patrick.net

I assume you mean this one ?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-11-2011/tone-def-poetry-jam---lyrics-controversy

Good one. Thanks.

ptiemann says

I wonder if someone is getting in trouble because of the information posted here, after all, there are some real listings (real addresses, real agents’ identities) posted here.

How do you mean? Probing by outside parties (like the ones in parentheses)?

(edit) Aha...

My Shanghai friend also mentioned in her email to me just now that she saw the pictures of the multitudes in the Apple store in China. "Apple products are very popular in China. Many people love brand name stuff, they save up several months salary to buy one iPhone or iPad."
The world consumer is drooling and begging to hand over wads of cash to Apple. Apple can't even keep up with the demand forstuff that they make $300 per unit profit on.
Of course, we can predict that this behavior will suddenly stop for no reason except that it's "sell in May and go away." I don't believe it myself.
But, since the stock market is an auction, no one can predict how it will behave between now and July. That's why index funds beat most managed funds.

clambo says

Apple products are very popular in China. Many people love brand name stuff, they save up several months salary to buy one iPhone or iPad.”

In the 80s, Chinese save 2 to 3 years to buy a color TV.
Now, it only takes 2 to 3 months to buy an iPad. A major improvement !!!

Tatupu: I didn't say that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) required 20% of loans to be to the poorest 20% in the bank's community. Clinton's 7/1/95 Regulations to the Act did that. The regulations were a means to put 'teeth' into the CRA and bypass Congress who would not have passed such socialist nonsense. Oh, and during '08 when the housing bubble burst, I found the regulations and read them. They were scary and disgusting, that our Democrats in the federal govt would attempt to engineer results in the lending business to force loans to poor people to buy houses. That was a sick and dangerous meddling into the private sector lending business. Talk about meddling, Obama/Pelosi/Reid tacked on the socialist nationalization of the Student Loan business, onto the Health-Care Bill. The federal govt now controls the student loan business.
Oh, and your 'facts' of the NYTimes do NOT refute my statement that tax rate reductions for poor and middle income people under Bush's tax bill in 2001 were much greater than the rate reductions for high-income earners. Highest-earners had rate reductions of about 10% (39% down to 35%) is a rate that's 10% smaller, whereas average paids had huge % rate reductions, many of 100% because they went down to zero.

sbourg says

Tatupu: I didn’t say that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) required 20% of loans to be to the poorest 20% in the bank’s community. Clinton’s 7/1/95 Regulations to the Act did that. The regulations were a means to put ‘teeth’ into the CRA and bypass Congress who would not have passed such socialist nonsense.

Again. Complete bullshit. Please post a source if you have one

The listing price of $190,000. is a joke. This house is worth a bare minimum of $300,000. and probably much more if sold retail. Furthermore this house has been on MLS for 125 days and looks great from the outside.

This doesn't make sense if the house has been on for 125 days, it was obviously priced a little high and you are saying it should have been priced higher??? A home should sell in 90 days or less if priced accurately. If it sits longer than that it is most likely overpriced and you should make a price reduction. This is another problem with the market. I see homes sitting for over a year without a single price reduction, what is that????? It's called list and hope and pray that some fool comes along and pays more than the house is worth. Sometimes that happens but more often than not it doesn't. Not in this market.

People seem to think if their house sold in the time frame it was supposed to sell they could have gotten more, I call this greed. What happened is you got a good realtor who did his/her homework on the market and landed a bullseye on the pricepoint.

have always believed that many of these offers are bogus. The banks want you to bid against a phantom. Here is the deal, don’t bid against anyone. It is all going to crash again anyway before another securitization push is begun.

Couldn't agree more. There were three instances where I was told there was another offer and would I like to submit a bid against them. Once I refused I was told that what happened was the listing agent was told the other person was going to submit an offer and then last minute decided not to. Whaaaaat? This has happened on more than one occassion. When the buyers don't create the bidding war the banks try to drum one up artificially. They would get 3 offers all around the same price (what the property was worth) so the bank would throw them all back and ask for a higher round of offers. I think this is unethical especially when the distance between the banks number and all of the offers is 100k or more. Give me a break, talk about trying to steer the market. They should be taking a cue from the offers, your pricepoint is too high.

That inventory could have renters and I am not sure if it could still be occupied by the original owners.

A lot of the inventory I'm seeing, no renters, no owners - vacant. These properties have been vacant for 1+ year. I've looked at homes that have been vacant for close to 3 years and held off the market deliberately by the bank.

tatupu70 says

See if you can follow along with me. Right now 50% of people don’t pay income taxes, right? That’s a stat that your type love to bandy about. If you decreased wealth disparity, people at the bottom and middle would have more money. And these people spend a much higher % of their income so demand for most everything would increase. Increased demand would lead to increased production which = more jobs. More jobs = more people making $$ and more taxpayers. More taxpayers = higher tax revenue.
See how that works?? It has nothing to do with fairness or socialism or ideaology. It has everything to do with practicality. I’m for doing things that work.

This is purely theoretical. You assume that by taking away more from the top, it will somehow flow to the bottom via government transfer payments. And this, at a time when, even if spending were controlled, there is still a revenue issue affecting the debt. Your scenario above is no more reality than you may claim is the scenario of a supply-sider.

tatupu70 says

Right now 50% of people don’t pay income taxes, right?

And therefore, if true, by definition ANY reduction in income tax rates, regardless of how small, will significantly benefit the "wealthy" in dollar terms much more than they will those who don't pay taxes at all.

Troy says

Paralithodes says

. . . government through its good graces is simply allowing you to keep a portion of it.That is essentially what President Obama meant when he referred to “tax expenditures.”

Sorry, wrong. A good example of a “tax expenditure” is the mortgage interest deduction. Government could just cut checks for the tax benefit they’re giving to home debtors (like they did recently), but instead this policy was slipped into the tax code as a deduction.
Geddit?
“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

Side point: The mortgage interest deduction was not just slipped into the code. It was a remainder from repealed code that allowed deduction of interest expense in general (e.g., including credit card interest). Reagan allowed the mortgage interest deduction to stay and now it is unfortunately sacred ground for both sides.

That said, I know too many people in person (and in forums) who believe that a tax cut on income is essentially the government giving its money to the ambiguously defined "rich," "super rich," etc.

If Obama was specifically referring to tax deductions, credits, and the like, then yes, I am wrong about his meaning, I concede that point, and I agree (as you know, I fully agree with you on the MID). If he was referring to tax cuts in general as well, then I stand by my point.

Paralithodes says

This is purely theoretical. You assume that by taking away more from the top, it will somehow flow to the bottom via government transfer payments. And this, at a time when, even if spending were controlled, there is still a revenue issue affecting the debt. Your scenario above is no more reality than you may claim is the scenario of a supply-sider.

Well, yes and no. I think history is pretty convincing in that regard. Look at wealth disparities over the last 100 years. Then look at how progressive taxes were over the last 100 years.

If you argue that there are other factors in play--I won't disagree. But that doesn't mean you don't do something that does work...

Paralithodes says

That said, I know too many people in person (and in forums) who believe that a tax cut on income is essentially the government giving its money to the ambiguously defined “rich,” “super rich,” etc.

I'd argue that a tax cut on capital gains is the government giving money to the rich.

Like I mentioned above, I think the banks want more money on short sales because they know they'll lose the right to collect on the failed debt.

terriDeaner says

Just an observation - how did a post that was written yesterday, with 52 comments added since then get 5000+ views? Sure, this is a popular topic but still… was each comment edited ~100 times?

You forgot who started this post...

If I walk into the store apple products are flying off the shelves, and they are very good products. People I talk to overseas or locally want to buy iPhones and iPads. Besides we don't day trade, and we do very good. Following simple Warren Buffets advice, hold and never sell.

Working out very well for us.

sbourg says

Talk about meddling, Obama/Pelosi/Reid tacked on the socialist nationalization of the Student Loan business, onto the Health-Care Bill.

Do you even know the way it was before? It used to be that the private sector made the loan, and the US government (taxpayer) guaranteed it. So the private sector got all the upside, and the taxpayer any downside.

You think that was a good deal for taxpayers? I don't. All the reform did is give the taxpayers the upside too, so that if they guarantee the loan, the also get the interest paid.

There nothing preventing the private sector from making student loans.

sbourg says

CRA...engineer results in the lending business to force loans to poor people to buy houses

Bullshit. The vast majority of subprime loans were made by companies that were not even subject to the CRA. Nobody "forced" them to make the loans.

Remember that spending on the military has a lower multiplier effect than spending on infrastructure, etc.

Generally peaks are when everyone is buying things (faddish peaks). Time to buy is when you know a group likes a product immensely and the general population is likely to follow the group.

Or, for example, a store/brand is local and will likely go national and you know as a local that the brand is awesome.

I think Apple is overloved as both a stock and a fad. I don't see it going the way of beanie babies by any means, but I think the premium people will pay to have an 'iphone' over another smartphone will be much lower in a year or two.

Either way, I'm seeing China bubble and the dollar overhated, so I can see some stock weakness going forward, though I don't think AAPL will get hit as bad as stocks leveraged to China.

clambo says

My Shanghai friend also mentioned in her email to me just now that she saw the pictures of the multitudes in the Apple store in China. “Apple products are very popular in China. Many people love brand name stuff, they save up several months salary to buy one iPhone or iPad.”

The world consumer is drooling and begging to hand over wads of cash to Apple. Apple can’t even keep up with the demand forstuff that they make $300 per unit profit on.

Of course, we can predict that this behavior will suddenly stop for no reason except that it’s “sell in May and go away.” I don’t believe it myself.

But, since the stock market is an auction, no one can predict how it will behave between now and July. That’s why index funds beat most managed funds.

China is a dictatorial ponzi scheme about to break. Here's what the Chinese economy is from what I can tell:

-People are paid $1-$2 an hour. Economy is totally dependent on cheap labor to make us shit that we could probably make better ourselves but it's cheaper to pay some slave to make it and ship it over here.

-China is largely dependent on exporting to Europe which is under severe pressure due to their banks being overleveraged to shit sovereign debt making our banks look responsible during our mortgage lending boom.

-Chinese economy is now also largely dependent on a housing bubble that's bursting at the seems. Families have saved generational money for a downpayment for an overpriced condo because they think it's the right thing to do. This money has trickled its way up to corrupt government officials. There is tons of corruption and government officials make out like bandits off of the housing bubble. Often government officials take that money and gamble it in Macao for shits and giggles creating a Macao bubble (why I think Macao casinos are the best short right now)

-Fundamentally, country is not free and has no middle class. As these things unwind, it's not going to be pretty.

-Contrarian signs abound about China. Every day I see some sitcom making references about how big China is about to be. My idiot friends think China is the next big thing (people that are not political/economic oriented at all). Mom's friends that are always bubble believers think learning Chinese is the way to go.

To continue my China rant, an important point I forgot is that there are a tons of Chinese IPOs right now. Insiders are selling and getting out while the getting is good.

rubyrae says

I was told that what happened was the listing agent was told the other person was going to submit an offer and then last minute decided not to. Whaaaaat? This has happened on more than one occassion. When the buyers don’t create the bidding war the banks try to drum one up artificially. They would get 3 offers all around the same price (what the property was worth) so the bank

G A M E IS R I G G E D.

Tenouncetrout says

CNN also just did an article that health insurance cost 19K a year.
Who want’s to be on the hook for that?

As far as who would want to be "on the hook for that," under ObamaCare, we will be FORCED onto that hook. Once freedom is taken away by a government, it very seldom is returned.

Paralithodes says

This is purely theoretical. You assume that by taking away more from the top, it will somehow flow to the bottom via government transfer payments.

What is needed is to capture rents that are tapping the working people of this country.

Housing. Medical care. Energy. Those are the big 3.

Just raising taxes on higher incomes only gets at this issue indirectly, and penalizes the capital-creators along with the rent-seekers.

To make housing more affordable we need to redirect investment away from naked land value and into the actual housing good.

Canada has a good model for knocking the economic rents out of medical care, and it's encouraging that Vermont is following their example.

Energy has always been a massive loss of public wealth to private interests. Norway was wise to tap that with a severance tax regime (and outright socialization of some of the sector to enforce it), oddly, the socialists up in Alaska have a very similar severance tax, though it only has about half the per-capita equity position that Norway's oil fund has.

The current system tries to do this redistribution half-assedly through shitty housing projects, Section 8 subsidies, Medicaid/CHIP, heating subsidies etc but it's all too undirected to really work well.

The problems lie at a deeper level.

I find it funny that the Republicans are issuing this debt ceiling ultimatum. It's mainly the Republicans that got us into this mess in the first place. The Federal deficit as a percentage of the GNP has increase every year since Ronald Reagan that a Republican president was in office. It decreased a little when Clinton was in office. 63% of the budget is Medicare, Social Security and the DOD, all of the other federal programs combined only account for 19% of the budget. The only way realistically to reduce spending is to cut money out of the big three.

tatupu70 says

Again. Complete bullshit. Please post a source if you have one

"Clinton's regulations to Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" came into force 7/1/95. They flat-out REQUIRED banks and S&Ls to make 20% of their home loans to the poorest 20%"

http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/04/why-did-the-housing-market-crash/

"And CRA and its monstrous Clinton-effected 7/1/95 regulations should be repealed"

http://www.businessinsider.com/abolish-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-2010-8

"Clinton and A Cuomo were largely responsible for the home mortgage meltdown, when they instituted the 7/1/95 regulations to CRA that then REQUIRED banks and S&Ls; to give huge fractions of their loans to very poor people!"

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/19/barney-frank-deals-potential-d#commentcontainer

"but I stopped when I saw the printed Regulations Clinton enacted and enforced 7/1/95 with his minions. The regulations were to the CRA, and would make the Russian Politburo proud. "

http://theaffordablemortgagedepression.com/2010/03/11/origin-of-the-housing-bubble-the-national-homeownership-strategy.aspx

The primary fault with sbourg's story here is that the banks were making mucho money lending to home debtors 1995-2005. When land values are appreciating 10-20% a year as they did 1998-2005:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=t5

there was no need to point a gun to the head of any lender. They knew a good thing when they saw it.

There was a great deal of "control fraud" going on, and the little fish at the bottom had their part to play in chumming the waters for the big fish, but the bottom line is the home bubble debt event really happened 2003-2005:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS

The Bush team didn't reverse the Clinton stuff, they doubled-down on it, by removing leverage limits, deregulating derivatives, and letting the free market roll.

RayAmerica says

Once freedom is taken away by a government, it very seldom is returned.

What freedom did you lose exactly? The freedom to make others pay for your health care in the most expensive way possible (at ERs) because you are too cheap to get health care coverage?

RayAmerica says

Once freedom is taken away by a government, it very seldom is returned.

It's never returned without a fight. I'm still in certain disbelief that so many people out there think government forcing me to buy private product is good. This takes away my free market choice of not buying it which would lower the price down.

I'm just seeing this turn into a huge bubble, except this one will be in healthcare and that is a lot more painful.

I think ERs are *required* to treat, regardless of insurance status.

Who made that law?

What is up with that?? I had to get rid of two agents (I used to have my license but have not renewed it) because I felt like they were representing the banks, not me. It's like who are you working for????? They would roll over right in the middle of negotiating, turn on a dime. My current agent has represented the banks in a number of transactions and knows that their dealings are shady at best.

I am in the crowd that opposes raising the debt ceiling. Wasn't raised to be a debt slave to special interests, government cronies needs to start cutting the umbilical cords by which they are attached to the lobbyists.

Sean7593 says

I think ERs are *required* to treat, regardless of insurance status.

required to stabilize life-threatening conditions, or forward a case to a hospital that will.

actual treatment, no.

Who made that law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

rubyrae says

I agree Klarek. I also put an offer in on a house that was listing for 279k extremely distressed home. I offered 220k. Listing agent said her seller wasn’t considering offers under 269k. We had to strong arm (threaten) her to deliver the offer. She said she delivered it and her sellers refused. Just found out yesterday the house went for 210k. WTF. Like I said I see this all day long. I lost a house that was bank owned to a contractor. My offer was 260k His was 230k He won the bid. It was bank owned and he was working with the listing agent.

This is why you have to mail a hardcopy of the offer to the owner. It's not easy and it probably won't land you the sale (you'll probably deter the seller's attention if they think you're arguing with them). But if it results in one scumbag realtor losing their license or even a future commission, you'd be doing God's work.

ChrisLA says

I’m still in certain disbelief that so many people out there think government forcing me to buy private product is good.

This is an incorrect understanding. You are perfectly free to not carry coverage under PPACA. There will be penalty for that, payable to the IRS, something like 1-2% of gross, capped to $2000/yr per family.

Mandated insurance is how the rest of the world operates -- though mostly with a more regulated singe-payer system -- and their health costs are much lower than ours.

The nice thing theoretically about mandated insurance costs is that (as people here might know) I think they come out of rents and land values.

We generally/ideally bid on our housing expense based on our after-tax income not gross, so the more social services we can front-load into taxes the less we have left to bid land values and rents up.

PPACA is a compromise intended to give free market competition a chance. The actual Medicare-for-all ("public option") approach was demagogued all to hell and never got through the Senate's process.

If PPACA doesn't work better than the current system then we can look at further changes, like the public option.

"debt slave to special interests"

again with the talk radio thought-terminating cliches. . .

The cuts that are coming are going to hit the poor and powerless and not the "special interests".

Without 1) raising the debt ceiling or 2) raising taxes, we will be forced to cut from four spending pots:

1) growth in social security payouts

2) medicare/medicaid

3) defense

4) welfare

The front half of the baby boom is aged 55 - 65 now, so social security payouts are going to start skyrocketing.

As are medicare payouts.

Defense is the $900B gorilla in the room that can't be cut.

That leaves the $500B/yr welfare pot.

Some of it is pure fat, like the $70B in housing subsidies.

But there's only $300B or so to cut here, and every dollar you cut is going to be a hit on a community somewhere.

Every $50,000 you cut is going to be somebody's government job gone.

The alternative to being a "debt slave" is to actually raise taxes to cover the cost of government services we are providing to people and the world at large.

In the absence of spending cuts, I consider raising taxes to be essential.

This is why you have to mail a hardcopy of the offer to the owner. It’s not easy and it probably won’t land you the sale (you’ll probably deter the seller’s attention if they think you’re arguing with them). But if it results in one scumbag realtor losing their license or even a future commission, you’d be doing God’s work.

Funny I insisted on doing that at one point and the realtor representing me did not like this idea at all and decided he did not want to work with me. Actually worked out for the best.

ChrisLA says

This takes away my free market choice of not buying it which would lower the price down.

Ah, yes, cite the libertarian economic theory, and ignore the reality.

People have had this choice not to insure for about, I don't know... forever? And they still do. And what's happened to the price of health insurance?

Haha! Based on klarek’s definition, you used to be a scumbag (realtor), and you agreed with what he said. Hmm, wouldn’t that make him a scumbag too since you guys think alike? Interesting

I actually left the business because the way business was being conducted left a bad taste in my mouth and I made more money with my formal education than swindling people out of their money. The day I went to the office I felt like I was "swimming with the sharks" I'd say 95% of them were extremely unethical. So Klarek was right "scumbag" is the correct term.

Hey E-man but you sound like you might be seasoned just by your tood.

N

errc says

Section 8 voucher program for needy individuals
Since when are landlords considered needy individuals?

They're not. The vouchers were intended to go to the needy families, to use for payment to a landlord who's registered under the program to accept those vouchers.

What she did was register the property as section 8 housing, and then gamed the system so that instead of obtianing tenants and accepting their voucher from HUD as rent, she had HUD send her the payments directly, and then without getting any tenants, used the HUD money to pay the mortgage on the property.

She basically set herself up to receive subsidies based on her providing low-income families housing....took the money, and didn't provide housing to anyone. Class act. I hope she gets throttled in prison.