patrick.net

David Losh says

I'd rather have the opportunity.

There are a lot of other price appreciation vehicles.

Not many with the upside that the person you always argue with got.

bgamall4 says

REpro says

Recently I noticed Wall Street investors buying property in the area where I have my rentals. They not only pushing property prices higher but also they asking rent are much higher as well. Soon we going to be just servants of the aristocracy.

They may be underestimating multigenerational living, the one thing the banksters cannot control.

By bombarding homeowners with ads; “We buy your house 10% above market price, all cash” may convince many to sell.

What happened did he walk away from his house?

bgamall4 says

Totally manufactured. Question is, where does it go from here?

Good question. Affordability is down, but is still pretty good compared to overall average. I think that's mainly due to interest rates that are still near historic lows. I don't think housing will go down now, but it does seem overheated in some markets, like California.

Reality says

Do you not realize that Easter Island exemplifies what happens in a finite society/environment managed by a government?

I'm not arguing with anything you are saying, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion that I was having. Even if everything you said is 100% true, it does not contradict any of my points and is a complete tangent to the conversation.

Dan8267 says

1. A growing economy does not require an ever-increasing population. Such an idea is highly dangerous.

Yep it's a dangerous idea, yet one that is widely relied upon, including in the US. There is a reason immigration is needed, and social sec calculations are directly based on population growth. Therefore you are directly benefiting from population growth and until a better solution is found, it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

Dan8267 says

Nothing you say negates the point that I made that the childless are not inflicting harm on society by selfishly refusing to produce children

Yeah they are not inflicting harm, just are just relying on other people having children, and dumping their costs on them.
($240K by child http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/child-born-in-2012-seen-by-u-s-costing-241-080-to-raise.html)

bgamall4 says

They may be underestimating multigenerational living, the one thing the banksters cannot control.

multigenerational living doesn't really matter as long as population is growing the excess inventory will be absorbed.

What they cannot control is people moving to cheaper area and building houses that they can afford. People complaining about high costs should do that.

Meg Ryan got her face refurbished!

http://thestir.cafemom.com/beauty_style/157363/meg_ryans_newest_face_isnt?utm_medium=sem2&utm_campaign=prismx&utm_source=outbrain-e&utm_content=0

note- just realized this URL has a query variable utm_campaign=prismx! wow scary times.

David Losh says

The bears have been absolutely correct. The market place is manipulated which is fine as long as you buy to sell, but Real Estate is a long term hold with high expenses.

The bears have been correct??? HOW?? Have prices come down or gone up?

This is what I mean...you don't see the facts buddy. It does not matter if prices are up because the market is manipulated etc etc ...like I said, it doesn't matter WHY - the fact is...prices are UP as of right now which means the bears have been wrong for 3 years in a row...and they may be wrong for the next 5 years in a row. As a family who is thinking about buying or renting thats all that matters. I have refied at the lowest rate in history and locked in my "rent". It's not going up. EVER. And my house has appreciated. I don't need to sell it to gain from that. Heard of HELOC's etc??

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

1. A growing economy does not require an ever-increasing population. Such an idea is highly dangerous.

Yep it's a dangerous idea, yet one that is widely relied upon, including in the US. There is a reason immigration is needed, and social sec calculations are directly based on population growth. Therefore you are directly benefiting from population growth and until a better solution is found, it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

I have a better solution - DON'T set up a system which requires infinite expansion to function. Start there.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Nothing you say negates the point that I made that the childless are not inflicting harm on society by selfishly refusing to produce children

Yeah they are not inflicting harm, just are just relying on other people having children, and dumping their costs on them.

($240K by child http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/child-born-in-2012-seen-by-u-s-costing-241-080-to-raise.html)

Yet you want parents to have their costs picked up by the childless?

Yes, exactly. The fact that women feel the need to carry pepper spray to defend themselves is a good example of the fear that is constant that a man will either rob or rape them. And it does happen.

rape is effectively come to mean any sexual experience where a woman feels dissatisfied, even if this dissatisfaction comes months, even years after the act.

Feminists destroyed the term rape in the same way their cohorts ruined the term 'racist'.

just one example of a severely confused girl who confuses her own personal problems with those of her entire gender. Unfortunately this has become the norm, as Feminists are nothing short of a mob of dissatisfied women who victimize men, typically those who are helpless economically.

another great example of too much information.

Heraclitusstudent says

Therefore you are directly benefiting from population growth and until a better solution is found, it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

Yes, so far economic growth has been tied to population growth. Consider how closely new construction and rising home values have been to a thriving economy.

A lot of investment is based on expectations of increasing GDP, not GDP
per person. And I believe that most current economic models and central bank policies are based on increasing populations.

Increasing population is what we know. But it is changing, or it will have to. The transition is already here.

Perfect setting for the next Dawn of the Dead movie.

The real issue is that people, even the sheeple, are processing what is going on. Maybe not on a high level, but nonetheless they are noticing troubling disconnects, and are getting ready to stampede.

No, it's all caused by higher taxes - a big misunderstanding. A Walmart spokesman said so.

HydroCabron says

No, it's all caused by higher taxes - a big misunderstanding. A Walmart spokesman said so.

have food stamp recipients experienced a tax hike?

toothfairy says

What happened did he walk away from his house?

No, we didn't, we are in the process of refurbishing the house.

It was a fixer we maxed out, and yes, we had the option of walking away, to capture the price appreciation.

We are now in an appreciating market place of a good location.

It's just funny how things work out.

Does the Walmart near you guys have fresh produce and other perishable foods on sale?

also to attain spiritual purity, never allow a woman who has had an abortion to prepare your food.

SubOink says

I don't need to sell it to gain from that. Heard of HELOC's etc??

Yeah, I have, as Bob continually points out. We're in the process of negotiating ours away.

Real Estate is a long term hold that has depended on appreciation in the past. Price spikes don't translate into appreciation unless they hold. Some will, many won't.

We've been in the fixer business for my entire career. We are Real Estate rich, and cash poor.

I personally want to get rid of my Real Estate, and have since 2006. My partners are harder to convince.

In the past, if we needed money, we would go to the auction, or contact auction pickers, buy a place, fix it, and sell it. Some times we would partner with the picker, the person who bought at auction.

My wife started us in the cleaning business, because we already had move out cleaners.

In four short years the cleaning business was generating more cash that the fixer business. Even though the fixer business gave us big chunks of money, the cleaning business is slow, and steady.

The IRS troubles we have are due to the labyrinth of IRS codes concerning Real Estate. The cleaning business is simple accounting.

Having a few dollars of equity in a property doesn't reflect the over all economy, or global economy. The bears have been calling this correctly for the past five years, yet people here point to the nickels, and dimes they have in new found Real Estate equity.

If you look at the whole farce objectively, yeah, you bought a house, yeah you'll HELOC at historically low rates, and yeah, you'll be paying the bank rent for at least 15 years with very little appreciating value.

Bob, I have more money than I can spend in my life time, so don't you worry about me.
Thanks

New Renter says

I have a better solution - DON'T set up a system which requires infinite expansion to function.

My point exactly. Any system that relies upon infinite expansion is, by definition, a Ponzi Scheme and is mathematically doomed to failure.

If things get too overpriced, you may see an organized rent strike or rent control on ballots...that is how it happened in SF, ridiculous increases in rent and voila! A ballot measure to control rent and it passes overwhelmingly.....so Wall Street, do not get too greedy....oops....too late!!

And of course this analysis brought to you by your good friends at Goldman Sachs ...ta da!!

Princess, having female child(ren) and other females whom I care very deeply for, I consider myself a feminist.

Why do you have "Larkspur" on your handle? You just want everyone to know, right, that you're domiciled in Larkspur. Like that's supposed to augment your point?

Well it does, but not in the way you may think it does, Princess.

Oh gawd The American Taliban is back. There goes another thread.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Oh gawd The American Taliban is back. There goes another thread.

it's quite obvious who is the intolerant party here.

MershedPerturders says

Personally I absolutely refuse to have anything to do with a woman who has had
an abortion

Wow, my filters must work the opposite way. There is no good or glory in propogating the genes of an unfit man if birth control failed. Not every zygote should be carried to term. What moral standard finds good in inflicting decades and six figures of burden for one night's poor judgement?

I'm willing to bet you would be every bit as quick to reject a single mother as a partner, anyway. Scratch the surface of most anti-abortion and anti-welfare blowhards, and you will find a lowly hypocrite.

abortion is killing children. There is nothing trivial about it.

women who have done this are spiritually filthy in the extreme. I don't allow them anywhere near me if I can help it. My life improved considerably once I adopted this policy.

rooemoore says

You said that all women in a contested divorce never take responsibility for anything - that they all felt they were victims. That is an untrue generalization.

Without scientific proof or disproof, in your experience with divorced female acquaintances, how many admitted to somewhere >= 50% fault for the divorce? In my experience 9 out of 10 will say it was entirely the guy's fault, and one will settle for 25%-50% at best. The weird thing is when you hear them talking about their ex-husbands you cannot help but wonder how they could marry someone like that in the first place if everything they claimed were true.

David Losh says

We are Real Estate rich, and cash poor.

David Losh says

Bob, I have more money than I can spend in my life time, so don't you worry about me.

Somehow those two statements don't quite add up...

tatupu70 says

David Losh says

We are Real Estate rich, and cash poor.

David Losh says

Bob, I have more money than I can spend in my life time, so don't you worry about me.

Somehow those two statements don't quite add up...

Oops.

I dated some of the divorcees and when the topic about a more serious relationship came up and I stated that I don't intend to get married. After the initial outrage they really wanted to know why and I just told them that if we were ever to break up/divorce after having invested quite a lot I would never want my ex talking about me to others like that. While I really don't care that much about what others think & say I was surprised every-time that this answer quickly - more or less amicably - ended what would have otherwise been a drawn out and nasty discussion, and the evening was saved ;)

Reality says

There is not a rational basis to explain what a woman (or sometimes a man) does often times.

People are totally irrational! I get what you're saying, people are going to make a slew of essentially bad decisions and in the end, there's a baby to care for. And who is responsible for the baby? Both the man and the woman contributed to its existence so they should both be responsible for (at least) paying for it.

So I guess you could look at it as who is getting more punished by the the laws for their bad decision. (which for the record, I have kids and to me, they were fantastic decisions) The man had sex without a condom or with a faulty condom. The woman was not on any of the many kinds of birth control, didn't know her own cycle, didn't make the man use a (or had a faulty) condom and didn't use the morning after pill.

And those are just before conception. Afterwards, she still has more choices of which the man has none.

On this basis alone, given all of her choices, if she wants the baby then she should join into a union with the man or let him off the hook. At least she would not be duped by a man who says he will be there but isn't willing to sign the 'baby contract.'

As for the baby, we have a lot of social and government programs in place for poor children. I don't even see the connection that there would be MORE burden on these programs if men were no longer forced into child support. Many women poor enough to fit into this category procreate with poor men.

Dan8267 says

Any system that relies upon infinite expansion is, by definition, a Ponzi Scheme and is mathematically doomed to failure.

Welcome to human civilization.

There is so much money getting remitted from India alone, that they had to drop the remittance limit from 200K to 75K.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-16/indian-rupee-drops-to-record-after-currency-measures-bonds-fall.html

more would be coming , As everyone I know who bought in Bangalore , Mumbai, Delhi have made their investments 5x, 7x. All that money is going to be wired to buy properties in Bay Area .

David Losh says

Real Estate is a long term hold that has depended on appreciation in the past. Price spikes don't translate into appreciation unless they hold. Some will, many won't.

For me, Real Estate is the place where I live.

Let me get this straight...

It's 2009 and "A" predicts that prices will go up from here. "B" predicts that prices will further crash...possibly to 1975 levels.

3 years later, prices have continuously been going up and "A" says...I guess I was right with my prediction...and "B" says..no, because the crash is still coming. Real estate is a long term hold...blabla..

Do you see whats wrong with that argument?

So at what point would you say...shoot, I had it all wrong, even though it makes no sense to me..."A" was right with his bullish prediction. I be damned!

Here is what I think...even if prices were to continuously go up for another 8 years...you would still claim to be right because...hey, the crash is still coming...just wait.

Sorry D...but it doesn't work like that. As of right now, the bulls were right from 2009 on. As of today. Period! No question, wether you like it or not. If prices are starting to head downward by the end of next year you could claim that...hey, I was wrong about 2009-2013 but now I got the direction right again as we are headed downward for 12 months in a row now.

But before you claim being right...you actually have to have CURRENT data to support it not possible outcomes from the future unless you have a timemachine and traveled to 2017 and came back. Until then - bears got it right from 2003-2008, bulls got it right from 2009-present !

rooemoore says

As for women be discriminated against - please notice that I said that they "were" discriminated against.

I call balderdash! Were they discriminated "against" on the Titanic? How about in selective service? If traditional life was so bad for women in the past, why do they all say they're "traditional" when they want men as 1950's breadwinners? Why do men read science fiction while women read historical fantasy and dream of being princesses and rich women with female servants?

Of course, this illustrates that the average woman wasn't privileged but neither was the average man that worked himself to death to support his woman and children.