The Housing Bubble

Joe,
Every interesting insights from the ground about lobbyists. So, in essence you’re stating the lobbyist (deep pockets) distort the rental rates. Reminds me of deep pockets and SFHs.

What I’ve learned in life snowgirl, is that big money always wins. If Joe wasn’t working for his specialty law firm, someone else would. Joe has no effect on the corruption in DC. He is just doing a job and getting paid well. Good for him.

I dont see any of you turds protesting the collectist establishment. If I don’t then who will? Your ilk is what promises me MORE money and you are too retarded to even get it.

joe
I think highly of you for stating the truth. Somebody will get paid $$$$ to do so, and it might as well be you. It’s not going to change, that’s a dream.

At a commercial real estate conference, a keynote speaker said that if the lobbyist left DC, commercial would collapse there.

Have you seen the pictures I’ve posted on this blog? DC construction is crazy. Lots of class A office space, luxury rentals, and condoze in development. Most look like they’ll be completing in the next year or so.

Lobbying takes up the lower floors of our building (I’m 1 block south of K street), if they weren’t here, the rates would be much lower for everyone else.

Somebody will get paid $$$$ to do so, and it might as well be you.

Uh … no.

I know several people who have cut their income in 1/2 specifically to escape being a part of it. I have a relative that specifically stated that “he was not one of them” and lead a very different life than his relatives. I wonder if the ones who put him through all those expensive prep schools saw that one coming.

Somebody will get paid $$$$ to do so, and it might as well be you. It’s not going to change…

Isn’t this the same sorry excuse utilized by the NAR, banks/lenders engaged in usury and skim schemes, MIC spending of public funds on pet projects, Congressional and other public people folding to lobbyists, mortgage brokers, the subjegated press, etc, etc, etc?

I’m not saying it wouldn’t be the hardest thing you’ve ever done but please don’t act like people don’t make that same choice every day despite that difficulty.

Lots of class A office space, luxury rentals, and condoze in development.

Did a 30 mile bike ride through San Francisco yesterday. There are cranes everywhere. An entire new neighborhood is going up before our very eyes - near the SF Giant’s ball park.

And we’re going to keep adding inventory until resale prices are driven in the gutter.

Yes, I see the same thing in DC and Baltimore. Entire new neighborhoods out of what used to be sleepy unremarkable corridors.

My wife and I took a walk around the harbor yesterday, a meandering 5 mile stroll. New fancy frozen yogurt places, Powerplant Live (club area) unreognizable from 5 years ago, new buildings with new logos (Honeywell, Morgan Stanley, Johns Hopkins, Transamerica, T Rowe Price, Constellation).

About the only thing that stays the same is government cheese. One of the buildings we walked by is the Candler Building, which was the first headquarters of the Social Security Administration back when it was founded. The building is large, but now SSA has its own campus, it’s way too big for 1 building. (Social Security Headquarters for the U.S. is now in North Baltimore, near the city/county line.)

And we’re going to keep adding inventory until resale prices are driven in the gutter.

I never realized what brave and selfless heroes you builders- and your compatriots, the realtors- are.

I never realized that everyone here concurs that you’re a liar…. until today.

I never realized that everyone here concurs that you’re a liar…. until today.

All of your multiple personalities, and the voices in your head, are in agreement?

Then it must be wrong.

EVERYONE.

“An entire new neighborhood is going up before our very eyes - near the SF Giant’s ball park.”

Bayview used to be low-rent; no mo!

EVERYONE.

False.

Not me.

alpha and I definitely disagree on some subjects—ok, many subject—but I have never thought that he was a liar.

You misunderstood; BiLA can just “ignore” the despot after programming his drones/missiles and leaving for the day. He zaps himself with one of those special pens from “Men in Black” and goes back to triple-bagging his fiat currency, stuffing it in coffee cans, and burying it in remote locations.

Just following orders.

Bill’s programming must not be that good.

NATO bombing kills 10 children in Afghani

Or, Is the dear leader gunning for a second nobel peace prize?

“Hate the game not the player”

Agree total, hence my “Mittens 2.0″ philosophy.

Or cowards hiding behind children?

Or cowards hiding behind children?

I never understood this. What are they to do? Beat their hairy chests in an open ground and be an easy taeget for the drones or b-2’s?

Who’s the pussy here? The guy who at least has the courage to lift arms or rocks against invaders? Or, the invaders who are armed to teeth, wear protective gear head to toe, use drones and arial bombings that mostly kill innocents and children?

I will ask you again, who’s the pussy?

When you surround a meeting of high level officials with children it is a deliberate policy to use children as human shields. Do you think we would have allowed Hitler to escape a bombing due to children being around him in WWII? As far as pussy, as General Patton said the purpose of war is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his. I think there are problems with our drone strategy such as too much collateral damage for low level targets but this last strike seems to have been targeted at high level. Of course, as I said before I think a snatch and grab strategy is better than an excessive drone strategy.

If we had the guts to fight a religious jihad they only things that would get bombed are the mosques and its leaders….all else would be spared.

use drones and arial bombings that mostly kill innocents and children?

Wasn’t Timothy McViegh a Christian?

Who is gunning down prosecutors in Texas? Must be Muslims.

they only things that would get bombed are the mosques and its leaders….

What if they put kids in the mosques and around their leaders?

Who is gunning down prosecutors in Texas? Must be Muslims.

Seriously, I would say Aryan brotherhood carrying out hits for the Mexican mafia and the drug cartels.

I don’t understand why people pay 400k (or even 300k) to live in a townhouse in some terrible section of a mediocre suburb. Is it because people are still brainwashed that “good schools” are “worth it”? (IMO, school performance is largely a function of parental values and involvement, I would never pay inflated prices for “Montgomery County schools”. Are they great? Or is it the fact the kids are largely from high performing SES backgrounds? I’d bet the latter.

When you pay for a school system you aren’t just paying for teachers and facilities. You are paying to send your kids to schools where the parents of the other students share your values. If everyone’s parents expect them to go to college, it is easier to impose on your own child a need to work hard in school to go to collge. The parents being the primary issue works very well when the kids are young. Once they grow up a bit, picking a school and/or school system is picking the peers who provide the peer pressure.

For example, my home town had great schools. I grew up in the same neighborhood as the few hoodlums we had. Not a big deal in elementary school. By the time I was in 5th grade, the schools were centralized and most of my classmates were from the other side of town and their parents were lawyers and doctors and engineers.

Is that the only way to work it? No, it isn’t. But one way make the parents’ job a little easier is to “free ride” on the culture of the school.

I don’t disagree, polly, I’m just pointing out that spending twice as much money on a house so your kid can go to a MoCo school seems like a bad trade off to me. Just my opinion, of course.

I can’t think of any other reason people would pay 400k to live in a townhouse in Rockville. Probably not a nice area of Rockville, either. As I’ve said, when they build these around me, they’re usually on a formerly industrial area with major traffic once you leave the subdivision. They almost always have HOA as well.

What do private schools cost in the area (a proxy for the value of a “better” education)? Therein lies part of the answer.

That’s why they loved Reagan so much. As a professional actor, he was the best when it came to looking into the camera and reading the script that was handed to him.

He was never part of Bilderberg or the CFR. The republican establishment fought him all the way. I even wonder why he has been the last president to be shot. People think you need an elaborate conspiracy to get someone killed. They create elaborate conspiracies for the killing of Martin Luther King and John and Robert. However, all you need to do to get some one killed is cutback on his or her security. There are plenty of nuts out there targeting anyone well known. Crimes of omission are virtually fool proof.

Both Thatcher and Reagan were nationalists. Their agendas were not in the interests of the globalists. They want to weaken national loyalty not strengthen it.

Do I detect an up-tick in the Pimpster Chain-jerking Index?

Do I detect two liars in the Blog Knitting Club?

Everyone else does.

Because I googled it after one a partner used it to illustrate a point about arguments needing to be rooted in some precedent. I had no idea who Melquiwhatever was, so I had to look it up. Apparently he was some guy in the Bible who had no ancestors and it wasnt’ clear where he was from.

I’m only half Greek and don’t consider myself Greek at all. I also look a lot more like my dad (pretty darn white, blue eyes). Come to the next DC meet up, whenever it happens, I’ll buy you a beer.

Pretty soon my life got sadder than any country song.

So, I gathered up my savvy
Bought myself a business suit
I headed up to New York City
Where a man can make some loot
I got hired Monday morning
Downsized that afternoon
Overcome with grief that evening
Now I’m crazy as a loon

–John Prine

Actually Keene and Roger Creager were in Flagstaff last week. I attended the Roger Creager concert.

So question for the board do we need to put the recovery on a milk carton? It seems to me that the strong dollar has killed the manufacturing resurgence and will soon impact the foreign buying of houses. Of course, it is really not a strong dollar we have but the weakening of the other fiat currencies.

A song for our time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK0PAlNdvn4

I think it is the truck back, certainly it is not the Prius.

You get your house back, your car back, your woman back, and you get your whole damn life back.
And they let your momma outa prison.

Then she gets hit by a train.

Channeling David Allan Coe….

Exactly.

Just download the RAL app on Google Store, the basic version is free, the ad free version is $1/week.

(I’m not sure if there is an iTunes app yet. RAL and I roll with Samsung/Android platform.)

NAR Midyear Legislative meeting in DC, May 13-18

http://www.realtor.org/midyear.nsf/

Debt does matter. The Japanese high saving rates at the beginning of their cycle combined with a large trade surplus (until recently) allowed the Japanese to avoid the problems of a large budget deficit.We do not have either one. Only the people that live in ivory towers do not see this coming collapse due to the excessive budget deficits and the surge in the debt. We are more like Greece than Japan. The Fed has no exit plan and the .02% know this will end badly.

Spengler goes on saying that fracking will solve all of America’s ills. What a mormon!

And Japan is gearing up to begin inflating after 20 years of deflationary policy.

US is next.

If they wanted to create inflation they would use all of that printed money to create jobs. People would then spend the money and take up some of the excess manufacturing capacity. Companies would see the increased demand and higher people.

Instead what they are doing is bailing out the elite adn allowing those with access to the free money to buy up everything. Spending is shifting from wants to needs (speculation driving up food and fuel) from services to needs creating downward pressure on employment.

There’s a big difference. They aren’t ignorant and know exactly what they are doing.

It’s like when they say no one saw it coming, yet Hank Paulson was selling everything and going long treasuries. The tan man was selling hand over fist. They knew exactly what was going on.

They didn’t just know, they CREATED it.

Bingo

Yet time and time again it’s presented as they just didn’t know or just didn’t understand, that it was all so complicated. Not only did they know what was happening a lot of people did. They knew when it was going to happen, because they knew it was going to be triggered.
See Goldman sachs admission that their stolen software could be used to trigger a collapse in the market.

Pure BS

Money in politics is a symptom of a much bigger issue Nobody talks about that…

It’s a symptom of the money all going to the .1%, and the power and propaganda they can buy with it (god, guns ‘n’ gays!) to keep it coming.

We talk about it a lot here.

I used it as an example, not as a catch-all solution.

And the only Dem or Republican I voted for this time around was Obama, which was the right thing to do because I don’t believe in a black & white or evil vs good dichotomy. Mitt Romney is a disgusting excuse for a human being and needed (needs) to be repudiated. Yes, Obama was the lesser of two evils and no, sadly, there were no other viable candidates.

The rest of my ballot was independents and votes on ballot initiatives, e.g. in favor of marriage equality and against expanded gambling bc the state negotiated a bad deal.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast-full-transcript/

“When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really, really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote.”

Take away that “trivial spending” impact 1% more of the vote, which I presume also means 1% less to your candidate, and Bush wins. Yes, it is taking more and more money to swing elections in this country but the money is still very important, perhaps more important since the electorate is so evenly divided and the most of it cannot be swayed by debates or any other means.

When you read through though, there is also this:

“You’re right; it is almost always the guy with the most money who wins. That is what we know as correlation without cause. So let me explain: When it’s raining out, everybody’s got an umbrella, we know that. Those things are correlated. But you know what, the umbrellas don’t cause the rain, we know that too. Here’s the thing: Winning an election and raising money do go together, but it doesn’t seem as though money actually causes the winning either. It’s just that the kind of candidate who’s attractive to voters also ends up, along the way, attracting a lot of money and the losing candidate, nobody wants to give money to that guy. “

“When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote.

The most effective money is spent on the propaganda. I’m sure the Freakonomics guys didn’t include Faux News and the Kochtopus in their campaign spending tally- but they should have. That’s where issues are created and personalized into enemies who are targeted. Then sound bites are created there and disseminated throughout the popular culture.

For example, I’m sure little or no ‘campaign money’ was spent on promoting the idea that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. But plenty of money was spent by ’someone’ on that bit of propaganda. The fact that it failed to sway the Presidential election just shows that Right’s sound bites are no longer believed by a majority of the voting population. A problem the GOP is feverishly working on right now.

When it is pointed out that the candidate with the most money tends to win most elections, they fall back on the ‘correlation does not prove causation’ defense. But correlation does strongly imply causation, and it in no way refutes it, as some seem to think. It is up to the ‘debunker’ to prove why something is consistently correlated with something else, and not its cause.

And of course, ‘only getting one percent more of the vote’ through much higher spending, is often enough to win the election.

They are talking about a DOUBLING of spending to get an extra 1%. They don’t say that political spending doesn’t matter, they are just saying that it doesn’t matter as much as everyone wants you to believe.

How many elections are decided by 1% or less of the vote? I’m going to say that it doesn’t happen often. In fact, I’m willing to wager that it actually happens quite rarely.

Why do politicians want you to believe otherwise? Because regardless, the politicians want the money in their hands, not yours. Having a big purse in many cases can keep challengers away from even attempting to unseat an incumbent.

The most effective money is spent on the propaganda. I’m sure the Freakonomics guys didn’t include Faux News and the Kochtopus in their campaign spending tally- but they should have.

You have to be most deluded partisan poster in this blog. Even 2banana can’t compete with you.

If you had any brain cells (I doubt it) or had an ounce of intellectual honesty (I double doubt it) same can be said about your side.

It’s not necessarily about which candidate or party wins, it’s about the POLICIES and INSTITUTIONS. We have 2 idiotic parties that essentially serve the same people. Yes, they hand out slightly different amounts of money to different interest groups, but they answer to the same people. Once in office, it’s shocking how many of the same things both parties support. Look at wars, look at our tax code (not the easy issues with taxation of w-2 income, look at the loopholes, the reclassification of income as “carried interest”, capital gains, depreciation, amortization, etc.).

There are some surface differences, sure. The focus on candidates and parties only obscurs what has happened to the U.S. over a long period of time. The hegemony is astounding. Can you ever imagine either party really running a legit “anti-war” campaign these days? Can you imagine either party admitting that more money for a “war on drugs” is tantamount to more lives and money flushed down the toilet and more U.S. money ending up in shitholes like Mexico and Columbia to fund real terrorists?

“Take away that “trivial spending” impact 1% more of the vote, which I presume also means 1% less to your candidate, and Bush wins.”

They only change the minds of 1% because they are only targeting the minds of a small portion of the electorate. Larger than 1%, but not anywhere close to 100%. There are some people who actually are undecided. The ones who are both undecided and living in states where the main party candidates are within 5% of each other are the ones that are targeted with serious advertising. The rest of us see it because we are in areas that are in the same media buying area as people like that. The rest don’t get a lot of advertising dollars spent on them, though a little will go for general GOTV purposes and to make sure whoever wins the EC also wins the popular vote.

If you had any brain cells (I doubt it) or had an ounce of intellectual honesty (I double doubt it) same can be said about your side.

I assume by your lack of a coherent counter-argument, and your juvenile name calling, that you are one of those easily influenced by propaganda.

ALWAYS

So if you get hacked, they’re bye bye!

So if you get hacked, they’re bye bye!

Yep.

All transactions are always available to monitor, that is the only way they make sure 1 bitcoin is only spent once.

All bitcoins can be traced back to when they were first mined.

Who is spending the bitcoins may or may not be anonymous.

Still running and flailing huh….. Birdbrain. lmao

He never answers questions. Never. Not even when you ask them like he does.

He never answers questions. Never. Not even when you ask them like he does.
Today I finally found a man in the trade who knew the names of 3 or the current producers of aluminum siding. The previous dozen I had asked either didn’t know or wouldn’t tell me.

I doubt that even Keynes advocated burning the legs of your chair to heat the room?
True story - my mom burnt some of our furniture in the fireplace one night in 1958 or ‘59 when dad was laid off & couldn’t fill the furnace oil tank.

Keynes would advocate that the government spend money to plant tree farms, so the freezing people could have jobs now, and the country will have a future asset.

Hayek would advocate that the people should set themselves on fire, as both a short- and long-term solution.

Marx would advocate that they set the people who created the unsuccessful economy on fire. That’s what scared the .1% so much the last time that they swallowed their bile and did what Keynes advocated- to great success.

Then communism fell and Marxism was supposedly ‘disproven’, so the .1%ers are letting their freak flag fly again.

tresho — awesome story, thanks for sharing!

if this huge crushing government debt isn’t reversed, it will kill our currency.

The debt will “kill our currency” relative to what? The Yen? The Euro? The Real? Bitcoins, Gold? Tacos?

“Tacos?”

Tacos have an inherent worth. At least you can eat them.

Was the economist saying that everybody should spend ALL of their money, and then borrow more?

Was the economist saying that everybody should spend ALL of their money, and then borrow more?
If the economist didn’t say that, s/he might as well have.

Well, he doesn’t address that question specifically. But from the article, this is what he IS saying:

As a result of this displacement of labor, the sacrifice of saving for a rainy day — of foregoing present consumption on behalf of future growth — had become pointless, and perhaps destructive of the general welfare.

…

And now we get to the heart of my argument: that today’s policy emphasis should be on spending, not saving; in short, my argument “against thrift.”

biased towards the savings side.

The bias towards saving will still result in deflation and a slowing economy, as the velocity of money slows and the money supply contracts, which makes money worth more and more, encouraging people to save more and spend less, which continues the vicious circle.

The creation of the safety net was driven in large part by the belief that the masses would be much better consumers if they knew they would be taken care of when they were old and broke. The old story about the ant and the grasshopper does not make sense if when the grasshopper runs out of food, government steps in and takes the food from the ant. Take away the safety net or don’t create one and private savings soar. The old unions were able to sustain strikes for six months or more because even working class people use to save that amount. It wasn’t due to much higher wages but a much more frugal lifestyle. So if you want to relieve the stress on the planet support cuts to the safety net.

if you want to relieve the stress on the planet support cuts to the safety net so old people die faster.

The old unions were able to sustain strikes for six months or more because even working class people use to save that amount.

The unions had strike funds to help pay the striking workers their lost wages. Nice try, though.

The creation of the safety net was driven in large part by the belief that the masses would be much better consumers if they knew they would be taken care of when they were old and broke

And it worked exactly as planned, creating the largest middle class in history.

Sorry Alpha, very few unions ever had six month strike funds, it was their members savings that allowed for the long strikes.

And it worked exactly as planned, creating the largest middle class in history.
Correction it worked exactly as planned, it allowed the .02% to accumulate wealth while the 99.8% accumulated debt. The last remaining wealth held by the middle class was in their houses so they created home equity lines of credit.

From the teamsters own site, looking at these amounts, strike funds could never sustain strikes without people drawing from their own resources, the smartest thing capitalists ever did for themselves was to get workers to go into debt and stop creating a rainy day fund:

What is strike pay and how much would I receive?

When strikers stop working, they do not receive their normal paychecks, but they will receive some money from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Strike Fund. Many local unions also maintain their own strike funds to help their workers through difficult times. Local strike benefits are determined by the local. Strike benefits from the International Union are based on the following formula:

If you earn less than $11 per hour, you will receive between $75 and $110 per week. For all other members, strike pay is equivalent to four times your monthly dues amount per week. For example, if your monthly dues payment is $70, you will receive $280 per week (70 x 4 = 280).

it allowed the .02% to accumulate wealth while the 99.8% accumulated debt

That was when we ‘wised up’ and chucked Keynes for supply-side voodoo economics.

it was their members savings that allowed for the long strikes.

Strike pay is the name of payments made by a trade union to workers who are on strike as help in meeting their basic needs while on strike, often out of a special reserve known as a strike fund. Union workers reason that the availability of strike pay increases their leverage at the bargaining table and actually decreases the probability of a strike, since the employers are aware that their employees have this financial resource available to them if they choose to strike.[1]
wikipedia

That was when we ‘wised up’ and chucked Keynes for supply-side voodoo economics.

We chucked Keynes because we had double digit inflation and high unemployment under Carter. How a housing bubble which is an increase in consumption can be blamed on supply side economics is beyond me. Supply side economics which would encourage factories over consumption. If Reagan was president the first thing he would do is do away with double taxation of profits earned overseas so they could be brought back to invest in factories here. That would be supply side. Reagan created IRAs and did away with deductions for interest on credit cards. Once again investment is favored over consumption in supply side economics.
Obama has encouraged consumption over investment since he came in office with predictable results. Cash for clunkers, first time buyer’s credit etc along with driving down interest rates punishing savers and rewarding debtors.

How a housing bubble which is an increase in consumption can be blamed on supply side economics is beyond me.

Then you’re not thinking very hard.

How a housing bubble which is an increase in consumption can be blamed on supply side economics is beyond me.

Not me. The housing bubble was promoted to provide asset inflation AFTER supply-side, all for the rich (voodoo economics) caused gross wealth inequality and gutted the middle class’s path to wealth.

Reagan created IRAs

And and fostered disrespect for our government, gutted unions and set the path for a no-pension America. But we have IRA’s now. What a joke.

Yes, Rio and the worker’s paradise in Brazil is going gang busters. Everything I said it happening, Brazil’s growth is gone because government driven growth does not work as well as supply side economics. Even the government oil company is in trouble. The problem is not supply side economics, it is we stopped trying true supply side economics after Reagan left office. Not surprising since the globalists did not want production in the US, they wanted it in the rest of the world.

Brazil back to importing oil since it has taken over oil production, and even using US ethanol, I guess it ran out of slave labor, forward: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/08/who-can-help-brazils-oil-industry-stop-the-bleedin.aspx

Rio and the worker’s paradise in Brazil is going gang busters.

How is Brazil a “worker’s paradise”? I’ve never heard anyone in the world (including Brazilians) call it that. Do you own a passport? My passport is Blue, not Green. If you think a bashing Brazil hurts me, you’re funny.

But you are dodging the issue: (as usual)

The housing bubble was promoted to provide asset inflation AFTER supply-side and then all-for-the-rich policies caused gross wealth inequality and gutted the middle class. All of those “free-market” policies jacked America.

Reagan’s voodoo economics and “free-market,” rich-get-richer false religion set the USA down a path to ruin.

Reagan, was in many aspects…….a tool.

Some people are suckers….. ALOT.

Some people like loosing money…ALOT.

she cited zoning laws, which tend to be strict in nice places like Kenilworth. That said, anything is possible if you scratch the right backs, so maybe someone could persuade the zoning board.

And I said there’s this thing called an excavator that pushes over dumps like these.

LMAO

Pimpster, no doubt you could build the place today for $60 per sq ft.

I wouldn’t know. Nobody builds relics like that for good reason.

Nobody builds relics like that for good reason.

They can’t afford to. That’s why you generally get a better house if you buy a well-made older one.

If they keep the rain out and away from the foundation, that house will last 500 or more years. Don’t believe me? Take a trip to Europe.

“BTW, I also noticed that the original owners had only lived there 3 years.”

1928-1931. Sounds like a Depression victim.

“That’s why you generally get a better house if you buy a well-made older one.”

Like that balloon framed fire trap of yours. uh huh.

Like that balloon framed fire trap of yours. uh huh.

I guess that’s why every balloon framed building has burned down.

BTW, since you seem interested- my house is brick masonry (3 brick thick) on a cut stone foundation. Like the two-thousand-year old buildings of ancient Rome, many of which still stand.

my house is brick masonry (3 brick thick) on a cut stone foundation. Like the two-thousand-year old buildings of ancient Rome, many of which still stand.
Many of the ancient wonder buildings that aren’t standing were disassembled & used as building materials for later structures. It is nice that you thought of posterity when you bought your place.

“(3 brick thick)”

Which means an un-reinforced seismic death trap.

Which means an un-reinforced seismic death trap.

About my only fear. But I got earthquake insurance for an extra $10 month, because I don’t live in an area prone to earthquakes.

Then there’s the rotting mortar from the inside out.

LOL, Pimpy. Such a ray of sunshine you are.

Don’t like the truth huh debt-junkie.

We decided it would need a SWAT team to clean it once a week. The basement has its own kitchen…perfect for a couple of teenage boys to hang out with their friends. As long as security cameras were installed.

They probably wouldn’t let me in. Just like the Onwentsia Club.

why all all the naked protests so flat chested???????

Putin is lucky he was there with Angela Merkel cause if it was Hillary Clinton she woulda knocked him on his @ss to get a glimpse of that.

Christina Aguilera, Hillary Clinton Shared ‘A Real Moment’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/christina-aguilera-hillary-clinton-photo-real-moment_n_2258949.html - 184k -

Merkel looked disgusted, but Putin clearly was fascinated.

“Merkel looked disgusted, but Putin clearly was fascinated.”

Not as fascinated as Hillary Clinton looked with Christina Aguilera.

…or how quickly municipalities respond by approving additional land to develop into homes.

The pattern for San Diego (Per the Lincoln Institute of Land) was for a peak in 1990, trough in 1996, peak in 2006, trough in 2012.

Inland (San Bernardino) was similar, peak in 1990, trough in early 1997, peak in 2006, trough in early 2012.

“The pattern for San Diego (Per the Lincoln Institute of Land) was for a peak in 1990, trough in 1996, peak in 2006, trough in 2012.”

I assume you have enough of a stat background to know that classical inferences from a sample size of one are generally useless.

A more promising way to proceed here is by subjective reasoning: Given that we are witnessing in real time the greatest housing bubble in the history of San Diego, California, the U.S., and the planet, do you really also believe that it is a normal cycle in terms of the amount of time it will take to go from peak to trough? ESPECIALLY given all the artificial intervention that was used to prop up the market!?

I certainly don’t.