Just sold my last CA property

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]

We already spend way too much on health care. We spend about twice as much as most other developed economies with longer life expectancies than us. What we need most out of health care is dramatically lower spending, not more.[/quote]

I agree with you.

Our economy spends twice as much on health care than other developed economies.

It isn’t the case for the government.

What I’m suggesting is to use the government (through legislation or direct intervention) to help reallocate and LOWER total spending on health care.

Some people will have their benefits restricted and taxed, perhaps rationed. But that will be to our common advantage.

Sure, at first, the health care bill will increase expenses. But over the long run, if we can bring health care cost spending down to the same level of GDP as France or Canada, then I’ll be perfectly happy with socialized medicine. Our economy will be better off and our companies won’t be burdened with the high cost of health care.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich

[blahblahblah]

If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.

That is good in theory but can be difficult in practice. Investing in companies that do business in those areas is probably a very good option. Going back to Texas (a place I know well), investing in property can be very tricky. Property taxes are very high in any good neighborhood (yes, even in “low tax” Texas), maintenance costs are high (lots of rain, lots of wind, lots of termites, plants and weeds grow unbelievably fast), and since homeownership rates are high, renters are often subpar citizens. Add to this the problem that few geographic boundaries exist to stop sprawling development, and investing in houses becomes a losing proposition. As I wrote earlier, the sprawl grows towards the farmland of the politically well-connected. Any property that will become developed anytime soon is already priced accordingly. And since all things being equal, people always prefer new homes to older ones (especially in Texas), any homes you own are at a disadvantage. This is compounded by the problem that employment centers constantly shift over time towards the property holdings of the good old boys network. Today’s “good” neighborhood in most parts of Texas is likely to be a marginal one in 20 years. There are a few exceptions, notably those areas near the top universities (UT in Austin, Rice in Houston, SMU/TCU in D/FW). However those properties already command a premium, and in high-property-tax, high-energy-cost, and high-maintenance-cost Texas, that makes carrying costs prohibitive in many cases. Caveat emptor.

Again, I do agree that business investments in the southeast are a good area to look into. But I also expect this for states that border Mexico, especially business catering to the lower middle class which is growing by the day as the rest of the middle class shifts downward.

[blahblahblah]

If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.

That is good in theory but can be difficult in practice. Investing in companies that do business in those areas is probably a very good option. Going back to Texas (a place I know well), investing in property can be very tricky. Property taxes are very high in any good neighborhood (yes, even in “low tax” Texas), maintenance costs are high (lots of rain, lots of wind, lots of termites, plants and weeds grow unbelievably fast), and since homeownership rates are high, renters are often subpar citizens. Add to this the problem that few geographic boundaries exist to stop sprawling development, and investing in houses becomes a losing proposition. As I wrote earlier, the sprawl grows towards the farmland of the politically well-connected. Any property that will become developed anytime soon is already priced accordingly. And since all things being equal, people always prefer new homes to older ones (especially in Texas), any homes you own are at a disadvantage. This is compounded by the problem that employment centers constantly shift over time towards the property holdings of the good old boys network. Today’s “good” neighborhood in most parts of Texas is likely to be a marginal one in 20 years. There are a few exceptions, notably those areas near the top universities (UT in Austin, Rice in Houston, SMU/TCU in D/FW). However those properties already command a premium, and in high-property-tax, high-energy-cost, and high-maintenance-cost Texas, that makes carrying costs prohibitive in many cases. Caveat emptor.

Again, I do agree that business investments in the southeast are a good area to look into. But I also expect this for states that border Mexico, especially business catering to the lower middle class which is growing by the day as the rest of the middle class shifts downward.

[blahblahblah]

If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.

That is good in theory but can be difficult in practice. Investing in companies that do business in those areas is probably a very good option. Going back to Texas (a place I know well), investing in property can be very tricky. Property taxes are very high in any good neighborhood (yes, even in “low tax” Texas), maintenance costs are high (lots of rain, lots of wind, lots of termites, plants and weeds grow unbelievably fast), and since homeownership rates are high, renters are often subpar citizens. Add to this the problem that few geographic boundaries exist to stop sprawling development, and investing in houses becomes a losing proposition. As I wrote earlier, the sprawl grows towards the farmland of the politically well-connected. Any property that will become developed anytime soon is already priced accordingly. And since all things being equal, people always prefer new homes to older ones (especially in Texas), any homes you own are at a disadvantage. This is compounded by the problem that employment centers constantly shift over time towards the property holdings of the good old boys network. Today’s “good” neighborhood in most parts of Texas is likely to be a marginal one in 20 years. There are a few exceptions, notably those areas near the top universities (UT in Austin, Rice in Houston, SMU/TCU in D/FW). However those properties already command a premium, and in high-property-tax, high-energy-cost, and high-maintenance-cost Texas, that makes carrying costs prohibitive in many cases. Caveat emptor.

Again, I do agree that business investments in the southeast are a good area to look into. But I also expect this for states that border Mexico, especially business catering to the lower middle class which is growing by the day as the rest of the middle class shifts downward.

[blahblahblah]

If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.

That is good in theory but can be difficult in practice. Investing in companies that do business in those areas is probably a very good option. Going back to Texas (a place I know well), investing in property can be very tricky. Property taxes are very high in any good neighborhood (yes, even in “low tax” Texas), maintenance costs are high (lots of rain, lots of wind, lots of termites, plants and weeds grow unbelievably fast), and since homeownership rates are high, renters are often subpar citizens. Add to this the problem that few geographic boundaries exist to stop sprawling development, and investing in houses becomes a losing proposition. As I wrote earlier, the sprawl grows towards the farmland of the politically well-connected. Any property that will become developed anytime soon is already priced accordingly. And since all things being equal, people always prefer new homes to older ones (especially in Texas), any homes you own are at a disadvantage. This is compounded by the problem that employment centers constantly shift over time towards the property holdings of the good old boys network. Today’s “good” neighborhood in most parts of Texas is likely to be a marginal one in 20 years. There are a few exceptions, notably those areas near the top universities (UT in Austin, Rice in Houston, SMU/TCU in D/FW). However those properties already command a premium, and in high-property-tax, high-energy-cost, and high-maintenance-cost Texas, that makes carrying costs prohibitive in many cases. Caveat emptor.

Again, I do agree that business investments in the southeast are a good area to look into. But I also expect this for states that border Mexico, especially business catering to the lower middle class which is growing by the day as the rest of the middle class shifts downward.

[blahblahblah]

If you google “unemployment rates by state” you’ll see that the healthiest ten states, all with unemployment rates under 7%, are inevitably low tax, business-welcoming states (with the exception of Hawaii). That’s where I’d put my money.

That is good in theory but can be difficult in practice. Investing in companies that do business in those areas is probably a very good option. Going back to Texas (a place I know well), investing in property can be very tricky. Property taxes are very high in any good neighborhood (yes, even in “low tax” Texas), maintenance costs are high (lots of rain, lots of wind, lots of termites, plants and weeds grow unbelievably fast), and since homeownership rates are high, renters are often subpar citizens. Add to this the problem that few geographic boundaries exist to stop sprawling development, and investing in houses becomes a losing proposition. As I wrote earlier, the sprawl grows towards the farmland of the politically well-connected. Any property that will become developed anytime soon is already priced accordingly. And since all things being equal, people always prefer new homes to older ones (especially in Texas), any homes you own are at a disadvantage. This is compounded by the problem that employment centers constantly shift over time towards the property holdings of the good old boys network. Today’s “good” neighborhood in most parts of Texas is likely to be a marginal one in 20 years. There are a few exceptions, notably those areas near the top universities (UT in Austin, Rice in Houston, SMU/TCU in D/FW). However those properties already command a premium, and in high-property-tax, high-energy-cost, and high-maintenance-cost Texas, that makes carrying costs prohibitive in many cases. Caveat emptor.

Again, I do agree that business investments in the southeast are a good area to look into. But I also expect this for states that border Mexico, especially business catering to the lower middle class which is growing by the day as the rest of the middle class shifts downward.

[briansd1]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich[/quote]

Rich, I think that you’re misunderstanding. I made no statement about your writing. Let me clarify.

I was talking about EconProf (who started this tread) being consistent with his own views on the future of CA. That’s why he sold his properties.

I was just pointing out to danielwis that EconProf and Rich Toscano are not one and the same (maybe I’m wrong?)

There are other posters (not you, Rich) on here who like to wag their fingers at government intervention in the economy because they claim that a mess will invariably result…. But when it come to housing, they like to say: beware of government intervention because it works.

[briansd1]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich[/quote]

Rich, I think that you’re misunderstanding. I made no statement about your writing. Let me clarify.

I was talking about EconProf (who started this tread) being consistent with his own views on the future of CA. That’s why he sold his properties.

I was just pointing out to danielwis that EconProf and Rich Toscano are not one and the same (maybe I’m wrong?)

There are other posters (not you, Rich) on here who like to wag their fingers at government intervention in the economy because they claim that a mess will invariably result…. But when it come to housing, they like to say: beware of government intervention because it works.

[briansd1]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich[/quote]

Rich, I think that you’re misunderstanding. I made no statement about your writing. Let me clarify.

I was talking about EconProf (who started this tread) being consistent with his own views on the future of CA. That’s why he sold his properties.

I was just pointing out to danielwis that EconProf and Rich Toscano are not one and the same (maybe I’m wrong?)

There are other posters (not you, Rich) on here who like to wag their fingers at government intervention in the economy because they claim that a mess will invariably result…. But when it come to housing, they like to say: beware of government intervention because it works.

[briansd1]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=briansd1]
EconProf’s post is however consistent with his political beliefs. That’s more that can be said for other posters who wag their fingers at government intervention, but when housing is concerned, government intervention works. So no worries, you can buy a house; everything will be fine.

I don’t believe that Prof Piggington (Rich Toscano) and EconProf are one and the same.[/quote]

I’m not sure how to parse this… are you suggesting that I approve of government intervention in the housing market? Because that would be a pretty wacky take on what I’ve actually written…

rich[/quote]

Rich, I think that you’re misunderstanding. I made no statement about your writing. Let me clarify.

I was talking about EconProf (who started this tread) being consistent with his own views on the future of CA. That’s why he sold his properties.

I was just pointing out to danielwis that EconProf and Rich Toscano are not one and the same (maybe I’m wrong?)

There are other posters (not you, Rich) on here who like to wag their fingers at government intervention in the economy because they claim that a mess will invariably result…. But when it come to housing, they like to say: beware of government intervention because it works.

[Author]

Posts