[patientrenter]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan] …I find it funny that in an environment where the median price has dropped by 40% that anyone would think that bears have lost.
[/quote]

Hmmm…. housing is cyclical. I think comparing each stage of the current house price cycle to the corresponding stage of the last and prior cycles makes more sense than simply calculating the % drop from the last peak. And that’s doubly true because the last housing peak was the highest and most widespread – global – in recorded history. So compare to 1996 prices, increased for CPI inflation since then. If we are still above that level, then we haven’t even returned to a trough appropriate for the lesser peak before the last.

[patientrenter]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan] …I find it funny that in an environment where the median price has dropped by 40% that anyone would think that bears have lost.
[/quote]

Hmmm…. housing is cyclical. I think comparing each stage of the current house price cycle to the corresponding stage of the last and prior cycles makes more sense than simply calculating the % drop from the last peak. And that’s doubly true because the last housing peak was the highest and most widespread – global – in recorded history. So compare to 1996 prices, increased for CPI inflation since then. If we are still above that level, then we haven’t even returned to a trough appropriate for the lesser peak before the last.

[patientrenter]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan] …I find it funny that in an environment where the median price has dropped by 40% that anyone would think that bears have lost.
[/quote]

Hmmm…. housing is cyclical. I think comparing each stage of the current house price cycle to the corresponding stage of the last and prior cycles makes more sense than simply calculating the % drop from the last peak. And that’s doubly true because the last housing peak was the highest and most widespread – global – in recorded history. So compare to 1996 prices, increased for CPI inflation since then. If we are still above that level, then we haven’t even returned to a trough appropriate for the lesser peak before the last.

[patientrenter]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan] …I find it funny that in an environment where the median price has dropped by 40% that anyone would think that bears have lost.
[/quote]

Hmmm…. housing is cyclical. I think comparing each stage of the current house price cycle to the corresponding stage of the last and prior cycles makes more sense than simply calculating the % drop from the last peak. And that’s doubly true because the last housing peak was the highest and most widespread – global – in recorded history. So compare to 1996 prices, increased for CPI inflation since then. If we are still above that level, then we haven’t even returned to a trough appropriate for the lesser peak before the last.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.

1. Who pays when banks go bust?

2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?

3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?

I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).

Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.

But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.

We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.

And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.

1. Who pays when banks go bust?

2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?

3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?

I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).

Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.

But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.

We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.

And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.

1. Who pays when banks go bust?

2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?

3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?

I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).

Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.

But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.

We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.

And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.

1. Who pays when banks go bust?

2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?

3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?

I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).

Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.

But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.

We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.

And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.

[patientrenter]

CA Renter,

I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.

1. Who pays when banks go bust?

2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?

3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?

I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).

Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.

But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.

We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.

And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.

[patientrenter]

I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

[patientrenter]

I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

[patientrenter]

I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

[patientrenter]

I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

[patientrenter]

I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Oxford]….He did show me this heating system that ran hot water through pipes in the slab….[/quote]

Oxford, sounds like a heat pump. I have some family members (in Europe) who are fanatical about lowering fossil fuel usage. Extremely well insulated house, cooled and heated by a deep heat pump, pumping cooled or heated water into flooring all through the house. Solar panels on top. I don’t think they use more than 50 euro a month in fossil fuels, through cold winters and warm summers.

But poor design or execution can lose most of the efficiency. I have to assume this person did a sloppy/cheap job of installation.

[Author]

Posts