patrick.net

robertoaribas says

good grief! sales number tell us how many people are buying now! of course this gives us an idea of current, or worst case, 45 day ago, demand

Wait a second. I thought the Case Shiller numbers were still being influenced by the housing credit that expired in April because there were a good number of 180+ day closings... Which is it?

Sales number typicall come out a couple of weeks after the month ended and reflect offers accepted 30-60 days ago. That is not a forward number. That's 2 month+ old data.

We definitely don't need you arguing our case. Thanks for trying though

robertoaribas says

tapa butie: are you pretending to be stupid? or are you actually really stupid?
Case-Shiller = price data
Sales rates are how many are selling.
Now, if 99% of all buyers drop dead tomorrow, the prices of all the listings, nor the prior months sales, are not going to change over night. BUT the number of transactions, in the following week and month after their mass death, I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say the number of sales might drop.
I am beginning to understand the nature of why you and I argue: you are clueless, and I have a large background in economics and math…
when the SALES drop to a lower number, this implies less demand, which implies that prices will drop down the line…
My case stands: LAST years sales were higher than they should have been, due to the perceived end of the buyer’s credit; So 20% down year over year might not be as bad as it implies… Once again, this probably went over your head.

Roberto--Obviously you are not getting it. If a drop in sales correlates to a price drop down the line, then a rise in pending sales and mortgage applications will result in higher sales down the line and higher prices even further down the line.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. Someone with your background in statistics and math surely can understand that, right?

tatupu70 says

Ah, yes. The infamous shadow inventory. Banks for some reason didn’t put all this inventory on the market in 2009 while prices were rising… It’s the boogeyman hiding in the closet waiting to bite unsuspecting buyers.

Check out the "boogeyman" by going here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/164044-the-impact-of-residential-real-estates-shadow-inventory-on-housing

tatupu70 says

I think sales activity is already rising and will continue to slowly rise making your point moot.

Incredible. You didn't even take the time to read the article I posted, and yet you have the audacity to comment on it. If you would take the time to read it, you'd notice that it clearly states sales activity is not "rising" as you claim, but in fact, it is dropping. Change the flavor of the Kool-Aid you're drinking. The one you're on now is killing brain cells by the billions.

RayAmerica says

Incredible. You didn’t even take the time to read the article I posted, and yet you have the audacity to comment on it. If you would take the time to read it, you’d notice that it clearly states sales activity is not “rising” as you claim, but in fact, it is dropping. Change the flavor of the Kool-Aid you’re drinking. The one you’re on now is killing brain cells by the billions.

I read it. It says that activity has dropped YOY. I was refering to more recent data...

robertoaribas says

yes, tapa bootie: and mortgage applications to BUY homes are about 20% below last year, about 30% below where they were the entire quarter, before the home buying credit ended.
SO, thank you for bringing up more data that supports the premise, home prices are more likely to fall in most areas, then they are to rise.
Your last post bring you up a notch in my book. You are now at notch 1!

Roberto--I'm clearly not getting through to you. I'm well aware that sales are off YOY. I don't care anymore--that's old news. I'm more concerned with where prices are going in the future and what the current trend is in sales activity.

There are two possible scenarios in my opinion. The one that most here believe is that housing prices never found their bottom and that the credit simply delayed the end of the crash. Once it ended the crash would resume. But the one that I think is equally plausible is that the housing credit had a small effect, but that the crash was mostly over by the time the credit ended. In that case, there would be a drop in sales activity as the end of the credit would certainly pull ahead some demand, but the normal sales activity would resume after a few months.

I don't think it's clear yet which scenario is correct, but that's why I'm more concerned with forward looking data than YOY numbers.

tatupu70 says

The one that most here believe is that housing prices never found their bottom and that the credit simply delayed the end of the crash. Once it ended the crash would resume

And so it continues....

Press Releases
Home Values Near Unprecedented Decline as Hints of Stabilization Wane in Third Quarter
Percentage of Homeowners Underwater Reaches New Peak; Length and Depth of Housing Downturn Approach Depression-Era Declines According to Q3 2010 Zillow® Real Estate Market Reports

"While not unexpected, the unceasing declines in home values signal that we're in for a long, bleak winter of continued troubles for the housing market," said Zillow Chief Economist Dr. Stan Humphries. "The length and depth of the current housing recession is rivaling the Great Depression's real estate downturn, and, with encouraging signs fading, will easily eclipse it in the coming months.

Anyway! its just a correction as some say "crash" that has been long long over due ...

Zlxr says

Roberto - do you think it’s possible that the really rich investor groups who are buying blocks of houses for pennies on the dollar (ie - the friends of the Banks) will continue as the Banks speed up the foreclosures?

If a bank's executives arranged an insider deal to sell an asset for pennies on the dollar (assuming that there were a higher price available on the open market) then they would be in violation of their duty to the banks shareholders and in violation of a number of laws and sec regulations. If you are aware of this actually happening report it now.

Zlxr says

The only thing I heard (from a Bankruptcy Lawyer back in 2007) was that there were investors who were buying groups of homes for somewhere between 30 - 50 cents on the dollar. He said these homes never make it to the courthouse steps.

you can check out the reo sites... bankofamerica.reo.com and reo.wachovia.com or whatever. these don't have jack. Clearly they are selling to "professional" investors before the public. Doesn't everything work that way? Even the job postings in big corps don't make it to the careers website unless no H1 and no internal candidate is available. Its not where you look but who you know. Heck, I used to try to do government contract bids in SC. Out of 7 I was low bidder on 2. And i was a local company. Still never got a contract. Finally, I heard the head of purchasing told an entrepreneur group that unless he knew them personally they would never get a contract with the State of SC. That's how business really works.

maxweber says

I reckon that suggests housing is not at bottom since money supply is drying up and the bulk of the “new” money is going into black hole accounts.

That's exactly where the TARP money went, into the "black hole" to balance out the toxic loans the banksters are holding. All those Kool-Aid drinkers (I Love My Government) were duped into thinking it was designed to increase liquidity in order to get the economy moving again, when in fact, it was nothing other than a pay-back for all the banksters & Wall Street thugs misdeeds. What’s worse is that both parties were complicit in this illegal transfer of wealth.

SF ace says

Google only looks at resume with a minimum 3.5 GPA at a stanford level institution regardless of experience, otherwise, forget about it.

I have a dozen friends at google, including one of the founding engineers. I can assure that is not the case, a few of them never attended college at all.

Google management is not stupid. They're after talent, regardless of formal education level.

Feb. 1st, 2013

Once we get past Dec. 2012 it's a new world baby! Whether you believe that the Mayans used Microsoft Exchange (EOL=12/21/2012) or not the lifting of that psychological vial will have some positive effect on housing. We will also be just over 4yrs out from August (Sept. for those that want to ignore what was happening in the month before the fall) 2008. 4yrs is a good timeframe for starting to forget the past.

tarkin says

Feb. 1st, 2013
Once we get past Dec. 2012 it’s a new world baby! Whether you believe that the Mayans used Microsoft Exchange (EOL=12/21/2012) or not the lifting of that psychological vial will have some positive effect on housing. We will also be just over 4yrs out from August (Sept. for those that want to ignore what was happened the month before the fall) 2008. 4yrs is a good timeframe for starting to forget the past.

And, most importantly, we would likely have a brand-new US president!

Fisk says

we would likely have a brand-new US president!

because the republicans did such a good job 2001-2008?

Good job destroying the country.

What a fucking clown you are.

Fisk says

How has O measured to FDR so far?

FDR was willing to go hammer & tongs against his opponents. He also had IMMENSE -- and secure -- majorities in the Congress, not this 60% shit in the Senate that was chock full of DINOs like Lieberman and Baucus.

Democrats went from 39 Senate / 164 House in 1928 to a 48/217 (perfectly even) split in 1930 to a 59 / 311 majority in 1932 and even larger 69 / 322 mandate after 1934.

BHO is slightly reticent and I think he understands that his skin color and "community organizer" history and the general media environment make it difficult for him to be anything close to the class fighter of FDR's calibre. FDR could be FDR just like "only Nixon could go to China".

Obama didn't have the congressional support he needed (in the Senate), given the weak and unsteady majorities his party received in 2008. We lost a lot of the DINOs in conservative districts this election and for the most part I'm going to miss them because they at least voted better than their Republican replacements will. The conservative bloc in this country is not going away off into that good night like it did in 1933-37. They're doubling down on the crazy, instead. FDR also had the cushion of the party loyalty of all the racist fuckheads in the south, the Dems have lost these guys and have since the Nixon realignment of 1972.

Fisk says

What you seem to forget about FDR is that he wasn’t at all shy about using the US military for what it does best

And what you seem to forget is that FDR maneuvered the US's enemies into initiating hostilities first. Preemptive war has a way of backfiring on its perpetrators. Just ask Hitler.

Troy says

And what you seem to forget is that FDR maneuvered the US’s enemies into initiating hostilities first. Preemptive war has a way of backfiring on its perpetrators. Just ask Hitler.

Exactly. But he abundantly used those opportunities when presented.
US adversaries do more than enough "initiating", and, had FDR been president instead of the other (D)s in 1968 and 1979, we would most likely not be faced today with intractable problems in (1) N. Korea and (2) Iran. Because of (1) Pueblo incident and (2) embassy hostage situation. Both were world-class casus belli that were wasted.

Fisk says

Both were world-class casus belli that were wasted.

You really don't know WTF you're talking about. FDR already had a similar casus belli to the Pueblo, it was the Reuben James in Oct 1941 with Hitler and the Panay in 1937.

Casus belli for real war is shit like the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.

Fisk says

Troy says

And what you seem to forget is that FDR maneuvered the US’s enemies into initiating hostilities first. Preemptive war has a way of backfiring on its perpetrators. Just ask Hitler.

Exactly. But he abundantly used those opportunities when presented.

US adversaries do more than enough “initiating”, and, had FDR been president instead of the other (D)s in 1968 and 1979, we would most likely not be faced today with intractable problems in (1) N. Korea and (2) Iran. Because of (1) Pueblo incident and (2) embassy hostage situation. Both were world-class casus belli that were wasted.

You are both totally clueless. FDR was irrelevant to either the German or Japanese war plans. Attack NK in 1968 in the middle of the Vietnam war? Terrific plan. How exactly did we plan on not fighting the Chinese after invading NK again. Ever hear of the Korean war? How would Korean war II work out any better? Run an invasion force up the Persian Gulf right through the Straight of Hormuz. Great plan. Military genius at work. Do you guys have absolutely any knowledge about military history or planning at all? Amazing.

bob2356 says

Fisk says

Troy says

And what you seem to forget is that FDR maneuvered the US’s enemies into initiating hostilities first. Preemptive war has a way of backfiring on its perpetrators. Just ask Hitler.

Exactly. But he abundantly used those opportunities when presented.
US adversaries do more than enough “initiating”, and, had FDR been president instead of the other (D)s in 1968 and 1979, we would most likely not be faced today with intractable problems in (1) N. Korea and (2) Iran. Because of (1) Pueblo incident and (2) embassy hostage situation. Both were world-class casus belli that were wasted.

You are both totally clueless. FDR was irrelevant to either the German or Japanese war plans. Attack NK in 1968 in the middle of the Vietnam war? Terrific plan. How exactly did we plan on not fighting the Chinese after invading NK again. Ever hear of the Korean war? How would Korean war II work out any better? Run an invasion force up the Persian Gulf right through the Straight of Hormuz. Great plan. Military genius at work. Do you guys have absolutely any knowledge about military history or planning at all? Amazing.

Yes. I guess FDR had none either, nor unfortunately had an opportunity to retain your services. Else he would have sure concluded that:
1. Getting involved in Europe in the middle of war with Japan? Insane.
2. Sending a fleet with hardly any fighter cover against Jap. carrier force at Midway? Criminal.
3. A bombing raid on Tokyo with no way to return to the carrier? Madness.
4. Running an invasion force up English Channel in front of German artillery, on the beaches strenuously fortified over 4 years? Are you off your meds?

It's truly a sad commentary on modern America that the starving NK hamlet appears a more formidable enemy than Japan in 1941 that owned nearly all Pacific and could attack on the US territory at will, while the "great and proud Iranian nation" of A-jad (with the highest achievement of possibly copying over 20 years what we did 70 years ago in 4 years, and using our stolen technology and parts) is mightier than Germany in control of about all Europe and largely Atlantic up to the US shores in addition.

Fisk says

is mightier than Germany in control of about all Europe and largely Atlantic up to the US shores in addition

the question is not whether we could win, but with what means, and what the afterwar would be like.

You can't wipe out 70M people without some boomerang effects.

That was what tied our hands in Vietnam, too. Escalation is a two-way street. Never be the first to escalate.

Troy says

You can’t wipe out 70M people without some boomerang effects.

I don't want them to be wiped out, even if we could. Not any more than 80 mln. Germans. I want them to be invaded and occupied, then:

Watch all Khomeini portraits in the trash heaps and a few of their sacred ayatollahs and VEVAK and Rev. guards bosses publicly tried
as in Nuremberg and decapitated on the gallows a la Saddam and his henchmen
Military, Rev. guards, and basij disbanded and outlawed, as in Germany after WWII
All military, MIC, and nuclear facilities destroyed or removed
New secular constitution, laws, and govt. instituted and islam removed from public sphere and educational institutions
Rabid nationalistic and antisemitic propaganda banned, again as in Germany after WWII
Regime crimes widely aired and repudiated
Political prisoners released, rehabilitated, and compensated
"Forcibly convert them all into christianity" (C, Ann Coulter). Just kidding :-), some modicum of liberal democracy would be fine.

New secular Iran be a friend and ally of US and perhaps NATO member, such as Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.

^ Ok, that's entirely on the model of our postwar WW2 successes.

The problem was though that Iraq was the same neocon fever dream -- let's go in and liberate these people.

Sometimes people don't want to be liberated, and the history between the US and Iran really isn't all that hot, what with our previous interventions in the 20th century and support of a dictator guy they really didn't like.

The problem with intervention in these cases is that everybody you kill just creates 10-20 more resistance fighters.

This was the dynamic in Vietnam and Iraq, and this cycle of violence is still going on in Afghanistan.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/05/military_afghanistan_civilian_casualties_053010w/

Fisk says

Troy says

You can’t wipe out 70M people without some boomerang effects.

I don’t want them to be wiped out, even if we could. Not any more than 80 mln. Germans. I want them to be invaded and occupied, then:
New secular Iran be a friend and ally of US and perhaps NATO member, such as Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.

While your ideas seem fine and well-intentioned, you seem to forget an important fundamental problem:
Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are ALL fronts for Chinese aggression against the strategic interests of the United States.

The PRC has been at war against the US for several decades on several fronts - and they have cultivated not only proxy regimes in those countries, but have also cultivated enough 5th columnists (media, academics, policy, business and political) within the US whose short-term personal interests are leveraged at the expense of long-term US strategic interest. This has been going on so long that the ONLY people who don't recognize it are the American sheeple who are drinking Brawndo (tm) and watching 'Reality' TV while their future is being sold out from under their fat asses.

native94027 says

Fisk says

Troy says

You can’t wipe out 70M people without some boomerang effects.

I don’t want them to be wiped out, even if we could. Not any more than 80 mln. Germans. I want them to be invaded and occupied, then:
New secular Iran be a friend and ally of US and perhaps NATO member, such as Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.

While your ideas seem fine and well-intentioned, you seem to forget an important fundamental problem:
Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are ALL fronts for Chinese aggression against the strategic interests of the United States.
The PRC has been at war against the US for several decades on several fronts - and they have cultivated not only proxy regimes in those countries, but have also cultivated enough 5th columnists (media, academics, policy, business and political) within the US whose short-term personal interests are leveraged at the expense of long-term US strategic interest. This has been going on so long that the ONLY people who don’t recognize it are the American sheeple who are drinking Brawndo ™ and watching ‘Reality’ TV while their future is being sold out from under their fat asses.

I think this is way to simplistic, and frankly resembles the stories of "zionist conspiracy to control the world".
NK is on its face a PRC client since its birth, though not exactly a puppet. Islamic Iran and Pakistan came into being with no PRC effort whatsoever and are by no means proxies, though they coooperate on some things. The main binder between Paki and PRC is shared animosity to India rather than anything to do with US, but PRC is extremely concerned about the growing Islamic insurgency and terrorism in its turkish-populated Western regions (Urumchi etc.) and thus quite leary of fundamentalist islamic movements and states. Historically, Paki has been a US client far more than that of PRC, at least until a couple years ago.

Anyhow, my point re: Iran holds regardless of the degree of friendship between them and PRC.

Fisk says

Yes. I guess FDR had none either, nor unfortunately had an opportunity to retain your services. Else he would have sure concluded that:
1. Getting involved in Europe in the middle of war with Japan? Insane.
2. Sending a fleet with hardly any fighter cover against Jap. carrier force at Midway? Criminal.
3. A bombing raid on Tokyo with no way to return to the carrier? Madness.
4. Running an invasion force up English Channel in front of German artillery, on the beaches strenuously fortified over 4 years? Are you off your meds?

It’s truly a sad commentary on modern America that the starving NK hamlet appears a more formidable enemy than Japan in 1941 that owned nearly all Pacific and could attack on the US territory at will, while the “great and proud Iranian nation” of A-jad (with the highest achievement of possibly copying over 20 years what we did 70 years ago in 4 years, and using our stolen technology and parts) is mightier than Germany in control of about all Europe and largely Atlantic up to the US shores in addition.

Your knowledge of history seems to be cursory at best.
We weren't in the middle of a war with Japan. We put most of America's resources into Europe first. The pacific war was secondary for well over a year.
We had full knowledge of Japanese ship movements during the battles of Midway. The Japanese had 4 carriers to the Americans 3, America actually had more aircraft.
Doolittle's force had made arrangements to land in China. They thought they were discovered and launched early putting the original landing areas out of range.
Again thanks to reading the enemies coded messages the Normandy invasion was a known entity.

Fisk says

I don’t want them to be wiped out, even if we could. Not any more than 80 mln. Germans. I want them to be invaded and occupied,

I'm not hearing an practical suggestions on how to make it possible for America to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran. Do I hear the words military draft? How about tax increase to pay for it? How about the word rationing, especially since we will most certainly lose a big chunk of our oil supply?

bob2356 says

Your knowledge of history seems to be cursory at best.
We weren’t in the middle of a war with Japan. We put most of America’s resources into Europe first. The pacific war was secondary for well over a year.

: ) This is not entirely true. The Army and USAAF didn't really have much to do other than expand its ranks and train up for the first two years of the war. We knocked over N Africa, Sicily, and S Italy, but these were the low-hanging fruits in Europe. The Big Game was Normandy, and we put that off for a year, partially because we were having so much fun in the Pacific.

The Navy was given its head to do what it could in the Pacific and we were committed to parallel tracks.

Of course, the entire economy was devoted to these two completely separate wars. Perhaps a similar full-scale devotion to paying down the debt would also work well.

Imagine an economy where we had to export everything we made : )

bob2356 says

I’m not hearing an practical suggestions on how to make it possible for America to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran. Do I hear the words military draft? How about tax increase to pay for it? How about the word rationing, especially since we will most certainly lose a big chunk of our oil supply?

Sure:

1. No draft needed. "Foreign legion" a la Francaise - the best solution to solve both our military manpower needs (within constrained budgets) and illegal immigration problem. Any illegal, otherwise meeting the enlistment requirements, can enlist for a period of 5 years and get a green card for self and immediate family after honorable service for that time or first major combat wound. Others to be subject to much more severe enforcement (as per the AZ law) ending in inevitable deportation.
Let's count: ~15 M illegals in the US, of which ~3 M in the 18 - 30 age group. Of those ~50% (actually, a bit more) are males, so 1.5 M. Let's say only 1/3 enlist, that's 500 K available manpower. Some women can enlist too, so say total of 600 K. All get just the basic wage, no 100 K contractors and 50 K bonuses as in Iraq. So should be not that expensive.

With another ~200 K from regular existing forces (preferably those withdrawn from Iraq with relevant experience), that would be 800 K or 5 times what we had in Iraq at the surge peak. Should suffice, I think.

If not, can bring some more enlistees from South America, Russia etc. under the same program. This is not a one-time thing: by still being a top immigration destination for aspirants from 3rd-world nations, most of which are young men, USA has an essentially UNLIMITED reserve of military manpower that anyone save China can't match.

2. Lose a big chunk of oil supply by taking over the 2nd-biggest world oil exporter? :-)
An invasion of Iran would naturally start from Iraqi territory and/or landings from the gulf, where most Iranian oil wells and facilities are close to the Iraqi border and/or the shore. Those should naturally be commandeered to supply oil to the US without charge, thus greatly expanding rather than contracting our supply. Some peace-loving Iran-coddling countries in Europe that presently feed on that supply would suffer though - that would be an added benefit. But we can nicely sell some to them to cover other expenses, provided of course that they support the whole thing at least verbally.

That's what we should have done in Iraq - I still can't figure why we didn't and that truly is an unexcusable blunder of Bush and his presidency.
USA as an OPEC member - wouldn't that be nice for a change? :-)

Fisk says

With another ~200 K from regular existing forces (preferably those withdrawn from Iraq with relevant experience), that would be 800 K or 5 times what we had in Iraq at the surge peak. Should suffice, I think.

So we will invade and occupy a country as large as the entire US east of the Mississippi river with a population of 70 million people with 800k troops. Do you actually own a map of the middle east? Iraq is 1/4 the size of Iran. Plus entire Iraq population of of 30 million (one third of the size of Iran if you don't count the Kurds who were on our side) is in a narrow band alongside the Tigris and Euphrates rivers making it effectively a much much smaller country than even that. I really want some of what you are smoking.

IFisk says

Lose a big chunk of oil supply by taking over the 2nd-biggest world oil exporter? :-)
An invasion of Iran would naturally start from Iraqi territory and/or landings from the gulf, where most Iranian oil wells and facilities are close to the Iraqi border and/or the shore. Those should naturally be commandeered to supply oil to the US without charge, thus greatly expanding rather than contracting our supply.

How do you propose to transport this oil? The straights of hormuz are over 1000 miles from the Iraqi border. It took 4 weeks to get to Baghdad less than half that distance. The world would not be too pleased to have the straights closed for 8 weeks while the US army fights it's way there. Again you keep ignoring the small fact that if there is any threat at all (aka one single cruise missile anywhere in Iran) tankers are NOT going through. No ships captain is going to ride a giant floating bomb through a war zone. If nothing else the insurance carriers will cancel their policies. I suppose the US navy could just commander the tankers and sail them. This would of course be piracy since there are no US flagged supertankers. Details like international law don't seem to be of concern to you however.

Are you actually serious with this stuff or are you just pulling everyone's chain?

Fisk says

That’s what we should have done in Iraq - I still can’t figure why we didn’t and that truly is an unexcusable blunder of Bush and his presidency.

That was the plan -- putting Chalabi and his secular shia INC in power as buddies.

The non-secular shia had other ideas. You can review the tape for how that devolved.

I knew going in the Iraqis were going to carbomb our asses during the occupation, though I didn't foresee the success they'd have with IEDs.

People like you were scratching their heads wondering why 500,000 troops in SVN wasn't enough to secure the country. The cold hard fact is that there can be no security for you or your friends when 20-30% of the native population hates your guts.

As demonstrated thousands of times in Vietnam 1960-1970, and often in Iraq, it is impossible to guarantee the security of a friendly village headman. Just one security slip-up, and the terrorists will take him out. Asymmetry is a bitch.

Fisk says

USA as an OPEC member - wouldn’t that be nice for a change?

AFAICT part of the compulsion to take Saddam out was knowledge that once he was out of his sanctions box his oil production and wider economy would be opened to the French and Russian interests that bankrolled him in the 80s and still owned the debt.

Plus of course Saddam's intense dislike for the US & UK for our smacking him around in the 90s like we did.

So, to any extent we opened up Iraq's oil to US-friendly interests taking Saddam out was worth it. To the PtB, not necessarily to the poor US schmucks who have to actually pay for this war eventually.

Troy says

So, to any extent we opened up Iraq’s oil to US-friendly interests taking Saddam out was worth it.

So Troy, you're in favor of invading sovereign nations for the purpose of securing oil for "US-friendly interests"? Do you have any other countries on your hit list?

Troy says

Fisk says

That’s what we should have done in Iraq - I still can’t figure why we didn’t and that truly is an unexcusable blunder of Bush and his presidency.

That was the plan — putting Chalabi and his secular shia INC in power as buddies.
The non-secular shia had other ideas. You can review the tape for how that devolved.
I knew going in the Iraqis were going to carbomb our asses during the occupation, though I didn’t foresee the success they’d have with IEDs.
People like you were scratching their heads wondering why 500,000 troops in SVN wasn’t enough to secure the country. The cold hard fact is that there can be no security for you or your friends when 20-30% of the native population hates your guts.
As demonstrated thousands of times in Vietnam 1960-1970, and often in Iraq, it is impossible to guarantee the security of a friendly village headman. Just one security slip-up, and the terrorists will take him out. Asymmetry is a bitch.

This raises an interesting question: why the US occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII had met absolutely no resistance, though the number of US troops was comparable and even smaller in relative terms: 1.9 M over the whole Europe at the peak in summer 1945 and much less by 1946 - 47, and far fewer in Japan. Not that Nazis or Japs were any less fanatical than Vietkong or Iraqis, probably the other way around looking at how Iraqi troops have typically surrendered in mass after showing only token resistance.

Is that because those countries were much more monocultural, socially advanced, and cohesive than Iraq, and had at least some previous experience with democracy? If so, Iran may be closer to them than to Iraq.
Or is that because US has assumed a credibly firm no-compromise position upfront, such that any resistance would have no chance of causing US withdrawal but only bring massive hardship on those resisting? In this context, the presently available N. Vietnam documents and testimonies showing that they have closely followed the development of anti-war movement in the US and often placed more hopes on it than on their own armed struggle is quite revealing. If we had such movement here in WWII, who knows how would that have ended.

Prices are rising in San Fran Bay Area ??? Really ??? Well, perhaps San Rafael, Novato and points just north are the exception then and not reflective of that healthy Bay Area Real Estate market I keep reading on these posts.. By my rough calcs, I think we're at about 2002 prices.. When all the BS is over, we'll be back at 97-98 prices... about where we were before the great scam started and underwriting went out the window..

RayAmerica says

Troy says

So, to any extent we opened up Iraq’s oil to US-friendly interests taking Saddam out was worth it.

So Troy, you’re in favor of invading sovereign nations for the purpose of securing oil for “US-friendly interests”? Do you have any other countries on your hit list?

Nearly all present Iraqi oil fields were originally discovered, developed, and owned by "Iraqi Petroleum Company" (IPC), co-owned by several US and British oil companies. Those were expropriated by the Saddam regime and turned over to his newly formed National oil company.

I consider it perfectly OK and in fact necessary (if other options fail) to use the US military to protect the major US-owned assets abroad and return them to rightful US owners. Iraqis should be thrilled that the US, in its usual magnanimity wrto defeated enemies, has only insisted on US companies receiving contracts to operate some (not all) Iraqi oil fields with most revenue still going to Iraq. We could have just returned all fields previously belonging by IPC to its co-owners, and take other fields in recompense for all oil extracted from the first over 30+ years under Saddam.

Same, btw, applies to Iran and its oil fields similarly expropriated from US and British companies. If we continued to own all those (as well as those in Saudi Arabia etc.), we would be by far the largest world oil exporter and have no trade or budget deficit, while our adversaries in Islamic world would have no revenue to support their military buildup and terrorist activities. The US military can make it happen again, if our govt. so chooses. In this way, when talking of a "trillion-dollar war", it should be 1T on the positive side of the ledger.

Fisk says

Not that Nazis or Japs were any less fanatical than Vietkong or Iraqis, probably the other way around looking at how Iraqi troops have typically surrendered in mass after showing only token resistance.

The militarists in both Germany and Japan forced their nations into war and then failed to win that war, despite IMMENSE national sacrifice.

They were utterly discredited, especially in Japan with their thing about "face".

socially advanced, and cohesive than Iraq, and had at least some previous experience with democracy? If so, Iran may be closer to them than to Iraq.

Yes, having a semi-functioning democratic tradition to go back to certainly helped Germany and Japan.

But invading Iran to see how much they like being liberated is a bit too much of a gamble for me. . . how about finding some other sucker country to fight your neocon interventions for you? Maybe China is up to it.

the presently available N. Vietnam documents and testimonies showing that they have closely followed the development of anti-war movement in the US and often placed more hopes on it than on their own armed struggle is quite revealing. If we had such movement here in WWII, who knows how would that have ended.

We lost the Vietnam War because they were kicking our ass on the ground (not in absolute terms but they were quite happy with any 1:10 exchange they could get on us because they were fighting the long war and we weren't).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_FSB_Mary_Ann

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fire_Support_Base_Ripcord

The NVN didn't make war on us, we attacked them. That was the crucial difference between WW2 and Vietnam. And WW2 and OIF, for that matter.

Troy says

We lost the Vietnam War because they were kicking our ass on the ground (not in absolute terms but they were quite happy with any 1:10 exchange they could get on us because they were fighting the long war and we weren’t).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_FSB_Mary_Ann
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fire_Support_Base_Ripcord
The NVN didn’t make war on us, we attacked them. That was the crucial difference between WW2 and Vietnam. And WW2 and OIF, for that matter.

Here is a telling comment:

http://www.i-served.com/v-v-a-r.org/VietnamAndTheMedia_part07.html

Of the (US) peace movement, Bui Tin (the North Vietnamese official who accepted the surrender of Saigon) said, “It gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield losses…through dissent and protest, America lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.”

Do you think warfare is some morality tale and there is a G-d up there who always awards the victory to whoever was attacked and not the attacker, just because it so happened in WWII? In that case, CA, NV, NM, and TX would have belonged to Mexico and not US, and Spain should have captured FL in 1898 rather than US capturing Cuba and Philippines. Leave alone the conquest of Americas and utter annihilation of indian civilizations by European nations.

The Vietnam set-up was earily parallel to Korea, even wrto the North and South sides. But the Korean one has ended differently, in part perhaps because of McArthur vs. those who run the Vietnam thing, and in large part because in 1950 - 53 we had no "peace" movement and thus could effectively mobilize to (at least a measure of) victory.

The main driver behind the 1960-s peace movement was, of course, not ideology or moral considerations but unwillingness to submit to draft. That is the main reason why OIF and continued Iraq and Afganistan ops encounter no major grass-roots public resistance at home, which has allowed time to see at least Iraq to an apparent modicum of success. Any operation wrto Iran or similar should avoid instituting the draft by all means possible, too.

a great reason for compusery service .. it avoids all the draft and sissy-la-la bull crap.
Combat roles will be filled by those who were born warriors. Women and non-combative males serve support roles. Works well to build partiotism (or whatever you call it). The Hebrews do it and it works. They do most things right and better than us.

kmoday722 says

Prices are rising in San Fran Bay Area ??? Really ??? Well, perhaps San Rafael, Novato and points just north are the exception then and not reflective of that healthy Bay Area Real Estate market I keep reading on these posts.. By my rough calcs, I think we’re at about 2002 prices.. When all the BS is over, we’ll be back at 97-98 prices… about where we were before the great scam started and underwriting went out the window..

Agreed....

another news bite...

Job creation lags as fewer businesses are launched
The number of companies launched in the 12 months that ended March 31 declined by 2% compared with the year before, according to the Labor Department. The drop in company launches, which are important to job creation and productivity gains, was the second worst in 18 years, the worst being the 3.4% drop in the previous year. The Wall Street Journal (11/18)

Prices in the north bay are still dropping back to the trend lines...

Sonoma -6.60%
Napa -14.7%
Marin -2.8%

Bay Area Home Sales Fall Sharply; Median Price Dips Below Last Year
November 18, 2010
http://www.dqnews.com/Articles/2010/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay101118.aspx

Round two of knocking off speculators/flippers and so called "all cash" buyers will certainly be interesting to watch!