Aloha oe, Aloha...
Michael J Wise
<http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/30/news/companies/aloha_bankruptcy.ap/>
<http://starbulletin.com/breaking/breaking.php?id=6889>
" Aloha Airlines is shutting down its passenger flight operations
beginning tomorrow.
:'(
Aloha mai Nai`a!
--
"Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
and Usenet Registration handy..."
al Guacamole
On Mar 30, 3:10 pm, Michael J Wise <mjw...@kapu.net> wrote:
> " Aloha Airlines is shutting down its passenger flight operations
> beginning tomorrow.
Maybe not. IIRC I heard on the radio that it's up to creditors
whether
Aloha can shut down. Some judge ruled that way on whether to allow
the shutdown. I guess it's a little like the Bear Stearns thing where
it's
worthless if it can't continue to operate.
Jerry Okamura
Hasn't a judge already ruled that Aloha has the right to file for
bankruptcy?
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1207096...@news.lava.net...
al Guacamole
On Apr 2, 9:15 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Hasn't a judge already ruled that Aloha has the right to file for
> bankruptcy?
Apparantly so.... Papers say that they shut down operations. Makes it
bad for sharesholders and creditors. It's harder to sell if the
employees are gone. Was with a company that went into chapter 13 and
the creditors took it over. In this case, the state attempted to buy
some time I guess for that to happen. But I guess, in this case, the
Aloha Board would rather go out of business than sell to say Mesa....
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1207178...@news.lava.net...
Don't you think that ANY company that is in deep financial trouble has as
their primary responsibility what is best for the shareholders of the
company?
John W. Bienko
The airline industry has received extraordinary financial
benefits since the beginning of the service,
The classic corpoate welfare bums..
In this modern era the operation of a business is well known.
There is NO excuse for failure.. other than the special interests
have given themselves extraordinary salaries and stock options.
All largely paid for by the public taxpayer.
Now they line up at the public trough again.
Time fo r new policy ... with the public interest at the center.
Jerry Okamura
No one can get "benefits" from the government, or get a "handout"
form the
government, "if" those we elect to represent us, do not give them those
benefits....
"John W. Bienko" <as...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:1207585...@news.lava.net...
Maren at google
On Apr 7, 9:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> No one can get "benefits" from the government, or get a "handout"
> form the
> government, "if" those we elect to represent us, do not give them
> those
> benefits....
Jerry, don't forget that John lives in a different country.
I don't remember who said that , but "there is no free lunch
unless you're the lunch".
You can get handouts. But somebody else is paying for that.
Just like everywhere else - only more so.
Maren
HiloBeads: Beads - Beading Supplies - Hand-made Jewelry
http://www.hilobeads.com/
Alvin E. Toda
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> Don't you think that ANY company that is in deep
> financial trouble has as their primary responsibility
> what is best for the shareholders of the company?
In theory, yes. In practice, no. That's why we have the
Sarbannes-Oxley act. To keep CEOs and Boards from
inflating company profits, and hiding problems from
creditors and shareholders. The usual corporate
practice doesn't help the shareholder, but is in the
interest of the CEO. In this case, it's pretty obivous
that the Aloha executives don't want a takeover by
Mesa. The same was said about a takeover of Yahoo by
Microsoft.
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208037...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Don't you think that ANY company that is in deep
>> financial trouble has as their primary responsibility
>> what is best for the shareholders of the company?
>
> In theory, yes. In practice, no. That's why we have the
> Sarbannes-Oxley act. To keep CEOs and Boards from
> inflating company profits, and hiding problems from
> creditors and shareholders.
And does it work? The answer is, no it does not work, because you
only have
to look at those companies who have folded to know the answer to that
question. Enron is a classic example of that.
The usual corporate
> practice doesn't help the shareholder, but is in the
> interest of the CEO. In this case, it's pretty obivous
> that the Aloha executives don't want a takeover by
> Mesa. The same was said about a takeover of Yahoo by
> Microsoft.
>
You have got to be kidding me. The company did not have the cash
available
to keep operating, what has that got to to with what you just said?
al Guacamole
On Apr 12, 6:20 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> And does it work? The answer is, no it does not work, because you
> only have
> to look at those companies who have folded to know the answer to that
> question. Enron is a classic example of that.
"only". No. What about the companies that don't fold, but just make
mediocre profits? In this case, the CEO and his board should have been
kicked out to save the company. Too bad the state couldn't get the
time to do that through the courts. CEOs have more blame then you
think...
George Soros has a new book and was on the Charley Rose show last nite
on PBS. What he said makes a lot of sense. He says that the govt can
only control the economy by controlling credit as well as the money
supply. But that the control should not be through regulation but
through controlling the leveraging of credit-- for example the margin
on a stock buy, or the down payment to a home (this is exactly what
John McCain is saying). Unlike control of the money supply, control of
credit is politically unpopular so that's why he's written this book
to drive the point home on the eve of a new recession. You've got to
give the man credit for his foresight in writing the book in better
times. At the present, the timing couldn't be better for its
publication.
Incidentally, he sees the real estate market to keep falling even in
2009. Wonder if that applies to Hawaii? He says that the govt will
have to act to stop home foreclosures to prevent social disruption,
and an undershooting of the drop in prices-- similar to the real
estate bubble on the upside. He says that more well-off blacks have
gotten into this credit trap because they have bought into the concept
of home ownership and have over-leveraged their credit.
> You have got to be kidding me. The company did not have the cash
> available
> to keep operating, what has that got to to with what you just said?
Companies which are failing, can sell out. It's to the shareholder's
and employees' benefit. Aloha had a suit against Mesa, but it could
have settled by selling. In this case, the papers mention that some of
the creditors had secured collateral in the company so they weren't
worried about the cash flow. They were exceptions. But what I say
still applies to the other shareholders. They get nothing from this
bankruptcy, and the employees lose their jobs.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208145...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 12, 6:20 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> And does it work? The answer is, no it does not work, because you
>> only have
>> to look at those companies who have folded to know the answer to that
>> question. Enron is a classic example of that.
>
> "only". No. What about the companies that don't fold, but just make
> mediocre profits? In this case, the CEO and his board should have been
> kicked out to save the company. Too bad the state couldn't get the
> time to do that through the courts. CEOs have more blame then you
> think...
What makes you think that anything could have been done to save the company?
>
> George Soros has a new book and was on the Charley Rose show last nite
> on PBS. What he said makes a lot of sense. He says that the govt can
> only control the economy by controlling credit as well as the money
> supply. But that the control should not be through regulation but
> through controlling the leveraging of credit-- for example the margin
> on a stock buy, or the down payment to a home (this is exactly what
> John McCain is saying). Unlike control of the money supply, control of
> credit is politically unpopular so that's why he's written this book
> to drive the point home on the eve of a new recession. You've got to
> give the man credit for his foresight in writing the book in better
> times. At the present, the timing couldn't be better for its
> publication.
How do you "control" credit? Let us look at home loans for example. You
can control home loans by either requiring a bigger down payment, which
prevents more people from buying a home, or you can require a lower down
payment, in which case more people can buy a home. If you allow people to
buy a home with a smaller down payment, then their mortgage payments will be
larger, which then increases the odds that they cannot make the payments.
Or you can increase the qualification requirements, which basically does the
same thing. In either case, there will be losers in this game, "if" you
require a higher down payment or a better financical statement.
>
> Incidentally, he sees the real estate market to keep falling even in
> 2009. Wonder if that applies to Hawaii? He says that the govt will
> have to act to stop home foreclosures to prevent social disruption,
> and an undershooting of the drop in prices-- similar to the real
> estate bubble on the upside. He says that more well-off blacks have
> gotten into this credit trap because they have bought into the concept
> of home ownership and have over-leveraged their credit.
First of all, people should not buy a home because they expect to make a
profit on the purchase. They should buy a home, because they want to own a
home. Second, while it has been historically true in the United States,
that most people will indeed achieve some appreciation in the value of their
own, that is not the case in every part of the country, just some parts of
the country. As for his last comment, people get into trouble buying a
home regardless of what their racial background is, because they have bought
an asset that they should not have bought, because they really could not
afford the purchase. It is somewhat racist to say that the problem is due
to someones race, implying that they are stupider than any other race,
regardless of how well-off they are. It is even more racist, to imply that
"well-off" blacks will do dumber things, the "well-off" whites as an
example.
>
>> You have got to be kidding me. The company did not have the cash
>> available
>> to keep operating, what has that got to to with what you just said?
>
> Companies which are failing, can sell out. It's to the shareholder's
> and employees' benefit. Aloha had a suit against Mesa, but it could
> have settled by selling. In this case, the papers mention that some of
> the creditors had secured collateral in the company so they weren't
> worried about the cash flow. They were exceptions. But what I say
> still applies to the other shareholders. They get nothing from this
> bankruptcy, and the employees lose their jobs.
>
The "can" sell out, "if" there is someone willing to buy a company that is
already in trouble. As for getting "nothing" that is what happens when
companies go belly up.
Alvin E. Toda
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> same thing. In either case, there will be losers in
> this game, "if" you require a higher down payment or
> a better financical statement.
OTOH, most homeowners are NOT investors or gamblers.
For them, it's a fullfilment of a dream and NOT a game.
> It is somewhat racist to say that the problem is due
> to someones race, implying that they are stupider
> than any other race, regardless of how well-off they
> are. It is even more racist, to imply that
> "well-off" blacks will do dumber things, the
> "well-off" whites as an example.
You say that Soros is racist for stating what he has
learned? He didn't get to be a billionaire by being
dumb.
> The [Aloha management] "can" sell out, "if" there is
> someone willing to buy a company that is already in
> trouble. As for getting "nothing" that is what
> happens when companies go belly up.
Only trouble is when management doesn't want to do the
obvious thing and admit defeat. Their suit against Mesa
is just a CYA effort. You have an attitude that would
do the Queen of France credit: "let them eat cake"...
They could have mitigated the pain to shareholders and
employees, and they chose not to do that.
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208213...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> same thing. In either case, there will be losers in
>> this game, "if" you require a higher down payment or
>> a better financical statement.
>
> OTOH, most homeowners are NOT investors or gamblers.
> For them, it's a fullfilment of a dream and NOT a game.
It does not make any difference. A higher down payment means fewer peole
can buy a home. A stronger financial statement translates to the same
thing.
>
>> It is somewhat racist to say that the problem is due
>> to someones race, implying that they are stupider
>> than any other race, regardless of how well-off they
>> are. It is even more racist, to imply that
>> "well-off" blacks will do dumber things, the
>> "well-off" whites as an example.
>
> You say that Soros is racist for stating what he has
> learned? He didn't get to be a billionaire by being
> dumb.
Yes.
>
>> The [Aloha management] "can" sell out, "if" there is
>> someone willing to buy a company that is already in
>> trouble. As for getting "nothing" that is what
>> happens when companies go belly up.
>
> Only trouble is when management doesn't want to do the
> obvious thing and admit defeat. Their suit against Mesa
> is just a CYA effort. You have an attitude that would
> do the Queen of France credit: "let them eat cake"...
> They could have mitigated the pain to shareholders and
> employees, and they chose not to do that.
>
The ultimate admission of defeat is to declare bankruptcy.
Alvin E. Toda
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1208213...@news.lava.net...
>>
>> OTOH, most homeowners are NOT investors or gamblers.
>> For them, it's a fullfilment of a dream and NOT a
>> game.
>
> It does not make any difference. A higher down
> payment means fewer peole can buy a home. A stronger
> financial statement translates to the same thing.
What about govt programs for homebuyers. Don't they
work pretty well? It should be different for them vs
investors (ie gamblers). It's an American tradition--
home ownership-- that we place a great deal of value.
>> You say that Soros is racist for stating what he has
>> learned? He didn't get to be a billionaire by being
>> dumb.
>
> Yes.
What's racist about stating a fact?
>> Only trouble is when management doesn't want to do
>> the obvious thing and admit defeat. Their suit
>> against Mesa is just a CYA effort. You have an
>> attitude that would do the Queen of France credit:
>> "let them eat cake"... They could have mitigated the
>> pain to shareholders and employees, and they chose
>> not to do that.
>>
>
> The ultimate admission of defeat is to declare
> bankruptcy.
No it's not. Not when you do that to avoid paying off
your debts, or your obligations to your shareholders.
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208282...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> news:1208213...@news.lava.net...
>>>
>>> OTOH, most homeowners are NOT investors or gamblers.
>>> For them, it's a fullfilment of a dream and NOT a
>>> game.
>>
>> It does not make any difference. A higher down
>> payment means fewer peole can buy a home. A stronger
>> financial statement translates to the same thing.
>
> What about govt programs for homebuyers. Don't they
> work pretty well? It should be different for them vs
> investors (ie gamblers). It's an American tradition--
> home ownership-- that we place a great deal of value.
There are "government" programs for homebuyers. A homeowner can deduct
their mortgage interest, the property taxes they pay on that home. If they
own the home for a couple of years, and make a profit when they sell the
home, they can exempt $250,000 per person from capital gains taxes. Those
who do not own a home, do not get the same breaks....
>
>>> You say that Soros is racist for stating what he has
>>> learned? He didn't get to be a billionaire by being
>>> dumb.
>>
>> Yes.
>
> What's racist about stating a fact?
When someone like Bill Cosby said recently about the problem with Blacks was
he called a racist for saying what he said? Was what he said a fact?
>
>>> Only trouble is when management doesn't want to do
>>> the obvious thing and admit defeat. Their suit
>>> against Mesa is just a CYA effort. You have an
>>> attitude that would do the Queen of France credit:
>>> "let them eat cake"... They could have mitigated the
>>> pain to shareholders and employees, and they chose
>>> not to do that.
>>>
>>
>> The ultimate admission of defeat is to declare
>> bankruptcy.
>
> No it's not. Not when you do that to avoid paying off
> your debts, or your obligations to your shareholders.
>
You do not have to worry about paying of your debt, if you are successful.
You have trouble paying of your debts or trying to pay of your debts, when
you are not successful.
Alvin E. Toda
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> There are "government" programs for homebuyers. A
> homeowner can deduct their mortgage interest, the
> property taxes they pay on that home. If they own
> the home for a couple of years, and make a profit
> when they sell the home, they can exempt $250,000 per
> person from capital gains taxes. Those who do not
> own a home, do not get the same breaks....
Yet you call buying your own home "gambling", and not
worthy of protection for the consumer....
> When someone like Bill Cosby said recently about the
> problem with Blacks was he called a racist for saying
> what he said? Was what he said a fact?
I don't recall specifically what he said. But IIRC
weren't his comments general enough that they could be
construed to mean that if you were black, you deserted
your wife and unborn child... ie Cosby didn't say that
a lot of problems with black mothers were due to
fathers deserting them because they did not have the
sense of responsibility for the messes that they
created. In this hypothetical example, his words were
stated to mean that the cause was that they were black.
Soros doesn't say this-- ie that blacks took out these
subprime loans because they were black or that their
social environment caused them to do that. He told
Charley Rose that the reason many will suffer from a
home forclosure is that so many who are unqualified but
bought into the American concept of home ownership are
black. You need to tell the difference between what
Cosby says and what Soros says.
> You do not have to worry about paying of your debt,
> if you are successful. You have trouble paying of
> your debts or trying to pay of your debts, when you
> are not successful.
But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay off your
debts when you are unsuccessful. You still have an
obligation to pay back, and the honorable CEO does his
best to do that.
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208383...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> There are "government" programs for homebuyers. A
>> homeowner can deduct their mortgage interest, the
>> property taxes they pay on that home. If they own
>> the home for a couple of years, and make a profit
>> when they sell the home, they can exempt $250,000 per
>> person from capital gains taxes. Those who do not
>> own a home, do not get the same breaks....
>
> Yet you call buying your own home "gambling", and not
> worthy of protection for the consumer....
Because it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in the hopes
that the
purchase will appreciate in value. And yes, anyone who buys a home,
that
should know better, i.e. that they cannot keep up with the payments
such a
decision involves, is not worthy of protection. It is the same basic
problem when our government "bails" out a business.
>
>> When someone like Bill Cosby said recently about the
>> problem with Blacks was he called a racist for saying
>> what he said? Was what he said a fact?
>
> I don't recall specifically what he said. But IIRC
> weren't his comments general enough that they could be
> construed to mean that if you were black, you deserted
> your wife and unborn child... ie Cosby didn't say that
> a lot of problems with black mothers were due to
> fathers deserting them because they did not have the
> sense of responsibility for the messes that they
> created. In this hypothetical example, his words were
> stated to mean that the cause was that they were black.
Do a web search, I am sure you can find exactly what he said. Then do a
further search to find out what many in the black community said in
response
to what he said.
>
> Soros doesn't say this-- ie that blacks took out these
> subprime loans because they were black or that their
> social environment caused them to do that. He told
> Charley Rose that the reason many will suffer from a
> home forclosure is that so many who are unqualified but
> bought into the American concept of home ownership are
> black. You need to tell the difference between what
> Cosby says and what Soros says.
>
>> You do not have to worry about paying of your debt,
>> if you are successful. You have trouble paying of
>> your debts or trying to pay of your debts, when you
>> are not successful.
>
> But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay off your
> debts when you are unsuccessful. You still have an
> obligation to pay back, and the honorable CEO does his
> best to do that.
>
Companies can "escape" their obligations because the very Government
that
you support, gave them that ability to "escape" from their obligations.
Alvin E. Toda
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Dan Birchall wrote:
> okamu...@hawaii.rr.com (Jerry Okamura) wrote:
>> ...it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in
>> the hopes that the purchase will appreciate in
>> value.
>
> All "investments" are "gambling" by this definition.
> Not that I disagree with it, mind you. :)
>
> I guess I should be glad that I bought a small, cheap
> home so I'd have somewhere to live in and call my
> own, not so I'd have something to re-sell.
Jerry doesn't buy that-- ie that people buy homes other
than wanting to resell them. If he did, then he would
have to admit that homeowners deserve consumer
protection and a bailout for making bad decisions from
shyster lending companies. He's just stated that two
times in this thread, and can't conceive of any other
reason for buying a house. In that sense, he's out of
touch.
Jerry Okamura
"Dan Birchall" <nob...@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote in message
news:1208540...@news.lava.net...
>
> okamu...@hawaii.rr.com (Jerry Okamura) wrote:
>> ...it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in the
>> hopes that the purchase will appreciate in value.
>
> All "investments" are "gambling" by this definition. Not
> that I disagree with it, mind you. :)
>
Yes
Jerry Okamura
"Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208553...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Dan Birchall wrote:
>
>> okamu...@hawaii.rr.com (Jerry Okamura) wrote:
>
>>> ...it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in
>>> the hopes that the purchase will appreciate in
>>> value.
>>
>> All "investments" are "gambling" by this definition.
>> Not that I disagree with it, mind you. :)
>>
>> I guess I should be glad that I bought a small, cheap
>> home so I'd have somewhere to live in and call my
>> own, not so I'd have something to re-sell.
>
> Jerry doesn't buy that-- ie that people buy homes other
> than wanting to resell them. If he did, then he would
> have to admit that homeowners deserve consumer
> protection and a bailout for making bad decisions from
> shyster lending companies. He's just stated that two
> times in this thread, and can't conceive of any other
> reason for buying a house. In that sense, he's out of
> touch.
>
You have a bad habit of accusing someone of thinking or saying things
that
they never said.
al Guacamole
On Apr 18, 1:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in messagenews:1208553...@news.lava.net...
>> shyster lending companies. He's just stated that two
>> times in this thread, and can't conceive of any other
>> reason for buying a house. In that sense, he's out of
>> touch.
>
> You have a bad habit of accusing someone of thinking or saying things
> that
> they never said.
Jerry... You've yet to acknowledge that people buy homes because they
want to buy them and not as an investment. That's all I've been
writing about. Either you're very dense, or you just don't want to
admit this fact. I choose the latter motive.
BTW, it's odd that this posting appears in groups.google while an
earlier posting does not.
al Guacamole
On Apr 16, 11:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in messagenews:1208383800-
> s...@news.lava.net...
>> Yet you call buying your own home "gambling", and not
>> worthy of protection for the consumer....
>
> Because it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in the hopes
> that the
> purchase will appreciate in value. And yes, anyone who buys a home,
> that
> should know better, i.e. that they cannot keep up with the payments
> such a
> decision involves, is not worthy of protection. It is the same basic
> problem when our government "bails" out a business.
Not many homebuyers buy in hopes of increasing value.
It's nice but not necessary. Too bad you can't see this. Or maybe
you just want to justify not protecting them from shyster lenders?
>> But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay off your
>> debts when you are unsuccessful. You still have an
>> obligation to pay back, and the honorable CEO does his
>> best to do that.
>
> Companies can "escape" their obligations because the very Government
> that
> you support, gave them that ability to "escape" from their
> obligations.
This is a moral discussion not a legal one.
[Just wondering if this old posting gets posted. Still can't seem to
post from the shell of my isp in pine. Have been kind of leery of
doing this because webmail doesn't seem to work either. Some changes
in my isp]
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208625...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 18, 1:35 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:1208553...@news.lava.net...
>
>>> shyster lending companies. He's just stated that two
>>> times in this thread, and can't conceive of any other
>>> reason for buying a house. In that sense, he's out of
>>> touch.
>>
>> You have a bad habit of accusing someone of thinking or saying things
>> that
>> they never said.
>
> Jerry... You've yet to acknowledge that people buy homes because they
> want to buy them and not as an investment. That's all I've been
> writing about. Either you're very dense, or you just don't want to
> admit this fact. I choose the latter motive.
Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
People buy
homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
can live
in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
money.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208665...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 16, 11:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net> wrote in messagenews:1208383800-
>> s...@news.lava.net...
>
>>> Yet you call buying your own home "gambling", and not
>>> worthy of protection for the consumer....
>>
>> Because it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in the hopes
>> that the
>> purchase will appreciate in value. And yes, anyone who buys a home,
>> that
>> should know better, i.e. that they cannot keep up with the payments
>> such a
>> decision involves, is not worthy of protection. It is the same basic
>> problem when our government "bails" out a business.
>
> Not many homebuyers buy in hopes of increasing value.
> It's nice but not necessary. Too bad you can't see this. Or maybe
> you just want to justify not protecting them from shyster lenders?
ah, the old "I am just a victim" explanation.
>
>>> But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay off your
>>> debts when you are unsuccessful. You still have an
>>> obligation to pay back, and the honorable CEO does his
>>> best to do that.
>>
>> Companies can "escape" their obligations because the very Government
>> that
>> you support, gave them that ability to "escape" from their
>> obligations.
>
> This is a moral discussion not a legal one.
>
I suppose you can say it is a moral discussion, but it is a fact.
al Guacamole
On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
>> Jerry... You've yet to acknowledge that people buy homes because they
>> want to buy them and not as an investment. That's all I've been
>> writing about. Either you're very dense, or you just don't want to
>> admit this fact. I choose the latter motive.
>
> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
> People buy
> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
> can live
> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
> money.
No you haven't mentioned that there are those who only by for one
reason-- and that is to own a home. In fact, in all our postings you
claim that homeowner (as an investor) deserves no bailout. We're not
talking about investors here. You've been purposely avoiding the
subject of this discussion.
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208798...@news.lava.net...
What can't you understand about the statement "One of course is to own that
home, so they
can live in that home....."? And yes, someone who makes a bad decision
should not be rewarded for their bad decision. It sends the wrong message
to everyone else, that you too may make bad decisions and someone will
"bail" you out as well. When we make bad decisons we should pay the price
for that bad decision. It applies to individuals and it applies to
companies....I am also not in favor of bailing out busiensses that get into
trouble because their President makes bad decisions, that resulted in the
company being in that kind of trouble. Does that make my position a little
clearer?
al Guacamole
On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
> People buy
> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
> can live
> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
> money.
You aren't clear here. I have only been talking about people who buy
for only ONE reason. They aren't interested in making money on the
house. You don't want to admit that there are such people.
[Still seem to be having problems posting through my ISP, and I'm not
too should about Google either]
al Guacamole
[Just discovered this on Google after I had posted another. Now it
looks like my ISP is older than Google. When it was just the opposite]
You overlook your own statement's wording. What you should state if
that is what you want to say is that some people only want to buy for
the dream of the home. It would also help if you recognize that the
dream is not like any other purchase decision or a business decision.
Because that's what probably makes you think that their second reason
is to invest their money. You probably still don't get it.
Maren at google
Al,
and if the only reason to buy a house is to pay less in mortgage
payments
than in rent, that's good enough for me to be a wise investment and
on the other hand no investment to make a profit at all. We live in a
paid
for house that we're not planning on moving out of. when we bought
this
house with a substantial downpayment we first paid twice as much on
the mortgage as we paid in rent before (same house), at a time when
mortgage interest rates were above 10% even on 15 year mortgages.
I wouldn't consider the house I live in an investment as such, other
than
maybe for the far distant future. We bought that house to live in it,
and while it may need some work, heck, it's paid for, dedicated
'non-speculative residential use' for the second time now (10 years
each), and while I don't really consider it an "investment", at the
same
time it's about the best investment we made so far. We don't really
care
whether it appreciates as we're not planning on selling it while we're
still alive (leave that one to the kid). Long as it stays upright,
that's
fine with me.
Maren
Palms, Etc.: Tropical Plant Seeds - Plants & Lilikoi
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~maren/palms_etc/
and
HiloBeads: Beads - Beading Supplies - Hand-made Jewelry
http://www.hilobeads.com/
Blog at: http://hilobeads.blogspot.com/
Jerry Okamura
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1209003...@news.lava.net...
>
> On Apr 19, 6:30 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Then you haven't been reading what I have said about the matter.
>> People buy
>> homes for two reasons. One of course is to own that home, so they
>> can live
>> in that home. And other people buy homes because they want to make
>> money.
>
> You aren't clear here. I have only been talking about people who buy
> for only ONE reason. They aren't interested in making money on the
> house. You don't want to admit that there are such people.
>
Well, yes. I said exactly that. I said that "one of course is to own that
home, so they can live in that home....".
Jerry Okamura
[moderators note: guys, please trim...don't just keep adding, and
especially don't just add one line without trimming...]
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1209003...@news.lava.net...
What don't I get? Why do people spend money to buy a home?
al Guacamole
On Apr 24, 7:35 am, Maren at google <m.pur...@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote:
> Al,
>
> and if the only reason to buy a house is to pay less in mortgage
> payments
> than in rent, that's good enough for me to be a wise investment and
> on the other hand no investment to make a profit at all. We live in a
> paid
> for house that we're not planning on moving out of. when we bought
> this
> house with a substantial downpayment we first paid twice as much on
> the mortgage as we paid in rent before (same house), at a time when
> mortgage interest rates were above 10% even on 15 year mortgages.
>
> I wouldn't consider the house I live in an investment as such, other
> than
> maybe for the far distant future. We bought that house to live in it,
> and while it may need some work, heck, it's paid for, dedicated
> 'non-speculative residential use' for the second time now (10 years
> each), and while I don't really consider it an "investment", at the
> same
> time it's about the best investment we made so far.
Of course, you realize that many home buyers in the mainland are
paying increased mortgage payments that strain their budget. Not only
that, it is probably the worse investment that they made, because
current prices are way below the speculative highs when they bought
it. They can find a cheaper place to rent but they want to own their
own home.
Like you say, they don't consider it an investment, and would like to
live their dream of their own home if they can afford it. Foreclosing
on them and millions others like them would be very disrupting to our
society, not to mention the unfairness that most of them were lead
into their terrible loans by shyster sub prime loan officers. Some
like Jerry have no compassion or sympathy for their situation. In
fact, Jerry still insists that all people buy a home for TWO reasons--
for their dream and as an investment. He doesn't like the bailout like
for example, rolling back their interest rates to say 5%. But my own
opinion is similar to George Soros recent book as I mentioned earlier
in this thread. If our govt likes deregulation as it has done under
Greenspan, then it must be willing to afford the mess that
deregulation creates like the bailout of savings and loans, sub prime
loans, etc.
Lawrence Akutagawa
"al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1209066...@news.lava.net...
>
> Of course, you realize that many home buyers in the mainland are
> paying increased mortgage payments that strain their budget. Not only
> that, it is probably the worse investment that they made, because
> current prices are way below the speculative highs when they bought
> it. They can find a cheaper place to rent but they want to own their
> own home.
I do believe that anyone experiencing such increased mortgage payments
agreed in writing upfront to such increases/changes. No one, best to my
knowledge, has had such changes to his/her monthly mortgage without his/her
prior written consent. The terms/factors underlying such changes are
clearly laid out in the papers/documents which that person signed as per the
Federal Truth in Lending Act, which has been around since initially becoming
law in 1968.
> Like you say, they don't consider it an investment, and would like to
> live their dream of their own home if they can afford it. Foreclosing
> on them and millions others like them would be very disrupting to our
> society, not to mention the unfairness that most of them were lead
> into their terrible loans by shyster sub prime loan officers.
Goodness...such emotion laden terms - "very disrupting to our society,"
"unfairness," "terrible loans," "shyster sub prime loan officers" - are you
implying, Alvin, that these folks signed documents which did not adhere to
the Federal Truth in Lending Act? http://www.occ.treas.gov/handbook/til.pdf
Are you - by using such words and phrases - saying that the terms spelling
out the conditions of their mortgages were not clearly specified in the loan
documents they signed? Or that perhaps a gun was held to their heads to
"induce" them to sign such documents? That they did not sign those
documents on their own free will?
> Some
> like Jerry have no compassion or sympathy for their situation. In
> fact, Jerry still insists that all people buy a home for TWO reasons--
> for their dream and as an investment. He doesn't like the bailout like
> for example, rolling back their interest rates to say 5%. But my own
> opinion is similar to George Soros recent book as I mentioned earlier
> in this thread. If our govt likes deregulation as it has done under
> Greenspan, then it must be willing to afford the mess that
> deregulation creates like the bailout of savings and loans, sub prime
> loans, etc.
More emotion laden terms - "compassion" "sympathy" - Wow! You, Alvin,
sound much like in favor of the prudent and financially careful using their
hard earned money to rescue the imprudent and financially reckless from the
consequences of downright bad/risky decisions. Do I have this right? You
certainly do not come over as advocating that folks face the consequences of
decisions they and only they themselves make...be those consequences good or
bad. Instead, you come over as advocating that folks should not be afraid
to make bad financial decisions because those more prudent and financially
careful will come to the rescue..."like for example, rolling back their
interest rates to say 5%." (By the way...I'd love to have a 5% mortgage -
would you be personally willing to put your money where your mouth is by
providing me with such a loan? I am an excellent credit risk, as my credit
reports will attest...definitely more so than any of those other mortgage
borrowers about whom you talk. I'd be interested in refinancing something
like $600,000 with solid collateral - which means you get more than $36,000
a year back.)
By the way...my quotes of your words are correct, are they not? Do indicate
if they are not. I took special pains to assure accuracy because I don't
want you once again falsely accusing me of incorrectly quoting you.
Jerry Okamura
"Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1209173...@news.lava.net...
>
>
> "al Guacamole" <a...@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1209066...@news.lava.net...
>>
>> Of course, you realize that many home buyers in the mainland are
>> paying increased mortgage payments that strain their budget. Not only
>> that, it is probably the worse investment that they made, because
>> current prices are way below the speculative highs when they bought
>> it. They can find a cheaper place to rent but they want to own their
>> own home.
>
> I do believe that anyone experiencing such increased mortgage payments
> agreed in writing upfront to such increases/changes. No one, best
> to my
> knowledge, has had such changes to his/her monthly mortgage without
> his/her
> prior written consent. The terms/factors underlying such changes are
> clearly laid out in the papers/documents which that person signed
> as per
> the
> Federal Truth in Lending Act, which has been around since initially
> becoming
> law in 1968.
It is the old, "it was not my fault" argument...