patrick.net

Vicente says

socal2 says

I distinctly remember a little event on 9/11 that changed our thinking on foreign policy.

Unfortunately, that is true. It caused us to make a series of really bad decisions, ones that have scarred our national psyche far out of proportion to the actual event. All that really needed to happen post-9/11 was a firm commitment by passengers and crews that no razor-wielding hijackers would ever be obeyed again. Just about everything else was a grotesque overreaction. Vengeance/justice on the hijackers and their apparatus could have been achieved without military mobilization.

But we didn't change our foreign policy as a result. We simply grew military build up out of it.

Like every nation historically, instead of doing the right thing, they used the situation to grow MIC and intrusion into our lives. Obama hasn't changed much of that course either. He did cut some military spending, but overall structure is still there, and the entire structure of big government take over hasn't given an inch.

dublin hillz says

PolishKnight says

Reduce population rather than encouraging third world countries to breed and

importing them to grow the welfare state.

They are not being imported to grow the "welfare state." They are being imported because the powers that be know that they are likely to have off-springs in greater numbers than "traditional communities".... and hence are viewed as keys to the long term solvency of social security.

Hahahaha! That was the plan in Europe, certainly. 20 years ago, they'd import welfare state recipients who would all get high paying jobs to pay into the social system.

Oh, wait, they went on welfare and became a public burden. Then they had more kids.

This is like taking the residents of Oakland and putting them into the zip codes of readers here and then hoping they'll all get high paying jobs and prop up real estate values. OH, wait, that was the plan behind the last real estate bubble.

corntrollio says

PolishKnight says

Ironically, the feminists that embraced marxism are now finding that in Europe and the USA, pockets of Sharia law are springing up.

In the US, the fundamentalist Christians basically want Sharia law imposed. Somehow it's only offensive if a radical non-mainstream Islamist wants it.

I know, you watched the film "Footloose" as a kid, didn't you? Those evil fundamentalist preachers want to ban dancing, TV, and hula hoops and make everything like a 1950's Leave it to Beaver show.

There's this retro TV program, MadMen, which is highly leftist but simultaneously, nostalgic for those days. A man could talk to a woman and call her pretty without losing his job. Women dressed pretty. Men danced back then (not just gyrating loosely in a disco, but knew dance moves with a partner.) Most men back then could compete on Dancing with the Stars today.

It's funny that the leftist puritans are as bad as the right was portrayed as being.

tatupu70 says

PolishKnight says

The (remaining) white male liberals I know are either hypocritical limosine

liberals or they live in their mother's basement or are childless hipsters

slumming it up.

You need to get out more. It would do you well to break some of the stereotypes you seem to have made up.

I knew and know people who fit all those stereotypes. Some live in their parents' basements and some in the attic. I am NOT making this up.

Oh, and I've been to and lived in Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Mexico and Canada. I've lived in 6 different US states on the East Coast, West Coast, and in-between.

PolishKnight says

I knew and know people who fit all those stereotypes. Some live in their
parents' basements and some in the attic. I am NOT making this up.

Llike I said, perhaps you need to get out more and make friends with folks that don't live in their parents attic and/or basement. In my experience, those people don't typically vote anyway.

Housing recovery? It is called recovery when middle class Americans are getting loans suitable to their income and can buy homes in their income range, not when the only buyers are the cash rich buyers who could care less whether the piece of RE is expensive or not.

Actually, look for 2X, 3X, or even 4Xing of values in the near future for the "hot" areas.

All owner-occupants will sell to investors and move somewhere cheaper, paying cash and retiring with their windfalls.

At the point of 100% investor-owned properties in hot markets, it will be a constant recycling of sales between investors. Rents won't spike too much, though, as incomes dictate those. But home prices themselves will be out of reach for salary drones.

This will continue for as long as the hot areas remain desirable to live in. Only natural catastrophes can change that. The areas will be immune to economic downturns since investors will simply stop selling in the worst case. They can afford to hold on forever.

So if you have a house, be prepared to get filthy rich. If you rent, well, continue to.

Robert Sproul I never read your threads mostly because I have a feeling they are full of ego and waste of time. I am not Chinese. Not even close.

PolishKnight says

20 years ago, they'd import welfare state recipients who would all get high paying jobs to pay into the social system.

Oh, wait, they went on welfare and became a public burden. Then they had more kids.

Except that that isn't true. The countries that embraced EU migrants saw booming economies, and those that didn't (excluding Germany) didn't. It was only the burst of the credit bubble that changed this, but likely only on a temporary basis. The reality is that migrants in Europe are far less likely to be on benefits than natives and are likely net contributors to pension systems.

PolishKnight says

This is like taking the residents of Oakland and putting them into the zip codes of readers here

Not sure that you know anything about Oakland. Oakland has some of the poorest and some of the richest people in the Bay Area.

Anyway, nice ideological nonsense you've posted here, but it doesn't really tell us anything about good policy or make a good argument. You're good at complaining, but short on actual answers.

PolishKnight says

I knew and know people who fit all those stereotypes. Some live in their parents' basements and some in the attic. I am NOT making this up.

http://kalenkimm.com/2012/11/2012-presidential-election-demographic-analysis/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

"Highly Educated" white went for Obama. Obama won the top 16 states by educational attainment, and 18 of the top 20.

Romney won the top 7 states with highest black population by percentage, and 8 of the top 10.

Presidents are elected by electoral votes - allocated to the states (and DC). Of the states with the highest percentage of highly educated population, Obama won 18 of 20 and 20 of the top 25. Romney won 18 of the bottom 26 (51 total includes DC) states by educational attainment.

Of the 28 states Obama won, 71% of them are in the top half by education attainment and 29% of them were in the bottom half of educational attainment. Of the 23 States Romney won, 78% were in the bottom half by education attainment and 22% were in the top half.

To dispel any argument of the "black" vote helping skew this, of the top half of states with highest percentage of black population, Romney won 14, Obama 11. Of the bottom half, Obama won 17, Romney 9.

Think about that above, how is that possible? In Mississippi, 37% of the population is black, of Which Obama got over 90% support. That means his percentage of the total vote from black alone in that state was close to .9*.37 = 33.3%. But Obama only got 43.8% of the vote in MS, so that means of the remaining non-black population in MS, he got .105/.63 = 16.7% support. So Romney carried 83.3% support among non-black voters in MS AND MS has some of the lowest educational attainment among whites in the nation. Yeah, the deep south isn't racist anymore....

Aggregate popular vote does not elect the President. Obama won the election by carrying the highly educated white voter in states where this voter was higher sample of population than the national average.

control point says

Romney won the top 7 states with highest black population by percentage, and 8 of the top 10.

Why should blacks not support Romney? They see the communo-fascist atheist Muslim dystopia the Kenyan has created - they're living in it, same as everybody else. Days spent scrambling for food and water, nights spent blowing oligarchs for antibiotics.

Ironworker says

I don't mind the trash talk. It's just waist of time for me to read it.

If that is the case then you are probably in the wrong forum, sorry. The real trick is separating the pertinent from the trash..............

Call it Crazy says

“an excellent long-term investment and one of the best ways for people to build wealth and assets,

That ship has sailed. Owners: congrats. Buyers: tough nuts.

Existing homes do not add economic value, so only when the government and banks manipulate interest rates and loan structures to the advantage of owners (ie, banks) do they gain resale value.

exfatguy says

All owner-occupants will sell to investors

ROI

Yes, I'm wondering myself what to do next. We own a home in the Bay Area and we are heavily invested in stocks. I wonder what the crash will do to the value of the dollar? I wonder how the money in granny's mattress will do? Gold is an option, but also raises a lot of questions. We also have sent a lot of our industry overseas. War was also a factor in the twenties....not that China and Russia and our oil dependancy don't seem to be a nice recipe for World War 3.

corntrollio says

Not sure that you know anything about Oakland. Oakland has some of the
poorest and some of the richest people in the Bay Area.

Yes, and it's probably due to hipster spillover factor from S.F. Those who get priced out view oaktown as option #2. They believe that oaktown has lots of original bars, restaurants, clubs etc and while there's some truth to that vs lets say a more suburbian setting in my opinion risk/reward does not justify living there since those places are commutable via bart/car.

JH says

exfatguy says

All owner-occupants will sell to investors

ROI

Ownership is its own reward, above and beyond mere rental income streams. You cannot tie real estate to sublunary concerns like "earnings" or "revenue" - that is much too crass for any understanding of the market.

Real estate is like a fine wine, which must be slowly savored and may not be to everyone's taste. Only the best people will understand what I'm saying.

Call it Crazy says

Over half of Americans (52%) have had to make at least one major sacrifice in order to cover their rent or mortgage over the last three years

That could mean anything. I'm currently working on a 30 day billing cycle, then it could take up to 30 days after that to get my money.
So I had to float my self for a couple months, over the last year. I had to do things I normally wouldn't have done to cover the mortgage. Like cash one of those Citi checks 0% interest for 12 months and sold my Hammond B3 :(.

My finances between those Mortgage due dates and now, is night and day.

bob2356 says

Now that's the most ass backward thinking in a while. The crazies came out
because the US supported corrupt dictators who lived like kings while stealing
everything that wasn't nailed down.

You are apparently missing my point.

The Jihadis hated that the US supported autocratic dictators (Saudis, Egpyt, Jordan, Pakistan....) to keep a lid on their crazies. One of Bin Laden's main stated reasons for attacking us on 9/11 was that we had troops in Saudi Arabia's "holy land" enforcing UN sanctions and the no-fly zone on Iraq.

After 9/11, the neocons thought we should kick over the old Cold War order (starting with Iraq) and let the people have more freedom to vote for their own destiny instead of propping up dictators for short term "stability". It has certainly been an ugly process, but you may have noticed that Jihadis have been too busy fighting for power in their own countries and have less time to plot against the US.

Now that the Jihadis are tied up killing their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan - the Jihad brand has taken a major hit in popularity as the average non-radical Muslim has seen their brutality up close. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt barely lasted a year before the people rose up again to overthrow them.

Islam desperately needs a reformation. Since 9/11, US Foreign Policy (for better or worse) has forced the focus back onto the "Muslim World" instead of the streets of New York, DC, London or Paris.

FortWayne says

But we didn't change our foreign policy as a result. We simply grew military
build up out of it.

I wish you guys would make up your minds.

Are the Neocons a bunch of crazy dudes who orchestrated 9/11 to change US foriegn policy for PNAC, Israel or Bilderbergers......? Or did we not change at all?

I think it is pretty clear we changed from a Cold War "Realist" position of supporting the least worst crazy of the bunch for "stability" to a much more aggressive (and utopian) policy of overthrowing dictators and allowing the people to participate in governing their countries.

To believe like Bush didn't drastically change US foreign policy after 9/11 is pretty crazy.

IMO stocks are going to crash as is real estate. But it could take some time because it is unlikely that Yellin will taper anytime soon.

Gold will do you no good in deflation, which we are going in and out of due to several factors.

So cash would be the best bet.

If there is war there will be inflation at which point gold makes sense. I could possibly see where China may want war but the US not so much.

The industry thing has to do with mercantilism, the jobs are actually coming back to the US to some degree, more so to other countries like Mexico. But make no mistake about it the US is the biggest manufacturing country in the world by far. It is counter intuitive because Walmart is filled with Chinese trinkets. The US builds airplanes that move hundreds of people, turbines, heavy construction equipment which you are not familiar with.

The US is projected to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia

War maybe but I don't see it because of trade.

socal2 says

After 9/11, the neocons thought we should kick over the old Cold War order
(starting with Iraq) and let the people have more freedom to vote for their own
destiny instead of propping up dictators for short term "stability".

Wow--this is some first rate revisionist history. The rationale for the Iraq invasion was to "let the people have more freedom to vote for their own destiny?" I must have missed that speech from W.

Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical for the US to invade a country to make it more free? How do we decide who to invade? Should we invade Russia next? Putin seems awfully dictatorial to me...

"As the housing market slowly recovers, a majority of homeowners and renters are finding it hard to meet rising rents and mortgage payments, new research finds."

"These sacrifices include getting a second job, deferring saving for retirement, cutting back on health care, running up credit card debt, or even moving to a less safe neighborhood or one with worse schools."

Such a silly article. When you live beyond your means you may have to make sacrifices. Most people make sacrifices first, so they can get a better home in a better neighborhood. Eg. Postponing that wonderful vacation in Jamaica so they can save up to buy a home.

tatupu70 says

Wow--this is some first rate revisionist history. The rationale for the Iraq
invasion was to "let the people have more freedom to vote for their own
destiny?" I must have missed that speech from W.

Lucky for us we have The Google to set the revisionists straight. Pay attention to reasons #4, 5 and 6 below.

"The Bush administration's rationale was built around six main themes: Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD); the threat Saddam posed to the Middle East; Iraq's links to al Qaeda; Saddam's harsh treatment of the Iraqi people; Iraq's lack of democracy; and the example a free and democratic Iraq would set for authoritarian regimes in the region."

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-justifying-war/p7689

I totally understand that we are talking probabilities here. Nothing is certain. What parabolic do you mean in stock market in % per year number. More than 20% lets say for 2015 and 2016?

Your guess on Dow number before it crashes? I know, that's hard to predict. But I am just interested in your guess. I hope I am not putting you here on the spot.You don't have to answer. Don't worry, I am not going to follow 100% your advice. I take all 100% responsibility for my financial decisions.

But, I am learning. Thank you!

bubblesitter says

Housing recovery? It is called recovery when middle class Americans are getting loans suitable to their income and can buy homes in their income range,

So why don't we do that? Middle Class should get credit with Middle of the road FICO's. Instead they want 720+ (above average credit scores), which is preventing any real recovery.
Why are the dumb people in charge?

socal2 says

I think it is pretty clear we changed from a Cold War "Realist" position of supporting the least worst crazy of the bunch for "stability" to a much more aggressive (and utopian) policy of overthrowing dictators and allowing the people to participate in governing their countries.

That is a naive way of looking at it. There is nothing utopian about any of it.

And hey before Edward Snowden, surveillance on a mass scale was considered a conspiracy theory. Until we all found out the truth!

socal2 says

Fuck you guys are dumb.

lol. Look at some of that list. Are you really saying that we went to war because the government of Turkey or Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power?? Last I checked, Saudi Arabia was not a democracy--shouldn't we be invading them instead of doing their bidding?

You are hilarious that you think the American people would have ever supported going to war in the hopes that a Middle Eastern country would allow free elections.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Real estate is like a fine wine,

Yep, once you finish the glass you wonder why you didn't just go with the cheap wine that tastes essentially the same and, more importantly, gets you drunk just as fast.

Strategist says

So why don't we do that?

See 2005. We are already at those prices. If the banks decide they want people who can't pay bills in on the 30 year mortgage, they will. They do what they want. If they choose that route again, we will have 2006 and 2007 again. "Recovery" I believe the NAR calls it.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Why should blacks not support Romney? They see the communo-fascist atheist Muslim dystopia the Kenyan has created - they're living in it, same as everybody else. Days spent scrambling for food and water, nights spent blowing oligarchs for antibiotics.

In good old USA government only tells white people to be nice to other races, they don't actually tell other races that.

And politicians are oblivious, because many businesses discriminate against "non-minorities".

JH says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Real estate is like a fine wine,

Yep, once you finish the glass you wonder why you didn't just go with the cheap wine that tastes essentially the same and, more importantly, gets you drunk just as fast.

Especially after a few glasses.

JH says

Strategist says

So why don't we do that?

See 2005. We are already at those prices. If the banks decide they want people who can't pay bills in on the 30 year mortgage, they will. They do what they want. If they choose that route again, we will have 2006 and 2007 again. "Recovery" I believe the NAR calls it.

Don't you think the mortgage loan standards are excessively tight?

dublin hillz says

Yes, and it's probably due to hipster spillover factor from S.F. Those who get priced out view oaktown as option #2.

No, I was thinking of the Oakland Hills, not priced out hipsters. There's people with gold in dem dare hills.

Heraclitusstudent says

I think any depression will be centered on China - or Japan.

I'm thinking it will be centered on the earth

indigenous says

I'm thinking it will be centered on the earth

Thank you for this important bit of information.

This is a good measure of rich people loose money:

socal2 says

You are apparently missing my point.

The Jihadis hated that the US supported autocratic dictators (Saudis, Egpyt, Jordan, Pakistan....) to keep a lid on their crazies. One of Bin Laden's main stated reasons for attacking us on 9/11 was that we had troops in Saudi Arabia's "holy land" enforcing UN sanctions and the no-fly zone on Iraq.

You didn't bother to read my point apparently. The Jihadis hated the US for supporting dictators who become some of the richest people on the planet while the average person lived in abject poverty. Most of the dictators were cruel, ruthless, and flouted the laws of islam,. These petty tyrants created the fundamentalists. Starting with the shah of Iran who the US directly put into power.

socal2 says

After 9/11, the neocons thought we should kick over the old Cold War order (starting with Iraq) and let the people have more freedom to vote for their own destiny instead of propping up dictators for short term "stability". It has certainly been an ugly process, but you may have noticed that Jihadis have been too busy fighting for power in their own countries and have less time to plot against the US.

This is a joke right? What the neocons wanted was direct control over the second larges oil reserves in the world sitting in one of the most strategic parts of the middle east. No one in a position to do something about it actually gives a crap about people having freedom to vote for their own destiny unless there is something big for the US in it. Plenty of dictators as bad as or worse than Saddam have come and gone but the US hasn't decided to bring democracy to their countries that lacked oil. There are 24 beers in a case and 24 hours in a day. Coincidence I think not.

socal2 says

"The Bush administration's rationale was built around six main themes: Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD); the threat Saddam posed to the Middle East; Iraq's links to al Qaeda; Saddam's harsh treatment of the Iraqi people; Iraq's lack of democracy; and the example a free and democratic Iraq would set for authoritarian regimes in the region."

You got the quote wrong. It should read the Bush administration's talking points for selling the war to the ameriican public.

tatupu70 says

lol. Look at some of that list. Are you really saying that we went to war because the government of Turkey or Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power??

I'm saying it was one of the MANY reasons publicly argued by Bush and the Congress to justify liberating Iraq.

Call it Crazy says

Don't you think the mortgage loan standards are excessively tight?

Why do you keep asking the same question??? Loan standards are NOT tight... They are the same as they've always been for decades (except for those few years in the run up to the bubble with NINJA loans)..

The problem ISN'T tight standards. The problem is people with crappy credit scores, bad payment history, no down payments, high current debt loads and shaky employment...

Got it yet???

My dear friend,
They are tight, very tight. Loan programs that were around for decades no longer exist, like stated income, sub-prime, and negative amortization loans. A lot of these loans are ideal for the self employed, those going through a temporary crisis, and those who have income that come in spurts.
In addition, those with 600 FICO's were considered "A" paper, and qualified for A paper rates as long as the other requirements were acceptable, no longer can get loans.
All of above are not the NINJA loans that created meltdown in 2008. I got my first home in OC, while I was still a student in 1986. (I was almost done) I got it with a stated income, negative amortization loan. The down payment requirement was 25% minimum, which I got from my parents. I fully paid off that loan at the start of 2000, and now my elderly parents live there.
I would not have had that home if it was not for the stated income, negative amortization loan. There are so many people who want to buy homes with these programs, who have 25% down but cannot. They are not a bad risk.
All I ask for is to go back to the pre NINJA era, and provide the same loan programs with the same requirements. Why is that bad?

Call it Crazy says

A 25% down payment gave the bank a decent cushion in case you defaulted...

Loan officer just told my neighbor that larger down payments actually make some lenders leery, because they now factor in a likelihood of squatting if you lose your job.

If you have only 5-10% in the game, you're less likely to kick and scream on your way out of the house. Apparently the statistics back this up.

There are actually loans you can get with 5% down which are harder to get with 20% down.