Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
barnaby33ParticipantWhat pisses me off is I tried to short LEND and TDWaterhouse, my broker wouldn’t do it. They don’t let you short most stocks and if you want to its a massive PITA.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantA commemorative honorary PowaySeller too much time on piggington prize? What might something like that look like?
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantI wouldn’t be caught dead at a car race NHRA or any other kind. I will however swear to anyone who cares to listen a trip the range, if you aren’t an avid shooter, can be quite a thrill. If after that you take her to the hometown buffet afterwards, thats just tacky.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantGet her a tandem paragliding ride at Torrey Pines.
Weekend trip to Hearst castle.
But for the TRULY spontaneous and romantic idea. Take her trap shooting at the miramar trap and skeet range. That never fails. Even if she has never shot a gun before. I know, I know it doesn’t sound romantic, but it really is.
You can follow that up with drinks at the top of Top of the Hyatt, it has the best view in downtown.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantIts even more sinister and self-interested than that. If you owe the bank 1000 dollars its your problem. If you the banking system 3 trillion in adjustable rate mortgages, its the banking systems problem.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantCome on Waiting Hawk, if the couple makes 65k a year thats likely not going to happen. There is alot of good advice to be had about waiting and learning to time the bottom of the market on this board. Then the best advice is earn more money, 65k will be cutting it close, even when things do melt down.
A condo is a more realistic first purchase at that income level, if as the poster says he doesn’t want to get down to no free income.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantMy dad lives there, south of Rosarito as well. He bought/ leased a lot there and built a house in 02. There are potential benefits to it, but very real risks. Financing for mortgages is available, but its much more expensive. Title insurance is available as well. The problem is that the Mexican legal system is heavily stacked against you as a foreigner. You really need find a good lawyer down there to talk to before buying. There are land ownership issues, such as ejido’s that you need to be wary of.
As JES mentioned the boom down there is just an echo of what is happening here. I suspect the bust will as well. Things are very slow in my dad’s development. They have had their house on the market for some time. Lots of lookers, no offers.
The main problem as I see it is that getting across the border is a pain in the ass. I have a sentri pass and its still painful. You need to be prepared to put up with alot of inconveniences to live there, but it is much more affordable if you want to live on the ocean.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantI’m not sure I follow. Less desireable areas have lower prices. There are always going to be people on all areas of the income spectrum. Some of those people have income lower than they need to buy real estate. No matter how low prices go, there are people who can’t afford a house.
I would say yes and no. Less desireable areas have balooned up in price at a far greater percentage than more desireable areas in this boom. So while in absolute dollars they are cheaper, percentage wise they are not. There is a floor below which prices can fall and yet no-one will buy a house, ergo Phoenix or Palmdale in the 80’s. This is because at that time there are so few buyers and so many sellers that at a certain point Phoenix or Palmdale weren’t considered an option. From the buyers perspective there are always lots of options and they have to narrow them down. Usually this is done in some geographic fashion, then by type of dwelling, schools, etc. I suppose the fundamental point I was trying to make here is that as the pool of buyers shrinks areas that were previously considered less desirable become flat out undesirable, and for those with money to buy not an option.There are always going to be people on all areas of the income spectrum.
This is not true. Our economy is hollowing out in the middle. There are a fair amount of jobs in IT/Biotech/Law/Medicine and alot in retail/services, but not alot in the middle.“If they can afford Del Mar, CV probably isn’t really an option at that point. Then the competition is between a much smaller group of sellers for a particular buyer.”
I’m missing the logic leads to that statement. What does buyer preference have to do with the number of sellers?
In short, everything! If there are generally more buyers than sellers prices go up! If the opposite is true, prices go down. When a buyer makes an initial location choice he has automatically elminated alot of potential sellers from competition for his money, but from a sellers perspective that is one potential buyer, that isn’t. This shrinks the pool of potential buyers even further(for the areas that are out). Mutliply this by how undesirable the area is and you get my point. Essentially prices may decline, even significantly, but it pays to be in a more desirable area, because ultimately you are at the top of the heap, most likely the last to become undesirable.
I suppose the fundamental concept that is being juxtaposed here is that there are a continuum of buyers. Your assumption is that for every move up buyer there is someone on a lower rung to take his place.
I think history is ripe with examples where that is not so. I tend to think of it this way and yes I am over-simplifying. There are basically five areas of San Diego that are very desireable, all others are a compromise.- Del Mar
- La Jolla
- RSF
- Coronado
- Mt Helix
As the buyer pool shrinks, those less desireable areas fall of the radar and prices plummet even harder. I am not sure that in SD I can make the case that there is no price a home will sell at, but there are large swaths that are marginal at best.
I am not sure I answered your counter-points but I tried.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantWhy bugs? I remember during the first gulf war when gas shot up to *gulp* 1.50 a gallon! Holy guano droppings batman that was alot. After the war people realized there was no shortage and the price promptly dropped.
I suspect that a fairly large percentage of the price increases in the last few years are not do to general consumption increases, but of hoarding. Yes, we are using more oil. Yes, we are fairly close to production capacity(worldwide). When we drop just a bit below that capacity though there will be a surplus of oil available and prices will fall back. The same thing that makes oil a global commodity on the upside makes it a global commodity on the downside. All it takes is some slack from us, some slack from the Chinese, some slack from Europe. A recession would probably provide that slack.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantFair enough. The controversy won’t be solved here, besides I like the fact that this has stayed civil.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantSo in essence you equate the crosses removal with its destruction? Why is that. Couldn’t the cross be moved to another location and be just as relevant, or must it be there, it its origonal place to have meaning? Again we come back to the intent of the cross.
If its just a war memorial, then it probably should be a religious endorsement.
If its an important part of local history, tell me how other than in a religious context this is so? I certainly don’t know of any such history, not that I claim expertise.
If it is as I suspect a symbol of Christian domination of this land, then that sucker has to come down no question about it. Just because in the past religious bigotry was acceptable doesn’t mean it is so now. I feel the cross is intertwined with the history of “No Jews need apply in La Jolla,” though in a tangential way.
Religious tyranny is the same whether its Christian, Jewish or Muslim, or Atheist as I happen to be.
This is NOT a Christian land, its a secular land which happens to have a majority of Christians. I suspect that is the fundamental disagreement that we will never solve. If you view this nation as a place that is fundamentally Christian and just happens to be tolerant of others, of course your religious symbols should be pre-eminant. On the other hand, you could view this as a secular nation that gives favor to no religion; tolerates most if not all of them and treats them equally.
There is definitely an argument to be made to respect our hertiage, Judeo/Christian and otherwise. Its just wiser in my opinion to honor that heritage by minimising the impact of religion on public life.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantI’d really like to know this as well. I just sold the 3 REIT’s that I held, and all of them have gone up in the last 3 months.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantJust as a general question about your area, how would you define the geographic boundaries of San Carlos? I think I know where you are talking about, but am not sure.
Josh
barnaby33ParticipantPD, if that were so, wouldn’t the defenders of the cross quietly said, yeah you know, you’re right and taken it down 17 years ago? Obviously both groups feel its important. Religion in America seems to be both very important, and very public. Symbols are important to everyone. Which symbols are important to a person helps define their identity. This symbol in particular is of massive importance to a certain group in society. Any attempt to remove a symbol translates into a personal attack on that persons belief set.
That still doesn’t make the symbol appropriate.
Contraman, I appreciate your perspective. What you have said is true, there are alot more important fiscal issues we have to deal with and still. Somehow we keep coming back to the issue of religion and public life and it stirs such passion. I don’t know what the answer is, but I doubt it will be a compromise anyone will like.
Josh
-
AuthorPosts
