Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
ParticipantI thought Avaron was how Scooby Doo pronounced “Avalon.” And now it’s a housing development. Interesting.
ParticipantI thought Avaron was how Scooby Doo pronounced “Avalon.” And now it’s a housing development. Interesting.
ParticipantI thought Avaron was how Scooby Doo pronounced “Avalon.” And now it’s a housing development. Interesting.
October 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM in reply to: Off Topic Barney Frank on spending. “Plenty of rich people we can tax” #291181ParticipantAs I’ve said may times before, taxes aren’t about fairness, efficiency, etc. Taxes are about keeping the masses from revolting. I’d rather pay 40% of my income to the government and have the economic and social stability necessary to continue compounding wealth (albeit at a lower rate as a result of the taxes) as opposed to having a 10% income tax and having everything I own taken from me in a revolution. 100% of zero is still zero. Taxes are the price we pay for (relative) stability even though they’re incredibly inefficient and generally “unfair” (whatever that means). I’m a small-l libertarian at heart, but I recognize that varying degrees of success in capitalism (even the watered-down kind we practice here) ultimately involve a fair amount of luck. To some extent, progressive taxes are in effect a tax on some of that luck to be redistributed to those less lucky. It ain’t a perfect system, but at least we don’t have revolutions (yet, at least).
October 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM in reply to: Off Topic Barney Frank on spending. “Plenty of rich people we can tax” #291499ParticipantAs I’ve said may times before, taxes aren’t about fairness, efficiency, etc. Taxes are about keeping the masses from revolting. I’d rather pay 40% of my income to the government and have the economic and social stability necessary to continue compounding wealth (albeit at a lower rate as a result of the taxes) as opposed to having a 10% income tax and having everything I own taken from me in a revolution. 100% of zero is still zero. Taxes are the price we pay for (relative) stability even though they’re incredibly inefficient and generally “unfair” (whatever that means). I’m a small-l libertarian at heart, but I recognize that varying degrees of success in capitalism (even the watered-down kind we practice here) ultimately involve a fair amount of luck. To some extent, progressive taxes are in effect a tax on some of that luck to be redistributed to those less lucky. It ain’t a perfect system, but at least we don’t have revolutions (yet, at least).
October 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM in reply to: Off Topic Barney Frank on spending. “Plenty of rich people we can tax” #291533ParticipantAs I’ve said may times before, taxes aren’t about fairness, efficiency, etc. Taxes are about keeping the masses from revolting. I’d rather pay 40% of my income to the government and have the economic and social stability necessary to continue compounding wealth (albeit at a lower rate as a result of the taxes) as opposed to having a 10% income tax and having everything I own taken from me in a revolution. 100% of zero is still zero. Taxes are the price we pay for (relative) stability even though they’re incredibly inefficient and generally “unfair” (whatever that means). I’m a small-l libertarian at heart, but I recognize that varying degrees of success in capitalism (even the watered-down kind we practice here) ultimately involve a fair amount of luck. To some extent, progressive taxes are in effect a tax on some of that luck to be redistributed to those less lucky. It ain’t a perfect system, but at least we don’t have revolutions (yet, at least).
October 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM in reply to: Off Topic Barney Frank on spending. “Plenty of rich people we can tax” #291538ParticipantAs I’ve said may times before, taxes aren’t about fairness, efficiency, etc. Taxes are about keeping the masses from revolting. I’d rather pay 40% of my income to the government and have the economic and social stability necessary to continue compounding wealth (albeit at a lower rate as a result of the taxes) as opposed to having a 10% income tax and having everything I own taken from me in a revolution. 100% of zero is still zero. Taxes are the price we pay for (relative) stability even though they’re incredibly inefficient and generally “unfair” (whatever that means). I’m a small-l libertarian at heart, but I recognize that varying degrees of success in capitalism (even the watered-down kind we practice here) ultimately involve a fair amount of luck. To some extent, progressive taxes are in effect a tax on some of that luck to be redistributed to those less lucky. It ain’t a perfect system, but at least we don’t have revolutions (yet, at least).
October 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM in reply to: Off Topic Barney Frank on spending. “Plenty of rich people we can tax” #291576ParticipantAs I’ve said may times before, taxes aren’t about fairness, efficiency, etc. Taxes are about keeping the masses from revolting. I’d rather pay 40% of my income to the government and have the economic and social stability necessary to continue compounding wealth (albeit at a lower rate as a result of the taxes) as opposed to having a 10% income tax and having everything I own taken from me in a revolution. 100% of zero is still zero. Taxes are the price we pay for (relative) stability even though they’re incredibly inefficient and generally “unfair” (whatever that means). I’m a small-l libertarian at heart, but I recognize that varying degrees of success in capitalism (even the watered-down kind we practice here) ultimately involve a fair amount of luck. To some extent, progressive taxes are in effect a tax on some of that luck to be redistributed to those less lucky. It ain’t a perfect system, but at least we don’t have revolutions (yet, at least).
Participant[quote=lostkitty]Me too. A lot….
I keep hearing the market will bottom out around 8,000-8,500. I’ve heard it several times. Anyone know why that is the magic number that keeps getting repeated? Is it the number that would equate to “reverting to the mean” over the long-term? [/quote]
Yeah, I believe that Jeremy Grantham’s most recent numbers suggested that mean reversion would put the Dow, S&P and Nasdaq at around 8000, 850, and 1600, respectively. Absurdly low interest rates and the ensuing housing bubbles kept us from mean reverting back in 2001-2002 (although we got within 10%), but we may not escape it this time…
Participant[quote=lostkitty]Me too. A lot….
I keep hearing the market will bottom out around 8,000-8,500. I’ve heard it several times. Anyone know why that is the magic number that keeps getting repeated? Is it the number that would equate to “reverting to the mean” over the long-term? [/quote]
Yeah, I believe that Jeremy Grantham’s most recent numbers suggested that mean reversion would put the Dow, S&P and Nasdaq at around 8000, 850, and 1600, respectively. Absurdly low interest rates and the ensuing housing bubbles kept us from mean reverting back in 2001-2002 (although we got within 10%), but we may not escape it this time…
Participant[quote=lostkitty]Me too. A lot….
I keep hearing the market will bottom out around 8,000-8,500. I’ve heard it several times. Anyone know why that is the magic number that keeps getting repeated? Is it the number that would equate to “reverting to the mean” over the long-term? [/quote]
Yeah, I believe that Jeremy Grantham’s most recent numbers suggested that mean reversion would put the Dow, S&P and Nasdaq at around 8000, 850, and 1600, respectively. Absurdly low interest rates and the ensuing housing bubbles kept us from mean reverting back in 2001-2002 (although we got within 10%), but we may not escape it this time…
Participant[quote=lostkitty]Me too. A lot….
I keep hearing the market will bottom out around 8,000-8,500. I’ve heard it several times. Anyone know why that is the magic number that keeps getting repeated? Is it the number that would equate to “reverting to the mean” over the long-term? [/quote]
Yeah, I believe that Jeremy Grantham’s most recent numbers suggested that mean reversion would put the Dow, S&P and Nasdaq at around 8000, 850, and 1600, respectively. Absurdly low interest rates and the ensuing housing bubbles kept us from mean reverting back in 2001-2002 (although we got within 10%), but we may not escape it this time…
Participant[quote=lostkitty]Me too. A lot….
I keep hearing the market will bottom out around 8,000-8,500. I’ve heard it several times. Anyone know why that is the magic number that keeps getting repeated? Is it the number that would equate to “reverting to the mean” over the long-term? [/quote]
Yeah, I believe that Jeremy Grantham’s most recent numbers suggested that mean reversion would put the Dow, S&P and Nasdaq at around 8000, 850, and 1600, respectively. Absurdly low interest rates and the ensuing housing bubbles kept us from mean reverting back in 2001-2002 (although we got within 10%), but we may not escape it this time…
ParticipantI think rents will go down a bit eventually as the foreclosures get sucked up by investors and rented out, but we’re early in the process.
As an anecdote, however, I know a guy who’s in charge of managing two large apartment complexes in Imperial Beach (440 units in all) and he says there are 9 vacant units right now and they have been raising rents 4% on renewals and new tenants recently. For now, folks moving out of foreclosed homes and into apartments are outnumbering folks moving into foreclosed rental homes. I suspect that will reverse in 2009 as more foreclosed homes get purchased and rented out.
-
AuthorPosts
