patrick.net

There is no problem with ARMS until there is. For example I did not think we would ever get past 2.5% on 10 year this year and we almost at 3%

I am not saying that rates are going up from here but what if they do rise to 5%. Basically anybody that has 3 or 5 year arm will be in trouble.

Bellingham Bill says

"Do you think any bum should be able to homestead on your lawn? or the patch of woods giving you privacy from your neighbor?"

Sure. Maximum freedom is what libertarianism is all about, right?

Then you don't understand libertarianism or freedom, or property rights or even the basics of human behavior.

"To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it."

You are essentially restating the illegitimacy of government.

thunderlips11 says

Simply limit people to 5 properties per household, of any kind, anywhere. Corporations may only own property they use, or better yet, can only lease. Corporations cannot be formed to hold or rent real estate; LLPs are okay but the limits apply to each and every member (ie Joe and Jack buy an office building, it counts as 1 property for both individuals).

Problem solved.

Really smart. So all the developers and builders are instantly outlawed in your scheme. Pray tell how do you keep coming up with those brilliant brain dead "simple" solutions? Do you only have shoe-size IQ simpletons living in your neighborhood?

Corporate entities are often formed to hold real estate (commercial and residential) due to liability and accounting reasons. It is not at all unusual for an individual (household) to have more than 5 properties: small business owners and practitioners like lawyers often own their offices and small business chains. A rental building being condominiumized can often have more than 5 units; your proposed limit of 5 may well force people into consolidate ownership: reversing the condos into apartment buildings to count as 1, perhaps even consolidating multiple buildings into a street block sized single property, with the resulting market becoming much less liquid and less competitive.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

That's your response? You forgot to add NEOCON ZIONIST CONSPIRACY.

I have more proof that Sandy Hook parents were actors than you have that the US was not involved in Libya and Syria in the beginning.

So I see you deleted my response. Surprise, surprise. Really, what's the point in responding to someone like you when you simply delete posts that point out the utter idiocy of your 'reasoning?' Anyway, it was amusing for a short while, but your conspiracy garbage gets boring fast with your Sandy Hook hoax bollocks being a new low even for you. Enjoy your lonely paranoid delusions. Make believe that those are 'proof.' The rest of us will just shake our heads at how completely insane you clearly are.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

bgamall4 says

Do you doubt a Holocaust survivor, Einstein?

Is there a particular reason we shouldn't?

Oh we should listen to you instead?

Missing the point as always.

bgamall4 says

If I lived in a small town and a hundred families came in from NYC all at once, I would know.

Especially if they replaced all the children, teachers, police officers, ambulance workers, doctors, nurses, hospital workers, local reporters, coroners....

Ah, here comes the Jewish Banker stuff. Some old-school material!

I was beginning to worry that you had not read up on your foundational Jew-hysteria literature, but I was wrong. Well done!

Call it Crazy says

Problem is, most people going for ARM's are doing it because they can't afford the house with a 30 year conventional.

And you know this how? I've gotten 7/1 ARMs before because I was pretty sure my company would relocate before 7 years was up. Why pay the extra 1%?

Call it Crazy says

Bellingham Bill says

That chart pretty much sums it up.... First comes the creative financing, then the price ramp follows....

Not sure I agree with the conclusion. Other than the 2003-2008 time period, I don't see much correlation between ARM ratio and house pricing index. I would argue that underwriting standards correlate much better than ARM ratio.

bgamall4 says

You say more with less research than anyone I have ever read. That is why I grow tired of you Bigsby. You bring nothing to the table. Yet you take up half the space!

Oh, you mean I need to hit up Youtube and post up a few videos? Bgamall style 'research.' What research do I need to do? I've followed the Arab Spring closely since it began. I live in the region. I have many Arab friends. We talk about the issues a lot. You know nothing about the Middle East and you know nothing about Sandy Hook. You are just a deluded old man who apparently gets some sense of empowerment by mistakenly thinking they are more informed about certain issues than others. The truth is that you are just more confused and more paranoid.

And you didn't address how they managed to switch out all those up standing members of the community for non-Jewish zionist actors from NYC. Perhaps your research can explain that.

Yeah, the conspiracy theory guys always call it "research".

Never mind that the materials they are "researching" are not Library-of-Congress grade original materials per se. More like wildly inaccurate, thoroughly debunked spew that refuses to die.

Call it Crazy says

Read this release and then tell me why there is a drop in applications but ARM's are way up...

You'd have to ask the folks that are taking out the ARMs. Maybe they believe rates are coming down in the future and they can refi. Who knows?

Maybe you're correct and they can't afford the house with a 30 year.

But you've, so far, shown nothing to indicate it's one over the other.

Reality says

Corporate entities are often formed to hold real estate (commercial and residential) due to liability and accounting reasons. It is not at all unusual for an individual (household) to have more than 5 properties: small business owners and practitioners like lawyers often own their offices and small business chains. A rental building being condominiumized can often have more than 5 units; your proposed limit of 5 may well force people into consolidate ownership: reversing the condos into apartment buildings to count as 1, perhaps even consolidating multiple buildings into a street block sized single property, with the resulting market becoming much less liquid and less competitive.

I understand how shit is now. Land isn't like other goods and services, you can't make more land.

You notice I said Corporations can lease or rent, without limits. Starbucks is free to lease their stores from individual landholders - since that's the only kind of landowner there will be. Starbucks can still have thousands of locations scattered across the country- they just can't own 99% of them.

Ray Kroc once said McD's is a real estate business. Well, let McD's do what they ought to be doing - making hamburgers.

And yes, very wealthy individuals might take over a whole building. So What? They'll own 3 apartment buildings, a summer house, and their primary residence. Or whatever combo they like.

It's awfully hard to buy a huge contiguous space in any populated area. It might be possible to turn dozens of 100-acre farms into one 1000 acre parcel in North Dakota or something, but it would take years and years - and one hold out would ruin the whole scheme.

Reality says

So all the developers and builders are instantly outlawed in your scheme

YES! It's wonderful. The country is full of father-son builders who buy a plot, act as GM, get the thing built and sell it. No more endless tracts nobody wants, only inhabited by Methheads. No more developers running the local government, etc.

Best thing with these developers being gone: No more sweetheart deals with big corps where to get a tenant, the developer who runs half the city kicks out all the independent Chinese Restaurants and Mailbox Places by suddenly jacking their rent, because he made a non-compete deal with Panda Express and the UPS Store, and now you gotta drive 30 minutes in heavy traffic. Not to mention destroying family businesses.

bgamall4 says

Give me something, moron.

It's pretty difficult when you keep deleting my responses. As I said before, you seem to believe Youtube videos amount to research, so I presume I can simply post up any one of the vast number of news reports on the internet and that would be all the research I need. Again, is that correct?

bgamall4 says

That is exactly what I have been arguing.

No, it isn't. And you proceed to contradict that assertion with everything you then post in the above comment and pretty much everything else you have posted in the past on the topic.

bgamall4 says

If you don't bring any concrete research to the table refuting these things you are taking up space and wasting my time.

And there you go again. You clearly have no idea what actual research constitutes. Spouting a dozen online conspiracies with no support and claiming they are FACT does not constitute research.

Call it Crazy says

We'll just leave it at this....

Obviously you don't get it. I think it's a bad idea to give people a break on the insurance requirement. I think the mandate is necessary to make the system solvent. Obama wrongly gave in to pressure from the right and their media campaign to destroy ACA. I'm just laughing my ass off at those of you who complained about the mandate, and now complain when it's temporarily suspended. Flip flop much?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

It's pretty difficult when you keep deleting my responses. As I said before, you seem to believe Youtube videos amount to research,

A picture is worth a thousand words, ten thousand of your worthless words, Rothschild.

Your pictures certainly aren't. Perhaps you'd care to explain how all your Sandy Hook videos constitute legitimate research. It's a fair question. You might even want to respond instead of once again deleting my post.

thunderlips11 says

I understand how shit is now. Land isn't like other goods and services, you
can't make more land.

Of course you can: land fills; fully one half of Netherland's land area is man-made land fills. In any case, you can't make most atoms either. Yet Atoms in a computer or cell phone or a car get re-cycled and used to make better computers, better phones and better cars all the time. Likewise, land used for existing homes get recycled to make new homes, and transportation technology make more land accessible just like mining that takes underground atoms into above-ground industrial stockpile of atoms that eventually go into making all sorts of stuff. You idiots need to get your heads out of the Georgist rectum. Even Henry George himself realized later on that the mythical "land" concept in his youth was all wrong.

thomaswong.1986 says

worst healthcare system of any industrialized country

define worst compared to Canada, Japan, and UK ?

they have shortages and waiting lists... i cant think of anything

worst than someones fixes your issue some 6-9 months down the road..

Not being able to afford having it fixed at all?

thunderlips11 says

You notice I said Corporations can lease or rent, without limits. Starbucks
is free to lease their stores from individual landholders - since that's the
only kind of landowner there will be. Starbucks can still have thousands of
locations scattered across the country- they just can't own 99% of them.

Here on pleant earth, most Starbucks are operating inside leased commercial space, often malls. Starbucks Corporation owns the stores (the business, an abstract concept) but not the physical buildings. I don't know what planet you live on.

Ray Kroc once said McD's is a real estate business. Well, let McD's do what
they ought to be doing - making hamburgers.

Ray was talking about the community impact of his company. McD's does make hamburgers, at least on planet earth.

And yes, very wealthy individuals might take over a whole building. So What?
They'll own 3 apartment buildings, a summer house, and their primary residence.
Or whatever combo they like.

Without being able to diversify into different locations under your scheme, they'd be buying up entire towns just like hickvilles down south, or in the backwater of even the north, where a clan owns most of the houses in a town of less than 1000 people; as a result, people with different last names often get run out of town eventually due to not being able to get a discount on rent for being blood relatives. Combining all those houses into single title would make future buying and selling single family houses all the more difficult. Then you'd really be talking about feudalistic manors.

It's awfully hard to buy a huge contiguous space in any populated area. It
might be possible to turn dozens of 100-acre farms into one 1000 acre parcel in
North Dakota or something, but it would take years and years - and one hold out
would ruin the whole scheme.

However under the pressure of your scheme, owners of neighboring apartment buildings would have a strong incentive to talk and swap their disparate buildings in order to combine titles. You end up concentrating ownership, exactly what you do not want if you prefer lower rent.

thunderlips11 says

YES! It's wonderful. The country is full of father-son builders who buy a
plot, act as GM, get the thing built and sell it. No more endless tracts nobody
wants, only inhabited by Methheads. No more developers running the local
government, etc.

You have no idea what the typical size of development projects are nowadays. Most valuable housing is not built in the flat desert, where the empty houses have been the last few years. The most valuable new constructions have been in already congested areas on plots that were previously considered un-buildable, often requiring significant amount of earth moving nowadays. It's not for the father-and-son with hand tools or even a bobcat. Serious amount of organization and specializations with heavy earth movers is required for those projects. Once the big earth movers are unloaded, you may as well scrape land for more than one house, many more, perhaps half a dozen to a dozen at the least in order to justify the equipment and crew time. That's how new housing units are added nowdays in valuable markets (tear-down and replace doesn't add total unit count). High-rises are beyond the father-and-son capability too. A Manhattan high rise condo building would have 200+units; do you really want 200 different father-and-son teams mucking around on top of each other?

Best thing with these developers being gone: No more sweetheart deals with
big corps where to get a tenant, the developer who runs half the city kicks out
all the independent Chinese Restaurants and Mailbox Places by suddenly jacking
their rent, because he made a non-compete deal with Panda Express and the UPS
Store, and now you gotta drive 30 minutes in heavy traffic. Not to mention
destroying family businesses.

You are talking about problems with local politicians and consumer preference. Develpers would be just as happy catering to indepedent restaurants as to chains; you the consumer decide what kind of restaurant you like.

Bellingham Bill says

because it ratchets up the market to those price levels. Housing is sold on
the bid, so ceteris paribus the 1 year ARM guy is going to come in with
the highest bid.

Then if he can not keep the house when rates adjust, you get another chance to buy it for less. What's the harm? LOL.

Rates change over time. It's a matter of whether letting the bank charge you a premium to cushion that rate risk or would you prefer self-insure against rate risks. As the government gradually get out of the 30-yr underwriting businesss, we will see more and more ARM products. Over a few cycles of losing bad investments, the public will eventually kick the bad habit of buying to the payment limit fostered by the 30-yr government backed loans. That will actually be a good thing for homebuyers: learning to not to bid to the payment limit but instead having a sense of "reserve."

Call it Crazy says

That will NEVER happen... The sheep will always buy to the payment limit, and
not just on houses... Cars, furniture, boats, RV's, etc... They're "conditioned"
to do so....

LOL. The conditioning is provided by the free housing, free food and free everything whenever the person uses up his/her own resources first. It's a recipe for wasteful spending.

If they want numbers, then one should be able to sign up any time in the year.

Then make it... Oh I don't know... affordable perhaps?

And they need to cut the mandate crap. That will only serve to drive employment undocumented underground. And a large portion of undeclared income to the IRS. Dare I say be responsible for a whole class of people who work and are paid in Bitcoins?

While qualifying for fully subsidized Obamacare because they wont have any verifiable income. Because they are paid via the Silkroad.

The way it is now, there will be less people signed up for Obamacare a year from now than there are signed up today.

This is a public announcement: Obama won the election and will be in office for 3 more years. That is all...

Call it Crazy - how many threads are you going to start about this? Are you spamming the Politics forum now?

Call it Crazy says

First, it was your old sub-standard catastrophic plans were "crap" and you HAVE to buy better coverage.

Now, If you like your catastrophic plan, you can keep it...

Yeah, he gave in to the republican whiners. Bad idea. He went back to the old Obama with no backbone. Should have stuck to his guns. Nobody will appreciate the gesture; they will just use it as another excuse to attack him.

Call it Crazy says

This is what you get when you "Have to pass the bill to know what is in it".... Hey Nancy, maybe next time, READ the bill FIRST!!!

This is why I have no respect for loudmouthed Rushbots. You have no moral qualms about being disingenuous. You have been told over and over that Pelosi's comment was taken out of context, yet you continue to quote it out of context because it serves your agenda. Not only are you cropping her statement, but the cropped part you are quoting isn't even correct.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/04/07/beck-adds-to-fog-of-controversy-by-deceptively/162864

donjumpsuit says

I hope this is my last chance to buy a home or be priced out forever.

If we raise taxes on everyone -- both state and federal -- this decade (like we need to if we don't raise corporate income taxes) RE prices will fall a lot.

But I doubt we're going to do that.

I don't know what's going to happen here.

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

real per-capita (age 25-54) debt (consumer + USG)

Call it Crazy says

Changing his mind is one thing... Lying is his "normal"....

Changing the law unilaterally.... Hmmmm...

no wonder he is so chummy with the Castro brothers....

You mean Main Street... how many said..."prices never go down"...

as if they never heard of home prices going down 30-40%

complete absolute denial on the part of Main Street...

but hey, somehow a shit shack in San Jose/Santa Clara goes

from $150K to $500K to the public is normal ? Who is the biggest

bullshitter during the bubble ? The Public...

nw888 says

Agreed. It's very competitive right now in nicer areas.

Agree completely

nw888 says

Case in point: Last week we offered $1.1 million on a home, when asking was $975K (they purposely underpriced it). The highest bidder offered just under $1.2 million, cash, no contingencies.

wow, where are you looking? sucks to be buying right now. Just doesnt seem like a good environment to be buying when you are in bidding wars... hard to beat 1.2M CASH...

CaptainShuddup says

Then make it... Oh I don't know... affordable perhaps?

Truth in advertising laws should apply here. It should be named the Unaffordable Mandatory Care Act

HSBC launders money for drug cartels and terrorists. Kill the bankers!

zzyzzx says

CaptainShuddup says

Then make it... Oh I don't know... affordable perhaps?

Truth in advertising laws should apply here. It should be named the Unaffordable Mandatory Care Act

Slight tweak to that name: Unafordable Mandatory Insurance Act.
Health care is extra, and will require paying a large deductible.

edvard2 says

This is a public announcement: Obama won the election and will be in office for 3 more years. That is all...

How would you feel about someone posting the same thing about Bush W., circa 2005? Not a strong argument buddy.

Call it Crazy says

Spamming?? That's funny... I haven't even come close to the HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of posts you've made in your cheerleading of O'care!!!

Did I post TWO DIFFERENT THREADS on the SAME DAY about the EXACT SAME TOPIC? No, I did not. Did you? Yes, you did.

I know you don't like it when I dispel the right-wing myths about ACA, and you like to wrongly call it "cheerleading", but your mistaken characterization does not make it spamming.

Call it Crazy says

I was just reminding all the readers here that they have one more day to sign up. There were over 13,000 readers today here...

Ha ha - bullshit.

Call it Crazy says

YOU did sign up for your cost saving plan already, didn't you??

Of course I did.

Call it Crazy says

I believe that was his DEMOCRAT whiners he gave in to...

Not even. Democrats for the most part supported the law as written. The repukes were the ones crying, "Waaah! He said I could keep my shitty insurance!"

Call it Crazy says

Here's her complete comment, does it change much for you??

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

Here's mine from above:

Call it Crazy says

"Have to pass the bill to know what is in it"

Just wondering, do both comments have different meanings, or would a second grader understand how similar they are??

If you really believe those two mean the same thing, then why did you use the version that omits the word "you", and crops off the entire end of the sentence?

The meaning of that statement was that she wanted the SENATE to pass their version, so that the bill could be discussed without all the fake bullshit about death panels and other nonsense. She wasn't suggesting that the bill should be rammed though before she or anyone else read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html

But then you already knew that, because we've told you that over and over on this forum.

Call it Crazy says

I believe they were TWO different topics....

I can't help it that your boy makes 2 unconstitutional, unilateral changes to his signature law in ONE day!!!

Dude, you must be high.

Thread number one: "Individuals whose health plans were canceled will now automatically qualify for a "hardship exemption" from the mandate. If they can't or don't sign up for a new plan, they don't have to pay the tax."

http://patrick.net/?p=1235652

Thread number two: "Americans whose health plans are being canceled because their coverage doesn’t meet Obamacare rules will be exempt from the mandate that they carry insurance, under a change announced by the Obama administration. "

http://patrick.net/?p=1235615

How the fuck is that two different topics?

Do you realize people who believe in too many conspiracy theories are mentally ill? Get some help.
Just do a google search if you don't believe me.

nw888 says

Case in point: Last week we offered $1.1 million on a home, when asking was $975K (they purposely underpriced it). The highest bidder offered just under $1.2 million, cash, no contingencies.

Nw888 where are you looking if you dont mind me asking?

If i remember correctly from previous posts, you are looking in S. Cali area. Ive been looking in S. Cali and in certain places, it seems that prices have come down a bit.
Also, I know from previous post that your wife is a physician. I dont know what you do, but dont you think it silly that one a physician salary you cant afford a nice home in S. Cali?
I think affordability is crap in S. Cali... unless investors can maintain these prices, I feel like they ahve to come down sooner or later.