Bits Bucket for October 22, 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
The Global DOW seems to want to fall off the cliff.
What props it up?
a printing press?
artificailly low interest rates?
Sunshine and kitten farts.
What props it up?
$60 TRILLION in funny money?
Ben a long while since I posted, am RE agent in Stockton, Northern CA Housing bubble patient #1. RE great purchase here now (like $60-70k property that will rent for $850 and net %10/yr) even compared to the runtal returns after 89′. Theses prices ( all cash offers, 2 week closes) are the bottom I have seem form. Small 2 and 3 bedrooms homes/blue collard hoods/minor work to make rent ready. This bottom rung crap routinely sold for $250-375k at top of the bubble.
Stocks! There are right and wrong times to buy Stocks. I find now investing in anything the Boomers own and will soon dump ill advised. Walked from housing I owned with about $250kin ‘07 made some money in stocks thend. Beginnes luck jut like with any other gambling, seemed no brainer…. for a while. Hahah, now really do hate the saying “no brainer”. The dive market took then really freaked me out! That was some obvious Ponzi scheme shit to me, I pulled to almost all cash. Seen most friend/co-workers over the years just raped buying what everyone was telling them what to buy. Know many poor bastards that worked at auto parts -truck frames- plant here for many years. They had between $150-500k in company stock each.That shit went bankrupt and they rode it through till they delisted their fuckin shares!!! All the while borrowing ever higher ammounts on bad adjustable rate mort. debt.
SFH seem most prudent investment here and now.The differance between managing rentals and stocks makes IMO managing a few SFH much more desirable compared to given that investment away to strangers wih no alligence that have been proven to be crooks in the past.
The golden rule, Third Millennium version:
Them’s that got the gold, they makes the rules.
Oct. 20, 2012, 9:01 a.m. EDT
10 nations that control the world’s gold
By 24/7 Wall St.
It is now more obvious than ever that gold is becoming the new global reserve currency. Continuous and aggressive central-bank actions from the United States and Europe are driving the demand for gold. Investors have not yet seen any of the real hyperinflationary pressures that seem likely down the road.
Gold’s substantial rise in price should speak for itself. In dollar terms, gold returned 11.1% in the third quarter and was up by 16% year-to-date through the end of the quarter. The World Gold Council said that gold has a low stock-market correlation through time. That was not the case in the third quarter. Gold still outperformed almost all the major equity markets in the largest gold-holding nations in 2012.
24/7 Wall St. analyzed how the gold rankings compare to each major nation’s gross domestic product and how those figures compare to the top 10 holders of gold. What is surprising in some cases is how countries with the largest GDP are not necessarily the largest holders of gold. Two small nations, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are major holders of gold. Under the terms of the Central Bank Gold Agreement among major European states, many countries are supposed to be selling gold but are not.
The United Kingdom’s $2.43 trillion in GDP is the world’s seventh largest, but its gold holdings of 310.3 tonnes rank only 17th in the world and account for only 15.9% of its total foreign reserves. Does the old term “pound sterling” mean that the British banks really care more about silver? Another standout exception is Brazil, which has tiny gold reserves compared with its GDP. Its $2.5 trillion in GDP ranks sixth in the world, yet it holds only 33.6 tonnes of gold, or 0.5% of foreign reserves. Brazil ranks a surprising 52nd in the world among gold holders.
The International Monetary Fund is the third-largest official holder of gold, with more than 2,814 tonnes. The European Central Bank ranks right behind India, with 502.1 tonnes and 32.3% of its total foreign reserves held in gold. Central bank buying of gold was recently undertaken by Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the Kyrgyz Republic. Turkey went as far as raising the gold reserve requirements for its commercial banks.
The World Gold Council report shows low borrowing costs and the support of financial markets spur gold accumulation. Gold is no longer just an inflation hedge; it is the key protection against a global race to devalue currencies, even if consumer prices are somewhat stable. Bonds pay historically low rates and stock market volatility has spooked many investors, so gold is becoming the true safe haven.
Major central banks are growing their balance sheets by purchasing trillions of dollars in paper assets. The World Gold Council said that research showed that a 1% change in money supply, six months prior, in the United States, Europe, India and Turkey tends to increase the price of gold by 0.9%, 0.5%, 0.7% and 0.05%, respectively. The Council also said that inflation is still several years off and many central banks have been more worried about deflation. Investors would be well advised to heed a warning from bond king Bill Gross, who told global investors to have exposure to hard assets, which will rise in value with inflation.
…
I think if my favorite distributor of wealth is re-elected President he will in his second term confiscate all gold. He will hire the school marm, who loves any form of initiation of force known as government, to help confiscate!
Sure, and he’s gonna force you to convert to Islam.
Did a military contractor just accuse me of “loving the initiation of force”? I think Bill need to get an agent for his comedy act. Maybe after he hires an accountant who knows how to read.
“…confiscate all gold.”
You mean like FDR did? From the Wikipedia article:
‘Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $371.10 today[3]) per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 ($167,700 if adjusted for inflation as of 2010) or up to ten years in prison, or both. Most citizens who owned large amounts of gold had it transferred to countries such as Switzerland.[citation needed]
‘Order 6102 specifically exempted “customary use in industry, profession or art”—a provision that covered artists, jewellers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The order further permitted any person to own up to $100 in gold coins (a face value equivalent to 5 troy ounces (160 g) of Gold valued at about $7800 as of 2011). The same paragraph also exempted “gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.” This protected recognized gold coin collections from legal seizure and likely melting.
‘The price of gold from the Treasury for international transactions was thereafter raised to $35 an ounce ($587 in 2010 dollars) resulting in an immediate loss for everyone who had been forced to surrender their gold. The resulting profit that the government realized funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by the Gold Reserve Act in 1934.’
“I think if my favorite distributor of wealth is re-elected President he will in his second term confiscate all gold.”
I thought you people all said he would do that his first term. Slacker.
Has Obama perhaps inspired more outlandish tinfoil hat conspiracy theories than any other president in history?
The golden rule, Third Millennium version:
Them’s that got the gold, they makes the rules.
Sounds an awful lot like the Second Millennium version. And probably each one before that, too.
Brazil, which has tiny gold reserves compared with its GDP. GDP ranks sixth in the world, (but Brazil) ranks a surprising 52nd in the world among gold holders.
That was pretty surprising. However with Brazil’s newly found huge oil fields coming AFTER energy independence, the potential to be the world’s largest food producer very soon and natural resources up the kazoo, I wonder if Brazil needs to own a lot of gold.
. This person was telling me this, an expatriate french guy, he claimed Brazil arrived at energy independence by becoming food dependant; sacrificing food producing farmland for ethanol.
Making for exorbitant food prices upon this newfound independence. First, I don’t know if this guy is right but surely energy independence comes at some costs/sacrifices, how is Brazil able to be a huge food producer; given that surely much arable land is devoted to the production of energy?
“…sacrificing food producing farmland for ethanol.”
Are you sure you aren’t confusing the country of Brazil with the state of Iowa?
And how much per barrel will it cost to produce that oil in the new finds and will Brazil still be energy independent after it cannot use “slave” labor to produce ethanol?
and will Brazil still be energy independent after it cannot use “slave” labor to produce ethanol?
IDK, but will the price of sugar rise after you stop beating your wife?
Sorry Rio does not work, I previously posted an article about the conditions of the sugar cane workers, if you can refute it do it but slave labor is what my article called it.
BTW, in the October 13th Economist they had growth in Brazil at .5% for the second quarter while Chile had 5.5%, are the Chicago boys eating the socialists for lunch?
From Lanka Business online:
Bitter Labour 1 Comment(s)
18 Nov, 200808:42:46
Slave labor reality of Sugar-cane ethanol
SAO PAULO, November 17, 2008 (AFP) - The cost of slave labor in sugar cane fields should not be overlooked when promoting the virtues of ethanol, the Roman Catholic Church said Monday, as an international conference on biofuel got under way in Brazil.
Conference host Brazil and United States, which use sugar and corn, respectively, to process ethanol, are the world’s leading producers of the gasoline substitute that is growing in popularity worldwide.
Besides environmental concerns over the clearing of forests and jungles to grow biofuel crops, the Church’s Pastoral da Terra (CPT) commission highlighted slave labor as a blotch on the biofuel industry.
Nearly 7,000 people were freed from virtual slave labor in Brazil’s sugar cane fields from 2003 to 2008, the CPT said in a statement issued at the start of a five-day biofuel conference in Sao Paulo attended by 40 countries.
in the October 13th Economist they had growth in Brazil at .5% for the second quarter while Chile had 5.5%, are the Chicago boys eating the socialists for lunch?
How old are you? 25? Here’s why I always question your economic and scientific understand and point out their flaws. You just cited one quarter’s growth numbers and tried to use them to make a macro economic economic AND political point. Scientifically or economically that’s just dumb or lazy or you have an agenda. Now what kind of person would have an agenda to spend hours and hours trying to debunk climate change and at the same time trying to scoff at Brazilian energy independence? Who would do that and why?
As far as Chili, you’re not going to get me to put them down because I know Chili and I admire much about Chili. I’d like to live in Chili. You obviously don’t know too much about South America because if you did you’d understand that Brazil and Chili have been in a race with each other for the past 15 years on leading South American growth. Which system is better? The countries are so different from each other that I’d say that the system each country has is best for them. You have to remember Chili has a much higher level of education than Brazil but both countries have done very well pulling people out of poverty lately.
But your presenting one quarter’s numbers like they mean something in the big 15 year trend is dumb. You need to look at the big picture. (which you rarely do) I’d say that for 15 years, Brazil and Chili have done a pretty darn good job for most of their people relative to other South American countries. Here’s an article from 2010 explaining what I’m talking about. Be careful. It talks about long term trends, direction and paces of change, somethings you have trouble with.
Chile, once Latin America’s economic model, now overtaken by Brazil
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0117/Chile-once-Latin-America-s-economic-model-now-overtaken-by-Brazil
For two decades, Chile was the “teacher’s pet” of Latin America, the student who always brought home straight A’s.
Economists gushed that the Andean country’s commitment to free-market policies and democratic reform made it a model for the developing world. And as Chileans enjoyed the trappings of a sustained average growth rate of more than 5 percent per year, poverty plummeted from 40 percent to 13.7 percent. But in the past year, Chile’s gold star has gone to its hulking neighbor to the east, Brazil.
The agricultural juggernaut just won its bid to host the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics; it discovered vast oil deposits that could turn it into a major oil exporter; it was one of the last countries to be pulled into the global economic crisis and one of the first to pull out.
To be sure, the so-called Chilean “miracle” that constructed the most solid economic foundation in Latin America still stands, and some of its slower growth today is merely a result of its own maturation. But Brazil is finally claiming new status in the region, and not just for its size.
“We always looked at Chile as something better than us,” says Arthur Ituassu, a professor of international relations at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica in Rio de Janeiro. “There is a growing sense in Brazil that we are now the major actor in South America.”
today, with more than a decade of stable institutions and sustained growth, Brazil is finally living up to its promise.
Foreign investment, for one, has poured in. Investors are drawn to everything from biofuels to soybeans. Between 1994 and 1998, Brazil attracted an average of $14 billion annually in foreign direct investment; in 2008 that figure skyrocketed to $45 billion, according to the United Nations’ Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean, based in Santiago, Chile. By comparison, Chile brought in $16.7 billion in 2008.
Brazil’s economy is vulnerable, especially as its currency, the real, has surged against the dollar, threatening exports. But inflation is under control, foreign reserves have been built up, and it has diversified its commodities trade. The government has helped to break 19 million people out of poverty since President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took office in 2003. His government raised minimum wages, augmented a conditional cash-transfer program, and helped create some 8 million formal jobs. Today, at 7.5 percent, the unemployment rate is below precrisis levels.
Nearly 7,000 people were freed from virtual slave labor in Brazil’s sugar cane fields from 2003 to 2008,
If you think I’m going to defend “slave labor” you are a fool. Thankfully with over a million workers in the Sugar Industry, the “slave labor” is a very small portion and falling. Brazil is cracking down on it hard. If your point is that Brazil is energy independent because of slave labor you are again grossly wrong on your math. It does not even equal a rounding error.
USA Today, 2012. The ministry said in a statement that its “dirty list” increased by 52 and now has a total of 294 employers, from big to small.
Until they stop the practice, the companies won’t be able to obtain credit from government and private banks.
Their products also will be boycotted by companies that have signed the National Slave Labor Eradication Pact, which according to local media represents 25% of Brazil’s Gross Domestic Product.
The dirty list was created in 2005 and is updated twice a year. To be taken off the list, an employer must pay a series of fines and unpaid labor-related taxes.
“The biggest penalty they (the blacklisted employers) face is not being able to get credits from the banks,” said Alexandre da Cunha Lyra, head of the Labor Ministry’s inspection service. “They are not worried with how much of a fine they will have to pay, but with possibility of not receiving any financing.”
He said the growth of the “dirty list” was not due to an increase in the number of workers submitted to slave-like conditions but to increased surveillance by ministry inspectors.
Brazil’s legal category of slave-like labor includes cases in which a person is subjected to exhausting hours, is forbidden to leave because of a debt with the employer and earns less than the minimum wage
“Brazil is cracking down on it hard.”
If they’re cracking down on it as much as your Southern Democrats, that slave labor is in real trouble.
If they’re cracking down on it as much as your Southern Democrats, that slave labor is in real trouble.
Do you think that the Dem Party having more racists in it 100 years ago takes heat off the Repub Party having more racists in it now? How? Is it something like “well, you did it too before”.
Or do you think that the Repubs freeing the slaves 150 years ago makes up for their racism now?
It’s a dumb argument and I’m surprised those using that odd argument somehow thinks it’s clever.
I know Chili and I admire much about Chili.
I just can’t spell it!
….immigrayshun
a couple things first..
1) the more people that are working in a free market economy, the easier all our lives become. if some disease wiped out half the world’s population, all our lives would get much more difficult. technology advances quicker in a growing population of workers. as such, technology would handle both pollution and the need for resources.
2) migrant workers don’t take jobs from anyone. when they work for low wages, it helps the economy. similar to automation, their low cost labor has good value and helps create more wealth that gets used to create more jobs.
i’ve never seen or even heard of any politicians who understand the above two points. if world leaders understood them, there would be much less chance of wars breaking out, for their falsely imagined concerns. after ‘the population bomb’ was written, it would have been good if someone would have wrote ‘the population boon’ to counteract the hysteria that was caused by that idiot.
the key to solving the immigration problem is to understand than immigration isn’t really a problem. we should welcome everyone that wants to come here, with a few rules.
a) immigrants must get criminal and health background checks. lawlessness is a drag on economies and people that have communicable diseases should not be allowed to enter for obvious reasons.
b) they must agree to learn both english and the way our constitutional government works. they should be given a very reasonable period of time to learn these things. doing things in more than one language is inefficient and one language helps bind a country together.
c) if they want to live here permanently, they must swear allegiance to the USA above all others. permanent residents should get mostly the same privileges as US citizens. if they only want to work here temporarily, they must leave when they have no work. they don’t have the same privileges as permanent residents. those who become permanent residents should have a path to citizenship.
d) those that came here illegally, must incur some sort of punishment. if they have been working here and did no crimes, they can stay with reduced privileges. they should not be allowed citizenship, or the right to vote, ever. they should be deported if they ever engage in serious criminal activity. any hint of gang membership should be grounds for immediate deportation. they should get rid of anything gang related, like tattoos. the last part of the punishment, would be a 5 year 5% income tax going to social security to help pay the transition costs to a much leaner system, or even its eventual dismantling.
e) there must be an understanding that there will never be free handouts or any kind of special entitlements.
if nothing else changed, these things would strengthen the dollar, create more wealth for jobs with higher pay, and create a more powerful economy.
we should be willing to take immigrants from all countries except the ME and countries that are considered to be enemies or belligerents.
right now, jobs are getting harder to find and they pay less. many mexicans have already left the USA because they couldn’t find work. i know because up to a few months ago, i had lived in mexico for the last eight years.
the only way our economy will get better is to roll back socialist policies, taxes and burdensome regulations. i don’t see any sign that we’re about to do so. romney would be a thousand times better than obama, but romney’s still a big spending liberal. we need to think about how to increase revenue, not how to increase taxes, because at this point, any lowering of taxes will increase revenue. roll back regs and revenue will increase even further.
something else to understand is that unless there is war, there is no advantage for whoever produces the resources. resources are vital, and they will always bring a profit to those who produce them. but there is even greater profit in making other things. counties like hong kong and singapore have very few resources, yet they’ve become very wealthy in the last 50 years just by producing useful things. when they produce useful things to sell they can buy more resources than they need.
so all the running around staking out resources like competing countries do, really doesn’t do them any good. it’s an inefficient use of their time and labor. just let private companies compete to produce the resources, and those resources will be cheap and plentiful.
and if in the future, we can automate the building of shelter, the production of food and transportation, then the prices of those things would get so cheap that the standard of living for everyone would soar. automation is just cheap and efficient production. and it frees up human labor to do better and more exciting things. making a living would become ridiculously easy. with so much wealth, private charities and human conscience wouldn’t permit people to go hungry or homeless. it’s impossible to be generous when one has nothing, and quite easy with great wealth.
one more word about population. if china ever chose to go to a totally free market combined with personal and property rights, they would leave the rest of the world behind in every phase one could imagine. they could easily outspend the rest of the world on their military. their huge population would assume a standard of living that the rest of the world would hardly believe. of course if they did this, (not likely) they would no longer be our enemy (unless we become the communists). and their phenomenal production would benefit the whole world.
How has the invasion of 30 million illegal Mexicans and the legions of anchor babies they pop out benefited working class white and working class black U.S. citizens?
How has the invasion of 30 million illegal Mexicans and the legions of anchor babies they pop out benefited working class white and working class black U.S. citizens?
the ones that work have been of benefit. the ones that come for handouts, hurt the economy.
You failed to address the question. How, exactly, did they help benefit society?
You failed to address the question. How, exactly, did they help benefit society?
i did address the question. i said that the ones that work, benefit the economy which benefits society. the ones that take handouts hurt the economy and shouldn’t be allowed to stay here.
i said that the ones that work, benefit the economy which benefits society.
This statement is way to broad and does not acknowledge the current sick structure of the American economy. When wealth/income inequality become so great, an ECONOMY can benefit without society benefiting.
We have clearly seen that the American economy can “grow” while 90% of American’s standard of living declines. This “economic benefit” then is NOT a benefit to society as a whole.
Therefore you statement can be and in this situation wrong.
When wealth/income inequality become so great
wealth/income inequality is a natural function of a prospering economy. the only way to narrow it is to make both the rich and poor, poorer. obama understands this and still wants everyone poorer for his ‘fairness god’. he’s a wretch.
an ECONOMY can benefit without society benefiting.
how could that happen?
We have clearly seen that the American economy can “grow” while 90% of American’s standard of living declines.
no one can stop you from ’seeing’ things that aren’t true. it’s a common socialist affliction. a declining economy causes a lower standard of living. you can say the sun is black, but that don’t make it so.
wealth/income inequality is a natural function of a prospering economy.
Yes it is. Everybody know that. However GROSS wealth/income inequality is not conducive to a prospering economy. Look around you now. America has greater wealth/income inequality than in the past 80 years and the American economy is in the worst shape in the past 80 years. This is not a coincidence. It’s like a Banana Republic, the economy might be “growing” on a top-line GDP basis but most the population is not prospering.
the only way to narrow it is to make both the rich and poor, poorer.
The “only way”?? That’s just dumb.
Again: We have clearly seen that the American economy can “grow” while 90% of American’s standard of living declines. (just like banana republic economies with massive wealth/income inequalities) Your theory is incorrect.
However GROSS wealth/income inequality is not conducive to a prospering economy.
what the heck is GROSS weath/income inequality?? you talk like some type of wealth inequality affects the economy. it doesn’t. wealth inequality is a result in an economy, not cause.
Again: We have clearly seen that the American economy can “grow” while 90% of American’s standard of living declines.
again: you’ve got blurry vision. economies don’t “grow” as the standard of living declines. you just make crap up out of thin air.
and you claiming “we’ve all seen” is a real steaming pile.
economies don’t “grow” as the standard of living declines.
Of course economies can grow as the standard of living for most people declines.
Perfect example: The USA the past 20 years. The American GDP (the economy) has grown, while the standard of living has declined for the middle class. Why? Because the only people benefiting from the GDP growth were the very rich.
you talk like some type of wealth inequality affects the economy.
Of course it does. Wealth inequality negatively affects the economy of the middle-class while benefiting the rich. Why? because gross wealth inequality puts the power in the hands of the super rich to funnel most all of the GDP gains into their hands. See my example above.
what the heck is GROSS weath/income inequality??
You know what it is. You’re just pretending that you don’t.
Gross: adj, Unattractively large or bloated.
Wealth: noun An abundance of valuable possessions or money
Inequality: noun, Difference in size, degree, lack of equality.
you just make crap up out of thin air.
LOL. I’ve yet to see a single piece of data or evidence to support your grandiose conclusions/right-wing talking points.
The American GDP (the economy)
you’ve just proven you don’t even know what the economy IS.
because gross wealth inequality puts the power in the hands of the super rich to funnel most all of the GDP gains into their hands.
more gobblty gook from the ‘lil’ guy. “funnel most all of the GDP gains”.. you don’t have a clue. tell me how they do this without the force of government.
in other words, government (force) put power in the hands of THOSE WHO BOUGHT IT.
The American GDP (the economy)
you’ve just proven you don’t even know what the economy IS.
What are you talking about? Economies are measured by GDP and GDP per capita. GDP is “the economy” in the largest sense of the word.
Now if you are saying the size of top line GDP growth does not accurately measure the economic growth of the middle class and the majority of Americans, you might agree with my point and you don’t even know it.
in other words, government (force) put power in the hands of THOSE WHO BOUGHT IT.
See? We are coming closer in our positions.
GDP is “the economy” in the largest sense of the word.
GDP is a measure of consumption. GDP isn’t ‘the economy’. there’s more to the economy than consumption.
GDP is a measure of consumption.
GDP…….Gross Domestic PRODUCT. PRODUCT. What we SELL to around the world too.
Dude you’re lost.
“…you just make crap up out of thin air.”
Is it really possible to make crap the same way the Fed creates its money?
“GDP is a measure of consumption.
GDP…….Gross Domestic PRODUCT. PRODUCT. What we SELL to around the world too.
Dude you’re lost.”
Add the Latin suffix ‘ion’ to PRODUCT and you get ‘production.’ And in most states of the world, production does not equal consumption.
Do you think dumbo (aka tj) ever opened an economics book in his lifetime?
the ones that work have been of benefit. the ones that come for handouts, hurt the economy.
I’ve got news for you. The ones that “work” collect all sorts of bennies for their anchor babies: medicaid, K-12 education, food stamps, etc. And you are paying for it, which is basically a subsidy for those who hire them.
The ones that “work” collect all sorts of bennies for their anchor babies: medicaid, K-12 education, food stamps, etc. And you are paying for it, which is basically a subsidy for those who hire them.
all those things should be ended. they never should have started in the first place.
Colorado,
when I get that pro immigration crap from people, I remind them of the lack of old Mexicans walking around them.
Like everything else, its a ponzi scheme.
The Mexigeddon has not even started.
It’s not the one worker, tj, it’s the wife, the six developmentally backward children, the four “at-risk” nephews, their cousins, their cousin’s homies. It’s the underground markets and jobs networks that bypass the “legitimate” economy. It’s the increased demands put upon school systems (and citizen schoolchildren) in trying to accommodate the illegal influx. It’s non-payers clogging up medical and emergency services for those who do.
You’re right that population migrations will happen regardless of political laws, but in the interest of stability and civic harmony it’s necessary to come to a better defined standard of what’s acceptable and what is not. Either open the borders and restrict citizen benefits, or institute (and enforce) confiscatory penalties on those who hire illegal immigrant labor. In either case, we need to reform our visa process.
It’s not the one worker, tj, it’s the wife, the six developmentally backward children, the four “at-risk” nephews, their cousins, their cousin’s homies. It’s the underground markets and jobs networks that bypass the “legitimate” economy.
That’s what they said about my greasy Italian grandparents
And those darn Irish.
And those darn Irish.
And my Cornish ancestors, who were quite good at getting into fights with the Irish immigrants in American mining camps. Let’s just say that the Cornish and the Irish were quite pugnacious back then.
And your family obviously assimilated, as have Mexicans like the real-life family I cited above. That doesn’t negate the sociological realities of illegal immigration — some of which I listed in my post.
IIRC, Italian immigrants formed some of their own extra-legal societies when they immigrated, neh? And it’s important to note that for the most part they immigrated (and were assimilated) into this country LEGALLY.
It’s not the one worker, tj, it’s the wife, the six developmentally backward children, the four “at-risk” nephews, their cousins, their cousin’s homies.
what is?
underground markets and jobs networks that bypass the “legitimate” economy.
what causes underground/black markets? the answer is government laws and regs.
increased demands put upon school systems (and citizen schoolchildren) in trying to accommodate the illegal influx.
put an end to sanctuary cities and government support of invaders and illegals.
non-payers clogging up medical and emergency services for those who do.
end the handouts. immediately.
You’re right that population migrations will happen regardless of political laws
i never said that and don’t believe it.
In either case, we need to reform our visa process.
we need to stop the invasion, and boot out the gangs and criminals, and everyone else that isn’t here to work.
tj answer: Well those things shouldn’t happen…
+1 ahansen
I agree with some but not all of your post. Immigration that raises the average IQ of a nation is good but the type of immigration we have had with illegals is bad. They do not produce enough tax revenue to offset what they take in services and the State of California is a prime example. On every measure, California is worse off than around 30 years ago when illegal immigration took off.
Population growth is not a good thing, if the the population is just producing more consumers not producers. Resources are finite but very intelligent people can find ways to entend them. However, these type of people are the cognitive elite. While many are not to be found in the 1% that are routinely attacked, they are over represented in that group. If you can attract a person who can design a robot to pick crops, you can avoid importing one million people that will lower the per capita income of the country.
Immigration that raises the average IQ of a nation is good but the type of immigration we have had with illegals is bad.
the small differences in IQ don’t make a great deal of difference. and if they are capable of doing a job employers want done, it makes no difference at all. i’m talking about the economy, not themselves.
They do not produce enough tax revenue to offset what they take in services and the State of California is a prime example.
don’t think in terms of ‘tax revenue’, think in terms of wealth creation. and yes, they should get no special services.
On every measure, California is worse off than around 30 years ago when illegal immigration took off.
i agree with you. i want legal immigration, not invasion. legal immigration with the rules i gave above.
Population growth is not a good thing, if the the population is just producing more consumers not producers.
true.
Resources are finite but very intelligent people can find ways to entend them. However, these type of people are the cognitive elite.
not so much that as ambitious.
If you can attract a person who can design a robot to pick crops
there is no single person that can design a robot. it takes a team.
you can avoid importing one million people that will lower the per capita income of the country.
it doesn’t work that way. with a ‘growing pie’ there are more jobs and higher pay.
I will like to see some data supporting each of your points. For example just your last point, where you claim the growing pie increases wages, why has our population increased by 50% since 1976 our incomes have stagnated and actually fallen?
I will grant you robots maybe made by teams but virtually every one of them will be high IQ and ambition will not make up for a lack of it.
why has our population increased by 50% since 1976 our incomes have stagnated and actually fallen?
because we’ve burdened the economy in many ways. we’ve over spent, over taxed and over regulated, almost continually through the decades.
every one of them will be high IQ and ambition will not make up for a lack of it.
high IQ will not make up for lack of ambition. and high IQ isn’t needed to work within an economy. i’m not disparaging high IQ. it’s just not the be all and end all that many people think it is.
And I would say that the well paid people I work with all have significantly above average IQs.
This is not a good time to have average intelligence.
Talk to residents in some of the meatpacking centers out here in Flyover, like Emporia and Garden City, Kansas,
Greeley, Colorado.
Back in the late 70s, it was a union job. Didn’t pay huge amounts, but you could do okay.
Then the owners decided they could break the unions by hiring illegals.
Fast forward to 2012, and the influence of legals (who didn’t come here to fill open positions, but to undercut wages of existing workers) and illegals. My “quality of life” isn’t enhanced by the multitude of Spanish language radio stations, half-azzed Mexican restaurants whose promary purpose is to put the extended family from the old country to work, having traffic accidents with uninsured Mexicans, and paying taxes so the local police forces can have half of their time occupied by domestic violence and drunken brawls/shootings in bars, where the opponents names always seem to end whit “ia” and “ez”.
And, oh yeah, the celebration of Mexican national holidays, and the Mexican flag waving. We’ll be celebrating Santa Ana’s win at the Alamo any day now.
(OTOH, the azzez they kicked were mostly Texan, so it’s not all bad……but I digress……
Any observation and discussion of the above is, per the Coastal Elitist Libtard Media/Education Race-Hustler Industrial Complex, is Racist®.
Don’t like your country turning into Mexico? You are a Racist®.
Racist®! Racist®! Racist®! End of discussion. See how that works?
“Don’t like your country turning into Mexico? You are a Racist®.”
To become a Racist®, instead of just a boring old racist, do you have to pass a test or something?
half-azzed Mexican restaurants
I liked your post but that part made me hungry. I’m going to make some tacos. I have some frozen corn tortillas that I brought in my luggage in July.
The official designation of Racist® can only be awarded by the Coastal Elitist Libtard Media/Education Race-Hustler Industrial Complex.
The core principle of which is that only white people can be Racist® (although black and brown and yellow people can sometimes be branded “Homophobic”).
When the CELMERHIC decides they don’t like the opinions, or even the mere observations (ex: John Rocker) of someone, they launch a coordinated smear campaign to brand this person with the scarlet R of Racist®.
Notable Racists® include Pat Buchanan, Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, Marge Schott, and Trent Lott.
Boy, you are really smoking the good Republican/corporate reefer today.
In an ideal world, we’d have controlled immigration like you say. We’d also have candy crapping unicorns.
If illegals and legals were coming here, and were taking the jobs of politicians, and all of the Romney “looks like the guy that fired you” types, we’d have employers in jail, and tanks parked track to track along the Rio Grande.
They could stop the illegal problem tomorrow, if they wanted to:
-Mandatory jail time for people who hire illegals/lawsuits against corporations who hire illegals, who subsequently cause death/destruction/property damage to legal residents.
-Pass a law banning children of illegals from getting citizenship.
Monkeys will fly out of my butt before any of these things happen.
Another angle you are forgetting to this immigrtion discussion - reliable voters for one party. The imigration will result in parmanent Democratic majority. Embrace it!
The imigration will result in parmanent Democratic majority. Embrace it!
it’s difficult for foreigners to vote in other countries. it should be difficult for them to vote here too. their voting rights should have to be earned by earning citizenship. citizenship would be a lengthy and learning process.
-Mandatory jail time for people who hire illegals/lawsuits against corporations who hire illegals, who subsequently cause death/destruction/property damage to legal residents.
That’s commie talk. The government should never interfere in the inalienable right to make a profit.
Illegal aliens cannot vote. The citizenship process to do so in the United States is at least as onerous (and expensive) as it is for other countries, including Mexico.
The government should never interfere in the inalienable right to make a profit.
i know you’re being sarcastic, but that’s 100% correct.
That’s why laws against murder shouldn’t apply if it was ‘for hire’. “Hey, I was just trying to make a profit!”
That’s why laws against murder shouldn’t apply if it was ‘for hire’. “Hey, I was just trying to make a profit!”
another strawman. i’ve said repeatedly that lawlessness hurts economies.
Oh for crying out loud, I botch the formatting of the first post of the week
Here’s the second posting attempt:
In a world where the labor is increasingly being leveraged and/or replaced by technology, and with finite resources having to be divvied up among the populace, increasing numbers of people is not a good thing.
I don’t know where this mantra got started. If massive populations are such a good thing, look at the crowded places in the Third World. If more population is good, these should be veritable Gardens of Edens instead of unpleasant places. On the other hand, places with lower population densities in the West are typically desirable places to live.
If massive populations are such a good thing, look at the crowded places in the Third World.
look at the government they have instead. look at how well people do in economically free countries. give those in the third world our constitution, and follow it to the letter, and those third world masses would rapidly begin moving into the elite economies of the world.
Oh please. The current economic juggernaut (AKA “the world’s factory”) is a totalitarian state.
I’m thinking there’s an optimal population density for maximum quality of life. Places like Sweden are probably closer to the optimal density than many Third World locales.
Now, massive populations can lead to large armies and low priced labor. But that’s not good for the individuals in the population. Large populations may be willing to do heavy, difficult, dangerous labor for pennies a day, but that’s not something the rest of the world should strive for.
“I wanna be the first kid on my block to achieve wage parity with the developing world.”
“give those in the third world our constitution, and follow it to the letter, and those third world masses would rapidly begin moving into the elite economies of the world.”
India?
I’m thinking there’s an optimal population density for maximum quality of life.
yes, but technology keeps raising the optimum. there are people that would love to live under the ocean. (i’m one of them). others like the view of high rises. we have a long ways to go before population impinges on quality of life. hey, some people would even like to move to other planets if possible.
Now, massive populations can lead to large armies and low priced labor
large armies yes, if that’s what the nation wants. massive populations can also lead to very high wages in a free market that has protected property and personal rights.
Large populations may be willing to do heavy, difficult, dangerous labor for pennies a day,
a free population would soon be automating these things. better jobs come through the automation of worse jobs.
but that’s not something the rest of the world should strive for.
if everyone strives (works) for whatever they want, the world takes care of itself in the best way possible.
India?
any country. freedom and free markets work.
“…On every measure, California is worse off than around 30 years ago when illegal immigration took off….”
That’s what they said thirty years ago when President Reagan called for amnesty. And forty years ago when Governor Reagan declared amnesty in CA. And fifty years ago when they ended the Bracero Program. And sixty years ago when they opened the borders to new workers during the war. And seventy years ago after the Zoot Suit Riots. And eighty years ago…
And yet California was and remains a net donor state.
They were right thirty years ago and they are right now. People are voting with their feet proving it. It use to attract U.S. citizens now it drives them out.
Well, Dannyboy,
I’ve lived in California for sixty years and my peeps have been here since before the gold rush, and we’re all pretty happy with the place, actually. In fact, none of my immediate and secondary generation families on either my father or mother’s side have permanently moved out of the state in my lifetime.
Thirty years ago there was a recession and housing bust going on, and everyone blamed it on the illegal immigrants then, too. And thirty years ago President Reagan declared amnesty, and SOCUS ruled that anchor babies were citizens and what followed was the biggest economic boom in American history…. So it kinda makes you wonder, huh.
we’re all pretty happy with the place, actually.
I wonder if that’s why people love taking potshots at Californians. I’ve been here since 1989 and still love it. Yeah, it can be a nutty place, but there’s an open-ness here that I haven’t found in other places.
With my MBA, I promise to do my best to entend our resources -
Exo-Digitally Enhanced Humans – Part 1
October 21, 2012 By Shelly Palmer
The Future
One striking aspect of this presidential campaign season is the lack of vision for, or even mention of, the future. Neither campaign is talking much about how it sees the future unfolding. We’re hearing differing views about how 20th Century jobs can be created. Some candidates (not specifically presidential candidates) are speaking of creating high-paying, hi-tech jobs in New York, my home state.
Here’s the problem: We are never going to need vast numbers of unskilled laborers again. In fact, we don’t need them now. People who translate the value of their muscles to wealth by repeating minimally complicated algorithmic tasks are being replaced by computer-controlled machines at an alarming rate. This trend will never reverse; these jobs can never be recreated.
more:
http://www.shellypalmer.com/2012/10/exo-digitally-enhanced-humans-part-1/
People who translate the value of their muscles to wealth by repeating minimally complicated algorithmic tasks are being replaced by computer-controlled machines at an alarming rate.
more like satisfying rate. automation improves our lives. it doesn’t diminish them.
This trend will never reverse; these jobs can never be recreated.
nor should they be. should we go back to farming with a hand plow, or trash the ATMs like obama wants? automation is value and efficiency. it frees up human labor to do different and more exciting things.
So what do we do with the billions that have no employment value?
So what do we do with the billions that have no employment value?
nearly everyone is employable in a prospering economy. the ones that truly can’t work would be easily cared for.
nearly everyone is employable in a prospering economy
We had a prospering economy, until we offshored all those jobs. According to our captains of industry, those people have no value.
We had a prospering economy, until we offshored all those jobs.
those jobs were driven offshore by high taxes and regs.
According to our captains of industry, those people have no value
As citizens they have no value, but as consumers…well that’s another story.
You don’t have to be a communist to appreciate the fact that Marx predicted this problem a long time ago.
We had a prospering economy, until we offshored all those jobs.
those jobs were driven offshore by high taxes and regs.
It’s the union’s fault. If American workers hadn’t insisted on ridiculous things like an 8-hour workday, an end to child labor, weekends off, a livable wage, and safe working conditions, then we would have 100% employment.
those jobs were driven offshore by high taxes and regs.
This is not true. If the duties had remained the same as in the past the “high taxes and regs” would not have made any difference.
Brazil has much higher taxes and regulations than does USA but their high import duties keep many jobs here.
If American workers hadn’t insisted on ridiculous things like an 8-hour workday
they didn’t. henry ford brought the 40 work week at least two decades before he got unionized. he didn’t do it out of the kindness of his heart. he did it to keep the workers he was training but couldn’t keep at lower wages. i believe their $5/day wages were higher adjusted for inflation that union labor is now.
an end to child labor
that was ending before the child labor laws were passed. it was ending because we were becoming prosperous and could afford not to have our children work.
weekends off, a livable wage, and safe working conditions
all that happens in a prosperous, growing economy. and it all starts to go away in a weakening economy.
Brazil has much higher taxes and regulations than does USA but their high import duties keep many jobs here.
yeah, that’s the ticket. higher taxes, regs and tariffs. that’ll make things lots better.
you need to google “the seen and the unseen” and read it.
Brazil has much higher taxes and regulations than does USA but their high import duties keep many jobs here….
yeah, that’s the ticket. higher taxes, regs and tariffs. that’ll make things lots better.
Either you’re dumb, not paying attention or spinning a failed political/economic globalization agenda. My argument was not for higher taxes or regulation. My argument was that higher tariffs can keep jobs inside countries in spite of higher taxes or regulation - as they did in Brazil and as they used to do in America.
Just regurgitating a lot of CATO’s ill-considered verbiage and specious arguments to see what might stick, then responding with non sequiturs and meandering speculation.
That’s the thing about repeating other people’s arguments; you have to have thought them through in order to add to the discussion.
My argument was that higher tariffs can keep jobs inside countries in spite of higher taxes or regulation - as they did in Brazil and as they used to do in America.
you’re even dumber than i thought. the jobs that tariffs ‘keep in your country’ get destroyed, so you won’t have them anymore anyway. keep takin’ those vitamins.
and as usual, you just regurgitate the usual socialist bilge. the same socialist bilge that has caused massive misery to the whole world. congrats.
That’s the thing about repeating other people’s arguments; you have to have thought them through in order to add to the discussion.
you just regurgitate the usual socialist bilge.
LOL…..Yes, It is very socialistic for someone to tell you your arguments need to be thought through.
Next thing you know, some communist is going to tell you that you need to employ reasoning in your posts. But I got your back.
Do your research.
Work day hours: Read about the Haymarket Affair (1886)
Working conditions: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (1911)
Woolworth employees strike (1937)
While you are at it, read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.
you’re even dumber than i thought. the jobs that tariffs ‘keep in your country’ get destroyed,
In what language? By definition, jobs that are kept in Brazil are not destroyed.
Brazil still makes a lot of shoes, shirts, washing machines, computers, tv’s etc. Because those jobs are protected by high tariffs. Those jobs have not been destroyed.
But your “argument” just has been. Again.
Brazil still makes a lot of shoes, shirts, washing machines, computers, tv’s etc. Because those jobs are protected by high tariffs. Those jobs have not been destroyed.
you have no idea how destructive your ‘protective’ tariffs are. i suggest you guys raise them even further for more protection. it’s like you’re telling people they need a little poison to feel better. and when they start feeling worse you tell them they just haven’t taken enough poison yet. more taxes, tariffs and regs are all you need. unbelievable.
By definition, jobs that are kept in Brazil are not destroyed.
again, why don’t you just google “the seen and the unseen” and learn how destructive government intervention in the market really is?
you have no idea how destructive your ‘protective’ tariffs are.
Tell that to the people with JOBS. Dude you’re lost.
tj = latest paid Retardican troll to attack the HBB.
This, too, will pass.
Automation hasn’t been the jobs killer. Offshoring has been the jobs killer.
I think both have. Many jobs no longer exist that employed massive numbers of people, everything from typing pools to assembly line production.
But offshoring has been the big killer the past decade and I’m guessing it won’t even come up in the debate tonight.
Onshore, baby, onshore!
I think offshoring happened so fast in so huge numbers that it had major impact. Automation takes time and workers slowly migrate to the new environment. Offshoring in a period of 10-20 years to China and India has taken away many many jobs.
As RIO said, excise duties and tariffs is the solution. All BRICs have it. USA is great and it doesn’t want to protect their citizens. Second is fighting with currency manipulation. US has been lucky that USD is reserve currency otherwise we were all toast by now.
I was reading your post right up to this point, then I stopped…
“romney would be a thousand times better than obama”…
I was reading your post right up to this point, then I stopped…
win some, lose some..
Poppycock! He would be exactly 312 times better.
Poppycock! He would be exactly 312 times better.
ok, sorry about that.
Excess labor = low wages
The rest of your argument is now moot.
Excess labor = low wages
The rest of your argument is now moot.
excess labor is a function of a bad economy, not a higher population. now your moot is moot.
The only people who benefit from cheap, illegal labor are business owners, as they pass the steep social costs of illegals (which can easily dwarf the meager wages they earn) to the taxpayers.
The only people who benefit from cheap, illegal labor are business owners
i don’t want illegal labor.
Well, that is what the bulk of the low educated immigrants you claim help the economy are. And even if they are “legal”, they are still low paid and will consume pricey social services like foodstamps, medicaid, K-12 education, etc., forcing taxpayers to subsidize business owners.
Well, that is what the bulk of the low educated immigrants you claim help the economy are.
yes, but i’ve already said that this wrong.
And even if they are “legal”, they are still low paid and will consume pricey social services like foodstamps, medicaid, K-12 education, etc., forcing taxpayers to subsidize business owners.
i’ve said over and over that we shouldn’t be giving anything away to invaders or immigrants, legal or illegal. it’s insane to bring people here to take care of them. no freebies.. ever.
i don’t want illegal labor.
Boycott! Stop eating all fruits and vegetables.
Does not matter the cause. It is still axiomatic.
In the 1980’s people working in meatpacking plants were making $25 without adjusting for inflation, now they are making around $12 a direct result of immigration.
In the 1980’s people working in meatpacking plants were making $25 without adjusting for inflation, now they are making around $12 a direct result of immigration.
Dan, i know you genuinely believe that. but i assure you that that’s not the reason. the reason is that our economy has been weakening for a long time. and as it gets weaker, there are fewer jobs, and wages decline. this is the price of socialism.
the reason is that our economy has been weakening for a long time. tj
You just proved my point tj. You just said the economy “has been weakening for a long time” (referring since back in the 80’s)
Fact: Since the 80’s the GDP has grown almost EVERY YEAR. But as you say, the economy has “been weakening for a long time” referring to declining wages since the 80’s. ($25 in the 80s declining to $12 now)
So you just made my point:
An economy can grow for decades, on a top line GDP basis enriching the rich, while the middle-class can see a decline in their pay and standard of living. (The example of $25 and hour in the 80’s declining to $12 and hour today)
The economy has grown for decades while the middle class standard of living has fallen. Growth has only benefited a few. Why? Gross wealth and income inequality put’s the power in the rich’s hands to funnel all of the benefits of any growth only into their hands.
By socialism you mean the jobs that were sent to communist China by American capitalists, right?
Because if you aren’t you are talking out of your… hat.
Every nation has the right to control its borders. Immigration is a very good thing, but wholly unrestricted and open to anyone who wants to come in has never been the policy of any nation, and standards of who should come and who shouldn’t be imposed on us by outsiders. Even Mexico resents it when Salvadorans, Hondurans, etc. enter their nation illegally.
We need to balance a rational, fair and humane immigration policy with good border security and the ability to set our own standards for who can enter. There is work to do on both fronts.
Every nation has the right to control its borders.
yes, and a duty.
Immigration is a very good thing, but wholly unrestricted and open to anyone who wants to come in has never been the policy of any nation, and standards of who should come and who shouldn’t be imposed on us by outsiders.
first, we shouldn’t continue to make the mistakes of the past just because it was commonly done in the past. second, the rules i gave in my first post ARE restrictions, just not restrictions in numbers. a greater number of people working in our economy greatly benefits us. lastly, you are correct. we need to ignore what outsiders tell us they want, and always do what’s best for us instead.
Even Mexico resents it when Salvadorans, Hondurans, etc. enter their nation illegally.
yes, every nation does and should resent invasion, and illegal immigration.
We need to balance a rational, fair and humane immigration policy with good border security and the ability to set our own standards for who can enter.
we need to strictly do what’s best for our nation and let others do what they think is best for theirs. more people working equals a better economy. i wrote above what i think the standards should be.
Border control is something I wholeheartedly agree with.
Border control is something I wholeheartedly agree with.
so there is something we can agree on after all!
I can always agree on facts.
He LIVES!
Welcome back, nso
migrant workers don’t take jobs from anyone.
Of course migrant workers take jobs from Americans. Look around. I used to do those construction jobs working through college. In Brazil every construction worker on my house was Brazilian. I’m sure illegal workers from Paraguay would have costs 50% less but Brazil does not allow it. Why? Because they would take jobs from Brazilians.
when they work for low wages, it helps the economy.
Low wages do not help an economy (of the majority) when the pool of low wages become so huge and all the benefits of the low wages flow to the top 1% (or fewer) of a society. Sure you might get economic “growth” in a GDP number but if 90% of the growth of the GDP number is flowing to only 1% of the population and general wages are declining, how is this “helping the economy”?
In Brazil every construction worker on my house was Brazilian. I’m sure illegal workers from Paraguay would have costs 50% less but Brazil does not allow it. Why?
why? because they’re self-destructive idiots that don’t have a clue about economics. i don’t give a crap if they continually shoot themselves in the foot while they think they’re taking vitamins. more power to ‘em.
Low wages do not help an economy (of the majority) when the pool of low wages become so huge
the pool of wages becomes huge because of a sick economy caused by big government policies.
Sure you might get economic “growth” in a GDP number but if 90% of the growth of the GDP number is flowing to only 1% of the population and general wages are declining, how is this “helping the economy”?
first, why is the top 1% such a big thing with you guys? why not 2% or 5% or 10 or some other number?
second, while 1% will always remain 1%, the people in the 1% is always in a state of flux. people are entering and leaving it all the time. very few of them are continually in the 1% or 2% or 5%. people become successful and move up. others make bad or unlucky decisions and move down. the 1% argument is nothing but a red herring.
first, why is the top 1% such a big thing with you guys?
Because 0.01% or 1.3% takes more time to type. But you get the idea.
the people in the 1% is always in a state of flux. people are entering and leaving it all the time.
Such was the case when the USA had less wealth inequality. But now the 1% or the 0.01% have a much higher share of the wealth compared to the 99% than they did in the past. When this happens, it becomes much harder to enter the 1% because the bar is so much higher and the greater wealth inequality provides a much higher entry barrier. ie education, contacts etc.
The downward path of upward mobility
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-downward-path-of-upward-mobility/2011/11/09/gIQAegpS6M_story.html
The most comprehensive comparative study, done last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, found that “upward mobility from the bottom” — Daniels’s definition — was significantly lower in the United States than in most major European countries, including Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark. Another study, by the Institute for the Study of Labor in Germany in 2006, uses other metrics and concludes that “the U.S. appears to be exceptional in having less rather than more upward mobility.”
A 2010 Economic Mobility Project study found that in almost every respect, the United States has a more rigid socioeconomic class structure than Canada. More than a quarter of U.S. sons of top-earning fathers remain in the top tenth of earners as adults, compared to 18 percent of similarly situated Canadian sons. U.S. sons of fathers in the bottom tenth of earners are more likely to remain in the bottom tenth of earners as adults than are Canadian sons (22 percent vs. 16 percent). And U.S. sons of fathers in the bottom third of earnings distribution are less likely to make it into the top half as adults than are sons of low-earning Canadian fathers.
Surveying all the evidence, Scott Winship, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, concludes in this week’s National Review: “What is clear is that in at least one regard American mobility is exceptional. . . . [W]here we stand out is our limited upward mobility from the bottom.”
When you think about it, these results should not be so surprising. European countries, perhaps haunted by their past as class-ridden societies, have made serious investments to create equality of opportunity for all. They typically have extremely good childhood health and nutrition programs, and they have far better public education systems than the United States does. As a result, poor children compete on a more equal footing against the rich.
…because there is a huge, HUGE jump from the 5% to the 1%.
If Obama wins a 2nd term he won’t have to worry about being reelected.
This means he can go “buck wild”.
Should we keep replacing presidents every 4 years until we get one that “works?”
Wouldn’t it be nice if we had one that “works” in the first place…
If we are to elect Presidents that will only “work” because they know they will be out of a job in four years then it seems we well be electing the wrong Presidents.
Electing for eight years in two four-year chunks does something similar in that the first four-year chunk is spent by the President on setting things up so he can be re-elected for the second four-year chunk.
Screwey, but there it is. And the solution to this problem is …
… what?
What’s the problem?
We need to remove corporate and party interests from elections.
We need to remove corporate and party interests from elections.
yes, but the only way to do that is by reducing government power for sale. see “capture theory”.
Yeah, that’s what I thought, until I heard about “Honey-Boo-Boo”.
Maybe it’s the voters we need to remove.
Maybe it’s the voters we need to remove.
And now you understand yet another reason why we have an electoral college…
I think that is Mr. obama’s intention. He will go super on wealth redistribution.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
But here is the problem, should you really be lumping millionaires and billionaires? My God, you are talking about people that differ in wealth by 1000 times.
For example, the person running a GM auto dealership has no real interest in wages in this country being driven down to people to point where they cannot longer buy his car. However, the people that own GM do not care about wages in this county since they deal with a world market.
I think other have said on this board that the democrats are the party of billionaires and the republicans millionaires. That is somewhat an over simplification but it does ring true. SNAP (food stamps) benefits the billionaires if they can use the program to get votes for globalization which is neither in the interest of millionaires nor the working class.
the person running a GM auto dealership has no real interest in wages in this country being driven down to people to point where they cannot longer buy his car…
I think other have said on this board that the democrats are the party of billionaires and the republicans millionaires…it does ring true
By your reasoning, the millionaires (the GM dealer types) would be Democrats, no?
Congratulations, you’ve just articulated why we pick on the 1% instead of the 5%, although there are plenty of 5% who still blame falling wages on the victims and as you just said, don’t get the connection between good wages and ability to buy their products.
I think that is Mr. obama’s intention. He will go super on wealth redistribution.
he will do even more and worse than that.
(Obama) will go super on wealth redistribution.
he will do even more and worse than that.
He might mandate proper punctuation??
See this? These are crocodile tears for the billionaires.
Boo hoo hoo hoo.
“Should we keep replacing presidents every 4 years until we get one that “works?””
Yes.
If Obama wins a 2nd term he won’t have to worry about being reelected.
yes, i think he’s the most dangerous president this country has ever seen.
Should we keep replacing presidents every 4 years until we get one that “works?”
yes, but what the majority thinks “works” doesn’t. so we’ll keep electing boobs until we wise up.
Exactly, because starting 2 wars based on fraudulent information and sending jobs to china and allowing financial fraud on a scale NEVER before seen in the history of mankind, is so much better.
and allowing financial fraud on a scale NEVER before seen in the history of mankind, is so much better.
aww, right after we agree, you give me a strawman.
OK smartguy, so you explain how deregulation and under funding regulatory agencies will somehow work different under Romney? Catastrophic theft, fraud, banking abuses and borderline criminal financial schemes will somehow be contained because we have a new Capitalist in the white house. I remember what happened and how it happened. Sell your snake oil somewhere else.
explain to yourself smartguy.
You are the one who said Obama was the most dangerous president. Turkey gave you a counter example. I don’t see that as a strawman.
I don’t see that as a strawman.
he implied i said something ridiculous, that i didn’t say. that IS a strawman.
Technically one of the wars wasn’t fraudulent information at the time.
*snerk*
yes, i think he’s the most dangerous president this country has ever seen.
I know. And I know for sure he’s the darkest.
I know. And I know for sure he’s the darkest.
the worst kind of slime is a race baiter. and you’re a race baiter. i’m all done answering you from here on in bub.
the worst kind of slime is a race baiter.
Own it dude. It’s your party’s history.
i’m all done answering you from here on in bub. tj
Smart move. Because I destroy your dumb points. One by one. Please don’t stop.
If Obama wins a 2nd term he won’t have to worry about being reelected.
This means he can go “buck wild”.
Uh … doesn’t he need congress to pass legislation to implement his alleged commie/Marxist paradise?
Not after he takes all our guns away! Which he will do any day now! Any day. Just you wait. Any day now.
Not after he takes all our guns away! Which he will do any day now!
Obama already stated, in the 2nd debate with Romney, that he favors implementing the Assault Weapons Ban previously passed by Clinton, which in 2002. Of course, Romney passed the MA version of the AWB as governor…
As uneasy as I am with Romney, I did like his answer better, along with his explanation of why he did it in MA. Not saying I liked it a lot…but it’s all a matter of degrees…
Should have been “passed by Clinton, which expired in 2002″.
ANY DAY NOW!
I have been a long time visitor since 2007. I have been tempted to build, i have found a small piece of land with a teardown and was wondering what to expect cost wise per sq ft. How is the builder market these days?
Depends on where you are and what you’re trying to build. HBBer “Realtors are Liars” aka “Housing is Cratering,” etc (he has a lot of names) says $60/sq ft to build excluding land. Maybe for a builder-grade crapshack, but if you want good design and fine finishes I would expect that to double to $120/sq ft.
A good place to start is building-cost.net. You can plug in the specifics of the house you want and it will calculate a rough build estimate.
And another underwater debtor desperately holding onto a fading lie speaks about something she knows nothing of.
IBC governs materials. Not you. Not me. You’re going to get the same sitework, same concrete, same lumber, same deck, same nails, same paint, same everything. Going from VCT to ceramic doesn’t double the price my friends. Going from contractor grade windows to a name brand doesn’t double the price either.
Don’t be smoked by debtors who know nothing about developing estimates and bids.
When you said $60/sq foot I always thought that was a reflection of your plans for deflation. I thought you were waiting for building materials and other costs to collapse.
It varies by market. Homes in Palm Beach are running $85 to $105 per square foot and the builders still can’t compete with existing construction.
Don’t be silly….
Materials don’t “vary”. Nor does labor. And contractors easily compete down to roughly 50-$60/sq.
Labor DOES vary materials also vary. Building codes are substantially different between areas of the country.
No builder in Palm Beach builds new construction for $50 per foot.
building fees in CA can buy you a home in other states.
“Labor DOES vary materials also vary. Building codes are substantially different between areas of the country.
No builder in Palm Beach builds new construction for $50 per foot.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Materials are the same price in every single area we design AND build. And that’s every state in the country.
Furthermore, a formwork or framing carpenter rate varies $2/hr, maximum.
And yes…. we’ll build all day long in Palm Beach for $50/sq.
Material and labor costs can vary just from one end of my city to the other.
Really? Lumber prices are double on the other side of town? And my carpenters rate changes when he moves to the next town over?
You guys don’t know what you’re talking about.
I live near a very large metropolis and I didn’t say double, I just said varies.
Oh I see…. as in a nickel. You’re right. It varies….. by a nickel.
“And yes…. we’ll build all day long in Palm Beach for $50/sq.”
Commercial or residential? There is a difference, I imagine new commercial without build outs could be done at $50/sq all day long but I don`t know of anyone building residential at that price.
Meh…. sounds sketchy Jethro.
M&L on Non-residential structures is more cha-ching than shanties. Substantially more. Yeah in some cases there are efficiencies in big stuff, i.e, no partitions, flat roofs but the materials are entirely different. Structural steel v. wood framing, q-deck versus plywood, 4′ thick/4′ deep reinforced haunched slabs versus 8″ block or CIP walls, etc.
I’m building 12k sqft right now at a price per square foot rate LESS than resale asking prices of housing in some of the grossly inflated areas.
Materials don’t “vary”
Brick and tile is a lot cheaper along the Mexican border.
Socialism is alive and well in my red state. You can bet the builders charge more to do work in the fancy neighborhoods.
What he said.
It also depends on just how fancy you want to build as well. My advice would be that if you want to spend money, spend it on the bones, not the bling.
Birdboy, your name is misspelled again.
Ah poop.
Birdboy or Birdgirl?
Birdboy has made enough sexist, male chauvinist, comments on the HBB to confirm its gender. Also note that birds do not have gender-specific genitals, they have a cloaca from the latin word for “sewer”, which is exactly where birdboy’s mind resides
How is the builder market these days?
That’s a tricky question. It improved 95,000 units over the previous month and led to the conclusion by many commentaries I have read that we have “reached a bottom” in housing. But that was one month of data, and the volume was within the range of statistical insignificance.
As I recently queried, “Is the housing market being manipulated by controlled releases of inventory?”, I have found a commentary by John Hussman that tends to support my belief. He writes:
According to CoreLogic, about 22% of mortgages are underwater, with mortgage debt that exceeds the market value of the home. Likewise, banks have taken millions of homes into their own “real-estate owned” or REO portfolios, and have dribbled that inventory into the market at a very gradual rate. All of that means that the availability of existing homes for sale is far smaller than the actual inventory of homes that would be available if underwater homeowners were able, or banks were willing, to sell. Accordingly, much of the volume in “existing home sales” represents foreclosure sales, REO and short-sales (sales allowed by banks for less than the value of the outstanding mortgage). That constrained supply of homes available for sale is one reason why home prices have held up. At the same time, constrained supply means that new home buyers face higher prices and fewer choices for existing homes than they would if the market was actually clearing properly. Given those facts, buyers who are able to secure financing (or pay cash) often find it more desirable to build to their preference instead of buying an existing home. It’s not clear how many of these starts represent “spec” building by developers, but it’s interesting to note that the average time to sell a newly completed home has been rising, not falling, over the past year.
(end of quoted remarks).
That noted, it seems that builders should be anxious to make a sale.
No one knows the future. My guess is that the “bottom” is actually a FLAT trough that will go along for several years as the slow release continues, unless the FED can induce some good “inflation” by continual ‘money printing’. So, what to do?
I’d say, if you want a house and need one, you might as well build it. You probably won’t get a more advantageous time to work with competing builders to provide a better market for building. I’ve noted that lumber prices were down quite a bit some months back.
But, if you are looking at some “investment” advantage, thinking you are going to be building in a climbing price environment, I would say it’s a loosing proposition. Lots of used houses available.
The existing inventory problem will hold the prices down for years, as the banks unload them, and other “underwater” buyers slowly add to the stream of existing “bank-owned” properties.
The existing inventory problem will hold the prices down for years, as the banks unload them, and other “underwater” buyers slowly add to the stream of existing “bank-owned” properties.
You got that right.
Ylekiot1,
You’re going to need an excavator for a few days to put the old structure on the ground, a few days of a laborer to help equipment operator get it into the roll off and whatever it costs for disposal of ___(fill in with a number) rolloffs.
Hey, wily,
A good rule of thumb for owner-contracted is to take your highest estimate and double it. Then double that. Chances are, you’ll come in just under budget.
Good morning everyone.
Great article in the Daily Telegraph this morning, I strongly recommend we all read it, probably more than once;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9623863/IMFs-epic-plan-to-conjure-away-debt-and-dethrone-bankers.html
I see a couple of factual errors. For instance, England broke away from the concept of Sovereign/Papal debt in 1694 with the creation of the Bank of England under William Of Orange, not 1666. And Evans suggestion that the end of fractional reserve lending would return control of the US money supply to the Federal Reserve should surely read “US Department of the Treasury”, not the Fed.
But these are minor quibbles. It’s a very thought provoking article and cheers me up on a Monday morning to think the IMF are actually talking about these kind of things. I really didn’t think they did.
Thanks. Will check it out when I can.
That is indeed a very interesting article. I know the moralists will oppose any solution to the economic crisis that doesn’t involve widespread pain. Will they approve of a painless end to the oligarchic banking system? Will they approve if it means the end of fractional reserve banking?
More importantly, will the oligarchs approve?
Fascinating proposal, English. Thanks for introducing it. A few preliminary thoughts occur to me:
1. Requires an international army willing to “beat the pulp out of” speculators who control their wages– and certainly won’t go along quietly. What’s the incentive for private banking? They can’t even get the EU to agree, how are they going to convince EVERYONE?
2. You’re essentially just going from private credit to government credit. Since Wall Street de facto DOES control the US (and arguably international) economy, other than nominally, what would be the difference? Interest rates can’t go much lower….
3. Wouldn’t re-instituting Glass Steagall regs address the quantity of money and quantity of credit issues?
4. What would prevent private individuals from lending to other private individuals — and eventually forming their own extra-judicial banking system?
As FPSS is fond of telling us, “That which cannot be repaid, will not be repaid”. But this is an interesting alternative to outright default.
Denver Post - Layoffs, failures test Colorado’s “new energy economy”
“The resilience of Colorado’s vaunted “new energy economy” is being tested after a series of job cuts, financial setbacks and political firestorms.
The latest loss was Phillips 66’s announcement last week that it is pulling the plug on a major alternative fuels research and development center that was planned on the former StorageTek site in Louisville.
That followed the recent news that Vestas Wind Systems was making its biggest round of Colorado layoffs, bringing the job cut tally to about 500.
The Weld County district attorney’s office is investigating the failure of Colorado solar panel manufacturer Abound Solar, and congressional Republicans are asking tough questions about Abound’s federal loan guarantees.
Also in the loss column is General Electric’s recent decision to suspend development of the proposed $300 million PrimeStar Solar plant in Aurora that would have employed 355 workers.
At the least, the setbacks are a speed bump in Colorado’s effort to maintain a leadership status in renewable energy. At worst, they could significantly impair growth of the industry.
The combined layoffs, plant closure and mothballed projects in Colorado represent the loss of more than 1,000 existing and projected jobs, plus millions of dollars of tax revenue and spinoff economic activity.
Hard times for the green industries stem from a combination of technical challenges, low cost foreign competition and an uncertain outlook for government support of alternative energy.”
I travel on I-40 a lot and a few years ago I would see wind turbines being transported almost every trip and now they are very rare. It is not just Colorado.
I am starting to look into building my own wind turbine. I have seen a few on residential properties throughout the city.
Anyone here done this? Know anyone who has?
We were thinking of it but they’re kinda noisy aren’t they?
They supposedly need to be 30 feet above the highest obstruction (trees, etc.) and this can simetimes cause permitting issued. Also, I was told they should be on a standalone structure, as the vibration can be noisy and cause issues.
Yes. We have them up here and their success is mixed.
Even if you had the necessary minimum wind speed to make it viable, I doubt that you could get permitting for one in SF proper. The liability issues on securing the tower alone (not to mention the physical space for guy supports), are daunting. (Think uprooted beach umbrella X 10.)
Then there is the noise. Turbines emit a constant high-pitched hum (in addition to the air chop) that can drive you and your neighbors nuts if you’re sensitive. They slash up migratory birds. They have maintenance issues you probably can’t address by yourself. Storage batteries have to be monitored and replaced. Reliable ones are expensive. Some people (like me) get the heebie jeebies around all that constant movement and low-grade noise. Like a pinwheel that never stops.
If you’ve a lot of space and good wind flow they can be great, but it’s a lot cheaper just to hook up to the grid if that’s an available option. I’d go solar (or hydro-electric) before I’d switch entirely to a turbine.
I believe I saw earlier this morning that Siemens has pulled out of their trek into Solar…
FWIW, Colorado generates 20% of its juice from wind. And our prices are fairly low.
“…uncertain outlook for government support of alternative energy.”
I was at a dinner a few years back in Bellevue on alternative energy, and one of the VC panel speakers said that was the biggest concern of VC investment in the US – the uncertainty of governmental policies, including subsidies, on renewable. It wasn’t the fact of things like the blenders’ credit for biodiesel going away, it’s just that you cannot build a business model upon the uncertainty of these things increasing, vanishing, morphing at the whim of Congress. So consequently, there wasn’t the private investment in these start-ups, and then you get the bad press of a company like Solyndra (the only company in the investment portfolio by the way that failed – a really good success rate from any VC perspective) and we’re back to a future of more drilling and mining while we continue to lag behind Europe and Asia.
“…cannot build a business model upon the uncertainty of these things…”
There are several companies doing just fine. Maybe those VCs meant they didn’t see how to game the market.
Exactly. This doubles as the reason gov’t should get out of the housing industry.
Is the renewable energy sector profitable on its own?
Or is the profit so much less than other investment sectors that VC’s need the certainty of government cheese to match the profitability of the other sectors?
Well she put it a little more eloquently than I did, but that’s really the purpose of venture capital, or any institution (or individual for that matter) in today’s society – to game the system. Invest, make X return and get out in 3-5 years. Some companies fail, some deliver market returns and a few are home runs. The company I was working with really didn’t offer any earth-shattering technology, although the big talk then was algae and PV breakthroughs. And since the government is subsidizing much of this industry around the world, it’s no wonder that we continue to fall behind. We continue to heavily subsidize timber, agriculture, rail, universities, etc. It seems silly to turn our back on start-ups at the time that it’s most needed with private money drying up.
Does anyone think they will wheel out the PPT this week?
I think the rally will be next week.
Everybody wants OPM these days:
The ad of the top of my HBB page is for Gerber child life insurance. I had to click on it to see WTH it was. Basically: $5-$50K of life insurance up to age 18 with low premium. The kid can keep buying the insurance when he’s older (i.e. won’t be denied later on). And, “The Grow-Up Plan protects your child or grandchild while starting a nest egg he or she can borrow from later on. ”
Haaay-zeus, what a racket.
Because borrowing from your OWN money, that is now no longer yours, is always a smart move.
Once again, life insurance is being sold as an investment. Which it is not.
Its sole purpose is to cushion one’s heirs in the event of an untimely death. That’s it.
Better name for it would be death insurance, but that would never sell.
I dunno. I have death insurance. Enough to cover the house if I snuff it and my wife is stuck as a single mom. She has the same deal.
Washington Post - Report on pay comparison between federal and other workers to be released
“The government Friday will release its latest assessment of how federal employee salaries compare with pay for other workers, potentially putting federal pay once again in the election year debate over the cost of the government.
The new figures almost certainly will repeat long standing conclusions that the government substantially underpays its workers. Last year’s data indicated that federal workers are behind by 26.3 percent on average, and federal pay rates have been frozen since then…
While federal pay has been a long running issue, the cost of the federal workforce has drawn heightened scrutiny in the last several years, and especially during this year’s presidential campaign. In addition to proposing a 10 percent workforce cut through attrition, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney argues that federal workers are overcompensated by 30 to 40 percent on average.
That assertion is based on a study by the conservative Heritage Foundation that includes the value of benefits; based on salary alone, that study found an average advantage to federal workers of 22 percent. The government’s own data do not reflect the value of benefits.”
No mention of private-sector, for-profit, Invisible Hand Of The Free Market, government contractors in the article
“The government’s own data do not reflect the value of benefits.”
Just an oversight, I’m sure.
But, but, gov workers are overpaid! Everybody says so!
Let me know when I can spend “benefits” at the grocery/gas station/utility/mechanic. Benefits that I’m NOT getting for free.
Heard on the news this morning:
Initiative aims to limit pay for hospital’s executives
Union-backed measure would cap compensation at twice the governor’s salary
Top executives of El Camino Hospital could see their compensation slashed by tens of thousands of dollars if South Bay voters approve a measure backed by an employees union.
The measure isn’t the only effort to restrict compensation for executives at the state’s 74 taxpayer-funded health care districts and their hospitals. The Assembly will consider a bill today that would limit lavish payouts to top administrators.
Damm ObaSocialists in Cali.
How dare they try to limit the unmanipulated, decided fair and square judgement of free-market compensation levels ?????
“Let me know when I can spend “benefits” at the grocery/gas station/utility/mechanic. Benefits that I’m NOT getting for free.”
Less out-of-pocket when you have a medical procedure, as well as less deducted from your paycheck for medical insurance, equals more to spend for those other goods and services. A retirement with a COLA, when compared to the fixed monthly retirement check you get from the private sector, equals more to spend for those other goods and services.
Better benefits do indeed put more money in your pocket.
I pay more of my insurance premium now than when I worked for a major mulitnational. “Free” health insurance is for state and local workers, not federals.
I do appreciate the flu shot I am going to get later in the week, but all the law firms I worked for provided those at no cost to the employees as well.
Ah, the “lessor pain” argument.
Which is probably the worst argument one can ever make.
Pensions are NOT benefits. They are deferred wages and many people, especially gov employees, also contribute to their OWN pensions. It is still money OUT OF POCKET, no matter the amount. Money that CANNOT be used for other, more immediate, expenses.
many people, especially gov employees, also contribute to their OWN pensions.
$600 month from my paycheck goes into STRS (State Teacher’s Retirement System, part of CALPERS).
I doubt I will ever see that money. Can’t opt out, either.
True, but you don’t pay into Social Security and to date CALPERS has had a much better return. Not sure if that will continue, but like so much else, we just don’t know.
I have been a long time visitor for over 5 years, but have always been too shy to respond to y’all’s comments.
Due to legal problems as a 17 year old kid, I am unable to rent a house or apartment in a decent neighborhood for my family. Many HOA’s will not allow me to legally live there unless I own the property and restrictions for my situation have not been in place.
My family moved last year because of my wife’s job, and I have been technically living in a hotel for 8 months now. The landlord will not allow me to live in the property my wife is leasing, and we can’t afford breaking the contract, which ends in February.
Unfortunately, the real estate market is very competitive right now, and housing options are very limited.
Housing is a need, not an ‘investment’, and the current monetary policies are hurting middle class Americans while helping the rich.
legal problems as a 17 year old
Did you get arrested with an ounce of weed, or did you murder somebody?
This doesn’t make any sense…
Probably got a felony. Felons are restricted from renting in apartment complexes and from many jobs. If the OP did a victimless crime, I am sympathetic. If not, I am not sympathetic. Many small landlords don’t check background history or arrest records. I would understand if HOAs do.
Felons are restricted from renting in apartment complexes and from many jobs ??
Hmmmm…..I am not quite sure that is legal…I have a niese that in senior management of a large wealth management company that invest solely in apartment complexes….Big complexes…200 units & up…I will ask her….
It’s common practice up here to collect the fifty bucks for the background check, but never have it run. And this is for the larger propety management companies in town. I’d put on a nice button down and khakis when you look at the place, act respectable, and roll the dice. The decision to run a background check in more often than not a judgement call.
Or, as was mentioned, look for a place owned by an individual. Good luck.
I am wondering if it is a sex crime since that seems to be one of the only crimes that would cause such a problem and would not have resulted in a very long prison term.
Actually, my main reason for thinking sex crime is the disclosure requirements that come with it. Thus, people would know and not want the individual in the community.
Even so, there are sex crime offenders living all over SoCal. One lives in our neighborhood. As you suggest, the info is publicly available:
Registered sex offenders in San Diego, California
If anyone can offer comment on why the locations shown on the map seem to “bunch” with gaps in between, I am interested. Three possible explanations come to mind:
1) The map only displays select areas of SD county; e.g., Ramona is not included.
2) The map only includes SD City proper, not surrounding communities.
3) Some communities make it relatively more difficult for sex offenders to locate there than others.
The map might look like that due to exclusion zones (x feet from schools, parks etc.) Also, some landlords don’t care and word gets around.
I engaged in a relationship with a 14-year old girl in HS; I was 17 years old. She got pregnant and her parents accused me of sexual assault. I spent 5 years in prison to pay for my ‘crime’. However, I am mandated to register every year as a sex offender for the rest of my life.
FYI… I married the 14-year old girl when I got out of prison and we have 3 beautiful kids together. It was never assault, but her parents wanted to punish me for engaging in a sexual relationship with their daughter.
FYI…Romeo and Juliet laws only apply when the victims are 15-year old r older.
NOBODY wants to lease to a sex offender.
When I registered in the current address, one of the neighbors contacted the landlord to complain that I lived there. The contract is under my wife’s name; he forbid me from being in his property. Therefore, I have been staying at an extended stay hotel in the meantime.
Boy, I’ll bet Thanksgiving dinners with the in-laws are a lot of fun……’
One word: Pardon
We’ve never spent any holidays with her family.
But what X-GS said is the important thing. You should seek a pardon with the governor.
I’m typically not sympathetic towards criminals, especially not a sex offender. But “sex offender” typically connotes violent or manipulative sexual predators (e.g. Sandusky or violent rapists). A three year age difference, both teenagers, both parties under 18, and now married as adults with more children, doesn’t fit the description of predator.
If you approach the governor, you should state clearly that a) you are not predatory and b) you are not sexually compulsive or out of control. Governors pardon lots of people. Also, the media might take up your case, if the facts as you state are accurate.
Well what the landlord did is ILLEGAL….he cannot forbid you from the property without talking you to court..you have a lease and she is your wife…
You could also use that Illegal self help eviction to get out of the lease And demand he return your deposit too..
Why is it so many people cant figure out how to use the internet, or the courts???
It is easier said that done. When you are a registered as a sex offender, all government agencies at all levels are always trying to look f*ck you over.
Every time we get back into the US (airport or port or border), I am singled out, separated from my family and questioned for extended periods of time because I am automatically flagged.
I live in feat; any offense in my case can have serious repercussions. Thus, I try to keep a low profile.
I was not an applicant in the rental application; my wife was.
I married the 14-year old girl when I got out of prison and we have 3 beautiful kids together.
————-
Are you subject to those “can’t reside within 1000 feet of a______” laws?
Unfortunately, yes.
We have tried several to get a judge to remove the restriction from my case, but most judges do not ever want to appear ‘weak’ towards sex offenders.
During our house hunting process we used the Megan’s Law website before putting in an offer on any house.
That said, it’s hard to use the sex offender registry to make decisions, because there are people like you - who are not a threat to children or anyone else for that matter -that pop up on the lists. Major fail.
Laws sure are draconian now. Back in the 50s, a guy would just be marched off to the recruiting office.
who are not a threat to children or anyone else for that matter -that pop up on the lists. Major fail ??
Not as far as law enforcement is concerned….The more criminals in their data base the better..Keep them coming through that slot machine turnstile…
Like ZLpin said, he will be treated much differently for an offense then you or I would…Why ?? Because when he was 17 he had sex with his 14 year ld girlfriend…
So, even when he gets to 50 and all his children are raised and through college lets say and he and his wife have been married for roughly 30 years, he will still be treated and looked upon by both the general public and more particularly the DA as some kind of pervert…
Did you know that you could get arrested and charged as a sex offender for peeing on the side of a public road…
charged as a sex offender for peeing on the side of a public road…
Yeah, if we’re going to have life-long punishment for sex offenders, we need to be a little more careful about what constitutes the offense. Mooning someone, or skinny-dipping, shouldn’t mark you for life. Except as being a normal person.
What you did in HS was wrong in the eyes of the law, but it also seems wrong that the fallout from a presumably consensual liaison which happened before you were an adult follows you the rest of your days and puts you in the same category as John Albert Gardner III.
The situation is plainly wrong, and brings to mind one of my favorite truisms: “The law is an ass.”
Find a very small landlord who doesn’t live on the property…and make sure you have first last and deposit…..
You know the old saying Money TALKS…and boooolsheet walks…
Always wave CASH in front of a landlord and quite a few will look the other way. Same with pets offer an extra $500-1000 deposit and that no pet clause vanishes
The landlord will not allow me to live in the property my wife is leasing ?
Why ??
Food, shelter, clothing and medicine ARE, indeed, necessities and the PTB in this country know this and have convinced us all that we should pay through the nose for them.
As for your situation, you are just going to have to wait it out and NEVER screw up again. Eventually you may be able to have your records sealed. Background check usually only back about 15 years at most.
The background check only going back 15 years is irrelevant if he is a registered sex offender in the present.
ZLPin,
Thanks for writing in. I’m assuming that you’re on Megan’s list which de facto limits the area where you are allow to live to sparsely-populated places, miles from where children congregate (IE, schools and parks.) If this is the case, you’re in luck IF you’re willing to move your family to the country and if you’re willing to align yourself with a local church group.
The flipper boom left lots of empty spec “retirement” homes in rural boondocks, and by now the banks are getting desperate to either sell them or long-term lease them. I’d look on the far outskirts of where your wife is employed, put yourself in the hands of a local congregation, publicly repent of your past behavior, and let them get to work finding your worthy, hardworking family a house to live in. Good luck to you.
Sounds like good advice. Also ZLPin I’d like say I’m happy for how things turn out for you even with all these hassles. I have a friend in a similar situation due to a much more casual hookup with a consenting adult that went bad due to the girl’s embarrassment at being caught by her boyfriend. His life is extremely difficult now due to the issues you describe. Even though the girl recanted as soon as she saw what a mess she’d made…didn’t matter to the DA. They scared him into pleading guilty to a lesser charge that still put him on “the list”…
I don’t think he even has to do the “join a church, publicly repent” thing. In most rural communities around here, a 17 year-old dating a 14 year-old, who later marry, is the most normal thing in the world. He just needs to get the word out that this is the nature of his “sex crime”.
Of course, joining a local church never hurts if you want to fit in to a small town. That’s one of the reasons I’ve never wanted to live in one.
Of course, joining a local church never hurts if you want to fit in to a small town. That’s one of the reasons I’ve never wanted to live in one.
Same here.
That is my point. In small rural communities, tribalism is very important. When I said repent, I meant let them “save” you, initiate and take you into the fold, watch over you and protect you and your family from “the outside”.
Churches are custom made for self-defined “sinners” — which is why I scrupulously avoid them.
Old Catholic parishes are not so full of ex-cons and 12 steppers as the evang and community churches.
I think ahansen has some good advice here. What you need is the ability to get a rental far enough away from the places that you aren’t allowed to live and that all of you can share. A large commercial landlord is going to go by their corporate policy. A lot of small landlords aren’t going to ignore the background check if they pay to have one done (or if they make you pay for it). If you were part of some other deeply committed community that would take a “risk” on you based on common interests, that would be ideal (”Any herpatologist is a friend of mine”), but local churches are the most likely to fill that role when you are new to an area. And they generally have a stated interest in fathers being committed to their kids, keeping married couples together, etc. And they will often have people from a lot of lines of business in the community.
I’d approach a place as a family (make sure the pastor or the board or whoever you meet with) see all of you together. Explain what you need (a rental, not a hand out) and that you are willing to do whatever they require if only it is better situation than you are in now where you can’t even visit your family in their home.
Working on a pardon is good idea too. Make sure to list all the things that that happen that hurt your kids and your wife (cost of you living elsewhere, wife having to practically live as a single parent, etc.) in the letter.
You guys that are talking about pardons…that’s something I’d never even thought about before. Is that more common than I realize? I’ve never even heard of anyone getting a pardon for such a thing…
Expungement - FindLaw - Criminal Law - FindLaw
http://criminal.findlaw.com/expungement/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
Expungement is a legal process through which an arrest or conviction may be erased from a person’s criminal record. Below you will find links to in-depth …
I’ve never understood the need to persecute people for consensual personal activities in the first place, let alone turn them into social pariahs. That zip and his wife have stayed together through all the tribulation that’s been thrown at them is something to celebrate and encourage, not continue to punish them for.
Be sure to see the movie There Will Be Blood (assuming you haven’t yet done so) before you follow any advice along these lines.
Curiously, Prof., the story by Upton Sinclair was written about a family who owned property within a half-day’s horseback ride of here. All the locations, the pipelines, even the characters (though filmed in TX) were about the environs of 1920’s Bakersfield, CA. There is a fascinating oil museum there that houses the massive wooden drilling sets from the movie.
NAR spokes-whore Amy Hoak pimping overpriced housing for the kidz:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kids-of-boomers-are-smarter-about-housing-2012-10-22?link=home_carousel
From the article: “Members of Gen Y are living at home with their parents, but this survey suggests they’re being strategic in living at home, not because they’re slacking”
Umm, no. They are because they are working 3 part time jobs making less than $500/week. Because the future belongs to Lucky Ducky!
Agreed. The kids I know who have good jobs are getting married and are buying starter homes. The problem is that there aren’t many of them.
Meanwhile, those of us who are “experienced” and are “hogging the good jobs” aren’t getting raises (even when rated as “exceeds expectations”), even though our employers are making money hand over fist.
As long as people continue to blame everyone but the culprits (did your raise at least meet inflation?), this pain will continue.
even though our employers are making money hand over fist ??
I agree….How is it that the “economy” is doing so badly but corporate america has record amounts of cash on the books…
Damn unions! That’s why!
Oh wait…
I love the eXiled. Great article, though preaching to the converted for the readers here:
http://exiledonline.com/recovered-history-wall-street-funded-self-help-propaganda-greased-the-real-estate-bubble/
The Automatic Millionaire Homeowner hit the front bookcase displays at Barnes and Noble in March 2006, at the very top of the real estate market and just a few months before the whole thing crashed and burned. Its main message was simple: If you take out a mortgage to buy a home, you will always make money. There is no way you can lose—no matter when you buy, how much you pay or what type of loan you get. And the kicker is: both the book and finance expert who wrote it were bankrolled by Wells Fargo and Bank of America.
This book is just one of dozens—if not hundreds—of similar self-help snake oil guides promising a sure bet system to get rich in real estate. But it’s a good example of the massive propaganda effort financed by Wall Street that was designed to funnel as many people as possible into the mortgage meat grinder. The book was packed with blatant lies that seem so obvious and even comic in retrospect. The book was not put out by some shady fly by night operation, but by a supposedly credible financial expert who had the backing of the most well-known and respected banks, TV networks and newspapers.
But the whole thing was a fraud, shamelessly boosted by some of the biggest names in news media—none of whom have been held accountable for their role in defrauding millions of Americans.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
…as I was saying…
“If you take out a mortgage to buy a home, you will always make money. There is no way you can lose—no matter when you buy, how much you pay or what type of loan you get.”
Isn’t the Fed’s Plan A to use Cargo Cult Economic Stimulus to restore these conditions to the housing market?
P.S. Cool to see from the linked picture that Charles Hugh Smith is a musician…no surprises here!
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
The Federal Reserve’s Cargo Cult Magic: Housing Will Lift the Economy (Again)
The Federal Reserve is ultimately a Cargo Cult, founded on fantasy and a boundless faith that management perception will bring back the cargo ships of debt-based “growth.”
I have often identified Keynesian economists and the Federal Reserve as cargo cults. After the U.S. won World War II in the Pacific Theater, its forces left huge stockpiles of goods behind on remote South Pacific islands because it wasn’t worth taking it all back to America. After the Americans left, some islanders, nostalgic for the seemingly endless fleet of ships loaded with technological goodies, started Cargo Cults that believed magical rituals and incantations would bring the ships of “free” wealth back. Some mimicked technology by painting radio dials on rocks and using the phantom radio to “call back” the “free wealth” ships.
The Keynesians are like deluded members of a Cargo Cult. They ignore the reality of debt, rising interest payments and the resulting debt-serfdom in their belief that money spent indiscriminately on friction, fraud, speculation and malinvestment will magically call back the fleet of rapid growth.
To the Keynesian, a Bridge to Nowhere is equally worthy of borrowed money as a high-tech factory. They are unable to distinguish between sterile sand and fertilizer, and unable to grasp the fact that ever-rising debt leaves America a nation of wealthy banks and increasingly impoverished debt-serfs.
The Keynsian Cargo Cult relies on an essentially magical belief that government give-aways will raise “aggregate demand,” the “animal spirits” demand for more of everything, which will magically increase productivity, wealth, etc.
The Cargo Cult faithful do not understand diminishing returns: at some point, the interest on skyrocketing debt drains income and capital from potentially productive investments to pay for previous unproductive spending on fraud, friction and malinvestments. “Free money” creates moral hazard, which means that those who can borrow money for almost nothing and never have to pay it back act entirely differently from those paying market rates for money and backing their loan with real collateral that is at risk.
The Keynesian Cargo Cult is based on ever-expanding debt and fiscal moral hazard. The Federal Reserve Cargo Cult is based on ever-expanding debt and monetary moral hazard. The Fed loaned over $16 trillion to “too big to fail banks” at rates that are negative once inflation is accounted for, and it has essentially stolen hundreds of billions of dollars from savers and pension funds in order to subsidize the housing industry with artificially low-interest mortgages.
The Fed’s plan to boost more consumer borrowing/spending via the “wealth effect” by elevating the stock market has failed. The “wealth effect” is classic Cargo Cult magic: if you make people feel richer by managing their perceptions, they will start acting richer, i.e. borrowing and spending more based on phantom assets.
…
How appropriate that the homeownership investing guide was for sale in the town of Joshua Tree. Long-time HBB posters know we used to have a running joke about applying the needles of a Joshua Tree’s branches to a FB’s soft parts.
Yeah, I noticed that and thought the same thing!
The political types on this board rant and rave about Obama and Romney as if one of the other is the devil incarnate. I think that is an exaggeration.
But wonder why no one is bothering to rant and rave about Pelosi and McConnell, Boeher and Reid. They are the devil incarnate.
They are all dirty rats, but Mitt sent American jobs to communist China.
Let us know when anyone else can top that.
And don’t forget that “Pro-life” Mitt made money off of the abortion industry.
And Obama eats dog meat.
Did you enjoy the “Dreams Of My Real Father” DVD?
We were hoping to get one in the mail, Arapahoe County is allegedly the top battleground in the state this year.
Did you enjoy the “Dreams Of My Real Father” DVD?
It makes a good coaster.
Obama has Kenyan ancestry, and Mitt’s ancestors were Mexican polygamists.
Obama has Kenyan ancestry, and Mitt’s ancestors were Mexican polygamists.
And I’m beginning to think that some of my ancestors were pirates. So there.
some of my ancestors were pirates
You should bank on that and open your own Pirate Store.
One of the finest (and first) universities in the country was founded by a pirate.
Founded by or initially got its first big chunk of funding from? Because there is a subtle difference….
“One of the finest (and first) universities in the country was founded by a pirate.”
Haaarrvard?
Howz about “foundational monies”? The College of William and Mary was established by royal charter, but ’twas Sir Francis Drake and the Hampton Roads Privateers what procured a big chunk of its endowment doubloons.
William and Mary was my first guess, but, unsurprisingly, the easily findable information was a little fuzzy on the origins of the money. Thanks. Like to learn something every day.
“And I’m beginning to think that some of my ancestors were pirates. So there.”
And I’m beginning to wish some of my ancestors were American Indians, as I keep meeting folks who get special bennies for having just the slightest fraction of their bloodline trace that direction…
“Pro-life” Mitt made money off of the abortion industry.
Money (Mamon) trumps moralistic talking points with most Repubs.
+1 WT….
Switzeland style local authority and elections are needed. We are too centralized (more so than Soviets) and prone for massive failures. That’s why the insiders love it.
Great idea except the states have proven time and time again to be the biggest violators of your Constitutional rights and then some.
FWIW, Pelosi and Boehner are elected locally. I don’t like either of them, but I can’t even cast my puny, single vote against them.
And worse yet, Pelosi’s district is only up the road from where I live, but even I can’t vote against her…
Your vote for your local rep or Senator is really a vote for the leadership. And only a vote for the leadership. Because the vote for leader is the only meaningful vote the backbenchers make.
Every see video of a Congressional “debate?” The only reason anyone bothers to say anything is to have something to put on YouTube for the people back home. There is no one in the room. They barely show up. The real action occurs in the offices of the leadership.
My Congresswoman didn’t know that slavery was eliminated in New York State before the merger that formed the City of New York occurerd in 1898. And she is Black.
Didn’t the Emancipation Proclamation end slavery nationwide? In 1863?
Yes it did. And it had been ended in New York decades before that.
My Congresswoman is an idiot. Her mother was smart, and started a political dynasty, of which we have many (ie. Governor Cuomo II).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/congresswoman-yvette-clarke-claims-slavery-still-around-1898-colbert-report_n_1857969.html
I saw that on Colbert, and at first thought it was part of a comedy sketch. Turned out, it was….
I’ll trade my over-my-dead-body vote for Kevin McCarthy, for your over-my-dead-body vote for Nancy Pelosi. Anyone?
“The political types on this board rant and rave about Obama and Romney as if one of the other is the devil incarnate. I think that is an exaggeration.”
This election is about reversing the “Fundamental Transformation of America”. It’s not about Republican vs. Democrat, it’s about Capitalism and Constitutional government vs. Communism.
I would vote for any candidate (Libertarian Party, Rent is too damn high Party, Tea Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc.) who loves this country and believes in our constitution and our system of government.
Just so happens that Romney is the only non communist in this year’s election, so I have to hold my nose and vote for him…and I suggest the rest of you do the same.
The professorial revolutionaries currently occupying the white house are putting us in great peril both domestically and internationally. Four more years would be devastating.
“Romney is the only non communist in this year’s election”
I have to clear that statement up a bit. He is the only non communist in this year’s election with a chance to win.
How can you call someone who sent American jobs to communist China, non-commie?
Hello?
Look, Obama is instituting a command and control, top down and redistributive architecture modeled at best after the failed European model and at worst after the failed (and bloody) communist model.
If that is what you prefer, vote for Obama, otherwise you have to vote for the other guy. I urge all Americans to vote for the other guy.
Look, Obama is instituting a command and control, top down and redistributive architecture modeled at best after the failed European model
Like Sweden?
Besides, Obama is doing no such thing. Thinking so is paranoid and ignorant.
Wealthy advised to sell for gains before unfriendly 2013
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-19/wealthy-advised-to-sell-for-gains-before-unfriendly-2013.html
take your profits while you can, dont get greedy. This market is way to complacent.
I’ve known people who made 100% profit on their investments and then asked me if they should stay all in.
Seriously? No, seriously?
I hear this crap all the time: should I sell, should I not. Who said you have to sell all of it? Hedge your bets by selling HALF of it and quit whining.
As for the 100% profit, was it JP Morgan who said “I got rich by selling too soon.”
I sell if I have 20% gain. No matter what.
Just creates a problem in the tax time because too many transactions to report.
You don’t always get winners, and the losers will kick you in the butt no matter what. So, when you have a winner, you have to take advantage. I’ve learned this lesson the hardway:
1. If you still think the stock is a bargain based on the same reasoning the caused you to buy it in the first place, don’t sell any (unless of course you have massive concentration–which you never should have had in the first place);
2. If you think the stock is close to fairly priced after you bought it at bargain levels, sell some and diversify.
Sometimes you gotta let the winners run a bit–if they aren’t tired.
#1 happened a few times in the past few years, when I purchased some REITs at rock bottom pricing. Some stock I bought at $2, and doubled to $4, but was still too cheap. Now it’s about $13, and still not FULLY valued, but approaching a level where I would sell some.
Am I “greedy”? Some might see it that way. However, I’m a firm believer in looking at the present and future as opposed to the past when making investment decisions.
Tax does complicate things, but if you are selling to pay your tax at today’s rates, you must not feel great about the long-term prospects of the companies you own anyway.
What is going on in Phoenix? Properties are rising quickly but still way put of line with incomes. Local house that couldn’t get a sniff at 175k in April just sold for 195k after a bidding war. This is for a property that was bought as a flip for 129k last year.
I would like to buy a house but refuse the shackles that come with buying in an overpriced market. Am I crazy?
Some questions:
Does Phoenix have a strong job market, with lots of good paying jobs that don’t require a Masters degree?
Who is buying the houses? Speculators? Snow birds? Ordinary families?
Best I can tell a good portion are speculators or snowbirds
Oh, and BTW if you are “In Colorado” you have a useful vote for President this year, but most voters do not.
Everyone has a useful vote for President. Those of us in states like California or Texas, where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, will cast a useful vote if and only if we vote for any third party candidate.
Colorado voter here casting our “useful vote” for Gary Johnson.
Don’t forget the downticket races.
Does Phoenix have a strong job market, with lots of good paying jobs that don’t require a Masters degree?
Even if it did, there are folks who would still advise “don’t buy”.
I’m down in Tucson, Arizona. From what I’ve heard, there’s quite a bit of speculative buying happening in our state.
“Investors have purchased more than 30 percent of all single-family houses and condominiums sold this year, and their purchases have grown to an even bigger percentage of all sales in the past few months.
The type of investor has shifted dramatically this year, from small and large local investors to billion-dollar funds based in New York and Los Angeles. A Republic analysis of purchases, provided by real-estate data firm Information Market, found that in some areas of metro Phoenix, the most active three or four investors own more than half of the rentals.
The most prolific homebuyers are New York-based Blackstone Real Estate, Los Angeles-based Colony Capital and Scottsdale-based American Residential Properties. Those groups alone have purchased more than 3,000 houses in the area so far this year.”
http://www.azcentral.com/business/realestate/articles/20121005phoenix-housing-investors-market.html
Yesterday I noted that it was bad lending (lenders being able to sell the debt they originate, thus not caring about repayment) and the resultant bad debt which led to the financial crisis, both here and in the world at large. In a market with less government intervention, this would be self-correcting. The debt buyers would get burned once, and the offending entities would go out of business. Also, the business model which led to the house of cards would probably not been able to get as big as it did.
However, in our current system, government guarantees the bad debt. It is that government guarantee which allows the abuses to continue. With the people taking on more debt than they should being burdened with hardship. Then when the debt defaults, the taxpayer is again burdened to pay off the debt. Thus, there is no market discipline enforced. Those who can game the government are the ones who profit, and it is the rest of the population that bears the cost.
I saw an article on how business data collection entities are releasing data to certain financial instrument trading firms sooner than others. Basically just a few minutes sooner, allowing the computers some trading advantage. And how this is creating unfair advantages, with all sorts of dire talk of government regulators watching this closely (hah!), etc etc. My thought was, “Let them play their games. If it’s a voluntary market, those who think they can succeed will continue to play, and those who cannot will get out.”
Markets ultimately exist so people can improve their day-to-day lives. Rules and regulations exist so that the most people can benefit. The rules make the system, fair, just and predictable. If a particular market becomes unpalatable for a participant - like a stock market for example - they can just get out.
The distortions and abuses arise when the government gets in and starts guaranteeing cash flows and profits, with public money.
The central bank is a unique entity because it can create currency. If a private firm is able to get a government guarantee, it merges with the government effectively, and essentially takes on the Fed’s ability to print money, with all the consequences of that.
–
PS: If you feel the need to pedantically state the exact mechanics of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing’s money printing operations, please refrain.
As far as which presidential candidate is more likely to restrain Wall Street and stop having the public treasury pump tax money to Wall Street, well… Romney and all his sons are FIRE sector workers:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/the-romney-sons-a-guide
Oop - one’s a doctor, the other 4 are FIRE sector workers.
Mitt also sent American jobs to communist China.
He is more commie than Obama will EVER be.
SCHWEET!
And the big bank money winds have shifted hard in that direction as well:
If this concerned you in 2008…:
Top contributors to Obama in 2008.
…how can this not absolutely terrify you in 2012?:
Top contributors to Romney in 2012.
On TDY……..I’m in an area with offices for the mechanics that are here with their airplanes, 8-10 of them.
Somebody is giving someone Hell (in German) a couple of doors down.
Maybe you’ll get a lot of OT?????
So I took a quick look at our house-debtors recommendation to you all at “Building-cost.net”. I inputted 2000 sq ft, full foundation unfinished, single story, no valleys, no dormers, no additional building corners.
And just as I anticipated, their “estimate” is completely over the top inflated. They may be directly outputting from some $hitty estimating application like Timberline or whatever. Anyways, I marked up a few line items just to show you how inflated retail junk estimates like these really are.
http://imageshack.us/a/img87/233/estimate.png
Oh bugger, not another selloff on the DJIA just after the Black Monday anniversary?
At least gold is holding up today…
Earnings cut down stocks
Investors digest a number of company financial reports Monday and don’t like what they see.
CRATER
The Invisible Hand Of The Free Market, for-profit, private sector, U.S. health care system, by the numbers:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html
New York was raped and pillaged by the private, not-for profit health care sector. No institution is decent in the era of Generation Greed.
RIP Russell Means, AIM activist, actor, countercultural hero. And perhaps the only Libertarian POTUS hopeful to be indicted for murder. That he died the day after George McGovern, who put his political career in jeopardy to champion him, is ironic indeed.
I did not realize they were linked and I lived during that era.
Mitt is MINT
Oct. 22, 2012, 6:21 p.m. EDT
3 finance topics the Romney-Obama debates ignored
Stories You Might Like
Are we crashing like October 1987?
By Ian Salisbury, Jonnelle Marte and AnnaMaria Andriotis
These pocketbook issues haven’t gotten much airtime, but they’re likely to have a big impact on consumers and investors.
The first two debates between President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney haven’t been without excitement. In fact, if Romney wins most pundits will probably credit the televised face-offs with changing the course of the election.
In a campaign season often lacking in specifics, the two candidates have even managed to cover a lot of ground. If you’re an autoworker, Medicare recipient or small business owner, you’ve heard your concerns addressed head on. (Even if you didn’t necessarily like the answers.) But there are a number of pocket-book issues the candidates never gave much airtime to, and since the theme for Monday night’s third and final debate is foreign policy, they may have missed their chance. Here are three Main Street financial topics SmartMoney would still like to see the candidates take on:
Real Estate
You would think that the housing crisis, the principal cause of the economic downturn, would be one of the central topics of debate. But to a large extent, the candidates sidestepped real estate. “It turns out to be a lose-lose issue for both candidates and therefore gets ignored,” says John Vogel, adjunct professor of real estate at
In the first debate, Obama said that housing has begun to rise and Romney didn’t contest the statement. But while prices and sales are picking up in many areas, roughly 22% of homes with a mortgage on them—or nearly 11 million properties—are underwater, meaning the homeowner owes more on the property than it’s worth, according to the latest data by CoreLogic. Another 2.3 million homeowners have less than 5% equity in their home, meaning that if home values drop in their neighborhood by even a little, they could fall underwater as well. And nearly 950,000 homes are in the beginning of the foreclosure process, according to RealtyTrac.com.
The president during the first debate talked about risky lending practices of the past as evidence of why regulation is needed. Romney agreed on the need for mortgage regulation, but little else was discussed.
Here’s what we do know: To date, the president has pushed for refinancing programs that help struggling homeowners get into more affordable home loans and mortgage modification programs for homeowners to hold onto their houses. The president’s campaign says he wants to expand refinancing efforts so that “no responsible borrower is locked out of today’s low interest rates.” The president also wants to roll out more protections for borrowers, the campaign says, including a clear mortgage disclosure form that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is developing. Romney’s campaign site mentions several ways he plans to end the housing crisis, but few specifics, including new regulations to hold banks more accountable and to boost lending to borrowers in good credit standing, as well as reforms to the quasi-government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The Romney campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
…
“You would think that the housing crisis, the principal cause of the economic downturn, would be one of the central topics of debate. But to a large extent, the candidates sidestepped real estate.”
The economic crisis isn’t about housing; it’s about thirty plus years of stagnant median income.
i could have skipped over the whole “debate” just to hear what they whispered to each other when they shook hands. maybe it’s just me, but were they lingering on stage so as not to appear that by leaving the stage first that they were yielding their superiority to the other guy. for that i give credit to obama. it made him look more polite to me, but then i’m pretty conservative in my views. did i miss any important issues in my analysis?
Nah Obewanna loves DEADBEATS and Rommie doesnt……
Nothing about housing or crime or gangs or John Corzine
didn’t you hear? the housing market has hit bottom and is recovering now. isn’t that great news!
i guess that also means that i bought at the peak and sold at the bottom. oh well, at least i’m consistant!
Rio posted this the other night, lemming. It made me laff until I hurt something
http://www.youtube.com/user/BadLipReading?feature=watch
hilarious! love it. thanks. definitely more enjoyable than the actual debate. still in japan, so i’m a little time zone challenged! i usually get to read the blog when everyone’s done posting for the day, so my replies are a bit delayed.
CSPAN:
NewsFlash:
Obama “winning” debate almost 3 to 1. 3000 to 1200
Oct. 23, 2012, 2:30 a.m. EDT
Asia stock gains fade in choppy session
By Sarah Turner, MarketWatch
SYDNEY (MarketWatch) — Asia stocks on Tuesday traded mostly flat to lower as dividend worries dented Japanese utility firms while steel makers weighed in Seoul.
Japan’s Nikkei Stock Average put in a flat performance, while South Korea’s Kospi declined 0.4% and the Shanghai Composite Index lost 0.7%.
Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 index managed to gain 0.1% and Hong Kong markets were closed for a holiday.
Most Asian markets have gained so far this month, and those gains have been made against emerging Asian economies that “are not really booming but [are] still quite robust,” said Lucinda Chan. division director at Macquarie Private Wealth.
…
Global DOWn (again!)…