[sdduuuude]

I expect the “HS” period to last from Sept through Jan.

This is the soft part of the year in the second half of the decline, now nearly 3 years old.

If the decline lasts for 5 years – from Sept 2005 through 2010, then we are past the midpoint but still in the steep part of the drop AND heading out of Spring.

Next year at this time, we will also be entering the softer part of the year, but the slope of the decline will likely have started to taper off, county-wide.

Yes – splitting into different markets is key. Part of the “HS” period is that CV realizes there is no escape. Fall 2009 may be be worse for CV, but county-wide, this Fall is when it really sinks in.

[sdduuuude]

I expect the “HS” period to last from Sept through Jan.

This is the soft part of the year in the second half of the decline, now nearly 3 years old.

If the decline lasts for 5 years – from Sept 2005 through 2010, then we are past the midpoint but still in the steep part of the drop AND heading out of Spring.

Next year at this time, we will also be entering the softer part of the year, but the slope of the decline will likely have started to taper off, county-wide.

Yes – splitting into different markets is key. Part of the “HS” period is that CV realizes there is no escape. Fall 2009 may be be worse for CV, but county-wide, this Fall is when it really sinks in.

[sdduuuude]

I expect the “HS” period to last from Sept through Jan.

This is the soft part of the year in the second half of the decline, now nearly 3 years old.

If the decline lasts for 5 years – from Sept 2005 through 2010, then we are past the midpoint but still in the steep part of the drop AND heading out of Spring.

Next year at this time, we will also be entering the softer part of the year, but the slope of the decline will likely have started to taper off, county-wide.

Yes – splitting into different markets is key. Part of the “HS” period is that CV realizes there is no escape. Fall 2009 may be be worse for CV, but county-wide, this Fall is when it really sinks in.

[sdduuuude]

I expect the “HS” period to last from Sept through Jan.

This is the soft part of the year in the second half of the decline, now nearly 3 years old.

If the decline lasts for 5 years – from Sept 2005 through 2010, then we are past the midpoint but still in the steep part of the drop AND heading out of Spring.

Next year at this time, we will also be entering the softer part of the year, but the slope of the decline will likely have started to taper off, county-wide.

Yes – splitting into different markets is key. Part of the “HS” period is that CV realizes there is no escape. Fall 2009 may be be worse for CV, but county-wide, this Fall is when it really sinks in.

[sdduuuude]

I think in three months we will hit the “holy shit” period in San Diego real estate.

[sdduuuude]

I think in three months we will hit the “holy shit” period in San Diego real estate.

[sdduuuude]

I think in three months we will hit the “holy shit” period in San Diego real estate.

[sdduuuude]

I think in three months we will hit the “holy shit” period in San Diego real estate.

[sdduuuude]

I think in three months we will hit the “holy shit” period in San Diego real estate.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.[/quote]

Perhaps regulation is not the right term – “manipulation” is better.

The opposite of unfettered, which is to set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds.

The point was that the prior poster claimed we have had “unfettered capitalism.” i.e. suggesting that it was free-market capitalism that caused the financial messes we are in. However, the fact of the matter is that the messes were created, in large part, by the fed’s rate policies. Thus, you can’t really say it was unfettered capitalism.

The bailout may not be regulation, but it is definitely manipulation – as you said – socialization of the loss. Not something I’m looking forward to, unlike Mark Holmes:

[quote=Mark Holmes]
Personally, after watching for the last decade what completlely unfettered capitalism brought us in the mortgage and financial markets, I’ll be welcoming a little socialism.
[/quote]

But you can see the result of the mess being blamed on “unfettered capitalism” is giving more control to the Fed, which caused the problem in the first place by its manipulation of the capitalistic envirnoment.

That is, at this point, we should allow unfettered capitalism and let the banks suffer for their terrible decisions. But people like Mark are looking forward to socialism, even though it means bailing out the banks at our expense.

Why? Because they don’t understand that it was manipluated capitalism, not unfettered capitalism that made the mess.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.[/quote]

Perhaps regulation is not the right term – “manipulation” is better.

The opposite of unfettered, which is to set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds.

The point was that the prior poster claimed we have had “unfettered capitalism.” i.e. suggesting that it was free-market capitalism that caused the financial messes we are in. However, the fact of the matter is that the messes were created, in large part, by the fed’s rate policies. Thus, you can’t really say it was unfettered capitalism.

The bailout may not be regulation, but it is definitely manipulation – as you said – socialization of the loss. Not something I’m looking forward to, unlike Mark Holmes:

[quote=Mark Holmes]
Personally, after watching for the last decade what completlely unfettered capitalism brought us in the mortgage and financial markets, I’ll be welcoming a little socialism.
[/quote]

But you can see the result of the mess being blamed on “unfettered capitalism” is giving more control to the Fed, which caused the problem in the first place by its manipulation of the capitalistic envirnoment.

That is, at this point, we should allow unfettered capitalism and let the banks suffer for their terrible decisions. But people like Mark are looking forward to socialism, even though it means bailing out the banks at our expense.

Why? Because they don’t understand that it was manipluated capitalism, not unfettered capitalism that made the mess.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.[/quote]

Perhaps regulation is not the right term – “manipulation” is better.

The opposite of unfettered, which is to set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds.

The point was that the prior poster claimed we have had “unfettered capitalism.” i.e. suggesting that it was free-market capitalism that caused the financial messes we are in. However, the fact of the matter is that the messes were created, in large part, by the fed’s rate policies. Thus, you can’t really say it was unfettered capitalism.

The bailout may not be regulation, but it is definitely manipulation – as you said – socialization of the loss. Not something I’m looking forward to, unlike Mark Holmes:

[quote=Mark Holmes]
Personally, after watching for the last decade what completlely unfettered capitalism brought us in the mortgage and financial markets, I’ll be welcoming a little socialism.
[/quote]

But you can see the result of the mess being blamed on “unfettered capitalism” is giving more control to the Fed, which caused the problem in the first place by its manipulation of the capitalistic envirnoment.

That is, at this point, we should allow unfettered capitalism and let the banks suffer for their terrible decisions. But people like Mark are looking forward to socialism, even though it means bailing out the banks at our expense.

Why? Because they don’t understand that it was manipluated capitalism, not unfettered capitalism that made the mess.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.[/quote]

Perhaps regulation is not the right term – “manipulation” is better.

The opposite of unfettered, which is to set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds.

The point was that the prior poster claimed we have had “unfettered capitalism.” i.e. suggesting that it was free-market capitalism that caused the financial messes we are in. However, the fact of the matter is that the messes were created, in large part, by the fed’s rate policies. Thus, you can’t really say it was unfettered capitalism.

The bailout may not be regulation, but it is definitely manipulation – as you said – socialization of the loss. Not something I’m looking forward to, unlike Mark Holmes:

[quote=Mark Holmes]
Personally, after watching for the last decade what completlely unfettered capitalism brought us in the mortgage and financial markets, I’ll be welcoming a little socialism.
[/quote]

But you can see the result of the mess being blamed on “unfettered capitalism” is giving more control to the Fed, which caused the problem in the first place by its manipulation of the capitalistic envirnoment.

That is, at this point, we should allow unfettered capitalism and let the banks suffer for their terrible decisions. But people like Mark are looking forward to socialism, even though it means bailing out the banks at our expense.

Why? Because they don’t understand that it was manipluated capitalism, not unfettered capitalism that made the mess.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]
I don’t understand where the meme is coming from that bailout==regulation. Bailout is the socialization of loss, after having privatized all the profits. Bailout is the polar opposite of regulation.[/quote]

Perhaps regulation is not the right term – “manipulation” is better.

The opposite of unfettered, which is to set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds.

The point was that the prior poster claimed we have had “unfettered capitalism.” i.e. suggesting that it was free-market capitalism that caused the financial messes we are in. However, the fact of the matter is that the messes were created, in large part, by the fed’s rate policies. Thus, you can’t really say it was unfettered capitalism.

The bailout may not be regulation, but it is definitely manipulation – as you said – socialization of the loss. Not something I’m looking forward to, unlike Mark Holmes:

[quote=Mark Holmes]
Personally, after watching for the last decade what completlely unfettered capitalism brought us in the mortgage and financial markets, I’ll be welcoming a little socialism.
[/quote]

But you can see the result of the mess being blamed on “unfettered capitalism” is giving more control to the Fed, which caused the problem in the first place by its manipulation of the capitalistic envirnoment.

That is, at this point, we should allow unfettered capitalism and let the banks suffer for their terrible decisions. But people like Mark are looking forward to socialism, even though it means bailing out the banks at our expense.

Why? Because they don’t understand that it was manipluated capitalism, not unfettered capitalism that made the mess.

[sdduuuude]

… though I agree that Obama will win.

[Author]

Posts