patrick.net

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. :)

robertoaribas says

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/crash-proof-peter-d-schiff/1112272915?ean=9781118038932

and here he is selling his book in 2010...

so what we have, is a charlatan with a terrible track record, selling a book, and investment program... but as demonstrated on this thread, there is a sucker born every minute!

You mean like he came on record on public TV in 2008 and was wrong? Oh wait! He was right! ;)

E-man says

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. :)

You know, being a couple of years off is still a good warning for the majority who overstretched themselves in an area that is not that liquid like housing. I think you will still be alive for his predicted debt crisis,, but you don't need to be Peter Schiff to figure out that there will be one ;)

bgamall4 says

mell says

You mean like he came on record on public TV in 2008 and was wrong? Oh wait! He was right! ;)

We all knew there was a housing bubble in 2005. Schiff was late to the prediction party. I knew there was a massive inventory build in Reno, NV in June, 2005.

Sure, I have never said that he makes the best calls. But it takes cojones to come on public TV warning about the crash, being laughed in the face while making a correct prediction (being late to the party or not) vs being a patnet poster croaking about the wrong calls of people they don't like after the fact ;) Plus, I am pretty sure he underestimated how massive (and criminal) the fed and government intervention would be. I know I did, looking back, instead of pouring a "just" sizeable amount into the market I would have leveraged myself to the hilt going all long financials! Oh wait, I pledged not to go long TBTFs.. ;)

Economic news from Bloomberg today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-05/treasuries-extend-drop-as-payrolls-growth-supports-fed-tapering.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-05/bernanke-seen-holding-to-qe-tapering-plan-after-payrolls-report.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-05/dollar-climbs-as-u-s-employers-add-more-workers-than-forecast.html

Investors tied to the QE juice have to find a new game in town soon, so there will be some wiggles, but this is all very positive/good.

What Schiff is saying makes sense. The problem is the when part.

robertoaribas says

yes. His predictions are great, unless you want to see them actually happen!!!

They do happen. Would you say the Keynesians are better at predicting when or for the mater what?

robertoaribas says

keynesian prediction?

It is hard to discern one because Krugman types ambiguous. The one that comes to mind immediately is they predicted that after WWII if the government did not keep spending the great depression would continue. They were 180 deg wrong.

The other thought would be that booms and depressions could be leveled out. In the process of trying to accomplish this is what prolongs or causes the bubbles.

I have read some about Keynesian economics in reference to Monetarism and Austrian economics. It is does not make sense and more importantly practicing it is a liability to the economy.

robertoaribas says

Under clinton we had a surplus

Yes not that Clinton had anything to do with it.

robertoaribas says

Had it not been for the idiotic bush tax cuts

We have a spending problem.

The war was BS, but at the same time when you have N.Y. bombed you have to do something. Not that I'm going to defend Bush.

The biggest contributor to the current depression was the CRA, and the government spending behind it.

And once again

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cricket+noise&mid=A67C3DCD093883F18C8AA67C3DCD093883F18C8A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3

Once again

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cricket+noise&mid=C87A10F0D2CB9569C39CC87A10F0D2CB9569C39C&view=detail&FORM=VIRE5

“Buffett once pointed out that during the years 1964-1982, the stock market went nowhere, even though GDP quintupled. But from 1982-1998, the stock market went up twentyfold, while GDP barely tripled. There are lots of reasons to explain market moves. GDP isn’t one of them."

GDP is a meaningless metric. It is much like the way mathematics has become equated with science in our time. Mathematical proofs are not scientific fact. If Xeno walks halfway to the wall again and again, mathematically he never reaches the wall. In reality he does...at Plank Length. Keep staring at the graphs of gov spending and GDP and you're guaranteed to break your nose as you walk straight into a wall.

indigenous says

No Mr Fife, the budget comes from congress of which O'Neill was the speaker
which means that it was controlled by the democrats during all of the Regan's
term.

Just for the record--there is no such position as Speaker of the Congress. O'Neill was Speaker of the House and, as such, had absolutely no power over the Senate (the other branch of Congress)

tatupu70 says

Just for the record--there is no such position as Speaker of the Congress. O'Neill was Speaker of the House and, as such, had absolutely no power over the Senate (the other branch of Congress)

The house is where the budget comes from. The 3rd most powerful person is DC is the speaker of the house. Remember Pelosi is the one who rammed Obama care through?

indigenous says

The 3rd most powerful person is DC is the speaker of the house

I'm assuming you are using the Presidential Succession Act as the basis for "power". I don't think that's a good judge of power. Biden is definitely NOT the 2nd most powerful person in Washington.

Regardless, you need a quick refresher on checks and balances. A budget must be approved by both the House and Senate before being signed by the President.

bgamall4 says

false flag.

what is a false flag?