OT: Where is BLM

[chrisv]

It's business as usual, in Chicago. This past weekend, 106 were shot,
13 fatally. One of the dead was only 3 years old. Collateral damage
in the gang war, you know.

Where is BLM, to protest and demand change?

Maybe defunding the police will help.

[Topanga]

And where are the police?
As the left wing MSM continue to push the "defund the police, BLM" mantra,
they once again show their hypocrisy when THEY are attacked by these
anarchist maniacs.

<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservatives-observe-irony-in-asking-where-police-are-after-reporter-nearly-attacked-in-dc-autonomous-zone>

Look at poor Andrea Mitchell asking "Where are The Police".....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7vEKUH3xTM

Hmm...


--
Topanga
Where The Mountain Meets the Sea

[DFS]

On 6/24/2020 12:37 PM, shitv wrote:


> It's business as usual, in Chicago. This past weekend, 106 were shot,
> 13 fatally.

heyjackass.com

> One of the dead was only 3 years old.

Another future-crime-spree taken out early.

> Collateral damage in the gang war, you know.

Sounds like 'systemic racism' to me...

> Where is BLM, to protest and demand change?

I've been axing the same question (since '96 - way before "BLM") and you
won't get an honest answer from them, which is:

The vile, savage bootlips don't give a shit about each other. They
never have.

> Maybe defunding the police will help.

They'll self-destruct more than ever.

[-hh]

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 11:39:14 AM UTC-4, DFS wrote:
> On 6/24/2020 12:37 PM, shitv wrote:
>
>
> > It's business as usual, in Chicago. This past weekend,
> > 106 were shot, 13 fatally.
>
> heyjackass.com

Interesting rundown. It appears that the current year's trend
isn't really all that far out of line with the past ~5 years.

Latter half of the year is likely to be worse, though,
with the $600 UI boost ending last week, which will
increase the vulnerability and anxiety of the poor.


-hh

[chrisv]

-hh wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:

>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> It's business as usual, in Chicago. This past weekend,
>>> 106 were shot, 13 fatally.
>>
>> heyjackass.com
>
>Interesting rundown. It appears that the current year's trend
>isn't really all that far out of line with the past ~5 years.
>
>Latter half of the year is likely to be worse, though,
>with the $600 UI boost ending last week, which will
>increase the vulnerability and anxiety of the poor.

No problem! We can just "borrow" a few $trillion more! We can pay
everyone's rent for next six months!

--
"Every retail box of a MS product includes the offer of a 90-day
refund." - some dumb fsck, so damned *stupid* that he thought that
complaints about the difficulty of getting refunded for Windows were
about the "retail box", not pre-installs

[-hh]

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:40:51 PM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > some dumb fsck wrote:
> >>
> >> chrisv wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It's business as usual, in Chicago. This past weekend,
> >>> 106 were shot, 13 fatally.
> >>
> >> heyjackass.com
> >
> >Interesting rundown. It appears that the current year's trend
> >isn't really all that far out of line with the past ~5 years.
> >
> >Latter half of the year is likely to be worse, though,
> >with the $600 UI boost ending last week, which will
> >increase the vulnerability and anxiety of the poor.
>
> No problem! We can just "borrow" a few $trillion more!
> We can pay everyone's rent for next six months!

The trade-off is what's likely to happen if you don't do that.

Simply put, the revenue loss means that the more highly
leveraged landlords will run out of money to service
their bank loans, so they'll be forced to sell property
at "distressed" discounts, and/or be forced by the banks
into foreclosure and bankruptcy...but because the housing
market will decline, the banks are at increased risk of
being underwater on property value vs market, so they could
be dragged under too...

Cascading dominoes to a bigger, broader economic collapse.


Good luck choosing what's less bad.


-hh

[mGhost]

On 2020-08-07, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's business as usual, in Chicago. This past weekend,
>>>> 106 were shot, 13 fatally.
>>>
>>> heyjackass.com
>>
>>Interesting rundown. It appears that the current year's trend
>>isn't really all that far out of line with the past ~5 years.
>>
>>Latter half of the year is likely to be worse, though,
>>with the $600 UI boost ending last week, which will
>>increase the vulnerability and anxiety of the poor.
>
> No problem! We can just "borrow" a few $trillion more! We can pay
> everyone's rent for next six months!
>

Yeah, see that's why you don't want to be calling it a hoax, going to
rallies, playing golf, not issues a national standard on wearing a mask.
This is why Trump goes bankrupt so often. Making good choices, isn't
what he does. Now your country leads in deaths, has greater than 25% of
all known cases in existence. See what happens when you appoint a moron
to the highest office in the land? Chris, are you going to do it again?
Are you going to vote for this idiot, AGAIN, and ask for four more years
of this? What will the United States be like with four more years of the
moron?

--
Я гость в отеле

[Snit]

I sincerely don’t know if the US will survive four more years of his
idiocy. And his enablers.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

[mGhost]

Yes, you see this clearly. It's called Mark to Market Accounting and
it's how your banks value their loans. As you described, the landlords
borrow the money for the building, and the renters pay the rent which in
turns pays the loan.

The somewhat wealthy will lose everything. Renters will be homeless.
Banks will look horrible. And the extreme rich will buy up real estate
and fire-sale prices.

Trump's little gift to the oligarchs of your country. ** TRUMP 2020 **

> Cascading dominoes to a bigger, broader economic collapse.
>
>
> Good luck choosing what's less bad.
>
> -hh
>

You know better than to ask a Trump supporter to think it through,
right. He'll just snip and say he didn't read it.

[mGhost]

You might to impeach him again. But without a democrat majority of your
senate you will fail again, yes? I would expect more presidential
pardons, many more cases of the covid-19 virus, more ripping off the
public with visits to his own properties and he'll likely try to elevate
members of the family or other friends to take over once he's gone. Your
nightmare is just getting started. But hey, I don't want to leave you
with nothing... Trump says if you're not happy, you can leave!! How
nice.

[-hh]

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 3:13:08 PM UTC-4, mGhost wrote:

> On 2020-08-07, -hh wrote:
> >
> > The trade-off is what's likely to happen if you don't do that.
> >
> > Simply put, the revenue loss means that the more highly
> > leveraged landlords will run out of money to service
> > their bank loans, so they'll be forced to sell property
> > at "distressed" discounts, and/or be forced by the banks
> > into foreclosure and bankruptcy...but because the housing
> > market will decline, the banks are at increased risk of
> > being underwater on property value vs market, so they could
> > be dragged under too...
> >
>
> Yes, you see this clearly. It's called Mark to Market
> Accounting and it's how your banks value their loans.
> As you described, the landlords borrow the money for
> the building, and the renters pay the rent which in
> turns pays the loan.

Agreed. A couple of years ago, a colleague was trying
to convince me to partner up with him on an outside
venture he had in rental unit real estate. He was
buying up rundown properties, fixing them up, getting
them reappraised and then take out a higher mortgage
based on the reappraisal to free up cash to buy the
next unit to repeat the cycle.

It was quite obvious to me that it only works out when
everything is working like a clock to assure the cash
flow .. ie, high tenant occupancy rates, low unexpected
repairs, etc .. but as soon as here's a disruption, the
entire portfolio is at risk of rapid collapse from cash
flow interruption, just like what happened to many small-
timers back in 2009. Needless to say, I declined.

> The somewhat wealthy will lose everything. Renters
> will be homeless. Banks will look horrible. And the
> extreme rich will buy up real estate and fire-sale prices.

Agreed.

To minimize this risk is to be strategically prepared by
having a high equity vs costs ratio -- ie, basically to
have enough cash in the bank to carry the full operating
costs of the property for a ~year (or longer) without the
benefit of any incoming revenue.


-hh

[Snit]

Yes.

> I would expect more presidential
> pardons, many more cases of the covid-19 virus, more ripping off the
> public with visits to his own properties and he'll likely try to elevate
> members of the family or other friends to take over once he's gone. Your
> nightmare is just getting started. But hey, I don't want to leave you
> with nothing... Trump says if you're not happy, you can leave!! How
> nice.
>

Yet he is the one who campaigned in the lack of “greatness” of America.

[chrisv]

mGhost wrote:

>> Simply put, the revenue loss means that the more highly
>> leveraged landlords will run out of money to service
>> their bank loans, so they'll be forced to sell property
>> at "distressed" discounts, and/or be forced by the banks
>> into foreclosure and bankruptcy...but because the housing
>> market will decline, the banks are at increased risk of
>> being underwater on property value vs market, so they could
>> be dragged under too...
>
>Yes, you see this clearly.

It's not rocket science.

[RonB]

On 2020-08-07, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

It'll be like the last recession (in about 2007). Some banks will be forced
into bankruptcy while the select others (who paid bigger bribes to
politicians) will be allowed to buy their real estate assets at pennies on
the dollar (this won't be open to the general public). And the rent will go
UP not down because property will be in the hands of fewer slimeballs.

--
Now Face Mask (Muzzle) Compliant!
Eagerly awaiting Shackles and a Lobotomy,
and Gates' Embedded Chip Wonder Vaccine!

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

After the 2008 subprime boondoggle,
banks didn't sell their foreclosed homes,
they just let them sit empty, rent free,
raking in the cash ( due to appreciation ).

Three million $ homes sit idle,
appreciating at an amazing rate;
later, they sell for 8 million $.

No one needs to pay rent because, last 12 years,
the government has poured trillions of dollars
into real estate, more than making up for it.

[mGhost]

On 2020-08-07, -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

This is a common formula they teach in school. It only works in low
interest rate countries. In Russia, a low interest rate is around 14%
or more. So in Russia, you might see someone get investors to buy units
before they are built. The building is sold, before it is built. THe
first round of buys pay just enough to get the building built, and then
they either live there, or sell the unit.

In the United States, the land lord gets a very low interest rate and
saves maybe 5% of the cost in cash. With that they leverage the total
purchase of building and collect rents for about 2 to 5 years. With the
gained equity they take out a cash loan and us that to buy the second
building with 5% or more and now wait another 2 to 5 years. They then
use the combined equity to get another loan, and buy a third building.

This can make you rich over time, but the risk is just as you said. You
hit a recession and you might lose everything. Only now you are much
older, and spending 10n to 15 years to build up again is time you may
not have.

For those that don't understand basic economics, you have no clue how
bad things will get for you. All of you stand in the same pool of
gasoline. It only takes one idiot to ignite it and burn everyone.

[mGhost]

On 2020-08-07, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

That's relative. To Trump this is exotic math. He doesn't see it at all.