by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 36,054 - 36,093 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
It's the politics in this country, beating down the working class. Somehow it's acceptable to call men stupid, but it's not all right to generalize women that way...
I think it's because we overdid on PC that certain stupidity just became ok.
I predict that the precious metals prices will do much better than housing prices over the next year, two years and five years.
Call it Crazy, what school did you attend? .........
I'll be sure NOT to send my kids there.
This is what the separation of physical from paper looks like. The paper gold is leveraged 100-to-1. Great time to buy actual physical (in your possession) and horrible to buy the paper. The decoupling is inevitable. I never knew what it would look like. I suspect...just like this.
Ottoman, that was funny. Thank you for sharing.
Not all women are selfishly opportunistic exploitive Princesses. A lot of them are, a lot of them aren't.
I dunno about "better" odds. I've known several of those women who were loyal partners right up till the time they got their green cards. Some of them locked it in with a child for the cash flow, some not.
As prices of homes as a percentage of income has steadily grown over the past 20 years, we've seen the percentage of dual wage earning in families triple. Adjusted for inflation, however, over the past 18 years, we aren't doing so well. The following chart shows that the dual wages are now about equal with where we were in 1995 (at best):
Where is the money going to come from to pay for this rent, these mortgages? The family could buy a huge flat screen TV every month with the difference in payments by comparison. (In fact, the difference in pending health insurance payouts will buy a second flat screen every month)
Wage inflation. The pressure is overwhelming. Little 14 year old Timmy is just not going to bring enough home to pay the difference, sorry.
You housing bulls are betting on the average Joe doubling up with another family to fund this continued run. There's not a chance.
You can see it beginning as one single full-time job with benefits splinters into two or three part-time positions. Underemployment. The problem is any continuance in this direction creates exponential pressure on Federal subsidies, welfare programs, unemployment and food stamps.
The spreading lower class is a stone from which precious little blood can be squeezed.
It's clear that Europe is broke. You bulls must be putting ALL (and I mean ALL) of your bets on China.
Stock crash or drastic federal action dead ahead...before the Spring selling season. There is just nowhere for the money to come from. What else can China produce cheaply and export to us that it isn't already? All of it's rich people? As soon as they have their wealth/land in dollars, they aren't Chinese anymore.
The money comes from QE. The Treasury/FED has covered all of the bad derivative bets thus far. You think the housing correction five years ago was bad? The Fed bought up all of the bad debt obligations so that those big investments could continue gambling. If it hadn't, the prices would have been down 8o percent in California.
Can the QE continue forever at even a geometric rate of increase?
If the Fed and the wizards of Derivatives Gambling are so omniscient, why did they need the TARP bailout the first time? Can't happen again? QE goes on forever? Nope. Crash.
You just stated back to me my point, exactly. Keep the financial institutions liquid instead of what? Losing liquidity to where?
You are clueless..Bad day.
I have avoided this thread because practically everything stated here are generalizations of stupid things PEOPLE do. They are not the realm of female only or male only. Both sexes have people that can be selfish, stupid, self-centered, immoral, etc, etc. I don't know any of the type of women you are talking about. None of them are my friends. In fact, most women I know are valuable assets to their family and husband or are single women. You guys are citing the most extreme examples of bad behavior and applying it to all women in a hysterical manner. There is no logic in it. I think these strange comments reflect more about the one making the comments than anything else.
You can try a fiscal one, but I wouldn't recommend an economic pissing match.
I have avoided this thread because practically everything stated here are generalizations of stupid things PEOPLE do. They are not the realm of female only or male only. Both sexes have people that can be selfish, stupid, self-centered, immoral, etc, etc. I don't know any of the type of women you are talking about. None of them are my friends. In fact, most women I know are valuable assets to their family and husband or are single women. You guys are citing the most extreme examples of bad behavior and applying it to all women in a hysterical manner. There is no logic in it. I think these strange comments reflect more about the one making the comments than anything else.
Yes people are people. But the laws need to change. Women are equal-agree-so act like an equal and remove the crutches of alimony. A wife married to a drunk unemployed abusive man contributes far more into the family-but gets nothing in a divorce and may even have to pay.
A wife who goes shopping all day, has servants and flies around in jets may get a billion or more-for what? If marraige ends-time to find your own way-if you fall, welcome to the world of men.
Childcare -half of basic expenses, with an equal say for the man. Change that and no one will be talking about generalities. The law now favors women ironically under the guise of equality-brilliant on the feminists part. I mean palimony???
And he is a near genius.
If he is so smart he should be able to come up with enough of his own money for investments.
Every movement is ran by someone with money. Average folk can't afford those kinds of adventures. It's fine.
The Cast of Saturday night live and a couple of political hacks over at comedy central gets a comedian elected as the president of the free world. And you guys didn't see the problem.
I don't see the problem with people understand business and world political policy host a republican luau.
It's not like Civics is taught in school and the young minds these bastards corrupt have a clue who they are even voting for.
Those with the best "Production" wins.
The kids are clueless as to what's under the hood anyway.
All's good may the best casting director win.
I didn't know that SNL & Comedy Central backed G.W.Bush. They could have simply put him in the cast.
Take Katie Kouric, SNL, and Comedy Central out of the picture, and there would be no President Obama.
But I think the kids have learned their lesson. You don't eat Sushi from a gas station and you take political advice from a Comedy TV show.
Hilbillary Clingon is going to have a hell of time selling her self to this generation. After we just spent the last 8 years convincing the Youth that all of their problems is because of the Old people.
I have avoided this thread because practically everything stated here are generalizations of stupid things PEOPLE do. They are not the realm of female only or male only. Both sexes have people that can be selfish, stupid, self-centered, immoral, etc, etc. I don't know any of the type of women you are talking about. None of them are my friends. In fact, most women I know are valuable assets to their family and husband or are single women. You guys are citing the most extreme examples of bad behavior and applying it to all women in a hysterical manner. There is no logic in it. I think these strange comments reflect more about the one making the comments than anything else.
Exactly. The point in the original post was that the law was also designed to protect women from the least common denominator in men, but punishes all men good or bad with the same severity.
the law was also designed to protect women from the least common denominator in men, but punishes all men good or bad with the same severity.
This is why I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance, such as mandatory minimum sentencing laws which take all discretionary power out of the hands of judges, or mandatory suspension for having ibuprofen in school, or the three strikes law.
My hope is that some of the angry males who have witnessed the stupidity of assembly-line justice first hand will reconsider their support for things like three strikes, but I have my doubts. Humans seem to favor one-size-fits-all justice for all demographic groups not including themselves.
To prosecute a financial crime you need a gun.
The Justice(?) Department is colluding with the criminals, and so citizens need to start plinking the criminals.
2014
Train wreck for house prices.
Bonanza for buyers.
Government will essentially create a New Homestead Act by unleashing torrents of land at budget prices.
All the wrongs must be righted.
At least you are making a prediction. We'll find out by the end of 2014 who was right...
Inventory is not increasing if the homes are bought the minute they hit the market.
In our market place houses came, and went off the market in a matter of days, with escalation clauses for pricing.
You may be thinking of Months of Supply, but inventory was getting sold.
We'll find out by the end of 2014 who was right...
Exactly.
but will those that are wrong admit that they were wrong?
as of today, the bears of last few years have been wrong - period! If you bought a house 2009-2011, you can sell that place now for much much more. Why that is, doesn't really matter. The fact is, prices are much higher and are currently trending higher. Maybe it stops, maybe it keeps going. We will see. I am glad I bought when I bought.
So, it only counts as inventory if the houses go unsold???
Yes, that's pretty much the definition. The "inventory" refers to inventory of houses for sale. If a house is sold, it's not counted in the inventory number.
Did you have another definition in your mind??
Removing mandated child support from unmarried men helps well-intentioned women because it forces early and honest conversations. If a man says he wants to keep the baby and wants to raise it with you then he will sign a marriage license. Women still have 100% of the choice.
(talking new births only, not retroactively)
Technically speaking, Carolyn is correct.
Inventory:
a : an itemized list of current assets: as (1) : a catalog of the property of an individual or estate (2) : a list of goods on hand
In your "200 houses" example, you would have to give a specific date/time to determine the actual inventory at any point in time. If you are calculating 'monthly inventory', you would have to subtract houses available minus houses sold for that period.
Inventory is only increasing if homes are put on the market and no one is buying. Inventory is not increasing if the homes are bought the minute they hit the market.
Oh God.... another math major....
So, it only counts as inventory if the houses go unsold???
If 50 people put their houses on the market last month and they sold, then this month 200 people put their houses on the market and they sold, since in your world the numbers equalled out, that means that supply didn't rise this month compared to last month??
"Inventory" is what is available at any point in time.
It has nothing to do with what has already been 'sold'.
Inventory is not increasing if the homes are bought the minute they hit the market.
In our market place houses came, and went off the market in a matter of days, with escalation clauses for pricing.
You may be thinking of Months of Supply, but inventory was getting sold.
If you are calculating 'monthly inventory', you would have to subtract houses available minus houses sold for that period.
So, if day 1 of the month there are 200 houses available; then during the last week of the month 200 houses were sold.
Your monthly inventory would be:
200 (Available) - 200 (Sold) = inventory of Zero for the month?
I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on some call options on gdxj. Maybe Monday if I get a chance.
boom goes the dynamite?
Removing mandated child support from unmarried men helps well-intentioned women because it forces early and honest conversations. If a man says he wants to keep the baby and wants to raise it with you then he will sign a marriage license. Women still have 100% of the choice.
Actually this is one reason why it may be a good idea. Then if later they divorce the man could have to pay child support and alimony.
A marriage has more consequence than just child support and child support alone should be an option if both agree.
I think the man should simply be free to opt out of child support when he learns of the pregnancy, leaving the woman the choice to have an abortion or raise the baby without support.
Yes.
The word "inventory" is improperly used by the real estate industry to express the 'amount of houses available for sale' during any given month.
In business, 'monthly inventory' is used to express what is left in stock at the end of the month.
Monthly inventory = ( Current Stock + Stock acquired during the month - Stock sold ) .
If you are calculating 'monthly inventory', you would have to subtract houses available minus houses sold for that period.
So, if day 1 of the month there are 200 houses available; then during the last week of the month 200 houses were sold.
Your monthly inventory would be:
200 (Available) - 200 (Sold) = inventory of Zero for the month?
A marriage has more consequence than just child support and child support alone should be an option if both agree.
And raising a child is more than just child support too. Who will stay home with them, how you plan on raising them and how they will affect your goals as a couple are all things that should be discussed. The consequences of divorce usually seek to protect the decisions that were made before shit went south.
If you want to express the amount of houses for sale during any given month, you would say:
"There were 200 houses for sale during the month of XXX".
The Real Estate industry is trying to hijack the meaning of the word "inventory", just like the gay population are in the process of hijacking the meaning of the word 'marriage'.
If you are calculating 'monthly inventory', you would have to subtract houses available minus houses sold for that period.
So, if day 1 of the month there are 200 houses available; then during the last week of the month 200 houses were sold.
Your monthly inventory would be:
200 (Available) - 200 (Sold) = inventory of Zero for the month?
Because they are lazy bastards and it is easier to say "inventory", versus "There were 200 houses for sale during the month of XXX".
« First « Previous Comments 36,054 - 36,093 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,238,213 comments by 14,803 users - Booger, stereotomy, stfu online now