[sdduuuude]

I think the low end of their range is not unrealistic, if it were listed through the MLS. Certainly not delusional. It is always tough to sell as a FSBO, though, so I don’t think they’ll have much luck. I suspect we’ll see it hit MLS in a month or two.

92117 canyon lots are hard to come by under 550K, especially with a 2400 sq. ft. house. I think that lot is in a nice part of Clairemont. It gets a little rough to the South but I think that street is probably decent enough. Any street with a canyon on one side is usually a nice street.

I know some cash-buyers who have been looking for one for about 8 months. They have found either the house is too small or they are priced at $590K. I will surely show them this listing.

[sdduuuude]

I think the low end of their range is not unrealistic, if it were listed through the MLS. Certainly not delusional. It is always tough to sell as a FSBO, though, so I don’t think they’ll have much luck. I suspect we’ll see it hit MLS in a month or two.

92117 canyon lots are hard to come by under 550K, especially with a 2400 sq. ft. house. I think that lot is in a nice part of Clairemont. It gets a little rough to the South but I think that street is probably decent enough. Any street with a canyon on one side is usually a nice street.

I know some cash-buyers who have been looking for one for about 8 months. They have found either the house is too small or they are priced at $590K. I will surely show them this listing.

[sdduuuude]

I think the low end of their range is not unrealistic, if it were listed through the MLS. Certainly not delusional. It is always tough to sell as a FSBO, though, so I don’t think they’ll have much luck. I suspect we’ll see it hit MLS in a month or two.

92117 canyon lots are hard to come by under 550K, especially with a 2400 sq. ft. house. I think that lot is in a nice part of Clairemont. It gets a little rough to the South but I think that street is probably decent enough. Any street with a canyon on one side is usually a nice street.

I know some cash-buyers who have been looking for one for about 8 months. They have found either the house is too small or they are priced at $590K. I will surely show them this listing.

[sdduuuude]

I think the low end of their range is not unrealistic, if it were listed through the MLS. Certainly not delusional. It is always tough to sell as a FSBO, though, so I don’t think they’ll have much luck. I suspect we’ll see it hit MLS in a month or two.

92117 canyon lots are hard to come by under 550K, especially with a 2400 sq. ft. house. I think that lot is in a nice part of Clairemont. It gets a little rough to the South but I think that street is probably decent enough. Any street with a canyon on one side is usually a nice street.

I know some cash-buyers who have been looking for one for about 8 months. They have found either the house is too small or they are priced at $590K. I will surely show them this listing.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[sdduuuude]

I’d guess Denver/Colorado Springs have alot to offer if you don’t mind the cold or overbearing religious groups. The Denver airport is new-ish and is a United hub, I believe. Skiing in the winter. Mountain camping in the Summer. Lakes not too far.

Seattle is nice, too, though probably less sunny than Denver.

I’d live in Tucson or Phoenix, but the heat makes those a tough sell for most. If you are indoors all day in the Summer, have a pool at the house, and drive a white car, life isn’t too bad. And the winters are superb. Beware of pollen and dust in the Spring. It’s a hidden down-side of the desert that only those who have allergies can truly hate.

I’m not familiar with anything in the East, but the few visits I have made always remind me of “nice place to visit, wouldn’t want to live there.”

[sdduuuude]

I’d guess Denver/Colorado Springs have alot to offer if you don’t mind the cold or overbearing religious groups. The Denver airport is new-ish and is a United hub, I believe. Skiing in the winter. Mountain camping in the Summer. Lakes not too far.

Seattle is nice, too, though probably less sunny than Denver.

I’d live in Tucson or Phoenix, but the heat makes those a tough sell for most. If you are indoors all day in the Summer, have a pool at the house, and drive a white car, life isn’t too bad. And the winters are superb. Beware of pollen and dust in the Spring. It’s a hidden down-side of the desert that only those who have allergies can truly hate.

I’m not familiar with anything in the East, but the few visits I have made always remind me of “nice place to visit, wouldn’t want to live there.”

[sdduuuude]

I’d guess Denver/Colorado Springs have alot to offer if you don’t mind the cold or overbearing religious groups. The Denver airport is new-ish and is a United hub, I believe. Skiing in the winter. Mountain camping in the Summer. Lakes not too far.

Seattle is nice, too, though probably less sunny than Denver.

I’d live in Tucson or Phoenix, but the heat makes those a tough sell for most. If you are indoors all day in the Summer, have a pool at the house, and drive a white car, life isn’t too bad. And the winters are superb. Beware of pollen and dust in the Spring. It’s a hidden down-side of the desert that only those who have allergies can truly hate.

I’m not familiar with anything in the East, but the few visits I have made always remind me of “nice place to visit, wouldn’t want to live there.”

[sdduuuude]

I’d guess Denver/Colorado Springs have alot to offer if you don’t mind the cold or overbearing religious groups. The Denver airport is new-ish and is a United hub, I believe. Skiing in the winter. Mountain camping in the Summer. Lakes not too far.

Seattle is nice, too, though probably less sunny than Denver.

I’d live in Tucson or Phoenix, but the heat makes those a tough sell for most. If you are indoors all day in the Summer, have a pool at the house, and drive a white car, life isn’t too bad. And the winters are superb. Beware of pollen and dust in the Spring. It’s a hidden down-side of the desert that only those who have allergies can truly hate.

I’m not familiar with anything in the East, but the few visits I have made always remind me of “nice place to visit, wouldn’t want to live there.”

[sdduuuude]

I’d guess Denver/Colorado Springs have alot to offer if you don’t mind the cold or overbearing religious groups. The Denver airport is new-ish and is a United hub, I believe. Skiing in the winter. Mountain camping in the Summer. Lakes not too far.

Seattle is nice, too, though probably less sunny than Denver.

I’d live in Tucson or Phoenix, but the heat makes those a tough sell for most. If you are indoors all day in the Summer, have a pool at the house, and drive a white car, life isn’t too bad. And the winters are superb. Beware of pollen and dust in the Spring. It’s a hidden down-side of the desert that only those who have allergies can truly hate.

I’m not familiar with anything in the East, but the few visits I have made always remind me of “nice place to visit, wouldn’t want to live there.”

[sdduuuude]

Are you assuming you won’t be able to rent a place in Ohio in case of this catastrophe you are expecting ?

[Author]

Posts