bostonbubble.com Forum Index bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SPONSORED LINKS

Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com

YOUR AD HERE

 
Go to: Boston real estate bubble fact list with references
More Boston Bubble News...
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed. As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.

Need home purchasing and state of the market advice.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Greater Boston Real Estate & Beyond
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rennyd
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:14 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The housing bubble and the financial disaster that dealing with now
happened during a Republican administration. Obama owns it
now, but he didn't create it
Back to top
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:37 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

You need to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GenXer



Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Posts: 703

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:13 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The housing bubble and the financial disaster that dealing with now
happened during a Republican administration. Obama owns it
now, but he didn't create it


I rest my case.

Back to interesting stuff. I got some hypothetical fits for the Case-Schiller Real estate index from 1890 and on. At this point I'm sure that a Power Law would be able to fit the data nicely with a slope of around 3 (i.e. the data can be modeled by P(x)~x^(-alpha) where alpha = 3. However, I also must check whether I can fit the data with other distributions (like Lognormal and Exponential), and this is what I'm working on now. If the power law comes out on top after all the tests, I'll post the results here and I'll explain the implications for house buyers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
samz



Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 102
Location: Medford, MA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:40 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:
You can't make better what is already broken. Either get rid of it, or prepare to go down slowly. Eventually, we'll get rid of it. It would be too late though. First they'll raise taxes, then they'll cut benefits, and eventually they'll close down shop. But not before everybody suffers more than they should.

At least I'm not promising to feed, clothe and get jobs for everyone. I'm also not promising more than I can deliver. The government should not be in a business to promise more than it can deliver. Without stealing from the taxpayers, that is.

Just because there is some evidence that some regulations work is really no evidence that most regulations work. I said this time and time again, but I guess its the human nature to look for one example that confirms our bias, and ignore many that don't.


But I think my point still stands: there are powerful examples of regulations that work, and no viable alternative.

GenXer wrote:
Trial lawyers are raiding those with big pockets, whether guilty or not, as long as the deep pocket defendants can be made to pay up. A single example where a trial lawyer went after the guilty party does not change anything. Everybody sees their one example, and ignores the rest.


So, you're a fan of trial lawyers? Again, I think my point stands: get rid of regulation, and you leave it all up to litigation.

GenXer wrote:
The founding fathers were very suspicious men, I presume. Too conservative for most of today's liberals' tastes. But they were the ones who made this country great.


The Founding Father were also very religious men, so I'm guessing that had a strong sense of duty to their fellow man (particularly, the less fortunate). Much of what we now call "social programs" were probably handled by churches (and were probably no less involuntary). But I don't think that solution would work now.

GenXer wrote:
Just because the socialists' intent is good, does not mean that they are not guilty based on their abysmal results. It doesn't matter whether their intentions are good. By pushing the same failed redistributionist policies and by stealing money from those who earned it, as well as by messing with the markets to the point where the markets are unable to breathe because of regulations and taxes, the 'good' intent has turned into our worst nightmare.


I don't the evidence bears any of this out -- it just sounds like paranoia. First, what abysmal results? Our country is doing relatively well (granted, we've got some issues now, and they are serious). As far as I can tell, our balance of social programs, regulations and free market principles is the envy of the world.

I just don't buy this interpretation of taxes as "stealing". Money is earned in the context of a particular society and often depends critically on the social welfare of others. For example, let's say you are a financial planner (aren't you?) -- could you move your business to Angola? It would be great: no regulations whatsoever, no government interference. Why doesn't that work? The answer is that you *need* other people to be well-off (more than just fed, clothed, housed) or your job doesn't even exist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mpr



Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:19 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

samz wrote:
GenXer wrote:
Government regulation is not always rational. The purpose of government regulation is to slowly take away our rights under the guise of 'common sense' regulations. There is no centralized planning to take our rights away, but this is the effect of all government actions. Democrats (socialists) are really great at this, as can be seen from all the states/countries where Democrats/socialists are in power. Republicans are also trying very hard not to undo what Democrats have done, thereby joining them in the same quest for power.


Ug.

Can we please steer away from these kinds of proclamations?

First, it's clearly a gross oversimplification and designed mainly to jerk our chains.

Second, it's completely unconstructive -- what is the solution? Eliminate all regulations? Shut down all the social programs? Disband the EPA, SEC, FDA, etc? Close all the public schools? Is that really better? To some degree the point is moot, since it will never happen.


Unfortunately you're arguing with people who probably think this wouldn't
be a bad solution. That's the problem with making a
reducto ad absurdum argument when dealing with people whose
thinking is already absurd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mpr



Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:39 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:

Its hard to claim that capitalism is an ideology. For the most part, it is a lack of one (that is, everybody can do as they please as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others)


The key point that you missing here is that this begs the question of what
the "rights" of others are. I'm sure that you're thinking of property rights,
freedom of movement etc, but there are other things too.

Presumably you would have had no problem with the oppressive conditions
of Dickensian England. But in the extreme your philosophical model needs
to explain why some children should grow up without proper nutrition and
health care while others enjoy that and more.

GenXer wrote:

The founding fathers were very suspicious men, I presume. Too conservative for most of today's liberals' tastes. But they were the ones who made this country great.


Ah, the cult of the founding fathers. I always thought this was a rather peculiar piece of US mythology. But I guess every religion needs its prophets.

Seriously I think one of the main factors which got us into this mess is
the conservative attitude to free markets which often feels to me almost
like a religion (indeed you often hear people say "I believe in free markets").

Economists who study markets seriously know they malfunction and know that most need some kind of regulation. Obviously they argue about how
much is too much, but no one serious suggests that the "invisible hand"
will take care of all problems.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mpr



Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:03 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

john p wrote:
MPR: You've won me over because after reading your posts it's pretty clear that you're trying to contribute to the better understanding of real estate purchasing and the economic context.


Shucks Surprised (really!).

john p wrote:

Almost my entire family disagrees with me politically and my wife is threatening to put the child lock restriction on FOX News.


Good for her ! This seems only appropriate for a pornographic channel
Wink

john p wrote:

I'm mad at Obama because he promises things like the Stimulus money will stimulate the economy and keep inflation to 8% and then he is allowed to get away with saying, "We underestimated the depth of the hole Bush dug us into". So basically his blame Bush argument can let him get away with breaking any of the campaign promises he chooses.


Think of it this way: a gunshot victim (the economy) is brought into
an emergency room in critical condition. The surgeon (Obama and his team)
tries to save the patient by operating. Now obviously one can argue over
whether the surgeon could have done a better job and what he did wrong
or right. Its possible for the surgeom to totally screw it up. But in the end its really the fault of the guy who pulled the trigger.

To the extent that the stimulus didn't keep employment lower you would
have to argue that it was too small, and indeed there were people
like Krugman arguing that. In reality there was probably not much that
could have been done about rising unemployment. The damage to the
economy with the freezing of the credit markets has already been done.

Let me try to allay some of your fears about the long term direction of the economy. The US economy really is incredibly dynamic. When you hear
that 1/2 million jobs were lost, this usually means 3 million were created
and 3.5 million were lost. So we're creating new jobs all the time.

The key to something like health care reform is to improve the social
safety net without losing that dynamism. One doesn't want to make
the labor market too rigid for example (which is essentially what you
are worried about with unions). I do think this is possible, and indeed there
are real arguments for why health care reform would help competitiveness
especially of small companies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
balor123



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 1204

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:11 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

And yet in the biggest recession since the Great Depression after a housing bubble with the worst unemployment in 30 years we've seen one of the smallest declines in housing prices in the Greater Boston area.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GenXer



Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Posts: 703

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:55 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

It appears that there is a pretty good concentration of money in the 'immune' towns. In comparison, some towns in MA are like CA (Western MA, Northern MA, Southern MA). Pretty much everywhere the prices went down except in several towns...where everybody with money seems to want to live.

I really do believe that further unemployment will put pressure on house prices. Also, I think that current low inventory and an abundance of 'speculators' (yes, they are still out there trying to buy houses 'cheap'), as well as a number of people who want to buy just because (they'd buy in any market) is keeping prices from falling as low as in other places.

The problem from the standpoint of people who want to buy is that they'll pretty much have to either 1) wait until such time that prices fall (which nobody knows if or when it will happen) or 2) try to buy now and end up getting into a bidding war over a decent house in a nice town.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:05 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baylor: you're right, people are still going out to dinner, going on vacation, etc. There were soup lines in the Great Depression. Someone told me that the American public was like a little child that cries when you take the lollipop out of their mouth.

MPR: Obama is no surgeon. Take your analogy and instead of a doctor, put in a smooth talking politician with no track record for improving anything substantial, from one of the most corrupt areas of the Nation, with ties to convicted felons, etc. You have to concede that, Obama is not the surgeon. He has no economic background, yet everyone jumped on McCain for admitting he wasn't an expert in Economics. McCain was trying to say that relative to his knowledge of other subjects, he knew less in Economics. He, however, knew volumes more than Obama who knew just about nothing. Obama was totally green and hadn't fixed a State, he was a State Senator. 90 percent of citizens don't know who their State Senator is, and Illinois is a train wreck financially so how can anyone claim that Obama was the surgeon?

MPR: You really have to take like 16 minutes and watch the link I posted on Friday. It is a video on Youtube called "Burning Down the House, what caused our Financial Crisis". It is obvious that social engineering caused the gunshot wound and the people who hurt us were social liberals who screwed up the markets with social engineering. You really should watch it and if you see flaws in it tell me. I would appreciate knowing any flaws or falsehoods in it because I've tried to find them and disappointingly I have found it to be true. Going through this process is much of what converted me from the Democrats. I would really like to believe the guys on MSNBC, but when I check the facts I see that the liberals filter information from the public when it doesn't align with their political viewpoint, and the stuff they spin and hammer on on Fox is usually fact based. Before you rag on it, cite a few examples. I gave you the New York Times writing the bogus story about John McCain cheating on his wife, not reporting on John Edwards, the phony Dan Rather story about Bush's military records. You know, at the time, I wanted this silver spoon Bush to face the music about his being a pussy with the Military. I realized that the charges were trumped up and I was big enough to concede that it was my political motivation that was driving me to want to see him suffer politically. They're doing the same thing to Sarah Palin. I think that Liberals need to understand that their liberal arts degrees have given them ammunition to trash people, but that sort of stuff turns people off. Also, don't think that hands on people aren't smart because they've spent their time learning how to do stuff versus talking about stuff. Hands on people typically didn't go for Obama because he had no hands on experience, he wasn't a surgeon, he was pretending to be and the fools were the ones who don't have hands on knowledge and get that talking about something is different than building a track record.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mpr



Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:30 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:
It appears that there is a pretty good concentration of money in the 'immune' towns. In comparison, some towns in MA are like CA (Western MA, Northern MA, Southern MA). Pretty much everywhere the prices went down except in several towns...where everybody with money seems to want to live.

I really do believe that further unemployment will put pressure on house prices. Also, I think that current low inventory and an abundance of 'speculators' (yes, they are still out there trying to buy houses 'cheap'), as well as a number of people who want to buy just because (they'd buy in any market) is keeping prices from falling as low as in other places.

The problem from the standpoint of people who want to buy is that they'll pretty much have to either 1) wait until such time that prices fall (which nobody knows if or when it will happen) or 2) try to buy now and end up getting into a bidding war over a decent house in a nice town.


Actually many immune towns are down 10% or more from the peak,
which is about 15% in real terms. Its not CA of FL of course, but that's
still a real decline
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:31 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

MPR: another thing, when people like Krugman and Obama say "We didn't do enough with the first Stimulus". They haven't done anything. Again, hands on experience tells you that they haven't made anything, rather they are borrowing and stealing from other citizens.

Make no mistake, this generation of Liberals have said that people are entitled a lot of things that they don't build and earn with their own hands. They forced banks to lend to people who couldn't afford homes, they went tits up and our Nation is on the hook for bailing them out. Then the liberals start telling lies that it was Bush and the rich not the deadbeats that bought homes they had no business getting.

This con will only last so long. I don't think that people trying to sell this b.s. will win in the long term because they'll just dig us further into more debt. The current deficit is 1.4 times the cost of the Iraq War, so people's argument about the War is out of proportion. Obama's going to spend the same levels in Afghanistan. The end game for Liberals isn't a utopia, it is a destroyed nation that goes from a world power to a second or third tier bankrupt nation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:32 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey MPR, it's a nice day, don't be a loser like me and waste your day on the internet.

BTW, I'm watching FOX, the wife is at the dog park with my beloved bulldog.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mpr



Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:51 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

john p wrote:

MPR: Obama is no surgeon. Take your analogy and instead of a doctor, put in a smooth talking politician with no track record for improving anything substantial, from one of the most corrupt areas of the Nation, with ties to convicted felons, etc. You have to concede that, Obama is not the surgeon.


There's no need to get so hung up on this. All I am saying is he is trying
to fix a problem created by someone else. You can claim that he is a bad
or even criminally incompetent surgeon, but I dont think its reasonable
to claim that he caused the problem.

I think that you underestimate the importance of good analytical thinking
by the president. Obama doesn't have to be an expert on the economy
himself. He has access to experts who can advise him. What he does have
to do is choose the advisers and then balance and filter the different
points of view he is getting. There is no question that Obama is very
smart (president of Harvard Law Review etc) and I think he is doing
reasonably well in a tough situation.
(I'd be happy to discuss the pros and cons of the administrations current
policy, but please not Rezko and other conspiracy theories).

When you have someone like Bush who cant think analytically you get
disaster after disaster, as we've seen. I dont think McCain was quite as
bad, but I dont think he had the same capacity for grasping and procsessing
complex situations such as the one we find ourselves in (probably ever
and certainly not now at his age).

Sarah Palin is in another category all together. She failed even the extremely
low intellectual requirement the US electorate usually places on its
candidates. I mean that really would be like Ricky Bobby running the
country. It blows my mind that someone with an MBA would even remotely
think that that was a good idea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:15 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man, I think your weakness is your overemphasis on "intellectual capability". I know this sounds absurd, but it is different from hands on common sense.

You're paying deference to a Harvard Review role. Obama most likely played the poor kid from the hood. He is a bullshitter with a ton of intellect. Intellectual people can't solve problems soley on their intellect. I would say that the Ricky Bobby's would be able to survive on their hands on skills than a metrosexual. Palin fishes, hunts, flies planes, balances budgets, raises kids, etc. Those are skills necessary to manage a family and she demonstrated that those basic skills can be employed in running government.

William F. Buckley said he'd rather have the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard Faculty to run government. He was right.

Bottom line is our Bush deficit was based on the War on Terror and Entitlements. I researched the growth of federal government versus liberal state governments. The Federal Government grew significantly less than States like California, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc. If we had a Democrat in office instead of Bush, it would have been worse. Health Care is a huge problem.

Bottom line, the intellectual Obama wants to borrow more than any President in History, and the stupid hick Palin wanted to cut spending like the dumb folks who understand that you need to balance your family budget.

The intellectual elites try to tell us that we're dumb and we need them to save us. Our founding fathers were regular people, farmers, and those that defended us were as well. The elites have hurt us, both those in the private and public sector. We need to elevate and employ common sense and stop believing in fairy tales and super hero elites.

I got my MBA and realized how full of shit these intellectuals think they are. Spending the money that guys like Krugman, Sumners, Obama are saying is totally foolish and you'd have to be an elite to believe it. Obama said the definition of insanity was doing more of the same and expecting different results. He's amped up spending, I don't care if he's from Harvard, if you can't pay your bills, stop spending!

Tony Rezko is not a conspiracy theory. You can research it, he bought the adjacent property right next to Obama at the same time an then sold a slice to Obama. That is not a conspiracy theory, ufo, that is a fucking fact. If you don't research that and tell people it is a conspiracy theory, that is intellectually dishonest and I'd begin to wonder about your motives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Greater Boston Real Estate & Beyond All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group