[DWCAP]

yah I hear yah FLU. CITI just cancelled my favorite card, the whole line went out the window, not just me. It isnt about the credit scores or anything, I was just costing them money and they got sick of paying me to use their card. Now I gotta go get another card, and for damn sure it wont be with them after all the crap they tried to pull on me.

All the big banks are making alot of people angry right now, it is just stupid. Anyone remember that card that was in the media (mish????) that had the 80% interest rate with a couple hundred dollar credit limit? That just has to be a PR nightmare for the entire industry. 80%? DO loan sharks charge that much?

[DWCAP]

yah I hear yah FLU. CITI just cancelled my favorite card, the whole line went out the window, not just me. It isnt about the credit scores or anything, I was just costing them money and they got sick of paying me to use their card. Now I gotta go get another card, and for damn sure it wont be with them after all the crap they tried to pull on me.

All the big banks are making alot of people angry right now, it is just stupid. Anyone remember that card that was in the media (mish????) that had the 80% interest rate with a couple hundred dollar credit limit? That just has to be a PR nightmare for the entire industry. 80%? DO loan sharks charge that much?

[DWCAP]

ok, I am sooooo gonna get hated on here, but this is a bunch of fear mongering. Look, I am the grandson/nephew of many many farmers. I was actually on a combine harvesting corn and soybeans this past October. I have also spent more than one class in college on food/food production/nutrition. I am not an expert, I dont claim to be. But I know a little more about this than what I read on the internet.

1) Notice how they splice in alot of really negative words. Calling this or that a “travesty” or a “potential disaster” or whatever. Makes you scared. Puts you in a defensive position of “well, we don’t know so it must be bad.” BS. That is hardball writing to induce fear, loathing, and unbalanced reactions. Here, look:

[Quote]Some are calling the advent of GEOs a threat comparable to, or even worse than, nuclear radiation.[/Quote]

Seriously? GMO’s, which in the worst case may get a few people with very specific and rare allergies to get sick or die, is worse than nuclear radiation which in the worst case could end 95% of life on this planet? REALLY?????

or [Quote]… along with irradiated foods and those grown with reprocessed human sewer sludge.[/quote]

That wouldnt be manure would it, just from you and not a cow? What do you think happens to your feces when you flush? The ‘reprocessing’ part is to kill any bacteria or virus that may be dangerous. Perish the thought that the natural life cycle which we always think of as so ‘clean’ may actually include your bowel movements from last week. Nooooo….. Never. It magically goes away and is never seen again.
(for those of you who love talapia, find out what it eats when farmed. they have a knack of eating what other fish, umm, left behind.)

Piggs are smarter than this, I see them pick it up all the time in political writings. Are we really gonna believe greenpeace or an orginization called the ‘Alliance for bio integrity’ is the worlds expert on food production? More so than the FDA or the European equivants? Why? Cause they write scarry articles while the FDA is from the government and is therefore corrupt and stupid? Anyone who works with FDA requirments daily, as I do, knows they are not stupid and can’t be bought (easily), otherwise big pharma would never have another drug fail.

2) This seems really old. Maybe it is just an old article from the old “GMO” wars of the late 1990’s but notice how all the studies and polls are from 1990-1998. Have we learned nothing in the decade since then? I know that isnt true, so where is the newer data? If you are gonna take this challenge, please bring it (as a scientist I would actually love to see something to prove my position wrong, its fun) from a repetuable source. FDA, Science mag, USDA, etc. not “people with communication degrees hating on stuff we dont really understand cause it is scarry”.com

3) The few studies I noticed the article referencing (I just skimmed alot of it) were ‘preliminary’ and just ‘elevated’. Is that stastically elevated to a worrysome level, or just higher than? I have a feeling that since they didnt mention it, that is ‘just higher’ which is a much less compelling argument, especially since I know that preliminary studies are wrong ALL THE TIME. That is why they are preliminary.
Also, their references of scientific results are poor, at best.
If you are wondering what I am talking about look here:
[quote]Genes do not get transferred only among bacteria, as most scientists believe, or want the public to believe, says Dr. Ho. [/quote]

AS MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE. HUH? Publish your work and scientists will agree with you. That is if your work is worth anything. Scientist as a whole love new information. That second part about ‘or want…’ is the relm of crackpots and fear mongers. I am not saying this doesnt happen or cant happen or whatever, I am saying that scientists tend to trust the data, and not wildeyed ‘beliefs’ that we hold to like religion.

As for bacterial resistance to anti-biotics, you are far more responsible for anti-biotic resistance than food. Everytime you take anti-biotics just cause you have a cold you place a selective pressure on them to adapt. Or all the ‘anti-biotic’ soaps and such, which people generally dont use correctly. Did you know you need to let any soap sit on your hands for atleast 10-15 seconds to be effective? If you use Medical grade stuff, it is closer to a minute. Most people just soap and rinse in a second or two. If our goal is to protect our arsinal of anti-biotics from overuse, lets start with the big ones. This is small stuff.

Look, If you read this far down my post without starting your own post to jump down my throat for defending “frankenfoods” understand my argument here. These foods are feeding a growing and wealthier world in a way that ‘natural’ foods just can’t. We need proper regulation, informed consumers, and good science to determine what is proper to put into the food supply, and what isnt. We also need to realize that as with whatever humans do, it wont be perfect. Caution and prudence are virtures here, but are we really suppose to not have new and better food sources cause some people worry, with scant evidence, that they MAY have problems? Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

[DWCAP]

ok, I am sooooo gonna get hated on here, but this is a bunch of fear mongering. Look, I am the grandson/nephew of many many farmers. I was actually on a combine harvesting corn and soybeans this past October. I have also spent more than one class in college on food/food production/nutrition. I am not an expert, I dont claim to be. But I know a little more about this than what I read on the internet.

1) Notice how they splice in alot of really negative words. Calling this or that a “travesty” or a “potential disaster” or whatever. Makes you scared. Puts you in a defensive position of “well, we don’t know so it must be bad.” BS. That is hardball writing to induce fear, loathing, and unbalanced reactions. Here, look:

[Quote]Some are calling the advent of GEOs a threat comparable to, or even worse than, nuclear radiation.[/Quote]

Seriously? GMO’s, which in the worst case may get a few people with very specific and rare allergies to get sick or die, is worse than nuclear radiation which in the worst case could end 95% of life on this planet? REALLY?????

or [Quote]… along with irradiated foods and those grown with reprocessed human sewer sludge.[/quote]

That wouldnt be manure would it, just from you and not a cow? What do you think happens to your feces when you flush? The ‘reprocessing’ part is to kill any bacteria or virus that may be dangerous. Perish the thought that the natural life cycle which we always think of as so ‘clean’ may actually include your bowel movements from last week. Nooooo….. Never. It magically goes away and is never seen again.
(for those of you who love talapia, find out what it eats when farmed. they have a knack of eating what other fish, umm, left behind.)

Piggs are smarter than this, I see them pick it up all the time in political writings. Are we really gonna believe greenpeace or an orginization called the ‘Alliance for bio integrity’ is the worlds expert on food production? More so than the FDA or the European equivants? Why? Cause they write scarry articles while the FDA is from the government and is therefore corrupt and stupid? Anyone who works with FDA requirments daily, as I do, knows they are not stupid and can’t be bought (easily), otherwise big pharma would never have another drug fail.

2) This seems really old. Maybe it is just an old article from the old “GMO” wars of the late 1990’s but notice how all the studies and polls are from 1990-1998. Have we learned nothing in the decade since then? I know that isnt true, so where is the newer data? If you are gonna take this challenge, please bring it (as a scientist I would actually love to see something to prove my position wrong, its fun) from a repetuable source. FDA, Science mag, USDA, etc. not “people with communication degrees hating on stuff we dont really understand cause it is scarry”.com

3) The few studies I noticed the article referencing (I just skimmed alot of it) were ‘preliminary’ and just ‘elevated’. Is that stastically elevated to a worrysome level, or just higher than? I have a feeling that since they didnt mention it, that is ‘just higher’ which is a much less compelling argument, especially since I know that preliminary studies are wrong ALL THE TIME. That is why they are preliminary.
Also, their references of scientific results are poor, at best.
If you are wondering what I am talking about look here:
[quote]Genes do not get transferred only among bacteria, as most scientists believe, or want the public to believe, says Dr. Ho. [/quote]

AS MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE. HUH? Publish your work and scientists will agree with you. That is if your work is worth anything. Scientist as a whole love new information. That second part about ‘or want…’ is the relm of crackpots and fear mongers. I am not saying this doesnt happen or cant happen or whatever, I am saying that scientists tend to trust the data, and not wildeyed ‘beliefs’ that we hold to like religion.

As for bacterial resistance to anti-biotics, you are far more responsible for anti-biotic resistance than food. Everytime you take anti-biotics just cause you have a cold you place a selective pressure on them to adapt. Or all the ‘anti-biotic’ soaps and such, which people generally dont use correctly. Did you know you need to let any soap sit on your hands for atleast 10-15 seconds to be effective? If you use Medical grade stuff, it is closer to a minute. Most people just soap and rinse in a second or two. If our goal is to protect our arsinal of anti-biotics from overuse, lets start with the big ones. This is small stuff.

Look, If you read this far down my post without starting your own post to jump down my throat for defending “frankenfoods” understand my argument here. These foods are feeding a growing and wealthier world in a way that ‘natural’ foods just can’t. We need proper regulation, informed consumers, and good science to determine what is proper to put into the food supply, and what isnt. We also need to realize that as with whatever humans do, it wont be perfect. Caution and prudence are virtures here, but are we really suppose to not have new and better food sources cause some people worry, with scant evidence, that they MAY have problems? Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

[DWCAP]

ok, I am sooooo gonna get hated on here, but this is a bunch of fear mongering. Look, I am the grandson/nephew of many many farmers. I was actually on a combine harvesting corn and soybeans this past October. I have also spent more than one class in college on food/food production/nutrition. I am not an expert, I dont claim to be. But I know a little more about this than what I read on the internet.

1) Notice how they splice in alot of really negative words. Calling this or that a “travesty” or a “potential disaster” or whatever. Makes you scared. Puts you in a defensive position of “well, we don’t know so it must be bad.” BS. That is hardball writing to induce fear, loathing, and unbalanced reactions. Here, look:

[Quote]Some are calling the advent of GEOs a threat comparable to, or even worse than, nuclear radiation.[/Quote]

Seriously? GMO’s, which in the worst case may get a few people with very specific and rare allergies to get sick or die, is worse than nuclear radiation which in the worst case could end 95% of life on this planet? REALLY?????

or [Quote]… along with irradiated foods and those grown with reprocessed human sewer sludge.[/quote]

That wouldnt be manure would it, just from you and not a cow? What do you think happens to your feces when you flush? The ‘reprocessing’ part is to kill any bacteria or virus that may be dangerous. Perish the thought that the natural life cycle which we always think of as so ‘clean’ may actually include your bowel movements from last week. Nooooo….. Never. It magically goes away and is never seen again.
(for those of you who love talapia, find out what it eats when farmed. they have a knack of eating what other fish, umm, left behind.)

Piggs are smarter than this, I see them pick it up all the time in political writings. Are we really gonna believe greenpeace or an orginization called the ‘Alliance for bio integrity’ is the worlds expert on food production? More so than the FDA or the European equivants? Why? Cause they write scarry articles while the FDA is from the government and is therefore corrupt and stupid? Anyone who works with FDA requirments daily, as I do, knows they are not stupid and can’t be bought (easily), otherwise big pharma would never have another drug fail.

2) This seems really old. Maybe it is just an old article from the old “GMO” wars of the late 1990’s but notice how all the studies and polls are from 1990-1998. Have we learned nothing in the decade since then? I know that isnt true, so where is the newer data? If you are gonna take this challenge, please bring it (as a scientist I would actually love to see something to prove my position wrong, its fun) from a repetuable source. FDA, Science mag, USDA, etc. not “people with communication degrees hating on stuff we dont really understand cause it is scarry”.com

3) The few studies I noticed the article referencing (I just skimmed alot of it) were ‘preliminary’ and just ‘elevated’. Is that stastically elevated to a worrysome level, or just higher than? I have a feeling that since they didnt mention it, that is ‘just higher’ which is a much less compelling argument, especially since I know that preliminary studies are wrong ALL THE TIME. That is why they are preliminary.
Also, their references of scientific results are poor, at best.
If you are wondering what I am talking about look here:
[quote]Genes do not get transferred only among bacteria, as most scientists believe, or want the public to believe, says Dr. Ho. [/quote]

AS MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE. HUH? Publish your work and scientists will agree with you. That is if your work is worth anything. Scientist as a whole love new information. That second part about ‘or want…’ is the relm of crackpots and fear mongers. I am not saying this doesnt happen or cant happen or whatever, I am saying that scientists tend to trust the data, and not wildeyed ‘beliefs’ that we hold to like religion.

As for bacterial resistance to anti-biotics, you are far more responsible for anti-biotic resistance than food. Everytime you take anti-biotics just cause you have a cold you place a selective pressure on them to adapt. Or all the ‘anti-biotic’ soaps and such, which people generally dont use correctly. Did you know you need to let any soap sit on your hands for atleast 10-15 seconds to be effective? If you use Medical grade stuff, it is closer to a minute. Most people just soap and rinse in a second or two. If our goal is to protect our arsinal of anti-biotics from overuse, lets start with the big ones. This is small stuff.

Look, If you read this far down my post without starting your own post to jump down my throat for defending “frankenfoods” understand my argument here. These foods are feeding a growing and wealthier world in a way that ‘natural’ foods just can’t. We need proper regulation, informed consumers, and good science to determine what is proper to put into the food supply, and what isnt. We also need to realize that as with whatever humans do, it wont be perfect. Caution and prudence are virtures here, but are we really suppose to not have new and better food sources cause some people worry, with scant evidence, that they MAY have problems? Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

[DWCAP]

ok, I am sooooo gonna get hated on here, but this is a bunch of fear mongering. Look, I am the grandson/nephew of many many farmers. I was actually on a combine harvesting corn and soybeans this past October. I have also spent more than one class in college on food/food production/nutrition. I am not an expert, I dont claim to be. But I know a little more about this than what I read on the internet.

1) Notice how they splice in alot of really negative words. Calling this or that a “travesty” or a “potential disaster” or whatever. Makes you scared. Puts you in a defensive position of “well, we don’t know so it must be bad.” BS. That is hardball writing to induce fear, loathing, and unbalanced reactions. Here, look:

[Quote]Some are calling the advent of GEOs a threat comparable to, or even worse than, nuclear radiation.[/Quote]

Seriously? GMO’s, which in the worst case may get a few people with very specific and rare allergies to get sick or die, is worse than nuclear radiation which in the worst case could end 95% of life on this planet? REALLY?????

or [Quote]… along with irradiated foods and those grown with reprocessed human sewer sludge.[/quote]

That wouldnt be manure would it, just from you and not a cow? What do you think happens to your feces when you flush? The ‘reprocessing’ part is to kill any bacteria or virus that may be dangerous. Perish the thought that the natural life cycle which we always think of as so ‘clean’ may actually include your bowel movements from last week. Nooooo….. Never. It magically goes away and is never seen again.
(for those of you who love talapia, find out what it eats when farmed. they have a knack of eating what other fish, umm, left behind.)

Piggs are smarter than this, I see them pick it up all the time in political writings. Are we really gonna believe greenpeace or an orginization called the ‘Alliance for bio integrity’ is the worlds expert on food production? More so than the FDA or the European equivants? Why? Cause they write scarry articles while the FDA is from the government and is therefore corrupt and stupid? Anyone who works with FDA requirments daily, as I do, knows they are not stupid and can’t be bought (easily), otherwise big pharma would never have another drug fail.

2) This seems really old. Maybe it is just an old article from the old “GMO” wars of the late 1990’s but notice how all the studies and polls are from 1990-1998. Have we learned nothing in the decade since then? I know that isnt true, so where is the newer data? If you are gonna take this challenge, please bring it (as a scientist I would actually love to see something to prove my position wrong, its fun) from a repetuable source. FDA, Science mag, USDA, etc. not “people with communication degrees hating on stuff we dont really understand cause it is scarry”.com

3) The few studies I noticed the article referencing (I just skimmed alot of it) were ‘preliminary’ and just ‘elevated’. Is that stastically elevated to a worrysome level, or just higher than? I have a feeling that since they didnt mention it, that is ‘just higher’ which is a much less compelling argument, especially since I know that preliminary studies are wrong ALL THE TIME. That is why they are preliminary.
Also, their references of scientific results are poor, at best.
If you are wondering what I am talking about look here:
[quote]Genes do not get transferred only among bacteria, as most scientists believe, or want the public to believe, says Dr. Ho. [/quote]

AS MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE. HUH? Publish your work and scientists will agree with you. That is if your work is worth anything. Scientist as a whole love new information. That second part about ‘or want…’ is the relm of crackpots and fear mongers. I am not saying this doesnt happen or cant happen or whatever, I am saying that scientists tend to trust the data, and not wildeyed ‘beliefs’ that we hold to like religion.

As for bacterial resistance to anti-biotics, you are far more responsible for anti-biotic resistance than food. Everytime you take anti-biotics just cause you have a cold you place a selective pressure on them to adapt. Or all the ‘anti-biotic’ soaps and such, which people generally dont use correctly. Did you know you need to let any soap sit on your hands for atleast 10-15 seconds to be effective? If you use Medical grade stuff, it is closer to a minute. Most people just soap and rinse in a second or two. If our goal is to protect our arsinal of anti-biotics from overuse, lets start with the big ones. This is small stuff.

Look, If you read this far down my post without starting your own post to jump down my throat for defending “frankenfoods” understand my argument here. These foods are feeding a growing and wealthier world in a way that ‘natural’ foods just can’t. We need proper regulation, informed consumers, and good science to determine what is proper to put into the food supply, and what isnt. We also need to realize that as with whatever humans do, it wont be perfect. Caution and prudence are virtures here, but are we really suppose to not have new and better food sources cause some people worry, with scant evidence, that they MAY have problems? Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

[DWCAP]

ok, I am sooooo gonna get hated on here, but this is a bunch of fear mongering. Look, I am the grandson/nephew of many many farmers. I was actually on a combine harvesting corn and soybeans this past October. I have also spent more than one class in college on food/food production/nutrition. I am not an expert, I dont claim to be. But I know a little more about this than what I read on the internet.

1) Notice how they splice in alot of really negative words. Calling this or that a “travesty” or a “potential disaster” or whatever. Makes you scared. Puts you in a defensive position of “well, we don’t know so it must be bad.” BS. That is hardball writing to induce fear, loathing, and unbalanced reactions. Here, look:

[Quote]Some are calling the advent of GEOs a threat comparable to, or even worse than, nuclear radiation.[/Quote]

Seriously? GMO’s, which in the worst case may get a few people with very specific and rare allergies to get sick or die, is worse than nuclear radiation which in the worst case could end 95% of life on this planet? REALLY?????

or [Quote]… along with irradiated foods and those grown with reprocessed human sewer sludge.[/quote]

That wouldnt be manure would it, just from you and not a cow? What do you think happens to your feces when you flush? The ‘reprocessing’ part is to kill any bacteria or virus that may be dangerous. Perish the thought that the natural life cycle which we always think of as so ‘clean’ may actually include your bowel movements from last week. Nooooo….. Never. It magically goes away and is never seen again.
(for those of you who love talapia, find out what it eats when farmed. they have a knack of eating what other fish, umm, left behind.)

Piggs are smarter than this, I see them pick it up all the time in political writings. Are we really gonna believe greenpeace or an orginization called the ‘Alliance for bio integrity’ is the worlds expert on food production? More so than the FDA or the European equivants? Why? Cause they write scarry articles while the FDA is from the government and is therefore corrupt and stupid? Anyone who works with FDA requirments daily, as I do, knows they are not stupid and can’t be bought (easily), otherwise big pharma would never have another drug fail.

2) This seems really old. Maybe it is just an old article from the old “GMO” wars of the late 1990’s but notice how all the studies and polls are from 1990-1998. Have we learned nothing in the decade since then? I know that isnt true, so where is the newer data? If you are gonna take this challenge, please bring it (as a scientist I would actually love to see something to prove my position wrong, its fun) from a repetuable source. FDA, Science mag, USDA, etc. not “people with communication degrees hating on stuff we dont really understand cause it is scarry”.com

3) The few studies I noticed the article referencing (I just skimmed alot of it) were ‘preliminary’ and just ‘elevated’. Is that stastically elevated to a worrysome level, or just higher than? I have a feeling that since they didnt mention it, that is ‘just higher’ which is a much less compelling argument, especially since I know that preliminary studies are wrong ALL THE TIME. That is why they are preliminary.
Also, their references of scientific results are poor, at best.
If you are wondering what I am talking about look here:
[quote]Genes do not get transferred only among bacteria, as most scientists believe, or want the public to believe, says Dr. Ho. [/quote]

AS MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE. HUH? Publish your work and scientists will agree with you. That is if your work is worth anything. Scientist as a whole love new information. That second part about ‘or want…’ is the relm of crackpots and fear mongers. I am not saying this doesnt happen or cant happen or whatever, I am saying that scientists tend to trust the data, and not wildeyed ‘beliefs’ that we hold to like religion.

As for bacterial resistance to anti-biotics, you are far more responsible for anti-biotic resistance than food. Everytime you take anti-biotics just cause you have a cold you place a selective pressure on them to adapt. Or all the ‘anti-biotic’ soaps and such, which people generally dont use correctly. Did you know you need to let any soap sit on your hands for atleast 10-15 seconds to be effective? If you use Medical grade stuff, it is closer to a minute. Most people just soap and rinse in a second or two. If our goal is to protect our arsinal of anti-biotics from overuse, lets start with the big ones. This is small stuff.

Look, If you read this far down my post without starting your own post to jump down my throat for defending “frankenfoods” understand my argument here. These foods are feeding a growing and wealthier world in a way that ‘natural’ foods just can’t. We need proper regulation, informed consumers, and good science to determine what is proper to put into the food supply, and what isnt. We also need to realize that as with whatever humans do, it wont be perfect. Caution and prudence are virtures here, but are we really suppose to not have new and better food sources cause some people worry, with scant evidence, that they MAY have problems? Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]From the article:

2. The homebuyer tax credit makes buying a house more affordable.

…In areas where there is strong demand for housing and the supply of new housing is limited — including the Washington metro region — tax credits may result in the bidding up of home prices. In other words, the program has probably led to higher prices in these areas than we would be seeing without it. This means that some of the benefit of the tax credit is being passed on from homebuyers to home sellers.
——————–

What’s astonishing is how many people thought the tax credit was meant to benefit buyers. It was obvious from the beginning that the sole purpose of the credit(s) was to artificially inflate housing prices — which benefits only the sellers, not buyers. Same goes for artificially supressed interest rates and special government loans (low down, low interest, extended duration, hybrid ARMs, etc.).

Hopefully, someday, we will be left with a smarter pool of buyers who will understand that the best time to buy a house is when prices are low, interest rates are high, and there are few/no “incentives” to buy a house.

Until then, the most short-sighted and irresponsible buyers with access to loose credit and myriad “incentives” will be the ones who set prices — especially when supply is artificially constrained as it is now.[/quote]

The problem is all the people who were already in the process of buying. They had already made an offer or signed a contract or (if the rebate is backdated) already purchased. Suddenly they get a big cash reward from Uncle Sam that they hadnt counted on, making their decision to buy all the sweeter. Then, they go out and tell everyone they can the awsome deal they just got. A few of those people go out to buy to get their deal, increasing demand and raising prices. It is this second, usually much larger group, who looses. The first group paid uninflated market prices AND got the credit.

Look at cash for clunkers. The first people in, before the thing was even passed, prob got market prices, manufacure incentives and the CFC stimulus. The people rushing out at the end got CFC, higher prices, and no incentives. Plus they prob had low inventory to choose from, meaning they had to settle on what they got.

As long as it is still socially polite to give advice to go buy something (like ‘I’ just did) but rude to argue against those purchases, we will be stuck where we are. The trick is to be in the first group, or willing to wait out all the ‘advice’.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]From the article:

2. The homebuyer tax credit makes buying a house more affordable.

…In areas where there is strong demand for housing and the supply of new housing is limited — including the Washington metro region — tax credits may result in the bidding up of home prices. In other words, the program has probably led to higher prices in these areas than we would be seeing without it. This means that some of the benefit of the tax credit is being passed on from homebuyers to home sellers.
——————–

What’s astonishing is how many people thought the tax credit was meant to benefit buyers. It was obvious from the beginning that the sole purpose of the credit(s) was to artificially inflate housing prices — which benefits only the sellers, not buyers. Same goes for artificially supressed interest rates and special government loans (low down, low interest, extended duration, hybrid ARMs, etc.).

Hopefully, someday, we will be left with a smarter pool of buyers who will understand that the best time to buy a house is when prices are low, interest rates are high, and there are few/no “incentives” to buy a house.

Until then, the most short-sighted and irresponsible buyers with access to loose credit and myriad “incentives” will be the ones who set prices — especially when supply is artificially constrained as it is now.[/quote]

The problem is all the people who were already in the process of buying. They had already made an offer or signed a contract or (if the rebate is backdated) already purchased. Suddenly they get a big cash reward from Uncle Sam that they hadnt counted on, making their decision to buy all the sweeter. Then, they go out and tell everyone they can the awsome deal they just got. A few of those people go out to buy to get their deal, increasing demand and raising prices. It is this second, usually much larger group, who looses. The first group paid uninflated market prices AND got the credit.

Look at cash for clunkers. The first people in, before the thing was even passed, prob got market prices, manufacure incentives and the CFC stimulus. The people rushing out at the end got CFC, higher prices, and no incentives. Plus they prob had low inventory to choose from, meaning they had to settle on what they got.

As long as it is still socially polite to give advice to go buy something (like ‘I’ just did) but rude to argue against those purchases, we will be stuck where we are. The trick is to be in the first group, or willing to wait out all the ‘advice’.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]From the article:

2. The homebuyer tax credit makes buying a house more affordable.

…In areas where there is strong demand for housing and the supply of new housing is limited — including the Washington metro region — tax credits may result in the bidding up of home prices. In other words, the program has probably led to higher prices in these areas than we would be seeing without it. This means that some of the benefit of the tax credit is being passed on from homebuyers to home sellers.
——————–

What’s astonishing is how many people thought the tax credit was meant to benefit buyers. It was obvious from the beginning that the sole purpose of the credit(s) was to artificially inflate housing prices — which benefits only the sellers, not buyers. Same goes for artificially supressed interest rates and special government loans (low down, low interest, extended duration, hybrid ARMs, etc.).

Hopefully, someday, we will be left with a smarter pool of buyers who will understand that the best time to buy a house is when prices are low, interest rates are high, and there are few/no “incentives” to buy a house.

Until then, the most short-sighted and irresponsible buyers with access to loose credit and myriad “incentives” will be the ones who set prices — especially when supply is artificially constrained as it is now.[/quote]

The problem is all the people who were already in the process of buying. They had already made an offer or signed a contract or (if the rebate is backdated) already purchased. Suddenly they get a big cash reward from Uncle Sam that they hadnt counted on, making their decision to buy all the sweeter. Then, they go out and tell everyone they can the awsome deal they just got. A few of those people go out to buy to get their deal, increasing demand and raising prices. It is this second, usually much larger group, who looses. The first group paid uninflated market prices AND got the credit.

Look at cash for clunkers. The first people in, before the thing was even passed, prob got market prices, manufacure incentives and the CFC stimulus. The people rushing out at the end got CFC, higher prices, and no incentives. Plus they prob had low inventory to choose from, meaning they had to settle on what they got.

As long as it is still socially polite to give advice to go buy something (like ‘I’ just did) but rude to argue against those purchases, we will be stuck where we are. The trick is to be in the first group, or willing to wait out all the ‘advice’.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]From the article:

2. The homebuyer tax credit makes buying a house more affordable.

…In areas where there is strong demand for housing and the supply of new housing is limited — including the Washington metro region — tax credits may result in the bidding up of home prices. In other words, the program has probably led to higher prices in these areas than we would be seeing without it. This means that some of the benefit of the tax credit is being passed on from homebuyers to home sellers.
——————–

What’s astonishing is how many people thought the tax credit was meant to benefit buyers. It was obvious from the beginning that the sole purpose of the credit(s) was to artificially inflate housing prices — which benefits only the sellers, not buyers. Same goes for artificially supressed interest rates and special government loans (low down, low interest, extended duration, hybrid ARMs, etc.).

Hopefully, someday, we will be left with a smarter pool of buyers who will understand that the best time to buy a house is when prices are low, interest rates are high, and there are few/no “incentives” to buy a house.

Until then, the most short-sighted and irresponsible buyers with access to loose credit and myriad “incentives” will be the ones who set prices — especially when supply is artificially constrained as it is now.[/quote]

The problem is all the people who were already in the process of buying. They had already made an offer or signed a contract or (if the rebate is backdated) already purchased. Suddenly they get a big cash reward from Uncle Sam that they hadnt counted on, making their decision to buy all the sweeter. Then, they go out and tell everyone they can the awsome deal they just got. A few of those people go out to buy to get their deal, increasing demand and raising prices. It is this second, usually much larger group, who looses. The first group paid uninflated market prices AND got the credit.

Look at cash for clunkers. The first people in, before the thing was even passed, prob got market prices, manufacure incentives and the CFC stimulus. The people rushing out at the end got CFC, higher prices, and no incentives. Plus they prob had low inventory to choose from, meaning they had to settle on what they got.

As long as it is still socially polite to give advice to go buy something (like ‘I’ just did) but rude to argue against those purchases, we will be stuck where we are. The trick is to be in the first group, or willing to wait out all the ‘advice’.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter]From the article:

2. The homebuyer tax credit makes buying a house more affordable.

…In areas where there is strong demand for housing and the supply of new housing is limited — including the Washington metro region — tax credits may result in the bidding up of home prices. In other words, the program has probably led to higher prices in these areas than we would be seeing without it. This means that some of the benefit of the tax credit is being passed on from homebuyers to home sellers.
——————–

What’s astonishing is how many people thought the tax credit was meant to benefit buyers. It was obvious from the beginning that the sole purpose of the credit(s) was to artificially inflate housing prices — which benefits only the sellers, not buyers. Same goes for artificially supressed interest rates and special government loans (low down, low interest, extended duration, hybrid ARMs, etc.).

Hopefully, someday, we will be left with a smarter pool of buyers who will understand that the best time to buy a house is when prices are low, interest rates are high, and there are few/no “incentives” to buy a house.

Until then, the most short-sighted and irresponsible buyers with access to loose credit and myriad “incentives” will be the ones who set prices — especially when supply is artificially constrained as it is now.[/quote]

The problem is all the people who were already in the process of buying. They had already made an offer or signed a contract or (if the rebate is backdated) already purchased. Suddenly they get a big cash reward from Uncle Sam that they hadnt counted on, making their decision to buy all the sweeter. Then, they go out and tell everyone they can the awsome deal they just got. A few of those people go out to buy to get their deal, increasing demand and raising prices. It is this second, usually much larger group, who looses. The first group paid uninflated market prices AND got the credit.

Look at cash for clunkers. The first people in, before the thing was even passed, prob got market prices, manufacure incentives and the CFC stimulus. The people rushing out at the end got CFC, higher prices, and no incentives. Plus they prob had low inventory to choose from, meaning they had to settle on what they got.

As long as it is still socially polite to give advice to go buy something (like ‘I’ just did) but rude to argue against those purchases, we will be stuck where we are. The trick is to be in the first group, or willing to wait out all the ‘advice’.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CDMA ENG]What other circulms are there were the teachers are trying to fail you (ever scored 14 out of 100 on exam and still got a B)?
CE[/quote]

Sure. I nearly had a heart attack that I got an 21(out of 100) on an ochem midterm, till I learned that the mean was 7, and only after he threw out all the tests that were turned in blank.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CDMA ENG]What other circulms are there were the teachers are trying to fail you (ever scored 14 out of 100 on exam and still got a B)?
CE[/quote]

Sure. I nearly had a heart attack that I got an 21(out of 100) on an ochem midterm, till I learned that the mean was 7, and only after he threw out all the tests that were turned in blank.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CDMA ENG]What other circulms are there were the teachers are trying to fail you (ever scored 14 out of 100 on exam and still got a B)?
CE[/quote]

Sure. I nearly had a heart attack that I got an 21(out of 100) on an ochem midterm, till I learned that the mean was 7, and only after he threw out all the tests that were turned in blank.

[Author]

Posts