[Jazzman]

To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars, so drawing on that analogy with our current predicament, the world is not quite upside down yet. More to the point though, putting everything into the context of ‘survive or perish’, a condition our ancestors were more intimately in tune with, our paranoia has more to do with the fear of loss of those things we have merely become accustomed to holding near and dear. We have never been certain of their omniscience.

[Jazzman]

To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars, so drawing on that analogy with our current predicament, the world is not quite upside down yet. More to the point though, putting everything into the context of ‘survive or perish’, a condition our ancestors were more intimately in tune with, our paranoia has more to do with the fear of loss of those things we have merely become accustomed to holding near and dear. We have never been certain of their omniscience.

[Jazzman]

To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars, so drawing on that analogy with our current predicament, the world is not quite upside down yet. More to the point though, putting everything into the context of ‘survive or perish’, a condition our ancestors were more intimately in tune with, our paranoia has more to do with the fear of loss of those things we have merely become accustomed to holding near and dear. We have never been certain of their omniscience.

[Jazzman]

Just returned from the UK yesterday. You either adopt all points of view or play it safe and have no opinion. The latter having the advantage of being able to react emotionally, but you may stand accused of intellectual laziness, or worse indifference. The irony in this detached observation culture we live in, is when watching wild life documentaries we marvel at how similar animal behavior mimics our own. Yet when dissecting ourselves in these ‘natural’ acts, we prefer to denigrate them as belonging exclusively to primitive sub-species. You can’t have your cake and it. Violence, robbery, riots, social discontent, all share a similar stage but linking actors to one cause ignores the complexity of the human condition. The only constants worthy of consideration are violence is abhorrent and not pretending this is something new.

[Jazzman]

Just returned from the UK yesterday. You either adopt all points of view or play it safe and have no opinion. The latter having the advantage of being able to react emotionally, but you may stand accused of intellectual laziness, or worse indifference. The irony in this detached observation culture we live in, is when watching wild life documentaries we marvel at how similar animal behavior mimics our own. Yet when dissecting ourselves in these ‘natural’ acts, we prefer to denigrate them as belonging exclusively to primitive sub-species. You can’t have your cake and it. Violence, robbery, riots, social discontent, all share a similar stage but linking actors to one cause ignores the complexity of the human condition. The only constants worthy of consideration are violence is abhorrent and not pretending this is something new.

[Jazzman]

Just returned from the UK yesterday. You either adopt all points of view or play it safe and have no opinion. The latter having the advantage of being able to react emotionally, but you may stand accused of intellectual laziness, or worse indifference. The irony in this detached observation culture we live in, is when watching wild life documentaries we marvel at how similar animal behavior mimics our own. Yet when dissecting ourselves in these ‘natural’ acts, we prefer to denigrate them as belonging exclusively to primitive sub-species. You can’t have your cake and it. Violence, robbery, riots, social discontent, all share a similar stage but linking actors to one cause ignores the complexity of the human condition. The only constants worthy of consideration are violence is abhorrent and not pretending this is something new.

[Jazzman]

Just returned from the UK yesterday. You either adopt all points of view or play it safe and have no opinion. The latter having the advantage of being able to react emotionally, but you may stand accused of intellectual laziness, or worse indifference. The irony in this detached observation culture we live in, is when watching wild life documentaries we marvel at how similar animal behavior mimics our own. Yet when dissecting ourselves in these ‘natural’ acts, we prefer to denigrate them as belonging exclusively to primitive sub-species. You can’t have your cake and it. Violence, robbery, riots, social discontent, all share a similar stage but linking actors to one cause ignores the complexity of the human condition. The only constants worthy of consideration are violence is abhorrent and not pretending this is something new.

[Jazzman]

Just returned from the UK yesterday. You either adopt all points of view or play it safe and have no opinion. The latter having the advantage of being able to react emotionally, but you may stand accused of intellectual laziness, or worse indifference. The irony in this detached observation culture we live in, is when watching wild life documentaries we marvel at how similar animal behavior mimics our own. Yet when dissecting ourselves in these ‘natural’ acts, we prefer to denigrate them as belonging exclusively to primitive sub-species. You can’t have your cake and it. Violence, robbery, riots, social discontent, all share a similar stage but linking actors to one cause ignores the complexity of the human condition. The only constants worthy of consideration are violence is abhorrent and not pretending this is something new.

[Jazzman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?[/quote]

You could calculate the costs, and how much money the responsible bodies have, let them pay it down, and write it off, without devastating their balance sheets and causing a run on banks. Actually, I believe this is probably happening, just mot as fast as some would like.

[Jazzman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?[/quote]

You could calculate the costs, and how much money the responsible bodies have, let them pay it down, and write it off, without devastating their balance sheets and causing a run on banks. Actually, I believe this is probably happening, just mot as fast as some would like.

[Jazzman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?[/quote]

You could calculate the costs, and how much money the responsible bodies have, let them pay it down, and write it off, without devastating their balance sheets and causing a run on banks. Actually, I believe this is probably happening, just mot as fast as some would like.

[Jazzman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?[/quote]

You could calculate the costs, and how much money the responsible bodies have, let them pay it down, and write it off, without devastating their balance sheets and causing a run on banks. Actually, I believe this is probably happening, just mot as fast as some would like.

[Jazzman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
No I think they really want to stall growth, otherwise they would have forced the banks to write down principles or some other drastic action like inflation (you cannot replace 20% of the economy with solar energy job’s) that’s so funny it’s not even trying.
(Like I said, that’s just my speculation)[/quote]

I’m with Arraya. It’s always been growth at all cost.

Forcing principal reductions would hit the banks’ balance sheets and we would need to bail them out again.

I’m curious why you think that it’s necessary to get homeowners above water for an employment recovery to happen.

Theoretically, homeowners bought houses they could afford to make monthly payments on. Underwater or not, they could just carry on. Theoretically, the banks did their job with underwriting.

But we now all know the problem is that the banking system broke-down and allowed massive numbers of homeowners to buy houses they could not afford. The whole system was predicated on refinancing and forever increasing prices.

If we were to force the banks to reduce principal, who should bear the cost of such a massive program to benefit underwater homeowners?[/quote]

You could calculate the costs, and how much money the responsible bodies have, let them pay it down, and write it off, without devastating their balance sheets and causing a run on banks. Actually, I believe this is probably happening, just mot as fast as some would like.

[Jazzman]

Brian, short sales are also being cited as one cause for the huge increase in cancellations in June.

[Jazzman]

Brian, short sales are also being cited as one cause for the huge increase in cancellations in June.

[Author]

Posts