[pencilneck]

OT video link: Ron Paul Stars in 1983 Congressional Baseball

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2012/02/ron-paul-stars-in-1983-congressional-baseball-game/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

I just saw this posted elsewhere and I couldn’t help but pass it along.

[pencilneck]

Median family income in San Diego county is about $75,000. In what part of California is $122k considered peanuts?

https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refmaterials/hudmedinc/hudincomeresults.jsp?STATE=CA&choice=county&CITY=&FormsButton1=Search

[pencilneck]

To go back to the original article quickly (and a rebuttal? I don’t know):

There’s a little theory about how fractional reserve lending is a money multiplier. To put it simply: Saving money (in a bank) is supposed to create more money in the actual economy than does spending it.

link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

However, I’ve seen a big push towards active consumption vs. saving (oftentimes endorsed and overtly encouraged by government policy and mainstream economists) for what…about 6 years now?* Does this mean they no longer believe in fractional reserve lending? I’m honestly confused.

*Edit – Maybe it’s only been 4.5 years. George Bush’s stimulus packages first got me thinking about this. One media quote: “Most economists agreed that tax rebates would immediately lift consumer spending.” If one believes in fractional reserve lending (and its hard not to) why focus solely on the spending aspect?

If the banking system is still functioning, saving should theoretically contribute more money to the economy than spending.

[pencilneck]

“From the banks who gave out crappy loans to the buyers who bought more than they could reasonably afford. Neither side is paying the price for these stupid transactions.”

I think a whole lot of buyers who bought more than they could reasonably afford would probably disagree with you. In San Diego alone foreclosures are still nearly 1,000 a month.

And notices of default are no fun either. I’m not really defending people that buy stuff they can’t afford. But I think its a leap to say that, as a whole, they aren’t suffering.

[pencilneck]

“The free market system can not compete with corrupt politicians who have unlimited pockets.”

The corrupt politicians have unlimited pockets because they are supported by corrupt corporations that have unlimited pockets because they are supported by corrupt politicians.

Damn liberals.

[pencilneck]

Another vouch for Sheldon.

In the world where mortgage brokers are grapefruits, Sheldon is a pomelo. (Homage to walter)

[pencilneck]

We need a zombie constitutional law expert!

I believe that the 13th amendment could be interpreted as granting constitutional rights to corporations, whales, and zombies.

[pencilneck]

Or, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, everybody must get stones.

[pencilneck]

Jon Stewart did a good piece on this.

World of Class Warfare – The Poor’s Free Ride Is Over
The government could raise $700 billion by either taking half of everything earned by the bottom 50% or by raising the marginal tax rate on the top two percent.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare—the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

[pencilneck]

“The survey conducted by the Professional Risk Managers’ International Association for FICO, found that 49 percent of respondents do not expect housing prices to rise back to 2007 levels for another nine years. Only 21 percent of respondents said they would.”

I wonder how the survey was written. Reading between the lines, it sounds like the question was something along the lines of “do you expect housing prices to rise back to 2007 levels within the next 8 years?”

A “no” response may not mean that housing prices will recover in 9 years as the article suggests.

I only mention this because my first thought was that the risk managers were being wildly optimistic. But, on second thought, this is probably just another example of poor journalistic analysis.

The headline that further misinterprets the article doesn’t help either.

[pencilneck]

Nice little drop in BAC just now (from -4.6% down to 7.6% down in a very short time).

I’m a little mad at myself for not getting a screenshot of BAC at 6.66. It would have made an amusing desktop.

[pencilneck]

Interesting point Bearishgurl:

Foreclosure numbers are historically about 2x NODs (around half the NODs filed turn into foreclosures). Currently this is no different, suggesting that this relationship is healthy, or at least normal.

However, as you have noted (and I have heard elsewhere): The time between the initial NOD and eventual foreclosure is currently at an all time high (at least on the national level). This suggests a possible unhealthy relationship in which the number of foreclosures should be much higher (also possibly adding credence to the second Tsunami theory).

This bothers me.

Does anyone have local historical data regarding the time between NOD and eventual foreclosure?

(Edit: I may be confused. It may be the length of time between non-payment of a loan and eventual filing of a NOD or foreclosure that is currently running very high. Either way, any information would be appreciated.)

[pencilneck]

I’m not defending Mr. Mortgage’s record. But NODs & foreclosures are still historically very high.

The current Tsunami of defaults has been going on for so long that it has begun to feel normal. I don’t think a second huge wave is likely, but we are not at all done with the first wave.

Just an observation.

NOD and foreclosure numbers for San Diego county, thanks to the San Diego Daily Transcript.

[pencilneck]

A large percentage of tiny Democrats hold that view.

[pencilneck]

“The requirement to use iTunes for everything on the iPhone is a huge annoyance.”

Ditto this.

[Author]

Posts