The Housing Bubble

LIEberal is more accurate. Or Lola.

Gotta watch those SSRIs. They have a tendency to make people sort of wooden and detached, with an attendant inability to recognize things like sarcasm, thus taking everything literally.

Sarcasm is supposed to be humourous or at least make some sort of point.

LolaLol

And I don’t mean simply driving it. I mean, I like pulling up anywhere I please, putting it in park, and hitting the gas. You should see the looks on all the commies’ faces.

I was in Seattle ,but avoided the re-education camps. Nice in the summer.

I’m in Portland, but same difference. Except, we call that season, ‘construction.’ As opposed to our other season, ‘rain.’

Just curious couldn’t you just move over to Vancouver and avoid the income taxes?

Thought about it, but the commute to where I work would be at least 45 mins one way.

I live the first line of this, “you scratch a progressive and you find a fascist”. What we have in America is fascism with big business and government working hand in hand. And what fascist/communist governments hate is any potential challenge to their authority and religious institutions often play that role. Thus, anything that can be done to weaken religious institutions and bring them under the control of government must be done.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/07/02/huffington-post-many-catholics-supreme-court/

“Take away credit, and we are in very serious trouble.”

+1 Speaking of credit I see the 4th of July holiday crowd rolling through town with their toyz are once again installing matching custom wheels on their trailers again.

It’s funny how “broad idea” caught your eye (i.e. anything could qualify as “Progressive”) while I was drawn in by this part of the definition:

…the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition.

That stuff does sound pretty terrible. It is easy to see why Bible-thumping conservatives who believe God created the world 8000 years ago feel threatened by Progressives.

And?

“Liberal” used to mean something very different as well.

Today’s progressives aren’t. They simply believe themselves to be.

Remember as well that it is they who gave themselves the label.

My issue has to do with the use (or misuse) of vague labels.

My issue is similar; I dislike the use (misuse) of vague political labels by people pretending to be smart when the practice makes them seem like morons.

Generally speaking, when you inflict upon someone or something some sort of label then rational discussion comes to a halt because the branding due to one’s interpretation of the label ends up taking over one’s thinking.

Disagreement doesn’t equal feeling threatened.

I’d like to hear your version how this world began.

I believe God caused the big bang to happen, caused the planets/suns to form millions of years ago and then breathed life into man.

“…when you inflict upon someone or something some sort of label…”

Guilty as charged, though under the circumstances, ‘moron’ seemed appropriate.

“I’d like to hear your version how this world began.”

Replace your “millions of years ago” with “billions of years ago” and you will be getting close.

“I’d like to hear your version how this world began.”

For starters, I don’t suffer from the extreme discomfort with uncertainty about origins which drives some folks to buy into the ‘theory’ that God created the world a few thousand years ago.

Secondly, I favor explanations that can be reconciled with the known scientific facts of modern evolutionary theory and geology.

I thought True Believers dated the world at under 20,000 years? But perhaps I misunderstood.

“I thought True Believers dated the world at under 20,000 years?”

“… True Believers …”

There’s that label thing again.

The left loves to label themselves with terms and destroy their meaning. Liberal use to mean people that believed in democracy and Adam Smith free markets. There is nothing progressive about today’s progressives since they really just want to bring us back to failed policies of the 1930s where government tried to manage the economy and could never get a real recovery.

“the known scientific facts of modern evolutionary theory…”

You’ve hit some rocks there, confusing theory with fact.

Liberal use to mean people that believed in democracy and Adam Smith free markets.

BTW, when Lenin talked about liberals as being useful idiots, he was talking about liberals with that meaning. I think Obama like Lenin does not really believe in democracy but is willing to use it to obtain power and that is really all he cares about the power to enact his agenda.

Whac,

It’s OK to disagree.

If you go through the steps that most evolutionists believe, there are plenty of theories that aren’t based on scientific truths.

What caused the big bang?

How did that first spark of life occur?

Why are there sudden jumps in the complexities of living organisms in the fossil records?

But the doublespeak by the statists is the problem. Liberalism was coined by Frederik Bastiat, a man who was a capitalist not a statist. Liberal - the root of that is based on freedom: [C14: from Latin līberālis of freedom, from līber free]

But if you are taxed you are not free. That is the doublespeak.

Doublespeak with progressivism. As combo pointed out it’s based on the root - “progress” But statism is not progress. Not when you rob Peter to pay Paul.

Here is what a liberal really is: Someone who robs Peter to pay Paul, and then basks in the glory of being labeled a giver. When instead he is a taker. Liberals love adoration for their self-label “for the people.” When in fact they are against the producers. They are against the people they rob.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals call themselves humanitarian when they redistribute other people’s hard earned money. Conservatives think it’s a necessary evil to redistribute other people’s money to pay for defense.

Obfuscation - both your connected and garden-variety NeoCon-Progressive cannot exist without it.

This is not surprising or unexpected.

Washington DC must lie in order to justify its growth. Governments the world over must lie to justify their existence.

Governments always operate at a net loss to society. They do not generate profit. Hence, their livelihood (their existence) must come from you, often against your will and better judgment.

Subsequently, it is only natural for NeoCon-Progressives to actively co-opt the meaning of socially recognized philosophies and truisms.

They must do so.

The statists of the world (the connected and garden variety types alike) have actively co-opted concepts such as “liberal” and “progressive” because doing so was and is fundamental to their cause.

None of this is rocket science.

The fact that growing numbers of individuals understand this causes much consternation and indigestion among the NeoCon-Progressive Party Members.

It’s why the two forces have bandied together - they need to in order to fight their opposition.

This movement began in earnest publically with the election of George Bush Sr to Vice President in 1980.

“The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals call themselves humanitarian when they redistribute other people’s hard earned money. Conservatives think it’s a necessary evil to redistribute other people’s money to pay for defense.”

But libertarians point out that conservatives are still evil. Redistribution of OPM is still theft. We can handle our own defense. Arguably, the USA last needed defense against the Japanese in WWII. I’m starting to rethink the cold war.

A good many conservatives are not so good people.

Yet, I don’t split Good Conservative from Bad Conservative because one is religious and the other is not. Viewing people through a religious lens is the domain of NeoCon-Progressives. They are the folks who dislike people because they are not religious AND because they are religious.

Both NeoCons and Progressives alike are nuts on that score.

“Governments always operate at a net loss to society. They do not generate profit.”

This must be the day for broad, unproven generalities.

But I claim that in many instances, the government is the root source of the conditions which underpin profitable enterprise.

A good case in point is the space race, which was largely conducted in the U.S. by an agency called NASA. Without a space race, we would not have modern computers. Without modern computers, we would have no internet. Without an internet, we would have no Netflix, Facebook or Google.
Not to mention no Microsoft, Apple or Silicon Valley.

So when you get down to it, your point that the government does not generate profit is flat out wrong. In many instances, the very existence of profitable companies is only possible due to past government actions to sow the seeds of technological innovation.

But I claim that in many instances, the government is the root source of the conditions which underpin profitable enterprise.

technically true. government protection of people and their personal and property rights does enhance an economy. but ANYTHING it does beyond that, inhibits an economy. and this government is now smothering our economy. it has been for a very long time, and i think that that is what MacBeth was referring to.

A good case in point is the space race, which was largely conducted in the U.S. by an agency called NASA. Without a space race, we would not have modern computers.

this is completely false. a myth propagated by the left. computers were around before ENIAC in world war II. a guy named babbage is considered the father of computers in the early 1800s. he did all the work on his own. no government help.

government saw the usefulness of computers for artillery firing tables and had the resources to finance ENIAC. that was an inefficient ‘demand pull’ type of program like ‘cash for clunkers’, that saw a short term gain at the expense of long term damage.

all in all, the general theme of what MacBeth was saying is correct. that is, that in every other area than our protection, government is operating at a net loss to our economy.

government saw the usefulness of computers for artillery firing tables and had the resources to finance ENIAC. that was an inefficient ‘demand pull’ type of program like ‘cash for clunkers’, that saw a short term gain at the expense of long term damage.

Huh??? What was the “long term damage” of the ENIAC program??

What was the “long term damage” of the ENIAC program??

it was the long term damage that was caused by the economy’s deprivation of resources that would have been better allocated in private sector.

now, if we’re in war for our lives, i’m not against that misallocation. i’m just pointing out that we’d be further ahead if the misallocation wasn’t necessary.

government doesn’t create a dang thing. even the scientists it uses are recruited from the private sector.

it was the long term damage that was caused by the economy’s deprivation of resources that would have been better allocated in private sector.

Ah—so you have no evidence at all, and are resorting to a religious argument. Got it.

as usual, your limited understanding gets you nothing. you swim in a sea of ignorance and believe you have not missed a turn.

My current belief is that the idea that the private sector is such a bastion of perfect resource allocation is fully as flawed as the theory of efficient markets.

Yes, it’s far better than central planning can do, in general—but it also is the thing that brought us pet rocks and tomagachi; in other words, it is sometimes retarded, and far from efficient.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m a huge fan of free markets and removing the malinvestment caused by the FedRes and the FedGov. But I don’t buy the argument that ENIAC caused damage.

If anything, front-loading investment in certain areas (computers, space) appears to have had significant value, as they were area where large productivity efficiencies were waiting to be gained, and the private market would have taken much longer to get there and reap them, if unprompted.

My current belief is that the idea that the private sector is such a bastion of perfect resource allocation is fully as flawed as the theory of efficient markets.

i never claimed that the private sector provided ‘perfect’ allocation. i’m saying it provides the best allocation possible. not because it is wise, but because the failures are stopped immediately. and the hard won successes, for the most part, create wealth.

Yes, it’s far better than central planning can do, in general—but it also is the thing that brought us pet rocks and tomagachi; in other words, it is sometimes retarded, and far from efficient.

pet rocks were a sign of prosperity. many citizens get frivolous with money when they are prospering. we won’t be seeing many pet rocks or beanie babies in our calamitous future.

But I don’t buy the argument that ENIAC caused damage.

read what i wrote more carefully. i didn’t claim that ENIAC caused damage, i claimed that taking the money from the tax payer to fund it caused damage. anytime government takes money to fund a program, they damage the economy. even when it’s done for defense which is a sound purpose. we rightfully pay a price for our defense. but we shouldn’t get the idea that government has given us technology that we would not have had otherwise. that’s a common myth propagated by the left, just like ’spending is 70% of the economy’. they use that one to justify enormous spending too.

If anything, front-loading investment in certain areas (computers, space) appears to have had significant value

yes, that’s how most people see it but they’re wrong. what did the space program get us long term? an empty space station that we have to pay the russians to get a ride to. and we’re getting poorer and can do less and less.

as they were area where large productivity efficiencies were waiting to be gained, and the private market would have taken much longer to get there and reap them, if unprompted.

we weren’t financially ready to go to the moon. the proof is the scaled back faltering program we have now. we should have just continued to make improvements in our missile systems, and let the private sector take us into space when it was ready.

yes, we wouldn’t have started as early, but i believe we would have had a steady presence there by now. if the private sector had done it, it not only would have been sustainable, but it would have come at no expense to those who weren’t interested in doing it, which was the vast majority. in other words, there would have been no bill for the tax payer.

you’re right that the private sector would have taken much longer. my guess is that it would have taken 20 to 30 years longer. and what would have been the harm in that?

we should have let the russians continue to bankrupt their country by the worthless endeavor of going to the moon. we could have easily upgraded our defense without spending vast sums of money solely for showmanship.

if we wouldn’t have wasted all that money and had kept good economic policies, we would have probably been profitably mining asteroids by now. and we’d have had many more instances of pet rock type businesses as our society grew wealthier and wealthier.

instead we turned to socialism more and more. and there is a reckoning coming because of it. the great denouement.

Perhaps Lola can roll her Rs when she channels Eartha Kitt in a leopard skin mini.

A while back someone posted a photo of Lola wearing a leopard-skin leotard before he shaved his mustache. It was creepy.

“Articles” eh?

You’re in the wong place bud.

Here’s a ground level report if you don’t like “articles”. A resident gave notice to vacate yesterday. Put it on Craigslist at 5 AM. There were 4 calls/emails before noon. Showed the place at 3 PM. Leased w a start date of August 1st.

HA says 25 million empty houses. HA, Ha, ha….tell that to the people scrambling to find a place to live. Inventory availability is tighter than ever. South Placer County in the Sacramento Valley.

My average vacancy rate over the last 6 years has been less than 1%…..

You’re a fraud.

we are sowing the seeds of tomorrow’s distress right now.

It’s not really “new” distress, though—in my view, it is more just moving yesterday’s distress to tomorrow.

But I share your concerns about cap rates. The Fed, by intentionally shifting the yield curve across the board, rescues the chosen few today, at the expense of many others tomorrow.

As Palin would say, you betcha.

30 stocks? LOL. What’s even funnier is that just one is skewing the index. CAT.

30 stocks? LOL. What’s even funnier is that just one is skewing the index. CAT.

I see what you mean about CAT.

An index of 30 stocks is an easily skewed indicator.

What private bank is buying blocks of CAT?

Interesting. Housing demand in FL turned negative once again.

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/FL-home-value/r_14/#metric=mt%3D30%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D4%26rt%3D4%26r%3D14%252C2964%252C1561%252C2993%26el%3D0

Rents are definitely going up in Locaville, especially in the trendy neighborhoods and brand new complexes.

Boggles me. I haven’t had much turnover. Lots of people want to stay put as I generally don’t raise rents. That’s OK. I prefer lo-hassle to mo-money.

Falling in Manhattan too.

But here Colorado, now repeat after me, thanks Obama, (from the same source):

Monday, April 21, 2014

.
.
Share:

Share on facebook

Share on twitter

Share on sinaweibo

Share on reddit

Share on linkedin

.

General Motors (GM.NYSE) announced it would invest US$12 billion in China between 2014 and 2017, an attempt to grab market supremacy back from Volkswagon (VOW.ETR), Reuters reported. VW eclipsed GM last year to become the top-selling foreign brand in China. GM plans to build five more plants in China next year as part of its efforts to ramp up manufacturing capacity there by 65% by 2020. Looking away from China’s coastal provinces, Volkswagen also said it would invest billions to increase the number of dealerships in China’s central and western provinces. VW said vehicle density in China’s smaller cities offers lucrative growth prospects.

Labor is very cheap in China, much chaeper than in developed economies such as the US, France or Germany. China also probably has tariffs on imported cars. These are the most important reasons for Peugeot, GM and VW to build factories in China. There was an article on Bloomberg.com yesterday about BMW building a factory in Mexico for the same reason - cheap labor.

Also, the most of oil that Canada sells to China is pretty small at this point.

I meant to write, “the amount of oil that Canada sells to China is pretty small at this point.”

These are the most important reasons for Peugeot, GM and VW to build factories in China.

And one of the biggest is Obama’s policies are not being followed there. Virtually, no welfare programs and moving toward reducing government’s role in the economy and not expanding it. I do not care if the amount of oil be sold to China is small, it is expanding and it along with Obama’s coal policy is forfeiting one of the few advantages we have.

The bottom line is how has Obama made businesses more competitive with China?

1. Has he reduced their taxes? No, he increased their taxes including Obamacare taxes.

2. Has he reduced their regulatory compliance costs? Their regulatory burden is soaring.

3. Has he reduced their energy costs? No, his war on coal is driving up energy costs.

China also probably has tariffs on imported cars.

More than that, they are … hold still … protectionist. That’s right, if you want to sell cars in China, you have to make them there.

Of course if we do that, it’s evil. When China does that, it’s just good business sense.

Still, blaming Obama for a French car company setting up a factory in China to make cars to sell in China … whatever.

Don’t get me wrong, Obama sucks rocks as prez. But blaming that on him? Maybe blame that on the president of France. Then again, the ChiComs have dictated “if you want to sell them here, you make them here.”

That’s right, if you want to sell cars in China, you have to make them there.

Of course if we do that, it’s evil.

To be more specific, it would be an interference in free trade and free markets which is always and everywhere a good thing for all concerned.

China been engaged in an active economic assault on the west for years and thanks to multinationals corrupting our legislators to pad their quarterly sheets, we’re handing them refreshments and umbrellas as they storm our economic beaches D-Day style.

So…Why are we arguing about how we race to the bottom with a geo-economic cheater who tariffs nations it’s supposed to be in “free trade” agreements with, manipulates its currency, gives massive subsidies to its domestic industry, then dumps the product on our markets to drive ours under?

China is utilizing the same plan Alexander Hamilton used to rapidly industrialize the US. If we don’t dust off those policies soon, we’re going to swap places with china.

the media keeps saying housing and stocks are leading us out of the recession.

Amy/$hitHousePoet,

How far in debt are you?

0 debt just a boatload of equity partner.

You’re loaded to the gills with the debt $hitHousePoet.

your bankrupt aren’t you? U missed the boat again?

those depreciating shacks are eating you alive.

cash flow rolling in buddy. hows your 4th shopping at walmart going? ball park franks this year?

Dump those shacks while you still have a chance $hitHousePoet.

do your shanties @ 50 include indoor plumbing or a sh@thouse in the backyard?

You better find one soon. You’re deeper underwater by the month.

FYI - traditional marriage amendments were also part of many state consitititions.

As obama has shown us - all it takes is one federal judge to over turn it

FYI - traditional marriage amendments were also part of many state consitititions.

As obama has shown us - all it takes is one federal judge to over turn it

TABOR has withstood many legal challenges. So much so that the big spenders have pretty much given up challenging it. They can’t win in the courtroom and they can’t win at the ballot box. It’s demise was predicted when it was approved by voters 20 years ago, and yet its still going strong, and for one very good reason: the overwhelming majority voters support it.

The Colorado Dems know that if they try to overturn it that they are handing over the keys to the GOP. So even they live with it and ask for small tax increases piecemeal (and always get turned down).

Racial Bias Ruling Raises School Taxes

By WILLIAM ROBBINS, Special to the New York Times
Published: September 17, 1987

A Federal district judge, in a move designed to wipe out the vestiges of racial discrimination in the Kansas City school system, today ordered sharp increases in property and income taxes to pay for sweeping improvements.

The order by the judge, Russell G. Clark, nearly doubles the Kansas City school district’s property tax rate and increases by 25 percent the amount of state income taxes paid by anyone with earnings from activities or employment in the district.

The property levy was intended to wipe out a deficit estimated by Judge Clark at $27 million a year in the budget for a broad array of school system improvements that he had previously ordered, including dozens of ”magnet” schools that seek to attract students from suburban schools and private schools in the city.

The judge also suggested a pay increase for teachers, saying the new taxes would provide funds to permit such an action by the school board. Burden on Commercial Property

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/17/us/racial-bias-ruling-raises-school-taxes.html

A Federal district judge, in a move designed to wipe out the vestiges of racial discrimination in the Kansas City school system, today ordered sharp increases in property and income taxes to pay for sweeping improvements.

As I’ve said before, TABOR has been challenged since day 1, and yet it’s still here. Too bad Missouri doesn’t have TABOR.

There you go, all it would take is a liberal judge to say that the funding mechanism for schools in place discriminates against minority students and thus the restrictions imposed by TABOR violate the federal constitution and under the supremacy clause the Colorado constitutional amendment is invalid.

That argument has been made and it went down in flames, in part because school funding is managed by the state government and all districts are pretty much funded the same amount, so no discrimination. And IIRC, the voters in the City of Denver did a voluntary De-Brucing to provide additional funding for their schools.

Gotta love TABOR. I really wish you guys in NM had it too.

tax whitey