patrick.net

Bruceb

I actually like your idea, though I'm not sure about the whole cult-leader part. But if there were ever a group of folks who could run the table it would be us here at Patrick.net. All it would take is about 50-75 of us willing to be active maybe once or twice a week, and we could move in and cause havoc with the whole cartoon "land" market. For example, one of the more nefarious ways to buy land is to intentionally devalue valuable land, then buy it and repackage it for sale to other clueless fools. To do this you either need unlimited money you're willing to risk, or a good sized group of collaborators.

Of course we could also just be a pain-in-the-ass group that would grab a fair amount of media attention from time to time. I'm not sure what that would accomplish besides a bit of dark side schadenfreude. But in that case I would propose something completely satirical and provoking like creating a Cult of the JBR, where we go around begging and trying to get L$ so we can afford to someday buy real homes in the real world. But then as satire we would make sure we own a lavish Second Life island and castle estate fully appointed with virtual servants and virtual concubines.

I think gentrification is a very risky, longterm bet.

I was the one who brought up this topic originally. Maybe it would be a good thread topic sometime?

Anyway, my observations are based on a few areas around the country that I've seen firsthand change significantly in the past 20 years. Around the Bay Area, Jon's right about Emeryville - a perfect example of local government "forced" gentrification that hasn't worked out quite as planned.

In SF, I'd bring up as examples of gentrified or gentrification-in-progress areas as Noe Valley and Protrero Hill, respectively. In NYC, the examples are too numerous to count. In Manhattan, there's Soho (going back to the 70's), more recently Tribeca, parts of the East Village, Meatpacking district. In Brooklyn, there's (older time) Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, and more recently DUMBO. In Boston, the South End, Jamaica Plain, Charlestown come to mind. There are many areas in these cities in the "midst" of gentrifying, where housing is overpriced beyond the level of gentrification IMO, that will suffer greatly during the downturn.

Just look how many here deploy options strategies.

Some options strategies are not more aggressive than buy-and-hope.

Not investment advice

Muggy that photo is very telling. I'd like to propose a thread to discuss the bubble spillover into other sectors. Certainly granite slab sellers are not liking life right now.

I take it you are in FL.

I’m curious if anyone here puts money in foreign/oversees banks,

Jon, simple ...go to an currency exchange center and trade 100 USD for euros or yen hold and go back and exhange it. You will find many in SF.

“victims”

Some victim.. for how long have we been hearing NAR and other vested interested how foreigners were the fastest growing segment of homeowners
with deep pockets. Well guess what .. everyone was a victim of all this nonsense and marketing misinformation. Chickens are coming home to roost.

I support the ACLU. I don't always agree with them, but I appreciate that they fanatically attack any degredation of constitutional rights. I would much rather live in a county where our rights were determined by the ACLU, rather than by an administration that passed a pseudo-facist bill like the Patriot Act.

Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for security, deserve neither freedom nor security.

Bap33

You can make your points without racial slurs. They would certainly carry more weight with me. You don't need to resort to calling groups derogatory names; it only makes your arguments appear weak and reactionary.

Bap33

They supported the NeoNazi's right to public protest. So I guess your statement is false, .... right??

Does the ACLU support an individual's right to own guns?

Bap33

What exactly did you mean by (side note: I personally love the empty streets on national wet-walk day)?

I googled "Wet-walk day" and "National wet-walk day" and it failed to find anything other than a site related to duck watching. Am I to believe that is what you were referencing? Otherwise, don't feign naivety. I don't mind your points of view, just hold off on the slurs is all I ask.

I'm not a fan of political correctness. I don't care if anyone uses any particular term. But I do follow a simple *American Value*, which I learned growing up in the *American* Midwest:

If you wouldn't feel comfortable calling someone something to their face on the church steps, then don't call them that behind their back either.

According to the Political Compass, Hitler was a center-right (though extremely fascist).

http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2

They have an interesting quiz.

@Peter P

To be honest, I don't know, and don't really care that much. My point was there are plenty of cases where the ACLU has represented non "liberal" entities. I'm positive they've defended religious rights many times, though I'm not engaged enough to go googling for the cases. It should be the burden of the accuser to do that, rather than just regurgitate talk radio banter.

And to say they're "anti American" is one of those perversions of the modern day scream-fest media. The American legal system has always been about allowing for intense debate and reliance upon constitutional interpretation. The irony is that blogs wouldn't even exist without civil libertarians through the years fighting on behalf of First Amendment causes. Fitting enough someone uses a blog to bemoan civil libertarians.

Randy, you are right. It is actually important for both sides to fight. This way, we can all find truths.

Peter P

If you look at the quadrants towards the bottom mapping current leaders I think we can see the problem. The entire lower right is empty. That's where many of us would be. Right-leaning libertarian views, but no so far right to be neo-liberal.

Actually, this visualization describes something Bap33 and I argued over about a year ago. In fact, many "right wingers" today, namely the neo-cons, are actually neo-liberal as a political definition. Nation building, as it were, is not a conservative undertaking. It is distinctly an interventionist, and thus liberal undertaking.

That’s where many of us would be. Right-leaning libertarian views, but no so far right to be neo-liberal.

There is Milton Friedman. But he is not running for presidency.

The map tells us that top-right is the best place for one's political career.

In the bottom-left quadrant, you can talk all you want but no one will ever listen. :)

Arms control is a difficult topic. It is very similar to issues like anti-trust and patents. It is all about balance.

It is rather obvious that individuals should NOT possess WMDs. However, should they be allowed to own automatic weapons? Or should they be restricted to one black-powder muzzle-loader per household? It is not easy.

I believe that debates will be very helpful.

Randy, if the ACLU supported the Nazi’s, that makes my point exactly. I think.

No, it doesn't. The ACLU argues for ultra-liberals, for neo-Nazis and anyone else who has their freedoms infringed. I am a moderate conservative, but I am all for any group that fiercely defends First Amendment rights. And that is not to say that no laws against certain behavior is invalid. But in a democratic Republic, we should be very concerned that people are allowed to talk however they wish, until they infringe upon some more fundamental right (i.e. to life, property, etc.). To restrict that fundamental freedom because it seems distant to oneself, is to one day, years later, wake up and find your own rights bound hand and foot, declared "too extreme" to be part of society.

Peter P brings up the point about second amendment rights. I don't know if the ACLU promotes guns. But they would for sure support all discussions about the validity of guns, and object to any suppression of that discussion.

Randy H says: The irony is that blogs wouldn’t even exist without civil libertarians through the years fighting on behalf of First Amendment causes. Fitting enough someone uses a blog to bemoan civil libertarians.

It is a testament to their dedication to freedom of expression that libertarians would defend even the truly ironic. :o

You want the truth? A less humble man might be inclined to say, "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way."

I believe that *I* should be allowed to own anything I want, because *I* will only use those weapons responsibly. However, I don't want lots of *you* to have access to so much as a butter knife.

Therein lies the problem with this debate.

calling the folks that jump the Rio Grande “wets” was not my idea, but due to it’s historical value I tend to use it.

Bap is apparently right. At least according to some definitions in the urban dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wetback

However, that term is slightly out-dated I would say.

I believe that *I* should be allowed to own anything I want, because *I* will only use those weapons responsibly. However, I don’t want lots of *you* to have access to so much as a butter knife.

If I am allowed to have all the food I want, I will weigh 300-lb by the next blog party.

However, I don’t want lots of *you* to have access to so much as a butter knife.

Another problem is that those who cannot be entrusted with butter knives will try to obtain illegal full-autos if they can.

The best "solution" is to uninvent all weapons. It is as good a "solution" as buying a house now at a *reasonable* price. :)

Bap33

I don't approve of "Realtwhores" either, and you'll notice that I and many others never use that term. I don't complain about it because real estate is the specific focus of this blog, but truth be I'd be happier if people didn't use it at all. I think when a newcomer picks up on the bubble and comes by here for their first visit, they judge the maturity of the blog by its civility. If they happen to catch a bunch of realtwhore this and realtwhore that, the new reader couldn't be blamed if they concluded reading here wasn't worth their time.

I don’t approve of “Realtwhores” either, and you’ll notice that I and many others never use that term.

I hated that word.

Prices have fallen. I can get you a full auto McMansion in a nice area tomorrow, if you can qualify for the financing.

I love steaks that can be cut with butter knives. :)

I don't mind the term F@cked Buyer, FB, or any derivative. The reason is because a FB is a specific state or condition which is not related to any kind of racial, religious, or ethnic bias. It is also not pejorative in the same way that "realtwhore" is. My logic is:

Not all buyers are FBs. A buyer becomes a FB when they are in a condition of being F'd, meaning hopelessly unable to salvage their financial circumstance without resorting to failure. This doesn't even necessarily confer whether the buyer became a FB by their own choice, ignorance, or perhaps through no fault of their own. I can easily see some buyers just have damned bad luck, and become FBs.

By the same token, a bunch of soldiers in a foxhole can become F'd soldiers. Or a bunch of dot-com companies can become F'd Companies.

But calling someone a "realtwhore" does not follow. It carries a distinctly gender bias, and suggests salaciousness without adding any particular value. We don't call used car salesmen "saleswhores".

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

If that's the case, then why are you wasting your breath here. If no one has any counter arguments, then it's all fait accompli, and you can move on to other more important things in life.

I don’t mind the term F@cked Buyer, FB, or any derivative. The reason is that I can always think of Focaccia Bread.

Randy, most FBs do not even know they were F'd.

Hey, I see I can register F-ckedbuyer.net or F-ckedHomeBuyer.com. Hmmm.

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

The keyword is "personal." It cannot be easily defined. Most would agree that a pistol or a rifle is a personal firearm though.

They knew an armed population is all that would keep a man free from foe and/or gov.

Right, so a gun keeps the creditors and the govt away... I see how it works now... You guys don't know which way to point them, that's the only problem...

Hey, I see I can register F-ckedbuyer.net or F-ckedHomeBuyer.com. Hmmm.

With the U or not?

The guys that wrote the founding docs did not have the cloud of lib in thier [sic] eyes.

I think they had the cloud of renewed British attack in their eyes, such as in the 1812 British-American war coming from Canada...

They knew an armed population is all that would keep a man free from foe and/or gov.

Just covered that one. Doesn't seem to help with bankruptcy or getting to work in peah hour traffic... And road rage incidents are an added danger...

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

hmm, except when people go loopy and open up fire on innocent people in malls, as often seems to happen. plus columbine etc. the more capability of the weapon, the more people are hurt, it seems.

Murder is already a crime, and the murder rate goes down wherever good people KEEP ARMS.

well, actually, it's up, the murder and suicide rate by firearms is much higher in the US than any other country's murder rates without them. mostly though, firearms are used for suicides and there are lots of accidental discharges in the home by children. then there's gang warfare, whereas in countries where they're banned gangs find it hard to get guns.

Everyone has the RIGHT to KEEP and BARE (or bear) arms is what it says. Too simple for a lawyer to screw up.

see war of independence note above... you bare arms at the beach (and do people pack firearms in their speedos for self-defence, or are they just happy to be there?)...

Arms should be an elective in HS just like wood shop.

perhaps if you were surrounded by larger, hostile, sabre-rattling countries on your doorstep it might be expedient. pointing them at each other was not really the intent of the 2nd amendment tho. and you seem to be the world's largest manufacturer of armaments these days and quite eager to use them wherever possible in the world theatre, thus sidestepping the boring, slow process of diplomacy and detente which just doesn't make the same exciting whooshing or banging noises...

Murder is wrong, but using a gun to defend life or property is not murder. I guess libs would be happier if home-invading gangsters beat everyone to death with a ballbat instead of shooting them??

tends not to happen too much in other countries. especially given that baseball is not a national sport elsewhere. then there is the problem of inadvertent escalation when everyone is packing heat, which causes injuries and fatalities also...

note: the ACLU is an anti-American commie group that should be disbanded and all of the lawyers it has should be jailed and all of the tax-payer fundes it has collected should be returned

the implied society bearing those sorts of powers where that is just one instance of the carriage of 'justice' would be a very interesting place to live indeed...

Randy,

Good point. There are lots of good used house salespeople around who provide value to their clients. I shouldn't resort to name calling.

I need to remember to make a donation to ACLU. Your discussion reminds me about why they're so relevant, especially in the current political environment. (Sorry, Doctors Without Borders).

not only guns, but Health care system broken, Clinton says in a recent SF speech...

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

hmm, except when people go loopy and open up fire on innocent people in malls, as often seems to happen. plus columbine etc. the more capability of the weapon, the more people are hurt, it seems.

You know, I'm not a gun nut. I don't even own a gun. But if everybody in Columbine had been packing heat, that siege would have lasted 10 seconds. I live in Colorado, I know the reports. Kids huddled under tables in the library, as the gunmen walked around and shot each of them in turn, at their leisure.

And you know what? There are gun laws here. Gun laws didn't stop Columbine. Because those killers got the guns illegally, and built their own pipe bombs, and planned a murder spree.

Arms should be an elective in HS just like wood shop.

perhaps if you were surrounded by larger, hostile, sabre-rattling countries on your doorstep it might be expedient. pointing them at each other was not really the intent of the 2nd amendment tho.

First off, the second amendment is meant to protect the American people from their own government. In the history of the world, there is lots of precedent for governments rolling over their own unarmed citizens. And worldwide you can say that same story hasn't played itself out in the timespan of the United States of America (which apparently in liberal Australia constitutes the entire history of the civilized world?!?). Our forefathers were conscious of the possiblity that a despot would come to power even in a Republic. Indeed, the U.S. Republic was modeled heavily off Greece and Rome, and that very event happened in Rome when emperors got out of hand.

Second of all, the world is flat at this point. China, India, Russia, Africa, the Middle East and South America are all a few hours away by plane. You can argue that Canada and Mexico aren't going to invade today, but what about 30 years from now? Hell, Canada and Spain almost came to blows over a speedboat getting blown up in the 90's! Governments fall, law and order collapse, and countries must be prepared to defend against unstable neighbors. There is a certain foresight to never diluting the personal right to bear arms, because by the time you know the citizens need the guns, it's already too late.

Hm, odd. The italics didn't take. I will try again:

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

hmm, except when people go loopy and open up fire on innocent people in malls, as often seems to happen. plus columbine etc. the more capability of the weapon, the more people are hurt, it seems.

You know, I'm not a gun nut. I don't even own a gun. But if everybody in Columbine had been packing heat, that siege would have lasted 10 seconds. I live in Colorado, I know the reports. Kids huddled under tables in the library, as the gunmen walked around and shot each of them in turn, at their leisure.

And you know what? There are gun laws here. Gun laws didn't stop Columbine. Because those killers got the guns illegally, and built their own pipe bombs, and planned a murder spree.

Arms should be an elective in HS just like wood shop.

perhaps if you were surrounded by larger, hostile, sabre-rattling countries on your doorstep it might be expedient. pointing them at each other was not really the intent of the 2nd amendment tho.

First off, the second amendment is meant to protect the American people from their own government. In the history of the world, there is lots of precedent for governments rolling over their own unarmed citizens. And worldwide you can say that same story hasn't played itself out in the timespan of the United States of America (which apparently in liberal Australia constitutes the entire history of the civilized world?!?). Our forefathers were conscious of the possiblity that a despot would come to power even in a Republic. Indeed, the U.S. Republic was modeled heavily off Greece and Rome, and that very event happened in Rome when emperors got out of hand.

Second of all, the world is flat at this point. China, India, Russia, Africa, the Middle East and South America are all a few hours away by plane. You can argue that Canada and Mexico aren't going to invade today, but what about 30 years from now? Hell, Canada and Spain almost came to blows over a speedboat getting blown up in the 90's! Governments fall, law and order collapse, and countries must be prepared to defend against unstable neighbors. There is a certain foresight to never diluting the personal right to bear arms, because by the time you know the citizens need the guns, it's already too late.

theotherside - do you have the link to the paper that gave you those percentages, please post link...