Followed by 0
Ignored by 1
In United States
Registered Mar 01, 2011
molly's most recent comments:
- On 19 Mar 2013
More than half of properties in hot san fran zip on Trulia are foreclosures!,
" The person who pays $1.4 million might very well be getting a steal. If someone has better insight than you and makes this investment, perhaps doubling it over the next 5 years, he is certainly not foolish regardless of what YOU think the property is worth.''
....Problem with this theory is that if the buyer is foolish, those of us who were smarter will have to pay for that person's stupidity. The current market is already set by Fed intervention that have a destructive effect on wise savers. They're all Ayn Rand capitalists going in. When the deal goes bad, they want compassionate socialism to keep them in their homes.
- On 19 Sep 2012
The Strawman Argument,
Dan8267, I appreciate your countering the illogic of iwog. Well-done. I'd also add that the "life isn't supposed to be fair'' rejoinder is a strawman in that it mischaracterizes the issue I raised through trivialization.
The issue isn't simply whether QE3 is fair. It's whether the policy is dangerous. Does the lack of discussion about the effects on the non-ownership society suggest that Bernanke and, more to the point, the Krugman crowd have carefully weighed the consequences and decided that the overall good will be served? Or have they not given any thought to the effects on the non-homeowner working class? Do they ever give a thought to that cohort?
If not, then we must ponder whether they would choose this course even if it were fatal to a substantial part of the 33 percent of Americans who rent?
In other words, was "let them eat cake'' an unfair remark, or did it represent something much bigger?
Finally, I would ask you not to oversimplify the divide as older vs. younger. It's ownership society vs. working class. Older people generally fall into the former category, but those who don't are as screwed as anyone, if not more so.
At the very least, I expect government to start taxing homeownership gains to shore up Medicare and Social Security and taxing inheritances that were sustained with the entitlement programs and expanded by excessively subsidized housing wealth.
I hated the Democratic convention, because it emphasized raising taxes on people EARNING a certain amount of money while failing to ask homeownership profiteers to pay any taxes at all on their gains.
If we keep targeting workers -- yes, even those making $200,000-plus, many of whom will not be able to buy houses because they can't count on being at or near that income level for 30 years -- the result could be the same as when Marie shooed the starving off to her favorite bakery. Half-jokingly, I tell friends that substantial inflation may drive some people to pour savings into arsenals to start the revolution. But it's only half a joke.
- On 2 Jul 2012
Foreclosure prevention laws extend the slump, experts agree,
You appear to be the one with the literacy problem. Do you not know the difference between "low'' and "lower''?
I did not say we would maintain our current level of owner-occupied housing. The story claimed we'd essentially become a nation of renters, and I said the elimination of government-backed 30-year loans would not lead to a "low'' homeownership rate. 50 percent is not a low rate.
While I'm at it, let's add that the government created Fannie and the FHA about a decade before the country's productivity really boomed post-WW II. It is entirely possible that the prosperity of that era would have allowed people to save sufficiently to buy houses with bigger down payments and, as a result, shorter mortgages, which were the norm before the 1930s.
We can only speculate, of course. But OC Housing's prediction is also a theory, and one with limited grounding in history.