patrick.net

Harm

I'm so so sorry. I deleted a bunch of inflamatory stuff, and then got into another completely random discussion with Surfer-X. I'm thinking about re-posting a "why so emotional?" blog. Tempers are a flarin' these days.

Peter P

I think the fed is going to keep raising rates too. I think the risk is greater if they don't for fear of sending "weak economy" signals out by not continuing the rate hikes as planned.

SactoQt, there is no more ways to spin this any more. Whatever signal the FED sends, it will be taken as a bad signal sooner or later.

We are actually in a situation that is very similar to 1999/2000. I was amused by the market seemingly cheering only at bad news.

The credit/liquidity bubble is undeniable. Its end is also near.

We are actually in a situation that is very similar to 1999/2000. I was amused by the market seemingly cheering only at bad news.

I'm not sure I understand the market cheering at bad news part.

Stanman

It really isn't what you think. I'm often more conservative in my opinions and thought there was value in much of what you said. The problem is that when people start arguing back and forth vs. having a real discussion that's on topic it contaminates the whole thread and no one really ends up participating. Surfer-X's comments do not represent my feelings but he wasn't engaging in an argument so I left them. If you find them particularly offensive, then heck, I'll go ahead and delete those too. Why not, this has not been a particularly productive thread. Maybe I should take the whole post down. I'm too tired to keep this up.

To be fair Jack suggested I delete his comments too. I'm sure he'll feel contrite tomorrow.

I'm not a Bush basher at all. I heard on the news a number of times that the Governor of Louisiana didn't request Federal aid when it would have done any good. It has also been said by a couple of media outlets that Bush wanted to get aid out asap but was hindered because of her inaction.

I’m not sure I understand the market cheering at bad news part.

The market was/is reacting postively to negative news (e.g. Katrina 2005) while reacting negatively to positive news (e.g. good employment numbers 1999/2000). Basically it was/is declaring itself a liquidity bubble.

Censorship is a tool for suppressing opposing views, nothing more. We can put a nice perfume on it to make it sound like it has a noble purpose. But the stench of censorship wafts through that. This is clear to any who step back from the specific situation and consider the broader ramifications of censorship. Who’s views are to be censored? What is acceptable, and what is not? Who decides? There are no unbiased people in the world, so there will never be an unbiased censor.

We may not like what some people say. We may disagree with their view. We might even find it offensive. If so, then we should speak our view and our objection. But censorship is a very weak response. We will not all find the same things offensive. Some people are easily upset and some are not. Never shall we be able to please everyone. No serious exploration of any topic can be completed if we are to avoid all areas of potential sensitivity. Censorship is the death of intelligent discourse.

I hope this forum will return to intelligent exploration.

On the other hand, there is certainly some value to be gained from having rules, provided the rules do not restrict the expression of viewpoints on the topic.

Some examples include “all posts should have some connection to the topic” and “No use of profanity” etc.

The response to rule violations must be uniform, regardless of how or by whom the rule is violated.

The most fundamental issue to determine is whether this forum is to be a discussion board that allows and explores differing viewpoints, or shall it be a “feel good” club, limited to like minded people and harmonious comment.

Jack, It is not possible for me to judge the comments by Iceman because I can’t read them. I gather that his comments were offensive and censored.

In looking back through the thread I find flagrant and repetitiously offensive comments by serfer-X left uncensored. So what is the standard for censorship. Who’s books shall be burned and whose shall be kept. Make some rules and enforce them evenly.

Jack, I do not know the history of MP so I can’t judge. During the limited time that I have spent on this board I never saw anything that would cause me to care one way or the other about his posts.

Jack, It is one thing to censor profanity including racial slurs. But this board seems to allow flagrant profanity. I don’t think it is good to allow it. Some profanity (such as racial slurs) is more broadly offensive than other profanity. But it is all offensive. Where will you draw the line?

If you allow some profanity and bashing, when is it ok to insult and bash, and when is it not?

Fill me in. Why was MP evicted?

Ok, So, I see that MP was considered to be disruptive to the value of the forum and (between your comments and what I remember of prior discussions) ignoring him was not practical.

Jack, I recognize that some people will be destructive to the value of this forum. Perhaps they are offensive (not because they disagree). Some are a problem because of how they post, or because they push the board away from the topic, or because they clog things up in general. Certainly a person can do these things without breaking specific rules, so rules will not cover all situations.

You ask what is wrong with a vote (to evict). Unfortunately, the very process of a vote is disruptive to the dialog of the board, and is subject to the happenstance of timing – voting is limited to those online at the moment. Voting works, but it is awkward if the need is more than a rare occurrence.

I don’t know how the mechanics of the website work, but it seems that the only efficient way to keep the forum on topic and away from profane insults, bashing and jamming is to have one person responsible for each topic thread, and have that person be the judge using a standard that is not influenced by topical bias or opinion.

I am only a visitor here. I share my observations for your consideration.

Oy Vey!
It seems trying to keep the blog civil is a no win. If I delete I offend, if I don't delete I offend.

Zephyr

I meant what I said earlier, it's the arguing back and forth that got deleted more than the context. It has a lot to do with 'I'm right you're wrong, so there.' Surfer-X can be offensive, but at the time no one was arguing with him or complaining so I let it stand. If there had been a large outcry that would be different. As it is there aren't any uniform rules, and I'm thinking it's time there should be.

What say you all?
Profanity?
Arguing in attack mode?
Content-- racism, politics etc.?
What kind of rules would you like?

Btw I'm going to be out most of the day, so I won't be here to delete today, and so things are going to have to run their course. Hopefully by the end of the day there will a consensus on a uniform rule of conduct that can allow us to proceed without all this nonsense.

Iceman

I'm sorry you feel slighted. I'm also sorry that you can't see how bringing race into the argument could be construed as offensive. I am not a liberal, and I don't vote liberal. I'm kind of a weird republocrat type who is more socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I try to be tolerant but there were two very quick votes to bump you off the thread. I didn't try to block you though, I never contacted Patrick and attempted to have you evicted, I simply deleted comments that there were quick, strong responses to. I am more than willing to listen to your arguments if you would just please try to keep in mind that there are some hot button issues that are perhaps best avoided. This is after all a HOUSING blog and all the discussions about politics are probably best had elsewhere.

Iceman

One standard that has been uniformly agreed upon is no personal attacks. You only prove yourself wrong when you do that. If they continue I will contact Patrick and have you blocked from the site.

I gotta go, please everyone try to behave like adults.

"I’m also quite familiar with the socialist/communist tilt that the academia has and it’s effect on the more “educated” people of this country, ie: middle to uppermiddle class whites."

Lmao...ok, ok...this is all too funny--but wasn't this blog about rate hikes?

"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. "
--General Ripper, Dr. Strangelove

Hopefully by the end of the day there will a consensus on a uniform rule of conduct that can allow us to proceed without all this nonsense.

SactoQt,

Welcome to the wonderful world of blog moderating! ;-)
Seriously, I'm sorry you are having to bear the brunt of the as yet not satisfactorily resolved issue of "when to delete/ban”.

My feelings on censorship are quite similar to Zephyr's. I don't particularly like it, or being forced into the role of censor, but there are times when it is justified, particularly to avoid the blog from devolving into a personal attack-oriented flame war. I also don't want a form of "tyranny of the majority" to codify a particular bias and squelch all opposing viewpoints. As many have pointed out, what good is a one-sided debate? Of course, this is a private blog, not the Constitution we’re talking about, so having some rules in place doesn’t seem out of line.

Unfortunately I don’t have any easy solutions to give you. In the past I have been reluctant and slow to pull the trigger (witness that it took 6 weeks and 2 votes to eradicate MP), and the end result: I've pleased almost no one. Some criticized me for acting too slowly, while others were uncomfortable with the idea of blocking anyone under any circumstances. And herein lies the difficulty in "ban by vote", as Zephyr correctly pointed out.

At this point, though, having a single-man moderation format wouldn’t work, mainly because everyone (especially Patrick) is too busy with work, family etc. to actively monitor this blog 24/7. So I think the next best thing would be to institute a more-or-less uniform set of rules that the various thread moderators could use as a general guideline.

Here are some I would suggest:

(1) No gratuitous personal attacks directed at another blogger or flame wars.
I see no discussion value in allowing personal flame wars to hijack this blog. If you want to get passionate, attack the issues, not other bloggers. Occasional comedic jabs at other bloggers (within reason), or forceful-but-valid criticism of someone else’s arguments do not constitute personal attacks in my book –just good debate.

(2) No spam.
This should cover not only “real” commercial spam, like the kind that up until recently infested Ben’s blog on a daily basis, but someone who insists upon repeatedly posting far off-topic, irrelevant nonsense --especially the incendiary kind intended to incite a flame war.

(3) Occasional infractions can be enforced by simply deleting the comments and issuing a warning to the offender. Repeat offenders may have to blocked. The decision to block should be mainly reserved for habitual or extreme offenders, and can decided upon either by (a) the thread moderators among themselves, or (b) put up for a simple majority vote (as was the case with MP).

I’m uncomfortable with the idea of censoring profanity (excepting where directed at another blogger –see #1) in that it would “sanitize” the blog too much and automatically eliminate many of the blog favorites, such as the oft-mentioned Surfer-X rants.

Just my opinion, I look forward to hearing from others…

Stanman,

Glad you agree --hopefully we can all come to some kind of consensus on this and move forward. I didn't see all the back-and-forth between Iceman, Jack and you before they were deleted, so I can't comment about that, but I agree that legitimate posts should be kept. Please keep in mind, though, that SactoQt, Peter P & myself are not professional moderators, so we sometimes will make mistakes.

Note: If anyone disagrees with this post and it gets deleted, I will not post any more to this forum.

Stanman, no one is in favor of deleting/banning on-topic opinions --it's mainly the personal attack/flame war stuff that really gets people turned off.

Boy oh boy. I am not a fan of censorship. Remember, Journalism degree? Big fan of free speech. The thing is that immediately following Iceman's post I had 2 people (I can't remember who besides Jack weighed in) who were really offended. I looked at the post and did see comments that unneccessarily brought race into the discussion. I made a choice to delete to try to keep things civil. Stanman interpreted the dialoge that followed as he chose to and started to engage Jack in a flame war without the full context of the discussion. It just further deteriorated from there. Jack doesn't get a free pass either, but as Jack is typically a gentleman I did give him the benefit of the doubt. At the end of the day, no one is happy. I'm tired of the nonsense and think I'm going to bow out. Perhaps someone else can create a new thread and moderate all the childish behavior. I already have two children to raise and don't need any more of this crap.

Wow, I was away from the computer for a few days and missed the party! This is one prolific group.

HARM, I think your list of guidelines is a very good one, and I also think you thread moderators are doing an excellent job. Thank you to HARM, Peter P, and Sacto (am I missing anyone?) for keeping this blog going so well.

This is truly the most intelligent group I've ever encountered in the internet. Now let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya. :-P

Random thoughts:

Sacto, I'm sorry you've had such a hard time trying to moderate this weekend. I hope you'll still stick around and talk to us. I always enjoy reading your posts. You and I share very similar views, so I know if I don't have time to post that you will have said what I was thinking. :-)

I have nothing intelligent to say about this particular thread's topic. But I keep thinking about a point that has been made here in the past few months regarding how some seemingly unrelated event--like Katrina--will be the thing that causes the housing market downturn. I can't remember who said that, but it's stuck in my head.

Seems like people are feeling really passionate this weekend, and I have to guess it's a residual effect if seeing one of our great American cities washed away and seeing images on TV that we never imagined really happening in America. (Anyone read Stephen King's The Stand? That book's been on my mind a lot this week...how when civilization is destroyed, we're left with trying to survive amid a struggle between good and evil. It was shocking to me to actually see a bit of that happening in NO this week.)

Prat, I want that "Bush - Just to Piss You Off" bumper sticker too.

"The fact is that people in the S.F. Bay Area act as if they live on a university campus where nobody can possibly state anything besides their liberal opinions, or they are banned or flamed."

A few BIG assumptions there about SF BA (and I darsesay not fact). This stuff really has no place on this blog, and to quote Jack "I truly don't want to keep this up". Agreed on all counts; there's no reason to go there.

Now...if the Fed keeps the rate low to help recovery in NOLA, does anybody think that will prolong speculation in housing?--just an on-topic issue I've been thinking about...

KurtS, I do think rates remaining low would probably prolong speculation outside the gulf coast. I have a hard time imagining people continuing to speculate right now in hurricane zones though. If they do...well, lot's of things defy logic in the housing market lately.

@Surfer-X: Re: refi. You pay property taxes on the assessed value of the house, not the sale price. Your taxes go up as the market goes up, no matter what you paid for it, or when. Some municipalities reassess frequently (annually!), some infrequently (10yrs). In some places, a construction permit will open you up to reassessment, regardless of your spot in the cycle.

Market changes obviously cause assessments to change, but refis are not part of a market because there is no sale -- just a payoff of existing debt, plus a secured loan.

(Right?) :-)

What I’d ask folks here to ask themselves is to be certain they are prepared to receive what many are wishing for: a crash.

We surely attempt not to be prepared for the crash. We will also attempt to anticipate and take advantage of the crash. There is no other way to go.

I believe the positive knee-jerk action to Katrina will fade very soon. The psychological effects of the storm will be quite negative. For instance, don't people wonder more about the consequences of a natural disaster to homeownership?

Moreover, the economic impact of the hurricane is far beyond damages in New Orleans. Any business with significant ties to the region will be severely affected. Many of them are small businesses whose survival depends upon the trade.

On the other hand, the new bankruptcy law takes effect in a little more than a month.

The perfect storm is brewing...

Randy H.:

How do you account for this, clipped from an Economist article of 2003:

America's rate of borrowing is high and rising. At just over 5% of GDP, the current-account deficit is the highest in the country's history. Even in the final decades of the 19th century, after the Civil War, America's deficit was generally below 3% of GDP (though Canada and Argentina ran deficits as high as 10% of GDP in that period). In the Reagan era, the current-account deficit peaked at 3.4% of GDP.

Some of the recent rise may be a statistical quirk. According to official numbers, the world as a whole runs a current-account deficit with itself, and one that has risen sharply since 1997. Since the world does not, as yet, trade with Mars, the numbers must be wrong, so some of America's current-account deficit may be more apparent than real. But not all of the recent rise, or even most of it, can be explained this way.

In fact, America's current-account deficit is becoming worryingly large. Several studies suggest that economies hit trouble when their current-account deficits reach 4-5% of GDP. Caroline Freund, an economist now at the IMF and before that at the Federal Reserve, looked at 25 episodes of current-account adjustments in rich countries between 1980 and 1997 and found that the current account typically begins to reverse after the deficit has grown for about four years and reached 5% of GDP.

---

Perhaps your definition of current account deficit is different than the standard, but I do not believe any G8 nation has a larger one.