patrick.net

oh, that's what Peter P said ;)

As to caveat emptor- if the people profiting were ultimately the ones assuming the risk and paying for the fall out I’d agree, but we know that won’t be the case. With the secondary market for mortgages was there ever any incentive to keep things on the up and up? No, the socialization of risk has perverted the system.

Yes. This brings me back to one of my favorite themes: Socialize Risk, Privatize Profit. Otherwise know as the "reverse Robin Hood". Mortgage brokers, banksters, REITs and MBS issuing firms are the biggest Social-ists on the planet --but only in one direction.

Death to Fannie Mae, death to Freddie Mac, and death to Alan Greedspan (and his "legacy").

Don’t I have *some right* to expect that the people who are legally employed as market “professionals” behave in a marginally professional and lawful way (i.e, not trying to anally rape me at every opportunity)?

Come to think of it, isn't that what so-called 'professionals' do as well? Think legal fees, medical salaries, and so on... It's just that they've managed to institute it better...

(Although my contacts with RE agents and rent managers over the last couple of years suggests they're rude, immoral, arrogant and indifferent -- kind of what happens if you let inarticulate schoolyard bullies who barely graduated from HS fixated at Stage 2 of Kohlberg's moral reasoning model rule the roost -- the worst offenders are a chain called 'The Professionals' of all things...)

(Of course, when I wonder aloud, the echoes of accusations of Trotskyism reverberate for aeons through the halls of patrick…)

:-) Well, I'm not really in favor of more government housing subsidies --quite the contrary actually. But I believe we could use a lot more of the "right" kind of regulation. As in, better aligning risks and rewards, and jailing people for committing outright fraud and market manipulation.

A mate of mine flew Egypt Air once, and the steward was a male, apparently something like Borat, who handed out inflight food as sandwiches from a plastic bucket. He emphatically declared 'No smoking!' to the whole flight, and went down the back, sat down, and proceeeded to light up a smoke, savouring every lungful with expansive gestures... I think it only got worse...

MANDATING the price of land and stopping profiteering and heading off booms is NOT a subsidy!

You cannot mandate the price of anything. Doing so will cause huge economic inefficiency.

@DS,

C'mon, now. Wouldn't you WANT to see Greedspan or D. Lereah in jail? I'd happily volunteer 1/2 of my net worth to see it happen right now.

HARM, stockbrokers are not fiduciaries either.

DS, don't be silly about claiming Trotsky as inspiration. Some of my best friends are Trotskyites. You're a Stalinist through and through.

Of course, if all else fails, govt subsidies are an option... I would take the subsidies out of the land tax levied on investment properties to help people get into the housing market. Therefore, you would be punishing landlords to give renters a chance at getting into their own housing... There's a risk and reward balance for you...

RE: MANDATING the price of land

What Peter P said.

George Bush is a Stalinist...

ok, huge economic 'inefficiency' from controlling the price of land in a sensible direction. and the entire pathology as pointed out in this thread of middlemen and corruption, of excessive land prices, of looming macro- and micro-economic disaster, of housholds cleaned out, is 'an EFFICIENT market'? When you put the wolves in charge of the flock? hmmm

DS,

Air France had a sale on business class tickets, so I bought them. They were $3000/each (I think the sale is till on, and it is good for flights through the end of the summer at least). That I can handle. The first class were about $7000 each at the time, I am way too cheap to buy those. Regular full fare economy were $1800, so the business class tickets were priced appropriately. I hate when they are 5x economy, then I am too cheap to buy them.

I would love an entirely premium economy airline.

I flew Air Turkey once (I got 99 pound round trip tickets London/Istanbul). It was filled with Borat types walking up and down the aisle smoking, people were getting stuff out of overhead bins during take offs and landings and they served cherry juice as the beverage. The stewardesses were these beautiful green eyed blond Turkish women who rolled their eyes at everyone and read fashion magazines the entire flight. Borat would have fit in with the other passengers beautifully.

SFWoman, I flew from Taiwan to Hong Kong last year. They managed to squeeze a full lunch on a 90-minute flight. I was NOT flying business or first.

I think only some airlines are bad.

Not for long they won't be. There's a whole bunch of discount asian airlines that are now finally really getting into the full swing of things.

They're at where RyanAir was many years ago. When they reach the RyanAir stage - watch out!

It's only a matter or time.

eburbed,

I flew British Midlands from London to Edinburgh once. They served lunch. It was simple, a sandwich, crisps and a beverage. The stewardess handed my husband the lunch box and he asked "What type of sandwich is it?' and she replied, 'Oh, it's cold lamb liver.' My husband said, 'Oh, I'm a vegetarian, do you have anything else?' (He's not, but that was an acceptable lie, IMHO). She gave him the cheese and Bransten pickle sandwich.

Who on earth thought, 'Hmmm, let's go with a sandwich everyone is sure to love. I know, cold slices of lamb's liver.'?

George Bush is a Stalinist...

How do you like being in the same camp then?

What can be expected of them other than promoting sales?

Not much --they are all salesmen. But when the guy from Morgan Stanley gets 10-20 for backdating a few stock options, while my local Realtwhore can go on stating "it never goes down" or "20% a year is in the bag" as FACT with NO repercussions, something is seriously F&#%ed up.

Fraudulent behavior is another issue and should be punished, but fraud is not what causes mass hysteria during market bubbles.

Partially disagree on this point. AG's 1%, risk-offloading via Fannie/Freddie and other government subsidies are what really got the ball rolling here --that much I agree with. But MASSIVE FRAUD and reckless speculation at all levels of the money chain at the very least hugely contributed to the enormous size and longevity of this bubble. And of course, let's not forget the look-the-other way, nod-nod/wink-wink complicity at all levels of government by our beloved "regulators".

There’s no saving someone from self destructive behavior.

True, but at least force the *idiot* or the *idiot's lender* to foot the bill for their stupidity --not me.

Who on earth thought, ‘Hmmm, let’s go with a sandwich everyone is sure to love. I know, cold slices of lamb’s liver.’?

I remember in grade school I always wondered why the British were out at sea looking for tea and spices.

And then I visited England and had a meat pie.

DS,

W isn't a Stalinist. I agree that he represses dissent and opposing viewpoints and tends toward dictatorship, but Stalin was just mad about communism, and I don't see W putting forward any ideas on doing much to spread the wealth to the common man.

Who is the guy with the orange Man Tan in the top left photo on this thread?

eburbed,

I have had good meat pies. I have also had bad meat pies. I like good cornish pasties.

England had great Indian food. I went to a couple of fantastic places in the East End. I actually ate well when I lived there.

Actually, the man looks like Shrek, but orange.

@SFWoman,

Hover your mouse over the photo and the identifying caption will show.

Not much –they are all salesmen. But when the guy from Morgan Stanley gets 10-20 for backdating a few stock options, while my local Realtwhore can go on stating “it never goes down” or “20% a year is in the bag” as FACT with NO repercussions, something is seriously F&#%ed up.

Backdating options is dramatically worse than just lying about stats. The victim, shareholders, aren't even there to defend themselves. That's outright theft.

Lying Realtors on the other hand at least have to have the chutzpah to tell you that "it always goes up".

I'm going to have to take the side of the drug dealers on this one: The Sheeple are to blame. They didn't have to buy the product.

Speaking of sheeple:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070125/hl_nm/rampant_consumerism_dc

From that piece:

James freely admits that interviewing the affluent in Sydney was a depressing job, calling it "the Dolly Parton of cities in Australia, the most vacuous."

I know next to nothing about Sydney - what's going on there??

@cruzpo & eburbed,

Perhaps that was a poor choice for direct comparison. How about hawking your own real estate to buyers w/out disclosing that the "seller" also happens to be a good "friend" who also happens to be a flip partner. Or presenting shill bids as real ones? Or running a scam where you use the identity of a homeless guy to buy multiple properties with big cash-backs, then split town?

Stockbrokers are also not allowed to provide rosy "guarantees" of stock appreciation, are they? When I see "Past performance is no guarantee of future results" across EVERY piece of Realtor propaganda, that's the day I'll change my mind.

Borat is actually more Turkish/near Eastern in character, it's a bit of a copy of this man, who should be demanding co-royalties... kazakhstanis are more asiatic in constitution, principally due to genghis khan...

I had never before noticed that David Lereah looks like Bob Saget.

cruzpo Says:
Greed, Keeping up with The Jones’s and ignorance have driven this real estate market on the buyers side. What can be expected of them other than promoting sales? Fraudulent behavior is another issue and should be punished, but fraud is not what causes mass hysteria during market bubbles.

Absolutely right. You can't attribute the housing boom we've seen in many countries to fraudulent or illegal activity -- that would mean that every inflationary transaction was somehow fraudulent. There have certainly been instances of fraud, and cashing in, and misrepresentation, but the boom has been driven by greed, fear, easy credit, and so on... a case where the 'invisible hand of the market' has certainly not operated in a constructive or healthy way...

eburbed Says:
I know next to nothing about Sydney - what’s going on there??

Next to nothing...

(that was the short answer ;) the long answer would be longer...)

HARM, do the 'cia1is' posts go to the moderation queue, or to the bit bucket? Don't want to retype :(

Eliza Says:

> Big “L” Libertarianism always strikes me as a bit
> solipsistic. How did so many people get that way?

Most Libertarians are self reliant, but they are not solipsists…

The world would be a much better place if we had more Libertarians (who take care of themselves and never blame anything on anyone else). As a kid I often blamed others for my problems. I think it was around the year that I struggled through Atlas Shrugged for the first time that I stopped blaming others and took full responsibility for everything that happens in my life…

P.S. Since Libertarians generally all have the “teach a man to fish” outlook on life they tend to be not only generous with their time and money but will actually “solve” problems…

Different Sean Says:

> George Bush is a Stalinist…

I’m betting that he would not agree with you (at least in a televised interview)…

Then SFWoman Says:

> DS, W isn’t a Stalinist. I agree that he represses
> dissent and opposing viewpoints and tends toward
> dictatorship

I’m no GW fan, but come on what does he do to actually “repress” opposing viewpoints. I just typed Bush and Idiot in to Google and got 1.8mm hits…

how many 'self-reliant' Libertarians rely on income from investment properties or jobs, paid by others? so-called big L Libertarians as put forward overlook the network of interdependencies that props them up...

e.g.
"Dr. Anna Yeatman rejects the traditional liberal theory, stemming from John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that individuals exist naturally and that the goal of the state must be to enable individuals to express their own nature.

"The individual isn't just already 'there'. A self-determining individual is a complex achievement on the part of government, society, and the individual. In this sense, the individual has to be made. There has to be an entire infrastructure of support that prompts, prods, and facilitates you to become a self-determining individual," Yeatman said."

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/polisci/news.cfm?story=19607

SFWoman Says:

> Who is the guy with the orange Man Tan
> in the top left photo on this thread?

He is Angelo R Mozilo the CEO of Countrywide.

He is smiling since he will soon make more than $100mm over a 5 year period (most of us would have a big smile if we made half that much)..

http://www.forbes.com/static/pvp2005/LIR7G33.html

P.S. What is the difference between an “Orange Man Tan” and the “Orange Glow” that “tanorexic” women have?

Alright, George W is a failed imperialist then... and a laissez-faireist...

I'm just playing here -- I wrote a reply to put this stalinist nonsense to bed, but it got sucked up into the moderation queue, so I'll take a moment to rewrite it if necessary. I know full well what Bush is, don't worry...

I’m no GW fan, but come on what does he do to actually “repress” opposing viewpoints.

One university where GWB was going to speak told their students that if anyone protested or did anything to upset the prez while he was there, they would be de-enrolled.

There is so much stage-management going on in politics it's not funny, overtly and covertly. There are assumptions and understandings and alliances and old boy networks that are played on, not to mention outright threats. Look how 'press conferences' are managed, or how journalists are 'embedded'. The so-called 'liberal media' is owned and managed by crony Republican interests more often than not. What about Ronald Reagan running press conferences at 200 yards remove? How does Bill O'Reilly handle opposing viewpoints?

Then there's Repub rottweilers like Coulter who was actually PAID to speak at the 'University' [sic] of Texas, and any protestors were arrested and charged for the slightest thing...

Punchbowl,

It's a gray area depending on your specific licensing but recent changes in securities law during Harvey Pitt's tenure have firmed fiduciary responsibility considerably. If you're a 7 AND 65 whichever has the higher fiduciary burden is the one that applies.

The CFP (TM) (CERTIFIED Financial Planner) community raised an unholy stink b/c a lot of 7's were putting "Financial Planner" or "Financial Consultant" on their business cards. They sued to get them off. Only the mighty wirehouses (Merrill, SSB) were able to keep them tied up in court while they MANDATED everyone have their 65 or CFP (TM) designation within ___ months/years of hire. This internally driven additional fiduciary burden was designed to render the CFP (TM) legal case obsolete!

For even MORE boring details see the broker forms at www.rrmag.com. Bill Singer is the recognized authority in registered representative/broker dealer law. The big difference between the NASD and NAR is that where the NASD is concerned you are presumed GUILTY until proven innocent. Securities litigation is enormously expensive so it's just too easy for the firm to CTC (cut the check) to the client and let the stockbroker go. Once your U-4 is in any way tainted you are considered "radioactive". No employer will even go near you.

HARM,

Excellent thread btw.

When we look at the actions yesterday coming from BofA and CitiGroup offering to re-fi over extended "loanowners" into fixed rate mortgages it really sends mixed signals.

Again it isn't my intent to lean to heavily on securities analogies but one of the cornerstones of securities law is that "I" (as a stockbroker) can *not* participate in your profit NOR cushion your loss! It's always been that way. Isn't BofA's actions kind of like saying "Oh, you're going to continue to incur margin calls with the stocks we sold you so why don't we "exchange" them for less volatile stocks, at no charge of course!"

WTF?

When you sign a margin account agreement you are certifying that you are able to COVER those calls. If you can't even cover ONE it's pretty obvious that you, your broker (or both) are fibbing.

To me (and I could be dead wrong here) this is being done by the banksters to forestall intensified scrutiny they saw us go through! I don't know if you guys are aware of this but stockbrokers went went from being the top of the financial services food chain to the absolute bottom. Too much easy money to be made elsewhere w/ 1/10th the hassle! You have no idea how many guys I know that have left the sec. business over the last 5 years specifically b/c of the scrutiny. Not that they had anything to hide, they just couldn't deal w/the whole "presumed guilty" attitude. You have to be able to justify virtually every decision you make THAT DAY! They can hold up your commissions for the SLIGHTEST paperwork infraction.

Unfortunately I think most people still have this "wild west" impression of the industry b/c they rented "Wall Street" w/Charlie Sheen (the 80's) or "Boiler Room" (the 90's) w/Vin Diesel.

Go to the NASD web-site and check out "Monthly Enforcement Actions". It's so bad (and so obvious) that a lot of these guys are more the victims of office politics than taking a client's money! It's such a witch hunt that dropping a dime on somebody to get "their book of clients" has never been easier!