The Housing Bubble

Link to one of his lies? Please.

You mean your lies darryl.

So, no link to one of his lies?

So, no links to any truth?

link to vacant housing units as of 6/30/2012:

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/HOWNVAC:IND/chart

(18,518,000)

“(18,518,000)”

That number has budged surprisingly little since the onset of the Great Housing Bust.

You’re catching on Polly. But why do you think it’s understated by 10 million excess empty houses?

Almost as if household formation and old house destruction has just barely been able to keep pace with construction.

I still think our 700K a year new housing unit construction rate is too high to burn off the 10 million excess empty houses before the Boomers start dying off.

We are at half the historic normal housing construction rate, and 2/3rds off peak… and that is still too high to be long-term sustainable. (as evidenced by the number of excess empty houses not declining).

I’m glad I’m not in the construction industry.

“I’m glad I’m not in the construction industry.”

Then quit pretending you know the construction biz.

“Then quit pretending you know the construction biz.”

So, you are in the Real Estate industry? Because you are sure pretending like you know the real estate industry.

We all know when a liar is lying. That’s all we need to know.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excess

“the state or an instance of surpassing usual, proper, or specified limits”

Not every empty house is an excess empty house. Only the amount above usual or proper. That is about 10 million.

All empty houses are excess. ALL of them.

That’s ridiculous, RAL. The reality is that some people are going to have more than one house—and if they can afford to, and have the constitution to hold onto it in spite of losses, so that it does not re-enter the market, then it doesn’t make any sense to call it part of the “excess”.

Excess houses are ones that I would define in terms of demand at the trough.

Go after the dragonflies hatch.

Can you, maybe, train dragonflys to become your personal bodyguards? Maybe fix up a lotion that entices them to hang around your body?

Hmmmm…

Maybe the answer isn’t driving mosquitos away but instead attracting their enemies.

Until you’ve been to the Alaskan tundra, you haven’t even seen mosquitoes.

Maybe the answer isn’t driving mosquitos away but instead attracting their enemies.

Hence the martin house.

but nowhere outside Northern Wisconsin

Until you’ve been to the Alaskan tundra

I would put the heart of Louisiana right up there with your picks. We moved there when I was in 8th grade, and lived right next to a rice field. Imagine what a great breeding ground fields of shallow, warm, stagnant water would make.

The swarms of mosquitoes made it almost impossible to go outside. You could swing an arm and hit dozens of them.

Don’t get me started on insects. Two Yellow Jacket attacks (one major) and a case of Lyme all in the past week. I am by nature a live and let live type, but today they die…

Mosquitoes are for sissies. I was doing trail work one day during sophomore summer. It was black fly season and we all got munched on. I went to bed that night as soon as twilight hit (probably between 8:30 and 9:00). The next morning I talked to my mother on the phone and she knew something was wrong in less than 10 seconds. A skeeter bite itches. Black fly poison impacts your whole system.

Hung yellow jacket trap two days ago to keep them away from my apple tree. Didn’t even know I had them until my SIL was doing pruning on the tree. Trap has about 20 dead ones in it now. Great investment.

I’ve seen yellow jackets strip a fresh snake kill to skeleton in less than an hour, and gods help you if you’re open-wounded and disabled in their midst.

Traps are useful, but they don’t address the hive — which just keeps producing replacements. Their nests are extremely well-hidden and near impossible to find, but fortunately yellow jackets are easy to swat. So here’s a secret:
They return for the bodies of their dead; just like the Marines.
So when twilight comes, open a can of cat food and sit nearby (quietly, deliberately) with a fly swatter. When they land, give them a minute to get greedy, then bash them. Make a pile of the smashed to lure in their comrades, then when you’ve a few dozen take them inside and tie a six-inch long piece of thread between their head and their thorax using a slip knot. Then fold a small square of aluminum foil around and over the thread, take the bodies back out to the feed area and lay them in a line.

When their rotten little buddies come back for the bodies (they emit pheromones long after death) follow them back to the nest by the sunset glint of the foil tags. Once you’ve located the nest, a can of hornet spray does the rest. Suburban hunting at its finest!

I’ve thought of dabbing the bodies with a dot of radium and searching for the nest with a Geiger counter. And am waiting for RF technology to go micro so I can just implant them and track with a receiver. Hate those accursed bugs.

You should hear the stories about Florida in the days before billions were spent on killing those blood-sucking menaces.

But as investors buy more of this shadow inventory, won’t they put them on the market as rentals, thus driving down rents?

“But as investors buy more of this shadow inventory, won’t they put them on the market as rentals, thus driving down rents?”

1) Probably. There are something like 10 million excess empty houses and if we’re bringing those to market, then yes, more supply without offsetting demand would push down rents.

Honestly, we did see a significant drop in rents at the beginning of the housing crash. We have not been seeing it recently though.

Unless….

2) Unless, the units have people in them now. Moving someone that hasn’t made a payment in 2 years out to a rental, then converting that house into a rental for the next household that is finally having their house sold out from under them just recycles the houses into rentals and non-paying “owners” into renters.

3) Or if we are finally getting household formation rates above the rate at which empty houses are being brought to market.

In the case of the townhouse I am buying, the unit had been a rental for 5 years, and is now going to be occupied by my son that used to live in my house with me (new household formation taking a unit off the rental market).

Inventory is tight because buyers are in the market big time, because sale prices, here in Phoenix, are below fundamental value as determined by price/rent and price/income.

Inventory won’t return until buyers stop buying, which won’t happen until after prices have returned to or above fundamental value.

Or until we stop manipulating perceived “fundamental value” as defined in bold above.

What percentage of the properties you looked at were currently occupied?

“What percentage of the properties you looked at were currently occupied?”

The answer is 2 phase. About 25% or so had people in them right now. Most of the rest had just moved renters out since they are easier to sell if no one is in them.

There were only a handful, out of maybe 30-40 places we looked at, that appeared to have been empty long-term (p-traps gone dry and dust on counters and high traffic areas).

But, yes, there were some that had been empty long-term.

Or until we stop manipulating perceived “fundamental value” as defined in bold above.

And that is precisely what our troll Darryl is doing. Darryl is defining the market for you all and in this case, “fundamental value”.

What do you all think of that?

1) Probably. There are something like 10 million excess empty houses and if we’re bringing those to market, then yes, more supply without offsetting demand would push down rents.

Every time you repeat this lie, I will be here to expose it.

Honestly, we did see a significant drop in rents at the beginning of the housing crash. We have not been seeing it recently though.

Again…. another lie. Rental rates per square foot are falling.

I have plenty of time and patience my lying friend.

“. Rental rates per square foot are falling.”

Link?

Oh, never mind. I’ll link to the data.

http://rentbits.com/rb/t/rental-rates/phoenix-arizona

For those not wanting to follow the link, over the last year, average rent for a 2-bedroom apartment listed as available to rent is down from $950 to $875. That is an 8% drop in a year.

“Every time you repeat this lie, I will be here to expose it.”

Bring it on. 18 million vacant housing units, and a normal level of about 8 million leaves about 10 million excess.

Every time you say 25 million, or 28 million, or imply upto 30 million excess empty houses, it just shows how little interest you have in the truth.

I am seeing new rental homes pop all over my metro Phoenix neighborhood, several have been empty for over 30 days. The asking rents are comparable to what I’ve been paying for the last 6 years.

The cash investors are going to create a glut of rentals, doubt if we will see rents rise unless there is some kind of magic income fairy spreading “raise dust” across the struggling middle class.

“The cash investors are going to create a glut of rentals,…”

And that is where I have to question whether Darrell’s notion of fundamental value will prevail going forward. A rental glut will drive down rents, and rents are a primary determinant of fundamental value.

Bring it on. 18 million vacant housing units, and a normal level of about 8 million leaves about 10 million excess.

You can lie and mis-characterize the empty excess inventory all you want.

Bulletin: You will NOT be allowed to define the market with your lies for the readers. You will be called out as a LIAR. Ever. Single Time.

Every time you say 25 million, or 28 million, or imply upto 30 million excess empty houses, it just shows how little interest you have in the truth.

Isn’t it an odd parallel world where a known and bonafide liar suggests someone else isn’t interested in the truth.

Darryl…. you’re misrepresentations, lies, false characterizations define you…. you don’t define the market.

Carry on liar.

It is costing $4,000 a year to keep this $18,000 investment standing still (hopefully). The investment will be earning -22% per year, as long as prices hold, not considering the instant 10% loss at closing. Aren’t there any condo fees?

I posted this yesterday, but this story is by no means anecdotal.

Decent rentals are hard to come by here. There are some places where more housing would be welcome, SF being one of them.

There’s still empty space here even though this is one of the densest cities in the country. This 49 sq. mile peninsula needs more housing.

Oil City may have land to spare, but the empty warehouse districts (former bohemian neighborhoods - see article I posted previously) are getting gentrified fast and furiously.

NYC may be a different story, because they still have the boroughs.

Renters get boot with big rate hike

Dana-Lee Smirin has rented a house in San Francisco’s Dolores Park neighborhood since 2008 and considered it “a haven of stability” as she battles Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the aftermath of a car accident.

“The only way to evict me is to raise my rent to an abominable amount I can’t afford,” said Smirin, 42, who is on disability leave from her job as a sustainability consultant. “Then if I can’t pay it, she can serve me a three-day notice to evict.”

And the cherry picking sycophant wheels out an exception and characterizes as the rule.

Keep on keepin’ on pimps….

“Decent rentals are hard to come by here.”

My guess is that the absence of SF rentals is directly related to rent-controls. Just a guess…

Doubling the rent in a rent controlled town? Three day notice? I think there are laws against that….

“on disability leave from her job as a sustainability consultant…….” Too ironic.

My guess is that the absence of SF rentals is directly related to rent-controls. Just a guess…

Rent-control does indeed have its unintended consequences, to be sure. If you have a rent-controlled apt. you hang on to it.

But this is not the whole story. There are some places where more people want to live. “Renting for half the cost” isn’t an option everywhere.

Rental competition fierce in S.F.’s market
REAL ESTATE Competition fierce as job growth fuels ever-higher prices Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Michael Austin and Emily Morrison aren’t highly paid tech workers. He’s an actor with a day job as an administrative assistant; she’s an arts teacher at CalShakes. Newly engaged, they’ve been seeking an apartment in San Francisco to move into together.

San Francisco rents rose 15.8 percent in the first quarter of this year compared with the same time last year, to an average of $2,663 for all size units, according to RealFacts. Studio apartments average $2,075, up 16.5 percent in a year. The steepest rise came in one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartments, which are now $2,611 - up 19.9 percent in the past year and up 30 percent from just two years ago.

“But this is not the whole story. There are some places where more people want to live. “Renting for half the cost” isn’t an option everywhere.”

Having lived in the Bay Area, I am well aware of the tradeoffs people make between living close to work and paying more for housing. We lived in a rough area of the East Bay and I dealt with a 1-hour commute every day to keep our housing costs affordable. I have no objection to your choice to live in the city and pay a premium for the privilege, but you seem oblivious to the choice you face.

“It is costing $4,000 a year to keep this $18,000 investment standing still (hopefully).”

No. I’ll be paying $4000 a year for a newly remodeled, 1000 sqft, 2 bedroom, 2 bath place for my kid to live.

This is not an investment for me. I’m not counting on actually renting it out, just comparing to the cost of rent that my child would have to pay if they weren’t going to get this place for pretty much free from me.

And, yes, there is a $120 a month HOA fee, which my kid will be paying.

“Darryl…. you’re misrepresentations, lies, false characterizations define you…. you don’t define the market.”

True. The DICTIONARY provides the definitions, and the dictionary defines “excess” as the amount above normal or desirable level.

Not every vacation home and every empty apartment is an EXCESS empty house.

You’re continuing to pound the lie of 25 million, or 28 million, or 30 million clearly demonstrates to all that you have no interest in truth.

“And that is where I have to question whether Darrell’s notion of fundamental value will prevail going forward. A rental glut will drive down rents, and rents are a primary determinant of fundamental value.”

1) You assume the excess inventory can’t be kept off the market indefinitely.

2) Rents are not the only determining factor of fundamental value. Incomes have a huge impact on that. Historical norm for a national average is 3x income. In Phoenix, it is 2.5x income. The condo I am buying is $48.4K. That is 3x a full time, minimum wage job.

3) This is not an investment for me. I’m not expecting prices to go up, and that I’ll be able to sell for a huge payday. Heck, even if the price were to double (which it isn’t going to do), that gain would be barely more than 1/4th of my annual household income.

This is a cheap place for me to house my kids, then maybe a parent eventually.

ALL empty houses are excess. All 25 MILLION of them.

In your failing efforts to define the market, you continue define yourself as a liar.

“1) You assume the excess inventory can’t be kept off the market indefinitely.”

Au contraire.

You assume a continuation of the current collusive inventory withholding policy regime will continue indefinitely. But I am not sure that R&R won’t (1) win the election (for instance, did you catch the news today that God is no longer on the Democratic ticket?), and (2) restore free market competition to the housing market, in order to at least fix one broken part of the U.S. economy.

How can you be so sure?

“ALL empty houses are excess”

I’m done.

but you seem oblivious to the choice you face….

Uh, no, just stuck due to the housing bubble. We love it here, but the bigger deal is that we both have decent paying jobs with seniority (20 + years combined).

School districts across the country are handing out pink slips. Moving someplace new and finding secure jobs in this economy - especially with 2 young kids - we’ll do it if we have to, but it hasn’t come to that.

It still might, but we’re not there yet.

No you’re not. You’ll continue lying to the readers here. And I’ll continue exposing your lies.

I think he’s saying that darryl is a liar.

WhocouldaThunk?

“I think he’s saying that darryl is a liar.”

But what is the lie that he believes Darrell has told? That houses that are under contract waiting for short sale approval are not really listed in MLS? That all the condos listed for sale in Phoenix really are available? That Darrell was lying when he was posting links to all the places he’d put offers on, then was outbid for?

What are the lies that he thinks Darrell has told?

Name one truth you have told.

Truth and Lies?

What is in our mind is our reality and rest is perception. When we say I am right and you are wrong we are basically saying that I am a better perceiver than you are? Darrell reality is different than RAL and RAL’s is different than Darrell.

Can’t we all just get along and enjoy the hbb. Peace

A person can be wrong, without being a liar. To lie means to knowingly say something that is untrue, as opposed to saying something you think is true, but isn’t.

For example, if someone were to post that the Medicare tax fully funds Medicare spending, they’d be wrong, not a liar.

RAL keeps repeating “25 million excess empty houses” despite being provided with ample links to actual data showing there are 18-19 million vacant housing units, and 10 million of those are the “normal” level. This places the excess closer to 10 million than 25 million.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that it is 10 million, or maybe a little less, excess empty housing units, RAL upped his claim from 25 million excess empty houses to 28 million.

That is lying.

Falling housing prices isn’t a perception. It’s truth.

Over and over again, the data has been posted. You just don’t like the fact there are 25-30 MILLION excess empty houses.

But do go on lying to the public about though darryl.

If the link to 25-30 million excess empty houses has been posted so many times, then one more time ought to be pretty easy.

Is anyone else seriously starting to worry about this? As in, we’ve progressed from a lark to a diagnosis?

And in walks the sycophant who can’t refute the inventory data.

What difference do 10 million empty homes make between friends? Let’s just say it is a very large number that will affect everybody who owns a home or is planning on getting one.

Let’s move on and consider both Daryell and Ral to be wise.

Is anyone else seriously starting to worry about this?

I suggested the other day that we might be witnessing someone ‘loosing’ their mind. What with the multiple names and the barely contained misdirected rage, and the child-like repetition, it has kind of crossed that line from lark to …something stranger.

I don’t care if the number is 19 million or 25 million- that is a sh!tload of houses. Arguing that number is splitting hairs. It seems to me that the housing shills are nervous about the number, and are trying to minimize it.

It seems to me that the housing shills are nervous about the number, and are trying to minimize it.

BINGO!

Hmmm…. I wonder why that is?

Oh and Alpha….. piss off.

“I suggested the other day that we might be witnessing someone ‘loosing’ their mind.”

That’s a clever way for a psycho-babble economist to discredit someone whose posts they dislike. The truth is out there, whether or not you care to seek it or deny it.

The truth is out there,

Does the truth hide behind multiple monikers, and bully and harass people who disagree with it?

” don’t care if the number is 19 million or 25 million-”

19 million may be the number of vacant houses, but that includes vacation homes that are seasonally vacant. You are never going to get to 0 vacancy.

I’m not interested in minimizing the number of EXCESS empty houses, I just want an accurate idea of what that number is.

Historic norm vacancy rates from the dawn of the suburbs in the 1950s through the 1980s, extrapolated to today’s population indicates we have about 10 million excess empty houses. AND, even if we’re burning through that at 500K houses a year, that’s 2 decades to work off just the excess to get us back to a “normal” level of vacancy.

I’m sorry, but I do not see how “20 years to work off the excess at current construction rates” is minimizing anything. That is a disaster no matter how you slice it.

More like “not lying to make the disaster look like even more of a disaster than the disaster that it really is”.

Let’s move on and consider both Daryell and Ral to be wise.

Like the Palestinian issue this won’t be over ’til the radioactive cloud wraps around the planet.

DarryTheLiar,

You’ve been given an accurate number time and time again yet you continue to lie about it and run from it.

Why is that?

Is anyone else seriously starting to worry about this?

+1, oxy. I’m a bit concerned.

Historic norm vacancy rates from the dawn of the suburbs in the 1950s through the 1980s, extrapolated to today’s population indicates we have about 10 million excess empty houses.

Darrell, I agree with you that not all vacant houses are excess; some fraction of them are owned by people who want to keep them and can afford to keep them.

That said, I’m not sure you can extrapolate from historical norms to today’s population, and call that good. These are not normal times, and there has clearly been some household destruction in addition to delayed household formation. The normal vacancy rate is probably lower now than it has been since GD-I.

Thoughtful (if arguable) information is one thing, but there is an element of the unhinged to the harassment.
PLEASE STOP?

Ditto

Yes… when the lies and pimping stop.

Scary stuff.

AHansen +1

Can’t we all just get along and talk about housing?

Can’t we all just get along and talk about housing?

Some would rather drive off opposing views, rather than engage them rationally. Which ironically only serves to imply a weakness in their argument, when there really might not be one. It reveals a weakness in the argument maker, certainly.

Some would rather pretend to rationally discuss political strawmen supported by false evidence, rather than seek the truth and face economic reality head on.

To each his own.

Real world turnover in the last 2 months -

One unit went down 1.2%. The one next door is going up 8.3%.

In another house one unit went up 4.2%, and another went up 11.2%. All based on about a year turnover except the last had gone 3 or 4 years with the outgoing renter.

I don’t tend to raise the rent on people.

These are all 1 BR units. One of the units had been vacated by someone who was moving in with a roommate to a former forclosure, so I guess there is some competition with formerly distressed houses but not directly.

PLEASE STOP?

+1, Allena…

Some would rather pretend to rationally discuss political strawmen supported by false evidence, rather than seek the truth and face economic reality head on.

Ridiculing and harassing people like a child is ’seeking the truth and facing reality head on? It’s quite the opposite. It’s trying to run off opposing views, not debate them.

Is Dr. Jeckyl protecting Mr. Hyde?

Darrell…a National sales tax of 3-5% it will generate hundreds of billions…the underground economy still has to buy toilet paper…

A good war with Iran would be an effective subject-changer.

Deficits don’t matter during wars.

I want to see how they plan to replace the $1.3T a year that leaks from the economy, without it being the government doing the heavy borrowing now that the private sector is tapped out.

It’s called fix our energy policy, or as Romney has said: increase oil and gas exploration and extraction.

We’ve discussed the numbers before, but nearly half that 1.3 Trillion dollars you mention has to do with our energy imports.
The rest can be overcome by getting our economy growing again and cutting the deficit spending. [Yes, growth before cuts... remember, the private sector has to pick up where the public sector will be cut].

“Deficits don’t matter during wars.”

How many wars does a country have to be involved in before deficits don’t matter?

“Deficits don’t matter during wars.”

If you look at the 2012 Republican platform, they state clearly that they support no new taxes except in the event of war… seems Cheney might have been wrong.

“Darrell…a National sales tax of 3-5% it will generate hundreds of billions”

And increase unemployment, and slow the economy and reduce income and payroll taxes.

There is no free lunch, and our trade imbalances must be funded with debt.

“…a National sales tax of 3-5%…”

Also regressive, as in equally applicable to high and low earners…

I dunno a 3% tax on toilet paper is not the same as a 3% tax on a BMW….

Its about the underground economy…they still have to spend the money on items…

And they may start a war to protect defense.

Darrell is right. The plan is not a deficit reduction plan. All of the deficit reduction talk has been a whip to drive the Republican agenda - run the economy into the ground so Obama would lose this election.

The Ryan plan is simply re-arranging the budget to suit Republican goals - lower taxes, destroy SS and Medicare, eliminate the Department of Education, EPA, and other hated agencies, increase defense spending.

The over-55 limitation in their SS plan is a ploy to limit senior opposition. I fully expect that if they are able to maintain majorities in Congress over the next decade, we will eventually see it eliminated and all seniors will be converted to 401K style plans for SS and vouchers for Medicare. Wall Street really wants to get its hands on that money.

I hear lots of whining about the “real” Republican plan, but considering the Democratic Convention starts today, I’m not hearing so much about Obama’s economic plan for the next 4 years.

Could it be that it is just a rehash of the last 4 years, which has been an abject failure from an economic standpoint?

And they may start a war to protect defense

I think this is already baked in.

“Could it be that it is just a rehash of the last 4 years, which has been an abject failure from an economic standpoint?”

How does that Republican propaganda line square with the evidence?

If you have contrary evidence, please post. Just don’t repeat RNC propaganda lines, if you can refrain from doing so.

Indicators Show US Economic Recovery Slow, Uneven
Jim Randle
August 31, 2012

A look at some key industries in the United States shows that the economic recovery is a bit erratic and growth seems to be slowing down.

Economists say trucks haul nearly 70 percent of the freight used in the United States.

The American Trucking Association says freight is a measure of the economy, because manufacturers have to move raw materials, carry parts to factories, haul imports and exports and deliver goods to store shelves.

“We are actually a very good indicator, a leading economic indicator ((a way of looking at the economic future)) in fact. And so if tonnage starts to fall, we get nervous. If it’s going up, we are pretty happy,“ said Bob Costello, the group’s chief economist.

Freight tonnage is going up at the moment, but the rate of growth is slowing down.

“It is telling me that the economy is not falling into another recession. It will continue as a sort of a slow growth recovery,” Costello said.
…

I would not call the last 4 years an abject failure. An abject failure would be what the economy was doing when Obama took office.

Considering the economic headwinds of political discord and the troubles in the Euro zone, I might be inclined to say that was the best we could get.

“Could it be that it is just a rehash of the last 4 years, which has been an abject failure from an economic standpoint?”

Pretty much.

Democrats are the horrid politicians we know. The only point of contention for me is how much worse the Republicans would be if/when they win.

More of the same that got us here, or more, more of the same that got us here.

It will continue as a sort of a slow growth recovery,” Costello said.

And isn’t that what we say we want? Slow, steady growth? Not the return of skyrocketing, bubble-inducing growth?

If you have contrary evidence, please post. Just don’t repeat RNC propaganda lines, if you can refrain from doing so.

The problem is we’re seeing 1-2% growth on top of unsustainable deficit spending by the government and the loosest monetary policy this country has ever seen.

Fed Funds Rate .25%
Fed Quantitative Easing

The last four years “economic recovery” has been entirely based upon easy money. Meanwhile, real inflation in running at 5%+ [higher in Higher Ed, HealthCare, Food, etc per Shadowstats].

Take away QE and essentially 0% interest rates, what do you have from the Obama administration? Nothing. No pro-growth policies at all. Abject Failure.

By March 2009, it[Fed] held $1.75 trillion of bank debt, MBS, and Treasury notes, and reached a peak of $2.1 trillion in June 2010. Further purchases were halted as the economy had started to improve, but resumed in August 2010 when the Fed decided the economy was not growing robustly. After the halt in June holdings started falling naturally as debt matured and were projected to fall to $1.7 trillion by 2012. The Fed’s revised goal became to keep holdings at the $2.054 trillion level. To maintain that level, the Fed bought $30 billion in 2–10 year Treasury notes a month. In November 2010, the Fed announced a second round of quantitative easing, or “QE2″, buying $600 billion of Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011.

The American Trucking Association says freight is a measure of the economy, because manufacturers have to move raw materials, carry parts to factories, haul imports and exports and deliver goods to store shelves.

“We are actually a very good indicator, a leading economic indicator ((a way of looking at the economic future)) in fact. And so if tonnage starts to fall, we get nervous.

I am sorry to call this bs again. My eyes and the truck drivers I speak to on a regularly from RIST, Yellow, R&L, CCX, ABF, FedEx, UPS and Land Air Express tell me differently. I see the trucking companies show up for pick up on our loading docks mostly empty around 2 to 4 pm most days. Trucking companies are not hiring and when their trucks break down they are renting trucks from Ryder than repairing their own.

It will be interesting to see how full the trucking companies are during October when they are bringing xmas stuff. October is the busiest season for the trucking companies. Sometimes we arrange for pickup and they show up around 10am to 11am when they are supposedly delivering. Then they pull over near an abandoned parking lot and wait for the next call.

My guess is the so called experts in this industry don’t look more than 10 minutes in the past and the future.

That may be why a top official of Cambria Suites Hotels, Michael Murphy, says business is strong.

“We are seeing the highest demand in the history of the hotel industry right now.
I have my doubts about this statement. Who the heck has even heard of cambria Suites hotel? Again my eyes tell me differently. I stay at major Hotel chains along the Eastern Seaboard. Occupancy rates are dramatically down. This guy is pumping his chain. Hotel rates are also down quite a bit from previous years.

Indeed. Want to fix the deficit? How about the US Treasury and/or the IRS send bills for defense services rendered to South Korea, Taiwan, the EU, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, Iraq, etc. Going forward, if any of these countries want or need access to our military, they can pay for it directly.

We’ve been the world’s police force since 1917… about time we started getting paid for it [beyond the US dollar reserve currency status].

i would prefer a front row seat to the end of U.S. military prowess in the world.

This would be a great way to cut the deficit. We can only dream, I guess.

“…they can pay for it directly.”

i would argue that they have been…through purchasing our U.S. treasuries.

its just not the old fashioned way the empire receives its tribute.

i aplogize…you did say “directly”.

“Going forward, if any of these countries want or need access to our military, they can pay for it directly.”

It is possible that our political leaders desire the projection of power into remote parts of the world more than the recipients do.

“(just pointing out the douchebaggery of wishing for pain to prove one’s partisanship)”

If you read my posts, you’ll see I fully expect the Republicans to continue to avoid the pain by continuing to run the massive deficits that we’ve had.

If they do cut spending, and we’re back in recession, then the Republicans will be pushing stimulus HARD, just like Bush did his last year.

It isn’t going to be mass pain. It will be the Republicans running away from claims that they can do better, and that “Cap, Cut and Balance” was more than just rhetorical name for a bill and actually totally unrealistic in our trade imbalance plagued economic situation.

And, in the end, what needs to happen is going to be very painful, and the longer we delay that pain, the worse it will be when it arrives.

Back in the housing bubble days of 2005-2007 I would tell people that house prices in Phoenix had to fall at least 50%. People would ask why I wanted the world to end.
1) Houses returning to historic normal level was not the end of the world.
2) It was inevitable, and the more overpriced houses got, the worse the eventual crash would be.

There needed to be pain, and the sooner the better.

The sooner we can lay bare the lies of the Republicans (and Democrats), the sooner we can start working toward real solutions.

It is possible that our political leaders desire the projection of power into remote parts of the world more than the recipients do.

Yes.

But the point remains that we can’t afford to project force globally, at least not for the price we’re currently being paid [reserve currency status notwithstanding].

“The sooner we can lay bare the lies of the Republicans (and Democrats), the sooner we can start working toward real solutions.”

the only exposition of their lies will be through higher interest rates.

interest rates will not rise due to default risk. they will rise due to inflation risk.

it will happen and economic calamity will ensue.

when?

2013 - 2015?

i have even seen some predictions out to 2021.

For inflation to take hold, we’d have to see rising household incomes. Otherwise, increasing prices just causes crashing demand, creating surplus supply and undoing the inflation.

See 2008 as an example.

I see no reason to believe that incomes are about to spike up, therefore I do not believe the sustained high inflation story.

We can print virtually unlimited amounts of money, if that money is only going to people that won’t do anything with it other than buy bonds or put it in a bank, without creating inflation.

If things change, and it looks like we’re about to make some policy change that will increase incomes or get all the money we are printing into the hands of someone other than the already rich, I’ll be standing by in preparation for inflation. Until then, I see inflation as highly unlikely.

never say never.

“never say never.”

Good thing I didn’t say “never” and just said that I don’t see the conditions right now, but am watching.

I see no reason to believe that incomes are about to spike up, therefore I do not believe the sustained high inflation story.

Crashing demand for non-essentials. However, food and energy are priced on a global market with global demand. I can easily see how food and energy prices continue to inflate while demand increases from overseas due in part to rising incomes overseas… sustained inflation in a global economy that leaves the poor US worker with less and less every month.

i never said you said never. i just said never say never to remind you to say never say never.

If the host country PAYS US to stay there…..then there is no economic sense to leave

i would prefer a front row seat to the end of U.S. military prowess in the world.

Yes my radical idea pay off everyone’s CC by say $3000.. power to the people!

or get all the money we are printing into the hands of someone other than the already rich,

That`s fine as long as you don`t wake up my donkey.

In Oklahoma, it is against the law to have a sleeping donkey in your bathtub after 7 PM.

LOL, alpha.

Stop injecting meddlesome facts in the path of Dan’s rant.

North Korea is not a “successful” socialist country. They can’t feed most of their population without food aid from South Korea…

I never said all socialistic countries were successful. My point was just the opposite. I just said that the few socialistic countries that could be called a success shared certain traits. If you want to call in a rant go ahead but it is the truth and when some people do not have any facts to support their position they just engage in personal attacks.

North Korea may have a homogeneous population, but insufficient nutrition impacts brain development. I wouldn’t be surprised if their average IQ is quite a bit lower than South Korea. Anyone know where to find the stats? I don’t know that you could trust any numbers put out by the government.

I think most of the big ideologies can work, if the participants are decent and eschew corruption.

Maybe that’s what the Scandinavians have going for them. I’ve thought about immigrating to one of those countries, but I can’t imagine why they’d want me there.

You people are really stupid with your comments. North Korea is NOT a “socialist” country. It is a Totalitarian Police State.
Dan’s comments are relevant, but there is no comparison to this other country of Police State demands on it’s “citizens”.
Similar to the Soviet Union which collapsed after 75 years of opposing it’s captives, North Korea deserves to collapse into oblivion.
Perhaps it’s people can learn to live free of the corruption of the State.

“The average IQ in the United States is usually set at 100. Groups within the US score different average IQ’s, such as 115 for college grads or 85 for African-Americans. Similarly, average IQ varies from country to country, shown in the 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (sets Britain at 100)”

This book still puts Norway tied for 19th of all the countries in the world. Other numbers set for Norway has its IQ about 102. No question the IQ has been dropping but also no question that immigration has been increasing.

A quick cut and paste from the same site.

Rank
Country
IQ estimate

1
Hong Kong
107

2
South Korea
106

3 ^
Japan
105

4
Taiwan
104

5
Singapore
103

6 *
Austria
102

6 ^
Germany
102

6 **
Italy
102

6 *
Netherlands
102

10
Sweden
101

10
Switzerland
101

12
Belgium
100

12 **
China
100

12
New Zealand
100

12 **
United Kingdom
100

16
Hungary
99

16
Poland
99

16 **
Spain
99

19
Australia
98

19
Denmark
98

19 *
France
98

19
Mongolia
98

19
Norway
98

19 *
United States
98

25
Canada
97

25
Czech Republic
97

25
Finland
97

28
Argentina
96

28 ^
Russia
96

28
Slovakia
96

28
Uruguay
96

32 ^
Portugal
95

32
Slovenia
95

34
Israel
94

34
Romania
94

36
Bulgaria
93

36
Ireland
93

36 *
Greece
93

39
Malaysia
92

40
Thailand
91

41
Croatia
90

41 ^
Peru
90

41 * *
Turkey
90

I’ve wondered about that. China has one of the world’s highest IQs. They’re starting to emerge, but they are still a poor country in terms of per capita GDP.

Populations can value individual liberties higher than group concerns or vice versa. The Magna Carta is an example of trying to increase liberties for the ruled, rather than consolidation of power and the path to God-King status. Very collectivist societies emphasize different priorities and perhaps as a result, reach different outcomes.

The genetics of happiness
Oct 15th 2011
The Economist

THE idea that the human personality is a blank slate, to be written upon only by experience, prevailed for most of the second half of the 20th century. Over the past two decades, however, that notion has been undermined. Studies comparing identical with non-identical twins have helped to establish the heritability of many aspects of behaviour, and examination of DNA has uncovered some of the genes responsible. Recent work on both these fronts suggests that happiness is highly heritable.

The adolescents in Dr De Neve’s study were asked to grade themselves from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Dr De Neve found that those with one long allele were 8% more likely than those with none to describe themselves as very satisfied; those with two long alleles were 17% more likely.

Which is interesting. Where the story could become controversial is when the ethnic origins of the volunteers are taken into account. All were Americans, but they were asked to classify themselves by race as well. On average, the Asian Americans in the sample had 0.69 long genes, the black Americans had 1.47 and the white Americans had 1.12.

http://www.economist.com/node/21532247

Interesting research. I would prefer to see a study done on infants so that the effects of upbringing and culture are minimized. Are Asian Americans taught to be less satisfied by their “Tiger” mothers?

I also think the speculation on collectivism vs. individualism is a stretch. It could eventually be proved true, but I don’t see enough evidence to support it yet.

bi-partisan refers to who wrote the bill, not who supports it.

Wouldn’t ending the exemption cause people to remain in their underwater houses even longer, thus increasing the shadow inventory?

“Wouldn’t ending the exemption cause people to remain in their underwater houses even longer, thus increasing the shadow inventory?”

So long as they make their mortgage payments, they can live there forever as far as I am concerned. It’s good for the mortgage market if the investors who loaned the money keep getting paid.

On the other hand, if people stop paying their mortgages, then I don’t see why they should be treated any differently than a renter who stops paying their rent.

Being trapped in your house because of the tax ramifications of leaving would increase the shadow inventory, though, and keep prices propped up, would it not?

The tax holiday is a stealth handout to the banks. Without it short sales would be stupid for the debtor. Bankruptcy is the way to clear without increasing tax liability, and while you are doing the bankruptcy, all those other debts get thrown out too.

Yes, bankruptcy doesn’t help you if your debt is student loan debt. However, unpayable taxes on debt forgiveness is dischargable via bankruptcy,

So, if we try to charge these people tens of thousands of dollars of tax on hundreds of thousands of dollars of forgiven mortgage debt, they just go bankrupt to wipe out the tax debt, and go ahead and wipe out all the credit card debt while they are at it.

You had me at RAL is Al Queda.

Loved the student loan article. I hope they take away everything the guy owns. There is nothing worse than deadbeat students.
It is especially noteworthy that these loans are 20 to 30 years old. Over that many years, a small expenditure of $25 per month would have eliminated them.
In the example noted, the guy owed $1660.
New bill, with fees and interest not paid:
$7700. It seems a bit high, but you need to provide incentive for people not pay.
What is $1660 from 1980, in 2012 dollars?
Is it fair to pay the original amount 30 years later? Get real.
I would love to buy a house today at 1980 prices. In 1975, I could have bought waterfront here in Tampa for about $35,000.

We were getting mail dunning my husband for his father’s old student loan debt, because the names were similar. Apparently the old guy just blew it off. I don’t et it though - he was in the same place and owned property for decades.

Why didn’t they get a judgment while he was still alive?

FIRST TITLE OF LAW.
THE LAW OF DEBT.

1. Payment of a Debt.

* 1. 1 Which debts must be paid, which other debts must not be paid; by whom, and in what form (they must be paid); and the rules of gift and receipt, (all that) is comprised under the title of ‘Recovery of a Debt.’

* 2. The father being dead, it is incumbent on the sons to pay his debt, each according to his share (of the inheritance), in case they are divided in interests. Or, if they are not divided in interests, the debt must be discharged by that son who becomes manager of the family estate.
…

Lived here long?

In the immortal words of… I forgot who: “You ain’t seen nuttin’ yet!”

(wait, I think is was Jimmy Durante)

Morally bankrupt… yeah so what. It’s legal and profitable. That’s all you need, right?

Medical Records should be grandfathered in the right to privacy. Commerce is one thing, but Medical Records. That’s absurd.

HIPPA protects privacy of records now. Please actually read the disclosure you sign when you start with a new practice. Mostly they are getting permission to share information with your insurance so they can do direct billing. Any other exceptions will also be listed. You can cross them out before you sign, but you might be told you are not wanted as a patient in the practice. If the amount of info sharing looks OK and you sign it as is, ask to keep a copy.

Read “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”. Amazing book.

Selling to “investors” is very different than selling to a records maintenance organization. Sale to the records company would probably be done only to orgs regulated by the state that requires the records to be maintained.

My dad was a workaholic. Trust me, it did not make him a better family man to his family or friend to his friends.

Where I grew up the Victorians downtown, in neighborhoods of similar houses, remained, being turned into either ghetto or student housing, depending on their proximity to the university. I lived in some cool apartments in them in my college days. During the housing bubble, many were professionally rehabbed, I’m sure at great expense, but it did at least save a lot of neat old houses from final decay- probably the only good thing to come out of the bubble.

Some of the Victorians out in the country, which became the suburbs, lasted until the 70s. The Victorian farmhouse of the farm that had been newly subdivided into our neighborhood lay as a pile of rubble next door to us when we moved into our new subdivision, in 1972. Too bad because it had been a neat old house. Some such were saved and became either the clubhouses of apartment communities or houses you could rent for parties or weddings. Most decayed away, as there was no logical market for them anymore. Much like McMansions in the exurbs.

My home town had an old part of town filled with Victorians. It was awesome. It was an expensive part of town, and during Halloween, the families used to really decorate them well, with some families turning them into haunted houses. Great stuff. No ghetto there.

And here’s the reality of square footage.

2007: 2521
2008: 2519
2009: 2438
2010: 2392

Nice try though.

You forgot 2011: 2,480

You didn’t forget to lie and misrepresent the truth… and then hobbled around to defend your lies.

“The avg ft2 has been falling every year since the bubble began deflating.”

2010: 2,392
2011: 2,480

You’re hobbling as you reach for that rotten cherry my dear Pimp.

Yes SF, I lived up your way years ago, it is very beautiful and A/C is optional. Now heat on the other hand is needed during the winter and the foggy nights, but nowhere near the energy usage of the more extreme climates. I was addressing Rentals point regarding the future of larger homes in general, they have the potential to eat you alive, I have seen it happen.

Heh, just heard Dick Durban (D-IL) proudly proclaim that a Democrat president, Harry Truman, was the first U.S. President to recognize Israel. For those who slept during their world history classes, Israel first became a UN-recognized country while Truman was in office. That would make it kinda hard for FDR and his predecessors to recognize Israel.

Is Durban stupid, or does he know the majority of Americans are stupid?

…Harry Truman, was the first U.S. President to recognize Israel.

Harry Truman, was the first U.S. President to subsidize Israel.

That’s what psycho-babble economists say, at least. Somewhere along the way, they lost track of the effect of the microeconomic budget constraint on the animal spirits that drive people to make foolish real estate investments.

You liars only wish markets were forever detached from fundamentals.

In the meantime, the housing market is rapidly closing in with reality.

Psychological effect on markets is real.

This is most commonly seen in the stock market, where fear drives stock prices far too low relative to fundamental value (see the effect of a BK on General Growth (ticker GGP), during the downturn), and euphoria drives stock prices far too high relative to fundamental value (see any number of dotcom stocks with no income).

It goes without saying that if you have no money to invest in the stock market, this psychology doesn’t matter (you can’t participate anyway).

Similarly, it goes without saying that if you don’t have the means to purchase a home, what you feel about the housing market is irrelevant. When asking how many people are affected by housing market psychology, the question that matters is “how many people have the down payment, are renting, and would like to ultimately own a home?”

If the answer is “no one can afford to buy a house at today’s prices”, then you are correct, market psychology is completely irrelevant. But in reality, the answer to that question lies somewhere between zero and many millions.

Ivy Zelman tried to answer this question here:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000068361

The quote from the transcript is:

” i think our surveys suggest there are probably close to 3 million people today that are renting that want to own and have the down payment.”

For those “close to 3 million”, market psychology is a pretty important factor (if not the most important factor) in determining the timing of their ultimate decision.

I’m sure someone will say that market psychology doesn’t matter at all since those “close to 3 million” can’t afford to buy the house anyway, even if they have a down payment. To that pending comment, I’ll just state what is obvious to those who have done the math on affordability…for the “howmuchamonth” buyer, houses are more affordable than they have been in decades; if they have the down payment and are renting, it is highly likely that the thing holding them back is something other than affordability.

“Psychological effect on markets is real.”

Real, though dominated by the budget constraint, which psycho-babble economists never acknowledge.

My point is that the budget constraint is not an impediment for all potential buyers, and if there are enough potential buyers where it is not an impediment, market psychology dominates.

“Psychological effect on markets is real.”

Only for brief periods during wild market swings, if you are a housing bull right now, the trend is not your friend. Sell now or be priced in for the next 10 to 15 years.

Your only savior is the magic money fairy (mentioned in a thread above) spreading massive amounts of “raise dust” on the struggling middle class. The Illuminati will not allow that to happen.

Psychological effect on markets is most pronounced when fear and greed are most extreme. Those times are not as brief as people think…the euphoria of the dotcom boom lasted far longer than I thought, as did the housing bubble.

Generally speaking, you will do well as a market participant if you buy when fear is greatest, and sell when people are most euphoric.

Generally speaking, nobody here can trust you as far as they can throw you.

“My point is that the budget constraint is not an impediment for all potential buyers, and if there are enough potential buyers where it is not an impediment, market psychology dominates.”

And my point is that without Subprime Sam around to enable a large number of marginally-qualified buyers to purchase homes at price levels which suggest many will go into foreclosure over the next several years, there would not be enough unconstrained buyers to have the effect you describe. Moreover, strong hands (like Uncle Warren) would not invest if there were not a massive flow of subsidies driving up prices and real estate investing profits.

Today’s government-enabled buyer is tomorrow’s foreclosure victim. I suppose that is no problem for the Democrat politicians who back these policies, as catering to victims is one of their primary political objectives.

Not that I have a point with posting this, but I find this very interesting with a ton of data.

http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/c25ann2011.pdf

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/11-making-the-digital-house.html

Ikea housing.

Is this the BIL in Lexington?

I wasn’t earning didly on my bank account and I don’t like gambling in a rigged casino. My wife is happy, my kids are in a good school near friends, she is near work, I have some property to garden in and plant fruit trees, and I don’t have a landlord. If Japan is the global model I’ll be living in this house for a long long time so I may as well enjoy it.

Here here.

There’s more to life than money.

There’s more to life than money.

+1. A great reminder…

Why don’t you tell us Darryl seeing as you’re here defining the market.

Go ahead.

‘Exactly what would you consider a “cheap” price if under $50 a sqft is a high price?’

Less than irrationally exuberant debt-financed borrowers competing with equally irrationally exuberant all-cash investors for artificially shrunken inventory are willing to pay.

Exactly what would you consider a “cheap” price if under $50 a sqft is a high price?

I would buy today if prices were at $50/sq-ft in my area.

Once again Turkey you just make things up. Clinton certainly had a choice to support it or not. Bush’s signature had no legal significance. He was free to oppose or support it just like he was free to amend it. The farce was that this agreement was a treaty but it was passed like a law. It did not have the 2/3rds necessary to be passed as a treaty. It is just another example why all we really need to do is follow the founding fathers to avoid the mess we are in. Money tied to gold and no trade agreements that do not follow the treaty process. Clinton should have stated that he opposed it and it had to be passed as a treaty and if they did not go along, he should have vetoed the bill but he did not and that is because he has a global agenda not a nationalistic agenda just like both Bush I and Bush II.

It was a ceremonial signing, but it wasn’t the law. The law that was passed was signed by Clinton and approved by Congress. As you can see from the numbers above, quite a few Democrats voted for the bill…

At that global agenda is set on Wall Street. Remember it was Clinton that removed any human rights review from China’s trade status. Ironically, after attacking Bush I for trade with China.

I posted a link and you claim I make things up?

Can you even hear yourself?

It is only the Senate that has the power to RATIFY treaties, not the President.

The Senate had the 2/3rds necessary and could have made it a treaty ratification instead of a bill.

Yes, you made up the entire part about Clinton having no choice. A simple veto would have ended it.

Then, you state: “The Senate had the 2/3rds necessary and could have made it a treaty ratification instead of a bill.”

Can you do simple math? Your own article stated that 61 Senators voted for the measure and 38 voted against, that is not 2/3rds.

My whole point was only the Senate has the right to ratify a treaty, Clinton went alone with a sham process that he could have prevented with a veto.

And you know this, how?

LOL you make up the entire part about Clinton having no choice when simple math shows that unless 5 more senators would have changed their vote, a Clinton veto would have been sustained and then challenge me to prove whether a veto would have been sustained. At least I have the numbers on my side.

I also have have logic. If the powers that be would have had those votes they would have just gone with the treaty route since it would have been easier than a bill. Clinton certainly could have forced the issue and at least tried to stop the sham process, but he did not.

You truly have no idea how actual politics work, do you? By the time a bill gets to the President’s desk it’s an international (and corporate) fait accompli whose undoing would have disastrous global consequences.

Since the popular use of the internet, the days between vetoes have risen dramatically as historically backdoor deals that used to define the legislative process become ever more public. Obama has gone the longest between vetoes, with GW Bush the second longest. Clinton was the fourth longest.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Presidential+veto+getting+less+frequent&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I dislike the whole “Free Trade” meme, as the goal has always been Fair Trade, at least for me. Fair to the capitalists, and fair to the nation [i.e. the workers].

Undercutting our labor with cheap foreign labor and nonexistent environmental/labor laws is not the path to a strong national economy. Unfortunately, the Republican party has it’s share of capitalists who have benefited from the “Free Trade” mantra and continue to spout it as “The best way to prosperity” [Yes, I'm looking at you Larry Kudlow].

How is it that foreign companies have to partner with local concerns if they want access to the Chinese markets? It kills me when communists have a better understanding of sustainable capitalism than the capitalists…

And for how long until the oil runs out?
LOL. Kind of the point for increased exploration, huh?

The energy sector pays well. If that is one cylinder on our economic engine, and it is growing, then we’re well on our way to growing the overall economy beyond the 1-2% we’ve been experiencing. The “growth” we’ve seen has been due to loose monetary policy and increased Federal government spending, not actual growth in the private sector.

Bottom line, that alone doesn’t fix it, but there is no one answer to fix our economy and budget deficit. The overarching plan has to be grow the labor-based economy [not the debt-based economy], and you do that by implementing pro-growth strategies. Do Democrats even understand what that means? What is a “Pro-Growth Strategy”?

I’ll give you a couple of examples so even the dumbest of Democrats can understand and maybe learn something:

1. Allow increased energy exploration and extraction (yes, this is “managed” by the government. If government loosens the reigns, then money will be spent by the private sector, creating real growth]
2. Let housing bottom. [Obama's failed policies of keeping people in homes and supporting write-downs and gov refis while manipulating inventory has done nothing to fix the housing sector. Let prices bottom and get the housing and construction industry back working, even if it is at a lower level than previous]
3. Simplify the tax code and actually cut taxes for the middle class. [Consumers will likely spend any tax savings and simple taxes for businesses allows them to plan ahead more easily]
4. Deal with the corporate overseas tax shelters
5. Incentivize businesses to expand hiring with one time tax breaks [helps offset the taxing of repatriated overseas profits and expands hiring].
6. Limit defense cuts until after the private sector is firing on all cylinders.

These are “pro-growth” strategies. These strategies will, when taken together, help to grow the private sector of our economy, which is the only way to address the budget deficit and high unemployment. Growing government is not the answer…

If this is a comment about Bain Capital, I agree with you. My hope is that Romney knows enough about what’s wrong with our economy and our system of capitalism, currently, that he can try and reform it… he has obviously done quite well by it.

what do you want him to do?

He got rich, loading co’s with debt.

cliff notes:

http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbi-mitt-romney-bain-rolling-stone-2012-8

see Matt Taibbi’s (smart kid) work here: “Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital,”

What’s wrong with using debt financing to profit by turning stable companies into empty shells of their former selves? Is it illegal or something?

I’m missing the point of all this Romney bashing.

amen

thanks very much, i’ll bet there are others who’ve been wondering too!

P.S. Not to be confused with the Facebook ticker symbol, although those who bought Facebook stock at the IPO price are now FBs.

Just imagine how housing prices would respond if they released the shadow inventory the way they are unlocking shares of FB stock!

Sept. 4, 2012, 5:10 p.m. EDT
FB says Zuckerberg, directors won’t sell shares

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - Facebook (FB -1.82%) Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and two company directors, Marc Andreessen and Donald Graham, do not plan to sell any company shares following the expiration of a lockup period, the social networking giant said in a regulatory filing late Tuesday. Zuckerberg, who is also the company’s co-founder, “has no intention to conduct any sale transaction in our securities for at least 12 months,” Facebook said. Shares of Facebook rose nearly 2% in after-hours trading, after hitting a new low in regular trading. Facebook shares have been weighed down by the coming lockup expirations for more than 1.3 billion shares before the end of the year. A big wave of roughly 1.22 billion is expected to hit Nov. 14.

CA should not pay for your dental coverage.

I pay in $700 month for my insurance.

Our company priced dental insurance years ago. It cost $1,000 per year per employee for max coverage of $2,000.

So we self-insured.

Cops (incredulous): You smoke crawdads?

Granny Clampett: Sure! But first I need a little pot.

In Sarasota, Florida, it is illegal to quote the Beverly Hillbillies. Punishable by a full-body wax followed by a dunk in kerosene.

You said “Please cite your information source”

I did but now that you have shown me that this isn`t true I am back to thinking there is no war against women.

Darrell, I don’t see it that way. You talk a lot about how this is a no brainer investment. Really. Leveraged buying a cond on Phoenix as an investment isn’t a no brainer for anyone not in Phoenix.

Yes, your $30K tab is significant. The mentality that debt will make you richer is a credit expansion mentality. That is our problem and you are all in.

You and those like you are the reason we have a trade imbalance. Putting the payments on your children is so our generation.

This is not an investment. It is an expense. A place for me to put my kids that is cheaper than rent.

There is a war on savers. I didn’t make the rules of the war. Heck, I rail every day about how this is all unsustainable and we need to change the underlying fundamentals of how cash is created, moved through the economy, than rapidly leaks out.

Since I don’t have the ability to alter the flawed economic fundamentals, I’m force to just take advantage of the conditions I’m given.

I’m not borrowing money to get rich. I go to work and collect a paycheck, then choose how to spend that money.

Leveraging debt. That is all. That is the problem. You are an investor, a speculator.

For somebody who rants on endlessly about the perils of debt, it is quite amazing to me how quick Darrell is to partake of the evil financing vehicle.

“You are an investor, a speculator.”

He is a speculator, ie. expecting the price to increase. An investment would show a return.

He was a bishop and a stake president. Not a huge deal…tough jobs with no pay that take a huge amount of time. Don’t know how I’ll survive if I ever get asked to do it.

99+% of the guys I’ve known doing those jobs are great guys who really care about their congregations. I’ve never seen anybody I’d consider evil in one of those positions but once in a great while you get somebody with personality problems who has a hard time dealing with people and it causes stress for everybody until they get replaced.

Excess empty houses? 25 million.

Why continue lying to the readers about it?

ANSWER the question.

“So, you are just making stuff up. Is that what you are saying?”

I made up no definition of excess. I’m completely out of the argument between you and RAL at this point — keep at it if you enjoy it so much.

And if you don’t like my definition of subprime, why not provide an intelligent critique of it, instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack which involved no thought whatever.

P.S. If you honestly misunderstood the point of my post, then I sincerely apologize.