[XBoxBoy]

[quote=waterboy]Has La Jolla had a 3/2 SFR close under $800k yet thats village close or west of soledad road?[/quote]

Can’t think of one that has been under $800k, but a couple in the 800’s come to mind.

The first was in pretty bad shape, but a great location and I imagine for a couple hundred grand could be fixed up fairly nicely.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100021016-6655_Avenida_De_Las_Pescas_La_Jolla_CA_92037

This second one is pretty small and the lot is small too.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100027374-530_Fern_Gln_La_Jolla_CA_92037

But think what you’re asking! A couple years ago you couldn’t buy anything in LJ that met your criteria for less than 1.2m at best and if you wanted the house to be livable, well probably not for less than 1.5m

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=waterboy]Has La Jolla had a 3/2 SFR close under $800k yet thats village close or west of soledad road?[/quote]

Can’t think of one that has been under $800k, but a couple in the 800’s come to mind.

The first was in pretty bad shape, but a great location and I imagine for a couple hundred grand could be fixed up fairly nicely.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100021016-6655_Avenida_De_Las_Pescas_La_Jolla_CA_92037

This second one is pretty small and the lot is small too.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100027374-530_Fern_Gln_La_Jolla_CA_92037

But think what you’re asking! A couple years ago you couldn’t buy anything in LJ that met your criteria for less than 1.2m at best and if you wanted the house to be livable, well probably not for less than 1.5m

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=waterboy]Has La Jolla had a 3/2 SFR close under $800k yet thats village close or west of soledad road?[/quote]

Can’t think of one that has been under $800k, but a couple in the 800’s come to mind.

The first was in pretty bad shape, but a great location and I imagine for a couple hundred grand could be fixed up fairly nicely.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100021016-6655_Avenida_De_Las_Pescas_La_Jolla_CA_92037

This second one is pretty small and the lot is small too.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100027374-530_Fern_Gln_La_Jolla_CA_92037

But think what you’re asking! A couple years ago you couldn’t buy anything in LJ that met your criteria for less than 1.2m at best and if you wanted the house to be livable, well probably not for less than 1.5m

[XBoxBoy]

First off, given the fed’s ridiculous track record of forecasting, I don’t see any reason to think they know what they’re going to face in the future. It might not be so bad if they weren’t totally enthralled with their ideology and beholden to the bankers interests, but they are so that’s that. Also, remember that on top of their horrible forecasting, and bad ideology, the fed is caught up in the need to be cheerleaders for the economy, trying to manage perceptions.

Once you remove all the comments from fed officials, the article starts to make more sense. Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot left or much substance after removing the fed officials comments. There’s the often heard concerns of the economy faltering, housing slowing more or even the dreaded threat of deflation.

But here’s a couple of things the article omits that seem pretty relevant. 1) There are tremendous imbalances and misallocations in the economy that are just being ignored. 2) With globalization, we’ve effectively added a huge surplus of workers, but not as big an increase in other resources such as energy and commodities.

While I don’t know that my crystal ball is that much better than the feds, I would venture to guess a couple of things. First, unemployment will stay high which means we definitely will not see wage inflation. (And stagflation without wage inflation seems pretty unlikely) Second, capital will continue to be misallocated from productive investments into speculative gambles. Third, countries like China will continue their policy of beggar they neighbor with their currency manipulation.

Put all this together, and seems to me the most likely scenario is a floundering economy, with a clueless fed holding interest rates low for as far as we can see, (And probably doing more printing of money) while speculative bubbles appear and pop causing more economic instability. Price increases in certain items will be significant, but other items will fall in price, allowing the govt (the fed) to claim inflation is well contained and maybe even to claim that we have positive growth. Ultimately this bubble economy and incompetent fed will be changed, but not any time soon.

Like other posters, I’d have to agree the likelihood of inflation in the near term seems pretty remote. Consequently, I seriously doubt the fed will be tightening any time soon. And if the markets head south, in the near future, look for a return of fed printing money and buying bonds.

[XBoxBoy]

First off, given the fed’s ridiculous track record of forecasting, I don’t see any reason to think they know what they’re going to face in the future. It might not be so bad if they weren’t totally enthralled with their ideology and beholden to the bankers interests, but they are so that’s that. Also, remember that on top of their horrible forecasting, and bad ideology, the fed is caught up in the need to be cheerleaders for the economy, trying to manage perceptions.

Once you remove all the comments from fed officials, the article starts to make more sense. Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot left or much substance after removing the fed officials comments. There’s the often heard concerns of the economy faltering, housing slowing more or even the dreaded threat of deflation.

But here’s a couple of things the article omits that seem pretty relevant. 1) There are tremendous imbalances and misallocations in the economy that are just being ignored. 2) With globalization, we’ve effectively added a huge surplus of workers, but not as big an increase in other resources such as energy and commodities.

While I don’t know that my crystal ball is that much better than the feds, I would venture to guess a couple of things. First, unemployment will stay high which means we definitely will not see wage inflation. (And stagflation without wage inflation seems pretty unlikely) Second, capital will continue to be misallocated from productive investments into speculative gambles. Third, countries like China will continue their policy of beggar they neighbor with their currency manipulation.

Put all this together, and seems to me the most likely scenario is a floundering economy, with a clueless fed holding interest rates low for as far as we can see, (And probably doing more printing of money) while speculative bubbles appear and pop causing more economic instability. Price increases in certain items will be significant, but other items will fall in price, allowing the govt (the fed) to claim inflation is well contained and maybe even to claim that we have positive growth. Ultimately this bubble economy and incompetent fed will be changed, but not any time soon.

Like other posters, I’d have to agree the likelihood of inflation in the near term seems pretty remote. Consequently, I seriously doubt the fed will be tightening any time soon. And if the markets head south, in the near future, look for a return of fed printing money and buying bonds.

[XBoxBoy]

First off, given the fed’s ridiculous track record of forecasting, I don’t see any reason to think they know what they’re going to face in the future. It might not be so bad if they weren’t totally enthralled with their ideology and beholden to the bankers interests, but they are so that’s that. Also, remember that on top of their horrible forecasting, and bad ideology, the fed is caught up in the need to be cheerleaders for the economy, trying to manage perceptions.

Once you remove all the comments from fed officials, the article starts to make more sense. Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot left or much substance after removing the fed officials comments. There’s the often heard concerns of the economy faltering, housing slowing more or even the dreaded threat of deflation.

But here’s a couple of things the article omits that seem pretty relevant. 1) There are tremendous imbalances and misallocations in the economy that are just being ignored. 2) With globalization, we’ve effectively added a huge surplus of workers, but not as big an increase in other resources such as energy and commodities.

While I don’t know that my crystal ball is that much better than the feds, I would venture to guess a couple of things. First, unemployment will stay high which means we definitely will not see wage inflation. (And stagflation without wage inflation seems pretty unlikely) Second, capital will continue to be misallocated from productive investments into speculative gambles. Third, countries like China will continue their policy of beggar they neighbor with their currency manipulation.

Put all this together, and seems to me the most likely scenario is a floundering economy, with a clueless fed holding interest rates low for as far as we can see, (And probably doing more printing of money) while speculative bubbles appear and pop causing more economic instability. Price increases in certain items will be significant, but other items will fall in price, allowing the govt (the fed) to claim inflation is well contained and maybe even to claim that we have positive growth. Ultimately this bubble economy and incompetent fed will be changed, but not any time soon.

Like other posters, I’d have to agree the likelihood of inflation in the near term seems pretty remote. Consequently, I seriously doubt the fed will be tightening any time soon. And if the markets head south, in the near future, look for a return of fed printing money and buying bonds.

[XBoxBoy]

First off, given the fed’s ridiculous track record of forecasting, I don’t see any reason to think they know what they’re going to face in the future. It might not be so bad if they weren’t totally enthralled with their ideology and beholden to the bankers interests, but they are so that’s that. Also, remember that on top of their horrible forecasting, and bad ideology, the fed is caught up in the need to be cheerleaders for the economy, trying to manage perceptions.

Once you remove all the comments from fed officials, the article starts to make more sense. Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot left or much substance after removing the fed officials comments. There’s the often heard concerns of the economy faltering, housing slowing more or even the dreaded threat of deflation.

But here’s a couple of things the article omits that seem pretty relevant. 1) There are tremendous imbalances and misallocations in the economy that are just being ignored. 2) With globalization, we’ve effectively added a huge surplus of workers, but not as big an increase in other resources such as energy and commodities.

While I don’t know that my crystal ball is that much better than the feds, I would venture to guess a couple of things. First, unemployment will stay high which means we definitely will not see wage inflation. (And stagflation without wage inflation seems pretty unlikely) Second, capital will continue to be misallocated from productive investments into speculative gambles. Third, countries like China will continue their policy of beggar they neighbor with their currency manipulation.

Put all this together, and seems to me the most likely scenario is a floundering economy, with a clueless fed holding interest rates low for as far as we can see, (And probably doing more printing of money) while speculative bubbles appear and pop causing more economic instability. Price increases in certain items will be significant, but other items will fall in price, allowing the govt (the fed) to claim inflation is well contained and maybe even to claim that we have positive growth. Ultimately this bubble economy and incompetent fed will be changed, but not any time soon.

Like other posters, I’d have to agree the likelihood of inflation in the near term seems pretty remote. Consequently, I seriously doubt the fed will be tightening any time soon. And if the markets head south, in the near future, look for a return of fed printing money and buying bonds.

[XBoxBoy]

First off, given the fed’s ridiculous track record of forecasting, I don’t see any reason to think they know what they’re going to face in the future. It might not be so bad if they weren’t totally enthralled with their ideology and beholden to the bankers interests, but they are so that’s that. Also, remember that on top of their horrible forecasting, and bad ideology, the fed is caught up in the need to be cheerleaders for the economy, trying to manage perceptions.

Once you remove all the comments from fed officials, the article starts to make more sense. Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot left or much substance after removing the fed officials comments. There’s the often heard concerns of the economy faltering, housing slowing more or even the dreaded threat of deflation.

But here’s a couple of things the article omits that seem pretty relevant. 1) There are tremendous imbalances and misallocations in the economy that are just being ignored. 2) With globalization, we’ve effectively added a huge surplus of workers, but not as big an increase in other resources such as energy and commodities.

While I don’t know that my crystal ball is that much better than the feds, I would venture to guess a couple of things. First, unemployment will stay high which means we definitely will not see wage inflation. (And stagflation without wage inflation seems pretty unlikely) Second, capital will continue to be misallocated from productive investments into speculative gambles. Third, countries like China will continue their policy of beggar they neighbor with their currency manipulation.

Put all this together, and seems to me the most likely scenario is a floundering economy, with a clueless fed holding interest rates low for as far as we can see, (And probably doing more printing of money) while speculative bubbles appear and pop causing more economic instability. Price increases in certain items will be significant, but other items will fall in price, allowing the govt (the fed) to claim inflation is well contained and maybe even to claim that we have positive growth. Ultimately this bubble economy and incompetent fed will be changed, but not any time soon.

Like other posters, I’d have to agree the likelihood of inflation in the near term seems pretty remote. Consequently, I seriously doubt the fed will be tightening any time soon. And if the markets head south, in the near future, look for a return of fed printing money and buying bonds.

[XBoxBoy]

Whoa! Wait a minute!!!

I’m either completely wrong or completely stunned. Here’s an article on the Wall Street Journal site that says: “Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008”

Then when you look at the chart it revels that the average DEDUCTION is $18,876 for California.

Now unless I’m mistaken, and been messin’ up on my taxes for years, a deduction is not the same thing as saving that amount off your tax bill. Doesn’t a writer for the Wall Street Journal know this???

Am I completely wrong??????????

Seems to me that a tax deduction for interest of $18,876 is worth at best 5 or 6k off your tax bill, and given you lose the standard deduction when itemizing (which you gotta do to take the interest) this author is waaaayyyyy off base with his claim.

XBoxBoy,

ps. for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?

[XBoxBoy]

Whoa! Wait a minute!!!

I’m either completely wrong or completely stunned. Here’s an article on the Wall Street Journal site that says: “Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008”

Then when you look at the chart it revels that the average DEDUCTION is $18,876 for California.

Now unless I’m mistaken, and been messin’ up on my taxes for years, a deduction is not the same thing as saving that amount off your tax bill. Doesn’t a writer for the Wall Street Journal know this???

Am I completely wrong??????????

Seems to me that a tax deduction for interest of $18,876 is worth at best 5 or 6k off your tax bill, and given you lose the standard deduction when itemizing (which you gotta do to take the interest) this author is waaaayyyyy off base with his claim.

XBoxBoy,

ps. for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?

[XBoxBoy]

Whoa! Wait a minute!!!

I’m either completely wrong or completely stunned. Here’s an article on the Wall Street Journal site that says: “Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008”

Then when you look at the chart it revels that the average DEDUCTION is $18,876 for California.

Now unless I’m mistaken, and been messin’ up on my taxes for years, a deduction is not the same thing as saving that amount off your tax bill. Doesn’t a writer for the Wall Street Journal know this???

Am I completely wrong??????????

Seems to me that a tax deduction for interest of $18,876 is worth at best 5 or 6k off your tax bill, and given you lose the standard deduction when itemizing (which you gotta do to take the interest) this author is waaaayyyyy off base with his claim.

XBoxBoy,

ps. for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?

[XBoxBoy]

Whoa! Wait a minute!!!

I’m either completely wrong or completely stunned. Here’s an article on the Wall Street Journal site that says: “Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008”

Then when you look at the chart it revels that the average DEDUCTION is $18,876 for California.

Now unless I’m mistaken, and been messin’ up on my taxes for years, a deduction is not the same thing as saving that amount off your tax bill. Doesn’t a writer for the Wall Street Journal know this???

Am I completely wrong??????????

Seems to me that a tax deduction for interest of $18,876 is worth at best 5 or 6k off your tax bill, and given you lose the standard deduction when itemizing (which you gotta do to take the interest) this author is waaaayyyyy off base with his claim.

XBoxBoy,

ps. for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?

[XBoxBoy]

Whoa! Wait a minute!!!

I’m either completely wrong or completely stunned. Here’s an article on the Wall Street Journal site that says: “Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008”

Then when you look at the chart it revels that the average DEDUCTION is $18,876 for California.

Now unless I’m mistaken, and been messin’ up on my taxes for years, a deduction is not the same thing as saving that amount off your tax bill. Doesn’t a writer for the Wall Street Journal know this???

Am I completely wrong??????????

Seems to me that a tax deduction for interest of $18,876 is worth at best 5 or 6k off your tax bill, and given you lose the standard deduction when itemizing (which you gotta do to take the interest) this author is waaaayyyyy off base with his claim.

XBoxBoy,

ps. for someone to save 20k off their tax bill wouldn’t that have to pay over 50k a year in interest? Does anyone think the average californian who’s paying a mortgage is paying over 50k a year in motgage interest?

[XBoxBoy]

Just a personal story.

Before I was dating my wife, I dated a fairly successful real estate agent. I introduced her to a female friend who was looking to buy a condo with her husband. My girlfriend at the time and my friend got along and pretty soon my girlfriend had my friend and her husband in escrow. After a couple weeks my friend and her husband got cold feet and wanted to back out of the deal. My girlfriend, (the RE agent) was furious because the seller’s RE agent was calling my girlfriend and leaving nasty messages along the lines of, “You better get your client back into this deal. Where’s your client control!” For some reason my girlfriend took all of this to be an attack on her “professionalism”. Somehow I ended up in a bad spat with my girlfriend over this whole thing when she tried to say I had a lousy set of friends, and next thing I knew we weren’t boyfriend and girlfriend anymore.

All ancient history now, but yes, RE agents definitely consider client control an important part of being a professional.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Just a personal story.

Before I was dating my wife, I dated a fairly successful real estate agent. I introduced her to a female friend who was looking to buy a condo with her husband. My girlfriend at the time and my friend got along and pretty soon my girlfriend had my friend and her husband in escrow. After a couple weeks my friend and her husband got cold feet and wanted to back out of the deal. My girlfriend, (the RE agent) was furious because the seller’s RE agent was calling my girlfriend and leaving nasty messages along the lines of, “You better get your client back into this deal. Where’s your client control!” For some reason my girlfriend took all of this to be an attack on her “professionalism”. Somehow I ended up in a bad spat with my girlfriend over this whole thing when she tried to say I had a lousy set of friends, and next thing I knew we weren’t boyfriend and girlfriend anymore.

All ancient history now, but yes, RE agents definitely consider client control an important part of being a professional.

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts