But you forgot to tell me that I think profits are “evil”.
just about everything you say indicates you don’t understand how wealth and jobs are created.
Apparently Reagan’s budget director and I understand way better than you how an economy works and what policies have destroy it.
stockman knows we’re spending too much. other than that, his understanding of economics is weak. he’s actually one of the ones he’s complaining about.
you’re appealing to authority. this time, your authority doesn’t know crap.
what policies destroy an economy?
You know nothing about “free-markets” if you defend right wing trickle-down, supply side tripe.
why don’t you try to prove your drivel with logic?
why don’t you try to prove your drivel with logic?
I just did with my above post, but if that’s not logic enough, here’s logical proof that you are hopelessly politically biased and refuse to look at facts that run counter to your bias:
At 17:54:21, at your request for some proofs, I posted a very long and logical study that strongly supports my position on how middle-class wealth was stolen by the super-rich.
This study would take at least a half hour to digest, think about and come up with a thoughtful comment regarding its validity to our points. But at 18:05:41 less than 10 minutes later (assuming you were checking the blog ever second), you posted your weak “rebuttal” above which, not surprisingly did not address the study’s thesis.
In addition, you would not have had time between 17:54:21 and 18:05:41 to read even 10% of that post which shows me you have no interest in facts but are only politically driven.
Logic enough?
just about everything you say indicates you don’t understand how wealth and jobs are created.
Now you’re getting really funny. How can I not “understand” how wealth and jobs are created when I have created both from scratch?
You are the one who is delusional on your failed “free-market”, supply-side dogma and also how corporations function in the real world. For you to think Buffett should pay more corporate taxes than the law requires because of his PERSONAL views shows gross ignorance on the responsibilities that fall upon a managing partner of a corporation or a business. I know because I was the managing partner of a US corporation and I had responsibilities to MY shareholders.
Do you think one of my partner or shareholder meetings could have gone something like this?
Shareholder: Why did we pay 40% taxes when we were only required to pay 20%??
Me: Because I personally believe that we should contribute more because I like Americans going into foreign countries and killing people. And I think the spotted owl needs more protection. Oh yea, and I hate federal deficits because it hurts the children.
Shareholder: Well I’m suing your A$$. You’ll be hearing from my lawyer tomorrow.
Me: But it was for the children!
Nope. That is not the way it works. Buffett CAN NOT pay more taxes for his business than current law requires or he’d be sued to high heaven. That’s the way it works in the real, dog-eat-dog corporate, capitalist world of which I have substantial experience.
At 17:54:21, at your request for some proofs, I posted a very long and logical study that strongly supports my position on how middle-class wealth was stolen by the super-rich.
i admit it was long-winded, but you didn’t have any logic to back it up. all it was, was liberal talking points that i’ve seen a thousand times before. what’s your logic??
This study would take at least a half hour to digest, think about and come up with a thoughtful comment regarding its validity to our points.
if you’re talking about stockman, he doesn’t know crap. other than that article, all you posted was liberal talking points. why don’t you try to back some of them up with your own logic? show me how wealth was redistributed from the middle class to the wealthy. use your talking points if you must, but back them up with some reasoning.
In addition, you would not have had time between 17:54:21 and 18:05:41 to read even 10% of that post which shows me you have no interest in facts but are only politically driven.
i read it. it didn’t take long. stockman doesn’t know what he’s talking about, so why do you listen to him? i’ll tell you, it’s because you don’t what you’re talking about either.
How can I not “understand” how wealth and jobs are created when I have created both from scratch?
just because you run a business and hire people doesn’t mean you know a thing about how wealth or jobs are created. all you’re doing is using the economy that already exists for you. it’s comical to listen to business men claim they’re experts on job creation because they hire people. i’ve argued with many of them. you seem to think that if you can fly a plane, you’re an expert on how they’re made. what a joke.
You are the one who is delusional on your failed “free-market”, supply-side dogma and also how corporations function in the real world.
wrong again. it’s your demand management fallacies that have been proven to fail over and over again.
That is not the way it works. Buffett CAN NOT pay more taxes for his business than current law requires or he’d be sued to high heaven.
i’m sure if he explained how fair and just it was they’d be happy to go along with it. besides, he shouldn’t worry about it, he’s one of the rich that can afford good lawyers.
look, why don’t you just forget all the minutia and explain how jobs and wealth get created. obviously you don’t think it’s from production. you think it’s from demand. please just explain how you think it works.
the author is just another conspiracy idiot that thinks he has things all figured out. his article is rubbish.
With the continued rise in the stock market, declining real wages for the middle class, and further home price declines, the gap between the top 10% and the bottom 20% has continued to widen. The level of pain being experienced by the middle class has reached an unprecedented extreme.
declining wages actually causes the wage gap to narrow. this fool doesn’t have a clue what’s going on. the rest of it is just saying how bad things are getting. anyone can see it’s bad and getting worse, but nowhere does he explain how wealth is actually ’stolen’. and the top 10% and everything else is fluid. many don’t stay where they are presently for long periods of time.. some do.
i read it. it didn’t take long. stockman doesn’t know what he’s talking about, so why do you listen to him?
It was the other article. You failed. Thinking Buffet can pay more taxes because of his personal feelings shows your bias or gross ignorance on how American business can be run. I know much more than you apparently. You sound like an ignorant AM radio talking point. But you are amusing in your ignorance.
i’m sure if (Buffet) explained how fair and just (paying more taxes than required) was they’d be happy to go along with it.
You’re sure shareholders would “go along with it”?? If Buffet told his shareholders that? Dude, you just jumped the shark. Are you a total fool on how businesses work in America or are you just feebly trying to be funny?
Seriously, you sound like a 12 year old or a Rush Limbaugh intern to a paid shill. (but not a convincing one at all) But keep digging.
I know much more than you apparently. You sound like an ignorant AM radio talking point. But you are amusing in your ignorance.
what are you afraid of?? you’re bragging you know how wealth and jobs are created. i’m calling you out. you don’t have a clue. tell us how demand management works. you an expert aren’t you?
tell us how the wealth was ’stolen’.
thing is, you can’t make your case. you can’t, because demand management doesn’t work and never has. i know the arguments and i know why they’re false. why don’t you try to make the demand arguments?
tell us that you know how to make an airplane because you know how to fly it…
Are you a total fool on how businesses work in America or are you just feebly trying to be funny?
tell us how to create wealth and jobs. you hire people so you must be an expert. tell us how it’s done.
tell us how to create wealth and jobs. you hire people so you must be an expert. tell us how it’s done.
Compared to your biased and grossly ignorant and unsupported opinions I guess I AM an expert. For you to think Buffet can “explain to his shareholders” and have them go along with him paying higher taxes because of his PERSONAL views proves your ignorance or bias of how businesses with shareholder responsibilities function. You are so far out there on this point it makes you look like a joke.
Societies create healthy economies when the deck is stacked against monopolies, crony-capitalism and wealth inequality. (The crap you support with your party line) Societies create healthy economies and jobs when public money is invested in public infrastructure, basic science, health-care and education and the middle-class (not the rich) is protected and nurtured. Healthy economies are created and protected by fair protectionism that protects jobs from unfair off-shoring practices. There is more, but I’m certain you will listen to none of it as all these things go against your naked political agenda.
But if I were you tj, I’d come up with (or ask my boss to come up with) better talking points than “Buffet could explain to his shareholders his paying more taxes than required is OK because it’s the right thing to do” . Jeez…
Societies create healthy economies when the deck is stacked against monopolies
more moronic drivel. i suspect you don’t even know what a monopoly is. in your next reply, please tell me what a monopoly is.
crony-capitalism
crony capitalism is the result of government having too much power. how do you ’stack the deck’ against government power?
and wealth inequality
wealth inequality is a necessity in free market capitalism. there’d be no jobs if there wasn’t wealth inequality. the only thing that brings wealth equality is the destitution of communism. but some socialists are willing to go to that very length to get it.
Societies create healthy economies and jobs when public money is invested in public infrastructure, basic science, health-care and education and the middle-class (not the rich) is protected and nurtured.
lofty ,do-gooder sounding words, but totally false. public money isn’t ‘invested’, it’s spent. that means that less is in the private sector to start more businesses. that means that the economy suffers.
Healthy economies are created and protected by fair protectionism that protects jobs from unfair off-shoring practices.
‘fair protectionism’, what crock. protectionism ruins healthy economies. i guess you learned nothing from the smoot-hawley fiasco. liberals would love to rewrite history for that one.
There is more, but I’m certain you will listen to none of it as all these things go against your naked political agenda.
my “naked political agenda” is freedom and free markets. the things that made this country great in the first place.
your dreams of utopia will destroy this country. ask the majority of russians who migrated here to escape the tyranny and destitution of communism. you don’t understand it, but your demand management policies will destroy us. you’ll eventually see it, but by then it will be too late.
your dreams of utopia
LOL…..Look at your language tj. It’s all boilerplate, unoriginal, Koch Brother propaganda jive. “Utopia”? “Liberals re-writing history”?, “lefty do-gooder”? “commie”?, “socialist”?. YAWN…….
You come across as a feeble caricature of the fascist puppet-masters you support. You can’t even come up with theories of your own. And unlike me, you can’t come up with any real world examples of US corporate or business practices or experiences. So what are you and what is your agenda?
I ask because there is no original thought in your writings. None. It’s like a 12 year old who parrots badly Glenn Beck. There is no credibility with you when you write and believe such as you wrote below:
Me: Buffett CAN NOT pay more taxes for his business than current law requires or he’d be sued to high heaven.
You: i’m sure if he explained how fair and just it was they’d be happy to go along with it.
Now anyone who repeatedly wrote what you wrote regarding Buffet, I’d have to consider:
1. Ignorant
2. A paid shill
3. Watching WWF instead of listening to the arguments
or 4. Way too politically biased and brainwashed to even being worth having a serious conversation with.
And if you want to know what a monopoly is, just google it between commercials.
my “naked political agenda” is freedom and free markets.
BS. Your agenda is corporate dominance and concentrated wealth at the expense of the middle-class. I think you know it. If you don’t, you should.
wealth inequality is a necessity
I’m speaking of the gross wealth inequality that has become overly concentrate only the past 30 years and you know it.
crony capitalism is the result of government having too much power
A Koch brother lie. Crony Capitalism is corporations having too much power over government. Your position on Buffet’s corporate taxes show me your true colors. Your dog don’t hunt. You need to up your game or get out of it.
public money isn’t ‘invested’, it’s spent.
LOL! More bunk. Tell that to Brazil who invested public money to become energy independent. Tell that to Sweden that has free College education and a higher rate of class mobility than the USA. You’re lost in your failed crony-capitalist dogma.
protectionism ruins healthy economies.
Again, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Brazilians who still make stuff because they are protected way more than American workers. Brazil, China, Germany etc. compete with the world as united countries minus most the extreme “free-market” dogma jive that has gutted USA manufacturing. Why? Because they are still more interested in their country and their people than they are their billionaires. (Unlike you)
I live it and see the contrasts every day while you simply parrot talking points.
And if you want to know what a monopoly is, just google it between commercials.
i could tell you didn’t know what a monopoly was by your post. since you don’t have a clue, i’ll tell you want a monopoly is. it’s when the government gives the sole right to an activity. the post office is an example of a monopoly. carlos slim’s phone company in mexico is also a monopoly. so how do we “stack the deck” against the government??
Your agenda is corporate dominance and concentrated wealth at the expense of the middle-class. I think you know it. If you don’t, you should.
total bull. i want no one nor anything to dominate anyone. corporate dominance is through government power. they buy it because it’s for sale. it shouldn’t be, but it is. and the only way for government not to be captured is to reduce its power.
I’m speaking of the gross wealth inequality that has become overly concentrate only the past 30 years and you know it.
in a free market, the wage gap widens as those in the top make more faster than those at the bottom. but those on the bottom continue to rise also. your fairness utopia that narrows the wage gap, hurts those at the bottom more than those at the top. do you still want to narrow the wage gap if it hurts those on the bottom more?
Crony Capitalism is corporations having too much power over government.
you liberals will never get it. just take power away from government and the big bad corporations will go back to being good wealth producing entities. they’ll provide what we want at prices we can afford. all you need to do it get government completely out of it.
You need to up your game or get out of it.
you need to learn some economics before you start spouting your drivel.
Tell that to Brazil who invested public money to become energy independent.
they would have become energy independent faster and cheaper by letting the private sector do it.
Tell that to Sweden that has free College education and a higher rate of class mobility than the USA.
the private sector can do just about everything better than the public sector.
You’re lost in your failed crony-capitalist dogma.
you’re lost in your failed, mythical, keynesian clap-trap.
Again, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Brazilians who still make stuff because they are protected way more than American workers.
again, tell it to those who suffered under smoot-hawley. you libs never learn do you?
Brazil, China, Germany etc. compete with the world as united countries minus most the extreme “free-market” dogma jive that has gutted USA manufacturing.
high taxes and regs have ‘gutted’ USA manufacturing. you keep proving over and over you know nothing about wealth creation. you only know your false liberal talking points.
Why? Because they are still more interested in their country and their people than they are their billionaires.
interest in your country and people is of little value if you don’t have the foggiest idea of how wealth gets created, and the value of it. ‘fairness’ put us on the road to ruin. protectionism puts us on the road to ruin. your war on wealth will yield the exact same results as communist russia. but at least we’ll all be ‘equal’ then right? equally poor.
I live it and see the contrasts every day while you simply parrot talking points.
you don’t know what you’re seeing.
you don’t know what you’re seeing.
No, your failed political dogma preclude you from understanding what I’m seeing.
(Brazil) would have become energy independent faster and cheaper by letting the private sector do it.
Poor Brazil did it with public money. Rich USA did not accomplish anything close with its “free-markets. How ignorant to world events can you be?
the private sector can do just about everything better than the public sector.
Many things yes, but not big and grand nationalistic things. Much poorer Brazil became energy independent with public money. Much richer USA did not, and is 30 years now behind Brazil in energy independence. These are the facts. This is the proof. Get over your bias.
high taxes and regs have ‘gutted’ USA manufacturing.
Brazil and Germany have MUCH higher taxes and regulation than does US manufacturing. You know not of what you speak and write as a child would when repeating jive.
interest in your country and people is of little value if you don’t have the foggiest idea of how wealth gets created,
You should take that advice and tell it to you ilk.
tell it to those who suffered under smoot-hawley.
Why not tell it to those Americans who suffered under today’s “free-market” globalization? Why do you ignore it?
your war on wealth
You are the one who defends the war on middle-class wealth. You don’t defend it well. You parrot BS talking point jive. You sound unoriginal and poorly programmed.
As I said, you need to up your tired and trite game because you sounded like a fool when writing about how Buffet could get away with “convincing the shareholders that paying more tax than is required” is the “right thing to do”. FAIL.
<No, your failed political dogma preclude you from understanding what I’m seeing.
i understand what you think you see. it’s false.
Poor Brazil did it with public money. Rich USA did not accomplish anything close with its “free-markets.
‘rich’ USA has been eternally moving away from free markets. under marxist obama it’s just been moving at super speed.
How ignorant to world events can you be?
nowhere as ignorant as you are.
Much richer USA did not, and is 30 years now behind Brazil in energy independence. These are the facts. This is the proof. Get over your bias.
we would have been if government wasn’t taxing and regulating the crap out of everything. you don’t really believe we’ve got free markets do you? a 12 year old could see that we do not.
Brazil and Germany have MUCH higher taxes and regulation than does US manufacturing. You know not of what you speak and write as a child would when repeating jive.
so what? are you saying their manufacturing is hurt by lower taxes and fewer regulations? are you saying our manufacturing will improve under higher taxes and regs? what world are you living on?
Why not tell it to those Americans who suffered under today’s “free-market” globalization?
so you’re saying smoot-hawley didn’t lengthen the depression? we’re suffering from taxes and regulations, not ‘globalization’. we could successfully compete if we got the government out of the way. but no, your fairness god demands self-destruction.
You are the one who defends the war on middle-class wealth.
only in your socialist addled mind.
You sound unoriginal and poorly programmed.
no need to be original when free market economics has been understood for decades. originality only comes in when you need to make up a bunch of bull. the kind of bull the keynesians dream up.
FAIL.
too bad for you that you don’t get to decide who fails. the reader gets to make up their own mind as to who is making sense.
you reek of childishness.
“free market economics has been understood for decades”
Please define free market economics as you understand it.
Show me a free market that has worked well in the real world.
Please define free market economics as you understand it.
free market economics is the production and trade (buy/selling) of anything without interference from any entity not involved in the production or trade (especially government).
Show me a free market that has worked well in the real world.
the way you asked the question makes me think you don’t really trust free markets.
in the states, the free market has been in retreat for a very long time. but even hampered by excessive taxes, regulations and various other assaults, it can still be somewhat productive, until it gets completely overwhelmed.
i gave the caveman example here a while ago as a fundamental example of the free market at work. and of how the free market evolves into capitalism.
take a look at hong kong. fifty years ago when britain cut it loose, it gave hong kong freedom. at that time, they were a third world country sitting on a rock with no resources. now with free market capitalism, they are first world status, with a thriving economy. they did it all through production and trade. they had to make things because they didn’t have any oil or coal. they had to buy their energy. if they actually had resources like saudi arabia, there’s no telling how strong they’d be right now.
we have to produce something first, in order to buy something later, with what we sold. no one can buy anything if there’s no production. that’s the essence of supply side economics.
You are right. I don’t trust free markets. ISTM that they are prone to manipulation by big players at the expense of smaller ones.
If I produce something that nobody wants to buy at a price that creates a profit, then my production is worthless. If I can offload some of the cost onto future generations (e.g. pollution) or other parties (e.g. workers), I may be able to make a profit. But in the big picture, that may be bad for everyone else.
I have heard it argued that the market will correct these kinds of problems. But we may all have to suffer while it does so.
You are right. I don’t trust free markets. ISTM that they are prone to manipulation by big players at the expense of smaller ones.
it’s the opposite. free markets resist manipulation. but the force of government can’t be resisted. that’s why government should never intervene in the markets. never. crony capitalism only happens when government power is available to the highest bidder. it should never be available to be bid on.
If I produce something that nobody wants to buy at a price that creates a profit, then my production is worthless.
yes, then you be out of business pretty quickly.
If I can offload some of the cost onto future generations (e.g. pollution) or other parties (e.g. workers), I may be able to make a profit.
we have a court system to sue them with. if they pollute, we can punish them AND make them clean up or put them out of business. those are powerful incentives for them not to pollute.
But in the big picture, that may be bad for everyone else.
i agree, pollution is bad for everyone and shouldn’t be allowed. but the government does a lousy job of policing it. the market does it better in a number of ways.
I have heard it argued that the market will correct these kinds of problems. But we may all have to suffer while it does so.
nothing can be risk free. there will be spills and other kinds of accidents. but as technology improves, clean ups will get easier.
Perhaps the most painful exchange on HBB since Puss and Alad went at it. Except that time they both had a clue what they were talking about and one didn’t persist in spouting talk-radio rhetoric in the stead of reasoned argument.
Reminded me of the Monty Python sketch, “I tell you, a whale is a mollusk!”
Perhaps the most painful exchange on HBB since Puss and Alad went at it. Except that time they both had a clue what they were talking about and one didn’t persist in spouting talk-radio rhetoric in the stead of reasoned argument.
well, well. if it isn’t ‘final word’ ahansen, chiming in with her fatherly and oh so wise last word, after the exchange is over and everyone else has turned in for the night. we are lucky to be so blessed.
“we have a court system to sue them with”
Without government and laws/regulations, you don’t have a court system.
Civil courts heavily favor those with deep pockets. E.g Monsanto and their suits against small farmers for “stealing” their intellectual property when GMO crops pollinate non-GMO fields.
“nothing can be risk free. there will be spills and other kinds of accidents. but as technology improves, clean ups will get easier.”
Proper laws and regulations can mitigate the risk. Technology advances better in a properly regulated environment than in a completely unregulated one where major players can buy up and suppress technological advancements that would threaten their cash cows.
At one of the continuum is a completely unfettered market. At the other end is a completely managed one. We are better off somewhere in the middle.
“If I produce something that nobody wants to buy at a price that creates a profit, then my production is worthless.
yes, then you be out of business pretty quickly”
So demand has a part to play. Production is driven by demand.
Production is driven by demand.
demand is impossible without production. desire, or ‘want’ isn’t demand. we want lots of things that either don’t exist, or cost far too much. but if you can’t buy them, there’s no demand.
demand is buying power.
you have to sell something, in order to have money to buy something else.
“you have to sell something, in order to have money to buy something else.”
This is a chicken and egg argument. Someone has to buy what I have to offer before I can buy something else. The demand for what I have to sell has to exist before I can sell it to buy something.
At one of the continuum is a completely unfettered market. At the other end is a completely managed one. We are better off somewhere in the middle.
that’s what most people believe, but it’s not true. an unfettered market isn’t a lawless one. it’s just a market where no one interferes with your production and trade. it doesn’t mean that you can dump your garbage where ever you want. forcing an entity to ‘clean up’ doesn’t interfere with its action in the market.
E.g Monsanto and their suits against small farmers for “stealing” their intellectual property when GMO crops pollinate non-GMO fields.
do you see that monsanto couldn’t have their unjust power without their government proxy?
Someone has to buy what I have to offer before I can buy something else. The demand for what I have to sell has to exist before I can sell it to buy something.
but the demand can’t exist if you have nothing to sell first!
Happy2bHeard, i’m trying to convey something that even 99% of the experts don’t understand. even peter schiff doesn’t understand this subtle but powerful point.
it’s not chicken or the egg. production has to come first. to understand anything it’s best to go back to the beginning.
imagine the two cavemen without their spears or hides. they have nothing to sell, so they can’t buy anything. the only way they can buy another product, is to first make a product of their own to sell. if one makes a few spears, he has buying power for other products, including but not limited to hides (when they are produced).
Happy2bHeard, i’m trying to convey something that even 99% of the experts don’t understand.
Yea happy,
He’s trying to convey that Warren Buffet can convince his shareholders to pay more taxes than the law requires because “it’s the right thing to do”.
And even 99% of the experts don’t understand it. (I wonder why)
And even 99% of the experts don’t understand it. (I wonder why
yes, listen to the little socialist chihuahua. he’s so smart.
“imagine the two cavemen without their spears or hides. they have nothing to sell, so they can’t buy anything. the only way they can buy another product, is to first make a product of their own to sell. if one makes a few spears, he has buying power for other products, including but not limited to hides (when they are produced).”
Even then, demand is the flip side of supply. If Gork doesn’t want a hide, then he won’t trade for it. If there is no demand, then the hide will rot.
Even then, demand is the flip side of supply.
no, it isn’t.
If Gork doesn’t want a hide, then he won’t trade for it.
yes, that’s self-evident.
If there is no demand, then the hide will rot.
true, but demand is not what you believe it is.
“true, but demand is not what you believe it is.”
“demand is impossible without production. desire, or ‘want’ isn’t demand. we want lots of things that either don’t exist, or cost far too much. but if you can’t buy them, there’s no demand.
demand is buying power.”
If I produce something that nobody desires, then there is no demand. I have created something. I have produced a supply that has nowhere to go. I don’t see that you can separate desire from demand. Desire is an essential element. Buying power from selling something does not exist without the desire of someone else to acquire the product.
“do you see that monsanto couldn’t have their unjust power without their government proxy?”
No. Without the government to mediate, Monsanto would still dominate the market. The biggest fish would eat all of the others.
If I produce something that nobody desires, then there is no demand.
desire is infinite. therefore it’s not part of the equation. it’s not special or unique. it’s ubiquitous. to be part of the equation, it must generate NEW buying power, which is demand. that’s how demand gets created. new production that gets sold, increases aggregate demand.
Buying power from selling something does not exist without the desire of someone else to acquire the product.
yes it does. as buying power increases, more frivolous or whimsical buying takes place. by the same token, you may immensely desire a product you can’t afford. if you can’t afford it, you can’t created market place demand for it by buying it.
Without the government to mediate, Monsanto would still dominate the market.
monsanto only dominates through crony capitalism government power. in a free market, monsanto would be eaten alive.
The biggest fish would eat all of the others.
in free markets guppies can eat the sharks, and they often do.
Production does not necessarily create demand. Desire does not necessarily create demand. But without desire, there is no demand. If nobody wants a product, there is no market place demand for it, irrespective of anyone’s ability to pay for it.
buffet always said never ask a barber if you need a haircut. in reality he does even better than that…he’s banging his barber.
Oil prices are sure falling fast! They were $80/bl just a few weeks ago, now “down” to $86/bl…
July 16, 2012, 1:29 a.m. EDT
Oil slips back as U.S. stock futures retreat
By V. Phani Kumar, MarketWatch
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — Crude-oil prices slipped in electronic trading Monday, taking a step back after Friday’s solid gains, as U.S. stock index futures declined in Asian trade and as China’s premier warned of more economic hardship in the future.
Benchmark U.S. light, sweet crude oil for delivery in August dropped 25 cents, or 0.3%, to $86.85 a barrel on Globex.
The front-month contract had rallied $1.02 in Friday’s regular New York Mercantile Exchange session, in line with a broad rally across asset classes, following an upbeat reaction to U.S. bank earnings reports.
…
…and we’re still paying more than $3 gal?!
It’s like I’ve said before:
When gas prices rise, they rise quickly.
When they drop, they’re like molasses: slow and sticky.
Especially in the summer.
ANALYSIS-In the U.S. housing market, recovery or Lost Decade?
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/15/idINL2E8ICE1Q20120715
Weekend Edition July 13-15, 2012
A Bottom in Housing? No Way!
A Market in Ruins
by MIKE WHITNEY
According to a recent report by Clear Capital, “The nation’s home prices rebounded with quarterly and yearly gains of 1.7%.” The Home Data Index (HDI) report, which was released on July 10, shows that “Regional performance improved across the board”, and that “Home price forecast through 2012 shows continued growth for the nation…”
Hooray! Housing prices have hit bottom and the market is slowly recovering, right?
…
So, here’s what we know: The sale of distressed properties (foreclosures, short sales, etc) dramatically pushes down aggregate prices. Why? Because bank owned properties are usually discounted by 30 or 40 percent which drags down the average. For example, let’s say you have 5 houses in the Seattle area all going for $1,000 each. So, the average price is $1,000. Now imagine that 2 of those homes are foreclosures discounted by 40%. ($600 each) That would pull the average price down to $840.
While this analysis may sound absurdly simple, in fact, it helps to explain what’s actually going on in the housing market. Prices are not going up as much as distressed properties are being removed from the MLS (listing). By removing (or withholding) bank-owned properties from the market, prices look better than they really are. So, what we are seeing is another example of gross manipulation and collusion by the banks, who are presently under fire for their collusion and manipulation in rigging interest rates. (LIBOR) It’s the same here; more cheating by the world’s biggest cheaters.
…
So you’re saying prices will “rise” for years to come as we continue downward toward the bottom?
Yes, because in Bizarro World, up is down and bad is good…
Posted: 9:49 p.m. Friday, April 20, 2012
Squatters issue restraining order against real estate agent
ANTIOCH, Calif. —
A Bay Area real estate agent said she’s being taken to court by squatters in Antioch who have taken over a house she’s trying to sell.
As many as three people have been living in the Concord home since December. Even though the owner never gave them permission to move in, they’re apparently not moving out without a fight.
Real estate agent Melissa Case said she can’t get too close to the four-bedroom, two-and-a-half bathroom home she’s listed for sale in Antioch because the unauthorized residents took her to court.
“I have a temporary restraining order against me right now,” Case said. “I cannot come within 50 yards of the home, which was filed by the squatters.”
Case said the homeowner, who lives in Berkeley, has been trying to unload the house in a short sale, but when she first went to check on the home, there were people already inside.
“(The squatters) never ever paid my client,” Case said. “Actually, the police came out and verified that their rental agreement is false and filled with misspellings.”
KTVU knocked on the door Friday, but no one answered. The alleged squatters did respond to Case with an email, saying they had “established residency” and demanded she provide them with the “proper eviction” process or leave them alone.
Some neighbors had another suggestion.
“Break the door down,” said Dale Visness, a neighbor. “Break it down, pull them out of there, arrest them and haul them off.”
Casesaid police can’t take action because it’s a civil matter.
Now, she just wants to bring attention to what she considers a growing problem.
“It’s an epidemic in Antioch,” Case said. “It really is.”
Earlier this week in Antioch, another group of accused squatters who sent a dog after a KTVU camera person were finally evicted.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/squatters-issue-restraining-order-against-real-est/nMfBm/ - 77k -
“Break the door down,” said Dale Visness, a neighbor. “Break it down, pull them out of there, arrest them and haul them off.”
When “the law” works in favor of criminals, you don’t have a rule of law anymore. And people begin to suggest appropriate remedies, and eventually act on them. We’re almost there.
…again.
Civil? How the hell is trespassing a “civil matter?”
If you have the “color of claim” it is civil.
Criminal TrespassAt common law a trespass was not criminal unless it was accomplished by violence or breached the peace. Some modern statutes make any unlawful entry onto another’s property a crime. When the trespass involves violence or injury to a person or property, it is always considered criminal, and penalties may be increased for more serious or malicious acts. Criminal intent may have to be proved to convict under some statutes, but in some states trespass is a criminal offense regardless of the defendant’s intent.
Some statutes consider a trespass criminal only if the defendant has an unlawful purpose in entering or remaining in the place where he has no right to be. The unlawful purpose may be an attempt to disrupt a government office, theft, or Arson. Statutes in some states specify that a trespass is not criminal until after a warning, either spoken or by posted signs, has been given to the trespasser. Criminal trespass is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
[back to me]
So, it depends on the criminal code of the area. Otherwise, it is a tort and a civil matter.
Judges love to use “you have no standing” argument against people who file charges and suits in order to obtain justice. So how the heck did these squatters have standing in this case? They are neither owners nor tenants. They aren’t legal residents. Therefore they have no standing to file a TRO.
The owner needs to stop being such a pussy and go down to the house with a few beefy friends and toss all those squatters out. The police can show up if they want, but it’s ALWAYS legal to get somebody out of YOUR HOUSE, and it’s the named-owner’s house, not theirs. They don’t have residency rights; nothing with a title and nothing with a contract.
OK, I know it’s petty, but I really like the “Mitt Romney as Guy Smiley” theme. Makes me laugh. We might as well get some amusement out of this political theater, because we sure aren’t going to get much else.
Oh, and kudos to Obama for pushing the Bain issue. It’s like he read my post here on the HBB. Or maybe one of his handlers did. He should push Bain from now until the election. And he should also ask what’s Romney’s problem with the health care law, considering Romneycare in Massachusetts.
I hope obama pushes it too.
Because nobody cares.
The economy is tanking, unemployment is still at record levels, our debt is at insane levels and obama wants to argue that obamacare is really like a FAILED health care law in one of the smallest states in America…
“Because nobody cares.”
Romney cares, he cares desperately. As a general rule, incumbents are defeated if they are in power during bad economic times. Obama’s re-election will show what a lousy choice of candidate Romney was for the pubs. Can’t wait for all the post-mortems. Wish we could just cut to the chase.
Rassmussen has Romney up by two, 46-44 with five percent going to third parties. The majority of that vote is going to Gary Johnson who is taking mainly from Romney. Third party candidates tend to fade the closer you get to an election. The other five percent is undecided. Historically, they break to the challenger by a two to one margin. So be careful what you wish for if the election was held today, Romney would win.
“Rassmussen has Romney up by two, 46-44 with five percent going to third parties. The majority of that vote is going to Gary Johnson who is taking mainly from Romney. Third party candidates tend to fade the closer you get to an election. The other five percent is undecided. Historically, they break to the challenger by a two to one margin. So be careful what you wish for if the election was held today, Romney would win.”
And Romney will win in November too. As the economy continues to deteriorate, undecideds will break even harder for Romney. And it really doesn’t matter that it’s Romney. People will be voting for or against Obama. Romney’s job is to make people vote against Obama, not so much to vote for him. Which is why negative ads work a lot more effectively against an incumbent than against a challenger.
And Romney will win in November too. As the economy continues to deteriorate, undecideds will break even harder for Romney.
Most Americans still hold Bush more responsible for the current economy than Obama. You can google it.
Many of your “undecided” Americans are beginning to realize that it was the Republican pushed economic dogma the past 30 years that has hobbled America. The trickle-down BS. The supply-side tripe. The cutting taxes for the rich that would “create-jobs” lie. The “corporations are people” insanity. The “outsourcing will free up Americans to do more productive jobs” dung. The union-busting propaganda.
Mr. Smithers,
You are now free to lay on some thick and usual strawmanizations, call people “socialists” or say those who disagree with you think profits or all corporations are “EVIL”.
Rio:
1. You’re not a socialist because you disagree with me. You’re a socialist because you believe in socialist policies.
2. Here’s a quote from Robert Reich, Clinton’s Labor Secretary and big time Obama guy:
“In Ohio yesterday, Obama reiterated that he had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. That’s true. But the excuse is wearing thin. It’s his economy now, and most voters don’t care what he inherited.”
Even hard core liberals are getting tired of the Blame Bush strategy.
Even hard core liberals are getting tired of the Blame Bush strategy.
Okay, Mr. S, I’m one of those hard core liberals you’re talking about. Oh, am I ever.
You know what? I agree with you. It’s time for President Obama to channel his inner FDR and LBJ and get aggressive! Put it to the other party. Show us what the plan is for making the economy better. Welcome their hatred (like FDR did back in 1936).
C’mon, Barack, show some passion! Give us some hope for that change you kept riffing on back in 2008! Some audacity would help too!
Reich is also a huge fan of outsourcing and H1-B.
You might say he is a big time Bain guy too.
1. You’re not a socialist because you disagree with me. You’re a socialist because you believe in socialist policies.
Do you call people names because you are a paid hack or because you are ignorant of the name’s definition? Or are you just unable to perceive nuance and political and societal complexity?
Look up the word socialist. Was Eisenhower a socialist because he believed in public Education? Was Nixon a socialist because he wanted universal health-care? Was Bush II a socialist because he expanded Medicare drug benefits?
If I’m a socialist then according to the Forbes “Who I side With” poll, then 81% of American’s are “socialist” because my views are in line with 81% of Americans, 69% libertarians, 67% Democrats and 44% Republicans.
You might want to take that poll yourself but you might be disappointed that there is no comparisons to Fascists in it.
“In Ohio yesterday, Obama reiterated that he had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. That’s true. But the excuse is wearing thin. It’s his economy now, and most voters don’t care what he inherited.”
Until Romney can tell us how he will govern differently than Bush, it is relevant to talk about the Bush legacy.
I think it is strange and sad that no one ever looks beyond the candidates for the WH, to look at all the players, including their economic advisers. Since I do, *I can’t vote anymore. Add, every election another layer of greed, agenda, and more of the same. Wake Up America!
*third election staying home. Bush’43 was my last mistake. Period.
Romney is evil because he ran a company that outsourced jobs overseas while obama’s top economic advisor is the CEO of GE.
“it’s a big ole goofy world”- John Prine
Yeah, not a real good choice there.
The same GE that was going to get a $3 MILLION tax refund.
“it’s a big ole goofy world”- John Prine
Yours Truly has actually met John Prine. One of the nicest musical superstars you’d ever want to talk to. And, believe me, such kindness is a rarity in the music biz.
DOW back to 12K and UE back under 10% and you call this “failed?”
Oh, and people DO care that Romeny was an off-shoring, corporate raider.
‘in power during bad economic times = Obama’
‘re-election will show what a lousy choice of candidate Romney was for the pubs…Can’t wait’
I’m glad you’re enjoying this all so much. Meanwhile, poverty is high, unemployment is high, debt levels are high even for young people. Millions of people are buying hoses with govt loans only to be underwater in a year. Too big to fail has been cemented in place. Civil liberties are going away in breathtaking chunks.
But that’s all OK cuz Romney’s gonna lose!
“I’m glad you’re enjoying this all so much.”
Ok, I admit again that I am being completely petty.
“Meanwhile, poverty is high, unemployment is high, debt levels are high even for young people. Millions of people are buying hoses with govt loans only to be underwater in a year. Too big to fail has been cemented in place. Civil liberties are going away in breathtaking chunks.”
And I think you know how I feel about all of this. But I’m still not voting for Romney, because I don’t think he’d improve any of it. It’s just my opinion, of course.
I’m still going to vote third party and yes, I’m majorly pissed about the hack job done on Ron Paul by the Republican Party. I think he was a lot more popular than he was made out to be and that he was suppressed and squelched.
I’m not voting for Romney either. Heck, I’m trying to add evidence to the lawsuit against the GOP. But I don’t see why I should vote for Obama either. We are tipping into another recession partly because nothing was done to address the faults in our system. These guys are making things worse, IMO.
Romney did say to let the foreclosure mess be liquidated. But note that he got scalded by the media, and doesn’t mention it anymore. Anyway, he’s surrounded himself with war mongers. Obama is hand picking people to have killed. Signing executive orders left and right. And Romney likes it because he’ll do the same if elected. The election is a sideshow on the road to an imperial presidency. And meanwhile, the citizens are getting crushed by a lack of good jobs and high house prices, among other things.
This is a Thelma and Louise economy, and we are being asked to pick Thelma or Louise to drive.
“Romney did say to let the foreclosure mess be liquidated. But note that he got scalded by the media, and doesn’t mention it anymore.”
Sure, but one thing he could probably mention without getting scalded is giving up the power to hand pick people for elimination. If he just did that, maybe I could get on board. But no, we get some bland idiot commercial on “What Would a Romney Presidency Look Like”?, which then proceeds to talk about how he would repeal the health care law and approve the pipeline.
No mention of eliminating the imperial presidency.
For me, it’s an audit of the Fed and some examination of our membership in the WTO. A Fed audit isn’t too much to ask. IMO, what we would find out would probably change our money system and that could end a lot of the BS that goes on. And for globalism; it’s failed. It even failed for the Chinese and Mexico!
Even if America had a completely truthful and complete audit of the Fed dropped in their laps, and the news media completely and truthfully outline to them what was in it, do you think they would get angry enough to change anything? I’m starting to suspect the same people would be up in arms that already are, and the rest would just give a confused shrug and go back to Idol.
“Even if America had a completely truthful and complete audit of the Fed dropped in their laps, and the news media completely and truthfully outline to them what was in it, do you think they would get angry enough to change anything?”
No, they wouldn’t. They probably couldn’t even grasp the concept.
However, past campaigns have shown that what DOES work, is over the top emotionalism. That’s what people respond to. The Goldwater atomic bomb commercial, the Willie Horton ad. Now, how would this apply if Romney wanted to go whole hog in defeating Obama?
Why, just produce a commercial showing some sort of shadowy Washington meeting directing the pick-up and incarceration of an individual citizen. I dunno, make it some working class gomer with kids who one posted a nasty Facebook comment about the Emperor. Show his front door being stove in, show him being dragged off in shackles, show the kids in absolute tears and terror. Cut to the prison cell and actually show some torture techniques, complete with sountrack and blood, screams and shrieking. Cut back to the kids asking tearfully “Where’s Daddy?” Superimpose a shadowing image of the Emperor, heck, even add a sinister laugh or something. And then have some voice-over say something like “This is the kind of power our president has reserved for himself. Is that what you want?” Or some such thing.
That’d work, believe me. Provided Romney stood his ground on this.
Ben, feel free to send the Romney campaign a bill for consulting services rendered.
Ohh, crap, someone’s pounding on the door, gotta go……..
I would rather the President pick the victims for execution than a government contractor.
and the rest would just give a confused shrug and go back to Idol.
While blaming the disaster on foodstamp recipients, lunch ladies (who live lavishly) and $12/hr union janitors.
That’s just crazy commie talk, Steve. You aint’ some kinda commie are yew?
‘do you think they would get angry enough to change anything’
Maybe, maybe not. It’s worth a try.
‘I would rather the President pick the victims for execution’
Yeah, see how easy it is to skip over the idea of one person being judge jury and executioner?
But besides that, even people that execute criminals typically remain anonymous. That this guy would tell the world he picks who lives and dies indicates a certain sickness that should not be in the white house. And there’s the way he does it; missiles flying into streets and houses. Oops, sorry about that ‘collateral damage’. I saw a headline there other day; Drones Hate Weddings.
‘do you think they would get angry enough to change anything’
Maybe, maybe not. It’s worth a try.
I agree with that,just because I would like to see it all laid out for the world to see. But I’ve lost faith that it would change anything. Although a real leader might be able to then point to it and put it into language that would capture the imagination of J6P…but it would take somebody good at that sort of thing.
I still can’t believe you guys, who generally pretty smart, are wasting your time talking about these two douche bags. They answer to a higher authority…. I dunno… The Fed? JP Morgan Chase?
That this guy would tell the world he picks who lives and dies indicates a certain sickness that should not be in the white house.
Even more sickening that the average American doesn’t give a rat’s tail about this.
against the GOP. But I don’t see why I should vote for Obama either.
To me, it comes down to the potential Supreme Court nominations.
Most of the Supreme Court decisions most harmful to Democracy (Citizens United ) and in violation of our civil liberties (allowing unlimited strip searches) were 5-4 decisions “won” by the conservative Republican nominated justices who IMO tend to vote the most like fascists. These decisions can shape our democracy for many lifetimes.
Yes. There is a difference.
Even more sickening that the average American doesn’t give a rat’s tail about this.
Already mentioned it in a post above, but the show “The Newsroom” had a bit on this… the news anchor goes on a date with a woman who won’t shut up about “Real Housewives of New Jersey”. Meanwhile, he is trying to educate the electorate on the issues in a fair and unbiased manner… When he calls her out on her “guilty pleasure”, he gets a glass of wine in the face.
Seems the writer of that show thinks like we do…
“They answer to a higher authority…. I dunno… The Fed? JP Morgan Chase?”
They answer to whoever controls the biggest chunk of that $1.2 QUADRILLION derivative market.
“To me, it comes down to the potential Supreme Court nominations.
Most of the Supreme Court decisions most harmful to Democracy (Citizens United ) and in violation of our civil liberties (allowing unlimited strip searches) were 5-4 decisions “won” by the conservative Republican nominated justices who IMO tend to vote the most like fascists. These decisions can shape our democracy for many lifetimes.
Yes. There is a difference.”
This.
“people DO care that Romeny was an off-shoring, corporate raider.”
I know I do, having been, as I’ve said before, on the receiving end of a screwing from a Bain alumnus (not Romney, but still)
Looks like Romney’s campaign strategy consists of boring the crap out of people. Pawlenty? Jindal? sheesh. At least Rubio (now disappeared) and Rice would be more fun.
“Ok, ok, I’ll vote for you, just PLEEZE, stop hitting me with that wet noodle!”.
A headline ripped from the google news aggregator page:
“Report: Romney may name VP pick this week”
Rumor has it that it’s between GE and Goldman Sachs.
Remember, corporations are people, too!
“I’m still going to vote third party and yes, I’m majorly pissed about the hack job done on Ron Paul by the Republican Party. I think he was a lot more popular than he was made out to be and that he was suppressed and squelched.”
Uhmm, if he had the popularity you claim, he would have received more votes.
Your choices in this election are:
A. Obama
or
B. Not Obama
The only “Not Obama” candidate that can win is Romney. Therefore by voting 3rd party you are voting for Obama indirectly by not giving a vote to the only Not Obama candidate that can win.
It’s easy to rewrite that and use the same logic to find that a vote for a Not Romney other than Obama is a vote for Romney. So a vote for a third party candidate is for who? Is a vote for a Not Romney any worse or better than a vote for Not Obama? Maybe people should just vote for who they regard as the best candidate.
Palmetto,
When Romney was running Bain, making money and growing companies,
What was Barry Obama doing? Smoking pot and snorting cocaine.
I think that your analysis of the race is a little premature. BHO is in the election of his life and he’s going to loose it.
“In his 2009 book The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as “notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses,” being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may “starve” a company of capital,[103] was increased by a 1970s court ruling that allowed companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their “hard assets”, in determining how much money was available to pay dividends.[104] In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses.[39]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital#Appraisals_and_critiques
“growing companies,”
And those companies would be?
“I think that your analysis of the race is a little premature”
Maybe, but he needs the votes of people like myself to win. I can’t speak for others, but you can count me out. And I can’t help feeling there are others like myself in the same boat, in sufficient numbers to pee on Romney’s parade.
It’s OK, but can I explain why I think this.
if you go to Real Clear Politics and scroll down you will see the national average in the polls.
Obama leads 46 - 44% of the popular vote, so that leaves about 9-10% that are undecided. IMO, since most of us know the Prez, many of those who are undecided will eventually vote for Romney. I estimate that 7% will go for Romney and 3% will go for the Prez.
Therefore, in the popular vote, I think that Romney will get at least 51% of the vote and the Prez will get what’s left. In the Electoral College, Romney will also win but the margin will look bigger.
As I said this is all my opinion. We shall see if I am correct when the voting is completed.
Oh yeah, if you don’t vote for Romney, you are in effect voting for Obama and all of his BIG GOVNMT ideas.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa
“Oh yeah, if you don’t vote for Romney, you are in effect voting for Obama and all of his BIG GOVNMT ideas.”
LOL, I get this argument a lot. I’ll just let it hang out there.
Romney loves big government. He has already said he wants a bigger military and more laws on what you do with you own body.
“He has already said he wants a bigger military”
You mean even MORE deficit spending?
Will they just dust off Cheney and have him say that “deficits don’t matter”?
Therefore, in the popular vote, I think that Romney will get at least 51% of the vote and the Prez will get what’s left. In the Electoral College, Romney will also win but the margin will look bigger.
Not so sure about the electoral college prediction. What happens if a big proportion of the Romney votes are localized in the so called red states that the GOP candidate would have won anyway? In other words, if he wins Texas and other souther states with 70% margins, that means fewer of those popular votes are available in the “swing states”.
That said, a lot can happen between now and November. Either candidate could crash and burn.
I love the spin…
Romney wins 51% in 2012 = he has no mandate, America doesn’t really want what he’s selling
Obama won 52% in 2008 = greatest win in history, America is ready for socialism WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW!! (per Time cover)
Just like when Reagan won 49 states and 59% of the vote in 1984 and liberals were saying he had no mandate. I guess any Republican that wins less than 100% of the vote can’t possibly have a mandate in the eyes of the left.
”
“Oh yeah, if you don’t vote for Romney, you are in effect voting for Obama and all of his BIG GOVNMT ideas.”
LOL, I get this argument a lot. I’ll just let it hang out there.”
Psssst….Ron Paul will not be president. Pass it on.
I still want to know how Romney has 100 mil in an IRA. How is that possible?
“Psssst….Ron Paul will not be president. Pass it on.”
Already knew that. So?
Still votin’ third party. Tell it to Bill Kristol.
Admit it. You necons are nowhere without us paleocons.
Couldn’t come up with a decent movement of your own, so you had to become parasites on the existing (admittedly shaky) structure.
Admit it. You necons are nowhere without us paleocons.
Which is why this paleocon (me) picked up his ball and went home.
Colorado, they descended on the sandbox like a bunch of bullies and kicked apart the sandcastles, then proceeded to defecate on everything.
I still want to know how Romney has 100 mil in an IRA. How is that possible?
I thought I heard one time (unfortunately not through personal experience) that while your contributions are limited, your company contributions are unlimited? In other words, the “company match” (if you want to call it that) can far, far exceed 100% if your company really likes you?
‘Pass it on’
Well, Obama might help you more when you go underwater on that loan you took out.
Carl,
I think it has more to do with using the IRA to invest in the company which receives the carried interest for any number of the Bain funds.
A small investment could yield millions in carried interest.
I think the IRA thing has more to do with putting assets that have no easily determinable or extremely low market value at the time they are contributed. If, for example, you put in shares in a partnership with no capital and therefore can’t really do anything, then the value of those shares is very low, just the nominal value of having set up the partnership. If you then use that partnership to do a huge amount of borrowing (maybe get a related entity to guarantee the loans) use it to buy a struggling business with a well funded pension, raid the pension, [do the rest of the Bain magic], take out the fees and then sell to new investors, your previously almost worthless partnership shares are now worth millions.
That is how you get $100 million into an IRA.
Polly, you’re concept is a different flavor of the same ice cream that I described above…I agree, that’s likely how he did it…
“Psssst….Ron Paul will not be president. Pass it on.”
Anyone who votes for Ron Paul already knows that.
Sounds to me like you are worried about Ron Paul voters being loyal to Ron Paul.
“Oh yeah, if you don’t vote for Romney, you are in effect voting for Obama and all of his BIG GOVNMT ideas.”
Ron Paul voters see Romney as Big Government, also. Just how is Romney different from Bush? That worked out so well for the country. Will Romney take us into another war or two? Will we see prosecution of any Wall Street criminals - or only the Democratic ones? Will we see deficit reduction or will tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals wipe out any savings from cutting SS and Medicare?
Will we see deficit reduction or will tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals wipe out any savings from cutting SS and Medicare?
That is a virtual certainty.
“Sounds to me like you are worried about Ron Paul voters being loyal to Ron Paul.”
+1
That is ED ZACHARY what the neocons are pitting their shants about. And what do they do about it? Well, first they sneer at you. Yeah, way to win friends and influence people. Sure, I’m gonna vote for Romney because you’re telling me what a lunatic fringe idiot I am. Oh, hell yeah, that REALLY makes me want to go right out and support Guy Smiley.
And now, because that little gambit’s not working, comes the “A vote for a third party is a vote for Obama” boogeyman fairytale.
Oh, wow, I’m scared.
It is ironic what is now defined as “doomsday”.
With all our debt now - a rise of 2-3% will now bankrupt us.
Interest rates that were “normal” a few years ago will now fisacally end America.
So if interest rates go negative does it mean that our debt will begin to earn a return?
Essentially, yes. You borrow $10 Trillion and only pay back $9.8 Trillion. You’ve “earned” $200 Billion.
It worked for Wall St.
I made a breakfast smoothie with two bananas. It was delicious!
slim did you see what i wrote about your show last night??????
Just did! I’m listening to Lola Love right now. Thanks for the tip.
Oh, someone else recommended Sophie Hawkins. I have her bookmarked. Hoping I can work her in to my next show. Speaking of which, here are the details:
I’ll be back on the airwaves this coming Sunday, July 22. Catch me on Tucson’s community radio, KXCI-FM 91.3, at 5 p.m. Get ready for one hour of Rock -n- Roll Women!
Note: If you’re not near a radio, you can listen to KXCI online.
I just printed out your critique.
And you’re right. The KXCI jazz deejays have a tendency to let the music play. And play. And play.
Then, when it’s time to take care of station business and back-sell, it’s a big long list of artists and songs.
So, hint gotten. I’ll go on mike to announce my music more often.
Only trouble with last night was that emergency alert. I’m still learning how to use that thing, and I just let it go on auto-pilot. Where the EAS butted in would have been a good place for me to do some back-selling.
Oh, well. Can’t control the weather.
Note: The above is directed to aNYCdj. Thanks so much for critiquing my show!
Anytime slim….I have always encouraged women to be a djs and not the fake model type ones they have today.
i’ll look for more R&R women
Fanny 1971 sonny and Cher show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9VM1rYcPGA
on then John sebation show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWl5Rr0iIi8
There was Birtha , Goldie & the Gingerbreads…aka Genya Ravan of course Suzi Quatro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duOD97SuT3w
How about a campy friend of mine Housewives on Prozac:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18NMOO9lJiI
Do you take calls on the air on your show?
Do you take calls on the air on your show?
I do. Studio line’s on the KXCI website. Matter of fact, I got one Saturday morning.
Guy liked my music so much that he was wondering when I’d have a regular show. I told him that such things are up to the KXCI front office.
June 2012: Top 10 States for Foreclosure | Bankrate.com
http://www.bankrate.com/news/mortgage/top-10-foreclosures-by-state-0612.aspx - 68k - Cached - Similar pages
3 days ago … Foreclosure filings were down 4 percent nationally from May to June. According to RealtyTrac, a California-based firm that tracks foreclosures, …
‘Shadow REO’: As Many as 90% of Foreclosed Properties Held Off the Market, Estimates Suggest
By Teke Wiggin | Posted Jul 13th 2012 10:00AM
As many as 90 percent of REOs are withheld from sale, according to estimates recently provided to AOL Real Estate by two analytics firms. It’s a testament to lenders’ fears that flooding the market with foreclosed homes could wreak havoc on their balance sheets and present a danger to the housing market as a whole.
Online foreclosure marketplace RealtyTrac recently found that just 15 percent of REOs in the Washington, D.C., area were for sale, a statistic that is representative of nationwide numbers, the company said.
The nominal number is 350,000 homes then held off the market (10% of ~390,000). Put that in context of ~5,000,000 homes that trade hands each year.
The bigger problem by far is the number of homes that are not even reaching the REO stage because banks are slow to foreclose (either due to state laws being slow, or on purpose).
The bigger problem by far is the number of homes that are not even reaching the REO stage because banks are slow to foreclose (either due to state laws being slow, or on purpose).
That’s what’s happening here in Tucson. Banks are really dragging their feet.
In the meantime, the empty houses are just sitting there, rotting away. I can think of three within easy walking distance of the Arizona Slim Ranch.
Do you know if there are any legal arguments related to those homes, or simply banks dragging their feet?
Also, can you put in context those three empty homes in relation to the numbers that are still being foreclosed and resold? For instance as a ballpark, in the same zone where there were 3 empty homes, how many homes were foreclosed and re-sold within the prior 6-12 months? None? Less than 5? Less than 10? More than 10?
I don’t have a good gauge as to how many of these non-current and empty homes are out there relative to the current foreclosure activity–this is a pretty important factoid as it comes into play when looking at the non-current rates in a market as it relates to potential ADDITIONAL inventory being released by banks.
In other words, if for those 3 that are rotting, there were 20 that were foreclosed and traded over the past 6 months, then even if the bank were to swing into full gear, it would only increase the homes on the market by a small amount (a 15% increase from 20 to 23). If on the other hand, there were 3 homes rotting, and only 1 foreclosures traded hands in the past 12 months in the same zone, the banks pushing more onto the market would have a devastating effect, a 300% increase (which I would assume is closer to reality in Florida).
Any thoughts on this?
Here’s a pretty bald argument from author Richard Duncan, as reported on cnbc this morning.
Duncan argues that governments in the developed world should borrow “massive” amounts of money at the current low interest rates to invest in new technologies like renewable energy and genetic engineering.
“Even if this is wasted, at least we could enjoy this civilization for another ten years before it collapses,” he said.
Way to go!
I guess he doesn’t know that they are already investing in renewable energy and high speed communications, have been for years, and that neither are “new.”
Another moron fills the airwaves of America. I think one of the casualties of financial common sense has been the “interest only mortgage” or similar devices. They worked to create hyper inflation in housing, so the debt paid itself in inflation…..essentially the price of houses doubled, to the debt could be satisfied by liquidating the asset at a new gain.
Debt is debt. It doesn’t go away until it’s paid or defaulted upon.
ZERO interest does not mean FREE money. It means you don’t have to pay the debt until later. It delays the payment. The DEBT is still waiting to be paid.
Almost ALL countries have taken on too much debt and can’t service what they owe, at all levels of government.
Like Krugman, this moron thinks we can pile on more debt and it somehow magically disappears through “growth”. It’s a farce.
If you are paying 50% of your income in taxes to support the current debt levels, how does adding another 50% of government debt make things better? At ZERO percent, you get to slide on the debt until it goes UP, which it must, or you get the Japanese debt spiral.
That will end badly. It’s amazing it’s been able to go this long.
Ignore people like this, including Krugman, Summers, Bernanke, Alinsky, Rahm Emmanuel, Greenspan, and the rest of “newsmedia’s” gang of “experts”.
I too cannot understand how adding more debt can solve the problem of too much debt. While Simpson Bowles was far from perfect, it would have at least ensured that as a country we would not be bankrupt ten years from now. BTW, it had a ratio of 3 dollars in program cuts for every dollar in additional revenue. The deal that many people (including me) believe was struck between the Republicans and the White House prior to the debt downgrade was 2 dollars in cuts for every one dollar in taxes.
Like Ben I want an audit of the Fed but I also want to cut its ability to create money. I think last year 61% of all U.S. debt was bought by the Fed, that can only end badly. We need to cut government back. Brazil may have spent money on ethanol and oil drilling with some success but that does not mean that alternative energy spending in this country will have a positive impact. Natural gas vehicles might be a positive place to spend money by the government but we are talking about several billion dollars to break a market bottleneck not spending trillions like a Krugman would advocate.
Sometime during the 1980s, this nation became debtor nation instead of net lending nation.
“U.S. Is Bigger Debtor Nation
Reuters
Published: July 04, 1989
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
The United States, already the world’s largest debtor, sank an additional $154.2 billion into the red last year as foreign money poured in to plug the nation’s balance-of-payments gap.
The value of foreign investments in the United States, ranging from stocks to factories, exceeded American investments abroad by $532.5 billion at the end of 1988, up from $378.3 billion a year earlier, the Commerce Department said last week.
As recently as 1984, the United States was a net creditor to the rest of the world by about $3.3 billion.
In 1981, before the American budget and current-account deficits started to balloon, the net investment position was a positive $140.9 billion, the Commerce Department said.
The increasing debt is likely to mean that American living standards will rise a bit more slowly than they otherwise would, as interest and dividend payments to foreigners siphon off an increasing share of the United States’ output of goods and services.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/04/business/us-is-bigger-debtor-nation.html
Duncan argues that governments in the developed world should borrow “massive” amounts of money at the current low interest rates to invest in new technologies like renewable energy and genetic engineering.
He might be right. Many of you think it’s all going to collapse anyway so why not get something out of it? Brazil invested real taxpayer money for 30 years to become energy independent and IT WORKED.
USA can invest “free money” and become energy independent for “free”. So why not? Because it will collapse? Well, I thought it was going to collapse anyway. Why not seriously invest in education? Infrastructure? Jobs? Energy? Forgiving student loan debt with free money?
Or would you rather have something like this?
“The global economy collapsed, trillions of bad debt was written off, unemployment is at 25%, gas is $8 a gallon and all I got was this lousy t-shirt”
Brazil invested real taxpayer money for 30 years to become energy independent and IT WORKED.
Impossible! Nothing the government does ever works, I’m regularly told.
Because it is not free money. Any printing of money reduces the value of money in circulation. While there is no question that BB’s printing of money stimulated the stock market and that may have lead to more spending, the same printing helped raise the cost of fuel and food. Obama inherited under $1.80 gas and much lower food prices. I am not at all sure that the loss in disposable income due to their rise is not more than the positive impact of the stock market on the average person and even the country as a whole. Only the rich were clear winners.
I wish countries like Brazil have found a magic bullet but the forecast rise in GDP for Brazil is 2% this year and 2% next year. This is in a country with a per capita income less than 1/4 of the U.S. so they have more room to grow with cheap wages but they are not growing faster. The low tax countries in Asia are doing much better even without natural resources.
BTW, it (Simpson Bowles) had a ratio of 3 dollars in program cuts for every dollar in additional revenue.
And EVERY Repub presidential candidate said they would REFUSE even $10 in program cuts for every $1 in additional revenue. That entire party has gone wackjob Un-American the past 20 years and it’s about time more Americans admit it.
I wish countries like Brazil have found a magic bullet but the forecast rise in GDP for Brazil is 2% this year and 2% next year.
There is no magic bullet and it’s good for Brazil to chill out for awhile. They grew a lot the past 10 years where 20% of the population went from poor to lower-middle class. A couple years at 2% growth might be just fine.
BB’s printing of money stimulated the stock market and that may have lead to more spending, the same printing helped raise the cost of fuel and food.
But I’m not talking about money printed to stimulate a mollycoddled and politically favored financial market. I’m talking about borrowing massive amounts of money at 1-3% interest to invest in strategic national and public projects like we did with the WPA, The Manhattan Project and Brazil did with their Energy Independence Project. (All of which were greatly successful)
But the main reason we are talking about 1 to 3% interest is due to the printing so you cannot separate them. When the interest rates rise and the debt is still on the books we will be bankrupt. Greece and Spain tried what you are suggesting and it worked until it did not work. All the money that was spent by Spain to promote alternative energy is now an albatross around its neck now that it has to pay 7% for the money.
Yet Germany now gets 50% of ALL it’s electrical from renewable, chiefly solar and much of that from panels on houses.
So let’s recap:
Germany has…
Low unemployment
World leading energy independence
World leading engineers (sold and built the maglev in Shanghai)
Healthy exports
Healthy financial sector
Generous (by American standards) social safety nets, health care, college/univ and workers rights.
Didn’t we completely level that country in war 70 years ago? Damn socialists!
No, they have a goal of 50% by 2050. Right now they are coal and nuclear power driven. They just cut back sharply on solar subsidies which is going to make the closing of the old nuclear reactors very hard despite the “conservative” government agreeing to it.They are far from a socialist county. I believe they have about the highest retirement age in Europe. They had their austerity period right before the crash, great timing on restructuring their economy.
I do not know exactly what IQ measures but the higher it is for a country the better a country does. That is why of all the problems this country has, the fact that the average IQ has dropped 2 points from 100 to 98 scares me the most and is the most difficult problem to solve. Germany and Scandinavia have high IQ populations and do well under a socialist system or under a capitalist system.
“That is why of all the problems this country has, the fact that the average IQ has dropped 2 points from 100 to 98 scares me the most”
Source? Is the data broken out by region or demographics? This is a sincere question and not sarcastic as it is the first I have heard it.
“72% of Brazil’s electric energy capacity (74GW) is hydroelectric generation”
Not quite the same situation the US faces. Environmentalists in US want to tear down the hydroelectric facilities we do have. All hail the Snail Darter!
Anybody cath this news story? Child paints/sells rocks to pay for his dad’s medecine- which is not covered by his insurance.
heart-warming
How uniquely American!
If dad isn’t making enough money, he’s just to damn lazy to get that third job!
Makes me think of those ubiquitous begging jars you see in mom-n-pop stores (chain merchants won’t do it) pleading for money to pay for someone’s treatment. Plus the now ever present intersection beggars.
It reminds me of when I lived in Mexico.
This is so seriously bad I can’t even think of a suitable snark.
Is that part of Obama Care? We have to pass the bill to see what`s in it and then we have to paint and sell rocks to pay for it?
Really? No, really?
It’s so easy for the MSM to pull at heartstrings. While look at how awful our health care system is. Poor Johnny has to paint rocks to pay for dad’s operation. Quick, someone write up a 2700 page bill that will cost trillions of tax payer dollars to help this poor guy out!!
A)
The story was really about the kid’s ingenuity and initiative- NOT at all a plea for national healthcare - that was my little spin
B)
If you look at the comments to the fox affiliate that reported it, you see zero comments suggesting that the newsstory should result in any policy change.
C)
This case study is just that- a case study. Is it emblamatic of a bigger problem, that is the reader’s conclusion ?
D)
Exactly what do the pro-Romney people think should happen?
1- let the dad tough it out with thick blood?
2- get that kid selling rocks double-time?
I hope some conservatives on the board respond with something more meaningful than “here comes the Free Sh$t Army”
Mission Accomplished by the MSM….heart string tugged.
I hope some conservatives on the board respond with something more meaningful than “here comes the Free Sh$t Army”
I applaud the children. Regardless of their financial situation, they love their dad and are doing what they can to help.
The big question is why is the blood-thinning medication not covered by insurance? My dad recently had reconstructive knee surgery and blood-thinning meds to help prevent blood clots was part of the covered package…
STOP THE WAR ON WOMEN!!!!
(part 28)
________________
“Since the recession ended in June 2009, men have landed 80% of the 2.6 million net jobs created, including 61% in the last year.
One reason: Male-dominated manufacturing, which experienced sharp layoffs during the recession, has rebounded in recent years, while government, where women hold the majority of jobs, has continued to be hit hard. But there’s something else at work. Men are grabbing a bigger share of jobs in areas, such as retail sales, that typically have been the province of women, federal data show.
That’s not necessarily good news for women or men. So-called women’s work often pays less and offers skimpier benefits and less opportunity for advancement than the jobs men previously held.”
The big question is why is the blood-thinning medication not covered by insurance? My dad recently had reconstructive knee surgery and blood-thinning meds to help prevent blood clots was part of the covered package…
Just because you have insurance doesn’t mean you’re covered.
“…but the medication he needs to dissolve that blood clot is expensive: $510…with insurance.”
A seperate article in monroenews makes it sound like the $510 is a one time cost as apposed to weekly or monthly or such.
The big question is why is the blood-thinning medication not covered by insurance?
Because the insurance company makes more money by not covering it. To force Blue Cross to cover a drug is stealing from their producer shareholders and would be socialism.
“Just because you have insurance doesn’t mean you’re covered.”
Even if you are “covered”, there might be a huge copay or a $3000 deductible to deal with first.
Even if you are “covered”, there might be a huge copay or a $3000 deductible to deal with first.
Which is why we see so many medical bankruptcies among those who are insured.
I think we will continue to see the number of middle class Americans who do not seek medical attention because of financial reasons, increase.
Um…quick recap..obamacare (or the bastardized compromise that we wound up with) was the result of 15% plus annual jumps in medical insurance premiums.
Even republicans seem to have gotten used to the pre-existing conditions, children under 26 are OK ideas.
Maybe Prince Philip will die soon and come back as a typhoid epidemic as promised.
Seeing their own spawn (or themselves) put at risk due to the fact that others don’t have healthcare might change their thinking.
“Even republicans seem to have gotten used to the pre-existing conditions, children under 26 are OK ideas.”
Republicans who don’t understand what the word INSURANCE means. Writing a policy on someone with a per-existing condition which guarantees the cost of the outlays will be higher than the premiums paid is not insurance.
How do drunk drivers get car insurance? Any idea?
Which is why it makes NO SENSE to have private health insurance.
Thanks for showing us your value on life. Especially other peoples’ life.
Hey Smithers, What exactly should an individual do that has a chronic or congenital condition?
(crickets chirping)
Wishful real estate thinking from Tucson:
Back From the Dead - After bouts with bankruptcy and the housing downturn, a Sahuarita development is roaring back to life
Just don’t pay any attention to the flooding issue at the edge of the development.
Demolition by Neglect - Left to decay, historic homes continue to disappear
Featuring a tumbledown adobe owned by the mayor’s father.
And we forecasted this right here on the HBB
Tax Liens Trigger More Foreclosures”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303644004577523020991281452.html
Property taxes in the northeast tripled during the Great Housing Fraud years of 1998-2012.
And consider this…… the majority of the population is older, retired or near retirement.
The majority of the population is not old.
The majority of the population in NE IS old.
How is that even possible??
That the majority are old is an exaggeration.
But given slow population growth in the Northeast, and the concentration of the young in rentals, the proportion of homeowners who are seniors is probably pretty high.
More to the point, some older suburbs were young couples moved in en masse years ago and never left have probably become NORCs (Naturally occuring retirement communities).
More to the point, some older suburbs were young couples moved in en masse years ago and never left have probably become NORCs (Naturally occuring retirement communities).
Same thing’s happening in Pennsylvania.
I saw it firsthand in the nabe I grew up in when I was back east. Very few young families. A lot of empty nests and a whole cohort of households that will soon be empty nests.
That’s right. Falling school enrollments, new grads leaving as soon as they graduate, etc.
Take a walk in any one of these evaporating towns in the northeast. More and more people using walkers and canes and very few children.
This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve ever seen.
A woman gets a free $300K house that she can’t afford to pay taxes on (and probably couldn’t afford to maintain either), but instead of selling it and walking away with $200K+ she holds it and goes deeper in debt and in trouble. And we’re supposed to feel sorry for her.
dj….. at least attempt to re-arrange before re-posting comments.
As I’ve mentioned before, my parents volunteer with other seniors. They are supposed to be helping with Medicare issues - like helping people pick their Part D plan. They end up helping with all sorts of other stuff like Medicaid, hunger and housing issues. They are seeing a giant wave of people who just can’t afford to stay in their homes. Some still have mortgages. Most with debt on the house just have HELOCs. But even with heat assistance they can’t afford to heat the place in winter. They don’t have enough money for food after their expenses. And they haven’t done proper maintenance for years. And they don’t want to move because they want to “leave something” for their kids.
It is getting to the point where I think they will quit the program. They haven’t learned to detatch from the stories and I can’t figure out how to teach that to them. I learned it sitting next to dying Aids patients at New York Hospital a bunch of years ago. They never have.
And they don’t want to move because they want to “leave something” for their kids.
Sounds like my folks. I’m of the mind that their moving into assisted living would be a darn good idea.
Lately, Mom has been doing things like having the dual ovens replaced and having a new main electrical panel installed. Old one was starting to show its age. Well, I had to open The Troublemaker (aka my mouth) and ask, “Are you fixing up to sell.”
Short, snippy answer from Mom: No.
I have the feeling that I’ll be left with a house to clear out. (No problemo. I’ve already identified a reputable estate liquidator). And then it will be time to get it ready for sale. (I’ll do only what’s needed to get it on the market. Will let the next owner remodel the kitchens and the bathrooms, TYVM.)
While I was back east earlier this year, I did meet a couple of real estate agents. One of them struck me as a real ding-dong, but the other seemed like a real professional.
I’d be leaning toward working with the real pro. That is, if Mom doesn’t decide to beat me to it and sell the house.
I know at least a half dozen people who received 0 inheritance due to their parent(s) having to sell their homes and use up their savings in order to get Medicare to pay for a nursing home.
A good pal is right now struggling with this: mom had a stroke, she tried taking care of her at home but could not do it and work, and the nursing home is 4k month.
The 5 year look back is too long, IMO.
Anyone know how or if Obamacare will change this?
The Medicare expansion part is supposed help with this issue, but almost all the red states are refusing to expand.
Medicare never pays for long term nursing home care. It might pay for a few weeks while you are recovering from a surgery and medically require supervision, but it never covers long term care.
To get long term care covered by the government you have to be poor and qualify for Medicaid. And the 5 year look back is too short, not too long. It is not the responsibility of the government to make sure that middle class parents can leave a substantial inheritance to their children. Covering nursing home care for people who really need it and are without assets is one thing. Doing it for people who have money (even if it is in the form of a house) is irresponsible and unsustainable.
Thank you, Polly…people just have no clarity on this…
One’s philosophy can be severely shaken when looking at 5-10 years of hospital and nursing home care for a parent.
After your parents blow through half a million dollars or more of their retirement and their house (not very difficult), then how much of your own savings, retirement, etc. are you willing to spend? All of it?
Maybe no decent health care for grandma until everyone in the entire extended family has exhausted every last penny?
Polly, I respectfully disagree: the idea that you have to be poor to receive health care is ridiculous.
It may be that the few years I lived in Denmark, many years back, had a big effect on me. But I have yet to meet a European or Canadian who doesn’t think Americans are insane for the way we deal with health care, maternity leave, and elder care.
OK now *I* don’t have clarity. If no assets were transferred for less that fair market value during the 5-yr look back, why would you be responsible for your parents’ LTC? don’t they qualify for MediCal at that point?
There’s the way we think it works, and then there’s what actually happens.
Many people end up spending a lot of their own money during the “spend down” period (particularly if you include time missed from your work) when dealing with a sick parent or a parent who needs nursing care. The rules are incredibly complex and the bureaucracy maddening, while meanwhile you might be transferring your mom from one facility to the next, finding the right doctors, hiring home care while a bed/room becomes available, and on and on.
One of my single, never-wanted-kids friend, likens it to having a baby that you didn’t plan for and never wanted, and one that is disabled and needs 24 hour care. Her mother did everything right: worked all her life, saved, bought life insurance, retirement funds, paid-off house, disability insurance, etc., and now her daughter is struggling to get proper care for her mother and has to “spend down” to poverty level in order to do so.
It ‘aint right.
See, that is the problem. It isn’t “health care.” They are old and may have chronic conditions, but they are not acutely ill. That is not the responsibility of Medicare. And YOU (the child of your parents) do not have to spend your own money once your parents have spend their assets. Then they qualify for Medicaid. I’m very sorry your friend has had trouble finding a good place for her parents, but that isn’t the same problem. Medicaid isn’t in place to protect assets from long term care costs. You have NO right to your parent’s money if they need that money to live on. You have no right to it anyway, but you especially have no right to it if they are still alive and need to pay for their own care.
Guys, I’m in the lower part of the middle class, and the rest of my overall class is fairly consistently choosing the “dignified death” process for the elderly parents, which we being Gen-X are now seeing off. I don’t know what else to call it, but in DD, you don’t bankrupt the family trying to eke out more months or years of fairly agonizing life, doped up, in pain, connected to tubes and such. You’re looked after, and you’re not left alone, but you’re supposed to die, and you’re dying in your own bed or easy chair, with dignity but without ruinous expense. Often, in-house hospice is provided from some insurance scheme or another, but it’s limited; pretty much advisory stuff, and just in case there’s a need to invoke medical coma (note to self: specify a living will that says “NEVER PUT ME INTO A COMA, THANKS”).
We suppose that we could keep the old folks going if they were put into a facility and given 24/7 medical attention. That’s horrifyingly expensive ($4000/mo, minimum) and really is dehumanizing. We just don’t understand people who choose that option, and personally *I* don’t understand why there’s any government program that provides for it. We’re mortal. We die. When it comes to end-of-life issues, you shouldn’t “insure” for it, since death for mortals is ultimately not “fixable”… it’s not a disease or injury at that point, but a natural consequence of having lived.
Some conditions take a long time to kill you. I have a friend who has MS and is now wheelchair bound. No kids. Wife left after diagnosis. He has been in a nursing home for several years already.
Family members can become incapable of taking care of you somewhere along the line. And if they do it badly, could be charged with elder abuse.
Ideally, one would be healthy and spry until minutes before death. The reality is that many of us will die lingering deaths where it is not clear cut that the time has come to cease treatment.
All understood, H2bH, but the time nears when you choose to stop eating. You don’t live very long after that. To be blunt, for the caretaker, it’s a month of hell, then it’s over.
Also, everyone has family. The number of people without family within 1-2 removes is nearly zero. It should be encoded into the law about placing these people without mates and kids, with more distaff (sp?) family. If that gets your britches in a twist, they can get a tax break from the dependency.
So it can all work out without loading up the government with $4000/mo support costs.
I agree that we need to look rationally at end of life decisions. Spending the last few years of life hooked up to tubes and IVs is unappealing to me and unnecessarily burdensome to family and society.
I think we need to have some legal changes to accomodate these decisions. Unfortunately, they would probably be nixed by emotionally laden arguments like Death Panels.
Anyone miss me? (A 70 hour week trying to fix a broke airplane due to fly in Sunday will rearrange your priorities.
Discussion re: Foreclosures
We’ve been talking about this for five years.
As noted, until a forelosure, the bank/mortgage holder is allowed to carry the mortgage on the books at the original amount.
Additionally,(as I recall), someone pointed out that they were able to carry any penalties on the books as “income”, until the foreclosure was completed, and the deferred interest/fines/late payments/penalties were written off.
Back in the days when there was something resembling regulation, the banks were required to process this stuff in a timely manner.
The big discussion back in 2007-2009 was whether the government would look the other way, and let banks carry “shadow inventory” for 2-5-10 years, and pretend to be “solvent”, or whether we’d soon find out that all of the banks were defacto bankrupt.
The answer? Foot, meet can.
Anyone miss me? (A 70 hour week trying to fix a broke airplane due to fly in Sunday will rearrange your priorities.
Well, *I* missed ya! Welcome back to our big dysfunctional family!
Hey GS,
Just curious, how hard is it to get parts? Do yo just order them and they get overnighted via FedEx or UPS? Or are some parts back normally ordered and yo have to wait for them?
As in everything, it depends………
Nobody stocks anything locally, other than light bulbs, basic electrical stuff like relays, and tires (maybe)
The OEMs all have extensive parts pools. Priced at OEM prices.
Stuff like tires/wheels/brakes/starter-generators that are used by several types of aircraft have the OEMs, plus some independent suppliers as sources. The independents are usually a lot cheaper, but are hit and miss on availability. Some guys specialise in Falcon, some in Gulfstreams, etc. You usually have to call around to find what you are looking for.
The problems start when you are looking for parts for airplanes that have been out of production for 10-20 years. The OEMs will get you a part (eventually), but if something currently in production doesn’t use the same/equivalent part, they may (literally) have to go back into the blueprint files, pull the print, and have someone build one for you.
There are also aircraft salvage companies that sell used parts. I can install used parts, but it is up to the mechanic to determine if the part is “airworthy”. Some parts (say a non-structural access panel) aren’t a problem. Others (like a carbon fiber primary flight control, or major structural component, or a landing gear assembly) I wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot pole, unless it came with a 8130 tag. And even then….
The fun starts when you have a part tagged by “Joe-Bob’s Aeroplane Shop” out in BFE, saying some one-of-none component is “airworthy”. Saying “…well, it had an 8130 tag….” won’t save your azz if it fails, there’s an accident, and the Feds pay a visit.
My job not only includes verifying “airworthiness” and “applicability”, but also determining if the people issuing the 8130 are qualified to issue one on the component in question.
I guess this is the difference between “public safety” regulation and “bankster” regulation.
I seldom see an FAA guy, but I KNOW I’ll be seeing one, and get put thru the ringer (at best) if my airplane is involved in an accident. And if I fooked up, I’ll be crucified.
Contrast this, to the treatment the banksters got from the Feds.
I seldom see an FAA guy, but I KNOW I’ll be seeing one, and get put thru the ringer (at best) if my airplane is involved in an accident. And if I fooked up, I’ll be crucified.
Contrast this, to the treatment the banksters got from the Feds.
I nominate the above for HBB Post of the Year.
Same thing here X-GS, I have to hit the numbers with… kids… of all things, or have a little sit down with the state.
We should hold bankers accountable the same way we do third graders in Florida.
Ex, I missed you, FWIW.
Sorry Jane. Gloves came off 6 months ago. When the crime wave becomes the size of a tsunami, and the mantra displaces rational thought and discussion, all bets are off.
Join in.
This is the kind of BS happening right now: my realtor emails me a listing for a homepath house for $200k. I thought it looked familiar. Sure as chit it was listed in 2010 for $149k. Gee, thanks.
Rotting in the sun for 2 years, ADDED VAULED… $50,000.00!!
Realtors are liars
Bankers are thieves
Freddie Mac sells bath salts
Wine and cash are king, again. Now, yesterday, tomorrow, hell… maybe even next week.
Preach it Mugz! Preach it brother!
The minute you sign your freaking name.
You. Are. Under. Water.
Yes. You. Are.
My bad, it was originally listed over three years ago.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/12845-90th-Ave-Seminole-FL-33776/47129815_zpid/
And there it is…. Your government at work. Explicitly inflating housing prices.
Still think GovCorp likes you?
The bubble was predicted and secretly foretold in various 80’s comedy films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN-3bd_sQ6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-sALU_hveA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeOXsA8sp_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WAwuSK36Gw&