Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    So, is that a yes or a no?

    30yrs does not a perpetuality make. Besides, you are wrong on your question itself anyway. There was a decline in the early 2000's after the dot-com bust.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Do you think the Bay Area has been in a perpetual bubble for the last 30 years?

    Since Greenspan took over from Volcker about 30 years ago, we have been experiencing massive bubbles and busts. SFBA has been a beneficiary of the computer industry in the last 30-40 years, initially due to cheap land prices and use cost near Stanford campus, where the so-called Silicon Valley eventually developed. By the time Greenspan pumped out money in earnest, the relatively high returns available in the SFBA attracted much of the newly pumped out money. That has been the real estate market history for the area. Now that it is literally attracting the proverbial bag holders from overseas at ridiculously inflated prices, I'm not optimistic for the area in the next 30 years.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    New Renter:

    (Since Iwog locked out his thread, I will reply to you here)

    An owner of rental properties is not just a rental broker. His work involves a lot of renovation and, yes, even building. Building new apartment buildings would just be part and parcel of managing a rental portfolio. Entrepreneurs competing against each other would still deliver more efficient results than government bureaucrats. We already had that test, back in the 60's and 70's. The housing projects built by the bureaucrats have literally become "the projects."

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    The New Idiocy of the Day from Iwog today is:

    Calling mutually willing contractual rental housing use as Feudalism. hmm, I wonder what kind of thugs he has posted at the doors of his properties to prevent his tenants from leaving. LOL

    Mutually willing rental contracts that last up to a year is not at all "Feudalism," anymore than employment in a capitalistic free labor market can be called "slavery."

    Feudalism is attaching people to land through violence or threat thereof. It's a form of un-free labor and mobility control. Yes, there was massive increase of Feudalism in the world between 1913 and 1980: all the communists countries were essentially feudalistic in character, with their internal passports. Even for Europe and much of the Americas, in 1913, there was little or no passport or visa requirement when one travelled until one hits the borders of the despotic states of Tsarist Russia and Ottoman Turkey. That was freedom of mobility. In 1980, as a result of WWI and WWII then Cold War, almost all countries required passport and visa, which essentially attach people to the land of their births.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    What hypothesis? That people chase high performing assets? Do you not understand how bubbles are formed

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in My first real estate bear thread (ever), Reality said:

    iwog says

    New Renter says

    Until the prices of the houses go up due to the increased demand. Which is exactly what we've seen over the past 30 years.

    How exactly do you think you put more houses in the hands of more people without increasing demand?

    By increasing supply of housing. The objective here is lowering cost of housing; increasing demand while having the zoning restrictions in place would only drive up prices.

    New Renter says

    If the government REALLY wants housing to be affordable it should build more quality housing and make it available one to a customer, especially in high demand areas.

    The government can't do that. "Reality" types would go to war. Literally.

    LOL. Do you think the government bureaucrats can manage the houses that you currently own for your tenants better than you can? It takes entrepreneurs like yourself to provide housing to tenants efficiently.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in My first real estate bear thread (ever), Reality said:

    New Renter says

    Now if Joe paycheck wants to buy he has to borrow more, much much more. He also has no chance of benefiting from refinancing at lower interest rates and were he to get a raise the extra money takes less of a bite out of the larger principle.

    Very good point.

    If the government REALLY wants housing to be affordable it should build more quality housing and make it available one to a customer, especially in high demand areas.

    More units to be built, yes. Letting the private sector builders build new units would be even more effective than letting politically connected contractors to build them for the HUD, as in projects from decades ago.

    It should also institute a progressive (per unit) rental profit tax to make landlording less profitable.

    That would not be more effective than if raising liquor tax / cigarette tax were proposed as a way of lowering the cost of alcohol and cigarettes ;-) The tax ultimately has to be born by the consumers. If the landlords have the ability to raise rent in an area, they certainly have the ability to pass that tax to renters. The way to lower rent is literally increasing supply. That means allowing more new buildings, and encouraging more landlords, new landlords (to an area) to renovate so that existing buildings are out of market for as little time as possible. Perhaps, instead of taxing landlords, there should be incentive for renovation and bringing un-occupied buildings into service and available to renters. If any new market-affecting regulation on the landlord is to be applied, aside from relaxing zoning and unit count restrictions in any building, a worthy one might be limiting concentration: such as no more than 100 units (or 5% of all existing housing stock) in the same zipcode owned directly or indirectly by the same landlord, as a way of forcing landlords to diversify and compete against each other.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in My first real estate bear thread (ever), Reality said:

    New Renter says

    iwog says

    The opposite is true. The fed and government work to prevent it. How else is someone who works 40-hours a week for $25 an hour supposed to buy a home worth 6 figures when all his money is going into the pockets of a rich landlord? Low interest rates and government guaranteed mortgages is the only hope that many people have.

    Allowing more housing units to be built would solve the problem much more effectively. Most people borrowing to buy houses buy on payment, not on price or interest rate per se; lower interest just bid up prices to whatever payment level the borrowers income can afford.

  • On 1 Sep 2014 in My first real estate bear thread (ever), Reality said:

    iwog says

    Central banking in the Untied States was born of the Gilded age when robber barons were bold enough to have union organizers assassinated and the life expectancy of a coal mine worker was 30 years. Children were worked relentlessly for ridiculously low wages because it was legal to do so.

    The same sort of robber barons put together the FED. FED was the brainchild of the Jackal Island meeting between Rockerfeller interest and JPMorgan interest.

    BTW, the FED was the 3rd central bank in the US history. The previous two attempts pre-dated the Gilded Age.

    Far from returning the country to feudalism, there were massive gains across the entire spectrum of labor that culminated in FDR's new deal and the biggest decline of wealth disparity in our history.

    Massive gain in living standards due to advancing technology and industry in the market place. The 1913 founding of the Federal Reserve quickly led to the financing of WWI, and all the prolonged Total Wars in subsequent decades all over the world. Those wars do not at all contribute to rising living standards.

    It takes a fool of incredible arrogance and ignorance to say that 1911 through 1980 brought us closer to feudalism under the watch of a central bank. I can't imagine someone being this stupid but there you have it.

    In 1911/1913, one could travel across practically the entire Europe (and much of the Americas) without passport or visa requirement until one hits the despotic regimes of Tsarist Russia or Ottoman Turkey. In 1980, people in all those countries were attached to the land of their births. De jure proof of transition towards feudalism.

    More unmitigated bullshit.

    You must have a Ph.D. in self-criticism. LOL.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    Likewise, real estate price in some areas go up more than in others during inflation.

    And that was Bob's point. Desirable places go up faster because there is increased demand for them. Regardless of any inflationary pressures.

    No. Your argument is about as silly as saying that people would have pulled money out of old existing companies to invest in the dot-coms if there had not been monetary inflation between 1997 and 1999; the portfolio switch only took place after the high beta stocks already started to take off, boosted by easy money, not before. You are forgetting people chase high performers. Monetary inflation and artificially low interest are what makee high beta performers, like high tech and biotech companies and real estate where they are located, into high performers, which in turn then suck in more money from the monetary inflation for stocks and real estate near those companies.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Is the entire point of your posts that house price increases are correlated to inflation? Wow--stop the presses. That is breaking news.

    Monetary inflation causes real estate prices to go up. Monetary inflation does not raise all prices by the same percentage at the same time. Some sectors get more of the increased money supply than others. Likewise, real estate price in some areas go up more than in others during inflation.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in My first real estate bear thread (ever), Reality said:

    Bellingham Bill says

    This is where I'd like to say that Progress & Poverty was written a generation before The Fed was a gleam in J.P Morgan's eye.

    Central banking was an attempt by the established elite to return the relatively capitalistic free market economy then existed to feudalism, just like Marx' Communism was. Not so co-incidentally, Marx' Communist Manifesto of 1848 included both government seizure of all land (and other capital / means of production) as well as establishment of central banking. Karl Marx got his funding to promote ass-backwards ideas long before either Henry George or JP Morgan did.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    The synchronized global real estate increase has been taking place as a result of massive exportation of the dollar since the late 1990's.

    Really? Just curious--is there anything that ISN'T caused by the Federal Reserve (in your mind)?

    Still working on whether your manifest retardation is a result of FED sponsored welfare system or not.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    The Euro was not even a currency before 1999

    So what? I'm pretty sure there were different currencies before the Euro. And house prices could be measured using those currencies.

    The nominal prices in the local currencies in high inflation countries in southern Europe rose faster than the nominal prices in the local currency in low inflation country such as (West) Germany. Thanks for proving my point.

    Reality says

    The global real estate market was declining in the 1990's due to the burst of the massive Japanese bubble.

    And how about before the 90s? History goes back just a bit further than that.

    The prolonged global real estate price decline in the 1990's was a sufficient counter argument to your thesis that global real estate price always went up in general.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    I see. So you're implying that the statement that a high percentage of condos are only used for 2-3 weeks/year is basic knowledge and on the same level as 1+1 = 2? lol. Nice try.

    Thanks for volunteering the 2-3 weeks number. Apparently you too know that many of those homes in the high price cities are being purchased and left empty for most of the year except for a few weeks. See, I used the phrase "a few weeks"; your hamster strawman tactic trying to lower the number to 2-3 weeks is quite indicative that you know the problem quite well, but just trying to look for a strawman fight.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    The high percentage being purchased directly and indirectly by foreign money. They are not being purchased as primary homes.

    Uh--he asked for evidence, not for you to restate your unsupported opinion.

    Do you need proof of 1+1=2 to go with that?

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    There has been a generalized rise in real estate price all over the globe, including most of the US since the 2009-2011 bottom (actually since circa 2003).

    There has been a generalized rise in real estate for a lot longer than the last 11 years.

    Are you talking about the US or the global phenomenon? The global real estate market was declining in the 1990's due to the burst of the massive Japanese bubble. Chinese, Indian and Russian real estate market did not climb until the 2000's. The Euro was not even a currency before 1999. Before then there were local market increases in particular countries as local currencies inflated (e.g. Japan in the 1980's). The synchronized global real estate increase has been taking place as a result of massive exportation of the dollar since the late 1990's.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    bob2356 says

    Reality says

    A very high percentage of condos in those hot cities are empty or occupied only for a few weeks in a year.

    Your proof of this is? Go ahead document what percentage of condo's in SF or London are used only a few weeks a year. I know, it's true because you believe it's true.

    The high percentage being purchased directly and indirectly by foreign money. They are not being purchased as primary homes.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    bob2356 says


    LOL! Landlockedness is a joke. Even San Francisco is only a short drive from East Bay, where there is plenty land.

    Thanks for making my point. The prices in the east bay are lower. Dubai is landlocked. It is surrounded by other emirites. I was just there last week. I don't know anything about Moscow. Vancouver is landlocked by geography to the west and north by farm preservation zoning to the east and south. Almost all of the cities on the list are very much landlocked.

    LOL. Dubai is over 60 times the area of Manhattan, with a total population comparable to Manhattan; i.e. its population density is something like 0.02% of Manhattan. There is plenty land in the desert. What's next? you are going to tell us Las Vegas real estate price went up back in 2005-2007 because it was land-locked?

    Vancouver real estate price is clearly driven up by outside money, the Asian money that resulted from massive American traded deficit caused by the enormous government deficit financed by the FED.

  • On 31 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    bob2356 says

    Is this a joke? I never realized you had an actual sense of humor. So what happens to everywhere else outside of these cities, why aren't they being driven up at the same rate since there is the same money printing all over. Why would SF go crazy and Houston, which has a great economy, goes nowhere. It's the same money printing. Maybe SF is more desirable than Houston. Oh no, say it ain't so joe.

    There has been a generalized rise in real estate price all over the globe, including most of the US since the 2009-2011 bottom (actually since circa 2003). The extraordinary prices in the list of particular cities are not driven by local economy but global hot money chasing places to park money.

  • On 30 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    bob2356 says

    So fiat money printing is driving up the prices of real estate in Monaco, Vancouver, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Geneva, Sydney, Rome, Paris, Moscow, Shanghai, Bejing, Dubai, Mumbai, Istanbul, Sao-Paolo, Cape Town? All of which are more expensive than SF. That's some pretty powerful money printing by the fed.

    In case you did not realize, most of those cities in the list are receiving the bulk of buying power from economies that have currency linked to the dollar. For example, Vancouver RE market is driven by Asian buyers from countries that have their currencies linked to the USD . . . so do the Russian driven markets, as the oil and gas markets are still primarily priced in USD. The European central bank is printing in concert with the FED.

    Maybe places are expensive because lots of people want to live there and it's landlocked either by geography or zoning. Nah, that would be too obvious.

    LOL! Landlockedness is a joke. Even San Francisco is only a short drive from East Bay, where there is plenty land. Price going up rapidly in all those places is simply the result of printed money chasing what's going up. What landlockedness would Dubai have if they are building right onto the sea itself? Moscow is in the middle the steppes for crying out loud. Money printing is outpacing transportation network expansion, that provides the fuel for speculation. That's all.

    "Landlockedness" makes about as much sense as "having too few new economy companies to invest in" in 1999 and beginning of 2000.

    Also, "wanting to live there" is an even bigger joke. A very high percentage of condos in those hot cities are empty or occupied only for a few weeks in a year.

  • On 30 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    iwog says

    1. Shelter in desirable areas will always be limited by geography. Blame the government on the fact that San Francisco is surrounded on three sides by water?

    You have a definitional problem there. How do you define "desirable"? Obviously San Francisco population count is not huge. You are implicitly defining "desirable" as price going up. Surrounded by three sides by water alone is not the reason why prices go up: there are plenty places in Michigan where land is surrounded on three sides by water. What makes San Francisco land price go up is the fiat money printing being pumped into Silicon Valley; once the price starts going up at higher rate than other places, it attracts greater and greater share of further excess money printing . . . just like all the dot-com's were able to disproportionally attract the excess money printing from the central bank between 1997 to 1999.

  • On 30 Aug 2014 in Iwog Idiocy Strikes Again, Reality said:

    A second one that he deleted:

    ===============
    Reality says

    iwog says

    Reality says

    LOL, like a mosquito born in May thinks itself as the cause of global warming in northern hemisphere in the next two months of its brief life.

    Hardly. I netted 6 figures from the oil futures market back in 2008 and 2009. Where do you think the money came from?

    I also covered the trade live on this very board.

    LOL. Even if the 6 figures number were true, do you realize the size of oil futures market? The mosquito generating some frictional heat with its flapping wings and thinking itself as the cause of global warming is very good parallel to your thinking. BTW, I doubt you netted 6 figures number, seeing that you are so proud of your few thousand a month rent income. LOL.

  • On 30 Aug 2014 in My first real estate bear thread (ever), Reality said:

    iwog says

    I personally increased the price of your gasoline back in 2008 and 2009. Thanks!!

    LOL, like a mosquito born in May thinks itself as the cause of global warming in northern hemisphere in the next two months of its brief life.

  • On 30 Aug 2014 in My first real estate bear thread (ever), Reality said:

    iwog says

    Reality says

    Rapid increase in real estate price was/is indication of demand for that particular class of goods/services not being met. Commodity price appreciation is indicative of similar unmet demand

    Oh you think? Why did gold fucking crash after you and your Austrian nitwits were predicting $5000 an ounce?

    You have absolutely no knowledge of how markets work and you are utterly incapable of discussing them.

    I never predicted gold reaching $5000/ounce being eminent in 2011. OTOH, at some point in the future, gold will of course reach $5000 per ounce and beyond. It was $35/ounce only 4-5 decades ago. On a logorithmic scale, $1300 is already 70+% the way from $35 to $5000: it takes more than 5 doublings to go from 35 to $1300, only less than 2 doublings along the same path to $5000. Basic math.

  • On 30 Aug 2014 in My first real estate bear thread (ever), Reality said:

    iwog says

    Reality says

    The British Pound Sterling was the pre-eminent reserve currency of the world for a century and half prior to the Brettonwoods Conference of 1944. After that, it has become one of the reserve currencies of the world, secondary to the US Dollar. The UK did experience significant inflation in the post WWII era.

    So your argument and the argument you are defending, namely that a reserve currency is immune high inflation applies to the #1 reserve currency, (dollar) #2 reserve currency, (Euro) #3 reserve currency, (pound) and what..........#4-20 also?

    You're just making shit up like you always do.

    Not at all. You claimed the UK currency was never a reserve currency. I was pointing out your factual error. As simple as that.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 230 milliseconds to create.