20% Unemployment in CA counties

[UCGal]

Coming back to this thread well after the fact…

I agree with CAR about Father Joe’s Village – it’s a shelter that runs a bit different than most – geared towards families, job training, getting people back on their feet. You’re not allowed to stay unless you agree to work or be full-time looking for a job. I give to them regularly.

Someone pondered, on the first page, why it was that homeless people end up in cities with good weather. I think the answer is obvious… if you have no home – you have fewer ties to your previous city… if you’re sleeping outside – wouldn’t you find a way to move where you won’t die of exposure?

Back in college I lived downtown – pre-gentrification and condo-fication… it was pretty scary… This was right as Horton Plaza first opened, before the convention center was built… it pretty much rolled up the sidewalks at 6pm. There were a LOT of homeless. Many were mentally ill and used drugs and alcohol. I was skeptical of panhandlers – I never gave them money. (Partially because I was a broke college student.) But I would offer PB&J sandwiches. You’d get a few that were angry because they wanted $, but many were VERY grateful.

I still kind of have that attitude… I give to the San Diego Food Bank and Father Joe’s village, rather than to individuals. I hope to never need the services of these places.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]

This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I do not for a moment believe that they avoided calamity. They’ve only postponed it, prolonged it, and spread the damage across a wider swath of our economy. IMHO, the eventual consequences of the bailouts will be much worse than if they had left things alone, or at least if they had avoided rewarding the people who caused the “crisis” in the first place (borrowers, lenders, financial firms, etc.).

Mind you, I have always asserted that they would need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC and PBGC, in addition to increasing infrastructure spending and jobless/training programs. Yes, we would have had a severe downturn, but it would have been quick, and we could have begun working our way out of it in a much healthier way IF we had focused more on productive endeavors…instead of bailing out the liars and thieves.

The world was never going to end just because some banks (even major ones) collapsed. If foreign companies want to buy them, so be it. Foreign entities have purchased and now control much more important entities (IMHO) than banks. I want to see us move away from a reliance on the FIRE sectors, and move back into more productive uses of our country’s capital. We’ve squandered a tremendous opportunity to squash the very entities that have hollowed out our country’s economy and our way of life over the past few decades. I want to see the middle-class return. I want to see decent, living wages for a majority of the population. I want to see a severe reversal of the wealth divide that has destroyed us.

With the existing bailouts, we have rewarded the very people who have damaged us most. THAT is what I am so strongly opposed to.[/quote]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

Regarding other responses to my post, my point has nothing to do with value and price, nor the right to profit from transactions, just the irony and hypocrisy of bubble sellers that criticize bailouts for replenishing the money that ultimately transferred to their bank accounts.

As for this…
[quote] What if the buyer in your $2M – $4M example knows that the city is about to redevelop the entire area – three years later the property is worth $6M – who’s the ‘naive’ one at this point? – the seller who, according to you, took advantage of a naive buyer; or the buyer who made a paper profit of $2M in three years? [/quote]

Let’s hope you don’t work for the CCDC or a developer. For a 2M potential profit, this type of information is without a doubt confidential. If you are caught using it for personal gain, you will be fired for ethical reasons at a minimum and face criminal charges worst case.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]

This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I do not for a moment believe that they avoided calamity. They’ve only postponed it, prolonged it, and spread the damage across a wider swath of our economy. IMHO, the eventual consequences of the bailouts will be much worse than if they had left things alone, or at least if they had avoided rewarding the people who caused the “crisis” in the first place (borrowers, lenders, financial firms, etc.).

Mind you, I have always asserted that they would need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC and PBGC, in addition to increasing infrastructure spending and jobless/training programs. Yes, we would have had a severe downturn, but it would have been quick, and we could have begun working our way out of it in a much healthier way IF we had focused more on productive endeavors…instead of bailing out the liars and thieves.

The world was never going to end just because some banks (even major ones) collapsed. If foreign companies want to buy them, so be it. Foreign entities have purchased and now control much more important entities (IMHO) than banks. I want to see us move away from a reliance on the FIRE sectors, and move back into more productive uses of our country’s capital. We’ve squandered a tremendous opportunity to squash the very entities that have hollowed out our country’s economy and our way of life over the past few decades. I want to see the middle-class return. I want to see decent, living wages for a majority of the population. I want to see a severe reversal of the wealth divide that has destroyed us.

With the existing bailouts, we have rewarded the very people who have damaged us most. THAT is what I am so strongly opposed to.[/quote]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

Regarding other responses to my post, my point has nothing to do with value and price, nor the right to profit from transactions, just the irony and hypocrisy of bubble sellers that criticize bailouts for replenishing the money that ultimately transferred to their bank accounts.

As for this…
[quote] What if the buyer in your $2M – $4M example knows that the city is about to redevelop the entire area – three years later the property is worth $6M – who’s the ‘naive’ one at this point? – the seller who, according to you, took advantage of a naive buyer; or the buyer who made a paper profit of $2M in three years? [/quote]

Let’s hope you don’t work for the CCDC or a developer. For a 2M potential profit, this type of information is without a doubt confidential. If you are caught using it for personal gain, you will be fired for ethical reasons at a minimum and face criminal charges worst case.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]

This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I do not for a moment believe that they avoided calamity. They’ve only postponed it, prolonged it, and spread the damage across a wider swath of our economy. IMHO, the eventual consequences of the bailouts will be much worse than if they had left things alone, or at least if they had avoided rewarding the people who caused the “crisis” in the first place (borrowers, lenders, financial firms, etc.).

Mind you, I have always asserted that they would need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC and PBGC, in addition to increasing infrastructure spending and jobless/training programs. Yes, we would have had a severe downturn, but it would have been quick, and we could have begun working our way out of it in a much healthier way IF we had focused more on productive endeavors…instead of bailing out the liars and thieves.

The world was never going to end just because some banks (even major ones) collapsed. If foreign companies want to buy them, so be it. Foreign entities have purchased and now control much more important entities (IMHO) than banks. I want to see us move away from a reliance on the FIRE sectors, and move back into more productive uses of our country’s capital. We’ve squandered a tremendous opportunity to squash the very entities that have hollowed out our country’s economy and our way of life over the past few decades. I want to see the middle-class return. I want to see decent, living wages for a majority of the population. I want to see a severe reversal of the wealth divide that has destroyed us.

With the existing bailouts, we have rewarded the very people who have damaged us most. THAT is what I am so strongly opposed to.[/quote]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

Regarding other responses to my post, my point has nothing to do with value and price, nor the right to profit from transactions, just the irony and hypocrisy of bubble sellers that criticize bailouts for replenishing the money that ultimately transferred to their bank accounts.

As for this…
[quote] What if the buyer in your $2M – $4M example knows that the city is about to redevelop the entire area – three years later the property is worth $6M – who’s the ‘naive’ one at this point? – the seller who, according to you, took advantage of a naive buyer; or the buyer who made a paper profit of $2M in three years? [/quote]

Let’s hope you don’t work for the CCDC or a developer. For a 2M potential profit, this type of information is without a doubt confidential. If you are caught using it for personal gain, you will be fired for ethical reasons at a minimum and face criminal charges worst case.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]

This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I do not for a moment believe that they avoided calamity. They’ve only postponed it, prolonged it, and spread the damage across a wider swath of our economy. IMHO, the eventual consequences of the bailouts will be much worse than if they had left things alone, or at least if they had avoided rewarding the people who caused the “crisis” in the first place (borrowers, lenders, financial firms, etc.).

Mind you, I have always asserted that they would need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC and PBGC, in addition to increasing infrastructure spending and jobless/training programs. Yes, we would have had a severe downturn, but it would have been quick, and we could have begun working our way out of it in a much healthier way IF we had focused more on productive endeavors…instead of bailing out the liars and thieves.

The world was never going to end just because some banks (even major ones) collapsed. If foreign companies want to buy them, so be it. Foreign entities have purchased and now control much more important entities (IMHO) than banks. I want to see us move away from a reliance on the FIRE sectors, and move back into more productive uses of our country’s capital. We’ve squandered a tremendous opportunity to squash the very entities that have hollowed out our country’s economy and our way of life over the past few decades. I want to see the middle-class return. I want to see decent, living wages for a majority of the population. I want to see a severe reversal of the wealth divide that has destroyed us.

With the existing bailouts, we have rewarded the very people who have damaged us most. THAT is what I am so strongly opposed to.[/quote]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

Regarding other responses to my post, my point has nothing to do with value and price, nor the right to profit from transactions, just the irony and hypocrisy of bubble sellers that criticize bailouts for replenishing the money that ultimately transferred to their bank accounts.

As for this…
[quote] What if the buyer in your $2M – $4M example knows that the city is about to redevelop the entire area – three years later the property is worth $6M – who’s the ‘naive’ one at this point? – the seller who, according to you, took advantage of a naive buyer; or the buyer who made a paper profit of $2M in three years? [/quote]

Let’s hope you don’t work for the CCDC or a developer. For a 2M potential profit, this type of information is without a doubt confidential. If you are caught using it for personal gain, you will be fired for ethical reasons at a minimum and face criminal charges worst case.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]

This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I do not for a moment believe that they avoided calamity. They’ve only postponed it, prolonged it, and spread the damage across a wider swath of our economy. IMHO, the eventual consequences of the bailouts will be much worse than if they had left things alone, or at least if they had avoided rewarding the people who caused the “crisis” in the first place (borrowers, lenders, financial firms, etc.).

Mind you, I have always asserted that they would need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC and PBGC, in addition to increasing infrastructure spending and jobless/training programs. Yes, we would have had a severe downturn, but it would have been quick, and we could have begun working our way out of it in a much healthier way IF we had focused more on productive endeavors…instead of bailing out the liars and thieves.

The world was never going to end just because some banks (even major ones) collapsed. If foreign companies want to buy them, so be it. Foreign entities have purchased and now control much more important entities (IMHO) than banks. I want to see us move away from a reliance on the FIRE sectors, and move back into more productive uses of our country’s capital. We’ve squandered a tremendous opportunity to squash the very entities that have hollowed out our country’s economy and our way of life over the past few decades. I want to see the middle-class return. I want to see decent, living wages for a majority of the population. I want to see a severe reversal of the wealth divide that has destroyed us.

With the existing bailouts, we have rewarded the very people who have damaged us most. THAT is what I am so strongly opposed to.[/quote]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

Regarding other responses to my post, my point has nothing to do with value and price, nor the right to profit from transactions, just the irony and hypocrisy of bubble sellers that criticize bailouts for replenishing the money that ultimately transferred to their bank accounts.

As for this…
[quote] What if the buyer in your $2M – $4M example knows that the city is about to redevelop the entire area – three years later the property is worth $6M – who’s the ‘naive’ one at this point? – the seller who, according to you, took advantage of a naive buyer; or the buyer who made a paper profit of $2M in three years? [/quote]

Let’s hope you don’t work for the CCDC or a developer. For a 2M potential profit, this type of information is without a doubt confidential. If you are caught using it for personal gain, you will be fired for ethical reasons at a minimum and face criminal charges worst case.

[CA renter]

[quote=cabal]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

[/quote]

cabal,

Have you ever considered the possibility that interest rates are **supposed to be** higher than they’ve been for the past few years?

Has it occurred to you that the low interest rate environment is one of the leading causes of the “crisis” because fixed-income/bond investors were forced to reach for yield and had to move into riskier assets in order to meet their projected returns (think: pension funds)?

When you say the bailouts are “benefitting” the masses, are you assuming that high asset prices/costs are a good thing when people’s wages are stagnant or declining? I couldn’t disagree more.

Have you thought about the fact that deflation can be a GOOD thing, as market distortions and excesses can be wrung out of unproductive sectors and reallocated to more productive and useful sectors?

Low interest rates can be both a cause and effect of a loose credit environment. IMHO, the past decade was an example of low interest rates causing loose lending (thanks to Greenspan’s refusal to allow markets to reset when they needed to), which led to the “credit crisis” as markets tried to normalize and reverse years of Greenspan’s market “medicine.”

[CA renter]

[quote=cabal]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

[/quote]

cabal,

Have you ever considered the possibility that interest rates are **supposed to be** higher than they’ve been for the past few years?

Has it occurred to you that the low interest rate environment is one of the leading causes of the “crisis” because fixed-income/bond investors were forced to reach for yield and had to move into riskier assets in order to meet their projected returns (think: pension funds)?

When you say the bailouts are “benefitting” the masses, are you assuming that high asset prices/costs are a good thing when people’s wages are stagnant or declining? I couldn’t disagree more.

Have you thought about the fact that deflation can be a GOOD thing, as market distortions and excesses can be wrung out of unproductive sectors and reallocated to more productive and useful sectors?

Low interest rates can be both a cause and effect of a loose credit environment. IMHO, the past decade was an example of low interest rates causing loose lending (thanks to Greenspan’s refusal to allow markets to reset when they needed to), which led to the “credit crisis” as markets tried to normalize and reverse years of Greenspan’s market “medicine.”

[CA renter]

[quote=cabal]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

[/quote]

cabal,

Have you ever considered the possibility that interest rates are **supposed to be** higher than they’ve been for the past few years?

Has it occurred to you that the low interest rate environment is one of the leading causes of the “crisis” because fixed-income/bond investors were forced to reach for yield and had to move into riskier assets in order to meet their projected returns (think: pension funds)?

When you say the bailouts are “benefitting” the masses, are you assuming that high asset prices/costs are a good thing when people’s wages are stagnant or declining? I couldn’t disagree more.

Have you thought about the fact that deflation can be a GOOD thing, as market distortions and excesses can be wrung out of unproductive sectors and reallocated to more productive and useful sectors?

Low interest rates can be both a cause and effect of a loose credit environment. IMHO, the past decade was an example of low interest rates causing loose lending (thanks to Greenspan’s refusal to allow markets to reset when they needed to), which led to the “credit crisis” as markets tried to normalize and reverse years of Greenspan’s market “medicine.”

[CA renter]

[quote=cabal]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

[/quote]

cabal,

Have you ever considered the possibility that interest rates are **supposed to be** higher than they’ve been for the past few years?

Has it occurred to you that the low interest rate environment is one of the leading causes of the “crisis” because fixed-income/bond investors were forced to reach for yield and had to move into riskier assets in order to meet their projected returns (think: pension funds)?

When you say the bailouts are “benefitting” the masses, are you assuming that high asset prices/costs are a good thing when people’s wages are stagnant or declining? I couldn’t disagree more.

Have you thought about the fact that deflation can be a GOOD thing, as market distortions and excesses can be wrung out of unproductive sectors and reallocated to more productive and useful sectors?

Low interest rates can be both a cause and effect of a loose credit environment. IMHO, the past decade was an example of low interest rates causing loose lending (thanks to Greenspan’s refusal to allow markets to reset when they needed to), which led to the “credit crisis” as markets tried to normalize and reverse years of Greenspan’s market “medicine.”

[CA renter]

[quote=cabal]
First, let’s agree the intent of the bailouts were to defend this country against an economic collapse. What you’re talking about now is effectiveness and here we have some common ground. I posted this relatively updated bailouts tracker link in another thread.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/index.html

If you view the bailouts in totality, it’s clear to see this shotgun approach attempted to benefit the greater population either directly or indirectly. Yes there’s lots of giveaways, but while some were focused on banks, I was more interested in things like the liquidity of the bond market, especially the billions in corporate debt maturing in 08/09. If businesses were unable to refinance their debt, or if the cost of borrowing doubled/tripled, or if credit ratings were downgraded, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the resulting next wave of cost cutting measures across fortune 500 companies (layoffs, inventory purge, etc) and subsequent domino effect to the econmy would have put us in a depression. The world may not end, but the suffering would have been intolerable to the point the govt would have taken action anyways. I agree it is kicking the can down the road, but kick it far enough and the pain gets diluted and manageable.

[/quote]

cabal,

Have you ever considered the possibility that interest rates are **supposed to be** higher than they’ve been for the past few years?

Has it occurred to you that the low interest rate environment is one of the leading causes of the “crisis” because fixed-income/bond investors were forced to reach for yield and had to move into riskier assets in order to meet their projected returns (think: pension funds)?

When you say the bailouts are “benefitting” the masses, are you assuming that high asset prices/costs are a good thing when people’s wages are stagnant or declining? I couldn’t disagree more.

Have you thought about the fact that deflation can be a GOOD thing, as market distortions and excesses can be wrung out of unproductive sectors and reallocated to more productive and useful sectors?

Low interest rates can be both a cause and effect of a loose credit environment. IMHO, the past decade was an example of low interest rates causing loose lending (thanks to Greenspan’s refusal to allow markets to reset when they needed to), which led to the “credit crisis” as markets tried to normalize and reverse years of Greenspan’s market “medicine.”

[masayako]

CA renter,

Just to let you know, I’m 100% on your side with this discussion. Any bail-out is wrong. It’s my tax money as well as yours, why should we use it on other people’s bad financial decision. That’s point #1.

Point #2, who got the stimulus money? Corporation, banks. Not you, or me, or any middle class average Joe. Money been robbed from U.S. treasury and delivered as BIG BONUSES to the highly paid CEOs, stock brokers.

The whole game is a trap. Buying a house is not an American Dream, it’s an American nightmare. Why?! Because it’s sickeningly overpriced.

From another seller who had sold at the peak (2005) & currently renting,

Masayako

[masayako]

CA renter,

Just to let you know, I’m 100% on your side with this discussion. Any bail-out is wrong. It’s my tax money as well as yours, why should we use it on other people’s bad financial decision. That’s point #1.

Point #2, who got the stimulus money? Corporation, banks. Not you, or me, or any middle class average Joe. Money been robbed from U.S. treasury and delivered as BIG BONUSES to the highly paid CEOs, stock brokers.

The whole game is a trap. Buying a house is not an American Dream, it’s an American nightmare. Why?! Because it’s sickeningly overpriced.

From another seller who had sold at the peak (2005) & currently renting,

Masayako

[masayako]

CA renter,

Just to let you know, I’m 100% on your side with this discussion. Any bail-out is wrong. It’s my tax money as well as yours, why should we use it on other people’s bad financial decision. That’s point #1.

Point #2, who got the stimulus money? Corporation, banks. Not you, or me, or any middle class average Joe. Money been robbed from U.S. treasury and delivered as BIG BONUSES to the highly paid CEOs, stock brokers.

The whole game is a trap. Buying a house is not an American Dream, it’s an American nightmare. Why?! Because it’s sickeningly overpriced.

From another seller who had sold at the peak (2005) & currently renting,

Masayako

[masayako]

CA renter,

Just to let you know, I’m 100% on your side with this discussion. Any bail-out is wrong. It’s my tax money as well as yours, why should we use it on other people’s bad financial decision. That’s point #1.

Point #2, who got the stimulus money? Corporation, banks. Not you, or me, or any middle class average Joe. Money been robbed from U.S. treasury and delivered as BIG BONUSES to the highly paid CEOs, stock brokers.

The whole game is a trap. Buying a house is not an American Dream, it’s an American nightmare. Why?! Because it’s sickeningly overpriced.

From another seller who had sold at the peak (2005) & currently renting,

Masayako

[Author]

Posts