Oil Shock: Analyst Predicts $7 Gas, “Mass Exodus” of U.S. Cars
Larry G
"The latest smart money? $200 oil in 2010, with gasoline at $7 a
gallon. And that is going to turn Americans into car-shunning
Europeans once and for all—poor Americans, at least."
Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest
mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history. By 2012,
there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways
than there are today—a decline that dwarfs all previous adjustments
including those during the two OPEC oil shocks.
And who will be parking their cars? The 57 million American households
that have both cars and access to something resembling public transit.
Gasoline at $7 begins to approach prices Europeans have paid for
years, meaning that chunk of America “will start to act more and more
like Europeans,”
What will happen if Americans suddenly are forced to shoulder
European-style energy prices — but without the European-style society
to cope with them?"
Otto Yamamoto
> excerpts:
>
> "The latest smart money? $200 oil in 2010, with gasoline at $7 a
> gallon. And that is going to turn Americans into car-shunning
> Europeans once and for all—poor Americans, at least."
>
If there's an increase in the goddam mime population, I'm coming after YOU.
--
Comrade Otto Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
freew...@bellsouth.net
Larry, you must've had an organism while reading that article, my god!
Jim K. Georges
1100GS_rider
> What will happen if Americans suddenly are forced to shoulder
> European-style energy prices — but without the European-style society
> to cope with them?"
You will go nuts with glee.
Rick Powell
At $7 gas, PHEVs and EVs with rechargeable & swappable battery packs
become VERY attractive - especially for the other 60+ million American
households who don't have access to "something resembling public
transit". And of those 57 million households that DO have access to
transit...how many could reasonably go completely or substantially car-
free? Maybe 1/3 at best.
RP
Rich Piehl
> Larry G wrote:
>
>> excerpts:
>>
>> "The latest smart money? $200 oil in 2010, with gasoline at $7 a
>> gallon. And that is going to turn Americans into car-shunning
>> Europeans once and for all—poor Americans, at least."
>>
>
> If there's an increase in the goddam mime population, I'm coming after YOU.
>
We'll show him. We'll put him in an invisible box!
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008
Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.
Otto Yamamoto
1100GS_rider
> Um, guise? Notice it's from the *Wall Street Journal*?
Which part? The leftie news people, or the rightie editorial people?
Scott M. Kozel
> > European-style energy prices — but without the European-style society
> > to cope with them?"
> >
> > http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/26/oil-shock-analys...
>
> Larry, you must've had an organism while reading that article, my god!
An orgasm ... exactly what he has at any "bad news" about roads and cars
...
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Otto Yamamoto
Right. Whatever.
Larry G
I take no glee in $7 gas at all especially if the jump in oil prices
today caused the 300+ point loss in the stock market - and I agree
with Rick - in both Europe and the US - there is more and more
interest in PHEV & EV - though there are some vibes that the battery
technology is not there yet... not to mention the fact that there is
also a big battle about shortfalls in the power grid that need to be
addressed.
I still don't think the personal automobile is by any means "doomed" -
though those folks with Kia and Hyundai franchises will be eating
higher on the hog and folks who live 40, 50 miles from their work will
be making changes ... transit can also be considered Van Pools and
commuter buses - BRT... even..
but this country and it's people have always been innovators when
faced with challenges and we'll innovate with this challenge also.
In the longer run - less oil use could be a good thing .. for the US.
but we're probably going have to deal with generating more
electricity.
Sherman L. Cahal
Oil per barrel is $140 (just slightly under, but it is a factor in
today's stock tanking). OPEC predicts $170 by the end of summer ...
with only two months to go. Think $4/gallon of gasoline is killer?
Dream on. $5 will be the reality if we hit $170.
Arif Khokar
> freew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> Larry, you must've had an organism while reading that article, my god!
> An orgasm ... exactly what he has at any "bad news" about roads and cars
Perhaps Larry would find this story more to his liking (and I'm not
referring to the death mentioned in the article). ;)
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/25/31_25_death_of_a_legend.html
Arif Khokar
> Oil per barrel is $140 (just slightly under, but it is a factor in
> today's stock tanking). OPEC predicts $170 by the end of summer ...
> with only two months to go. Think $4/gallon of gasoline is killer?
> Dream on. $5 will be the reality if we hit $170.
IIRC, when the price of a barrel of oil hit $80 after Katrina, gas
prices were right around $3 per gallon. Even with a $60 per barrel
increase in price, we only went up about a dollar in the per gallon
gasonline price. So another $30 increase in the per barrel price should
not take us beyond $4.30 to $4.50.
Of course, I'm aware there is a gasoline futures market that's separate
commodity versus oil futures and the price relationship between the
futures isn't linear.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> gallon. And that is going to turn Americans into car-shunning
> Europeans once and for all—poor Americans, at least."
Just guessing here, but I'd say that's wrong. They keep saying that
while demand is up, there is enough oil to meet that demand, and the
reason for high prices is partly speculators and a weak dollar. They
expect the price to drop, not by much, but still to drop. But not go
up.
My guess is that we'll have $4/gallon gasoline for a few years.
Of course, the challenge is how to deal with $4/gallon gasoline which
is tough for individuals and businesses. Also is the very high cost
of diesel fuel and heating oil. There's gonna be inflation and
ultimately a reduction in the standard of living--we will have to make
do with less money. People who have long commutes with gas guzzlers
are gonna suffer; they will either pay for the gas or sell their truck
at a big loss. People will have to make adjustments in their life
style to save gas (as mentioned in another post, there are things that
can be done, like walking instead of driving for 3 blocks.
Now, the long run is another story. Who knows if India and China will
keep growing so rapidly? Eventually such fast growth comes to an end
or even busts. Who knows what will happen in the middle east? (Is
Iraq supplying oil in quantity it did in the past?) But in the long
run all I see is continuing increases in the price of petroleum
products and we as a country will need to come to terms with that
reality.
Also forgotten is the decayed infrastructure. We''ve forgotten about
the I-35 bridge failure and the many bridges and Interstates that need
a full 50 year overhaul.
armourereric
I'll disguise myself as Bomb Voyage when I'm siphoning Incrediboy's
truck.
Jason Pawloski
By "having an organism" do you mean he's the first male to give birth?
freew...@bellsouth.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was just playing on words with that, but you know what? you may be
on to something!
Jim K. Georges
Larry G
Arif's Walarus story was bizarre ... I never knew...
:-)
re: China - The size of China's middle class is 300 million people
and it's growing. Every time - you and I buy a LCD home theater, we
are also boosting the middle class in China and of course car
ownership is skyrocketing as a result.
re: organisms
I do wonder. Before Enron, I would never had believed that a group of
slime-balls could manipulate prices on a commodity like
electricity...
and we keep ignoring an option that some other countries do exercise
to protect their citizens from speculation and that is they restrict
domestic production to not be exported and they only allow the oil
companies to charge for their actual costs plus a profit.
Why not preserve the oil that we have domestically - to benefit our
citizens?
John Lansford
>On Jun 26, 7:24 pm, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "The latest smart money? $200 oil in 2010, with gasoline at $7 a
>> gallon. And that is going to turn Americans into car-shunning
>> Europeans once and for all—poor Americans, at least."
>
>Just guessing here, but I'd say that's wrong. They keep saying that
>while demand is up, there is enough oil to meet that demand, and the
>reason for high prices is partly speculators and a weak dollar. They
>expect the price to drop, not by much, but still to drop. But not go
>up.
>
>My guess is that we'll have $4/gallon gasoline for a few years.
>
>Of course, the challenge is how to deal with $4/gallon gasoline which
>is tough for individuals and businesses. Also is the very high cost
>of diesel fuel and heating oil. There's gonna be inflation and
>ultimately a reduction in the standard of living--we will have to make
>do with less money. People who have long commutes with gas guzzlers
>are gonna suffer; they will either pay for the gas or sell their truck
>at a big loss. People will have to make adjustments in their life
>style to save gas (as mentioned in another post, there are things that
>can be done, like walking instead of driving for 3 blocks.
>
I think no matter what we do, the price is going to keep going up,
because we're no longer the biggest consumer of oil. China and India
are, and their demand is increasing. We could cut our demand by 25%
and the price would STILL go up, IMO.
So, what can we do about it? For a lot of people, the answer will be,
nothing at all. They've already reduced their trips to the minimum,
they cannot afford a more efficient vehicle, they cannot afford to
move, and there's no alternative to using their car. There are
already news stories about people cutting back on other parts of their
lives, dipping into retirement funds, selling personal items, etc, in
order to make ends meet while paying for gas. This will increase.
For everyone else, ridership on transit will increase, and demand for
more efficient vehicles will go up. However, I think a lot of people
don't realize that if you're already driving a 30mpg vehicle, buying a
50mpg one just wastes your money (unless you need to get rid of the
older one for some reason anyway).
>Now, the long run is another story. Who knows if India and China will
>keep growing so rapidly? Eventually such fast growth comes to an end
>or even busts.
It took the US 50 years to do that. China and India have more
population, so hoping they plateau may be a long wait.
> Who knows what will happen in the middle east? (Is
>Iraq supplying oil in quantity it did in the past?)
No, it is not, but it may not be able to for some years either.
> But in the long
>run all I see is continuing increases in the price of petroleum
>products and we as a country will need to come to terms with that
>reality.
>
>Also forgotten is the decayed infrastructure. We''ve forgotten about
>the I-35 bridge failure and the many bridges and Interstates that need
>a full 50 year overhaul.
Yep, reduced fuel use doesn't mean the maintenance goes away.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
Larry G
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >On Jun 26, 7:24 pm, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "The latest smart money? $200 oil in 2010, with gasoline at $7 a
> >> gallon. And that is going to turn Americans into car-shunning
> >> Europeans once and for all—poor Americans, at least."
>
> >Just guessing here, but I'd say that's wrong. They keep saying that
> >while demand is up, there is enough oil to meet that demand, and the
> >reason for high prices is partly speculators and a weak dollar. They
> >expect the price to drop, not by much, but still to drop. But not go
> >up.
>
> >My guess is that we'll have $4/gallon gasoline for a few years.
>
> >Of course, the challenge is how to deal with $4/gallon gasoline which
> >is tough for individuals and businesses. Also is the very high cost
> >of diesel fuel and heating oil. There's gonna be inflation and
> >ultimately a reduction in the standard of living--we will have to make
> >do with less money. People who have long commutes with gas guzzlers
> >are gonna suffer; they will either pay for the gas or sell their truck
> >at a big loss. People will have to make adjustments in their life
> >style to save gas (as mentioned in another post, there are things that
> >can be done, like walking instead of driving for 3 blocks.
>
> I think no matter what we do, the price is going to keep going up,
> because we're no longer the biggest consumer of oil. China and India
> are, and their demand is increasing. We could cut our demand by 25%
> and the price would STILL go up, IMO.
In the short term - options are more limited ... as is pointed out,
changing jobs, moving, buying a new car, .... except I think that
folk can find ways to drive less - if the choices is $200 a
week ..... or carpooling/vanpooling/commuter bus....4-day 40hr weeks,
tele-commuting, etc...
Also.. some employers are giving cash supplements to their employees
and Congress just passed a law increasing transit subsidies to Federal
Employees.
In the longer term - when someone is considering a new job, or a new
house or a new car - they will be thinking not only more about the
current price of gasoline but they will be thinking about what will
happen to the price of gas next year...the next 5 years... and this
will cause big changes.....
employers will no longer be able to attract new employees if the only
way they can find affordable homes is drive 50 miles... People will
think twice about taking a job under that circumstance.
people .. when it comes time for a new car - are going to be loathe to
go for the SUV.... that gets 1/2 the mileage of a non-SUV car...
they're going to be thinking..."what will I do if gasoline goes to
$8".
homes - people are going to be asking themselves the same question -
"what if 5 years from now my cost of commuting will double or triple?"
Will the suburbs die and people no longer own cars or start to live
next door to where they work?
No.... cars will continue unabated as the ultimate in personal
mobility - but "wheels" can be a lot of things besides a behemoth that
gets 15mpg at $8 a gallon.
right now...we have panic in people's minds because all they see is
"all or nothing" propositions and it's not that way at all....
Michael G. Koerner
Also, look for some real fun-to-watch battles as market-based demands for more
residential units 'closer in' runs headlong into local zoning laws that were
designed specifically to prevent that.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Larry G
> Also, look for some real fun-to-watch battles as market-based demands for more
> residential units 'closer in' runs headlong into local zoning laws that were
> designed specifically to prevent that.
Yes - indeed. The Smart Growthers favorite mantra - of redeveloping
city-scapes to higher densities on the premise that in doing so will
not increase automobile use - that people will walk, bike or use
public transportation - continues to be a potent issue for the
existing residents who simply do not buy the premise and are
convinced that more density will just increase congestion.
but it is a classic chicken/egg quandary though... how do you build
more ped, bike, transit facilities when we view them as subsidized and
unable to "pay for themselves"?
As I said earlier - Europe does not consider ped, bike, transit
facilities to be subsidized but instead - tax-funded investments in
multi-modal mobility.
I think in this country we have ... passive-aggressive attitudes
towards mobility sometimes.
Rick Powell
> On Jun 27, 11:04 am, "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, look for some real fun-to-watch battles as market-based demands for more
> > residential units 'closer in' runs headlong into local zoning laws that were
> > designed specifically to prevent that.
>
> Yes - indeed. The Smart Growthers favorite mantra - of redeveloping
> city-scapes to higher densities on the premise that in doing so will
> not increase automobile use - that people will walk, bike or use
> public transportation - continues to be a potent issue for the
> existing residents who simply do not buy the premise and are
> convinced that more density will just increase congestion.
And it would take an awful lot of Eminent Domain to make the changes
necessary to the existing city and suburb-scapes in less time than,
say, 100 years of individual, incremental tear-down and rebuild
projects nudged forward ever so slightly by zoning changes. Still
easier to build in a greenfield.
> but it is a classic chicken/egg quandary though... how do you build
> more ped, bike, transit facilities when we view them as subsidized and
> unable to "pay for themselves"?
We already do this to an extent with the 2.86c federal gas tax to the
FTA account and the federal enhancement funds...the question is how
much farther are we willing to go, and how much and by what method are
we willing to pay?
> As I said earlier - Europe does not consider ped, bike, transit
> facilities to be subsidized but instead - tax-funded investments in
> multi-modal mobility.
> I think in this country we have ... passive-aggressive attitudes
> towards mobility sometimes.
Yep...the survey says, "everyone" loves multi use paths and transit
that someone else uses and pays for.
RP
Brent Jonas
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm still going to take my road trips...::watches the cash flow in my
checking account::
Actually, I hear gas is over $6 in Australia...I may be roadtripping
from Adelaide to Sydney and back in January. I haven't sat down to
determine the costs of such a road trip yet.
-Brent
necromancer
>
>Just guessing here, but I'd say that's wrong. They keep saying that
>while demand is up, there is enough oil to meet that demand, and the
>reason for high prices is partly speculators and a weak dollar. They
>expect the price to drop, not by much, but still to drop. But not go
>up.
I'm inclined to agree. The US economy is barely holding together with
oil/gas prices where they are. I doubt that our economy could survive
if pirces keep going up like thay have over the last couple of years.
>My guess is that we'll have $4/gallon gasoline for a few years.
Hopefully it stays forever. Maybe it will force the development of
viable alternatives that will displace oil completely.
>Of course, the challenge is how to deal with $4/gallon gasoline which
>is tough for individuals and businesses. Also is the very high cost
>of diesel fuel and heating oil. There's gonna be inflation and
>ultimately a reduction in the standard of living--we will have to make
>do with less money.
Something is going to have to give. Either energy prices will have to
come down (say goodbye to your pension/401(k) who has been providing
the capital for the out of control speculators) or wages will have to
go up (say hello to spiraling inflation and maybe even hyper
inflation).
>People who have long commutes with gas guzzlers
>are gonna suffer; they will either pay for the gas or sell their truck
>at a big loss. People will have to make adjustments in their life
>style to save gas (as mentioned in another post, there are things that
>can be done, like walking instead of driving for 3 blocks.
Sucks for them. They are just going to have to get over their
narcissistic ways.
>Now, the long run is another story. Who knows if India and China will
>keep growing so rapidly? Eventually such fast growth comes to an end
>or even busts. Who knows what will happen in the middle east? (Is
>Iraq supplying oil in quantity it did in the past?) But in the long
>run all I see is continuing increases in the price of petroleum
>products and we as a country will need to come to terms with that
>reality.
Unless China and India have other customers lined up to buy their crap
and call the call centers, where the US goes, they go.
>Also forgotten is the decayed infrastructure. We''ve forgotten about
>the I-35 bridge failure and the many bridges and Interstates that need
>a full 50 year overhaul.
A whole other can of worms. Atleast there will be work for the next
generation of the CCC and WPA to do.
"I didn't want to hurt them, I only wanted to kill them."
- David Berkowitz
necromancer
<gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I still don't think the personal automobile is by any means "doomed" -
Hopefully it will be the gas/diesel engine that is doomed.
>though those folks with Kia and Hyundai franchises will be eating
>higher on the hog and folks who live 40, 50 miles from their work will
>be making changes ... transit can also be considered Van Pools and
>commuter buses - BRT... even..
Possiblly a use for those 8 passenger SUV's that are going unsold -
especially for lower popualtion towns where 50 passenger busses are
not economiclly feasable?
> but this country and it's people have always been innovators when
>faced with challenges and we'll innovate with this challenge also.
With a swift kick in the ass that we haven't seen in over 3 decades,
we can and will. All we need is to get rid of the so-called,
"leadership," we have in this nation (on both sides of the aisle) who
want to perpetuate the status-quo and get some leaders who are willing
to take the necessary risks that will be needed.
>In the longer run - less oil use could be a good thing .. for the US.
Yep. And a bad thing for our enemies.
>but we're probably going have to deal with generating more
>electricity.
Short term: coal, nuclear and domestic oil/natural gas; long term:
wind and solar. *If* we are willing to take the risks to develop these
means properly.
--
"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. ..."
--George W. Bush on the prospect of US$4.00 gas
JG
> excerpts:
>
> "The latest smart money? $200 oil in 2010, with gasoline at $7 a
> gallon. And that is going to turn Americans into car-shunning
> Europeans once and for all—poor Americans, at least."
>
> Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest
> mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history. By 2012,
> there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways
> than there are today—a decline that dwarfs all previous adjustments
> including those during the two OPEC oil shocks.
>
> And who will be parking their cars? The 57 million American households
> that have both cars and access to something resembling public transit.
> Gasoline at $7 begins to approach prices Europeans have paid for
> years, meaning that chunk of America “will start to act more and more
> like Europeans,”
Euro prices are meaningless, their crude cost the same, the higher
prices consisted of taxes.
This is just another attempt at distraction from the speculators,
along with the "Drill Now" crowd and the "no new refineries in 30
years" lie.
I'd suggest not doing any banking with Citigroup or JP Morgan Chase.
That would be a perfect revenge for their speculation in futures
markets...JG
John Lansford
>In the short term - options are more limited ... as is pointed out,
>changing jobs, moving, buying a new car, .... except I think that
>folk can find ways to drive less - if the choices is $200 a
>week ..... or carpooling/vanpooling/commuter bus....4-day 40hr weeks,
>tele-commuting, etc...
>
>Also.. some employers are giving cash supplements to their employees
>and Congress just passed a law increasing transit subsidies to Federal
>Employees.
>
>In the longer term - when someone is considering a new job, or a new
>house or a new car - they will be thinking not only more about the
>current price of gasoline but they will be thinking about what will
>happen to the price of gas next year...the next 5 years... and this
>will cause big changes.....
Already happening; houses further out from cities are dropping rapidly
in value, while those closer in are appreciating in value. This is
having the effect of pricing out lower echelon wage earners, hitting
them in two ways; they are moving into areas where transit does not
exist, or they are spending so much for housing other options are not
available.
>employers will no longer be able to attract new employees if the only
>way they can find affordable homes is drive 50 miles... People will
>think twice about taking a job under that circumstance.
Already happening; again, if your business is in the boonies, your
pool of employees is going to shrink as their affordable driving
radius shrinks.
>people .. when it comes time for a new car - are going to be loathe to
>go for the SUV.... that gets 1/2 the mileage of a non-SUV car...
>they're going to be thinking..."what will I do if gasoline goes to
>$8".
Already happening; GM just closed two production lines for
trucks/SUV's, and SUV sales are sagging badly while hybrid/fuel
efficient vehicles are doing a brisk business.
>homes - people are going to be asking themselves the same question -
>"what if 5 years from now my cost of commuting will double or triple?"
See above; however, if you cannot sell your house, this is hardly
something that anyone can do anything about.
>Will the suburbs die and people no longer own cars or start to live
>next door to where they work?
>
>No.... cars will continue unabated as the ultimate in personal
>mobility - but "wheels" can be a lot of things besides a behemoth that
>gets 15mpg at $8 a gallon.
>
>right now...we have panic in people's minds because all they see is
>"all or nothing" propositions and it's not that way at all....
>
Don't know of anyone "panicking" or saying this is an "all or nothing"
issue. Most people are doing what they can to reduce their fuel
usage, whether it's cutting back on trips, driving more
conservatively, whatever.
Larry G
"however, if you cannot sell your house, this is hardly
something that anyone can do anything about."
I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
a few are walking away.
Some of these folks would have never qualified for a mortgage with
their credit history to start with.... they benefited from
subsidies... that were a bad idea from the get go.
Someone who signs up for an ARM mortgage on a house that is overpriced
to start with - these folks are not thinking long term about gas
prices and commuting and the suburbs.
John Lansford
>On Jun 27, 4:57 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>"however, if you cannot sell your house, this is hardly
>something that anyone can do anything about."
>
>I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
>that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
>a few are walking away.
Ruining their credit and possibly incurring legal problems for years
to come, too. Not really an option to most people, since you've still
got to live somewhere and credit checks are often a requirement even
for rentals.
>Some of these folks would have never qualified for a mortgage with
>their credit history to start with.... they benefited from
>subsidies... that were a bad idea from the get go.
No, they were mostly snookered by fast talking mortgage brokers, who
told them that their properties would appreciate faster than their
ARM's would go up, so they could always refinance and still make money
if necessary.
>Someone who signs up for an ARM mortgage on a house that is overpriced
>to start with - these folks are not thinking long term about gas
>prices and commuting and the suburbs.
>
So everyone who this happens to is "not thinking" and were just
stupid? What a nice, bigoted world you've got there.
Laurence Sheldon
> Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27, 4:57 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "however, if you cannot sell your house, this is hardly
>> something that anyone can do anything about."
>>
>> I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
>> that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
>> a few are walking away.
>
> Ruining their credit and possibly incurring legal problems for years
> to come, too. Not really an option to most people, since you've still
> got to live somewhere and credit checks are often a requirement even
> for rentals.
The point is: Their credit was ruined before, by their own actions and
inactions.
That they thought they could beat a crooked game is not a valid defense,
in my opinion.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Free Lunch
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>John Lansford wrote:
>> Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 4:57 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "however, if you cannot sell your house, this is hardly
>>> something that anyone can do anything about."
>>>
>>> I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
>>> that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
>>> a few are walking away.
>>
>> Ruining their credit and possibly incurring legal problems for years
>> to come, too. Not really an option to most people, since you've still
>> got to live somewhere and credit checks are often a requirement even
>> for rentals.
>
>The point is: Their credit was ruined before, by their own actions and
>inactions.
>
>That they thought they could beat a crooked game is not a valid defense,
>in my opinion.
Not everyone who was suckered thought they were trying to beat a crooked
game. This was just one more example of Bush's reverse midas touch. He
pushed hard on the regulators to encourage more homeownership and the
solution was to turn a blind eye to the whole mess.
Rich Piehl
> Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27, 4:57 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "however, if you cannot sell your house, this is hardly
>> something that anyone can do anything about."
>>
>> I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
>> that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
>> a few are walking away.
>
> Ruining their credit and possibly incurring legal problems for years
> to come, too. Not really an option to most people, since you've still
> got to live somewhere and credit checks are often a requirement even
> for rentals.
>
>> Some of these folks would have never qualified for a mortgage with
>> their credit history to start with.... they benefited from
>> subsidies... that were a bad idea from the get go.
>
> No, they were mostly snookered by fast talking mortgage brokers, who
> told them that their properties would appreciate faster than their
> ARM's would go up, so they could always refinance and still make money
> if necessary.
There's that personal responsibility thing again. The mortgage brokers
certainly bear some responsibility. But no one was holding a gun to the
home buyers head. They can do their own math, they have an obligation
their own research to find out how much homes are worth and what they
can truly afford. They ought to know that ARM's can rise and have to
believe that loan rates weren't going to stay at that low of number
forever. And once rates started to rise no one said they had to stay
with ARM's - fixed rates were always available. A little more expensive
than what they signed up for initially, but a lot better than losing
their house.
>
>> Someone who signs up for an ARM mortgage on a house that is overpriced
>> to start with - these folks are not thinking long term about gas
>> prices and commuting and the suburbs.
>>
> So everyone who this happens to is "not thinking" and were just
> stupid? What a nice, bigoted world you've got there.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Wood
> http://wood.jlansford.net/
Laurence Sheldon
What part of "crooked game" is causing you the most trouble.
It used to be fairly common knowledge that "taking something you
couldn't pay for" is called "stealing it".
Laurence Sheldon
^^^^^^^^^^
I guess I should have noticed that earlier.
> Not everyone who was suckered thought they were trying to beat a crooked
> game. This was just one more example of Bush's reverse midas touch. He
> pushed hard on the regulators to encourage more homeownership and the
> solution was to turn a blind eye to the whole mess.
There is no free lunch.
Free Lunch
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
They were told how they would be able to pay for it. Sure, they thought
the deal was unbelievable, but many of them were unaware of how
unbelievable the deal was. Others were just absurdly optimistic about
their prospects -- or the prospects for the future in housing.
Rich Piehl
And they have no personal responsibility to do the math and the homework
themselves?
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Everyone told them they could do it.
There were a few con men in the action and the feds indicted hundreds
recently, but many of the people who did this have never been properly
education in financial matters and had no idea that they were buying
into a bubble, that they would never be able to refinance or that their
payments were going to be as high as they were.
Everyone in the process discourages buyers from bringing a lawyer or
accountant into the process. The lenders bear the majority of the blame
here since they quit doing due diligence. They quit underwriting to the
standards that they had been used to. They found a way to sell dodgy
securities to others and got AAA ratings from the NRSROs. Wall Street
deserves to reap all of the scorn for this disaster since they
orchestrated it.
Rich Piehl
If they told them they could fly would they believe that, too?
> There were a few con men in the action and the feds indicted hundreds
> recently, but many of the people who did this have never been properly
> education in financial matters and had no idea that they were buying
> into a bubble, that they would never be able to refinance or that their
> payments were going to be as high as they were.
>
> Everyone in the process discourages buyers from bringing a lawyer or
> accountant into the process. The lenders bear the majority of the blame
> here since they quit doing due diligence. They quit underwriting to the
> standards that they had been used to. They found a way to sell dodgy
> securities to others and got AAA ratings from the NRSROs. Wall Street
> deserves to reap all of the scorn for this disaster since they
> orchestrated it.
No they don't. The lender bears a responsibility, certainly. But I've
never heard ANYONE say you couldn't have a lawyer or an accountant read
over loan papers. I've actually heard that in some states it's almost
assumed the buyer will have a lawyer present at closing.
And even without a lawyer where does it say that people check their
brains at the loan office door? It's the same thinking that allows
payday loan companies to have 50% interest and rent-to-own companies to
sometimes charge 100% interest or more. When you buy car you do the
research on how much car you can afford, how much the car is worth, and
on and on.
Have you never heard the saying "let the buyer beware?"
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
In an ideal world, sure, but I definitely attribute the majority of the
responsibility to those who made money getting the people to buy the
house that they all knew the person could not afford. These buyers had
never done this before and thought their broker was their friend and
helper.
Free Lunch
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I guess I should have noticed that earlier.
>
>> Not everyone who was suckered thought they were trying to beat a crooked
>> game. This was just one more example of Bush's reverse midas touch. He
>> pushed hard on the regulators to encourage more homeownership and the
>> solution was to turn a blind eye to the whole mess.
>
>There is no free lunch.
Correct. I took the nick to mock Reagan and massive deficits that the
Laffer Curve tax cuts ran up.
My e-mail does say nofreelunch.us
Rich Piehl
Ideal world, nothing. It's part of being responsible for your own actions.
In the early 90's I had a lender that wanted to give me a loan that
would have taken more than half of my income to pay. Since I know the
rule of thumb was not to finance more than 25-30% I opted for much less
money and much less house. Any one of the home buyers had the same
opportunity had they just utilized the same rule. Just because someone
wants to give you that much money doesn't mean you have to take it.
It's how people get in trouble with credit cards, too.
I don't know about you but, personally, I don't want some nanny state
government looking over my shoulder at my checkbook deciding how much I
can afford to spend on any given item. Talk about intrusion into my
privacy - that would be it.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Laurence Sheldon
> Everyone told them they could do it.
Lots better than thinking, isn't it?
That didn't work for me when I tried it on my parents, it didn't work
for my kids, and it doesn't work for you, "free lunch" or no.
If BDS has you believing that personal responsibility is passe, I am
really sorry for you.
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
You are still making excuses for those who violated their fiduciary duty
and those who were actually involved in conning the buyers while
demanding that everyone know as much as you do about the process. Nice
of you to be able to put yourself in the place of others.
The law does not accept your particular ethics.
>I don't know about you but, personally, I don't want some nanny state
>government looking over my shoulder at my checkbook deciding how much I
>can afford to spend on any given item. Talk about intrusion into my
>privacy - that would be it.
I'm baffled how you jumped to that conclusion. It was the failure of
people to follow their private law responsibility that caused this to
happen. Government regulations arise only when people prove themselves
to be untrustworthy, as the bankers did in this case.
When the AAA rated CMO traches fail, it's not the buyer that was doing
the lying.
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
I'm done. Feel free to defend the thieves.
Laurence Sheldon
> I don't know about you but, personally, I don't want some nanny state
> government looking over my shoulder at my checkbook deciding how much I
> can afford to spend on any given item. Talk about intrusion into my
> privacy - that would be it.
Amen, brother, amen.
Free Lunch
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Rich Piehl wrote:
>
>> I don't know about you but, personally, I don't want some nanny state
>> government looking over my shoulder at my checkbook deciding how much I
>> can afford to spend on any given item. Talk about intrusion into my
>> privacy - that would be it.
>
>Amen, brother, amen.
Remember that when you are a victim of a thief.
Free Lunch
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> Everyone told them they could do it.
>
>Lots better than thinking, isn't it?
Of course it isn't. But the reality is that most people buying homes are
not well-enough versed in finance to understand the risks and advantages
of the choices available. They also don't realize that spending anywhere
from a few hundred to a thousand dollars on a lawyer or financial
advisor is worth more than putting that money into the down payment.
>That didn't work for me when I tried it on my parents, it didn't work
>for my kids, and it doesn't work for you, "free lunch" or no.
How interesting. Of course you know that the two are unrelated.
>If BDS has you believing that personal responsibility is passe, I am
>really sorry for you.
GWBush is the perfect example of someone who never takes personal
responsibility for anything. I find it amazing that everyone gives a
pass to the rich who never take personal responsibility because they can
buy their way out of scrapes, but they want to punish the poor who are
behaving better, but not good enough.
Laurence Sheldon
Pisses me off. Big time. I have a great deal of trouble reconciling
the fact that somebody as bright as I am failed to take the obvious
steps to prevent the theft.
It is a bitch, being responsible for my actions.
Rich Piehl
And you are excusing people who don't take responsibility for their own
actions. I'm far from an expert on usury law. But it doesn't take a
genius to understand the concept of "if something sounds too good to be
true it probably is" and "let the buyer beware"
>
>> I don't know about you but, personally, I don't want some nanny state
>> government looking over my shoulder at my checkbook deciding how much I
>> can afford to spend on any given item. Talk about intrusion into my
>> privacy - that would be it.
>
> I'm baffled how you jumped to that conclusion. It was the failure of
> people to follow their private law responsibility that caused this to
> happen. Government regulations arise only when people prove themselves
> to be untrustworthy, as the bankers did in this case.
>
> When the AAA rated CMO traches fail, it's not the buyer that was doing
> the lying.
So one lender violating rules means they all did? Additional regulation
wouldn't have changed that. It would have just meant that they violated
more rules. If they were hellbent on violating rules it really doesn't
matter whether they're violating one or five, now does it? Besides, if
it is as you say and the government was pushing the lenders to make the
loans do you think they would care about any additional regulations?
But every borrower has a responsibility to manage their own money. What
you are advocating is a government protectionism of our personal
finances - to make sure we aren't doing something stupid. That's how I
arrived at that.
Rich Piehl
I don't defend the thieves, but I also don't condone stupidity and not
being responsible for your own actions. Not every lender was a thief.
Laurence Sheldon
I understand you suffer from BDS, but it turns out that the world is not
actually like that.
My parents were poor folk (when poor meant living in a tiny house--a
kind lady, Dad's rooming-house landlord before he married Mom let us
live in here garage when my brother was a newborn. It meant driving a
car that Grand gave us. We didn't have a television set until 1956, at
that was one I fished out of a stores trash and fixed.
And I am sorry to have to report that "Everyone told them they could do
it. " is at the very heart of the problem.
But maybe we will get lucky--maybe the presidency and congress will be
overwhelmingly taken by the Democrats, and you will get to see just how
nice it will be.
It will be nastyu medicine, but I don't see any long-term hope without it.
I'm out.
Michael G. Koerner
A common thief does NOT ask you to willingly sign all of your stuff over to
him/her.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
No.
>I'm far from an expert on usury law. But it doesn't take a
>genius to understand the concept of "if something sounds too good to be
>true it probably is" and "let the buyer beware"
Luckily we don't create our law based on your 'common sense'. Lawyers
and legislators long ago realized that people in different positions of
power had different levels of responsibility to each other.
>>> I don't know about you but, personally, I don't want some nanny state
>>> government looking over my shoulder at my checkbook deciding how much I
>>> can afford to spend on any given item. Talk about intrusion into my
>>> privacy - that would be it.
>>
>> I'm baffled how you jumped to that conclusion. It was the failure of
>> people to follow their private law responsibility that caused this to
>> happen. Government regulations arise only when people prove themselves
>> to be untrustworthy, as the bankers did in this case.
>>
>> When the AAA rated CMO traches fail, it's not the buyer that was doing
>> the lying.
>
>So one lender violating rules means they all did? Additional regulation
>wouldn't have changed that. It would have just meant that they violated
>more rules. If they were hellbent on violating rules it really doesn't
>matter whether they're violating one or five, now does it? Besides, if
>it is as you say and the government was pushing the lenders to make the
>loans do you think they would care about any additional regulations?
It is true that the refusal of the Bush administration to demand that
the lenders take responsibility for doing things in conformance with the
law and with tradition may have made things much worse, but the
speculative bubble was fed heavily by the failure of the lenders to
follow their own rules of common sense, the ones you expect the poor to
follow, when they found out that they could sell bad loans as AAA
tranches.
>But every borrower has a responsibility to manage their own money. What
>you are advocating is a government protectionism of our personal
>finances - to make sure we aren't doing something stupid. That's how I
>arrived at that.
I guess you would get rid of bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prison.
Free Lunch
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:50:53 -0500, Laurence Sheldon
>> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>> Rich Piehl wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know about you but, personally, I don't want some nanny state
>>>> government looking over my shoulder at my checkbook deciding how much I
>>>> can afford to spend on any given item. Talk about intrusion into my
>>>> privacy - that would be it.
>>> Amen, brother, amen.
>>
>> Remember that when you are a victim of a thief.
>
>Pisses me off. Big time. I have a great deal of trouble reconciling
>the fact that somebody as bright as I am failed to take the obvious
>steps to prevent the theft.
>
>It is a bitch, being responsible for my actions.
I guess we won't need to pay for police in your self-blaming world.
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
I never said they were, but you have repeatedly implied that everyone
who got into trouble as a borrower was. The reality is different from
your smugly sanctimonious complaints.
Free Lunch
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:45:57 -0500, Laurence Sheldon
>> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everyone told them they could do it.
>>> Lots better than thinking, isn't it?
>>
>> Of course it isn't. But the reality is that most people buying homes are
>> not well-enough versed in finance to understand the risks and advantages
>> of the choices available. They also don't realize that spending anywhere
>> from a few hundred to a thousand dollars on a lawyer or financial
>> advisor is worth more than putting that money into the down payment.
>>
>>> That didn't work for me when I tried it on my parents, it didn't work
>>> for my kids, and it doesn't work for you, "free lunch" or no.
>>
>> How interesting. Of course you know that the two are unrelated.
>>
>>> If BDS has you believing that personal responsibility is passe, I am
>>> really sorry for you.
>>
>> GWBush is the perfect example of someone who never takes personal
>> responsibility for anything. I find it amazing that everyone gives a
>> pass to the rich who never take personal responsibility because they can
>> buy their way out of scrapes, but they want to punish the poor who are
>> behaving better, but not good enough.
>
>I understand you suffer from BDS, but it turns out that the world is not
>actually like that.
Of course it is like that Bush got away with a number of errors and
crimes that he would not have been allowed to do if he were poor. Deal
with those facts.
>My parents were poor folk (when poor meant living in a tiny house--a
>kind lady, Dad's rooming-house landlord before he married Mom let us
>live in here garage when my brother was a newborn. It meant driving a
>car that Grand gave us. We didn't have a television set until 1956, at
>that was one I fished out of a stores trash and fixed.
I understand. What this has to do with the question is beyond me.
>And I am sorry to have to report that "Everyone told them they could do
>it. " is at the very heart of the problem.
But when your parents were young everyone told them they could not do
it. The change came from the bankers who found ways to make money while
pawning the risk off on others.
>But maybe we will get lucky--maybe the presidency and congress will be
>overwhelmingly taken by the Democrats, and you will get to see just how
>nice it will be.
The Republicans have shown that they are unfit to govern and there are
no other parties to turn to.
Free Lunch
<mgk...@dataex.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:50:53 -0500, Laurence Sheldon
>> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>> Rich Piehl wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know about you but, personally, I don't want some nanny state
>>>> government looking over my shoulder at my checkbook deciding how much I
>>>> can afford to spend on any given item. Talk about intrusion into my
>>>> privacy - that would be it.
>>> Amen, brother, amen.
>>
>> Remember that when you are a victim of a thief.
>
>A common thief does NOT ask you to willingly sign all of your stuff over to
>him/her.
No, those are uncommon thieves.
Rich Piehl
And you have repeatedly said that it was always the lenders fault
because 'they told them they could.' I'm not being smug or
sanctimonious. You're the one that so far refuses to acknowledge that
the borrower plays a very important role in the responsibility for the
situation. You want to blame Bush, you want to blame the lenders. But
no where have you said the borrowers are responsible, too. It would
seem to me you are the one being smug and sanctimonious by washing the
borrowers hands of any of the responsibility.
Rich Piehl
Then, by your method, we can spend what ever we want, do whatever we
want, because it's ALWAYS the other guys fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's the government's fault, it's somebody's fault...but it's never the
borrowers fault because they don't have a knowledge of money. How
convenient.
>
>> But every borrower has a responsibility to manage their own money. What
>> you are advocating is a government protectionism of our personal
>> finances - to make sure we aren't doing something stupid. That's how I
>> arrived at that.
>
> I guess you would get rid of bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prison.
No, but bankruptcy should not be used as a quick and easy way to escape
from debt after intentionally spending carelessly and foolishly. "I'll
buy this 60" flat screen TV and this Ferrari and this million dollar
house and a bunch of diamonds all on credit and when the bill comes due
I'll file for bankruptcy and get to keep them all and not have to pay
them off."
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Free Lunch wrote:
...
>> It is true that the refusal of the Bush administration to demand that
>> the lenders take responsibility for doing things in conformance with the
>> law and with tradition may have made things much worse, but the
>> speculative bubble was fed heavily by the failure of the lenders to
>> follow their own rules of common sense, the ones you expect the poor to
>> follow, when they found out that they could sell bad loans as AAA
>> tranches.
>
>Then, by your method, we can spend what ever we want, do whatever we
>want, because it's ALWAYS the other guys fault. It's Bush's fault.
>It's the government's fault, it's somebody's fault...but it's never the
>borrowers fault because they don't have a knowledge of money. How
>convenient.
Of course it can be the borrower's fault, but often wasn't in these
cases. The point is that we traditionally made it hard to borrow so the
borrower had to show he was creditworthy. The change that arose because
the person writing the loan was no longer responsible for collecting the
money made their only interest the profit they made by writing the loan.
Lenders never would take your word for your income or tell you they
didn't care how much you made. That caused the borrower to be
responsible. The great lending disaster of this decade came because the
brokers and banks were no longer at risk of losing their own money. They
had found a way to pass the risk to others who were being lied to about
the risk. The banks lied to both the borrowers and the ultimate lenders.
They are the ones who take the foremost responsibility for this.
>>> But every borrower has a responsibility to manage their own money. What
>>> you are advocating is a government protectionism of our personal
>>> finances - to make sure we aren't doing something stupid. That's how I
>>> arrived at that.
>>
>> I guess you would get rid of bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prison.
>
>No, but bankruptcy should not be used as a quick and easy way to escape
>from debt after intentionally spending carelessly and foolishly. "I'll
>buy this 60" flat screen TV and this Ferrari and this million dollar
>house and a bunch of diamonds all on credit and when the bill comes due
>I'll file for bankruptcy and get to keep them all and not have to pay
>them off."
Why not? The credit card companies want you to behave foolishly. They
make their money doing that. Why should our law reward them for
encouraging foolish behavior?
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
The borrower had to be part of it but their behavior was less important
because they were less knowledgable. They were often victimized by lies
told by the lender.
>You want to blame Bush, you want to blame the lenders. But
>no where have you said the borrowers are responsible, too. It would
>seem to me you are the one being smug and sanctimonious by washing the
>borrowers hands of any of the responsibility.
I'm not excusing them, I'm just not trying to blame them for everything
that happened.
Rich Piehl
If you don't know how to operate a piece of machinery you learn. You
don't start pushing buttons and flipping switches and when the thing
blows up you blame the manufacturer. If you don't know the difference
between a gas pedal and a brake pedal you don't blame the car
manufacturer or the person who sold you the car. YOU have the
responsibility to know that.
>
>> You want to blame Bush, you want to blame the lenders. But
>> no where have you said the borrowers are responsible, too. It would
>> seem to me you are the one being smug and sanctimonious by washing the
>> borrowers hands of any of the responsibility.
>
> I'm not excusing them, I'm just not trying to blame them for everything
> that happened.
No, you've blamed them for none of what happened.
Rich Piehl
What do you mean the lenders aren't assuming the risk? How many have
gone belly up because of the mortgage crisis? If what you were saying
is true they would still be in business.
>
>>>> But every borrower has a responsibility to manage their own money. What
>>>> you are advocating is a government protectionism of our personal
>>>> finances - to make sure we aren't doing something stupid. That's how I
>>>> arrived at that.
>>> I guess you would get rid of bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prison.
>> No, but bankruptcy should not be used as a quick and easy way to escape
>>from debt after intentionally spending carelessly and foolishly. "I'll
>> buy this 60" flat screen TV and this Ferrari and this million dollar
>> house and a bunch of diamonds all on credit and when the bill comes due
>> I'll file for bankruptcy and get to keep them all and not have to pay
>> them off."
>
> Why not? The credit card companies want you to behave foolishly. They
> make their money doing that. Why should our law reward them for
> encouraging foolish behavior?
Because when you incur debt it's your responsibility to pay it back.
It's your obligation, that's what you signed up for. That's the way
usury is supposed to work. There's that personal responsibility thing
that you refuse to acknowledge. It's not a free money give away.
Or are you someone who shouldn't be taken at your word? That would be
the case if you sign up for something and then say you're not
responsible for what you signed up for.
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Most of the bad loans were written by companies that were set up to make
low quality loans, repackage them into tranches that weren't easily
understood, take a big cut of the transaction and be out of the loop.
Those who did go out of business did so mostly because they were unable
to unload the bad loans they had intended to sell, not because they were
forced to buy back the loans that they had sold, though some people
tried to make that happen after it was too late.
>>>>> But every borrower has a responsibility to manage their own money. What
>>>>> you are advocating is a government protectionism of our personal
>>>>> finances - to make sure we aren't doing something stupid. That's how I
>>>>> arrived at that.
>>>> I guess you would get rid of bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prison.
>>> No, but bankruptcy should not be used as a quick and easy way to escape
>>>from debt after intentionally spending carelessly and foolishly. "I'll
>>> buy this 60" flat screen TV and this Ferrari and this million dollar
>>> house and a bunch of diamonds all on credit and when the bill comes due
>>> I'll file for bankruptcy and get to keep them all and not have to pay
>>> them off."
>>
>> Why not? The credit card companies want you to behave foolishly. They
>> make their money doing that. Why should our law reward them for
>> encouraging foolish behavior?
>
>Because when you incur debt it's your responsibility to pay it back.
Agreed.
>It's your obligation, that's what you signed up for. That's the way
>usury is supposed to work. There's that personal responsibility thing
>that you refuse to acknowledge. It's not a free money give away.
But, of course, if the lender lies to you, you are not responsible in
the same way, though it is hard to get things straightened out when the
lender has gone out of business because they were basically stealing
from both the borrowers and the bond buyers.
>Or are you someone who shouldn't be taken at your word? That would be
>the case if you sign up for something and then say you're not
>responsible for what you signed up for.
You appear to think that defrauding people is okay if you are the
lender.
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Yet auto manufacturers are routinely held liable for making defective
devices. The owner is not responsible for the failure in manufacture.
The borrower is not responsible for the fraud that was involved in
inducing the borrower to borrow. He is only responsible for what he knew
was going on.
>>> You want to blame Bush, you want to blame the lenders. But
>>> no where have you said the borrowers are responsible, too. It would
>>> seem to me you are the one being smug and sanctimonious by washing the
>>> borrowers hands of any of the responsibility.
>>
>> I'm not excusing them, I'm just not trying to blame them for everything
>> that happened.
>
>No, you've blamed them for none of what happened.
Then you misread the points I was trying to make.
Rich Piehl
The companies that make loans and resell them have been around since the
80's. I know because I used one in 1994 and shopped with two others.
What changed was the interest rate and people getting into more house
than they could afford because the interest rates were so low.
But that's not what you said. You said: Why not? The credit card
companies want you to behave foolishly.
You're saying it's okay to incur the debt with no intention of paying it
back That's not personal responsibility. That's blaming someone else
for your irresponsibility. The credit card companies are forcing your
to default. If you can't manage the money that's your problem not theirs.
Bankruptcy should be used when circumstances change through loss of
income or unexpected expenditures such huge medical debt, when all other
avenues of repayment have been exhausted. It's not for screwing people
out of money. And that's what you're advocating. You'd be doing what
you accuse them of doing. Or is it okay for you to do it, but not for
them? Which means you don't accept personal responsibility and you
aren't as good as your word, or you have a double standard. Which is it?
Rich Piehl
You didn't answer the question. If you don't know the difference
between the accelerator and the brake is that the responsibility of the
car manufacturer or the insurance company or the government or the
dealer? Should you try to operate that vehicle before you have that
knowledge? Or should you just jump in, try to drive, wreck and start
blaming and suing and refuse to accept the fact that you didn't know
what you were doing?
And they wouldn't know that when they are borrowing at 1% on a 3 or 5
year ARM that the rate is eventually going to go up? And they when they
are going to be making payments of 50% of their income or more when that
rate goes up they won't be able to afford it? Sounds to me like they
don't understand how money works and they shouldn't be borrowing. And
that's not something lenders can tell. That's where the responsibility
of the borrower takes over. And that's what you seem to want to deny.
>
>>>> You want to blame Bush, you want to blame the lenders. But
>>>> no where have you said the borrowers are responsible, too. It would
>>>> seem to me you are the one being smug and sanctimonious by washing the
>>>> borrowers hands of any of the responsibility.
>>> I'm not excusing them, I'm just not trying to blame them for everything
>>> that happened.
>> No, you've blamed them for none of what happened.
>
> Then you misread the points I was trying to make.
You want blame George Bush and the government and the lenders, but you
didn't say that the borrowers are responsible for their greed and stupidity.
Take care,
Rich
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Free Lunch wrote:
...
>> Most of the bad loans were written by companies that were set up to make
>> low quality loans, repackage them into tranches that weren't easily
>> understood, take a big cut of the transaction and be out of the loop.
>> Those who did go out of business did so mostly because they were unable
>> to unload the bad loans they had intended to sell, not because they were
>> forced to buy back the loans that they had sold, though some people
>> tried to make that happen after it was too late.
>
>The companies that make loans and resell them have been around since the
>80's. I know because I used one in 1994 and shopped with two others.
>What changed was the interest rate and people getting into more house
>than they could afford because the interest rates were so low.
Brokers have been around for ages, the difference was that they didn't
have to sell to the banks that had well-defined standards, but could
sell into the securities market with tranches of securities that were
not well understood by anyone, not the NRSROs, the insurers, or the
regulators. If the loans had to be sold clean to the banks, they would
never have been made.
...
>>> Or are you someone who shouldn't be taken at your word? That would be
>>> the case if you sign up for something and then say you're not
>>> responsible for what you signed up for.
>>
>> You appear to think that defrauding people is okay if you are the
>> lender.
>
>But that's not what you said. You said: Why not? The credit card
>companies want you to behave foolishly.
I was making a comment about a specific problem. Still, there are huge
problems with public policy when one party wants the other to behave
irresponsibly.
>You're saying it's okay to incur the debt with no intention of paying it
>back That's not personal responsibility. That's blaming someone else
>for your irresponsibility. The credit card companies are forcing your
>to default. If you can't manage the money that's your problem not theirs.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that lenders who behave foolishly
deserve to get no money from those borrowers. I'm not excusing those
borrowers, just looking at it from the other side.
>Bankruptcy should be used when circumstances change through loss of
>income or unexpected expenditures such huge medical debt, when all other
>avenues of repayment have been exhausted. It's not for screwing people
>out of money.
Bankruptcy always screws someone out of money. That is its nature. I
don't care how the person came to be in that position, though, like you,
I would like it if people behaved responsibly and kept their debts under
control. What I was pointing out is that credit card companies disagree
with us. They want their customers to be on the edge, being charged late
fees and overlimit fees and high interest rates. That is their interest.
Why would I care what happens to a business like that that is bad for
society as a whole.
Let's look at a different action that is legal, but somewhat frowned
upon. Should bars that make big bucks on drunks be completely free of
liability for the actions of the drunk once that drunk leaves the bar?
Some states say yes, others think that because the bar is making money
in such circumstances, they should be held responsible as well as the
drunk it.
>And that's what you're advocating. You'd be doing what
>you accuse them of doing. Or is it okay for you to do it, but not for
>them? Which means you don't accept personal responsibility and you
>aren't as good as your word, or you have a double standard. Which is it?
People are responsible for their actions, but we don't cherrypick. Not
only should the debtor be responsible but the irresponsible lender who
makes the payday loan or offers the high rate card or mortgage to
someone who is not creditworthy is alos responsible. Remember that the
borrower would never have gotten into the mess if he hadn't been pushed
into it by the lender who thought he would make a great deal of money,
that he would never have had the problem 30 years ago when banks were
more responsible in their lending.
It's not the borrowers who got worse.
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Sure I did. I just changed the analogy to make it more appropriate.
> If you don't know the difference
>between the accelerator and the brake is that the responsibility of the
>car manufacturer or the insurance company or the government or the
>dealer? Should you try to operate that vehicle before you have that
>knowledge? Or should you just jump in, try to drive, wreck and start
>blaming and suing and refuse to accept the fact that you didn't know
>what you were doing?
>
>And they wouldn't know that when they are borrowing at 1% on a 3 or 5
>year ARM that the rate is eventually going to go up? And they when they
>are going to be making payments of 50% of their income or more when that
>rate goes up they won't be able to afford it? Sounds to me like they
>don't understand how money works and they shouldn't be borrowing. And
>that's not something lenders can tell. That's where the responsibility
>of the borrower takes over. And that's what you seem to want to deny.
You are right. That is why banks never used to lend to them when the
bank itself was at risk of losing when the loan was made.
>>>>> You want to blame Bush, you want to blame the lenders. But
>>>>> no where have you said the borrowers are responsible, too. It would
>>>>> seem to me you are the one being smug and sanctimonious by washing the
>>>>> borrowers hands of any of the responsibility.
>>>> I'm not excusing them, I'm just not trying to blame them for everything
>>>> that happened.
>>> No, you've blamed them for none of what happened.
>>
>> Then you misread the points I was trying to make.
>
>You want blame George Bush and the government and the lenders, but you
>didn't say that the borrowers are responsible for their greed and stupidity.
I've never said they weren't. I've just said that the banks were a
bigger part of the problem.
Larry G
> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 27, 4:57 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >"however, if you cannot sell your house, this is hardly
> >something that anyone can do anything about."
>
> >I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
> >that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
> >a few are walking away.
>
> Ruining their credit and possibly incurring legal problems for years
> to come, too. Not really an option to most people, since you've still
> got to live somewhere and credit checks are often a requirement even
> for rentals.
>
> >Some of these folks would have never qualified for a mortgage with
> >their credit history to start with.... they benefited from
> >subsidies... that were a bad idea from the get go.
>
> No, they were mostly snookered by fast talking mortgage brokers, who
> told them that their properties would appreciate faster than their
> ARM's would go up, so they could always refinance and still make money
> if necessary.
>
> >to start with - these folks are not thinking long term about gas
> >prices and commuting and the suburbs.
>
> So everyone who this happens to is "not thinking" and were just
> stupid? What a nice, bigoted world you've got there.
yeah.. it probably came across that way ... did not intend it to.. so
I'll take some lashes for my usual habit of saying inappropriate
things some times.
Rich Piehl
You changed the analogy and answered the change, making it a straw man.
You never answered the original question because you know the answer
wouldn't support your position.
And that's where we diverge. I say the borrowers are more the problem.
If people used their brain and realized the dangers and
implications of a 3 year ARM at 1% that takes 70% of the household
income to pay they would realize there is no way they would jump on the
loan in the first place. They're not catfish going for a worm because
of instinct. They do have free thought. They can always say 'no.'
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Steve Sobol
> I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
> that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
> a few are walking away.
Which is unbelievably selfish.
It causes problems for those of us who choose not to walk away from our
obligations.
In some cases, these people can afford to keep paying but do not. (I'm not
complaining about the people who can't afford to pay, I'm complaining about
the people who can but choose not to.)
So, there's another foreclosure, another family INTENTIONALLY driving the
market down further.
Sorry, OT really, but I had to say something.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Your analogy showed a bias. I already have agreed that unwise borrowers
are part of the problem, but they are also what lenders want. The
lenders make more money from unwise borrowers.
And if they don't, they lose their home, their credit and their savings.
It's not as if going bankrupt is painless. The pain to the bank is far
less than it is to the bankrupt person.
Free Lunch
<sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>On 2008-06-28, Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
>> that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
>> a few are walking away.
>
>Which is unbelievably selfish.
>
>It causes problems for those of us who choose not to walk away from our
>obligations.
>
>In some cases, these people can afford to keep paying but do not. (I'm not
>complaining about the people who can't afford to pay, I'm complaining about
>the people who can but choose not to.)
>
>So, there's another foreclosure, another family INTENTIONALLY driving the
>market down further.
>
>Sorry, OT really, but I had to say something.
The rules were set up that way.
Larry G
People buy homes as "investments". The US Government PROMOTES that
concept as does developers, homebuilders, etc so some folks see
dumping these homes as getting out of a bad investment.
Rich Piehl
You're injecting emotion after the fact when what was called for is
logic and reason and common sense before the fact. In your world it's
live for the moment with no forethought and blame others when it blows
up in your face.
Larry G
>
> And if they don't, they lose their home, their credit and their savings.
> It's not as if going bankrupt is painless. The pain to the bank is far
> less than it is to the bankrupt person.
some folks are not financially literate nor do they have the same
ethics about personal responsibility.
some were buying homes - with the intention of "flipping" them after a
few months as the prices were escalating.
I find it truly amazing that houses have dropped 100K in value ...
which means they were valued much higher than they were really worth -
it was speculation.
The folks who bought houses and never intended to stay in them anyhow
- have absolutely no problem walking away from homes that are now work
100K less that they were last year.
The "bail out", unfortunately does not distinguish between those who
want to stay in their homes and they that had planned on re-selling
for a profit - or "walking" if things did not work out... They were
gambling that they'd unload those homes before the ARMs interest
increases kicked in.
The government encouraged/supported mortgages to folks with "sketchy"
credit on the premise that it would help those who were on the margins
of being able to afford a mortgage but anytime you do something like
this - you are also inviting folks who will use it as a way to scam
others and make money on the vulnerable.
It's a lot like government-endorsed payday loans.
Rich Piehl
And if they don't do it there would be complaining that the government
isn't doing enough to help those with marginal credit and/or means get
into a house. So it's danged if you do, danged if you don't.
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
I never said that. You are the one who invented a Dickensian view of
borrowing and placed all of the blame on the borrowers.
Rich Piehl
Never said what?
John Lansford
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:31:31 -0500, Laurence Sheldon
>> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>> John Lansford wrote:
>>>> Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 27, 4:57 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "however, if you cannot sell your house, this is hardly
>>>>> something that anyone can do anything about."
>>>>>
>>>>> I dunno about NC but in some places in Va, folks who have a mortgage
>>>>> that is more than what the home is worth - by 50 or 100K - more than
>>>>> a few are walking away.
>>>> Ruining their credit and possibly incurring legal problems for years
>>>> to come, too. Not really an option to most people, since you've still
>>>> got to live somewhere and credit checks are often a requirement even
>>>> for rentals.
>>> The point is: Their credit was ruined before, by their own actions and
>>> inactions.
>>>
>>> That they thought they could beat a crooked game is not a valid defense,
>>> in my opinion.
>>
>> Not everyone who was suckered thought they were trying to beat a crooked
>> game. This was just one more example of Bush's reverse midas touch. He
>> pushed hard on the regulators to encourage more homeownership and the
>> solution was to turn a blind eye to the whole mess.
>
>What part of "crooked game" is causing you the most trouble.
>
>It used to be fairly common knowledge that "taking something you
>couldn't pay for" is called "stealing it".
But, for years and years and years, property ownership was called a
rock solid investment, because it ALWAYS appreciated in value. Some
people decided that this was a good way to make a LOT of money in fast
growing, high demand locations, and pushed the limits of this kind of
speculation.
Those people I have no sympathy for; they took their chances and lost
out. They're in the minority, though; everyone else simply assumed
that their homes would continue to appreciate in value, and they could
look forward to it doing so.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>Larry G wrote:
There are good ways to help those with marginal assets, such as FHA
insurance, but ignoring regulations does not do it. Home ownership was
at an all-time high during the runup, but it wasn't sustainable. When
Bush leaves office the home ownership percentage will be lower than when
he took office thanks to ill-advised policies toward buyers and lenders.
Look at the results, don't look at dogma.
John Lansford
At the same time, in rapidly appreciating regions (southern
California, Hawaii, for example), it made sense to buy/sell a home
with a quick turnaround; otherwise the tax burden would increase
rapidly if you kept it too long. In other regions I've not heard of
that kind of speculation; most people just bought as large a home they
could afford (using ARM or other oddball financing scheme), and
figured that since their income increased annually (for the most
part), they could afford a marginal payment initially and refinance it
later.
That didn't work out so well when businesses cut back and the ARM
explodes upwards in price.
Rich Piehl
Care to cite a source for those statistics?
Laurence Sheldon
>> People buy homes as "investments". The US Government PROMOTES that
>> concept as does developers, homebuilders, etc so some folks see
>> dumping these homes as getting out of a bad investment.
>
> At the same time, in rapidly appreciating regions (southern
> California, Hawaii, for example), it made sense to buy/sell a home
> with a quick turnaround; otherwise the tax burden would increase
> rapidly if you kept it too long. In other regions I've not heard of
> that kind of speculation; most people just bought as large a home they
> could afford (using ARM or other oddball financing scheme), and
> figured that since their income increased annually (for the most
> part), they could afford a marginal payment initially and refinance it
> later.
I'm sorry. I am not exceptionally bright, so it seems fair to assume
that most people are at least as bright as I am.
We bought our first house in the 1960's using my GI rights and a bunch
of other stuff including, probably, an excess of optimism. Paid (or
rather, promised to pay $29,500 plus interest for it.
We did not also buy a house-full of the most expensive furniture, had
only one TV set (that I built from a kit) (most of the rest of the
furniture came from yard-sales up and down the state), had one car for a
long time, didn't have any toys (for us or the any of the 3 kids) that
cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, used very little alcohol and no
"recreational"drugs, and so on.
Sold that house in 1990 (started trying to sell it in 1989) in a
collapsing market for $300,000 or a little more ("took a bath"--could
have sold it for more than 1/2 a million a year or two earlier--does the
world owe me a 1/4 of a million dollars?).
> That didn't work out so well when businesses cut back and the ARM
> explodes upwards in price.
We were able to see that ARM was as Bad Idea through and through (not
sure they were even offered in 1966 or when ever it was--wanted no part
of them in 1989).
Every day we have to make choices, and a lot of them have the potential
to hurt somebody. I don't see why using our heads should be punished by
people who want a free ride and think one is owed to them.
Bad advice from a drug dealer is bad advice. Bad advice from a mortgage
peddler is bad advice. My job, your job, everybody's job is to identify
bad advice. It does come with labels.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/historic/histt14.html
All of the current evidence implies that we will see a decrease from
67.8% in 1Q2008 to 67.0% by the end of the year. It was 67.5% when he
took over and it managed to get up to 69.2% before falling.
1100GS_rider
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:51:22 -0500, Rich Piehl
> <rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
> >Free Lunch wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> It is true that the refusal of the Bush administration to demand that
> >> the lenders take responsibility for doing things in conformance with the
> >> law and with tradition may have made things much worse, but the
> >> speculative bubble was fed heavily by the failure of the lenders to
> >> follow their own rules of common sense, the ones you expect the poor to
> >> follow, when they found out that they could sell bad loans as AAA
> >> tranches.
> >
> >Then, by your method, we can spend what ever we want, do whatever we
> >want, because it's ALWAYS the other guys fault. It's Bush's fault.
> >It's the government's fault, it's somebody's fault...but it's never the
> >borrowers fault because they don't have a knowledge of money. How
> >convenient.
>
> Of course it can be the borrower's fault, but often wasn't in these
> cases.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/12/please-dont-des.html
1100GS_rider
> But, for years and years and years, property ownership was called a
> rock solid investment, because it ALWAYS appreciated in value.
There have been *plenty* of exceptions to that 'rule' in my lifetime.
Rich Piehl
Here's what I see:
2000 vs 2008 first quarter
United States 67.1 67.9
Northeast 63.3 64.7
Midwest 72.2 72.0
South 69.5 69.7
West 61.3 62.8
I see up in every region, except the Midwest. I see up nationwide. I
see up in the South in spite of Katrina knocking out 40% of the housing
in New Orleans. I see up in the South in spite of Rita hitting a
significant area of Louisiana and Texas, and the other hurricanes that
hit the South.
You are truly distorting information to make a case that doesn't exist.
Even with your own source you are wrong. And then you base your venom
on an 'implies.' Your one cite has proved you wrong.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
was always the lenders fault
> because 'they told them they could.' I'm not being smug or
> sanctimonious. You're the one that so far refuses to acknowledge that
> the borrower plays a very important role in the responsibility for the
> no where have you said the borrowers are responsible, too. It would
> seem to me you are the one being smug and sanctimonious by washing the
> borrowers hands of any of the responsibility.
I have to agree with "Free Lunch" on this issue. Here's why:
The lenders are people who do this every day. They are experts on the
law, finances, and everything about mortgages. In contrast, many of
the borrowers caught in this bad mortgages were people who never had a
house before and unfamiliar with the process. They may not have been
the brightest stars in the sky when it comes to finance. They likely
looked at this as "$500 a month, yes, I can afford to pay that",
without really understanding the future steep obligations. They
likely presumed--perfectly reasonably-- that the lender wouldn't loan
them the money if they weren't qualified to repay the loan. Lastly,
no one was looking out for the borrower--the lender wants to originate
the mortgage and collect the fees, and realtor wants to sell the
property quick and make the commission.
As to the responsibility of the borrowers, I think they must honestly
provide their financial and job history.
Sorry, but I don't equate borrowing a one-time mortgage as the same
thing as eating a greasy unhealthy cheeseburger from McD's every day.
We all learned in school about healthy eating, but beyond very simple
interest rates, we did not learn about complex mortgages.
I also strongly suspect there was some fraud perpetuated by the
mortgage originators when they resold mortgages to other investors. I
think the other investors--also people of financial savy--failed to
properly investigate the quality of the package as is normal business
procedure.
Sorry, but yes I put more responsibility on an MBA in these kinds of
transactions over that of a truck driver.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> If you don't know how to operate a piece of machinery you learn.
I don't need to have a degree in mechanical engineering to drive my
car. I don't need a degree in electronics to watch TV. I don't need
a degree in computer science to play on the Internet.
I am not going to get an MBA to take out a mortgage, nor should I need
to.
I want to point out that my parents' mortgage, of many years ago, was
very simple and straight forward. My own mortgage had various bells
and whistles attached to it that I had no choice about (all mortgages
had them). The stated percentage rate was actually lower as a results
of the add-ons.
For instance, with my mortgage I had to give them my tax money in
escrow, they claimed it was to ensure my taxes would get paid. Except
they always paid my taxes late and passed on the penalty charge to
me! I fought that tooth and nail and properly credited. Of course
during the year they had my tax money coming in in advance for their
benefit.
Today's special mortgages are even more complex.
The point is that I'd be more sympathetic to the mortgage companies if
they operated as they did in my parents' day. But they don't. They
keep adding crap that's hard to keep track of and screws the consumer.
Laurence Sheldon
> I have to agree with "Free Lunch" on this issue. Here's why:
I don't.
> As to the responsibility of the borrowers, I think they must honestly
> provide their financial and job history.
They also have a responsibility to understand right and wrong, the
likelihood that a freelunch is free, and to manage their own lives and
not depend on somebody else to do it for them.
Unless they are _paying_ somebody to manage their lives for them.
They have a responsibility to understand that nobody else has a
responsibility to make them them behave rationally.
> Sorry, but yes I put more responsibility on an MBA in these kinds of
> transactions over that of a truck driver.
This truck driver never blamed anybody else for his fuckups.
Rich Piehl
Ad I've I agree that there may have been some shady business with the
mortgage companies. But if you're buying a car you research it and find
out what's a good price, and what seems to be too good to be true. Even
a trucker has a friend who knows someone to find that out. And a
trucker should know that if he's spending half is income to buy a $500K
house he's in too deep and out of his league.
Rich Piehl
mortgage is too much. I don't have an MBA, but my previous mortgages
were 14%, 10%, 8%. and 7%. If somebody starts offering money at 1% I'm
gonna think there's a catch. If I've never had a mortgage before it
makes no sense to trust the lender at his word on $500K any more than it
does to trust a used car salesman on a $50K car.
Free Lunch
<rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Table 14. Homeownership Rates for the U.S. and Regions: 1965 to
Present
First Second Third Fourth
Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter
2000
United States 67.1 67.2 67.7 67.5
Northeast 63.3 63.4 63.9 63.2
Midwest 72.2 72.2 72.9 73.1
South 69.5 69.2 69.7 69.8
West 61.3 61.9 62.2 61.6
2008
United States 67.8
Northeast 64.7
Midwest 72.0
South 69.7
West 62.8
Bush took over in Jan 2001. The end-of-year number for 2000 was 67.5%.
We aren't at the end of his administration, there is clear evidence that
the homeownership rate will continue to drop.
>I see up in every region, except the Midwest. I see up nationwide. I
>see up in the South in spite of Katrina knocking out 40% of the housing
>in New Orleans. I see up in the South in spite of Rita hitting a
>significant area of Louisiana and Texas, and the other hurricanes that
>hit the South.
>
>You are truly distorting information to make a case that doesn't exist.
> Even with your own source you are wrong. And then you base your venom
>on an 'implies.' Your one cite has proved you wrong.
Please learn to read a table.
Free Lunch
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with "Free Lunch" on this issue. Here's why:
>
>I don't.
>
>
>> As to the responsibility of the borrowers, I think they must honestly
>> provide their financial and job history.
>
>They also have a responsibility to understand right and wrong, the
>likelihood that a freelunch is free, and to manage their own lives and
>not depend on somebody else to do it for them.
If they have no idea what a reasonable rate is, they may conclude that
the 6% 30-year mortgage is a rip-off when someone else offers a teaser
or promises that they will be able to refinance in three years and never
see the ARM readjust to 9%.
>Unless they are _paying_ somebody to manage their lives for them.
>
>They have a responsibility to understand that nobody else has a
>responsibility to make them them behave rationally.
Many of them think they are the ones paying the mortgage broker.
Laurence Sheldon
> I want to point out that my parents' mortgage, of many years ago, was
> very simple and straight forward. My own mortgage had various bells
> and whistles attached to it that I had no choice about (all mortgages
> had them).
Interesting. Guns at your head and everything? Where was this?
Daughter refinanced her house by phone the other day, they phoned (or
faxed, or ?) the stuff to a city she would be driving through so she
could sign the papers. She has done that several times.
There were a few years where it seemed to me that my was arranging a
re-finance every couple of years--we never saw the kind of thing you are
talking about.
We (all of us) have walked away from a couple of deals because we found
stuff at the "signing" that we didn't like. Sure, they pressured, but ...
Have you ever bought a car? Do you blindly sign everything they push i
n front of you because you have no choice?
Sure there are crooks. Sure there are people whose interests do not
include yours. That's why we read and think, and try hard never to
enter a room that can't be exited at will.
It must be sad to be under the control of everybody around you.
My dog won't even put up with that.
Rich Piehl
And in January 2008 it was 67.8. That is still up no matter how you
slice it.
>
> We aren't at the end of his administration, there is clear evidence that
> the homeownership rate will continue to drop.
That you are basing your argument on what might happen with no data to
back it up suggests you've already decided the results whether the facts
fit or not.
>
>> I see up in every region, except the Midwest. I see up nationwide. I
>> see up in the South in spite of Katrina knocking out 40% of the housing
>> in New Orleans. I see up in the South in spite of Rita hitting a
>> significant area of Louisiana and Texas, and the other hurricanes that
>> hit the South.
>>
>> You are truly distorting information to make a case that doesn't exist.
>> Even with your own source you are wrong. And then you base your venom
>> on an 'implies.' Your one cite has proved you wrong.
>
> Please learn to read a table.
Would that be the table of what you think is going to happen that hasn't
been written yet? I'm sorry I can only read ones that are in black and
white.
>
>> Take care,
>> Rich
>>
>> God bless the USA