« First « Previous Comments 91 - 130 of 239 Next » Last » Search these comments
Peter P,
I'm hearing the options exchanges are starting a pilot program to trade in penny increments (select issues). Have you been holding out on us?
A bit more crushing of dissent:
Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers
Friday, January 26, 2007
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney exerted "constant" pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to stall an investigation into the Bush administration's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq, the panel's chairman charged Thursday.
In an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia also accused President Bush of running an illegal program by ordering eavesdropping on Americans' international e-mails and telephone communications without court-issued warrants....
Long Island is so silly
Apparently only 2% of houses sold are affordable compared to 60% in 2000.
At first, that seemed worse than here - but then the reason was revealed:
In 2000, 60 percent of the homes sold on Long Island could be classified as “affordable†for families earning up to $100,000 a year, under the old rule of thumb that buyers should spend no more than 2.5 times their income on places to live.
I guess the NYAR (?) hasn't learned from CAR that you have to change the way you measure things yet.
eburbed Says:
> So… the TSA, an agency composed of men and
> women who are supposed to be protecting us from
> terrorists, are of the same caliber of professionalism
> as Raiders fans.
While the average (average not every) IQ of Rader fans is at least one standard deviation below the mean it is well above the average IQ of the people working for the TSA (and most other “government†jobs)…
I’m hearing the options exchanges are starting a pilot program to trade in penny increments (select issues).
Good news.
My friend asked me if he should sell a whole bunch of 0.05 calls near expiration.
It reminds me of russian roulette. LOL!
Oh, is it bad that I feel like celebrating?
SQT, welcome back.
Why is it bad that history unfolds as we have predicted? ;)
I don't get it, why doesn't Casey just sign up somewhere else, pay by paypal (no credit worry), and remove the offending link? He can then repoint his DNS at the new site.
Supposedly he is an internet professional, is this technical manouevre beyond him?
I pay around $10/month for a basic hosting account. Shouldn't he just move his back-up files across to a new inexpensive host?
Casey already lost data earlier when he didn't back his site up properly - let me guess, he still wasn't doing that?
SFWoman Says:
> FAB, I would also question your assertion that
> this describes a libertarian: “Libertarians blame
> themselves (“that was a bad idea to write that the
> head of the TSA was an idiot on a bag. I’ll learn
> from this and try not to do it again epically at a
> Raider game where I would have had my head
> bashed inâ€)…â€
> I would say that is more of a description of a conformist.
> I can’t really imagine a libertarian would be quite so
> ready to give up unpopular speech for the convenience
> factor.
I’m not saying that Libertarians are conformists I’m just saying that they tend not to blame others for their problems or the situations they get in. Most Libertarians want to make pot legal and in college I was the only Libertarian I knew that was not a regular pot smoker. I was also probably also the only Libertarian on campus that wore Topsiders (remember that this was over 25 years ago when they were kind of in style). Libertarians love to argue but unlike Liberals who want the people that disagree with them kicked off campus for “hate speech†they will suck it up and go back for more knowing that they control their own life and they don’t want to get in to arguments they should not wear the “Legalize Pot†T-shirt to their job tutoring kids at the local public school. I bet we don't have even a single Libertarian that complains to the Government about gatting "tricked" in to a Neg. Am. IO loan...
FAB,
I just think that avoiding saying things because they can cause trouble is a form of conformity that is quite dangerous in that it subverts the checks in a functioning democracy.
I too find the blame game and cult of victimization despicable, but I don't think it is only the liberals who are using it now. Look at the legions of evangelicals who are crying discrimination when they aren't getting their way. I think my favorite were the judge and congressman who wanted the ten commandments in all public courthouses and buildings. The Daily Show and Colbert report had some hysterical pieces on them.
I just think that avoiding saying things because they can cause trouble is a form of conformity that is quite dangerous in that it subverts the checks in a functioning democracy.
I disagree. Libertarians "avoid" saying things because they believe there exists freedom in other people as well. I am sure most of them actually have opinions about things.
Peter P.,
Most people I know who are Libertarians are opinionated and feel quite free to speak them. Not voicing your concerns about government wrongdoing is a pretty dangerous thing, IMHO. Democracies require that people do put checks on government.
Anyway, one of my favorite "Better Know a District" segments, with Congressman Lynn Westmoreland:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xzeYVKuL_LY
Gotta weigh in with SFWoman on the free speech issue. Free speech is just that --the right to be a complete asshole if you want to and say things that make other people uncomfortable. And it's essential that it be protected for any functioning democracy. Otherwise, what good is it? Every country protects the right to *socially acceptable* and *polite* speech, even the Taliban. Of course, that's as long as the Taliban gets to determine what constitutes *socially acceptable* speech.
Oh, and I agree there are extremists on either end of the spectrum that want to crush it --PC lefties that don't want any "minority" group offended, and RaptureReady types that don't want us to read any book other than the Bible.
How desperate can they possibly get? This would actually be a great deal if the bankruptcy laws were more lenient. Live free for 2 years and then declare bankruptcy! Rinse and repeat!
Of course, sometimes there are negative legal consequences for saying things that cause harm to other people --such as slander, libel & physical threats. But aside from that, you're still free to be a complete asshole. And that's the way it should be.
But aside from that, you’re still free to be a complete asshole.
I agree. Animals have no rights! ;)
allah,
Kind of wondered about that one myself. It's plastered all over C/L! What's odd, with all the saber rattling about mortgage fraud is that this guy is very openly offering HUGE "cash back" offers! Now that this has been properly identified for what it is (blatant theft) the last refuge of the specuvestor has been shut off.
The pictures make it look very nice though, thanks.
Completely OT, but Microsoft has really cool birds-eye photos from 4 angles for most of the Bay Area. I don't know how long it has been there, but it is new to me. It is really cool, so I thougth I'd share:
You can really get a good view of the neighborhoods in San Francisco.
From the casey thing:
Nigel, yes you can definitely publish. I sent the following message to
Keith of HousingBubble and louminatti guy too. And I posted a comment on Robert Cote's blog. That should be enough to let people know what's going on.
Robert has a blog?
Here’s the full story on why Casey’s site is down…
Casey's site is not down, I've just been there.
DinOR,
Yes, I picked that up from C/L. I read into it and they have 3 different plans. The first plan is no payments and no taxes for 4 years. Now had I not any assets or excellent credit, I would have been all over this like hair on a
gorilla! 4 years free living and then just walk away!
allah,
It's just incredible the lengths people are going to keep "this thing of ours" alive isn't it? The rental guarantees are pretty hysterical too! Like getting decent long term renters is as easy as calling room service? Oh this I GOTTA see.
Even if the current administration is guilty of suppressing the truth, it is a far cry from the repression experienced by, say, a political dissident in a Chinese prison.
Whoa, easy there. This is bordering on Godwin's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
That's like saying "Well, compared to the Sun, there's no global warming here."
A better comparison would be USA 2007 vs... say USA 1997... or even USA 1987.
I don’t get that ad.
What’s the upside for the seller?
The seller gets the place sold. What they do is sign you up for a loan that is larger than the purchase price (enough to carry mortgage and taxes for 2 or 4 years). That extra money that you get back (which is really more money that you borrowed), you put aside in an account to make the payments. It's just another way of getting you to overpay for the place, but seem like it's a great deal. It's not, but if you don't have anything to lose, you can just walk away at the end of the free period....but then again, if you don't have good credit, they probably can't get you that deal. A deal like this would appeal to the how-much-a-month crowd; the whole thing is a fraud, it's amazing that they haven't been busted yet.
SP,
Tee shirt man was crude, but there's the slippery slope issue. I normally find the slippery slope argument annoying, but I do think that is how our particular society could evolve into one in which the only free speech would be that which agrees with the administration's, or is politically correct. Accusing people of being unpatriotic or of endangering our society because they don't agree with the government is definitely a suppression of dissent.
I've seen perma-bulls do that on this site. "Why do you want the country to fall to ruin by wishing for a housing crash?" or the attempted shame "You renters are just jealous at everybody else's good fortune in the real estate run up." Or the pegging you as an outsider "What, you don't want/need to be part of the American Dream(TM)? What's wrong with you?"
I say when we see the thought/speech police come out for any reason, be they fascists or politically correct types (who I am sure are using their PC ideology more for personal gain than any sort of real equality fix) we call them on it.
SFWoman,
your point is well taken. What's wrong with a little bit of disagreement? This was set up as a democracy.
Free markets can't operate without bulls and bears anyway.
Rome was set up as a republic, just like the US (even if their ideas about citizenship were different). Mind you, look at what happened to Rome in the long run...
SP Says:
> I saw in Valley Fair wearing a “shut up
> b*tch†t-shirt. SFWoman Says:
Then SF Woman Says:
> SP, Tee shirt man was crude, but there’s the slippery
> slope issue. I normally find the slippery slope argument
> annoying, but I do think that is how our particular society
> could evolve into one in which the only free speech would
> be that which agrees with the administration’s, or is
> politically correct.
Not to pick on Raider fans today, but last season at a Raider Game I saw a “I Left the Bitch at Home†T-Shirt and on the way out of the parking lot I saw a guy on a Harley with an “If You Can Read This, The Bitch Fell Off†T-Shirt…
I am not offended by anything (many people have tried to come up with something, but I really don’t care what others do, wear or say). I just wish that people would worry more about their own life and do their own research (so they can worry less about people that tell them real estate always goes up, or a stock is a “sure winnerâ€)…
Rome was set up as a republic, just like the US (even if their ideas about citizenship were different). Mind you, look at what happened to Rome in the long run…
Uh, did you just copy this from the comment thread in Ben's blog?
Comparing Rome to the US is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard today. I'm not saying that we're in better shape, or worse shape, but they're completely different.
Since you’re obviously familiar with Godwin’s law, the irony should be self-evident. :-)
Touche!
tsusiat,
I love a good spirited, well thought out debate. I get annoyed when an opinion different than that of the other person's automatically qualifies you as 'unpatriotic', 'anti-Semitic', 'racist','intolerant', etc. PCism becomes a rather blunt instrument with which to club people as easily as fascism or wielding the bible as a weapon.
We are finally getting some rain here. I was starting to get worried about the water situation in the country.
FAB
I think it was around the year that I struggled through Atlas Shrugged for the first time that I stopped blaming others and took full responsibility for everything that happens in my life…
You are more likely an Objectivist than a Libertarian. Ayn despised Libertarians, calling them pseudo-intellectual cranks, or conservatives disposed to engaging in various vices.
The problem with today's Libertarians, and I've met quite a few (and disposed one from elected city office when I lived in Belmont) is that they are often nothing more than overly intelligent narcissists in political ideologists clothing.
TJ Rogers came to speak to us back in B-School. Our prof introduced him as a Libertarian, and he almost ripped the poor guys spine out on the spot. It was around then I realized that hardcore Objectivists -- the ones who actually read and got Ayn -- would rather all the Libertarians would pack up and go join whichever party they're hiding from.
overly intelligent narcissists in political ideologists clothing
Ooooh. It gives me shivers when you talk like that, baby ....
Ooooh. It gives me shivers when you talk like that, baby ….
Sorry, suffering serious blog burnout. I inadvertently pissed off an entire online computer game cult get-rich-quick phenomenon by something I wrote on my blog, and I've been under attack for the last few days. Lesson: people don't like having their bubbles burst, no matter what those bubbles are.
eburbed,
if you aren't aware of the numerous parallels between the constitutional aims of your founding fathers and the principles they drew from the Roman Republic, I suggest you google those phrases - Rome, founding fathers, republic.
Then I suggest you read some translations of Livy, and follow that up with a translation of Suetonius' 12 Caesars. If you don't see the parallels between the behaviour of some of the caesars and some recent presidents, post back with your own interpretation and/or analogy.
Or you could read this:
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/200308250013
And no, I don't pay any attention to Ben, and have no clue about his blog.
And what exactly is wrong with referring to Rome in a blog that mentions "caveat emptor" as the topic, anyway?
danville woman,
Floating Rate funds have a tendency to be quite a bit more labor intensive. Because these don't really "trade" they are illiqiud and each loan has to be screened, analyzed, selected and monitored.
The asset class as a whole is fairly new (late 80's) and up until maybe 2003 had "quarterly redemption windows". Now with daily liquidity they have become much more accessible (and useful) to retail investors. Typically they track LIBOR rates. The expenses DO look high and with that kind of yield my guess is that their is a fair amount of leverage AND junk in their too? (Peter P help me out here)
Loans default. It's part of the business. One of three ways to go here. Lower expenses and run the risk of higher default rates OR! 2) staff up and scrutinize the hell out of 'em and brag that while you have lower yields "you've never had to eat a default!" (Institutions love that pitch).
The 3rd option is to sell off anything that looks like it's struggling (airlines, telecom) but when you go this "my hands are clean" route you're not going to be around when they liquidate assets. Remember these are Senior Subordinated Loans so after Uncle Sam and the "help" you are next in line!
My question is, now that the big move is basically over and no clear consenus on the Fed's next move are you encountering opportunity cost?
Someone? Anyone?
Update on my friend who is trying to sell her house in Cupertino...
The house was on the market last fall/winter and did not sell. I didn't realize this, but my friend told me that she received numerous "low ball" offers ranging from $50k to $20k off the asking price. She did not accept any of these offers. She was getting ready to relist, when the couple who had offered her $20k off last year made the same offer. She turned them down again. They then offered her asking price, which she is going to accept (even though Spring is going to be a seller's market in Cupertino, according to her). It comes as no surprise that the family is buying for the school district.
« First « Previous Comments 91 - 130 of 239 Next » Last » Search these comments
Quite a lot of debate among us Amerika-and-success-hating Patrick.netters has focused on where to lay the responsibility for the current housing bubble crash (which doesn't exist, btw). For most of us, it's not a strictly either/or binary choice between sellers or buyers, or lenders vs. regulators. There is plenty of blame to go around, and sometimes it seems very hard to sort out exactly who was responsible for what part of this slow-motion train wreck we've been spectators to.
However, I've noticed a recurring theme among some of the big-"L" Libertarians* here and elsewhere: the belief that most (if not all) of the blame and responsibility deserves to be lain at the feet of f@cked borrowers. (*disclaimer: I consider myself a small-"l" libertarian who thinks some regulation of the right kind is not only desirable, but necessary for "free markets" to function in a way that benefits everyone --not just banksters and crooks).
Now, I'm as pro-caveat emptor as the next guy, and I sure as hell do not have much sympathy for lazy, greedy clowns like Casey Serin or Howmuchamonth retards who "can't" even try to understand the terms of a mortgage before signing their names. But somehow, the idea that the banksters, bubble-blowing Federal Reserve, fly-by-night mortgage brokers, hit-the-number appraisers, "it only goes up" Realtwhores, and assorted other professional crooks and lying scumbags have NO responsibility whatsoever beggars belief.
No one put a gun to anyone's head --this is true. But it's also true that no one asked ME whether or not it was *good idea* to start handing out unsecured $million-dollar neg-am loans to unemployed 24-year-old con artists. It's also true that if I choose to buy in the current market, I have *no choice* but to compete against unemployed 24-year-old con artists with unsecured $million-dollar neg-am loans. And guess who's more likely to win that bidding war? Anyone...?
Oh, and thank God for renting. Without it, my only other "free will choice" for shelter would be pitching a tent in the local park or living out of my car.
I completely agree that I, as a prospective buyer, have a certain responsibility to educate myself about any deal --and the risks-- before entering into it. And I agree that there is no risk-free transaction. However, I --like most people-- am not a professional real estate expert nor a financial wizard. Don't I have *some right* to expect that the people who are legally employed as market "professionals" behave in a marginally professional and lawful way (i.e, not trying to anally rape me at every opportunity)? Don't I, as a citizen, have *some right* to expect that the people who I've voted into office and whose salaries I'm paying (Congress, President, state legislators, etc.) will "regulate" on my behalf occasionally ? At the very least, shouldn't I be able to expect them NOT to rig the system to reward my being ass-raped and then hand a jar of Vaseline to my attacker? Am I being ridiculously naive here?
In any voluntary transaction, there are always at least two parties involved --a buyer and seller-- whose actions (ethical or otherwise) will affect the outcome. And when it comes to most mortgage transactions, there often is as many as 5 directly interested parties:
(1) MBS-NAAVLP retail broker/lender (sub-contractor),
(2) realtwhore (acting as seller's agent),
(3) hit-the-number appraiser,
(4) seller,
and lastly, (5) the buyer.
Add to that 3 additional parties that --while not directly involved in any particular RE transaction-- largely determine how the macro-liquidity game is rigged, and in whose favor:
(1) rate-manipulating, bubble-blowing Fed,
(2) MBS investors and foreign central banksters (who front NAAVLP money to retail lenders),
(3) complicit and/or asleep-at-the-wheel Congress & state government.
Consider your average American. Consider your own brother or sister. Do you think think bro/sis really has the financial prowess and intellect to single-handedly defeat a game systematically rigged over decades to favor all the other parties against them? When all the "experts" are using huge marketing budgets, FUD, blatantly manipulated data and government backing that "proves" what a sweet deal the American Dreamâ„¢ is vs. "being priced out forever", what chance does s/he stand on her own? I mean, you're the only one saying otherwise, and your opinions don't count because you're a lowly JBR, right?
Let's be realistic. I'm always rooting for David, but when he's facing 7 Goliaths and God's taking a siesta, his odds don't look so good.
Come to think of it, should I be responsible for policing my own neighborhood, too? Or running my own court system and jails? Have we grown so jaded about being being raped by the very pols and "regulators" (supposedly elected to serve our interests and uphold the law) that we've forgotten WHY they're supposed to be there in the first place?
I forget --aside from lining their own pockets, what exactly is the purpose of government again?
Just wondering aloud...
HARM
#housing