[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, …
[/quote]
Yawn.. Even odds on two choices is 50% or half. The other way to read the statement is;

“half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement don’t identify as part of the religious right”

You conveniently forgot about the other ‘half’.. You also forgot about other quotes.. ie:

Members of the tea party, including Christian conservatives, he said, would generally think George Bush’s use of government money to subsidize faith-based institutions “was the wrong direction.” They also might have a strong personal opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, but believe banning gay marriage “is not a role for the federal government.”

From same article.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, …
[/quote]
Yawn.. Even odds on two choices is 50% or half. The other way to read the statement is;

“half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement don’t identify as part of the religious right”

You conveniently forgot about the other ‘half’.. You also forgot about other quotes.. ie:

Members of the tea party, including Christian conservatives, he said, would generally think George Bush’s use of government money to subsidize faith-based institutions “was the wrong direction.” They also might have a strong personal opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, but believe banning gay marriage “is not a role for the federal government.”

From same article.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
A new poll shows that half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement also identify as part of the religious right, …
[/quote]
Yawn.. Even odds on two choices is 50% or half. The other way to read the statement is;

“half of those who consider themselves part of the tea party movement don’t identify as part of the religious right”

You conveniently forgot about the other ‘half’.. You also forgot about other quotes.. ie:

Members of the tea party, including Christian conservatives, he said, would generally think George Bush’s use of government money to subsidize faith-based institutions “was the wrong direction.” They also might have a strong personal opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, but believe banning gay marriage “is not a role for the federal government.”

From same article.

[ucodegen]

[quote flu]
(Who else in asia can they sell all the used military equipment too? 🙂
[/quote]
Oddly, I know of one instance where the US did a foreign sale on military equipment that was better than what the US was getting. Can’t get too specific, but I would say the capability was somewhat more than 2x what was being bought by the US.. but then that contractor had the ear(s) of some people up the chain of command.

[ucodegen]

[quote flu]
(Who else in asia can they sell all the used military equipment too? 🙂
[/quote]
Oddly, I know of one instance where the US did a foreign sale on military equipment that was better than what the US was getting. Can’t get too specific, but I would say the capability was somewhat more than 2x what was being bought by the US.. but then that contractor had the ear(s) of some people up the chain of command.

[ucodegen]

[quote flu]
(Who else in asia can they sell all the used military equipment too? 🙂
[/quote]
Oddly, I know of one instance where the US did a foreign sale on military equipment that was better than what the US was getting. Can’t get too specific, but I would say the capability was somewhat more than 2x what was being bought by the US.. but then that contractor had the ear(s) of some people up the chain of command.

[ucodegen]

[quote flu]
(Who else in asia can they sell all the used military equipment too? 🙂
[/quote]
Oddly, I know of one instance where the US did a foreign sale on military equipment that was better than what the US was getting. Can’t get too specific, but I would say the capability was somewhat more than 2x what was being bought by the US.. but then that contractor had the ear(s) of some people up the chain of command.

[ucodegen]

[quote flu]
(Who else in asia can they sell all the used military equipment too? 🙂
[/quote]
Oddly, I know of one instance where the US did a foreign sale on military equipment that was better than what the US was getting. Can’t get too specific, but I would say the capability was somewhat more than 2x what was being bought by the US.. but then that contractor had the ear(s) of some people up the chain of command.

[ucodegen]

And this is what they think is important.. unfreakingbelievable…

I do like some of Schwarzenegger’s responses though!!

[ucodegen]

And this is what they think is important.. unfreakingbelievable…

I do like some of Schwarzenegger’s responses though!!

[ucodegen]

And this is what they think is important.. unfreakingbelievable…

I do like some of Schwarzenegger’s responses though!!

[ucodegen]

And this is what they think is important.. unfreakingbelievable…

I do like some of Schwarzenegger’s responses though!!

[ucodegen]

And this is what they think is important.. unfreakingbelievable…

I do like some of Schwarzenegger’s responses though!!

[ucodegen]

[quote pri_dk]
Another problem with the general “let the market settle where it may” approach is that it ignores transaction costs. Sure, we can let all these homes sit vacant, move slowly through the courts over many years, sell them at auction to investors and eventually have the same people back in them as renters. That would be the textbook “market” approach, but it carries a lot of deadweight loss – $trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value.
[/quote]
You are assuming that I am a proponent of this approach – effectively another strawman argument.

If the bank takes possession through foreclosure, they should be responsible for the house as an owner would be. This includes property taxes, HOA fees, MRs and maintenance of the property.

This way, while it is vacant, it is costing the bank money and time. They would rather have the money producing something than costing them.

PS: what you mentioned above is not considered a ‘transaction cost’. It is more akin to ‘opportunity cost’.

[quote pri_dk]
$trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value. Transaction costs in real estate are huge, and even bigger when they involve a legal process like foreclosure.
[/quote]
The huge cost is a cost in the foreclosure is a cost to the bank, and it is largely due to inefficiencies in the bank. Not all banks have that problem, and some are getting much more efficient at foreclosures. Remember, when a bank loans out money, that money has to come from somewhere… most likely peoples pensions, CDs etc (other peoples money). These ‘other people’ want to be paid too, so the money the bank is lending out, is not free to the bank.

[ucodegen]

[quote pri_dk]
Another problem with the general “let the market settle where it may” approach is that it ignores transaction costs. Sure, we can let all these homes sit vacant, move slowly through the courts over many years, sell them at auction to investors and eventually have the same people back in them as renters. That would be the textbook “market” approach, but it carries a lot of deadweight loss – $trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value.
[/quote]
You are assuming that I am a proponent of this approach – effectively another strawman argument.

If the bank takes possession through foreclosure, they should be responsible for the house as an owner would be. This includes property taxes, HOA fees, MRs and maintenance of the property.

This way, while it is vacant, it is costing the bank money and time. They would rather have the money producing something than costing them.

PS: what you mentioned above is not considered a ‘transaction cost’. It is more akin to ‘opportunity cost’.

[quote pri_dk]
$trillions in assets sit idle and lots of money goes to middlemen who create no real value. Transaction costs in real estate are huge, and even bigger when they involve a legal process like foreclosure.
[/quote]
The huge cost is a cost in the foreclosure is a cost to the bank, and it is largely due to inefficiencies in the bank. Not all banks have that problem, and some are getting much more efficient at foreclosures. Remember, when a bank loans out money, that money has to come from somewhere… most likely peoples pensions, CDs etc (other peoples money). These ‘other people’ want to be paid too, so the money the bank is lending out, is not free to the bank.

[Author]

Posts