[zk]

I know nothing about investing (that’s why my money is in CDs).

But it seems to me that if you bet on a decline in oil after the rise that inevitably occurs when news that scares the oil market happens, you’d be right most of the time. After the Korean missile test today, the price hit a record high above $75. I bet 3-5 days from now it will be lower than that.

Maybe the time frame would be shorter or longer than 3-5 days; I never really closely looked at the exact timing. But it seems that, not just in the oil market but in other markets as well, whenever investors react to news by pushing the price of something one way or another, the price corrects shortly thereafter.

I’m quite certain I have no idea what I’m talking about, but it seems to me to happen with such consistency that I wonder what I’ve missed; I wonder why it won’t work.

Any ideas out there?

[zk]

SDCCU’s 5-month CD with a 5.5% APY is the best I could find for that term. La Jolla bank has a 5.5% APY for a one-year CD, which is competitive with banks around the country. It’s kinda nice to have it in a local bank, though.

Somebody said something about Corus (and maybe the SDCCU) being vulnerable to a crash in housing. But, since they’re insured, isn’t your money safe there (assuming the type of disaster neccessary for the FDIC to fold doesn’t occur)?

[zk]

I could probably make it Sunday the 23rd, but probably not the 22nd.

[zk]

imranmortgage,

If you’re looking for a place where people will say about you, “wow. What a jerk. Pimping his loans on a housing market forum. Of all the mortgage salesmen out there, I know which one not to call,” you’ve come to the right place. If you’re looking to sell a mortgage, probably not so much.

[zk]

I agree about the difficulty of buying at the bottom. I spoke to that when a few people said they’d buy if prices dropped a certain percentage. It’s hard, from our current perspective, to understand how things will be then. All the talk will be, “it’s not like last time. Prices will not recover like they did before. The outsourcing of our jobs will render future increases in income meager at best. The damage to our economy from years of budget and trade defecits will take decades to recover from. China and other Asian nations have stopped funding our spending spree (buying our debt) and interest rates are going to keep rising. Unemployment and underemployment are so high that few can afford a house.” The list will go on. The prevailing wisdom will be that buying real estate is pure tomfoolery. And when things start to get better, it will take a long time for the herd to catch up. They’ll still be going with the prevailing wisdom. Just like they did on the way up. Just like they did with Bush. Just like humans do in countless other endeavors. Going against that takes courage. Going against that and doing it at the right time takes courage and smart research.

[zk]

They have to do with real estate because they illustrate the herd mentality. It was a clear, current example of how people go along with the crowd and how, once a critical mass of people changes their mind, a sea change of opinion follows. It was meant to illustrate that this phenomenon is a significant part of the human condition. And this phenomenon has everything to do with San Diego real estate.

[zk]

That forum discussion is interesting. It reminds me of a realtor friend who is convinced prices can’t go down. Or of republicans who are convinced that they’re righteous tough guys.

If you only hang around with or listen to people who share your point of view, you’re unlikely to get the full picture.

Eventually, though, the full picture will be undeniable. Enough people in their circles will eventually understand what’s happening, a critical mass will be reached, and, once that happens sentiment will change fairly quickly. Kinda like Bush’s poll numbers finally plummenting after all his years of incompetence. There’ll always be a few who don’t see the light, but, for the purposes of the housing market, those few won’t matter much. The sea change in sentiment that should happen in the next year or two will be enough to send the market down substantially.

[zk]

Docteur,

What development in PHR has $2M homes in it? I’m not familiar with that development. Unless you mean Santa Barbara, which, to my knowledge, is not technically in PHR. I could be wrong about that. Anyway, check out Santa Rosa. The MR is about $350/mo. The HOA is (or was when we looked there) a little over $100/mo. and was scheduled to at least double when the new swimming pool and facilities were finished. I believe he said $600 for MR+HOA, and it looks like Santa Rosa is (or will soon be) about that much.

[zk]

“by historical standards of warfighting, American combat deaths in Iraq have been astonishngly low.”

That’s beside the point. The point was that saying that bush has toppled two bad regimes while increasing military deaths only 20% is not a valid comparison.

I’ve only got a minute, so I’ll be brief:

I’m not saying we should be in africa but not iraq. I’m saying that “offering the middle east an alternative to totalitarian regimes” doesn’t cut it as a reason to invade iraq. If we cared about the people of other countries (as opposed to strictly our own interests) our money and lives would be at least as well spent in africa as iraq. My point is that that’s not why we’re in iraq. We’re not there for the people of iraq.

Whether we should or shouldn’t help the people of the world is a separate question. But if bush’s answer to that question is “we should,” then we should be in africa. If bush’s answer to that question is “we shouldn’t,” then he shouldn’t use it as an excuse to ivade iraq.

[zk]

“Military deaths under Clinton were mostly not in combat, of course.”

First, you’re comparing 2001-2004, which only includes 1.7 years of combat in Iraq, to Clinton’s first term. I’m sure if you compare March 2003 through today vs. a similar period during Clinton’s first term, the numbers would be quite different. Also, if 1,000 people/year were dying under Clinton, then that’s probably just the basic background number of deaths that occur among such a large number of active duty military personnel. Please explain your implication that somehow those deaths are Clinton’s fault. And I don’t think that your statistical comparison is valid. If 1,000/yr are going to die from training, heart attacks, traffic accidents, etc., and you send 800/yr to die in Iraq, I don’t see that as an 80% increase. I see that as an increase from 10 (or 50 or whatever) combat deaths under clinton to 800. That’s a lot more than 80% (and obviously a lot more than the 20% figure you gave. I’m not sure what your sentence about Iraqi civilians meant, but I think a lack of historical perspective is evident in whatever statistical manipulation results in saying that bush overthrew 2 totalitarian regimes with only an 20% increase in casualties.

I’m on a 20-minute break, so I’ll have to respond to the rest of your post later.

[zk]

“WMD was one reason to enter Iraq, like the need to close down terrorist funding and training and the need to provide the Arab world with an alternative to totalitarian rule.”

First, I agree that Bush wrong to pin so much of his argument on WMD. I think he was committed to PNAC’s vision, and was looking for whatever argument would sell.

Second, Iraq’s training and funding of terrorists was dwarfed by Saudi Arabia’s. Do you think we should invade Saudi Arabia?

Third, if it is worth it to provide the Arab world with an alternative to totalitarian rule using military force (and spending trillions), then don’t you think it’s worth doing what it takes to save the people of Darfur from starvation, rape and murder? Or the millions of other Africans suffering at the hands of tyrants and warlords?

“casualties only 20% higher than Clinton in his first term?” 2,000 Americans died in combat in Clinton’s first term? Where?

There are many reasons the war is taking as long as it is. An incompetent execution is only a small part of the reason. But, if Bush had any sense (like his father), he’d have known it would take this long.

[zk]

I started running a zip realty search on Carmel Valley on June 9. (zip 92130, 3+br 2+ba, $600k-$2M, single family home, any sf, any lot size, any year built)

On June 9 there were 200 listings. That number has climbed a little every day and now, at 1 p.m on June 14, there are 216. Inventory is up 8% in 5 days. I suppose that could be an anomalous spike, but at that rate, inventory would go up 50% in a month!

[zk]

Actually, $254/mo is not the worst case scenario. North of the 56, in Pacific highlands ranch, Mello Roos are up to $350/mo, and HOA fees are about 100/mo now, and will at least double when some new facilities are finished.

[zk]

LS, I don’t think your point is made. You thank the two people who seem to generally agree with your politics for taking the high road, when at least one of them (maybe you haven’t read all her posts) definitely has at least occasionally strayed from the high road.

Except for one slightly condescending comment from one poster, I don’t see any comments in this thread that indicate that “some are simply unable of showing common courtesy towards viewpoints differing from their own, and frequently go on to trashing individuals or groups that personally insults well-intentioned members of this online community.”

That said, this is a real estate forum, and yes, we should probably take our political debate elsewhere. As I said, I’ll have a link here within a few days to a site where we can freely debate politics if we want. Hope you join us, LS.

[zk]

“If Bush was just interested in oil, as you clumsily suggest, why not just offer to normalize relations with Iran and Iraq in return for generous contracts with his friends in the oil business. That’s the question Bush opponents need to answer.”

That’s the question Bush opponents need to answer!? With all the things bush has screwed up, and all the objections bush opponents have, I don’t understand why that’s the question you think they need to answer.

Bush isn’t interested only in oil. He’s also interested in fulfilling the vision of PNAC. He’s interested in a flawed vision that won’t work and will cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

If you’d like, I can write up a very long list of questions bush supporters need to answer, and you can have a go at them.

In fact, when I have time, I’ll write up that list anyway. A friend of mine has a website that’s more for debating politics/philosophy/whatever than this site. I’ll post it on that website and put a link on this page. Perhaps we can get PS and PD and whoever else is interested in debating such things to join us.

I’m not one of those bush haters who knows every little fact about his presidency. I’m not even a liberal (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I’m just a guy who can see what a ruinous presidency he’s having, and I have trouble seeing why people still support him. I must admit that in debates with bush supporters so far, I’ve been somewhat less than impressed with their response and reasoning. Here’s hoping you’re different, bgates. Looking forward to a debate.

[Author]

Posts