[yojimbo]

Why would anyone waste their valuable time on the Larry King show? Does anyone even watch that show anymore?

[yojimbo]

Why would anyone waste their valuable time on the Larry King show? Does anyone even watch that show anymore?

[yojimbo]

Why not just have a 100% income tax and let the government take care of everyone? Golf is a lame game anyway so I don’t see why anyone should be wasting money playing it when people who partied instead of studying are having a hard time making ends meet.

Buffet seems to want higher taxes as do all the Hollywood elite. If higher taxes are better then wouldn’t 100% be optimal? I’m sure they would support it given that they always make the the prosperity of the country a higher priority than their own.

Besides, most of us can’t make good decisions anyway and rely upon more intelligent and visionary groups to make our decisions for us. Our eating choices, housing choices, driving choices, education choices are all dictated or at least swayed by taxes, subsidies, mandates, regulations, laws, codes etc.

Let’s just go for it and go straight to a command economy where we just go to work everyday, don’t get paid, then stand in line waiting for whatever food stuffs the Peoples Council on Healthy Eating decides to give us. No slaving over the stove every night agonizing over what healthy food to prepare for the family. Just go down to the HFFAC (Healthy Food For All Center) and stand in line to get your meal.

We could all just get GTU’s (generic transportation units) so we wouldn’t have to suffer through any car buying decisions and no one would be able to make others feel inferior by driving expensive flashy cars.

The old Soviet Union did it and it seemed to work out fantastically for them. Their government was full of intellectual, intelligent, progressive people who seemed to have a knack of always making the right decisions for the people. They knew better than to reply upon the market. What does a market know anyway? It’s too bad that economic model collapsed because it had such great potential.

100% income tax. No need for the IRS or tax forms or tax code. It could all be eliminated! Just Do It!

[yojimbo]

Why not just have a 100% income tax and let the government take care of everyone? Golf is a lame game anyway so I don’t see why anyone should be wasting money playing it when people who partied instead of studying are having a hard time making ends meet.

Buffet seems to want higher taxes as do all the Hollywood elite. If higher taxes are better then wouldn’t 100% be optimal? I’m sure they would support it given that they always make the the prosperity of the country a higher priority than their own.

Besides, most of us can’t make good decisions anyway and rely upon more intelligent and visionary groups to make our decisions for us. Our eating choices, housing choices, driving choices, education choices are all dictated or at least swayed by taxes, subsidies, mandates, regulations, laws, codes etc.

Let’s just go for it and go straight to a command economy where we just go to work everyday, don’t get paid, then stand in line waiting for whatever food stuffs the Peoples Council on Healthy Eating decides to give us. No slaving over the stove every night agonizing over what healthy food to prepare for the family. Just go down to the HFFAC (Healthy Food For All Center) and stand in line to get your meal.

We could all just get GTU’s (generic transportation units) so we wouldn’t have to suffer through any car buying decisions and no one would be able to make others feel inferior by driving expensive flashy cars.

The old Soviet Union did it and it seemed to work out fantastically for them. Their government was full of intellectual, intelligent, progressive people who seemed to have a knack of always making the right decisions for the people. They knew better than to reply upon the market. What does a market know anyway? It’s too bad that economic model collapsed because it had such great potential.

100% income tax. No need for the IRS or tax forms or tax code. It could all be eliminated! Just Do It!

[yojimbo]

Why not just have a 100% income tax and let the government take care of everyone? Golf is a lame game anyway so I don’t see why anyone should be wasting money playing it when people who partied instead of studying are having a hard time making ends meet.

Buffet seems to want higher taxes as do all the Hollywood elite. If higher taxes are better then wouldn’t 100% be optimal? I’m sure they would support it given that they always make the the prosperity of the country a higher priority than their own.

Besides, most of us can’t make good decisions anyway and rely upon more intelligent and visionary groups to make our decisions for us. Our eating choices, housing choices, driving choices, education choices are all dictated or at least swayed by taxes, subsidies, mandates, regulations, laws, codes etc.

Let’s just go for it and go straight to a command economy where we just go to work everyday, don’t get paid, then stand in line waiting for whatever food stuffs the Peoples Council on Healthy Eating decides to give us. No slaving over the stove every night agonizing over what healthy food to prepare for the family. Just go down to the HFFAC (Healthy Food For All Center) and stand in line to get your meal.

We could all just get GTU’s (generic transportation units) so we wouldn’t have to suffer through any car buying decisions and no one would be able to make others feel inferior by driving expensive flashy cars.

The old Soviet Union did it and it seemed to work out fantastically for them. Their government was full of intellectual, intelligent, progressive people who seemed to have a knack of always making the right decisions for the people. They knew better than to reply upon the market. What does a market know anyway? It’s too bad that economic model collapsed because it had such great potential.

100% income tax. No need for the IRS or tax forms or tax code. It could all be eliminated! Just Do It!

[yojimbo]

Why not just have a 100% income tax and let the government take care of everyone? Golf is a lame game anyway so I don’t see why anyone should be wasting money playing it when people who partied instead of studying are having a hard time making ends meet.

Buffet seems to want higher taxes as do all the Hollywood elite. If higher taxes are better then wouldn’t 100% be optimal? I’m sure they would support it given that they always make the the prosperity of the country a higher priority than their own.

Besides, most of us can’t make good decisions anyway and rely upon more intelligent and visionary groups to make our decisions for us. Our eating choices, housing choices, driving choices, education choices are all dictated or at least swayed by taxes, subsidies, mandates, regulations, laws, codes etc.

Let’s just go for it and go straight to a command economy where we just go to work everyday, don’t get paid, then stand in line waiting for whatever food stuffs the Peoples Council on Healthy Eating decides to give us. No slaving over the stove every night agonizing over what healthy food to prepare for the family. Just go down to the HFFAC (Healthy Food For All Center) and stand in line to get your meal.

We could all just get GTU’s (generic transportation units) so we wouldn’t have to suffer through any car buying decisions and no one would be able to make others feel inferior by driving expensive flashy cars.

The old Soviet Union did it and it seemed to work out fantastically for them. Their government was full of intellectual, intelligent, progressive people who seemed to have a knack of always making the right decisions for the people. They knew better than to reply upon the market. What does a market know anyway? It’s too bad that economic model collapsed because it had such great potential.

100% income tax. No need for the IRS or tax forms or tax code. It could all be eliminated! Just Do It!

[yojimbo]

Why not just have a 100% income tax and let the government take care of everyone? Golf is a lame game anyway so I don’t see why anyone should be wasting money playing it when people who partied instead of studying are having a hard time making ends meet.

Buffet seems to want higher taxes as do all the Hollywood elite. If higher taxes are better then wouldn’t 100% be optimal? I’m sure they would support it given that they always make the the prosperity of the country a higher priority than their own.

Besides, most of us can’t make good decisions anyway and rely upon more intelligent and visionary groups to make our decisions for us. Our eating choices, housing choices, driving choices, education choices are all dictated or at least swayed by taxes, subsidies, mandates, regulations, laws, codes etc.

Let’s just go for it and go straight to a command economy where we just go to work everyday, don’t get paid, then stand in line waiting for whatever food stuffs the Peoples Council on Healthy Eating decides to give us. No slaving over the stove every night agonizing over what healthy food to prepare for the family. Just go down to the HFFAC (Healthy Food For All Center) and stand in line to get your meal.

We could all just get GTU’s (generic transportation units) so we wouldn’t have to suffer through any car buying decisions and no one would be able to make others feel inferior by driving expensive flashy cars.

The old Soviet Union did it and it seemed to work out fantastically for them. Their government was full of intellectual, intelligent, progressive people who seemed to have a knack of always making the right decisions for the people. They knew better than to reply upon the market. What does a market know anyway? It’s too bad that economic model collapsed because it had such great potential.

100% income tax. No need for the IRS or tax forms or tax code. It could all be eliminated! Just Do It!

[yojimbo]

I’m not allowing myself to “get it” because I don’t necessarily think it’s true. It sounds pretty good though. And, if you’re comfortable leaving your level of analysis at that point and not taking it further, while, at the same time demeaning others as “not getting it” the so be it.

Sure, a stable family structure is probably beneficial to a child’s success. Seems to be common sense. But, is staying in a particular house for a long period of time beneficial? Probably. Could there be other scenarios that might be even more beneficial? Possibly. What about the family that moves a few times to different parts of the country and into communities with different demographics. Wouldn’t this possibly be beneficial to a child’s intellectual development?

I’m not a big fan of North County for just this reason. Sure it has great schools etc. etc. but it’s blah. A child that spends their entire childhood there will probably be successful in the sense that they will go to college, get a plug in job, and commute to work everyday for 40 years until they retire comfortably. Not bad. But there are other possibilities out there as well. Some of the more impressive people I’ve met in my life have been those that had experienced many different locales and cultures as children and it influenced the way they thought and their value system. So, I don’t think you can argue that staying in one place is absolutely the most beneficial situation for children. Well, ok, you can argue it but I don’t have to “get it”.

[yojimbo]

I’m not allowing myself to “get it” because I don’t necessarily think it’s true. It sounds pretty good though. And, if you’re comfortable leaving your level of analysis at that point and not taking it further, while, at the same time demeaning others as “not getting it” the so be it.

Sure, a stable family structure is probably beneficial to a child’s success. Seems to be common sense. But, is staying in a particular house for a long period of time beneficial? Probably. Could there be other scenarios that might be even more beneficial? Possibly. What about the family that moves a few times to different parts of the country and into communities with different demographics. Wouldn’t this possibly be beneficial to a child’s intellectual development?

I’m not a big fan of North County for just this reason. Sure it has great schools etc. etc. but it’s blah. A child that spends their entire childhood there will probably be successful in the sense that they will go to college, get a plug in job, and commute to work everyday for 40 years until they retire comfortably. Not bad. But there are other possibilities out there as well. Some of the more impressive people I’ve met in my life have been those that had experienced many different locales and cultures as children and it influenced the way they thought and their value system. So, I don’t think you can argue that staying in one place is absolutely the most beneficial situation for children. Well, ok, you can argue it but I don’t have to “get it”.

[yojimbo]

I’m not allowing myself to “get it” because I don’t necessarily think it’s true. It sounds pretty good though. And, if you’re comfortable leaving your level of analysis at that point and not taking it further, while, at the same time demeaning others as “not getting it” the so be it.

Sure, a stable family structure is probably beneficial to a child’s success. Seems to be common sense. But, is staying in a particular house for a long period of time beneficial? Probably. Could there be other scenarios that might be even more beneficial? Possibly. What about the family that moves a few times to different parts of the country and into communities with different demographics. Wouldn’t this possibly be beneficial to a child’s intellectual development?

I’m not a big fan of North County for just this reason. Sure it has great schools etc. etc. but it’s blah. A child that spends their entire childhood there will probably be successful in the sense that they will go to college, get a plug in job, and commute to work everyday for 40 years until they retire comfortably. Not bad. But there are other possibilities out there as well. Some of the more impressive people I’ve met in my life have been those that had experienced many different locales and cultures as children and it influenced the way they thought and their value system. So, I don’t think you can argue that staying in one place is absolutely the most beneficial situation for children. Well, ok, you can argue it but I don’t have to “get it”.

[yojimbo]

I’m not allowing myself to “get it” because I don’t necessarily think it’s true. It sounds pretty good though. And, if you’re comfortable leaving your level of analysis at that point and not taking it further, while, at the same time demeaning others as “not getting it” the so be it.

Sure, a stable family structure is probably beneficial to a child’s success. Seems to be common sense. But, is staying in a particular house for a long period of time beneficial? Probably. Could there be other scenarios that might be even more beneficial? Possibly. What about the family that moves a few times to different parts of the country and into communities with different demographics. Wouldn’t this possibly be beneficial to a child’s intellectual development?

I’m not a big fan of North County for just this reason. Sure it has great schools etc. etc. but it’s blah. A child that spends their entire childhood there will probably be successful in the sense that they will go to college, get a plug in job, and commute to work everyday for 40 years until they retire comfortably. Not bad. But there are other possibilities out there as well. Some of the more impressive people I’ve met in my life have been those that had experienced many different locales and cultures as children and it influenced the way they thought and their value system. So, I don’t think you can argue that staying in one place is absolutely the most beneficial situation for children. Well, ok, you can argue it but I don’t have to “get it”.

[yojimbo]

Well, being an economist I guess I’m prone to over analysis. Then again having been involved in the real estate industry for the last 15 years I’ve witnessed jaw dropping “under analysis” from many of those in the industry – and that’s being kind.

Still, in my opinion there is no real pent up demand. Just demand. If a person is in prison and cannot buy a home until they get out then I suppose that is pent up demand. When they get out that demand will be unleashed upon the market. If you had a million people in prison and all of them wanted a $400k home in Santee and could qualify for a loan but couldn’t enter into an enforceable contract until they were released then I might consider that pent up demand. And, if they were all released on the same day that pent up demand would definitely show itself in an upward pricing move in Santee.

Now, to move into my “over analysis” mode. Just because a home that SEEMS to be priced extremely low relative to the market draws a large number of offers from people wanting a home in that area means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to “pent up” demand. It just means that a lot of people would want that house at that price. And, as DWCAP stated I might actually want most any house in North County if it were priced unbelievably low as well.

The point I was making with regard to the cracked slab and why I feel it is COMPLETELY RELEVANT is that most of the offers written on the property were probably from buyers who didn’t know the home had a cracked slab. Once they conducted their inspection their “demand” disappeared at the price level of their offer. Am I to assume then that their “pent up demand has now changed and they are pent up at about $50k less since they have to fix the slab now?

Offer a home on the cliffs in Malibu for $100k and see how much “pent up” demand there is for it. Then tell all those who wrote offers that it is sitting on top of a toxic waste dump and watch all of that pent up demand disappear.

The thousands of buyers waiting in the wings to buy are just waiting for a particular price point. It’s not a new type of demand – pent up or otherwise. Prices drop – demand rises. The “pent up” phrasing just adds an amount of urgency to the situation which is what most salespeople want to introduce into the buying decision – for obvious reasons.

[yojimbo]

Well, being an economist I guess I’m prone to over analysis. Then again having been involved in the real estate industry for the last 15 years I’ve witnessed jaw dropping “under analysis” from many of those in the industry – and that’s being kind.

Still, in my opinion there is no real pent up demand. Just demand. If a person is in prison and cannot buy a home until they get out then I suppose that is pent up demand. When they get out that demand will be unleashed upon the market. If you had a million people in prison and all of them wanted a $400k home in Santee and could qualify for a loan but couldn’t enter into an enforceable contract until they were released then I might consider that pent up demand. And, if they were all released on the same day that pent up demand would definitely show itself in an upward pricing move in Santee.

Now, to move into my “over analysis” mode. Just because a home that SEEMS to be priced extremely low relative to the market draws a large number of offers from people wanting a home in that area means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to “pent up” demand. It just means that a lot of people would want that house at that price. And, as DWCAP stated I might actually want most any house in North County if it were priced unbelievably low as well.

The point I was making with regard to the cracked slab and why I feel it is COMPLETELY RELEVANT is that most of the offers written on the property were probably from buyers who didn’t know the home had a cracked slab. Once they conducted their inspection their “demand” disappeared at the price level of their offer. Am I to assume then that their “pent up demand has now changed and they are pent up at about $50k less since they have to fix the slab now?

Offer a home on the cliffs in Malibu for $100k and see how much “pent up” demand there is for it. Then tell all those who wrote offers that it is sitting on top of a toxic waste dump and watch all of that pent up demand disappear.

The thousands of buyers waiting in the wings to buy are just waiting for a particular price point. It’s not a new type of demand – pent up or otherwise. Prices drop – demand rises. The “pent up” phrasing just adds an amount of urgency to the situation which is what most salespeople want to introduce into the buying decision – for obvious reasons.

[yojimbo]

Well, being an economist I guess I’m prone to over analysis. Then again having been involved in the real estate industry for the last 15 years I’ve witnessed jaw dropping “under analysis” from many of those in the industry – and that’s being kind.

Still, in my opinion there is no real pent up demand. Just demand. If a person is in prison and cannot buy a home until they get out then I suppose that is pent up demand. When they get out that demand will be unleashed upon the market. If you had a million people in prison and all of them wanted a $400k home in Santee and could qualify for a loan but couldn’t enter into an enforceable contract until they were released then I might consider that pent up demand. And, if they were all released on the same day that pent up demand would definitely show itself in an upward pricing move in Santee.

Now, to move into my “over analysis” mode. Just because a home that SEEMS to be priced extremely low relative to the market draws a large number of offers from people wanting a home in that area means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to “pent up” demand. It just means that a lot of people would want that house at that price. And, as DWCAP stated I might actually want most any house in North County if it were priced unbelievably low as well.

The point I was making with regard to the cracked slab and why I feel it is COMPLETELY RELEVANT is that most of the offers written on the property were probably from buyers who didn’t know the home had a cracked slab. Once they conducted their inspection their “demand” disappeared at the price level of their offer. Am I to assume then that their “pent up demand has now changed and they are pent up at about $50k less since they have to fix the slab now?

Offer a home on the cliffs in Malibu for $100k and see how much “pent up” demand there is for it. Then tell all those who wrote offers that it is sitting on top of a toxic waste dump and watch all of that pent up demand disappear.

The thousands of buyers waiting in the wings to buy are just waiting for a particular price point. It’s not a new type of demand – pent up or otherwise. Prices drop – demand rises. The “pent up” phrasing just adds an amount of urgency to the situation which is what most salespeople want to introduce into the buying decision – for obvious reasons.

[yojimbo]

Well, being an economist I guess I’m prone to over analysis. Then again having been involved in the real estate industry for the last 15 years I’ve witnessed jaw dropping “under analysis” from many of those in the industry – and that’s being kind.

Still, in my opinion there is no real pent up demand. Just demand. If a person is in prison and cannot buy a home until they get out then I suppose that is pent up demand. When they get out that demand will be unleashed upon the market. If you had a million people in prison and all of them wanted a $400k home in Santee and could qualify for a loan but couldn’t enter into an enforceable contract until they were released then I might consider that pent up demand. And, if they were all released on the same day that pent up demand would definitely show itself in an upward pricing move in Santee.

Now, to move into my “over analysis” mode. Just because a home that SEEMS to be priced extremely low relative to the market draws a large number of offers from people wanting a home in that area means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to “pent up” demand. It just means that a lot of people would want that house at that price. And, as DWCAP stated I might actually want most any house in North County if it were priced unbelievably low as well.

The point I was making with regard to the cracked slab and why I feel it is COMPLETELY RELEVANT is that most of the offers written on the property were probably from buyers who didn’t know the home had a cracked slab. Once they conducted their inspection their “demand” disappeared at the price level of their offer. Am I to assume then that their “pent up demand has now changed and they are pent up at about $50k less since they have to fix the slab now?

Offer a home on the cliffs in Malibu for $100k and see how much “pent up” demand there is for it. Then tell all those who wrote offers that it is sitting on top of a toxic waste dump and watch all of that pent up demand disappear.

The thousands of buyers waiting in the wings to buy are just waiting for a particular price point. It’s not a new type of demand – pent up or otherwise. Prices drop – demand rises. The “pent up” phrasing just adds an amount of urgency to the situation which is what most salespeople want to introduce into the buying decision – for obvious reasons.

[Author]

Posts