Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
ParticipantSDR,
DaC and you are correct:
1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.
2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.
3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.
4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.
And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.
ParticipantSDR,
DaC and you are correct:
1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.
2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.
3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.
4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.
And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.
ParticipantSDR,
DaC and you are correct:
1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.
2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.
3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.
4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.
And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.
Participant[quote=esmith]Even here in San Diego, high end did not get all that bubbly.[/quote]
Let me guess, esmith, you own a house, maybe high end, maybe in SD.
Participant[quote=esmith]Even here in San Diego, high end did not get all that bubbly.[/quote]
Let me guess, esmith, you own a house, maybe high end, maybe in SD.
Participant[quote=esmith]Even here in San Diego, high end did not get all that bubbly.[/quote]
Let me guess, esmith, you own a house, maybe high end, maybe in SD.
Participant[quote=esmith]Even here in San Diego, high end did not get all that bubbly.[/quote]
Let me guess, esmith, you own a house, maybe high end, maybe in SD.
Participant[quote=esmith]Even here in San Diego, high end did not get all that bubbly.[/quote]
Let me guess, esmith, you own a house, maybe high end, maybe in SD.
ParticipantThe current system will not change soon, because there is a powerful coalition of interests for more and more immigration, preferably of illegals and the poor, from both of our major parties.
It suits a majority of businessmen to have a large supply of cheap* labor, preferably of illegal immigrants because they have less bargaining power than legal immigrants or natives, and these businessmen transmit their preferences to the (usually) Republican politicians most sympathetic to them. It suits Democratic politicians directly to admit a large number of poor and uneducated immigrants, because these immigrants generate future Democratic voters. Examples: California used to be Republican. Orange County was a bastion of Republicanism.
Both sides recognize that the resulting mockery of law offends a significant number of voters. So they support ineffective measures to limit illegal immigration, such as border fences, or they set themselves up in opposition to ridiculously easy amnesty proposals. And most of the voters fall for it.
*Cheap as measured by the direct costs borne by the employer. Adding in the cost of educating the illegal immigrants’ children, subsidizing their rents, their uninsured accidents etc, they may not be cheap. But those costs are borne by taxpayers in general, not directly by the hiring employer, so the illegal immigrants appear to be cheap. Illegal immigration is a taxpayer subsidy for employers and a growth source for the Democratic party.
ParticipantThe current system will not change soon, because there is a powerful coalition of interests for more and more immigration, preferably of illegals and the poor, from both of our major parties.
It suits a majority of businessmen to have a large supply of cheap* labor, preferably of illegal immigrants because they have less bargaining power than legal immigrants or natives, and these businessmen transmit their preferences to the (usually) Republican politicians most sympathetic to them. It suits Democratic politicians directly to admit a large number of poor and uneducated immigrants, because these immigrants generate future Democratic voters. Examples: California used to be Republican. Orange County was a bastion of Republicanism.
Both sides recognize that the resulting mockery of law offends a significant number of voters. So they support ineffective measures to limit illegal immigration, such as border fences, or they set themselves up in opposition to ridiculously easy amnesty proposals. And most of the voters fall for it.
*Cheap as measured by the direct costs borne by the employer. Adding in the cost of educating the illegal immigrants’ children, subsidizing their rents, their uninsured accidents etc, they may not be cheap. But those costs are borne by taxpayers in general, not directly by the hiring employer, so the illegal immigrants appear to be cheap. Illegal immigration is a taxpayer subsidy for employers and a growth source for the Democratic party.
ParticipantThe current system will not change soon, because there is a powerful coalition of interests for more and more immigration, preferably of illegals and the poor, from both of our major parties.
It suits a majority of businessmen to have a large supply of cheap* labor, preferably of illegal immigrants because they have less bargaining power than legal immigrants or natives, and these businessmen transmit their preferences to the (usually) Republican politicians most sympathetic to them. It suits Democratic politicians directly to admit a large number of poor and uneducated immigrants, because these immigrants generate future Democratic voters. Examples: California used to be Republican. Orange County was a bastion of Republicanism.
Both sides recognize that the resulting mockery of law offends a significant number of voters. So they support ineffective measures to limit illegal immigration, such as border fences, or they set themselves up in opposition to ridiculously easy amnesty proposals. And most of the voters fall for it.
*Cheap as measured by the direct costs borne by the employer. Adding in the cost of educating the illegal immigrants’ children, subsidizing their rents, their uninsured accidents etc, they may not be cheap. But those costs are borne by taxpayers in general, not directly by the hiring employer, so the illegal immigrants appear to be cheap. Illegal immigration is a taxpayer subsidy for employers and a growth source for the Democratic party.
ParticipantThe current system will not change soon, because there is a powerful coalition of interests for more and more immigration, preferably of illegals and the poor, from both of our major parties.
It suits a majority of businessmen to have a large supply of cheap* labor, preferably of illegal immigrants because they have less bargaining power than legal immigrants or natives, and these businessmen transmit their preferences to the (usually) Republican politicians most sympathetic to them. It suits Democratic politicians directly to admit a large number of poor and uneducated immigrants, because these immigrants generate future Democratic voters. Examples: California used to be Republican. Orange County was a bastion of Republicanism.
Both sides recognize that the resulting mockery of law offends a significant number of voters. So they support ineffective measures to limit illegal immigration, such as border fences, or they set themselves up in opposition to ridiculously easy amnesty proposals. And most of the voters fall for it.
*Cheap as measured by the direct costs borne by the employer. Adding in the cost of educating the illegal immigrants’ children, subsidizing their rents, their uninsured accidents etc, they may not be cheap. But those costs are borne by taxpayers in general, not directly by the hiring employer, so the illegal immigrants appear to be cheap. Illegal immigration is a taxpayer subsidy for employers and a growth source for the Democratic party.
ParticipantThe current system will not change soon, because there is a powerful coalition of interests for more and more immigration, preferably of illegals and the poor, from both of our major parties.
It suits a majority of businessmen to have a large supply of cheap* labor, preferably of illegal immigrants because they have less bargaining power than legal immigrants or natives, and these businessmen transmit their preferences to the (usually) Republican politicians most sympathetic to them. It suits Democratic politicians directly to admit a large number of poor and uneducated immigrants, because these immigrants generate future Democratic voters. Examples: California used to be Republican. Orange County was a bastion of Republicanism.
Both sides recognize that the resulting mockery of law offends a significant number of voters. So they support ineffective measures to limit illegal immigration, such as border fences, or they set themselves up in opposition to ridiculously easy amnesty proposals. And most of the voters fall for it.
*Cheap as measured by the direct costs borne by the employer. Adding in the cost of educating the illegal immigrants’ children, subsidizing their rents, their uninsured accidents etc, they may not be cheap. But those costs are borne by taxpayers in general, not directly by the hiring employer, so the illegal immigrants appear to be cheap. Illegal immigration is a taxpayer subsidy for employers and a growth source for the Democratic party.
ParticipantEconProf, there was a lot of guessing that foreclosures would drive up rents, but that was before people began to realize that the “real economy” would be hit. I don’t have data, but I think unemployment and reductions in pay will drive rents down. Consider OC’s $1100 rent for 540 sq ft. This is just not going to work in a real recession.
-
AuthorPosts
