[patientrenter]

Trillions of dollars are being poured into the mortgage loan market, so it’s hardly surprising that it has an impact, some places more than others. I still think even Berkeley prices will decline.

[patientrenter]

Trillions of dollars are being poured into the mortgage loan market, so it’s hardly surprising that it has an impact, some places more than others. I still think even Berkeley prices will decline.

[patientrenter]

Trillions of dollars are being poured into the mortgage loan market, so it’s hardly surprising that it has an impact, some places more than others. I still think even Berkeley prices will decline.

[patientrenter]

Trillions of dollars are being poured into the mortgage loan market, so it’s hardly surprising that it has an impact, some places more than others. I still think even Berkeley prices will decline.

[patientrenter]

Fair enough, davelj and Allan. I understand both your points.

Nevertheless, my hackles are raised when I see BB, Larry S, and others lying to me, relying on my being very stupid. My gene for favoring honesty and fairness over “maximizing the pie” must be pretty active, because I still feel deeply offended even though I realize what they are really doing is relying on most of the rest of the population being very stupid. I am unrealistic, I suppose, and still think it should be possible for us to have leaders who treat the general public as being slightly smarter than it is, instead of the reverse.

I also believe that there really is an effort to give massive breaks to lots of people who don’t deserve them, going well beyond the nibbling-at-the-edge billions in profits extracted from the RTC etc. in the last bank crisis. Many tens of millions of people who benefited from (what I consider are temporary and probably unsustainable) increases in asset prices over the last 20-30 years are loath to give up the gains, and will use any “save our economy”, or other, excuse to advance their personal interests.

Well, I am just perpetuating an unverifiable opinion here, so I will rest my case with that. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

[patientrenter]

Fair enough, davelj and Allan. I understand both your points.

Nevertheless, my hackles are raised when I see BB, Larry S, and others lying to me, relying on my being very stupid. My gene for favoring honesty and fairness over “maximizing the pie” must be pretty active, because I still feel deeply offended even though I realize what they are really doing is relying on most of the rest of the population being very stupid. I am unrealistic, I suppose, and still think it should be possible for us to have leaders who treat the general public as being slightly smarter than it is, instead of the reverse.

I also believe that there really is an effort to give massive breaks to lots of people who don’t deserve them, going well beyond the nibbling-at-the-edge billions in profits extracted from the RTC etc. in the last bank crisis. Many tens of millions of people who benefited from (what I consider are temporary and probably unsustainable) increases in asset prices over the last 20-30 years are loath to give up the gains, and will use any “save our economy”, or other, excuse to advance their personal interests.

Well, I am just perpetuating an unverifiable opinion here, so I will rest my case with that. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

[patientrenter]

Fair enough, davelj and Allan. I understand both your points.

Nevertheless, my hackles are raised when I see BB, Larry S, and others lying to me, relying on my being very stupid. My gene for favoring honesty and fairness over “maximizing the pie” must be pretty active, because I still feel deeply offended even though I realize what they are really doing is relying on most of the rest of the population being very stupid. I am unrealistic, I suppose, and still think it should be possible for us to have leaders who treat the general public as being slightly smarter than it is, instead of the reverse.

I also believe that there really is an effort to give massive breaks to lots of people who don’t deserve them, going well beyond the nibbling-at-the-edge billions in profits extracted from the RTC etc. in the last bank crisis. Many tens of millions of people who benefited from (what I consider are temporary and probably unsustainable) increases in asset prices over the last 20-30 years are loath to give up the gains, and will use any “save our economy”, or other, excuse to advance their personal interests.

Well, I am just perpetuating an unverifiable opinion here, so I will rest my case with that. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

[patientrenter]

Fair enough, davelj and Allan. I understand both your points.

Nevertheless, my hackles are raised when I see BB, Larry S, and others lying to me, relying on my being very stupid. My gene for favoring honesty and fairness over “maximizing the pie” must be pretty active, because I still feel deeply offended even though I realize what they are really doing is relying on most of the rest of the population being very stupid. I am unrealistic, I suppose, and still think it should be possible for us to have leaders who treat the general public as being slightly smarter than it is, instead of the reverse.

I also believe that there really is an effort to give massive breaks to lots of people who don’t deserve them, going well beyond the nibbling-at-the-edge billions in profits extracted from the RTC etc. in the last bank crisis. Many tens of millions of people who benefited from (what I consider are temporary and probably unsustainable) increases in asset prices over the last 20-30 years are loath to give up the gains, and will use any “save our economy”, or other, excuse to advance their personal interests.

Well, I am just perpetuating an unverifiable opinion here, so I will rest my case with that. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

[patientrenter]

Fair enough, davelj and Allan. I understand both your points.

Nevertheless, my hackles are raised when I see BB, Larry S, and others lying to me, relying on my being very stupid. My gene for favoring honesty and fairness over “maximizing the pie” must be pretty active, because I still feel deeply offended even though I realize what they are really doing is relying on most of the rest of the population being very stupid. I am unrealistic, I suppose, and still think it should be possible for us to have leaders who treat the general public as being slightly smarter than it is, instead of the reverse.

I also believe that there really is an effort to give massive breaks to lots of people who don’t deserve them, going well beyond the nibbling-at-the-edge billions in profits extracted from the RTC etc. in the last bank crisis. Many tens of millions of people who benefited from (what I consider are temporary and probably unsustainable) increases in asset prices over the last 20-30 years are loath to give up the gains, and will use any “save our economy”, or other, excuse to advance their personal interests.

Well, I am just perpetuating an unverifiable opinion here, so I will rest my case with that. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

[patientrenter]

That was very helpful, HLS. Thanks for taking the time to inform us.

I don’t want to hijack this thread too much, so I think I will start a new one that will pursue one of the two reasons I asked you about the limits.

Reason 1: I think that high LTV ratios are the single biggest problem with bubble behavior, and I suspect that Larry Summers and Barney Frank and the other geniuses making the current economic decisions for us all are trying hard to perpetuate the bad behavior by using this loophole. All that publicity about new standards requiring good credit and enough income is equivalent to “don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain”. It’s a sop thrown to satisfy the ever-gullible public that our economic masters are genuinely reforming the system. I suspect they are utterly opposed to any real fundamental reform.

Reason 2: I have a friend who is thinking of refi’ng her home. It’s a condo that she paid $300K for, but is being currently appraised for – I am amazed – over $700K. She is very responsible (with a credit score of 795, and long-time, steady, and well-paid employment at a solid company) and is focused on paying down principal and getting a low rate and all that, as am I. But I am wondering if she should instead borrow the max, and walk away if home prices go well below her new loan balance. The system is screwing people like her and me, and I wonder if I should advise her to screw the system back.

[patientrenter]

That was very helpful, HLS. Thanks for taking the time to inform us.

I don’t want to hijack this thread too much, so I think I will start a new one that will pursue one of the two reasons I asked you about the limits.

Reason 1: I think that high LTV ratios are the single biggest problem with bubble behavior, and I suspect that Larry Summers and Barney Frank and the other geniuses making the current economic decisions for us all are trying hard to perpetuate the bad behavior by using this loophole. All that publicity about new standards requiring good credit and enough income is equivalent to “don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain”. It’s a sop thrown to satisfy the ever-gullible public that our economic masters are genuinely reforming the system. I suspect they are utterly opposed to any real fundamental reform.

Reason 2: I have a friend who is thinking of refi’ng her home. It’s a condo that she paid $300K for, but is being currently appraised for – I am amazed – over $700K. She is very responsible (with a credit score of 795, and long-time, steady, and well-paid employment at a solid company) and is focused on paying down principal and getting a low rate and all that, as am I. But I am wondering if she should instead borrow the max, and walk away if home prices go well below her new loan balance. The system is screwing people like her and me, and I wonder if I should advise her to screw the system back.

[patientrenter]

That was very helpful, HLS. Thanks for taking the time to inform us.

I don’t want to hijack this thread too much, so I think I will start a new one that will pursue one of the two reasons I asked you about the limits.

Reason 1: I think that high LTV ratios are the single biggest problem with bubble behavior, and I suspect that Larry Summers and Barney Frank and the other geniuses making the current economic decisions for us all are trying hard to perpetuate the bad behavior by using this loophole. All that publicity about new standards requiring good credit and enough income is equivalent to “don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain”. It’s a sop thrown to satisfy the ever-gullible public that our economic masters are genuinely reforming the system. I suspect they are utterly opposed to any real fundamental reform.

Reason 2: I have a friend who is thinking of refi’ng her home. It’s a condo that she paid $300K for, but is being currently appraised for – I am amazed – over $700K. She is very responsible (with a credit score of 795, and long-time, steady, and well-paid employment at a solid company) and is focused on paying down principal and getting a low rate and all that, as am I. But I am wondering if she should instead borrow the max, and walk away if home prices go well below her new loan balance. The system is screwing people like her and me, and I wonder if I should advise her to screw the system back.

[patientrenter]

That was very helpful, HLS. Thanks for taking the time to inform us.

I don’t want to hijack this thread too much, so I think I will start a new one that will pursue one of the two reasons I asked you about the limits.

Reason 1: I think that high LTV ratios are the single biggest problem with bubble behavior, and I suspect that Larry Summers and Barney Frank and the other geniuses making the current economic decisions for us all are trying hard to perpetuate the bad behavior by using this loophole. All that publicity about new standards requiring good credit and enough income is equivalent to “don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain”. It’s a sop thrown to satisfy the ever-gullible public that our economic masters are genuinely reforming the system. I suspect they are utterly opposed to any real fundamental reform.

Reason 2: I have a friend who is thinking of refi’ng her home. It’s a condo that she paid $300K for, but is being currently appraised for – I am amazed – over $700K. She is very responsible (with a credit score of 795, and long-time, steady, and well-paid employment at a solid company) and is focused on paying down principal and getting a low rate and all that, as am I. But I am wondering if she should instead borrow the max, and walk away if home prices go well below her new loan balance. The system is screwing people like her and me, and I wonder if I should advise her to screw the system back.

[patientrenter]

That was very helpful, HLS. Thanks for taking the time to inform us.

I don’t want to hijack this thread too much, so I think I will start a new one that will pursue one of the two reasons I asked you about the limits.

Reason 1: I think that high LTV ratios are the single biggest problem with bubble behavior, and I suspect that Larry Summers and Barney Frank and the other geniuses making the current economic decisions for us all are trying hard to perpetuate the bad behavior by using this loophole. All that publicity about new standards requiring good credit and enough income is equivalent to “don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain”. It’s a sop thrown to satisfy the ever-gullible public that our economic masters are genuinely reforming the system. I suspect they are utterly opposed to any real fundamental reform.

Reason 2: I have a friend who is thinking of refi’ng her home. It’s a condo that she paid $300K for, but is being currently appraised for – I am amazed – over $700K. She is very responsible (with a credit score of 795, and long-time, steady, and well-paid employment at a solid company) and is focused on paying down principal and getting a low rate and all that, as am I. But I am wondering if she should instead borrow the max, and walk away if home prices go well below her new loan balance. The system is screwing people like her and me, and I wonder if I should advise her to screw the system back.

[patientrenter]

It’s fun to enthuse about a specific new vehicle, and discuss its merits and demerits, but the notion that the right way to direct the part of our economy devoted to transportation is for a govt agency or govt program, or a few individuals, to pick a winner based on the appeal to them of one option is nuts.

By far the most efficient way to wean our economy off energy sources from “people who don’t like us” is to tax them uniformly. So gradually and relentlessly increase the per-gallon tax on gasoline, diesel, and the other energy supplies from these nasty sources. Then millions of people in the economy will have a steady incentive to come up with many solutions that use less of those bad energy sources. We will all get to choose the best solutions for our needs based on the purchase price and running cost and reliability and spaciousness etc.

Doing things in a more centralized command-and-control way would be analogous to having Washington DC choose which kinds of bread will be offered in grocery stores. Of course we could, but why would we choose not to harness the ingenuity and industry and consumer preferences of hundreds of millions of people?

[Author]

Posts