patrick.net

Brioche is a happy compromise between the two.

Rich Man's Brioche for everyone!

The want to starve troops in Iraq but they are going to help stupid, clueless homedebtors who did not bother to read fineprints?

In a politician's mind:

Stupid, clueless homedebtors = sizable chunk of the regularly voting and contributing 69% "owner" electorate. Therefore, their opinions (however uninformed) count.

Sleazy mtg. brokers, banksters & Wall Street = massive campaign contributors, also providing lots of expensive vacations fact-finding junkets for lawmakers. Therefore, their opinions count.

Troops = Tiny fraction of electorate that can be expected to dependably vote "conservative" (whatever that's supposed to mean these days), and can safely be ignored, except when photo ops are needed for re-election.

JBRs and responsible savers = Outnumbered, disenfranchised powerless underclass that can be safely ignored at all times.

Peter P,

That's true. Short term, both a bailout and stricter oversight of the mtg industry would be just what the doctor ordered. A bailout would likely highlight increased risk and drive up risk premiums, while the oversight would tighten lending standards. But as you point out, this would be yet another nail in the coffin for America's consumer-driven economy.

astrid Says:

> The Democrats and a growing number of Republicans
> want to get American troops out of the dangerous quagmire
> that is Iraq.

The Democrats and Moderate Republicans may “want” to get the troops out of Iran, but they are so afraid that they will lose votes from the gung ho “let’s kick some towlhead ass/America should not cut and run” members of both parties that are not really “doing” anything to get them home (They are a lot like Casey Serin who “wants” to avoid forclosure, but does not actually “do” anything to stop it). Democrats and Moderate Republicans are just making a lot of noise to try and make their left leaning voters happy while the nutball right wing Republicans charge ahead “trying to make the world safe for Democracy” (not knowing that Casey Serin had a better chance of avoiding foreclosure than we do making Iraq safe for Democracy)…

I don't get the joke about premature withdrawl, but I would advocate more modern birth control techniques.

"and will keep renting out at a loss indefinitely"

So far, so good! :)

Brioche is a happy compromise between the two.

Let them eat cake.

See, cake and the subprime mess are married.

Justme Says:
"As you can tell, I’m trying to make he point that a “free market” very often is not the best solution to a problem. Regulation is key, and it applies to many markets, both purely economic ones and a few other ones. "

The general thought is that regulation and a free market don't go together. I believe contemporary schools of thought recognize that a free market simply means government does not attempt to influence the free movement of prices or attempt to stifle competition. Government through social policy and regulation may put constraints on activity, but free markets can thrive within the constraints of even highly regulated industries.

FAB,

I don't know where you checked, but there aren't too many of those people in the Democratic party nowadays, except maybe a couple of worthless DLCers (I distrusted them since 1996). Don't blame me, I loathed Bush before he won the Republican Primaries in 2000 and know Iraq was going to be horrible as soon as it was mentioned.

Not that anyone ever listens.

Sometimes, I think I should change my middle name to Cassandra.

Peter, are we considered commoners for liking cake?

"I don’t get the joke about premature withdrawl,"

Then you are a very lucky woman, Astrid

Peter, are we considered commoners for liking cake?

I afraid so.

Well, I guess some people don't know what they are missing.

Of course, once man has become wildly successful and tamed the environment, evolutionary pressure decreases — when the environment no longer presents a challenge, biological evolution slows down. However, there is a further social stratification process that tends to select for intelligence, for instance.

DS,

I'm not 100% sure that evolution has actually "slowed down". The same biological mechanisms most responsible for producing evolution in the past (genetic mutations, reproduction/sexual selection) are still very much in play. I just think it's possible that today's high-tech/predator-free environment is producing a very different set of factors that determine evolutionary success. Consider: Idiocracy

Huh? Cake or [apparently bad sex]?

I like layered cake. It looks very happy.

Vanilla bean cake, mmm

Harm, in your opinion will the population just become increasingly stratified with a troglite class, or will the human race itself collapse because of the lack of predators to clean the gene pool? Or will humanity sustain itself through technology as a hypochondriac race? Will humanity decay to become nothing but subprime borrowers?

Vanilla bean anything is good.

Vanilla bean can be used in savory dishes like fish.

HARM said: Consider: Idiocracy

Was anyone else disappointed with the movie? I thought the idea was very good and they could have done a lot with it, but it was very light and unsatisfying overall.

Cake, sex it's the same part of the brain.

lack of predators to clean the gene pool?

Perhaps predatory lending will clean up the gene pool.

Excellent sleeper movie "The Hoax". Not an action movie but so interesting it kept my focus.

DQ numbers are out for the Bay Area:

http://www.dqnews.com/RRBay0407.shtm

Looks like more of the same.

No, Congress needs a dirty gene pool for its own purposes. Nothing like masses of voter blocks tantalized by shiny things.

What will happen with evolution is unpredictable. There might an epidemic and the human population after that might be dominated by those who survive it.

In the absence of that, evolution will proceed as usual. Which males are healthy enough to live and are considered desirable by women will have many kids and so on.

What do you guys think about savory pastries?

That NYT "rent vs. buy" calculator is good, however, it doesn't include a scenario where you rent until prices stabilize and THEN buy in which case everything changes. No one really knows how long they are going to be living in a house, life throws a curve ball once in a while.

The bottom line is (and it doesn't even matter if renting costs get more expensive than buying costs) it will not be a good time to buy until prices stabilize. Prices are so far from the fundamentals and are losing the support that got them there. Prices have to not only stop falling, but they have to rise with inflation; this is the true bottom. If prices just stop falling, they can stay there for a decade or longer which means they are still falling in real value (with inflation).

I think after the steep fall, people are going to be very careful about throwing money at real estate like they recently were. I think it's probably going to take a decade or so to absorb all the inventory out there; so my prediction is that after prices stop falling nominally, they will just go sideways for a long time, at which point it is a good time to look for foreclosures.

One would think, but the people who seem to propogate don't seem to me to be the fittest or brightest.

What do you guys think about savory pastries?

I love the stuff. Tommy Toy's in SF has a "signature" Lobster Bisque pastry that's very good. South American meat pies are also very good.

"What do you guys think about savory pastries?"

I'm in favor of them.

Instead of Congress forcing the taxpayer maybe they should fine Yahoo and Google ... after all they are providing false and misleading advertising.

Just off Yahoo 5 min. ago... Is this a fixed rate 30 yr loan?
Of coarse not..
Plenty of Yahoo and Google Cash swimming on the
balance sheet. They can bail out the power slobs who got ripped off.

"$300,000 mortgage for $875/mo
Secured financing for your future. Lower payments/increase cash flow with Quicken Loans."

"Indicators of market distress are moving in different directions."

That's a new line for DataQuick.

Which males are healthy enough to live and are considered desirable by women will have many kids and so on.

That ain't so. Inferior male will have kids with inferior females just for the welfare checks before they are incarcerated.

The process is anti-evolutionary. It repeats over and over again before the world is dominated by inferior people.

I love the stuff. Tommy Toy’s in SF has a “signature” Lobster Bisque pastry that’s very good.

Most excellent!!!

"Perhaps predatory lending will clean up the gene pool"

We can always hope can't we?

I just keep trying to figure out who the "winners" in all of this might be? At the rate we're going, those that bought in 2003 will be under water shortly. Outside of a few select areas of the BA (or streets/homes) net of commissions you're bringing money to the closing, *not from. Unless FB paid MEW cash for that Harley (or elective surgery) and keeps it out of the BK it was just one "great while it lasted" wild ride?

Allah says:
If prices just stop falling, they can stay there for a decade or longer which means they are still falling in real value (with inflation).

IMO overall a good post for discussion. A slightly different perspective because price really only matters when buying or selling, what it does inbetween doesn't really matter. The intrinsic value is what you would otherwise rent it for, so if rents (almost by natural law rise with cost of living) even if the value of your house stays flat for a long period, its value to you rises in proportion to the rental market. My concern with some of what I read here is people think there will be a crater and they will then emulate the prior flipper generation. You need to spot value, not just a huge movement in price, and I can tell you foreclosure auctions, and sealed bids can be a good place, but auctions tend to mirror the general market as a benchmark.

One would think, but the people who seem to propogate don’t seem to me to be the fittest or brightest.

That's a common fallacy of evolutionary thought. Being the fittest or brightest is only important in getting you to the point where you can procreate and pass on your genetic material. Then, your genetic material must be able to survive to continue the cycle of procreation, ie, raising a kid to the point of passing on their genes.

The interesting fallout from this idea is that diseases and conditions that affect adults have relatively small evolutionary pressure. Heart disease, late-life cancer, even a penchant for gambling, suicide, or bad financial habits (read FB) have little impact. Our society amplifies this by creating a social support system (welfare) for those who can't do it on their own.

A classic example of this phenomenon in medicine is Huntington's Disease, a fatal neurologic movement disorder that doesn't present until mid-adulthood. By then, you've passed that genetic material to the next generation. Genetic counseling has changed that a bit, though.

Hence, "premature withdrawl" indeed is not only relevant here, but a major issue! :)

“Indicators of market distress are moving in different directions.”

That’s a new line for DataQuick.

lunarpark,

I noticed that one too. It's spin, IMO. All indicators are pointing towards bad. The one that is being spun as positive is that "financing with adjustable-rate mortgages is declining significantly." Well, Mr. Prentice you genius, that's because of the subprime implosion. If anything, it's the fallout of SEVERE market distress!

Re Evolution in modern society...

In our not to distant past (say, 1 million years ago up to about 1900s)

Educated and relatively wealthy individuals see that giving a lot of their resources to a small number of children will vastly increase that child's chances of being highly successful. A small number of highly invested children will generate a high chance of genes successfully passing on into the next generation. So few kids (but possibly many disavowed illigitmate children from the rich dads.), but very successful ones. Dividing a very large investment noticibly decreases each kids chances, so it pays to have a few highly invested kids. Even sultans with dozens of wives and swarms of kids only had one heir, and probably one or two backups. Dividing your kingdom amongst your kids is a sure way to have those smaller kingdoms gobbled up by non-divided kingdoms.

Poorly educated and, well, just poor indivuduals have nothing to invest in a child to increase its chances of being successful. At that point, a large number of children raises the chances of genes passing successfully into future generations. Have kids like crazy so you have spares when they drown/get worked to death/etc. Dividing the initial investment of 'not much' by 1/8th doesn't measurable chance their chances.

In today's society, there is little chance that ANY person, regardless of initial investment, will not survive to reproduce. So instinctive kid spewing by poor people and small families by rich people no longer makes any sort of evolutionary sense, but we still tend to do it because it made sense for so long.