JayB

I don't think it's possible to "know" this without a profound sense of insecurity and a penchant for attributing the same to factors outside of oneself.* :shudder: *Edit: Or Maybe Not... greCg3uMHSE Premature Punchline Version Below: pRr9C6o06_E

Que? Un computador muy interesante..

What are the proper limits to the said tolerance, in your estimation?

I'm ignorant concerning the taboos associated with virtually all religions - whether they be observed in the present or are long forgotten relics of an even more barbarous and superstitious past. Free people should feel no compunction whatsoever to conduct themselves in accordance with a particular religion's taboos, nor should they exempt any religion from the criticism or scrutiny applied to other systems of belief.

The conflict that comes best to mind is Indonesia's civil war. You might remember that Suharto slaughtered 500,000 suspected "communists", many of whom were ethnic groups not in favor, with US backing. The communists may well have exacted a similarly bloody toll but that is alternative history. Given the timeline, it seems like Cold War era political calculations might have had more to do with which side the US backed in this conflict than outright economic gain - but I'm not familiar with the history. In any event - even if you assume that the US had the least honorable motives for choosing a particular side in a conflict, you need take an equally unflinching glance at the party on the opposite side, and what the likely outcome would have been had they prevailed. There may be a number of cases where a mini-Netherlands would have sprouted amidst the wreckage of the previous regime, but an honest appraisal of those most likely to secure power such conflicts doesn't support this conclusion. In most of the cases, what you'd get is a regime that is equally repressive, brutal, and corrupt - if not more so - and ill disposed towards the US and western values.

Taking profits and chilling on the boat sounds pretty nice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I seem to recall a story about a guy in SD who sold his house to an investor who was looking for a rental property, but structured the deal so that he (the seller)would be the occupant, and so that he had the right of first refusal if the new owner decided to sell within five years. Sounds like he captured a nice capital gain, paid a fair amount less than he was for his mortgage, and didn't have to move a single piece of furniture to make any of it happen. Might be possible in Seattle. You'd probably know better than most if this was the case, though.

Um, those were different hostages than the ones in question. And they were held by Hezbolla in Lebanon, not Iran. That Reagan was willing to strike a deal for Iranian influence and spare parts several years after the embassy hostage crisis is an issue separate from the one in question. I think you have your history mixed up. No mix up here. I know exactly which hostages were which. In any case, last I checked, for all practical purposes, Hezbollah=Iran, doesn't it? The issue there is our government publicly proclaimed that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" yet did exactly that, without congressional knowledge. "Spare Parts"? You mean weapons, and if current accusations against Iran are at all true, some remnants of which are probably being used against American troops in Iraq right now. And alright then, I partially retract- I have no source to cite regarding poison gas elements coming from the US to Iraq, I have only heard this from unconfirmed channels- but does it even really matter which killing instruments we gave them? The bottom line is, who do we think we are to provide support for such regimes while supposedly standing as the beacon for human rights in the world? On that note, let's go look at China- currently one of the world's most repressive, brutal, human rights abusing regimes. We give nothing more than tepid condemnation and idle urgings to them. Why? Because we have this great business relationship with them and without it, our economy would fold. They own our asses, and everyone knows it. And how did this come about? So in the end, it seems that human rights, freedom, democracy, is not really what we are concerned with; we're concerned with meddling and interfering in shitty foreign situations in whatever way we can find that might benefit us economically, playing groups off one another and fighting wars whenever we piss off one side enough. Then we invoke the former issues as justification to keep everyone dutifully quiet and supportive. Which specific conflicts does this apply to in your mind? Which people are currently less free than they would have been had the US not intervened or taken sides in a particular conflict? Are there any cases where - to your mind - US taking sides has had the opposite effect? Can the US actions in all of the above cases be completely understood in terms of the economic advantages associated with them?

Funny! we're planning on the same thing, down to living on our boat while watching the market. Why now? Life simplification, gain maximization, or both?

This is basically the plan. Although - I agree with Dave that if you can handle the costs, know what you are getting into, plan to stay in the home for at least a few years, and the intangibles associated with owning a home have more value for you than whatever savings you might realize by renting while the rent-own differential persists - then you'll be much happier buying, and at the end you may well come out ahead of where you'd have been if you'd rented until rents and mortgages equalized.

Keep singing that tune. It just doesn't ring true for the wise home owner/investor (not it is not a matter of luck). I agree.

Being free to leave town without bringing lots of money to the closing table to cover a decline in a property's value, before even factoring in commissions, closing costs, maintenance, repairs, non-tax deductible interest and taxes, the aggregate value of the tax-adjusted rent/own disparity that's persisted for as long as we've been here has a value. $100K worth? Probably somewhere between that and $50K, but I haven't bothered to do the calculations because I haven't been sweating over a spreadsheet and wondering how we're going to get out of the hole we're in. Hopefully your equity gives you the same peace of mind. For your part, I strongly encourage you to extract your equity immediately and use it to buy more real estate.

It's only the folks that confuse the results of good fortune with good analysis that I find tiresome. Pretty easy to tell who belongs in the former camp and who belongs in the latter category when you hear them lay out the analysis that supported the decision to buy at a particular time.

Nope. Renting just seemed (and seems)like the least-bad option for us for a while. I'd personally be happy to milk the tax adjusted difference between renting and owning for as long as it persists, but I suspect that that sentiment is not unanimous in our household, so who knows how long that'll actually last. I'm pretty confident that constraints on personal income growth will prevent rising rents from closing the bulk of the rent-own differential. I became interested in what was driving home prices when a combination of statistical data, and experiences from my own life made me wonder what the hell was going on in about 2002, and I started trying to figure out what was driving home prices. Nothing I came across suggested fundamentals were responsible, and it was an interesting puzzle to interpret. I just wasn't convinced that all of the articles of faith being bandied about at cocktail parties and in the less sober media outlets: "Buy now or be....priced out FOREVER..." "Home prices never go down..." "If you rent, you're just throwing your money away..." and the like had any basis in fact that would make them unequivocally true or logically compelling for all people at all times. The main concrete benefit of the downturn for me at the moment is that at social gatherings I no longer have to listen to people discuss their real estate investments, nor endure whatever used to follow when they discovered that we didn't own a home and had no interest in buying one for the forseable future.

Only folks who should be worried at this point are people who bought with an intention to flip, or who engaged in cash-out refis near the peak - and need to sell before the market recovers. I think that there's a reasonable possibility that this list will eventually expand to include people who bought, cash-out refi'd, or HELOC'd themselves into peak-value debt between at least 2004 and 2007, and who need to sell before 2010/11. Percentage losses tend to hurt way more on the way down. Pay $100k, gain 20% and you're at $120K. Lose 20% from that point and you are $4K in the hole - before you factor in transaction costs, commissions, taxes, maintenance/remodels, inflation, etc.

! Be interesting to crack open the books and look at total costs from start to finish vs total sales price...

When were you in Boston? Not really worth getting the gear out here unless you are going to NH IMO...

Still on. Remember the terms I posted back in November? Maybe you can find the thread. Total Pot: $100. -I pay $50 if the Case-Schiller-Weiss index for Seattle is positive Y-O-Y between Nov.1 '07 and Nov.1 '08. -I pay $50 if the value of a house of your choosing (on Nov.1 '07) is positive Y-O-Y between those dates. The Zillow algorithm seems to be almost a random number generator, and must take refi valuations into account as well as actual sales, but there may not be any alternative. This one will have to be an honor-system deal for you since I don't recall a specific property being posted back in November. You pay $50 for the reverse of either. In the event that I'm out of state at that time, I'll leave the money behind so that it's available to pay for $100 worth of beer at the bar of everyone's choosing if I lose on both counts.

Source: http://seattlebubble.com/blog/

I agree. Neat. Can't....type...any...more...seven pitches of...moderate ice ...absolutely wrecked me. So...so...sad. So....much....ice...here.....

I guess we disagree here. I'd argue modifying the rules that govern mortgage lending, the securitization process, and tax policy associated with real-estate assets will go a long way towards preventing a melt-down like the one we're in the middle of from occurring again. Get the rules right and you diminish, rather than expand the government's participation in the real estate market and limit it's role to that of a rule maker, rather than a participant, and limit the risks to the rest of the economy at the same time. Since this is apparently a matter in which you're claiming some expertise, let's talk specifics. You lay out the particular causes of the housing bubble as you understand them, in as much detail as you can muster, and then we can debate the merits of a particular set of policies associated with each, and discuss whether they'll increase or decrease the government's participation in the real-estate market, and whether the said changes will increase or decrease the risks to public finances. I'll be gone climbing this weekend, so take your time. Knock yourself out.

Who says class mobility is a thing of the past...

How about a prediction concerning who gets the nomination?

Yes - anyone who argues on behalf of an economy driven by voluntary exchanges between consenting parties must be irrevocably opposed to things like...enforceable contracts, the notion of patents, and all of the rest of it. Everyone from Smith to Hayek saw no role for the legislature, the judiciary, or law enforcement in the social orders that they were contemplating. Yawn. It's hard for me to tell if you are being mendacious or obtuse here. Since this is your parting shot, my homophonic doppleganger, I suppose I'll never know. Have fun in the compound. Toodles,

I also like the guy, and think he's right up there with Clinton and Reagan in terms of rhetorical talent and charisma, even though I won't be voting for him. I also think that it was fine to insist that he explain his relationship with the Pastor and give his feelings about the statements that his pastor had included in his sermons. I don't quite get how this amounts to unfair persecution of the guy.

And somebody'd better reign in this guy.... "Freedom Means Responsibility By GEORGE MCGOVERN March 7, 2008; Page A15 Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse. Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages. With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default. There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market. The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out. Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states. Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all. Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending." With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating. Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next. Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it. Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society. Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life. The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else. Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate."