20% Unemployment in CA counties

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter][quote=cabal]I give on occasion, mostly on impulse. However, I will study their physical traits first and convince myself they are genuine before doing so. I pass no judgment and I don’t care if they buy a beer to extract 15 min of simple pleasure out of another miserable day. I’m ok with that because I know it is the hardest thing to pick yourself up when you’re at the bottom. If I saw a father begging with his kid, I would probably donate something. It takes courage to swallow your pride and to publicly humiliate yourself in front of your kid.

FLU – Your thoughts are not alone. It reminded me of this article I read a few weeks ago.
http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2010/02/the_real_roots_of_the_crisis.html

Regarding rants, I find the complaints by those who sold at the peak the most humorous and hypocritical. The housing bubble facilitated the greatest transfer of wealth in recent times. Specifically, the so called fraudulent money flowed from wall street/banks to naïve buyer to bubble seller. The bubble seller is the ultimate beneficiary of this fraudulent money, yet there is never talk about its morality or legitimacy. Fine, just don’t complain about govt giveaways of our tax dollars. You hold the solution. Simply return the fraudulent money and problem solved.[/quote]

As someone who sold near the peak and chose to rent, why do you think we should give our money away? Just because of the tremendous volume of foolish borrowers and lenders in this particular boom? Just because of the dollar amounts? Should everyone who sells something for a profit be obliged to give that money back, or does it depend on which boom/market **YOU** decide we should pay back the profits?

We didn’t want to sell and rent to make a profit. We needed to move to a bigger house/better neighborhood, and would have easily been able to do that (without bubble equity) if not for the bubble. Instead, after running the numbers, I realized there was no way we could safely buy another home without putting ourselves at financial risk. So, we rented and waited for prices to fall (which was obviously going to happen if you bothered to look around at what was going on).

Quite frankly, we were trying to help everyone we came into contact with, trying to warn everyone about the housing bubble and how it was going to burst. Do you know what all these people (now foreclosure “victims”) said to us? They literally argued and fought with us, calling us “crazy” and “jealous, bitter renters.” Everyone told us that we didn’t know what we were talking about. You want us to feel sorry for them now? Seriously?

We never flipped a home (though we’ve been fully qualified to do so — we don’t do it because we don’t believe in it). We didn’t play games when we sold, and took the first offer (this during a time when other sellers would “entertain” offers after a certain number of days to pick the highest bid). We even paid for the first year of gardening service, and we let the buyers walk through the home and choose any furniture/appliances they might want, and paid for new carpeting in a room — all after we were in escrow — they never asked for anything, we just offered it, and it was never used as a sales incentive. We never took on debt we couldn’t afford to pay (have stayed out of debt for years, even well before the bubble, BTW). We don’t wear fancy clothes or drive fancy cars or live in a fancy house.

What would you have done if you were in our shoes? Don’t even tell me you would have sold the house for less that half of market price when things were selling in minutes or hours at and above our price. Check yourself first before you go around calling other people hypocrites.[/quote]

There is nothing illegal about knowingly selling an overpriced asset to an eager, voluntary buyer. Whether or not there is a moral component is subject to debate as I see valid arguments on both sides. Is it the same as overcharging an 80 yr old grandma to remodel her bathroom? Probably not. Either way, it’s not germane to my point.

What I’m saying is that if I sold at the peak to naïve buyers, knowing they would probably lose their life savings in a few years, I would keep a low profile and smile at everyone. What I wouldn’t do is to publicly berate the US govt for channeling tax dollars to replenish the very money that ultimately funneled to my bank account, regardless of the fact that it was legal. That I do find to be hypocritical. If you disagree, please explain.

[CA renter]

I have no problems with the govt spending money in productive ways (research, infrastructure, etc.). I don’t even mind if the govt extends unemployment and COBRA subsidies. I DO mind the govt rewarding reckless and fraudulent behavior. The borrowers and lenders are entirely responsible for the credit bubble and its aftermath. The sellers had nothing to do with it.

As a matter of fact, an argument can be made that people who sold to rent prevented the bubble from getting even bigger, and we provided addditional inventory to the market when inventory was at exceptionally low levels (it was a net positive to inventory if we sell and rent, as opposed to selling to buy), making housing MORE affordable to those who were looking to buy.

What is immoral? Selling a house for a profit (when everyone was beating down our door to buy at or above our price), or renting? Precisely which action is immoral in your mind?

In my mind, selling a house and renting is not immoral or unethical in any way. We did not rig the market or artificially constrain inventory (the reason I hate flipping) in order to make the buyer pay more. We were not greedy, and we priced our house below comps at a time when everyone else was pricing above recent comps.

It is not our business to know whether or not the buyer is going to be able to afford the house over the long-term, and I’m quite certain they would have been horribly offended if we were to have asked (though I did ask their realtor if she was sure they could afford it, and she assured me that they were “very qualified”). Whether or not they could afford the mortgage is entirely between the borrower and the lender. The seller has *nothing whatsoever* to do with that part of the transaction.

Our transaction was no different from any transaction you might engage in where you make money on a sale — whether it’s real estate, or stocks, or bonds, or selling a good or service you provide to customers in your regular business.

I manage our investments for extra income, and have certainly had a number of losses. At no point in time did I think the govt — or any other entity — was obliged to make me whole, even when my losses were a direct result of government actions (like bans on short selling, or lowering interest rates in between FOMC meetings, or other “emergency” actions).

If borrowers borrowed more money than they could afford, and if lenders made loans to people who could never pay them back, I’d say any resulting losses need to be borne by those who decided to take those actions. Note that the sellers do NOT play any part in these transactions.

Why do you believe people who made bad decisions (borrowers and lenders) should be bailed out at the expense of others who were more prudent with their finances?

Why do you think people who are reckless with their finances are more deserving of “home ownership” than those who have been patiently waiting and renting? Do you think these reckless people are too good for renting? Why do you think they deserve a bailout? I’d really like to know.

BTW, in case it’s not obvious, I do believe prudent behavior should be rewared over recklessness. There is no reason to hang our (bubble-sitters’) heads in shame, no reason to remain quiet in some dark corner. Even though we might have benefitted from the bubble, we were not responsible for it, or the losses that resulted from it.

[CA renter]

I have no problems with the govt spending money in productive ways (research, infrastructure, etc.). I don’t even mind if the govt extends unemployment and COBRA subsidies. I DO mind the govt rewarding reckless and fraudulent behavior. The borrowers and lenders are entirely responsible for the credit bubble and its aftermath. The sellers had nothing to do with it.

As a matter of fact, an argument can be made that people who sold to rent prevented the bubble from getting even bigger, and we provided addditional inventory to the market when inventory was at exceptionally low levels (it was a net positive to inventory if we sell and rent, as opposed to selling to buy), making housing MORE affordable to those who were looking to buy.

What is immoral? Selling a house for a profit (when everyone was beating down our door to buy at or above our price), or renting? Precisely which action is immoral in your mind?

In my mind, selling a house and renting is not immoral or unethical in any way. We did not rig the market or artificially constrain inventory (the reason I hate flipping) in order to make the buyer pay more. We were not greedy, and we priced our house below comps at a time when everyone else was pricing above recent comps.

It is not our business to know whether or not the buyer is going to be able to afford the house over the long-term, and I’m quite certain they would have been horribly offended if we were to have asked (though I did ask their realtor if she was sure they could afford it, and she assured me that they were “very qualified”). Whether or not they could afford the mortgage is entirely between the borrower and the lender. The seller has *nothing whatsoever* to do with that part of the transaction.

Our transaction was no different from any transaction you might engage in where you make money on a sale — whether it’s real estate, or stocks, or bonds, or selling a good or service you provide to customers in your regular business.

I manage our investments for extra income, and have certainly had a number of losses. At no point in time did I think the govt — or any other entity — was obliged to make me whole, even when my losses were a direct result of government actions (like bans on short selling, or lowering interest rates in between FOMC meetings, or other “emergency” actions).

If borrowers borrowed more money than they could afford, and if lenders made loans to people who could never pay them back, I’d say any resulting losses need to be borne by those who decided to take those actions. Note that the sellers do NOT play any part in these transactions.

Why do you believe people who made bad decisions (borrowers and lenders) should be bailed out at the expense of others who were more prudent with their finances?

Why do you think people who are reckless with their finances are more deserving of “home ownership” than those who have been patiently waiting and renting? Do you think these reckless people are too good for renting? Why do you think they deserve a bailout? I’d really like to know.

BTW, in case it’s not obvious, I do believe prudent behavior should be rewared over recklessness. There is no reason to hang our (bubble-sitters’) heads in shame, no reason to remain quiet in some dark corner. Even though we might have benefitted from the bubble, we were not responsible for it, or the losses that resulted from it.

[CA renter]

I have no problems with the govt spending money in productive ways (research, infrastructure, etc.). I don’t even mind if the govt extends unemployment and COBRA subsidies. I DO mind the govt rewarding reckless and fraudulent behavior. The borrowers and lenders are entirely responsible for the credit bubble and its aftermath. The sellers had nothing to do with it.

As a matter of fact, an argument can be made that people who sold to rent prevented the bubble from getting even bigger, and we provided addditional inventory to the market when inventory was at exceptionally low levels (it was a net positive to inventory if we sell and rent, as opposed to selling to buy), making housing MORE affordable to those who were looking to buy.

What is immoral? Selling a house for a profit (when everyone was beating down our door to buy at or above our price), or renting? Precisely which action is immoral in your mind?

In my mind, selling a house and renting is not immoral or unethical in any way. We did not rig the market or artificially constrain inventory (the reason I hate flipping) in order to make the buyer pay more. We were not greedy, and we priced our house below comps at a time when everyone else was pricing above recent comps.

It is not our business to know whether or not the buyer is going to be able to afford the house over the long-term, and I’m quite certain they would have been horribly offended if we were to have asked (though I did ask their realtor if she was sure they could afford it, and she assured me that they were “very qualified”). Whether or not they could afford the mortgage is entirely between the borrower and the lender. The seller has *nothing whatsoever* to do with that part of the transaction.

Our transaction was no different from any transaction you might engage in where you make money on a sale — whether it’s real estate, or stocks, or bonds, or selling a good or service you provide to customers in your regular business.

I manage our investments for extra income, and have certainly had a number of losses. At no point in time did I think the govt — or any other entity — was obliged to make me whole, even when my losses were a direct result of government actions (like bans on short selling, or lowering interest rates in between FOMC meetings, or other “emergency” actions).

If borrowers borrowed more money than they could afford, and if lenders made loans to people who could never pay them back, I’d say any resulting losses need to be borne by those who decided to take those actions. Note that the sellers do NOT play any part in these transactions.

Why do you believe people who made bad decisions (borrowers and lenders) should be bailed out at the expense of others who were more prudent with their finances?

Why do you think people who are reckless with their finances are more deserving of “home ownership” than those who have been patiently waiting and renting? Do you think these reckless people are too good for renting? Why do you think they deserve a bailout? I’d really like to know.

BTW, in case it’s not obvious, I do believe prudent behavior should be rewared over recklessness. There is no reason to hang our (bubble-sitters’) heads in shame, no reason to remain quiet in some dark corner. Even though we might have benefitted from the bubble, we were not responsible for it, or the losses that resulted from it.

[CA renter]

I have no problems with the govt spending money in productive ways (research, infrastructure, etc.). I don’t even mind if the govt extends unemployment and COBRA subsidies. I DO mind the govt rewarding reckless and fraudulent behavior. The borrowers and lenders are entirely responsible for the credit bubble and its aftermath. The sellers had nothing to do with it.

As a matter of fact, an argument can be made that people who sold to rent prevented the bubble from getting even bigger, and we provided addditional inventory to the market when inventory was at exceptionally low levels (it was a net positive to inventory if we sell and rent, as opposed to selling to buy), making housing MORE affordable to those who were looking to buy.

What is immoral? Selling a house for a profit (when everyone was beating down our door to buy at or above our price), or renting? Precisely which action is immoral in your mind?

In my mind, selling a house and renting is not immoral or unethical in any way. We did not rig the market or artificially constrain inventory (the reason I hate flipping) in order to make the buyer pay more. We were not greedy, and we priced our house below comps at a time when everyone else was pricing above recent comps.

It is not our business to know whether or not the buyer is going to be able to afford the house over the long-term, and I’m quite certain they would have been horribly offended if we were to have asked (though I did ask their realtor if she was sure they could afford it, and she assured me that they were “very qualified”). Whether or not they could afford the mortgage is entirely between the borrower and the lender. The seller has *nothing whatsoever* to do with that part of the transaction.

Our transaction was no different from any transaction you might engage in where you make money on a sale — whether it’s real estate, or stocks, or bonds, or selling a good or service you provide to customers in your regular business.

I manage our investments for extra income, and have certainly had a number of losses. At no point in time did I think the govt — or any other entity — was obliged to make me whole, even when my losses were a direct result of government actions (like bans on short selling, or lowering interest rates in between FOMC meetings, or other “emergency” actions).

If borrowers borrowed more money than they could afford, and if lenders made loans to people who could never pay them back, I’d say any resulting losses need to be borne by those who decided to take those actions. Note that the sellers do NOT play any part in these transactions.

Why do you believe people who made bad decisions (borrowers and lenders) should be bailed out at the expense of others who were more prudent with their finances?

Why do you think people who are reckless with their finances are more deserving of “home ownership” than those who have been patiently waiting and renting? Do you think these reckless people are too good for renting? Why do you think they deserve a bailout? I’d really like to know.

BTW, in case it’s not obvious, I do believe prudent behavior should be rewared over recklessness. There is no reason to hang our (bubble-sitters’) heads in shame, no reason to remain quiet in some dark corner. Even though we might have benefitted from the bubble, we were not responsible for it, or the losses that resulted from it.

[CA renter]

I have no problems with the govt spending money in productive ways (research, infrastructure, etc.). I don’t even mind if the govt extends unemployment and COBRA subsidies. I DO mind the govt rewarding reckless and fraudulent behavior. The borrowers and lenders are entirely responsible for the credit bubble and its aftermath. The sellers had nothing to do with it.

As a matter of fact, an argument can be made that people who sold to rent prevented the bubble from getting even bigger, and we provided addditional inventory to the market when inventory was at exceptionally low levels (it was a net positive to inventory if we sell and rent, as opposed to selling to buy), making housing MORE affordable to those who were looking to buy.

What is immoral? Selling a house for a profit (when everyone was beating down our door to buy at or above our price), or renting? Precisely which action is immoral in your mind?

In my mind, selling a house and renting is not immoral or unethical in any way. We did not rig the market or artificially constrain inventory (the reason I hate flipping) in order to make the buyer pay more. We were not greedy, and we priced our house below comps at a time when everyone else was pricing above recent comps.

It is not our business to know whether or not the buyer is going to be able to afford the house over the long-term, and I’m quite certain they would have been horribly offended if we were to have asked (though I did ask their realtor if she was sure they could afford it, and she assured me that they were “very qualified”). Whether or not they could afford the mortgage is entirely between the borrower and the lender. The seller has *nothing whatsoever* to do with that part of the transaction.

Our transaction was no different from any transaction you might engage in where you make money on a sale — whether it’s real estate, or stocks, or bonds, or selling a good or service you provide to customers in your regular business.

I manage our investments for extra income, and have certainly had a number of losses. At no point in time did I think the govt — or any other entity — was obliged to make me whole, even when my losses were a direct result of government actions (like bans on short selling, or lowering interest rates in between FOMC meetings, or other “emergency” actions).

If borrowers borrowed more money than they could afford, and if lenders made loans to people who could never pay them back, I’d say any resulting losses need to be borne by those who decided to take those actions. Note that the sellers do NOT play any part in these transactions.

Why do you believe people who made bad decisions (borrowers and lenders) should be bailed out at the expense of others who were more prudent with their finances?

Why do you think people who are reckless with their finances are more deserving of “home ownership” than those who have been patiently waiting and renting? Do you think these reckless people are too good for renting? Why do you think they deserve a bailout? I’d really like to know.

BTW, in case it’s not obvious, I do believe prudent behavior should be rewared over recklessness. There is no reason to hang our (bubble-sitters’) heads in shame, no reason to remain quiet in some dark corner. Even though we might have benefitted from the bubble, we were not responsible for it, or the losses that resulted from it.

[desmond]

There were not that many “Sellers” that sold at the peak and rented to make a difference anyway. Cabal seems to be angry at people that made money because he didn’t. One group that made enough money to make a difference where the large homebuilders, and few complain about them.

[desmond]

There were not that many “Sellers” that sold at the peak and rented to make a difference anyway. Cabal seems to be angry at people that made money because he didn’t. One group that made enough money to make a difference where the large homebuilders, and few complain about them.

[desmond]

There were not that many “Sellers” that sold at the peak and rented to make a difference anyway. Cabal seems to be angry at people that made money because he didn’t. One group that made enough money to make a difference where the large homebuilders, and few complain about them.

[desmond]

There were not that many “Sellers” that sold at the peak and rented to make a difference anyway. Cabal seems to be angry at people that made money because he didn’t. One group that made enough money to make a difference where the large homebuilders, and few complain about them.

[desmond]

There were not that many “Sellers” that sold at the peak and rented to make a difference anyway. Cabal seems to be angry at people that made money because he didn’t. One group that made enough money to make a difference where the large homebuilders, and few complain about them.

[CA renter]

Very true, desmond.

[CA renter]

Very true, desmond.

[CA renter]

Very true, desmond.

[CA renter]

Very true, desmond.

[Author]

Posts