[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]… USA don’t just pay half….

I hope that was tongue in cheek! You realize US treasury is beyond bankrupt (-11T) to practice such generosity. Wait till treasury floats paper for 1.2T deficit this year and see what happens to $ and rates.[/quote]

Sorry, bsrsharma, but I actually did not have my tongue in my cheek. Europe should pay most or all of the tab, but the US has already spent trillions to limit Russian expansion, so why skimp on a few tens of billions that would keep Ukraine out of Putin’s clutches? It’s a lot cheaper than building military forces to intimidate Russia out of Ukraine after it takes hold.

[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]… USA don’t just pay half….

I hope that was tongue in cheek! You realize US treasury is beyond bankrupt (-11T) to practice such generosity. Wait till treasury floats paper for 1.2T deficit this year and see what happens to $ and rates.[/quote]

Sorry, bsrsharma, but I actually did not have my tongue in my cheek. Europe should pay most or all of the tab, but the US has already spent trillions to limit Russian expansion, so why skimp on a few tens of billions that would keep Ukraine out of Putin’s clutches? It’s a lot cheaper than building military forces to intimidate Russia out of Ukraine after it takes hold.

[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]… USA don’t just pay half….

I hope that was tongue in cheek! You realize US treasury is beyond bankrupt (-11T) to practice such generosity. Wait till treasury floats paper for 1.2T deficit this year and see what happens to $ and rates.[/quote]

Sorry, bsrsharma, but I actually did not have my tongue in my cheek. Europe should pay most or all of the tab, but the US has already spent trillions to limit Russian expansion, so why skimp on a few tens of billions that would keep Ukraine out of Putin’s clutches? It’s a lot cheaper than building military forces to intimidate Russia out of Ukraine after it takes hold.

[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]… USA don’t just pay half….

I hope that was tongue in cheek! You realize US treasury is beyond bankrupt (-11T) to practice such generosity. Wait till treasury floats paper for 1.2T deficit this year and see what happens to $ and rates.[/quote]

Sorry, bsrsharma, but I actually did not have my tongue in my cheek. Europe should pay most or all of the tab, but the US has already spent trillions to limit Russian expansion, so why skimp on a few tens of billions that would keep Ukraine out of Putin’s clutches? It’s a lot cheaper than building military forces to intimidate Russia out of Ukraine after it takes hold.

[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]Someone has to pay

That would be the lender. What is wrong with a greedy or stupid lender sharing in the losses? This will make future lending much more conservative, which seems not very bad.[/quote]

If the lenders were all private, and got no govt support when loans went bad, then the lenders would indeed be learning from taking losses. Most of the money being loaned today either comes directly from the govt, or is backstopped by it, so the lessons are not being learned, and the taxpayers are picking up the tab (until inflation can be ignited, when conservative savers will start sharing the tab).

[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]Someone has to pay

That would be the lender. What is wrong with a greedy or stupid lender sharing in the losses? This will make future lending much more conservative, which seems not very bad.[/quote]

If the lenders were all private, and got no govt support when loans went bad, then the lenders would indeed be learning from taking losses. Most of the money being loaned today either comes directly from the govt, or is backstopped by it, so the lessons are not being learned, and the taxpayers are picking up the tab (until inflation can be ignited, when conservative savers will start sharing the tab).

[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]Someone has to pay

That would be the lender. What is wrong with a greedy or stupid lender sharing in the losses? This will make future lending much more conservative, which seems not very bad.[/quote]

If the lenders were all private, and got no govt support when loans went bad, then the lenders would indeed be learning from taking losses. Most of the money being loaned today either comes directly from the govt, or is backstopped by it, so the lessons are not being learned, and the taxpayers are picking up the tab (until inflation can be ignited, when conservative savers will start sharing the tab).

[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]Someone has to pay

That would be the lender. What is wrong with a greedy or stupid lender sharing in the losses? This will make future lending much more conservative, which seems not very bad.[/quote]

If the lenders were all private, and got no govt support when loans went bad, then the lenders would indeed be learning from taking losses. Most of the money being loaned today either comes directly from the govt, or is backstopped by it, so the lessons are not being learned, and the taxpayers are picking up the tab (until inflation can be ignited, when conservative savers will start sharing the tab).

[patientrenter]

[quote=bsrsharma]Someone has to pay

That would be the lender. What is wrong with a greedy or stupid lender sharing in the losses? This will make future lending much more conservative, which seems not very bad.[/quote]

If the lenders were all private, and got no govt support when loans went bad, then the lenders would indeed be learning from taking losses. Most of the money being loaned today either comes directly from the govt, or is backstopped by it, so the lessons are not being learned, and the taxpayers are picking up the tab (until inflation can be ignited, when conservative savers will start sharing the tab).

[patientrenter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Doubtful – we dont have ghettos they do …
…1000 for a home in SD county, probably not. 100K for a home, maybe. Condos should hit that in the less desirable areas if they havent already.[/quote]

They have.

I have sold a few.

[/quote]

You have impressed me. Tell us more.

[patientrenter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Doubtful – we dont have ghettos they do …
…1000 for a home in SD county, probably not. 100K for a home, maybe. Condos should hit that in the less desirable areas if they havent already.[/quote]

They have.

I have sold a few.

[/quote]

You have impressed me. Tell us more.

[patientrenter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Doubtful – we dont have ghettos they do …
…1000 for a home in SD county, probably not. 100K for a home, maybe. Condos should hit that in the less desirable areas if they havent already.[/quote]

They have.

I have sold a few.

[/quote]

You have impressed me. Tell us more.

[patientrenter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Doubtful – we dont have ghettos they do …
…1000 for a home in SD county, probably not. 100K for a home, maybe. Condos should hit that in the less desirable areas if they havent already.[/quote]

They have.

I have sold a few.

[/quote]

You have impressed me. Tell us more.

[patientrenter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Doubtful – we dont have ghettos they do …
…1000 for a home in SD county, probably not. 100K for a home, maybe. Condos should hit that in the less desirable areas if they havent already.[/quote]

They have.

I have sold a few.

[/quote]

You have impressed me. Tell us more.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]This is a good thing for all parties concerned…. Though I suspect that it will rarely be used, it will aid in providing stability to the market. [/quote]

Stability. Definition:

I borrow money and buy assets.

If asset prices go up, I get rich.

If asset prices go down, I don’t lose much.

Of course, it’s no free lunch. Someone has to pay for every penny this “stability” costs. But if it’s someone else who pays, then I’m OK. It’s all for the good of the “economy” . L’economie, c’est moi. It’s good to be the king.

[Author]

Posts