patrick.net

OK, I'll bite, just to put this thing away, probably violating the tenet that you should "never argue with an idiot -- they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Punchbowl Says:
DS, don’t be silly about claiming Trotsky as inspiration. Some of my best friends are Trotskyites.

That's pretty unlikely.

I just think that HARM is wrong about more regulation being needed. Fraud is already a criminal offense. If fraud has been done, then let the perpetrators be punished, criminally and civilly. People who have made misrepresentations that resulted in losses to others deserve to be behind bars or have their assets confiscated.

Yes, I could see why disagreeing with HARM means you call another poster a Stalinist.

That makes me a libertarian, not a specuvestor. Meanwhile, you’re still a Stalinist.

I have certainly posted some thoughtful critiques of so-called 'libertarianism' in the past and in this thread in fact, based on actually looking at this stuff in sociology and social policy classes. Being an almost uniquely American phenomenon, it doesn't really concern me directly to study it in great detail, though.

I'm not a Stalinist, nor a Trotskyist, nor a Leninist, etc etc. I may be a small-m marxist of sorts. I suppose I am really a Fabian Socia1ist with postmodernist realisations, and with concomitant regard for ethics and human rights -- that's the whole point of Fabianism. While Stalin took Russia from being a peasant-based agrarian society into industrialisation, he did it often at the expense of human rights, as even Russian govts have admitted now. Stalinism continued to flavour the style of Russian Communism up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. I would never support the violation of human rights and rights to safety and security of person that took place under Stalin's regime. For example, 'liquidating the kulaks' as you have put forward. (Note that Lenin signed off on orders to hang and persecute these people.) Further, as a Fabian Socia1ist, I don't even agree with the fundamental of Marxist theory that a better society can only be achieved through a process of revolution, which disqualifies me straight away from being stalinist, leninist, trotskyist or even communist. I believe there is too much upheaval and too many violations of ethics to justify a revolution except under the most extreme circumstances. And if a revolution should ever occur, due to extreme corruption, inequality or failure to recognise rights in a society, it is essential to conduct it in a way that demonstrates fundamental ethics.

And as many contemporary critics of Marx pointed out, his formulation of communism would likely lead to repressive totalitarian states.

What we have seen in the evolution of the 20th century welfare state is fabian socia1ism at work -- old age pensions, unemployment benefits, a progressive income tax, access to free or low cost healthcare, education and housing, where these things are not reliably being provided by the market to guarantee the welfare of all citizens. I could obviously write whole books about this change, I'll restrict it to one paragraph here.

Further, you will see that many of my proposals are already being enacted even in Anglo-based welfare states, traditionally at the bottom of the heap of welfare states in taxonomies. So it is not even extreme in the worst welfare states.

I can see, however, that getting caught up into the whole libertarian mindset and complex of ideas would sensitise you into seeing implications in remarks that aren't there, or to be tempted to engage in 'splitting' or swinging to black and white extremes in interpretations of everything. I believe that these libertarian assertions can be very easily critiqued, as per the Anna Yeatman quote I inserted earlier. Libertarianism seems to be a strange development of Scots and Irish refugees from English rule and dispossession from lands expanding into some very generous New World territory and coming up with a bunch of ideas to justify it. However, it flies in the face of reality and entrenched systems of government, the idea of the polity and recognition of citizen's rights and the very concept of citizenship. Plenty of other posters here have also critiqued so-called libertarianism, perhaps you should go after them with extreme, unjustified name-calling as well... they will probably put up less of a fight for a start, and they won't have a social sciences degree and training to start really picking it to pieces if provoked...

Hmmm, here is history exactly repeating itself (I came across this last week.)
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1918p/mesopo.html

And now it's my turn to be sucked into moderation. There's a riposte for DS from a minute ago.

Please, sir ...

Condos in Cupertino? Do we have to talk about real estate? If so, I'd like to put in a good word for what gets served up by adsense as I look right now. Take those Cupertino bucks and go to

http://www.slovakiainvestmentproperty.com/

I hope someone here is making thousands of dollars out of letting google pimp property to us.

Ummm… I know that history never exactly repeats itself (though it often “rhymes”). But given your above list, you don’t see any parallels to today?

You could've said that about immigration (legal or not) back in the early 1900's. You could've said the same about welfare in the early 1990's.

(Remember the Jerry Spring=circuses, welfare=bread analogies from that era?)

The "Rome Collapsed - and so shall USA because of " is much like "The Second Coming is near - just look at " or a Nostradamus prediction.

If something is vague and complicated enough, you can always make connections by picking a choosing.

In any case, let's say people are right - and that the USA is going to suffer the fate of Rome.

What does that even mean?! That we're going to suddenly have serfdoms and all be controlled by the Catholic Church? That we're suddenly going to forget all that was learned and lose our books and knowledge? Revert to superstition?

1. The USA isn't about to head into the Dark Ages 2.0
2. Jesus isn't coming back.
3. Nostradamus... well... I don't even know what his predictions were.

What's going to f-ck up (as in destroy/end) America isn't welfare, illegal immigrants, the War In Iraq, Hollywood, or the Castro district.

Here's what's going to "end" America:

1) We're going to hit Peak Oil. And then suddenly the South won't be livable. Period. Full stop. And living in the Northern states will suck.

2) China and India will have economies and talent that will dwarf ours because of sheer population. They won't have to wage war on us - we'll be forced to buy everything from them because we're not smart enough or cheap enough to do it.

3) Global warming - maybe. Not so sure about that.

Housing bubble, a terrorist attack, everything else - those are peanuts compared to Peak Oil.

Finally, there's not 1 theory that everyone agrees on as to why Rome declined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#.22Declining_empire.22_theories

If that was too long, here's a shorter version:

Forget illegal immigration, forget social security, forget housing bubble, forget "decline of moral values".

Fear Peak Oil.

SP Says:
Yes, USA 2007 is worse than USA 1997 or USA 1987. But my point is that if you want to call it “repression”, you better get a good handle on what repression looks like. Otherwise your argument won’t have credibility and nobody will take you seriously.

what about the mccarthyism of the 50s? what about the violent putdowns of protests by police in the 60s and 70s of peaceful demonstrations -- happy to use truncheons on college students. this is all very recent history under modernity. this is in our own lifetimes. were first amendment rights being trampled on here?

If your point is that our first amendment rights are being trampled on (and I am not disagreeing with that assessment), you actually hurt your argument when you pull out stuff like “GWB’s culture of political repression”.

Since you’re obviously familiar with Godwin’s law, the irony should be self-evident.

the remarks precipitating the invocation of godwin's law are not altogether inappropriate. the US had similar eugenics ideas to the nazis leading up to WWII -- the idea of doing away with the disabled and anyone you didn't like etc had pretty wide currency in the US until nazi atrocities were exposed, and then the eugenicists went pretty quiet...

there are certainly parallels between US and the roman empire. the simplest is simply the amount of influence, economic, political and military, that the US has in the world. you had pax romana, pax brittanica and now, supposedly, pax americana. (All the paxes were brought about by the constant threat and use of force, but never mind...) Britain was the pre-eminent economy and military force of its time (to be replaced by an ex-British colony).

there is a lot of quiet imperialism going on by the US, usually in the form of economic or political manipulation or threat rather than outright conquest by force of arms. so there is economic and cultural imperialism taking place all the time. you have english as the primary lingua franca (paprdon the oymoron) in the world today simply due to US influence. you have a lot of interference in local politics without outright conquest, unlike the romans. the romans were always devising pretexts to invade new territories, for instance. you see this today in the form of selection of puppet or friendly govts in south america, in indonesia and the philippines, in the middle east and so on. often these selected govts are overthrown by popular revolution when they are shown to be repressive and right-wing. and you hear a lot of strange noises coming from neocons about obtaining 'global supremacy', 'possessing the best values in the world', being able to wage simultaneous decisive wars against multiple targets, etc, etc. all the signs of a militarised society similar to the romans or even the aztecs. no mcdonalds without mcdonnell-douglas ;)

Speaking as someone who has always flown economy and taken more than a few longish Greyhound busrides...I'd say my worst trip ever was this commuter jaunt from Guiling to Chengdu. The seating was not assigned, the plane was some mysterious Soviet made thing falling apart in front of our eyes, the stewardesses' English (and Mandarin) were incomprehensible and I remember some sort of assurance that the pilot had flown "safely" for over 500 hours or something, which did not assure me at all.

(As Casey Serin would say) Good times! The take away is that Mainland China's service industry still has some ways to go.

I think the Asian market might be able to fight off low cost carriers a bit better. A lot of the carriers are still national carriers. The governments are unlikely to invite too much competition.

SP,

BTW, I have now read Flashman, Flashman's Lady, Flashman and the Great Game and Flashman at the Charge. They do depict England with warts and all, but I'd say Flashman's England (even with Cardigan and the rest in toll) was still depicted as superior to the alternatives.

Fun books and I'm finally tipped off to the origin of "thugs." I can't wait to see what was said about the Taiping Rebellion.

I used to think that history would not quite repeat itself, but it's hard to tell. The "Mainstream" Democrats are learning awfully slowly...and most of them grew up during the Vietnam War.

toll = tow = barely functional literacy

GW Bush is not a Stalinist per se, except in the broadest since in that Stalin was a "conservative" alternative to Trotsky. However, Dubya is pretty much the textbook definition of a Fascist...or at least Fascist friendly. Sure, he's not a very good nationalist, but I put that down as a lack of skill and intellectual curiosity, rather than lack of innate propensity.

FAB,

Big L Libertarians do not blame themselves for anything, they blame people who are not as enlightened as them or who are too stupid to see how "fair" the Libertarian Utopia must be.

How you managed to avoid the self flagellating liberals after a whole life spent in SF? Just read the New Yorker this week. Pained reactions to the Callous Putin government -- should America have done more? Compare that to the Economist (my last print copy, probably forever) this week and its coverage on China's blood transfusion AIDS item -- no self doubt or self loathing for a world caring too little.

Mind..."campus liberals" and Al Sharpton & Co. are demogogues, rather than genuine liberals. They're too stupid or too callous to really wander into the metaphysics of liberalism.

casey serin is back online. there was a 'legal' dispute between ms prlinkbiz's crowd that lead to his host pulling down the site for a while. casey serin 'impulsively' signed an agreement with linkbiz all that time ago that gives her all rights to anything he ever does for the rest of his life, and now he's thinking about how to get out of it. it's effectively a showbiz contract, the linkbiz people obviously believe in milking his story any which way they can for its potential celebrity value. another tail of semi-coercion, deception, and the trapdoor aspects of capitalism as per this thread topic. the psychotic greed and selfishness is palpable all 'round...

Sorry again about the moderation. You can always mail the post to me (p@patrick.net) and I'll try to post it - if you remembered to copy it I guess.

I can't easily scan the moderation queue because of the thousan spam posts per day...

Patrick

Nope, she's gone. I'll make it short.

DS, I'm sorry. I'll argue against your evil politics the next time without calling you a name. Oh, and please don't threaten me with that fearsome weapon of yours again. A social science degree! I almost died laughing.

Different Sean said, "I am also suggesting that govt become affordable developer in a small way to undercut the market as a social good. If govt could build an appreciable number of lower priced places, they would also affect the market by removing quite a few renters and buyers, while maintaining the stance that they were just trying to help the poor people, they had no idea it would gut the RE market, etc."

I have never seen this idea work out very well, and it has been tried. In recent years, several Bay Area developments have included "below market rate" housing in addition to market rate housing in order to get city funding. Neat! In this market, that sounds pretty good. Let's check it out. Mind, my family doesn't actually make enough to buy in the Bay Area without prioritizing the house above all other things, including time spent in the house, and maybe taking a couple of third jobs. Nonetheless, we always make too much $ and/or have too few children for these mixed affordable/market rate developments. The people who do make the housing lotteries necessarily do not have the income to actually pay for the home on a 30 year fixed--it would be a stretch for us, and we make too much--or perhaps they are making some of their money under the table.

My experience is that in the US, government tinkering in housing seems to pretty much leave out the lower to middle middle class--the people who have pretty good educations and pretty good jobs, but not enough to save up or pay out serious money. We are neither poor enough nor rich enough to own a home.

We are neither poor enough nor rich enough to own a home.

yeah, agreed. that's the tragedy of an insufficient band-aid approach. it's necessary to come up with something that includes the lower middle and middle middle. i think if any govt was trying to be paternalistic and well-meaning, it would use a range of methods, looking at the economic drivers of housing inflation and seeking ways to cool the market as well as using its own resources. there's too many sacred cows in the way though, such as a belief in the purity and perfection of free markets and so on. currently the reserve bank is juggling the interest rate to try to cool the housing market. and housing prices are normally self-limiting in the free market, so govts have always left it alone for convenience. there have been different programs over time, tho, back in the 1940s-60s affordable land was released to people under a variety of schemes. at present, govts here have a waiver on stamp duty for first home buyers, saving up to say $20K on transfer costs, and a first home buyers grant of $7K to help with a depoist, which is a drop in the ocean of course when it comes to cost and the cost of repayments.

Punchbowl Says:
A social science degree!

a social science degree containing a mix of political science, ethics, philosophy, social policy and sociology ought to prepare one pretty well to debate political economy, shouldn't it? what would you suggest, aeronautical engineering? pooh...

I am leasing my home, no renting it. Why are people leasing a home or apartment , referred to as renters? People leasing a car, are not referred to as car renters, and people renting a car for a day, or a week are not leasing it. I sometimes rent a vacation home for a week or two in the summer, but I am not leasing it.

Why are people leasing apartments and homes relegated to a status below leasing, and even below that of leasing a car? And how long has this mindset of demoralizing leasers been going on?

DS,

$7K to help with a deposit, which is a drop in the ocean of course when it comes to cost

Depends where you buy. I know of 2 quite liveable country towns (Harden and Boorowa) a bit over an hour's drive from Canberra, where that $7K would give you better than a 5% deposit on a starter home. You'd cop a pretty fierce fuel/car maintenance bill if you commuted, but it could be done. I had a good friend who did a longer commute than that for 2 years when he was first married, due to where he and his wife were living and working.

There were tales a few years back of people using the grant to buy outright in old mining villages in Western Tasmania, and even having to refund some of it because the house price was less than the $7K . . .

I know of 2 quite liveable country towns (Harden and Boorowa) a bit over an hour’s drive from Canberra, where that $7K would give you better than a 5% deposit on a starter home.

Yes, of course. Isn't that being... disingenuous? The whole point is that the median house price in, say, Sydney (popn 4M), where the actual jobs and industry are, is $500K, whereas remote and rural sites, where popn, jobs and industry aren't, may be $50K... hence the respective values. Altho govts have come under criticism for not decentralising more and promoting regionalisation. It's not just 'lifestyle' to have to live in a capital city, the nature of settlement almost mandates it. However, many people are forced to commute 2 hours each way every day as they have purchased somewhere in the outer suburban affordability belt. It's not only a failure of the social contract to let prices blow out and 'trust the market', it's also a failure of urban planning. There is a 'flight of population' effect also, where more people are leaving Sydney than arriving, but prices still remain high somehow...

You actually get a better deal in the US, as there are far more opportunities in the regions and a more dispersed popn - bible belt concerns notwithstanding...

DS,

The Australian 'nature of settlement' helps keep housing prices high for the majority who live in the suburbs of the capital cities.

One city in the UK (60 million people in an area smaller than Victoria) has more than 1 million inhabitants. Five cities in Australia (21 million people in an area the size of the continental US) have more than 1 million inhabitants.

(For those of you in the US, 'city' population includes suburbs in both UK and Australian statistics.)

I remember reading several of the Flashman novels zillions of years ago, in a former life, and another funny book, Pirates... I think I was 17...

a social science degree containing a mix of political science, ethics, philosophy, social policy and sociology ought to prepare one pretty well to debate political economy, shouldn’t it?

I tremble at your mighty .... er .... pseudo-intellectual puffery.

Mike a.k.a/Sage,

As a long time "beer renter" I absolutely agree!

I'm running a campaign of sorts to attain recognition for the new term "rentors" (defined as specuvestors and other "prudent types" of vision) vainly attempting to "rent out" their cash devouring McAlbatross.

Some time back I met Tom Hudson (a long time fund manager at Lord Abbett). He was set to retire but came back post 9/11 "for the team". Great guy. He said, "Son, we don't "own" stocks (we just "rent" them). You don't have to get married to them... (just think of it as an "affair")

I hope he's doing well.

Punchbowl Says:
a social science degree containing a mix of political science, ethics, philosophy, social policy and sociology ought to prepare one pretty well to debate political economy, shouldn’t it?
I tremble at your mighty …. er …. pseudo-intellectual puffery.

yo' mama... anyway, you're just jealous. I can help you with foreign policy too, it's on my resume... PS what did YOU study at community college?

One situation that is scary

What if all these FB's get together with a class action suit against the lenders and win big $$? This would save all the FB's that didn't lose their house yet. This is a very real possibility that would actually rape all the bubblesitters and keep prices up at the same time. This would really suck big time!

oops...the link

DS: jealous

That's it. I'm suing. I've split my sides now.

allah,

Jeffollie is a treasure, I just wish he would post here more often!

You're 100% correct, we are in uncharted waters here. No one has been on "the other side". I'm really torn here. The shear weight of this thing may be more than we can handle. Barney Frank is already creating an uproar and with or without his aid there will be considerable debate.

Some time back *Glen made the point that it would be laughable to walk into a lender's place of business and ask for a 1/2, 3/4 or a million dollars to "do a little trading" in commodities yet we'll loan it out against RE speculation all day! Ever since RE agents became "investment advisors" and mortgage brokers became "financial planners" it's been a mess. The complete lack of effect regulation is glaringly obvious. A distinction Punchbowl just can't seem to make.

FormerAptBroker Says:

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)…
_____

Yeah?

We know about the IQ of "Rader" fans.

How about Raider fans?

DinOR, you're regulated so you think it might work for real estate too. It's possible but, to me, it seems worth it to let the free press and financial hardship and if necessary the tort system get first crack at this recent sordid real estate con. I realize there's a trend - more of that fabianism that DS touts - to wrap everyone in cotton wool 24/7. I suggest that human nature is better described (and better prescribed) by Edmund Burke.

"Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other."

@ allah,

How about counter suits claiming applicants submitted fraudulant applications?

Punchbowl,

Like I said, I'm torn. My intincts (and framework of knowledge) tell me to let FB's rot in debtor's prison! This is simply Darwin at his best. What FB's want is "riskless investment" and now that they've banged their knee, they want us to rush in with band aids and training wheels?

Now that I've mellowed some w/age I'd almost prefer to find some kind of resolution? Let's face facts here, a class action suit will utterly fail these people. In the end, the suit will fail too.

Where I take exception is when the securities industry gets compared with NAR. If you still don't believe me (and that is your right and privilege) just go ahead and get registered and then find a firm that will let you get on the phone, tout stock target prices, make statements like "15% is in the bag", charge outrageous commissions where YOU are making more money on the trade than they are and see how long you last!

Welcome to the 90's!

The industry has been forced to change so much, many wouldn't even recognize it. All the "newbies" fresh out of college are being trained not only in the "art" of compliance but also the spirit of the law. Everything has moved toward a "managed money" platform. Most private firms have gone "fee based only". Discretionary Accounts are a thing of the past (and a sure fire way to get you flagged). Industry standard for ROA is 1%. Most firms have internal mechanisms to notify BOTH the client and the broker when limits are exceeded. The client has to sign and return the letter stating they are "o.k" with excessive commissions. Fat chance of that happening. End of relationship.

Going after stockbrokers about their commissions is a lot like hunting for dinosaurs. Mostly it's just fossils. It's frustrating to me (with all of the changes we've been through) when people say there's no hope to reign in realtors and mortgage brokers. It can, and it MUST be done. We'll all be better off for it.

DinOR, I see your point of view wrt securities but I don't see that the transition has helped clients very much. Now it's harder to be blown up by a rogue broker but the long term damage from the fat fees on all those compliant managed accounts isn't much smaller. Have stockbrokers had to stop driving Beemers? Let's face it. The industry has just found a friendlier way to make its money.

If you think similar regulation in real estate will do the same job there, then I still wonder whether realtors will have to trade down from their own Lexi. I doubt it very much. They will find a new way to keep their cars.

Let me propose a simpler solution. Legislate that realtors and mortgage brokers and everyone else involved in the process be fiduciaries. Make them liable at law to act in the best interest of their client, whichever party that client is. When a seller's broker refuses to present an offer, it's a prima facie violation of that duty and they lose their license. When a buyer's broker pushes a buyer to raise a bid in order to get a deal done, let's dock her commission dollar for dollar because she's a fiduciary and only acting in the buyer's interest, or let her surrender her license. When a mortgage broker touts an IO with a lockin, force a rebate to the borrower of the higher payout or let the mb surrender his license for allowing personal gain to affect their fiduciary duty.

There is no doubt that FBs can still get into trouble under this scenario. It wasn't actually necessary for realtors to lie and mortgage brokers to fill their pockets to drive house prices sky high this time around. People chase prices higher. It's human nature. They do it with more than real estate. Eventually the chickens come home to roost and they learn something. We'll be seeing a lot of learning for years to come.

You'll have to excuse me for the rest of the day. I have to go help with some maintenance and yardwork at the house of a friend who got hit riding his bike and is just home after nine weeks in hospital. Of course, in a perfect Fabian world, the government would look after things like this and I guess we could all just loll around.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/13/real_estate/twomarkets_fortune/index.htm

February 13, 2006: 5:27 AM EST

Fifteen percent is pretty much in the bag for Orange County in 2006," he says. "It's impossible for prices to go down this year."

They will be against big homebuilders, for shoddy construction.

Someone the other day was telling me a story about a co-worker who bought a new built. Everytime the heater turned on, bits of metal would suddenly be floating in the air.

Apparently, the insulation was installed inside the vent pipes, instead of around them. Or something like that.

Weird.