[zk]

Brilliant, qcomer:

Let’s face it, both of you repubs and dems are biased, egoistic bunch and deep down the real motive behind all these stupid blogs and posts is to feed your biases and egos. You are both intolerant and cannot wait to miss an opportunity to rub others noses in any story you can find. Both of you twist facts to serve your political stances. I am sick and tired of seeing adults fighting like kids.

I wish I could’ve said it that well myself. I watched a debate in the House of Representatives on CSpan the other day, which I’d never done before. I was astonished to find that the debate there is at least as emotional, manipulative, vitriolic and lacking in reason and intelligence as the political debates on this board are. We’ve got children, and not very smart ones, running our country.

[zk]

Amazing. So the media never make mistakes?

4plexowner, let me ask you something. What are you an expert on? Have you never seen a mistake in the media on that subject?

The media make mistakes all the time. In fact, we’re lucky if 70% of what they report is correct.

Just for fun, though, I’d like to hear a plausible explanation of how BBC would end up reporting such a thing before it happened other than a mistake.

[zk]

I’ve only got time to comment on one of your errors. You say that, “Almost ALL single family homes purchased in the 750,000+ price bracket in San Diego county were purchased by the primary resident who is currently living in and occupying that home. This market is NOT being driven by a bunch of speculators who are hoping to sell to the greater fool.” You say this as though the two are mutually exclusive. They’re not.

You see, the only reason many of those primary residents are willing to pay so much for those single family homes is that they’re hoping to eventually sell them to the greater fool. If joe six pack can rent a house for $2500/month, but it costs him $5,000/month to buy the same house, why would he buy it? Because he’s got an unreasonable expectation of appreciation. Because he’s hoping to (someday) sell it at a much higher price to a greater fool. A “speculator” isn’t neccessarily the same as a flipper. All flippers are speculators but all speculators aren’t flippers. A guy who pays twice as much as he needs to to live in a house is speculating on that house appreciating. And if that guy borrowed 10x his income using an option ARM, and he counted on being able to refinance after his house appreciated in price, then not only will his speculation be wrong, but he’ll be selling his house soon. And he’ll be quite motivated.

[zk]

Any Derby Hill owners out there, or not? I say we leave housing bear’s decision up to him and provide him with the information he wants.

FWIW, I lived in a 3100 sf house very near DH for a couple years. The gas and electric were pretty cheap. Around $100/mo, if I remember. Probably only a bit more now. We didn’t have a/c, and if we did, we’d only have used it once or twice. There’s a great breeze up there, and it’ll blow right through your house unless you’re situated exactly wrongly. And it’s not too cold in the winter, either. Plus, being new houses, they’re very energy efficient. Your water bill will, of course, depend on your landscaping. Most of a typical home’s water goes to landscaping. I think we paid around 100-150/mo. It was a 5k sf lot with lots of grass. Trash is free (city provided).

We did our landscape very much on the cheap. We did most of our own landscaping work. We spent about 6k on concrete and flagstone, and maybe 2-3k on plants, grass, sprinkler parts, etc. Plus maybe 500 for day laborers. We had neighbors who spent well over 100k on their landscaping. So you can basically spend whatever you want.

Good luck.

[zk]

Summer will be the real truth..

I don’t know if I’d go that far. Even if sales and prices pick up this summer, that doesn’t mean that this winter was the bottom. The last graph on this page: http://piggington.com/january_housing_data
should be evidence that the bottom can be tough to call, and also that it’s highly doubtful that the bottom would occur so soon. If this summer does pick up, I’d say it’s far more likely that summer of ’07 will end up just a bounce similar to ’91 rather than the bottom (’96).

[zk]

Ouch, indeed. Can you say lender in trouble?

Owner loss (if it sells at 1.9, which is a gigantic if) = 100k (down payment) plus 95k selling costs at 5% = 195k.

Lender loss = 400k.

[zk]

“A dead cat bounce is a term from the trading world for a weak upward bounce on “declining volume.” “I do not see how RE prices could rise on declining volume, so I do not think this can happen in RE.”

I think that’s a pretty narrow definition of “dead cat bounce.” And, while (in the trading world) that term may technically only apply to an upward bounce on declining volume, I think that, when used by most people when discussing real estate, it means something more along the lines of: “a short-lived upward bounce in consumer sentiment and possibly prices and sales volume after which the longer-term, downward trend in all three of those areas continues.”

Whether what we’re experiencing now qualifies as that kind of dead cat bounce remains to be seen.

[zk]

The part of the speech I didn’t get was the part where he said it’s time to balance the budget. Why didn’t he balance it when he had a congress that would do almost anything he wanted?

[zk]

Strictly anectdotal observations, but the pendings in Carmel Valley really picked up last month. The few that have closed are mostly at prices significantly lower than they were closing at a few months ago, and generally somewhat below the asking prices. So whether the increase in pendings is due to sellers finally getting with the program or whether there is a change in buyer sentiment remains to be seen.

[zk]

sdnativeson, that’s a very good point. You’re right, if a republican pulled this stunt, the democrats would be all up in arms. But hillary pulled it, and the democrats should be all up in arms anyway, because it’s just plain lameness. It’s nothing more than emotional manipulation.

But they won’t be, because she’s a democrat. That should be all the more reason for democrats to say to her, “hey, knock it off, you’re hurting our chances in ’08 on two fronts. One, you look like a fool for bringing it up, so that hurts your chances. And two, some people will fall for it, so you’re hurting Obama’s chances.”

Yes, it will be interesting to see who calls her out on it, if anyone.

[zk]

“Talk is very, very cheap. Anyone can say they’ll work together and find common ground.

Well, here’s a few quotes from one article on Forbes.com, mostly from other politicians:

Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.

even Obama’s allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation.

“He always wants to understand an issue and think it through,” said Roberta Lynch, deputy director for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “You have to make your case no matter who you are.”

Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people’s suggestions for improving legislation.

[zk]

Thank you sdnativeson.

Now, to acknowledge some other people’s concerns about Obama. His voting record is liberal. More liberal than I would like. Contrary to the prevailing opinion on this website, my political opinions are fairly evenly divided between conservative and liberal ideas. My biggest disagreement with Obama’s positions is his stance on affirmative action. And he is lacking in experience, which is a concern. He’s far from perfect. However, it’s my opinion he’s the best option. And I’m glad we live in a country where I can hold that opinion and you can hold yours. Let’s all vote in November ’08.

[zk]

I take no offense at his “name-calling”

Neither do I, but that’s not the point. The point is that, at best, it doesn’t do anything for a rational exchange of ideas.

“But aren’t you being somewhat of a fraud? You called people unintelligent and irrational you don’t see that as name calling?”

Just so we’re clear, I didn’t say they were unintelligent and irrational, I said that they were acting that way. There’s a difference. That said, I see the point you’re trying to make. The main difference is that I’m not doing it for the purposes of attacking or manipulating people’s emotions. I’m doing it for the purposes of trying to get to the root of the problem. Example: Say I’m trying to talk to my boss about something I’d like changed, and I’m yelling and screaming, and a colleague says, “Zeke, you’re yelling and screaming, and it’s making your boss angry. He’s not hearing what you’re saying, he only sees that you’re yelling and screaming. You need to calm down.” That’s different from someone saying, “Ha ha, look at that blithering fool! Only a jackass (insert occupation or political affiliation here) would act like that to his boss. They’re all idiots. No wonder they can’t get anything done. Morons!” One seeks to improve the situation while the other seeks to make the other side look bad.

“Too bad you toss it aside with the qualifier “But” immediately after”

It’s a small point, but I don’t consider saying that they aren’t good at it lessening at all the fact that they would do it if they were good at it.

“I don’t find the “sometimes” in the first part of that statement.”

It wasn’t in the first part. But I certainly didn’t mean to say I acted that way all the time. Shoulda been more clear.

“One more thing! I assume that when you said “that if they can be taught to act that way, then they can be taught to use reason and logic and calm discussion” you aren’t implying any sort of degradation of free will are you? Just give them the knowledge and let them run with it?”

I was suggesting education, not degradation of free will. Actually, what I was suggesting was leadership by example. Our politicians have set an example of partisan bickering. I think republicans over the last 10 years have taken that to new heights. I’m certainly willing to agree to disagree on that point. It doesn’t really matter whether it was the republicans or Karl Rove or not. What matters is that it is the way it is, and it should be changed. And I think Obama is the kind of leader who can set an example of cooperation and communication rather than fighting and manipulating.

[zk]

sdnativeson, twice in your post you say I’m “charged up” by jg. I’m not quite sure where you get that from. What I said was that he was not really making any logical points, that he was making himself look silly, and that that type of comment distracts from rational discourse, Nothing charged there. No excitement. Just counterpoints to his manner of debate.

“As to the rest of his post well, it’s the analogy he chooses to use, it doesn’t bother me.”

Calling people “public school graduates” and “ladies” and implying that they’re not tough are not analogies. They’re attempts to insult. Or, if you want to give jg the benefit of the doubt, you can call them what he calls them, which is parody. And insults from jg don’t bother me except for the fact that they distract from the discussion. And that’s the point: insults and parody have no place in a calm, rational discussion. Humor is fine. But attempting to parody or insult the other side generally ends up leading to division.

“I don’t really get the Rovian Debate philosophy comment though. Tactic? Maybe, Strategy? Possibly. Philosophy? No.”

You are correct. I should have said tactic or strategy.

If “Rovian debate philosophy” is structured in the manner you say then why do you get so charged up over it?

Again, I’m not charged up. And I don’t know what you mean by “is structured in the manner you say.” But the reason that I think it’s bad for the country is that it distracts from discussion of what is best for our country.

I think you are giving Rove and the Republicans way too much credit.

It’s possible. But I don’t think so. Having watched the republicans in action over the last decade, their contempt for and ridicule of people who don’t agree with them has been consistent and strong. Don’t get me wrong; I think the democrats would do it just as much if they were any good at it. But they don’t seem to be. And I think a big part of the reason for that is Karl Rove. I may be giving him too much credit, as I do give him tons of credit. It is my opinion that the man is quite a genius at what he does.

“I also disregard your comment of “too many people in this country….. and irrational fashion”, I find that an extremely arrogant statement. You are saying/calling a large percentage of our population unitelligent and irrational – due to the fact they have/hold an opinion/ thoughts differing from those that you hold on to so vehemently.”

You are correct about that being an arrogant opinion, but wrong about it being due to the fact that they have different opinions from me. I feel the same way about anyone who debates in that fashion, whether I agree with them or not. As far as the arrogance… I have no excuse for that. I do believe that a large percentage of our population acts in an unintelligent and irrational fashion. And is subject to the type of influence that Karl Rove and his minions provide. Note that I didn’t say that they were unintelligent, just that they act that way sometimes. And I also believe that if they can be taught to act that way, then they can be taught to use reason and logic and calm discussion rather than insults and emotional manipulation.

[zk]

jg, your last post is just more of the same. Your “sense of parody” is right along the lines of Rovian debate philosophy. Which is to say, not very well reasoned, not really making any logical points, not doing anything other than attempting to make others look silly and (if observers are intelligent and rational) only making yourself look silly in the process. Unfortunately, too many people in this country have been trained to act in an unintelligent and irrational fashion since Karl Rove masterminded the divide-and-conquer strategy that the Republicans have used over the last decade.

Sure, partisanship has been around for centuries. Millenia, really. Sure, Brooks beat Sumner over the head with a stick. The idea is to progress beyond that sort of simple, irrational, foolish behavior. The idea is to conduct ourselves in the civilized manner and discuss ideas in a way that is conducive to hearing each others’ ideas and (in the case of politicians) making policy (based on those civilized discussions) that is best for our country. The idea that you can say, “You have your knickers in a wad over imagined slights from Rove? Toughen up, ladies” and be thought of as anything other than distracing from reasonable discourse should be an idea that fell out of favor hundreds of years ago. And maybe that idea was fading out of favor as the last century ended. But it’s back with a vengeance. It’s become part of our culture. I say it’s time to change that.

[Author]

Posts