[justme]

In 2001, we had a stock market crash, and all the money
sloshed into the housing market.

In 2007, we will likely have a full blown housing market
crash, and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if all
all the cash goes sloshing into the stock market.

This is not a prediction, I just see it as a real possibility.

[justme]

Movers and shakers?

>they might someday reach 75K. Now we have a lot of engineers >starting salaries in 70K range and many making low six >figures after a couple years that think they are movers and >shakers. I’d agree

This brings up an obvious question:

Who deserves to be movers and shakers,
Realtors or engineers?

What is harder (or of more societal value),
making 100k as an engineer or 100k as a realtor?

[justme]

barnaby33 wrote:

>Wow, JES, I can actually imagine you salivating as you typed >that. You took a thread that was mostly about finding/losing >friends and really warped it. True JG helped, but man thats a >real stretch.

>Your message is full of the same religion based paranoia that >seems to permeate conservative discourse. Why does it matter

You should have seen the number that JES and Bgates did
on the “Bill Clinton does FOX” thread. Whoooee!! I have
to say that facts, logic and moral consistency were not
their strong points. Be glad they didn’t accuse you or
anyone else of condoning disembowelment of aid workers,
or worse.

On the other hand, they were at least *somewhat* on topic
in the Clinton thread.

Oops. I think I just ridiculed them. Oh well. My bad.
As was stated in yet another thread, once someone presents
a consistently bad analysis a repeated number of times,
one might be tempted to take the shortcut of ridiculing
said analyst.

[justme]

Not to mention that the spinmesisters behind this article
very conveniently used month-to-month comparisons to get
their +4.2% sales volume change, whereas the year-to-year
change was -17.4%.

It is very convenient for the real estate propaganda machine
to quote YOY when that makes the market look hotter, and
then turn around and quote MOM to grasp for a straw of
improvement when the market has tanked.

And as someone already pointed out, the August MOM upturn
is suspect in and by itself.

[justme]

Let’s try with an enumerated list of facts:

1. Iraq gassed the kurds in 1988 with WMD that *WE* had
given them to use on the Iranians (*).
2. Iraq was an enemy of Al Quaeda
3. Iraq had nothing to do with 911
4. There was no Al-Quaeda in Iraq until after the Bush
invasion
5. Bush all but abandoned Afghanistan
6. Bush stopped worrying about bin Laden and concentrated
on the war in Iraq.
7. The war in Iraq was started based on lies and false
acccusations, to the UN, the world and the American
public.
8. WMD in Iraq (gas) was destroyed and gone years before
the war started.
9. In a war, both sides often commit war crimes. That is a
good reason not to start a war unless absolutely
necessary.

Yes or no?

(*) Bonus question: That makes Iraq’s actions evil, but our
actions not so?

Yes, Saddaam Hussein did give money to support families of
Palestinian suicide bombers, And that is wrong and evil. But
so did citizens, if not governments, of any number of middle
eastern countries that are our “buddies” and whom we are not
attacking or “democratizing”, even though their governments
allowed this type of activity to take place.

And please stop reading your own personal interpretations in
between the lines of what I write, as exemplified by the
“that suggests to me” line of argumentation.

[justme]

I did not see powayseller call someone a consistently bad
analyst.

This is your own conclusion to draw, for example
if powayseller showed a number of times that someone;s
analysis was bad.

[justme]

Bgates and JES respond with a mixture of personal attacks,
attempts at ridicule, assigning to me positions that I do
not hold, and attempts at diversions, instead of responding
to the facts stated.

If for a moment I should get personal, I would say that the
tactics seen here are consistent with someone who does not
have truth and morality on their side.

[justme]

>”They are evil, we are not”
>I’m sure our noble allies saudi arabia and pakistan will testify to that

>>socalalarm, we allied with Stalin in WWII. Does that mean
>>Hitler wasn’t evil? Does it mean FDR and Churchill were?

Yet another false analogy, and a strawman argument from
bgates. In fact the analogy is false twice over. Heee-lllo.

If Iraq attacked Saudi Arabia and Pakistan *and* the US, and
we allied with them to beat back the attack, THEN you would
have an analogy. Just not a good one.Talk about disengenious
arguments!

By the way, you should know by now that Iraq had nothing to
do with 911, and was an enemy of Al Quaeda.

So we attacked Iraq just because Bush *wanted* to, and
because he thought Iraq was “evil”. You practically said so
yourself. Thanks for clarifying that. And Bush lied about
it, too.

The questions is: Does it make sense to attack countries
that Bush deems “evil”? Who are we to say we are better? And
how does Bush pick *which* evil country to attack? It seems
to be a plethora of them, and the republicans do not apply a
uniform standard as to which countries need to be
“democratized”.

The selection criteria seem to revolve around whether the
specific “evil” country has nukes (don’t attack), has oil
(definitely attack), is islamic (“evil”, good excuse to
attack), or has a right wing military regime (don’t attack,
they are our friends).

By the way, it is not lost on the world that we only go
after non-nuclear nations. As a result, a number of them are
scrambling to develop and/or enhance their nuclear
capability. North Korea and Iran come to mind. Good work,
Bushie.

[justme]

> Our enemy glorifies those who remove the heads of captives
> whether combatants or aid workers.

Yeah, and some of our soldiers raped a 14 year old girl,
killed her and her familiy, and then set them on fire.

But we are not evil, because we aplogize afterwards.

[justme]

Re: Perry/discount sale,

The problem is that the discount sale hardly ever happens,
unless there is a stalemate were no offers
get made at all, and then it still takes time.
It also takes discipline among ALL buyers.

I think reverse multiple offers and under-list/lowball
bidding is exactly what is needed. This makes the sellers
know that there are buyers out there, just not at their
listing price. Most sellers need a clear message that
price sells real estate (as opposed to “good agents sell
real estate”, which is what NAR wants them to believe).

[justme]

sdrealtor:

False analogy. What we propose is equivalent to
the employer needing 48 hours to pick among the
accepting applicants. They wouldn’t ask anyone
to quit their job.

Reference:

Here’s a good analogy for Chrispy and Justme,
You apply for a job and are given an offer. The employer says that 4 other people have the same offer. You are told to quit your current job and show up for work the first day. When you show up, you are told one of you may actually get the job. How does that sound to you?

[justme]

Per the sdcellar scheme, we are not “falsely proposing
to buy” anything. All the offers will state that we
are putting out 5 offers and will pick from the ones
accepted after 48 hours. And we WILL pick one of them.
There is nothing false about it.

Also the 20%*50%=10% chance of closing: After 48 hours,
the chosen seller WILL know, and the odds are back to 50%.
Why is that any worse than the wait that buyers have to go
through before THEY know whether they are the 1 in 10 buyer
that will go into contract. Seems the same to me.

All I want to do is to even the playing field, because
it has always been tilted in favor of the seller.

By the way, the online services like zip and redfin etc
really ought to look into this scheme. Sdcellar, I smell
a “business process” patent war coming up (just kidding).

[justme]

Parallel offers:

I don’t think it is mean spirited at all to make five
parallel offers, and it does not make the buyer an
a$$h*le. Nobody says the same about sellers that are
entertaining multiple offers with a deadline.

Why do we never hear about sellers being a$$h*les, and
agents being afraid of insulting the buyers? It is always
about the sellers and their delicate sensibilities.

It just goes to show that the whole real estate industry
panders to the buyers 99% of the time, and just pretends
to be helpful to sellers.

Industry humbug, but my opinion is not an attack on
sdrealtor. He is just saying that the method may not be
productive under the status quo. What we need to
do is to make multiple offers to buy
a common occurence and part of the status quo!!

[justme]

Excellent, sdcellar.

This gets around the problem of having to commit to
enter into contract on the “lowest accepted offer”
property.

All you are committing to is to enter into contract
on *one* of them.

Of course, what I want is to pick the “best deal” among
the accepted offers or counteroffers. The best deal
may not be the one with the lowest price point, as
sdcellar correctly inferred.

Now, how do I find an agent that is willing to do this
type of “reverse multiple offer”?

Or have you had success writing up the offers and
submitting them yourself?

This in turn brings up the interesting point
of “representing yourself”.

If I remember correctly, the usual resposne from an agent
is that they cannot give you part of the comission “because
that would be illegal, hence you may as well get a buyers
agent”.

This is of course bullshit because you aren’t
really asking for a comission as such, you are asking the
agent to rebate their comission from the seller, who can
then pass it on to you in the form of a lower acceptance
price.

Is the listing agent obligated by law to present such
an offer?

[justme]

Five parallel offers:

Chrispy, this is something I’ve been wanting to do.

How do you go about it, exactly? In each offer, are you
putting as a “contingency” that the acceptance price must
be

a. no higher than your specific offer
b. lower than the the acceptance price of your other 4 offers,
which you list on your contingency page

Is this how it works??

[Author]

Posts