[cabal]

[quote]
Well, when the pool dude came out to replace the light they realized there is a kink in the conduit and it’s going to require breaking through the patio to find the kink and repair it, then replace spa light, then repair patio.e [/quote]

The problem you described is unclear. Why is the pool repairman messing with the conduit rather than simply replacing the light? Were the wires determined to be bad/shorted and subsequently removed all the way to the equipment? The fact that wires were successfully fished through during initial installation suggest no kinks or blockage. Further, electrical conduit cannot magically develop a kink lying dormant underground, nor is it possible to assemble with a kink as elbows have generous radiuses.

A blockage is possible from dirt entering at the openings during installation or seeping into a failed joint due to improper gluing (roots unlikely due to no water). You might try flushing out the conduit using high pressure water first. Another option is to rent and run a borescope into the conduit to pinpoint the blockage followed by contacting a plumber to inquire if a tool exists small enough to snake it. This may minimize tearing out the old patio. Personally, I would not tear out a patio for a spa light even if costs are recovered. I’m picky on fit and finish and the replacement concrete will never match the original. If possible, I would rather dig and lay new conduit and move the spa light as a last resort. Good luck.

[cabal]

[quote]
End Government interference in the free market. The only good government is a very small government
[/quote]

Ayn Rand is brilliant in many ways. Unfortunately, she and her disciples like Greenspan always ignore one factor. They forget that humans can be money grubbing smelly little creatures that will screw their neighbors for a penny given the opportunity. It is unfortunate that govt oversight and regulations will always be a necessary evil.

[cabal]

[quote]
End Government interference in the free market. The only good government is a very small government
[/quote]

Ayn Rand is brilliant in many ways. Unfortunately, she and her disciples like Greenspan always ignore one factor. They forget that humans can be money grubbing smelly little creatures that will screw their neighbors for a penny given the opportunity. It is unfortunate that govt oversight and regulations will always be a necessary evil.

[cabal]

[quote]
End Government interference in the free market. The only good government is a very small government
[/quote]

Ayn Rand is brilliant in many ways. Unfortunately, she and her disciples like Greenspan always ignore one factor. They forget that humans can be money grubbing smelly little creatures that will screw their neighbors for a penny given the opportunity. It is unfortunate that govt oversight and regulations will always be a necessary evil.

[cabal]

[quote]
End Government interference in the free market. The only good government is a very small government
[/quote]

Ayn Rand is brilliant in many ways. Unfortunately, she and her disciples like Greenspan always ignore one factor. They forget that humans can be money grubbing smelly little creatures that will screw their neighbors for a penny given the opportunity. It is unfortunate that govt oversight and regulations will always be a necessary evil.

[cabal]

[quote]
End Government interference in the free market. The only good government is a very small government
[/quote]

Ayn Rand is brilliant in many ways. Unfortunately, she and her disciples like Greenspan always ignore one factor. They forget that humans can be money grubbing smelly little creatures that will screw their neighbors for a penny given the opportunity. It is unfortunate that govt oversight and regulations will always be a necessary evil.

[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.

[cabal]

And I’ll chalk you up as someone who cherry picks a sentence out of peoples post and spins them out of context. Until you can add value to the discussion, please stay in your sandbox. The adults are trying to have a civil and honest conversation.

[cabal]

And I’ll chalk you up as someone who cherry picks a sentence out of peoples post and spins them out of context. Until you can add value to the discussion, please stay in your sandbox. The adults are trying to have a civil and honest conversation.

[cabal]

And I’ll chalk you up as someone who cherry picks a sentence out of peoples post and spins them out of context. Until you can add value to the discussion, please stay in your sandbox. The adults are trying to have a civil and honest conversation.

[cabal]

And I’ll chalk you up as someone who cherry picks a sentence out of peoples post and spins them out of context. Until you can add value to the discussion, please stay in your sandbox. The adults are trying to have a civil and honest conversation.

[Author]

Posts