Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
ParticipantJust in case anyone still thinks the coast is immune.
Bought 10/25/2005 for $3,050,000
Just closed at $1,760,000. That would be a 42% loss or $1,290,000 lost over three and a half years. It’s also below the 2001 price of $2,035,000! We haven’t seen much below 2001 pricing near the coast. Hopefully this will be the start of a new trend.
Note also, that this is on Hillside, a very nice part of La Jolla.
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-BD51E777-7502_Hillside_Dr_La_Jolla_CA_92037
ParticipantJust in case anyone still thinks the coast is immune.
Bought 10/25/2005 for $3,050,000
Just closed at $1,760,000. That would be a 42% loss or $1,290,000 lost over three and a half years. It’s also below the 2001 price of $2,035,000! We haven’t seen much below 2001 pricing near the coast. Hopefully this will be the start of a new trend.
Note also, that this is on Hillside, a very nice part of La Jolla.
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-BD51E777-7502_Hillside_Dr_La_Jolla_CA_92037
March 25, 2009 at 11:13 AM in reply to: Republican housing plan: Renters should subsidize homeowners #372844ParticipantThis is just another example of how in a democracy, it really isn’t about fairness or good government. It’s about paying people off to solidify your hold on power. There never was, and there isn’t now, any legitimate reason for the government to subsidize home ownership. But both parties are busy trying to buy off the votes of people who own or want to own with tax breaks.
March 25, 2009 at 11:13 AM in reply to: Republican housing plan: Renters should subsidize homeowners #373125ParticipantThis is just another example of how in a democracy, it really isn’t about fairness or good government. It’s about paying people off to solidify your hold on power. There never was, and there isn’t now, any legitimate reason for the government to subsidize home ownership. But both parties are busy trying to buy off the votes of people who own or want to own with tax breaks.
March 25, 2009 at 11:13 AM in reply to: Republican housing plan: Renters should subsidize homeowners #373300ParticipantThis is just another example of how in a democracy, it really isn’t about fairness or good government. It’s about paying people off to solidify your hold on power. There never was, and there isn’t now, any legitimate reason for the government to subsidize home ownership. But both parties are busy trying to buy off the votes of people who own or want to own with tax breaks.
March 25, 2009 at 11:13 AM in reply to: Republican housing plan: Renters should subsidize homeowners #373344ParticipantThis is just another example of how in a democracy, it really isn’t about fairness or good government. It’s about paying people off to solidify your hold on power. There never was, and there isn’t now, any legitimate reason for the government to subsidize home ownership. But both parties are busy trying to buy off the votes of people who own or want to own with tax breaks.
March 25, 2009 at 11:13 AM in reply to: Republican housing plan: Renters should subsidize homeowners #373457ParticipantThis is just another example of how in a democracy, it really isn’t about fairness or good government. It’s about paying people off to solidify your hold on power. There never was, and there isn’t now, any legitimate reason for the government to subsidize home ownership. But both parties are busy trying to buy off the votes of people who own or want to own with tax breaks.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]XBoxBoy – they are letting the air out gently[/quote]
Well, they are trying to. Not so sure they have been particularly successful, or will be successful in the future. These things have a way of not working out like you want them to.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]XBoxBoy – they are letting the air out gently[/quote]
Well, they are trying to. Not so sure they have been particularly successful, or will be successful in the future. These things have a way of not working out like you want them to.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]XBoxBoy – they are letting the air out gently[/quote]
Well, they are trying to. Not so sure they have been particularly successful, or will be successful in the future. These things have a way of not working out like you want them to.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]XBoxBoy – they are letting the air out gently[/quote]
Well, they are trying to. Not so sure they have been particularly successful, or will be successful in the future. These things have a way of not working out like you want them to.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]XBoxBoy – they are letting the air out gently[/quote]
Well, they are trying to. Not so sure they have been particularly successful, or will be successful in the future. These things have a way of not working out like you want them to.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Are you claiming that these two people have the same opportunity to succeed in life?[/quote]
CA Renter, please note that Bobby did not claim that everyone has the same opportunity. What he did claim was that the argument that you can only succeed if born into wealth is not true. These are different arguments. It is possible to believe 1) life is unfair and some are born with more advantages AND 2) some will succeed despite the circumstances they are born into. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these two different beliefs. Can you see that these are different arguments?
From my own perspective, this civics lesson has the same fault that the previous civics lesson thread had. Neither example really reflects life. Both have enough truth to make them seem plausible at a casual reading but upon closer inspection they are both based on core beliefs that my experience has lead me to question.
In the previous thread, underlying the argument was the belief that everyone is lazy and unless given personal motivation they would not study. This ignores the whole premise that people can work cooperatively for common good, or that people can be motivated out of altruistic desires.
This thread has as its core underlying argument that life is a zero sum game, and that the only way to get ahead is at the expense of others. And that those born ahead are not likely to do anything to help those that are born less fortunate, and thus there is no hope for those born into less than ideal circumstances.
To me, both threads share a very pessimistic and unrealistic view of the world. Personally, in most of the classes I attended at college, there was opportunity for all, and there was a lot of support among fellow students. Then again, I studied music at college not business, so what do I know about cut-throat competitive behavior?
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=CA renter]Are you claiming that these two people have the same opportunity to succeed in life?[/quote]
CA Renter, please note that Bobby did not claim that everyone has the same opportunity. What he did claim was that the argument that you can only succeed if born into wealth is not true. These are different arguments. It is possible to believe 1) life is unfair and some are born with more advantages AND 2) some will succeed despite the circumstances they are born into. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these two different beliefs. Can you see that these are different arguments?
From my own perspective, this civics lesson has the same fault that the previous civics lesson thread had. Neither example really reflects life. Both have enough truth to make them seem plausible at a casual reading but upon closer inspection they are both based on core beliefs that my experience has lead me to question.
In the previous thread, underlying the argument was the belief that everyone is lazy and unless given personal motivation they would not study. This ignores the whole premise that people can work cooperatively for common good, or that people can be motivated out of altruistic desires.
This thread has as its core underlying argument that life is a zero sum game, and that the only way to get ahead is at the expense of others. And that those born ahead are not likely to do anything to help those that are born less fortunate, and thus there is no hope for those born into less than ideal circumstances.
To me, both threads share a very pessimistic and unrealistic view of the world. Personally, in most of the classes I attended at college, there was opportunity for all, and there was a lot of support among fellow students. Then again, I studied music at college not business, so what do I know about cut-throat competitive behavior?
XBoxBoy
-
AuthorPosts
