patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

The more this spending is being funded from the top 5-10%, the better net stimulus it will be. Hell, we can probably even print some of it if we need to. . .

It's just not going to happen. Printing money to support a SS short fall with a little socialism thrown in for flavor? I honestly hope you're not being serious.

IDK about you all but I think we are not looking at a "crash" as much as a continued reditribution of wealth from those who work to those who own. That's what the QE's have been all about and the bailouts also. We were looking at a crash in 2007 but the governing monied class took a housing market problem and turned it into a national change of direction. I don't see how this ends well unless American workers - those "in the arena" to refer to Roosevelt - start taking the country back. I didn't watch the video because I really don't have time to sit through videos when I can read the article in a minute or two. But, some points from the discussion:
1. government lowered the flourine amounts in water last year so reproduction should increase
2. no reason to replace a retiree with someone at the same pay band. In my generation, 40-somethings, I commonly see people doing the same job as their predecessor for significantly less pay.
3. We could have a crash but what we will see is a change. E.g. my neighbors in our middle class $80K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market. Going and gone are the days of Sharper Image, Restoration Hardware, and Whole Foods. Maybe some people can afford them. Plus lots of sells/trades with neighbors including formal things ranging from neighborhood-wide yard sales to mother's club sales and such.
4. The retirees I personally know are NOT at all sitting on a cash pile. They are living on nearly the tightest budgets the ever have.

maxweber21 says

...$180K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market.

Spot the odd one out.

Bigsby says

maxweber21 says

...$180K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market.

Spot the odd one out.

Thanks!. Yep, was supposed to be $80K. typo. fixed. Thanks.

http://www.usa.com/28278-nc-income-and-careers.htm

maxweber21 says

Bigsby says

maxweber21 says

...$180K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market.

Spot the odd one out.

Thanks!. Yep, was supposed to be $80K. typo. fixed. Thanks.

http://www.usa.com/28278-nc-income-and-careers.htm

That wasn't actually what I was referring to.

Everything we think we know about the economy right now. Is only a symptom of bad economic policy from the FED. Change one, changes the other.

Bigsby says

maxweber21 says

Bigsby says

maxweber21 says

...$180K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market.

Spot the odd one out.

Thanks!. Yep, was supposed to be $80K. typo. fixed. Thanks.

http://www.usa.com/28278-nc-income-and-careers.htm

That wasn't actually what I was referring to.

Oh. Not sure I know which one is odd. Which one? The Farmer's Market here is price competitive. By no means is it a clear price winner unless you are trying to buy grassfed beef or other healthy products. For those, it slaughters the price of WholeFoods or Earth Fare. Aldi has best prices for some boxed goods. Dollar General has best prices for some clothes (e.g. socks), some foods (DollarTree is even better), paper products (paper towels, toilet paper), etc. You can spend up to twice as much on your weekly food bill. (I know, if times were really tough then people would use rags instead of paper towels. Of course times are not tough for most Americans yet. They are trending that way though.)
$84K agerage HH income as of 2010: http://www.zipdatamaps.com/28278

Well, there's nothing bargain basement about the farmers' markets in the Monterey area.

maxweber21 says

The retirees I personally know are NOT at all sitting on a cash pile. They are living on nearly the tightest budgets the ever have.

This is true. 60% of boomers think they will have to work past the age of 70!!! Incredible, really.

Also, considering that the as far back as 1994, the Clinton/Greenspan combo staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives which effectively proved to be a great catalyst for the housing bubble, I'd say stupidity crosses party lines.

underwaterman says

've followed Schiff since 2009 and come to realize the guy is just an arrogant businessman. I called in 2010 into his business looking to put IRA money into gold. The person wouldn't talk to me unless I had 250k.

250K is often a standard minimum limit for hedge funds. Also 250K is really not that much considering it gets you a garage in the bay area and people have no problems bidding up their "dream home" into the millions because house prices can only go up.

mell says

if rates rise.

You mean "when rates rise". Momma only has so much free money in that purse. Even in today's shell game economics, there will be accountability. Wait for it...

bgamall4 says

Schiff brags about being in the 1 percent, yet his 1 percent cronies are ruining America.

It takes two to to tango. If you look at last election, almost 100% voted for either Obama or Romney which is basically a continuation of the cheap credit policies benefiting those who already have huge leverage. The lambs keep bringing themselves to the slaughterhouse.

bgamall4 says

House prices must decline to keep track with wages. Unless private equity wants to be in the landlord business for years and years

This is one of the things I am most interested in. How long will these major firms be willing to be "landlords" renting out shelter in low-end neighborhoods in the Sacramento burbs. I've already seen smaller firms exit the market, but maybe these major firms have more metal to keep going (aka cash).

bgamall4 says

Obama=lesser of two evils. Nothing more.

He still doesn't have a clue though. Obama is still operating under the misguided principal that home prices must rise (probably the same mentality that made him a bubble buyer in 2005).

So he may be the 'lesser' of two evils, but his underlying policy is still totally misguided, and completely wrong for fixing the housing market.

Ron Paul had the best strategy for fixing the economy in recent memory, and early polls showed that he had the best chance of beating Obama (conversely, Romney has always been shown to be a loser against Obama in any opinion poll).

It's a shame that Ron Paul was basically silenced by the media and swept aside. He was the only one who had a clue during the national debates.

bgamall4 says

Ron Paul has some good ideas mixed in with some dreadful ideas. Libertarians believe in two failed ideas. One is they want racism to be a civil right, and some are just racist. Second, they believe the invisible hand of self interest will help society more than regulation. Turns out that in the housing bubble and crash that was proven false. Even Max Keiser thinks his libertarian friends are nuts for not wanting banking regulation.

Not sure why you believe libertarians are racist.

On the second note, if the Banks had been forced to eat their own medicine, then the idea actually would have worked in practice. Just like any private sector business, if you build losses, there is a natural free market reaction to your actions; you go out of business. Unfortunately, Obama gave them a safety net, so of course they can operate like criminals in a deregulated environment.

underwaterman says

I think it is safe to assume version 2 where they now swoop in to buy the very foreclosed homes they caused in version 1 will not end well either, especially for the neighborhoods where they are concentrating like phoenix and atlanta. What happens when those homes depreciate and the rents fall? One guess. They are not going to stick around like a homeowner and try and make it work. They are going to dump the houses or abandon them and their shell LLCs just like they are doing now in foreclosures and blight communities.

That's actually what I am waiting for. Housing is so volatile right now that in one year you can have a 5% YOY gain, and the next a 7% YOY loss. These major firms are very performance oriented (I used to work directly face-to-face with them). If the market forces any sort of correction downward, I could see them exiting the market very quickly, and leaving the mom-and-pop speculators with the highest losses.

You're taking the actions of individuals and applying it to an entire philosophy. Rush Limbaugh once said that "all criminals resemble Jesse Jackson". Rush Limbaugh claims to be a Christian.

Does that mean a core belief of Republicans and Christians is that black people are criminals? That's a ridiculous connection to make just like your assumption that all Libertarians are racist because of something Schiff said.

(also you took what Schiff said completely out of context, but we'll get to that later if you want to push the subject)

If you actually understood Libertarian doctrine, you would know that they genuinely see racism as a belief system that expresses itself only in the form of coercive government power. State-enforced discrimination is the only kind of discrimination. A libertarian by definition opposes discrimination because libertarians oppose the state. Racism is NOT a core belief of Libertarians. It works both ways, while they believe that the state should not enforce discrimination, they also believe that anti-discrimination movements like "affirmative action" should also be opposed (more of what Schiff was talking about).

Of course reactionary people often jump to conclusions about things they don't completely understand.

bgamall4 says

I wrote an ebook about libertarianism. The concept of voluntary relationships is similar to Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Yes, the only racism these perverts see is quotas. Racism as a civil right is a core belief of libertarianism. Racism like that of Rothbard may not be. But libertarianism attracts a lot of racist misfits because it allows for racism to be a civil right.

If it isn't racist to do so it is wacko. Libertarianism is wacko. That is the conclusion I come up with in my ebook. I have too many examples of libertarian leaders proving their wackiness.

It's not about quotas. Damn it, I hope you're kidding that you actually wrote a book about libertarians because you seem to misunderstand the very basics of the doctrine.

It's NOT about quotas. It IS about state enforced discrimination, and anti-discrimination. That is all. Anything else you have misunderstood on top is an addition to the doctrine that you have made in your own mind that doesn't exist. Ron Paul doesn't go around telling people to hate blacks and not do business with them. In fact one of his biggest supporting blocks was African Americans.

You yourself practice discrimination in your own life. Do you let pedophiles play with your kids? Do you want your family hanging out with gang members and drug dealers? No, you discriminate because you have a choice. What if the state enforced a quota that your neighborhood must allow at least 10% of the housing to be available for released pedophiles? I don't think you would really agree with that, and neither would libertarians.

Sure, some wacko could say "I don't want to serve blacks in my establishment", but that business person also gets the free market punishment of losing business from all black people, and those who sympathize with black people. They would soon go out of business because they tried to enact a faulty business model.

Conversely, saying someone should get into a top state school, even with lower scores than someone of a more represented race, to fill a quota, is a form of state enforced racism. The state is giving an opportunity to someone (and taking away one) simply based on the color of their skin and not merit.

$350,000 @ 6% is a $2300 all-in (PITI etc) outgo.

At 3% this payment pays off a ~$400,000 purchase.

Alternatively, looking at PITI less the P, I get:

$350,000 @ 6% is a $2000/mo cost of ownership, and $2000 @ 3% can support ~$500,000's debt service.

This latter case requires principal repayments to transfer into solid equity that doesn't disappear if & when interest rates go back up or other macro changes that affect valuations.

Thing is, there was a disconnect between Fed policy 2004-2006 and the housing market.

The Fed began raising interest rates in mid-2004, but the boom went on for another full year, and prices stabilized at the 2005 level for another year or so (the summer of 2006 was the beginning of the bust).

The Fed certainly caused the boom of 2002-2004. But the bubble of 2004-2006 was something else -- the suicide lending of teaser-rate 2 year ARMs, negative-am "pay option" loans, and outright fraud of people buying with no visible means of being able to pay other than future equity withdrawal.

THAT was the bubble of 2004-2006, not the Fed, and why the market crashed in 2007.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=d9j

shows the Fed fighting rising prices in 1999-2000, giving up in 2001, then letting their freak flag fly in 2002-2003.

The resulting tightening of 2006-2007 wasn't dramatic enough to cause the crash.

bgamall4 says

Goran_K says

You yourself practice discrimination in your own life.

The more you write the more you prove my case. I try to avoid racial discrimination, however, you have the right to practice it in PRIVATE. The libertarians want the ability to practice it in PUBLIC BUSINESS.

That is unlawful and it should stay that way.

The freedom to discriminate/disassociate is eroding fast. Private clubs are being bombarded with hate when they discriminate. Business owners advocating marriage to stay between man and woman only as their PRIVATE opinion are being told by crony politicians that they are not welcome in "their" city and zoning and other laws are used to prevent the business. I may not agree with their views but I think a business owner should be able to convert his business into a "private club" with member fees and discriminate however the see fit. You see any ugly bitchez at hooters? Any old grannies? Any gay men serving your chicken wings? Don't think so. Furthermore there are tons of armchair liberals/progressives that hate every homophobic soul out there but as soon as their daughter starts dating a black guy (if they are white or vice versa) or an affordable housing project is announced in their neighborhood or next to their kids school, then all the tolerance goes out of the window instantly. I'd rather have a slightly homophobic pal who is honest about it (and I would likely debate him) than one of those armchair good-doers. Also, just because somebody advocates something fairly extreme like Schiff advocating extreme freedom for the business owner doesn't mean they themselves are racist or support racism, it just means that some principle in their political views is so strong that they cannot advocate prohibiting freedoms that could be abused because it would directly collide with their principles. For example you could be an advocate for welfare although you know that at any given amount of time there will be X amount of people who totally abuse the system because the alternative of no safety net for those in real need seems worse to you.

Kevin says

They'll stay for an average of 17 years (according to what I found googling it), and won't really be that concerned about resale.

I suspect you're way off the mark with that figure.

17 years is extremely off the mark, by over a decade.

Yes, I hope those people keep putting their money into an over priced home they are barely hanging onto. Debt servitude should teach them a good lesson over the next 10 years or so.

Goran_K says

17 years is extremely off the mark, by over a decade.

Ownership rates are parabolic. 40% of people are at least 15 years at the same place and 40% are less than 3 years. The average amongst people who aren't just 'house hopping' is 17 years.

Kevin says

Ownership rates are parabolic. 40% of people are at least 15 years at the same place and 40% are less than 3 years. The average amongst people who aren't just 'house hopping' is 17 years.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong on your original point instead of posting evasive garbage like that?

Libertarians believe in discrimination by the individual. Discrimination is the core concept of liberty. It is when the individual chooses among all options and rejects the other options for any reason, even if ignorantly based on racial criteria.

@bgamall4 may like the government giving us but one option and forcing it on us, or face oppression, but I don't. @bgamall4 is a hypocrite. He discriminates every day. When he bought his new car, you can bet he chose what color it was. Perhaps he picked a black car. That means he rejected every other color. He picked his car based solely on its color and liked that choice. But with his utopian world, it would be government only allowing him to buy a white car, since black absorbs heat and causes global warming. @bgamall4 didn't allow the government to pick his spouse. He chose her and discriminated against every other woman. @bgamall4 picked his friends and discriminated against all others. He chooses who he lets inside of his living room. Discrimination! And when bgamall4 goes to his favored religious institution, you can bet he would have an issue if some muslims came in and started wailing in the aisle or a pack of satanists started burning a cross on stage. In fact, I bet bgamall4 would call the cops and have them arrested. Discrimination. And when bgamall4 registered to vote, I am pretty sure he discriminated against the other political party.

See, the issue is that we should all be allowed to discriminate. As long as we don't physically harm another it is liberty. Pretending that humans can all love one another and just sing Kumbayah doesn't work. It creates tension. We need to get to a point where we can each tolerate anothers opinion. Yeah, that opinion may be arrogant or ignorant. While Libertarians think a private business should be allowed to turn away a customer for any reason, it doesn't mean they are racists. In fact, they would be the first ones to have an issue with state sanctioned racism. They stand against state segregation as well as affirmative action. Knowing both are force upon all individuals. They don't want government telling blacks they can't vote, but would allow a private college to reject them as long as they get no government funding. Just because one believes in liberty doesn't mean they think ones choice is righteous over another. It doesn't mean because that choice is availble they would partake of it. Many Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, though they may be married for 30 years and never even had a cup of coffee. They know that choice should be up to the indivdual to choose. If the individual makes a bad choice then it is personal responsibility which then comes into play. Government shouldn't be forcing that individual to make a choice. They should only be there to protect another individual when the first individual neglected to take personal responsibility for harm done.

@Cheeseus Sonofdog, thank you for your post. You obviously understand libertarianism.

The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?" The libertarian is reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist." "Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.

http://mises.org/daily/2801

In the 1950s and still relevant today.

DukeLaw says

"Well, then are you an anarchist?"

Of course not, the government has a role in the Libertarian world; to ensure non-coercion, and protect against violence.

AFAIK, these are not precepts of an anarchist.

Goran_K says

Yes, I hope those people keep putting their money into an over priced home they are barely hanging onto. Debt servitude should teach them a good lesson over the next 10 years or so.

then why are you currently shopping for a house?

http://patrick.net/?p=1218856
http://patrick.net/?p=1218790

34 Olivehurst, Irvine, CA 92602

By Goran_K Follow (2) Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 9:19am 91 views 0 comments
In Irvine CA 92614 Watch (1) Share Quote Permalink Like (1) Dislike
Invite an expert to fact-check this

Part of the Northpark neighborhood of Irvine, a well-to-do, gated community built in the late 90s-early 2000s.

Drove through the gate, the neighborhood is really nice. The HOA cost (nearly $300) keep everything in tip-top shape; grass is trimmed, trees aren't over grown, and the streets are sparkling. blah blah...

59 Sparrowhawk Irvine, CA 92604

By Goran_K Follow (2) Tue, 13 Nov 2012, 9:12pm 306 views 11 comments
In Irvine CA 92604 Watch (1) Share Quote Permalink Like (1) Dislike
Invite an expert to fact-check this

This house is listed at $524,900, REO.

What attracted me to it was that it was a single story home, nearly 2,200sqft in a desirable area (Yale Loop in Irvine).

Walking up to the front door, it was obvious this home had some "deferred maintenance". The garage door had wood trim pieces literally hanging on by a single nail, there were two pieces of wood on the driveway. The grass was dead, and the windows looked like they needed to be sealed. Not a great first impression...blah

Goran_K's avatar is all over the "Open House" section. he's been actively looking to buy and posting reviews in that section for a while now. how could anyone not know?

what i would like to know is that why is he CURRENTLY shopping for a house while telling others that it's not a good time to buy ("over priced"), there's an collapse of the economy coming, and that "debt is slavery" and all that stuffs?

Goran_K says

DukeLaw says

"Well, then are you an anarchist?"

Of course not, the government has a role in the Libertarian world; to ensure non-coercion, and protect against violence.

AFAIK, these are not precepts of an anarchist.

Not just that, also police, military, fire-fighters, state-parks/museums and hospitals and many more are on the list of things that are OK to be run by the government (with private competition in some areas but not all)

It's called window shopping. Did you even read what I said about the houses in my reviews that you posted?

Buying either of them was the furthest thing from my mind.

mell says

Not just that, also police, military, fire-fighters, state-parks/museums and hospitals and many more are on the list of things that are OK to be run by the government (with private competition in some areas but not all)

Exactly. Some schools even do favor public assistance for the destitute and poor (food and shelter, not $729,000 FHA loans).

I think the fact that some people equate libertarianism with some sick form of "left anarchism" shows how little people actually know what libertarianism is all about as a philosophy.

Goran_K says

It's called window shopping. Did you even read what I said about the houses in my reviews that you posted?

Buying either of them was the furthest thing from my mind.

Goran_K says

It's called window shopping. Did you even read what I said about the houses in my reviews that you posted?

Buying either of them was the furthest thing from my mind.

LIES.

it appears to me that you went there with the intention of BUYING if it was a good deal. turned out it wasn't. but that doesn't change the fact that you have been ACTIVELY LOOKING TO PURCHASE A HOME.

if you are looking to buy a house (even only if you got a good deal), why are you telling people that "debt is slavery" and that there's an impending economic collapse and homes are currently overpriced?

do you want everyone to stop buying so prices would drop so you would be able to jump in and buy for a very cheap price?

who would be concerned with cracks in the floor of the house if they had no interest in buying the house whatsoever?

Goran_K says

Based on comps, if this home were fully remodeled, it might sell in the $640k to $660k range. It does back to Culver, but it's also 2,200 sqft on a single story plan (very hard to get in Irvine).

So based on the $524,900 list price + $80,000 out of pocket expenses to remodel, it looks like a good deal.

BUT....

"The cracks from the floor, going all the way to the ceiling are worrisome. Foundation issues always give me pause. The bank said they fixed it, but who knows? Will this home even get traditional financing? I'd love to see the inspection report on this house if someone does try to buy it. I have a feeling that there is some costly repairs I may be missing from my cursory tour last weekend

Billybigrig says

Discussions with R.E. Shills about over inflated prices can and is most certainly redundant and meaningless...

Try the ignore function,if it gets too much. It works really well.

robertoaribas says

Peter said the same thing in 2010, and 2011, but that didn't stop him from repeating it in 2012!

It also didn't stop his cult like followers from believing him!

Just keep pushing the date out, he will eventually be correct. Not sure if I would still be alive and a renter waiting for the impending crash. :)