patrick.net

HARM and NVR,

I went over and posted a comment on WSJ with roughly the same content as I did here. Let's see if it gets through censorship, errr, I mean, "moderation".

That is unbelieveable. What is it about him that the die hard Republicans hate so much? Even Nancy Reagan the other day said, he was the last Republican in the race so she was backing him, like she was wishing it was anyone else.

There is no way that Obama is further left than Hillary.

The Bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it.

-- The Grapes of Wrath

We have made progress since Steinbeck's times. Now we have the Federal Reserve and its fleet of liquidity helicopters.

There is no way that Obama is further left than Hillary.

How so?

Peter P,

As you know, the problem is that 99.9....% of the people that fashion themselves as "the noble capitalist" really are socio-capitalists, to twist your word just a little. Quite a few of them have an even more extreme form of the decease, they are sociopath-capitalists.

Well I would think the word "hate" is a little strong for my feelings about McCain. I'm a libertarian-conservative, not a social-conservative. The problem with McCain is that his approach to bi-partisanship is to just give in to the other side. The McCain-Feingold law completely disrespects the 1st Amendment, even though it got sort-of a pass from the Supremes.

In general Senators without any executive experience are less-attractive candidates for President.

According to Derbyshire over at the National Review, after Hillary and Obama beat each other up Al Gore will emerge as the Democrat candidate and go on to win the Presidency.

DennisN,

Funny one about Conan O'Bama.

According to Derbyshire over at the National Review, after Hillary and Obama beat each other up Al Gore will emerge as the Democrat candidate and go on to win the Presidency.

Huh? We are free from the Religion of "Global Warming," right?

Hopefully the Supreme Court will soon rule that religious thoughts such as hypothetical pseudo-scientific convenient fictions shall not be taught in public schools.

Did you ever check out the climate-change blog over at NRO?

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

I will take a look...

I am not denying climate change. Nature is about changes. However, blaming "global warming" on CO2 emission is just weird.

I speculate that climate change is caused by solar activities. We can do nothing about it. Yep, sea-level is going to rise and our toes will get wet.

Brilliant!

If Kyoto Protocol is about free trade of Kobe beef I am all for it. :)

As a poor kid growing up around rich people I tried to fit in with fancy cars and fancy clothes...

Oh, c'mon FAB, you were never poor. Middle class around a bunch of rich kids I believe, but how many times did you have the Sheriff throw your family out of the apartment you were living in while you were growing up? How many different trailer parks have you lived in?

Here's Derb's most recent piece about Al Gore.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWQxY2Q2ZWRmZGRkMDYwNzU1ZWQxMGU4YzY5ODY1YTQ=

Note: Idaho is the top producer of Kobe beef in the US.

Peter P and DennisN,

Let's get down to fundamentals about global warming. The below article in Wikipedia describes the greenhouse effect:

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

The greenhouse effect (trapping of incoming solar heat by so-called greenhouse gases, which include CO2) is the basic mechanism of global warming. The change in one input parameter (concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere) is the deemed the reason for global warming.

My question is: Do believe that the greenhouse effect is real, and if not, why not?

It is really too bad that the Supreme Court selected Bush instead of Gore. Imagine how much better off America would be if we had eight years of grown up leadership instead of The Decider.

FormerAptBroker Says:
I may end up with a DB9 or Vantage Volante some day

A friend of mine in the city got a DB9 back in '05 and offered it to me to drive. I found it quite 'unspecial' - especially once inside, it felt like just any other powerful, tightly sprung coupe.

RandyH, saw the NYT article, good on ya. And good to have you back.

By the way, I bagged a JBO (tm) (Jealous Bitter Owner) today.

Met an old friend at the library - he bought a crapshack in Crappertino in '04 and had it remodeled. He was wishing he had sold last year like his neighbor did, and seemed quite bitter about being underwater on his own place now.

Malcom,

You're right. A seller is under no obligation... to do anything! That includes entertaining offers at any price. However as Randy points out, this is not an act without consequence. In the original context the home in question hadn't been updated since the 80's and the daughters were pleading... with mom to sell.

Mum's unwillingness to confront today's reality has impacts on her heirs (whether or not she realizes it) I've never really taken a hard line stance either way on the sticky debate so that's not what's at issue for me?

I have SO many clients that own everything from strip malls to car washes to drive-in movie theaters and absolutely NO PLAN as to how to dispose of these assets when they pass on! Since they're 100% equity, any cash flow is good cash flow and they REFUSE to do improvement ONE!

"Oh my daughter will take over". Really...? Your daughter is a physical therapist in Portland. She's going to drive down and... oh forget it. There's no talking to 'em.

You're right, there is a consequence. IMO the consequence is a smaller gain, or bigger loss in the future. I agree with Peter P, I generally do, that equilibruim will eventually happen. I can also relate to Randy's frustration, been there done that. Picture not just being pissed because an owner won't drop the house, imagine the situation I was in, making above asking offers to still get outbid. At least Randy has time on his side.

Peter P Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
"There is no way that Obama is further left than Hillary.
How so?"

He seems to have a conservative side. In fact he wants NO bailout, something which puts him to the right of Hillary and McCain. You know another thing I like about him (yes I was for the war) is that he did not vote for the war. I like consistency, even if I disagree with someone, I respect someone who maintains a position, especially unpopular, based on a principle.
Yes, I am aware McCain now says no bailout for irresponsible bankers but that happened after he read the polls. I'll be happy to see Obama race against McCain, I believe they are both decent people.

owner won’t drop the house(price)

Malcom,

My point was more directed toward "best utility" (regardless of profitability) I can use the Hope Diamond as a door stopper or paper weight but...! Having a 3,000 s/f clunker of a mansion occupied by (1) elderly gal (when a family of 6 could be living there?) just isn't my idea of best utility.

Oh. I'm seeing that a lot. On many of these homeshows you'll see an older couple buying a giant house just for them to live in.

I think almost by definition, a capitalist system fails the best utility test. I prefer private ownership over max utilization.

I won't get into my conjectures on local maxima versus dynamic maximization. That's for another day, perhaps....

“Oh my daughter will take over”. Really…? Your daughter is a physical therapist in Portland. She’s going to drive down and… oh forget it. There’s no talking to ‘em.

An example which hits even closer to home is my wife's parents. They have finally, at the end of their years, gone through a stubborn realization that none of their three kids want to move back to rural northwest Ohio. So they've sold their home, late grandma's home, and the other side's late grandpa's home; all of which came with many hundreds of acres of farmland (mostly beans).

Do you think my father-in-law sold the farm acreage? Of course not. He just sold the homes, begrudgingly. But he's still convinced that my wife will quit her executive finance job in San Francisco, move back to b.f.Ohio, and manage the bean farming (which hasn't been profitable since the 70s, but still is supported by subsidies).

Without consequence? He turned down at least one chance to sell a bunch of the land to a McMansion developer. He'll not live to see that opportunity again, and by the time that rolls around again none of his heirs will own that land, having probably disposed of over half of it just to pay the taxes on probate.

Randy H,

Glad to have you back posting, and congrats on the article. At least Leonhart seems to have a clue - the piece was a bit fluffy, but it definitely got the point across.

From our end, we continue to do lookee-loos at open houses, and even considered low-balling by an additional $150k a nice place that had already dropped its asking price by 150k: it would have been a 20% haircut, putting this particular house back to probably 2004 pricing. Held off, though.

Truth is, there's still not a whole lot of inventory in the "ultra" Fortress towns, and sellers still are shooting for the moon: price stickiness.

But he’s still convinced that my wife will quit her executive finance job in San Francisco, move back to b.f.Ohio, and manage the bean farming

From bean counting back to bean farming?

I think the Surfer X rant was just a little mis-guided rage. Isn't he the guy that bought a house recently at the peak of the market? That's gotta be frustrating. He probably bought it from a Boomer. That's gotta be a tough pill to swallow but good grief, what was that guy thinking? That's the problem with alot of Gen Xer's, they talk big but end up doing stupid sh!t. It's a lack of experience. Some make little mistakes and some F-- up big!

There will always be those few areas/locations where pricing isn't based on a fundamental, it is just based on who can pay the most.

Randy H,

I hear... ya'!

Over at Ben Jones' blog there's a great tribute to your seller in the NYT article to the tune of "Hotel California". It's the second article down "A Positive Thing In The Long Run For California" (about half way through the comments) Absolutely hysterical!

www.thehousingbubbleblog.com

Divert the “demolish houses” to “demolish bridges”

In the point of view of the politicos, this would be solving the wrong problem. You may be thinking of using capital expenditures to jump the economy, the politicos just want to keep house prices high. Demolishing houses would shore up remaining house prices, replacing briges would not.

I wish you guys would make up your minds! Now I have to move the damn charges again! :) Kidding.

It's "broken window economics" no matter how we slice it, but you're right good, safe bridges will have to take a back seat.

Thanks for the tip to Ben's blog. I don't post there very often. Maybe twice in 3 years. But I did try to leave a couple comments on that thread.

My question is: Do believe that the greenhouse effect is real, and if not, why not?

Given enough political will one can prove anything.

I think that old lady will eventually get her price. Continental 2.0 dollars ain't worth a Continental. We will just go in, drop a few gold coins and take ownership. :)

Randy, the financial stupidity of others is our gains in a zero-sum game. ;)

Oh I'm sure she will Peter.

.... She may be on oxygen... but she'll get her price!

Our local PDX blog just posted a thread on LAST year's "Street of Dreams" and 5 out of 6 are yet unsold. I actually visited one of them while it was being built. Maybe the (1) buyer was smart? He may have paid top dollar but check it out? He lives in a mansion, he's surrounded by mansions (yet has NO neighbors!)

Does it get any better than THAT!? I would cruise around on my riding lawn mower naked drinking a beer and play ding-dong-ditch with a lit bag-o-crap. A one-man obscenity wave!

If I am going to be blog historian I better sharpen my Googe-fu. Okay, it was the last entry I checked, but here is where the bad blood developed between Surfer-X and DennisN: http://patrick.net/wp/?p=480 .

I have to admit, FAB's childhood stories are pretty funny, while Jimbo's and Randy's are just depressing (which, I suppose, proves the point that they were really poor at one time or another and provides a good reality check for the rest of us). But still... FAB, another enforced child labor story, please! Oh this is gonna be ugly, Silent Gen landlords with paid off properties vs. FB first time landlords with no cash flow. Who gets the good tenants and who gets their place trashed?

If I ever go to a BA blog party (anybody know of any high end foreclosures where we can have a "no host" party) , I will give Randy's wife a copy of Wendell Berry's "The Gift of Good Land"; they will be homesteading in no time back on the family farm. :-)

They should call it 'street of BROKEN dreams'.

There are WAY TOO MANY 1.5m+ homes for sale. I mean how can there possibly be 500,000 people looking to buy one of those in the next 12 months, probably not even the next 12 years they cant sell them all.