[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

[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]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
BTW, Laffer and his firm used to be La Jolla-based, but moved to income tax-free Tennessee to escape CA’s taxes.[/quote]

Wealthy people do move away from La Jolla after all.[/quote]

While I don’t have any facts to justify my belief, I’d wager that some of Laffer’s key people including himself still own places in LJ.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
BTW, Laffer and his firm used to be La Jolla-based, but moved to income tax-free Tennessee to escape CA’s taxes.[/quote]

Wealthy people do move away from La Jolla after all.[/quote]

While I don’t have any facts to justify my belief, I’d wager that some of Laffer’s key people including himself still own places in LJ.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
BTW, Laffer and his firm used to be La Jolla-based, but moved to income tax-free Tennessee to escape CA’s taxes.[/quote]

Wealthy people do move away from La Jolla after all.[/quote]

While I don’t have any facts to justify my belief, I’d wager that some of Laffer’s key people including himself still own places in LJ.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
BTW, Laffer and his firm used to be La Jolla-based, but moved to income tax-free Tennessee to escape CA’s taxes.[/quote]

Wealthy people do move away from La Jolla after all.[/quote]

While I don’t have any facts to justify my belief, I’d wager that some of Laffer’s key people including himself still own places in LJ.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
BTW, Laffer and his firm used to be La Jolla-based, but moved to income tax-free Tennessee to escape CA’s taxes.[/quote]

Wealthy people do move away from La Jolla after all.[/quote]

While I don’t have any facts to justify my belief, I’d wager that some of Laffer’s key people including himself still own places in LJ.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=XBoxBoy]If so, how do you control the corruption of the government by interests that want to regulate based on what’s in their interests?[/quote]

Voting provides some “free market” values to government, which is a good thing,[/quote]

My problem with this is that the corruption is already so deep (and so is apathy among the voters) that correcting things through the ballot box seems completely hopeless to me.

[quote=sdduuuude]In the US, the only hope lies in the balance of power, which is a pretty good idea.

Eventually, someone has to bring up acts of Congress to the Supreme Court, which has to declare that “Congress can’t do x, y, and z”

Can the Supreme Court bring down the Federal Reserve, I wonder? I don’t know.[/quote]

I don’t see the balance of power solving anything either. It appears to me that all branches of the govt have been successfully coop’d. (Not that I don’t think the balance of power wasn’t a brillant move by our forefathers, just that it seems to have been long ago lost)

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=XBoxBoy]If so, how do you control the corruption of the government by interests that want to regulate based on what’s in their interests?[/quote]

Voting provides some “free market” values to government, which is a good thing,[/quote]

My problem with this is that the corruption is already so deep (and so is apathy among the voters) that correcting things through the ballot box seems completely hopeless to me.

[quote=sdduuuude]In the US, the only hope lies in the balance of power, which is a pretty good idea.

Eventually, someone has to bring up acts of Congress to the Supreme Court, which has to declare that “Congress can’t do x, y, and z”

Can the Supreme Court bring down the Federal Reserve, I wonder? I don’t know.[/quote]

I don’t see the balance of power solving anything either. It appears to me that all branches of the govt have been successfully coop’d. (Not that I don’t think the balance of power wasn’t a brillant move by our forefathers, just that it seems to have been long ago lost)

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=XBoxBoy]If so, how do you control the corruption of the government by interests that want to regulate based on what’s in their interests?[/quote]

Voting provides some “free market” values to government, which is a good thing,[/quote]

My problem with this is that the corruption is already so deep (and so is apathy among the voters) that correcting things through the ballot box seems completely hopeless to me.

[quote=sdduuuude]In the US, the only hope lies in the balance of power, which is a pretty good idea.

Eventually, someone has to bring up acts of Congress to the Supreme Court, which has to declare that “Congress can’t do x, y, and z”

Can the Supreme Court bring down the Federal Reserve, I wonder? I don’t know.[/quote]

I don’t see the balance of power solving anything either. It appears to me that all branches of the govt have been successfully coop’d. (Not that I don’t think the balance of power wasn’t a brillant move by our forefathers, just that it seems to have been long ago lost)

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=XBoxBoy]If so, how do you control the corruption of the government by interests that want to regulate based on what’s in their interests?[/quote]

Voting provides some “free market” values to government, which is a good thing,[/quote]

My problem with this is that the corruption is already so deep (and so is apathy among the voters) that correcting things through the ballot box seems completely hopeless to me.

[quote=sdduuuude]In the US, the only hope lies in the balance of power, which is a pretty good idea.

Eventually, someone has to bring up acts of Congress to the Supreme Court, which has to declare that “Congress can’t do x, y, and z”

Can the Supreme Court bring down the Federal Reserve, I wonder? I don’t know.[/quote]

I don’t see the balance of power solving anything either. It appears to me that all branches of the govt have been successfully coop’d. (Not that I don’t think the balance of power wasn’t a brillant move by our forefathers, just that it seems to have been long ago lost)

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=sdduuuude]
[quote=XBoxBoy]If so, how do you control the corruption of the government by interests that want to regulate based on what’s in their interests?[/quote]

Voting provides some “free market” values to government, which is a good thing,[/quote]

My problem with this is that the corruption is already so deep (and so is apathy among the voters) that correcting things through the ballot box seems completely hopeless to me.

[quote=sdduuuude]In the US, the only hope lies in the balance of power, which is a pretty good idea.

Eventually, someone has to bring up acts of Congress to the Supreme Court, which has to declare that “Congress can’t do x, y, and z”

Can the Supreme Court bring down the Federal Reserve, I wonder? I don’t know.[/quote]

I don’t see the balance of power solving anything either. It appears to me that all branches of the govt have been successfully coop’d. (Not that I don’t think the balance of power wasn’t a brillant move by our forefathers, just that it seems to have been long ago lost)

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=greekfire]@XBoxBoy: free markets would do a much better job of regulating themselves if they were allowed to fail. It’s the “too big too fail” bailouts and gov’t restrictions such as the Fair Housing Act that create a moral hazard.[/quote]

Well, I can certainly agree that moral hazard is an issue. But to me a much bigger issue is what’s to stop execs and others from looting their company? Or what’s to stop people like Madoff from running ponzi schemes? Or maybe more to the point, what’s to stop people from spending money to buy off politicians to then tax the population and give them the money? You can argue that “theoretically” the market will ultimately catch and punish these people. In practice I think these schemes often go on long enough that the culprits are never caught. (If it hadn’t been for the sudden stock market changes of 2008 ol’ Bernie would probably still be in business, not jail)

What I learned from the recent financial crisis is that there are a number of problems with “free markets” that just don’t self-regulate well at all. In theory they should, but in practice they don’t.
[quote=greekfire]It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.[/quote]

And so what do we do when they don’t? (Cause from the looks of things today, people definitely don’t) More regulations from the govt that is completely beholden to the crooks? Vote out the bums and vote in honest politicians? (If that’s your answer I got this bridge I’m trying to sell… could ya give me a call)

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=greekfire]@XBoxBoy: free markets would do a much better job of regulating themselves if they were allowed to fail. It’s the “too big too fail” bailouts and gov’t restrictions such as the Fair Housing Act that create a moral hazard.[/quote]

Well, I can certainly agree that moral hazard is an issue. But to me a much bigger issue is what’s to stop execs and others from looting their company? Or what’s to stop people like Madoff from running ponzi schemes? Or maybe more to the point, what’s to stop people from spending money to buy off politicians to then tax the population and give them the money? You can argue that “theoretically” the market will ultimately catch and punish these people. In practice I think these schemes often go on long enough that the culprits are never caught. (If it hadn’t been for the sudden stock market changes of 2008 ol’ Bernie would probably still be in business, not jail)

What I learned from the recent financial crisis is that there are a number of problems with “free markets” that just don’t self-regulate well at all. In theory they should, but in practice they don’t.
[quote=greekfire]It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.[/quote]

And so what do we do when they don’t? (Cause from the looks of things today, people definitely don’t) More regulations from the govt that is completely beholden to the crooks? Vote out the bums and vote in honest politicians? (If that’s your answer I got this bridge I’m trying to sell… could ya give me a call)

[Author]

Posts