The Housing Bubble

Things are selling in my zip code. Prices are going up,

Of course they are my Real Estate Professional! That’s your narrative. You know nothing else but how to lie and misrepresent the truth irrespective of the consequences to those who are too dumb to know better.

Nothing has changed with your Real Estate Professionals. You’re as dishonest, untrustworthy and corrupt as you’ve ever been.

Why be truthful now “ryan”?

Your inability to address the questions presented to you hints at either cowardice to put forth an opinion or incompetence.

Choose. Choose wisely.

We don’t need any hints on your inability to be truthful.

Pathetic.

Go ahead Real Real Estate Professional….. tell us more tall tales.

You’re on fire today! I just started my readings this minute, hope to see more of this.

That’s stunning. A real estate professional calling someone else a liar.

A real estate professional

The dude’s a teacher.

And you’re a belly dancer.

Ah! I knew it!

Carry on…. liar.

The scene: 40 years ago, after school in Pimp Watch’s house.

Pimp: Hi mommy I’m home! My bicycle got a flat tire.

Pimp’s Mom: How did that happen Pimpy?

Pimp: I ran over some glass in front of the record store.

Pimp’s Mom: Oh my. No go wash up for dinner.

Pimp: What’s for dinner mommy?

Pimp’s Mom: Liver and onions with turnips.

Pimp: (turning red) YOU’RE A LIAR!!!

Just post some more realtor links. Go on now.

Just post some more realtor links.

Good try. Home sales and prices are a matter of public record. Show me in any of those links where public record is being tampered with. You just don’t like the facts because facts are like liver and onions.

But I’m trying to find some housing numbers posted on the Mississippi River Barge Worker’s website.

I couldn’t find any at Victoria’s Secret’s.

And the truth is housing prices continue to drift lower right along with rents.

This is what happens when housing demand craters to decade lows…. and continues falling.

if things are so great in these markets, we can stop subsidizing them, right?

We should stop.

how is all this going on with record poverty, high unemployment, decades of declining or flat incomes?

A few reasons IMO.

Massive government meddling.

The lowest interest rates in most of our lives.

Ownership propaganda.

Lack of rentals in many areas?

‘We should stop.’

But then what happens?

‘Apr 26, 2012 (Reuters) - More than 1 million Americans who have taken out mortgages in the past two years now owe more on their loans than their homes are worth, and Federal Housing Administration loans that require only a tiny down payment are partly to blame.’

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/us-usa-housing-negative-idUSBRE83P12E20120426

I’m have zero interest in this ‘to buy or not to buy’ question. But what this all means for our economic futures does interest me. I still maintain that this is the most significant economic event in modern history. And that there will be a day when we don’t talk about houses like they’re stocks, when the fear of missing out, or the desire to make a fortune won’t apply to buying houses. It will just be another of life’s choices.

What explains all this ??

Can it be as simple as “how much a month” ?? I believe so…At least in the area’s that surround me because the job market optimism has returned…I am starting to see some small bungalow houses (1100 sq.ft) breach the $700. per foot range in area’s that less than 12 months ago were $600….Thats a big move…

And that there will be a day when we don’t talk about houses like they’re stocks, when the fear of missing out, or the desire to make a fortune won’t apply to buying houses. It will just be another of life’s choices.

Amen

I’ve been asking; how is all this going on with record poverty, high unemployment, decades of declining or flat incomes? We all know most people don’t have much saved, have a lot of debt? What explains all this?

And I have been answering, Ben. They use a larger % of their income on housing than they did in the past.

They take in roommates, many roommates. That’s the big one.
They live on Ramen and Lean Cuisine on sale.
They take in kids for day care.
They take on a second job, even if it’s daycare for a relative (who needs daycare becuase she got a second job).
They take in Grandma and her SS check.
They forgo Applebee’s and JC Penny in favor of Dunkin Donuts and Wal-mart.
They take in Section 8, EBT, food pantry, or other government/charity cheese.
They take in military allowance.
They use their credit cards.
They don’t contribute to retirement, or they raid the retirement they have.
They chase cheaper health insurance, or forgo it altogether.
They send kids to state school instead of a private university.

If you know you’re going to be on the sidewalk in 10 days, you learn very quickly that Rent is first.

when prices of anything go up, demand should decrease. If it doesn’t, something is wrong with the market.

That “wrong” you refer is actually “needs.” For needs, demand has a floor under it.

“I’ve been asking; how is all this going on with record poverty, high unemployment, decades of declining or flat incomes? We all know most people don’t have much saved, have a lot of debt? What explains all this?”

Most sellers are also buyers (selling one house to buy another), so as long as they could pay the old mortgage, they generally can pay the new mortgage.

What we are talking about is the marginal buyer of new SFR supply. For that, we are talking about what the top quintile (decile?) of earners who are currently renting. While unemployment sucks, and blue collar workers are getting crushed, there is still a population of renters who are making enough to buy (if they WANT–again, sentiment matters).

I’m really curious as to how long rents can keep rising before we start reading stories about apartment overcrowding…one way to pay more expensive rent is to find a roommate. One way to find a place to live if you make minimum wage is to be that roommate.

I’m really curious as to how long rents can keep rising before we start reading stories about apartment overcrowding…one way to pay more expensive rent is to find a roommate. One way to find a place to live if you make minimum wage is to be that roommate.

This has already happened in San Francisco. A room in a shared flat will run you 700-1200+ month. It seems like it can’t go higher, and then it does, defying all logic. $450 to share a STUDIO??

Today’s craigslist listing for shared rooms (unedited, I just chose the first batch):

ROOM WITH PRIVATE BATH/BATHROOM IN MODERN APARTMENT - $1695 (SAN FRANCISCO) map

Boutique Hotel Rooms from $1950/month in Nob Hill - $1950 (nob hill) pic map

Fully Furnished Hotel Room, Great for Students! - $1200 (downtown / civic / van ness) pic

Fully Furnished Room in Union Square, $200 off first month - $1200 (downtown / civic / van ness) pic

Prime North Beach Location, Fully Furnished Rooms PL - $1200 (north beach / telegraph hill) img

27th and Irving 1bd in 2bd/1bath (sunset / parkside) - $825 (sunset / parkside) pic

Huge Bedroom with great view in wonderful apartment - $1200 (ingleside / SFSU / CCSF) map

Room for rent (Sunnyvale) - $700 map

One nice furnished room - $675 (sunset / parkside)

LARGE 1 BEDROOM AVAILABLE IN 2B/2B CONDO - $1650 / 187ft² - (russian hill) pic

Commuter room - $750 / 170ft² - (inner richmond) map

Twin-bedded room with own bath & great view - $1095 (inner sunset / UCSF) pic map

Relocated to a new home? - Hope to get Roommates - $874 / 910ft² - (russian hill) img

Seeking a female roommate to share studio. - $450 (downtown / civic / van ness) pic

Walking distance to SFSU/CCSF/Stonestown Galleria shopping Mall - $995 (ingleside / SFSU / CCSF) pic map

Ocean View Room near SFSU/City College/ BART - $865 (ingleside / SFSU / CCSF) pic map

Rooms near SFSU/City College/Skyline/BART - $695 (ingleside / SFSU / CCSF) pic map

亁凈溫暖房间 One nice furnished room - $675 (sunset / parkside)

$1500 / 1br - 1 very large sunny room in 2 bedroom apt - $1500 / 1000ft² - (nob hill) pic map

Room For Rent in 3 Bedroom Flat - $853 (noe valley) pic map

Startup Mansion - Dec 1 - $1200 / 6800ft² - (twin peaks / diamond hts) pic

MasterRoom,Private Bath across from Colma Bart,Easy Access 2 Downtown - $825 (ingleside / SFSU / CCSF)

Awesome room + parking spot in 3bdr apt - $1420 (north beach / telegraph hill) pic map

Nice Room in Inner Sunset,Near UCSF/Transportation,All Male Housemates - $850 (inner sunset / UCSF)

“And I have been answering, Ben. They use a larger % of their income on housing than they did in the past.”

And you’ve been wrong on it too.

Do you ever *think* what this balderdash sounds like before you write it? Ever?

“I’m really curious as to how long rents can keep rising”

Wonder no longer as rental rates began falling in Q3…. even in NYC.

Exactly Oxide My father taught us the landlord always gets paid first

But now what if the bank doesn’t foreclose in the usual 90 days but takes 2-3-4 years….the new dynamics of housing.

If you know you’re going to be on the sidewalk in 10 days, you learn very quickly that Rent is first.

I made this simple point on nationwide radio in 2005; when prices of anything go up, demand should decrease. If it doesn’t, something is wrong with the market. In this case, people are being motivated by something other than supply and demand, like speculative greed

Ben, I think it depends on inflation expectations. If people think something is going to rise in the future, prices going up may just act as a trigger to buy before it goes up even more. That is particularly true since most people are poor market timers of anything. Usually you get the most individual investment in the stockmarket at the very top and the least at the very bottom.

So maybe you could say that “asset prices”, at least in the short and medium term actually act differently to what you see in pure consumptive items like steaks.

I guess you could call that speculative greed but I don’t know if you can ever truly define what is an investment and what is speculative greed.

” I don’t know if you can ever truly define what is an investment and what is speculative greed.”

A house certainly isn’t “an investment”. That was established long ago.

I’ve been asking; how is all this going on with record poverty, high unemployment, decades of declining or flat incomes? We all know most people don’t have much saved, have a lot of debt? What explains all this?

So, imagine a xylophone.

Now look at each bar as a sector in the economy. The width of each bar is the amount of currency flowing controlled by that sector.

Imagine fewer bars and more differences in the width.

It seems to me that one possibility is that a few Fed-favored (crony) sectors are flush with cash (the larger bars on the xylophone), driving up prices, while the rest of the economy remains starved of cash, yet still facing higher prices caused by the favored sectors.

Corporations with gargantuan cash hoards. The financial sector being flush with profit. I was wondering about the societal benefit of holding companies which contain many business units from which they siphon profit. Another example of wealth consolidation.

That’s one possibility. A few sectors controlling vast amounts of currency while the rest go hungry while still facing the effects of the increased currency-usage of the favored sectors.

“Can it be as simple as “how much a month” ??”

It was for me and my wife, though we did put 20% down. I’ve also heard on the news that people have been tightening their belts to pay down their credit card debt, resulting in higher credit ratings. Don’t know that it’s true, as three years doesn’t seem long enough to fix shattered credit. But perhaps there were many whose rating had gone from great to barely decent and they were able to fix it. (And qualify for a loan.)

I see little evidence of people doing the things oxide mentions to be able to afford their mortgage, but perhaps I am just not friends with those types of people. Personally, I only see three:

1) People living within their means who did not pay too much for a house.

2) People who paid too much for a house and are no longer making payments, or have already lost it.

3) People who rent.

‘“People are more willing to buy houses when prices go up. It’s an old tradition in China,” Zhang said.’

Chinese RealWhores say the same kind of crazy things their U.S. counterparts say.

Exactly how old is this ‘old tradition’? Wasn’t it just a few short years ago China was a communist country, with no private home ownership?

But then what happens?

‘Apr 26, 2012 (Reuters) - More than 1 million Americans who have taken out mortgages in the past two years now owe more on their loans than their homes are worth, and Federal Housing Administration loans that require only a tiny down payment are partly to blame.’

Then the greater fools who recently bought stop dancing — AGAIN!

“…when prices of anything go up, demand should decrease. If it doesn’t, something is wrong with the market. In this case, people are being motivated by something other than supply and demand, like speculative greed.”

Don’t forget the role of FHA-financed low-downpayment, low-interest, federally guaranteed lending, soon to be paid for by a taxpayer-funded bailout.

“… there is still a population of renters who are making enough to buy (if they WANT–again, sentiment matters).”

Wouldn’t it make great sense for them to wait until the market reverts to normalcy (e.g. higher interest rates, lower home prices…)?

“Ben, I think it depends on inflation expectations. If people think something is going to rise in the future, prices going up may just act as a trigger to buy before it goes up even more.”

That economists’ strawman theory works great unless most of the population is broke and the something whose price is going to supposedly rise is a big-ticket item that nobody can afford without going massively into debt.

In the case in question, the heightened inflation expectations only affect the rate of sales if crazy lending is available to those who otherwise would recognize the folly of taking such a massive financial risk.

Low-downpayment, low-interest rate, federally-guaranteed FHA loans will do…

“I made this simple point on nationwide radio in 2005; when prices of anything go up, demand should decrease. If it doesn’t, something is wrong with the market. In this case, people are being motivated by something other than supply and demand, like speculative greed”

Demand for some things decrease less than others with price increases. Basic food product, basic clothing, basic shelter? Demand decreases much less than for things like jewelry.

Conversely, implicit in your point is that if prices of anything go down, demand should increase. However, this has proven NOT to be the case with housing (a leveraged purchase). As prices crashed, people were scared away, demand DECREASED as people were afraid to lose their down payment (was this speculative fear?). Once prices begin to increase, I think we can all imagine people trying to jump into housing (the speculative greed you note).

if prices of anything go down, demand should increase
In my neighborhood, horse manure is free and they have a hard time giving it away.

“Hey higher house prices translate into more jobs and higher pay and prosperity, right?”

Nonsense.

Massively inflated housing prices has the opposite effect on the buyer.

The pimp ….just wants us all to buy a $100K acre of land in the boonies so his developer outfit can slap up a $125K prefab on it.

Is that his angle? Or is he just 5 cans short of a 6-pack?

I can only imagine the combine loses of you two debt-junkies. It’s a staggering amount.

There are 28,000 new units that are expected to become available in the next year ??

And how much more in the Pipe-Line ?? What about the “massive” amounts of money chasing yield with limited deals available…. Its a race to the finish line for these big developers….They will overbuild, like they always do and rents should come back some…

Polly — Thanks for injecting the grim dose of economic reality in the path of the HBB’s resident housing market bovine brigade’s path. They are so preoccupied with their visions of making a bundle on Fed-funded home price inflation that they are completely ignoring the massive supply of rental housing that is soon to come on line and crush both rents and home prices into the dirt.

What’s the over/under before Aslop appears from the ‘Ministry of Truth’ ?

The rifle is the weapon of democracy.
—————————————-

If Im not mistaken, the English long bow had a similar effect in that it made it possible for a serf to afford a weapon that could take out a mounted knight in armor?

Great rhetoric, but the only time in my life I’ve seen real change come about was when millions of people were marching in the streets and the cities were burning.

And they weren’t even armed.

See: history of the 1960s.

You are correct spook. The hoplite phalanx was also a ‘weapon’ of democracy.

Wow spook I attempted to post something very similar to this without even reading your post. I guess great minds think alike.

Eco, the cities were burning and shots were being fired. Having experienced a race riot in Boston when I was about eight, I know that that guns played a major role in the PTB deciding to make changes to laws. Finally, I think they made sure they did not have to make even more changes by passing strict gun control measures.

“If Im not mistaken, the English long bow had a similar effect in that it made it possible for a serf to afford a weapon that could take out a mounted knight in armor?”

In medieval England a peasant caught with a sword in his possession would be strung up on a gibbet and left there for the crows. Swords were for gentlemen only. (Gentlemen!) Only members of the ruling class were entitled to own and bear weapons. For obvious reasons. Even bows and arrows were outlawed–see Robin Hood. When the peasants attempted to rebel, as they did in England and Germany and other European countries from time to time, they had to fight with sickles, bog hoes, clubs–no match for the sword-wielding armored cavalry of the nobility.

http://luna.moonstar.com/~acpjr/Blackboard/Common/Essays/RightArms.html - 8k -

This is new to me. Thoughts?

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

The VAST majority were not armed.

Exceptions are NOT the rule.

Comment by sfhomowner
2013-01-16 11:46:12
This is new to me. Thoughts?

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
——————————————-

So all non slave owners wanted to give up their guns?

Or didn’t care about protecting their right to bear arms?

What is your real point?

What is your real point?

My point is that this has been circulating around and I had never heard of this before.

Many, if not all, of the arguments used by the NRA are based on interpreting the 2nd amendment. How and why the 2nd amendment came to be written into the constitution is part of the discussion, regardless of which side you personally take.

And why do you care about why they thought it was so important unless you’re looking for excuses to repeal it?

Even bows and arrows were outlawed–see Robin Hood. When the peasants attempted to rebel, as they did in England and Germany and other European countries from time to time, they had to fight with sickles, bog hoes, clubs–no match for the sword-wielding armored cavalry of the nobility.

Bzzt! Wrong! Wikipedia:

“It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III’s declaration of 1363: “Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God’s help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises… that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows… and so learn and practise archery.” If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the greater ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen which eventually led to their being replaced by musketmen.

What is your real point?

What is yours? Reflexively defending slave-owners, ’spook’?

I saw a good idea on television tonight and I thought I would try to cash in…

I will be making some 12×24 inch yard and door signs proclaiming “GUN FREE HOME”. I figure there will be many takers, I mean what committed statist would not want to announce their solidarity with the struggle.

$9.99 if you buy one
$15.99 if you buy two
$25.99 for a four pack

I put the ordering instructions on tomorrows Bits Bucket

Sorry…No C.O.D’s

RE: Interesting year,
Doomsday Clock Signifies Humanity’s Imminent Demise:
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/4423/20130115/doomsday-clock-signifies-humanity-s-imminent-demise.htm

The Doomsday Clock does not always move forward. In 2010, scientists moved back the hand of the clock after Obama’s election to signify a leadership that would help slow climate change and set a path toward a world without nuclear weapons.

Gee, those were the days… when Obama united the world in a new vision of socialist utopia. Well it could be worse, after the first hydrogen bomb was tested the clock was at 2 minutes till doom(midnight).

“We have unleashed dark forces in the Middle East with naive policies.”

As opposed to the peace and stability they enjoyed for the last few thousand years?

A better way of saying it. The stalemate has been broken.

– “We have unleashed dark forces in the Middle East with naive policies.”

– The stalemate has been broken.

When the cat goes away, the mice will kill each other.

Yes Ryan. France is in Mali because it intervened in Libya and the fighters from Libya, including ironically paid fighters of Khadaffi, migrated from that conflict with more weapons to Mali and have set up a terrorist network. France may not have had to send ground troops to Libya but now it does to Mali. I think they may be having second thoughts about Libya. Just wait if Algeria gets destablized and Europe want to keep its natural gas. Of course, I bet that will result in U.S. troops being sent there and we will regret we helped bring Khadaffi down. Of course, with what is happening in Egypt and Syria, I hope some people are already wishing we stayed out of Libya. If not we have people as dumb as rocks running things.

“When the cat goes away, the mice will kill each other.”

Mice are vicious. In overcrowded conditions, they will eat their own young.

Mice are vicious.
Very much like that part of the world has been, for centuries.

“I’m High”

oops, I mean, “Aim High”

I remember seeing a very old SNL recruiting commercial parody where they showed a lower enlisted Navy man doing various crappy tasks and then said “It’s not just a job, it’s $98 a week” or something like that.

“Get an ugly wife and a ****ed-up life in the A…a…ar-my.”

My favorite: Military intelligence.

Keep up with your schooling now.

She’s using the principal to pay the rent, not earnings on the money. Otherwise, it would be indefinite paying of rent, without an end date.

50 years x $12,000 = $600,000

^^^
lol…

You can’t even be honest about rental costs 50 years ago. Salvage yourself…. quickly.

You can’t even be honest about rental costs 50 years ago.

Her rental costs start now, since she’s sold her house. And we’re told she’s good for 50 years of rent.

Are you talking about the imputed rent of the decades the family lived in the house?

ALL manmade items.

Ye…ah.

1. Dumping $400k into a house over 30 years and selling for $150k is a loss.

2. Spending money on repairs is an expense…. and a loss.

3. Rental rates are a fraction of the cost of renting, thus do not come remotely close to offset the loss associated with holding a depreciating asset for 30 years.

4. Again. Dumping $400k into a house over 30 years and selling for $150k is a loss.

Dumping $400k into a house over 30 years and selling for $150k is a loss an outlying example of an extreme distortion of the historical and mathematical reality.

Median home price 30 years ago was about 68K. Today it’s about 180K.

A person buying 30 years ago with 20% down and an average 25 year mortgage has in no way put 400K into that home. It looks like the forced savings is almost a wash with about 20 years of “free rent” thrown in.

Your logic is hogwash.

I know math is challenging for you but do try to be honest with it.

Rio,

Would you argue that at an 8% interest rate you pay the bank over 3x the purchase price of the house, or about 200% of the price in interest?

Would you argue that at an 8% interest rate you pay the bank over 3x the purchase price of the house, or about 200% of the price in interest?

It can be but over the past 30 years and for most, it has not been. 30% of homes are owned outright. Therefore, I’d estimate total equity in all homes averaged about 50% the past 30 years.

20 and 30 years ago the down payment was much higher than now. Many people took out 15 year loans and many paid their 30 year mortgage early.

And for the past 15 years, interest rates have been well below 8%.

So I stand by my averages observations regarding the past 30 years of housing prices paid figures.

ANSWER the question.

“in a forced savings way…”

Spoken like a true debt slave. Paying interest and fixing crap is saving.

“Owning” the house was merely a container for forced savings.

But if you look at home selling proceeds as only “forced savings” then you have to look at 30 years of home ownership as free rent. Because savings implies money not used but that money was used for shelter.

So that “forced savings” was also providing shelter.

So that “forced savings” was also providing shelter.

Of course it was. At 3x the cost of renting the same square footage.

So that “forced savings” was also providing shelter.

Of course it was. At 3x the cost of renting the same square footage.

You are wrong again by a factor of about 2.8. Nationally and historically, buying has always been about 10-30% more than renting. That is not 3X.

Your numbers are biased, self-serving (but not well) hogwash.

And you’re lying once again. Not that we expect anything more from a debt-pimp like you.

But of course you conveniently left out 30 years of taxes, maintenance and insurance.

you conveniently left out 30 years of taxes, maintenance and insurance.

Wrong. They were not left out:
“Nationally and historically, buying has always been about 10-30% more than renting. That is not 3X.”

I’ll show you again with math.
Today, buying a 180K median priced home with 20% down has a PITI of about $960 a month. Add in 2% a year maintenance for a total monthly housing cost of $1,260.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the average apartment rent is $1,048 a month in America.

So right there we can see that owning a median priced house can cost only about 20% more a month than the cost of an average apartment.

I left out nothing. Your math and logic are hogwash.

And you dishonestly left out taxes…. and insurance and… oh yeah…. you never adjusted for square footage.

You see my dear debt-pimp…. you struggle with integrity and honesty. It’s not math afterall.

You keep leaving out the REAL costs of buying….. why is that? Why misrepresent it?

“The house was a money pit, not a money tree.”

+1 Gotta remember that line!

You guys must have really sunk a lot into that money pit, for it to be a loss, yet still proved a half century of rent. Are you adding in the decades of imputed rent?

proved = provide..

Add together the imputed rent and the half-century of future rent.

You underestimate the seniority of my Maternal Unit. She’s making an imputed fortune now, since she lives in a modest 1/1 flat and should otherwise be paying for a grand 3/2 with garage and garden. She likely would not get the concept.

Your point is that a building becomes more valuable as it sits and crumbles. I won’t argue with that. It’s mania.

Shelter costs money.

Why does this always seem to get lost in the discussion?

There is a big difference between buying a house as an investment (regardless of whether you live in it) and buying a house because you need a place to live.

For some of us, where and how we live is not solely based on financials. Actually, that’s probably true for everyone, except the very poor. Even when renting, everyone makes decisions about how much more they would pay for a larger place, parking, a view, and neighborhood.

As a renter, sure, I could rent from a slumlord and live in the Tenderloin and rent (relative for SF) cheaply in a dark, moldy, studio apartment. But even renters make choices that cost more than they HAVE to pay.

It’s a sad life that boils down all interactions to money.

Your point is that a building becomes more valuable as it sits and crumbles. I won’t argue with that. It’s mania.

My point is that the value of her house was the imputed rent of the decades she lived there + the proceeds of the sale (which you say will pay her rent for the next ~half-century), minus PITI, maintenance, opportunity cost, and sales cost.

I still can’t see how the latter part of the equation can be larger than the former part. Fifty-ish years of rent will take at least $300,000 to $500,000 to cover, so she made bank on the sale. She and her family lived there for decades, so there’s a lot of imputed rent. Houses didn’t cost jack thirty or more years ago. How much maintenance could there really be?

I bet there was a good bit of appreciation there. After all, it was ‘the biggest credit bubble ever’ or some such.

“Shelter costs money.”

Of course it does. It’s an expense every day of your life until you’re in your grave. It’s NEVER profitable. Shelter is a loss. Especially at the current inflated asking prices of resale housing.

It’s a sad life that boils down all interactions to money.

Ebenezer Scrooge learned his lesson. Of course he was a fictional character. Wonder if there is any hope for our own Argument Clinic flunkee.

There’s my drama queen!

Many people know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

Shelter costs money. Why does this always seem to get lost in the discussion?

Because when it’s NOT lost, they lose. Loosers!

Deterioration, maintenance, taxes.. the point is this: After all was said and done, that money pit gave her $300-$500K* in profit. Would renting have given her that profit?

———-
*depending on what you mean by “rent until she’s 130.”

Clearly you’ve never developed or read a P&L spreadsheet.

Dumping $500k into a house over 30 years and selling it for $150k isn’t “profit”. It’s LOSS.

How much of the value of a house is based on the quality of the neighbors?

What is the value of not having the potted plants on your porch stolen?

A country garden is usually robbed by quite respectable critters.

Pimp,

I don’t think they get your point because you aren’t making the real point. Buying OR renting = LOSS. Buying now = greater loss than renting. Buying at other times might equal smaller loss than renting.

But in any case, can you stop cluttering up threads with repetitive lie 1 liners?

“After all was said and done, that money pit gave her $300-$500K* in profit”

No. It gave her $X of after sale proceeds. You can’t calculate profits unless you know what the costs were. Now, accidental owner imlies that she may not have paid for it, but that doesn’t change the fact that the proceeds after a sale aren’t the same as profit on sale.

mathguy - Yes, shelter is an expense, not an investment. At least w/r/t primary residencies (rental properties up for discussion).

polly - We get that their *can* be profits after a sale. However, if you keep track of all costs associated, including transaction costs, and assign some value to opportunity costs, the average person really isn’t going to reap much of a profit. To do so, they’d have to downsize or else “time the market” right. Even in these situations, we’re really talking about a form of [tax-advantaged] forced savings. As a nation, we’d be better off to start considering shelter as an expense. There are different ways to handle that expense, to be sure. But the nation that owning = investment whereas rent = expense is wrongheaded. They’re both ways of meeting a need via an expense.

Joe,

Why was that directed at me? I rent. In a very lovely neighborhood. Not too bad a commute. I am perfectly aware that it is an expense. And there is nothing in your statement that contradicts anything I have ever said on this blog.

I’ve lived in my paid-off house for over 20 years. It is neither stable nor inflation proof.

But something about owning, even with the added costs, is of value to you. If it wasn’t, you would sell and rent.

I am guessing (let me know if I am wrong) that there are factors above and beyond the financials that contribute to your decision to remain a homeowner.

It’s a loss. You made a tragic financial error. Do what you have to do to limit your losses as much as possible.

I am guessing (let me know if I am wrong) that there are factors above and beyond the financials
My financial status has long been integrated into my way of life. Starting in grade school I worked on building our SFH under my father’s tutelage. I got to like many aspects of home maintenance & repair, and have made a (very profitable, in a way) hobby of it. I also do most of my own car repairs. When I picked out this house I used my knowledge of home construction to pick something I could easily do most of the work or improvements on.
Some examples:
— It takes me 5 minutes to swap out a dead sump pump, because I installed it so as to make it that way.
— A few hours or less to swap out a dead dishwasher, also because I installed it that way
— Next project is installing an emergency generator capability at home. At the last meeting of my ham radio club, I got one of the electrical workers in the club to volunteer to help me install a transfer switch, which could conceivably save me $500 in labor costs.
— Current project is replacing a corroded radiator support in my 2001 F150. A new hackerspace just opened a few miles away, and there I received some essential help in fixing this. I hope to save $1000 in labor costs. I am working out in my back yard in winter weather, but then I do need the exercise and rather enjoy it.
— When the back yard is free of my truck it will go back to its usual status of ‘garden’.
My basic strategy is making a virtue of necessity.

“Do what you have to do to limit your losses as much as possible.”

Inquisitive…are you doing a hottie, or saving $$$ with fugly?

Pimp? Pimping? Speak up. Don’t be shy.

“Speak up. Don’t be shy.”

Pimp Watch, the point is that unless you are a non-corporeal life form (star trek) you will endure expenses along your way through life’s journey. Are you saving money dating an over-weight, big gulp toting and cigarette smoking slob, or spending extra for an educated athletic hottie that naturally comes with higher overhead? This isn’t an audition. And you can save even more by living in a lousy neighborhood, but those savings can be quickly dashed with a violent assault or complete theft of your personal property. But if you are able tap some trim and look at the ocean from your living room window all for $650/month I’m all ears.

I’m in a decent affordable neighborhood out in flyover land, but it meant a 1,000-mile move from family and friends in order to not be swamped in the California RE bubble. Being former military the move was doable, but I know for a fact that moving long distance isn’t an option for the majority, so cut ‘em some slack, and consider switching to decaffeinated.

FWIW, I paid 2.5x my income for a nearly new 1500-sqft spec house ten years ago at the bottom of the dot-com bubble, and it’s paid for now. The odds that I’ll lose a bundle are slim, but everyone is going to lose something as this depression drags-on for ten or twelve more years. It’s baked in.

You’re contradicting yourself:

First you admonish and state “you will endure expenses” and then you state “The odds that I’ll lose a bundle are slim”.

It likely an oversight on your part but the broader point where you invoke the word “expenses” is quite correct. Shelter is always an expense, every day of your life. But the fact remains that the shelter expense is never a profit….. it’s always a loss. You’ll lose just like anyone else whose name is on a deed irrespective of what they paid.

“you will endure expenses”

FWIW, I’ve endured over $15k last year in health insurance, co-pays, etc., and that’s not counting the dentist.

My math wins countless ten million dollar projects. Your math results in slavery.

Why buy for $10 million, when you can buy later for 65% less?

Why? Because bid packages have a deadline.

Because bid packages have a deadline.

So does life.

Alpo…. How was your day of pimping used houses?

This savings between renting and buying at current inflated prices is massive. Yeah…. it’s “hard and fast rule”. Until prices fall to their pre-bubble levels. And it’s a long way down from here.

You can acquire that much in cash by living way below your means for a long enough period of time. Of course, that requires you make enough for living way below your means to be possible. Most people will never earn enough to even try it.

Sometimes I think, “yeah, I should do this” (live way below my means so I can amass a lot of cash).

And then I think, “but I could die next week, and I would have spent my last days scrimping and being miserly”.

So, for me, the answer lies somewhere in between. I live somewhat frugally, but not so much that money decides everything.

This month I spent $350 on a new wetsuit. Worth every penny, as surfing (and being warm) brings great joy.

I also bought a new Roomba. $299. Extravagant? Maybe. But I do so love a robot that cleans for me. It makes me very happy as it whirls around the house picking up dust and dog hair.

I could save a whole lot more money if I chose to work full time. My boss would love it if I did. But right now the sun is streaming in the window, the house is quiet, the dogs are napping, and I wouldn’t trade the piece of mind I get from having a little time to putter and build and garden and surf for working every spare hour so I can have more money in the bank.

To each her own.

Not taking that one anymore….

If you knew you could live without it, why were you taking it? Or have you replaced it with a similar, but less expensive, version?

“If you knew you could live without it, why were you taking it?”

There are folks who take half of their medication. E.g. blood pressure medication. Their blood pressure may not be as well controlled and they may be cutting years off their life, but the alternative might be living on the street or cutting another medication or something else which would shorten their lives more.

$670 is a lot of money for a medication. I would guess that it is a fairly new, non-generic one and that the extra $370 is a non-starter.

Your close enough to Canada to fill tour scripts there…

Did not know as it helped me off the couch six years ago. Trying to go without is what I am doing now. Whether I am sucessful going without remains to be seen

Thanks Mike. Best to you in shaking free of the stuff.

But one of my providers no longer wants to deal with my insurance company.

That’s why the USA needs a public option. The doctors in Brazil are 90% as good as Americans but just charge 30% as much.

Why? Because if Brazilians can’t afford OR tolerate private healthcare, they can go to public health-care.

Competition baby….

Dan, I am convinced that you speak for the majority. The majority believe that house prices are going up, that inflation is pawing at the door, that we have a recovery and that their policies are effective. The majority believe that the nastly little correction of 2008 set us back on a path of growth and expansion. The majority could well be surprised by how much correction still will happen.

Blue skye, as my earlier posts below I do not think we are about to enter into prosperity and I certainly do not think anything has been fixed over the last four years. However, I do think that so much money has been created by the Fed Reserve that we are going to be robbed by inflation not by nominal depreciation of housing. I think measured in gold, houses will drop. However, most people do not have mortgages in gold they have them in dollars. Thus, those with fix mortgage rates just may benefit from the coming carnage.

To explain by example: say you have a house with a 200,000 mortgage and the house is worth 200,000 dollars the interest rate is fixed. We then have a surge in inflation and within a few years the prices of most items have doubled. Your pay has not kept up with inflation but it has risen, it went from $100,000 to $180,000. Your house has gone from 200,000 to $360,000 tracking your wage increase but not inflation. So where does that leave you? Ignoring any paying of principle during this period, you started off with a mortgage twice your income. But now you how an income that is around ten percent less than your mortgage, you are much better off. Additionally, you now have $160,000 in nominal equity even if it is worth only half as much as a few years earlier.

Now, if you just own the house outright, you have obviously lost. The house in real terms went from $200,000 to $180,000.

Your pay has not kept up with inflation but it has risen

This statement perfectly demonstrates that you don’t understand what inflation is.

Please explain Pimp how wages must always keep up with inflation since I think most working people have seen wages not keeping up with inflation for almost 40 years.

Please explain why you’re misrepresenting the word inflation.

Inflation? All I see are bad debts being papered over, and that not as fast as the rot is progressing. There is not more money in circulation. Debt is contracting everywhere.

I think this is what must happen when the largest expansion of credit in history ends. If that is not what is happening, then the credit expansion is not over yet and we have even more pain postponed.

I think the debate on whether house prices are going up or down is silly. Look at the Case Shiller data. There is seasonal fluctuation for the past few years and that is all. There hasn’t been any breakout from a narrow range. All this while massive Fed efforts to stop the slide continue. Is the Fed at the end of its rope? When the rope runs out house prices are not poised to go up. We’ve only seen the first phase of the correction.

Year on year, Case Shiller shows an increase. Whether people think it is statistically significant is a different question. Their data lags and is an average of a few months, which takes out jumping to conclusions or big variations.

My main point is that the increases are more than seasonal variations.

When median prices went negative in Q3, you invoked “seasonality”. Now it’s more than seasonality.

Make up your mind.

Then, I said that you need to look at year on year, not quarter to quarter. I also said that median was especially misleading quarter to quarter, especially because of seasonal changes in mix.

Same story now. The post above said that Case Shiller showed nothing but seasonal variations. This is not the case if you look year-on-year.

I’ve been consistent.

You on the other hand were touting median prices when speaking of Santa Clara County, and then noted how misleading median was in a later post.

Let me reiterate, if this is unclear to you:

The best measure of home values are apples-to-apples sales comparisons, like the Case Shiller index uses. To take out seasonality, you should look at year on year changes, not month to month, or quarter to quarter.

“I’ve been consistent.”

You’ve been consistent at misrepresenting the housing market. This we agree on.

Now, if you just own the house outright, you have obviously lost. The house in real terms went from $200,000 to $180,000.

How are you losing over a 5-10 year period of time? 20K is probably only 18 months rent on that house.

The house in real terms went from $200,000 to $180,000.

So what? HBB has already concluded that over a lifetime $20K is chump change, two bucks a day.

Rio, I did not identify the time period and I was only talking about the value of the house. Determining whether you made out compared to rent, requires factoring in the interest rate, repairs made, taxes etc, and then figuring the rents in the area and what you saved due to the MID. All too complicated and variable for the point I was trying to make: That a house can drop in real terms but still make the “owner” money if they borrowed money at a fixed rate.

P.S. that is true even if you own the house outright since you need to decide whether you could get a better return on your money elsewhere with the value of the house which could happen in a high real interest rate environment provide more money than the cost of renting even counting paying taxes on the income.

“To take out seasonality, you should look at year on year changes, not month to month, or quarter to quarter.”

Judging what the trends are in housing by looking at YOY tiny variations is the road to hell. Look at what has been going on for the last four years with the backdrop of what went on the previous decade at least. Housing is going sideways. It did not correct after 2006, only partly.

“Year on year, Case Shiller shows an increase. Whether people think it is statistically significant is a different question.”

Questions of statistical significance aside, the YOY price increases are an impressive testament to the Fed’s determination to financially engineer housing price inflation.

It may not be in their mandate, but they nonetheless are trying and succeeding in the effort. Hats off to the Fed!

That’s just crazy talk Dan. We need to give up our guns so everybody will be safe. Don’t worry, the criminals will turn theirs in too. Sorta like how the NDAA has all kinds of crazy language that will never be actually used. I know this because a VIP read it to me while reading a TelePrompTer.

And this inflation talk is just insane. Our leaders have been educated at the best Universities. Those prices that appear to be rising at the grocery store must be mis-marked. I suggest you talk to the store manager and get it corrected before anyone else gets overcharged.

And who believes that the government doesn’t have plans to shut down cellphone/wireless service in specific areas, when it becomes obvious that the system is being used to organize “flash riots”?

Both parties had vested interest in keeping the poverty issue alive and festering. the Democrats. because they have a bunch of their supporters employed in trying to “fix” the problem…..but if it’s fixed, they are out of work.

The Republicans never wanted it fixed, because it was too handy a hammer to beat Democrats over the head with at election time.

I got news for all my Red-state friends. If this comes to pass, there are going to be riots in the suburbs, too. And what is some little 1000-2000 inhabitant town in the sticks full of retirees going to do, when say, 20-30 kids with AKs decide to take over the place?

To say nothing of kooks who might just take up shooting people for General Principle.

The sky will be blackened with black swans.

I think someone that is 75 and also has an AK stands a much better chance against a teenager with an AK than a 75 year old that tries to fight against a teenager with a baseball bat, to say nothing about multiple teenagers with baseball bats.

This is particulary true if the 75 year old goes to the range with his gun and practices. Most gangbangers just spray and pray and don’t even hold a lot of guns right because it is not the cool way.

“Most gangbangers just spray and pray ”

.. and hit the target any-way.

Duh. That’s the bloody(!) point.

No Oxide, I think the bloody point is a gun is actually more valuable to an innocent person that may be frail than it is to a criminal who is probably much stronger and younger. Even society gained from early firearms. Knights use to be larger and stronger than the general population and could easily dominate due these points and their armor. When guns were introduced, more equality and finally democracy resulted.

If society breaks down any woman without a gun or a very large male(s) to protect her will be raped. Old people will have everything taken away if they are without weapons. Most street criminals are big and dumb, however the one thing they fear is a potential victim that might offset their advantage with a weapon.

If they are shooting at someone trained like the police, they usually find themselves getting shot down before they hit the target.

If society breaks down any woman without a gun or a very large male(s) to protect her will be raped.

Could that be considered using firearms to protect women from “legitimate rape”?

Per wikipedia, Yemen and Serbia rank #2 and #3 (after the U.S) in guns per capita.

Serbian and Yemeni women must be super empowered as a result of all those guns.

“And what is some little 1000-2000 inhabitant town in the sticks full of retirees going to do, when say, 20-30 kids with AKs decide to take over the place?”

Very interesting question! How close do these kids have to be to hit a target the size of a softball that is returning fire? If I drop the first one at 400 yards, how long will it take the others to decide which direction to run? If they run towards me, and I can chamber and fire every three seconds, how many will be left at 50 yards? Will they be that motivated to overrun me when some of them are lying down? What surprises might they encounter in those 400 yards? AKs are not everything. Smokeless powder and brass cartridges are not everything.

My friend 400 yards behind me will have the answer to some of those questions. And so on. Little towns have lots of stubborn people, generous and kind, to a point.

“Serbian and Yemeni women must be super empowered as a result of all those guns.”

Post a GUN FREE HOME sign in front of your house SF, see how that works our for you.

Hey, he now has experience with handling project that aren’t going well.

We have worked at several Fortune 500 companies. This includes the Education/Publishing Industrial Complex, TARP Bank, Big Azz Insurance Co, Big Azz Mutual Fund Co. And none of which compare to the endless supply of LULZ we have experienced in our short tenure working for Uncle Sugar

You should learn how to use Google.

OMB Warns Agencies to Prepare for Furloughs

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jeffrey Zients issued a memo this week which warned agencies to be prepared for the possibility of furloughs and budget cutbacks in the event that sequestration takes effect this spring.

Among other things, the memo encouraged agencies to identify the most appropriate means to reduce civilian workforce costs, including hiring freezes, releasing temporary employees, or voluntary separation/early retirement incentives.

OPM recently issued similar guidance with information for federal employees on furloughs.

The full memo from Zients is included below.

FROM: Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management

SUBJECT: Planning for Uncertainty with Respect to Fiscal Year 2013 Budgetary Resources

In the corning months, executive departments and agencies (agencies) will confront significant uncertainty regarding the amount of budgetary resources available for the remainder of the fiscal year. In particular, unless Congress acts to amend current law, the President is required to issue a sequestration order on March 1, 2013, canceling approximately $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal Government. Further uncertainty is created by the expiration of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (CR) on March 27,2013. This memorandum directs agencies to take certain steps to plan for and manage this budgetary uncertainty.

The Administration continues to urge Congress to take prompt action to address the current budgetary uncertainty, including through the enactment of balanced deficit reduction to avoid sequestration. Should Congress fail to act to avoid sequestration, there will be significant and harmful impacts on a wide variety of Government services and operations. For example, should sequestration remain in place for an extended period of time, hundreds of thousands of families will lose critical education and wellness services through Head Start and nutrition assistance programs. The Department of Defense will face deep cuts that will reduce readiness of non-deployed units delay needed investments in equipment and facilities, and cut services for military families. And Federal agencies will likely need to furlough hundreds of thousands of employees and reduce essential services such a food inspections, air travel safety, prison security, border patrols, and other mission-critical activities.

At this time, agencies do not have clarity regarding the manner in which Congress will address these issues or the amount of budgetary resources that will be available through the remainder of the fiscal year. Until Congress acts, agencies must continue to prepare for the possibility that they will need to operate with reduced budgetary resources.

Prior to passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (A TRA), the President was required to issue a sequestration order on January 2, 2013. Although the ATRA postponed this date by two months, agencies had already engaged in extensive planning for operations under post-sequestration funding levels before this postponement was effected. In light of persistent budgetary uncertainty, all agencies should continue these planning activities, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget COMB), and should intensify efforts to identify actions that may be required should sequestration occur.

Agencies should generally adhere to the following guiding principles, to the extent practicable and appropriate, in preparing plans to operate with reduced budgetary resources in the event that sequestration occurs:

* use any available flexibility to reduce operational risks and minimize impacts on the agency’s core mission in service of the American people;
* identify and address operational challenges that could potentially have a significant deleterious effect on the agency’s mission or otherwise raise life, safety, or health concerns;
* identify the most appropriate means to reduce civilian workforce costs where necessary­ this may include imposing hiring freezes, releasing temporary employees or not renewing term or contract hires, authorizing voluntary separation incentives and voluntary early retirements, or implementing administrative furloughs (appropriate guidance for administrative furloughs can be found on the OPM website; consistent with Section 3(a)(ii) of Executive Order 13522, allow employees’ exclusive representatives to have pre-decisional involvement in these matters to the fullest extent practicable;
* review grants and contracts to determine where cost savings may be achieved in a manner that is consistent with the applicable terms and conditions, remaining mindful of the manner in which individual contracts or grants advance the core mission of the agency;
* take into account funding flexibilities, including the availability o f reprogramming and transfer authority; and,
* be cognizant of the requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109.

…

You can’t put anything on the Internet that’s not true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I - 232k -

“bon jour”

Under FCA this would not be the primary consideration.

I don’t think economic damages would be USPS’s primary legal argument. However, you could make some interesting arguments based on what has happened with the USPS being associated with Lance over the past few years. We’d really need to see the sponsorship agreement before jumping to conclusions.

A man walked into a bar with an alligator on a leash and asked the bartender,

“Do you serve lawyers here?”.

“Sure do,” replied the bartender.

“Good,” said the man. “Give me a beer, and I’ll have a lawyer for my alligator.

A lot of sponsorship contracts have morals clauses in them. If he had one in his contract and he violated it (almost certain, using drugs in violation of the rules of your sport would be the most important one), he may actually forfeit any payments and incur aditional penalties just by providing proof - in the form of a confession that confirms the findings of the commission - that he took the drugs.

Of course a company can immediately cut off a current endorsement contract, but I can’t imagine any athlete signing a contract with a morality clause that was retroactive.

Tiger Woods sold a lot of Nikes and Wheaties. Nobody that I know of tried to return their sneakers or cereal (yuck) when Tiger melted down five years later. What grounds would Nike or General Mills have to claw back?

I’m not sure about the morals clause and what Lance’s said. But if the government went after a FCA cause of action, I think it would have a decent ROI.

If they want to file, they only have until tomorrow afternoon, I believe.

You might not be able to imagine it, but LA didn’t have a lot of bargaining power back in the USPS sponsorship days. They needed the money to run a team and his “story” hadn’t really taken off yet.

or better yet he should have confessed on Imus’s show since he is a known drug addict…..would have made for a very interesting show

“Crucify him.”

Just make him a tackling dummy for Jadeveon Clowney for a couple of weeks and call it a day.

Clowney Hit vs Michigan 2013 Outback Bowl - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENuZHnQlqX0 - 224k

Letterman stepped out on his wife with his production assistant.

Lettetman knows all about cheating and the coverup.

The gun as spec’d in the beginning was designed for 7 round mags, but the magazine well size is determined by the size of the grip. Both the Government model (5″) and the commander (4″) have the same grip size and the magazines are interchangeable. 7 and 8 rounders are nearly dimensionally identical, and the Wilson Combats are a personal fave.

Yep, has worked great for Boeing and their 777.

I think you mean 787.

One of the key factors in winning WW2 was our ability to WAY outproduce the Axis.

A quality we seem to have lost with the limited numbers of billion dollar defense pork projects.

One of the key factors in winning WW2 was our ability to WAY outproduce the Axis.
The size of the Atlantic and Pacific was key.

…as well.

But not at first.

Over 1,000 Me262s were built and flown.

The 60 min flight time was a major limiting factor.

If Hitler had ok’ed their production years earlier, they may have been a factor in WWII.

Drones are a way to fight a war on the cheap, as long as you have total Air (and Space) superiority. Not so much when your opponent has the will/ability to screw with those data links.

The reason the Brits are so heavily involved in the F-35, is because the Falklands war (among a few other) showed the Brits (and a few other countries, like India? Japan?) that they still need an aircraft carrier or two. They can’t/won’t build a ship the size of the Nimitz class. F-35s make a British built/sized ship viable.

No. We are meeting goals so far, but projections show slow growth and flap revenue. Thus, they’re taking preventive measures

“flap revenue” - that’s a new term to me.

Maybe he meant “fap” revenue?

Preventative measures: “Our bonus is at risk!”

Flat revenue: “Our bonus is at risk!”

Projections: “Our bonus is at risk!”

“Flap revenue” — after the realization that revenue is insufficient for the concern to continue, management peeps run around in circles, flapping their arms like chickens and squawking.

Because they can?

I thought there was a shortage of tech workers??

Well…there’s a shortage when we need to hurry and get the product out, and there are too many when it’s time to pay them.

Did you think that this was a bald-faced lying statement?

Not at all. The past year, leading up to the presidential election, numerous leftist posters spouted all sorts of crap and I’m throwing it back in their faces right now as bald-face lies.

Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Statist, Communist, Fascist… Obama and the left have shown aspects of all of these terms while the left spout lies to obfuscate and confuse. Call them what they are: Pathetic.

The government may very well put the likes of Smith & Wesson out of business if they get there way. Even if they don’t go out of business, their revenues will drop considerably due to overreaching government regulation on the private ownership of firearms.

The government is telling Blue Cross how to run it’s business, by being required to cover everyone and not charge according to risk.

Higher taxes, especially as it relates to SS and Health Care is more redistribution by the government, another hallmark of socialism.

How much father along do we need to go for government to control the “means of production”? There are many forms of control and the government doesn’t need to own the company, like it did with AIG and GM, in order to control it or it’s fortunes…

That’s correct.

There’s a difference between truth and being “right”. And we’ll stand with truth and against the REIC liars….. every single time.

There’s a browser extension you can use to ignore any user here. Please use it.

Sincerely,

PimpWatch

And its’ conmen and conwomen and their ruses.

In every party there is one who through his all too credulous avowal of the party’s principles incites the others to apostasy.

-Nietzsche

“A lie is like a snowball; the longer it goes on, the bigger it gets.”

-Martin Luther

I live along the Crooked River.