Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
urbanrealtor
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dan: “Lignustically”? Dude.[/quote]
I have been shamed.But my point remains valid.
Or vlad.
Or something.Participant[quote=briansd1]
The best English speakers are people who studied Latin and Greek, and other Western languages such as French and German. They know the etymology of words.If your only language is English, then chances are you’re a deficient speller.[/quote]
Okay stop.
As one of the token liberals here I have to call bullshit.
That “one-must-learn-an-ancient-or-foreign-language-to-speak-English” is just about as credible as the dude belching out smog from his tree-hugger-bestickered volkswagen.
(Or the more contemporary version: the guy who drives his $30k hybrid to a wine and cheese soirée on poverty.)
While English is–lignustically– the most horrific frankenstein language on the planet (like we have different definitions for “bath”, “bathe” and “bask”), it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to learn it without the benefit of second language.
Not all of us went to La Jolla Country Day.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
The best English speakers are people who studied Latin and Greek, and other Western languages such as French and German. They know the etymology of words.If your only language is English, then chances are you’re a deficient speller.[/quote]
Okay stop.
As one of the token liberals here I have to call bullshit.
That “one-must-learn-an-ancient-or-foreign-language-to-speak-English” is just about as credible as the dude belching out smog from his tree-hugger-bestickered volkswagen.
(Or the more contemporary version: the guy who drives his $30k hybrid to a wine and cheese soirée on poverty.)
While English is–lignustically– the most horrific frankenstein language on the planet (like we have different definitions for “bath”, “bathe” and “bask”), it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to learn it without the benefit of second language.
Not all of us went to La Jolla Country Day.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
The best English speakers are people who studied Latin and Greek, and other Western languages such as French and German. They know the etymology of words.If your only language is English, then chances are you’re a deficient speller.[/quote]
Okay stop.
As one of the token liberals here I have to call bullshit.
That “one-must-learn-an-ancient-or-foreign-language-to-speak-English” is just about as credible as the dude belching out smog from his tree-hugger-bestickered volkswagen.
(Or the more contemporary version: the guy who drives his $30k hybrid to a wine and cheese soirée on poverty.)
While English is–lignustically– the most horrific frankenstein language on the planet (like we have different definitions for “bath”, “bathe” and “bask”), it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to learn it without the benefit of second language.
Not all of us went to La Jolla Country Day.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
The best English speakers are people who studied Latin and Greek, and other Western languages such as French and German. They know the etymology of words.If your only language is English, then chances are you’re a deficient speller.[/quote]
Okay stop.
As one of the token liberals here I have to call bullshit.
That “one-must-learn-an-ancient-or-foreign-language-to-speak-English” is just about as credible as the dude belching out smog from his tree-hugger-bestickered volkswagen.
(Or the more contemporary version: the guy who drives his $30k hybrid to a wine and cheese soirée on poverty.)
While English is–lignustically– the most horrific frankenstein language on the planet (like we have different definitions for “bath”, “bathe” and “bask”), it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to learn it without the benefit of second language.
Not all of us went to La Jolla Country Day.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
The best English speakers are people who studied Latin and Greek, and other Western languages such as French and German. They know the etymology of words.If your only language is English, then chances are you’re a deficient speller.[/quote]
Okay stop.
As one of the token liberals here I have to call bullshit.
That “one-must-learn-an-ancient-or-foreign-language-to-speak-English” is just about as credible as the dude belching out smog from his tree-hugger-bestickered volkswagen.
(Or the more contemporary version: the guy who drives his $30k hybrid to a wine and cheese soirée on poverty.)
While English is–lignustically– the most horrific frankenstein language on the planet (like we have different definitions for “bath”, “bathe” and “bask”), it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to learn it without the benefit of second language.
Not all of us went to La Jolla Country Day.
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]
I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.
EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.
Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).
In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.
I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.
For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]
I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.
EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.
Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).
In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.
I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.
For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]
I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.
EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.
Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).
In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.
I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.
For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]
I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.
EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.
Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).
In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.
I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.
For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=svelte]
With a US divorce rate of 46%, I’d say people “short sale” their marriage at a higher rate than homes.[/quote]Considering the banks are not doing anything, compare it to couples who are separated. I think there would be more short sales and/or foreclosures if the banks would act on nonperforming loans and people not paying. I think the percentage would be greater than divorce.[/quote]
I think there is a misconception in that banks ARE acting but just doing so very slowly.
EG: BofA is just now issuing NOD’s on Countrywide loans that have not been performing for years.
Many banks just move really slowly. Sometimes its because they are still overwhelmed (Aurora, CalHFA) and sometimes its by design (WFHM).
In many ways it would be better to describe foreclosure numbers in terms of SPEED as opposed to QUANTITY.
I differ with many in that I think the speed up of decision-making (by banks) would actually really improve the market in terms of certainty and signaling. Those are, after all, historically a major non-s/d component of real estate markets.
For example, if we got to a point where the difference between an reo, a short sale, and a normal equity sale was essentially non-existent, then most of the downward pressure of opaque information sets would be eliminated.
This would dramatically simplify the existing market forces. The cheap prices would lead to greater effective demand (all other things being equal–which we know they are not).
Unlike some, I see low prices and heavy inventory as a potentially bullish factor (in the same way that other cheap goods and services can be more broadly beneficial).Participant[quote=MANmom]Ah, public school graduates…they just don’t teach grammar anymore.[/quote]
You actually believe posters here graduated?Participant[quote=MANmom]Ah, public school graduates…they just don’t teach grammar anymore.[/quote]
You actually believe posters here graduated?Participant[quote=MANmom]Ah, public school graduates…they just don’t teach grammar anymore.[/quote]
You actually believe posters here graduated? -
AuthorPosts
