patrick.net

Riffing through my blogroll this morning and found that James Picerno (the Capital Spectator) attended a Greenspan speech yesterday in Washington.

I wonder if AG isn't doing his part to discourage a panic, or perhaps merely defending his 'legacy'. He continues his moderate comments regarding housing and essentially characterises it as a retrenchment.

http://capitalspectator.com/

If Jim Burger at CNN Money is correct in using builders' confidence levels as a leading indicator for Wall Street (the correlation chart is terrifying) we're in for some truly rough weather.

Client today tells me he is working with trump to address massive foreclosures. Movie theaters will be hosting the events simulatneously around the country. The Chinese are actively involved and are expected to be eager buyers.

"I don't need to plug this in to Argus"

FAB, so true. I don't need to slide down a bannister full of razor blades either. Even a lay person can see no upside to this "scenario". I'm sure this specuvestor borrowed the $'s under the false pretense of being an owner occupier. Rather I should say, I would be surprised if he hadn't?

doc1,

Can you kind of expand on that a little? You're not kidding us are you? Movie house presentations, like WWll movie shorts to buy "war bonds"?

Sf woman, I think our ability to learn more about CV disease and even infectious processes is severely curtailed due to the limited number of autopsies being performed in hospitals. when the 350lb Sumo wrestling obese physique is showcased for the Nation on Monday Night Football, what do you expect? (Except an obese population.)

I don’t need to plug this in to Argus to get an idea what a bad investment this in since if paid cash for the place you would probably average far less than a 1% annual return on your money…

lol. Well, there is an exponent in the equation, so it still may be worth it. That is, if you've got a couple hundred years of planning horizon over which you can bear a negative NPV.

Sf Woman, my friend had an excellent solution to the personal responsibility issue. If a smoker, drinker, reckless behavior, obese, etc individual died, he would label cause: "Chronic Suicide". Insurance companies loved him. Families of deceased did not.

my friend had an excellent solution to the personal responsibility issue. If a smoker, drinker, reckless behavior, obese, etc individual died, he would label cause: “Chronic Suicide”. Insurance companies loved him. Families of deceased did not.

@doc1,
You and I are on the same page on this one. We need to change our system of healthy individuals subsidizing the health care of people who take no individual responsibility for their health.

how would you distinguish between a “too many french fries” induced heart attack and one that was “in the genes” ? In other words, is our knowledge and diagnostic ability at that level of resolution yet?

Short answer is, no, there is currently no test to distinguish genetic vs. environmental factors for CV disease. However, there's often a strong family correlation (if your parents had heart disease, your chances of having heart disease are much, much higher).

That being said, individuals who know they are at risk should certainly be doing everything they can to reduce risk: lose weight, quit smoking, exercise, take blood pressure meds, etc. I cannot begrudge them if they develop heart disease. In fact, they are precisely the people the health care system should be taking care of better with education, prevention measures, etc. It's people who eat french fries despite weighing in at 350lbs, have Big Gulps despite diabetes, or smoke who I have little sympathy for.

New Thread Election ‘06

Have at it. Please read the "rules of engagement" in the topic thread. They're short.

skibum,

On the......ahem, "reckless behavior".

Our ins. provider has programs to help w/obesity, smoking etc. and they actively work w/people that are sincerely attempting to make changes in their lives. What makes no sense is all of the "extreme sports" nut cases that bungee jump off of railroad bridges on to...... rocks? I know you love skiing but I strongly suspect you go about it in a sensible way! Proper training, equip. etc. Here in OR hardly a day goes by without some sort of fatality or permanent injury. This past summer we had six drownings in the same week. Maybe I'm tired of subsidizing "these" assclowns?

Epitaph:

Joe/John/Jill LOVED base jumping/whitewater rafting/hunting and he/she wouldn't have wanted to "go" any other way! It was their favorite thing to do, right up until.......

Born: 00/00/0000

Died: 00/00/0000

Did you want that in pre-cast concrete or upgrade to granite?

SFGuy,

I don't think we need that level of knowledge for this; once you bring genetics into insurance coverage there is a very strong probability of creating a regime with severe moral issues. Environment has at least as much impact as genetics, so fry overconsumption can be viewed as a Bad Thing even without checking the genes. If anything, the person with good genetics would be charged higher rates for such behavior, even if it is less likely to harm him than it would someone with a genetic predisposition to heart disease.

@DinOR,

I agree totally. The best extreme skiers and mountain climbers do an exceedingly huge amount of preparation before "hucking" off a cliff or scaling a new face on a 20K+ mountain. Probably the best ski mountaineer in the world, Dominique Perret, spends months scoping out ascents and downhill routes before ever stepping foot on a particular mountain. It's the fools who see their ski films and try to copy these guys ala "Jackass" who are truly examples of Darwinism in action.

I don't have a definitive view on this yet, but there is a small movement afoot in the insurance industry to charge premiums to anyone engaging in "high risk" sports. Problem is, driving on the freeway is riskier in a probabilistic sense than skiing, climbing, and many other "extreme" sports.

@requiem,

You are describing "Gattaca" !!

Exactly; I consider the "Gattaca" society to be an undesirable outcome.

Fairness is discriminating on things people can control*; an important part of a healthy society is being able to make that distinction. Attempts to rely solely on statistics, genetics, holy books, etc. without a solid moral foundation is a recipe for problems.

*Individuality and some risk-taking must also be permitted for the benefit of the species.

Ha Ha,

If an amnesty gets passed, it's not illegal anymore. You have any problems with that?

I vote Ha Ha as the most bot like of the regulars here.

Boy. I thought I had that nomination nailed!

Bruce,

Sorry, you haven't been illogically pounding on illegal immigration and the travils of $160K/yr income for a year. Go work on those illogical and out of nowhere points, then refuse to acknowledge any reasonable counter arguments - I'll consider nominating you for 2008...if this blog is still operational by then.

Astrid,

I think actually you're the only regular who acknowledges my posts. Maybe there's an exception or two...

S'pose I have to realize most of the frequent posters here have got acquainted over time.

By the way... are Bentleys really considered - um - not in the best of taste in the BA? Most of the ones I see here have, like, Jerry Springer at the wheel, but there are a few couples who have them who are every bit as elegant as the cars. Just curious.

We all know we are really aliens with spaceships parked inside volcanoes.

Egads, you mean that we're all... TRANSFORMERS! This explains my unusual appetite for vegetables high in iron and plutonium.

John Says:
The actual Realtor ad is all facts and is more or less in tune with the market.

If you really believe that (as opposed to simply spouting the realtwhore party line), you may find some useful analysis at this site: http://tinyurl.com/yy5hea

Any ad that says "It Is A Great Time To Buy Or Sell A Home" is so ridiculous that to call it 'in tune with the market' calls your own credibility into question.

SP

The actual Realtor ad is all facts and is more or less in tune with the market. The best news for tabloids is fear. The housing market is not doing good but its not tanking. We’ll just have to see what the future brings.

Get a clue, John. None of their "talking points" in the ad are facts. They are interpretations of data. "Large inventory won't last." You call that a fact? "Prices overall have stabilized." How do they know this for fact? Did their crystal ball tell them? "Positive outlook." They fail to mention the rest of AG's cover-my-ass quote, which is that there will be more decline in housing before we hit bottom. "Don't delay." Isn't this what used car dealers or TV Ronco salesman say?

John, are you a realtor or a recent homebuyer?

I thought we were all supposed to fight each other until there was ONE.

click below to get home loans.
----------------------
sanjeppu

http://www.talkinghomeloans.com