patrick.net

I just got back from my voting excursion. All I can say is, the average voter age in my small sample size was about 78 years old. So much for GenX, GenY, or even boomer influence, although the demographics might be a bit younger during the after work hours.

My voting station was in a retirement home. Now granted, that's just where the station was - but still, it's sort of telling.

Someone should do the following study:

Vote on these 2 issues:
1- Should we spend $50 million on Senior care?
2- Should we spend $50 million on K-12 schools?

Voting Stations:
A- Public school gym
B- Senior citizen center
C- City hall (Control group)

I wonder if there would be statistically significant differences in how people vote versus the venue.

Randy H. wrote:

> And for the record, I am neither liberal nor conservative,
> republican nor democrat. I voted accordingly, which while
> satisfying emotionally, has the practical effect of doing
> nothing more other than getting me queued up for jury
> duty.

And then speedingpullet Says:

> As I forgot to re-register after to moving from West L.A
> to Van Nuys, the whole thing is moot to me.

There is no law that says that you need to register to vote at your home address (G.W. Bush is registered to vote in TX, but lives in DC). If you register to vote at the home of someone you know that has no plans to move any time soon you can become a permanent absentee voter and they will just send a ballot in your name to the address before every election. If you pick someone that lives in another county (say for example if your parents live in San Mateo County) you can check the box that says “I certify under penalty of perjury that I am not currently residing in San Mateo County and are exempt from jury duty” every time a request for jury duty comes in the mail. As far as I know every county in the US will exempt you from jury if you do not currently live in the county. Since a huge number of Americans never bother to register to vote you need to make sure your drivers license has the same address as your voter registration address since the courts also use drivers license lists to send out juror requests…

Let's not get down on Gen X/Y just yet. They're still at work. (Somebody has to).

@DinOR,

Boy, That Thornberg - he cracks me up! I like how he says that with a straight face, given this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061107/homebuilders_slump.html?.v=4

"2 Major Homebuilders See Orders Dive"

New orders for Beazer fell by 58 percent to 2,064 homes from 4,937 last year, as the housing market continued to slow. It has cut 1,000 jobs, or 25 percent of its work force.

"I am surprised," Toll said, adding that the downturn seems atypical, given good conditions for housing with low unemployment and interest rates.

Yes, Chris and AG, the worst is over. Thank goodness. Now let's all go out and buy and/or sell a home. It's a great time to buy or sell a home!

Seriously, I am still in the camp of believing a housing/credit downturn of this magnitude can indeed lead to recession. The housing sector IS the "external" influence that pops the bubble. It was a positive feedback loop on the way up, and it will be an accelerating feedback mechanism on the way down.

@eburbed,

The fact is, either way, it's well established that old people vote in disproportionately larger numbers for their age group, so I doubt your experiment would be as dramatic as you might think.

To answer the specific question, our government does not have any real vision about housing as a market to be controlled, in the same way the Fed regulates currency tightly. I would not expect this to change one whit even if the Green Party came to power. Housing market is simply not even on the to-do list for any party.

I'll take another tangent. SHOULD future governments get even more involved than they already are, in the housing market? As it currently stands, government definitely has an effect, albeit not in a coordinated fashion with a single vision and policy document.

Personally, I feel that the current market effectively prices the middle-class out of owning a home in many areas. My parents could afford a middle-class home with a single working parent, I cannot. To be completely selfish about this, a policy that had as it's working target that housing should be "affordable" (yes I know this is too loose on MANY levels) to own would have many long-term benefits despite short-term hardships to specific groups and areas.

skibum Says:

> Well, I just got back from my voting excursion. All I
> can say is, the average voter age in my small sample
> size was about 78 years old. So much for GenX,
> GenY, or even boomer influence

Most people under 78 listen to mp3s (not vinyl), pay by credit card at the store (not checks), pay bills on line (don’t mail checks), and vote absentee (so they don’t have to deal with the old voters at the polls chatting with the even older poll workers every election day)…

It was a positive feedback loop on the way up, and it will be an accelerating feedback mechanism on the way down.

Reflexivity.

skibum,

Don't ruin this for me! I used to like Thornberg, now......? Wouldn't it be a shame (after totally stealing the limelight for the last 5 years) if housing winds up dragging the rest of us down with it?

We get led around by the "boo-boo" for 5 freaking years and for all of our saving, investing and employing some pretty sophisticated hedging techniques get body slammed anyway? If for no other reason we should at least hear CT out.

Borrowing fell by 1.2 bil in Sept. The biggest drop since April 1992 (the FED reports). Uh...... maybe we ARE screwed. I'd read that MEW YTD has been greater than for all of 2005. Lord just give me one last Xmas!

@DinOR,

C'mon, let's not be SOOO negative! Like ConfusedRealtwhore says, "Just wondering, with all the doom and gloom on the board, anybody notice the Melt UP in the stock market and the 4.4% unemployment rate?

Could it be that the economy isn’t imploding?" LIFE IS GOOD! (Unless you're currently a realtor).

Forget what damage they will do to the housing market; what about the whole freakin' country?!

FIRE THEM ALL!

I've been a staunch Republican all my life and I've decided to sit this one out. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either party. Before anyone goes off on "Don't vote; don't complain" lecture.....save it. You are wasting bandwidth.

This is one election where your only choice is the "evil of two lessers".

Being in California, I'm mostly watching the propositions and Congressional elections in other states. It also means that we still have a duty to go out and squash bad propositions, even if we don't like the candidates for elected positions.

If anyone has a chance to catch it, Market Place on NPR this evening has a piece on the horrible numbers put out by the HB's today and its potential impact on the economy. More MSM dissemination! In fact, this venue probably gets better play in bubble states, as bubble states probably = NPR listener-heavy states.

Personally, I feel that the current market effectively prices the middle-class out of owning a home in many areas. My parents could afford a middle-class home with a single working parent, I cannot. To be completely selfish about this, a policy that had as it’s working target that housing should be “affordable” (yes I know this is too loose on MANY levels) to own would have many long-term benefits despite short-term hardships to specific groups and areas.

I think there's a bigger question at play here - is government responsible that you have water, food, energy... or housing?

Some days I think so.

Some days I don't think so.

I guess I'm confused.

Some days I think so.

I guess I’m confused.

@eburbed,

That makes you a confused renter, doesn't it?

Skibum,

Now you are engaging in name-calling and violating threadmaster's rules. I request Randy to remove your comments towards eburbed.

Guliani is a scumbag. I'd much rather have a president Mike Bloomberg.

I'm not voting this year.

Now you are engaging in name-calling and violating threadmaster’s rules. I request Randy to remove your comments towards eburbed.

At least I'm not calling him a ... REALTOR (tm) ...

he he he

Guliani is a scumbag. I’d much rather have a president Mike Bloomberg.

Bill Gates would be the best!

Speaking of Realtors (tm), looks like the johnny-come-lately types in their ranks (like ConfusedRealtor) are screwed:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/07/real_estate/brokers_experience/index.htm?postversion=2006110716

"Real estate: Babes in bear land"

Most Realtors haven't been in the business long enough to see anything but a boom market, and the current slump is new to all but a handful of industry veterans.

Great housing article just posted on CNN:

Real estate: Babes in bear land
Most Realtors haven't been in the business long enough to see anything but a boom market, and the current slump is new to all but a handful of industry veterans.

Just more than half of members of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) had four years or less of experience in a 2005 survey - which means they came into this year's real estate downturn knowing nothing but boom times.

..."If you're able to make $100,000 selling a house rather than $50,000 everyone and their cousin wants to be a broker," he said. "All that demand to be brokers is caused by the fact that the commission structure is fixed. Commissions should be plummeting from 6 to 4 to 2 percent because it's not."

Hey HARM,

Looks like we both posted links to that article at about the same time. Great article, eh? Relatively non-NAR cheerleader-ish, although their commentary is from that REIC shill masquerading as an academic, Nicholas Restinas.

"why?"

exhibit 1: Bernard Kerik

exhibit 2: Guiliani Partners

exhibit 3: how he hooked up with the current missus

He's plenty corrupt. I prefer Spitzer or even Pataki over Guiliani.

@astrid,

I tend to agree about his (lack of) moral compass. He seems to me like an opportunist who happened to be at the right place at the right time (NYC, 9/11). I will say that he did appear to do a good job with reducing crime in NYC during his tenure, although I always wonder how much of that was secondary to a good overall (national) economy and its effect on reducing crime and general discontent during the 90's.

I will say that he did appear to do a good job with reducing crime in NYC during his tenure, although I always wonder how much of that was secondary to a good overall (national) economy and its effect on reducing crime and general discontent during the 90’s.

Right before September 11th though, Rudy's popularity was definitely on the wane. The series of police shootings/raping-with-a-broomstick really left a mark.

As a New York-American I found what Ray Nagin had to say (comparing Katrina to September 11th) offensive - but to some degree he was right. September 11th happened, and then it was over. New Orleans drowned.

Very mixed feelings.

I once asked her, “so it has been a booming market ever since, right?” She didn’t get my subtle dig, and actually took it as a compliment - as if I was actually saying she was personally responsible for the good times. Ye Olde Compleat Twit.

@SP,

Oh yeah, I do fondly recall your "Main Street Media" story from many threads back. That was a good one. God forbid she loses the Bimmer SUV.

He’s plenty corrupt. I prefer Spitzer or even Pataki over Guiliani.

Pataki only got his job because people wanted a change (Cuomo had been around too long) and Alfonse did a great job.

Pataki was always this bland kind of guy that only Upstate could like.

Rudy, on the other hand, is shady (his marital life is a great example) and the fact that he now stumps at Fundie places is also shady. But that shadiness is something to be respected. :)

eburbed,

Yes, and I would respect that shadiness more, but only if he was a mobster and not the ex-mayor of arguably the greatest city on Earth today.

Guliani is a scumbag. I’d much rather have a president Mike Bloomberg.

Respectfully disagree. NYC certainly cleaned up and attracted more investment under his leadership, although he managed to alienate a large chunk of the Black community. On 9/11, Guliani showed true leadership under fire. He didn't have the deer-in-the-headlights look of another important authority figure.

although I always wonder how much of that was secondary to a good overall (national) economy and its effect on reducing crime and general discontent during the 90’s

He busted the squeegie guys. That alone is enough to endorse him. ;-) The notion that small crimes lead to larger crimes, if not his, was at least put on the map by him.

Of course, if you extrapolate this policy to other nations, you'll probably be picking a lot of fights; it does sounds familiar...

Democrats or GOPs are both scumbags. Nobody has a plan for whatever deep doo doo we are in. Most of the ads dollars are spent on demonizing the opponent rather than promoting one's plan, if he has any.

Nevertheless, Bush is the biggest idiot of them all. But I'd like to see Republicans retaining the current control so that Bush will have NOBODY to blame when Iraq eventually blows right up in his face. Also, I would like to see him keep spending like mad, because I don't have patience for a drawn-out slow-motion deflating, I want to see it crash hard.

Don't stop the cart right before it goes off the cliff, it is just going to prolong the pain trying to pull it back before it succumbs to the inevitable fate. Just run it into the ground spectacularly so that we all get it over with.

OO,

While I understand your irritation, we're talking about suffering and death for a lot of people if the present administration's momentum isn't broken.

A bipartisan legislature is an ineffecient mechanism, to be sure, and I think most - or anyway some of us are under no delusions as to the dawning of a bright new day. But I take some comfort that the likes of Nancy Pelosi will be a part of our future and that K. Harris will not.

The Green Party here has a very good affordable housing policy, and they are attracting more and more of the vote each year -- around 10% now. They are attractive to voters for other reasons than housing tho -- and now the main parties are poaching their policies as global warming and drought seem to be more of a reality...

I voted today, but my expectations are always low. I think no politican (D or R) wants to address the large purple gorilla in the middle of the room, the housing bubble being but a facet: the ginormous public and private debt we seem to run the economy on. Let's just keep driving to the edge of the cliff instead.

Oh, snap! Inefficient.

OO's point about Republicans maintaining control of Congress is not necessarily a bad one. I've read a few MSM (main-STREAM media ;-) ) op-eds that more-or-less argued the exact same thing.

Personally, I have to wonder why the Democrats would even WANT to win this one (with the possible exception of dispelling the perception that they can't win an election). If Dem's win control of the House and REIC-based economy (and foreign policy) implodes in our faces, they will share some of the blame. If they win control of both House & Senate, they might get ALL of the blame.

The general public doesn't have an inkling of even the basic root causes of the RE/credit bubble, so they will reflexively blame/punish whoever happens to be "in power" at the moment. So, if I were a Democrat (disclaimer: neither R or D), I would badly want to LOSE this puppy.

That's why I won't vote in this election.

"main street media"

@Different Sean,

What do you call those again?

I know most of you guys live on that other coast, but it’s Giuliani, not Guiliani, OK?

I originally used "Rudy" because I didn't know the correct spelling. ;-)

What's up with everyone wanting the country to go off a cliff? Expecting Jesus to arrive then to solve all of our problems?

If they win control of both House & Senate, they might get ALL of the blame.... So, if I were a Democrat (disclaimer: neither R or D), I would badly want to LOSE this puppy.

Have you thought that, maybe, they actually want to try to attempt to correct some of the royal screwups in fiscal and foreign policy that the Republicans have introduced? When a little boy starts a fire, you don't wait for the fire to get worse so that you can blame the boy; you put out the fire.

FRIFY,

I'd be just a tinge less enthused if I know that little boy's dad (who has an anger management problem) is going to come up and beat the shit out of me for "molesting" his son.