patrick.net

Mark D says

1. does the C. in your name stand for CUNT by any chance?

   Truly a shining example of American masculinity that I feel very sorry for......
   Another short dick man on display for all to see by any chance?

coriacci1 says

Mark D says

1. does the C. in your name stand for CUNT by any chance?

   Truly a shining example of American masculinity that I feel very sorry for......

   Another short dick man on display for all to see by any chance?

who are you by the way? some mangina?

you are ok with this woman degrading Asian women? let me guess you are one of those white washed, self-hating idiots? rejected by Asian women and are now hating them? are you one of those? speaking of short-dick, have you looked in the mirror lately?

No Mark d it is not bull. It is absolutely the TRUTH. You get all upset because I state THE TRUTH! I have been married for over 15yrs to the same man. What about yourself. I suspect not. Keep your Psycho aggression to your self.
And reserve the c word for your cheap girlfriends or boyfriends.

Too many feminists, not enough real men left around.

Let me give you a totally different argument and say.

Gold almost reached 2000 an ounce a few months ago. And everybody was saying:

-> Gold will go up from here!!
-> Hyperinflation is coming!!!

Good school district bay area houses have reached prices 20-30% above those of the previous bubble, and now everybody is saying:

-> I'm wiring my bangalore money to buy silicon valley investments!
-> My mom, father, grandparents and those of my wife are bringing all the yuans from beijing to buy properties to the bay area!!
-> My friend is getting rich on real estate!. I am too maxing my preapproval to buy a house in the bay area smaller than my dick!.
-> I am getting together with five friends to buy, all together, an house in palo alto that we would not be able to afford alone. Hey, schools are important for when we have kids!
-> I bought a house in menlo park in 1974, and I have made 50 times my investment!!. Hell, I will buy another one and I will probably make 50 times my investment again!

Folks. It's impossible to predict when will a bubble pop. For those bears of you, hey, It's also impossible to predict if they will EVER pop (sometimes, bad for those of you bears, they never pop).

But for you bullish people, remember, the definition of a bubble is plain and simple:

"An asset class whose price appreciation is based on the expectation of further price appreciation in the future, and not from the underlying fundamentals of the assets".

I think bay area people forget that too easily due to the heavy constipation out of eating way too many curry chow mein burritos. That's what make them sooo full of shit :-).

So, folks. Yes, it's a bubble.

Sorry folks, we do not know when will it pop. We do not know if it will pop.

Oh, for those of you talking about good debt, and bad debt:

"If the only way you can afford an asset is by leveraging 4 times your cash, let me remind you, YOU CANNOT AFFORD THE PLACE". If 80% of people needs to leverage 4 times their cash to buy a property: 80% of the people cannot afford the place. If you still go ahead and leverage, together with everybody else. PRAY, if a crash comes, your ass will hurt way more than a skinny weak guy in a san francisco prison."

Finally, for those of you hoarding cash. Be careful. The world of economics is cruel. All you need is a steep increase in money velocity to see your life time savings be wiped away.

So, in conclussion:

Diversify

The bond dumping this week is huge. Possibly a turning point. I thought everyone loved our debt no matter how little it returned. Apparently not.
Notice that it also accompanied dumping of Fannie and Freddie. Loss of faith in the dollar? Plus a short squeeze on paper gold causing physical disconnect?

Yikes. Keynesianism is helpless if this continues.

I'd like to weigh in on this......
199 for 3 days straight, holding water....

Carolyn C says

I have been married for over 15yrs to the same man.

dear Carolyn CUNT,

this thread isn't about you or your anecdotal stories. if you could read, "women like you" refers to exactly that, "women like you". it doesn't necessarily refer to you. but even if your online claim was true, how do we know the reason he's staying is not because he doesn't want to lose 50%?

you are probably some fat & hedious woman feeling insecure because your husband has been eyeing the Asian neighbor too much so you fabricate crap online to reassure yourself that your husband won't one day leave you for a younger, hotter ass oversea. i wouldn't blame him since being stuck with someone like you for 15 years is quite a torture, he gotta get some "fresh air" occasionally from SOME WHERE, even for just a moment.

without looking at her pics i can guarantee right now that Carolyn Cunt is AT LEAST 30 lbs overweight. who can prove me wrong?

deepcgi says

The bond dumping this week is huge. Possibly a turning point

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

"huge!"

Keynesianism is helpless if this continues

funny how the right wing has latched onto that word as if it's a bad thing.

well, it's only bad if it's done when a D is in the White House.

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

is real government spending since 1970.

Note how it rose 40% under Ronnie Raygun and 33% under Bush II.

The 12.5% increase under Obama is Kenyan Socialism or something.

Do conservatives have some sort of special retard pill they take every morning?

What makes them so dense???

robertoaribas says

it is better to rent, than buy, but whoever you rent from is a parasite that is raping you.

I've never ever said it's categorically better to rent.

My analysis is simply numbers based, looking at PITI-less-the-P vs. rents.

As for parasitism, that you resort to strawman and adhom to refute it tells me I hit a nerve. Georgists get that abuse a lot, actually.

Don't worry, you're not alone in your vitriolic opposition to this thesis.

To move to Georgism would take a lot of changes around here, and I don't expect any of it to ever happen in my lifetime.

Too bad, since the land market is one of the primary drivers of inequality and economic despair.

It's fucking obvious really, but nobody gets it.

We're like fish in water, so immersed in the land market that we cannot really see it for what it is.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/15868-we-don-t-know-who-discovered-water-but-we-know-it

Landlords bullshit everyone that they're creating new services, and are real entrepreneurs etc.

It's all a lie.

robertoaribas says

China and Russia both got rid of the land market, and thus became your paradise. Sadly they both gave up on it.

Russia is actually doing OK, because they gave everyone title to their dwellings free and clear. They'd be doing a helluva lot better if they hadn't let crooks sell themselves most of their natural wealth titles.

China of course is learning the hard way that capitalism's dark side is rent-seeking in land. As is Vietnam, ironically enough. We lost the war but won the peace!

http://michael-hudson.com/2013/07/china-avoid-the-wests-debt-overhead-a-land-tax-is-needed-to-hold-down-housing-prices/

I suppose you could alway move to Cuba?

Even more ironically, the eurosocialist paradises of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands have also let their housing sector impoverish them.

Housing will always be bid up to the point of pain, because land is fixed in supply and the housing good itself is difficult to build and by definition is immobile once built.

Whether landlords collect the economic rents or we just sell overpriced real estate to ourselves, the only solution to this is to increase the supply of quality housing options such that the monopoly rents vanish, just like most other sectors of the economy operate in a state of over-supply, purging profits through competition of vendors dealing with more supply on their shelves than customer demand.

One does not need to be a "twit" to see and understand this.

But, the world is a lot less ugly place if one doesn't, I'll give you that.

(The stupid thing is that Henry George was no Socialist, of course. He was just pointing out the obvious imbalances in the anything-goes 1800s, of people impoverishing themselves via land economics. He saw it first-hand in the SF area, how skyrocketing wages just resulted in higher rents, putting the economy in a treadmill mode where a lucky/smart few profited from the masses inability to find an affordable place to live).

Albert J. Nock:

The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry.

Bill:

The republicans are as Keynesian as the democrats. Ron Paul was the only candidate from either party who subscribed to Austrian economics. This fact is why nothing has changed the fundamental danger to the markets. Screw the republicans screaming for smaller government and lower spending. They only want to spend the printed money in different places. Ron Paul was right. He's still right. According to the Keynesians of either party last Thursday was never supposed to happen.

On a separate issue, Bill. "Housing" is certainly not fixed in supply and it's arguable that "land" is. There is plenty of room for new anthills. The percentage of the yard covered in anthills is actually pretty small. It's the current hotspot that is so highly prized. And of course we build new homes incessantly.

As the US produces less and less tangible and shippable products and more and more ones-and-zeros, the less critical proximity will be. I for one have grown quite fond of my low cost HD teleconferencing with clients thousands of miles away. I've never needed to live in California to take their money.

Bellingham Bill says

Housing will always be bid up to the point of pain, because land is fixed in supply and the housing good itself is difficult to build and by definition is immobile once built.

Yet the dumb Georgists believe all land should be effectively owned by a monopoly run by bureaucrats (via their confiscation of all use value of the land). Let me have all the use value of your car(s) and your wife; you can keep the title to them.

Since you acknowledge that building "by definition is immobile once built," how in the world can you be so dumb as to be sucked into believing Georgism that would put the building owner on the torture rack by forcing him bid on the land underneath the building every year against all comers, including giant retailers who may eye the plot of land! Talk about eminent domain on steroids! Georgists are little more than shills for big corporations that buy governments.

Then again, it should be expected, as Georgists are just the typical socialists/closet-communists who are too dumb to realize that individual liberty can not be safe-guarded by a god-like monopoly called "government" but only by the freedom to choose among multiple competing service-providers (including government service) like the 18th century Western Europe, where modern conception of liberty arose to begin with. Thousands of small landlords competing to provide housing service is far more likely to result in cost-effective housing tuned to ever changing local demand than a government monopoly run by bureaucrats can possibly deliver.

We'll soon be winding down the pusher (Fed) phase of the housing "recovery" to get the debt addicts hooked again and will soon enter the lying, stealing and cheating phase to maintain that housing "high" for the economy.. all the while, the math continues working against as my real estate short positions reflect..

It is the law. Like the say,"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Our current system was to protect women in the old system. But instead, today a woman who emotionally abuses you, cheats on you and has children with multiple fathers will still get half your money in a divorce. Then she can shack up with some kid in your house and expect you to maintain her and her lovers in the lifestyle she was used to-all the while crying how abusive you are.

Even today, witness the Jody Arias trial. She slit his throat and brutally slashed him and claimed abuse and many claim a woman could not do something like that if she were not abused-no proof needed. Thankfully it was AZ and she was convicted-she would walked in feminist states.

When you are in a marraige-both parties contribute and so even Steven. Now when you move on-both need to move on and forge their own paths-that is what equality is about. Today whoredom has become accepted by law by western women and has become part of the culture. Now this is not about sleeping with multiple sex partners-I have done that too. But this is about expecting money for doing so and unfortunately govt has become the armed pimp for these women. Might as well amke the men wear burqas.

mell says

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

Luckily, we men get better looking with age. I'm appreciating that fact to its fullest.

The only thing better looking about the average older man is a potentially fatter wallet.

I don't think that's the only thing. Up to a certain age you do get sexier if you keep in shape, e.g. salt and pepper hair ;)

Funny, I don't see 20-35 yeasr old males dying their hair silver.

I DO see 40-50 year old men dying their hair back to its color of youth, not just because they think it makes them more attractive to women but to try to postpone the inevitable age discrimination at work.

Anyone else here suspect Disney and their catalog of princesses has something to do with the topic at hand?

New Renter says

mell says

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

Luckily, we men get better looking with age. I'm appreciating that fact to its fullest.

The only thing better looking about the average older man is a potentially fatter wallet.

I don't think that's the only thing. Up to a certain age you do get sexier if you keep in shape, e.g. salt and pepper hair ;)

Funny, I don't see 20-35 yeasr old males dying their hair silver.

I DO see 40-50 year old men dying their hair back to its color of youth, not just because they think it makes them more attractive to women but to try to postpone the inevitable age discrimination at work.

Well, ultimately gray hair is a sign of aging, but for a couple of years the mix exudes "still young enough" and "experienced" where experienced is of course strongly correlated to "has more money". You are aware though of the "touch of gray" products which don't aim anymore of hiding gray hair entirely ;)

Bellingham Bill says

It's fucking obvious really, but nobody gets it.

After 150 years no one has implemented Georgism. Where are all the economic paradises based on it? Where are the success stories? Maybe everyone actually does get it. Perhaps everyone else understands that ivory tower theories based on the common good, like georgism and communism (yes I know they are different things, so don't get your panties in a wad) don't work in real life with real people.

bob2356 says

After 150 years no one has implemented Georgism. Where are all the economic paradises based on it? Where are the success stories? Maybe everyone actually does get it. Perhaps everyone else understands that ivory tower theories based on the common good, like georgism and communism (yes I know they are different things, so don't get your panties in a wad) don't work in real life with real people.

Not a very compelling argument. Just because it hasn't been tried, does not make it bad.

tatupu70 says

Not a very compelling argument. Just because it hasn't been tried, does not make it bad.

It doesn't make it good either.

besides, marrying foreign wives makes the most financial sense.

engineers in the states are considered millionaires in South America, Eastern Europe and Asia. if a guy can attract the 6's and 7's here he would be able to attract the 9's and 10's over there.

marrying non-US wives gets the most "bang" for your bucks. why would anyone want to buy for a used Buick with like 200K in the odometer in the states for $20K when he could buy a BMW or a Benz for $5K in another country?

foreign wives are appreciative of what their husbands provide. they treat you like a King. U.S wives cut their hair, get fat, refuse to do house chores, withhold sex, complain all day long and put all the blames on you. who needs that?

Mark D says

engineers in the states are considered millionaires in South America, Eastern Europe and Asia.

It's not as black & white as that. It's that American engineers (or tech workers) are seen as dependable husbands by women in those countries as I know of many fellas, who're married to Brazilians, Chinese, Koreans, etc, and the common denominator is not the house in the Hamptons, Bel Air or trips to Bora Bora but a stable home and a good family. Note, these were once ideals, valued by American/Canadian women back in the 60s.

Patrick,

Did you create this site as a forum for discussions of real estate, or to assemble a pathetic bunch of misogynistic losers?

You're allowing 50% of your potential participants to be driven away with people posting garbage like this:

"does the C. in your name stand for CUNT by any chance?"

when they're not bragging about who has the most money. What a waste of time.

denise says

Did you create this site as a forum for discussions of real estate, or to assemble a pathetic bunch of misogynistic losers?

You're really gonna love mershedperturders posts.

Moderate Infidel says

denise says

Did you create this site as a forum for discussions of real estate, or to assemble a pathetic bunch of misogynistic losers?

You're really gonna love mershedperturders posts.

Feisty ;) The first personalized attack on this thread was misandristic though.

denise says

You're allowing 50% of your potential participants to be driven away with people posting garbage like this:

"does the C. in your name stand for CUNT by any chance?"

when they're not bragging about who has the most money. What a waste of time.

names are thrown around here all the time by not only men but also women, in even in this thread. a fact you conveniently ignored. i didn't see you come in here earlier and give Patrick the "helpful" feedback you are trying to give him now? what's the difference this time? because this time the victim is a woman?

don't you find that is sexist of you? your action has shown what a men-hater you really are. and don't act like you are concerned about Patrick's readership. you are here to defend your fellow men haters. talk about pathetic, you should look the mirror as well.

Since we're all sharing anecdotes, let me give you my set of dossiers.

I know of roughly ~20 of these marriages, American male / Foreign female. I'm not including relationships of let's say an Iranian-American male marrying a Anglo-Persian woman in Britain because that's kinda a diasporic thing & doesn't really count in the discussion.

With the above stated, of the 20 marriages, 5 ended during the first 5 years. The other 15 are still going strong.

Of the 5 terminated marriages, one was a situation where the female was firm about the religion of the future children and the man didn't concur. They then split up and there was some long term animosity about the whole situation.

Another, was a case of domestic abuse but the wife was the one who went ballistic. I was a witness to that family meltdown. The man was an ex-classmate of mine.

And finally, the last 3 ended without much fanfare. No one blamed the other person and they went their separate ways.

If I were to make a rough estimate, at most 2 of the 5 divorces may have had a "Green Card Diver" angle. The rest were standard marriages which ended for reasons of incompatibility. Thus, overall, we're still looking at a 75% success rate for those who're still together.

true ... except for the fact that welfare/Sectiom8 type housing programs result in a market disconnect in the rents paid by everyone, in an upward movement. Rents are too high due to free money in the same way sale prices were/are too high when there is free money.

It is pretty awful to come onto Patrick.net and read the post from a bunch of msyoginists (which is true, no matter how politely you refer to your hate-posts as "just pointing out how us men are discriminated against", ever so innocently. What total bullshit. This is flat-out hatred being spewed toward American women.

Reading this stuff makes me wonder how much longer I can handle this site and this rampage. This is why a "Misogyny" category would be helpful.

As far as this Asian women stereotype is concerned, I can tell you first hand that this docile- Asian woman description is an illusion. You do not know Asian women or asian culture if you think these women are just passive man-pleasers. It may look like that from the outside, but these women are just as likely to be assertive within the relationship as any American women. Asian women just hide their assertiveness better than homegrown USA girls.

Indiana Jones says

You do not know Asian women or asian culture if you think these women are just passive man-pleasers. It may look like that from the outside, but these women are just as likely to be assertive within the relationship as any American women.

Ok Indy, since you've just built a strawman about Asians, as a way of playing the old "Sayonara" game of depicting the passive Asian/aggressive *Marlon Brando* American, how do you account for the successful Brazilian-USA marriages? If anything, Brazilians are even more emotionally expressive than Americans but yet, hold onto an idea of valuing a family which is cohesive. Once again, similar facts remain. Brazilian-American marriages also hold up better than the 50% ratio among US natives.

And yet, no one's asserted here that Asians are some passive Geisha girl in marriage. That's you, projecting your false counterargument.

Let's see, Lafayette men marrying Asian women as SECOND wives, and the general glowing terms that foreign women, including Asian, are described here (they will treat you like kings!) as opposed to the degrading name calling towards American women. Is this not enough for you? I can't speak about Brazillians first hand, only Asians.

Indiana Jones says

marrying Asian women as SECOND wives, and the general glowing terms that foreign women

I think this 2nd wife refers to the divorced crowd and the whole divorce court bias against the male defendants.

In terms of 'glowing', since I haven't really thought of ppl as glowing or not, the fact which remains is that US/Foreign marriages hold together at a rate of ~80%, although from my personal log, it's closer to ~75%, but still, that's rather high compared to what happens domestically where broken homes are the norm than exceptional.

And yes, I believe that the problem lies within our modern American society which sees marriage and family, as disposable items.

Indiana Jones says

It is pretty awful to come onto Patrick.net and read the post from a bunch of msyoginists (which is true, no matter how politely you refer to your hate-posts as "just pointing out how us men are discriminated against", ever so innocently. What total bullshit. This is flat-out hatred being spewed toward American women.

You are overusing the term misogyny and its related forms. If you look at literature or the web (simple google search will do) you will find out that its counterpart (misandry) is hardly ever asserted in forum discussions, blog posts or good plain old books. Accusations and tales of misogyny though are everywhere to be found. This can leave you only with 2 logical conclusions:

1) Men by nature show far more hatred towards women than vice versa (i.e. men are mostly "bad" and women mostly "good")

2) There is a tendency to frequently label men as misogynists (when women are criticized), but not vice versa (women are not labeled man-haters when they criticize men)

In any case, given that the findings outside patrick.net resemble your findings on the patrick.net forum, patrcik.net cannot be an aberration.

So which option would you go with, 1) or 2)?

i didn't see anyone claim Asian women were submissive in this entire thread. what many men here claim is that women from South America, Asia, Eastern Europe are automatically better than U.S women.

who in their right mind would want to marry U.S women when they idolize hoes and talent-less hacks like Paris Hilton, Kim - fat ass - Kardashian, Tila Nguyen, Anna Nicole Smith, Jenny McCathy, Britney Spears and other trash "celebrities" out there?

thanks to U.S women these women became famous in the Western world. U.S women love them so much they spend all their disposable income buying everything these their trash celebrities sell.

which other parts of the world do you see hoes and talentless hacks like those get a TV show?

apparently the trashier female celebrities get the more popular they are with U.S women so everyone competes to be the trashiest, coming out with a new "leaked" sex tape every month to stay on the cover.

and feminists say we live in a rape culture? rapists go to prison. but cheesy porn actresses gets a TV show and tons of endorsements. seems like whore culture more than anything.

also why is it for American girls wanting to be treated like princesses but it's not OK for men wanting to be treated like Kings? double standard.

Out of those two choices I will have to go with # 1, within this site, without the i.e.- men are not all bad, women are not all good. Just because more men get online and whine and bitch like babies about how horrible women are to them, than women doing vice versus, does not make any gender all good nor bad.

I don't know about you, but other websites I visit do not have this kind of childish, inane ranting and name calling. There is intelligent; adult conversations happening; otherwise I do not return to the site. I'd hate to have to stop perusing this site as normally, I quite like it, and I have learned a lot about the real estate market.

There must be many male-power or female-bashing sites all over the web where you can be validated for every post you write. How about trying some of them out?

This is a sad, if not sort of entertaining to read post. I'm Married to a (gasp) American woman and we get along just fine and have for over 10 years. That she is American is purely incidental because in my single days I dated people from all over the place. Its not about where someone is from but whether you and the person you're with are compatible.